[Senate Hearing 106-921]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-921
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELAT-
ED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4475, 5394 and S. 2720
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Transportation
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Nondepartmental witnesses
Surface Transportation Board
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-808 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama Chairman
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
SLADE GORTON, Washington HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
Staff
Wally Burnett
Joyce C. Rose
Paul Doerrer
Peter Rogoff (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, December 14, 1999
Oversight Hearing on Alaska Aviation Issues for the 21st Century
Page
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration.... 1
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 1
Thursday, February 3, 2000
Joint Oversight Hearing on Modernizing the Federal Aviation
Administration: Challenges and Solutions
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration.... 77
Department of Transportation: Office of Inspector General........ 77
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 153
Thursday, February 10, 2000
Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary............ 181
Thursday, February 24, 2000
Department of Transportation Safety Initiatives--Fiscal Year 2001
Department of Transportation: U.S. Coast Guard................... 259
Department of Transportation: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration................................................. 259
Department of Transportation: Research and Special Programs
Administration................................................. 259
Department of Transportation: Federal Railroad Administration.... 259
Thursday, March 9, 2000
Oversight Hearing on Department of Transportation Programs--Fiscal Year
2001
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)................. 339
Department of Transportation: Office of Inspector General........ 339
Department of Transportation..................................... 339
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
Oversight Hearing on Department of Transportation Programs--Fiscal Year
2001--Continuing
Department of Transportation..................................... 381
Tuesday, April 4, 2000
Implementing the Driver's Privacy Protection Act Express Consent
Requirement
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 405
Tuesday, July 25, 2000
Oversight Hearing on Aviation Consumer Service and Delays
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration.... 459
Department of Transportation: Office of Inspector General........ 459
Nondepartmental witness.......................................... 493
Wednesday, September 6, 2000
Oversight Hearing on the Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT Tire Recall
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 513
Tuesday, September 12, 2000
Oversight Hearing on Freight Rail Competition Issues
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 585
Surface Transportation Board..................................... 653
Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing For Formal Hearings
Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 677
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 713
Federal Highway Administration............................... 807
National Railroad Passenger Corporation...................... 966
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.................. 999
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 1040
Federal Transit Administration............................... 1117
Research and Special Programs Administration................. 1207
U.S. Coast Guard............................................. 1264
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 1315
Surface Transportation Board................................. 1377
Nondepartmental witnesses:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues........ 1395
Research and Special Programs Administration issues.......... 1401
U.S. Coast Guard issues...................................... 1404
Miscellaneous issues......................................... 1416
Federal Transit Administration issues........................ 1425
Federal Aviation Administration issues....................... 1470
Federal Highway Administration issues........................ 1490
Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak issues............ 1502
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, at 2 p.m., in the Z.J. Loussac
Library, Assembly Chamber, Anchorage, AL, Hon. Ted Stevens
presiding.
Present: Senator Stevens.
Also present: Representative Don Young.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ALASKA AVIATION ISSUES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF PATRICK N. POE, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
ALASKA REGION
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF:
PAUL BOWERS, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIRECTOR,
STATEWIDE AVIATION
MORTON V. PLUMB, JR., DIRECTOR, ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
JAMES D. LABELLE, CHIEF, ALASKA OFFICE, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
RICHARD HARDING, PRESIDENT, PENINSULA AIRWAYS
TOM WARDLEIGH, PRESIDENT, ALASKA AVIATION SAFETY FOUNDATION
FELIX MAGUIRE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA AIRMEN'S ASSOCIATION
KEN ACTON, AVIATION CONSULTANT
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Congressman Young, for joining
us. I know that you have a great interest in aviation also. I
am sort of singing to the choir, but we all know that no other
State is more dependent on aviation than Alaska is, with 70
percent of our communities accessible only by air. Alaskans
count on aircraft to deliver supplies, food and medicine. They
are crucial to evacuation of the ill and injured.
And I think the people that live in the Lower 48 have a
hard time grasping the concept that we use aircraft as they use
almost every other form of transportation--cars, buses, and
trucks. Aircraft cover the whole spectrum of transportation.
And I am pleased to see you here, Tom. This summer, Tom
Wardleigh took me back 50 years and helped me renew my pilot's
license and helped me get a float plane license, so it is good
to see you here, my friend. As president of the Alaska Aviation
Safety Foundation, I know you are deeply committed to the goals
that we are trying to pursue here.
I chair the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I am also
on the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee.
Very soon, my good friend and colleague here, Congressman Don
Young, will chair the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. This will give us, I think, the first time in
history where we have such a complete coverage of all of the
facets of the legislative process of our national government
that affect aviation. The two of us, like all of you, are
deeply committed to improving aviation safety in Alaska.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I have a longer opening statement, incidentally, to print
in the record, but that is my opening statement for today. I
want to thank all of you for coming and give Congressman Young
a chance to make an opening statement if he wishes to make one.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Good afternoon everyone. I'm pleased to see such a fine panel
representing Alaska aviation today. As you know, we're here to discuss
aviation issues facing us in the new millennium. Your complete prepared
statements will be made part of the record, each of you will get five
minutes to summarize your statements, and then we should have some time
left over for questions.
Let me begin by stating the obvious: There is not another state in
the Union more dependent on aviation for its way of life than Alaska.
Let me repeat that--There is no other state in the Union more dependent
on aviation than Alaska.
More than 70 percent of our 300 plus communities are accessible
only by air. Alaskans in those communities count on aircraft to deliver
mail, supplies, food, and medicine. When someone in a remote village
becomes too ill to be treated locally, evacuation by air becomes a
matter of life or death. People who live in the lower 48 have a hard
time grasping that concept. They don't understand that we use small
airplanes like they use buses and taxis. They have highways--we use
skyways. Alaska has the highest per capita aircraft ownership in the
country. In relation to its population, Alaska has more flights, by
far, than any other state. Frank, Don and I spend a lot of time trying
to convince our colleagues that Alaska requires special consideration
when it comes to aviation legislation and funding. We've been fairly
successful in that endeavor--but we cannot afford to stop educating
others on the special reliance Alaska has on aviation.
Flying is an inherently dangerous occupation made relatively safe
through technology innovations, the world's best air traffic control
system and, most important, well-trained, experienced pilots. For safe
air transport, we need excellence in all three areas--the machine, the
pilot, and ground support.
We need to redouble our efforts to procure and deploy safety
enhancing equipment and weather reporting capabilities. We have some of
the roughest terrain and weather in North America. The vast majority of
our low altitude airspace is not radar monitored. Most of our
intrastate air traffic takes place below 10,000 feet. And the planes we
fly are, on average, older than most planes flown in the lower 48. Does
this mean we cannot improve aviation safety in Alaska? The answer is,
``No.'' We can--and must--continue to improve aviation safety. Every
one of us participating in this hearing today can make a positive
impact on aviation safety.
That is why we're here today--to talk about where we want to be
ten, twenty,, or even a hundred years from now. All of you work in the
aviation community every day. Some of you, like me, are licensed
pilots--so your commitment to improving how we fly in Alaska is
personal. I see my good friend Tom Wardleigh at the witness table. He
helped me get my float plane license last summer. As president of the
Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation, Tom is deeply committed to
improving aviation safety.
I chair the Senate Appropriations Committee and sit on the Aviation
Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee. Soon, Congressman Young
will chair the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Senator Murkowski chairs Energy and Natural Resources. All of us are
deeply committed to improving aviation safety in Alaska. Most states
have a heck of a lot more than three legislators fighting for their
interests. But I'll tell you, when Frank, Don and I get together--the
``three amigos'' can more than hold our own in pursuing Alaska's
interests.
We can fight the broad aviation policy battles in Washington--
making sure our government recognizes and honors Alaska's unique
aviation needs. We can also work to maximize federal funding for Alaska
aviation. But nothing we do can really make a difference without the
mutual cooperation and commitment of the people in this room and
throughout the aviation community in Alaska.
Safety improvements are not borne of increased regulation. Some
people in this room, maybe on this panel, may not agree with me on
this. But I know, personally, that Alaska has some of the finest pilots
in the world. Our job is to provide the best possible environment for
them to practice their essential profession.
I hope our discussion here today is a step toward improving that
environment and the air transportation system that is so critical to
Alaska's future.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG
Mr. Young. Thank you, Senator, and I have a written
statement that will be submitted for the record, without
objection. My interest, as the Senator has mentioned before, is
the safety factor, but also the capability of our Alaskans to
travel without a great deal of hindrance, to arrive at their
destinations on time, and to make sure that we will be able to
improve the capability of the FAA and the runways, the lighting
system, navigation systems, and to make it safe and practical
for every Alaskan that participates in air transportation.
It is my vision that we will improve these airports, that
we will be able to solve many of these problems in the future.
I will say that there are many different feelings about this
issue. Everyone seeks safety. I know that, and there are some
who believe that we are doing everything possible.
The air transportation industry, which employs over 10,000
people in this State, is one of the largest employers in the
State of Alaska. We want to allow the aviation industry, to
continue growing and improving service without any undue
hardships, and yet do it safely. It is going to be my goal to
see that this will be achieved.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you, Senator, for having this hearing. I think it
will be important. We have two panels, I believe, and we will
hear from the expertise in that field, and with that I am ready
to do business.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Congressman Don Young
Chairman Stevens--thank you for the opportunity to participate in
this hearing. I'll keep my remarks brief.
Every Alaskan knows aviation plays a major role in Alaska. Without
a major road system only 100 of Alaska's 300 communities can be served
by road. With over 1,100 airstrips and airports and more than 9,700
registered aircraft and 10,605 pilots, it is easy to understand how
vital aviation is to Alaska. Further, because of Alaska's distinct
geographic location between Europe and Asia, Anchorage International
Airport lands more freight than any other airport in the nation.
Fairbanks International is also becoming a player in the cargo arena.
It is also a well recognized fact that Alaska's air transport industry
provides over 10,000 aviation related jobs.
The average Alaskan flies nine times a year, compared to the
average American, who flies twice a year. This brings me to an issue I
have a great interest in----aviation safety. According to the General
Accounting Office, the number of people using the airways will grow to
over a billion by 2002. With that many people in the air, it is crucial
that we continue to modernize our air traffic control systems. In
Alaska that means making the investment at small, rural airports with
the installation of runway lighting, runway lengthening and paving,
accurate weather reporting and modern communications systems.
Nationally, the U.S. Air Traffic Control System remains one of the
top systems in the world. Unfortunately, the FAA's current
modernization program has experienced cost overruns and schedule
slippages which have caused delays with implementation. Congress will
address this and other issues when it returns next year.
Although there are other equally important issues, I want to
conclude my statement with the subject of funding. The resources to
upgrade safety and make airport improvements exists.
How much is actually needed and how to spend taxpayers money are
issues that Congress will need to resolve next year. It is my position
that all Americans deserve safe and affordable air travel, and that
taxpayers are provided with a healthy return on their investment.
Thank you Senator Stevens for the opportunity to speak on these
important issues and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the
witnesses.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. My staff has prepared
a short handout for all of you. I do not know if you have got a
copy of it, but I want to point out the statement that is in
there that last month I met with Linda Rosenstock, who is
Director of the National Institute of Safety and Health, and
the Director of the Alaska Office, George Conway, to discuss
ways to enhance aviation safety in Alaska.
Linda has agreed to focus on recommendations of Jim Hall
from the National Transportation Safety Board. He came here
last August to help us find ways to improve aviation safety,
and he brought back a series of recommendations, including a
proposal for an industry-guided initiative to reduce accidents
and fatalities, focusing on voluntary compliance.
Congress has agreed to my request to make additional
resources available to Dr. Rosenstock, as well as the FAA and
NTSB, to further the study, so we look forward to the witnesses
today telling us what they think about that study, and what we
ought to do to concentrate our total efforts on aviation
safety.
[The information follows:]
Alaska's Aviators
As a lifelong pilot, safety has always been number one on my flight
checklist, both in the cockpit and in the Congress. In August, Jim
Hall, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, came to
Alaska to find ways to improve aviation safety in Alaska. He came back
to Washington with recommendations including a proposal for an
industry-guided initiative to reduce accidents and fatalities focusing
on voluntary compliance rather than new government regulations.
Below is a short summary of some of the safety initiatives Congress
funded this year along with other projects of interest to the aviation
industry in our state.
If you have questions about any of these provisions, you may call
my chief of staff, Mitch Rose, at 202-224-3004 or any of my Alaska
offices located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Wasilla, and Kenai.
My Washington office is open until 7:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(3:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time) for your convenience.
AVIATION SAFETY INITIATIVE
Last month I met with Linda Rosenstock, Director of the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the director of the
Alaska office, George Conway, to discuss ways to enhance aviation
safety in Alaska.
She agreed to focus on the recommendations of Jim Hall and to
pursue a voluntary effort with Alaska's air carriers, pilots, and taxi
services. A similar approach has dramatically reduced accidents in the
fishing and logging industries and has all but eliminated occupational
fatalities in what were the two most dangerous occupations in the
nation. Congress agreed to my request to make additional resources
available to Dr. Rosenstock as well as to the FAA and the NTSB.
MIKE-IN-HAND
Many remote village airports have no automated weather reporting
equipment or FAA weather personnel. As a result, pilots must rely on
dated weather forecasts rather than real-time field observations.
Under a new federal program called ``Mike-in-hand,'' any airport
with regular, part time, or contract employees will be able to report
weather conditions directly to inbound pilots via VHF radio. At my
request, sufficient funds were provided to acquire the necessary
equipment, train personnel, and initiate the program.
MOUNTAIN PASS CAMERAS
At last year's mini-conference, a number of pilots indicated that
remote video cameras were a valuable flight tool.
Through a new NTSB-recommended initiative, cameras will now be
placed in dangerous mountain passes where weather conditions change
rapidly. The cameras will provide real-time color weather pictures to
pilots who can make the decision on whether to fly through a pass
without having to go in to take a look. This will reduce the risks that
pilots face.
ST. GEORGE INSTRUMENT LANDING
No longer will pilots be locked out of St. George Island for weeks
at a time because weather is below NDB minimums. By the end of next
year, the FAA will finally have an ILS in place at St. George. Congress
agreed to fund the plan this year.
AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM
Funding was provided to continue this project.
JUNEAU WEATHER RESEARCH
Additional funding was made available at my request to continue
weather research on turbulence and wind shear at Juneau International
Airport. This project is a continuation of a multi-year effort
initiated in response to several weather related mishaps in Juneau.
ALASKA CAPSTONE
This program, which will install state of the art cockpit upgrades
for participating aircraft, along with airport, communication and GPS
modernization throughout the Bethel region, is the test bed for the
entire nation. When fully operational, CAPSTONE will be an integrated,
nonradar, low-altitude, IFIR airspace designed to bring Alaska's
airports into the 21st century.
ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (ANICS)
Congress fully funded this project which integrates interagency
communications throughout Alaska.
Senator Stevens. Our first panel this morning--this
afternoon. You know--if it's Tuesday it's Anchorage, right--is
Pat Poe, Director of the Alaska Region, Paul Bowers, the
Director of Statewide Aviation for the Alaska Department of
Transportation, Mort Plumb, Director of Anchorage International
Airport, and Jim LaBelle of the National Transportation Safety
Board. Gentlemen, you are at your liberty to see who goes
first. Do you want to toss a coin, or proceed in the order I
read them? It is all right with me, whatever you want to do.
Thank you for taking the time to be with us. We are,
incidentally, going to take this record back. This is an
official hearing, and it will be reported to the Appropriations
Committee and be part of our consideration of the legislative
package for aviation early next year.
So Pat, do you want to go first?
STATEMENT OF PAT POE
Mr. Poe. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator, Congressman, ladies
and gentlemen.
At the outset, let me respond, Senator, to your question
about my reaction and the FAA reaction to the proposed
collective effort of NIOSH, the NTSB and the National Weather
Service. I think that study in the background upon which it is
based is absolutely excellent. We are eager and more than ready
to participate. We have done two other studies earlier, that
lend some relationship and support to that, and I think this
will be an excellent building block.
If I might just a moment, I was told the light was going to
be on. It would give me an indication of when I should talk,
and there is no light, so I am not sure if I am ahead of my
time.
Senator Stevens. Well, I decided that you all have been
asked to talk about 5 minutes, but I was not going to ring the
bell on you, so we turned off the light. Let me make a
correction on this hand-out of ours. It is George Conway, not
George Newman, and I apologize for that.
But we do hope you will keep it about 5 minutes, but I do
not think the time we have that the people are here to listen
to it. We want to hear your views about what we can do to
assist you to improve aviation safety. That is really our
target today.
Mr. Poe. Great. Thank you, Senator. Well, let me say this,
that in the few minutes that I have I am going to focus on some
of the new initiatives, the things that are being done in
Alaska. As I think all of you know, we have had a consistently
high accident rate, and if we expect something different, I
think we have to do something different.
Capstone project
I want to point out that the items which I will cover are
really a product of two things, one, cooperation with our
industry, and second the direct support that we enjoy and get
from our congressional delegation. The first of the items is
the Capstone project, which concentrates in the Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta in the Bethel area, a radius of 200 miles, and we are
equipping at Government expense a total of 150 aircraft.
Those aircraft will have, within their cockpits, for the
pilot, information as to the moving map of the terrain. It will
change colors if the pilot does not have the altitude to clear
the obstacle. It will also show the targeting, the position of
other similarly equipped aircraft, and in phase 2 of Capstone
it is possible to uplink radar images so that you will see all
aircraft, not just those that are Capstone-equipped.
It also will uplink weather information. As the aircraft
moves, it will downlink its position and potentially in the
future be an aid to air traffic control. We have done Indian
testing. It takes the generated downlink and through satellite
brought it into the Anchorage Center, and it appears on the
screen just as though it were a radar-generated target. In the
event that there is a mishap, the ability to immediately
initiate a very successful and timely search and rescue is made
possible by the ground tracking capability associated with this
technology.
The University of Alaska here at Anchorage, under contract
to the FAA, is doing the training. The first beta training
class was conducted the week of December 7. They will also do
an evaluation covering 3 years, totally independently of the
FAA to determine the beneficial impact of the Capstone project.
If I might say, I think we've come a long way in the 1 year
since we first got the appropriation, and it is a project that
has been made possible by the very close support of the
industry.
WEATHER CAMERAS
I want to talk briefly, too, as to the Alaska weather
cameras. I notice this is covered in some of the other
information. We have cameras up and operational, four of which
belong to the University of Alaska Fairbanks. It was a part of
the doctoral program effort. They have asked that we take those
cameras, and the reality of the situation, why we are studying
it, certainly we will.
With the $1.7 million that has been appropriated this year,
it is feasible by the end of this coming calendar year we will
have 25 of these cameras operational. They give you the ability
to go on the Internet and see a clear day picture and a current
day picture and give the pilot the added information as to
whether this is the right time to fly, or perhaps not. It also
has an archiving capability, so we can look to see if the
weather is worsening or getting better.
The bottom line for all of that is, it is intended to help
the pilot make the best possible decision. The user community
has identified a total of 50 sites at which they would like to
have weather cameras.
Another program in which I personally am more than
enthusiastic about, for which the FAA cannot take any credit,
is the training of the Alaska Native community to be the future
commercial pilots for the State of Alaska. Yute Air, Will
Johnson, head division, worked with the Association of Villager
Council Presidents, and the Kuskokwim Tribal College at the
University of Alaska here at Anchorage.
Students from 14 villages are going through training. Seven
of them have their private pilots licenses, and they are now
going on to their commercial licenses. There is a grant from
the State that is going to continue that program. The FAA
presented an award to the president of the Association of
Village Council Presidents for that initiative.
Alaska airports
In terms of airports, we have a good story there, and it is
a good story that belongs collectively to all of the airport
sponsors as well as the FAA Airport Division. If you go back to
about 1990, the AIP grants were about $50 million. For the past
2 years it exceeded $80 million. During this decade, $3 to $4
billion have gone toward improvement, and working with the
community, the Airports Division has developed a regional
airport plan.
I do not want to leave without acknowledging the ongoing
infrastructure effort. A great many of the people of the FAA in
the State of Alaska worked daily to keep the current systems as
active and robust and growing as is possible. An example of
that might be that every year we initiate about 120 new
projects. In 1997, we have 40 weather-reporting sensor
stations. Today, we have 87, more than doubled.
With 17 days left until the year 2000, I am pleased to
report that in June the FAA was judged to be Y2K-compliant. I
want to acknowledge the close relationship we have enjoyed with
the State, and also with the DOT, which has declared the
airports under its control Y2K-compliant. Certainly we are
going to have a lot of people working over New Year's, and I
will be one of them, just to be there, just in case, but we
have a high confidence that comes from working together.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So in closing, this is the end of my first year in the
State of Alaska, and it has been terrific. It is a warm
community. There are no bashful pilots in the State of Alaska,
so you certainly get to know their thoughts quickly.
With that, that concludes my statement. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick N. Poe
Senator Stevens and Congressman Young. Good Afternoon. I am Patrick
Poe, the Federal Aviation Administration's (``FAA'') Regional
Administrator for the Alaskan Region. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the status of aviation in Alaska and
the many efforts that are under way to improve service to the 10,000
Alaskan pilots, the thousands of passengers and people of Alaska who
depend upon aviation.
In my first year as Regional Administrator, I have attended many
public meetings and have had numerous conversations with Alaskans
across the state. I know that the people here are well informed about
the FAA and our basic mission. As Administrator Garvey has repeatedly
stated, our first priority is safety. Within Alaska, aviation remains
the primary, and in some areas the sole, means of transportation.
Increasing the level of safety in Alaska is critically important. We
have recently undertaken a number of initiatives to improve the level
of safe operations within Alaska. These initiatives include the
Capstone program, the Alaska weather camera project, and the investment
of millions of dollars from the Airport Improvement Program (``AIP'')
to improve and develop Alaska's aviation infrastructure. In addition,
we have undertaken a number of initiatives that will place Alaska in
the forefront of aerospace in the 21st century, most notably, the
licensing of the first commercial space launches at Kodiak.
As I stated above, safety remains our top priority. Here in Alaska,
we are cognizant of the unique weather and terrain that poses greater
challenges to aviation. Indeed, for the past decade, there has been one
accident every other day. And there has been an aviation-related
fatality every nine days. We were sadly reminded of this by the crash
last Tuesday of a plane departing from Bethel where all six persons on
board were killed. In light of these statistics, the FAA developed the
Capstone project. Capstone is an effort to use new technology to
improve safe operations and substantially reduce the number of
accidents. Under a contract with UPS Aviation Technologies, the
Capstone project will equip up to 150 aircraft with government-
furnished Global Positioning System based avionics. Coupled with a
ground system of weather observation equipment, Capstone will provide
pilots with terrain data and position reports of similarly-equipped
aircraft. Capstone will increase the number of airports served by an
instrument approach. We believe that by equipping commercial aircraft
in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, an area in western Alaska not covered by
radar that was selected for the test, we can make a substantial
reduction in accidents.
It is important to note that the Capstone project reflects a real
partnership between the FAA and the aviation industry within Alaska. We
have had industry user participation throughout the entire design of
the project. In addition to UPS Aviation Technologies, we are
partnering with the University of Alaska, which is conducting pilot
training in the use of the new equipment, and will conduct baseline
research for use in measuring project results.
Another exciting program that is up and running this year is the
Alaska Weather Cam project. This project places video cameras at bush
airstrips and other remote locations to provide real time views of
landing areas and mountain passes. To date the cameras are in operation
at ten locations, four of which were initiated by the University of
Alaska at Fairbanks. These cameras offer multiple views at each
location, and compare a clear day picture with current conditions.
Views are archived for later viewing and to track trends. Pilots can
access the views of the landing areas and mountain passes through the
FAA's Internet site. Additional funding will permit us to expand the
program and install more cameras next year. In the meantime, we are
exploring how to better use the visual information in our Flight
Service Stations and are considering such issues as liability for
interpreting the data to pilots, who ultimately have to make the
decision to fly or not.
The Capstone and weather camera initiatives demonstrate that the
Alaskan Region is a leader in demonstrating how to use new technologies
to improve safety and develop greater efficiencies in the system to
take aviation into the 21st century. But that leadership is not limited
to commercial aviation. As I noted above, the Alaskan Region is Kodiak
launch facility. Kodiak is the first commercial space launch facility
to operate outside of a Federal facility. To date there have been two
launches and more are anticipated in 2000.
Leading aviation into the 21st century is not limited to
improvements in the operational aspects of aviation. The Alaska Region
has made tremendous strides in our outreach to the Alaska Native
community to educate the community about aviation and to increase
awareness of the employment opportunities in the aviation industry here
in Alaska. Our aviation education program delivers information and
material to village schools as remote as Tununak. We support the
cooperative effort of the Kuskokwim Tribal College, Yute Air and the
University of Alaska to train Alaskans as pilots.
This outreach activity ties in with our safety initiatives because
we believe that people who live here and understand the geography and
climatic conditions will make better pilots in the long run. At
present, Alaska does not produce enough of its own pilots to staff the
industry so carriers must hire pilots from the lower 48. Very often,
those pilots work a few years here in Alaska, build hours and leave,
and the cycle starts over again. As a result of this summer's program,
seven Alaskan Natives obtained their pilot's licenses and several are
working toward commercial ratings. I was very pleased to be able to
personally, recognize the work of one of the sponsors of the program,
the Association of Village Council Presidents, at this year's Alaska
Federation of Natives convention.
In addition to improving safety in the air, the FAA's Airport
Improvement Program is critical to improving the airport infrastructure
throughout Alaska. The AIP program, which was funded for fiscal year
1999 at $1.95 billion, provides funding to communities nationwide for
critical infrastructure projects. Since 1990, annual AIP grants to
Alaska have increased from approximately $50 million to $80 million.
While some may not understand why Alaska should garner such amounts,
you here know that we are a young state just developing the airport
infrastructure that is essential for both air commerce and aviation
safety. Our Airports Division, working with the sponsors such as the
State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
developed a regional airports plan that addresses the needs for
expanded runways, lighting and safety features. One of the most
significant projects is the expansion and renovation of Anchorage
International Airport. We were able to support the project with a
letter of intent (``LOI'') for future federal funding in the amount of
$48 million that enabled the State to proceed with bonding.
The AIP program is just one aspect of the investment FAA continues
to make in terms of navigation aids, communications systems and other
facilities. Our construction program includes approximately 120
projects annually. Overall the region's total budget last year
including AIP grants, construction, personnel and operating costs
equaled $270 million.
Finally, I would like to note that we are now just 17 days away
from the Year 2000. As you know, the FAA systems were deemed compliant
in June. We in the Alaska Region want to take this opportunity to
express our appreciation for the cooperation of the State of Alaska and
other governmental agencies and businesses with whom we have conducted
Y2K exercises and discussed contingency plans. I assure you that the
Region will be monitoring events December 30 through January 2 with
additional personnel on the job.
In closing, I wish to thank each of you for your support of the FAA
in Alaska. Our challenge here is very different from that of the agency
in other regions of the country. We know that Alaskans are especially
dependent upon aviation and we are committed to maintaining the best
and safest system we can in partnership with the aviation community. I
look forward to working with you on these and future projects within
Alaska.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions that you may have.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Paul, do you want to
go next?
STATEMENT OF PAUL BOWERS
Mr. Bowers. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, and thank
you for the opportunity to address this forum on Alaska
aviation issues. There are three primary points I would like to
speak to. The first one is the deficiencies in our rural Alaska
airport system.
As you noted, we have an extensive aviation program here
that is very dependent, that the communities are very dependent
on for transportation. But unlike the rest of the country,
where the airport infrastructure is relatively mature, where
well-established, long, lighted, paved runways are commonplace,
Alaska has a relatively immature airport infrastructure, where
ours are typically rough-surfaced, short, and unlighted. That
creates a bit of a problem when the State is so dependent upon
them.
Of the 286 publicly owned, publicly used airports, the DOT
operates 262 of them. Of them, 177 are gravel-surfaced, 43 are
paved, 42 are float facilities. Of these, 94 are 3,000 foot in
length or less, and 42 are less than 2,000 foot. IFR-capable
airports are also in short supply, with only 61 of the 262 IFR
capable.
Basically the needs for airport development have far
surpassed funding. Even though we have done exceedingly well
with AIP funds in recent years, we have needs that far exceed
the supply. Historic AIP levels still leave unaddressed
approximately $265 million in the next 5 years alone of
infrastructure that is not being met with the current AIP
level.
The second point I would like to note is the FAA national
focus on airport safety area improvements, which we believe is
detrimental to the runway infrastructure improvements that are
actually needed. Briefly, the issue here is the FAA on a
national basis prioritizes and allocates AIP dollars for
improvements to safety areas, that area that is immediately
adjacent to the runway that is brought to grade, free of
obstructions, and the purpose of which is to reduce the risk to
aircraft in the event of undershoot, or overrun, or some other
unplanned excursion from the runway. The relative beneficial
use perspective is important here in that the runway is used
each and every time for take-off and landing, whereas the
safety area is potentially utilized only if there is a problem,
and often those problems develop from the runway surface
itself.
In the lower 48, where we have got a well-established
runway system, a national safety area priority policy does,
indeed, make sense. We believe it does not make sense in
Alaska, where so many of our airport runways are substandard.
That is the real problem that needs to be addressed here, and
we believe this national policy uses up precious AIP dollars
that could and should first be used to actually improve the
runway surface. We believe this well-meaning but misdirected
national priority system needs to be changed, and we would like
some relief from that.
The third issue is that DOT supports the 5-year aviation
strategic plan that was developed by the Alaska Aviation
Coordination Council. That is an ad hoc group of aviation
interests, period, that outlined fiscal year 200 through 2004
infrastructure deficiencies and needs and an associated
resolution methodology.
The key elements of that that DOT supports are that public
owned and used airports should be a minimum of 300 feet in
length, if practical, with lights, and have at least some
minimal shelter for passengers from inclement weather, that
airports with scheduled service should have an all-weather
approach and landing capability, that collection and
dissemination of weather information should be available State-
wide, and that so-called CNS, communication, navigation and
surveillance capability, should also be State-wide. That, as
Pat Poe noted, would support sufficient routing, traffic, and
train avoidance, real-time flight locating, and enhanced search
and rescue.
And finally, site-specific operational needs should be
addressed, like video cameras and other nontraditional systems
to relay mountain pass information and visibility information,
for example.
Finally, we note that a lot of the accidents are caused
between airports, and that lack of weather data and a lack of
communication capability is the real problem. For example,
there is no official weather west of Bethel, and
coincidentally, or not coincidentally, that is a high accident
area of the State. The strategic plan, which is a derivative of
the Capstone program, addresses these issues.
PREPARED STATEMENT
DOT also supports expansion of the Capstone program on a
State-wide basis, and with those issues, improving our rural
airport system, applying FAA or AIP funding to runway
improvements first, and supporting the Alaska aviation
strategic plan I think will go a long way toward reducing our
accident rate and making safer aviation in Alaska.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Bowers
This paper on Alaskan Aviation Issues is submitted as backup to
verbal testimony of Paul Bowers, A.A.E., Director, Statewide Aviation,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), State of
Alaska, before Senator Ted Stevens' Congressional Hearing re Alaskan
Aviation Issues for the 21st Century, Loussac Library, Anchorage, AK,
December 14, 1999. Issues are set forth as follows:
Deficiencies in Rural Alaska Airport Infrastructure
Unlike the other 49 states, where airport infrastructure is
``mature'', with well established, long, paved, lighted runways being
commonplace, Alaska has a relatively immature airport infrastructure.
Here gravel surfaced, short, unlighted airport runways are the norm.
Ironically, this is where aviation and an airport system are vitally
important. This is because our rural airport system effectively becomes
our rural road system, as geographically some 90 percent of Alaska is
inaccessible by road, which affects about 30 percent of the state
population that has no year round means of community ingress or egress
except by air. That means no emergency medical, no commerce, no
transportation link to the rest of the state or the world, except by
air. And often that air service is via short, unlighted gravel surface
runways.
Specifically, our Alaskan airport infrastructure consists of 286
publicly owned, public use airports, of which the State DOT&PF operates
262. Of these, 177 are gravel surfaces, 43 are paved, and 42 are
seaplane basins. 94 airports are less than 3,000 feet in length (and of
these, 42 are less than 2000 feet in length!). Most (237 of 262) are
non-certificated (meaning they do not meet national airport FAR 139
certification standards that include Airport Rescue and Firefighting
[ARFF] equipment and trained personnel; an emergency response plan; and
maintenance standards). Additionally, Navaids are limited; only 61 of
262 state airports are equipped to support Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
usage.
Airport Development money is the missing ingredient to improve this
airport infrastructure situation. Historically, the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP--which is presently awaiting Congressional action) has
provided approximately one half of our continuing airport
infrastructure needs. However, that level still leaves airport
development needs of approximately $265 million over the next five
years unaddressed. Specific infrastructure deficiencies are defined and
attached as part of the below referenced Five Year Plan.
FAA NATIONAL PRIORITY FOCUSES ON AIRPORT SAFETY AREA IMPROVEMENTS, TO
THE RESULTANT DETRIMENT OF ALASKA AIRPORT RUNWAY IMPROVEMENTS
FAA follows a national policy of prioritizing and allocating AIP
dollars for development of airport safety areas whenever any runway
development or improvement is undertaken. (The ``Safety Area'' is that
area surrounding the runway on the sides and ends that is brought to
grade and free of obstructions, the purpose of which is to reduce risks
to aircraft in the event of an undershoot, overrun, or other unplanned
excursion from the runway). A relative use perspective is important
here: the runway is used for each takeoff and landing, whereas the
safety area is potentially utilized only when the pilot using the
runway develops a problem, often resulting from activity on the
runway.)
In the lower 48 where well established runways are commonplace,
this national safety-area-priority policy makes sense. However, it does
not make sense in Alaska, where so many of our airport runways are
substandard (typically rough surfaced, too short, and unlighted, with
minimal navaids), which is the real airport problem that needs
addressing. If the runway length and width were up to reasonable
standards, there would likely be less need for the safety area. Please
note the DOT&PF is not opposed to Safety Area development. Rather it is
a question of timing: DOT&PF fully supports safety area development
after the primary issue of fixing poor condition runways is addressed.
This FAA national policy uses up precious AIP dollars that could, and
should, be used first to actually improve the runway surface. We need
specific relief from this well meaning but mis-directed national
prioritization policy.
Support for the Five Year Aviation Strategic Plan
The Alaska Aviation Coordination Council, an ad-hoc group of
Alaskan aviation interests, has prepared a statement of fiscal year
2000 through 2004 Alaska Aviation infrastructure deficiencies and
needs, with associated resolution methodology. The key elements of that
plan DOT&PF supports are:
--Publicly owned and used airports should be a minimum of 3, 300 feet
in length, with runway lights, and have at least a minimal
shelter for passengers from inclement weather.
--Airports with scheduled air service should have an ``all weather''
approach and landing capability.
--Statewide availability of weather information systems (collection
and dissemination).
--Communications, navigation and surveillance (so-called CNS)
capability should be available state-wide to support efficient
routing, traffic and terrain avoidance, real time flight
locating, and enhanced search and rescue. CNS will include both
Automated Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) data link
and strategically placed radar in the Bethel area.
Statewide availability of Flight Information data that addresses
site specific operational needs, such as Video Cameras and other Non-
traditional systems (i.e., relay of mountain pass visibility
information, VASI in lieu of PAPI light systems, etc.).
The intent of this Strategic Plan is to improve aviation safety in
Alaska and literally bring Alaskan aviation into the 21st century.
While doing so, it is important to note that the majority of aircraft
accidents happen during phases of flight other than takeoff or landing.
If this is to be remedied, the problems causing the accidents needs to
be addressed.
A recurrent causal theme in Alaskan aviation accidents is lack of
weather data and/or lack of communication capability to validate pilot
decisions (for example, there is no official weather west of Bethel!).
Both of these issues are addressed in the Strategic Plan, which in part
is an outgrowth of the FAA Capston program now underway in the Yukon-
Kuskokwim area.
Capstone is a widely supported effort will gain ten much needed
AWOS (Automated Weather Observation Station) installations, and
Capstone avionics installations will enable weather and communication
info transmission to so equipped aircraft, as well as positional
awareness and aircraft tracking capability for Search and Rescue
purposes. DOT&PF supports expansion of the Capstone program statewide.
Bald Eagles/Aircraft Hazards
Bald eagles nests on airport property near or within the approach
and departure ends of runways create safety hazards for both the
aircraft and the eagles. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of
1940 prevents airports and the Fish and Wildlife Service from removing
these hazards. Furthermore some nests are in or near trees that violate
FAA height restrictions, but the trees cannot be removed or shortened
because of the restrictions in this Act.
This Act needs to be amended to allow removal of bald eagle nests
in areas that create safety hazards for aircraft. Such amendment could,
of course, be specific to Alaska if necessary, as Alaska has many bald
eagles and has extensive alternate habitat for these birds.
In summary, we believe much safer aviation in Alaska will result
from improving our rural airport system, applying precious AIP funding
to runway improvements first, and implementing an Alaska Aviation
Strategic Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to explain these aviation
infrastructure needs. Attached is a copy of the Alaska Aviation
Coordination Council Five Year Strategic Plan. Please advise if any
questions or additional information is desired.
Alaska Aviation Coordination Council
STRATEGIC PLAN--FISCAL YEAR 2000 THROUGH 2004
Intent
To articulate Alaska Aviation infrastructure deficiencies and
needs, and to outline a resolution methodology.
Background
Alaska is unique in lacking highway infrastructure. In a State that
literally comprises 16 percent of the total U.S. land mass, only about
10 percent of the State geographically is accessible by road. This
forces those non-road accessed communities, comprising 30 percent of
the population, to heavily rely on aviation for day sustenance,
transportation (schools, work, etc.), and livelihood.
Vision
That Alaska will enjoy an air transportation system that has safe,
efficient, and reliable access to population centers and other areas of
general and commercial interest. This same transportation system would
enhance the health and welfare of residents and visitors alike, while
serving as a vehicle for commerce throughout the State.
Discussion
Federal Programs involving disbursement of dollars for
transportation normally balance highway and aviation needs. However, in
Alaska, environmental, logistical, and financial limitations, preclude
highway construction in many areas, forcing transportation requirements
to be highly dependent on aviation. As a general rule, highway funding
is not available to be used for aviation infrastructure. The resulting
imbalance is a transportation infrastructure that is inadequate and
unable to provide the safety and efficiency commonly expected of
transportation systems in the rest of the United States. No where else
in this country is there a complete dependency on aviation for basic
transportation and commerce as in Alaska.
A safer airport and aviation infrastructure in Alaska will bring
Alaska up to par with other states' basic transportation systems.
Key Elements of a Safe and Efficient Alaskan Air Transportation
Infrastructure Include
Publicly owned and used airports should be a minimum of 3,300 feet
in length,\1\ with runway lights, and have at least a minimal shelter
for passengers from inclement weather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nominal 3,300 foot Runway length, with lights, will accommodate
FAA recommended minimum 3,200 foot length for instrument flight
operations, plus 100 feet to accommodate terrain and temperature
induced density altitude differences at various sites throughout
Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airports with scheduled air service have an ``all weather''
approach and landing capability.
Availability of weather information systems (collection and
dissemination).
Communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) capability should
be available state-wide to support efficient routing, traffic and
terrain avoidance, real time flight locating, and enhanced search and
rescue. CNS will include both Automated Dependent Surveillance
Broadcast (ADS-B) data link and strategically placed radar in the
Bethel area.
Availability of Flight Information data that addresses site
specific operational needs, such as Video Cameras and other Non-
traditional systems (i.e., relay of mountain pass visibility
information, VASI in lieu of PAPI light systems, etc.).
A change of U.S. Postal Service policies to remove pressure on
carriers to deliver U.S. Mail within strict time periods without
consideration of weather.
Stable (local) aviation work force, including an emphasis on
aviation education.
A Standing Aviation Advisory Council to ensure continuous safety
and user need assessment and input to ensure effective planning and
development.
Comparison of Alaskan Air Transportation Infrastructure to What is
Needed
Public airports minimum 3,300 foot length, runway lights, and
minimal shelter.--150 Alaska airports are less than 3,300 feet (35
runways less than 2,000 feet). 71 airports unlighted. More than half of
rural airports without minimal passenger shelter.
Airports with scheduled air service have an ``all weather''
approach and landing capability.--176 public use Alaska airports do not
have basic instrument approach capability. Weather information,
communications capability, and approach procedures are required to
support commercial, passenger, and U.S. Mail operations.
Communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) capability should
be available statewide to support efficient routing, traffic and
terrain avoidance, real timeflight locating, and enhanced search and
rescue.--194 locations in Alaska need CNS capability. Data-link ground
stations to provide CNS capability are projected in the Safe Flight 21
budget line items for fiscal year 1902.
Stable (local) aviation workforce.--Alaska currently has a high
turnover in the aviation work force. This appears to be due to a
combination of factors.
At the entry level, non-local pilots, dispatchers, mechanics and
other skilled workers often serve in bush locations while building
experience enroute to promotion elsewhere. In turn, their successors
are also of non-local origin, because local bush based personnel do not
have the entry-level training and skills required for employment in the
aviation industry, which training is not readily available in the bush
environment. The resulting systemic turnover has historically precluded
a stable, experienced workforce, which likely contributed to the higher
accident rate associated with rural operations. Local training and
aviation-focus educational opportunities can remedy this.
Conversely, at the senior level, imposition of FAR Part 121 rules
on historically Part 135 operations, specifically the mandatory
retirement at age 60 rule, is forcing experienced and locally
knowledgeable airmen into comparatively early retirement. Waiver of the
age 60 rule for Alaskan operations would beneficially resolve this.
As a direct result of these two issues, Alaska aviation experience
levels are eroded, and aviation safety is significantly and adversely
impacted.
Flight Information data needed to address site specific operational
needs.--Site specific operational needs can be addressed through non-
traditional application of technology, such as Video Cameras in
mountain passes to supplement weather (visibility, etc.) information
and associated technology to relay such information, improved runway
alignment information from older VASI equipment in lieu of newer PAPI
approach light systems, etc.
U.S. Postal Service policies pressure carriers to deliver U.S. Mail
regardless of weather.--Present system penalizes carriers, by loss of
Postal revenue, who do not deliver mail within specific allocated
timeframes. U.S. Mail distribution system should be revamped to allow
redispatch of mail without penalization of carriers who decline to fly
in unsafe conditions.
Bethel Radar.--The Capstone program does not currently include
radar for the Bethel area, or elsewhere in Alaska. Radar is
recommended, initially in Bethel, ultimately elsewhere as needed, as it
is necessary to view both the ADS-B equipped and non-equipped aircraft.
Capstone will not be able to supply ADS-B equipment for all of the
`resident' aircraft flying in the Bethel area, plus other non-ADS-B-
equipped aircraft periodically fly in or through the Bethel area. Radar
will provide the locations of these non-equipped aircraft to air
traffic control, allowing a comparison of the effectiveness of ADS-B to
eventually replace radar. The MICRO-EARTS equipment currently used at
the Anchorage Air Traffic Control Center has software in the final
stages of testing and approval to allow both radar and ADS-B aircraft
position reports to be displayed.
Continuous safety and user need assessment to ensure effective
planning and development.--Currently, no formal communication mechanism
exists between the FAA and the aviation community at large to ensure
effective feedback and/or advice in planning programs or resolving
issues. Informal processes (i.e., Alaskan Aviation Coordination
Council, Capstone industry Council, Weather Enhancement Group, etc.)
lack the structure and authority necessary to ensure follow-up and
accountability.
Existing legislation empowers the FAA Administrator with authority
to waive or modify regulations as necessary to address specific Alaska
aviation issues. However, current processes do not provide a widely
accepted forum that effectively works towards resolution of such
issues. As a result, Alaska specific aviation issues are often worked
congressionally prior to sufficient constructive dialogue between FAA
and the aviation community. Often this results in a `situation'
mentality, wherein issues are not formally addressed or effectively
resolved until a crisis level is reached. Multiple examples exist of
issues that could have been better addressed through improved
communications.
A formal ``Alaskan Federal Aviation Advisory Council'' to the
Alaskan Region FAA, that includes multiple representative elements of
the Alaskan aviation community, is recommended to address this
communication deficiency.
five year p1an \2\
Year 1--fiscal year 2000:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The grand total cost of this five year plan is estimated at
$265,130,000. The most efficient way to complete this five-year program
is to receive one-fifth of the funding in each of the next five years,
or approximately $53 million each year. This will allow the project
development work and actual construction work to be completed within
the target 5 year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Establish a formal Alaskan Aviation Advisory Council comprised of
the Alaskan aviation industry to assist the Alaskan Region FAA
planning efforts.
--Coordination and assessment of Alaska aviation infrastructure
needs.
--Phase in (over initial three years) funding of the State Five-Year
Airport Capitol Improvement Program.
--Establish Alaska site-specific supplemental weather, NAV-aid, and
lighting systems operational needs.
--Develop locally available aviation skills training programs.
Year 2--fiscal year 2001:
--Begin airport infrastructure enhancements.
--Develop/Publish GPS approaches.
--Standardize ADS/FIS system design.
--Begin installation of Alaska site-specific supplemental weather,
NAV-aids and lighting systems equipment (including Bethel
radar).
Year 3--fiscal year 2002:
--Continue airport infrastructure enhancements.
--Flight check & publish approaches.
--Begin ADS-B/FIS equipment installations.
--Continue installation of Alaska site-specific supplemental weather,
NAV-aids and lighting systems equipment.
Year 4--fiscal year 2003:
--Continue airport infrastructure enhancements.
--Continue ADS-B/FIS equipment installations.
--Continue weather and lighting systems.
--Expand CNS network to ARTCC and FSSs.
Year 5--fiscal year 2004:
--Complete Five-Year airport infrastructure enhancements.
--Complete ADS-B/FIS equipment installations.
--Complete weather and lighting systems.
List of specific infrastructure improvement needs and estimated
improvement costs at runways less than 3,300 foot lengths provides
detail re above is attached.
AACC FIVE YEAR AVIATION STRATEGIC PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Total estimated
Community Existing surface length Existing inst. appr. cost Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIACHAK.............................. Gravel.................. 1,600 ........................ $4,000,000 .............................
ALAKANUK.............................. Gravel.................. 2,200 ........................ 7,000,000 .............................
ALEKNAGIK............................. Gravel.................. 2,100 ........................ 3,000,000 .............................
ANVIK................................. Gravel.................. 2,900 NDB, GPS................ 7,500,000 .............................
ATMAUTLUAK............................ Gravel.................. 2,000 ........................ 2,400,000 .............................
CHEFORNAK............................. Gravel.................. 2,600 ........................ 7,000,000 .............................
CHEVAK................................ Gravel.................. 2,600 ........................ 6,500,000 .............................
CHICKEN............................... Gravel.................. 2,500 ........................ 4,500,000 Road accessible in summer
only. Creek relocation
required for extension.
CHIGNIK............................... Gravel.................. 2,600 Terrain limited......... 4,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
CHIGNIK FLATS......................... Gravel.................. 1,600 Terrain limited......... 4,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
CHIGNIK LAKE.......................... Gravel.................. 2,800 Terrain limited......... 3,000,000 .............................
CHUATHBALUK........................... Gravel.................. 1,500 ........................ 6,500,000 .............................
CLARKS POINT.......................... Gravel.................. 2,600 ........................ 8,200,000 .............................
CORDOVA............................... Gravel.................. 1,800 Terrain limited......... 4,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
CROOKED CREEK......................... Gravel.................. 2,000 Terrain limited......... 4,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
DEERING............................... Gravel.................. 2,600 ........................ 3,000,000 .............................
EEK................................... Gravel.................. 1,400 ........................ 2,800,000 .............................
EKWOK................................. Gravel.................. 2,700 ........................ 2,500,000 .............................
ENGLISH BAY........................... Gravel.................. 1,800 Terrain limited......... 5,000,000 Airport expansion not
practical, road to Nanwalak
best transportation
solution.
FALSE PASS............................ Gravel.................. 2,100 Terrain limited......... 4,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
GOODNEWS.............................. Gravel.................. 2,800 ........................ 2,500,000 .............................
GRAYLING.............................. Gravel.................. 2,300 ........................ 1,500,000 .............................
KARLUK................................ Gravel.................. 2,000 ........................ 2,500,000 .............................
KIPNUK................................ Gravel.................. 2,100 ........................ 5,500,000 .............................
KOBUK................................. Gravel.................. 2,300 ........................ 3,500,000 .............................
KOKHONAK.............................. Gravel.................. 2,800 ........................ 2,500,000 .............................
KONGIGANAK............................ Gravel.................. 1,900 ........................ 3,780,000 .............................
KWETHLUK.............................. Gravel.................. 1,700 ........................ 4,500,000 .............................
KWIGILLINGOK.......................... Gravel.................. 2,500 ........................ 3,000,000 .............................
LARSEN BAY............................ Gravel.................. 2,700 Terrain limited......... 4,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
LEVELOCK.............................. Gravel.................. 1,900 ........................ 3,000,000 .............................
LIME VILLAGE.......................... Gravel.................. 1,400 ........................ 500,000 .............................
LITTLE DIOMEDE ISLAND/IGNALUK......... Gravel.................. 100 Terrain limited......... 1,000,000 Runway construction not
practical. Expand heliport,
erosion stabilization.
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS.................... Gravel.................. 2,900 ........................ 4,500,000 Cannot be extended, project
would relocate runway.
MANOKOTAK............................. Gravel.................. 2,700 ........................ 4,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
MOUNTAIN VILLAGE...................... Gravel.................. 2,500 ........................ 2,500,000 .............................
NEW STUYAHOK.......................... Gravel.................. 1,800 ........................ 8,500,000 .............................
NIGHTMUTE............................. Gravel.................. 1,600 ........................ 4,500,000 .............................
NIKOLAI............................... Gravel.................. 2,300 ........................ 3,200,000 .............................
NONDALTON............................. Gravel.................. 2,800 ........................ 2,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
NUNAPITCHUK........................... Gravel.................. 2,000 ........................ 1,200,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
OLD HARBOR............................ Gravel.................. 2,700 Terrain limited......... 4,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
OUZINKIE.............................. Gravel.................. 2,100 ........................ 8,500,000 .............................
PERRYVILLE............................ Gravel.................. 2,500 ........................ 2,500,000 .............................
PILOT STATION......................... Gravel.................. 2,500 ........................ 7,000,000 Master plan underway to
identify relocation site.
PORT GRAHAM........................... Gravel.................. 2,000 ........................ 4,500,000 Relocation required.
PORT LIONS............................ Gravel.................. 2,200 ........................ 7,000,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
QUINHAGAK............................. Gravel.................. 2,600 ........................ 5,300,000 Relocation required.
RUSSIAN MISSION....................... Gravel.................. 2,700 ........................ 4,500,000
SELDOVIA.............................. Gravel.................. 1,800 Terrain limited......... 4,500,000 Terrain Limited, may not be
able to construct full 3,300
foot length.
SHAGELUK.............................. Gravel.................. 2,300 ........................ 5,200,000 .............................
STEVENS VILLAGE....................... Gravel.................. 2,100 ........................ 8,300,000 .............................
STONY RIVER........................... Gravel.................. 2,500 ........................ 7,000,000 Relocation required for a
3,300 foot RWY.
TAKOTNA............................... Gravel.................. 1,700 ........................ 5,500,000 Relocation required for a
3,300 foot RWY.
TOKSOOK BAY........................... Gravel.................. 1,800 ........................ 4,500,000 .............................
TULUKSAK.............................. Gravel.................. 2,500 ........................ 3,500,000 .............................
TUNTUTULIAK........................... Gravel.................. 1,800 ........................ 2,750,000 .............................
TUNUNAK............................... Gravel.................. 2,000 ........................ 5,000,000 .............................
-------------------
Total for Runways............... ........................ .......... ........................ 255,130,000
Bethel Area Terminal Radar...... ........................ .......... ........................ 10,000,000
-------------------
Grand Total..................... ........................ .......... ........................ 265,130,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) The average runway reconstruction cost is approximately $4,500,000. This number was used through this estimate where detailed costing is not
available. Airports requiring site relocation may require additional funds to complete.
(2) Capital installation costs of automatic Weather Reporting machines, such as AWOS-3, are approximately $150,000 each per installation. This does not
include annual operational costs. The machines could be installed with the airport improvement project as a portion of the project and turned over to
the FAA for operation and maintenance.
STATEMENT OF MORTON V. PLUMB, JR.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Mort, do you have a
statement?
Mr. Plumb. Senator Stevens, Congressman Young, we have a
few prepared comments, and also present some for entrance into
the record.
Senator Stevens. All of the prepared statements will be
printed in the record in full, and your comments will appear
after each one of those individually.
Mr. Plumb. Anchorage International Airport is the gateway
to Alaska and Anchorage residents and for all Alaska visitors.
The Gateway Alaska road and terminal improvements program will
address many of the passenger service needs. Additional
passenger service needs may include people-mover connector
between the domestic and international terminal, and in the
future we will need to reconstruct the apron and the jetways at
the international terminal.
KOREAN VISA WAIVER REQUIREMENTS
Relaxation of the Korean visa waiver requirements would be
very helpful. Current U.S. regulations require Korean visitors
to apply for a visa to enter the United States. This
requirement has had a negative impact on the development of
international tourism to Alaska as it applies to South Korea.
The State of Alaska has felt the damaging impacts of this
restrictive policy. This is evident by Korean Airlines flights
that are bypassing Anchorage, servicing Vancouver, British
Columbia, and Toronto. As such, the State of Alaska would like
to encourage the formalization of talks by the State Department
to develop a pilot program for relaxing of visa requirements
for travelers between South Korea and Alaska with regard to
liberalizing passenger service for Alaska.
In an effort to expand both international and domestic
passenger opportunities, the Alaska International Airport
System would like to see established a pilot program for the
liberalization of passenger service for Alaska. This program
would allow for travel between Alaska and other domestic points
via international carrier. Allowing international carriers to
enplane and deplane domestic passengers enhances route
profitability, increases international air service to less
competitive markets, and provides Alaskans direct air service
to additional destinations.
AIR CARGO BUSINESS
Cargo is big business at Anchorage International Airport.
Air cargo is the fastest-growing sector at Anchorage
International Airport. The airport is responding with a focus
on marketing and infrastructure. In marketing, a comprehensive
program for retaining and expanding and attracting cargo
activity focuses on two levels.
On the international level, the airport is seeking to take
maximum advantage of our global location that we can reach 95
percent of the industrial centers of the northern hemisphere
within 9 hours flight time. We are seeking liberalization of
international aviation agreements to open up new cargo transfer
opportunities for foreign and domestic carriers. The Alaska
International Airport System would like to encourage the
formalization of talks between USDOT and the State Department
to liberalize international air cargo service beyond open
skies, and look at relaxing regulations against seventh and
eighth freedoms.
With regard to infrastructure, Anchorage International
Airport faces global challenges to its current role as the
world-class air cargo crossroads, long-range aircraft in the
next decade, a trend we cannot control. Foreign airports hungry
for their piece of our pie is another trend we cannot control.
However, modern and efficient airport facilities is something
we can control.
LAKE HOOD FLOAT PLANE FACILITY
The Alaska International Airport System, with the critical
assistance of the FAA airport improvement program, must
continue to improve its competitive position to serve air cargo
markets. With regard to general aviation, Lake Hood provides
access to rural Alaska for both residents and tourists. No
other public float plane facilities exist in the Anchorage
area. Additional needs to support this vital facility include:
Relocation of tie-downs from Anchorage International to
Lake Hood to reduce taxi distances and vehicle-aircraft
conflicts.
Dredging Lake Hood to remove shallow areas in the lake that
create safety concerns during low water periods.
Construct shoreline stabilization in eroding areas. This
could be developed as a Corps of Engineers project.
Address safety concerns by constructing a safety area at
Hood strip, establishing buffer areas around the taxiways and
constructing new taxiways where aircraft can taxi on the
roadways.
Support for a new float plane facility to serve Anchorage
and the Matsui area is very sorely needed.
REGULATORY AND SAFETY ISSUES
With regard to regulatory and safety issues, wetlands
mitigations, wetlands and airports in Alaska are generally
incompatible. Wetlands often attract birds, creating hazards
for aircraft operations. Airports in Alaska must fill wetlands
to both reduce bird hazards as well as construct necessary
aviation infrastructure. FAA safety guidelines regarding
wetlands are in conflict with wetland regulations under the
Clean Water Act.
While the FAA guidelines require elimination of wetlands
that create safety hazards, other Federal agencies restrict
construction on the airport during nesting season, require
expensive wetlands replacement mitigation at airports, and
limits the types of land uses that can occur on airport
wetlands.
Anchorage International Airport air traffic control tower.
Certain parts of the airfield at Anchorage International
Airport cannot be seen by the air traffic control tower. Lack
of tower visibility reduces safety and increases aircraft
delays. Furthermore, the tower is currently located within the
terminal road loop on land that could otherwise be used for
other necessary functions at the airport.
Runway and aircraft deicing is necessary for safe aircraft
operations in the air and on the ground. Deicing chemicals are
under increasing control and regulation by the Environmental
Protection Agency because of their effect on water bodies
around the airports. Capture and treatment of deicing chemicals
is difficult and expensive. Many less expensive solutions at
other airports do not work in Alaska. A deicing collection
facility and treatment plant may be required for the airport to
continue to grow and provide for safe operations in an
environmentally friendly manner.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator, Congressman, this concludes my testimony. Thank
you for the opportunity, and thank you for the support at
Anchorage International Airport.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morton V. Plumb
PASSENGER SERVICES/BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Passenger Facilities
Anchorage International Airport is the gateway to Alaska for
Anchorage residents, rural Alaska, and visitors. The Governor's Gateway
Alaska road and terminal improvements program will address many
passenger services needs. Additional passenger service needs include:
--Upgraded (with people mover) connector between domestic and
international terminal
--Reconstructed international passenger terminal apron and jetways
--Additional parking and rental car facilities
Relaxation of Korean Visa Requirements
Current U.S. regulations require Korean visitors apply for a visa
to enter the U.S. This requirement has had a negative impact on the
development of international tourism to Alaska as it applies to South
Korea.
The current application requirements generally require the traveler
to take an additional trip to another city to apply and obtain a U.S.
visa.
The State of Alaska has felt the damaging impacts of this
restrictive policy. This is evident by Korean Airlines flights that are
bypassing Anchorage and servicing Vancouver, British Columbia and
Toronto.
As such, the State of Alaska would like to encourage the
formalization of talks by the State Department to develop a pilot
program for the relaxing of Visa requirements for travelers between
South Korea and Alaska.
Liberalization of Passenger Service for Alaska
In an effort to expand both international and domestic passenger
opportunities, the Alaska International Airport System would like to
see established a pilot program for the liberalization of passenger
service for Alaska. This program would allow for travel between Alaska
and other domestic points via an international carrier.
Allowing international carriers to enplane and deplane domestic
passengers enhances route profitability, increases international air
service to less competitive markets, and provides Alaskans direct air
service to additional destinations.
CARGO SERVICES/BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Air Cargo is the fastest growing sector at Anchorage International
Airport. The Airport is responding with a focus on marketing and
infrastructure.
Marketing
A comprehensive program for retaining, expanding and attracting
cargo activity focuses on two levels:
1. On the international level, the Airport is seeking to take
maximum advantage of our global location reaching 95 percent of the
industrialized centers of the Northern Hemisphere within 9 hours flight
time. We are:
A. Seeking liberalization of international aviation agreements to
open up new cargo transfer opportunities for foreign and domestic
carriers here. The Alaska International Airport System would like to
encourage the formalization of talks between the U.S. DOT and the State
Department to liberalize international air cargo service beyond Open
Skies and look at relaxing the regulations against seventh and eighth
freedom flights.
B. Strengthening business relationships with industry leaders by
frequent air carrier and air freight forwarder contact to ride the wave
of change in ``time definite'' delivery of cargo and small packages.
--This requires personal contact in airline headquarters in Asia,
Europe and the United States.
--The Airport brings many airline executives to our turf at our
annual ``Top of the World Air Cargo Summit''.
--The Airport participates in national policy formation affecting
cargo issues by serving as Chair of the Airports Council
International Air Cargo Subcommittee.
--Airport staff provides practical assistance to carriers and
logistics providers in locating usable airport land, operating
efficiently and keeping reliability at the highest levels.
2. Within Alaska shipping more fresh and live Alaskan seafood is
certainly the best opportunity in exports. Our Seafood Working Group is
tackling obstacles and has a goal of doubling air shipped fish and
shellfish in three years.
Infrastructure
AIA faces global challenges to its current role as a world class
air cargo crossroads:
--Long range aircraft in the next decade, a trend we cannot control
--Foreign airports hungry for their piece of the pie, another trend
we cannot control
--Modern, efficient airport facilities, which we can do something
about.
Modern and efficient infrastructure is essential to keep abreast of
technological change and the pace of growth. Infrastructure
improvements at AIA include new taxiways to reduce airfield delays,
cargo support facilities, seamless access under runways between
airparks, emergency operations center and maintenance facilities to
ensure a safe and efficient operating environment, and navigational
improvements.
The Alaska International Airport System, with the critical
assistance of the FAA Airport Improvement Program, must continue to
improve its competitive position to serve air cargo markets.
GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES/BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Lake Hood provides access to rural Alaska for both residents and
tourists. No other public floatplane facilities exist in the Anchorage
area. Additional needs to support this vital facility include:
--Relocation of tie downs from Anchorage International to Lake Hood
to reduce taxi distances and vehicle/aircraft conflicts and
free up space at AIA for other uses.
--Dredging Lake Hood to remove shallow areas in the Lake that create
safety concerns during low water periods. Construct shoreline
stabilization in eroding areas. This could be developed as a
Corps of Engineers project.
--Address safety concerns by constructing a safety area at Hood
Strip, establishing buffer areas around taxiways, and
constructing new taxiways where aircraft taxi on roadways.
--Support for a new floatplane facility to serve the Anchorage/Mat-Su
area, address unmet demand for floatplane slips, and relieve
airspace and airport congestion.
REGULATORY/SAFETY
Wetlands Mitigation and Bird Hazards
Wetlands and airports in Alaska are generally incompatible.
Wetlands often attract birds, creating hazards for aircraft operations.
Airports in Alaska must fill wetlands to both reduce bird hazards as
well as construct necessary aviation infrastructure. FAA safety
guidelines regarding wetlands are in conflict with wetland regulations
under the Clean Water Act. While the FAA guidelines require elimination
of wetlands that create safety hazards, other federal agencies restrict
construction on the airport during nesting season, require expensive
wetlands replacement (mitigation) near airports, and limit types of
land uses that can occur on airport wetlands.
Airspace Capacity
The FAA is completing an Anchorage Area Airspace Study that is
identifying ways to reduce aircraft delays in the air and on the ground
in the Anchorage area. While the study is not yet complete, it appears
some ideas, such as establishing new flight procedures, corridors, or
constructing new runways or taxiways at Elmendorf and Anchorage
International Airport will require further evaluation. Because the
issues are complex and involve many levels of government and many
airports, a formal interagency working group may be needed.
Anchorage International Airport Air Traffic Control Tower
Certain parts of the airfield at Anchorage International Airport
cannot be seen by the Air Traffic Control Tower. Lack of tower
visibility reduces safety and increases aircraft delays. Furthermore,
the tower is currently located within the terminal road loop, on land
that could otherwise be used for terminal parking and terminal-related
functions. These safety, efficiency and land use concerns could easily
be addressed if the Air Traffic Control Tower at Anchorage
International Airport was relocated.
Deicing
Runway and aircraft deicing is necessary for safe aircraft
operations in the air and on the ground. Deicing chemicals are under
increasing control and regulation by the Environmental Protection
Agency because of their affect on water bodies around airports. Capture
and treatment of deicing chemicals is difficult and expensive. Many
less expensive solutions at other airports do not work in Alaska. A
deicing collection and treatment facility may be required for the
airport to continue to grow and provide for safe operations in an
environmentally friendly manner.
Senator Stevens. And we are going to have some questions
about that, Mort.
Jim LaBelle.
STATEMENT OF JAMES D. LA BELLE
Mr. LaBelle. Good afternoon, Senator Stevens and
Congressman Young. It is a pleasure to represent the National
Transportation Safety Board before you today regarding aviation
safety in Alaska.
Flight operations in Alaska are diverse, with challenging
environments, which is rough terrain, adverse weather, and
unique air transportation requirements. Due to the large
geographic area and the lack of other forms of transportation,
aviation is often the only way to travel. These challenges
increase the risk to safe flight operations.
Because of Alaska's unique aviation needs, the National
Transportation Safety Board has had a longstanding interest in
aviation safety in Alaska. In 1980, the safety board published
a special study on the air taxi industry in Alaska. Although we
have seen improvements to the safety of the aviation system in
Alaska as a result of recommendations issued from that study,
investigations indicated that the safety issues identified in
the 1980 study continue to be a concern. Therefore, in 1995,
the safety board published a second study on aviation safety in
Alaska.
As a result of that study, new safety recommendations were
issued regarding weather observing and reporting, airport
inspections and airport condition reporting, pilot flight,
duty, and rest times, visual and instrument flight rules, and
the needs of special aviation operations in Alaska.
ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO NTSB STUDY
The safety board is encouraged by the actions taken since
publication of our study. For example, a demonstration project
for a satellite-based navigation and traffic surveillance is
underway in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region as part of the FAA's
Capstone project. The FAA approved the use of single-engined
airplanes for commercial passenger-carrying flight operations
under instrument flight rules.
The FAA and the National Weather Service implemented a test
program in which color video cameras provide real-time weather
information available over the Internet. The FAA and the State
of Alaska are cooperating to equip and train ground personnel
in Alaskan airports so they can provide near real-time
information directly to pilots by radio. The FAA has fully
staffed its Alaska Regional Airport Certification Office, and
the FAA and the State of Alaska are cooperating to improve the
inspection program for airports in the State, and the FAA
implemented a State-wide program to collect and disseminate
information about Alaskan airport conditions provided by pilots
and unofficial observers through the automated flight service
station network.
As you are aware, Public Law 106-69, the Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000,
directed that an interagency initiative, with the goal of
reducing the number of occupational aviation fatalities in
Alaska and the number of aviation accidents and resultant
deaths in the State, be undertaken. We believe this initiative,
which involves the FAA, the NTSB, the National Weather Service,
and the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health,
or NIOSH, is a good step toward improving aviation safety in
Alaska. You may be assured that the safety board will cooperate
in every way possible with this effort to its completion.
Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that over 90 percent of
the accidents that occur in the State are attributable to human
factors and operational errors. The ultimate responsibility for
any flight lies with the pilot and a good educational program
will go far to eliminating unwarranted risk-taking and human
errors.
Most commercial operators are dedicated to providing the
traveling public with the highest level of safety, but our
accident investigations show that there is often inadequate
pilot training for the environment in which they fly, less than
adequate management oversight, and a less than aggressive
safety program, or no safety program at all. To decrease the 90
percent human error figure, these issues must be addressed by
the Alaska aviation industry.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared remarks, and I
would be happy to respond to any questions you have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James LaBelle
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Delegation. It is a
pleasure to represent the National Transportation Safety Board before
you today regarding aviation safety in Alaska.
Between 1990 and 1998, there were 1,510 aviation accidents, an
average of one accident every 2 days, that took the lives of 355
people. The commercial aviation accident rate in Alaska is three to
four times greater than that of the other 49 States. Indeed, we were
saddened to learn of the most recent commuter airline accident that
occurred just last Tuesday 50 miles from Bethel, Alaska. That accident
took the lives of 6 people. It is also significant to note that
aircraft accidents are the leading cause of occupational fatalities in
Alaska.
Flight operations in Alaska are diverse, with a challenging
environment, such as rough terrain, adverse weather, and unique air
transportation requirements. Due to the large geographic area and lack
of other forms of transportation, aviation is often the only way to
traverse much of the State. These challenges increase the risks to safe
flight operations.
Because of Alaska's unique aviation needs and diverse challenges,
the National Transportation Safety Board has had a longstanding
interest in aviation safety in Alaska. In 1980, the Safety Board
published a special study on the air taxi industry in Alaska. As a
result of that study, the Board issued 10 safety recommendations to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the State concerning the
planning and development of Alaska's aviation system and
infrastructure, weather observation and dissemination of weather
information, regulatory surveillance and operator safety oversight. As
a result of those recommendations, we have seen many improvements to
the safety of the aviation system in Alaska.
Despite these recent improvements, Board accident investigations
indicated that the safety issues identified in the 1980 study continued
to be of concern. In 1995, the Safety Board published a second study on
aviation safety in Alaska. As a result of that study, 23 new safety
recommendations were issued to the FAA, the United States Postal
Service, the National Weather Service (NWS), and the State of Alaska
regarding weather observing and reporting; airport inspections and
airport condition reporting; pilot flight, duty, and rest time; visual
and instrument flight rules; and the needs of special aviation
operations in Alaska. Twenty-one of those recommendations have been
classified as acceptable. The Safety Board is encouraged with action
taken since publication of our study. For example:
--A demonstration project for satellite-based navigation and traffic
surveillance is underway in the Yukon Kuskokwim Region of
Alaska, as part of the FAA's Capstone Program;
--The FAA approved the use of single-engine airplanes for commercial
passenger- carrying flight operations under instrument flight
rules;
--The FAA and the NWS implemented a test program in which remote
color video cameras provide real-time weather information,
available over the Internet. As of mid-1999, video cameras are
providing views of several airport environments and mountain
passes within Alaska;
--The FAA and the State of Alaska are cooperating to equip and train
ground personnel at Alaskan airports so they can provide near
real time information directly to pilots by radio. The State of
Alaska implemented a program to equip and train airport
maintenance personnel for radio updates;
--The FAA has fully staffed its Alaskan Region airport certification
office, and the FAA and the State of Alaska are cooperating to
improve the inspection program for airports in the State; and
--The FAA implemented a state-wide program to collect and disseminate
information about Alaskan airport conditions provided by pilots
and unofficial observers through the automated flight service
station network.
Many of these were taken as a result of the efforts of the Alaska
Congressional Delegation, and we commend you for your continued work on
these matters.
Unfortunately, two of the safety recommendations issued as a result
of our 1995 study were closed as unacceptable action. Those
recommendations were:
To the Federal Aviation Administration
Ensure, at all automated surface weather observing sites in Alaska
for which FAA is responsible, and where currently there are qualified
FAA weather observers (including contract weather observers) on site,
that (1) operationally significant information, including distant
weather 3 information, is manually added to automated weather
observations until technological progress eliminates the need; and (2)
all such information is combined and disseminated in a single aviation
weather report.
To the National Weather Service
Revise current policies to provide mike-in-hand (near real-time)
radio service for aviation weather information at locations in Alaska
where National Weather Service and surface and contract personnel are
sited until automated surface weather observing systems transmit
observations of an operationally significant weather phenomena to
pilots operating in the terminal area.
We believe the interagency initiative directed in Public Law 106-
69, the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, fiscal year
2000, is a good step toward improving aviation safety in Alaska, and we
look forward to working on the unacceptable recommendation issues as
part of that effort.
As you are aware, the interagency initiative involves four federal
agencies--the FAA, the NTSB, the NWS, and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). This initiative involves five
elements: (1) the gathering and analyzing of data; (2) bringing
together working groups, including representatives of the aviation
industry, the aviation workforce, and the insurance industry; (3)
working with local professional groups such as individual pilots and
the Alaska Airmen's Association, industry, and educational leadership;
(4) evaluating the effectiveness of changes in flight safety practices;
and (5) evaluating progress and suggesting additional improvements.
The goal of this three-year joint effort is to reduce the number of
occupational aviation fatalities in Alaska by 50 percent for the years
2000 through 2009, and to reduce substantially the number of aviation
accidents and resultant deaths in the State. You may be assured that
the Safety Board will cooperate in every way possible with this effort
to its completion.
Mr. Chairman, these initiatives will go a long way to improving
aviation safety in Alaska, but it should be noted that over 90 percent
of the accidents that occur in the State are attributable to human
factors and operational errors. The ultimate responsibility for any
flight Res with the pilot, and a good educational program will go far
to eliminating unwarranted risk taking and human errors. Most
commercial operators are dedicated to providing the traveling public
with the highest level of safety. But our accident investigations show
that there is often inadequate pilot training for the environment in
which they fly, less than adequate management oversight, and a less
than aggressive safety program or no safety program at all. To decrease
the 90 percent human error figure, the change must come from within the
industry.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared remarks, and I will be
happy to respond to any questions you may have.
ALASKA'S UNIQUE NEEDS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Pat, as you know, we have written this legislation to
direct the FAA administrator to take into account Alaska's size
and unique reliance on aviation before imposing new rules. We
wonder, is that legislation being followed?
Mr. Poe. I cannot cite a single situation in which a rule
was totally disregarded regarding the State of Alaska. There
are situations, and ongoing ones, where we look at ways to
accomplish the intent of the rule in ways that are consistent
with the environment that we have here in Alaska. I think those
types of balanced approaches serve both causes well.
Senator Stevens. I have been told there has been some
attempt to consolidate this region with the region in Seattle.
That would be automatically just putting us in a position where
the Alaska region would not be subject to review by people who
are familiar with our unique circumstances. Is that being
pursued now, do you know?
Mr. Poe. To my knowledge, it is not. We had one incident
recently, and your office was involved, I believe, looking at
the possibility of merging civil aviation security
responsibilities between the two regions. That did not go
forward, and as we speak I know of no other initiative.
Senator Stevens. You have been here, as you said, just a
little over a year now, and you came very highly recommended by
the Administrator, and I would be interested to know if you
have reached any conclusions as to what are the significant
challenges that the industry faces here that it does not face
outside. Too big a thing for 5 minutes?
Mr. Poe. The range of issues here in the State of Alaska
was something for which I was not fully prepared, to be very
candid.
The thing that struck me the most about my time here in
Alaska has been the sense of community among the aviators, and
the different organizations, whether it is the Alaska Aviation
Safety Foundation, or the carriers, or the Airmen Association,
or the Seaplane Association. We come together on an issue, and
we come to point on trying to make a difference. That does not
mean we always agree, but I think that that is one of the
things that sets Alaska apart from any place I have been
before.
One other thing is that the FAA people here have been here
long enough that they know people who have fallen to the
system, and so this is not just a professional responsibility,
it is a personal commitment, and it is a great group of people.
Senator Stevens. I am sure we agree with that.
REVILLA CORRIDOR EXEMPTION
Senator Murkowski has asked me to point out to you that for
20 years VFR traffic has been able to obtain a special VFR
clearance exemption through the Revilla Corridor that maintains
a steady flow of traffic into Ketchikan, and there is a
decision been made not to renew the exemption. He would like to
know, in the absence of the exemption, how is FAA going to
prevent a backup of VFR traffic in and out of the Ketchikan
Harbor during marginal weather conditions, and is FAA delaying
a reestablishment of the exemption?
Mr. Poe. When we began to evaluate the new routes that were
being taken in and out, and we saw this probable conflict in
traffic, we began to look to see if the exemption had already
expired. It had not, and as a result it remains in effect
today. In a way that was good fortune, because that gives us an
opportunity to work with all of the community there to try and
find a palatable solution. Right now, we think without
extraordinary and extra care given to that situation, that it
could run a safety risk, and so we want to find a way to remove
that, so the work is ongoing.
Senator Stevens. It is in effect right now?
Mr. Poe. The exemption remains in effect I believe through
January. Someone can confirm that for me.
Senator Stevens. All right. I will tell him that.
KETCHIKAN FLIGHT SERVICE STATION
He also noted that in January 1999 there was a notice to
the public that the Ketchikan flight service station hours
would return to a 24-hour operating schedule following the
recruitment of two new employees to fill the staffing losses.
He said in February that the FAA reduced that flight service
station hours to 14 hours and 15 minutes due to staffing
losses, and that the new recruits had not been fully certified.
What is going to be the schedule, as we go into the next
quarter for the new century, for the flight service station?
Will it return to the 24-hour schedule?
Mr. Poe. It is our long-range intent that it do so. I do
not have the answers to whether it will be effective within the
first quarter of the next calendar year.
Part of the problem is the grade structure of that
particular facility, and that promotion opportunities come and
people leave as a result of that. The other thing is that with
minimum staffing, when training and other losses occur, it
requires that we adjust the operation not only of that
facility, but on occasion others, and we look for ways to do
that that has the minimum impact to the public in terms of
timing and in terms of the seasons of the year.
To the best of my knowledge, our intent is to return that
to a 24-hour operation.
NEEDED INVESTMENTS AT ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL
Senator Stevens. Mort, just a question or two for you. The
transition of the Anchorage airport from an interim stop for
passenger refueling to becoming, really one of the world's
major cargo air hubs, as I think we have all noted that, and we
have every indication that it is going to continue to grow. Are
there investments that you think that we should be familiar
with, steps we need to take to assure that that growth will be
able to continue as scheduled and serve the air cargo and
passenger markets? Is there anything further we should do in
the Federal level to assist?
Mr. Plumb. Senator, I think there is a few things we can do
on the passenger and the cargo side, as I mentioned a little
earlier. I think on the cargo side we need to take a close look
at liberalizing the seventh and eighth freedoms, so we could
capitalize on this globalization of aviation.
In that regard, I might just give a quick example. Let us
just say hypothetical purposes, if we had a package that was on
a bill of lading, we would like to have the ability to have
that package carried by a carrier such as United Airline from
New York to Anchorage and then be put on a carrier such as JAL
and go from Anchorage on to Tokyo.
On the passenger side, we would like to see a pilot program
that at least would give us an opportunity to show that it
should not have any disadvantage in the marketplace, so
Alaskans who are currently denied the opportunity to fly
between Anchorage and New York could get on an international
airline such as Korean Airlines and make that travel from
Anchorage to New York as well as from New York back to
Anchorage.
With regard to infrastructure, there are some things. We
believe we are going to need some new taxiways to reduce
airfield delays. There are certain support facilities we are
going to need, possibly seamless access between some of the
airparks, which would mean a tunnel under some of the runways
to get between the north and the west side there. We certainly
see a need for an efficient operations center, and emergency
operations center, where we could consolidate in case we did
have a mishap here.
Just recently we had an opportunity to exercise with the
FBI on one of their exercises, and we both concluded that it
would be advantageous to have a facility on the airport where
we could operate from.
I think that would conclude my comments on that area.
Senator Stevens. I just have a couple more comments, Don.
Mr. Young. You are the chairman.
CAPSTONE
Senator Stevens. You have all mentioned Capstone. How is it
really coming along? Whoever would like to comment.
Mr. Poe. Well, I am sure there are several opinions. Let me
offer mine straight away. I think with the help of industry and
with your support, I think it has made remarkable progress,
considering that it was almost exactly 12 months and a few days
ago that the first appropriation was made, and we have done in-
house testing, we have awarded the contract to train new pilots
who began the equipage of aircraft that will start in January,
we have a listing of 150 airplanes, we have funded the first
132. I think it is moving remarkably well, almost too well. We
usually do not get this fortunate to move this fast.
I also think that the user community here is very strongly
behind Capstone, and at the end of the day, that is what is
going to make it work.
Senator Stevens. When will we get the report that will
indicate how fast we can go forward and make it State-wide?
Mr. Poe. The University of Alaska Study is a 3-year study
which was looking at the safety aspect of Capstone. In my
judgment, the $6 million appropriation that we received this
year, we will use part of that as a scene-setter to move beyond
the Yukon delta. Whether that's into Juneau, or whether that is
into Fairbanks, or whether that is into Anchorage, but it will
be into a different area. I think this will be an incremental
process, and it is somewhat dependent on future appropriations.
One of the main issues deals with spectrum, which is
frequency. Right now we are using a frequency that belongs to
the military and to go State-wide we are going to have to have
one that the FAA owns and controls, and we are hoping to see
that accomplished by January of next year, not of 2000 but
2001, as a part of the certification process, also as part of
looking at ways to use this technology to actually sequence and
separate aircraft.
Senator Stevens. How is it viewed from the State's point of
view, Paul?
Mr. Bowers. The State absolutely supports Capstone, and
would very much like to see it implemented State-wide, expanded
State-wide. It cannot be soon enough.
NTSB'S VIEW OF SAFETY PROGRESS
Senator Stevens. Jim, I am not sure everybody knows that
you made the basic recommendations for following out so far on
the safety process, 15 more closed-circuit weather surveillance
cameras. That was one of your recommendations. We have got ten
support, I think, for your mike-in-hand proposal so pilots can
update runway conditions in flight.
I guess Capstone really was one of your ideas, as a matter
of fact. At least my staff tells me they think it was your
idea.
Mr. LaBelle. Well, actually it came out of the NTSB Alaska
Safety study in 1995.
Senator Stevens. Did it?
Mr. LaBelle. It was 23 recommendations, and I am pleased to
say 21 of those 23 have been acceptable.
Senator Stevens. What is next?
Mr. LaBelle. Well, we hope with the Alaska safety
initiative to make some inroads into some of the issues with
human factors, and with the help of my office and the FAA and
the National Weather Service, we hope to get a coalition
together and hopefully make some progress to perhaps reidentify
some old problems and make some new approaches to those old
problems and deal with perhaps more effectively some of the
human factors issues in Alaskan aviation, and in particular,
pilot decisionmaking, management oversight, training for the
Alaskan environment, and dealing with industry.
There has been some resistance. I have sensed, from
industry to more regulation, and I concur. This is not a
regulatory event, as we see it. Those involved with the Alaska
safety initiative. We are looking at a nonregulatory approach,
with industry buy-in, and I think it is absolutely crucial that
we have their support, hear their views, get their perspective,
and act as a facilitator to help them reduce the accident rate
in Alaska.
Senator Stevens. I spent the morning with the tourism
industry, and it is really taking off, you know. There is no
question about it.
One of the bright spots on our resource utilization screen
is the increase in tourism, and substantial commitments there.
The one dampener that could slow that down is the continued
statistics we have had in recent months on aviation accidents
and deaths. I really think the study that is underway is a very
important one, to try and secure voluntary compliance with the
type of procedures that would bring about the reduction in
those statistics.
If we cannot get voluntary compliance, of course, in time
your agencies, at least three of the four of you, will be
forced to bring about mandatory compliance with procedures. I
think we would be anxious to learn any way we can to help bring
about that voluntary compliance. I think it will come about
sooner, and it will be more effective, if it is voluntary.
Don.
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
Mr. Young. Thank you, Senator. I first want to thank the
panel. I notice, Mr. Bowers, that you were making some
suggestions and I was trying to write them down as fast as I
could, about money could be better used on the runways, et
cetera, than be used on another thing that Mr. Poe is
proposing, or the FAA is proposing. Would you like to explain
that, and what you think should be done?
Mr. Bowers. It comes back to the infrastructure that we
have got in Alaska. We really have an immature infrastructure.
We do not have well-developed runways. In the rest of the
country, in America, so to speak, we do have a fairly mature
infrastructure.
Runways are well-developed, they are lighted, they are
paved, taxiways--we are into multiple iterations of improvement
at those facilities. The last things we need to do are improve
safety areas, and that is, indeed, the national direction. That
is the policy that the FAA follows on a Nation-wide basis, and
that makes a lot of sense in the rest of the country.
In Alaska, however, any time we do any development on a
runway, if we are doing any airfield infrastructure
development, the FAA national policy is to marry that with
implementing a full safety area at that airport. DOT absolutely
supports having safety areas, but only after we have addressed
the primary problem area, and that is having a decent runway.
It makes no sense to me to implement a full safety area at some
of our airports when most of them are short, unlighted, rough
surface.
The priority is, get the runway fixed first. After we have
addressed that, then let us go back and do the refinements like
improving the safety areas, keeping in mind that every landing
and take-off uses the runway, but the safety area is only used
if there is a problem, and typically that problem is a direct
result of the operation from that rough, short, unlighted
runway.
NATIONAL FAA POLICY
Mr. Young. Mr. Poe, this is nothing personal, but are you
having to follow the national direction of the FAA, or do you
have the latitude to do what Mr. Bowers suggests?
Mr. Poe. We have the latitude to work in the concept of a
cost-benefit and look at the extent to which safety aprons are
needed at airports in Alaska. That provides some flexibility.
However, we consider the safety apron part of the airport
runway. We consider one, if you will, one formula for safety.
I can understand, when Paul indicates maybe we should pick
priorities and surface the runway before we consider the
accompanying safety implications.
Mr. Young. Well, I am just going to suggest, Mr. Bowers--I
have landed on a lot of those airfields, and I agree with you
100 percent. I do not necessarily agree with you, Mr. Poe. I
want you to know that right now.
Mr. Poe. I understand that.
Mr. Young. But I am hoping the industry itself will have
some comments, and I hope you are not locked into concrete with
the idea that you may not be totally right on this issue. There
may be another side of the coin to avoid--we are supposed to be
here for safety. We are not supposed to be here for turf
acquisition. That is what I really want to stress.
HUMAN FACTORS
Mr. LaBelle, you have mentioned that 90 percent of the
accidents were related to human factor, and 10 percent were
related to aircraft and regulations.
Mr. LaBelle. I am sorry----
Mr. Young. 10 percent would be aircraft, 90 percent----
Mr. LaBelle. Well, the mechanical issues, or environmental
issues. Essentially we look at three basic elements in any
accident investigation. That is the pilot, the machine, and the
environment they fly in.
Mr. Young. So you are finding 90 percent, usually pilot?
Mr. LaBelle. That is correct.
Mr. Young. With all the new ideas and thoughts in weather
reporting, automated weather reporting, all the other things
that have been recommended by Senator Stevens, we still have
that factor of 90 percent, do we not?
Mr. LaBelle. We still have the factor, but a lot of the
infrastructure relating to Alaska safety study, the 1995 Alaska
safety study, is just now coming to fruition, so hopefully
Capstone and other initiatives down the road will have some
impact.
But again, the operational issues are still, even Nation-
wide outside of Alaska they are still paramount. Those are
still the principal precipitators of accident--the human
element, and the more we can do, I believe, in Alaska to
address the unwarranted risk-taking, the so-called bush pilot
syndrome, through training, through awareness, and strong
safety programs within the industry, I think we can make an
impact on the accidents in Alaska.
Mr. Young. The hand mike, does that basically replace the--
you see, I was never a great supporter of the automated weather
reporting. You know, I have flown enough in the State to not
really believe in it. Now, will that take and make up with the
lack of good weather reporting, with the hand mike report?
Mr. LaBelle. I think it will be an adjunct to it. I do not
think it is--there is now automated weather reporting sites
scattered throughout the State, and there is going to be more.
I just had the opportunity to talk to the director of the
National Weather Service, Richard Pesotti, and he indicated
that they are going to be working with the mike-in-hand and
some training for the National Weather Service individuals to
help implement that, which is good, which is very proactive.
Mr. Young. Now, I just came from an area that has an
automatic weather reporting system. It tracks weather, wind-
wise, cloud-wise, wind coverage, et cetera, just very, very
good. Why can we not put that in the airplane itself? It is
just not practical financially?
Mr. LaBelle. I really cannot respond to that. I suspect it
would be financially prohibitive. Perhaps Capstone--the
Capstone initiative has some of that inherent in it with the
weather display and weather mapping and some other issues, and
some of the downlinks that they have from satellite data, so
that is coming. That is available at least in part in the
Capstone initiative.
OLDER AIRCRAFT
Mr. Young. Mr. Poe, you know I have had some questions--I
will not bring them up today--about a couple of other subjects
like airplane maintenance and certain things that I do not
think are necessary, old planes being proposed in the Lower 48
that now they say are outdated. No plane has been shown where
it has collapsed or has had metal fatigue. It is pilot error.
Alaskan industry itself, as you are well aware of, is
dependant upon many of our old vintage aircraft. That is what
they were built for, and as long as they are inspected, and I
think that is your responsibility, and as long as they are, you
know, studied for stress, engine maintenance is kept up, and
everything is done, there is no reason physically why an
aircraft cannot run forever, and one of my proud moments in
Alaska is, I see planes flying that I see standing in the
Smithsonian Institute, and I have flown on most of those.
So I think there has got to be a working relationship, and
I am glad to hear you say that that has occurred, or is
occurring. I want to continue that, because as I mentioned in
my opening statement, my goal is to make sure it is safe, but
make it available, and make sure that the competition exists,
and make sure that my consumers are able to get from A to B
without having to pay an arm and a leg. Every time we have to
do something within the insurance area, or addition, et cetera,
our constituents end up paying for it, and very frankly I do
not think it creates that much more safety.
So with that, I want to thank the panel. Mr. Plumb, you
have a great operation out there. Keep it going. One of my
proud moments, as the Senator has mentioned, is the growth of
that international airport, and we just hope that it continues,
and we employ people, and we get jobs and get people off the
airplane and on the airplane, and achieve the goal of good
transportation.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Thank you. On that aging aircraft issue, I
talked to FAA Administrator Garvey on that issue. You may know
about that, Pat. She told me she is aware of the legislation I
mentioned, specifically the law that requires the FAA to
consider Alaska's unique environment and its dependance on
aviation before imposing any new rules or regulations, and she
assures me that Alaska's concerns would be addressed in the
final rule.
That has not been made public yet how it will be done, but
we are going to monitor that very closely, Don. I am told now
that that will be almost a year before that final rule is
published, so we still have time to work on that.
Mr. Young. Which reminds me, Senator, Mr. Poe, on that
Ketchikan deal, has there been any problem with the existing
exemption, the one that you brought up, of the corridor?
Mr. Poe. Yes. The problem is, as traffic has intensified in
that area, that we are no longer comfortable with the way the
arrangement exists, and so----
Mr. Young. May I ask this question: if you change it, what
is the alternative, unless there is just less flights?
Mr. Poe. Well, we have people looking into what the best
alternative is. Our intent is not to reduce the number of
flights. Our intent is to increase the level of safety, and
that is what we are studying as we speak.
Senator Stevens. We do thank you very much for taking the
time to be with us. We do, by the way, have staff on the
committee representing other Senators here today. That is
important impact to have on our committee by the testimony we
have, and far greater than if we had waited to have just one of
you appear in a hearing in Washington, so I thank you for
taking the time.
Our next group is what we call the user group panel. Dick
Harding, president of PenAir, representing the Air Carriers
Association, Tom Wardleigh, president of the Alaska Aviation
Safety Foundation, and ALPA representative Felix Maguire, the
president of the Alaska Airmen's Association, and Ken Acton, an
aviation consultant.
I have just been informed, to my sadness, that because of a
council meeting we must evacuate the building before 4:30, but
we still have plenty of time, but I just want people to know
there is a time constraint on us in order that the area may be
cleaned and made presentable for the assembly.
For no other reason that that is the way it appears on the
schedule I was given, why don't we just start with you, Dick.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD HARDING
Mr. Harding. Good afternoon, Senator Stevens, Congressman
Young, members of the committee, members of the public. My name
is Richard Harding, and I am speaking to you as past president
of the Alaska Air Carriers Association and as general manager
of PenAir. I have been a pilot all my life, and I still
occasionally fly the line. I will talk about the age 60 rule,
but before that I would like to discuss a couple of other
aviation safety issues.
The State of Alaska consistently has a significantly higher
accident rate than the rest of the country. The Federal
Government has invested millions of dollars in the FAA funding
through new regulations and other programs. The sad reality is,
the FAA has only minimally improved the safety record in
Alaska. The accident rate today is the same as it was 15 years
ago.
Over the past 15 years, the FAA has implemented major
regulatory changes, mandatory installation of GPWS, CVR, drug
and alcohol testing, the commuter rule, and they have proposed
now new regulations on repair stations and aging aircraft. The
cumulative cost to Alaska-based carriers is in the millions of
dollars. Despite all of these mandatory regulatory compliance
items, the accident record in Alaska has not changed.
PenAir took an inventory of the airports we serve, 2 years
ago, and compared the accident and incident data relating to
substandard airports. We made a difficult business decision to
discontinue operations at several locations. This left a few
small communities without options for air transportation. We
did it because we realized the risk operating into those
unimproved airports was not worth a potential accident.
Recently, the airlines and other user groups met with State
and Federal agencies to draft a 5-year plan of infrastructure
projects, system changes and recommendations to improve safety
in Alaska. Seven major issues were a minimum of 3,300 feet of
runway length with lights, and minimum shelter for the
passengers, all-weather approach and landing capability,
availability of weather information, communication navigation
systems, weather cameras, and support of Capstone, and very
important, a stable aviation workforce.
The Aging Aircraft Safety Act mandated the FAA to implement
rules requiring engineering data that would forecast structural
failure in aging aircraft and further apply that data to
inspection programs. The Alaska air carriers and PenAir both
support the regulations that improve airplane safety.
Implementation of this regulation, however, will not provide a
level of safety that is measurably better than provided by more
feasible means. If the rule becomes regulatory, it will have a
devastating effect on aviation infrastructure in Alaska.
AGE 60 RULE
The current proposed legislation by Senator Frank Murkowski
to extend the retirement age to 65 is a rule we believe would
benefit nearly everyone. The flying public would benefit by the
greater experience level on the flight deck, pilots would
benefit from their ability to select their time of retirement,
airlines would reap benefits of a lower pilot turnover rate,
and retention of their most experienced pilots.
This year, PenAir will lose two pilots, including me,
directly related to the age 60 rule. Indirectly, our company
has an annual turnover rate of about 25 percent within our
pilot ranks. However, the loss would be less if the major
carriers were not experiencing a rash of vacancies as a result
of this forced retirement. The military would also benefit by
less pilot turnovers in the airline industry.
Experience is still the most important criteria for hiring
pilots at PenAir. We operate in Alaska, and we have no choice
but to fly in the most demanding conditions and under onerous
geographical challenges.
When I first came to Alaska to fly for PenAir I had 2,000
hours of flight time. All of my previous experience consisted
of training. I was either getting trained, or as a flight
instructor, training others. I could ace any written test, pass
any flight test with ease. However my first year of flying in
Alaska was an education in itself. I found myself saying many
times, boy, I will never do that again. After hundreds of
never-again mental notes, I had a year under my belt, and a
little experience.
I have been fortunate enough to have flown in Alaska for 30
years, and accumulated over 30,000 accident-free hours. Many
pilots are not as lucky. A study by the State labor economist
confirms my personal experience. Her 1997 study confirmed that
pilots with less than a year experience contributed the most
pilot fatalities on the job.
The general health of Americans has improved over the last
40 years, and most people are working to an older age. The
median age of the Nation's workforce has risen from 28 in 1970
to 39 today. Even Social Security is raising the retirement age
to 67.
Most people I know would prefer to have a little gray hair
in the front seat, particularly when the flying conditions are
not ideal. Maybe they say that to spare my feelings, but I do
not think so, because I feel the same way.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope the age 60 rule is amended
to 65. I fully believe it would be beneficial to everyone, and
would help reduce the pilot shortage we face today.
Aviation in Alaska is an integral part of the daily
economic and social fabric of our State. Ever more restrictive
and expensive operational equipment requirements force carriers
to make business decisions that are not market-driven, but are
regulatory compliance-based.
The FAA continues to force carriers that have reached a
financial and operational threshold of using larger turbine-
powered equipment to pay a compliance penalty to operate that
equipment. At the same time, operators of smaller,
reciprocating engine equipment do not have the same regulatory
compliance cost structure. The cumulative effect is to drive
operators toward increased utilization of old technology, while
exposing the traveling public to a greater risk.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The industry needs relief from well-meaning but misdirected
regulatory proposals that accomplish little, or are of
substantial cost. We do not expect to undo the mistakes like
the commuter rule, but we would like to see one-size-fits-all
regulations addressed to meet Alaska needs. You, Senator
Stevens, provided the FAA a vehicle with recent regulation that
allows the Administrator to consider Alaska's unique
requirements. The Administrator still needs your guidance on
how to apply this regulation. We also need your help in
bringing Alaska into the 21st Century. We will never have the
highway system provided to the Americans in the Lower 48, but
Alaskans deserve an aviation infrastructure equivalent to that
road system, one that provides the same safe, reliable
transportation system as our fellow Americans.
And thank you for letting me speak today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Harding
ALASKA AVIATION ISSUES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Good afternoon Senator Stevens, members of the committee and
members of the public. Thank you for providing this opportunity to
inform you of critical issues affecting commercial aviation today. My
name is Richard Harding and I'm speaking to you as past-president of
the Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA) and as General Manager of
PenAir, an Anchorage based company with 45 aircraft, 98 pilots and 425
employees. I have been a pilot all my life and have accumulated 30,000
accident free hours over 30 years in the industry. At times I still fly
the line, although my commercial flying will come to an abrupt halt in
5 days because of an unjustified and antiquated rule. The FAA rule does
not consider the value of my lifetime experience or good health. I'll
talk more about the Age 60 rule in depth later. But, before that, I'd
like to discuss aviation safety and Alaska's accident statistics,
recent regulatory initiatives, the Commuter Rule, the condition of
Alaska's airports and Aging Aircraft.
SAFETY FIRST
First, let's talk safety. The State of Alaska consistently has a
significantly higher accident rate than the rest of the country and,
anybody remotely involved with aviation in Alaska is acutely aware of
that fact. The Federal government has invested millions of dollars into
FAA funding through new regulations, increased oversight, and
initiatives including a new approach to ``dictating'' and how the
industry will operate ``more safely.'' We've seen times of heavy-handed
enforcement practices by the agency and have experienced the pendulum
swinging the opposite direction to accommodate and work with carriers.
The sad reality is what the FAA has done has only minimally improved
the safety record in Alaska; and the safety rate today is the same as
it was 15 years ago.
REGULATORY INITIATIVES
Over the past 15 years, the FAA has implemented the following major
regulatory changes: (1) mandatory installation of GPWS on turbine-
powered aircraft with 10 or more seats; (2) mandatory installation of
TCAS on turbine-powered aircraft; (3) elimination of the allowance of
15 minutes flight to VFR conditions; (4) Part 135 flight crewmember
training to Part 121 training program standards; (5) drug, and alcohol
testing and training for aviation vendors' employees; (6) equipment
installation requirements for single-engine IFR operations; (7)
``commuter rule'' conversion to Part 121 operations for single-engine
aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats; (8) NPRM 99-09 Repair
Stations, and (9) NPRM 99-02 Aging Aircraft. The cumulative costs to
Alaska based air carriers has been in the millions of dollars. Despite
all of these mandatory regulatory compliance items, the safety record
in Alaska has not changed significantly.
THE COMMUTER RULE
In 1995, we felt the biggest and most onerous rule to ever hit the
industry was the ``Commuter Rule.'' It has been nearly 5 years since
its effective date with little or no change in the industry's safety
record--while there has been a documented decline in service in parts
of Alaska. Where 10-19 passenger twin turboprops with two pilots in the
cockpit were once used, they have now been reduced to 9 passenger seats
with a single pilot. The results for those who completed the changeover
are higher operating costs, higher ticket fares, and those who didn't
change over have more exposure to risk through increased numbers of
takeoffs and landings. Certainly, the move back in time to older,
single-engine piston-powered aircraft vs. the more reliable and safer
twin and single engine turboprops is not progress.
In 1995, the FAA passed a rule that required Part 135 10-19 seat
aircraft to transition into more restrictive and expensive Part 121
operation rules. Only two companies made a successful transition into
Part 121, PenAir and Frontier Flying Service. Three others that made
the transition, Taquan Air Service (Air One), SouthCentral Air and Yute
Air have either gone out of business or into bankruptcy. In effect, the
rule took many of the newer, more technically advanced aircraft out of
operation and literally set Alaska aviation back 25 years.
FUNDING
We have experienced a slow improvement in runway conditions over
the years because of an increased investment of federal dollars. We
need to increase the number of dollars to get airports up to minimum
service levels. Investments in Alaska's aviation infrastructure are
such a slow and arduous process because of the bureaucratic process of
the FAA, the value of much needed improvements isn't something we can
count on in the near future, with the exception of Capstone.
We all understand the different operating culture and
infrastructure of Alaska transportation as compared with the Lower 48.
Most of the Alaskan commuter fleet is composed of single-engine
aircraft flying VFR. Aviation takes the place of a road system
infrastructure throughout most of Alaska's bush, and it always will.
The cost of building and maintaining a half-mile of airport is much
less expensive than building and maintaining roads between villages.
AIRPORTS
Speaking of airports, two years ago, PenAir took inventory of the
airports we served and compared accident and incident data relating to
substandard airports. We made a difficult business decision to
discontinue operations into several destinations. This left a few small
communities without options for air transportation. We did it because
we realized the risk operating into those unimproved airports wasn't
worth the potential costs involved with an accident.
The conditions at our rural airports are only one of several topics
I would like to discuss today. All of the subjects, however, address
safety and offer recommendations for reducing accidents in Alaska.
Recently, the airlines and other user groups met with state and
federal agencies to draft a five-year plan of infrastructure projects,
system changes and recommendations to improve safety in Alaska. The six
major recommendations of the ``Alaska Aviation Coordination Council''
were; (1) publicly owned airports, a minimum of 3,300 feet in length
with runway lights and minimum shelter for passengers; (2) all weather
approach and landing capability; (3) availability of weather
information; (4) communication and navigation systems; (5) weather
cameras; and (6) very importantly, stable aviation work force. The
estimated cost to bring Alaska's airport system up to these minimums
statewide was estimated to be $265 million over the next 5 years.
AGING AIRCRAFT
Congress initiated the Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991 (AASA) in
reaction to an accident involving an older Boeing 737 in Hawaii. The
Act mandated the FAA implement rules requiring engineering data that
would forecast structural failure in aging aircraft and further apply
that data to inspection programs. The manufacturers of the types of
aircraft involved in the accident that precipitated this Act of
Congress have already addressed the aging aircraft issue. Of the
remaining light twin-engine aircraft used in commuter service, a
disproportionate amount of these aircraft are being operated in Alaska.
Operators in Alaska, including PenAir, rely heavily on light twin-
engine aircraft to provide the aviation infrastructure necessary to
serve Alaska's small communities that are totally dependent upon air
transportation. Implementation of this rule would eliminate light twins
and force carriers (those that survive the economic loss of their light
twins) to revert to single-engine aircraft. Most single-engine aircraft
in Alaska are older than the light twins, and most cannot fly IFR,
which will in turn create a less safe environment for the public.
Please note that accident statistics show that in Alaska, single-
engines have six times more accidents than twin-engine aircraft.
In Alaska, the light twin engine aircraft we fly are primarily the
Piper Navajo, and the Cessna 402. Neither has been manufactured since
1983. It is not practical or economically feasible for the manufacturer
to provide the design data necessary for engineers to create the
information required to establish damage-tolerance-based inspections
and procedures. Under the current NPRM, expanded inspection procedures
apply damage-tolerance inspection criteria. Considering that this NPRM
is directed toward aircraft designed under FAR 3 and FAR 23, it
effectively requires re-engineering of the airframes.
In addition to the lack of design information availability, the
National Air Transportation Association (NATA) estimated the cost per
air carrier to be approximately one million dollars per aircraft type.
The only result of the new regulation will be the elimination of light
twin aircraft in Alaska, not increase safety.
The AACA and PenAir both support regulations that improve airplane
safety. Implementation of this regulation, however, will not provide a
level of safety that is measurably better than provided by other more
feasible means. The Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1991 did not mandate
the FAA require operators to re-engineer entire fleets of operational
aircraft, and the Act did not mandate the FAA to ground them. There is
no mention in the AASA of damage-tolerant inspection criteria. There
are other measures available to ensure the continued airworthiness of
aging aircraft for the remainder of practical service life, such as
implementation of additional age sensitive maintenance procedures
requiring progressive inspection programs, tailored to each affected
type, and incorporation for planned obsolescence provisions.
Damage tolerance inspection procedures are inappropriate for
retrofit inspection programs. There is no need to expand the scope and
detail of inspection criteria for PenAir. To place this burden on each
air carrier to develop its own program, including damage tolerant
inspection criteria for each type of aircraft the air carrier intends
to operate in the future, is not practical nor economically viable. The
proposed aging aircraft regulations, as currently written, are
unnecessary and cumbersome.
If the rule becomes regulatory, it will have a devastating effect
on the aviation infrastructure in Alaska. The most critical safety
concern with older aircraft fleets, and the most immediate concern, is
the individual airplane's history of damage, repair maintenance and
alterations. A progressive inspection plan such as Approved
Airworthiness Inspection Program, designed by certification engineers
and airworthiness inspectors incorporating increasingly stringent
requirements as the aircraft ages, would identify fatigue problems
before they affect safety.
Grounding fleets of aircraft in Alaska will enhance neither safety
nor serve the public interest. The regulation needs to be modified to
allow reasonable inspection programs an opportunity to address the
aging aircraft issue.
AGE 60 RULE
The Age 60 Rule is not a new idea, as the very first FAA
Administrator, Elwood Quesada, introduced it during his term and on
March 15, 1950 it took effect requiring mandatory retirement for pilots
as they reach age 60 even though neither scientific studies and/or
medical documentation ever supported this rule. Overwhelming opposition
was presented and only after the rule had taken effect was a study
undertaken to examine critical issues. The study was performed by the
FAA in the early 60's but later abandoned by the agency before final
results were made public. In 1969, an independent report was
commissioned and completed, but again results were never made public.
In 1979, a Navy study of pilots and their long-term health
histories was performed on one thousand aviators. The FAA reviewed the
study but concluded it failed to provide an adequate basis for revising
the Age Sixty Rule.
Congress became interested in the issue and directed the National
Institute of Health (NIH) to do research on the viability of the rule
and they were tasked with substantiating the reasons pilots were
retired at sixty. A panel was convened outside the authority of the FAA
and that panel ``expressed doubts about the need for all pilots to step
aside at age sixty.'' Subsequently, the panel recommended initiation of
a comprehensive study focusing on selected captains over sixty.
After reviewing the NIH report, the FAA issued two notices of
proposed rulemaking (NPRMs). First, the agency suggested extending the
Age Sixty Rule to include flight engineers and the second proposed a
test program for selected pilots over sixty. This mirrored exactly what
the NIH had suggested. Two years later the furor died down and the FAA
quietly dropped the proposal.
The current proposed legislation by Senator Frank Murkowski to
extend the retirement age to 65 is a rule we believe would benefit
nearly everyone. The flying public would benefit by the greater
experience level on the flight deck. Pilots would benefit from their
ability to select their time of retirement. The airlines would reap
benefits by experiencing a lower pilot turnover rate and retention of
the most experienced pilots in the system.
Of course, no issue is without opposition. Those that wouldn't
benefit from a rule change are the young pilots on the fast track to
the left seat. Certainly the rule would delay them back, which in
actuality would provide a quiet benefit by allowing them more time to
gain valuable experience.
This year PenAir will lose two pilots, including myself, directly
related to the Age Sixty Rule. Indirectly, our company has an annual
turnover of about 25 percent within our pilot ranks. However, the loss
would be less if the major carrier's weren't experiencing a rash of
vacancies as a result of this forced retirement. The military would
also benefit by less pilot turnovers in the airline industry.
Last year, for the first time ever, we lost a 48-year old pilot to
the majors! And, I'm amazed to hear some carriers are now hiring pilots
over 50. On the opposite end of the spectrum some majors are now hiring
pilots with less than one thousand hours. In contrast, at PenAir, we
won't even consider employing pilots with such a low experience level
to fly our five-passenger airplanes. We used to give hiring preference
to pilots without a four-year college degree because we knew the
airlines weren't interested in them, but that is not true anymore.
Experience is still the most important criteria in hiring pilots at
PenAir. We operate in Alaska and have no choice but to fly in the most
demanding conditions and onerous geographical challenges. On an average
day we have ``poor'' weather reporting and operate within strict
limitations because most airports have only VFR capability and many of
the airports we depend upon have sub-standard runways.
When I first came to Alaska to fly for PenAir, I had 2,000 hours
listed on my employment application. All of my previous experience
consisted of training. I was either getting trained or training others
as a flight instructor. I could ace any written test and pass any
flight test with ease. However, my first year flying in Alaska was an
education in itself. I found myself saying many times, ``Boy, I'll
never do that again.'' After hundreds of ``I'll never do that again''
mental notes, I had a year under my belt and a little experience. I
have been fortunate to have flown in Alaska for thirty years and
accumulate over 30,000 accident free hours. Many pilots aren't as
lucky. A study by state labor economist Taktha Lukshin confirms my
personal experience. Her 1997 study confirmed that pilots with less
than one year experience contributed to most of the pilot fatalities on
the job.
The general health of Americans has improved over the last forty
years and most people are working to an older age. The median age of
the nation's workforce has risen from 28 in 1970 to 39 today. Even
social security is raising the retirement age to 67.
Most people I know would prefer to have a little gray hair in the
front seat, particularly when the flying conditions aren't ideal. Maybe
they say that to spare my feelings, but I don't think so. I feel the
same way.
CONCLUSION
I sincerely hope the Age 60 Rule is amended to Age 65. I fully
believe it would be beneficial to everyone, whether they know it or
not, and would help reduce the pilot shortage we face today. Aviation
in Alaska is an integral part of the daily economic and social fabric
of our state. Evermore restrictive and expensive operational and
equipment requirements force air carriers to make business decisions
that are not market-driven, but are regulatory compliance based. The
FAA continues to force air carriers that have reached the financial and
operational threshold of using larger, turbine-powered equipment to pay
a ``compliance penalty'' to operate that equipment. At the same time,
operators of smaller, reciprocating-engine equipment do not have the
same regulatory-compliance cost structure. The cumulative effect is to
drive operators toward increased utilization of old technology while
exposing the traveling public to greater risk.
The industry needs relief from well meaning but misdirected
regulatory proposals that accomplish little or nothing but add
substantial costs. We don't expect to undue mistakes like the commuter
rule but we would like to see ``one size fits all,'' regulations
addressed to meet Alaskan needs. You, Senator Stevens, provided the FAA
a vehicle, with recent regulation, that allows the Administrator to
consider Alaska's unique requirements. The Administrator still needs
your guidance on how to apply this regulation.
We also need your help to bring Alaska aviation into the 21st
century. We will never have the highway system provided to Americans in
the lower 48; but, Alaskans deserve an aviation infrastructure
equivalent to that road system that provides the same safe, reliable
transportation as their fellow Americans.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. We appreciate it,
Dick.
Tom.
STATEMENT OF TOM WARDLEIGH
Mr. Wardleigh. Thank you, Senator Stevens and Mr. Young. It
is a pleasure to greet you here. I just returned from New
Zealand. I did not have time to prepare a written dissertation,
but the one thing I noticed is that user fees were instituted
in New Zealand in 1987, with general aviation exempt from those
fees.
However, in January 1999, those user fees were applied to
general aviation in that country. It is my personal
observation, after visiting several airports there, that Mort
Plumb hosts more general aviation at the Lake Hood airstrip
than the nation of New Zealand has. I commend you for
protecting us so far from user fees and other things that would
just put the lid on general aviation.
Addressing safety directly, Alaska has a unique mix of
topography and weather that makes it extraordinarily demanding
to serve airports like Dutch Harbor and St. George Island, St.
Paul Island, Ketchikan, Juneau, Wrangell, Petersburg, and so
forth. Retention of experienced pilots is going to be a
critical factor in improving any safety record in the Yukon
Delta, Kuskokwim area, anywhere that we have been consistently
going into the mining business with aluminum bits, which just
does not work.
I believe that through your efforts, the University of
Alaska has a fine plant facility. They are capable of training
resident Alaskans, people born and raised here, people who want
to live in the rural communities, and serve those communities.
One of our apparent problems is a lack of gainful employment
opportunity in the small communities of rural Alaska. Being a
professional pilot, even a ticket agent or a dispatcher or a
weather observer is certainly an attractive alternative to not
doing any of those tasks.
I urge that politically we get together with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, with the unemployment people and the Federal
Government, any source of funds that will enable us to bring
young people in from graduating in rural high schools, train
them to useful careers in aviation at the University of Alaska,
perhaps protect them a little bit from the city environment
when they first get here, enable them to have a productive life
in aviation, and become a PenAir pilot working for Dick, and
stay at PenAir, rather than going to the worldwide air carriers
or other, more lucrative jobs.
I believe some stability and some lesser accident rate
could improve the insurance rates, make the companies more
profitable, and make the people in the communities a little bit
more comfortable when they ride in a small airplane from place
to place, and when their athletic teams go from village to
village to just play basketball.
Mort mentioned a problem with seaplane adequacy here in the
Anchorage area. There is a possible opportunity for the State,
and with some political influence, the railroad. The Alaska
railroad had a large gravel pit at Eklutna, Alaska. One of the
local construction firms even created a proposed plan to make a
good, safe, seaplane base in that old gravel pit.
Unfortunately, it had just been Eklutna Village
Corporation. They had a vote whether to support the
accommodation of seaplanes or to keep it as it is, and with the
population of 27, the vote was 14 to 13 to not have a seaplane
base there.
It is my feeling that if an attractive land exchange
program could be created, perhaps those people would exchange
that land, where it could become very convenient. It is in a
very sheltered wind area, and would in fact make a fine
reliever seaplane base for the communities of Eagle River and
Palma, and Anchorage.
We are concerned not so much for safety, but for
utilization of the air space over national parks, refuges, and
other Federal domain in the State of Alaska. We notice, for
instance, that the park service employees use gravel bars and
rudimentary strips, but they discourage the general public from
using them.
At the present time, we have got a tentative agreement with
the park service at McKinley to continue the McKinley air strip
in service for the foreseeable future, or, quote, until a
suitable replacement is identified. That air strip was used
recently for medevacs and service to people in need, as well as
just the tourist population. We feel that access to that park
should not be restricted to just those people who are able to
walk and who have the time to walk. There are handicapped folk
who can see Mount McKinley in no other way than getting in an
airplane and viewing that majestic piece of real estate. We
hope that you can intervene with that.
We notice that the insurance availability can be a business
deterrent. Right now, there is considerable flux in the
availability of commercial insurance for aviation purposes. I
do not exactly know how the Congress can fit in that, but
hopefully there can be found a way to make affordable insurance
available land, of course, the key to that is stop having
accidents. The key in my view to stop having accidents is have
more proficient, skilled pilots and more conservative
management who will tell them, you may not take that flight
under certain conditions.
We recognize that the FAA is basically air carrier
oriented, because the air carriers serve the huge bulk of the
national population, but we urge that it stay close to the
administration, to Mrs. Garvey and her successors, so that
Alaska's unique needs can be met. One size did not fit Alaska
any better than a sharpei dog's coat, and not many of them run
in the Iditerod.
I would suggest that our Anchorage population reading the
letters to the editor recently has lost sight of the fact that
Anchorage International is one of the most unique and
beneficial airport sites in the whole world, to my knowledge.
We have three flight paths from those runways that go over
water. They do not imperil people's houses, residencies. They
do not make a lot of noise.
The thought of moving a large airport into the Susitna
Valley would preempt a great deal of livable land by virtue of
the noise and the approach and departure paths. I believe Mr.
Plumb has a tremendous challenge to develop that beautiful
airport site successfully and skillfully, and sell it to the
population of Anchorage, who benefit by the fact that 747's
full of fuel oil do not fly right over the middle of town on
take-off most of the time.
I join you in the issues already mentioned about aging
aircraft. We still have a 1929 Traveler in commercial service
here in Alaska. It seems to be doing fine. I would hope that
the FAA's enforcement program--and be reminded of the original
language of the enabling act that said, and to regulate in the
interest of safety. We get the feeling that some of the
regulation goes on just because the law is the law is the law.
We would like to have some direction to their legal department,
and to their enforcement people. Focus it on safety. Make the
regulation in the interest of safety come to life.
And thank you for this opportunity.
Senator Stevens. Thanks, Tom. Glad you got back in time.
Felix Maguire.
STATEMENT OF FELIX MAGUIRE
Mr. Maguire. Senator Stevens and Congressman Young, ladies
and gentlemen, it is an honor to be able to speak before you
this afternoon.
I am president of an association that is a State-wide
association that is 1,200 members scattered throughout the
State with regional directors in Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai, and
Bethel, so we keep an eye out on most things around the State
for general aviation.
Personally, I have been the chief pilot for AT&T ALASCOM
for the last 20 years, and I have flown into most villages
throughout the State, and I do so on a regular basis, so I am
very familiar with the structure of the State.
There are six points I wanted to mention this afternoon.
Number 1 is that the 5-year strategic plan that has already
been mentioned, we are very supportive of that. It came out of
an initiative when people gathered together and had
communicated well and shared well their vision and their
feelings for the future, and there is a good sense of vision in
that strategic plan.
The only thing that I personally would disagree with is
that it asked for runways of 3,300 feet, and I think we should
go for 4,000. The reason I say that is because, when I started
flying here 25 years ago, and in the first 10 years I flew a
King Air, and I kind of was the first one to fly a King Air
around for a while, and then the King Air started to catch on
and we started moving from piston airplanes to turboprops, and
by the end of my 10 years of flying that King Air and we sold
it and replaced it with a Cessna Citation, we noticed other
people flying King Air's, and even the airlines were flying the
Beech 1900's, which is the stretch version of the King Air.
I have flown the Citation now into gravel strips all over
the State, and even took Citation into Chungnak, which kind of
surprised them that a jet would get in there, and the movement
is that the older airplanes are not being replaced. They are
not making any more Navajos, so gradually we are going to move
to turboprops, and then we are going to move to jets down the
line, and if we are looking in the next century, then we have
to look to providing runways that are capable of taking those
airplanes.
I was able to do most of my stuff on the part 91 and land
on runways that are 3,000 feet, but if Dick Harding is to use
the Citation in and out of a strip he will have to have 4,000
feet to meet the requirements of part 121.
The next issue I mention is whether we had a system here in
Alaska that was working very, very well, called LABS, and the
FAA provided that system, and we could get weather on that, and
it was available very cheaply on a commercial basis. It was not
Y2K-compatible, so it was taken away and replaced with a system
called DAWN. The only problem with DAWN is that DAWN is an
internal system. The FAA will not let the public use that. They
have this tremendous system, but they use it for themselves
only, and I do not see the rationale in the FAA gathering
information from the National Weather Service and then hoarding
it to themselves and not letting it available to the public. If
this system could be put on the Internet, then we could all
have this information, even if we have to pay for it.
The commercial systems that are out there at the moment are
not as good as DAWN. They are not as good as the LABS
situation. They do not allow you to have collectives. If you
want the weather, if you are going from here to King Salmon,
you have to get the weather for Barrow and every other place,
so it is a waste of paper and time, and is not as efficient as
the LABS system was.
The cameras are a great contribution to the State, and we
thank the Senator for his getting the first appropriations to
try out the first cameras, and it took us a while to get the
FAA to do that, but now that we have got them, everybody sees
the advantage of having cameras throughout the State, and we
look forward to having a camera in every pass as well as at
some of the remote locations where we do not have a human being
to report the weather.
Flight service stations are still a concern. You have
already mentioned the fact that the flight service station in
Ketchikan is short-staffed, and it has to do, at that post has
partially to do with the fact that the flight service station
personnel are grade 10's. Those at the FASS are grade 12's, and
so everybody who is in the flight service station wants to move
to an FASS and get extra pay.
In the meantime, with the shortage, an FASS person comes to
Ketchikan to fill in. They are not only getting two grades
higher in pay, they are also getting per diem, and that
destroys the morale of the flight service station, so people
want to leave the flight service stations and go away.
There is no training facility in Oklahoma for flight
service stations as they are today. The equipment is outmoded,
and for some reason the FAA is adamant that training has to
take place in Oklahoma and not on-site. If they would train
people on-site in Ketchikan and Sitka and Dillingham and
Barrow, then we would not have the shortage. We could train
local people to do that, and we would be able to employ perhaps
the Native residents to work at the flight service stations.
Maintenance is a concern of navigation facilities
throughout the State. The FAA in the last month has decided to
centralize maintenance in Anchorage, so all the people who
maintain things out of Juneau or Ketchikan, Barrow and so
forth, are all going to be centralized in Anchorage.
I work for a corporation that tried the same thing. AT&T
brought all their technicians in from the bush and put them all
here in Anchorage, and found themselves in a real bind when
something went out, such as ADAK went off the air 3 months ago,
and the only way to get somebody out there--you cannot fly them
out commercially because there is no weather available.
You cannot charter an airplane because the charter cannot
go without weather available. The only thing they could do was,
they fortunately had a corporate airplane that flew under part
91 that could go out and take a look-see.
The FAA does not have a part 91 airplane in the State of
Alaska, and we know how difficult it is to get into Juneau on
most days, and if we have to get a technician down to Hoonah or
to Haines to fix a beacon, then the difficulty of getting them
from here to Juneau is the first step, and then to get them the
other way. So I think it would be a retrograde step and a
depreciating of service if FAA centralizes the maintenance in
Anchorage.
The Capstone project is a great project. We support that,
but we see that even though it is a 3-year experiment within 3
years, if it is a total success, it will take at least 20 years
before this is implemented Nation-wide. In the meantime, Bethel
is a bad spot without radar, and each year we encourage the FAA
to put radar in Bethel since 1987.
They have approved it each year, and each time it comes
round to appropriations it gets killed, because the
appropriation is based on the number of passengers who move
through the terminal. The number of passengers moved through
Bethel could be all put on one 747, or two 747's, in one day,
and that is inadequate to justify the place to have radar.
If we counted airplanes instead of passengers, the movement
of aircraft would justify the radar, and I think an exemption
should be made on how we justify the radar in Bethel and go
ahead and put it in. The radar could be in and up and working
in 2 years, whereas the Capstone project equipment will not be
working for at least 20.
Senator Stevens. 20?
Mr. Maguire. I would think, by the time we get around the
whole Nation, everything that would have to be done to use this
as a national project. This is an experiment that is going on,
the Capstone, and it is going to be very successful, but by the
time you get every aircraft equipped, and every center equipped
with the radar, the ADSB to read this stuff, and you need
radars around and facilities to pick up the ADSB, it is going
to take a longtime to implement the whole thing as a national
program, and the way the FAA works, and the way the
appropriations work, it will take time, and that is not hitting
them or saying there is anything wrong with them. They are
doing the best they can, but they are severely limited by their
funding.
Aging aircraft is a problem. It will force us back into
single engine airplanes, and single engine airplanes have more
accidents than twins, and we know we have not been successful
even though we have had single engine IFR approved. Not many
are doing it because of the extra equipment they have to carry
on the airplane. If we force people out of the aging aircraft,
then we are going to force them back into singles.
Generally, airplanes start out in the Lower 48, and in
Europe, and they run 10 years, and we see them for the second
wind up here in Alaska, so to speak, and then after we are done
with them they might end up in some third world country, but we
do not get many new airplanes into Alaska, and if they are
going to interpret the regulations to deprive us of the use of
the current, every 737, every airplane that ERA has over there
will go away. They are Conairs, they are twin Mortons, they are
all Morton 10 years, 14 years old. They will all disappear. It
would be an intolerable situation for the State.
The last thing I would like to mention is the Ketchikan
corridor, seeing as how you brought it up. What I was told
precipitated the Ketchikan Corridor was a new ILS that was
asked for by Alaska Airlines and other airlines, an ILS 2, and
it reduced the minimums from 1,000 feet down to 500 feet, and
it was the fact that they would come down to 500 feet, that
they would be too close to the people going out in the
corridors.
I find it hard to believe that after all these years
somebody has brought that up as an objection, because even if
you fly the normal ILS down to 1,000 feet, at some point you
are going to be at that same point of 500 feet as you go in,
and you are going to be at that in VFR conditions if you are
flying the ILS 1, and people can fly past you.
If it is down to 500 feet, they will not be flying down the
corridor, so I do not know why FAA is making this such a big
problem. The exemption is good, the separation is sufficient,
it has worked well for 20 years, let us keep it going.
Paul Bowers brought up the idea that the FAA is kind of
locked into with the airports of improving the safe areas
around the airports rather than improving the runway. There is
a similar thing happening with PAPI's and VASI's. Those are the
lights and the approaches to runways. PAPI's our international
standard. It is the IKO standard, and they are warning us to
put those in all our runways because it is the IKO
international standard.
VASI's work much better in Alaska, because if you come
downwind at Fort Yukon and you turn base and you can see the
VASI, you know whether you are high or low. You cannot tell on
a PAPI until you are lined up straight with the runway whether
you are high or low. A VASI is a much better indicator and
safety device for Alaskans than a PAPI, and just because it is
national policy to go with PAPI's and its IKO does not
necessarily mean that we have to go that way in Alaska, and
that is one of the problems again.
For your own home town, Congressman Young, from Fort Yukon
down to Circle and down to Eagle, you cannot fly a small
airplane down there, I discovered to my horror, because the MOA
is now down to 100 feet in that area, and we are trying to work
with the military so that we can get a corridor between Fort
Yukon, Circle, and Eagle, so people can go down there at least
to 2,000 feet safe altitude, especially in the summertime when
we have people coming visiting Fort Yukon.
But it is an unprecedented time of cooperation that is
going on at the moment. We are sitting around tables, we are
talking to each other, Tom, from the Safety Foundation, the Air
Carriers Association, the military, the FAA, the DOT, and we
have been working so well together in this last year, it has
been very refreshing to see that everybody is willing to speak
out, and nobody is afraid to say certain things, and yet
everybody is cooperating to make things better, and that is
part of what led to that 5-year strategic plan.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I congratulate them for doing that. I congratulate both of
you for inviting us here this afternoon, for having our say.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Felix Maguire
Good afternoon Senators and members of the committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to present some comments on the major issues affecting
aviation in Alaska and their impact into the 21st Century. My name is
Felix Maguire and I am president of the Alaska Airmen's Association,
which is non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and
enhancement of General Aviation through education and safety. The
Association has more than 1,200 member Statewide. It has its
headquarters in Anchorage and has regional Directors in Fairbanks,
Juneau, Kenai and Bethel. We work closely with all other civil aviation
organizations, including AOPA, as well as the Military and State and
Federal Government Agencies to preserver and enhance general aviation.
MAJOR ISSUES
Five year strategic plan.--We have worked with the above
organizations to produce the Five Year Strategic Plan for Alaskan
Aviation as proposed by the Ad-hoc Alaska Aviation Advisory Committee.
This proposal is the result of all agencies, civil and government,
gathering together and communicating openly with concerns for the best
interest of aviation in our State. We whole-heartedly endorse its
recommendations concerning: (1) The lengthening of runways to a minimum
of 3,300 feet and providing safe shelter at every airport; (2) All
weather approach and landing capabilities; (3) Availability of weather
information; (4) Good communication and navigation facilities; (5)
Weather video cameras; (6) A stable aviation work force. This vision
for the future will meet many of the safety needs at the airports
throughout the State. Our inter-model transportation system relies
heavily on Marine transportation in the SouthEast, Road and Rail in
South Central, and totally on Aviation in the North, the West and
SouthWest. In a State where the infrastructure is so different from the
rest of the United States, we emphasize that Aviation is the lifeline
to the outside world for most Alaskan villages.
Weather information.--The installation of AWOS and ASOS has
replaced many human observers throughout the State. Weather continues
to be a major factor in aviation accidents in Alaska. The introduction
of Video Cameras has been the greatest enhancement to weather reporting
in the past 15 years. We encourage more use of this technology and
greater availability to the public. The availability of weather and
NOTAMS through such systems as LABS enabled users to access vital
safety information before flight. LABS was discontinued this year as
not being Y2K compatible. The replacement system, DAWN, is not
available to the public. It is for FAA in-house use only. Other
commercial systems are not as good and very costly. Why can't the FAA
make DAWN available to the users via the Internet? It does not make
sense for the FAA to hoard the information and give it out piece meal
by phone or on DUATS. LABS provided for collectives. For example if an
aircraft were flying from Fairbanks to Ketchikan, LABS would give
weather at the appropriate airports en-route, Anchorage, Cordova,
Yakutat, Juneau, Sitka as well as winds aloft and forecast. Using
current commercial systems, the pilot gets the weather for every
station in Alaska, using more paper and wasting time and energy. The
FAA gets good information from the National Weather Service but is not
making this available to the general aviation users. Why?
FSS stations.--These are the backbone for distributing information
and weather in our State. The specialists at FSS are Grade 10 while
their counterparts at AFSS are Grade 12. The AFSS has more
sophisticated equipment but the FSS personnel are hard to replace.
There is no scheduled training for replacements and after a year at an
FSS the specialist inevitably moves on to an AFSS for the higher grade
of pay. Ketchikan has been on reduced service for a year now awaiting
replacements. Temporary replacements come from the AFSS, get higher pay
plus per diem, and this breaks down the moral of the FSS staff.
Consequently, we the users suffer from shorter hours of operation;
staff with less experience as the longer serving ones leaves. If this
continues the FSS will close due to staffing shortages and the users
will lose a valuable safety net.
Maintenance of facilities.--The FAA recently proposed to centralize
its maintenance for the State in Anchorage. I was Chief Pilot for AT&T
Alascom for twenty years here in Alaska and saw that company go through
the same cost cutting exercise. There were several instances that will
be paralleled by the FAA when trouble hits. The communications earth
station at ADAK went off the air three months ago. All scheduled
aviation came to a stop, as there was no weather reporting available
and no ATC frequencies in operation. The island was isolated.
Maintenance could not travel on a Charter, as there was no weather.
Fortunately, the company has a corporate aircraft that operates under
Part 91. We were able to fly to Dutch Harbor, fill up with fuel and
then proceed to Adak for a ``look see.'' Being part 91 we were able to
land and get the maintenance technician to repair the Earth Station.
The FAA does not have as part 91 aircraft in Alaska so what will it do
if a critical navigation system goes down. We know how difficult it is
to get into Juneau some days even with all systems working. We
encourage to FAA to rethink this policy as long as there are ground-
based facilities. In the middle of the next century, if we have only
Satellite based non-ground facilities, then the technicians could be
centralized.
Future planning.--I came to Alaska in 1974 as an Air Force Pilot
and since then I have noticed the great improvement in many airports
and a deterioration service by the FAA. This is in part due to a plan
that implemented to replace FSS stations and weather reporting with un-
tried automatic equipment. Future plans should not be implemented until
the replacement systems are proven to be successful. Our Association
fully supports the Capstone project that has so much promise for the
future. At the same time we know that it will be some twenty years
before it is all refined and ready for operations use everywhere. In
the meantime, Bethel needs its radar. The radar has been approved for
installation in Bethel every year since 1987 and each year it gets
dropped for lack of funding. The measurement used that counts
passengers passing through the airport is unsatisfactory. Two B.747's
could carry all that travel in one day so the FAA drops the requirement
for Radar. If they used the number of aircraft movements, they would
find Bethel is a busier airport than of the lower 48 airports. An
exemption needs to be made so that Bethel gets the Radar that is
necessary to provide more safety. The record of radar being introduced
at King Salmon shows that the flow of aircraft increases with the
introduction of approach radar.
Aging aircraft.--Twenty years ago I flew the first King Air around
the state. Others were flying Navajos, and Cessna 402 as well as a
myriad of single engine aircraft. Over the ten years of flying the King
Air other started flying similar aircraft. In 1989 we switched to a
Cessna Citation V. The runways were improving and the Citation 560
could handle gravel and short runways of 3,000 feet. This is a part 91
operation. To use the aircraft for Part 135 or Part 121, a longer
runway would be required. The trend has been from Piston twins to
Turboprop, and in the future it will lead to jets. There are no piston
twin being made that would replace the aging Navajos and others. In
Alaska, we tend to get the second-wind aircraft; those that have been
used for ten years in the lower 48 and Europe appear in Alaska. When
they finish their time here they go on to Africa and other less
developed countries. The new NPRM would kill the aviation business in
Alaska. Surely, the intent was to prohibit failures such as the B.737
that came apart in Hawaii. This NPRM will force Alaskans back into
single engine aircraft. They have a worse record for safety and mainly
fly VFR. The result would be a retrograde step for Aviation.
Better communications, cooperation and interchange of ideas is a
necessary ingredient for the future. I thank you for allowing us to
express these thoughts and hope that you will be able to consider the
special needs of a State that depends so much on aviation.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Ken. Ken Acton.
STATEMENT OF KEN ACTON
Mr. Acton. Thank you, and good afternoon, Senator Stevens,
Congressman Young, and the public. Thank you for holding this
hearing in Alaska, and so close to those of us who are directly
affected by the issues of commercial aviation.
I would like to address three fundamental issues and two
emerging issues for the future. In the same manner that many of
the challenges facing Alaskan aviation are not new, I would
like to suggest that some of the first issues for the future
are not new, either, namely, any future demands and
accommodation of Alaska aviation will still include reliance on
a handful of fundamental requirements, and they are, available
weather information, reliable airport facilities, and
consistent FAA oversight and support of the industry.
I believe both the weather and the airport facilities have
been addressed prior to my time, so in the interest of time I
will not dwell on those. I would like to reinforce the issues
that Mr. Bowers brought up and Dick Harding brought up and
Felix brought up, all about the Alaska aviation, the 5-year
plan and the minimum standards for airports.
I would also like to endorse the comments, the previous
comments about alternative and more weather sources. This is
the single best way that we can improve aviation safety in
Alaska, is the expansion and the increase in the number of
weather sources throughout the State.
The third fundamental need that I mentioned was the need
for consistent FAA oversight and support of commercial
operators. My business allows me to work with several operators
and with several FAA representatives, and I have discovered,
along with my clients, that there are certain patterns that
impede both the FAA and commercial operators from maintaining
an open working relationship. The three most common patterns
are the lack of accessibility of assigned FAA inspectors for
their oversight and support, the instability of inspector
assignments, and the inconsistent interpretation of FAR.
I believe these patterns that exist between operators and
their assigned inspectors are indicative of a much larger
pattern, and Dick Harding mentioned it earlier, specifically
the well-intentioned FAA initiatives for safety that we have
seen in the last 10 years have not significantly improved the
safety record of Alaskan aviation. What we need instead are
consistent, stable, and predictable expectations from the FAA
that will help create the trust and the cooperation that will
strengthen safety, service, and compliance.
Several speakers prior to me have mentioned Capstone, and
I, too, would like to endorse Capstone, and mention it as
illustrative of the need for these three fundamental issues in
the future, namely, when we look at the system, I mean, it is
an exciting system, and I cannot think of a better model for
the theme of this hearing, you know, the issues of the 21st
Century, and when we look at the ingredients of how it works,
being able to download weather into the cockpit, being able to
tell where you are and have that communicated to the other
airplanes, that is all great, but still we understand the
importance of the fundamental needs, one, the importance of
state-of-the-art weather services, and more of them; second,
reliable airport facilities as aircraft operate in an IFR type
operation into many of these locations; and third, broad
support and participation, which can only occur with an open
and trusting relationship between the regulators and the
aviation users.
I did mention that I would like to bring up two issues that
I see as emerging issues in the future, the first of which is
an increased need for responsible risk management on the part
of and by the initiative of operators, incumbent on the Alaskan
aviation industry and individual operators to create better
risk management and safety systems for its operations.
Increased market competition and the experience level of the
pilots flying in Alaska require this.
Without specifically defining a model, or defining what
would be the best program for all, I think the need defies
that. Rather, I think we can identify qualities of good risk
management that are appropriate to rural Alaskan aviation.
Initial and recurrent training programs should include
aeronautical decisionmaking not only for pilots, but for
management as well.
It is time to recognize and respond to the fact that the
corporate culture of operators influences the safety of flight
operations, and that this culture can be trained and managed.
The second quality of good risk management is the
incorporation of increased two-pilot experience and revenue
flight operations. I am not suggesting doing away with single-
pilot operations. I am simply suggesting that operators need to
pay more attention to the quality control of the pilot in the
cockpit. This would include programs that require new-hire
pilots to fly in revenue line operations with experienced
pilots prior to assignment in single-pilot operations, and
especially during marginal and winter operation and flight
conditions. This also includes routine company checks of line
pilots throughout the year.
The last quality that I would like to identify of good risk
management systems in the future are the need to make the go
no-go decisions of operators, to define them in procedural
terms. I am speaking of the decisions surrounding specific
flight assignments and their release for flight. PenAir has
demonstrated leadership in this area by developing a model for
flight release that is not only participative between
management and pilots, but it also is defined in qualitative
terms.
The FAA needs to encourage and support the efforts of
operators to define appropriate risk management for their
operations. I do not believe that the FAA should regulate a
one-size-fits-all model for such programs, and I was pleased to
hear Mr. LaBelle say that as well. I would agree with what
Felix said, that the industry, the operators, general aviation,
and the regulators have a relatively good long-range planning
atmosphere right now.
What I do believe is that operators are in a better
position to create appropriate risk management measures for
their own operations, but they need resources, training and
support to do so, to design these systems.
The last issue I will address is changing patterns of
scheduled air service in Alaska. We are all familiar with the
established pattern of large aircraft serving mainline routes
to hub cities, and small aircraft serving bush village
destinations.
As we experience more competition, improvements to our
airway and airport infrastructure, there will be greater
pressure to support different types of aircraft and route
structures than we have seen in the past. We are already
experiencing pressures from the passenger, freight, and mail
markets that will blur the line separating large mainline
aircraft on given routes versus small aircraft on other routes.
The introduction of the commuter rule in 1995 is one example of
regulation that inhibited the improvements to service and
safety, and reinforced this two-class system of scheduled air
service. I believe our future will include and require the use
of more midsize aircraft in the creation of nontraditional
route structures. While both small and large aircraft will
diminish, they will also still be represented in several
markets. In other words, the market will be much more complex,
and it will be nice to think that the regulatory environment in
the future will not only be flexible enough but also
accommodate and support these changing patterns in scheduled
service.
In closing, the challenges of maintaining a safe and viable
commercial aviation industry I think will depend on improving
airway and airport infrastructure, the cooperative efforts
between FAA and the industry to address safety and compliance,
and the regulatory environment that supports appropriate
service to the Alaskan market.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you very much. I will be submitting written comments.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEN ACTON
Good afternoon Senator Stevens, Congressman Young, members of the
committee, the panel and the public. Thank you for holding this hearing
in Alaska and close to those of us who are so directly effected by
commercial aviation. I have worked in the Alaskan aviation industry for
21 years in administration and training. In that time, I have worked
for Part 121 and part 135 carriers in rural Alaska, have served on the
board of the Alaska Air Carriers Association, and been a consultant to
the industry. I would like to speak in behalf of the issues of rural
Alaska aviation and many of my clients, including the interests of Part
135 operators, both scheduled and on-demand, and the markets they serve
including Alaska communities as well as on-demand off-airport flights
for the tourism, recreation, and sport fishing and hunting industries.
INDUSTRY CHALLENGES
We all know that aviation is the essential transportation link in
rural Alaska, and we also know that rural Alaska is a demanding flight
environment. There is a limited airport and airway infrastructure. The
weather is harsh and often unpredictable. Most airports consist of
small, unpaved runways that are subject to varying year-round
maintenance requirements. There are few options for IFR flight. The
nature of the market and its economy of scale dictate the use of small
aircraft in VFR operations. The flight activity can be intense with the
industry currently supporting some 300 certificated operators in the
State of Alaska. And finally, because of the nature of the commercial
pilot profession, rural Alaska operators attract low time pilots who
are unfamiliar with the area and its unique requirements.
RESPONSIVE EFFORTS
Most of these industry challenges are not new, nor have they been
ignored. There have been several responsive efforts to the challenges
of creating and maintaining a safe and affordable air transportation
system in the State. The automated weather reporting systems, both AWOS
and ASOS, have been a welcome addition. We have seen a continuing
program to upgrade and improve many rural Alaskan runways. The Capstone
project is an exciting and promising plan for improving airway
capabilities. And the mail transportation policy supports the presence
and viability of scheduled air service at reasonable cost.
Indeed, many things are working very well, and we all share a debt
of gratitude for the support and leadership of the congressional
delegation.
I would like to address 3 fundamental issues and 2 emerging issues
for the future.
FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS OF THE FUTURE
In the same manner that many of the challenges facing Alaskan
aviation are not new, I would like to suggest that some of the first
issues for the future are not new either. Namely, any future demands
and accommodation of Alaskan aviation will still include reliance on a
handful of fundamental requirements: available weather information,
reliable airport facilities, and consistent FAA oversight and support
of the industry.
WEATHER INFORMATION
Weather information is essential. Unfortunately, most aviation
accidents in the State of Alaska are weather-related. The availability
of reliable and more weather information is the single best way to
improve the flight environment and it is the most repeated concern of
the industry. The automated weather stations, both AWOS and ASOS, have
significantly addressed the need for increased weather information. The
``mike-in-hand'' program and the addition of ``flight cam''
installations help pilots and operators see an even broader picture of
the weather. The industry supports all of these systems. Simply put,
the availability of reliable weather reporting systems in multiple
locations will remain a fundamental requirement for maintaining a safe
flight environment in Alaska's, future. We need more weather reporting
locations. We need a variety of source information.
RELIABLE AIRPORT FACILITIES
Maintaining reliable airport facilities is the second fundamental
need I would like to highlight. The State of Alaska with FAA capital
investment continues to upgrade and improve the runways in rural
Alaska. We would all like to see it happen sooner than later.
As we enter the 21st century, most of our runways are still short,
unlighted, and unpaved, and are subject to mud, ice, and drifting snow.
One of the highest levels of Part 135 flight activity occurs in the
Yukon-Kuskokwim delta where 70 percent of the runways are under 2,500
feet in length and many are unlighted. And even though the Alaska
Supplement may describe the surface of these runways as gravel, we know
that in several locations that means the best fill material which was
readily available, which is often a coarse river silt. We need runway
improvements to bring our airports up to at least the minimum standards
identified by the Alaska Aviation Coordination Council.
We also know that we cannot always rely on future capital funding
of runway improvements. In fact, capital funding is a small part of the
long-term equation. Runways, navaids, and automated weather systems
come with the price of maintenance. The State of Alaska and the FAA
both face budgetary constraints that seem to directly effect the
response time of runway and airport facility maintenance. Reports of
unreliable or irregular airport facilities are often first reported by
users and not by the providers. VFR pilots and operators have learned
that you often have to ``go see for yourself'' because the accuracy of
some of the AWOS/ASOS systems and the reliability of some runway
maintenance has not been proven. Unfortunately, this puts all of us
right where we don't want to be; namely it invites operators and pilots
to ignore some of the intended support systems for flight ops
decisions. We need definitions and criteria for reporting facility
outages and predictable response times for their repair. And we need
reliable runway maintenance.
Another part of our airport facilities include the flight service
station system. The current flight service station system is still
functional, but the regional aspect of the FSS system lacks sensitivity
to the local flight environment. This is particularly true in areas
that require operations under special VFR flight rules of FAR 91.157.
Let me give you a recent example. Class E airspace was recently
extended down to the surface area in both Aniak and Saint Marys. This
has made for a safer flight environment when the airspace is
accommodating both IFR and VFR flight activity simultaneously. However,
these flight conditions represent less than 10 percent of the daylight
hours and introduces control of a VFR flight environment without any
local presence. Prior to these new airspace procedures, all airport
traffic participated in the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF)
procedures. Under the new airspace classification whenever the ceiling
is less than 1,000 feet and 3 miles of visibility and regardless of any
IFR flight activity, the VFR pilots must obtain special VFR clearance
from the Flight Service Station in Kenai to operate into and out of
these runways. This includes having to wait for a landing clearance
while holding in the vicinity of mountainous terrain in marginal
weather, especially in Aniak. The remote control of VFR flight arrivals
and departures at these airports does not include a sensitivity to the
flight conditions nor the presence of ATC to encourage broad
compliance.
Alternatively, there was a time when both Saint Marys and Aniak had
the equivalent type of airspace (a control zone) but it was only
activated when an IFR approach was initiated. This seemed appropriate
to the level of mixed VFR and IFR flight activity and in lieu of any
local ATC personnel in these locations. Outside of the times of active
IFR flight activity, the airspace was uncontrolled and the traffic
relied on use of the CTAF.
At the end of the day, and on the threshold of the 21st century, we
need improved airport facilities and some assurance that these
facilities will be reliably maintained and appropriately administered.
FAA OVERSIGHT AND SUPPORT
A third fundamental issue for future operations is the need for
consistent FAA oversight and support of commercial operators. My
business allows me to work with several operators and with several FAA
representatives, and I have discovered along with my clients that there
are certain patterns that impede both the FAA and commercial operators
from maintaining an open and working relationship. The three most
common patterns are (1) The lack of availability of assigned inspectors
for oversight and support, (2) the instability of inspector
assignments, and (3) the inconsistent interpretation of FAR.
Accessibility of FAA certificate inspectors can be difficult.
Operators are sometimes stymied in their efforts to obtain requested
Ops Specs changes, required check rides, or simply a request for FAA
guidance due to the absence of their inspector. Many inspectors work a
4-day work week, are often assigned to training or other administrative
duties, or are simply unavailable for unexplained reasons. In such
cases, other inspectors can seldom respond to a specific operator's
request and the operator must wait until their assigned inspector
becomes available. Commercial operators must necessarily rely on
assigned FAA representatives to conduct operations and the operators
need to rely on the FAA's availability as well.
There has also been a pattern of apparent random reassignment of
inspectors to commercial operators. In the past three years, I have
several clients who have had as many as three and four inspectors
assigned to their certificate oversight in less than 12 months. In fact
some inspectors have been assigned to operators and subsequently
reassigned to new operators without any introduction or exchange
between the operator and the inspector. This pattern seems to be
especially prevalent among the smaller operators.
Any re-assignment of inspectors can quickly reveal a third pattern
and that is the inconsistent interpretation of FAR across different
inspectors. As a result, regulatory compliance matters rather than
safety or service can dominate a commercial operator's management. A
lot of my client workload consists of helping operators respond to
varying interpretation of FAR due to inspector re-assignments.
These patterns of oversight between operators and inspectors are
indicative of a much larger pattern. Specifically, the well-intentioned
FAA initiatives for safety that we have seen in the last 10 years have
not significantly improved the safety record of Alaskan aviation.
Consistent, stable and predictable expectations from the FAA will help
create the trust and the cooperation that will strengthen safety,
service, and compliance.
CAPSTONE
I would like to briefly mention the Capstone project to illustrate
my concern for the first three fundamental issues I have addressed.
Capstone offers some real promise for increased aviation safety with
21st century technology and an appropriate governmental response to the
theme of this hearing. When we look at the ingredients of its systems
and how it will work, we are reminded that our future will still
require: (1) state-of the art weather services, (2) reliable airport
facilities, and (3) broad support and participation which can only
occur with an open and trusting relationship between FAA and the
aviation users. Capstone will highlight and increase the demand for
these basic Alaskan aviation needs.
INDUSTRY RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
There are two more issues for the future that I would like to
address. The first of which is an increased need for responsible risk
management on the part of operators. It is incumbent on the Alaskan
aviation industry and individual operators to create better risk
management systems for its operations. Increased market competition and
the experience level of pilots flying in Alaska require it. Without
specifically defining these systems, we can identify a few qualities of
good risk management that are appropriate to rural Alaskan aviation.
Initial and recurrent training programs should include aeronautical
decision making for both pilots and managers. It is time to recognize
and respond to the fact that the corporate culture of operators
influences the safety of flight operations and that this culture can be
trained and managed.
A second quality of good risk management systems is the
incorporation of increased 2-pilot experience in revenue flight
operations. This includes programs that require new hire pilots to fly
in revenue line operations with experienced pilots prior to assignment
in single pilot operations, especially during marginal and winter
flight conditions. This also includes routine company checks of line
pilots throughout the year. I know of several operators who have
incorporated these qualities into the training and management of their
pilots and have acquired greater confidence in their own flight
operations, and have earned the respect of the public, regulators, and
their insurance underwriters.
The go/no-go decisions of operators, that is, the decisions
surrounding specific flight assignments and their release for flight,
need to be defined in procedural terms. Penair has demonstrated
leadership in this area by developing a model for flight release that
is not only participative between management and pilots, but is also
defined in quantitative terms.
The FAA needs to encourage and support the efforts of operators to
find appropriate risk management systems for their operations. I do not
believe that the FAA should regulate a one-size-fits-all model for such
programs. Operators are in a better position to create appropriate risk
management measures for their own operations, but they need resources
and support to do so.
The interests of the industry and the public will benefit when
operators procedurally define risk management systems and make them the
priority they deserve in their daily operations.
CHANGING PATTERNS OF SCHEDULED SERVICE
The last issue I will address is changing patterns of scheduled air
service in Alaska. We are familiar with the established pattern of
large aircraft serving mainline routes to hub cities, and small
aircraft serving bush village destinations. As we experience more
competition and improvements to our airway and airport infrastructure,
there will be greater pressure to support different types of aircraft
and route structures than we have seen in the past. We are already
experiencing pressures from the passenger, freight and mail markets
that will blur the line separating large mainline aircraft on given
routes versus small aircraft on different routes. The introduction of
the ``Commuter Rule'' in 1995 is one example of regulation inhibiting
improvements to service and safety and reenforcing this two-class
system of scheduled air service. I believe our future will include and
require the use of more mid-sized aircraft and the creation of non-
traditional route structures. While the use of both small and large
aircraft will diminish they will also still be represented in several
markets. Service and safety will be enhanced if the regulatory
environment accommodates the changing patterns of scheduled air
service.
SUMMARY
In closing, the challenges of maintaining a safe, viable commercial
aviation industry in rural Alaska will depend on improving the airway
and airport infrastructure, cooperative efforts between FAA and the
industry to address safety and compliance, and a regulatory environment
that supports appropriate service to the market. Thank you for the
opportunity to express these issues. I will be happy to answer any
questions and will be submitting written comments for the record.
Safety improvement trend
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Don, do you want to
go first this time?
Mr. Young. Thank you, I want to go back to what I said
before about the efforts put forth, especially Mr. Harding and
Mr. Wardleigh. You have been around here a long time. The
percentage of accidents now, today, with all the advantages we
have, was that the percentage improved, or is it about the same
as what it was, say, 25 years ago?
Mr. Harding. One of the things we do not have is an actual
accurate number of flight hours for 135 operations. It is not
required for people to report that. We do not. We know there is
an increase in aviation activity, and we know that the accident
rate has been level, so we can say there has been some
improvement, but we do not what that number is in actual hours
flown in 135 operations.
Mr. Young. This is another thing that I am seeking here, if
anything is, you know, we are supposed to be for safety and not
for regulation for just regulation's sake, and that is my
philosophy and always has been. That is one of my biggest
concerns over the years is, we pass regulations because it is
the thing to do, but in result we did not become any safer, and
you know, I may be incorrect in this, but when I first started
flying up here 40 years ago, we had a pretty good safety
record. We had a lot of experienced pilots, by the way, even
then, and if I go back to the 9010, one of our biggest
concerns, and I am glad to hear we are getting more local
people into the flying, a lot of the pilots, as you well know,
come up here to get their hours in to go back outside. Those
first hours, I think you mentioned it, and you mentioned it,
you know, those first hours are the period of time we have the
most accidents, and I still think that is what we should be
addressing, is the pilot involvement in the accidents, more so
than anything else. I do not know how we do that. Maybe we are
addressing it.
But you talk about gray hair, I can remember one thing, I
went to New York about 3 years ago and jumped in a cab, the
worst ride and the biggest scare I ever had in my life. The guy
was from Russia, had been here 6 months, driving in New York.
Now, think about that a moment. Some of the time you get in
these airplanes and you see somebody in the airplane that has
got nice--he is a young fellow, good guy, wants to do well,
find out he has not been flying in Alaska but about 3 weeks.
That bothers me.
Now, this is for the industry to think about. I think that
is something you have to address.
As far as the 60-year-old, Mr. Harding, I happen to agree
with you on this 100 percent. The problem is, you have some
people within your industry that are flyers that do not agree
with you, that they do want the age of retirement at 60 years
old. If we were to change that, I think the only way we could
possibly do it would be for Alaska only. I want you to know
that there are certain people that are flying within the unions
that do not like the idea of changing that retirement age. I
like seeing that gray beard and the gray hair to make sure I
have got somebody with a little experience in that seat.
So you can comment on that. As far as the air space goes
over national parks, we are addressing that issue every day. I
am not terribly confident, under this president and
administration, that they believe as we do. We think the law is
on our side, but it is going to be maybe a big battle. We hope
we can win on that one.
DAWN SYSTEM
I want to ask one question, Mr. Maguire, on the DAWN deal.
Why can we not use that? I mean, are they saving----
Mr. Maguire. What they say is that if somebody gets into
the DAWN system they can get into the FAA's whole system, and
then they might be able to do some damage within the FAA
computer system.
Mr. Young. But that information was available under the
other system, was it not?
Mr. Maguire. It was available, but you know, in this age of
computers, I do not see why a fire wall could not be put in
that you can go in and find the weather and not go beyond that.
The way it was explained to me was that if you got in that you
might be able to alter something, or change something that may
be bad for the country.
But at the same time, I can go into the military one and I
can get the weather from the military for Elmendorf or even the
airports over in Bosnia if I want, and they do not seem to be
concerned about the security, but the FAA seems to have tighter
security requirements.
Mr. Young. Well, I think that is something the Senator and
I can look into, because if the information is there and
improves the safety factor, to me it is ridiculous not to have
that information available for you. That does not make sense to
me.
Mr. Maguire. It does not make sense to us, either.
Mr. Young. Senator.
AGE 60 RULE
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. You know, on the age
60 rule. I agree with Don, it is going to be very difficult to
deal with. We do need to keep the retirement age in
perspective, however, because one of the great problems right
now is to attract more people into training, younger people
into training, and that is one of the reasons that they say
they want the old ones out so that there are opportunities for
new ones to come in. It is a very difficult problem.
Mr. Young. Will the Senator yield just for a moment?
Senator Stevens. Sure.
Mr. Young. I think I am correct, I was flying with a 59-
year-old person the other day on a major airline, and he
informed me that in 2 years time 60 percent of the existing
pilots today will have to retire by the year 2002. Now, who are
they going to replace them with? Now, that is something we had
better think about.
Senator Stevens. I was going to get to that. Our statistics
show that the demographics of society are such that if the
older pilots cannot fly, we will soon not have enough pilots to
keep our commercial lines going. It is a very difficult problem
to deal with.
OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT
Dick, my staff tells me you have got this innovative
program now, ORM, operational risk management, which the Army
started sometime ago. I am told you are the only commercial
carrier of any class that has instituted the concept. I think
we need to know, for the staff and all of us, what is PenAir's
risk management program, and should we try to make it apply
outside of Alaska to the aviation industry?
Mr. Harding. The operational risk management system is
something we have developed. We started with doing risk
assessment of runways, putting a numerical value on them, and
when they got to a certain risk factor we would quit operating
there, and that is how we discontinued serving some of them.
We met with the military, and we were talking to them, and
they said, you know, we have this RM program. We had the worst
helicopter safety record in the world, and 6 years after
adopting this program we went to the best, so that kind of
caught my attention, and I plagiarized everything they had,
rewrote our program, and we have one now for our 135 and our
141 operation.
Senator Stevens. Could I interrupt you, please? They have
given me an emergency message. If Dr. Robert Alberts is in the
audience, would you please step out into the lobby.
Thank you very much, Dick.
Mr. Harding. Anyway, we have taken the program, and before
a pilot leaves the home station he has to fill out a piece of
paper, it takes about 15 to 30 seconds to do it, it gives him
two things. One is an awareness of the risk involved in that
particular flight, and the other one, when it gets to a certain
point, it gets management involved, and this is one of the
biggest problems we have in Alaska, is getting operational
control, getting the managers--I cannot fly with every pilot in
Bethel and King Salmon all the time, so I have to rely on them
working in that area to make the decisions, and with this
operational risk management it gives us an opportunity to, with
higher risk flights to get involved in the decisionmaking of go
or no-go, and we have been doing it for about 2 years now and
it has been very successful and, of course, the pilots had
first fought it because pilots are not paper-oriented people,
but after they realized that it has taken some of the
responsibility away from them and sharing it with management
they endorse it now.
Senator Stevens. Anyone else talked to you about using the
system?
Mr. Harding. We have had quite a few carriers in Alaska,
and I have had several major carriers from outside Alaska that
have inquired, and I have sent them a copy of the program also.
Senator Stevens. Have you shared that with other carriers?
Mr. Harding. Yes. Any other carrier that is interested in
that, we are willing to share it. If we can lower the accident
rate of other carriers it is to our advantage, too. We would
like to see less accidents in Alaska, and I think this program
is probably the most cost-effective accident-reducing program
that we could possibly come up with. It does not cost anything.
All we have to do is, it takes a little time to fill out a
piece of paper.
Mr. Young. Senator, can I ask just one question? When you
say accident, are you talking about all accidents, on ground,
in the air, landing, take-off and such? You know, maybe a pilot
runs into a pylon, or something like that. Is that considered
an accident?
Mr. Harding. An accident has got a very narrow definition
in the part 830 of the regulation, and from the time he starts
his take-off, taxiing, to the time he pulls to a complete stop
and stops the airplane it is considered in-flight, and that is
considered an accident at that time, if he does a certain
amount of damage.
STATE OF GENERAL AVIATION IN ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Tom, what is the situation here now in
terms of the state of the general aviation community? I have
already said my great respect for you as an instructor, because
you were able to get me certified after 4 days. That is pretty
good. But Young says he is still not going to ride with me
unless you are there. But is the state of aviation generally in
Alaska healthy? Should we be as concerned as we are about these
safety statistics we are hearing?
Mr. Wardleigh. Senator, you certainly should be as
concerned as you are. In our review of the past 18 years or so
of the Safety Foundation's activities, nothing much as changed,
and we see the key to reducing accidents as better information
and better understanding by the pilot. We endeavor to change
that through research and public education.
We are trying to teach, for instance, the basketball teams,
do not wear jeans and sneakers if it is 40 below and you are
going to ride in a Cessna 206 to play a game. Everyone has to
be responsible for their own safety, and that includes the
doctors, dentists, lawyers who leave here on Friday afternoon
to go catch a trout some place.
They cannot blame the weather service if the weather is
different from the forecast. They cannot blame the FAA. The
weather that is most important--I was one of the strong
supporters of the weather cameras, and of keeping the flight
service stations that you facilitated in remote Alaska, but
really down to the nitty gritty, the weather that is important
to you is what you see through the windshield. It does not
matter what the forecast is. When Felix and I are out flying
together, if we cannot cope with what we see through the
windshield, we had better have an alternative plan to go some
place else and do something else.
One of the concerns that I see facing general aviation in
Alaska right now is the EPA's mandate that we stop using leaded
aviation fuel, 100 low lead. As recently as yesterday I talked
to the Shell Oil Company engineer in charge of these projects.
They have not yet produced a substitute fuel that is free of
lead that will allow us to operate the thousands of aircraft
engines in Alaska, the pistons, the old round and flat engines
that are so common in our recreational activities and in our
air taxi activities.
Right now there is an ethanol fuel that is being assessed,
and all you have to do is change the pistons to cam shafts to
cam followers in the valve seats in order to make it compatible
with your flat engine, and there is no way that those folks
with the big round engines, like Northern Air Cargo, can ever
realize the service they need from their engine if we must in
fact go to unleaded fuel with the present state of research.
Senator Stevens. Well, back when I was a kid in order to
increase the performance of engines we put more lead in it.
Can't you add lead to some of these other products?
Mr. Wardleigh. Well, you can, but that does not meet the
EPA requirement that it be lead-free. At the present time there
is only one source of aviation fuel lead. That is a tiny little
factory in England that is still making the stuff. There is no
other source any more.
Senator Stevens. What do you think, Mr. Maguire--what do
you think about the state of aviation right now, Felix?
Mr. Maguire. I think generally it is fairly healthy. I
think there are more people wanting to get back into it. The
numbers have gone down. The numbers of pilots qualified have
gone down.
I think one of the problems we have--and I hate to say this
with Dick sitting here--is what Congressman Young brought up
about the young pilots coming up here and getting some
experience and leaving, and I think that is partly because we
do not pay them very well in Alaska.
Our air carriers are living on the bread line, and because
we do not pay them well, they do not stay. They make bigger
dollars somewhere else. So that is an industry problem, I
think. They have to reconcile, if they pay them more, then how
are they going to make enough money off a ticket to pay for
that.
LAKE HOOD FLOAT PLANE CAPACITY ISSUES
But the general aviation, I think it is reasonably healthy.
There is still 120 people out on the waiting list at Lake Hood
to get a float plane spot, and it is still taking 15 or 16
years to get a spot out there, so we do need another facility
somewhere to cope with that.
Senator Stevens. Is there a plan for that?
Mr. Maguire. There is not, no.
Senator Stevens. Mort, have you gone? Did Mort leave? It is
too bad we did not ask Mort that.
Mr. Maguire. One of the problems, there was a plan some
years ago to build some more float plane slots at Lake Hood,
but the area they picked, unfortunately they found when they
did some dredging that all the rest of the water of the rest of
the lake would drain out through it and it would go, because it
does not have a proper chalk base, so they decided not to touch
that.
Senator Stevens. Well, let me ask all of you, do we need
another location in this area? I am told we have about half of
the float planes in the United States up here now. Do we need
another location away from that general large airport for the
float planes?
Mr. Maguire. Well, we feel that we do because of the
congestion that is over there. Anchorage International is very
congested with Lake Hood traffic, Merrifield traffic, Elmendorf
traffic, and Anchorage International traffic altogether.
Another facility would be good. However, everybody likes
the fact that it is downtown and it is out there in Lake Hood,
and everybody would give that first preference.
Mr. Young. Let us go back to the Clinton project, though.
That is not that far away, and if they were willing to sell
them for exchange, that might be the most--I would say the most
logical area to have one.
Mr. Maguire. There are a limited number of aircraft
available, so even if--you know, if somebody wants an airplane
they have to probably buy one that is already out there. There
is not too many new ones coming into the State.
Mr. Young. Mr. Maguire--can I ask a question, Senator?
Senator Stevens. Sure.
Mr. Young. Or all of you, and I am saying this because it
is important. You say everybody is sitting down and talking and
working for a solution. That was your statement. Does that
include the FAA?
Mr. Maguire. That does very much include the FAA, but they
are hamstrung a little bit, you know. You must realize that the
structure of the FAA is such that the local administrator does
not have much clout.
Mr. Young. Well, this is what I am--with all due respect,
this gentleman has a lot of clout. I like to think I have got a
little clout, and I will have a little more if I get where I
think I am going to go, and I think it is ridiculous for them
to say this is the way we are going to do it, we do not care
what the local administrator says, but we are going to do it
because we are God.
We are trying to look for safety, and if there is a better
way of doing it other than one-shoe-fits-all, I think that
ought to be--the reason I asked Mr. Poe is there enough
flexibility, if he does not have the flexibility, then I would
like to write something to give him the flexibility so we can
achieve what we are seeking, that safety, and have our
consumers without paying an arm and a leg, get from A to B, and
I think that can be done, you know.
Mr. Maguire. Well, my impression is, it is like any major
corporation that has a headquarters out of State, and different
department members, as willing as they are, they report to
somebody in Washington, DC, not to Pat Poe. They report to
somebody back there.
Mr. Young. You mean within the Alaska region they do not
report to Pat Poe, they report to Washington, DC?
Mr. Maguire. They report to somebody in Washington. I am
not FAA, but that is the impression I get from them.
Mr. Young. We have to work that out somehow.
Senator Stevens. No, it is an administrative management
rather than substantive management concept that they have got.
Can I go back now, chief--do you understand what I am
saying? They have a substantive line, and the control--I went
through that with them once before.
PLANNING FOR ALASKA'S FUTURE
Let me ask you this. This intrigues me to think about
trying to find another place that would be equally almost
successful to the Lake Hood location, where we might get
additional float plane capability. Do you have any suggestions
to us? God willing, we hope to outlive Strom Thurmond, you
understand that. But we are probably not to do it by too much.
We have only just so much time in these positions we have, and
God willing, and Alaskans--I am not supposed to say these
things, probably, but you know, we have 8 to 10 years where the
three of us have positions that Alaska will not see for another
50, at least, probably.
Now, what should we be doing is to try and make sure that
when we leave our watch we have the best state-of-the-art
system in aviation. What are we missing? What should we be
working on to set in motion plans that take 5 or 6 years to
come to fruition? Have you given that any thought?
What does general aviation, what does commercial aviation
need in Alaska to be really the state-of-the-art, top-drawer
transportation system we need for the next century?
Dick, what do you think?
Mr. Harding. The strategic plan that we put together, that
5-year plan was put together by all of us. We all did get
together on that.
Senator Stevens. Did it think out that far?
Mr. Harding. Yes. It is 5 years, at least 5 years ahead.
Senator Stevens. What is missing? What have we not done in
it?
Mr. Harding. Well, we get down to the smaller things, like
the float plane, we do need another facility for float planes.
As great as Mort Plumb has--the more he does for drawing cargo
to International, the more it leans on the general aviation out
there and squeezes us out, and it is going to push us further
and further away, because they call the shots. The large
carriers call the shots at International.
They bring in all the money, so general aviation gets
pushed aside a little bit, and we need to protect that, and I
think if we could develop a lake out at Birchwood, I think that
would be great, as Tom said, the one at Eklutna, if you could
use your influence to get that lake for us, that would be
great.
Senator Stevens. Is the summary of the 5-year plan similar?
My staff says they have got it. I have not seen it. Okay. Tom,
have you got any suggestions?
EKLUTNA FLOAT PLANE FACILITY
Mr. Wardleigh. Well, I would like to speak to the Eklutna
situation. It is a half-flooded, tidally influenced termination
of the Eklutna River, which is a salmon-carrying river, and the
plan that we proposed some years ago would put a dike in the
form of a wheel strip right at the tide line where the clay
breaks into the inlet to protect the float plane pond.
You could then dredge a rather large pond that would
accommodate a large number of seaplanes, have an operating
strip essentially parallel to the runway, and by lining the
pond with gravel you would enhance the salmon-spawning
available area and by diking the thing and monitoring the
height of it you would inhibit the inflow of the salt water, so
you would keep the whole system fresh, it would be noncorrosive
to the floats.
And essentially the Birchwood and Eklutna area lies in the
eye of the tornado, where the winds come out and spin around
Matanuska and the Kenick Glacier and just blow like the dickens
across Palma and Wasilla. There is an area of calm winds most
of the time at the Birchwood Airport and the Eklutna gravel pit
area.
It just is an ideal sanctuary if some agreeable land
exchange could be made to get the land made available. I doubt
that the intertribal politics of the Eklutna Tribe will ever
facilitate that. I do not know, but it is difficult and
cumbersome. If the State could own the land, it would
facilitate accomplishing what is needed.
Senator Stevens. Okay. That is a good alternative. Anyone
else make any comments?
Mr. Acton. I would echo Felix's statement about the 5-year
plan, too. I mean, that statement about what constitutes needs
for the future. That has been a collective effort, anyway,
articulated by a collective effort.
The other thing that comes to mind, Senator, is more
adherence by the FAA to accommodate the unique needs of Alaskan
aviation. When we see new initiatives, new NPRM's, new HBATS,
whatever came out from the FAA, it is not always recognizable
that there is recognition of some of these unique needs, and
more so, I do not think that that necessarily gets communicated
down to the level that most directly affects operators, and
that is the relationship between an inspector and an operator.
You know, I mentioned in my comments that there is a
reassignment of inspectors. That is routine and to be expected,
but seemingly in the last few years there has been quite a bit
of it, and with some frequency, and many operators will simply
get a new set of inspectors assigned to oversight of their
operation, and find that everything that they have been doing
and have been previously approved is now needing revision. Now,
that makes no sense to me.
Mr. Young. What you need is a manual that is consistent.
Mr. Acton. Consistent, stable, and simple.
Mr. Young. Not changing because the personnel changes.
Mr. Acton. Correct.
LACK OF TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
Senator Stevens. One of the difficulties we have is trying
to convince the rest of the country of the fact that we have no
highways. Not only do we not have Federal highways, we have
very few State highways. We have very few local highways that
join communities, and we are dealing with a system that
replaces an infrastructure that covers a whole series of areas
that are substantially supported by other programs.
The highways funds, the assistance to States, the urban
grants, the HUD grants, all of those things that come into play
that affect transportation systems in the south, we see very
few of those. We are trying our best, I am trying my best to
make certain some of that money comes in to us to meet our
unique needs, but it is a very difficult thing to organize a
transportation system based upon one support group that works
out of a fund that is committed and primarily supports the
commercial world.
Our general aviation is not looked at the same way as the
people who drive--husband and wife each drive a car to work in
Washington, DC. If we had a husband and wife flying different
planes in Alaska, the difference would--you would see that
acutely, because the assistance those two get, highway funds,
local funds, police, all types of insurance coverage, et
cetera, that is not available to the people flying up here, is
just two different worlds, and to find money to finance our
world is the problem. I am still working on that, and I think
we have got to find some way to do it.
The Postal Service is probably the area where we have the
greatest example of the Federal Government trying to meet our
needs. They currently lose about $125 million a year in their
operations up here. Everywhere else is operating on a plus
basis, because it is a nonprofit, really not federally
subsidized system now. But we have to find some way to get some
more money to this stream. I think we are going to keep up the
development of this concept, and I would welcome your
suggestions along those lines.
Do you have any other comments, my friend?
DISTANCE PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE
Mr. Maguire. Senator, if I might just--one of the thoughts
that occurred to me, with the maintenance that I mentioned,
that they are going to centralize maintenance in Anchorage, if
supposing in Washington, DC, the runway lights go out and they
have to bring somebody from as far away as Chicago to fix them,
they might get a sense of how far people have to go from here
to Ketchikan to fix the lights. They might understand a little
bit better, because that is about as far as people will have to
go if they centralize all the FAA maintenance in Anchorage.
If a light goes out in Barrow, it is like sending somebody
from Wichita all the way over to Florida to fix the lights.
Senator Stevens. I fought that problem with the Coast Guard
once. Do you know they moved all the maintenance systems down
to Seattle, and when they started paying overtime to send
people out to Cold Bay, they learned, and it has been
readjusted. It will not take long for people to understand they
cannot finance that system.
Mr. Maguire. But with the limited funds it will be wasted
in the meantime.
Senator Stevens. Yes. Well, let me thank you all for taking
the time to come. By the way, Pat, you are still here. Anything
we have said that you want to defend yourself on or comment on?
Mr. Young. We have been fairly nice. I can tell you that
right now.
MAINTAINING AN ACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH FAA
Mr. Poe. No, Senator. I think I agree with a lot of what I
heard. I think the only thing I would punctuate is the fact
that there is an active dialogue.
Senator Stevens. Well, it is to your great credit, my
friend. I think there is a different attitude here in the FAA,
and I can remember coming home and having meetings with the
Airmen's Association in which your predecessor was not welcome.
Not your successor, but your predecessor was not welcome.
We thank you for what you are doing, and I think that
attitude that these people express of having a working
relationship is good news as far as we are concerned. It means
we can do our job a lot easier in Washington, so thank you very
much. I just did want to give you a chance to speak up if you
thought there was something that you should comment on.
RECOGNITION OF GUESTS AND APPRECIATION TO PARTICIPANTS
I do not know if you know it, but the staff of the
Appropriations Committee for the House Transportation
Subcommittee is here in Alaska with us. They have come up to
witness some of the challenges and issues we face. I understand
they were in rural Alaska yesterday, and learned how to put on
their shoes at 51 below, and other things--was it really that
cold?--in Point Hope yesterday.
I do thank them for coming, and I hope that this hearing
today has been as meaningful to them as it has to Don and me.
We really do thank all of you in the audience for coming and
participating, and I thank my good friend the Congressman for
all Alaska for honoring us with his presence here today. It was
a Senate hearing, but we are pleased to have Congressman Young
with us at any time, and I do want to let the audience know if
you have any comments or questions about answers that were
given here, and you want to pass them on to us, you should
write to me at the Senate in Washington, or take your time to
talk to these gentlemen right here.
This is my transportation subcommittee clerk, Wally
Burnett. I was there when he was born in Fairbanks. He does not
like to remember that.
And Dan Elwell, who is what we call an extern on our staff,
working with me, who is, by the way, an American Airlines
pilot, and has really contributed greatly to our understanding
of aviation issues in this last period.
Lisa Sutherland, the vice director, deputy director of the
Appropriations full committee staff, is here with us also.
If you want to corral someone who will listen, since we are
on our way to another meeting, feel free to trip them so that
they do not leave too fast.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS
But we do thank you for your courtesy, and again, if you
want to add any comments or ask questions about what you--those
comments, if you wish them to go into the record must be in our
hands by January 7. We have to file this record on January 7 in
the Senate.
Prepared Statement of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists
I represent the Professional Airways Systems Specialists for the
North Alaska Systems Maintenance Office. Our area of responsibility
extends from Barrow to the north, to Gambell in the west, to Eagle in
the east, and as far south as Shemya, this includes all National
Airspace equipment in between. Since the beginning of Mr. Al Gore's
initiative known as reinvention of government, personnel reform, and
now the FAIR Act some very disturbing trends are beginning to emerge.
Air safety is being measured in dollars rather than in lives saved and
accidents prevented. Here in Alaska an initiative known as Corporate
Maintenance Philosophy has been undertaken and has been in effect for
about three years. New ways of doing business are being experimented
with along with a very serious attempt to change a culture. The program
started out with a list of six paths to success and a plan including
``the nows'' and ``the futures''. The program progressed pretty well
for the first year and a half but began to experience difficulty as
staffing and money began to go away. When opportunities existed to make
capital gains and reinvestment in the existing infrastructure I believe
those funds were squandered and when staffing adjustments were made we
wound up with a whole lot of folks in the wrong places and there is no
political will or decent leadership willing to make the necessary
adjustments. I will attempt to describe some events and projects which
I feel have failed and in the process have cost millions of hard to get
taxpayer dollars.
1. Staffing of the technical workforce which maintains and repairs
National Airspace equipment and infrastructure has dropped to
dangerously low levels, despite the fact that our overhead staff in the
regional office continues to grow, mostly in higher pay grades such as
GS-14 and GS-15 levels. Most of these positions provide no direct
support to the NAS or the flying public. We have assistants to
assistants to assistants and assistants who supervise assistants. The
bureaucracy is so bloated it is no wonder we cannot manage to field new
systems in a timely fashion, we can't get out of our own way.
2. Mean time to restore facilities has been on a steady increase as
a result of our new Corporate Maintenance Philosophy. Risk assessments
conducted concerning this situation have been ambiguous, depending on
who conducts the assessment. The Airways Facilities managers contend
this is a normal result of the way we are doing business and the Air
Traffic managers are concerned about redundant systems being left to
run on half a system while Airways Facilities decides whether or not to
respond. Whereas we used to respond to facility outages in 24 hours or
less our MTR ``mean time to restore'' numbers are running at 68 hours
and more than likely will continue to increase.
3. Our Emergency Operations Facilities have deteriorated to such a
state that if we experienced a national disaster or a serious
disruption in our existing communication facilities we would not be
able to communicate with the vital EOF sites outlined in our emergency
plans. Kenai has no operational facility at all, Fairbanks has one
resource with very limited backup, and no control on the floor at the
AFSS. Juneau has a similar situation to that of Fairbanks. The EOF
facility was to be complete a year ago, but has been in a bureaucratic
quagmire since the property disposal that took place in Kenai two years
ago. HF communications was a vital aspect of the emergency experienced
during the 1964 earthquake, our HF capabilities at this time are in a
sad state of affairs.
4. We have installed a government owned and operated satellite
telephone system here. Despite the fact that the system circumvents the
private sector and costs were on an astronomical scale we did it
anyway. Litigation continues to this day over the whole affair and the
system now has become one of the most labor intensive and biggest drain
on resources in our inventory. Training has been barely adequate and
scarce at best, there is no relief in sight, instead we are continuing
on with a phase 2 of the system. The facilities are known as ANICS.
5. The Microwave Landing System program purchased 26 MLS systems,
Alaska was delivered 14 of the 26. There was to be a five year test
program with a clause that if the systems proved to be inadequate, they
would be replaced with a system ``equal to or better than'', what is
the question? Each system cost the taxpayers $750,000, the Alaskan
portion of that acquisition was 10.5 million dollars. Well those
systems are off the air more than they are on the air. Most all of the
MLS systems were installed, flight inspected, and turned off, placed in
care taker status with a 72 hour turn up stipulated. Only one real user
in the commercial area was using these that was Reeve Aleutian Airway,
the aircraft equipment was supplied by the FAA.
6. We are planning the construction and operation of four new
Flight Service Stations in our state over the next year or so, they are
at Deadhorse (leased from state), McGrath, Iliamna (leased from private
vendor), and Northway. I am not privy to the cost of these facilities
but I have reviewed the plans during the engineering process.
I was shocked to learn that the plans for these new ``state of the
art'' facilities included at the heart of the voice switching system
components developed in the 1970s, not supportable, and antiquated.
When the question was posed to the program managers their reply was
equally ludicrous. We have been told that STVS and or ICSS voice switch
equipment was not available for installation at the new facilities.
Because flight service stations no longer exist in the lower 48 states
the program managers in Washington made no provision for acquisition of
new voice switch equipment. The voice switch equipment in a facility
like a flight service station is the heart of the facility, most
everything going in or out of that facility goes through that switch.
Why would anyone want to build new facilities around an outdated
switching system is beyond me!
7. Our latest effort in modernizing the NAS in Alaska is known as
CAPSTONE. I have done some research on its history thusfar and find it
to be an innovative development in technology, the subsidiary company
of United Parcel Service, IlMorrow Inc. makes the equipment being used
for the ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, it also
requires other facilities to be a complete system in the NAS. Some of
the other facilities are AWOS Automated Weather Observation Systems and
some lighting aids. My immediate involvement in the 3 year test project
has been with the AWOS systems and already I see cost cutting measures
being taken that will hamstring the program right from the beginning.
We are currently installing and getting ready to turn on four weather
systems in St. Michaels, Holy Cross, Scammon Bay, and Mountain
Villiage, with six more coming next fiscal year. These weather
observation systems are planned to be placed into service with dial up
capabilities only, this will inevitably lead to poor service to the
flying public and the system will not possess ADAS Aerospace Data
Analysis System capabilities which is used in surface weather analysis.
I view the ADAS connection as critical to the success of these
facilities. I fear that by the time the FAA can field, test, and
finalize a system like CAPSTONE it will be long obsolete and we will
have another boat anchor.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony to you regarding
air safety and modernization in Alaska. I encourage you to take a more
active role in oversight of our government agencies and their
operations. I am grateful for the finding you have secured for the
state and the aviation community while Chairman on the Senate
Appropriations Committee. Some of our government agencies have become
self serving and in some cases out of control, I would hope strong
leadership from our congressional delegation will make some effort to
curtail this trend.
______
Prepared Statement of Aero Twin, Inc.
First, let it be noted that there is a majority opinion held within
the repair station industry that modernization of Part 145 is overdue.
While a few of the revisions to Part 145 proposed by this NPRM are
welcome changes (provisions for satellite repair stations and Deviation
authority, for example), there are many provisions to which Aero Twin,
Inc. strongly objects.
Prior to citing individual paragraphs, we will comment on several
primary objections to the proposed amendment to Part 145:
1. Aero Twin, Inc. cannot support a revision that mandates the
establishment of internal quality assurance processes that are so ill-
defined as to potentially mean anything, up to and including the
requirement for ISO 9000 certification for every repair station. Such
proposals must be rejected out-of-hand until the FAA deigns to provide
some definition of what, specifically, is entailed by the proposed
quality assurance system. Advisory material published concurrently with
the release of the rule is absolutely inadequate. Further, while Aero
Twin, Inc. does not object to the concept of self-auditing, we feel
performance of such audits must remain elective. The quality control
programs and procedures currently mandated by Part 145 are carefully
designed to assure airworthiness; FAA surveillance assures adherence to
the programs. While the FAA may have data suggesting that
implementation of quality assurance systems enhance quality, it is
unclear that the conclusion is readily extended to encompass smaller
repair stations, where the additional level of internal oversight would
be largely symbolic, yet more costly per employee.
2. The proposed revisions to Part 145 include the creation of an
Accountable Manager. We are strongly opposed to this provision. We
believe it to be a poorly veiled means to assign liability to an
individual within a corporation. A Repair Station is an organizational
authorization. Responsibility for assuring adherence to the applicable
regulations is the joint responsibility of the organization and the
FAA. Requiring one individual to assume all of the responsibilities
delegated to the proposed Accountable Manager is outside the scope of
FAA function. Each organization seeking Repair Station authorization
should retain the right to identify which staff members hold particular
responsibilities within the organization, subject to meeting basic
qualifications. Daily operation of an organization subject to personnel
absences due to vacations, sickness, business travel, etc. requires
flexibility not afforded in the FAA's proposal. We would support the
creation of a `Primary Point of Contact' as a means to streamline
correspondence and interaction with the FAA.
3. The personnel training requirements proposed by the FAA are not
well enough defined to allow a reviewer to judge the benefits or the
costs involved. While Aero Twin, Inc. does oppose mandated training
requirements in principal, specific information regarding these
requirements must be provided if this review is to have substantive
meaning. Advisory material published concurrently with the release of
the rule is absolutely inadequate.
4. In the proposed revision, in addition to the repair station
manual, there is a series of documents that must be prepared and
maintained by the repair station, and in some cases forwarded to the
FAA district office. We recommend adoption of a consistent language in
prescribing the requirements for these documents. The documents
include:
--The capability list [ref 145.203]
--The personnel roster [ref 145.157]
--A comprehensive facility description [ref 145.207(c)]
--A list of references to manufacturers' inspection standards for
particular articles [ref 145.207(d)(2)]
--A forms manual [ref 157.145.207(d)(3)]
--A vendor list [ref 145.207(h)]
We suggest the following apply to each of the listed documents:
a. These documents should be separate from the repair station
manual, included only by reference, and should constitute accepted
data, as opposed to approved data.
b. These documents should be maintained by the repair station and
submitted to the district office upon revision within a stated period
or time following revision, without affecting the status of repair
station compliance.
c. The form of submission may be an electronic document accompanied
by means to access the electronic copy.
These features are already prescribed for certain documents in the
proposed rule (refer to 145.205(e)(2), 145.205(f), 145.207(d)(3)). A
consistent system of dealing with these documents will clarify the rule
and improve compliance. Separation from the approved manual material is
imperative.
5. We are unable to accept the FAA's unsubstantiated cost analysis.
The cost of establishing and maintaining a quality assurance system
cannot be determined until the system is defined in some detail. The
cost of establishing and maintaining a personnel training system cannot
be determined until the system is defined in some detail. Both systems
are mandated by the proposed rule, yet neither is described in detail
sufficient with which to estimate costs.
Aero Twin, Inc. comments to specific paragraphs in the proposed
rule: Paragraphs of the proposed rule to which Aero Twin Inc. has no
specific comments are omitted.
FAA Section 145.3 Definition of terms
(a) Accountable manager means the manager who has the corporate
authority for ensuring that all maintenance, preventive maintenance,
and alteration is carried out to the standards required by the
Administrator.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We object to the mandated creation of
this titled position for the aforementioned reasons (see opening
comments).
(i) Computer system means any electronic or automated system
capable of receiving, storing, and processing external data, and
transmitting and presenting such data in a usable form for the
accomplishment of a specific function.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: This definition should be clarified to
exclude office systems.
(j) Consortium means the holder of a type certificate that forms a
combination or group of separate certificated repair stations to
perform maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alteration of that
type-certificated product and components thereof, and functions under a
single unified quality control and quality assurance system.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. does not agree that
consortiums, as defined, should be allowed. In the first, place we
oppose the requirement for quality assurance systems which negates the
primary purpose of a consortium. In the second place, we oppose the
granting of relief to a consortium as it unfairly favors type
certificate holders entering the repair station industry.
(n) Maintenance release means a repair station document signed by
an authorized repair station representative that states that the
article worked on is approved for return to service for the
maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations performed.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe the exclusive nature of the
scope of `return to service' should be emphasized by the insertion of
the word `only'. `Approved for return to service only for the
maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations performed.' The
scope of the maintenance release must not be ambiguous in any way.
FAA Section 145.9 Advertising
(b) No certificated repair station may make any statement, either
in writing or orally, about itself that is false or is designed to
mislead any person.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We do not agree that paragraph (b)
belongs in the airworthiness regulations. It is offensive that the FAA
presumes to mandate fair and honest business practices. Organizations
that would intentionally mislead are unlikely to be converted by virtue
of this regulation. Other FAA certificate holders are not under similar
regulatory restraint.
FAA Section 145.11 Deviation authority
[all]
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. agrees with the
provisions for Deviation authority. It should remain a part of the
final rule.
FAA Section 145.51 Application for certificate
(a)(3) A statement signed by the accountable manager confirming
that the procedures described in the repair station manual are in place
and meet the requirements of the applicable Federal Aviation
Regulations.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. believes this paragraph
should be removed. In the first place, we do not agree with the
creation of an Accountable Manager; in the second, we see no need for
any separate signed statement. The approval of the required manual by
both the repair station and the FAA, and FAA inspection, assures
compliance with the regulations. This transparent enforcement clause is
unwarranted.
(a)(4) An organizational chart of the repair station and a list of
the names and titles of managing and supervisory personnel.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. suggests the deletion of
all words after `repair station'. The requirements of 151.51(b) and
151.157 render this paragraph redundant.
(d) An applicant for a repair station certificate operated by a
consortium, which functions as a single organization with regard to
quality control and quality assurance, holds an approved type
certificate, and performs maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations of that type certificated product, must have the
consortium's quality control and quality assurance systems in place at
each of its facilities.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. does not agree with the
creation of consortiums, and thus, is opposed to inclusion of this
paragraph.
FAA Section 145.59 Ratings and classes
(a) Aircraft ratings. An aircraft rating on a repair station
certificate permits that repair station to perform maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft, including work
on the powerplant(s) of that aircraft up to, but not including,
overhaul as that term is defined in See. 145.3 under the following
classes:
(1) Class 1: Aircraft (other than rotorcraft and aircraft composed
primarily of composite material) of 12,500 pounds maximum certificated
takeoff weight or less.
(2) Class 2: Aircraft (other than rotorcraft and aircraft composed
primarily of composite material) over 12,500 pounds maximum
certificated takeoff weight and up to and including 75,000 pounds
maximum certificated takeoff weight.
(3) Class 3: Aircraft (other than rotorcraft and aircraft composed
primarily of composite material) over 75,000 pounds maximum
certificated takeoff weight.
(4) Class 4: Rotorcraft (other than rotorcraft composed primarily
of composite material) of 6,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff
weight or less.
(5) Class 5: Rotorcraft (other than rotorcraft composed primarily
of composite material) over 6,000 pounds maximum certificated takeoff
weight.
(6) Class 6: Aircraft composed primarily of composite material of
12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight or less.
(7) Class 6: Aircraft composed primarily of composite material over
12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: The definitions of Classes 1 through 7
are completely dependent upon the interpretation of the phrase
`composed primarily of composite material'. The explanation provided in
the NPRM sheds some light on the FAA's intent, but the regulation is
vague.
Aero Twin, Inc. concurs that repair of advanced composites requires
special training and special equipment, but in the case of aircraft
with one or several primary structural elements fabricated using
advanced composites, there typically remains a large percentage of
aircraft structure and systems which may be adequately inspected,
maintained, and repaired by non-specialized techniques and equipment.
Maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of advanced
composites should be made permissible by a separate and distinct
rating, or be considered a specialized service rating under 145.59(i).
In either case the rating should be made applicable to components or
substructures (not entire aircraft).
This recommendation would involve removal of the composite
exception clause in 145.59 (1) through (5), the removal of 145.59 (6)
and (7), the addition of an Advanced Composite Rating in 145.59, in
appropriate revisions to 145 Appendix A, and definition of the term
Advanced Composite.
With regard to the definition advanced composite, we wish to point
out the definition would need to exclude room temperature cure, wet-
layup, non-vacuum bagged fairings typical on many light aircraft, but
might reasonably include any composite primary structure, regardless of
fabrication technique.
FAA Section 145.61 Transition to new system of rating
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a
certificated repair station with a certificate issued before [effective
date of the final rule], may exercise the privileges of that
certificate until [2 years after the date of the final rule].
(b) A certificated repair station with a certificate issued before
[effective date of the final rule] that makes an application to change
any portion of that certificate under Sec. 145.57 must meet all the
applicable requirements of this part and apply for and receive approval
for each rating under which the repair station desires to exercise
privileges.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. does not believe that the
proposed two-year transition is realistic. We have experienced FAA
administrative delays of six months in obtaining approval of minor
revisions to our Repair Station Manual. We cannot believe Flight
Standards District Offices will be able to support the concentrated
workload of training inspectors, processing of major revisions to the
manuals of all repair stations, perform the required inspections, all
within the allotted period. If the rule passes as written, the FAA will
certainly have to spend additional time and effort in providing for
inevitable deadline extensions. We propose that 151.61(a) be amended to
allow a five year transition period: `. . . may exercise the privileges
of that certificate until [5 years after the date of the final rule].'
It follows that the requirements of 145.61(b) are also unrealistic, as
it is unlikely that an active repair station can operate for even one
year without needing minor revisions to its manual. We therefore
recommend that for a two year period following adoption of a final
rule, minor revisions to Repair Station Manuals may be adopted and
approved without meeting all new applicable requirements.
FAA Section 145.103 Facilities and housing requirements.
[all]
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. believes the language of
the current 145.53 is adequate to address facilities and housing
requirements; we recommend retaining existing language.
FAA Section 145.105 Change of location, housing, or facilities
(a) A certificated repair station may not make any change in this
location or any change, deletion, or addition to its housing or
facilities, whether the change is a new location, is a substantial
rearrangement of space within the present location, or involves moving
any of the housing or facilities that are required by Sec. 145.103,
unless the change is approved by the Administrator.
(b) The Administrator may prescribe the conditions, including any
limitations, under which a certificated repair station my operate while
it is changing its location, housing, or facilities.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe the regulations should provide
for a grace period of at least 30 days in the reporting and approval of
changes within existing facilities, where such changes do not involve
reduction or removal of existing capability, space, etc. The
requirement to obtain prior approval will discourage improvement and
modernization.
FAA Section 145.151 Personnel requirements
(a) Each certificated repair station must: (1) Designate an
individual as the accountable manager;
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We object to the mandated creation of
this titled position for the aforementioned reasons.
FAA Section 145.157 Records of management, supervisory, and inspection
personnel
(a) Each certificated repair station must maintain the following:
(1) A roster of management and supervisory personnel, including the
names of the repair station officials who are responsible for its
management and the names of its technical supervisors;
(2) A roster with the names of all inspection personnel, including
the chief inspector;
(3) A roster of personnel authorized to sign a maintenance release
for approving an altered or repaired article for return to service;
(4) A summary of the employment of each individual whose name is on
the management, supervisory, and inspection personnel roster. The
summary must contain enough information on each individual listed on
the roster to show compliance with the experience requirements of this
part including:
i. Present title;
ii. Total years of experience in type of maintenance work;
iii. Past employment record with names of places and periods of
employment by month and year;
iv. Scope of present employment; and
v. If applicable, the type of mechanic or repairman certificate
held and the ratings on that certificate.
(b) The rosters must be kept current and reflect changes caused by
termination, reassignment, change in duties or scope of assignment, or
addition of personnel.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. agrees with the
provisions of 145.157, with the caveat that the rosters required by
this section must be distinct from the FAA Approved Repair Station
Manual to ensure that personnel changes do not immediately render the
manual itself invalid. The intent of the proposed rule is unclear. We
recommend language be added to provide a fixed grace period of 30 days
for reporting changes per 145.157(b).
FAA Section 145.159 Training requirements
(a) Each certificated repair station must have an employee training
program that consists of initial and recurrent training and is approved
by the Administrator.
(b) The training program must ensure that each employee assigned to
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations, and each
employee assigned to perform inspection functions is capable of
performing the assigned task.
(c) Each certificated repair station must document in a form
acceptable to the Administrator programs pertaining to individual
employee training. Individual training records for those employees who
require training under the requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section must be retained for the duration of each individual's
employment.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Aero Twin, Inc. agrees that training is
of the utmost importance, but we are unable to meaningfully respond to
this requirement in light of the lack of detail in the proposal. We
therefore oppose this section until the FAA provides draft versions of
the advisory material. Refer to our opening comments.
FAA Section 145.201 Quality assurance and quality control systems
(a) Each certificated repair station must: (1) Establish and
maintain a quality assurance system acceptable to the Administrator;
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We oppose the requirement for quality
assurance systems for the aforementioned reasons (see opening
comments). We recommend the title of section 145.201 be revised to
`Quality control system', and that (a)(1) and (a)(3) be eliminated (the
latter being redundant considering 145.207(d)(1)).
FAA Section 145.203 Capability list
(a) Each certificated repair station must prepare and retain a
current capability list acceptable to the Administrator. The repair
station may not perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alterations on an article until the article has been listed on the
capability list in accordance with this section and Sec. 145.207(g).
(b) The capability list must identify each article by make and
model, part number, or other nomenclature designed by the article's
manufacturer.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: It is burdensome and unnecessary to
require listing each article by make, model, and part number. Listing
articles by model series should be allowed, where appropriate. For
example, the Cessna 150 was produced as models 150, 150A, 1501B, 150C,
150D, 150E, 150F, 150G, 150H, 150J, 150K, 150L, and 150M. In this case
it would be appropriate for the capability list to include `Cessna
Model 150 Series'. This is even more important in the case of
instrument, accessory, and propeller rated repair stations, where the
list of specific models and/or part numbers could become extremely
long, and constant revision to add new listings would be overly
burdensome.
(c) An article may be listed on the capability list only if the
article is within the scope of the ratings. And classes of the repair
station's certificate, and only after the repair station has performed
a self-evaluation in accordance with Sec 145.207(g). The repair station
must perform the self-evaluation described in this paragraph to
determine that the repair station has all of the facilities, equipment,
material, technical data, processes, housing, and trained personnel in
place to perform the work on the article as required by Part 145. If
the repair station makes that determination, it may list the article on
the capability list.
(d) The document of the evaluation described in paragraph (c) of
this section must be signed by the accountable manager and must be
retained on file by the repair station.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We do not accept the creation of an
Accountable Manager, therefore we object to paragraph (d). We propose
the Repair Station designate staff members with authority to sign
capability evaluation reports; that designated authority would be
documented as part of the roster required by 145.157. The FAA's review
and acceptance of the roster would confer acceptance of the designated
signature authority.
FAA Section 145.205 Repair station manual
(a) Each certificated repair station must prepare, keep current,
and follow and approved repair station manual for the ratings
authorized that is consistent with the size and complexity of the
repair station.
(b) The certificated repair station manual must:
(1) Set forth the procedures and policies approved by the
Administrator for the repair station's operation in accordance with the
requirements of this part; and
(2) Be followed by the repair station's personnel while conducting
station operations.
(c) Each certificated repair station must maintain at least one
copy of its current manual at its facility.
(d) A copy of the repair station's current manual must be made
readily available to repair station personnel required by subpart D of
this part.
(e) The repair station must provide to the certificate holding
district office:
(1) A current paper copy of the repair station manual; or
(2) A current electronic copy of the repair station manual that is
accompanied by the means to access the electronic copy.
(f) Except for changes to the capability list, each revision to the
repair station manual must be submitted to the Administrator for
approval.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe the capability list should be
separate and distinct from the repair station manual. The proposed rule
is clear in its intent that the capability list is not FAA-approved; we
suggest that paragraph (f) be revised by striking the words `Except for
changes to the capability list'.
FAA Section 145.207 Repair station manual contents
Each certificated repair station's manual must include the
following:
(a) An organizational chart containing the name of each management
employee who is authorized to act for the repair station, the
employee's assigned area of responsibility, and the employee's duties,
responsibilities, and authority;
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We do not agree that the organizational
chart included in the repair station manual should include names of the
individuals holding each position. The personnel roster required by
145.157 will include the names of repair station staff members. We
suggest replacing the word `name' with `title'.
(c) A description of the certificated repair station's operations,
including a description of the facilities, equipment, material, and
housing as required by subpart C of this part;
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: The requirements of subpart C,
particularly as written in the proposed rule, are too comprehensive for
inclusion in the repair station manual. A facility diagram is
sufficient. We suggest that paragraph (c) should read: `A diagram of
the certificated repair station's facilities'. If a comprehensive
description of the certificated repair station's operations, including
a description of the facilities, equipment, material, and housing as
required by subpart C of the proposed rule, is to be required, it
should be separate and distinct from the repair station manual
(accepted data, not approved data).
(d) An explanation of the certificated repair station's quality
assurance system, including:
(1) The quality control system;
(2) References, where applicable, to the manufacturer's inspection
standards for a particular article, including reference to any data
specified by that manufacturer;
(3) A sample copy of the inspection forms and instructions for
completing such forms or a reference to a separate forms manual;
(4) Procedures for updating the capability list required by Sec.
145.203, including notification of the certificate holding district
office; and
(5) Procedures for the implementation of corrective actions for any
discrepancies found by the quality assurance system.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe paragraph (d) and its sub-
paragraphs need substantial revision: We do not agree with the
requirement for a quality assurance system (see opening comments) nor
do we believe the references of subparagraph (2) should be included in
the body of the repair station manual; a list of such references, if
required, should be separate from the manual (accepted data, not
approved data). We suggest that (d) be revised to read:
(d) An explanation of the certificated repair station's quality
control system, including:
(1) A sample copy of the inspection forms and instructions for
completing such forms or a reference to a separate forms manual;
(2) Procedures for updating the capability list required by Sec.
145.203, including notification of the certificate holding district
office; and
(3) Procedures for the implementation of corrective actions for any
discrepancies identified by internal or external review.
(g) Procedures for self-evaluations, including methods and
frequency of such evaluations, and procedures for reporting results to
the accountable manager for review and action;
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We do not agree with the need for a
quality assurance system nor with the creation of an Accountable
Manager. Absent the requirement for a quality assurance system, we do
not oppose the inclusion of self-evaluation procedures; we suggest (e)
be revised to read: `Procedures for self-evaluations, including methods
and frequency of such evaluations, and procedures for documenting and
reporting results'.
(h) A list of the maintenance functions contracted to an outside
facility with: (1) The name of the facility; (2) The type of
certificate and ratings, if any, held by such facility; and (3)
Procedures for qualifying and surveilling the facility and for
accepting maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed
by the facility;
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: This list, which we refer to as a vendor
list, should be separate from the repair station manual (accepted data,
not approved data). In the case of FAA certificated facilities,
subparagraph (3) should not apply, as those facilities are already
subject to FAA verification of an approved quality control system.
(k) The repair station's capability list;
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: The capability list should be separate
from the approved manual material. We suggest striking this paragraph.
FAA Section 145.211 Inspection of maintenance, preventive maintenance,
or alterations performed
(a) A certificated repair station must inspect each aircraft,
airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component, or part
thereof upon which it has performed maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or alterations as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section before approving that article for return to service.
(b) Each repair station must certify on an article's maintenance
release that the article is airworthy with respect to the maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations performed after;
(1) The repair station performs work on the article; and
(2) A qualified inspector inspects the article on which the repair
station has performed work and determines it to be airworthy.
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: There must be no ambiguity in this
section with regards to the scope of the inspections and maintenance
release. The required inspection and maintenance release must apply
only to the work performed and this limitation must be very clearly
stated in the final rule. We believe this is the intent of the words
`with respect to' in paragraph (b); however, similar wording is omitted
in (b)(2), leaving open the interpretation that the qualified inspector
must determine airworthiness of the complete article, not limited to
the work performed. We suggest that (b)(2) be revised to read `A
qualified inspector inspects the article and determines it to be
airworthy with respect to the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alterations performed'.
FAA Section 145.213 Contract maintenance
(a) A certificated repair station may not contract a job function
to another certificated repair station unless:
(1) The contracting repair station meets the quality control and
inspection system requirements of 145.201(a)(2) and 145.209(c)(2), and
(2) The contracting repair station's approved repair station manual
contains the information and procedures specified in 145.207(h).
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: It is wrong to assume that `another
certificated repair station' may not meet the basic requirements for
certification, and that the contracting repair station is responsible
for making that determination. The FAA is responsible for making
approved determination. All of (a) should be eliminated from the
proposed rule.
(b) A certificated repair station may not contract a job function
to a noncertificated person unless:
(1) The certificated repair station meets the quality control and
inspection system requirements of 145.201(a)(2) and 145.209(c)(2);
(2) The certificated repair station's approved repair station
manual contains the information and procedures specified in 145.207(h);
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: It is wrong to assume that a certificated
repair station may not meet the basic requirements for certification.
Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) should be eliminated.
FAA Section 145.215 Privileges and limitations of certificate
(a) A certificated repair station may:
(1) Perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations
only on any aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance,
component, or part thereof for which it is rated;
(2) Arrange for the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alteration of any article for which it is rated at another organization
only if that organization is under the quality control system of the
repair station, as prescribed by Sec. 145.201(a); and
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: Paragraph (a)(2) is contrary to the
provisions of proposed 145.213. We suggest (a)(2) read: `Arrange for
the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of an article
for which it is rated at another organization under the conditions of
145.213.
FAA Section 145.219 Reports of defects or unairworthy conditions
(b) Each certificated repair station must report the defect or
unairworthy condition it discovers to the Administrator on a form and
in a manner prescribed by the Administrator. The report must include as
much of the following information as is available:
(1) Type, make and model of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft
engine, propeller, appliance, or component part;
(2) Name and address of the operator;
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: We believe (b)(2) should be eliminated.
Further, we believe compliance with the provisions of 145.219 will be
enhanced by this elimination.
Appendix A to Part 145--Job Functions
[all]
Aero Twin, Inc. Response: As previously stated, Aero Twin, Inc.
believe that aircraft classes 6 and 7 should be eliminated and a
distinct rating for advanced composites be created. This would
necessitate appropriate revisions to Appendix A.
End of comments to specific paragraphs of the proposed rule--------
------------------------
In summary, Aero Twin, Inc. hopes that the FAA, in quantifying the
benefits of this proposal, has considered that, due to increased
overhead, many small repair stations will be economically unable to
comply with the proposed requirements for extensive new internal
processes and record-keeping. The market in general aviation
maintenance will swing in favor of individual repairmen; repair
stations will surrender certificates to work in that less-overburdened
regulatory environment. As a result, a large portion of GA maintenance
will move out from under the light of current FAA repair station
surveillance and into the darker corners of ramps and tee-hangars
nationwide.
______
Prepared Statement of Security Aviation
It would appear that the tendency of the Anchorage FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO) is more of a ``we are here to help
you'' attitude than enforcement. Perhaps the reason is that it is
literally impossible for an inspector to one day come in, drink your
coffee, maintain a friendly relationship and then the next day
objectively investigate a violation or accident of the same operator.
The FAA should consider creating enforcement officers, a section
completely separate from the regular FSDO inspectors. In addition to
investigating and prosecuting pilots and operators these enforcement
officers should be in the field making sure that all operators are
playing by the same rule book. Eliminate the personal relationships. An
FSDO inspector cannot do both.
The FAA continues to allow air charter companies who have had
numerous violations, accidents, injuries and fatalities to continue
operating. Some of these operators have been banned by the Department
of Defense (DOD) who will not allow military or civilian personnel to
travel on these carriers. The FAA flight standards district office
receives the DOD reports but still allows these operators to continue
transporting the general public, who assumes because they are licensed
by the FAA they have to be OK. Why is the general public not afforded
the same safety standards that a PFC, Colonel or GS-15 civilian is
afforded?
Why is the FAA not doing press releases on pilot and operator
violations and accidents? Is it true that a journalist or reporter must
obtain violation and legal proceedings information from the FAA under
the Freedom of Information Act? Very few of the traveling public has
access to information that will influence who they fly with. Who you
fly with should be just as important as the grocery store, restaurants,
or lawyers that you may use, all of whom publicize their inspections or
findings.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alaska Aviation Coordination Council
The undersigned members of the Alaskan Aviation Community wish to
express our appreciation for the aviation hearings in Anchorage on
December 14, 1999. After careful consideration of testimony thus far,
we would like to add the following comments and clarifying information
to the record.
We believe that Alaska aviation interests share a common vision of
Alaska aviation infrastructure needs and that it is clear from existing
testimony that Alaska is unique in its reliance on aviation for its
most basic transportation needs. Three points of clarification may need
to be made regarding testimony given:
First, the need for airport and aviation infrastructure
improvements is clear and the cited $265 million in airport
improvements over the next five years is in addition to the historic
$80 million in annual Airport Improvement Program funding that now
comes to Alaska.
Second, the cited 20-year window for Capstone avionics to broadly
affect aviation safety refers not to the efficacy of Capstone, but
rather to the fact that until virtually all aircraft are equipped with
`Capstone' type avionics, Capstone will not be able to provide all the
safety benefits it promises to. Obviously, interim, incremental
improvements will be most welcome and statewide implementation of
Capstone is strongly endorsed.
Third, due to the scope and dynamic nature of aviation and Alaska,
more aviation related issues will arise and our concern is that the
present nationally driven FAA methodology of addressing these concerns
does not serve Alaska aviation safety as well as it should. Alaska is
often detrimentally impacted by well meaning federal regulatory
reaction, to issues occurring elsewhere, with a ``one size fits all''
solution. A brief sampling of recent national mandates that have failed
or are failing to improve aviation safety in Alaska follow (specifics
for which are attached):
--Outdated FAA requirement to re-equip transponder equipped aircraft
in Alaska, for which a petition for exemption (FAA Docket
29537) is languishing.
--FAR Part 135 to Pt. 121 transition for commuter carriers, that
effectively forced some remote Alaskan markets to smaller, non-
pressurized aircraft.
--The Single Engine Instrument Flight Rule (SEIFR) re-write that
effectively eliminated SEIFR.
--A historic eastbound departure procedure from Juneau International
Airport revised to now uneconomic usage.
--Long standing Ketchikan Revilla corridor flight procedures
cancelled.
--Aging Aircraft NPRM 99-02 that will effectively shut down most
intra-Alaskan Part 121 and Part 135 scheduled operations.
With national focus programs driven from a remote FAA headquarters
in Washington, D.C., policy makers often fail to understand the actual
impact of their decisions on basic safety. At other times, locally
identified and pursued safety concerns, lacking a national focus, fail
to get proper consideration and are either ignored or brushed aside
without regard to existing procedure.
For these reasons, we feel it important to fundamentally change the
way Alaskan aviation interests and FAA communicate and work together to
resolve safety concerns. Toward this end, we would again cite the
(attached) Alaska Aviation Coordination Council's Strategic Plan,
specifically the recommendation to create a formal ``Alaskan Federal
Aviation Advisory Council'' to the Alaskan Region FAA. This Advisory
Council would provide continuous safety and user need assessment to
ensure effective planning and development. Presently, no formal
communication mechanism exists between the FAA and the aviation
community at large to ensure effective feedback and/or advice in
planning programs or resolving issues and informal processes lack the
structure and authority necessary to ensure follow-up and
accountability. Pursuant to this end, we have also asked FAA
Administrator Jane Garvey to authorize the FAA Alaska Regional
Administrator to address local issues in the best interest of Alaskan
aviation safety, including, if need be, authority to waive or modify
regulations as necessary to address specific Alaska aviation issues.
Again, we thank you for your tireless pursuit of a safe, efficient,
and reliable air transportation system that meets the needs and
enhances the health and welfare of all Alaskans.
Paul Bowers,
A.E.E., Chair, Alaska Aviation Coordination Council.
John Pratt,
AK Field Representative, Seaplane Pilots Association.
Tom Wardleigh,
Chairman, Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation.
Richard Harding,
Operations, Peninsula Airways.
Bob Hajdukovich,
President, Frontier Flying Service.
Gary Bennett, Jr.,
General Manager, Northern Lights Avionics.
Robert Jacobsen,
President, Wings of Alaska.
Jim Hill,
Pilot, Alaska Airlines.
Arthur Warbelow,
President, Warbelow's Air Ventures, Inc.
Fred H. Ciarlo,
General Manager, Tanana Air Service.
Ronald W. Haney,
Interim Chair, Aviation Technology, UAA.
Leonard Kirk,
President, Leonard Kirk Aviation Training.
ANECDOTAL EXAMPLES OF FAA NATIONAL DIRECTION THAT DOES NOT SERVE ALASKA
AVIATION SAFETY
Alaska is often detrimentally impacted by well meaning federal
regulatory reaction, to issues occurring elsewhere, with a ``one size
fits all'' nationally driven FAA solution that do not serve Alaska
aviation safety as well as they should. Following is a brief overview
sampling of recent national mandates that have failed or are failing to
improve aviation safety in Alaska:
--Most transponder equipped aircraft in Alaska have still useful Mode
A/C compatible equipment, not thrice as expensive Mode S
equipment. Due to nationally proposed infrastructure upgrades,
however, FAA national regulations were changed years ago to
require air taxi aircraft replacing worn out equipment to do so
only with more costly Mode S equipment. The proposed FAA NAS
infrastructure upgrades never occurred and are now in doubt,
without which there is no benefit to Mode S equipage in small
aircraft in Alaska. For this reason, many operators of aircraft
with worn out Mode A/C transponders are simply removing them
from service rather than replacing with expensive Mode S.
Conversely, although Alaska trails the nation in radar
coverage, larger aircraft are increasingly equipping with TCAS,
which alerts pilots to the presence of any transponder-equipped
aircraft, Mode A/C or Mode S. Erosion in the number of
transponder equipped aircraft is a safety issue.
Petitions for exemption (FAA Docket 29537) from this requirement
on behalf of all affected Alaskans seems to have been brushed
aside without processing per the FAA's own rules (FAR Part 11)
and with apparently no understanding of the issues involved.
-- The nationwide, congressionally mandated FAR Part 135 to Pt. 121
transition for commuter carriers, that effectively forced
smaller operators to revert from pressurized small twin
aircraft to nonpressurized single engine aircraft, because the
two-pilot and other regulatory burdens of Pt. 121 compliance
made the larger aircraft uneconomic in some remote Alaskan
markets.
--The Single Engine Instrument Flight Rule (SEIFR) re-write that was
intended to enable Alaskan air carriers utilization of IFR
capable single engine aircraft, but which rule finally came out
effectively making it uneconomic to operate SEIFR and it
removed the limited SEIFR procedures previously available to
Part 135 operators.
--The long standing, historic east-bound `Lemon Creek Departure'
procedure from Juneau International Airport, developed and
safely used without incident by Lockheed Constellations, DC-6s,
Boeing 707s, B-720s, B-727s, B-737-100s, 200s, 300s, 400s: all
in concert with and fully approved for use by Alaska Region
FAA, until a change in FAA staff and national interest review
found this long standing local procedure `unsafe'. Present
procedure modifications now impose significant, cost-
inefficient load restrictions on Pt 121 operators who opt to
use it.
--Ketchikan Revilla corridor flight procedures involving SVFR and IFR
coordination, wherein longstanding Air Traffic procedure
separating SVFR floatplane operations could be conducted in the
channel simultaneously with IFR operations at the airport, with
aircraft separation assured by altitude restrictions. With new
Alaska Airlines RNP minimums and availability of approaches to
Runway 29, FAA ATC issued notice that simultaneous operations
will be cancelled effective 02/28/00.
--Aging Aircraft NPRM 99-02 would mandate a transport category
oriented Damage Tolerance (DT) inspection program for all
multi-engined 14 years or older aircraft used in Part 121 and
Part 135 scheduled operations. This would apply to nearly every
intra-state operation in the State of Alaska, affecting over
700 aircraft that were not designed to undergo such
inspections, Alaskan operators note this proposal is not only
cost prohibitive, but implementing a DT inspection program
could in itself make airworthy components or structures un-
airworthy. (Multiple requests to have this NPRM rescinded have
been submitted by users.)
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Stevens. So I thank you all for being here and
recording our testimony.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., Tuesday, December 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Budget and Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Transportation and Related Agencies,
Washington, DC.
The committees met jointly, at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-608,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman
of the Budget Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Shelby, Grassley, Gorton,
Snowe, Abraham, Lautenberg, Conrad, and Durbin.
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MODERNIZING THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
STATEMENT OF JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY JACK BASSO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
Office of Inspector General
STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton [presiding]. If we can get you seated, we
will begin. The meeting will come to order.
In the temporary absence of Senator Domenici, the chairman
of the Budget Committee, he has asked me to open. He has an
opening statement here that expresses my views exactly and I
think outlines what we are about here today. So I will present
it, but the record can show that it is his opening statement
with which I am associated.
There are two committees that are represented here this
morning and two panels of witnesses. There are going to be a
lot of questions, so witness time is going to be limited. We
will introduce the first panel, and once they have completed
their statements and our questioning, we will move immediately
to the second panel.
First we will hear from the FAA Administrator, Jane Garvey.
She is accompanied by Jack Basso, Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs and CFO for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation. Following the Administrator's testimony, we
will hear from Kenneth Mead, the Department of Transportation's
Inspector General.
Madam Administrator--and these are Senator Domenici's
words--I know how difficult this week has been for you and your
staff. Whatever you want or can say about the Air Alaska
tragedy, please feel free to comment this morning. Whatever is
said here today, let me be very clear--and this is not a
partisan issue--safety should always be priority number one. As
you can well imagine, this comes very close to me.
Ms. Garvey. Yes.
Senator Gorton. Many of my constituents were involved in
that tragedy, and I have always had a particular warm spot in
my heart for Alaska Airlines. It is a very heart-breaking
experience for all of us who are from Seattle.
Let me also say what this hearing is not about. It is not
about the President's budget for the FAA next year. We are
going to get those numbers on Monday. Should the Administrator
want to discuss those numbers, of course, she is free to do so.
But that is not a part of our hearing request.
Second, it is not about the current ongoing FAA
reauthorization conference. That conference I hope will be
completed soon. We want to focus on the future of air
transportation in this country. We are all aware of the growth
in the number of airline passengers, and we have become
increasingly aware of airline delays. One reason often given
for these delays and associated costs to the traveling public
has been the argument that our air traffic control system is
incapable of meeting the new demands due to outdated systems
and old technologies. And yet we know that the Federal
Government has spent more than $30 billion for FAA's
modernization program since 1983.
This oversight hearing then asks the basic question: With
this level of spending and more planned increases, why are we
still experiencing problems? We must step back and ask
ourselves if the government's organizational structure for our
air traffic control system is appropriate for the challenges of
the new century. Are there different legislative approaches to
funding the air traffic control system apart from the airlines
taxes, trust fund, and general fund approach we have used over
the past three decades?
Other countries--and we will hear from the Canadian
government--have moved toward a more commercial approach to air
traffic control. Should we consider that approach and would it
even work here in the United States?
These are the kinds of questions that I hope we will deal
with today. But I can't avoid on my own adding my compliments
to the Administrator. Jane Garvey and I have gotten to know
each other quite well since she has taken that position. We
flew together on New Year's Eve over the Y2K non-event, very
happily, and I have great admiration for the job she has done
as Administrator under very real difficulties. She and her
agency are, of course, a long way from being out of the woods,
but I do want to compliment her on a job well done so far.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Gorton. With that, Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It
is a pleasure to have you operating in this position, not that
I don't miss Senator Domenici, but I think since you and I have
some common interests in railroading and other things, life
could get easier. But we are pleased to see Jane Garvey and
meet Assistant Secretary Basso here this morning.
I came to the Senate with a deep interest in
transportation. Though I was running a company in the computer
service business, much of my interest emerged in transportation
as a result of some public service I was doing as a
Commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
The Port Authority is quite an agency. They operate three major
airports: Newark, La Guardia, and Kennedy airports in the
region. They also have a general aviation airport called
Teterboro, which gets a lot of traffic.
And so I was fairly much focused on transportation
problems. My company experienced them on the roads, and I had
some significant exposure because the Port Authority also owned
a railroad called the PATH.
Then, as now, the Port Authority controlled these airports
and is responsible for all capital investments in those
airports, not to mention investments also in the seaport, and
as I indicated, in other services as well, including bridges,
tunnels, and you name it in the transportation area.
I became familiar with the critical importance of
transportation investments during that period of time, and I
also learned that one thing we must do--and the Port Authority
was quite an example--is to make investments in a balanced way.
As I indicated, we had bridges, tunnels, had an awful lot of
automobile traffic, bus terminals, the railroad, and, of
course, the airports.
So I came to realize that when funds are not allocated
intelligently, more than money is wasted. Time is wasted,
critical time during which highways and runways just become
more congested.
Mr. Chairman, I believe, like many of our colleagues, that
increased investment in aviation is necessary. There is no
question about it. But in all our discussions and debates
during the last couple of years on how we should provide that
increased investment, not enough has been said about how we
ensure that these investments are made for the best interests
of the traveling public. Not enough has been said how we ensure
that other needs of our transportation system are adequately
met.
And I am pleased to be here with my friend and colleague of
almost all the years that I have been here in the Senate,
Senator Shelby. Senator Shelby has my job on the Transportation
Subcommittee. He is the chairman. But I have allowed him to
take over these years. I am the ranking member, and the chances
of a change that I can feel are not very good.
Not enough has been said about whether the current system
through which we finance aviation investments is indeed the
best system.
As a long-time observer of the spending practices at the
FAA, I can tell you that there have been too many instances of
time loss and waste. And our current Administrator, FAA
Administrator Jane Garvey, deserves a great deal of credit for
her efforts at bringing these problems under control.
We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. We must not
allow air traffic control procurement programs to be
micromanaged or mismanaged. We can't just blindly throw
billions of dollars at our Nation's airports and expect the
congestion to disappear. We can't just throw billions of
dollars at our aviation equipment manufacturers and expect an
efficient, state-of-the-art system to emerge at the other end.
We need to take aggressive efforts to see that investments are
being made intelligently, that money is not being wasted, and
that the FAA is being governed by the most modern and sound
management practices and the equipment that is consistent with
the technological age in which we now live.
Mr. Chairman, over 4 years ago, Chairman Mark Hatfield and
I championed a provision that we hoped would go a long way
toward reforming the FAA. In a classic case of legislation on
an appropriations bill, we provided the Federal Aviation
Administration with the broadest and most far-reaching
authority to reform its personnel and procurement systems. For
years, we had been told that the Federal Government's personnel
rules were inconsistent with the flexibility that FAA needed to
maximize its potential. And I worked very hard on that, as did
Senator Hatfield.
We were also told that the Federal Government's procurement
rules were hampering FAA's ability to modernize the Air Traffic
Control System in an efficient and affordable manner. So in
just a few paragraphs of an appropriations bill, we gave the
FAA the widest possible permanent exemption from all these
rules. Four years later, however, it appears that these
authorities have barely been used.
So when we see an agency that doesn't find a way to fully
utilize all the tools at its disposal, we need to question
whether the time is right to dramatically increase the level of
spending. And this goes with particular criticism directed to
Ms. Garvey and her team. It is a big, complicated agency, and
it needs incremental steps, as I see it, to get things done.
You can't change it overnight.
We also have to consider who will pay for a dramatic new
cash infusion into the FAA. I said it earlier: We must maintain
an appropriate balance in executing our transportation
investments. Current proposals to provide an ironclad guarantee
for future aviation spending at levels well beyond the amounts
collected into the trust fund will necessarily require funding
reductions in other areas of transportation and other areas of
the domestic budget.
Since the inception of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund,
Congress has appropriated roughly $65 billion more for aviation
than has been collected into the trust fund. I repeat, $65
billion since the inception of the airport and airways trust
fund has been spent on aviation that--or appropriated than has
been collected.
So now we are facing proposals to guarantee even larger
appropriations of non-trust fund dollars for aviation, general
fund dollars that could otherwise be used to fund things like
agriculture and education and health research and defense or
any other part of the budget.
If the Transportation Subcommittee is going to be required
to absorb all of the cuts necessitated by an aviation
guarantee, then we will surely be heading toward a
transportation bill that is out of balance. And as we review
the current situation with the Alaska Airlines crash, it is
both tragic and ironic that the two agencies that are engaged
in the recovery and the investigation, the people we are
looking to for advice and information, the Coast Guard and the
National Transportation Safety Board, are two of the agencies
that might have to endure severe funding cuts in order to pay
for a guaranteed increase in FAA funding.
Now, no one is talking about granting these agencies a
funding guarantee. And as I have pointed out many times before,
if funding for Amtrak is cut, services in the Northeast
corridor are terminated, we will have to add over 10,000
additional DC-9 flights a year between Washington and New York
and Boston, and that kind of service will be felt across this
country. Whether it is Albuquerque or Los Angeles or what have
you, you are going to feel it if we have to add that much extra
capacity to the airplanes filling the air lanes. There simple
is not the capacity to handle that many flights in what is
already the most congested air space in the world.
But, again, its effects are not limited to just that space.
So we have got to consider the full ramifications of providing
guaranteed increases in aviation spending at levels well beyond
those paid into the trust fund, and such a plan that we see
overhanging could well produce some grossly inefficient and
destructive results.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have aged since you took
this chair a little while ago.
Senator Domenici [presiding]. OK. Let me just talk for a
minute about how we might proceed. You all know that this is a
joint hearing, and we have the chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee here sitting at my left. The problem is that a
joint hearing brings a lot more Senators, and also you have to
understand that we have two sets of panels, and nobody wants to
be here until 1:00 or 2:00 this afternoon. I hadn't planned to
be either. In addition, the leadership has scheduled one vote
in the middle of this, but we will try to not close down. So I
am going to try to keep the opening statements down in terms of
either how long and how many, but I think it is absolutely
imperative that I do let the chairman of the subcommittee make
an opening statement. Then we will proceed and hear from the
witnesses and then we will use our time for opening statements
as part of our questioning.
Senator Shelby.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
brief, but I think this is a very important hearing, and I
commend you for bringing it together.
I would like to thank the panelists for making the time to
come testify today before these two committees of the Senate. I
know that administration officials and industry representatives
do not always relish testifying before either the Budget or the
Appropriations Committees because our jobs are sometimes to
minimize the amount of the taxpayers' money that must be spent
on the functions of government and to make trade-offs among
competing programs.
I would also like to thank again the chairman of the Budget
Committee, a member of the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee, which I chair, for scheduling this joint hearing
and including my subcommittee. I think this hearing presents a
unique opportunity for us to discuss the public's commitment to
aviation and the challenges and pitfalls facing the FAA as we
continue to modernize the Air Traffic Control System and the
National Air Space System and to develop the procedures and the
workforce to meet the government's evolving role in aviation.
My hope today is that we can explore two broad but simple
questions. One, what are the aviation challenges that must be
solved? And, two, what are the potential ways to meet those
challenges?
I am mindful of the old axiom that to a hammer every
problem looks like a nail, but I have a hard time believing
that the solution to every problem at the FAA or in the
aviation industry is more money. I know money is important, but
it is not the answer to everything.
My research shows that the FAA's appropriation has grown by
230 percent over the last 20 years, while operations handled by
the FAA have grown by only 22 percent over the same period. As
part of this discussion, I also hope that we can get a better
sense of what use the FAA has made of the procurement and
personnel reform authority that Congress granted that agency a
few years ago. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that the FAA has
the greatest flexibility in procurement and personnel of any
Federal agency. Yet my sense is that the same problems that
plagued the agency 20 years ago and $28.8 billion of
procurement dollars are the same ones that plague them today. I
would hope that we could have a very candid--very candid, Ms.
Garvey--and focused discussion on whether throwing more money
than we already do at the FAA is likely to result in a
commensurate improvement in air traffic control efficiency and
modernization. To this point, that formula has not worked.
Twelve years ago, the Reagan Commission on Privatization
noted, and I quote,
that as airline deregulation moves into its second decade
in the United States, the National Air Transportation System
faces tremendous challenges. Dissatisfaction over consumer
service is apparent in the record number of complaints received
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the flurry of news
media attention recently directed toward American aviation, and
the voluminous aviation legislation introduced in Congress
during 1987.
We only need to change the date to make that an accurate
statement for the current state of the Air Transportation
System. The concerns expressed in that report in 1987 about the
difficulties and deficiencies impairing the efficient operation
of the system are as valid today, I believe, as they were in
1988.
Clearly, the problems are persistent and structural.
Generally, problems of this nature are not overcome by being
overlooked. Insulating FAA funding from competing with other
Federal programs will exacerbate the problem rather than
remedying the real challenges that must be addressed as we
continue to lead the world into the next generation of air
navigation, surveillance, and airport and airway safety
systems.
Is there a crisis in aviation? If there is, I believe it is
the same crisis that we have struggled with for the past 20
years: not enough land-side capacity and how to manage the
disruption caused by inclement weather on airport operations
that cascade throughout the National Aviation System.
Clearly, there is not enough money in any trust fund, in
any agency department or Federal budget to change the weather.
The FAA Administrator has explained the relationship between
weather--thunderstorms, snowstorms, and their aftermath and
delays in the system.
Is capacity a problem? It is not a problem at the vast
majority of airports across the country, but it is a problem in
some of the airports near major population centers.
Unfortunately, aviation projects in those places tend to be
some of the most expensive, environmentally contentious, and
locally controversial. It is often difficult to convince local
communities that longer or more runways, high-speed taxiways,
or other aviation investments that will facilitate more
aircraft flying above their homes and communities is good for
them, even if it is in the national interest.
As a practical matter, I believe that the greatest capacity
improvements in the short term are likely to come from improved
approaches made possible by GPS technology and better
utilization of existing pavement through improved sequencing
and coordination of flights. To read some of the recent news
accounts, you would think that lavishing more money on the FAA
would solve just about every problem that ails us. If you miss
a flight, it is because there isn't an aviation firewall. If
airports are shut down by a line of thunderheads, it is because
there isn't an aviation firewall. If the stock market is off,
it is because there isn't an aviation firewall. It goes on and
on.
I will state categorically here that recent air tragedies
would not have been averted by an aviation firewall. I wish it
was that simple. The airlines will continue to cancel flights
due to mechanical problems and the scheduling considerations
dictated by reduced fleet size even if there is an aviation
firewall, and, most importantly, weather disruptions will not
go away even if there is an aviation firewall.
I ask that a paper and an update from the Heritage
Foundation about budget treatment of aviation accounts be
placed in the hearing record at this point, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[From the Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, July 9, 1999]
Moving Aviation Trust Fund ``Off Budget'' Undermines the Budget Process
(By Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., and Gregg Van Helmond)
On June 15, 1999, the House passed H.R. 1000 (the Aviation
Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century, or AIR 21), to reauthorize
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through fiscal year 2004 and
to increase significantly federal spending in support of commercial
aviation.\1\ To make room for this additional spending in a federal
budget in which total spending is tightly limited by congressionally
approved ``caps,'' Title IX of AIR 21 would move all spending and
revenues of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund ``off budget.'' As a
result of this proposed change, federal aviation spending would be
exempt from all congressional budget control mechanisms and would
receive a level of protection now provided only to Social Security.
Spending control mechanisms that no longer would be applicable to
aviation spending if the aviation trust fund were moved off budget
include budget caps established by the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of
1997, pay-as-you-go rules, annual congressional oversight and review,
and other statutory budget limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a more detailed critique of AIR 21, see Ronald D. Utt,
Ph.D., ``FAA Reauthorization: Time to Chart a Course for Privatizing
Airports,'' Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1289, June 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the House passed AIR 21 by a veto-proof majority, it is
not at all certain that the Senate is prepared to accept aviation
spending plans of this magnitude or a change in the budgetary treatment
of trust fund spending. Indeed, now under consideration in the Senate
is a significantly different proposal to reauthorize the FAA: S. 82,
introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), which would authorize much
less spending than H.R. 1000, and make no change in aviation's on-
budget status. Because the FAA's current authorization expires this
August, considerable pressure will be placed on the Senate to match the
level of spending, and the special off-budget privilege, passed by the
House.
Advocates of the proposal to move aviation spending off budget
argue that this special privilege would protect the tax revenues
generated by the airline industry and airline passengers from being
diverted to non-aviation spending, tax relief, or debt reduction. And
because none of the existing congressional spending limitation efforts
and mechanisms apply to off-budget spending, this privilege also would
allow Congress to raise future aviation spending substantially above
levels that would be permitted for such other, unprotected programs as
national security, health care, and law enforcement. If ultimately
adopted by Congress and signed into law, such a change would be a major
setback in Congress's long struggle to control spending, reduce taxes,
and balance the budget. It also would be fiscally irresponsible because
it would make sound federal financial decisions more difficult, weaken
congressional oversight, create a misleading federal budget, and
violate the spirit of the BBA. Specifically:
1. Sound public finance decisions would become more difficult.--
Moving aviation spending off budget would erase any remaining notion of
fiscal discipline within Congress. Not only would it remove aviation
spending from any measures of budget control, but it would have the
further effect of creating opportunities to spend more in other
programs. Placing aviation spending off budget without a corresponding
decrease in the discretionary spending caps in effect would bust the
caps enacted in 1997 by creating a ``gap in the cap.'' This gap,
amounting to $25.2 billion between 2001 and 2004, would likely be
filled with increased spending from a variety of other programs seeking
relief from the discipline imposed by the caps. If the caps were
adjusted downward to reflect the off-budget move, then an even smaller
share of the federal budget (now down to just 34 percent of all federal
spending) would have to shoulder the burden of meeting the budgetary
targets required by the BBA. Such vital, but unprotected programs as
Coast Guard drug interdiction, national defense, the Centers for
Disease Control, and many others could become subject to cuts, while
federal spending on behalf of commercial airlines and recreational
pilots would be increased and protected from congressional oversight.
2. Congressional and presidential oversight of federal programs
would be weakened.--As the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
Pete Domenici (R-NM), noted recently,
``Off-budget gimmicks or ``firewalls'' reduce management and
oversight of the FAA by taking trust fund spending out of the budget
process. That's a bad idea--we should not place the FAA and the trust
fund on permanent autopilot.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bureau of National Affairs, ``House Passage of AIR-21 Stuns
Senate; Domenici Mobilizes for Off-Budget Battle,'' Daily Report for
Executives No. 116, June 17, 1999.
Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) testified
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
before the House Transportation Subcommittee that
``When the [transportation] trust funds were created, Congress did
not create them as automatic spending trust funds. It chose to retain
annual oversight and control of spending from those funds in the
appropriations committees.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations,
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill
fiscal year 2000, Report No. 106-180, June 9, 1999, p. 33.
With aviation spending moved off budget, and escalating levels of
funding set for the next five years, both Congress and the President
would lose what little leverage they have to induce the notoriously
troubled FAA to strive for higher standards of performance. Providing
such protection to a government department that this year again earned
the GAO's ``high-risk'' designation--a distinction it shares with the
Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development--would be irresponsible.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: An Update,
GAO/HR-99-1, January 1999; ``The Department of Transportation's 10 Top
Priority Management Issues,'' Statement of Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Transportation, before the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Committee of Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 106th Cong.,
1st Sess., February 25, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Off-budget protection would diminish opportunity for reform.--
Once a program is moved off budget, and no longer is subject to annual
budget review or periodic authorization, Congress has fewer scheduled
opportunities to review it and, therefore, fewer opportunities to
effect needed reforms. The federal government's involvement with
commercial aviation has changed little since 1971, when the aviation
trust fund was created as the primary funding vehicle for FAA programs.
But since the 1971 FAA overhaul, there have been many changes in the
world of commercial aviation; most of these changes--except for
President Jimmy Carter's airline deregulation in 1978--have taken place
abroad. These include the privatization of more than 60 airports in the
past two years, the denationalization of many former government-owned
airlines, and the privatization/corporatization of air traffic control
systems, notably in Canada (1997) and in 16 other countries in recent
years. By locking up funding for five years and placing such funding
off budget, as H.R. 1000 would do, neither Congress nor the President
would have much in the way of opportunity to impose reform, and the
status quo would prevail until at least 2005.
4. The federal budget would be even more misleading than it is
today.--Removing aviation funding from the budget would understate the
size of the federal government. In fiscal year 1998, off-budget
spending amounted to over $316 billion. More important, when other non-
discretionary (labeled as ``mandatory'') spending is taken into
account, over 66 percent, or $1.1 trillion, of the $1.7 trillion in
federal outlays are essentially untouchable for Congress during the
annual budget process. Programs not lucky enough to warrant designation
as ``off budget'' or ``mandatory,'' including national defense,
education, and other discretionary line items, bear the brunt of any
budget cuts needed to fulfill deficit/surplus targets, repay the
national debt, or meet emerging priorities and emergencies.
5. Supporters of other programs would seek similar protection.--At
present, only Social Security has received ``off-budget'' protection in
recognition of the importance of the program for the well-being of many
retirees and the firm, contractual relationship between the taxes paid
in and the benefits received. No such significance or relationship
applies to the FAA's spending programs, whose chief beneficiaries are
the for-profit airlines, recreational pilots, and weekend hobbyists.
All reflect a segment of society with the financial means to bear the
risk of future budget restraint and the impact such uncertainty might
have on the programs that assist them. Nonetheless, if aviation
spending programs were placed off budget, other programs of potentially
greater significance to the well-being of the country or to vulnerable
constituencies, such as Medicare and national security, would be likely
to demand the same protection--and could receive it. As a consequence,
what remains ``on budget'' soon would amount to a minor share of
federal spending, and much of the rest--now afforded off-budget
status--would be beyond control, oversight, and reform by either the
President or Congress.
6. The spirit of the Balanced Budget Act would be destroyed.--The
BBA was created to keep runaway spending in check, and to date has
served as an important source of discipline in slowing the growth of
discretionary spending. Although it has not always been honored, and
many tricks and gimmicks have been suggested or utilized to sneak extra
spending past its controls, the spirit of the BBA has survived and has
been more effective than previous congressional budget reforms. AIR 21
could very well end this successful effort. Although not a new ploy,
off-budget accounting for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund would
exempt billions of dollars from budgetary restraints at the expense of
other programs.\5\ By taking the aviation trust fund off budget,
Congress would risk setting a dangerous precedent. By undermining the
sense of shared sacrifice that has helped many congressional committees
to make tough decisions, advocates of other programs could become
inclined to resist cuts and seek the same or similar privileges and
protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The House Transportation Committee attempted to take the
Highway Trust Fund off budget last year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
Although the House voted overwhelmingly to pass AIR 21 (H.R. 1000)
and to move aviation trust fund spending off budget, the bill's
prospects in the Senate are uncertain, particularly when considering
the Senate's record of firm opposition to the sort of budgetary
gimmicks included in AIR 21. At present, the Senate's version of
legislation to reauthorize the FAA (S. 82) proposes to spend
substantially less than AIR 21, and also to leave the trust fund on
budget and subject to existing spending limits and caps. As such, S. 82
offers Congress a fiscally responsible choice compared with the
irresponsible excess of AIR 21.
______
[From the Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum, Feb. 2, 2000]
Senate Should not Take FAA Spending off Budget
(By Ronald D. Utt)
In 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1000, the
Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), by a
veto-proof majority and sent it to the Senate with the expectation that
the upper chamber would support its unprecedented violation of fiscal
integrity. Put forth originally by House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA), AIR 21 would
place the Airport and Airway Trust Fund off budget and guarantee
federal aviation programs minimum funding levels from general federal
revenues over and above revenues derived from dedicated aviation taxes.
Strong Senate opposition to AIR 21--led by Senators Pete Domenici
(R-NM), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Ted Stevens
(R-AK)--is based on concerns that the bill's proposals are fiscally
irresponsible and would establish a precedent that other federal
programs could use to avoid the discipline of the congressional budget
process. The Senate has passed its own bill, the Air Transportation
Improvement Act (S. 82), sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), which
would authorize less spending than AIR 21 and make no change in the
budgetary status of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Achievement of a House-Senate compromise remains elusive, since the
Senate refuses to accept AIR 21's budget-busting provisions, and
authorization for FAA's Airport Improvement Programs has expired.
If AIR 21 were enacted and the aviation trust fund were placed off
budget, federal aviation spending would be exempt from all
congressional budget control mechanisms and afforded a level of
protection now provided only to Social Security. Spending control
mechanisms that no longer would apply include budget caps established
by the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, pay-as-you-go rules, annual
congressional oversight and review, and other statutory budget
limitations.
Advocates of AIR 21 argue that the off-budget privilege would
prevent the diversion of tax revenues generated by the airline industry
and its passengers to non-aviation spending, tax relief, or debt
reduction. But if FAA spending were redefined as off budget, future
aviation spending could be increased at rates above those permitted for
such other unprotected programs as national defense, education, and law
enforcement.
If AIR 21 were adopted by Congress and signed into law, its
provisions would mark a major setback in Washington's long struggle to
control spending, reduce taxes, and pay down the debt. Specifically:
--Responsible public finance decisionmaking would be more difficult,
because one program would be given more protection and
privileges than the rest. Moving aviation spending off budget
would undermine any remaining notion of fiscal discipline in
Congress. Moreover, giving the FAA guaranteed minimum levels of
funding out of general revenues would provide it with an
added--and costly--privilege.
--Congressional and presidential oversight of federal programs would
be weakened. As Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici
has observed, ``Off-budget gimmicks or `firewalls' reduce
management and oversight of the FAA by taking trust fund
spending out of the budget process. That's a bad idea--we
should not place the FAA and the trust fund on permanent
autopilot.'' Moving aviation spending off budget would deprive
Congress and the President of what little leverage they have to
induce the notoriously troubled FAA to achieve higher standards
of performance. Diminishing oversight of a federal department
that earned a ``high risk'' designation by the U.S. General
Accounting Office would be irresponsible.
--Off-budget protection would diminish opportunities for reform. Once
a program is moved off budget, it is no longer subject to
annual budget review, appropriations, or periodic
authorization. As a result, Congress would have fewer
opportunities to review the FAA or encourage it to adopt
fundamental reforms that today are sweeping commercial
aviation, especially abroad. These include privatization of
more than 60 airports in the past three years, outsourcing of
various component activities, and privatization-corporatization
of the air traffic control systems in Canada and more than a
dozen other countries. By locking up the program for five years
and placing its funding off budget, AIR 21 would ensure that
the earliest reform opportunity could not occur until 2005.
--The federal budget would be even more misleading than it is today.
Removing aviation funding from the budget would understate the
size of the federal government by excluding a multibillion-
dollar program. In fiscal year 1999, off-budget spending
amounted to $321 billion; when other non-discretionary
(``mandatory'') spending is added to this amount, over 66
percent--or $1.2 trillion of the $1.7 trillion in federal
outlays--is essentially untouchable in the annual budget
process. Programs not lucky enough to warrant ``off budget'' or
``mandatory'' designations, including defense, public health,
criminal justice, and education, bear the brunt of any budget
restraint necessary to meet overall fiscal objectives.
--Supporters of other programs would seek similar protection. At
present, only Social Security receives off-budget protection in
recognition of its extreme political sensitivity and the
essential benefits it provides to a large and vulnerable
portion of the population. No such significance applies to the
FAA's spending programs, the chief beneficiaries of which are
for-profit airlines, recreational pilots, and weekend
hobbyists. If programs that benefit commercial aviation are
placed off budget, other federal programs of potentially
greater significance to vulnerable constituencies or the
nation's well-being would be likely to demand, and perhaps
receive, the same protection.
Although the House voted overwhelmingly to pass AIR 21 and move
aviation spending off budget, the bill's prospects are uncertain
because of the Senate's record of firm opposition to the sort of budget
gimmicks included in this bill. At present, the Senate-passed
alternative (S. 82) proposes spending less than AIR 21, offers no
minimum guarantees from general revenues, and would keep the trust fund
on budget where it belongs. As such, it offers Washington a fiscally
responsible alternative to AIR 21's fiscal excess.
Senator Shelby. In short, the paper makes the points that:
one, effective oversight would be reduced; reform of the agency
would be more difficult; and, three, special budget treatment,
as we all know, is a slippery slope. Special budget treatment
is a code for reduced accountability and oversight. If the FAA
were an agency that could be put on autopilot, then
accountability and oversight might not be so important. But,
unfortunately, the FAA is an agency with enormous challenges
that require increased accountability and oversight, as pointed
out in every study, review, or assessment of the agency in the
last 20 years, most recently, in the 1997 Coopers & Lybrand
independent financial assessment. Clearly, changing budget
treatment is no substitute for responsible policy oversight.
I would note that a month ago we invited almost all the
airline CEOs to be here this morning to share their views with
us on these issues. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, none were
able to join us today. I think they miss an opportunity to talk
with two committees of the Senate directly involved in aviation
spending issues. With all the meetings they have been having
around the Hill on this issue, I would have thought they would
have jumped at the opportunity to be here today. I will give
some of those CEOs another opportunity to testify before my
Subcommittee on Appropriations later this year about some of
the issues my constituents have been giving me an earful about.
Funny to me, my constituents don't seem to care about FAA's
funding levels or delays as much as they do about the airlines
living up to commonly expected levels of customer service and
the implicit promise made by advertised air fare prices.
Mr. Chairman, I know I have taken too much time, and I
really am more interested in what the witnesses have to say
here. Thank you for your indulgence.
Senator Domenici. Senators, do I understand that it is
acceptable to everyone that we proceed? I think we ought to
hear from the witnesses.
Thank you very much for taking over, Senator Gorton,
Senator Lautenberg, in my absence.
Let me just say in addition to the statement which was read
on my behalf, this is part of our oversight responsibility,
ongoing oversight that we will do for the next couple of weeks
in various parts of our government, and it was thought to be
rather important to get a better understanding of the needs in
this area because we have not yet resolved the multi-year bill
for FAA that is in conference. But, in addition, believe it or
not, we have not resolved how much appropriations money there
will be available for the entirety of government. We are still
negotiating and we still have to have meetings on that. And it
is relevant how much, in addition to any guarantee of trust
funds which is given in our conference, how much additional
money might be needed because we don't have a very large pot of
non-discretionary money to spend on all of government.
So I hope everybody understands. We don't hold this to
become technical experts on the subject matter but, rather, the
broader picture that has been presented in my opening remarks
and by the distinguished chairman and ranking member.
Now, the Honorable Jane Garvey, Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, whomever you have accompanying
you, they are welcome to speak if you want them to. Their
presence is noted, and their names. Let me say it has been a
pleasure to know you for a number of years. I think you have
taken a challenge here that is very difficult, and to my
knowledge, thus far, what I know about it, I commend you for
very, very serious efforts to fix some things that need fixing.
Would you proceed, please?
STATEMENT OF JANE F. GARVEY
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here and to be with members of the committee.
If I could begin by first of all expressing our sympathy to
the families who experienced really an irreplaceable loss this
week with Alaska Airline Flight 261, and we are very much aware
of the ties of Senator Gorton and Chairman Stevens, too, as
well, to those communities.
We do have an extraordinary aviation system in this
country. We serve 600 million passengers a year. But as
Secretary Slater commented yesterday, in somber moments like
these, I think it really underscores the importance of the work
that we do. And I would only add that it also serves to
encourage us to redouble our commitments to doing absolutely
the best job that we possibly can. And I know I am speaking
particularly for the men and women who have joined the NTSB in
investigating this accident in great detail.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you very much for having us here
today. And if I could--and I will do this as briefly as I
possibly can, but I would like to try to answer, if I could,
two fundamental questions this morning. The first is: How are
we managing, how are we at the FAA managing this enormous
challenge of modernizing the Air Traffic Control System? And I
think inherent in that is the question: Are we up to the task?
Second, I would like to touch on what we see as some of our
major challenges. First of all, the management approach we are
taking I think can be summed up in one phrase that I am sure
many of you have heard by now, and that is, evolution not
revolution.
Historically, I think the FAA--and, in fact, government in
general--takes on projects that are often too massive, too
ambitious, large, complex projects that never seem to get done.
So instead of the big bang approach, we are moving
incrementally, step by step, reducing the potential for cost
overruns and delays. And we have done this by listening to the
users of the systems, the airlines who have to use the system,
and by establishing unprecedented agreements, both with
industry and with our labor unions. I wanted to underscore that
because really it is something we will accomplish only if we
are working together on this issue.
We think the approach is paying off, and it is paying off
in three important elements of modernization, again, very
briefly. First of all, sustaining the system. There are
thousands of pieces of equipment in the system, and we often
focus on the very sort of visible projects. But in 1999, for
example, we replaced over 750 major pieces of equipment in the
system. We replaced 30-year-old equipment in all of our
centers, and that is the equipment that is used to manage the
Air Traffic Control System. HOST was completed and replaced in
December. DSR will be replaced in all of the centers by May
2000. We are very happy to say that last week we initiated
STARS in Syracuse, and El Paso went online 2 or 3 weeks ago.
So those, again, provide the platforms for the future
capability. So in terms of sustaining the system, we are doing
a great deal to replenish the system that is out there. And we
have done all of this while managing the once-in-a-century
problem, Y2K.
The second element of modernization is the whole issue of
safety enhancements, and that really speaks directly to our
mission of aviation safety. I think some of the members touched
on that, the whole issue of weather, and included in our
modernization effort is a whole series of weather initiatives
that gives us much more accuracy in producing the weather
information. Our goal here is to really have in place in all of
our facilities common weather information, the most state-of-
the-art information. So both in terms of sustaining the system
and safety enhancements, we are doing it incrementally, and we
are doing it in a block-by-block fashion.
The third element for modernization is improving the whole
system efficiency. Free Flight Phase One really is the
cornerstone, and I think some of you have heard me speak about
this before. Again, it could be a very ambitious massive
project, and what we have said is let's identify a series of
automation tools which give us increased efficiency and
increased capability. This has been accomplished. It has been
accomplished with an unprecedented agreement with industry and
an unprecedented agreement with our own unions. I am delighted
to see Bob Baker here, who has been helping us in the whole
effort with Free Flight.
We have a very simple, straightforward contract with
industry. It is, we deploy the technology; and industry helps
us measure the results. So block by block, step by step,
incrementally, we are getting modernization done. I think in
particular, look at some of the investments that Congress--or
some of the money that Congress has given us in the past 2
years: HOST, $164 million, and we got it done ahead of
schedule. I am delighted with that.
Free Flight is on schedule. We will have those technologies
deployed to selected sites by the end of 2002, and we are
moving very aggressively in that area. So the incremental
approach is important.
Second, I think there are other ways that we are managing
differently. Historically, the FAA has taken a stovepipe
approach to solving problems. We tend to be rather layered and
hierarchical. The decisionmaking is often diffused in the
agency. What we are doing now is taking every major initiative,
organizing it with one point of accountability, and organizing
it across the lines of business. Y2K I think gives us a great
model. Free Flight Phase One gives us another model where we
are pulling these programs together under one point of
accountability.
I think another issue that has been very important to us
and something we have learned well in the last couple of years,
and that is the importance of human factors. Technology is only
one part of the challenge. Human factors is another part.
Getting our controllers and the users involved early on in the
deployment of these technologies is really key. If you look at
the Free Flight office or you look at the efforts in STARS
right now, you will see the controllers working side-by-side
with the managers. I think that is critical as well.
Senator Lautenberg spoke of two very, important tools that
we received from Congress. We are absolutely indebted forever
for both personnel reform and acquisition reform.
Personnel reform has already allowed us to streamline the
recruiting of top people. We have been able to actually recruit
some people into the agency from industry. I think we would not
have been able to do that 5 or 10 years ago. We are on the
right track with personnel reform. We had a terrific pilot
program last year that really taught us a great deal, and we
are getting ready to move out on implementing the performance
based compensation plan for the entire agency in the spring of
this year.
Acquisition reform, 50 percent reduction in time, great
value-added. We are seeing, again, I think some real
improvements. Now, let me just say that there is more we can
do. We should be doing more and we are doing more. We have had
independent reviews from the IG, from Booz Allen, from NAPA.
All of them have given us some very specific suggestions which
we are taking and implementing.
Finally, the issue of cost accounting. In some ways, I
think that holds the greatest promise for us in the future. We
are well on our way with cost accounting. I will tell you we
have had to slow down a bit because of some of the budget
constraints, but, again, in the area of air traffic control, we
are well on our way to seeing cost accounting in place.
Let me just finally mention some of the challenges that we
have ahead. I think when we look at the large technology, we
are always going to have issues in managing those large,
complex projects. I think we need to constantly ask ourselves:
Have we set the right deadlines? Do we have the right
milestones? Are we asking the right questions? But we are
prepared to do that, and I think we are, again, well on the way
incrementally to getting those projects done.
I think another great challenge for us is the whole issue
of delays, and you spoke about that in your testimony, a number
of you. We are very focused with industry on a Spring-Summer
Plan that is really going to change the way we approach some of
the issues of managing the Air Traffic Control, and that in the
short term is going to give us some very positive benefits.
Again, that is something we are just about ready to announce,
we hope by the end of February.
We will continue to have challenges in personnel reform, in
acquisition reform, in cost accounting. But the greatest
challenge is going to be to keep focused on those elements, do
the best job we can at implementing, and then using those tools
as flexibly as we possibly can.
One last word, though, if I could, on reauthorization. From
our perspective, we see this as one of the great short-term
challenges. I do want to underscore what Secretary Slater said
to you, Mr. Chairman, just the other day when he thanked you
and this committee for your efforts on completing the action on
the Reauthorization Bill. We are very much aware of some of the
very difficult issues associated with that bill, particularly
in the area of funding. We do appreciate your willingness to
tackle those very tough questions with us.
The other day I spoke with Don McCarty, the head of
American Airlines, and he made a statement that has really
stayed with me. He said that it would be so good to get that
behind us so that we can continue to focus like a laser on some
of the issues that really are so challenging to us. I think the
issue of further reforms is part of that, and we look forward
to, not only hearing from some of the other witnesses today
about some of their experiences, but also, we look forward to
working with this committee in the future on additional reforms
that we could possibly put in place.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We do believe that passing the Reauthorization Bill is one
step in taking the debate and the dialogue to another level,
and we absolutely look forward to working with members of this
committee to seeing it through.
Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane F. Garvey
Chairmen Domenici, Shelby, and members of the committee and
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's progress in
modernizing the National Airspace System (NAS). I am pleased to report
that in the past 2 years, the FAA's restructured approach for
modernization has produced promising results--specifically in the
creation of a manageable short and long-term strategy to modernization
and in the form of positive responses from our partners in the aviation
community.
The FAA is a 24 hour/7 days a week service delivery organization.
The FAA controls approximately 200,000 takeoffs and landings per day
and moves over 600 million passengers per year. This latter number is
expected to reach 1 billion within a decade. Our customers depend on
the safe and efficient operation of the NAS. Maintaining this system in
a safe and efficient manner, while providing for the anticipated growth
in the use of NAS, is the FAA's top priority.
Our Nation's decade-long economic expansion has produced a
sustained increase in demand for air traffic control (ATC) services.
Traffic has grown about 4 percent a year and some locations have seen
20 percent increases during a year as new flights are added into highly
competitive airline links. As this economic growth and increase in
demand for our services continues, increasing pressures will be placed
on aviation resources.
The world looks to the FAA for guidance and support not only for
air traffic control, but for all aviation activities, including
security and certification. The standards we set will guide
international aviation for years to come.
MANAGING DIFFERENTLY
Our management approach can be summed up in a phrase that I am sure
many of you have heard by now: evolution, not revolution. Instead of
taking a ``big bang'' approach to modernization, we are moving
incrementally, building upon each step that we have taken, reducing the
potential for cost overruns and schedule delays. In addition, the FAA
has established a strong partnership with the aviation industry and
labor unions. As a result, the FAA has focused resources on areas
important to industry and has taken steps to coordinate with the
appropriate labor groups.
This management approach to NAS modernization is the right one to
take, given the tight budget constraints in which all Federal agencies
must operate. As a Federal entity, the FAA must also meet its annual
performance goals. Our annual performance is also tied to how
effectively the FAA manages the resources Congress provides. Our NAS
modernization efforts, built upon incremental steps, is best suited for
the task of managing the dollars your committees provide to the FAA.
As I mentioned, the FAA has structured our approach to
modernization with a particular emphasis on air traffic control
modernization, the cornerstone of the NAS. We have defined three
elements to air traffic control modernization: first, sustaining our
current system and renewing the infrastructure; second, adding safety
feature, (safety, of course, being the FAA's primary mission); and
third, improving the system to increase capacity and efficiency.
OUR ACHIEVEMENTS
When it comes to NAS sustainment, I'm sure each member of both
committees is well aware of our largest and most recent sustainment
project--Y2K compliance. The FAA had to assess and certify 628
different systems and programs--a daunting task to say the least.
Whether you were traveling at 35,000 feet as Senator Gorton and I were
at year-end, or following worldwide festivities on television, you
never heard anything alarming or threatening about our transition. It
was the dedication, time, sufficient funding, and effort of hundreds of
FAA employees that made our Y2K transition such a success.
In order to sustain our current systems and renew our aviation
infrastructure, we have incorporated both major and minor changes to
the air traffic control system. Thus far, we have installed and
integrated more than 750 major systems and pieces of equipment into the
NAS. These efforts to sustain our system produce immediate paybacks.
For instance, last year the FAA replaced the HOST and oceanic computer
system equipment used to control air traffic at the 20 en route and 3
oceanic centers. We are also replacing the associated radar display
systems at the 20 en route centers, with 12 systems fully operational
last year.
Many of our NAS sustainment projects are nearly complete, while
others are beginning to bear fruit. For example, this coming May we
will dedicate the last of the Display System Replacements (DSR),
replacing 30-year old display equipment in the en route centers, and
completely modernizing controller workstations. DSR provides
controllers with new hardware and software display systems, and
provides a platform for future enhancements. We are in the process of
replacing one system per month, center by center, at all 20 centers.
In December, I had the pleasure of traveling to El Paso, Texas, to
see the first use of our new air traffic control automation system in
the terminal environment with STARS, the Standard Terminal Automation
Replacement System. STARS is the equivalent of DSR in the terminal
environment, the most intricate environment in the NAS. Although the
FAA has faced a number of difficulties with the development of STARS,
controllers, technicians, and management are working side by side to
resolve open issues and problems. With the first version of STARS now
running in both El Paso and in Syracuse, New York, our efforts are
beginning to pay off in this critical area.
One of the best examples of how the FAA is managing differently is
the work of the Human Factors Working Group, a group that grew out of
our development efforts in STARS. The working group, comprised of
representatives from the FAA, our labor union leadership, and industry,
developed a process to identify, monitor, and resolve human factors
issues throughout the entire acquisition process so that these issues
do not arise unexpectedly and too late in a program. Since air traffic
controllers play such a crucial role in the FAA's safety mission, the
Human Factors Working Group makes sure that they have an early and
continuing voice in the acquisition of systems that affect the job that
they are so committed to doing.
We are also currently testing the Wide Area Augmentation System
(WAAS). WAAS works with the satellite-based Global Position System
(GPS). The GPS signal that is available for civil use is accurate but
requires augmentation for aviation use. The GPS signal by itself does
not fully satisfy civil aviation navigation requirements. WAAS would
correct the signal to provide the safety, integrity, and accuracy to
satisfy civil aviation navigation requirements.
The FAA and Raytheon's latest testing of WAAS indicates that the
accuracy of the system exceeds our requirements. However the
performance to date of the safety monitor function that provides system
integrity has not yet met requirements. WAAS integrity is an essential
element in the program. In order to ensure the system meets essential
safety requirements, the FAA is currently assessing how much work will
be required.
Our second element of NAS modernization, adding safety features, is
an effort that speaks directly to the FAA's primary mission of ensuring
aviation safety. Our additional safety features include advanced
weather information systems. These enhancements will provide us with
more precise, more accurate, and timelier weather information. In our
modernization blueprint, we have included many weather initiatives,
such as the Integrated Terminal Weather System and the Weather and
Radar Processor. These provide increased accuracy in terminal area and
en route weather information, as well as Terminal Doppler Weather Radar
for major airports where windshear and microbursts are safety issues.
WHAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON
The third element of modernization, improving the capacity and
efficiency of the system, means fewer delays, lower costs, and better
service. The crux of this third element is Free Flight Phase One. Free
Flight Phase One is the first step to an innovative approach to air
traffic control, moving from ``control'' to air traffic ``management.''
Free Flight Phase One is designed to move the NAS from a centralized
command-and-control system between pilots and air traffic controllers
to a distributed system that allows pilots, wherever practical, to
choose their own route and file a flight plan that follows the most
efficient and economical route. The overall benefit of these programs
is to enable our air traffic control system to accommodate the future
increase in flights and provide more optimum routings for aircraft in
the Nation's airspace.
Free Flight Phase One represents an historic point in the FAA's
history. Under this program, we have reached a consensus with industry
that is virtually unprecedented: an agreement from all sectors of the
aviation community. Our agreement with the industry is simple: we
deploy the systems and the remainder of the community measures the
results and tells us how they are working. After receiving this
feedback, we will decide upon our next steps. Maintaining this
consensus is an enormous challenge for the FAA, particularly in an
industry where competition is the guiding principle.
Moreover, Free Flight Phase One is a perfect example of the
benefits of the FAA's ``evolution, not revolution'' approach to NAS
modernization. Under this building block approach, we not only reduce
the risks of cost overruns and schedule delays; we take into account
the changing nature of emerging technology. The FAA's NAS modernization
plan is a forward-looking approach that is scheduled to take place over
the next 15 years. With our new incremental, evolutionary approach, we
will be able to accommodate changes in technology and incorporate them
into the NAS in a managed fashion.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL REFORM
Finally, I would like to discuss air traffic control reform. At
this crucial time, when Congress is in conference on important FAA
reauthorization legislation, I would like to emphasize the
Administration's commitment to meaningful and necessary air traffic
control reform, a much needed long term solution. Fundamental reform of
air traffic control has been an Administration priority for 6 years.
The goal is to make our air traffic control system as efficient as it
is safe, a goal we share with this committee. Through the expanded
capacity that greater efficiency would provide, we can reduce delays,
better serve under-served communities, and accommodate the enormous
growth projected for this vibrant industry.
Although the Administration has proposed different organizational
structures at different times, our three principles for ATC reform--
business-like management, cost-based pricing, and budget reform--have
remained the same. They have been endorsed by three blue-ribbon
commissions; most recently the 1997 congressionally mandated National
Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC). Both the House and the Senate
recognize the importance of reform to the future of air traffic
control, and both have some elements of reform in FAA reauthorization
legislation that is now in conference. The Administration wants to be
part of the dialogue on the important issue of reform. We believe our
three principles provide the basis for sound, responsible, achievable
reform.
First, the FAA needs to be able to operate the air traffic control
system more like a business. The Administration is fully supportive of
the NCARC recommendation that FAA management must become performance
based. Congress has already given us key elements of management reform
in the form of streamlined personnel and procurement authority. A key
reform still needed is the establishment of a chief operating officer
(COO) whose salary and tenure are linked to concrete performance
measures. We recognize and appreciate that both the House and Senate
bills would create a COO.
Second, the FAA's ATC revenue stream must become cost-based. The
Administration believes that Congress should replace the current
financing mechanism, an excise tax on airline passengers, with a system
in which the actual commercial users of air traffic control services
pay for them based on the cost of those services. (Like NCARC, the
Administration agrees that general aviation should continue to pay a
fuel tax.) As stated in the NCARC report, ``A cost-based system of
charges will change the way the government, as the provider of ATC
services, and the aviation industry, as the user of ATC services,
develop their respective policy and management decisions. Using such a
system, in and of itself, will bring about a very significant
management improvement.'' In other words, cost-based pricing is
necessary to drive management reform.
Third, in exchange for pricing reform, Congress should ensure that
the resulting cost-based revenue from air traffic control users is
spent exclusively on air traffic control. Such a guarantee will make it
easier for the FAA and its customers to meet operational and capital
spending needs for ATC.
Air travel is a critical engine of economic growth, whether it is
the leisure travelers who fuel tourism or the many business travelers
who depend on reliable, convenient air service. If we do not reform ATC
to enable it to accommodate the anticipated growth of air travel, we
will be making a fundamental decision to limit our Nation's economic
growth during the 21st century.
SUMMARY
As for our next steps in modernization, we are currently exploring
several possibilities. Here, we strive to strike the right balance
between looking towards the future and not biting off more than we
can--or should--chew. As we modernize the NAS, we continue to
anticipate future needs, assessing how viable various options are.
FAA's future actions must be to look at improving our management
tools. Our initiatives in cost accounting, personnel and acquisition
reform, and our strong partnership with industry will enable us to
effectively manage our current resources and future demands placed on
the NAS.
The challenge facing the FAA is to finance the capital investments
that will allow the agency to make key safety improvements, keep up
with growing air travel demand, and improve efficiency of aircraft
operations. This requires a level of funding that will allow new
initiatives as well as provide stable funding for existing projects.
The FAA currently makes choices among several valuable projects, all of
which can provide significant benefits to aviation.
Making choices is not unique to the FAA, but the aviation industry
senses that valuable new initiatives are vital to improving aviation
efficiency. We are working to address these in the fiscal year 2001
budget, while sustaining the levels of capital investment sufficient to
make solid progress towards modernizing the NAS.
Modernization and maintenance of the NAS is a significant challenge
for the FAA. Congress has supported the FAA in its efforts toward
modernization and reform, and I look forward to continuing that working
relationship with you, Mr. Chairmen, and the members of both
committees.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning.
That concludes my prepared remarks and I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Domenici. Senators I received a note from Senator
Grassley that he is on a very short time frame. He would like
to make a brief opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
Senator Grassley. Yes; It will be very brief. The reason I
am doing it, for the benefit of my colleagues, is because I
have a constituent before the Finance Committee at 11 o'clock.
This statement is in regard to the funding for the FAA.
I sent you a letter, Mr. Chairman, that asked that minimum
funding be made available to meet the President's fiscal year
2001 FAA budget request. Maximum funding for the amount fully
authorized by law would be the ideal that I support.
I should further explain that I do not include in my
request any of the reported fees that the President may be
asking for in his budget request. To the extent necessary, FAA
funding should come from the general fund.
All of this should be done through the regular budget and
appropriations process. There should not be a firewall or other
mechanisms to segregate these funds. I believe that this
request is within the position which you, Mr. Chairman, have so
clearly stated many times of late, and I hope it will be
possible for you to accommodate the request.
My letter states satisfactory resolution of air
transportation problems will take more than increased Federal
funding. I agree with what Senator Shelby has said in his
statement today. I believe that these efforts will take more
than a massive infusion of public funds. It will take
structural and cultural changes within the agency. I will note
that the FAA has received increased Federal funds in the past,
and there is some question as to how wisely those funds have
been spent.
I thank all my colleagues for accommodating me.
Senator Domenici. I wanted to thank you for your comments
and thank you for the support for the position we have taken in
conference, which is precisely what you have said. And you are
aware of what has been offered, and you are aware of what hangs
us up. And I don't know when it will be completed, but we
surely want to finish it. And you are urging us to finish it,
but obviously you are urging us to finish it on the grounds
that you consider sensible. And I thank you for them, and they
will be used by me. When people ask about what other Senators
think, I will be able to quote someone that knows precisely the
problem, as you have stated.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Let's now move to the Inspector General,
the Honorable Ken Mead, Department of Transportation.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. MEAD
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express our
appreciation for your having this hearing today. I think the
hearing is a statement not just about the need for adequate
investment, which we all want in our aviation system. This
hearing is also about accountability and oversight for money
the FAA already receives, as well as any plus-ups that may come
along.
I think it is important to outline the context here. FAA
oversees the largest, busiest, safest air transportation system
in the world. Until Monday night, we had a remarkable safety
record going for 2 years. I think that was a real credit to FAA
and the airlines as well.
I would like to focus, though, on three issues:
restructuring the FAA, progress with acquisition and personnel
reforms, and a word or two about FAA financing. All of these
issues were mentioned in the committee's invite letter.
On restructuring, there are a number of proposals being
discussed that suggest FAA ought to operate more like a
business. Some of these proposals suggest a corporation and
some suggest privatization. There is a variety.
I want to make clear that I don't envision any
circumstances where DOT's role in safety oversight ought to be
transferred outside of the Federal government. I think it ought
to be taken off the table. Further any proposal to restructure
FAA or have air traffic control spun off and run by a
commercial type of organization ought to be carefully examined.
I think the experiences of other countries that have done
this are instructive, such as NAV Canada. But it is difficult
to use them as a conclusive frame of reference because our air
traffic control system is so much larger, more diverse, and
more complex. Just a number as a point of reference here. The
United States handled nearly 44 million aircraft in the en
route environment in 1998, and that is compared to about 5
million for Canada. This doesn't mean that we should avoid
inquiry into new ways of doing business and how to be more
efficient and effective.
Now, if the Congress should choose to make major changes to
FAA's structure or commercialize air traffic control services,
I urge great caution. We already have a safe system, despite
all the bumps, warts, needs for improvement, and so forth. And
I don't think there is any substitute for firsthand experience
in a limited air traffic control environment.
Before you consider expansive changes or wholesale changes
to our entire system, the oceanic air traffic control
environment might provide an area that could be explored in
that regard. While exploring oceanic air traffic control would
be very cautious and conservative approach, it would give us
all a much surer footing on which to proceed in the future.
Why oceanic? There are a number of reasons. Oceanic
services are operationally distinct from domestic air traffic
control. The oceanic environment is a growth market in need of
modernization. The United States is behind, and changes in this
area would affect only 300 of FAA's 15,000 controllers. Also it
would have very limited impact on most airports, small
carriers, general aviation, and air taxis. I am not making a
recommendation here, but just putting on the table an issue
that the Congress may wish to explore.
I would like to make some comments on acquisition and
personnel reform. It was in late 1995 that Congress provided
the FAA with the tools to operate in a more businesslike
manner. Essentially, Congress exempted FAA from the procurement
and personnel rules. There has been some progress--I don't want
to deny that at all--but there has been limited impact on
bottom-line results.
To its credit, FAA has adopted a ``build a little, test a
little'' approach to some acquisitions and has made progress in
reducing the time to award contracts and the time to amend
contracts. And some systems have been deployed on time. At the
same time, however, problems persist with technologically
challenging systems like STARS, which would replace computers
in the terminal environment, a system called WAAS, which
pertains to satellite navigation, and AMASS, which would help
prevent runway incursions, which is a very important area of
safety risk. These systems have a cumulative value of over $4
billion, and they are experiencing severe cost and schedule
problems.
The problems with these acquisitions, Mr. Chairman, are
unambiguously not related to a lack of funding or the result of
burdensome procurement or personnel rules. The common thread of
the problems with these acquisitions are problems in developing
software-intensive computer systems and addressing human-
computer interface issues.
In the case of STARS that I mentioned, the human factor
issues were identified much too late in the process. So,
regardless of the amount of money that FAA gets, the agency
needs to do more to protect the government's investment, make
contractors more accountable, and address human factor issues
earlier in the development process. It is very costly to
address human factors at the 11th hour and doing so can lead to
major design changes. I believe the Administration is moving to
address this problem.
Personnel reform. FAA has had some success with personnel
reform, but by far the most visible result of personnel reform
has been the new compensation agreement with the controllers.
This agreement has markedly improved relationships between FAA
management and the union, the controllers. But it comes at a
price. The new agreement will require nearly $1 billion in
additional funding over the life of the agreement, and it has
led to sharp increases in the agency's operations costs.
What I want to illustrate with this chart--and it is also
in the testimony--is that for fiscal years 1998 through 2004
there has been sharp increases in the agency's cost of
operations, which are principally salaries. Operations is the
blue line. As you can see, the cost of operations constrains
the dollars available for modernization, which is the yellow
line, and dollars for airports, which is the green line.
It is a fact, Mr. Chairman, that the United States invested
more in fiscal year 1992 in modernization than it will in
fiscal year 2000. But it is also true that at the same time
operations costs increased about 40 percent, from $4 billion to
$6 billion.
Finally, on financing FAA, I know there are various
proposals, but they all have one common thread: to increase the
amount of funds available to the agency.
This other chart shows the FAA budget by program for fiscal
years 1988, 1994, 2000 and 2001. While FAA's overall budget has
grown, funding for airports and capital improvements have
remained relatively steady. Because operations costs have
increased, FAA faces significant risk in meeting its operation
costs without crowding out capital investments.
I also want to point out that on the trust fund issue, the
actual receipts received by that trust fund from taxes aren't
enough to finance all of FAA. It is about $700 million short.
That doesn't include the interest earned.
I would like to close with a word about FAA's cost
accounting system. The cost accounting system was first
required of FAA in 1996. It had been talked about for many
years before. A cost accounting system would help the agency
keep track of its costs. Most businesses would go into
bankruptcy if they didn't have one. FAA recently deferred its
implementation date for a cost accounting system to 2002. I
think that decision ought to be reversed, and it ought to be
done sooner rather than later. If you can't track where your
money is going, like in your checkbook, how much money you are
getting, and what you are spending it for, it is very difficult
to make a persuasive case as to where you place additional
investment and what you are going to get out of that
investment.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So I would urge the FAA and the Department to get on with
that cost accounting system, and I think that would put them in
a better position to frame the case for additional investment.
That concludes my statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
MODERNIZING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: CHALLENGES AND
SOLUTIONS
Mr. Chairmen and members of the full committee and subcommittee: We
appreciate the opportunity to discuss ``Modernizing the Federal
Aviation Administration: Challenges and Solutions.''
FAA oversees the largest, busiest and safest air transportation
system in the world. FAA also is responsible for operating air traffic
control, which is the nerve center of the Nation's air transportation
system. Until Monday night, the safety record for the last 2 years was
remarkable. This is a credit to FAA and all segments of the aviation
community. At the same time, FAA and the aviation community are facing
a number of challenges. The demand for air travel has doubled since
1980 and is expected to continue to grow through 2015. Unfortunately,
with the growth in demand has come growth in delays, and consumer
dissatisfaction with airline service is high. In the last 5 years,
delays have increased by over 50 percent.
Against this backdrop, FAA's air traffic control modernization
efforts and airport capacity have not kept pace with the demand for air
travel. These are legitimate concerns and they are not new.
Congressional hearings dating back to the mid-1980's focused on the
same subjects. As there were then, there are now proposals to
restructure FAA's air traffic functions to perform more like a
commercial business and to provide additional funding for air traffic
control modernization and airport improvement programs.
Today, I would like to make three points.
First, there is no air traffic system in the world as large and
complex as that of the United States. It is safe, but actions are
needed to make it more efficient. Any proposal to restructure FAA or
have air traffic control run by a commercial type organization must be
carefully examined. Furthermore, the oversight of aviation safety
should not be transferred outside the Department of Transportation.
This is an inherently governmental function for which the traveling
public deserves the highest level of independent scrutiny and
assurances.
If the Congress should choose to make any major changes to FAA's
structure or commercialize air traffic control services, we would urge
great caution. Having first-hand experience in a limited air traffic
control environment is essential before any expansive changes are
considered. FAA's oceanic air traffic control could provide this
experience. Oceanic services are operationally distinct from domestic
services and there would be limited impact on small carriers, general
aviation, and air taxis. It is an area where the United States could
solicit lessons learned from other countries that have already taken
steps to commercialize air traffic control operations.
Second, Congress has already provided FAA with the tools necessary
to modernize the National Airspace System and obtain the necessary
skills to operate effectively.
In 1995, Congress exempted FAA from Federal procurement and
personnel rules. After 4 years, there has been some progress, but
overall, these reforms have had limited impact on bottom line results.
To its credit, FAA has adopted a ``build a little, test a little''
approach to its acquisitions and has made progress in reducing the time
to award contracts under acquisition reform. In addition, FAA has
deployed systems such as the Display System Replacement (new color
displays for en route controllers) on time and within budget. However,
cost and schedule problems persist with key modernization projects,
such as efforts to install new computer systems in the terminal
environment and move toward satellite-based navigation.
FAA has also had some success with personnel reform in that
managers have been able to hire qualified candidates faster than under
the Federal Personnel System. By far, however, the most visible result
of personnel reform to date has been the new compensation agreement
with its controllers, which has improved management-labor relations.
However, this agreement also has led to sharp increases in the agency's
operations costs, principally salaries, which now constrain funding for
air traffic control modernization and airport development. It is a fact
that the United States invested more in fiscal year 1992 in
modernization than it will in fiscal year 2000. But at the same time,
operations costs increased almost 40 percent from $4.4 billion to an
estimated $6.0 billion.
Exemptions from Federal rules may facilitate success, but
management accountability, strong contractor oversight, effective cost
controls, and a sound cost accounting system are the essential
ingredients to modernize and effectively manage the air traffic control
system.
Finally, several proposals have surfaced over the past year to
finance FAA, all of which had one common thread--to increase the amount
of funds available for FAA operations and air traffic control
modernization efforts. Based on FAA's estimates, by 2004 its total
budget requirements will be over $12 billion or 20 percent greater than
in fiscal year 2000. FAA faces significant risks in meeting its
operations costs (primarily salaries) without crowding out capital
investments. The means for financing these requirements is a major
issue that the Department, Congress, and aviation users continue to
debate.
There are investment opportunities that will significantly decrease
airline costs, provide better and safer service to the flying public,
and reduce FAA's operating costs. These include data link
communications, collaborative decision-making systems, and efforts to
reduce runway incursions, a major area of safety risk, but additional
funding alone will not get the desired results. For example, FAA must
control its operating costs, do a better job of negotiating contracts
for large software-intensive efforts that include appropriate measures
to withhold payments if progress is not satisfactory, and implement a
sound cost accounting system.
FAA originally planned for its cost accounting system to be fully
implemented by October 1, 1998, but has yet to implement the system.
FAA recently delayed the completion schedule until some time in fiscal
year 2002 because of Operations funding constraints. This decision
should be reversed. FAA needs a reliable cost accounting system sooner,
not later. Any business that fails to track and control its costs would
most likely go into bankruptcy.
In addition to implementing a cost accounting system, FAA needs to
develop a strategic business plan--a key tool for any successful
business. The plan should provide key corporate strategies and
operating plans over the next several years, and describe the timing
and impact of those strategies. The plan should outline agency
strategies for investing in future technologies, as well as how the
agency will control the rising costs of operations and bring about
productivity enhancements.
RESTRUCTURING FAA
There are a number of proposals under discussion regarding
restructuring FAA to operate and perform more like a business. However,
we want to make clear that there are no circumstances we can envision
in which the Department of Transportation's role in oversight of
aviation safety should be transferred outside the Federal Government.
Safety oversight is an inherently governmental function for which the
citizens of the country expect and deserve the highest level of
independent scrutiny and assurances. But this does not mean we should
not try to find ways to deliver air traffic control services and
implement new technologies more efficiently and effectively. However,
in light of the size, complexity, and safety record of FAA, any
proposal to restructure or have air traffic control run by a commercial
type organization must be very carefully examined.
There are primarily three concerns with proposals that would spin
off air traffic control (ATC), air traffic controllers, and ATC
infrastructure development and investment to a commercial enterprise,
while simultaneously retaining safety oversight within FAA. These
concerns include: (1) how a commercial enterprise would balance safety
against costs and ensure that decisions come down on the side of
safety; (2) whether a commercial enterprise would have the incentive to
initiate research and development in cutting-edge technologies; and (3)
whether a commercial operation could adequately protect and respond to
the needs of all stakeholders, including passengers, in our diverse
aviation system. FAA's stakeholders include over 194,000 general
aviation aircraft, more than 5,000 public use airports, and over 12,000
small carriers and air taxis.
Numerous other countries, including Canada, Germany, Australia, and
New Zealand, have assigned their ATC System, once provided by
government to entities having administrative and often financial
autonomy. Canada transferred its civil air navigation services to NAV
Canada in November 1996, and some have cited it as a role model for FAA
to follow. We greatly appreciate the information NAV Canada has shared
with us on their experiences in commercializing air traffic services.
The experiences of NAV Canada and other countries are instructive, but
it is difficult to use their experiences as a conclusive point of
reference because our air traffic control system is so much larger,
diverse, and complex. Several differences are shown on the following
chart.
In the area of research and development, NAV Canada officials told
us that they avoid large research and development initiatives in favor
of acquisitions that can return their investment in a shorter period of
time. NAV Canada is relying on FAA for key emerging technologies,
including satellite-based navigation systems and a new automated
controller tool called the Center TRACON Automation System that
provides controllers with sequences for landing aircraft.
Although relatively small in comparison to FAA, NAV Canada has made
progress in developing new technologies for oceanic air traffic and
eliminating the use of paper flight strips for controlling aircraft at
some domestic facilities. NAV Canada's oceanic development efforts
include aircraft surveillance and data link communications that are
planned to be in use this fall. A similar effort for oceanic air
traffic control in the United States--the Oceanic System Development
and Support contract--was significantly reduced, largely due to
technical and contractor performance issues, not a lack of funding.
With regard to paper flight strips, FAA was unable to eliminate them in
its domestic airspace because of controller concerns.
Because there is no frame of reference or experience base
comparable to our ATC System that we can rely on for guidance, we urge
great caution before proposing a major restructuring of what is already
a very safe system, but a system also in need of improvement. In our
opinion, the first course of action would be to implement a sound cost
accounting system and effectively utilize the procurement and personnel
reforms Congress has already given FAA. Second, if Congress decides to
move toward commercialization, it must be done gradually in order to
gain first-hand experience, and in a limited ATC environment, such as
oceanic air traffic control in the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. The
traffic load and mix handled by the United States oceanic environment
is comparable in some important respects to that handled by some
commercialized ATC enterprises, such as NAV Canada and Airservices
Australia.
By proceeding in this manner, Congress and the aviation community
would be able to judge what works well and what does not, identify
refinements that need to be made, and assess whether a commercialized
ATC organization should or should not be considered for broader
application in the United States.
Oceanic Air Traffic Control
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) delegated to
the United States responsibility for providing ATC services in over 80
percent of the world's controlled oceanic airspace. There are labor,
governance, financing, and transition issues that would have to be
addressed if our oceanic ATC were to be operated by a commercial
organization, but these issues are easier to resolve because the
oceanic ATC environment is limited in scope. The commercialization of
oceanic ATC would not be free from controversy; however, the issues
involved are not nearly as complex or contentious as would be the case
in the domestic ATC environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attributes of FAA's Oceanic Air Traffic Control
Mostly affects the large carriers who are suggesting
commericalizing or privatizing ATC.
Operationally distinct from domestic ATC services.
Major ATC modernization and avionics standardization
opportunities--FAA's schedules have slipped, modernization solution is
not settled, and financing decisions have not been made.
Oceanic ATC operations projected to increase 5.4 percent annually.
Greater acceptance of user fees--Congress has already approved the
collection of overflight fees, and other countries already collect fees
for oceanic services.
Limited impact on controllers and labor agreements--only 300 of
FAA's 14,900 controllers provide oceanic services.
Little impact on private (non-business) general aviation, small
carriers, regional airlines, and air taxis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACQUISITION AND PERSONNEL REFORMS
In October 1995, Congress exempted FAA from the Federal procurement
and personnel rules that FAA said hindered its ability to effectively
modernize the Air Traffic System and acquire the staff and skills it
needed to operate effectively. After 4 years, there has been some
progress and FAA learned valuable lessons from its experience with the
Advanced Automation System (the centerpiece of FAA modernization
efforts in the late 1980's and early 1990's), but overall, these
reforms have had limited impact on bottom line results.
At about the time these reforms were enacted, the Office of
Inspector General, the General Accounting Office and others cautioned
that neither procurement and personnel rules nor lack of funding were
the source of the problems FAA was experiencing with its ATC
modernization initiatives. Exemptions from Federal rules may facilitate
success, but exemptions and additional funding are not substitutes for
strong management including oversight of contractors, effective cost
controls, and a sound cost accounting system. We find that FAA still
has much work to do in these management areas, so we reiterate these
cautionary notes today.
Acquisition Reform
The driving forces behind granting FAA relief from acquisition
rules and regulations were escalating costs and schedule slips with
FAA's air traffic control modernization efforts. Between 1992 and 1994
alone, the overall estimated costs of the modernization effort
increased annually by about $1.2 billion due in large part to problems
with key projects. For example, the expected cost of FAA's Advanced
Automation System (AAS) had increased from $4.8 billion to over $7
billion with key segments behind schedule by more than 8 years. Of the
$2.6 billion spent on AAS before it was restructured in 1994, about
$1.5 billion could not be salvaged for use in other modernization
projects.
Since the advent of acquisition reform, problems with major
acquisitions have been less severe, but major benefits have yet to be
realized. To its credit FAA has adopted a ``build a little, test a
little'' approach to its acquisitions and has made progress in reducing
the time to award contracts. FAA has deployed systems, such as the
Display System Replacement (new en route controller displays) and the
HOST (computers that receive, process, and track aircraft movement
throughout the domestic en route and oceanic airspace), on time and
within budget. Also, long-range surveillance radars, as well as
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar that detects hazardous weather around
airports, have been fielded. In the past these systems experienced
significant cost and schedule problems.
However, problems persist with technologically challenging systems,
such as the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), Standard Terminal
Automation Replacement System (STARS), and Airport Movement Area Safety
System (AMASS). WAAS is a satellite-based navigation system; STARS is a
replacement that will provide new color displays, processors, and
computer software for terminal facilities; and AMASS is a key safety
technology designed to help controllers prevent accidents on airport
runways. These three systems alone have cumulative program costs of
over $4 billion, and are experiencing cost and schedule difficulties.
The problems with these acquisitions are not the result of a lack
of funding or the result of burdensome procurement and personnel rules.
What all these systems have in common are difficulties with software
development and human factors. For example, WAAS has experienced
development difficulty in a critical software safety package that,
among other things, determines the effects of the ionosphere on the
WAAS signal and the validity of the WAAS message. The STARS schedule
has been impacted by the software development needed to resolve
computer-human interface issues and other new requirements. As a result
of these problems, schedules have proven to be unrealistic and costs
have increased.
FAA has taken steps to address problems with WAAS, STARS, and AMASS
but only after major problems have surfaced. FAA can do more to protect
the Government, make contractors more accountable, and address human
factors issues earlier in the development and acquisition processes.
Our recent work on Free Flight Phase I--an initiative to introduce
new automated controller tools and new information systems for FAA and
airlines--shows the need to enhance contractor accountability and
institute cost control mechanisms for software-intensive contracts. For
example, two contracts for a software-intensive controller tool are
time and material contracts. With these types of contracts, there is
little positive incentive for cost control or labor efficiency--all
risk is with the Government. FAA should negotiate contracts for
software development with appropriate measures (cost ceilings,
incentives, and earned value management techniques \1\) as well as
methods for withholding payment if progress is not satisfactory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Earned Value Management is a widely recognized way to measure
technical progress with large scale, software intensive acquisitions.
This management tool forecasts how much a program will cost and when it
will be delivered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FAA needs to identify and resolve human factors
concerns early in the acquisition process to avoid cost overruns and
schedule delays. The need for human factors work extends beyond the
traditional computer-human interface issues for FAA systems, such as
STARS, and has important safety and workforce implications. Key issues
that require FAA's attention include the impacts on the selection and
training of controllers as a result of new automated controller tools
as well as the impacts on pilots from new data link communications and
cockpit display technologies.
Key emerging technologies, such as data link communications for
controllers and pilots, new automated controller tools, and new cockpit
display technologies have far-reaching human factors implications. In
addition to resolving these issues, a key management issue for FAA is
to know when ``enough is enough'' with respect to human factors. FAA
cannot satisfy everyone, and exit criteria is needed to make the tough
decisions. In our opinion, without exit criteria, FAA's costs to
resolve human factors issues in the STARS Program will continue to
increase.
In fairness to FAA, we must recognize that the development of new
technologies, particularly those involving complex software and new
aircraft avionics, involve research and development risks for which the
United States bears much of the cost. Many of the firms developing
these systems for FAA rank among the most technologically sophisticated
in the world. Once developed, this technology is considered ``off the
shelf'' and can be sold at a fraction of the costs to other ATC
providers.
Personnel Reform
Personnel reform was designed to provide greater flexibility in
hiring, training, compensating, and placing employees. FAA has had some
success in that managers have been able to hire qualified candidates
faster than they could under the Federal Personnel System. But, by far,
the most visible result of personnel reform to date is a 5-year
collective bargaining and compensation agreement reached with the
controllers in 1998.
This agreement has markedly improved management-labor relations
with the controllers, contains assurances of productivity gains in the
future, and establishes a ceiling of 15,000 air traffic controllers.
However, the price tag for this agreement is large, resulting in a
sharp increase in the agency's costs of operations. FAA now faces
significant risks in funding the new controller pay system while, at
the same time, meeting other critical agency requirements funded by the
Operations Account, such as hiring safety inspectors and developing a
cost accounting system. These risks are compounded as FAA negotiates
new wage agreements with its other workforces, such as maintenance
technicians, who want similar treatment.
The costs associated with the new system are consequential from
several points of view--the impact on a controller's wages; continued
increases in the portion of the agency's total budget that goes to the
Operations Account, comprised mostly of salaries; and the effects of
the agreement on FAA's capacity to increase investment in ATC
modernization.
First, to illustrate the effect on an individual controller's
wages, we looked at controller compensation before and after the
agreement. Prior to October 1, 1998, the effective date of the new
compensation package, air traffic controllers in the busiest facilities
earned a base salary of up to $86,000. With the new compensation
system, these controllers received a pay increase as high as 20 percent
in base pay distributed over 3 years plus the annual Government cost of
living increases. Currently, those air traffic controllers assigned to
FAA's busiest air traffic facilities can earn about $111,000 before any
premium pay is earned. When premium pay such as holiday, locality, and
overtime are added, some of these controllers earn over $142,000
annually. By October of this year, they will earn over $147,000.
FAA estimates that its new compensation system will require nearly
$1 billion in additional funding over the 5-year life of the new
agreement. This additional cost takes into account anticipated savings
from a gradual reduction in the number of air traffic supervisors.
Second, to illustrate the effect of the agreement on operations
costs and capital investments in modernization, it is important to
recognize that FAA's operations costs have been rising since 1992, with
significant increases in the last 3 years. In fact, the United States
invested more in fiscal year 1992 in modernization than it did in
fiscal year 2000 ($2.4 billion in 1992 vs. $2.1 billion in 2000). But
at the same time, the United States spent $4.4 billion on operations
(mostly salaries) in fiscal year 1992, compared to an estimated $6.0
billion in fiscal year 2000. This trend shows no sign of abating.
The chart below illustrates increases in the cost of FAA
operations, principally salaries, and the increasing disparity between
the cost of operations (blue line) and the dollars available for
modernization (yellow line). The chart shows why the increasing costs
of FAA's operations must be contained.
FAA believes this problem will be partially mitigated by offsetting
productivity gains, such as freezing the staffing level of 15,000 air
traffic controllers for 3 years, eliminating 4-day work weeks at 24-
hour facilities, and the performance of collateral duties by air
traffic controllers. However, over a year after signing the agreement
FAA is still trying to identify and quantify productivity gains.
Last year, we recommended that FAA project the productivity offsets
over the life of the agreement to better manage its future funding
requirements. FAA did not agree, stating that a 5-year estimate would
be speculative at best, relying too much on estimates regarding future
aviation activity. In our opinion, it is not unreasonable to expect FAA
to anticipate and plan for the costs associated with multi-year
commitments. FAA needs to forecast and monitor projected revenues,
savings, and productivity gains.
FINANCING FAA
Several proposals have surfaced over the past several years to
finance FAA, all of which had one common thread--to increase the amount
of funds available for FAA operations and air traffic control
modernization efforts. While there are investment opportunities,
additional funding alone will not improve FAA. There is a need for
strong management controls, greater risk sharing with contractors, and
a cost accounting system.
FAA's budget has increased nearly 73 percent from fiscal year 1988
to fiscal year 2000. Based on FAA's estimates, by 2004 its total budget
requirements will be over $12 billion or 20 percent greater than fiscal
year 2000. The means for financing these requirements is a major issue
that the Department, Congress, and aviation users continue to debate.
FAA faces significant risks in meeting its operations cost
increases without crowding out capital investments. As shown in the
above chart, growth in the operations portion of FAA's total budget has
constrained the funding available for modernization and airports. This
occurs in an environment in which FAA's overall budget has continued to
increase. Congress will need assurances that any additional funding for
FAA will actually translate into capital investment and not be absorbed
by FAA's operations.
For fiscal year 2000, FAA was financed entirely from the Aviation
Trust Fund. However, this is only a short-term measure because FAA's
projected expenditures exceed revenues generated through excise taxes.
For example, this year, projected expenditures exceed revenue from
taxes by over $700 million--this does not include interest earned.
Alternative methods or a mix of methods will therefore be needed to
meet all of FAA's requirements. Suggestions include raising aviation
taxes so that the trust fund receives an adequate infusion of receipts
to cover the aviation budget; establishing user fees--an approach
proposed by the Administration; tapping the general fund, which relies
largely on Federal income taxes; and creating a general fund
entitlement for FAA.
The method of financing FAA and the level of increased funding is a
policy matter that ultimately is a judgment for the Congress. There are
investment opportunities with data link communications, collaborative
decision-making systems, and efforts to reduce runway incursions. It
would be a disappointment for all if additional funds went to cover
cost growth in existing acquisitions or if capital investments could
not be made because they were crowded out by the increasing costs of
salaries and related expenses. FAA should address three key fiscal
issues in managing its current budget as well as any increases it may
receive.
First, FAA's operations costs must be contained.--FAA's budget
requirements continue to increase largely due to the rising costs in
FAA's Operations Account. This account represents 60 percent of FAA's
fiscal year 2000 budget and is expected to grow to nearly $7.6 billion
or about 62 percent of FAA's budget by fiscal year 2004.
Second, risks with FAA's modernization efforts need to be shared.--
Contractors share risks with FAA but more can be done, particularly
with software intensive acquisitions. This becomes increasingly
important as FAA moves forward with several major software-intensive
acquisitions, such as WAAS and Free Flight Phase 1 automated controller
tools. As we noted earlier, FAA should negotiate contracts with
appropriate controls to require contractors to share risks as well as
provisions for withholding payments if progress is not satisfactory.
Third, a reliable cost accounting system must be in place.--FAA
needs a cost accounting system to make sound financial and managerial
decisions and support user fees. A cost accounting system helps an
organization to accurately track and control its costs, which results
in better decisions. However, the basic financial data have to be
accurate and reliable. In past years, FAA's financial data were not
reliable, which is why we have been unable to render a ``clean'' audit
opinion on its financial statements. During fiscal year 1999, FAA made
an extraordinary and labor-intensive effort to produce better financial
data. We are currently auditing these data.
FAA is making progress in the development of its cost accounting
system. FAA is currently developing the costs for providing its Oceanic
and En Route services. FAA also intends to develop user fees, using its
cost accounting system, to charge customers for the various services it
provides. For example, FAA is currently developing user fees for
flights that fly over the United States, but do not take off or land in
the United States.
FAA originally planned for its cost accounting system to be fully
implemented by October 1, 1998, but implementation is not complete.
Earlier this year, FAA estimated its system would be fully implemented
by September 30, 2001. However, FAA recently delayed the completion
schedule until sometime in fiscal year 2002 because of funding
constraints. FAA needs a reliable cost accounting system sooner, not
later. FAA should reverse its decision and accelerate the
implementation schedule for its cost accounting system.
In addition to implementing a cost accounting system, FAA needs to
develop a strategic business plan--a key tool for any successful
business. The plan should provide key corporate strategies and
operating plans over the next several years, and describe the timing
and impact of those strategies. The plan should outline agency
strategies for investing in future technologies, as well as how the
agency will control the rising costs of operations and bring about
productivity enhancements.
Mr. Chairmen, this concludes our statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
Senator Lautenberg. We are interested but we are voting,
and so please hold our interest in check and we will be back.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. I have
spoken to Senator Domenici, who will be returning shortly. I
voted and came back to ask a few questions.
I thank you for your testimony today and for your service
to our Nation in one of the most important agencies of the
Federal Government. And I want to just say to Ms. Garvey that I
have appreciated the contribution that you have made, and I
have enjoyed working with you.
I hope that this Congress really establishes as its first
priority the passing of the FAA Reauthorization Bill. There is
so much at stake in this bill, beyond the obvious, construction
at airports, safety modernization, and so many other issues.
In my home State of Illinois, we are watching closely
because many downstate communities are unserved or underserved,
and the slot rule at O'Hare is really the nexus of this debate.
So we are hoping to see that resolved quickly.
I have three or four specific safety issues that I would
like to get into. First I would like to discuss at this meeting
what we have discussed privately. That is my suggestion that we
consider adding new technology to the cockpits of our
airplanes, and perhaps in other parts of the airplane,
specifically, we are talking about video cameras in the
cockpits.
Some 30 years ago, Congress, working with the airlines and
the pilots, decided that in order to have valid investigation
of accidents, audio recording and data flight recorders would
provide the kind of information that might lead to a higher
level of safety and fewer crashes. I think that they have
served us well.
There was a compromise made at the time in the legislation,
a 30-minute loop on the voice recorder. As it stands, I think
it has served us well.
In 30 years, technology has changed dramatically. We are
now facing video cameras when we go to ATM machines and
convenience stores. We put them on school buses, in virtually
every office building. They are ubiquitous. And we have to, I
think, acknowledge that they have some value.
Certainly in the EgyptAir crash and other, more recent
crashes, they might have provided information to resolve some
very fundamental questions. What happened in that cockpit
before that plane crashed? What can we do in the future to make
it safer?
I have spoken to you about this and spoken to others, and I
would like to ask you, Ms. Garvey: What is your position on
this technology in the cockpit? If you believe that it could
make our flights safer for American passengers and those from
other countries who use our airlines, what can we do to
implement this technology as quickly as possible?
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Senator. First of all, we
think it holds great potential and should be looked at very,
very seriously. Subsequent to our conversation, I met with
Chairman Jim Hall from the National Transportation Safety
Board, and he is in agreement. We are chairing together a group
headed by John O'Brien from the Airline Pilot Association and
also a government official. They are looking at all of the
additional technologies, including the video cameras, that
could be used to gather more information. And that is really
what we are all about, trying to gather as much accurate
information as we can. So that is very high on their list of
issues to be considered.
We are expecting a report back from that committee later
this spring or into the month of June, but we are very
encouraged. We have talked with them and met with them a couple
of times. I know they are taking this technology very
seriously. I also would not be surprised to see even a more
formal recommendation coming from the NTSB, but I think the
chairman is also interested in seeing some additional
recommendations that may come out of that group.
Senator Durbin. And how soon can we expect a response,
positive or negative, on this issue?
Ms. Garvey. Well, I really think this summer, and perhaps
we can even get it before then, but I know this summer is when
they are presenting the formal report back to the chairman and
to myself. So we will certainly have it by that time. But we
will certainly talk with the committee members and see if there
may be a couple of issues that they might want to advance, and
that might be one. I will speak with Chairman Hall about that
as well.
Senator Durbin. I am not pushing for any particular
technology or company, but I have met with some that are
exploring this, and they have convinced me that these cameras,
the lenses, can be unobtrusive and no obstacle to the orderly
operation of an aircraft. They have also suggested that the
video might be put in the cargo hold and some other places on
the airplane that could be beneficial to determine the cause of
accidents or perhaps even for insurance purposes to monitor
whether or not--this is a problem, unfortunately, but to
monitor whether or not there are people smuggling on
contraband, drugs and the like. This sort of thing might have
many benefits beyond accident investigation, and I hope that
that will be viewed seriously.
May I ask two or three other questions? When I get on an
airplane and am urged by the flight attendants to put down my
newspaper and listen to their instructions. One of the things
that they focus on is the evacuation of an airplane--lighting
along the aisles and where the exits are located and the like.
I would like to ask you a few questions about how much the
FAA knows about the evacuation of airplanes. Someone told me
recently they had flown in a Canadian airplane and found
something very interesting. They don't put any seats in front
of their exit rows. And, in fact, in the rows nearby, instead
of three seats abreast, there are only two.
Yet if you get on an American plane--and not using American
Airlines, but one in our country--that is regulated by our FAA,
I think you would find it very difficult many times to get to
that exit row. It is a very tiny passage, small passage for a
lot of people who are supposed to evacuate in a short period of
time.
What does the FAA do to establish whether or not you can
evacuate a plane with 400 passengers? What kind of time frame
do you have in place? What kind of decisions have you made
about clearing that exit row that obviously the Canadians see a
lot differently than we do?
Ms. Garvey. Well, let me speak to that issue. We do a lot
of testing in our offices in Oklahoma City, the Civil
Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), which is--our research group does
an enormous amount of testing, real-life testing, to see----
Senator Durbin. With real people on airplanes coming off?
Ms. Garvey. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Durbin. How frequent? Has that been done on a
regular basis?
Ms. Garvey. It is on a pretty regular basis. I would have
to get back to you with the most recent one.
Senator Durbin. Well, I will tell you what I am told. I am
told that that was done in years gone by, and now instead they
are using computer models and theories. And I am just curious
as to whether that is a fact.
Ms. Garvey. Right. We are using some computer models, but
we are also still doing the live testing at CAMI, and I can get
the most recent.
But I can also tell you that we work very closely with a
woman by the name of Helen Murrer, who is in Europe and who is
one of the premier experts in this area, and have worked very,
very closely both using our computer models and also having her
review the kinds of evacuation testing that we are doing. She
is recognized internationally. I have had the pleasure of
meeting and talking with her. But I do think that is an issue
you have to constantly look at. There are changes sometimes to
the airplanes that make it worth re-examining.
[The information follows:]
The regulations (14 CFR 25.803 and Appendix J, Part 25) require
that transport airplanes with more than 44 passengers be able to be
evacuated in less than 90 seconds, under prescribed conditions. The
regulations permit actual tests, or a combination of tests and
analysis. We believe our certification regulations ensure a safe
evacuation given U.S. airlines' current passenger-seating
configurations. For brand new airplane types, actual demonstrations
with full passenger loads are almost exclusively required. Derivative,
or follow-on, models are often substantiated with a combination of
tests and analysis. Since all U.S. transport airplanes meet this 90-
second evacuation requirement, we see no reason to require specific
exit-row seating configurations. At this time, there is no computer
model approved that would replace a full-scale demonstration, although
this is an active area of research and development.
The FAA continues to conduct live evacuation testing at the Civil
Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City. Testing is conducted on
a regular basis of 3 to 4 times annually. Computer models are in
development, however, those models have not proven effective to date,
In May of 1999, CAMI published a research paper entitled ``Passenger
Management Strategies for Emergency Egress through Airliner Over Wing
Exit''. This paper was presented at the 1999 Airspace Medical
Association meeting. CAMI is currently building a wide-body evacuation
facility. Live testing will continue to be conducted and CAMI will also
use the live testing to develop the parameter data for more reliable
computer models.
Senator Durbin. Are you under pressure from the
manufacturers of airplanes or the airlines to keep those seats
in the exit row so that they can have more revenue?
Ms. Garvey. No, not at all, and I need to check--in fact, I
am glad John is here. I will ask John Crichton a little bit
later. But I need to check with what the Canadian experience is
and why that is. I am just not familiar enough with it. But we
are not under any--I mean, our issue is safety, and it has to
be safety. So making sure there is an appropriate time for
evacuation is absolutely critical.
There may be some point of differences with some of the
flight attendants about whether or not we should use the
computer models. We are pretty comfortable with the ones we
have used. We have checked them out with international experts.
But we are, again, continuing the real-life testing of CAMI as
well.
[The information follows:]
The FAA has conducted extensive research to establish the minimum
required passageway dimensions to Type III over-wing exits. The
airlines have stated recently that they will provide additional leg
room, which has prompted interest in the space provided at exits. The
FAA has also begun the harmonization process with the European Joint
Aviation Authorities to arrive at a common standard. There is a
perception that airlines are willing to provide leg room to capture
market share.
Senator Durbin. May I ask one last question? I see my time
is running out. A few years ago, I introduced a bill that
banned smoking on airplane.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. You are welcome. And I took after the
Canadian model. Again, they were ahead of us on this issue, and
I give them credit. Northwest Airlines was the first domestic
carrier to do this voluntarily, to ban smoking on airplanes,
and now it is universal on our domestic flights. I hope that we
can extend it in some fashion to international flights.
But let me ask you a question about air quality in general.
I am told that not that long ago the transfer of air within a
cabin of the aircraft used to occur every 3 or 4 minutes and
that we have been degrading that standard to now 15 minutes for
the transfer of air in a cabin because of some efforts to have
fuel economy.
Now, I understand the airlines' problem. The cost of fuel
has gone up some 25 percent. They have to deal with that as one
of their costs of operation.
Can you tell me whether or not you have established a
standard for air transfer in the cabins of aircraft and what it
might be and whether it has changed?
Ms. Garvey. Well, it is interesting that you raise this
issue because I saw Senator Feinstein this morning, and she----
Senator Durbin. She feels very strongly about this, too.
Ms. Garvey. She spoke with me about that as well. Our
medical unit within the FAA has been looking at this issue. I
know we are working closely with the flight attendants on this
issue. In fact, the Senator and I were speaking about it this
morning. The most recent study that we are all familiar with I
think has a standard that is a little lower than we are used
to, and she raised some questions that we really, need to go
back and take another look at that.
Senator Durbin. Well, I wish you would.
Ms. Garvey. We will do that for you.
Senator Durbin. I think it goes beyond the obvious, stale
air, the health aspects of it. Flight attendants, unlike those
of us sitting in seats being waited on, are up and around and
moving, and if they do not have a regular transfer of air and
fresh air, it could impede their judgment or their ability to
perform their jobs. And I hope that the FAA will look at that
aspect of it.
Ms. Garvey. We will get back to you both with the most
recent studies and where we are going from here.
Senator Durbin. OK. Thank you very much.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
On July 5, 1996, Amendment 25-87, ``Ventilation,'' to Title 14 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.831, became effective. This
amendment introduced a requirement for new aircraft ventilation systems
which states: ``For normal operating conditions, the ventilation system
must be designed to provide each occupant with an airflow containing at
least 0.55 pounds of fresh air per minute.'' This is equivalent to 10
cubic feet per minute (cfm) for each occupant, which, prior to this
amendment, was required only for crewmembers. It also ensures a more
effective distribution of the air inside the aircraft cabin by
providing each occupant, regardless of seating, with a minimum of 10
cfm of fresh air. While this requirement does not apply to existing
aircraft, all newly certificated transport category aircraft are
required to meet this new standard.
On September 9, 1994, an existing interagency agreement between the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FAA was amended to
include a plan to determine the feasibility of designing and conducting
a study of the chemical, physical, and microbiological aspects of
aircraft cabin air quality. The research program implementation plans
were included in a July 1995 initial report to Congress (attached).
The FAA continues to submit an annual report to Congress
delineating the plans and actions the FAA has taken. The report also
describes the participation of other groups interested in this FAA-
NIOSH project. The fourth annual report will be sent to Congress at the
end of March 2000.
______
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC, December 29, 1998.
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: This is the third annual report of actions the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken in response to Section
304 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994,
Public Law 103-305. Section 304 requires the FAA to conduct cabin air
quality research and report to Congress annually on the progress. The
FAA was also directed to contract with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and other appropriate agencies to carry out any studies
necessary to meet the goals of the research program and to invite
representatives of manufacturers, airlines, employee organizations,
passengers, and academia to participate in the research program.
The third annual report contains information on the plans and
actions the FAA has undertaken to study aircraft cabin air conditions,
including aircraft cabin exposure assessments, cosmic radiation
exposures, biological contaminant characterization, and in-flight
disease transmission and symptomology research. Most of the research
effort is being conducted by the FAA in collaboration with the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The report also
describes the participation of other groups interested in this FAA-
NIOSH project.
An identical letter has been sent to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
Sincerely,
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
______
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC, December 29, 1998.
The Honorable Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is the third annual report of actions the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken in response to Section
304 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994,
Public Law 103-305. Section 304 requires the FAA to conduct cabin air
quality research and report to Congress annually on the progress. The
FAA was also directed to contract with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and other appropriate agencies to carry out any studies
necessary to meet the goals of the research program and to invite
representatives of manufacturers, airlines, employee organizations,
passengers, and academia to participate in the research program.
The third annual report contains information on the plans and
actions the FAA has undertaken to study aircraft cabin air conditions,
including aircraft cabin exposure assessments, cosmic radiation
exposures, biological contaminant characterization, and in flight
disease transmission and symptomology research. Most of the research
effort is being conducted by the FAA in collaboration with the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The report also
describes the participation of other groups interested in this FAA-
NIOSH project.
An identical letter has been sent to the President of the Senate.
Sincerely,
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
______
Federal Aviation Administration Report to Congress on Aircraft Cabin
Air Quality Research Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 304 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization
Act of 1994, Public Law 103-305, requires the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to establish a research program and to report to
Congress annually on its findings in aircraft cabin air quality
research. This is the third annual report. On September 9, 1994, an
existing Interagency Agreement between the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the FAA, was amended to include a plan to determine the
feasibility of designing and conducting a study of the chemical,
physical, and microbiological aspects of aircraft cabin air quality.
The research program implementation plans were included in a July 1995
initial report to Congress. This report updates the status of the
research program and details our future research plans.
BACKGROUND
In 1993 and 1994, Congress held hearings to address complaints from
flight attendants and passengers regarding aircraft cabin air quality.
Those individuals stated their belief that there is less fresh air in
aircraft because air is recirculated to conserve fuel. Concerns were
also expressed about a possible relationship between cabin air quality
and the contraction (transmission) of infectious diseases and causation
of other medical symptoms.
On July 5, 1996, an amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations,
14 CFR 25.831, Amendment 25-87, entitled ``Ventilation,'' became
effective. This amendment introduced a requirement for new aircraft
ventilation systems that reads as follows: ``For normal operating
conditions, the ventilation system must be designed to provide each
occupant with an airflow containing at least 0.55 pounds of fresh air
per minute.'' This is equivalent to 10 cubic feet per minute per
occupant, which, prior to this amendment, was required only for
crewmembers. While the new requirement does not apply to existing
aircraft, all newly certificated transport category aircraft are
required to meet this standard.
Transport category aircraft are pressurized by introducing fresh
air through the aircraft's air conditioning system and into the cabin
and cockpit of the aircraft. The pressure altitude inside the aircraft
is maintained by electronically controlling the exit of air from the
fuselage through an outlet valve. For crew and passenger comfort and
safety, the regulations for certification of transport category
aircraft require that the cabin pressure altitude be maintained at no
higher than 8,000 feet, when the aircraft is at its maximum altitude.
The original aircraft design, established at the time of certification,
dictates the minimum fresh airflow rate that must be supplied to meet
certification requirements. The flightcrew has the flexibility to vary
the amount of fresh air introduced into the aircraft while still
meeting the required minimum dictated by the aircraft design. The
certification requirements addressing limits on carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and ozone concentrations in the aircraft cabin, however, must
still be met.
While certain measures may be taken by an air carrier to conserve
fuel, these measures must not result in a violation of the regulations
or create unacceptable or hazardous cabin air conditions for aircraft
occupants. Past studies that have included measurements of cabin air
quality conditions during aircraft flights have focused on gaseous
components, and have revealed that cabin air quality was within
acceptable and safe limits. However, the new FAA-NIOSH research has
also incorporated analysis of bioaerosols, cosmic radiation, circadian
shifts, and ergonomic factors to address remaining health concerns.
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), ``Allowable
Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Transport Category Airplane Cabins,''
which was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 1994. This notice
proposed revisions to the standards for maximum allowable carbon
dioxide concentration by reducing the allowable maximum concentration
from 3 percent to 0.5 percent in occupied areas of transport category
aircraft. A final rule became effective on January 2, 1997.
ACTIONS TO IMPROVE CABIN AIR QUALITY
The existing Interagency Agreement between NIOSH and the FAA, as
amended on September 9, 1994, authorized efforts to design and conduct
studies of chemical, physical, and microbiological aspects of aircraft
cabin air quality. An additional Interagency Agreement was signed in
January 1997. This agreement incorporates two new studies providing
indirect approaches to the understanding of possible disease
transmission within the aircraft cabin, in-flight symptoms, and other
health effects that may result from changes in cabin air quality (GAO)
or other environmental factors. Systematic epidemiological studies of
broad categories of disease transmission in the aircraft cabin
environment were not considered feasible with available technology.
Additionally, appropriate biomarkers for transmission of upper
respiratory diseases and microbiological detection methodologies were
not considered adequately developed to support direct field study
designs. In addition to the CAQ activities described in this report,
FAA and NIOSH investigators agreed that during fiscal year 98-99 they
would revisit and update their understanding of the technical issues
concerning the study of in-flight disease transmission.
ORIGINAL FAA-NIOSH AIRCRAFT CABIN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT STUDY
During 1995, the Cabin Exposure Assessment Study plan was drafted
after a thorough assessment of the methods and instrumentation for
evaluating cabin air quality, including exhaustive performance tests in
standard laboratory and in hypobaric atmospheres. The objectives of the
continuing 1996-1999 Exposure Assessment Study are to: (1) characterize
cabin air quality parameters and cosmic radiation exposures onboard
commercial aircraft for a variety of flight routes, duration of flight
time, and aircraft types, and (2) provide exposure data for the
epidemiological study of reproductive health in female flight
attendants. The dual objectives of characterizing cosmic radiation
exposures (which depend heavily on altitude and proximity to
geomagnetic poles) and aircraft cabin air quality require a study
design with flights stratified across different routes, latitudes,
aircraft types, and flight durations. Short (<2 hours), medium (2-8
hours), and long (>8 hours) flights were planned over north-south
routes and east-west routes including equatorial and near-polar
flights. Eleven of the most common aircraft types, as identified in Air
Transport Association (ATA) U.S. fleet demographics, were included.
Measurements of cabin air quality and cosmic radiation data were
collected on commercial flights of four airline companies. Indoor air
quality parameters monitored on each flight include carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, environmental tobacco smoke (as
nicotine), ozone, volatile organic hydrocarbons, temperature, humidity,
relative pressure, airborne total particulate mass, and inhalable
particulate mass. A combination of validated active sampling methods
and direct-reading data-logging instruments were used for continuous
cabin environment data collection during each flight.
Data collection on eight flights was completed in 1996 on two
airlines as part of a feasibility study. After scientific peer review
of the protocol in 1996, exposure monitoring on an additional 25 flight
segments commenced in April 1997 and was completed in June 1998.
Laboratory analyses of samples was completed in October 1998. Data
analyses will be completed by summer of 1999.
Data and results from the full complement of 33 flights will be
presented in the FAA's 1999 annual report to Congress. A preliminary
review of some of the cabin air quality data has shown that 1-minute
average concentration ranges were: carbon dioxide 540-2879 ppm; ozone
<0.01-0.47 ppm; carbon monoxide <1.0-4.4 ppm; nitrogen oxides <0.3-0.7
ppm; and total particulates <0.02-0.04 mg/m\3\. Carbon dioxide
exposures were highest during periods of passenger activity and varied
among different aircraft models. Once all results are available for
analysis, the relationships between contaminant levels and aircraft
type, passenger load, flight length, and other factors can be explored.
COSMIC RADIATION EXPOSURES
In the Cabin Exposure Assessment study, characterization of cosmic
radiation exposure is accomplished using two portable tissue equivalent
proportional counters (TEPC). The TEPC instruments, built by Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory under contract to the FAA, are capable of
recording the energy deposition spectra from the TEPC into 256 channels
of data. The instrument fits within the confines of a carry-on
suitcase. The instruments are placed near each other in the overhead
bins of the aircraft to provide a measure of reproducibility and
precision in cosmic radiation dose. The TEPC is considered the best
instrument for measuring biological harm in the cosmic radiation
environment.
The epidemiology study requires estimates of cosmic radiation
exposure for many thousands of flights. The best available method for
estimating these exposures is a program developed at the Civil
Aeromedical Institute. Calculations to date, with the latest version of
the program, are within +9 to -32 percent of TEPC measurements.
However, the program calculates effective dose, whereas the instruments
measure dose equivalent. Effective dose is the preferred quantity for
radiation protection purposes. Although dose equivalent and effective
dose are both estimates of biological harm, the quantitative
relationship between the two is unknown (and will be investigated). No
instrument currently available measures effective dose. Considering the
uncertainties in the measurements and calculations, the use of two
independent methods of estimating biological harm was considered
desirable. Comparisons between the two methods indicate they are in
reasonably close agreement.
Average TEPC dose equivalent measurements for the first 17 flight
segments (conducted during 1997-1998) ranged from 0.64 to 57.7
microsieverts. Dose equivalent rates based on block hours ranged from
0.91 microsieverts/hour (Kotzebue, Alaska, to Nome, Alaska) to 6
microsieverts/hour (Seattle to Miami). Based on these data, annual
radiation dose equivalents for a flight attendant flying 900 block
hours per year would range from 0.819 to 5.4 millisieverts, well below
the occupational limit of 20 millisieverts/year (5 year average)
recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection
and the FAA.
BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
Endotoxins were selected from the broad class of biocontaminants
for monitoring aboard aircraft on four flights. Endotoxins are a
component of the membrane of gram-negative bacteria (GNB) and are
composed of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Upon inhalation, endotoxins may
induce intracellular changes in inflammatory and immune system cells
through macrophage activation. Several studies have investigated the
relationship between endotoxin and health effects or symptoms in indoor
environments. In a study of 19 Dutch office buildings, a dose-response
relationship was found between airborne endotoxin levels and building-
related (including respiratory) symptoms, with air concentrations six
times higher in high symptom prevalence buildings compared to low
symptom prevalence buildings. A study of 12 Danish town halls found the
prevalence of GNB in floor dust was significantly correlated to general
symptoms and to mucous membrane symptoms. A Swedish study of endotoxin
levels in air and dust from homes showed a dose-response relationship
for airborne endotoxin and cough, breathing difficulties, itchy eyes,
and tiredness. Although studies of endotoxin levels in homes, office
buildings, and other indoor environments have been conducted, no data
are available for commercial aircraft cabins.
Although endotoxin bioactivity quantitation via the standard
Limulus bioassay has been applied in many environments, an emerging
chemical assay for endotoxin via 3-hydroxy-fatty acid (3-OHFA)
quantitation provides additional information about possible bacterial
sources of LPS. Three-OHFA's are characteristic for endotoxin-
associated LPS, and the relative distributions of individual 3-OHFA's
differ among species of GNB. This chemical assay shows promise as a
more stable method than the Limulus assay. Analyses of 3-OHFA's may
lead to a better understanding of the health implications of the
endotoxin-associated dust since the ratio of endotoxin activity to
total 3-OHFA is an indication of the potency of the dust sampled, which
may differ by environment.
Air and dust samples were collected during four flights on
commercial aircraft in June 1998. Air samples were collected in coach
class at 4 locations per flight with 2 replicates per location (32
total on 4 flights). Surface sampling of dust was performed on both
seats and carpet. Eight seats and 8 carpet locations were sampled per
flight (32 total seats and 32 total carpet samples). Analyses will be
completed by October 1998. The results should permit comparisons of
endotoxin activity and 3-OHFA's in aircraft cabins to other indoor
environments where dose-response relationships between endotoxin levels
and building-related symptoms have been demonstrated.
IN-FLIGHT DISEASE TRANSMISSION AND SYMPTOMATOLOGY RESEARCH
With the signing of the January 1997 Interagency Agreement between
the FAA and NIOSH, work began on in-flight disease transmission and
symptomatology research. In a related effort, the FAA Office of
Aviation Medicine worked closely with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and the Air Transport Association on the issue of
transmission of tuberculosis in aircraft.
A 5-year FAA-NIOSH research program to address broader disease
transmission issues has been developed for the fiscal year 1997-fiscal
year 2002 timeframe. Two studies have been proposed to evaluate the
possibility of disease transmission, symptoms, and health effects from
changes in cabin air quality or other factors.
The first disease transmission study incorporates a respiratory
symptomatology assessment into ongoing FAA-NIOSH research. The original
research, in partnership with the Department of Defense (DOD) Women's
Health Research Program, was primarily focused on reproductive health
issues of female flight attendants. As part of this program, in fiscal
year 1998, approximately 7,000 women (flight attendants and teachers)
were asked in a 1-hour telephone interview to answer a reproductive
history questionnaire to examine past reproductive outcomes. The
teachers serve as a comparison population for the study. Precise work
history and personnel data are being collected from three airlines and
corresponding teacher unions. Data analyses will begin in early fiscal
year 1999.
The reproductive history questionnaire, referenced in the previous
section, now contains a panel of respiratory symptomatology questions
excerpted from national surveys, including the National Health
Interview Survey (NHIS). These questions address respiratory
symptomatology (of both infectious and noninfectious etiology) for
current and last-year time periods. In the context of complete work
(flight) history data and lifestyle factor data, these symptoms can be
analyzed in depth, evaluating the relationship between flight activity
and symptomatology and controlling for lifestyle factors. In addition
to the predominantly nonflying comparison group of teachers, a second
large comparison population is available from the NHIS questionnaire
data. It is unlikely that a respiratory system symptom survey of this
depth or quality could be independently conducted outside the ongoing
study, since concurrent collection and analysis of detailed work
history data is rarely conducted outside NIOSH. Additionally, this
would be prohibitively expensive if structured as a freestanding
effort.
The second disease transmission study in fiscal year 1997 through
fiscal year 2002 utilizes cabin air exposure modeling. Very little
information regarding infectious diseases in the cabin air environment
and their potential for person-to-person transmission is available. The
number and size of occupant-generated bioaerosols and their dispersal
and removal from the aircraft cabin are not known. This project
evaluates the dispersal and removal of bioaerosols generated by
aircraft cabin occupants in order to answer two important questions:
(1) What are the major factors that determine the spread of human
bioaerosols in the cabin air environment? and (2) How can this
information be used to improve new aircraft design or to retrofit
existing equipment?
Experimental methodology from current NIOSH projects can be
appropriately modified to determine the factors that may affect the
transmission and level of bioaerosols in an aircraft cabin. These
factors may include airflow patterns, ventilation characteristics, the
number of particles in expired air, humidity, filter efficiencies, and
breathing patterns. Software is under development to control
simultaneously multiple aerosol measuring devices while video recording
human activities responsible for bioaerosol generation. The system is
capable of activities for the upcoming fiscal year include conducting
the adapted tracer gas tests to measure the age of air in aircraft that
are on the ground with their ventilation systems operating. CFD
modeling of cabin airflows will begin. Also, experimental work to
evaluate aircraft cabin airflows using a variety of techniques will
begin in cabin mockups. The results of the biological literature and
methods survey will be available. These results will be used to
formulate a sampling plan for bioaerosols on commercial aircraft.
PARTICIPATION OF OTHER GROUPS IN THE FAA-NIOSH PROJECT
The FAA Office of Aviation Medicine (AAM) also continued
collaborating on aircraft cabin environmental quality issues. AAM
participates in the Aviation Subcommittee of the ASHRAE Technical
Committee (TC 9.3) and, as a nonvoting member of the ASHRAE Standards
Committee, SPC 161, Air Quality Within Commercial Aircraft. In June
1997, the ASHRAE Aviation Subcommittee contracted for a cabin air
quality study ($150,000), which is designed to complement the FAA-NIOSH
research. Through FAA's interaction with ASHRAE, FAA's Civil
Aeromedical Institute provided valuable guidance and assurance that
products from the ASHRAE research contract would be integrated into the
ongoing FAA-NIOSH study. As specific examples, the FAA member
recommended that air contaminant samples be collected in the breathing
zone of aircraft occupants; that samples be analyzed by the same method
that is used by the organization that promulgated the standard; and
that occupant exposures be evaluated on a time-weighted average basis
from closing the cabin door--throughout the flight--to opening the
cabin door. The FAA member also recommended the minimum ventilation
requirements (cubic feet per minute per occupant) to ensure that
maximum sustained levels of carbon dioxide exposure and cabin air
changes per hour meet the requirements of FAR 25.831, ``Ventilation.''
The airline trade associations and unions have been supportive of
this project, encouraging their members to participate in critical
retrievals of work history and in questionnaire participation. Much of
this support was garnered through the ``trust building activity'' of
NIOSH personnel supporting this project.
The FAA will continue to conduct a cabin air quality research
program and report to Congress annually on its findings.
______
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC, July 24, 1995.
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: This is the initial report of actions the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken in response to Section
304 of the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
305. Section 304 requires FAA to conduct cabin air quality research and
report to Congress annually on the progress made. The FAA was also
directed to contract with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to carry out any studies necessary to meet the goals of the
research program and invite representatives of manufacturers, airlines,
employee organizations, passengers, and academia to participate in the
research program.
The initial report contains information on the plans and actions
FAA has undertaken to study certain factors related to cabin air
conditions, including pressure altitude systems, temperature, air
circulation rates, and potential health impacts. The first annual
report will be provided to Congress in August 1996.
An identical letter has been sent to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
Sincerely,
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
______
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, DC, July 24, 1995.
The Honorable Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is the initial report of actions the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken in response to Section 304 of
the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-305.
Section 304 requires FAA to conduct cabin air quality research and
report to Congress annually on the progress made. The FAA was also
directed to contract with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to carry out any studies necessary to meet the goals of the
research program and invite representatives of manufacturers, airlines,
employee organizations, passengers, and academia to participate in the
research program.
The initial report contains information on the plans and actions
FAA has undertaken to study certain factors related to cabin air
conditions, including pressure altitude systems, temperature, air
circulation rates, and potential health impacts. The first annual
report will be provided to Congress in August 1996.
An identical letter has been sent to the President of the Senate.
Sincerely,
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
______
Report to Congress on the Federal Aviation Administration's Actions on
Aircraft Cabin Air Quality Research Program
REPORT OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 103-305, SECTION 304 OF THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 304 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization
Act of 1994, Public Law 103-305, requires the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to establish a research program and report to
Congress annually on the actions it is taking to conduct aircraft cabin
air quality research. FAA was also directed to provide Congress with an
initial plan to implement the program. This report contains information
on the program actions FAA has taken to comply with these directions
and with the requirement to contract with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to conduct this study.
BACKGROUND
In 1993 and 1994, Congress held hearings to address complaints from
flight attendants and passengers regarding air carrier cabin air
quality. These individuals expressed concern about cabin air quality
and stated their belief that there is a reduction of fresh air in
aircraft because air is recirculated to conserve fuel. Other concerns
were raised about the possible relationship between cabin air quality
and occupant symptoms, as well as the contracting of infectious
diseases.
Currently, the language in 14 CFR 25.831, ``Ventilation,'' states
that each passenger and crew compartment must be ventilated, and each
crew compartment must have enough fresh air (but not less than 10 cu.
ft. per minute per crewmember) to enable crewmembers to perform their
duties without undue discomfort or fatigue. Transport aircraft are
pressurized by introducing fresh air through the aircraft air
conditioning system and into the cabin and cockpit of the airplane. The
``altitude'' inside the aircraft is controlled by allowing air to exit
the fuselage through an electronically controlled valve. The
regulations which are used to certify transport category aircraft
require that the cabin altitude be maintained at not more than 8,000
feet, when the aircraft is at its maximum altitude, for crew and
passenger comfort and safety. The original aircraft design, established
at the time of certification, dictates the minimum fresh airflow rate
that must be, supplied to meet certification requirements, but there is
some flexibility allowed in meeting these requirements. The flightcrew
can vary the amount of fresh air introduced into the aircraft while
still meeting the required minimum dictated by the aircraft design. The
certification requirements addressing limits on carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and ozone concentrations in the aircraft cabin, however, must
still be met.
While certain measures may be taken by an air carrier to conserve
fuel, these measures are not expected to result in a violation of the
regulations or unacceptable or hazardous cabin air conditions for
aircraft occupants. Studies have been conducted in the past to measure
conditions of cabin air quality on airline flights. These studies have
shown that the cabin air quality was within acceptable and safe limits.
ACTIONS TO IMPROVE CABIN AIR QUALITY
In November 1989, Notice 89-31, Standards for Approval for High
Altitude Operation of Subsonic Transport Airplanes, was published in
the Federal Register. The intent was to incorporate the requirements in
the FAR for a number of special conditions that had been issued for
operation of several (mostly small) jet transports to enable operation
above 41,000 feet up to and including 51,000 feet. The current Part 25
requirements do not cover such high altitude operations.
One of the proposals in Notice 89-31 was to revise section
25.831(a) of the FAR to require that each occupant be supplied with 0.6
pounds of fresh air per minute, which is approximately 10 cubic feet
per minute (CFM). The current rule requires 10 CFM per crewmember. With
this higher airflow, using accepted analysis methods, the carbon
dioxide level in the passenger cabin would be 0.125 percent. The
proposed new rule would apply to all new airplanes in the certification
process. The final rule is now in coordination and is expected to be
issued in 1995.
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which was
published in the Federal Register on May 2, 1994, titled ``Allowable
Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Transport Category Airplane Cabins.''
This notice proposed revisions to the standards for maximum allowable
carbon dioxide concentration by reducing the allowable maximum
concentration from 3 percent to 0.5 percent in occupied areas of
transport category airplanes. Such modifications could reduce the
complaints of poor air quality and the sense or perception of
``stuffiness,'' associated with higher concentrations of carbon
dioxide. Comments on the NPRM have been received and are under review.
A final rule is anticipated in 1995.
RESEARCH PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
FAA's plan to perform aircraft cabin air quality research contains
a number of elements. These include modifying, by amendment, the formal
agreement with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to conduct
an epidemiological study and undertake other study activities;
establishing research protocols, including survey flights and sampling;
and initiating liaison with both Government and non-Government
organizations to assist in this study, develop test protocols, and
provide peer review. These program plans are described below.
The statute directing FAA to conduct a research program on cabin
air quality, including pressure altitude systems, calls for an
examination of conditions that could be harmful to the health of
airline passengers and crew, as well as the risk of airline passengers
and crew for contracting infectious diseases during flight.
On September 9, 1994, an existing Interagency Agreement between
NIOSH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FAA, was
amended to include a plan to determine the feasibility of designing and
conducting a study of chemical, physical, and microbiological aspects
of cabin air quality. NIOSH has initiated a literature review of cabin
air quality studies and, in addition, sampling methods for the analysis
of all relevant aircraft cabin contaminants are being evaluated to
establish the most efficient and meaningful research protocol.
FAA has established liaison with appropriate technical specialists
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Boeing, and other
organizations to assist the agency in development of the optimal
testing protocols and to obtain peer review for the cabin air quality
research. Special relationships have also been established with the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers Aviation Subcommittee. This group has undertaken an
initiative to establish consensus standards for minimum fresh air
ventilation rates in the air carrier aircraft cabin environment.
The FAA is proposing that NIOSH undertake a 5-year epidemiological
study to address disease transmission in the cabin environment.
In fiscal year 1995, approximately six to eight survey flights will
be conducted to develop protocols for the collection of chemical and
physical air quality data and to test instrumentation to be used in the
data collection. A proposed total of 22 to 24 survey flights will be
conducted and are scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1996.
Flights will be chosen depending on aircraft model and flight duration,
taking into account other factors which impact aircraft cabin air
quality, such as passenger load, smoking exposure, and filter
efficiency.
Demographics of the major U.S. airlines will be used to determine
which aircraft types should be evaluated in the study. For example, the
six aircraft types most prevalent in U.S. operating airline fleets are
the B727, B737, MD80, DC9, B757, and DC10. A key component of the new
study will be the selection of optimal measurements to determine
microbial loads onboard aircraft. These measurements will be critical
to the related study that addresses the relationships between aircraft
cabin environmental conditions and occupant symptomatology and the risk
of contracting infectious diseases.
The FAA/NIOSH Research Program has been designed to meet the goals
stated in Section 304 of Public Law 103-305. This research program will
specifically determine what, if any, aircraft cabin air conditions,
including pressure altitude systems on flights within the United
States, are harmful to the health of airline passengers and crew, as
indicated by physical symptoms such as headaches, nausea, fatigue, and
lightheadedness. It will also assess the risk of airline passengers and
crew contracting infectious diseases during flight.
Senator Conrad. Thank you for being here today, and I want
to thank, in absentia, Chairman Domenici for holding this
hearing and Chairman Shelby for being here as well. I think
this is critically important.
I am on the FAA reauthorization conference committee as a
member of the Budget Committee, and I would like to share a
somewhat different perspective than we have heard, at least
while I was here this morning before I had to leave for the
vote. We heard a lot of talk about money not being able to
solve problems. That is certainly the case. Money doesn't solve
all problems. But an absence of money, when there is real need,
creates its own problem. And I want to say I believe we need
more money for airport expansion or airport modernization for
FAA, and the need is just as clear as it can be.
We have 600 million air passengers a year now. We are being
told it will be a billion passengers within the next decade.
Now, you are not going to service those passengers. You are
not going to be able to deal with the capacity needs of the
airports of this country. You are not going to be able to
prevent enormous gridlock in the Air Transportation System of
the United States without substantial increases in funding. And
anybody that has worked with me over the 14 years I have served
in the United States Senate knows that I am a deficit hawk,
that I have been relentless in wanting to eliminate the
deficits, and we are at that day, thank goodness. We are able
to balance our budget without counting Social Security, which
is a dramatic improvement over where we were just 8 years ago.
But as a deficit hawk, I also recognize there are other
needs in this country as well. And unless we address this one,
we are going to hamper the economic efficiency of this economy
because transportation is right at the heart of an effective
economic system in America. And I defy anybody to explain to me
how you go from 600 million air passengers a year to a billion
and not spend more money to deal with the challenges.
Those of us who fly frequently know what is happening.
Delays of more than 15 minutes are up 20 percent--something
over 20 percent. I tell you, I am experiencing it. This last
weekend I was flying home to North Dakota, got up at 5 o'clock
in the morning for a 6 o'clock flight, and, you know, we all
get on the plane, and then they come with their announcement
that I have had many, many times: We have a mechanical problem;
it will be 15 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes, and we will
have it fixed. We all get off the plane. After 45 minutes, they
come on and say: It will be 15 minutes to an hour and 15
minutes before we are able to leave. You know, then they get
into it and they find there is more problems than they
anticipated, and it is 3\1/2\ hours before you leave.
Now, that meant that I missed a series of commitments, and
it meant all the other folks in that plane probably missed
commitments. That has a real effect on the efficient
functioning of our economy. And the fact is reliability is
declining, and we are going to have to put more money into this
system. That doesn't mean you just throw money at the system.
It does have to be done in a way that people are held
accountable.
I want to salute you for the work that was done to avoid
the Y2K problems that all of us were anticipating. Goodness,
what a remarkable event that turned out to be. We all woke up,
virtually no problems. And I salute you for the excellent work
that you did. I know enormous time and energy was spent on
making certain that the air transportation system in this
country was safe and functioned without problem. And I think
you deserve public credit.
There are three matters that I would like to raise with you
that affect my State. First of all, I want to thank you for
dealing with the air traffic control situation that affects
Minot Air Force Base in Minot, North Dakota. You acted, and
acted properly, I believe, to leave that matter of air traffic
control with the Minot Air Force Base because of the nuclear
deterrence responsibilities of that Air Force base. And I very
much appreciate the way you responded to that need. And I can
tell you that the commander of that Air Force base and the head
of the Air Force appreciates the cooperative spirit of the FAA
in resolving that matter.
Second, on essential air service, we have four North Dakota
communities that are covered by the EAS Program, but we are
having very significant problems with respect to the
reliability of that service in North Dakota, especially with
respect to Great Lakes aviation: repeated cancellation of
flights, repeated failure to provide service, and problems
really that need to be addressed during.
During consideration of FAA reauthorization, I got an
amendment passed that requires DOT and FAA to come up with a
plan to make EAS more sustainable, more reliable, and I would
just encourage you, even though that bill is still in
conference, to proceed to review those issues.
Is that something that you could do pending the completion
of FAA reauthorization?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, certainly we can review them. Those
are really understand the jurisdiction of the Secretary's
office, the Department of Transportation, but both Assistant
Secretary Basso and I will make sure that gets back to the
right office and make sure that that review takes place. We are
very much aware of those issues, as you were describing them,
and the criticality of having that kind of service for
communities really is--essential air service is exactly the
right name for it.
So we appreciate those issues, and we will respond and deal
with them.
Senator Conrad. Well, we do have serious problems.
On a final note, I want to also thank you for dealing with
the question of the width of the runway at Minot Airport.
Ms. Garvey. Yes.
Senator Conrad. FAA had been indicating they would only
fund a 100-foot-wide runway, and when we were able to get
written confirmation from Northwest Airlines that they intended
to serve that market with Airbus A320 aircraft that required a
150-foot runway, FAA responded and indicated that they would
fund a 150-foot-wide runway. And I would just like to confirm
that again here this morning.
Ms. Garvey. That is correct. Yes, exactly right, Senator.
Senator Conrad. Well, I appreciate that.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Conrad. I would just like to add a final if I could
on the point that Senator Durbin made.
Senator Domenici. It is your time.
Senator Conrad. This air recirculation question I think is
an important question. I have constituents that mention this to
me, and I believe it is a problem. I would very much hope that
the FAA would go back and revisit the question of what the
requirements are and that we have a recirculation more
frequently of air in these aircraft.
I have had doctors tell me that there is an epidemic of
illness as a result of the close confines of aircraft. In fact,
the Capitol physician has told us that they are seeing just an
epidemic of communicable illnesses being spread in aircraft and
that part of the reason is that we are not recirculating the
air frequently enough. And I very much hope that that would be
investigated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Let me apologize for my absence. I hope--
in fact, I know matters were handled very well in my absence,
and nobody went to war, nobody got mad at each other. Isn't
that nice?
I want to just suggest that one of the reasons that I have
undertaken oversight hearings this year--and I am sorry that I
don't have 3 months instead of one to do some oversight
hearings--is not because we have authority to write laws in
these areas. Everyone here knows we don't. But I have been part
of producing a budget and 13 appropriation bills for 25 of the
27 years I have served here. And I have come to the conclusion
that our procedures do not allow enough time for authorizing
committees to have hearings about the matters within their
jurisdiction and to actually find out whether the programs they
are funding and that they have authorized sometimes 50 years
ago, 30, 20, whether they are still worthwhile.
Well, I am pleased to announce that in the United States
House they are way beyond a majority of members who have joined
in a resolution saying let's have appropriations and budgeting
every 2 years, and thus, that would leave some time for
something else, like oversight.
I submit, however, that from your standpoint, as being on
the executive side--and I would ask if I am correct--if you
didn't have to submit a budget every year, it would permit you
a great deal more time to oversight the department that you
run.
I just got a note yesterday that a little tiny funding in
one of my bills, Corps of Engineers at $3.7 billion a year,
they must do a budget every year. The budget is eight volumes
long. Eight volumes, 20,000 pages, for $3.7 billion, one small
department of the government every year, every year. Then they
must do hearings on appropriations, then appropriating, then we
all go back and have a Christmas sleep. And guess what? Budget
appropriation again.
I think a lot of the problems that are falling in your laps
are your own problems of not managing correctly, and you have
been one very willing to tell us where things must be improved.
But I think part of the problem is a 1-year cycle for producing
budgets for appropriations.
Could you comment? That is a question I did not tell you I
was going to ask you, but could you comment on it if you have
anything relevant?
Ms. Garvey. And I may ask Mr. Basso if he would like to
comment from the Department's perspective. But I would say
certainly from a programmatic perspective, a multi-year
predictable stream of funding is certainly something that we
would find extraordinarily helpful to give us that kind of
flexibility.
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, just speaking for myself as
opposed to the Administration, I have had 35 years to observe
this process, and one thing I am sure of is every year the
cycle gets longer and more continuous. So I would have to agree
with you, that having more time, more oversight, more
deliberation, couldn't help but deal with a $1 trillion issue.
And certainly I agree with you from my perspective on that.
Senator Domenici. Senator Gorton, did you get to ask
questions?
Senator Gorton. No, I did not.
Senator Domenici. Please do so.
Senator Gorton. I have only a couple.
Ms. Garvey, what is the status of the Wide Area
Augmentation System Program? And are the recent delays part of
any larger structural challenge?
Ms. Garvey. WAAS is definitely one of the most complex and
most challenging projects we have. We did a series of testing,
or actually, Raytheon, our contractor, did some testing for us
in the fall and into the early winter months. Two issues or two
elements, two factors arose. One is--and this is the good
news--there is much greater accuracy with WAAS than we had
anticipated. So the accuracy is even greater than what we had
expected. That is the good news.
The part that is not so good is the whole issue of our
safety monitoring, and it is very critical and very important
for us to have the highest levels of safety as we are looking
at this kind of equipment. We have no room for any mistakes in
that area, so we have very high standards in the safety arena.
The testing is showing that WAAS is not able to meet those
standards at this point, so we have that challenge for us. And,
quite honestly, if it means a schedule slip or compromising the
safety, we would obviously take the schedule slip. But we have
scheduled next week, for 3 days, a technical review committee.
It is made up of a contractor, FAA officials, and I was just
mentioning to Mr. Mead earlier that we are inviting people from
outside to help participate in this, to really identify a path
for success here. How do we deal with this issue? How serious
is it, and how do we deal with it? So we will have more to
report on this after that group meets.
But good news on the accuracy. The safety standards, and it
really involves the alarms going off more frequently than they
should. We have to deal with that before we can move ahead.
Mr. Mead. I would like to just say a word about WAAS from
our work. As you know, we are independent of FAA. This is one
of the programs that is having problems. This program started
out with a program cost estimate of $893 million. We are now
looking at about $3 billion.
This is also one of those programs experiencing schedule
slippages. WAAS started out in 1996. In 1998 we were supposed
to start deploying it now, it is going to be 2000 or later.
I have noticed some real improvements in FAA's oversight of
the WAAS contractor here. This is one procurement where a lot
of risk sharing is going to be needed because it is a very
expensive contract. I think the contractor bears now a
responsibility here, just like FAA.
WAAS is also a very important program in terms of
technology development and in terms of transitioning to
satellite navigation.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Another subject, Ms. Garvey. The recent contract with the
controllers, is it affecting your ability to meet budgetary
targets? Is it going to tighten your ability to do other things
at a time of rather constrained budgets?
Ms. Garvey. Well, thank you very much for asking that
question. If you will bear with me--because this is an
important issue to me. I think it--it is something I get asked
very frequently.
First of all, we did have a 12 percent increase in our
operations budget, but I think we need to say that there also
was over 8 percent increase in mandatory spending. The
controller contract is less than one-quarter of that, so I
don't want to say it doesn't have an impact, but I also want to
point out that it is a very small impact overall.
And I want to take a step back for a minute because we had
some very important goals when we went into the controller
contract negotiations. One was that we wanted to get some
productivity gains. That was very critical to us. And I am
happy to say that for the first time we have a contract that
does include some cost savings and cost avoidance. We have
never had that before. That is significant.
Second--and I think that some of the speakers earlier
referred to this--we have not always had the best relationship
with the controllers. Management and union have not been always
in sync at the FAA. I think this contract has established an
atmosphere for us in the FAA where the labor-management
relationship has never been better. They are full partners as
we are moving ahead on modernization, absolutely full partners.
And from my perspective, that is critical. We don't need to
look far to see other places where the labor-management
relationship is such that it really does sort of poison the
well, if you will.
So we wanted productivity gains, and we wanted full buy-in
for modernization. We wanted to take a look at some ways that
we might be able to give up alternate work weeks and so forth.
That is very tough for a 24-hour-a-day operation. We have been
able to achieve those. And so I think it is extraordinarily
positive.
We also wanted to be able to classify our facilities in
different ways. We wanted to be able to say that San Francisco,
Chicago, New York, those are very busy, and the controllers
there ought to be paid in relationship to the number of
operations that they had to control. So I think the contract is
a solid, good document, and I think it will allow us to move
ahead in a way that we probably could not but for a contract.
Senator Gorton. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. For your information, Senator, you were
not present when the Inspector General put up a rather
significant chart with three lines on it. One of them had to do
with the increased costs attributable to the contract of
employment versus the growth in other accounts because of it. I
am not suggesting that the chart attempted to say we were
harming one part because we have a good labor contract, but it
did show that it is a very big part of expenditures that we are
now online to keep giving for quite some time. If it works out
that there is a much better relationship with employees and if
it turns out to have added productivity, I think that would be
exciting, and I congratulate you for it.
I have just two questions. I happened, just by coincidence,
to have located in the city of Albuquerque one of your aging
aircraft centers wherein the scientists at Sandia National
Laboratory work with the private sector in determining the
significance of aging on certain components of American
conventional, ordinary airplanes that we have in our stockpile
that we are using. I have asked them for some evaluations in
the past. Clearly, even though we are building more new
airplanes, we are also living on a stockpile of airplanes that
are getting very old as people are flying around in rather old
airplanes. And we need to know more about what that means.
Could you just talk to the record on that?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, that is an absolutely significant
issue. You are absolutely right that as our aircraft ages, that
whole issue becomes even more paramount. We have worked very
closely with the NTSB around the whole issue of aging aircraft,
and we have a very aggressive program underway. Again, we have
brought in some wonderful experts.
I am not as familiar with the Sandia Lab's efforts in this
area. I am very familiar from my highway days of wonderful work
that they have done, and I think it would be good for us to
follow up and perhaps see if there is a way to include some of
their information in what we are doing.
Senator Domenici. I believe there are two similar ones. I
think there is one in the State of Iowa, if I am not mistaken.
But, in any event, they are now pursuing some very exciting
work on some of the very modern airplanes and testing just
individual parts for their longevity, their strength. After 30
years, what is happening to them? And I think you have to be a
big player in that.
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely.
Senator Domenici. Because you have to tell the American
people the planes are safe. It is not going to be so easy to
keep doing that with planes that are growing older and older if
you don't know the answer. Right?
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely. An important issue for us.
[The information follows:]
Since the Aloha 737 accident in May 1988, the FAA has worked with
the transport airplane manufacturers and airlines to improve the
technology of inspecting for corrosion and fatigue damage, developed
improved structural inspection requirements, and issued many
airworthiness directives to correct aging problems on various types of
aircraft. This continuous improvement in aging aircraft safety will be
expanded by rulemaking that will require older airplanes to be
evaluated, and monitored in service, for the development of any new
sources of widespread fatigue damage (the type of damage that caused
the Aloha accident).
The FAA continues to work aging aircraft problems through the
Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE), through which
Sandia National Laboratories plays a key role. In the AACE the FAA has
set up a partnership that brings leading talent in government,
academia, and industry to focus on maintaining the high level of safety
in the aging fleet (along with other airworthiness problems).
At the Sandia National Laboratories, the FAA has set up an
inspection system Validation Center. Sandia's group of samples with
known flaws provides real aircraft structures to test new laboratory
developed inspection methods. This provides the FAA with a way to
ensure that newly proposed methods will meet their expected levels of
performance in practice. This philosophy of validation is already
working well in the area of airframe inspection. It has also been
applied to engine inspection technologies, and will be used on the
aging systems program that the FAA now has underway.
The research work at the AACE and, in particular at the Validation
Center, is crucial to supporting the FAA's core capabilities and
ensuring that the latest technology is correctly applied to maintaining
the aging fleet.
Iowa State University is the co-leader with Ohio University of
Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence and through their Center
for Aviation Safety Reliability (CASR), they are working with the FAA's
William J. Hughes Technical Center primarily on the development of new
inspection methods for aircraft structures.
The effectiveness of the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability
(CASR) and the Airworthiness Assurance NDT Validation Center (AANC) is
intertwined with the certification, operational and maintenance
requirements for aircraft structures. Nondestructive Inspection (NDI)
technology has improved our ability to detect structural flaws and
corrosion. The probability of detection establishes the inspection
intervals for operators. Safe operation of aircraft beyond the design
service goal is predicated on detection and modification of aircraft
structure due to fatigue and corrosion. The real benefit of improved
NDI is that of increased reliability of detecting flaws before the
residual strength of the structure degrades to an unsafe level. We are
able to extend the life of structures and repair or replace them within
a safe time frame as a direct result of NDI advancements.
Senator Domenici. One of our Senators--I think Senator
Conrad--made an issue of airplanes not being on time and the
kind of problems people are having. I just want to clarify: Is
that attributable to the fact that we don't have enough money,
or is that attributable to something else?
Ms. Garvey. Well, I would certainly say that--and let me
step back for a minute. I think there were really three
critical areas. Last summer we saw a 20 percent increase in
delays, and there were, I think, three significant reasons for
that. One is, as Don McCarty said this morning, we all
experienced some significant weather last year, and that was an
issue. Second, the transition to modern equipment--we moved
into DSR last year, and that created some problems for us as
well. And, third, there were a number of significant runway
projects that were taking place throughout the country that
also had an impact, particularly at those critical centers.
I think the efforts that have been underway have been
significant. We have been working closely with the airlines
every single week in coming up with a Spring-Summer Plan for
this year. We don't want to have the same repeat of what we
experienced last year. We have come up with a very significant
plan around procedures, around ways to manage the air traffic
much differently, and that is going to be announced at the end
of this year.
I can tell you some elements include giving our command
center in Herndon more control--they know the whole system--and
looking at a number of procedures as well. I will say that is
the short-term fix. We still believe that the long-term fix is
the long-term modernization efforts that we are also committed
to. So that clearly is the long-term answer as we move forward.
Senator Lautenberg. If I might, Mr. Chairman, how about
just the general increase in the flying public?
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. Airplanes are filling and they are busy
and slots are blocked and the gates are unavailable.
Ms. Garvey. We are seeing that particularly at some of the
hubs, as you know, at some of the airports near and dear to
your heart, Senator. So we are seeing that as well, the growth
in traffic.
Mr. Mead. We don't have two things in this country
pertaining to the delay issue that are very important,
particularly as you are considering FAA's reauthorization.
First, we do not have a common definition of what a delay is.
Second, we do not analyze the causes of delays in a systematic
way. This is irony of Shakespearean proportions, almost. Did
you know that you are considered departing ``on time'' if that
plane backs away from the gate within 15 minutes of its
scheduled departure? But if you sit on that runway for 2
additional hours, even though you have pulled away, you are
still leaving ``on time''.
Now, the person in that plane doesn't think they are
leaving on time, but the Federal Government counts, and it
shows up in USA Today and everywhere else as a departure on
time. I think that ought to be changed.
Senator Domenici. Well, we thank you for that observation.
I was wondering why they did that to us, why they didn't bring
us back, since we were going to be there 2 hours, why they
didn't turn us free. But obviously it would be a late
departure.
Mr. Mead. That is another issue.
Senator Domenici. It could be that is the reason they do
it. They don't do it as much anymore, though, which is very
interesting to me. Something has happened in the meantime.
Planes are not pulling out as many times and them telling you
as soon as you get away from the gate, well, we are going to be
here for an hour before we take off. I haven't heard that as
much lately. Have you?
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I got on an airplane the other
day despite the precaution that said, look, we are going to get
you on the airplane, we are going to close the door, but I can
tell you now it is 55 minutes before we are going to be given
clearance to take off. And it was excessive traffic going into
the New York region.
So delays are alive and well, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. At least that one they told you clearly
in advance, and I think they are doing a better job at that.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Senator Domenici. I have no further questions. I guess I
would like--do you want to go another round?
Senator Lautenberg. I haven't asked any questions.
Senator Domenici. Oh, I am sorry. I thought you asked them
while I was gone. I am going to yield in one moment.
I wonder if you would mind, Administrator Garvey,
responding to the last comments made by Mr. Mead with reference
to the commonality that he suggested we don't have in some of
these areas. Can you address that for the record?
Ms. Garvey. Do you mean in terms of the delay issue?
Senator Domenici. Yes, where he just described the things
that he recommended?
Ms. Garvey. I think one of the issues that Mr. Mead has
referred to is the common definition of delays and so forth.
Senator Domenici. Correct.
Ms. Garvey. One very good and interesting result of the
work that we are doing with the airlines right now, is we have
sort of put some of that aside, and we have said, ``Let us take
a new look at this, and let us measure how the system is doing.
Let us agree upon an established set of metrics.'' We have done
that, and actually, they are pretty straightforward and pretty
simple, and we now have sort of a common definition between the
two of us.
We still have, as Mr. Mead suggested, the issue about DOT's
definition of it. I think that is something we still need to
work on, but we have agreed on the common definition with the
airlines about how we are going to measure how well we do this
summer, so we will be able to do that together.
Senator Domenici. Now, Madam Administrator, the Inspector
General explained at length one of the major projects you have
going, procurement contracts for new equipment, and I
understand from my friends who know, that that is a very, very
important new part of modernizing the system. He explained its
original bid price and how much it ended up costing, and its
original committed delivery date and how long it took. Now, I
am not surprised. Believe it or not, we funded the Internal
Revenue Service for new equipment for all America, only to find
that they could not get it done If ever I was frustrated as an
appropriator in those days was to say, ``OK, we just put up $4
billion. We can now tell our citizens we are going to have a
modern system at the IRS.'' IRS wondered for a few years why
Congress defunded them in certain areas, and I can tell you it
was because of what I just described. Now, thank God, it looks
like that is over, but there are similar stories in Social
Security and other areas, where there are big machines, and
modernizing has been attempted in huge jumps, not just little
incremental steps. But I guess it would be important to at
least know, since the subject came up, whether the FAA has
analyzed this and if you know why that happened and can tell us
that it will not happen again?
Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, I think the approach that we are
taking on these big projects incrementally, step by step, is in
large part the answer. I think that is absolutely critical as
we are moving forward. Mr. Mead and I have talked a great deal
about that, and I think that is a very positive step forward.
Second, I think that the whole issue of procurement reform,
I want to stress again it has allowed us to make changes and
made some differences to us. We are able to get contracts on
board in 50 percent less time. The other--and Mr. Mead is
absolutely right, there are about 5 projects at the FAA that
are very big projects and need to be watched very carefully. He
mentioned a couple, WAAS, STARS, OASIS and so forth. There are
5 of them.
But I also want to put that in perspective. We have a $2
billion budget in F&E. Those 5 projects make up about 15
percent, so there is still a large number of projects being
done. And I think in those areas in particular, procurement
reform has been beneficial. Having said that, I want to give
you my absolute commitment that those 5 problem projects, if
you will, are being watched very carefully. They are being
managed differently with clear points of accountability. There
are absolute deadlines that we have to meet, and we are doing
that.
I think we need to do a better job in terms of procurement
reform of building in life cycle cost, and that is something we
have talked with Chairman Shelby's committee about as well. We
need to bring that in, and that is one of the suggestions we
have got, and we are doing that as well.
Senator Domenici. All right.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Lautenberg, excuse me for not--
assuming. I thought you might have----
Senator Lautenberg. Not at all. Our schedule has been mixed
up, and I apologize for having to run off for a couple minutes.
Senator Shelby, do you want to----
Senator Shelby. No, go ahead. I defer to you.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I have three statements
that--one by Senator Hollings, one by Richard Durbin, one by
Senator Johnson--that we would like to have inserted in the
record.
Senator Domenici. They will be inserted and at this time, I
would like to insert a statement from Senator Snowe.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Good morning and welcome to our distinguished guests, Administrator
Garvey, Inspector General Mead and Mr. Crichton. I am very pleased that
you are able to appear at this joint hearing before the Budget and
Appropriations Committee. ``Modernizing the Federal Aviation
Administration: Challenges and Solutions'' is the title of today's
hearing, an apt and timely one at that. As many of you know, we have
been conferencing on the FAA bill since fall and funding has lapsed on
the Airport Improvement Program portion of the FAA's budget. Spring--
the beginning of the construction season is almost here and we seem to
be headed no where soon on this issue.
We may pose theoretical questions concerning privatization and the
role of government. What we cannot do, however, is dispute the duties
incumbent upon us at this moment: properly funding the FAA so that it
can carry out its primary mission of ensuring safety, and properly
funding our Nation's aviation infrastructure. Few will dispute the role
of transportation in commerce. Admittedly, shipping and rail initially
were responsible for building our Nation's wealth and shaping its
cities; however, with the past century, aviation has become the primary
and most important means for moving people. In fact, it has
revolutionized the way we do business. In 1998, U.S. air carriers
enplaned 607 million passengers. According to the FAA, this number will
grow to an estimated 1 billion passengers in 2010. This explosive
growth does not even include cargo flights.
Congestion in the skies and on the ground at our Nation's airports
is also increasing exponentially. According to the Air Transport
Association, delays were up by 36 percent this summer. The prediction
of gridlock as was noted in the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission's 1997 Report seemed to be coming to early fruition. While
it is fortunate that we have Canada's system as an example of
privatized air traffic control, the United States' airspace has
dramatically more complicated flight paths, in addtion to a more
diverse body of users. Deregulation of the airlines industry left many
winners and losers. We have planes flying all over the place, including
a large number that are classified as general aviation. Our population
is greater and extends throughout our borders. We have 86 commercial
air carriers compared to Canada's one. And with the exception of a few,
the majority of U.S. carrier operations use the hub and spoke system,
allowing them to serve a larger number of passengers. We can not afford
to have another set of winners and losers by turning air traffic
control over to the private sector.
Although it is important that we engage in discussion on ways to
facilitate modernization of the FAA, it is imperative we do not trade
academic discussions for action. We must step up to the plate and do
our duty--pass the FAA bill.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Chairmen Domenici and Shelby, thank you for calling this important
hearing on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) modernization.
Obviously, the State of Illinois, home to one the world's busiest
airports, has a great interest in achieving the most efficient and
safest air traffic control system possible. I thank Administrator
Garvey for joining us today.
I also want to mention my strong desire to see the conferees on the
FAA Reauthorization Bill finish their work as soon as possible. In
downstate Illinois, we're facing an air service crisis. The High
Density Rule at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport is jeopardizing
service to smaller communities. It is my hope that the conference
report will bring some relief to these communities who desperately need
access to the Chicago market for economic development and tourism.
I'd like to use my time this morning to talk about an important,
commonsense safety and accident prevention issue--video cameras in
airplane cockpits.
The tragic and mysterious crash of EgyptAir 990 in November and the
recent crashes of Kenya Airways and Alaska Airlines give us a solemn
reminder that air travel can never be made too safe. As crash
investigators attempt to sort out the circumstances surrounding these
accidents, the Federal Government continues to look for new and
innovative ways to enhance air safety and prevent future accidents.
Cockpit voice recorders help us understand the causes of many
crashes. But sometimes they still leave us mystified. I believe the
missing link to a clearer and fuller understanding of why airplanes
crash is video camera technology in the cockpits and on planes.
In an era where video cameras are commonplace in grocery stores,
office buildings, public buses, and at ATMs, it is time to modernize
the tools of air safety. The voice recorder was once state of the art,
and it still can be an important tool for investigating accidents.
However, a video camera could provide invaluable information for
analyzing accidents and creating a safer environment for airline
passengers. Visual recordings could also shorten the length of an
investigation at a time when the public is anxious and eager to
understand what happened.
The crash of EgyptAir flight 990 unfortunately illustrates the need
to improve flight recording devices. Although the audio record provided
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) with some important
clues about what might have occurred just before the crash, the
recording appears to raise many more questions than it answers. Visual
recording equipment could provide more practical information in such
circumstances.
I understand the concerns raised by the opponents. Video recordings
should and must be treated in the same manner as cockpit voice
recordings. Privacy concerns and compassion for victims' families must
be appropriately addressed.
This week, I met with the chairmen of both American and United
Airlines. They're open to the concept. I've had the opportunity to meet
with and raise this subject with today's witness, FAA Administrator
Garvey, and with NTSB Chairman Jim Hall. Both are interested.
In fact, Chairman Hall wrote, ``The Safety Board shares your belief
that a video recording could provide invaluable information for
analyzing accidents and creating a safer environment for airline
passengers.'' NTSB's Office of Research and Engineering is currently
looking into this matter.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government, specifically the FAA, must
lead the way. I am asking Administrator Garvey to continue to push the
agency to consider this concept and the latest available technology.
However, Congress has a role as well. We should ensure that both
the FAA and NTSB Reauthorization Bills include language that prepares
the way for the possibility of video cameras and recordings. We should
not wait for another accident.
I thank the Budget Committee and the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee for holding this important hearing. I look forward to
working with my colleagues as well as with the FAA and NTSB to advance
this commonsense concept.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing and
thank the witnesses for being here this morning. I want to take a
moment to express my concerns regarding the status of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization. As we all know, the
authorization lapsed last fall and consequently, our airports currently
are operating with some uncertainty about the future.
Several of South Dakota's airports receive funding through the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which funds a variety of critical
projects across the country including safety, security, capacity, and
noise projects. In recent years, AIP funds were used for a number of
important projects, including the rehabilitation and lighting of a
runway in Pierre and runway rehabilitation projects in Watertown, Sioux
Falls, Rapid City, Mitchell, Huron, Brookings, Aberdeen, Redfield,
Flandreau, Custer County, and Platte. Many critically important
projects are slated for construction when the funds are made available
and I hope that a resolution to the conference is found in a timely
manner so that our entire construction season, which is often fairly
short because of the harsh midwestern winters, can be utilized.
Essential Air Service (EAS) also is a critical program for South
Dakota. Yankton's airport depends on EAS for air transportation, and
the cities of Brookings and Mitchell also are served by this program.
EAS has proved to be crucial to ensuring that rural America remains
economically viable, by allowing scheduled air service to exist at many
rural airports across the Nation that otherwise could not support
commercial air service. If funding for EAS lapses, South Dakota's rural
airports, and the communities they serve, will be adversely affected.
Finally, regarding the controversial issue of how to best ensure
airports receive adequate, reliable funding in the future, I support
using all revenues generated by aviation taxes for aviation needs.
Using all aviation trust fund monies to meet the unmet needs in our
aviation infrastructure and the growing needs of the flying public
makes common sense. I want to commend Chairman Domenici for attempting
to find a compromise on the complex issue of aviation funding. I hope
that the conference can resolve this complex issue as soon as possible,
and, again, I appreciate the Chairman's efforts to find a compromise.
I hope the FAA reauthorization conference will be able to resolve
the extremely complex and critically important issues involved in the
FAA reauthorization conference so that our airport managers will no
longer be held hostage by congressional inaction. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Olympia J. Snowe
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express my appreciation to
you for scheduling this hearing. This is a very important issue.
As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee and Aviation
Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Federal Aviation
Administration, I recognize the extraordinary importance of the FAA
reform and modernization issue.
Just last month, a relatively minor computer glitch in the Air
Traffic Control System virtually halted air travel in the East. This
past summer, flight delays were at an all time high. This is our wake-
up call. Modernization is critical. After all, by some estimates, air
traffic congestion is expected to grow by upwards of 50 percent through
2008. I do not believe that we are currently prepared to handle growth
of this magnitude.
Of course, some of the problems in the Air Traffic System are
caused by factors beyond our control, such as weather. However, other
factors, including over-scheduling, antiquated technology, and
bureaucratic management can and must be addressed.
To this end, the FAA has in recent decades developed modernization
initiatives to improve its programs and upgrade its systems. However,
these efforts have been plagued by chronic cost and schedule overruns,
due at least in part to what many believe was an overly ambitious
strategy. The GAO, for example, identified the FAA's failure to follow
a ``phased'' versus an ``incremental'' approach to modernization. While
the FAA has taken steps to address some of these criticisms--adopting
short- and long-term modernization goals and working toward those goals
through incremental change, for example--I am not sure that all of the
outstanding issues have been addressed.
A key issue, of course, is air traffic control modernization. The
FAA has outlined three components to its air traffic control
modernization strategy: (1) maintaining current systems and upgrading
infrastructure; (2) enhancing safety; and (3) developing new mechanisms
to increase capacity and efficiency in the system.
These are fundamental themes, and I strongly believe that we need
to focus our attention and follow through before its too late. I look
forward to what I hope will be a frank and constructive exchange of
ideas on how to confront the FAA's challenges through adoption of new
technologies, better management practices, and perhaps restructuring.
I am interested in hearing from the FAA on what the costs and long-
term outlook for modernization are, what efforts the agency has made to
counter criticism from the GAO and others, and what affect all of these
changes will have on consumers.
The FAA certainly faces enormous challenges as it attempts to keep
pace with the rapid changes taking place in aviation.
Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to the Chairman
and my thanks to the witnesses for sharing their insights.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Garvey, one of the things that I
was kind of curious about, and including the discussion--
included in the discussion of delays was some concern about the
lack of clear definition what constitutes delays, and I think
that would be very helpful to the passenger market, because
they just do not get it. They know when they are late, and they
know what the OAG or they were told when they called to make
their reservation, and if it is not there, it is late. It does
not need more defining than that. But how much--and you have
identified weather as a significant factor. We ought to be able
to identify how much delays cost by weather, and I think that
would be a good thing to do. It does not mean we can throw up
our hands and ignore it. The fact of the matter is there is
better and better weather equipment out there. We do not want
airplanes flying in risky conditions, but if the public knew
that, they would say, ``Boy, that is a good idea that they
delayed that.''
You were talking about procurement, and you know, Senator
Hatfield and I and others worked hard at getting the
procurement process reform, and yet, things are not in place,
and you had a discussion just now, Senator Domenici, and are
there any legal obstacles there that you have, any regulatory
problems that you have in implementing the procurement process
as we like to see it?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I am not aware of any, and again, I
actually think we have made some very good progress in it. The
recent review that we had by Booz-Allen--it was an independent
review--made 18 suggestions to us, including, by the way,
getting the life cycle costing included. They essentially said,
``Look, you are on track. You are doing the right stuff.''
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I think our friend, Ken Mead, may
differ with you a little bit on that.
Ms. Garvey. I am not sure.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there a difference in view?
Mr. Mead. No; I was musing that in our observations of
procurement reform, it is interesting that people sometimes do
not know what to do with freedom when they get it. When
Congress gave FAA freedom, there was a period of time, it seems
to me--I was at GAO for part of this time--now being at the
Department where the agency did not know what to do with this
newfound freedom. FAA is still struggling with it to this day.
I hear from Mr. Belger and others about this but I see
improvements on the innovations. I really do. I am not sure FAA
really believed it when they had freedom from Federal
acquisition and personnel rules.
Ms. Garvey. If I could just mention I was at Highways then.
And I do not want to leave the impression that there is not
more we can do. I think we have to constantly ask ourselves:
are we using it as flexibly as we can, and can we push the
envelope a little bit more? So we need to constantly do that.
Mr. Mead's staff is terrific about working with us and making
some suggestions. I think for the most part we have implemented
just about all of those or well on the way to.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, some aviation observers have
complained that the Appropriations Committee has not granted
FAA enough procurement funding. Now, my experience has been
that when the Appropriations Committee reduces funding for a
particular procurement, it is based on FAA's testimony
indicating that a project has been delayed or is otherwise put
on a different track. Do you believe that granting FAA an
unlimited pot of procurement funds is going to put an end to
your contracting problems in a hurry?
Ms. Garvey. I would agree with the statements that were
made earlier. I do not think money is the only answer. I will
say that I think this year in 2000 we have had some real
shortfalls. We are looking at some programs that may be slowed
up a bit, but I would certainly agree with the earlier
comments, it is not the only answer. I hope we can get what the
President asked for this year, but----
Senator Lautenberg. Is any part of the problem inability
for suppliers to deliver product, whether it be software,
hardware, otherwise?
Ms. Garvey. That is a very good question. I am not sure I
know the answer to that. I am not aware of any, but I will
check with people. There may be some cases where that is an
issue. I will tell you one area I have been a little concerned
about. The kind of freedom we have had and flexibility we have
had has created some problems for some small businesses, and
that is an issue we have been wrestling with lately, whether or
not our sort of eagerness to get some contracts out, whether we
may have inadvertently not been quite as fair to some of the
small businesses as we should be. So that is something we are
looking carefully at and dealing with as well.
[The information follows:]
No. We are not aware of any inability on the part of our supplier
to deliver products.
Mr. Mead. I recall, Mr. Lautenberg, you were on the
committee at the time and saw firsthand what happened to the
Advance Automation System. AAS was the centerpiece of FAA's air
traffic control effort in the late 1980's and early 1990's. And
I recall in appropriations hearings that year that FAA came up
and asked you for money. Actually, I think the committee
largely funded that request, only to have, the plug pulled on
the entire program 11 months later as a result of an intensive
study by Deputy Administrator Daschle and Administrator Hinson.
And going back further to the Microwave Landing System, which
was a multi-billion dollar program, which was also terminated.
The Micro Wave Landing System was terminated because of
pressure from the airline industry.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, it is interesting, because, Ms.
Garvey, you have the unique experience of serving both as a
Deputy Highway Administrator as well as the FAA Administrator.
And in the procurement process I saw something unique happen in
New Jersey last year. When we gave a contract for a major
interchange--perhaps you remember, major 417--and I think
Secretary Basso was there to celebrate the completion a year
early, a year early, and essentially under budget for the work
that was done, because we gave a contract out there, we gave
the contractor a lot of headway, and there was a bonus promise,
and the bonus promise that we had to pay--I think it was about
$3 million--was insignificant compared to the pre-Christmas
rush that was taking place on these highways and a lot of
retail shopping. And I think we begin to learn things, and I
have seen it also on a light-rail system that is being now done
in New Jersey, in North Jersey, where the contract is fairly
open-ended--not without all the audit trails that one would
expect--but the fact of the matter is that if we kind of got
out of the way, we found out that if we had reliable
contractors, we could get the job done, and there is a tendency
among all of us here to micro-manage at times, because we get
frustrated at the lack of completion of things.
Now, do you think that our interstate highway system
provides the kind of benefits to our economy that perhaps
investments in FAA might provide? Is it appropriate for FAA to
get guaranteed amounts of general funding when the Federal
Highway Administration receives no general funding whatsoever?
The point I make, I assume, is obvious at this juncture, and
that is, what about this concept of assuring FAA that it gets
whatever funds it needs, and jeopardizing investments in
highway or rail or other parts of the transportation system, or
accounts way beyond that?
Ms. Garvey. This is where I turn over to Dr. Basso.
Dr. Basso. Senator, it is a very good question. First just
briefly on the Interstate Highway System, I think it has been
unprecedented what the system has done for the country, and in
particular, I enjoyed being with you in New Jersey a few weeks
ago when we had a chance to see all of that firsthand, very
important.
On the question of guaranteed funding, I think clearly the
Administration has not called for guaranteed general funding
for the FAA. The other point that I think I should make is that
clearly the trust fund alone, with the receipts that are coming
in now, do not or would not just simply meet our budget needs,
and when I am able to talk more about this on Monday, I can be
more specific about our approaches to how we would meet those
needs.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Mead, your testimony includes some
sobering data regarding the cost growth and three of FAA's
major procurements. Do you think that there is a risk that
dramatically increased appropriations to the FAA Facilities and
Equipment budget will cause the cost of these programs to grow
even more? Does it suggest that it will increase the appetite
for spending with some less control involved?
Mr. Mead. If the Congress is going to give FAA more money,
I would suggest that you put in some controls to ensure that
additional funds are not absorbed by salaries and related
expenses and cost growth. I think we would all come away from
the table a bit disappointed if additional funds intended for
modernization went to cover cost growth in other areas.
I do think that in tandem with the FAA reauthorization and
appropriation process, there should be a very explicit linkage
to a cost accounting system. If someone comes and asks you or
me for money, you probably like to say, ``Well, what exactly
would you use it for and what will you get out of it?'' To
arrive at the answers to those questions, you need a cost
accounting system. Most businesses have them. While it is
fairly unusual in the Federal Government, businesses have them,
FAA, in many respects, is a 365 day a year business. And we are
talking about a lot of money. So I think there are investment
opportunities--I can rattle off a whole list of them--but it
would be very important that the money be spent wisely.
Senator Lautenberg. What do you think, Ms. Garvey?
Ms. Garvey. Well, first of all, I could not agree more on
the cost accounting system. In fact, I think that holds, as I
mentioned, the most promise for helping us control our costs,
because we have accounting like every government agency right
now, but it is not to the level that we need it. It is not in
the same way that business has it.
Senator Lautenberg. But inhibits the development or the
influence----
Ms. Garvey. We actually are well on the way. I will tell
you that this year we did--and Mr. Mead referred to that--we
did delay implementation for everything other than the Air
Traffic Control System, and that was because of the budget
constraints. We worked very hard though to make sure that the
air traffic control piece, which is in our view the most
critical piece, that we are on track with that. We have a
framework in place. We are already beginning to collect data
for both the en route and the oceanic domains. The flight
services stations will be later this year. So we are beginning
to collect that data now. We have tested with industry. That
is, are we headed in the right direction? We have got
extraordinarily complimentary comments from industry. One
representative from American Airlines said that it ought to be
a model to be used internationally. It is that level of detail.
So do I wish it were in place today? Absolutely. But are we on
the right track? Yes, we are, and I think it holds great
promise for us.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that the thinking
necessary to correct some of the problem there is in place, so
we encourage you to move forward with these changes, and speak
emphatically about them when you meet with the committees of
the Congress, and make sure that they understand where you are
going and what the mission is.
Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Ms. Garvey, you have been at the FAA long enough now to
have a pretty good sense of the challenges that have to be
addressed to make that organization more efficient, more
accountable and responsive to its customers. I believe you
received good marks from insiders at the FAA, from most
industry experts, and generally a good reception here on the
Hill, including from my committee.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Some claim that you are the best
administrator that the agency has ever had. Yet, the FAA of
2000 has many, if not all of the problems I mentioned earlier,
that have plagued it for the past 20 years.
Basically, is this too big a job for any one person? Is the
air traffic control function a task that would be better
executed by non-governmental management structure, or are all
the naysayers out there predicting gridlock and doom wrong?
Ms. Garvey. Well, thank you first of all for the kind
comments.
I will tell you, by the way, that I am reaching my midpoint
of the 5-year term tomorrow.
Senator Shelby. Congratulations.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you, thank you. And I expect to see it
through.
I think the whole issue about whether or not there ought to
be a different structure is absolutely the right kind of debate
to have in this Congress, absolutely the right kind of debate.
The Administration has proposed, as we know, in 1995, a
corporation, a performance-based organization, but there are
lots of ideas out there, and to have them debated is
appropriate. But I do want to say--and I hope you will bear
with me--but I really do think we have made some progress. It
is difficult to change a 47,000-people agency, but I think we
have made some enormous strides forward. I really do not want
to go home today without saying that I think the work that is
being done at the FAA and the kind of decisions that people
make on a daily basis have not produced some positive changes
in the last 2 years. We are doing things differently, and I
think we are getting some very significant work done.
Senator Shelby. BNA reported just this morning that the
President's budget request for FAA operations is $6.6 billion.
That is in excess of what is currently being contemplated in
the FAA reauthorization conference. Is that correct? And if
that is correct, is the reauthorization inadequate or is the
President's budget request bloated?
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, let me just answer by saying I am
not in a position to confirm the number today. I will be on
Monday and----
Senator Shelby. Are the numbers in the ball park?
Mr. Basso. They are clearly in the ball park, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Good.
Mr. Basso. I think I have to give you that, and I would
like to promptly on Monday advise you----
Senator Shelby. Will you get back with us on that?
Mr. Basso. Sir?
Senator Shelby. Will you get back with us on that?
Mr. Basso. Absolutely. I will call you Monday morning first
thing.
Senator Shelby. What is the status of the contract tower
plan that Congress has requested the FAA? Ken, do you want to
comment on that?
Mr. Mead. I think there is kind of an odd issue that has
come up on this Contract Tower Program. We have reviewed it. We
found that these low-level towers, the program was essentially
sound for low-level towers. We did find that FAA has to stay on
top of the contractors to make sure that they come through and
live up to their staffing obligations. Safety did not seem to
be affected.
Now, your committee, the House, the Conference Committee,
directed FAA to do a study of whether that Contract Tower
Program could be expanded to further towers. FAA's study was
not done properly, in my view. And you turned around and
directed us to do it, in the Inspector General's Office. We are
in the process of doing it.
One issue that has come up is that the controller agreement
establishes 15,000 controllers, either as a ceiling or a floor
or both. We were told that, ``Well, if FAA were to contract out
any more towers, that is, privatize them, well then, you would
be abrogating the controller agreement because some of the
controllers would have to come from these towers.'' I am not so
sure that that is a correct analysis, because those controllers
could go to some other tower, or they could leave. FAA could
hire more controllers and put them where they are needed most--
at the busier facilities. This is a very controversial issue.
I think that Contract Tower Program at low-level
facilities, where they are not getting a lot of traffic, is a
sound program, and deserves support.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, would you be concerned that the
necessary FAA reform would be less likely if an aviation
firewall was erected?
Mr. Mead. I do not see the issue as a firewall, and with
all respect.
Senator Shelby. What do you see as being the issue?
Mr. Mead. Because if you gave FAA all the money that comes
in every year from the trust fund, they would be getting less
money now than you have appropriated. I think they would get
about $700 million less, unless you took all the interest. So I
think the real issue here is whether general income taxes from
the general fund ought to be going to FAA as an entitlement. I
know that is a policy judgment for the Congress. Over the years
I think that the appropriators have done a good job at
exercising oversight, I cannot point to a lack of money as
being the problem with major systems that have had problems.
But again, I know there are additional investment opportunities
out there.
Senator Shelby. Your statement indicated that in 1995 the
GAO and the Office of Inspector General cautioned that neither
procurement or personnel rules, nor lack of funding were the
source of the problems the FAA was experiencing with this ATC
modernization. Is that still true?
Mr. Mead. Yes, it is largely still true, sir.
Senator Shelby. OK. Your statement also indicates that the
FAA originally planned its cost accounting system to be fully
implemented by October the 1st, 1998, but that the FAA has yet
to implement this system. Why is a cost accounting system so
critical to the effective management of the agency and for
making responsible modernization decisions? Should the FAA
request supplemental funding or reprogramming to complete the
development and implementation of a cost accounting system?
Mr. Mead. Part one of your question, a cost accounting
system is important, because it tells you how much you are
spending for what----
Senator Shelby. It is accountability, is it not?
Mr. Mead. As its name would suggest, yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Accountability.
Mr. Mead. And if you do not have one, and you get more and
more money, what is the real incentive for having a cost
accounting system?
Senator Shelby. I agree with you.
Mr. Mead. So I think--as Ms. Garvey was saying, you have to
keep the accelerator to the floor on that.
And as to your second part of your question, FAA has a
roughly $10 billion a year budget, and it is difficult for me
to believe that out of that large sum of money the extra $2
million that would be required to do something that is so
fundamental, that even a company in bankruptcy must have, that
FAA could find that money. Now, maybe they do need the
supplemental, but I do think it is very important for work on a
cost accounting system to go on.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Domenici. All right. If there are any other
questions, Senators can submit them, and we would ask you to
answer the questions as quickly as you can, because we are on
about a 2\1/2\ week deadline.
Before you leave, Madam Administrator, I wanted to
compliment you on your personal hiring practices. A year ago
your director of the budget was sitting there behind you----
Ms. Garvey. Wonderful job.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Riley was sitting back here giving us
advice, and you actually found somebody very, very good. We are
very sorry that we lost him, but it is your gain and obviously
our loss.
Ms. Garvey. It is our gain.
Additional committee questions
Senator Domenici. And we wish him well as he attempts to
help you do your job.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Ms. Garvey
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
TECHNOLOGY AND FUTURE OF AVIATION
Question. The world is changing. Technological advances have
transformed our lives and provided benefits to the aviation community.
Does the current structure of FAA allow it to fully harness
technological advances and adequately respond to changes?
Answer. As the experience of the private sector shows, there is no
one best structure to advance technology and respond to technological
change. The FAA has had good success in breaking up large, technically
challenging changes into manageable pieces so as to ``build a little,
test a little, change a little'' in what is called spiral development.
This is the approach for Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1). We are partnering
with the airlines and the Europeans on development of data link.
Through our involvement with the International Civil Aviation
Organization and RTCA Incorporated, formerly Radio Technical Commission
for Aeronautics, and in partnership with our aviation industry, we are
setting standards for use of new technology. In our Safe Flight 21
initiative, the FAA and the aviation community are developing the
aircraft avionics for the future. The FAA has placed a heavy emphasis
in its acquisitions to buy commercial off-the-shelf products, shifting
the risk for development to industry. This causes the FAA to plan and
implement technological refresh cycles with our systems with greater
frequency than in the past.
While development is on the cutting edge, implementation takes more
time, The National Airspace System (NAS) must evolve, not change in a
revolutionary way. The users must have time to transition and make
their capital investments. The transition must be safe, and we must
have experience with the new technology before we phase out the old.
This contributes to increased operations and maintenance costs that are
not seen in other industry segments when they retool or replace
automation with much shorter life cycles.
FAA'S MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Question. In the early 1980's the Administration began a
modernization program to upgrade the antiquated Air Traffic Control
System. Historically modernization projects have experienced
significant cost over-runs and schedule delays. What mistakes were made
during FAA's modernization efforts of the past? How have these lessons
been applied to today and future efforts?
Answer. The FAA has learned that large projects must be broken down
into manageable implementation steps. We have demonstrated this with
FFP1 and spiral development. Each step must produce measurable
benefits, either to the users or the FAA or both.
Data link has been broken down into a series of discrete steps and
the airlines are participating in early phases of development and
implementation. We have started with four common message sets. We will
expand to 18, and then add additional messages based on joint data link
trials that are underway with Eurocontrol.
We must adequately sustain our current infrastructure while we
continue to modernize. To jump start modernization and to reach
consensus that formed the basis of FFP1, we had to make a number of
investments at the expense of our infrastructure. This was necessary to
reach consensus on modernization and formed the basis of FFP1. We are
now increasing our investments in critical infrastructure to produce a
more balanced portfolio. This investment includes funding power system
upgrades, facility improvements, communications improvements, physical
security, and information security.
Close collaboration with our user community is essential. We must
do better mid-range (3 to 5 years) planning for modernization. We value
our continuing collaboration with the users on the NAS architecture. We
have been dealing with urgent problems first. Priorities such as Year
2000 fixes and increased security at our Nation's airports ($100
million per year) have drawn funding away from modernization
activities.
Question. What management reforms have been instituted within the
FAA to prevent FAA's current modernization efforts from being over
budget and delayed? Are there other actions you are now considering?
Answer. The FAA initiated several different reform efforts aimed at
improving the operational environment within the Agency and
programmatic performance.
Performance plans are linked to specific modernization goals and
monitored on a quarterly basis. The FAA took an important step in
support of culture change and improved performance by developing annual
outcome-based, mission-focused performance goals and indicators in line
of business performance plans.
The Integrated Product Development System establishes cross-
functional teams throughout each FAA line of business to produce
effective and efficient products and services that satisfy customer/
user needs.
The FAA Integrated Capability Maturity Model integrates a unified
approach for evaluating FAA's processes and improving them. Early in
the implementation process, we expect results to contribute to
increased efficiency and higher quality products and services.
The requirement process re-engineered and established a single
organizational entity to better manage system requirements and ensure
improved collaboration with the teams.
Acquisition reform established corporate-level decision making for
FAA needs and investments and substantially streamlined procurement
processes. It created an improved structure and process for defining
FAA needs and investments.
The portfolio management aggregates investment candidates into
funding categories to facilitate managing the capital investment
portfolio as a whole. It increases benefits and helps manage risks.
Two examples of programmatic success working within this changing
operational environment include the Display System Replacement (DSR)
and the Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR) Programs.
These two programs successfully delivered their products within their
acquisition program baselines. Among some of the benefits they derived
from reform initiatives were:
--Stable requirements.
--Hiring new personnel faster.
--Attracting new staff using the new flexible compensation system.
--Using cross-functional team concepts to improve teamwork and
communications.
--Using Acquisition Management System (AMS) to talk with industry
more openly, involve industry in their acquisition process, and
engage in teaming with industry.
Question. What are your goals and vision for FAA modernization over
the next 5 to 10 years?
Answer. Two documents used to describe the FAA's vision for NAS
modernization, both long and short term, are the NAS Architecture and
the Capital Investment Plan (CIP).
The NAS Architecture, released in January 1999, is the United
States aviation community's comprehensive, long-term plan for improving
the NAS. The NAS Architecture is based on the joint FAA and industry
operational concept for planning and conducting flight operations. Our
shared goal is to increase safety, security, and efficiency of the NAS.
The CIP is an overview of FAA's NAS Architecture. It summarizes the
FAA's capital resource expenditure plans for fiscal year 2001 through
fiscal year 2005 and is based on the Office of Management and Budget's
5-year estimates. The plan shows the extent to which the Agency expects
to modernize for the next 5 years. Our modernization goals are
described as follows:
--Upgrade our infrastructure to add new safety and security
capabilities, and to add new efficiency capabilities. System
outages have the potential to erase the benefits derived from
new capabilities as evidenced by our recent outage at Leesburg
Air Route Traffic Control Center.
--In addition to new capabilities, we must continuously improve the
services we provide to the Nation. We must also expand on how
we deliver these services to gain user benefits. Benefits are
realized through increased safety, delay reduction, improved
access to the airspace by all users, increased predictability
in delivery of our services, improved flexibility to the users
in planning and flying through the NAS; and more return on
investment to gain efficiency.
--Assuming funding levels close to the President's budget and outyear
projections, over the next 5 years, we can accomplish many of
the modernization activities that will improve the safety,
security, and efficiency of the NAS. Some of these are as
follows:
--Be well on our way to the implementation of satellite navigation;
--FFP1 will have been completed in fiscal year 2002 and by fiscal
year 2005 these automation tools will have expanded to
other locations in the NAS;
--Additional surface movement radars will have been deployed at
airports having high numbers of runway incursions starting
with contract award this year;
--Initial controller-pilot data link services will commence in
fiscal year 2003 and be expanded to a larger message set by
fiscal year 2005;
--Most terminal radars and secondary surveillance beacons will be
replaced by fiscal year 2005;
--Modernized oceanic services will begin operations in fiscal year
2002 and be fully updated by fiscal year 2006;
--Critical en route infrastructure (Direct Access Radar Channel/
DARC and Peripheral Adapter Module Replacement Item/PAMRI)
will be replaced by fiscal year 2004 and after a
significant development investment, the en route software
will be replaced by fiscal year 2007;
--We have turned the corner with Standard Terminal Automation
Replacement System (STARS);
--We will have approximately one-half of all terminal facilities
deployed and operational by fiscal year 2005; and
--Our infrastructure investments in power systems and facility
upgrades will keep pace with service demands to reduce
outage related delay.
recent air traffic control outages
Question. On January 6, FAA's air traffic control equipment at the
Leesburg, VA, location failed, causing hundreds of flights all over the
East Coast to be delayed. On December 19, 1999, the primary FAA radar
system in Palm Springs, CA was declared unusable. Please describe the
recent outages of air traffic control equipment in Leesburg and Palm
Springs. What caused these outages?
Answer. The daily certification of the HOST System was performed at
Washington Center in Leesburg. A manual refresh of the HOST System was
initiated; however, the refresh interrupted the computer processing and
created the subsequent outage. The HOST Computer Program remained
locked up and extended the outage. The flight plan table overloaded and
service degraded on January 6, 2000. Washington Center transitioned to
an independent backup system and resumed normal operations.
The radar at Palm Springs, CA was declared unusable on December 19,
1999 due to equipment deterioration and environmental conditions. FAA
provided interim service using military radar. Airway Facilities
optimized the Palm Springs radar performance and replaced the Air
Traffic Control Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)-4 with an ATCBI-5.
Information from the ATCBI-5 and surveillance radar is now fed directly
into the terminal radar. Normal operations resumed at the Palm Springs
radar on February 21, 2000.
Question. How quickly were the problems fixed?
Answer. At Washington Center, normal operations resumed after 3
hours and 34 minutes, At Palm Springs, Airways Facilities used 80 hours
to optimize performance of the radar.
Question. How are you ensuring that this will not occur in the
future?
Answer. A software fix was developed and installed at Washington
Center to prevent this problem from recurring. The software fix is
being distributed to all en route centers.
At Palm Springs, the installed systems have been optimized and are
operating within design parameters. The FAA will continue to review the
complex local environmental issues at Palm Springs. These include
unusual atmospheric conditions, local topography, and a number of
electricity-generating windmills that create a unique environment. An
Airport Surveillance Radar-11 is scheduled for installation in fiscal
year 2005. The FAA is developing a transition plan to further improve
radar service at Palm Springs.
Question. Do you agree with the statement that additional funding
or enactment of a specific bill would have prevented this?
Answer. No; outages occur for a variety of reasons. Additional
funding would neither prevent these events from occurring nor can the
events be tied to insufficient funding.
results of personnel and procurement reforms
Question. In 1996, Congress provided FAA the ability to develop and
implement acquisition and personnel reforms to address the unique
demand on, as well as the needs of, the agency. What flexibility did
these reforms provide the FAA?
Answer. Acquisition and personnel reform have been very beneficial
to the FAA. Under personnel reform, we have designed and implemented a
new human resource system. Initial efforts focused on ``quick hit''
changes to policies and processes such as delegating authority for
personnel decisions to line organizations and managers, and offering
additional flexibility in filling positions. We have developed a
comprehensive compensation framework, which establishes the overall
objectives and tenets of FAA's compensation programs. We have designed
an evaluation plan to assess progress in meeting the objectives of
personnel reform, and we have developed proposals for more
comprehensive long-term program changes. These improvements represent
the first steps in moving from decades-old personnel programs to a new
system.
Acquisition reform has provided the FAA the following:
--Flexible policy and guidance;
--Reasonable competition among two or more sources is the preferred
method of source selection;
--Single source method is still an option when it makes good business
sense to do so;
--Best value method is used as the basis of award for most contracts;
--Any method of cost or price analysis may be used to determine fair
and reasonable prices with price analysis being the preferred
method for evaluating competitive proposals;
--Policy does not require Cost Accounting Standards on contracts for
commercial items;
--Protests and disputes are decided within FAA's Office of Dispute
Resolution;
--The Administrator has final decision authority; and
--Direct access to the small business community, i.e., the Small
Business Administration is not involved in the contracting
process.
Question. It has been 4 years since Congress passed the provision.
What tangible results has the FAA achieved directly related to these
reforms?
Answer. Personnel Reform.--Since 1996, FAA has made many
improvements that represent the first steps in moving from the decades-
old personnel program to a new system. Reform has enabled us to
accomplish the following:
--Reduce the time it takes to fill positions and effect personnel
actions. The average time to hire a new employee has been cut
from 6 months to 6 weeks.
--Establish an automated system that reduces the time to classify a
position from a previous average of three weeks to a current
average of 1 day.
--Streamline establishment and recruitment for senior leadership
position (e.g., hired 70 executives, 17 percent of whom came
from outside of government; hired 17 world-class experts in
critical scientific and technology positions through use of
streamlined executive staffing procedures).
--Use more innovative recruitment methods to attract better
candidates.
--Design and pilot a new performance-based compensation plan for
employees and executives, which include:
--A 5-year contract with controllers union and implementation of a
new pay plan.
--Increased emphasis on performance management and recognition of
contributions.
--Implemented a new agency training policy, which provides more
efficient and effective training by increasing flexibility
in training design and delivery and by delegating decisions
about training to lines of business.
--Began implementation of a new job evaluation system that
eliminates thousands of pages of job grading standards and
position descriptions, and replaces them with concise
definitions tailored to FAA work.
--Replaced 150 separate Federal classification guides and
instructions (over 11,000 pages) with 50 pages of FAA-
specific criteria.
--Simplified temporary travel and permanent move policies, which
provide equitable reimbursement to employees.
--Reduced administrative requirements and costs for travel and
relocation.
--Communicated personnel reform changes to managers and employees,
so that they fully understand changes and how to take
advantage of personnel reform flexibility.
Acquisition Reform.--Acquisition reform has helped simplify,
integrate, and unify elements of the life cycle acquisition management
into a more effective system. For example, now all acquisition policy
is located in one streamlined policy document located on the Internet
with automated tools and guidance. Acquisition reform has shifted focus
to life cycle management of programs, created an improved structure and
process for defining FAA needs and investments. It has established
corporate-level decision making for FAA needs and investments, and
increased involvement of stakeholders in decisions.
Two examples of programmatic success working within this changing
operational environment include the DSR and the HOCSR Programs. These
two programs successfully delivered their products within their
acquisition program baselines. Among some of the benefits they derived
from reform initiatives were:
--stable requirements;
--hiring new personnel faster;
--attracting new staff using the new flexible compensation system;
--using cross-functional team concepts to improve team work and
communications;
--using AMS to talk with industry more openly, involving industry in
their acquisition process; and
--engaging in teaming with industry.
Substantially streamlined procurement processes produced a 50
percent reduction in the time to award contracts and has increased the
percentage of contracts awarded competitively. Based on best value, it
has improved communications with FAA vendors and has made significant
improvement to the contract protest and dispute resolution process.
Award time and vendor's bid and proposal costs have been reduced
through the use of qualified vendor's list for repetitive and
simplified requirements. Some examples of procurements that gained from
this streamlined process are:
--Transient Voltage Surge Arrestors.--This acquisition was announced
and awarded in a 3-day period instead of the 180 days under the
old system. Public announcement time was one day versus 51
days. A purchase order was used instead of a formal Request for
Proposal (RFP) award document, which saved both the FAA and
contractor time and resources.
--Low Level Windshear Alert System.--A sub team evaluated offers and
recommended a vendor within 2 weeks instead of at least 6 weeks
under the old process.
On a commercial buy of very high frequency omni-directional range
items, FAA achieved a 42-day savings in total processing time
by issuing a Screening Information Request (SIR) on the
Internet (rather than going the Commence Business Daily
process) and using the streamlined selection and award process.
Continued implementation of these reform efforts is necessary to
realize their full impact on improving operations and delivery of
products and services. In addition, full and stable funding for the
entire lifecycle of FAA programs is critical to NAS modernization
efforts.
Question. Does the FAA need additional reforms or flexibility to
manage efficiently?
Answer. The FAA reauthorization proposals submitted to Congress in
1998 and 1999 contained requests for both financial and managerial
reforms. While the agency is grateful for both personnel and
procurement reform, these are but two elements necessary to elevate the
FAA to the level that will be required by both the aviation industry
and the flying public in the 21st Century. Study after study, report
after report has shown that the FAA must become more business-like in
its approach to operations, capital investment, and research and
development. This covers all aspects of the day-to-day activities of
the FAA. If the FAA is to be more efficient, financial and managerial
reforms are necessary. Specifically, three changes are key.
1. Management reform.--Congress needs to provide for a chief
operating office and other organization changes to allow the Air
Traffic Control System to operate more like a business--that is,
performance-based and customer-oriented.
2. Pricing reform.--Congress needs to replace the current excise
tax on airline passengers with cost-based charges on commercial users
of air traffic control. This will provide the FAA with the information
necessary to respond to its customers, which result in, faster adoption
of capacity-enhancing technology and expansion of services in response
to market demand. It will also create an incentive for more efficient
operation and use of the Air Traffic Control System.
3. Congressional Mandates.--Congress needs to put in place an
appropriate financial mechanism to ensure that cost-based receipts from
air traffic control users are spent exclusively on air traffic control.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS PAY INCREASES
Question. On September 15, 1998, FAA agreed to a 5-year labor
agreement that promised the United States air traffic controllers
substantial raises as well as established a ceiling of 15,000 air
traffic controllers. The agreement, which expires in 2002, is estimated
to have a net cost of $1.0 billion. How would you describe FAA's
relationship with its unionized work forces?
Answer. The relationship with the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association (NATCA) is better today than it has been for many years. We
are working issues in partnership with the bargaining unit to address
and resolve issues in a collaborative manner. This approach has enabled
us to work smarter and more efficiently toward our goals. For example,
we have been able to move ahead with modernization. We have turned the
corner on the STARS Program by fielding the first two systems at El
Paso and Syracuse. We continue to work together on developing the
advanced versions of this system for future deployment. Another
excellent example is the manner in which the NATCA and the FAA worked
together to solve issues in the DSR deployment, which will be completed
in May 2000. In many facilities, we were able to transition to the new
system well ahead of schedule.
Question. Is the 15,000 a floor or ceiling for the number of air
traffic controllers?
Answer. The contract says we maintain staffing levels at 15,000 for
the first 3 years, with growth limited to 2 percent annually for the
last 2 years of the contract. The 15,000 is considered a floor on
controller staffing.
Question. How has this contract affected your budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget requests an increase of $73
million for pay raises associated with the NATCA contract. Any
additional costs will be funded from within Operations.
During the first part of fiscal year 1999, the FAA and NATCA worked
to finalize the rules associated with the various productivity articles
of the contract and the rules for the new pay system. A metrics team
was established to identify and track measurable results of
implementing the contract. Early indications from this effort are
showing some positive trends, and the FAA will continue to refine and
analyze this data to provide additional information to Congress on the
results of this effort.
Question. Were there any benefits the agency received as a part of
this agreement?
Answer. During the first part of fiscal year 1999, the FAA and
NATCA worked to finalize the rules associated with the various
productivity articles of the contract and the rules for the new pay
system. A metrics team was established to identify and track measurable
results of implementing the contract. Early indications from this
effort are showing some positive trends, and the FAA will continue to
refine and analyze this data to provide additional information to
Congress on the results of this contract.
There are many indirect results of the contract with NATCA,
including an improved and more productive working relationship between
FAA management and NATCA in modernizing the aviation system. An example
of this partnership is the manner in which DSR has been fielded
throughout the country, resulting in FAA completing many facilities
well ahead of schedule. Another example is the STARS Program. The FAA
has fielded the first segment of STARS at El Paso and Syracuse, and is
working on the advanced configurations of that program.
Question. Does the agreement prevent FAA from implementing action
that would make it more efficient?
Answer. By its very nature, any collective bargaining agreement
imposes constraints on the agency's ability to take unilateral action
to improve efficiency. However, FAA and NATCA are working closely
together to identify efficiencies and track measurable results of
implementing the contract.
The agency continues to move forward toward full implementation of
the collective bargaining agreement, including those initiatives
intended to improve efficiency. FAA and NATCA have reached final
agreements on accelerated grievance resolution, assignment of staff
functions to bargaining unit employees, expanded responsibility and
accountability for controller-in-charge, and revised procedures for
relocating bargaining unit employees.
A joint FAA/NATCA metrics team was established to identify
potential cost savings and/or productivity improvements, and to develop
measurement systems for tracking the impact of the collective
bargaining agreement and the compensation agreement. To date, the
metrics team has determined the contract articles projected to have
measurable impact, identified data sources for measuring cost and/or
productivity, and validated the reports to be provided to agency
managers. The final product of the metrics team will be completed by
early summer fiscal year 2000.
FAA PROGRAM PRIORITY
Question. FAA has four main appropriations--Operations, Facilities
and Equipment (F&E), Research and Development, and the Airport
Improvement Program (AlP). Of these programs, please list in order of
priority, which one(s) are the most critical to the agency?
Answer. All four appropriations are critical to the mission of the
agency and support the Administrator's goals of safety, security, and
system efficiency. The President's budget provides for balanced
investment among these programs, and the requests would allow the FAA
to improve aviation safety and security by hiring new safety and
security inspectors. These requests will also improve efficiency by
modernizing equipment and researching new technologies.
For example, the F&E budget cannot be substantially raised without
an increase in the Operations budget. F&E modernization equipment
cannot be turned over to the Operations budget for acceptance into the
NAS without the required funding for staffing, operations and
maintenance. Furthermore, this modernization equipment could not have
been developed without a strong research and development budget nor
could safety be maintained at America's largest airports without
funding for improved facilities through the AIP.
Question. Does the FAA have the ability to manage increases in any
of these areas?
Answer. Yes; the President's budget request for the FAA contains
manageable funding increases for all four of these programs.
FAA'S POSITION ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RESTRUCTURING
Question. In the United States, Congress, the Administration and
interest groups have discussed different approaches to restructure and
reform of the Air Traffic Control (ATC) System. These have included
intergovernmental reforms, making air traffic control a performance-
based organization, creating a government corporation, and creating a
private corporation. Do you believe that structural air traffic control
reform is needed rather than peripheral measures?
Answer. Yes; we believe that structural ATC is needed. To that end,
the President recently directed the FAA to come back to him in 45 days
with options for achieving broader reform of the ATC System.
Question. What is the prospect of following the Canadian model in
the United States?
Answer. The President recently directed the FAA to come back to him
in 45 days with a plan for achieving broader reform of the ATC System.
We will consider the Canadian model during our deliberations.
Question. If it is your opinion that we cannot copy the Canadian
model, what lessons or scales of efficiency can be taken from the
model?
Answer. The President recently directed the FAA to come back to him
in 45 days with a plan for achieving broader reform of the ATC System.
We will consider the Canadian model during our deliberations.
USER FEE PROPOSAL AND COST-BASED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Question. For the last several years, the FAA's budget submission
has included a user fee proposal. The first step in implementing and
gaining acceptance of any user fee is the development of a cost-based
accounting system. When did FAA begin working on the development of a
cost-based accounting system, what is the current status, and when is
it expected to be completed?
Answer. The FAA began its cost accounting initiative in fiscal year
1996. Information and status on this initiative follows:
--FAA's primary focus in cost accounting has been on the Air Traffic
Services (ATS) line of business; to include full cost
distribution for Air Traffic, Airway Facilities, and all other
components of the organization. For cost accounting purposes,
ATS has defined four core services they provide to the aviation
community: en route, oceanic, flight service stations, and
terminal/tower.
--The FAA has successfully identified the fiscal year 1998 costs for
en route and oceanic services. For the first time, the FAA
knows the ``full'' cost--direct and indirect--of two of these
key air traffic services (en route and oceanic). ATS management
has already begun to evaluate benchmarking opportunities using
this cost data.
--In March 2000, the FAA will have validated actual en route and
oceanic cost for fiscal year 1999. This data will be used as
the basis for overflight fees, to be established in the latter
half of fiscal year 2000.
--The remainder of fiscal year 2000 will focus on completing the ATS
implementation for Flight Service Stations in April 2000 and
terminal and tower services in fiscal year 2001.
--Due to fiscal year 2000 funding priorities, the implementation for
all remaining FAA lines of businesses has been delayed until
fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2001
budget requests $7 million in fiscal year 2001, and the total
cost to completion is $14 million. This work will include
tracking the ``full'' cost of NAS modernization projects, the
airport capital grant program, the certification and regulation
of the airline industry, aviation security services, and other
mission support functions.
--An updated implementation schedule is being prepared for review by
FAA management, and will be available by April 2000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
DELAYED EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE RUNWAY INCURSIONS
Question. Ms. Garvey, as you know, a great deal of attention has
been paid to the growing problem of runway incursions the potentially
deadly mistake when an aircraft mistakenly enters a busy runway or
taxiway. We are now told that your proposed solution to this problem,
the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS), will be delayed at
least another 2 years. The Appropriations Subcommittee has never
limited the amount of funding for this program. Some years, we actually
provided more than you requested. Please explain why this program is
being further delayed.
Answer. The single answer is a combination of difficult technical
and management issues have produced the delay. Let me explain more
fully. The implementation of AMASS at the Nations 34 busiest airports,
which is a modification to the Airport Surface Detection Equipment
Model 3 (ASDE-3) radar, represents only a portion of the agency's
runway incursion strategy. The Agency has established a higher level of
FAA executive oversight and has appointed a Director of Runway Safety.
This Director serves as the Agency's focal point for the coordination
and integration of runway safety activities, within FAA and within
industry. The Director is now implementing and executing runway safety
initiatives that include education, training, and awareness activities.
The AMASS Program underwent an in-depth review and restructure
during the late summer and early fall of 1999. The previous schedule
that the agency was attempting to meet had been based on a FAA
commitment to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to have
38 AMASS systems operational at the 34 airports by October 2000. To
meet this date, the Agency implemented a very high-risk acquisition
strategy and schedule that included concurrent development and
production phases. In April 1999, new program requirements were added
that related to human factor evaluations. At that point, program
management recognized that the development effort required to meet user
requirements was far more extensive than envisioned and the October
2000 commitment to NTSB could not be achieved. We also identified
additional human factor issues and critical operational issues that
required resolution prior to commissioning. The required second level
engineering and logistics support functions necessary to implement new
equipment into the FAA's NAS had not been adequately planned for,
funded, and implemented due to our decision to undertake the high risk
acquisition strategy. These operational support issues require
additional funding and time to implement. The fiscal year 2000
appropriation and the fiscal year 2001 request for AMASS reflect the
cost and schedule changes for those years as a result of the program
restructure. Additional funds will be required in future years to
continue the implementation and commissioning efforts as well as the
implementation of preplanned product improvements validated in the
operational requirements document.
Subsequent to the restructure, we are meeting or exceeding planned
milestones such as completion of the initial human factors
modifications required for commissioning and the installation, testing
and acceptance of 20 of the 40 total AMASS systems in the procurement.
The operational test and evaluation (OT&E) critical issues have been
identified and are being resolved. Factory testing of the majority of
these modifications is complete. This testing is in preparation for the
OT&E field regression to validate corrections, scheduled for June 2000.
The restructuring of the program was accomplished with the
cooperation of all relevant FAA lines of business, and with
representation from an AMASS air traffic workgroup, which included
NATCA and Airway Facilities technician representatives. In addition,
program management personnel changes on both the government and
contractor's part in 1999 have contributed to an improved working
relationship and better productivity. Because the restructure effort
included extensive risk identification and risk mitigation measures, we
are optimistic that program goals will be met. This includes an August
2000 initial operating capability (IOC), an Independent Operational
Test and Evaluation starting in September 2000, and commissioning of
all systems by the end of December 2002. We have already seen evidence
that the previous contractor performance problems have been reduced and
that the overall life-cycle supportability of the system within the
national airspace will be increased.
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS)
Question. Is this problem really a technical problem, a management
problem, or a funding problem?
Answer. The delays associated with the AMASS Program can be
attributed to a combination of technical and management issues that are
described below. Previous funding for the program is not a contributing
factor to the program delay. Let me explain more fully.
The implementation of AMASS at the Nations 34 busiest airports,
which is a modification to the ASDE-3 radar, represents only a portion
of the agency's runway incursions strategy. AMASS will not reduce
runway incursions, but will help prevent accidents if an incursion
occurs. We have focused significant efforts on education and training,
improved procedures and guidelines, as well as improvements in airport
lighting, signage, and surface markings. Only the combination of these
efforts and technical solutions like AMASS will have the greatest
effect on reducing the problem of runway incursions.
The previous schedule included acquisition strategy and a schedule
that depended on concurrent development and production phases. We
subsequently recognized that the development effort required to meet
user requirements was far more extensive than originally envisioned. We
also identified additional human factor issues and critical operational
issues that required resolution prior to commissioning. The required
second level engineering and logistics support functions necessary to
implement new equipment into the FAA's NAS had not been completely
planned for, funded, and implemented due to the schedule associated
with the high risk acquisition strategy.
The AMASS Program underwent an in-depth review and restructure
during the late summer and early fall of 1999. All of the areas
identified above were reviewed in-depth during the program restructure
process, which included revalidated requirements, risks and mitigation
actions identified, schedules developed, and costs to implement
estimated. All relevant FAA lines of business and key union
representatives participated in the process.
Subsequent to the restructure, we are meeting or exceeding planned
milestones such as completion of the initial human factors
modifications required for commissioning and the installation, testing
and acceptance of 20 of the 40 total AMASS systems. The OT&E critical
issues that have been identified are being resolved. Factory testing of
the majority of these modifications is complete in preparation for the
OT&E field regression testing to validate the corrections, scheduled
for June 2000.
In addition, program management personnel changes on both the
government and contractor's part in 1999 have contributed to an
improved working relationship and better productivity. Because of this
participation and the success to date in meeting milestones in the
restructured schedule, we are optimistic that we will meet the program
goals.
WHY DOES AVIATION DESERVE A GENERAL FUND GUARANTEE WHILE HIGHWAYS DOES
NOT
Question. Ms. Garvey, you have had the unique experience of serving
both as the Deputy Highway Administrator, and as the FAA Administrator.
We have been told by some Members of the House that the FAA must
receive a guaranteed amount of non-trust fund dollars to compensate for
the overall benefits that our economy receives from our aviation
system. Doesn't our interstate highway system also provide
extraordinary benefits to our economy?
Answer. The Administration has consistently proposed the
elimination of the general fund contribution for aviation programs. We
agree that the Interstate Highway System provides many benefits to our
economy, and note that under TEA-21, highway users pay for 100 percent
of the highway program's infrastructure and operating costs plus 80
percent of transit costs (because highway users benefit from the
congestion reduction transit produces). In contrast, aviation users do
not fully support their own services, let alone any related services.
Question. Do you believe it is appropriate policy for the FAA to
receive guaranteed amounts of general funding when the Federal Highway
Administration receives no general funding whatsoever?
Answer. No; the Administration has consistently proposed to
eliminate the general fund contribution for aviation programs. Under
TEA-31, highway users pay for 100 percent of the highway program's
infrastructure and operating costs plus 80 percent of transit costs
(because highway users benefit from the congestion reduction transit
produces). In contrast, aviation users do not fully support their own
services, let alone any related services.
Question. Do you believe there is a reason why FAA's Safety
Inspectors should be paid from general funds, while Federal Highway's
Motor Carrier Inspectors should be paid from trust funds?
Answer. No; the Administration has consistently proposed to
eliminate the general fund contribution for aviation programs. The
Administration's proposal is to fund the entire FAA through a
combination of excise taxes and new cost-based fees.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Charles E. Grassley
USER FEE PROPOSAL
Question. At what point in time is the fine line crossed where the
fees that are charged an industry in order to pay for services become
fees that hinder growth of that industry?
Answer. Ideally, fees should be set equal to the cost of the
services that the industry consumes. Therefore, the budget proposes to
collect in aviation taxes and user fees only the amount needed to fund
the FAA in the subsequent year. Although we phase this policy in over 2
years, financing the FAA through a combination of aviation taxes and
dedicated user fees would promote a more business-like and efficient
FAA while ensuring that all aviation revenues are spent for aviation
purposes. In addition, charging customers the cost of services received
provides a market signal to the FAA as to which services are needed and
an incentive for air carriers to use those services efficiently.
ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL IN FAA POLICY
Question. Mrs. Garvey, I would like you to talk to us about the
role the National Economic Council (NEC) is playing in developing FAA
policy. It is our understanding the NEC has held a number of meetings
with the FAA and the aviation community on privatization. Can you tell
us the results of those meetings? Will any NEC developed proposals be
included in next week's budget submission?
Answer. The NEC provides economic guidance to all areas of the
executive branch, which includes the FAA. There have been a number of
meetings between the NEC and the aviation community with occasional FAA
participation, to discuss various options to organize FAA ATC services
in a more business-like fashion.
Question. Mrs. Garvey, for several years the Appropriations
Committee has included a provision in its annual funding of the
Department of Transportation prohibiting taxpayer funds from being used
to develop unauthorized user fees. To your knowledge is the NEC
developing a FAA user fee system?
Answer. Both the 1998 and 1999 FAA Reauthorization legislative
proposal contained language developing cost-based user fees for air
traffic services. The user fees proposed in the President's fiscal year
2001 Budget are based on that proposal, but we won't develop the fees
until they are authorized by Congress. To my knowledge, the NEC is not
developing any new FAA user fee system.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
PROJECT DELAYS
Question. Has it been your experience that some FAA projects are
delayed due to unanticipated technical or environmental problems and as
a result, FAA is then able to advance other projects more quickly to
prevent any lapsing of available funds?
Answer. Inevitably, some programs are delayed because of technical
or environmental problems. However, this situation is fairly uncommon.
When it has occurred, we have generally been able to reprogram either
within a program or to other high priority projects. For example, a
specific location scheduled for building construction may run into an
environmental situation that would delay the project. To maximize the
use of the funds, we would reprogram them to another location that is
ready for construction. The FAA generally lapses less than one-half of
1 percent of the funds available, which is considered a prudent
business practice.
Question. If so, what criteria does your agency use to advance
projects which have been approved for later funding cycles but are
ready to get funded now?
Answer. In those situations where funds are available for
redistribution or reprogramming to other programs, the criteria for
reallocation of funds has generally been based on accelerating those
programs with significant near term benefits to NAS safety and
efficiency.
______
Questions Submitted to Mr. Mead
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
FUNDING FOR MODERNIZATION
Question. Mr. Mead, from your years of aviation experience both as
DOT Inspector General and the director of Transportation Affairs for
the General Accounting Office, you have witnessed the problems FAA has
experienced with its modernization program. Incorrectly in my view,
there are some who believe the solution to air traffic control
modernization is simply to throw more money at the problem.
Do you agree with me that providing more and more funding for
modernization is not the correct prescription for air traffic control
modernization?
Answer. More funding alone is not the answer. While there are
investment opportunities, the key is better management. FAA needs to
hold management accountable, oversee contractors more effectively,
establish effective cost controls, and expedite the completion of its
cost accounting system. In addition, FAA needs a strategic business
plan to outline its strategy for future investments, control the rising
costs of operations, and bring about productivity enhancements. If FAA
does not take these steps, Congress will find that additional funding
will only go to cost overruns and increased salaries.
Question. If so, why is it that more funding for air traffic
control modernization has not and will not translate into meaningful
modernization of our system?
Answer. More funding has not translated into meaningful
modernization of our system because FAA has not been able to control
costs and meet schedules for technologically challenging systems such
as WAAS, STARS, and AMASS. The common threads of these systems is that
they involve extensive software development, which FAA has difficulties
with, and human factors issues, which are not resolved early enough in
the acquisition process. Further, FAA does not hold contractors
accountable. As I stated in the testimony, the two Free Flight
contracts for a software-intensive controller tool are time and
material contracts. All risks are with the Government--there is little
incentive for cost control and labor efficiency.
Question. In your opinion, do you believe that the FAA should
undergo fundamental structural change or does the agency require
additional management reforms similar to the personnel and procurement
reforms of 1996?
Answer. I would exercise caution in making major structural changes
given the excellent safety record in aviation. Any proposal to
restructure FAA, particularly any proposal to spin-off air traffic
control to a commercial enterprise, must be carefully examined. There
are no circumstances where safety oversight can be transferred outside
of the Federal Government--this should not even be considered an option
because safety oversight in an inherently governmental function.
Far too often, FAA points to external factors as causes of their
problems. In 1995, Congress exempted FAA from Federal procurement and
personnel rules that FAA said hindered its ability to effectively
modernize the Air Traffic Control System. These reforms have had little
impact to date. FAA needs to make the reforms they already have more
effective by controlling its operating costs, better managing
acquisitions, and making sound investment decisions.
ABILITY TO KEEP PACE WITH TECHNOLOGY
Question. Mr. Mead, I understand oceanic air traffic control is one
of the fastest growing segments of air traffic. I also understand that
oceanic capabilities of the United States are not as advanced as those
of NAV Canada.
What contributes to NAV Canada's success in keeping up with rapidly
changing technology?
Answer. NAV Canada responds to changing demands by acquiring
commercial-off-the-shelf technology. It relies on research and
development efforts of the United States and other countries to
eliminate high-risk projects. Quite simply, being a commercial
enterprise, NAV Canada seeks a rapid return on capital investments,
which results in quicker benefits to the users. In addition, Canada has
always used an incremental approach in fielding new technologies. For
example, the Gander Automated Air Traffic System (GAATS), which handles
over 1,000 flights bound for or arriving from Europe, was developed
incrementally and began long before NAV Canada took over control of
Canada's air navigation system. The incremental approach increases the
likelihood of user acceptance and minimizes the problems associated
with implementation of new technology.
Question. Does the structure of NAV Canada contribute to its
technological successes?
Answer. NAV Canada must make wise business decisions in spending
funds it receives from user fees for new technologies since it no
longer receives government subsidy. This structure contributes to
managing low risk technology initiatives by using commercial-off-the-
shelf technology and relying on others to undertake investment in new
cutting edge technology.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PAY INCREASES
Question. Mr. Mead, operation costs will continue to increase as a
result of a new pay system for air traffic controllers, which became
effective in 1999. This will require approximately $1 billion in net
additional funding over the 5-year life of the agreement.
In fiscal year 1999, FAA experienced a $284 million shortfall in
its Operation's budget that required reduction in planned safety
inspector training and travel. I also understand that FAA will be
sending a supplemental request for 2000 operations.
Question. Were the shortfall in funding for 1999 and the
supplemental request a result of the new pay system for controllers?
Answer. The majority of the $284 million shortfall in FAA's 1999
Operations budget was in Air Traffic Services ($204 million). This was
a direct result of the new controller pay system that FAA did not
budget for as well as increases in NAS Handoff costs (costs of
maintaining newly commissioned systems that can no longer be funded
using appropriated Facilities and Equipment funds). FAA needed the
supplemental request due to a shortfall in Operations funds, caused
largely by the pay increases for controllers.
Question. How will this agreement with the controllers affect the
agency? What effect does the increase in operating costs have on other
critical agency requirements, such as modernizing the Air Traffic
Control System?
Answer. FAA said the pay increases associated with this agreement
would be budget neutral due to productivity enhancements. FAA's
commitment has not yet been fulfilled since most productivity
enhancements, such as increased use of controller-in-charge positions,
have not yet been put in place. FAA now faces significant risks in
funding the new controller pay system while, at the same time, meeting
other critical agency requirements funded by the Operations account,
such as hiring safety inspectors and developing a cost accounting
system. These risks are compounded as FAA negotiates new wage
agreements with its other workforces, such as maintenance technicians
who want similar treatment.
FAA's unconstrained Operations costs have, in the past, had the
effect of crowding out other critical agency functions such as
modernizing the Air Traffic Control System. However, provisions of
FAA's Reauthorization Bill essentially commit funding from the Trust
Fund for Facilities and Equipment and the Airport Improvement Program.
The issue now is to what extent Congress is willing to provide general
fund contributions to fund FAA's Operations.
IG'S OPINION ON RESTRUCTURING
Question. Mr. Mead, the increasing funding requirements for the
Operations Program and the risk of this account crowding out other
requirements including modernizing the Air Traffic Control System seem
to support the idea of restructuring the FAA.
In your opinion, is restructuring or reform needed to ensure the
Air Traffic Control System is managed effectively?
Answer. No; FAA does not need to restructure or have additional
reforms beyond what the have today. However, it should be managed more
effectively and run more like a business. FAA needs to hold management
accountable, oversee contractors more effectively, establish effective
cost controls, and expedite the completion of its cost accounting
system. In addition, FAA needs a strategic business plan to outline its
strategy for future investments, control the rising costs of
operations, and bring about productivity enhancements.
Question. If you were in our shoes, what actions would you take to
modernize and more efficiently manage air traffic control in this
country?
Answer. First, FAA must complete its cost accounting system so it
can accurately track and control costs and make effective management
decisions. Second, FAA should ensure that contracts are written with
appropriate controls to protect the Government's interest, shift some
of the risks, and hold contractors accountable for satisfactory
progress. Finally, FAA must establish a strategic business plan to
outline strategies for future investment based upon projected funding,
and for controlling rising operations costs. Congress should use FAA's
success in meeting these strategies as a gauge for future funding.
RESULTS OF PERSONNEL AND PROCUREMENT REFORMS
Question. Mr. Mead, in 1996, Congress provided FAA the ability to
develop and implement acquisition and personnel reforms to address the
unique demand on, as well as the needs of, the agency.
It has been 4 years since Congress passed the provision, what
tangible results has the FAA achieved directly related to these
reforms?
Answer. Under acquisition reform, FAA has been able to award
contracts faster under the Acquisition Management System (AMS). Also,
FAA has been obtaining more input from contractors, which helps refine
requirements before awarding contracts. FAA has deployed systems, such
as the Display System Replacement (new en route controller displays)
and the HOST (computers that receive, process, and track aircraft
movement through the domestic enroute and oceanic airspace), on time
and within budget. However, AMS has had little impact in improving the
quality, cost-effectiveness, and timeliness of technologically
challenging systems, such as the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS),
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS), and the
Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS).
Under Personnel Reform, FAA can point to a few successes, such as
fielding a pilot program of its proposed agencywide compensation plan
in the Research and Acquisitions line of business. We have not yet
validated the results of this pilot program. The most significant
result of Personnel Reform has been the collective bargaining and
compensation agreements signed with FAA's air traffic controllers.
However, as previously discussed, the price tag for this agreement is
large. Overall, much remains to be done under Personnel Reform to
achieve an agencywide personnel system that provides for greater
flexibility in hiring, training, and placing FAA's workforce to meet
the agency's unique needs. In fact, consistent with our findings on
Personnel Reform, the National Academy of Public Administration stated
in its August 1999 report on FAA's Personnel Reform that ``the efforts
of the past 3 years have not yet shown results in terms of mission
impact and return-on-investment''.
Question. Have the reforms made any measurable impact on the major
modernization programs?
Answer. The reforms have not had the bottom line impacts on the
major modernization programs that were expected. The purpose of
acquisition reform was to grant FAA relief from acquisition rules and
regulations which FAA claimed was preventing them from completing major
modernization programs within cost and on schedule. FAA has made
progress in reducing the time to award contracts, but major programs
such as WAAS, STARS, and AMASS continue to have significant cost growth
and schedule delays. Problems with these three programs are
attributable to unrealistic milestones and problems in developing
complex software and resolving human factors issues.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF JOHN CRICHTON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAV CANADA
Senator Domenici. Senators, thank you and thank you, and
let us go to the next group of witnesses.
All right. Our second panel of experts will now present
their testimony. First, John Crichton, President and CEO of NAV
Canada; second, Dr. Robert Poole of the Reason Public Policy
Institute in Los Angeles, California; and third, Robert Baker,
Vice Chairman of American Airlines.
We had hoped for a panel of airline CEOs, but conflicting
schedules precluded this, and it was probably more than we
ought to expect that we could get them all to come. Enough
said.
Let us proceed. In the order that I identified you, would
you each note right now that your entire statement--if you have
statements--are going to be made part of the record as if you
read them?
Mr. Crichton. Yes.
Mr. Poole. Yes.
Mr. Baker. Yes.
Senator Domenici. And then if you could proceed as quickly
as possible so there would be time for a few questions. Mr.
Crichton.
Mr. Crichton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John
Crichton. I am the President and CEO of NAV Canada.
What is NAV Canada? It is a private, non-share capital
corporation which owns and operates the Canadian Civil Air
Navigation System. It was incorporated in 1995. It purchased
the entire system from the Canadian Federal government for $1.5
billion, and began operations November 1, 1996.
We employed 6,300 people at takeover. That staffing level
is now 5,200.
Full scope of operations: air traffic control, and advisory
service, flight information services, aviation weather
services, and we provide service throughout all of Canada,
obviously, but also the northwest Atlantic Ocean, parts of
Greenland and the Arctic Ocean.
What is a non-share capital corporation? It is a private
company that operates just like any other business corporation,
except there are no shareholders. These types of businesses are
often referred to as non-profits. That is somewhat misleading
because NAV Canada does earn profits and it can earn profits.
But what the lack of shareholders means is that the profits are
recycled with in the business, either to pay down debt, to
finance capital expenditures, or to reduce service fees.
We have four members who act as surrogate shareholders in
that they appoint the Board of Directors, they can approve
corporate by-law changes and appoint auditors. Our four members
are the Air Transport Association of Canada, representing the
commercial airlines, the Federal Government, our union
associations and a business aircraft association. These groups
appoint 10 of the 15 members of the Board, and this is one of
the--I think keys to success of our company, is that we have
those key stakeholders on the Board, and in particular, the
customers.
There is no share equity, there are no shares, so our
capitalization is in the form of debt, but we are rated double-
A by all the major rating agencies in the United States and
Canada, and in fact, we--I believe we would probably have the
lowest cost of corporate capital in North America.
There is no government involvement of any kind and no
financial guarantees from the government at all. We are on our
own and operate that way.
Why did Canada choose to privatize the system and to pick
this non-share capital model? And I filed with the committee--
it was interesting to hear people talk about what has happened
in years gone by--but I filed with the committee, and I am sure
all of the Senators have--is an excerpt from a testimony given
at a parliamentary hearing in Ottawa in 1996, and this is a
document that was in fact produced by Transport Canada, who was
then operating the system, and it sets out the rationale for
the decision to privatize in terms of delays, service problems
and so on, and costs, and I think that that rationale is still
well-supported today.
Our non-share capital model, it has a lot of advantages for
this type of a business. It removes any perceived conflict
between personal profits and safety with there not being
shareholders. The money, as I say, recycles within the system.
It allows for that key stakeholder representation on the Board
of Directors. The nature of air traffic control is a natural
monopoly, and it is an essential service, but that makes it
readily financeable in the capital markets. The customers on
the Board in our case, they act as a replacement for the profit
motive. They are interested in safe service. They are
interested in efficient service and at a reasonable cost. With
a corporate structure like this, we become effectively self-
regulating from an economic point of view.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Just some highlights of--we are almost 3\1/2\ years since
we started--just some highlights in terms of system
performance. Management and administrative structures have been
streamlined 1,100 fewer people or about 17\1/2\ percent
reduction in the work force. Most of that was done on the
administrative side. We are in fact expanding on the operation
side. We reduced the capital spending by about 40 percent from
what was being spent annually in the government, but we are
getting much more product, and our focus now is on truly
deliverable projects with proven customer or safety benefits.
Our charges for service have reduced by over 30 percent from
those amounts of money that were being raised through the Air
Transportation Tax, which was repealed. We have also paid our
controllers a lot more money; at the same time we got about a
20 percent increase in productivity along with that contract.
Our major automation project, the CAATS, which was in serious
trouble at the time we took over the system, is now on time and
on budget and will be delivered later this year. We have
reduced the rate of operating irregularities in the system from
the safety measurement point of view, fielding some very
advanced systems, oceanic systems and so on, dealt with about a
15 to 20 percent increase in traffic over the last 3 years, and
we are reducing the number of ATC delays that are brought about
through things under our control.
Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Crichton
WHAT IS NAV CANADA?
A private, non-share capital corporation which owns and operates
the Canadian Civil Air Navigation System.
Incorporated in May 1995.
Purchased the ANS from the Canadian Federal Government for $1.5
billion and began operations on November 1, 1996.
Employed 6,300 people on takeover, current staff level is 5,200.
Corporate headquarters in Ottawa.
Scope of operations:
--Air traffic control
--Airport advisory services
--Flight information services
--Aviation weather services
From--
--7 area control centers (ACC)
--43 control towers
--80 flight service stations (FSS)
--1,400 Navaids
--43 radar sites
--Serves all of Canada including a large part of north west
Atlantic Ocean, southern Greenland and a portion of the Arctic
ocean.
WHAT IS A NON-SHARE CAPITAL CORPORATION?
A private company that operates like any other business corporation
except there are no shareholders.
Often called a ``non-profit'' company but this is misleading as NAV
Canada can and does earn profits.
The lack of shareholders means that profits are recycled to (a) pay
debt, (b) finance capital expenditures, or (c) reduce service fees.
Four ``members'' act as surrogate shareholders in that they appoint
the Board of Directors, approve corporate By-law changes and appoint
auditors.
NAV Canada's four members are:
--Air Transport Association of Canada--4 Board appointees
--Federal Government--3 Board appointees
--ANS Union Association--2 Board appointees
--Business Aircraft Association--1 Board appointee
--Total 10
Board appoints four unrelated Directors plus the CEO for a total
Board of 15.
No share equity means all capitalization is in the form of debt.
NAV Canada is rated ``AA'' by U.S. and Canadian rating agencies,
and has so far issued $1.750 billion in revenue bonds.
No government involvement or financial guarantees of any kind.
WHY DID CANADA CHOOSE TO PRIVATIZE AND TO PICK THE NON-SHARE CAPITAL
MODEL?
In 1994 Transport Canada addressed this question before a
parliamentary committee and an excerpt from their Testimony is
attached.
Rationale then still applies today.
The non-share capital model, as developed for NAV Canada, has the
following advantages:
--No perceived conflict between personal profits and safety.
--Allows for key stakeholder representation on the Board
--Air Carriers--Who need and pay 100 percent of the cost of
service.
--Government--Custodian of the public interest.
--ANS Unions--Represent 90 percent of employees.
--Business Aircraft--Represent GA customers
--Natural monopoly and nature of essential service makes it readily
financeable at low cost.
--High credit ratings provide for a lower cost of capital than
equity.
--Customers on Board replaces profit motive as an efficiency driver.
--Economically self-regulating.
--Government is still safety regulator.
--Government personnel and procurement policies dropped.
--Directors and Officers are subject to the common law obligation as
fiduciaries to act in good faith and in the best interests of
the corporation.
--Conflicts avoided in that Board appointees cannot be:
--Employees, officers or directors of significant customers or
suppliers.
--Elected officials or employees of Federal, provincial or
territorial governments.
--Union officers.
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS IN SYSTEM PERFORMANCE HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED TO DATE BY
NAV CANADA?
Management and administrative structures have been streamlined,
1,100 or 17.5 percent reduction in staffing.
Capital spending reduced by 40 percent--focus now on
``deliverable'' projects with proven customer and/or safety benefits.
Service charges reduced by over 30 percent from equivalent amount
formerly charged to passengers (tax was totally repealed in November
1998).
Air traffic controller productivity increased by about 20 percent
with wages increased an average 33 percent (all after a 7 year wage
freeze).
Major automation project ``CAATS''. Now on time and on budget--
final delivery in Fall 2000.
World's first ``glass'' tower opened in Toronto in November 1998.
Reduced rate of operating irregularities.
Introducing most advanced oceanic system in the world in mid 2000
(GAATS--Version 21).
Successfully coped with a 15 percent increase in traffic over last
3 years.
Incidence of ATC induced delays on decline.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Air Navigation System
modernization and commercialization
A briefing to the Standing Committee on Transportation, October
1994, Transport Canada Aviation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Budget--1994
Transport Canada Initiative.--In order to improve efficiency and
achieve long-term savings, TC will review the potential for
commercialization of a number of its major activities (such as the air
navigation system) in close consultation with affected parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale
User concerns on quality of service provided and the cost of
delays.
Recommendation by associations, airlines, business aircraft
operators, airline pilots and air traffic controllers.
Recommendations of reports, studies and Royal Commission.
International experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics of a Commercial ANS
A commercialized ANS should be:
--free to manage resources and people
--responsive to user needs
--able to procure on commercial principles
--funded by those who use the service
--operated in a business-like way
--accountable to owners and customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Principles
Safety must not be compromised.
There should not be a negative impact on the current structure of
commercial and recreational aviation in Canada.
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Interest
Public interest requires that ANS:
--exists
--is safe
--contributes to national transportation efficiency
ANS provides equitable access to all users.
Remote communities receive appropriate services.
International communities receive appropriate services.
Sovereignty and security needs are met.
There is no abuse of monopoly position.
ANS remains Canadian owned and controlled.
----------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. POOLE, JR., PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION STUDIES, REASON
PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE, LOS ANGELES, CA
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Poole, go ahead.
Mr. Poole. Thank you. I am Robert Poole, Director of
Transportation Studies at the Reason Public Policy Institute.
I have been involved with this issue of air traffic control
reform since 1981, and it is striking to me how much the debate
has changed since then. Today it is pretty widely accepted that
air traffic control is basically a commercial service, while
air safety regulation is inherently governmental. It is also
accepted that FAA's management and corporate culture are
really--realistically poorly suited to operating and
modernizing a high-tech service business. And it is generally
accepted that air traffic control funding should be driven by
the growth in aviation activity, not by the constraints of the
Federal budget process.
Now, who agrees with these points? The National Airline
Commission in 1993, the National Partnership for Reinventing
government since 1994, DOT's Executive Oversight Committee,
which proposed the USATS Corporation in 1994-95, and the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission in 1997.
Now, of course, we heard this morning, and we all know
about the big increase in delays last year when growing air
traffic bumped right up against the limits of a system that is
still technologically and organizationally obsolete. As a
result of that, we have had a number of calls from airline CEOs
for commercializing or corporatizing the air traffic control
system. We now today have 13 years of experience with
corporatized air traffic control in 16 countries including
Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom. There are a number of
common elements that emerge from all of this experience. First,
governments have spun off the air traffic control service
provider, but not safety--they have kept safety regulation as
inherently governmental in-house, and put it at arm's length
from the service provider.
Second, the air traffic control corporations are generally
operated on a not-for-profit basis as Mr. Crichton said,
because it is a monopoly. Excess revenues are recycled back
into the system or used to lower charges in the following year.
Third, the air traffic control corporations are funded
directly by their users through fees and charges, and this
makes the company accountable to the customers. As they say in
Canada, user pay means user say.
Fourth, the companies fund modernization by issuing long-
term revenue bonds based on a predictable revenue stream, and
this gives them much greater ability to plan and manage.
We can also see now that air traffic control
commercialization works. It solves the problems that are
plaguing government-run air traffic control in country after
country. The unit costs of providing service go down,
modernization moves more quickly, and flight delays are
reduced, and in no country has there been any problem or
reduction in air safety from doing this.
So how can we apply this experience to the United States?
My organization, Reason Public Policy Institute, is working on
a detailed proposal for a U.S. air traffic control corporation.
We are seeking input from the entire aviation community. This
is a work-in-progress, so I cannot give you the final result,
because we are not finished yet, but I can give you some things
that are emerging out of our work.
First we think that the stakeholder controlled not-for-
profit corporation is probably the best model for this country.
It is working very well in Canada, and it harkens back to the
original days of air traffic control by ARINC in this country.
The kind of corporation we are working on would provide all
civilian air traffic control services in the United States and
oceanic, would hire a top management team to run the company,
but would take over nearly all the current staff of FAA's air
traffic services, and all of FAA's current air traffic control
facilities, would keep its books using Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles, naturally, would pay market-based
compensation to all of its employees to insure the best
possible talent for every position, and would be free to define
and purchase new technology just the way a private business
does.
The most crucial element of this reform in our view would
be direct user payment by the users to the corporation. The
reason for this is that it is so important to develop a
corporate culture that takes the customer seriously and gives
them what they want, and does not try to foist on them things
like microwave landing systems that they do not want. And that
will happen only if the company gets its revenue by satisfying
its customers. Developing fair and simple air traffic control
fees is no easy task, and we have not completed our proposal on
that yet, but we do expect to recommend that the current FAA
user taxes be abolished and replaced by fees and charges that
will be charged only for services rendered. In other words, a
private plane using an airport without a tower would not be
paying anything under the kind of reform we are looking at, but
all of the stakeholders, including private pilots who do use
the system, would have representation on the board of the
corporation, as is the case with NAV Canada. The overseas
experience shows that these kinds of corporations can be self-
supporting, they can get investment-grade ratings, and they can
easily fund modernization by issuing long-term revenue bonds.
For regulatory purposes, clearly, the FAA would need to be
a strong safety regulator, exercising arm's-length oversight,
just as it does today with regard to the airlines, pilots,
mechanics and manufacturers. All are regulated at arm's-length
by the FAA. Congress, of course, will continue to have the
responsibility to fund the slimmed-down FAA and DOT and their
needed oversight functions including the operation of air
traffic control by the corporation.
Finally, just one more thought. I really want to stress the
urgency of structural reform along these lines. The current
system is not keeping pace with the growth. It is failing to
modernize in a cost-effective fashion. If we are going to avoid
gridlock in the skies and on runways, we have to develop a
modern satellite-based system based on GPS and data links, and
we believe that a user-driven customer responsive corporation
is really the best way to get there.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I'll be happy to answer questions when the time comes.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Poole.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert W. Poole, Jr.
shifting air traffic control to a user-funded corporation
My name is Robert W. Poole, Jr. I am the director of transportation
studies at the Reason Public Policy Institute in Los Angeles. As a
former aerospace engineer, I have been studying transportation issues
for more than 20 years and have advised the U.S. Department of
Transportation and various congressional committees on a number of
occasions. In 1997 we were asked to advise the National Civil Aviation
Review Commission, as it assessed the problems of the Nation's Air
Traffic Control System.
I have been involved with ATC reform since the days of the PATCO
strike in 1981. I'm impressed by how much the debate has changed over
the years. There is a broad consensus within aviation policy circles on
many issues that used to be very contentious. It is now widely accepted
that ATC is an essentially commercial service, and that it is separate
from air-safety regulation, which is inherently governmental. It is
also increasingly accepted that the FAA's management and corporate
culture are poorly suited to operating and modernizing a high-tech
service business--and have not been significantly improved by the
modest 1996 reforms of procurement and personnel systems. And it is
also widely accepted that ATC funding should be driven by the growth of
aviation activity--and not by the ups and downs of the Federal budget
process.
These conclusions are reflected in the work of the Administration's
National Partnership for Reinventing Government. The same conclusions
inspired the DOT's U.S. Air Traffic Services Corporation proposal in
1994-95. They underlie the strongly worded findings of the National
Civil Aviation Review Commission in 1997. And they are backed up by
nearly two decades of GAO reports and think tank studies. Last year--
just as NCARC warned--growing air traffic bumped up against the limits
of our creaking, obsolescent ATC System, resulting in record levels of
airline delays, costing airlines and their passengers billions of
dollars in extra costs and wasted time. That experience has led to a
growing chorus from airline CEOs calling for removing the ATC System
from the FAA and setting it up as a user-funded business. The bible of
the industry, Aviation Week, has editorially endorsed that approach for
several years.
One factor that has helped to shape this growing consensus is the
actual experience of commercializing air traffic control around the
world. Twenty years ago, when I first began working on this concept,
there were no commercial ATC corporations to be found. The few that had
been started--as non-profit airline cooperative efforts, in the United
States in the 1930's by ARINC, and in Cuba and Mexico--had all been
taken over by their respective governments.
But beginning in the late 1980's, the same problems that plague our
ATC System--inadequate or uncertain financial resources, poor cost-
accounting, crippling bureacratic rules on personnel and procurement,
etc.--led to a growing wave of reform. One after another, starting with
New Zealand, ATC operations were restructured as commercial
corporations, either wholly owned by government or as non-profits
controlled by the various aviation stakeholders. Among those taking
this path are Australia, Canada, Germany, South Africa, Switzerland,
and the United Kingdom ATC restructuring has been brought about by
governments of both left and right, including Labor governments in New
Zealand and the United Kingdom and a center-right government in
Germany. You have heard this morning of the success of ATC
commercialization in Canada.
Four common elements emerge from these various ATC reforms:
--First, in virtually every case, governments have spun off the ATC
service provider but have kept safety regulation as part of the
government's transportation agency. Putting safety regulation
at arms-length from service delivery is seen, correctly, as a
way to improve air safety.
--Second, in every case but one, these ATC corporations are operated
on a not-for-profit basis. (That one exception is the United
Kingdom Labor government's current proposal to sell 51 percent
of the National Air Traffic Service to private investors.)
Because ATC is one of those rare cases of natural monopoly, it
makes sense to operate it in this way, with any excess revenues
either re-invested back in the corporation or used to reduce
the following year's fees and charges.
--Third, nearly every one of these ATC corporations is funded
directly and completely by its users. Fees and charges are the
prices of the company's services; they do not get sent to the
government, to be appropriated (or held in a trust fund). They
are paid directly by the customers to the service provider (as
with electricity charges by TVA and postal charges by USPS).
And that makes the company accountable directly to its
customers. As they say in Canada, ``user pay means user say.''
--Fourth, these ATC companies are able to fund modernization by
issuing long-term revenue bonds, based on their predictable
stream of revenue from fees and charges. Indeed, NAV Canada's
bonds had no trouble receiving investment-grade ratings. The
financial community loves this kind of investment.
In addition to these common features of commercialized ATC
corporations, we also find a common pattern in their experience. To put
it simply, ATC commercialization works. By that I mean: it solves the
problems that have plagued government-run air traffic control in
country after country. Following commercialization, we typically find
that the unit cost of providing ATC services goes down, modernization
proceeds more quickly and smoothly, and flight delays are therefore
reduced. In no country has there been any reduction in air safety, and
most observers believe safety levels have increased.
In short, compared to 20 years ago when ATC commercialization was
mostly theory, today we can draw on a wealth of experience from around
the world. All of it points to the conclusion that moving ATC out of a
government bureacracy, converting it into a commercial corporate form,
charging users directly for services and making it directly accountable
to those users for its performance, and regulating it at arms-length
for safety--this kind of fundamental reform works.
The logical next question is: How can we apply this experience to
the United States? That is the question that my organization is
currently addressing. Our three-member project team is developing a
detailed proposal for an Airways Corporation that could take over ATC
functions from the FAA and operate in a commercialized manner. We are
seeking input as we go along from the entire aviation community--major
airlines, low-fare airlines, cargo carriers, air-taxi operators,
business aircraft owners, recreational flyers, air traffic controllers,
and others. Since this is a work in progress, I cannot give you
definitive results just yet. As you can imagine, this is a very complex
project, and different stakeholders have somewhat different interests
that must be taken into account in coming up with a workable plan. But
I can give you some broad outlines of where we think we are heading.
First, having reviewed the global ATC reform experience, we believe
that the stakeholder-controlled not-for-profit corporation is probably
the best model for the United States. It is working very well in
Canada, with which we share a major border and have extensive air
commerce. And it harkens back to the origins of U.S. air traffic
control, which was begun on exactly this basis by Aeronautical Radio,
Inc. (ARINC) in the 1930's. So we are defining a non-profit ATC
corporation with a stakeholder-controlled board of directors.
The Airways Corporation would provide all civilian ATC services in
the United States and in the oceanic regions for which this country is
responsible. It would hire a top management team to run the company,
but would take over essentially all of the current FAA staff in Air
Traffic Services and all current FAA ATC facilities. It would keep its
books using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) like a
normal company. And it would be free to pay market-based compensation
to all its employees--both management and non-management--so as to
ensure the best possible talent for each position. It would be free to
define and purchase new technology in the same way as any private
business.
We believe the most crucial element of this reform is direct user
payment to the corporation for ATC services. It is absolutely crucial
to develop a corporate culture that is driven by and responsive to
customer needs. That will only happen if the company must derive its
revenues by meeting their needs. This process is what drives the
remarkable productivity of the entire U.S. economy. And we can now see
that it works in air traffic control, as well. To repeat the leitmotif
of Canadian ATC reform, ``user pay means user say.''
To be sure, we recognize that developing the specifics of ATC fees
and charges is no easy task. We are devoting considerable effort to
coming up with a pricing proposal that is both simple and fair to all
aviation users. Until we've done a lot more work, and gotten a lot more
private feedback from user groups, I don't want to go into more
specifics on this issue. But because we all know that private pilot
groups have great concerns about this issue, let me say just a few
words on that score.
We anticipate that our plan will propose that current Federal
aviation user taxes be abolished, as part of the transition to the new,
commercialized system. The underlying principle is that the new ATC
fees and charges will apply only where users make actual use of ATC
services. A private plane shooting touch-and-go landings at a non-
towered airport is not using the system and should not be charged by
the system--or by the Federal Government. But those who do use ATC
services should pay for the use of those services--again, in as fair
and simple a manner as possible. And as stakeholders in the system,
they should be represented on its board. This includes military and
civilian government users, whose budgets should include the cost of
using ATC services, just as it includes buying fuel for their aircraft.
Next, let me address funding for the remaining FAA functions.
Without its ATC operations, the remaining FAA would have two main
programs: safety regulation and airport grants. We believe that safety
regulation is inherently governmental. The one difficult area is AIP
grants for airports. We all know that this country is short of airport
capacity, but that expanding existing airports and building new ones in
places where they are needed are both very difficult. The problem seems
to be less one of funding than of overcoming local opposition to noise
and traffic. We do not yet have a specific proposal on how best to pay
for airport improvements--but we are working on it.
Getting back to the Airways Corporation itself, the overseas
experience demonstrates that it can easily be self-funding. Like any
other utility business providing a vital public service (e.g.,
electricity or water) by investing in long-lived infrastructure, the
most appropriate way to pay for such infrastructure is via long-term
revenue bonds. With a robust stream of revenue from fees and charges,
such bonds could easily earn investment-grade ratings. Wall Street will
be only too happy to arrange these bond issues. Hence, we strongly
recommend that the corporation not be allowed to borrow from the
Treasury. Since one of the key objectives of this reform is to develop
a user-responsive corporate culture--i.e., one that will choose wise
and cost-effective investments, rather than white elephants such as the
now abandoned Microwave Landing System--is important that all such
investment plans be required to pass the market-testing of the
financial markets.
Finally, let me address the question of regulation. There are two
potential types of regulation involved: safety and economic. In terms
of safety regulation, the FAA will become the arms-length regulator of
the new corporation. That will put air traffic control on the same
basis as all the other participants in the aviation system: airlines,
private plane owner/operators, airframe and engine producers, airports,
pilots, and mechanics. All are regulated at arms-length by the aviation
safety regulator. It will be no different in the case of the ATC
service provider. Most countries that have commercialized ATC consider
this separation of regulation from operations to be a significant
strengthening of air safety.
When it comes to economic regulation, I noted previously that the
Airways Corporation will be a natural monopoly. The corporate structure
we propose is a not-for-profit corporation with a stakeholder board--
essentially, a user cooperative. In theory, such a structure should
represent the interests of its customers and not require the usual kind
of public utility regulation (whose purpose it is to look out for the
interests of its customers). However, we all know that the interests of
business-jet operators and those of cargo carriers and those of major
airlines are not identical. We believe there will still be a need for
external review and appeal of the corporation's decisions on such
things as fees and charges and of changes in levels of service. At this
point, we think such review and appeal is best carried out by the DOT,
just as appeals from rail shippers can be taken to the DOT's Surface
Transportation Board.
Congress will, of course, continue to have the responsibility to
fund the FAA and DOT, and to exercise the needed oversight of all of
their operations, including their regulatory responsibilities with
respect to air traffic control.
In closing, I would like to stress the urgency of this kind of
fundamental, structural reform of the way we provide and pay for air
traffic control in this country. The current system has failed to bring
about modernization of the ATC System--modernization that is essential
if we are not to succumb to gridlock and far worse delays than were
experienced last spring and summer. The shift from ground-based to
space-based ATC, based on GPS and data link, promises a huge increase
in both en-route and runway capacity. But the FAA has been
institutionally incapable of delivering this modernization, wasting
billions on such fiascos as the Advanced Automation System and the
Microwave Landing System.
There are several reasons for this structural failure. One is the
FAA's cumbersome procurement process. When a new generation of computer
electronics comes along every 18 months and it takes the FAA 5 to 8
years to procure a new system, you have a recipe for getting further
and further behind the state of the art. This is due in part to the
FAA's proclivity for defining everything to death in-house, rather than
making creative use of off-the-shelf systems where feasible. A
commercial ATC corporation will be able to upgrade its technology as
quickly and efficiently as other high-tech businesses.
Another structural problem is uncertain funding. The vitally needed
controller-to-pilot data link is a key element in free flight, but is
being delayed by stop-and-go FAA funding. Implementing data link
requires synchronized schedules involving airlines, avionics makers,
and ATC facilities on the ground--but FAA budget problems play havoc
with this synchronization. An ATC corporation would have assured
funding for such modernization programs via its revenue bonds.
But the most important structural failing is this: the FAA is not
customer-driven. Regarding free flight, WAAS, data link, and other key
technologies, there is no urgency or sense of commitment to meeting
users' needs as soon as possible. This is a basic problem of corporate
culture. And it will only be solved when the ATC organization is paid
directly by its customers and held accountable for results by those
customers.
This concludes my presentation today. As I said previously, my
comments are based on our work-in-progress on defining a plan for ATC
commercialization that can gain widespread support within the aviation
community. We are not there yet, but we are making good progress. I
should have a lot more to report several months from now.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Baker from American Airlines, we
would be pleased to hear your statement.
Senator Lautenberg. Before Mr. Baker makes his statement,
Mr. Chairman, I was at a presentation made by American Airlines
this morning, and it knocked the socks off people that were
sitting there, because they were going to give us more room in
the seats, Mr. Chairman, and I had a legislative redress that
was stopped en route, because we could not get enough activity
within the Senate. But that was a very positive thing, and I
hope that it sets an example for all the airlines to
accommodate the comfort and the ease of travel for passengers
throughout. And I am not endorsing American Airlines, but I do
like the idea.
Chairman Domenici. You liked what they said.
Senator Lautenberg. I do love it, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. BAKER, VICE CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Senator. I will have just a few words
about that in my remarks.
I am Bob Baker. I am Vice Chairman of American Airlines,
and I want to start by expressing my appreciation to the
leadership and members of the Senate Budget and Appropriations
Committees for the opportunity to testify about the serious
challenges facing the air traffic control system in our
country.
But before I turn to that subject, I want to take this
opportunity to tell the members of these committees about an
important announcement that we made earlier today. Last year
the airline industry received very harsh criticism from many
quarters for failing to provide the kind of high-quality
customer service that the public has every right to expect.
Many Members of Congress joined the critics, either responding
to the complaints of their constituents or based on their own
dissatisfaction.
In response, the individual carriers have pledged to new
customer service plans, addressing everything from baggage
handling to ticket refunds and prompt accurate information
about delays and cancellations. Accurate information is
certainly a hallmark of aviation and customer service.
Compliance with these plans will be reviewed on an ongoing
basis by the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation.
This morning American Airlines took passenger service to a
new level. Just across town our Chairman and CEO, Mr. Don
Carty, announced that as part of a $400 million program to
refurbish the interiors of our entire fleet, American Airlines
will give our passengers more of what they really want, more
space. By removing two rows of seats from every aircraft and
reconfiguring the coach cabin, we will increase seat pitch and
provide more space for every passenger, not just a few rows in
first class. Mr. Carty regrets very much that he is unable to
be here today because of the long-planned event surrounding
this ground-breaking announcement.
And now I will return to the purpose of this hearing, the
issues surrounding air traffic control. As we enter the year
2000, the air traffic statistics for 1999 show trends that
raise concerns about the upcoming summer traffic season and the
years beyond. An efficient and safe system for ATC is the basic
foundation, the bedrock upon which we strive to provide a safe,
predictable, and quality service to our customers. When we
implemented our customer service plan late last year, we
discovered a lot of ways in which we could improve our service.
At the same time, we realized our most important basic customer
service, on-time performance, is fundamentally dependent on air
traffic control.
And while the aviation industry can improve some elements
of customer service, we cannot unilaterally address the
challenge posed by an outdated air traffic control system. For
that we need the help of Congress, the FAA, the air traffic
controllers, and many, many others.
In order to understand the present challenge to the Air
Traffic Control System, we must address three questions: When
do we need to start? What do we need to do? And how do we get
it done?
In the case of air traffic improvements ``when'' is a
critical question. We all want to avoid gridlock, but there are
long lead times, starting with capital investment and
proceeding through the development, testing and training that
must precede the implementation of new systems. Most of you
know that we completed a study in 1997 and were alarmed to
discover that we are already approaching the point at which the
air traffic system becomes overloaded.
Our 1999 operating results at American confirm that the
trend in the U.S. air traffic control delay situation continues
to escalate, with the total number of delays up 36 percent, and
the total minutes of delay up 34 percent over the corresponding
1998 figures. This is an alarming increase as compared to our
1998 operating results, where the total number in minutes of
air traffic delay were up only 5 percent and 9 percent
respectively. Our 1999 operating delays coupled with a dramatic
increase in customer complaints related to delays and
cancellations serve as an urgent wake-up call to the
approaching chaos that our study predicts will exist by 2005.
Five years, mind you, is the most optimistic projection for
implementation, and given the size and complexity of the air
traffic control system, 5 years is really just around the
corner.
Which brings us to the next question: What do we need to do
to modernize and which things do we do first? Using the results
of our own study and other research en route and terminal
airspace are the first targets, because changes in these areas
require new aircraft and air traffic capabilities that will
take many years to develop, install and train our pilots and
controllers to use. At the same time we look to new
technologies and innovative management to improve efficiency in
the air. Airport facilities and ground infrastructure must be
developed as well. In the final analysis, successful
modernization will require that all elements of our system
receive much needed improvements. That is where the Free Flight
Program comes in. With the guidance and leadership of
Administrator Garvey, this unprecedented collaborative process
represents important industry and government consensus for
determining the path to modernization. Although this consensus
has already achieved some important milestones in the
development of Free Flight technology and processes, without
continued leadership and support from Members of Congress and
the Administration, we are unlikely to reach our goal in time.
A comprehensive approach to air traffic modernization must
address the three fundamental components of the system:
communications, navigation and surveillance. The first,
communications, connects the people who are making and
coordinating the operation decisions in our system. This
includes people in the command center, controllers in our air
traffic control centers, people in our airline operations
control centers, and finally, the pilots who fly the aircraft.
Communications modernization means insuring that these
important participants have the tools, resources and training
necessary, not only to increase the capacity of our current
systems, but also to increase the already high level of safety
we have achieved. Sufficient radio band width or spectrum, for
example, is absolutely essential if we are to eliminate the
traditional voice-only bottleneck that characterizes pilot
control or communications today. New operating capabilities and
airspace capacity with improve safety can be realized by
upgrading the old analog voice and teletype systems to new
digital voice and data link communication systems.
A modern air traffic system must also include satellite-
based navigation capabilities. Currently, airspace capacity is
constrained by our traditional ground-based radio navigation
facilities, which have significant location and range
limitations. Satellite-based navigation systems will enable us
to redesign our airspace, to increase the throughput of both
the en route and terminal airspace. This increased accuracy,
enabled by satellite augmentation systems such as the Wide Area
or Local Area programs, will allow us to design new airport
approach and departure procedures, dramatically improving
safety, efficiency and an environmental impact that will
certainly be positive.
The final component is surveillance, which most of us think
of as radar. By augmenting radar using aircraft transmitted
data, we can unlock new applications that can improve our
ability to better manage air traffic by detecting traffic
conflicts earlier, both in the air and on the ground. This
promises to be an important part of addressing the growing
problem of airport runway incursions.
Once we know what to do, we have to address the most
difficult question of how do we get it done? If we are to avoid
rapidly approaching gridlock, we must, starting now, insure the
commitment to pay for modernization and infrastructure
development, not just this year, but on an ongoing multi-year
basis. Such consistent funding is a key cornerstone to managing
any investment risk. Unfortunately, the needed funding must pay
the escalating cost of operating, maintaining and staffing the
current ATC System, while also making the investments in the
improvements necessary to insure our future. Because of the
urgent need to get started on the programs, infrastructure and
reforms necessary to guarantee aviation's future, I urge you to
find a way to resolve whatever remaining issues are preventing
passage of the FAA Reauthorization Bill.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, I believe that the safety and efficiency of
the air traffic control system can be improved simultaneously.
Thanks to the leadership of Administrator Garvey, we have a
plan. Short-term improvements may buy us some time while we
pursue the development and implementation of real solutions,
but we cannot hesitate much longer. We must begin modernizing
our systems and operating structures today if we want to avoid
the gridlock in the skies tomorrow. We need your support to get
an FAA Reauthorization Bill passed to insure the funding and
management reforms that will put us on the right path.
Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert W. Baker
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committees: My name is
Robert Baker, and as the vice-chairman of American Airlines, it is an
honor to have the opportunity to present American's views on the need
to modernize our air traffic control system.
As we enter 2000, the air traffic statistics for 1999 show trends
that raise concern about the upcoming summer traffic season and the
years beyond. An efficient and safe ATC System is the basic foundation,
the bedrock, upon which we strive to provide a safe, predictable, and
quality service to our customers. When we implemented our customer
service plan last year, we discovered a lot of ways in which we could
improve our service. At the same time, we realize our most important,
basic customer service--on time performance--is fundamentally dependent
on air traffic control. And while the aviation industry can improve
some elements of customer service, we cannot unilaterally address the
challenge posed by an outdated ATC System. For that, we need the help
of Congress, the FAA, the air traffic controllers and others.
In order to understand the present challenge to the ATC System, we
must address three basic questions: When do we need to start? What do
we need to do? How do we get it done?
In the case of ATC improvements, ``When?'' is a critical question.
We all want to avoid gridlock. But there are long lead-times, starting
with capital investment and proceeding through the development, testing
and training that must precede the implementation of new systems. Most
of you know that we completed a study in 1997 and were alarmed to
discover that we are already approaching the point at which the Air
Traffic System becomes overloaded. Our 1999 operating results confirm
that the trend in U.S. ATC delay continues to escalate, with the total
number of delays up 36 percent and total minutes of delay up 34 percent
over 1998 figures. This is an alarming increase as compared to our 1998
operating results, where the total number and minutes of air traffic
delay were up 5 percent and 9 percent respectively. Our 1999 operating
delays, coupled with the dramatic increase in customer complaints
related to delays and cancellations, serve as an urgent wake-up call to
the approaching chaos that our study predicts will exist by 2005. Five
years, mind you, is the most optimistic projection for implementation.
And, given the size and complexity of the ATC System, 5 years is just
around the corner.
Which brings us to the next question, ``What do we need to
modernize and what do we do first?'' Using the results of our own study
and other research, enroute and terminal airspace are the first
targets, because changes in these areas require new aircraft and air
traffic capabilities that will take many years to develop, install, and
train our pilots and controllers to use. At the same time we look to
new technologies and innovative management to improve efficiency in the
air, airport facilities and ground infrastructure must be developed as
well. In the final analysis, successful modernization will require that
all elements of our system receive much-needed improvements.
That's where the free flight program comes in. With the guidance
and leadership of Administrator Garvey, this unprecedented
collaborative process represents important industry and government
consensus for determining the path to modernization. Although this
consensus has already achieved some important milestones in the
development of free flight technology and processes without continued
leadership and support from Members of Congress and the Administration,
we are unlikely to reach our goal in time.
A comprehensive approach to ATC modernization must address the
three fundamental components of the system: communications, navigation
and surveillance. The first, communications, connects the people who
are making and coordinating the operating decisions in our system. This
includes people in the FAA command center, controllers in our air
traffic control centers, people in our airline operations control
centers, and pilots who fly the aircraft. Communications modernization
means ensuring that these important participants have the tools,
resources and training necessary not only to increase the capacity of
our current systems, but also to increase the already high level of
safety we have achieved. Sufficient radio bandwidth, or spectrum, for
example, is absolutely essential if we are to eliminate the traditional
voice-only bottleneck that characterizes pilot-controller communication
today. New operating capabilities and airspace capacity with improved
safety can be realized by upgrading the old analog voice and teletype
systems to new digital voice and data communication systems.
A modern ATC System must also include satellite-based navigation
capabilities. Currently, airspace capacity is constrained by our
traditional ground-based radio-navigation facilities, which have
significant location and range limitations. Satellite-based navigation
systems will enable us to re-design our airspace to increase the
throughput of both enroute and terminal airspace. The increased
accuracy enabled by satellite augmentation systems, such as the wide-
area (WAAS) or local-area (LAAS) programs, will allow us to design new
airport approach and departure procedures, dramatically improving the
safety, efficiency, and environmental impact of take-off and landing
patterns.
The final component is ``surveillance,'' which most of us think of
as radar. By augmenting radar using aircraft-transmitted data, we can
unlock new applications that can improve our ability to better manage
air traffic by detecting traffic conflicts earlier, both in the air and
on the ground. This promises to be an important part of addressing the
growing problem of airport runway incursions.
Once we know what to do, we have to address the most difficult
question of ``how'' to get it done. If we are to avoid rapidly
approaching gridlock, we must, starting now, ensure the commitment to
pay for modernization and infrastructure development, not just this
year, but on an ongoing, multi-year basis. Such consistent funding is a
key cornerstone to managing any investment risk. Unfortunately, the
needed funding must pay the escalating costs of operating maintaining
and staffing the current ATC System, while also making the investments
in the improvements necessary to ensure our future. Because of the
urgent need to get started on the programs, infrastructure and reforms
necessary to guarantee aviation's future, I urge you to find a way to
resolve whatever remaining issues are preventing passage of the FAA
reauthorization bill.
In conclusion, I believe that the safety and efficiency of the ATC
System can be improved simultaneously. Thanks to the leadership of
Administrator Garvey, we have a plan. Short-term improvements may buy
us some time while we pursue the development and implementation of real
solutions. But we cannot hesitate much longer. We must begin
modernizing our systems and operating structures today, if we want to
avoid gridlock in the skies tomorrow. We need your support to get a FAA
reauthorization bill passed to ensure the funding and management
reforms that will put us on the right path.
Thank you.
Senator Domenici. I just have three questions, one for each
of you, and I will take you first, Mr. Baker, and then I am
going to yield to Senator Lautenberg, who will close the
meeting down.
So I do not forget, I want to thank all three of you. I
think the testimony, not only your oral testimony, but your
entire testimony, will be of relevance, and certainly an eye-
opener to a number of people who want to read and try to see
what is going on elsewhere in the world.
In reading your testimony, Mr. Baker, I noted that you
mention airport facilities and ground infrastructure sort of in
passing, and you do not highlight it as a problem to be
addressed in the, quote, ``What do we need to modernize and
what do we need to do first'' section. Should we take that to
mean that the Airport Improvement Program funding or passenger
facility charges are not a priority for your airline?
Mr. Baker. No; I think the proper structure would be a
balanced approach of en route improvements, terminal area
improvements, which are basically air traffic control, coupled
with an ongoing process of improving facilities, both runways,
taxi-ways, as well as terminal facilities, to meet the demand
on these facilities. I think they all have to go on
simultaneously, and they are all equally important to the
overall capacity of aviation.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
Mr. Crichton, Mr. Mead's statement indicated that NAV
Canada is relying on the FAA for key emergency technologies. In
turn, your material indicates that NAV Canada will introduce
the, quote, ``most advanced oceanic system in the world this
year.'' Is there an opportunity for cooperation or more
cooperation between the FAA and NAV Canada in the development
and fielding of new air traffic control technology?
Mr. Crichton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is significant potential, and in fact, some of it is
being realized. I think historically there has been a
participation back and forth across the border. For instance,
we are involved in the WAAS Program with the FAA, in a small
way in assisting in that. The FAA has developed some tools that
we find very interesting. Our oceanic system, actually, we are
in discussions with the FAA to possibly make that available as
part of their procurement process as well, so I think there is
a tremendous scope for sharing between ANSs, and certainly
there is a longstanding cooperative working relationship
between NAV Canada and the FAA.
Senator Domenici. Just my wrap up question to both you, Mr.
Poole, and yours might have to be theoretical and yours, Mr.
Crichton, can be practical based on what exists. But obviously
there is a tremendous opposition to privatization here from
those who work for the FAA and from the unions that are part of
it. They have their reasons for being against it. I just have a
question. From the standpoint of pay and the non-profit
corporation, what has resulted from that in terms of comparable
pay before and after the institutional change, and perhaps
comparable pay with U.S.A. comparable jobs?
Mr. Crichton. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the air traffic
controller portion of the work force, the contract that we
entered into last summer with them, saw an average increase of
33 percent in their pay, and that varied depending on location
of the controller and their grade, and some of them were
actually 40 percent, and some, obviously, a bit less than the
33 percent, and that was for a 39-month contract, just a little
over 3 years.
Now, we bargained in return and got demonstrable
productivity improvements in work rules of at least 20 percent,
and that was unique, because historically, I think the
bargaining process, particularly with government, has been more
of a one-way street, where the process would see concessions
given or raises or so on, and very little coming the other way,
so that was quite unique, and it at times was traumatic to
negotiate it, but we got it done.
Mr. Poole. Senator, I would like to say that I am not here
advocating privatization of air traffic control in the sense
that it is often meant. The word around the world usually means
turning something over to a for-profit company with
shareholders.
Senator Domenici. I understand.
Mr. Poole. I am using the term ``corporatization'' or
``commercialization'' to mean creating something much more like
NAV Canada, which is a direct user-serving organization, and--
--
Senator Domenici. If I used the word ``privatization'', I
mean----
Mr. Poole. I appreciate it, but I think it is an important
semantic distinction.
Senator Domenici. I am trying to use the word that Mr.
Crichton described as to what they have done in Canada.
Mr. Poole. But this is relevant in terms--the unions,
including the current controllers' union in the United States,
has consistently spoken out against privatization, and they
include in that the Contract Tower Program which is run by for-
profit companies. On the other hand, they are on record in
1994, 1995, as endorsing the Administration's USATS corporation
concept, and they recently have reaffirmed that support. So I
mean I think there is definitely room there to talk with them
seriously about an air traffic control corporation that is
outside of the structure of the FAA, that is funded by the
users, that meets the needs of users and is free to borrow in
the capital market and so forth, as long as you adequately
protect pension benefits, insure market-based compensation and
so forth. I do not see this as a huge--I mean it is an issue
definitely, but it is not an insuperable stumbling block as it
might be if we were talking about turning it into a for-profit
company.
Senator Domenici. Well, let me make sure the record is
correct in terms of my use of words. There is opposition to
privatization, as privatization is conventionally used, and I
have been told there is not as much opposition, perhaps even
some favor, shown towards the kind of entity that you are
describing, Mr. Poole, and maybe that Mr. Crichton has
explained with reference to Canada.
If our air traffic control system is commercialized, how
would you insure that large carriers do not overshadow other
smaller stakeholders such as General Aviation, General Aviation
pilots, small carriers and smaller airports? How are you doing
that, or is that not a problem in Canada?
Mr. Crichton. No, we are doing it. And it is a combination
of the provisions that were set out in our enabling legislation
to enable a transaction. There are certain provisions there
regarding level of service requirements, charging principles,
and also within our own corporate governance documents in terms
of our corporate by-laws, there is a balance to approach. The
air carrier representatives on the board do not constitute a
majority, number one, but GA does have a seat on the board as
well. So it is the combined effect of all of those issues looks
after that concern, and it has not been a concern for us.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. I will just be here a couple of
minutes, Mr. Chairman. That is my intent anyway.
I wanted to just get something kind of clear, because the
non-profit--you describe as non-shareholder, Mr. Crichton, that
NAV Canada has--and I wonder, what is the incentive to keep
going and to keep this business intact? There is some ownership
someplace here. Who owns the NAV Canada?
Mr. Crichton. Quite frankly, if you are thinking of
ownership in a traditional sense, Senator, nobody.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I mean in----
Mr. Crichton. There are not any shares in that sense. The
four members, as I described them earlier, are, I suppose, the
surrogate shareholders, but the incentive is largely in the
fact that the customers who are paying all the bills have a
significant role in the governance of the company in terms of
sitting on the board, and that provides the incentive to be
efficient, and to produce a good product, to be safe and so on.
Senator Lautenberg. They pay competitive executive wages?
Mr. Crichton. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. So these are careers that people want
to pursue, and will, I guess, be held to a standard of
efficiency, productivity results that we would normally see in
the corporate world?
Mr. Crichton. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. And so it is, if not directly customer-
held shares, customer owned, they are a large part of the
council, the board, whatever, and they are the ones who set the
need, and is it the board that finally judges whether or not
this particular program, this particular investment is going to
be put in place?
Mr. Crichton. Yes, they do, although I must say that when
it comes to the establishment of user fees, when it comes to
major capital programs or system improvements, that the
directors on the board tend to defer quite a bit to the airline
or the GA people, the people in terms of their judgment, and I
think that is quite normal.
Senator Lautenberg. You have to get a consensus of course.
Mr. Crichton. Yes; and we certainly, when we are doing any
kinds of program, we consult with our customers constantly,
including with respect to capital programs, and we have found
that that pays off, because quite frequently they will point
out some programs that they see very little value added to
them, but they have other ones that they think would help them
a lot, and a lot of our time is spent, in fact, in trying to
figure out how to save the airlines' money from an operating
cost point of view.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you hear from the customers'
customers?
Mr. Crichton. Not a lot.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, who does?
Mr. Crichton. The airlines certainly do.
Senator Lautenberg. And you are assured that they pass
those criticisms along to you?
Mr. Crichton. The--I think the average passenger, at least
in Canada, does not really notice the air traffic control
system.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, you are talking about the
management of the system programs to be put in place. Does it
substitute for the structure that we might have here, except
for the safety side of things? Does your structure substitute
for that?
Mr. Crichton. We provide the entire air navigation service,
which includes, obviously, the air traffic control portion.
Senator Lautenberg. Right. But if there are delays, do you
hear it from the airlines? Does anybody collect passenger
opinion?
Mr. Crichton. The whole issue of delays becomes a technical
one and a complex one of trying to establish in any given
circumstance what induced the delays. Certainly if you are
looking at it from a passenger's point of view, unless they
were told specifically, they would not know the delay was an
ATC-induced delay, and I have heard pilots get on the PA and
announce delays into Toronto or something due to ATC problems,
when in fact the reason the delays were there was there was a
huge thunderstorm right over the airport. So we have to get
clear on the terms on what really caused the delay. We do cause
some delays. We are not perfect. Most of them have been due to
a staffing problem. We are fixing that. But in Canada at least,
the ATC-induced delays are relatively small.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I am curious about what influence
NAV Canada has on passenger questions. Is your activity focused
exclusively on the navigation and the controller side of
things?
Mr. Crichton. Yes, sir. Unlike the FAA, we have no role in
air safety, other than our obligation to run the ANS. So that
is still--Transport Canada does all of that, looks after the
regulation of us, of the airlines, and certification of
aeronautical products and so on.
Senator Lautenberg. So it is specifically parceled out.
Mr. Crichton. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. I am curious as to how you were able to
drop your service charges to users by over 30 percent. What did
you find--you, Mr. Poole, what do you find is the hindrance to
shrinking down costs? I mean our people work very hard. There
is a lot of stress. There is overtime required, and I talk to
controllers regularly. I go up in the towers and sometimes I
sit in the second seat in a small airplane. And I go up and I
ask them what their attitude is and see how they operate. I
almost fainted when I first went up there and I saw that they
had little paper slips that they were passing back and forth.
And it is incredible to me, and I must say, whether it is
Canada or the United States, how well the system operates. When
you look at the number of movements that take place every day,
Mr. Baker, the number of people that are carried, and thank the
Lord so few incidents that have the kind of tragic result we
have just witnesses, so few compared to the amount of effort
and the amount of activity that takes place. I think it is
miraculous and I think it is a real testimonial not only to the
equipment, but rather to the personnel that man it. They do one
terrific job. And, yes, when mistakes are made, they are often
caught and there is backup redundancy that takes care of the
fact that we do not have a major collapse in the system.
But how do you get these costs down like that? I come out
of the corporate world. I ran a big and very efficient company
I think, yes. The stockholders always thought so. What is it
that--what is the factor or couple of factors that--it has to
be some single thing, it cannot be a whole series of little
things; it has to be a major, major thing.
Mr. Crichton. Well, just briefly, Senator, in our case it
was the application of normal commercial business practices to
the system, and as I said in my remarks, we reduced the work
force by nearly 20 percent, and that was almost exclusively in
the administrative and overhead area, and we found the system,
when we took it over, was fairly bureaucratic, was--there was a
great deal of redundancy in the system in terms of people in
different regional offices, for instance, throughout the
country, where really a business would centralize a lot of
those functions and so on. So we spent a lot of time on that,
and also in terms of--just bringing into play normal commercial
practices with respect to purchasing and so on and so forth. So
that is how we have done it, and we baselined those costs and
got it down.
Mr. Baker. I think in our experience, looking at air
traffic control corporations in a number of countries, two
things seemed to stand out. One is the kind of administrative
streamlining that Mr. Crichton just talked about, of really
making an organization with fewer layers, and in very few cases
are there reductions in number of actual controllers or
technicians. It is much more the administrative overhead that
can be cut significantly.
Second is a less complex procurement process with a greater
willingness in selected cases of adapting off-the-shelf
equipment and systems, rather than in-house doing a great deal
of what you might call over-specifying to come up with unique
products specifically for this job. Sometimes that is
necessary, but not always, apparently, not to the degree that
it is common within the FAA today.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Baker, your company is one of the
bigger and better companies in the aviation business. You know
that your operation is very much dependent on the effective use
of a national resource, whether that is airspace, whether it is
airports, the infrastructure that goes along with it, even
things like transportation to and from the airports, all of
these things have an effect on the way your business operates.
Now, one of the things that I am sure you have heard talked
about a lot recently is the unlocking, so to speak, of the
trust funds. Now, do air carriers believe that they have not
gotten their money back from their contributions to the trust
fund?
Mr. Baker. I think the airlines are less able to have a
view, and my company, in particular, as to how to fund what
needs to be done, but we clearly can articulate what needs to
be done and how that has to proceed. The trust fund is one of
several alternative vehicles that can bring the money to the
people who have to do the work. The airlines' view has
consistently been that we need to get on with it, and that it
is expensive, but we do not see many alternative approaches to
solving the problem. Clearly the trust fund is another way in
which money comes from our customers' pockets into the process.
If airlines, for instance, were charged on some kind of a user
fee or direct basis, that is an indirect way of getting money
from the ultimate passenger, because that would be reflected in
our fares. So how we choose to do that process, the airlines
have less of a concern than the fact that we eventually show up
with the right amount of money at the right time to get the job
done.
Senator Lautenberg. Now, because I pointed out in my
opening statement that we appropriated roughly $65 billion more
for aviation since the development of the Airport Airways Trust
Fund than has been collected into the trust fund, $65 billion
more. So it is a condition that looks like it has been well
handled. I think hearing what we have heard today, both from
Administrator Garvey, from the Inspector General, and our
friends at the table with you now, that things are improving,
and it has been catch-up. Believe me, when I came down here in
1982, I came out of the computer business. I ran a big company.
It has 35,000--37,000 employees today, and it is a company I
started with two other people, computer business. We celebrated
our 50th anniversary last year and I was the oldest of the
three, and I hope that my condition suggests that I have been
able to work all of those years without showing excessive wear
and tear.
But the fact of the matter is, that equipment that we
abandoned way before I got here was the principal equipment
used by the FAA. I was frightened by it, to see that we are so
antiquated in a place that has such a hold or a control on
safety, on scheduling, et cetera, but we have worked our way
through getting better. The pace is slower than we would like
to see. Very frankly, I speak for myself, and I think probably
the airlines feel that way. Certainly Mr. Mead is still here,
and I know that he has expressed interest in moving the
process. That is what we would like to do.
Mr. Baker. Senator, I would offer one comment, that when
the Administrator flew on New Year's Eve--on American, I might
add--through Dallas/Ft. Worth to San Francisco, I remarked to
her, when she arrived in Dallas/Ft. Worth, that it is very
interesting to note that when there is an immovable deadline,
as a country we get things done.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, when it looks like the world is
going to come apart if you do not, it sure does get finished.
Mr. Baker. And the same thing happens in the corporate
world. You cannot take slippages when you cannot move the
deadline, and the same thing applies in public or the private
sector.
Senator Lautenberg. We do have movable goal posts here, and
it happens because--one of the reasons, I think, is because of
the erratic nature of the funding mechanism, but that does not
mean that we can just go ahead and put everything that we have
in aviation--you folks could not handle it if we suddenly shut
down the railroads or what-have-you. Imagine 10,000 more
flights a year from Boston to down here, the northeast
corridor, if we shut down Amtrak. It would--it is a shot that
would be heard around the world. And we cannot afford to do
that. And I just want to make sure that it is clearly
understood that we appropriate a heck of a lot more into the
fund, and we do it on a need basis. We do not do it on a
mandatory basis, because there are favorites that various
chairmen might have, and you would see something come out of an
area, a modular area in an efficient transportation system that
could triple one area at the expense of another, and that just
would not do us any good. You could not fly all the places
where people need them.
So the--I am reminded of a question, Mr. Baker, about the
airlines and how they feel about Air 21. Are you folks
endorsing the Air 21 concept that has been----
Mr. Baker. I think we endorse it as one possible way to
deal with the problem, but not the only, and we urge that all
of the respective views on how to do it come together quickly,
and we get on with the funding.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; I think you run a risk here, and
that is, though you suggest that you are really are kind of
flexible and do not have much of an opinion, an endorsement of
that proposition is one that is going to, I think, meet an
enormous amount of tension here, because that little exercise I
just went through, if you take it to the planes and you leave
out the trains, or you leave out the cars, I think you would
see us one lopsided nation with lots of people not being able
to get where they want to go, and one does not have to live in
Washington, DC to know that the highways are crowded beyond
their capacity to handle them. We have to have high-speed rail.
We have to have things that will permit aviation to become even
more efficient than it has incredibly been.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Listen, thank you all for your testimony. We will take the
opportunity to submit questions in writing, would ask for a
prompt response, and Mr. Crichton, Mr. Poole, Mr. Baker, thank
you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the nondepartmental witnesses for response
subsequent to the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Mr. Poole
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
TECHNOLOGY, CURRENT SYSTEM, AND WORLD TREND
Question. Mr. Poole, you have been involved in transportation
studies for a long time and particularly have focused on the U.S. Air
Traffic Control System.
Do you believe the United States current Air Traffic Control System
structure is sufficiently agile to keep pace with rapidly changing
technology and sufficiently responsive to customer needs to ensure a
modernized system?
Answer. No, the present U.S. ATC System is falling further and
further behind today's rapidly moving electronics, computer, and
satellite technology. It is also not, in actual practice, a customer-
driven organization. Otherwise (for example), it would not have wasted
a billion dollars on the now-abandoned Microwave Landing System that
its users did not want. I do not believe the ATC System will be
customer-driven until the customers are directly paying its bills--by
means of payments for ATC services paid directly to the provider
organization.
Question. In terms of global trends, would you say that our Air
Traffic Control System is out-of-step with the direction many other
countries seem to be taking to enhance system efficiency while
preserving the highest level of safety?
Answer. Yes, the United States is definitely behind the curve.
There are now at least 16 countries with a commercialized corporate
organization for air traffic control, with direct user charges
providing all or nearly all of these corporations' revenue. Such
countries include Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, New Zealand,
Switzerland, and South Africa. These countries are modernizing more
quickly and at lower cost, their airline delays are being reduced
(while ours are increasing), and their unit costs of providing ATC
services are also coming down, resulting in lower fees to the users.
Ten years ago this was mostly a matter of theory; today, it is a matter
of fact.
BEST STRUCTURE FOR THE UNITED STATES
Question. Mr. Poole, you have done a tremendous amount of work and
have studied how other countries have responded the similar problems in
their Air Traffic Control System and modernization programs.
Of the structures you have studied, which one would be the best
``fit'' for the United States?
Answer. Our assessment is that the model adopted by Canada--of a
not-for-profit corporation, funded by user fees and charges, and
controlled by a board representing all principal stakeholders--is the
best model to adapt for the United States.
Question. What are the major barriers to a structural change that
you propose?
Answer. There is understandable attachment to the status quo by
those operating the present system within the FAA and those in Congress
responsible for oversight of its operations. Based on the overseas
experience, we think ATC commercialization can be a positive change for
most of the current staff, who should be considered part of the team
that works out the details of the new system. And Congress will still
have important oversight functions vis-a-vis DOT and FAA, especially
regarding safety regulation of the new system.
The other main concerns arise from some segments of the airline
industry and from much of the general aviation community. Both fear
serious economic harm if they are faced with user fees that are
significantly higher than what they currently pay in aviation user
taxes. These concerns must be taken very seriously in developing the
principles for ATC fees and charges--and are being given detailed
attention in the work that my organization is currently carrying out.
comparison of aviation in the united states and canada
Question. Mr. Poole, some have argued that too many differences
exist between the U.S. Air System and the Canadian Air System. They
have stated that because of these differences, commercialization is not
the best ``fit'' for the United States and would not translate into the
same success as was experienced in Canada. I understand that the
Canadian System is between one-fifth and one-eighth as large as the
U.S. Air Traffic Control System.
Please compare the systems. What are the major differences between
the United States and Canada?
Answer. The United States has 5 times as many aircraft movements,
3.2 times as many commercial aircraft, and 8.4 times as many general
aviation aircraft as Canada. The countries are approximately equal in
area, but most of Canada's population is in its major cities, near its
southern border with the United States, while the U.S. population and
its major cities are far more geographically dispersed.
Question. Given these differences, how do you respond to those who
make this argument?
Answer. The larger overall amounts of U.S. aviation activity would,
of course, make this the largest ATC commercialization ever undertaken.
But mere size does not argue against the idea's feasibility. The
satellite-based Future Air Navigation System (FANS) technology--based
on GPS plus airborne data-link plus space and ground-based augmentation
(such as LAAS and WAAS)--will provide huge increases in ATC capacity.
The transition to this new technology is likely to be much smoother and
done more cost-effectively by a customer-responsive organization of the
kind we are proposing than by the FAA in its current form.
In terms of managing complex air space, what counts is not the
overall numbers but the density and complexity of air traffic. Germany
(whose system has been corporatized for 7 years) has some of the
world's most dense air traffic--yet its ATC corporation is handling it
better than the former government agency did.
The most relevent difference between the United States and Canada
is the much larger size of general aviation here, as a proportion of
total aviation activity. Clearly, a commercialized system must deal
realistically with this large and important set of players. Our ATC
corporation proposal will present what we believe to be a fair deal for
general aviation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Mr. Poole, you are an advocate of privatization. In your
opinion, what are the major areas that we need to be concerned with if
Congress decides to privatize the Air Traffic Control System?
Answer. Actually, when it comes to air traffic control, what I'm
recommending is better described as corporatization or
commercialization, since I do not think the system should be sold to or
operated by a for-profit company. Rather, I recommend that we follow
Canada's example and create a not-for-profit stakeholder-controlled
corporation, funded directly by fees and charges paid by aviation
users.
In that context, it is vital to structure the corporation so that
all stakeholders are fairly represented in the decision-making,
especially regarding fees and charges. It is also very important to
make clear to the public that air safety will be strengthened, by
putting the ATC provider (the new corporation) at arms-length from the
safety regulator (the FAA), just as the airlines, general aviation, and
the airframe manufacturers are all at arms-length from the safety
regulator. This is seen as one of the important benefits of ATC
corporatization in other countries.
Question. Mr. Poole, what are the major arguments for and against
commercializing the Air Traffic Control System?
Answer. The major arguments in favor of commercialization are as
follows:
1. To change the corporate culture of the ATC provider to one that
is highly motivated to respond to user needs, because it is paid
directly by its users for services provided.
2. To provide a dependable source of funding for both operations
and ongoing modernization, via fees and charges that can support the
issuance of revenue bonds.
3. To free the corporation from the remaining constraints of
Federal personnel and procurement regulations, so that it is free to
operate like other high-tech service businesses.
4. To remove the conflict of interest inherent in the FAA's current
dual role as both ATC service provider and aviation safety regulator--
thereby enhancing aviation safety.
The major arguments against appear to be:
1. The system should be run as a public service, not to make a
profit. (But this objection is not relevant to a not-for-profit
corporation like NAV Canada, which is what I am recommending.)
2. A commercialized system might pay less and employ fewer
controllers. (In fact, the evidence suggests that corporatized systems
tend to pay more (they pay whatever they need to, to obtain the best
people for each position, especially for top management). On the other
hand, it is likely that advanced technology will inevitably make ATC
less labor-intensive, so the work force will shrink over time whether
or not ATC is commercialized.)
3. A commercialized system might be dominated by the interests of
major airlines, putting low-fare carriers and general aviation at risk.
(This is why a stakeholder board governance structure is so critical to
the design of the new system; it must serve the interests of all
stakeholders.)
4. A commercialized system might jeopardize air safety. (I believe
this to be the weakest argument against ATC commercialization. This
change should strengthen air safety for three reasons: (1) It puts the
safety regulator at arms-length from the service provider, ending
today's inherent conflict-of-interest, (2) It facilitates a more-rapid
shift to newer and better technology, which will make operations safer,
and (3) The private liability insurers of the ATC corporation will
provide an additional layer of safety oversight, besides that provided
by the FAA.)
Question. Mr. Poole, if our Air Traffic Control System is
commercialized, how would you ensure that large commercial air carriers
do not over-shadow other smaller stakeholders, such as general aviation
pilots, small carriers, and smaller airports?
Answer. The key ingredient is a carefully balanced stakeholder
board, analogous to the board now governing NAV Canada. Our current
draft proposal calls for a 15-member board, with 4 seats for various
airline interests, 2 seats for general aviation interests, one
representing airports, one representing ATC employees, and 2
representing the Federal Government (DOD and DOT). These 10 would
select the CEO, and those 11 would select four independent, at-large
directors.
Question. Mr. Poole, privatization is difficult to forward as an
alternative management structure if we wait for all the interested
parties: the Administration, the controllers, the airlines, General
Aviation, Congress, and the flying public to agree on the specific
details of the structure, isn't it?
Answer. Is it better to try to incrementally privatize like Mr.
Mead suggests or to follow the United Kingdom's model where the
decision is made to privatize, consistent with broad principles, and
let the interested parties hammer out the details?
ATC commercialization was a user-led reform in Canada. I think we
are moving toward airline-industry consensus on the general approach,
and there seems to be parallel interest within the Adminstration (at
least to the extent of something like their 1994-95 USATS Federal
corporation proposal). Once a serious proposal is on the table with
strong industry support, I believe that other stakeholders (primarily
general aviation groups and employees) will be willing to negotiate
what they consider to be a reasonable deal that protects their
interests within that framework. But I agree that it is not necessary
for Congress to decide on all the details. Better to enact a good,
solid framework of principles and let the stakeholders work out the
details.
______
Questions Submitted to Mr. Crichton
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
SAFETY
Question. Mr. Crichton, some have expressed concern about
commercializing air traffic control primarily because they fear that
safety would be compromised.
Based on your experience at NAV Canada, has safety increased,
decreased, or remained the same since NAV Canada was established?
Answer. We believe the level of safety has increased. One measure
is the significant reduction in the rate of operating irregularities
per 100,000 flights that we have achieved.
In addition, the privatization has separated the service provider
(NAV Canada) from the safety regulator (Transport Canada), whereas
previously the service provider and the safety regulator were the same
entity. An inherent structural conflict of interest has been removed
and Transport Canada now conducts a robust safety oversight role to a
degree which they never did before.
In addition, management at all levels in NAV Canada have a portion
of their compensation linked to maintaining and enhancing safety
levels.
NAV CANADA USER FEES STRUCTURE
Question. Mr. Crichton, some air traffic control users and
stakeholders groups in the United States are wary of user charges. I
understand that Canada's major aviation stakeholder groups were able to
agree on a user fee structure.
Please describe NAV Canada's user fee structure. On what basis are
they charged?
Answer. Large commercial air carriers pay movement based fees
related to aircraft weight and distance flown. Smaller commercial air
carriers have a choice of paying movement based fees or daily charges
which have a cap. Small general aviation aircraft usually pay a flat
annual fee related to the weight of the aircraft.
There are numerous categories and details too numerous to list
here, but which can be accessed on our web site at www.navcanada.ca or
through our Customer Guide to Charges which is being sent to you via
courier.
Question. Who pays user fees and are any users exempted from
charges, such as the military?
Answer. Some exemptions from air navigation services charges are
provided for certain categories of flights. These are listed below:
--Gliders, ultralights and balloons;
--All aircraft weighing less that 600 kg (1,323 pounds);
--Aircraft or flights dedicated to search and rescue operated under
the direction of police or the Department of National Defense;
--Aircraft or flights dedicated to firefighting and related
operational training;
--Domestic U.S. flights which over fly Canadian airspace;
--Aircraft or flights dedicated to air ambulance operations paid by
government;
--Test flights performed exclusively for the following purposes:
Testing aircraft following overhauls, modifications, repairs
and inspections for which a certificate of compliance is to be
given; or Enabling aircraft to qualify for the issue or renewal
of a certificate of airworthiness;
--Flights aborted (not reaching their next destination and returning
to the point of flight departure) due to weather conditions;
--Flights taking part in air shows;
--Flights operated exclusively for a registered charity as defined in
the Income Tax Act (Canada) or equivalent foreign statute;
--State aircraft of a foreign country, unless charging has been
authorized by an Order-in-Council; and
--Aircraft or flights operated under the authority of the Minister of
National Defense.
Question. What kind of appeal process exists regarding Nav Canada's
fees and charges?
Answer. Fees and charges may be appealed by a user to the Canadian
Transportation Agency if a user believes the fees and charges violate
one or more of the charging principles set out in the Civil Air
Navigation Services Commercialization Act or on the grounds that NAV
Canada failed to abide by the notice provisions in the Act. The
relevant sections of the Act are 32 through 54 inclusive. We will
forward to you by courier a copy of the Act.
Question. Did Canada eliminate specific taxes to compensate for the
new user fees?
Answer. Yes; while in government, the ANS was largely financed
through the proceeds of the Air Transportation Tax on tickets issued to
passengers for flights which originated or terminated in Canada. This
tax had a maximum cap of $55 per ticket and was repealed in two stages
as NAV Canada phased in its user fees. This tax was totally repealed in
November 1998.
SUCCESSES OF NAV CANADA
Question. Mr. Crichton, I understand that NAV Canada has improved
air traffic control efficiently, developed cutting edge technological
solutions to air traffic control challenges, increased controller
productivity and lowered the cost to system users by more than 30
percent.
In you opinion, would this impressive set of accomplishments be
possible if the government were directly involved in the day-to-day
operation of NAV Canada?
Answer. No, most of these achievements would not have been possible
and the government recognized this as one of their motivating factors
in pursuing the privatization. The government realized that its
structure related to personnel policies, procurement, capital program
management and customer responsiveness was ill suited to what amounted
to the provision of a complex commercial service in a fast paced,
commercial market place.
PROSPECT OF THE NAV CANADA MODEL IN THE UNITED STATES
Question. Mr. Crichton, NAV Canada clearly has impressive results.
Your organization has lowered capital expenditures while improving
efficiency and air side capacity.
In you opinion, would the NAV Canada model be successful in the
United States?
Answer. In my opinion it would be. The NAV Canada model elegantly
balances the vital interests of all ANS stakeholders.
Question. The government retains its main public interest
preoccupation to oversee safety while at the same time receiving a
substantial sum of money for the assets while shedding any ongoing
financial liability. The commercial airlines obtain a low cost,
customer driven private sector corporation in which they participate at
the Board of Directors level. General Aviation obtains service
guarantees, reasonable costs and a seat at the Board table. The ANS
unions also receive Board representation and formal recognition of
their vital role.
What are the main difference between the United States and Canada
that would make it more difficult to adopt a model like NAV Canada?
Answer. I believe the main differences, between the United States
and Canadian ANS's are quantitative rather than qualitative. The United
States is the largest ANS in the world and Canada is number two. Proper
commercial management principles will work in both cases. Some other
differences are the attitude of general aviation and organized labour.
However, I think their concerns are capable of being addressed as we
did in Canada provided the political will is there along with some
industry leadership.
ACCESS TO SMALL AND RURAL COMMUNITIES
Question. Mr. Crichton, as you know, New Mexico has many small and
rural communities. Air service is very important to these communities,
and contributes to their economic well-being.
Do any protections exist either in the NAV Canada legislation or
operating procedures pertaining to air access to small or rural
communities? If so, please describe the protections.
Answer. Yes; the legislation contains specific protections for
northern and remote communities. These protections are contained in
sections 18 through 22. In effect these communities are given a veto
over reductions in service levels which can only be overridden by the
Federal Minister of Transport.
Question. Has NAV Canada identified any air traffic services where
the costs far exceed the returns?
Yes; and they generally fall into the category of services provided
to remote communities and general aviation. However, these tradeoffs
have been accepted by most stakeholders as reasonable in the context of
operating a national ANS in a country as large and diverse as Canada.
Question. Has NAV Canada discontinued air service in a rural
community?
Answer. No; we have, however, adjusted the method of service
delivery in some communities without materially affecting the level of
service.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. Mr. Crichton, the FAA has had difficulty increasing air
traffic controller productivity, yet NAV Canada has increased
productivity by about 20 percent. Why have you been so successful in
this area while FAA has had so much difficulty?
Answer. I cannot comment on the FAA situation as I am not familiar
with their specific issues. NAV Canada's approach with our controllers'
union was to offer significant wage increases provided there were
substantial quid pro quo's in work rule changes to enhance productivity
in a real and measurable sense. These goals were attained through long,
intensive, hard bargaining. It was not easy and management had to stand
its ground in spite of intense pressure--in this we had the full
support of our Board of Directors and ultimately the Federal
Government, who was prepared to intervene in the event of a strike.
Question. Mr. Crichton, recent concerns about increases in delays
and cancellations and customer dissatisfaction with airline service in
the United States has fueled debate about the need to restructure or
commercialize its air traffic control system. What impact has
privatization had on airline delays and safety in Canada?
Answer. Since NAV Canada took over, delays attributable to ATC have
been gradually reduced. This has been accomplished through a variety of
means:
--Increased controller staffing levels to fill chronic shortages
inherited from government;
--Increased customer collaboration in decision making;
--Increased focus on quickly introducing proven, automated systems
and procedures that expedite traffic flows; and
--Enhancement of Safety under NAV Canada.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Charles E. Grassley
Question. Mr. Crichton, I understand that each Federal employee
working for NAV Canada received a one-time payment of approximately
$14,000 U.S. dollars. Who bore the cost of that payment, NAV Canada or
the government? Do you feel such separation pay was critical to the
success of NAV Canada?
Answer. The background behind this payment is that it was a
contractual obligation of the Federal Government to its employees. Many
years ago the Federal Government agreed to a severance arrangement
whereby if any Federal employee ceased to be a Federal public servant,
they would be paid a one-time severance equal to 1 week's salary for
each year of service up to a maximum number of weeks.
This was simply a contractual obligation that was triggered by the
privatization. There were two choices. The government could pay the
employees directly in cash on transfer to NAV Canada, or pay the
accrued liability to NAV Canada as a closing adjustment with NAV Canada
becoming liable to make the payment to individuals when they eventually
left NAV Canada. It was the preference of employees to receive the
money in cash when they transferred over and the government agreed to
this.
I do not believe that this situation had any effect on NAV Canada,
as it was a longstanding legal obligation pertaining to the government
to which NAV Canada was not a party and it was seen as such. On the
other hand, if the Federal Government had tried to back away from this
obligation, the employees would have no doubt sought legal redress and
this would have adversely affected moral. Happily, this did not happen.
subcommittee recess
Senator Domenici. We stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., Thursday, February 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Specter, Bond, Bennett, Campbell,
Stevens, Lautenberg, Byrd, Kohl, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF RODNEY E. SLATER, SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION
opening remarks
Senator Shelby. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Secretary, we welcome you, again, to the committee.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. You have been here many times. We have
worked with you on many, many issues.
My colleague, Senator Lautenberg, who is the ranking
Democrat on the Budget Committee, has to go to the budget
hearings. And I am going to defer to him at this time for the
first opening statement, and then I will pick it up.
Senator Lautenberg. Okay.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. That is very kind, Mr. Chairman. I
thank my colleagues, as well, for indulging me for just these
few minutes.
I wanted to be here to welcome Secretary Slater and his
staff to our hearing this morning as we review the President's
budget request for the Department of Transportation for fiscal
2001.
With this budget, the Administration has shown that
transportation should be and will be a priority, even as
overall Federal spending is held down to reasonable limits. The
President's request for the DOT of just under $55 billion
represents a 9.4 percent increase above the level enacted for
the current fiscal year.
And I think it is important to point out that if we are
successful in matching the Administration's request in the 2001
appropriations bill, overall Department of Transportation
funding will have risen more than $12.4 billion or almost 30
percent since my friend, Senator Shelby, took the reins of this
subcommittee.
Last week, during our joint hearing with the Budget
Committee on the topic of aviation finance, I emphasized that
an appropriate balance must be maintained when we invest in
improvements to our national transportation enterprise.
The Administration's budget for the fiscal year 2001, I
believe, reflects that balance. And I am very pleased to see
the sizable increases requested for both the FAA and the Coast
Guard's operating budget. Both of these agencies have been
stretched to the max. The FAA has some new equipment coming
online that must be installed and maintained.
The Coast Guard, according to the Commandant, Admiral Loy,
has exhausted itself fighting the war on drugs in the
Caribbean, interrupting illegal immigration, addressing the
critical domestic missions here at home. I had the opportunity,
over these past few weeks, to be down at the South Pole and to
watch one of our Coast Guard icebreakers do its job; monotonous
and exhausting, hard, but it is essential. Wherever you see the
hand of the United States extended, it always seems to carry a
Coast Guard implication with it.
So, I am pleased to see these rather healthy increases that
will allow these agencies to operate at full capacity and at
full effectiveness.
MASS TRANSIT
And as we turn our attention to the infrastructure
programs, here, again, the Administration has maintained its
commitment as to balance between all modes of transportation.
The Federal Transit Administration is slated to receive a 9
percent increase. It is welcome news, frankly, to a Senator
from the most densely populated state in the nation.
Specifically, in my State, they have requested $121 million
for the Hudson-Bergen light rail system and $10 million for the
Newark-Elizabeth rail link. And perhaps, most importantly, this
budget also formerly signals the Administration's intention to
sign a full funding grant agreement for Phase II of the Hudson-
Bergen light rail system. Once completed, Phase II of the
system will realize a long-awaited goal; giving 100,000 riders
a day improved access between our major cities in northern New
Jersey and ultimately to the marketplace in New York City.
While I know that some of the funding sources for the
Administration's new initiatives might be controversial, I want
to commend the Administration's drive to get more productivity
out of our transportation system. In this day and age, we must
carefully consider the environmental impacts of our
transportation improvements, and we must also face the fact
that we are constrained, not only in the availability of unused
right-of-way, but also the availability of funds.
We must make aggressive efforts to get more out of our
existing transportation infrastructure. That means getting more
productivity out of our highway system. And the President's
proposed $140 million increase in the Intelligent
Transportation Systems, a boost of 143 percent, is intended to
do just that. So is the President's proposal to use $468
million for a new high-speed rail initiative.
HIGH-SPEED RAIL
I am pleased that we are finally making some progress on
the issue of high-speed rail. Our transportation infrastructure
is bursting at the seams from overuse. And our ability to build
new roads and airports is limited. We just don't have the space
in many of the areas of the country.
At the same time, our rail infrastructure suffers from
serious under investment and remains a largely untapped
resource. While we have almost tripled our Federal investment
in highways and aviation, over the past 20 years, investment in
our national passenger rail system is actually 50 percent lower
than it was 20 years ago.
If we are to maintain a balanced transportation system
capable of dealing with increasing travel demands, then we must
reverse this trend and begin matching our investments in
highways and aviation with serious investments in our rail
infrastructure.
That is why I introduced the High-Speed Rail Investment Act
last fall. This legislation uses innovative financing to
provide $10 billion in capital funds for the development of
high-speed rail corridors across the nation over the next 10
years. We currently have a bipartisan group of 32 cosponsors in
the Senate, and companion House legislation will be introduced
by a bipartisan group led by Congressman Oberstar and
Congressman Houghton.
Mr. Secretary, I hope that we will be able to work together
to provide a secure and long-term funding source for the
development of high-speed rail corridors across the country.
AMTRAK
On the subject of passenger rail, Mr. Chairman, I have got
to express my concern over the fact that our current hearing
schedule allows no opportunity for Amtrak to testify before the
subcommittee this year. When you add together the
Administration's high-speed rail initiative and Amtrak's core
budget request, we have a pending budget request before the
subcommittee for intercity passenger rail of almost $1 billion.
Now, I think we have a responsibility to hear from Amtrak
on this request. And I would hope that we could find time on
the schedule to do that. I note that on March 2, you have
scheduled a hearing on the implementation of the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act, and I am pleased that we are going to
have that hearing, but I believe that if we are going to set
aside a spot to have a hearing that is authorizing in nature,
we ought to also take the time to have a hearing on Amtrak, Mr.
Chairman. I hope that we will be able to do that.
I want to thank you for the courtesy extended. And once
again, I thank the Secretary and this whole team. They work
hard at the job. We do not always give them the resources that
are necessary to do the job, but they do very well with what
they get. And I hope that we will continue to be able to
support them, as needed.
Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I will try to be
as brief as I can. We have a lot of people here today.
I must admit, however, that this is the most creative
budget that I have seen since becoming chairman of the
subcommittee. At first blush, it appears that the President's
budget increases Federal spending on transportation by nearly
$5 billion, but on a closer inspection of this budget, the
Administration clearly is taking credit for numbers that were
set by TEA-21, additional funds which became available because
of higher than anticipated gas tax revenues, and spending
financed by new user tax increases that the Congress has
already rejected. In the end, this is barely a current services
budget.
USER FEES
Mr. Secretary, the President's budget request is not only
misleading, I think it is dangerous. It assumes that new user
fees for aviation, rail safety inspections, marine navigation
aids, and hazardous materials will offset $1.3 billion of this
budget's costs. The proposals have been submitted to Congress
each year that I have been chairman of the subcommittee, and
each year, Mr. Secretary, I have told you that Congress is not
interested in enacting new user taxes increases on the
transportation community. Perhaps it is time to adopt, Mr.
Secretary, a ``three-strikes-and-you're-out'' law for budget
gimmicks.
REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
Also, this budget includes proposals to divert highway gas
tax revenues to other activities, such as passenger rail,
highway safety programs, and motor carrier inspections. These
may be popular programs which merit our consideration for
funding, but I can assure you that proposals to fund these
types of programs with gas tax revenues are as dead on arrival
in the Senate as new user fees.
The widespread practice of transferring funds in this
budget is largely the result of the budgetary firewalls on
certain transportation accounts. Considering the excessive
movement of funds, I fail to understand, Mr. Secretary, why I
would read press reports indicating that you are willing to
support an aviation firewall.
This would only exacerbate the conditions that forced you
to resort to gimmicks in the first place and would further tie
your hands in managing all the transportation programs for
which you, as Secretary, have the responsibility.
The President's budget request is not only misleading, it
is irresponsible. It raises expectations of various user groups
and interested parties, while both of us know that neither you
nor I can deliver on the empty promises it makes to diverting
highway dollars to non-highway accounts or activities offset by
new user tax fees.
I think we may need to look for a mechanism that requires
the Department to present a budget that internally offsets any
spending which requires shifting resources out of a protected
budgetary account to a non-eligible transportation account or
which is funded by new user fees that the Department doesn't
even have the cost accounting system in place to implement.
Other than that, Mr. Secretary, it is great to see you. You
are always welcome here. I have certainly enjoyed working with
you. And once we get past this, we will get down to other
things.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
TEA-21
A healthy national transportation system is a vital
component of a prosperous future. TEA-21, as it is known, was a
great legislative accomplishment of the last Congress, and one
in which I was deeply involved, as the Secretary is well aware.
A key feature of TEA-21 is that it placed into law a
mechanism to ensure that all funds deposited into the highway
account of our Highway Trust Fund will be spent on the purposes
for which they are collected; namely, the construction and
restoration of our nation's highways. In doing so, TEA-21 re-
established the trust in the Highway Trust Fund.
TEA-21, like any major piece of legislation, represented a
compromise between many different regional interests and
differing policy positions held by members of the House of
Representatives, the Senate, and the Administration.
I do not attend many signing ceremonies, but I did attend
the signing ceremony for TEA-21. It was the only signing
ceremony I have attended, I suppose, in many years. And I can
tell you that on that day, there were not any ``nay sayers'' to
be found in this town to tell the President that he should not
sign it. Everybody had already made their compromise. That is
grammatically incorrect. Everyone had already made his or her
compromise. Everyone had something to be proud of in that bill.
EMERGENCY RELIEF
Even so, the Administration is now proposing a number of
major changes to TEA-21. Perhaps the most destructive of these
proposals is the Administration's plan to take a portion of the
highway funding provided in TEA-21 away from all 50 States, in
order to address a backlog of emergency relief applications.
Every year, in the past, when the cost of these
applications has exceeded the funds available,
Administrations--be they Republican or Democratic--have
submitted requests for emergency appropriations. Without
exception, Congress has always provided the necessary emergency
relief appropriations. But, in the last 2 years, a new pattern
has emerged.
This Administration has knowingly allowed the amount of
unfunded applications for emergency relief to grow to more than
$600 million. And now, rather than request these funds as an
emergency supplemental appropriation, the Administration,
instead, is proposing to address the bulk of the backlog by
diverting some $400 million from the highway funding allocated
to the States under TEA-21.
This new approach is particularly perplexing when one looks
at the fiscal year 2000 emergency appropriations the
Administration is requesting. Among them, the almost $1 billion
requested to assist Colombia in its drug war.
Appropriately, roughly $250 million in emergency assistance
is being requested for victims of Hurricanes Floyd and Dennis,
and the forest fires in the west. But these same disasters
caused destruction to our Federal highways. And yet, the
Administration is saying that highway damages caused by natural
disasters are not emergencies; that instead, we should take
highway funds from all 50 States to cover those costs.
REDIRECTING HIGHWAY FUNDING
I am also concerned by another proposal of the
Administration; namely, to divert another $600 million in funds
that were guaranteed for highway construction under TEA-21 and
use them for purposes completely outside of the Federal Highway
Administration.
This is the second year in a row that the Administration
has made a proposal of this kind; and frankly, I believe it
represents a gross abuse of the trust that we established with
the American people in TEA-21. The amounts that were guaranteed
for highway spending under TEA-21 should be spent on highways.
This Administration is, instead, proposing once again to
rewrite TEA-21 to send needed highway funds to programs, such
as new high-speed rail initiatives, highway research efforts,
and welfare-to-work programs in the Federal Transit
Administration.
I want to emphasize that I am not, necessarily, opposed to
any of these initiatives, but they should be justified on their
own merits. I am very much opposed to deriving their funding by
redirecting funds that were guaranteed for highway construction
under TEA-21.
And finally, I am disturbed by the Administration's
proposal to rewrite TEA-21 in a manner that chooses a new set
of winners and losers within the Federal-aid Highway Program.
Under the President's proposed budget, certain authorized
programs would receive increases in both contract authority and
obligational authority, well above the levels called for in
TEA-21.
Most of these selected programs would be effectively
guaranteed 100 cents on the dollar of their proposed increase.
Since the total amount of spending is set in TEA-21, the
Administration is required to cut the amount of obligational
authority that will be available to all other programs in order
to pay for their proposed increases.
Let me state that more clearly: When the Administration
proposes to fund certain programs at levels above the
authorizations in TEA-21, those dollars must come out of
someone else's allocation.
When one reviews the details of the Administration's
proposal, it is clear that the biggest loser in the
Administration's sweepstakes is the formula funding provided to
the States. Formula funding to all 50 States would be cut by
more than $1.2 billion in obligational authority below the
levels called for under TEA-21. Within that amount, funds
available for the Appalachian Development Highway System would
be reduced by almost $10 million.
Mr. Chairman, when we have the opportunity to question the
Secretary about the details of his budget proposal, I look
forward to inquiring as to the rationale behind some of the
winners and losers that have been chosen in developing this
budget.
MISSISSIPPI DELTA AND APPALACHIA
I do not agree that this is the time or the place to
rewrite TEA-21. And, I most certainly do not agree that funding
for the Appalachian Highway System should take a cut in order
to fund any other program in TEA-21 that the Administration has
decided is more important.
It is ironic, in the extreme, Mr. Chairman, that one of the
new initiatives for which the Administration is seeking funding
is an effort to reduce poverty in the Mississippi Delta through
increased road construction. The mission of this initiative is
identical to that of the Appalachian Development Highway
System. Yet, this budget proposes to fund the--and I am not
against funding it--but proposes to fund this new Mississippi
Delta program at the same time that the Administration is
proposing to cut funding for the Appalachian Development
Highway System, in connection with which, the people of
Appalachia were promised a highway system in 1964 or 1965--35
years ago. It is not complete, yet.
I shall not support that approach. And, I trust that this
subcommittee will not support it either.
Now, despite my concerns with the budget, I, along with
others, certainly welcome the Secretary here this morning. We
have worked well together in the past. He is a skilled and
knowledgeable Cabinet officer. We do not always agree, but, so
what?
He has always been honest--and my statement says here ``and
forthright'' with me. I think, last year, we had a little
problem understanding just what kind of a curve ball he was
trying to throw the subcommittee. But, he is a gentleman and a
scholar. And, I look forward to hearing his testimony this
morning.
Senator Shelby. Senator Campbell.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
time. I understand we have a vote in about 20 minutes. So, I am
going to try and make my statement brief. But I also welcome
Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Campbell [continuing]. And also thank you for being
accessible. We haven't always agreed, but you have been there
and willing to discuss our differences. And I appreciate that.
GAS TAX REVENUES
I want to just maybe make a couple of comments alluding to
what my friends have already spoken to. I, also, am very
concerned about the President's budget, because as I understand
it, these increases are going to have to come from fuel taxes--
increased fuel taxes. And I do not know if you have purchased
gas in the last few days, but I have, and it is already just
literally out of sight. We get calls in our office all the time
wondering why Congress is not doing something to keep the price
of gasoline at the pumps down.
And I am also concerned that the President's plan wants to
redirect that money to pay for trains and transit programs.
Senator Byrd spoke to that. Senator Shelby did, too. But TEA-21
contained provisions that all of the gas tax revenues would go
toward transportation improvements, and any surplus would be
divided among the States.
And as Senator Byrd has said, there are going to be some
winners and loser under the President's budget, but I can tell
you, as I see the numbers, Colorado is clearly going to be a
loser. Under TEA-21, we should receive $308,110,281 in gas tax
surplus. In the President's budget, we are going to lose over
$15 million and would actually only receive just a little over
$292 million.
We have the fourth fastest growing State, as you know. And
we are going to have to fight for every dollar. So, from my
perspective, that simply will not fly with the people of
Colorado; the fact that we are going to actually lose money,
when we need so much help in a fast-growing State.
NUCLEAR WASTE
Let me also just mention one other thing. This is not
really in your purview or jurisdiction, but as of 11 o'clock,
it very well may be, if the Nuclear Waste Bill passes.
Many of us are very divided on that. I have spoken to my
Department of Transportation, yesterday, in Colorado, and a
number of very interested parties, like Colorado Ski Country,
which is one of our biggest employers--it is the backbone of
our tourist industry, as you probably know. If this bill
passes, the transportation of nuclear waste--I assume that the
routes are going to be set by the Department of Transportation.
We do not have very many options, because the main
corridors for both rail and highways go through our
metropolitan areas of Denver, as you probably know. Many people
are still gun-shy out there, if I can use that word, from less
than two decades ago, when a truckload of torpedoes turned over
right in the main intersection in the middle of Denver--what
was called the Mousetrap.
It was days before they could get that cleaned up, because
nobody knew if they were armed or if they were dangerous and a
number of other things.
I can tell you that there are places that you have traveled
in our State, where the rails go by--in Glenwood Canyon, as an
example--1,000 feet straight down to rivers down below. And
accidents regularly happen; not so much with trains, but
certainly on the trucks.
We have 6 and 7 percent grades going over the Rocky
Mountains; in fact, more than our neighbor to the north,
Wyoming and Montana, and more than our neighbor to the south,
New Mexico. And it simply could be just a devastating thing in
our State if there was some kind of a wreck, an accident.
Now, I understand the thinking. Everybody wants to get rid
of that stuff. I liken it sometimes to the guy that builds a
nice home, but he wants to put the septic system on his
neighbor's land. Everybody wants the jobs, the economic
opportunity, and so on, from those wonderful union jobs that
are paid at these plants, but they do not want the waste in
their State.
They want to dump it in somebody else's. And the fact of
the matter is, we have got a couple of places like that, and
Colorado would probably like to get rid of it, but you think of
the danger of transporting it.
I was going to ask you, if we have the time, if you have
given any thought about alternative routes; about where the
State would come in; who would have the final jurisdiction if
the State disagrees with the route, other than the Federal
Government; and would we have some of those routes just
literally foisted upon us, when we think it could be
terrifically dangerous?
So, I will stop with that comment, Mr. Chairman, and hope
we have some time to get into some questions before we vote.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, it is good to see you again and to have the
opportunity to talk with you. Obviously, we have some warm
issues that we need to discuss.
I express my personal appreciation to you for your
understanding of the needs that we have in Missouri. Being
right at the heart of the nation, we are the crossroads, the
cross-section for all kinds of transportation. And you have
helped us with bridges and with highways. And you know the
importance of rail and air transport to our State.
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
I will submit a much longer statement for the record,
because, like many of the other members of the committee, I
have two other hearings that I have to attend right now, but I
do want to follow-up on the comments that have been made about
the President's proposed robbing of the Highway Trust Fund.
There is very little I could say that could improve upon the
statements of Senator Byrd, Chairman Shelby.
I think gross abuse of trust is probably a good way to
phrase the raid that has been proposed on TEA-21. We worked
TEA-21 out as a long, hard compromise. You may remember that
that compromise was one that I joined with our dear late friend
Senator John Chafee, to fashion. We worked with people on all
sides--on this committee, on the budget committee--and we
achieved what we think is a compromise. Nobody got everything
they wanted, but that is why it is called compromise. That is
why it is called legislation. Back in Missouri, they call it
the Bond-Chafee Plan.
Now, it is possible to run over me on this, but I think I
have got a lot of friends. And my guess is that this dog is not
going to hunt. And I would hope that you would not bother
wasting our time trying to pursue something that is so
outrageous and such a flagrant violation of the spirit of
compromise that was accomplished in TEA-21.
AVIATION SAFETY
Let me touch briefly on a couple of other things. I hope
that you will talk about the Open Skies Agreements which are
necessary to facilitate increased global trade.
The International Civil Aviation Organization performed an
audit of the FAA to determine if it met international
standards, and it did. And I also would be interested in
knowing to what extent you are providing assistance to other
countries to meet the terms of the ICAO audit.
Finally, and very important to me, as one who flies often
and who was stopped by a television reporter in Miami on Sunday
to ask if I dared get onto an MD-80 aircraft after the tragedy
of the Alaskan Airlines flight.
I join with my colleagues in extending our deepest sympathy
to the families and friends of the victims of that flight. But
we also need to know, going forward, whether the outstanding
safety record of the MD-80 is in place. We want to be assured,
as the traveling public wants to know, what steps are being
taken to assure the safety of the MD-80 and others.
I indicated on that unexpected interview that we were going
to be on the FAA like a dog on a bone, if they did not assure
the safety for the traveling public of that and the other
airplanes. I believe that assuring the safety is something that
all of us demand from the FAA. And we urge your priority
attention to this matter.
Again, my apologies for having to leave, but I will submit
this, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to reading the record and
following the discussions in this committee.
Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Slater.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kohl. We appreciate your coming before us today to
discuss the Department of Transportation budget for fiscal year
2001.
I need to be at another hearing in a few minutes, but I
want to point out a few concerns this morning. We look forward
to working with you as the appropriations process continues.
HIGHWAY TAX SHIFT
The transportation budget you have put forward for fiscal
year 2001 continues our strong investment in highways and
transit to areas in which we have made great progress. But your
budget also presents some false choices on other issues.
For example, you suggest shifting $468 million in highway
dollars to a new high-speed rail capital account. Now, we share
the same goals, Mr. Secretary. The Midwestern States are
energized about high-speed rail and would clearly benefit from
this funding, but it is unfair to condition that support on a
choice between highways and rail.
So, while the overture of Federal support is greatly
appreciated, it is my hope that you will also help with more
clear-cut solutions, such as Senator Lautenberg's legislation
to establish a high-speed rail tax credit.
LORAN-C RADIO NAVIGATION
Mr. Secretary, this budget provides $20 million for LORAN-C
radio navigation upgrades, an account that your department had
long ignored in previous budget requests.
We thank you for coming around to our consistent support
for this vital safety and navigation aid, but as you know, we
have now been in policy limbo on LORAN for over 6 years, and
you have failed to deliver the promised announcement on LORAN's
continuation.
The Administration's handling of this issue has reached a
point of embarrassment. Now that you have delivered the dollars
to LORAN, you need to work much harder at delivering policy
direction and leadership.
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER
On a separate subject, and on behalf of the Great Lakes,
let me commend you for providing $110 million for the Mackinaw
icebreaker replacement vessel. The productive life is nearing
an end, so this funding is a major priority for the Midwestern
region.
We are also encouraged by your funding for three more Coast
Guard buoy tenders for construction at Wisconsin's Marinette
Marine.
AIRLINE COMPETITION
Lastly, Mr. Slater, we continue to be concerned about the
state of airline competition. Travelers in Wisconsin and many
other smaller and medium-sized markets continue to have few
alternatives to the large incumbent carriers on many routes. As
a result, only some of the benefits promised during the airline
deregulation have been realized. Fares continue to be high on
many routes and choice of services limited.
Moreover, startup carriers face serious obstacles in
establishing competing service to the incumbent carriers. These
include arguably predatory conduct by the incumbents, designed
to drive their competitors out of the market. And for their
part, the established large airlines seem to be content to
divide the country into separate fiefdoms defended by fortress
hubs, avoiding competing with each other, and thereby ensuring
high fares and high profits.
In my opinion, the large airlines' behavior may not, in
many instances, be unlawful under the prevailing anti-trust
laws; however, it is clear that abuses exist in the airline
industry and that the competitive conditions are far, far from
ideal.
It is time, Mr. Secretary, for serious efforts at promoting
airline competition and preventing the abuses which continue to
occur.
Again, I need to move on this morning, but thank you for
coming before us, Mr. Secretary. And you can expect to continue
our discussions and exchanges on these important issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett. I am interested in your opening statement,
that you quote my old boss, John Volpe, and remind me once
again that I sat at that same table at Mr. Volpe's side before
this subcommittee. I do not know whether Senator Byrd was on it
at the time, but I rather suspect he probably was, back in 1969
and 1970. The problems John Volpe addressed, to which you
refer, are still with you, and they still will be.
Being Secretary of Transportation is like being Sisyphus.
You keep pushing that rock up the hill and it keeps rolling
back down. So, I congratulate you on your determination to keep
pushing it forward and deal with this. And I will not visit all
of the other issues that my colleagues have visited, because I
think you have gotten the message rather strongly from them.
And I will not pile on.
I-15 DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT
I do want to do some parochial things and extend my
congratulations and gratitude to you and to the Department--
your predecessors at the Department--for the way you have
worked with us in Utah on the I-15 Design-Build Project.
If I might boast a little for my colleagues, this is a
major redesign-rebuild of a critical highway section in the
heart of the population core of the State of Utah, which, under
normal circumstances, would take 9 years. It is being done in
four-and-a-half, in a design-build project that is kind of a
model project that the Department of Transportation is
watching.
And at the moment, it is ahead of schedule and under
budget. It is the flexibility that the Secretary has shown, the
application of discretionary funds, in a logical way that has
made it possible. We are very grateful to you for your
willingness to do that. We think we will become a model for
other projects around the country that will show acceleration
of time and an impact on the budget.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize Jack Basso, who is
here with you, Mr. Secretary, who has been extremely helpful in
the pressure-cooker that we have of the Olympics. Nothing would
be worse for us in Utah, or I think more embarrassing for
Americans, to have the Olympics come to Utah and have the
television cameras show nothing but orange cones and traffic
jams getting to and from the Olympics.
Mr. Basso, working with the Utah Transit Authority and the
Salt Lake Olympic Committee, as well as the members of the
Congress, both here and in the House, if I may--the members of
the other body have been a little bit more difficult to deal
with than Mr. Basso has, but I think it is a tribute to you,
Mr. Secretary, that you are surrounded by people of quality,
who have the attitude of ``Let's get it done,'' rather than the
attitude of ``Gee. What are the previous regulations and here
are the reasons why we can't get it done.''
We, in Utah, are very grateful to this Secretary and to
this Department for the work you have done.
UTAH VALLEY RADAR COVERAGE
I still have an item that I would like to discuss with Jane
Garvey. I understand she is not scheduled to appear before the
subcommittee. She will not be surprised to hear me raise it
once again--the need for additional radar coverage for the
approach over Utah Valley for airliners coming into Salt Lake.
The FAA now tells us they intend to place a temporary ASR-9
or ASR-11 radar unit in that position for the period of the
Olympic games. We continue to be perplexed why this
installation is not permanent.
As I say, Administrator Garvey will be not be surprised,
because I have raised this with her before, but at least we now
have the temporary placement of a radar coverage there. That,
at least, is some kind of recognition of the fact that there is
a problem. Anything that you might do to inquire into what
would be necessary to make that permanent, would be much
appreciated.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for coming up to the Hill today to discuss your
budget.
On a personal note, I just want to express my appreciation
to you and your staff for the tremendous amount of work they
had done and help they have provided in Washington State. We
have dealt with a lot of difficult issues out there, from
rescue tugs to pipelines to freight mobility. Your staff has
always been great to work with, and you have, as well. And I
just want to express my appreciation.
I have had a chance to look at your budget. I think it is
one that the members of this committee can work with. I think
you have done a good job. It moves us toward our common goals
of improving safety and mobility, economic growth, and
environmental protection. And I am especially pleased with your
increased investments in FTA and RSPA. I really think you have
done a good job with it.
PUGET SOUND
I have a couple of things I want to mention, since I do not
think we are going to get back around to questioning. I have
some comments on your request for new start transit projects
and full funding agreements. That is a very important issue to
the Puget Sound area. We were ranked second worst traffic in
the nation last year. It is not a title we are proud of. This
is very important to our voters. It is strongly supported at
home. Hopefully, we can get your commitment to work with us to
get a full funding grant agreement this year, so we can move
that project forward.
CORRIDORS AND BORDERS
Second, I wanted to mention the Border and Trade Corridor
Program. You are more than doubling the funds for that. This is
an essential program. We have a lot of trade that goes back and
forth between Canada and Washington. The State of Washington is
the most trade-dependent State in the nation.
With the recent incident of suspected terrorism at the
border, there is a new energy to this, because we want to make
sure that those who are not supposed to get across the border,
do not. But we also have a lot of economic activity. One of our
projects assists in these border activities.
We also need to move containers quickly, efficiently, and
safely with our Fast Corridor Project. So, that is extremely
important to our State as well. Overall, we urge you to look at
awarding projects to those who have the best policies and
momentum in place, because that is very important to us.
PIPELINE SAFETY
Finally, an issue you and I have talked a lot about since
last June 10, is the issue of pipeline safety. A number of my
colleagues that I have talked to have heard me talk about this
issue. We had a pipeline accident in the State of Washington
last June 10, where three young children were killed and
270,000 gallons of gasoline were dumped into a creek bed that
is now an environmental disaster.
There have been more than 5,500 accidents since 1984. I
have a bill on pipeline safety that I hope we can move through.
I think your office is going to have one, as well. We hope that
you get that over to Congress soon.
I do appreciate your including a $10 million increase for
the Office of Pipeline Safety, but I think we also have to
raise the national standard, so that these pipes that were put
in the ground 25 or 30 years ago are inspected more than just
the first time they're laid.
There was also an accident in Pennsylvania over the
weekend. It's time to have good, strong national standards, so
that the people who live on these pipelines, live next to them,
have their schools next to them, their businesses next to them,
are assured that, as a national goal, we are making sure that
these pipelines are operated safely. That is an important issue
to my State and many others, as well.
We look forward to working with you to move your proposals
through Congress this year and I hope we get the appropriations
so the Office of Pipeline Safety has the personnel to inspect
these pipes.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to see you in
Los Angeles. It meant a great deal to the survivors of the
victims of Flight 261 that you were there and so many people
were there to help them with their grief.
FAA PROFESSIONALISM
While I was there, I met with the FAA. And I met with the
NTSB, and the Coast Guard, and the Navy, and the FBI, and the
whole group. But I was particularly impressed with the air
controllers in Los Angeles. And if you have not had a chance to
listen to that last recorded exchange between the air
controllers and the pilots, I would recommend you do it,
because I think it was an insight into the pilots and the
controllers and the professionalism of those who operate our
airline system. It certainly was enlightening to me.
I have been a pilot for 60 years, you know, and I really
think that I have never heard such professionalism. Most people
do not know that that pilot had the authority to land in L.A.,
and he decided to go out over the Bay to make sure he had
control before he approached that airport. That is something I
think the public ought to know more about. That was a decision,
I think, that probably saved a great many lives at L.A.
Airport.
But beyond that, I do thank you--I note, in your statement,
you make a point about the role of the FAA and that tragic
crash.
VOLCANO MONITORING
I only have one comment to make about the budget. And I do
not know whether I will get back later to talk about it, but
once again, the budget does not contain the money for the
volcano monitoring activity in Alaska. I think that is
unfortunate. I really think, Mr. Chairman, the Administration
sort of thinks that is an Alaskan item. And I have got to put
it back in, if they take it out, which is probably true, but it
really is not an Alaska item. That is for the international
flights that fly over our State, that are affected by the
plumes that come from the volcanoes along the Aleutian chain.
And they are very dangerous.
This observatory has the capability, now, to monitor those
and to give warnings to the international flights, and tell
them where to fly to avoid hitting the plume that comes out of
the volcanoes. I do think it ought to be a total U.S.
obligation to the flights that we invite from foreign countries
to come into our airspace to give them warning of hazards
within our airspace.
But in any event, I would hope that funding, one of these
days, will be generated from the President's budget and not be
something that I have to ask the chairman to reinstate in this
budget.
But it is nice to see you, Mr. Secretary. And again, I
commend you for the very, very calming words that you delivered
to the families of the victims of Flight 261. I think it was a
very significant thing for all of us. I had a great many
friends on that flight. And it meant a great deal to all of us.
Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens, we will put that funding
in the budget for you and for the American people and the other
people who fly over Alaska. It would be easier, though.
Senator Specter.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Slater, we are going to be voting in a few
minutes, as it has already been announced. And it will be
difficult to come back, so I would like to raise a number of
issues with you. And perhaps, you could supply us some
responses for the record.
Secretary Slater. Yes.
RADAR OUTAGES
Senator Specter. We had some radar outages last May in
Philadelphia. And I took a look at the radar system and the
equipment which is being used there, and it is in urgent need
of upgrading and correcting.
It is amazing to me to go into the radar rooms and see what
they are doing on monitoring the flights which come in. And it
has made me apprehensive every time I have been in an airplane,
since, coming into the Philadelphia Airport or other airports.
There is hardly anything more important than being able to
trace the airplanes, and to see how they work in those dark
rooms, with so many dots on the screen containing hundreds of
people, it is really a terrifying matter, which I think has to
be addressed. If additional funding is necessary, I think you
will find response by the Congress on a life and death matter
like that.
PENNSYLVANIA PROJECTS
A second matter that is of great priority in my State
involves the light rail system, which is coming into the
construction of two new stadiums in Pittsburgh; one for the
Steelers and one for the Pirates. We are putting about $600
million into those stadiums in a situation which raises a real
question in my mind about the kind of extortion which is being
practiced by major sporting teams, but that is being done.
To make it work, we are going to have to have the Federal
Government come in on the transportation system. We are going
to be presenting to this committee and to the chairman, Senator
Shelby, some large figures this year. But without
transportation, these projects do not work, which are
indispensable for the life of the community.
I note that the Administration has provided only $25
million for Maglev this year; a much lower figure than the $950
million, total, which was authorized on TEA-21, and the $200
million authorized for fiscal year 2001. Maglev has the
potential for enormous advances in transportation.
We could run a line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh in 2
hours and 7 minutes, with intermediate stops in Lancaster and
Harrisburg and Altoona, Johnstown, and Greensburg, and have
enormous benefits for the economy of the State. I was
distressed to see, with the change of governments in Germany,
that they are abandoning their Hamburg to Berlin line. But we
have a great capitalistic system, here.
We are now in the 21st century--Senator Byrd, I know,
disagrees with that. We are now almost in the 21st century. We
are pikers, compared to what they did in the 19th century,
building railroads across America. We just have to provide that
kind of capitalization.
Two other matters, very briefly. I know you have been
involved in the U.S. Airways Pittsburgh to London negotiations.
We need to apply a little bit of pressure, because that area is
being under served. And I am going to try to help you find
money for the FAA Engineering Center, so we can bring that to
Pittsburgh, as well.
That is a very brief synopsis of a long laundry list, Mr.
Chairman.
Thank you.
Secretary Slater. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Specter.
There are no other opening statements. Your full statement
will be made part of the record, Mr. Secretary.
You may proceed, as you wish.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY SLATER
Secretary Slater. Okay. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg,
members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to, once again,
come before you. And as you noted at the outset, Mr. Chairman,
I have had the good fortune and pleasure of coming to this
committee on a number of occasions.
Senator Bennett made reference to Mr. Basso. Let me also
mention Linda Darr and Beverly Pheto, who are here with Mr.
Basso, who have done just a wonderful job working with our team
on this budget.
I would like to also mention Mike Frazier, who is our
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, who works very
closely with all of you.
Many of you have made reference to my team, and I am
fortunate to have a group of visionary and vigilant DOT
professionals, who enjoy, as do I, the opportunity to work with
all of you.
Let me also thank you for the opportunity to bring what we
believe to be a very visionary and vigilant, and yes, creative
budget, as relates to transportation, on behalf of President
Clinton and Vice President Gore. It represents fiscal
discipline and strategic investment.
At this time, I would like to just make a few brief
comments about it, and also submit my written statement for the
record.
I have often said, and I think all of you have heard me say
this from time to time, that as I view it, transportation is
about more than concrete, asphalt and steel. At its core, it is
about people and it is about enabling them to lead safer and
better and more fulfilling lives.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, when I look at
transportation, I see opportunity, and I see freedom--what this
country represents, at its core, as well. That is why I speak
so passionately about the importance of transportation. I
think, too, that is why we have had such a wonderful working
relationship, because all of you view it in that light.
So, again, we thank you for this wonderful experience that
we are having, where our work is truly viewed as a joy and not
a job.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET
The record $54.9 billion budget that we have proposed for
fiscal year 2001 does represent, as has been noted, a 9 percent
increase over last year's budget, which was also a record. It
will continue to help us advance safety, efficiency and improve
the condition and performance of our transportation system.
Working especially with this Congress and with our State and
local partners and with the private sector, over the past 7
years, we have made transportation safer and more efficient. We
have also made our communities more livable. We appreciate that
opportunity to work with you. And I repeat it, yet again.
We gather today because we all understand that we must not
rest, but build on the great work that we have already done,
and develop and also inspire in developing, not only a quality
transportation system for the 21st century, but also ensure the
development of the visionary and vigilant workforce that will
help us design and operate, maintain and manage that system.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS OF THE 21ST CENTURY
The transportation system of the new century and the
millennium must be safe and sustainable, to be sure, but we
would also ask that we have a discussion about the fact that
we, too, believe that it has to be international in its reach
and intermodal in its form, intelligent in its character, and
inclusive in its service. Adequate resources and nurturing a
climate of transportation innovation are essential to bringing
that kind of system into being.
Almost 3 years ago, on my first occasion to come before
you, this distinguished subcommittee on transportation, I said
that the Department of Transportation must set high goals, and
that we must be architects of change if we are to build a new
balanced relationship with the committee and with our partners
at the State and local level.
Well, we have tried to do just that. And here, briefly, I
would like to just mention what we have done and also what we
have yet to do.
This is probably my last appearance before the committee.
You have got a difficult schedule. And I want to, again, report
to you, briefly, what we have done, what we have yet to do, and
how this Administration's proposed budget and clearly what you
will do with it, as we seek to have that record level number at
the end of the day, how that will support our efforts.
With the enactment of TEA-21, we have provided substantial,
really record-level funding for many, many priorities; the
Appalachian Development Highway System, Senator; also,
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement; record-level
investment for transit and highways. And we have been able to
move forward in using those resources to make a difference--a
difference in the long-term.
We have also used a One DOT management strategy, where we
have tried to work better as a Department as a whole. In some
instances, we actually have our offices together across the
country, to build and improve upon our relationships with you
and with our local and State partners.
Our best-in-government strategic and performance plans, I
believe, have shown that we are an organization of vision and
vigilance. And our budget reflects that.
Again, $55 billion, a 9 percent increase over last year, to
help us build the system of our dreams and support the kind of
development we need for our workforce.
Let me just mention, briefly, how we have record-level
investment in the areas that matter; the areas that are
identified in our strategic plan--safety, mobility, economic
growth, environmental protection, and national security. All of
you, in one form or another, have raised these issues during
your comments.
SAFETY
We would improve safety with a record $4 billion, up 13
percent from last year. This includes a 21 percent or more
increase for highway safety strategies that work; getting
dangerous truck drivers off the road, reducing drunk driving,
and increasing the use of seatbelts and child safety seats.
The budget also provides $1.1 billion for aviation safety.
Senator Stevens noted that we were just in L.A. last week with
the family members and with the friends of those who died in
the tragedy--the tragic Alaska Airlines crash just a few weeks
ago. Clearly, we wish, today, to express, yet again, our
sympathy for the families and the friends, but we also wish to
do our duty.
And so, we are pleased that Boeing and also Alaska Airlines
and many of the other airlines that use the MD-80s have
followed our advice. We have developed this partnership, that
they actually check all of those planes to ensure that they are
operating safely. That is the least we can do. And it is very,
very important that we do it.
We will also continue to work with the industry to
strengthen our commitment to safety. All of you know that we
join the industry in setting as a goal an 80 percent reduction
in U.S. commercial aviation crashes involving fatalities over a
decade--by 2007. We have seen significant progress as we have
worked in that regard, but we do have to deal with this issue
involving Alaska Airlines and the crash and the MD-80s, and we
are doing that.
MOBILITY
We will also enhance mobility with a record $39 billion in
infrastructure investment, 86 percent more than the previous
Administration's 1990-1993 average. This includes $30 billion
for highways and for intermodal connections, record transit
funding, funding to improve airports, and continued support for
Amtrak, helping them to become self-sufficient. It also
includes a $468 million request for a new program to upgrade
passenger rail service and to make improvements necessary to
accommodate high-speed rail.
I know that we have some disagreements about how we get
this done. You have our proposal. I hope at the end of the day,
we can provide these resources, figuring out a way to do it.
Let me also say that to pass TEA-21 was a significant
compromise. And all of you should know--and I do believe you
know this--that the President was there every step of the way
with you. At the end of the day, the President actually had to
give up about $30 billion in offsets to make it all happen, as
we wanted it all to happen.
And so, when the President makes a proposal that seeks to
deal with our assessment of the spirit of it in some unique
way, know that we do it in the same spirit that we came forward
with the additional resources to provide for record-level
investment and the highest surface transportation bill to ever
pass in the history of the country.
I think it is worthy to note that we did this at a time
when we were also trying to balance a budget and to deal with
the economic and fiscal needs of our country.
ECONOMIC GROWTH
We would also promote economic growth by answering the
President's call for advanced transportation systems with a
record $1.28 billion for innovation and technology, up 37
percent from last year's level.
Through our partners, we are facilitating a climate of
innovation in areas such as telecommunications and nano-
technology. These areas hold enormous potential for
transportation. And by the way, many of your institutions of
higher education are working with us in partnership in these
areas.
We would also invest nearly $1 billion to support the
President's New Markets Initiative, helping welfare recipients
move from the dependence of welfare to the independence of
work, and improving transportation in areas like the
Mississippi Delta and also on Native American reservations.
Senator Byrd, I can assure you that there is no intent in
any way to minimize our commitment to Appalachia. If anything,
we are trying to model these efforts after the success that we
have enjoyed as it relates to Appalachia.
ENVIRONMENT
Also, we would propose a record $3.8 billion to protect our
environment. One of the most significant provisions, as it
relates to TEA-21, is that not only could we declare it as a
record-level transportation bill, but it was also the most
significant environmental bill to pass during that session of
the Congress, and one of the most significant to ever pass.
And so, we are pleased to include significant funding for
CMAQ and for what we call the Clinton-Gore Livable Communities
Initiative.
NATIONAL SECURITY
We, also, would safeguard travelers with $1.6 billion for
national security, including drug interdiction and anti-
terrorism efforts. Many of you have commended the Coast Guard.
Last year, the Coast Guard had a record drug interdiction
effort, confiscating some 51 tons of cocaine. That effort
continues and these resources will help them in that regard.
I firmly believe that our goals as a free people, served by
a strong economy, in a climate of peace, can only be achieved
in this coming century of the global economy, by making sure
that our transportation system remains safe and sustainable,
and that it does take on these characteristics that I have
mentioned, as relates to the system of the 21st century.
We, at the Department of Transportation, believe that our
budget will help us in that regard. The budget will improve
transportation safety, maintain and expand the transportation
infrastructure enterprise, reduce environmental degradation,
and provide more opportunities for our citizens to pursue
happiness.
I, and the members of our DOT family, look forward to
working with the committee and with the entire Congress to pass
a budget; hopefully, this one. We know we can work together and
get things done, with a good budget that will allow us to build
the system of our dreams, and also continue to develop the kind
of workforce that we will need to operate and manage and
maintain that system.
With that, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
again, thank you for the opportunity to come before you. And I
look forward to responding to specific questions that you may
have.
[Statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rodney E. Slater
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of President Clinton and Vice
President Gore's fiscal year 2001 transportation budget.
OVERVIEW
The record $54.9 billion budget we propose for fiscal year 2001,
nine percent more than this year--also a record, will continue to
advance the safety, efficiency and conditions and performance of our
transportation system. Working especially with the Congress, our state
and local partners and the private sector over the past seven years, we
have made transportation safer and more efficient and our communities
more livable. We must not rest on this success, but build upon it to
create the transportation system of the 21st century and develop and
inspire a visionary and vigilant workforce to design, operate, maintain
and manage it. The transportation system of the new century and the new
millennium must be safe and sustainable, to be sure, but also
international in reach, intermodal in form, intelligent in character,
and inclusive in service. Adequate resources and the nurturing of a
climate of transportation innovation are essential to bringing this
type of system into being.
Over the last three years, we at the Department have worked
diligently to become an ever visionary and vigilant organization that
pursues excellence in its service to the American people and casts its
sights far into the future.
Almost three years ago at my first hearing before this
distinguished Subcommittee as Secretary of Transportation, I said that
the Department of Transportation must set high goals and be architects
of change, that we must build a new balance in our relations with state
and local governments, and that we must look for, not always the quick
solutions, but the solutions that will make a difference in the long
run. Now, in likely my last appearance before this Subcommittee, I
would like to report briefly on how we have done, what we have yet to
do, and how the Administration's budget will support our efforts. With
enactment of TEA-21, and its substantial funding for priorities like
the Appalachian Development Highway System, the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement Program and transit, we were able to secure
a solution that will make a difference in the long run. With our ONE
DOT management strategy, where the modes work in coordination, and in
some locations in the same offices, we are able to build new and
improved relations with our state and local partners. And our best-in-
government strategic and performance plans show that through vision we
are willing to set high goals and through vigilance we are willing to
commit the resources and time to follow through on these plans.
A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT MEETS THE CHALLENGES OF THE 21ST CENTURY
The fiscal year 2001 budget continues our effort to set the course
for transportation investment that will help achieve our hopes, dreams
and needs for this new century. It is a budget not just about funding
concrete, asphalt, and steel, but about people. We know that our
mission must be to be good stewards of the transportation enterprise so
as to help people live safer, better, more fulfilling lives. Here,
again, the fundamental challenge is to envision and build the
transportation system of the 21st century--and to develop and inspire
an ever visionary and vigilant workforce to operate, maintain and
manage it.
The budget provides funding increases in the areas that matter
most, those that reflect the goals in our best-in-government strategic
plan--safety, mobility, economic growth, protection for the human and
natural environment, and national security.
As President Clinton said in his State of the Union address,
``Never before have we had such a blessed opportunity . . . to build
the more perfect union of our founders' dreams.''
In the 20th century we saw the building of a transportation system
that allowed unprecedented new opportunities to arise and our country
to achieve unheard of levels of prosperity. Our transportation system,
which has responded to consumer demands, now allows just-in-time
delivery, overnight packages and e-commerce. These innovations changed
the way people lived in the 20th century and will significantly impact
the way people live in the 21st century.
As our transportation system has grown and changed, so have the
unintended consequences of that system, such as transportation-related
fatalities and environmental impacts. The Federal Government must
continue to show leadership in trying to alleviate these harmful
unintended consequences and the fiscal year 2001 budget requests
additional funding to expand this leadership role.
BUILDING UPON OUR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY RECORD
Safety is our top strategic goal, and President Clinton and Vice
President Gore's top transportation priority. We at DOT have said that
safety is our North Star by which we are guided and by which we are
willing to be judged. Our transportation system's performance reflects
the strength of this commitment. Today, 4,300 fewer people die on our
roads than in 1993 and alcohol-related fatalities are at all time lows.
However, over 41,000 lives are claimed on our highways every year and
more Americans need to buckle-up, even though our seat belt use rate is
at an all-time high. As motor carrier traffic has increased, fatalities
related to motor carrier accidents have remained too high. These
challenges must be successfully met and we are committed to leading the
way in doing so.
The President wants to build on the safety progress we have made
even as our economy expands and travel grows. We propose a 13 percent
increase in transportation safety funding, to $4 billion in fiscal year
2001. This will allow us to improve highway, aviation, rail and
pipeline safety.
Since transportation deaths occur mostly on our roads, we must
continue making our roads safer. That is why we want to increase safety
funding for the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, NHTSA,
and FHWA. We are extremely troubled by the fact that 63 percent of the
motor vehicle occupants who died in traffic crashes last year were not
wearing seat belts and almost 60 percent of the small children who died
in traffic crashes in 1997 were not in safety seats. Unquestionably,
the best way to save lives and prevent injuries on the road is for each
and every one of us to use a seat belt and to protect our children by
properly securing them in safety seats and keeping them in the
backseats. To do this, we must constantly repeat the two words ``buckle
up.'' Changing human behavior is our most difficult challenge. That is
why we propose to increase NHTSA operations and research spending by 79
percent to $286 million in fiscal year 2001.
Ensuring safe motor carrier transportation is a critical part of
our overall efforts to improve highway safety. Healthy economic growth
and logistical innovations like ``just in time'' delivery have spurred
significant increases in truck travel and have been a boom for the
trucking industry. But while the motor carrier fatality rate has
decreased significantly, from 3.0 per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled in 1993 to 2.7 in 1998, the actual number of large truck crash
fatalities has increased from 4,849 in 1993 to 5,374 in 1998. This is
unacceptable and we are making the changes necessary to reduce these
deaths. Federal motor carrier safety programs must channel resources to
strategies that give us the highest payoff in reducing crashes,
injuries and fatalities. We must have better focus on high-risk
behavior, increase our enforcement efforts, put more investigators in
the field and at our borders to enforce truck safety laws, and promote
enhanced education and training programs. And that is what we propose
to do more of in the fiscal year 2001 budget by increasing funding for
the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration by 54 percent to
$279 million.
In order to increase state enforcement efforts and improve the
commercial drivers licensing information, we propose to raise motor
carrier safety grant funding by 78 percent to $187 million. To increase
Federal border inspection efforts, increase the number of inspectors,
and improve data and data analysis, we propose to increase the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration's operating and research funds by
21 percent to $92 million. These substantial funding increases should
allow us to aggressively reduce motor carrier fatalities and accidents
and achieve our ``stretch goal'' of a 50 percent reduction in motor-
carrier related fatalities by 2009.
Equally important is the $1.1 billion we request for our aviation
safety programs, six percent above this year's level. This will help us
move towards our ``stretch goal'' of an 80 percent reduction in the
rate of fatal aviation crashes by 2007. Under this initiative, special
teams of technical experts will zero in on the leading causes of
crashes, fatalities and injuries so we can prevent them before they
happen. The tragic Alaska Airlines Flight 261 crash reminds us of the
importance of our commitment to making our skies--the safest in the
world--ever safer.
Finally, let me add that as Congress acts on this budget, I hope it
also acts expeditiously to pass legislation to reauthorize the FAA's
programs. This is our number one legislative priority as this is the
third year that we have not had a reauthorized aviation program. We
need to give the FAA the management tools and the financial structure
it needs to do its job.
Our railroad safety vigilance and our cooperative relationship with
the railroad industry in identifying and ameliorating the root causes
of rail safety challenges have paid substantial dividends over the past
few years. Railroad accidents and fatalities are down eleven and
twenty-nine percent, respectively, since 1993. A total $117 million,
six percent above this year, is proposed to continue and expand upon
our rail safety research and programmatic efforts, bringing together
rail labor, management and DOT. In addition, we request $18.7 million
for the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System, within the
surface transportation budget. Together with $10 million for train
control projects, this gives us the foundation for safety assurance in
our rail system.
Safety on our seas is also a critical component of overall
transportation safety, as the Coast Guard saves one life every two
hours. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes close to $1 billion, six
percent above this year, for the Coast Guard to continue and expand its
search and rescue capability by being better able to detect, locate and
assist those in distress. As part of this effort, the Coast Guard is
seeking to increase safety among the nation's commercial fishing fleet,
traditionally among the most hazardous occupations in the United
States. Modernization of the national distress and response system will
contribute to the safety of professional mariners and recreational
boaters alike on America's waters.
BUILDING INNOVATIVE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS
Mobility is about helping people get to where they want to go. It
is about strengthening families, linking communities and supporting
businesses. Today, roads and bridges are in better condition, Amtrak
ridership is increasing, and transit ridership has seen double-digit
growth since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office--
thanks to smart investment in our nation's transit systems. The number
of airline passengers has grown 36 percent in seven years. We have made
a great deal of progress during the past seven years and we must build
on this progress and continue to advance innovative, intelligent
solutions to the mobility challenges that we face.
John Volpe, our second Secretary of Transportation, anticipated our
current interest in intermodalism 30 years ago, when he said that ``No
one mode of transportation will ever solve all of our transportation
problems.'' Recently, the Journal of Commerce said that the United
States ``has by far the best intermodal transportation network in the
world.'' But we must build from strength to strength so as to ensure
that our transportation system can continue to meet the ever-increasing
demands and remain the best in the world.
That is why we are engaged with our partners in a 2025 visioning
process that will help us complete the task of crafting a new
transportation policy architecture for a new century and a new
millennium. That is also why we will be hosting an international
transportation symposium to share our best practices and listen to and
learn from our international partners about how can work better
together to build the transportation system of our dreams.
The first crucial piece in keeping our transportation network in
good shape is good sound strategic investment. Investment in
transportation infrastructure proposed in 2001 exceeds the average
annual investment in 1990-93 by 86 percent. The fiscal year 2001 budget
includes a record $30 billion for Federal-aid Highways, a record $6.3
billion for transit, $521 million to continue Amtrak's rebuilding, $468
million to expand capital investment in intercity passenger rail
service and $1.9 billion for airports.
Transit investment has become an increasingly important part of the
mobility mix. The $6.3 billion requested for transit programs in fiscal
year 2001 reflects our commitment to transit programs across the
nation, while maintaining a balance of funding between highways and
transit. We have requested funding for 12 new full funding grant
agreements.
The $1.9 billion requested for airport grants, when coupled with
our proposal to permit airports to raise additional funding through
airport passenger facility charges and combined with other sources
available to airports, provides record level funding to meet airport
infrastructure investment needs. To continue the modernization of our
air traffic control system, $2.5 billion is proposed, 22 percent more
than current levels. This funding will be used to further reduce the
number of outages and delays and to maximize the use of our airspace.
In order to continue its capital modernization efforts, we request
$520 million, 34 percent above this year, for Coast Guard assets. This
includes $42 million to continue the deepwater recapitalization
analysis begun last year, so that Coast Guard can modernize its aging
deepwater assets in the most efficient and least costly manner.
The marine transportation system is a key element of the national
transportation system, serving as a primary link between all modes of
surface transportation and facilitating global commerce. It contributes
more than $720 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and creates
employment for more than 13 million Americans. The maritime
transportation system will realize increased mobility through this
budget with the acquisition of the Great Lakes icebreaker replacement,
three new seagoing buoy tenders, and ongoing ports and waterways system
analyses.
In addition, the budget includes a total of $47 million, $27
million in the Coast Guard and $20 million in the FAA, to operate and
maintain the Loran-C navigation system. This request is 28 percent more
than this year's funding level. After careful consideration, the
Administration has decided to operate and maintain Loran-C in the
short-term while continuing to evaluate the long-term need for the
system.
A second critical ingredient for keeping our transportation network
working effectively is smart investment. We must build upon the
solutions that have served us well in the past, in a manner that is
less damaging to our communities and our environment. Our
transportation system should be managed better, so that we can make
more efficient use of our existing system. The budget includes $338
million for Intelligent Transportation Systems, to improve--among other
things--traffic signal control, freeway and transit management and
regional multi-modal traveler information.
Smart investment includes investment in transportation solutions
for the future. Last year Amtrak ridership increased substantially.
This shows that many Americans continue to want intercity passenger
rail transportation. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a substantial
investment in passenger rail service, building on the growth in
ridership and ability to cover operating costs that our Northeast
Corridor investment has supported. Many state governments have invested
in passenger rail service, including high speed rail, and Federal
funding will provide the foundation for it to be a significant
transportation solution for the future. We propose $468 million for
this new program, in addition to continued Amtrak capital funding.
All of our goals, including our mobility goal, will be further
enhanced by our budget proposal to increase technology and innovation
by 37 percent to $1.28 billion. The Administration is committed to
innovation for good reason: innovation has proven to be an
indispensable ingredient in the longest economic expansion in American
history. This budget moves our commitment to innovation to higher
heights than ever before. The budget includes a nearly 80 percent
increase for NHTSA--administered safety programs--a more than 80
percent increase for Intelligent Transportation Systems--and a greater
than 50 percent increase for surface transportation research. Our ITS
programs are demonstrating real world effects. For example, a joint
General Motors-DOT partnership is demonstrating state-of-the-art rear
end collision warning systems. Additionally, it measures performance
and effectiveness with real drivers on public roads, not in an
artificial test situation.
The funding will be utilized according to our four innovation
strategies--to build partnerships, increase investment in innovation,
reduce barriers and provide incentives to innovation, and support of
education and training to develop the next generation of inventors.
Support for training also extends to the DOT workforce because we
must invest in our own workforce to achieve the best performance. That
is why the budget includes training funds across-the-board in DOT equal
to at least two percent of payroll. FAA and Coast Guard will exceed
this standard, as they have more unique training needs.
BUILDING THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH
Our great economy provides better jobs and a higher standard of
living for all Americans. An economy that works for all Americans
depends on a transportation system that is safe and that serves all
Americans. If transportation connections are not available, or not
offered at a time when we need them, our work, education and overall
``pursuit of happiness'' are limited and sometimes impossible.
Transportation accessibility has grown considerably in the past seven
years, but there are still areas of this country, such as the Delta
region, Native American lands, Appalachia, and some inner cities and
isolated rural areas where accessibility is limited or non-existent.
The fiscal year 2001 budget includes more than $1.2 billion, 44
percent over 2000, for programs that contribute to the nation's
economic growth and increase transportation accessibility. The funding
proposed to support these efforts will provide all Americans with
better access to work, educational opportunities, and commercial
markets. The resulting enhanced economic and community development will
improve the quality of life for our nation's citizens.
The budget includes strategic investments in critical
transportation links that will provide greater economic opportunities
for Native Americans, the Mississippi Delta region, isolated urban and
rural residents, and former welfare recipients. We propose to double
the 2000 level for the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, to $150
million, to provide essential support for the Administration's welfare-
to-work goals and economic growth in our low-income workforce.
The vast rural areas and small towns of the Mississippi Delta
region suffer from disproportionate isolation and diminished
opportunities for access to the daily activities of life. Many Delta
residents have substantial difficulties in accessing employment
opportunities and related activities such as training, education, and
childcare. We propose a new $69 million initiative to expand the access
to opportunity to those who call the region home.
Transportation services available to Native Americans also fall
below those for the rest of the nation. A total of $358 million, 50
percent above 2000, is proposed to begin to correct this imbalance.
Most of this funding will be used to help meet the more than $4 billion
needed to improve the condition and performance of Indian Reservation
roads.
We also propose to double funding, to $280 million, for the
Corridors and Borders Program. This will improve the movement of
freight that is so crucial to our global economic competitiveness.
Demand for this program is substantial. In fact, this year we have 150
requests totaling close to $2.2 billion for the limited funding that we
can award at our discretion.
And here in the Washington metropolitan area, the President
committed $25 million towards a new Metro station to promote economic
development along New York Avenue. We also are providing a Full Funding
Grant Agreement for the Largo extension and propose $600 million to
complete the federal investment in the replacement of the Woodrow
Wilson Bridge.
BUILDING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CHILDREN
In his State of the Union address, President Clinton reminded us
that we have ``put to rest the bogus idea that you cannot grow the
economy and protect and enhance the environment at the same time.''
This Administration has committed itself to protecting our environment.
Our air is cleaner and our water is purer today than seven years ago,
even as we enjoy the longest economic expansion in our nation's
history. Our commitment to protecting our nation's environment
continues in this budget, with a total of $3.8 billion, almost five
percent above this year for DOT's environmental programs.
To aggressively implement the Administration's livability and
environmental agenda, a record $6.3 billion, as already mentioned, is
proposed for transit programs and a record $1.6 billion is proposed for
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program.
Support needs to be continued and replicated across the country for
increased use of alternative transportation systems providing access to
and within national parks and other public lands, such as the new
propane fuel bus system inaugurated last summer to serve Arcadia
National Park and surrounding communities in Maine.
Our budget increases by almost fifty percent the funding provided
to the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
Program. This will aid communities in developing smart-growth plans to
combat congestion and sprawl, and ensure in the words of Vice President
Gore, ``that communities are not only better off, but better.'' There
is tremendous demand for these programs, as communities desperately
want to tackle livability issues.
Additional funding is also requested for the Advanced Vehicle
Program, DOT's contribution to the effort to develop clean, fuel-
efficient vehicles for the new century. Programs like these are crucial
to building a transportation system that meets the needs of future
generations. The Detroit International Auto Show recently spotlighted
the clean car developed through the Partnership for a New Generation of
Vehicles. Our Advanced Vehicle Program, with $20 million in new
funding, will apply similar technologies to produce clean trucks and
buses.
KEEPING OUR NATION SECURE
DOT plays a critical role in ensuring that the transportation
system is secure, that U.S. borders are safe from illegal intrusion,
and that the transportation system can meet national defense needs in
times of emergency. In addition, the Coast Guard and the Maritime
Administration continue to perform several specific national security
functions in support of the Department of Defense. A total of $1.6
billion, eight percent above this year, is proposed for DOT national
security programs.
This includes $617 million, eight percent above this year, to
fulfill the Department's commitment to conduct drug law enforcement
operations. This funding will enable the Coast Guard to maintain an
effective presence in the transit and arrival zones by mounting strong
and agile interdiction operations. And it will build on the record
interdiction effort of last year, with 70 tons of drugs confiscated.
It also includes $99 million for the Maritime Security Program, so
that we can ensure that vessels will be available to carry military
cargo during war or national emergencies.
CONCLUSION
I firmly believe that our goals as a free people, served by a
strong economy and a climate of peace, can only be achieved in this
century of the global economy by making sure our transportation system
remains safe and sustainable, and becomes over time international in
reach, intermodal in form, intelligent in character and inclusive in
service. We at DOT, ever visionary and vigilant, are committed to
building this type of system. The fiscal year 2001 budget reflects the
Clinton-Gore Administration's commitment to the future of this country
and the recognition of the importance of transportation to enjoying
sustained growth and an improved quality of life.
Our proposed budget helps to ensure that transportation remains the
tie that binds us together as a people--and the foundation of our
prosperity as a nation. The budget will improve transportation safety,
maintain and expand the transportation infrastructure, reduce
environmental degradation, and provide more opportunities for our
citizens in their ``pursuit of happiness.''
I, and the members of the DOT family, look forward to working with
this Subcommittee, and the entire Senate and House, to pass a budget
that will aid us in building the transportation system of our dreams
and the ever visionary and vigilant workforce we need to meet the
challenges and embrace the limitless opportunities of the 21st century
and the new millennium.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we have 3 or 4 minutes to
get to our vote. So we will recess, and we will come back.
Secretary Slater. Okay.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your indulgence.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. You are always a gentleman.
Secretary Slater. Thank you.
DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, in the transportation
appropriations bill and the accompanying conference report, a
number of discretionary projects are identified that are
important to members of Congress. As the various agencies of
your department administer the programs under which these
projects are funded, I think it is important that the lines of
communication between your office and the appropriations
committee be open. They have been----
Secretary Slater. Yes.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. In the past. And that we be
kept informed of any problems that you would encounter as you
administer those projects.
Having said that, can I have your assurance, on behalf of
the committee, here, that your office will fully brief the
subcommittee staff, both majority and minority, before you sign
off on any final disposition of any discretionary grant
programs that Congress provided direction on in the conference
report this past fall? Is that possible?
Secretary Slater. It is possible, sir. You have our
commitment.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Secretary Slater. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, there are several programs
under which the year 2000 transportation appropriations bills
identified specific projects. And some of these programs have
not yet made grant release announcements.
Secretary Slater. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Can you tell us when to expect grant
announcements for the Transportation and Community System
Preservation Program, the Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant
Program, the National Corridor Planning and Development
Program, the Intelligence Transportation Systems Program, and
for the remainder of the grants under the Federal Lands Program
and the Ferry Boats and Facilities Program? Can you get with me
on this, or do you want----
Secretary Slater. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Yes. I am on it, now.
Secretary Slater. What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is
to follow-up with more specific dates. We are working on all of
these discretionary grant programs. And we are hopeful that we
will be able to move on most of them during the spring.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Secretary Slater. But you may have some that will come a
little later in the year. Our objective is to move on this as
quickly as possible.
USER FEES
Senator Shelby. A total of $1.3 billion in new user fees is
included in this budget, as we talked about.
Secretary Slater. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, is there any reason for the
second kick of a mule? I think that this is actually the third
or fourth kick on these user fee taxes. Do you think it would
drive home the lesson more effectively if we reduce the
appropriations for the Office of the Secretary by the same
percentage of proposed user fees that get authorized and
enacted each year?
Secretary Slater. Well----
Senator Shelby. That is probably not a fair question.
Secretary Slater. Well, I have some people back here who
definitely want to know what my answer is. But I would say, Mr.
Chairman----
Senator Shelby. Do you want to furnish the answer for the
record, later?
Secretary Slater. I can furnish an answer for the record,
in more detail.
[The information follows:]
The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes $1.3 billion in new user fees
for aviation, rail safety, marine safety, hazardous materials safety,
and the economic regulation of surface transportation. The
Administration policy is to introduce user fee funding where
appropriate. Users generally are more willing to pay fees when such
fees are dedicated to improving the quality of the programs that affect
them directly.
Within the FAA, $965 million is included to establish cost-based
user fees for air traffic services. Under this proposal, the
collections each year from the new cost-based user fees and existing
excise taxes combined would be equal to the total budget resources
requested for FAA in each succeeding year. For FRA $103 million will be
collected from railroad carriers to offset the costs of the rail safety
program--including safety and operations, and safety-related research.
Within the Coast Guard $212 million will be collected to recover a
portion of the Coast Guard costs for navigation services, to be paid by
U.S. and foreign commercial cargo carriers. Fishing and recreational
vessels would be exempt. New RSPA user fees total $5 million for
increased hazardous materials registration fees, to be paid by shippers
and carriers of hazardous materials. User fees totaling $17 million
will be used to completely offset the expenses of the Surface
Transportation Board. The fees would be collected from those who
benefit from the continuation of STB functions, i.e., railroads and
shippers.
Senator Shelby. Or on a telephone call.
Secretary Slater. I can, but let me just say for the record
and the public debate of it all, that it is the policy belief
of this Administration that there are certain benefits that a
defined group of either businesses or individuals enjoy, and
that those activities would be appropriate for user fee
consideration. That is why we continue to come back. We do have
some programs that actually rely, to some extent, on user fees.
So, it is not----
Senator Shelby. But you do have to consider the political
climate in anything.
Secretary Slater. Definitely.
Senator Shelby. You understand it better than I do.
Secretary Slater. We understand that, but in an effort not
to second-guess the Congress, we just want to keep it before
you and would hope that at some point, you would find it
acceptable.
FUNDING FIREWALLS
Senator Shelby. Can we talk about firewalls for just a
minute?
Secretary Slater. Yes.
Senator Shelby. In conversations with me and also Chairman
Stevens, you have made clear that you oppose the creation of a
firewall for the aviation account, and would recommend a veto
of a bill that created a firewall or other special budgetary
treatment----
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. That was not offset or paid
for by other spending cuts. I assume that must be, in part,
because of the difficulty you are experiencing managing all--
and I mean all the transportation programs in the context of
the highway firewall.
Secretary Slater. That is right.
Senator Shelby. Would you affirm your opposition to special
budgetary treatment today, or would you explain the absolute
inconsistency of proposing changes to the highway budget
firewall, while not opposing the creation of another firewall
that would only create increased pressure on the accounts that
your budget, Mr. Secretary proposes to increase by abrogating
the highway firewall?
Secretary Slater. Sure.
Senator Shelby. It seems like a little paradox, here.
Secretary Slater. It is difficult. I thought, when the
question was asked or you alluded to it during your comments,
that it was a good question, and I hoped that I would have the
opportunity to respond to it.
Clearly, in TEA-21, at the end of the day, a number of
compromises were made in order to bring trust back into the
effort, to spend growing balances in the trust fund, but to do
it in a way that was fiscally responsible. As I noted earlier,
at the end of the day, because of the quality of the bill and
the desired financial commitment, the President actually had to
give up about $30 billion in offsets that he had suggested for
other purposes. So, there was, definitely, the compromise.
Senator Shelby. But there always is, is there not?
Secretary Slater. There always is. As it relates to FAA, we
have been clear in saying--as we said as relates to surface
transportation, ``no off-budget.'' We have been very clear in
that regard.
We have also expressed our non-support for firewalls for
the very reasons that you have noted. They present very
difficult situations for----
Senator Shelby. They cause you trouble in your Department.
Secretary Slater. It does, anytime you are trying to
balance. And in that sense, I find myself in the same position
that the committee finds itself in, when you have to make
choices.
We have used the word ``balance'' a couple of times over
the course of the hearing. I think that in TEA-21 we were able
to capture a pretty good balance in the way we gave emphasis to
certain programs; highways; transit; a focus on safety; a focus
on the environment; those kinds of things. I think if we can do
the same thing as relates to the FAA, and figure out how you
might unlock the trust fund, dealing with receipts and
interest, then I think that at the end of the day that might
carry the day.
Now, we still have some delta, even if you are able to get
a commitment among the parties to go with receipts and
interest. You still have about a $1 billion annual deficit, and
we have to figure out how you come up with that amount, as
well.
Our proposal is to do it through user fees, but there are
some other options on the table. Again, at the end of the day,
we will be against taking the trust funds off-budget. We will
be against providing any kind of guarantee as relates to the
general fund, but it would not necessarily be against unlocking
the trust fund and providing for receipts and interest from the
Aviation Trust Fund.
TRANSIT FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS
Senator Shelby. On Transit New Starts, Mr. Secretary, it is
my understanding that TEA-21 authorized a total of $8.4 billion
commitment authority in guaranteed funds for new starts.
Secretary Slater. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Our staffs have informed me that after the
enactment of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, $2.8
billion was left uncommitted for the rest of the authorization
cycle; that is, through fiscal year 2003.
And finally, if all the transit projects that are included
in the Administration's request do sign full funding grant
agreements with the Federal Transit Administration during the
fiscal year 2001, all the commitment authority that was
authorized in TEA-21, will be committed, leaving no uncommitted
funds available for new funding grant agreements before 2003.
Is that an accurate description of the current status of
the new starts pipeline? And what would happen under the
proposed budget request?
Secretary Slater. I believe it actually is. We have a
number of full funding grant agreements that we are already
providing support for. I think that number is 14. We have about
three that are pending, and we have this new round of 12 new
full funding grant agreements.
And you are correct. After all of those run their cycle, we
will have used up the amount authorized for this purpose in
TEA-21.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, it is also our understanding
that some, if not most, of the projects proposed for new full
funding grant agreements in the budget have not yet completed
the NEPA process or have records of decisions filed, which
means that they are not yet ready to move from the preliminary
engineering to the final design stage of the project. Is that
right?
Secretary Slater. Well, I would have to look at the
individual projects.
Senator Shelby Do you want to get back to us on that?
Secretary Slater. That is correct. I will get back with
you.
[The information follows:]
The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) are met when a Record of Decision (ROD) or a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued. Six of the twelve proposed FFGAs
have RODs: Hudson-Bergen MOS-2; Portland-Interstate MAX LRT; Seattle-
Central Link LRT; Pittsburgh-Stage II LRT; Salt Lake City-CBD to
University LRT; and Washington DC/MD-Largo Extension. The remaining six
projects are on track and will be issued a ROD or FONSI by June 30,
2000.
Secretary Slater. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that we do
have a criteria for making these kinds of judgments. The
projects that meet that criteria, are in the development stage,
but they are far enough along for us to make a judgment about
local commitment. We have a general sense about the scope of
the project. These are the kinds of things that we take into
account before entering into full funding grant negotiations.
You are correct in noting that at the end of the day, we
may or may not have all of these projects meet all of the
requirements and move forward.
Now, Senator Lautenberg mentioned the Hudson-Bergen project
earlier. And by the way, Mr. Lautenberg--Senator, thank you for
your leadership on that project and promoting it. This is
actually a project that is rather unique in that the request
has been to provide the full funding grant agreement, but there
is no request for money right now. They are requesting money a
little later on.
So, there is a difference in the stage of development of
all of the projects, but all of them have met our criteria for
full funding grant agreement negotiations.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I believe last year's budget
request included seven proposed full funding grant agreement
projects, which you expected to approve before the end of the
fiscal year 2000. We are halfway through that 2000 year. How
many of those projects have actually received an FFGA? It is my
understanding it is only one; the Dallas-North Central LRT.
Secretary Slater. Let me check that, Mr. Chairman. I do not
have the information at my fingertips. But I will say this,
that if they do not meet their commitment to have their work
done within the prescribed period of time, then we will deal
with that situation.
So, if we have time within the cycle, then they still have
time to get their work done. But without knowing where we are,
exactly, with each project, I would like to get back to you
with specifics on that.
[The information follows:]
FTA entered into a FFGA with Dallas on the construction of the
North Corridor LRT project on October 6, 1999. The proposed FFGA's for
San Diego/Mission Valley East and Fort Lauderdale/Tri-Rail Commuter
Rail have been forwarded to Congress for approval; and the Newark/
Newark Rail Link (MOS-1) project is under development within the
Department. The Memphis Medical Center extension underwent significant
scope changes and funding increases; thus was rerated and is now
proposed for FFGA in fiscal year 2001. The Salt Lake City Downtown
segment has been withdrawn and an extension of the North South LRT to
the University is proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget. The Orlando
I-4 Central Florida LRT project was also withdrawn from consideration
because of loss of local financial support.
Senator Shelby. Okay. How do you think that the other 70 or
so authorized new start projects that are currently in
alternative analysis or preliminary engineering are going to
react to a budget proposal that completely cuts them out of the
running for full funding grant agreements before the year 2004?
Secretary Slater. I think that they would want to know that
we are already beginning the process of preparing for the next
re-authorization cycle of what would be TEA-21+. And many of
these projects really take time for development. I still think
that there will be opportunity to be responsive to those
projects, over time.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Secretary Slater. I think that there may be things that we
can do in the interim that really keep that process going. We
would look forward to working with those individual States and
locales.
Senator Shelby. We hear from everybody up here, as you
know.
Secretary Slater. Oh. We do, too.
Senator Shelby. I know.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Both of us. Same day, probably.
Secretary Slater. Right.
LOS ANGELES MTA
Senator Shelby. The budget includes a request for $50
million for the L.A. MTA to buy new buses in order to implement
the bus consent decree ordered by the Special Master.
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Shelby. The judicial process associated with the
consent decree litigation is ongoing and it is very complex.
Secretary Slater. That is right.
Senator Shelby. It is my understanding that a stay has been
granted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while an MTA
appeal of the decree is pending. Does not a Federal budget
request for funding to implement the bus consent decree
prejudge the results of this ongoing judicial process? In other
words, that is not finished, yet. Or are we getting a little
ahead of ourselves?
Secretary Slater. We may be, but it has always been our
hope that the parties would figure out a way to resolve this
matter without taking it to the term of a court decision. And
if that, in fact, occurs, we would need to be in a position to
respond positively to that kind of potentiality.
But you are right in noting that we are making the funds
available, while you actually have a matter before the courts.
But we also have an opinion that we have expressed in this
matter, as well.
To provide this money at this time is consistent with how
we have viewed the facts of the situation. But again, we are
not moving forward until there is a court decision or until the
matter is resolved in some way short of a court decision.
COAST GUARD OPERATIONAL READINESS
Senator Shelby. The Coast Guard has expressed concern that
operational readiness is eroding. In fact, in a recent speech
at the Center for Naval Analysis, the Commandant focused on the
reduced availability of C-130s and the lack of spare parts
needed to keep them flying to illustrate the readiness
challenges the Coast Guard is facing.
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Shelby. I have asked the committee staff to look
into it and have been informed that even though Congress fully
funded the aircraft maintenance line into the 2000
appropriations bill, the Coast Guard reprogrammed funds below
the notification threshold from the Aircraft Maintenance
Account to pay for recruitment activities.
Will you look into this and provide a response for the
record, why the Coast Guard is citing the lack of readiness in
an account that they dun for another activity?
Secretary Slater. Okay. I will look into it, but if I may,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note, as relates to the
reprogramming, it is an amount that is below what would be the
general threshold of concern over which we would never go
beyond.
And so, while we definitely would want to talk this
through, we did make a reasonable judgment that we were acting
within the parameters of our ongoing agreements and
relationships.
The other point I would like to make is that I think
Admiral Loy and our Coast Guard have really faced quite a
difficult challenge. As you know, they are having to take on
additional responsibilities in the drug interdiction effort and
migrant interdiction effort. We really have had considerable
difficulties in our recruitment efforts, much like the Armed
Services, as a whole.
We are now working with Secretary Cohen and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council with Sandy
Berger and the President to figure out how we address this. But
in the short term, we did need to have some reprogramming to
beef up our efforts in this area. I am pleased to report that
we are actually on track to do better this year, as relates to
recruitment.
Also, the place where we have been hurt has been having the
kinds of people that really have the skills, frankly, to do a
lot of the maintenance work that you have raised. Also, the
Department of Defense, because of a contracting relationship
change that they have undertaken, now actually contracts out
much of their work as relates to this question.
We, then, do not have the benefit of being able to look to
the pool when it comes to getting some of the spare parts that
we need for this purpose. It is a difficult situation. It is a
challenging situation. What we were trying to do here was to do
something in the short-term that would help us bide our time
until we could work with the committee, with the Congress, and
with the Administration, to deal with this over the long-term.
PASSENGER RAIL
Senator Shelby. Okay. Expanded inner city rail capital. I
will try to be brief.
Secretary Slater. Okay.
Senator Shelby. The budget proposes to transfer $468
million from the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority for the
purposes of making grants to Amtrak or to a single State or
consortium of states to improve passenger rail service. These
funds are in addition to the $521 million for Amtrak capital
grants consistent with the glide path to operational self-
sufficiency by 2003----
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Which both Amtrak and the
Administration have committed to. One of the things that
strikes me as a little odd, Mr. Secretary, about this new
program, in addition to being funded out of the highway gas tax
receipts, is that a 50 percent match is required if the grant
is made to a State or consortium of States, but no match is
required if the grant is made directly to Amtrak. Is that
understanding not correct?
Secretary Slater. Your point is well taken. Amtrak,
frankly, because of its limited and tight budgetary
environment, is not required to match, but because we are
trying to generate more commitment from other sources--the
States, in this instance, are required to meet this opportunity
with a 50/50 match.
If I may, also, Mr. Chairman, I know that this issue has
been a matter of concern to you, because you have expressed, as
I have, in many instances, agreed, that when it comes to rural
America, the presence of Amtrak is not as we would desire it.
What we have sought to do in the short-term is to deal with
the financial viability of Amtrak. And I am pleased that we
have made considerable progress, in that regard.
It is really hard to imagine that from 1997 to this point
in time, Amtrak has experienced three consecutive years of
ridership increases; about 10 percent over that period of time.
They have also had a 16 percent increase in revenues. The
service has improved. They have done a better job.
And we are going to have high-speed rail in the northeast
corridor by the summer. We have the regional service that we
just unveiled from New York to Boston, dealing with the non-
electrification of the track. And then we will have the Acela
Express Service in the summer.
ACELA RAIL SERVICE
Senator Shelby. What will be the time from Washington to
Boston, after that?
Secretary Slater. From Washington to Boston, I think we are
going to cut about two-and-a-half hours off of that trip.
Senator Shelby. I need to ride that with Senator
Lautenberg, do I not?
Senator Lautenberg. I would like to have you on that train.
Mr. Chairman, I have a special catering order from off the
train, but we will be able to eat----
Senator Shelby. A glass of water, I hope.
Secretary Slater. You know they said that time really
passes fast when you are having fun. So, the two of you
together, talking about transportation matters, that time would
go pretty quickly.
Senator Shelby. Well, we would not want to do that unless
you joined us in the----
Secretary Slater. Now, I would love that.
Senator Shelby. And we would have to have our senior
advisor here, Senator Byrd.
Secretary Slater. Oh. Yes.
Senator Shelby. He knows more about all of this than all of
us, basically.
Secretary Slater. Okay. Well, let me say this: I do believe
that because of the leadership of this committee, when we
unveil that Acela service, it would be really quite a joy and
an honor for all of us to experience that together, because I
can tell you, in 1997, Amtrak was on its back. It was really
the Senate, first, and then the entire Congress and the
Administration, all of us working together, to get that
creative budgeting there early on, and then to provide the plan
to get them to self-sufficiency over a 5-year period. They have
done a really good job.
The Amtrak Board of Directors, now, is totally in place.
Governor Tommy Thompson is doing a great job as the chair; and
Governor Dukakis, as the vice chair, a great job; also, Mayor
Smith, working with the mayors has done a super job; and
Governor Holton, formerly of Virginia, is on the board. It is a
great board. They are doing a good job.
Senator Shelby. That is good.
Secretary Slater. We believe, though, that the $468 million
would be helpful, not so much in the northeast corridor, but to
ensure that as we celebrate that service, that we can also hold
out promise for Alabama and the Gulf Coast region.
Senator Shelby. Louisiana.
Secretary Slater. That is right. Louisiana. Mississippi.
Senator Shelby. Georgia.
Secretary Slater. The north----
Senator Shelby. The deep south.
Secretary Slater. The deep south.
Senator Shelby. North Alabama.
Secretary Slater. So, that is why we have this proposal; to
give us an opportunity to engage States and other interested
parties in looking at a broader vision for high-speed rail.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, thank you for your
indulgence.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much. Mr. Chairman, it is a
pleasure, again, to have our Secretary with us. He has done a
good job. The people who work with and for him have carried
their share of the responsibilities very efficiently.
We had Mr. Basso, up in New Jersey, and he helped us in the
review of what is taking place in the light rail service. He
understood our needs and where we have to go, even though the
budget, Mr. Chairman, is large--$55 billion, roughly. But the
need is even larger than that. For us to have the kind of
transportation systems that a nation like ours, with the size
of our economy and the size of our country, and the interest of
our people.
They are just sitting in airports. And I see more people
having lunch on the floor at Newark or wherever you go the
places are crowded. The schedules are jammed. They are often
late.
When we talk about rail or we talk about other modes, we
are talking about a necessity to make sure that everything
works as efficiently as it can. When service is held up in
Newark, believe me, you feel it in Alabama, and you feel it in
Louisiana. The system is a totally integrated system.
And so, it was exciting to be on the regional Acela. It is
a door-opener. I was reminded by Governor Dukakis that the
speed that we have now, in this regional thing, is only a
catch-back; not a catch-up, but a catch-back. Because in 1959,
they had the same 4-hour speed. And it disintegrated over the
years, as the equipment and the facilities disintegrated. But
now----
Senator Shelby. In 1959, they had a----
Senator Lautenberg. They had a 4-hour speed. But we are
going to be down to 3 hours, shortly, there. And I must point
out, and I had the staff get this right away, the Acela
regional train showed a 45 percent boost in ridership over the
trains they replaced--45 percent. I think, when did we start, 2
weeks ago--that--to open that service?
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your help in getting
that investment made. It makes it so easy for my three
grandchildren, who live in Boston, and their mother and their
father, to come down to visit me. I know that was a nickel-and-
some factor.
We can do better, I hope, than the $468 million in the
President's budget.
Mr. Secretary, do you think the Administration is going to
be soon in a position to endorse my legislation or expand the
use of capital, here, with the $10 billion bond support?
That would have a substantially lower cost than what we
have to do now, in order to get funding into the railroad. That
$10 billion of financing would, over the 10-year period, cost
about $2 billion. Is that--$2.3 billion. You get leverage four
times out, as a result of that. I hope that we will get an
enthusiastic endorsement from the Administration very soon.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.
BLOOD ALCOHOL CONTENT (BAC)
Senator Lautenberg. You know, we are still working on
reducing the blood-alcohol content while driving. I know that
both Senator Shelby and Senator Byrd share my view that we have
to be more diligent about reducing those fatalities. And it has
come down. And it is good to see it.
The last 2 years, only one State out of 34 has adopted a
.08 BAC. It is a poor record, considering all the States,
except Kentucky, has a chance to pass it and get the funding.
Does the President support the .08 BAC?
Secretary Slater. He does. And Senator, I would note that
for the first time in 1998, we actually had the percentage of
alcohol-related highway fatalities to fall below 39 percent. It
is actually 38 percent.
Senator Lautenberg. For fatalities or----
Secretary Slater. That is right. Thirty-eight percent of
all fatal crashes involving alcohol. At one time, it was
actually 55 percent; years ago. So, we have significantly
brought that figure down. It stabilized at around 41 percent
for many years of this Administration, but now we are below 40,
and at 38, which is quite an improvement.
Senator Lautenberg. And you know, it says one thing, Mr.
Secretary, and I would appreciate your comment. Does the
incentive program go far enough to induce these States to move
to improve the safety record, vis a vis, driving while under
the influence?
Secretary Slater. It does not go far enough. As you know,
the Administration joined you and others, Congresswoman Lowey,
in proposing a national standard of .08 BAC. We were not
successful in that effort, but one of the good provisions of
TEA-21 does provide an incentive program. So, it does not go
far enough, but it has been helpful. Hopefully, though, we can
win the battle and get .08 BAC as the law of the land.
Senator Lautenberg. I think, Mr. Secretary, and for the
record, I think that it needs more than an incentive, which
has, thus far, not really induced much support. We found out
when we raised the drinking age to 21, and there, I am told by
the safety agencies, Senator Byrd, it saved 15,000 families
from having to mourn the loss of their child in these last 14
years.
If I feel proud of one thing that I have done, I must tell
you, it is that. We can bring that terrible record down even
further, if we would just get on this with seriousness. There
were incentives out there for years to bring the drinking age
up to 21, and not much happened.
When we said, ``Okay. We are going to reduce your highway
funds,'' even that was a drag, but finally everybody understood
that Lautenberg was serious and the Senate agreed, and we got
it done.
AIR CARRIER ACCESS TO HEATHROW
I want to talk for a minute about air carrier access to
Heathrow Airport. Now, you have been in negotiation with the UK
for some time regarding a new bilateral aviation deal. And I,
along with many of my colleagues and the Administration, have
been insisting that any new aviation deal with the UK include
access for new U.S. carriers to Heathrow.
I have been to Gatwick. And I have been to Heathrow. And I
will tell you, Heathrow is the difference between a more timely
arrival to your destination by a significant measure. I think I
paid $100 cab fare from Gatwick to London. In my view, this is
not the way things ought to happen.
Is there any possibility that you would agree to a new deal
with the UK that would not include access for new U.S. carriers
to Heathrow? I hope not.
Secretary Slater. No. Senator, that has been one of the
conditions of our negotiations. Those conditions have also
grown to include restoration of the service from Pittsburgh to
London, as well as a new designation of U.S. carrier to
Heathrow.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, it is nice to have Pittsburgh-
London service, but we need it in the New York/New Jersey area,
where so much traffic occurs. I hope that we would not fall
prey to a mini-deal that would allow British Airways and
American Airlines code sharing without guaranteeing access for
U.S. carriers to Heathrow.
Secretary Slater. You should know, Senator, that we have
already requested additional information on the British
Airways-American Airlines issue. There is no intent, on our
part, to address that until we have a greater sense of equity
as relates to the U.S.-UK aviation relations.
COAST GUARD CUTTERS
Senator Lautenberg. Last month a new Coast Guard cutter
went into service, patrolling the Atlantic seaboard from New
Jersey to South Carolina, after three boats sank off the coast
of New Jersey, this last winter. This is welcome news, however.
And something that the Chairman raised and you talked about a
moment ago, the cutter patrols a very large area. More ships
could be added, and over the next few years, the Coast Guard is
expected to add new vessels----
Secretary Slater. Yes.
COAST GUARD MISSIONS
Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. But for drug interdiction
duties, not search and rescue and some of the other
responsibility they have, what is DOT's plan to ensure that all
Coast Guard missions, not just the drug interdiction duties,
are able to be carried out fully? Because it is my
understanding that the Coast Guard is short 1,200 people and
retains only 50 percent of its pilots. And boy, they do one
load of work, I will tell you.
Secretary Slater. They do.
Senator Lautenberg. We squeeze them constantly; give them
more assignments. We see what happens with illegal immigration.
We see what happens with pollution control. We see what happens
with navigation aids. And the Coast Guard is there when we have
these terrible tragedies; whether it is an airplane going down
or a boat sinking. The Coast Guard is there in terrible
weather, very difficult assignments.
Secretary Slater. You are right.
Senator Lautenberg. So----
CHALLENGES FACING THE COAST GUARD
Secretary Slater. Senator, your point is well taken. You
know, the motto of the Coast Guard is ``Semper Paratus''--
``Always ready''. The Coast Guard actually saves a life every 2
hours. During the Hurricane Floyd experience, they actually
saved 500 lives over a period of time. It is a remarkable
organization. It has been very much at the forefront in a lot
of the streamlining and reinventing effort of this
Administration over the past 7 years.
We have gotten to a time, now, where we really are starting
to look at the long-term challenges facing the Coast Guard;
their readiness and their deepwater equipment needs and the
like. We are starting to really address those concerns.
Let me just mention one or two things in that regard. First
of all, I should say, that even as the Coast Guard has done
some reprogramming of late, and I go back to the Chairman's
question in this regard, they have not, in any way, stepped
back from their safety responsibility, which they consider
primary--search and rescue. Their ability to perform there is
consistent with where they have been.
Over time, we would hope to increase the ability to perform
at that level, in this respect and across the board, with our
deepwater initiative, which is a major, multi-billion dollar
acquisition program need that we have.
We have recently gone through a process where we have
basically put together a plan for this purpose. The President's
budget includes $42 million to begin the process of moving
forward on this initiative. But we will have to come to the
Congress in years to come with a request for much, much more.
We are putting together a program and a process for doing that
in a way that is thoughtful and that evidences reason and
reflection.
We have also engaged in a roles and mission effort as
relates to the Coast Guard. This is sort of a companion effort
with the Deepwater Initiative. It is to re-examine the roles
and the missions of the Coast Guard in this new environment.
And there, again, I think we have had considerable success
and would welcome an opportunity to report to you and other
members of the committee and your staffs about our progress in
that regard. We are looking at the long-term needs and the
long-term view of the Coast Guard. And we appreciate your
comments in that regard.
I think Admiral Loy and Admiral Card, the Commandant and
Vice Commandant, have done a great job. If I may, I would like
to mention Admiral Naccara, who headed our Y2K initiative
within the Coast Guard. Super job working with IMO and putting
together a code of best practices that became, really, the
standard for the nations of the world. The Coast Guard is a
fine organization. We appreciate your support and your
expressions of concern regarding some of the challenges faced
by the Coast Guard.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Slater. Thank you.
REDISTRIBUTION OF HIGHWAY FUNDING
Senator Byrd. Your budget proposes many changes in the
treatment of the programs under TEA-21. These proposals have
the result that there are some big winners and some big losers
in the distribution of the total amount mandated for highway
funding under TEA-21. Your formal testimony makes mention of
some of the big winners under your budget.
I think it is also important that we have a discussion
about the losers under your budget. These are the programs that
would have to have their obligation and limitations cut in
order to pay for the increases that are being proposed
elsewhere.
The biggest loser is the formula fund provided to the
States. As you may recall, I offered an amendment. It was co-
sponsored by Senator Phil Gramm, Senator John Warner, and
Senator Max Baucus, at the time we had the TEA-21 legislation
before the Senate.
In the first place, we had to fight like the dickens to get
it up before the Senate. Then, they had a strong battle over
the amendment itself. But, it was adopted. The result was
somewhere between $26 billion and $28 billion--not million--but
billion went to all of the States; raising all the boats,
because the tide was raised. If you have an infusion of
somewhere between $26 billion and $28 billion, that raises the
tide.
Now, part of the reason that we provided highway funding
guarantees in TEA-21 was to give the States a predictable flow
of money from the trust fund. And now it is being proposed to
upset this predictability by taking more than $1.3 billion--
that sounds like about $1.30 for every minute since Jesus
Christ was born--$1.3 billion that the States are expecting to
send to other priority initiatives.
How do you explain this proposal, Mr. Secretary? With all
due respect to you, and I love you, how do you explain this
proposal to the nation's governors and the nation's highways
commissioners?
Secretary Slater. Well, Senator, you have actually come
back to really what has been a matter of concern voiced by many
of your colleagues. And as I recall, you actually led in
putting the issue on the table, and appropriately so, because,
as you have noted, you were really, along with your colleagues,
a principal player in bringing the balance to the measure that
passed--TEA-21. It was quite a historic piece of legislation.
We would argue that the predictability is still there; that
our focus is primarily on that amount that comes in, in excess
of projections. Although there was language in TEA-21 to
address that possibility, that is where the focus is.
This year it is projected to be about $3 billion, let me
just say that. Last year, it was a considerable amount. This
year, about $3 billion.
Last year, we actually proposed using it in many different
ways, and using much, much more of it. In this instance, we are
really focusing on about a third of it, maybe even a little
less. I think our total number is about $741 million.
So, we have really tried to take into account the sensitive
nature of what we are proposing, and also the fact that there
was that delicate balance that we participated in. We recognize
that and commend it and support it. But again, we are talking
about that which is in excess of the projection. And this year
we are talking about a much smaller amount of that.
As we propose using the $741 million in a certain way, the
ways that we are suggesting are consistent, pretty much, with
the themes of TEA-21. The only area where there is probably
sort of a hard departure, would be as relates to high-speed
rail, because, there we tried to make it eligible as an item
for funding under TEA-21, giving the States the ability to do
that. We did not carry the day on that point. So, we
acknowledge that.
But that is probably the most significant departure from
what was proposed in TEA-21. Everything else pretty much
matches what was proposed in TEA-21. TEA-21 dealt with economic
development.
Our belief is that the Delta Regional Program that we are
proposing, about $69 million, and the Native American Lands
Program that we are proposing, are consistent with the spirit
of TEA-21; especially when you consider that it deals with
hard-pressed regions of the country, much like Appalachia.
Senator Byrd. But you're cutting Appalachia. That is not
consistent with--is it, with the policy is it?
Secretary Slater. Well, again, we are dealing with the
excess that goes beyond the projection. But I think you make a
good point, Senator. And as we go forward, I think we need to
really address that particular of the question. So, I think you
make a very good point, there.
The other areas deal with increases in safety. It is really
trying to add more to certain categories. That is right. But
those categories are categories that are reflected in TEA-21.
And the only area where you may have a major departure
would be with our desire to ensure that once we unveil high-
speed rail in the northeast corridor, that we have a foundation
for a similar corridor or a similar series of corridors around
the country. That is probably the area where we have the
sharpest departure from the specific items mentioned in TEA-21.
MISSISSIPPI DELTA AND APPALACHIA
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I support the Mississippi
Delta Program. I do not see why we need to cut back on
Appalachia. Why can we not move forward on both?
Secretary Slater. That is a good----
Senator Byrd. If we want to improve safety, then let us
finish those Appalachian corridors. Instead of having two-lane
corridors, which are a sure prescription for accidents and
fatalities, we need to have four-lane divided highways.
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Byrd. That includes a very important safety
project.
Secretary Slater. Well, Senator Byrd, we are in agreement
there. I remember, in 1995, when we were dealing with the
designation of the National Highway System, with your support,
we actually got a much stronger commitment to complete the job
of the Appalachian Highway System. And I think we are making
considerable progress. That is why I am so sensitive, frankly,
to the point that you raise.
Why, if the focus for the Delta Program and the program for
Native American lands, if the objective there is to do as we
are doing with the Appalachian region, why would you take from
that region to do this? I think that is a very good point. We
should figure out how we address it, as we go forward.
Senator Byrd. Well, you are not just proposing to
reallocate the $3 billion in excess projections. You are
proposing to reallocate funds within the core highway program.
Actually, you are proposing to change TEA-21.
Secretary Slater. That is a good argument. But we would
argue that what we are proposing is still consistent with TEA-
21. We have tried to cut it back to make it less onerous,
burdensome for some, but our focus, again, is on $741 million;
the remainder, roughly $2.3 billion, that would continue to
flow through the formulas as prescribed in TEA-21. And that,
then, goes to, primarily, highways, some transit, but it flows
through the formula.
Senator Byrd. I consider Amtrak an important national asset
for our transportation system.
I am not persuaded by your argument.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. But, my time is limited. And I am going to
shift, now.
Secretary Slater. Okay.
Senator Byrd. I respect you for your argument, but you
really have to argue the President's case for him. I understand
that. I know your heart is not there in the coffin with Caesar.
Your heart is with me. You really want to build that
Appalachian System, but I understand the constraints that you
have to live under. I respect you for that.
AMTRAK
I consider Amtrak an important national asset. The cost of
traveling on the Cardinal is considerably cheaper than the
airfares available to my constituents.
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Byrd. The airfare cost is about $659 for a round-
trip to West Virginia; perhaps, above $700. I suppose you can
go to London and back for much less, but you can certainly ride
Amtrak for much less.
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Byrd. Yet, you can go from here to White Sulphur
Springs for less than $90; maybe just a little over $90, on
Amtrak, but it is $600-plus to go by plane.
You noted that the Amtrak ridership increased substantially
the last year.
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Byrd. You are requesting funds for new high-speed
rail corridors around the country. Are you concerned that
Amtrak will struggle to absorb this $50 million reduction in
direct support this coming fiscal year?
Secretary Slater. No. We believe that they can--that what
we have proposed for Amtrak is sufficient. I think the amount
of $521 million, plus the expanded program dealing with high-
speed rail of about $468 million is sufficient.
It is our belief we have provided an amount that is
consistent with the 5-year plan that Amtrak put together
towards self-sufficiency. We feel comfortable that they can
manage with the amount that we proposed.
Senator Byrd. I understand there has been a delay in the
delivery of Amtrak's new high-speed train sets.
Secretary Slater. That is right.
Senator Byrd. These new trains are supposed to be used in
the northeast corridor. Amtrak is depending on these new trains
to generate substantial revenue next year. If the high-speed
trains continue to be delayed, is it possible that the
Administration will have to revisit its budget request of $521
million in direct support for Amtrak?
Secretary Slater. We probably would not revisit that
question in this round, but clearly, we are concerned about the
Acela Express Service coming online as soon as possible. Our
highest concern is that of safety. And that has been the real
issue here.
As things stand, currently, the delay has not adversely
impacted--or irreversibly--let me say it that way--impacted
Amtrak to such an extent that we would have to make a request
of that type at this time. We still feel good about the request
of $521 million.
We are hopeful, as relates to the request, for high-speed
rail support around the country through our expanded request of
$468 million, but we continue to monitor the situation with the
Acela Service very closely. And we do not want to go through
the complete year without the benefit of that service.
I thought Senator Lautenberg--I made a note of his comment
that they have already seen a 45 percent increase in ridership
with the Acela Regional Service. And that does not even get to
the 150 miles-per-hour service that we are looking forward to.
So, there is that desire out there. We can tap it, but you
have to have the service online to do so.
REROUTING TRAIN SERVICE
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, the Cardinal has had a very
difficult time with its on-time performance over the last
several months.
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Byrd. One solution that has been proposed is to
reroute the train around Chicago to avoid areas of congestion
with freight traffic. This proposal would require the
cooperation of many of the impacted freight railroads. Will you
look into that situation?
Secretary Slater. I will.
Senator Byrd. Could your office, perhaps, play a role in
working with the freight railroads to allow this rerouting
proposal to go forward?
Secretary Slater. Yes. Senator, I will look into it. And we
will respond to you regarding the results of our inquiry.
TIMELY RAIL SERVICE
Senator Byrd. The Norfolk Southern and CSX Railroads took
over Conrail this past summer.
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Byrd. And since that time, we have experienced an
increased number of delays in the MARC Commuter Rail Service,
along the Brunswick line, between Martinsburg and Washington,
DC.
In my office, there is a young lady who commutes from
Shepherdstown, WV, over to Washington, DC, and she is here
everyday.
Secretary Slater. Is that right?
Senator Byrd. She gets off the train down at the station,
here; walks to the office. Every afternoon, at 5 o'clock, she
leaves the office to catch the train that goes back to WV. She
picks up her automobile at Brunswick, MD or one of the WV
stops. And she has been doing this for 8 years. And I will put
her absentee record against almost anybody else's. She is there
all the time; very dedicated.
But I hear about this problem she has. Along with that, I
hear from other constituents. The inclement weather over the
last few months has, of course, been a factor.
Secretary Slater. Right.
RAIL MERGERS
Senator Byrd. These delays have impacted a considerable
number of West Virginia residents who live in the panhandle of
West Virginia and commute to Washington, D.C., daily.
Now, would you please comment on the dislocations that were
created by that merger, and what the department has done to try
to minimize them?
Secretary Slater. Well, Senator, first of all, quality
transportation services is nothing, if it is not on time. We
are really working to address that issue of efficiency and
timeliness across the transportation spectrum--aviation,
clearly. We talk about Amtrak here, but even Metro service. And
we are actually using technology to help us in that regard.
Having said that, let me say that, more and more, we are
finding that there is the challenge of providing timely
commuter service, passenger service, and timely freight service
when they have to share, in many respects, the same track.
But this is something that we can address, and address
effectively; and I think, address to the satisfaction of all
concerned. Because, again, at the core of quality
transportation is that issue of safety, but it is also
timeliness and service. And so, you have to have that
addressed, and addressed effectively.
We are working on that. What we would like to do, maybe, in
that regard, since this is clearly an issue of concern to the
committee, is to continue to keep you informed as we work on
this question.
As relates to the broader issue that you raised regarding
the Norfolk Southern and CSX merger and the acquisition of
Conrail, let me say, in dealing with that question more
specifically, that we have really seen a total transformation
of the rail industry during these mergers and reconfigurations,
over the last decade or so. I mean, it has really been
remarkable.
I remember when I talked to Secretary Pena, early on, about
key issues that I should be mindful of and issues that he had
wrestled with and knew that were still there to be dealt with;
this was the number one issue that he raised.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, you would make a great
Senator. You would be excellent in the case of a filibuster.
Secretary Slater. A filibuster. All right. Thank you.
Senator Byrd. You really have not answered my question. I
am going to go on to----
Secretary Slater. Let me--what were the specifics of--I was
about to get to it, I thought.
Senator Byrd. My time is running out. One other question.
Secretary Slater. We are talking about time, too. My
apologies.
Senator Byrd. One brief question, here.
Secretary Slater. Okay.
Senator Byrd. But you did fine. I will give you a 100
percent on the effort.
Secretary Slater. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Byrd. But I am a careful listener. I know when my
question is not being answered. We had a discussion about that
last year, did we not?
Secretary Slater. Yes, we did.
RAIL SIGNALING SYSTEMS
Senator Byrd. I am told that there may be an opportunity to
improve the signaling system between Martinsburg and the
Maryland State line, in order to minimize the conflicts between
freight trains and commuter trains along the Brunswick line.
Secretary Slater. Right.
Senator Byrd. I would appreciate it if your experts at the
Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Transit
Administration could look into this proposal.
Secretary Slater. We will do that.
Senator Byrd. Would you?
Secretary Slater. It would be a good thing to do, sir.
Senator Byrd. I hoped we could count on your assistance for
that review.
Secretary Slater. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Byrd. Now, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your
patience.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Senator Byrd. If I have further questions, I will submit
them for the record.
And thank you, again, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Byrd.
Mr. Secretary, I want to touch on a couple of more things--
--
Secretary Slater. Okay.
EMERGENCY RELIEF
Senator Shelby [continuing]. On something Senator Byrd
mentioned in his opening statement. I find it interesting that
you propose to increase the Emergency Relief Highway Program
from the TEA-21 firewall amount of $100 million to $498
million, we have been told, to address the emergency highway
backlog. While I think that more emergency money should have
been provided in TEA-21, I agree with you on that.
I question how equitable it is to take the firewall
account, which already requires a 12.9 percent reduction,
because the TEA-21 authorization did not deliver on what it
authorized, and reduce the amounts that will go to every State
further, in order to fund an emergency program that any
observer should have known was undercapitalized in the
authorization.
My question is: Why did you not pay for the increase in
Emergency Relief Highway Program out of the general funds, out
of RABA, or submit a supplemental request? What are the
options, there?
Secretary Slater. Well, I think we have actually had the
$100 million amount pool since fiscal year 1973 or so. It is
clear that that amount is not sufficient. We always have to
come back either for supplementals or do something, as we are
proposing now; figure out some way to make it a part of a
budget request where we seek the resources.
What we are trying to do here, ultimately, is to take care
of a backlog, but also deal with what I think we agree is a
problem, and that is the limitation that we all face of having
just $100 million in that fund on an annual basis.
That is what we are really trying to do in the long-term,
here; figure out some way of providing a bigger pool of
resources, so that we can deal with these challenges as they
come up, over time.
FAA RECEIPTS AND INTEREST
Senator Shelby. I understand. Mr. Secretary, wouldn't your
budget request for the FAA be more than funded by the receipt
and interest in your user fee proposals than from the Airport
and Airways Trust Fund?
Secretary Slater. Do you mean, based on our proposal----
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Secretary Slater [continuing]. Would we actually be
collecting more than we need?
Senator Shelby. Yes. Would not your budget request for the
FAA be more than funded by the receipt and interest in your
user fee proposal than from the Airport----
Secretary Slater. We do not think so.
Senator Shelby. Why? You mention $300 million more that
would be necessary to meet the budget. Is that about right?
Secretary Slater. Well, we do not think so.
Senator Shelby. You do not think so.
Secretary Slater. We do not think so. Now, having said
that, we do know that we have the challenge before us of coming
up with a cost accounting system.
Senator Shelby. Do you want to check the figures?
Secretary Slater. Yes. We can do that.
Senator Shelby. That would be good.
Secretary Slater. All right.
Senator Shelby. Because, sometimes, you might be right and
you might be wrong. And I do not know.
Secretary Slater. Okay. Well, we can----
Senator Shelby. We have some problems.
Secretary Slater. Okay. We will look into it.
Senator Shelby. And provide it for the record.
[The information follows:]
If we are considering existing taxes and interest, those sources of
income total $10.456B and are $766M below our request of $11.222B for
FAA programs in fiscal year 2001. If we include the new user fees (with
a related minor decrease in interest), the total income is $11.410B,
which is $188M above our request of $11.222B in fiscal year 2001.
Secretary Slater. Yes. And Senator, if I may say, for the
record, that we do understand the challenge we face when it
comes to putting together a cost accounting system to really
deal with the kind of credibility you have to have when you
institute a user fee program. Administrator Garvey is doing a
good job in that regard. And I think we have enjoyed some
success, but we have some ways to go.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, as usual, you have been very
receptive to us, and you know how to work with us, and we have
worked with you on a lot.
Secretary Slater. Yes.
Senator Shelby. So, I do not want you to think that we have
exhausted all the questions. I know Senator Byrd has probably
got some, and Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Stevens, and
other members, we have about the budget submission.
Secretary Slater. I understand.
Senator Shelby. But we will save the technical and budget
questions for the record. We want to thank you for your time
today; for your patience.
Secretary Slater. Thank you.
CLOSING REMARKS
Senator Shelby. And having said that, this subcommittee
will now be in recess until Thursday, February 24, at 10 a.m.,
right here in this room, where we will discuss Department of
Transportation Safety Initiatives.
Secretary Slater. Okay. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Secretary Slater [continuing]. Can I do one thing before we
close the budget----
Senator Shelby. Go right ahead.
Secretary Slater. Senator Stevens asked a question that was
specific; I think, in some way, related to a question that you
had an interest in. It deals with the issue of providing
resources for the monitoring of the Alaska----
Senator Shelby. Right.
Secretary Slater [continuing]. Volcano issue. I have a
specific answer. One reason we did not put it in our budget is
that it is our understanding that the U.S. Geological Survey
has budgeted $3.5 million for sustaining this operation in
their fiscal year 2001 budget.
If that amount is insufficient for this year's costs, then
we commit to work with the committee to resolve this question.
I actually saw it while I was on a trip to Alaska with the
Senator. So, I know about it. It is a matter that we are
interested in. But it is our understanding that the U.S.
Geological Survey has actually made the budgetary request to
address it.
Senator Shelby. But, basically, we will work it out either
way----
Secretary Slater. We will work it out.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Our both ways.
Secretary Slater. That is right. We will work it out.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you.
Secretary Slater. We will work it out.
Additional committee questions
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd will have some other
questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
DISCRETIONARY PROJECT EARMARKS
Question. There are several programs under which the fiscal year
2000 transportation appropriations bill identified specific projects,
and some of these programs have not yet made grant release
announcements. When can the Congress expect Department of
Transportation grant announcements for the remainder of the
discretionary grants under the Federal Lands program and the Ferry
Boats and Facilities program, and for the Transportation and Community
and System Preservation program, Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant
program, National Corridor Planning and Development program, and
Intelligent Transportation Systems program?
Answer. There were 17 Public Lands Highways and 6 Ferry Boat
earmarked projects for which the States had not submitted applications.
By law, FHWA cannot allocate funds for these programs unless they have
an application from the State. FHWA has now received most of the
applications from the States for those projects; allocations will be
announced shortly.
For the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
Program, the selections have been made, and were announced on March 18.
The announcements for the National Corridor Planning and Development
Program will be made in March or April.
The fiscal year 2000 appropriations act designated 75 locations, 17
States, and 58 local jurisdictions to receive funding under the
Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment programs. Guidance for
developing project proposals was released to local jurisdictions on
November 17, 1999 and to State Offices on February 25, 2000. The
project proposals will be reviewed by the Department to ensure that
they meet the project selection requirements contained in the TEA-21
program authorization. The grant release announcements are expected
beginning in May.
For the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, the Federal Transit
Administration issued its solicitation for fiscal year 2000 projects on
March 10, 2000. The notice calls for projects specifically designated
by Congress to be submitted no later than 60 days following the
announcement, and projects for competitive selection to be submitted no
later than 90 days. Congressionally designated projects may be
announced as soon as FTA reviews the application and determines
compliance with all standard grant requirements and conformance to the
Congressionally mandated criteria for the program. FTA expects to
announce the competitively selected projects before the end of the
fiscal year.
DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE
Question. Please provide a list of all bridges eligible for
discretionary bridge funding for which the agency has (or expects
within the next fiscal year) an application. Please indicate whether
such bridge is eligible for discretionary bridge funding or any other
discretionary programs administered or funded by the Department of
Transportation.
Answer. The following table lists bridge candidate projects that
were considered for fiscal year 2000 funding under the Discretionary
Bridge Program. The table indicates which projects were funded. Bridge
projects on the Interstate system costing over $10 million and ready
for construction within one year of the allocation would also be
eligible for Interstate Maintenance discretionary funds. The table also
indicates which projects satisfy these conditions. The States'
applications do not include enough information to determine those
projects that may also be eligible for Public Lands or Borders and
Corridors funding.
CANDIDATES FOR THE DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE PROGRAM
[Fiscal year 2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seismic Retrofit Candidates:
California.......................... Golden Gate Bridge......... Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds.
Tennessee and Arkansas.............. Hernando Desoto Bridge..... Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds.
Washington.......................... Spokane Street Over- Meets rating factor criteria (40.7), but
crossing. did not meet eligibility criteria for
funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
begin construction until the 4th
quarter).
Nonseismic Candidates:
Continuing projects (Partially
funded in previous years):
Michigan........................ Dequindre Yard............. Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds. Also eligible for IM
discretionary.
Missouri........................ Chouteau Bridge............ Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds.
Tennessee....................... Loudon City Memorial....... Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds.
Washington...................... Snohomish River Br......... Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds.
South Carolina.................. Grace Memorial Bridge...... Not Funded in fiscal year 2000--Did not
meet eligibility criteria for funding in
fiscal year 2000 (would not begin
construction until the 4th quarter).
Olympic Cities Projects:
Utah............................ Kimballs Jct. Bridge....... Eligible--not funded in fiscal year 2000--
unfavorable rate factor of 59.5. Also
eligible for IM discretionary.
Utah............................ Silver Creek Jct........... Bridge Eligible--not funded in fiscal
year 2000--unfavorable rating factor of
59.7. Also eligible for IM
discretionary.
Other Non-seismic Projects:
New Mexico...................... I-25 /I-40 Interchange..... Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds. Also eligible for IM
discretionary.
Illinois........................ Wacker Drive Viaduct....... Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds.
Kansas.......................... Turner Diagonal Bridge..... Eligible--earmarked in H.R. 2084
Conference Report and funded with fiscal
year 2000 DBP funds.
West Virginia................... Williamstown-Marietta Eligible--earmarked in H.R. 2084
Bridge. Conference Report and funded with fiscal
year 2000 DBP funds. Also eligible for
IM discretionary.
New York........................ North Grand Island Bridge.. Eligible-not funded.\1\
Minnesota....................... Ford Bridge................ Eligible-not funded.\1\
New York........................ Stutson Street Bridge...... Eligible-not funded.\1\
Michigan........................ Grand Rapids (R07)......... Eligible-not funded.\1\
New Hampshire and Vermont....... Rt. 9 over Connecticut Eligible-not funded.\1\
River.
Rhode Island.................... Washington Br. Over Seekonk Eligible-not funded.\1\ Also eligible for
River. IM discretionary.
Michigan........................ Grand Rapids (R06-1)....... Eligible-not funded.\1\
Michigan........................ Grand Rapids (R06-2)....... Eligible-not funded.\1\
Texas........................... Sabine River Bridge........ Eligible-not funded.\1\ Also eligible for
IM discretionary.
New York........................ Ridge Road over Railroads.. Eligible-not funded.\1\
Mississippi..................... Jourdan River Bridge....... Eligible-not funded.\1\ Also eligible for
IM discretionary.
Massachusetts................... Hadley Bridge (Calvin Eligible-not funded.\1\
Coolidge Mem. Bridge).
West Virginia................... Star City Bridge........... Eligible-not funded.\1\
Massachusetts................... Fall River Bridge.......... Eligible-not funded.\1\
New York........................ Marcy Ave. Ramp............ Eligible-not funded.\1\
New York........................ Manhattan Bridge........... Eligible-not funded.\1\
Mississippi..................... Pascagoula River Bridge.... Eligible-not funded.\1\
Missouri........................ Lexington-Missouri River Eligible-not funded.\1\
Bridge.
Massachusetts................... Fitchburg Bridge........... Eligible-not funded.\1\
Alaska.......................... Kenai River Bridge......... Eligible-not funded.\1\
Texas........................... Trinity River Bridge....... Eligible-not funded.\1\
Alabama......................... Clement C. Clay............ Did not meet eligibility criteria for
funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
begin construction until the 4th
quarter).
Florida......................... Royal Park Bridge.......... Did not meet eligibility criteria for
funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
begin construction until the 4th
quarter).
Kentucky........................ Burnside-Monticello Bridge. Did not meet eligibility criteria for
funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
begin construction until the 4th
quarter).
Maryland........................ Woodrow Wilson Bridge...... Did not meet eligibility criteria for
funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
begin construction until the 4th
quarter).
Projects Earmarked in Fiscal Year 2000
Conference Report, House Report 106-
355:
Florida............................. Florida Memorial Bridge.... Did not meet eligibility criteria for
funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
begin construction until 2004 or later).
New Jersey.......................... Witt-Penn Bridge........... Did not meet eligibility criteria for
funding in fiscal year 2000 (would not
begin construction until 2004).
Arizona and Nevada.................. Hoover Dam................. Not eligible--not a bridge replacement
project (it is a bypass around the Dam).
Alabama............................. Naheola Bridge............. Not eligible--not a highway bridge.
Vermont............................. Union Village/Cambridge Not eligible--project cost less than $10
Junction Bridges. million.
Mississippi......................... US82 Mississippi River Not eligible--bridge rating factor
Bridge. greater than 100.
Texas............................... Paso Del Norte Not eligible--project cost less than $10
International Bridge. million.
Kansas.............................. Turner Diagonal Bridge..... Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds.
West Virginia....................... Williamston-Marietta Bridge Eligible--funded with fiscal year 2000
DBP funds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These projects were eligible for funding, but because of the limited amount of discretionary bridge program
funds available for non-seismic projects ($65 million), they were not selected for funding.
Note: Only two candidates who submitted applications for fiscal year 2000 funds were well qualified according to
the eligibility criteria. The Golden Gate Bridge and the Hernando Desoto Bridge are continuing projects and
have received seismic retrofit discretionary funds in previous years. The Hernando Desoto Bridge is in the New
Madrid Fault region.
EMERGENCY RELIEF HIGHWAYS
Question. The budget proposes an increase in the Emergency Relief
highway program from the TEA-21 firewall amount of $100 million to $498
million to address the emergency highway backlog. While I think that
more emergency money should have been provided in TEA-21, I question
how equitable it is to take the firewalled account--which already
requires a 12.9 percent reduction because the TEA-21 authorization
didn't deliver on what it authorized--and reduce the amounts that will
go to every state further, in order to fund an emergency program that
any observer should have known was undercapitalized in the
authorization.
Why didn't you pay for the increase in the Emergency Relief highway
program out of General Funds, out of RABA, or submit a supplemental
request? Were these alternatives considered as the Department put
together its budget? Please provide a short analysis of each of these
alternatives, as well as an other alternatives considered by the
Department and Office of Management and Budget as you considered how to
address the Emergency Relief highways funding shortfall.
Answer. The Department reviewed a number of options for addressing
the backlog of emergency relief needs, including a request from the
General Fund, RABA, or supplemental appropriations. Although these
methods would provide funding to meet the most immediate needs for
emergency relief, they do not address the underlying cause of this
crisis. The $100 million in emergency relief provided each year since
fiscal year 1973 is clearly not sufficient for the level of need. The
Emergency Relief Reserve Fund will provide a long-term solution, and
FHWA believes will prevent another crisis from developing. The $398
million of additional contract authority reflects the ten-year average
of Emergency Relief supplementals, excluding Loma Prieta, plus
sufficient funds to pay off the current balance over three years.
FAA CONTRACT TOWERS
Question. It is the Committee's understanding that DOT may propose
to cut off funding for nearly half the contract towers across the
country in a couple of months. The contract tower program is very
important from an aviation safety perspective, and it's providing
significant air traffic control cost savings. In fact, audits by the
DOT Inspector General validate the important benefits of the program
and suggest it might make sense to expand it.
Why is the Department even considering a funding reduction for the
contract tower program? Please explain why DOT may propose action that
could adversely affect aviation safety and will penalize a program that
is solidly justified from a cost/benefit standpoint?
Answer. The FAA is facing a shortfall in its operating budget this
year. That is why the Administration has proposed fiscal year 2000
supplementals with the fiscal year 2001 budget; the supplementals would
allow the shifting of some costs currently being borne by the
Operations appropriation.
No decisions have been made yet on the canceling of contract tower
services. Obviously, DOT does not want to reduce funding for this
program and hopes that Congress will provide the supplemental funding
to ensure continued operations. The contract tower program is assumed
fully funded in the FAA budget request for fiscal year 2001.
FAA PERSONNEL AND PROCUREMENT FLEXIBILITY
Question. A few years back, the Congress granted the Federal
Aviation Administration substantial latitude in personnel and
procurement matters. Is it your understanding that the personnel
authority that Congress granted the FAA has limited that agency in any
way in enacting any operational or management reforms?
Answer. On the contrary, the personnel reform authority has played
a key role in supporting a variety of management reform efforts within
FAA aimed at improving how the agency operates in a more business-like
fashion. For example, the new compensation programs being piloted in
FAA link pay adjustments to organizational and individual performance,
which directly supports FAA's establishment and measurement of annual
outcome-based, mission-focused performance goals and indicators. A
fundamental objective of FAA personnel management changes, particularly
in relation to compensation programs, is an increased emphasis on
improvements in organizational performance and increased efficiency of
operations.
TRANSIT NEW STARTS
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request included seven
``proposed'' full funding grant agreement (FFGA) projects, which you
expected to approve before the end of fiscal year 2000. We are halfway
through fiscal year 2000--how many of those projects have actually
received an FFGA?
Answer. FTA entered into a FFGA with Dallas for construction of the
North Corridor LTRT project on October 6, 1999. Three projects, Fort
Lauderdale, San Diego Mission Valley East and Newark Elizabeth MOS-1
are ready to be executed and will be submitted to the Congress for 60-
day review very shortly. The Memphis Medical Center Extension underwent
significant scope changes and funding increases. Thus, it was re-rated
and is now proposed for an FFGA in fiscal year 2001. The Salt Lake City
Downtown segment has been withdrawn and an extension of the North South
LRT to the University is proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget. The
Orlando I-4 Central Florida LRT Project was also withdrawn from
consideration because of loss of local financial support.
Question. Why is the Department constricting the new starts
pipeline with projects that are not yet ready to move forward to a full
funding grant agreement?
Answer. The projects proposed for full funding grant agreements in
the President's budget will all be ready to enter into FFGAs by the end
of fiscal year 2001 and in fact several could move ahead much faster.
If these projects have no outstanding issues, FTA should be able to
approve the entry of these projects into final design by the summer of
2000. This is a stricter test than was applied in the proposals made
for fiscal year 2000, which were based on projects which were expected
to have completed a record of decision by September 30, 1999 (and thus
to be in final design by December 31, 1999). FTA is applying a stricter
test this year to assure that no project issues are outstanding which
could delay the project further or cause major changes in project cost,
such as engineering concerns, right of way issues, project management
planning concerns, environmental issues, or permitting issues.
Question. The demand for new starts funds is extraordinarily high,
and transit agencies around the country are in varying stages of
development, working toward securing that magic piece of paper, a full
funding grant agreement, which most projects need in order to secure
financing for the substantial capital investments that are required to
build or expand a transit system. You have requested funding for 15 new
proposed full funding grant agreements, which you expect to enter into
in fiscal year 2001. Please prepare a table addressing the following
questions. How much commitment authority over the life of the
authorization was included in the TEA-21 firewall? How much of this
commitment authority was ``pre-committed'' to existing FFGAs at the
time TEA-21 was passed? How much of that commitment authority has been
committed to projects since the enactment of TEA-21 through the present
(middle of fiscal year 2000)?
Answer.
Federal Transit Administration TEA-21 Authorization Table
[In millions]
Available TEA-21 Authority-Guaranteed Level [$6,092.40] +
Contingent Commitment [$2,350.80]......................... $8,443.20
Existing commitments:
Remaining ISTEA FFGA Commitments [Fiscal year 1998-Post
2003]................................................... 3,787.50
PMO takedown [Fiscal year 1998-2003]...................... 42.28
Alaska and/or Hawaii Ferry Boat set-aside [Fiscal year
1998-2003].............................................. 51.48
Other appropriations [Fiscal year 1998-2000].............. 860.49
Other than final design & construction [8 percent--fiscal
year 2001-2003]......................................... 272.73
TEA-21 commitments........................................ 296.45
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 5,310.93
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Remaining Commitment Authority............................ 3,132.27
Question. Is it correct that, were all the new start transit
projects that are included in the budget request to enter into FFGAs
with the FTA during fiscal year 2001, all the commitment authority that
was authorized in TEA-21 would be committed, leaving no uncommitted
funds available for new full funding grant agreements before the end of
fiscal year 2003?
Answer. Yes. The FTA expects that the FFGAs proposed would consume
all of the commitment authority available under TEA-21. New funding
commitments could be made only if non-guaranteed funds were
appropriated under the authorizations provided by 53 USC Sec. 5338(h)
or if additional commitment authority were authorized.
Question. How do you think the other 70 or so authorized new start
projects that are currently in alternatives analysis or preliminary
engineering are going to react to a budget proposal that completely
cuts them out of the running for a full funding grant agreement before
fiscal year 2004?
Answer. Some of the project sponsors would be disappointed that
commitments could not be made until later. However, other sources of
funding are available such as formula funds, flexible funds available
from the Federal Highway Administration, and loans or loan guarantees
under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA) provisions of TEA-21. The projects proposed in the fiscal year
2001 budget are those which will be ready in fiscal year 2001 for an
FFGA. The Department believes it is better to allow the worthy projects
among those which are ready to proceed now, with a federal commitment,
than to wait for other projects to develop further.
LOS ANGELES BUS REQUEST
Question. The budget includes a request for $50 million for Los
Angeles County MTA to buy new buses, in order to implement the bus
consent decree ordered by the Special Master. The judicial process
associated with the consent decree litigation is ongoing and complex.
It is my understanding that a stay has been granted by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, while an MTA appeal of the decree is pending.
Doesn't a federal budget request for funding to implement the bus
consent decree pre-judge the results of this ongoing judicial process?
Answer. Los Angeles MTA Accelerated Bus Procurement Program
established new bus quantities through fiscal year 2004 of 2,095 new
buses. For fiscal year 2001 their program assumes purchase of 400 new
buses. However, the Special Master requested that Los Angeles MTA
procure 297 additional new buses beyond the Accelerated Bus Program
with delivery as soon as possible and at least 88 additional vehicles
in service by January 3, 2000.
In late November 1999, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an order, granting MTA's request for a temporary stay of the
court order. The Appeals Court set an expedited schedule for filing of
legal briefs in December and January, but no date was set for oral
arguments on MTA's appeal. MTA believes that the accelerated bus
procurement program to buy 2,095 new buses by 2004 will be sufficient
to meet the agreed load factors. Even with the recent stay of the court
order, the MTA is addressing the possible purchase of the additional
297 buses through current bid procurements and flexible options.
FTA believes that MTA's general need to purchase buses to relieve
overcrowding and expand service is a legitimate expenditure of federal
funds. Regardless of the ultimate resolution of the appeal, Los Angeles
MTA will still need to aggressively purchase a significant number of
buses in order to relieve any disparity in the level of services
provided throughout the community.
Question. Did Los Angeles MTA request this level of federal bus
funding? Do you know whether the MTA has included funding in its 2001
operating budget for the required 20 percent match for these funds?
Answer. In discussions last year with Los Angeles MTA over plans to
replace its bus fleet of aging vehicles, to provide reliable transit
service, and to meet the pending requirements of the Special Master's
Decision, FTA committed to seek up to $50 million in fiscal year 2001
to assist MTA in meeting these goals. Los Angeles MTA advises that the
matching funds are included in their 2001 operating budget.
Question. What does the Los Angeles MTA expanded bus procurement
plan assume for capital bus purchases in fiscal year 2001? What does
the consent decree, if implemented as it is currently fashioned,
require that LA MTA spend on bus purchases in fiscal year 2001? What
are the operating cost requirements for both these levels of capital
commitment?
Answer. The Accelerated Bus Procurement Program assumed the
purchase of 400 new buses in fiscal year 2001 at a cost of almost $157
million. However, the Federal District Court order further accelerated
the bus purchases for additional 297 buses at a cost of almost $116
million. This is currently pending before the Federal Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals which has stayed the orders of the District Court and
the decisions of the Special Master.
The projected operating cost of the Consent Decree for fiscal year
2001 is over $81 million. This cost does not include any implementation
changes that the Special Master's decision may mandate through the
current legal proceedings. Should the MTA not prevail in the current
legal proceedings, an additional $17 million for bus operations will be
necessary to implement the Special Master's requirement for the 88
additional buses.
Question. Can Los Angeles MTA, or any other transit provider, use
Section 5309 bus capital funds for ``expanded capital'' activities that
were traditionally considered operating activities? What are these
eligible activities? Are there any restrictions on this expanded use?
Answer. Yes, Los Angeles MTA can use any bus capital funding they
receive under section 5309 for preventive maintenance activities as
redefined in the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Act and subsequently
in TEA-21. TEA-21 redefined ``Capital'' to include preventive
maintenance activities to more closely align with the definition of
capital expenditures allowed under the Federal Highway Administration
programs and to help preserve the Federally funded assets.
Bus Capital expenditures can include acquisition or preventive
maintenance of buses, maintenance facilities, bus malls, transportation
centers, park-and-ride facilities, bus rebuild, bus preventive
maintenance, passenger amenities (i.e., passenger shelters), bus stop
signs, and miscellaneous equipment. These funds can not be used for
typical operating costs such as driver's salaries and fuel.
EXPANDED INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL
Question. The budget proposes to transfer $468 million from Revenue
Aligned Budget Authority for the purposes of making grants to Amtrak,
or to a single state or consortium of states, to improve passenger rail
service. These funds are in addition to the $521 million for Amtrak
capital grants, consistent with the ``glide path'' to operating self-
sufficiency by 2003, which both Amtrak and the administration have
committed to. What is the rationale for requiring a 50 percent match if
the grant is made to a state or consortium of states, but not requiring
any matching funds if the grant is made directly to Amtrak?
Answer. The Administration does not propose to treat Amtrak and
States differently under its proposed Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger
Fund. The Administration intends to encourage joint applications
between Amtrak and a State or consortium of States for funding under
this program. Eligible projects must generate a positive financial
contribution for Amtrak and positive net benefits for the public. The
funding, by law, can only be used to pay for up to 50 percent of a
project's total cost. This provision would apply equally to Amtrak or a
State grantee. In the case of a grant to Amtrak, the additional funding
could come from other company revenues, or a State or consortium of
States with which it is partnering.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION FEES
Question. On November 4, 1999, Chairman Wolf and I wrote to GAO
Comptroller General Walker, requesting that the General Accounting
Office perform an evaluation of the Hazardous Materials Emergency
Preparedness grants program, which is paid for by registration fees
charged to hazardous materials shippers and carriers. Concerns have
been raised by some members of the hazmat carriers industry that the
same shippers and carriers who pay for the HMEP grants program through
their user fees also participate in and pay for well established
emergency planning training programs in the private sector. We asked
GAO to determine whether the HMEP grants program goals are being met by
existing private sector initiatives to identify any duplication of
services.
In light of the ongoing GAO study, why has RSPA promulgated a final
rulemaking on the hazardous materials registration fee increase
(February 14, 2000 Federal Register)? Don't you think it was premature
for RSPA to move forward with the assessment of a fee increase when the
need for such an increase has not yet been reviewed by an impartial
party? Why did the Department make the decision to proceed on this
rulemaking while the GAO review in ongoing?
Answer. The increased funding will enhance safety by ensuring that
a larger segment of the response community will receive critical
initial and recurrent training at all levels, enhancing the extent and
quality of planning tools, and improving safety at a level consistent
with congressional intent. The ultimate objective of this program is to
protect on-scene emergency response personnel at hazmat incidents, and
to enable them to more effectively protect lives and property
endangered by hazmat accidents. The funds paid through this rule will
go directly to fund state Hazmat safety programs, providing increased
performance to various response groups--from volunteer fire departments
to emergency medical responders and others who may be involved in
hazmat response efforts.
A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on April 15, 1999,
and public hearings were held in Washington, DC on May 25, 1999 and in
Des Moines, IA on June 22, 1999. In written comments and oral
presentations. Several industry organizations and associations
expressed support for fully funding the HMEP Grants program, although
some differed in their preferred approach to achieve full funding.
In the fiscal year 1999 budget submission, the Administration
informed Congress of its intent to propose rulemaking to change the
annual level of funding for the Hazardous Materials Emergency
Preparedness (HMEP) Grants Program by raising the registration fee and
broadening the base of registrants to achieve a more equitable program
geared to the risk and amount of hazardous materials being shipped. The
final rule was published on February 14, 2000 to ensure adequate time
for communicating new requirements to registrants before the new
registration cycle begins in July 2000.
COAST GUARD C-130 SPARES
Question. The Coast Guard has expressed concern that operational
readiness is eroding. In fact, in a recent speech at the Center for
Naval Analysis, the Commandant focused on the reduced availability of
C-130s and the lack of spare parts needed to keep them flying to
illustrate the readiness challenges the Coast Guard is facing. I asked
my staff to look into it, and have been informed that even though
Congress fully funded the aircraft maintenance line in the fiscal year
2000 appropriations bill, the Coast Guard reprogrammed funds below the
notification threshold from the aircraft maintenance account to pay for
``recruitment'' activities. Why is the Coast Guard citing lack of
readiness in an account that they have dunned in order to pay for
another activity?
Answer. The Coast Guard decided that it's mission needs can be best
met in 2000 by allocating $43 million to hire several hundred
additional active duty Coast Guard personnel above the levels
originally requested in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget or
funded in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The realignment of funds
improves Coast Guard fiscal year 2000 readiness by addressing
shortfalls in military technicians and maintenance personnel. The
fiscal year 2001 budget further improves readiness and operational
capabilities. No additional funds are requested in 2000 to backfill for
spare parts or other activities the Coast Guard deemed to be lower
priorities.
Question. Further, would you respond for the record on whether
additional internal reprogramming controls should be established for
the Department for instances such as this, or whether we need to revise
the congressional reprogramming guidelines to keep the modal
administrations from reprogramming below threshold from safety and
readiness accounts to fund administrative or ``recruiting'' activities?
Answer. The Department does not believe that more stringent
reprogramming controls are warranted. The reprogramming was not aimed
at an ``administrative'' activity; it was aimed at a root problem
affecting the Coast Guard readiness posture.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
NATIVE AMERICAN INITIATIVE
Question. Senator Slater, I applaud the Administration's Native
American initiative. As you know, one of the more important highway
programs for my home state of New Mexico is the Indian Reservation
Roads program. Of the approximately 22,000 miles of Bureau of Indian
Affairs road serving tribal lands, only 11 percent of the paved roads
are rated as being in good condition. Funds for Indian Reservation
Roads funds are critical to improving transportation for Native
Americans.
Please describe the Department's Native American initiative. How
much funding is being provided as part of this initiative, and what is
included in the Department's budget?
Answer. The Department's budget proposal dedicates $358 million to
address the needs of Native Americans. Of this total, $350 million will
be used for the FHWA Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program, including
the authorized level of $275 million plus $75 million of Revenue
Aligned Budget Authority. The increased funding for IRR will begin to
address the backlog of needs, estimated at about $4 billion nationally.
The Department's initiative also dedicates $1.2 million from FHWA's On-
the-Job Training (OJT) program and another $5 million from FTA's Job
Access and Reverse Commute program for projects which benefit Native
Americans and Native American Tribes. These programs help connect
people to opportunity by providing job skills and critical
transportation services. The budget proposes to provide both IRR and
OJT with 100 percent obligation authority so that all of the funds will
be made available for use.
Finally, the initiative includes $2 million for NHTSA activities
which benefit Native Americans. These activities will include improving
EMS services on Indian lands, developing safety materials and media
campaigns tailored to the Native American community, increasing the
number of health and safety professionals who receive injury prevention
training, and providing training and support for local traffic law
enforcement on Indian lands.
Question. How will the available funds be distributed?
Answer. Indian Reservation Roads funds are distributed by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to their regional offices. BIA
distributes funds according to a formula based on relative need which
was implemented in 1993. TEA-21 requires the Secretary of the Interior
to develop a new formula for fiscal year 2000. However, that process is
still under way; and implementation of the new formula is expected in
fiscal year 2001.
Tribal governments will be able to apply for the Job Access funds,
and FTA will base its decisions on the merit-based criteria described
in TEA-21. The Administration has also proposed legislative language
that would make it easier for tribal governments to compete for funding
by allowing them to apply directly to FTA without having to be selected
first by a state.
NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION AND TESTING
Question. Secretary Slater, the Administration continues to put an
emphasis on the use of technology in transportation. You know of my
interest in the work that is being done by the Aging Aircraft
Nondestructive Evaluation Center (AANC), which is supported by the
Federal Aviation Administration, and is now a partner in the Center of
Excellence for Airworthiness Assurance. This collaboration has been
very successful and continues to make progress to ensure greater safety
in the civilian aviation fleet.
Mr. Secretary, I remain extremely interested in the work of the
Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Evaluation Center in Albuquerque, and for
the various components of the Center of Excellence for Airworthiness
Assurance program. AANC in Albuquerque has been funded at $3 million
per year. I believe the FAA intends to continue this level of support
in fiscal year 2001. Is that the case?
Answer. FAA support of the AANC has been $3 million annually. In
fiscal year 2001, FAA is requesting a significant increase in the
Research, Engineering & Development (R,E,&D) budget that would increase
funding for AANC to $5 million. The $2 million increase above previous
year's funding would be for research of Aircraft Non-structural Systems
(wiring, subsystems, etc).
Question. What is the total budget request for the AANC and the
program elements associated with the Center of Excellence in the fiscal
year 2001 budget, and how does this compare to the proposed plan for
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. AANC's fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 budgets are $3
million and $5 million respectively. Though AANC is a core member of
the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence, it receives funding
directly through an interagency agreement between the FAA and the
Department of Energy.
Question. Is the request sufficient to support ongoing work? What
are the program goals for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 under
the FAA's plan?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request of $5 million will
support planned research in both structural inspection and
nonstructural systems. This level of funding will support the
initiatives described below.
The AANC will be maintained as an independent and highly capable
inspection validation center that fully supports the needs of the FAA's
National Aging Aircraft Research Program and the FAA field offices. In
fiscal year 2000, specific structural programs include the completion
of a field reliability study of industry procedures for finding
subsurface cracks in B-727/B-737 transport aircraft; completion of a
validation effort of a safer inspection for commuter aircraft (Metro
226/227 aircraft); and development of an industry accepted set of
calibration standards for consistent honeycomb inspections. Planned
accomplishments for the Nonstructural Systems Research program include
technical support for the Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory
Committee's Intrusive Inspection Project, and completion of circuit
breaker testing.
In fiscal year 2001, structural program goals include completion of
a validation activity to apply composite patches to metal aircraft (DC-
10/MD-11); completion of a corrosion detection experiment focused on B-
727/B-737 lap splice joints; completion of a visual inspection
experiment to determine the affect of job card instructions on
inspection performance. Nonstructural Systems Research will include
both aging electrical systems research (degradation assessment of
aircraft wire, visual inspection follow-on studies, and validation of
wire testing systems) and aging mechanical systems research
(destructive testing of flight control linkages, characterization of
the 747 testbed aircraft, and assessment of maintenance practices).
Question. The AANC and the Center of Excellence have focused their
research and technology development efforts largely on structural aging
in view of the current fleet of commercial aircraft. The FAA has
recognized the nonstructural aging issues as needing to be addressed,
for example, the wiring issue. Has the FAA committed any resources to
nonstructural work through the Center this year?
Answer. The FAA will be committing $550 thousand to AANC in fiscal
year 2000 for Aging Electrical Systems Research.
Question. Can you please tell the Subcommittee what the current
nonstructural aging program expects to accomplish in 2000 and how much
the FAA intends to commit to this area of research under the fiscal
year 2001 budget request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 funding will support the Aging
Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee's Intrusive Inspection
Project and completion of aircraft circuit breaker testing. In fiscal
year 2001, FAA has requested $2 million for nonstructural aging
research.
FAA COST-BASED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Question. Secretary Slater, during a hearing just one week ago
today on modernizing the FAA, both the Inspector General and the FAA
Administrator stated that the cost-based accounting system would not be
completed until 2002. A cost-based accounting system is the critical
element in the development of fees. Why do you assume the collection of
new user fees in 2001, when the cost-based accounting system will not
be complete?
Answer. The FAA's cost accounting system is being implemented in
phases. The first phase, currently underway, is to implement the Air
Traffic Services line of business, which accounts for the majority of
FAA costs. Other lines of business will be implemented in fiscal year
2001 through fiscal year 2002. FAA has completed work on enroute and
oceanic portions of Air Traffic Services, comprising approximately $2.5
billion of fiscal year 1998 costs. Identification of the fiscal year
1999 costs of these services will be completed in March 2000. FAA will
also complete work on the cost of Flight Service Stations this fiscal
year. In total, all of these services will account for approximately
$4.9 billion in agency costs. Since the FAA has valid cost data now for
enroute and oceanic services, that information would be available for
the establishment of cost-based user fees in fiscal year 2001 for these
services.
FAA EXCISE TAXES AND USER FEES
Question. Secretary Slater, the President's budget proposes a new
user fee within the Federal Aviation Administration and assumes
collection of $965 million in 2001. In 2005, the President's budgetary
receipt projections show the proposed fees increasing to $2 billion.
The budget specifically states that current aviation excise taxes will
be reduced over time as more efficient, service-based charges are
phased in. However, your projections do not show a reduction in excise
taxes in the outyears. Can you explain this apparent inconsistency?
Answer. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, the budget proposes to set
total aviation excise taxes and new user fees equal to the expected FAA
operational and capital needs in the subsequent year. The proposed fees
increase from $965 million in 2001 to $2 billion in 2005 to reflect
phasing in the fees over 2 years. The Budget reflects the total
revenues proposed to be collected from the aviation community. This
total is not affected by the conversion from taxes to fees.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 ACROSS-THE-BOARD REDUCTION
Question. Secretary Slater, in last year's Consolidated
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000 (Public Law 106-113), the
President and the Congress agreed to an across-the-board reduction of
0.38 percent in discretionary programs as part of an effort to ensure
that spending in fiscal year 2000 did not dip into the Social Security
surplus. We were successful in that effort, but in the process the
Department of Transportation had to reduce the program spending by
$179.6 million in fiscal year 2000.
First reports had the Department targeting FAA's Airport
Improvement program for the entire reduction, but according to the
budget documents that did not occur. Rather, each office and agency
took a part of the reduction with most coming from the Federal-aid
highway program (-$105.3 million) and the FAA Grants-in-Aid for
Airports program (-$54.4 million).
Mr. Secretary, would you please provide the Subcommittee with the
program, project, and activity details underlying the across-the-board
reductions for each agency?
Answer. The program, project, and activity details follow.
PUBLIC LAW 106-113 REDUCTIONS BY PROGRAM, PROJECT, OR ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000
--------------------------------------
Base Reduction Adjust base
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration: 27,625,292 -105,260 27,520,032
Federal-aid Highways (see
following table)................
Federal Railroad Administration:
Next Generation High-Speed 27,200 -103 27,097
rail: Tracks, structures/
technology..................
Rhode Island Rail Development 10,000 -38 9,962
Alaska Railroad 15,000 -38 14,962
Rehabilitation..............
Federal Transit Administration:
Capital Investment:
New Starts (see following 973,047 -11,197 961,850
table)..................
Bus (see attached table 543,303 -6,206 537,097
by PPA).................
Transit planning & research: 26,600 -243 26,357
National program (see
following table)............
Federal Aviation Administration: 1,950,000 -54,362 1,895,638
Grants-in-aid for Airports......
U.S. Coast Guard:
Acquisition, Construction, 77,000 -1,478 75,522
and Improvements: Seagoing
Buoy Tender (WLB)...........
Alteration of Bridges:
Florida Ave. RR/HW 3,000 -29 2,972
Bridge, New Orleans, LA.
Limehouse Bridge, 1,000 -29 972
Charleston, SC..........
Environmental Compliance and 16,989 -65 16,924
Restoration.................
Maritime Administration:
Operations and Training:
US Merchant Marine 34,073 -129 33,944
Academy.................
State Maritime Academies. 7,000 -27 6,973
Other Operations and 31,000 -118 30,882
Training................
Title XI Program......... 6,000 -37 5,963
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 12,017 -46 11,971
Corp.: Operations and
Maintenance.....................
Office of Inspector General: 44,616 -170 44,446
Salaries and Expenses...........
Surface Transportation Board: 15,388 -58 15,330
Salaries and Expenses...........
Office of the Secretary:
Minority Business Outreach... 2,900 -18 2,882
Transportation, Planning, R&D 3,227 -10 3,217
--------------------------------------
Total reduction............ ........... 179,661 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid Highway Program--Treatment of 0.38 Reduction Under the
Fiscal Year 2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act
BACKGROUND
The fiscal year 2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act contains a
government-wide rescission in the amount of 0.38 percent of the
discretionary budget authority provided (or obligation limitation
imposed) for fiscal year 2000 for each agency of the Federal
government. For the Federal-aid highway program, it has been
interpreted that this reduction applies to the Federal-aid obligation
limitation.
The Act further provides some discretion in administering the
rescission, except that no program, project, or activity of any agency
may be reduced by more than 15 percent. The reduction determined for
the Federal-aid highway program is $105,260,000, which equates to a
0.38 reduction in the $27.7 billion fiscal year 2000 Federal-aid
obligation limitation, i.e., the Federal-aid highway program did not
absorb a disproportionate share of the reduction under the broad
authority provided.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE 0.38 REDUCTION WITHIN THE FEDERAL-AID OBLIGATION
LIMITATION
The Federal-aid obligation limitation is divided among programs and
the States based on a multi-step process provided in TEA-21 and
slightly modified in section 310 of the fiscal year 2000 DOT
Appropriations Act. Under this process, limitation is first reserved,
or set-aside, for administrative expenses and programs funded from the
administrative takedown authorized by section 104(a) of Title 23, the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the Highway Use Tax Evasion
program, funds provided through Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, and
carryover balances for allocated programs from previous years.
The limitation remaining after these initial set-asides is then
compared to the total remaining new authorizations of contract
authority subject to the limitation for the year. This ratio of total
limitation to total authorization (the ``limitation ratio'') is used in
the remaining steps of the distribution to determine how much
limitation each program or State receives. For fiscal year 2000, this
ratio was determined to be 87.1 percent.
Next, the limitation ratio is used to calculate how much limitation
is set-aside for three specially designated programs--High Priority
Projects, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, and the Appalachian
Development Highway System program. Limitation setaside for these
programs is available until used. Similarly, $2 billion in limitation
is setaside for the Minimum Guarantee program and this limitation is
available until used; that is, it is ``no-year'' limitation.
Again using the limitation ratio, limitation is then set-aside for
allocated (not apportioned to the States) programs, except for those
discussed above. The amount of limitation each allocated program
receives is calculated by multiplying the new authorization for the
fiscal year by the limitation ratio. For example, an allocated program
authorized at $100 million receives $87.1 million in fiscal year 2000.
Discretionary programs such as the Bridge Discretionary program,
Transportation and Community and System Preservation program, and
Public Lands Discretionary program, are subject to this provision. For
fiscal year 2000, Congressional earmarks of discretionary programs
contained in the DOT Appropriations Act were reduced by the same ratio
as the overall category, i.e., they were funded at 87.1 percent of the
earmarked amount. In fiscal year 1999, earmarks in the ITS deployment
program, which was fully earmarked, were proportionately reduced. Those
in the only other earmarked discretionary category, public lands, were
not.
Finally, after these aforementioned set-asides are made, the
balance of the limitation is then distributed among the States, with
each State's portion of the limitation based on its relative share of
apportioned funds for the fiscal year. This ``formula'' limitation,
which amounted to $20.896 billion in fiscal year 2000 prior to the 0.38
percent reduction, is available only until the end of the fiscal year.
The $105.260 million reduction for the Federal-aid highway program is
being taken from this portion of the obligation limitation, thereby
very modestly reducing each State's available limitation used to
obligate funds for major Federal-aid programs.
AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2000 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION PURSUANT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 OMNIBUS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT
[PUBLIC LAW 106-113]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 Revised fiscal
formula 0.38 percent year 2000 formula
States obligation reduction obligation
limitation limitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA................................................ 384,338,074 1,936,056 382,402,018
ALASKA................................................. 207,758,883 1,046,560 206,712,323
ARIZONA................................................ 346,390,196 1,744,898 344,645,298
ARKANSAS............................................... 272,075,867 1,370,549 270,705,318
CALIFORNIA............................................. 1,998,381,178 10,066,599 1,988,314,579
COLORADO............................................... 260,133,906 1,310,393 258,823,513
CONNECTICUT............................................ 296,960,378 1,495,901 295,464,477
DELAWARE............................................... 97,970,572 493,515 97,477,057
DIST. OF COL........................................... 91,616,706 461,508 91,155,198
FLORIDA................................................ 955,595,725 4,813,696 950,782,029
GEORGIA................................................ 702,470,469 3,538,609 698,931,860
HAWAII................................................. 106,701,488 537,496 106,163,992
IDAHO.................................................. 149,935,553 755,282 149,180,271
ILLINOIS............................................... 716,872,910 3,611,159 713,261,751
INDIANA................................................ 483,509,231 2,435,618 481,073,613
IOWA................................................... 264,369,118 1,331,727 263,037,391
KANSAS................................................. 260,447,308 1,311,971 259,135,337
KENTUCKY............................................... 342,824,902 1,726,938 341,097,964
LOUISIANA.............................................. 333,571,233 1,680,324 331,890,909
MAINE.................................................. 111,969,808 564,034 111,405,774
MARYLAND............................................... 344,534,993 1,735,553 342,799,440
MASSACHUSETTS.......................................... 385,222,264 1,940,510 383,281,754
MICHIGAN............................................... 676,689,106 3,408,738 673,280,368
MINNESOTA.............................................. 316,828,617 1,595,985 315,232,632
MISSISSIPPI............................................ 263,802,026 1,328,870 262,473,156
MISSOURI............................................... 525,406,831 2,646,672 522,760,159
MONTANA................................................ 203,475,124 1,024,981 202,450,143
NEBRASKA............................................... 177,958,007 896,442 177,061,565
NEVADA................................................. 149,856,618 754,884 149,101,734
NEW HAMPSHIRE.......................................... 105,380,514 530,841 104,849,673
NEW JERSEY............................................. 565,760,830 2,849,951 562,910,879
NEW MEXICO............................................. 204,440,139 1,029,842 203,410,297
NEW YORK............................................... 1,060,079,127 5,340,018 1,054,739,109
NORTH CAROLINA......................................... 557,184,939 2,806,751 554,378,188
NORTH DAKOTA........................................... 144,956,145 730,199 144,225,946
OHIO................................................... 725,645,538 3,655,350 721,990,188
OKLAHOMA............................................... 338,839,587 1,706,863 337,132,724
OREGON................................................. 261,335,465 1,316,445 260,019,020
PENNSYLVANIA........................................... 931,243,388 4,691,024 926,552,364
RHODE ISLAND........................................... 125,756,677 633,484 125,123,193
SOUTH CAROLINA......................................... 341,408,922 1,719,805 339,689,117
SOUTH DAKOTA........................................... 150,782,355 759,548 150,022,807
TENNESSEE.............................................. 443,959,373 2,236,391 441,722,982
TEXAS.................................................. 1,566,389,699 7,890,495 1,558,499,204
UTAH................................................... 172,572,570 869,313 171,703,257
VERMONT................................................ 100,862,279 508,081 100,354,198
VIRGINIA............................................... 541,523,969 2,727,860 538,796,109
WASHINGTON............................................. 390,165,370 1,965,410 388,199,960
WEST VIRGINIA.......................................... 180,821,517 910,866 179,910,651
WISCONSIN.............................................. 405,531,698 2,042,816 403,488,882
WYOMING................................................ 153,488,536 773,179 152,715,357
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................ 20,895,795,728 105,260,000 20,790,535,728
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
[Fiscal year 2000 section 5309 new start deltas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction Public Revised
State Project location and description Allocation Law 106-113 allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK/HI Alaska or Hawaii Ferry Projects $10,322,000 $118,781 $10,203,219
AK Girdwood, Alaska Commuter Rail Project 9,925,000 114,213 9,810,787
AL Birmingham-Transit Corridor 2,977,500 34,264 2,943,236
AZ Phoenix-Metropolitan Area Transit Project 4,962,500 57,106 4,905,394
CA Sacramento-South Corridor LRT Project 24,812,500 285,532 24,526,968
CA San Francisco-BART Extension to the Airport 64,512,500 742,384 63,770,116
Project
CA San Jose-Tasman West Light Rail Project 19,850,000 228,426 19,621,574
CA San Diego-Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit 19,850,000 228,426 19,621,574
Project
CA San Diego-Mid-Coast Corridor Project 4,962,500 57,106 4,905,394
CA San Diego-Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail System 1,985,000 22,843 1,962,157
CA Los Angeles-North Hollywood Extension Project 49,625,000 571,064 49,053,936
CA Los Angeles-Mid-City and East Side Corridors Pro- 3,970,000 45,685 3,924,315
jects
CA Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN Corridor Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
CA Orange County-Transitway Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
CA Stockton-Altamont Commuter Rail Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
CA San Bernardino-Metrolink Extension Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
CO Denver-Southwest Corridor Project 34,737,500 399,745 34,337,755
CO Denver-Southeast Corridor Project 2,977,500 34,264 2,943,236
CO Roaring Fork Valley Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
CT Stamford-Fixed Guideway Connector 992,500 11,421 981,079
DE Wilmington-Downtown Transit Connector 992,500 11,421 981,079
FL Fort Lauderdale-Tri-County Commuter Rail Project 9,925,000 114,213 9,810,787
FL Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties Rail 496,250 5,711 490,539
Corridor
FL Miami Metro-Dade Transit East-West Corridor Pro- 1,488,750 17,132 1,471,618
ject
FL Tampa Bay-Regional Rail Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
FL Pinellas County-Mobility Initiative Project 2,481,250 28,553 2,452,697
FL Orlando-Lynx Light Rail Project [Phase 1] 4,962,500 57,106 4,905,394
GA Atlanta-South DeKalb-Lindbergh Corridor Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
GA Atlanta-North Line Extension Project 44,803,440 515,580 44,287,860
IL Chicago-Metra Commuter Rail Project 24,812,500 285,532 24,526,968
IL Chicago-CTA Douglas Branch Line Project 3,473,750 39,975 3,433,775
IL Chicago-CTA Ravenswood Branch Line Project 3,473,750 39,975 3,433,775
IN Indianapolis-Northeast Downtown Corridor Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
IN Northern Indiana-South Shore Commuter Rail Pro- 3,970,000 45,685 3,924,315
ject
KS/MO Kansas City Area-Johnson County, KS, I-35 992,500 11,421 981,079
Commuter Rail Project
LA New Orleans-Canal Street Corridor Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
ME Calais-Branch Rail Line Regional Transit Program 496,250 5,711 490,539
MA Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway 53,490,785 615,550 52,875,235
MA Boston-Urban Ring Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
MA Boston-North Shore Corridor Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
MA/NH Lowell, MA-Nashua, NH Commuter Rail Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
MD MARC Commuter Rail Project 697,730 8,029 689,701
MD MARC-Expansion Projects-Silver Spring Intermodal 1,488,750 17,132 1,471,618
and Penn-Camden Rail Connection
MD Baltimore-Central LRT Double Track Project 4,714,380 54,251 4,660,129
MD Wash.DC/MD-Washington Metro-Blue Line Extension- 4,714,380 54,251 4,660,129
Addision Road (Largo) Project
MN Twin Cities-Transitways Projects 2,977,500 34,264 2,943,236
MN Twin Cities-Transitways-Hiawatha Corridor Project 42,479,000 488,831 41,990,169
MO/IL St. Louis-St. Clair MetroLink Light Rail (Phase 49,625,000 571,064 49,053,936
II) Extension Project
MO St. Louis-MetroLink Cross County Corridor Project 2,481,250 28,553 2,452,697
NC Charlotte-North-South Corridor Transitway Project 3,970,000 45,685 3,924,315
NC Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill-Triangle Transit 7,940,000 91,370 7,848,630
Project
NJ Newark Rail Link MOS-1 Project 11,910,000 137,055 11,772,945
NJ New Jersey Hudson-Bergen LRT Project 98,257,500 1,130,714 97,126,786
NJ/NY Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor 4,962,500 57,106 4,905,394
NJ West Trenton Rail Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
NM Greater Albuquerque Mass Transit Project 6,947,500 79,949 6,867,551
NM Santa Fe/El Dorado Rail Link 2,977,500 34,264 2,943,236
NV Las Vegas-Clark County, Nevada Fixed Guideway 3,473,750 39,975 3,433,775
Project \1\
NY New York-Whitehall Ferry Terminal Reconstruction 1,985,000 22,843 1,962,157
Project
NY New York-LIRR East Side Access Project 1,985,000 22,843 1,962,157
OH Dayton-Light Rail Study 992,500 11,421 981,079
OH Cincinnati-Northeast/Northern Kentucky Corridor 992,500 11,421 981,079
Project
OH Cleveland-Euclid Corridor Improvement Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
OH Canton-Akron-Cleveland Commuter Rail Project 2,481,250 28,553 2,452,697
OR Portland-Westside-Hillsboro Project 10,979,040 126,342 10,852,698
OR Portland-Wilsonville to Washington County, OR 496,250 5,711 490,539
Connection to Westside
PA Harrisburg-Capitol Area Transit/Corridor One 496,250 5,711 490,539
Commuter Rail Project
PA Pittsburgh-Stage II Light Rail Project 7,940,000 91,370 7,848,630
PA Pittsburgh-North Shore Central Business District 9,925,000 114,213 9,810,787
Corridor Project
PA Philadelphia-SEPTA Cross County Metro 992,500 11,421 981,079
PA Philadelphia-Reading-SEPTA Schuylkill Valley 3,970,000 45,685 3,924,315
Metro Project
PR San Juan-Tren Urbano Project 31,760,000 365,481 31,394,519
SC Charleston-Monobeam Corridor Project 2,481,250 28,553 2,452,697
TN Memphis-Medical Center Rail Extension Project 2,481,250 28,553 2,452,697
TN Knoxville-Memphis Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 496,250 5,711 490,539
TN Nashville-Commuter Rail Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
TX Austin-Capital Metro Northwest/north Central 992,500 11,421 981,079
Corridor Project
TX Dallas-North Central Light Rail Extension Project 49,625,000 571,064 49,053,936
TX Galveston-Rail Trolley Extension Project 1,488,750 17,132 1,471,618
TX Houston-Regional Bus Project 52,374,205 602,701 51,771,504
TX Houston-Advanced Transit Program 2,977,500 34,264 2,943,236
UT Salt Lake City-North/South Light Rail Project 37,643,540 433,187 37,210,353
UT Salt Lake City-Olympic Transportation 9,925,000 114,213 9,810,787
Infrastructure Investments
VA Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
VA Dulles Corridor Project 24,812,500 285,532 24,526,968
VA Virginia Railway Express Commuter Rail Project 2,183,500 25,127 2,158,373
WA Seattle-Puget Sound RTA Link Light Rail Project 24,812,500 285,532 24,526,968
WA Seattle-Puget Sound RTA Sounder Commuter Rail 4,962,500 57,106 4,905,394
Project
WA Spokane-South Valley Corridor Light Rail Project 1,985,000 22,843 1,962,157
WI Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Rail Extension Project 992,500 11,421 981,079
-------------------------------------------------------
Total $973,047,000 $11,197,429 $961,849,571
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An additional $1,488,750 in lapsed FY 1995 New Starts funds is made available to the Clark County,
Nevada Fixed Guideway Project IAW Public Law 106-69.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
[Fiscal year 2000 section 5309 bus allocations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction
State Project location Allocation Public Law 106- Revised
and description 113 allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKAnchorage Ship $4,466,325 $51,397 $4,414,928
Creek intermodal
facility
AKFairbanks 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
intermodal rail/
bus transfer
facility
AKJuneau downtown 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
mass transit
facility
AKNorth Star Borough- 2,977,550 34,264 2,943,286
Fairbanks
intermodal
facility
AKWasilla intermodal 992,517 11,421 981,096
facility
AKWhittier 1,146,357 13,192 1,133,165
intermodal
facility and
pedestrian
overpass
ALAlabama statewide 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
rural bus needs
ALBaldwin Rural Area 992,517 11,421 981,096
Transportation
System buses
ALBirmingham 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
intermodal
facility
ALBirmingham- 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Jefferson County
buses
ALCullman, buses 496,258 5,711 490,547
ALDothan Wiregrass 992,517 11,421 981,096
Transit Authority
vehicles and
transit facility
ALEscambia County 99,252 1,142 98,110
buses and bus
facility
ALGees Bend Ferry 99,252 1,142 98,110
facilities,
Wilcox County
ALHuntsville Airport 3,473,808 39,975 3,433,833
international
intermodal center
ALHuntsville, 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
intermodal
facility
ALHuntsville Space 3,473,808 39,975 3,433,833
and Rocket Center
intermodal center
ALJasper buses 49,626 571 49,055
ALJefferson State 198,503 2,284 196,219
Community College/
University of
Montevallo
pedestrian
walkway
ALMarshall County, 496,258 5,711 490,547
buses
ALMobile waterfront 4,962,583 57,107 4,905,476
terminal complex
ALMontgomery Union 3,473,808 39,975 3,433,833
Station
intermodal center
and buses
ALValley bus and bus 109,177 1,256 107,921
facilities
ARArkansas Highway 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
and Transit
Department buses
ARArkansas state 794,013 9,137 784,876
safety and
preventative
maintenance
facility
ARFayetteville, 496,258 5,711 490,547
University of
Arkansas Transit
System buses
ARHot Springs, 992,517 11,421 981,096
national park
intermodal
parking facility
ARHot Springs, 555,809 6,396 549,413
transportation
depot and plaza
ARLittle Rock, 297,755 3,426 294,329
Central Arkansas
Transit buses
AZPhoenix bus and 3,721,937 42,831 3,679,106
bus facilities
AZPhoenix South 496,258 5,711 490,547
Central Avenue
transit facility
AZSan Luis, bus 69,476 800 68,676
AZTucson buses 2,535,880 29,182 2,506,698
AZYuma paratransit 124,065 1,428 122,637
buses
CABell, buses and 198,503 2,284 196,219
bus facilities
CACalifornia 79,401 914 78,487
Mountain Area
Regional Transit
Authority fueling
stations
CACommerce, buses 357,306 4,112 353,194
and bus
facilities
CAContra Costa 248,129 2,855 245,274
County Connection
buses
CACudahy, buses and 119,102 1,371 117,731
bus facilities
CACulver City, 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
CityBus buses
CADavis, Unitrans 620,323 7,138 613,185
transit
maintenance
facility
CAHealdsburg, 992,517 11,421 981,096
intermodal
facility
CAI-5 Corridor 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
intermodal
transit centers
CALivermore 992,517 11,421 981,096
automatic vehicle
locator program
CALodi, multimodal 843,639 9,708 833,931
facility
CALos Angeles County 2,977,550 34,264 2,943,286
Metropolitan
transportation
authority buses
CALos Angeles County 1,736,904 19,988 1,716,916
Foothill Transit
buses and HEV
vehicles
CALos Angeles 2,233,162 25,698 2,207,464
Municipal Transit
Operators
Coalition
CALos Angeles, Union 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Station Gateway
Intermodal
Transit Center
CAMaywood, buses and 119,102 1,371 117,731
bus facilities
CAModesto, bus 620,323 7,138 613,185
maintenance
facility
CAMonterey, Monterey- 620,323 7,138 613,185
Salinas buses
CAOrange County, bus 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
and bus
facilities
CAPerris bus 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
maintenance
facility
CARedlands, trolley 794,013 9,137 784,876
project
CASacramento CNG 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
buses
CASan Bernardino 992,517 11,421 981,096
Valley, CNG buses
CASan Bernardino 2,977,550 34,264 2,943,286
train station
CASan Diego North 2,977,550 34,264 2,943,286
County buses and
CNG fueling
station
CASan Francisco, 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Islais Creek
maintenance
facility
CASanta Barbara 1,736,904 19,988 1,716,916
buses and bus
facility
CASanta Clarita bus 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
maintenance
facility
CASanta Cruz buses 1,741,867 20,045 1,721,822
and bus
facilities
CASanta Maria Valley/ 238,204 2,741 235,463
Santa Barbara
County, buses
CASanta Rosa/Cotati, 744,387 8,566 735,821
Intermodal
Transportation
Facilities
CAWestminster senior 148,877 1,713 147,164
citizen vans
CAWindsor, 744,387 8,566 735,821
Intermodal
Facility
CAWoodland Hills, 620,323 7,138 613,185
Warner Center
Transportation
Hub
COBoulder/Denver, 620,323 7,138 613,185
RTD buses
COColorado buses and 7,940,133 91,372 7,848,761
bus facilities
CODenver, Stapleton 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Intermodal Center
CTNew Haven bus 2,233,162 25,698 2,207,464
facility
CTNorwich buses 2,233,162 25,698 2,207,464
CTWaterbury, bus 2,233,162 25,698 2,207,464
facility
DCFuel cell bus and 4,813,706 55,394 4,758,312
bus facilities
program,
Georgetown Univer-
sity
DCWashington, D.C. 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
Intermodal
Transportation
Center, District
DEDelaware buses and 496,258 5,711 490,547
bus facility
DENew Castle County 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
buses and bus
facilities
FLDaytona Beach, 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
Intermodal Center
FLGainesville hybrid- 496,258 5,711 490,547
electric buses
and facilities
FLJacksonville buses 992,517 11,421 981,096
and bus
facilities
FLLakeland, Citrus 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Connection
transit vehicles
and related
equipment
FLMiami Beach, 744,387 8,566 735,821
electric shuttle
service
FLMiami-Dade Transit 2,729,421 31,409 2,698,012
buses
FLOrlando, Lynx 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
buses and bus
facilities
FLOrlando, Downtown 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
Intermodal
Facility
FLPalm Beach, buses 992,517 11,421 981,096
FLTampa HARTline 496,258 5,711 490,547
buses
GAAtlanta, MARTA 13,398,973 154,190 13,244,783
buses
GAChatham Area 3,473,808 39,975 3,433,833
Transit Bus
Transfer Center
and buses
GAGeorgia Regional 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
Transportation
Authority buses
GAGeorgia statewide 2,729,421 31,409 2,698,012
buses and bus-
related
facilities
HIHawaii buses and 2,233,162 25,698 2,207,464
bus facilities
HIHonolulu, bus 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
facility and
buses
IAAmes transit 694,762 7,995 686,767
facility
expansion
IACedar Rapids 3,315,007 38,150 3,276,857
intermodal
facility
IAClinton transit 496,258 5,711 490,547
facility
expansion
IAFort Dodge, 878,377 10,108 868,269
Intermodal
Facility (Phase
II)
IAIowa City 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
intermodal
facility
IAIowa statewide 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
buses and bus
facilities
IAIowa/Illinois 992,517 11,421 981,096
Transit
Consortium bus
safety and
security
IAMason City, bus 158,801 1,825 156,976
facility
ILEast Moline 645,136 7,424 637,712
transit center
ILIllinois statewide 8,138,636 93,656 8,044,980
buses and bus-
related equipment
INGary, Transit 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Consortium buses
INIndianapolis buses 4,962,583 57,107 4,905,476
INSouth Bend Urban 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Intermodal
Transportation
Facility
INWest Lafayette bus 1,736,904 19,988 1,716,916
transfer station/
terminal (Wabash
Land ing)
KSGirard, buses and 694,762 7,995 686,767
vans
KSGirard Southeast 476,408 5,482 470,926
Kansas Community
Action Agency
maintenance
facility
KSJohnson County, 248,129 2,855 245,274
farebox equipment
KSKansas City buses 744,387 8,566 735,821
KSKansas buses and 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
bus facilities
KSTopeka Transit 595,510 6,853 588,657
downtown transfer
facility
KSWichita, buses and 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
bus facilities
KYKentucky (southern 992,517 11,421 981,096
and eastern)
transit vehicles
KYLexington 992,517 11,421 981,096
(LexTran),
maintenance
facility
KYRiver City, buses 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
KYTransit Authority 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
of Northern
Kentucky (TANK)
buses
LABaton Rouge, buses 297,755 3,426 294,329
and bus-related
facilities
LAJefferson Parish, 44,663 514 44,149
buses and bus-
related
facilities
LALafayette, buses 148,877 1,713 147,164
and bus-related
facilities
LALouisiana DOTD, 521,071 5,996 515,075
buses and and bus-
related,
including the
purchase of vans
LAMonroe, buses and 287,830 3,312 284,518
bus-related
facilities
LANew Orleans, buses 3,275,305 37,691 3,237,614
and bus-related
facilities
LAShreveport, buses 327,530 3,769 323,761
and bus-related
facilities
LASt Tammany Parish, 59,551 685 58,866
buses and bus-
related
facilities
MAAttleboro 496,258 5,711 490,547
intermodal
transit facility
MABrockton 1,091,768 12,564 1,079,204
intermodal
transportation
center
MAGreenfield 496,258 5,711 490,547
Montague, buses
MAMerrimack Valley 464,002 5,340 458,662
Regional Transit
Authority bus
facilities
MAMontachusett, bus 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
and park-and-ride
facilities
MAPioneer Valley, 645,136 7,424 637,712
alternative fuel
and paratransit
vehicles
MAPittsfield 3,573,060 41,117 3,531,943
intermodal center
MASpringfield, Union 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Station
MASwampscott, buses 64,514 742 63,772
MAWestfield, 496,258 5,711 490,547
intermodal
transportation
facility
MAWorcester, Union 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
Station
Intermodal
Transportation
Center
MDMaryland statewide 11,413,940 131,347 11,282,593
bus facilities
and buses
MIDetroit, transfer 3,933,343 45,263 3,888,080
terminal
facilities
MIDetroit, EZ Ride 284,852 3,278 281,574
program
MIMenominee-Delta- 248,129 2,855 245,274
Schoolcraft buses
MIMichigan statewide 22,331,623 256,998 22,074,625
buses
MIPort Huron, CNG 496,258 5,711 490,547
fueling station
MNDuluth, Transit 992,517 11,421 981,096
Authority
community
circulation
vehicles
MNDuluth, Transit 496,258 5,711 490,547
Authority
intelligent
transportation
systems
MNDuluth, Transit 496,258 5,711 490,547
Authority Transit
Hub
MNGreater Minnesota 496,258 5,711 490,547
transit
authorities
MNNorthstar 9,925,165 114,215 9,810,950
Corridor,
Intermodal
Facilities and
buses
MNTwin Cities 9,925,165 114,215 9,810,950
metroplitan buses
and bus
facilities
MOColumbia buses and 496,258 5,711 490,547
vans
MOFranklin County 198,503 2,284 196,219
buses and bus
facilities
MOJackson County 496,258 5,711 490,547
buses and bus
facilities
MOKansas City Area 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
Transit Authority
buses and Troost
transit center
MOMissouri statewide 3,473,808 39,975 3,433,833
bus and bus
facilities
MOOATS Transit 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
MOSoutheast Missouri 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
transportation
service rural,
elderly, disabled
service
MOSouthwest Missouri 992,517 11,421 981,096
State University
park and ride
facility
MOSt. Joseph buses 496,258 5,711 490,547
and vans
MOSt. Louis, Bi- 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
state Intermodal
Center
MOSt. Louis, buses 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
MSHarrison County 2,977,550 34,264 2,943,286
multimodal center
MSJackson, 992,517 11,421 981,096
maintenance and
administration
facility project
MSNorth Delta 1,191,020 13,706 1,177,314
planning and
development
district, buses
and bus
facilities
MTMissoula urban 595,510 6,853 588,657
transportation
district buses
NCGreensboro 3,314,013 38,136 3,275,877
multimodal center
NCGreensboro, 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
Transit Authority
buses
NCNorth Carolina 2,473,351 28,462 2,444,889
statewide buses
and bus
facilities
NDNorth Dakota 992,517 11,421 981,096
statewide buses
and bus-related
facilities
NHNew Hampshire 2,977,550 34,264 2,943,286
statewide transit
systems
NJNew Jersey Transit 4,962,583 57,107 4,905,476
alternative fuel
buses
NJNew Jersey Transit 1,736,904 19,988 1,716,916
jitney shuttle
buses
NJNewark intermodal 1,637,652 18,845 1,618,807
and arena access
improvements
NJNewark, Morris & 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Essex Station
access and buses
NJSouth Amboy, 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Regional
Intermodal
Transportation
Initiative
NMAlbuquerque West 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
Side transit
facility
NMAlbuquerque, buses 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
NMLas Cruces buses 744,387 8,566 735,821
and bus
facilities
NMNorthern New 2,729,421 31,409 2,698,012
Mexico Transit
Express/Park and
Ride buses
NMSanta Fe, buses 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
and bus
facilities
NVClark County 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
Regional
Transportation
Commission buses
and bus
facilities
NVLake Tahoe CNG 694,762 7,995 686,767
buses
NVWashoe County 2,233,162 25,698 2,207,464
transit
improvements
NYBabylon Intermodal 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Center
NYBuffalo, 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
Auditorium
Intermodal Center
NYDutchess County, 517,101 5,951 511,150
Loop System buses
NYIthaca intermodal 1,116,581 12,849 1,103,732
transportation
center
NYIthaca, TCAT bus 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
technology
improvements
NYLong Island, CNG 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
transit vehicles
and facilities
and bus
replacement
NYMineola/ 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Hicksville, LIRR
intermodal
centers
NYNew York City 992,517 11,421 981,096
Midtown West 38th
Street ferry
terminal
NYNew York, West 1,736,904 19,988 1,716,916
72nd St.
Intermodal
Station
NYPutnam County, 466,483 5,368 461,115
vans
NYRensselaer 5,955,100 68,529 5,886,571
intermodal bus
facility
NYRochester buses 992,517 11,421 981,096
and bus facility
NYSyracuse, buses 2,977,550 34,264 2,943,286
NYUtica Union 2,084,285 23,985 2,060,300
Station
NYWestchester County 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
DOT, articulated
buses
NYWestchester 971,674 11,182 960,492
County, Bee-Line
transit system
fareboxes
NYWestchester 992,517 11,421 981,096
County, Bee-Line
transit system
shuttle buses
OHCleveland, 620,323 7,138 613,185
Triskett Garage
bus maintenance
facility
OHDayton, Multimodal 4,094,131 47,114 4,047,017
Transportation
Center
OHOhio statewide 8,942,823 102,910 8,839,913
buses and bus
facilities
OKOklahoma statewide 4,962,583 57,107 4,905,476
bus facilities
and buses
ORCorvallis buses 297,755 3,426 294,329
and automated
passenger
information
system
ORLane County, Bus 4,367,073 50,254 4,316,819
Rapid Transit,
buses and
facilities
ORLincoln County 248,129 2,855 245,274
Transit District
buses
ORPortland, Tri-Met 645,136 7,424 637,712
bus maintenance
facility
ORPortland, Tri-Met 1,736,904 19,988 1,716,916
buses
ORSalem Area Mass 496,258 5,711 490,547
Transit District
natural gas buses
ORSandy buses 99,252 1,142 98,110
ORSouth Metro Area 198,503 2,284 196,219
Rapid Transit
(SMART)
maintenance
facility
ORSunset Empire 297,755 3,426 294,329
Transit District
intermodal
transit facility
PAAllegheny County 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
buses
PAAltoona bus 2,977,550 34,264 2,943,286
testing
PAAltoona, Metro 835,699 9,617 826,082
Transit Authority
buses and transit
system
improvements
PAArmstrong County- 148,877 1,713 147,164
Mid-County, bus
facilities and
buses
PABethlehem, 992,517 11,421 981,096
intermodal
facility
PACambria County, 570,697 6,567 564,130
bus facilities
and buses
PACentre Area 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Transportation
Authority buses
PAChester County, 992,517 11,421 981,096
Paoli
Transportation
Center
PAErie, Metropolitan 992,517 11,421 981,096
Transit Authority
buses
PAFayette County, 1,260,496 14,505 1,245,991
intermodal
facilities and
buses
PALackawanna County 595,510 6,853 588,657
Transit System
buses
PALackawanna County, 992,517 11,421 981,096
intermodal bus
facility
PAMid-Mon Valley 248,129 2,855 245,274
buses and bus
facilities
PANorristown, 992,517 11,421 981,096
parking garage
(SEPTA)
PAPhiladelphia, 4,962,583 57,107 4,905,476
Frankford
Transportation
Center
PAPhiladelphia, 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Intermodal 30th
Street Station
PAReading, BARTA 1,736,904 19,988 1,716,916
Intermodal
Transportation
Facility
PARobinson, Towne 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
Center Intermodal
Facility
PASomerset County 173,690 1,999 171,691
bus facilities
and buses
PATowamencin 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
Township,
Intermodal Bus
Transportation
Center
PAWashington County 625,285 7,196 618,089
intermodal
facilities
PAWestmoreland 198,503 2,284 196,219
County,
Intermodal
Facility
PAWilkes-Barre, 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Intermodal
Facility
PAWilliamsport bus 1,191,020 13,706 1,177,314
facility
PRSan Juan 595,510 6,853 588,657
Intermodal access
RIProvidence, buses 3,269,350 37,622 3,231,728
and bus
maintenance
facility
SCCentral Midlands 2,679,795 30,838 2,648,957
COG/Columbia
transit system
SCCharleston Area 1,885,782 21,701 1,864,081
regional
transportation
authority
SCClemson Area 545,884 6,282 539,602
Transit buses and
bus equipment
SCGreenville transit 496,258 5,711 490,547
authority
SCPee Dee buses and 893,265 10,279 882,986
facilities
SCSantee-Wateree 397,007 4,569 392,438
regional
transportation
authority
SCSouth Carolina 1,210,870 13,934 1,196,936
Statewide Virtual
Transit
Enterprise
SCTransit Management 595,510 6,853 588,657
of Spartanburg,
Incorporated
(SPARTA)
SDSouth Dakota 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
statewide bus
facilities and
buses
TNSouthern Coalition 3,473,808 39,975 3,433,833
for Advanced
Transportation
(SCAT) (TN, GA,
FL, AL) electric
buses
TXAustin buses 1,736,904 19,988 1,716,916
TXBeaumont Municipal 992,517 11,421 981,096
Transit System
buses and bus
facilities
TXBrazos Transit 992,517 11,421 981,096
Authority buses
and bus
facilities
TXEl Paso Sun Metro 992,517 11,421 981,096
buses
TXFort Worth bus 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
replacement
(including CNG
vehicles) and
paratransit
vehicles
TXFort Worth 3,076,802 35,407 3,041,395
intermodal
transportation
center
TXGalveston buses 992,517 11,421 981,096
and bus
facilities
TXTexas statewide 4,962,583 57,107 4,905,476
small urban and
rural buses
UTOgden Intermodal 794,013 9,137 784,876
Center
UTSalt Lake City 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
Olympics bus
facilities
UTSalt Lake City 2,481,292 28,554 2,452,738
Olympics regional
park and ride
lots
UTSalt Lake City 496,258 5,711 490,547
Olympics transit
bus loan project
UTUtah Transit 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
Authority,
intermodal
facilities
UTUtah Transit 6,451,358 74,240 6,377,118
Authority/Park
City Transit,
buses
VAAlexandria, bus 992,517 11,421 981,096
maintenance
facility
VAAlexandria, 992,517 11,421 981,096
Transit Center
VADulles Corridor 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
Park-and-Ride
Express Bus
Program
VAFair Lakes League 198,503 2,284 196,219
VALoudoun Transit 992,517 11,421 981,096
multi-modal
facility
VAPotomac and 1,786,530 20,559 1,765,971
Rappahannock
Transportation
Commission fleet
replacement
VAPrince William 84,364 971 83,393
County Agency on
the Aging bus
replacement
VARichmond, GRTC bus 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
maintenance
facility
VARichmond Main 2,332,414 26,840 2,305,574
Street Station
VTBurlington 2,679,795 30,838 2,648,957
multimodal center
VTChittenden County 794,013 9,137 784,876
Transportation
Authority buses
VTEssex Junction 496,258 5,711 490,547
multimodal
station
rehabilitation
VTKillington- 248,129 2,855 245,274
Sherburne
satellite bus
facility
WABremerton 744,387 8,566 735,821
multimodal center-
Sinclair's
Landing
WAEverett, 1,935,407 22,272 1,913,135
Multimodal
Transportation
Center
WAGrant County, 496,258 5,711 490,547
Grant Transit
Authority
WAGrays Harbor 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
County, buses and
equipment
WAKing Country Metro 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
King Street
Station
WAKing County Metro 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
Atlantic and
Central buses
WAKing County park 1,339,897 15,419 1,324,478
and ride
expansion
WAMount Vernon, 1,736,904 19,988 1,716,916
buses and bus
related
facilities
WAPierce County 496,258 5,711 490,547
Transit buses and
bus facilities
WASeattle, 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
intermodal
transportation
terminal
WASequim, Clallam 992,517 11,421 981,096
Transit
multimodal center
WASnohomish County, 1,240,646 14,277 1,226,369
Community Transit
buses, equipment
and facilities
WASpokane, HEV buses 1,488,775 17,132 1,471,643
WATacoma Dome 248,129 2,855 245,274
Station
WAVancouver Clark 992,517 11,421 981,096
County (C-TRAN)
bus facilities
WAWashington State 1,985,033 22,843 1,962,190
DOT combined
small transit
system buses and
bus facilities
WIMilwaukee County, 5,955,100 68,529 5,886,571
buses
WIWisconsin 14,143,361 162,756 13,980,605
statewide bus
facilities and
buses
WVHuntington 11,910,198 137,058 11,773,140
intermodal
facility
WVParkersburg, 4,466,325 51,397 4,414,928
intermodal
transportation
facility
WVWest Virginia 4,962,583 57,107 4,905,476
Statewide
Intermodal
Facility and
buses
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal 537,348,250 6,183,585 531,164,665
(initial
allocations/
projects
adjusted)
=================================================
Additional
Allocations Under
Public Law 106-113
AKAnchorage, Alaska 2,481,250 9,500 2,471,750
2001 Special
Olympics Winter
Games buses and
bus facilities
CASanta Clarita, 744,375 2,850 741,525
California bus
maintenance
facility
MNTwin Cities, 1,736,875 6,650 1,730,225
Minnesota
metropolitan
buses and bus
facilities
NELincoln, Nebraska 992,500 3,800 988,700
bus maintenance
facility
-------------------------------------------------
Subtotal 5,955,000 22,800 5,932,200
-------------------------------------------------
Total 543,303,250 6,206,385 537,096,865
ALLOCATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH, NATIONAL PROGRAM
[Congressional Earmarks]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000
-----------------------------------------------
Reduction
Conference Public Law 106- Revised
113
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hennepin Community Works Program, Hennepin County, MN........... $1,000,000 $11,509 $988,492
Project ACTION (National Easter Seat Society)................... 3,000,000 34,523 2,965,477
Fuel Cell Bus Program, Palm Springs, CA......................... 1,000,000 11,508 988,492
Advanced Transit Systems and Electric Vehicle Program (CALSTART) 3,250,000 37,400 3,212,600
Santa Barbara Transportation Institute.......................... 500,000 5,754 494,246
Zinc-Air Battery Research....................................... 1,000,000 11,508 988,492
Safety and Security (TSI and others)............................ 5,450,000 .............. 5,450,000
Ady. Electric Transit Buses/Infrastructure (MBTA, MA)........... 1,500,000 17,261 1,482,739
Intermodal Tech Center (Gloucester, MA)......................... 1,500,000 17,261 1,482,739
Transit Technology (Washoe County, NV).......................... 1,250,000 14,384 1,235,616
Electric Vehicle Information Sharing and Technology Transfer 750,000 8,631 741,369
Program........................................................
Adv. Propulsion Control System (SEPTA).......................... 3,000,000 34,523 2,965,477
Portland, ME Independent Transportation Network................. 500,000 5,754 494,246
International Program........................................... 1,000,000 11,508 988,492
Pittsfield Economic Development Authority, Electric Bus Program. 1,350,000 15,535 1,334,465
Citizens for Modem Transit, Missouri............................ 300,000 3,452 296,548
Wheeling, West Virginia mobility study.......................... 250:000 2,876 247,124
-----------------------------------------------
Total Earmarks............................................ 26,600,000 243,396 26,356,614
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Did DOT follow the provisions of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act that no program, project, or activity could be
reduced by more than 15 percent? Did DOT follow the guidance of OMB
that: reductions should be taken from the least critical funding
available to the agency; reductions should be considered from funding
above the President's request; no reductions should be taken that would
require reductions-in-force (RIFs); and agencies should make targeted
recommendations rather than across-the-board funding cuts?
Answer. The Department complied with the law that no program,
project, or activity could be reduced by more than 15 percent; and the
Department followed the OMB guidance on how to apply the reduction.
Specifically, the Department allocated the reduction so that operating
programs affecting life and safety, such as Motor Carriers, National
Highway Traffic Safety, FAA operations and capital, and Coast Guard
operations were not reduced. The reductions to the remaining programs
were focused, to the extent possible, on Congressional earmarks that
were not Administration priorities, and accounts that were funded at
higher levels than requested by the Administration. The Department's
appropriations bill contained close to 600 funding earmarks. These
earmarks were a logical place to absorb part of the reduction. For
FAA's airport grant program, the reduction of $54.4 million was taken
in this account since Congress enacted an obligation limitation
substantially above the Administration's request.
BORDERS AND CORRIDORS PROGRAM
Question. In last year's Transportation Appropriations bill signed
by the President, Congress earmarked several projects in the Section
1118-1119 Borders and Corridors program. One of those earmarks was a
small, but much-needed $1 million project to realign the road serving
the United States port-of-entry at Columbus, New Mexico. I understand
that the State of New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department has
chosen not to apply for these earmarked funds from the Federal Highway
Administration out of fear that such an application would jeopardize
the state's ability to receive funding for other projects for which it
has applied in the 1118-1119 program. It certainly was not my intention
in earmarking funds for such a small project to prejudice New Mexico's
ability to receive funding for other critical border-related projects
in the state.
Does the Department of Transportation consider whether a state has
received earmarked funds for a Section 1118-1119 project when deciding
whether to award funds to the same state for other discretionary
projects in the Section 1118-1119 program? In other words, are states
penalized or prejudiced if they receive a congressional earmark, or
does the Department review each state's projects on their merits and
with regard to available funds, without considering these earmarks?
Answer. The Department expects to make the final decisions for
fiscal year 2000 Borders and Corridors awards in March. Because of the
limited amount of funding available for this program, the Department
will base its decisions only on the merit of each project.
Competition for fiscal year 2000 funds is especially fierce because
the Department has received requests for far more funding than is
available. The Department has received approximately 150 applications
totaling over $2 billion. The fiscal year 2000 budget provides $122
million for the Borders and Corridors, but congressional earmarking has
limited the amount of truly discretionary funding to about half of the
total program. For fiscal year 2001, the Administration has requested
to double the funding for this program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
Question. Mr. Secretary, let me bring up a budget specific item.
You might refer to it as the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority or RABA--
I call it Bond/Chafee. This provision included in TEA-21 is very
specific. It says that increased revenue to the Highway Trust Fund
would be distributed equally across all Federal-Aid highway programs
and recognized that the dedicated tax would be spent for its dedicated
purposes. Last year your budget proposed diverting some of these
revenues to other items and Congress rejected it. This year you propose
to do something similar again. I will tell you now that I will work to
make certain that diversion of funds from the Bond/Chafee fund do not
occur.
But I have to ask you, do you disagree with me on the tremendous
highway infrastructure improvement needs that exist? I know that some
of the programs your budget would divert Bond/Chafee funding to already
receive Highway Trust Fund support. TEA-21 was clear in what received
funding from the Highway Trust Fund that is supported by gas taxes. If
these additional items are of such high priority why not propose to
fund them in a straightforward manner with offsets?
Answer. The Administration has proposed that a portion of the
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority be dedicated to programs such as the
Commercial Drivers License program, expanded passenger rail and the Job
Access program in order to improve safety, mobility, and economic
development--all priorities established in TEA-21. DOT agrees with the
need for highway infrastructure investment, but there is also a need to
view and invest in all parts of the surface transportation system.
AVIATION SAFETY
Question. Now, let me switch topics briefly. I commend the good
work of the Department of Transportation where under your leadership
the Department is aggressively pursuing open skies agreements to
facilitate increased global trade and U.S. jobs. As you have often
stated, the first priority in transportation is safety, and all of us
here support you on this.
Last year, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
performed an audit of the FAA to determine if they met international
standards. It is my understanding that the FAA did very well, and I
commend you and Administrator Garvey for that. I also understand that
ICAO is auditing every member country, 185 in total, against these same
international standards and that some of the countries are not doing as
well as the FAA.
Can you please provide for the record how the Department of
Transportation provides technical regulatory assistance to other
countries that do not do as well as the FAA in these ICAO audits? I am
especially interested in countries where we have bilateral airspace
agreements and how important the Department of Transportation's
assistance is to ensuring that passengers and goods being transported
to and from the United States are afforded the same level of safety
regardless of the air carrier?
Answer. Since the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program got
underway last March, we have not received results from many of the 185
audits. However, when appropriate in the aftermath of these audits,
ICAO makes available the services of its Technical Cooperation Bureau
(TCB) to assist nations in developing and implementing plans to remedy
identified deficiencies to ensure that these nations provide the level
of safety oversight required by ICAO standards.
FAA supports TCB efforts and has made significant contributions in
this arena. In June 1999, FAA completed development of a ``model
aviation document,'' i.e. a model aviation law, aviation regulations,
and implementing standards for flight operations and continuing
airworthiness of aircraft. As a follow-on to this effort, FAA and ICAO,
in the context of the ICAO TRAINAIR program, will soon complete
development of inspector and instructor training courses that are based
on the model aviation document. The model aviation document has been
made available to ICAO and any ICAO Contracting State that makes a
request. The courses will be available at the FAA Academy and any other
ICAO-sanctioned training center. FAA is also involved in several
collective safety oversight-related assistance projects, in
collaboration with ICAO, in South America and Asia.
Resources permitting, FAA also engages, on bilateral bases, in
cooperative assistance work with individual civil aviation authorities.
Examples include Venezuela and the People's Republic of China. While
FAA is interested in raising the safety bar globally, it is
particularly important that FAA efforts be focused on States that
either have operators that operate to the U.S. or engage in code-share
arrangements with U.S. air carriers.
Question. Last item, also related to aviation safety. I would like
to inquire about Alaska Airlines Flight 261, but first I would like to
offer my condolences to the families and friends of the 88 people who
perished in this tragic accident. This accident involving an MD-80
series aircraft is very troubling. I've read that the MD-80 has an
outstanding safety record, in fact one of the best in the industry. It
has the reputation as a safe, reliable aircraft, and there are more
than 1,000 of the aircraft being used by 69 airlines around the world.
Alaska Airlines, which, as I understand it, has a good safety record,
has pledged its support to the families and friends of those who lost
their lives on Flight 261. It is my understanding that NTSB, FAA,
Alaska Airlines, Boeing, pilots and many others are cooperating in the
investigation, all with the same goal, namely to determine the cause of
this tragic accident so that it can be prevented in the future. I was
wondering if you could briefly comment on the MD-80, the Department's
commitment to safety, and cooperation in accident investigations?
Answer. The DC-9/MD 80 fleet of some 2,300 aircraft worldwide does
indeed have an excellent safety record. Alaska Airlines has been flying
since 1932 and its record has also been excellent.
The Department is committed to providing full support to the NTSB's
investigation. The investigation team has made remarkable progress in
quickly finding the recorders and recovering critical pieces of the
aircraft's flight control system. The cooperation among all parties
involved in the investigation has been outstanding, and the Department
is confident that the Safety Board will determine the probable cause.
The Department will react quickly to the safety lessons learned
during the investigation and will take action to assure that this
tragic event will not be repeated.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Slade Gorton
EUROPEAN UNION'S HUSHKIT REGULATION
Question. Last year the European Union (EU) adopted a regulation
banning certain aircraft meeting the highest internationally recognized
noise standards from flying into Europe after 2002. At that time, I
strongly objected to the so-called hushkit regulation, arguing that it
undermined the integrity of the current and future international noise
standards and had a discriminatory impact on U.S. carriers and
equipment manufacturers.
During the appropriations process, I spearheaded a Sense of the
Senate Resolution encouraging the U.S. Government to take all
reasonable means to ensure that the regulation was repealed and to file
an Article 84 action within the International Civil Aviation (ICAO) if
repeal was not achieved. More than six months have passed, and I
understand the EU is no closer to repealing the rule. When will you be
filing the Article 84 action? I am told that such an action is underway
but has not yet been finalized. Can you give me a date certain by which
the action will be filed?
Answer. Led by the State Department's Legal Advisor's office,
counsel and experts from several agencies collaborated on the United
States' submission (the ``Memorial'') to ICAO. The action was filed on
March 14, 2000.
SOUND TRANSIT
Question. What is the current status of negotiations between the
Federal Transit Administration and Sound Transit regarding a Full
Funding Grant Agreement? Due to the fact that Sound Transit has been
rated as one of the top projects in the country, do you see any
obstacles to a Full Funding Grant Agreement being awarded this year?
Answer. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is working to
accommodate Sound Transit's aggressive time frame established for the
Link Light Rail design-build effort. In January 2000, Sound Transit
submitted a request for FTA approval of entry of Minimum Operable
Segment (MOS-1) into Final Design. Approval of Final Design was granted
on February 15, 2000. FTA and Sound Transit have begun discussions
regarding a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for MOS-1. The fiscal
year 2001 budget recommends Sound Transit for an FFGA at the $35
million level.
The Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act Conference Report directs FTA to enter into
FFGAs only when there are no outstanding issues which would have a
material effect on the estimated cost of the project or on the local
financial commitment to complete the project under the terms of the
agreement. To this end, FTA is currently reviewing the technical and
financial capacity and project cost estimate, and other issues, which
could potentially affect the timing of an FFGA.
FAA CONTRACT TOWERS
Question. It has come to my attention that the FAA has threatened
to cut funding to the Contract Tower Program on April 1. As you know, I
have been a consistent supporter of this program. Cuts would adversely
affect airports from Olympia to Walla Walla in Washington State. What
is the current status of this proposal, and what is the justification?
Answer. The FAA is facing a shortfall in its operating budget this
year. That is why the Administration has proposed fiscal year 2000
supplementals with the fiscal year 2001 budget; the supplementals would
allow the shifting of some costs currently being borne by the
Operations appropriation. No decisions have been made yet on the
canceling of contract tower services. Obviously, DOT does not want to
reduce funding for this program and hopes that Congress will provide
the supplemental funding to ensure continued operations. The contract
tower program is assumed to be fully funded in the FAA budget request
for fiscal year 2001.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
IMPROVEMENTS FOR SMALL COLORADO AIRPORTS
Question. Mr. Secretary, in different parts of Colorado, there are
airports which have peaks and valleys as far as passenger enplanements
go. I am concerned because they are usually smaller airports, compared
to Denver and Colorado Springs, and they may be in need of some
modernization. Can you tell me what sort of schedule some of the
smaller airports in Colorado are on for receiving more modern
facilities, and whether the budget you are proposing will trickle down
to these airports?
Answer. All of the airports in Colorado that have commercial
service are included in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems (NPIAS). This makes them eligible for funding from the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). The FAA works with each airport in the NPIAS
to develop an airport capital improvement plan that describes the
projects that should compete for AIP funds in a three- to five-year
time frame. Therefore, FAA is aware of the needs and priorities at
these airports.
If the airports have 10,000 or more annual enplanements, they
receive AIP entitlement funds. Otherwise, the airports compete for
discretionary funds with other airports of the same size. The AIP has a
``small airport'' set aside. Funding will depend on availability of
funds and priorities. The fiscal year 2001 budget, along with the
increased cap on passenger facility charges, will create a record level
of federally approved funds for airport development.
COLORADO CIVIL AIR PATROL
Question. I would like to take a second to recognize the Colorado
Civil Air Patrol. They do a wonderful job locating lost aircraft and
rescuing some people in very challenging situations. I know that they
are more of a Department of Defense budget item, but do you think more
funding should be made available to them, and the other Civil Air
Patrol offices?
Answer. The Civil Air Patrol provides a valuable service. You are
correct that it is the Defense Department, and not the Department of
Transportation, that provides funding for civil air patrols and can
more appropriately address the issue of funding.
NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORTATION
Question. We have been debating the Nuclear Waste bill on the
Senate floor all week long. I have frequently stated that I am
concerned about the ability of our mountain railroads and highways to
safely handle the transportation of this high-level nuclear waste to
the proposed Yucca Mountain site. What are your thoughts on the
proposed transportation of high-level nuclear waste, and what steps
does the Department plan to take, should this bill become law, to
ensure the safety of those sharing the roads with these shipments?
Answer. The Department is doing everything it can to ensure the
continued safe transportation of radioactive materials, including high-
level nuclear waste. It should be noted that the Department of Energy
is the Federal agency with the lead responsibility in this area.
RAIL TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE
Question. Under the current bill pending on the Senate floor, the
Department of Transportation is in charge of the route in which nuclear
waste is taken to Yucca Mountain. What precautions are going to be
taken to ensure that railway transportation of nuclear waste is going
to be safe, since currently there are no restrictions on railway
transportation? What types of precautions will be taken on steep
grades, bridges, tunnels, etc.? If an accident does occur on a railway
passage, do you think there is sufficient infrastructure to cope with
the emergency situation?
Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) is the Federal agency with
the lead responsibility in this area, including both the safe
transportation and storage of nuclear waste. Since the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) has regulatory oversight for the safety of
railroad operations within the United States, FRA contributes to the
safe transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) \1\ and High-Level
Radioactive Waste (HLRW) \2\. These materials have been transported
safely by rail in the United States for more than 40 years. In the mid-
1980s, partly as a result of the rail shipments from the Three Mile
Island Nuclear Power Plant, FRA implemented its High-Level Nuclear
Waste Rail Transportation Inspection Policy \3\ for all known rail
shipments of SNF and HLRW. Under FRA Inspection Policy, there has never
been a rail accident or incident involving the transportation of SNF or
HLRW that has resulted in a release of the material from the packaging.
Furthermore, there has never been a single death or injury resulting
from a rail shipment of radioactive material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) defines ``spent
nuclear fuel'' as ``fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor
following irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been
separated by reprocessing.''
\2\ NWPA defines ``high-level radioactive waste'' as ``(A) the
highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent
nuclear fuel, including liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing
and any solid material derived from such liquid waste that contains
fission products in sufficient concentrations; and (B) other highly
radioactive material that the Commission, consistent with existing law,
determines by rule requires permanent isolation.'' The term
``Commission'' as used in the definition means the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
\3\ See Appendix A ``Federal Railroad Administration High-Level
Nuclear Waste Rail Transportation Inspection Policy''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working with the Department of Energy (DOE), the Association of
American Railroads (AAR), railroad labor organizations, and
representatives of affected States, FRA developed the Safety Compliance
Oversight Plan for Transportation of High-Level Radioactive Waste and
Spent Nuclear Fuel. It must be emphasized that the SCOP is a living
document that has evolved from 40 years of accumulated experience
regarding the safe movement of nuclear materials by rail. FRA will
continue to work in partnership with the rail community to periodically
review, evaluate and update the SCOP to keep pace with the latest
developments and technologies involving the safe transportation of
nuclear materials. A sound and meaningful safety partnership involving
all elements of the railroad community is absolutely essential for
maintaining the highest degree of safety for railroad shipments of SNF
and HLRW and for maintaining public confidence in our nation's nuclear
materials transportation program.
In developing the SCOP, FRA has revised its previous policy to
include the following safety enhancements in planning, inspection,
training, and oversight activity areas:
Planning
FRA, DOE, the offeror or agent, and the rail carriers will consider
track classification in the route selection process to ensure that the
highest-rated track is utilized.
FRA will prepare an accident prediction model for the highway-rail
grade crossings along the route. FRA will assist DOE in coordinating
with appropriate state, local, and tribal agencies in route planning
activities, using this model.
The Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of Intelligence and
Security will assist FRA in coordinating safety precautions, such as
the identification of ``safe havens,'' with the offeror, law
enforcement officers, and intelligence communities.
Inspections
FRA will arrange for a track geometry car to operate over
designated routes.
FRA will conduct visual inspections of bridges along the designated
routes and review railroads' bridge inspection programs to ascertain
structural integrity.
FRA will review the rail carrier's rail flaw detection vehicle data
to ensure that a rail flaw detection vehicle has been operated over the
designated route, and necessary rail repairs are made prior to
shipments.
The SCOP requires that every train involved in the transportation
of SNF and HLRW be equipped with a 2-way End-of-Train (EOT) braking
device, regardless of train length. Prior to each shipment, and during
each crew change point along the route, FRA will endeavor to inspect
trains to ascertain that EOTs are operational.
Along a designated route, FRA will inspect all automated warning
devices, at highway-rail grade crossings along the route, to ascertain
that they are operational.
Training/Oversight
FRA will assist DOE, and the offeror or agent, in the development
of Emergency Response training and safety briefings. FRA will liaison
with the rail industry to verify that requisite training and briefings
have been performed.
Prior to the first shipment, and at least annually for subsequent
shipments, FRA will review emergency response plans for designated
routes and recommend modifications, if necessary.
Prior to the first shipment, and at least annually for subsequent
shipments, FRA will conduct the necessary reviews to ensure that train
crews are properly certified, trained, and experienced in operating
over the designated routes.
FRA will place Operating Practices personnel in the rail carriers'
dispatching centers for the first shipment on designated routes, and
will review dispatching procedures periodically for subsequent
shipments.
Prior to the first shipment, and for subsequent shipments, as
appropriate, FRA will focus on Operation Lifesaver training in
communities along designated routes.
FRA will continue to prioritize complaints regarding designated
routes, and will continue to expedite the investigation and resolution
of these complaints.
FRA will ensure that train crew personnel and carrier's emergency
response personnel receive specific training or briefing concerning the
nature of the shipment.
FRA will review the appropriate emergency response plans (offerer,
carrier and DOE) to ensure that they adequately address the actions to
be taken in the unlikely event of an accident or incident involving the
train.
Railroads are equipped to handle heavy pieces of equipment, such as
locomotives and other freight cars. Their ``wrecking equipment'' is
mobile and can be dispatched to a derailment site within a matter of
hours. It is FRA's position that the railroads have the infrastructure
to handle a derailment involving a nuclear cask.
DENVER--SOUTHEST CORRIDOR LRT
Question. In the President's budget for fiscal year 2001, the
Administration states its intention to enter into a Full Funding Grant
Agreement (FFGA) for the Southeast Corridor in the Denver metropolitan
area in the next year. Based upon what you know in regards to the
schedule of the project at this time, when would the negotiations on
the FFGA begin?
Answer. The Department expects the Record of Decision for this
project to be issued in March 2000. Also in March, the grantee plans to
request FTA approval for entry into Final Design. Following this, FTA
will begin negotiations on the FFGA. This is expected to begin in the
early spring of 2000.
Question. I understand that your people at the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) have been persistent in pressing for a reliable
capital cost estimate for the Southeast Corridor project. That is a
good and prudent thing to do. However, with the state and local match
in place, the project can spend $63 million in federal dollars in
fiscal year 2001, but the Administration requested $20 million. Such a
deferral of federal funding will only delay the project, increase
interest costs, and ultimately increase construction costs. Could you
look through the New Starts program and determine whether there could
be other funds committed to Denver's Southeast Corridor project in
fiscal year 2001 that could be spent in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. When developing the recommended fiscal year 2001 budget,
FTA first recommended funding for the 14 existing FFGAs in accordance
with the Federal commitment schedule. When developing the recommended
fiscal year 2001 budget for the new FFGAs, FTA recognized that most, if
not all properties, would not receive the amount of funds they desired
or would be optimum for the project in fiscal year 2001. With the
commitment of fourteen existing FFGAs, there was only $211.7 million
available in fiscal year 2001 for other projects in the pipeline. In
fiscal year 2001 seven of the existing FFGAs should be completed
freeing up more funds for the new FFGAs in fiscal year 2002 and beyond.
FTA is not aware of any other New Starts funds available for Denver for
fiscal year 2001.
Question. Last November, voters in Colorado overwhelmingly
supported a referendum to financially support the Southeast Corridor
and other projects. How does this strong showing of support translate
into making this project more competitive in relation to other
projects? Also, were there any other cities that have passed a similar
referendum in the past?
Answer. Prior to the November referendum, the Regional Transit
District (RTD) and Colorado Department of Transportation did not have a
committed source of local funding for the Southeast Corridor project.
The commercial paper bond revenues authorized by the vote are expected
to generate $320 million, or over 90 percent of the local funding
required to implement the project. This new committed funding source
improved the projects capital plan rating from Low-Medium (reflected in
the fiscal year 2000 Report on New Starts) to Medium-High. This rating
is consistent with other projects which are in the latter end of the
preliminary engineering stage of development and which have a
significant amount of local funding commitments.
A few other areas have passed referendums, which provide for
dedicated and stable revenue sources for fixed guideway transit
systems, including Seattle (in 1996), San Diego (1987), and Orange
County, CA (1985).
______
Question Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
CIVIL AVIATION--ARGENTINA
Question. As you know, Newark International Airport has become a
major international hub to Europe and Latin America. However, New
Jersey does not have service to a major South American country--
Argentina. It is critically important that New Jersey get access to
Argentina this year. I know that you have an Argentina route case
pending before the Department so I will not ask you to predict which
carrier will get the first frequency. However, I am concerned about
reports that the government of Argentina may withdraw the new
frequencies that are currently the subject of your route case because
of the deteriorating condition of Aerolineas, the Argentine national
airline. Could you please comment on this issue?
Answer. The new government is reviewing the open-skies agreement
with the United States and has indicated that they would like to come
to Washington in March to hold informal discussions. The Department is
not prepared to reopen the deal. The Department understands the
importance to Newark of securing nonstop service to Argentina.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
EMERGENCY RELIEF
Question. Mr. Secretary, you are very familiar with the Emergency
Relief program from your experience as Federal Highway Administrator.
You have flown into many disaster-torn areas to assure the citizens
that their bridges will be rebuilt and their roads will be repaired. In
years past, whenever the requirement for emergency relief exceeded $100
million per year, the Administration proposed an emergency supplemental
to pay for these grants. This year, you are proposing that almost $400
million of these costs be absorbed by the core highway program. This
proposal will result in large amounts of funding being drained away
from those states that have not had substantial natural disasters in
order to pay off the applications of those states that have, like
California, and others. What explains this change in policy on the part
of the Administration?
Answer. For any given year, it would be appropriate to request a
supplemental appropriation when emergency relief needs exceed the $100
million included in TEA-21. However, what FHWA has seen is that
emergency relief needs have consistently outpaced the authorized
funding level. The $398 million of additional contract authority
reflects the ten-year average of Emergency Relief supplementals,
excluding Loma Prieta, plus sufficient funds to pay off the current
balance over three years. The Department reviewed several options for
addressing the backlog of emergency relief needs, but did not address
the underlying cause of this crisis. The $100 million authorized for
emergency relief is clearly not sufficient for the level of need. The
Emergency Relief Reserve Fund will provide a more long-term solution,
and will prevent another crisis from developing.
Question. Aren't many of your pending emergency relief applications
a result of Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Dennis? Why is the
Administration requesting emergency supplemental appropriations in
other agencies for these disasters but not in your agency?
Answer. The Department estimates that only about 14 percent of the
emergency relief backlog can be attributed to Hurricanes Floyd and
Dennis. It is clear that even if these two events did not occur, there
would still be a substantial backlog of unmet needs. Although a
supplemental request would address the immediate needs following these
two hurricanes, the Department has proposed creating a new Emergency
Relief Reserve Fund in order to address the long-term emergency relief
needs of the country.
Question. Mr. Secretary, the balance of unfunded applications for
emergency relief has been growing for several years, and the
Administration has balked at requesting an emergency supplemental
appropriation to cover them. Can you explain the Administration's
rationale behind requesting almost $1 billion for assistance to
Colombia, while leaving the nation's highway emergency needs in the
cold?
Answer. The Administration's budget request is not leaving the
nation's highway emergency needs in the cold. The Department has
requested $398 million in additional contract authority above and
beyond the $100 million authorized funding level each year. This
funding level would be sufficient to cover the current backlog over the
next three years, and prevent another backlog from developing.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Charles E. Grassley
Question. As you know, over the past several years, we have been
working closely with the state attorneys general, led by Tom Miller, to
address factors that are limiting increased airline competition in
various parts of the country, including Iowa. We have talked about the
issues impacting the future of competition. As you have recognized, in
some cased large air carriers utilize anti-competitive behavior to
drive new entrants out of the markets.
Last spring, Mike Hatch, the state attorney general for the state
of Minnesota, asked the Department of Transportation to investigate
actions taken by Northwest Airlines to drive Sun Country out of its
market. In November of last year at a Congressional hearing, Nancy
McFadden, DOT's General Counsel stated: ``We are concerned about anti-
competitive behavior. Currently, we have two preliminary investigations
underway brought by AirTran and Sun Country.''
Unfortunately, DOT has yet to take any action in response to either
complaint. Please provide this committee with an update on the
complaints of anti-competitive behavior filed last year by Minnesota
Attorney General Mike Hatch and AirTran Airways. Also, when will formal
action be taken on these complaints?
Answer. Regarding AirTran's complaint, the Department continues to
conduct extensive analyses of the information AirTran and Delta report
to the Department, and the Department is considering whether to request
additional information from Delta.
Regarding Attorney General Mike Hatch's complaint about how
Northwest Airlines has responded to Sun Country's entry into several
Twin Cities markets, the Department requested Northwest's comments on
his complaint. The comments received from Northwest did not address all
of the Department's concerns, and the Department has therefore
continued the informal investigation into the matter. DOT will soon
have access to information that can be used to further assess
Northwest's capacity and fare responses to Sun Country. This is
detailed information that the airlines are required to file with the
Department, and Sun Country's first report has just become available
for review.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. Thank you. The subcommittee stands in
recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., Thursday, February 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Lautenberg, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY INITIATIVES--FISCAL YEAR 2001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
U.S. Coast Guard
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL JAMES C. CARD, VICE
COMMANDANT
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
STATEMENT OF ROSALYN G. MILLMAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
Research and Special Programs Administration
STATEMENT OF KELLEY S. COYNER, ADMINISTRATOR
Federal Railroad Administration
STATEMENT OF JOLENE MOLITORIS, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The committee will come to order. Good
morning. The Committee on Transportation will meet today.
Of the oversight responsibilities that we have on this
subcommittee, none is more important than safety. Generally, we
tend to incorporate our safety concerns into program oversight
and into our review of the Department's management and funding
issues.
However, I believe it is very useful, every once in a
while, to focus exclusively on safety issues as a way to get a
better sense of what safety considerations are of paramount
concern to individual safety agencies and to my colleagues on
this committee.
I will take this opportunity to express my concern about
the impact of the proposed aviation firewall on safety programs
at the Department of Transportation.
Three of the agencies appearing before us today, the Coast
Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Research
and Special Programs Administration, are funded entirely from
non-firewall discretionary dollars, and more than half of the
funding for the National Highway Safety Administration, or
NHTSA, is non-firewall general funds as well. So, each of these
witnesses has a very real stake in ensuring that discretionary
funds are kept exactly that way, discretionary. Only by
maintaining this discretion and flexibility can we respond to
the priorities expressed in your budget request and through
those expressed by Congress.
We have stacked votes starting at 11:30, so I will submit
the remainder of my statement for the record in order to
maximize the time we have to discuss the issues with our panel.
Today we have as witnesses Vice Admiral James C. Card, Vice
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; Ms. Rosalyn Millman, Acting
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration; Ms. Kelley Coyner, Administrator, Research and
Special Programs Administration; and Ms. Jolene--is it
Molitoris?
Ms. Molitoris. Yes, it is.
Senator Shelby. Molitoris, Administrator of the Federal
Railroad Administration.
They will discuss various safety programs and related
initiatives in each of the agencies' budget requests. Because
we have a very limited amount of time and four very different
agencies represented today, I will ask all the witnesses to
keep your statements extremely brief. I will put your written
statement in the record for the staff and other members to read
and this Senator especially. They will be submitted for the
record without objection.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. As usual, they
say you are on the money when you talk about firewalls,
segregating some and not others. It would be awfully tough to
work that way.
If you will indulge me, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I am
going to be as brief as you would like me to be because I have,
as you do I know, two other hearings this day. So, I am going
to give my statement and I will hop around and I will be back
to make sure that I support my chairman, my good friend.
I will miss him when I am not here, as well as all of you.
This is kind of Lautenberg's last stand at the semi-helm
anyway.
Senator Shelby. His last stand. He is heavily armed,
though.
Senator Lautenberg. Working with the Coast Guard, I am
going to single the Coast Guard out and I hope that none of the
other agencies represented here will feel slighted. I feel just
as strongly about you, but the Coast Guard has one that has
gotten a lot of attention lately and I want to focus on that.
Working with the Coast Guard has been one of the very unique
privileges of serving in the leadership of this subcommittee.
While I never failed to be impressed by the heroism and the
hard work of the people in the Coast Guard, I must admit that I
am greatly disturbed by what I have been recently reading
regarding the service's declining state of readiness. Those of
you who are associated with the Coast Guard, Admiral Card and
the others, know very well that I have been a strong supporter
and I continue to be. I respect so much what you do. I often
mention the array of assignments that you are given without the
resources in many cases to do them, and you manage to get most
of them done well.
But the focus is directed, as this body here requests--and
I am talking about the U.S. Senate all together. I commend you
and Admiral Loy, our Commandant, for the very direct and frank
statements that he has made in recent months regarding the
unavailability of rescue craft, the severe shortage that he
faces in adequately trained people, and the great stress this
situation places on the work force.
These problems should trouble all of us, but I find them
especially troubling when I review the causes behind them. One
of those causes is the very rapid change in the operational
priority within the Coast Guard, if I may say, directed by the
Government. And it appears that there are those within the
Administration, the Congress, the Coast Guard itself that are
determined to beef up the Coast Guard's role in the war on
drugs at any cost, even at the cost of the Coast Guard's
ability to safely execute its most fundamental missions here at
home.
Mr. Chairman, at every hearing we have held this year, I
have emphasized the need for balance when looking at our
Nation's transportation needs, and nowhere is the need for
balance more apparent than within the Coast Guard's budget.
Now, I am not opposed to anything that the Coast Guard is
doing in the area of drug interdiction. I stand behind each and
every Coast Guard person who is currently fighting the war on
drugs in the Caribbean. But I would like to share some figures
regarding this war on drugs and the toll that it is taking on
the rest of the Coast Guard. These are not my numbers, Mr.
Chairman. They come directly from the Coast Guard.
Beginning in 1995, the year after the huge migration of
Haitian and Cuban migrants, drug interdiction activities began
growing at a phenomenal rate. Indeed, since 1995, total
spending of operational dollars just for drug interdiction has
increased by over a quarter of a billion dollars, or 89.3
percent. Cutter hours devoted to drug interdiction have risen
85 percent, while aircraft hours have increased over 100
percent. And over the same 5-year period, the Coast Guard's
operating budget has grown by only 15 percent.
So, the increased level of effort on drugs had to come from
somewhere. One critical area that absorbed the cuts was the end
strength in the Coast Guard. Even as its missions have
expanded, total employment in the Coast Guard dropped by more
than 7 percent over this period. Another area that paid the
price is fisheries enforcement. Funding for fisheries
enforcement actually declined more than 12 percent over this
period. Cutter hours dropped 13 percent, while aircraft hours
fell by more than a third.
Now, on the subject of aircraft hours, the Commandant's
recent statements have been so forthright, and I respect him
for it. Candor, I think, is the best way to approach problems.
He has only so many aircraft and too many of them are not
usable because they have been cannibalized for spare parts.
In a speech this past December, Admiral Loy shared with us
the unfortunate story about a boater that died in a storm off
the California coast. When the distress call went in to the
Coast Guard's air station in Sacramento, they only had one
aircraft that was ready to deploy. Usually there would be at
least one backup available to relieve it when it ran short of
fuel. That station has four C-130 aircraft, but on that day,
one of them was undergoing maintenance. And where were the
other two? Well, one had not flown for more than 6 months
because it had been cannibalized for parts. And what about the
fourth? Well, it was out of the country doing drug patrols. In
this case, the only available aircraft circled the distressed
sailor who was alive but struggling in the terrible weather.
The outcome was horrible. The sailor was never seen after that,
and after a 6-day search, all they found was the debris.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard does wondrous things. We
all admire the courage and the skill of the people who are out
there in the worst of weather. In the 16 years that I have
served on this committee, I have never seen the Coast Guard
priorities get so out of balance. The situation is simply
unacceptable, and as I look at the Coast Guard budget request
for fiscal year 2001, I am not at all encouraged. It is true
that there are some resources included in this budget to
improve the deteriorated readiness of the Coast Guard. But the
largest requested growth items in the budget are still for
expanded and expensive drug interdiction activities.
I think we have to conduct this fight against drugs. I
believe that it is a terrible blight on our constituents and
our communities. But we have to make sure that we have a
balance in what we are doing.
The largest increase is to deploy eight additional
helicopters to the Caribbean exclusively for the drug war with
specially mounted guns and specially trained crews. And they
are good at what they do and I am glad that they are there for
us. But we cannot afford to neglect the other responsibilities
that we have given to the Coast Guard.
Mr. Chairman, the senior leadership of Congress, this
subcommittee, the DOT, and the Coast Guard need to rethink the
way we are allocating our resources. I support spending
resources on drug interdiction, but we must first make sure
that the Coast Guard can fully fund and execute its core
missions here at home. It is not sufficient to ignore our
activities here at home on a shoestring just so that we can
expand our activities in the drug war. It is not fair to our
recreational, commercial boaters, this maritime system that we
have created in this country which is second to none. It has
created this whole, gigantic marine industry as a result of the
Coast Guard's imprint on how we navigate and how we rescue and
how we signal. It is a wonderful thing. I know I am a miscreant
sailor and I can tell you. It is not fair to the members of the
Coast Guard who are charged with rescue.
Mr. Chairman, the Vice Commandant is here with us today
because the Commandant is participating in the announcement of
the findings of the President's Council on Coast Guard Roles
and Missions. That council has taken a comprehensive look at
the Coast Guard's current roles and missions and concluded
there are not any major Coast Guard missions we can do without.
Not one of them. The committee, like Congress, does not want
the Coast Guard to lessen its level of effort in any area. We
want you to be magicians. That is what it is. If that is the
case, then we need to think in terms of funding all of the
Coast Guard's missions adequately. It is simply not acceptable
to take from one to pay for another.
Now, in focusing my statement on the Coast Guard this
morning, I do not want to diminish in any way the important
contributions made by the other agencies represented here. So,
forgive me if this was the focus. The work all of you do is
very important, as well as the people with whom you work. So, I
welcome all the witnesses here this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for taking so long but appreciate
this opportunity to blow off some steam.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Vice Admiral Card.
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. CARD
Admiral Card. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I am Vice Admiral Jim Card, Vice
Commandant of the Coast Guard, and it is my pleasure to appear
before you today to discuss the Coast Guard's maritime safety
mission.
I want to take a second to thank Senator Lautenberg for his
support over the years. He has been a great supporter of the
Coast Guard. He really understands us very well, as we could
tell from your statement.
Ensuring the safety of mariners and passengers has always
been a mainstay mission of the Coast Guard. We are widely
recognized as an international leader in marine safety and
search and rescue, and certainly while we have evolved to a
highly effective multimission service, we have maintained our
leadership in excellence in the safety arena. For us safety is
job one.
Our safety aim is to eliminate deaths, injuries, and
property damage associated with marine transportation, fishing,
and recreational boating. We do so by balancing prevention
programs, response capability, and investigation services.
Prevention is the key to improving safety in the marine world.
We focus our activities on areas of greatest risk.
Because most maritime accidents are the result of human
error, the Coast Guard is increasingly focused on efforts to
improve human performance. Our overarching strategy to do so is
the ``Prevention Through People'' program whose vision is to
achieve the world's safest, most environmentally sound, and
cost-effective marine operations by emphasizing the role of
people in preventing casualties and pollution. Key to this is
knowing more about how people operate and what causes problems.
Our 2001 budget requests a modest $400,000 to institute a
program to capture near-miss and accident data. The system is
called the International Maritime Information Safety System,
IMISS, and it holds much promise.
Another important and successful prevention program put
together over the past several years has been our Port State
Control program. We have seen in the last 2 years a great
reduction in the number of foreign vessels which do not pass
our Port State Control examination entering our country.
But when prevention efforts all fail, the Coast Guard
responds with boats and cutters and aircraft. These search and
rescue efforts are our most well-known capability, and like
calling 911, Americans expect someone to respond to their
distress calls when on the water, and we do so with pride. In
an average year, the Coast Guard responds to more than 40,000
emergency calls, saving about 4,000 lives and assisting 80,000
mariners in need of non-emergency assistance. Often we work in
partnership with other Government agencies, State and local
officials, to get this job done.
In the 2001 budget submission, there are several
initiatives aimed at restoring our readiness and improving
maritime safety, prevention, and response capabilities for the
future. Probably the most important is the Deepwater Capability
Replacement Project. It is vitally important.
Our National Distress and Response System Modernization
Project will improve our ability to quickly find those in
distress and be able to respond. Ports and Waterways Safety
Assessments will greatly assist vessel traffic in sorting that
out. Providing personal protective gear for our crews who are
on the front line. Focusing on commercial vessel safety. Having
more people in those surf stations with breaking bars.
And probably on the operations side, most important is the
personnel support initiatives to help us restore and maintain
our work force.
There are, however, safety challenges we have. Passenger
vessel safety as it relates to vessel size and speed for
commuter vessels. And the numbers increase. We always have to
focus on prevention and response.
Commercial fishing vessel safety, while we have improved in
the last 5 years with a 30-percent reduction in deaths, is
still one of the Nation's most hazardous occupations and one
that the Coast Guard has little regulatory control over. We
have to focus on human error, dockside examinations. We have
operations on each coast, Safe Catch and Safe Return.
The Marine Transportation System initiative, which we put
together. Volume will double in this country in marine
transport in the next 20 years. We have to make sure we are
ready to take all the safety precautions that we need in that
area.
Probably our biggest challenge and the one that the Senator
has outlined is our people. We have to make sure we have the
right people, the right training, and the right equipment to
carry out all these important missions.
Today, Coast Guard men and women will save 11 lives and
prevent countless marine accidents. They are dedicated and
professional and very proud to serve their country. I am
honored to be one of their leaders. I asked you to honor them
by fully supporting the President's 2001 budget.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this important
issue with you, and I will be happy to answer your questions.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James C. Card
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. I am Vice Admiral James Card, Vice Commandant of the
United States Coast Guard. It is a pleasure to appear before you today
to discuss the Coast Guard's maritime safety mission and related
initiatives. Safety permeates most Coast Guard activities, and the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $973 million, a 6-percent
increase over fiscal year 2000, for Coast Guard safety programs. This
testimony, however, focuses on specific safety projects and initiatives
designed to enhance safety.
COAST GUARD STRATEGIC GOAL: MARITIME SAFETY
The Coast Guard adheres to five strategic goals in providing
service to the American people: Maritime Safety, Maritime Security,
Protection of Natural Resources, Maritime Mobility, and National
Defense. Today, we are here to discuss the Coast Guard's role in
Maritime Safety as it relates to the bigger scheme of Transportation
Safety. Specifically, our safety aim is to ``eliminate deaths,
injuries, and property damage associated with maritime transportation,
fishing, and recreational boating.'' Ensuring the safety of mariners
has always been a mainstay mission of the Coast Guard. America depends
on the Coast Guard to provide safe, efficient, and environmentally
sound waterways for a myriad of commercial and recreational users.
Competing demands on America's waterways--commerce, national security,
public health and safety, environmental concerns, recreation,
fisheries, and more--must be balanced. However, safety is integrally
linked to all these concerns. Our efforts to achieve the Maritime
Safety strategic goal are manifested through a systematic, risk-based
approach that looks at the relative degree of probability versus
consequences. This systematic approach consists of:
--Prevention--minimizing the likelihood of a casualty;
--Response--minimizing the consequences of a casualty; and
--Investigation--which links lessons learned back to future
prevention efforts.
Our most complex safety challenge is preparing for the low
probability but very high consequence event.
PREVENTION
Our prevention activities focus on areas of greatest risk, which
consider both the probability of an incident occurring and the
resultant consequences. To better assess and respond to risk, we look
at it through different lenses, such as type of maritime activity or
type of causal factor. Regardless of activity type, most maritime
incidents resulting in death, injury, or property damage are the result
of human error; therefore, Coast Guard efforts will continue to support
the ``Prevention Through People'' concept.
The Coast Guard's Prevention Through People (PTP) program is an
outstanding example of government working with industry to make
transportation safer. The concept is simple: working together we can
change the corporate culture and address the majority of accidents,
which are rooted in human performance. Implementation is not so simple,
but by working with industry and labor leaders the culture change is
occurring, both domestically and internationally. To encourage this
concept, the Coast Guard has entered several partnerships with the
different segments of the maritime industry.
Recreational Boating Safety
Recreational boating is second only to highway travel in U.S.
transportation fatalities. The recreational boating population
continues to grow rapidly. While recreational boating fatalities have
decreased over the last three decades, the number of deaths has leveled
(roughly 800 annually) over the last several years. Again, human error
is the most common cause of fatal accidents, and failure to use life
jackets is the most common cause of death following these incidents.
The Coast Guard coordinates a Federal-State recreational boating
partnership, consisting largely of administering a Boating Safety Grant
program. Although recreational boating safety (RBS) is largely a state
responsibility, failure in RBS directly impacts the Coast Guard: 70
percent of the Coast Guard's search and rescue (SAR) case load results
from recreational boating incidents.
The Coast Guard has three primary initiatives in the area of
recreational boating safety: enforcement, response, and education. To
enforce compliance with laws designed to minimize accidents on the
water, we conduct about 50,000 boardings of recreational boats each
year. When things do go wrong, we respond to about 40,000 search and
rescue cases each year. Our major thrust, though, is in the area of
prevention. To that end, through the dedicated efforts of our Auxiliary
volunteers, we conduct 150,000 Courtesy Marine Examinations of
recreational boats each year. Also, we teach boating safety to 250,000
people each year in formal classes, give over 2,800 safety lectures,
and operate safety information booths over 6,500 days annually. In
2000, we are expanding our Courtesy Marine Examination program by
authorizing members of the United States Power Squadrons to conduct
these exams under the direction of the Auxiliary, and in the near
future we will similarly involve some States in this program, in
coordination with the National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators. As you can see by these numbers, our civilian
volunteers play a substantial and vitally important role in enhancing
the safety of their fellow boaters.
Commercial Vessel Safety
The largest percentage of maritime worker fatalities occurs in
commercial fishing, one of the nation's most hazardous occupations and
an industry over which the Coast Guard has little regulatory authority.
The Coast Guard is focusing on reducing human error, along with
enforcement of safety regulations, to reduce accidents in the
commercial fishing industry.
In the short term, we will increase our presence on fishing docks
with the goal of greater interaction on common safety goals of
fishermen and the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard conducts voluntary
dockside examinations of commercial fishing vessels in order to ensure
that all required safety equipment is on board and maintained properly.
These voluntary exams have proven to be an effective tool in reducing
risk and loss of life. Our fiscal year 2001 budget requests $0.6
million to enable us to work with the fishing industry to increase the
number of fishermen who participate in these safety examinations.
Other short-term plans will increase local outreach through the
sharing of best practices and lessons learned from accident
investigation reports, as well as regional media campaigns designed to
improve overall community awareness of the causes of vessel losses,
ways to increase the fishermen's chances of survival, and the positive
impact of dockside examinations on safety.
While other commercial vessels (i.e., tankers, freighters,
towboats) have lower fatality rates than the fishing industry, the
Coast Guard is working to improve safety aboard these vessels as well.
Our passenger vessel safety program is carried out through a regime
of international and domestic safety standards. Compliance programs
ensure that vessels meet these standards. Development of standards
began back in the mid-1800s and continues today. It is a continuous
improvement process of incorporating new technology, lessons learned,
and knowledge gained from casualty investigations, practical
experience, and research and development projects. Much of the history
of the regulation of maritime safety has been reactive: disasters
followed by legislation. Maritime safety has transitioned from the
historical ``reactive'' approach to today's proactive, systematic,
risk-based approach, exemplified by the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of
1993, which focused on passenger vessels evading inspection through
charter arrangements. The risk posed by these vessels was recognized
before casualties occurred, and action was taken to prevent casualties.
Our standards address both variables in the risk equation: the
probability that something will go wrong and the resulting consequences
should it occur. Our approach is to reduce the probability of an
accident through prevention programs and continual improvement of our
response capability.
We are continuing our leadership and participation with the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) to improve international
safety standards, especially efforts to increase flag state compliance
and accountability. Our Port State Control (PSC) initiative has been
successful in improving compliance and consistency by PSC authorities
around the world. Of the 7880 foreign-flag ships that arrived in the
U.S. in 1998, 373 were detained because of their substandard condition.
In 1999, only 260 foreign flag ships were detained, a 30 percent
decrease from 1998, and a 52 percent reduction in the last two years,
representing an increased level of safety in the foreign fleet visiting
our ports. The number of arriving vessels has remained consistent, and
we examined a similar number of vessels. Our risk-based matrix appears
to be successful in screening all arriving vessels to ensure that the
highest risk vessels are boarded.
Other Prevention Initiatives
In addition to maintaining about 50,000 aids to navigation on U.S
waterways, the Coast Guard also operates Vessel Traffic Services in
major U.S. ports. The Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA) is
a formal risk assessment process that employs an open dialogue with
port users in order to identify minimum user requirements and candidate
ports for Vessel Traffic Services (VTSs). It is a risk-based decision
making process that relies on user consultation to determine the risk
drivers and appropriate vessel traffic management measures for
mitigating that risk. The process requires the participation of
professional mariners with local expertise in navigation, mobility, and
port safety, as well as port stakeholders with a vested interest in the
environmental, public safety, and economic consequences of marine
activity. Ten ports have completed the PAWSA process. In each case, it
has been well received by the port community and the agencies that
regulate the port. From these sessions, we have provided the local port
with a baseline of risk from which periodic reassessments can be
conducted, and we have identified safety concerns that need to be
addressed. Using information gathered during these efforts, we can
conduct comparative and cost benefit analyses to evaluate solutions
that meet the needs of the waterway users and are cost effective. As we
gain more experience in the process, and as supporting guidance and
other tools evolve, we believe PAWSA will improve to the point where it
will be usable by any field unit without extensive outside support.
We see many opportunities to employ new technologies to improve
safety such as those employed in intelligent transportation systems.
For example, the Coast Guard and various sectors of the shipping and
carrier industry are working to finish development of a new navigation
safety tool called AIS, or Automatic Identification System. AIS will
give mariners the ability to integrate several different technologies
to improve their own navigation and their knowledge of other vessels
around them. AIS incorporates electronic chart systems; the Department
of Defense's Global Positioning System (GPS); differential GPS, a Coast
Guard-operated high-precision local correction system for GPS; and a
radio communications package linking AIS-equipped vessels. AIS will
significantly improve navigation safety and collision avoidance, saving
lives and preventing property loss, as well as significantly enhancing
the protection of the marine environment. Through systems like AIS, we
can provide the mariner with an array of integrated, accurate, and
real-time information necessary for safe navigation of America's ports
and waterways.
The International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS)
initiative is focused on the reduction of marine accidents through a
voluntary reporting system that captures causal information, and
lessons learned on maritime near-accident (near-miss) events (e.g.,
near collision situations, near-pollution events, etc.) modeled after
the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). The Coast Guard, Maritime
Administration, maritime industry, and recently the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have been working together
to put IMISS into place. It is also intended to capture related
precursor events (hazardous situations) and lessons learned (e.g., crew
fatigue issues, equipment maintenance issues, communication issues,
etc.) that, but for some corrective action in the chain of events, did
not result in the occurrence of an accident. The cost savings by
preventing just one major accident involving a large loss of life or
damage to the marine environment could be billions of dollars.
Additionally, if we take this concept and apply it across all of the
transportation modes and other applicable service industry segments,
both the physical savings (lives and property saved and reduced damage
to the environment) and the fiscal savings (private and public dollars
saved) are higher still. We have an industry-based working group under
the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) with
commitments from over 500 individuals and organizations to help us with
the project. Our fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $0.4 million
to continue development of this project.
RESPONSE
When prevention efforts fail, the Coast Guard responds with an
appropriate combination of boats, cutters, and aircraft in order to
mitigate injuries, property damage, and environmental damage. In order
for response to work effectively, we must be promptly notified.
Therefore, we not only focus on improving our search and rescue
response, but also on increasing the ability of mariners in distress to
notify us in time to permit a successful response.
Like calling 911, Americans expect the Coast Guard to respond to
their calls for help at sea. Our responses include providing some form
of emergency assistance to approximately 80,000 people, saving
approximately 4,000 lives from imminent danger. While most maritime
casualties occur in near-coastal waters, it is certainly not true in
every case.
In 1980, the Coast Guard coordinated the rescue of 519 passengers
and crew from the passenger vessel PRINSENDAM 330 miles from Valdez,
Alaska. In November 1998, after refueling both in Bermuda and at sea
aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer, a Coast Guard helicopter crew from
Elizabeth City, North Carolina, rescued all four crewmembers from the
42-foot sailboat KAMPESKA in 30-knot winds and 20-foot seas,
approximately 400 nautical miles off the North Carolina coast.
In April 1999, crews aboard Coast Guard fixed and rotary wing
aircraft risked winds up to 50 knots and seas as high as 30 feet to
rescue two survivors, both experienced ocean sailors, from the
overturned catamaran ACAPELLA approximately 800 nautical miles east-
northeast of New York. These and other offshore cases are clear
indicators of the need for a deepwater search and rescue capability.
Our search and rescue efforts also transcend the bounds of the high
seas and coastal waters.
The citizens of Grand Forks, North Dakota may never have considered
how the Coast Guard touched their lives, but when the swollen Red River
flooded their city, the Coast Guard was there to assist. And very
recently, Coast Guard air and boat crews tirelessly rescued over 500
people, from New Jersey to North Carolina, stranded by devastating
floods left by Hurricane Floyd. The dedicated professionals of the
Coast Guard place themselves in harm's way every day while selflessly
rendering assistance to others in distress.
Increased expectations not only come from the American public, but
also from the international maritime community that looks to the Coast
Guard as a world leader in the international field of search and
rescue. Maritime commerce and travel are global activities that require
a global safety system, and a vital aspect of that safety system is an
effective global search and rescue response capability. The Coast
Guard, along with some of our international partners in the SAR
community, are recognized as leaders in developing a family of
international treaties, such as the International Convention on
Maritime SAR and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea (SOLAS), which help provide a global maritime search and rescue
capability.
We are also leaders in helping the IMO establish global SAR plans,
procedures, techniques, and training. Our efforts are aimed at
integrating SAR Regions (SRRs) encompassing the globe by working with
individual countries responsible for their assigned regions. The SRR
for which the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible encompasses about 50
percent of the North Atlantic Ocean and over 75 percent of the North
Pacific Ocean, an area in excess of 28 million square nautical miles.
Based on this framework, we have established bilateral agreements with
various countries including Russia, China, Japan, and Mexico. We have
also recently concluded a trilateral agreement among the United States,
Canada, and the United Kingdom.
We have had some particularly noteworthy accomplishments in
supporting the global SAR system. One of the jewels of our
International SAR system is the Automated Mutual-assistance Vessel
Rescue System (AMVER), which in 1998 celebrated 40 years of being a
vital, real-world, real-time segment of the maritime safety system.
Endorsed by the IMO, AMVER is a global ship reporting system with
12,000 ships participating from 143 nations, which constitutes 40
percent of the world's merchant fleet. On an average day, over 2,700
ships are on the AMVER ``plot'' that is maintained by the Coast Guard
and are available to effect any necessary rescue or assistance in their
transit area. AMVER has established an impressive lifesaving track
record considering that more than 1,400 lives were saved between 1993
and 1998. In just one case in 1994, six AMVER ships successfully
rescued 504 passengers from the Italian cruise liner ACHILLE LAURO,
ablaze off the coast of Somalia. Though AMVER is administered and
maintained by the United States Coast Guard, it is indeed a global
system available as a very powerful and effective lifesaving tool to
rescue organizations throughout the world. It is an extremely valuable
component of the overall SAR response posture.
The Coast Guard is also a primary supporter and the world's largest
user of the multinational Cospas-Sarsat system. This satellite-based
system is an extensive network that provides global satellite coverage
for the detection of distress beacons on land or at sea, detecting
Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) from ships and
Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) from aircraft.
Moreover, the Coast Guard was instrumental in contributing to a new
International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR)
Manual that was recently developed and published by both IMO and the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). For the first time,
this three-volume set provides consolidated guidance to nations on the
administration, organization, and execution of search and rescue. It is
being heralded as a landmark document of international cooperation. We
are, in fact, adopting the IAMSAR Manual as the National Search and
Rescue Manual of the United States. Additionally, our personnel are
working closely with developing nations to help them model their
maritime services after the U.S. Coast Guard, since their missions are
more akin to ours than they are to those of a blue water navy.
Several other initiatives have been undertaken to ``raise the
safety bar.'' Our fiscal year 2001 budget requests $3.1 million to
continue worldwide implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and
Safety System (GMDSS), which will significantly enhance maritime
communications and maritime safety. We can, for example, for the first
time broadcast urgent marine information broadcasts, including weather
warnings, and ensure that every GMDSS ship in our areas of
responsibility immediately gets the information we broadcast. GMDSS
includes a redundant capability to ensure that if one device becomes
inoperable, another component can be used to send a distress alert or
communicate distress information. Finally, the system is designed to
include location and identification information in every distress
alert. Some segments of GMDSS pay very big dividends: in 1997 alone,
over 540 lives were saved through the use of EPIRBs.
Another critical safety enhancement is our initiative to re-
capitalize the National Distress and Response System Modernization
Project (NDRSMP). The Coast Guard is recognized as a world-class rescue
organization, but we can only be as effective as the system we use to
monitor distress calls. As proposed, NDRSMP will improve Federal,
State, and local command and control communications within port areas
during emergency situations by providing complete VHF radio coverage of
coastal areas and navigable waterways where commercial and recreational
traffic exists. The new system will also automatically record and play
back distress calls, and allow Coast Guard watchstanders to slow them
down and adjust the quality until the message can be understood. It
will also determine and preserve an electronic fix when a distress
signal is received. NDRSMP is a national priority and is an absolute
must to ensure America's waterways remain safe.
INVESTIGATION
The marine community is incredibly diverse, with a wide array of
vessel types, sizes, and equipment that varies across a broad range of
commercial and recreational activities. The Coast Guard is both a
seagoing Service with substantial experience operating its own vessels
as well as the primary regulator of the marine industry. Each year, the
Coast Guard investigates approximately 5,000 marine casualties. Coast
Guard inspectors and investigators are unmatched in their expertise,
gained through thousands of daily interactions on the waterfront and
the ocean with the full spectrum of vessels and marine facilities. This
expertise gives the Coast Guard a unique ability to focus quickly and
accurately on the most likely causes of a marine casualty.
Investigations of casualties provide critical information about the
safety risks of specific vessel types and operating conditions that
help the Coast Guard to better target its prevention efforts. The Coast
Guard has broad and robust technical expertise in naval architecture,
marine engineering, and salvage, as well as a strong seagoing expertise
by the very nature of the service. That expertise is necessary to focus
quickly on potential causal factors which can be extraordinarily
complex in marine systems. The current process allows the Coast Guard
to take the lead in investigations it deems most vital in refocusing
prevention programs. By virtue of its extensive experience with the
maritime community and its regulatory role, the Coast Guard is the
agency best able to focus the investigation quickly and efficiently and
then implement any needed changes to immediately improve marine safety.
In cases in which an investigation uncovers safety issues that appear
urgent, the Coast Guard is able to issue safety alerts quickly and
commence regulatory program changes based on compelling interim
findings. For example, following the sinking of the amphibious
passenger vessel MISS MAJESTIC at Hot Springs, Arkansas, in May 1999,
the first safety alert was issued 5 days after the incident, the second
13 days after the first alert.
CONCLUSION
In many cases, it is not the breadth but the pace of change that
challenges us. The growth of international maritime trade will
inevitably jump sharply in the next twenty years. Some estimates place
the increase between 200 and 300 percent of current levels. The number
of U.S. passengers has been steadily increasing over the past decade
due, in part, to the increased use of high-speed commuter ferries
traveling at over 40 knots and new passenger ships designed to carry
5,000 people. This contributes significantly to increased waterways
use, congestion, and risk. However, we recognize this trend and are
working to offset the increased risk through our prevention, response,
and investigative efforts, both internationally and domestically.
To ensure the viability of a Coast Guard that will meet the
nation's safety needs in the future, we request your support of our
fiscal year 2001 budget request, which provides the necessary resources
to support our work force adequately, especially in light of the stark
competition to attract and retain quality people in today's economy.
Coast Guard men and women carry out their duties in a harsh and
dangerous environment on a daily basis. To ensure the safety of our
people, we must continue to provide them with modern tools and properly
maintained equipment so they can carry out their duties in the most
efficient manner possible.
Toward that end, the Deepwater project will begin the
recapitalization of our aging fleet of vessels, aircraft, and C4ISR
(command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, sensors,
and reconnaissance) assets with an integrated system that will not only
fill capability, technology, and logistics gaps, but will also enable
us to meet the maritime challenges we foresee in the 21st century. The
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $42.3 million to
complete planning and design work prior to initiation of specific
construction projects.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue with
you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
STATEMENT OF ROSALYN G. MILLMAN
Senator Shelby. Ms. Millman.
Ms. Millman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
make my first appearance before the subcommittee and discuss
critical highway safety issues.
I also want to express my pleasure at appearing today with
my colleagues testifying in the one DOT way that we approach
transportation safety.
SAFETY MISSION REQUIRES INNOVATION STRATEGY
The fiscal year 2001 budget estimate for the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration reflects President
Clinton's and Secretary Slater's highest transportation
priority: safety. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause
of death for Americans between 5 and 29 years old and account
for more than 90 percent of all transportation fatalities.
Secretary Slater's goal is to reduce by 20 percent the
number of traffic deaths and injuries from 1996 to 2008.
Success will have far-reaching national implications in terms
of lives saved, injuries avoided, and families kept intact.
NHTSA's missions are to reduce the number, rate, and
severity of motor vehicle crashes and to enable States and
local communities to solve their unique traffic safety
problems. Our safety strategy will succeed or fail, depending
on our ability to embrace innovation. Business-as-usual
approaches will not accelerate our drive for safer vehicles and
roadways. Accomplishing these objectives demands attention to
both crash avoidance, such as reducing alcohol impaired driving
and decreasing rollover propensity; and crash worthiness--
better head protection and increased child safety seat usage,
for example.
The fiscal year 2001 budget estimate provides the
resources, more than $499 million, an increase of $133 million
over the fiscal year 2000 level, for an ambitious program to
foster a climate of safety innovation through regulatory and
non-regulatory approaches, new ways of doing business, and
supporting research and development.
FOUR PROGRAM COMPONENTS
Our successful programs generally have four components:
partnerships, strong laws, vigorous enforcement, and public
information and education. Mr. Chairman, my written statement
provides more details about NHTSA's highway safety improvement
approach.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 INITIATIVES
In the time remaining, I would like to highlight a few of
NHTSA's fiscal year 2001 initiatives.
NHTSA proposes a concerted research program on crash
protection for older occupants, a supporting research and
development effort that will provide important information for
the future of highway safety. Elderly people are much more
likely to die than younger people in comparable motor vehicle
crashes. The proposed research, through our National
Transportation Biomechanics Research Center, will yield more
accurate injury measurements and thresholds and alternative
occupant restraint systems that improve protection and
survivability.
NATIONAL ADVANCED DRIVING SIMULATOR
Also under the umbrella of supporting research and
development, NHTSA proposes studies using the soon-to-be-
completed National Advanced Driving Simulator. This state-of-
the-art facility with the University of Iowa will enable us to
examine under controlled conditions such driving behavior
scenarios as driver fatigue and inattention, skill degradation
among older drivers, and distraction from the driving task that
new in-vehicle technologies, such as wireless telephones, may
cause. Mr. Chairman, completion of NADS would not have been
possible without the very strong support from this
subcommittee. We thank you.
SAFE PASSAGES FOR YOUTH
The fiscal year 2001 budget estimates include about $11
million for NHTSA's proposed initiative, Safe Passages for
Youth. The 16- and 17-year-olds have the highest rates of fatal
crash involvement per vehicle mile traveled. New strategies are
essential helping our young people save their own lives. A
program using each of the four parts, partnerships with
organizations that work specifically with teenagers, strong
laws such as zero tolerance and graduated driver's licenses,
vigorous enforcement, and public information and education,
have the best potential for increasing seat belt use, reducing
under-age drinking and driving and encouraging compliance with
posted speed limits and discouraging aggressive driving
behavior.
MINORITIES AND RURAL POPULATIONS
Highway safety in America has improved but not uniformly
across the country. Minorities, including African Americans and
Hispanics, and rural populations are over-represented in
highway crash and injury statistics. Rural residents are about
25 percent of the U.S. population, but motor vehicle crashes in
rural areas account for 60 percent of all fatalities.
Senator Shelby. How do you define rural resident? How is
that defined?
Ms. Millman. We use the Census definition.
Our fiscal year 2001 budget contains a new initiative,
Target Populations, to help NHTSA hone its traffic safety
information and education methods to communicate more
effectively with these groups.
ADVANCED AIR BAGS
No traffic safety issue during my tenure is likely to
receive more public attention than advanced air bags. Since
NHTSA announced its November 1996 strategy to improve air bag
safety, the agency has conducted investigations, issued safety
advisories to the public, researched injury patterns, and
consulted with numerous organizations, such as safety advocates
and manufacturers. The final rule will greatly benefit from
these activities, and we are committed to issuing the rule in
accordance with the TEA-21 schedule.
CONCLUSION
Road safety in America has improved greatly since the
Federal program began in the 1960's. The fiscal year 2001
budget estimate now before your subcommittee seeks to build on
our past successes and develop new knowledge and methods to
overcome the remaining obstacles to the highest level of
safety.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rosalyn G. Millman
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before the subcommittee,
along with my colleagues, to discuss important transportation safety
issues. Testifying together today symbolizes the ONE DOT strategy we
follow in working together to improve overall transportation safety. I
am especially pleased to have the opportunity to thank the subcommittee
for its past support of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) programs and efforts to provide innovative
approaches to reducing the number of traffic fatalities and injuries,
and the costly human and economic consequences of motor vehicle
crashes. I look forward to working closely with the subcommittee in
continuing to develop a successful national highway safety program.
HIGHWAY FATALITY TRENDS
Transportation safety is one of this Administration's top
priorities as we enter the 21st Century. The mandates of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) clearly place
NHTSA in the forefront of national highway safety leadership in
developing and implementing innovative programs. The fiscal year 2001
budget request of $499.5 million will enable us to meet the greater
challenges of this role and to build on our solid record of success. We
are witnessing impressive inroads in solving highway-related fatality
and injury problems, coming ever closer to our 2008 goal to reduce
highway-related fatalities and injuries by 20 percent. Our unflagging
leadership has resulted in the lowest highway traffic fatality rate on
record, a low of 1.6 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
In 1998, traffic injuries were down by 156,000 from 1997. Alcohol-
related highway deaths are at a historic low of 38 percent. Seat belt
use is at an all-time high of 70 percent. And, Mr. Chairman, from 1975
to 1998, NHTSA programs related to restraint use, motorcycle helmet use
and underage drinking laws have accounted for 155,000 lives saved.
Yet, much remains to be done. Reaching our 2008 goals requires more
creative approaches to on-going and newly identified traffic safety
problems, resulting from new technologies, expanding demographics, and
changing driving behavioral patterns. To meet these increasing
challenges, we plan to more creatively design integrated approaches to
traffic safety issues and introduce several innovative programs,
developed to address some of the most conspicuous and critical highway
safety issues.
CRASH AVOIDANCE
Improving crash avoidance capabilities of motor vehicles is
paramount in reducing vehicle-related injuries and deaths. Our Crash
Avoidance and Driver Vehicle Performance initiative will study the
underlying principles of crash prevention; examine advanced
technologies to improve vehicle handling and stability; and conduct
laboratory testing to assess vehicle rollover potential, especially
that of sport utility and other high center of gravity vehicles. In
addition, these crash avoidance activities will address questions
concerning driver inattention and distraction; elderly driver safety,
mobility, and driving challenges; and the tradeoffs between fitness to
drive and mobility.
New technologies such as Automatic Collision Notification (ACN)
systems have already been the subject of NHTSA operational field
testing, through the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative program. This
cross-cutting initiative involves other research programs as well,
coordinating our efforts to obtain the best results for our investment.
We are proposing to link the Special Crash Investigations program with
an industry partner to perform in-depth investigations of crashes
involving vehicles with ACN systems. Our program is also developing
improved research methods for injury-prediction algorithms to enhance
emergency medical system capabilities, thus enhancing ACN system value.
We will complete research and development of an easily installed ACN
system and evaluate the system cost in relation to its effectiveness in
saving lives and in reducing time for rehabilitation and recovery.
HEAVY VEHICLE SAFETY
The Secretary of Transportation has placed a great deal of emphasis
on improving heavy truck safety and has set an aggressive goal of
reducing the number of truck-related fatalities by 50 percent in 10
years. Meeting this goal will require a concerted, multi-disciplinary
effort by many parts of the Department. In support of that goal, NHTSA
is proposing several initiatives for research to improve braking
performance, use of disc brakes on tractors and trailers, use of
adaptive suspensions to counteract incipient rollover and Event Data
Recorder (EDR) research to capture information prior to and during
crashes. This research will provide us with a clear understanding of
crash causation and help to develop suitable countermeasures.
IMPAIRED DRIVING PROGRAMS
Although alcohol-related highway fatality statistics have been
notably reduced, dropping to a record low of 38 percent in 1998, more
effort is required to reach our goal of 30 percent, or 11,000 by 2005.
Our programs propose more aggressive use of NHTSA partnerships and the
strategies identified through the Partners in Progress: An Impaired
Driving Guide for Action program. Our focus is on developing, testing,
and evaluating messages in a new major public education program aimed
at the three highest risk groups: 21-34 year-olds; repeat and high
blood alcohol content (BAC) offenders; and underage drinkers, including
college students. Notable examples are: (1) the fiscal year 1999 five-
year campaign, You Drink & Drive. You Lose. program which focuses on
re-energizing state and community efforts to deter impaired driving;
promoting public information and education; media campaigns; technical
program support; new research; and community support; (2) the Drugs,
Driving and Youth program, involving judges, prosecutors, and law
enforcement, with a new emphasis to include juvenile judges at the
community level; and (3) the new fiscal year 2001 initiative, Safe
Passages for Youth, targeting teens and youth, using science
curriculum, teen courts, peer-to-peer programs, parent and teen
outreach, and public service announcements. State and local enforcement
agencies will be awarded grants to increase youth compliance with
underage drinking, zero tolerance, seat belt use, and speeding/
aggressive driving laws.
Innovative research programs are designed to provide direct support
in reaching our goals to reduce alcohol-impaired casualties. When the
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) becomes operational this
summer, we will for the first time, be able to replicate and study the
relationship between BAC and the likelihood of crash involvement under
demanding driving conditions without putting drivers at undue risk. The
results of these studies will have a profound effect in promoting
alcohol and drug safety initiatives, including supporting research
findings to strengthen drunk driving legislation and providing
compelling educational materials to youth groups.
Our strong support of the Presidential Initiative for Making .08
BAC the National Legal Limit continues, substantiated by studies
clearly showing that virtually all drivers are impaired at .08 BAC in
such critical driving tasks as braking, steering, inattention, and
judgment. Moreover, the risk of being involved in a single vehicle
crash increases substantially at the .08 BAC level. The startling
findings of one study show this risk is 11 times greater for a driver
at the .08 BAC level than for a driver who is sober.
SPEED AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING
NHTSA is responding to increasing public demand for measures to
deter aggressive driving. Judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and law
enforcement officers have joined with us to develop a National Action
Plan on enforcement strategies, prosecutorial options, and sentencing
considerations. Several projects using advanced technologies are
underway. The new fiscal year 2001 initiative, Safe Roads America: An
Initiative to Reduce High Risk and Aggressive Driving, is part of a ONE
DOT intermodal initiative that provides statewide enforcement
demonstration grants that target selected high risk driving behaviors,
such as unsafe lane changes, red light running, unsafe railroad
crossings, and passing school buses. This initiative will be combined
with a high profile media and educational campaign, focusing on high
crash risk behavior.
AIR BAG INITIATIVES
Since 1986, air bags have saved over 5,000 lives. To meet
increasing highway safety challenges, we are committed to improving air
bag safety as part of a strong occupant protection program. Air bag
issues have crosscutting program implications throughout the agency. As
a means to improve air bag effectiveness and safety, we are working
toward issuing a final rule on air bag safety by March 1, 2000, the
date specified by TEA-21. In response to public concerns, our staff is
compiling information received through the Rulemaking process and has
met with consumer protection and various traffic safety interest
groups, including those from the insurance, automobile, and air bag
manufacturing industries, to gain their perspective on this critical
safety issue. We have also conducted nearly fifty crash tests of
passenger vehicles at our Vehicle Research and Test Center, to research
air bag safety issues. The goal of the process is to enhance the
benefits and minimize the risks of air bags. In support of air bag
initiatives, we will be purchasing a new family of adult and child
crash test dummies for use in Vehicle Safety Compliance testing for the
enhanced dynamic performance requirements of advanced air bags. These
dummies will be used for applying the new injury criteria for occupant
protection and developing compliance test procedures.
NHTSA's research program is investing in innovative advanced air
bag safety research. The Crashworthiness Safety Systems program will
use EDR research to collect air bag deployment data from crash sensing
and recording devices installed in crashed vehicles. Likewise, we will
conduct research on adaptive air bags and sensing devices that could be
used to provide pre-crash information to tailor the inflation level of
air bags to provide optimal protection. The Special Crash
Investigations program will investigate the performance of new air bag
systems as they emerge in crashes. Our National Transportation
Biomechanics Research Center is involved in research to address
pediatric and small female injury criteria associated with interaction
of air bags with out of position occupants, and is accelerating its
efforts to understand complex injuries resulting from multi-directional
air bag deployment. The National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) is
investing in new initiatives which will include data collection on side
and frontal advanced air bag performance and automatic air bag shut off
systems, providing detailed information on real world crashes. In
addition, we are developing expanded programs on air bag education to
promote awareness of air bag issues. As with all other aspects of motor
vehicle manufacturing, design and performance, the agency will continue
to aggressively pursue enforcement actions against those manufacturers
whose air bags do not conform to the agency's safety standards or
contain a safety-related defect.
SEAT BELTS
This year, 33 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
qualified for a share of $54.6 million in incentive grants for
increased levels of seat belt use. Much of the credit for these
successes is due to our Buckle-Up America Campaign, an inter-modal
undertaking supporting the Presidential Initiative for Increasing
Safety Belt Use Nationwide. Emphasis is on enhanced public education
programs; high visibility enforcement; building public partnerships;
and encouraging states to enact strong occupant protection legislation.
We are increasing national support through such programs as the
Operation ABC Mobilization: America Buckles-up Children and our
partnership with the Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign.
In support of these programs, NASS is launching a three-year child
safety seat study initiative to develop new estimates of the real world
effectiveness of child safety seats in reducing and preventing child
injuries in crashes. Researchers will monitor police and other
emergency frequencies to allow them immediate response to the crash and
the opportunity for gathering the highly perishable data on-scene. In
addition, our Crashworthiness program is investigating occupant
compartment safety improvements, including inflatable seat belt
systems, and the National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center
is proposing new initiatives for investigating the redesign of
restraints to more realistically accommodate the needs of elderly
drivers and passengers.
TARGET POPULATIONS
A fiscal year 2001 comprehensive Target Populations initiative will
be implemented to develop innovative, culturally and linguistically
appropriate materials; conduct culturally relevant media campaigns on
occupant safety and impaired driving, and enlist national minority and
rural organization partnerships. Our fiscal year 2001 program will
continue to focus on those hard to reach African American and Hispanic
populations. The program will develop additional creative approaches to
include Native American, Asian-Pacific Islanders, and rural
populations. Creative approaches to supporting the Secretary's
diversity program are expected to bolster data collection, research,
and evaluation to determine the reasons for, and develop and evaluate
innovative methods to combat the over representation of minority groups
in traffic crashes and its casualties. Supporting this initiative, the
President has directed special funding toward developing, improving,
and implementing traffic safety programs in Indian Country.
CRASHWORTHINESS
We are initiating efforts to improve occupant protection through
using advanced vehicle technology to improve vehicle compatibility and
develop crash testing methodologies. These efforts will focus on ways
to enhance occupant protection through providing vehicle structure and
interior compartment design improvements, combined with improved
occupant restraint systems. Obtaining the desired results requires
research and analysis of real world crash experience; development of
crash test procedures that reproduce the crash event; evaluation of the
likelihood of injury from crash test measurements; development and
evaluation of vehicle countermeasures and their costs; and estimates of
safety benefits achieved. The program is actively seeking methods for
international harmonization in frontal offset and side impact crashes,
vehicle compatibility, intelligent technologies, biomechanics and
pedestrian research. Combining research efforts on advanced restraint
systems with research on pre-crash radar and other sensing technologies
to determine crash severities could be used to tailor air bag
deployment to safely cushion vehicle occupants in crashes.
Advanced technology research will be conducted on deployable energy
absorbing structures; changing geometries of light trucks and vans
(LTVs) through dynamic suspension systems to lower ride height; and
advanced materials to minimize weight difference between LTVs and
passenger cars. While this research is proceeding, we will continue to
conduct extensive compliance testing to assure compliance of existing
vehicles with our crashworthiness standards.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION BIOMECHANICS RESEARCH CENTER
The National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center continues
innovative crash test dummy research development activities. These
activities will provide enhanced test devices and support efforts to
develop dummies for regulatory purposes. Specific emphasis is on
expanding and extending the technology developed for the advanced
frontal 50th percentile male dummy to sizes from the 12-month-old child
through the 3- and 6-year-old child, to the 5th percentile female and
95th percentile male, to support our crashworthiness programs. We will
continue our efforts to simulate the human as realistically as possible
in the automotive crash environment in order to mathematically predict
occupant-vehicle interaction and the resulting injuries, and how to
reduce that potential with automotive restraints and structures. Study
emphasis is placed on high risk anatomy such as the skull, brain, neck,
chest, and legs. We plan to actively participate in the International
Harmonized Research Agenda efforts to generalize global understanding
of biomechanics and to seek a unified technical opinion on dummy
technology and crash injury measures and associated injury risk. NHTSA
continues to promote university-based impact injury research involving
the combined talents of physicians, engineers, and anatomists to
develop definitive injury criteria for major body regions that are
vulnerable to crashes. We are expanding our Crash Injury Research and
Engineering Network (CIREN) to eight trauma centers and are continuing
hospital-based, multi-disciplinary, crash injury studies that identify
and analyze critical safety issues and accelerate identification of
emerging crash safety issues. Additionally, we support efforts to
develop and enhance understanding of complex injury mechanisms
associated with air bag deployments and the technologies to improve
them.
Special emphasis will be placed on crash protection for the
elderly. The need for this research has been reinforced by findings
from the CIREN program, indicating that crash injuries sustained by the
elderly are more severe, lead more often to long hospital stays, and
result in higher mortality rates than identical injuries sustained by
younger crash victims. Injury threshold levels for protection of
various body parts will be developed, and measures to achieve crash
protection for those levels will be developed and evaluated, using
advanced dummy test devices. This research will allow designers to
create restraint systems that distribute loading in ways that enhance
safety. The proposed comprehensive research initiative will also result
in augmenting biomechanical knowledge of all sizes of the human body.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS
In fiscal year 2001, the National Center for Statistics and
Analysis will expand its special crash investigations, especially those
involving air bag-related child and adult fatalities. NASS will
undertake new initiatives to increase crash investigations of vehicles
that incorporate side and frontal advanced air bags, advanced sensing
systems, automatic air bag shut-off systems, and automatic crash data
collection systems. Research will include light truck aggressivity
studies; a 3-year, on-scene, child safety seat study; and new field
data collection technologies. We will decrease the time lapse between
case investigation and public availability of data. Moreover, we
propose to increase crash investigation data quality and completeness,
promote improved collection and use of data from on-board crash event
data recorders, and continue planning, researching, developing, and
testing of new field data collection technology. Data are integral to
state and local efforts in improving highway traffic safety. We will
continue to expand, obtain, document, and make state crash data files
available for analysis. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
will broaden information availability through electronic media such as
the Internet and CD ROM; link the FARS data with other national data
bases and with state data files; and establish electronic links between
FARS analysts and their sources, such as hospitals, coroners, medical
examiners, and police jurisdictions, to increase the quantity and
enhance the quality of drug and alcohol-related information.
NATIONAL ADVANCED DRIVING SIMULATOR (NADS)
The National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) is a world-class
driving research tool that will provide a safe method for conducting
research on driver performance and behavior during precrash events. It
allows safe development of effective countermeasures to driver error.
NADS is scheduled to be operational this summer. This technology will
provide us with a real world view of driving, including driver response
in normal and emergency situations, and it will provide essential
information on driver reaction and error in driving situations,
alcohol- and drug-influenced driving behavior, effects of aging on
driving capability, and how roadway designs affect driver performance.
NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (NCAP)
The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is dedicated to providing new
car buyers with crash test information in an easily understandable
format. NHTSA is expanding this program to give the public more
meaningful and accessible information on vehicle safety. These
initiatives not only involve determining how well a vehicle performs to
avoid crashes, but also its performance during a crash. Our plan is to
test enough vehicles to be able to provide frontal and side impact
information on 80-90 percent of new vehicles. We will also conduct
approximately 10-15 tests with the small stature dummy in the driver
and passenger seating positions to assess the safety potential of
vehicles for the small stature segment of the population. These results
will be used to provide information to small stature adults who are at
greater risk in high speed frontal crashes. To provide more information
to consumers to help make informed purchasing decisions, we will also
provide stopping distance and headlighting information on an array of
NCAP vehicles.
SAFE/LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
The Safe/Livable Communities initiative seeks to improve the
quality of community life through integrating enhanced safety,
mobility, and access to services into the transportation programs of
all modes. Currently, 11 community outreach forums are being conducted
across the country. As a follow-up to these Forums, and building upon
our experience with over 750 existing community programs, this new
initiative will provide coordinated multi-modal technical assistance
and materials. NHTSA will catalog all multi-agency community-based
initiatives; provide community-based training programs; develop and
distribute ONE DOT materials; and expand partnerships to include non-
traditional, multi-cultural partners. It will provide the Department
with a single-point coordinator for meeting its safety, mobility, and
environmental performance goals, including reducing highway-related
fatalities; reducing the rate of rail-grade crossing crashes and
railway trespass-related injuries; enhancing boat safety; protecting
vulnerable groups, such as the disabled, the elderly, and children;
reducing traffic congestion; and increasing transit, pedestrian, and
bicycle travel.
SAFE MOBILITY FOR AN AGING AMERICA
This is a new research and educational program that directly
addresses the nation's rapidly changing driver demographics. It
examines an aging driver population; conducts research into crashes
involving older drivers; and develops and tests an older driver
communications strategy through campaign materials and training. The
program focuses on the significant knowledge gaps in developing
strategies for creating and providing educational materials. This is a
ONE DOT effort, with NHTSA collaborating with FHWA in developing
electronically-based training courses for engineers to implement
roadway designs that will accommodate older driver's needs. The program
will concentrate on researching licensing and regulatory actions,
assessment tools, effects and limits of rehabilitation programs, the
impact of specific age-related diseases, existing geometric design
guidelines, and crash protection for the elderly.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS
The Highway Traffic Safety Grants program includes Section 402
State and Community Grants to support performance-based highway safety
programs in every state, territory, and the Indian Nations for the
purpose of reducing highway crashes, deaths, and injuries. The program
supports national priority programs such as encouraging proper use of
occupant protection devices, reducing alcohol and drug-impaired
driving, reducing motorcycle crashes, and improving emergency medical
services and trauma care systems. This program is a major influence in
meeting the Secretary's goals of 90 percent safety belt use by 2005 and
reducing alcohol-related fatalities to 11,000 by 2005, as well as
reducing traffic fatalities and injuries. The Section 405 Occupant
Protection and Incentive Grant Program provides grants that will
encourage states to pass stronger laws and implement effective measures
to increase safety belt and child safety seat use. The Section 2003 (b)
Child Passenger Protection Education Grant Program encourages states to
implement child passenger protection programs designed to prevent
deaths and injuries to children, educate the public and train safety
professionals on the proper use of child restraints. The Section 410
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program
encourages states to pass stronger laws and implement effective
measures to reduce safety problems stemming from driving while impaired
by alcohol. This supports the Secretary's Partners In Progress
Initiative to reduce alcohol-impaired driving fatalities to 11,000 by
the year 2005. The Section 411 State Highway Safety Data Improvement
Incentive Grant Program encourages states to implement effective
programs to improve state data that is needed to identify priorities
for national, state, and local highway safety programs, including a
traffic records coordinating committee and a strategic plan.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, we are optimistic about the future impact of our
programs, and the dedicated partnerships we have made in promoting
safety for all who travel on the nation's highways. Our fiscal year
2001 program reflects our commitment to creative and innovative
strategies for reducing the tragic toll of highway crashes and their
related social and economic costs.
STATEMENT OF KELLEY S. COYNER
Senator Shelby. Ms. Coyner.
Ms. Coyner. Thank you, Chairman Shelby, Senator Lautenberg,
and Senator Murray, for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to address our key commitment: safety. My name is
Kelley Coyner. I am the Administrator of the Research and
Special Programs Administration.
RSPA is requesting $99 million in fiscal year 2001 for our
programs which have the key objective of preventing harm to
human life and the environment. These activities focus on three
principal areas: pipeline safety, hazardous materials safety,
and research and technology programs.
We were reminded in the past year of the importance of
pipeline safety when a pipeline explosion in Bellingham,
Washington resulted in the deaths of three children and changed
that small community forever. This incident has given added
emphasis to our efforts to create and enforce regulations, to
secure the safe operation of pipelines, with a particular
emphasis on the four major causes of pipeline failure. We are
actively addressing each of these causes: outside force damage,
corrosion, human error, and material defects. We have requested
a total of $47 million, more than a 28-percent increase over
this year's level for pipeline safety.
In particular, we have requested $5 million, the amount
authorized by Congress in TEA-21, for damage prevention grants.
Outside force damage continues to be the leading cause of
disruption to pipelines and other underground utilities.
We have a research effort underway to improve internal
inspection technology to locate existing mechanical damage and
detect this damage as it occurs.
Another leading cause of pipeline failure is corrosion. We
have a rulemaking designed to make our current regulations
clearer and more effective. Over the course of the next several
months, we will publish proposed regulations to strengthen
these standards, and we will also require periodic testing of
these lines.
To address human error, another cause of pipeline failure,
we have begun working with operators individually and in
workshops to implement our new operator qualification rule, and
we are checking on their progress through our standard
inspections.
Finally, to address material defects, we have a research
effort underway to analyze plastic pipe performance and the
adequacy of our regulations in this area.
For fiscal year 2001, we are also requesting $23.6 million
for pipeline safety grants. This funding is necessary to
strengthen our State partners' abilities to carry out their
responsibilities to the fullest and to meet the increasing
demand for inspection activities and to improve our research
and development efforts.
In the United States, more than 3 billion tons of regulated
hazardous materials are transported each year, and over 800,000
shipments of hazardous materials are handled daily, a dramatic
increase over past levels of transportation in the hazardous
materials area.
In order to improve safety and better protect people and
the environment, RSPA has published a rule to revise the
registration fee structure to support the hazardous materials
emergency preparedness grants program. State and local
governments use these grants to conduct emergency response
planning and training activities to protect communities in the
event of a hazardous materials incident. This increased
funding, supplied by the registration fee structure, will
ensure that a larger segment of the response community will
receive critical initial and recurrent training at all levels
and will enable them to more effectively protect people and
property that could be endangered by accidents involving
hazardous materials.
In addition to the pipeline safety programs and the
hazardous materials programs, our research and technology
program is important to safety as well. This year the
Department has requested $3 million in its budget to allow RSPA
to begin a DOT-wide initiative that will allow all modes of
transportation to better combat human error caused by fatigue.
The goal of this effort will develop the knowledge base,
strategy, tools and technologies to forecast and detect
fatigue-compromised operators and to proactively manage
fatigue. Our goal is to restore alertness and safety and to
train operators to recognize and respond to potential hazards
in this area.
PREPARED STATEMENT
President Clinton and Secretary Slater have made
transportation safety their highest priority, and RSPA is
committed to protecting and increasing the safety of people and
the environment in relation to our areas of responsibility. By
working together with State partners, industry, local
communities, emergency responders, and the technology
community, we can continue to make our Nation's communities
safe and liveable.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kelley S. Coyner
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name
is Kelley Coyner, and I am the Administrator for the Research and
Special Programs Administration (RSPA). I appreciate the opportunity to
speak to the Subcommittee on our efforts to address our number one-
priority--safety.
To support our enhanced programs and new initiatives RSPA is
requesting $99 million in fiscal year 2001, an increase of $16 million
over fiscal year 2000. These investments are necessary to protect
lives, to create a well-educated population and workforce, and to
strengthen partnerships among government, industry and academia to meet
our challenges today and our goals for the future.
As communities have expanded and populations have grown, so has the
risk of transportation-related incidents. To combat this risk, last
year, the Vice President launched a new effort to make communities more
livable. We have been especially challenged with keeping our
communities and families safe from the unintentional release of
hazardous materials from pipelines and other modes of transportation
and directing the safe transportation of relief efforts into areas
struck by natural disasters.
PIPELINE SAFETY
The challenge of maintaining the safety of pipelines grows each day
as our nation's economic prosperity increases and an increase in new
construction in our communities brings pipelines and people closer
together. There are four major causes of pipeline failure, and we are
actively are addressing each of them: (1) outside force damage, (2)
corrosion, (3) human error, and (4) material defects. We have underway
important initiatives to protect people and the environment and, in the
event of a failure, accelerate response to minimize damage. We have
requested a total of $47 million, more than 28 percent above this
year's level, for the pipeline safety program.
OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE
Most American's homes are connected to the vast underground web of
pipes and wires. State-based one-call systems, which enable contractors
to obtain information about where pipelines exist and avoid them while
digging or excavating, have been effective in avoiding outside force
damage. However, this damage continues to be the leading cause of
disruption of pipelines and other underground utilities.
The Secretary has challenged RSPA, the private sector and local
communities to collectively reduce excavation-related pipeline
incidents by 25 percent over the next three years. To reach this goal,
we have received $1 million in fiscal year 2000 and requested $5
million in fiscal year 2001, the amount authorized by Congress in the
Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), for damage
prevention grants. We have a research effort underway to improve
internal pipeline inspection technology to locate existing mechanical
damage and to detect this damage as it occurs. We also are requiring
pipeline companies to have public education programs in place to ensure
that people are aware of the pipelines in their communities and have
information about pipeline companies' safety records. We also are
identifying what should be included in these communications plans and
assessing their effectiveness.
PREVENTING CORROSION
The other leading cause of pipeline failure is corrosion. While
statistical analyses indicate the rate of incidents may be beginning to
decline, we think the record warrants attention and indicates reasons
to improve our corrosion control standards. We are especially
interested in evaluating the best long-term corrosion control measures
to determine if there are better means of further reducing corrosion.
We have begun a rulemaking designed to make our current regulations
clearer, more effective, and compatible with new technology.
ADDRESSING HUMAN ERROR
A qualified workforce will help reduce the likelihood and
consequence of incidents caused by human error--another important and
preventable cause of pipeline failure. Last year we published a
comprehensive rule requiring pipeline operators to develop and maintain
a written qualification program that assesses the ability of each
worker. We have begun working with operators individually and in
workshops to implement our new operator qualification rule, and we are
checking on their progress during our standard inspections.
Considering material defects
The last of the four leading causes of pipeline failure is material
defects. We plan to continue to investigate pipe strength for
opportunities to learn and improve in this area. On gas distribution
systems, we will focus on the strength of the plastic pipe, which could
be susceptible to fractures as it ages. We have a research effort
underway to analyze plastic pipe performance and the adequacy of our
regulations in this area.
State safety grants
We oversee and share responsibility with state governments to
protect more than 2 million miles of pipelines. For fiscal year 2001 we
are requesting $17.6 million for State Safety Grants. This $4.5 million
increase over fiscal year 2000, is necessary to strengthen our state
pipeline safety partner's abilities to fully carry out their
responsibilities to meet the increasing demands for inspection
activities. This amount does not include $5 million for damage
prevention grants.
More than 75 percent of incidents involving fatalities occur in
densely populated areas on intrastate distribution pipelines. Because
of this, the oversight activities at the state level have become of
critical importance. To assist states we are requesting a 50 percent
increase in funding to provide for additional inspection activities. We
support the states through a wide variety of actions such as pipeline
safety grants, regulatory training, and funding to facilitate their
participation in RSPA initiatives.
We have taken aggressive strides to address the causes of pipeline
failure through regulatory action, investigation of new technology, and
improved state programs. We have forged partnerships with local, state
and federal agencies, public interest and environmental organizations
to help share responsibility for pipeline safety. By working together,
we can make it easier for people to live safely with the pipelines in
their communities.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
In the United States, more than 3 billion tons of regulated
hazardous materials are transported each year, and over 800,000
shipments of hazardous materials are handled daily. RSPA's Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety has built a hazardous materials safety
program that protects the public through strong safety standards,
ensures that people know how to comply with those standards, and
responds through strong enforcement to curtail illegal shipments and
activities. In order to improve safety and better protect people and
the environment, RSPA is committed to working with all segments of the
hazardous materials community, including state and local officials and
the public.
To do this, RSPA has published a rule to revise the registration
program fee structure to support the Hazardous Materials Emergency
Preparedness grants program. State and local governments use these
grants to enhance emergency response planning and training activities
to protect communities in the event of a hazardous materials incident.
The increased funding supplied by the registration program fee
structure will ensure that a larger segment of the response community
will receive critical initial and recurrent training at all levels and
will enable them to more effectively protect people and property that
could be endangered by accidents involving hazardous materials.
RESEARCH--HUMAN ERROR: FATIGUE
The Department has requested $3 million in its fiscal year 2001
budget to provide continuing support of a One DOT initiative that will
allow all modes of transportation to address two critical areas to
combat human error. The first is to focus on developing and
implementing technologies and methods for Operator Fatigue Management
(OFM). The second is to develop and implement Advanced Instructional
Technology (AIT) for operators with a special focus on recognizing and
responding to imminent crash threats. This new DOT initiative will
develop the knowledge base, strategies, tools and technologies to
forecast and detect fatigue-compromised operators and to proactively
manage fatigue to restore alertness and safety and train operators to
recognize and respond to potential incidents.
CONCLUSION
President Clinton's and Secretary Slater's highest transportation
priority is safety, and RSPA is committed to protecting and increasing
the safety of people, property and the environment with regard to
transportation. By working together with our state partners, our
stakeholders, and local communities, we can continue to make our
nation's communities safe and livable.
Thank you, and I am pleased to answer any questions you might have.
STATEMENT OF JOLENE M. MOLITORIS
Senator Shelby. Ms. Molitoris.
Ms. Molitoris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray.
I am very pleased to be here this morning, Mr. Chairman,
because your support of our budgets in the past has contributed
to an increase in rail safety that is really unprecedented. We
can continue to increase the saving of lives and reducing of
injuries with your support.
SAFETY STATISTICS
If you look at the chart, you will see the numbers really
speak for themselves. Since 1993, injuries and deaths of
employees have been reduced 43 percent. The train accident rate
is down 9 percent; crossing collisions are down 27 percent;
fatalities are down 34 percent; injuries are down 22 percent.
These are dramatic, and have occurred while ton-miles are up 17
percent during the same period.
The real reason that this has happened is because people
have been working together in partnerships in new ways with
Operation Lifesaver, with rail labor and management and many
other groups. It is the partnerships that are making it work.
But if we have one death or one injury, it is too much, and so
we have much more to do.
Our written statement gives you a lot of information about
many of our safety programs, positive train control, fatigue
mitigation, train switching accidents--which actually account
for 45 percent of the fatalities of employees--many, many
rulemakings, and our effort to enhance the safety culture on
railroads.
Today I am going to focus on crossing safety and other
safety initiatives, grade crossing and trespasser issues in
particular.
In 1999, crossing collisions and fatalities went down by 7
percent and trespasser fatalities went down by 14 percent.
These preventable tragedies still represent 96 percent of the
fatalities in the railroad industry. Overall, between 1993 and
1999, the reduction has been 30 percent, significant but just
not enough.
GRADE CROSSING SAFETY MANAGERS
One of the things that this committee did in approving our
budget some years ago was to establish grade crossing safety
managers, which has been tremendously effective. For example,
in the 5-year period after their establishment, fatalities
decreased 31 percent at grade crossings. So, their work is a
very, very important threshold and it is very good. They focus
on engineering, enforcement, and awareness programs. Our big
partners in awareness and education are Operation Lifesaver and
the railroads themselves.
OPERATION LIFESAVER
A few of the highlights of our work with Operation
Lifesaver might be interesting to you. For example, next month
FRA will be releasing a videotape to truckers focusing on
crossings and what they need to do to maintain their own safety
and the safety of others.
Senator Murray, in partnership with Washington State
Operation Lifesaver and Operation Lifesaver, Inc., FRA
developed a law enforcement roll call video to encourage
enforcement of State laws on crossings, and 1,000 of these have
been distributed to enforcement agencies.
In the West, we partnered with Operation Lifesaver
committees from Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah to develop
crossing protection prevention programs with Native American
communities.
Just this past winter in Pennsylvania, at the Pennsylvania
Farm Show, FRA unveiled a field-to-field grade crossing safety
program focused on farm crossings. These private crossings can
be very dangerous.
We worked very hard with NHTSA, the Federal Highway
Administration, and Operation Lifesaver on 70,000 trucker
alerts. New public service announcements also will be aired
this spring. We have reached about 3 million people directly
through our media advisories, including 60,000 school bus
drivers and our PSA's are heard by millions. But there is much
more to do.
LOCOMOTIVE HORN RULING
One more very highly visible event occurred recently. FRA,
at the mandate of Congress, released a proposed rule on the
sounding of horns at crossings. We think this rule can be a
win-win rule because it can increase safety, and still provide
ways to maintain quiet zones that many communities want. FRA is
holding eight public hearings around the country and a long
comment period which will end May 26. So, we think it is an
opportunity for the citizens to get the answers that they need.
It was interesting, because I had an opportunity recently
to speak at the National Conference of Mayors. The mayors are
really worried about this, and I am sure you have had a lot of
discussion even in your area. We were able to explain what the
rule says, let them know it is not going to happen overnight,
and let them know we are going to work with them to find the
funding in existing sources, and to help them get the job done.
That sums up what we do. Safety is our first and most
important job.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these things today
and to answer your further questions and these of the
committee.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jolene M. Molitoris
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today with my Department of Transportation (DOT) colleagues
to discuss surface transportation safety programs, starting with our
primary responsibility for railroad safety. During the past seven
years, we have participated in an evolution in railroad safety that is
unprecedented in the history of this industry. Last month, President
Clinton said that the State of the Union is the best in history. In a
similar vein, I can say that this industry has a safety achievement
record that is better than ever before. This achievement can be
credited to the formation of partnerships within DOT, between the
Federal and State governments, and between FRA and stakeholders within
the railroad industry, such as labor organizations, railroads, and
suppliers.
For example, from 1993 to October of last year, rail-related
fatality rate was down 38 percent, and injury rates declined 49
percent. The train-related accident rate is down 11 percent for the
same period of time. Highway-rail crossing incidents were down 37
percent from 1993--a dramatic improvement. Yet, we know we can do much
better, working toward our ultimate goal of zero fatalities and zero
injuries. With continued participation from all of our partners and the
continued support of the Congress, we will continue to make measurable
progress toward reaching our goal. (Attached to this presentation is a
table showing our future goals under the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993.)
We believe that continued strong investment in our safety programs
can produce even more dramatic results. The President's Budget for
fiscal year 2001 requests $103 million for safety and operations, up
more than 9 percent from the fiscal year 2000. This funding will
support ten additional safety-field positions, outreach programs for
grade crossing and fatigue countermeasures, program evaluations on
Safety projects and other projects that will enhance Safety regulatory
and enforcement work and the collection and dissemination of Safety
data. We have also requested 19 percent increase in research and
development (to $27 million), 95 percent of which is directed at
improvements in safety.
Major priorities for FRA over the balance of this year and next
include--
--Working with Operation Lifesaver, Inc. to launch a new crossing
safety public awareness campaign;
--Finalizing and implementing a Trespass Prevention Action Plan;
--Completing the locomotive horn rulemaking;
--Finalizing the Freight Power Brake rule;
--Hastening the implementation of Positive Train Control Systems by
issuing flexible performance standards for new technology and
by advancing the National Joint PTC Program; and
--Working with railroads and employee organizations, through the
Safety Assurance and Compliance Program on each railroad, to
implement system-wide safety procedures that will prevent
employee fatalities involved in switching operations.
GRADE CROSSING SAFETY AND TRESPASS PREVENTION
In recent years, approximately 95 percent of all rail-related
fatalities have resulted from highway-rail grade crossing collisions
and illegal trespassing. So I want to open this morning by providing
you with an overview of the ongoing education, engineering and
enforcement activities the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is
undertaking to improve crossing safety, working in concert with other
DOT agencies, States, local communities, and the private sector. This
work goes hand-in-glove with our efforts to prevent trespassing on
railroad rights-of-way. (Attached is a table showing the status of each
of the initiatives under DOT's 1994 multi-modal Rail-Highway Crossing
Safety Action Plan.)
Education and Awareness.--In order to drive down risk at crossings,
we must raise awareness of that risk among drivers and pedestrians. FRA
is a founding sponsor of Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), and we
maintain a strong involvement in OLI outreach efforts nationwide.
(FRA's budget request for fiscal year 2001 includes $600,000 for OLI.)
Early in this Administration, we recognized that the traditional,
targeted outreach that Operation Lifesaver had made so effective needed
to be supplemented through the mass media. FRA's ``Always Expect A
Train'' public education campaign has sought to raise awareness about
the deadly consequences of trying to beat a train to a crossing or
trespassing on railroad property. This campaign reached citizens in all
50 States via more than 270 television and cable markets, 673 radio
markets and 200 publications. Recognizing the merits of mass media
strategies, OLI reinforced this message with a hard-hitting series of
messages under the theme ``Highways or Dieways.''
FRA and OLI recognize that these efforts are due for renewal, and
we need to ensure that our message is efficiently and effectively
delivered. We are currently working closely with Operation Lifesaver to
develop new public service announcements which will be introduced this
spring. Our budget request includes an additional $500,000 to take this
important message into the homes of more Americans through a unified
approach.
We must also reach specific audiences that play key roles in
crossing safety. In the aftermath of the tragic collision between a
school bus and a commuter train at a crossing in Fox River Grove,
Illinois in October 1995, FRA, our ``ONEDOT'' partners, and Operation
Lifesaver have developed a school bus driver training education program
called The Responsibility is Ours. The program was distributed during
1997 to all State departments of education and transportation. This
program is continually monitored and updated. In 1999, FRA developed a
School Bus Driver Safety Alert for distribution directly to bus drivers
themselves. In the same spirit, working with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), we issued a Commercial Truck Driver Safety
Alert. Both alerts are available on FRA's website (http://
www.fra.dot.gov). We are also working with Operation Lifesaver to
develop and distribute in the next few months a video intended to raise
awareness about crossing safety within the motor carrier community.
Enforcement.--Crossing safety and the success of passenger and
freight rail service are directly related. Collisions at Portage,
Indiana and Bourbonnais, Illinois, dramatically brought home the
exposure of train crews and passengers to the tragic consequences of
train collisions with large motor vehicles. The Department of
Transportation is working across a broad front to address this need.
For example, the FHWA recently issued a regulation that would penalize
commercial drivers who disobey crossing warning devices. Of course, the
FHWA rule will be effective only if State and local governments follow
through with needed enforcement. That is why FRA is devoting
significant resources to elevate crossing enforcement on the agenda of
law enforcement agencies through training programs and direct contacts
with law enforcement officers.
Engineering.--Since 1974, the ``section 130'' program has funded
safety improvements at highway-rail crossings, including the
installation of automated warning devices. This effort has been crucial
to our success in reducing crossing deaths. Nevertheless, a majority of
crossings continue to have only passive signs such as the basic
``crossbuck.''
By closing redundant and inherently unsafe crossings, we can
reserve section 130 funds for improvements at the crossings that
remain. In 1991, FRA established a goal to close 25 percent of the
Nation's crossings by 2004. By the end of 1999, a total of 35,123, or
12 percent of all public and private highway-rail grade crossings had
been closed by States and localities in cooperation with the railroads.
This effort must be continued as we seek corridor-based solutions to
the crossing challenge. FRA and FHWA continue to work with State and
local community officials to raise awareness that the safest and most
efficient way to reduce crossing collisions is to eliminate or
consolidate highway-rail crossings. One successful example of this
initiative entailed FRA and FHWA partnering with the Western Governors'
Association to improve rail safety throughout Western communities by
working to eliminate redundant crossings. FRA provided crucial
information for development of a reference guide on traffic safety and
transportation efficiency that is used by local communities in the
western United States.
The future of engineering improvements at highway-rail crossings
will be what we make it. DOT agencies sponsored a wide range of
demonstration programs during the 1990's indicating that safer
crossings can be achieved by using tools that are well proven and
currently at our disposal. For instance, the State of North Carolina
and the Norfolk Southern Railway, supported by FRA's high-speed rail
program funding provided by this Subcommittee, developed the ``sealed
corridor'' initiative to take crossing safety beyond conventional
flashing lights and gates. Now is the time to apply lessons learned on
a larger scale.
Working with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, the
FHWA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), FRA has contributed to
the establishment of the DOT Leadership Conference Technical Working
Group, which now includes participation by the new Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA). This broad-based intermodal group is examining,
from the ground up, what we need to do to take crossing safety to the
next level by taking a risk-based approach and using the new tools at
our disposal.
Congress has certainly recognized the importance of identifying and
prioritizing the risks at grade crossings. Last year, the
appropriations committees instructed FRA to identify the ten most
hazardous crossings in each state; that project should be completed by
this summer. We fully support Congress's intention and believe that
risk identification and prioritization should become institutionalized
in the crossing safety program. FRA has developed the analytical tools
to do the job, but we lack the necessary data collection capacity. A
provision in our rail safety bill would remedy that situation by
requiring States and railroads to periodically update their grade
crossing inventory so that crossing safety funds may be targeted first
and foremost at the most dangerous crossings.
Looking ahead still further, FRA has initiated the process of
developing standards for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) at
grade crossings. Working with the ITS Joint Program Office, we are
sponsoring the development of a strategic plan and standards for the
ITS Highway-Rail Intersection User Service. Coupled with emerging
Positive Train Control Systems, ITS technologies at crossings and in
vehicles will one day support dramatic improvements in crossing safety,
as well as enhanced traffic management in communities with heavy motor
vehicle and train traffic.
Railroad trespassing is especially problematic because too many
people do not understand that it is not only dangerous, but illegal
since railroad property is private property. Preliminary data indicate
that, again in 1999, over 50 percent of all rail-related deaths
involved trespassing on railroad property. We know that railroad police
cannot deal with this situation on their own. In an effort to increase
enforcement of existing laws and encourage adoption of more stringent
trespass laws, the FRA developed and disseminated model State trespass
and vandalism prevention legislation in 1997 to all 50 governors and
State secretaries of transportation, law enforcement agencies and
transportation-related associations. Currently, only one State, Iowa,
has enacted the model law, but public education efforts promise an
increasing awareness of the need for effective enforcement. During the
current year, we will work with our DOT partners to finalize a new
Trespass Prevention Action Plan. While Federal involvement alone cannot
solve this problem, the growing casualties from railroad trespassing
will not be reduced if we fail to provide national leadership.
rulemaking for crossing safety
Over the past several years, FRA has put in place requirements for
inspection and testing of automated warning devices at crossings and
has mandated alerting lights-often called ``ditch lights''--to make
trains more conspicuous. Within the next few months, we will complete a
preliminary cost-benefit analysis and decide whether to propose
reflectorization of rail rolling stock to deal with a small, but
unusual set of nighttime crashes where motor vehicles actually run into
the sides of long trains.
Another significant safety action is our pending proposed rule to
require Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Crossings. This
proposal is mandated by 1994 legislation, which was reconsidered and
amended by the Congress in 1996. It is supported by FRA research that
shows collisions increase by 62 percent at crossings with flashing
lights and gates when train horns are silenced by local ``whistle
bans.'' (Very significant effects were also found at crossings with
only flashing lights or with only passive signs such as
``crossbucks.'')
The proposal is controversial due to the potential noise impacts in
the more than 275 communities across the Nation that have local whistle
bans and because it follows the dictates of the law by placing the
burden of implementing alternatives to the locomotive horn on local
traffic control authorities or law enforcement authorities. (The law
contains no authorization for Federal funding.)
After extensive outreach and study during the period 1995-1999, we
have tried to fashion a proposal that provides the most flexible menu
of options to communities that wish to establish ``quiet zones'' by
compensating for the loss of the train horn. Presently, our regional
grade crossing managers are conducting additional outreach sessions to
explain the proposal and encourage comments. There are pages on FRA's
web site to provide an in-depth background on this issue. In general,
we find that the better the proposal is understood, the more receptive
communities are to pursuing a reasoned dialogue on the subject; and we
are convinced that we will have a better final rule if we all approach
the challenge with that attitude.
FRA will be holding eight public hearings on this proposal,
starting with a Washington hearing on March 6. The public comment
period will be open through May 26. As this process goes forward, we
are committed to working in partnership with communities to advance
safety and freedom from excessive train horn noise.
OTHER SAFETY RULEMAKING AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
FRA's rulemaking program and related technology development
activities rely heavily on active and broad-based partnerships. It is
hard to believe that FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) is
less than four years old, given that we have done so much through the
collaborative rulemaking process. The RSAC has given us revised Track
Safety Standards, Railroad Communications rules, Locomotive Engineer
Certification procedures and Steam Locomotive Safety Standards. In
addition, Roadway Worker Protection rules, Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards, and Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness requirements,
were all developed through heavy reliance on a similar collaborative
process. I am particularly pleased that our work in support of
passenger safety has prompted the American Public Transit Association
to develop detailed passenger safety standards to help implement and to
complement the Federal rules. FRA will be working with its partners to
launch a second phase of passenger rulemaking this year, incorporating
the lessons from ongoing research and testing, including results of the
full-scale crash testing program that is now underway at the
Transportation Technology Center near Pueblo, Colorado.
This past September, the RSAC issued a landmark report,
Implementation of Positive Train Control Systems, which points the way
toward advances in collision avoidance, speed control and more secure
protection of roadway workers. In addition, the North American Joint
Positive Train Control (PTC) Project is well underway. The project team
has just issued a Request for Proposals for a system developer and
integrator with proposals due March 24th. This project must succeed if
we are to bring about greater safety improvements in the railroad
industry in this new century.
Let's remember that PTC has the potential to greatly increase not
only the safety of railroad operations, but service, efficiency and
long-term business performance as well. Railroads and their suppliers
are working toward more effective traffic planning, but precise and
secure execution of those plans will likely require implementation of
new train control technology. Moving increasing passenger and freight
traffic on the same rail network safely and on time will require train
control systems that are highly capable. As the North American PTC
project develops the technology, the RSAC PTC Working Group is
developing proposed safety standards for train control systems that
will be performance-based and flexible.
Meanwhile, FRA is working with the United States Coast Guard, FHWA,
and FTA on the deployment of Nationwide Differential GPS. We are
requesting $18.7 million through the FHWA research and development
account for this program. This highly accurate augmentation to the
Global Positioning System will support our PTC initiatives as well as
providing greater safety on highways and transit systems. This is part
of a comprehensive set of DOT requests in support of modernization and
augmentation of GPS, which will improve both the safety and the
efficiency of transportation systems.
The Administration directed the DOT to serve as the lead agency
within the U.S. Government for all Federal Civil GPS matters. In
support of this important role, GPS is ranked as the Department's
second most important ``Flagship'' initiative. We have other important
rulemakings still pending before RSAC. We are in the home stretch on
proposed rules for an enhanced Locomotive Crashworthiness standard and
improved Cab Sanitation. Additional proposals RSAC is working on will
address Cab Noise Exposure, Next-Generation Locomotive Event Recorders,
and Roadway Maintenance Machines; and we will have a final rule
amendment shortly on use of Gage Restraint Measurement Systems to
evaluate railroad tie conditions.
Not every cooperative venture has a happy ending, of course. FRA
will be issuing a final rule on Freight Power Brakes this year without
the benefit of an RSAC consensus, but with a better understanding of
the issue than would have been possible without collaboration.
Safety Assurance and Compliance Partnerships
The success of our rulemaking efforts can be attributed to the
willingness of the participants to listen to each other, set aside
traditional differences, and act in the collective interest of safety.
This same approach is necessary for our other safety work, as well.
The Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) targets the root
causes of systemic safety problems, thereby utilizing our limited
inspector resources to their greatest advantage. Bringing together
labor and management not only enhances communication and helps leverage
our compliance resources, but also opens the door to more fundamental
changes in the safety culture of the railroads.
Over the past two years, in particular, we have begun to see a thaw
in the rigid culture of punitive discipline, mutual distrust and
limited communication that stood as a barrier to further safety
improvements in the railroad industry. Modest experiments in
cooperation have led to bolder action, and new possibilities have
emerged, both on individual railroad properties and at the national
level.
One of the fruits of this new-found confidence is the report of our
joint task force on Switching Operations Fatality Analysis or ``SOFA,''
which was presented by labor, carrier, and FRA representatives at the
RSAC meeting of January 28. Railroad classification yards and switching
operations are the most deadly working environment for railroad
workers. Most of the solutions to this involve common sense, not high
technology. The SOFA group has examined the underlying causes of these
preventable accidents and has agreed on several steps that employees
and railroads can take to reduce this loss of life. We want the
railroads to send employees home uninjured each day to their families.
When I hear of rail workers being impaled between two cars, I am angry
and sad. I don't enjoy writing sympathy letters--they are so dreadfully
inadequate. It is also disheartening to me that every death or injury
that has occurred during the last 7 years has occurred on my watch. All
of us at FRA feel the same sense of loss each time a rail-related
casualty occurs.
Last month, I spoke before the North American Rail Alertness
Partnership (NARAP). Within the DOT, the Secretary has identified
fatigue countermeasures as a ONEDOT Flagship Initiative. The railroad
industry is already leading the way for its employees and serves as the
model for the other surface transportation modes to follow in this
important safety area. Our proposed safety reauthorization legislation
would seek to ensure that comprehensive fatigue management plans are in
place on every major railroad. Our budget request includes $300,000 to
help implement, evaluate and disseminate information concerning fatigue
management strategies.
To build on these gains, our safety reauthorization bill seeks
Congressional endorsement of this cooperative approach for an improved
safety culture in the railroad industry. We request Congressional
acknowledgment of efforts in that direction, especially with regard to
the use of alternatives to formal discipline in appropriate cases, on
certain leading railroads. For those railroad employees who are still
not fortunate enough to work in a positive safety culture, our
legislation proposes to strengthen existing whistle blower protections
in order to deter future discrimination. Enactment of these provisions
will foster the trust that has developed and help it grow.
FUTURE CHALLENGES
Light rail.--In past years, it was often possible to establish new
light rail service to relieve urban congestion by using abandoned rail
rights-of-way. Today, a much leaner and very active freight railroad
industry is heavily utilizing its main lines, and still seeking to
provide freight service to customers located on secondary lines. The
result is heavy pressure for intermingling of light rail and
conventional rail service, or for use of existing rail rights-of-way
for parallel light rail and conventional rail service. The
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) has spawned a
significant number of new starts for which shared use of track or
construction in a common corridor is attractive or even essential if
public transportation needs are to be met at an affordable cost. The
FTA and FRA have recognized this issue and have issued a proposed Joint
Policy Statement focusing on shared use of track. The most important
safety issues related to shared use include: (1) the potential for a
catastrophic collision between light rail and conventional equipment;
(2) shared use of highway-rail grade crossings and infrastructure and
(3) employee safety. The proposed policy seeks to promote time-
separated operations, apply FRA regulations only as necessary to
address common hazards, and defer to FTA's new State Safety Oversight
program with respect to strictly light rail aspects of the operation.
Meanwhile, FRA and FTA are coordinating at the regional level to
evaluate safety challenges associated with parallel operations in the
same corridor, including detection of freight-related hazards and
adequate provision for highway-rail crossing safety.
Intermodal safety.--The intermodal dimensions of transportation
continue to grow with every passing year. To meet these challenges, FRA
works closely with the Research and Special Programs Administration and
the U.S. Coast Guard, among other agencies, to ensure that hazardous
materials are properly packaged and documented for transportation.
Increasingly, we are becoming aware that we can be more effective in
addressing public safety needs across a broad front by partnering with
NHTSA, the FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, and many industry and advocacy
organizations in promoting crossing safety and trespass prevention.
FRA's participation in promoting the ``Safe Communities,'' ``Buckle-Up
America,'' ``Moving Kids Safely,'' ``Garret A. Morgan Transportation
Futures Program,'' ``Aggressive Driving Team'' and other DOT
initiatives gives us access to new audiences while allowing us to
contribute to the Department's larger mission. As the past chair of the
DOT Safety Council, I am an enthusiastic supporter of ``ONEDOT''
efforts that seek to instill the message of safety in our communities.
Spent fuel.--To meet the needs of the future, our partnerships will
need to be inter- as well as intra-departmental. The Department of
Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are anticipating a
large increase in the rail transportation of High-level Radioactive
Waste (HLRW) and Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) to long-term storage
facilities. Nearly 90 percent of these shipments are intended to move
by rail. Spent nuclear fuel rail shipments have doubled in just the
last few years from 20 to 40 shipments per year. This figure will climb
to over 400 once long-term or interim nuclear fuel storage sites are
established, which could occur in the next several years. To
accommodate these important national and international goals, FRA will
help ensure the safe transportation of nuclear hazardous materials by
positioning specialized teams of inspectors that will oversee every
nuclear material train movement from beginning to end and conduct a
detailed, comprehensive inspection of the track, signal and grade
crossing systems. (Attached to this presentation is a table outlining
projected movements of HLRW and SNF.)
During the last decade of the 20th Century, we began to find new
ways of achieving progress through partnerships. As we stand at the
threshold of a new century, we need continued commitment, courage and
hard work from our partners to keep this process moving forward. The
only way we can continue this momentum is to continue talking at the
table and putting our agreements to work through partnerships within
DOT, with States and local communities, and with all parts of the
transportation industry. I appreciate very much the support of this
Subcommittee for our efforts, and we promise you that we will do
everything we can to utilize the resources you provide to FRA to
achieve the maximum safety impact.
SAFETY PERFORMANCE GOALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
rate 1998 rate rate 1999 rate rate rate rate rate
actual actual \1\ goal actual \2\ goal goal goal goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail-related fatalities rate...... 2.08 1.48 1.38 1.30 1.30 1.23 1.16 1.10
Rail-related injuries rate........ 31.14 16.78 14.40 15.99 12.90 11.60 10.40 9.38
Grade crossing accidents rate..... 3.47 1.98 1.77 2.00 1.57 1.39 1.23 1.09
Train accidents rate (including 4.25 3.77 3.47 3.79 3.38 3.29 3.21 3.12
grade-crossings).................
Hazardous-materials releases rate. 16.70 11.90 11.30 ( \3\ ) 10.70 10.20 9.64 9.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1998 was used as the base year for developing goals for years 1999-2003.
\2\ 1999 data are preliminary and cover the period January-October 1999.
\3\ Data is not available at this time.
Status of Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support Proposals
The Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan was issued by the
Department of Transportation in June, 1994. The Action Plan contains 55
specific items concerning enforcement, engineering, education,
research, promotional and legislative actions that can be taken to
improve highway- rail grade crossing safety. The following is an update
on each of the 55 items detailed in the Action Plan.
Increased Enforcement of Traffic Laws at Crossings:
1. Section 402 Funds.--NHTSA and FHWA continue to promote state
funding for targeted public education, and law enforcement initiatives.
In fiscal year 1999, 13 states dedicated $523,500 towards these
efforts. Status: Ongoing
2. Law Enforcement Liaison Program.--The FRA employs a full-time
law enforcement liaison (currently the 5th officer to work at the FRA)
who conducts extensive outreach activities to both the law enforcement
and judicial communities. Regional programs are being established in
which eight additional Officers will work part-time with FRA across the
nation. In coordination with Operation Lifesaver, FRA has distributed
over 1000 copies of a new professional education video entitled ``Roll
Call'' to law enforcement entities across the U.S. Status: Ongoing.
3. Outreach to Judiciary.--Articles have been published in the
National Traffic Law Center (NTLC) newsletter. Outreach presentation
has been made to Traffic Court Judges Seminar. FRA has published and
distributed the ``Partnering in Safety: Judicial Outreach'' brochure.
Status: Ongoing
4. Rules of Evidence.--TRB researched state laws and published the
article, ``Photographic Traffic Law Enforcement,'' in the December 1996
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Legal Research
Digest. Status: Complete.
5. Commercial Driver's License.--FHWA and the American Association
of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) sought to elevate crossing
violations to ``serious'' for commercial drivers license (CDL) holders
as required by 1995 legislation. The Final Rule was issued on September
2, 1999. Status: Complete.
6. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on Highway-Rail
Crossing.--The second edition (published in August 1995) has been
updated and will be published in early 2000. The greatly expanded new
edition will be available on the FRA website. Status: In progress.
7. Safety Inquiry.--The FRA will hold an informal safety inquiry
about standing rail equipment near grade crossings. Inspection, testing
and maintenance (ITM) regulations prescribed best practices where
signals exist. Status: In progress.
Rail Corridor Crossing Safely Improvement Reviews:
8. Principal Railroad Lines (PRLs).--FRA defined a national system
of principal rail lines, developed maps and encouraged reviews of PRLs.
Status: Complete.
9. The National Highway System (NHS).--FHWA has encouraged states
to include upgrades or elimination of crossings on the NHS in their
state planning processes. The OST Strategic Assessment Plan includes
``continued safety improvements.'' Status: Ongoing.
10. Upgrade Signing and Marking.--FHWA has sought to improve
conspicuity of signs and markings at crossings. FHWA issued a memo in
December 1994 to encourage use of higher-quality material. Status:
Ongoing.
11. Responsibilities for Selection and Installation.--FRA and FHWA
have sought to clarify project responsibilities between highway and
railroad authorities. Regulatory action was terminated in August 1997.
DOT Committee is considering standardized national guidelines. Status:
In progress.
12. STOP Signs.--FHWA and FRA have sought to promote STOP signs as
a traffic control device alternative as detailed in July 1993 memo
issued to FRA and FHWA field offices. An NTSB recommendation has been
issued. Status: Ongoing.
13. Incentives for Crossing Consolidation- Cash Payments.--Under
legislation requested by DOT, direct cash payments of STP funds are
available to communities for crossing closures. Status: Complete.
14. Incentives for Crossing Consolidation- Eligibility for 100
Percent Federal Funding.--Under legislation requested by DOT closure
projects are eligible for 100 percent Federal funding. Included in
DOT's fiscal year 1997 Appropriations Bill. Status: Complete.
15. Crossing Consolidation and Closure Case Studies.--FRA set forth
guidelines and strategies based upon case studies in July 1994
publication, ``Highway-Rail Grade Crossing. A Guide to Consolidation
and Closure.'' American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) published a report in March 1995. Status: In
progress.
16. Integrated Intermodal Transportation Planning.--FRA and FHWA
conducted nine outreach meetings with MPO's and railroads (held in TX,
CO, PA, MO, MA, WA, CA, GA & IL). Status: Complete.
17. Check List.--FHWA and FRA developed a detailed procedure for
performing corridor reviews. Provided to FRA and FHWA field offices in
May 1995. Status: Complete.
18. Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook.--FHWA is updating the 1986
version. Preliminary draft material has been received. Target
completion date is September 2000. Status: In progress.
19. Vegetation Clearance.--FHWA encourages states to clear
vegetation. Status: Ongoing.
20. Corridor Review Participation.--DOT proposed to establish an
STP incentive program for corridor reviews. DOT bill offered, but was
not considered. Status: No further action.
21. Distribution of Funds.--FHWA and FRA through the DOT proposed
to revise the distribution formula for section 130 funds under NEXTEA.
Status: Not considered. No further action.
Increased Public Education and Operation Lifesaver:
22. Marketing Materials Plan.--FRA developed the Always Expect A
Train public awareness campaign on highway-rail grade crossing safety
and railroad trespassing. The multi media campaign was distributed to
and disseminated in most media markets across the U.S. FRA is working
with Operation Lifesaver to continue the success of the Always Expect A
Train campaign by developing new video and audio public service
advertisements (PSAs) to be released in May 2000. Status: Ongoing.
23. Driver Training Materials.--NHTSA and AAMVA have developed a
new model drivers' license manual published with a section on grade
crossings. Status: Complete.
24. National and Community Service.--FRA sought to support
Operation Lifesaver State Coordinators through the Service Trust Act of
1993. Americorps funding was not sufficient to include this program.
Status: No further action.
25. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-On-Guard Notice.--FHWA
published a notice about highway-rail grade crossing safety in February
1994. Another notice on high profile crossings was issued in February
1996. Status: Complete.
26. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-Advisory Bulletin.--FHWA sent
a bulletin to trade press about grade crossing safety in February 1994.
Status: Complete.
27. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-Public Service Print
Advertisements.--FHWA developed print PSAs and distributed to trade
press in January 1994. Status: Complete.
28. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-Trucker on the Train.--FHWA,
FRA, ATA and OLI hosted trucking executives on locomotives. Kick-off
event was in November 1994. Future joint rail-truck industry meetings
and events under consideration. Status: Ongoing.
29. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-Operation Lifesaver.--FHWA has
facilitated meetings between Operation Lifesaver and trucking
companies. FRA developed and distributed 74,000 copies of its Trucker
Safety Alert and 14,000 copies of the School Bus Driver Safety Alert.
Both FRA fact sheets are available on the agency's website. Status:
Ongoing.
30. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-National Safety
Organizations.--FHWA has communicated about grade crossing safety to
industry and law enforcement officials. Pamphlets have been published
by National Safety Council (NSC) in March 1995 and September 1997. OLI
produced training and awareness video in 1996. In July 1999, FRA
participated in the Secretary of Transportation's ONEDOT Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Workshop. Status: Ongoing.
31. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents-On-Site Compliance Reviews.--
FHWA has reminded motor carriers about the risks at highway-rail
crossings during oversight reviews. A December 1994 memo encourages
discussion and distribution of materials. Status: Ongoing.
32. Operation Lifesaver Matching Funds.--DOT proposed increased
funds to Operation Lifesaver with non-public match required. The 1994
DOT bill was not considered. The FRA's fiscal year 2000 grant to OLI
totals $950,000, $350,000 of which will be used for the development of
new public service advertisements, as directed. In addition, TEA-21
provides $500,000 to OLI annually from FHWA. Status: No further action.
Safely at Private Crossings:
33. Define Categories.--FRA is defining categories and minimum
standards for private crossings. Statistics and comments from previous
safety inquiries are being reviewed. Status: In progress.
34. Safety Inquiry.--FRA will hold an informal safety inquiry about
standards for certain private crossings. Status: In progress.
35. Locked gate at Private Crossings.--FRA and FHWA will jointly
demonstrate gates with controlled locks at private highway-rail
crossings. Demonstrations are planned in New York and which has
received a $275K grant and Oregon which has selected a demonstration
site. Status: In progress.
Data and Research:
36. Research Workshops.--Volpe held a workshop in April 1995 to
discuss current and projected research needs. Report issued. Status:
Complete.
37. Host Research Roundtables/Workshops-Defense Conversion Fair.--
As part of the DOT Technology Fair, the FRA hosted an exchange program
to familiarize Defense firms with industry needs. A Broad Area
Announcement (BAA) sought proposals. Status: Complete.
38. Demographics.--NHTSA published a study of fatal casualty
statistics in November 1994. Status: Complete.
39. Accident Severity.--NHTSA completed a study on accident
severity statistics in February 1995. Unpublished memo report. Status:
Complete.
40. Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Signs and Signals.--FHWA
is researching new traffic control and warning devices. Final Report
was issued July 1999. Status: Complete.
41. Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Train Horns.--FRA
published a report in April 1995 on the impact of whistle bans
nationwide. Analysis of Wayside Horns published in June 1998. NPRM on
the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Crossings was issued on
January 13, 2000. The comment period for the NPRM and related Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) closes on May 26, 2000. Status:
In progress.
42. Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Light Rail Crossing Gates
for Left Turn Lanes.--FTA is investigating alternatives for left turn
lanes with parallel tracks. Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA) demonstration of 4 quadrant gates is
progressing. Status: In progress. 43. Signs, Signals, Lights and
Markings- Locomotive Conspicuity: FRA developed standards and rules for
alerting lights on locomotives. Regulations' require that all
locomotives be equipped as of December 1997. Status: Complete.
44. Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings--Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.--FRA and FTA sought to amend the MUTCD to address such
issues as high-speed rail, temporary closure, multi-track signs, and
work zones. Notice was published in the Federal Register in June 1995.
Proposed amendments were published in the Federal Register on December
21, 1999. Status: In progress.
45. Innovative Technology--Automated Video Image Analysis.--FRA is
investigating the potential for live video monitoring of crossings.
Tests will be conducted in NY and CA. Proposals are being solicited
through the Ideas Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) program.
Status: In progress.
46. Innovative Technology--Radar Activation System.--FTA sought to
evaluate and demonstrate the feasibility of a radar-based system to
detect trains and approach speed. Interminable administrative and
contract problems delayed demonstration. Status: Terminated initiative.
A substitute project is assessing 4-quadrant gates using video on
MBTA's new Old Colony Line.
47. 1-800 Computer Answering System.--All Class I railroad
currently have operable 1-800 systems in place. FRA is working with the
American Shortline and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) to
develop 1-800 emergency notification systems. Software is being
developed for small and medium-sized railroads to enable 1-800
notification and signs are now posted at most crossings with active
warning systems. The State of Texas has been provided with software as
part of a two state pilot project. Status: In progress.
48. Light-Rail Accident Statistics.--FTA is broadened the Safety
Management Information System (SAMIS) system to identify crossing
accidents. New data was first published in the 1995 SAMIS Annual
Report. Process is under review. Status: Ongoing.
49. Resource Allocation Procedure.--FRA proposed to recalculate the
accident prediction formulas and rebuild the accident prediction model.
During peer review of proposed new procedure, it was decided to retain
the original. The current formulas are being updated. Status: In
progress.
50. The Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.--FRA and FHWA have
promoted voluntary updating by states. FHWA issued a memo on the
subject. The Update Manual was published in December 1996. The FRA
introduced new data and Y2K format in 1998 and has proposed mandatory
updating by states and railroads in the Rail Safety Reauthorization Act
1999. Status: In Progress. A safety inquiry about the display of
crossing identification numbers will be held in the future.
Trespass Prevention:
51. Demographic Study.--FRA is reviewing its trespass fatality
statistics to focus on remedial efforts. Zip code maps are available.
1997 and 1998 bulletins include new data. A data workshop was held in
April 1998 and in May 2000, FRA, Operation Lifesaver and the Class I
railroads have committed to a meeting at which a consensus agreement
will be sought over how to create a snap-shot demographic portrait of
trespassers. Status: In progress.
52. Trespasser Casualty Reporting.--FRA successfully proposed
collecting additional data on trespass casualties. New reporting
requirement took effect in January 1997. Data is now available on the
FRA website. Status: Complete.
53. Workshop on Trespass Prevention.--FRA held a National Workshop
on Trespass Prevention in November 1995 in Atlanta. Five Regional
Workshops were held in 1996. Status: Complete.
54. Regional Campaigns.--FRA developed a low-cost Public Service
Announcement to increase trespass awareness. Always Expect A Train
campaign introduced in Summer 1996. Status: Complete. Ongoing public
outreach efforts continue.
55. Model Trespass Prevention Code.--FRA developed, and distributed
to each state, Model Trespass legislation in April 1997. Status:
Complete. Available via the FRA website.
Status Key
Ongoing.--An initiative which has become a routine or continuing
effort.
In progress.--An initiative which is still being developed and
implemented.
Complete.--An initiative for which a specific action has been taken
or a product has been disseminated.
Not Considered/No Further Action.--Insufficient authority or
funding to pursue an initiative.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FE24.001
______
Biographical Sketch of Jolene M. Molitoris
Appointed by President Clinton in April 1993 and confirmed by the
Senate, Jolene M. Molitoris is the first woman Administrator of the
Federal Railroad Administrator (FRA) in its 34 year history. The FRA is
an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation with responsibility
for the safety of all rail freight and passenger service in the United
States. During her tenure, Administrator Molitoris has become the
champion for rail safety in the U.S. and around the world, establishing
zero tolerance for any safety hazard as the industry standard, creating
safety partnerships with rail labor and management and achieving
historic increases in all safety categories as a result.
Under Molitoris' leadership, the FRA began its transformation from
a traditional regulatory agency into a result and customer focused
organization. The FRA safety program adopted a systems approach,
identifying root causes for safety hazards and system wide solutions
that have become ``best practices'' in the industry. New partnership
approaches to ``growing'' safety and rules development are now
institutionalized in the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP)
and the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). For the first time,
labor, management and other constituents are at the table from the
beginning, not at the end of the rulemaking process, resulting in
1998's distinction as the most productive year for significant
rulemaking in FRA's history. Most importantly, the period 1993--1999
was the safest seven year period in U.S. railroading history, with a 43
percent reduction in employee injuries and fatalities and 30 percent
reductions in grade crossing injury and death. Other safety results
include: reductions in complaints to regional offices by as much as 86
percent; use of statistics to spot and stop dangerous trends; and
cutting edge initiatives attacking such intrinsic industry issues as
fatigue by establishing the North American Rail Alertness Partnership
(NARAP).
Amtrak, high speed rail and technology have also been at the
forefront of FRA's efforts during Molitoris' tenure. The new high speed
trains debuting in 2000 can be called the safest trains in the world
because of FRA's specifications. And the first non-electric high speed
locomotive, a public/private partnership between FRA and Bombardier,
will be demonstrated in the U.S. during 2000. Molitoris' focus on
positive train control (PTC) has been the catalyst that has resulted in
an industry-wide investment for the first time, with American
Association of Railroad members committing over $20.M to a PTC project
in Illinois. Also from 1993--1998, FRA responded to more mega-mergers
and acquisitions than ever in history and created a Safety
Implementation Plan strategy to assure that safety would not be
compromised in the process. Administrator Molitoris is the recipient of
many honors. She was the 1989 and 1992 recipient of High Speed Rail/
Maglev Association President's Award for Outstanding Achievement. In
1995 Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS), Washington, D.C. Chapter
named Molitoris their woman of the year and in 1996 the WTS of the U.S.
named her National WTS Woman of the year. Also in 1996, the Cooperstown
Conference awarded Administrator Molitoris its Lawmaker/Federal Service
Award. In 1999, Administrator Molitoris received three awards: the
Indiana High Speed Rail Association created the Jolene M. Molitoris
Golden Spike Award; the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations
Foundation, Inc. awarded her the 1999 Ellis Island Medal of Honor; and
in its December 1999 publication, Railway Age Magazine named
Administrator Molitoris one of the 12 great railroaders of the century.
Administrator Molitoris holds a B.A. from Catholic University of
American and a M.A. from Case Western Reserve.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, do you want to start
the questions? I know you have got to do some other things
Senator Lautenberg. That is very nice, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it.
I wanted to focus a little bit on the Coast Guard.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that other questions that I will
have for each of the witnesses be submitted in writing and
would ask for a prompt response.
Admiral Card, I want to give you an opportunity to comment
on my remarks, and you did say that and confirm the readiness
question. It is one that has to be focused on and dealt with.
Last year the committee fully funded the budget request for
operations, but the Commandant has said publicly the Coast
Guard readiness continues its decline: aircraft availability at
unacceptable rates and people overworked.
Now, since we did fund the operations request last year,
how did we get into this situation?
Admiral Card. A couple of things I will say, sir. One is
that, if you remember also, there was a readiness discussion
last year, the Kosovo supplemental, and the Coast Guard
identified $200 million for readiness concerns. But most of
that was carried forward to this year's budget. So, of that
$200 million, we were able to spend $40 million last year, of
which $23 million was just paying some medical bills. So, we
really were not able to pay attention to some of those things
we even focused on last year.
Second, you brought up an issue earlier. We went through,
in our great effort to help balance the budget, we streamlined
the Coast Guard, doing what we thought was our part, and we
probably went too far, took too many people out of our overhead
and out of our systems. And what is more, we got below our
numbers. We reduced the number of people in the Coast Guard,
and we went more than 1,000 people below that. It has taken a
lot of effort to get the people back. We will hopefully have it
back by the end of the year. It has also taken a lot of money
out of other things to be able to put into that work force
restoration.
Senator Lautenberg. The question about further increases
for the drug war effort looms large when our resources to
support a fully effective--and I use the word balanced--Coast
Guard platform is being ignored. How does that strike you?
Let me not put you on too tough a spot because one of the
things that I have seen with the Coast Guard and now in the way
you were almost too responsive because the one thing that I
believe happens around this place is that very often there are
serious attempts to respond to cutbacks and things of that
nature. But the Coast Guard took their mission very seriously,
as they do with all of their missions, and I think you depleted
your resources to a point where it hurt the operations.
So, how do we justify, if we must, expanded functioning for
the drug effort and still take care of our other missions?
Admiral Card. Senator, this year's budget, the 2001 budget,
goes a long way to helping us restore the work force readiness
concerns. There is money in there for that. There is money also
in there for maintenance.
There is also money in there for the use of force from
helicopters, which we think is very important. Right now, that
will probably be the biggest single force multiplier that we
have in the drug war.
So, we would like to think it is a balanced approach and
there is money in there for both things in the 2001 budget.
That is why I asked that you would support that. We worked very
hard with the Administration, with OMB, to get the monies in
there. We think this is a start of being able to do that.
Senator Lautenberg. You commented on the fact that the
fishing industry is one of the most hazardous occupations that
we know, and that is certainly true. The three of us sitting
here all come from coastal States, and we know the risks that
our fishermen run when they are out there.
How do we maintain our compliance levels for inspection
when we are so shorthanded? How about our boardings and things?
Can you conduct those with the same staffing that you have got
and conduct them as efficiently as you feel is necessary?
Admiral Card. Sir, there is a modest increase for a number
of people to do fishing vessel safety examinations also in the
budget. We have recognized the need for that, and we are trying
to emphasize more the dockside examinations to get people ready
to go to sea from a preventive perspective.
The other thing we have done is by some of the
recapitalization with moving the coastal patrol boats further
up north, we are not going to be taking those down south as we
would the 110-foot patrol boats.
But in all budget requests, it is a balance. And if you are
asking me in the process would we do more if we had more, of
course, we would. But we understand the balance in this whole
process of bringing forth the budget to the Congress.
This past year both Area Commanders have spent particular
focus on fishing vessel safety: SAFE CATCH on the east coast
with Admiral Shkor and SAFE RETURN on the west coast with
Admiral Collins. We are starting to see some positive returns
in those efforts. They do focus on a risk management basis on
the most high-risk fishing vessels that we see.
Senator Lautenberg. As I see it, you will be able to put on
about 24 additional inspectors. Is that going to give you the
numbers of people to really improve compliance within the
fishing industry?
Admiral Card. It is a step in the right direction, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. If it is a one-step platform that you
are reaching for, that is not bad, but if it is a 10- or 20-
step rise that you have to hit, why, that does not sound like
it is really enough.
I was at the South Pole just a few weeks ago, and I had the
opportunity to board the icebreaker and meet the crew and the
captain of the ship. I want to tell you that is not easy duty,
especially when it takes such a long haul to do. But I thought
the spirit and the willingness to just drone on and do a very
important job was remarkable. The one thing that we want to
make sure of is that they feel like they are getting the
resources they need to do the job effectively.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to submit the rest of my
questions.
Senator Shelby. Without objection.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
having this very important hearing on safety. I would like to
submit my full statement for the record, and just focus on the
questions that I have.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Shelby. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by thanking all of
you for coming up to the Hill today to discuss your safety initiatives
in the fiscal year 2001 Transportation budget.
As I told Secretary Slater when he came before the subcommittee two
weeks ago, I believe this budget is one that I--and the members of this
committee--can work with. It continues our common goals of improving
safety, mobility, economic growth, and environmental protection.
Safety has always been my number one priority in transportation and
I know this administration shares my beliefs. This budget is evidence
of that.
It does a great job of helping to make all our modes of
transportation safer. NHTSA receives a 36 percent increase in the
budget; there are new initiatives about drunk driving; new enforcement
tools to help get other dangerous drivers off the road; and strong
initiatives for transit and rail safety. FRA receives a 9 percent
increase for safety and operations, and the Coast Guard gets $64
million in the President's budget for boat safety. I support all of
these initiatives and will fight for these levels of funding.
I am also pleased to see that RSPA gets a $10 million increase from
last year's enacted level for the Office of Pipeline Safety to a
proposed $47 million. As you well know, pipelines are not as safe as
they can be in this nation. It took a accident that killed three young
people and caused much environmental damage in my state 8 months ago to
bring that fact to light.
At the on-set I would like to point out that transporting hazardous
liquids and gas through pipelines is the safest method possible. We
won't improve safety by putting more of these products in barges and on
trucks. However, many of these pipelines are getting old, and we are
starting to see problems with them. Aside from the people in my state--
who won't let the pipeline reopen at all without adequate assurances it
is safe--there have been recent releases in places like Pennsylvania
and Louisiana. In addition, many new pipes are being laid in places
like New Jersey, Maine and Montana. We need to ensure the public that
these pipelines are as safe as they can be, and we need common sense
changes to make sure that happens.
I would also like to start off by thanking Kelly Conner, the
Administrator of RSPA, and her staff who have worked very hard to help
the people of my state deal with this horrible tragedy. I also want to
illustrate my appreciation for all the work she has done to educate me
and my staff so we can better understand how pipeline safety is
regulated in our country.
As I mentioned two weeks ago in this subcommittee, I've introduced
legislation this session that would reauthorize the Office of Pipeline
Safety, S. 2004, the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000, and Senator
Lautenberg on this subcommittee has agreed to be a co-sponsor. I've
been meeting with many of my colleagues on this issue. And for those of
my colleagues that I haven't met with yet, I encourage you to look at
my bill. It requires periodic inspection, requires individual
government certification of pipeline operators, establishes a ``public
right to know'' about problems with pipelines, and invests and
encourages R&D so we can better inspect and test these pipelines. My
bill also encourages your Department to develop strong and substantive
partnerships with states if these state have the ability and resources
to regulate pipelines.
My colleagues in the House--led by Representative Jack Metcalf--
have introduced a similar bill.
Your ``Budget in Brief'' says, ``RSPA will expand and strengthen
its partnership with the states''. I think you should be expanding and
strengthening these partnerships.
In contrast, I understand that you've informed the states that are
currently participating in a joint state/federal pipeline safety
program that you intend to phase out state participation.
As you know, my state and others like Virginia are very interested
in becoming interstate agents. In fact, the proposed National
Governor's Association Policy on Natural Gas Pipeline Safety, ``. . .
urges Congress to direct OPS to reverse its existing policy of
declining to grant any additional state interstate agent status for
interstate pipelines.''.
I strongly believe that states can be good partners in pipeline
safety if they can prove they have the resources and expertise to
handle the job.
Would you please elaborate on this statement from your booklet and
explain what you mean when you say you want to expand and strengthen
partnerships with states? Could you explain in what areas you would be
comfortable seeing states have regulatory authority over interstate
pipelines if they prove they have the money and expertise to do so?
My second questions involves your rule on the Qualification of
Pipeline Personal that became effective on October 26 of last year.
As you know, the NTSB first requested a rule on operator
qualification back in 1987. Following some very bad accidents in 1996--
one that killed 33 people and injured 69 others--you published a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require pipeline operators to develop
a written qualification program for individuals operating pipelines.
I am concerned that the rule your agency has implemented does not
establish specific training requirements for personnel and allows
companies to evaluate an individual's ability to perform tasks using
such things as simple oral examinations, with little or no check by
your agency as to the adequacy of such procedures.
My question is why don't you think it is feasible to have
individual federal certification of operators? It is feasible in the
airline industry where the FAA determines the capabilities of
individual employees who work on aircraft.
I just have a few more questions.
I know you are issuing a rule for comment next month on the testing
of pipelines. I understand this is in lieu of the fact that you've been
required since 1996 to implement a rule that would require regular
inspection of pipelines in high risk areas.
As you know, my bill and the House bill would require periodic
inspections every 5 years. Will your rule require mandatory periodic
inspections? If not, what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that we
are relying on more than the industry's own self-interest?
My next question concerns inspection technology, something I've
learned a lot about in the past few months. I've learned about devices
called ``smart pigs'', which run internally in a pipe to detect
anomalies and corrosion. Unfortunately, only about 20 percent of the
pipes in this country are equipped to handle these devices and their
reliability is often questioned. I've learned about another type of
testing--hydrostatic testing--where rushing water down the pipe to find
leaks and cracks. But this type of testing can cause long-term damage.
Obviously, the current inspection methods are not perfect, and it will
take more research to give us the tools to ensure that pipelines are
safe. My question is what types of research and development is OPS
undertaking to better the level of inspection technologies?
You know I and others are eager to see your pipeline
reauthorization bill so we can make progress on this important issue in
this short legislative year. So my final question is when do you plan
on sending the Administration's pipeline safety reauthorization bill to
Congress?
Thank you.
Senator Murray. Ms. Coyner in her presentation mentioned an
accident on pipelines that occurred in my State last June 10
where a pipeline exploded and three young children were killed.
I, like most citizens in the State, really did not pay
attention to the pipelines that went under our communities and
by our schools and places of work until that occurred. I have
spent a great deal of time since then looking at the whole
issue surrounding pipeline safety. I want to thank Kelley
Coyner and her staff for working with the people in my State as
we resolve this problem and helping educate me and my office
about how we regulate pipelines.
As a result of what I have learned, I have introduced
legislation on the reauthorization of pipeline safety that does
a number of things, including requiring periodic inspection,
which is not required right now; and requiring individual
government certification of pipeline operators, which is not
required now; establishing a public right to know so that
people who live on or near these pipelines know of any problems
that have occurred and know when inspections have been
completed; and encouraging and investing in more research and
development so we can better inspect these thousands of miles
of pipes that are aging in our country today.
Finally, my bill encourages your Department, Ms. Coyner, to
develop strong and substantive partnerships with States if the
States have the ability and resources to regulate the pipelines
in their State.
Your budget in brief actually says, ``RSPA will expand and
strengthen its partnership with the States.'' And I think we
should be expanding and strengthening those partnerships. But
in contrast, I understand that you have informed the States
that are currently participating in some of these joint
Federal/State pipeline safety programs that you are going to
phase out of that State participation.
Can you tell me exactly what you mean when you say you want
to expand and strengthen these partnerships with the States and
maybe what you feel comfortable with in States having
regulatory authority over these pipelines?
Ms. Coyner. The President's budget request asks for what we
would consider full funding of the State partnership grant
program included in the current Pipeline Safety Act, and that
is up to 50 percent of the expense of the program. It is
critical, as you know, to have the technical resources and the
inspection resources at the State level in order for them to be
effective regulators and enforcers of the statute.
The issue you referred to has to do with a fairly narrow
issue in terms of what we call interstate agency status. This
has to do with a particular way we engage with the States on
looking at interstate pipelines.
Senator Murray. Inter or intra?
Ms. Coyner. Inter, lines that run between States. I know
that one is a hard one to enunciate well.
This has been part of a 6-year effort to change the
direction of that program to focus on high risk areas and to
better coordinate our inspection activities. It is not an
effort to eliminate our partnership activities, but instead to
focus really on two things. One is to make sure that we are
getting the local resources adequately focused on intrastate
lines, including local distribution systems where we have the
highest rate of fatalities, and the second is to better
coordinate our activities on interstate lines.
Senator Murray. Very good.
My second question has to do on your rule on qualification
of pipeline personnel that became effective, I believe it was,
last October. As you know, the NTSB actually requested a rule
on operator qualification back in 1987, and following some bad
accidents in 1996, one that killed 33 people and injured 69
others, you did publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that
will require pipeline operators to develop a written
qualification program for individuals that operate these
pipelines.
I am concerned that the rule your agency has implemented
does not establish a specific training requirement for
personnel and actually allows companies to evaluate an
individual's ability to perform tasks using things like an oral
examination with little or no check by your agency as to the
adequacy of those kinds of procedures.
My question to you on this is why you do not think it is
feasible to have individual Federal certification and training
of these operators who are many times looking at a computer
screen to determine whether or not pressures have changed and
whether or not any action needs to be taken. It is feasible in
the airline industry where the FAA determines the capabilities
of individual employees who work on aircraft. So, why can we
not employ the same model for pipeline operators?
Ms. Coyner. There are two specific issues, and I think when
you described your legislation, you hit on probably the most
important technical reason. We do not have the authority to
implement a certification program. It was actually taken out of
our statute.
But I think that what is important, in terms of looking at
safety, is that the operator qualification rule, which was
implemented last summer, is not a laissez-faire regulation. It
does not allow companies to do whatever they want. Instead it
looks at the broadest range of pipeline employees, rather than
just focusing on, say, the person who is at the control panel.
I think that is something that distinguishes us from what the
FAA regulations look at.
And it is our expectation that the person who sits at the
control panel would be appropriately certified, that the welder
who works on the line would also be appropriately certified,
and that as we have begun checking on the implementation of
that effort, we are looking for those kinds of things in the
plans, and we will look at that when we do the enforcement once
the rule becomes fully effective.
Senator Murray. I think the expectation is not being met.
So, I think that is something we do need to authorize.
On another area, the testing of pipelines which had
considerable discussion in my State--actually, you have been
required since 1992 to implement a rule that would require
regular inspection of these pipelines. My bill and the House
bill requires periodic inspections at least every 5 years,
depending on the geography of the area.
Is your rule going to require mandatory inspections? And if
not, what mechanisms are in place to ensure that we are relying
on more than just the industry's own self-interests in terms of
inspection?
Ms. Coyner. In terms of the periodic inspection, I believe
you are referring to the use of what we call smart pigs,
internal inspection devices. Our expectation is that we will
have a proposed rule out in the next several weeks requiring
periodic testing of liquid lines, and that will be followed by
a proposal concerning natural gas lines.
There are two other issues which I think are important to
note. One is that internal inspections are not the only way
that we require companies to inspect their lines. There are a
number of other techniques available to us such as leak
detection surveys, aerial surveys that we conduct, and looking
at what is going on with valves.
But we believe, as I know that you do, that this is not
going to get us where we need to be, and that part of the
critical success here is that we develop new ways to inspect
pipelines that cannot be inspected by these existing internal
inspection devices. The budget request includes money for
research and technology that would help us push further in that
direction, and I know that your bill includes that as well.
Senator Murray. Right. My bill also includes research and
development.
I have actually been surprised to find out how little we
know about inspections and how best to do it. The so-called
smart pigs can only test about 20 percent of the pipes out
there right now is my understanding. An 80 percent of the
pipeline that is currently laid cannot be inspected by that. As
I said, these pipelines are getting older, 25, 30, 35 years old
now. As they age, there are going to be problems.
For the chairman's knowledge, when this occurred in my
State I thought it was a unique accident. I was quite
surprised, in doing my research, to find out there have been
over 5,500 accidents in this country since 1992, with I believe
over 300 deaths and many millions of dollars in damage done,
both environmentally and in a lot of other areas.
So, it is an issue that is of great concern to me. It
should be of great concern to this entire country, and it is
going to continue to be a problem until we find better ways to
inspect these pipes, require routine inspection of them, and
make sure that the people who are operating these pipelines
have been correctly certified and trained.
So, I am going to continue to push my legislation and talk
to anybody who will listen to me about this. I do not want any
more kids or families to go through what happened in my State.
And I know that without us really pushing on this, it will
occur again.
So, Ms. Coyner, I really wanted to know as well when the
administration is going to send over their reauthorization bill
to Congress.
Ms. Coyner. I expect that it will be transmitted very soon.
Senator Murray. Because we expect to have a hearing very
shortly on this.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence on
focusing on this one area, but it is a very critical one and I
think one that this Congress needs to take note of. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator.
IMPACT OF AVIATION FIREWALL
Admiral Loy, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, testified
that an aviation firewall with a guaranteed general fund
subsidy would ``bring this organization to its knees.'' I
assure you that the detrimental impact on the Coast Guard of an
aviation firewall is more dire today than it was last March.
Would you agree with that?
Admiral Card. Sir, I have already said how important every
dollar we have is in the budget. Anything that would take those
dollars away would by very detrimental to the Coast Guard.
Senator Shelby. You are on thin ice to begin with, are you
not?
Admiral Card. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. If legislation is enacted that guarantees a
certain level of general funds on top of the airport and
airways trust fund receipts and interest for the aviation
accounts and navigational user fees are not enacted, what type
of impact do you think that will have on the Coast Guard's
search and rescue operations that we have been talking about?
Admiral Card. Well, Mr. Chairman, earlier I said that
safety is job one. I suspect that many other things would be
cut back quite a bit. But anything that is going to cut back
all those things and cut back our people will impact search and
rescue operations as well. We think we are finely tuned, and we
scrap for every dollar we get. What we do not get, you can see
some of the results in the readiness concerns we have had.
Senator Shelby. You do a good job, an excellent job, with
what you have, but you are stretched. Are you not, sir?
Admiral Card. We have been, and this budget will help us
get better. But there are still, as I mentioned, readiness
concerns.
HIGH PRIORITY INITIATIVES
Senator Shelby. Ms. Millman, the President's budget
requests an increase of $126 million above last year's
appropriation to bolster the core research program and launch
several so-called flagship initiatives regarding aggressive
drivers, aging drivers, and younger drivers. Two weeks ago at a
hearing on the Department of Transportation management
challenges, however, I stated that the subcommittee would not
support the diversion of highway funds for non-highway
purposes. Considering that last year Congress rejected a
similar approach, I would have thought that the administration
would have proposed general funds to finance your increases.
Unfortunately, for both of us, budget gimmicks have
consequences.
Keeping in mind that it is highly improbable that Congress
can find the general funds to fully fund your budget request,
which of these initiatives or others that I have not named
would you consider of the highest priority for funding this
year and what would you defer?
Well, you know, you have got to make choices. If you do not
make choices, we make choices for you but would rather you make
choices.
Ms. Millman. Right.
Senator Shelby. Well, let me add this before you answer.
Which priority programs would bring the greatest safety
benefits to the driving public? Is that fair?
Ms. Millman. Yes, and that is the basis on which we would
make the determination which programs----
Senator Shelby. Which ones would they be?
Ms. Millman. Most important is seat belts.
Senator Shelby. I know they all contribute, but just name
some priorities.
Ms. Millman. Seat belts are the most effective safety
device that we have. Depending on the type of vehicle, they can
increase the chance of surviving a crash by 50 to 80 percent.
So, increasing seat belt use will always be one of our highest
priorities.
That is a crash worthiness type of technology. If you are
in a crash, how can you protect yourself?
Senator Shelby. We saw an instance of that recently in
Kansas City, did we not?
Ms. Millman. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Where out of three, two did not have their
seat belts on. One did and one walks away. Two are killed. One
killed. One later dies.
Ms. Millman. That is right.
Senator Shelby. Right?
Ms. Millman. Yes.
Senator Shelby. And if the seat belts were on, all three
may have walked away or at least been survivors.
Ms. Millman. Looking at the accident, that was our
analysis.
But something we can do to avoid crashes in the first place
is continuing to focus on alcohol-impaired driving.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. We have come a long way there,
have we not?
Ms. Millman. We certainly have. We were around 25,000
deaths per year in alcohol involved crashes. Now we are about
16,000, but 16,000 a year is still way too high.
Senator Shelby. How many of those are younger people? Do
you have a breakdown on the accidents related to alcohol?
Ms. Millman. I can get you those numbers. But we know that
teenagers tend to have a high use of alcohol when they are in
fatal crashes.
Senator Shelby. Can you furnish that for the record?
Ms. Millman. Yes, certainly.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FE24.002
Senator Shelby. It will be very interesting.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION REGISTRATION FEES
Ms. Coyner, on November 4, 1999, Chairman Wolf and I
requested that the General Accounting Office perform an
evaluation of the hazardous materials emergency preparedness
grants program, which is paid for by registration fees charged
to hazardous materials shippers and carriers.
Concerns have been raised by some members of the HAZMAT
carriers industry that the same shippers and carriers who pay
for the HMEP grants program through their user fees also
participate in and pay for well-established emergency planning
and training programs in the private sector.
We asked GAO to determine whether the grants program goals
are being met by existing private sector initiatives and to
identify any duplication of services.
Last week RSPA promulgated a final rulemaking on the
hazardous materials registration fee increase. I believe it was
February 14 in the Federal Register. Do you think it was
premature for RSPA to move forward with the assessment of a fee
increase when the need for such an increase has not yet been
reviewed by an impartial party such as the GAO?
Ms. Coyner. We have been engaged in an effort for a number
of years now with respect to the hazardous materials emergency
grants program in terms of looking at what the total authorized
levels have been and the unmet needs in terms of training
individuals and being prepared. Our view is that one of the
most important things we can do to impact what happens if there
is a hazardous materials incident is to have trained
responders, and that we are severely under-resourced in that
particular effort.
The rulemaking went through the usual process of notice and
public comment, as well as a number of informal workshops.
We have worked closely with the GAO on their study and
review of this particular aspect of emergency preparedness, and
we will continue to do so and will take into account their
recommendations when they move forward on that particular
study.
Senator Shelby. Can I have your personal commitment that
should--should because we do not know--GAO determine that there
is a duplication of services among the private sector
initiatives, other Federal emergency response programs, and
your agency's emergency preparedness programs, that you would
revisit the rulemaking in some way?
Ms. Coyner. You can have my commitment that I would be glad
to discuss with you the outcome of the GAO study and to take
into account implications of it. But I do not want to prejudge
the outcome of their study in terms of what their conclusions
might be.
Senator Shelby. Sure, I understand.
GRADE CROSSING COLLISIONS
Mrs. Molitoris, according to the Federal Railroad
Administration's hearing record last year, my State of Alabama
had the fourth highest, as you know, number of grade crossing
collisions in 1998, a total of--think of this--146 accidents in
my State of 4.5 million people. Only Texas, much larger,
Louisiana, about the same size, and California, the largest
State, had more crossing collisions in that year.
I have a fair amount of interest in seeing that the grade
crossing safety is improved nationwide, but my State, the
fourth largest, and that the number of accidents and deaths at
crossings decrease.
It is often said that only truly safe grade crossing is no
crossing at all. How are crossing separations such as bridges
and flyovers funded?
Ms. Molitoris. Would you repeat that last thing? I am
sorry. How are what?
Senator Shelby. How are crossing separations such as
bridges and flyovers funded?
Ms. Molitoris. It depends, of course, on the particular----
Senator Shelby. Is it not with Federal highway section 130
funds, which you have no control over?
Ms. Molitoris. FRA and FHWA work together. Section 130
money can be used for hazard elimination. That is what it is
called. It can be used for warning devices, closings or
bridges. It is important to note that annual section 130 funds
provided to a State usually are not sufficient to cover the
cost of constructing a single bridge. You will find that most
States will use other Highway Trust Fund sources for major
infrastructure investments such as bridges.
One of the things that we are encouraging from TEA-21 is a
corridor approach, Mr. Chairman. That would be to look at a
long distance, several miles or 20 miles, and examine what are
the most appropriate and safe installations.
Senator Shelby. Well, what we are interested in for
railroads, trucks, cars, and planes is saving lives. Safety.
Ms. Molitoris. Yes.
ACCIDENT AND FATALITY DATABASE
Senator Shelby. Your agency collects data on grade crossing
accidents and trespassing fatalities on the general railway
system from every State and territory in the United States.
However, your accident and fatalities database does not include
rail transit grade crossing and trespassing incidents. Is that
correct?
Ms. Molitoris. The entire database, Mr. Chairman--we have
asked in our safety bill to have it increased so that the
required information is----
Senator Shelby. But to have an accurate database, should
not all rail crossings and trespassing accidents and fatalities
be part of the database?
Ms. Molitoris. That would be the most opportune. Yes, it
would.
NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM
Senator Shelby. Admiral Card, there have been a number of
maritime accidents over the past few years in which the failure
of the Coast Guard--we know you do a lot of work, good work,
and we are big supporters, as you know, but there are failures.
The failure of the Coast Guard to identify a distress call and
initiate a search and rescue response in sufficient time has
been a contributing factor to the loss of life. These tragedies
highlight the need to modernize the National Distress and
Response System and upgrade the capabilities of a system that
was built nearly 30 years ago.
Staff informs me that the acquisition strategy for this
important modernization program is following the model used for
the Deep Water Replacement Project. I am concerned that the
Coast Guard would choose a complex, unproven acquisition
approach for a system that is fundamental to the safety of
recreational and commercial boaters.
Now, what is the status of the National Distress and
Response System modernization project? Where are we?
Admiral Card. Mr. Chairman, the request for proposal was on
the street and we have had responses back to the request for
proposal. It is a two-phased approach to buy this. The first
phase enables us to figure out what the design should be and
put it in place, and the second phase will allow us to buy all
the systems. So, we expect that by 2005 or 2006, it will all be
in place. The first phase will be completed about 2001 or 2002.
This is a combination of an information technology system,
as well as a distress system. We are concerned and we want to
make sure we get it right. We think that the strategy we put
together will do that for us.
Senator Shelby. If Congress provided additional funds for
this project to the budget request, would the Coast Guard be
able to accelerate the completion of the upgraded system, or is
it just going to take some time?
Admiral Card. It would be able to accelerate the phase two
portion of buying it once we have figured out what it is, but
the figuring out what it is in the first part will take as long
as it will take to get that right. We are going as quickly as
we can with that to make sure it is the right system.
Senator Shelby. One of the shortcomings, as I understand
it, of the current system is that it is dependent upon line of
sight communications. In areas where coverage from a line of
sight system is poor, such as most of the coastline of Alaska
and other States, how will the modernized system improve the
ability of the Coast Guard to detect boaters in distress?
Admiral Card. Well, we will go to other communications
technologies. As we are all aware, this sort of technology is
increasing greatly. And we will make sure that we cover all the
areas for which we are responsible in the new system.
In the meantime, we have tried to do some short-term fixes.
We have put a couple of dollars into some DF systems and some
better recordings of the messages when they come in so you can
understand. We have had some garbled calls. We did not have the
right kind of equipment to be able to unscramble those and
really hear those very clearly. So, we have done that sort of a
short-term fix.
But the real answer is the long-term solution which we are
proposing and for which we have money in this year's budget.
Senator Shelby. Admiral Card, it is my understanding that
since the sinking of the recreation vessel MORNING DEW, the
Coast Guard has initiated several interim measures to improve
its search and rescue capability and the national distress
system until the modernization project is completed, as you
said, in 2005.
What have been the interim measures that have been taken to
avoid the recurrence of another accident like MORNING DEW?
Admiral Card. First, and probably the quickest one, was to
review all our policies, change those where needed, and make
sure that our people understood very clearly what their
responsibilities were. And we did that right away.
As I have mentioned, we looked at those opportunities where
we could put direction-finding equipment in so that you could
tell, when someone was calling, what the line of direction
might be. We did not have that. We have that in several places.
We have also, again, bought these recorders and upgraded
those.
One thing that MORNING DEW did for us is, while we do very
well, as you mentioned, you have to examine yourself and say
where can we do better. It allowed us to be able to take a hard
look at ourselves and improve our performance.
ADVANCED AIR BAG RULE
Senator Shelby. Ms. Millman, there has been a lot of public
attention recently regarding the advanced air bag rule, which
is statutorily mandated to be published by March 1, which is
just a few days from now.
Although there is widespread agreement with most aspects of
the proposed rule, the proposal to return to a 30-mile-per-
hour, rigid barrier, unbelted occupant test has created a
formidable coalition of opponents that includes air bag
suppliers, automobile manufacturers, the National
Transportation Safety Board, and a number of respected safety
organizations such as the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, the National Safety Council, AAA, the National
Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, and
the American Trauma Society. They strongly oppose this test
because it would lead to the installation of high-powered air
bags that have caused the deaths of dozens of infants,
children, and small adults.
I, as well as other members of this committee, are
concerned that the credibility of Federal safety standards are
at stake, if that is mandated. This proposed rule could
conceivably lead to the use of certain air bags that are once
again linked to the death of people who should have survived
otherwise, with even the slightest possibility that a return to
30-mile-per-hour test has a potential to result in air bag-
induced deaths.
Is there anything to prevent NHTSA from publishing a rule
that meets the TEA-21 deadline but doesn't mandate the unbelted
rigid barrier tests until the issues are further considered and
better information is obtained? I know that is a mouthful.
Ms. Millman. There was a lot in that question.
Senator Shelby. But you are very familiar with this.
Ms. Millman. I am.
Let me preface my answer with a couple of----
Senator Shelby. You are aware of all this, but I wanted to
put it on the record.
Ms. Millman. Yes.
Senator Shelby. All these concerns by some blue ribbon
groups.
Ms. Millman. Yes.
Air bags, since their introduction in about 1986, have
saved over 5,000 people. So, we consider them a very effective
occupant-protection technology.
Senator Shelby. I personally like them. It might save my
life, but I am not a small person and I am not an infant. I
would like to be smaller, but----
Ms. Millman. Over 5,000 saved, but yes, about 150 killed by
air bag-induced injuries.
This is a technology that we have been studying for almost
30 years, and we are certainly doing everything we can in our
rulemaking process to analyze the concerns that the auto
manufacturers have raised about the speed for the unbelted
test.
AIR BAG-RELATED ADULT FATALITIES
Senator Shelby. Have you conducted or sponsored any
research in which actual crash data suggests that adults have
died in high-speed crashes because an air bag did not inflate
with sufficient force?
Ms. Millman. Yes. In 1997, we changed our rules to allow
the manufacturers to use a sled test rather than a full vehicle
test, and that is when a lot of the manufacturers made
significant design changes to their bags. It would be in
vehicles that are model year 1998 or later that would have the
redesigned bags. So, there are very few of those vehicles in
the fleet right now, and we have not been able to identify any
crashes that involved the scenario that you described where an
adult would be going through the air bag. But we still have
that concern because there are so few of these vehicles in the
fleet.
LIFE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Senator Shelby. Ms. Molitoris, Amtrak recently released a
report to Congress on the planned infrastructure improvements
to the south end of its northeast corridor, Washington, DC, to
New York City. Life safety improvements to the tunnels below
Pennsylvania Station in New York City are estimated to cost
more than $300 million over the next 10 years. In the FRA's
budget, $20 million is requested and was already funded as an
advance appropriation in the year 2000 for the Penn Station
redevelopment project. Will any of the $20 million in the
administration's budget for Penn Station be used for life
safety improvements to the tunnels?
Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, Amtrak's planning includes
some funds for the life safety development plans, but as you
said, to actually fix them is a much larger investment.
Senator Shelby. But this $20 million I understand is all
for construction dollars, which will be at the Amtrak station.
Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, may I get back to you to be
sure that I am accurate on that?
Senator Shelby. Sure, you can.
[The information follows:]
The Pennsylvania Station life safety improvements include
improvements to the tunnels immediately beneath Pennsylvania Station
and the James A. Farley Post Office Building. To date, Amtrak has spent
approximately $35 million on these improvements from funds provided by
FRA for Pennsylvania Station. Additional life safety improvements below
these two buildings will be included in the final Pennsylvania Station
Redevelopment Plan and are estimated to cost approximately $54 million.
TRANSIT CROSSINGS
Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, may I just add to the previous
question that you asked about the transit crossings? FTA does
collect all of that data. We collect the data on railroad
crossings. I think there are very efficient and effective ways
to produce that for you together.
Senator Shelby. You have got a shortfall without all the
information, have you not?
Ms. Molitoris. Well, it is easy to put that together, sir.
Also, in terms of your State, we would be more than happy
to do a special initiative in Alabama to address this very
serious problem at your crossings.
Senator Shelby. Well, I am interested in my State, coming
from there, but on the other hand, we are interested in all the
States.
Ms. Molitoris. As are we, sir.
Senator Shelby. I pointed out that my State had the fourth
highest and it is much smaller than Texas and California in
population and in size. But Louisiana was right there I believe
number three. Were they not?
Ms. Molitoris. I do not know the numbers by heart.
Senator Shelby. So, there has got to be a reason. Would you
look into that too?
Ms. Molitoris. I certainly would, sir. You can tell by our
charts that we are making progress, but one is too many.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
[The information follows:]
TEN WORST STATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
State Crossings Incidents Fatalities Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas.......................................................... 18,509 364 41 172
Illinois....................................................... 15,746 198 53 113
Indiana........................................................ 9,188 191 26 63
California..................................................... 12,848 190 24 70
Louisiana...................................................... 6,716 176 20 70
Ohio........................................................... 9,585 144 21 54
Georgia........................................................ 8,385 134 7 39
Mississippi.................................................... 4,872 131 17 81
Alabama........................................................ 5,434 122 12 34
Michigan....................................................... 8,429 114 14 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although both Alabama and Louisiana have a relatively high number
of crossings based on state size, the most likely factor contributing
to the number of injuries and fatalities is the number of crossings
without active warning devices. Fewer than 20 percent of Alabama's
5,434 crossings and 18 percent of Louisiana's 6,716 crossings are
equipped with these devices.
HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSING INVENTORY
Senator Shelby. The Federal Railroad Administration
maintains a comprehensive national rail crossing inventory,
which is a critical tool in helping States and the railroad
industry identify potentially hazardous crossings and
prioritize funding decisions.
According to an Inspector General audit of last fall, this
inventory is not accurate, with discrepancies in a number of
crossings between FRA data and the railroads' own records. Why
are the errors and the discrepancies there, or why are there
errors? What steps are you taking to correct this?
Ms. Molitoris. Mr. Chairman, FRA gets its information from
railroads and from States, and it is a fact that many States
still do not have a complete and comprehensive database or
neglect to update the information for the national inventory.
Senator Shelby. How do you check that out for accuracy what
they are giving?
Ms. Molitoris. We work with the States, Mr. Chairman. For
example, I know being from Ohio that some 5 or 6 years ago,
when they really emphasized corridors, which we were
encouraging them to do, they found many crossings that they did
not know existed or were in a different location. There have
been so many spinoffs, abandonments, changes in the
infrastructure in a very rapid fire way during our
Administration. The changes have really been dramatic.
Sometimes the number of crossings changes dramatically because
a whole line is abandoned.
What it takes is a team of State, Federal, and railroad
people to go out and walk them and go to see them corridor by
corridor. It is a big investment and FRA is encouraging States
to do that and railroads as well.
Senator Shelby. You do not have a big motivator like
withholding money, do you? You just have to encourage them to
cooperate?
ROLLOVER PROPENSITY RESEARCH
Ms. Molitoris. While many have been responsive, Mr.
Chairman, there are a number of entities who have not updated
their crossing inventories in many year. I do not know of
anyone who has refused totally, but it does take money, time,
and resources.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Millman, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration has had a long-running interest in the
area of rollover crashes, and according to your budget
justification, the agency's current focus in this area is to
develop a formula on rollover propensity and provide a ranking
or rating system for consumers. Is that right?
Ms. Millman. Yes.
Senator Shelby. What is the status of this research effort
and what can we expect and when can we expect some specific
action to be identified by your agency?
Ms. Millman. Thank you, sir.
This is another issue that we have been looking at for 20
or 30 years. We recently completed the research part of that
work, and we have a report available in the docket, which is
also available online.
We have prepared a proposal that is currently in the
clearance process within the Department. We think that we have
a good proposal and that people will support it.
We have found with our front impact and side impact ratings
that people just cannot get enough information, and it is one
of our most popular locations on our web site. We have seen the
manufacturers now start to advertise, when they do well, this
is a four star vehicle or five star vehicle. So, we think that
the rollover proposal will have that same----
Senator Shelby. You think the message is out there.
Ms. Millman. It seems that that is what the public wants.
TRUCKS, VANS, AND SUV ROLLOVER PROPENSITY
Senator Shelby. Do you believe that consumers lack
information about the greater rollover propensity of trucks,
vans, and SUV's despite the widespread coverage by
investigative journalists, consumer advocates, driving
enthusiast organizations, yours, and others? Would your limited
resources, for example, not be better dedicated to informing
the public, which you alluded to, about the issues that they
might not be so well informed about through other information
channels? I know you mentioned the Internet.
Ms. Millman. Other than?
Senator Shelby. Anywhere. The more information they have,
the better chance they have to make better decisions when they
purchase something, which could really be life or death down
the road.
Ms. Millman. That is right.
We produce a brochure called Buying a Safer Car that talks
about features that add to the safety performance of a vehicle,
and we do address the higher rollover propensity of light
trucks, vans, and SUVs. What we have seen in our research,
though, is that even within a class of vehicles, let us say
sport utility vehicles, there are very significant differences
in rollover propensity. So, we want people to know that if they
have made the decision to buy a pickup truck, within that
group, which ones have better safety performance than others.
ADDRESSING ROLLOVER ISSUES
Senator Shelby. There are a lot of different ways to
address rollover issues: one, a Government rating system for
rollover propensity; two, encourage technologies that protect
the occupant during this unusual type of crash; three, promote
technologies that reduce the vehicle's likelihood of tipping in
the first place; four, increasing seat belt usage, which we all
believe in in these vehicles. I am sure there are many more.
Those are just a few.
Ms. Millman, what should be the focus in this regard and
which strategy would save the most lives? Out of the four I
mentioned or others that I had not thought of. Seat belts
maybe?
Ms. Millman. The most dangerous part of a crash involving a
sport utility vehicle is the chance of ejection during a
rollover, and we find that seat belt use tends to be lower
among SUV occupants than other vehicles. They have a very high
number of ejections, which tend to be very serious. So, seat
belts certainly would make the most immediate impact.
But, a combination of those techniques that you mentioned
is really our best approach. Seat belts certainly in the short
term; second, greater dissemination of information like the
ratings that we are going to propose. But in the long term,
certainly technology can address the propensity issue.
PORT SECURITY
Senator Shelby. Admiral, port security is important. In the
past several months, there have been a rash of incidents
involving the smuggling of migrants, mostly from China, into
the United States in large cargo ships. This particular
activity raises the larger question of port security and
safety. Considering that 95 percent of the goods exported and
imported are processed at our Nation's ports, port security and
safety has significant economic and national defense
implications.
What is the role of the Coast Guard in protecting our ports
from migrant smuggling, illicit drug trafficking, the threat
posed by terrorist groups? And what other Federal, State, and
local agencies are involved with you? What initiatives do you
have for 2001 in the budget? Is that too much? It is what you
do every day.
Admiral Card. We will get right after it, yes, sir.
I think probably the most significant thing that is going
on right now as far as the study goes is the Seaport Security
Commission which is underway, including the Coast Guard,
Customs, FBI, et cetera, to look at all that we need to have
for our seaports.
But certainly the Coast Guard has been involved in our
multimission capacity in drugs and migrants and terrorism kinds
of things. We have, around the country, all of our units
strategically located. Every water area has a Captain of the
Port who is in charge of that water area. One of his or her
missions is security. That is backed by our Group Commanders as
well. So, we have got a network of both command and control and
people and resources to pay attention to these things.
Many of these issues are better sought if they are pushed
further away from the shore, and so you will see sometimes that
we will be interdicting Chinese migrants 50 or 100 miles off
the coastline because it is better to do it there. And in our
drug strategy, we are trying to push that closer to where they
are departing the scene down in Colombia, et cetera.
But more needs to be done. There is concern for terrorism
in our country. That is being addressed by this commission. It
has also been addressed by the Marine Transportation System
study that we brought forward. This budget includes some issues
that will protect our people. We are going to be the first
responders. We want to have some chemical, biological,
radiological kinds of things available, plus some training, to
know what to do initially until other agencies get there
because we are going to probably be the first on scene, as we
are in most cases.
In a larger sense, we also have some other protection
things in here for our people, survival equipment, cold weather
equipment, some of those kind of things.
But I think you will see out of the Seaport Security
Commission things that we are doing. The Coast Guard will have
a lead role in port security for our country, and we are
located in those places to be able to make that happen.
There will need to be cooperation with everyone else that
needs to do it, including the State people and other Federal
agencies. In that regard, we have instituted recently our
Incident Command System which all State highway people use,
fire people use. That makes it easier for us to respond as one
when we go to any particular type of an incident.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
having been away. One of the things that we were just
discussing at the Foreign Operations Subcommittee is our
commitment to Colombia and other Latin American countries to
see what we can do about stemming the drug flow there. It
unfortunately is a constantly expanding business, and when you
think about it, the toll taken in our country every year is
52,000 dead and about $110 billion worth of cost, it is an
important assignment. And we in no way diminish the effort that
the Coast Guard is required to put into it. But that means that
we have to take care of other things in other ways.
MSIS SYSTEM
I would ask you a question, Admiral Card, about the MSIS
system, a project that was begun back in 1991. And the project
is critical to your ability to meet the information needs and
legal mandates of your marine safety and law enforcement
missions.
The project was supposed to be completed in fiscal year
1996. All of us know that it is now 2000 and we have invested
over $45 million. The project is still not completed. Why the
delays in getting this done?
Admiral Card. Probably several, sir, but let me say that
the project is now on track to produce what we want in the next
year or so. And we have got some money in this budget.
Information technology projects, unlike buying a ship or an
airplane or something else, were more difficult for us to get
our arms around and describe correctly. I think you were at the
other committee meeting earlier when the Chairman asked me
about our National Distress and Response System Modernization
Project. We are now much more capable of structuring those
kinds of projects to be able to get positive results sooner,
even though it seems like in the beginning it takes you longer
to make sure you have a clear definition of what you want.
We are on track to do that now. We will be off the old
system probably within a year with more capability. Our
Operations System Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia has
picked that up for us.
So, the details of how we got there, probably a combination
of not being as clear as we thought we were going to be in the
requirements and then some change in the way that the project
looked along the way.
But I think we are on track and within a year or a year
plus, we will have the old system operating. We need to expand
it with our law enforcement system so all of them work
together.
Senator Lautenberg. I hope that the prediction that it is a
year away is more reliable than those forecast in the past.
Admiral Card. Yes, sir.
HIGH-SPEED TRAINSET TESTING
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Molitoris, good to see you.
Your agency is participating in the testing of the new
high-speed train sets over the northeast corridor. You and I
had a ride on the not-so-speedy high-speed train, and we are
looking forward to the ultimate delivery of the equipment that
can shorten the schedules between places.
Now, we have had a problem in terms of getting the high-
speed equipment on line. That was due sometime last year, and
we know that there was a problem. Tell me what you can about
FRA's involvement in testing of the new train sets.
Ms. Molitoris. Senator Lautenberg, Mr. Chairman, the Acela
trains are going to be a tremendous addition to the fleet of
Amtrak, but this is a new technology. As you know, FRA was
responsible for the safety requirements that Amtrak
incorporated into the specifications, and we have been
consistently involved with Bombardier and Amtrak in the testing
program. The responsibility really lies with the manufacturer
to meet the requirements set by Amtrak and to provide the
service required in the contract with Amtrak.
I think we are making good progress, but I have not yet
received a total confirmation on the date of delivery of these
trains. I think it is fair to say that with a brand new
technology of this complexity, it is not unusual to have a
significant test period. It was the commitment of the Board and
of Amtrak to assure that the introduction of the trains would
be at a time when service would be of the highest quality.
One of the exciting things that you and I were able to do
was to ride the train totally electrified from Boston to New
York. And that was an achievement of no small measure, sir, and
a tribute to your leadership and also the support of the
Congress throughout these years.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, the fact that we need a long test
period is what we understood, and we had train sets tested and
running. We had a problem with wheel wear.
And I would have to remind you, Ms. Molitoris, that
technology on high-speed rail is certainly not new. It is
disappointing, I must say, to learn, whether it is the
manufacturer's responsibility or design responsibility and our
demand for specifications that were wrong, the fact is that
prospects are considerably dimmed by the experience to date. We
are anxious to have these train sets in place and operating.
The chairman of this subcommittee is not a fan, and
understandably so, because he is skeptical about promises that
are made that are not kept. This is the kind of thing that,
frankly, gives me a lot of concern. You are kind of a second
stage in this, but we hope that when these specifications were
given that specs were, A, met and, B, that they were
sufficiently designed, that there was sufficient design put
into this that we were not asking for the impossible.
Ms. Molitoris. Senator Lautenberg, may I just comment?
There truly is a tremendous difference between the operating
environment in Europe and the operating environment in the
Northeast Corridor. It is a much more complex environment. It
required specifications that were different. I think that the
elements that are being tested and required certainly are the
proper ones. We can assure safety to the passengers of the
highest level, and I think that we will get there very soon.
Fortunately, at the very same time that these northeast
trains were being tested, we have a new high-speed, non-
electric locomotive so that the corridors throughout the
country--some of very great interest in Birmingham--will be
able to have high-speed trains also.
STATE COOPERATION
Senator Lautenberg. In order to maintain the speeds that we
expect from Acela along the north and the south end of the
Northeast Corridor, we are going to require strong cooperation
out of the commuter rail authorities from Massachusetts to
Virginia. How have things gone so far?
Ms. Molitoris. In terms of the relationship, Senator?
Senator Lautenberg. Cooperation. Have we gotten what we
needed from the States along the way?
Ms. Molitoris. Well, I think there is a strong support
network among the operators and the States, but indeed, there
is a 10- or 12-year--maybe 20-year--outlook on the kinds of
improvements in infrastructure to get to an improved state of
repair on the south end. That is going to require investments.
I think Amtrak continues to work closely with the commuters
because, as you know, it is the commuters that have the huge
numbers of trains every single day, especially in New Jersey,
New York, and Connecticut.
I think the working partnership is good. There are some
elements that are still being discussed, but there certainly is
not a final decision on all of the investments and how much
will come from where. That is still under negotiation.
Senator Lautenberg. So, we can expect that we will get the
kind of help from the commuter organizations that we need and
that we will be able, one day, to say that this is a completely
coordinated program, because at this point there is a challenge
by a lot of the commuters who say they need more of the time on
the rail and that they cannot always make way for the high-
speed trains to operate. But we hope that we can resolve that
conflict and get on with it.
Your budget, with our strong interest in expanded high-
speed rail, has a new $468 million initiative. As you know, I
have introduced a bill that would support roughly $10 billion
in high-speed rail improvements through these federally insured
bonds.
RAIL LINE CONGESTION
One problem that is regularly cited as a limitation to
deploy high-speed rail around the country is the problem of the
right-of-way that is owned by freight rail and freight
railroads. And they are busier than they have ever been as
well.
What does FRA do to improve the opportunities for use of
those tracks, freight-owned tracks, for our high-speed rail
needs?
Ms. Molitoris. Well, of course, our focus is safety. The
requirements that the railroads have to meet require all of our
efforts. I do know, serving on the board representing the
Secretary, that George Warrington has made a really new effort
to become a good partner with the railroads and they with him.
I would say to you that it is my observation that there has
never been a stronger partnership between the freight railroads
and Amtrak.
However, the congestion difficulties that the freights are
experiencing, some as fallout from some mergers and
acquisitions, impact Amtrak. It is a very difficult situation.
I think, however, that there is a real working partnership,
train by train, between Amtrak and the freight railroads to try
and address this. We are not where we want to be in terms of
on-time service, and that is not just on the Northeast
Corridor, which is doing very, very well, but it is throughout
the country where we have this particular situation where all
the tracks are owned by freight railroads.
FRA is working on it. We have got to get the freights in a
situation where they have less congestion and backup and more
on-time performance themselves and the ability to get Amtrak
through in a more timely manner.
AMTRAK/FREIGHT PARTNERSHIPS
Senator Lautenberg. Are we going to ask them to do less
business? How do we accomplish----
Ms. Molitoris. Well, there are many ways, Senator
Lautenberg. Certainly operational considerations. Amtrak does,
by law, have first right to move.
Also, I think it is interesting to note that the new
business partnerships, mail and express business partnerships,
that Amtrak is developing with almost every major freight
carrier are an incentive for the freight railroads themselves
to move Amtrak timely because these freight movements are
business partnerships that Amtrak and Norfolk-Southern, BNSF,
Union Pacific have developed. It is really a win-win situation.
So, that is enhancing this partnership.
VEHICLE INCOMPATIBILITY
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Millman, I wanted to check
something. I was just asking whether it had been discussed
earlier, and if it has, please let me know.
Almost half of the new vehicle registrations in 1998 are
light trucks, including SUV's, pickups, mini-vans, and they sit
higher off the ground. Have you discussed this at all? Has this
been asked?
Ms. Millman. Not today, no.
Senator Lautenberg. You might get the question
occasionally. In an accident between light trucks and
conventional cars, the light truck inflicts more damage to the
car. Now, a NHTSA study found that a head-on collision between
a car and an SUV resulted in five deaths per car driver to one
per SUV driver. When the SUV struck the side of the car, there
were 30 deaths per car driver for every 1 of an SUV driver.
Now, in light of these findings by your own agency, will
the administration undertake any actions to improve safety for
the drivers of conventional cars? I hear a lot of worry and
concern by drivers of ordinary cars, particularly from those
mothers with children in the car and so forth. They are
frightened by the prospect. What is being done there?
Ms. Millman. One of our first priorities is always avoid
the crash in the first place. So, everything that we are doing
on drunk driving and other kinds of crash avoidance activities
will help address that specific problem.
We are working with the manufacturers and doing our own
research to identify ways that we can address that problem--
changing bumper height, changing the way the vehicles manage
the crash energy. We do not have a specific rulemaking looking
at it now. We are more in the research and analysis phase of
it.
Senator Lautenberg. Do the automobile companies seem to be
concerned as we are about the problems? Business is pretty good
in that area, and I do not know whether having to change the
configuration of an SUV, to use the general term, is a likely
possibility without some pressure from Government. How do you
see it?
Ms. Millman. The manufacturers are certainly pleased with
the sales of the larger vehicles and are concerned about any
requirements that might make them reconfigure those vehicles.
But I think that they also recognize the public is interested
in safety. We were discussing earlier NHTSA's safety ratings of
vehicles. The public is very interested in those. So, I think
that the manufacturers have an interest in trying to address
the problem.
ROLLOVER STANDARDS
Senator Lautenberg. Do you have, for example, a specific
time table for establishing rollover standards for SUV's?
Ms. Millman. Our focus right now is on providing more
information to consumers so that they have a better
understanding of the rollover issue and how individual vehicle
models perform. We are not pursuing a regulation or standard at
this time.
Senator Lautenberg. We impose standards on trucks, on
highway design, equipment that is used in construction, things
of that nature. Why would it not be of interest to introduce
some regulations so that we can ensure the bulk of the
automobile-riding public that they are as safe as we would like
to see them be, considering the difference in the structure of
the vehicles?
Ms. Millman. The agency has been trying to answer that
question for 30 some years.
One of the concerns is defining the threshold. If we were
trying to say that there was a limit on rollover propensity, we
would have----
Senator Lautenberg. Do we have rollover standards for
regular cars?
Ms. Millman. No.
So, in trying to set rollover propensity limits, we are
asking at what point are we likely to see serious injury if
there is a crash, and we have not been able to define those
limits.
Also, several factors play into the equation of whether the
rollover is going to occur, and driver behavior is a
significant part of that.
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR ROLLOVER PREVENTION
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, but the construction standards for
automobiles include the impact of a rollover as well. Does it
not?
Ms. Millman. I am sorry. I did not follow your question.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, in the construction standards for
cars, is there not a consideration of impact of an accident in
terms of possible rollover?
Ms. Millman. I do not believe so, no, but I will double
check on that.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there a roof-crush standard?
Ms. Millman. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. So, it sounds to me like we ought to
take a little bit closer look at the SUV's and that line of
vehicles.
I thank you very much, all of you. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Gorton could not be here today, but I would like to
note for the record that my colleague from Washington State,
Senator Slade Gorton, wanted to be here to discuss the pipeline
safety program and last summer's fatal accident, but he has
been unavoidably detained. We will submit his statement on this
issue for the record.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I just interrupt for
a unanimous consent request, that a speech made by the
Commandant, Admiral Loy, in December entitled Readiness: The
Reality Behind the Numbers, be included in the record?
Senator Shelby. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Prepared Statement of Senator Slade Gorton
Mr. Chairman, a tragic pipeline accident in Washington state last
year that killed three young people has focused my attention, as it has
my colleague's, Senator Murray's, and that of the entire Washington
state delegation, on the operation and funding of a relatively small
office within the Department of Transportation with the enormous
responsibility of ensuring the safety of liquid and gas pipelines. I
see that the Administrator of the Office of Research and Special
Programs, Kelley Coyner, within which the Office of Pipeline Safety is
located will testify today.
I am pleased to see that the President has recommended an increase
in funding for OPS. While the proposed expenditures sound reasonable,
it was unclear to me from reading the budget how much of the funds and
OPS resources will be committed to concluding rule-makings that are
required by Federal law, but that are shockingly overdue: in some cases
by more than five years. These rules are intended to deal with issues
critical to pipeline safety, including the use and frequency of
internal pipeline inspection and the use of emergency flow restricting
devices and leak detection equipment. I understand that OPS intends,
prompted largely by the tragedy in Bellingham, to consolidate many of
these rulemakings into a single ``pipeline integrity'' proceeding that
it hopes to conclude this year, at least with respect to large
operators. I expect the Office of Pipeline Safety to do this, and to
make this rulemaking an absolute priority.
Because of the interstate nature of pipelines, Federal laws and
rules regarding their safety are largely preemptive, which is to say
that states are generally prohibited from adopting stricter safety
standards. Legislation introduced in both the House by Representative
Metcalf, and in the Senate by Senator Murray, would relax this Federal
preemption. I agree that state and local governments should have more
authority. While Senator Murray's bill does not address this issue as
directly as many in Washington state would like, it makes an excellent
start and I intend very shortly to co-sponsor the bill and work with
her on amending it to reflect the comments and concerns of the many
interested parties in Washington state.
The debate over Federal preemption, however, will be held in the
Commerce Committee, not here. For purposes of appropriations it is
important to recognize that despite preemption, states play a
significant role in pipeline safety. They regulate, by mile,
significantly more pipeline than does the Federal Government because
they are regulate intrastate lines. On very limited occasions, the OPS
has also designated states as its agent for purposes of inspecting
interstate liquid pipelines, a designation that I understand Washington
state would like to obtain in the interim before it is permitted by
Federal law to assume greater authority. To assist states with these
responsibilities, the Federal Government provides grants of up to 50
percent of the cost of state programs. I fully support an increase in
the funds available for these grants to help cover the costs in 2001 of
the new pipeline safety functions that have been proposed in a bill
moving through the Washington state legislature.
______
Readiness: The Reality Behind the Numbers
AMENITIES
It has been said that ``a conference is a meeting to decide where
the next meeting will take place.'' That may be true of the WTO meeting
out in Seattle this week, but I have much higher hopes for this
gathering. My confidence comes partly from knowing that the importance
of military readiness will draw the serious attention it deserves and
partly because the CNA has done its homework so well in creating a
forum for us to consider readiness issues in a way that can actually
lead to improving readiness.
The panel topics are relevant and practical. How do we assess
readiness? Is there a people problem? Has operational tempo affected
readiness? What are the operators saying? Have we shortchanged
training, maintenance, and spare parts? How should we protect
readiness?
I'm delighted to join you as you grapple with these issues. I am
grateful to Robert Murray [President of CNA], Dr. Samuel Kleinman [CNA
VP], and Dr. Laura Junor [Conference Director] for their role in
bringing us together. And I thank all of the conference participants
and attendees for your commitment to military readiness.
introduction: differences between business and military measurement
Dave Thomas--the fellow who founded the Wendy's hamburger chain--
wrote a book about his meandering path to success in life. In that
book, he briefly explained his approach to measuring the health of his
company.
As you might imagine from the commercials you've seen, Mr. Thomas
didn't spend a lot of time poring over spreadsheets. He was a hands-on
leader. He formed the habit of identifying a very small set of numbers
that gave him a good sense of what was going on. He briefly checked
those numbers every day, and then he spent the bulk of his energy out
on the floor with his customers and employees exercising the kind of
leadership needed to keep the numbers tending in the direction he
wanted. These few numbers tracked carefully--combined with a lot of
personal involvement--were all he needed to have a clear grasp of where
he stood.
Those of us in the readiness business quickly encounter problems
when we try to follow Mr. Thomas's worthy example. If a small set of
numbers exists that can convey an accurate sense of overall military
readiness, it has so far eluded the most determined efforts to find it.
Three important differences between hamburger stands and armed forces
keep us from nailing down a convenient index of readiness.
One difference between Dave's way and our way is that businesses
measure results whereas military planners measure potential. Instead of
measuring what we have done--how many hamburgers we sold and how much
money we get to keep--we try to measure surge capacity--what level of
effort would we amass if faced with an emergency?
A second difference is that extraordinary human effort can
undermine the apparent reliability of the measures that do portray our
readiness condition. The devotion to duty so prevalent among service
members often puts the lie to our honest claims of reduced capability.
We saw that happen a couple months ago when Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd
hit the eastern seaboard. The public saw the Coast Guard at the center
of a massive and well coordinated disaster relief effort. What they
didn't see was the intense scramble to locate parts and perform
maintenance to get all of our Elizabeth City C-130's operational and to
keep them flying throughout the operation. The performance they
delivered could not have been predicted from analyzing our availability
statistics, and we shouldn't kid ourselves into believing we can expect
similar results as a matter of course.
A third difference is that our measures resist aggregation. No
matter how big a hamburger chain grows, you can combine the financial
statements of the individual units, look at the totals and the ratios
between various lines, and get an idea of the overall strength. It's a
lot harder to see what combinations of military units might be able to
do if they are needed to work together.
The difficulty of measuring an intangible element like potential
output quickly leads to the even more daunting challenge of explaining
the basis for our readiness concerns to the American public, the
administration, and to Congress.
My plan this morning is to skirt these difficulties in measurement
by looking in detail at a single operational community within the Coast
Guard--our fleet of C-130 aircraft--and illustrating how our parts
shortages, personnel issues, and increased optempo are serious
individual problems that compound the effects of the other problems.
I will focus on C-130's for three reasons.
First, they are a common currency among the armed services.
Everybody flies them, so the lessons they offer may resonate more
broadly through the audience than those of systems unique to the Coast
Guard. C-130's are the class of operating assets that is most dependent
on DOD systems. Many of the stresses we feel are downstream
manifestations of pain that is also felt by DOD.
Second, C-130's are a microcosm of the readiness problems that face
every operational community within the Coast Guard. The combination of
aging assets and sensors, increased operational tempo, personnel
shortages and inexperience, and parts shortages that besets our C-130's
also hinders the effectiveness of our cutters and our other aircraft.
Third, C-130's epitomize previously stable trend lines that are now
headed in the wrong direction. Four or five years ago, C-130's were our
most reliable platform. Now we struggle to meet even our normal day-to-
day commitments.
OPTEMPO, PARTS, AND PEOPLE
Those trend lines raise serious concerns. Over the past four years,
HC-130 availability has dropped from almost eighty percent to barely
sixty percent. Air Station Elizabeth City, North Carolina, has five C-
130's, and they are expected to have one of them immediately available
at all times. During the first six months of 1998, they met the
standard for ail but one hour. During the first six months of this
year, the hours without a ready plane jumped to thirty seven. A
standard we used to achieve easily now seems unattainable. E City
hasn't gone a single month without a coverage gap in more than a year.
Optempo immediately looms as one cause. We've always worked our C-
130's hard. They're getting old. They fly low altitude patrols in a
salty environment, and we program them to fly about a third more hours
than the DOD services do. Over the past few years, we haven't added new
planes, and our Search and Rescue obligations haven't been reduced, but
we have asked our C-130's to perform a lot of deployments in support of
our drug interdiction mission. As a result, C-130 days away from home
station have increased more than 60 percent over the last four years.
We've lost a full 25 percent of our availability while piling on
additional mission requirements. That one-two punch consumes a whole
lot of flexibility and surge capacity. Optempo feeds our parts
problems. Older assets worked harder can be expected to break more
often. When they do, they need more parts--parts that are becoming more
scarce and more expensive.
We try to keep the percentage of hours for which aircraft are not
mission capable because of parts to less than five percent. Before
1995, we were consistently at or near this standard. Since then, our
parts-related unavailability has steadily risen, standing now at about
16 percent, more than three times higher than it ought to be. Over this
same period, the inventory value of C-130 parts awaiting repair or
replacement has doubled.
As budgets increase more slowly than costs, the problem reaches
crisis proportions and desperately improvident measures suddenly seem
reasonable and necessary. We look for other sources of funds--places
like the training budget--and we cannibalize parts from otherwise
serviceable aircraft to keep others flying.
Experienced aviators recall times when cannibalization simply was
not done. Today it is almost routine for air stations to have a
designated ``Hangar Queen'' out of service for months at a time because
its parts have been transplanted in other air frames. Cannibalization
takes planes out of the rotation, increases the workload and
maintenance on the other planes, and depletes flexibility in meeting
response requirements.
Worse still, cannibalization transmutes our parts shortage into
personnel problems. When we cannibalize, we double the maintenance
workload. The normal way for a mechanic to replace a part is to take a
box off a shelf, remove the defective part, and install the new part.
One part removed, one part installed. With cannibalization, two parts
have to be removed and two parts have to be installed.
This doubled work is performed today by less experienced
maintenance crews than we had working a few years ago. The average time
in grade of our chief aviation mechanics has dropped 50 percent over
the last five years. What this means is that less experienced crews who
should be getting more training are instead performing the extra work
occasioned by cannibalization.
These personnel pressures inevitably affect retention. We train our
aircraft mechanics to be professionals, and they take pride in doing
their jobs right. Because they are professionals, they know when we're
doubling their work, and they know that cannibalization isn't the right
way to do their job. Sooner or later, they have to ask whether they are
willing to work twice as hard as they should in order to get paid less
than they're worth to do a job in a way that offends their professional
conscience. When they leave, our personnel shortages get worse.
Overworking inexperienced crews in a good economy is not a good
prescription for improving retention.
The story here is that optempo, parts, and personnel problems feed
off each other and compound each other.
CONSEQUENCES
The practical real world consequences of this situation play out in
our routine operations. During the month of October, we observed the
following situations as a result of C-130 readiness problems. We missed
law enforcement missions in Florida and in Alaska. We lost track of a
suspected drug smuggler because maintenance issues forced a late
launch. We lost training flights to SAR and LE missions. C-130's left
their home bases late and returned early from law enforcement
deployments because of maintenance problems. We had C-130's fly search
and rescue missions at higher than normal search altitudes to
compensate for cabin cooling limitations, thereby reducing the
probability of detection. And we had C-130's reduced to visual searches
because their radars didn't work.
When we suffer such effects in one month of normal operations, we
know we're operating without a net when called to perform major
operations.
We almost had a dramatic example when Hurricane Lenny cut a swath
through the Caribbean a couple weeks ago. We had a deployed C-130 in
the region, and like most C-130's it had deployed with exactly one
crew--we can't afford to send spares.
Just when the C-130 was needed for disaster relief operations, one
of the crew members needed a root canal and was medically grounded. As
it happened, the afflicted person was a basic air crewman, and the
operational commander granted a waiver to fly one person short. It
worked out fine. However, if almost anybody else on that crew had
needed that root canal, the flight would have been canceled. Think
about it, the United States Coast Guard, Semper Paratus since 1790, was
one toothache away from not being able to respond to a hurricane!
One aviator recently told me, ``What we're doing now is all that we
can do.'' The frugal taxpayer may rejoice to hear this proclamation,
but the stranded boater surely does not.
The commanding officer at Air Station Barbers Point in Hawaii
recalls the airlift undertaken when the super typhoon Paka hit Guam
around Christmas of 1997. We mounted an all-out relief effort to bring
Red Cross supplies out to the western Pacific. Looking at current
availability rates for his C-130's, he doubts he could deliver an
encore performance this Christmas.
These problems also affect other armed services. Our air station
out in Hawaii has a Long-Range Intercept mission requirement to have a
C-130 available in case a civilian airplane has to ditch. Our air
station increasingly finds itself unable to meet this requirement and
has had to pass it off to Navy P-3s for as much as two days at a time.
The P-3's are less well suited for this mission, and they already have
jobs. So our readiness problem ends up becoming the Navy's readiness
problem.
If that had happened last week, the results could have been deadly.
A general aviation plane did have to make a nighttime ditching, and a
C-130 was needed to get on scene to mark the ditch course with lights
and get a fix on the downed aircraft.
AIRSTA SACRAMENTO SAR CASE: LACK OF READINESS MAY ALREADY BE COSTING US
LIVES
In one case last month, our readiness problems may have prevented
us from saving a life. Air Station Sacramento has four C-130's. At the
time of this incident, the first C-130 was the ready aircraft on
immediate standby, and a second was ready to fly as a backup to the
first. The third plane was deployed for counterdrug operations out of
the country, and the fourth one was the hangar queen. It had been out
of service since April and was being used as a parts source for the
other planes.
This situation might have been tenable except that the second C-
130--the backup to the ready aircraft--was overdue for some maintenance
that could be extended only for a few more days before the airplane
would have to be grounded.
The air station had to perform the maintenance, but scheduling the
maintenance required them to choose a day on which they would have no
backup to the ready C-130. Not having a backup is a bad situation for a
search and rescue unit because mariners tend not to consult our
availability schedules before getting themselves lost, and some of them
persist in remaining lost until multiple sorties are flown.
But there was no choice. The air station picked a day with no law
enforcement patrols planned, scheduled the maintenance, and took the
plane off line to perform the work. Sure enough, there was a SAR call
on the day they picked. Ordered to locate the source of an EPIRB alarm,
the ready aircraft took off, flew 500 miles off Cape Mendocino, and
found a genuine distress situation. A dismasted sailboat was battling
70 mile per hour winds, mountainous seas, and low visibility. The
boat's lone occupant was in serious trouble. The air crew could see him
through the weather from time to time, but they couldn't establish
communications. They dropped a radio to the sailboat, but the operator
wasn't able to retrieve it from the heavy seas.
Surface units were en route, but help was hours away.
In a case like this--crippled vessel, extreme weather, no
communications--we definitely wanted to maintain continuous air
presence until a cutter could arrive on scene. And we could have
maintained that presence if our second C-130 had been ready to fly.
But it wasn't. It was being worked on, and there was no way to
button it back together in time. We looked for other assets and found
an Air National Guard C-130 in Portland, Oregon, but the distances
involved meant that our C-130 would head home well before the relief
plane arrived.
The Air National Guard plane reached the scene as night was
failing. By that time, the EPIRB had stopped transmitting. There was no
sign of the sailboat, no sign of its occupant. Nothing but wind and
waves and rain.
We searched for six days. We flew eleven C-130 sorties from
Sacramento. We brought in a buoy tender, a medium endurance cutter, and
a high endurance cutter with an embarked HH-65 helicopter. The Air
National Guard continued to provide C-130 support, and a USNS ship
diverted to help. A huge effort. Spent more than we did on the more
publicized JFK case. All we found was some debris.
A second C-130 might not have made any difference to the lost
sailor. It's possible that he would have died even if we had kept a
plane overhead. But at the very least, we would have known when and
where his boat went down.
This case illustrates four unacceptable consequences of our
readiness situation. First, we jeopardize our own crews by sending them
into situations in which we know we can't provide a backup if they get
into trouble. Second, we don't have the confidence we ought to have
that we are giving stricken mariners the best possible chance to be
rescued. Third, our inability to do the job right the first time
requires the expenditure of far more resources than would have been
needed if the right assets had been available when first needed. And
fourth, when we finally close the case, we find our already precarious
readiness posture has been further degraded by the parts and the people
we burned out in the too-much-too late rescue effort.
A readiness climate in which we habitually make extraordinary
expenditures when it's too late because we can't bring the right
resources to bear when it matters is simply intolerable to me--and
ought to be intolerable to the American public.
CONCLUSION
Earlier in my remarks, I mentioned a ditching case out in Hawaii.
Everybody involved in that case praised the downed pilot for his poise
and professionalism. After being rescued, the pilot explained why he
remained calm and confident throughout his ordeal. He said, ``You know
if you can hang on until the next morning that you're going to make it
because the Coast Guard is going to come and get you. It's just a
matter of if you can hang on.''
Will Rogers once said that it's not what you don't know that gets
you in trouble, it's the things you know that ain't so. This civilian
pilot represents the American public in that he ``knows'' the Coast
Guard will be there to save him if he can just hang on. Unfortunately,
his knowing doesn't make it so.
I believe the readiness problems in the C-130 world mirror similar
problems of similar magnitude in our other operational communities. In
fact, given that our C-130 fleet is younger and better maintained than
many of our cutters, it's almost inevitable.
The unfavorable trends in aircraft availability, parts inventories,
and crew experience challenge our ability to provide mariners in
distress with the rescue services Americans have come to expect.
These problems impose two responsibilities upon us, which I will
offer as challenges for this conference.
The first responsibility is to speak frankly about the seriousness
and the extent of the problems we face. We cannot permit the public to
learn of this situation only when we fail dramatically to provide some
service the taxpayers think they paid for. Many of our readiness issues
are the sort of problem that really can be solved by throwing money at
them. Twelve or thirteen million dollars to restore our parts
inventories to where they were a few years ago would be a nice place to
start. We should say so.
The second responsibility is to come up with better ways to think
about managing our readiness challenges. Understanding that immediate
relief from budgetary constraints is unlikely, we need to attend very
seriously to the problems that will persist when we shake the money
tree and nothing falls into our baskets. Not having enough is not a
sufficient reason for not doing our best with what we have. We will all
face difficult choices about balance, setting priorities, deciding
where to allocate the next dollar. This conference offers an excellent
opportunity to frame our understanding of the work that lies ahead.
Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Shelby. Additional committee questions will be sent
to the respective agencies for response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to the Research and Special Programs Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
department-wide review of the hazardous materials program
Question. DOT will release shortly a departmental Hazardous
Materials Program Evaluation in which the Office of Inspector General
participated. What results do you expect from this evaluation?
Answer. The evaluation is showing some positive trends. For
example, we expect DOT to establish a central focal point to coordinate
a DOT-wide Hazardous Materials program. We will let Congress know when
the results of this evaluation are released.
USER FEES
Question. What has been the reaction from the pipeline industry to
this proposed increase in user fees.
Answer. It would not be appropriate for us to speak for the
industry on this matter.
Question. If the proposed increase in user fees is rejected by
Congress (as so many of the Administration's user fee proposals have
been), what other potential funding sources are available.
Answer. We have no other proposed funding source.
GRANTS
Question. Why are interstate pipeline companies being asked to
shoulder the entire cost of this program despite the authorization?
Answer. Outside force damage associated with construction is the
leading cause of pipeline failures. It is the cause of at least 33
percent and 18 percent of the incidents in Gas Transmission and in
Hazardous liquid lines, respectively. When we determine pipeline user
fees, we prorate the assessment between gas and liquid in accordance
with the degree of benefit which they accrue as a result of the
Pipeline Safety program implementation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
INTERSTATE PIPELINES
Question. What do you mean when you say that you want to expand and
strengthen partnerships with states?
Answer. We have been committed over the past several years to
working with states to strengthen the pipeline safety partnership and
to providing adequate resources to support their activities. This
budget provides record resources to increase states capabilities and
builds on the actions we have taken in the State of Washington to work
together to comprehensively evaluate and improve pipeline safety.
Question. Could you explain in what areas you would be comfortable
seeing states have regulatory authority over interstate pipelines if
they prove they have the money and the expertise to do so?
Answer. We do not support giving the states regulatory authority
over interstate pipelines. The intention to ``expand and strengthen
partnerships with states'' did not include giving states regulatory
authority. Yet, we support states lending their technical knowledge and
expertise to the Office of Pipeline Safety's oversight of interstate
pipelines in areas where states knowledge of local safety and
environmental concerns can be used to improve pipeline safety. We also
support states being involved in responding to incidents, investigating
and monitoring corrective measures with respect to safety-related
conditions and other local conditions that increase risks to pipelines,
handling local complaints and related inquiries, monitoring pipeline
construction and reporting noncompliance with design and construction
standards to OPS. We appreciate the states' involvement and knowledge
in these areas.
PERIODIC INSPECTIONS
Question. My bill and the House bill will require periodic
inspections every five years. Will your rule require mandatory periodic
inspections? If not, what mechanism will be in place to ensure that we
are relying on more than the industry's own self-interest?
Answer. Shortly, the Department will issue a rulemaking which will
establish requirements for periodic testing. This rule will incorporate
by reference a national consensus standard which identifies specific
enforceable standards for the interval for internal inspection, repair
criteria, and mitigation measures such as extra valves. The Department
is concerned that a five year interval may result in some lines being
tested too frequently. And it may be desirable to test some lines more
often. Indeed through administrative action, the Department has
required pipeline companies to test as frequently as every six months
to a year. Similarly, the condition and nature of other lines does not
merit testing as frequently as every five years, and we would prefer
that safety resources be devoted to other more important activities.
CERTIFICATION
Question. Why don't you think it is feasible to have individual
federal certification and testing of operators? It is feasible in the
airline industry where the FAA determines the capabilities of
individual employees who work on aircraft.
Answer. To be done properly, individual federal certification and
testing of pipeline employees would be extremely costly. We believe
that worker qualification will be achieved more effectively and
efficiently by implementation of the operator qualification rule which
we issued last year. To be qualified, an individual must be able to
demonstrate the ability to successfully and consistently perform the
task. Regulators will be looking to the operator to show how
individuals performing covered tasks have been evaluated to ensure they
are qualified.
OPS expects testing and certification to be a major way in which
operators demonstrate that an individual is capable of safely and
effectively performing a covered task. However, the testing and
certification will be done under established national certification
programs in the private sector rather than by creation of a new Federal
program.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY
Question. What types of research and development is OPS undertaking
to better the level of inspection technologies?
Answer. We are completing a $3.1 million research contract which
commenced in June 1996 to identify and characterize pipeline mechanical
damage by advancing magnetic flux leakage technology on an in-line
inspection device, or ``smart pig.'' This research was conducted under
a Memorandum of Understanding with the Gas Research Institute (GRI).
The research team of Battelle, Southwest Research Institute, and Iowa
State University conducted the research. The laboratory work conducted
under this research has revealed a multilevel magnetization signal is
needed to fully characterize the two components of mechanical damage,
which are the changes in pipe geometry and changes in the properties of
the pipe metal resulting from mechanical damage. A procedure to
distinguish the difference using the multiple magnetization level
approach has been proven. The research team has also determined the
effects of pipe stress and mechanical damage on the magnetic fields
induced in the pipe wall by magnetic flux leakage ``pigs'' and has
evaluated alternative methods of classifying and characterizing
mechanical damage using neural networks and nonlinear harmonics. This
work may allow a mechanical damage detection capability to be added to
existing corrosion ``pigs''. In fact, a domestic ``pig'' vendor,
Tuboscope Vetco Pipeline Services, is testing a prototype mechanical
damage ``pig'' using data obtained as a result of this research.
At GRI's Pipeline Simulation Facility (PSF) near Columbus, Ohio,
the research team upgraded the ``pig'' that serves as the Test Bed
Vehicle (TBV) with state-of-the-art sensors, a new data acquisition
system, and a more robust magnetizer system. The TBV has been used to
gather data on mechanical damage defect sets in the 300-foot pull rig
and in the 4700-foot pressurized flow loop located at the PSF.
A final report on the three-year research is being drafted and
should be completed by the end of April. Once completed, it will be
available on the Office of Pipeline Safety's Internet web site, http://
ops.dot.gov.
The three-year research project was conducted with orientation of
the magnetic field in the conventional direction along the longitudinal
axis of the pipe. An fiscal year 2000 initiative will identify and
characterize mechanical damage by conducting testing with the magnetic
field in the pipe's circumferential direction. We expect completion by
April 2002.
OPS has also requested funding for fiscal year 2001 to advance
technologies for pipeline monitoring and pipe locating for broader use
in protecting underground facilities. We expect to develop approaches
to monitoring activity on the pipeline right of way so that excavation
damage can be discovered in real time or near real time to preclude
accidents from occurring. There is a range of emerging technologies for
monitoring which can be used for prevention or detection of damage
which deserve more research attention to advance their application to
prevent pipeline failures. These would include use of acoustics,
satellites and impressed current. We also have requested funding to
identify and evaluate location equipment for buried plastic gas mains
and services, develop performance criteria for improved generations of
equipment with the desired locating capabilities, and investigate
alternative ways to design plastic pipe so it can be more easily
located.
REAUTHORIZATION BILL
Question. When do you plan on sending the Administration's pipeline
safety reauthorization bill to Congress?
Answer. We will be sending the Administration's proposal shortly.
______
Questions Submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
COAST GUARD YARD--CORE FACILITY
Question. I'd like to raise the issue of the Curtis Bay Coast Guard
Yard with Vice Admiral Card. As you know, the Coast Guard Yard has
played a vital role in ensuring the readiness of the Coast Guard fleet
through the construction, repair, and renovation of both vessels and
aids to navigation peculiar to the Coast Guard.
The Yard provides essential capabilities that are simply not
available in commercial shipyards. Those capabilities include the
Yard's instant response for emergency and non-emergency work, special
ordnance and electronic repair expertise, instant ability to obligate
funds without pre- and post-contract requirements and delays, and no-
risk performance guarantees. Without the help of the Yard, the Coast
Guard would be unable to maintain its fleet and therefore unable to
meet its mission of saving lives.
Do you consider the Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard to be a Core
Logistics Facility?
Answer. Yes. In response to requirements outlined by the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 1988, the Secretary of Transportation
provided a list of ``essential logistics'' activities. The Coast Guard
Yard is on that list. The Yard remains an essential component to meet
Coast Guard support requirements for our fleet.
COAST GUARD YARD POLICY STATEMENT
Question. If so, will you state that the Curtis Bay Coast Guard
Yard is a Core Logistics Facility in the policy statement that is
currently being developed by Headquarters?
Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard will reaffirm the essential nature of
the Yard in our new policy statement. Over the past 100 years, the Yard
has adapted to significant changes and challenges the Coast Guard has
faced. The Yard's flexibility is a key component of its value to the
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard continues to evaluate how the Yard can
best meet the needs of the fleet and also lend its expertise to other
government agencies. The Coast Guard's assessment in this regard is a
continuous process and includes accounting for changes in its fleet
size and opportunities for new business.
REFURBISHING USCGC MACKINAW
Question. Also, is the Coast Guard giving serious consideration to
refurbishing the Great Lakes Icebreaker at the Curtis Bay Coast Guard
Yard?
Answer. The Coast Guard intends to replace (not refurbish) Coast
Guard Cutter MACKINAW with a new construction multipurpose icebreaker.
The Coast Guard has determined that a competitive procurement is
the most appropriate strategy to achieve performance, cost, and
schedule objectives. Market surveys conducted by the Coast Guard
reflect significant commercial interest in this acquisition.
USCGC MACKINAW REFURBISHMENT DECISION TIMELINE
Question. When will the Coast Guard decide where the Great Lakes
Icebreaker will be refurbished?
Answer. The Coast Guard intends to replace (not refurbish) Coast
Guard Cutter MACKINAW with a new construction multipurpose icebreaker.
The Coast Guard intends to award a commercial contract to design and
build the Great Lakes Icebreaker during the third quarter of fiscal
year 2001.
AIR-21 IMPACT
Question. Admiral Card, as you know, the Senate and the House
currently are conferencing on the so-called AIR-21, the FAA
reauthorization bill. One of the areas that remains unresolved is the
issue of budgetary treatment for aviation programs. The House has
proposed to create a firewall that would guarantee both trust funds
revenues as well as general tax revenues for aviation programs. What
impact would the House's budgetary treatment proposal have on Coast
Guard safety programs?
Answer. AIR-21 mandates large increases for FAA capital spending
under the budget caps, making it more difficult to fund other
discretionary programs, including the Coast Guard. Nevertheless, safety
programs are a core mission which we will attempt to protect and we
will continue to seek your support for the funding levels for the Coast
Guard requested in the President's Budget.
______
Questions Submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
ADVANCED SIDE GLAZING
Question. Has NHTSA finalized its decade-long research of this
technology, and if not, when can we expect its completion?
Answer. NHTSA is conducting additional research to address
potential adverse safety effects that advanced glazing may cause.
Specifically, this glazing might have durability problems, might make
rescue more difficult by entrapping people in vehicles, and might
increase head and neck injuries if it does not break out. To better
judge the costs associated with advanced glazing, NHTSA is examining
whether installing this glazing in windows without frames is feasible
and cost beneficial. As a result of these concerns, NHTSA is currently
conducting tests and performing further analyses to determine an
appropriate test impact speed, to ensure repeatability of test
procedures, and to evaluate selected impact points. This research is
expected to be completed by the end of August of this year, at which
time the agency will have sufficient information to arrive at a
regulatory decision regarding ejection mitigation. However, with the
new laminated window materials, the increased use of laminated side
windows in Europe and Mexico, and a drive for harmonized world glazing
standards, it is important that NHTSA continue research to provide
objective analysis of the evolving safety opportunities and
implications of advanced glazing. Furthermore, research will continue
beyond August for studying entrapment issues, lacerations, and the
revised costs associated with the newer ejection resistant glazing
systems that will be introduced to the marketplace.
Question. What other projects is NHTSA working on that take
precedence?
Answer. Ejection mitigation research is one of NHTSA's efforts with
a high potential of large safety benefits. Consequently, this research
has been fully funded and is underway. The side head air bag research
is a parallel research program with the advanced glazing research
program. Both of these research efforts are targeting the same
potential benefit for reducing ejection likelihood.
Question. What is the status of testing advanced side glazing for
head and neck impact injury?
Answer. Substantial work on evaluating the head and neck injury
potential of advanced side glazing has been completed. The results and
analysis from this effort are contained in the August 1999 status
report. Additional analysis of head and neck injury is planned.
The dummy neck responses in the sled tests were not repeatable,
especially for the tempered glass impacts. Therefore, an additional
series of sled tests was performed, using tempered glass. The results
from these tests are currently being analyzed, and additional testing
may be required.
The level of door frame modification directly affects the occupant
retention capability of advanced side glazings. The agency is,
therefore, examining what effect that door frame modification has on
head injury potential. The free-motion headform is being used to
measure head responses from impacts into advanced side glazings mounted
with differing levels of door frame modifications. This testing is
currently underway.
These additional head and neck injury evaluations will be completed
in August 2000.
Question. Does it make sense to implement side glazing standards
while NHTSA pursues other more long-term research into preventing
ejections and roll-overs?
Answer. The agency expects to complete its advanced side glazing
testing in the fall of 2000. The agency will make its final decision
once the advanced glazing testing is complete and agency staff have had
the opportunity to review the results of the testing. At that point,
the agency will be able to compare the relative merits and drawbacks of
side glazing standards versus other technologies to prevent rollover
ejections.
SEATBELT USAGE
Question. Ms. Millman, has your agency shied away this goal?
Answer. NHTSA has not shied away from the goal of 85 percent seat
belt use. While it is apparent that an 85 percent use rate is a very
ambitious goal, steady progress is being made and we plan to maintain
our vigorous approach to raising seat belt use rates nationwide. Two
states, California and New Mexico, currently exceed 85 percent belt
use. Eight other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have
use rates near 80 percent.
The agency has outlined a two-pronged approach to achieve a
significant increase in seat belt use over the next year. This two-
pronged approach requires NHTSA to (1) expand the scope of the Buckle
Up America Campaign in all 50 states; and (2) focus on several
opportunities including: states with high seat belt use rates, states
with new primary laws, states with potential to increase belt use, and
states likely to pass primary seat belt laws.
In addition to the two-pronged approach, NHTSA has also assisted
the states financially with grant money authorized in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21
authorized $500 million over the next five years in grants to encourage
states to increase seat belt use rates. In November 1999, NHTSA awarded
$54.6 million to 34 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
in incentive grant funds used for supporting programs that encourage
seat belt use. In February of this year, NHTSA awarded 44 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico grants worth $25 million for
innovative projects to promote increased seat belt use rates.
Also, Section 405 of TEA-21 calls for occupant protection incentive
grants to be awarded to States that adopt and implement effective
programs to reduce highway deaths and injuries resulting from
individuals riding unrestrained or improperly restrained in motor
vehicles. In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA awarded 43 states and territories
$9.5 million in funding.
The combination of a two-pronged approach and grant money for the
states should result in a substantial increase in seat belt use.
STATE SURVEY ON SEAT BELT USE
Question. I understand that the NHTSA has collected the latest
state survey data regarding seat belt use. What does the data tell us
that seat belt usage is increasing?
Answer. By March 1, 2000, all states, except South Dakota and
Wyoming, submitted data from seat belt observation surveys conducted in
1999. South Dakota and Wyoming informed the agency that they had
conducted no observational survey in 1999. New Hampshire submitted an
observed use rate without an accompanying report, and informed the
agency that the survey methodology they had employed was not in
compliance with the uniform criteria developed by the agency for the
Section 157 incentive grant program. The agency has not yet completed
the technical review of the submitted reports to verify the accuracy of
the reported usage rates. However, a preliminary analysis of the
reported rates indicates the average of the states' usage rates for
1999, weighted by vehicle miles traveled, is approximately 70 percent,
up approximately one percentage point from the weighted average for
1998.
Question. Considering that seat belt usage has remained essentially
flat during the past four years, what new strategies is NHTSA intending
to implement to achieve this goal?
Answer. The agency acknowledges that seat belt use has not grown
much as we hoped. It is apparent that the 85 percent use rate is a very
ambitious goal. NHTSA plans to maintain a vigorous approach to raising
seat belt use rates nationwide. Two states, California and New Mexico,
currently exceed 85 percent belt use. Eight other states, the District
of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have use rates near 80 percent. The agency
has outlined a two pronged approach to achieve a significant increase
in seat belt use over the next year. This two pronged approach requires
NHTSA to: (1) expand the scope of the Buckle Up America Campaign in all
50 states; and (2) focus on several opportunities including: states
with high seat belt use rates, states with new primary laws, states
with potential to increase belt use, and states likely to pass primary
seat belt laws.
Question. Is the goal for 2005 to increase seat belt usage to 90
percent more realistic than the 85 percent goal?
Answer. The goals to reach 85 percent by 2000 and 90 percent by
2005 are both realistic. A primary reason that these goals can be met
is the large amount of grant money that has become available under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21
authorized $500 million over the next five years (beginning in fiscal
year 1999) in incentive and innovative grants to encourage states to
increase seat belt use rates. In 1999, NHTSA awarded $54.6 million in
incentive grants to 34 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. The grant funds will be used to support highway safety programs,
including those encouraging seat belt use and special traffic
enforcement programs. In addition, funds have been awarded to States to
carry out innovative projects to promote increased seat belt use rates.
In fiscal year 2000, 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico have been awarded grants worth $25 million. Also, under Section
405 of TEA-21, the legislation calls for a second occupant protection
incentive grant program to reduce the number of Americans riding
unrestrained in motor vehicles. In fiscal year 1999, 43 states and
territories received $9.5 million to increase belt use.
To assist the states in implementing their new program efforts and
to insure that national goals are met, the agency has outlined a two-
pronged approach to achieve a significant increase in seat belt use.
This two-pronged approach requires NHTSA to: (1) expand the scope of
the Buckle Up America Campaign in all 50 states; and (2) focus on
several opportunities including: states with high seat belt use rates,
states with new primary laws, states with potential to increase belt
use, and states likely to pass primary seat belt laws.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
ROLE OF THE NTSB IN THE AIR BAG TEST DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
Question. Could you please tell me what role the NTSB plays in your
decision-making process? Aside from the statistics and recommendations
provided from the NTSB, on what other input do you rely?
Answer. The NTSB interacts with NHTSA both informally and formally
on scientific and policy levels. Informally, respective staff members
coordinate activities on technical issues, exchange ideas, and share
crash investigation results. The automotive safety information exchange
benefits all participants in the decision making process. On a more
formal basis, NHTSA attends numerous NTSB hearings and briefings to
learn more about NTSB's investigations of automotive safety. NHTSA also
carefully considers any comments submitted by the NTSB to our formal
rulemaking dockets. Periodically (usually annually), the NTSB issues a
series of recommendations designed to shape NHTSA's rulemaking
strategies. NHTSA replies to the NTSB's recommendations in writing,
either providing reasons for implementing the recommendation, or
informing the NTSB that an alternative approach may more effectively
attain the stated objective. The NTSB's recommendations, together with
NHTSA's responses, represent an iterative process that concludes only
when the NTSB determines that a specific recommendation is ``Closed--
Acceptable Response.'' More often, NHTSA's actions in meeting the
NTSB's recommendations are rated as ``Open-Acceptable Response,'' or
``Open--Acceptable Alternative Action,'' simply because most regulatory
actions are of long duration. In summary, NHTSA benefits from NTSB
inputs to NHTSA's automotive engineering knowledge and in mutual
efforts to improve Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards by:
--attending NTSB conferences, symposia and safety hearings;
--responding to NTSB recommendations for improving automotive safety;
--reviewing NTSB formal comments submitted to our rulemaking dockets;
--participating informally with NTSB staff to advance safety
performance standards.
Question. Since the NTSB cannot make any regulations, and can only
provide recommendations for safety improvements, what recourse is there
if their data and recommendations are in dispute with your new rule?
Answer. NHTSA and the NTSB both believe transportation safety is
the number one goal of our efforts. On those occasions when there are
reasonable differences, NHTSA and the NTSB openly share technical
reports and supporting data so that both entities are well aware of the
other's position. NHTSA respects and always weighs the NTSB's opinions
as extremely significant.
If the NTSB continues to disagree with an NHTSA decision, the NTSB
can and does re-address its opinions and concerns to NHTSA and the
Secretary of Transportation. NHTSA has found that the inputs of the
NTSB are informative and add value to the deliberations. For example,
in a recent significant rulemaking, NHTSA specifically solicited the
NTSB's comments and delayed deliberations when agency staff noted the
NTSB's comments were absent at the end of the open comment period. The
NTSB did provide comments shortly after the deadline, and the comments
were considered. In general, when there is a substantive disagreement,
NHTSA frequently conducts scientific tests and analyses to
reinvestigate the NTSB's assumptions and conclusions.
However, in making decisions that concern ongoing rulemaking
actions, NHTSA relies on its knowledge of advanced automotive
engineering and test results acquired at NHTSA's test facilities.
Moreover, NHTSA is required by law and executive orders to consider
additional factors in decision making that are not required of the
NTSB.
Question. Has NHTSA looked into the recommendations of the NTSB? Do
you plan on issuing a rule such as the one proposed?
Answer. NHTSA requirements regulate new vehicles that carry 11 or
more persons that are sold for transporting students to or from school
or school related events. Those vehicles are required to meet all
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for school buses. The
FMVSSs applicable to school buses require that school buses have safety
features over and above those of other passenger vehicles. Under 49
U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a vehicle is regarded as being sold for use as a
school bus if, at the time of sale, it is evident that the vehicle is
likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from school
or school related events. This statute applies to school buses sold to
public as well as parochial schools. Thus, a dealer selling a new 15-
passenger van to be used for school transportation must ensure that the
van is certified as meeting our school bus FMVSSs. Again, NHTSA
regulations can only apply to the manufacture and sale/lease of new
vehicles. Each State prescribes its own regulations that apply to the
use of any vehicle that is used to transport students. It has been a
long standing agency policy that school buses be used to transport
school children to and from school or an event related to school.
NTSB did not make any safety recommendation on this subject to
NHTSA. The safety recommendation from NTSB went to the governors of all
50 states and the District of Columbia. The safety recommendation asked
that the jurisdictions that have the authority to regulate the type of
vehicles that are used for school transportation, require that those
vehicles carrying more than ten passengers (buses) and transporting
children to and from school and school related activities (including
but not limited to, Head Start programs and day care centers) meet the
Federal school bus safety standards.
REGULATIONS ON HOW FAR/LONG VANS MAY BE DRIVEN
Question. I also understand that unlike those rules governing
commercial bus drivers, no regulations exist covering how far or how
long vans may be driven. Is this an area of concern for NHTSA? Does
NHTSA have any plans to address this issue?
Answer. Safe transportation is always a concern of NHTSA. The
agency has advocated through our traffic safety program the effects of
fatigue and other conditions that impair a person's ability to drive a
motor vehicle safely. However, NHTSA does not have the authority to
issue regulations regarding how far or how long vans can be driven.
Currently, the States have authority to issue regulations regarding how
vehicles are used. Federal requirements pertaining to this type of
regulation come under the jurisdiction of the new Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration.
ROLLOVER COUNTERMEASURES
Question. With the increasing popularity of SUV's, rollover crashes
are becoming more frequent and a more significant injury/fatality
statistic. Some domestic auto manufacturers have already gone on record
with plans to install rollover countermeasures in the near future. How
does DOT/NHTSA propose to address this issue? For example, does the
government plan to require these types of systems for rollover
protection.
Answer. NHTSA has been conducting tests and studying the issue of
rollover for several years. Both static stability tests and dynamic
rollover tests have been conducted since 1997. In July 1999, the agency
published a report on the results of the rollover research program. The
agency has developed, and plans to issue within a short time, a Request
for Comments on a Consumer Information Program giving rollover risk
ratings for passenger cars and light trucks, in lieu of rulemaking at
this time. NHTSA also intends to continue its dynamic rollover research
program, and to evaluate any rollover countermeasures that might be
developed.
AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY FOR AN AGING POPULATION
Question. The aging of the baby-boomer generation raises
significant(ly the) population of imminent elders. Older people are
more susceptible to injuries and fatalities. As the baby-boom
generation ages, (the) sheer number of this population segment (will)
heighten the importance of this issue. At present, occupant protection
strategies are focused on younger adults. What do the government
regulatory bodies intend to do to address automotive safety for an
aging population?
Answer. Secretary Rodney Slater has indicated the high priority he
places on this issue, and his desire that the Department undertake
additional initiatives to assure continuing safe transportation for
older adults. NHTSA, the Federal Transit Administration, and the
Federal Highway Administration have numerous projects underway that
will contribute to meeting the challenge of preparing the
transportation system to accommodate this rapidly growing segment of
society.
NHTSA is pursuing several approaches in its efforts to protect
older drivers and passengers of motor vehicles. NHTSA is looking at a
range of safety issues involving older occupants of vehicles, from ways
to help them avoid crashes (e.g. regulatory changes to reduce
headlighting glare) to ways to protect them from injury when crashes do
occur. The current state of crash dummy development already provides a
level of instrument calibration that allows us to address the
particular susceptibilities of older individuals. NHTSA expects older
occupants to benefit from air bag improvements, including dual stage
systems, resulting from the current agency rulemaking on advanced air
bags.
Other agency activities include collaboration with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute on Aging to
update the transportation research and development requirements for the
elderly for the next 25 years. This research plan will be published by
the Transportation Research Board this year. NHTSA also is working with
the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and the Eno Transportation
Foundation to initiate a national dialogue on the transportation needs
of older adults and to devise solutions where problems are found.
In addition, NHTSA is examining several new technologies as part of
the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Intelligent Vehicle
Initiative (IVI), to help older drivers avoid crashes. These
technologies have the potential to help meet the special needs of older
individuals--needs such as slowed reactions, sensitivity to glare, and
a narrowed field of view. Among the in-vehicle technologies the agency
is examining are collision warning and near-object detection systems
for backing and lane changing, night vision enhancement, forward
collision avoidance systems, and intelligent cruise control.
MODIFICATION OF THE DEFORMABLE BARRIER
Question. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 214
moving deformable barrier test is configured to represent a typical
passenger vehicle. Significant increases in SUV purchases, however,
indicate a potential need to modify the deformable barrier to better
represent real-world vehicle crash scenarios. Are there plans to do so
to more accurately reflect this shift in the automotive population?
Answer. On July 2, 1998, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(Advocates) submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that FMVSS
214,''Side Impact Protection,'' be upgraded. In its petition, Advocates
indicated that the requirements of FMVSS 214 are insufficient to
provide adequate protection to occupants of passenger cars and small
LTVs when their vehicles are struck on the side by larger, heavier and
more aggressive vehicles. Advocates argued that the moving deformable
barrier (MDB) of FMVSS 214 is not high/heavy enough because the MDB was
originally designed in 1988 for a vehicle fleet that was projected to
be lighter and smaller than the current vehicle fleet population.
Advocates also argued that the test dummy of FMVSS 214 should be
replaced with the EuroSID-1 dummy which has more measurement
capability. The petitioner recommended that FMVSS 214 be amended to a
higher safety performance level so that superior side impact air bags
would be developed and installed in vehicles as standard equipment. The
agency granted the Advocates' petition because the current NHTSA's
research plan on side impact protection will fully address the issues
in the petition.
The agency delivered a second Report to Congress in June 1999 on
the rulemaking status of FMVSS 214. This Report to Congress contained
current results and the agency's research plan. With respect to the
impact barrier (MDB) upgrade, the agency initiated a crash data
analysis using 1988-1997 NASS/CDS data to characterize the current and
future side impact crash environment in the United States. The study
addresses issues concerning vehicle involvement, occupant exposure, and
incidence of casualties with special emphasis on determining the
mechanisms of injury. Recognizing the growing population of light
trucks in recent years, the agency plans to re-examine the current MDB
weight, geometry, and stiffness.
The agency started the research needed to make the deformable
barrier more representative more than a year ago. NHTSA plans to finish
this research within two years and propose any appropriate changes to
the barrier then.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
STATE DATA PROGRAM
Question. Your budget request for the State Data Program is for
$3.024 million, the amount enacted for fiscal year 1999 and a $600
thousand increase over the current fiscal year funding.
Why is the increase needed?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the State Data Program request was cut
$600 thousand from the requested level to comply with an overall
limitation in the Research and Analysis budget. Consequently, the
amount of funding available for implementing new Crash Outcome Data
Evaluation System (CODES) grants and the new CODES Data Network grants
was reduced. The additional funding requested for fiscal year 2001 will
permit 4 grants to new CODES states to be awarded, new CODES Data
Network grants to be awarded to the remaining qualified CODES states,
and second year funding to the states that were awarded Data Network
Grants in fiscal year 2000.
USE OF STATE DATA FUNDS
Question. Since there are only 2 NHTSA employees assigned to this
program, provide a breakdown of the uses of the funds expended in
fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000 to date and the anticipated uses of
the fiscal year 2001 funds?
Answer. The following table shows the breakdown of spending in the
State Data Program area for fiscal year 1999 and anticipated spending
for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Spending area --------------------------
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 State Data System Operation and Analysis.. $177 $195 $260
State Data Electronic Collection Project..... 308 n/a n/a
Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MUCC) 89 120 85
Support Development/Implementaion...........
New CODES/Other CODES Grants................. 2,245 950 1,350
CODES Data Network........................... n/a 795 1,015
CODES Contractual Support.................... 205 284 314
--------------------------
TOTAL.................................. 3,024 2,344 3,024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE ELECTRONIC FILES
Question. Your justification states that state electronic data
files containing data on crashes are used by NHTSA and that during
fiscal year 2000 you are obtaining data from 17 states. Has NHTSA
experienced any resistance to obtaining state electronic files and, if
so, what is being done about it?
Answer. Most of the 17 states in NHTSA State Data System have
willingly provided NHTSA with copies of their electronic crash data
files. NHTSA is an extensive user of state crash data and often
provides feedback to the states that results in improving crash data or
crash systems. Some states, however, have been concerned that NHTSA may
have to provide their data to groups outside of the agency and that the
data may be misused. Consequently, NHTSA treats state crash data as
belonging to the originating state and will not release any of the 17
state crash data files in the State Data System to outside groups
without the outside group first obtaining permission from the state.
This policy has alleviated state concerns.
STATE DATA COLLECTION UNIFORMITY
Question. Is it essential that states participating in the crash
data collection and analyses program collect data in a uniform manner
and use a standard means of recording and accessing the data? If so, do
the 17 states targeted for the program meet those requirements and, if
they do not, what is NHTSA doing to assure uniformity?
Answer. It is not essential that the 17 states in the State Data
System be uniform in the collection and processing of state crash data.
NHTSA has made use of the crash data from these states in numerous
analyses and evaluations. Specific data elements collected by only some
states are valuable for particular issues. However, non-uniformity in
the elements collected, and in their definition, does complicate NHTSA
analyses and prevents combining of state databases into larger sets for
analytical purposes. Caution must be exercised when performing analyses
and interpreting results.
Uniformity in the collection and recording of crash data, if
adopted by states, would assist all levels of users. The advantages of
uniformity include: improved interstate comparisons and analyses;
enhanced decision making for targeting resources, implementing
performance measures, and evaluating program effectiveness; the ability
for states to learn from each other by sharing their information,
identifying their common problems and working together on joint program
priorities; and development of common software for crash data entry.
At the national level, uniform state data would ease the potential
analytical issues NHTSA experiences when dealing with non-uniform
databases. Also, the collection and coding of information in NHTSA data
systems, including the 17 State Data System would improve, possibly
leading to further revisions and economies in how the data are
collected.
In 1998 NHTSA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the National Association of Governors Highway
Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), and the highway safety community in
general, developed a standardized list of data elements to be collected
on motor vehicle crash reports, the Model Minimum Uniform Crash
Criteria (MMUCC). Currently NHTSA, also in cooperation with FHWA and
NAGHSR, is encouraging the adoption of MMUCC by the states.
Question. Is the State of Maryland collecting and formatting data
in a manner that could be used as a model by the other states? If so,
what is NHTSA doing to encourage the use of the Maryland system?
Answer. The Maryland crash report was most recently revised in the
early 1990's and, therefore, does not include all of the data elements
recommended in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC).
Consequently, it cannot be recommended as a model for other states.
NHTSA is cooperating with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) to develop the
National Model, a suite of software which includes electronic versions
of the Iowa police crash report, the electronic form that started the
effort, as well as commercial vehicle inspection reports, drunk driving
reports, and incident reports. The forms all share data among the
applications, eliminating the need to enter data more than once. Full
use is made of pen computers, portable printers, bar code readers,
digital cameras, global positioning (GPS), and Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) to streamline data entry and reduce data collection
burden on police officers. Data can be electronically uploaded to a
central repository in the IDOT. Iowa is currently revising its crash
report and will be basing the revision on MMUCC. NHTSA is funding the
IDOT to incorporate MMUCC into the electronic crash form of the
National Model and, when completed, will encourage the adoption of the
National Model by other states.
COLLECTION AND ANALYSES OF CRASH DATA
Question. How will NHTSA coordinate with the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration regarding the collection and analyses of crash
data involving motor carriers?
Answer. Two separate activities requiring NHTSA/FMCSA coordination
were mandated by Section 225 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1999. The
first is the development and implementation of a truck crash causation
study. The second is the planning, development, and implementation of a
continuous crash data collection activity that will be used to support
the FMCSA's enforcement and analyses efforts.
Working groups, consisting of representatives of both agencies,
have been established to identify the needs and requirements of these
efforts. We recognize that the continuous involvement of both agencies
is critical to the success of this activity.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
AGGRESSIVE DRIVING
Question. What is the status of the $1 million earmarked for fiscal
year 2000 for Maryland's aggressive driving program? What do you think
about states implementing laws that make aggressive driving a crime?
Answer. NHTSA has been working with the Maryland Motor Vehicle
Administration (MD MVA) to award the $1 million earmarked for the
Maryland Aggressive Driving program. MD MVA submitted its program
proposal on February 28, 2000 to use these funds for a Public
Information and Education (PI&E) program to pay for radio spots,
newspaper advertisements, print and public service announcements
(billboards, road signs, brochures), hold a symposium to announce the
PI&E campaign and the other components of the program, and send out
letters and leaflets. NHTSA expects soon to award the grant to the MD
MVA.
The need for new laws to address the aggressive driving problem
varies from state-to-state. The Department of Transportation sponsored
a legal symposium in January, 1999, that brought together
representatives from the judiciary, prosecution, defense bar and law
enforcement communities to discuss the legal issues associated with
aggressive driving and the need for new aggressive driving laws. While
no consensus was reached, the participants felt that each state should
examine its current statutes to determine their adequacy in dealing
with the aggressive driving problem. Some states may have no need for
new laws, while others, particularly those with weak reckless driving
statutes, may have a need for new statutory approaches.
An Aggressive Driving Implementation Team was formed following the
Symposium to work towards more fully developing and implementing the
ideas brought forth at the symposium. The team is made up of judges,
prosecutors, a defense attorney, and law enforcement executives and is
charged with developing a National Action Plan to reduce aggressive
driving by the end of 2000. They are also addressing the need for new
laws.
NHTSA is concerned that some aggressive drivers may not be
adequately identified and sanctioned in some states under current laws.
For example, in situations where drivers commit multiple moving
violations, in some states law enforcement officers can only write a
single violation on a ticket, some judges may convict on only one
violation when multiple charges are filed, and, in many states,
offenders can pay a fine by mail that will not result in any notation
on their record that they were guilty of aggressive driving. Thus,
there may be a need for some means of identifying drivers who engage in
aggressive driving so that judges can deal with them appropriately,
particularly for subsequent similar offenses. All states should have
laws that provide for enhanced sanctions for aggressive driving (rather
than the current penalties for simple moving violations). Statutes must
be tough enough to allow conviction on each and every traffic violation
observed. Sanctions should include points for repeat offenders.
______
Questions Submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration
Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
ACTIONS IN PREVENTING TRESPASSER FATALITIES
Question. The story you tell on grade crossing accidents is a good
one--the number of grade crossing accidents on the general railway
system has been reduced by 28 percent from 1993 through 1998. However,
trespassing accidents and fatalities involving pedestrians in crossings
and elsewhere on railroads' properties have not been reduced, and are
now the leading cause of railroad fatalities. Trespassing is a
complicated problem and is difficult to address. Over the last six
years, the number of railroad trespassing fatalities has averaged 514 a
year. A specific difficulty is that some of these pedestrian
fatalities--perhaps as much as 40 percent, according to some government
and railroad authorities--are suicides. What actions do you think the
FRA can take to address prevention? Are taxpayers likely to get as good
a ``bang for the buck'' on these efforts as they would on grade
crossing safety efforts?
Answer. Trespassing is a complicated problem and one that is much
more difficult to address than grade crossing safety since trespassing
acts occur on private property. FRA believes some of the same
strategies that work for grade crossing safety can also work for
trespass prevention. Education is key and FRA will not only continue
but increase its education programs. FRA is working with Operation
Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), to develop PSA's that will address grade
crossing safety and trespass prevention. Focus groups will be convened
in Los Angeles, New Orleans and Chicago to help determine how the PSA's
resonate with the public and they will be revised to be responsive to
the public.
FRA has also worked with law enforcement agencies and local
communities to develop and implement strategies and technologies for
trespass detection on railroad right-of-ways and a system of immediate
reporting to law enforcement officials to effect apprehension and/or
removal of a trespasser. FRA, OLI and the railroad industry have, in
partnership, developed a Trespass Abatement Guide that will help
communities identify strategies to prevent trespassing on railroad
right-of-ways.
Implementation strategies become much more effective if either
locations where trespassing occurs are targeted or demographic targets
can be established. To help focus on trespass abatement initiatives,
FRA and OLI have scheduled a working group meeting of professionals to
determine how demographic data can be collected to assist with
targeting those groups most likely to be involved in trespassing and
identifying their reasons for doing so. By collecting this data FRA can
tailor existing strategies to be more effective in reaching targeted
audiences.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
FISCAL YEAR 1998-2000 GRADE CROSSINGS FUNDS UNDER SECTION 130
Question. Administrator Molitoris, TEA-21 increased amounts for
existing safety related programs and included new safety-related
programs. TEA-21 continues to set-aside funding from FHWA's surface
transportation program for railway-highway crossings, which has
resulted in a funding increase for this program. How much funding
(obligational authority) was available for the railway-highway crossing
program under section 130 of title 23, U.S.C for fiscal years 1998,
1999 and 2000?
Answer. The obligational authority available for the highway-rail
grade crossing program under section 130 of title 23, U.S.C., for
fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000 is as follows:
Fiscal Year
1998................................................ $154,362,968
1999................................................ 154,767,190
2000................................................ 154,929,630
To put these figures in context, these amounts would pay for gates
and lights at approximately 1,000 highway-rail crossings each year
($150,000 per crossing).
NEW MEXICO 130 GRADE CROSSING FUNDS
Question. How much obligational authority was available for New
Mexico for section 130 of title 23, U.S.C for fiscal years 1998, 1999
and 2000?
Answer. The obligational authority available for the State of New
Mexico for the highway-rail grade crossing program, under section 130
of title 23, U.S.C. for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000 is $1,205,846
per year.
130 OBLIGATIONS FOR NEW MEXICO
Question. How much did New Mexico obligate in 1998 and 1999 for
section 130 projects?
Answer. The State of New Mexico obligated $1,004,951 in fiscal year
1998 and $967,190 in fiscal year 1999 for section 130 projects.
efforts used to reduce grade crossing accidents
Question. Administrator Molitoris, I understand that incidents at
the 259,000 highway-rail grade crossings have decreased by 37 percent
from 1993 levels. I am encouraged by these results. I agree with you,
however, that more work needs to be done to reduce the fatalities level
well below the current level of about 400. In your view, what is the
most significant program or effort that has contributed to the 37
percent reduction in fatalities?
Answer. No single program, initiative or effort can lay claim to
being the most responsible for the recent successes in this area.
Rather, it has been the partnership of the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Federal Highway Administration, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National
Transportation Safety Board, Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), railroad
labor, railroad management, the railroad supply industry, Amtrak, the
American Trucking Association, the school transportation industry (bus
drivers), and law enforcement agencies that have contributed to that
success.
One program initiative warrants special mention, but not to the
exclusion of the significant partnership efforts previously mentioned.
In 1994, the FRA filled eight positions in order to concentrate efforts
on highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. These
eight Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespass Programs Regional
Managers have been able to leverage Federal participation in grade
crossing safety and significantly increase the number of safety
initiatives within the Department to reduce fatalities. They have also
been catalysts for increasing the number and focus of national grade
crossing safety initiatives at the community level. They have done so
by facilitating existing and creating new partnerships, and initiating
special safety programs at the state and community level. In the five-
year period since the establishment of the Grade Crossing and Trespass
Programs Managers's positions, the rate of crossing safety improvements
accelerated by 33 percent when compared to the five-year period
preceding the establishment of those positions. Their efforts have been
so successful that eight Assistant Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and
Trespass Programs Regional Managers were hired in 1999 to further
develop this program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
PURPOSE OF FULL-SCALE PASSENGER RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS
Question. I am aware that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA), in conjunction with a number of other entities, has recently
conducted a full-scale passenger rail car crash test at the
Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo. Can you tell me the purpose
of this test, and whether or not it was a success?
Answer. The test conducted on November 16, 1999, was the first in a
series of full-scale passenger rail car crash tests. The purpose of the
test program is to collect engineering data to validate analytical
tools and procedures used in the safety assessment of passenger rail
equipment. The test was very successful. In addition to the large
amount of data on the structural deformation of the rail vehicle as the
car crushes, FRA was also able to measure the vertical and lateral
motions of the car during the test, and the influence of these car
motions on the responses of the Anthropomorphic Test Devices (test
dummies) in three different interior seating configurations. The
information from this test is being used to modify the passenger seats
for the next test.
PURPOSE OF SECOND PASSENGER RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS
Question. I understand another full-scale crash test is scheduled
for April 4. What do you hope to learn from that test?
Answer. In this test, two coupled passenger cars of the same design
will be crashed into a rigid barrier. In addition to measuring the
crush response of the cars and the influence of these car motions on
the test dummies, the interactions between the coupled cars will be
measured. These interactions could lead to lateral buckling of the
train during a collision, and/or the override of one car onto another.
The cars are expected to start buckling out laterally during the test,
with approximately two feet of misalignment at the coupled ends of the
cars. Modifications have been made to the mountings to be used in the
commuter seat interior arrangement. These modifications are relatively
minor, but should increase the strength sufficiently to prevent failure
of the seat mountings in this test. With the seats performing as
intended, the influence of the vertical and lateral carbody motions on
the test dummies can be observed.
NEED FOR FUTURE RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS
Question. How many additional tests will be required to obtain the
data necessary to enhance passenger rail safety? It is my understanding
that the initial tests are designed to establish a simple baseline and
that subsequent tests will need to be of a more complex nature to
adequately represent real accidents. Is this an accurate
characterization of the program objectives?
Answer. That is an accurate characterization of the program. Beyond
the test scheduled for April 4, 2000, 10 additional tests are currently
planned for a total of 12 tests. The first four tests characterize
current typical passenger rail equipment in a head-on collision:
--Single-car test into a rigid barrier (the November 16, 1999 test)
--Two-car test into a rigid barrier (planned for April 4, 2000)
--A cab car-led train colliding head-on with a locomotive led train
(planned for November, 2000)
--A cab car-led train colliding with a cab car-led train (planned for
March, 2001)
The next four tests are to evaluate the effectiveness of improved
equipment in a head-on collision. The improved equipment includes
crushable end structures, a crashworthiness strategy known as crash
energy management. These ``crush-zones'' act to distribute the crush
among all the cars in the train and to limit the decelerations of the
cars during a collision. For the current strength-designed cars, nearly
all the damage occurs to the cars closest to the impact, often with
significant loss of occupied space, while there is little damage at all
to the cars away from the impact. These tests are intended to measure
the increase in occupant protection afforded by passenger rail cars
with crash energy management.
Two additional tests are intended to characterize the current
equipment in oblique collisions, such as the accident in Secaucus, New
Jersey in February, 1996. They include a cab car-led train colliding at
a switch with a locomotive-led train and a cab car-led train colliding
at a switch with a cab car-led train.
Finally, two tests are planned to characterize the effectiveness of
improved equipment in an oblique collision. The leading cab cars will
incorporate integrated end structures. All the elements of the end
structure of the cab car will be integrated such that when one portion
of the structure is impacted, the entire structure will help support
the load. This integration significantly increases the strength of the
end structure, and helps control the crushing of the end structure.
FUNDING FOR FULL-SCALE PASSENGER RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS
Question. What has the FRA requested for the crash test of
passenger rail cars in fiscal year 2001? What will be accomplished with
this level of funding? What portion will be devoted to occupant
protection issues? Is additional funding required to adequately cover
the necessary occupant protection tests, in addition to the tests on
the rail cars themselves? Shouldn't the top priority of the FRA be
passenger safety and occupant protection?
Answer. A total of $2.2 million is requested for the crash test of
passenger rail cars in fiscal year 2001. With this level of funding,
FRA plans to conduct two crash tests of passenger rail cars with
improved crash energy management design. These single-car and two-car
tests will be conducted with the fixed barrier at the TTC facility in a
similar manner like the first test last November.
Depending on the cost of structural modification to the rail
vehicles to incorporate the crash energy management design, less than
half the funds are planned to support the occupant protection portions
of the tests. The remaining funds are required to implement the
structural portion of the tests. Additional funds may be required to
analyze the test data for both the occupant protection as well as the
structural portion of the tests. As more test data becomes available,
plans may be modified to investigate the most effective means to
protect the passengers.
It is important to note that all aspects of the testing are
designed to improve our understanding of how best to protect occupants.
The term ``occupant protection'' is also used above in the narrower
sense in reference to issues of compartmentalization and occupant
restraint.
TESTS AT TTC
Question. Will these tests continue to be conducted at TTC in
Pueblo?
Answer. Yes, TTC is the ideal facility for conducting these tests.
It has the rigid barrier with sufficient size and appropriate track for
the single-car and two-car test, as well as the appropriate space and
track for the train collision tests.
OTHER RAIL CAR CRASH TESTS
Question. What other rail crash tests could be undertaken?
Specifically, what is the relationship between the current series of
passenger rail tests and commuter rail travel? Did the recent commuter
rail crash in England shed any light on the types of systems that might
be employed to protect occupants?
Answer. Other full-scale rail crash tests could be undertaken to
evaluate the effectiveness of occupant protection strategies during
derailment and during grade crossing collisions.
The FRA will use the results of the current series of passenger
rail tests in its second phase of rulemaking to enhance the safety
standards for commuter passenger safety. Currently, the FRA requires
commuter and intercity rail passenger seats to support the load
associated with an impact from an unrestrained occupant. Based on the
test results and other information, the addition of occupant injury
criteria to this requirement may be considered along with a
reevaluation of the impact conditions prescribed in the rule. The test
results are also expected to be useful in considering the application
of seatbelts, crash energy management systems and other improved
structures for better passenger safety.
The recent commuter rail crash in Ladbroke, England showed that the
issue of structural damage of aluminum-bodied rail cars as well as fire
safety and emergency responses should continue to be examined in safety
research.
______
Questions Submitted to the National Transportation Safety Board
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
AVIATION RUNWAY INCURSIONS
Question. Chairman Hall, as you mentioned in your testimony,
aviation runway incursions have been increasing. In fact, the 1998
level of 325 incursions represents an increase of 11 percent over the
1997 level. The National Transportation Safety Board as well as the
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have consistently
identified runway incursions as a problem for many years.
Although the FAA has made some progress in addressing runway
incursions, the Inspector General recently stated that FAA may not meet
its goal to decrease these incidents.
Why has the FAA had problems addressing runway incursions?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not managed
this program as effectively as anticipated. The FAA's managers of the
runway incursion program changed often, and the program did not appear
to receive adequate support from top management. In response to Safety
Board recommendations dating back to 1991, the FAA indicated that its
solution to the runway incursion problem was the Airport Movement Area
Safety System (AMASS).
AMASS, designed to operate in conjunction with Airport Surface
Detection Equipment-3 (ASDE-3) surface radar systems, is behind
schedule. Although it is currently being installed, it is still not
operational nine years after the FAA began working on the project. In
addition, some tower facilities, such as Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, will experience further delay in the operational use
of AMASS because ASDE-3, which is designed to provide tower air traffic
controllers with position information on all aircraft and vehicles
operating on airport runways and taxiways, has not yet been
commissioned. In addition, AMASS is scheduled to be installed at only
34 of the busiest airports nationwide, leaving other airports with
substantial air carrier traffic without any automated assistance in
preventing surface incidents. Further, the FAA recently stated that
AMASS will not do all it was originally intended to do, and can only be
considered a start on addressing the problem.
Question. What is the major barrier facing FAA in achieving its
goal of reducing runway incursions to 248 or less in 2000?
Answer. On August 12, 1991, the FAA stated that its solution to
reducing runway incursions was the development of the AMASS designed to
alert controllers to pending runway incursions at all terminal
facilities scheduled to receive the ASDE-3. However, discussions with
the FAA reveal that the AMASS will not detect runway incursions but may
possibly prevent runway collisions in certain circumstances.
Because it is not providing any new technological means that will
help to reduce runway incursions, the FAA is now focusing on pilot
education and increased awareness of the runway incursion problem. In
October 1999, the FAA created the Runway Safety Program, which has
instituted several education and awareness programs to do that. The
number of incursions has not reduced significantly--from 325 in 1998 to
322 in 1999--and more must be done to ensure the number of incursions
does not increase, let alone reduce the number to 248--the FAA's stated
goal.
Question. In your opinion, is the problem related to funding?
Answer. Congress has provided more than $380 million over the years
in funding for runway incursion projects. Although this figure seems
generous, the Board has not studied the funding issue. We are aware,
however, that the Department of Transportation Inspector General's
office has twice reviewed FAA's runway incursion program.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. This hearing of the Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee is now recessed. We are scheduled
to meet next week, Thursday, March 2, in Dirksen 192 at 10:00
a.m. to hear about States' experiences in implementing the
Drivers Privacy Protection Act.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Thursday, February 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
March 2.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby, (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Gorton, Bennett, Lautenberg, and
Kohl.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR
2001
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF HON. TOMMY THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE WARRINGTON, PRESIDENT, AMTRAK
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of Inspector General
STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENT OF PETER J. BASSO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
BUDGET AND PROGRAMS AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICIAL
opening statement of senator richard c. Shelby
Senator Shelby. The hearing is called to order.
Senator Lautenberg will join us soon.
First of all, I would like to thank Ken Mead, the
Department of Transportation Inspector General; Jack Basso, the
Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Budget and Programs;
and Governor Thompson, the Governor of Wisconsin, Chairman of
the Amtrak Board of Directors for being here today to discuss
the Department's most pressing management and oversight
challenges.
Many of the issues we discuss today will be familiar to the
three of you and probably everybody in the room. Many are
issues that we discussed last year and, unfortunately, many
will probably be the subject of at least one hearing next year.
We were going to break this hearing into two panels and
talk about Amtrak finance and management issues separately, but
both Senator Lautenberg and I are very pressed for time this
morning and agreed that we would have all three of you at the
witness table, as you have seen, in the interest of saving
time.
Thank you again, all of you, for coming, and I am pretty
sure we are going to keep this as short as we can.
AMTRAK
Now, I would like to step through the looking glass and
talk about Amtrak a minute. Since 1971, the American taxpayers
have spent more than $23 billion on Amtrak. Yet, in 1999, the
railroad's operating losses were $916 million, the largest in
history. Cash losses, which do not include depreciation, were
$579 million, which is $54 million higher than the 1998 cash
losses and $19 million worse than Amtrak's own projections for
1999.
Amtrak's premier new Northeast Corridor high-speed rail
service is delayed by at least 6 months with a negative impact
of over $142 million on the Amtrak bottom line.
In addition to high cash losses and unrealized revenue
proposals, Amtrak's capital wish list is growing, and there is
still no realistic plan for addressing even modest, by Amtrak
standards, reinvestment in the capital plan. According to the
Inspector General, the railroad's projected Federal funding
through 2002--that is, the administration's and Amtrak's
execution of the elusive glide path to operational self-
sufficiency funding plan--will fall short of the railroad's
minimum capital needs during this period by $244 million.
Also waiting in the wings are $12 billion in capital
projects on the Northeast Corridor between New York City and
Washington, DC, of which $654 million are unaddressed fire and
safety projects in the Penn Station, Hudson River, and East
River tunnels.
So, what exactly are we on a glide path to?
In the fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the glide path funding
plan provides a constraint on both Amtrak and the
administration. The budget request is $521 million for each of
these 2 years. But once Amtrak reaches or does not reach
operational self-sufficiency in October 2002--and I say reach
or does not reach in the firm belief that the whole self-
sufficiency issue is basically a question of semantics. Once
that milestone date is reached, then it is ``Katie bar the
door.'' That is when the real money requests for Federal
taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak are going to begin.
Ken, I feel I might have gotten carried away there. Check
my facts for me, if you would. I know you would. Do you believe
it is true that Amtrak will request substantially increased
Federal capital funding after the fiscal year 2002 and that
this increased capital funding need will extend over the long
term? You do.
So, can anyone tell me what is meaningful about the phrase
``operational self-sufficiency''? I have here a copy of Public
Law 106-69, the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations
Act, and I see capital grants to the national passenger
railroad corporation. Those are capital grants with a
flexibility provision which allows the railroad to use their
Federal funds for some operating purposes. We gave Amtrak this
expanded capital definition at the administration's request.
So, it looks to me like the smartest thing we might do
would be to declare victory and go home. Amtrak is not
receiving an operating grant from the Federal Government now,
but this does not mean that the railroad is self-sufficient,
not by a long shot. Unless we dramatically change the
railroad's structure and direction, real Amtrak self-
sufficiency is and always will be an oxymoron.
I feel like I have been talking until I am blue in the face
about the hole Amtrak has dug for itself. But when do we begin
damage control? When do we back away from this cliff and start
to show some responsibility for the taxpayers' money?
A friend and ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator
Lautenberg, has championed Amtrak and Federal funding for the
railroad since he came to the Senate. You could not ask for a
more passionate or effective advocate.
Unfortunately, Amtrak has not lived up to his vision for
passenger rail in this country. I sincerely believe that a
train or major Amtrak facility should be named after Frank. He
is the leading benefactor and has worked tirelessly on the
railroad's behalf his entire Senate career. But part of me also
wonders whether that would be the sort of tribute that my
colleague would want to be remembered by 10 years from now.
Senator Lautenberg, it is always a pleasure to work with
you on all the transportation programs and issues that we share
in this bill. I know that Amtrak is close to your heart and I
welcome you to make any opening comments you might have.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
One of the difficulties I have with our situation here is
that we are good friends, but we disagree on a few things. And
it is hard when good friends disagree. Mr. Chairman, we could
dispense with our disagreements if you would just let me manage
this according to my judgment.
Senator Shelby. As much as I love you, I would have to hold
on to you there.
Senator Lautenberg. I must say this, that Senator Shelby's
attitude is one that, while I do not agree, I can certainly
understand in terms of what Amtrak's role is because he does
not see it as much in his area as we do in ours.
But one of the things that I think we have to be wary of is
looking at Amtrak without looking at other modes of
transportation and see what we do in those cases. And I am
going to be discussing that in just a moment in my remarks
because yesterday we passed what I would consider kind of a
landmark bill, and that does not mean I like it, but it is a
change from not only the procedures here but the attitude that
we see in the capital.
So, I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to have Governor Thompson,
who is the Chairman of the Amtrak Board, with us today, and I
thank you for doing that.
This is a special hearing for me because it is likely to be
my last hearing regarding Amtrak.
Now, when I look at Amtrak, I look at it in terms of not
only the Northeast quadrant of the United States, but the value
throughout the country as an essential, critical mode of
transportation affixed to the other modes, aviation, highways,
sea of course, and with the understanding that these other
modes--we were so generous with aviation yesterday--will not be
able to carry the load we have to carry for passengers in
shorter distances.
As a matter of fact, there is a considerable debate about
where rail is the best use of the transportation facilities and
aviation. And I use my experience, having been in France last
year and Belgium, when I went to NATO headquarters. I was in
Paris, went to NATO headquarters, and it took me an hour and
roughly 20-25 minutes to go 200 miles. People there do not even
think of getting on an airplane. It saves so much congestion in
the air. And no matter what we put into the system, if we think
that we can carry unlimited numbers of passengers in aviation
without having things get more congested, less comfortable,
less effective, we are kind of kidding ourselves.
So, we are now looking at what we do about Amtrak. With the
initiation of truly high-speed rail service in the next several
months, it is going to be a real boon to travel and to
reductions in congestion and polluted air.
When we said yes to aviation yesterday, we added to the
volume of investment in the aviation system substantially, $2
billion this coming year, 2001, as I see it happening. I had my
staff people check to see what it is that we spent on aviation
in the last years, last decade, regardless of the source
whether it was trust fund or otherwise. It was some $85
billion--$85 billion--in airports and FAA operations and things
of that nature. That was besides the revenues derived from the
PFC's, the passenger facility charge. So, we are looking at an
investment in one sector of our transportation network while
we, frankly, diminish the other.
Well, when I came to the Senate almost 18 years ago, Ronald
Reagan was President. The administration's budget request was
zero for Amtrak each year. We know one thing, that if you stay
around Washington long enough, you start to see some things
change.
Some of my earliest legislative actions in the Senate took
the form of amendments to the budget resolution that sought
adequate funding for Amtrak. We have always faced an uphill
battle, and back then it was even more pronounced, despite the
fact that we had some very good friends of Amtrak in John Heinz
and Bob Stafford of Vermont and Mark Andrews of North Dakota,
and of course, our friend John Chafee, who passed away a few
months ago.
In more recent years, I have seen an interest in Amtrak on
the part of Senators from other regions of the country. I see
more States wanting better, higher speed rail service. In many
instances, we see those States putting up the money to meet
these needs.
Just last week, the National Governors Association
unanimously adopted a resolution calling on this subcommittee
to fully fund Amtrak's request of $989 million for fiscal year
2001. This is the first time that I can remember the Nation's
Governors speaking so clearly and forcefully on behalf of
Amtrak's funding. I particularly want to commend my friend,
Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, and his colleague, Governor
Carper of Delaware for this initiative. Mr. Chairman, the
Governors of the United States want more Amtrak funding because
they know that, even in this period of growing investment in
our Nation's highways, we cannot build our way out of
congestion.
Just yesterday, when we passed that aviation authorization
bill, I led the fight against it. I guess I was not persuasive
because we only got 17 votes. But the fact of the matter is
that there is a lot of illusion about what that bill is. I
opposed the bill because it was unbalanced from the perspective
of the needs of the FAA, and it was unbalanced from the
perspective of the needs of the entire national transportation
system. That bill seeks to force this subcommittee, Mr.
Chairman, to provide dramatically increased amounts for FAA's
capital accounts. If this subcommittee does not get a very
sizeable allocation, these attempts could undermine our ability
to fund the FAA's operating account because the $2 billion that
was requested this year and is now a new entitlement, which is
strange for this body to be considering--an entitlement--it
says that these funds have to be met from general revenues over
and above that which is produced in the trust fund.
Well, if we do that and let us say that transportation
allocation is limited to approximately last year's and we have
a $2 billion increase request for FAA, I ask you where is it
going to come from. Is it going to come from the Coast Guard?
I heard the argument made yesterday--and I listened very
carefully to what my colleagues were saying. There are a lot of
supporters for this FAA reauthorization. Talk about the
possibility of air crashes once every 10 days when you get to
the year 2015. And I assume that, therefore, means that if we
want to avoid that, that all the other nations around the globe
will also upgrade their systems. But is it any more tragic when
people go down in an airplane than when they go down in a ship?
And we do not welcome that immigration, but we cannot ignore,
being the society that we are, people who are out there on
those rafts and have to be stopped from coming. But we do want
them to drown as a result.
The Coast Guard's incredible agenda of the things that they
have to take care of--I noticed in the paper yesterday, the day
before, that the Coast Guard is unable to monitor waste being
discharged from cruise ships and it is polluting the waters.
They just do not have enough people. Now we are going to man
the helicopters with the machine guns so they can stop illegal
immigration--I am sorry--whether they can stop drugs from
coming in. They do not want to shoot them--but to stop drugs
from coming into the country.
Well, then we have got the illegal immigration flow that we
see, and we have got the general pollution control. And we see
that the Coast Guard is having a tough time keeping up with
examining its fishing licenses and requirements for commercial
boats. And then they have got the whole navigational structure.
Well, are we going to say to the Coast Guard, too bad, we
are just not going to be able to give you the funding? We are
going to say the same thing to Amtrak and we will say the same
thing to NTSB and other safety agencies. If we have to give it
to FAA, it is going to come out of someplace.
Now, if the amount given to transportation is increased by
the roughly $2 billion, it is going to come out of someplace
like Veteran's Administration or education or something else.
Are we so committed to aviation that we are going to ignore
other needs in our transportation system? I hope not.
Besides all of that, these funds are earmarked for capital
investment facilities and equipment. But we are not
guaranteeing any improvement in the account for operations. We
are guaranteeing any improvement for training full
performance--no, strike that. We are not training controllers
to fill in the gap of retirement, which is contemplated in the
not too distant future. As a matter of fact, we have just shut
down a training facility for controllers. We are walking around
as if our heads are in the sand.
I must say it is going to take a great deal more than just
increased airport grants to handle the boost in traffic and
intra-city traffic in particular. In today's aviation system,
we have already too much air space and too many airport gates
being absorbed by short-haul flights between cities that would
be better served with high-speed rail. Perhaps we are going to
be able to call it ``winglock'' at our airports, just like
gridlock on our highways. It is going to get worse if we do not
take an aggressive approach to expanding the use of high-speed
rail across the country.
That is why I have introduced S. 1900, the High-Speed Rail
Investment Act. This legislation uses innovative financing to
allow Amtrak to sell $10 billion in bonds over the next 10
years to fund the development of high-speed rail corridors
across the country. These corridors represent the future of
transportation in America. Congestion on our roads continues to
worsen. There is only so much we can do to increase road
capacity. The same goes for our airports. New airports are
expensive to build and people just do not want them in their
back yards.
On the other hand, our rail infrastructure is already
there, an untapped resource waiting for its full potential to
be realized. Improving our rail infrastructure is a cost
effective and environmentally sound way to go. That is why
support for developing these high-speed rail corridors is so
strong. We do have 35 Senators signed on as cosponsors of S.
1900, and last week Congressmen Amo Houghton and James Oberstar
introduced House companion legislation.
I look forward to working with Governor Thompson and my
colleagues and the chairman of this subcommittee. I say this to
Senator Shelby. We have worked together on a lot of things. I
have found him to be willing to listen, and even if we do not
agree, we reason it out between us and it works better that
way.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
We have before us, as you know, the honorable Tommy
Thompson, Governor of Wisconsin, Chairman of the Amtrak Reform
Board, and we have the honorable Kenneth Mead, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Transportation. We also have Peter
Basso, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief
Financial Officer of the Department of Transportation.
Gentlemen, welcome. Governor Thompson, you proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF GOV. TOMMY THOMPSON
Governor Thompson. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby. I
am sort of in a quandary. I have a prepared speech here, Mr.
Chairman and Senator Lautenberg, and I decided, after listening
to you, Senator Shelby, I wanted to answer your questions.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Governor Thompson. So, I am going to not give my prepared--
--
Senator Shelby. Your statement will be made part of the
record.
Governor Thompson. I wanted to because I have the greatest
respect for you, Senator Shelby, always have. I think you are
an outstanding individual and I do not say that because I want
anything out of you. I just come here because I am passionate
about Amtrak. I am passionate about rail passenger service.
I do like your suggestion about naming something after
Senator Lautenberg, but I do not know if it should be a train.
Maybe a railroad station that we are working on. That would be
a nice, fitting tribute to.
Senator Shelby. We want it to be appropriate, do we not?
Governor Thompson. It is going to be appropriate. It will
be very nice and I think that that is what we should do.
But I want to thank Senator Lautenberg for his support for
Amtrak and, above all, for his tremendous service to the United
States. Both of you gentlemen.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
Governor Thompson. Senators, I come from a rural State,
Wisconsin. And I listened to what you said, Senator Shelby, and
I know you are conservative and so am I. And I look at what can
we do to invest in the future, to save the taxpayers money and
do what is right for America. And I know that is what is in the
bottom of your heart, and what you really want to do.
Then I look around the world and I see all the countries in
the world that have high-speed trains. I see Spain. I see
France. I see Japan. I see all of those countries investing in
high-speed trains, much more so than America. And every one of
them use that as an integral part of their transportation
system. I look at that and I say, if they can do it, why not
the United States of America?
Then I take a look at the transportation budget over the
last years. You mentioned $23 billion that has been given to
Amtrak. You know, that is a big figure until you put it in
comparison to the other modes of transportation. Last year
alone you spent $32 billion, $10 billion more than the total 25
years that Amtrak has been in existence, for highways. And has
highway congestion gone down? Absolutely not. Airports, $12
billion last year. You are going up to $13 billion. We get $521
million, not billion, compared to $30 billion for highways, $12
billion for airports, $5 billion for mass transit. We are the
poor stepchild. We are like Cinderella.
But we are something nice to behold. Once you see us, you
like us. You are fascinated by us. You want to ride us. And
that is what is happening in America. All across America there
is a newfound fascination, Senator Shelby, for rail passenger
service.
Granted, we have had some mistakes, but George Warrington,
who is our President, and this board are dedicated to making
the corporation operationally self-sufficient.
OPERATIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Now, you asked what is operational self-sufficiency. It
means that by the year 2003, under the dictates and under the
definition of the congressional law, we are going to be able to
operate our trains without asking Congress to give us money for
operation of passenger services or operation of the trains. But
we are coming to you--and we never said we would not--for
capital. We are coming to you for capital because we need
capital. Every other country subsidizes trains. Even when rail
passenger service was at its heyday in the 1920's and the
1930's and the 1940's, it still required the passenger train
services to haul mail and express in order to pay their bills.
So, you are going to have to subsidize the system with capital.
And let us take a look at this. Now, this is not a Democrat
thing or a Republican thing. This is something for America. In
California, by the year 2020, there are going to be 19 million
more people--19 million more people. That is 55 million people
by the year 2020 in California. You have been there, Senator
Shelby. You have been there, Senator Lautenberg. Do you think
there is any way this country can build enough highways to
accommodate another 20 million people in California? Do you
think there is a way to site enough airports to handle and
accommodate that kind of population growth in California?
Absolutely not.
HIGH SPEED CORRIDORS
The only salvation for California is rail passenger
service, and that is why the high-speed corridors, that is why
the Senator Lautenberg bill, is important. It is an investment.
We have to move populations from one center to another for the
economy, for safety, and for the overall good of America.
And where is this increased mobility going to come from? I
think the future is rail passenger service. We are going to be
able to start running high-speed trains.
Granted, George and I are just as upset as you are that
they have been delayed for 7 months. You know, we fight with
the consortium. I wish you could be in our board rooms when we
bring in----
Senator Shelby. Well, I believe you. I know you, Governor.
Governor Thompson. Bombardier hates to hear from Tommy
Thompson and George Warrington. We call them every week and
say, how is it going? But these trainsets are going to be
something of beauty. They were supposed to be delivered in
December. They are not going to be here until at least July.
And we want you to ride on one. I want you and Senator
Lautenberg to be up in the locomotive with me, and we will even
let you drive it, just to show you how fast it goes.
Senator Shelby. How about letting Lautenberg drive it. He
has had more experience.
Governor Thompson. Well, that is fine.
Senator Shelby. But I will go with you.
Governor Thompson. But we are going to be able to go from
New York City to Washington, DC, in 2\1/2\ hours. We are going
to be able to go from New York City to Boston in 3 hours. Now,
if we can do that, why would you want to get on a commuter
airline? Why would you? You are going to be able to get on the
train in downtown New York. You are going to be able to get to
Washington, DC, in less than 3 hours. You will not have to go
out to the airports in that congestion, where it takes you
about an hour to get out there. You will be able to get
downtown to downtown in about 2\1/2\ hours. Your luggage is
going to be with you, and we are going to do it with a smile.
You are going to be able to get off here at Union Station and
be able to come over to the Capitol. People are going to be
riding those rail passenger cars, and they are going to be
increasing----
Senator Shelby. When is that day going to be we are going
to ride it together?
Governor Thompson. Sometime in July, I hope. You are
invited and I am going to make darned sure you come. I will
come down and pick both of you up and fly you up there.
Senator Lautenberg. Order me an engineer's hat.
Governor Thompson. All right. We are going to have an
engineer's hat.
That is the excitement.
GOVERNOR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RAIL SERVICE
I realize that I am running out of time, but let us take a
quick look at what is happening all over the United States.
Governor Ryan from Illinois has just put in $125 million in
capital funding for rail service--$125 million. Governor Ridge,
another Republican, Pennsylvania. Governor Hunt, Democrat,
North Carolina. Governor Gilmore, Republican from Virginia.
Governor Gray Davis, Democrat from California, hundreds of
millions of dollars for rail passenger service. Governor Locke
from Washington, Democrat. The Democratic and Republican
Governors are ponying up money and saying, Washington, Federal
Government, meet us half way. Give us the opportunity to
develop a rail passenger service in America that you can be
proud of, that I can be proud of as Board Chairman, that George
Warrington can be proud of as President.
OPERATIONALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT
And that is what we are asking. All we are saying is give
us a chance. Give us a little money for capital. We will become
operationally self-sufficient under the law by 2003. We are
already on the glide path. Ken Mead has indicated we have got
some trouble, but we can make it and we are going to make it. I
guarantee you we will, and then, with the infusion of capital,
we will make a rail passenger service, a national system that
will go through Alabama, you know, the Crescent, the Sunset
Limited----
Senator Shelby. Right through my hometown.
Governor Thompson [continuing]. And 52,000 people from
Alabama rode it last year. We want 152,000 next year, and we
want you to be an avid passenger, and we want you also to be a
supporter of Amtrak.
PREPARED STATEMENT
That is my testimony, and I thank you very much for your
giving me this opportunity.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Governor.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gov. Tommy Thompson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I deeply appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about one of my
favorite subjects: Amtrak.
I want to make three major points today--the first is the positive
results Amtrak is delivering that put us on a glidepath to operational
self-sufficiency. The second is the strategic steps we are taking to
operate more like a business and improve Amtrak's financial
performance, including the recent announcement of our Network Growth
Strategy. And the third is the very exciting future of high-speed rail,
especially the growing partnerships with states. Taken together, these
results, commercial actions, and high-speed rail initiatives tell a
story of a new Amtrak--an Amtrak committed to growth and performance,
an Amtrak that is delivering on the promise made to Congress to become
operationally self-sufficient by fiscal year 2003.
Let's start with results.
The last time I appeared before you as Chair of the Amtrak Reform
Board was on March 10, 1999--almost a year ago to the day. At that
time, I was able to report that our new, commercially focused business
plan was already showing positive results. For the first time in
Amtrak's history, corporate revenue topped the $1 billion mark for
fiscal year 1998, and ridership was up 4.5 percent.
Today, I am happy to say that these positive trends are continuing.
Fiscal year 1999 was a record-breaking year for Amtrak. The
corporation's revenue reached an all-time high of $1.84 billion, a 7
percent increase from the previous year. Revenue growth helped Amtrak
exceed the bottom-line target set in the corporation's business plan
for the second straight year--this year by $8 million--keeping us not
only on track, but ahead of plan, to achieve operational self-
sufficiency by 2003. And total ridership exceeded 21 million in 1999,
up 2 percent from last year and 10 percent since it began rebounding
three years ago.
As a new millenium dawns, Amtrak is maintaining and gaining
momentum. For the first quarter of fiscal year 2000, Amtrak beat its
business plan by more than $2 million, with total revenue up 8 percent
to $476 million. In Amtrak's national system, many trains saw increased
ridership in the first quarter. For the corporation as a whole,
ridership increased for a record 12th consecutive quarter.
Second, let me turn now to our commercial initiatives and
partnerships.
Mr. Chairman, the last time I testified before this Subcommittee, I
pledged to you that Amtrak would become a more market-driven,
commercially-oriented company using proven business techniques to
maximize our marketplace potential. Let me tell you how Amtrak has kept
that promise:
--To improve its bottom line, Amtrak entered into business
partnerships with Dobbs International Services, Burlington
Northern Santa Fe, United Parcel Service, the United States
Postal Service, ExpressTrak, and Dynamex. These partnerships
are expected to generate more than $20 million in additional
annual revenue and $28 million in long-term savings.
--The mail and express business, which involves the transportation of
time-sensitive shipments, produced $98 million in revenue for
fiscal year 1999, up 18 percent from fiscal year 1998.
--In fiscal year 1999, capital investment partnerships with states
garnered a record $300 million.
--The corporation's real estate and telecommunications ventures
returned profits of $106 million, a record high.
--Based on its ``expectation that operational self-sufficiency will
be achieved,'' Moody's Investor Service improved Amtrak's
credit rating to A3, reflecting a stable outlook. Standard and
Poor's publicly assigned Amtrak a triple ``B'' issuer rating.
--In the area of customer service, Amtrak trained 16,500 employees to
begin implementation of the American travel industry's first-
ever service guarantee.
--And just ten days ago, Amtrak announced plans to expand passenger
service in 21 states and strengthen our competitive edge in the
mail and express business--steps that will increase our reach
and connectivity and generate $65 million in improvements to
our bottom line beginning in 2003. Based on unprecedented,
comprehensive economic analysis of our national rail system,
our Network Growth Strategy is a market-driven plan to expand
our existing network, increase our profitability, and better
serve our passengers and partners.
--Let me give you one example of this initiative that demonstrates
clearly how our market analysis can improve the performance of
under-performing trains and Amtrak as a whole. Our
transcontinental train, the Sunset Limited, goes from Orlando
to Los Angeles. By rerouting the service from San Antonio
directly north to Dallas/Ft. Worth, and then west through
Abilene, we immediately improve the financial performance of
the train by $2.9 million. We are also bringing it from a
regional market of 30,000 people to a much more densely
populated market of more than 300,000 people, we are reducing
the Ft. Worth to Los Angeles segment of the trip by ten hours,
improving the connectivity with other national routes, and
increasing both our mail and express and our passenger revenue.
This raises the question--if it is still losing money, why are we
operating it? If we took the same train and eliminated it, we
would lose $3.2 million of direct savings plus $4.8 million of
other variable costs, for a total route savings of $8 million.
However, eliminating the train also reduces passenger revenues
by $3.5 million and connecting mail and express revenues by $6
million, for a total revenue loss of $9.5.
Simply, we would lose more money by eliminating the train then
keeping it. So instead we take the right kinds of action and
improve the train's performance by $2.9 million.
Let me turn now to our third major point--developing new, high-
speed rail corridors across the nation. On January 31, 2000, Amtrak
took the first step in our high-speed rail program--the launch of Acela
Regional train service between Boston and New York. The new, all
electric Acela Regional service dramatically reduces travel times
within New England, making rail an attractive alternative for both
leisure and business travelers. So far, Acela Regional is doing 25 to
30 percent better than our initial projections, and outperforming the
trains they replaced by 55 to 65 percent.
With this success with the Regional service, it is no wonder that
we are anxious to debut Acela Express. When we are confident about
announcing a start date, we will do so. The consortium manufacturing
the trainsets tell us it will be in July, and we are continuing to have
discussions with them. But I would remind everyone that high-speed
trainsets in the Northeast are a new technology, and we owe it to the
American people to see to it that this technology meets our high
standards. Only when it has done so, will we announce a starting date
for Acela Express. That is our responsibility, and we intend to live up
to it.
Of course, high-speed rail isn't just something that the Northeast
wants. The development of high-speed rail corridors is a key component
of Amtrak's business plan, but it is even more critical to a balanced
and integrated intermodal transportation system. A grassroots movement
to expand passenger rail is sweeping across the nation and, as is so
often the case in American history, the states are leading the way.
State investment in passenger rail is on the rise, with high-speed rail
programs now actively underway in 29 states, led by Chief Executives
from across the political spectrum, proving that states are willing to
partner with the federal government to develop these high-speed rail
corridors. Look at the state budgets proposed by my colleagues--
governors are serious about developing rail corridors because it
represents jobs, clean air, mobility, accessibility, reduced congestion
and smart growth--all of which fuel economic competitiveness.
But the federal government has to play a role here, too. Just two
weeks ago, at the Winter Meeting of the National Governors'
Association, the nation's governors unanimously adopted a resolution
calling on Congress to fully fund Amtrak at the authorized level of
$989 million for fiscal year 2001.
Of that amount, $521 million--or $48 million less than our request
for fiscal year 2000--would enable Amtrak to continue to achieve its
goal of operational self-sufficiency by 2003. The balance, $468
million, would be used to develop high-speed rail corridors in states
nationwide.
And the collective voice of the nation's governors strengthens a
long list of organizations supporting this request. The President has
requested it. I am here today to urge you to fulfill this request and
thus take the first step in creating a desperately needed federal high-
speed rail program. The states have invested their dollars in rail. We
now ask Congress to do the same.
It can be successful, Mr. Chairman. As Inspector General Mead said
in his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee only two weeks
ago, ``If the Administration's proposed budget for 2001 is adopted,
Amtrak would have sufficient funds to address minimum needs and invest
in projects with long-term growth opportunities like new high-speed
corridors.'' He is absolutely right.
Mr. Chairman, when I appeared before this Subcommittee a year ago,
I stressed Amtrak's determination to achieve operational self-
sufficiency by 2003. Today, I'd like to reiterate that pledge, but I'd
also like to go a step further. Our goal is not merely to survive. It
is nothing less than to become a world-class national passenger
railroad system--a growing, thriving commercial enterprise that is
poised to take advantage of market opportunities and meet the demands
of todays travelers. And I believe that our results, our commercial
initiatives, our network growth strategy and our high-speed rail plans,
demonstrate clearly that this is more than a promise. We are on track
to meet these goals, and I urge you to support this effort.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. MEAD
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. The Governor is good, is he not?
Senator Shelby. He is good. I am ready to vote for him,
whatever he runs for. That is why the people of Wisconsin like
him.
Senator Lautenberg. Amen.
Mr. Mead. I want to switch gears off of Amtrak just for a
moment and preface my brief remarks by saying I have a lot of
respect--and the Department does too--for this committee taking
pause once a year to focus on what the top issues are facing
the Department. I think that is important, to say what the top
issues are and how they have changed from the year before.
I am glad Senator Bennett is here, having been such a
champion of getting the challenges of Y2K in hand. We dropped
Y2K off the list, happily. I think a lot of people thought we
were not going to make it at the Department, but with a big
effort, we did.
Senator Shelby. You would not have made it if there had not
been the emphasis that was put on it, and we all owe a lot to
Senator Bennett for his leadership in the Senate on this issue.
Mr. Mead. Oh, his leadership was incredible, and we started
late too.
COAST GUARD DEEPWATER PROJECT
We added something called the Coast Guard Deepwater
Project, which is where the industry is developing a plan for
modernizing Coast Guard assets used 50 miles or more off the
coast. That is going to be very similar, in terms of dollars,
to FAA's National Air Space System plan--about $9 billion to
$15 billion. The issue is really not whether the Coast Guard
needs to replace these assets. The question is going to be
when, how and at what cost.
MARAD'S SHIP-SCRAPPING PROGRAM
We also added MARAD's ship-scrapping program, which is not
even within the jurisdiction of this committee, but is an
environmental time bomb. The Department of Transportation has
fleets of old ships--some dating back to before World War II--
and the hulls are corroding. They are sitting there in such
waters as the James River. Currently the Coast Guard asks
people to pay it--pardon me, not the Coast Guard. MARAD wants
to ask people to pay it to scrap these vessels. Well, that is
not going to work. The U.S. Navy is doing the opposite, paying
people to scrap obsolete Navy vessels.
COMPUTER SECURITY
We split out transportation security and computer security,
and we did that because we think the issues are distinct. We
think computer security is going to be a major issue, just like
Y2K. A big difference, though, is that there is no ending date.
Many of the vendors that were around to help you out with the
Y2K now are standing in line to help you assess your computer
security problems.
FAA
On FAA, we testified a couple of weeks ago on air traffic
control modernization and FAA financing. Not to be redundant
about our message at that hearing, but I should say that if
people believe that FAA's problems with these big modernization
initiatives have been a lack of money, they are incorrect. I
think everybody wants to invest appropriately in FAA, but more
money is not going to solve some of the big problems that have
haunted these modernization programs.
Senator Shelby. Are you going to speak to what will solve
some of the problems other than money?
Mr. Mead. Yes, I certainly can. I was going to save that
for questions and answers.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
AVIATION SAFETY
Mr. Mead. In aviation safety, I wanted to mention three
points. One is runway incursions. We absolutely have to get a
handle on runway incursions. They were about 160-170 a year in
1993. They are now up to 327 a year. This is an accident
waiting to happen.
I have a chart I would like to put in the record, if I
might, that shows the trend line.
Senator Shelby. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Senator Shelby. Are you going to talk about the chart?
Mr. Mead. Yes. You can see that, between 1994 and 1999, it
has gone from about 200 to 322. Runway incursions, Mr.
Chairman, are similar to a near mid-air collision. It is just
that planes come too close together on the ground. In fact, the
worst aviation tragedy in history occurred on the ground in the
Canary Islands.
Operational errors. These are errors made by controllers.
They have been going up too. They went from 185 in 1998 to 940
in 1999. I want to commend FAA and the Secretary for taking the
initiative on code-share safety. This is where you have
different airlines taking separate legs of a trip. If you are
flying on a foreign carrier, what assurances do you have that
that foreign carrier is safe? FAA has initiated a program
there.
In surface transportation safety, Congress enacted the
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act. There are 10,000 carriers
on the road today that have an unsatisfactory safety fitness
rating. We need to get serious here and not only establish a
vision of leadership in the new administration, but also shut
down some of these carriers. If they are not going to be safe,
we need to get them off the road.
Transportation infrastructure. This represents a major
infusion of dollars into transportation. I think the experience
of the last 2 months with the Central Artery--this is a project
that went from about $3 billion to, recently announced, about
$12.2 billion. I do not believe the Artery management was
forthright with the Department or anybody, at least publicly. I
think the Department and the Federal Highway Administration had
gotten too close to the project management in that case. I am
pleased to see Secretary Slater has moved out to, I think, take
firm, corrective action in that area.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
We signed off yesterday on a clean opinion on FAA and the
Department's financial statements. They have been trying for 9
years to get an unqualified or ``clean'' financial opinion, the
kind most corporations have to have. We were very pleased to do
that. The Department deserves a lot of credit. Mr. Basso, on my
right, was a chief architect behind the Department's success
there.
On Amtrak, sir, if Amtrak makes it, they are not going to
make it by much on operational self-sufficiency. In the capital
area, they are, by our projections, going to fall short by over
$200 million through 2002. And Governor Thompson is right,
after that glide path is over, they are going to require
capital assistance. There are no two ways about it.
I think a key issue here is getting the Acela high-speed
train in operation and deployed. We really will not know about
the future of Amtrak until we get that high-speed rail line
running.
Senator Shelby. Are you going to be on that train with us?
Mr. Mead. I will be on it. I will not be driving it. I will
sit next to you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. I am driving it.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Mead. I also want to make a passing reference to work
that we are doing in the aviation area. We have some
obligations to review how well the airlines are treating their
passengers through airline service commitments. We are also
doing a lot of work on aviation delays, which I think is quite
interesting. Actually, we are doing that work for this
committee. If you have any questions and answers about that, we
would be glad to answer them too.
I will conclude with that, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ISSUES
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the major management issues
facing the Department of Transportation (DOT).
Last year, we testified before this Subcommittee on what we then
saw as the top 10 management issues facing DOT. At the request of
Congressional leadership, we updated our list and prepared a new report
outlining the top 12 significant issues facing DOT. This report, issued
in December, includes the Department's progress in the last year.
Copies of the report have been provided to the Subcommittee as part of
my written statement.
The 12 items on this year's list are:
--Aviation Safety.--The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must
proactively address aviation safety issues such as growth in
the number of runway incursions and operational errors.
--Surface Transportation Safety.--The Department must effectively
implement new enforcement tools and other improvements to the
commercial driver's license program resulting from the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, better coordinate the
hazardous materials programs of the various Operating
Administrations, and target its efforts to reduce rail-highway
grade crossing accidents with proven, cost-effective
strategies.
--Air Traffic Control Modernization.--Problems persist with
technologically challenging systems, such as the Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS) and Standard Terminal Automation
Replacement System (STARS). These two systems alone have
cumulative estimated program costs of over $4 billion, and are
experiencing cost and schedule difficulties. For example, WAAS
is experiencing software and hardware problems that will have
significant cost and schedule implications that have yet to be
determined. Consequently, WAAS will not meet the September 2000
milestone for initial operating capability. The STARS schedule
has been impacted by the software development needed to resolve
computer-human interface issues and other new requirements. The
last full service STARS is now planned to be deployed by
September 2008, over 3\1/2\ years behind schedule.
--FAA Financing.--Congress is getting closer to finalizing a new
authorization bill for FAA. The proposed package includes $40
billion over 3 years with large increases for airport
improvements and air traffic modernization. While the increases
represent a significant investment opportunity for aviation
infrastructure, additional funding alone is not the only
solution. FAA will need to contain the growth in operations
costs, provide for greater risk sharing with contractors, and
expedite an accurate cost accounting system.
--Surface, Marine, and Airport Infrastructure Needs.--It is
imperative that the historic levels of expenditure on
transportation infrastructure, amounting to $50 billion in
fiscal year 2000 alone, be effectively monitored. We recently
reported that trends in construction cost on the Central Artery
could raise the cost of that project by up to $942 million.
Last October, both FHWA and project officials rejected our
projections. Then, on February 1, 2000, FHWA accepted the
project's latest Finance Plan. Later that same day, the project
announced a $1.4 billion cost increase that was not reported in
the Finance Plan. If the FHWA's oversight had been effective,
they would have known about cost increases as they were
occurring, and certainly before they accepted the project's
Finance Plan.
--Transportation Security.--FAA must continue to improve its
oversight of aviation security, particularly in areas such as
airport access controls and the effective use of baggage
screening equipment. In surface transportation security, DOT
must begin to develop a comprehensive research strategy and the
ability to perform meaningful risk assessments.
--Computer Security.--DOT needs to perform risk/vulnerability
assessments on its critical computer systems and use these
assessments to prioritize its work in addressing computer
system vulnerabilities.
--Financial Accounting as Related to the CFO Act.--After 9 years of
work and because of extraordinary efforts in the last 2 years,
DOT was able to support all material line items in its fiscal
year 1999 Consolidated Financial Statements, thereby earning
DOT its first ``clean'' audit opinion. These Consolidated
Financial Statements show DOT and its Operating Administrations
had assets of $76 billion, liabilities of $30 billion,
operating costs of $42 billion, and total budget authority of
$57 billion. While significant progress has been made in
improving the financial records, DOT still needs to make major
improvements in its financial management systems.
--Amtrak Financial Viability/Modernization.--Amtrak still faces major
challenges to its goal of operating self-sufficiency: 1999 cash
losses were higher than expected, implementation of high-speed
train service has been delayed; and there are significant
capital investments which must be made to protect Amtrak's
future safety and potential profitability.
--The United States Coast Guard's (USCG's) Deepwater Asset
Replacement Project.--The Coast Guard faces a challenge in
developing an acquisition and budgeting strategy for replacing
its Deepwater aircraft, vessels and related equipment. These
assets will reach the end of their useful lives over the next
30 years. It is expected to cost $9.8 to $15 billion to replace
this capability. The question is not whether Deepwater assets
have to be replaced or modernized, but how, when, and at what
cost.
--The Maritime Administration's (MARAD's) Ship Scrapping Program.--
MARAD, the Administration, and Congress need to consider how
MARAD can best dispose of the 110 vessels it currently has
slated for disposal (many of which pose significant
environmental dangers). Overseas sales have been halted, there
is limited capacity in the domestic ship scrapping industry,
and MARAD is required by law to dispose of these ships in a
manner that brings the greatest financial return to the Federal
Government. The approach of selling vessels for scrapping will
not work in today's marketplace. MARAD will need relief from
the requirement to maximize financial returns and will need
authorization and funding for a program similar to a Navy pilot
project that is paying to have vessels scrapped.
--DOT Implementation of GPRA--For DOT to continue its success in
implementing GPRA, it must improve the timeliness and
reliability of its performance data.
In addition to the 12 management issues presented above, the state
of service delivery in the aviation industry has developed into a major
customer service policy matter. In order to apprise the Congress and
the Secretary about the progress of airline efforts, we will be engaged
this year in several important audits of the state of service delivery
in the aviation industry. In my testimony today, I would also like to
summarize for you the status of our work on airline flight delays and
on airline pricing and customer service issues.
i. changes from the oig's 1998 list of top priority management
challenges
Our 1998 and 1999 lists are very similar. We deleted only one item
from the 1998 list: Year 2000 Computer Issues. From mid-1997 to
December 1999, DOT repaired, tested, implemented, and independently
verified fixes to over 300 mission-critical systems. Contingency plans
and command centers were established in case of any Year 2000 problems.
These were not needed, as all mission-critical DOT systems successfully
transitioned to the year 2000.
We added two issues to this year's list: the United States Coast
Guard's Deepwater Capability Replacement Project and the Maritime
Administration's Ship Scrapping Project.
Coast Guard's Deepwater Capability Replacement Project.--In its
Deepwater Project, the Coast Guard proposes spending $9.8 to $15
billion over the next 20 years to replace or modernize all of the
vessels and aircraft it uses 50 miles or more offshore. Current
deepwater assets include 206 aircraft, 93 vessels, and related sensor,
communications, and navigation systems. This represents 99 percent of
the Coast Guard's aircraft and 100 percent of its vessels 110 feet and
longer, excluding buoy tenders and icebreakers. Primary deepwater
missions include search and rescue, drug interdiction, alien migrant
interdiction, and fisheries law enforcement.
In 1996, the Coast Guard received Departmental approval to proceed
with the design of the Deepwater Project. Through fiscal year 2000, a
total of $75 million has been appropriated for project planning and
preliminary design. For fiscal year 2001, $42.3 million has been
requested to allow the Coast Guard to finish the planning phase and
prepare its acquisition strategy. For fiscal year 2002, the Coast Guard
anticipates requesting $350 million to begin the Deepwater acquisition.
The Coast Guard's Deepwater assets will reach the end of their
useful lives over the next 30 years. The question is not whether they
have to be replaced or modernized but how and when. However, the
planning phase for the project will not be completed in time to support
the fiscal year 2002 budget request. Coast Guard will have to reconcile
how it can proceed with a budget request in advance of completing the
planning process. An important subsidiary issue is how priorities will
be established within annual fiscal limitations. Three options are to:
defer the anticipated $350 million fiscal year 2002 Deepwater budget
request until the results of the planning process are known; expedite
the planning process to identify the most critical deepwater needs and
justify the fiscal year 2002 budget request on that basis; or use
information available to develop a current cost and schedule estimate
for the project that identifies anticipated acquisitions and use that
to justify the fiscal year 2002 request.
MARAD's Ship Scrapping Project.--The Department, the
Administration, and the Congress also face a challenge in determining
how to dispose of MARAD's fleet of environmentally dangerous vessels in
a timely manner. MARAD currently has 110 vessels in its fleet awaiting
disposal, with 88 of these vessels slated specifically for scrapping.
The average age of these vessels is 46 years, and they have been
awaiting disposal for an average of 13 years. Forty of these vessels
are considered ``worst condition.'' These vessels are literally
disintegrating.
Environmental dangers associated with MARAD's deteriorating vessels
increase daily. These ships contain hazardous substances such as
asbestos and solid and liquid polychlorinated biphenyls. These vessels
also contain oil that, if leaked into the water, would require
immediate Federal and State action. MARAD has applied over 20 patches
to leaks, removed hazardous materials, and pumped oil out of one vessel
in the James River Reserve Fleet that is over 30 years old. That vessel
is disintegrating to a point where it will not be seaworthy much
longer.
Given the small size of the domestic ship scrapping industry and
the Administration's policy against using foreign ship scrapping
facilities (which have poor environmental records), MARAD will likely
need relief from the legislative requirement that it dispose of all
obsolete vessels by 2001 in a way that maximizes financial return to
the Government. MARAD would also benefit from authorization and funding
for a program similar to a Navy pilot project, which pays for ship
scrapping.
This year's list has one other change. Last year our list cited
Transportation and Computer Security as one issue. In view of the
significance of both of these issues, we identified them separately in
this year's report.
Transportation Security.--The U.S. transportation system includes
3.9 million miles of public roads, 1.5 million miles of oil and natural
gas pipelines, 123,000 miles of major railroads, over 24,000 miles of
commercially navigable waterways, over 5,000 public-use airports, 508
transit operators in 316 urbanized areas, and 145 major ports on the
coasts and inland waterways. Over the last several years, the changing
threat of terrorist and other criminal activities has heightened the
need to improve domestic transportation security over these vital
transportation assets.
The need to protect aviation security has long been recognized.
Over 450 airports and 290 air carriers are subject to Federal Aviation
Regulation security requirements and have FAA-approved security
programs. More than 500 FAA security field agents monitor industry's
compliance with these programs. Since 1997, FAA has also deployed more
than 600 machines, at a cost exceeding $250 million, for screening
passenger checked and carry-on baggage. To improve its aviation
security program, FAA should develop an integrated strategic security
plan, work with the industry to improve airport access controls, and
develop new requirements for issuing and accounting for airport
identification media.
Surface transportation security issues, on the other hand, have not
been a high priority. Also, the size and openness of surface
transportation systems makes it much harder to develop appropriate,
cost-effective security requirements. Precisely because of their size
and openness, however, surface transportation locations can become
terrorist targets. For example, in March 1995, a cult released nerve
agents in a Tokyo subway, and over 5,500 subway travelers required
medical treatment. As a first step toward addressing these
vulnerabilities, the National Research Council recommended that the
Department work toward a surface transportation security strategy and
develop the ability to perform meaningful risk assessments on surface
transportation security threats.
Computer Security.--The Department needs adequate computer security
to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of its
automated operations. The recent network attacks on major e-retailers
demonstrate the need to re-examine this area in light of today's
technology. While interconnected computer networks have made our
operations more efficient, they also created new challenges for us. For
example, we can no longer rely on physical isolation as our key safety
net, which has been an important part of security for the Air Traffic
Control Systems.
DOT, with $2.7 billion in planned expenditures for fiscal year
2000, is responsible for the largest information technology investment
among all civilian agencies. There are over 600 mission-critical
systems in DOT, including safety-sensitive Air Traffic Control Systems,
Coast Guard search and rescue systems, and financial management systems
supporting the distribution of billions of dollars in grants.
Computer security comprises a wide range of work, from implementing
sophisticated network tools to increasing employees' security awareness
to performing proper background checks on people occupying key
positions. To meet its responsibilities for secure computer operations,
DOT should: perform risk assessments of its computer systems in order
to prioritize use of limited resources, implement cost-effective
protections for its critical systems, secure entry points to its
interconnected network systems, and emphasize basics such as security
training and background checks.
ii. items continuing from the oig's 1998 list
Eight items on last year's list are also on this year's list. They
are: Air Traffic Control Modernization; FAA Financing; Aviation Safety;
Surface Transportation Safety; Surface, Marine, and Airport
Infrastructure Needs; Financial Accounting as Related to the Chief
Financial Officers Act (CFO Act); Amtrak Financial Viability/
Modernization; and DOT Implementation of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA).
Last month, at a joint hearing of this Subcommittee and the Senate
Budget Committee, we testified on Air Traffic Control Modernization and
FAA Financing. That testimony included detailed and updated discussions
of our concerns in these areas, so we have not addressed them in this
statement.
I would like to give you a short summary of the other six items
continuing from last year.
Aviation Safety.--The aviation industry expects continued growth in
air traffic and closer spacing between airplanes due to increased
demand and the implementation of new technologies. The key safety
issues facing FAA include: ensuring that U.S. air carriers perform
meaningful safety assessments on their foreign code share partners;
using training and new technology to reverse the upward trend of runway
incursions; reducing the number of air traffic operational errors and
deviations; and working with the Congress to ensure passage of the FAA
Reauthorization Act.
Surface Transportation Safety.--Motor vehicle, railroad, and rail
transit accidents account for over 42,000 deaths annually--more than 90
percent of all transportation-related fatalities. The Department's
first priority in this area is effective implementation of the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. DOT must move quickly to
establish the needed leadership in the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) and publish the 30 rulemakings FMCSA believes
necessary to implement the new Act. These rulemakings would strengthen
the commercial driver's license program by enhancing the number and
type of disqualifying violations, the enforcement of civil penalties,
and reviews of new motor carrier operators.
In terms of railroad safety, DOT has made significant progress in
reducing rail-highway grade crossing accidents and fatalities, which
were once the leading cause of railway deaths. To continue this trend,
DOT should target its limited resources to proven, cost-effective
strategies, such as installation of median barriers preventing drivers
from crossing tracks when a train is approaching.
The Department must also make adequate provisions for the safe
transport of hazardous materials. While the probability of a serious
hazardous materials incident is low, the consequences of such an
incident can be catastrophic, as evidenced by the 1996 ValuJet crash in
Florida. The Department is about to issue a Hazardous Materials Program
Evaluation (HMPE), which will recommend establishing a central focal
point to administer and deliver a DOT-wide hazardous materials program.
This DOT-wide program would focus more outreach and inspection
resources on shippers who introduce hazardous materials into the
transportation stream and strengthen standards to ensure that all
employees handling hazardous materials are adequately trained.
On the issue of pipeline safety, there is a critical need to ensure
that DOT continues to enforce pipeline safety laws and implements
recommendations that could further strengthen pipeline safety programs.
Issues to be considered during reauthorization include: requiring
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to comply with
outstanding Congressional mandates to revise the inspection process;
expanding the focus of RSPA research to include ``smart pigs'' that can
detect seam weld defects and alternative pipeline inspection
technologies for pipelines that cannot accommodate smart pigs; training
RSPA safety inspectors on the capabilities and use of pipeline
inspection technologies; and implementing revisions in the collection
of pipeline accident data to expand accident causal categories for more
detailed trend analysis.
Surface, Marine, and Airport Infrastructure Needs.--The
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) guarantees a
minimum of $198 billion in Federal funds for surface transportation
infrastructure in fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
Since the oversight of TEA-21 projects has shifted to grantees,
resulting in less direct Federal Government control over infrastructure
projects, there is a need to identify and apply best practices to major
projects and find systemic solutions to problems. For example, DOT
needs to: require and closely examine finance plans for all large
infrastructure projects; establish criteria for finance plans to ensure
complete and consistent reporting of basic standardized financial data
in the plans; monitor project performance and mitigate funding risks
for infrastructure projects to protect the Government's financial
interests as soon as problems are identified; and continue to promote
owner-controlled insurance programs that can reduce program costs,
while ensuring that Federal reimbursement for these programs is limited
to the amounts actually needed to purchase insurance coverage or pay
claims.
Also, as the results of OIG investigations demonstrate, vigilance
must be improved across the Federal, state and grantee levels, in order
to thwart fraud against TEA-21 funds.
In terms of airport infrastructure, FAA must exercise adequate
oversight to ensure that airport revenues are reasonably established
and that funds are used for eligible purposes. FAA must also ensure
that airport sponsors require that their annual audits cover airport
revenue use. The most important priority to support this and other
aviation issues, is passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act.
Financial Accounting as Related to the Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act.--During fiscal year 1999, DOT made extraordinary and labor-
intensive efforts to overcome its accounting and financial system
weaknesses. With these efforts, DOT was able to support the material
items on its financial statements, thus earning an unqualified, or
clean, audit opinion on the fiscal year 1999 Highway Trust Fund, FAA,
and DOT Consolidated Financial Statements. Although getting a clean
audit opinion was a major achievement, it is not the ultimate goal.
DOT still has to make long-term improvements in its financial
management and accounting systems. If such improvements are not made,
DOT will have to continue the same type of extraordinary, expensive,
and labor-intensive efforts in the future. Such efforts are not
sustainable for the long term and unnecessarily expend significant
amounts of resources to maintain accurate records, which should be
routinely produced by the accounting systems.
To its credit, DOT recognized several years ago that its financial
systems do not meet today's needs. DOT is currently designing a new
system, and plans to have a state-of-the-art, off-the-shelf commercial
financial management system, with a cost accounting module, fully
operational by June 30, 2001. FAA also is developing a separate cost
accounting system for its management needs and to support user fee
calculations. FAA's system is scheduled to be fully operational by
fiscal year 2002.
Amtrak Financial Viability/Modernization.--Amtrak's 1999 financial
results show some progress, but still indicate the need for major
improvement. Amtrak's cash loss last year was $579 million, $54 million
higher than the 1998 cash loss and $19 million worse than Amtrak had
projected. Over half of the $692 million in projections we considered
to be ``at risk'' in the 1999 Business Plan represented investments and
revenue placeholders for actions including the Market Based Network
Analysis. This year, it is imperative that Amtrak begin to realize the
payoffs of such investments--the small steps made the past 2 years must
now be replaced with large strides. First quarter 2000 performance
indicates these strides are slow in coming. Passenger revenues continue
to lag, led by Intercity, which finished nearly $11 million behind
plan, $2 million worse than the same period last year. Acela high-speed
rail is critical to Amtrak's ability to reach operating self-
sufficiency. The impact of delays in 2000 will be mitigated by
offsetting expense savings and other means, but this should not
understate how important it is for Amtrak to bring high-speed rail on
line as soon as possible.
The criteria used to measure whether Amtrak has made its self-
sufficiency goal needs to be defined: Amtrak will require capital
funding after 2002 to continue operations of the railroad, and will not
be able to fund depreciation, the costs of capital replacement, without
Federal assistance. Allowing Amtrak to use capital funds for
progressive overhauls will encourage Amtrak to make overhaul decisions
based on good business practices, rather than what can be federally
funded after 2002.
Amtrak's capital program should first address minimum needs before
investing in high rate-of-return projects like new high-speed
corridors. Although these investments are likely to result in revenues
that will help Amtrak reach and sustain financial viability, Amtrak
must first make the investments necessary to ensure the safe, reliable
operations of the existing system. It will not have enough capital
funds available to do both. One of Amtrak's most pressing needs is the
$654 million unfunded fire and life-safety needs in Penn Station-New
York and the associated river tunnels. Unless additional funding can be
identified, the schedule for meeting these needs will extend to 2014.
To ensure that these life-safety-requirements are completed in a timely
manner, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Administrator should
work with Amtrak, New Jersey Transit, and the Long Island Rail Road to
identify the necessary funding.
DOT Implementation of GPRA.--DOT's first strategic and performance
plans were rated by Congress as the best in the Federal Government.
Further, in 1999, DOT had the foresight to do a dry run of preparing a
performance report for the Congress by March 31, which will be the
annual statutory due date starting in 2000. In the dry run, DOT was
able to report prior year data for only 63 percent of its measures.
Agency staff expect to be able to provide 1999 data for over 90 percent
of the measures in the performance report they will submit to Congress
this March 31.
To continue its GPRA success, the Department needs to continue to
improve the reliability and timeliness of its performance data; face
the challenge of having to accomplish some significant goals through
States and other third parties; and ensure that the Operating
Administrations set baselines, develop performance measures, and set
performance goals for all important initiatives.
iii. oig flight delays and airline pricing and customer service reviews
In addition to the 12 management issues presented, the state of
customer service delivery in the aviation industry has developed into a
major policy matter. At the request of the Congress, we have initiated
three reviews in this area.
--Airline Flight Delays.--Last summer, the increasing number of
delayed and cancelled flights sparked sharp debate over the
cause or causes of these delays and cancellations. FAA cited
unusually bad weather as the primary culprit. In contrast, the
airline industry held FAA responsible, citing several problems
with air traffic control procedures and equipment outages. To
gain a better insight into this important service delivery
issue, this Subcommittee asked us to examine the sources of
delays and cancellations and the factors that contribute to
them. We are currently preparing our report and expect to issue
it this Spring.
--Airline Pricing and Customer Service.--The Transportation
Appropriations Act of 1999 required the OIG to report on
consumer access to lowest airfares and airline overbooking
disclosure practices. We recently initiated a review to:
identify the extent to which actual or potential barriers exist
to consumer access to comparative price and service
information; and determine the extent to which airlines fail to
disclose to passengers or ticket agents whether flights are
overbooked. In addition to airlines and travel agents, we will
be exploring these issues with Internet and other ticket
distribution providers, consumer organizations, and aviation
industry experts.
We have established an Internet web site and a toll free telephone
number where consumers can submit descriptions of their travel
experiences directly to us, and we will include an analysis of these
experiences in our report. We expect to issue our findings later this
year.
In December 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation asked the OIG to review the domestic air
carriers' customer service commitment plans. These plans describe what
the airline will do in areas such as notifying passengers of known
flight delays and cancellations; meeting customers' essential needs
during long on-aircraft delays; improving on-time baggage delivery;
providing prompt ticket refunds; and accommodating disabled and special
needs passengers.
By mid-June, we will provide the Commerce Committee with an interim
report on the completion, publication, and implementation of the
airlines' Customer Service Commitment Plans and the individual air
carriers' procedures to carry out their commitments. Our final report,
due on December 31st of this year, will provide our evaluation on the
quality of each air carrier's plan compared to the commitments. To
date, we have visited the corporate headquarters of each of the 14 air
carriers included in our review. We are developing procedures for
testing and evaluating the air carriers' implementation of the
commitments.
This concludes my formal remarks. Thank you for inviting me to
testify this morning. I would be happy to answer any questions the
Subcommittee may have.
STATEMENT OF PETER J. BASSO
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Basso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg, and
Senator Bennett. Good morning. I will be very brief.
Senator Shelby. Your written statement will be made part of
the record.
Mr. Basso. Thank you, sir.
SAFETY AND Y2K
Let me just, in the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, touch
on two things that are very important in the management areas
of the Department.
They are, first of all, our management and expansion of our
safety programs. The budget that we put before this
subcommittee this year for fiscal year 2001 requests
substantial increases in all areas of safety, and I want to
particularly emphasize the importance of us working with the
Congress to assure that those funds are made available. I would
hope that the subcommittee can accommodate those changes.
The other area that I want to touch on is the Y2K issue
that Mr. Mead has touched on. Senator Bennett certainly
deserves great credit for the prod that helped this Department
go from what I would consider basically nowhere to completing
the job on time. I particularly appreciate that, and Deputy
Secretary Downey, Jane Garvey, and others deserve great credit
for delivering on that point.
CLEAN AUDIT
The other point I wanted to touch on--there are many I
could in these management challenge areas--is the Department
receiving a clean audit opinion, something that we pursued
somewhat like the holy grail since 1991. As one of the people
who actually worked on writing the Chief Financial Officers
Act, I know what it means. It is not important to get an A on
the report card, although I have to give great credit to the
Inspector General who worked very closely with us to get this
done, as well as others. What is important is that it
represents an integrity that we can represent to the American
public and the Congress as to what we have done with assets and
how we have accounted for them.
But if it stops at that point--and I probably will not have
the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee again on
this issue--it would be a total failure. To simply get an A on
the report card is a failure.
What has to be done, and what I committed to assuring gets
done as the CFO of the Department, is that the systems and
procedures are in place that are necessary to make this a
routine matter so that this committee does not have to ask the
question about this challenge in future years. What really is
at the heart of what we are going to complete this next year
with our new DELPHI accounting system, a state-of-the-art
system, our cost accounting system at FAA, and the audits I
think are essential to keep us all on our toes and focused on
the issues in that regard. So, we should give the IG a little
more money for that, but that is another issue. We will deal
with that.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I really do appreciate the
opportunity to appear this morning, but I would prefer I think,
in deference to the committee, to offer the opportunity for you
to ask questions of myself and others here rather than carry on
at great length.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter J. Basso
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on management issues, challenges and related
accomplishments of the Department of Transportation.
OVERVIEW
Last year, when I testified before this Subcommittee on management
challenges facing the Department of Transportation (DOT), I stated that
Americans demand mobility and that we have an obligation to provide a
transportation system that meets both our economic and mobility
requirements in a safe and environmentally friendly way. This
obligation is a long-term one and must be part of our vision for the
transportation system of the 21st century. The management challenges
that face our transportation system and the Department today are
critical to our long-term success in meeting this obligation.
These challenges include:
--Rapidly growing travel demand, which affects the condition and
performance of our transportation system. We face this
challenge on the water, on the land, and in the air.
--Population changes, including increasing number of elderly
individuals and drivers, which presents new mobility and safety
challenges.
--Transportation behavior that is not acceptable, such as aggressive
driving. The Department continually strives to find new ways to
convince people to drive safely on our roads. Even though our
transportation system's performance reflects the strength of
our safety commitment, with 4,300 fewer people dying on our
roads than in 1993, an unacceptably high number of people
continue to die on our roads each year.
--Using technology in a cost-effective manner to improve our
performance.
OVERALL DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The Clinton-Gore Administration has made management of the Federal
Government a top priority and a reality. The Secretary and Deputy
Secretary have put in place an overall Departmental management
structure that stresses leadership, coordination, innovation and
results.
We in DOT strive to be excellent managers of DOT's resources,
ensuring that we deliver programs that customers want with maximum
efficiency, and that we manage for results. To determine how best to
deliver programs we emphasize goal setting, customer involvement, and
measurement of progress against these goals to determine our
effectiveness and efficiency.
The Department has been aggressively implementing the National
Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR) and Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) mandates as well as the Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act. In reinventing our procurement practices, we now use the
purchase card for over ninety percent of our small purchases. We are
now utilizing e-commerce solutions, so that those who need to pay us
for services, fines and fees can do so quickly and efficiently. Our
strategic and performance goals focus on outcomes--what we are
attempting to achieve--not outputs (how much we do of one activity or
another). In addition in fiscal year 1999, DOT established a
procurement performance management system that uses a set of balanced
performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of
our procurement system in helping achieve our missions. The public
deserves a Department of Transportation that is outcome oriented and
our best-in-government strategic and performance plans show that we
know what the public expects of us.
We have one transportation system, and making it work better
requires a ONE DOT approach. The Department is improving its internal
management activities by bringing intermodal energy and expertise to
bear on all transportation problems. Our ONE DOT corporate management
strategy is of special note. This strategy encourages and rewards
collaboration across modes and agencies at all levels. It promotes
efficiency and creativity, and instills in our employees the sense that
they represent not just their operating administration but the whole
Department in its response to the public. This innovative team thinking
has led to the completion of our hazardous materials program evaluation
whereby the Department's programs regarding both shippers and carriers
of hazardous materials were evaluated, and our success in achieving an
unqualified audit opinion on our financial statements this year for the
first time.
My testimony today addresses our progress on the management
challenges identified by the Inspector General: Surface Transportation
Safety; Aviation Safety; Air Traffic Control Modernization; FAA
Financing and Reauthorization; Surface, Marine, and Airport
Infrastructure; Transportation Security; Computer Security; Financial
Accounting/Chief Financial Officers Act; Amtrak Financial Viability and
Modernization; Coast Guard Deepwater Capability Replacement Project;
Ship Disposal Program; and Government Performance and Results Act
Implementation.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Transportation safety is the Department's top priority. Safe and
efficient transportation systems are critical to our economic security
and our quality of life. Although our transportation system is already
the safest in the world, much of what we do is aimed at making it
safer, as travel continues to grow. In managing a myriad of safety
programs in conjunction with the states, other public authorities, and
the private sector, as well as directly through enforcement, we must
constantly focus on outcomes. The fiscal year 2001 budget directs a
record $4 billion to transportation safety programs, 13 percent above
this year's level.
A major focus of the management of our safety efforts is reducing
highway crashes, which account for more than nine out of every ten
transportation fatalities. Highway crashes are the leading cause of
death for children, teenagers, and young adults. In addition to the
tragic toll on our families, crashes cost our economy an estimated $150
billion annually. Unless we continue to lower the fatality rate, the
growth in travel created by our expanding economy will result in an
increase in the number of deaths. To reduce the fatality rate, we must
focus on all three components of the safety equation: safer roads,
safer vehicles and safer drivers.
The top priority to improve safety is simple--seat belts and child
safety seats work! A person is almost twice as likely to die or sustain
a serious injury in a crash if unbelted. Today, seat belts save about
11,000 lives annually. In 1997, the President set a national goal of
achieving an 85 percent seat belt use rate by 2000 and a 90 percent
seat belt use rate by 2005. These goals will be difficult to achieve,
as our progress in increasing seat belt use has been incremental.
Information, education and outreach are critical efforts if we are to
reach that goal and the fiscal year 2001 budget proposes substantial
funding increases for NHTSA in these areas.
The President has also set a goal of making .08 the national
standard for maximum blood-alcohol levels while driving. Although
alcohol-related fatalities have declined over the past ten years,
impaired driving remains a leading cause of traffic fatalities. These
are irresponsible actions on the part of the driving public and should
not be condoned. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes additional NHTSA
funding to implement aggressive programs aimed at reducing drinking and
driving.
Ensuring safe motor carrier transportation is a critical part of
our overall efforts to improve highway safety. Historic levels of
economic growth and logistical innovation have resulted in significant
increases in truck travel. While the motor carrier fatality rate
(relative to vehicle miles traveled) has decreased, the actual number
of fatalities has increased. That is not acceptable and the Secretary
has set a goal of reducing motor carrier fatalities by 50 percent by
2009. With truck transportation a backbone of our economy, the
management challenge facing DOT is to implement a risk based, systems
approach that gets unsafe trucks and operators off our highways.
The new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has already
significantly stepped up its enforcement efforts. The number of Federal
compliance reviews conducted has doubled since the beginning of 1999.
The backlog of enforcement cases has been nearly eliminated. And,
senior management of the Department is reviewing progress quarterly. We
will be accountable for assuring that this effort succeeds.
To judge its progress in meeting this challenge, the new Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration has set specific near term goals,
including:
--deploying Commercial Vehicle Information System technology in 26
states by September of 2003;
--limiting the instances of negotiated settlement costs, so that
violators of safety regulations will not view penalties as
merely a cost of doing business; and
--pilot testing a new brake testing device by January 2001, in order
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of roadside
inspections.
FMCSA also just launched a safety website to share detailed safety
information with the public. Now each citizen can determine how safe
his area is in comparison to the rest of the country. In addition, the
Office of the Inspector General is continuing its criminal
investigative emphasis on targeting parties which egregiously violate
motor carrier safety standards.
Improving the safety of highway-rail grade crossings and pipelines
also presents management challenges for the Department. Our ONE DOT
management and our partnerships with states and local entities are the
key to achieving results. FRA and FHWA work with state and community
officials to raise awareness that the safest and most efficient way to
reduce crossing collisions is by eliminating or consolidating highway-
rail crossings. Since 1991, 12 percent of all public and private
highway-rail grade crossings have been closed by states and localities,
but our goal is to close a total of 25 percent by 2004 as trespasser
fatalities represent over 90 percent of all railroad-related
fatalities.
The accident last year in Bellingham, Washington revealed the need
to comprehensively evaluate and improve pipeline safety. RSPA is
committed to working with states to strengthen the pipeline safety
partnership and to provide adequate resources to support pipeline
safety activities. The fiscal year 2001 budget provides record
resources to increase states' capabilities and builds on the
cooperative actions RSPA has taken with the State of Washington. The
$23.5 million we request in fiscal year 2001 includes funding for the
base pipeline safety program, as well as damage prevention and risk
assessment initiatives.
While recreational boating fatalities have fallen steadily for
three decades, commercial fishing and passenger vessel safety provide
formidable challenges in the maritime environment. The Coast Guard
recently concluded a task force report and is pursuing initiatives in
2001 to bring fishing vessel safety in line with the rest of the
commercial fleet. They are also partnering with the maritime response
community and cruise industry stakeholders on numerous initiatives
designed to minimize risk and maximize safety in the burgeoning
passenger vessel arena.
AVIATION SAFETY
With growing congestion in the air and at airports, and with
growing numbers of Americans traveling on foreign carriers, FAA faces
challenges in maintaining the safety of aviation passengers and
employees. We must be vigilant on all aviation safety issues, including
runway incursions. The tragic Alaska Airlines Flight 261 crash reminds
us of the importance of our commitment to making our skies--the safest
in the world--ever safer. We are putting programs in place that provide
countermeasures for known accident causes and will remain vigilant
enforcing safety regulations.
The funding we request in fiscal year 2001 will help us move
towards our ``stretch goal'' of an 80 percent reduction in the rate of
fatal commercial aviation crashes by 2007. FAA's Safer Skies agenda
focuses on the most critical safety problems in commercial and general
aviation including loss of control, pilot decision making, runway
incursions, passenger seat belt use, uncontained engine failures and
survivability. In order to prevent runway incursions, FAA has set goals
for heightened situational awareness for both pilots and controllers,
and is providing training for controllers, developing procedural
initiatives to prevent incursions, using more sophisticated statistical
and trend analysis and fully implementing new technologies to better
identify and prevent such incidents. In addition, FAA will be focusing
on runway incursion prevention around the country and will bring
together all of those involved to identify airport-specific
improvements.
FAA is also targeting safety resources to commercial air carriers
based on performance information such as operator experience, safety
trends and company growth. A total of $1.1 billion is requested in
fiscal year 2001 for our aviation safety programs, six percent above
this year's level.
Additionally, the Office of the Inspector General will continue its
focus on investigating and prosecuting suspected unapproved parts
(SUPs) where appropriate. The Department supports legislation to
increase criminal penalties in the area of SUPs.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MODERNIZATION
Modernization of our air traffic control system is important for
both safety and efficiency reasons. Modernization is necessary to keep
pace with improvements in technology and to accommodate air traffic
growth. As aviation grows, FAA needs ever more sophisticated equipment
and procedures to prevent additional delays. The economic impact of
delays is substantial and must be controlled. Given this demand, we
also have to recognize that modernization of complex systems presents
challenges in maintaining schedule and cost discipline.
FAA has been faced with both successes and failures in its
modernization efforts. Some programs such as the Display System
Replacement and Free Flight Phase I are being accomplished within cost
and schedule baselines. However, FAA has an unacceptably high rate of
schedule slips and cost growth for its major modernization programs.
FAA has faced problems with both the STARS and WAAS developments
largely because these are technically complex programs that require
more software development, and must be able to support the high
standards of performance FAA demands from its workforce and equipment.
To minimize problems with future projects, FAA is more intensively
monitoring programs to stay within baselines, requiring more up front
human factors analysis, and developing new projects in smaller
increments.
A total of $2.5 billion, 22 percent more than this year, is
proposed for FAA's capital modernization program in fiscal year 2001.
You need to be assured that these dollars will be spent wisely. FAA has
a number of initiatives underway to help it meet this assurance. The
FAA has baselined most major projects, so that progress against planned
performance can be quickly measured. FAA is also using Earned Value
Management for all new large acquisition projects and is awarding
contracts more quickly, through its new acquisition management system.
In addition, FAA has set two important modernization goals. One, is
to keep at least 80 percent of contracts within 3 months of their
schedule baseline. The other is to keep costs within 5 percent of
baseline for the 20 largest acquisition projects.
FAA FINANCING AND REAUTHORIZATION
Given the recent action on FAA reauthorization, it appears that the
Administration's goal for FAA financing, which was to move FAA to a
user fee financing system within a performance-based organization, will
not be met at this time.
Nevertheless, FAA is on target to implement a cost accounting
system throughout the agency in fiscal year 2002 and received an
unqualified audit for fiscal year 1999. The cost accounting system will
allow FAA to comply with the court order on overflight fees and develop
fees in line with FAA costs. The cost accounting system also will help
FAA have the information it needs to evaluate its financial goals and
maintain fiscal prudence.
SURFACE, MARINE AND AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
One of the major goals of the Department is to improve the overall
conditions and performance of our transportation system. Much of the
progress toward this goal relies on improvements in the infrastructure
itself and the way it is integrated throughout the transportation
system. The Inspector General has identified a need for the Department
to identify and apply best practices of major infrastructure projects
and to enhance the monitoring of project performance and finance plans.
The Department is comprehensively dealing with the need to
substantially increase our monitoring of major projects. We saw the
need to do this recently with the Central Artery project, where the
FHWA approved a finance plan for this project on the very same day that
the state of Massachusetts announced increased costs for the project.
This is not acceptable and the Department has laid out an action plan
for a complete review of this situation. The Federal Transit
Administration will increase its oversight of transit projects by five
percent in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the Office of the Inspector
General has implemented a program to heighten vigilance for fraud at
the state and federal levels.
The Department believes the integrity of our nation's Maritime
Transportation System (MTS) is important to the Nation's economy.
Trans-ocean shipping supports the majority of the United States' global
commerce, and secure ports and harbor facilities are essential to
ensuring the safe, efficient transfer of goods between waterborne
vessels and highway and rail routes. Our recent MTS report, developed
with significant collaboration from private and community stakeholders,
provided recommendations to ensure the MTS meets the future needs of
the American economy.
Regarding airport revenue diversion, the FAA has implemented all of
the revenue use enforcement provisions in the Reauthorization Acts of
1994 and 1996. The FAA issued a comprehensive final policy on the use
of airport revenues after extensive public and industry comment. FAA
compliance staff review the annual financial reports filed by
commercial airports and follow up on potential compliance issues. Local
government airport sponsors are also required to review airport revenue
use as part of their annual audit of Federal programs under the Single
Audit Act. FAA, in coordination with the Office of Management and
Budget and the General Accounting Office, has issued detailed guidance
to auditors on the conduct of those reviews. These actions, in addition
to the FAA's continuing education and outreach to the airport
community, serve to continue the dedication of airport revenue to
airport purposes.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
It is critical that our transportation system be safe and secure.
Even though the most visible security issues occur with the FAA and
Coast Guard, several administrations within DOT are increasing their
efforts on transportation security issues throughout the transportation
system.
This year, the OST Intelligence and Security Office is working with
the transportation industry to develop a mechanism for quick
dissemination of security threats. In addition, the fiscal year 2001
budget contains funding for transportation risk assessments, which the
IG has recommended that the Department conduct.
The security of our aviation facilities, specifically our airports,
is a top priority of the Department. FAA has implemented all of the
recommendations of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security. However, we still face the management challenge of developing
comprehensive procedures, technologies and measures of effectiveness to
minimize the possibility that unauthorized persons gain access to
restricted areas at airports. FAA research in fiscal year 2001 will be
aimed at improving the speed and effectiveness of weapons and explosive
detection devices to protect travelers from potential terrorist
actions. FAA is also developing a regulation to stiffen the security
procedures that prevent unauthorized access.
COMPUTER SECURITY
Not surprisingly, DOT's critical information technology assets
reside within FAA and the Coast Guard, with no other DOT systems
meeting the criteria of Presidential Decision Directive 63. Plans to
evaluate, remediate, test and certify these systems in accordance with
existing Federal IT security policy and guidance are now under
development. Risk assessments will be conducted for these systems, with
our goal of completing all risk assessments by November 2002. We also
plan to have all remediation and testing of these critical systems
completed by May of 2003. Steps are being taken now and efforts will be
accelerated to improve detection of potential intruders in our computer
systems and prevent them from damaging our systems. In addition,
physical security is being improved to deny access to critical
facilities.
In addition to our actions on our critical systems, DOT has worked
vigorously to ensure the security of other systems. For example, my
office completed a recertification last year of all accounting system
users to ensure they were current and authorized personnel. The CIO's
office established an IT security policy that requires all DOT IT
systems be assessed to identify vulnerability, evaluate and mitigate
these where justified, and then test and certify that adequate
protection has been implemented. The CIO's offices will provide IT
security awareness training to all of our workforce this fiscal year.
And, we have set goals to develop an overall strategy/plan for ensuring
that our IT assets are in compliance with OMB Circular A-130 by March
2001 and to assess, test, and certify no less than 25 percent of our
non-critical IT assets by September 2001.
We have requested $100 million in 2001 to allow us to proceed
vigorously to address critical infrastructure concerns Department-wide.
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS ACT
I am most pleased to report that all DOT's fiscal year 1999
financial statements (the Consolidated Statements, the Highway Trust
Fund statements, and the FAA Statements) received unqualified opinions
from the Office of Inspector General. An unqualified opinion means that
the financial statements meet accounting standards and all major dollar
amounts are supported. This marks the first time that ALL DOT financial
statements received unqualified opinions. This happened because
numerous people in various financial, program, systems, and audit
organizations worked together. It epitomizes the ONE DOT philosophy.
Financial statements, in general, are an important tool to promote
and improve accountability and stewardship over the public resources
entrusted to the Department. With the results of this year's
statements, the Secretary now knows that:
--DOT's financial statement fairly represents its financial position
and results of operation;
--DOT has a serviceable internal accounting and administrative
control structure;
--DOT has complied with laws and regulations;
--DOT's Management Discussion and Analysis, which addresses goals and
program results, is consistent with the financial statement
information; and
--DOT's performance measures are supported and properly reported.
Following the fiscal year 1998 audit, DOT needed to resolve several
major issues to receive an unqualified opinion on its fiscal year 1999
financial statement. But the major outstanding departmental issue was
valuation and supporting documentation for property, plant, and
equipment. FAA and USCG own most of DOT's property and equipment.
When the President announced in May 1999 the goal to have an
unqualified audit opinion on the Federal Government's fiscal year 1999
financial statements, both FAA and USCG responded by developing plans
to address the fiscal year 1998 property, plant, and equipment
deficiencies. The plans covered three fronts: Real Property, Personal
Property, and Work In Process (WIP). The OIG was instrumental in the
success of the effort. Throughout the planning and execution, the OIG
identified the types of accounts to be covered and the types of
documentation that were acceptable; examined documentation supporting
acquisition cost and accumulated depreciation; and, used a combination
of statistical sampling, nonstatistical sampling of high-dollar items,
and extensive testing to examine each major account of the property,
plant, and equipment line item. The OIG reviews were conducted
throughout all nine FAA regions. From the OIG perspective, the
$10.8billion reported by FAA for its property, plant, and equipment is
fair and reasonable as of September 30, 1999. This could not have been
accomplished without the excellent partnership we have with the
Inspector General.
DOT is moving aggressively to update its aging financial system
with Delphi, a commercially available, off-the-shelf financial
application. It is scheduled for full implementation in fiscal year
2001. All DOT entities are cooperating in its implementation. It will
provide DOT with a solid financial system for sound financial
management reporting. Delphi will have built-in capability to produce
all the financial and budgetary information for preparing our financial
statements.
Although FAA was able to support the cost of its property, plant,
and equipment accounts by using alternative procedures and labor-
intensive methods, we recognize that the deficiencies in its existing
property systems still represent a material internal control weakness.
Although FAA is making changes to its existing systems, FAA recognizes
that it needs a better property management systems environment and has
taken the following steps:
--In fiscal year 2000, FAA has initiated action to implement the
Oracle Fixed Asset Module to consolidate all its property
assets, to compute depreciation, and to maintain a record of
changes to the financial information on its assets.
--In fiscal year 2001 and beyond, FAA will initiate actions to
provide an integrated solution to its financial and property
management accountability through an Asset Supply Chain
Management (ASCM) program that will be compatible and fully
integrated with the Department's Delphi system.
It is not sufficient to simply get an unqualified opinion. We must
also assure that the systems are in place to make this the norm in the
long run.
AMTRAK FINANCIAL VIABILITY AND MODERNIZATION
The 1997 Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act mandated that Amtrak
develop a plan to eliminate its need for Federal operating support by
2003. Amtrak is making progress toward its goal of operating self-
sufficiency by 2003, but it still faces significant management
challenges toward reaching this goal, and the next two years are
critical.
Amtrak has increased ridership for three consecutive years--ten
percent since 1997 demonstrating that many Americans continue to want
intercity passenger rail transportation. In 1999, Amtrak increased its
commercial revenues by 16 percent. Meeting the operational self-
sufficiency goal can be achieved by continuing this ridership growth
and increasing revenues, a significant management challenge.
DOT is committed to supporting Amtrak as it progresses toward
operating self-sufficiency. High-speed rail service in the Northeast
Corridor and improvement to intercity passenger rail service nationwide
are key investment strategies that we will pursue to help Amtrak meet
this goal. We expect Amtrak's financial performance to continue to
improve as a result of the introduction of the Acela Regional service
on January of this year and Acela Express service on the Northeast
Corridor later this year.
The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a substantial investment in
passenger rail service, building on the growth in ridership and ability
to cover operating costs that our Northeast Corridor investment has
supported. Many state governments have invested in passenger rail
service, including high speed rail, and Federal funding will provide
the foundation for it to be a significant transportation solution for
the future. We propose $468 million for this new program, in addition
to continued Amtrak capital funding to expand Amtrak's intercity
passenger rail service, including improvements necessary for high-speed
rail service and other increases in average speeds through rail
infrastructure improvement.
The Department will use funds under this new program to fund such
improvements made by Amtrak and/or a State or consortium of States.
Project funds would go towards the acquisition of right-of-way, and
planning and design. Expanded intercity passenger rail service can and
should play an important role in improving mobility.
COAST GUARD DEEPWATER CAPABILITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT
The Coast Guard has embarked on a long-term project to
systematically replace or modernize the assets it uses for its
Deepwater missions--generally speaking, those that occur more than 50
miles offshore. This past month, the President's Interagency Task Force
on Coast Guard Roles and Missions issued their report, concluding that
the Coast Guard is a national asset and that the nation needs a viable,
well-equipped Coast Guard to carry out its 14 statutorily mandated
missions performed in the Deepwater environment. These missions include
drug interdiction, illegal immigrant interdiction, and fisheries law
enforcement. The assets the Coast Guard needs to replace include
cutters, aircraft, and sensors a system of equipment that gives the
Coast Guard its ability to protect our borders and ensure the security
and sovereignty of our nation.
The Coast Guard is planning for the replacement of its Deepwater
capability as an integrated system rather than a series of distinct
procurements. Using a unique mission-based performance acquisition
strategy, this largest acquisition in the Service's history is setting
a new standard for project management and was designated a Reinvention
Lab this past year. While there will be many management challenges
facing the Coast Guard with this effort, the Service has shown
throughout the early stages of this project its ability to effectively
plan and manage this acquisition, which could take up to 20 years to
complete.
The Coast Guard has aggressively worked to minimize project risk
and achieve the efficiencies of a systems approach. First and foremost,
during the design phase, the Coast Guard is engaging in collaborative
communications with all three contractors, to ensure that the final
design submissions answer all major issues. The project has also
developed an extensive and flexible Risk Management Plan that strives
to identify specific risks then develop mitigation strategies to deal
with them far in advance of any adverse impact.
The three industry teams currently under contract will submit their
final proposals by July 2001. At that time, the functional designs will
be approximately eighty percent complete and will provide the Coast
Guard with a level of design and cost detail necessary to help mitigate
acquisition risk. We believe that the Coast Guard's deepwater approach
will produce a system of tools that will maximize the operational
effectiveness of the Coast Guard while also minimizing the total
ownership cost of the system.
SHIP DISPOSAL PROGRAM
Even though not within the specific jurisdiction of this
Subcommittee, the Maritime Administration must dispose of government-
owned, obsolete merchant and non-combatant vessels in the National
Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF). Since 1994, MARAD has refrained from
exporting these vessels because of concerns about the environment,
worker health and safety. As a result, DOD has incurred additional
costs to maintain the ships prior to their sale and disposal in the
U.S., where there is only a small domestic ship scrapping industry.
The Federal Government faces challenge in disposing of its obsolete
vessels in a timely manner. In fiscal year 1999, the NDRF contained 112
vessels designated for priority disposal. MARAD's goal is to reduce the
inventory of obsolete vessels and is working to determine a viable,
legal way to do so.
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT IMPLEMENTATION
The Department is now preparing its performance report for 1999,
the first to be submitted under GPRA. The IG expressed concern that the
Department would not have all of the data available to report on its
performance results. The Department will have over 90 percent of the
data elements available either in final or preliminary form. Therefore,
the Department will be able to honestly report on its 1999 performance
by the March 31 deadline.
CONCLUSION
Working in close cooperation with the Inspector General and the
Congress, last year the Department was able to make progress on many
challenging issues. These include the Department's first unqualified
financial audit, a ONE DOT program evaluation of our hazardous
materials safety efforts, and our successful Y2K conversion efforts.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett, do you have any comments,
opening statements?
Senator Bennett. No, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here, and I thank everyone for the kind words
that they are giving me with respect to Y2K.
Senator Shelby. You earned them.
Senator Bennett. I am reminded of the comment Bob Hope
made. He used to travel around the world at Christmas time, and
he said, you know, the Army really must hate me because every
time I go out, they give me all these shots. And it is
completely worthless because I have never gotten sick at all. I
kind of have that feeling with respect to Y2K. A lot of people
say, gee, you got us all excited, and look, there was not any
problem.
So, the real tribute goes to people like those at the table
who did the actual work. All we did was hold a few hearings.
Governor Thompson, I cannot pass up the opportunity to
reminisce a little. Members of the subcommittee know that at
one point I sat at the same table as an employee of the
Department of Transportation in the Nixon administration. I
have in my file a letter from Secretary Volpe congratulating me
for lobbying through the Congress--my job was the head of
congressional liaison, congressional relations within the
Department--the bill that created Amtrak in the first place.
And I, in mea culpa, full confession, here acknowledged that I
promised the Congress that Amtrak would be financially self-
sufficient within 3 or 4 years. That was in 1970.
As I sit here and listen to you say you are going to be
financially self-sufficient in 2003, I say to you thank you for
finally validating a promise that I made 30 years ago that has
not come true in that 30 years.
I think there is no question but that we need high-speed
rail service in certain parts of this country. I am a little
less convinced that we need it in a national network. We have
an awful lot of space out in the West that is best covered by
air. We have got Amtrak service in Utah but the trains arrive
at about 2 o'clock in the morning and they come three times a
week and they have maybe 15 people on them. I am not sure that
is the very best way to proceed.
But certainly seeing what can be done in the more heavily
populated corridors of the Nation and how this becomes a very
intelligent alternative to air certainly in the Boston-
Washington corridor and so on--I have taken Amtrak there. I am
delighted it will get better and faster, and I would be
delighted to be on that train with you that you described.
Governor Thompson. You are invited, but I promised the
engineering duties to Senator Lautenberg and Senator Shelby, so
you will have to be a passenger with me.
Senator Bennett. You are very wise to keep me out of the
train driving business.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, and on behalf of the country,
I thank you for the zest that you bring to this particular
challenge.
That is all I have.
Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton, do you have any comments,
opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton. Well, I am late here. And I am not going to
repeat anything else, except perhaps what I have heard from
Senator Bennett. I must say I have about the same faith in
Governor Thompson's promise of black ink as I would have, I
trust, in 1970. I do not think it is going to happen in spite
of all of his greatest efforts.
I also share Senator Bennett's views that we have to look
at this whole problem quite differently in different parts of
the country. The Boston-Washington corridor, a corridor in
which obviously Senator Lautenberg has the greatest interest,
from my perspective is an area in which rail passenger service
is absolutely vital and has a very real promise to be self-
supporting.
About 3 years ago, one weekend in going home, I flew to
Chicago and took the Empire Builder to Seattle. It was
absolutely full and I am sure it was losing $50 a passenger.
Absolutely full. It was very difficult for me to see those
long-haul routes being any part of a major, necessary
transportation system in the United States.
I was encouraged, however, by reading recently that at
least on one of the more southern routes, what Amtrak is going
to do is to try to--I guess the best way to describe it would
be land cruise ships. If Amtrak can create a luxury experience
for tourists to enjoy the United States and stop pretending
that it is really a competitor to airlines or something of that
sort, there may be some promise. Many of those routes are
interesting to travel, but the kind of equipment that Amtrak is
using--it was a very frustrating ride for me. It was not a good
tourist experience. And obviously, it was not a particularly
efficient way to get from here to Seattle. But imagination
seems to be gaining a little bit of ground at least in Amtrak,
and I hope that its managers go ahead with it. But I am not
holding my breath until it is operating in the black.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Kohl, do you have any comments?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Senator Kohl. Yes, I have a brief statement.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for providing this opportunity to
discuss Department of Transportation management issues here
today. Although I am not able to stay this morning, I do want
to offer brief comments on Amtrak and welcome Governor Thompson
and Messrs. Basso, Mead, and Warrington. It is heartening to
have the interests of my State and the Midwest well represented
here with Governor Thompson.
Half a million Wisconsinites ride Amtrak. We also have
ambitious plans to develop high-speed rail in the Midwest and
commuter rail in southeastern Wisconsin. Clearly, we are
counting on both reliable and efficient service, and smart,
sound management at Amtrak as we work to reach these goals.
It is good to be addressing today the question of how
Amtrak will grow rather than mourning lost services as we have
in the past. It was not so long ago that the Governor and I had
a fight to save Wisconsin's Hiawatha service between Chicago
and Milwaukee.
Now we are learning of Amtrak's plans to expand routes to
Fond du Lac and Janesville, Wisconsin. Times and the nature of
these hearings have certainly changed, but we must temper our
high hopes for Amtrak's future with sound business sense. The
burden is on you to prove that the new routes in Amtrak's
bottom line do not compromise reliable service on all routes
and are part of a balanced national transportation strategy
that also includes road and air travel.
This year we have an administration request for a new high-
speed corridor account in the amount of $468 million. This too
holds potential for the Midwest, but it also demonstrates the
significant budget challenge that we face. The funding for the
high-speed rail proposal comes from the so-called RABA funds
that are promised for highways and bridges. And yesterday we
approved an aviation bill that increases airport capital funds
by roughly 60 percent, an increase that will compete directly
with the high-speed rail money.
So, simply put, the challenges are greater for all of us.
We need to stay the course on the road to self-sufficiency, and
we need to work even harder to make sure that our
transportation investment remains in balance.
Thank you again for coming to speak with us today. We look
forward to working with you as the appropriations process
continues.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Mead, over the years, we have spent a great deal of
time talking about aging and inadequate infrastructure. I was
informed recently, today, of a self-proclaimed critical piece
of aging transportation infrastructure that has been poorly,
some would even say negligently, maintained. Of course, I am
talking about the minority clerk of the Transportation
Subcommittee, Peter Rogoff. I am told it is his 40th birthday
today and that there is no better place he would rather be than
at this hearing. That by itself warrants an investigation, Mr.
Inspector General, by your office. Do you not agree?
Mr. Mead. Knowing Peter, yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Peter, happy birthday.
Senator Bennett. Happy birthday.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg, I know you have got a
Budget hearing.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks for taking care of Peter for me.
Senator Shelby. Well, he has got to take care of that
infrastructure.
OPERATIONAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Senator Lautenberg. He has got to be the continuity on
this, so we wish him well.
I just want to respond to the comments of my colleagues
here. We are talking about self-sufficiency. We are talking
about a rather ambitious quest because we are discussing, A,
operational self-sufficiency. We are kind of embarrassed that
we have to defend the fact that this railroad will be the only
one in the world that does not require subsidy from Government.
In West Germany, they are going to spend $70 billion on high-
speed rail service in 10 years--$70 billion. So, in our country
we have spent over $85 billion on aviation plus the PFC's which
bring that sum up substantially. So, that is our mission.
And while Senator Gorton noted that my interest is
primarily in the Northeast, I must say I genuinely believe that
high-speed rail service, maybe not of the type and the length
of journey that Senator Gorton described, is an essential
factor around the country. All of us have had the opportunity
to travel this great Nation and whether it is high-speed rail
service out of Chicago, Milwaukee, et cetera, or whether it is
on the West Coast--and I know that work is going on in some of
the States on the West Coast to try to bring high-speed rail
service--or the Southeast or the South, all of these have
piqued the interest. Seattle to Portland, et cetera. So, this
is not just give it to the East.
But I will say this, that when the Northeast has air jam-
ups and we are behind schedule, it affects every major airport
in the country whether it is Seattle or Los Angeles or San
Francisco. You name it. And we just cannot squeeze more. These
airport incursions that Ken Mead mentioned are happening and
they are frightening. The result there of an accident can be
quite substantial.
But we are bent on this not because I--like I said when we
initiated the Boston to New York service, that as a child I
came from a hardworking but very modest income family, and I
had always wanted electric trains and I never got them. And now
I am really getting a big set, and I am excited about it.
But there is more to it than that. I genuinely believe that
unless we pay attention to the development of rail service that
is efficient, high-speed, that we will be dooming ourselves to
congestion and delays and pollution all over this country. We
all agree we cannot do more on highways. But people fail to
understand that as big as that sky is, there are limitations.
We cannot get the airports. How many of us have experienced--
and I can tell you between Washington and New York, it has
happened frequently--where the wait to get a gate is longer
than the amount of time it took to fly from place to place?
So, we are deluding ourselves if we think that we can just
continuously expand this aviation system. People do not want
them in their neighborhoods. They do not want to listen to the
noise. They do not want to listen to the clutter. People are
tired about missing appointments and missing connections and
things of that nature.
So, we are working on something that I think really
deserves the support and full attention of our Government. I
hope that we will continue to give Amtrak a chance to develop.
RIDERSHIP INTEREST
In the next couple of years, we will see what happens in
terms of ridership interest. One of the questions I was going
to ask Governor Thompson was the ridership increase, Mr.
Chairman, between Boston and New York that has exceeded all of
the projections, as a matter of fact, is up over 60 percent in
just a couple of months.
Governor Thompson. 64 percent.
Senator Lautenberg. 64 percent.
So, there is a hankering out there for high-speed rail and
I hope we will be able to satisfy it.
I thank all of you. I have worked with Ken Mead and Peter
Basso and George Warrington and the Governor for some time now.
This likely being my last hearing for Amtrak, Mr. Chairman,
I thank you for your consideration and patience as we discuss
Amtrak. I know maybe it may be an overly discussed subject
sometimes, but you have been very good about it.
Senator Shelby. Well, I am waiting for those hourly trains
to come through from Atlanta and New Orleans through my part of
Alabama where I can ride it. Right, Governor?
Governor Thompson. That is right, Senator. We are coming.
Senator Shelby. I know, I know.
Governor Thompson. We just need your help.
AMTRAK FUNDING
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, you and the Inspector
General have questions. It may be more of a statement first.
Last year the administration's 2000 budget proposed to
divert funding from the highway firewall into the transit
account, the rail account, and the highway safety account.
There was an immediate and strong negative reaction from
Congress to this proposal. These funds were guaranteed for
highway construction under TEA-21 and there was absolutely no
interest in undoing that agreement.
Yet, the administration's 2001 budget proposes to do
exactly the same thing again; that is, divert $600 million from
this fund, revenue aligned budget authority, to non-highway
purposes. The administration has identified $468 million of
this proposed transfer for passenger rail.
Perhaps that is more than a statement, but it is clear to
the Secretary that this proposal to divert highway funds for
non-highway purposes is dead here in the Congress, dead on
arrival, the same proposal as last year.
Mr. Mead, as a follow-up to that question, your staff has
worked closely with Amtrak on an independent assessment of the
railroad's financial outlook. In this oversight work, what
Federal funding level does Amtrak assume in fiscal years 2001
and 2002?
Mr. Mead. We have consistently used $521 million.
Senator Shelby. It is a lot of money, is it not?
Mr. Mead. Yes. It seems like it to me anyway.
Senator Shelby. Governor Thompson, I think it is fair to
say that a lot of people were surprised by last week's
announcement of Amtrak's market-based network analysis and
associated network restructuring plans. This was a widely
expected result and recommendations for route restructuring and
elimination. It is well-known that all but one of Amtrak's 40
routes lose more than they make in revenues. Some lines lose
more than three times as much as they generate in revenues in a
year. But what was announced last week was a service expansion
plan with no route eliminations or decrease in labor costs.
Amtrak believes it can increase its revenue through adding
routes and trains and increasing its mail and express business.
Maybe so. I hope so. This approach is not responsive to the
intent of the Senate Appropriations Committee which directed,
in the fiscal year 2000 report language, that Amtrak's MBNA
will analyze different service alternatives, including route
restructuring and modifications, frequency changes, route
expansions, and route eliminations. Nor is this approach
responsive to the letter that Chairman Wolf and I sent to
George Warrington, President of Amtrak, last April 28 in which
we directed that MBNA analysis must consider a full range of
options including route elimination and rationalization.
What is going on, Governor?
Governor Thompson. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby. You
are absolutely correct. Now let me tell you what we did. Until
now, Amtrak had never gone through a detailed analysis of every
route and every piece of equipment. So we spent the last 15
months going through every route and every piece of equipment
and every service and found out how we can make it more
profitable. How could we make it more passenger friendly? How
could we do a better job?
We determined that for several years Amtrak has tried to
shrink itself into self-sufficiency or profitability, and it
did not work. Just because you reduced the number of services
and restricted the amount of passenger services, you still had
the fixed costs. So, we asked, how can we grow this railroad
and increase the revenue and increase the number of passengers.
We did this by looking at each route, and we found ways that we
could improve it.
For instance, at Meridian, Mississippi, we are going to
split the train. We are going to use part of the train to
continue on south, but part of the train will go east and west,
and increase the passenger service, as well as the opportunity
for mail and express.
The Texas Eagle. We found ways that we could go 7 days
there, pick up more passengers, as well as mail and express
contracts that would allow us to earn more money.
Overall our MBNA is going to bring in $65 million to the
bottom line by fiscal year 2003.
We also did something else. We went and reached agreements
with the freight railroads, as well, on mail and express. We
said, you know, we have been fighting you for a long time. How
can we cooperate? Is there a way that we can carry some of your
load, and make it more profitable for you, and also bring some
money into Amtrak? We are sitting down and negotiating and we
have reached agreement with many of the freight railroads. So,
they are giving us some express to haul. You know, 5 years ago,
they would have fought us. Now, they are contacting us and
giving us some of their business. As a result, we are both
making money.
There is more than $8 billion of refrigerated produce that
is being transported across the country. We have looked into it
and found that we can have rail passenger cars bringing
refrigerated produce from California to New York. So, we are
going to develop a new route from California to New York on
produce and passengers. We think we can cut into that $8
billion business. We have got commissions set up----
Senator Shelby. Can you do it faster?
Governor Thompson. We can do it faster and more reliably.
We think we are going to have a really nice little cash
infusion from this business.
Overall, the MBNA is going to bring us $65 million more
than what we have right now.
Senator Shelby. But will you also have a stand alone route
elimination analysis prepared?
Governor Thompson. We already did that.
Senator Shelby. You have.
Governor Thompson. We have.
Senator Shelby. Do you not think as you look at the whole
picture, you have to, as you want to grow things--and that
makes sense--grow revenue and promote routes----
Governor Thompson. I think George wants to answer that one.
Senator Shelby. George, do you want to get in on that?
Mr. Warrington. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The MBNA work really was
an examination of every single route that the company operates
today and every single segment and every city that is out there
today.
REACH AND CONNECTIVITY
You may recall in 1995 Amtrak went through a very difficult
series of truncations and terminations of all or portions of
routes. In the end, because of the fixed cost and overhead cost
nature of the business, what you find is that unless you
eliminate the entire system, as a practical matter, the costs
you are able to eliminate in connection with incremental
service reductions do not come close to the amount of
incremental revenue you lose associated with the termination of
the service. The freight lines figured this out a long time
ago, which is why reach and connectivity are critical elements
underpinning the kind of planning work that we have done.
We did the take-out analysis on every segment----
Senator Shelby. Elaborate just a minute on the phrase you
just used, ``reach and connectivity.'' I think that is
important.
Mr. Warrington. Yes, and this is underpinned with a lot of
market research, Mr. Chairman. What our research tells us and
what our models confirm is that the more you reach more
markets, the more connectivity the system provides--and Dallas-
Fort Worth is a good example of where we are creating that kind
of opportunity. Running a 7-day a week Texas Eagle to Dallas-
Fort Worth, extending a Crescent from Atlanta-Meridian-New
Orleans to Dallas-Fort Worth. The synergy that provides, along
with our new Oklahoma service from Oklahoma to Dallas-Fort
Worth, the potential opportunity to also run an extension of
that Eagle to Monterrey, Mexico, in part driven by passenger
demand in Laredo and in part, frankly, by express markets like
auto parts moving from Delaware and Detroit and Chicago to
assembly plants in Monterrey, Mexico--the combination of the
synergy that you create and, in addition, rerouting our Sunset
Limited, which runs from Jacksonville to Los Angeles, rerouting
that north of Houston, bypassing actually several smaller
markets that are currently being served in south Texas and
tapping into the Dallas-Fort Worth market and the Abilene
market in west Texas. Where the size of our reach is about
300,000 customers, compared to 30,000 customers in south Texas,
when you put it all together, you have a much more attractive
system not only for passenger business, but for mail and
express business.
And the Postal Service will tell you that as well, that we
are a much more attractive carrier of not only periodicals, but
also second class and conceivably first class mail, if we have
better reach and better frequency to markets that they need to
have served.
All of that enables us to secure more revenue that we can
contribute to the bottom line, although we are not necessarily
profitable on every train across the entire system. I use as an
example Continental Airlines. Continental is Newark Airport's,
New Jersey's, dominant carrier. I will guarantee you that every
plane feeding Newark airport is not making money for
Continental, but it is feeding a network and feeding a system.
It is the same basic concept, Senator.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett?
Governor Thompson. Senator Shelby, if I could just quickly
add.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Governor Thompson. But at the same time that we are doing
this, we are also asking the States to step up.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. Well, they have to step up.
Governor Thompson. They have to. And the States are coming
in and back-filling some of these routes to the tune of about
$300 million a year.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am delighted with this conversation. You are actually
starting to run it like a business.
Governor Thompson. Yes, we are.
Senator Bennett. Again, from the historic perspective, a
lot of the original support for Amtrak came from people that I
would describe, not in a pejorative sense, as hobbyists, people
who just had a great love for the romance of train travel, and
they wanted to make sure that passenger train travel did not
disappear. So, the whole focus was on preserving the romance of
being on a train.
There was a clear divorce between passenger travel and
freight. The freight people wanted out of the passenger
business so badly, if you remember the history, they subsidized
Amtrak in the very beginning. They paid to get out. A lot of
the original capital formation of Amtrak, or Railpax, as we
called it in those days, came from literally ransom payments
made by the freight lines to say, get us out of this business.
We want absolutely nothing to do with it. It had been a
tremendous loser for a long time, and the railroads were in
real trouble and this was a way that they would get out from
under the albatross.
To be talking now about competing for some of their
business, about competing with trucks for some of their
business is a very heartening kind of thing. Instead of
focusing strictly on the romantic and nostalgic view of the
kind of train ride that Senator Gorton described, which you
take if you are retired and have the time, to say, okay, we
will move refrigerated goods, we will move packages that might
compete with Federal Express--the same kind of problems getting
in and out of airports apply to Federal Express as apply to a
passenger--is a very heartening development. I have not heard
this kind of conversation on this issue before. Maybe I just
have not attended the right hearings, Mr. Chairman, but to hear
this kind of dialogue is just really quite exciting to me. I
want to congratulate you all on your willingness to do this.
Again, a piece of historic perspective. It was not air
travel that killed rail passenger in this country. It was the
interstate highway system. Ninety-eight percent of city-to-city
trips for passengers are taken in the automobile. So, for you
to start talking about competing with the interstate highway
system by taking things that are currently going by truck and
saying we can put them on our high-speed trains and get them
there faster and cheaper than the trucks can is, I think, a
very farsighted point of view. You are going to where the
competition really is, and that is something any businessman
needs to do.
So, just keep it up. More and more of this kind of thing I
think is terrific.
Mr. Mead. I would like to offer just a perspective on that
going back in time a bit. Amtrak for years thought that it was
supposed to stay away from the freight business except for
hauling mail. Now, Amtrak is getting into niche markets. So
far, they have not made the truckers or the freight railroads
angry in terms of cutting into their business. If they do start
to get angry, their first broadside will be, this is unfair
because Amtrak is receiving a Federal subsidy, and whether it
is called a capital subsidy or an operating subsidy, I am not
sure that the competitors will appreciate that distinction.
Governor Thompson. Senator Bennett, just quickly. Thank you
very much for your comments. I really appreciate it and I
really appreciate, as Chairman of the Board, to hear your
historical perspective. I did not know all of these things. I
learned a lot this morning listening to you, and I thank you
for that.
This past year we have picked up $100 million of mail and
express for Amtrak, and that is just the start. We are
expecting to expand that.
Ken Mead said it correctly. We sat down with the freight
railroads. You know, we used to fight all the time. They could
not stand us; we could not stand them. And we would come
running to you to solve it. But George Warrington and this
board decided why fight. Let us go see how we could cooperate.
So, we have quarterly meetings. George meets with the
freight railroads, and I meet with them once a year. And we
meet with the freight railroads and say we are going to be
here. Can we work together? How can we help you and how can you
help us be more on time? And how can we both make some money
out of the proposition? And you know something? They like us a
lot better. They still do not completely trust us, but they
like us a lot better. They are talking to us and we are
communicating. That is helpful.
The refrigerated car business--the roads are too congested,
so we decided to try it. We are going to try it and we are
going to go from California to New York and transport produce.
We think it is a niche market that can pick us up a lot of
money.
We are also going to make an agreement with UPS and some of
the other people about express. That is the kind of business
that we need.
Quad Graphics is a big printing company. We are hauling all
their periodicals and distributing their periodicals, and we
are making good money on it. That is what we have to do.
We are trying to run this railroad like you would run a
business. We have completely changed our philosophy and our
direction, and we are going to keep doing it till we make you
proud of it.
Senator Bennett. Well, you may get to your goal by 2003
with that kind of attitude.
In the spirit of Senator Gorton, let me just share one
personal experience with you that I think summarizes where we
are. My wife and I some years ago went to Great Britain. I had
lived in Great Britain for 2 years in my early 20's on a church
assignment. My son was there finishing up his church mission.
We went back to pick him up. Like all tourists, we rented a
car. It took me a little while to get used to driving on the
funny side of the street. But we drove around Great Britain and
saw all the sites, and I went to all the places that I had
visited as a young man. And our son took us to places. It was
wonderful.
After about 4 days of that and our schedule called for us
to be back in London to see some shows and do the kinds of
things you do in London, I was kind of tired of that little
car. We found a Hertz place and checked the car in and got on
the train. And we got to London so fast by comparison that my
wife said, what have we been doing in the car the whole time we
have been here?
Well, we had been touring. It was a logical kind of thing
to do, but when the time came that you wanted to move quickly,
we moved to the train.
I think that is a paradigm for where we may go here. In my
own State of Utah--Mr. Basso, of course, knows Utah's transit
problems backwards and forwards. He lives with them. I think he
is probably sick of hearing from people from Utah. From Provo
to Ogden now, you have got about 80 percent of the State. We
are thought of as a rural State. We, Mr. Chairman, are probably
one of the most urbanized States in the country. The highway
traffic from Provo to Ogden now is a long schlep. If you do not
do it at exactly the right times of day, it can take you time.
They are saying, well, if you can get a high-speed connection--
now, this clearly does not belong in any Amtrak national plan,
but if you can get a high-speed commuter rail from Provo to
Salt Lake to Ogden, a lot of folks would get out of their cars
just to have the same kind of experience we had in Great
Britain, to say if I want to go as a tourist, I will take the
car. If I want the convenience of being able to get off and do
the kinds of things we did, I will take the car. If I just have
to get there to a business appointment, speed is the all
important thing, amazingly rail will come back because your
competitor is not the airplane. Your competitor is the highway.
And as highways get congested, the train becomes more and more
attractive.
Governor Thompson. You build it. We will operate it.
Senator Bennett. Okay, very good.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I have a number of written questions that we would like to
submit to you for the record. You have always been courteous
enough to answer them fully.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
AMTRAK ACELA DELAYS
Question. I understand that the Acela Express high-speed service,
originally scheduled to begin by the end of calendar year 1999, has
been delayed until July of this year, a delay of at least 6 months.
What are Amtrak's remaining challenges to meeting the new start-up
date of July 2000? Are they going to make it?
Answer. Amtrak currently anticipates beginning Acela-Express high-
speed passenger service in the Northeast Corridor in July 2000, about 7
months later than originally planned. The delays thus far relate to
suspension and oscillation problems in the wheel trucks discovered
during testing on the high-speed trainsets and locomotives. While
progress has been made on fixing these problems, there are still issues
that will need to be addressed before the trains can operate at their
design speed of 150 m.p.h. Time is getting short for Amtrak to meet the
July deadline and service may either be delayed or start with a maximum
speed less than 150 m.p.h.
Question. What is the financial effect of this delay on Amtrak's
revenue projections for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Amtrak estimates that if service begins in July 2000 as
currently planned, the lost passenger revenues in fiscal year 2000
associated with the delayed start-up would total $142 million. Amtrak
projects that this revenue loss will be mostly mitigated by operating
expense savings, interest savings, and contractor penalties for late
equipment delivery. Amtrak plans to offset the remaining $44 million
with new leasing agreements. The revenue loss will be higher if delays
extend beyond July. The months of July and August are typically heavy
travel months for Northeast Direct service, and a later start-up will
mean that Amtrak will not be able to capitalize on this heavy seasonal
ridership to boost revenues. While Amtrak would be able to partially
mitigate the revenue impact of further delays through operating and
interest savings, the net impact to Amtrak's bottom line in fiscal year
2000 will be negative.
Question. Will the delay have a domino effect on the implementation
of high-speed Acela service in fiscal year 2001, as well, because the
trainset delivery schedule has been set back?
Answer. Once the issues that are causing the current delays are
resolved, ``fixes'' to the trainsets could be completed relatively
quickly, allowing for an accelerated delivery schedule. Amtrak is
working with the consortium building the trainsets to compress the
delivery schedule and ramp up to full service in a shorter period of
time--which it currently plans to do by December 2000. The original
schedule called for full service by July 2000. However, at this time,
we do not expect full service with all 20 trainsets before December
2000.
OVERSIGHT OF HIGH-DOLLAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Question. One of the issues that made the Inspector General's
oversight report last year and again this year is that DOT needs to
improve its management of transportation infrastructure projects. It is
especially important for the management of high-dollar projects to be
aggressive, because the risks to the government's financial interests
are increased proportionally.
The Inspector General Report says that DOT should do the following:
(1) Strengthen internal controls over project cost estimates; (2)
Require and closely examine project finance plans; (3) Monitor project
performance to minimize funding risk.
Has the Department of Transportation been implementing your
recommendations? Which agencies are doing the best job reducing
financial risk with Federal funds? Which agencies are not doing as
well?
Answer. The Department of Transportation has been implementing our
recommendations with varying degrees of success. The majority of high-
dollar infrastructure projects using Federal funds are highway and
transit projects.
With respect to reducing financial risk with Federal funds, the
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) use of full funding grant
agreements has effectively limited the Federal government's financial
risks and promoted accountability in the funding of new starts capital
projects. These full funding grant agreements set the maximum amount of
discretionary capital investment funds that can be used for transit
projects.
The full funding grant agreements have effectively limited the
exposure of the Federal government for project cost increases. They
also provide local accountability and incentives for grant recipients
to exercise tight control over project costs. Grantees know they must
find the funds needed to pay any additional costs and that the
Department will not entertain requests for any more discretionary
funds.
Of the current 15 projects with grant agreements, 3 had cost
increases of approximately $929 million. None received additional
discretionary capital investment funds. For example, the new starts
funds committed for the South Boston Piers Transitway remains $331
million, as established by the 1994 grant agreement, despite an
increase of $188 million in the project's estimated cost.
By contrast, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects have no
comparable limitations. For example, the FHWA share of the Central
Artery/Ted Williams Tunnel Project has increased by more than $8
billion as the project's costs have increased from $2.6 billion to over
$13 billion.
We have also recommended finance plans as essential tools for
identifying project costs and funding needs. Finance plans describe how
projects will be implemented over time. They identify project costs and
timing, and the financial resources needed to pay for those costs.
However, better criteria are needed to ensure finance plans are
complete, reliable, and consistent.
We found the quality and completeness of finance plans for highway
and transit capital projects to be highly variable. Some finance plans
accurately reported costs and identified funding shortfalls. Others
needed to be more thorough in disclosing problems and presenting
information in a consistent manner over time. For example, the 1999
Finance Plan for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District includes
construction costs and operating costs for both the existing and new
segments; includes a 10-year forecast that identifies underlying
revenue and expense assumptions; and demonstrates that Bay Area Rapid
Transit District has the financial capacity to operate its entire
transit system, including the airport extension, after it opens in mid-
2002.
Conversely, our most recent report on the Central Artery/Ted
Williams Tunnel Project indicated significant, fundamental problems
with its finance plan. The reporting methodology was changed so that
the reviewer could only see the cost to complete, not the total project
cost. The plan did not report specific cost, funding, and schedule
indicators, such as ``budgeted cost of work performed'' versus ``actual
cost of work performed,'' ``contract awards versus budget,'' ``total
projected cost by type of cost,'' and ``annual funding requirements by
source.'' However, in some specific cases (e.g. I-15 and California
210) FHWA has agreed with our recommendations to require updated
finance plans and in the case of I-15, that update is much improved--
i.e., it closed the funding gap, it identified sources for all funds
necessary to cover all cost estimates. We recommend that FHWA revise
its guidance on finance plans to ensure more complete and accurate
reporting of financial performance. On February 17, 2000, after a $1.4
billion cost increase was announced by the Central Artery, the
Secretary directed FHWA to accept and implement our recommendation.
AMASS
Question. There has been a continuing concern about the increasing
number of runway incursions, collisions or potential accidents on the
ground. The upward trend in runway incursions continued in 1998, with
325 incursions, an 11 percent increase from 1997. AMASS is the radar
and related software/hardware to monitor airport surfaces and warn of
potential runway incursions. A month or so ago, FAA announced that it
was going to be two years behind schedule in deploying AMASS.
Would you please explain the reasons for the delay in the AMASS
program, and tell us how this will affect FAA's initiatives to reduce
the number of runway incursions? Should we be looking at other
solutions?
Answer. Software development problems caused delays. Unresolved
human factors issues are now causing additional delays. For example,
the AMASS alert message on the ASDE-3 display is not readable beyond 10
feet, which is a concern since controllers are often further than 10
feet from the display during their normal operations. The delays in
deploying AMASS will not affect other FAA initiatives such as educating
and training pilots and controllers on reducing runway incursions.
However, delaying AMASS increases the potential for an accident on the
runway.
FAA should be looking at other solutions especially low cost
solutions that can be implemented in a short time frame. AMASS will
only help the 34 large airports designated to receive this system.
Improving pilot situational awareness with technologies, such as in-
cockpit moving map displays, that would identify what is on the runway
and provide two set of eyes, the pilots, and the controllers, would
reduce response time required to alleviate a potentially hazardous
situation.
FAA is also looking to award a contract by the end of this fiscal
year for a low cost Airport Surface Detection Equipment system that
will provide surface surveillance for the small and mid-size high
priority airports not designated to receive AMASS. FAA, however, has as
yet to determine beyond Orlando, Florida, the proposed key site for the
system, which small to mid-size high priority airports will receive the
system.
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT
Question. The Coast Guard has expanded the mission requirements for
the Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement by proposing to add a buoy
tender capability to the new icebreaking vessel. I understand that this
is the first time the Coast Guard has proposed building other
capabilities into an icebreaking platform.
Are you aware of any requirements or design specifications in the
Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement project that would inhibit this
procurement from being a full and open competition?
Answer. The Coast Guard's current acquisition strategy does not
call for completing final design until at least the first quarter of
fiscal year 2001. Consequently, it is not yet possible to determine if
these requirements and design specifications will restrict competition.
Award to the firm submitting the successful proposal for this
icebreaking vessel with buoy tending capability is scheduled for June
2001.
DEEPWATER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Question. It is my understanding that the planning phase for the
Deepwater project will not be completed before the Department submits
its fiscal year 2002 budget request and Congress takes action on that
request. Based on your experience, would you consider this approach to
be consistent with recognized best practices in government acquisition
programs?
Answer. Requesting budget authority without critical cost and
schedule information carries substantial risk and is inconsistent with
acquisition program best practices. Although the Coast Guard plans to
request $350 million for the Deepwater Replacement for fiscal year
2002, industry teams will not complete their planning effort until
several months after the budget requests must be submitted to the
Congress. Experience in other major procurements such as those in the
Federal Aviation Administration, has shown that factors such as
uncertain designs and funding increase the likelihood that projects
will experience problems associated with cost and schedule slippage.
The Coast Guard's Deepwater assets will reach the end of their
useful lives over the next 30 years. The question therefore, is not
whether they have to be replaced or modernized but how and when. To
achieve success, the Coast Guard must identify and manage the risk
associated with a project of this magnitude.
Question. What steps would you recommend that the Coast Guard take
to ensure that it has adequate management controls in place prior to
the fiscal year 2002 Budget Request?
Answer. While this Project employs a sound process to identify
needs and alternatives, it is too early to determine with any degree of
precision what the Project will cost or how long it will take to
complete. The Coast Guard plans to submit a request in February 2001
for $350 million to begin construction in fiscal year 2002. The
industry teams' proposals for an integrated system are not due until
April 2001 and the final decision on what assets the Coast guard will
replace or modernize will not occur until July 2001. The lack of
industry teams' cost and schedule information when the budget is being
prepared could adversely affect the Coast Guard's budget decision. To
reduce the risk associated with this lack of information, the Coast
Guard needs to justify to the Department and the Congress, how it can
proceed without full cost data and a rational acquisition strategy.
Three options it can consider are to:
--Defer the anticipated $350 million fiscal year 2002 Deepwater
budget request until the results of the planning process are
known.
--Expedite the planning process to identify the most critical
Deepwater needs and justify the fiscal year 2002 budget request
on that basis.
--Use information available from the industry teams to develop a
current cost and schedule estimate for the Project that
identifies anticipated acquisitions and justify the fiscal year
2002 budget request on that basis.
Another area requiring Coast Guard attention is how to ensure
continuity of staffing in a project that could last 20 or more years.
The Coast Guard's policy of rotating military officers could adversely
impact institutional memory that could be critical to successful
implementation of the project. We have suggested that the Coast Guard
consider the need for senior level civilian leadership as a solution.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation is now
recessed. The subcommittee will convene on Tuesday, March 28,
at 2 o'clock in Dirksen 192 for an oversight hearing on the
implementation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the
positive notification provision that was included in this
year's transportation appropriations bill.
I want to thank all of you, Governor Thompson, Mr. Mead,
and Mr. Basso.
Governor Thompson. On behalf of Amtrak, I would like to
thank you, Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., Thursday, March 9, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 1:57 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senator Shelby (presiding).
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR
2001--CONTINUING
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEMENTS OF:
PETER J. BASSO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS,
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
HON. KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPENING STATEMENT OF senator RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The hearing is called to order. First of
all, I would like to thank Ken Mead, the Department of
Transportation Inspector General, and Jack Basso, the Assistant
Secretary of Transportation for Budget and Programs, for being
here today to reconvene and conclude the subcommittee's hearing
on the Department of Transportation's most pressing management
and oversight challenges.
We began this hearing early this month on March the 9th,
but due to tight schedules on my part and that of Senator
Lautenberg we were not able to finish the hearing. Since the
witnesses have already made their opening statements when we
first convened the hearing earlier this month, I would like to
move things right along. So when Senator Lautenberg, if he
comes here, I will recognize him.
AIR-21
Mr. Basso, Mr. Mead, we are pleased that you are here. If I
could, I would just move into some questions. Mr. Basso, I
understand that the President is expected to sign the FAA
reauthorization bill that the Senate and the House recently
passed, which the Secretary described as ``a giant step
forward.'' After the bloom is off this rose, it will fall to
people like you and Mr. Mead in his oversight and audit roles
to manage all the Department's programs, those in both the
protected and in the nonprotected categories.
I am increasingly concerned that Congress has not yet found
the right balance of adequate investment in transportation
infrastructure and also providing a programmatic and budgetary
environment that encourages the maximum efficiency of our
transportation systems, as opposed to simply maximizing our
commitment of Federal dollars to payment or construction.
I will ask both of you this: Does this concern resonate
with either of you? Do you believe that the budgetary
structures that we are adopting may stifle or inhibit our
common goals of increased and responsible Federal
transportation investment? Mr. Secretary, you want to tackle
that first?
Mr. Basso. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Let me say on the question of AIR-21, the President has
clearly expressed his intent to sign the bill. In fact, I was
advised we received the bill a little earlier in the day, so
the clock has begun. AIR-21 I think clearly has some mixed
blessings and challenges for all of us. On the infrastructure
and modernization side, the additional funding, particularly
for facilities and equipment, which is above the President's
budget, will help us to move forward on the modernization
issues. I think we all recognize, in the growth in the
industry, that this is crucial.
On the other hand, as the President expressed, there are
concerns as to how we will assure that the appropriate level of
operational funding is maintained. I think that is a challenge
that clearly is going to face the administration and the
Congress as to how we work that out in the appropriations
process, and I am very mindful of that challenge. We have
talked about it, and I think we have an awful lot to do.
To complete the answer to your question, we have to do that
within a balance in the Department, particularly where it
relates to the United States Coast Guard and other critical
national security and lifesaving functions of the Department.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Mead. Yes. I am glad you picked on him first. I get to
reflect on the answer.
Senator Shelby. Well, we like you both. We just happened to
do this.
Mr. Mead. There are a couple of implications that flow from
AIR-21. One of them that I have difficulty sorting through is
the effect on the budgets of agencies other than highways, mass
transit, and aviation. In other words, there may well be
implications for Amtrak, the Coast Guard and pipelines.
The other implication is for aviation itself. For example,
the essential design of AIR-21 is that airports are funded
first. Second, capital facilities and equipment modernization
are funded. The third thing you fund--with what's left over--is
salaries and operations expenses, which include safety
inspectors and things of that nature. Yet, as we speak the
Congress is being asked to sign off on a supplemental that is
predominantly operations in nature.
There is not going to be enough money----
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. Mead [continuing]. In the trust fund to pay operations,
airports, and facilities and equipment. And since AIR-21 sets
the order for funding as I described it, there will be a need
to dip into the general fund to take care of operations.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Basso, for this fiscal year the FAA's
operations budget grew by 6 percent. I would think that the FAA
Administrator would be able to find somewhere within the
several hundred million of dollars of growth in the 2000
appropriation one-tenth of one percent to maintain the safety
inspection work force. Are my expectations there unrealistic,
considering the size of that budget? You know, you can always
find something. The bigger the budget, you can squeeze a
little. The smaller the budget, it is harder.
Mr. Basso. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. I know it is tough and I know you have got
a tough job.
Mr. Basso. Let me just say this, I want to assure you, Mr.
Chairman, we have done that squeeze. In fact, last night the
White House transmitted to Congress----
Senator Shelby. Did you find the money?
Mr. Basso. No, sir. Let me say this: we found part of the
money.
I do not mind sharing with you what really came over to us.
Originally we started with a figure of about $200 million and I
would say out of the $200 million we found enough to make up
about $120 million or so of it by making appropriate
adjustments, making the kind of adjustments we should. We then
reached the point where we came to the realization that if we
made up changes in other areas it meant really weakening our
inspection work force and cutting some of the areas that I
think we all agree are really crucial to managing safety in the
FAA.
So after some, I will tell you, considerable examination,
about 8 weeks worth of examination, we concluded that the only
alternative was to come to the Congress. There is no more fat
that we can find at this point in the short term to deal with
it.
EMERGENCY RELIEF
Senator Shelby. I want to get into emergency highway
deficiency as we see it. We noted that the TEA-21 authorization
provides an emergency highway program of $100 million a year.
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. And the administration has not requested
additional emergency highway funds, notwithstanding the backlog
of emergency projects from natural disaster I understand
currently exceeds $500 million.
Mr. Basso. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Do not firewalls or special budgetary
treatments make it more difficult, Mr. Secretary, to address
emerging transportation requirements like the emergency highway
program?
Mr. Basso. Let me talk just a moment, Mr. Chairman, about
emergency highway funds. One of the things that has troubled me
is the fact that the $100 million that we have which is exempt
from all other restrictions, was enacted in the 1973 Highway
Act. So we have not really seen a change in that level in
almost 28 years.
Senator Shelby. It is not a lot of money, is it?
Mr. Basso. No, sir, and it just does not make it from here
to there, there is no question.
Senator Shelby. In a Nation this size.
Mr. Basso. Absolutely, and particularly what we have been
experiencing the last several years, which averages well above
that amount. In any event, what we did do was send up with the
budget a proposal which would deal with the emergency relief
question--which you are absolutely right, as of September 2000
we had a backlog of $500 million and is probably bigger than
that now. Our proposal is to create new contract authority, but
confine it within the obligation ceiling set in TEA-21, so that
we did not basically end up burdening the committee with the
additional outlays to be paid for in this program.
So we took our shot over 3 years of paying off that debt. I
do think, though, that it is important to recognize that sooner
or later we are going to have to find a more permanent and a
better solution to the emergency relief program.
Senator Shelby. Of course you are aware of the fact that
the administration's proposed shift of funds from other
guaranteed highway programs to emergency highways has been
rejected by both the authorizing and appropriations committees
in the House and the Senate?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir, I am aware of that.
CONSULTING CONTRACTS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, there have been a series of
recent newspaper articles raising questions about Washington's
Metro procurement policy regarding consulting contracts. You
are probably familiar with some of these. Does the publicity
concerning Washington Metro's lack of procurement control
suggest to you an issue that the Inspector General's Office
should look into, or perhaps you are looking into, and are
standards for noncompetitive consulting contracts for
organizations receiving substantial Federal funds an area that
your office should get into, at least look at?
Mr. Mead. Yes, I think that it's an appropriate area. Right
now we have our investigation side of the IG's office----
Senator Shelby. Are you looking into that?
Mr. Mead. Yes. I think what is troubling there is the
purposes for which the consulting contracts are let and the
disparity between what you would pay an ordinary public servant
for a task and what the consultants would get. Much of this is
falling into the category of overhead, and when we are done
with our work we will make a full report to the committee.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
WAAS
The Wide Area Augmentation System, WAAS. Mr. Mead, Mr.
Basso, let us just go back just a little bit to an article that
appeared in Aviation Daily, I believe in 1996, 4 years ago. It
said: ``The Federal Aviation Administration abruptly terminated
its $475 million pact with Wilcox Electric to apply global
positioning system [GPS] technology to the Nation's air traffic
control system, charging that the company had mishandled the
contract. David Henson''--I am just continuing to quote--``the
FAA's Administrator, used strong language to describe his
decision to cancel the contract only 8 months after the award,
saying `The agency no longer has a tolerance for ineptitude.'
'' Those were his words.
Now, 4 years later, to the current status of this
procurement. The WAAS program is hopelessly off track. Its cost
has escalated to $3.2 billion and it will not provide the
capability it was advertised to do 4 months ago, much less 4
years ago. Does this mean that the FAA has rediscovered its
tolerance for ineptitude, to use those words?
Mr. Basso, you want to answer that?
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, I think I can give you assurances
that we have little or no tolerance for a continuation of
ineptness.
Senator Shelby. You do not have room for it, do you?
Mr. Basso. No, sir, we sure do not.
I know the Administrator is spending a lot of personal time
on this. One of the things that we intend to do with this
program is to move very slowly and carefully to ensure that as
we invest any more in this we know that each step of the way
actually produces a result. We also are doing or planning to do
a series of independent reviews by independent experts on that
system to ensure that what we do in fact has an effective
outcome.
I think there is no question in the past we have had huge
problems with this. But I do think the current management has
the program under control and is taking very judicious small
steps to move forward cautiously and correctly on it.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. I think two essential things need to be done
here. First, the burn rate of the contract ought to be reduced
very substantially. Right now FAA is spending between $4 and $5
million a month on the contract, and the agency does not know
how it will fix some of the technical problems with WAAS.
Second, as Mr. Basso indicated, FAA needs an independent
assessment of WAAS problems by scientists and technical
experts.
Senator Shelby. How can you do that?
Mr. Mead. We made a suggestion before Mr. Wolf's committee
last week that FAA seek independent advice. The National
Academy of Sciences has a track record of dealing with complex
issues, and does not have a vested financial interest in the
outcome. We did not mean to suggest, though, that it had to be
the National Academy of Sciences. I just do not know of an
equivalent group that can bring to bear a wide range of skills.
I think it is important that the contractor provide information
to this independent group, but that the contractor should not
be a member in any way, shape, or form of this group.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, I believe you were quoted last
week as being concerned ``that neither FAA nor Raytheon has the
necessary expertise to resolve problems faced by this
procurement.'' You still believe that?
Mr. Mead. Yes, and the FAA shares this view.
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, I would affirm that they do. In
fact, I spoke with the Administrator this morning on this very
subject.
Senator Shelby. How can we help you resolve that? Is there
a way?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir, I think you actually have. I think
your----
Senator Shelby. We have tried.
Mr. Basso [continuing]. Attention to this has caused us to
focus very clearly on it. The Administrator I know is
committed, because I spoke to her this morning, about bringing
in independent technical expertise to address that question.
I should also mention, I did not make it clear in my
previous answer, but we do plan to reduce the burn rate on the
program. We fully agree with the Inspector General's
observations on what needs to be done here.
Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, the key technical problem with WAAS
is quite an interesting one. It focuses on the WAAS signal
coming down from space. A pilot in an airplane has to know that
the WAAS signal is exact, particularly when the pilot is
landing. The signal must be precise. There is precious little
room for error when you are landing. You have to know exactly
where you are, and when WAAS cannot be relied upon.
So one of the problems FAA is having is knowing when the
signal is unreliable, when it ought not to be used. I would say
that FAA is 90 or 95 percent of the way there, but in aviation
you cannot afford to have that extra 5 or 10 percent
unresolved.
Senator Shelby. It is not enough, is it?
Mr. Mead. No. It is a very technical and complicated issue
that FAA needs to solve.
CONTRACTING FAA FUNCTIONS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Basso, dealing with FAA operations,
given the pressures that we are likely to face--that are likely
to face the FAA operations account under the new authorization
bill, does it make sense--yes, does it make sense to pursue a
greater level of contracting out of some of the functions that
FAA has traditionally not done well, such as oceanic services,
procurement of communications services, expanding the contract
tower program, or others?
Mr. Basso. Mr. Chairman, we have been looking at the
potential for contracting out some services. That is under way.
I cannot give you an exhaustive list of exactly which ones we
would proceed with, but they are clearly under consideration.
We have been consulting, not only with ourselves, but also with
our unions and other people who have a role in all of this, and
I would expect you would see some results of that.
Senator Shelby. Does the oceanic modernization program
offer you any opportunities for exploring different ways of
contracting?
Mr. Basso. I think the oceanic modernization program
clearly does. One of the things that we face in the oceanic
environment is the need to make investment upgrades. There is
also competition from other international bodies. As you know,
we are delegated authority to provide air traffic service for
large areas of Atlantic and Pacific Ocean airspace.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. I think the answer to your question is yes.
Oceanic is different from domestic operators, in that changes
will not affect general aviation. You do not have as many of
the different stakeholders in oceanic. You have mostly big
airlines in that environment. Also you have an environment
where there has been an inclination, more of a willingness, by
the carriers to pay user fees, which as you know is very
controversial for domestic air space.
Another issue that you have to deal with, quite frankly, is
the controllers' union and the workforce issue. In both
contract towers, which FAA says can yield savings of $700,000 a
tower over time, and oceanic, there are workforce issues where
the union would be concerned about jobs. But I think that is a
factor that could be worked out if Congress were to seriously
pursue an effort in the oceanic air traffic control
environment.
COST ACCOUNTING
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, would it not be helpful to have a
good cost accounting system in place so that they would be able
to assess which functions or activities held the greatest
promise?
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir. As we discussed in the budget
appropriation committee hearings several weeks ago, if FAA does
not have that cost accounting system it cannot get control of
operations costs. Further, FAA cannot figure out where its
operations costs are actually going and the agency cannot
identify opportunities for savings. So FAA has an operations
account that between this year and next is going to increase by
about 12 percent. We cannot keep that up in perpetuity.
DEEP WATER
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we are concerned that the
Coast Guard will have three proposals of deep water assets to
acquire, but no clear understanding of what capabilities are
necessary. In other words, we will not know where to go, but
nevertheless we will have three versions of how to get going,
maybe not to get there but to get going.
Would it make sense for the Coast Guard to formally
establish asset requirements to meet its roles and missions?
Mr. Basso. It does, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Otherwise you are flying blind in a way,
are you not?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Or sailing blind.
Mr. Basso. Yes. Let me just add that we actually go through
a three-level process. One, a roles and missions study was just
completed for the Coast Guard, the first update since 1980,
which I think----
Senator Shelby. Was that done in house?
Mr. Basso. It was done in house, but it included a wide
range of expertise, not just limited to the Coast Guard or the
Department.
Senator Shelby. Is that the inter-agency task force?
Mr. Basso. It is, yes.
Senator Shelby. Do you feel like they are doing a good job
there?
Mr. Basso. I do. I really do. I think I can come to you
with a straight face and say that.
In addition to that, we have done as we go through these
projects a mission needs analysis based on those roles and
missions to take it down to a level of more detail, and then
finally the capital management plan. So I think we do that
work.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, what is your thought to that?
What are your thoughts? Is that a valid concern?
Mr. Mead. Pardon me?
Senator Shelby. Is that a valid concern on our part?
Mr. Mead. Yes. I think roles and missions is an issue. I
think the Coast Guard has done a good job of planning, but the
whole Deepwater project to date is just that, a planning
process. It is not a budgeting process. The Coast Guard can
plan its needs for the next 20 years. But it just does not
follow that it can say, here is what the budget is going to be
for the next 20 years. That is where I see a disconnect.
Senator Shelby. Basically, you have got to know where they
want to go, have you not?
Mr. Mead. Yes. Well, just one quick example. The Coast
Guard's planning process for its Deepwater needs will not be
done until 2001, after the date it is going to be making its
first budget request for Deepwater assets. It has the cart
before the horse.
CENTRAL ARTERY
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, I want to go to Boston just
briefly, the area. It seems that the Big Dig in Boston seems to
be a full employment project for your office, unfortunately. A
recent report on the owner-controlled insurance program for the
Central Artery Project recommended that the overpayments of
insurance premiums should be recovered and reallocated.
Would you provide a brief summary of the problem and give a
status report on this and the issue of the overpayments? Do you
want to do it later or do you want to touch on it now?
Mr. Mead. I can do it quickly.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Mead. The problem was that the Artery was overpaying
insurance premiums. After the insurance period was over, the
insurer would say: Well, you paid too much. And the Artery
would say in effect: Keep it, put it in an investment account.
And they would. Our point is, the Federal Government will pay
you back for insurance, but we are not going to pay you back
for an investment account. If you are going to have an
investment account, you will have to spend that Federal money
on your highway projects.
The Federal Government is not in the business of funding
investment accounts and we had an investment account there. The
current status, I believe, is that the Department is of one
mind--Mr. Basso can speak to that--that this should be
discontinued. However, I think we still have some convincing to
do in the State of Massachusetts.
Mr. Basso. I might just add, Mr. Chairman, we are in full
agreement. Mr. Mead and I personally spent a lot of time on
this the last several months. The $150 million in the fund is
to be liquidated. We have that agreement.
Let me just mention quickly that I have asked for and
intend to get an independent actuarial evaluation of what needs
to be in that fund, because the concept is good. Actually it
can be a savings of owner-controlled insurance as long as the
amount in the fund is right.
Senator Shelby. How long will that take to do?
Mr. Basso. I would bet we can get this done within the next
30, 60 days. This is not rocket science, let me say.
Mr. Mead. It is a lot of money, though.
Senator Shelby. It is a lot of money.
Mr. Mead. It is over $129 million, plus interest. If you
had that today, FAA could say, well, here is our supplemental.
Senator Shelby. It would take care of a lot of problems,
would it not?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir, it sure would.
FLIGHT DELAYS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, you are doing some work on the
cause of flight delays in the aviation industry for the
Congress. How is that work coming and are there other previews
that you might share with us before the summer thunderstorms?
Mr. Mead. Sure. We will be issuing a report later this
spring to your committee, but here is some preview information
I find absolutely fascinating. In the past several years, the
number of flights spending one hour or more on a taxiway
waiting to take off has increased 130 percent.
Senator Shelby. Why?
Mr. Mead. That is a good question. It depends on who you
ask. An airline executive may say, ``Well, it is FAA.'' An air
traffic controller may say it is the airlines' fault. Others
will say it is God, because of poor weather. A whole variety of
different factors contribute.
One of our findings is that a huge deficit of information
exists on the causes of these delays. Another major finding is
the amount of hidden delays built into the airlines' block
times. For the airlines to maintain good on-time performance
statistics, they increase the length of the scheduled flight
times to build in time for potential delay. The overall time it
takes to complete a flight on about 77 percent of the routes in
the United States has increased over the past 10 years.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, is there any value to the
consumer--to the consumer--of the current delay reporting
system? Do you see any value in reporting on-time departures?
Are not consumers basically interested in on-time arrivals?
Mr. Mead. I think consumers are more interested in on-time
arrivals. I have a hard time, Mr. Chairman, understanding why
it is relevant to me that my flight backed away from the gate
within 15 minutes of the scheduled departure and then proceeded
to spend 3 hours on the runway. Under this scenario, I do not
think I took off on time, and I think most Americans would
agree with that view.
Our current reporting system, though, says we took off on
time that our flight was an on-time departure--because it
backed away from the gate within 15 minutes of the scheduled
departure time.
Senator Shelby. That is what they claim it to be, anyway.
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir.
FAA-NATCA
Senator Shelby. Mr. Basso, the FAA has claimed that the
FAA-NATCA agreement has significant productivity and offsetting
cost gains. Have those promised savings or productivity gains
emerged yet, and what are the actual cost savings and
productivity gains that have been realized to offset the cost
of the agreement?
Mr. Basso. I would say at this point, in fairness, Mr.
Chairman, that I could not say that those productivity gains
have offset the cost of the agreement. But we are in the early
stages of it, within the first year and a half of this
agreement. The data--I think the jury is still out. The data
has not been sufficient for me to come up here and give you an
honest yes to that.
I would like to supply for you for the record some
additional information that would help show where the trends
are likely to take us.
[The information follows:]
During the first part of fiscal year 1999, the FAA and NATCA worked
to finalize the rules associated with the various productivity articles
of the contract and the rules for the new pay system. A metrics team
was established to identify and track measurable results of
implementing the contract. The FAA will continue to refine and analyze
this data to provide additional information to Congress on the results
of this contract.
There are many indirect results of the contract, including an
improved and more productive working relationship between FAA
management and NATCA in modernizing the aviation system. An example of
this partnership is the manner in which DSR has been fielded throughout
the country, resulting in FAA completing many facilities well ahead of
schedule. Another example is the STARS program; FAA has fielded the
first segment at El Paso and Syracuse and is working on the advanced
configurations of that program.
Mr. Mead. This committee could help there, Mr. Chairman.
When FAA signed that agreement, it said there would be
productivity gains that it would quantify. We have been
monitoring the situation since FAA signed the agreement. We
think it is about time that FAA identified what those
productivity gains are going to be and quantify them. But we
are getting in the neighborhood of some big money when we are
talking $6 or $7 billion a year in an operations account.
PROCUREMENT REFORM
Senator Shelby. Do either of you expect anything
significant to change at the FAA in terms of procurement
management, FAA culture, employee morale, or financial
management, or are we likely to see a new list of reasons why
it is someone else's fault that the FAA is unable to improve in
those areas? Mr. Mead?
Mr. Mead. I think the jury is still out.
Senator Shelby. I am talking about, as you know, the
procurement personnel reform.
Mr. Mead. I think the jury is still out. What you have seen
essentially on procurement reform so far, is that FAA awards
contracts quicker, but I think the point behind procurement
reform was not only to award contracts quicker, but also to get
the results. There is no question, on some acquisitions that
FAA has brought them home quicker--HOST, and DSR, for example.
But on big acquisitions like WAAS and STARS, we do not see the
results yet.
On personnel reform, I think the jury still is out too. So
far morale among controllers is a lot higher. Personnel reform
has measurably improved relations between FAA management and
the controllers. At the same time, the tangible evidence is in
higher salaries.
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS
Senator Shelby. In the area of software development, one of
the difficulties that the FAA has experienced in its effort to
modernize the air traffic control system has been an inability
to prevent acquisition programs that are heavily dependent upon
software development from extensive schedule delays and
explosive cost growth. Similar problems are appearing elsewhere
in the Department. The National Advanced Driving Simulator and
the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement Project come to mind.
Mr. Secretary, considering that more and more acquisition
projects will be software intensive, what steps can you take at
the Department to better manage these types of development
programs and share lessons learned from one modal
administration to another?
Mr. Basso. I think there are three steps, Mr. Chairman, one
of which----
Senator Shelby. This is going to involve big money, is it
not?
Mr. Basso. Yes, sir, absolutely it does.
The first step we took was to get a professional chief
information officer on board who has real background in these
areas.
Senator Shelby. Did you have to go to the marketplace to do
that?
Mr. Basso. We did. We did in fact. I think that step one is
to get someone, to put it bluntly, who knows what they are
doing in charge of that.
Second, our monitoring of these projects has stepped up,
and we have had a lot of assistance from the Inspector
General's Office in that regard to really monitor closely what
goes on.
Then I think, thirdly, what we need to do is to examine
very carefully and share--you hit the nail right on the head--
share the results of when something has gone wrong, why, so
that we basically do not, so to speak, draw the cartoon of
beating ourselves over the head with the same hammer every
time.
FAA PROCUREMENT
Senator Shelby. Dealing, Mr. Mead, with FAA procurement
problems, I have been told that it appears to some in the
industry that when a ready solution is presented to the FAA
that can be deployed quickly, the FAA does not use its
procurement reform authority to fast track that solution.
Instead, the FAA begins a long process that enables competitors
to catch up and leads all bidders to spend substantial sums of
money with little or no return.
It seems to me that it is almost as though the FAA sits
back and says: But wait, there must be a harder and more
expensive way to do this. What steps, Mr. Mead, can the FAA and
others take to remedy this perceived problem and find a
solution for the aviation community? Is it real?
Mr. Mead. Yes, there is----
Senator Shelby. The perception is real, maybe?
Mr. Mead. The perception is real, and FAA knows that it is
real. I think Administrator Garvey has taken steps to get a
grip on this.
Senator Shelby. What steps? What steps?
Mr. Mead. In some acquisitions, you will notice that FAA is
doing what it calls build a little, test a little. It is taking
smaller steps instead of trying for the big bang. But there are
other cases, such as with STARS and with WAAS, two big
acquisitions, where you do not see that in place.
I think that FAA can take heed to your advice on this, Mr.
Chairman, still. But you cannot turn the ship around overnight.
Oceanic is another one. You mentioned this one earlier.
Right now FAA is paying a total of $1 million, or $1.5 million,
to some vendors to come out and demonstrate their wares. But
the United States should already have a very advanced oceanic
air traffic control system in place. It is woeful that we are
so many years behind on this. One reason we are behind the
eightball is because we tried to bite off more than we could
chew years ago.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, would you provide for the record
the relative work load of your office for each of the
individual Department agencies?
Mr. Mead. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Would you do that? That would be helpful to
us.
[The information follows:]
OIG Resource Utilization by Operating Administration
[Percent of total staff in fiscal year 1999]
FAA............................................................... 37.0
FHWA.............................................................. 20.8
OST \1\........................................................... 18.2
USCG.............................................................. 9.0
FTA............................................................... 6.1
FRA............................................................... 3.2
MARAD............................................................. 2.7
RSPA.............................................................. 2.0
NHTSA............................................................. 1.0
______
Total....................................................... 100.0
\1\ A large portion of this work was dedicated to reviewing DOT's
consolidated financial statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Shelby. You know we have got a couple of votes o
the floor. We are going to recess the committee. We appreciate
you both appearing to let us go through this expeditiously.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to the Office of Budget and Programs Performance
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
OVERSIGHT OF HIGH-DOLLAR INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. One of the issues that made the Inspector General's
oversight report last year and again this year is that DOT needs to
improve its management of transportation infrastructure projects. It is
especially important for the management of high-dollar projects to be
aggressive, because the risks to the Government's financial interests
are increased proportionally.
The IG's December 1999 Top Twelve Management issues says that the
DOT should do the following: 1. Strengthen internal controls over
project cost estimates, 2. Require and closely examine project finance
plans, and 3. Monitor project performance to minimize funding risks.
Please describe the Department's plans for improving the Federal
Highway Administration's management of large construction projects.
Answer. DOT agrees fully with the IG's recommendations. The
Secretary has directed the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs
to issue a DOT-wide requirement for project finance plans and
monitoring by June. FHWA has recently initiated two distinct actions to
strengthen its management of high-dollar projects, improve controls
over cost, and reduce funding risks. First, FHWA has formed a ``Major
Projects Team'' to strengthen the oversight of all Federal-aid high-
dollar projects. This team will consist of Headquarters and resource
center personnel, including financial specialists, attorneys, engineers
and other program specialists led by a core of Headquarters managers.
While the FHWA Division Offices will remain responsible for traditional
Federal-aid oversight responsibilities, the Major Projects Team will
assist the Division Offices with risk assessment and oversight
decisions in the areas of finance, public relations, environment,
program development, and unusual engineering decisions. The Major
Projects Team will support the Division Offices during the review of
the financial plans and independent verification of financial data. The
team will also review and oversee the implementation of recommendations
from government audits and reviews. The Major Projects Team will report
to the Director of the Office of Program Administration, Infrastructure
Core Business Unit.
Second, FHWA created a task force to update our August 1998
guidance on financial plans. While FHWA's 1998 guidance fulfilled the
provisions of TEA-21 Section 1305, OIG recommendations made it clear
that more definitive guidance was necessary. The revised guidance will:
--Define the content and format of the Initial Financial Plan and the
Annual Updates in terms of accepted accounting standards,
--Provide example charts and tables to promote uniformity,
--Require a commitment and acceptance of the plan by the leader of
the State Transportation Agency, and
--Standardize FHWA's procedure for reviewing financial plans and
annual updates.
AMASS
Question. There has been a continuing concern about the increasing
number of runway incursions--collisions or potential accidents on the
ground. The upward trend in runway incursions continued in 1998, with
325 incursions, an 11 percent increase from 1997. AMASS is the radar
and related software/hardware to monitor airport surfaces and warn of
potential runway incursions. A month or so ago, FAA announced that it
was going to be two years behind schedule in deploying AMASS. Would you
please explain the reasons for the delay in the AMASS program, and tell
us how this will affect FAA's initiatives to reduce the number of
runway incursions? Should we be looking at other solutions?
Answer. The previous AMASS schedule relied on a very high-risk
acquisition strategy and schedule that included concurrent development
and production phases. In addition, during April 1999 new program
requirements related to human factors evaluations were added. At that
point, FAA recognized that the development effort required to meet user
requirements was far more extensive than originally envisioned, and
that it would be unable to meet the October 2000 date for commissioning
AMASS. The AMASS program underwent an in-depth review and restructure
during the late summer and early fall of 1999.
AMASS will not reduce runway incursions, but will help prevent
accidents if runway incursions occur. The implementation of AMASS at
the nations 34 busiest airports, which is an enhancement to the Airport
Surface Detection Equipment Model 3 (ASDE-3) radar, is one of FAA's
initiatives to prevent accidents that may result in loss of life and/or
property resulting from runway incursions. This spring, the FAA is
holding nine regional workshops, bringing together airlines, airport
officials, general aviation organizations, pilots and air traffic
controllers to develop additional ways to reduce runway incursions at
airports in the regions. These will be followed in late June, 2000 by a
national runway safety summit in Washington, which will include results
from the regional sessions and review of efforts in human factors and
new technologies.
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT
Question. The Coast Guard has expanded the mission requirements of
the Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement by proposing to add a buoy
tender capability to the new icebreaking vessel. I understand that this
is the first time the Coast Guard has proposed building other
capabilities into an icebreaking platform. What companies in the
domestic shipbuilding industry, if any, have experience with this type
of design? Are there any technical challenges and management risks
caused by trying to incorporate other missions into the replacement
Great Lakes icebreaking ship?
Answer. No heavy icebreakers with buoy tending capability have been
built in the United States, although ships with similar multi-purpose
capabilities were built in Germany and Finland within the last 10
years. To determine the interest and capabilities of the domestic
shipbuilding industry to successfully construct a multi-purpose
icebreaker, the Coast Guard conducted two rounds of market research to
identify domestic shipyards capable of design and construction of this
unique vessel. Numerous companies responded to the surveys and several
were found to be capable and experienced in the design and construction
of vessels of comparable size, technology and function.
The primary technical challenge of incorporating heavy icebreaking
and buoy tending capabilities within the same vessel relate to hull
design and effectively balancing the competing design requirements of
the two missions. For example, heavy icebreaking requires a deep draft,
large displacement, and high horsepower vessel. On the other hand, buoy
tending requires a shallow draft, highly maneuverable vessel with
accurate navigation and good sea keeping characteristics.
Alternatively, many design characteristics complement the combination
of the two missions. For example, the same maneuverability
characteristics required to break out a vessel beset in ice will also
provide the maneuverability required to place a buoy. To mitigate the
technical risks, the Coast Guard developed a conceptual multi-purpose
design and successfully tested the model hull form in an ice tank to
validate its technical feasibility. This study was used to develop the
proper design balance between the two missions that will result in the
successful execution of both within the same platform.
DEEPWATER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Question. The Coast Guard has three industry teams under contract
to conceive and design a plan to modernize its deepwater fleet,
aircraft, sensors and communications equipment over the next twenty
years. While there may be value in receiving three independent options
for acquiring new deepwater assets, I remain concerned that the
Deepwater acquisition strategy is not grounded in political or fiscal
reality. The project's price tag has been well discussed by the GAO,
the Department IG, and this committee. It will be difficult to bind
future Administrations or commandants--or even disgruntled industry
contractors--to the January 2002 award decision. When the Coast Guard
awards the Deepwater contract, will the award be a ``winner-take-all''
contract for one industry team or will the Coast Guard pick and choose
the best, most innovative procurement ideas from all three teams and
compete each item separately?
Answer. In January 2002, the Coast Guard intends to award the
Integrated Deepwater System acquisition contract to just one of the
three competing industry teams. However, the Coast Guard retains the
right to ``mix and match'' from the three competing designs, in the
event that all three designs contain some deficiency. To obtain
essential contractual flexibility and protection for the Government,
the Coast Guard intends to structure the Deepwater acquisition contract
as an incentivized, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract.
The Coast Guard will issue separate delivery orders under this contract
to perform the upgrades and acquire the new assets comprising the
industry's proposed Integrated Deepwater System. In addition, the Coast
Guard intends to include specific Value Engineering and/or Technology
Refreshment contract clauses. These clauses will enable the Coast Guard
to acquire new technology that meets or exceeds proposed cost and
performance levels from firms not originally part of the selected
Deepwater industry team.
FAA FINANCIAL STATEMENT
Question. One of the things that your office, the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation, and the FAA Administrator's office has
taken some pride in is the clean audit opinion for the FAA for this
year. However, at the same time, I note that the Government Performance
Project as reported in the Washington Post gives the FAA a ``D'' for
Financial Management. Is this clean audit a one-time event, or have the
structural and procedural changes been made at the FAA that will permit
the FAA to continue to receive clean financial statement audits in the
future?
Answer. DOT's goal is to ensure that the clean audit is not a one-
time event. The first clean audit involved substantiating inception to
date property and other accounts that were accumulated over 30 or more
years. Fiscal year 2000 and future years will be based on transactions
that occur within one fiscal year. In addition, as new property systems
and the new DOT accounting system are put in place in fiscal year 2001,
issues that needed to be addressed in the 1999 audit will be
systematically resolved. Procedural changes have been made, but system
changes will evolve as the new commercial off-the-shelf programs are
funded.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT
Question. The Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR) program was
established to replace 421 electromechanical and supportable voice-
switching systems in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by 2002.
Within this program 267 systems are for larger more critical sites.
These sites are receiving equipment under the existing Enhanced
Terminal Voice Switch (ETVS) and the Rapid Deployment Voice Switch
(RDVS/RDVS IIA) contracts. Does the FAA have a procurement plan for
TVSR in fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2004? Please present that plan and
explain the anticipated changes from year to year.
Answer. The FAA is procuring equipment under the budget item
entitled Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/Enhanced Terminal
Voice Switch (ETVS). The following is the procurement plan for the
TVSR/ETVS Program for fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2004.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Switches (ETVS)............... 10 10 17 17
Budget.............................. $5.0 $5.0 $8.4 $8.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of systems to be procured is based on the production
capacity of the contractor, the available FAA engineering personnel to
oversee installation of the equipment, and the relative priority of
this project compared to other FAA programs.
VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Question. The Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP) was
established to replace 579 aging analog voice-recording systems that
have reached the end of their service life. These sites are receiving
modern digital equipment from the Digital Voice Recording System (DVRS)
contact. The FAA must procure an approximate average of 84 systems per
year (fiscal year 1999-fiscal year 2002) if it is to replace analog
systems that have reached the end of their service life at the
remaining 337 ATC facilities by the time the last DVRS production
period expires in fiscal year 2002. Does the FAA intend to procure
sufficient DVRS systems to replace the analog systems? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes, the FAA intends to procure sufficient DVRS systems to
replace the analog systems. FAA is planning to renegotiate the contract
so that the production period will be extended from August 2002 to July
2004.
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION SWITCH MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
Question. The Flight Service Station Modernization Program is being
established to replace 64 aging technology voice-switching systems with
limited supportability for the FAA's Automated Flight Service Stations
(AFSS). I am told that current AFSS systems have, with minor
modifications, been used in Terminal facilities. Is that correct? Both
ETVS and RDVS were designed and procured to replace aging technology
voice switches. Both of these voice switches have completed extensive
FAA and Department of Defense testing programs to qualify for Air
Traffic Control (ATC) operations. Is it true that either ETVS or RDVS
Switches, with minor modification, can be utilized to satisfy the AFSS
requirements? If so, why is the FAA initiating a development program
for an alternative?
Answer. The FAA program currently identified to replace voice
switches in the flight service option is known as the Automated Flight
Service Station Voice Switch (AFSSVS). A switching system currently
used in AFSS (Denro ICSS-1A) was adapted for a terminal application for
its use in Southern California TRACON (SCT). However, the modifications
required were not minor and, in addition to relative size, reflect the
fundamental differences between the terminal and flight service
environments and associated functions. The modifications included
linking three systems together and removing position functions and
peripherals found in existing AFSS switching systems. The ETVS and RDVS
IIA were designed specifically for terminal Air Traffic Control (ATC)
operations. The ATC environment is primarily concerned with aircraft
separation while flight service is an advisory and planning service. It
is not certain that the ETVS or RDVS IIA voice switches can, with only
minor modifications, be adapted to satisfy the AFSS requirements. The
FAA has evaluated no design or product. Requirements for the AFSSVS
have been developed to satisfy a FAA developed mission need statement
that identifies operational needs that differ from the existing
terminal and flight service environment. The AFSSVS requirement
includes the capability to fold back operations during non-peak hours,
which will require the ability to reroute radio frequencies between
facilities to maintain service.
The FAA is currently performing an investment analysis on a number
of alternatives selected to meet the approved mission need for AFSSVS.
The objective of the investment analysis process is to determine which
alternative approaches are feasible and affordable. The process is
expected to be complete this spring and the results of this process
will be presented to the FAA executive level for a decision in the
summer of 2000. Subsequent to this decision, the selected alternative
will be pursued in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management
System.
NEW YORK TERMINAL AIRSPACE REDESIGN--NEWARK DELAY REDUCTION
Question. The last major airspace redesign in the New York Terminal
Area was initiated in the early 1980's, and implemented in 1987 and
1988. Since then, air traffic has grown, en route flows have changed,
and aircraft performance and navigation capabilities have improved.
Unfortunately, the airspace structure has not kept pace with these
changes. For nine of the last 12 years, and every year since 1995,
Newark has been the most delayed airport in terms of FAA delays per
1,000 operations. JFK and LaGuardia are similarly impacted. In response
to this situation, and at the urging of ATC system users and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, FAA announced the initiation of
the New York/New Jersey Airspace Redesign Project in April 1998.
In the Fiscal Year 1999 Senate Transportation Appropriations Full
Committee Report, $11 million was designated to support the
Administration's national airspace review and redesign initiative, with
$3 million specifically designated for the New York/New Jersey
metropolitan airspace. Ultimately, the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Bill included only $3 million for
New York/New Jersey metropolitan airspace design.
In fiscal year 2000, the Committee again allocated $11 million to
support the comprehensive review and redesign of the nation's airspace
with direction to FAA to concentrate on the eastern region, and in
particular, the New York/New Jersey metropolitan airspace. The
conference agreement funded the $9.622 million FAA request and directed
$6.6 million to be used in direct support of the NY/NJ airspace
redesign effort.
Considering this significant funding support over the last two
years, what progress has been made on the New York/New Jersey airspace
redesign? In FAA's Quarterly Report to Congress on Newark Delay
Reduction Initiatives (Oct-Dec 1999), you advised that two milestones
had slipped, and NATCA had directed its members to withdraw from the
redesign project until facility pay classification guarantees were
negotiated. What is the status of the NATCA negotiations, and what is
the impact of these issues on the redesign schedule? What alternatives
are available to FAA to proceed with airspace redesign without NATCA
participation? What would they cost over the life of the project, and
how long would it take to implement them?
Answer. The New York/New Jersey airspace redesign project has
completed 31 public meetings to seek input from the public prior to
developing redesign concepts. The first meeting was held September 22,
1999, and the last meeting was held on February 3, 2000. A total of
1,174 individuals attended the meetings and over 700 people provided
written comments. FAA's Eastern Region will have a full report
documenting the results of the meetings and this report will be
available by May 2000. The Eastern Region will complete the computer
modeling of the airspace baseline by April 2000. The Eastern Region has
established joint NATCA/management redesign teams. These redesign teams
are currently developing airspace design alternatives. Two alternatives
will be ready for computer modeling by July 2000.
In December 1999, Eastern Region NATCA directed its members to stop
work on the National Airspace Redesign project pending discussions on a
national memorandum of understanding. In late February 2000, Eastern
Region NATCA resumed work on airspace redesign, although no memorandum
of understanding has been signed. FAA continued the customer and
community meetings, but the timeline slipped by 4 months. FAA
management prefers to redesign the national airspace in collaboration
with NATCA, however a contingency plan was developed to continue the
project if NATCA did not return. The plan is still available to use if
necessary. To continue the project, FAA would have added additional
management employees to fill the teams. Typically, the new team members
would have been first line supervisors from the major air traffic
facilities. If FAA were to use this plan, they anticipate losing from 3
to 6 months to get the new work groups educated. The overall cost of
this project would remain the same.
Question. Assuming that an agreement can be reached quickly with
NATCA, what level of funding is required in fiscal year 2001 and in
future budget years to achieve the milestones contained in the
Quarterly Report on Newark Delay Reduction Initiatives?
Answer. In late February 2000, Eastern Region NATCA resumed work on
airspace redesign, although no memorandum of understanding has been
signed. Assuming Air Traffic Airspace Management Program receives the
fiscal year 2001 Budget request of $20,578,000 for the national
airspace redesign activities, Eastern Region will request $5,838,000
for fiscal year 2001. Support from the New England Region, Great Lakes
Region, and Southern Region will be critical in achieving the
milestones stated in the Quarterly Report on Newark Delay Reduction
Initiatives. Future funding has not been determined.
Question. Considering the potential magnitude of any future
airspace changes and the length of associated environmental reviews,
what plans does the FAA have to phase in changes that could reduce
delays at EWR? For example, the fiscal year 2000 appropriation provides
$1.16 million to install an LDA with glide slope at Newark. What
progress has been made to date on this project: what is the status of
the required environmental review; and when will the facility be
commissioned?
Answer. Airspace modeling at the William J. Hughes Technical Center
is scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2000. The modeling
results will help determine whether the Localizer Type Directional Aid/
Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach/Precision Runway Monitor
project may proceed separately from the larger airspace redesign
effort.
Should it be determined that the LDA/SOIA/PRM can be separated from
airspace redesign, then a subsequent environmental review will be
conducted and an implementation schedule will be developed.
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 Senate Transportation
Appropriations Report, this committee directed the FAA to continue to
work with the appropriate local authorities toward the installation of
a PRM (Precision Runway Monitor) at Newark International Airport. This
followed the provision of $2 million in fiscal year 1999 for
preliminary work necessary for the installation of two localizer
directional aids and a precision runway monitor at Newark. Several
other airports (Cleveland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles) are
interested in PRM technology. How does the FAA plan to procure PRM's to
satisfy these needs? When will they be available for installation? Is
there a PRM available for installation at Newark?
Answer. The FAA has not validated a requirement for a federally
funded PRM system for Cleveland, San Francisco or Los Angeles. However,
we have been working very closely with the city of San Francisco and
the Airport Authority to prepare for the installation of a PRM system
that the city of San Francisco is procuring directly from the
manufacturer. The FAA is providing engineering and programmatic support
to assist in the installation of this system.
The FAA has been working very closely with the New York/New Jersey
Port Authority on the preliminary work to establish a PRM system at
Newark. The use of PRM requires new procedures which are complicated
and must be analyzed for safety and feasibility. Significant procedural
work and modeling will validate the feasibility of installing a system.
When validated, the FAA will work with the Port Authority to determine
the best procurement option.
Question. Another concept that may hold promise for delay reduction
at Newark is called Along Track Separation (ATS). It can be applied to
closely spaced parallel runways and uses existing straight-in
instrument landing system flight paths, which should minimize
environmental concerns. The procedure permits the air traffic
controller to reduce separation behind specific qualifying aircraft
classes in both visual and poor weather conditions. A PRM and other
airspace changes may be required to conduct these approaches in poor
weather, however a good weather application may be possible with
existing radar equipment, airspace configuration, and controller
staffing. Since existing flight tracks and instrumentation can be used,
it may be possible to obtain early delay reduction benefits. What plans
does FAA have to evaluate ATS in fiscal year 2000? Is funding available
for this project in fiscal year 2000? What funding is required to
pursue this initiative in fiscal year 2001 and when can a proof of
concept evaluation be started.
Answer. The FAA currently is working on several delay reduction
initiatives specifically for Newark International Airport and other
national initiatives with possible application to Newark. We have
preliminarily determined that an evaluation of the ATS concept would
require the development of new FAA separation standards. A complete
analysis would be required to include modeling, simulation, and,
possibly, an operational demonstration. Typically, this would be a very
time consuming process. As part of the process, the FAA would evaluate
the possibility of segmenting certain portions of the ATS analyses so
that incremental benefits could be derived through a phased
implementation. The FAA has not evaluated the ATS concept sufficiently
to warrant a budget request in fiscal year 2001.
Question. As part of the language and funding associated with
airspace redesign in the fiscal year 2000 Senate Transportation
Appropriations Committee Report, FAA was encouraged to take advantage
of new technologies to better manage traffic and capacity in the NY/NJ
metropolitan area. The development of Area Navigation (RNAV)/Flight
Management System (FMS) procedures is a Newark Delay Reduction
Initiative. Development of RNAV/FMS procedures for Newark has been
expedited by the use of technical support from MITRE/CAASD. FAA should
continue to use this resource to develop and test advanced flight
procedures that reduce controller and pilot workload, increase airspace
capacity and efficiency and minimize noise impacts. Is adequate funding
identified and available in the fiscal year 2001 budget request to
continue this valuable process? What specific level of funding is
required to support continued procedural development for Newark?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, 12 staff months were allocated out of
the MITRE-CAASD work program to support RNAV/FMS route development at
Newark. In fiscal year 2000, approximately $370K was allocated for the
Newark analysis. These resources have been provided through the MITRE-
CAASD F&E and funding of the National Airspace Redesign. Planning for
the fiscal year 2001 MITRE-CAASD work program is in its initial phases.
Sustained support for Newark procedures and RNAV development will be
included as part of the proposal developed by the FAA and MITRE-CAASD.
It is expected that the same approximate level of staffing will be
required in fiscal year 2001. Again, the request for this effort is
approximately $370 K.
DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN THE NEW YORK AREA
Question. Emerging technologies, including those associated with
Free Flight, may permit FAA to improve the safety and efficiency of air
traffic operations in the New York area, particularly during severe
weather. Implementation of the Automated Flight Plan Processing--
Departure Spacing Program (DSP) at the New York Air Route Traffic
Control Center has been delayed repeatedly. The latest Quarterly report
to Congress on Newark Delay Reduction Initiatives indicated Phase II,
i.e., full two-way Host interface at New York Center, should be
operational for the 2000 severe weather season. The fiscal year 2000
conference agreement provided funding for expansion of the system to
Teterboro, White Plains, Islip, and the Air Traffic Control Systems
Command Center. Will the system be operational for the summer of 2000?
When will the expansion to the new locations be completed? What level
of funding is required to sustain the system in fiscal year 2001 and is
this funding identified in the FAA budget request?
Answer. The Departure Spacing Program (DSP) became operational for
the Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, and Philadelphia airports on April 1,
2000. The tentative date for expanding DSP to include the Teterboro,
Islip, and White Plains airports is December 15, 2000. The Air Traffic
Control System Command Center is scheduled to have DSP operational in
the spring of 2001, prior to the severe weather season. The level of
funding needed to sustain the system is $7,400,000 and has been
requested in the FAA's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Question. The airlines and other industries make extensive use of
simulators to improve training and reduce costs. Technology exists to
provide site specific air traffic control tower simulators. NASA Ames
has an extremely sophisticated unit, and the City of Chicago tried to
purchase one for O'Hare. These devices would speed controller training
and reduce the operational impacts associated with controller on-the-
job-training. Does FAA have a program to procure tower simulators? How
much would a simulator for the new Newark Tower cost and when could it
be operational? Does FAA have any plans to acclimate controllers to the
new perspective in the new tower prior to commissioning of the
facility? Has FAA done any studies to determine the cost savings
associated with a tower simulation device?
Answer. The FAA does not have a program to procure tower simulators
for individual facilities. FAA operates the Airway Facilities Tower
Integration Laboratory (AFTIL) at the William J. Hughes Technical
Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The new Newark Airport Traffic
Control Tower simulation scenario is in place in the AFTIL lab. Teams
of Newark controllers have visited the lab. Views and perspectives from
the new location were observed and assessed. A mock-up of the cab
interior is planned for the purpose of addressing human factors and
technical issues and making necessary adjustments to ensure an
efficient transition to the new facility. In addition, each Newark
controller will spend a minimum of eight hours in the new tower, prior
to its commissioning, in order to observe the operation from a new
vantage point. The intent is to orient and acclimatize the controllers
to the new perspective in order to ensure a seamless cut-over. FAA has
not done any studies to determine the cost savings associated with a
tower simulation device.
CONTROLLER STAFFING AT NEW YORK AREA ATC FACILITIES
Question. New York area ATC facilities have been difficult to staff
in the past. Over the next several years, controllers hired in 1981
will be eligible to retire. This may result in a serious staffing
shortage or an influx of new trainees at all facilities, particularly
New York Center. We understand it typically takes two or more years for
controllers to become fully certified. What are FAA's projections for
future retirements at the major New York area terminal and en route
facilities, including Newark Tower?
Answer. The Eastern region has a plan to maintain a flow of
trainees into their facilities in the most efficient manner possible,
balancing training requirements, operational efficiency, and budget
constraints. All New York facilities have on-board staffing that
exceeds staffing standards. We anticipate no problems in maintaining
adequate levels of staffing in the New York area. Although more
controllers will become eligible for early retirement beginning in
2001, experience shows that controllers do not retire when they first
become eligible.
Question. Does FAA have a plan to insure an adequate flow of
trainees to these facilities so ATC system capacity and efficiency is
not adversely impacted by staffing shortages, training activities, or
excessive overtime?
Answer. Yes, the FAA maintains a developmental pipeline of
controllers. The pipeline is based on historical experience and is
timed to provide fully trained controllers to backfill for expected
retirement increases and to provide for growth in aviation activity.
______
Questions Submitted to the Office of Inspector General
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
LOS ANGELES MTA
Question. The President's budget request includes a recommendation
for an appropriation of $50 million to Los Angeles MTA to purchase
buses consistent with the master's ruling which is currently under
judicial review. In the course of your Mega-project review or other
work addressing some of the difficulties experienced by the LA MTA in
recent years, have you developed an impression of the economic impact
of the master's ruling on the LA MTA capital investment plan by virtue
of the required acquisition of buses. In addition, what would be the
economic and road congestion impacts on LA streets if the thrust of the
master's ruling to reduce the number of standees on board heavily
trafficked transit systems became a trend? Would it increase roadway
congestion? Would it increase operating and/or capital costs for
impacted transit properties? The Committee's information is that the
trend in urban transit systems is toward perimeter seating
configurations and more standees as opposed to the direction that the
master's ruling seems to advocate. Is the Committee's information
accurate?
Answer. Yes we have. The Office of Inspector General estimates that
the capital cost to purchase the buses in the master's ruling could be
as much as $187.6 million above the current LA MTA budget for its bus
program. LA MTA projects that the cost to operate the additional buses
will run about $21 million per year. LA MTA will have to reallocate
funds from its other programs to purchase and operate these buses. LA
MTA does not at present have a plan showing how it will fund the
additional capital and operating costs.
OIG REIMBURSEMENTS
Question. Please prepare a table summarizing all proposed fiscal
year 2001 reimbursements to the Office of Inspector general from other
DOT modes, and what level of reimbursements were provided from other
modes in fiscal year 2000.
Answer.
OIG REIMBURSEMENTS FROM OTHER DOT MODES
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
DOT mode -----------------------------
2000 Actual 2001 Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA...................................... $2 $3.524
FTA....................................... 1.5 1
-----------------------------
Total Reimbursements............... 3.5 4.524
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE
Question. The most current estimate being used by the FHWA for the
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project was developed in 1995, and the OIG
identified $227 million in net increases to that number. According to
FHWA, a new, more accurate estimate for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge
Project was to be prepared by the end of 1999. What is the status of
the estimate and how accurate is the estimate going to be?
Answer. FHWA expects to have the updated cost estimate by early May
2000. The Maryland State Highway Administration, Virginia Department of
Transportation, and the District of Columbia's Department of
Transportation have been working with their general engineering
consultant to develop an updated estimate for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge
since the project completed 30 percent design plans late last year. The
states are merging the most current designs with the construction bid
data to provide a current cost estimate for the project. The states are
currently performing value engineering and constructability reviews to
try to keep the cost within the $1.9 billion budget.
ALAMEDA CORRIDOR
Question. The most expensive and complex segment of the Alameda
Corridor-Megaproject is being constructed using a design/build
contract. What benefits, if any, have been derived from the use of this
method?
Answer. The anticipated benefits of design/build contracting are:
(1) allowing the project to begin sooner due to combining design and
construction, (2) streamlining and expediting the contract award
process, (3) awarding the contract based on ``best value,'' (4)
transferring risks of cost growth to the contractor, and (5)
accelerating project completion. We have not evaluated the benefits of
design/build and therefore cannot address whether or not they are being
achieved.
According to the Program Manager with the Alameda Corridor
Transportation Authority using design/build for the Mid-Corridor
segment benefited the project in several ways. These are: (1)
maintaining the original schedule, (2) transferring risks to the
contractor for differing site conditions and environmental conditions
encountered during construction, (3) improving coordination efforts
with municipalities and utilities during construction, and (4) managing
traffic during construction. As of March 2000, the Mid-Corridor segment
is 27 percent complete.
INTERSTATE 15
Question. The IG has previously reviewed the Interstate 15 (I-15)
Reconstruction Project in Utah. What are the objectives of any follow-
up audit work planned?
Answer. The objectives of our current follow-up review of the I-15
Reconstruction Project are to: (1) update and evaluate the status of
the project's costs, funding, and schedule since our previous report
issued November 24, 1998; (2) identify any risks or emerging issues
that could affect the completion of the project; and (3) follow up on
the implementation of the recommendation contained in our previous
report. (Our 1998 report recommended that FHWA require the Utah
Department of Transportation to keep its finance plan current and to
identify how it intends to resolve the funding shortfalls noted in the
report.) We are nearing completion of our current review of the
project. Our preliminary results indicate that project cost estimates
remain at $1.6 billion; that funding is sufficient to cover these
costs; and that the project is expected to be completed in July 2001, 7
months prior to the opening of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake
City.
MEGAPROJECT
Question. Are there lessons learned from previously problematic
``Megaprojects'' that the Department should apply to the oversight of
other projects to avoid the same pitfalls?
Answer. Specific lessons that we have learned are that:
1. The Federal Transit Administration's full funding grant
agreements have effectively limited the Federal Government's financial
risks and promoted accountability. These grant agreements set the
maximum amount of discretionary capital investment funds that can be
used for transit projects. By contrast, Federal Highway Administration
projects have no comparable limitations.
2. Finance plans are essential tools for identifying project costs
and funding needs. However, better criteria are needed to ensure
finance plans are complete, reliable, and consistent.
3. DOT needs to provide effective independent oversight of major
projects to minimize funding risk.
4. Owner-controlled insurance programs should be considered on very
large projects and used when they reduce program costs. However, DOT
needs to ensure that Federal reimbursement for these programs is
limited to the amounts actually needed to purchase insurance coverage
or pay incurred claims.
5. Value engineering is a good tool for controlling cost and should
be used on all major capital projects.
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM
Question. Has the OIG conducted any reviews of the Commercial
Driver's License Program? If so, what are the findings and
recommendations from the reviews conducted? What future work, if any,
is planned?
Answer. Yes, we have an ongoing audit on Disqualifying Commercial
Drivers. Overall, we found that Federal oversight of the Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) Program has not been adequate to reasonably
ensure that states properly disqualify commercial drivers. This
situation occurred because the Federal oversight reviews were not
comprehensive and did not include operational tests of the state
systems to ensure compliance. We found significant deficiencies in the
state systems for untimely, incomplete, and inconsistent reporting of
traffic convictions, inaccurate recording of convictions, and not
properly disqualifying commercial drivers.
We plan to recommend that the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration improve its oversight reviews conducted at the states
and make use of centralized monitoring through the Commercial Drivers
License Information System.
Future audit work involving CDLs will focus on the processes for
testing commercial drivers and issuing licenses, medical qualification
requirements for commercial drivers, and training requirements for
commercial drivers.
In addition, we have conducted criminal investigations related to
state issuance of CDLs, such as Operation Safe Road. This joint Federal
and state task force found that corrupt officials had accepted bribes
to issue CDLs. To date, 30 individuals have been charged criminally; 22
of these have either pleaded guilty or been sentenced. The
investigation identified in excess of 1,000 truck drivers who may have
illegally obtained their licenses in Illinois. Of these, at least 175
are now licensed in others states. The Secretary of State notified all
50 states of the potential problem truckers. The investigation is
continuing in its effort to uncover additional violations.
MEXICO-DOMICILED MOTOR CARRIERS
Question. What actions has the FMCSA taken as a result of the 1999
OIG report on Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers?
Answer. FMCSA agreed corrective actions were needed. In addition,
the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 provided them with
greater authority to take enforcement actions against carriers found to
be operating beyond their authorized geographical areas. This new
authority will be helpful to the FMCSA in implementing the
recommendations. According to FMCSA's written response to our
recommendations, it is:
--Drafting regulations revising the registration process for foreign
motor carriers to include additional safety-related questions
and certifications of compliance.
--Developing reports that will be generated monthly, using data from
the Motor Carrier Management Information System, to identify
Mexican motor carriers operating outside their commercial
zones.
--Developing implementation procedures for new enforcement provisions
contained in the new safety law, which imposes substantial
penalties and includes suspension and revocation of operating
authority.
--Issuing policy guidance that addresses relevant registration and
insurance provisions to be enforced by the states at roadside
inspections. Also, requiring the states to describe enforcement
activities for registration and insurance provision in their
Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan when requesting Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program grant funds.
--Drafting consistent policies and procedures for the newly
established North American Borders Safety Border Program
Division in FMCSA.
When the above actions are completed and fully implemented, the
intent of our audit recommendations should be satisfied.
FINANCIAL PLANS
Question. Over the last several years the OIG has reviewed a number
of financial plans for transportation Megaprojects. Please comment on
the usefulness of these plans for reporting on the financial status of
projects?
Answer. We found the quality and completeness of finance plans for
highway and transit capital projects to be highly variable. Some
finance plans accurately reported costs and identified funding
shortfalls. Others needed to be more thorough in disclosing problems
and presenting information in a consistent manner over time. For
example, the 1999 Finance Plan for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District
includes construction costs for the new segment; including a 10-year
forecast that identifies underlying revenue and expense assumptions.
By contrast, in 1998, we reported that the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority did not have an updated, comprehensive finance plan
but separate capital and operating budgets. At the time of our audit,
these budgets reflected a $495 million capital funding shortfall and a
$643 million operating shortfall.
Similarly, in our most recent report on the Central Artery/Ted
Williams Tunnel Project we also found significant, fundamental problems
with its finance plan. The reporting methodology was changed so that
the reviewer could only see the cost to complete, not the total project
cost. The plan did not report specific cost, funding, and schedule
indicators, such as ``budgeted cost of work performed,'' ``actual cost
of work performed,'' ``contract awards versus budget,'' ``total
projected cost by type of cost,'' and ``annual funding requirements by
source.''
Finance plans are essential tools for identifying project costs and
funding needs. However, better criteria are needed to ensure finance
plans are complete, reliable, and consistent. Neither FTA nor FHWA have
adequate guidance for grant recipients to prepare finance plans.
Finance plans describe how projects will be implemented over time. They
identify project costs and timing, and the financial resources needed
to pay for those costs. At a minimum, finance plans should:
--Include the assumptions underlying both cost and revenue estimates;
--Report actual versus budgeted amounts for contract award costs, the
cost of work performed, and revenue;
--Clearly describe cost trends (e.g., contract change orders and
contract awards) and the potential impact of those trends on
project costs;
--Identify measures being taken to monitor and control costs;
--Identify sources of funding that can be used if costs rise or other
anticipated funding is not received;
--Identify significant changes to the scope of projects, and the
effect of these changes on the cost and capacity of the
project; and
--Identify the grantee's plan for financing existing operations
during construction of new or extended segments, as well as its
plans for financing all operations, both new and existing, once
construction is complete.
OWNER CONTROLLED INSURANCE PROGRAM
Question. A recent report on the Owner Controlled Insurance Program
(OCIP) for the Central Artery project recommended that the overpayments
of insurance premiums should be recovered and reallocated. What is the
status of the OCIP and the issue of the overpayments?
Answer. On September 13, 1999, FHWA agreed to require the Central
Artery to use past overpayments to pay the premiums for policy years
1999/2000 and 2000/2001. We also agreed to allow credit for any ``past
use'' of overpayments to pay premiums between the end of our audit and
the date of the agreement. FHWA also agreed to issue guidance to ensure
insurance reserves for owner-controlled insurance programs do not
exceed allowable amounts, and that any premium adjustments are
immediately used for other approved costs or returned to the Federal
government.
Information provided by the Central Artery's insurance broker on
April 4, 2000, indicates the Central Artery has used excess reserves to
make scheduled payments of $12.3 million on August 1, 1999; $13.2
million on December 1, 1999; and $13.2 million on February 1, 2000. The
state also is claiming ``past use'' credit for an $8.5 million
reduction in the project's 1997/1998 premium; a payment of $7.2 million
made with funds from the trust on August 1, 1998; and a payment of
$13.5 million on December 1, 1998. The state's total claimed use of
past overpayments is $67.8 million. FHWA and OIG are currently
reviewing the supporting documentation regarding the above use of past
overpayments.
FHWA has not yet issued a policy to limit Federal contributions to
insurance reserves to the amount needed to pay incurred claims. The
policy is still needed to ensure this and other highway construction
projects do not attempt to use OCIPs as a means of drawing down Federal
funds for investment purposes. FHWA's current target date for issuing
the policy is July 31, 2000.
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR
Question. Please describe, from your review of the installation of
uninterruptible power systems (UPS) work on the Airport Surveillance
Radar (ASR), whether a 480v design was a necessary requirement of a
solution for the ASR-9 support. The committee's understanding is that
the 480v design required a larger engine/generator to support the
selected UPS-but that the ASR-9 solution could have been accomplished
with a 240v system (and either the existing generator or a replacement
generator) for substantially less cost. Is the Committee's
understanding correct? Please discuss why the Office of Inspector
General believes the 480v design was selected.
Answer. FAA considered remaining with a 208v system [referred above
as 240v] as well as higher voltage systems to address the power-related
problems with the ASR-9. Specifically, FAA evaluated three alternative
designs: (1) a 208v UPS installation, at an estimated cost of $130,000
per site; (2) a 208v system upgrade (UPS, generator, wiring, circuits,
etc.), at an estimated cost of $310,000 per site; and (3) a 480v system
installation, at an estimated cost of $320,000 per site. FAA officials
stated that their decision to utilize the 480v design was based on
several factors including the better electrical noise reduction
provided by a higher voltage design and the minimum disruption to radar
service required for installation--two 4-hour shutdowns for the 480v
design compared to 7-10 days for the 208v upgrade. The 208v
installation would have been less costly, but would not have addressed
all of the problems with the ASR-9 power system, such as the
instability and capacity of the generator, poor circuit breaker
coordination and transmitter circuits, and random electrical noise on
the power conductors.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. We will convene again next Tuesday, April
4, at 10 a.m. here in this room, Dirksen 192, to hold an
oversight hearing on implementing the Drivers Privacy
Protection Act positive notification requirement, which was
part of the 2000 transportation appropriations bill.
Gentlemen, thank you both. The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 2:32 p.m., Tuesday, March 28, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby and Bennett.
IMPLEMENTING THE DRIVER'S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT EXPRESS CONSENT
REQUIREMENT
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
As we enter the 21st Century, we live at a time when the
influence of technology in our lives has never been greater.
The advent of personal computers, the Internet, silicon chips,
ATM's, and cellular phones have changed almost every aspect of
the way we live and have greatly enhanced the quality of our
lives.
The introduction of these new technologies has transformed
our society and economy with breakneck speed. In little more
than the blink of an eye we moved from the Industrial Age to
the Digital Age. While the changes bring forth great economic
promise and personal convenience, they also present difficult
challenges.
One of the most important of these challenges is
establishing ground rules that preserve the privacy rights of
individuals, while providing an atmosphere in which society can
take advantage of the advances in information technology.
Because recent technological innovations have the
capability to compile, organize, store, and transmit data
captured from all walks of life, I believe we must pay close
attention to the manner in which personal information is
handled in the Digital Age.
Clearly, it would not be an understatement to say that the
new technology economy has a voracious appetite for
information. Information itself may now be the most valuable
commodity in our economy.
Furthermore, personal information is rapidly becoming the
most valuable kind of information. The considerable demand for
this type of information compels businesses to become much more
aggressive in acquiring information to try to better understand
anything and everything about consumers.
Medical, credit card, banking, phone records, as well as
personal information collected under force of law by
government--records covering just about every activity in our
lives--are being gathered, stored, shared, and sold.
Even as we enjoy the benefits brought about by the surge of
new technologies, most of us are developing an eerie uneasiness
that government and industry are collecting so much personal
information, that our privacy is at risk, and occasionally, we
get a tangible glimpse of just how vulnerable our private lives
are.
Trans Union, which is one of the three largest credit
reporting agencies, was selling the bank activity, mortgages,
car loans, and credit card histories of 160 million Americans
to direct marketers until the Federal Trade Commission ordered
it to stop last month.
DoubleClick, Inc., a leading Internet advertising company,
was forced to delay linking web cookies or histories to
individual accounts after a public outcry against the practice.
The company's massive database that was put on the shelf, would
have merged the names, addresses and other personal information
of Internet users to a log of web sites each individual had
visited and the purchases each had made online.
In any event, I believe that it should be left to the
individual to choose when and how to participate in a
marketplace that has become obsessed with learning his or her
personal facts. All of us already make decisions everyday
regarding the scope and level of that participation.
For instance, you may join a grocery store membership club
that allows access to special discounts, and you should expect
your purchasing habits to undergo a data sweep. You may choose,
however, not to enter a particular web site for fear that your
information would not be secure at that web site, and later
choose to take advantage of the convenience of purchasing from
a catalog sent to your home.
Just as we have found that some consumers are price-
sensitive and others are time-sensitive in airline tickets
purchasing, I believe that in our new economy, some consumers
will be privacy-sensitive, and successful businesses will
embrace this by providing consumers with greater control over
their personal information they use or place in the commercial
marketplace.
So, an individual, at his or her discretion, may supply
information to private industry. I was shocked, however, when I
learned that much of what enters private databases is gathered
from government records.
Individuals are forced to provide their names, addresses,
social security numbers, and vital statistics to the state when
they apply for a driver's license, and additionally provide the
make, model, and the unique number of their automobile when
they apply to register their vehicle. This personal
information, some of which is rather sensitive, is not
volunteered, as it is in private transactions.
It is compelled by the state as a condition of granting the
license and enforced with criminal sanctions. While it is
obviously necessary for state governments to collect such
information for its own use, I believe it is insidious that
state governments use the power of law to extract information
from you while never intending to keep that information
confidential or to seek your consent before sharing that
information with others.
I became interested in the sale of state government records
after reading in several Washington Post articles that South
Carolina had sold the photographs of its drivers to a business
in New Hampshire, purely for making a profit. In this case, the
business was in the process of building a national database of
drivers' license photographs and personal information to allow
retail clerks to verify consumers identities.
It is a laudable goal to protect consumers from identity
theft, a growing crime, whereby fraud artists steal personal
information from their victims to set up phony bank and credit
card accounts and run up huge bills.
I am gravely concerned, however, about using drivers'
license photographs coerced from citizens and used without
authorization for any non-official purpose. Public outrage
forced South Carolina, Florida, and Colorado to cancel the
proposed bulk sale of drivers' photographs.
I believe that outrage is a very reliable indicator of the
public's desire to not have their personal information
distributed without their own permission.
Sadly, this particular incident is just the tip of the
iceberg. Whereas this was the first instance in which states
had begun selling images wholesale, for decades they have been
routinely selling sensitive personal information from public
records. The technology of the Digital Age has rendered public
record law as obsolete as the transistor.
No longer are public records maintained in file boxes or
microfiche drawers in isolation from one another at government
repositories with limited access. Instead, states store public
records in electronic formats and use sophisticated databases
that merge and index all of an individual's information from
numerous public records.
Some states are even discussing making certain records
available on the Internet. The personal information required
from individuals by law has become too accessible and
potentially too vulnerable to computer pirates.
Unrelated secondary uses of personal information without
the knowledge of the general public--and often without prior
approval--is troubling to a lot of us. Selling personal
information for inspection by anyone does not promote
accountability for government or increase the efficiency of its
service to the citizens of that particular state.
I believe, rather, that it is a violation of the public
trust for the government to compel citizens to reveal their
private information and then sell it to outsiders for profit.
It undermines public confidence in government and encourages
people to withdraw from the marketplace and society.
I think that the government should either have express
consent prior to making a sale or keep personal information
confidential, absent a compelling need to disclose it.
Sales of personal information to commercial enterprises,
solicitors and direct marketers may raise money for state
governments, but they do not meet a compelling need standard.
In fact, I believe these profits amount to an unauthorized tax
on the privacy of the American people. Rather than taking our
money, the government has appropriated something arguably much
more precious--a piece of our lives.
In an effort to stop unauthorized sales of personal
information by state governments, I included a general
provision in the 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill that
does two things; first, it ties federal transportation funding
to compliance with the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994.
And second, it requires states to obtain the express consent
prior to release of information in two situations.
First, individuals must give their consent before a state
is able to release a category of information. This category is
particularly sensitive information, including photographs,
social security numbers, and medial or disability information.
Second, individuals must grant their consent before the
state can sell or release other personal information when it is
used for the purpose of direct marketing, solicitations or
individual look-up.
These provisions have ended an unusually loathsome
practice--an ever dangerous practice, if the information lands
in the hands of thugs, thieves and stalkers--and promises
greater protection for the privacy of the American people.
Recently, in Reno versus Condon, a South Carolina case, the
Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality
of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. I believe, as do all
nine members of the Supreme Court in an unaccustomed unanimous
ruling, that the sale of personal information collected by
state governments is clearly within the purview of Congress to
regulate in the national interest.
Unfortunately, in our fervor to transform the economy, we
have not established rules to protect ourselves or our privacy.
By pursuing the unbridled exchange of information, we have
proceeded headlong into the modern equivalent of the
unregulated Wild, Wild West, and there is no sheriff in Dodge.
We are at the point where strangers, from telemarketers to
government bureaucrats, obtain personal information about us
and our children that we would not discuss at the dinner table,
much less with a neighbor, and trade on it for profit.
I am not sure this is the direction we want this new
frontier to go. I do not believe that anyone, either in the
marketplace or the government, has an unfettered right to the
personal information of Americans. That is why I was inspired
to draft the provision of last year's appropriations act.
I am a firm believer in free markets and the benefits of
the new technology economy. We live in the most prosperous
society on earth because of willingness to embrace free markets
and to adopt new technologies to our goals.
However, as we move forward and technology plays an even
greater role in our lives, it is essential that technology
serves us, rather than us serving it. To fully reap the promise
of technology in the Digital Age, it is more important than
ever for us to establish a framework that respects and protects
individual freedom and preserves the ability of individuals to
make their own choices.
The American people, as individuals, not state governments
or financial service corporations or Internet service
providers, should have the power to decide for themselves when
and how they want to participate in the economy.
It boils down to this: We have doors on our homes so that
outsiders who seek entry must knock and ask our permission to
enter. When we want people to come in, we invite them. When we
do not want them in, they are not permitted to enter.
Doors provide us with the means to control our interactions
with other people. American citizens should have the power to
put doors on all aspects of their private lives and to expect
that anyone who wants to enter must seek and gain consent.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your--your comments. And I commend you for holding this hearing
and focusing on this issue, because this is an issue that comes
up again and again and again.
I first entered it about 4 years ago, when quite
innocently, I tried to draft a bill dealing with the privacy of
medical records. And I thought this was going to be a very
simple sort of thing. We wanted to make sure that everybody's
medical records were held confidential. And we had plenty of
horror stories of people who had been victimized by people--
other people getting hold of their medical information.
Four years later, I have discovered that it is not a simple
issue at all. And as you have appropriately and correctly
pointed out in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, we have
the challenge of balancing the advantages of the technological
age with the very appropriate American desire to keep
everything confidential.
If I may use an analogy from my odyssey through the
difficulty of medical privacy, from a treatment point-of-view,
it is now possible for an individual to carry a--not only a
card, a tiny chip embedded in a card, in which his entire
medical history is available, so that if the individual is in
an accident, the paramedic can take that card out of his
wallet, put it in computer, and have all of his allergies, all
of the ``reactions to'' information, everything in front of
him, immediately available. And that is wonderful.
And the flip side of it is that someone can get a hold of
the medical records, say, an--a prospective employer, look
through all of those records and say, ``I do not want to hire
this person, because he or she might add to the cost of my
insurance policy, because, look, here is a--here is a disease
that occurred 20 years ago. And having somebody of that kind in
my insurance pool might raise my rates. And I am not even going
to interview him.''
Now, the same thing applies all across the board. There are
enormous advantages that can come from having information
available. You can be saved money, you can be saved time and
effort by having information about your buying habits available
to the marketers, because they will not market things to you if
it becomes clear from your buying pattern that you do not buy
those things.
The flip side of it is, you get invasion of your privacy in
areas that you might not want.
So, the challenge is finding a balance between the very
appropriate desire of all Americans for privacy and the desire
of Americans to say, ``Gee, if there are advantages that will
save me time and money by having some of this information out,
I would like those, too.''
Striking that balance is a very difficult challenge. And I
am hoping in the hearing today that we can get information from
these witnesses that will help us strike that balance.
So, I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your past interest in
this subject. You have been one of the leaders on this and
helped us--helped us move forward.
I would ask that written testimony, after the hearing,
might be also made available, because I think people who read
these hearings are going to have reactions that could be useful
to us.
So, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the record be kept open
for a time after the hearing for additional written comments,
if they might come in.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, it will so be made.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Our first panel today will be--and you all
can come on up--is Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Mr. Ed
Mierzwinski, Public Citizen; Ms. Susan Herman, National Center
for Victims of Crime; and Greg Nojeim, American Civil Liberties
Union.
I want to welcome all of you to the Appropriations
Oversight hearing today. Your written testimony will be made
part of the record in its entirety.
I will start with you, Ms. Schlafly. You proceed as you
wish. Welcome, again.
STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY, PRESIDENT, EAGLE FORUM
Ms. Schlafly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and Senators. We appreciate your interest in this
subject.
I am Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum.
The Fourth Amendment is one of our precious constitutional
rights: ``The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated.''
For various specific purposes, the government requires us
to disclose information about our persons, houses, papers and
effects. But the government's use of that information should be
restricted to the purpose for which it was constitutionally
demanded and received. The government should not be able to act
as though it owned that information, or to sell it or display
it or traffic with it without our consent.
Some years ago, the telephone companies asserted a
copyright or property right in the telephone book, with its
listings of our names, addresses and telephone numbers. The
Supreme Court unanimously ruled, in Feist versus Rural
Telephone Service (1991) that copyright protection is granted
only to authors who create new works, not to corporations that
merely collect data. So, the phone companies do not own their
listings of names and phone numbers just because they spent
money collecting them.
Likewise, the government does not own its listings of our
name, address, phone number, social security number,
photograph, or other personal information just because we are
required to provide them for specific purposes.
For the government to behave as though it owns that
information, or to sell it to others, is not only a
misappropriation of rights that belong to the individual, it is
an action that tends to destroy public confidence in government
and its trustworthiness.
For example, we are required to give a great deal of
personal information to the Internal Revenue Service, but we
would be outraged if we discovered that the IRS were
transferring that information to other agencies or selling it.
Likewise, for the information we give to the Social Security
Administration.
When we apply for a driver's license, we give our identity
information, along with a photograph and medical information,
to our state's motor vehicle bureau, in order to be granted the
privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public streets.
We do not give that information for any other purpose.
We have been shocked to discover that some states have been
selling that information for commercial use or otherwise making
it available to the public. That was not why we gave the state
that information.
We were particularly dismayed to discover that the U.S.
Secret Service gave a grant to a New Hampshire business to buy
state drivers' license information, including photos, which was
then marketed to private companies.
The discovery that states have been engaging in these
practices, makes us feel used and betrayed. We feel the state
has appropriated our identity without our consent. Worse still,
this contributes to a growing perception that we cannot trust
our government.
The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, passed in 1994,
forbade states from making such information available without
providing individuals the option of having their information
protected. In other words, the individual had to affirmatively
opt-out of the system in order to keep their information from
being sold. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this law last
year in Condon versus Reno.
Last year, due to the vigilance of Senator Richard Shelby,
this law was strengthened by a provision in the Transportation
Appropriations bill to change ``opt-out'' to ``opt-in.'' This
means that motor vehicle bureaus must seek each driver's
written consent before selling photos and personal information
about individuals who apply for driver's licenses.
This change is very welcome. It not only corrects an
injustice, but it helps to reassure citizens that the
government is not cheating on us behind our backs.
We should be particularly solicitous about government's use
of driver's licenses, because it appears that driver's licenses
have become an extraordinary temptation to various special
interests who see them as a means to achieve other objectives.
At the federal level, some people want to convert driver's
licenses into federal ID cards; something that is intolerable
in a free society.
The 1996 Immigration Act mandated that state drivers'
licenses contain machine-readable social security numbers as
the unique numeric identifier, thereby enabling the federal
government to use the driver's license as a federal ID card.
After public protest, this requirement was repealed in 1999.
Driver's License Protection is not a standalone issue. It
comes in the context of the growing issue of privacy and what
many see as an orchestrated invasion of our privacy by the
government in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as by
legitimate commercial interests and by fraud and theft. What
makes these invasions so easy is the ability of computers to
store massive quantities of personal information on databases
and access that information in sophisticated ways.
For example, yesterday's New York Times carries a large
front-page news article relating that ``Law enforcement
authorities are becoming increasingly worried about a sudden
sharp rise in identity theft, the pilfering of people's
personal information.''
And William Safire's column, of the same date, calls
attention to two notorious examples of the release of personal
privacy information by the White House and the Pentagon.
It is bad enough when private interests invade our privacy,
but it is positively offensive when the government does this.
That is why Census 2000 has stirred up a firestorm.
Americans have become increasingly fearful of giving the
government so much personal information that can be so
efficiently and rapidly retrieved from computers. Databases
give the government extraordinary powers to monitor the daily
activities of law-abiding citizens.
Now, I have, in my testimony, a lot of examples of how the
government is gathering all of this personal information and
how much public outcry it has caused. And all of this
government monitoring is allegedly for the purpose of locating
terrorists and money launderers and drug kingpins and Medicare
and Welfare cheats, but the reach of the monitoring goes far
beyond what is necessary to achieve its purported objectives.
Only totalitarian regimes monitor the private actions of law-
abiding citizens.
We should prohibit the government from building databases
of personal information on American citizens that is none of
the government's business. And when the information is the
government's business, the information should be allowed to be
used only for the purpose for which we give it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Ms. Schlafly.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
The Fourth Amendment is one of our precious constitutional rights:
``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated.''
For various specific purposes, the government requires us to
disclose information about our persons, houses, papers and effects. But
the government's use of that information should be restricted to the
purpose for which it was constitutionally demanded and received. The
government should not be able to act as though it owned that
information, or to sell it or display it or traffic with it without our
consent.
Some years ago, the telephone companies asserted a copyright, or
property right, in the telephone book with its listings of our names,
addresses and telephone numbers. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in
Feist v. Rural Telephone Service (1991) that copyright protection is
granted only to authors who create new works, not to corporations that
merely collect data, so the phone companies do not own their listings
of names and phone numbers just because they spent money collecting
them.
Likewise, the government does not own its listings of our name,
address, phone number, Social Security number, photograph or other
personal information just because we are required to provide them for
specific purposes. For the government to behave as though it owns that
information, or to sell it to others, is not only a misappropriation of
rights that belong to the individual, it is an action that tends to
destroy public confidence in government and its trustworthiness.
For example, we are required to give a great deal of personal
information to the Internal Revenue Service, but we would be outraged
if we discovered that the IRS were transferring that information to
other agencies or selling it. Likewise for the information we give to
the Social Security Administration.
When we apply for a driver's license, we give our identity
information along with a photograph and some medical information to our
state's motor vehicle bureau in order to be granted the privilege of
operating a motor vehicle on the public streets. We don't give that
information for any other purpose.
We have been shocked to discover that some states have been selling
that information for commercial use or otherwise making it available to
the public. That wasn't why we gave the state that information.
We were particularly dismayed to discover that the U.S. Secret
Service gave a grant to a New Hampshire business to buy state driver's
license information, including photos, which was then marketed to
private companies.
The discovery that states have been engaging in these practices
makes us feel used and betrayed. We feel the state has appropriated our
identity without our consent. Worse still, this contributes to a
growing perception that we cannot trust our government.
The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, passed in 1994, forbade states
from making such information available without providing individuals
the option of having their information protected. In other words,
individuals had to affirmatively ``opt-out'' of the system in order to
keep their information from being sold. The Supreme Court unanimously
upheld this law last year in Condon v. Reno.
Last year, due to the vigilance of Senator Richard Shelby, this law
was strengthened by a provision in the Transportation Appropriations
bill to change ``opt-out'' to ``opt-in.'' This means that motor vehicle
bureaus must seek each drivers' written consent before selling photos
and personal information about individuals who apply for driver's
licenses.
This change is very welcome. It not only corrects an injustice but
it helps to reassure citizens that the government is not cheating on us
behind our backs.
We should be particularly solicitous about government's use of
driver's licenses because it appears that driver's licenses have become
an extraordinary temptation to various special interests who see them
as a means to achieve other objectives. At the federal level, some
people want to convert driver's licenses into federal I.D. cards,
something that is intolerable in a free society.
The 1996 Immigration Act mandated that state driver's licenses
contain machine-readable Social Security numbers as the unique numeric
identifier, thereby enabling the federal government to use driver's
licenses as a federal I.D. card. After public protest, this requirement
was repealed in 1999.
Driver's License Protection is not a stand-alone issue. It comes in
the context of the growing issue of privacy and what many see as an
orchestrated invasion of our privacy by the government in violation of
the Fourth Amendment, as well as by legitimate commercial interests and
by fraud and theft. What makes these invasions so easy is the ability
of computers to store massive quantities of personal information on
databases and access that information in sophisticated ways.
For example, yesterday's New York Times (4-3-00) carries a large
front-page news article relating that ``Law enforcement authorities are
becoming increasingly worried about a sudden, sharp rise in identify
theft, the pilfering of people's personal information . . .'' William
Safire's column of the same date calls attention to two notorious
examples of the release of personal privacy information by the White
House and the Pentagon. It's bad enough when private interests invade
our privacy, but it's positively offensive when the government does
this.
This is why Census 2000 has stirred up a firestorm. Americans have
become increasingly fearful of giving the government so much personal
information that can be so efficiently and rapidly retrieved from
computers. Databases give the government extraordinary powers to
monitor the daily activities of law-abiding Americans.
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act requires all employers to send the
name, address and Social Security number of every new worker, and every
employee who is promoted, to a new government database called the
Directory of New Hires. We were told that this was just to locate
Deadbeat Dads, but now we find that another law passed last year allows
this database to be shared with the Department of Education. Another
problem with the New Hires Directory is that small banks and credit
unions, which can't afford the technology or manpower to search their
customer databases every three months for ``matches'' against state-
provided lists of deadbeat dads, are just handing over to the
government all confidential information on all their customers and
letting the government conduct its own search for ``matches.''
We in Eagle Forum have long been concerned about the aggressiveness
of public schools in requiring children to fill out nosy questionnaires
revealing all sorts of non-academic information about attitudes,
behavior, health and family privacy. It was offensive enough when all
this personal information went into manila file folders, but now it is
entered on easily accessible databases where it can be shared with
other databases.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) tried to impose a
regulation called Know Your Customer--a plan to require banks to make a
computer profile of all their customers' deposits and withdrawals and
report ``inconsistent'' transactions to a federal database in Detroit
called the Suspicious Activity Reporting System. After the comment
period produced more than 250,000 negative and only 3,000 positive
comments, the FDIC backed down and abandoned its plan temporarily.
However, during congressional consideration of the big Financial
Modernization bill last year, we discovered that many banks are already
making customer profiles and selling them to telemarketers. We are
disappointed that the banking lobby successfully blocked Senator
Richard Shelby's amendment that would have required banks to get the
prior consent of customers before selling private financial
information.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mandated that all
wireless providers by 2001 be able to pinpoint the location of wireless
phone calls. Cell phones are becoming homing devices for the government
to track our whereabouts.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a regulation
that would effectively give the government unlimited access to
everyone's personal travel records. The FAA gave $3.1 million to
Northwest Airlines to create software for a database of personal travel
records, plus $7.8 million to other airlines to assist in deploying it.
The 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum Act authorized the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to assign a ``unique health care identifier''
to every American so the government can enter and track individual
medical records on a government database. Public reaction was so
adverse that Congress put a moratorium on implementation.
The 1993 Comprehensive Childhood Immunization Act gave the
Department of Health and Human Services $400 million to induce states
to create databases of all children's vaccinations. The Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) is trying to link these state databases into a
federal database, and this will ultimately enable the government to
deny admission to daycare, kindergarten, school or college, or even
access to medical care for any child who has not had all government-
mandated shots.
Another plan to collect private information on a government
database involves sending ``home visitors'' into the homes of all
first-time parents in the project called Healthy Families America.
Information is entered on a nationwide computerized tracking system
called the Program Information Management System that can eventually be
combined with preschool and public school tracking systems.
HHS is recruiting senior citizens to spy on their own physicians by
offering a reward of up to $1000 if they call the toll-free ``Fraud
Hotline'' and file a report that leads to a monetary ``recovery'' from
their doctor. The harassment potential is enormous when 39 million
seniors start trying to collect a bonus if the doctor's office enters
the wrong code number on a Medicare form.
All this government monitoring is allegedly for the purpose of
locating terrorists, money launderers, drug kingpins, Medicare and
welfare cheats, student loan delinquents, and deadbeat dads. But the
reach of this monitoring goes far beyond what is necessary to achieve
its purported objectives. Only totalitarian regimes monitor the private
actions of law-abiding citizens.
We should prohibit the government from building databases of
personal information on American citizens that is none of the
government's business. And when the information is the government's
business, the information should be allowed to be used only for the
purpose for which we give it.
STATEMENT OF ED MIERZWINSKI, CONSUMER PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
UNITED STATES PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH
GROUP
Senator Shelby. Mr. Ed Mierzwinski, go ahead.
Mr. Mierzwinski. Thank you, Senator----
Senator Shelby. Public citizen.
Mr. Mierzwinski [continuing]. Shelby. That is correct.
Mr. Mierzwinski. Senator Shelby, Senator Bennett, my name
is Edwin Mierzwinski. I am Consumer Program Director for the
United States Public Interest Research Group, a consumer
advocacy organization. And my testimony today is on behalf of
both USPIRG and Ralph Nader.
And I apologize Mr. Nader could not be here today. As you
know, he has been a longtime supporter of privacy interests and
appeared with you last summer at one of your press
conferences--and Ms. Schlafly--at a press conference on the
Financial Privacy bill. So, he apologizes, but he strongly
supports your legislation.
I also want to commend you, before I start, on your ongoing
support for privacy. Your development of the Privacy Coalition
forged between a family-based consumer and civil liberties
organizations that has worked, first, on the Know Your Customer
regulations, to oppose those.
Second, on trying to achieve a financial privacy opt-in.
And we will continue to fight with you to achieve that.
And finally, your founding of the Bicameral/Bipartisan
Congressional Privacy Caucus that has already shed light on a
number of intrusive privacy practices.
My testimony--my written testimony summarizes all of my
remarks, in detail. I will just be very brief.
The Shelby Amendment is important for the following
reasons: First, citizens deserve control over their personal
and confidential information, particularly when it is going to
be used for unrelated secondary purposes.
We believe that in such circumstances, government
agencies--whether state or federal--should comply with fair
information practices. And that means, among other things that
I outline in my testimony, that consumers ought to provide
express consent before their information is used for any
secondary purpose, particularly a commercial purpose which is
not related to the purpose for which it was collected.
Second, as you pointed out in your opening remarks, this
requirement is particularly strong when the information is
compelled to be provided. The government requires consumers to
provide these pieces of information. In that circumstance, we
believe that it is increasingly more important that the
information be subject to an opt-in, rather that a weak opt-
out.
The other reason that your amendment is so critically
important is that since the 1994 Driver's Privacy Protection
Act was enacted, we have come to find that there are additional
privacy invasions, such as the sale of digitized photographs of
citizens to third-party marketing and commercial entities, such
as Image Data of New Hampshire. And the fact that these new
uses of data have come to light, just means there are more
important reasons that we need to enact your stronger
protections.
And finally, the other--the other issue is whether an opt-
out actually can and does work. And in my testimony, I go into
great detail as to a number of the problems with opt-outs. The
industry has, as you know, succeeded in a number of commercial
areas in creating what they call a sector-by-sector approach to
privacy--find a problem, solve it, but do not impede commercial
interests with a broad right of privacy.
Well, consumer groups think that the convergence of
industry sectors that is occurring in society today means that
we, in fact, do need to enact a broad right of privacy, but
notwithstanding that, if you look at all of the opt-out
programs that the industry has provided, whether voluntary
programs of the Online Privacy Alliance or the Direct Marketing
Association, we believe that they are designed not to protect
privacy, but to protect commercial interests. We believe that
they are designed to fail.
One statutory opt-out that I find particularly outrageous
is one that I worked for many years to enact amendments to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act to strengthen consumer rights in
credit reports.
Every year, consumers receive 3.5 billion credit card
solicitations by mail. They receive those generated from
companies looking at your credit report and deciding that you
qualify for a credit card offer.
We sought to require that credit reports only be used for
that purpose, on an opt-in basis. Of course, consumer groups
failed and the anti-privacy interests prevailed. They succeeded
in changing that to a weak opt-out.
You must look at each of those solicitations you receive in
the mail; you must look at the back of the solicitation; you
must find the telephone number to call; you must figure out
that the obtuse language that they use actually means that they
are giving you a right to opt-out; then, when you call them on
the phone to opt-out, your opt-out is only guaranteed for two
years.
If you choose to opt-out forever, which I believe should be
your right, you must ask them and request a ``signed notice of
election,'' and then receive it in the mail and send it back
for your opt-out to continue past the two-year period.
And that is the example that I think just proves that opt-
outs are designed to fail.
In summary, USPIRG strongly supports the Shelby Amendment;
believes that there is no public policy reason that it should
not be implemented on the first of June. And we, again, want to
commend you for your leadership and the fact that you have
demonstrated that privacy is an issue that--that effects all
Americans on all sides of the political spectrum. And
ultimately, I believe we will prevail.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN HERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME
Senator Shelby. Ms. Susan Herman, National Center for
Victims of Crime.
Ms. Herman.
Ms. Herman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett.
My name is Susan Herman. I am the Executive Director of the
National Center for Victims of Crime.
The National Center works with 10,000 organizations across
the country to help victims of crime rebuild their lives.
Thank you for inviting me to address the important issue of
privacy of personal information; specifically, how releasing
motor vehicle records impacts victims of crime.
In 1994, the landmark Driver's Privacy Protection Act
required states to give licensed drivers the option to keep
their contact information confidential, limiting disclosure to
narrowly defined purposes. As a result, victims of stalking,
battered women, and intimidated witnesses--who need to conceal
there whereabouts--were better able to protect themselves.
Unfortunately, because many states required affirmative
requests to keep information confidential, many people were
still at risk. Without making such a request--perhaps not
knowing the option existed--personal information remained
available to anyone able to pay a nominal fee.
Amy Boyer, a young New Hampshire woman, did not know her
life was in danger. Her stalker, a man she barely knew in
junior high school, used the Internet to get information about
her workplace and her license plate number. With just two
pieces of information purchased from the Internet companies, he
found her and killed her. She never knew she was at risk. Amy
Boyer never knew she needed protection.
And over the last few years, we have the emergence of a new
pernicious crime--identity theft. It thrives on access to
personal information.
Identity theft can happen without your knowing it. Your
financial security can be shattered. And victims who obtain a
criminal record via identity theft have a particularly
difficult time clearing their names.
Mr. Chairman, because of your efforts last year, the law
was amended to change the opt-out provision to an opt-in
provision. In other words, individuals now have to
affirmatively waive confidentiality. We applaud you. This
effort will prevent harm.
Since enactment of this historic legislation, however, the
National Center has come to believe that the scales have tipped
much further in the direction of full protection of privacy.
Based on our work with victims of stalking, domestic violence
and identity theft, we recommend that the DPPA be amended again
to protect victims. There should be no options. Drivers'
personal information should never be released, except as
outlined in the Act.
The National Center operates a Help Line for victims of all
types of crime. A large percentage of calls come from stalking
victims. One of their principal concerns is that they do not
know why they were targeted or how they were found. This is
especially true in the 40 percent of stalking cases that do not
arise out of a domestic situation.
Victims of stranger stalking, at the time they were asked
whether the government could release their personal
information, may have had no reason to opt for privacy. How
many people know that one in twelve women and one in forty-five
men in America will be stalked during their lifetime?
We also hear from victims of identity theft, who tell us
they, too, never realized they were vulnerable. They were
simply undergoing normal everyday activities, and their social
security number or other information fell into the wrong hands.
Like the stalking victims, identity theft victims had little
reason to believe they needed to protect their records when
they made their opt-in/opt-out decision. How many people know
that each year more than 400,000 Americans will be victims of
identity theft?
Viewed from a victim's perspective, the opt-in/opt-out
decision we are now offered really only helps people who know
they are in danger or understand the risks we all face. We have
heard from too many victims who realized too late that their
personal information can be used to harm them.
That is why, on their behalf, we respectfully request that
drivers' personal information, with rare exception, never be
released.
In the alternative, we would urge this committee to
consider legislation that would require states to notify
individuals whenever their information has been released. When
citizens give their government the right to release personal
information, the government should have an obligation to inform
them every time information is released and to whom it is
released.
Last year, this committee amended the Transportation
Appropriations bill to include social security numbers within
the scope of protected information. Now social security
numbers, like addresses, cannot be released without permission.
It is unclear, however, what effect this will have on those
states that use social security numbers for the driver's
license number, or states that show the social security number
on the face of the license. That number is then available every
time an individual writes a check, boards a plane or enters a
secured building.
States should also be prohibited from including social
security numbers on licenses. In this age of technology and
identity theft, no one should be required to display their
social security number to countless strangers in the course of
everyday life.
In summary, we believe the government should not release
personal information. If this practice continues, however, the
government should at least notify individuals whenever it does
release information. And to further decrease the risk of
danger, social security numbers should be removed from
licenses.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today on this
critical issue. We look forward to working with you as you
develop proposals.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan Herman
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Susan Herman, and I'm the Executive Director of the National
Center for Victims of Crime. The National Center works with 10,000
organizations across the country to help victims of crime rebuild their
lives.
Thank you for inviting me to address the important issue of privacy
of personal information, specifically, how releasing motor vehicle
records impacts victims of crime.
In 1994, the landmark Driver's Privacy Protection Act required
states to give licensed drivers the option to keep their contact
information confidential, limiting disclosure to narrowly defined
purposes. As a result, victims of stalking, battered women, and
intimidated witnesses--who need to conceal their whereabouts--were
better able to protect themselves.
Unfortunately, because many states required affirmative requests to
keep information confidential, many people were still at risk. Without
making such a request--perhaps not knowing the option existed--personal
information remained available to anyone able to pay a nominal fee.
Amy Boyer, a young New Hampshire woman, did not know her life was
in danger. Her stalker, a man she barely knew in junior high school,
used the Internet to get information about her workplace and her
license plate number. With just two pieces of information purchased
from Internet companies, he found her and killed her. She never knew
she was at risk. Amy Boyer never knew she needed protection.
Over the last few years, we have seen the emergence of a new
pernicious crime--identity theft. It thrives on access to personal
information.
In Florida, a woman obtained a fraudulent driver's license in the
victim's name. She used the license to withdraw more than $13,000 from
the bank, obtained five department store credit cards, and charged
nearly $4,000 in the victim's name.
Identity theft can happen without your knowing it. Your financial
security can be shattered. And, victims who obtain a criminal record
via identity theft have a particularly difficult time clearing their
names.
Mr. Chairman, because of your efforts last year, the law was
amended to change the ``opt out'' provision to an ``opt in'' provision.
In other words, individuals now have to affirmatively waive
confidentiality. We applaud you. This effort will prevent harm.
Since enactment of this historic legislation, however, the National
Center has come to believe that the scales have tipped much further in
the direction of full protection of privacy.
Based on our work with victims of stalking, domestic violence, and
identity theft, we recommend that the DPPA be amended again to protect
victims. There should be no options. Drivers' personal information
should never be released except as outlined in the Act.
The National Center operates a helpline for victims of all types of
crime. A large percentage of calls come from stalking victims. One of
their principle concerns is that they don't know why they were targeted
or how they were found. This is especially true in the 40 percent of
stalking cases that don't arise out of a domestic situation. Victims of
stranger stalking, at the time they were asked whether the government
could release their personal information, usually have no reason to opt
for privacy. How many people know that one in twelve women and one in
forty-five men in America will be stalked during their lifetime?
We also hear from victims of identity theft who tell us they, too,
never realized they were vulnerable. They were simply undergoing normal
everyday activities, and their social security number, or other
information, fell into the wrong hands. Like the stalking victims,
identity theft victims had little reason to believe they needed to
protect their records when they made their opt in/opt out decision. How
many people know that each year more than 400,000 Americans will be
victims of identity theft?
Viewed from a victim's perspective, the opt in/opt out decision we
are now offered really only helps people who know they are in danger or
understand the risks we all face. We've heard from too many victims who
realized too late that their personal information could be used to harm
them. That's why, on their behalf, we respectfully request that
drivers' personal information, with rare exception, never be released.
In the alternative, we would urge this committee to consider
legislation that would require states to notify individuals whenever
their information has been released. When citizens give their
government the right to release personal information, the government
should have an obligation to inform them every time information is
released and to whom it is released.
Last year, this committee amended the Transportation Appropriations
Bill to include social security numbers within the scope of protected
information. Now, social security numbers, like addresses, cannot be
released without permission. It is unclear, however, what effect this
will have on those states that use social security numbers for the
driver's license number, or states that show the social security number
on the face of the license. That number is then available every time an
individual writes a check, boards a plane, or enters a secured
building.
States should be prohibited from including social security numbers
on licenses. In this age of technology and identity theft, no one
should be required to display their social security number to countless
strangers in the course of everyday life.
In summary, we believe the government should not release personal
information. If this practice continues, however, the government should
at least notify individuals whenever it does release information. And
to further decrease the risk of danger, social security numbers should
be removed from licenses.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today on this critical
issue. We look forward to working with you as you develop proposals.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GREG NOJEIM, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Senator Shelby. Mr. Greg--is it Nojeim?
Mr. Nojeim. Yes.
Senator Shelby. You say it. You pronounce it. Is that
right?
Mr. Nojeim. I say it ``Nojeim,'' too.
Senator Shelby. Nojeim. Great. American Civil Liberties
Union. We welcome you here today, sir.
Mr. Nojeim. Thank you, Senator Shelby, Senator Bennett. It
is a pleasure to be here today to testify on behalf of the
ACLU.
The ACLU is a nationwide, nonpartisan organization
consisting of over 275,000 members dedicated to protecting the
principles of privacy and other--and freedom that are set forth
in the Bill of Rights.
And Senator Shelby, I want to salute you, also, for your
leadership in this area. You have been a stalwart defender of
privacy. And we look forward to working with you and the other
members of the privacy caucus on this and other issues in the
future.
It should not take a tragedy--it should not take a tragedy
for Congress to act to protect a person's individual privacy,
and yet, time and time again, it does take a tragedy.
We have heard of victims of crime that prompted Congress to
enact the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in the first place.
And we heard that a Nashua, New Hampshire company committed its
own privacy tragedy by trying to collect up the images of 22
million drivers--eventually, they wanted the images of all the
drivers in the country--so that they could provide access to
those images to businesses that, for legitimate reasons, wanted
to prevent fraud.
You know, when drivers heard about that, they were
outraged. And it really went against one of the most
fundamental principles of fair information practices that Mr.
Mierzwinski mentioned earlier. That principle is that
information given to the government for one purpose, ought not
to be used for another purpose without the authorization of the
person to whom that personal information pertains.
Well, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act did a lot to
advance that principle, but because of loopholes in the Act, it
has fallen short. One of those loopholes allows for disclosure
of a driver's personal information in response to an individual
request or for bulk distribution for marketing, solicitations
and surveys, if the driver is given notice and a chance to opt-
out of dissemination of the driver's personal information.
Another loophole--the one that Image Data used--allowed for
the distribution of a driver's personal information for use in
the normal course of business by a legitimate business--
whatever that means--to pursue debtors and to verify
information submitted to the business.
I think that Governor Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida,
summed up drivers' sentiments best about the Image Data mini-
scandal, when he said, ``I am personally not comfortable with
the state mandating license photos for the purpose of
identifying authorized drivers, then selling those photos at a
profit for a completely different purpose.''
Every state that participated in that plan was flooded with
citizen complaints. And every state that participated in that
plan called it off, as a result.
Now, in an effort to prevent a recurrence and other abuses,
Congress, under your leadership, Senator Shelby, enacted two
additional privacy protections in the Transportation
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000.
The first effectively requires states to obtain express
consent before releasing a driver's photograph, social security
number, or medical and disability information. In other words,
those were given special additional protections because of
their sensitivity. However, to have the desired effect, this
new protection would have to be reenacted every year.
The second 1999 enhancement is permanent. It amounts to
amendments to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act to require
the express consent of a driver before a state DMV releases any
personal information, such as address, gender and age, whether
it is in bulk, for marketing, or pursuant to an individual, so-
called, look-up request.
The ACLU supports these changes. As a practical matter, the
opt-out approach offers much more limited protection than does
an opt-in. I like to call opt-out--the opt-out approach,
``presumed consent.'' Unless the driver acts, consent to
dissemination of the driver's personal information is presumed.
Likewise, an opt-in could be viewed as requiring true
consent. The 1999 changes to protect driver privacy went a long
way toward turning the DPPA into a true consent stature.
However, more needs to be done. We recommend five additional
steps.
First, to fully secure the additional--the additional
protections the 1999 changes afforded drivers--photographs,
social security numbers, and medical and disability
information--those changes should be made permanent.
Second, Congress should plug as many of the remaining
loopholes in the Driver's Privacy Protection Act as is
practicable.
Third, Congress should ensure that the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act is enforced. We recommend that the GAO be asked
to conduct a state-by-state survey, effective June 1, to
identify--for potential civil penalty under the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act--the states that are not in compliance
with the Act.
In addition, Congress should make it clear, beyond doubt,
that failure to comply with the DPPA will result with
withholding of a portion of a state's federal highway money.
Fourth, we ask that Congress repeal a mandate that Congress
itself imposed on the states, to collect drivers' social
security numbers on the application forms for drivers'
licenses.
At roughly the same time Congress acted to promote driver
privacy by enacting and improving DPPA, Congress enacted other
legislation that undermines the very principle upon which the
DPPA rests; that is the principle that information submitted to
the government for one purpose, ought not be used for another
without consent.
You know, social security numbers were originally
authorized for one purpose, and that was to track contributions
to the Social Security Trust Fund. Instead, they have morphed
into what can only be described as a universal citizen
identifier.
Congress enacted two laws in 1996 to require the states to
collect drivers' social security numbers and keep them in their
records. Now, Congress did take one step last year to repeal
these anti-privacy mandates.
First--and that step was to repeal Section 656(b) of the
1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act. That section would have required states, among other
things, to demand drivers' social security numbers on drivers'
licenses and application forms, but Congress left in place the
mandate to collect the social security number that appeared in
the Welfare Reform Act, as amended by the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997.
Finally, Congress should insist that states implement the
1999 privacy protections relating to the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act without delay. These provisions became law
almost six months ago. For the most part, the states were given
eight months to implement the provisions.
Special steps were taken for states that have legislatures
that do not meet this year. They were given an exception, so
that they could implement 90 days after they next meet.
For states that challenged the Driver's Privacy Protection
Act all the way to the Supreme Court in Reno v. Condon, these
states were given 90 days after that case was decided.
Today, more than a full year after Colorado, Florida, and
South Carolina stirred up citizen outrage by proposing to sell
millions of their drivers' photographs without consent, no
provision of federal law is in force to barr such an abuse in
the future.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Now, more than ever, Congress must insist on prompt
compliance with the law to protect the privacy of drivers'
personal information.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory T. Nojeim
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Lautenberg and members of the
Subcommittee: I am pleased to testify before you today on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union about amendments to the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act adopted last year. The ACLU is a nation-wide, non-
profit, non-partisan organization consisting of over 275,000 members
dedicated to preserving the principles of freedom set forth in the Bill
of Rights.
Today I will identify the abuses that lead Congress to enact the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the 1999 amendments to the Act. I
will explain that the ACLU supports both because they can protect the
privacy of the information drivers submit in order to obtain driver's
licenses. I will also suggest additional steps Congress should take to
close loopholes in the DPPA and ensure that drivers secure of the
privacy benefits of the DPPA, including the 1999 amendments.
THE DRIVER'S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
An obsessed fan who had obtained the address of actress Rebecca
Shaeffer from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) stalked
and murdered Ms. Shaeffer. She had taken steps to protect her personal
information. She had paid to keep her home phone number unlisted. She
was careful about giving out her address. Yet, when she applied for a
California driver's license, she had no idea that California would
freely sell the information she had tried to keep private.
In response to the killing, Congress enacted the 1994 Driver's
Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 2721-2725) to require states to
protect the privacy of the information that drivers submit in order to
obtain a driver's license. This information includes the driver's name,
address, phone number, Social Security Number, driver identification
number, photograph, height, weight, gender, age, certain medical or
disability information, and in some states, fingerprints. The DPPA does
not extend privacy protection to information relating to a driver's
traffic violations, license status, and accidents.
The ACLU supported the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. We
testified in 1994 that although that state DMV records had
traditionally been open to the public, this could no longer be
justified. We acknowledged that access to government information
fosters democracy and enhances personal freedom. It encourages informed
citizen participation in the governing process, promotes accountability
of government employees, deters government abuse, and instills public
confidence in government through increased awareness. However, we
believe that access to personal information collected and maintained by
state DMV's does not substantially advance these goals and thus does
not meet the criteria necessary to be made available under an open-
records policy. We believe that the individual's interest in avoiding
the disclosure of personal information outweighs the public interest in
disclosure in this context.
As we indicated in 1994, state DMV records ought to be treated with
protections similar to the protections afforded federal records subject
to the federal Privacy Act of 1974. Its central principle is that
personal information collected by the government for one purpose may
not be used for another purpose without the consent of the person to
whom the information pertains. As applied to drivers' records, this
would mean that information submitted by an applicant in order to
obtain a driver's license could not be used for another purpose without
the express consent of the driver.
LOOPHOLES IN THE DPPA COMPROMISE ITS PRIVACY PROMISE
The DPPA fell short of this ideal because loopholes in the Act have
proven problematic. There is no way under the Act for a driver to
prevent disclosure of personal information when a loophole applies.
Among others, there is a loophole for:
--Each government agency to use personal information in the state's
DMV records ``in carrying out its functions'' 18 U.S.C.
2721(b)(1);
--``Performance monitoring of motor vehicles'' 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(2);
--``Use in connection with . . . any investigation in anticipation of
litigation'' 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(4);
--``Use in connection with the operation of private toll [roads]'' 18
U.S.C. 2721(b)(10);
--``Use by an employer or insurer to verify information relating to
the holder of a commercial driver's license'' 18 U.S.C.
2721(b)(9); and
--Any other use authorized by state law ``related to operation of a
motor vehicle or public safety'' 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(14).
The DPPA also included other overly broad loopholes. It allowed for
disclosure of a driver's personal information in response to an
individual request, or for bulk distribution for marketing,
solicitations and surveys, if the driver is given notice and a chance
to ``opt out'' of the dissemination of the driver's personal
information. 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(11) and 2721(b)(12). Another loophole
allowed for the distribution of a driver's personal information for use
in the normal course of business by a ``legitimate'' business to pursue
debtors who had provided inaccurate or outdated information, and to
verify the accuracy of information submitted by an individual to the
business. 18 U.S.C. 2721(b)(3).
ABUSE OF DRIVERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION
This latter loophole has led to abuse. Last year, a Nashua, New
Hampshire company tried to exploit this loophole by purchasing from
state DMV's the images and other personal information about 22 million
drivers in order to build a national drivers' database. Once a
sufficient number of drivers' images were purchased--often for a penny
a piece--Image Data, LLC would have made its database available for a
fee to businesses seeking to prevent fraud by retrieving the photograph
of any customer using a credit card or a check. Image Data and South
Carolina, Colorado and Florida, which had contracted with it to sell
their drivers' personal information without consent, apparently took
the position that the sale facilitated business use to verify the
accuracy of personal information submitted to the business, and thus
fit within the 2721(b)(3) loophole. This justification was called into
question when it was revealed that the Secret Service had helped fund
the drivers' photo database in an apparent effort gain access to the
database to fight immigration fraud and airport terrorism.
Drivers were outraged when they learned that their photographs and
other information were being sold without their consent to create a
national database of driver images.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush probably summed up drivers' sentiments
best when he reportedly said, ``I am personally not comfortable with
the state mandating license photos for the purpose of identifying
authorized drivers, then selling those photos at a profit for a
completely different purpose.'' Every participating state was flooded
with citizen complaints about privacy. And every participating state
called off the sale.
1999 AMENDMENTS TO THE DRIVER'S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
In an effort to prevent a recurrence and other abuses, Congress
enacted two additional privacy protections in Section 350 of the
Transportation Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000, Public Law 106-
69. The first lasts only as long as the highway money Congress
appropriated in the law. It effectively requires states to obtain
express driver consent before releasing the driver's photograph, Social
Security Number, or medical or disability information. Exceptions to
the new rule were provided for law enforcement and the execution of
judgments, insurance claims investigations and underwriting, organ
donation programs, and verification of information relating to the
holder of a commercial driver's license. Thus, this sensitive
information cannot be released for a different use authorized under the
DPPA without the driver's express consent. To have the desired effect,
this new protection would have to be re-enacted each year because it
was tied to money appropriated in the Transportation Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2000.
The second 1999 enhancement of driver privacy is permanent.
Congress amended the Driver's Privacy Protection Act itself by
requiring the express consent of a driver before a state DMV releases
any personal information such as address, gender and age, in bulk for
marketing, solicitations and surveys. Congress also amended the DPPA to
require express consent for the release of personal information about a
particular individual--as opposed to a bulk distribution--for any
purpose not mentioned as an exception in the DPPA itself. Previously,
such information would be released pursuant to a request for an
individual's information, or a request for bulk distribution for
marketing purposes, if the individual had failed to ``opt out'' of the
disclosure.
The ACLU supports these changes to protect driver privacy. By
requiring express consent as a condition of dissemination of personal
information in many circumstances, Congress made the DPPA more closely
resemble the federal Privacy Act and other legislation protecting the
privacy of information in record systems maintained by governmental
entities. As a practical matter, the ``opt out'' approach offers much
more limited protection than does an ``opt in.'' I like to call the opt
out approach, ``presumed consent.'' Unless the driver acts, consent to
dissemination of the driver's personal information is presumed.
Likewise, the ``opt in'' could be viewed as requiring ``true
consent''--an expression of consent prior to the sharing of
information. The 1999 changes to protect driver privacy went a long way
toward converting the DPPA from a ``presumed consent'' into a ``true
consent'' statute. However, more needs to be done.
ADDITIONAL STEPS CONGRESS SHOULD TAKE TO PROTECT DRIVER PRIVACY
Make 1999 Protections Permanent.--First, to fully secure the
additional protections the 1999 changes afforded for drivers'
photographs, SSNs and medical and disability information, Congress
should make the changes permanent. This would not only protect driver
privacy, it would give states additional certainty with respect to the
rules they would be required to follow in the future. In the
alternative, Congress should ensure that this year's transportation
appropriations bill carries forward the good work Congress began last
year to protect drivers' photographs, SSNs and medical and disability
information.
Plug Loopholes.--Second, Congress should plug as many of the
remaining loopholes in the Driver's Privacy Protection Act as is
practicable.
Beef Up Enforcement Efforts.--Third, Congress should ensure that
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act is enforced. The DPPA allows the
Department of Justice to seek civil penalties of $5,000/day under 18
U.S.C. 2723(b) from states that fail to comply with the DPPA. To our
knowledge, no state has been fined for failure to comply. However, in
the legislature of at least one state--Minnesota--steps are reportedly
being taken to prohibit state implementation of the true consent
provisions Congress adopted last year unless the federal government
fines the state for non-compliance. 26 Access Reports No. 4, pp. 3-4
(February 23, 2000). Now that the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld
the DPPA as a proper exercise of Congressional authority., (Reno v.
Condon, No. 98-1464 (January 12, 2000)), Congress should call on the
Government Accounting Office to conduct a state-by-state survey to
identify for potential civil penalty the states that are not in
compliance.
However, fines may not be enough. States may attempt to challenge
the imposition of fines by the federal government on sovereign immunity
grounds. In addition, states may argue that the fines only apply to
violations of the DPPA, and thus are not applicable with respect to the
1999 protections afforded SSNs, photographs, and medical information.
These additional protections do not appear in the text of the DPPA.
Moreover, while we believe that the 1999 privacy enhancements require
states receiving federal highway funding to comply with the DPPA and
the 1999 changes, some have disputed that. As a result, we recommend
that Congress make it clear beyond doubt that failure to comply will
result in the withholding of a portion of a state's federal highway
money.
Repeal SSN Solicitation Mandate.--At roughly the same time Congress
acted to promote driver privacy by enacting and improving the DPPA,
Congress enacted other legislation that undermines the very principle
upon which the DPPA rests. That is the principle that information
submitted to the government for one purpose ought not be used for
another purpose without the consent of the person to whom it pertains.
This other legislation requires the states to demand drivers' Social
Security Numbers on driver's license application forms.
Social Security Numbers were originally authorized to help the
government keep track of contributions made to the Social Security
trust fund. At the time they were authorized, a promise was made that
the numbers would not become universal identifiers. This promise has
been broken repeatedly. Each time it is broken, personal privacy is
compromised by linkage of data files reliant on the SSN.
In Section 317 of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Act (Public Law 104-193), Congress effectively required the
states to ask applicants for commercial driver's licenses, occupational
licenses and marriage licenses to provide their SSNs on the application
form. In Section 5536 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law
105-33), Congress extended the requirement to cover all driver's
licenses, as well as hunting, fishing and other recreational licenses.
The purpose of the legislation was to help track down parents who had
failed to pay child support. The effect was to diminish the privacy of
all license applicants, including the vast majority who do not owe
child support.
Congress should do its part to protect driver privacy by repealing
this anti-privacy mandate to the states. This would complete the work
Congress began last year in the Transportation Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2000 when it repealed Section 656(b) of 1996 Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That section would
have, among other things, required states to demand drivers' SSNs on
drivers' license application forms. In other words, while one federal
requirement that states solicit drivers' SSNs was repealed, another was
left in place. Congress should finish the job.
Reject Calls for Delay.--Finally, Congress should insist that
states implement the 1999 privacy protections relating to the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act without delay. These provisions became law
almost six months ago. For the most part, they must be implemented by
June 1, 2000--nearly 8 months after they became law.
Congress went to great lengths to accommodate the special
circumstances faced by some states. For the six states whose
legislatures were not scheduled to meet this year--Arkansas, Montana,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and Texas--Congress extended the deadline
to the date 90 days after the legislature next convenes. For the three
states which had challenged the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in the
Supreme Court--Wisconsin, South Carolina and Oklahoma--Congress allowed
90 days after the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Reno v.
Condon.
Today, more than a full year after Colorado, Florida and South
Carolina stirred up citizen outrage by proposing to sell millions of
their drivers' photographs without consent, no provision of federal law
is in force to bar such an abuse. This is a recipe for disaster.
Enticed by the millions of dollars of revenue that sale of personal
information generates for some states, absent a signal from Congress, a
repeat performance is almost a certainty. Now more than ever, Congress
must insist on prompt compliance with the law to protect the privacy of
drivers' personal information.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Just an observation: I think it is rare when you have the
Eagle Forum, the Public Citizen, the National Center for
Victims of Crime, the ACLU to sit here together, on the same
panel, and even more rare that you agree on this issue of
public policy that affects every American. I think that you are
to be commended.
What is so compelling about this privacy issue that
resonates with all four of your organizations? We will start
with you, Ms. Schlafly.
Ms. Schlafly. It is a growing issue. It is new. It has just
come about in the last few years. And I think people are
realizing the power of the databases to gather all of this
personal information.
And in my full testimony, I pointed out it is in banking;
it is in travel; it is in cell phones; it is in the employment
records, drivers' licenses, censuses--all of these areas. And
we are very rapidly approaching the time when it will be very
easy for the government to mix all of these databases.
And then it is a power to control us. In the totalitarian
systems, they had all of these files in manilla folders, and
they had a secret police and a method of having family members
snoop on each other, but it is all so easy now with the
technology.
And I think there is simply a growing realization of what
is going on.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mierzwinski.
Mr. Mierzwinski. Thank you, Senator.
I go back to Justice Brandeis, when he said that privacy,
the right to be left alone, is the right most cherished by
civilized men and women.
I just think that our organizations, from all parts of the
political spectrum, have recognized what nearly every other
country has recognized, and that is that privacy is a freedom,
that privacy is a liberty, and that these large databases of
information, whether they belong to the government or whether
they belong to private interests, are infringing on that
liberty or freedom.
Privacy should not be for sale, and that is what we agree
on.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Herman, you bring an added perspective
here as a representative of the victims of crime. We all want
to be safe, but a lot of this information will make us unsafe,
as you pointed out.
Ms. Herman. Thank you, Senator.
I think it is--it is very clear to us why this issue is
compelling, because we hear from victims everyday. There is no
confusion among people who work with victims of crime that
releasing personal information leads to death. Stalkers,
identity thieves are dangerous individuals. Technology has
enhanced their ability to reach their victims. Selling,
distributing, releasing personal information only increases the
chances that we will have more victims.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Nojeim.
Mr. Nojeim. First, I want to say that there is a benefit in
openness by the government, and that there are--there is a
Freedom of Information Act in most States, and certainly at the
Federal Government level.
The issue is, as Senator Bennett said, trying to balance
privacy interests as against the interests in keeping
government accountable to the people. And in the case where
personal information is primarily what is in the database, we
believe that the interests in keeping that private--keeping
that information private, trump the interests in, you know,
good government and open government and sunshine.
It used to be that the Fourth Amendment was good enough to
protect people's privacy, because most of the private things
that you had were kept within your home. If they were outside
your home--somebody learned them because of a transaction that
you did--it was very difficult to gather all of that
information together.
Today, a point and a click, and you can gather all of that
information together. And I think that is why the privacy issue
is really starting to resonate in this country.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Schlafly, is the basic issue, with
regard to the treatment of personal information collected by
the government, one of who controls the use of such information
in the commercial area?
Ms. Schlafly. Well, I think the individual should control
his own information about his identity, his name, his picture.
And you give it for specific purposes, or in the case of the
government, it is demanded for--and required for specific
purposes.
But yes, I think the basic issue is: Who does it belong to?
And it does not belong to the government. It does not belong to
the--even the commercial entities that are gathering it for a
specific purpose.
And I think that is a--it is a tremendous and growing issue
that people are just beginning to realize. More and more people
are deciding they want to pay cash, so it is not recorded
what--on somebody's database, what they are buying.
And we find that--well, the government made a payment to
Northwest Airlines to set-up a software to monitor our travel.
Well, should government be doing that?
We just do not think we want to live in a society where
government is monitoring the daily activities of law-abiding
citizens.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mierzwinski, earlier, you were talking
about the opt-in and opt-out approach. Is not the opt-out
approach dealing with financial records and so forth? Is that
not a sham, in a sense? In other words, they know what that is.
They know that the average person does not know about that and
it is difficult to opt-out.
Mr. Mierzwinski. The opt-out approach, in my view, is
designed to fail. It is set up as a sham. And consumers do not
usually have any idea that they have a right to opt-out.
As you so eloquently opposed the--in the Financial
Modernization Act that Congress passed last year, that Act
allows companies which are merging with all kinds of
affiliates, have all kinds of subsidiaries, to share their
information among each of their affiliates and subsidiaries,
and even with many third-parties, without even granting you an
opt-out.
Then, in some limited circumstances, that bill provides for
a limited opt-out.
Consumers have no idea how their information is being
shared; how their information is being sold. And opt-outs are--
are simply designed to fail. And that is why so few consumers
participate in even the existing opt-out programs that exist.
That is why we believe that the only way to really and
truly protect privacy is to have meaningful protection by
providing expressed consent through an opt-in.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of the witnesses. As I said in my
opening statement, this is a difficult challenge to get the
right kind of balance. And Ms. Schlafly, you are exactly right.
Technology is bringing it home in a way that it never was
before.
If I may be--be a little bit--give a little bit of personal
history, I used to work for the J. C. Penney Company. And
they--to show you how old I am, they had just initiated, when I
went to work for them the--for them, brand new experience of a
credit card. Prior to that time, it was strictly cash at J. C.
Penney. We used to joke that the ``C'' in J. C. Penney stood
for ``Cash.'' That is true. That was his middle name--Cash--
James Cash Penney.
Anyway, I asked the question of the leadership of the
company at that time about this new phenomenon of generic
credit cards. VISA and MasterCard, they did not exist at that
time. This was prior to the VISA, but people were putting out
generic credit cards.
And I remember the CEO saying, ``We do not ever want to
have--anybody have a generic credit card at Penney's. We want
them to have the Penney card, only.''
And I said, ``Why is that?''
And he said, ``Because we want to own the information of
the shopping habits of our customers. We do not want some
outside organization to--to know what our customers buy.'' And
then he said, ``Because we will know what our customers buy, we
will be able to target our advertising more efficiently and
beneficially for the customer. In other words, we will not try
to sell a housewife who buys soft goods and children's
clothing, automobile batteries and television sets, because we
will know that that particular customer is interested in this
brand of goods. Since we are a full-service department store,
it would be inefficient for us to sell--send every customer
every flyer that we have on every type of goods that we sell.
We can target the advertising to the benefit of the customer.''
Well, the customer demanded that the Penney Company honor
MasterCard and VISA, because it became a matter of customer
convenience. The customer said, ``I do not want to go to the
Penney store and not be able to use my MasterCard.''
And very reluctantly, customer demand caused Penney to back
away from their original position that said, ``We will not have
any credit information, except with our own customers, that
will be held within our own company.''
And it is an illustration of how the customers come along
and change things as to people's perception.
My concern is--is summarized, I think, in that--that
vignette, because I want the customer to know the advantages
that are available in the modern world and to make an informed
decision.
You talked, Mr. Mierzwinski, about the customer does not
understand the opt-out. And I think you are right in many
instances to have an opt-in, but it is not properly explained
to them.
I am a little concerned that the opt-in is not going to be
properly explained to them, because there are some advantages
for my information to be in the right place. I do not like to
be flooded by catalogs for stuff that I never, ever buy.
But I get flooded, because people sell the lists, and they
say, ``Gee, he has got these kinds of demographics, he has got
this kind of an income platform, maybe he would love my bamboo
gazebos from the Phillippines, because he can afford it.'' And
they send me those kinds of weird catalogs. I do not want those
catalogs.
And if more information--if I opted in--and had more
information about me, some catalog people would say, ``Gee, he
does not buy that stuff at all. We will never send him--we will
never send him a cigar catalog, because we know he is a non-
smoker.''
And therefore, I am benefitted. Without information, I can
be disadvantaged. That is the balance that we have to strike
here.
Now, Mr. Nojeim, I am interested--the ACLU sells its list.
And I would like to read to you the ACLU policy here and talk
about this whole thing.
I am quoting from the American Civil Liberties Union
Magazine. You say, ``The ACLU defrays the cost of our new
member recruitment by renting our list to other non-profit
organizations and publications.''
In other words, you are making the decision as to who
should have access to your list. I am not, if I join you.
``Never to partisan political groups or to groups whose
programs are incompatible with ACLU policies.'' I salute you
for that. The PBS should do that when they sold their list to
the Democratic National Committee. They got themselves in
trouble that you are avoiding.
``All lists are rented or exchanged according to strict
privacy procedures recommended by the U.S. Privacy Study
Commission. We never give our list directly to any
organization. Instead, we send the list to a letter shop that
prepares the mailing for the organization that is participating
in the rental or exchange. That organization never sees our
list and never knows what names are on it, unless an individual
responds to the organization's mailing.'' I applaud you for
that kind of protection.
``The ACLU always honors a member's request not to make his
or her name available. If you do not wish to receive materials
from other organizations, write to the ACLU Membership
Department, and we will omit your name from list rental or
exchange. Thank you for your understanding.''
So, you have chosen the opt-out, but you have put in
certain controls that you advertise to your members, saying we
will not make our list available to the Democratic National
Committee, the Republican National Committee, whatever, or
anybody that is not compatible with ACLU policies.
This is an informed kind of choice. I think it is in--
written in very clear language.
Can you discuss this whole issue with me, if I want to make
an informed choice as to how my information is distributed, how
do I do it under the opt-in provisions, or is the opt-in going
to be the flip side of what you are talking about of opt-out--
so complicated and so weighted down with legal language that I
could never understand it?
Mr. Nojeim. First, there is a difference between a private
organization and government. In the case of a government, there
should be----
Senator Bennett. I understand that. I am not accusing you
of hypocrisy here. I am----
Mr. Nojeim. No. Let me just--let me just finish. There
should be--there should be a presumption that it would be an
opt-out; that there would be additional protections, because it
is a government, as opposed to a private organization.
And I do not think it would be particularly confusing to
operate on an opt-in basis. In fact, I think that, Senator
Bennett, you described very well the benefits that a consumer
might choose to have on an opt-in.
A consumer--if it is explained to the consumer that ``The
reason we want you to opt-in and allow us to share your
information is because we would like to market to you and
ensure that you receive things that we think are tailored to
your interests. Check here, if you would like to receive
these--these offers.'' I think that is pretty simple and pretty
clear, and that it could be done that way.
Senator Bennett. Let us talk about the driver's license for
just a minute. I agree, by the way, absolutely. I cannot
conceive of any circumstance where a photograph should be made
available to anybody, particularly, Ms. Herman, in the area
that you are talking about.
I have held hearings on the issue of identity theft. And
unfortunately, a particularly attractive woman drives down the
street, someone sees her in the car, takes down her license
number, and then has the ability to find out where she lives.
No. That is--clearly, we need to do everything we can to
prevent that kind of thing from happening.
On the other hand, I buy a new car--I have had this
experience and maybe some of the rest of you have--I buy a new
car. And the manufacturer knows who I am, and starts to send me
information about options that I can buy directly from the
manufacturer to add to the automobile.
There are other manufacturers that have things that could
add to the automobile that cannot know that I own a Ford or
Chrysler or what have you, that I might like to hear from. Is
there any way that the Department of Motor Vehicles can say to
me, ``We would be willing to share with people who manufacture
options for your Chrysler minivan, the fact that you own a
Chrysler minivan.''
Mr. Nojeim. Sure. Check here. I think that is the way that
Maryland does it, now. And you will be hearing from the
Maryland witness in the next panel. But asking--telling them
``This is what we want to use that information for. This is the
benefit we expect you to get.'' You might even have something
that says, ``This is what we will not use the information for,
check here.''
Senator Bennett. If we get back to Ms. Schlafly's point--if
this information is owned by the customer--and I agree with
you, it is owned by the individual--the individual ought to
have a more informed opportunity to determine how it is being
used.
In other words, if you take the position, okay, the
government should not use it willy-nilly for whatever the
government wants, by the same token, the government should not
forbid its use, willy-nilly, for something that the customer
may want.
That is the balance, I think, that we are trying to strike
here, in terms of the concept. And I agree. I think you have
summarized the principle very well. Information is owned by the
individual.
And there are, in today's cyberworld, advantages to the
individual to have that information be more widely available
than it might not otherwise be. And the individual ought to
have an informed opportunity to take advantage of those
advantages.
It is a very difficult kind of problem.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Herman wants to comment first, and then
Ms. Schlafly.
Ms. Herman. I think it is very important when we are
talking about an informed decision making process to realize
that there is a very narrow, narrowly defined decision of
whether this corporation or that corporation gets your
information.
And then there is, sort of, unintended secondary impact, I
would say--the stalking that occurs, the identity theft that is
growing as a crime in this country--that I do not believe that
Americans today are fully informed about the extent of scope--
of stalking, the extent of identity theft.
And so, it is hard, right now, at this point in history, to
argue that you can have a fully informed decision about the
possible consequences of this decision.
The information gets out too easily to too many people.
Senator Bennett. In our hearing on identity theft, we found
that the primary source of information is stealing mail, which
is--I mean, people send out credit cards in as bland a manner
as they possibly can. I often almost throw away the credit
cards, because there is no return address, there is no
indication of what it is. And you have to open it up.
And then I say, ``Oh. Well, they did this in such a way so
that if somebody saw this envelope they would not recognize
that it was a credit card.''
But there are people who go out and just simply steal large
chunks of mail and go through them, hoping to find a bill or a
credit card solicitation or something else that has a social
security number, an address and a name on it, and then the
identity theft begins. Yes. This is----
Ms. Herman. There are also people who are ordering that
credit card for you, and then waiting until it is delivered to
your home, and then picking through your garbage.
Senator Bennett. Yes. That is part of the pattern.
Ms. Schlafly, you were----
Ms. Schlafly. Yes. I guess we can agree it is the
individual who owns his personal information and not the
government or the commercial outfit that gathers it, but I
think we need to make a difference between the databases that
are government-owned--government-collected and the private
industry.
Now, I am quite willing to let the free market cope with
how these databases are handled in commercial affairs. ACLU
sells their members database. Eagle Forum does not sell our
database. That is personal organization choice.
And I like all of those mail order catalogs. I buy mail
order. And the stack I got before last Christmas was 6 feet
high. I kind of like them. That is the way I do my shopping.
And I know they are trading them. That does not bother me.
I think when it comes to what government is doing, that we
are really very concerned. There are just a lot of things that
have happened in the last few years that have caused Americans
to distrust government.
There have been mistakes in law enforcement. There have
been mistakes in FBI files. And there have been mistakes in
gathering information. And it is such power in the hands of
government, that we just do not think this--they ought to be
able to use it any way they want.
And now, with technology moving so rapidly, so that they
can all be exchanged. For example, we are worried that the
vaccine registries and the effort of the CDC to merge the state
registries of vaccines is going to give the government a
control of all of our medical records and enable the government
to deny access to day care, kindergarten, school, college, even
emergency rooms in hospitals, unless you have had the vaccines
that the government has decided you ought to have.
Now, this is government power that we are worried about.
And then, of course, Eagle Forum, for 20 years, has monitored
the gathering of private information by the public schools.
This is another proof that the opt-out does not work, because
you put these nosey questionnaires in front of the children in
school, and children are supposed to do what the teacher tells
them, and they gather all of this information. Years ago, it
went in a manilla file. Now, it goes on the computer database.
And it is power that we do not know how it is going to be
used when it is in the hands of government. And we are
concerned.
Senator Bennett. Sir?
Mr. Mierzwinski. Very briefly, Senator Bennett, on the
issue of identity theft, our organization has conducted a lot
of research and published several reports. We obviously
supported the criminalization legislation, but we believe that
the big problem gets back to the fair information practices,
again.
And that is, as you alluded in the--in the theft of mail,
that companies do not have adequate fair information practices
when it comes to protecting the accuracy and security of their
databases.
So, the thief applies for credit. The thief only knows part
of my personal information and applies from his address. The
companies do a terribly sloppy job of determining whether or
not that new address is, in fact, an exact address. They do not
match credit report to the credit application adequately
enough.
So, really, we think that a large part of the solution is
to--is to not just go after the criminals, which I think is, to
some extent, after the horse has left the barn, but to try to
close the door of the barn better, by requiring companies to
protect information better than they do--no more instant
credit, better address change verification, and better matching
of information.
And that is just an example of one of the additional fair
information practices that these firms do not comply with.
Senator Bennett. Interestingly enough--and I am sorry, Mr.
Chairman, but what step back. What you are really asking for is
more use of data to solve the problem of improper use of date.
Mr. Mierzwinski. Well, no. I am not more use, but better
use. The companies just have sloppy databases. They have got
mixed up credit reports, mixed up credit applications. They are
not----
Senator Bennett. To clean up--to clean up their databases.
They would like to have more access to more information. It is
part of the dilemma that we face.
Mr. Mierzwinski. We would disagree that they would need
more information about consumers to do that. We would simply
think that they need to have better practices when they grant
credit.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
This past January, the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation canceled its contract with Choice Point
Services, Inc., a private personal data clearinghouse, because
the data firm made driver's license records accessible by way
of the Internet, despite being specifically prohibited by state
contract.
Personal information about Pennsylvania drivers somehow
became available to Data Land, an Internet site that advertised
and sold background information on people for $69.95 to anyone
willing to pay.
It seems to me that this does not inspire confidence that
these data providers are good stewards of the personal
information that the information collects. In other words, once
they get it, it is gone.
Ms. Schlafly, is that what fuels people's mistrust of
government?
Ms. Schlafly. Well, it is just another--another example to
add to various items that have caused our distrust.
While I--I want to add one more comment to what I said
earlier. While I think the free market can and should deal with
the commercial collections of information, we do not want--we
do not want any law that gives these commercial outfits a
copyright or an ownership in these collections of information
that is accompanied by criminal penalties. And there has been
legislation cooking around in Congress on that area.
I feel that the free market can deal with it, but we do not
want them running to the local District Attorney to prosecute
anybody who wants to get her own medical records out of a
government or--or AMA database.
Senator Shelby. Well, you should have that right anyway.
Should you not?
Ms. Schlafly. Should have that right, because the
information should belong to the individual.
Mr. Mierzwinski. Senator, I think----
Senator Shelby. If Congress passes my bill, you will have
that right.
Mr. Mierzwinski. Senator, I think that the example you gave
from Pennsylvania--there are other examples very similar to
that. Some of the states have entered into contracts with
private firms that want to sell wage and unemployment data,
ostensibly, to make credit applications easier.
And in audits of some of those firms, I believe the
Department of Labor has found that their data protection
practices have not been adequate. And it just goes to show you
that putting public records up for sale imposes grave privacy
risks.
Senator Shelby. Okay. I want to thank all of you in the
first panel. We appreciate your participation. We appreciate
your insight into this issue. And we will keep working this
issue. Thank you so much.
Ms. Schlafly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Herman. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF LARRY MAJERUS, VICE PRESIDENT OF
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, POLK COMPANY
Senator Shelby. On the second panel, we will hear from Mr.
Larry Majerus from the Polk Company; Mr. Roger Cross, the
Administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles; and
from Ms. Anne Ferro, the Administrator of the Maryland Motor
Vehicle Administration.
If you folks would come up to the table. Your written
statements will be made part of the record in their entirety.
Mr. Majerus. Is that right?
Mr. Majerus. That is correct.
Senator Shelby. You proceed, as you wish.
Mr. Majerus. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I very much
appreciate you inviting me to appear before you today. My name
is Larry Majerus. I am Vice President of Government Relations
for The Polk Company in Southfield, Michigan.
Polk has a long strong commitment on privacy. And we
commend your interest and leadership on privacy. And we share
your view that an opt-in is an appropriate approach for
sensitive information, such as photos and medical data.
At Polk, we obtain motor vehicle title and registration
information, which we use for several purposes, including
publishing statistics on the sale and use of automobiles,
safety recall, product and performance surveys, and marketing.
Prior to coming to Polk, I was Director of Motor Vehicles
for the State of Montana. In both positions, I have developed
considerable experience dealing with the appropriate uses of
motor vehicle information, balanced with citizens' concerns
about privacy.
Polk has helped the automotive industry develop careful
practices involving the use of public records. And we have
assisted many motor vehicle departments in developing and
implementing opt-out systems for marketing use.
I would like to make three points today. First, the opt-out
systems that were in place were working to effectively protect
privacy. Many States will be unable to convert to an effective
opt-in system by June 1, causing them to shut down access for
marketing and surveys--effectively, a prohibition.
Second, the principal use of motor vehicle records are
manufacturers and dealers who have used this public information
since 1922. They would be seriously impacted by the express
consent provision.
And third, we believe opt-out versus opt-in needs a more
thorough study before such action is taken. We urge the bill's
implementation date to be delayed, to allow for a such a study
of Section 350, paragraph D, of the Transportation
Appropriations bill, and to provide adequate time for States to
comply with the new requirements.
We have heard that success of an opt-in and an opt-out
program is going to be based on the communication to the
consumer. So, we feel that is very important.
The auto industry deals almost exclusively with vehicle
registration and titles, which only contain owner name,
address, make and year of car or truck. Provisions were made in
DPPA for many appropriate uses of public vehicle records.
It was accompanied by an option for consumers who might
object to receiving mail advertising or surveys to request to
have their name and address withheld for those purposes.
Polk helped seven States develop opt-out systems, even
before Congress first introduced the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act. Thirty-one States are now operative. Today,
citizens in these states are told that they may have their
motor vehicle records withheld for surveys, marketing,
solicitation, and those concerned are doing so.
These States have descriptive opt-out language, visible on
the application or renewal package, allowing the owner to opt-
out or make a choice. Citizens are opting out at double digit
levels, which we believe indicates the opt-out systems are
working as they were intended.
Many States will have to scrap their existing opt-out
systems, prepare notifications, and build new opt-in systems.
We anticipate some States will shut down this important
resource under these circumstances.
Without a delay, auto manufacturers and thousands of
dealers will no longer be able to reach finite markets for
their products. We are talking about marketing a sophisticated
expensive product to a narrow market of potential customers.
And what of the many small businesses that have been
created in the automotive industry and depend on make and year
model information for their survival; like the producer of a
special accessory for specific cars and trucks? They, like the
auto dealers, need to reach specific vehicle owners with
special offers.
The new language seriously damages the auto industry, which
really has no effective alternative source for motor vehicle
ownership information. Without that specific vehicle ownership
information, they have to do more data mining; they have to do
more modeling; they have to do more consumption of consumer
data.
Finally, DPPA implementation was completed over a 3-year
period, ending in September 1997. That timeframe was needed to
achieve the objectives. By contrast, the current law passed as
part of the final Appropriations bill in October 1999, States
were given only until June 1 to dismantle their existing system
and develop a whole new system. And we wonder how much
confusion that is going to create among the consumers.
In closing, a quick opt-out--excuse me--a quick opt-in for
motor vehicle records will effectively be a shut-off. It will
definitely impact the auto industry; an industry that has
depended upon and carefully used this public information for
over 70 years.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We urge you to consider a delay in the implementation to
give all parties a fair and reasonable time to discuss the
objectives, reach acceptable conclusions, and provide adequate
time for the States to comply.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry G. Majerus
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your inviting me to appear
before you today. My name is Larry Majerus and I am Vice President of
Government Relations for The Polk Company in Southfield, Michigan. We
gather motor vehicle title and registration information, which is then
used for several purposes including publishing statistics on the sale
and use of automobiles, safety recall, product and performance surveys,
and marketing. Prior to my 12 years at Polk, I was Director of Motor
Vehicles for the State of Montana for 11 years. In both positions, I
have developed considerable experience dealing with appropriate uses of
motor vehicle information balanced with citizens' concerns about
privacy. My staff and I have helped the automotive industry develop
careful practices involving the use of these public records, and we
have assisted many state motor vehicle departments in developing and
implementing opt out systems for marketing uses. My experience allows
me to view this subject as a consumer, a retailer, a government
official, and a businessman.
I would like to make four major points today--all facts that
suggest that last year's appropriations bill amendment to the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act (``DPPA'') requiring ``express consent'' from
consumers for surveys, marketing and solicitations is an unnecessary
restriction on public records, and will greatly damage many businesses,
especially those in the automotive industry. The four points I hope you
will consider are first, the opt out systems that were already in place
were working to effectively protect privacy. Many states will be unable
to convert to an effective opt in system by the June 1st date, causing
them to shut down access for marketing and surveys. Therefore, this
abrupt opt in system is effectively a prohibition. Second, the
principal users of motor vehicle records are manufacturers and dealers
who have used this public information since 1922. They would be
seriously impacted by the ``express consent'' provision. Third, the
economic growth of this country may well be impacted by this new
limitation. And fourth, we believe this bill needs a more thorough
study before such drastic action is taken. We urge the bill's
implementation date be delayed to allow for such discussions, and to
provide adequate time for states to comply with the new requirements.
Most of the motor vehicle record information under discussion has
been open record for so long that many do not consider it ``personal.''
For example, the auto industry deals almost exclusively with vehicle
registrations and titles, which contain only owner name and address and
make and year of car or truck. Until now, users of motor vehicle
records and the state agencies releasing them have been guided by the
1994 DPPA. That legislation was carefully considered so as to provide
consumer privacy protections (and even avoidance of unwanted mailed
advertising)--balanced with the needs of the nation's businesses for
access to these open public records. Provision was made in the DPPA for
many appropriate uses of public motor vehicle records including safety
recall, fraud detection, statistics, motor vehicle research, and
marketing. More importantly to our discussions today, inclusion of
marketing, surveys and solicitations was accompanied by an option for
consumers who might object to receiving mailed advertising or survey
requests to have their names and addresses withheld for those purposes.
``Clear and conspicuous'' notice is provided and the consumer can opt
out.
We have had such a system within our own company for many years,
and we helped seven states develop opt out systems even before Congress
first introduced the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. We believe DPPA
was a good balance of the principles. Accordingly, states set about,
with industry help, to develop opt out systems. Thirty-one states are
now operative. Today, citizens in these states are told that they may
have their motor vehicle records withheld from ``surveys, marketing, or
solicitations,'' and those concerned are doing so. These states have
very descriptive opt out language, clearly visible in the application
or renewal package, making it easy for the owner to opt out and
detailing what will happen as a result of that choice. States flag the
record information we receive so that those owner names may be used for
safety recall, for example, but not for ``surveys, marketing and
solicitations.'' Citizens are opting out at double-digit levels, which
we believe, and the states confirm, indicates that the opt out systems
are working as they were intended.
Many people, however, choose not to opt out. As the advertising
industry knows, people are informed, educated, and motivated by
advertising but they do not usually seek it out. The 1999 USPS
Household Survey finds that only 4.9 percent of U.S. households object
to advertising mail. And Simons Market Research finds that in the
latest reported year, 68 percent of all adults in the U.S. bought
something through direct marketing.
The mechanics of advising consumers, and providing an opportunity
for them to opt in, are mind-boggling, especially in the short time
allowed by this new legislation. For example many states will have to
scrap existing opt out systems, prepare notifications, and build new
(and probably expensive) opt in systems. We anticipate that the states
will have little choice but to shut down this important resource under
these circumstances. A delayed effective date will give states time to
evaluate whether and how an opt in system can be effectively
implemented.
Without a delay, auto manufacturers and thousands of dealers will
no longer be able to reach finite markets for their products, which is
our second point. This is not selling soap or candy, which everyone
might use, but rather we are talking about marketing a sophisticated
and comparatively expensive product to a narrow market of existing and
potential customers. That marketing is vitally important to the auto
industry. Not everyone is a prospect for a new car, as is demonstrated
by the fact that 15 million car sales in a given year are made to over
100 million households.
And what of the many small businesses that have been created
recently in the automobile industry and depend on make and year model
information for their survival, like the producer of special
accessories for specific cars and trucks? They will suffer as will any
auto-oriented business, like a car dealership, that needs to reach
specific groups of owners with special offers.
For those who use motor vehicle records for marketing, the need is
very great. Without this information, manufacturers will have
difficulty reaching their own owners. Yes, they start with a name and
address from the sales record, but people move and sell their cars.
Registration and title data is necessary to keep that information
current and provide for important communications between seller and
customer. It does so merely using name and address, and the make and
year of car.
Our third point concerns the impact on our economy. The new
language seriously damages the auto industry which has no alternative
source for motor vehicle ownership information. That should be a
concern, because the latest data available indicates that auto industry
sales approximate $650 billion each year and represent 25 percent of
all retail sales. State taxes on motor vehicles amount to some $41
billion each year, representing 11 percent of all taxes collected by
states and that does not include sales tax on cars and trucks.
Surely an industry so important to the nation's economy should not
be impeded in following the marketing and survey practices it has so
successfully used without problem for many years.
That is especially true when you consider that the auto industry,
and its data providers like Polk, have used this information very
responsibly since the first compilations in 1922. It is principally for
these automotive clients that we purchase this public data from the
states and take such great care to insure that we use it responsibly.
Finally, one of the reasons this legislation can hurt so many
businesses and people is because it passed quickly, and allows
extremely limited implementation time. When the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act was developed, discussions by staff with the private
sector began more than a year before the bill's passage. Over time,
several versions of the bill were prepared to provide for many
legitimate uses, avoiding unnecessary impact on business, and still
offering citizens an easy way to withhold their names. Planning for
this significant legislation--into which everyone had input--started in
July, 1993 followed by a year of hearings and discussions until passage
in the fall of 1994. Implementation was to be complete three years
later in September, 1997. That total four year time frame was needed to
delicately but decisively achieve the objectives. It is especially
important to note that states were allowed a full three years--from
1994 to 1997--to pass legislation, build their systems, and notify
owners of the impending change. I can assure you from personal
knowledge that this was not too much time.
By contrast, the current plan was introduced last May and passed as
Section 350 paragraph d) of the final appropriations bill in October,
1999. DPPA took 50 months to enact and implement but as a result of
these major revisions, states are given only until June 1, 2000 to
dismantle their existing systems and develop new ones. We believe that
nothing of this magnitude and of such importance to so many should
become law so quickly without full investigation of the unintended
consequences and adequate time to implement the requirements.
In closing, the facts are clear. A quick opt in for motor vehicle
records will effectively be a shut off. It will definitely impact the
automotive industry, an industry that has depended upon and carefully
used this public information for over 70 years. If the auto industry is
hampered, the repercussions may be felt in the nation's economy,
considering the value of automotive sales and associated taxes. And
until now, at this hearing, none of us has had an opportunity to air
the many sides of this issue, nor is ample time being allowed for
states to implement the results. We urge you to consider a delay in the
implementation date to give all parties a fair and reasonable time to
discuss the objectives, reach acceptable conclusions, and provide
adequate time for states to comply.
______
The Polk Company,
April 10, 2000.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies
on April 4th regarding amendments to the Driver's Privacy Protection
Act (``DPPA''). I am submitting this letter for the record in order to
respond to two clusters of issues raised during the hearing.
Issue Cluster 1:
It was asserted during the hearing that all of the personal
information contained in motor vehicle title and registration records
and drivers' license records is sensitive and that the source of this
personal information (i.e., the government) should be the primary
determinant of the level of privacy protections that should be afforded
to the information.
Issue Cluster 2:
It was asserted that opt-out systems are designed to fail and have
consistently resulted in a failure to provide adequate privacy
protections.
Response 1:
It was suggested during the hearing that all of the information
contained in motor vehicle title and registration records and drivers'
license records is very sensitive, and that this fact, coupled with
this governmental source of this personally identifiable information,
determines the level of privacy protections that should be afforded to
the information.
In fact, just the opposite is true. Mostly, the information is
traditionally public domain-type information--i.e., name and address
information.
The Fourth Circuit most closely scrutinized the sensitivity of the
information in ``motor vehicle records'' in a portion of their decision
in Condon v. Reno, 155 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 1998), that was left
undisturbed by the U.S. Supreme Court. After analysis and discussion,
they concluded: ``In sum, the information found in motor vehicle
records is not the sort of information to which individuals have a
reasonable expectation of privacy.'' Id. at 465. Consequently, while,
as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Reno v. Condon that Congress may
chose to regulate the information found in motor vehicle records as
``an article of commerce,'' it is not the type of information to which
individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
On the issue of the factors that have traditionally been considered
in determining the level of privacy protections that should be afforded
to personal information, it is the subject matter (i.e., sensitivity)
and the use that is to be made of the information that customarily
determines the type of privacy protections that should apply. That is
why so many federal and state privacy laws permit some unrestricted
uses of personal information but subject other uses to substantial
regulation. The consumer reporting laws, for example, protect consumers
from uses of personal information, even if obtained from public court
records, when the use determines that person's eligibility for a job,
or household credit or insurance.
Deciding whether or not to market a product or service to an
individual has not been deemed to be a sufficiently important decision
to merit substantial privacy protections. Federal privacy laws, for
example, enacted after hearings and careful study, have repeatedly
found that notice and opt-out suffices to allow consumers to avoid
marketing uses of their personal information. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C.
2710(b)(2)(D) (Video Privacy Protection Act), 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(C)
(cable TV subscriber privacy). The Safe Harbor Principles also
recognize that data used in direct marketing is ``not used for
decisions that will significantly affect the individual.''
Response 2:
Opt-out systems under the DPPA can provide adequate privacy
protections.
Appropriately constructed and implemented opt-out systems have
consistently been judged to provide strong privacy protections. Opt-out
systems implemented under the DPPA have been successful in those states
that have--
--1. Provided a clear, detailed and conspicuous notice;
--2. Devised a simple method by which consumers can exercise their
opt-out rights;
--3. Made the consumer's choice permanent, that is, until the
consumer changes his/her mind; and
--4. Reached all relevant data processors.
A robust notice explains the types of information that are being
collected, how the information will be used, to whom the information
may be disclosed, the purposes for which the information may be
disclosed, and the consumers' rights with respect to the information.
In those states that have developed clear, detailed and conspicuous
notices and effective, consumer-friendly mechanisms to implement opt-
outs, consumers understand their rights and are able to exercise their
right to choose. In these states, opt-out rates can exceed 30 percent.
These kinds of opt-out rates reflect consumer choices which balance
privacy interests with an interest in allowing their information to be
used for various DPPA purposes, including marketing and surveys. Many
consumers benefit from these marketing efforts and choose to receive
marketing materials to make purchases of many useful products,
including automobile safety-enhancing and fuel efficiency products.
Respectfully submitted,
Larry G. Majerus,
Vice President, Government Relations.
STATEMENT OF ANNE FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, MARYLAND MOTOR
VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION
Senator Shelby. Ms. Ferro.
Ms. Ferro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett. We
appreciate--I do appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
I am Anne Ferro, the Administrator for Maryland.
Maryland is a bit different than some of the other States,
and certainly, the AAMVA position you will hear today about the
other States. Maryland has moved ahead with both an opt-out and
an opt-in. So, perhaps, we are a good example of what can be
accomplished, depending on which way leadership is going.
You will hear from AAMVA, and while Maryland is a very
active member and supporter of AAMVA activities, on this issue,
in particular, I would have to make sure you understand that
our perspective is different.
A snapshot of Maryland. Maryland is a State of 3.5 million
active drivers and 4 million active vehicle records. So, while
relatively small in the scheme of 200 million driving records
nationwide, we certainly have a sizable database to work with
in moving ahead with a privacy provision.
Following the Federal enactment of a Privacy Act, Maryland
leadership, both the General Assembly and the Governor, were
successful in enacting a Maryland law, specifically requiring
an opt-out system. That was enacted in April 1997. And we had
to have it, of course, in compliance with the Federal Act by
September 1997, and then, for Maryland's purposes, the extra
pieces by October 1997. So, we moved rather quickly.
Implementation of that Act was somewhat expensive because
of the time frame. It was about a $1.5 million. But it
certainly was doable within the context of the constraints that
we had.
Now, Maryland's 1997 Privacy Act mirrored the Federal
Privacy Act, insofar as we offered an opt-in--an opt-out
approach--excuse me--but our record access remained open to law
enforcement, Federal and State government, courts, insurance
industry, private investigators, and the towing industry, and
other specific emergency purposes. So, our regulations
reflected that.
Now, in our testimony--you have a copy--the last two pages,
the second to last page is a copy of the form that Maryland
made available to the public. And the reason I brought it is,
it is indicative of something that has already been reflected
by your prior panel and yourself, Mr. Chairman. An opt-out
system is confusing to the public.
Maryland's law, since 1943, has mandated an open record
system. So, in fact, Maryland vehicle law made records open to
the public from 1943 forward. When the Maryland General
Assembly moved ahead with enacting an opt-out system that, for
the first time ever, allowed Maryland citizens to close access
to their records, the public went wild. They thought that, for
the first time, Maryland was offering for sale, over-the-
counter, their record. It had just not been an issue before.
Even at the Federal level, the attention had not been paid
to the Federal Act. But the Maryland public, with the
assistance of the Worldwide Web, perceived that, in fact, for
the first time ever, Maryland was offering the sale of your
vehicle record over-the-counter by picking up a tag of someone,
as your mentioned, Senator Bennett, who was attractive, who
happened to drive by.
That confusion, combined with the marketing industry's
concerns--which again, the attempt in the 1997 Act was to
balance the concerns between privacy, public safety and the
very valid interests of commercial industry and the
availability of mailing lists. That balance was proven to be
somewhat skewed in actual implementation of an opt-out system.
What the commercial industry found was that Maryland's $3.5
million--3.5 million-record driver database was no longer
reflective of Maryland, because by virtue of an opt-out system,
about 1 million of our citizens opted to close public access to
their records--about a third.
Senator Shelby. From everyone? Did everybody respond to----
Ms. Ferro. No, they did not.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Ms. Ferro. And that is a very good question to raise.
Maryland renews about 20 percent of its drivers every year.
We have had the opt-out system on the books now for a little
over 2 years. Everybody, at the time of renewal of their
driver's license, as well as their vehicle, is offered the
opportunity, verbally, ``Would you like to close public access
to your record?''
We also issued numerous press releases, and there was a
great deal of coverage to the public, announcing, in September
and October 1997 through the fall, that you, in fact, could
call a toll-free number, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and
yourself close access to your records, so you did not have to
wait for renewal, or you could submit this form.
Senator Shelby. Would it not be easier Ms. Ferro for
everybody, if the prohibition be that you could not sell their
driver's license or use their information unless they opt-in?
Ms. Ferro. And that is, in fact, what we moved to.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Ms. Ferro. By virtue of that confusion that occurred----
Senator Shelby. Because the other would confuse you.
Ms. Ferro. We went from opt-out to opt-in.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Ms. Ferro. And part of it was by virtue of that public
outcry. And what we found was, while over two-and-a-half years,
more than 45 percent of our recordholders really were literally
asked the question over-the-counter, ``Would you like to
privatize your record?'' in addition to being bombarded with
forms that had the information on it, with access through the
press releases and newspaper coverage, information on our web
site that you could privatize your record any time you wanted--
even with all of that availability of information, only 31
percent of our drivers actually privatized their records.
It defied what you would have expected. And I think it
speaks right to Ms. Herman's point--people do not know when
they need to be protected.
We offered it over-the-counter. Of course, we asked a lot
of questions, ``Would you like to register to vote? Would you
like to be an organ donor?'' But most importantly, this privacy
question, a lot of people said, ``Don't care,'' because they
probably did not realize how important it was until something
may have happened, as Ms. Herman pointed out.
So, in light of that confusion, Maryland's General Assembly
did, in fact, in January--or the 1999 session, I should say,
enacted, by April, an opt-in provision. And that will take
effect July of this year.
Because Maryland already implemented much of the
programming that was required under the opt-out provision, we
have really made our major expense back in 1997. So, the move
to the opt-in system is very simple. It is about a quarter of a
million dollars, a lot of training to our employees, but our
slogan to them is, ``When in doubt, don't give it out.''
So, we have been able to move ahead. And I just wanted to
reinforce, I think, some of the----
Senator Shelby. Can we use that slogan?
Ms. Ferro. Yes, you may. Please. Nothing we do is
copyrighted.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Ms. Ferro. It is yours. We would be honored.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, in fact, I just wanted to speak from our own experience
in Maryland. It is doable. We are relieved, in fact, and I see
my light, to go to an opt-in system, and feel that that will
offer more protection to our citizens.
Senator Shelby. For the people.
Ms. Ferro. Yes.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne S. Ferro
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I thank you for the
opportunity to come before you today. I am Anne S. Ferro, Administrator
of the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. I have been asked today
to detail Maryland's efforts to make motor vehicle records private.
The Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration's (MVA) primary customers
and business partners are the public, industry, employees and other
government agencies. The MVA interacts directly with most of Maryland's
residents, conducting approximately 7.5 million walk-in customer
transactions annually and 10 million total transactions overall. The
MVA's products include over 3.7 million vehicle registrations, 3.4
million driver licenses and identification cards, and 2.5 million
emission tests.
The MVA collects almost $900 million in revenue per year that is
deposited into the state's Transportation Trust Fund. This revenue
represents an average of 30 percent of the total Transportation Trust
Fund and is redistributed to all modes within the Maryland Department
of Transportation to fund major transportation initiatives and
operating costs. Funds are also distributed to the state's General Fund
and local governments. MVA's current operating budget is $114.4
million.
MARYLAND'S 1997 PRIVACY INITIATIVE
Maryland driver and vehicle records maintained by the Motor Vehicle
Administration (MVA) have been open to public access through the
authority of the 2 State Motor Vehicle Act of 1943. The Federal Driver
Privacy Protection Act of 1994 specifies that, beginning September 1,
1997, state motor vehicle agencies must offer record holders the
opportunity to close their records to public use. Maryland implemented
strong state initiatives in 1997 and 1999. The 1997 initiative (Chapter
338 of the Laws of 1997) allows Maryland citizens the opportunity to
block access to their records for use in commercial mailings and to the
public. (See Attachment I). This legislative initiative was the result
of three years of deliberations and has resulted in 31 percent of
Maryland drivers requesting that their records be privatized.
Under the current privacy law, citizens have options on whether
their records are closed to individuals and whether they consent to
having their addresses sold for merchandizing promotions. As of, March
26, 2000, the options taken by Maryland citizens were:
MVA Records Blocked Under 1997 Act
Block public access and mail list purchases............. 1,038,518
Block public access; allow mail list purchases.......... 12,360
Allow public access, block mail list purchases.......... 1,398
MARYLAND'S 1999 PRIVACY INITIATIVE
One unintended result of the 1997 legislation was the public
confusion and perception that the General Assembly had opened all motor
vehicle records to allow for their sale to marketers. The resulting
legislative response was to fully close motor vehicle records through
legislation enacted in 1999. Chapters 349 and 350 of the Laws of 1999
become effective July 2000. (A copy of this law has been provided to
the committee staff) They prohibit disclosure of MVA records, unless
the individual specifically consents to the disclosure in writing. (See
Attachment II) Personal information covered by this statute includes:
address, driver's license number, medical information, name,
photograph, Social Security Number, or telephone number.
Briefly, Maryland law governing privacy authorizes the following:
--Closes all MVA records to the public and to mail list purchases,
beginning July 2000. Only when a record holder opts for a file
to remain open is it accessible to the public.
--Restricts access to personal information from Motor vehicle records
except for certain permissible uses.
--Requires each entity accessing MVA records to retain a record for 5
years of the use and re-disclosure of the records. Any access
to MVA records is subject to monitoring and audit by the MVA.
--Prohibits use of MVA records for telephone solicitations.
--Requires the MVA to establish regulations governing waivers of
privacy.
--Allows access to the following users, consistent with federal law:
--Applicants who provide written consent from the record holder.
--Employer or Insurer for holder of a Commercial Drivers' (CDL)
License to obtain/verify information required under law.
--Government Agency (Federal, State and Local).
--Individual or his/her attorney. Insurer/Insurance Support Agency
in connection with rating, Underwriting claims.
--Law Enforcement/courts.
--Legitimate business entity to verify personal information already
provided to recover debt, and purse legal remedies against
the individual.
--Licensed Private Detective Agency or Security Guard Agency for
purposes permitted by law.
--Motor Vehicle Driver Safety, Vehicle Theft, Vehicle Emissions,
Alterations or Recalls.
--Private Toll Facility operations.
--For use in connection with court proceedings for process service
investigation in anticipation of litigation and execution/
enforcement of judgements and orders.
--Research/Statistical for purposes approved by MVA.
--Towing Company or Impound Facility.
--Operator of a taxicab, limousine, funeral vehicles for matters
relating to public safety or emergency treatment for a
member of the public.
fiscal impact of maryland privacy act
The MVA currently sells certified and non-certified records for
fees of $10 and $5, respectfully. Additionally, the MVA sells groups of
records for a minimum fee of $500, and $.05 for each record over
10,000.
REVENUE SALE OF MVA RECORDS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual record purchases.................. $12.9 $13.6 $14.0
Direct mail purchases........................ .7 .9 .9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals or entities that would still have authorized access
under the exceptions provided for in the Maryland law purchase the
majority of certified and noncertified records. However, the bill
prohibits the sale of groups of records that are sold to marketers,
surveyors and solicitors, unless the expressed written consent of the
person in interest is received by the MVA.
It is expected that a few individuals will give consent to avail
their driving and registration records for public inspection. As a
result, the MVA estimates a $.9m decrease in Transportation Trust Fund
revenues beginning in fiscal year 2001. The cost of implementing the
changes is an estimated $235,000 in fiscal year 2001 necessary for
computer programming and for replacing forms inventory to notify
drivers and vehicle operators of the new privacy requirement.
Therefore, the total fiscal impact of this initiative is over $1.1
million loss to the Administration and the Trust Fund.
The MVA continues to work to guarantee full privacy of the records
of Maryland citizens. We have the full support of Governor Glendening
and the General Assembly. MVA has notified commercial business that the
public records will no longer be available. MVA staff are being trained
on major legislative changes; and all programming changes are scheduled
to be in place by July 1, 2000.
Thank you for requesting Maryland's perspective on the matter of
privatizing access to motor vehicle records. I would be pleased to
answer any questions at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
(I) Current form for citizens to request their motor vehicle and
driver's license file be closed
(II) Draft form to accommodate July 2000 law changes allowing
citizens to request that their motor vehicle and driver's license files
remain open.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.001
STATEMENT OF ROGER CROSS, ADMINISTRATOR, WISCONSIN
DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Senator Shelby. Mr. Cross.
Mr. Cross. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bennett.
My name is Roger Cross. I am the Administrator for the
Wisconsin Division of Motor Vehicles. And I am here
representing the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, AAMVA. It is a voluntary organization
representing motor vehicle administrators and highway safety
officials in the United States and Canada.
Our members are responsible for administering the laws for
motor vehicle operation, and we maintain driver history records
of over 200 million vehicle operators in the United States,
alone.
We share the concerns of Congress and the public to protect
the privacy of personal information gathered and maintained by
State agencies. I am pleased the State of Maryland is also here
participating.
The focus of my testimony, though, is to be on the issues
identified by 45 States that have to comply with the amendments
to the DPPA by June 1, 2000. South Carolina, Oklahoma, and my
State of Wisconsin have accelerated implementation deadlines as
a result of the Supreme Court decision.
Motor vehicle officials take seriously our role as
administrators of a consumer agency, a highway and traffic
safety agency, and as administrators of the leading State
government agency for identity verification.
Because of this multifaceted accountability, we are
continually balancing the legitimate needs to access records
for safety purposes against unauthorized release of information
that may infringe on an individual's personal safety.
That is why AAMVA played an active role in shaping the
original language of the DPPA in 1994. At that time, there was
not 100 percent agreement among the States that the DPPA would
provide the level of privacy protection that it purported. Many
States questioned its constitutionality. In fact, Wisconsin was
one of those States.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reno versus
Condon has clarified States' questions about the
constitutionality of the DPPA. However, the passage of Section
350 has raised a host of new concerns for the States.
I will use the remainder of my time to identify some of the
concerns States have expressed in complying with the
amendments.
With regard to the new category of ``Sensitive Personal
Information,'' the AAMVA community is very pleased that
Congress has authorized access to law enforcement, insurance
companies, employers, and the courts. The information disclosed
for those purposes has a direct impact on public and highway
safety.
Subsection 350(c) amends permissible use 11 and requires
States to receive express consent of the person prior to the
release of individual records for secondary use. This amendment
eliminated the opt-out provision.
The term ``express consent'' is not clearly defined and may
create a non-uniform interpretation at the State level. The
term ``opt-in'' has a uniform meaning among State agencies and
industry partners alike. Typically, an individual opts in, in
writing. Express consent may be interpreted by States to mean
either in writing, verbally or electronically.
In light of the burden placed on States to receive express
consent, clarification would help ensure that the State
practices are uniform.
Subsection 350(d) amends permissible use 12 and requires
States to receive the express consent of an individual prior to
inclusion of their record for bulk distribution for surveys,
marketing and solicitations.
A survey of AAMVA's membership reflects that members are
working diligently to comply with the implementation deadline.
However, some States have determined that the costs associated
with establishing a statewide opt-in system for a small number
of participants would not be the best use of limited financial
resources. Therefore, many States will simply close their
records for marketing purposes.
The AAMVA community also seeks clarification of Subsection
350(e). The intent of this language is not clear. In seeking
clarification of this subsection, Congressional staff explained
to the Association that the intent of the language is ``not to
burden the' individual' to give express consent as a condition
of the receipt of a motor vehicle record.''
The problem with that interpretation is that the language
never references the ``individual.'' The language only
references ``the issuance of a motor vehicle record.''
Some States' Attorneys General have expressed concern that
this language would prevent a State from charging an
administrative fee for records. If the intent is not to coerce
individuals into giving consent, then that needs to be clearer,
and AAMVA recommends redrafting the language in Subsection
350(e).
In late February, AAMVA wrote Secretary Slater to request
written interpretation of the language found in Subsection
350(f). Our concerns relate to the fact that the State
administrators were unclear what actions the Department would
undertake if a State is found to be in noncompliance. In
addition, the language includes reference to ``grantee,'' which
is not used elsewhere.
The motor vehicle community is seeking clarification on
whether the language is referencing receipt of safety grants,
such as are available under Section 402 or 410 of DOT
appropriations.
Finally, the Association seeks clarification on behalf of
its members on permissible access to the press. Many States
have allowed access to the press under permissible use 14 of
the DPPA. We would appreciate clarification on this issue.
AAMVA has compiled information on States' implementation
strategies to date. We have also submitted an additional list
of concerns States have expressed that require further
clarification. Guidance on these issues will help ensure that
States implement the provisions consistent with the
subcommittee's intent.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We look forward to working with the subcommittee and staff
to resolve these issues. I thank you for the opportunity to
testify today and will respond to questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger D. Cross
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Roger Cross. I am the Administrator for the Wisconsin Division of
Motor Vehicles and I'm here representing the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).
AAMVA is a voluntary association representing the motor vehicle
administrators and highway safety officials in the United States and
Canada. Our members are responsible for administering the laws for
motor vehicle operation, and they maintain the driver history records
of more than 200 million vehicle operators in the United States alone.
I know I speak on behalf of my fellow administrators when I say
that we share the concern of Congress and the public to protect the
privacy of personal information gathered and maintained by state
agencies.
I am pleased that two other member jurisdictions of AAMVA, the
States of California and Maryland are also participating in this
morning's hearing. They represent two distinct perspectives on access
to driver and motor vehicle records.
The focus of my testimony is on issues identified by the forty-five
(45) states that have to comply with the amendments by June 1, 2000.
South Carolina, Oklahoma and my State of Wisconsin have accelerated
implementation deadlines as a result of the Supreme Court decision.
Motor vehicle officials take very seriously our role as
administrators of a consumer protection agency, a highway and traffic
safety agency, and as administrators of the leading state government
agency for identity verification.
Because of this multifaceted accountability, we are continually
balancing the legitimate needs to access records for safety purposes
against the unauthorized release of information that may infringe on an
individual's personal safety.
That's why AAMVA played an active role in shaping the original
language of the DPPA in 1994. At that time, there was not 100 percent
agreement among the states that the DPPA would provide the level of
privacy protection that it purported. Many states questioned its
constitutionality. In fact, Wisconsin was one of those states.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reno v. Condon has
clarified states' questions about the constitutionality of the DPPA.
However, the passage of Section 350 has raised a host of new concerns
for the states.
I will use the remainder of my time to identify some of the
concerns states have expressed in complying with the amendments.
With regard to the new category of ``sensitive personal
information,'' the AAMVA community is very pleased that Congress has
authorized access to law enforcement, insurance companies, employers,
and the courts. The information disclosed for those purposes has a
direct impact on public and highway safety.
Subsection 350(c) amends permissible use 11 and requires states to
receive the express consent of the person prior to the release of
individual records for secondary use. This amendment eliminated the
``opt-out'' provision.
The term ``express consent'' is not clearly defined and may create
non-uniform interpretation at the state level. The term ``opt in'' has
a uniform meaning among state agencies and industry partners alike.
Typically, an individual ``opts in'' in writing. Express consent may be
interpreted by states to mean either in writing, verbally or
electronically.
In light of the burden placed on states to receive express consent,
clarification would help ensure that state practices are more uniform.
Subsection 350(d) amends permissible use 12 and requires states to
receive the express consent of the individual prior to inclusion of
their record for bulk distribution for surveys, marketing and
solicitations.
A survey of the AAMVA membership reflects that members are working
diligently to comply with the implementation deadline. However, some
states have determined that the costs associated with establishing a
state-wide opt-in system, for a small number of participants, would not
be the best use of limited financial resources available to these
agencies. Therefore, many states will simply close their records for
marketing purposes.
The AAMVA community also seeks clarification of subsection 350(e).
The intent of this language is not clear. In seeking clarification of
this subsection, congressional staff explained to the Association that
the intent of the language is ``not to burden the `individual' to give
express consent as a condition of receipt of a motor vehicle record.''
The problem with that interpretation is that the language never
references the ``individual.'' The language only references the
``issuance of a motor vehicle record.''
Some states' Attorneys General have expressed concern that this
language would prevent the state from charging an administrative fee
for records. If the intent is not to ``coerce'' individuals into giving
consent, then that needs to be clearer. AAMVA recommends redrafting the
language in subsection 350(e).
In late February, AAMVA wrote Secretary Slater to request written
interpretation of the language found in Subsection 350(f). Our concerns
relate to the fact that state administrators are unclear what actions
the Department will undertake if a state is found to be in
noncompliance. In addition, the language includes a reference to
``grantee,'' which is not used elsewhere.
The motor vehicle community is seeking clarification on whether the
language is referencing receipt of safety grants such as are available
under Section 402 and 410 of DOT appropriations.
Finally, the Association seeks clarification on behalf of its
members on permissible access to the press. Many states have allowed
access to the press under permissible use 14 of the DPPA. We would
appreciate clarification on this issue.
AAMVA has compiled information on states' implementation strategies
to date. We have also submitted an additional list of concerns states
have expressed that require further clarification. Guidance on these
issues will help ensure that states implement the provisions consistent
with the Subcommittee's intent.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and staff to
resolve these issues. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today
and will respond to questions at the appropriate time.
questions regarding impact of section 350 in implementing amendments to
driver's privacy protection act
1. What is the impact on operation of National Motor Vehicle Title
Information System (NMVTIS) or any other electronic system developed to
exchange motor vehicle information through third-party providers?
2. What are private investigators allowed access to if request is
not connected to an ongoing court case?
3. Does ``motor vehicle record' as defined in H.R. 2084, section
350(a) include ``all'' motor vehicle records [which is how it is
defined in the DPPA at section 2725(1)] or just the personal
information contained within the motor vehicle records?
4. Are third parties acting on behalf of insurance companies still
able to buy motor vehicle records in bulk if the information is used
only for insurance purposes?
5. Will subsections (a) and (b) of Section 350 expire annually as
they are tied to appropriations language?
6. If there is a missing signature to transfer title, can the
jurisdictions rely on permissible use 14 to release personal
information to the customer who is seeking to contact that person to
obtain the required signature?
7. Are bulk sales permitted, without receiving express consent, for
motor vehicle records (i.e., vehicle identification number, make,
model) if no personal information is released?
8. Is it permissible to provide personal information from motor
vehicle records to lawyers seeking clients to sue liable parties
involved in accidents? These attorneys are called ``ambulance chasers''
and seek this information for business development purposes.
9. Is it permissible to disclose personal information to licensed
security services that call the DMV to verify the owners of vehicles
parked on their premises?
10. The walk-ins have caused a great deal of confusion for many
jurisdictions. For instance, current practice is that if someone walks-
in and supplies the DMV with the name, date of birth, and address of an
individual, information will be provided to them without receiving
``express consent'' from the individual to whom the record applies. Is
that practice permissible under the DPPA as amended?
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12AP04.006
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
I want to ask all of you this question: What is the purpose
of a driver's license? Ms. Ferro.
Ms. Ferro. The purpose is fundamentally public safety.
Senator Shelby. Sure. Mr. Majerus.
Mr. Majerus. In my experience--and not with the Polk
Company, because we do not purchase driver's license
information. But with my past experience, I think that--I think
the other purpose is identification. And that--it has come to
be the identity card in the State that is called upon when you
wish to conduct a business transaction or to appear before a
notary or whatever--that you are the person who the license
says.
It is--everybody who goes to the airport knows that it is
an identification tool if you want to get on an airplane. So,
it is certainly, in addition to that, also, a strong
identification tool.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Cross.
Mr. Cross. The purpose of the driver's license is--as Ms.
Ferro said, is public safety, to assure that the people who are
driving the roads are capable of driving, and of course, there
is a revenue collection benefit, as well. But it has the effect
of also becoming an identification card.
Senator Shelby. Why do States collect personal information
and snap photographs before issuing a driver's license? Ms.
Ferro.
Ms. Ferro. To ensure that law enforcement--should you be a
haphazard driver, in fact, to ensure that law enforcement can
identify you at the time that they have a traffic stop, and
ensure that it really is you.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Cross.
Mr. Cross. Yes. We collect, obviously, the address
information for notification, if we should need to notify the
driver of a change in their driving status. We also, obviously,
use the photograph for identification purposes.
Senator Shelby. For a government need, in a sense, is it
not?
Mr. Cross. Yes.
Senator Shelby. If you were called upon. Mr. Majerus.
Mr. Majerus. I agree with that.
Senator Shelby. You agree with that.
Should the U.S. Government sell census data for commercial
purposes? Ms. Ferro.
Ms. Ferro. Let me----
Senator Shelby. Just your opinion. I know it is not----
Ms. Ferro. All right. I will say, from Maryland's
perspective--I will not say census data--motor vehicle data, if
I may, on this point. Maryland has taken the position that, no,
it should not; that it is for----
Senator Shelby. Mr. Cross.
Mr. Cross. Wisconsin will comply with DPPA and not sell the
data. However, in bulk, I think it could be very useful--not
with the personal identifiers.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Majerus.
Mr. Majerus. I think census data is now only provided in
demographic form. I do not believe it is provided on an
individual household level. And whether they should do that or
not, I will leave that up to the Congress, because I know you
debated that before you did the census.
I would point out, however, that some people do rely on
that information and find it very valuable. And if the
government decided not to do that, they would probably use
other methods of modeling and profiling to accomplish the same
objective.
Senator Shelby. Yes. They would figure out some other way,
but it would not be using information that is compelled by the
government of all of us, as citizens, that we give to the
government because we have to. If we do not, we will not get a
driver's license, for example.
And second, we are compelled by law to do this, it is
required in order to operate a vehicle. We have to give this
information and so forth. But most people, I believe, do not
realize that this information is being sold after it is
extracted from them, for a profit, by the government.
Ms. Ferro.
Ms. Ferro. Well, I would affirm--based on our experience
with an opt-out system, I would affirm your remarks. Prior to
1997, I would have said, ``No. The public knows it is public,
because they come in and buy them all the time, to the tune of
$10 million.''
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Ms. Ferro. But clearly, the public was not aware of it.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Mr. Cross, last year, members of the
Conference Committee that we were on, from your State of
Wisconsin, insisted that the States party to the South Carolina
suit have 90 days from the date of the Supreme Court ruling to
be in compliance with the DPPA.
Mr. Cross. Yes.
Senator Shelby. We did that. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a
unanimous decision you are very familiar with----
Mr. Cross. Very.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Did not take as long as they
might have thought to reach a unanimous decision. Your State of
Wisconsin, as well as all States, is required to comply with
the amendments to the DPPA by April 13, I believe.
Mr. Cross. That is correct.
Senator Shelby. What is your department doing to come into
compliance?
Mr. Cross. We are, essentially, in compliance right now.
What we did was we had a form that we had used--we were
originally--when we were in compliance prior to our joining the
lawsuit, we had the forms already made up.
What we did, of course, we had to modify them to take out
permissible use 14, but we will essentially be in compliance.
However, we are being in compliance by simply not having an
opt-in phase, and simply shutting off all--all use of
marketing.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Ferro, in your testimony, you state
that the costs of implementing an affirmative consent system is
estimated to be $235,000, due to computer programming and new
forms. Would you characterize this as a nonrecurring cost,
basically?
Ms. Ferro. Yes. The only recurring cost is system
maintenance of about $50,000 a year. I would say, there is a
cost, also, in lost revenue from sales of bulk mailing lists of
$900,000, but that has not been----
Senator Shelby. I see.
Ms. Ferro. I am sorry.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Majerus, at least seven States,
including the State of California, our largest State in
population, do not permit the disclosure of personal
information for commercial purposes. Does this mean that you do
not provide personal information to marketers about the
residents of California at all, or do you do it in other ways?
Mr. Majerus. We do--we do purchase the information for
commercial purposes in California. We purchase registration and
title information for recall and statistics, and for--for
compiling title histories that do not have name and address in
them. So, we do purchase records for commercial purposes.
We do--we are not allowed to use those records for direct
marketing or solicitation.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Do you use it mainly for safety
considerations?
Mr. Majerus. Recall----
Senator Shelby. That is what I mean.
Mr. Majerus. Product recall goes much beyond safety
nowadays. There--you know, there is one set of recalls that is
mandated by the Federal Government. In some Administrations
there is less mandated recalls and more voluntary recalls.
There is other product recalls related to motor vehicles that
are not safety-related.
And then, in more recent years, there are a number of
environmental recalls that are--that happen. So, it goes--it is
broader than just the safety issue anymore.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Majerus, you made a comment that I find interesting,
and I would like you to expand on. You say if--if this
information is not made available in the ways that it
historically has been, that they--your customers--I gather,
your customers--I did not get it all written down, exactly, so
I may not have it exactly right, but you made the phrase,
``they will do more mining for consumer information than they
are doing now,'' and that ironically, that may end up bringing
up more information in--in a public way or in a way that some
privacy advocates would be concerned about, than the present
system would.
Would you expand on that? Because that is a very
interesting kind of side effect. We live in a world of
unintended consequences as we pass legislation here. And I just
kind of caught that as you went by, that maybe the side effect
in one area will be a lessening of privacy, because of more
mining of this.
Can you tell us what you mean when you say, ``do more
mining''?
Mr. Majerus. I will use--I will use the----
Senator Bennett. Did I get the phrase right?
Mr. Majerus. Yes. I will use the Chairman's example in
California, where we are unable to use vehicle-specific data
for direct marketing. In those States, our clients have to use
other data to try to achieve similar results.
As I pointed out in my testimony, first of all, it is more
expensive and it is not as effective. But what they do is they
compile other data, they look at other data, they do profiling,
they try to make a relationship with the type of product that
they are selling, and they collect, actually, more information
on the consumer than they would before.
Privacy issues----
Senator Bennett. What sources do they have for that, that
would allow them to do that?
Mr. Majerus. Other sources within the industry. They may
purchase data from other sources that collect information.
Nowadays, everybody collects some. Not everybody sells it, but
there are some that make it available for specific purposes.
I think privacy issues--I think it is careful to--or maybe
we should recognize that privacy issues do not necessarily
arrive from the source of the data, whether it is government
data or whether it is private data, but on the subject matter,
and whether the subject is sensitive, like, financial
information, medical information, or other information that
they consider--that the public considers very sensitive, and of
course, the use of that data and how it is used in the end--
whether it is used for honorable purposes or not.
Senator Bennett. Let us go back to the first panel for just
a minute, and Ms. Herman. Are there sources that could be used
to achieve the goal of identity theft outside of government
that might be stimulated by a change in the government's
situation; that people would say, ``Gee, I can get it someplace
else''? In other words, are we going to exacerbate the kind of
problem that she was talking about or not?
Mr. Majerus. That is possible. Again, it depends on how the
data in the industry is protected and how careful the industry
is who gathers that data and whether they make it available.
In some cases, they are very protective of that
information. In most cases, they are very protective of that
information. I am unaware of an incident where identity theft
arose from somebody putting together a marketing list or
getting marketing lists.
Quite the contrary, that we are occasionally contacted by
people who want to know what type of information we have on
them, because they feel that their identity theft was--or their
identity may have been stolen, and they are wondering whether
any of that information would get back to us in some way--
whether it would be a change of address or something along
those lines.
So, sometimes, that serves as a help to people who are
concerned about their identity theft.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. I want to thank all of you for appearing
here today--both panels--and I appreciate your candor.
What I have heard here today convinces me that Congress did
the right thing on the Transportation Appropriations bill last
year, except we may not have gone far enough.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
I am going to continue to work in this area, because I
myself, think that this privacy belongs to the individual. And
especially, where government compels you to provide this
information, the government, in my opinion, should not sell,
barter or transfer that data.
Thank you, all. The meeting is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., Tuesday, April 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:45 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby
(chairman)presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Specter, Campbell, Lautenberg,
Reid, and Murray.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON AVIATION CONSUMER SERVICE AND DELAYS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR
Office of Inspector General
STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The Committee will come to order. Good
morning.
The subject of today's hearing is something that almost
everyone in the audience has some expertise in. I expect that
almost everyone in the room has experienced airline flight
delays and questionable airline passenger service, or they are
afraid to fly--one or the other.
I thought that having a hearing today toward the end of the
summer storm season would allow us to discuss some of the
issues and challenges facing travelers, the FAA and the
airlines, while all three of these groups struggle with the
frustrations and the inconveniences of summer air travel.
During these peak summer months when it seems that
virtually every American is taking to the air to reach their
next business meeting or vacation destination, complaints about
airlines have never been greater. Passengers are complaining
about flight delays, flight cancellations, missing connections
and shoddy service.
It is difficult to open a newspaper or watch the news
without hearing another horror story about air travel. Perhaps
the only statistic more revealing than the rate of increase in
the number and duration of flight delays is the increased
number of consumer complaints about poor service.
But that is not to say that there has not been progress in
this debate over the past few years. There is wide-spread
acknowledgment that congestion, delayed flights, flight
cancellations, missed connections and inconveniences to air
passengers, caused at least in part by the failure to manage
congestion, is a serious problem in America. For when it comes
to getting to the bottom of the delays, the air is thicker with
accusations than with aircraft.
While everyone agrees that there is a problem that must be
addressed, the airlines, the FAA, and passengers have different
views on what factors cause the delay problems.
That is why this subcommittee asked the DOT Inspector
General to look into the cause of delays and cancellations.
However, we should not have to call in the Inspector
General to find out what is causing delays.
The airlines blame the FAA and the air traffic controllers
for mismanaging the National Airspace System. The FAA blames
bad weather, aircraft equipment problems, and outdated
technology.
The air traffic controllers point their finger at the
airlines for scheduling so many flights at the same time during
peak hours.
Passengers just know the simple truth, that air travel is
costly, unpleasant and less reliable than they would like.
There is probably validity to all the points of views that
I have related. But we need to get away from the blame game and
get to a commonly accepted assessment of the problem and work
expeditiously and cooperatively towards a solution.
Over time, new air traffic control system technologies will
allow reduced separation standards and will ease congestion
somewhat. But I think we should be aware of regarding
technology as a panacea.
Rather, I believe we should view technology for what it is,
a long-term tool to increase capacity on an incremental basis.
Other reforms are also needed. For example, with the influx
of regional jet service, which fly faster than turbo-props, but
slower than larger jets, perhaps we need to create new
altitudes for those slower jets to fly in. In effect,
establishing additional highways in the sky, fast lanes, slow
lanes, high lanes, low lanes.
The way I see it, we need to focus on doing two things,
increasing air space capacity and doing a better job of
managing capacity during disruption, whatever the cause.
The other topic I want to touch on this morning is the
state of customer service in the airline industry. One has to
only open a major newspaper, or turn on the nightly news, or
take a flight to realize that passenger treatment is an issue
on the minds of the traveling public.
The Department of Transportation Inspector General has
recently completed a 6-month review of the airlines customer
service plans, and he will give us his views on their progress
in that regard.
The subject of delays and customer service are closely
related issues. If a flight is delayed for several hours or
cancelled, chances are that passengers are going to have a
pretty dismal view of that carrier's treatment of its
customers.
Accordingly, if an airline makes a traveler's trip longer
by losing baggage, subjecting passengers to surly gate or
flight attendants, long lines or cardboard sandwiches for the
in-flight meal, a short hop can seem like it lasted an
eternity.
I think what starts the airlines and the traveling public
off on the wrong foot is the hurry-up-and-wait mentality that
pervades the travel experience. We are told to get to the
airport at least an hour before flight time, only to wait in
line to be processed.
We are told to be at the gate at least 20 minutes before
flight time or our seat will be forfeited, only to wait in line
to be herded onto the plane like domesticated farm animals.
We are told to be belted in our seats 5 minutes before
scheduled departure, only to pull away from the gate and be
held hostage until the airline's real schedule or the system
can accommodate us.
When we get down to it, the passenger is a captive in the
system from the moment he or she arrives at the airport. That
is the nub of customer dissatisfaction and frustration with air
travel, and why some of my constituents and colleagues believe
it may take an act of Congress before many airlines will treat
their customers with more respect and offer better, more
reliable service.
I would note that some airlines do a better job than others
in both of these areas. And perhaps the Inspector General will
name some names this morning.
I would also note that some of the point-to-point carriers
and the low-fare airlines offer better passenger treatment or
do a better job of communicating to passengers what to expect
and in recovering from disruptions to their flight schedules
than the hub and spoke carriers.
That leads me to believe that we can do things better and
that the airlines can treat passengers better. But that
passengers or the Congress has not yet found the right way to
get enough attention on these issues.
While all the network carriers compete on a non-priced
basis for the high-fare passenger, what have the airlines done
to help the non-business passenger? Ask any mother with small
children how much they look forward to traveling the friendly
skies. In the name of productivity, some have eliminated the
outdated practice of allowing mothers and small children the
option of pre-boarding the aircraft.
I guess it was inconvenient to the flight attendants or the
first-class passengers. If eliminating that courtesy has made
the departure more efficient and timely, the airline should
look into streamlining the process even more.
Let us have the first-class and the titanium, millennium,
premiere status frequent flyer board with a mother struggling
with two car seats, a stroller to gate check, the diaper bag,
and two little ones. I would hope that the airlines could find
ways of expediting the boarding process without making travel
anymore stressful.
I believe Senator Reid--Senator.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your holding this hearing. This is very timely.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know about the rest of you, but
every time that I realize that I have to go home, which is very
often, the day before the flight is ready to take off, I start
getting a little anxious.
I wonder--I am wondering if the plane is going to be there
when I get there. And if the plane is there, are we going to
have a crew there. And then are we going to be taken out to the
airplane and left on the airplane at the gate. And then are we
going to be taken from the gate and left out on the tarmac some
place.
All these things with my almost 20 years of experience here
cause me to be a little bit anxious when I get ready to go
home.
In recent weeks, we have seen a series of news reports that
made my feelings--I guess the feelings of most Americans,
because what we are told in a report that has not been totally
completed, the Inspector General has released an interim report
indicating that passenger complaints to the Department
increased 74 percent since last year. And complaints about
delayed, cancelled and re-routed flights were up 115 percent,
more than double last year.
The report also indicated that airlines have done a poor
job communicating the reasons for delays and cancellations to
the customers. According to the report, the information
provided by the airlines was frequently inaccurate, incomplete
or unreliable.
Last year, in response to Congressional pressure, which you
played a key role--which you are to be commended, Mr.
Chairman--the airlines announced plans for voluntary reform.
But these numbers and my personal experience indicate that
things have not gotten better. More--more than likely they have
gotten worse.
So something needs to be done. Mr. Chairman, I have
introduced some legislation. I introduced legislation about an
air rage bill. I want to make sure that the hard-working
airline employees are treated fairly.
I have had--I had an experience on an airline--well,
actually on two occasions where these people were--the flight
attendants were treated physically bad. And this--there is
untold numbers of reports about how badly they are treated.
The--my air rage is now law. And no longer can the public
treat flight attendants and other airline personnel as they
have in the past--mean, actually physically abuse them and
expect nothing to happen.
Now, something will happen, both civilly and criminally.
And that is the way it should be.
And I have also introduced--I have worked very hard on the
appropriations committee and this will be the second year of
funding of which you have been a part of that, Mr. Chairman,
where we--we are making sure that the cabin air quality--the
air that passengers breathe is clean and safe.
We do not know about that. You hear all kinds of
conflicting reports. Johns Hopkins University is studying that
to make sure that is the case.
I also introduced last year an air traveler's fair
treatment--last week, an air traveler's fair treatment act,
which is aimed at some of the most pressing issues like giving
prompt and accurate notice of delays, setting uniform
regulations for medical equipment training, giving customers
greater access to fair ticket prices, and a number of other
things.
I am also working--this is the first year we have gotten
money--and, again, Mr. Chairman, you have worked with us on
this--to have off-site baggage check-in so that somebody can go
directly to the gate, their baggage is already checked in and
it is safe. It is better. And it will relieve tremendous
congestion at airports.
This is a study that has been going on. People believe it
will work. And we have tested it, and it will work.
But, Mr. Chairman, in spite of these things that I have
done and other members of Congress have done, I think it is
time to step back and take a broader view of the underlying
causes for this congestion and delay, and examine more
fundamentally what the Federal Government can do to help
address these underlying causes.
As you have already indicated, it is not all the fault of
the airlines. And that is an understatement.
Hardly, any new airports are getting built. We built a new
one in Denver, closed one in Denver--net gain of nothing.
We have--our highways are clogged to capacity. Our
airlines--our airports, I'm sorry, are clogged to capacity.
We add no new airports, but we keep adding new flights. And
I mentioned recently, Mr. Chairman, to an airline--some airline
people, I think they should understand they are not in the
airline business. They are in the transportation business.
And they need to take a look at helping in other ways. I
think they could make money doing this.
Senator Moynihan and I have worked very hard to develop
different ways of carrying people for distances up to 300
miles, airline travel is very inefficient, but yet we have
people all over America traveling 300 miles or less by air.
What we need to do is do what they are--what Danby and
Powell, a couple of scientists from MIT who were stuck in
traffic in New York in the sixties--they said, ``This is
wrong.'' And, well, to make a long story short, Mr. Chairman,
they developed what is called magnetic levitation.
The Federal Government helped fund that for a few years. We
stopped funding it. That all went to Germany and Japan. Now, we
are going to be buying the technology that should be ours and
the equipment that we should be manufacturing here from Germany
and Japan.
I think the airline business should help us, the Federal
Government, take a look at getting into some of this, traveling
between Las Vegas and L.A. That is less than 300 miles.
Those vehicles go 300 miles an hour. They are safe. They
are non-polluting. And we should move to that type of travel,
because our rail travel now is--even though Amtrak--I am a big
supporter of Amtrak, it is very old-fashioned and we need to do
better.
Air traffic controllers, understaffed, underworked--
overworked, I am sorry--and at major airports often working
with air traffic control systems that are obsolete and in dire
need of repair and upgrade. Some of the systems at our busiest
airports are decades old, and we are installing stuff now
even--that it has taken 20 years to get it ready to be
installed--it is old before we put it in.
So when I am on an airplane, I recognize that the people
who are making my flight safe are the air traffic controllers.
These people are the unsung heroes of modern aircraft safety. I
mean, I cannot stress enough how much I appreciate their hard
work.
And the pilots, we do not hear much from the pilots, but
they also are to be complimented. We need to get--and I am glad
that you are going to have here, Mr. Chairman, someone from the
air traffic control network to talk about air traffic control.
We need their input. We need pilots' inputs. We need input
from the airline. And we, as the Federal Government, have to
step up--step up to the plate and start spending more money. As
you have indicated in your statement, we need--we need new
traffic lanes through the air.
The State of Nevada, about over 40 percent of the State of
Nevada, you cannot fly over. It is restricted military. We got
to take some of these--take a look at this. If we can in Nevada
and other places change that.
So let us step back and figure out what the FAA needs in
order to do its job. The number of flights keep increasing. It
is going to cost us, but the Senate has just passed some bills
that we are cutting a lot of taxes, which is great. But maybe
we should not cut taxes as much for some wealthy people;
instead let us give some money to some of the people that will
make it safer for all of us to fly.
We need to buy more simulators for air traffic controllers
to help new controllers learn more quickly. Right now, new
controllers are required to have more separation between planes
on the runway, which contributes to delays, simply because they
have not been trained enough through simulators.
We need to do a better job educating passengers about what
is going on behind the scenes. Maybe we can think about putting
up electronic weather maps in airport terminals so that
passengers can see for themselves the weather fronts that might
be keeping them on the ground.
Or maybe we can set up information kiosks so that they can
better understand the kinds of mechanical or safety problems
that might delay a flight or why a weather front in Cleveland
would hold up a flight in Las Vegas.
Or maybe the Federal Government and the airline industry
needs to widen its focus. Instead of thinking of themselves as
only being in the airline business, as I mentioned, maybe we
can start viewing ourselves as being in the transportation
business and look at supplementing air travel through
alternatives.
These are just some of my ideas, Mr. Chairman. My
fundamental point is that the causes of gridlock at our
airports are complex. I think we need to be creative in finding
solutions, because what we are doing now is not working.
I commend, again, you for your interest. I am looking
forward to working with this Committee to find ways to improve
the quality of air travel.
And I ask your permission, Mr. Chairman, I have--the Senate
is going to move off the morning hour at 10:30, and I have to
be there to make sure that the Republicans treat everybody
fair.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Reid.
Senator Campbell.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
very important hearing this morning. It could not have come at
a better time. We all fly. I happen to fly home every week, as
Senator Murray often does too. I often see her just as
frustrated at the airport as I am.
And what is interesting is that people recognize us in the
crowd will often come up and complain to us and say, ``Senator
can you not do something about this?''
I guess they are rather surprised when I tell them, ``Wait
a minute, you have got a story? Let me tell you my story.''
I guess they think somehow we get a better deal and that we
can get on them when they are not flying for anybody else. But
we--we face the same kind of complaints.
And I think the night before last, I have to tell you, was
a good example. I thought I was going to have a bill that was
going to be on the floor yesterday, so I went to the airport
Sunday afternoon, where I saw Senator Murkowski and we got on a
plane. Then we were told after we sat on the plane for about a
half an hour, there was going to be a delay, because one oxygen
mask on a portable oxygen bottle was missing on the plane. I
guess the FAA regulations are that the whole plane has to be
checked for oxygen leaks or something, if one little old mask
is missing. And so they ended up cancelling the flight.
Senator Murkowski never did get on a flight that night and
had to cancel a very important hearing, because he could not
get here. I managed to get on what is called a red-eye, which
we all hate, but often have to get on.
The only red-eye was going to leave Denver at 11:30. It got
out of there about 1:00 in the morning, and I ended up getting
here about 8:00 o'clock the next morning, just absolutely ringy
as we all are when we have to catch those flights. So I am just
as fed up and frustrated with the delays as anybody else that
is flying.
Senator Reid mentioned a number of things that I assume
were supposed to be in the purview of the FAA, whether it is
pilot training, air separation, whether it is dealing with the
virus loaded oxygen that we keep breathing on those airplanes,
or air traffic controllers, and so on.
I do not think we can micro-manage all of that, very
frankly, from Congress. And we should not. But clearly they are
some of the things that people are beginning to worry about.
I am not opposed to flying. I happen to--I used to fly. I
have about 600 hours in high-performance single. I am IFR-
rated. I used to love to fly.
But very frankly, when I get done with this job I have
already told my wife, I am going to take a note out of John
Madden's book and buy a doggone bus where I have a pretty sure
chance I am going to get there.
From where I take the mainline to Denver, I have to take a
commuter for another hour, if I fly. It is a 6-hour drive. But
on many occasions, I have ended up having to drive the 6 hours
because I could not get on a plane.
If I had known when I first got to the airport in Denver
the planes were going to cancel, I could have just got a car
and taken off. The real problem is you sit around there when
they say, ``Well, one more half hour, or another hour we will
have a definite decision.''
And you keep--they keep milking the thing. You keep staying
there and staying there and staying there until you eat up 3 or
4 hours when you could have been on the road at least driving
to where you were going to go. So we all face that too.
And I guess while I am on this tirade, I might also say I
wish they would change some of the comments they always make,
you know, at the beginning of the flight--the flight attendants
always say something, ``In case of emergency,'' and then they
go through this--this dialogue.
``In case of emergency,'' I am beginning to think is sort
of code words for ``In case we crash.'' And they say, you know,
pull down the handle, turn the door to the side, throw the door
out, all that kind of stuff. Have you ever seen one of those
things after they crash?
I think they ought to change the whole rhetoric and be
honest and say, ``In case we crash, forget the door and start
praying.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
having this hearing----
Senator Shelby. You are welcome.
Senator Murray [continuing]. And thanks to our speakers
today for coming to talk about an issue that obviously really
makes most people irate. Senator Campbell and I have spent many
hours in the airport together trying to get back to the west
coast.
I travel 6,000--over 6,000 miles a week. And I have heard
every comment and every frustration from travelers. Concerns
have increased dramatically over the 8 years I have been doing
this. I think there is a lot of fingers to point and I think
the airlines themselves do need to make this commitment.
The comment I hear most often is if they would just tell us
the truth. Senator Campbell just mentioned that. Why? Because
if--if it is not going to be as busy as you say, we will find
another way to get there.
This is probably the biggest frustration. People want safe
ways to fly. But they would like to have the truth from the
airlines, and I think that is critical.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think this hearing is important
because it points out that this is more than the airlines'
responsibility. We have a responsibility in Congress to make
sure that we have the infrastructure in place to accommodate
the ever-increasing number of Americans who are flying.
Modernizing air traffic control, making sure that strong
competition is in place, and making sure the infrastructure
exists is something we have to do. I think it is very important
that this Committee in particular hears this topic and looks
for ways that we can help solve this ever-increasing
frustration that many Americans are facing. So thank you for
having us here.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
sorry for the delay, but conditions beyond our control
prevented me from being on time.
Senator Shelby. You must have been on an airplane.
Senator Lautenberg. I thought that would get at least a
snicker.
Senator Shelby. Well, it got one.
Senator Lautenberg. Okay. Thank you very much. I listened
to my colleagues with great respect and with a degree of
monotony because we are all going to say the same thing.
Just like our constituents across the country, we are not
getting the kind of service we are paying for, and it is
appropriate that we are meeting at this time. We just saw a
published report on delays. And in this past month, June 2000,
the number of monthly delays across the country topped 50,000
for the first time. The number more than doubled from the same
level--from the level experienced, rather, 6 months earlier,
December 1999.
And when I look at that card up there and I say, ``Well,
there is the report card.'' Now, if I was the teacher or if the
public was the teacher, what kind of grade do we think that the
airlines and their partners in managing the aviation system
would get.
It would not be a very good mark in my view when I see
``offer the lowest fare available and notify customers of
delays''--I do not know how many of you get phone calls that
say, ``Sorry, Mr. Smith, but your plane is delayed two hours.''
What I get is, ``The flight is on time. We know that there
are thunder storms, snow storms, lightning and dangerous
conditions, tornadoes, but we expect to be taking off on
time.''
And when you get there, you find out that you are in good
company with lots of other disappointed people, so we are--this
is not, Mr. Chairman, I am assured by your balanced view of
things--I know this is not to be a vendetta.
But we are going to ask some questions and find out for the
public why it is that the answers are so foggy and so often
delayed.
The FAA tells us that the same time frame, the number of
delays attributable to bad weather grew by almost 150 percent,
but we also know that several airlines have struggled to keep
up with the record demand for air travel in terms of having the
right crew, the equipment in place at the right time to ensure
that the flights take off on time.
And it is appropriate that this hearing combines two of the
issues, delays and customer service. Nothing challenges the
airlines' ability to provide quality customer service like
crowded airplanes, sitting on a taxi way for hours as a thunder
storm passes overhead, but we also know that when it comes to
providing quality customer service, the airlines can do a much
better job.
Jane Garvey--we are happy to see our FAA administrator this
morning--is going to be testifying on the topic of delays. And
in her testimony, as usual, Ms. Garvey exhibits her candor and
her commitment to improvement.
We appreciate that, to always be willing to speak out on
the issue, because hiding them is not going to make them go
away. As a matter of fact, sometimes we speak out and they do
not go away. But we will have to work on it.
She points out that in the past the FAA has been criticized
appropriately by the airlines for not treating them like
customers. But I would point out that the inspector general,
Ken Mead, who we often see telling us what is happening in the
real world is also here this morning to testify that several of
the airlines have taken the liberty of blaming the FAA for
their own problems.
The I.G. has identified several instances in which several
airlines have blamed delays on the FAA when, in fact, the
causes were attributable to extremely bad weather, crew
unavailability, or maintenance problems.
So while I appreciate the fact that the airlines would like
to be treated more like customers, I would point out that
airline passengers would like to be treated more like customers
than cows by the airline. At a minimum, they do not want to be
lied to.
Last year, Congress balked at the enacting of a passenger
bill of rights. In my view, it was a mistake. Unfortunately,
the leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee decided to accept
a voluntary customer service commitment on the part of the
airlines.
And it was later found out that of the 12 commitments the
airlines made, only two of them were new. Ten of these so-
called commitments or maybe commandments were already required
in law or regulation.
The I.G. will testify this morning the performance of the
airlines in meeting even the 10 long-standing customer service
requirements is mixed at best.
Six months from now, the inspector general will be doing a
follow up review of the airlines' performance on these
commitments. I will not be here when my colleagues receive that
review. But I hope that my colleagues will not flinch at moving
passenger rights legislation, if the I.G. finds that the
airlines have yet again failed to live up to their word.
I want to say something. I am not an opponent or a
particular critic of airlines. They do a pretty darn good job.
Our system is fundamentally safe. We get a lot of passengers
moved through the place each and every day, almost each and
every hour of the clock.
But the fact of the matter is that they are not very free
with their information. They are not very generous with the way
they treat cancelled flights or cancelled seats, which is a
worse condition.
I have had a couple of those. And I do not speak for
myself, because I represent the whole of New Jersey and the
country when I am in this job of mine.
But cancelled flights, I got to a flight. It was 15 minutes
to go. It was oversold and the seats are filled.
So I said, ``Well, why do you not offer somebody a bonus to
hop off.'' Well, they went through, they said no one would take
it.
But they were not going to give me the bonus that they
would have given to someone else, because there was someone
sitting in the seat. Well, in my position, you do not make too
much of a fuss, even though your blood is boiling. That is one
of the reasons why I am retiring--make the airlines fulfill
their promise.
Anyway, all estimates are that aviation traffic will
continue to grow. A prosperous economy has brought us ever more
crowded runways. Airlines experienced record high-load factors,
even though the planes are packed full.
And I guarantee you that if I ask for a show of hands,
there would be people here who would tell you that on a short
flight between here, let us say, and New York--that includes
Newark, that includes Westchester County--that many times the
delays have been far longer than the air time, that the flight
takes to get there.
And that is a terrible annoyance, frustration that lots of
time it results in cancelled critical appointments, be it
doctors, be it business, be it family--pick up a child coming
out of school or something of that nature. It is not an
acceptable condition.
In my region of the country, the growth in traffic will put
an even greater strain on an already stressed system.
Mr. Chairman, I have got a considerable challenge
representing the most delayed airport in the United States,
Newark International. It has been the most delayed airport for
each of the last 3 years and 9 of the last 12 years.
And I was commissioner of the port authority when that
airport was being developed. And I am especially pleased that
we have Ed Kragh here, a controller from New York. He is going
to tell us things as he sees it.
I am interested in gathering his views, as well as those of
Ms. Garvey and Mr. Mead on how we can specifically address the
challenges related to the very congested air space, not only in
the New York/New Jersey region, but across this country.
And I thank you very much, and I am sorry to take so long,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Our witnesses today are the Honorable Jane Garvey,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation; the Honorable Kenneth Mead, Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. Edward Kragh,
Newark International Airport Air Traffic Controller, Secretary,
Newark Local, National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
We welcome all of you here today. Your entire statement,
all of them will be made part of the record in their entirety
and if you would take a few minutes to sum them up.
We will start with Ms. Garvey.
Welcome, Ms. Garvey.
STATEMENT OF JANE GARVEY
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Lautenberg and members of the subcommittee.
AVIATION SAFETY
First of all, I do want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today. It is an important issue and we
appreciate the Committee's great attention to the issue.
Let me state at the outset, and you may hear me say this
again, that we at the FAA are willing to do whatever is within
our power to improve the efficiency of the air traffic system,
so long as safety is not compromised. That safety is of
paramount importance, is clearly supported by everyone engaged
in this discussion, in this debate.
2000 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
Before I begin, I do want to publicly take this opportunity
to thank the Subcommittee for its very strong support of our
fiscal year 2000 supplemental funding request. Through your
personal support, through your personal leadership, the $75
million approved earlier this month will allow us to hire more
safety inspectors, to replenish our inventory, and to restore
the level of redundancy that is so important for our system.
Without your support and leadership this would not have
been possible. And on behalf of everyone at the FAA, thank you.
DELAYS
Delays, as you all have said, have a significant financial,
significant service consequences for the airlines and certainly
result in understandable frustration for their passengers.
There are many conditions that cause delay. I know the
Inspector General will go into that in more detail. But
everything from bad weather to inoperable runways, to airport
capacity limitations, to equipment problems, crew problems and,
yes, air traffic equipment outages and air traffic procedures.
Delays, while they will never be eliminated--and that is
certainly true--but it certainly is our job, our challenge to
minimize delays. I think it is a challenge for all of us, for
us at the FAA, for the industry, for the unions, for the
pilots, to work to minimize delays in whatever way possible--
again, without compromising safety. I think it is important to
say that sometimes delays are really a built-in safety
mechanism. We do not want to lose sight of that.
You all have mentioned the great growth in the economy. And
I think that is important. It is important to recognize really
what has happened to air travel in this country. The
deregulation of the airlines combined with what is an
extraordinarily healthy economy has led to a huge increase in
passenger air travel.
A 190 million more passengers are traveling now than 10
years ago. In addition, if you look at some of our busiest
airport hubs, they are growing at 15 to 20 percent per year.
That is significant. When the system is running at or near
capacity as it has been, a large number of severe thunder
storms can create havoc with our aviation system.
A few facts just from last month, during June we had severe
thunder storms from Canada to Texas for 12 consecutive days. We
had 19 days of bad weather compared to 5 in June 1999.
And on just 1 day, June 27, the National Weather Service
issued a record 281 severe weather warnings. That has an
impact.
SPRING/SUMMER PLAN
In light of the increases in delay, as this Committee
knows, we joined together with the industry and, again, I want
to note it is the industry, including the pilots and the unions
as well as the airlines, to create the spring/summer 2000
initiative. The whole goal was to better manage air traffic
during severe weather. We focused on maximizing the use of the
available air space, on improving communication between the FAA
and aviation system users, and expanding the use of new
technology to help reduce delays.
And we were taking the approach that we had to approach
this together. A little bit about how the plan works.
Every morning at the Air Traffic Control Center in Herndon,
the strategic planning team comprised of command center traffic
management specialists, airline representatives, and air
traffic operation managers from field facilities agree on a
common weather forecast. First, they have a telecommunication
or teleconference at 5 a.m. in the morning; and a second one at
7 a.m. in the morning. And I will tell you that I have looked
into these conferences and heard the communication among the
airlines and the FAA, and the whole goal, again, is to come up
with a strategic plan for the day.
It is particularly important on a bad weather day. It is a
consensus plan. It is not dictated by the FAA. It is jointly
developed by a team that knows it best.
Throughout the day, the team reviews the common weather
forecast and as the conditions change, they update the plan
every 2 hours until 10 p.m. in the evening. The key is better
communication and the sharing of information.
So the critical question is: Is it working? How is this
plan working? I think it is working in terms of communication.
We have common weather information that is being disseminated.
We have not had that before.
We are sharing real time arrival and departure capacity
information at the major airports to allow airlines to change
their flight plans in the event of severe weather.
Predictability is key for the airlines. Some airlines have
told us that even with the increase in severe weather days, our
collaborative efforts allow them to plan better and to execute
operations in advance of the severe weather. That approach
provides the predictability that the airlines need to manage
their operation.
I will tell you that we are not fully there yet and there
are areas that need improvement. For example, we are
discovering that airlines have very different approaches to
some of the problems that we are facing. Trying to negotiate a
plan that everyone agrees to is sometimes a challenge. For our
own house, that is the FAA, I sometimes feel that the field
facilities are not playing full out. And really making sure
that coordination from the Command Center is occurring all the
way down to the individual field facilities is something that I
think we need to constantly be focused on and to constantly
work on. But I think overall the approach is the right
approach. And if you ask the airlines, I think most of them
would say that this is the right approach.
SOLUTIONS
I also want to stress that the spring/summer plan is a
piece of a large solution. And again, I think the Committee has
articulated this very well this morning. The delay problem is
complex. The solutions must be multi-faceted.
It is going to take all aspects, all members of the
industry coming together, airports, airlines and the FAA. For
airports, they have a real challenge and that challenge is to
work with communities to create coalitions to support the kind
of runway capacity enhancements that are so needed. For the
airlines, they really need to look at their own procedures, for
their aircraft mix, and how they schedule flights. And
certainly we, at the FAA, need to continue to successfully
modernize our air traffic control system.
I think we have made great progress in the last 2 or 3
years, but I also think we need to stay very aggressively
focused on that goal. Let me say that I would like to end where
I began, and that is to say at the FAA, we will do everything
we can to work with the airlines, to work with the unions and
work with the industry to improve this system for the traveling
public. Our focus should be and is on solutions.
One anecdote, one story, and that is several weeks ago, we
came together with the airlines, with the unions to talk about
some tactical strategies we could develop for the summer. The
suggestion that came out of it was to focus on some choke-point
areas, areas where we were having the most critical problems. I
cannot tell you whether it was the union or the FAA or the
industry that came up with that suggestion. But the point is it
was a good suggestion. It was the coming together of all
aspects of the community and saying let's figure out tactically
what we can do.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We now have 21 recommendations that grew out of that
session. And I think that is the right approach--doing it
collaboratively, with--and in cooperation and the recognition
that all of us own a piece of this solution.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jane F. Garvey
Chairman Shelby, Senator Lautenberg, Members of the Subcommittee: I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
on the important topic of airline delays. We welcome this Committee's
interest in this serious issue. Let me state at the onset that we at
the FAA are willing to do whatever is within our power to improve the
efficiency of the air traffic system, so long as safety is not
compromised. That safety is, and should remain, of paramount importance
is clearly supported by all parties to the debate.
Before I begin, I want to take this opportunity to thank the
subcommittee for its strong support of the FAA' fiscal year 2000
supplemental funding request. Through your personal support and
leadership, the $75 million approved earlier this month will allow the
FAA to continue the service, reliability, and performance of our air
traffic control system (ATC) to the level the industry and the American
public expect. Without your support, this would not have been possible.
Delays have significant financial, scheduling, and service
consequences for airlines and result in understandable frustration for
their passengers. The issue of delays is very complex. There are many
conditions that cause delay; bad weather, inoperable runways, airport
capacity limitations, aircraft equipment problems, maintenance and crew
problems, and, yes, air traffic equipment outages and air traffic
procedures. Delays will never be eliminated, but it is the job of the
FAA to work to minimize delays to the greatest extent possible, without
compromising safety. I will acknowledge at the outset that, in the
past, FAA has been criticized, with some justification, for not fully
appreciating the total reliance of airlines on air traffic control. No
other industry is as totally dependent on the Federal Government action
to produce a product. Airlines felt that the air traffic control team
should be more sensitive to the carriers' complete reliance on their
efforts and that the airlines should be thought of and treated more
like customers rather than users of the system.
In light of the increases in delays, and the need to establish a
collaborative planning process between the FAA and users of the
National Airspace System (NAS), President Clinton announced on March 10
the creation of our Spring/Summer 2000 plan for reducing aviation
delays. At the heart of this initiative is a collaborative plan
developed by industry, labor, and Government to better manage air
traffic during severe weather. It maximizes the use of available air
space, improves communications between FAA and aviation system users,
and expands the use of new technology to help reduce delays. Decision-
support tools and information sharing are absolutely essential to the
success of the Spring/Summer 2000 plan.
Here is how the plan works:
Every morning at the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in
Herndon the Strategic Planning Team, comprised of Command Center
traffic management specialists, airline representatives, and ATC
operations managers from field facilities, report at 5:00 Eastern time.
The team agrees on a common weather forecast by 6 a.m. This is a
first--previously the FAA and the airlines worked from separate
forecasts, which could be different and often were.
By 7 a.m. the team has developed and released the day's first
Strategic Plan of Operations, which includes collaborative measures
designed to respond to predicted constraints in the National Airspace
System. Constraints can include weather, airport construction projects,
aircraft incidents, and any equipment failures. This is a consensus
plan, not dictated, but jointly developed by a team that knows it best.
Throughout the day the team reviews the common weather forecast,
and, as conditions change, updates the plan every two hours until 10
p.m. Eastern time.
Perhaps the most important decision-support tool for the group is
the Flight Schedule Monitor. This collaborative decisionmaking tool
provides a shared database of current flight information that allows
the Command Center and the airlines to be on the same planning page.
We know this approach is making a difference. Some airlines have
informed me that even with the increase in severe weather days so far
this year, our collaborative efforts enabled them to better plan and
execute operations in advance of the severe weather. This is the key to
our Spring/Summer plan.
While our Spring/Summer plan represents a new approach to air
traffic management, we need to keep this in perspective. I do not want
to suggest that this new approach will eliminate delays. That is not
possible. What we are doing is providing the basis to better manage
delays through continuous communication and collaboration. This
approach provides the predictability that the airlines need in order to
manage their operations. Predictability is key.
I also want to say that some airlines take different approaches to
predictions of severe weather. The FAA is not only working with many
challenging issues, such as weather, airport capacity, and airline
scheduling. We are also working in an environment in which our
customers are in fierce competition with each other. Collaboration it
not always easy in such a competitive industry.
While I am satisfied that FAA is stepping up to the plate,
acknowledging our shortfalls and working in a productive and
collaborative way to deal with them, air traffic control faces
significant challenges in both the short and long term. The advent of
regional jets offers more service and competition opportunities to
airlines and communities. Regional jets, however, are using the same
runways and flying at the same altitudes as larger aircraft and put
more demand on the system than the turboprops they are replacing. This
has the effect of reducing controller options, especially during peak
periods. For example, one air traffic procedure controllers use with
turboprops that has served to increase capacity is land and hold short
(LAHSO), which is not an option for regional jets at certain airports.
Regional jets, as compared to smaller turboprop aircraft, require a
longer distance to stop. They can land, but cannot hold short of
intersecting runways that are also in use. They are also slower on take
off. Thus, when larger, faster turbojets are taking off behind them,
ensuring aircraft separation becomes more challenging. Also in the
enroute environment, regional jets, which operate more slowly than the
new fleet of commercial aircraft, create a mix of speeds at altitude
that will get more complex as the number of regional jets increase.
A further factor that complicates air traffic control, and one over
which the FAA has no control, is that of airline scheduling and airport
capacity. At the risk of stating the obvious, air traffic is a dynamic
situation. Every procedural enhancement, every step forward in
modernization, every improvement in efficiency, cannot be measured in a
static environment, but is evaluated in light of daily changes in
weather, runway availability, and airline schedules. Consequently, the
installation of an Instrument Landing System (ILS), enhanced radar, or
a reduction of miles in trail requirements may not necessarily
translate into a reduction of airline delays, even if efficiencies are
achieved. The FAA clearly has an important role to play in the
reduction of airline delays, but this responsibility is shared with
airlines and airports. True progress can only be realized when all
three players accept their roles and work in cooperation with each
other.
As Members of this Committee know, the issue of airport capacity is
very politically sensitive. Whether local communities are discussing
new runways, new terminals, or new airports, the debate is always
heartfelt and emotional. While FAA will continue to make those
improvements to the NAS that are within our control, improving how the
aircraft are controlled in the air does not necessarily ensure them a
speedy decent to the runway. Hard choices will have to be made at all
levels of government with communities across the country to ensure that
we have the infrastructure in place to accommodate anticipated demand.
Notwithstanding the airport capacity issue, FAA's longer-term role,
and one in which we are currently engaged, is enhancing the system for
a new era. This effort includes redesign of our nation's airspace and
air traffic control (ATC) automation. The National Airspace Redesign is
expected to take approximately eight years to be implemented across the
entire country, but tangible benefits are expected in the eastern
portion of the United States within five years. The most congested and
complicated airspace is east of the Mississippi River. Because this
airspace poses the most challenges, it is the initial focus of our
redesign. Our goal is to establish comprehensive processes and
procedures to ensure adaptable and flexible airspace that meet the
demands of the future NAS. Equally important are the procedural changes
we are making on a continual basis as the opportunities arise. For
example, we have begun the use of military airspace to facilitate the
north-south flow of air traffic along the east coast.
Another important aspect in our effort to improve the management of
the air traffic control system is modernization. As Members of this
Committee know, we are well into a successful modernization plan. I
have stated in the past that our modernization efforts are essentially
divided into three areas. The first category is to sustain our current
system by replacing aging equipment and renewing the infrastructure
(the Display System Replacement (DSR) and Airport Surface Detection
Equipment). The second category will add safety features, including
weather related enhancements (improved enroute surveillance and
improved weather on Standard Terminal Automation Replacement Systems--
STARS). The final category will improve system capacity and efficiency
(Free Flight Phase I). Taken as a whole, modernization will improve the
controller's ability to manage increasing levels of traffic. Decision
support tools are being developed to facilitate more efficient routings
and shorten airborne time. The reliability of the system is also being
increased, thereby increasing confidence in system. We continue to
develop technologies and equipment that will result in safe reductions
in aircraft separation.
I am very confident about our modernization program. Our
incremental approach to modernization ensures that we resolve problems
at an early stage in project development. This attitude, which
highlights our lessons learned from past FAA practice, means that we
are acknowledging and dealing with problems when it is more cost
effective and easier to do so. Some benefits of this approach are that
all HOST computers have been replaced, we have completed the transition
to DSR at our air route traffic control centers, and Free Flight Phase
I technologies are beginning to provide benefits to the aviation
community.
In conclusion, I would like to say that from my air traffic
management team, to my modernization team, to our airport folks, the
FAA recognizes our responsibilities and our challenges when it comes to
aviation delays. We are working aggressively and cooperatively to meet
them. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to answer any questions.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg, I hope when you retire you will
continue to write in from time to time about your experiences
in the world of transportation.
Senator Lautenberg. I plan to.
Senator Shelby. He is not going to write to us, though, is
he?
Senator Lautenberg. I am going to write to my Senator.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Mead. We have two reports here. One was requested by
this Committee and deals with flight delays and cancellations.
DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS
The other, which was issued a couple of weeks ago, has to
do with the customer service commitments. As you know, the
A.T.A. and 14 of its member airlines pledged to improve
customer service and voluntarily signed the Airline Customer
Service Commitment, which is displayed over here.
This was in lieu of legislation. It includes 12 provisions,
which each airline was supposed to implement and did implement
through plans. Each airline was supposed to have a plan, in
other words.
But two of the twelve provisions notifying customers of
delays and cancellations and meeting customers' essential needs
during long on-board aircraft delays--were in direct response
to the growth in delays and cancellations.
Now, I would like to cover our delay and cancellation
report before addressing----
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
Mr. Mead [continuing]. A couple of these commitments.
A major finding of our review and something that I think
needs very urgent attention in the short term--we found that
there is the absence of a system for collecting causal data and
reporting a reasonably complete picture of the causes of delays
and cancellations from pre-gate departure to arrival at the
gate.
The AIR-21 legislation, which Congress passed earlier this
year requires this, but there has been little progress in
implementing it.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM
Meanwhile, what is happening is that the air carriers are
blaming much of the cause for delays not on scheduling, but on
what they see as an antiquated air traffic control system that
does not keep pace with the demand.
FAA points primarily to flight volume and weather--I think,
in the neighborhood of 80 percent in that category. And then
they say, ``Well, we have new equipment.'' And that is in
direct contradiction to what the airlines are saying.
For its part, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
which also keeps delay and arrival data, does not keep any
causal data, but they consider a flight as departing on time as
long as it pushes back from the gate within 15 minutes of its
scheduled departure time.
Senator Shelby. Say that again.
Mr. Mead. All right. This--this is anomalous.
Senator Shelby. I know.
Mr. Mead. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which
also keeps delay data, considers a flight as departing on time
if it leaves the gate, pushes back from the gate within 15
minutes of its scheduled departure time, even though you may
end up sitting on the runway for three more hours.
So you are telling the consumer that they left on time. The
consumer knows they did not leave on time, because they are
sitting on the runway.
Senator Shelby. Who came up with that rationalization? Who
came up with that?
Mr. Mead. I do not know who the author of that was.
Senator Shelby. Are they still working? He should not be.
Can you find out for us just to find out who came up with
that? I would like to share that with my colleagues.
Well, go ahead, Mr. Mead.
MEASURING PERFORMANCE
Mr. Mead. Yes, and the point in mentioning that is that a
system that is measuring performance----
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Mr. Mead [continuing]. Through measures such as that is
destined not to succeed.
FAA causal data do not cover delays or cancellations due to
air carrier activities, such as aircraft maintenance, lack of a
plane, or lack of a flight crew. In other words, we do not have
a complete picture of the data.
And if there is no plane, that flight is going to be
delayed, one way or the other. But FAA does not keep track of
that.
Now, the airlines do track these causes and it becomes a
very complicated task when you----
Senator Shelby. Why--what does not FAA do it----
Mr. Mead. I am----
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Or require them to do it for
FAA?
Mr. Mead. I think they should.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, would you get in on that?
Ms. Garvey. I do not want to interrupt his testimony, but--
--
Senator Shelby. That----
Ms. Garvey [continuing]. We--the rationale for the FAA has
always been to focus on those pieces of the system that we can
control so that we can improve the operation, but I will wait
until Mr. Mead is finished.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Ms. Garvey. But we are doing some--some other things.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
CONSISTENT AND COMPLETE DATA
Mr. Mead. The lack of consistent and complete data has only
created confusion and finger-pointing. And the traveling public
is caught somewhere in between on the delayed or cancelled
flight.
The issue boils down--in our view, Mr. Chairman, to what
can reasonably be expected of the air traffic control system in
airports. And this is both a short- and long-term issue. And
there is no silver bullet solution.
But what is feasible in the way of relief can only be
addressed if there is a common language between the airlines
and the FAA and an agreed upon system for defining the various
causes of delays, and tracking the approximate and underlying
causes of those delays from both pre-gate departure, all the
way to arrival.
And until we do that, it is going to be very difficult to
target effective solutions.
We need to know how much of the problem can be fixed in the
short- and the long-term by ATC equipment, and how much cannot
be fixed by ATC equipment.
DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS
That will be the guide to solutions, including any
necessary adjustments to flight schedules. That is why the AIR-
21 provision should be implemented without further delay.
Moving to the highlights of what we found in our delay and
cancellation work, FAA identified a 58 percent increase in
delays between 1995 and 1999. Flight cancellations grew at an
even faster rate than delays, increasing 68 percent over that
5-year period.
Total flight operations increased 8.3 percent. This means,
Mr. Chairman, that one in every five commercial flights, 20
percent, roughly 1.1 million were late in arriving with an
average delay of almost 50 minutes. Nearly 3 percent of the
flights were cancelled in 1999. And if you were on one of
those, you were on one of 154,000 flights.
Delays are getting longer. Most delays occur on the ground.
TAXI-OUT TIMES
At the 28 largest U.S. airports, flights experiencing taxi-
out times of 1 hour or more increased 130 percent, from about
17,000 in 1995 to 40,000 in 1999.
Flights with taxi-out times of 2, 3 and 4 hours increased
by huge margins of 186, 216 and 251 percent respectively.
Because some of these flights pushed back from the gate within
15 minutes, they were under the rules considered on-time
departures.
FLIGHT TIMES
I also want to point out that the true extent of delays are
masked by increases in scheduled flight times. Between 1988 and
1999, the 10 carriers reporting to the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics increased their scheduled flight times on over 80
percent of roughly 2,000 domestic routes. And 390 of those
routes experienced scheduled flight increases of 10 to 27
minutes on average over the past decades.
The reasons the airlines are doing this is understandable.
The schedules are increased to compensate for anticipated
longer ground and air times. And the reason I mention this is
because the number of arrival delays would have increased by
over 25 percent in 1999 if the air carriers' scheduled flight
times had remained at the 1988 levels.
We think that measures of the system's performance should
consider both the scheduled or built-in delays as well as those
delays that occur over and above those that are scheduled.
CUSTOMER COMMITMENT
I would like to move to the customer commitment, sir.
Flight problems such as delays and cancellations are the number
one air travel complaint.
Customer care and baggage complaints are the next two.
Altogether, they comprise about 70 percent of the complaints.
The complaints doubled in 1999 over 1998. And they are doubling
again this year.
The Internet is partly responsible for this. It is a lot
easier to complain today than it was. But I think if people
just point to the Internet and say, ``Well, that is why,'' they
are doing so at their peril.
I think it is important for everybody to understand what
these commitments do and do not do. They address matters such
as improved communication, offering the lowest fares available
over the phone, and that is an important distinction, timely
return of delayed baggage, and allowing reservations to be held
or cancelled without penalty.
The commitment, though, does not directly address the
underlying sources of consumer dissatisfaction, such as
extensive flight delays, baggage not showing up on arrival. The
commitment on on-time baggage delivery, really is not on-time
baggage delivery; that commitment is to return bags within 24
hours that did not show up on time.
That would--it is not exactly the most artful way of
expressing----
Senator Shelby. It sounds like again they are gaming the
system. In other words, they are not really telling the truth
in the statistic.
Mr. Mead. Well, I think they could have described that
particular commitment title with greater clarity.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Mr. Mead. The commitments also do not address, directly,
long check-in lines and high fares in certain markets. In our
view, until those factors are addressed, you are going to
continue to experience widespread discontent in the system.
What we found in our testing--and our people are going out
to the airports and on the airlines, so they are experiencing
this first-hand--we found that the airlines are actually making
a genuine and clear commitment to paying greater attention to
customer service.
But the bottom line results are mixed and the airlines have
a long way to go to restore consumer confidence.
NOTIFYING CUSTOMERS OF DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS
I would like to just mention what we were finding with the
two commitments that pertain to delays and then close off. The
commitment about notifying customers of known delays and
cancellations--we found that for the most part, the airlines
were really making a significant effort at ensuring that there
would be greater communication between the pilots, between the
gate agents and so forth, but we found major room for
improvement in the accuracy and reliability and timeliness of
what was being communicated.
We found several airlines repeatedly pointing to the air
traffic control system as the reason for delays, even in cases
of extremely bad weather, crew unavailability, or maintenance
problems. In fact, in some cases, we were told the flight was
leaving on time, and there was no plane.
The way we checked out these things is we would hear what
the gate agent was saying and then our staff would run up to
the air traffic control tower to find out exactly what was
happening. And we tied together the two stories.
We also found a disconnect between what the airlines are
saying in their plans and what they say in their contracts of
carriage. The contract of carriage is a legally binding
document.
With one exception, all the plans say, ``We will provide
accommodations for passengers put in an overnight status due to
airline operations.'' Now, the airlines define what is due to
airline operations.
But my point is only two airlines say that they will
provide overnight accommodation in their contracts of carriage.
Instead, what the contract of carriage says is, ``We will
do it if the passenger is diverted to another airport.'' So for
those contracts of carriage, in the next 6 months, we would
like to see them incorporate more of what is in the plans.
Senator Shelby. I wonder who reads those.
Mr. Mead. Well, my staff is reading them because they have
to.
Senator Shelby. Yes. Well, that answers my question.
MEETING CUSTOMER'S NEEDS
Mr. Mead. The other one is the meeting of a customer's
essential needs during long on-aircraft delays. During our
initial visits, less than half the airlines had comprehensive
customer service contingency plans for dealing with these at
all the airports they serve.
They now advise us, and we are checking it out, that they
do have them in place. But the provision and the plans use
general terms, such as the airline will provide ``food,'' will
make ``every reasonable effort'' when the delay is ``for an
extended period of time,'' for an ``emergency.''
PREPARED STATEMENT
And these terms are obviously not self-defining. So we
think the airlines need to do a better job of providing the
consumer with a clearer understanding of what to expect.
And I think I will just close off there, sir.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
air carrier flight delays and customer service
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the
opportunity to discuss airline flight delays and cancellations, and
airline efforts to improve customer service. Concerned over increasing
complaints in air travel, compounded by the continued growth in flight
delays and cancellations, Congress considered whether to enact a
``passenger bill of rights.''
Congress, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Air
Transport Association (ATA) agreed that, for the time being,
legislation would not be necessary. Instead, ATA and 14 of its member
airlines (Airlines) executed a document on June 17, 1999, known as the
Airline Customer Service Commitment. The Commitment includes 12
provisions. Two of these provisions (notifying customers of known
delays and meeting customers' essential needs during on-aircraft
delays) are in response to the growth in flight delays and
cancellations.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Airlines Commit to:
--1. Offer the lowest fare available
--2. Notify customers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions
--3. On-time baggage delivery
--4. Support an increase in the baggage liability limit
--5. Allow reservations to be held or canceled
--6. Provide prompt ticket refunds
--7. Properly accommodate disabled and special needs passengers
--8. Meet customers' essential needs during long on-aircraft delays
--9. Handle ``bumped'' passengers with fairness and consistency
--10. Disclose travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent
flyer rules, and aircraft configuration
--11. Ensure good customer service from code-share partners
--12. Be more responsive to customer complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the Chairman, we reviewed the amount of flight
delays occurring in the National Airspace System as well as the systems
for tracking delays and cancellations and their causes. The results are
in our Report on Air Carrier Flight Delays and Cancellations, which we
are submitting for the record. The Airlines cooperated fully with us
during our reviews. Today, I would like to address growth in flight
delays and cancellations, and our interim results on the Airlines'
implementation of the Commitment and Plans.
GROWTH IN AIR CARRIER FLIGHT DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS
Mr. Chairman, a major finding of our review, and one on which we
believe urgent attention is required, is the absence of a system for
collecting causal data and reporting a reasonably complete picture of
the causes of delays and cancellations from pre-gate departure to
arrival. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century requires such a system, but there has been insufficient
progress.
Meanwhile, air carriers blame much of the cause for delays on what
they see as an antiquated air traffic control (ATC) system that has
failed to keep pace with demand. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) points primarily to weather and flight volume. The lack of
consistent and complete data has only fueled this debate--with the
traveling public experiencing the result of delayed or canceled
flights. We found that FAA causal data do not cover delays due to air
carrier activities, such as aircraft maintenance, or lack of an
aircraft or flight crew. Most of the air carriers maintain their own
causal information for internal purposes, but their information is
generally not consistent with the information collected by FAA.
The issue boils down to what can reasonably be expected of the ATC
system and airports. For those in search of solutions, this is both a
short- and long-term issue, and there is no ``silver bullet'' solution
to reducing delays and cancellations. The Airlines do not view
scheduling practices as the core problem; it is their expectation that
a modern ATC system and airports should be able to handle the load.
What is feasible in the way of relief--short- and long-term--can only
be addressed with a common language between the Airlines and FAA and an
agreed-upon system for tracking the proximate and underlying causes of
delays and cancellations from pre-gate departure through all stages of
flight. Our major conclusions are summarized below.
--Flight Delays and Cancellations Have Increased Significantly Since
1995.--Both the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and
FAA reported increases in flight delays between 1995 and 1999.
However, there is a large variance between BTS and FAA delay
totals because they use different systems to define and track
delays. BTS tracks only gate departure and arrival of a flight,
while FAA tracks the intervening ground and airborne phases.
According to BTS data, delays increased 11 percent (1,863,265 to
2,076,443) during this time period. Likewise, FAA data
identified an even larger increase of 58 percent (236,802 to
374,116). During this same period, total flight operations
increased 8.3 percent, from approximately 64 million to 69.3
million.
We also found that the number of delays continues to increase in
2000. Overall, there were about 12 percent more FAA-reported
delays and over 5 percent more BTS-reported delays during the
first 5 months of 2000 than during the same period in 1999.
Flight cancellations between 1995 and 1999 grew at an even faster
pace than flight delays, increasing 68 percent (91,905 to
154,311). Some high traffic routes had cancellation rates three
to five times higher than the 1999 national average. Increases
have continued this year, with the first 5 months of 2000
experiencing over 5 percent more cancellations than in the same
period in 1999.
--Flight Delays Are Also Getting Longer.--Not only are there more
delays, but those occurring are longer. The length of delays
reported by BTS and FAA increased 16 to 18 percent,
respectively. According to BTS data, the average arrival delay
increased to over 50 minutes in 1999 from 42 minutes in 1995.
We also found substantial differences among the top 28
airports, with average delay times ranging from 70 minutes at
Baltimore to 25 minutes at Las Vegas.
--Most Delays Occur on the Ground.--We found that most delays took
place on the ground in the form of longer taxi-out and taxi-in
times. Our analysis of BTS data found that 82 percent of the
increase in gate-to-gate times between 1995 and 1999 was due to
longer taxi-out and taxi-in times, with the remaining 18
percent involving longer flight times.
Also at the 28 largest U.S. airports, the number of flights
experiencing taxi-out times of 1 hour or more (flights in which
the aircraft has departed the gate but remained for extended
periods of time on the ground awaiting taking off) increased
130 percent between 1995 and 1999, from 17,164 to 39,523. More
significant, at these 28 major airports, the number of flights
with taxi-out times of 2, 3, and 4 hours increased by huge
percentages of 186, 216 and 251 respectively during the same
period. Push-back from the gate within 15 minutes of scheduled
departure counts as an on-time departure for BTS reports, even
if a flight remains on the taxiway for an hour or more.
--Lengthening of Scheduled Flight Times Masks True Growth of
Delays.--Between 1988 and 1999, the 10 major air carriers
reporting to BTS increased their scheduled flight times on over
80 percent of their domestic routes (1,660 of 2,036 routes). By
increasing the schedule time, the actual extent of delays
through the system is underreported. For example, the number of
arrival delays would have increased by nearly 25 percent in
1999 if the air carriers scheduled flight times had remained at
their 1988 levels. We estimate that, from 1988 through 1999,
these schedule changes added nearly 130 million minutes of
travel time for air passengers.
In an effort to measure the true growth in flight delays and the
resulting impact on consumers and air carriers, we developed
the Consumer Flight Delay Indicator (CFDI). This indicator
calculates the average delay time per flight flown by the 10
major air carriers and takes into account both scheduled and
unscheduled delays. Using 1988 as the base year, we found that
the CFDI rate in 1999 was 16:18 minutes. This represents a 42
percent increase from 1995 when the CFDI was 11:24 minutes.
--DOT Lacks a Uniform Methodology for Tracking Delays.--We found
major differences in the methodologies used by FAA and BTS to
determine flight delays. These differences can lead to somewhat
confusing results. FAA collects data on flight delays via the
Operations Network (OPSNET). OPSNET data come from FAA
personnel who manually record aircraft that were delayed by
more than 15 minutes after coming under FAA's control, i.e.,
the pilot's request to taxi out. As such, an aircraft could
wait an hour or more at the gate or ramp area before requesting
clearance to taxi. So long as the flight, once under FAA's
control, took off within 15 minutes of the airport's standard
taxi-out time, the flight would be considered an on-time
departure.
Conversely, the major air carriers submit monthly flight data to
BTS. According to BTS, a flight is counted as ``on time'' if it
departed or arrived within 15 minutes of scheduled gate
departure and arrival times shown in the airline's reservation
system. Using this definition, an aircraft could wait an hour
or more on the airport taxiway for takeoff and be reported by
BTS as having departed on time if it left the gate within 15
minutes of its scheduled departure.
--Although Actions Are Underway, Much Work Remains.--Partly in
response to the increase in delays and cancellations as well as
the number of complaints, FAA along with representatives of the
airline industry conducted an extensive evaluation in 1999
aimed at improving its management of air traffic. As a result
of the evaluation, FAA and the industry identified 165 near-
term action items to relieve delays including: (1) limiting
locally initiated ground stops to 30 minutes; (2) providing
estimates to air carriers of the time a ground stop will end
and the cause for this action; and (3) ensuring that local
facilities coordinate miles-in-trail restrictions\1\ through
the National Air Traffic Control System Command Center.
According to FAA, most of the action items have been
implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Miles-in-trail is an ATC tool that intentionally paces traffic
by increasing spacing between aircraft to keep volume at manageable
levels. This spacing between aircraft is different from FAA's safety
separation standards requirement of 5 nautical miles laterally or 2,000
feet in altitude, in sectors of high-altitude traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA also recognizes the need for a common system for tracking
delays, cancellations, and their causes. As a result, the
agency has been working closely with the major air carriers in
developing the Aviation System Performance Metric (ASPM). ASPM,
which became operational at 21 airports in April 2000,
establishes a uniform set of metrics on which to measure delays
during each flight segment, i.e., gate departure, taxi-out, en
route, taxi-in, gate arrival, and overall flight time.
FAA officials noted that ASPM will initially be used to help
identify and track delays and cancellations as well as measure
ATC performance. They also noted their intent to eventually
include causal information in ASPM, which will be critical in
helping FAA and the air carriers identify areas for
improvement, such as changes in traffic management practices,
funding for equipment and airport enhancements, and airspace
redesign.
--Causal Data on Flight Delays and Cancellations Are Woefully
Incomplete.--Beyond the methodologies used to determine flight
delays, we also found causal data varied significantly-with no
one system possessing a complete picture of the causes of
flight delays and cancellations. For example, BTS does not
collect causal data for delays or cancellations. FAA only
collects causal data on delays reported through OPSNET, but
maintains no comparable information on cancellations. Moreover,
FAA causal codes do not cover delays due to air carrier
activities, such as aircraft maintenance, boarding of
passengers, or fueling. While most of the air carriers maintain
causal information for internal purposes on both delays and
cancellations, those causes are associated primarily with gate
departure delays, and generally are not consistent with the
causal information collected by FAA.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AIRLINES' COMMITMENT AND
PLANS ARE MIXED
The Growth in Delays and Cancellations Has Led to Increases in
Customer Dissatisfaction With Air Carrier Customer Service.--The
Airlines are at the 6-month point in implementing their Plans designed
to restore and improve customer service. We reported our preliminary
results in our Interim Report on Airline Customer Service
Commitment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Report Number AV-2000-102 issued June 27, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The Commitment Does Not Address Underlying Reasons for Customer
Dissatisfaction.--The Commitment addresses such matters as
improved communication with passengers, quoting the lowest
available airfare, timely return of misrouted or delayed
baggage, allowing reservations to be held or canceled without
penalty, providing prompt ticket refunds, and meeting
passengers' essential needs during long on-board delays.
However, the Commitment does not directly address underlying
reasons for customer dissatisfaction, such as extensive flight
delays, baggage not showing up on arrival, long check-in lines,
and high fares in certain markets. In our opinion, until these
areas are effectively addressed by the Airlines, FAA, and
others, there will continue to be discontent among air
travelers.
--Airlines Have a Long Way to Go to Restore Customer Confidence.--In
our initial observations and testing, we found the Airlines are
making a clear and genuine effort at strengthening the
attention paid to customer service, but bottom-line results are
mixed, and the Airlines have a long way to go to restore
customer confidence.
For instance, at least 2 of the 12 provisions cover airline
service when flights are delayed or canceled. These two
provisions address notifying customers of known delays,
cancellations and diversions, and meeting customers' essential
needs during long on-aircraft delays. We found the Airlines
were making a significant effort, both at the airport and on-
board aircraft, to improve the frequency of communication with
customers about delays and cancellations. These improvements
include investments in various communication technologies and
media as well as more frequent announcements to customers.
However, we also found major room for improvement in the
accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of the Airlines'
communications to customers about the status of flights. For
example, several Airlines pointed to the air traffic control
system as the reason for delays, even in cases of extremely bad
weather, crew unavailability, or maintenance problems.
We also found a disconnect between what the Airlines specified in
their Plans and what is in their contracts of carriage. With
one exception, all the Plans specify that the Airlines will
provide accommodations for passengers put in an overnight
status due to Airline operations. However only two Airlines
explicitly provide for this in their contracts of carriage.
Most Airlines' contracts of carriage only provide for
accommodations if the passenger is diverted to another airport
and put in an overnight status at that other airport. It is
unclear if the passengers' rights to the services provided in
the Airlines' Plans are enforceable if those rights are not
specified in the Airlines' contracts of carriage.
Likewise, accommodating passengers during on-aircraft delays is a
major challenge faced by the Airlines. We found that less than
half the Airlines had comprehensive customer service
contingency plans in place, at all the airports they served,
for handling delays due to severe weather or Airline service
irregularities (e.g., unscheduled equipment maintenance or crew
shortages). This provision also does not specify in any detail
the efforts that will be made to get passengers off the
aircraft when delayed for extended periods, either before
departure or after arrival. The provision uses general terms
such as ``food,'' ``every reasonable effort,'' ``for an
extended period of time,'' or ``emergency.'' These terms should
be clearly defined to provide the passenger with a clear
understanding of what to expect.
Our detailed observations on the Airline's efforts to implement
the Commitment and needed initiatives to enhance the success of
Customer Service Plans are included later in this testimony.
BACKGROUND
FAA estimates that delays to commercial aviation cost the airlines
over $3 billion a year and projects that delays throughout the system
will continue to increase as the demand for passenger travel rises.
Moreover, passengers are directly affected by the inconvenience of
delays in terms of missed flight connections, missed business meetings,
and lost personal time. Over the last year, the news media reported a
growing debate on flight delays and their causes. One large U.S.
airline claimed that it lost as much as $120 million in the first half
of 1999 because of air traffic control (ATC) delays and canceled
flights. FAA contended that few delays resulted from ATC equipment
problems, and attributed the bulk of all delays to poor weather.
Domestic air carriers \3\ that account for at least one percent of
domestic scheduled passenger revenues submit monthly Airline Service
Quality Performance Reports to the DOT's Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS). For this report, a flight is counted as ``on time''
if it departed or arrived within 15 minutes of scheduled gate departure
and arrival times shown in the airline's reservation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Those 10 reporting air carriers are Alaska Airlines, America
West Airlines, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air
Lines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Trans World Airlines,
United Airlines, and U.S. Airways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA collects data on flight delays via the Operations Network
(OPSNET). OPSNET data come from observations by FAA personnel who
manually record aircraft that were delayed for 15 minutes or more after
coming under FAA's control, i.e., the pilot's request to taxi out.
Delays attributable to an air carrier's operations, such as aircraft
and flight crew problems, are not included in OPSNET, nor are canceled
flights (regardless of the reason).
A key reason for differing data maintained by FAA and BTS is in how
each uses the information it collects. For FAA, delay information
serves to measure system-wide ATC performance as well as to identify
areas for improvement. For BTS, measuring delays (and subsequent
ranking of air carriers by on-time arrival performance) serves as a
source of air travel information to consumers and helps ensure more
accurate reporting of flight schedules by the air carriers.
Flight Delays and Cancellations Have Increased Significantly
Both BTS and FAA reported increases in all types of flight delays
between 1995 and 1999. For instance, according to BTS data, delays
increased 11 percent (1,863,265 to 2,076,443) during this time period.
Likewise, FAA data identified an even larger increase of 58 percent
(236,802 to 374,116). Figure 1 illustrates FAA-reported delays from
1995 to 1999. During this same period, both flight operations and
enplanements were increasing, on average, 2 and 4 percent per year,
respectively.
Figure 1.--Growth in FAA-Reported Flight Delays
Year No. of delays
1995.......................................................... 236,802
1996.......................................................... 271,507
1997.......................................................... 245,259
1998.......................................................... 306,234
1999.......................................................... 374,116
We found that the number of delays continues to increase in 2000.
Overall, there were about 12 percent more FAA-reported delays and over
5 percent more BTS-reported delays during the first 5 months of 2000
than during the same period in 1999. The number of canceled flights the
10 major air carriers reported to BTS increased 68 percent, from 91,905
to 154,311, between 1995 and 1999. Increases have continued this year,
with the first 5 months of 2000 experiencing over 5 percent more
cancellations than the same period in 1999.
Length of Delays Also Increased, Ranging From 16 to 18 Percent
Not only were there more delays in 1999 than in 1995, but the
length of delays also increased. Table 1 lists the average duration of
FAA OPSNET delays (i.e., departure, en route, and arrival) and BTS
arrival delays from 1995 to 1999.\4\ Overall, the length of FAA OPSNET
delays increased 16 percent, while BTS arrival delays increased 18
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These averages are based on delays of 15 minutes or more, since
15 minutes is the cut-off point used by both BTS and FAA in determining
a delay.
TABLE 1.--DURATION OF FAA OPSNET AND BTS ARRIVAL DELAYS
[In minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTS
Year FAA OPSNET Arrival
Delays Delays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................ 37:34 42:41
1996............................................ 40:41 46:12
1997............................................ 37:45 44:40
1998............................................ 41:04 49:19
1999............................................ 43:30 50:26
-----------------------
Percent change 1995-99.................... 16 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Delays Occur on the Ground During Departure
We found that most delays took place on the ground. FAA's analysis
of flights to and from 55 major U.S. airports found that ground delays
represented approximately 83 percent of the total delay time in 1999.
This percentage is supported by our own analysis of BTS data.
Specifically, we determined that 82 percent of the increase in gate-to-
gate \5\ times between 1995 and 1999 was due to longer taxi-out and
taxi-in times, with the remaining 18 percent involving longer en route
times. This represents a noticeable shift from 1996, when only 60
percent of the increase in gate-to-gate times (over 1995) was due to
longer ground times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Also referred to as ``block'' time, gate-to-gate time covers
the period between gate departure and gate arrival.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also found that the number of flights that experienced taxi-out
times of 1 hour or more (e.g., the aircraft departed the gate but
remained for extended periods of time on the ground awaiting takeoff)
had increased 130 percent, as noted in Figure 2. Of even greater
concern for passengers is the number of flights with taxi-out times of
2, 3, or 4 hours, which increased at an even faster pace, i.e., 186,
216, and 251 percent, respectively, between 1995 and 1999.
Figure 2.--Flights with Taxi-Out Times of 1 Hour or More at 28 Largest
Airports
Year No. of flights
1995..............................................................17,164
1996..............................................................25,417
1997..............................................................22,535
1998..............................................................29,970
1999..............................................................39,523
Actual Extent of Delays Is Much Greater, and Is Masked By Increases in
Scheduled Flight Times
To compensate for longer ground and air times, the air carriers
have increased their flight schedules on nearly 82 percent (1,660 of
2,036) of domestic routes between 1988 \6\ and 1999. Overall, we
identified 390 domestic routes, comprising 793,586 flights in 1999,
which experienced schedule increases of approximately 10 to 27 minutes
(on average) over the last 11 years. By increasing their scheduled
flight times, however, the actual extent of delays throughout the
system--as tracked by BTS--is underreported. For example, the number of
arrival delays reported to BTS would have been nearly 25 percent higher
in 1999 if flight schedules had remained at their 1988 levels. Overall,
we calculate that scheduled delays added nearly 130 million minutes of
travel time for air passengers from 1988 through 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 1988 is the first complete year of data from the 10 major air
carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to measure the actual growth in flight delays, taking
into account both scheduled and unscheduled delays, we developed the
Consumer Flight Delay Indicator (CFDI). This indicator calculates the
average delay time per flight flown by the 10 major air carriers. Using
1988 as the base year, we found that the CFDI rate in 1999 was 16:18
minutes.\7\ This represents a 42 percent increase from 1995, when the
CFDI was 11:24 minutes, as indicated by Figure 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We calculated that 10 of 28 major U.S. airports had CFDIs equal
to or greater than 20 minutes in 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3.--OIG's Consumer Flight Delay Indicator
[1995-99 (BasedYear 1988)]
Year Minutes
1995.............................................................. 11:24
1996.............................................................. 14:30
1997.............................................................. 13:18
1998.............................................................. 14:30
1999.............................................................. 16:18
DOT Lacks a Uniform Methodology for Tracking Delays
We found major differences in the methodologies used by FAA and BTS
to record and track flight delays. As a consequence, FAA and BTS differ
as to what they consider a delay and how such delays are calculated.
For example, FAA tracks delays on the taxiway and runway (departure)
and airborne (en route and arrival). BTS tracks delays at the departure
or arrival gates. The two agencies also have little in common with
respect to how they calculate delays. As a consequence, these differing
methodologies can lead to somewhat confusing (if not misleading)
results as shown in the two examples.
Example 1.--On November 2, 1999, United Airlines flight 645 from
Newark to O'Hare left the gate 68 minutes after the scheduled departure
time due to mechanical problems. Because this delay took place at the
gate, it incurred a departure delay as defined by BTS. Once repaired,
however, the flight took off within 24 minutes of receiving FAA's
clearance to taxi. Because the total time period between the request
for taxi and wheels off did not exceed the allotted taxi-out time of 29
minutes at Newark, FAA did not record a departure delay.
Example 2.--On November 1, 1999, American Airlines flight 1599 from
Newark to O'Hare departed the gate at the scheduled time. As such, it
achieved an on-time departure as defined by BTS. Because of an FAA
ground delay, the aircraft remained in the ramp/taxiway an additional
113 minutes before takeoff. FAA, therefore, recorded a departure delay
since the elapsed period far exceeded Newark's allotted taxi-out time
of 29 minutes.
For instance, FAA calculates a delayed departure as the difference
between the time a pilot requests FAA clearance to taxi and the time an
aircraft's wheels lift off the runway, minus the airport's standard
unimpeded taxi-out time. In comparison, BTS calculates a delayed
departure as the difference between scheduled and actual departure time
from the gate.
Causal Data on Flight Delays and Cancellations Are Incomplete
There is significant disagreement within the aviation community as
to the causes of flight delays and cancellations. Air carriers, for
example, blame FAA and weather for most delays. In contrast, FAA points
to weather and flight volume as the main factors. Moreover, the lack of
consistent and complete data on the causes of delays and cancellations
has only fueled this debate. In conducting our audit, we found no
system that provides a complete picture of the causes of flight delays
and cancellations. FAA causal codes do not cover delays due to air
carrier activities, such as aircraft maintenance, boarding of
passengers, or fueling. While most of the carriers maintain causal
information for internal purposes on both delays and cancellations,
those causes are associated primarily with gate departure delays, and
generally are not consistent with the causal information collected by
FAA. Until this inconsistency is resolved, FAA and the air carriers
will continue to blame one another, and the decision-makers' ability to
address the underlying causes such as runway capacity, air traffic
control equipment and procedures, weather, and airline scheduling
practices will be hindered.
Increase in Flight Delays and Cancellations Fuel Customer
Dissatisfaction
Over the last several years, DOT has ranked flight problems
(delays, cancellations and missed connections) as the number one air
traveler complaint, with customer care (such as the treatment of
delayed passengers) and baggage complaints ranked as either number two
or number three. As depicted in Figure 4, 1999 data show that these
three types of complaints account for nearly 70 percent of all
complaints received by DOT against U.S. and foreign air carriers. This
trend continues for the first 5 months of 2000, with flight problems,
customer care and baggage complaints accounting for over 70 percent of
all complaints received by DOT against U.S. and foreign air carriers.
Figure 4.--Air Travel Consumer Report
[1999 Complaints]
Complaints Percent
Flight Problems................................................... 35
Customer care..................................................... 20
Baggage........................................................... 14
Reservations, ticketing, and boarding............................. 8
Refunds........................................................... 7
Other............................................................. 16
Preliminary Results on Implementation of the Commitment and Plans Are
Mixed
The Commitment and the Airlines' Plans for implementing it were
essentially a commitment to place substantially greater emphasis,
attention and resources on customer service. The Airlines realized they
needed to improve the way they treat passengers and that good customer
service begins with the successful execution of, and continuous
improvement to, existing customer service policies and procedures,
programs and plans, as well as systems and technologies.
In developing the Commitment, the Airlines included two provisions
that constituted new policy. The provision to either hold a reservation
without payment for 24 hours or (at the Airline's choice) cancel a paid
reservation within 24 hours without penalty is a new service the
Airlines are providing. Another new provision was to support the
increase in the baggage liability limit from $1,250 to $2,500, which
became effective January 18, 2000.
As for the remaining 10 provisions in the Commitment, the Airlines
agreed to focus on better execution of customer service policies and
procedures, many required by law or regulation, required under the
Airlines' contracts of carriage, or part of Airline operating policy. A
few of these provisions had subsets that provided new policies such as
notifying customers in a timely manner of the best available
information regarding known delays, cancellations and diversions;
making every reasonable effort to return checked bags within 24 hours;
issuing an annual report on frequent flyer redemption programs; and
providing information regarding aircraft configuration (seat width and
legroom).
Our interim results are based on visits to the Airlines' corporate
headquarters and other key facilities, and review of Airline policies
and procedures before and after implementation of the Commitment. This
allowed us to evaluate what impact the formal Commitment had on the
Airlines' customer service. We also reviewed the Airlines' Plans and
contracts of carriage to determine whether the provisions of the
Commitment have been incorporated into these documents. To date, we
have visited over 30 domestic airports to observe and test portions of
the individual Airlines' Plans that are in place. We are continuing to
test the effectiveness of the Commitment and will provide our results
in our final report. To date, our preliminary results have identified
areas that appear to be working well, as well as areas for improvement,
as illustrated in the following examples.
--Offer the lowest fare available.--The Airlines agreed to offer,
through their telephone reservation systems, the lowest fare
available for which the customer is eligible. However, Airlines
did not commit to guaranteeing the customer that the quoted
fare is the lowest fare the Airline has to offer. There may be
lower fares available through the Airlines' Internet sites that
are not available through the Airlines' telephone reservation
systems.
We found six Airlines enhanced the provision by (1) offering the
lowest fare for reservations made at their city ticket offices
and airport customer service counters, not just through the
Airlines' telephone reservation systems; or (2) requiring their
reservation agents to query customers about the flexibility of
their itinerary in terms of travel dates, airports and travel
times to find the lowest fare available; or (3) notifying the
customer through an on-hold message that lower fares may be
available through other distribution sources and during
different travel times.
Ongoing testing of this provision shows that Airline telephone
agents were usually offering the lowest available fare for
which we were eligible, but there were a sufficient number of
exceptions to this that it is an area to which the Airlines
should pay special attention. The problems we identified were
not deliberate on the part of the Airlines, but were due to
employees not following established procedures.
--Notify customers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions.--
For the most part, we found the Airlines were making a
significant effort, both at the airport and on-board aircraft,
to improve the frequency of communication with customers about
delays and cancellations. These improvements include
investments in various communication technologies and media as
well as more frequent announcements to customers. For example,
six airlines have procedures in place to contact passengers at
their home, work, pager, or cellular telephone number about
known delays and cancellations. However, we also found major
room for improvement in the accuracy, reliability, and
timeliness of the Airlines' communications to customers about
the status of flights. For example, several Airlines pointed to
the air traffic control system as the reason for delays, even
in cases of extremely bad weather, crew unavailability, or
maintenance problems.
We also found flight monitors and gate displays in the boarding
areas showed the flights as on-time although, at the time of
the flight, it was evident there would be a delay because (1)
there was no aircraft at the gate, or (2) the flight was
scheduled to leave in 5 minutes and passenger boarding had not
begun. During some of our tests, when queried, the gate agent
told us the flight was scheduled to leave on-time when in fact,
we knew from FAA air traffic control that it was delayed.
The Airlines and FAA must move beyond finger-pointing, and work
towards greater cooperation in identifying and addressing the
causes for flight delays and cancellations. FAA and the
carriers need to move forward and establish a common framework
for documenting and identifying the causes of delays and
cancellations. The need for this was recently demonstrated by a
lengthy delay at a major U.S. airport when some passengers were
on-board aircraft from 4 to 8 hours. FAA and the Airline have
different views on what happened and why. This illustrates the
need for better communications and systems for documenting the
cause of delays.
We also found a disconnect between what the Airlines specified in
their Plans and what is in their contracts of carriage. With
one exception, all the Plans specify that the Airlines will
provide accommodations for passengers put in an overnight
status due to Airline operations. However only two Airlines
explicitly provide for this in their contracts of carriage.
Most Airlines' contracts of carriage only provide for
accommodations if the passenger is diverted to another airport
and put in an overnight status at that other airport. It is
unclear if the passengers' rights to the services provided in
the Airlines' Plans are enforceable if those rights are not
specified in the Airlines' contracts of carriage.
We suggested the Airlines improve the lines of communication and
streamline the flow of accurate and reliable information
between (1) FAA and the Airlines' Operations Control Centers,
and (2) the Airlines' Operations Control Centers and frontline
personnel who deal directly with passengers. We also suggested
that the Airlines consider making their contracts of carriage
consistent with their Plans to clarify the customers' rights
when put in an overnight situation due to delays,
cancellations, or diversions.
--On-time baggage delivery.--Passengers expect to find their checked
baggage upon arrival at their destination airports, but this
provision actually deals with the delivery of misrouted or
delayed baggage. The Airlines committed to return the misrouted
or delayed bag to the passenger ``within 24 hours.'' We have
found examples where Airlines have invested in advanced baggage
scanning technologies to facilitate the return of baggage or
increased staff resources for processing claims. However, we
also found that the Airlines were not consistent in their Plans
when defining what constituted ``within 24 hours.'' For
instance, some Airlines started the 24-hour clock when a
passenger filed a missing bag claim and others only after the
bag arrived at the destination airport.
The Airlines should consider committing to returning unclaimed
and lost checked baggage to customers within 24 hours of
receipt of a customer's claim. The filing of a claim is when a
customer would reasonably expect the 24 hours to begin. Also,
those Airlines that have not already done so should consider
providing a toll-free telephone number for customers to call to
check on the status of their bags.
--Allow reservations to be held or canceled.--This is a completely
new customer service commitment, which allows the customer
either to hold a telephone reservation without payment for 24
hours or (at the Airline's option) cancel a paid reservation
without penalty for up to 24 hours. This provision should be
very popular with passengers who book nonrefundable tickets,
because it allows customers to check for lower fares and time
to coordinate their travel without losing a quoted fare.
Our ongoing testing shows that, with a few exceptions, the
Airlines were living up to this commitment in practice.
However, where a ticket purchase was required, the reservation
agents typically did not tell us that we could receive a full
refund if the reservation was canceled within 24 hours.
Therefore, we suggested that the Airlines requiring a ticket
purchase affirmatively notify passengers that if they cancel
the reservation within 24 hours they can receive a full refund
without a penalty, even on otherwise nonrefundable tickets.
--Provide prompt ticket refunds.--By agreeing to this provision, the
Airlines have, in essence, agreed to comply with existing
Federal regulations and requirements. The 7-day refund
requirement for credit card purchases has been in effect for
nearly 20 years and is governed by Federal regulations. The 20-
day refund requirement for cash purchases has been in effect
for over 16 years. With the exception of one Airline, our
ongoing testing did not show compliance problems with this
provision.
--Meet customers' essential needs during long on-aircraft delays.--
During our initial visits to the Airlines, less than half had
comprehensive customer service contingency plans in place for
handling extended delays on-board aircraft at all the airports
they served. Subsequent to our initial visits, the Airlines
have all stated that comprehensive customer service contingency
plans are in place for addressing delays, cancellations and
diversions. Over the next several months, at the airports we
visit, we will determine whether the (1) Airlines' customer
service contingency plans are in place, (2) Airlines' customer
service personnel are knowledgeable of contingency plan
procedures, and (3) contingency plans have been coordinated
with the local airport authorities and FAA.
This provision also does not specify in any detail the efforts
that will be made to get passengers off the aircraft when
delayed for extended periods, either before departure or after
arrival. The provision uses general terms such as ``food,''
``every reasonable effort,'' ``for an extended period of
time,'' or ``emergency.'' These terms should be clearly defined
to provide the passenger with a clear understanding of what to
expect.
We have found examples where Airlines have invested in air stairs
for deplaning passengers when an aircraft is delayed on the
ground but does not have access to a terminal gate; secured
additional food and beverage supplies for service at the
departure gates or on-board flights experiencing extended
delays; or made arrangements with medical consulting services
to resolve medical emergencies that occur on-board an aircraft.
--Handle ``bumped'' passengers with fairness and consistency.--The
requirement that the Airlines establish and disclose to the
customer policies and procedures regarding denied boardings has
been in effect for over 17 years. One critical element of
disclosure is the Airlines' check-in time requirements that
passengers must meet in order to avoid being ``bumped.'' This
is important because the last passenger to check in is
generally the first to be denied a seat if a flight is
oversold.
We found several inconsistencies and ambiguities between the
check-in times identified in the Airlines' Plans, and those
identified on the Airlines' contracts of carriage, ticket
jackets, or other written instruments, such as the customer's
receipt and itinerary for electronic tickets. For example, in
its contract of carriage, one Airline requires passengers to
check in 10 minutes prior to the flight's scheduled departure,
but on the customer's receipt and itinerary for electronic
tickets, the check-in time states 20 minutes prior to the
flight's scheduled departure, making it unclear to passengers
which check-in time must be met in order to avoid losing their
seats and being ``bumped'' from the flight without
compensation.
--Be more responsive to customer complaints.--The provision requires
the Airlines to respond to complaints within 60 days; it does
not require resolution of the complaint within the 60-day
period, nor that when resolved, the disposition will be
satisfactory to the customer. Our testing of this provision
found the Airlines were responding to written complaints in
accordance with their internal policies, generally less than 60
days. In addition, the replies we reviewed were responsive to
the customer complaint and not merely an acknowledgement that
the complaint had been received.
Airline Performance Measurement Systems and Non-Airline-Employee
Training Are Needed
A key to the success of the Plans is the need for each Airline to
have a credible tracking system for compliance with its Plan,
buttressed by performance goals and measures. The Airlines also need to
train non-Airline employees on customer service issues contained in the
Plans, since these individuals are often mistaken for Airline
employees.
The Airlines need to have performance measurement systems in place
to ensure the success of the Commitment and Plans. Therefore, the
success of the Customer Service Plans is dependent upon each Airline
having a tracking system for compliance with each provision and the
implementing Plan. We found that most of the Airlines originally did
not have such a system in place, but we received assurances that the
needed systems would be established.
In our work between now and December, we intend to determine
whether the Airlines have followed through on their assurances and
these performance measurement systems are in place. The expectation,
for example, is that each Airline will have in place a tracking system
to ensure the lowest eligible fare is offered, that misrouted and
delayed baggage is returned within 24 hours, that refunds are paid
within the requisite timeframe, and that communication systems for
advising passengers of flight status are working properly, and
generating reliable and timely information. So far, however, our
testing has shown that most of the Airlines have come up short in
putting a tracking system in place to ensure that misrouted and delayed
baggage is returned to the passenger within 24 hours.
Another area the Airlines need to address to improve customer
service is the training of non-Airline employees who interact with
customers at the airport such as skycaps, security screeners or
wheelchair providers. The Airlines must ensure non-Airline employees
who interact with their passengers are adequately trained on the
Airlines' Plans, policies and procedures for customer service.
When these personnel perform customer service functions covered
directly by the Airlines' Commitment, the public cannot reasonably be
expected to differentiate between those who work for the Airlines and
those who do not. Therefore, it is critical to the success of the
Commitment and Plans for these personnel to be properly trained.
However, 5 of the 14 Airlines told us they did not intend to train non-
airline personnel on their Plans' procedures. This is unfortunate. For
example, it is critical that the Airlines ensure that non-Airline
personnel performing passenger security screening service on behalf of
the Airlines understand the Airlines' policies and procedures in their
Plans for accommodating persons with disabilities.
The Terms in the Airlines' Contracts of Carriage Can Be More
Restrictive Than the Terms in Their Plans
The Commitment and the Airlines' Plans, while conveying promises of
customer service standards, do not necessarily translate into legally
enforceable passenger rights. Rather, each air carrier has an
underlying contract of carriage which, under Federal regulations,
provides the terms and conditions of passenger rights and air carrier
liabilities. The contract of carriage is legally binding between the
air carrier and the passenger.
Because of their clear enforceability, the Airlines' contracts of
carriage have become an important issue in the customer service debate.
Our results indicate that, in general, the Airlines have not modified
their contracts of carriage to reflect all items in their Plans.
Although 1 Airline incorporated its Plan in its entirety into the
contract of carriage, 3 Airlines (as of April 20, 2000) have not
changed their contracts of carriage at all since they agreed to the
Commitment, and the remaining 10 Airlines have changed their contracts
of carriage to some extent. This means, for example, that the
provisions for returning misrouted baggage within 24 hours and holding
a reservation for 24 hours without payment are not in some contracts of
carriage.
At present, it remains uncertain whether an Airline's Plan is
binding and enforceable on the Airline. In fact, one Airline, in its
Plan, has stated that the Plan does not create contractual or legal
rights. To resolve this question, the Airlines could incorporate their
Plans in their contracts of carriage. However, based on our results
thus far, we are concerned that, without direction to the contrary,
this would leave open the possibility that the contracts of carriage
may be more restrictive to the consumer than envisioned in the
Commitment or the Plans.
In some cases, we found the modifications made to the contracts of
carriage included restrictions not found in the Commitment or the
Plans. For example:
--One Airline, in its Plan, states that it would accommodate
passengers required to stay overnight for delays and
cancellations caused by the Airline's operations. However, in
its contract of carriage the terms are more limited--the
Airline provides accommodations if the passenger is diverted to
another airport and put in an overnight status at the other
airport.
--One Airline, in modifying its contract of carriage to implement the
provision to hold a reservation without payment for 24 hours,
limited the benefit to passengers calling from the United
States for travel within the United States. However, the
Commitment does not make this distinction.
Customer service is likely to become more of a competitive market
force as air carriers strengthen and implement plans to provide better
service. Over time, where there is competition in the air markets
served, measures to improve customer service should serve as a catalyst
for other Airlines to introduce initiatives to improve their customer
service in order to remain competitive. However, inclusion of the
Plans' provisions in the Airlines' contracts of carriage will become
more important if an environment develops where there is less
competitive pressure to maintain or improve customer service.
Implications for DOT's Capacity to Oversee and Enforce Air Carrier
Customers' Rights
DOT is congressionally mandated to oversee and enforce air travel
consumer protection requirements, some of which are covered by the
Commitment, and the Airlines' Plans and contracts of carriage. These
include compensation rules for bumped passengers, rules governing the
accommodation of disabled air travelers, ticket refund provisions, and
baggage liability requirements. The Office of the Assistant General
Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, including its
Aviation Consumer Protection Division, carries out this mission. This
office is also responsible for enforcing other aviation economic
requirements, such as legal issues that arise regarding air carrier
fitness determinations and competition.
DOT, in preparing and justifying budget requests for this office,
and Congress, in reviewing those requests, should look closely at this
office's capacity to fulfill its mission and be responsive in a timely
way to consumer complaints. In 1985, this office had a staff of 40; in
1995, it was down to 20; and by 2000, it had a staff of 17 to oversee
and enforce aviation consumer protection rules as well as carry out its
other responsibilities.
In fact, staffing has declined during a period of air traffic
growth, complaints have increased from 7,665 in 1997 to 20,495 \8\ in
1999, additional requirements have been established (such as the Air
Carrier Access Act and the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act),
and recently, the Commitment emerged as an important element in
protecting passenger rights. An issue that office will face soon is
whether policies contained in the Commitment and the Airlines' Plans
are enforceable if they are not also contained in the Airlines'
contracts of carriage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Total aviation consumer complaints filed with DOT for the
entire industry (U.S. airlines, foreign airlines, tour operators,
etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe there is cause for concern whether the oversight and
enforcement expectations for the Office of Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings significantly exceed the office's capacity to handle the
workload in a responsive manner.
Although Actions Are Underway, Much Work Remains
Partly in response to the increase in delays and cancellations as
well as the number of complaints, FAA along with representatives of the
airline industry conducted an extensive evaluation in 1999 aimed at
improving its management of air traffic. As a result of the evaluation,
FAA and the industry identified 165 near-term action items to relieve
delays, including: (1) limiting locally initiated ground stops to 30
minutes; (2) providing estimates to air carriers of the time a ground
stop will end and the cause for this action; and (3) ensuring that
local facilities coordinate miles-in-trail restrictions \9\ through the
National Air Traffic Control System Command Center. According to FAA,
most of the action items have been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Miles-in-trail is an ATC tool that intentionally paces traffic
by increasing spacing between aircraft to keep volume at manageable
levels. This spacing between aircraft should not be confused with the
FAA safety separation standards requirement of 5 nautical miles
laterally or 2,000 feet in altitude, in sectors of high-altitude
traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA's evaluation also spurred a number of other initiatives. For
example, FAA is deploying several traffic management tools, including
the Flight Schedule Monitor, Collaborative Convective Forecast Product,
and Departure Spacing Program. FAA has also established a web site
(www.fly.faa.gov) that provides consumers real-time information on air
carrier delays at the Nation's 40 largest airports. The web site is
also linked to other information sources, such as the status of the
National Airspace System, which shows all the ground delays and stops
FAA has in place across the Nation at that time.
FAA also recognizes the need for a common system for tracking
delays, cancellations, and their causes. As a result, the agency has
been working with the major air carriers in developing the Aviation
System Performance Metric (ASPM). ASPM, which became operational in
April 2000, establishes a uniform set of metrics on which to measure
delays during each flight segment, i.e., gate departure, taxi-out, en
route, taxi-in, gate arrival, and overall flight time. ASPM also
provides FAA and the participating air carriers with next day reports
via the Internet on delays occurring at individual airports, on routes
and flights, and within the overall system. FAA officials noted that
ASPM will initially be used to help identify and track delays and
cancellations as well as measure ATC performance. They also noted their
intent to eventually include causal information in ASPM, which will be
critical in helping FAA and the air carriers identify areas for
improvement, such as changes in traffic management practices, funding
for equipment and airport enhancements, and airspace redesign.
Likewise, the need for good causal data was recently reinforced by
Congress in The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for
the 21st Century. This Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to
modify existing regulations governing air carrier data submissions to
DOT ``. . . to disclose more fully to the public the nature and source
of delays and cancellations experienced by air travelers.'' The Act
also requires the establishment of a task force (including officials of
FAA, air carriers, and consumer groups) to develop categories for
reporting causal information on flight delays and cancellations.
Notwithstanding these efforts, much work remains to be done if
delays and cancellations are to be addressed in a meaningful way. A
good starting point is the development of a uniform system through
which all components of DOT and the air carriers will be able to track
flight delays and cancellations as well as measure ATC performance. In
addition to this system, more comprehensive information is needed on
the various causes of flight delays and cancellations not just those
currently recorded by FAA or the air carriers. Finally, the Department
needs to reassess the information it provides consumers, especially in
the area of departure delays. The current emphasis on gate departure
and arrival delays does not reflect the full extent of delays, much of
which is occurring on the ground in the form of longer taxi-out times
or is being underreported due to expanded flight schedules.
The issues are complex and there are no easy or quick solutions.
The long-term solutions for enhancing capacity and improving customer
service involve a number of steps including getting better data for
decision makers to use in improving the use of our airspace, making
more efficient use of existing and new runways, and exploring
alternative airline scheduling practices.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS
STATEMENT OF EDWARD KRAGH, NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER, SECRETARY, NEWARK
LOCAL, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
ASSOCIATION
Senator Shelby. Mr. Edward Kragh.
Mr. Kragh. Good morning, Chairman Shelby, Senator
Lautenberg, members of the Committee. Thanks for the
opportunity to testify this morning.
My name is Ed Kragh. And I am a controller at Newark
Airport. I am also the Secretary of NATCA at Newark. And the
NATCA is the exclusive representative of over 15,000 air
traffic controllers serving the FAA, Department of Defense and
the private sector.
AIRLINE DELAYS
Airline delays, as we all know, are at an all-time high.
Passenger frustration is over the top.
And predictably when something goes wrong, the finger
pointing, as you mentioned, blame game begins. To that end, the
airlines have embarked on a well-financed campaign of
misinformation blaming air traffic control for their delays.
Everybody has said today, it is unproductive and unfair for
one segment of the aviation industry to place responsibility
entirely on another.
It is simply untrue to say that air traffic control is
primarily at fault for the hundreds of thousands of delays each
year.
Safety is the controller's sole function. This should not
be compromised to accommodate more passengers, more flights, or
more profits for the airlines.
We go to enormous lengths to personally ensure uneventful
passage for millions of flyers each year. Controllers do not
have an incentive to delay or hinder air traffic. Our
motivation is to move aircraft as safely and efficiently as
possible.
The longer a delayed aircraft is in our airspace, or for
myself at the tower, occupies concrete on the ground, the more
difficult our jobs become.
The sole function of controllers is to ensure the safety of
the flying public. And this should not be compromised to
accommodate more passengers, more flights or more profits.
We are talking about delays. And delays represent a multi-
faceted problem. They must be treated as a comprehensive,
ongoing circumstance that offers no single or easy solution.
For the obvious contributors to delays are heavy demands,
which we see in the summer time increases; and scheduling
decisions by airlines, which exceed airport capacity; bad
weather; implementation of new controller equipment; and an
antiquated system.
CROWDED SKIES
Let us talk about our crowded skies. Our domestic air
traffic control system is the largest, most complex and
demanding in the world. It is also the safest. And this is no
doubt due in large measure to the dedication and
professionalism of the controllers workforce.
Today, we are under extreme pressure to squeeze more planes
into an already congested airspace.
AIRPORT DELAYS
Newark Airport has had the dubious distinction, as Senator
Lautenberg mentioned, of suffering the most air traffic delays
of any airport--my figures show it was 6 of the last 7 years. I
believe you--you stated that it was 9 of the last 12 years--
nothing that we are particularly proud of.
Yet during the same period we speak of, Newark is only
ranked from the 15th to the 20th busiest facility in the
country. We will likely suffer more delays this year than
Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago O'Hare or Atlanta International,
each of which will handle almost double the amount of
operations at Newark.
This begs the question, why is Newark number one? And the
answer is simply airport capacity.
Any airport's capacity to handle air traffic is a function
of its size, the layout of the runways, the air traffic
patterns for arrivals and departures and the time frame in
which a surge of traffic or traffic peaks must be dealt with by
controllers, due to airline scheduling.
By comparison with other major airports, Newark is small.
Chicago O'Hare has over 62,000 feet of available runway;
Newark, only about 27,000 feet.
Chicago has about 900,000 operations annually; Newark
approximately 463,000. Newark is bound on all sides by major
highways, railroads and the Newark Bay, making further airport
expansion a daunting proposition.
A second reason we are speaking about delays is unrealistic
hub scheduling. The inefficient hub and spoke system used by
airlines to schedule flights is a major source of delays.
Flight departure and arrival scheduling is at the sole
discretion and control of the airlines, not Congress, not the
FAA, and certainly not air traffic controllers.
Airlines want to reduce operating costs and maximize
revenue, without regard for other airlines' schedules already
slated for prime times, terminal air space or airport capacity.
This past Sunday's the last shift that I worked before
coming down here at Newark Airport was a beautiful, sunny day.
And during the peak departure time of--between 6 and 7 p.m.,
there were about 25 departure delays.
Weather conditions, as I mentioned, were perfect. There
were no equipment problems. Yet the airline scheduling exceeded
the airport capacity and thus delays resulted.
As long as the airlines continue to overbook our runways,
especially during peak hours, air traffic delays will continue.
Passengers will wait.
Cramming extra flights into an already taxed system only
creates congestion in the terminal airspace, on the runways and
at the gates.
Even if controllers today had the most up-to-date
equipment, air traffic delays would not be eliminated.
Controllers would simply be able to keep better track of the
aircraft.
WEATHER
A third and truly primary cause of delays is weather. Now,
Ms. Garvey mentioned, some weather data from June, about 12
consecutive severe weather nights. I can tell you that I worked
10 of the 12 of those, and it was not an enjoyable situation.
Inclement weather has--and will continue to--play a
significant role in air traffic delays, accounting for
approximately 75 percent.
Planes fly on a complex set of invisible highways in the
sky, with intersections, speed limits, separation requirements,
and so on. When storms or inclement weather cause blockage or
closing of one or many of these unseen highways, air traffic
bottlenecks just like it does on the interstate at rush hour.
Controllers must then reroute this traffic. And it can take
hours to recover from a brief shutdown of one air route.
I might interject here something that Senator Reid
mentioned I thought was an interesting idea. He had an idea
about--and I am paraphrasing from his comments--but he
mentioned information kiosks for passengers to--to see weather
information that is current across the country.
Often, airline complaints or any complaint that anyone has
is often due to their misunderstanding of what is actually
going on. It is certainly--maybe the airlines could be more
forthcoming about that information, but if passengers could see
for themselves the weather that they are going to need to fly
through and around, that might help to keep complaints down
Speaking about Newark and its airport capacity, the
centerlines of our main parallel runways lie only 900 feet
apart. When weather is reduced below 1,000 feet of cloud
ceiling or less than 3 miles of visibility, we have to revert
to air traffic rules that dictate that these two runways be
treated as a single runway. And that reduces airport capacity
significantly.
Senator Shelby. How often is that?
Mr. Kragh. That specific instance is not as frequent as the
type of summer storm delays that we encounter--probably 2 or 3
times a month is what we are talking about for reduced weather
minimum.
Senator Shelby. And what is the average period of time that
you had to reduce two runways to one----
Mr. Kragh. I do not have those specific figures.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Kragh. But if a storm moves right over the airport or
fog or low cloud ceilings move in, however long the weather
takes to move out.
Senator Shelby. Yes. Okay.
Mr. Kragh. That is usually not longer than a day or perhaps
a shift, affecting possibly two or three departure pushes, as
we call them.
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES
One of the significant inhibitors to capacity at Newark is
the fact that both arrivals and departures use a single stream
flow into and out of the airport.
These patterns are necessary in the current airspace
designation, because of the proximity of Newark, LaGuardia,
Teterboro, and Kennedy Airports.
Almost all of the arrivals from wherever they are coming
from in the country, except for a handful of propeller
aircraft, funnel into one line at Newark for the main landing
runway.
During heavy arrival push, each arrival clears the runway
just as the next crosses the airport boundary. There is not a
lot of room for error in our job at Newark. And I am sure my
colleagues at other airports can attest to that.
All the departures at Newark, except again for a few props,
depart from one runway. And they fly the same heading, the same
pattern.
This prohibits us from using any of the reduced departure
separation procedures, which are available, for instance, when
two departures would take off on diverging endings.
This is due again to airspace constraints, with the
proximity of the other airports. But it is also done in the
interest of noise abatement, and as Senator Lautenberg can
attest to, noise abatement is a very----
Senator Lautenberg. Testy issue.
Mr. Kragh. And I am sure you receive just as many
complaints about that as you do about other airline issues.
MODERNIZATION
Finally, modernization, NATCA has strongly and has always
advocated modernization of the air traffic control system.
In fact, the union has been successful in making key points
and today works with the agency on projects previously stalled
or headed for failure.
Collaboration and teamwork have been instrumental in
ensuring the success of well-documented DSR, which is a center
radar, and STARS, a terminal radar, modernization projects.
It is no overstatement to say that NATCA has been
instrumental in turning the agency around. We may now be
assured the 21st century will see many viable, effective
advances that work with controllers and pilots, not against
them.
Yet, while new equipment is a necessary step for ensuring
safe, efficient travel in the future, it will not solve the
problem of airline-created delays.
DELAYS
In summary, without expanding domestic airspace and airport
capacity, delays will not only continue to increase, but they
will reach the point of gridlock in the foreseeable future.
Something must be done now to address the issue, because it
is only going to get worse. It is time to stop pointing
fingers, further dividing a splintered industry.
Teamwork and collaboration are needed to develop and
implement long-term solutions and procedural changes to
alleviate air traffic delays. And I think everybody agrees on
that point.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions you have.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward Kragh
Good morning Chairman Shelby, Senator Lautenberg, and members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
problems contributing to aviation delays. My name is Edward Kragh and I
am a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controller at
Newark International Airport in New Jersey. I am also Secretary of the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) local at Newark
tower, NATCA is the exclusive representative of over 15,000 air traffic
controllers serving the FAA, Department of Defense and private sector.
Airline delays, as we all know, are at an all time high. Passenger
frustration is over the top. And, predictably, when something goes
wrong, the finger pointing and the blame game begins. To that end, the
airlines have embarked on a well financed campaign of misinformation
blaming air traffic control for their delays. It is unproductive and
unfair for one segment of the aviation industry to place responsibility
entirely on another. It is simply untrue to say that air traffic
control is primarily at fault for the hundreds of thousands of delays
each year.
Safety is the controller's sole function and this should not be
compromised to accommodate more passengers, more flights, or more
profits for the airlines. We go to enormous lengths to personally
ensure uneventful passage for millions of flyers each year. Controllers
have no incentive to delay or hinder air traffic. Our motivation is to
move aircraft as efficiently, safely and quickly as possible. The
longer a delayed aircraft is in our airspace or occupies concrete on
the ground, the more difficult our jobs become. However, the sole
function of controllers is to ensure the safety of the flying public,
and this should not be compromised to accommodate more passengers, more
flights or more profits for the airlines.
Delays represent a multi-faceted problem. They must be treated as a
comprehensive, ongoing circumstance that offers no single or easy
solution. The obvious contributors to delays are heavy demand by
travelers, scheduling decisions by airlines, bad weather,
implementation of new air traffic controller equipment, an antiquated
system, plus policy and complex procedures.
As you see, many delay factors are OUTSIDE our control.
First, let's review our crowded skies.
Our domestic air traffic control system is the largest, most
complex and demanding in the world. It is also the safest. This is, no
doubt, due in large measure to the dedication and professionalism of
the controller workforce. Today, we are under extreme pressures to
squeeze more planes into an already congested airspace.
Newark has had the dubious distinction of suffering the most air
traffic delays of any airport in the United States for 6 of the last 7
years. Yet, during this same period Newark has only ranged from the
15th to 20th busiest facility in the country. This year we will handle
approximately 463,000 operations, yet we will most likely suffer more
delays than either Dallas/Ft. Worth, Chicago O'Hare, or Atlanta
International, each of which will handle almost double the amount of
operations. This begs the question ``Why Newark?'' The answer is simply
airport capacity.
An airport's capacity to handle air traffic is a function of its
size, the layout of its runways, the air traffic patterns, both
arriving and departing, and the time frame in which a surge of traffic
must be dealt with due to airline scheduling, By comparison with other
major airports, Newark is small. Chicago O'Hare has over 62,000 feet of
available runway, Newark only about 27,000 feet. Chicago has about
900,000 operations annually, Newark has approximately 463,000
operations. Newark is bound on all sides by major highways, railroads
and the Newark Bay, making further expansion of the whole airport a
daunting proposition.
A second reason for delays is UNREALISTIC HUB SCHEDULING.
The inefficient hub and spoke system used by airlines to schedule
flights is a major source of delays. Flight departure and arrival
scheduling is at the sole discretion and control of the individual
airline--NOT Congress, NOT the FAA, and NOT the traffic controllers.
To maximize profits, airlines intentionally overload the system.
You show me a major HUB airport, and I'll show you over-scheduling.
Airlines want to reduce operating costs and maximize revenue, without
regard for other airlines' schedules already slated for prime times,
terminal airspace or airport capacity.
It is like trying to cram 10 pounds of sand into a 5-pound bag. All
scheduled flights will not be able to depart or arrive on time.
Yesterday, at Newark airport, during peak time between 6 p.m. and 7
p.m., there were approximately 25 delayed departures. Weather
conditions were perfect and there were no equipment problems. Yet,
airline scheduling exceeded airport capacity and thus resulted in
delays,
As long as airlines continue to overbook runways, especially during
peak hours, air traffic delays will continue and passengers will wait.
Cramming extra flights into an already taxed system only creates
congestion in the terminal airspace, on the runways and at the gates.
Even if controllers TODAY had the most up-to-date equipment, air
traffic delays would not be eliminated. Controllers would simply be
able to keep better track of the planes.
A third and truly primary cause of delays is WEATHER.
Inclement weather has, and will continue, to play a significant
role in air traffic delays--accounting for approximately 75 percent.
Unfortunately, nobody but Mother Nature has any control here.
Planes fly on a complex set of invisible ``highways in the sky''
with intersections, speed limits, separation requirements, and so on.
When storms or inclement weather causes blockage or closing of one or
many of these unseen highways, air traffic bottlenecks just like it
does on the interstate at rush hour. Controllers must then reroute this
traffic. It can take hours to recover from a brief shut down of one air
route.
At Newark, the centerlines of the main parallel runways lie only
900 feet apart. When weather is reduced below 1000 feet of cloud
ceiling or less than three miles of visibility, air traffic rules
dictate that runways this close together must be treated as a single
runway. Thus, airport capacity is severely reduced.
Separation Procedures Affect Delays.
One of the significant inhibitors to capacity at Newark is the fact
that both arrivals and departures use a single stream flow into and out
of the airport. These patterns are necessary in the current airspace
designation because of the proximity of Newark, Teterboro, LaGuardia,
and Kennedy airports. Almost all arrivals, except for a handful of
props, funnel into one line for the main landing runway. During a heavy
arrival push, each arrival clears the runway just as the next crosses
the airport boundary. All departures, except again for a few props,
depart from one runway, flying the same heading. This prohibits us from
using any of the reduced departure separation which is available when
two departures will fly diverging courses. This is due again to
airspace constraints, but it is done also in the interest of noise
abatement for the communities bordering the field.
Finally, MODERNIZATION--A thinly veiled attempt by airlines to
promote privatization of the FAA.
NATCA has STRONGLY advocated modernization of the a traffic control
system. In fact, the union has been successful in making key points
and, today, works with the agency on projects previously stalled or
headed for failure. Collaboration and teamwork have been instrumental
in ensuring the success of well-documented DSR and STARS modernization
projects. It is no over-statement to say NATCA has been instrumental in
turning the agency around. We may now be assured the 21st century will
see many viable, effective advances that work with controllers and
pilots--not against them. Yet, while new equipment is a necessary step
for ensuring safe, efficient travel in the future, it will not solve
the problem of airline-created delays.
In summary, without expanding domestic airspace and airport
capacity, delays will not only continue to increase but they will reach
the point of gridlock in the foreseeable future. Something must be done
now to address the issue because it is only going to get worse. It is
time to stop pointing fingers, further dividing a splintered industry.
Teamwork and collaboration are needed to develop and implement
long-term solutions and procedural changes to alleviate air traffic
delays. On that point, I believe we all agree. Perhaps we can use it as
the starting point for a longer, more fruitful examination, and
ultimately to solutions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to your
questions.
GROWTH IN CAPACITY
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, I note that total FAA aircraft
operations, the work load of the air traffic control system,
have grown only 8 percent in the past 5 years, yet
cancellations are up over 60 percent; taxi times of over an
hour and up, 130 percent; and delays are up over 50 percent.
Those numbers seem to indicate that something is out of sync
between the air traffic workload and the delay in cancellation
problems we have been talking about here.
Is it unreasonable, Mr. Mead, to expect that we should be
able to increase the capacity in the air traffic control system
by 8 percent over a 5-year period? Is it unreasonable?
Mr. Mead. No, sir. If that was spread evenly throughout the
ATC system, I think would be a----
Senator Shelby. But that is your caveat right there, is it
not?
Mr. Mead. That is exactly right.
Senator Shelby. If it is spread evenly?
Mr. Mead. That is exactly right. That----
Senator Shelby. It is not going to be spread evenly, so
explain.
8.3 PERCENT GROWTH
Mr. Mead. Yes, I think there are two factors at play here.
One is this 8.3 percent growth, which just to translate it into
numbers, from--about 122 million operations in 1990, about 125
million in 1999.
Now, in 1995, there were about 115 million, which meant it
dropped. It actually dropped from between 1990 and 1995.
Now, the 8.3 percent over that 5-year period is not spread
evenly over the system. Some places it is much, much higher.
And I think one factor here is the scheduling.
And one of the points I was trying to make in the testimony
is that that is why we have to sort through exactly what the
causes are because going down the slope of trying to deal with
scheduling and make scheduling adjustments, at least from a
Federal Government point of view, is a very tough order.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT
I believe a second factor is air traffic control equipment,
sir. Air traffic control equipment, there is a lot of new
equipment in the system, but it is not the new equipment that
was promised, like the advanced automation system from some
years ago, the wide-area augmentation system for satellites,
the backroom software for the STARS acquisition. And you could
go on.
But there is a lot of new equipment in the system, but it
is not exactly equipment that is going to enhance capacity.
DELAY DATA
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, is there any value to the
consumer in the current delay reporting system that we have? We
are all consumers. We all travel. But is there really any value
to the consumer in the current delay reporting system we have
been talking about. I do not see any.
Mr. Mead. No. I think the arrival numbers are quite
meaningful, but I do not believe the departure statistics are
or the FAA system is. I think all these systems need to be
married together and we have to come up with a common
agreement. It is not only confusing to the consumer. It is
somewhat misleading to the consumer.
Senator Shelby. Somewhat misleading----
Mr. Mead. It is not just----
Senator Shelby. It is clearly misleading, is it not? I
mean, we have been talking about how they report statistics up
here earlier.
They do not count different things. I do not know who wrote
the rules, but we have got to go back to the truth. Basically,
the consumer needs the truth. We need to know the truth about
what the airlines are doing, how they report, how they game the
system or do not game the system.
And I think the FAA and you, as the Inspector General,
working with us can really make a difference there.
Ms. Garvey, do you want to comment on that?
Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, I would agree and in fact, I
agree very much with the Inspector General's statement that
really the information that we have right now is not helpful
for consumers.
Senator Shelby. It is really not truthful information, is
it?
Ms. Garvey. Well, it is certainly misleading.
Senator Shelby. If it is misleading, it is not the truth.
Ms. Garvey. I do want to speak to one effort that we began
last winter and this is in cooperation with the airlines. And
to their credit, they have come forward and said, ``Look, we
have got to really understand the delay issue better than we do
now.''
We have been, since last winter, collecting data at the top
20 airports that is going to serve as our baseline. The
Inspector General has been very helpful in that effort as well.
So we really will have at the end of this summer, I think, the
beginnings of a baseline. We then need to develop a methodology
so we can track the causes of those delays, which will be more
challenging.
But you are absolutely right. We have got to get a better
handle on what really are the causes and what are the
definitions.
TELLING THE CONSUMER THE TRUTH
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, you are the Administrator for
the Federal Aviation Administration. You are right in the mix
of this, because of your job. How difficult will it be for the
FAA and the air carriers to agree, if you can, to a common set
of delay causing categories?
In other words, tell the American people the truth, the
consumer the truth. I think that if we started out with the
truth, then we will know what to build on, would we not?
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. How difficult is it going to be to get to
the truth?
Ms. Garvey. In all honesty, I think that is going to be a
challenge.
Senator Shelby. Why? You are the Administrator of FAA. Tell
us how we can help you get to the truth.
Ms. Garvey. Well, actually I think you have been very
helpful.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Ms. Garvey. And I will tell you that I do think the efforts
that have been underway just in collecting the baseline
information at the top 20 airports, that is the first step. And
I think we are all in sync with that. I will tell you I think
there is so much at stake. I think everyone recognizes that. So
while I do not want to underestimate the challenge, I think it
is absolutely a solvable challenge. And one we can meet. But we
are going to have to do it together.
REPORTING FLIGHT CANCELLATIONS AND DELAYS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, the I.G. interim report indicates
that flight cancellations and delays are the primary source of
passenger dissatisfaction. The number of flight cancellations
and delays has risen over the last 5 years. And the number of
on-board--on-board flight delays of one hour or longer
increased 130 percent at the 28 largest airports in the United
States.
Mr. Mead, what is causing the increases in extended delays
here? How can you get your hand on this? How can we help you?
Mr. Mead. I would like to first answer this and I imagine
my colleague from Newark here has some observations on that
too.
One reason this is occurring is because we have a lot of
flights scheduled to leave at peak hours. There is an incentive
to push away from the gate, because that way you show up as
leaving on time--and get into the queue.
Senator Shelby. But that is misleading to the people.
Mr. Mead Yes, it is. So you have these long lines of
planes.
And once you get in that line, you do not want to get out
of it, because you lose your place in the queue.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Mead. So there you are sitting in this aluminum tube
for a couple of hours.
And I do not want to discount the influence of weather, but
I do think it is a very important phenomena to point to what is
happening at peak hours in terms of scheduling----
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Mead [continuing]. And also the incentives to get that
plane out into the ramp area.
And I wanted to mention just one other example. I mentioned
the BTS example about leaving----
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Mr. Mead [continuing]. Pushing back from the gate within 15
minutes, but consider another scenario. You do not push back
from the gate within 15 minutes. In other words, you sit there
in the terminal for 2 hours because the airline decides not to
leave.
Then after a 2-hour delay, your plane backs away from the--
--
Senator Shelby. The airline decides not to leave, now----
Mr. Mead. Right. The airline decides not to leave.
Senator Shelby. Why? Waiting on another flight maybe?
Mr. Mead. They may wait on another flight. There could be
any one of a number of reasons. But finally the plane backs
away from the gate. So it will show up as a late departure,
because it left more than 15 minutes after its scheduled
departure. Now, assume further that the flight transits to the
wheels up point on the runway within a normal time and then
takes off. That flight will be recorded as on-time by FAA, even
though there has been a 2-hour delay, and from the consumer's
point of view, they are still 2 hours late.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg.
SYSTEM CAPACITY--NEWARK
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
As I listen to this very well-done testimony, I have got to
ask the question. Is there a point at which we cannot increase
the capacity of the system to go beyond a particular volume of
traffic, or is it unlimited? Can we fill the skies with more
airplanes?
I often ride in the second seat in a smaller airplane. And
I want to tell you we have TCAS in the airplane, a system that
is even broader. I hear traffic, traffic, traffic constantly.
And I travel in a fairly congested area.
But is there a point in time and capacity that we can no
longer satisfy the need? When you hear about planes leaving--I
came down here for the Million Mom March the Saturday night
before that Sunday. I got on a shuttle out of New York. And it
was a 6:00 o'clock flight. We arrived here almost midnight.
We--the flight--we flew two-thirds of the way down and then
could not land. Weather came in, turned around and went back.
After sitting in--on the runway for 2 hours, then on the second
flight, another hour delay--6--almost 6 hours.
So do any of you want to volunteer an opinion on that?
Mr. Kragh. Yes, sir. To speak of Newark as a microcosm of
the system as far as airports go, I spoke earlier about the
expansion of the Newark Airport being an almost impossible task
at this point. You would have to move major highways and major
infrastructure. There is definitely a terminal capacity, so to
speak, a place where you cannot go beyond. Because each airport
would have--the surrounding communities would have to be dealt
with. I mean, there is a fine balance between how much traffic
we are going to fit in a certain departure pattern, or as I
said we could fan the departures out and get a lot more planes
out, but the surrounding communities would not stand for that.
Now, we talk about a system at Newark where we are
shoveling 10 pounds of sand into a 5-pound bag. That is the
first hour. For the next 4 hours, we are only putting 2 pounds
of sand in the 5-pound bags. We have got airline scheduling
that is surrounding the peak hours, 7 a.m., 8 a.m., and for the
rest of the morning shift, we have 20, 30 departures an hour,
which can be dealt with very easily.
How--of course, the airlines have to serve their customer
and supposedly the customer wants to depart at those times, but
does everybody want to be in a long line? I mean, it is the
same thing with rush hour traffic in the morning. Mr. Mead
suggested to me that there is a finite end to this. There is a
point you come to where you cannot fit anymore planes into that
type of a system. We need to spread the schedule out into the
hours where there are no planes departing.
DEPARTING TIMES
Senator Lautenberg. Well, it talks about a lot of creative
thinking that can be done. I do not think that airplanes ought
to be able to leave the gate and it is just like the
supermarket. When you call into the tower or the flight service
unit, you get a number and that number says you will be called
upon when there is 20 minutes or less--if that is the
appropriate time--before you take off.
Meanwhile, the passengers can be treated like human beings,
instead of stuck in there with no capacity to make phone calls,
et cetera. And if I had not written a law that passed here in
1987, smoking--you know--can you imagine what it would be like
now, sitting there for 2 hours? The pilot says, ``Well, we are
going to turn the smoking lamp on,'' right when----
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. And watching everybody gag
and smoke and--so there is that fundamental question, what--why
cannot we improve it? I think the insulting behavior--and,
again, I think the airlines are great, but they are now at a
point where having made over $10 billion pre-tax last year,
they are motivated by profits and it is a business and so it
should be.
But the customer does not always come first. The profits
come first. The shareholders--the stock price comes first. And
you cannot operate a commodity like airlines in that way.
And, frankly, I think you have made the case. The Chairman
must be weary of hearing it from me, but----
Senator Shelby. No. No. No.
Mr. Kragh. Senator, the case is----
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Mr. Kragh There is such a time when the sort of a take a
number system that you spoke of occurs and that is during
winter operations. If Newark Airport or any airport had snow on
the runways, everybody understands that the capacity of the
airport is severely reduced. And at that time, the airports
capitulate with air traffic and they say we are going to go
into a slot-type of a system.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Mr. Kragh. So during times like that, the airlines seem to
understand there is a finite capacity.
USE OF HIGH SPEED RAIL SERVICE
Senator Lautenberg. It could--it could be done. The problem
is it would not enable or permit the airlines to flood the
terminal and flood the concrete.
I mean, maybe they ought to have the people get on line out
in the concrete and get on the airplane when it is time to go.
As bizarre as these systems sound, the situation presently is
more bizarre.
But it does say one thing, my friends. Everybody has to
realize--and I am not--I did not grow up from a railroad
family, but I am being railroaded here by our inability to face
up to one way to solve part of the problem, and that is to take
the inefficient legs that are 200 miles or 300 miles and say,
wherever we can, have high-speed rail service at a considerably
lower cost than just the $3 billion lost from--from delays and
that says okay, you get on in New York and you are in
Washington in less than 2 hours.
Believe me, there would be--terrible news a Concorde just
crashed into a hotel in Paris. Sorry to make that announcement.
Do you know anything? That is awful.
But getting back to the railroad system, we have a proposal
to put $10 billion into railroads that could greatly relieve
the aviation system. And while some of the airlines might not
like the reduced revenue opportunity, they could do better more
efficiently, I predict, make more money--bringing it down to
the bottom line--by servicing the system in a way that has the
customers happy about it.
I love to fly. I fly a lot, as I said, in a second seat. I
fly in big airplanes, little airplanes. And it--I marvel at
man's capacity to have created this instrument, but we--we need
help. And the only way to get real help, I think, is to try to
relieve some of the capacity requirements that we have.
CONCORDE ACCIDENT
Is there any other news on that Concorde?
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, do you know anything?
Ms. Garvey. Just pretty much what you said, Senator, that
an Air France Concorde crashed in Paris at 11 a.m. this
morning. No further news at this point.
Senator Shelby. 11 a.m. our time?
Ms. Garvey. I believe it is our time.
Senator Shelby. Our time.
Ms. Garvey. 11:09, our time, I believe.
Senator Shelby. Senator Campbell.
CAUSE AND IMPACT OF DELAYS
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is tragic
news. I am sure we will be hearing more of it, if people have
lost their lives in that crash.
Let me talk a little bit about the delays too. I know that
the most common are weather and mechanical, but certainly some
that United Airlines is going through now apparently is from
not training enough pilots to replace the ones that are
retiring, as I understand it.
And certainly, the limited capacity that Mr. Kragh spoke
about, too many aircraft and one runway, I understand that.
I come from a pretty tough country to fly in, the Rocky
Mountains, as you know it, we get 100 mile-an-hour winds. My
gosh, we get tornadoes and snow. We get ice that will build up
an inch a minute, and certainly some high winds too.
There is a saying among pilots--I am sure you have heard
this--that sometimes even the birds will not fly. And I have to
tell you that when weather is that bad, I have no problem with
cancellations. I want to stay alive and if the birds will not
fly, I do not want to either.
But most of the time, the complaints we get are that the--
what the airlines tells people why they are cancelled is not
always the truth. They are sometimes told that they are
cancelling because of weather. And as I understand it, they
have to reimburse if--or they have to make some compensation,
buy them a meal or a room if they have to stay overnight,
something of that nature if it is weather. But not if it is
mechanical--or no, it is the other way around.
If it is mechanical, they have to reimburse them. If it is
weather, they are not. Is that correct?
Mr. Mead, yes.
Mr. Mead. Sir, yes, this is a gray area. As a matter of
fact, one of the commitments--the one to notify customers of
known delays--cancellations, and diversions--that has a sub
element that you disclose to people what your policies will be
relative to accommodating them, if they get delayed.
And the contract of carriage, which is the legal document
that governs your flight and what happens if you get delayed,
that usually says that they will only put you up overnight if,
in fact, you are diverted to another airport.
The plans that the airlines have implemented pursuant to
this voluntary commitment go further, and they say we will
accommodate you overnight if the delay is occasioned by our own
operation.
But we do not know what ``our own operations'' means. It is
not defined. And it is something that the airlines can define
themselves.
But one of the points we make in our report is we would
like to see greater clarity brought to that, and we would like
to see the contracts of carriage expanded to provide
accommodations overnight.
PASSENGER RIGHTS BILLS
Senator Campbell. Well, one of the complaints we get, of
course, is people say that they were told they--the airline--
the aircraft was cancelled because of weather, and they were
sure it was not, so that the carrier did not have to put them
up for the night. I am sure you have heard that kind of
complaint too.
Let me ask Ms. Garvey, there--there is a bill in now, I
understand, on the House side that basically says if the plane
is on the runway for over an hour and half, it has to return to
the gate. Have you seen that bill or----
Ms. Garvey. I have not seen that bill specifically. I know
there are a number of passenger rights bills that have been
introduced, and I know that Mr. Mead has suggested and we would
agree that the airlines have until December to implement the
voluntary program. We think letting that run its course,
letting the Inspector General do its report would be useful.
But we certainly know there is great interest in these
issues.
Senator Campbell. Yes. Well, and certainly sitting out
there 9 hours like one plane did, we saw that in the news, a
number of lawsuits followed that, as you know.
Ms. Garvey. Yes. Yes.
COSTS OF DELAYS
Senator Campbell. There is also the cost of lost income to
people. I have a letter here--in fact, Mr. Chairman. It is from
Pacific Coast Beauty Products, into the record. This is an
example of a man who spends $50,000 a year on airline tickets
for his business, but has lost a considerable amount more than
that because of the delayes--they delayed flights, and he was
unable to get to a certain place to sign a timely contract,
things of that nature.
And do we have any statistics on the accumulated loss in
terms of millions or billions from the delays in the last year?
Ms. Garvey. We do not have that kind of information at the
FAA, but----
Senator Campbell. Mr. Mead, do you have any information
like that?
Mr. Mead. Yes, I do.
Senator Campbell. Tell the Committee about it.
Mr. Mead. Here is just some ballparks. It is an estimate of
what it costs the air carriers first, $3.3 billion in 1999.
When----
Senator Campbell. This is the air carriers?
Mr. Mead. That is the air carriers. And when you put in the
passengers, you add--add another $4 billion.
Senator Campbell. In----
Mr. Mead. In 1999.
Senator Campbell. Roughly $7 billion then you are saying?
Mr. Mead. Yes. We estimate that the delays cost the 10
major carriers about $3.3 billion in 1999, and I would say
about another $4 billion for the consumers.
Senator Campbell. Those consumers that lose that money, of
course, have no recourse either, as I understand it, is that
correct?
Ms. Garvey. That is correct.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
further questions.
Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.
UNITED AND U.S. AIRWAYS MERGER
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The
issue of airlines' delay is obviously a very important one for
many reasons.
There is a proposed merger acquisition, as everyone knows,
with United and U.S. Airways. In a fairly exhaustive study
revealed Sunday, July 16, 2000, the New York Times laid
findings about delays in on-time arrivals, and among the 10
major airlines listed, the line with the most delays, fewest
on-time arrivals was United.
And on a category of the most delayed regularly scheduled
flights, of the four selected, D.C. to Seattle; Phoenix to Ft.
Lauderdale; Denver to St. Louis; Chicago to Seattle. United had
four of the most delayed flights.
The question that I have posed to United officials,
including their CEO in our hearings is why should there be a
merger when the number one airline is going to take on the
number six airline, when United's house is not in order.
In addition to the matter of delays, which is the subject
of this hearing, the New York Times survey also found that
United lost the most baggage because their computers did not
communicate with each other.
I would be interested in your views, Ms. Garvey. You are
not the antitrust division, but I would be interested in your
views from your position as to whether you think it is
advisable to have a merger of United and U.S. Airways when
United's house is so badly out of order at the present time.
Ms. Garvey. Senator, you are right. I mean, certainly the
Justice Department and the Department of Transportation are
very focused on that and are asking exactly the same questions
that you have asked and are focused very much on what are the
impacts to the consumer. And ultimately, that has to be the
driving factor, are these benefits positive for the consumer?
Senator Specter. Well, the----
Ms. Garvey. From our perspective, from the FAA's
perspective, what we focus on is the whole issue of safety. Are
the elements of safety in place? Do they have the right kind of
training? Do they have the right kind of maintenance systems
and so forth? From our perspective, United and U.S. Airways
certainly in the areas of safety, they have been very focused
on that. They have some excellent people and I think have some
very good standards.
But I think certainly the consumer issues that you are
raising are exactly the same question that the Department of
Transportation and the Justice Department are focused on. You
have the right questions.
Senator Specter. Well, the Department of Justice is going
to look at lessening of competition, which is----
Ms. Garvey. Yes.
Senator Specter [continuing]. A different subject than on-
time arrivals or consumer--customer complaints, et cetera.
Ms. Garvey. Well, that is true--that is true.
Senator Specter. To what extent will the Department of
Transportation be involved in the ultimate decision by the
Federal Government as to whether or not to oppose the merger?
Ms. Garvey. I think the Department of Transportation,
particularly the Secretary, will play a very key role. Although
I am not part of those discussions--I do understand that both
the Secretary's lawyers and his key staff people are in very
close communication with Justice. Justice, as you said, is
focused on the competition piece, which is important to the
consumer. And we are bringing or the Department of
Transportation is bringing their expertise around some of the
consumer issues, as well. I think the Secretary will play a
very key role in those discussions.
FACTORS IMPACTING AIRLINE MERGERS
Senator Specter. So you are saying that the consumer issues
like on-time arrivals will be a factor in the Federal
Government's decision as to whether or not to oppose the
merger?
Ms. Garvey. Well, I certainly do not like to speak for the
Secretary, but I would absolutely believe that all of those
issues will be folded into this discussion and very much
focused on. I think ultimately----
Senator Specter. On-time--on-time arrivals, baggage,
computers----
Ms. Garvey. Just generally----
Mr. Mead. I think you----
Senator Specter. Let me finish the question. The computers
communicating, the whole picture as part of the government's
position on the merger, yes or no, Mr. Mead?
Mr. Mead. I think you have raised an interesting question
and frankly I think the answer will be that those factors have
not been considered in the past, and that this is a kind of--
rather a de novo matter.
Normally, in a merger, the issue you consider are more or
less economic and competitive. Will this route be served? Will
fares be oligopsonistic or monopolistic? Those types of
considerations.
I think you raise a very good question. This issue came up
in the railroad mergers as a result of the declining service
that went beyond just what their rates were.
And I do not feel comfortable telling you that the
Department will be considering these factors in their merger
considerations, sir.
Senator Specter. You say you do or you do not feel----
Mr. Mead. I do not feel comfortable telling you that the
Department will be considering these factors.
Senator Specter. Well----
Mr. Mead. Do I think they should, is another question.
Senator Specter. Do you think they might? Do you think they
should--de novo, maybe break a little ground here?
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir, I do. Yes, sir, I do. I believe that
the circumstances of the last 4 or 5 years have been
instructive, that there are factors that are important here
that go way beyond just how much you are going to pay for a
ticket and whether there is going to be service from point A to
destination B.
Senator Specter. And certainly a factor in what you pay, if
part of what you pay is lost time--or part of what you pay is
lost time from your baggage non-arrival, or part of what you
pay is all of the attendant inconveniences, which are a dollar
and cents matter for loss of time and to do other things. If a
professional is traveling, part of the pay is for the ticket.
Another part of the pay is for his time lost if Senator
Lautenberg loses 5 hours on a trip at the minimum rate, $5.15
an hour, that is over $25 lost.
If you are a high-priced lawyer, those 5 hours would be
$1,000 an hour, $5,000. So Senators do not figure too highly on
that scale, but that certainly is part of the pay factor.
STARS AT PHILADELPHIA AIRPORT
Ms. Garvey, on the subject of delays and the STARS system
coming into Philadelphia--something you and I have talked about
on a number of occasions--I have become very concerned about
air traffic controllers and have gone into that dark room. And
I am sure Senator Shelby has, too.
And you see those dots on the sky. And you think of
yourself in one of those planes, which is a dot on the sky. And
then suddenly it all turns black, and there is a loss of
communication.
And I appreciate the fact that you sent people to
Philadelphia very promptly, but that whole system is antiquated
at best, and I would be interested to know if we are going to
meet that schedule of September 2002 or might possibly move it
up to August 31?
Ms. Garvey. Well, August 31 would be wonderful. Senator,
let me--let me just----
Senator Specter. Do you think you can do that?
Ms. Garvey. We will certainly try. Let me----
Senator Specter. How about August 30th? Senator--Senator
Shelby taught me how to negotiate.
Senator Shelby. No. No.
Ms. Garvey. Right. That is very good negotiating.
Senator Specter. He is a good lawyer. [Laughter.]
Ms. Garvey. I do want to go back to something that that Ed
mentioned a little bit earlier and that is the terrific role
that the controllers have played with STARS. I think we have
really turned that program around. Your help, both in working
with the individual controllers in--in Philadelphia has been
extraordinarily helpful. But we are on the right track with
STARS. We have got the early displays in two of our facilities
and working out a lot of the kinks there. And that is going
very well. We have been able to put the full STARS into the--
into England for the Defense Department and that, too, we are
learning a great deal from and is going well.
So I am still confident that we are going to meet that
schedule and we are working very hard with the controllers on
it.
Senator Specter. Well, I am glad to hear that. And I
compliment you on your responsiveness in the past. Thank you
very much.
MERGER IMPACT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Specter.
Mr. Mead, just to follow up on--on an area that Senator
Specter was getting into. Do you have any thoughts right now
about the--how the pending proposed mergers would affect
customer service? It has got to in time.
Mr. Mead. Well, I guess the best response to your question,
sir, is to point to what the statistics show.
Currently, if the two airlines merge, the merged entity
would be rated last in the category of mishandled bags,
involuntary denied boarding and customer complaints. And that
is based on May 2000 data.
AIR TRAFFIC SLOWDOWN IN CHICAGO
Senator Shelby. Ms. Garvey, I am going to refer to a July
21 Chicago Tribune article, reporting that--and I will quote--
``The FFA, Thursday, July the 20th, broadened its investigation
of an air traffic slowdown near O'Hare International Airport
earlier this week and promised to severely punish agency
employees suspected of intentionally forcing hundreds of
airlines--airline flights nationwide to be delayed or
cancelled.''
I am still quoting from the article, ``FAA officials say
they are trying to determine whether the slowdown was the
result of a job action on the part of a disgruntled--of
disgruntled controllers, or caused by unusual weather
phenomena.
``Delays at O'Hare ran up to three hours and whether--and
neither FAA nor airport officials could attribute the problem
to bad weather.''
I understand this is something that you have asked the
Inspector General to look into, Ms. Garvey, is that right? Can
you shed any light on this?
Ms. Garvey. Well, let me first of all say that what
happened at Chicago really made me heartsick.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Ms. Garvey. I mean that just should not occur. And there
are two groups of people I care a lot about in that incident.
One, obviously, are the travelers, and they were
inconvenienced if the facts bear out to be true.
Senator Shelby. Yes. One of the busiest airports in the
country.
Ms. Garvey. Absolutely. But the second group of people is--
you know, we have got air traffic controllers that are the best
in the world.
Senator Shelby. I know.
Ms. Garvey. I was really encouraged to----
Senator Shelby. Well, we have been impressed with Mr.
Kragh, with----
Ms. Garvey. Right, very much so. And so I think anything
that reflects on what is a whole organization in a negative way
is obviously something of great concern, and----
Senator Shelby. You got to get rid of those kind; they will
ruin the whole group.
Ms. Garvey. Because it is a great group. I will tell you
that I called on Mr. Mead, and he was immediately responsive,
asked if he would join with us in the investigation and add his
good expertise and the force of his office to the
investigation. We have a terrific team out there. They are
doing the investigation. We want to get to the facts. I want to
be fair to everybody involved. I certainly do not want to jump
to conclusions without the facts.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Ms. Garvey. We are getting an additional briefing on
Wednesday of this week to know sort of exactly where we are.
And we will certainly take the appropriate action, but----
Senator Shelby. You keep the Committee informed.
Ms. Garvey. We will absolutely keep the Committee informed.
In fact, we will be calling folks on Thursday, just to let you
know where we are, so----
Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, there is something important that
Administrator Garvey said that I do not think should be lost in
the record.
And that is that in this instance, a Committee of Congress,
or the Office of Inspector General on its initiative, or some
external complaint, is not what inspired our involvement in
supporting the FAA in this review or investigation.
It was the Administrator and her senior people that
initiated the request. And we are joining with----
Senator Shelby. That is good.
Mr. Mead [continuing]. Some of her senior people. And I
think that ties back into a point you made when you opened up
the hearing about the Inspector General should not always have
to initiate these things.
And this is, I think, a good example of where we did not.
Senator Shelby. Where the Administrator and her office
initiated this?
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir. I think that is a real credit to her.
Senator Shelby. You are to be commended for that, Ms.
Garvey.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. You are hands-on. And this is an example of
where you have to be hands-on. And we will look forward to see
what happens on this.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. We have a number of questions for the
record by me and some other members that had other hearings
this morning. And we look forward to your responses on that.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, July 25, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Domenici, Specter, Gorton,
Lautenberg, Byrd, Mikulski, and Kohl.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE FIRESTONE ATX AND WILDERNESS AT TIRE RECALL
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The hearing will come to order.
Why are we here this morning? If we are here this morning
to hear Ford say this is only a tire issue, then this is a
waste of a lot of people's time. If we are here this morning to
hear NHTSA say that they did their job under the controlling
statutes, then this Senator is going to be disappointed in the
job that they are doing. And if we are here this morning to
hear Firestone tell us that there is not something wrong with
these tires, then we step through the looking glass.
I will tell you why we are here this morning. We are here
this morning because in July 1998 a State Farm Insurance
Company analyst notified NHTSA'S Office of Defects
Investigation of a growing number of incidents of Firestone
tire failure when mounted on 1991 through 1995 Ford Explorers,
and nothing was done.
We are here this morning because in 1998 a Saudi Arabian
Ford-affiliated dealer wrote to Ford indicating that they had
notified Ford of problems with the Wilderness AT tires, and no
one notified NHTSA.
We are here this morning because in March 1999 a Ford
internal memorandum stated, and I quote, ``Firestone Legal has
some major reservations about the plan to notify customers in
the Middle East'', end quote, and expressed the concern that
the U.S. Department of Transportation would have to be notified
because the same tires were sold in the United States, yet no
one told NHTSA.
We are here because Firestone and Ford watched as the
number of warranty claims escalated beginning in 1995. Again no
one raised a red flag.
And we are here because NHTSA received a growing number of
consumer complaints of tread separation on these Firestone
tires starting in 1998, yet NHTSA failed to initiate an
investigation.
We are also here because finally--yes, finally, the news
media broke the story in Texas in February 2000. NHTSA consumer
complaints shot through the roof and the problem could no
longer be contained, or perhaps concealed.
We are here because you can hardly read a newspaper or turn
on the television without another shoe dropping on this story,
and we are here because the process of identifying this
substantial safety issue did not work quickly enough, even
though, I submit, it should have.
We are here because Ford and Firestone had at a minimum a
moral obligation to make sure that the products they sell to
the American public and other people in other countries are
safe, and yet they both failed to bring this issue to the
consumers' and the Federal Government's attention, at the cost
of dozens of lives, I am afraid, and we are here to get some
answers today.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I trust our witnesses will help us understand how things
could have gone so long without action, and how Government,
industry, and consumers can make sure that this never happens
again. I ask unanimous consent that my written statement be
made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby
This hearing is called to order. It's hard to spend more than a few
minutes talking with my constituents, watching the television, or
reading a paper without Firestone tires being mentioned. I hope the
witnesses testifying before the Committee this morning will shed some
light on how this could have happened and why it took so long for the
problem to be identified. I believe that American consumers have a
reasonable expectation that if tires are failing, the manufactures, the
automobile companies, and the Federal Government will take every step
to protect them from becoming another highway traffic fatality.
I would like to know how it could take us 10 years, dozens of
lives, numerous lawsuits, substantial consumer complaints, tire
replacements overseas, and repeated expressions of concern by an
insurance company before any action was taken to initiate an
investigation into the safety of a product being used by millions of
American families. Simply put--the American people deserve better.
I would be disappointed if NHTSA claims that this issue was
identified promptly. I would be disappointed if Firestone/Bridgestone
representatives claim that there is not a problem with Firestone ATX,
ATX II, or Wilderness AT tires after thousands of their products lie in
tatters on our nation's highways. I would be disappointed Ford Motor
Company representatives claim that this is solely a tire problem after
they have been equipping Ford Explorer on virtually a sole source basis
for the life of the vehicle, have heard repeatedly from their consumers
about these tire problems, and have tacitly ignored the human cost
caused by the combination of these tires on their sport utility
vehicles.
This is a brief summary of what we know:
--Ford Explorers have been equipped with Firestone ATX, ATX II, or
Wilderness AT tires since the introduction of the vehicle.
--Starting around 1996, lawsuits filed against Bridgestone/Firestone.
All cases settled, except for one which went to trial and in
which the jury sided with Firestone.
--In 1998, a Saudi Arabian Ford-affiliated dealer wrote to Ford
indicating that they had notified Ford of problems with the
Wilderness AT tires.
--From 1996 to 1999, Ford replaced Firestone tires in a dozen foreign
countries including Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
--By May 2, 2000, NHTSA has received a number of complaints regarding
Firestone tread separation, especially after a Houston
television news story. NHTSA tallied a cumulative total of 90
consumer complaints and determined 4 deaths involved tire
failure. NHTSA Office of Defects Investigations opens a
preliminary evaluation of ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness tires.
As of August 3, NHTSA has received 193 complaints regarding tread
separation. Firestone offers free inspections of its tires.
--Between August 3 and 7, Sears and other leading tire retailers
suspend the sale of tires covered under the scope of government
inquiry.
On August 9, Firestone initiates voluntarily recalls of 15 inch
ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness tires produced at its Decatur, IL plant.
14.5 million tires are covered by the recall, although Firestone
estimates that only 6.5 million of these tires are still in use. The
company estimates that there are 3.8 million ATX or ATX II tires and
2.7 million Wilderness tires that need to be removed from the road.
--On August 9, Ford changes its PSI recommendation from 26 to a range
between 26 and 30. Firestone continues to insist that the
proper PSI is 30.
--As of August 10, NHTSA has received 270 consumer complaints and
revised the number of deaths associated with tread separation
to 46 (double estimate of previous week.)
--As of August 15, NHTSA has received over 750 complaints and is
aware of at least 62 fatalities and over 100 injuries alleged
to be related to a tire failure.
--By August 31, NHTSA has received over 1,400 complaints, including
88 reported fatalities related to these tires.
It seems to me that alarm bells were ringing, but that the people
in a position to do something weren't listening. I don't know whether
there is enough evidence to show who failed to respond first, but it
sure looks like several critical players were, at the very least,
covering their ears.
Tires are literally where the rubber meets the road with regard to
highway safety, and I believe more should have been done to inform and
protect consumers. Consumers have a legitimate expectation that tires
certified by NHTSA and manufactured by premier brand name tire
manufacturers should not fail if properly maintained, pressurized, and
repaired. Clearly, the incidence of failure with the Firestone ATX, ATX
II and Wilderness AT tires leads me to believe that expectation has not
been met and I fear that there may have even been a conscious effort to
shield this failure.
I trust our witnesses today will help us understand how things
could have gone so long without action--and how government, industry,
and consumers can make sure that this never happens again.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd, do you have an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, last year the American people
drove over 2.6 trillion miles on the Nation's 8.3 million miles
of urban and rural highways. More than in any other country of
the world the American public travels by automobile along a
highway system that is the lifeblood of our economy. When our
citizens get in their cars every morning they expect two
things: (1) they expect the roads to be safe, and (2) they
expect their vehicles to be safe. They do not view safety as a
luxury. They view it as a necessity.
So when the American people learn that safety may be
compromised, they worry. When they learn further that companies
may be knowingly endangering their safety, they become angry.
This hearing this morning is not just about the topic of
safety. It is also about the topic of honesty. It is about when
certain companies knew about defective tires, and when those
companies chose to do something about defective tires.
This issue of timing is elemental to this inquiry. Eighty-
eight lives have already been lost due to the defects that have
surfaced with these Firestone tires. Just this past weekend
another Ford Explorer with a shredded tire rolled over on the
highway, injuring six people and killing a 10-year-old boy. He
may well have been the 89th fatality.
The courts, not this subcommittee, will determine who is
really at fault for all these deaths, but I am glad this
subcommittee is meeting this morning to address the relevant
issues to this matter that are in the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee.
I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing.
These hearings include issues like whether Ford and Bridgestone
have been responsive and forthcoming with Federal safety
officials, and whether those Federal officials have been
proactive or reactive, or unactive or inactive when it has come
to guaranteeing the safety of the traveling public.
In my home State of West Virginia thousands of citizens are
engaged in very dangerous professions each day, whether it is
coal mining, one of the most dangerous professions anywhere, or
working in our chemical plants or in our timber industry, or on
our railroads.
The citizens face danger from the moment they punch in in
the morning to the moment they punch out in the evening, and we
are responsible for seeing to it that they do not face
additional danger when they get into their cars at the
beginning of the day and when they get into their cars at the
end of their shift and seek to return to their families.
I hope that the inquiry this morning will point us on the
path towards better ensuring the safety of our citizens.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. My apologies for
being late--I was dealing with another safety issue--but I am
pleased that you have convened this subcommittee this morning
to throw some additional light on this deadliest recall in
American automotive history.
The problems that have surfaced with Bridgestone/Firestone
tires and the Ford Explorer vehicle have caused a great deal of
anxiety and concern across the country, and I hear from my
constituents in New Jersey as well as other people who just
feel ill at ease knowing very well that a tire may give out in
the vehicle that they are riding in, endangering themselves and
their families.
I am sure you have heard it already, but 88 lives have been
lost. Over the course of the last month thousands of American
households have discovered that their lives can be at risk for
no reason of their own as they leave their driveway.
There are a great many complex issues we should address
this morning, but there are three particular questions that I
think we have got to focus on at a minimum. First, we have got
to ask whether both Bridgestone, Firestone, and Ford have acted
responsibly through this ordeal.
There is no question that both companies are now making
grand efforts to satisfy consumers who are demanding safety
replacement tires. However, we need to ask whether both
companies were equally concerned for their consumers when they
are settling dozens of lawsuits stemming from deaths and
injuries due to defective tires and insisting as part of the
settlements that no documents or information be made public.
Even today, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has identified 1.4 million additional tires that
they believe Firestone ought to voluntarily recall. To date,
Firestone has refused to do so, despite the fact that some of
these tires have the worst record of tread separation than the
6\1/2\ million tires that have already been recalled.
Second, when reviewing this tire problem we have got to
look at the related issue of vehicle roll-overs. Roll-overs
caused nearly 10,000 deaths each year, roughly a quarter of all
highway fatalities. Back in 1992, when I was chairman of this
subcommittee, we aggressively encouraged NHTSA to move forward
with its proposed regulation setting a standard to limit the
propensity of vehicles to roll over.
Since that time, consumers have purchased more and more
sports utility vehicles, vehicles that are even more prone to
roll over than conventional cars. Regrettably, NHTSA abandoned
its effort to set a roll-over standard for these vehicles.
Today, we read in the press that Ford may have deliberately
recommended a lower tire inflation pressure so as to minimize
propensity of its Ford Explorers to roll over. Some have
speculated that this lower inflation pressure may be
exacerbating the tread separation problem, and I think while I
am not an automotive engineer, one need not be, I think we have
got to use this occasion to refocus our attention to this roll-
over problem and ask whether the time has come for stronger
Federal regulation to be published.
And third, we must review whether NHTSA has had adequate
legal authorities, funding, and the motivation to guarantee the
safety of the driving public. We know from press accounts that
the manufacturers knew of this tire problem well before it came
to the attention of the regulators. Indeed, tires were being
recalled in other countries without the knowledge of NHTSA
officials.
Under current law there is no requirement for manufacturers
to pass along their record of complaints to NHTSA. The
manufacturers are only required to alert NHTSA of a problem
when they have determined themselves that a safety problem
exists. Even today, Firestone has not conceded that the tires
that have been recalled are defective, so clearly it is not an
adequate situation to allow the manufacturers to make their own
determination as to when NHTSA should be notified.
I believe also, Mr. Chairman, we need to make measures to
strengthen NHTSA's hand in gathering information from all
available sources to identify defects earlier. Once press
accounts came out regarding the problems with these tires the
number of incidents reported to NHTSA skyrocketed. We have got
to ask why NHTSA did not have access to these reports earlier,
and what we need to do to compel a better reporting system on
the part of the manufacturers to those Federal authorities that
are responsible with ensuring our safety.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton. Mr. Chairman, you and Senators Byrd and
Lautenberg have properly focused attention on a number of
questions before us at this time. The adequacy of oversight on
this problem and the promptness of the response to this problem
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is one
the response of Ford Motor Company, particularly as the
principal users of the tires and the way in which they dealt
with consumer complaints and their own knowledge of danger
related to them and the responsibilities of the manufacturer,
Bridgestone/Firestone, each of those is vitally important.
I would like to add two more considerations, however, to
this hearing. One relates to my own constituents who are
driving automobiles, SUV's particularly, with these tires on
them and the fact that the manufacturer has set a staged recall
under which those of us in less hot climates have to continue
to drive on these tires for a considerable period of time and
replace them on our own, rather than having this recall be
prompt, immediate, and broadbased, even though that requires
the manufacturers to supply tires manufactured by others rather
than by themselves.
Second, the confusion to all of the users of these tires
Nation-wide as to how they deal with the tires for the
hopefully very short period of time they are going to use them.
Ford said the proper pressure was 26 pounds per square inch
before the recall. Now it has given a range of 26 to 30.
Bridgestone/Firestone continues to say it ought to be 30 pounds
per square inch.
We called Ford dealer Koons, College Park Ford, in College
Park, Maryland. He said it should be 26 on the front tires and
35 pounds per square inch on the rear tires. Now, that is a
range from 26 to 35, with three different answers from three
different groups.
Consumers deserve better than that. There ought to be one
answer to that question for what I hope is the relatively short
period of time remaining before all of them are off the road
and are dealt with more safely, so I think we not only have to
look backwards at fault here, we have to look forward as to how
prompt this response is for everyone and what people should be
doing right now, today, to at least have the maximum degree of
safety.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to thank you and Senator Lautenberg and Senator Byrd
for organizing this hearing. I know that the interest of
security and safety have always been number one in your own
priorities and, really, that is what the American people expect
of us in a democracy. The safety and security of our people
have always been a national priority.
That is why we have a whole national security system. That
is why we have the Center for Disease Control to be on alert if
infection is making its way into our country, and we have our
Border Patrol also to see about what other problems are coming
into our country, and yet where has been the alerts right now
for something as known internationally as the failure of these
tires to perform?
The American people have a right to know about risk. They
have a right to know about danger. They have a right to know
from both our Federal agencies and those who manufacture
products where are the risks, and they have a right to be
protected. How can we protect them from these dangers, or at
least protect them with the information so that they can take
their own action?
That is why we are holding this hearing today. People have
a right to know. They have a right to be protected. They have a
right to expect from their elected officials that we are
standing sentry on this, so as we proceed with this hearing,
both listening to Firestone and Bridgestone and also to our
Federal regulators and the advocacy groups who take this
interest, I want to have the answers to the questions about
what are the alerts that we should have been paying attention
to, what are the early warning mechanisms, both here and around
the world, that would alert us to this? Who knew about these
dangers, when did they know it, and what the heck did they do
about it?
Now, our national security has a radar system that tells us
when risk, or that we are facing risk in our own country. The
Centers for Disease Control know when there is an international
alert about an infectious disease so that we can notify every
State health department to take the action to be able to alert
people and protect them.
Why, then, when internationally there was the collapse of
these tires going on in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, 15 other
countries taking action, the manufacturer chose not to notify
the U.S. Government, and the U.S. Government did not have the
same radar system we have for national security, or did not
have the same kind of mechanisms in place to alert us to
infectious disease?
Now, we are as much at risk from faulty tires, and in fact
I do not know when I am going to be exposed to Ebola, but I do
know that I get in my car every day to travel here from
Baltimore, so I want to be sure, then, that we have these
mechanisms in place.
We look forward to this testimony to really get at the
facts and at the same time put the mechanisms in place, but I
am deeply disturbed that something that is a manufactured
product did not have the same early warning and alerts that we
have for a foe penetrating America's borders, or an infectious
disease.
So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony, and the
hearing.
Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I commend
you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing so promptly. I
know you returned late last night from oversight
responsibilities you have as chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, and this is a very, very important hearing, with the
first focus trying to see to it that safety is assured at this
moment for all those who are in jeopardy because of these
tires, and beyond that to prevent the recurrence of this
situation for the future.
To do that we are going to have to conduct some very
incisive investigation to find out how we got here. Every day,
all of us entrust our lives to our tires. Yesterday I was on
the Pennsylvania turnpike going 65 miles an hour, relying on my
tires, concerned about who might be coming in an opposite
direction where they might have Bridgestone/Firestone tires, so
the safety issue is one which affects absolutely all Americans.
When you, Mr. Chairman, said that at a minimum there was a
moral obligation on the part of Firestone, that states a very
minimum obligation. Their obligation is to act responsibly and
when corporate officials know there is a danger which might
cause the loss of life or serious bodily injury and they permit
that situation to continue, that is a reckless disregard for
the life of another, and that is equated in the law with
malice, and that rises to the level of second degree murder,
where individuals knowingly allow a danger to exist which
results in the death of another.
This regrettably is not an infrequent occurrence in
corporate America today as to what happens when there are
dangerous products which are put up for public consumption, but
with the number of deaths involved here, and with the
automobiles being involved and the reliance that each of us
places on our tires every day, it has been brought home with a
very high level of drama to the American people, and the people
of the world.
So far most of what is known is from the media, and we need
to get the hard evidence, but the media reports that in Saudi
Arabia there was a recall of tires but it was kept secret from
the American Government and from the American people. How in
the world can corporate officials allow a danger to go forward
in the United States when they are looking after the Saudis?
We know from the media that Venezuela is considering
criminal prosecution against the corporate officials who were
involved in this matter on homicide charges. Well, Venezuela
may have some problems on extradition, but the United States
does not have any problems in terms of a Federal or State
prosecution if, in fact, what we read about turns out to be
true, and we have this reckless disregard for the lives of
others.
I do not know about the press reports, but it is worth
commenting that the media reports have said that the president
of Ford is not going to testify. We have another Ford executive
here today. Well, it seems to me that we ought to hear in the
Congress from the top officials who are responsible for what is
going on.
It is hard to turn on my television set these days without
seeing the president of Ford on TV making a commercial
announcement. It is pretty hard to squeeze in with all the
other commercial announcements we have in the political
campaign, but if any official of any company thinks that they
are not going to appear before a congressional committee, they
ought to check their rules about subpoenas, and we ought not to
be reluctant at all to issue subpoenas to bring those people
in.
And today in the Washington Post I read about a document--
it is nice to read about documents in the Washington Post,
contrasted with having the companies turn those matters over to
the Appropriations Committee which is holding this hearing, but
we have a duty to get the documents, and this is a long paper
chase. The trial lawyers engage in it all the time, and I know
the very high regard my colleagues, especially Senator
Domenici, has for trial lawyers who undertake these paper
chases to get these documents but we will not find out all the
facts until we get all of the documents.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have begun a very long,
important, and difficult process here which has enormous
implications for the American people and the people of the
world. All of us rely on our automobiles and therefore on our
tires, and in terms of what the manufacturers and corporate
executives do to subject consumers to these kinds of risks, so
I am delighted you have started these hearings just a few hours
after your return to Andrews, and that we will conduct the kind
of incisive investigation and hearings necessary to correct
this very major problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. First, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
thanks for calling these hearings. I hope those that are going
to testify today understand that each of us at the outset have
to say a few words. They will soon find that we are really
interested in finding out what they know and what happened.
I agree with almost each statement as I hear it, that
Senators would very much like to get to the bottom of how this
happened, who was told, and when. I would like to know why were
some told in advance of others. With that I will just tell you
about my little State of New Mexico.
Many of you know that New Mexico has pretty hot weather,
yet I learned that we were not among the States for early
recall because we were not hot enough. Somebody called to their
attention the kind of weather we have, and then New Mexico did
go back up into the list where they could perhaps get some
tires into the hands of those people that were entitled to a
recall.
I will tell you, however, in the city of Santa Fe there are
400 people waiting for replacement tires on the list at one
dealership. Nobody knows how long that will take to get through
the list. Can you imagine what the people are going through in
terms of the mental anguish as they wait?
I surmise that thousands of them are going to buy tires
with their own money, and I think that leads to an interesting
question. Should we ask whether or not they are going to
recompense these people who, out of fear of waiting too long,
have gone out and bought some other tires? Are they just going
to be left there to have two sets of tires, or will something
be done about that?
I am interested in knowing how the companies intend to
handle situations like the ones I am describing. As everyone
knows, there is one thing we have not spoken of that we should
all be concerned about, and that is, this is back-to-school
time, right in the middle of parents getting all geared up to
take their kids to soccer games, to take them to school. Here
we have just put upon top of them this anguish about their car
and tires, especially if it happens to be one of the cars we
are talking about as being most susceptible to this problem.
I do not know where this all ends, but I want to close by
suggesting to all of those involved on the corporate side, the
end will come quicker, smoother, and be better, the sooner you
tell us what happened. The sooner you tell us how this all
occurred in an honest, bona fide tones, in words that will not
be disputed by someone else, the better off the companies are,
and certainly from the standpoint of doing our job, the better
off we will be and things will come to a conclusion. It has got
to come to a conclusion, and we hope the best possible
conclusion. If you start today by not fudging the facts, not
putting them off on somebody else, but clearly telling us just
exactly what happened.
Now, I close by saying I do not know what Senator Specter
had in mind when he spoke of trial lawyers, but I used to be
one. I have not been doing that for a long, long time, and
sometimes I feel very deficient sitting alongside of you, since
you have been such a great prosecutor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Specter raised the point, and I think it is a valid
one. The CEO of Ford is not here. They have sent, I understand,
the executive vice president instead. I would rather have both
of the most senior executives here, and I think it is the least
they could do testifying here before the U.S. Senate.
Our first panel this morning includes Joan Claybrook,
president of Common Cause, and David Pittle, senior vice
president and technical director, Consumers Union.
Our second panel will include Dr. Sue Bailey, the
Administrator of NHTSA, Mr. Masatoshi Ono, Chairman and CEO,
and Mr. Gary Crigger, executive vice president of Bridgestone/
Firestone, and Helen Petrauskus, vice president of
environmental and safety engineering for Ford Motor Company.
Ms. Claybrook and Mr. Pittle, your written testimony will
be made a part of the record in its entirety. You can proceed
as you wish, Ms. Claybrook.
STATEMENT OF JOAN CLAYBROOK, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC CITIZEN
Ms. Claybrook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here today. I am Joan Claybrook, president of Public
Citizen, a national public interest organization founded by
Ralph Nader in 1971, and I am pleased to accept your invitation
to testify about the Firestone tire that has resulted in 88
people being killed as of last week--the data from the
Department of Transportation--and 250 people being injured.
I was the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration when the Firestone 500 tire defect
occurred, and I brought a picture just to show you that it is
quite similar. This is not a problem that this company has not
faced before.
Much has been written in the last month about the lethal
combination of Ford Explorers and Firestone tires. This is a
design defect that is exacerbated by the fact that Ford
required a low inflation pressure because of roll-over problems
with these vehicles. Firestone tires inflated at 26 psi
overheat with heavy highway use, causing the tread to separate
and the SUV's to crash, not infrequently rolling over and
causing catastrophic and fatal injuries.
I would note that with the 500 tire, which also shredded,
they were on cars and they did not tend to roll over. There is
no margin of safety in the design here, where you have a bad
tire and a vehicle vulnerable to roll-over, and that is a major
reason why we are having so many injuries and deaths. The
tragedy is teaching the public as well as policymakers a number
of lessons, and I would like to comment on five issues,
briefly, and make five recommendations for more effective
enforcement of the Nation's motor vehicle safety defect laws.
SAFETY PROBLEMS COVERED UP
First, Ford and Firestone covered up the safety problems
with the tire/SUV combination for a decade. The coverups will
continue without corrective action by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. Rather than go through a long
chronology I will just say that----
Senator Mikulski. Ms. Claybrook, there is a buzz in the
room. Would you pull your microphone much closer?
Ms. Claybrook. Can you hear me now?
Senator Mikulski. Yes.
Ms. Claybrook. Ford first offered this vehicle, the Ford
Explorer with Firestone tires, for sale in March 1990, and Ford
internal documents show that the engineers recommended changes
to the vehicle design after it rolled over in company tests
prior to production of the vehicle, and there were a few
changes made, but the track width was not made wider, and the
suspension was not corrected as recommended.
Instead, Ford, which sets the specifications for the tires
manufactured by Firestone, decided to remove the air from the
tires, lowering it to 26 psi, and if you look, I brought some
tires here which I will mention in a few minutes, but if you
look at the psi molded into the side of the tire, the maximum
load carried is 35 psi recommended by Firestone.
The Firestone--excuse me. Within a year of introduction,
lawsuits against Ford and Firestone were filed for tire
failures that resulted in crashes and roll-overs. At last five
cases were filed by 1993, and many others followed in the
1990's. Almost all were settled, and they were settled with gag
orders, orders prohibiting the lawyers and the families from
disclosing information about the cases or documenting it to the
public or the Department of Transportation.
When lawsuits are filed against a company about a safety
defect again and again, the company organizes an internal
investigation to assemble the information and analysis of the
information. Top company officials are kept informed about
lawsuits against the company, particularly as they accumulate.
There is no question that the companies knew they had a
problem, but they kept it secret.
Just one example has come to light through the press. In
1996, several State agencies in Arizona began having problems
with Firestone tires on Explorers and, according to news
reports, these agencies demanded new tires. Firestone conducted
an investigation, tested the tires, and asserted that the tires
had been abused or underinflated, and this has been the mantra
for the problem.
In 1998, as many of you mentioned, Ford and Firestone were
in discussions about tire failures abroad and did, in fact,
conduct recalls, or Ford did conduct recalls abroad, and the
memo that has just come out shows that at least Firestone
believed that there was a legal obligation on behalf of the
company if they did a recall abroad they had to notify the
Department of Transportation, and I believe that that is
accurate.
There is a legal argument that the Department of
Transportation has no extraterritorial authority, but this was
a company in the United States, or two companies doing an
action abroad with the identical tire and identical vehicle
manufactured and sold here that they were recalling abroad.
And as you mentioned also last week, Indecu, the Venezuelan
regulatory agency, said that Firestone and Ford, quote, ``met
to plan out ways of a situation that was affecting their
commercial interest at the price of causing damage,
destruction, and death'', and is recommending possible criminal
enforcement for involuntary manslaughter.
NHTSA NEEDS ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
Incidentally, there are a number of parallels between the
1978 recall and Firestone 500. I would say that one of them is
that the information was kept secret from the Department of
Transportation for a long time. My second point is, NHTSA needs
additional legislative authority to ensure the manufacturers
obey the law, report safety defects, and recall unsafe
products.
The agency has sent forward some legislation which I think
is excellent, but it needs to be improved. They want to
increase civil penalties. Right now the maximum civil penalties
for this agency is $925,000 for any company that refuses to
recall a product. That is a joke. The maximum penalty for each
violation is $1,000. It should be changed to $10,000, which it
is at the Environmental Protection Agency.
There is no violation for withholding documents per day. I
am sure Senator Specter, as a former prosecutor, is aware that
you do a per-day violation. At NHTSA it is per document, so if
a document is withheld forever, there is just one penalty of
$1,000.
As in the Food and Drug Administration there should be
criminal penalties for knowing and willful refusal to recall a
defective part or withholding information. This was recommended
after the 1978 recall.
As recommended in NHTSA's proposed bill, the company should
be required to test its products before self-certification.
Right now, companies do not have to do a test before they self-
certify compliance with the agency standards.
The statute of limitations right now is 8 years for a
vehicle and 3 years for a tire, for NHTSA to be able to mandate
a recall. It should be extended to 10 years for vehicles and 5
years for tires. There has been a substantial change since the
1970's when this was enacted in the length the tires are used
on the highway.
I have already mentioned the issue about sending notices to
NHTSA for foreign recalls. The agency's budget needs to be
larger. Ninety-four percent of the deaths occur on the highway,
and yet NHTSA has a tiny percentage of the transportation
budget. Although it has been increased substantially in recent
years, for which I thank this subcommittee very much, it is
still 30 percent below in real dollars what it was when I left
the agency in 1980, and the enforcement budget is about one-
half of the 1980 budget. There are fewer than 20 engineer
investigators who work on safety defects for the entire United
States of America.
ATX TIRE RECALL SHOULD BE EXPANDED
Third, Firestone and Ford should recall all of the ATX, ATX
II and Wilderness tires to protect the public from this
catastrophic defect, and all data and information should be
made public to restore the public trust, and Senator Domenici
has said this.
By the way, Senator Domenici, in your State you have a huge
number of deaths and injuries. Are you aware of that?
Senator Domenici. Yes, I am.
Ms. Claybrook. According to the Department of
Transportation, 13 injuries and 9 deaths in your State, and I
think that shows that you certainly should have been included
in the recall early on. Much of the data that Ford has based
its analysis of the claims data, which is how this recall was
defined, is still not public, and for example, it does not--
there is no indication of how many tires were made at which
plant.
This seems to be a wear-related issue, that is that as the
tires were on the road longer they are more likely to have the
problem, and the data was as of the end of April 2000, so there
is a lot of information that has developed since then that
should be available for this analysis. It also only uses claims
data that is for claims of injury, death, or property damage.
It does not include warranty claims or adjustment data, and it
does not include information that has come in since, now known
by NHTSA.
NHTSA has last week analyzed the data that it has from
complaints and lawsuits and injuries from Firestone and Ford
and determined that the recall should be extended to another
1.4 million tires, and that additional ones are being
investigated as well.
There is every indication that this problem is a design
defect that affects all the tire produced. In the Firestone 500
case the company at first asserted that only 400,000 tires were
defective from the Decatur plant, and then on further
evaluation it was realized that there were 14 million tires
that should be subject to the recall.
Also, an analysis that was released last Friday of 90
lawsuits that have been filed in this issue showed that about
37 percent of them covered the nonrecalled tires, and I have
here today two tires. This is the 15-inch tire and this is the
16-inch tire, and you can see that the tread separation is
about the same with both. The 16 is not being recalled, the 15
is, and you can examine those for yourself to see how similar
the tires are.
There are also a number of documents that Senator Domenici
mentioned. We should have all the information. There are a
number of documents that are still secret. The companies asked
for confidentiality at NHTSA on a number of documents that I
think should be made public, and also the gag order documents
protective order documents should be made available. The agency
has subpoena power. It can get the information from the gag
orders, and I would urge that that occur.
NHTSA'S DEFECTS INVESTIGATION PROGRAM
Fourth, NHTSA has failed to discover this defect because it
lacks a proactive program to discover safety defects. I believe
the agency was caught flat-footed because it rarely pushes
companies to do recalls in an aggressive way. The manufacturers
rolled the dice in this case and covered it up. They usually
win, and in this case they did not.
NHTSA has no early warning system in place and has not been
proactive in using available sources of information. They
should routinely get information from auto repair facilities,
which we did in the 1970's, complete owners and national State
and local fleets, from lawyers representing deceased and
injured family members who find out about defects in discovery
through cross-examination of the manufacturers, from insurance
company data, which the chairman has already mentioned comes in
to them from time to time but is not aggressively sought, and
you have already mentioned State Farm, which I will not
elaborate on any more.
The agency should require, as does the EPA, that a company
notify the agency if it gets 25 complaints about a particular
make or model defect, and it should require, as does the CPSC,
that a company notify the agency if there are three or more
lawsuits filed against it on the same subject. These efforts
would give the agency an early warning system. They would have
their finger on the pulse beat of what is happening out there
on the highway.
In short, NHTSA has not been the tough cop on the
regulatory beat, and when it is the companies are more safety
conscious, the public is protected and, in the end, there is
less work for all parties. The Firestone/Ford case shows what
happens when safety is not job 1 in this industry or in the
Government.
SAFETY STANDARDS
My fifth recommendation is that essential safety standards
are severely out of date, were scrapped during the Reagan
years, or prohibited because of industry lobbying to change the
law.
I will go through these very briefly. The tire safety
standard is 32 years old, and is not effective for testing
radial tires. It was written during the days of the bias ply
tire. Both Ford and General Motors have recently stated they
favor improving this standard.
Number 2, the uniform tire quality grading standard is
molded on the tire for tread wear traction and heat resistance
does not apply to SUV tires. It only applies to car tires. It
should be expanded to do so. The roof crush standard is 30
years old. I do have an example from the morning paper which
you probably have all read which shows what happens to the roof
when one of these vehicles rolls over. The roof just crushes
in, and I also have a picture of one that is not quite as
crushed in. This is not necessary.
Let me tell you what the standard says. It is a static
standard, and it says that if you place weight on the roof of
the vehicle that is one-and-a-half times the unloaded weight of
the vehicle, it passes the test. There is no dynamic test. You
do not have to roll the vehicle over in any way, and of course
this has caused a number of the deaths. A dynamic roll-over
standard should be adopted, a roof crush standard.
A roll-over standard has not existed in this agency. It has
been a topic for 15 years, since Representative Timothy Wirth
submitted a petition in 1985, and others have followed. In
1991, the Congress required NHTSA to conduct a roll-over
prevention rulemaking. It made an initial effort to put in a
consumer information requirement and a proposal, then the
Appropriations Committee said there should be a study at the
National Academy of Sciences. That study was finished in 1996.
Finally, the agency a couple of months ago proposed another
one, a static standard, which is a very simple standard. The
auto companies say it is not adequate, so once again another
study has been proposed. This bill is now in conference.
Our coalition of consumer health and insurer groups and
insurers favors dropping the study and letting NHTSA issue this
test as a first effort. The consumers have said to the Harris
Poll that 62 percent want such information, but we also want a
rollover prevention standard. As has been mentioned, 25 percent
of all highway deaths occur in rollovers, and SUV's have a
particular susceptibility.
The agency should issue a rule for a tire inflation
indicator, as I proposed 22 years ago, on the dashboard that
just alerts the consumer if their tires are low on inflation.
The companies complain that people do not properly inflate
their tires, but most people do not know, and those little
measuring tools that people have are often inaccurate.
Tire manufacturing information are molded into the
blackwall inside of the tires. It should be on the outside
whitewall of the tires so that the consumer does not have to
crawl under the tire to find out if the tire has been recalled,
and right now that is what they are having to do, and it is a
simple thing to do.
The tire reserve load consumer information requirement was
eliminated in the eighties. It should be reestablished to
inform consumers of the maximum rated low capacity of the
vehicle so they can know when they should inflate their tires
to the maximum load rating, which is molded into the side wall.
The agency should be alert in this case as to whether its
current requirement of 5 years for record retention is
sufficient, given that this is a decade-long case.
I have three minor pieces of legislation that I would also
recommend. One is that independent tire dealers should have to
report the names and addresses of buyers to the manufacturer.
That was eliminated in 1982. Second, the current law requires
tire owners to return their tires within 60 days of a recall or
60 days of availability of the tire. It is not fair for car
buyers. I think it should stay in the law. It is very
confusing.
And finally, the current prohibition in the law on the
NHTSA rule requiring a continuous buzzer alert. It stops NHTSA
from requiring a continuous buzzer. It can only be 4 to 8
seconds. Ford Motor Company, I commend them, it has a longer
buzzer for rollover crashes. That is critical.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for tolerating my long
statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joan Claybrook
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to accept
your invitation to testify today on the Firestone tire defect that has
killed at least 88 and injured 250 people, most of them in Ford
Explorers. I am President of Public Citizen, a national public interest
organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 with 150,000 members
nationwide. I served as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration from 1977 to 1981. This agency is responsible for
administering the recall of the Firestone tires. The Firestone 500
recall occurred when I was Administrator.
Much has been written in the past month about the lethal
combination of Ford Explorers and Firestone tires. This is a design
defect exacerbated by the fact that Ford required a low inflation
pressure because of rollover problems with these vehicles. Firestone
tires inflated at 26 psi overheat with highway use, causing the tread
to separate and the SUVs to crash, not infrequently rolling over and
causing catastrophic and fatal injuries. This tragedy is teaching the
public as well as policymakers a number of lessons. I would like to
comment on five issues and make recommendations for more effective
enforcement of the nation's motor vehicle safety defect laws.
Ford and Firestone covered up safety problems with the tire/SUV
combination for a decade. coverups will continue without
corrective action by nhtsa.
The Ford Explorer was first offered for sale in March 1990. Ford
internal documents show the company engineers recommended changes to
the vehicle design after it rolled over in company tests prior to
introduction, but other than a few minor changes, the suspension and
track width were not changed. Instead, Ford, which sets the
specifications for the manufacture of its tires, decided to remove air
from the tires, lowering the recommended psi to 26. The Firestone
recommended psi molded into the tire for maximum load is 35 psi.
Within a year of introduction, lawsuits against Ford and Firestone
were filed for tire failures that resulted in crashes and rollovers. At
least five cases were filed by 1993, and many others followed in the
early 1990s. Almost all were settled, and settled with gag orders
prohibiting the attorneys and the families from disclosing information
about the cases or their documentation to the public or DOT. When
lawsuits are filed against a company about a safety defect, the company
organizes an internal investigation to assemble information and
analysis about the allegations. Top company officials are kept informed
about all lawsuits against the company, particularly when they
accumulate concerning one problem. There is no question the companies
knew they had a problem. But they kept it secret.
In 1996, several state agencies in Arizona began having major
problems with Firestone tires on Explorers. According to news reports,
various agencies demanded new tires, and Firestone conducted an
investigation of the complaints, tested the tires and asserted that the
tires had been abused or under-inflated.
In 1998, Ford and Firestone were in discussions about tire failures
with Middle Eastern, Asian and South American countries. Tires were
tested and analyzed. Ford eventually decided to conduct its own recall
without Firestone and replace the tires in the various countries in
1999 and 2000. It also instructed Firestone to add a nylon ply to the
tires it manufactured in Venezuela for additional strength and it made
suspension changes to the Explorer. Ford did not specify adding the
nylon ply for U.S.-made Firestone tires nor did it change the Explorer
suspension at this time. In May, a top Ford official in Venezuela was
quoted in the press as saying the company was replacing the tires
because in Venezuela ``the highways allow drivers to travel at high
speeds for a sustained period of time, leading to the loosening of the
rolling surface of the tire, its consequent blowout and the accident.''
Last week, the Venezuelan safety regulatory agency, Indecu,
concluded after an investigation that Firestone and Ford ``met to plan
ways out of a situation that was affecting their commercial interests,
at the price of causing damage, destruction and death,'' and is
recommending possible criminal enforcement for involuntary
manslaughter. Neither Ford nor Firestone informed the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration of this recall, euphemistically labeled a
``No Charge Service Program Award Notification.''
Incidentally, there are a number of parallels between this recall
in 2000 and the 1978 recall of the Firestone 500. Most particularly,
there was a documented coverup by Firestone of the 500 defect, spurred
by the lack of a Firestone replacement tire. When the coverup was
disclosed, the top management of the company was replaced as Firestone
was severely damaged in reputation and economically. But a key
difference is that the Firestone 500 was used on passenger cars, which
rarely rolled over with tire failure. NHTSA documented 41 deaths with
the 500, a recall, involving seven million tires.
Once again, when confronted with accusations about the performance
of the tire, Firestone has misleadingly claimed owner abuse (i.e.
under-inflation, rough use or improper repairs).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration needs additional
legislative authority to assure that manufacturers obey the
law, report safety defects and recall unsafe products.
To prevent coverups of safety defects in the future, the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act should be amended. In March 2000
the agency sent legislation to the Congress which would make some
improvements, but additional authority is needed. The Congress should:
a. Increase civil penalties for failure to recall a defective
vehicle or part or withholding information from the agency. Now the
maximum penalty is $925,000, hardly a deterrent for multinational
corporations. The penalty for each violation should be increased from
$1,000 to $10,000 (as at the Environmental Protection Agency); the
violation for withholding documents should be per day rather than per
document as it is now (no matter how long it is withheld). There should
be no maximum penalty.
b. As in the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency laws, there should be criminal penalties for knowing
and willful refusal to recall a defective vehicle or part or for
withholding information that results in deaths and injuries. Chairman
John Moss, after reviewing the Firestone 500 debacle, recommended
criminal penalties be added to the NHTSA statute.
c. As recommended by NHTSA's proposed bill, a company should be
required by law to test its products before self-certifying for
compliance with the agency's standards. Such testing is not now
required by law.
d. The statute of limitations for NHTSA to mandate a recall is now
eight years for vehicles and three years for tires from the date of
manufacture. It should be extended, as the agency recommends, to 10
years for vehicles and five years for tires.
e. There is disagreement about whether the current law requiring
manufacturers to send NHTSA copies of all notices sent to dealers and
owners about a defect is applicable in this case. Ford sent notices to
foreign dealers about a defect in a product made and sold in the U.S.
and also sold abroad. Does the fact that the notice was sent to foreign
dealers negate Ford's responsibility to notify NHTSA? I don't think so,
but certainly the law should be clarified that this is a company's
responsibility in this age of globalization.
f. NHTSA's budget needs to be larger, particularly for enforcement.
Ninety-four percent of transportation deaths occur on the highway, yet
NHTSA has only a tiny percentage of the Transportation budget. Although
it has been increased in recent years, and I thank this Subcommittee
for that, it is still 30 percent below, in real dollars, what it was
when I left the agency at the beginning of 1981. Its enforcement budget
is about one-half of the 1980 budget. It has fewer than 20 engineer/
investigators working on vehicle safety defects for the entire country.
The Firestone/Ford recall should be expanded to cover all ATX, ATX II
and Wilderness tires to protect the public from this
catastrophic defect, and all data and information should be
made public to restore public trust.
Much of the data on which Ford based its analysis of Firestone
claims data is still not public and subject to outside scrutiny (such
as how many tires were made at each plant and when--an important factor
since the defect appears to emerge after two to four years of use), and
it is based on information through April 2000. None of the recent
information that has been pouring into the companies and NHTSA as the
public is getting informed about the problem is included. It also
covers only claims data--claims for compensation for injury or property
damage. It does not cover warranty claims or adjustment data for tire
failures. It also does not cover any information known to Ford
(although there will be duplication between Ford and Firestone data).
It also does not cover new information now known by NHTSA about claims.
NHTSA last week analyzed data (complaints, lawsuits, injuries,
including information submitted to date from Ford and Firestone) and
determined that the recall should be enlarged to cover another 1.4
million tires. NHTSA said it is still investigating to determine if the
recall should be enlarged further. It issued a consumer advisory
because Firestone refused to enlarge the recall, an indication of
Firestone's attitude toward a safety defect that gives the consumer no
warning and can result in death and severe injury when the vehicle is
operated normally. This same attitude was evident in Firestone's offer
made on August 16 in public newspaper ads that it would reimburse
owners who bought other tires, but the offer ended on August 16. Had it
not been for a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge in
Louisville preventing the company from discontinuing the one-day offer,
Firestone might have faced a massive consumer revolt, picket lines,
more consumer lawsuits and more disputes with its largest customer,
Ford Motor Company, which is pressing to get the tires replaced quickly
with tires from other manufacturers as well as Firestone.
There is every indication that this problem is a design defect that
affects all the tires produced. In the Firestone 500 case, the company
at first asserted that only 400,000 tires were defective, those
produced in the Decatur plant. But during NHTSA's investigation, as
more data was available and company documents were secured and
analyzed, we found that the tread separation on the 500 was a design
performance defect. The company knew about it for at least three years
and never informed NHTSA, and it was at the same time making running
changes on the production line to correct the problem in new tires.
There are other indications that the companies should expand the
recall. An analysis released last Friday of about 90 lawsuits or claims
about to be filed showed that 37 percent covered non-recalled tires. In
several of the foreign recalls, 16-inch tires were included (but are
not recalled in the U.S.).
There are a number of documents and data that are still secret,
either in submissions by the companies to NHTSA or gag orders in
lawsuits that should be made public. This may be painful for the
companies, but it is essential given the broad public debate about this
defect and the need for the companies to regain public trust. This
information will probably leak out over time anyway, so it makes sense
to release it now.
NHTSA failed to discover this defect because it lacks a proactive
program to discover safety defects.
a. NHTSA was caught flatfooted because it rarely pushes companies
to obey the law. The Department allowed GM to resist recalling its 5
million defectively designed pickup trucks with side-saddle gas tanks
that explode in side-impact crashes, and Ford to resist recalling its
vehicles equipped with ignition modules that frequently failed, causing
vehicles to stall. It allowed Chrysler to label its correction of its
minivans with defective rear-door latches that pop open in rear
crashes, (throwing occupants outside), a ``service campaign'' and not a
safety recall. And it rarely imposes penalties when it learns companies
have slithered around its request to produce documents.
The auto manufacturers have rolled the dice in this coverup and
usually win. This time they are the losers as the media spotlight
forces the story of the sorry state of manufacturer compliance with the
law and safety defect enforcement into the public consciousness.
b. NHTSA also has no early warning system in place and has not been
proactive in using sources of information that are on the pulse-beat of
current information about vehicle performance. They can and should
routinely get information from: auto repair facilities; fleet owners,
including national, state and local fleets; lawyers representing
deceased and injured family members who find out about defects through
discovery and cross examination of manufacturers; insurance company
data; and also from the companies themselves.
In this case, State Farm Insurance Co., the nation's largest
insurer, sent an E-mail and called NHTSA in 1998 about 21 cases of
Firestone tire tread separations, but the agency ignored it. Another 30
cases were sent in 1999, and the agency ignored them as well. How could
this happen? How often does the agency check complaints dutifully filed
by consumers through its hotline and in letters to spot trends? They
are all on a computer list by make, model, and alleged defect. Even if
this happens routinely, it's not enough--as this case illustrates,
because most consumers don't bother contacting government agencies.
The agency should require, as does EPA, that a company notify the
agency if it gets 25 complaints about the same alleged defect, and
require, as does CPSC, that the company notify the agency if three or
more lawsuits alleging the same safety defect are filed.
The agency has also used a highly inappropriate system for
evaluating whether a safety defect exists, looking at statistical data
which are rarely adequate. If it cannot establish a statistical basis,
the agency does not find a defect. The courts have held in a number of
cases that if a safety element of the vehicle fails and can kill or
injure, there is a failure of safety performance sufficient to find a
defect, and there is no need to find dead bodies on the highway first.
In short, NHTSA has not been the tough cop on the regulatory beat.
When it is, the companies are more safety-conscious, the public is
protected, and in the end it is less work for all parties. The
Firestone/Ford case shows what happens when safety is not Job 1 in the
companies or in the government.
Essential safety standards are severely out of date, were scrapped or
delayed in the Reagan years, or are prohibited by law because
of industry lobbying.
a. The tire safety standard is 32 years old and not fully effective
for testing radial tires. Both Ford and GM have recently stated they
favor an improved standard. The current standard tests for strength,
endurance and how well the tire remains on the rim. Radial tires last
much longer than bias ply tires and should be subjected to a tougher
standard.
b. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading standard applies only to car
tires, not truck/SUV tires. It is a consumer information requirement
rating tread wear, traction and heat resistance with the rating molded
into the tire. It should be expanded to cover truck/SUV tires.
c. The roof crush standard is 30 years old. It is a static standard
requiring weight to be placed on the roof of the vehicle (applied to
SUVs beginning in model year 1994) equal to 1.5 times the maximum
unloaded weight of the vehicle. In many of the Ford Explorer/Firestone
rollover cases, the roof crushes into the vehicle, severely enhancing
the likelihood of injury and death. A dynamic rollover crash worthiness
standard should be issued addressing roof crush, door lock and hinges,
side glazing materials and head protection. Crash protection in
rollovers must include effective safety belts with pretensioners.
d. The first petition to NHTSA for a rollover prevention standard
was filed by Representative Timothy Wirth 15 years ago. Others
followed. In 1991 the Congress required NHTSA to conduct a rollover
prevention rulemaking. The agency made an initial effort at developing
a safety standard, but then dropped it and instead proposed a consumer
information requirement. The auto industry then got the Appropriations
Committee to prohibit issuance of a consumer information rule until
after a study by the National Academy of Sciences about the usefulness
and presentation of consumer information. Finally in May 2000 the
agency proposed to conduct New Car Assessment tests for rollover based
on a static measurement of track width and center of gravity height,
but once again the manufacturers objected and the Appropriations
Committee has placed a requirement for yet another study by the NAS
before it could be issued. This bill is now in conference.
Our coalition of consumer and health groups and insurers favors
dropping the study and letting NHTSA issue the consumer information
test. A 1998 Harris poll conducted for Advocates For Highway and Auto
Safety show 62 percent of the public wants such information. But we
also want a rollover prevention standard. It is long overdue. About
9,500 highway deaths annually occur in rollover crashes--almost 25
percent of all highway deaths. This problem must be addressed,
particularly with the advent of SUVs with their susceptibility to
rollover.
e. The agency should issue a rule for a tire inflation indicator on
the dashboard, as I proposed 22 years ago. It was eliminated by the
Reagan administration. The companies complain that tires are not
properly inflated but then lobby to undercut consumers' ability to
properly maintain their tires with accurate information.
f. The tire manufacturing information now molded into the blackwall
of the tire should be placed on the whitewall or outside of the tire so
a consumer doesn't have to crawl under the car to find it. This was
part of my rulemaking plan more than 20 years ago, but it was never
issued after I left.
g. The tire reserve load consumer information requirement
eliminated in the Reagan years should be reestablished to inform
consumers of the maximum rated load capacity of the vehicle, so they
know when they should inflate their tires for maximum load carrying.
h. The agency should be alert in this case to whether its
requirement for record retention of only five years should be extended,
since the critical evidence in this case extends over a decade.
i. Three elements of legislation are needed that are relevant to
this case:
First, the 1982 legislation eliminating the responsibility of
independent tire dealers to report the names and addresses of tire
purchasers to the manufacturer for notification in the event of a
recall should be changed back to requiring such recordkeeping as during
the period from 1970 until 1982. Independent dealers with computers
today can readily supply such names to the manufacturer. The current
law only requires the independent dealer to give the consumer a card to
mail themselves. A 1986 NHTSA report showed only 11 percent responded.
Thus, in this case, most buyers from independent dealers will not be
notified by mail.
Second, the current law requires tire owners to return the tire
within 60 days of a recall notification (which, I presume means if a
manufacturer has no contact information, a consumer would have to rely
on news reports) or 60 days after tire availability. Car owners in
recalls don't have this limitation. It is confusing enough to get tires
replaced without this added complexity. It should be eliminated.
Third, the current prohibition in the law on a NHTSA rule requiring
a continuous buzzer to alert occupants to buckle up should be
eliminated. Among car companies, only Ford, I believe, now has a
continuous buzzer. The current law only permits NHTSA to require a four
to eight second buzzer. Belt use is essential in rollovers. It should
be encouraged in every way, including when the vehicle is in use.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify on this
important subject today.
NEW MEXICO FIRESTONE TIRE ACCIDENTS
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I wonder since New Mexico
was mentioned, if I could just give you the authentic totals,
it takes just two paragraphs. According to the NHTSA the tires
have been blamed for 10 accidents in my State, 9 deaths. That
is in New Mexico, including a husband, wife, and her unborn
child who died when their Ford utility vehicle flipped four
times and crashed outside of the little town of San Antonio,
New Mexico. Of these accidents, 9 out of 10 involved Ford
Explorers, and 7 out of 10 resulted in the vehicle rolling over
more than one time; 5 of 7 of the rollover accidents caused
fatalities.
So that is a State with a population of about 1.6 million.
Clearly, if that occurred across this Nation it would be
absolutely enormous.
STATEMENT OF DAVID R. PITTLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, CONSUMERS UNION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DAVID CHAMPION, DIRECTOR, AUTO TEST CENTER, CONSUMERS UNION
SALLY GREENBERG, SENIOR PRODUCT SAFETY COUNSEL, CONSUMERS UNION
Senator Shelby. Mr. Pittle.
Mr. Pittle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the committee. Good morning. My name is David Pittle, and I
am the technical director of Consumers' Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine. We applaud you for holding this
hearing to discuss two serious consumer issues, one being the
recall of the Bridgestone/Firestone tires on Ford light trucks
and other sports utility vehicles, and to discuss in some
detail NHTSA's proposed information program for comparing the
emergency handling and stability of SUV's.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Pittle, could you bring the mike a
little closer to you?
Mr. Pittle. Sure.
With me today are David Champion, director of Consumers
Union 327-acre auto test center in Connecticut, and Sally
Greenberg, senior product safety counsel here in Washington.
CU conducts comprehensive tests of more than 40 new motor
vehicles each year and provides consumers with ratings about
the performance, handling, efficiency, comfort, stability, and
safety of these vehicles. CU also tests tires each year for
their breaking, handling, cornering, and tractioning
characteristics on new, wet, snow-covered and ice-covered
surfaces. We do not conduct long-term durability tests of the
kind done by NHTSA.
Each month an estimated 17 million consumers read and
consider our published test reports, ratings, and buying advice
as they ponder their choices. Product safety has long been an
overriding concern for CU and, in particular, roll-over
stability, and over the past decade has become a top priority
for the car-buying public as well.
We have learned from more than six decades of conducting
unbiased laboratory tests and consumer use tests that products
that look alike do not always act alike. That principle
certainly holds true for motor vehicles and automotive
replacement parts. To make sound buying decisions the American
consumer needs reliable objective information about product
performance and quality to help him or her make a rational
choice from among competing products.
To many consumers, that also means buying safe products,
ones that protect their families and do not present
unreasonable risk. Here, the American consumer must be able to
rely on NHTSA to set adequate safety standards and ensure their
automotive products offered for sale meet those standards.
Furthermore, if a product is found to be unsafe and defective
it must be recalled promptly and effectively.
In short, NHTSA is the only economically disinterested
entity that stands between the consumer and injury from an
unsafe auto product. As charged by Congress, it is uniquely and
singularly dedicated to protecting the public from automotive
hazards often not seen, not measured, and not understood by the
average consumer, but in the end consumers ultimately rely on
Congress first to ensure that NHTSA has the resources and
authority it needs to protect the public, second to use its
oversight power to ensure the agency is fulfilling its mandate,
and third to allow the agency to set safety regulations without
being derailed because industry voices objections.
Against this background we would like to offer you several
observations and recommendations this morning regarding the
recall.
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE RECALL
CU, like motorists across the country, was chagrined to
learn that since 1992 there have been more than 50 lawsuits and
possibly as many as 100 lawsuits related to the Firestone tire
subject to the current recall. Many of the lawsuits were
settled with protective orders in place, with the effect that
critical safety information has been kept from the public.
The Senate has before it S. 957, Senator Kohl's bill, which
requires courts to consider the impact on public health and
safety before considering, or during consideration of the
granting of such protective orders. CU believes that when a
lawsuit is settled, information affecting public safety should
never be allowed to be sealed and thereby kept from the public.
If NHTSA does not now have the power to subpoena information
affecting public safety within the confines of these protective
orders, Congress should correct that shortcoming in their
authority.
Ms. Claybrook says that is in place. That ought to be
clarified. There is a lot of finger-pointing in both
directions, and in the meantime nothing happens. The ever-
increasing extent of the Firestone recall and allegations of
previous protective orders shine a bright light on the charges
and dangers that these orders have on the public health and
safety. One cannot help but believe that if this information
had been opened to NHTSA and the press earlier, many of the
tragic deaths and injuries from these tires would have been
avoided.
LAW REGARDING FOREIGN NOTIFICATION UNCLEAR
Second, car and tire manufacturers are required to report
to NHTSA within a few days when they discover an auto safety
problem, but the law may be unclear for safety recalls that
involve vehicles outside the United States. I do not know, but
if there is an ambiguity in the way the statute can be read,
that ambiguity should be clarified as soon as possible by
Congress.
American consumers were understandably angered upon
learning that the same vehicles they were driving and similar
tires to the ones they were driving on were previously and
quietly subject to safety recalls in other countries. We
believe manufacturers must be required to share such recall
information with NHTSA. Congress should either make changes to
the statute, or direct NHTSA to amend its regulations to ensure
that recalls in foreign countries are brought to NHTSA's
attention promptly.
Third, Congress should take the opportunity to ensure that
there are adequate deterrents to nonreporting of safety
information by passing the administration's legislation calling
for heavier fines for failure to report. We urge the committee
to evaluate what level of fine will serve as a realistic
deterrent to companies that manufacture products falling
underneath its jurisdiction and that fail to report safety
defects, recognizing that many of them are multibillion
corporations.
CU believes NHTSA's legislation filed last year to increase
the fines for failure to report is a step in the right
direction. We are concerned that the levels are still too low
to be an effective deterrent.
ROLLOVER TESTING
I would like to address the NHTSA proposal on roll-over
information. That is a very important thing. CU has been
involved in the roll-over testing and the controversy for many
years. It is no surprise that these tire failures occurring on
an SUV ultimately wind up in a crash that is a roll-over and
the number of deaths is quite high, and that is unacceptably
high.
While members of this committee may be aware that sports
utility vehicles tend to roll over at a much higher rate than
passenger cars, the motoring public does not sufficiently
understand the full impact of this problem. Since 1973, CU has
been conducting emergency avoidance maneuver testing of all
vehicles, and since 1988 has been running avoidance maneuver
tests to evaluate the stability of SUV's and other light
trucks.
Both involve dynamic testing. That is, driving a vehicle
through emergency maneuvers to evaluate its performance. In
1988, CU petitioned NHTSA to use a dynamic or driving test to
set a safety standard for vehicle stability. NHTSA granted our
petition, but gave up in 1994, stating that the resulting tests
would impose too high a cost on SUV design.
In 1996, CU once again petitioned NHTSA, this time asking
the agency to develop a dynamic test to evaluate the emergency
handling of SUV's, require that all SUV's be put through that
test, and to make the test results available to consumers.
NHTSA granted our petition in 1997, and thereby raised
expectations that it would develop a dynamic test. Sadly, it
did not.
CU's comments to NHTSA's proposal, submitted just 2 weeks
ago, notes that after conducting a series of dynamic tests on
just 12 vehicles NHTSA backed away from dynamic tests. Instead,
it is proposing the use of a static measure known as the static
stability factor as the basis on which to rate vehicles.
In our comments CU said, quote, ``While we believe any
information that helps educate consumers about roll-over has
merit, after a thorough analysis of NHTSA's proposal we cannot,
unfortunately, endorse NHTSA's decision to use only the static
stability factor to measure rollover propensity,'' close quote,
and we continued, quote, ``CU believes that the value of the
static stability factor to consumers is preferable to consumers
having no information at all.
At the very least, it clarifies the fundamental differences
between categories of vehicles, but it is not a satisfactory
regulatory response to an important issue of auto safety. It is
too crude a measure to reliably distinguish among models within
the same class of vehicles,'' close quote.
Ladies and gentlemen, consumers are crying out for this
kind of information. They are being promoted to buy these cars,
and yet they cannot distinguish the unseen roll-over propensity
of them. We urge NHTSA to continue to try to develop a dynamic
test, and we have submitted a full copy of our comments to
NHTSA to committee staff and ask that it be included in the
record.
We have always been concerned about Congress preventing
NHTSA from taking action that the agency deems necessary to
promote highway safety. Nonetheless, when Senator Shelby
introduced an amendment to the transportation appropriations
bill to delay NHTSA's action until the National Academy of
Sciences studied whether static stability factor is the best
stability measure, we were at least pleased that the amendment
also directed the NAS to study the benefits of dynamic testing,
which we consider to be the most important factor, and to
include consumer representatives in the NAS study.
Our own view is that dynamic test is the proper path to
take, and we would only hope that any trip to the National
Academy of Sciences is a short one.
In summary, CU believes that we are at a crossroads, and we
need a change in direction. We are pleased that NHTSA finally
has an Administrator. Dr. Bailey brings fresh leadership and an
impressive set of credentials with a spirit of service to the
consumer back at the agency.
We are also pleased that the committee, and particularly
the chairman, has expressed a sincere interest in setting the
agency back on a proper course, and no matter what you hear
about public confidence in Government, consumers need and
deserve a strong auto safety agency that has the will to act on
their behalf. They need stronger standards, more vigorous
attention to injury data, and a relentless commitment to
recalling defective products.
Consumers Union stands ready to work with you and the
committee members to bring about the sorely needed changes.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. David Pittle
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, good morning.
My name is David Pittle, and I am the Technical Director and Senior
Vice-President of Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports.
We applaud you for holding this hearing to discuss two very important
consumer safety issues: (1) the recall of Bridgestone/Firestone tires
on Ford light trucks and other sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and (2)
NHTSA's proposed information program for comparing the emergency
handling and stability of SUVs. With me are David Champion, Director of
Consumers Union's 327-acre Auto Test Center in Connecticut, and Sally
Greenberg, CU's Senior Product Safety Counsel here in Washington.
CU conducts comprehensive tests of more than 40 new vehicles each
year and provides consumers with ratings about the performance,
handling, efficiency, comfort, stability, and safety of these vehicles.
CU also tests tires each year for their braking, handling, cornering,
and traction characteristics on dry, wet, snow-covered, and ice-covered
surfaces. We do not conduct long-term durability tests of the kind done
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Each month, an
estimated seventeen million consumers read and consider our published
test reports, product ratings and buying advice as they ponder their
choices.
Product safety has long been an overriding concern for CU, and over
the past decade, has become a top priority for the car-buying public as
well. We have learned from more than six decades of conducting unbiased
laboratory tests and consumer use tests that products that look alike
don't always act alike. This principle certainly holds true for motor
vehicles and automotive replacement parts.
To make sound buying decisions, the American consumer needs
reliable, objective information about product performance and quality
to help him or her make a rational choice from among competing
products. To many consumers, that also means buying safe products, ones
that protect their families and do not present unreasonable risks.
Here, the American car-buying public must be able to rely on NHTSA to
set adequate safety standards and insure that automotive products
offered for sale meet those safety standards. Furthermore, if a product
is found to be unsafe, it must be recalled promptly and effectively. In
short, NHTSA is the only economically disinterested entity that stands
between the consumer and an unsafe product. As charged by Congress, it
is uniquely and singularly dedicated to protecting the public from
automotive hazards often not seen, not measured, and not understood by
the average consumer.
But in the end, consumers ultimately rely on Congress, first, to
insure that NHTSA has the resources and the authority it needs to
protect the public; second, to use its oversight power to insure that
the agency is fulfilling its mandate; and third, to allow the agency to
set safety regulations without being derailed because industry voices
objections. Against this background, we offer the following
observations and recommendations.
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE RECALL
1. CU, like motorists across the country, was chagrined to learn
that since 1992 there have been more than 50 lawsuits, and possibly as
many as 100 lawsuits, related to the Firestone tires subject to the
current recall. Many of those lawsuits were settled with protective
orders in place, with the effect that critical safety information has
been kept from the public. The Senate has had before it S. 957, Senator
Kohl's bill, which requires courts to consider the impact on public
health and safety before granting such protective orders. CU believes
that when a lawsuit is settled, information affecting public safety
should never be allowed to be sealed and thereby kept from the public.
If NHTSA doesn't now have the power to subpoena information affecting
public safety within the confines of these protective orders, Congress
should correct that shortcoming in their authority. The ever-increasing
extent of the Firestone recall and allegations of previous protective
orders shine a bright light on the dangers of these orders to the
public's health and safety. One cannot help believing that if this
information had been open to NHTSA and the press, many of the tragic
deaths and injuries from these tires would have been avoided.
2. Car and tire manufacturers are required to report to NHTSA
within a few days of when they discover an automotive safety problem.
But the law may be unclear for safety recalls that involve vehicles
outside the United States. If there is ambiguity in the way the statute
can be read, that ambiguity should be clarified by Congress. American
consumers were understandably angered upon learning that the same
vehicles they were driving, and similar tires to those they were
driving on, were previously--and quietly--subject to safety recalls in
other countries. We believe manufacturers must be required to share
such recall information with NHTSA. Congress should either make changes
to the statute or direct NHTSA to amend its regulations to insure that
recalls in foreign countries are brought to NHTSA's attention.
3. Congress should take this opportunity to insure there are
adequate deterrents to nonreporting of safety information by passing
the Administration's legislation calling for heavier fines for failure
to report. We urge the Committee to evaluate what level of fine would
serve as a realistic deterrent to companies that manufacture products
falling under NHTSA's jurisdiction and fall to report safety defects--
recognizing that many of them are multi-billion-dollar corporations. CU
believes NHTSA's legislation filed last year to increase fines for
failure to report a safety defect, raising the penalty from $1,000 to
$5,000 for each violation, and raising the maximum penalty from
$800,000 to $1 million, is a step in the right direction. We are
concerned, however, that these levels are still too low to be effective
as a deterrent to non-reporting of defects.
4. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Firestone
recall, and now is the time to put those lessons to use in preventing
future problems. We urge Congress to direct NHTSA to establish a far
more proactive and coordinated outreach program to acquire available
injury information.
a. NHTSA should reach out to repair shops to learn about problems
with motor vehicles and automotive products.
b. NHTSA should better track information that comes in through its
Auto Safety Hotline.
c. NHTSA's staff should vigorously track private lawsuits to
determine whether there is a disproportionate number of suits filed on
certain products.
d. NHTSA should improve its data collecting capabilities related to
dangerous or defective products; State Farm Insurance reported that it
had informed NHTSA that it had received 21 damage reports on Firestone
tires. Yet, NHTSA has said in media reports that it has no record of
receiving that information. NHTSA needs gather the kind of data State
Farm provided in a far more systematic fashion.
e. NHTSA should upgrade the requirements of its durability testing
of tires.
NHTSA PROPOSAL ON ROLLOVER INFORMATION
CU notes that the vast majority of the Firestone tire failures have
occurred on the Ford Explorer, a sport utility vehicle, and that many
crashes reportedly involve the vehicle rolling over after tire failure.
While members of this Committee may be aware that sport utility
vehicles tend to roll over at a much higher rate than passenger cars,
the motoring public does not sufficiently understand the full impact of
this problem. Since 1973, CU has been conducting emergency avoidance
maneuver testing of all vehicles, and, since 1988, we have been running
stability tests for all SUVs and other light trucks we evaluate. Both
involve dynamic testing; i.e., driving a vehicle through emergency
maneuvers to evaluate its performance.
In 1988, CU petitioned NHTSA to use a dynamic or driving test to
set a safety standard for vehicle stability. NHTSA granted CU's
petition, but gave up in 1994, stating that the resulting tests would
impose significant costs to SUV design. In 1996, CU once again
petitioned NHTSA, this time asking the agency to (1) develop a dynamic
test to evaluate the emergency handling of SUVs, (2) require that all
SUVs be put through that test, and (3) make the test results available
to consumers.
NHTSA granted our petition in 1997 and thereby raised expectations
that it would develop a dynamic test. CU's comments to NHTSA's
proposal, submitted just two weeks ago, notes that after conducting a
series of dynamic tests on just 12 vehicles, NHTSA backed away from
dynamic testing, instead recommending the use of a static measure known
as SSF, as the basis on which to rate vehicles. In our comments, CU
said:
While we believe any information that helps educate consumers
about rollover has merit, after a thorough analysis of NHTSA's
proposal, we cannot, unfortunately, endorse NHTSA's decision to
use only the Static Stability Factor (SSF) to measure vehicle
rollover propensity
And continued:
CU believes that the value of SSF to consumers is preferable
to consumers having no information at all. At the very least,
it clarifies the fundamental differences among categories of
vehicles. But it is not a satisfactory regulatory response to
an important issue of auto safety. It is too crude a measure to
reliably distinguish among models within the same class of
vehicles.
We urged NHTSA to continue trying to develop a dynamic test. We
have submitted a full copy of our comments to NHTSA to the Committee
staff and ask that it be included in the record.
We always have concerns about Congress preventing NHTSA from taking
action that the agency deems necessary to promote highway safety.
Nevertheless, when Senator Shelby introduced his amendment in the
Transportation Appropriations bill to delay NHTSA's action until the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) studied whether SSF is the best
stability measure, with Senator Hollings joining him, we were pleased
that the amendment also directed the NAS to study the benefits of
dynamic testing and to include consumer representatives in the NAS
study.
In summary, CU believes we are all at a crossroads, and we need a
change of direction. We feel pleased that NHTSA finally has an
administrator. Dr. Bailey brings fresh leadership and an impressive set
of credentials to put the spirit of service to the consumer back in the
agency. We are also pleased that the Committee, and in particular the
chairman, has expressed a sincere interest in setting the agency back
on a proper course. And no matter what you hear about public confidence
in government, consumers need and deserve a strong auto safety agency
that has the will to act on their behalf. They need stronger standards,
more vigorous attention to injury data, and a relentless commitment to
recalling defective products. Consumers Union stands ready to work with
you to bring about these sorely needed changes.
POSSIBLE PREVENTIVE MEASURES
Senator Shelby. Ms. Claybrook, I will try to be brief to
give other people a chance to question.
How could this have been prevented. What we have in front
of us today is loss of life, the loss of property, but lives
more than anything and, obvious to me, a concealment of
information that should have been brought out to the public,
who ultimately are the consumers, and that is all of us and our
families. How could that be prevented?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, first of all I believe the regulatory
agency does need to be more proactive. I think it needs much
tougher penalties. I think if it has criminal penalties, the
executives of these companies are going to think twice before
they allow this to happen again. That is my view. Criminal
penalties are a very harsh penalty. They are better not used in
most cases, I think, but if they are there to be used I think
that they are a real deterrent.
And then finally I think that the American Bar Association
and the courts of this country ought to prohibit gag orders,
because the trial lawyers are put in a terribly awkward
position. They are trying to service their client. An offer for
settlement is made. The client is ill, desperate, harmed, and
they want a settlement, and so there has to be an acceptance of
that by the trial lawyer in most cases when it is offered, so
the public is not served by that, and I believe it ought to be.
PATTERN OF INJURY DATA NOT RECOGNIZED
Mr. Pittle. Prior to coming to Consumers Union I was a
commissioner at the Consumer Products Safety Commission for 9
years and we, when we set the agency up in 1973, did our best
to inspire our staff to take an aggressive search for injury
data. You do not wait for it to trickle in and come in the
mailbox or over the transom.
I think that is what has been happening to NHTSA over the
last few years. I have observed an agency that has lost its
will and lost its way. It needs strong leadership at the top to
demand that they go out and look for this information, go to
auto repair shops, go to tire repair shops. Insurance agencies
use the information that the trial lawyers have available. You
have to go looking for it. If you wait for it to come you will
wait until you find 88 deaths and 1,400 incidents. This should
have been picked up a long time ago if the agency was more
aggressive.
Senator Shelby. But the real dynamic here was brought out
by this young analyst with State Farm Insurance who was keeping
tabs of all this information, was it not?
Ms. Claybrook. He was not keeping tabs. He happened upon
it. He happened upon it, and as he processed his paper every
day he saw another one, and then another one, and he realized
that, but he not only contacted the agency by sending an e-mail
with this, he called them up, and he did it--in 1978 he sent
them 21 cases--I am sorry, in 1998 he sent them 21 cases. In
1999 he sent them 30 cases, so now they have 51 cases as of
1999 in the agency, sent from the largest insurance company in
America for autos.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Pittle, what did NHTSA do with this
information that this gentleman sent them?
Mr. Pittle. I only know what I read in the press. They say
they never got it.
Ms. Claybrook. They got it. They just did not analyze it.
Mr. Pittle. Whatever they did, nothing got out.
Senator Shelby. They did not act on it, anyway.
Mr. Pittle. They did not act on it, and that is what--I am
going to go back to the point, you are in the role, and you
have the position to speak to the head of the agency to say, we
want this agency to be sitting here with the consumer talking
about safety problems. I am sorry that she is not here at the
table with us, because that is where I would see a
disinterested auto safety agency, here with the consumers.
Senator Shelby. Proactive means they will protect the lives
of Americans, does it not?
Mr. Pittle. Yes. That is the best chance we have.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Claybrook, you in your little demonstration here showed
that tire size has little to do with separation, at least in
the example that you have presented.
IS RECALL BROAD ENOUGH?
Why would NHTSA not, or why would the company not want to
participate as long as they are doing it actively in a recall
to call in the larger tires, or whatever size it is that is off
the recall, the present recall list, and why would not, should
not NHTSA--I do not know whether we are going to hear about
that a little bit later--insist that that take place?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, first of all NHTSA is doing a further
investigation of all the data. They first asked for information
from the companies in May 2000, and they are only just getting
the information in. It has now been 3\1/2\ months, so they have
to look at the data.
They also have due process requirements. They have to
analyze it. They have to make an initial determination of a
defect. They have to have a public hearing. The company has to
be able to respond and then make a final determination of the
defects, so they have a due process burden that they have to
carry, and that is appropriate. I agree with that.
So what the agency did last week I applaud. They asked
Firestone to recall another 1.4 million tires beyond the 6.5
million. Firestone refused, and so the agency put out a
consumer advisory.
Now, this is the first consumer advisory I know of issued
by the agency in 15 or 20 years, and consumer advisories are a
very effective way of both alerting the public as well as
getting more information, and so I applaud them for doing that.
The reason the company did not do a larger recall, you will
have to ask Ford and Firestone. My understanding is that Ford
took the Firestone claims data, the injury and property damage
data, and analyzed it and defined the recall that is now
underway, the 6.5 million recall, by the correlation of the
injuries and claims to particular tire sizes, but that claims
data was as of the May 1. A lot of information has come in
since, but also, importantly, it did not include warranty and
adjustment data.
Adjustments are when somebody complains, they bring in a
bad tire and there is an adjustment made at the dealership. You
get half-price off, or whatever it is, and I believe that
looking at other data is important to coming to a conclusion,
but to me the basic issue is that it is a design defect, and
when it is a design defect it covers all the tires.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Pittle, do other vehicle owners
with nonrecalled Firestone tires, have you seen any evidence
that there may be some concerns about other brands, or other
models besides the ones----
Mr. Pittle. I have not seen it expressed either through
injury data or through our testing, which of course the brand,
that would not show up.
DYNAMIC ROLLOVER TEST NEEDED
I have seen a continued concern about being able to
evaluate the roll-over propensity of vehicles sitting in the
showroom. I want to go back to that, because this is really the
combination of two unfortunate situations coming together. We
have a vehicle that has a high center of gravity that is linked
up with a tire that has a tendency to blow out, and when a tire
with a high center of gravity blows out it is going to have a
greater tendency to roll over and cause serious injury or
death.
And what consumers really want to know is, how do you
separate--they know that--I mean, I can tell you that whether
you are testing refrigerators, automobiles, or televisions,
they all can look alike, very similar, but they act
differently, and they each have different characteristics, and
the ones that are more prone to roll over, have less competent
handling characteristics, you cannot tell by looking at it. You
have to test it dynamically to see how it will perform.
It is much akin to trying to decide how something will
taste by reading the ingredient list. You really cannot do
that. You have got to put it to the test, and that is what
NHTSA has to get back on track to do, get back to dynamic
testing development.
Senator Lautenberg. I wonder whether we are at a point in
time when after seeing this disagreement between Ford and
Firestone about whether or not--pointing fingers at one
another, whether or not there should be a receipt, some kind of
an alert or an alarm that goes out pointing out what the risk
is with tire inflation.
PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT TIRE SAFETY
I can bet you anything that even this day, with all the
publicity we have seen, including Mr. Nasser's appearances on
television, plenty of people do not just know what to do, do
not know about the problem that their families may be facing.
How do we get that information out there in a sensible way now
and prospectively? Should there be warning labels just like you
might see on cigarettes, or the right to know about chemical
factories in the neighborhood? The right to know ought to be an
integral part of what it is that these products represent by
way of a threat to safety.
Ms. Claybrook. Well, I would certainly suggest anyone who
has these tires drive more slowly. One of the issues here is
that the speed limit has gone up from 55 miles an hour to 65
and 70 miles an hour, so people are going faster. They buy
these vehicles to go on vacations and trips often, so they are
driving 4, 5, 6 hours at a time. The tires get very hot, and
when the tires get hot, that is when the tread separation is
likely to occur.
And this heat build-up, that is the reason this issue of
the climate was first mentioned, because in colder weather the
heat is dissipated faster. In hot weather it is not dissipated
faster. In addition, these are truck tires. Truck tires were
really designed for pick-up trucks, and these are tires that
are now on vehicles that people use in the same way they use
cars.
I would say Ford Motor Company does put the specifications
for these tires on paper, and require certain specifications
for the tires and the tire manufacturer then manufactures them,
so there is not a disconnect in the sense of not knowing what
this tire is when it is bought by the vehicle manufacturer, and
the vehicle manufacturer tests them and so do the tire
manufacturers, and the vehicle manufacturer tests them on the
vehicle.
That is the reason that they decided to lower it to 26 psi,
because they tested it with a higher psi and the vehicle rolled
over, so then they decided to lower the psi, the pounds per
square inch inflation of the tires.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FOREIGN COUNTRIES' RESPONSE TO DEFECTS AND RECALL
Ms. Claybrook, you testified that the Venezuelan
authorities are considering prosecution for involuntary
manslaughter. That, in my judgment, would be grossly
insufficient.
Involuntary manslaughter is an offense where there is gross
negligence. That does not comprehend conduct where there is
knowledge that there is a defect which could cause the death of
another. Where that knowledge is present in advance, that is
equated in common law with malice, which is sufficient to
constitute a charge of second degree murder.
I know you are not responsible for what Venezuela does, but
I think that point ought to be emphasized, that this is not a
matter of negligence or gross negligence, which would give rise
to a charge of involuntary manslaughter.
Ms. Claybrook. Senator Specter, I would just say there is a
question, and of course with translation it is somewhat
difficult for us to be sure of exactly what the authority is
under Venezuelan law, so my feeling is, although I do not know
this for a fact, is that that is probably what they thought
they had the authority to do.
Senator Specter. Ms. Claybrook, you testified that criminal
penalties ought not to be ordinarily used in matters of
defective products. How about this case, where key Ford
officials and key Firestone officials knew about the defect,
evident by having products recalled from Saudi Arabia? Is this
the kind of a matter, in your judgment, that a criminal penalty
would be appropriate?
Ms. Claybrook. I think that it is. I think there should be
a full investigation, of course, and complete documentation,
which there certainly is not at this time, but I certainly
think that it should be the subject of consideration.
Senator Specter. Mr. Pittle, I note you nodding in the
affirmative.
Mr. Pittle. Well, I am just thinking----
Senator Specter. Excuse me, I have not come to my question,
but I do not want to take an affirmative nod into the record
without giving you a chance to answer.
EFFECTIVE DETERRANTS
You testified that a fine on a failure to report is not an
effective deterrent. I think that is pretty obvious. Do you
think a second degree murder prosecution against the officials
at Ford and Firestone who were shown to have known that these
defects were present and failed to act to recall these
defective products would be an effective deterrent?
Mr. Pittle. I think that would be an effective deterrent,
yes.
Senator Specter. I note an affirmative nod on what Ms.
Claybrook was testifying to, when I asked her the question as
to whether she thought this was an appropriate case for
criminal prosecution. Do you agree with her?
Mr. Pittle. I was nodding to my own memory of my own
experience in this area, and I was not nodding specifically to
her response.
Senator Specter. Good. We will give you a chance to answer
the question verbally and vocally.
Mr. Pittle. When I was at the Product Safety Commission we
found on a number of occasions in which we had the authority to
impose criminal penalties, when there was evidence that a
manufacturer knew about and did not recall a serious hazard, we
ran into situations where when the rubber meets the road--not a
good analogy in this case--it would find that the U.S. Attorney
might say, this is not a very strong, exciting, big enough
case, I think I am not going to bring it, or you would find----
Senator Specter. Well, never mind those cases. How about
this case?
Mr. Pittle. I think this case is clearly big enough,
serious enough, broad enough and, depending upon what the
investigation brings out about the facts leading up to where we
are now, that it would go forward.
Senator Specter. There is a very heated debate in the
Congress about the issue of punitive damages, and my experience
both as a civil defense lawyer and as a representing
plaintiff's, and before that as a district attorney in
Philadelphia, where you have the criminal sanctions, but my
experience has shown that punitive damages do not amount to
much because the awards, which look gigantic in the newspapers,
do not hold up.
I know of a case where Ford Motor Company had a defective
brake mechanism which they knew existed and did not recall, and
a 3-year-old child was killed when a truck backed over the
child and the verdict was $153 million, since reduced to $69
million, and on appeal that--it doubtless will be reduced
further, and it takes the most extraordinary kind of litigation
effort to carry one of those cases forward, and there is no
doubt that when you talk about punitive damages it is cost
effective for the company not to fix the product.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
You have the famous Pinto case, where the documents which
were finally discovered and disclosed, that here again Ford
calculated that it was cheaper to pay the damages than it was
to repair the vehicle.
That sort of a situation, it seems to me, just cries out
for criminal prosecution with cases established of knowing what
has happened.
Ms. Claybrook. Senator Specter, if I could comment on the
Pinto case, there was actually a criminal prosecution in that
case by a local prosecutor in Indiana who lost the case, and I
think for lack of resources, utter lack of resources, because
that was the only way a criminal prosecution could be brought
in the case, because there was no Federal authority to bring a
criminal prosection for refusal and failure to recall.
Senator Specter. Ms. Claybrook, do you think that, in your
list of recommendations for legislative changes, that there
ought to be Federal legislation establishing criminal
liability, homicide, or murder in the second degree, for
reckless disregard of the safety of others on products which
move in interstate commerce?
Ms. Claybrook. I do.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Claybrook, I
have known you for many years. Sometimes we have been in
adversarial positions, but I compliment you on your statement
today and on your recommendations. You have been very helpful
to me when we were acting on the zero-tolerance, under-age
drinking and driving amendment, and I want to publicly thank
you for that.
You were the NHTSA Administrator during the largest tire
recall, the Firestone 500 recall. You stated that in both cases
Firestone has withheld information. Do you believe this is a
problem that is peculiar to Firestone, or is it shared by other
tire manufacturers?
Ms. Claybrook. I do not think it is peculiar to Firestone.
I certainly think that it occurs with some frequency at the
Department of Transportation as to other manufacturers. There
has been clearly withholding of information by companies, and I
think the reasons why are that they have not had sufficient
penalties. They have not had civil penalties. They have not had
criminal penalties. They have not had penalties of withholding
documents per day as opposed to just for each document.
If you look at a comparison of a case developed by the
Department of Transportation, NHTSA on a particular recall, and
then you look at the file of a really first class trial
attorney who has gone after documents in a similar case, you
will see that the trial attorney has many more documents and
understanding of the case and the internal decisionmaking
process of the company than does the Department of
Transportation, and the reason why is because the court can
sanction the company and the agency cannot, and often does not.
Senator Byrd. What about the auto manufacturers?
Ms. Claybrook. I was including them in that statement.
SAFETY OF SUVS
Senator Byrd. Do you believe that sports utility vehicles
can be reengineered to be safer for the occupants, or are they
inherently unsafe because of the gravity problem?
Ms. Claybrook. I think they can be reengineered, and I
understand that the Ford Explorer is being reengineered for the
year 2002. The chairman of Ford has said that--he acknowledged
about 3 or 4 months ago that these vehicles did have to be
redesigned, and I compliment him and the company on being up
front about that.
These are cash cows for these companies. They bring in huge
profits, and generally the auto companies' view is that what
sold yesterday will sell tomorrow until we know it does not,
and then we will change it, and I think much of their
resistance to not changing the vehicle design is because they
have been so popular, but I think this case in many ways has
informed the American public that they are susceptible to roll-
over and they need to be redesigned, and I think it is going to
push every company to do that.
And if there is any solace for the families of the people
who have died and been injured, it is that I think it is going
to spur some major change, but I do not think it ought to just
be within the companies. I think the Department of
Transportation ought to issue a roll-over standard that is a
dynamic testing standard that makes it clear that these
vehicles are not going to be these unknown killers
unnecessarily.
Senator Byrd. Ms. Claybrook, your testimony is very
forthright. You are very knowledgeable, and I want to
compliment you and thank you for your statement, and also thank
you, Mr. Pittle.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I very much would like to
hear from some of the company witnesses, and I want to thank
both of the witnesses.
PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED
From my standpoint it was not only the companies you have
told us here today that need to do some fixing up, but our own
agency obviously is very weak. Either that, or we do not
understand the situation, but it would seem to me that safety--
trying to protect the public in terms of automobiles and
tires--from what you have told us, seems not to be a very
important part of the life of this agency in charge of safety.
Now, maybe the companies do a great job. Perhaps they do, I
think considering how many vehicles are made every year and how
many are bought and how many are on the roads. I am not
suggesting we take over the companies one iota, but we must
have--this has to be a case of indicating we have got to
strengthen the agency, and we have got to focus in on this
particular one and see what we can do to get it repaired and to
move on from there.
So I thank both of you. It has been a very enlightening
morning.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the time
is moving along. I really am going to ask Ms. Claybrook one
question, acknowledging the wonderful role that Mr. Pittle has
played in both his role at the Consumer Products Safety
Commission, which I am an appropriator of, as well as now.
Ms. Claybrook, we really had an unfortunate historic
situation here. In 1970 Ralph Nader wrote his book, Unsafe at
Any Speed. And 30 years later, people driving these vehicles
and on these tires continue to be unsafe at any speed, and
there have been 15 accidents in Maryland, no deaths, but every
accident is a tragedy or a death waiting to happen.
NEED FOR EFFECTIVE QUALITY INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
Let me go to my question. First, thank you, because of
telling me about the early warning. It is an issue I want to
take up with Dr. Bailey, but here is the question. Right now in
my home State of Maryland, to protect the food supply of the
American people we have inspectors at the chicken factory right
now who are getting ready the wonderful delicacies that come
out of Maryland to feed the Nation. The fact is that we have
inspectors in the factory, on the line, worried about
salmonella and all the other kinds of things, and they are
there to protect the American people.
My question, then, goes to this. What are the inspectors at
an automobile car manufacturing plant? Do we have mandatory
inspection? Do we have mandatory reporting that comes out of
that? Do we have this? If we can bring inspectors to look at
our chicken parts, should we bring in inspectors to look at our
auto parts?
Ms. Claybrook. The way that the National Motor Vehicle
Safety Act is constructed, the companies self-certify they are
in compliance with the standards. If the agency has reason to
believe, or is concerned, it can send inspectors. It has
authority to send inspectors, but there are no routine, regular
inspectors out there on the line, but what the agency does is,
it takes the product and it randomly buys them from dealers, so
the companies do not know where they are buying it, and they
test them to assure that they are, in fact, in compliance with
the standards, and I will have to say that most of the time
they are.
Part of the problem in this case is the standard is so old
and insufficient that it passed the standard. This tire passed
the standard in 1997, and so the standards are out of date.
They need to be updated.
I would not necessarily change the system. The one
recommendation the Department has made and I endorse is that
there be a statutory requirement that before they can self-
certify they have to have tested, and they have to have test
results that show that they have complied, and the Department
can then ask for those tests any time they want.
Senator Mikulski. So you would not put in inspectors in the
factories?
Ms. Claybrook. I do not think so.
Senator Mikulski. Again, would you have mandatory
submission of quality control reports and then spot inspection
other than retail sampling?
Ms. Claybrook. I think the Department would be completely
overwhelmed. As I said, there are only about 20 people in the
agency who work on defects, I think or engineers or
investigators, and the agency would have to be vastly enlarged
in order to have that capacity. I think the better way to do it
is to have the statutory requirement that they must do tests to
certify their compliance, so any time the agency----
Senator Mikulski. And severe penalties if they submit
deceptive or faulty----
Ms. Claybrook. And any time the agency wants they can ask
for these tests and look at these tests, and if there is
falsification of the tests, then they are in real trouble, and
I do not think there would be in most cases anyway.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Byrd. And with new and updated standards.
Ms. Claybrook. A new and updated standard for tire safety,
right.
Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement
and a question for both of you. In the wake of these reports
about faulty tires and the accidents that they have most
certainly caused, there has been a great deal of blame-laying
about why this information took so long to get out into the
public domain.
EFFECT OF GAG ORDERS
One thing I believe is abundantly clear. Many of these
cases were settled in and out of court with confidentiality
agreements, which agreements kept information, crucial
information about millions of defective tires, behind closed
doors and away from the public.
The question is, first, is there any doubt in your minds
that the secrecy orders led to more injuries, accidents, and
deaths, and second, I have a bill with bipartisan support that
would make the secrecy orders much tougher to get when health
and safety issues are at stake.
In the wake of these tragedies, do you believe that this
bill should be unanimously supported and voted upon?
Ms. Claybrook. Well, first of all I do believe that gag
orders kept this information secret inappropriately, and
resulted in the death and injury of lots of people. I think
these orders are unethical. I think among other things the
American Bar Association ought to declare them as unethical.
As you know, we supported your legislation. My only concern
is that I do not favor the Federal Government telling State
courts what to do, and I am very concerned about that.
The other issue is that every time your bill starts to come
up they want to put a whole bunch of other things that undercut
the tort system on top of your bill, so there is some
complexity there, as you know, but certainly I do not believe
that these protective orders ought to be allowed.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Pittle.
Mr. Pittle. That is Consumers Union's view as well. We
think that these gag orders have clearly led to the withholding
of information that if it had been made public this hearing
would have occurred months ago, maybe years ago, and the
injuries and deaths that have occurred during the interim would
not have occurred, and Consumers Union does support the
abolition of gag orders and agreements where public safety
information is sealed away and left to be out of view while the
product goes on and injures or kills more people.
Senator Kohl. Well, we are committed to getting this
legislation passed if not this year, next, and I trust we will
have your full support and cooperation in this effort, and I
thank you so much.
Senator Shelby. I want to thank both of you for appearing
here and giving your testimony, and I appreciate having been
able to work with both of you on it.
On our second panel, we will have Mr. Ono, the chief
executive officer of Bridgestone/Firestone, and he will be
making the opening statement and then will be replaced by Gary
Crigger, the executive vice president of Bridgestone/Firestone.
We also have Helen Petrauskus, vice president,
environmental and safety engineering, who will be testifying
for Ford Motor Company, and Dr. Sue Bailey, the Administrator
of NHTSA will testify on behalf of the Federal Government.
We welcome all of you to the hearing. Mr. Ono, if you will
take the mike closer to you, people will be able to hear you.
If you will, sir. It is not too sensitive. Mr. Ono, your
written statement will be made a part of the record, and you
can proceed as you wish. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MASATOSHI ONO, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE,
INC.
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GARY CRIGGER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS AND PLANNING,
BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.
BOB WYANT, VICE PRESIDENT, QUALITY ASSURANCE, BRIDGESTONE/
FIRESTONE, INC.
Mr. Ono. Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for providing me with this opportunity to appear
before you here today. I have my speech so that I may deliver
in English. However, I must use a translator, and two of my
senior executives will respond to your questions. I have never
made a public appearance like this before, so I am more than a
little bit nervous.
As the chief executive officer, I come before you to
apologize to you and especially the American people, especially
the families who have lost loved ones in these terrible roll-
over accidents. Also, I come to accept full and personal
responsibility on behalf of Bridgestone/Firestone for the
events that led to this hearing.
Whenever people are hurt or fatally injured in automobile
accidents it is tragic. Whenever people are injured while
riding on Firestone tires, it is cause for great concern among
Bridgestone/Firestone management and our 35,000 American
employees.
On August 8 we met with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. We reviewed what we knew at that time about the
performance of the tires which are associated with the tread
separation and accidents primarily on the Ford Explorer
vehicles. On the following day, August 9, Bridgestone/Firestone
announced a voluntary safety recall of 6.5 million tires. Since
that time, our highest priorities have been to complete the
recall as quickly as possible and to determine the root cause
of the tire failures.
At this time, we have replaced nearly 2 million of the
tires. We have been maximizing worldwide production of
replacements for tires that have been recalled. To speed up the
process we are using our competitors' tires and airlifting
additional replacement tires, and these shipments will continue
as long as necessary.
We have a team working around the clock, using all our
available resources to try and determine the root causes for
the tire problem. We are reviewing every aspect of our
manufacturing and quality control processes. This includes
microscopic examination of many recalled tires.
In addition, we are working with Ford Motor Company and
their experts to thoroughly examine every possible cause.
Unfortunately, I am not able to give you a conclusive cause at
this time. However, you have my word that we will continue
until we find the cause.
While we search for the root cause we are also undertaking
the following actions. First, we will appoint an outside,
independent investigator to assist in tire analysis and
determine the root cause of the tire problem we have
experienced. We are taking this action to help assure you and
the public that the Firestone tires are reliable now and in the
future.
Second, we will fully cooperate with this committee about
the safety as well as problems that have occurred with our
tires. We will release data and information in order to assure
consumer safety with our products.
Third, we are accelerating the roll-out of a Nation-wide
consumer education program. The program will be run through
more than 7,000 company stores and Firestone dealers. It will
provide consumers with information on proper tire maintenance
through the use of in-store videos, showroom displays,
brochures, windshield tags, and tire pressure gauges.
Fourth, we pledge to continue working with the NHTSA
towards developing early understanding and complete reporting
of accidents, and developing approaches that make it easier for
drivers to determine tire pressure.
With your permission, I would now like to ask two of my
senior executives to join me so that we can more efficiently
respond to your questions. Mr. Gary Crigger is executive vice
president, business planning, and Mr. Bob Wyant, vice president
of quality assurance.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MASATOSHI ONO
Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee: as chief executive
officer, I come before you to apologize to you, the American people and
especially to the families who have lost loved ones in these terrible
rollover accidents. I also come to accept full and personal
responsibility on behalf of Bridgestone/Firestone for the events that
led to this hearing. Whenever people are hurt or fatally injured in
automobile accidents, it is tragic. Whenever people are injured while
riding on Firestone tires, it is cause for great concern among
Bridgestone/Firestone management and our 35,000 American employees.
On August 8, we met with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. We reviewed what we knew--at that time--about the
performance of the tires which are associated with tread separations
and accidents primarily on the Ford Explorer vehicle. On the following
day, August 9, Bridgestone/Firestone announced a voluntary safety
recall of 6.5 million tires.
Since that time, our highest priorities have been to complete the
recall as quickly as possible and to determine the root cause of the
tire failures.
At this time we have replaced nearly two million of the recalled
tires. We have maximized worldwide production of replacements for tires
that have been recalled. To speed up the process, we are using our
competitors' tires and air lifting additional replacement tires and
these shipments will continue as long as necessary.
We have a team working around the clock using all our available
resources to try and determine the root causes for the tire problem. We
are reviewing every aspect of our manufacturing and quality control
processes. This includes microscopic examination of many recalled
tires. In addition, we are working with Ford Motor Company and experts
to thoroughly examine every possible cause.
Unfortunately, I am not able to give you a conclusive cause at this
time. However, you have my word that we will continue until we find the
cause.
While we search for the root cause, we are also undertaking the
following actions:
First, we will appoint an outside independent investigator to
assist in tire analysis and determine the root cause of the tire
problem we have experienced. We are taking this action to help assure
you and the public that Firestone tires are reliable now and in the
future.
Second, we will fully cooperate with this committee about the
safety as well as problems that have occurred with our tires. We will
release data and information in order to assure consumer safety with
our products.
Third, we are accelerating the rollout of a nationwide consumer
education program. The program will be run through more than 7,000
company stores and Firestone dealers. It will provide consumers with
information on proper tire maintenance through the use of in-store
videos, showroom displays, brochures, windshield tags and tire pressure
gauges.
Fourth, we pledge to continue working with NHTSA toward developing
early understandings and complete reporting of accidents and developing
approaches that make it easier for drivers to determine tire pressure.
In closing, this year Firestone is observing its 100th anniversary.
It is a proud history. Henry Ford used Firestone tires on the original
model-T. For 100 years, millions of families have placed their trust
and faith in the good people of Firestone. We feel a heavy
responsibility to make certain that we are worthy still of your
continued trust and confidence.
With your permission, I would now like to ask two of my senior
executives to join me so that we can more efficiently respond to your
questions. Mr. Gary Crigger is executive vice president, business
planning and Mr. Bob Wyant is vice president, quality assurance.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HELEN PETRAUSKU, VICE PRESIDENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ENGINEERING, FORD
MOTOR COMPANY
Senator Shelby. Ms. Petrauskus, you are appearing on behalf
of Ford, right?
Ms. Petrauskus. Yes, I am.
Senator Shelby. You may proceed.
Ms. Petrauskus. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. Since we at Ford first found out about the problem
of tread separation we have been guided by three principles.
First, we will do whatever we can to guarantee our customer
safety. We are committed not only to their physical safety but
to their feelings of security when they are driving their
vehicles. We, too, are deeply troubled by the fact that there
are defective tires on some of our vehicles.
Second, we are working hard to replace bad tires with good
tires, and that includes making sure we understand the scope of
the problem and finding the specific cause of the problem, and
then finally we will continue to be open about any data,
statistics, information that we have, and we will share it with
you as soon as we know it.
Mr. Chairman, you chastised me not to come in here and tell
you that this is a tire issue, and I am not going to do that,
but I do want to talk about the safety of the Explorer, and the
first chart I have shows the Explorer safety record, and it is
a safety record that is based on the best and the only Federal
safety data base for serious accidents, or in this case
fatalities. Literally every fatality that occurs on the
Nation's highways is reflected on that data base, and I wish
those fatalities could be zero, but they are not.
What I want to show you is for the 10-year history of the
Explorer since it was first introduced it is safer in all
accident types, compared to other sport utility vehicles, by a
substantial amount, and what is most important in the issues we
have been talking about today, it is safer from a roll-over
standpoint by a substantial amount compared to other sport
utility vehicles.
Jerry, if I could have the next slide just quickly.
So if we compare based on this best data base that our
country has, the safety performance of the Explorer, and we
find ourselves looking at it in kind of a cold-blooded way, the
number of fatalities that take place per 100 million miles of
driving, what we find is there are 1.6 fatalities per 100
million miles driven for the average passenger car, and we find
for the average SUV that number is 1.3, and for the Explorer
that number is 1.0, and we want to do everything we can to make
it lower. It is a very safe vehicle.
Let me just add to that, that of the Explorers we produced
we have millions, probably 2\1/2\, between 2\1/2\ and 3 million
Goodyear tires installed on these Explorers over this period of
time, and they have the same specification as the Firestone
tire, including the same specification for recommended tire
pressure, and they have not experienced problems and, indeed,
Explorers equipped with nonrecalled tires have not exhibited
those problems.
Having said all that, the most important thing now is that
we strongly support Firestone's decision to recall the 15-inch
ATX and the Decatur, Illinois-built Wilderness AT tires. Based
on the Firestone data that we have, we believe these are the
problem tires, and in our written statement we have submitted a
more detailed analysis.
In terms of customer focus, our top priority is to replace
faulty tires as fast as possible. As of September 1 over 1\1/2\
million tires have been replaced.
We have worked with the entire tire industry, the worldwide
tire industry, not just Bridgestone/Firestone but all the other
tire producers around the world, to increase their production
of 15-inch tires, and they will do so at the rate of about
250,000 tires a month by the end of this month, and we have
suspended production at three of our assembly plants so that
those trucks with new tires that were headed for our plants
could head for our dealerships and bring tires to our customers
faster. In this regard, we have engaged about 3,300 Ford and
Lincoln Mercury dealers to participate in this.
Let me turn to the overseas action. When reports of tread
separations in Saudi Arabia first came to our attention we
asked Firestone to investigate. They concluded that the tire
failures were due to external causes such as poor repairs, road
hazard damage, and extreme operating conditions. Given the
problems our customers were having, we, Ford, decided to
replace the tires with a more puncture-resistant tire.
Another market in which we have experienced tire problems
is Venezuela. Our ability to understand that situation is
complicated by the fact that about three-quarters of the tires
that we used in Venezuela were locally produced, as opposed to
shipped from the United States. Again, Firestone concluded that
the tread separations were caused by poor repairs, road hazard
damage, and operating conditions. In May, we, Ford, began
replacing all these Firestone tires.
Concern about the safety of all of our customers, including
our U.S. customers, drove us to look aggressively for evidence
of a defect in the United States at the very same time we were
taking actions overseas. As early as April of last year, we
were searching all of the available data files available to us,
and by that I mean all of our own complaint records, all of our
own warranty records as well as the Government records.
We asked Firestone to check all of their records, and we
had new tires tested under three separate, very severe test
conditions to try to cause the tread separation to happen, and
then I think very importantly last fall we kicked off a tire
evaluation program in Texas, Nevada, and Arizona.
In all of this we found no defect. Our first evidence of a
defect came when NHTSA opened its investigation and required
Firestone to assemble and provide data on property damage,
personal injury, and lawsuits, and Ford insisted on obtaining
that data as well. When we received that data on July 27, we
quickly analyzed it and identified the problem tires that were
recalled on August 9.
The chart we have there shows you and summarizes our
analysis, and what that analysis shows is, if we look at
property damage claims, injury claims on a per-tire basis and
adjust it for the volume of tires that are in use, we see very
significant differences in the performance of the tires that
were recalled as opposed to the ones that were not recalled.
In conclusion, our mission remains to replace bad tires
with good tires as quickly as possible. The safety, the trust,
the peace of mind of our customers is paramount to Ford Motor
Company.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Helen Petrauskas
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I am Helen
Petrauskas, Vice President of Environmental and Safety Engineering. I
have been with Ford Motor Company for almost 30 years.
I am deeply troubled by the fact that there are defective tires on
some of our vehicles. As you know, Firestone manufactured and warranted
these tires. However, because so many of these tires were used as
original equipment on Ford products, we have taken extraordinary steps
to support this recall and ensure the safety of our customers. Ford
Motor Company is absolutely committed to doing the right thing to
protect our customers and to maintain their trust.
Throughout this period, we have been guided by three principles.
First, we will do whatever we can to guarantee our customers' safety.
We are committed not only to their physical safety, but also their
feelings of security when driving our vehicles. Second, we are working
hard to find and replace bad tires with good tires. That includes
making sure that we understand the scope of the problem and finding the
cause of the problem. Third, we will continue to be open about any
data, statistics or information that we have, and will share anything
new as soon as we know it.
ACTIONS WE HAVE TAKEN
Now, let's talk about the actions Ford has taken to support the
recall and why we believe these are the right actions.
First, this is a tire issue, not a vehicle issue. We have millions
of Goodyear tires on 1995 through 1997 Explorers--the same
specification tire operating under the same conditions--and they
haven't experienced these problems.
Furthermore, the Explorer is one of the safest SUVs on the road.
Proof of this is our exemplary safety record over the last decade. The
most recent data from the Department of Transportation show that the
Explorer has a lower fatality rate than both the average passenger car
and competitive SUV, as shown in Attachment 1. Additionally, Explorer's
fatality rate in rollover accidents is 26 percent lower than other
compact SUVs (Attachment 2).
Second, we strongly support Firestone's decision to recall 15 inch
ATX and Decatur-built Wilderness AT tires. Based on the Firestone data
we have, we've determined that these tires are problem tires. We have
made a detailed analysis of the Firestone claims data (which is the
only comprehensive data covering this matter). We have made our
analysis available to our customers, to the public, to Firestone, to
the media and to NHTSA. The chart in attachment 3 clearly shows the
problem tires. As you can see, they are the Firestone ATX and ATXII
tires, and the Decatur, Illinois-built Wilderness AT tires, all in the
size P235/75 R15--the 15 inch size.
A more detailed explanation of our analysis of Firestone's claims
data is included in our attachments. As you can see in Attachment 4,
the P235/75R15 clearly had a significantly higher number of claims than
other tire sizes, at 2,030 claims, compared to the next highest tire
size, with 137 claims. The claims were broken out by complaint, as
shown in attachments 5 and 6. Of the total 2,030 claims, 1,424 claims
were related to tread separation.
We looked at the claims rate for the 15 inch ATX and Wilderness
tires in the 1996 production year--the only year both products were
produced in significant volumes. The ATX claims rate for tread
separation was eleven times higher than the Wilderness claims rate
(Attachment 7).
To better understand the population of bad Wilderness tires, we
looked at the tread separation claims rate by plant and production
year, as shown in Attachment 8. The Decatur, Illinois plant clearly
showed a different pattern than other Firestone plants. For example, in
the 1996 production year, the Decatur plant had a 66.3 claims rate (per
million tires) compared with a 6.6 claims rate for other plants.
We looked at the data in even more detail, analyzing claims by time
in service at claim date, tire production year, and plant. Again, the
P235/75R15 ATX and Wilderness tires produced at the Decatur plant
showed a clear defect trend (Attachments 9 through 11). And, we did
look at both 15 inch and 16 inch tires for tread separation claims
between 1995 and 1999 (Attachment 3). Again, the 15 inch ATX and
Wilderness tires manufactured at Decatur showed significantly higher
claims rates than other Firestone plants. As you can see from the
chart, the claims rate for the Wilderness AT 16 inch tire has been
extremely low--0 for Decatur and 2.3 at other plants.
This is how we isolated the bad tires. What we still don't know is
why these tires fail. We are working hard on that.
CUSTOMER FOCUS
As I said, our top priority is to replace faulty tires as fast as
possible. I'd like to highlight a few of the many things we have done
to support Firestone's recall and speed replacement. As of September 1,
2000, about 1.5 million tires have been replaced--about 23 percent of
the total population of affected tires. We worked with the tire
industry to increase production of 15-inch tires by more than 250,000
tires per month by the end of September. We have suspended production
at three assembly plants, adding approximately 70,000 tires to the
replacement population. We have engaged 3,100 Ford and Lincoln-Mercury
dealers to perform tire replacements.
We've also made a major effort to communicate information about the
Firestone recall to our customers. For example, we have opened an
additional call center to deal specifically with inquiries on the tire
recall. We are using our website to provide detailed information on the
recall action. And we are running national and local newspaper and
television ads to alert customers to the recall and show them how to
tell if their vehicles are affected.
OVERSEAS ACTIONS
I would also like to comment on our actions overseas. When reports
of tread separation in Gulf Coast Countries came to our attention, we
asked Firestone to investigate. They concluded that the tire failures
were due to external causes, such as poor repairs, road hazard damage,
and extreme operating conditions. Given the problems our customers were
having, we decided to replace the tires with a more puncture resistant
tire.
Another market where we have experienced tire problems is
Venezuela. The situation in Venezuela is complicated by the fact that
about three-quarters of the tires were locally produced. Again,
Firestone concluded that the tread separations were caused by poor
repairs, road hazard damage, and extreme operating conditions. In May,
we began replacing all the Firestone tires on Ford Explorers and
certain light trucks in Venezuela.
Concern about the safety of all of our customers, including our
U.S. customers, drove us to look aggressively for evidence of a defect
in the U.S. at the same time we were taking actions overseas. I share
this with you, not to finger point at Firestone, but simply to tell you
what we did. As early as April of 1999, we were searching all available
data bases--our own and the government's. We asked Firestone to check
its records. And we had new tires tested under three separate, severe
test conditions to try to cause tread separation to happen. Last Fall,
we kicked off a tire inspection test program in the Southwest of the
U.S. No defect trend was found.
When NHTSA opened their investigation, and required Firestone to
assemble and provide data on property damage, personal injury, and
lawsuits, Ford insisted on obtaining the data as well. When we received
the data late in July, we quickly analyzed it and identified the
problem tires that were recalled August 9.
It has been standard practice in the automotive industry that tires
are the only part of the vehicle not warranted by the vehicle
manufacturer. They are the only part for which vehicle manufacturers do
not receive field performance data.
Through all this, we were always open and sought only to find the
facts and do the right thing for our customers.
conclusion
Our mission remains to replace bad tires with good tires as quickly
as possible. The safety, trust and peace of mind of our consumers are
paramount to Ford Motor Company.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Attachment 11
STATEMENT OF HON. SUE BAILEY, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Senator Shelby. Dr. Bailey.
Dr. Bailey. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
pleased to appear before you this morning----
Senator Shelby. Would you bring the mike towards you a
little more?
Dr. Bailey [continuing]. To address the investigation of
Firestone ATX, ATX-2, and Wilderness tires. Secretary Slater
refers to safety as the North Star of the Department of
Transportation, and under his leadership we are committed to
preventing deaths and injuries in motor vehicle crashes. Our
program to investigate safety defects is the key part of that
mission. I will give you a quick overview of the agency's
authority to investigate safety defects and describe the
procedures that the agency follows and outline the Firestone
investigation.
First, our authority. Congress passed the basic motor
vehicle safety law 34 years ago in 1966 and amended the law in
1974 to establish the current notification and remedy
provisions. In brief, the law provides that if a manufacturer
decides one of its products contains a defect that relates to
safety, the manufacturer must notify the agency and owners to
provide a remedy at no cost to the owners.
When the agency's screening process identifies a possible
safety defect, the Office of Defects Investigation takes steps
to open an investigation as a preliminary evaluation (PE). We
inform the manufacturer and the public at this time.
If our review at the end of a PE suggests that further
investigation is warranted, we move the investigation to a
second stage. That is the engineering analysis (EA) stage, and
that is where we are at this point. In that phase we do
appropriate test surveys and obtain additional information from
the manufacturer. After the EA phase of the investigation,
additional steps may ultimately be taken, which would lead the
administrator to decide that a defect exists and order the
manufacturer to recall. If necessary, we could go to court to
enforce that action.
Our investigation of Firestone has reached the engineering
analysis stage. Firestone originally began producing the tires
under investigation in 1991 and by the end of 1999
approximately 47 million have been produced. It is important to
see this in context, because by that time NHTSA had received 46
reports scattered over a 9-year period involving just these
tires. The tires were on a variety of vehicles, primarily on
Ford Explorers.
In view of the large number of tires that had been
produced, a variety of possible causes of tire failure and the
fact that all types of tires can and do fail in use, the
reports that we received did not warrant opening a defect
investigation regarding these tires at that time, again nearly
a 10-year period, 46 complaints. Furthermore, the informal
submission by State Farm in 1998 of 21 claims also was over a
period of several years and included a population of 40-million
plus tires, so that also did not trigger an investigation.
The situation changed rapidly following the airing of a
news story at KHOU in Houston on February 7 that dramatized the
question of tire safety. In addition to highlighting two
fatalities, the story alluded to a number of other crashes and
fatalities. Upon learning of the story, we contacted the
station to obtain more details about the incidents. They have
not given us at this time the information that we had
requested, but the growing publicity generated other reports to
us, including several provided by other media outlets and
plaintiffs' attorneys.
Over the next few weeks we were able to verify many of the
reports and opened a preliminary evaluation on May 2. At that
time, the agency was aware of 90 complaints, including reports
of 33 crashes and four fatalities.
Information accumulated rapidly as a result of the
investigation and the attendant publicity. By August 1 we had
193 complaints alleging tread separations on these tires with
21 reported fatalities.
In a meeting of August 4 we suggested that Firestone
consider recalling the tires. On August 9, Firestone announced
that it would recall 14.4 million tires. As of August 31 we
have 1,400 complaints with reports of 88 fatalities and 250
injuries.
NHTSA is continuing its investigation to determine whether
additional tires need to be recalled. If we discover
information that indicates a problem in any other tires we will
move promptly to urge Firestone to expand its recall. We are
closely monitoring the recall to ensure that Ford and Firestone
promptly replace all defective tires.
Our review of data from Firestone has already disclosed
that other tire models and sizes of tires under investigation
have rates of tread separation as high or higher than the tires
that Firestone is recalling. For that reason, on August 30 we
recommended to Firestone that it expand its recall to include
these additional tires. When Firestone declined to expand the
recall, we issued a consumer advisory on September 1 to advise
owners of these tires and to take actions to assure their
safety.
We now know that in September 1999 Ford asked Firestone to
replace Wilderness tires mounted on Explorers that had been
sold in the States around the Arabian Gulf, primarily Saudi
Arabia. Similar actions were taken in the year 2000 in
Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, and Thailand.
Ford would have been required to notify NHTSA of such an
action if it had occurred in the United States, but our
regulations do not apply to actions taken outside the United
States. Ford thus had no obligation to advise NHTSA when it
took these actions. If we find that we need additional
legislative authority to require manufacturers to provide such
information we will seek to obtain it.
A number of claims and several lawsuits have been filed
against Ford and Firestone before we became aware of any trend
that would indicate a potential defect. Our current regulations
do not require the manufacturers to give us information about
claims or litigation, and we are also exploring, therefore,
measures that will allow us to track claims and litigation
information routinely.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you this investigation is
the highest priority at NHTSA. We will remain focused on the
investigation and closely monitor the current recall campaign.
We will also seek any expansion of the campaign that may be
necessary. I want to conclude by expressing my thanks for your
holding this hearing, and I will be willing to answer any
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sue Bailey
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear
before you this morning to address the investigation and recall of
Firestone ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires. This is the first
subject on which I have appeared before Congress as Administrator of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and I
welcome the opportunity to address this important issue.
The agency's mission is to prevent deaths and injuries in motor
vehicle crashes. Our program to investigate safety defects is a key
part of that mission. I will give you a quick overview of the agency's
authority to investigate safety defects, describe the procedures that
the agency follows in its investigations, outline the Firestone
investigation in that context, and share with you some of my
observations about the investigative process.
OVERVIEW
First, our authority: Congress passed the basic motor vehicle
safety law 34 years ago, in 1966, and amended the law in 1974 to
establish the current notification and remedy provisions. In brief, the
law provides that if a manufacturer decides that one of its products
contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, the
manufacturer must notify the agency and owners and provide a remedy at
no cost to the owners. When the defect is in a tire sold as original
equipment on a new vehicle, the tire manufacturer is the responsible
manufacturer, as opposed to the vehicle manufacturer, and the remedy
may either be to repair or replace the tire.
The law gives us authority to investigate possible defects, to
decide whether a defect exists, and to order a manufacturer to provide
a remedy for any defect. If a manufacturer refuses to provide a remedy,
the law authorizes us to go to court to compel it to do so. This is
seldom necessary. In all but very rare cases, manufacturers agree to
remedy the defect without our having to reach a final decision. In a
typical year, we open between 80 and 100 defect investigations, of
which more than half result in recalls. In addition, manufacturers
conduct an average of 200 defect recalls each year that are not
influenced by NHTSA investigations.
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES
We receive complaints from a wide variety of sources about possible
defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The sources
include our toll-free consumer hotline, our web page, e-mail, phone
calls, and letters. We enter all complaints into a database which is
continuously screened by a team of five investigators in the agency's
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) to identify potential defect
trends. In an average year, we receive between 40,000 and 50,000
complaints from these sources.
When the screening process identifies a potential problem, ODI
takes steps to open an investigation as a ``Preliminary Evaluation''
(PE). We inform the manufacturer and the public at this time, and begin
the process of gathering information from the manufacturer and other
appropriate sources. We give the manufacturer an opportunity to present
its views. Preliminary Evaluations are generally resolved within four
months from the date of their opening. They may be closed if we
determine that further information is not warranted, or if the
manufacturer decides to conduct a recall.
If our review of information at the end of a PE suggests that
further investigation is warranted, we move the investigation to a
second stage, the Engineering Analysis (EA), in which we conduct a more
detailed and complete analysis of the character and scope of the
alleged defect. The EA supplements the information collected during the
preliminary evaluation with appropriate inspections, tests, surveys,
and additional information from the manufacturer. ODI attempts to
resolve all EAs within one year from the date they are opened.
At the conclusion of the EA, we may close an investigation because
the additional information does not support a finding that a defect
exists or because the manufacturer decides to conduct a recall. If ODI
continues to believe that the data indicate a defect, the Associate
Administrator for Safety Assurance may convene a panel of experts from
the agency to review the information. The manufacturer is notified that
a panel is being convened and of the panel's result, and is given an
opportunity to present new analysis or new data.
If the panel concurs with ODI, the next step is to send a ``recall
request letter'' to the manufacturer. If the manufacturer declines to
conduct a recall in response to this letter, the Associate
Administrator may issue an ``Initial Decision'' that a safety-related
defect exists. An Initial Decision is followed by a public meeting, at
which the manufacturer and interested members of the public can present
information and arguments on the issue, as well as written materials.
The entire investigative record is then presented to the NHTSA
Administrator, who may issue a ``Final Decision'' that a safety defect
exists and order the manufacturer to conduct a recall. If necessary,
the agency will then go to court to enforce such an order.
THE FIRESTONE ATX/WILDERNESS RECALL
With this description of our investigative procedures as context, I
will turn now to the Firestone investigation.
Firestone originally began producing the tires under investigation
in 1991. By the end of 1999, approximately 47 million had been
produced. By that time, NHTSA had received 46 reports scattered over 9
years about incidents involving these tires. The tires were on a
variety of vehicles, primarily on Ford Explorer sport utility vehicles.
In view of the large number of tires that had been produced, the
variety of possible causes of tire failure (road hazards, excessive
wear, etc.), and the fact that all types of tires can fail in use, the
reports that we received did not indicate a problem that would warrant
opening a defect investigation regarding these tires. The informal
submission by State Farm in 1998 of 21 claims over an eight-year period
also did not provide such an indication.
The situation changed rapidly following the airing of a news story
by KHOU in Houston on February 7, 2000, that dramatized the question of
the tires' safety. In addition to highlighting two fatalities, the KHOU
story alluded to a number of other crashes and fatalities.
Upon learning of the KHOU story, we contacted the station to obtain
more details about the incidents. They have not given us the
information we requested, but the growing publicity generated other
reports to us, including several provided by other media outlets and by
plaintiffs' attorneys. Over the next few weeks, we were able to verify
many of these reports. We opened a Preliminary Evaluation on May 2. At
that time, the agency was aware of 90 complaints, including reports of
33 crashes, and 4 fatalities. On May 8 and 10, we sent Ford and
Firestone extensive Information Requests asking for information about
the tires. At that point NHTSA began a constant communication with both
companies, which continues today.
Information accumulated rapidly as a result of the investigation
and attendant publicity. By August 1, we had 193 complaints alleging
tread separations on these tires, with 21 reported fatalities. In a
meeting on August 4, we suggested that Firestone consider recalling the
tires. By August 9, when Firestone announced that it was recalling the
ATX and ATX II tires, and Wilderness AT tires produced at its Decatur,
Illinois, plant, we had over 300 complaints, with 46 reported
fatalities. The number has continued to grow. As of August 31, we have
1,400 complaints with reports of 88 fatalities and 250 injuries .
Firestone has recalled all of the ATX and ATX II tires of the P235/
75R15 size manufactured since 1991. It has also recalled Wilderness AT
tires of that size made at its Decatur, Illinois, plant, for a total of
14.4 million tires out of the 47 million tires covered by our
investigation. Firestone estimates that approximately 6.5 million of
the 14.4 million tires included in the recall are still on the road.
Ford and Firestone are taking a number of measures to provide
replacement tires.
NHTSA is continuing its investigation to ensure that the scope of
the recall is proper and that all unsafe tires are recalled. At our
request, Firestone and Ford have given us voluminous information about
the tires, and we have sent follow-up requests for additional
information to both companies and to Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,
for a peer comparison. We are continuing to monitor the recall to
ensure that all defective tires are replaced promptly.
Our review of data from Firestone has already disclosed that other
tire models and sizes of the tires under investigation have rates of
tread separation as high or higher than the tires that Firestone is
recalling. On August 30, we recommended to Firestone that it expand its
recall to include these tires. When Firestone declined to expand the
recall, we issued a consumer advisory on September 1 to advise owners
of these tires to take actions to assure their safety.
OBSERVATIONS
We now know that in September 1999 Ford conducted a campaign
(referred to by Ford as an ``Owner Notification Program'') to replace
Wilderness tires mounted on Ford Explorers that had been sold in the
states around the Arabian Gulf (primarily Saudi Arabia). Similar
actions were taken in Venezuela in May 2000 and in Columbia, Ecuador,
Malaysia, and Thailand. Ford would have been required to notify NHTSA
of such an owner notification program if it had occurred in the United
States, but our regulations do not apply to actions taken outside the
United States. Ford thus had no obligation to advise NHTSA when it took
these actions. If we find that we need additional legislative authority
to require manufacturers to provide such information, we will seek to
obtain it.
A number of claims, and several lawsuits, had been filed against
Ford and Firestone before we became aware of any trend that would
indicate a potential defect. We received no information about those
events from the companies or from the plaintiffs' attorneys. Our
current regulations do not require the manufacturers to give us
information about claims or litigation. The existing law gives us broad
authority to seek information from vehicle and equipment manufacturers
during the course of an investigation. We are exploring measures that
would allow us to track claims and litigation information routinely.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that this investigation is the
highest priority in NHTSA. We will remain focused on the investigation,
closely monitor the current recall campaign, and seek any expansion of
the campaign that may be necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to you for
holding this hearing. I will be glad to answer any questions you may
have.
WAS BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE AWARE OF DEFECTS?
Senator Shelby. Mr. Crigger, do you want to join Mr. Ono,
and is there someone else you want to bring up?
I would pose this question to Bridgestone/Firestone. You
settled several lawsuits involving Firestone tires, the ones we
have been talking about, as early as 1996. Did that not make
you aware that there were issues with the tires, problems with
the tires and if not, why not? And did that cause you in any
way to review the failure rate of the tires, the design, or the
manufacturer of the tires?
Mr. Crigger. Senator, those individual cases, those
individual lawsuits were all individually investigated by our
tire engineers doing forensic analysis on the tire, and in
those cases we found in the preponderance of outcomes that the
tires were failed because of punctures, improper repairs,
overloads, or other kinds of outside influences. As you know,
the tire operates on the road all the time and is subject to
all of that kind of impact and other trauma, so nothing we
learned there led us to believe there was a defect of any kind
with the tire.
Senator Shelby. Did you not have reason to believe that the
Firestone tire problems that we have been talking about could
have been a defect in the manufacture?
Mr. Crigger. Sir, I am not saying there is never a defect
in the manufacture. I am not saying that at all. I am saying
that in the individual cases that were reviewed one by one as
they came to us, or became apparent, that is not what we found.
I wish there had been some indication from that, that we could
have done something that would have been different from where
we are today.
Senator Shelby. What does it take to put someone, a company
like Bridgestone/Firestone or any other big company on notice
that perhaps they have got a defective product out there? You
have got lawsuits, you have got people killed, injured and so
forth, not one, not two, but a lot of them. You settled those
lawsuits, or most of them, and you put a gag order on them. It
is a sealed settlement with a gag order. Does that not tell you
something, that something is probably wrong with your product?
What does it take?
Mr. Crigger. Sir, my understanding is that the
confidentiality orders applied only to trade secret and
formulations and these kinds of matters and, of course, the
judge had to agree that those were trade secrets, or industry
trade secrets. In reviewing the cases, there was nothing to
indicate that there was a tire defect.
We understood that we have millions of these tires on the
road, over 40 million of this particular Wilderness type, ATX
type tire, and individual cases do occur and, as tragic as they
are and, believe me, each one affects the members of the
Firestone family dealer----
Senator Shelby. But Mr. Crigger, this is not just a random
situation. This is a pattern, is it not, tied to this
particular tire and tied to this vehicle, and so forth, not
one, not two, but dozens or hundreds.
Mr. Crigger. Sir, that pattern only became apparent this
year, when we were looking particularly in the July and August
time period doing the analysis, some of which has been referred
to here by Ford. We were doing that joint analysis with them on
data that would not normally have been used to evaluate tire
performance.
PROVIDING DOCUMENTS TO NHTSA
Senator Shelby. Has there been a request by NHTSA for all
your internal documents related to the problems with this tire?
Mr. Crigger. Yes. We have complied with NHTSA's request for
such documents.
Senator Shelby. When was this?
Mr. Crigger. During the preliminary evaluation.
Senator Shelby. But that has not been made public in any
way. This is just between you and the governmental agency, is
that right, Dr. Bailey?
Dr. Bailey. At this time, right.
Senator Shelby. Have you received all of those documents?
Dr. Bailey. Yes. They have been forthcoming. We have
received virtually all of the documents.
Senator Shelby. Have those documents been evaluated?
Dr. Bailey. That is part of the evaluation that is ongoing.
Senator Shelby. So there has not been yet.
Dr. Bailey. Many of them have been. That is why we have
information that encouraged us to do the advisory to the
consumers.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Bailey have you also requested from
Ford documents and memos dealing with this issue?
Dr. Bailey. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. Have they complied?
Dr. Bailey. They have complied as well.
Senator Shelby. And is this investigation going on now to
evaluate these documents?
Dr. Bailey. Yes. The evaluation is going on. We are in the
engineering analysis phase of the evaluation, so there is
additional work that we continue to evaluate the data.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Bailey, does it concern you in your
capacity as head of NHTSA that Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford,
I believe, concealed a lot of this information rather than tell
the public?
Dr. Bailey. The manufacturer has a responsibility, once
they detect a defect, to notify us. We will also be looking at
the timing of that notification and other aspects of the case
that are undergoing investigation now, so yes, of course it is
a concern.
FIRESTONE TIRES ON FORD VEHICLES IN SAUDI ARABIA
Senator Shelby. I think it was in the paper today, one of
the papers if not all of them, about the Ford internal memo--I
am sure you are familiar with that--that said Ford Legal has
some major reservations about the plan to notify customers in
the Middle East. Now, on your own volition, did someone at Ford
notify NHTSA regarding this problem that they had?
Ms. Petrauskus. We did not.
Senator Shelby. Yes or no?
Ms. Petrauskus. No, we did not notify NHTSA at the time. We
sent letters to our dealers announcing that we would replace
the Firestone tires our customers had with Goodyear tires. Our
decision--and I might add, if I may, Mr. Chairman, by
coincidence the day before, the day before the memorandum you
referred to we received a letter from Bridgestone/Firestone
telling us that in their view there was nothing defective about
the tires we had in the Mideast, nothing defective, and that
the U.S. performance of those tires was very good.
The reason they had sent us the letter is because we asked
for it. We wanted, as we were taking the action in the Middle
East we wanted to be sure that there was no application of this
issue to the United States, so we looked at our own
information, we looked at the Government's information, and we
asked Firestone for their information. Ultimately, what we
decided to do, because Firestone declined to cover these tires
under their warranty, and I am talking about the Middle East
now, for the very reasons that Mr. Crigger has mentioned, we
had unhappy customers. We went to Goodyear and used their
tires.
Mr. Crigger. I would just like to add that we had a joint
survey of the tires in question in Saudi Arabia with Ford, and
the investigation of those tires showed that the majority of
them had been run underinflated. I believe Ms. Petrauskus has
talked about that anecdotally as well. There were instances of
them being deflated, run in the sand, and there were punctures.
There was nothing for us to believe the tire itself was
defective.
TIRE MANUFACTURING DIFFERENCES
Senator Shelby. Let me ask you this, Mr. Crigger. Are your
tires, these two tires we are talking about, are they designed
and manufactured differently, drastically or in some ways
differently, say, from Michelin or Goodyear or any of the other
tires manufactured? In other words, is that a different
engineering process, or is the tire manufactured the same?
Mr. Crigger. That would be a question that would be better
for me if I could have our quality assurance person----
Senator Shelby. Is the manufacturing of the Firestone tires
that are in question here basically different from the
manufacturer of similar tires by other companies, and if so,
how, and why?
Mr. Wyant. There would be certain generic relationships
between the manufacturer of the tire, such as the molding
process and parts of the tire assembly process, but within the
tire industry there are many, many trade secrets.
Senator Shelby. I understand that. I am talking about the
basic manufacturing, though.
Mr. Wyant. Basic, basic would be very similar, of course.
Dr. Bailey. Mr. Chairman, could I just add that NHTSA does
what we call a peer analysis, and we have requested information
from Goodyear, for instance, so that we can look at the
comparables that I think you are discussing.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Crigger, when the number of claims of a
product is out of line in your tire or other products you make
at Bridgestone/Firestone, does that alert you that something is
wrong? Let us say you are making these tires, and you make
other tires, and I am sure you do, and you are having
complaints with, say, two product lines, a lot more as compared
to seven others, does that not alert you that something is
wrong there?
Mr. Crigger. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately here in hindsight
I wish it did, and we now are indeed looking at claims, and
some of these other factors in the evaluation of tire
performance, but prior to this case tires were evaluated in
performance based on testing that was done prior to their
release, and on a continuing basis based on adjustment data,
which is warranty claims data that is reviewed on the basis of
customer comebacks and field research, looking at tires that
are coming back from the field, and none of those indicators
pointed to any kind of a problem with the tire line we are
talking about here.
After we did additional work, indeed, in conjunction with
the preliminary evaluation and pulled in information that would
not normally be part of tire performance evaluation, because
claims and lawsuits are not considered to be representative
throughout a line, they are considered to be individual cases
that occur for a variety of reasons, so they have never been
part of performance evaluation. As I said earlier, I wish they
had here, because that is a part of the analysis that turned us
into looking at this particular problem and taking the action
that we did.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
SUV'S AND OTHER PASSENGER CARS RELATIVE SAFETY
Ms. Petrauskus, in your comparison of fatality rates, the
chart that had passenger cars and Explorers, the Explorer
fatality rate was on the same measure significantly lower than
passenger cars. I wonder if you have got any information, any
data that tells you how many people died in cars as a result of
collisions with SUV's.
Ms. Petrauskus. That data are available, because one of the
things that NHTSA does in the way they maintain the data--and I
do not happen to have it with me, but it provides detail both
on multiple collisions and has pretty good information in terms
of the various sizes of vehicles involved.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we are going to get to the
principal tire question, but one of the things that is raised
about the Explorer is the fact that the bumper heights and
other factors, weight, et cetera, are less likely to produce a
fatality in a collision with a passenger car than you would
normally get between two passenger cars.
Ms. Petrauskus. Senator, I think the issue you raise is,
while not related to the subject of this hearing is an
important one, and that is the whole question of compatibility
and how--what is it that we can do, while still giving
customers a choice of vehicles, to help assure, when different
kinds of vehicles strike one another, when vehicles weighing
different weights--what can we do to improve or reduce the risk
to people in both vehicles involved in the accident.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, it also could relate to tire
problems if there is a separation and a crash occurs between a
passenger car and an SUV that has been rendered somewhat
disabled by the loss of the tire tread, so if you could help
us, if that information is available--Dr. Bailey, does NHTSA
have that?
Dr. Bailey. I would take that for the record and provide
you that information.
[The information follows:]
NHTSA does not have complete information on the outcome of crashes
between passenger vehicles and SUV's where the SUV was disabled by the
loss of tire tread. The following the information from the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System lists the number of occupant fatalities in
two-vehicle crashes by vehicle type.
OCCUPANTS FATALITIES IN TWO-VEHICLE CRASHES
[FARS 1995-1999]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCCUPANTS VEHICLE OCCUPANTS VEHICLE
YEAR TYPE KILLED TYPE KILLED TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 PASSENGER CAR ....... PASSENGER CAR..... ...... 4,277
1995 UTILITY VEHICLES ....... UTILITY VEHICLES.. ...... 29
1995 PASSENGER CAR 762 UTILITY VEHICLES.. 193 955
1996 PASSENGER CAR ....... PASSENGER CAR..... ...... 4,209
1996 UTILITY VEHICLES ....... UTILITY VEHICLES.. ...... 29
1996 PASSENGER CAR 892 UTILITY VEHICLES.. 241 1,133
1997 PASSENGER CAR ....... PASSENGER CAR..... ...... 4,146
1997 UTILITY VEHICLES ....... UTILITY VEHICLES.. ...... 39
1997 PASSENGER CAR 966 UTILITY VEHICLES.. 246 1,212
1998 PASSENGER CAR ....... PASSENGER CAR..... ...... 3,800
1998 UTILITY VEHICLES ....... UTILITY VEHICLES.. ...... 47
1998 PASSENGER CAR 1,049 UTILITY VEHICLES.. 254 1,303
1999 PASSENGER CAR ....... PASSENGER CAR..... ...... 3,585
1999 UTILITY VEHICLES ....... UTILITY VEHICLES.. ...... 68
1999 PASSENGER CAR 1,025 UTILITY VEHICLES.. 275 1,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
CAR MANUFACTURER'S SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY
Dr. Bailey, you said in your statement whether it is just
reporting a fact or whether it was an editorial comment, the
fact is that the automobile manufacturer is not responsible for
tire problems, the car manufacturer. Am I correct, the fact
that that is in your testimony?
Dr. Bailey. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Lautenberg. Now, what do you think about that? Are
you simply stating a fact, or is that an opinion of NHTSA's and
yours?
Dr. Bailey. It is a fact that at the time there was no
obligation to report that. That is something we are looking at
today.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, it goes deeper than reporting. It
says, when the defect is in the tire sold as original equipment
in a vehicle, a new manufacturer, the tire manufacturer is
responsible as opposed to a vehicle manufacturer, and thusly
the remedy may be either to repair or replace the tire.
But that absolves the automobile manufacturer of selling a
product that they may have information about that represents a
danger, and I wonder whether, in your judgment, that is a good
way to do it, or is there something in overriding law that
says, listen, you cannot--even if you are not responsible for
wear and tear on the product, which is often the disclaimer
when tires are sold, you know, normal wear and tear, et cetera.
But when a product is sold that is known to be dangerous, I
wonder if that does not change the condition of the
manufacturer's responsibility.
Dr. Bailey. Senator, are you referring to the overseas
information or to their responsibility to notify NHTSA of a
defect?
Senator Lautenberg. Well, there are two parts of this. One
is to notify NHTSA, the other is to clearly notify the public
and protect the public, and I am looking for what it is we can
do. We will get to NHTSA's responsibility, but what can we do
to protect the public?
Dr. Bailey. Well, again I want to clarify that if a defect
is known by a manufacturer, they have 5 days in which to notify
NHTSA.
Senator Lautenberg. Maybe we will have to ask Ms.
Petrauskus.
Ms. Petrauskus. Just using our experience in Saudi Arabia
as an example, at the time we took the action to replace the
Firestone tire with Goodyear tires we did not believe there was
any defect in the Firestone tires, but let me just say we did
not want those tires--the reason we did it was, we had unhappy
customers, so putting aside our legal obligation to our
customers under some warranty, we felt we needed to give them
different tires because they were unhappy with the ones they
had and, again, we took the action, even though we believed and
saw with our own eyes the same things that Mr. Crigger
reported.
Senator Lautenberg. I want to get to a more generic review,
and that is, does the Ford Motor Company feel no obligation if
it is selling the car even though it does not--and correct me
if I am wrong, by the way, about what the representation is
about the tires. Does the Ford Company remain removed from any
responsibility for what happens to the tires?
Ms. Petrauskus. Absolutely not. A customer comes in and
buys a Ford vehicle, a Ford-branded vehicle, it expects that
vehicle to have tires, and he chose our vehicle, so I really
feel we have a responsibility for the overall performance of
the vehicle, even though if you go into your glove box and you
pull out the warranty manuals you will find one warranty manual
from the car manufacturer and one warranty manual for the tire
manufacturer, and there are long historical reasons for that,
but our whole approach in this arena has been that at the end
of the day we have to be responsible and responsive to our
customers, and that is why we took the actions we did overseas.
We had unhappy customers. We were going to take care of
them, and we were not going to spend a lot of time worrying
about who had warranty responsibility.
Senator Lautenberg. I think it goes beyond that, and this
question gets resolved at some later date, and that is, what is
the responsibility? I normally ask Senator Specter. He is
pretty much our resident expert on the law, but is there not a
responsibility, when a product is sold, regardless of who
manufactures the various parts, to represent, or to take the
responsibility for the safety of the product?
Senator Specter. The answer, Senator Lautenberg, is in fact
yes, there are express warranties which arise here and the
documents refer to them. They are implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for purpose. Under the Uniform
Commercial Code they are obligated under the laws of warranties
to provide products of merchantable quality, which these were
not fit for the purpose.
Dr. Bailey. Senator, can I add there is a statute in effect
here. Tires are treated differently than other components of
vehicles. All the other components of a vehicle are the
responsibility of the automobile manufacturer, but the tires
are treated separately under that statute, and that is the
responsibility of the tire manufacturer.
Senator Lautenberg. We cannot get away from the answer that
Senator Specter just gave us. The fact is that they can define
it as you would like, but you cannot sell a product that may be
faulty without--and disown the responsibility that you inherit
when you sell the product. That is pretty clear, and I think
that probably in a court of law that would be the case.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OBLIGATION TO EVALUATE ACCIDENT DATA
It may be harsh, but candidly the testimony of the
Firestone and Ford witnesses here today strains credulity. It
is very difficult, really impossible to accept statements with
all of the incidents which had occurred that Firestone and Ford
did not know that there was a substantial defect, design defect
in the manufacture in the face of the chronology and the
numerous reports about tread separation.
When you parse and dissect the testimony which is presented
here, you have Mr. Crigger testifying that finally there was an
analysis on data not ordinarily used. Well, in 5 minutes I
cannot question you, Mr Crigger, on data which is not
ordinarily used, but it would seem to me that in the face of
what you have here, that every effort would have been made for
every conceivable kind of analysis to have been made as opposed
to somewhere in the long process you come to, quote, ``an
analysis on data not ordinarily used'', and then you testified
that in the majority of the situations they were underinflated.
Well, that does not tell us very much. How about the rest
of the cases? The majority leaves a great many other
situations, so it is not helpful to attribute underinflation if
there are many incidents where underinflation was not a factor.
And Mr. Crigger, you testified that lawsuits are not a part
of performance evaluation. That testimony candidly to me is
shocking. When you have a lawsuit and you have a defective
tire, as a matter of defense, these tires are submitted to your
forensic experts to prepare for the litigation where you are
being sued, and to ignore those instances is candidly
incredible. As you testified, lawsuits are not a part of
performance evaluation.
Mr. Crigger. Could I address that point, sir?
Senator Specter. You may.
Mr. Crigger. I think you may have misinterpreted. I was
talking about performance evaluation of the line. It is clearly
an investigation of the performance evaluation of the tire
involved in that lawsuit, absolutely.
Senator Specter. Well, Mr. Crigger, did I misquote you? I
wrote down, quote, ``lawsuits are not a part of performance
evaluation'', close quote. Did I misquote you?
Mr. Crigger. No, sir, but the context was meant to be
talking about the evaluation of the entire line of tires, like
the 40 million tires that were made.
Senator Specter. Well, let us take it your way, the entire
line of tires. Why not utilize that kind of information in
evaluating the entire line of tires? After all, what we are
looking for here is what is happening with all the rest of the
tires. Do these defects which come up in a lawsuit not put you
on alert that you have got a problem here which may exist in
some other tire?
Mr. Crigger. Yes, sir. We said in hindsight we wish we were
looking at lawsuits and all of these other things in
conjunction with----
Senator Specter. We are not concerned about hindsight. Why
did you not look at it at the time you had this tangible
evidence of the problem?
Mr. Crigger. Normally it is the tangible evidence of indeed
a problem, and the point of the lawsuit is to discover what was
that problem, and as I indicated, it did not indicate a defect
in the tire. The lawsuits, or many--I do not have the specific
number for you now--indicated that there were improper repairs
that were at fault, there were punctures at fault----
Senator Specter. Well, you can attribute a number of
factors to a number of cases, but you had such an overwhelming
number of reports on tread separation.
Well, let me move on here to Ford. Ms. Petrauskus, you
testified that it was only on July 27, when you got the data as
to what had been turned over to NHTSA, that Ford began to
understand the nature of the problem, the design defect on
tread separation.
Well, how about all of these other indicators? Didn't Ford
have an obligation to make an independent evaluation, look
here, as between Firestone and Ford the litigation may never
end, and my legal judgment is that Ford is responsible for that
total vehicle?
You may have a very good claim over against Firestone so
that they will be obligated to indemnify you if there is
anything left of Firestone, but with all the indicators that
Ford had, why didn't Ford make an independent evaluation here
very early in the process, instead of coming here today and
saying, we did not know what happened until Firestone turned
the materials over to NHTSA?
Ms. Petrauskus. Senator, I believe we did have an
obligation to make an independent inquiry, and I believe we can
demonstrate that we made that independent inquiry. We looked at
every single data base that was available to us, beginning in
1999, and we looked at NHTSA's data, we looked at our lawsuits
that we were aware of, we looked at our claims data, we looked
at our owner reports, and we looked at our warranty reports,
and none of those, none of those, sir, showed the kind of
dramatic difference in claims performance that we saw with
regard to the Firestone data.
Throughout this period, sir, we asked Firestone to review
their U.S. data base. The data base we saw on July 28 we had
never seen before, and traditionally in the tire industry has
been kept proprietary.
request for Internal defect documentation
Senator Specter. Well, my red light is on and I will not
use too much more time, Mr. Chairman, but I would start with
asking Ford and Firestone officials if you would be willing to
make available to this subcommittee all, every last one of the
documents which relate to the kinds of defects which you saw
around the world.
Ms. Petrauskus. Just to make sure I understand, we have
provided all claims, all complaints, all warranty data to
NHTSA. We have provided that data without asking for any
confidential treatment for it. Is that the data you wish to
have, sir?
Senator Shelby. I think his question is, would you provide
all information.
Senator Specter. We are going to have to go through these
documents with a fine tooth comb to see what has been done
here, and the problems about concealed documents are legendary
in this kind of a situation.
Mr. Chairman, I asked a question on a voluntary basis, but
it seems to me this subcommittee really would be best advised
to issue subpoenas here, because when subpoenas are issued
there is a legal obligation to produce and failure to do so
constitutes obstruction of justice. If it is just voluntary it
does not happen. But this is the kind of a chronology which
just strains credulity. That is the nicest way I know of how to
put it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. Bailey just one or
two questions, if I may.
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
NHTSA REQUESTS ADDITIONAL MOTOR SAFETY AUTHORITY
Senator Specter. Dr. Bailey, we heard Ms. Claybrook testify
about your need for much more authority and ways to impose
fines and to get documents on a daily basis. Would you take a
look at what Ms. Claybrook has testified to and inform this
subcommittee as soon as you can what you would like to have to
have more teeth in your operation?
Dr. Bailey. In fact, those are all on the record with
Congress today. Those are four of the issues we would like to
see come into law. That is, to increase our ability for
penalties, compliance, and extend the recall years.
Senator Specter. You have already made recommendations on
everything you would like?
Dr. Bailey. Yes, sir, we have, in March.
Senator Shelby. Would you reiterate that list for the
record?
Dr. Bailey. On March 24 NHTSA sent Congress legislation to
amend the motor vehicle safety statutes. To date, no one has
introduced legislation, but conversations are ongoing. It is
possible we may have to address it as introduced by a request,
because we feel they are very essential, particularly to the
discussion we are having here today and to this investigation.
One is the modification of civil penalties as to increased
penalties, which you heard at this point are at a rate at--
$925,000 is the max. We want to go up to at least $4 million.
We want to improve our recall compliance. That means taxi
companies, fleets would have to comply.
We would want to extend the recall limits up to 10 years.
And finally strengthen the compliance testing. You heard
that we asked for certification for compliance, but we now want
testing prior to that certification, to self-certification on
the part of the manufacturers. Those are the four main points.
Senator Specter. Dr. Bailey, would you like to see the
testimony which was reported this morning by our first panel,
by Ms. Claybrook and also by Mr. Pittle, which would authorize
Federal prosecutions for willful failure to inform the public,
reckless disregard for the safety, such as has arisen in
situations like this?
Dr. Bailey. That is a legal question that I think I would
like to take for the record, but I think clearly we would like
to see information in the public domain, and particularly
available to the Government, that would allow us to know when
to do an investigation that could protect the American public.
Senator Specter. Well, that is a legal question, but you
are the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. I would like you to give some thought to it and
to give the subcommittee an answer.
Dr. Bailey. I will provide you that.
[The information follows:]
As Secretary Slater has stated, for egregious circumstances the
Department of Transportation supports criminal penalty authority,
appropriately placed in the motor vehicle safety statute, for those who
knowingly and willfully violate the law.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
would just like to say to my colleagues what a wonderful,
robust hearing, and the way we are working on a bipartisan
basis is really what the American people expect of us, and I
look forward to doing more like this.
Mr. Ono, let me first of all welcome you to the committee,
and number one I would like to express my respect to you for
being here. I would also like to express my appreciation for
your very earnest effort to speak in English and to communicate
to the committee. It is appreciated, and also the respect that
you, yourself showed to the committee by even being willing to
appear.
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TO PUBLIC SAFETY
I have no doubt, sir, that your apology is sincere, yet
however I think you would acknowledge that this is a very
disturbing timetable and situation that we are finding. My
questions to the Bridgestone/Firestone team that you brought,
first of all I must say, in keeping with the testimony of the
committee and the line of questioning by Senator Specter, the
fact that you did not meet with NHTSA until August 8, and did
not issue a recall until August 9, after years of problems
internationally really do bother me.
I do not know about the legal definitions of failure to
inform and failure to alert, but I know that there is an
obligation of every human being to help one another if they see
a sign of distress.
If I walked into a hotel room and found a prescription drug
that somebody had left, and I would be worried that he was
either a diabetic, or heart medication, I would be calling lost
and found so that I could help them. If I am walking down the
street and I see a vehicle coming towards a child or an adult,
I am going to yell, look out, danger is coming.
Where was your sense of concern as a human being, and as
well as a corporate entity, to yell, look out, America, these
tires are coming apart? So I do not know about all of the legal
definitions, but I do know you had a moral obligation, and I
know that the committee will be pursuing it, and I fully
support the line of direction that Senator Specter is
recommending to the committee.
Now, Mr. Crigger, I am not going into repeating that, but
Mr. Wyant, I have a question for you. So much of this seems to
be at Decatur. You are Mr. Quality Control. What the hell was
going on at that Decatur plant? What did you know? Who was
standing sentry, and what kind of mechanisms did you have in
place to observe this?
The problem begins at the point of manufacture. It then
goes on to the vehicle. What goes on at Decatur? Is Decatur the
only factory, and what did you have in place to prevent this?
Mr. Wyant. In the case of Decatur, I have to explain a
little bit of background to make it understandable, and I am
actually supporting what Mr. Crigger has said, so if you will
bear with me for a moment. Our normal measures of measuring
tire quality within the industry and within NHTSA and as
occasionally reported to our customers like OEM's is the
warranty adjustment data, and the reason for that is, you can
see trends over time, because there is volume there and it is
statistically significant.
Senator Mikulski. I appreciate that, sir, but I only have
10 minutes to ask questions. Do you have inspectors on the
line?
Mr. Wyant. Pardon?
Senator Mikulski. Do you have inspectors on the line?
Mr. Wyant. Yes, we do. In the case of Decatur it is the
same as in all our other plants. We inspect the products all
the way from the raw materials through the quality control
systems, through the product going out at the end of the plant,
yes.
Senator Mikulski. Is this a defect in manufacturing or
design?
Mr. Wyant. That is not determined. We made the recall
without knowing that issue, and it is a key issue, and it is
being investigated by the best minds in the country, if not the
world.
Senator Mikulski. When did you start this investigation of
best minds in the country?
Mr. Wyant. Pardon?
Senator Mikulski. When did you start the investigation of
best minds in the country?
Mr. Wyant. I am going on memory here. It probably started
somewhere around the end of July time period, I believe.
Senator Mikulski. Now, when these tires were coming apart
in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, didn't best minds--did you not
want to mobilize the best minds in the country then?
Mr. Wyant. As I believe it was explained, that was a local
circumstance, a performance issue within Saudi Arabia,
including extremely--very high speeds, and that was deemed to
be a customer satisfaction issue by the Ford Motor Company.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I am deeply concerned about,
obviously there are defects that best minds in the country did
not--the so-called best minds in the country did not go to work
until July, after all of this began to unravel around the world
much sooner. For whatever reasons, best minds in the country, I
do not get the feeling that there was a sense of urgency over
really standing sentry here.
Now, we are going to follow the lines of investigation that
Senator Specter said, and I see my little yellow light is on so
I am not going to pursue this at this minute, but I urge the
committee to pursue this further.
NHTSA'S BUDGET AND AUTHORITY NEEDS
Dr. Bailey, if I could turn to you, please, and thank you
for actually your work. I am going to ask you first about your
budget. As I understand it, what we were able to move through
the Senate floor because of our own constraints, your budget is
$105 million below the President's request. As we look forward
to conference, putting us aside and putting even OMB aside,
could I ask you to tell us, what is it that you need to really
do the job of the mission of the agency for this 21st Century?
The number of vehicles are increasing, speed on the road is
increasing, the variety of vehicles is increasing. What will it
take in terms of both money and staff for you to do your job?
Dr. Bailey. As you know, we requested $100 million more for
the budget than what we are looking at today, which is about
$400 million. In fact, for safety assurance about $12 million
was requested in the President's budget. Specifically, we are
hoping that we will be funded at that level, because as you
heard, here today we are going to be required to complete this
investigation in a timely manner, and I think considering the
effort that is being expended at this time and it is on this
investigation, we have to imagine our ability to control an
investigation at this level, or if we were required to expand
that.
Senator Mikulski. Well, what I would like to request is
that you submit to the committee directly--I mean, you can get
OMB's nod and all those clearances I know you have to go
through, but I think it would be very helpful to the chairman
and so on if we had a sense from you, what would it take to do
the job and the number of people, knowing that this is not the
time to really do add-ons, but so that you can really do that,
and I think as we go through our conference and reconciliation
that we could be of use to you.
Second, I would also invite for you to respond to Ms.
Claybrook's set of recommendations on new standards, criminal
penalties and so on, after you have had a chance to really
review that to see what policy changes you would recommend that
we pursue.
Third is this international warning. My passion is public
health, and I know you are also keenly interested, so it is the
early warnings, even whether they are in our own country or
around the world, that I think is so important, whether it is
the right to inform, but the right to alert.
One of your jobs is the need to alert. Could you share with
us what you think we need to do especially to have a radar
system for what is going on, or a CDC mechanism. You know the
appropriate language for the highway community, the highway
user community, but do you think that is an important policy
change?
I mean, if we are going to have a national ballistic
missile system to protect us against North Korean missiles, I
would like to know what is the--or infectious disease from CDC,
what can we do for this, to know what is going on around the
world?
Dr. Bailey. Clearly, it is an essential focus of ours as
well. Let me just back up and say by the way, though, we
clearly will provide you with our policy recommendations. All
of those, as you heard the amendments are already underway. We
are also looking to update the tire standards. So much of what
you heard in earlier testimony is underway at NHTSA today, and
I will certainly be pushing those policies.
As far as our information in a global marketplace, I think
that would have been essential to us to have that information
earlier, so we are at this point looking at our current
regulatory authority as to whether or not it could be expanded
so that we can obtain that information in a timely manner. So
you are right, we are going to know when to scream, ``Look
out!''
We are going to certainly work with Congress if a statutory
remedy would be required to that end, because I do believe it
is essential.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I think what we want to do is look
to how we can help improve your statutory regulatory authority
without going through a legislative debate that gets us into
other quagmires often resolved in the Judiciary Committee.
[The information follows:]
This computer disc contains communications from the Department of
Transportation to the Congress regarding additional funding and
authority for motor vehicle defect investigations at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Members of the Subcommittee on
Transportation of the Senate Committee on Appropriations requested this
information during the Hearing on September 6, 2000.
September 12, 2000.
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,
Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is to notify you of a change in the
NHTSA fiscal year 2001 President's budget request and to request your
approval of this change as you conference the fiscal year 2001
Transportation Appropriations Bill. The Administration requests an
additional $9 million for the Defects Investigation Program. This
additional funding would bring total funding for this program in fiscal
year 2001 to $20 million.
The Administration is committed to enhancing the current defects
investigation program. The additional $9 million requested will be used
to enhance testing, modernize information systems, improve the
timeliness of ODI processing of the increasing number of complaints,
and enhance public awareness of NHTSA's defects investigation program.
Attached is more detailed information on the increased funding
requested.
These funds will complement the $1.8 million reallocated by NHTSA
to the Bridgestone/Firestone investigation. In order not to increase
the overall funding requested in the President's Budget, the
Administration proposes $9 million in reductions to other NHTSA
research programs.
I appreciate your consideration of this request. If you have any
questions, please contact me or NHTSA Administrator Sue Bailey at 202-
366-1836. Identical letters have been sent to Chairman Frank Wolf,
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg and the Honorable Martin Olav Sabo.
Sincerely,
Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Attachment
To enhance the defects investigation program, NHTSA requests
additional fiscal year 2001 funding of the following:
$2.5M.--To provide for enhanced testing at the Vehicle Research and
Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio, and possibly other test
facilities. VRTC conducts most of the testing to support ODI's defect
investigations. Funds are used to purchase vehicles and equipment
necessary to conduct tests, to update instrumentation, to purchase time
on the various test sites/equipment (VRTC rents laboratory space and
must also pay for certain tests on equipment/sites owned by a private
company), and to utilize contract support staff. ODI tries to complete
its investigations within 16 months. However, investigations that
involve complex testing frequently take as long as 2-4 years due to the
shortage of testing resources. This funding will allow ODI to shorten
this time period and thus enhance an already creditable process.
$1.5M.--To provide funds to modernize and enhance the ODI database
to incorporate analytical intelligence, integrate optical image
retrievals, and hardware. Funds are necessary to complete a
comprehensive user needs study, upgrade hardware and software, upgrade
search capabilities, and to provide better access to statistics and
data on equipment such as tires and child safety seats. In addition,
ODI would be able to integrate the optical image consumer complaints
system with the office network to allow retrieval of complaint images
at each investigator's desktop.
$1M.--To provide for internet access to ODI public files.
Currently, optical images are made of ODI's public files and provided
to the Technical Information Services office for use by the public.
There is no means for the public to access these documents via the
Internet, and this access has recently become in great demand due to
the highly publicized Bridgestone/Firestone investigation. This funding
would provide funds necessary to purchase the hardware, including a
CDROM multi-disk player, web server, optical server, database software
licenses, internet router, and the services of a data base manager and
web site designer to make this data available to the public.
$2M.--To enhance and improve procedures for tire testing. This
effort is comprised of several tasks. First it entails a complete
review of existing standards, industry practices, international
practices, and other applicable standards. For FMVSS 109, review the
strength, debeading, endurance and highspeed requirements. It will
permit us to review and improve test procedures currently used to
evaluate tires, with emphasis on consideration of replacing current
laboratory tests with on-vehicle tests or other equivalent dynamic
tests. It will permit development of new test procedures on belt
separation, one of the most common failure modes of radial tires. It
will permit evaluation and development of performance requirements for
technological advances in tire safety, including low tire pressure
warning systems. It will augment crash data collection to capture
information regarding tire failure.
$1.4M.--Improve the timeliness of ODI's processing of large amounts
of information and process new information that is proposed to be
required. An additional 30 people, 22 in ODI, 4 are the Vehicle
Research and Test Center engineers/technicians and 4 legal staff are
requested. ODI currently has 45 staff members.
The 22 new staff members proposed include eleven investigators (ODI
currently has 17), five data entry and document control staff (ODI
currently as 2), four screeners (ODI currently has 4), two clerical
support (ODI currently has 2) and funds to upgrade hotline support. ODI
needs additional staff due to the large increase in the number of
complaints that ODI has received over the past year (complaints rose
from under 30,000 to over 50,000), the complexity of motor vehicles,
and the increase in the number of vehicles on the roads. This large
increase in complaints was not projected at the time the 2001 budget
was proposed. We expect complaint levels to rise even further with the
media coverage of the Firestone recall. The $1.4 million also includes
an additional $150,000 to enhance hotline operator awareness of
automotive issues.
$.5M.--Even with the increased media emphasis on the Firestone
investigation, the public still does not know to report potential
defects to NHTSA. NHTSA cannot improve the safety of consumers unless
the information it uses to analyze problems is correct. As a step in
correcting this, NHTSA is requesting legislative authority to mandate
that automobile manufacturers share complaint information with NHTSA. A
media campaign should also be conducted to ensure that the public
realizes that complaint information needs to be provided to NHTSA.
Given that this information is the basis for the NHTSA program, we must
leave no stone unturned in ensuring that NHTSA has the best information
possible. This would include print, direct mail, and TV. The dollars
requested are consistent with costs of other media campaigns conducted
by NHTSA.
$.1M.--Allow additional NHTSA travel to visit crash sites and
manufacturers sites to gather information necessary to support defects
investigations. ODI's budget for travel is currently $26,000. This
would allow ODI investigators, the ones most familiar with the problem
being analyzed, to see evidence first-hand.
$9M.--Total.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION--FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET
OFFSET
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001
------------------
Research and analysis H/S Diff Offset
Request mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crash Avoidance: Driver/Vehicle 20,531 7,969 12,563 9,000
Performance........................
-----------------------------------
Total......................... ....... ....... ....... 9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Analysis: (9,000) The Driver/Vehicle Performance Program
would be reduced in the areas of advanced crash avoidance (4,000),
human factors (4,000), and enhanced driving performance research
(1,000).
______
September 11, 2000.
The Honorable Al Gore,
President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am pleased to transmit to you for
introduction and referral to the appropriate committee a proposed bill
To amend title 49, United States Code, to require
manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle
equipment to obtain information and maintain records about
potential safety defects in their foreign products that may
affect the safety of vehicles and equipment in the United
States, and for other purposes.
The bill includes two titles. Title I, ``Motor Vehicle Safety,''
would amend chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, the motor
vehicle safety statute administered by the Department's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Title II, ``Odometers,''
would amend chapter 327 of title 49, United States Code, the odometer
requirements statute administered by NHTSA.
Parts of Title I and all of Title II are taken from a bill
submitted by the Department for introduction on March 24, 2000. We
continue to believe that these provisions will advance the cause of
highway safety and commend them to your attention. The additional
provisions represent a focused effort by the Department to further
strengthen NHTSA as it moves aggressively to address the critical
safety issues raised by the ongoing investigation of Firestone ATX, ATX
II, and Wilderness AT tires. We believe that the provisions we are
submitting will augment the administrative efforts the Department has
been and will be taking to give NHTSA the tools it needs to
expeditiously move ahead to address this issue.
This proposed legislation could affect receipts, in that it
proposes increases in civil penalties for violations under the vehicle
safety and odometer laws. Therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. The
Office of Management and Budget estimates that the net effect of this
proposal on receipts during fiscal year 2001 would be an increase of
less than one million dollars.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no
objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, to the
submission of this proposed legislation to Congress.
Sincerely,
Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
A BILL
To amend title 49, United States Code, to require manufacturers of
motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to obtain
information and maintain records about potential safety defects in
their foreign products that may affect the safety of vehicles and
equipment in the United States, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
Sec. 101. (a) Subchapter I of Chapter 301 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 30106. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation may
cooperate internationally to enhance motor vehicle and traffic safety
by exchanging information related to safety defects, noncompliances
with motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, and other matters
related to motor vehicle safety, conducting vehicle safety research,
and updating, developing and promoting improved motor vehicle safety
standards and enforcement procedures.
``(b) Confidential Information.--The Secretary may authorize the
disclosure of confidential commercial information submitted to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or incorporated into
agency-prepared records, to foreign government officials who perform
counterpart functions to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration as part of cooperative law enforcement or regulatory
efforts, provided that:
``(1) The foreign government agency has provided both a
written statement establishing its authority to protect
confidential commercial information from public disclosure and
a written commitment not to disclose any information provided
without the written permission of the sponsor or written
confirmation by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that the information no longer has confidential
status; and
``(2) The Secretary determines disclosure would be in the
interest of motor vehicle safety.
``(c) Non-Public Information.--The Secretary may disclose
nonpublic, predecisional documents concerning the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's or the other government agency's
regulations or other regulatory requirements, or other nonpublic
information relevant to either agency's activities, as part of
cooperative regulatory activities, provided that:
``(1) The foreign government agency has the authority to
protect such nonpublic documents from public disclosure and
will not disclose any documents provided without the written
confirmation by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that the documents no longer have nonpublic
status; and
``(2) The Secretary determines that the exchange is
reasonably necessary to facilitate cooperative regulatory
activities.
``(d) Limit on Disclosure.--Any exchange under this section of
confidential commercial information and nonpublic documents and
information does not require that such records shall be made available
to all members of the public.''
(b) The analysis for Chapter 301 is amended by the addition of the
following after the entry for section 30105:
``30106. International Cooperation.''.
Sec. 102. Section 30115 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by inserting at the end the following: ``A person shall not affix a
certification label or tag to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment unless the person has performed testing or other engineering
analyses that demonstrate compliance with all applicable motor vehicle
safety standards prescribed under this chapter.''.
Sec. 103. Sec. 30118 of title 49, United States Code, is amended as
follows:
(a) In subsections (a), (b) and (c), by inserting ``,
original equipment'' after ``motor vehicle''; and
(b) In subsection (c), by designating the existing text as
paragraph (1), by redesignating existing paragraphs (1) and (2)
as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and by adding the
following at the end:
``(2) A manufacturer shall have a duty to review and
consider information regarding crashes or incidents in
vehicles or equipment where there are fatalities,
serious injuries, or fires, including such information
received from foreign sources, to learn whether the
vehicle or equipment contains a defect or does not
comply with a motor vehicle safety standard, and to
advise the Secretary if the manufacturer has reason to
believe that a defect or noncompliance may exist.''.
Sec. 104. Section 30120(g)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by--
(1) striking ``8 calendar years'' and substituting ``10
calendar years''; and
(2) striking ``3 calendar years'' and substituting ``5
calendar years''.
Sec. 105. Section 30120 of title 49, United States Code, as amended
by section 104 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) Limitation on Sale or Lease of Used Motor Vehicles.--
(1) A dealer may not sell a used motor vehicle, for purposes
other than resale, or lease a used motor vehicle until the
dealer informs the purchaser or lessee of any notifications of
a defect or noncompliance pursuant to section 30118(b) or
section 30118(c) of this title with respect to the vehicle that
have not been remedied, and either
``(A) offers to have the defects or noncompliances
remedied, or
``(B) gives the purchaser or lessee a written
description of the defects or noncompliances, including
all relevant information from any notification pursuant
to subsections 30118(b) or 30118(c) of this title, and
receives a written acknowledgment of the offer or
description from the purchaser or lessee.
``(2) The requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall apply after a period of time following issuance of
notifications that the Secretary shall specify. The Secretary
may extend this period with respect to particular
notifications.
``(3) In this subsection, notwithstanding section 30102(a)(1)
of this title,
``(A) `dealer' means a person who sold at least 10
motor vehicles during the prior 12 months to purchasers
that in good faith purchased the vehicles other than
for resale; and
``(B) `used motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle that
has previously been purchased other than for resale.''.
Sec. 106. Section 30120 of title 49, United States Code, as amended
by section 104 and 105 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(k) Limitation on Operation by Owners and Lessors of School Buses
and Vehicles Used to Transport Passengers for Compensation.--
``(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person who owns or leases a
school bus or a motor vehicle used to transport passengers for
compensation and who receives a notice of a defect or
noncompliance pursuant to section 30118(b) or section 30118(c)
of this title may not operate the vehicle to which the notice
applies as a school bus or for compensation until the defect or
noncompliance is remedied as required by this section.
``(2) The requirements of paragraph (1) shall apply after a
period of time following issuance of such notifications that
the Secretary shall specify. The Secretary may extend this
period with respect to particular notifications.''.
Sec. 107. Section 30165(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended----
(1) in the first sentence by--
(A) inserting ``(1)'' after ``PENALTY.--'' at the
beginning of the sentence;
(B) inserting ``or'' after ``30127,'' and striking
``or 30166''; and
(C) striking ``$1,000'' and substituting ``$5,000'';
(2) by striking the third sentence; and
(3) by adding the following new paragraph:
``(2) A person who violates section 30166 of this
title or a regulation prescribed under that section is
liable to the United States Government for a civil
penalty for failing or refusing to allow or perform an
act required under that section or regulation. The
maximum penalty under this paragraph is $5,000 per
violation per day. The maximum penalty under this
paragraph for a related series of daily violations is
$500,000.''.
Sec. 108. Section 30165 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Administrative Penalties.--Whenever on the basis of any
information available the Secretary finds that any person has violated
any of the sections in (a) above or a regulation prescribed under any
of those sections, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty under this
subsection. The penalty amounts shall not exceed those under (a). The
maximum penalty under this subsection for a related series of
violations is $1,000,000.
Sec. 109. Section 30166 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by revising subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Records and Making Reports.--
(1) The Secretary of Transportation reasonably may require a
manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to
keep records, and a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to
make reports, to enable the Secretary to decide whether the
manufacturer, distributor, or dealer has complied or is
complying with this chapter or a regulation prescribed or order
issued under this chapter. This subsection does not impose a
recordkeeping requirement on a distributor or dealer in
addition to those imposed under subsection (f) of this section
and section 30117(b) of this title or a regulation prescribed
or order issued under subsection (f) or section 30117(b).
``(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall by rule require a
manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to
keep records and to make reports based on information it has
received, upon receiving information, periodically, or in
response to an order or specific requirement to make a report
with regard to crashes or incidents in vehicles and equipment
where there are fatalities, serious injuries or fires;
``(3) The Secretary of Transportation shall by rule require a
manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to
keep records and to make reports, upon receiving information,
periodically or in response to an order or specific requirement
to make a report with regard to warranty or adjustment
information related to actual or potential defects;
``(4) The Secretary of Transportation reasonably may require
a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to
provide to the Secretary of Transportation access to the
manufacturer's communications related to defects and recalls,
to the same extent and in the same manner as accessed by one or
more of the manufacturer's dealers; and
``(5) The Secretary of Transportation reasonably may require
a person in the business of providing automobile insurance or
resolving claims under insurance policies, to keep records or
to make reports, upon receiving information, periodically or in
response to an order or specific requirement to make a report
regarding crashes or incidents in vehicles and equipment where
there are fatalities, serious injuries or fires including
provision of the vehicle identification number, insured's names
and addresses and telephone numbers. This information shall be
treated as confidential information by the Secretary.
Sec. 110. Section 30166 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Definitions.--In this section, notwithstanding section 30102 of
this title,
``(1) `dealer' means a person selling and distributing new
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, within or outside
the United States, primarily to purchasers that in good faith
purchase the vehicles or equipment other than for resale.
``(2) `distributor' means a person primarily selling and
distributing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, within
or outside the United States, for resale.
``(3) `manufacturer'
``(A) means a person--
``(i) manufacturing or assembling motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or
``(ii) importing motor vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment for resale, and
``(B) includes
``(i) persons incorporated within or with
their principal place of business in the United
Sates and their direct and indirect domestic
and foreign subsidiaries and affiliates,
``(ii) persons with their principal place of
business in a foreign country, including their
direct or indirect domestic and foreign
subsidiaries and affiliates, any of which
export motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment into the United States, and
``(iii) persons with their principal place of
business in a foreign country, including their
direct or indirect domestic and foreign
subsidiaries and affiliates, any of which
manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or
motor vehicle equipment in the United States.
``(4) `owner' means an owner within or outside the United
States.
``(5) `purchaser' means a purchaser within or outside the
United States.
``(6) `person' means any manufacturer, distributor or dealer
as defined above and any other person within the United States
that may have information related to this chapter.''.
Sec. 111. Sections 103, 108, 109, and 109 of this Act shall take
effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
TITLE II--ODOMETERS
Sec. 201. Section 32709(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by--
(1) striking ``$2,000'' and substituting ``$5,000''; and
(2) striking ``$100,000'' and substituting ``$1,000,000''.
Sec. 202. Section 32710(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``$1,500'' and substituting ``$10,000''.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late.
Thank you. I will just conclude my questions, because I know we
are going to be pursuing this.
Senator Shelby. We are going to continue on this
investigation, absolutely.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF RECALL
To Mr. Crigger and Ms. Petrauskus, Ms. Claybrook mentioned
here that companies do an economic analysis to determine
whether to make modifications in their products, and surmises
that such an analysis was done, or probably done relating to
the Firestone tires and Explorer vehicles.
Can you tell the subcommittee whether such analysis was
actually done relating to tire failure, tire pressure, the
Explorer suspension system, or any combination thereof by
either of your companies or under contract for your companies,
and sir, identify yourself.
Mr. Wyant. Yes, sir. I am Bob Wyant. I am vice president
for corporate quality for Bridgestone/Firestone. I am not sure
I understand your question.
Senator Shelby. Let me ask it again. Ms. Claybrook when she
testified, mentioned that companies do an economic analysis to
determine whether to make modifications to their products, and
she surmised that such an analysis was done relating to, in
this case, the Firestone tires. Was it in fact done?
Mr. Wyant. In terms of a recall decision?
Senator Shelby. I am just speaking of an economic analysis
that would include a recall decision.
Mr. Wyant. In short, no.
Senator Shelby. And if not, why not?
Mr. Wyant. In my 36 years, I am not aware of being involved
in--am not involved and have never been involved in any safety
related dollar analysis decision process, period.
Senator Shelby. Well, some people would say a calculus of
expected profits versus potential cost of lawsuits. Was that
made in this case?
Mr. Crigger. Nothing like that was done.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Petrauskus, what about Ford?
Ms. Petrauskus. Absolutely none. There was no such analysis
made. If I might just, maybe to correct the record a little
bit, there was earlier discussion about changes made.
Senator Shelby. Modifications.
Ms. Petrauskus. Modifications made during the development
process and the engineering process for the explorer. One of
the things I wanted to be absolutely clear on is, before the
Explorer vehicle went into production it passed not just all of
the Government's requirements but our own tough, very tough
rollover requirements, and it did so at 26 psi tire pressure,
and it did so at 35 psi tire pressure.
I just want to be sure there was no confusion on that
score. Thank you.
FORD EXPLORER SUSPENSION REDESIGN
Senator Shelby. I have another question to direct to you.
It has also been brought to our attention that during the
consumer satisfaction replacement of tires in Saudi Arabia and
Venezuela, that Ford instituted a redesign of the Explorer
suspension. If that is true, why have you not taken similar
action in the United States?
Ms. Petrauskus. That is not correct. In the case of Saudi
Arabia, at the same time as we replaced the customer tires we
did two other things. We put in place a training program for
our dealers, and we reduced the top speed of the Explorer
electronically to try to see if we could keep the speed down.
So we reduced the top speed to the levels that we have in the
United States. They had been higher in Saudi Arabia.
Senator Shelby. Does that lead reasonable people to infer
perhaps that the tire problem is exacerbated by the vehicle and
the design?
Ms. Petrauskus. All of the evidence--I need to answer your
question about Venezuela, too, and I will in a moment.
All of the evidence we have in Saudi Arabia almost
unequivocally seems to point to underinflation--but I am not
talking about a little underinflation. I am not arguing about
20 versus 26 versus 30. I am talking about underinflation in
the low teens--a lot of bad repair practices, and a lot of
damage, external damage to the tire, the kind you would get
going over sharp rocks and the like, because there is a lot of
recreational use of these vehicles in the desert, and that in
part was one of the things that led us to conclude we need to
reduce the maximum speed levels down to the U.S. level.
In the case of Venezuela, the decision was made to put
stiffer shock absorbers on the vehicles. These are the same we
have used in Australia for some time. The good thing about
these Australian shock absorbers is, they are stiffer and they
do a much better job in terms of giving the customer a decent
ride on washboard roads. It was a complaint we had. It was a
want, a customer want we had from customers in Venezuela. We
went ahead and decided to put it into production. There is
absolutely no relationship between those shock absorbers, or
the prior version, and tread separations and tire issues we
have seen in Venezuela. We are absolutely confident of that.
Senator Shelby. And in those lawsuits that were settled
where the agreements are sealed, are you saying or would you
say that there is no connection to anything that might come out
of those?
Ms. Petrauskus. If I might, I just want to be real clear in
the case of Ford Motor Company I am unaware of documents, any
documents that we sealed.
Now, what we do have is, when there is a settlement
agreement the fact of the settlement and the amount of the
settlement is kept private, but everything else, all of the
day-to-day engineering documents, all of the complaint data,
all of the things that relate directly to safety, and that we
have talked about making public, none of that, none of that is
protected information, and the reason there have been so many
documents talked about in the press is we do not ask for
confidential treatment, and they are all over town.
NHTSA'S SLOWNESS IN RESPONDING
Senator Shelby. Dr. Bailey, I will try to be quick with
this. Representatives from State Farm Insurance, which insures,
as I understand, about 20 percent of drivers in the United
States, informed your agency's office of defects investigations
of a growing number of incidents of tire failure by the P-35,
75, R-15 Firestone, ATX tire mounted on 1991 to 1995 Ford
Explorers in July of 1998.
NHTSA, however, did not act on this information until May
2000, or reportedly on subsequent phone conversations from
State Farm to NHTSA. Why were these communications, these
warnings, if you will, from State Farm seemingly ignored?
Dr. Bailey. They were not ignored. When they were received
they were analyzed in relationship to the population of tires
that were produced, which was over 40 million at that time.
Those 21 complaints, those claims that were ``noticed'',
and that is a quote from the original e-mail, that were
``noticed'', those claims ran over a period of almost 8 years,
several years. So you can see over several years 21 complaints
in a population of 40 million tires, it did not trigger an
investigation, nor would it have.
Senator Shelby. Let me follow up with this. If you are
claiming or stating that those complaints perhaps were not
enough to trigger an investigation, why did it open an
investigation of model year 1991, 1993 Chrysler minivans after
receiving, Dr. Bailey, only two complaints that seatbelts would
open when in use, and did not this investigation lead to a
recall of 1.1 million vehicles?
In other words, you acted on one thing at a smaller
threshold and at a larger threshold, probably a lot more
danger, perhaps, you did not act at all.
Dr. Bailey. Let me again put it in perspective and say that
we take in about 50,000 complaints a year. There are about 500
that deal with tires. There are only about 50 that deal with
Firestone tires. There were only about five a year that dealt
with these particular tires.
And so that we have it in context here, you can see that
again when we are looking at a population of 47 million tires
produced with less than 5 complaints a year about these
specific tires in question, that would not necessarily trigger
an investigation, again where there may be 500 complaints a
year about other tires.
Let me also say, the difference between the Chrysler
situation and the Firestone situation, is that we never expect
a seatbelt or a child safety seat to fail. Therefore, one or
two or three failures of something that is never supposed to
fail is enough to trigger an investigation, whereas we know
that tires that may be used for 40,000 miles, do fail. So we
are putting it into the context of the difference between tires
and safety mechanisms that are not ever intended to fail.
Senator Shelby. To Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone, it has
been mentioned here that, well, there is going to be a request
by the committee for the documents, the internal documents
related to Firestone and Ford and the safety and the warnings
and everything. Will we have to subpoena those, and if so we
will, or will you furnish those to the committee?
Mr. Crigger. We will cooperate fully with the committee.
Ms. Petrauskus. We will be happy to provide whatever
documentation the committee will require.
Senator Shelby. Okay. I want to thank all of you for your
testimony and your participation here. We will continue our
investigation.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Thank you. The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., Wednesday, September 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby and Specter.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FREIGHT RAIL COMPETITION ISSUES
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. CROWE, VICE PRESIDENT, WALTER
INDUSTRIES, INC., BIRMINGHAM, AL
opening statement of senator richard c. Shelby
Senator Shelby. The committee will come to order. This
oversight hearing of the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee will now begin.
American railroads carry more freight than ever. According
to the Association of American Railroads, 26 million carloads
of freight were carried in 1998; however, the number of major
U.S. railroads has declined dramatically over the last two
decades, and this high volume of freight traffic is
concentrated on a more streamlined rail system that is
experiencing capacity constraints, as we all know.
Over the past couple of years I have had a number of
meetings with rail-dependent companies, who consider themselves
captive to one major railroad. They have no choice in who
provides their rail service. These captive shippers, as they
are called, feel that the level of service they are provided
and the shipping rates they are charged reflect that lack of
competition.
Some companies can point to specific examples of how lack
of competition is affecting their and their customers' bottom
line. A chemical company in the Gulf Coast region of Texas
cites the ridiculous instance of paying the exact same rate to
ship their product by water to a market in the Far East, almost
7,000 miles away, as they paid to ship by rail to Atlanta, less
than 1,500 miles away. Their contract with the shipping company
stipulates delivery within 2 days of the targeted delivery
date. The rail contract to Atlanta has a 4-day delivery window
there.
A company might be willing to pay higher rates if they
could be confident that their product would arrive at the
destination within the time period specified in the service
contract. Sadly, this is often not the case. Many companies
have experienced severe service problems in the wake of recent
mergers. In Alabama, my home State, two chemical companies
reported to me that slow rail service in the wake of the Union
Pacific/Southern Pacific merger led to a near shutdown of a
major Alabama production plant, and did, in fact, shut down a
production unit of specialty chemicals in McIntosh, Alabama,
due to rail service failures.
Shippers have very few realistic forms of redress for poor
performance. A company can appeal unreasonable rates or lack of
competitive access before the Surface Transportation Board, if
they can afford it. FMC Corporation, a diversified industrial
conglomerate headquartered in Chicago, filed an appeal against
a Class I railroad, based on unreasonable rates, and after 2\1/
2\ years the STB ruled in FMC's favor. However, the legal costs
of the drawn-out appeals process and the expense of economic
modeling required by the STB cost the company $6 million to
file the appeal, more than the company might ever recover in
awards.
I have called this hearing today to explore the issues of
freight rail access, rail service, and shipping rates. I want
to focus on whether there is sufficient level of competition
and choice in the rail shipping and railroad industry. I know
that some of today's witnesses will definitely answer no, we
need more choice and better competitive options.
Farmers, small businesses, and their customers deserve good
service and fair pricing, just as much as large companies do.
Competition drives investment, increases capacity, reduces
shipping rates, and fuels economic growth. I want to talk about
ways that railroads, the shipping community, and the regulatory
agency that oversees them, the Surface Transportation Board,
can enhance and stimulate competition.
If railroads are unwilling to provide that service at a
reasonable charge, I think that we should try to find ways to
allow others to compete for that market. Small railroads and
shippers help build and maintain communities. We know that.
They are vital to the economies of American farms, small
communities, and towns. Limited access, slow or erratic
service, and non-competitive shipping rates discourage these
smaller businesses, and can have real consequences on local
economies. Railroads need to be more service oriented and more
competitive.
I am looking forward to our day's witnesses here, and look
forward to hearing them all. Our first panel will be the
shippers. We will have Mr. Bobby Tom Crowe, Walter Industries,
Birmingham; Mr. Eric Aasmundstad, representing the American
Farm Bureau and the farmers of North Dakota; and Ms. Diane
Duff, from the Alliance for Rail Competition. I want to welcome
all of you here today. Mr. Crowe, do you want to start?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. CROWE
Mr. Crowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bobby Tom
Crowe. I am here representing the American Chemistry Council
and the Alabama Chemical Manufacturers, and uniquely, Walter
Industries is made up of a group of subsidiary corporations of
manufacturers that stretch all across the United States. We
also happen to own and operate a very active short-line
railroad.
COMPETITIVE RAIL SERVICE
Mr. Chairman, I certainly commend this hearing and the
committee encouraging the industry to come forward, and to
comment, regard, and support competitive rail service in the
United States.
As you know, the American Chemistry Council is the voice of
U.S. chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council
represents the chemical industry on public policy issues,
coordinates the industry's research and testing programs,
administers the industry's environmental, health, safety,
performance improvement initiative that is known as the
Responsible Care program.
I commend you for holding these hearings to encourage
competition. Changes in the rail industry, marked by the series
of non-competitive mergers, demand an examination of the
current policy. It was the stated intent of the Staggers Act of
1980 to encourage competition among railroads. Rail
competitiveness legislation must include several important
revisions to balance the interest of rail customers with those
of rail carriers and rail labor.
I am not here to bash or demagogue these issues. We all
have a common goal, efficient, reliable, and reasonable-priced
rail transportation, and encouraging competition between
railroads is the way to achieve that goal. We need a responsive
rail industry, not one that exploits major portions of its
customer base, and deals very harshly with competitive
shippers.
The Council's member companies compete on a national and
global basis. Sixty-three percent of our manufacturing
facilities are captive to a single railroad. This makes it
difficult for us to reduce costs and get our products to market
on a consistent and reliable basis. A better balance in the
existing regulatory system is clearly needed.
Rail customers, therefore, recommend that six provisions be
included in any rail competitive legislation: Clarify the rail
transportation policy by requiring the STB to give greater
weight to the need for increased competition; two, require all
rail carriers to quote a rate between any two points where
traffic originates, terminates, or may be reasonably
interchanged without regard to whether the rate is for only
part of the total movement; three, eliminate the requirement
that evidence of anti-competitive abuse be produced in a
request to the STB for competition in a terminal area; four,
provide low-volume, captive, and all agricultural-related
customers with the simple benchmark test for rate and service
cases; five, codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence of
product or geographic competition when determining market
dominance; and six, abolish requirement that the STB determine
revenue adequacy.
While each of these provisions is discussed fully in my
written statement, I will now address three of these most
important areas of concern.
BOTTLENECKS
Congress should require rail carriers to quote a rate
between any two points where traffic originates, terminates, or
may reasonably be interchanged. The STB has ruled that in most
situations a railroad with such a bottleneck monopoly can
foreclose competitive routing by other railroads. The STB will
not even hear a challenge to the reasonableness of a rate for a
bottleneck segment.
We believe that a carrier that controls a bottleneck should
not be allowed to exploit its monopoly position. Instead, its
pricing should be subject to the current statutory restrictions
against charging unreasonable high rates where there is no
effective competition.
Consistent with other deregulatory precedents, Congress
should overturn the bottleneck decision. We are not asking you
to dictate the rate, but if Congress lets the bottleneck
decision stand, competition simply will not exist for most
captive rail shippers.
COMPETITION IN TERMINAL AREAS
Congress should eliminate the requirement that a customer
must prove anti-competitive abuse to obtain access to another
railroad in an area served by more than one carrier. The
Staggers Act allows such competition in a terminal area by
means of either terminal switching, trackage rights, or
reciprocal switching. The law has been interpreted to mean that
a customer must establish anti-competitive abuse, so railroads
are effectively protected against competition. We ask Congress
to remove the anti-competitive abuse test that has been
superimposed on the current statute.
MARKET DOMINANCE
Congress should codify the STB's decision to exclude
evidence of product or geographic competition from the agency's
market dominance determination. Market dominance is the
threshold test for determining the agency's authority to hear
rate cases. By law, market dominance means an absence of
effective competition from other rail carriers or modes of
transportation. There is no market dominance if a railroad
proves that the rate is less than 180 percent of so-called
variable costs of the movement.
For many years, however, the STB required a rail customer
prove that it did not have the ability to use other product
competition or access a similar product from another
geographical region. This made what was originally intended to
be only a threshold test into a lengthy, complicated, and
overburdensome process.
In December 1998, as a result of rule-making proceedings,
the STB determined that product and geographic competition
should be removed as factors in the market dominance
determinations. We are grateful that the STB heeded the
complaints of the rail customers about its market dominance
rules. We request that Congress simply codify the STB's recent
decisions.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and committee
staff, some describe our six provisions as re-regulation. To
the contrary, we do not want more regulation. We want
cooperation, and to enforce the intent of the Staggers Act, but
we do believe that the pro-competitive intent of that Act has
been undermined and with protectionist decisions. We urge you
to remove the barriers to competition and to adjust policies
that are no longer appropriate in a consolidated rail industry.
Then we will see a stronger rail industry that will be able to
respond to customers.
Congress should also look into the concerns of rail labor,
short-line railroads, and regional railroads when crafting rail
competitiveness legislation. We look forward to working with
you to accomplish this goal. We, again, do not need more
regulation, but more cooperation. Historically, shippers have
had to come to Congress to deal with railroads. We do not
consider that as a request for greater regulation.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity.
Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert T. Crowe
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This testimony is on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. The
American Chemistry Council is the voice of the U.S. Chemical Industry.
The American Chemistry Council represents the chemical industry on
public policy issues, coordinates the industry's research and testing
programs, and administers the industry's environmental, health, and
safety performance improvement initiative, known as Responsible
Care'.
The testimony provides a brief summary of why rail customers
engaged in the business of chemistry are concerned about rail
transportation. It then reviews the need for changes in the existing
law and provides specific recommendations for what those changes ought
to be.
Below is a summary of the six provisions that we as rail customers
support in legislation to revamp the rail industry:
1. Policy.--Clarify the rail transportation policy of the U.S. by
requiring the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to give greater weight
to the need for increased competition between and among rail carriers.
2. Bottlenecks.--Require rail carriers to quote a rate between any
two points on the system where traffic originates, terminates or may
reasonably be interchanged without regard to whether the rate is for
only part of the total movement.
3. Competition in Terminal Areas.--Eliminate the requirement that
evidence of anti-competitive conduct be produced when the STB
determines outcome of requests to allow another railroad access to rail
customer facilities within an area served by the tracks of more than
one railroad.
4. Relief for Certain Agricultural Shippers.--Provide small,
captive agricultural shippers with a simple benchmark test for rate and
service cases.
5. Market Dominance.--Codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence
of product or geographic competition when determining market dominance.
6. Revenue Adequacy.--Abolish the requirement that the Board
determine on a regular basis which railroads are revenue-adequate.
Good afternoon Mister Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I
am Bobby Tom Crowe. I am here today representing the American Chemistry
Council. Our concern is the need for better rail transportation.
You are to be commended for holding this hearing. Congress needs to
become more active in the debate about rail transportation.
The rail transportation debate has been described by some as ``re-
regulating'' the rail industry. I must strongly state that nobody
supports returning to rail regulation as it existed prior to the
enactment of the Staggers Act of 1980. Customers of the rail industry
need a strong and economically viable railroad system. Without such a
system, the country's economy will suffer and we would not be able to
receive raw materials and market our products.
At the same time, we need a rail industry that is responsive to the
needs of its customers. My company, as well as the other members of the
American Chemistry Council, competes on a national and international
basis. The competition we face on a daily basis means not only that we
must seek ways to reduce costs, but we must also seek transportation
options that get our products to market on a timely basis. There are
occasions when shipments must reach a rail destination by a specified
time to be loaded on an ocean-going ship or to be used by a customer on
a time-sensitive basis. If these shipments are late we can lose sales
or face other business consequences. These are the reasons that rail
transportation must be provided on a basis that is responsive to the
demands of the customer. It is for these reasons that a better balance
in the existing regulatory system is needed.
In the United States, the business of chemistry employs some
1,000,000 high-tech, high-wage workers. In turn, these lead to the
creation of 1.1 million jobs in other industries, bringing total U.S.
jobs dependant on the chemical industry to 2.1 million. Our industry is
the U.S. leading export sector and a substantial contributor to a
positive U.S. balance of payments. The chemical industry depends
heavily on railroads to safely and efficiently transport raw materials
to chemical manufacturing facilities and to deliver a wide variety of
finished products to destinations throughout the country. Railroads
also transport chemical exports to Canada, Mexico, and U.S. ports.
According to data compiled by the Association of American
Railroads, the chemical industry ships about 140 million tons of
products by rail on an annual basis and spends about $5 billion per
year on rail freight charges, accounting for 15 percent of the revenue
received by U.S. railroads. Most significant in terms of
competitiveness, 63 percent of chemical manufacturing facilities are
served by a single railroad. These monopolized facilities face high
transportation costs and often suffer from inadequate rail service.
Recent rail transportation events have shaped the business
environment. There is a growing awareness that transportation is not a
separate, isolated function of the supply chain, but rather, an
integral part of the production process. When talking about the
transportation you must remember few other issues address such
fundamental business components in corporate America. That is, rail
transportation is about: Moving raw materials and products; Meeting
customer demand; and Affecting the corporate bottom line.
Why are the railroads the only industry in this country to exercise
monopoly control over their customers? The core issue is the lack of
competition in the U.S. rail system. Legislation is needed to address
the fundamental way railroads operate.
BACKGROUND FOR CHANGE
Four developments over the last twenty years have reduced the
competitive transportation alternatives for many ``captive'' shippers.
Railroad Mergers and Consolidations
First, the railroad industry has consolidated from approximately 40
major railroads in 1980 to six major railroads today. There are two
railroads in the west: the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Union
Pacific; two in the east: the Norfolk Southern and the CSX; and two
operating in the middle of the nation and in parts of the northeast:
the Kansas City Southern and the combined Illinois Central/Canadian
National. In their decisions approving railroad mergers, the STB and
its predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), have
attempted to maintain for all shippers at least as many transportation
options as they had prior to the merger, sometimes using trackage
rights and other such agreements to achieve these results. But the
Board's efforts have not always been successful.
``Tie In'' Agreements with Shortline and Regional Carriers
Second, there has been a proliferation of short line and regional
railroads since 1980 as the major railroads sold off parts of their
systems. However, as the major railroads sold tracks to new short line
and regional railroads, the sales agreements often included provisions
requiring the short line to move its freight back to the railroad that
sold the track, even where movement to a second railroad might be
possible. These provisions were approved by the ICC and the STB and
further protected by an agreement between the major railroads and the
short line and regional railroads, which itself has been approved by
the STB. Thus, competition that could have been created by when tracks
were sold has instead been stifled. It is of interest, however, than in
testimony before the STB in March, the American Shortline and Regional
Railroad Association advocated greater competition due to the higher
level of consolidation that now prevails in the rail industry.
Lack of Competition in Terminal Areas
Third, in the mid-1980's the ICC adopted an interpretation of the
Interstate Commerce Act that allows the railroads to prevent
competition from occurring in terminal areas. Terminal areas are those
places where the facilities of at least two rail carriers cross and
therefore competitive alternatives could be available to rail customers
if they were able to be served by more than one railroad. Under its
interpretation in the 1986 Midtec case, the ICC determined that
railroads could avoid competition in a terminal area unless a shipper
or other railroad proves ``anti-competitive abuse'' by the railroad. No
applicant seeking competition in a terminal area has ever been able to
satisfy the STB's interpretation of ``anti-competitive abuse''. This
``anti-competitive abuse'' test is not contained in the Interstate
Commerce Act as amended by the Staggers Act.
The Bottleneck Decision
Finally, and perhaps of most concern to railroad customers, is the
STB's ``bottleneck'' decision, which is fundamental to the entire issue
of competition in the rail industry. On February 10, 1999, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in MidAmerican Energy
Co. v. Surface Transportation Board, upheld the December, 1996 decision
of the STB that allows railroads to ``exploit'' their bottlenecks. The
question of ``bottlenecks'' is now a public policy issue ripe for
resolution by Congress.
That judicial decision in the bottleneck case is that under current
law railroads can avoid competition and ``exploit'' their customers
located on railroad bottlenecks. Under this decision, the railroads
have been given the best of both worlds: the benefits of deregulation
and the ability to ``exploit'' their monopoly facilities! This state of
the law must be reversed by an act of Congress.
By way of background, ``bottlenecks'' are those sections of a
transportation movement where only one railroad is available.
Typically, for much of the remainder of the movement, competitive rail
transportation options are available. ``Bottlenecks'' are a problem
where one of the two railroads that could provide competition also
controls the ``bottleneck''. Where the ``bottleneck'' carrier can
provide service at the ``origination'' of the movement and at the
``destination'' of the movement, then the ``bottleneck'' carrier has
every economic incentive to exclude the other railroad from
participation in a part of the overall movement. Thus, the
``bottleneck'' railroad either will not provide a rate across only the
``bottleneck'' portion (thus preventing the customer access to the
railroad competition that is available) or will quote a rate for its
portion of the movement that is so high as to make the joint-line
portion economically infeasible.
In December, 1996, the STB sided with the railroads in its
``bottleneck'' decision, succumbing to their unsubstantiated claims
that they would fall into financial ruin if they could not ``exploit''
their customers across their bottleneck facilities. Captive rail
shippers are outraged by this decision. If this decision stands, the
railroad industry will be the only ``network'' industry that has been
both deregulated, but allowed to continue to ``exploit'' its
``essential facilities''. This privilege was not extended to the
airline industry, the telecommunications industry, the natural gas
pipeline industry or the electric utility industry. In each of these
cases, either Congress or the Federal regulatory agency has required
these industries to allow competitive rates across their ``bottleneck''
facilities. Railroad customers demand to know why a different decision
was made in the case of the railroads, why their interests have been
dismissed and what standard is going to restrain the railroads
``exploitation'' of those over whom the railroads continue to enjoy
monopoly power.
Railroad customers encourage Congress to adopt legislation
overturning the ``bottleneck'' decision and requiring the railroad at
least to quote a rate to customers across bottleneck facilities.
Railroad customers are not even asking the Congress to dictate the
rate, as has been in the case with respect to the telecommunications,
pipeline and utility industries. If Congress lets this ``bottleneck''
decision stand, transportation competition simply will not exist for
most captive rail shippers of bulk commodities.
In light of these four developments, most shippers of bulk
commodities do not have access to transportation competition. The
choice of these railroad customers is either to keep quiet and accept
the transportation terms dictated to them by the railroads or to test
the reasonableness of their rate at the STB. Unfortunately, as shown in
a 1999 GAO study, the ``rate reasonableness process'' at the STB is so
difficult, costly, time consuming and cumbersome that few railroad
customers ever pursue this remedy. This remedy, by the way, is the only
rate relief remedy available to captive rail shippers.
On other matters, STB Chairman Linda Morgan indicated in a letter
to Senator John McCain and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, that the
agency needs direction from Congress. That letter, dated December 21,
1998, identified a number of areas in which Congress should provide
more direction. These requests for direction include: rail competition,
revenue adequacy, and so-called ``small'' rate cases.
Unfortunately, the STB has chosen to ignore many of the policy
mandates listed in Staggers. For example, the following are listed as
rail policy in Staggers:
1. Rail policy should foster sound economic conditions and to
ensure effective competition and coordination between rail carriers and
other modes;
2. Rail policy should reduce regulatory barriers to entry into and
exit from the industry; and
3. Rail policy should prohibit predatory pricing and practices, to
avoid undue concentrations of market power, and to prohibit unlawful
discrimination.
These policies need to be clarified legislatively and not with any
new regulation of the industry. The Staggers Act provides the STB with
policy to ensure a competitive, free-market environment for both large
and smaller rail customers. It is time the policy is put into practice.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the above, the American Chemistry Council supports rail
competitiveness legislation that includes the six provisions summarized
here:
1. Policy.--Clarify the rail transportation policy of the U.S. by
requiring the Surface Transportation Board to give greater weight to
the need for increased competition between and among rail carriers.
2. Bottlenecks.--Require rail carriers to quote a rate, upon
request, between any two points on the system where traffic originates,
terminates or may reasonably be interchanged without regard to whether
the rate is for only part of the total movement.
3. Competition in Terminal Areas.--Eliminate the requirement that
evidence of anti-competitive conduct be produced when the STB
determines outcome of requests to allow another railroad access to rail
customer facilities within an area served by the tracks of more than
one railroad.
4. Relief for Certain Agricultural Shippers.--Provide small,
captive agricultural shippers with a simple benchmark test for rate and
service cases.
5. Market Dominance.--Codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence
of product or geographic competition when determining market dominance.
6. Revenue Adequacy.--Abolish the requirement that the Board
determine on a regular basis which railroads are revenue-adequate.
Each of these provisions is discussed in more detail below.
1. Policy.--Congress should clarify the U.S. rail transportation
policy by requiring the STB to give greater weight to the need for
increased competition between and among rail carriers.
The current rail transportation policy appears to clearly favor
competition as the primary regulator of choice. Currently, the statute
appropriately states that, among other factors, it is Federal policy:
--to allow, to the maximum extent possible, competition and the
demand for services to establish reasonable rates for
transportation by rail;
--to minimize the need for Federal regulatory control and to require
fair and expeditious regulatory decisions when regulation is
required;
--to promote a safe and efficient rail transportation system by
allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues as determined
by the Board;
--to ensure development of sound rail transportation system with
effective competition among rail carriers and with other modes,
to meet the needs of the public and the national defense;
--to foster sound economic conditions and to ensure effective
competition and coordination between rail carriers and other
modes;
--to maintain reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective
competition;
--to reduce regulatory barriers to entry into and exit from the
industry;
--to prohibit predatory pricing and practices, to avoid undue
concentrations of market power, and to prohibit unlawful
discrimination; and,
--to provide for the expeditious handling and resolution of all
proceedings required or permitted to be brought under this
part.
However, a review of the past 20 years of regulatory precedent
demonstrates that rail regulators have given disproportionate emphasis
to the provision that states that the STB is to allow rail carriers to
earn adequate revenues. If Congress truly intended for competition to
be the regulator of choice--among rail carriers as well as with other
modes--the priorities of this policy need to be clarified
legislatively.
2. Bottlenecks.--Congress should require rail carriers, upon
request, to quote a rate between any two points on the system where
traffic originates, terminates or may reasonably be interchanged
without regard to whether the rate is for only part of the total
movement.
In the agency's 1996 ``bottleneck'' decision, the STB ruled that,
in most situations, a rail carrier with a ``bottleneck'' monopoly can
lawfully foreclose alternate and competitive rail routings by another
carrier, where the ``bottleneck'' carrier can provide origin to
destination service. Consider the example of a shipper that needs to
move his goods 1,000 miles and is served by both Carrier A and Carrier
B at his destination, but only Carrier A at his origin. Carrier B
interchanges with Carrier A and can provide alternative and competitive
rail service over 900 miles of the total movement from the interchange
to the destination.
In the above example, even though Carrier B can provide competition
over a large portion of the movement, the STB ruled that Carrier A can
simply refuse to interchange with Carrier B for transportation from the
interchange to the destination. The STB also ruled that it would not
even consider a shipper's challenge to the lawfulness of a rate for
this ``bottleneck'' segment. This means that there can be no review of
the reasonableness of a rate for the 100 miles controlled by Carrier A
in the above example.
The STB's bottleneck decision should be reversed legislatively, to
restore to shippers the right to route over competitive routings at
rates produced by the competitive market thorough existing
interchanges, and to clarify that the STB can establish a maximum
reasonable rate over a bottleneck segment. These changes would ensure
that the monopoly bottleneck carrier couldn't take advantage of its
pricing power to foreclose competition over the competitive portion of
the route. They would permit competition to flourish where it can.
These changes would not bring a return to the old ``open routing''
system, whereby carriers were required to keep even inefficient
interchanges open and were required to charge the same rate over all
possible routes. Rather, only interchanges already utilized by the
carriers would qualify, and rates over various routes would vary as
costs and competition demand. Where a carrier controls a bottleneck,
its pricing initiative would only be subject to current statutory
restrictions against charging unreasonably high rates where there is no
effective competition.
Consistent with other congressional deregulatory precedent,
railroad customers encourage Congress to adopt legislation overturning
the ``bottleneck'' decision and requiring the railroad at least to
quote a rate to customers across bottleneck facilities. Railroad
customers are not asking Congress to dictate the rate, as has been in
the case with respect to the telecommunication, pipeline and utility
industries. If Congress lets this ``bottleneck'' decision stand,
transportation competition simply will not exist for most captive rail
shippers.
3. Competition in Terminal Areas.--Congress should eliminate the
requirement that evidence of anti-competitive conduct be produced when
the STB determines outcome of requests to allow another railroad access
to rail customer facilities within an area served by the tracks of more
than one railroad.
The 1980 Staggers Rail Act specifically allowed competition to
occur within terminal areas by means of either ``terminal trackage
rights'' or ``reciprocal switching,'' but regulatory interpretation of
the law has prevented this from occurring.
According to 49 USC Sec. 11102. ``Use of Terminal Facilities,'' the
law clearly states that the Board may require terminal facilities--
including mainline tracks for a reasonable distance outside a
terminal--to be used by another rail carrier if it is ``practicable''
and ``in the public interest'' so long as it does not ``substantially''
impair the owner of those facilities to handle its own business. This
is referred to as ``trackage rights.''
This section of the law also clearly states that the Board may
require rail carriers in a terminal facility to transfer, or
``switch,'' a customer's shipment to another rail carrier--under what
is known as ``reciprocal switching agreements,''--where such agreements
are found to be ``practicable and in the public interest,'' or ``where
such agreements are necessary to provide competitive rail service.''
Railroads already can access each other's customers through either
trackage rights or reciprocal switching agreements, and often do.
However, the railroads decide unilaterally which customers within the
reasonable distance of the terminal area can access such competition,
and the competing railroads usually will only agree to an ``even swap''
of access to specific customers. As a result, most customers that fall
within a ``reasonable distance'' or rail terminal facilities can not
get competition through these provisions unless the regulator deems
such action to be ``practicable and in the public interest'' or
``necessary to provide competitive rail service''--a function that was
originally envisioned and anticipated within the 1980 Act as a means to
encourage competition.
Unfortunately, regulators have interpreted the language of the
statute to mean that a rail customer must prove that the railroad was
undertaking anti-competitive abuse. Rather than affirming the pro-
competitive intent of the law, the regulator has determined that
trackage rights and reciprocal switching agreements will only be used
when anti-competitive behavior can be proven to exist. Although this
provision of the law was clearly intended as a means of encouraging an
emergence of competition, instead the STB chose to protect the rail
industry from competition. Therefore, rail customers are asking
Congress to remove the ``anti-competitive abuse test'' that was
superimposed on the current statute by regulators.
4. Relief for Certain Agricultural Shippers.--Provide low volume,
captive agricultural shippers with a simple benchmark test for rate and
service cases.
In the case of the low-volume agricultural shipper, a better test
must be established to provide these customers with a quick and simple
way to access relief from poor service and unreasonably high rates
within the existing regulatory framework. The existing ``small rate
cases'' provision does not work because it does not provide any clear
indication of who would qualify, or establish a definitive simple rate
or service benchmark.
Consider: STB's guidelines established three factors that the Board
will look at to determine the maximum rate for small shippers.
Specifically, the Board reviews the profits that the carrier obtains
from the challenged rate compared to: (1) The profits that railroads in
general earn from comparable traffic; (2) The level of profits that the
carrier would need to obtain from all of its potentially captive
traffic in order to become ``revenue adequate''; and (3) The profits
that the defendant carrier earns on all of its potentially captive
traffic. But the Board has never said how these comparison factors will
be weighted or if they will even be utilized, so from a legal
standpoint, a small shipper has no means of assessing the potential
outcome of bringing a rate complaint.
In addition, there has never been a decision by the Board about
what case would qualify as a ``small case'' so a shipper with a
complaint doesn't even know who can qualify to use these rules. One of
the three comparison factors depends upon access to the confidential
waybill sample data, and you can't get access to the data until you
file a complaint. Beyond the complexities of the STB's guidelines, the
process is lengthy and costly. The prospect of spending thousands of
dollars--or even millions, and weeks--or even years--of time on a
process that is unlikely to provide any real relief is not especially
enticing, particularly in a fast paced marketplace where other business
opportunities could be lost.
In STB Chairman Morgan's letter of December 21, 1998, she
specifically noted that, if Congress agrees with the assessment that
the current guidelines could unreasonably impede access to the
regulatory process and should be replaced by a single benchmark test,
Congress could adopt specific ``small'' rate case standards.
Various members of the agricultural community have proposed a
threshold under which it would be clear what rate and service
circumstances would merit regulatory relief. This proposal would also
establish the parameters for such relief, and in circumstances where
all else fails, allow eligible facilities to sue for damages either in
Federal court or before the STB.
5. Market Dominance.--Codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence
of product or geographic competition when determining market dominance.
According to the statute, ``market dominance'' means an absence of
effective competition from other rail carriers or modes of
transportation. In theory, a finding of ``market dominance'' gives the
STB the authority to protect a captive shipper--one who has no
alternative transportation choices--from excessively high rates. By
law, if a rail carrier proves that the rate charged is less than 180
percent of out-of-pocket costs, then that carrier is determined to be
not market dominant. Market dominance was intended by Congress to be
merely a threshold test for determining the agency's authority in
hearing rate cases.
However, in implementing this part of the statute, regulators
required a rail customer to prove that it did not have the ability to
use another product (``product competition'') or access a similar
product from another geographic region (``geographic competition'').
The addition of determining product and geographic competition as part
of market dominance made what was originally intended to be only a
threshold test into a lengthy, complicated and overly burdensome
process.
On December 21, 1998, as a result of a rulemaking proceeding, the
STB determined that factors of product and geographic competition
should be removed from the market dominance determinations. This
provision would simply codify this decision.
Captive rail shippers are very grateful that the STB heeded the
complaints of railroad customers and removed the consideration of
``product'' and ``geographic'' competition from the ``market
dominance'' test. This provision would simply codify the STB's December
21, 1998 decision.
6. Revenue Adequacy.--Abolish the requirement that the Board
determine on a regular basis which railroads are revenue adequate.
According to the STB, the revenue adequacy status of any particular
railroad has little practical effect, and Congress may wish to consider
legislatively abolishing the requirement that the Board determine on a
regular basis which railroads are revenue adequate.
According to many financial analysts on Wall Street, the revenue
adequacy status of any particular railroad is never even considered
when determining the financial status of that railroad.
Finally, according to Dr. Alfred Kahn, the noted economist widely
known as the ``father of deregulation'' for his work in deregulating
the airline and trucking industries, the revenue adequacy test as
currently applied by the Surface Transportation Board is nonsensical
and should be abolished.
In short, the annual regulatory determination of revenue adequacy
has little if any bearing on the realities of railroad economics
unnecessarily polarizes the transportation community, and should be
eliminated.
CONCLUSION
The chemical industry believes that any rail competitiveness
legislation must include these provisions. These provisions do not
``re-regulate'' the rail industry; in fact, in most cases, they remove
agency-imposed barriers to competition or adjust regulatory policies
that are no longer appropriate in a consolidated industry. If these
provisions are enacted, rail customers believe that we will see the
growth of an inherently stronger rail industry that is responsive to
customer needs and concerns. We look forward to working with you to
accomplish just that.
STATEMENT OF ERIC AASMUNDSTAD, NORTH DAKOTA FARM BUREAU
STATE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION
Senator Shelby. Mr. Aasmundstad, go ahead.
Mr. Aasmundstad. Good afternoon, Chairman Shelby. My name
is Eric Aasmundstad. I am the President of the North Dakota
Farm Bureau, and in addition to my duties as President of the
North Dakota Farm Bureau, I am also a grain producer and custom
harvest operator in North Central North Dakota. I am appearing
here today representing the American Farm Bureau Federation,
the nation's largest general farm organization.
NORTH DAKOTA LANDLOCKED
The area where I live in North Dakota is landlocked, and we
are 100 percent dependent on over-land transport to the ports.
The farmers there have every reason to be concerned about
competitive transportation. It is impossible for the relatively
small number of Americans who farm to feed the remaining
majority of Americans who do not, in the absence of a viable
transportation system.
Environmental advocates insist that we cannot expand and
modernize the waterway transportation infrastructure in the
upper Mississippi, which is so crucial to my area. Some of
these same environmental advocates insist that the Corps of
Engineers implement a so-called spring rise on the Missouri
that will end commercial navigation on the Missouri, including
export grain, and endanger commercial navigation on the main
stem of the Mississippi. Still, other environmental advocates
insist that the Corps of Engineers destroy the waterway
navigation infrastructure that is critical to the
competitiveness of grain producers in the Northwest.
Ironically, those who seek to end waterway navigation
insist the freight can be moved on trucks and by rail when
these alternative modes are clearly unable to handle the
additional freight. Add to this safety advocates who insist
that highway safety must be served by reducing the number of
hours a farmer can drive to deliver his grain to ever more
distant river terminals and rail-loading facilities, coupled
with the fact that our rural highways and bridges continue to
deteriorate and Class I railroads continue to abandon rural
rail lines. All these things considered together put a very,
very heavy burden on the agricultural sector.
COMPETITION
Competition is important for all agricultural shippers. As
a general rule, agricultural shippers are unable to command the
market power to deal with a railroad company as effectively as
a major coal mining company or electric utility.
We are often forced to deal with poor service, such as
trains that are not delivered to a loading point in a timely
manner, and it may not be picked up for days or weeks. Farmers
and agricultural shippers must also absorb extremely high
freight rates that railroad companies can demand due to their
monopoly market power.
The real-world experience of American farmers demonstrates
that competition would be helpful. Prior to the massive rail
consolidation of the last 20 years, many agricultural areas
were served by three or four railroads that could move grain
and other bulk commodities. Today, only two railroads carry the
vast bulk of the traffic that moves west of the Mississippi
River, and in many areas, they do not compete with each other.
Grain producers from western States pay very high freight rates
to ship their grain.
STAGGERS ACT
Over the years, the ICC and the STB, which succeeded it,
determined that the powers granted by the Staggers Act set that
a shipping rate of 160 percent of a railroad's variable costs
as full return for the railroad's cost to capital. Further, the
Staggers Act determined the railroad rates greater than 180
percent of variable costs are excessive.
In a fact-finding proceeding conducted recently by the STB,
the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the North Dakota
Wheat Commission, and the North Dakota Grain Dealers
Association submitted shipping cost figures to the STB in March
1998 regarding shipping rates from North Dakota to Portland,
Oregon. According to that submission, shipping rates averaged
from 229 percent to 257 percent of variable costs, using rate
figures from the fourth quarter of 1995.
According to a quick survey of grain shippers in my state,
BNSF now charges about $1.20 per bushel to ship Hard Red Spring
Wheat to Seattle. If you compare this per-bushel shipping price
to the market being offered in my State of $2.27 a bushel, you
can see that farmers in my State are working several months a
year to pay BNSF to ship their product.
Every penny in shipping costs that result from a lack of
meaningful competition is born by farmers in the form of lower
grain prices at the elevator where they sell their grain. We
believe meaningfull competition among rail service providers
would help alleviate this problem.
I have spent a great deal of time here discussing the
price, because the numbers are available that can help describe
the problem. Service difficulties are more difficult to
quantify and assign numbers to. Overtime costs elevator
operators must incur when a railroad drops off cars late, and
insists on picking them up loaded the next day, missing
connection points with customers, and trains sometimes lost for
days in shipping yards all have costs that are born by
shippers, and ultimately by the farmers.
PAPER AND STEEL BARRIERS
Since many rural areas find themselves served by short-line
or regional railroads, it is critically important for reforms
to discourage paper and steel barriers. Paper barriers may
prevent a short line or regional railroad from interchanging
with any Class I other than the one that sold the track that
now forms the short line's infrastructure as a condition of
that sale.
These contractual barriers can take other forms as well.
Steel barriers are more simple. Sometimes the class one that
sold the short line or regional railroad's track simply removes
any spurs or branches that would allow the smaller railroad to
interchange with any other class one. Congress should prohibit
such barriers to competition and instruct the STB to carry out
that mandate. There are key reforms needed to ensure meaningful
rail competition.
Competition is of paramount importance. Farm Bureau
supports provisions of the Rail Competition and Service
Improvement Act that requires incumbent railroads to offer
access to competing railroads in terminal areas and allow
shippers to seek rates from a competitor over so-called
bottleneck rail segments. Many agricultural shippers find
themselves captive to a single rail service provider.
PREPARED STATEMENT
One of the things our members, the folks I represent in
North Dakota, feel that--one of the questions that have to be
answered, should railroads be considered strictly a for-profit
entity, owned and controlled by their stockholders, or should
they be thought to provide an essential service, much as
electric companies? That is the question we feel needs to be
answered.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Aasmundstad
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Eric
Aasmundstad, President of the North Dakota Farm Bureau. In addition to
my duties as North Dakota Farm Bureau president, I am a grain producer
and custom combine operator in north central North Dakota. I am
appearing today representing the American Farm Bureau Federation, the
nation's largest general farm organization, with nearly five million
Farm Bureau families across the country.
Farmers have every reason to be concerned about competitive
transportation. It is impossible for the relatively small number of
Americans who farm to feed the remaining majority of Americans who do
not, in the absence of a viable transportation system. Washington has
failed to create competitive transportation options by reforming the
outdated Jones Act, which effectively prohibits coastwise ocean
transportation of agricultural products and allows operators of a small
and inefficient U.S. flag fleet to maintain a monopoly on such
transportation. Environmental advocates insist that we cannot expand
and modernize the waterway transportation infrastructure on the Upper
Mississippi. Some of these same environmental advocates insist that the
Corps of Engineers implement a so-called spring rise on the Missouri
River that will end commercial navigation on the Missouri (including
carrying export grain) and endanger commercial navigation on the
mainstem of the Mississippi. Still other environmental advocates insist
that the Corps of Engineers destroy the waterway navigation
infrastructure that is critical to the competitiveness of grain
producers in the Northwest.
Since 1997, the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad has
worked to improve and expand its lines, allowing it to move coal from
the Powder River basin in Wyoming to its Mississippi River terminal in
Minnesota. This will also allow DM&E to offer improved service to its
agricultural shippers. According to USDA testimony on this matter,
Surface Transportation Board (STB) Finance Docket No. 33407, Dakota,
Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation Construction Into the Powder
River Basin, 11/30/98:
``DM&E's shippers cannot compete effectively for (Pacific
Northwest) traffic because the railroad is too slow--it takes 9 days to
move across DM&E from end-to-end. Rebuilding the railroad will promise
to cut this travel time from days to hours. In addition, connecting to
the Iowa & Minnesota Rail Link near Owatonna, Minnesota, will allow
DM&E-sourced corn to move to the processing plants of Iowa. With the
ability ship to three major markets (river, processors, and Pacific
Northwest), the basis price for agricultural producers should rise:
some estimates suggest increases as high as $.20 per bushel for both
corn and wheat. If prices for wheat, corn and soybeans increased just
$.10 per bushel, then farm income in the DM&E service region could
increase by more than $90 million in a typical crop year.''
Mr. Chairman, with a strong endorsement like that, you might think
the necessary regulatory approvals to rebuild and expand the DM&E would
already be in hand, and heavy equipment would be humming in South
Dakota and Minnesota. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Three years
after beginning their regulatory efforts, DM&E and its investors are
still awaiting an environmental impact statement (EIS) from the Surface
Transportation Board that is long overdue and is estimated to run to
some 3,000 pages. This draft EIS will incorporate input from five
different Federal agencies, including the Coast Guard. I didn't know
the Coast Guard had anyone in South Dakota to notice what might be
going on there, let alone pay attention to rail construction. In the
meantime, the project is in danger of running out of money and out of
time, and agricultural shippers in South Dakota and Minnesota are in
danger of losing yet another transportation option.
Rural highways and bridges continue to deteriorate as Class I
railroads continue to abandon rural rail lines. Ironically, those who
seek to end waterway navigation insist the freight can be moved on
trucks and by rail, when these alternative modes are clearly unable to
handle the additional freight. Add to all this safety advocates who
insist that highway safety must be served by reducing the number of
hours a farmer can drive to deliver grain to ever-more distant river
terminals and rail loading facilities.
Farm Bureau supports greater intermodal and intramodal competition
and public policies that encourage competition. The AFBF Board of
Directors approved priority issues for 2000 at its meeting in January.
Among these priorities are: ``Promote public policies that support a
low-cost national transportation system to ensure international
competitiveness of U.S. farm production.'' A key aspect of
accomplishing this broad goal is to seek public policies that create
the largest possible number of competitive transportation options for
agricultural shippers. Unfortunately, the public policy trend seems to
be moving in the opposite direction.
Competition is important for small agricultural shippers. As a
general rule, agricultural shippers are unable to command the market
power to deal with a railroad company as effectively as a major coal
mining company or electrical utility. We are often forced to deal with
poor service, such as trains that are not delivered to the loading
point in a timely manner or that may not be picked up for days or
weeks. Farmers and agricultural shippers must also absorb extremely
high freight rates that railroad companies can demand due to their
monopoly market power.
We believe that the railroad landscape prior to the passage of the
Staggers Act allowed for the possibility of competition. The Staggers
Act brought about partial deregulation of the railroad industry and
encouraged rail industry consolidation on a massive scale. AFBF policy
approved by the delegates to the 81st AFBF Convention in January 2000
says, in part, ``We oppose parallel mergers of rail systems and the
granting of railroad abandonments which tend to lessen potential
transportation competition.''
Most of the important mergers that have occurred over the last 15
years, including that which created the Burlington Northern Santa Fe,
have reduced competitive shipping opportunities for many agricultural
shippers. Farm Bureau opposed the 1996 merger in which the Union
Pacific absorbed the Southern Pacific because of concerns about
competitive shipping opportunities for agricultural shippers. In each
instance with these past mergers, shippers have been promised benefits
that largely have yet to materialize. We are pleased that the Surface
Transportation Board is undertaking a review of its rules for
consideration of future rail mergers to determine if changes are
needed. In this Board proceeding, Ex Parte 582, it is important that
the Board create clear and unambiguous rules to ensure that competitive
rail service options are preserved for shippers in all future mergers.
Farm Bureau has provided the Board with preliminary comments in that
rulemaking, and we look forward to continuing to participate in that
process. For the information of the subcommittee, the pre-rulemaking Ex
Parte 582 comment of the Farm Bureau is attached to my statement. But,
as I will discuss later, we are concerned that Board action to
encourage competition will be insufficient to guarantee competition. We
believe passage of Farm Bureau-supported legislation like S. 621, the
Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 1999, will be
necessary.
The real-world experience of American farmers demonstrates that
competition would be helpful. Prior to massive rail consolidation of
the last 20 years, many agricultural areas were served by three or four
railroads that could move grains and other bulk commodities. Today,
only two railroads carry the vast bulk of the traffic that moves west
of the Mississippi River, and in many areas they do not compete with
each other. Grain producers in western states pay very high rates to
ship their grain. Over the years, the Interstate Commerce Commission--
and the Surface Transportation Board that succeeded it--determined with
the powers granted by the Staggers Act that a shipping rate of 160
percent of a railroad's variable costs (labor, transportation, fuel,
etc.) is full return of the railroad's cost of capital. Further, the
Staggers Act determined that railroad rates greater than 180 percent of
variable cost are excessive.
In a fact-finding proceeding conducted recently by the STB, known
as Ex Parte 575, the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the North
Dakota Wheat Commission and the North Dakota Grain Dealers Association
submitted shipping cost figures to the STB in March 1998 regarding
shipping rates from North Dakota to Portland. According to that
submission, shipping rates averaged from 229 percent to 257 percent of
variable cost, using rate figures from the fourth quarter of 1995.
But rather than concentrate on economic theory like percentages of
variable cost, one can look at prices to move rail cars from certain
locations to major grain ports in the Pacific Northwest to learn the
true cost of the lack of rail competition for farmers. Earlier this
year, Burlington Northern charged $3,792 to move a hopper car in a 52-
car train carrying 3,260 bushels of grain from Plentywood, Montana
1,207 miles to Portland, Oregon. That is about $1.13 per bushel for
rail transportation cost. From Alliance, Nebraska, to Portland, Oregon,
(1,473 miles) Burlington Northern charges $3,325, or about $.99 per
bushel. Thus, we have the odd situation that Nebraska farmers shipping
from Alliance pay less per bushel to move their grain farther than
their Montana counterparts shipping from Plentywood. Why should Montana
farmers pay $.14 per bushel more to ship their grain more than 200
fewer miles than Nebraska farmers do? In this case, Nebraska farmers
benefit to a limited degree from competition between railroads. Farm
Bureau believes that all farmers, including those in Montana, should
enjoy the benefit of competition, and Nebraska farmers should enjoy
even greater benefits of competition than they enjoy now.
According to a quick survey of grain shippers in my state, BNSF now
charges about $1.20 per bushel to ship Hard Red Spring Wheat to
Seattle. If you compare this per-bushel shipping price to the market
being offered in my state ($2.27 a bushel for wheat per Grainline.com
on August 10), you can see that farmers in my state are working several
months a year to pay BNSF to haul their grain to market. Every penny in
shipping cost that results from a lack of meaningful competition is
borne by farmers in the form of lower grain prices at the elevators
where they sell their grain. We believe meaningful competition among
rail service providers would help alleviate this problem.
I spend a great deal of time here discussing price because numbers
are available that can help describe the problem. Service difficulties
are more difficult to quantify and assign numbers to. Overtime costs
elevator operators must incur when a railroad drops off cars late and
insist on picking them up loaded the next day, missing connection
points with customers, and trains sometimes lost for days in switching
yards all have costs that are borne by shippers and ultimately by
farmers.
There are key reforms needed to ensure meaningful rail competition.
Competition is of paramount importance. Farm Bureau supports provisions
of the Rail Competition and Service Improvement Act that requires
incumbent railroads to offer access to competing railroads in terminal
areas, and to allow shippers to seek rates from a competitor over so-
called ``bottleneck'' rail segments, where many agricultural shippers
find themselves captive to a single rail service provider.
Since many rural areas find themselves served by shortline or
regional railroads, it is critically important for reforms to
discourage ``paper'' and ``steel'' barriers. ``Paper'' barriers may
prevent a shortline or regional railroad from interchanging with any
Class I other than the one that sold the track that now forms the
shortline's infrastructure as a condition of that sale. These
contractual barriers can take other forms as well. ``Steel'' barriers
are more simple: sometimes the Class I that sold the shortline or
regional railroad its track simply removes any spurs or branches that
would allow that smaller railroad to interchange with any other Class
I. Congress should prohibit such barriers to competition and instruct
the Surface Transportation Board to carry out that mandate.
Thank you for your time and attention. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Ms. Duff, do you mind if Senator
Burns--if you will defer to him. I wanted to ask you, though--
--
Senator Burns. Yes. You better ask her--you do not want to
get----
Senator Shelby. I think you-all are on the same song book
here----
Senator Burns. Yes.
Senator Shelby. The same page.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much----
Senator Shelby. Senator Burns, thank you.
Senator Burns [continuing]. For inviting me here today. I
will just submit my statement. I did want to----
Senator Shelby. It is in the record, without objection.
Senator Burns [continuing]. Sort of reinforce what Mr.
Aasmundstad, down there, said.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Keep in mind that we are talking about great
distances in the West when we start working, when we start
moving stuff, whether we are moving coal, or we are moving
services or equipment into our State, because agriculture, we
sell wholesale, we buy retail, and we pay the freight both
ways. Right now, that freight is taking one big bite,
especially in States where we are captive shipper. North Dakota
has the same problem we did.
Now, I will tell you a little story about Wesby, Montana.
Wesby, Montana used to be in North Dakota years ago, but they
moved over into Montana, because of a freight weight situation.
Now, we are thinking about moving it back, because you get the
cheaper rates from North Dakota to Portland than we do in
Montana. We can ship to North Dakota, and North Dakota can
change engines and send it right back through the State, back
to Portland, and we come out a little bit better. That is the
way it was working for quite a while.
So we have legislation pending, and it has quite a lot of
support around the country, and, of course, I do not think
there is a chance that we get it done this year, but next year
I think we will, and we need to pursue it for the simple reason
that even though the railroads or the majors will tell you that
rates have come down nationally, but in States where we are
captive shippers, just the opposite is true.
About 3 years ago we got into a situation that has hurt
agriculture more than anything else. We had a merger in the
Southwest, and we had a virtual meltdown in Houston. We had
cars tied up, and we had grain on the ground that never was
shipped, that was never moved, and you combine that with the
complete collapse, the financial collapse of five countries in
the Pacific rim that take the majority of our production in the
Northwest, and you combine those two, and we have never been
able to recover from those situations. Some of that was caused
by just the lack of service and the attitude towards service,
and also our freight rates.
So I am going to submit my statement for the record today.
I appreciate you having these hearings. There is concern,
because the mergers in the railroads are not over. They are not
over.
There are some pending out there, even though the
Burlington Northern Sante Fe with the Canadian National, that
is sort of on the back burner right now, I doubt if it will
happen, but it is not for sure that there are not more mergers
out there in the offing.
So I appreciate you having these hearings, and I appreciate
the courtesy. Thank you, Ms. Duff, for doing that, and I would
submit my statement for the record.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Shelby. The statement will be made a part of the
record without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before your Subcommittee. The issue of rail competition is one I have
been very active on over the last decade.
As you know, Congress passed the Staggers Act in 1980. At the time
of enactment, there were over 40 major railroads. Today, we have only 4
major railroads. Within 20 years, rail competition in our nation was
decimated. Today you will hear testimony that our nation's rail
transportation environment is as healthy as ever. You will hear
testimony that rail rates have decreased significantly under
deregulation as provided by the Staggers Act.
What you won't hear from the rail industry is the growing numbers
of markets that are becoming captive to railroads. Corporate
consolidation has had severe implications for Montana's farmers and
ranchers. The rail industry is no different. Montana is almost entirely
captive to a single railroad.
What does that mean? Considering the cost and level of service
provided in Montana, this means our farmers pay more that any other
shipper in the nation for less than adequate service. Montana farmers
are forced to wait until the railroads are ready to provide service
while these same railroads rush to provide service to those areas where
a competitive element exists. Meanwhile, Montana grain fills our
elevators, and once full, the grain sits on the ground exposed to the
elements until rail transportation is available.
Once that service is available, Montana farmers pay extremely high
rates, higher than any other rate in the nation for this service. Mr.
Chairman, the bottom line is that Montanans pay more for less. Now this
is just one scenario--granted an extreme scenario--from one region of
our nation.
Our nation's railroad transportation environment is not stable in
its current state. Nationally, our rates have decreased since passage
of the Staggers Act. However, regionally, farmers and other shippers
raise concerns about inadequate service or forced high costs due to a
lack of competitive presence. I expect this to evolve further.
Industry stability is absent. We can determine this not only by the
recent merger attempt but also by the impact this announcement had on
the entire industry. Immediately following the announcement by the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Canadian National railroads, I was
made aware of several other merger discussions. Alliance building
within the railroad and airline economies in the face of competitor
merger proposals is a fascinating process.
Also, we can consider the instability of the rail industry by the
impact on rail service following the 1995 merger of the Union Pacific
and the Southern Pacific. The Houston meltdown in 1998 had service
impacts across the nation. Montana farmers were hit especially hard in
a time of financial crisis that remains in existence today.
Through all of this, the Surface Transportation Board contends we
have a very healthy rail industry. Given this inability to see the
forest through the trees, I am particularly concerned about the STB's
effectiveness as the adjudicating body between railroads and shippers.
Montana's grain producers as well as other small businesses have
been facing tough transportation issues for nearly two decades. Montana
is a classic case of what happens to shippers when you eliminate
competitive transportation alternatives. Our rail rates go through the
roof and our shippers end up subsidizing rail rates in regions where we
do have competition.
Now, we're seeing the same thing happen in other regions around the
nation. Montana has been down this road and I encourage members of this
Committee to look at the problems we face in Montana as a precursor to
what will happen in other regions.
The STB, based on their 1998 decision regarding the McCarty Farms
vs. Burlington Northern case, has indicated to the producer that BNSF's
rates are not excessive. I am concerned that after 17 years of
adjudication, by using the STBs decision making process, those
decisions may not be the right decisions.
Montana rail rates are the among the highest in the country. These
rates significantly exceed 180 percent of variable cost, and the only
way the STB can justify the rates as reasonable is to subscribe to the
`differential' pricing scheme of the railroads. Make no mistake about
this scheme, it is `discriminatory' pricing and it is only practiced by
monopolies. It is unfair on its face and Congress needs to consider
legislation such as S. 621 introduced by myself, along with Sens.
Rockefeller, Dorgan and Roberts, that will help to introduce
competition into this market like it has done with other monopolized
markets such as telephone, electric utility, and pipeline
transportation.
Montana's shippers pay some of the highest rates in the world while
our neighbors pay a significantly lower cost for transportation. The
price of regulatory freedom for monopolies, should not be borne by
captive shippers.
The rail industry is unique. Other industries whether that be the
airlines, utilities, or telephone companies have their own problems.
But rail transportation is based solely on trackage rights. Competition
is quickly becoming an unknown in rail transportation.
In Montana, we are truly dependent on the railroads to transport
bulk commodities that could not be efficiently transported by any other
means. Economic history can tell us what happens in an environment
without competition. The free enterprise system is not based upon
allowing monopolies to control markets. The provider rakes in the
profits but the shipper continues to pay the cost in increased rates
and a decrease in the quality of service.
Today's witness representing the railroads will suggest that
Montana's rates are the result of an open and deregulated environment.
If the problem is strictly based on market dominance, how can Montana's
shippers have the highest freight costs in the nation. If ever there
has been a victim of free-market economics, Montana's producers top
that list.
It is apparent that the failure of the Surface Transportation Board
to take proper action against the nation's rail industry has led to a
problem of much larger scope--this is not just Montana's problem
anymore--it is now a national problem. Therefore, it is important that
Congress take action now to enforce the rights of our nation's
producers and preserve the idea of competition while there remains an
opportunity to preserve competition.
Agricultural shippers are the most vulnerable to predatory
marketing by monopolistic practices of railroads. They are charged the
freight rates by the grain merchandisers when they deliver their grain
to market, but they don't pay the railroads, the merchandisers do. The
most important point is that the farm producer unlike every other
industry we know of in America, cannot pass the freight costs on to
anyone else, they must simply eat it.
We do not need to re-regulate the railroads; rather we need to
restore the balance between shippers and railroads that Congress
intended to achieve originally in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to restore the competitive
balance in the rail transportation industry and level the playing field
for shippers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Duff, thank you for deferring to the
Senator, but he wanted to make sure that was your choice.
Ms. Duff. Well, it was my pleasure to defer to the Senator.
Senator Burns. We have been working together on a lot of
this stuff.
Senator Shelby. We have.
Senator Burns. It was a pleasure.
Senator Shelby. Before Senator Burns leaves, our staff has
just reminded me, I just want to point out that he is a member
of the Commerce Committee, a very active chairman of the
subcommittee there. He knows a lot about these issues, you
could tell.
It is my understanding, Senator Burns, that you are the co-
sponsor of a rail reauthorization bill that addresses many of
the service, rate, and access issues that we have been talking
about today, is that correct?
Senator Burns. Right. S-621.
Senator Shelby. Where is that bill now?
Senator Burns. Well, it is still in committee.
Senator Shelby. It is still in committee.
Senator Burns. I will try and convince the chairman.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Okay.
STATEMENT OF DIANE DUFF, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
ALLIANCE FOR RAIL COMPETITION
Senator Shelby. Ms. Duff, your full statement will be made
part of the record, without objection. You may proceed, as you
wish. Thank you again for deferring to Senator Burns.
Ms. Duff. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby,
for focusing your attentions on the rail competition debate.
I am here today representing the Alliance for Rail
Competition, which is a broad coalition of rail customers,
including agriculture, coal and utilities, chemicals, and
petro-chemicals, forest and paper products, steel, and other
manufacturing industries that rely on rail transportation.
RAIL OVERSIGHT SYSTEM
As far as these rail customer constituencies are concerned,
the rail oversight system is broken. Government regulators have
spent too much time over the past 20 years trying to apply
their views of what is fair, and not enough on accomplishing
the mandate of deregulation, which would systematically replace
government regulation with competitive choice as the most
effective and unbiased arbiter.
Railroads may face some intermodal competition in some
markets, but head-to-head competition among railroads has been
virtually eliminated by 20 years of protectionist regulatory
decisions, and dozens of mergers, all sanctioned by rail
regulators.
This current state of affairs means that a large chunk of
rail customers who have no modal alternatives are paying
exorbitantly high rates for some of the worst service that the
railroads have to offer. Furthermore, captive rail customers
are rightfully fearful of the potential of railroad retaliation
if they pursue either regulatory or political intervention, so
much so, that many refuse to enter into this debate at all.
RETALIATION TACTICS
Railroads have often employed subtle and not-so-subtle
retaliation tactics to quiet customer complaints. In fact,
railroads have such complete market control over these groups
of customers that they can apply such rates or limit service in
such ways as to put rail customers out of business, or at
least, at further extreme disadvantage.
Railroads will tell you that today's policies benefit the
public, because there is no other way to earn the revenues
necessary to sustain their high fixed costs, low-return
businesses. This is simply not true. Many, many industries with
similar cost structures function quite successfully in highly
competitive environments. They have figured out how to
differentially price their services according to customer
demands, rather than monopoly control.
The key is being willing to listen to your customers,
providing the various tiers of services that will meet their
needs, and pricing those services accordingly. For railroads to
do this, they need to apply innovative solutions to their
rampant service problems. Competition has regularly provided
the necessary incentive for other former monopoly industries to
do the exact same thing.
Unfortunately, the Federal agency put in place to prevent
this kind of behavior has been somewhat of a paper tiger. I
have no doubt that the members of the board believe that they
are exercising the board's legal authority consistent with the
will of Congress. After all, to date, neither of the
authorizing committee chairman in either the House or the
Senate have been particularly sympathetic to calls for
competition among railroads.
Furthermore, I must give this board due credit for the
things that it has done; for example, the market dominance
decision that they promulgated in 1998 expedited service relief
procedures, and, in fact, undertaking the current merger policy
review that is under way. However, rail customers do not want
to have a regulator determine what is fair, and they cannot
afford the 2-year or more process that it takes. They want to
be able to negotiate in a free market, where they have a
choice, and the STB has done nothing to foster that kind of
competitive choice among railroads.
In the next couple of weeks, the board will release its
proposed merger policy rules, and then we will see whether the
board will finally apply clear, specific guidelines for how to
increase competition among railroads through its broad merger
authority. No matter what the board does, however, Congress
must determine the role of competition among railroads for the
future.
Addressing concerns of customer choice via mergers can only
do so much, and the board has repeatedly made it clear that it
is not going to independently change current system-wide
policies that limit competition within the existing industry
framework.
BOARD GUIDELINES
Thus, I urge this committee to keep a close eye on the
board's activities in the coming months. If the board does not
provide clear guidelines for how it will exercise the broadest
portion of its authority to promote competition among
railroads, then I suggest that this committee ought to consider
the relative value of this agency, and provide annual funding
for it accordingly. The rail customer community will keep you
informed of our views on this process, while continuing our
efforts to promote comprehensive rail policy reform.
I should add, also, that the Alliance for Rail Competition
has consistently supported the provisions that Mr. Crowe
outlined in his testimony earlier, but as we continue to look
down the road at what the rail industry has made very clear is
going to happen, and that is further mergers, resulting in
likely a two-railroad monopoly system throughout North America,
we need to really look very hard at what those provisions do in
that sort of an environment and really question whether it is
enough, and we will be doing that in the coming months.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you again for having this hearing, and I appreciate
the opportunity to testify.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Ms. Duff.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Diane C. Duff
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding
this hearing today. Your time and attention are greatly appreciated by
the rail customer community, which wants very much to work with this
committee and others to bring responsible free market competition to
the freight rail industry, and to put an end to rail monopoly control.
My name is Diane Duff, and I serve as the Executive Director of the
Alliance for Rail Competition, also known as ARC. ARC is a membership
organization dedicated to promoting rail-to-rail competition through
legislative changes to rail policy. ARC's membership consists of
corporate and other organizations representing the agriculture, coal
and utilities, chemicals, petrochemicals, plastics, forest and paper,
steel and other manufacturing industries. ARC also collaborates with
the many trade associations and professional organizations that
represent these industries. My testimony will attempt to succinctly
cover a broad range of the elements involved in the debate regarding
rail competition, including some of the policy recommendations
supported by the rail customer community. Furthermore, I will make some
suggestions to this committee regarding how to assess the performance
of the Surface Transportation Board in future appropriations cycles.
I. THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY POST-DEREGULATION
The members of the Alliance for Rail Competition view rail
deregulation--embodied in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980--as having had
many beneficial effects. Deregulation freed the railroad industry from
artificial regulatory constraints that had been financially
devastating, and the removal of these restraints has led to improved
productivity and increased profitability.
However, the monopoly characteristics that we see in today's rail
industry certainly cannot be what Congress envisioned when the Staggers
Rail Act was passed. Although rail deregulation provided railroads with
financial assistance, the real purpose of deregulation was to allow
competition to prevail--that is, true competition in an effective
efficient and timely manner without creating interim monopoly power and
bottlenecks.
Unfortunately, monopoly power and bottlenecks are the primary
characteristics of today's rail industry. Since deregulation in 1980,
the number of major Class I railroads has declined from approximately
42 to only four major railroads today. These four mega-railroads
overwhelmingly dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 percent of the
gross ton-miles and 94 percent of the revenues, controlling 90 percent
of all U.S. coal movement; 70 percent of all grain movement and 88
percent of all originated chemical movement. This drastic level of
consolidation has left rail customers with only two major carriers
operating in the East and two in the West, and has far exceeded the
industry's need to minimize unit operating costs.
Railroads frequently claim that consolidation has not reduced rail
customers' ability to gain access to more than one railroad, or even
harmed those customers who have always been captive to one railroad,
since those rail customers never had access to more than one carrier
prior to these many mergers. However, the potential alternatives those
captive shippers once had have been essentially eliminated because, in
most cases, the captive rail customer's entire route or routes are now
controlled by a single carrier. This highlights how little has been
done by regulators to ``maximize competition to the greatest extent
possible,'' as directed by existing statute.
Rates.--When it comes to discussing rate levels and whether or not
they are fair, it all depends on how dependent you are on the railroad
for transportation. Those rail users that have some options--such as
the proximity of a second railroad or another mode of transportation
altogether--are the ones who have the competitive benefits intended by
of deregulation.
However, there remains a significant portion of the rail customer
community that has no choice. For example: it is virtually impossible
to move millions of tons of coal by truck; transporting bulk quantities
of grains by truck over hundreds of miles is not economically feasible;
and safety concerns limit the movement of many chemicals to rail. Of
course, not all coal, chemical and grain traffic is captive--some
companies moving these commodities are located in proximity to two
railroads, or are close enough to a waterway to make barge
transportation viable. But many, many companies that move these kinds
of bulk commodities and cannot access more than one railroad are held
hostage to railroad monopoly power. In general, we know that these
captive rail customers are paying rates that are anywhere from 30 to 50
percent higher than the rates of their competitors that have some
competitive transportation alternative. Under this scenario, rail
transportation becomes one of the biggest--if not the biggest--cost
associated with moving these low-value bulk commodities. As a result,
these captive rail customers are put at a significant disadvantage in
their own markets, and in a sense, a railroad can determine the
economic success or failure these customers.
The Association of American Railroads asserts that rail freight
rates have declined by more than 50 percent in constant dollars since
1980. However, I urge you to look behind the graphs and understand what
these numbers really represent. The AAR data does not measure freight
rates as the price paid to ship some quantity of the commodity in
question. Instead, the railroads use a complex average of various
statistics known as ``revenue per ton-mile,'' a measure that is not
comparable to the rates actually paid for rail transport. In fact,
AAR's own data contradicts the use of revenue per ton-mile as a rate
surrogate. Comparing revenue per ton-mile to the AAR Freight Rate Index
shows that revenue per ton-mile overstates the decline in rates by more
than 300 percent. Additionally, Commerce Department data shows that
this discrepancy between rates and revenue per ton-mile continues
today.
Furthermore, the revenue per ton-mile measurement has been falling
steadily since at least 1935, regardless of the regulatory climate.
This happens because revenue per ton-mile is driven by a complex set of
factors, such as length of haul, commodity mix and shipment size which
can, in combination, produce reductions in revenue per ton-mile even
when the freight rate structure is otherwise unchanged, or even
increases. Thus, much of the decline in revenue per ton-mile is a
mathematical illusion. Railroad traffic has undergone dramatic
structural changes, particularly in the past 20 years. First, unit
trains--that have lower costs and revenues per ton-mile than other
trains--are more widely used. Second, there has been significant growth
in long-haul corridors that have lower costs and revenues than short
distance movements. Third, more and more costs have been transferred to
the rail customer in the form of cars and equipment, loading and
unloading facilities, and other similar costs. In addition, the
consequences of growing the ``cheaper'' varieties of freight--i.e.
those low-value bulk commodities that have no real transportation
alternatives--are that average revenue per ton-mile has declined,
irrespective of changes in rates. The ploy of masking structural
changes in the rail industry by employing revenue per ton-mile as a
surrogate for rates creates the false illusion of rapidly decreasing
freight charges.
Consider rates from another perspective. The U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics Railroad Producer Price Index reveals that rail prices, as
defined by the amount customers pay for rail services, increased 48
percent from 1980 to 1996 whereas the AAR Revenue per ton-mile (RTM)
statistic indicates a decrease of 18 percent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ R.L. Banks and Associates Inc. and Fieldston Company, Inc.
(1998) ``Rail Freight Rates in the Post-Staggers Era''. Report prepared
for the Alliance for Rail Competition, available on-line at http://
www.railcompetition.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to see what's really happening with rates is to compare
the rise of rail rates to the price of the commodity being transported.
For example, when one looks at the rail rates versus the price of wheat
shipped from Montana between 1975 and 2000, the rail price has risen
from less than 20 percent of the price of wheat when there was limited
rail-to-rail competition in the state to over 50 percent in 2000 when
the BNSF today, has a total monopoly on rail movements from the state.
Captive rail customers' concerns about rail rates center on the
inability of entire industries and/or regions that are captive to
continue to compete in the world economy. If a railroad monopoly exists
between the producer and the end-user of the commodity, the monopoly
railroad has the ability and the will to exact, through its tariffs,
all of the profit gained by efficiency and productivity. U.S. producers
face competition all over the world for their products against many
foreign competitors who do not face a monopoly railroad situation.
The U.S. General Accounting Office (1999) conducted a recent
general survey of rail customers, yielding some telling results. They
found that 81 percent of shippers want increased transportation
competition and 75 percent believed that they were being charged
unreasonable rates.
Service.--While rates are a serious concern for many shippers, of
at least equal, if not greater, concern is the deteriorating quality of
service that shippers--particularly captive shippers--receive. Massive
amounts of testimony about service problems resulting from both the UP/
SP service crisis in the West and the ongoing service problems
associated with the division of Conrail between CSX and Norfolk
Southern. Railroad service failures have cost the national economy
billions of dollars. However, given the broad diversity of the rail
customer community--and each customers' respective and differing
service needs--it is very difficult to quantitatively portray the
railroads' service performance in any meaningful way.
Railroads present performance measurements based on train speeds,
the amount of time a train sits in a terminal area, and so forth, but
again, the specific needs of any given rail customer make these
averages somewhat irrelevant unless you're interested in the fluidity
of the entire system. If I'm making regular movements of unit coal
trains to a facility, my estimation of rail performance is likely to be
consistency: are the unit trains arriving and departing on a stable and
reliable schedule that allows me to maintain my coal stockpile at the
optimum level? However, if I'm moving multiple car shipments of
chemicals to various locations where my customers require those
materials by a certain time, my rail service needs are likely to be
quite different. Alternatively, if the price of wheat is favorable and
I need to move my wheat harvest to the West Coast for export, will the
railroads provide the cars and locomotive power necessary to deliver
that shipment to the port quickly enough so I can capture that price?
In short, railroad performance can really only be truly measured
one customer at a time, and thus, anecdotal stories from customers who
are captive to rail transportation become quite informative. For
example, a Chicago-area agricultural processor purchasing $30 million
worth of rail services annually was quoted last year as saying, ``If I
could figure out a way to conduct our business without using railroads,
I would absolutely without any hesitation stop doing business with
them.'' Another rail customer was quoted, ``There isn't one [railroad]
today that is easy or convenient or just competent enough to warrant
doing business with.'' With the consolidation of the railroad
companies, he continued, ``it is getting worse. As they get bigger we
become relatively less important to them.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Getting Worse,'' Traffic World, Clayton Boyce, Editor.
October 4, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The railroads have frequently blamed current rail customer
complaints on the transitions that naturally take place after mergers.
In truth, however, rail customers have been concerned about
deteriorating service for years. Railroads have paid less and less
attention to customer service, further demonstrated by the fact many of
them have virtually eliminated their customer service departments over
the last five years.
The bottom line is that, from the rail customer's perspective, the
level of rates and the quality of service are directly linked to the
shipper's ability to access competition. In other words, those rail
customers that are the most captive pay the highest freight rates and
get the worst service. Where there is competition, rates go down and
the quality of service goes up; and when competition is absent, the
opposite also is true.
In summary.--By most standards, the pro-competitive goals of rail
deregulation have not been met. Competition among rail carriers is
virtually nonexistent, and as a result, not a single North American
railroad is meeting the current supply chain standards required by most
American industry--nor is there any reasonable prospect of remarkable
improvement. Certainly, some of the few remaining major railroads
perform better than others. But after five or more years of constant
service failures by one railroad or another, the perpetuation of
distorted freight rates, and a continued emphasis on further
consolidation rather than service, operational innovations and
improvements, it is clear that railroad policy changes are needed.
II. THE ROLE OF REGULATORS
Unfortunately, the STB hasn't, up to now, felt that the rail
customer's pain warranted encouraging competition to provide fairness
in the marketplace for the constituency it is mandated to protect.
Despite clear statutory language directing regulators to encourage
competition to the maximum extent possible, regulators seem to have an
overly narrow view of their responsibility to protect existing or
encourage new competition among railroads. In all fairness, this narrow
protectionist approach was not something that the Surface
Transportation Board dreamed up when it was created in 1995. And
furthermore, the STB has recently made some decisions that improve
regulatory processes. Still consider the following damage that has
already occurred over the past five years.
--The STB has approved mergers that have placed 94 percent of the
entire U.S. rail transportation market in the hands of just
four carriers, and those four carriers don't even compete with
each other over significant portions of their respective
territories. It's worth noting that the Department of Justice
vehemently opposed the UP/SP merger, which the Board has often
identified as having significant competitive benefits. Although
the Board has imposed some conditions to mitigate the loss of
the barest levels of competition, those conditions have been
applicable only in limited areas, and have not attempted to
improve competitive factors, or extend competitive access to
those rail users that have historically been captive to one
railroad. Since the Board's merger authority is so far-
reaching, it seems that the Board could have taken a more
aggressive approach to encouraging competition in previous
merger transactions.
--The STB, and its predecessor, have consistently condoned the act of
Class I carriers creating ``paper barriers'' when spinning off
a branch line to form a shortline railroad. A paper barrier
essentially prohibits the newly created ``independent''
shortline from interchanging traffic with any railroad but the
parent carrier. As a result of paper barriers, the shortline
and regional railroad community can also be captive to Class I
carriers.
--The STB determined that railroads are fully within their right to
exploit customers located on a bottleneck. A ``bottleneck'' is
a segment of rail track that serves either the point of origin
or the point of destination in any given route. Because the
bottleneck is controlled by one railroad, that railroad can
force any customer that needs to move goods over that portion
of track to use only that railroad's services over the entire
route, regardless of whether a second carrier may be available
to provide competing service for a majority of that route.
Certainly, the Board should be given credit for its modest attempts
to enhance competition, such as its 1998 decision to eliminate product
and geographic competition factors from the market dominance
determination process. But why shouldn't its efforts have been more
aggressive? And as the agency charged with regulatory oversight of the
rail industry, why has the Board not requested additional authority to
rectify what has clearly become an anti-competitive environment? Some
rail customers have suggested that the Board has been overly influenced
by the railroad industry.
This brings us to the Board's ongoing Ex Parte proceeding intended
to revise its merger policy procedures. There may be some differing
views within the rail customer community regarding the necessity of the
merger moratorium that is running concurrent with the Board's policy
review. Nonetheless, almost without exception, rail customers loudly
applaud the Board's efforts to revise its merger policy procedures. ARC
will be judging the Board's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, due out the
first week of October, based on the following criteria:
1. Need.--Does the proposed rulemaking recognize the need for
competition to exist between rail carriers?
2. Specificity.--Does the proposed rulemaking provide clear and
concise guidelines for enhancing competition?
3. Comprehensiveness.--Does the proposed rulemaking identify ways
in which pro-competitive conditions can be applied throughout the
industry?
In Summary.--The Board has made some small steps in the last two
years to address the concerns of the rail customer community. However,
the Board's merger policy review is probably the best opportunity that
it has to demonstrate that it is relevant in the effort to achieve the
full intentions of rail deregulation. The Board must realize that the
system is broken, and nothing shy of decisive congressional action that
replaces government regulation with true market competition is likely
to fix it.
III. THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE'S ROLE
ARC recognizes that congressional jurisdiction for rail policy
reform lies largely with the Commerce Committee in the Senate, and the
Transportation Committee in the House. But while the authorizing
committees can decide to allow this controversial debate to linger,
appropriators are faced each year with the dilemma of whether to
continue funding the STB. Should the STB's merger policy review not
provide clear guidance for enhancing rail-to-rail competition in an
expansive manner, it will have demonstrated a lack of relevancy to the
principles of deregulation. In this regard, this committee ought to
give serious consideration to specifically directing the use of funding
or even eliminating funding altogether.
IV. THE CROSSROADS: WILL RAILROADS WORK WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS TO FIND
THE SOLUTION?
The rail industry is at a crossroads that will determine whether it
will continue to be a viable commercial service. The long-term
viability of rail transportation depends solely on whether rail
customers are able to choose among a variety of service levels, offered
at economically competitive rates by more than one rail carrier.
Rail industry executives can work with rail customers in the policy
arena to restructure rail operations to incorporate this kind of free
market competition among rail carriers. Conversely, rail industry
executives can cling to the misguided hope that their businesses will
survive as long as they can extract maximum revenues from their
customers that have no transportation choice. Thus far, rail executives
have clearly chosen to continue down the latter path, fighting against
the very customers whom they are supposed to serve.
What railroad executives refuse to acknowledge is that today's
captive customer is not likely to have the luxury to accept the
railroads' monopoly behavior in perpetuity. Consider:
--The restructuring of the electric utility industry is introducing
new competitive pressures, and paired with the ongoing
environmental debates about coal usage, more and more utility
executives are looking at natural gas as the fuel of the
future. Not a single coal-fired generation facility has been
built in the last 20 years, and there are no new ones on the
drawing board. Thus, as old coal-fired generators are retired,
railroads will begin to see a serious revenue drain.
--Chemical industry executives have already undertaken massive build-
out projects to gain access to competitive rail transportation.
Others have begun to make new and relocation facility siting
decisions based on competitive transportation alternatives, and
some of those decisions are taking the facilities out of the
U.S. altogether. Once again, railroads will eventually see
dwindling revenues in the movement of chemicals and plastics.
--Grain traffic is already diverting to trucks when at all possible.
But the emergence of high value specialty crops--such as peas,
lentils, high protein wheats or high oil corns--that move in
truck quantities are going to begin to take their toll on rail
revenues generated by this sector.
Conventional railroad wisdom is that captive customers are needed
to survive, and that any loss in revenues from its captive customer
base will require it to make up for those losses elsewhere. Given the
dynamic economy that rail customers face, railroads can be assured of
revenue losses if they continue the monopolist's business strategy.
Restructuring the rail industry around a competitive framework,
however, would put today's railroads back in the game.
While railroad traffic has increased somewhat in recent years--
tonnage has climbed by about two percent annually during the 1990s--the
industry continues in its long-term trend of declining market share. As
shown below, over the past half century, the railroad industry's share
of intercity tonnage has dropped from 47 percent of the market to 25
percent of the market.\3\ At the same time, the truck market share has
increased from 26 percent to 49 percent. These trends have continued
throughout the 1990s. Conversely, the ``Economic Report of the
President'' reveals that from 1990 to 1997, the Index of Industrial
Production increased by 3.8 percent annually--almost double the rate of
growth in railroad tonnage. Of course, some production is consumed
locally, but the data shows that railroads are not full participants in
the country's incremental production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rosalyn A. Wilson, Eno foundation, Transportation in America
1999, 17th edition. Tonnage data includes railroads, trucks, oil
pipelines, water carriers, and airlines.
[In percentage]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Truck
Year Market Market
Share Shar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950................................................. 46.7 26.1
1960................................................. 36.1 32.7
1970................................................. 31.1 36.2
1980................................................. 28.7 36.3
1990................................................. 27.1 40.3
1995................................................. 25.7 46.1
1998................................................. 25.1 48.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding the Right Solution.--In this contentious environment, rail
customers have fought for legislation that would make modest
adjustments to the interpretation of the existing statute. Basing all
recommendations on the intent of the original statutory language, rail
customers have almost universally supported the following legislative
provisions:
1. Policy.--Clarify the rail transportation policy of the U.S. by
requiring the Surface Transportation Board to give greater weight to
the need for increased competition between and among rail carriers.
2. Bottlenecks.--Require rail carriers to quote a rate, upon
request, between any two points on the system where traffic originates,
terminates or may reasonably be interchanged without regard to whether
the rate is for only part of the total movement.
3. Competition in Terminal Areas.--Eliminate the requirement that
evidence of anti-competitive conduct be produced when the STB
determines outcome of requests to allow another railroad access to rail
customer facilities within an area served by the tracks of more than
one railroad.
4. Relief for Certain Agricultural Shippers.--Provide small,
captive agricultural shippers with a simple benchmark test for rate and
service cases.
5. Market Dominance.--Codify the STB's decision to exclude evidence
of product or geographic competition when determining market dominance.
6. Revenue Adequacy.--Abolish the requirement that the Board
determine on a regular basis which railroads are revenue-adequate.
However, throughout this year, representatives of the railroad
industry have repeatedly stated their intention to continue pursuing
mergers as a means of increasing operating ``efficiency'' and
``promoting competition'' at some point in the future. In fact, most
observers--and even many rail executives--agree that additional mergers
will eventually produce a North American rail system monopolized by two
transcontinental railroads. In the face of such developments, are the
modest provisions rail customers have embraced thus far really enough?
Under such circumstances, is it reasonable to expect that one rail
system will compete for customers served by the other, and vice versa?
Basic economic theory holds that, in the long run, dual monopolists
decide that an activity such as competitive (marginal) pricing is self-
defeating because the other supplier will match it. The same theory
holds true for service innovations as well. Thus, even with the ability
to ask for a bottleneck rate or for access to the second carrier in a
terminal area, rail customers are likely to have little or no choice of
prices and service levels should the rail industry consolidate further.
In the coming months, the rail customer community will be forced to
come to terms with the implications of the railroad industry's end
game, and determine its own vision for addressing that end game. As
with any monopoly situation, the question will always be ``how much
access is necessary and appropriate to facilitate meaningful
competition?'' Thus, the solutions we pursue in the 107th Congress may
be quite different than those we see today.
The Impact of Competition on Railroads.--As we consider the future
of this evolving industry, it's important to understand that increased
levels of competitive access can--and will--benefit all affected
parties. Central to the debate over competition is whether railroads
must have monopoly power in order to remain financially sound, and if
not, how much access is necessary for the forces of free market
competition to take hold.
Those who oppose the introduction of competition--and who wrongly
refer to any form of competition interchangeably as either
``reregulation'' or ``forced access''--base their opposition on a
series of incorrect assumptions:
1. A competitive railroad marketplace cannot sustain the practice
of differential pricing, because competition automatically drives all
rail rates to equality.
2. Without differential pricing, the industry will not be able to
earn sufficient revenues to cover their expenses or provide efficient
service to shippers.
3. The reduction of revenues caused by eliminating differential
pricing will keep railroads from investing in their infrastructure.
It may sound good, but the evidence suggests otherwise as discussed
by Dr. Robert McCormick of Clemson University in a verified statement
before the Surface Transportation Board, commissioned by the Chemical
Manufacturers Association.
Differential Pricing.--Differential pricing exists for all
competitive industries. However, competitive industries differentially
price based upon the demand of the consumer. They do not isolate and
then plunder one group of customers in favor of another group of
customers as the railroads do.
Consider differential pricing in other industries, many with large
fixed costs similar to the railroads:
--Hotels allocate certain numbers of rooms to as many as 20 different
rate tiers.
--Telephone markets show similar patterns. There are time of day and
bulk pricing features; weekends and nights are cheaper than
weekdays. Large volume purchasers pay lower prices than small
volume users.
--Literary works and movies are distributed in a way that is intended
to charge higher prices to those who have a greater desire to
read or see them immediately upon release, as opposed to those
consumers who are willing to wait. In the case of books, there
are hard cover vs. soft cover releases, and for movies, evening
vs. matinee showings, theatre tiers, video sale, video rental.
--Airlines offer many levels of discounted seats that allow for
different priorities of service and based on advance purchase.
--Electricity has special price tiers, such as peak load pricing, and
``green power.''
In fact, for its competitive intermodal traffic, BNSF already
differentially prices based on demand of the consumer through tiered
service packages that have delivery time components (delivery within
80-85 hours; 75-80 hours; 55-60 hours, and guaranteed delivery time
with a full price refund).
In each example, these industries share the same features of
railroads: large fixed costs that must be allocated across different
users. Railroads are not unique, and in fact, these features are
becoming more and more commonplace.
So if railroads can practice differential pricing in a truly
competitive marketplace, then do the remaining assumptions hold water?
No. Clearly, so long as railroads are well managed, those railroads
can--at the very least--earn their cost of capital, which in turn
allows them to continue investing in their infrastructure at least at
the same rate as they do today.
To test our theory that railroads could compete without harming
their financial picture, ARC commissioned an analysis based on real
world economic behavior and using very conservative data from reliable
data sources projecting growth of the key industries that rely on
railroad transportation. What we found was that rather than bankrupting
the railroad industry, competition would generate increased net
revenues to the tune of $500 million annually. Is this a windfall?
Certainly not. But the point was not to predict exact revenues, but to
identify likely trends if railroads were to be placed in a competitive
environment.
As for their ability to invest, the evidence again shows that
investment increases when competition is introduced. Telecommunications
industry is the best example, because if forcing competition on a
regulated industry is truly a prescription for disaster, then the
telecommunications industry should be in a shambles--which it is not.
But let's focus on investment levels before and after competition
was introduced. Did competition cause investors to withdraw financial
capital from the industry? Absolutely not. In fact, investment
increased dramatically. Rather than capital flight, there has been a
continuous capital infusion into both the deregulated and regulated
sectors.
And while there are not a plethora of examples within the rail
industry itself, the experience of introducing competition in the
Powder River Basin certainly reinforces the evidence compiled by the
behavior of other industries.
V. SUMMARY
While financially healthy today, the railroad industry has achieved
undue market power, has exercised it to the detriment of large portions
of its customers, and has no incentive to change, despite evidence that
a continuation of current behavior will result in a continuing long-run
deterioration of revenues and erosion of customer base.
These trends are supported--if not actively, then through lack of
action--by the Surface Transportation Board. The ongoing merger policy
review remains the one opportunity for the Board to do something
decisive to prevent further erosion of rail-to-rail competition and
even begin to return some competition among railroads. If this
opportunity is lost, the relevancy of the Board--and thus the need for
continued funding--is called into question.
At this point in the evolution of the rail industry, however, no
real solution exists without decisive congressional action. Rail
customers will continue to petition Congress to take action as it has
in so many other industries to ensure that the right level of access is
available in order to develop and maintain a truly competitive
marketplace.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. The rail customer
community and I look forward to working with this subcommittee on these
critical issues in the 107th Congress.
ADDENDUM 1: WHO ARE RAIL CUSTOMERS?
The Alliance for Rail Competition represents the diversity of the
rail customer community. A brief description of the industries that
rely on rail transportation and their specific concerns is summarized
below.
Agriculture
Approximately two percent of all Americans are engaged in
agriculture as their primary occupation. While it may seem a small
number, that two-percent of the population manages to produce enough
food and fiber to feed the rest of the country's population, as well as
a good part of the rest of the world.
Railroads are an important mode of transportation for the Nation's
agricultural shippers. In 1997, railroads moved 1.4 million carloads
(126 million tons) of farm products and 1.3 million carloads (86
million tons) of food and kindred products. Although this volume is
large, it amounted to only 13 percent of all rail traffic that year.
Railroads are most important in the movement of grain. Grain and
oilseed shipments represent about 95 percent of all farm product
traffic moving by rail. Since the late 1970's grain tonnages shipped by
rail have increased by 23 percent. Railroads also move more grain than
barges and as much as all commercial trucks. Railroads account for
about 40 percent of all grain shipped from commercial facilities. By
comparison, trucks also haul about 40 percent of the grain shipped
commercially and barges haul the remaining 20 percent.
Many agricultural shippers are small and face unique challenges in
a changing global marketplace. Their exceedingly low profit margins
paired with dramatic fluctuations in world economies already place them
in a financially precarious environment that Congress has taken a
special interest in addressing. These rail customers also have an
irrevocable tie to the railroads because in many cases there is no
alternative mode of transportation that makes logistical or economic
sense.
Having said that, agricultural shippers in some parts of the United
States are paying the highest rail freight rates in exchange for
arguably the most sporadic and unreliable service. These shippers need
a clearly defined means for securing reliable service at a reasonable
rate. Agricultural shippers are also unique in that the party that
bears the cost of rail transportation--the farmer--is not the party
that negotiates the rate for that transportation--the grain elevator.
Further, the farmer has no ability to pass on the costs associated with
transportation to the customer.
Farmers throughout the western states, including Montana, Idaho,
North and South Dakota, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Nebraska, are
paying anywhere from 225 to 300 percent or more of the railroads'
revenue to variable cost. Any business in the world would be ecstatic
to receive that kind of return on its cost. But even if you assume that
the high cost of capital for railroads requires railroads to generate
180 percent revenue to variable cost--a profit margin of 80 percent--
you're still talking about an additional return of 45 percent or more.
Maybe this doesn't sound unreasonable to you, but I urge you to
keep in mind that this kind of profit is being extracted out of a group
that is ill-equipped to afford it: the farmer. Consider this example: A
bushel of spring wheat currently sells for approximately $4.15. Roughly
$1.00 of that amount, or one-quarter of the price a farmer receives,
goes to pay for rail transportation. Stated another way, the average
wheat farmer is working for the railroads nearly three months out of
the year. If Congress cares about the future of agriculture, and did
not intend to place the railroads in a position where they can exploit
every last nickel out of their customers, then changes must be made.
While rates are of great concern to many people in the agriculture
industry, receiving reliable service is of equal concern. Crop harvests
are naturally cyclical in nature, as opposed to other rail traffic that
is more evenly balanced throughout the year. But the movement of grain
is largely determined by the demand of the global marketplace. When
prices in the marketplace are high, farmers want to move their grain,
and vice versa. Yet railroad service--or lack of it--can and has
prevented farmers from moving their grain when there is demand. It's
important to point out that the agriculture community has long suffered
from sporadic and unreliable rail service and so long as current
policies are maintained, that situation is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future.
Over the last 30 years, the agriculture industry has been subjected
to an increasing degree of competition with foreign producers--in both
domestic and foreign markets. As in all industries, free markets reward
lower-cost producers, and also consistent with other industries, the
agriculture industry must search for ways to trim costs in order to
remain competitive.
That is why the debate over rail competition has become so
important to this industry. For the agriculture industry to remain
competitive, it can no longer afford to rely on a rail industry that
operates as a virtual monopoly. As a critical underpinning of the
national economy, the agriculture community's concerns deserve special
consideration.
Chemicals and Plastics
The U.S. chemical industry (excluding plastic resins) employs some
955,000 high-tech, high-wage workers. In turn, these lead to the
creation of 1.1 million jobs in other industries, bringing total U.S.
jobs dependant on the chemical industry (excluding plastic resins) to
2.1 million. This industry is the leading export sector and a
substantial contributor to a positive U.S. balance of payments. The
chemical industry depends heavily on railroads to safely and
efficiently transport raw materials to chemical manufacturing
facilities and to deliver a wide variety of finished products to
destinations throughout the country. Railroads also transport chemical
exports to Canada, Mexico, and U.S. ports.
According to data compiled by the Association of American
Railroads, the chemical industry ships about 110 million tons of
products (excluding plastic resins) by rail on an annual basis and
spends more than $3.5 billion per year on rail freight charges,
accounting for 11 percent of the revenue received by U.S. railroads. In
many parts of the country, there are chemical manufacturing facilities
served by a single railroad, leading to high costs. The chemical
industry, which has participated in a number of major STB rail
proceedings, strongly supports rail competitiveness and specifically
endorses the recommended legislative provisions discussed in my
testimony.
The plastics industry directly employs more than 1.3 million
workers. When taken into account the upstream industries, that is the
supplying industries, the number of plastics industry employees rises
to 2.3 million, nearly two percent of the U.S. workforce.
Recent rail transportation events have shaped the business
environment of the plastics industry. There is a growing awareness that
transportation is not a separate, isolated function of the supply
chain, but rather, an integral part of the production process. When
talking about the transportation of plastic pellets, you must remember
few other issues address such fundamental business components in
corporate America. That is, rail transportation is about: Moving raw
materials and products; Meeting customer demand; and Affecting the
corporate bottom line.
When addressing the importance of rail transportation to the
chemical and plastics industries, economics plays a large part. As an
example, for plastics:
--Transportation is the second highest cost component in raw material
production (second only to feedstock);
--Transportation can account for up to 20 percent of the finished raw
material cost;
--Approximately 60 billion pounds of plastics are shipped each year;
--The plastics industry pays over $1 billion to the railroads each
year;
--If a facility is captive, at the point of origin or destination,
rates for the exact same rail movement can be 15-60 percent
higher than from a competitively served facility.
Given the fact that 75 percent of plastics raw material producers
are captive to one railroad, paying higher rates, and generally
receiving poorer service--coupled with the fact that the railroads are
the only industry in this country to exercise complete monopoly control
over their customers--the time has come to start asking why the
railroads are able to operate in this type of an environment.
The core issue is the lack of competition in the U.S. rail system.
Legislation is needed to address the fundamental way railroads operate.
Forest Products and Paper
The forest, pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products industry
employs approximately 1.5 million people with a payroll of $40.8
billion and ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in 46
states. It represents 7.8 percent of the manufacturing work force in
the United States. Sales of forest and paper products exceed $275
billion annually both here and abroad. For most producers,
transportation costs are the third largest operating cost component
after fiber and labor. These costs average between 5 percent to 25
percent of delivered product costs.
The forest products and paper industry is the fourth largest user
of rail transportation in the United States and incurs $2.9 billion in
annual rail expenses which is approximately 9 percent of all rail
revenues. Significantly, the industry's $183 billion of domestic flows
combined with the inland portion of its international flows makes the
industry one of the largest commodity shippers in the country. Much of
the industry's exports and the domestic sales are transported by rail.
In fact, the forest products and paper industry moves an average of
24,000 carloads in any given week using proprietary short line
railroads and all Class I railroads. The industry is responsible for 70
percent of all railroad boxcar traffic, including 19 million tons of
recycled paper, and 95 percent of all centerbeam lumber car traffic.
The industry also represents significant carload volumes consisting of
inbound raw materials (such as logs, woodchips, coal and chemicals) and
thousands of containers carrying finished goods for domestic and
offshore distributors. In addition, the industry has a substantial
investment in boxcars, tankcars, and other rail equipment.
Rail service problems are currently national in scope. While other
transportation modes measure ``on time'' service in hours, railroads
measure it in days. This type of service affects not only the
performance of the major remaining railroads, but other connecting
railroads and their shippers. For example:
--A forest products company has had a major customer in California
insist upon replacing rail service with trucks where the
infrastructure to do so does not exist.
--Another company, with four manufacturing operations located in East
Texas, experienced service problems with shipments destined to
southern California. Rail transit times increased from 14 days
to as much as 45 days. Business was consequently lost to
competitors as a result of this variable service.
--Delivery problems have caused mill inventories of finished goods to
go up. This causes warehousing costs, increased emergency
delivery costs, and, ultimately, higher inflation to the
general public.
--Variable service, lengthened transit times, and captive pricing
contributed to a mill closing by a large forest products
company.
The forest products and paper industry needs efficient competitive
transportation to be able to compete in a global economy. We are
concerned with the changes in the competitive dynamics of the national
rail structure and believe that in order to have a healthy
transportation industry we need vigorous rail-to-rail competition.
Without competition, there is no incentive for the railroads to improve
and maintain low cost levels, consistent service levels, and an
adequate supply of quality boxcar equipment. To address the issues of
rail service, competition and access, the forest products and paper
industry endorses the recommended legislative provisions discussed in
my testimony. The forest products and paper industry also encourages
rail policy to foster the growth of short line railroads through the
elimination of ``paper barriers'' to enable the free interchange of
traffic between and among all connecting railroads.
Mining and Utilities
Coal shippers, including both electric utility companies and coal
producers, have major concerns with the current law governing the
railroads. Coal is one of the largest commodities by volume moved by
the nation's railroads. Currently, approximately 54 percent of the
nation's supply of electricity is generated from coal, the vast
majority of that coal moves by rail from the coal mine to the power
plant and a significant portion of that coal has, for at least some
portion of its movement, only one available railroad transportation
option. Thus, a significant portion of the coal moved in the nation is
``captive'' to a single railroad for transportation. As such, the
railroad customer, who is usually the electric utility that buys the
coal at the ``mine mouth'' and is responsible for arranging the
movement of the coal to the power plant, does not have the ability to
negotiate the terms of its rail transportation in an open and
competitive market.
Some characteristics of railroad coal movements are:
--electric generating plants are designed to use a specific type of
coal and typically have relatively few options regarding the
source of coal that can be used in the plant, which may have a
design life of as much as 50 years or more; the source of coal
is further restricted by the location of the plant and its
access to rail transportation;
--most of the nation's electric generating plants were built before
the railroad mergers of the last two decades severely
restricted railroad transportation options;
--normally, the railroad customer (the utility) pays for the railroad
cars that move the coal; either the utility or the coal
producer pays for the railroad loading facility at the coal
mine; and the railroad customer may be forced to pay other
costs that traditionally have been considered to be costs to be
borne by the railroad;
--coal is moved normally in ``unit trains'' of approximately 100
cars;
--the unit train movement of coal is highly efficient and extremely
profitable for the railroads, particularly where the movement
is ``captive'' and the railroad can demand a price above 180
percent revenue to variable cost ratio; and
--the railroad transportation cost of coal not only affects the cost
of the production of electricity, but the price of coal at the
mine mouth, which can, in turn, adversely affect the amount of
severance tax that most coal producing states collect from the
coal produced in their states.
The first choice of coal shippers is for their transportation
arrangements to be negotiated in a competitive marketplace, as are
their contracts for the purchase of coal and, increasingly, their
contracts for the sale of electricity. Some electric generating
facilities have transportation options and are not ``captive'' to a
single railroad. Others have been able to achieve competitive railroad
transportation options by financing the construction of connecting
track (``building out'') to a competing railroad. The STB and its
predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), have allowed
such ``build outs'' which have been very important, although costly,
tools for achieving competitive transportation alternatives.
Transportation Intermediaries
The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) is the leading
organization for North American transportation intermediaries with over
700 member companies. TIA is the only organization representing
transportation intermediaries of all disciplines. The members of TIA
include: property brokers, domestic freight forwarders, NVOCC's,
intermodal marketing companies, perishable commodity brokers, logistics
management firms, and motor carriers.
The 46 member companies of TIA who operate intermodal marketing
companies (IMCs) urge Congress to support legislation that will promote
increased competition and access for rail service for both large and
small rail customers. Increased competition will result in improved
customer service from the railroads--particularly for the small to
medium size rail customers with whom our members do business. If
Congress does not enact rail competition legislation, many small
businesses will continue to suffer from poor service and find it
increasingly difficult to remain in business due to the lack of safe,
efficient transportation on our nation's railroads.
IMCs have also found it exceedingly difficult to even receive rail
service for small to medium size customers. Without competition,
railroads tend to service larger customers at the expense of the
smaller one. TIA believes that Congress must rectify this situation and
that all rail customers should be given an opportunity to operate in a
competitive, free-market environment.
ADDENDUM 2: ANECDOTAL INFORMATION
Anecdote #1:
The operator of a Montana grain elevator, in the fall of 1998,
became frustrated with the BNSF. He had ordered cars in September 1998
and the BNSF indicated they could deliver in October. October came and
went, and soon November was drawing to a close.
When he got the BNSF on the telephone, they stated the cars he
ordered would be available at his elevator on that Saturday. He hired
the crews necessary to load the train, and on Saturday morning he
waited. And he waited. At 2 p.m. he called the BNSF . . . and they
stated that although they were sorry, they would not be able to deliver
the cars for another week.
After an angry exchange, a grain elevator employee came into the
office and said the train was coming down the track! Yet the rail
operations people on the other end of the telephone line, were adamant
that it would be another week.
Sure enough, it was their cars and they promptly loaded the train
with grain and released the cars back to the BNSF on Sunday.
Two weeks and one day later, the BNSF finally picked up the train
for shipment.
Anecdote #2:
Several lumber shippers in NW Montana and Northern Idaho, requested
that the BN give them a contract rate similar to a large lumber shipper
and wholesaler in the Pacific Northwest.
The BN refused, stating that these complaining shippers couldn't
meet the requirements of that rate. The shippers asked what the
requirements were and the BN stated they were confidential and they
couldn't tell them because they were part of an on-going confidential
transportation contract.
The shippers banded together and formally challenged the very next
confidential contract the BN filed with the ICC on a movement of this
shipper.
The BN lumber personnel stated to the complaining lumber shippers
that they would never get this contract opened up for public review.
However, the ICC felt after review that the complaining lumber
shippers were adversely affected and ultimately did open up the
contract to confidential review by the complaining shippers. The result
was that the BN had to reluctantly offer the same contract to the
complaining group, which promptly exercised its rights to the
contractual provisions. The BN stated at the time, that to offer this
contract to lumber mills, would do violence to the lumber industry. The
results have proven much different--the lumber mills as a group, are
better able to compete against the big lumber wholesalers.
However, the BN promise to give the wholesalers a better deal than
the lumber mills, did hold up.
Anecdote #3:
In 1987, MRL put in a confidential contract on wheat from Big
Timber, Montana at a newly constructed grain transfer facility. The
contract called for rebates (legal ones) to the shipper if the
shipments met a minimum number of cars.
The contract allowed the new facility to be effective over an area
previously not served by the MRL. However, the new facility was told
after a year of operation that the BN had become upset with the fact
that this facility was providing competition to BN points and therefore
demanded that MRL not renew the contract. The effect of non-renewal was
to put the facility out of business, which is what the BN wanted,
because it could not draw grain more than 40 miles due to the lower
rates on the BN.
Anecdote #4:
BN, in mid-1980s, presented a small grain shipper with a $150,000
demurrage bill for shipments of piggyback from Montana into Portland.
In the mid-1980s in Billings, the BN intermodal folks had a great
number of truck trailers arriving in Montana but leaving empty back to
the West Coast. In the spirit of identifying a win-win situation, a
small grain shipper in Billings, approached the BN intermodal folks
with a proposal. If the BN provided the grain shipper with a low rate,
they could fill the empty truck trailers with grain for shipment to
Portland for unloading. This endeavor started to become very popular
and soon the BN Intermodal facility in Billings was shipping a great
number of piggyback movements from Billings to Portland.
The situation in Portland, however, soon became a mess. The grain
houses in Portland have only so much capacity to unload piggyback
movements and became hopelessly behind.
The BN Intermodal people, however, kept supplying more and more
truck trailers for loading in Billings, and not knowing of the capacity
problem in Portland, the shipper kept filling an ever-increasing number
of trucks loaded with grain to Portland.
After about 6 months of delayed unloading, the BN embargoed the
shipments but presented the shipper with a demurrage bill for $150,000+
and turned the issue over to its Law department.
The shipper, after a year of wrangling with the BN (in which the BN
threatened the shipper with financial ruin), finally convinced them
that they were the ONLY ones who knew the transportation situation in
Portland, and were the responsible party for embargo of shipments they
knew had no chance of being unloaded. The BN subsequently settled the
case for about $3,000!
Anecdote #5:
A major Fortune 500 petrochemical rail customer shipping petroleum
coke from Billings to Salt Lake City located on both BN and Montana
Rail Link ships tens of thousands of tons each year wanted to route
MRL, Montana Western, UP to Salt Lake City. It would save many miles of
route, and a week in transit time.
In January 2000, Montana Western (located between UP and MRL)
requested the rate from MRL. MRL cannot set the rates, but must ask the
BNSF for permission even though the shipment on this route never went
over the BNSF tracks. The BNSF has consistently refused to allow the
movement and forces the rail customers and receivers in Salt Lake City
to pay higher rates for poorer service and keep much larger inventories
for more inconsistent deliveries.
Anecdote #6:
Over the past two years, the small to medium size intermodal
marketing companies (IMCs) have been fighting railroad efforts to drive
them from the marketplace in favor of their larger counterparts. These
IMCs serve America's small businesses and provide them the ability to
get their goods to market at an affordable price. Unfortunately,
railroads seem only interested in dealing with a handful of the largest
intermodal companies. Thus, some of the rail carriers erected
artificial barriers in the form of guaranteed volume contract
requirements that were so high as to prevent IMCs from using rail
service.
For example, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad in 1998
almost overnight raised their volume requirements from $500,000 to $5
million annually. As a result of these volume cap increases, as many as
60 percent of IMCs lost their contracts because they couldn't meet the
new, unilaterally imposed BNSF levels.
Currently, Norfolk Southern is indicating that they will raise
their annual requirements from 250 units to 1,200 units effective
January 1, 2001. This would occur even though the railroad told the STB
that the merger would take one million trucks a year off the road. If
NS raises its volume requirements, small businesses will have no choice
but to ship by truck--drastically raising transportation costs and
jeopardizing their continued profitability.
Union Pacific Railroad has just announced new procedures for the
disbursement of repositioned equipment during peak season in Los
Angeles. The railroad plans to give priority treatment to eight IMCs,
four of which are large IMCs, with only two smaller IMCs included. This
action will have the ability to get repositioned equipment. This is a
serious problem because equipment shortages are rampant during the peak
season. There are currently 75 IMCs that operate in the United States.
Why should eight IMCs that are chosen by the railroad be given priority
treatment? In a free, competitive market, every competitor should be
given an equal opportunity to succeed in their business. Why should
rail carriers pick and choose whom the winners and losers will be?
Anecdote #7:
Arizona Chemical Company (AZ), a subsidiary of International Paper,
is currently being pummeled by the monopoly power of Norfolk Southern
(NS).
The rail contract AZ had with NS expired at the end of June, and
was extended for a month so the parties could attempt to negotiate a
new contract. However, NS decided to terminate allowances on all AZ
traffic, effectively increasing its rates 21 percent on an overall
basis. Although AZ indicated that it was willing to discuss rate
increases, it would not do so unless NS was able to improve on its
inadequate service and committed to undertake to measure its service.
NS then advised AZ that this was unacceptable and that it would raise
the rates essentially because it could do so. When AZ refused to sign
the contract, NS then put in place, effective 8/1, what amounts to a 40
percent rate increase on AZ traffic.
AZ then refused to pay the increase, at which point NS threatened
to put AZ on a cash basis, in which case it would not deliver or pickup
cars unless AZ paid in advance via cash or certified check.
Regrettably, since that would plainly disrupt or even threaten AZ
operations, it had no choice except to pay the claimed balance due.
So, and notwithstanding that its service is woefully inadequate, NS
was able to force a 40 percent rate increase down AZ's throat simply
because it believes that AZ has no reasonable competitive alternative.
In an attempt to try to work this out, AZ representatives contacted
Chairman Morgan's office and requested that they approach NS about
this, suggesting that the Board advise NS that, if it really felt it
was entitled to some rate increase, it should agree to submit the
matter to mediation or arbitration under the Board's established
procedures. To the Board's credit, it pursued the matter and spoke with
representatives of NS. Unfortunately, those phone calls made by the
Chairman's office ultimately had no effect, as NS apparently sought to
excuse its actions by alleging that the increase was not related to the
Conrail transaction or its service problems, that it was losing money
on AZ's traffic and that AZ could have avoided the 40 percent increase
by signing the 21 percent increase contract.
Anecdote #8:
FMC Corp. is one of the Union Pacific Railway's (UP) biggest
customers, spending approximately $90 million annually for rail service
provided by the UP. In 1996, UP published considerably higher tariff
rates for FMC commodities after FMC already had invested heavily in new
loading and unloading facilities to improve UP productivity. Following
a year of failed rate negotiations, FMC filed a complaint with the
Surface Transportation Board on October 21, 1997. FMC's complaint
involved 2 million tons of soda ash, phosphorus and similar commodities
shipped in some 20,000 rail cars over a period of three years from
FMC's Green River, Wyoming and Pocatello, Idaho facilities. According
to FMC's analysis, the company was forced to pay rates that were as
much as 600 percent above UP variable costs for providing the
transportation--solely because the UP had monopoly power over FMC's
traffic.
On May 12, 2000--2\1/2\ years after the initial filing, the STB
concurred with FMC's position by determining that Union Pacific held
monopoly control over 15 of the 16 challenged routes. Although it
concurred with FMC on the merits of the case, the Board's decision
effectively compensated FMC for only 20 percent of its total past costs
(i.e., legal/expert costs + the difference between prescribed and
tariff rates during the 3 year period of the case). Furthermore, the
costs of UP's service meltdown and merger with Southern Pacific were
considered as allowable UP costs, subtracting from their penalty. And
future rates were based on a railroad designed for peak, rather than
normal volume days.) These terms effectively eliminated the bulk of any
economic benefits the company might have realized by winning the case.
Nonetheless, Union Pacific has appealed the decision.
The case itself (not counting earlier negotiations) has lasted 34
months (filed on October 31, 1997) and, with appeals, there is still no
finality to the STB's decision. Both parties continue to incur
substantial legal and expert costs to bring this case to closure. To
date FMC has spent over $6 million on legal and expert resources to
address procedural and substantive issues.
Anecdote #9:
Among the conditions applied by the STB to the UP/SP merger were
several conditions directed specifically to the competitive harm that
otherwise would have been suffered by 2-to-1 shippers. A condition
granting extensive trackage rights over UP/SP lines to the BNSF
railroad was imposed for the stated purpose of protecting most 2-to-1
shipper. Further, an ``omnibus clause'' was imposed to protect any 2-
to-1 shipper not covered by those trackage rights, requiring UP and
BNSF to enter into arrangements ``under which, through trackage rights,
haulage, ratemaking authority or other mutually acceptable means, BNSF
will be able to provide competitive service'' to each 2-to-1 shipper
covered by the clause.
However, the omnibus clause in practice has been proven to be of
little value as demonstrated by the Board's decision in the Union
Electric case, decided on May 31, 2000. Union Electric operates a coal-
fired electric generating plant at Labadie, Franklin County, MO, which
was accessed, prior to the UP/SP merger, by UP and by SP and by no
other railroad. There is no dispute as to the 2-to-1 status of UE's
Labadie plant. The question is whether Union Electric has a right to
receive competitive service under the omnibus clause, and whether an
addendum to an existing contract changes that contract so radically as
to eliminate Union Electric's ability to make use of the omnibus
clause.
According to the Board's decision: ``The UP/UE contract at issue
was entered into prior to the consummation of the merger by a 2-to-1
shipper, on the one hand, and UP, on the other hand; it was negotiated
under the auspices of old 49 U.S.C. 10713; and it was in effect at the
time the merger was consummated. It therefore follows that, at the time
the merger was consummated, the contract modification condition applied
to this contract. ``The contract modification condition, however,
applies only to contracts that were ``in effect at the time the merger
was consummated,'' Merger Dec. No. 57, slip op. at 9, and must be
exercised ``prior to the expiration of a contract'' to which that
condition applies,'' Merger Dec. No. 57, slip op. at 10. The ICC-WRPI-
C-0080 contract was amended in 1999 by an ``Addendum Three,'' and we
agree with UP's assessment that this addendum amounted to ``major
surgery'' on the underlying contract.''
Thus, despite a fanfare of announcements about the Board's
affirmation of 2-to-1 shipper rights, the STB actually ruled against
the shipper by rejecting a request that UP be ordered to open Union
Electric's contract for renegotiation--a pro-competitive condition the
shipper thought had been imposed as part of the UP-SP merger approval.
BARRIERS TO COMPETITIVE ACCESS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Crowe, our State, Alabama, is primarily
served by two major railroads, CSX and Norfolk Southern. Does
Walter Industries and your subsidiary short line, is that
Jefferson Warrior----
Mr. Crowe. That is correct. It is Jefferson Warrior.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Have access to both of these
major railroads?
Mr. Crowe. We do.
Senator Shelby. Are you restricted in any way, by contract
or so forth, with them?
Mr. Crowe. We experience a lot of barriers----
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Crowe [continuing]. And a lot of difficulties with our
short line.
Senator Shelby. Explain some of that.
Mr. Crowe. Well, an example would be, we originate a lot of
tonnage going out of our plants that are manufactured. We also
bring much of our raw materials into our plants.
Senator Shelby. You ship in and out, do you not?
Mr. Crowe. We ship in and out, and we do a lot of our own
switching in our plants. The paper barriers, and problems like
car bunching, and all these things, point to a less than
cooperative attitude.
Senator Shelby. Well, elaborate a little on paper barriers.
Mr. Crowe. Well, a paper barrier that we have experienced
is that when we moved coke from our coke facility, even just
across the road to U.S. Pipe, that uses foundry coke, we have
some barriers and difficulties in gaining permission to cross
Class I railroads. These type barriers make it difficult to be
timely. Also, when we----
Senator Shelby. In other words, you mine coal, you produce
coke, which is a manufactured process----
Mr. Crowe. Correct.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. And then you move the coke,
which is a by-product----
Mr. Crowe. That is correct.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. To another industry, where you
make pipe, is that correct----
Mr. Crowe. That is correct.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. From a foundry, and you have
to cross a Class I railroad.
Mr. Crowe. Yes. We have to cross Class I railroads, and in
many cases it makes it very difficult to do this. The access
ability to the Class Is and the difficulty that we experience
is quite significant.
Senator Shelby. Do you consider at the end of the day you
are basically a captive shipper, in a sense?
Mr. Crowe. Oh, definitely. We are captive in many ways. As
I stated earlier, from the standpoint of the raw materials that
we receive for our chemical manufacturing and for our other
manufacturing companies, as well as captive, to where our
customers may be, in shipping out our finished product, we are
captive both going and coming, and that makes it very
difficult.
LIMITED TRANSPORTATION CHOICES
Senator Shelby. Okay. Mr. Aasmundstad, I appreciate your
joining us today. This is not the middle of the wheat harvest
in North Dakota, is it?
Mr. Aasmundstad. Yes, it is.
Senator Shelby. It is?
Mr. Aasmundstad. Yes, it is.
Senator Shelby. We should get you back there. What is the
market for your wheat? In other words, walk us through, if you
would, the process of getting the grain from the field to the
market, and what you have to do in your State.
Mr. Aasmundstad. Well----
Senator Shelby. Does that make sense to you?
Mr. Aasmundstad. Sure. It varies greatly. Everything is
naturally trucked from the field to storage facilities, whether
they be on the farm or whether they are a grain-purchasing
company. Many times during harvest, and I have to qualify, not
so much the last couple of years, because the quality and the
quantity of our crop has been very low, but in years previous,
and with no reason to see any difference now with a quality
crop, many times there have been--the elevators are virtually
plugged, due to the lack of cars.
Another thing that is very troubling in moving our grain up
there, being the captive shippers, is, as Ms. Duff explained,
the competitive disadvantage that a railroad could bring about
between one grain purchaser and another by showing favoritism.
Senator Shelby. Does that go on?
Mr. Aasmundstad. You bet.
Senator Shelby. Give us an example of that.
Mr. Aasmundstad. A large grain purchasing business
definitely has a competitive advantage over, say, a small local
shipper, and the fact that they have to bid to the merge.
There have been cases where that the small shippers, if
they want cars at a specified time, have to bid what amounts to
a restrictive fee over normal freight rates to receive those
cars when they--receive a guarantee. That makes it very, very
hard for the small shippers to survive.
Senator Shelby. Is shipping by rail the only practical way
to----
Mr. Aasmundstad. It is the only practical way to do it. We
are from 300 to 400 miles away from any river port of the Great
Lakes, and you cannot ship it by truck competitively.
Senator Shelby. Do you have access to more than one
railroad for the people in North Dakota?
Mr. Aasmundstad. We have a few short lines. There again,
the problem----
Senator Shelby. No main shippers.
Mr. Aasmundstad. No. One.
Senator Shelby. Are the grain producers, in your opinion,
more cut off from transportation options than other industries,
or some other industries?
Mr. Aasmundstad. Well, I think they are. Mainly, other
industries have a vehicle to pass costs along. We do not. As
Senator Burns said, we sell wholesale by retail, and with some
of the regulations proposed dealing with truck traffic and
truck safety, it is going to be virtually impossible for a lot
of people to afford.
You cannot hire two drivers to drive a truck, it is
economically impossible to do. The other thing that we are
looking at is, we have to move further and further, move our
grain further and further. We bear the costs of repairing our
State highways, our county roads, that just cannot bear any
more heavy truck traffic.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Duff, your alliance, your organization
represents a number of U.S. manufacturing industries. Do not
these companies have other shipping options besides rail, or
would you explain?
Ms. Duff. It is often kind of amazing to a lot of people to
consider that large chemical companies or large utilities are
being held captive by a railroad, and that they do not have any
opportunity to really negotiate out of that.
The fact is that you really are only buying rail service on
a facility-by-facility basis, and so long as that facility has
one railroad, it does not matter how big your company is, you
are still stuck with dealing with that one railroad.
Now, some companies that are large enough have managed to
leverage that size in their negotiation with railroads, but it
is really so modest. They are still put at a disadvantage to
those other people in their own industries that have
competitive options. So they can improve it in some regards,
but overall they are held captive, and there is not a lot that
they can do about it.
DEFINING ``CAPTIVE SHIPPERS''
Senator Shelby. How do you define yourself captive shipper,
the term captive shipper? Is this different from what the
railroad industry defines as captive?
Ms. Duff. Well, it probably is different.
Senator Shelby. Yes. Go ahead.
Ms. Duff. It is always a moving target. What we have tried
to do----
Senator Shelby. It is how you look at it, is it not?
Ms. Duff. What we have tried to do for consistency sake is
rely on the statutory definition of captive, which is, if you
are paying a rate of 180 percent of revenue to variable costs
or higher, then you are captive. The reality is, if you have
one railroad that goes to your facility, you are captive, and
there has been no real effective way to make that count.
If you have options with trucks or barges, then you are not
captive, and most people who have those options are not
involved in the Alliance for Rail Competition, or even in this
debate, and it is very easy for them to say, ``Hey, my rail
service is fine.'' Surprisingly, the railroads are performing
better in areas where they actually have to work to save their
customers.
Senator Shelby. It is my understanding that the American
Chemistry Council states that 63 percent of their member
companies are captive to service by a single railroad. Do you
know if other industries have a similar high percentage of
captive shippers?
Ms. Duff. We did a commodity study in 1997, updated in
1998, and the coal, chemical, and grain industries are the top
three captive revenue producers for the railroads. The coal
industry is producing $3.5 billion for the railroads in captive
revenues. Those are movements that are moving at a 180 percent
of revenue to variable cost or higher. The chemical industry is
moving at about $2.5 billion, and the grain industry at just
shy of a billion dollars. So all three of those industries are
contributing heavily on a captive rate basis.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Duff, I have been told that railroad
shipping rates, when measured in revenue-per-ton mile, have
fallen since the Staggers Act was brought about. If this is the
case, then why do we hear so many complaints about shipping
rates?
Ms. Duff. Well, revenue----
Senator Shelby. Do you understand what I am getting at?
Ms. Duff. I do.
Senator Shelby. Is that how you measure it?
Ms. Duff. Well, it is how you can measure it----
Senator Shelby. How you can measure it.
Ms. Duff [continuing]. But revenue-per-ton mile is not the
same thing as a rate. You do not pay a revenue-per-ton mile.
First, it is important to understand that revenues----
Senator Shelby. Are you talking about apples and oranges?
Ms. Duff. Absolutely. Revenue-per-ton mile, as a
measurement, has been steadily declining since at least 1935.
So that as a measurement alone has very little to do with the
regulatory climate.
Second of all, that measurement is basically a complex
average of a number of different factors, so as the rail
industry changes its characteristics, it is natural that that
revenue-per-ton mile measurement would decline regardless of
what is happening with rates. Rates could stay the same or even
go up, and the revenue-per-ton mile would be declining.
Senator Shelby. It has been alluded to that the United
States could, I am not sure we will, but we could end up with
two major railroads in this country. What would happen then?
What would be the effect on manufacturers and shippers? All of
you.
Ms. Duff. Well, I would just start off by saying that in
effect right now rail customers are faced with regional two-
rail monopoly situations. We have two operating in the east and
two operating in the west. Basically, a two-railroad system
spread over the entirety of North America further eliminates
the potential for competition that currently exists running
down the middle of the country, and I think that it really
calls into question a lot of the issues that we have been
debating about bottlenecks and terminal access, for example.
There is very little evidence to show that rail customers
are going to be willing to come to the board for relief.
Bottleneck rates might be granted, but there is no reason why
those rates are going to be any better than what is happening
right now, and there is no reason why the board is necessarily
going to grant access in a terminal area.
So I think that what we will see is continued long-term
thinking on captive industries' part, where they are going to
start looking at the structure of what their businesses are,
and making some significant changes to get out from underneath
the rail monopoly.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Do you have any comments, sir?
Mr. Aasmundstad. Yes. If we end up with a two-railroad
system in this country it is going to be absolutely devastating
to the agricultural industry from the point I brought up
earlier that if the two-railroad system or the surviving
railroad in the system shows any favoritism at all to a
shipper, and I am not calling a farmer a shipper, the farmers
are at the end of the food chain on this, but to an
agricultural product purchaser, they could have very heavy
dictate on who survives and who does not in the agricultural
industry from farmers right to the purchasers of the raw
products.
Senator Shelby. Choose winners and losers.
Mr. Aasmundstad. You bet they could, because they will have
the ability to move the product.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Crowe?
Mr. Crowe. I have concluded my comments, Mr. Chairman, and
we appreciate the opportunity to be with you. Alabama
manufacturers and manufacturers throughout the country are
looking to the Congress to bring about some behavioral
modifications that are direly needed. It is very expensive to
go before hearings and to conduct extensive hearings, and we
must now come to the Congress to bring about some vital reform
in this area.
RAIL SERVICE PERFORMANCE AND MARKET SHARE
Senator Shelby. Let me just share this with all of you. I
am sure you have seen this before. An April, 1999, GAO report
on railroad regulation showed that the railroads market share
of freight movements versus truck traffic, river and canal
traffic, and other transportation modes, the data show the
percentage of rail traffic staying relatively constant, while
truck traffic had increased dramatically from 25 to 30 percent
of total traffic carried between 1990 and 1997. Is that a
factor in lack of competition or competitive access driving
that, or what is?
Ms. Duff. Well, I think it is a reflection on the
performance of the rail industry. Everybody who has really--
that used to use railroads, that had a choice with other modes,
have pretty much systematically turned to trucks or other modes
of transportation where that opportunity was allowed for.
There are a number of different measurements. I have heard
the ATA talk about trucks are carrying 87 percent of the
nation's freight. If you look at the industrial productivity
measurement, that has been increasing by 3.8 percent, whereas
rail tonnages have been increasing by something like two
percent, so less than half. These are all statistics that
really reinforce the idea that railroads are not carrying the
amount of freight that they should.
I think the railroads would argue that that is a factor of
the competitive stance that they are in. The fact is, they are
not competing, they are not providing the kind of service, and
as a result, our entire transportation infrastructure is
suffering as a result.
Senator Shelby. I want to thank all of you on the first
panel for your participation here today. I do not know what the
answer is, but at least we are talking about it, and we are
holding hearings. Thank you. I thank all of you.
Ms. Duff. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Our second panel, we have Mr.
Edward Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads; Mr. Frank Turner, President
of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association.
Gentlemen, if you-all will come up. Your written testimony will
be made part of the record, without objection, and you may
proceed as you wish. Mr. Hamberger, do you want to proceed
first?
STATEMENT OF EDWARD HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
RAILROADS
Mr. Hamberger. Indeed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Association of
American Railroads and our member companies, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here to give you our views on the issue of
competition in the freight railroad industry. You have been
kind enough to make my written statement a part of the record,
and in that statement we deal with the issue of competition in
the traditional fashion. We walk down and point out that there
is, indeed, pervasive rail-to-rail competition. One of the
members of the first panel acknowledged that he has rail-to-
rail competition.
INTERMODAL COMPETITION
We point out that there is intermodal competition from our
friends in the barge and towing industry, and, of course, our
friends, and also customers in the trucking industry. Of
course, we point out that, notwithstanding, there are some who
believe that there is no such thing as product and geographic
competition. There is product and geographic competition out
there affecting choices and acting as competitive forces on the
rail industry.
COMPETITION FROM COUNTERVAILING MARKET POWER
Finally, Ms. Duff was kind enough to acknowledge that,
indeed, there is competition from countervailing market power.
Now, we disagree as to how pervasive that is. We believe that
countervailing market power is exercised by many of our
particularly larger customers, but it is out there, and we do
agree on that.
I guess the most compelling statistic I would point to from
that testimony is that while we carry 40 percent of the
nation's ton miles in freight, we collect only 10 percent of
the freight revenue dollar. That gets me to--what I would like
to do today, Mr. Chairman, if I might, is look at this issue of
competition in terms a little bit different, and that is in
terms of what you deal with every day, in terms of money--
money, revenue, investment capital, where it is, how it is
spent, what the impact is, and who, indeed, should be
responsible for spending it.
ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
This subcommittee more than any other knows the
significance of an adequate infrastructure investment. You know
in the programs that you administer what happens when there is
not adequate expansion of capacity, when there is deferred
maintenance, when technology does not keep pace. Unfortunately,
we in the freight rail industry also know what happens when
those things occur, and that is why since 1980 we have spent
$266 billion, money earned in the private sector, $266 billion
to improve our infrastructure.
That has made us the most capital-intensive industry in the
country. Last year alone we spent $6.6 billion in capital
investment, out of a total for the industry of $33 billion in
total revenue, almost 20 percent of the total revenue
reinvested back into the industry.
Again, in terms that you deal with in other modes, that
would be equal to a $2.04 expenditure for every gallon of
diesel fuel we burned last year. That is a heck of an excise
tax, $2.04, and that is not going to stop there. We estimate
that we are going to have to reinvest ourselves twice over in
the next 20 years.
Now, what has been the result of all this investment? We
think, quite simply, according to the World Bank, it has made
us the best freight rail system in the world, the lowest rates,
and the best service, according to the Lou Thompson, of the
World Bank.
Our customers benefit from this investment, because we have
improved productivity 171 percent since 1980. Rates, according
to the GAO, have fallen on an average of over 4 percent per
year since 1980.
Our employees have benefitted, because accident rates have
gone down 70 percent. Last year was our safest on record by
some measures, and the first 6 months of 2000 are on track to
be even better.
The economy benefits, because our customers in the chemical
industry experience a 99.99 percent rate of safe transportation
of hazardous materials from origin to destination without
incident. Of course, the economy, as a whole, has benefitted.
According to a Brookings Institute study just released, the
benefit to the American economy each year since the Staggers
Act has been $12.3 billion in improved productivity and lower
prices.
And yes, railroads, too, have benefitted. We have gained
market share incrementally from 35 percent in 1980 to 40
percent, and we have climbed out of the abysmal 1 to 2 percent
rate of return on investment, up to a modest, if not robust,
9.4 percent last year. That puts us, I should point out, still
behind the rest of the American economy.
In 12 of the last 15 years we have ranked in the lowest
quarter of the Fortune 500 companies in terms of return on
equity. Remember that this is the industry which is the most
capital intensive in the country, and which routinely spends 15
to 20 percent of its revenues on capital investment.
Now, we have before you, the Congress, a whole series of
proposals coming forward under different names, First Access,
Competitive Access, Open Access. We call them re-regulation,
because we think that's what they amount to. But no matter what
you call them, they all have one thing in common, the net
result is an outflow of capital from the freight railroad
industry to a select customer base.
We would lose anywhere from $1.3 billion to $2.4 billion,
depending on the proposal and depending on your estimate, but
everyone agrees that there would be a net outflow of money out
of the railroad industry, and a loss of ability to make capital
investments. If we lose that ability to invest capital, we will
have no choice but to, as the Wall Street folks say, harvest.
We would disinvest. We will have deferred maintenance. Safety,
unfortunately, would go the wrong direction. Service would get
worse. Productivity would decline.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that brings us back to
how I started, to the work of this subcommittee, and what you
deal with every day, and that is money, because I predict that
if any of these proposals pass, that in the not too distant
future you will have another panel of shippers and customers up
here, and what they will not be talking about then is
competition or bottleneck, they will be talking about the need
to get a couple billion dollars more in Function 400 to
reinvest in the freight rail industry.
I would say that there are really only two sources of
investment capital. Either it comes from the private sector or
it comes from the government. Right now the private sector has
been shouldering that responsibility, and I believe with
admirable results.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The real question before you, stripped of all the veneers,
is who should be responsible for railroad investment. Should we
continue the current system, where the private sector shoulders
that responsibility, or by re-regulating the industry, shift
that responsibility to the taxpayer? I admire Mr. Aasmundstad
for putting that on the table as well. Who should have that
responsibility, the private sector or the public sector? We
strongly urge you to remember the lessons of the past, and keep
that responsibility in the private sector. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward R. Hamberger
I would like to thank you for providing me with this opportunity to
address this committee about freight rail competition issues. This
topic is especially appropriate now, just weeks from the 20th
anniversary of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. Indeed, now is an
excellent time to look back on what has transpired since the passage of
the Staggers Act, and review how that legislation has allowed the rail
industry to become a competitive factor in the transportation
marketplace. Moreover, we should look at what our nation could face if
the tremendous gains made possible by the deregulation embodied by
Staggers were reversed through short-sighted reregulation. If the
railroads are to continue to provide low cost and efficient
transportation, pursue service enhancements, and continue to realize
dramatic safety improvements, they must be free to operate effectively
in the competitive marketplace.
CURRENT REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
The story of the rail industry's stagnation under the scheme of
pervasive regulation in effect prior to the Staggers Rail Act of 1980
and its dramatic revitalization since Staggers is well known. In
enacting the Staggers Act, Congress recognized that railroads faced
intense competition from trucks and other modes for most categories of
freight traffic, but that prevailing regulation precluded railroads
from earning revenues sufficient to maintain and replace the rail
infrastructure and thus thwarted the industry's ability to compete.
Survival of the railroad industry required a new regulatory scheme that
allowed railroads to establish their own routes, tailor their rates to
market conditions and differentiate rates on the basis of demand.
The reforms that Congress enacted and President Carter signed into
law have been an unqualified success. The pricing and routing freedoms
of the Staggers Act have enabled railroads to rationalize their
systems, reinvest in productive rail infrastructure, generate higher
levels of service and dramatically increase productivity, resulting in
lower rates for shippers. The regulatory system relies on competition
in the marketplace to govern rail rates and service and at the same
time provides a regulatory safety net for those instances where there
is no effective competition for rail transportation.
RAILROAD COMPETITION
There are some observers who claim that railroads have too much
market power. They often point to the number of Class I railroads to
prove their point. But the fact is that neither the absolute number of
railroads nor the number of railroads of a particular size is a true
measure of the intensity of competition. Competition can be
meaningfully assessed only with reference to the strength of the
competitive options available to particular shippers. These options can
take many forms.
Rail-to-rail competition is one such option for many shippers. The
nation's more than 550 freight railroads form a highly interdependent
and highly efficient national rail system that actively and effectively
competes for existing and potential traffic. Shippers are continually
exercising their options to play one railroad off against another.
Railroads compete not just among themselves, but in the larger
market for freight transportation services. As such, they face
extensive competition from trucks, water carriers, and/or pipelines for
their traffic. The rail share of intercity freight traffic is a stark
reminder of the intensity of this competition. Measured in ton-miles,
rail's share of intercity traffic fell steadily for decades, from
around 75 percent in the late 1920s to 35 percent in 1978. Only since
deregulation has rail market share begun to inch upward; it currently
stands at about 40 percent. The intensity of intermodal competition is
illustrated even more vividly by the railroads' market share of
intercity freight revenue. Though railroads currently account for 40
percent of total intercity ton-miles, they are able to generate only 10
percent of intercity freight revenue, and the rail revenue share has
continued to fall.
Rail customers can also take advantage of product competition,
which refers to the ability of shippers and receivers to substitute one
product for another in their production process. Coal transported to
electric utilities is a good example. Although utility coal is the
railroads' most important commodity, some 44 percent of the electricity
generated by utilities in this country is produced from fuel sources
other than coal and, in fact, competes against coal-fired generation.
Geographic competition, which refers to the ability of shippers and
consignees to buy from or sell in any number of geographic areas, also
constrains railroads in many markets. Suppose, for example, an exporter
requires grain for shipment abroad. The exporter could buy grain from
sources in any number of different states, playing each source--and the
railroad(s) serving it--against the others.
And, of course, railroad customers frequently possess extensive
countervailing market power. This is particularly true of large,
sophisticated companies with multiple locations. These companies can
obtain price or service concessions by shifting or threatening to shift
traffic among plants--causing the railroads that serve them to compete
against each other. Indeed, many individual rail customers rival or
exceed the size of the entire rail industry.
RAILROAD RATES
The competitive forces unleashed by the Staggers Act have resulted
in sharply lower rail rates. In fact, from 1981 to 1999, rail rates (as
measured by revenue per ton-mile) have fallen 28 percent in current
dollars, and 57 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. This trend in
falling revenue per ton-mile was not isolated to only a few
commodities: each of the major two-digit Standard Transportation
Commodity Code groupings enjoyed declines expressed in both constant
and current dollars, although the impact varied among individual
commodity categories. This broad, sharp decline in rail rates is
evidence of the competitive market constraints railroads face.
To place the post-Staggers railroad rate declines in perspective,
the chart at right compares railroad revenue per ton-mile (in constant
dollars) with the average retail electricity rates per kilowatt hour
and the average expenditure per new automobile. The 57 percent decline
in the railroad measure from 1981 to 1999 is in contrast to the 28
decline in electricity rates and the 41 percent increase in new car
prices.
Numerous independent studies which examine the behavior of railroad
freight rates have consistently concluded that rail rates have fallen.
For example, a study released just last week by the American Enterprise
Institute/Brookings Institution Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
(AEI/Brookings) noted that economic efficiency grounds do not justify
increasing rail competition. The study cited rail customer benefits
worth $12 billion per year in lower rail rates and improvements in
service time and reliability during the first decade of deregulation,
and that shippers continue to benefit from lower rates. The authors
also found that increased rail-to-rail competition had no impact on
changes in service reliability or average service time.
In its April 1999 report entitled Railroad Regulation: Changes in
Railroad Rates and Service Quality Since 1990, the U.S. General
Accounting Office concluded that ``railroad rates have generally fallen
both overall as well as for specific commodities'' since 1990. GAO
noted that its results are consistent with Surface Transportation Board
(STB) calculations that found that average rail rates fell 4.1 percent
annually in real terms from 1990 to 1996, and that rate reductions vary
by commodity.
In a series of late 1998 staff papers, economists at North Dakota
State University studied the behavior of grain rates in recent years.
They noted that ``while rate increases have been a major concern for
shippers, most of these concerns have been unfounded. In fact, several
studies have indicated that as a result of deregulation, cost savings
have accrued and rail rates have fallen in real terms.'' The
researchers also found that ``[I]n the period prior to the [Staggers
Rail Act], most rail rates were generally increasing in real terms.
However, in the period following [Staggers], most rail rates decreased
in real terms by 52 percent (ranging from 40-71 percent across
commodities).''
And when viewed from a global perspective, U.S. freight railroads
stand unequaled. The World Bank's Railways Adviser recently stated
that, ``Because of a marketbased approach involving minimal government
intervention, today's U.S. freight railroads add up to a network that,
comparing the total cost to shippers and taxpayers, gives the world's
most cost-effective rail freight service. Unsubsidized U.S. freight
rail rates are not only the lowest of any market economy, they have
been falling every year since 1980, even though U.S. labor costs are
high.''
RAILROAD INVESTMENT
There was little doubt at the time of the Staggers Act that
inadequate investment by the nation's railroads had been a major factor
contributing to their poor financial health and unsatisfactory service.
As Congress explained, ``The simple fact of the matter is that the
railroad industry is a capital-intensive industry which for decades has
had inadequate earnings to maintain its plant and facilities at a level
necessary to achieve improved services.'' Indeed, in 1980, Congress
acknowledged the enormous capital shortfall ($16 to $20 billion by
1985) of the railroad industry, even after billions of dollars of
Federal funding had flowed into the bankrupt Northeastern railroads.
Railroading is a capital intensive business: large capital
expenditures are needed to maintain plant and equipment, to upgrade
facilities as technology and markets change, and to expand capacity.
Moreover, the amount of capital required to sustain the railroad
industry is extremely high compared to American industry, in general,
and among the railroad industry's most prominent competitors.
As shown in the table below, data for Fortune 500 firms in selected
industries that are major rail shippers or competitors reveal that on
the basis of total assets required per dollar of revenue produced,
railroads have significantly higher asset needs--$2.57 of assets for
each dollar of revenue produced. The 15 chemical companies among the
Fortune 500, for instance, have only $1.42 in assets for each dollar of
revenue produced and the 37 utilities average only $2.23 in assets,
while the two trucking firms average only 50 cents in assets per dollar
of revenue. In aggregate, the 127 industrial firms in the sectors
listed had, on average, $1.46 in assets per dollar in revenue--just 57
percent of the railroad figure.
RATIO OF ASSETS TO REVENUES
[Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of
Number Total Total Assets
Industry of Revenues Assetsa to
Firms Revenues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemicals..................... 15 $114.4 $162.1 1.42
Food.......................... 22 178.6 116.2 0.65
Forest & Paper Products....... 11 106.3 134.0 1.26
Industrial & Farm Equipment... 11 81.2 88.3 1.09
Metals........................ 8 44.2 54.6 1.24
Mining, Crude Oil Production.. 3 17.0 24.6 1.45
Motor Vehicles & Parts........ 14 452.8 634.6 1.40
Railroads..................... 4 36.4 93.6 2.57
Trucking...................... 2 8.8 4.4 0.50
Gas & Electric Utilities...... 37 266.3 594.8 2.23
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 127 1,306.0 1,907.2 1.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Fortune, April 17, 2000 pp. F1-F20.
Prior to Staggers, the inadequacy of capital expenditures fed upon
itself--lower investment led to lower quality service, which led to a
decline in traffic volume and lower revenues that made further
investment impossible. In contrast, deregulation under the Staggers Act
has been highly successful in promoting reinvestment in railroad
infrastructure. Even as railroads have shed unproductive assets, they
have invested in new productive assets. Capital expenditures per mile
of road owned were more than $66,000 in 1999, almost two and a half
times the comparable inflation-adjusted 1983 figure. Overall, new
capital investment in roadway, structures and equipment by the nation's
Class I railroads in 1999 alone was over $6.6 billion (nearly 20
percent of rail industry revenue) with an additional $12.9 billion in
maintenance expenses related to roadway, structures and equipment
expenditures. After accounting for depreciation, railroads spent $16.2
billion in 1999 alone on their infrastructure and equipment. This
extraordinary level of funding--equal to 48 percent of industry
operating revenues in 1999--is required year after year to provide the
high quality assets necessary for the rail industry to operate
efficiently, and has made the nation's railroads stronger and more
effective competitors. Importantly, unlike other transportation modes,
railroads rely on private financing, not government funds, to pay for
their infrastructure investments. In fact, if the funds railroads spent
on their infrastructure in 1999 were raised through a fuel tax,
railroads would have had to pay approximately $2.04 per gallon--an
amount equivalent to four to ten times the tax paid by competing modes.
RAILROAD PRODUCTIVITY
These investments have contributed to dramatic improvements in
railroad productivity. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, railroad productivity has exceeded that of nearly every
other U.S. industry. Revenue ton-miles per constant dollar of operating
expense is a useful overall productivity gauge. By this measure, which
incorporates all cost components that contribute to rail operations,
overall rail productivity rose 171 percent in the post-Staggers period,
compared to just 10 percent in the comparable pre-Staggers period.
Since Staggers, nearly every rail input has seen enormous
productivity gains. From 1981-1999, rail labor productivity rose 287
percent, locomotive productivity rose 113 percent, track productivity
rose 130 percent, freight car productivity rose 92 percent, and fuel
efficiency rose 58 percent. In each case, post-Staggers productivity
improvements were far greater (usually two to three times higher) than
during the comparable pre-Staggers period.
RAILROAD PROFITABILITY
Rail profitability has improved to moderate levels since
deregulation. Even with their improvements, though, railroad earnings
are still not sufficient to cover all costs of rail operations and
generate an adequate return on investment. Until it earns its cost of
capital on a consistent basis, the long-term viability of the rail
industry will continue to be threatened.
Return on equity (ROE) is a commonly used indicator of short-term
profitability. According to Fortune 500 data, in the 15 years from 1985
to 1999, overall railroad ROE was less than the Fortune 500 average
each year; in all but three years, the railroad ROE was in the lowest
quartile; and in eight of the 15 years, 92 percent or more of other
industries generated returns that exceeded those of the railroads.
Standard & Poor's data show similar results: nearly three-fourths of
the time, railroad ROE is lower than the ROE for a variety of
industries that are major rail shippers. In most cases, railroad ROE is
strikingly lower.
Artificial and unrealistic restrictions that impede a railroad's
opportunity to generate sufficient returns are likely to severely
compromise the carrier's ability to retain and attract the capital it
needs to sustain its investment and operations over the long term.
Access to capital is more important than ever to the railroad industry
for two reasons. First, the railroads were able to increase their
profitability since Staggers in the face of strong competition from
trucks and declining rates only through increased productivity. Those
productivity gains, however, were achieved through measures that have
largely been exhausted or through one-time events--as some have put it,
by harvesting the ``low-hanging fruit.'' Future productivity gains will
likely need to be ``purchased'' with additional, large-scale strategic
infrastructure investments.
Second, new investment is also needed to meet increasing shipper
demand for transportation service. Rail traffic as measured by revenue
ton-miles has increased by 57 percent since 1980. Part of this growth
has been fueled by the increasing globalization of commerce and the
resulting increase in demand for high-volume, long-haul transportation
that is well suited to railroads. The railroad industry has reached the
point where further significant traffic growth will not be possible
without investments that expand capacity.
Increasing demand for transportation is having an effect on all
aspects of the nation's transportation system, not just the railroads.
Trucks, which still dominate the surface transportation of freight,
face capacity constraints of their own. Driver shortages persist and
there continues to be political debate surrounding the public funding
of increased highway capacity. The nation's port facilities also are
finding themselves increasingly pressed for funds to accommodate an
explosion in intermodal cargo traffic. It is clear that transportation
capacity will have to increase as the economy expands. The railroads
can contribute to meeting these increased capacity needs through
private capital--unlike motor carriers that rely on public funding of
highway construction and expansion--but only if the regulatory
structure gives the railroads an incentive to make the necessary
investments. In order to promote necessary investment in
infrastructure, railroads must have the opportunity to earn competitive
returns and to that end they need the pricing flexibility afforded by
the present regulatory system.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Railroads are taking action to improve their service. They have
spent heavily on infrastructure ($140 billion in the 1990s alone, paid
for with private funds, not funds appropriated by this Committee). In
addition, railroads have entered into agreements with two major
customer groups--the National Grain and Feed Association and the
National Mining Association. The agreements entail voluntary, private-
sector efforts to solve problems by working together. The parties
involved all recognize that private sector solutions are preferable to
government intervention.
In January 1999, freight railroads became the first industry to
publish weekly performance measures, giving customers access to updated
information on location-specific performance measures that serve as
indicators of how well traffic is moving through a railroad's system.
There are also several other initiatives underway. One is the
``Chicago Plan.'' Last spring, under the auspices of the Association of
American Railroads, freight railroads convened an industry-wide
planning group to address service reliability in Chicago, the most
important rail hub. The freight railroads have also initiated a long
list of technological programs to enhance customer service and
performance, including Automatic Equipment Identification, Interline
Service Management, and NetREDI--an Internet service--to provide an
easy way for customers to track their shipments. Railroads are also
aggressively pursuing opportunities involving e-commerce to help make
customer interaction with railroads more efficient and beneficial.
While every American has benefited enormously from the
efficiencies, cost savings and rate reductions brought about by rail
deregulation, railroads are committed to continual improvement to the
benefit of their customers and the economy.
SAFETY
Another critical benefit of the deregulatory era has been a
pronounced increase in safety. The chart below illustrates the
extraordinary railroad safety achievements resulting from an emphasis
on safety management and from safety-related investments. Accidents per
million train-miles have been driven down 53 percent from 1981-1999,
while injuries and illnesses per hundred employees (per year) have been
forced down by 66 percent. The past five years have been the safest in
the industry's history. Rail industry employee injury rates are lower
than employee casualty rates of workers in factories, mines and even
some retail industries, and lower than rates in the truck, transit and
aviation industries.
All of us want to see these safety improvements continue. One way
to jeopardize them, however, would be to limit the ability of railroads
to earn enough to cover the costs of their systems. In the 1970s,
oppressive regulation prevented railroads from doing just that. One
consequence of that unfortunate reality was billions of dollars of
deferred maintenance, a problem that took the railroads years to
overcome. Railroads, their employees, and the communities they serve
cannot afford a return to a time when insufficient earnings brought
about by misguided regulation prevented railroads from dedicating the
necessary resources to maintain their world-best standards.
EXISTING REMEDIES
Most shippers have multiple competitive options in today's
transportation market that effectively constrain or discipline rail
prices. But in those instances where genuine competitive issues exist,
Congress has provided and the Board has implemented effective remedies
to protect shippers from abuse of market power or anti-competitive
behavior.
Remedies for unreasonably high rates are available if it can be
shown that there is no effective competition to constrain rail rates--
i.e., where the challenged rate exceeds the statutory jurisdictional
threshold (currently 180 percent of variable costs) and where the
railroad does not face effective competition for the issue traffic.
Upon finding a rate unreasonably high, the Board is authorized to award
reparations and/or to prescribe maximum reasonable rates for the
future. To determine the reasonableness of a rate, the STB uses a
``stand-alone cost'' (SAC) test, which applies the principles of
demand-based differential pricing to cap rail rates at the level that
would be charged by a hypothetical ``stand-alone railroad'' providing
head-to-head rail competition for the traffic at issue.
In enacting the ICC Termination Act, Congress responded to shipper
concerns over the length and complexity of rate reasonableness
proceedings. To expedite relief, Congress mandated that rate cases be
completed within 16 months, and the STB has implemented simplified
guidelines and procedures to speed up handling of certain cases.
Recognizing that there is still dissatisfaction among some small rail
shippers, the rail industry has recommended several modifications to
existing regulatory procedures to further streamline the process.
PROPOSALS TO REREGULATE RAILROADS
Despite the existence of remedies for any actual abuse of railroad
market power and the vital role railroads play in the nation's economy,
some groups seek to reinstate pervasive economic regulation of the
railroads. These groups call for jettisoning the deregulatory system
that has served the nation well and replacing it with a system in which
regulators would again have ultimate authority over important facets of
rail operations. You won't hear these groups calling their proposals
``reregulation,'' of course, but that is precisely what it is. Their
proposals are not new thinking: they have been periodically advocated,
and rejected by Congress, for good reason, in the past.
The end result of most proposals to reregulate railroads is the
same: they would have the government force railroads to lower their
rates to certain favored shippers--at the expense of other rail
shippers, rail investors and the public at large. And if those groups
advocating reregulation had their way, the government would take such
action without requiring any showing of anti-competitive conduct by
railroads, without showing that railroads had actually abused their
market power, without showing that railroad profits are excessive, and
without any opportunity for railroads to cover their costs or make the
heavy investments necessary to maintain their systems.
THE DANGERS OF RAIL REREGULATION
Proposals to reregulate the railroads primarily focus on
artificially manufacturing rail-to-rail competition. As noted earlier,
however, railroads already face extensive competition for the vast
majority of their business, including cases where a shipper or receiver
is served by only one railroad. Moreover, the present level of rail-to-
rail competition reflects private sector decisions as to which markets
will sustain more than one railroad and which will not. Stated another
way, it is not economically feasible for there to be two railroads
serving every shipper because that level of competition is not
sustainable. Trying to mandate more rail-to-rail competition than the
marketplace will support would reduce competition, not enhance it,
because it would prevent railroads from covering the full cost of
providing service across their systems.
This is so because of the cost and demand characteristics railroads
face. On the cost side, railroads have extremely high fixed costs
(e.g., the track structure and related facilities) that must be covered
regardless of traffic level. On the demand side, rail shippers differ
widely in terms of their willingness to pay for rail service. On one
extreme, some rail traffic can easily shift to truck or other
alternatives, and would do so if railroads charged much over their
variable cost of moving that traffic. On the other extreme, some rail
traffic is less easily diverted to other modes and has fewer
competitive alternatives; this traffic can be charged higher markups to
reflect the attendant higher demand for rail service.
Given this demand structure, railroads would lose customers if they
were required to charge all traffic the same markup over variable
costs. Instead, railroads price their services on the basis of demand,
with those shippers with the greatest demand for rail service paying
higher markups than shippers with lower demand. This way, railroads
cover their variable costs and realize varying contributions to fixed
costs from various customers.
This kind of ``differential pricing'' is practiced by businesses in
every segment of the economy, from auto dealers (expensive cars carry
higher margins) and airlines (a business traveler who buys a ticket at
the last minute pays more than a vacationer who buys a ticket in
advance) to movie theaters (matinees are cheaper than evening shows)
and utilities (industrial users pay lower rates than homeowners). The
Staggers Act explicitly recognizes differential pricing as essential to
the rail industry's financial viability.
Differential pricing benefit all shippers because lower rates to
some shippers generate revenue (which helps to cover fixed costs) which
otherwise would not be realized. Indeed, given their demand structure,
only by pricing in accordance with demand (with reasonable regulatory
ceilings on maximum rates) can railroads efficiently recover all of
their costs, serve the largest number of rail customers, and maintain
the viability of the nation's rail system.
Unfortunately, proposals to reregulate the railroads would gut the
use of differential pricing by railroads. Manufactured rail-to-rail
competition would artificially drive down rail rates toward variable
cost. There would no longer be a sufficient mix of high demand-high
margin and low demand-low margin traffic to enable railroads to earn
the total markups they need to cover their full costs. Specifically,
the aforementioned AEI/Brookings study found that artificially
manufactured rail competition would result in a drain to the railroads
of $1.3 billion annually. The study also concluded that this huge loss
of revenue to the railroads would provide no benefit to the economy,
since it would merely be a transfer from railroads to rail customers.
Rail industry analysis of specific reregulation proposals has revealed
that more than $2.4 billion annually in railroad revenue would be lost.
Because the revenue loss would not be accompanied by compensating
reductions in expenses, most or all of the industry's net income would
disappear. Railroads would have to cut their costs by shrinking the
size and/or the quality of their rail networks. Such an outcome is
completely at odds with the needs of our growing economy and America's
global competitiveness.
RAILROADS DO NOT HAVE EXCESSIVE MARKET POWER
The call for greater rail regulation relies on the false assumption
that railroads have undue market power. Real-world evidence proves
otherwise:
--Prices.--The exercise of market power rarely involves sharply lower
prices. Rail revenue per ton-mile has actually fallen
substantially--by 28 percent in nominal terms and 57 percent in
inflation-adjusted terms--from 1981 to 1999.
--Costs.--If railroads had excessive market power, incentives to
reduce costs and use productive inputs efficiently would be
suppressed. Yet, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
rail productivity gains in the past decade are among the very
highest in all of American industry, and rail costs per unit of
traffic have plunged.
--Innovation.--If railroads had excessive market power, they would
have reduced incentives to invest in innovative products and
processes. But unit trains, double-stacking intermodal freight
cars, grain car reservation systems, AC locomotives, modern
dispatching centers, improved safety equipment, e-commerce, and
a variety of other innovations attest to the railroads'
competitive incentives.
--Profits.--If railroads had excessive market power, they would be
able to earn more than a competitive rate of return. In fact,
railroads consistently fail to earn their cost of capital and
rail profitability ranks in the bottom quartile among all U.S.
industries.
--Market Share.--If railroads had excessive market power, they would
not have steadily lost market share for decades. The ongoing
struggle by railroads to retain the meager market share gains
they have made over the past ten years is stark evidence of the
intensity of the competition they face from other modes. For
example, only about 15 percent of total U.S. electricity
generation is accounted for by coal-fired plants served just by
a single railroad. Likewise, U.S. Department of Agriculture
data indicate that trucks have supplanted railroads as the
primary transportation mode for grain. And the chemical
industry's own figures show that railroads account for just 20
percent of chemical transportation tonnage.
CONCLUSION
The railroad industry is committed to sincere and productive
participation in regulatory and private sector initiatives concerned
with service, safety, and other areas of rail operations. The current
regulatory regime balances competition with regulation in a way that
protects shippers from abuse, while allowing railroads to stand or fall
based on their response to the competitive pressures of the free
market. The chart below demonstrates the tremendous gains railroads
have made under the current regulatory regime. Unfortunately, many of
the proposals to reregulate the rail industry would replace the current
system with one in which regulation would be far more costly and far
less effective.
In summary, the economic reality is that the railroad industry
faces pervasive competition in the transportation marketplace and that
the current regulatory structure has allowed the railroads to remain
viable in that marketplace. Going forward, railroads need the continued
flexibility that deregulation has offered in order to efficiently
handle the future transportation needs of our growing economy and
sustain our nation's international competitiveness.
STATEMENT OF FRANK K. TURNER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHORT
LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION
Senator Shelby. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Frank K.
Turner. I am President of the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to
testify at this hearing today.
SHORT LINE MEMBERS
I am here today representing short line members, more than
400 short line and regional railroad members located in every
state of the United States. Mr. Chairman, 13 members of your
subcommittee have between them 138 short line railroads
operating almost 10,000 miles of track. The majority of this
track is in rural areas where rail service could have been
abandoned by class one railroads if short line operators had
not purchased these lines.
In your own State of Alabama, Mr. Chairman, there are 17
short line railroads operating over 500 miles of track. Without
these companies, 16 cities, from Florence, in northeastern
Alabama, to Beatrice, in southwestern Alabama, would lose the
only rail service they have. Small railroads can serve their
shippers best in a competitive rail environment. We are an
essential part of the national rail network.
Short line and regional railroads, and the shippers and
communities that depend on them for service, are deeply
affected by the ongoing restructuring of the North American
railroad industry. Class one railroads have consolidated
aggressively since the Staggers Act. Only six large class one
railroads remain in North America today, down from more than 40
class one railroads in 1980. The number of competitors has been
reduced and so has the number of competitive options.
This is troubling, because the fundamental premise of the
Staggers Act, as has been pointed out, was meaningful
competition. When the industry reaches the point that most
shippers have only one choice of a rail company to deal with,
that fundamental premise of the Staggers Act becomes
questionable. Small railroads can and should be a part of the
way to enhance railroad competition in America. If small
railroads can move certain traffic more efficient than class
one railroads, then the system should allow it.
If small railroads can ease congestion on overcrowded class
one mainlines, the system should allow it. If small railroads
can take truck traffic off of the highways, then the system
should allow it. More often than not, the system does not allow
it.
SERVICE
Another critical issue is service, which has been pointed
out. Services suffered in the aftermath of recent mergers.
Small railroads simply cannot deliver good service to their
customers if they don't get good service from their
connections. The Service Transportation Board is considerably
considering changing the rules that govern class one rail
mergers. The Short Line Association has urged the board to add
new conditions, with teeth in them, to preserve competitive
options and ensure good service for small railroads affected by
a proposed class one merger.
SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS
The Short Line Association has proposed a short line and
regional railroad bill of rights, and urge the board to include
it as a condition of board approval of any future class one
merger or consolidation transaction.
The short line and regional railroad's bill of rights is as
follows: One, the right to compensation for service failures;
second, the right to interchange and routing freedom; third,
the right to competitive and non-discriminatory pricing; and
fourth, the right to fair and non-discriminatory car supply. I
have attached a copy of this, of our filing, and the STB
proceedings to my testimony for the record.
We are hopeful that it will require the kind of actions
that we have outlined in our bill of rights. However, the
board's new rules will apply only if there are more class one
railroad mergers in the future. Unfortunately, the small
railroads have competitive and service problems with their
class one partners today, which the board's new merger rules
will not affect.
We have tried to address these issues through industry-wide
negotiations. The process began 2 years ago with encouragement
from the STB under Chairman Linda Morgan's leadership. On
September 10, 1998, we signed the Railroad Industrial Agreement
between the short line and regional railroads, and class ones.
The RIA, as it is known, contains provisions that are intended
to address a wide range of rate and service issues.
TRACKAGE RIGHTS AND HAULAGE RIGHTS
Two key provisions allow small railroads to gain access to
new trackage rights or haulage rights agreements under certain
circumstances or to get paper barriers set aside to develop new
business. The RIA was a milestone 2 years ago. It was the first
privately negotiated industrial-wide agreement for railroads,
and it tried to address some of the critical issues.
Unfortunately, so far, the results have been rather
disappointing. There have been far fewer success stories than I
had hoped. My short line members tell me most of their ideas
are either met by silence or delay. Although, progress has been
slow, we do not want to abandon private negotiations. Chairman
Morgan recently wrote to Mr. Ed Hamberger and myself requesting
an update on how the RIA is working, and urging the railroads
to consider whether changes are needed. In fact,
representatives of the Short Line Association and class one
railroads are sitting down this Thursday to do just that.
The small railroads are going to raise their concerns that
the RIA is not working as it was intended, and it needs to be
strengthened and be expanded. I hope the class one railroad's
representatives will be receptive to this. We will be reporting
back to Chairman Morgan in October. If no progress has been
made, we will seek a more regulatory solution.
FUNDING TO MAINTAIN AND UPGRADE FACILITIES
Another huge issue for small railroads is the problem of
finding funding to maintain and upgrade our facilities. We are
often playing a catchup on light-density lines after years of
deferred maintenance. The class one's new generation of heavier
capacity freight cars, now built to 286,000 weight standards,
require upgrade of ``R'' track, ties, ballasts, and bridges.
A new study by Zeta-Tech Associates established a need of
$6.8 billion for small railroads to upgrade their track and
facilities to handle these new heavier 286,000-pound freight
cars. I have attached a copy of the Zeta-Tech study conclusions
to my testimony for the record.
Class one railroads received almost all the productivity
savings generated by the new 286 cars. The benefits come from
huge volumes that allow class ones to run fewer trains, thus
reducing fuel costs and locomotive costs. Short lines typically
receive and move the 286 cars in single car lots, not unit
trains. We get the burden, but not the benefit.
Congressman Spencer Bacchus has introduced a bill to the
House of Representatives to deal with this problem. HR-4746
will take the 4.3 cents per gallon tax railroads currently pay
on diesel fuel, a holdover from the days of deficit reduction,
and use it to fund small railroad infrastructure upgrades until
the tax is repealed.
Based on the huge needs identified by the Zeta-Tech study,
this seems to be a very appropriate use for the funds that are
currently being paid into the general funds by the railroads,
but provide no benefit to the railroad infrastructure. The
Bacchus bill will provide much needed infrastructure help for
small railroads. This would help them be more competitive and
provide better service for our shippers.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, short line and regional railroads have
serious concerns about competition and service in the railroad
industry. We are trying to address these through industry-wide
negotiations with our class one partners, and through the rule-
making procedures at the Surface Transportation Board. We hope
our negotiations are successful, and we hope the STB makes the
kind of changes that let short lines enhance competition and
solve network service problems. If we are not successful in
these arenas, we will look to Congress for more meaningful
action. Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK K. TURNER
Chairman Shelby, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Frank K.
Turner, President of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing on
issues related to freight rail competition and the Surface
Transportation Board's response to these issues.
I am here today representing ASLRRA's members--more than 400 short
line and regional railroads located in every state in the U.S. Short
line and regional railroads are an important part of the rail network.
Today we own, maintain and operate 29 percent of the railroad track in
the U.S.--almost 50,000 miles of track. We employ 11 percent of the
rail workforce and receive 9 percent of rail freight revenue. The
number of short line and regional railroads in this country has more
than doubled since the Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
Just to put our position in perspective, Mr. Chairman, the 13
Members of your Subcommittee have between them 138 short line railroads
operating almost 10,000 miles of track. The majority of this track is
in rural areas where rail service would have been abandoned by the
Class I railroads if short line operators had not purchased these
lines.
In your own state of Alabama, Mr. Chairman, there are 17 short line
railroads operating 540 miles of track. Absent these companies, 16
cities from Florence in northeastern Alabama to Beatrice in
southwestern Alabama would lose the only rail service they have.
Small railroads can serve their shippers best in a competitive rail
environment. We are an essential part of the national rail network.
Small railroads originate or terminate roughly one quarter of the total
carloads that move over the larger Class I rail systems. Many of the
lines we operate are light density lines at the fringes of the network.
In many cases these were branch lines that were candidates for
abandonment by their former Class I owner. Rail service was preserved
when these lines were sold to a new short line operator. By keeping
these lines alive, we have kept shippers connected to the national rail
network. Many of these lines serve rural areas.
Short line and regional railroads, and the shippers and communities
that depend on them for service, are deeply affected by the ongoing
restructuring of the North American railroad industry. The Class I
railroads have consolidated aggressively since the Staggers Act. Only
six large Class I railroads remain in North America today, down from
more than 40 Class I railroads in 1980. As the number of competitors
has been reduced, so have the number of competitive options.
This is troubling, because a fundamental premise of the Staggers
Act was that meaningful competition was supposed to take the place of
regulation. This approach works only so long as a competitive rail
transportation marketplace actually does exist and function. That
requires competitive options and alternative routes and meaningful
choices between rate offerings and service providers. When the rail
industry reaches the point that most shippers have only one choice of
rail company to deal with, that fundamental premise of the Staggers Act
becomes questionable.
Small railroads can and should be a part of the way we enhance
railroad competition in America. If individual small railroads can move
certain traffic more efficiently than the Class I's then the system
should allow it. If individual small railroads can ease congestion on
overcrowded Class I main lines then the system should allow it. If
individual small railroads can take truckload traffic off the highways
then the system should allow it.
More often than not, the system does not allow it. This is not only
bad for competition and bad for service, but it does not make sense
economically. At the end of the day, the Class I main lines handle the
overwhelming majority of all the traffic generated by the short lines.
To take that traffic 100 miles out of its way on its own line so as to
squeeze out an incremental piece of revenue does not make economic
sense. That 100-mile diversion means that some existing traffic will be
lost to more efficient truckers and virtually no new traffic will be
won back to the rails. The railroads' market share has been stuck in
the mid-thirty percent range for many years and will be stuck there for
many years to come if it sticks to these same practices.
Another critical issue is service. Service has suffered in the
aftermath of the recent mergers. Most of the freight that originates or
terminates on small railroads must be interchanged with a Class I
railroad in the course of its journey. Small railroads simply cannot
deliver good service to their customers if they don't get good service
from their connections.
The Surface Transportation Board is currently considering changing
its rules that govern Class I rail mergers. In that proceeding, ASLRRA
has urged the Board to add new conditions, with teeth in them, to
affirmatively preserve competitive options and ensure good service for
small railroads affected by a proposed Class I merger. ASLRRA has
proposed a ``Short Line and Regional Railroad Bill of Rights,'' and
urged the Board to include it as a condition of Board approval of any
future Class I merger or consolidation transaction.
The ``Short Line and Regional Railroad Bill of Rights'' conditions
deal with issues of service, interchange and routing, pricing, and car
supply. To give a very quick overview, they provide that, in the merger
context, small railroads should have: 1. The right to compensation for
service failures; 2. The right to interchange and routing freedom; 3.
The right to competitive and nondiscriminatory pricing; and 4. The
right to fair and nondiscriminatory car supply.
I have attached a copy of ASLRRA's filing in STB Ex Parte No. 582
(Sub-No. 1) to my testimony, for the record. It contains more detail on
the conditions we are requesting and the language of the rule changes
we have asked the Board to consider.
The Board's new merger rules can go a long way toward addressing
the serious competitive and service issues that small railroads face.
The Board will release its proposed rule in October, and we are hopeful
the proposed rule will require the kind of actions we have outlined in
our ``Bill of Rights.''
That is just part of the puzzle, however, because the Board's new
rules will apply only if there are more Class I rail mergers in the
future. Unfortunately, however, the small railroads have competitive
and service problems with their Class I partners today, which the
Board's new merger rules won't affect.
We have tried to address these important issues through private,
industry-wide negotiations. This process began two years ago, with
encouragement from the Surface Transportation Board under Chairman
Linda Morgan's leadership. On September 10, 1998, the ASLRRA and AAR
signed the Railroad Industry Agreement between the short line and
regional railroads and the Class I's. The RIA contains provisions that
are intended to address a wide range of rate and service issues. Two
key provisions allow small railroads to gain access to new trackage
rights or haulage agreements under certain circumstances, or to get
``paper barriers'' set aside, to develop new business. The RIA was a
milestone two years ago. It was the first privately negotiated,
industry-wide agreement for railroads, and it tried to address some
critical issues. Unfortunately, results so far have been rather
disappointing. There have been far fewer success stories than I had
hoped. My short line members tell me that most of their ideas are met
by either silence or delay, and that by the time the few deals that
have been done are completed the potential traffic has often long since
moved to another mode.
Although progress has been almost nonexistent, we do not want to
abandon private negotiations. Chairman Morgan has recently written a
letter to Ed Hamberger and myself, requesting an update on how the RIA
is working, and urging the railroads to sit down to discuss if changes
are needed. In fact, representatives of ASLRRA and the Class I
railroads are sitting down this Thursday to do just that. The small
railroads are going to raise their concerns that the RIA is not working
as it was intended to, and that it needs to be strengthened and perhaps
expanded. I hope we will find the Class I railroad representatives
receptive to our concerns. We will be reporting back to Chairman Morgan
in October. If no progress has been made toward addressing our
competitive and service concerns in the negotiations, we may need to
seek a more regulatory solution.
Another huge issue for small railroads, which affects our ability
to provide efficient and competitive service, is the problem of finding
sufficient funding to maintain and upgrade our lines and facilities. We
are often playing ``catch-up'' on our light density lines after years
of deferred maintenance. The Class I's new generation of heavier,
higher capacity freight cars, now built to a 286,000-lb. weight
standard, require upgrade of our track, ties, ballast and bridges. A
new study by ZETA-TECH Associates, Inc. established a need of $6.8
billion for small railroads to upgrade their track and facilities to
handle these new, heavier 286,000-lb. freight cars. I have attached a
copy of the ZETA-TECH study's conclusions to my testimony, for the
record.
Two important points need to be stressed. First, the Class I
railroads receive all the productivity savings generated by the new 286
cars. These benefits derive from huge volumes that allow the Class I's
to run fewer trains, thus reducing fuel costs, labor costs and
locomotive costs. The short lines typically receive and move freight in
carloads, not in 100-car unit trains. Yet the cost to upgrade their
track to handle these cars is no less expensive.
Second, while this is a one-time fix for small railroads, it is one
that becomes increasingly expensive to fix the longer it is ignored.
Left unrehabilitated, these lines will gradually lose their business as
their shippers are forced to move to truck or to new locations on Class
I railroads. Once that occurs, these lines will deteriorate and
ultimately be abandoned and no amount of Federal funding will be able
to bring them back.
Recognizing the need for action now, Congressman Spencer Bachus has
introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to deal with this
problem. H.R. 4746 would take the 4.3 cents per gallon tax that
railroads currently pay on their diesel fuel, a hold-over from the days
of deficit reduction, and use it to fund small railroad infrastructure
upgrades until such time as that tax is repealed by Congress. Based on
the huge needs identified by the ZETA-TECH study, this seems like a
very appropriate use for funds that currently are being paid into the
general fund by railroads and yet provide no benefit to the railroad
industry. The Bachus bill would provide much-needed infrastructure help
for small railroads. This in turn would help them be more competitive
and provide better service for their shippers.
In conclusion, the short line and regional railroads have serious
concerns about competition and service in the railroad industry. We are
trying to address these through industry-wide negotiations with our
Class I partners, and through the rule making procedure at the Surface
Transportation Board. We hope our negotiations are successful, and we
hope the STB makes the kind of changes that let short line railroads
enhance competition and solve network service problems. If we are not
successful in these arenas we will look to the Congress for more
meaningful action.
Thank you.
Attachment 1
Comments of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA)
is submitting these comments on behalf of its 418 short line and
regional railroad members in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the above-captioned proceeding (Decision served
March 31, 2000). In that Decision, the Surface Transportation Board
(STB or Board) invited comments from interested parties on
modifications to its regulations at 49 CFR Part 1180 Subpart A
governing proposals for major rail consolidations.
The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA)
is a non-profit trade association incorporated in the District of
Columbia. ASLRRA represents the interests of its short line and
regional railroad members in legislative and regulatory matters. Short
line and regional railroads are an important and growing component of
the railroad industry. Today, they operate and maintain 29 percent of
the American railroad industry's route mileage (approximately 50,000
miles of track), and account for 9 percent of the rail industry's
freight revenue and 11 percent of railroad employment.
ASLRRA and its members are interested parties and submit these
Comments to suggest changes to the Board's rules governing major rail
acquisition transactions. The Board's rules applicable to railroad
acquisition, control, merger, consolidation project, trackage rights,
and lease procedures are found at 49 CFR Part 1180 Subpart A (49 CFR
1180.0-1180.9). Within the railroad acquisition rules, four types of
transactions are defined. The first is major. A major transaction is
defined as follows: ``A major transaction is a control or merger
involving two or more class I railroads.'' 49 CFR 1180.2(a). The ANPRM
deals only with the railroad acquisition rules applicable to major
(i.e. class I) acquisition transactions and those are the sole focus of
ASLRRA's Comments.
Short line and regional railroads, and the shippers and communities
that depend on them for service, are deeply affected by the ongoing
restructuring of the North American railroad industry. Since the
Staggers Act of 1980 transformed the regulatory landscape, the industry
has been thoroughly changed by the sale of hundreds of light density
branch lines to new operators and a continuing series of class I
railroad mergers involving the retained high density main lines. As
expressed in ASLRRA President Frank K. Turner's testimony before the
Board on March 8, 2000 in the Ex Parte No. 582 public hearing: ``In the
rail industry, the big have gotten much bigger, while the small have
grown greatly in number.''
The direction of these changes was clearly consistent with the
intent of Congress when it enacted the Staggers Act in 1980. Back then,
the industry was struggling to survive after years of stagnation under
a heavy-handed regulatory regime. In the late 1970's, over a quarter of
the track in the United States was being operated by railroad companies
in bankruptcy. Clearly, radical restructuring was needed to increase
efficiency, eliminate redundancy and trim excess capacity. That is
exactly what happened. In the process, some lines with light traffic
density were abandoned while others were sold. The class I railroads
consolidated aggressively, to the point that only six large railroads
remain in the U.S. and Canada today, down from more than 40 class I
railroads in 1980. Gateways were closed, and many joint rates were
cancelled in blanket fashion. These changes have led to increased
efficiencies, but this progress has come at a price.
Today questions are being raised about whether the pendulum has
swung too far. Many short line and regional railroads are concerned
that competitive options within the railroad industry have become too
restricted.\1\ Many shippers share this concern. This is important
because a fundamental premise of the Staggers Act was that for U.S.
railroads, regulatory restrictions would be lessened or eliminated, but
only where meaningful competition existed to discipline rates and
service. A competitive transportation marketplace was viewed as a good
substitute for regulation. This approach works only so long as that
competitive transportation marketplace actually does exist and
function. That transportation marketplace requires competitive options
and alternative routes and meaningful choices between rate offerings
and service providers. When the rail industry reaches the point that
most shippers have only one choice of rail company to deal with, that
fundamental premise of the Staggers Act no longer works. We are
dangerously close to that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some ASLRRA-member railroads are participating individually in
this rulemaking proceeding. Others probably would have participated
individually if they were not fearful of the reaction of their class I
connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASLRRA does not favor re-regulation. The railroad industry has
``been there, and done that.'' History clarifies the very real danger
attached to extensive government regulation of our business. We do not
want to go back to the ``bad old days.'' That is why it is critically
important that competitive options be retained and strengthened.
The Board's rules regarding major railroad mergers are a good place
to start. The Board's current rules were put in place by the Board's
predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1982,
following passage of the Staggers Act. Quite properly, considering the
time of their adoption, the rules seem to lean in favor of rail
consolidations. The ``general policy statement for merger or control of
at least two Class I railroads,'' begins:
``The Surface Transportation Board encourages private industry
initiative that leads to the rationalization of the nation's rail
facilities and reduction of its excess capacity. One means of
accomplishing these ends is rail consolidation.'' 49 CFR 1180.1 (a).
Later, the current rules discuss public interest considerations,
and the balancing test that the Board performs to determine whether a
transaction is in the public interest. The potential benefits are
described:
``Both the consolidated carrier and the public can benefit from a
consolidation if the result is a financially sound competitor better
able to provide adequate service on demand. This beneficial result can
occur if the consolidated carrier is able to realize operating
efficiencies and increased marketing opportunities. Since
consolidations can lead to a reduction in redundant facilities and
thereby to an increase in traffic density on underused lines, operating
efficiencies may be realized. Furthermore, consolidations are the only
feasible way for rail carriers to enter many new markets other than by
contractual arrangement, such as for joint use of rail facilities or
run-through trains. In some markets where there is sufficient existing
rail capacity the construction of new rail line is prohibitively
expensive and does not represent a feasible means of entry into the
market.'' 49 CFR 1180.1 (c)(1).
The other half of the balancing test equation, the potential harm,
is discussed next. The rules describe potential harm in two areas:
reduction of competition and harm to essential services. 49 CFR 1180.1
(c)(2). In both, the rules reflect the Board's (and ICC's) approach of
``protecting competition, not competitors.''
``. . . While the reduction in the number of competitors serving a
market is not in itself harmful, a lessening of competition resulting
from the elimination of a competitor may be contrary to the public
interest . . .'' 49 CFR 1180.1(c)(2)(i).
``Consolidations often result in shifts of market patterns.
Sometimes the carrier losing its share of the market may not be able to
withstand the loss of traffic. In assessing the probable impacts, the
Board's concern is the preservation of essential services, not the
survival of particular carriers. A service is essential if there is a
sufficient public need for the service and adequate alternative
transportation is not available.'' 49 CFR 1180.1(c)(2)(ii).
Finally, the rules discuss conditions. For major rail merger
transactions, the statute gives the Board extensive authority to impose
conditions, 49 USC 11324(c). The current rules state:
``The Board has broad authority to impose conditions on
consolidations, including those that might be useful in ameliorating
potential anticompetitive effects of a consolidation. However, the
Board recognizes that conditions may lessen the benefits of a
consolidation to both the carrier and the public. Therefore, the Board
will not normally impose conditions on a consolidation to protect a
carrier unless essential services are affected and the condition: (i)
is shown to be related to the impact of the consolidation; (ii) is
designed to enable shippers to receive adequate service; (iii) would
not pose unreasonable operating or other problems for the consolidated
carrier; and (iv) would not frustrate the ability of the consolidated
carrier to obtain the anticipated public benefits . . .'' 49 CFR
1180.1(d)
ASLRRA agrees with the Board's Decision, which states at page 3
that although the current merger regulations were a proper and reasoned
response to the serious problems affecting railroads and their
customers at that time, the goals of that merger policy have largely
been achieved. Today the focus must be on improving service to
customers. Rail infrastructure has been pared down to the point that
some tracks and yards are congested and straining at capacity.
Preserving viable options within the rail industry is imperative to
enhance service, sustain competition, allow choices for shippers and
avoid reregulation.
New STB class I merger rules can go a long way toward accomplishing
this goal. ASLRRA recognizes that there are many different groups of
stakeholders and diverse points of view that the Board must balance as
it considers this important revision of its Class I merger rules.
ASLRRA believes that its suggested changes (below) can be incorporated
within the scope of the larger rule changes that the Board will
consider. In ASLRRA's view, this will be consistent with the aims of
this Ex Parte No. 582 (Sub-No. 1) rulemaking proceeding, and positive
for the railroad industry as a whole. That is the spirit in which the
following rule changes are suggested.
ASLRRA presented a ``Short Line and Regional Railroad Bill of
Rights'' in Frank Turner's March 8, 2000 Statement (attached). As part
of its review of the railroad acquisition rules applicable to major
transactions, ASLRRA urges the Board to implement the Bill of Rights by
including the following provisions relating to the concerns of small
railroads within the new rules it adopts.
The general policy statement for merger or control of at least two
class I railroads begins with a general statement at 49 CFR 1180.1(a).
ASLRRA suggests that it be redrafted to include the following
statement:
49 CFR 1180.1(a)
``The Board places high priority on preserving and enhancing
competition within the railroad industry. Small railroads play an
important role in feeding traffic to the national rail network and
providing service and competitive options for shippers. As the rail
network nears capacity in some areas, small railroads can help bypass
congested areas to keep freight moving. Small railroads offer capacity
for future traffic growth. Their important role in the national rail
network should be preserved and their procompetitive role ensured as
part of any class I rail consolidation.''
In the discussion of public interest considerations for class I
merger transactions at 49 CFR 1180.1(c), the following statement should
be included:
49 CFR 1180.1(c)
``In determining whether a transaction is in the public interest,
the Board performs a balancing test. It weighs the potential benefits
to applicants, the railroad network, shippers and the public against
the potential harm to the railroad network, shippers and the public.
The Board will consider whether the benefits claimed by applicants
could be realized by means other than the proposed consolidation that
would result in less potential harm to the railroad network, shippers
and the public; and will consider imposition of conditions to lessen
such potential harm.''
In discussing the potential benefits to be considered at 49 CFR
1180.1(c)(1), the following language should be included:
49 CFR 1180.1(c)(1)
``A consolidation will be considered to benefit the railroad
network, shippers and the public only if applicants clearly demonstrate
that competition will be enhanced and service will not suffer.
Conditions will be imposed to ensure that competition is enhanced and
to provide a remedy if service does suffer.''
In discussing the other half of the balancing test equation, the
potential harm at 49 CFR 1180.1(c)(2) the following should be included:
49 CFR 1180.1(c)(2)
``A consolidation would ill serve the public interest if the result
would be harm to competition, restriction or elimination of competitive
options within the rail network, or deterioration in service. The Board
will impose conditions as necessary to preserve and enhance competition
and enforce maintenance of service levels.''
The section discussing conditions at 49 CFR 1180.1(d) should
specifically include the items of the ``Short Line and Regional
Railroad Bill of Rights.''
49 CFR 1180.1(d)
``The Board has broad authority to impose conditions on
consolidations, including those that might be useful in preserving
competitive options within the rail network that might be compromised
or lessened by the consolidation, and ensuring that adequate service
levels will be maintained. The Board recognizes that imposition of
conditions may be essential in future consolidations in order to
achieve these goals. In regard to ensuring the important role of small
railroads within the rail network, the Board will impose the following
four conditions unless the applicants demonstrate convincingly that
imposition of one or more of these conditions would pose unreasonable
operating or other problems for the consolidated carrier and would
substantially frustrate the ability of the consolidated carrier to
obtain the anticipated public benefits. These conditions will be
imposed in order to protect competition, not particular competitors.
Therefore, in order to minimize unreasonable burdens on small
companies, the Board will impose these conditions presumptively, on its
own motion. Class II and class III railroads will not be required to
file individual responsive applications and will not be required to pay
filing fees in connection with imposition of these conditions.
Conditions for the benefit of class II and class III railroads.--
(1) Class II and class III railroads that connect to the consolidated
carrier have the right to compensation by the consolidated carrier for
service failures related to the consolidation. In addition, when the
consolidated carrier cannot provide an acceptable level of service
post-transaction, connecting class II and class III railroads should be
allowed to perform additional services as necessary to provide
acceptable service to shippers.
(2) Class II and class III railroads have the right to interchange
and routing freedom. Contractual barriers affecting class II and class
III railroads that connect with the consolidated carrier that prohibit
or disadvantage full interchange rights, competitive routes and/or
rates must be immediately removed by the consolidated carrier, and none
imposed in the future. The consolidated carrier must maintain
competitive joint rates through existing gateways. Also, class II and
class III railroads should be free to interchange with all other
carriers in a terminal area without pricing or operational
disadvantage. Any pricing or operational restrictions which
disadvantage connecting class II or class III railroads must be
immediately removed by the consolidated carrier, and none imposed in
the future.
(3) Class II and class III railroads that connect to the
consolidated carrier have the right to competitive and
nondiscriminatory rates and pricing. Rates and pricing of the
consolidated carrier that do not meet this standard will be promptly
corrected by the consolidated carrier upon request by a connecting
class II or class III railroad.
(4) Class II and class III railroads that connect to the
consolidated carrier have the right to fair and nondiscriminatory car
supply. Car supply issues regarding this standard will be promptly
addressed by the consolidated carrier upon request by a connecting
class II or class III railroad.
Implementation.--The Board strongly encourages the consolidated
carrier to work out any issues regarding these conditions with its
connecting class II and class III carriers in a mutually agreeable
fashion without resorting to the Board for interpretation or
enforcement. However, if needed, the Board will put in place an
expedited and cost-effective remedy process to be initiated by
complaint filed with the Board by a connecting class II or class III
carrier.''
The section of the current rules discussing supporting information
to be provided by applicants, 49 CFR 1180.6, should have language added
to specifically require that the application filed in a major
transaction must include the following information:
49 CFR 1180.6
``The effect of the proposed transaction upon class II and class
III carriers that connect with applicants.''
The section of the current rules dealing with market analyses, 49
CFR 1180.7, requires applicants to prepare impact analyses in major
transactions. This section should have language added to specifically
require that the impact analyses prepared and filed by applicants in
connection with a major transaction must include the following
information:
49 CFR 1180.7
``An impact analysis must include the effect of the proposed
transaction upon class II and class III carriers that connect with
applicants.''
These rule changes, adopted by the Board as part of its revision of
the class I merger rules, will be a giant step forward and will put the
Board's rules in tune with today's railroading reality. The rail
network must affirmatively preserve competitive options and ensure good
service in order to remain viable. Small railroads will play an
essential part if they are not prevented from doing so. Including the
conditions enumerated in the ``Short Line and Regional Railroad Bill of
Rights'' will put a stop to the erosion of competition and service
caused by recent mergers. ASLRRA urges the Board to revise its rules to
include the changes suggested above, and include the ``Short Line and
Regional Railroad Bill of Rights'' as a condition of its approval of
any future class I merger or consolidation transaction.
Attachment 2
An Estimation of the Investment in Track and Structures Needed to
Handle 286,000 lb. Rail Cars
executive summary
The short line and regional railroad industry in America operates
about 50,000 of the 170,000 track miles making up the U.S. railroad
network, and accounts for just under $3 billion of the approximately
$35 billion in railroad industry gross revenues.
With $3 billion in revenue for 50,000 track miles, the short lines
and regionals have only about $60,000 per track mile in annual revenue,
compared with an average of $269,000 per mile for large (Class I)
railroads in America. Nevertheless, they must maintain a physical plant
capable of handling the heaviest freight cars allowed in interchange on
North American railroads.
The weight limit for general interchange is in the process of being
raised from 263,000 lbs. to 286,000 lbs. The short line and regional
railroads have voiced considerable concern about the potential cost of
upgrading their fixed plant (track and bridges) to handle cars of this
weight. For this reason, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association asked ZETA-TECH to estimate the cost to the industry of
improving its track and bridges to safely handle heavier cars.
ZETA-TECH surveyed 46 of the 550 short line and regional railroads,
with 4,742 miles of track. Detailed information was collected on track
and bridge condition, track components, annual tonnage, and operating
speed. This information was entered into a database, and ZETA-TECH
developed a series of logic matrices to determine when each combination
of track components, condition, tonnage, and operating speed was
adequate to handle 286,000 lb. cars.
The product of the analysis was an estimate of the total quantity
of rail to be replaced, ties to be inserted, ballast to be installed,
and bridges to be repaired or replaced, on the 4,742 miles comprising
the sample of railroads. These results were then extended to the entire
short line industry, to produce the results shown in Table A.
TABLE A.--CALCULATED COST OF UPGRADING SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROADS TO HANDLE 286,000 LB. CARS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required
Component investment per Total cost Total cost
mile (sample) (industry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail.......................................................... $75,106 $356,150,175 $3,754,182,002
Ties.......................................................... 16,372 77,636,048 818,362,236
Ballast/Surfacing............................................. 2,657 12,597,440 132,789,720
Turnouts...................................................... 7,882 37,377,454 393,996,056
Bridges....................................................... 35,236 167,085,889 1,761,253,773
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 137,253 650,847,006 6,860,583,787
=================================================
Track Mileage................................................. .............. 4,742 49,985
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper barriers
Senator Shelby. Mr. Turner, just briefly for the non-
railroad people like me, what role specifically do the short
line and regional railroads play in our competitive national
system? In other words, are the connections, this is where you
connect to the main----
Mr. Turner. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we are a feeder line to the
main trunk lines of the national----
Senator Shelby. Give me an example in my home state,
please.
Mr. Turner. Well, let us say the short line to Alabama and
Eastern that runs from Sylacauga, that runs out to Sylacauga,
they bring in a lot of limestone and all that, and they deliver
it into Birmingham, to CSX, for nationwide service.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Mr. Hamberger, do you feel that the
class one railroads have a vested interest in the health and
vitality of smaller railroads, and if so, why?
Mr. Hamberger. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. That is why we sat
down and negotiated the deal, the agreement that we did, the
Rail Industry Agreement, in September 1998, and why we have had
ongoing meetings, both at the CEO level and at the working
level, if you will, between the Short Line Regional Rail
Association, and the AAR, and our members. We are meeting again
Thursday, as Mr. Turner indicated, and it is important because
about 10 percent of the overall traffic moves on short-line
railroads. Frank represents not just the short line----
Senator Shelby. This is nationwide, now.
Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Okay. That is a good bit of traffic.
Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Turner. Well, you are talking revenue, when you are
saying----
Mr. Hamberger. Right.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. But actually more cars than that
move over them. About one out of every four or five railroad
cars, 20 to 25 percent of every railroad car moves from
either--originates or terminates on the short line, but we only
get 9 percent of the revenue.
Mr. Hamberger. Right. So it is obviously a very important
part of being able to maintain service throughout the network,
yes.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Turner, this past spring your
organization testified before the Surface Transportation Board
and called for what you call a short line and regional railroad
bill of rights. You specifically called, or they did, for the
end of paper barriers----
Mr. Turner. That is correct, sir.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Which we have talked about
here----
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Which restrict short-line
railroads' ability to make a choice between competing class one
railroads. Explain that.
Mr. Turner. Well, the first thing, when many of these
railroads came into existence as a result of the Staggers Act
of the 1980s, these were lines that were secondary main lines,
or branch lines that were probably going to be candidates for
abandonment, but yet there was still some traffic on them. The
railroads wanted to shed themselves of this and go to more of a
core operation. So they sold these lines to----
Senator Shelby. To run to big lines, in other words.
Mr. Turner. That is right. To the main line.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Turner. We can go back to somewhere like Sylacauga, or
somewhere like that, that they would sell these branch lines,
and then allow an operator to take over and develop the
traffic, which they have done a great job.
Senator Shelby. Well, we have a short line railroad in my
State, from Meridian, Mississippi, to the paper mill over there
at Butler.
Mr. Turner. Yes, sir. You do. It runs from Meridian to
Linden----
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. And then on to Myrtle Wood.
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. Turner. That was one of our members.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Turner. That is a little bit different. That was a
short line that was owned by the James River Paper Company, and
the James River Paper Company decided to get out of the
railroad business, so they sold it to an operator. There are no
paper barriers. There is some restriction as to delivery of
some traffic to some of the interchanges, but that is not a
typical short line that was born in the mid-eighties.
Senator Shelby. How many short line railroads do we have in
my State, roughly?
Mr. Turner. You have 17.
Senator Shelby. How many do we have nationwide?
Mr. Turner. We have over 500.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Turner. Some of these are switching carriers inside of
paper plants and things like that, but in your case, there are
17 short lines in your State.
problems in wake of major Mergers
Senator Shelby. Mr. Hamberger, in the wake of the mergers,
some of the big recent railroad mergers, there have been some
problems with implementing the Conrail split between CSX and
Norfolk Southern. There are several bills pending in both the
House and Senate regarding reauthorization of the Surface
Transportation Board that detail plans to improve rail
competition and service. Is it appropriate, in your opinion,
for Congress to take a more active role in these issues,
particularly, since some of the rail mergers have created,
according to shippers and others, serious problems for
themselves and their customers?
Mr. Hamberger. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I have never been
in the position to tell Congress what is appropriate to do or
not to do.
Senator Shelby. I said in your opinion.
Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir. Obviously, it is appropriate for
Congress----
Senator Shelby. You represent the Association of American
Railroads.
Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir. It is appropriate for Congress to
have oversight and take a look at any issue it deems
appropriate, and that is an appropriate issue to take a look
at. I hope that when Congress takes a look at it, they will
take a look at it through the prism of what I talked about
earlier today, and that is, what is best for the rail network.
Now, yes, there have been some problems as a result of the
Conrail transaction, but I----
Senator Shelby. What is best for the rail network or what
is best for the American people?
Mr. Hamberger. I would suggest to you that the two are very
closely aligned, and what is best for the rail network is,
indeed, what is best for the North American economy.
Senator Shelby. That is what it has to be.
Mr. Hamberger. Yes, sir. Absolutely. The Surface
Transportation Board, when it approved the Conrail transaction,
established a Conrail Transaction Council, which I believe was
meeting monthly. It just recently began to meet bimonthly every
other month, because the issues have begun to dissipate. I
think right after the merger last July 1, the effective date,
the meetings were perhaps a little bit more vigorous, shall we
say, as service issues were discussed, but it is my
understanding, and as I look at the metrics of cars on line,
and velocity, both the CSX and Norfolk Southern have made
tremendous strides in getting the operational aspect of that
transaction put together.
Paper barriers
If I might just follow on one thing, and that is paper
barriers. Arguments in this town seem to be won and lost
sometimes on how you define the debate, and the paper barrier
is nothing more and nothing less than a contractual obligation.
In fact, in the railroad industry agreement we define it as a
contractual obligation, incurred when short line carriers
acquired lines from larger connecting carriers. In most cases,
those obligations were in there as part of the up-front capital
costs of buying the line.
Senator Shelby. Explain what you mean.
Mr. Hamberger. In other words, you would come in and the
class one would be selling the short line from ``A'' to ``B,''
and instead of charging ``x'' dollars, it would charge a
substantial discount because of the agreement that the traffic
that would continue to originate on that short line would
continue to----
Senator Shelby. Feed into----
Mr. Hamberger [continuing]. Feed into that Class I. So it
is a price of buying the short line. So it is not really
something that we went out there and said we are going to stop
you from doing something, it was an arms-length negotiation----
Senator Shelby. Well, what about where it is a situation
that the short line existed prior to the Staggers Act?
Mr. Hamberger. It is my understanding that the paper
barriers, as Frank said, they are not in----
Senator Shelby. They do not apply.
Mr. Hamberger. Right.
Senator Shelby. They do not apply.
Mr. Hamberger. Right. But the railroad could have been sold
to the Class I prior to the Staggers Act.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Hamberger. There was some of that. So it is really--and
the thing I was trying to drive at is not only how it came
about, but that in this agreement we recognize the importance
of growing the rail network, and so we have agreed, the Class
Is have agreed that where new traffic originates, the paper
barrier would not stand in the way of that new traffic, that if
the Class I could not handle it, or if it was not the most
efficient routing, the paper barrier would not stand in the way
of that new traffic.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that----
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Very quickly? The first thing,
this was in the mid-eighties, and since then, as I have
mentioned, we have had 40 Class I railroads, you know, in 1980,
and a lot of routes have been closed, and routes have been
changed, and all that, so the whole terrain is different. We
recognize that that is a contractual agreement, and if we
cannot reach a way to remove this internally, we are going to
have to look elsewhere for assistance to make this a national
rail network, not one that is hindered by these paper barriers.
Open access
Senator Shelby. Let me ask you both something. Other
industries, as we know, and we know they are not railroads,
such as the telecommunications industry, allow competitors to
use their networks and infrastructure for a fee, not free now,
but for a fee.
Some people have proposed that this be required in the
railroad industry, and I have been told that Australia is
committed to providing open access among the country's
railroads. I believe this policy was instituted about 5 years
ago, and it is overseen by the National Competition Council. Do
you have any comments on that, Mr. Hamberger?
Mr. Hamberger. Well, I do.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Hamberger. Let me address that in two ways, if I might.
Senator Shelby. I have not proposed that. I am just
throwing it out.
Mr. Hamberger. Mr. Chairman, I am struggling here to find--
--
Mr. Turner. Well, while he is doing that. We have that. We
do have haulage rights and provisions for trackage rights in
this country today. We do. I mean we have CSX operating over on
Norfolk Southern track, and vice-versa.
Senator Shelby. I knew you would find some of that.
Mr. Hamberger. I was going to answer, too. Thank you,
Frank. Exactly. What is being proposed for the
telecommunications and utility industries, we already have.
Senator Shelby. You already have.
Mr. Hamberger. We have to accept traffic that is presented
to us to carry. What I was looking for here is a study that we
have----
Senator Shelby. But you get a fee from them for using your
railroad, do you not?
Mr. Hamberger. Well, you have to negotiate a rate. Yes,
sir.
Senator Shelby. In other words, if I had a railroad you
could not just ride on it for free, could you?
Mr. Hamberger. That is correct.
Mr. Turner. We had a study done by Mercer Management,
several case studies, going throughout the world, and the
bottom line is, let me just get to the bottom line, that as
country after country has examined what is the best model for
privatizing their railroads, they have come to the conclusion
that the United States system is the best. Mexico, in our own
hemisphere most recently, 2 years ago privatized three major
railroads, and after years of investigation, decided that the
U.S. system was the best.
The case study that we have from Australia, and you are
exactly correct in that it provides for open access, the
results are that open access has not improved rail's market
share or induced new private investment, a key point, that
implementing the interstate open access has resulted in
significant additional costs for incumbent railroads, due to
loss of coordination between rail operations and
infrastructure, and because of the establishment of large
bureaucracies. And finally, maintaining rail economies of
scales is important to keeping rail competitive with truck, and
positioning the rail network to be financially self-sustaining.
Much the same track record in Britain, where the government
has had to step in because of disagreements between the company
owning the track and the company leading the locomotives.
Senator Shelby. We have been joined by Senator Specter, who
has been in another committee. Senator Specter, do you have any
comments or questions for these two gentlemen?
Senator Specter. Well, having come in at the end of their
testimony, I only have seven questions for Mr. Turner and eight
for Mr. Hamberger. I would like them sworn first, Mr.
Chairman----
Senator Shelby. All right.
Senator Specter [continuing]. Before I proceed.
Senator Shelby. Do you really want them sworn?
Senator Specter. No. If they will affirm, it will be
sufficient. On a serious vein, I want to compliment you, Mr.
Chairman, on convening this hearing. This is a very, very
important subject, one which affects Pennsylvania very, very
decisively, with what has happened with the division of Conrail
and the truckers and railroad issue, problems which have
affected my State for many, many years.
The big anti-trust case back in the late fifties, early
sixties, involved a battle between truckers and the railroads,
and we still have to try to find a way, so I appreciate your
activism. This is not quite as big a turnout as you got for
Ford-Firestone, but it is very important.
Senator Shelby. You know, we started Ford-Firestone last
week, and it has now moved from this committee to the House
Commerce Committee, back to our Commerce committee.
Senator Specter. They are still not catching up with you,
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Gentlemen, thank you for coming. Our third
panel would be the regulatory authority, Ms. Linda J. Morgan,
Chairman, Surface Transportation Board. Ms. Morgan, welcome to
the committee. Your written statement will be made a part of
the record in its entirety. You may proceed as you wish. I am
sure you have heard their testimony, have you not, all the
panels.
Ms. Morgan. I have, indeed. I have been here since the
beginning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
STATEMENT OF LINDA J. MORGAN, CHAIRMAN
Ms. Morgan. Mr. Chairman and Senator Specter, I am
appearing at the request of the committee to discuss
competition in the railroad industry. I will make my oral
remarks brief. I have submitted written testimony that you are
kindly including in the record in its entirety. My written
testimony reviews concerns raised about the rail sector and how
the Board has responded.
Merger problems
One of the issues that concerns shippers and that has
concerned me involves the service problems experienced
throughout the railroad industry in connection with the recent
round of mergers. I have not been satisfied with where the
industry's service record has been, but I believe that the
board has been a positive force in helping, both on a formal
and an informal basis, to fix problems that have arisen, while
averting new ones. This was true during the service crisis in
the West, and it remains true today, as we work to continue
stabilizing service in the East, and our recent action, which
was affirmed in court, imposing a 15-month moratorium while we
revisit the Board's merger policy and rules, was important to
ensure that existing service problems were not further
aggravated.
other Issues
The Board has also been a positive force in driving
substantive changes in response to concerns brought to our
attention. After our 1998 hearings on access and competition,
for example, we changed the rules for rate complaints to make
the process simpler, less burdensome, and more accessible for
shippers--the so-called market dominance decision that was
referenced earlier. The railroads have challenged our decision
in court, but I am confident that the court will find that we
have acted properly. We also changed our rules so that a
shipper receiving poor service could obtain relief by using
another carrier. And more recently, following up on our 4 days
of hearings on major rail mergers, we are reexamining our
merger policy and rules.
There are other issues that certain interested parties
believe have not yet been fully addressed. In prior
congressional testimony and in my 1998 letter to Chairman
McCain and Subcommittee Chairman Hutchison, which is appended
to my written testimony, I have indicated that legislation
would be necessary to address those issues if Congress wanted
to address them.
prepared statement
My position on those issues remains the same today as it
has been in the past. The Board has stepped up to the plate and
has responded creatively and aggressively in addressing issues
that it can address within its authority.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda J. Morgan
My name is Linda J. Morgan, Chairman of the Surface Transportation
Board (Board). I am appearing at the request of the Committee to
discuss competition in the railroad industry. Over the past 3 years, I
have testified about that issue and related matters on several
occasions, before both the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Additionally, responding to the concerns of Members of
the Senate Commerce Committee, and in particular Committee Chairman
McCain and Subcommittee Chairman Hutchison, in the spring of 1998, we
held 15 hours of agency hearings on access and competition in the
railroad industry, at which over 60 witnesses testified, and we took
various actions in response. More recently, in March of this year the
Board held 4 days of hearings, in which over 120 witnesses
participated, on major rail consolidations and the future structure of
the railroad industry, after which we imposed a 15-month moratorium on
major rail mergers so that we could institute a proceeding, which is
now pending, to reexamine our rail merger policy and rules.
I. THE BOARD'S RAIL ACCESS AND COMPETITION PROCEEDING
At our 1998 hearings, rail-dependent shippers complained that, as a
result of consolidation in the industry, their competitive options had
not been expanded, and that available remedies, particularly for
service failures and rate relief, were burdensome, costly, and
unresponsive. In an effort to address those concerns, the Board pursued
a mix of regulatory action and private-sector initiatives directed by
the Board.
In particular, at the Board's urging, railroads met among
themselves and with customers and other interested groups to pursue
certain private-sector responses. As a result, the large and small
railroads entered into an agreement intended to ensure more effective
utilization of smaller railroads in addressing the concerns raised by
shippers, and I recently sent a letter to both groups requesting that
they initiate further discussions to strengthen that agreement. In
addition, the large railroads set up a series of meetings with shippers
throughout the Nation to address customer service issues, which
produced among other things an agreement by large railroads to
publicize, for the first time, carrier-specific performance data,
building upon data that the Board had itself been collecting for
service monitoring purposes. Also, with the Board's prodding, grain
shippers and coal shippers separately reached agreement with the rail
industry on private-sector mechanisms for resolving disputes.
On the regulatory front, the Board changed its ``market dominance''
rules in order to make the procedures less cumbersome for shippers in
pursuing rate relief at the agency. Specifically, our decision
eliminated the review of product and geographic competition from the
determination of whether a railroad has market dominance over the
transportation at issue. This decision has been appealed in court, and
oral argument will be held in the court in November. The Board also
adopted new rules establishing ways to provide shippers that have
concerns about poor service with the opportunity to obtain service from
an alternate carrier.
Finally, on December 21, 1998, I wrote a letter to Chairman McCain
and Senator Hutchison (attached as Appendix A) following up on our rail
access and competition hearings. I summarized the Board's activities as
to matters within its authority, described above, and suggested actions
that Congress might wish to take, in areas in which the Board lacks
authority, to address concerns that had been raised.
II. RAILROAD MERGERS
A. The Recent Round of Rail Mergers.--Although mergers and other
changes in corporate structure have been going on in the rail industry
for many decades, there has been substantial rail merger activity since
the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 was passed, reflecting what has been
occurring throughout the Nation's economy. In 1976, there were, by our
calculations, 30 independent ``Class I'' (larger railroad) systems;
nine of those systems have since then dropped down to Class II or III
(smaller railroad) status because the revenue thresholds for Class I
status were raised substantially some years ago; two large carriers
went into bankruptcy; and the remaining 19 systems have been reduced to
7 independent systems in the past 24 years. This merger activity has
not occurred because the Board (or the ICC) has sought out mergers.
When two railroads file a merger application, we apply certain
statutory standards to the proposal presented to us and approve the
merger if it is in the public interest based on those standards and the
record compiled.
Under the rules developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, four
major rail mergers have been approved since I became Chairman in 1995.
These mergers were approved, however, only after the Board imposed many
significant competitive and other conditions. From a competitive
perspective, the conditions attached to the merger approvals have
assured that no shipper's service options were reduced to one-carrier
service as a result of a merger. The conditions also have provided for
substantial post-merger oversight and monitoring that have permitted us
to review both competitive and operational issues that have arisen.
Additionally, they have provided for the protection of employees and
the mitigation of environmental impacts, and our recent decisions have
provided for the compilation of a ``safety integration plan'' that
draws on the resources of the Board, the Federal Railroad
Administration, and the involved carriers and employees. With respect
to the service problems that have been associated with recent mergers,
the Board, I believe, has been a positive force in restoring service
and addressing service problems. And importantly, the merger approval,
oversight, and monitoring process has evolved and been strengthened
throughout this last round of mergers to reflect concerns raised and
lessons learned.
In varying degrees, each of these mergers has had the support of
segments of the shipping public, as well as that of employees and
various localities, and each was considered by many of the interested
parties to be in the public interest. A variety of shippers actively
supported the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) merger, the
inherently procompetitive Conrail acquisition, and the recent Canadian
National/Illinois Central (CN/IC) merger. And the Union Pacific/
Southern Pacific merger, which segments of the shipping community
opposed while others supported it, was necessary, the Board believed,
not only to prop up the failing Southern Pacific, but also to permit
the development of a rail system in the West with enough of a presence
to compete with the newly merged BNSF.
I know that certain shippers have taken the view that recent
mergers have inhibited competition. But based on the record developed,
in approving these four mergers, the Board (and, earlier, the ICC)
concluded that, with the significant conditions imposed, they would not
diminish competition and in fact could enhance competition; they would
produce significant transportation benefits; and they were otherwise in
the public interest. The Board will continue to exercise its oversight
authority in accordance with those objectives, and in this regard, we
currently have three comprehensive merger oversight proceedings under
way, in which we are monitoring the effectiveness of our competitive
and other conditions. And we continue to be active in monitoring
service performance and addressing service problems.
B. The Railroad Merger Moratorium.--On December 20, 1999, BNSF and
CN notified the Board that they intended to file an application, on or
shortly after March 20, 2000, seeking Board approval to bring their
railroad systems under common control. Given the aggressive
consolidation and associated disruptions that had occurred in the
railroad industry during the past several years, and the likelihood
that the BNSF/CN proposal would set off yet another full, and likely
final, round of major rail consolidations, the Board issued an order on
December 28, 1999, waiving the so-called ``one case at a time'' rule
for the BNSF/CN proceeding and stating that, if the BNSF/CN proceeding
went forward, the Board would consider not only the direct impacts of
that combination, but also evidence of the cumulative impacts and
crossover effects that would likely occur as other railroads developed
strategic responses in reaction to the proposed combined new system. In
addition, given the prospect of significant further consolidation
within the railroad industry, and the Board's concern that the railroad
industry and the shipping public had not yet recovered from the service
disruptions associated with the previous round of mergers, the Board
issued an order on January 24, 2000, opening a proceeding (STB Ex Parte
No. 582) to obtain public views on the subject of major rail
consolidations and the present and future structure of the North
American rail industry.
As part of the Ex Parte No. 582 proceeding, the Board took written
and oral testimony from all sectors associated with the rail industry,
including large and small rail carriers; large and small shippers
representing various commodity groups; intermodal and third party
transportation providers; rail employees; state and local interests;
financial analysts and economists; and Members of Congress and other
federal agencies. The overwhelming weight of the testimony,
particularly the testimony taken over the 4 days of oral hearings, was
that the rail community is suffering from ``merger fatigue;'' that,
given the experience with past merger implementation, along with the
current state of service in the industry, more mergers at this time
would aggravate service problems; that the Board's existing policies
and procedures are not appropriate for what could likely be the final
round of mergers; and that fundamental changes to the merger rules and
policies are needed before any new mergers move forward.
The Board agreed, concluding in a decision issued on March 17
(attached as Appendix B) that the industry is not ready and the merger
rules are not appropriate for what will likely be the final round of
restructuring of the North American railroad industry that may well
result in two transcontinental railroads. To avoid the service
disruptions--beyond those already being experienced--that could have
developed throughout the rail industry from further consolidation at
this time, and to allow a broad reexamination of its merger rules and
policies, the Board put a 15-month hold on the filing of any new
mergers.
The moratorium was challenged in court, and on July 14, only a
month after the oral argument, the court, by a 2-1 decision, upheld the
agency's action. Although the dissent concluded that the statute
requires the Board to handle any application that a railroad wants to
file within specified time frames, the court majority saw the case as
we did: it understood that we need new rules to address the service and
competitive issues associated with future mergers; it recognized that
we could not effectively review new mergers at the same time as we are
revisiting the rules; and it found that we therefore have the authority
to impose a moratorium to fulfill our broad statutory obligation to
determine whether specific merger proposals are in the public interest.
Given the concerns over the service and competitive issues that would
be implicated if new mergers were to move forward now, the court found
that
``forcing the Board to [consider new applications] before it has
had an opportunity to determine where the public interest lies would
defeat altogether the purpose of the agency's review, whereas allowing
the Board to focus for a reasonable time upon revising its [merger]
criteria would likely enable the Board to continue to meet its
deadlines once it resumes processing applications.''
Shortly after the court issued its ruling, BNSF and CN withdrew
their merger proposal.
C. The Board's Rulemaking to Revisit its Rail Merger Policy and
Rules.--The Board has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPR) to initiate the process of reexamining its merger rules and
policy. On October 3, the Board expects to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR), and, after reviewing comments on the NPR, it will
issue final rules by June 11, 2001. I cannot say too much about the
proceeding, as it is still pending, but I can summarize the key
observations that the agency made as it decided to start the process.
First, the industry has changed since the existing merger policy and
rules were approved. It is now more consolidated after the last round
of mergers, and the benefits associated with prior mergers related to
reduction in excess capacity and efficiencies are not likely to result
to the same degree from future mergers; we thus need to look at merger
benefits differently for the future. Second, with future merger
proposals likely leading to the final round of consolidation, the
combined systems would be much larger, and the risks associated with
failure would increase substantially. With greater consolidation,
problems could be broader in scope and harder to fix, and there may be
fewer alternatives to which we can turn; we must make sure that the
benefits clearly outweigh any potential harm. Third, we have learned
that service problems can occur with mergers even when carriers plan
and focus on service; we must look for new and better ways to guard
against and offset merger-related service problems and to deal with
them when they occur.
And after having reviewed comments from over 100 parties filed in
response to the ANPR from a variety of interests, I can say that there
clearly will be changes made to our merger policy and rules. As we have
already indicated, in reviewing future merger proposals, we will look
at downstream effects, that is, we will consider the likely responses
of other carriers as the Board reviews a particular merger application
in the future. And in considering whether a future merger proposal is
in the public interest, that is whether the benefits outweigh the
potential harm, we are considering how to define and determine
benefits, including a review of such issues as whether we should
require future mergers to enhance competition, whether we should look
at the extent to which benefits could be realized by other means, and
whether there should be a more specific accounting of the benefits and
accountability for benefits claimed. We also are reviewing how to
define potential harm, including competitive and service harm, and how
potential harm might be mitigated and offset. Furthermore, we are
looking at how we address service issues, in particular how we look at
service improvement as a merger benefit, and how we ensure service
accountability, guard against service failure as a transaction is being
implemented, and provide for resolution of service problems if they
occur. Finally, we will need to address other related matters, such as
safety, employee concerns, smaller railroad issues, and cross-border
matters such as trade and defense.
III. RAIL SERVICE ISSUES
Over the past few years, we have used our general oversight and
specific legal authority, reporting, and specific merger-related
monitoring to promote service improvement and resolve service problems.
Among other things, we took unprecedented actions to address the rail
service crisis in the West. We have required carriers to develop and
publicize detailed plans for managing consolidations and for addressing
service issues. We have directed an unprecedented amount of carrier
reporting (both public and confidential) about carrier service. Board
representatives are continually in communication with carrier
management about general service issues, and they work closely on an
ongoing basis with carriers and shippers to address individual service
problems on an informal basis.
I know that carriers have experienced substantial service problems
notwithstanding our efforts, but I believe that we have been a positive
and constructive force. With regard to the rail crisis in the West, for
example, under the umbrella of a 9-month emergency service order, the
Board required substantial and heretofore unprecedented operational
reporting, engaged in substantial and heretofore unprecedented
operational monitoring, and redirected operations in a focused and
constructive way. The Board was successful in working on an informal
basis with affected shippers to resolve service problems, and it was
careful not to take actions that might have helped some shippers or
regions but inadvertently hurt others. And the Board proceeded in such
a way as not to undermine, but rather to encourage, important private-
sector initiatives that facilitated and were integral to service
recovery, such as the unprecedented creation of the joint dispatching
center near Houston, TX, and the significant upgrading of
infrastructure designed to prevent future service problems. And in
connection with the Conrail acquisition in the East, we have engaged in
extensive pre- and post-implementation monitoring, including the review
of significant operational metrics and plans, and have continued to
work constructively with carriers and with shippers to resolve service
problems.
IV. RAIL RATE ISSUES
Since it was created nearly 5 years ago, the Board has tackled
several important rail rate matters, and in this regard it has been
responsive to shipper and other concerns in accordance with the law. In
particular, we have been committed to resolving formal and informal
shipper complaints expeditiously, clarifying applicable standards for
resolution of formal complaints, and leveling the playing field to
ensure that the formal process is not used simply to delay final
resolution.
In particular, the Board has established deadlines for rate cases
and procedures to expedite the decisional process, and decisions
resolving large rail rate complaints have refined the standards for
developing the record in these cases. A few of the rate cases have been
made possible by the Board's judicially-approved decisions in the
``bottleneck'' cases, which construed the statute as permitting
challenges to bottleneck rates (rates for a segment of a through
movement that is served by a single carrier) whenever the shipper has a
contract over the non-bottleneck segment. As I have already noted, we
recently modified the market dominance rules to streamline the process
for handling rate complaints, and I feel confident that this action
will be upheld by the court in the appeal brought by the railroads. The
``constrained market pricing'' (CMP) procedure for determining whether
or not a rate is reasonable is now a well accepted way of measuring
rate reasonableness for larger rate cases. Shippers have won
substantial relief in major rate cases that have been decided by the
Board. Some new large rate cases are pending, and several others have
been settled without involvement of the Board.
The Board has also adopted simplified rules for small rail rate
cases. However, no such cases have been brought to date under these
rules. Concerns remain that those rules are still too complex. In my
letter to Chairman McCain and Senator Hutchison, I explained that the
Board's rules reflect the statute and the standards that must be
balanced, but I also recommended that Congress consider adopting a
single benchmark test or some other simplified procedure for small rate
cases to address process concerns.
V. SUMMARY
I believe that the Board has compiled a solid record of responding
in significant ways to concerns raised about the rail sector through
``common sense government,'' promoting private-sector initiative and
resolution where appropriate and undertaking vigilant government
oversight and action where necessary in accordance with the law. The
focus of any action affecting the rail sector should be on how best to
achieve adequate rail service at reasonable rates for all users. At the
same time, we need to ensure an appropriate level of capital
reinvestment so that carriers are able to provide adequate service with
a rail system that can be sustained and is able to grow to meet the
needs of the public. We have learned that the rail system is fragile,
and there is little margin for error. Any decision that we make now
will have a profound impact on the transportation system of the future.
This concludes my written testimony. As I stated earlier, I am
including a copy of my December 1998 letter to the leadership of the
Senate Commerce Committee and the Board's March 17 rail merger
moratorium decision.
______
Attachment 1
Surface Transportation Board,
Washington, DC, December 21, 1998.
The Honorable John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCain and Chairman Hutchison: In our letter of June
30, 1998, Vice Chairman Owen and I reported to you on the Board's
recent informational hearings to examine issues of rail access and
competition in today's railroad industry. After summarizing the
testimony, the Board responses to the testimony (including the Board's
April 17 decision, copy attached hereto as Addendum A), and further
actions that might be taken by Congress, our letter reported on certain
ongoing private-sector initiatives. The purpose of this follow-up
letter is to inform you of the outcome of the Board's proceedings and
the private-sector initiatives undertaken as a result of the hearings;
and to suggest possible ways in which related issues that are still
outstanding might be addressed.
1. Board Proceedings.--As we pointed out in our prior letter, the
Board initiated rulemaking proceedings addressing market dominance and
service inadequacies. The Board has completed those proceedings. In
Market Dominance Determinations--Product and Geographic Competition,
STB Ex Parte No. 627 (STB served Dec. 21, 1998), the Board repealed the
product and geographic competition tests of the market dominance rules.
This change applies to both large and small rail rate cases. In Relief
for Service Inadequacies, STB Ex Parte No. 628 (STB served Dec. 21,
1998), the Board issued rules giving shippers and smaller railroads
opportunities to obtain service from alternate carriers during periods
of poor service, using either the emergency service or the access
provisions of the law. Copies of these decisions are attached as
Addenda B and C.
2. Railroad Industry Discussions.--One of the issues that arose at
the Board's hearings was the desire of smaller railroads to eliminate
industry restrictions on their ability to compete. The Board directed
the railroads to address this issue through private-sector discussions.
As our earlier letter noted, the large and small railroads separately
indicated that they were having some difficulties in reaching
agreement, but the Board encouraged them to continue their dialogue,
and indicated that it would take action, as appropriate, if they did
not reach agreement. We are pleased to report that in September, an
agreement was reached, portions of which were formally approved by the
Board. A copy of the Board's press release announcing the agreement is
attached as Addendum D.
3. AAR/NGFA Agreement.--In our June 30 letter, we advised you that,
consistent with the Board's preference that private parties seek non-
litigative dispute resolution mechanisms, the railroads were meeting
with the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) in an effort to
arrive at an agreement on a mandatory arbitration program to resolve
certain disputes. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the
NGFA recently announced such an agreement. A copy of the AAR/NGFA press
release describing the agreement is attached as Addendum E.
4. Formalized Dialogue Among Railroads and Shippers.--Another issue
that arose at the Board's hearings involved the concern of some
shippers that railroads had not been adequately communicating with
them. To address this concern, the Board directed railroads to
establish formalized dialogue with their shippers and their employees,
particularly about service issues in general, small shipper issues, and
any other relevant matters. The railroads have organized and conducted
discrete and formalized meetings with various shippers and shipper
groups throughout the Nation. The meetings, which have been attended by
Chairman Morgan, were held in Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; Atlanta, GA;
Newark, NJ; and Portland, OR. AAR's letter to the Board describing the
meetings and the follow-up actions to be taken--including, among other
things, issuance of performance reports by each of the large railroads,
development of a plan for facilitating interline movements, and
continuation of the outreach meetings--is attached as Addendum F. The
Board, which supports the continued dialogue that the AAR letter
promises, will be closely monitoring all of these follow-up steps. In
addition to the AAR letter, a letter from various shippers regarding
those meetings, and Chairman Morgan's response to that letter, are
attached as Addenda G and H.
5. Additional Railroad/Shipper Discussions.--Other shipper concerns
that were raised at the Board's hearings involved railroad ``revenue
adequacy'' and the Board's competitive access rules in general.
Concluding that each of these issues could be better addressed
initially in a private-sector rather than governmental forum, the Board
directed railroads to meet with shipper groups to address the issues
under the auspices of an Administrative Law Judge. Although extensive
meetings were conducted, the parties could not reach agreement on these
issues. Attached as Addendum I are copies of the reports that the
parties submitted to the Board on their recommendations as to these
issues.
Revenue Adequacy.--Although the concept of revenue adequacy has
thus far had minimal real-world impact, the existing judicially
approved revenue adequacy measurement, which focuses on a railroad's
return on investment, has been a source of controversy. Based on
suggestions from railroad and shipper representatives at the Ex Parte
No. 575 hearing, the Board directed railroads to meet with shippers
with a view toward selecting a panel of three disinterested experts to
make recommendations as to an appropriate revenue adequacy standard,
and to name a panel and report back to the Board by May 15, 1998. The
panel was then to report back with final recommendations on July 15,
1998.
Shippers opposed this approach, contending that it would be
expensive and inefficient for them to pay part of the costs of the
expert panel, while also paying for litigation associated with the
conduct of the proceeding before the panel and the Board (and,
presumably, if either side wanted to litigate further, the courts).
Ultimately, most of the participating shippers recommended that the
Board itself initiate a new rulemaking looking to adoption of a revenue
adequacy approach that would permit the Board to consider a variety of
financial indicators in determining whether railroads are revenue
adequate.\1\ By contrast, contending that the multiple indicator
approach advanced by the shippers would not provide enough certainty or
predictability, the railroads supported the expert neutral panel
approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The shippers indicated that, given the Board's own resources
and their own priorities, they would not object if the Board deferred
this rulemaking until a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Access.--The Board directed railroads and shippers to
attempt to find common ground, and to meet, negotiate, and report back
to the Board by August 3, 1998. After extensive meetings, the parties
reached an impasse. The principal areas of concern involved the
definition of terminal areas; the scope of reciprocal switching;
appropriate compensation to an incumbent carrier; and, perhaps most
fundamentally, whether access to other carriers ought to be required
only when an incumbent carrier has acted in some sort of an
anticompetitive way, or whether it ought to be provided whenever
additional competition is determined to be in the public interest.
6. Possible Resolutions of Revenue Adequacy, Competitive Access,
and Small Rate Case Issues.--The Board appreciates the opportunity to
assist Congress in addressing the transportation issues that face the
Nation during these important times and believes that it has
appropriately addressed matters of concern within the scope of the
authority given to it by Congress. Nevertheless, it is likely that
certain legislative proposals will be discussed in Congress during the
next session. Following are some thoughts on some of the issues as to
which legislative proposals are likely.
Revenue Adequacy.--The revenue adequacy issue, in our view, has
unnecessarily polarized the transportation community. The underlying
policy objective--that the Board's regulatory approach among other
goals permit railroads to earn adequate revenues--is a laudable one
that should be retained. As we see it, however, and as we have
testified before, the revenue adequacy status of any particular
railroad has little practical effect. Revenue adequacy is not a factor
in maximum rate cases prosecuted under the ``stand-alone cost'' (SAC)
methodology. It is not a factor in construction, merger, or abandonment
proceedings. Revenue adequacy does play a small role in rate cases
brought under the ``small case'' guidelines, but to date, no such cases
have been brought. Therefore, Congress may wish to consider
legislatively abolishing the requirement that the Board determine on a
regular basis which railroads are revenue adequate.
That is not to say that Congress should abandon the concept of
revenue adequacy. As we have testified before, in order to oversee the
industry, the Board needs to have some indication of how the industry
is faring financially. Moreover, revenue adequacy is one of the non-SAC
constraints in the Board's ``constrained market pricing'' (CMP)
methodology for handling larger maximum rate cases. Although, thus far,
all railroad rate cases brought under CMP have been handled under SAC
procedures, if a ``revenue adequacy'' case were brought, the Board
would need a basis on which to address it.
For those reasons, and because Congress may not wish to abolish the
revenue adequacy requirement immediately, the questions that have been
raised about the Board's current revenue adequacy methodology cannot be
ignored. With its credibility on the issue under challenge by several
shippers, however, the Board, with its limited resources, does not plan
to undertake the shippers' proposed rulemaking at this time. Rather,
given the benefits, the Board continues to support the expert panel
approach that was suggested by both shipper and railroad interests
during the Board's Ex Parte No. 575 hearings. The shippers are correct
that someone would need to provide funding for the expert panel; that
costs rise as layers of litigation are added to the regulatory process;
and that it is the Board, and not a private expert panel, that is
charged with establishing regulatory procedures. Nevertheless, the
Board is willing to make a commitment to give great deference to the
expert panel, which would be a competent body that would be perceived
as neutral if selected after agreement among the private parties. If
the private parties were also to give the expert panel deference,
rather than to litigate should they disagree with its (and the Board's)
conclusions, then not only would the parties' confidence in the
objectivity of the process likely be enhanced, but the overall costs
also would likely be contained.
Competitive Access.--In its Ex Parte No. 575 decision served April
17, 1998, the Board addressed in some detail the implications of the
competitive access debate. The differences between the railroads and
the shippers on the Board's competitive access rules are fundamental,
and they raise basic policy issues--concerning the appropriate role of
competition, differential pricing, and how railroads earn revenues and
structure their services--that are more appropriately resolved by
Congress than by an administrative agency. Moreover, the so-called
``bottleneck cases,'' which involve issues related to competitive
access, are still being reviewed in court. For those reasons, although
the Board has moved aggressively to adopt the new rules described above
to open up access during times of poor service, the Board does not plan
to initiate administrative action to otherwise revisit the competitive
access rules at this time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Should Congress choose to review the issue, we would note, as
we did in our April 17 decision, that the shape and condition of the
rail system that open access would produce is a significant but
unresolved issue. Certain shippers assume that the replacement of
differential pricing by purely competitive pricing would reduce the
rates paid by shippers, and that added competition would result in
increased infrastructure investment. The railroads, by contrast, argue
that, because their traffic base would shrink, the rates paid by those
shippers that would continue to receive service would actually
increase, even as overall revenues received by railroads would decline,
because the overall traffic base from which costs could be recovered
would be reduced. Additionally, as the Board noted in the April 17
decision, carriers could be expected to seek to maintain an adequate
rate of return by cutting their costs, which could include shedding
unprofitable lines and reducing new investment in infrastructure. Thus,
while certain shipper representatives believe that an open access
system would ensure better service, concern has been raised that,
unless smaller railroads were able to fill in service gaps that could
be created, open access could produce a smaller rail system that would
serve fewer shippers, and a different mix of customers, than are served
today, with different types and levels of, and perhaps more selectively
provided, service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Rate Cases.--As you know, the Board has adopted small rate
case guidelines, which apply in cases in which CMP cannot be
practicably used. Under these small case guidelines, the Board reviews
the profits that the carrier obtains from the challenged rate from
three perspectives: it compares them with the profits that railroads in
general earn from comparable traffic; it compares them with the level
of profits that the carrier would need to obtain from all of its
potentially captive traffic in order to become ``revenue adequate'';
and it compares them with the profits that the defendant carrier earns
on all of its potentially captive traffic. Taken together, these three
comparisons are designed to permit carriers to price ``differentially''
as provided under the law, in a way that will promote their financial
health, while still protecting individual shippers from bearing an
unfair share of a particular carrier's revenue needs. Although the
procedures may sound complex, in fact the information needed to make
this sort of a case is readily available at reasonable cost. Moreover,
the Board concluded, after reviewing many years of debate, that these
guidelines are the only procedures that have been identified that
readily address each of the concerns that the Board must consider under
the statute.
Nevertheless, we are aware that certain shippers are concerned
that, for small cases, anything other than a single benchmark test
could unreasonably impede access to the regulatory process. If Congress
agrees, it could adopt specific small rate case standards. As an
example, it could provide that, for certain types of cases, all rates
above a specified revenue-to-variable cost ratio, or series of ratios,
would be considered unreasonable. If this approach were to follow the
tenets of the existing statute, the specifics of such an approach--for
example, the cases to which it would apply, and the level or levels at
which rates might be capped--would have to balance issues such as
differential pricing and railroad revenue need against the fairness in
requiring captive shippers to pay substantially higher prices than
competitive shippers.
7. The Override of Railroad Collective Bargaining Agreements.--
Another matter that may be presented to Congress next year is the
question of limiting the authority of arbitrators under the standard
labor conditions imposed by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) or
the Board to modify existing collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in
the process of implementing approved rail consolidations. This process
has become extremely controversial since a decision of the Supreme
Court in 1991. That decision, Norfolk & Western Ry. v. American Train
Dispatchers Ass'n, 499 U.S. 117 (1991) (N&W), held that the exemption
from all other laws to carry out approved rail consolidations provided
by former 49 U.S.C. 11341(a) and carried forward as 49 U.S.C. 11321(a)
extends to existing CBAs and operates automatically to permit the
override of CBA provisions as necessary for implementation of an
approved rail consolidation.
Present practice for implementing Board-approved rail
consolidations is for the unions and the railroads involved to
negotiate agreements to enable implementation of the Board-approved
transaction. If they are unable to agree, the matter is submitted to an
arbitrator selected by the parties or the National Mediation Board if
the parties cannot agree on the choice of an arbitrator. Because the
arbitrator is acting under section 11321(a), he or she has the
authority and the obligation to modify existing CBAs as necessary to
carry out the transaction.
In the recent Conrail Acquisition\3\ decision, at the request of
the various labor organizations, the Board specifically declined to
make a finding in its decision approving the transaction that
overriding provisions in Conrail CBAs was necessary to carry out the
transaction. Rather, the Board specifically left the determination of
necessity to the process of negotiation and, if necessary, arbitration.
Even more recently, in the Carmen\4\ decision, the Board elaborated on
the limitations on arbitrators' authority to modify CBAs as permitted
by the Supreme Court's N&W decision. In Carmen the Board held that
overrides of CBAs by arbitrators are limited, among other things, to
the override authority exercised by arbitrators during the period 1940-
1980, an era marked by labor/management peace regarding the
implementation of rail consolidations. A copy of the Carmen decision is
attached as Addendum J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern
Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company--Control and Operating
Leases/Agreements--Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation, STB
Finance Docket No. 33388, Decision No. 89 (STB served July 23, 1998).
\4\ CSX Corporation--Control--Chessie System, Inc. and Seaboard
Coast Line Industries, Inc. (Arbitration Review), Finance Docket No.
28905 (Sub-No. 22), and Norfolk Southern Corporation--Control--Norfolk
and Western Railway Company and Southern Railway Company (Arbitration
Review), Finance Docket No. 29430 (Sub-No. 20) (STB served Sept. 25,
1998). This decision was not appealed by any party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, the Board is aware that labor representatives oppose,
and are understandably dissatisfied with, any provision or action that
permits overriding any existing CBA provisions. If Congress were to
agree with their position, given the Supreme Court decision in N&W,
some modification of section 11321(a) so as to exclude CBAs, or some
other legislative expression, could address labor's concerns in this
area.
8. Conclusion.--Again, we appreciate the confidence that Congress
has shown by allowing us to play a role in this important process, and
we remain committed to providing a forum for constructive dialogue and
appropriate regulatory relief. If we can be of further assistance in
this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Linda J. Morgan,
Chairman.
______
Attachment 2
SERVICE DATE--LATE RELEASE MARCH 17, 2000
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION
STB EX PARTE NO. 582
PUBLIC VIEWS ON MAJOR RAIL CONSOLIDATIONS
DECIDED: MARCH 16, 2000
OVERVIEW
This proceeding was triggered by a notice filed on December 20,
1999, indicating that another major railroad merger application was
imminent.\1\ The railroad industry has consolidated aggressively in
recent years; now that Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) has been
divided between CSX and NS, only six large railroads remain in the
United States and Canada.\2\ In an order issued on December 28,
1999,\3\ we stated that, if the BNSF/CN proceeding went forward, we
would consider not only the direct impacts of that combination, but
also evidence of the cumulative impacts and crossover effects that
would likely occur as other railroads developed strategic responses in
reaction to the proposed combined new system. Additionally, given the
prospect of significant further consolidation within the railroad
industry, and our concern that the railroad industry and the shipping
public have not yet recovered from the service disruptions associated
with the previous round of mergers, we opened this proceeding to obtain
public views on the subject of major rail consolidations and the
present and future structure of the North American rail industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In particular, The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
Company and Canadian National Railway Company filed a notice of intent
to file, on approximately March 20, 2000, an application seeking Board
authorization under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 and 49 CFR part 1180 for a major
transaction (referred to as the BNSF/CN transaction) under which the
two railroads would be brought under common control.
\2\ The six are: The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
Company (BNSF); Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP); CSX
Transportation, Inc. (CSX); Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS);
Canadian National Railway Company (CN); and Canadian Pacific Railway
Company (CP). Two smaller U.S. Class I railroads (Grand Trunk Western
Railroad Incorporated and Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC)) are
affiliated with CN. A third smaller U.S. Class I railroad (Soo Line
Railroad Company) is affiliated with CP. A fourth smaller U.S. Class I
railroad (The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS)) remains
independent but has entered into a comprehensive alliance with CN and
IC.
\3\ Canadian National Railway Company, Grand Trunk Western Railroad
Incorporated, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Corporation, and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
Company--Common Control, STB Finance Docket No. 33842, Decision Nos. 1
& 1A (STB served Dec. 28, 1999) (published in the Federal Register on
Jan. 4, 2000, at 65 FR 318).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this proceeding, we took written and oral testimony from
all sectors associated with the rail industry: large and small rail
carriers; large and small shippers representing various commodity
groups; intermodal and third party transportation providers; rail
employees; state and local interests; financial analysts and
economists; and Members of Congress and other federal agencies. Certain
parties expressed support for a radical overhaul of the entire
regulatory scheme; some parties expressed support for a ``business-as-
usual'' approach to rail regulation in general and rail mergers in
particular; still others took the view that no more rail mergers should
be permitted under any circumstances. But the overwhelming weight of
the testimony, particularly the oral testimony, was that, at a minimum,
our merger policy must be reexamined--and must be reexamined now--
before any new major mergers are processed. Because we conclude that
the rail community is not in a position to now undertake what will
likely be the final round of restructuring of the North American
railroad industry, and because our current rules are simply not
appropriate for addressing the broad concerns associated with reviewing
business deals geared to produce two transcontinental railroads, we
agree.
We recognize that the Government is not in the business of drawing
railroad maps, and we are not attempting to do so in this proceeding.
We are also aware that the law that we administer generally
contemplates private initiatives that are then subjected to regulatory
scrutiny. But we are required to take actions and to fashion
regulations that advance our mandate--under which we are to approve
mergers only to the extent consistent with the public interest, and
under which we are to promote a safe and sound rail system that runs
smoothly and efficiently to provide service for rail customers--in a
manner that is consistent with the overall rail transportation policy
established by Congress.\4\ Not only would it be impracticable for us
to try to act on a final round of mergers while we are in the process
of developing new merger rules, it would also be disruptive to the rail
system and to rail service that remains well below acceptable levels in
many areas. The disruption would go far beyond the specific interests
of BNSF and CN and the carriers that compete with them;\5\ it could
irreparably damage the entire industry, to the detriment of the
interests of shippers, rail employees, and the national economy and
defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The merger provisions of 49 U.S.C. 11324 direct the Board to
consider the public interest in general and, in particular, the
adequacy of transportation to the public; inclusion of other rail
carriers in particular mergers; and financial, employee, and
competitive issues. The rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101,
which guides us in our regulatory activities, directs us, among other
things, to promote safety, efficiency, good working conditions, an
economically sound and competitive rail transportation system, and the
needs of the public and the national defense.
\5\ We fully understand that our mandate is to protect competition,
not particular competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, through this decision, we are announcing that, over the
next 15 months, we will initiate and complete a proceeding that will
provide new merger rules. To permit the development of the new rules,
and to ensure that the industry has had the opportunity to fully
recover from service problems associated with recent mergers without
the distractions associated with consideration of additional mergers,
we will maintain the status quo by ordering a suspension of all merger
activity, categorized as major transactions, until after the final
merger rules are issued, or a total period of 15 months.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In particular, within 20 days, we will issue an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) suggesting areas in which new merger
rules can be developed addressing the concerns that have been raised.
(We are not in a position to propose specific rules at this time
because, while several parties raised broad issues of concern, specific
rule changes were not the focus of our hearing.) We will provide a
total of approximately 60 days for comments and replies to the ANPR,
and then, within an additional 120 days, we will issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR). We will provide a total of 100 days for
comments, replies, and rebuttal with respect to the NPR, and then,
within an additional 150 days, we will issue final rules (a total of
approximately 15 months from now).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
As indicated, our hearing was triggered by the announcement that
BNSF and CN seek to merge. This announcement came as the rail sector
and the shipping public have been struggling to recover from the
disruptions associated with the most recent round of mergers. Those
consolidations regrettably have been accompanied by a number of serious
service problems, and, while service levels have shown improvement in
certain areas, overall, service is clearly not where it should be.
Promised customer benefits have not yet been fully realized, and
carrier relationships with customers, rail employees, and local
communities have been strained. The performance of railroad stock
market equities has been trending downward since the service problems
developed in the East, taking a particularly sharp turn downward
immediately after the BNSF/CN merger proposal was announced. If it
continues, the downturn in the stock value, reflecting a loss of
investor confidence, could threaten the capital investment that is
needed by the rail industry to ensure that service improvements and
growth can be sustained.
BNSF and CN have argued that their consolidation proposal should be
examined on its own merits now, because it is a good one that will
produce benefits for the shipping public. But regardless of the merits
of the BNSF/CN proposal standing alone, many parties expressed concern
that, if the BNSF/CN proceeding goes forward, that proposal will not go
forward alone. Indeed, the Class I railroads have clearly stated that
they would find it necessary to respond in kind, and there is a
substantial possibility that, absent decisive action on our part, in
the very near future, we will likely be left with the prospect of only
two large railroads serving North America. We at the Board, like
members of the shipping public, are seriously concerned about the
competitive consequences of this level of industry restructuring, and,
in any event, about whether it would be in the public interest at this
time, while the industry is still recovering from service difficulties
and other disruptions associated with the last round of major rail
consolidations. And so we held a hearing to help us address the
important issues relating to major rail consolidations and the present
and future structure of the North American railroad industry.
At the hearing, several significant themes kept recurring. We heard
from Members of Congress, federal and state government agencies,
shippers, and employees about poor service; the threat that another
round of proposed mergers would further degrade service; and the need
to let some time pass so that railroads, their employees, and their
customers can catch their breath before the industry embarks upon what
will likely be the final round of mergers. We heard from shippers and
Members of Congress about the threat that another round of mergers
would pose to competition in the industry, and we heard from a
significant number of participants about the need for new rules to
govern future mergers. We heard from Department of Transportation
Secretary Rodney Slater that the BNSF/CN transaction should not be
reviewed under a ``business as usual'' approach. And we heard from
railroads and from members of the financial community about the
financial instability of the industry, which could be further
threatened by a new round of major mergers. We will discuss each of
those issues.
THE TESTIMONY
1. Service Instability.--Rail mergers are pursued to increase
efficiency and to improve service. At least at the beginning, however,
service disruptions have accompanied the implementation of recent large
mergers, and many shippers have experienced substantial adverse impacts
in connection with the last round of mergers, beginning with the
combination of the BN and SF systems, proceeding with the UP
acquisition of the Southern Pacific (SP) system, and ending with the
acquisition and division of Conrail by CSX and NS.\7\ The overwhelming
testimony at our hearing indicated that the shipping public has still
not recovered from those disruptions. Shippers described the problems
that they faced, and that many continue to face, as a result of their
inability to obtain reliable service. Railroad chief executive officers
(CEOs) involved in the last round of mergers testified how difficult
merger implementation can be, even with the best planning and with the
experiences of prior mergers to guide them. Small railroads testified
that their ability to participate in the transportation business has
been threatened by poor service. A senior rail equity research analyst
whose firm is not representing any railroad in the newly initiated
round of rail merger negotiations reported on a survey that he had
conducted of large institutional investors that he advises. He
testified that poor service is partially responsible for the lack of
investor confidence in the railroad industry, and that many investors
do not want further mergers at this time, nor do they want the
legislative changes (which they view as reregulation) that they fear
further mergers will precipitate.\8\ And the regular service
performance reports provided by the railroad industry indicate that,
while service is improving on some fronts, overall, it is still below
where it needs to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We have also recently approved CN's application to control IC,
but that transaction, which is largely end-to-end, has not yet been
fully implemented.
\8\ Representatives of investment firms that are advising the
applicants in the BNSF/CN proceeding (who also do not want what they
describe as reregulation) pointed out that there is no way to know
definitively what is driving rail stock prices downward, and that the
drop in rail stock prices could simply be related to many of the same
factors that are depressing the stocks of companies in other ``old
economy'' industries. We do not doubt that the drop in rail stock
prices is attributable to many sources, but it is clear that the
current service disruptions and the announcement of the proposed BNSF/
CN transaction have played a role. We believe that the potential for
further disruption that would accompany the initiation of a final round
of mergers at this time concern investors, who do not currently view
railroad mergers as a positive because, overall, these mergers have not
yet produced the good financial results that were promised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why many of the shippers testifying--both large and small--
asked us not to permit any further mergers at this time, and certainly
not without a change in the way in which we evaluate mergers. Similar
sentiments were expressed by Members of Congress, representatives of
small railroads, and representatives of railroad employees.\9\ Even the
CEOs of the large eastern railroads stated that initiation of a new
round of mergers would require them to focus on structural and
management changes necessary to protect their own positions in the
market, rather than on improving their below-par service. In short, in
light of the service issues attending prior mergers and looming over
future mergers, we heard widespread concern that any major
consolidations at this time would not be in the national interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Clinton Miller, testifying on behalf of the United
Transportation Union (the largest railroad union), alluded to both
employee dislocations and service disruptions in support of his request
for a hold on further mergers. Mark Filipovic of the International
Association of Machinists expressed the view that recent mergers did
not produce what was promised for railroads, shippers, or employees.
Michael Wolly, representing three unions, requested a hold on further
mergers until the issues associated with employee dislocations are
resolved. And a number of the representatives of rail employees
expressed concern about the fact that, under the BNSF/CN proposal, a
major U.S. railroad would become foreign-controlled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Competitive Issues.--For several years, parties involved with
the railroad industry have engaged in debate over competitive issues.
Many shippers are of the view that prior consolidations have left large
railroads with too much market power, and they seek various remedies to
``level the playing field.'' In our hearing, there were repeated
expressions--even from shippers with substantial market power, such as
United Parcel Service and General Motors--of the view that the rail
industry is becoming too concentrated.
Various remedies were suggested to address this concern about
concentration. Some shippers asked us to revisit the issues that we
studied in-depth 2 years ago in our proceeding in Review of Rail Access
and Competition Issues, STB Ex Parte No. 575. They would like us to
change the rules in a variety of ways so as to promote more rail-to-
rail competition throughout the industry. But short of a complete
overhaul of the existing regulatory system (which the financial
analysts and economists testifying at the hearing suggested could
introduce an additional level of uncertainty and risk into the
industry, thereby harming shippers by lowering aggregate rail
investment below those levels necessary for railroads to maintain and
improve service), a significant number of shippers stated that we need
to adopt new merger rules to ensure that competition will not be
curtailed further in the event that the industry seeks to merge itself
into a duopoly.
3. New Merger Rules.--Thus, for a variety of reasons--some related
to service, some related to competition, and some, such as those
expressed by Transportation Secretary Slater and representatives of
rail employees, related to safety--there was substantial support at our
hearing for a broad review of and revision to the rules governing major
rail mergers. We agree.
Our existing merger policy guidelines were adopted by the
Interstate Commerce Commission soon after passage of the Staggers Act
of 1980. At that time, good government required a merger policy that,
while recognizing the importance of competition, would encourage
railroads to formulate proposals that would help rationalize excess
capacity in the industry.
The goals of that merger policy have largely been achieved. It does
not appear that there are significant public interest benefits to be
realized from further downsizing or rationalizing of rail route
systems, as there is little of that activity left to do. Looking
forward, the key problem faced by railroads--how to improve
profitability through enhancing the service provided to their
customers--is linked to adding to insufficient infrastructure, not to
eliminating excess capacity.
The testimony convinces us that our rules need to be reexamined.
Given the current transportation environment, and with the prospect of
a transportation system composed of as few as two transcontinental
railroads, we may wish to revisit our approach to competitive issues
such as the ``one-lump theory'' and the ``three-to-two'' question;
downstream effects; the important role of smaller railroads in the rail
network; service performance issues; how we should look at the types of
benefits to be considered in the balancing test, and how we monitor
benefits; how we should view alternatives to merger, such as alliances;
employee issues such as ``cramdown;'' and the international trade and
foreign control issues that would be raised by any CN or CP proposal to
combine with any large U.S. railroad. As Transportation Secretary
Slater pointed out, the sheer size of these potential new mergers poses
unique risks and leaves no margin for error: if these mergers were to
fail, or lead to service problems, the effects could be devastating for
both the rail industry and the shippers that depend on rail service. We
must be sure that our merger review process takes these risks into
account.
discussion and conclusions
Accordingly, we have concluded that we must revisit our merger
rules, and that in the meantime we must maintain the status quo by
directing large railroads to suspend merger activity pending the
development of new rules. We understand those parties that argue that
each case should be viewed on its own merits without regard to the
prospect of future consolidation, but we cannot close our eyes to the
fact that the mere consideration of any major merger now would likely
generate responsive proposals that, if approved, could result in a
North American duopoly.\10\ Before proceeding down that path, we must
make sure that we have the appropriate guidelines in place to assure
that we can properly assess and fully protect the public interest in
each individual case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The CEOs for BNSF and CN have stated that there is no reason
why their merger should necessarily instigate any responsive action by
any other railroad. But recent history shows otherwise; indeed, the UP
takeover of the SP was a response to the BNSF merger. And CEOs of the
other major railroads have stated that they would look to future
mergers of their own as strategic responses to the BNSF/CN transaction.
Indeed, Richard Davidson, CEO of UP, stated that his company strongly
considered a merger with CP as a response to the recent CN takeover of
the IC, but ultimately concluded that it would be better off focusing
on issues other than mergers under the circumstances prevailing at that
time. Given the size of the BNSF/CN transaction, we have no reason to
doubt the assertions of the CEOs of the major railroads that if it goes
forward, they would have no choice but to seek their own merger
partners, and that in a short time, we could be faced with the prospect
of a North American duopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their oral testimony, the CEOs of BNSF and CN recognized the
argument that certain new requirements may need to be imposed on future
merger proposals, but nevertheless urged us to proceed with
consideration of their merger proposal now, developing any new
requirements in the context of their application proceeding. We realize
that administrative agencies can choose to develop new rules either by
rulemaking or in individual adjudications, but in choosing which course
to take, we consider what makes sense. Here, it simply makes no sense
to attempt to develop new merger rules in the middle of what could
likely be the final round of major railroad mergers.\11\ New merger
rules will be a major undertaking, and we will not know what the rules
will look like until the process is over. Yet, under the BNSF/CN
approach, we could be reviewing merger proposals involving at least
four, and possibly all six, of the large North American railroads
before we have had an opportunity to reexamine and reformulate our
merger policy. The evidentiary filings in such cases are massive, and
yet none of the parties would know what they would be expected to show
until new rules are formulated. And then, at the end, once the rules
are known, it is not only possible, but quite likely, that the merger
process would have to start all over again. Thus, while BNSF and CN may
see some benefit to themselves from such a procedure, the process would
be inherently uncertain, could lead to substantial instability in the
industry, and thus does not represent good government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We should note that the representatives of the Departments of
Agriculture and Defense expressed the view that we should permit no
major mergers at this time. Moreover, Transportation Secretary Slater
urged us to make numerous and potentially complex changes to our merger
rules that, if they are to be applied evenly to all future mergers,
could not be practically effected in the middle of individual merger
proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are very serious risks associated with proceeding with
individual merger proposals at this time, before we have new rules in
place. The disruption that has beset the railroad industry in
connection with the last round of mergers could reach unprecedented
levels. Carriers whose management should be focused on fixing their
service problems would instead be fixated on finding merger partners,
defending their proposals, and responding in the regulatory arena to
other carriers' proposals. Investors, who have forsaken the railroad
industry in favor of businesses that they have come to believe may have
more favorable future prospects, could devalue the industry further.
And railroads could find it more difficult to finance the capital
improvements necessary to provide the better service that is key to
their financial revitalization. In short, the already fragile rail
industry could be further destabilized.
We understand BNSF/CN's view that holding up their merger
application proceeding would itself be viewed negatively by the
financial markets as creating uncertainty. We disagree, as we do not
see how anything could be more uncertain than moving forward without
appropriate rules in place at the beginning to govern the proceeding,
particularly at a time when uncertainty already surrounds the rail
sector. Furthermore, investors have come to view rail mergers in a less
than positive financial light, and we can see proceeding with the BNSF/
CN proposal at this time as only adding to that negative environment.
In this regard, we should note that there is clearly sentiment within
the financial community--from those analysts who closely followed our
hearing--that a delay in merger activity, while new rules are
developed, would tend to reduce uncertainty for rail investors, help to
stabilize rail financial markets, and provide an impetus for increasing
rail share prices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, a Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation rail
stock analyst, in a March 6, 2000 note to investors, stated that our
hearing might ``provide some upside for the stocks if it appears that
the risk of industry consolidation will be pushed further into the
future by the Surface Transportation Board.'' Another analyst, from ING
Barings, in a March 14, 2000 note to investors, predicted that the
Board would impose a merger moratorium, and that, as a result, ``the
industry is full of many buying opportunities,'' including the shares
of BNSF. A March 13, 2000 report by a J.P. Morgan analyst expressed the
view that ``rail stocks would react positively to'' what the analyst
believed was a likely ``mid-term'' (up to 2 years) hold on further
mergers. A Donaldson, Lufkin, and Jenrette rail analyst, in a March 14,
2000 note to investors, explained that rampant pessimism has resulted
in rail securities that ``are selling at near recessionary levels. It
is a reversal of some of this pressure that is exactly what we'd expect
if we are allowed to gain some sense of the regulatory and structural
outlook for the industry as a result of last week's STB hearings.'' A
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter stock analyst, in a March 8, 2000 note to
investors, suggested that a decision by the Board to delay the merger
process would remove some near-term uncertainty and lead to near-term
strength in a number of railroad stock prices, including those of BNSF
and CN. Finally, the Chairman and CEO of Wasserstein, Parella & Co., in
a March 10, 2000 letter to Chairman Morgan, explained that his firm
``feels strongly that allowing the proposed merger to proceed would
place the entire industry in jeopardy,'' since ``the specter of another
round of rail mergers [at this time], which Wall Street is convinced
this transaction will precipitate, will accelerate the flight of
capital'' from the industry. He concludes that the prospect of moving
forward with the BN/CN transaction at this time ``is a serious threat
to the industry's financial health, well being and long-term
prospects.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the serious potential public harms that could
result from going forward, BNSF and CN argue that they will suffer if
consideration of their merger proposal is delayed.\13\ Unless they
expect to escape the new rules that will apply to everyone else,
however, and to hold other mergers at bay until their own is completed,
we do not see how their transaction will not be adversely affected by
the disruption that it would produce throughout the industry. BNSF and
CN suggest that it is not fair to ``penalize'' them for the failures of
others.\14\ But our action here addresses industrywide concerns that
involve all railroads (including BNSF and CN), and in any event, should
not in any way be construed to be punitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ BNSF and CN also argue that delay will defer the public
benefits, such as new single-line service, associated with their
merger. But there are various alternatives to merger that can
approximate those benefits. Indeed, CN and its partner IC currently
participate in an alliance with KCS, a smaller Class I carrier, that
provides all parties many of the benefits of a merger. We note that
both General Motors and United Parcel Service (two of the largest
customers of CN and BNSF), which would presumably reap the largest
benefit from the new single-line service these railroads promise, have
testified in no uncertain terms that they do not want a merger to go
forward at this time, as has KCS, whose CEO stated that the carrier
would not survive as an independent carrier if the BNSF/CN proposal is
implemented.
\14\ We note that the BNSF merger, which was characterized by many,
when it was initially proposed, as a manageable ``end-to-end'' merger,
had its own share of integration problems, and there was some testimony
at the hearing concerning service issues on the CN/IC system, which has
not yet been fully integrated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 49 U.S.C. 11324, we must consider the public interest in
addressing rail mergers, taking into account, at a minimum, adequacy of
transportation to the public; including other rail carriers in the area
involved; competitive effects; financial impacts on the involved
carriers; and impacts on employees. In addition, the rail
transportation policy set out in 49 U.S.C. 10101 directs us, among
other things, to promote safety, efficiency, good working conditions,
an economically sound and competitive rail transportation system, and
the needs of the public and the national defense. For the reasons we
have discussed, we believe that we can best advance all of these
objectives by promptly initiating a rulemaking proceeding to adopt new
rules, as appropriate, and providing a short period for parties to
adjust to the new rules before proceeding with merger proposals. This
approach should provide a degree of stability for what is now a very
fragile industry and permit vital public interest issues to be
addressed on an evenhanded basis for all merger proposals. To go
forward with any individual merger proceeding in the meantime would be
unfair to customers, carriers, employees, and affected communities, and
would disrupt and distract the industry to the detriment of all of the
public interest concerns that we are charged with advancing.
We recognize that our action here is unprecedented. But these are
not ordinary circumstances, and we see no way of adequately protecting
the public interest short of the steps we have outlined here. Congress
has directed us to take such actions as are necessary to carry out our
statutory mandate, 49 U.S.C. 721(a), and has expressly authorized us to
take injunctive-type action to prevent irreparable harm, 49 U.S.C.
721(b)(4).\15\ After considering all of the circumstances, as
elucidated through our extensive hearings, we find that changes in our
merger regulations are necessary now and that no major rail merger
proposals should be filed, or will be considered, until new merger
rules have been established.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The legislative history accompanying section 721(b)(4)
explains that the provision ``explicitly authorizes the [Board] to
issue unilateral emergency injunctive orders to prevent irreparable
harm. This power has been asserted and used by the [Interstate Commerce
Commission] in the past, although not specifically granted by statute.
The Committee intends to confirm the scope of the former ICC power in
this regard. . . .'' H.R. Rep. No. 311, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 124
(1995).
\16\ Accordingly, for the reasons expressed herein, we hereby
suspend the ``Notice of Intent to File'' filed in Canadian National
Railway Company, Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated, Illinois
Central Railroad Company, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, and
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company--Common Control,
STB Finance Docket No. 33842, until such time as new merger rules have
been promulgated and the period set forth in this Decision has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. Class I railroads are directed to suspend activity relating to
any railroad transaction that would be categorized as a major
transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2, pending development of new rules by
the Board, as outlined in this decision. No filings relating to such a
transaction will be accepted for 15 months.
2. This decision is effective on the date of service.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and
Commissioner Clyburn. Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and
Commissioner Clyburn commented with separate expressions.
Chairman Morgan, commenting:
This decision has been one of the most difficult ones that I have
had to make since becoming a member of the Surface Transportation Board
and the Interstate Commerce Commission before it. The Board's action
here directing the suspension of all rail merger activity for a period
of time is particularly difficult for me because, as my record
demonstrates, I do not believe that the government should intervene
into free market processes without a very good reason for doing so. And
I also believe that parties should get fair and expeditious
consideration of matters brought to the Board. But the current problems
facing the rail sector are so extraordinary that an unprecedented
response is necessary. Given the financial and service instability that
exists in the rail sector as a result of the most recent round of major
railroad consolidations, I cannot in good conscience allow further
actions to occur that I believe would run the risk of creating more
disruption and instability to the clear permanent detriment of the
Nation's transportation system, rail employees, rail customers, and
communities across the country.
In this regard, once I decided that a time-out from mergers was
necessary, I proposed a 2-year waiting period before merger
applications could be filed. I firmly believe that a period of that
length is necessary to accomplish all of the goals set forth in the
Board's decision. A lesser time, in my opinion, will simply block the
BNSF/CN proposal without fully achieving the immediate and lasting
stability for which I am striving by taking this unprecedented action.
Nevertheless, although a 2-year period would do more to allow a
thorough reexamination of our merger rules and would permit the rail
sector to adapt to those rules and achieve a firm level of stability
before processing any more major rail consolidation proposals, overall
our action here is clearly on the right track.
While certain interests have favored moving forward with the
proposed BNSF/CN transaction when filed, many others have been opposed
to moving forward with any further consolidation at this time, and
certainly not until our merger rules are revisited. In balancing all of
these concerns in determining what action would be in the greater
public interest here, I have focused on the long-term, as well as
short-term, effects of our actions, and on my concern about what would
be for the greater good of all railroads, rail customers, rail
employees and communities across the country. In view of the
instability in the rail sector, the great risk of further harm from
continued instability and disruption, and the need to promote the
greater public good, it is my strong belief that processing mergers at
this time and for a significant period thereafter would not be in the
public interest.
Vice Chairman Burkes, Commenting:
This decision sets in motion a 15-month rulemaking proceeding to
reevaluate the Board's merger guidelines and imposes a suspension on
all major merger activity during this period. This upcoming proceeding
will be extremely important. Much has changed in the railroad industry
in the nearly twenty years since the majority of our current rules were
established. I believe that it is long past time to step back and
revisit those standards.
The BNSF/CN merger announcement may have triggered this proceeding,
but it is long since overdue. However, it is unfortunate that it was
not held prior to their announcement. Consequently, in addition to
substantive merger rules issues, the application and timing of a
rulemaking proceeding have also become issues.
In this proceeding, we have established a 15-month period to
develop new merger rules. Although this is almost double the period of
time associated with the Board's last two major rulemaking proceedings
(Ex Parte Nos. 627 and 628), the issues here are significant and
complex and will require additional time. Although this proceeding
could be completed in a much shorter time period, 15 months should be
more than adequate for a thorough review of our merger rules.
Several parties have argued for a longer suspension period or
moratorium, i.e., two or more years. I believe this would be much too
long of a period of time. After we have issued our final merger rules,
there would be a minimum of an additional year before any additional
major railroad mergers could be approved. Moreover, the evidence
indicates that railroad service has started to improve after the
disruptions resulting from the past mergers and it is clear that those
problems started long before the BNSF/CN announcement. In addition, a
longer period could add to uncertainty for shippers who are considering
building or relocating facilities or planning to enter into long term
contracts.
In terms of application, I believe that the new railroad merger
guidelines should apply to the proposed BNSF/CN merger and all future
major railroad mergers. I also believe that, in fairness to BNSF and
CN, and to all parties, it is important to resolve these issues in a
timely manner.
Commissioner Clyburn, Commenting:
I stated in my opening remarks to Ex Parte 582 that this proceeding
could be a defining moment concerning rail consolidation issues. Four
full days of listening intently to comments from all sectors of the
rail industry has only strengthened this belief. We have heard
testimony from large railroads, small railroads, large and small
shippers of all types of commodities, rail labor, economists,
government agencies and Members of Congress. While diverse ideas
regarding how the Board should address future consolidations emerged
from the testimony, it was abundantly clear, however, that the time has
come for a thorough review of the Board's current merger rules. Some
did suggest that we proceed with future consolidation utilizing the
same regulatory framework that currently exists, while some others have
suggested that we ``take a breath'' and impose a moratorium on filing
merger applications for two years, three years, or an indefinite period
of time.
It is clear to me that the rail industry has changed dramatically
within the past twenty years since the passage of the Staggers Rail Act
of 1980. Rail consolidations have created a new paradigm in which we
must now operate. Therefore, I support the Board's decision to
institute the 15 month rulemaking process to revise our merger rules
and suspend major merger transactions during this time. Others have
called for longer periods of time to attempt to address uncertainties--
real, perceived, or otherwise. However, my support of the 15 month
suspension is based solely on what I believe to be an appropriate time
frame in which the Board Members and staff can address, appropriately,
the plethora of complex issues the industry currently faces without
unnecessarily suspending merger applications. I believe our approach is
a reasonable one.
Senator Shelby. Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for deferring for me for a question or two at the
outset.
CONRAIL ACQUISITION
Chairman Morgan, you said that you were not satisfied, and
then after the words ``not satisfied,'' followed by what you
were not satisfied about, at this juncture, what is your view
of the desirability? If you had it to do all over again, would
you like to see Conrail divided between Norfolk Southern and
CSX?
Ms. Morgan. I would not undo my decision with respect to
the Conrail acquisition. I believe that the decision that we
made was the right one. There was a full record of support for
that acquisition. There were some who did not support it, as
you know, but there was an overwhelming record for support, and
I believe we made the right decision. We have had integration
problems that have resulted in service difficulties for
shippers, and the Board has been actively involved in resolving
those, in monitoring those and resolving them.
INTEGRATION PROBLEMS
Senator Specter. Well, you said there was a full record of
support. I would say there was a substantial record for
opposition as well. And you talk about integration problems.
Are you satisfied with the progress which has been made on
those so-called integration problems?
Ms. Morgan. Well, I wish that we had not had the problems
that we have had, but I think now we are at a position where we
are seeing service improvement that is sticking. We are seeing
more reliable service, more stable service in the East. Is it
where I would like it to be? No, not yet. Do I wish that the
problems had not occurred? Yes.
Senator Specter. It is not where you would like it to be
yet. Do you have a time frame as to when you think you could
get it to where you would like it to be?
Ms. Morgan. Well, I think each day I want it to be better
than it was the day before, so it is----
Senator Specter. Well, that is obvious, but how long is it
going to take to work out the problems?
Ms. Morgan. Well, I think we are at a critical point--we
are going into the Fall Peak period now, which is a heavy
season in the rail industry, and that will certainly test both
systems in terms of whether they are ready to handle the
increased traffic. That will occur over the next couple of
months, and that will tell us the state of the systems.
I believe both systems going into the Fall Peak are in good
shape to handle the Fall Peak. They have done a lot of
planning, and we have worked very closely with them, but the
test will be the Fall Peak, and that will tell us where the
systems stand.
CSX
Senator Specter. With respect to this problem about,
illustratively, a shipper wants to move freight from
Philadelphia to Chicago, and only, say, CSX goes to Pittsburgh,
would you support a provision which would require CSX to give a
rate, Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, so that the customer might
have a choice from Norfolk Southern and CSX from Pittsburgh to
Chicago?
Ms. Morgan. Well, again, that is part of the discussion
that we have had here today regarding what my statute would
allow me to do, and what customers would like to have happen.
The way my statute works now, I do not add a competitor upon
demand, and there are shippers who would like that to occur,
but that is not the statute that I implement today. If Congress
wants that----
SENATE BILL 621
Senator Specter. Senate Bill 621, introduced by Senator
Rockefeller----
Ms. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Specter [continuing]. Would provide that.
Ms. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Specter. My question to you was, do you think that
is a provision which ought to become law?
Ms. Morgan. Well, I think that what needs to be decided by
Congress is whether the changes that that bill would make would
lead to the kind of rail network that we will be comfortable
with--that is clearly a fundamental change in the policy that
we have in place today. Congress made a decision about the
policy that we should have. That is what I am implementing. If
changes are made in that policy, it will have impacts. There
may be winners and losers, and Congress just needs to
understand that before it makes its decision.
Senator Specter. Well, twice I have tried to get an answer
from you as to whether you think that would be a good change.
Let me make a third effort.
Ms. Morgan. Well, I have answered that in the past. If you
are asking me, do I with certainty today----
Senator Specter. You may have answered it in the past,
there may have been discussions before I got here, but I was
not here before I got here, and I do not know what you did in
the past, and I would like an answer to the simple question, do
you think that there ought to be a compulsion for, say, CSX to
provide transit from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh so that the
customer could have the choice between CSX and Norfolk Southern
for the balance of the ride to Chicago.
Ms. Morgan. If you are asking me, which I think you are, as
a general policy matter, every place there is a shipper that is
only served by one carrier, one rail carrier, if the policy
should be to add another carrier to serve that customer, that
is a change in the policy that we have in place today, and if
you are asking me, am I certain that that will result in the
kind of rail network that we can all be comfortable with, I
cannot tell you that I am. I think it requires more study and
more careful thought before we make that kind of fundamental
change in the Staggers Act. I have testified to that
previously, and I am here today to say that.
Senator Specter. I take that to be a no.
Ms. Morgan. It is not necessarily a no. It is----
Senator Specter. A tentative no?
Ms. Morgan. No, it is not a yes.
Senator Specter. Well, I thank you for that. That certainly
does clarify the matter considerably.
Senator Shelby. Senator Specter, let me see if I understand
what--from, say, Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, you are talking
about just back-to-back competition? I do not see anything
wrong with that.
Senator Specter. Well, Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, as I
understand it maybe hypothetically, but I understand it, CSX
has the sole line, but from Pittsburgh to Chicago, Norfolk
Southern can compete with CSX, so Senator Rockefeller has an
idea, and I think it is a good idea, that requires that CSX
give a customer a rate. This is a lot like deregulation of
electricity, where I was very surprised at the start to hear
that electrical companies could come and use somebody else's
lines, but that is what is going on in America today, and if
CSX has the only line to Pittsburgh, then they get the transit
all the way to Chicago, and I would like to see Norfolk
Southern in a position to compete from the Pittsburgh to
Chicago line. That is my second choice. My first choice is to
have Conrail do it, Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. I remember.
ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT
Senator Specter. But that is my second choice. I believe
that I have Ms. Morgan's view on it. Let me ask you one other
provision of Senator Rockefeller's bill, which eliminates the
requirement that evidence of anti-competitive conduct be
produced when the Surface Transportation Board decides a case
to allow another railroad access to customer facilities within
an area served by the tracks of more than one railroad.
Ms. Morgan. That is the so-called open access provision.
Again, that is in line with my earlier discussion with you.
That would be adding competition in a way that I do not believe
that the current law provides, and, in fact, the courts have,
in reviewing our decisions, clearly stated that we do not
implement, at this point, an open access statute. So the
statute would need to be changed, if that--obviously if you
wanted to get that----
Senator Specter. Well, Congress can change it. We all know
that. Ms. Morgan, why not structure the system so that you give
the customer an opportunity to get competition between Norfolk
Southern and CSX from Pittsburgh to Chicago? As long as CSX has
the only line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, customers are
shut out. Why not open up that competitive opportunity from
Pittsburgh to Chicago, between Norfolk Southern and CSX?
Ms. Morgan. Well----
Senator Specter. Senator Shelby has asked the question a
lot better than I did by five little words: Does current law
inhibit competition?
Ms. Morgan. Well, I can answer both of them----
Senator Specter. That is great.
Ms. Morgan [continuing]. Both of the questions.
Senator Specter. Answer mine first.
Ms. Morgan. When Congress passed the Staggers Act of 1980,
it assumed that there would be captive shippers, and as part of
the policy determination that it made in reforming how the
railroads were regulated, it was assumed that there would be a
rate structure that would recognize that there would be captive
shippers and competitive shippers.
As part of that, there are certain provisions and policies
that lead us to the kinds of decisions that now certain people
are uncomfortable with, whether it be the bottleneck decision
that you referenced, or opening up terminals without
determining whether there is anti-competitive conduct.
Clearly, when Congress made the decision in 1980, it
studied it and made the determination that that was the right
policy at the time. I think if Congress wants to revisit that
policy, that is fine, and my answer to your question earlier is
that that review is fine, but certain questions need to be
asked and answered comfortably for everyone.
Now, the question you asked, which is, does the statute
inhibit competition, I get back to the premise, which is if the
premise is that we do not have enough competition unless every
person that is now served by one railroad would be served by
two railroads, well then our statute does not provide for that.
If on the other hand people are comfortable that there are
``captive shippers,'' which is what the Staggers Act assumes,
then I believe the Board has fulfilled those responsibilities
and reflected the competitive policy.
Senator Shelby. If you are basically interested in
competition, which I think that we are, in certain areas you do
not have competition, is this not true?
Ms. Morgan. But again, as I said, when the Congress passed
the Staggers Act----
Senator Shelby. I understand what Congress did, but we are
talking about what the reality is.
Ms. Morgan. Well, again, but then I get----
Senator Shelby. Before we deregulated the railroads, there
had to be, and I was in the House then, and I was on the
Commerce Committee, in which we dealt with the Staggers Act, we
talked about competition, among other things, and I believe you
have to have competition in lieu of regulation. I will take
competition in lieu of regulation any day or night, but I
believe we have to have competition of some kind--some kind.
That is my own opinion.
Senator Specter. Before Ms. Morgan answered the last
question I asked her a question as to the policy
considerations, as to why not give the Pittsburgh to Chicago
run competition, and it seems to me that it is very, very sad,
and I hope we are able to act on Senator Rockefeller's
legislation.
My sense is that we have had way too many problems arising
from the division by CSX and Norfolk Southern of Conrail. I
think it has not worked out well at all, and I think Congress
has to be much more active in making these policy decisions.
If Chairman Morgan would care to review her testimony and
go to the thrust of my questions and start looking for a public
policy reason, why should CSX have sole control of the
Philadelphia to Chicago run, when there could be an arrangement
where CSX would have to offer up Philadelphia to Pittsburgh,
and then there could be competition. What are the pros and
cons, policy-wise?
I would think that the Chairman of the Surface
Transportation Board could give us a public policy reason
beyond saying, ``Well, this is what the Staggers Act did, and
if Congress wants to do it, they can do it, and the evidence is
not sufficient, and no, that is not a no, but it is not a
yes,'' but besides saying yes or no, I want to figure out what
is best for America.
Ms. Morgan. I am in agreement with you on that.
Senator Specter. Okay. Well, take a look at my questions
and your answers and see if you might be a little more
responsive, but I support what Senator Rockefeller is trying to
do, Mr. Chairman, and I again thank you for your vigilance in
focusing this hearing on a long, hot afternoon.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. I have a statement from Senator
Bond, who is tied up on another appropriations matter that will
be made a part of the record, he is for competition here, as
part of this hearing.
Chairman Morgan, in December 1998, you wrote to the Senate
Commerce Committee and said that the Surface Transportation
Board does not have the authority to increase competition among
railroads. Is this still true?
Ms. Morgan. Yes, it is, and it follows on some of your
questions earlier.
Senator Shelby. Okay. What additional changes are needed?
They would be statutory changes, would they not?
Ms. Morgan. Yes. Again, getting back to your earlier
question.
Senator Shelby. Could you do it through Board policy, or
would you need statutory language?
Ms. Morgan. Well, as I indicated earlier, we have taken
several actions at the Board, which we believe have pushed the
statute in the right direction and pushed the limits of the
statute, and we have been upheld so far, but, again, if the
Congress is interested in adding a competitor where a customer
is served by only one railroad, that is a change in policy and
that would require a change in the law. That is the gist of
the----
Senator Shelby. I alluded earlier to the GAO's February,
1999----
Ms. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Report, which concluded that
70 percent of shippers surveyed, quote, ``Believe that time,
complexity, and cost of filing complaints or barriers'' often
preclude them from seeking rate relief. Is the complaint
process broken, Ms. Morgan?
Ms. Morgan. Well, let me first of all say that we have
worked very hard at the Board to streamline the process. We
have put deadlines on the process, we have clarified standards,
we have resolved cases that have been around longer than they
should have.
Senator Shelby. Does it cost much, though? Is it too
laborious a process?
Ms. Morgan. Well, I think any time you get into a litigious
situation, it is unfortunately cumbersome and costly. That is
just the nature of the business.
Senator Shelby. Is there any way you can minimize the costs
to reflect the size of the company bringing the complaint? In
other words, smaller companies have smaller resources. You know
what I am talking about.
Ms. Morgan. Yes. Well, we have standards that apply to
large rate cases and we have standards that apply to small rate
cases.
Senator Shelby. Okay. You are already into that some.
Ms. Morgan. Right.
Senator Shelby. Okay. On March 7 through 10 of this year,
the Surface Transportation Board, that you chair, held a series
of public hearings about major rail consolidations and the
future of the rail network. The hearings focused on the board's
merger policy and the downstream service effects which Class I
railroad mergers have had on rail service.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has included language
in this year's appropriation bill that will require the STB to
prepare a report, one, that identify the concerns that were
raised in the March 2000, hearings; two, details the actions
that the Board will take to address those concerns; and three,
indicates where the STB lacks the statutory authority to
effectively address these concerns.
Will the Board be able to comply with this requirement and
provide the merger report to this committee by April 1, 2001?
Ms. Morgan. Well, the merger rulemaking process is still
under way. We will not have issued final rules until June 2001,
so it will be difficult for me to report to you before those
rules come out about what we are in the process of completing.
Senator Shelby. Would you report as soon as you can----
Ms. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. More than----
Ms. Morgan. I will be able to do that, yes, if that was the
instruction.
Senator Shelby. Chairman Morgan, the bottleneck decision,
the STB's 1999 bottleneck decision allows a railroad to refuse
to quote a rate for shipping over a segment of a route where
there is competing service available if any part of that total
route to be shipped is served by only one carrier.
Why did the STB believe the bottleneck decision was
appropriate? Does not this decision have the effect of stifling
competition, since shippers may not be able to even get a
competing railroad's rate quote? That has baffled a lot of
people.
Ms. Morgan. Yes. I understand that. First of all, let me
just say that in that decision we did provide some relief for
the shippers. It is not all of what they sought, but we did
provide some relief, and we have been upheld, not only on the
part where we did not provide what they wanted, but also on the
part where we did.
But having said that, we viewed that decision as a
balancing of several interests in the statute. We balanced the
rate and route initiative that is provided to the railroads
under the statute against other interests in the statute, and
we have been upheld in that balancing process.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Morgan, you have been encouraging the
railroads to work together toward a privately negotiated
railroad industry agreement to deal with access restrictions
and other issues that have been raised by the short lines and
regional railroads regarding their treatment by the major
railroads. We have been talking about this.
Ms. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Shelby. As I understand it, the privately
negotiated agreement has been in the works for some time, and
last month you wrote to the railroads again urging them to
refocus on reaching some consensus on these issues. How is the
process moving along? Why do you believe that the Class I
railroads and short lines will be able to reconcile their
differences this time around, when they have not before?
Ms. Morgan. Well, first of all----
Senator Shelby. Realistically, where are we?
Ms. Morgan. Well, first of all, I think it was important
that the smaller railroads and the larger railroads did come to
an agreement under the umbrella of the Board's directive. That
was an important step.
Senator Shelby. Are you optimistic now?
Ms. Morgan. I am always optimistic----
Senator Shelby. I know, but are you optimistic?
Ms. Morgan [continuing]. Or I would not be in this
position.
Senator Shelby. But in view of what has gone on in the
past.
Ms. Morgan. Well, I think what has gone on in the past is
that they have been able to enter into----
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Ms. Morgan [continuing]. An agreement, and I am hopeful
that that same spirit will lead to further private sector
resolution.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Morgan, lastly, the Staggers Act allows
for competition in a rail terminal area by means of either what
they call terminal trackage rights or reciprocal switching. Can
you cite some instances where an STB decision has required a
railroad to grant competing railroad terminal trackage rights
or reciprocal switching rights?
Ms. Morgan. Well, in the----
Senator Shelby. If so, how successful have they been?
Ms. Morgan. Well, in the context of the merger proceedings,
we have provided for trackage rights relief, and so forth.
Outside of the merger context, we have not provided relief. The
Board has had a few cases, one case that I remember
specifically, where that relief was denied.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. We have a vote on the floor in a few
minutes. I appreciate your testimony and I appreciate your
indulgence. I am hoping you are going to be able to work out a
lot of these problems that we have been hearing today. Thank
you. The committee is recessed.
Ms. Morgan. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., Tuesday, September 12, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
Questions Submitted to the Office of the Secretary
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
DOT POLITICAL APPOINTEES
Question. Please provide the number of political appointees
currently on board funded in the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies appropriations bill at the Department and break them
out by agency. In addition, please provide a timetable for filling any
of the vacant political positions up to the statutory cap. Please
provide a listing of the number of political appointees, grade level
and current salary and compare over the last five years.
Answer. Listed below is information on the number of political
appointees currently on board funded in the Department of
Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill, the timetable
for filling vacant political positions, and information for the past
five years on the number of political appointees, grade level and
current salary.
Department of Transportation Political Appointees
Currently on board as
Agency name of 4/15/2000
Office of the Secretary (OST)..................................... 48
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)............................. 1
United States Coast Guard (USCG)........................................
Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC).....................
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)............................. 6
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)............................. 7
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).....................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)............ 6
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)............................. 4
Federal Transit Administration (FTA).............................. 3
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC)............. 1
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)............... 4
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)......................... 1
Surface Transportation Board (STB)................................ 3
______
Total....................................................... 84
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TIMETABLE FOR FILLING VACANT POLITICAL
POSITIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recruitment of 4/15/ Estimated
Title 2000 appt. date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Deputy Chief of Staff............. Appointment pending 6/2000
final clearances.
Scheduling/Advance Assistant...... Appointment pending 5/2000
final clearances.
Director of Public Affairs........ Appointment pending 5/2000
final clearances.
Special Assistant (to the Assoc. Interviewing........ 6/2000
Dir. For Media Relation/Public
Affairs).
Special Counsel................... Interviewing........ 8/2000
Assistant Secretary for Aviation Nomination pending 7/2000
and International Affairs. clearances in White
House.
Special Assistant (to the A/S for Appointment pending 5/2000
Aviation & International Affairs). final clearances.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Deputy Administrator.............. Nomination pending 6/2000
Senate confirmation.
Associate Administrator for Interviewing........ 7/2000
Airports.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Director of Policy................ Interviewing........ 7/2000
Director of Public Affairs........ Interviewing........ 6/2000
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
Administrator..................... Nomination pending 7/2000
clearances in White
House.
Director, Office of Public and Interviewing........ 8/2000
Consumer Affairs.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Deputy Administrator.............. Appointment pending 5/2000
final clearances.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Administrator..................... Nomination pending 6/2000
Senate Confirmation.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
ADMINISTRATION
Deputy Administrator.............. Interviewing........ 6/2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENTIAL, SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE NONCAREER, AND SCHEDULE C
APPOINTEES AS OF APRIL 15, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Grade Salary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Presidential Appointees:
Secretary.......................... EX-I $157,000
Deputy Secretary................... EX-II 141,300
Associate Deputy Secretary......... EX-V 114,500
================================
Noncareer SES:
Chief of Staff..................... ES-4 130,200
Deputy Chief of Staff.............. ES-1 115,811
White House Liaison................ ES-1 115,811
================================
Schedule C:
Special Assistant to the Secretary. GS-15 107,207
Special Assistant to the Secretary. GS-15 90,280
Special Assistant to the Secretary. GS-15 87,459
Director for Scheduling and Advance GS-14 71,954
Special Assistant for Scheduling GS-13 62,920
and Advance.......................
Special Assistant for Scheduling GS-13 60,890
and Advance.......................
Scheduling/Advance Assistant....... GS-11 45,572
Director of Drug Enforcement and GS-15 110,028
Program Compliance................
Senior Policy Advisor to the Deputy GS-15 90,280
Secretary.........................
Special Assistant to the Associate GS-15 87,459
Deputy Secretary..................
================================
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
Noncareer: SES Director, Executive ES-1 115,811
Secretariat...........................
Schedule C: Deputy Director, Executive GS-14 79,148
Secretariat...........................
================================
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Noncareer SES: Director, Office of ES-4 130,200
Civil Rights..........................
================================
OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED
BUSINESS UTILIZATION
Noncareer SES: Director, Office of ES-2 121,264
Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization...........................
================================
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
Noncareer SES: Chief Information ES-4 130,200
Officer...............................
================================
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Noncareer SES: Deputy Director of ES-1 115,811
Public Affairs........................
================================
Schedule C:
Special Assistant to the Director.. GS-12 51,204
Associate Director for Media GS-15 87,459
Relations and Special Projects....
Associate Director for GS-15 110,028
Speechwriting & Research..........
================================
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET &
PROGRAMS
Presidential Appointees: Assistant EX-IV 130,200
Secretary for Budget and Programs and
Chief Financial Officer...............
================================
Noncareer SES: Deputy Assistant ES-1 115,811
Secretary for Budget and Programs.....
================================
Schedule C:
Special Assistant and Chief, GS-15 110,028
Administrative Operations Staff...
Special Assistant.................. GS-14 71,954
================================
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS
Presidential Appointees: Assistant EX-IV 122,400
Secretary for Governmental Affairs....
================================
Noncareer SES:
Deputy Assistant Secretary for ES-2 121,264
Governmental Affairs..............
Director, Office of Congressional ES-1 115,811
Affairs...........................
================================
Schedule C:
Deputy Director, Office of GS-15 110,028
Congressional Affairs.............
Special Assistant.................. GS-14 74,352
Senior Congressional Liaison GS-15 110,028
Officer...........................
Senior Congressional Liaison GS-14 74,352
Officer...........................
Director, Office of GS-15 98,744
Intergovernmental Affairs.........
Associate Director, Office of GS-14 88,741
Intergovernmental Affairs.........
Intergovernmental Liaison Officer.. GS-12 51,204
================================
GENERAL COUNSEL
Presidential Appointees: General EX-IV 122,400
Counsel...............................
================================
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
Schedule C: Special Assistant to the GS-15 111,713
Deputy Secretary......................
================================
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION
POLICY
Presidential Appointees: Assistant EX-IV 122,400
Secretary for Transportation Policy...
================================
Noncareer SES:
Deputy Assistant Secretary for ES-3 126,825
Transportation Policy.............
Deputy Assistant Secretary for ES-3 126,825
Transportation Technology Policy..
================================
Schedule C:
Policy Advisor..................... GS-15 110,028
Special Assistant (to the Deputy GS-12 51,204
Asst. Secretary for Transportation
Policy)...........................
Special Assistant (to the Asst. GS-15 95,923
Secretary for Transportation
Policy)...........................
================================
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Noncareer SES: Deputy Assistant ES-4 130,200
Secretary for Aviation & International
Affairs...............................
================================
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Presidential Appointees: Inspector EX-IV 130,200
General...............................
================================
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Appointees: Administrator. EX-II 141,300
================================
Noncareer SES:
Chief Counsel...................... ES-4 130,200
Assistant Administrator for Policy, ES-3 126,825
Planning and International Af-
fairs.............................
Assistant Administrator for Public ES-3 126,825
Affairs...........................
Assistant Administrator for ES-4 130,200
Government and Industry Affairs...
================================
Schedule C: Deputy Assistant GS-15 110,028
Administrator for Government and
Industry Affairs......................
================================
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Appointees: Administrator. EX-II 141,300
================================
Noncareer SES:
Associate Administrator for Policy. ES-4 130,200
Chief Counsel...................... ES-4 130,200
================================
Schedule C:
Special Assistant.................. GS-14 76,750
Special Assistant to the Director GS-15 90,280
of External Communications........
Staff Assistant.................... GS-13 62,920
Special Assistant.................. GS-14 76,750
================================
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
Noncareer SES:
Deputy Administrator............... ES-1 115,811
Chief Counsel...................... ES-3 126,825
================================
Schedule C:
Director of Intergovernmental and GS-15 93,101
Congressional Affairs.............
Special Assistant.................. GS-13 64,949
Chief, Consumer Information GS-15 95,923
Division..........................
Special Assistant.................. GS-15 93,101
================================
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Appointees: Administrator. EX-III 130,200
================================
Noncareer SES: Associate Administrator ES-4 130,200
for Policy and Program Development....
================================
Schedule C:
Director, Office of Public Affairs. GS-15 98,744
Senior Advisor to the Administrator GS-15 95,923
================================
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Noncareer SES:
Deputy Administrator............... ES-4 130,200
Chief Counsel...................... ES-4 130,200
Associate Administrator for Budget ES-3 126,825
and Policy........................
================================
SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
Presidential Appointees: Administrator. EX-IV 122,400
================================
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
ADMINISTRATION
Presidential Appointees: Administrator. EX-III 130,200
================================
Noncareer SES: Director of Program and ES-1 115,811
Policy Support........................
Schedule C:
Senior Advisor..................... GS-15 84,638
Senior Advisor..................... GS-15 90,280
================================
BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
Presidential Appointees: Director...... EX-V 114,500
================================
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Presidential Appointees:
Chairman........................... EX-III 130,200
Board Member....................... EX-IV 122,400
Board Member....................... EX-IV 122,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES 5 YEAR COMPARISON CHART
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/15/00 9/30/99 9/30/98 9/30/97 9/30/96 9/30/95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OST................................................. 48 44 42 39 41 44
OIG................................................. 1 1 1 1 ........ 1
USCG................................................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
TASC................................................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ N/A
FAA................................................. 6 6 7 7 10 10
FHWA................................................ 7 9 6 3 8 10
FMCSA............................................... ........ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
NHTSA............................................... 6 7 8 5 4 5
FRA................................................. 4 4 4 4 5 4
FTA................................................. 3 4 4 5 4 6
SLSDC............................................... 1 1 ........ ........ 1 ........
RSPA................................................ 4 4 4 3 4 4
BTS................................................. 1 1 ........ 1 ........ 2
STB................................................. 3 3 3 3 6 N/A
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 84 84 79 71 83 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGYPT AIR TRAGEDY AND THE ALASKA AIRLINES FLIGHT 261 TRAGEDY
Question. Please describe the Office of the Secretary's involvement
in the response to the Egypt Air tragedy and the Alaska Airlines flight
261 tragedy? Include in the description the incremental cost to the
department of that involvement.
Answer. The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings has
program responsibility for enforcing airline compliance with the
Aviation Disaster Family Assistant Act, Foreign Air Carrier Family
Support Act, and the Department's Passenger Manifest Rule. Accordingly,
that office made inquiries regarding carrier compliance with those
requirements immediately upon learning of the respective tragedies and
its review in one case continues. As of April 15, 2000, that office had
devoted approximately 20 hours of GS-15 attorney time and 2 hours of
SES attorney time toward its compliance efforts in those cases, which
equates to an incremental cost of $1,179.
CONSULTING SERVICE
Question. On page 8 of the justification, please provide details on
the consulting service for the General Counsel's Office.
Answer. To carry out Departmental responsibilities under the
Accessibility for All America initiative, consultants will be needed to
B (1) supplement in house staff in conducting complex investigations
concerning alleged Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) violations in a manner
similar to that used by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of
Justice in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cases; (2) act as
expert witnesses, not available inside the government, to testify in
enforcement proceedings; and (3) develop and operate a clearinghouse to
facilitate consumer outreach activities. It should be noted that under
section 707 of the recently-enacted Wendel H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for the 21st Century the Department is required, among
other things, to investigate each disability-related complaint it
receives against any airline and conduct outreach efforts, including
the dissemination of appropriate technical assistance manuals, to
provide guidance to airlines and disabled passengers in understanding
their respective rights and responsibilities under the ACAA.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TRAVEL COSTS
Question. Please provide details on the Office of the Secretary
travel costs that are anticipated to be paid by the modes.
Answer. No travel in the Office of the Secretary is anticipated to
be paid by other modes.
S&E TASC EXPENSES
Question. Please provide the details on $7.355 million OST
contribution to TASC.
Answer. The estimate under the Salaries and Expenses appropriation
is composed of: $927,000 for OST operational share of the Docket
System; $570,000 for the cost of various activities coordinated through
the Chief Information Office (CIO) and $5,858,000 requested under the
Assistant Secretary for Administration for the balance of OST's
administrative expenses which are assessed to OST as a portion of the
TASC bill. The composition of the administrative expenses that paid for
under the Assistant Secretary for Administration includes: worklife
wellness, facilities service center, information services, space
management, security operations, information systems management
consulting, telecommunication services, acquisition services, and human
resource services.
S&E CONTRACT COSTS
Question. Please provide details on other anticipated contract cost
in the Office of the Secretary.
Answer. The majority of the offices that are funded within the
Salaries and Expenses Appropriation have costs which are coded to the
``Other Services'' object class. This object class captures many types
of charges that are for everyday kinds of purchases such as
subscriptions and training. The majority of the $10,002,000 though is
associated with contracts and reimbursable agreements. These items are
described throughout the OST narrative justifications. The requested
contracts include everything from funding Departmental IT Architecture
in the CIO's office ($1,100,000) to reimbursing FTA for OST's
accounting services ($950,000).
STAFFING IN THE OFFICE OF INTERMODALISM
Question. Please provide details on total current on-board
personnel and costs related to the Office of Intermodalism.
Answer. Listed below are the total on-board personnel and fiscal
year 2000 salaries related to the Office of Intermodalism:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Grade Salary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Deputy Secretary and Director, ES-5 $114,500
Office of Intermodalism......................
Deputy Director............................... ES-3 126,825
Program Analyst Officer....................... GS-15 110,028
Senior Transportation Specialist.............. GS-15 95,923
Special Assistant to Director................. GS-15 87,459
Transportation Specialist--Planning........... GS-13 81,546
Transportation Specialist--Freight............ GS-13 71,954
Senior Office Assistant....................... GS-12 59,758
Scheduling Advance Assistant.................. GS-11 45,572
Secretary..................................... GS-9 38,840
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total fiscal year 2000 administrative costs associated with
personnel in the Office of Intermodalism are as follows:
Personnel Costs and Benefits.................................. $935,218
Travel Budget................................................. 51,500
Other Services................................................ 5,922
Supplies and Materials........................................ 1,750
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Fiscal Year 2000 Administrative Costs............. 994,390
In fiscal year 2001, it is requested that this office be funded at
$1,317,000 under the Federal Highway Administration's Federal-Aid
Highways account.
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
Question. Does every cabinet office have an Office of Intelligence
and Security? Please describe the corresponding capability in other
cabinet offices to the degree it exists.
Answer. Most, but probably not all Cabinet offices have an
Intelligence Office, but all have a Security Office or Director. Those
departments with national security responsibilities, and especially
those whose interests are threatened by terrorist actions, have a
direct need for current intelligence. Additionally, departments such as
Transportation, which are directly involved in international
negotiations, require the continuous, time-sensitive intelligence
reporting provided by the Office of Intelligence and Security (OIS)
Question. How are travel advisories transmitted to the public:
which agencies develop the advisory and which transmit the travel
advisories?
Answer. The Department of Transportation maintains a telephone
travel advisory line [800-221-0673] to provide notice of threats to
transportation systems and the traveling public worldwide. The Office
of Intelligence and Security also issues a Transportation Security
Information Report (TSIR), as needed, on a variety of issues relating
to transportation, but these reports are not specifically travel
advisories. The TSIR is developed by OIS and transmitted by email to
the department's operating administrations through the Security Working
Group (SWG). The SWG in turn sends the TSIR to their field elements and
modal security officials by email or fax.
Question. The budget justification describes the Office of
Intelligence and Security as the Secretary's primary representative to
the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Please discuss the
relationship between the substantial and corresponding capabilities in
the Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard to the
intelligence and law enforcement communities.
Answer. The FAA and USCG each have routine and on-going liaison and
exchange with the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Those
relationships focus on the individual aviation and maritime security
requirements of those agencies, but do not address the broad range of
all the other modes of transportation. The Aviation Security
Improvement Act of 1990 (ASIA >90) specifically identified the need to
raise the level of attention that these transportation security matters
received to the Office of the Secretary.
Question. Please describe the current reimbursable or detailee
support of the Office of Intelligence and Security.
Answer. Current reimbursable support include one representative
from the Central Intelligence Agency and five Coast Guard detailees.
Question. Please detail the level of travel by the Office of
Intelligence and Security that is paid for by appropriations to the
Coast Guard or the Federal Aviation Administration.
Answer. There is no travel by the Office of Intelligence and
Security that is paid for by appropriations to the Coast Guard or the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Question. Does the FAA and the Coast Guard also support compliance
efforts with ASIA 90, or is that solely the responsibility of the
Office of Intelligence and Security?
Answer. The implementation of ASIA >90 is a joint effort between
FAA and OIS. The USCG has no compliance requirements related to ASIA
>90.
Question. Does the FAA and the Coast Guard also support industry
directed efforts to address specific information-related protection
issues?
Answer. Other than for regulatory purposes, neither the FAA nor the
Coast Guard support industry directed efforts to address specific
information-related protection issues.
Question. Doesn't the FAA and the Coast Guard have similar costs to
those outlined in the Office of Intelligence and Security justification
for funding required to update the intelligence division's method of
access to classified material at CIA?
Answer. Yes, the FAA is making a similar transition to upgrade
their classified access and OIS has worked with them and the
intelligence community to provide a cost effective solution to both
organizations. USCG already has a more robust capability through their
military requirements, but is also required to upgrade their systems in
keeping with a change in the Intelink and CTLink systems.
Question. Do any other offices or modes have costs related to the
critical infrastructure protection initiative outlined on page 18 of
the OST justification? What other modes and offices are involved in
this initiate?
Answer. No other offices or modes have costs specifically related
to the critical infrastructure protection initiative outlined on page
18 of the OST justification. The $900,000 requested is to continue
threat and vulnerability assessments of critical transportation
information systems, develop systems to rapidly disseminate and share
vulnerability and threat information, and develop and establish an
information sharing and analysis center (ISAC) in cooperation with the
Sector Coordinator as mandated by PDD-63. The vulnerability assessments
will begin with the nation's rail information and communication systems
and eventually move on to the rest of the nation's critical
transportation infrastructures. These analyses will build upon those
physical vulnerability assessments already completed. No other modes
are conducting comprehensive vulnerability and risk analyses in the
same effort or manner as OST/OIS. Modal administrations are instead
focusing on protecting their own mission critical systems, with the
exception of RSPA as described below. In addition, other modes may be
conducting awareness training for personnel to enhance security
awareness internal to their modes; however, none are working with the
private sector on a Vulnerability Awareness and Education Program as
directed by PDD-63 for the Transportation Infrastructure as a whole.
The Research and Special Programs Administration requests $3.4
million in fiscal year 2001 for a new Transportation Infrastructure
Assurance R&D. Of this $3.4 million, $1 million will be used for
Intermodal Terminal Security in support of the Department to develop
and demonstrate technologies, concepts and procedures for improving the
security of intermodal freight and the network upon which it travels.
This includes conducting threat assessments of the transportation's
physical and information infrastructure at selected ports and
facilities to develop ``test beds'' as platforms for demonstration of
security concerns related to intermodal transportation. This effort is
particular to certain ports and facilities and those threats and
vulnerabilities associated with them; it does not involve a
comprehensive vulnerability and risk analyses of the information
systems of any one critical transportation system as a whole.
Question. Do any other offices or modes have costs related to the
chemical/biological agent detection initiative outlined on page 18 of
the OST justification? What other modes and offices are involved in
this initiative? Could this initiative be handled centrally by either
the FAA or the FTA or could the OST participation be funded by
reimbursable arrangement with either or both the FAA and /or FTA?
Answer. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
research and development budget contains $2M for detection of chemical
and biological agents. The RSPA request was developed in conjunction
with OIS, and does not overlap it. RSPA's request is focused on
research into advanced detection technologies, while OIS's is focused
on test and evaluation of detectors already developed for other
applications. OIS's proposal offers the highest probability of
identifying readily deployable detectors in the shortest period of
time. Existing detection technologies, however, typically reflect DOD
requirements--e.g., open field detection with a relatively high
tolerance for false alarms. The enclosed nature of transportation
terminals combined with high probability of disruption (and even
danger) associated with false alarms in this environment indicate the
need for substantial testing and, perhaps, some development work to
optimize promising technologies.
Question. In the new or expanded initiatives for the CIO, $900,000
is slated to the CIO involvement in securing IT systems. In addition,
$900,000 is slated in the Office of Intelligence and Security for
continuing ``the assessment of critical transportation information
systems. . .'' If the CIO can do the job for the same amount as it
takes the office of Intelligence and Security to continue to evaluate,
would not the effort be better handled by one office or, alternatively,
by the individual modes specifically maintaining such systems? In
short, what office has primary responsibility for this effort and what
is the Department's strategy for addressing the security of critical
transportation information systems?
Answer. The CIO's request for $900,000 is strictly for securing
internal DOT IT systems. The Office Intelligence and Security's request
for $900,000 is for IT vulnerability assessments of transportation
systems that DOT does not own but requires to ensure a thorough
evaluation of the national transportation infrastructure. DOT has
already completed the physical portion of the assessment. The more
difficult vulnerability and threat assessments of critical information
systems remains to be completed, as well as the need to develop systems
to rapidly disseminate and share threat information with the private
sector. As directed by PDD-63, The Director, Office of Intelligence and
Security has been designated by the Secretary of Transportation to
serve as the Sector Liaison Official.
INCREASED BANDWIDTH
Question. The CIO justification details $15,000 for increased
bandwidth. What is the out year funding requirement for providing the
necessary improvements to the existing infrastructure at OST?
Answer. The cost to increase bandwidth is a one-time cost.
Therefore, there will be no additional out year funding requirements
associated with the $15,000 request for increased bandwidth.
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Question. What deficiency and what capability does the new travel
management system described on page 29 that is not covered by the old
system?
Answer. The activity described on page 29 relates to routine
upgrades and help desk support needed to maintain the existing travel
management system until it is replaced by a new system. Consequently,
this does not refer to a particular deficiency in the old system, but
continued maintenance. Since the contract for the existing system
expires this fiscal year, DOT plans to conduct a formal solicitation to
determine whether there are alternative systems available to offer
streamlined travel management support at a reasonable cost.
INFLATION UNDER THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
Question. What are the costs that are inflated on page 30 of the
justification?
Answer. The other costs that were increased for inflation under the
Assistant Secretary for Administration include such items as rent,
contracts and supplies and materials. Inflation of $179,000 in other
costs and the $1,000 in travel costs was calculated at 1.4 percent.
EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Question. How were the employee development costs detailed on page
31 of the justification covered in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. One of the goals of DOT is to invest at least 2 percent of
payroll in employee development. The $1.6 million represents the
additional amount needed for OST to achieve this level of investment.
In the past employee development was not a separate line item, and in
fiscal year 2000 funds for employee development were included as a part
of Other Services, e.g., Acquisition Training, payments to TASC,
administrative and management services. In fiscal year 2000, employee
development costs were minimal with only $31,900 specifically
identified for training.
ELECTRONIC POSTING
Question. How were the electronic posting costs covered detailed on
page 31 of the justification covered in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. There were no resources available for this activity in
fiscal year 2000. Fiscal year 2001 will be the first year for this
activity.
REIMBURSABLE POSITIONS
Question. What positions are slated for reimbursement on page 30 of
the justification and what is the justification for using reimbursement
as opposed to direct appropriation for those positions?
Answer. The composition of the reimbursable positions included on
page 30 consist of 11 positions which support the Consolidated
Personnel Payroll Management Information System (CPMIS), the Integrated
Personnel and Payroll System (IPPS), and the Management Information
Reporting System (MIR). These are Departmental systems and the
operating administrations share in the costs based on population
serviced. Prior to January 2000, this function was housed in the
Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC). The transfer of
this function from TASC to the Office of the Secretary was necessary
due to a Congressionally imposed limitation contained in the FAA's
section of the fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation
Appropriations Act that limits FAA's obligations for TASC services. In
addition to these positions, there are seven other reimbursable
positions located within the Administrative Law Judges Office which are
primarily supported by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Aviation Administration and the Research and Special Programs
Administration. The Administrative Law Judges Office facilitates
transportation-related cases for the three operating administrations.
WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENTS
Question. What are the workforce improvement initiatives included
in the $21,000 request on page 33 of the justification?
Answer. The workplace improvement initiatives for fiscal year 2001
will focus on worklife improvements and labor management partnerships.
Worklife programs continue to be a source of employee satisfaction and
increased productivity and in order to maintain and enhance our
program, funding is required to communicate to employees the various
worklife options available at DOT. Approximately $6,000 is needed for
development and publication costs of worklife materials including a
telecommuting guide ``Everything You Need to Know about Telecommuting''
and a Leave Administration Handbook. In order to inform employees
throughout the country of worklife programs, a satellite broadcast is
planned which will focus on the administration and delivery of
childcare programs. The projected cost of the broadcast is $6,000. In
the area of partnership, in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 the
Department completed Phase I and II of the labor-management climate
assessments along with a DOT Labor Relations Strategic Plan. The
resultant action plan will focus on integrating those into a labor-
management partnership handbook as well as providing site-specific
assistance and training across DOT. Costs associated with these efforts
will be approximately $9,000.
EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT
Question. Please outline the employee development goals and
deliverables associated with the request on page 33 of the
justification. If the framework was developed in 1997, what additional
work needs to be done in this area? Is this initiative focused
specifically on OST employees, and if not, what funding is requested
for the modes implementation of the framework?
Answer. As the Department prepares for tomorrow's workforce through
workforce planning, it is essential that we invest in the development
of new employees who will replace those who retire, and that we prepare
the remaining workforce to master changing conditions so that they can
do the jobs of tomorrow as well. This investment in learning will
include identifying and developing options for using technology to
enhance learning and skill development, and it will be used to create
an information resource integrating distance learning into an array of
training options. Funds will be used to support employees in getting
the necessary competencies identified during the workforce planning
process and to apply learning to individual and organizational
performance.
The Learning and Development Framework promotes a standard, ONE DOT
method of addressing learning and development activities and contains a
comprehensive explanation of DOT policies, standards, and requirements
associated with result-oriented learning. In order to fully embrace the
intent of this Framework, DOT must create a culture that places a high
value on skillful employees, managers and leaders, and we must make the
necessary investment to do so. Such a culture is not, at present,
universally established at DOT.
CONTRACTUAL RENTAL PAYMENTS
Question. What are the actual contract or anticipated costs for the
rental payments detailed on page 35 of the justification?
Answer. Based on monthly General Services Administration fees
charged to government agencies to cover costs associated with
government-leased office space, the anticipated contractor costs for
rental payments will total approximately $319,000.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND S&E TRAVEL
Question. What are the travel costs outlined on page 36 of the
justification used for? What is the consolidated OST travel request?
Why is it not advisable to appropriate one lump sum for OST for OST
travel rather than appropriating individual travel allotments to the
individual offices in OST?
Answer. When the Secretary travels, he needs Public Affairs support
to place Secretarial appearances and to handle logistics. He also needs
on-site Public Affairs support in arranging briefings for media
interviews while on travel. Finally, he needs on-site Public Affairs
support during his travels to serve as a link to the OST Headquarters
Public Affairs Office and the public affairs offices in the agencies.
As shown on page S&E 7 of OST's justification, the S&E account
request for travel totals $636,000. This does not include various
amounts requested under the TPR&D account, the Office of Civil Rights,
the Minority Business Outreach or under the Essential Air Service and
Rural Airport Improvement Fund accounts. The Office of the Secretary
has not requested individual travel allotments in each OST office. The
request is for a consolidated appropriation. The budget only displays
the plans per office as requested by the Subcommittee.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Question. Please discuss why travel is the most efficient means of
processing investigations by the Office of Civil Rights and the
selection process by which claims would be identified for in-person
investigation by the office.
Answer. Obtaining testimony through face-to-face interviews
provides the best results and ensures that investigations are legally
sufficient, technically adequate and completed in a timely manner. Less
expensive techniques such as telephone interviews and the exchange of
written interrogatories through the mails significantly reduce the
quality and timeliness of the investigative process.
DOCR's six Regional Directors determine which claims are to be
investigated on-site and which claims are to be processed using ``desk
investigation'' techniques. Generally, the more simple, single issue-
single basis complaints can be processed using ``desk investigation''
techniques, which include telephone interviews, interrogatories through
the mails, etc. The more complex, multiple issue-multiple bases
complaints will usually be processed through on-site investigations.
Also, those claims that present unique, precedent-setting or sensitive
matters, such as sexual harassment and hostile work environment
allegations, are best processed through on-site investigations.
Question. How is the current work load slated to be covered by the
proposed contract mediators being handled (page CR-7 of the
justification)?
Answer. The proposed contract mediators are being handled in the
same manner as our collateral duty mediators. The Equal Employment
Specialist who will manage our Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Program will determine when mediation is appropriate. The first option
will be to use our own collateral duty mediators. However, since there
are currently 1,150 active formal complaints, we do not anticipate that
our collateral duty mediators will be able to handle all the requests
for mediation. We would then turn to contract mediators to handle the
remaining requests for mediation.
Question. What is the training request for the Office of Civil
Rights investigators?
Answer. In November 1999, the EEOC issued new requirements to the
Federal Sector Discrimination Complaint Processing Regulations, 29
C.F.R. 1614. The recent regulatory changes affected all aspects of the
internal EEO complaint process, requiring that DOT's internal policies
and procedures governing discrimination complaint processing be
revised. Therefore, receiving training to stay abreast of these new
requirements is essential for our investigators. In addition, the
Office of Civil Rights will hold an annual Civil Rights Investigators'
training conference to remain current on the recent regulatory changes,
to update technical compliance skills and knowledge, and to review
internal DOT compliance policies and procedures. The training request
will also be used for professional development and to attend EEOC
Technical Assistance Seminars to update the investigators on the latest
developments and changes to the Federal Sector Discrimination
Complaints Processing Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 1614, et al.
Question. What part of the $500,000 for automated tracking systems
outlined on page CR-7 of the justification is to buy new systems?
Answer. None of the $500,000 is to buy new systems. The $500,000
will be used as follows: $350,000 will be used for the enhancement/
expansion of the three current tracking systems, i.e., the internal
Case Management System (CMS), the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(DBEs) Appeals System, and the external case tracking system (XTRAK);
$100,000 will be used for a System Administrator to maintain the three
automated tracking systems; and, $50,000 will be used for the Section
508 Compliance Project, which requires DOCR to be in compliance with
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Question. What is the pre-complaint stage noted on page CR-7 of the
justification for CMS? When was CMS procured, installed and
operational? What capability is the Office of Civil Rights seeking that
it currently lacks in the request for CMS?
Answer. Regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission require that the pre-complaint stage (also known as the
``informal stage'') of the EEO process be satisfied before an aggrieved
person files a formal complaint. The complainant must contact an EEO
Counselor in the relevant Operating Administration (OA) and participate
in the pre-complaint process during which attempts could be made to
resolve the concerns raised. The CMS was developed, installed, and
operational during fiscal year 1996. Currently, CMS tracks only the
formal complaint process, which begins after the pre-complaint/informal
stage and ends prior to the post-determination (EEOC/legal) stage and
access to the system are available only by DOCR, which is responsible
for the formal complaint process. Thus, CMS does not provide a single
data source for tracking and monitoring the entire EEO complaint
process. The fiscal year 2001 enhancement to CMS will create a
comprehensive EEO case management system that will save time, cut
costs, and improve the efficiency of the EEO process by expanding the
scope to incorporate both the pre-complaint stage (including
Alternative Dispute Resolution) and post-determination (EEOC/legal)
stages and allowing data input, access, and report generation by the
Operating Administrations civil rights and legal offices.
Question. How is system administration currently being handled for
the three automated tracking systems for the Office of Civil Rights?
Answer. Currently, limited system administration functions are
handled by a limited staff resource. The Office of Civil Rights does
not have the staff resources necessary for a system administrator to
provide dedicated support for technical assistance, to correct
problems, and to generate reports.
Question. Has the Department explored funding a DOT civil rights
web site by reimbursable agreement with the modes or having the largest
civil rights case generator in the Department provide an umbrella web
site for the Department?
Answer. Yes, we have explored this concept with the modes. The
Office of Civil Rights is anticipating that once this basic web-site is
operating that the modes will then contribute to sophisticated
improvements to the web-site, which would greatly enhance
communications among the civil rights offices.
Question. Why is the request for final agency decision writing flat
while every other request for the office anticipates a growing
workload? Does the Department anticipate that a low percentage of final
decisions will be forthcoming from the anticipated higher caseload?
Answer. On November 9, 1999, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) revised the Federal Sector Discrimination Complaint
Processing Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 1614. One key change made to the
regulations delegated to EEOC Administrative Judges the authority to
issue final decisions following an administrative hearing. Prior to
this change, Administrative Judges could only issue recommended
decisions to agencies, who would then issue final agency decisions
adopting, amending or rejecting the recommended decisions. Considering
this change, we anticipated that a greater number of complainants would
opt to have their cases heard and decided by an EEOC Administrative
Judge rather than request that the agency issue a final agency
decision. Thus, we projected that there would be fewer final agency
decisions written by the agency.
Question. What was the aggregate Office of Civil Rights travel
request for fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000?
What is the aggregate Office of Civil Rights travel request for fiscal
year 2001?
Answer. The Office of Civil Rights travel request was $141,000 in
fiscal year 1998, $186,000 in fiscal year 1999, $195,000 in fiscal year
2000 and $278,000 in fiscal year 2001.
Question. What obsolete equipment is slated for replacement on page
CR-9?
Answer. The Office of Civil Rights plans to spend approximately
$50,000 on replacing obsolete and unserviceable office equipment.
Several regional offices will be replacing copier machines and computer
equipment that they have had since 1995. Investigators will need
replacement laptop computers for their off-site interviews.
Headquarters anticipates the need for replacement equipment as well.
MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH
Question. What are the requested FTE and travel funds anticipated
for the office of Minority Business Outreach?
Answer. The Minority Business Outreach (MBO) line of business
within the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
(OSDBU) requested $3 million dollars for fiscal year 2001 for
contractual support to assist small, women-owned, Native American and
other disadvantaged business firms in securing contracts and
subcontracts resulting from transportation-related Federal support. It
also supports partnerships under cooperative agreements with minority
educational institutions (comprised of historically black, Hispanic and
Native American colleges and universities), trade associations, and
chambers of commerce.
No FTE's are requested for this activity. $75,000 in travel funds
are requested in fiscal year 2001 the same level as fiscal year 2000.
The requested travel funds are for staff to monitor and manage the
Office's three main lines of business: Advocacy, Outreach and Financial
Services and to participate in various small and disadvantaged business
enterprise (S/DBE) conferences and seminars. The funding also provides
funds for transportation for the Minority Business Resource Center
(MBRC) Advisory Committee meetings which are held annually.
DEPARTMENT WIDE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRAVEL
Question. What funds are requested for advisory committee travel
department wide? Please break out this cost by individual advisory
committee?
Answer. The estimated fiscal year 2001 cost for advisory committee
members' travel, is as follows:
Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics................. $4,000
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee........................ 4,500
Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Advisory Committee........... 43,000
ITS-America................................................... 30,000
Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee.................. 25,000
Minority Business Resource Center Advisory Committee.......... 4,800
National Boating Safety Advisory Council...................... 35,000
Navigation Safety Advisory Council............................ 28,000
Adv. Board to the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp........ 11,500
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Committee.......... 9,500
Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee................. 11,000
Marine Transportation......................................... 200,000
Great Lakes Pilotage.......................................... 15,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 421,300
Note: This travel estimate is included under DOT's total planned
advisory committee request of $1,133,100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPR&D OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Question. Doesn't requesting the ``other administrative costs''
detailed on page TPR&D to be funded through TASC shift that costs to
the modal administrations and OST indirectly rather than reflecting
those costs as part of the TPR&D budget? If this mechanism is
appropriate for ``other administrative costs,'' isn't it equally
appropriate for the entire cost of TPR&D?
Answer. No shifting of TASC costs to the modal administrations or
OST indirect payments were reflected in the request. Administrative
costs within the TPR&D budget are divided into three categories as
shown on page TPR&D-6. They are Personnel Compensation & Benefits, TASC
Payments, and Other Administrative Costs. The ``other administrative
costs'' as detailed on page TPR&D-19 have nothing to do with the TASC
provided services of printing, graphics, facilities management, etc.,
but rather are other direct costs of travel, supplies, subscriptions,
and equipment used in direct support of TPR&D funded personnel, studies
and projects.
RURAL TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE
Question. Please provide copies of any white papers or other
products developed by the Policy Office resulting from the leadership
described on pages TPR&D-10 and 11 of the justification relating to the
Rural Transportation Initiative.
Answer. Attached are copies of the Secretary of Transportation's
Serving Rural America Rural Transportation Initiative dated May 1999,
the U.S. Department of Transportation Serving Rural America Rural
Program Guide, and Rural Transportation, An Annotated Bibliography,
February 1999, prepared jointly by USDA and the Department.
[Clerk's Note.--The above mentioned materials can be found in the
subcommittee files.]
MODERNIZATION OF AVIATION DATA SYSTEMS
Question. Why is the modernization of aviation data systems
requested in OST (page TPR&D B 17) as opposed to being the
responsibility of BTS?
Answer. OST is the most intensive analytical user of aviation data
within the Department. As such, OST depends heavily upon aviation data
to administer all of its aviation responsibilities. Some of the current
data systems date back to the pre-deregulation era and do not
adequately reflect the present environment within the U.S. and
international aviation industries. Because of their intensive use of
the data and their constant awareness of aviation issues, OST users are
in the best position to determine what new data or data changes are
needed to provide them with the critical information necessary to
administer the Department's aviation programs. At the same time, OST is
working closely with BTS, the Administrator of the aviation databases,
to ensure that the transition to the new aviation data environment will
be effective and efficient.
DOCKET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Question. Why is the full text search capability being requested as
an appropriation as opposed to being incorporated as a cost to be
allocated to the users of the system? Wouldn't the primary
beneficiaries of such a capability be the legal representatives of the
industry seeking to support or oppose various proceedings related to
the filings?
Answer. The Department of Transportation requests full-text search
capability for the DMS as an appropriation because it does not have the
statutory authority to levy user fees for system usage.
In addition, the beneficiaries are much more than just the legal
representatives of industry. DMS experienced over 1.6 million on-line
hits in fiscal year 1999. Those using the DMS include large
manufacturers; transportation providers; state and local governments;
labor organizations; community planners; and safety, environmental and
other public interest groups. It is also important to note that people
who could make effective use of this service include DOT employees,
other Federal agency employees, and Congressional staff. DMS provides
these customers with easy and convenient opportunities to fully
participate in DOT rulemaking and adjudicatory processes. Better
participation means that more effective public policy decisions are
made.
OVERFLIGHT USER FEES
Question. How much revenue has been collected from overflight user
fees to date in fiscal year 2000? Has the Department re-estimated the
anticipated revenues from these fees for fiscal year 2000 or 01 due to
this experience?
Answer. The Department has not collected any user fees to date. The
Department has not re-estimated the anticipated revenues at this time.
The FAA still anticipates collecting $5 million in fiscal year 2000 and
$22.1 million in fiscal year 2001 as shown in the budget request.
ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE EMPLOYEE EXPENSES
Question. Please provide a salary and administrative cost history
for the EAS program for the past five fiscal years.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Compensation.......... ...... 710 767 800 840
Benefits........................ ...... 140 112 117 125
Travel.......................... ...... 10 15 6 15
Other services.................. ...... 5 67 140 220
Supplies and materials.......... ...... 10 15 2 10
Equipment....................... ...... 10 17 5 10
---------------------------------------
Total..................... ...... 885 993 1,070 1,220
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUTER RULE
Question. What has the ``commuter rule's'' impact on EAS service
provider fleet mix done to the cost of providing EAS service subsidy?
Answer. It is difficult to isolate with precision the effects of
the Commuter Safety Rule on subsidy costs as the airline industry is a
very dynamic one. However our best analysis is that there are basically
three ways in which the effects come into play. First, the additional
costs of training, hiring additional personnel such as pilots,
mechanics, dispatchers, trained weather observers, etc. are
legitimately passed on to the EAS program in the form of higher unit
costs with no concomitant increase in revenues. Thus the contracts for
currently subsidized EAS communities require increased subsidy when
they come up for renewal.
Second, The commuter rule and the resulting higher operational
costs, have forced carriers serving about 10 communities that had
previously served them on a subsidy-free basis to file notice to
suspend those subsidy-free services. In those cases we must prohibit
the carrier from suspending service and compensate it for any losses
that it can document.
Finally, the higher level of safety mandated by the ``commuter
rule'' has forced the rapid retirement of the 19-seat aircraft, mainly
the Beech 1900, and the Fairchild Metro II and Metro III aircraft.
Since newer replacement aircraft are much more expensive to acquire and
operate, this has resulted in fewer carriers participating in the EAS
program.
AIRLINE OPERATIONS AT LOVE FIELD
Question. On February 1, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit upheld Departmental orders holding that
operations at Love Field in Dallas, TX, are governed by the Wright and
Shelby Amendments and not by local agreements. As a result, nonstop
service in any size aircraft can be operated at Love Field to points in
Mississippi, Alabama, and Kansas and jets with 56 or fewer seats can be
operated from Love Field to any destination. Considering the history of
litigation brought against any party attempting to offer service at
Love Field:
I hope that the Department will continue its actions to halt any
further interference with flights authorized by Federal law. Are you
proceeding to prevent any additional state court challenges? What is
the status of the Federal court proceeding?
Considering the behavior of those dominating this market, are you
closely monitoring actions that they may take to drive competitors out
of Love Field? Will you act quickly to address all forms of anti-
competitive behavior directed at these new operations?
Now that the Court of Appeals has confirmed that jets with 56 seats
or less can operate from Love Field to any destination, will you take
the appropriate steps to ensure that new carriers at Love Field can
operate to all airports within the United States?
What would you estimate that it has cost the American taxpayer to
enforce the Federal laws concerning airline service at Love Field?
Answer. The Department intends to continue its efforts to block
interference with the Love Field flights authorized by Federal law. At
the Department's request, the Justice Department filed a Federal
district court suit against the City of Fort Worth and American
Airlines to block them from using on-going state court proceedings to
stop airlines from operating longhaul Love Field flights. The Justice
Department recently filed motions for summary judgment and a permanent
injunction against the defendants in this case. In the Federal court
case, Fort Worth has asked the Supreme Court to review the Fifth
Circuit decision. The Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board and
American are also likely to seek Supreme Court review. The Government
will vigorously oppose these petitions. American and Fort Worth have
represented that they will not seek to block the longhaul Love Field
services authorized by Federal law while the Supreme Court is
considering the petitions for review.
The Department will be monitoring American Airlines' competitive
responses to new service at Love Field. The Department will address any
anti-competitive behavior directed at new Love Field services. The
Department is firmly committed to assuring that all airlines have a
fair opportunity to compete in the marketplace while avoiding any
unnecessary interference with vigorous competition.
As noted, the Department has taken steps to ensure that airlines
can operate the Love Field services authorized by Federal law and will
take further action if necessary.
The Department is unable to provide an estimate of the cost of
enforcing the Federal laws governing Love Field service that would be
useful. The Department does not record the time spent by employees on
different projects. Estimating the cost would be difficult because
several employees in different offices of the Department were involved
in the enforcement efforts, as were attorneys from two different
divisions of the Justice Department.
ALLEGED ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES
Question. The Committee is advised that in May of 1999 information
was submitted to the Department of Transportation by AirTran Airlines
alleging that anti-competitive practices are being directed against the
airline at its Atlanta hub and elsewhere. AirTran requested that the
Department exercise its authority by conducting a review of these
allegations. Please advise whether that review has been initiated and,
if so, what the status of that review is currently.
Answer. To improve our understanding of the issues raised by
AirTran, we have had discussions with AirTran and Delta
representatives, and have conducted an extensive informal review of
Delta's competitive responses to AirTran's operations at Atlanta. As
part of its ongoing review process, the Department has requested Delta
provide information in response to questions about specific conduct.
DOT'S PERFORMANCE AND BUDGET LINKAGE
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The Department's performance planning process fully links
the agency's annual performance goals to its mission, strategic goals,
and program activities in its budget request. The following
hierarchical model is used by the Department to link activities to
outcomes based upon agency mission and strategy: Mission--Strategic
Goal--Strategic Outcome--Performance Measure--Annual Performance Goal--
Program Activity. The following illustration demonstrates this linkage.
The Department's basic enabling law, codified at 49 U.S.C. 101(a),
includes safety as a core Departmental mission; thus transportation
safety is one of the five overall Departmental strategic goals. Six
strategic outcomes provide more specific expressions of how this
strategic goal will be achieved--one of which is ``Reduce the number of
transportation-related deaths.'' An array of performance measures
supports this general strategic outcome; and several operating
administrations within the Department worked to achieve these measures.
For example, NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA, FAA, and Coast Guard, worked together
on an array of programs to encourage safer operator behavior, safer
vehicle technologies, safer transportation infrastructure, and better
safety response systems. Achievements for a specific fiscal year are
established as annual performance goals for these organizations, to
chart their performance relative to these performance measures. In the
fiscal year 1999 DOT Performance Report, provided to Congress on March
31, 2000, an appendix arrayed operating administration program
activities by strategic goal, displaying how requested budgetary
resources linked to each. This information, and separate operating
administration performance plans, became an integral part of the
justification material in the office of the secretary's and operating
administrations' budget requests for fiscal year 1999, and in
subsequent years since.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. At the beginning of the budget formulation process, the
Secretary meets with top management from all of the operating
administrations. Funding initiatives proposed by the operating
administrations are evaluated and prioritized based on their relative
contribution toward meeting the Department's outcome goals. The highest
priority initiatives are included in the Department's annual budget
request to OMB. It should be noted that the Department's performance
goals are to a large extent outcome goals. As such, one goal is
supported by many budget activities. For example, our goal to reduce
highway fatalities and injuries is supported by the programs of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, safety funding and highway
infrastructure improvements by the Federal Highway Administration and
safety messages delivered by all Departmental leaders.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. The major difficulty encountered in introducing a
performance-based budget process was in changing the Department's
overall thought process in producing budget justifications that explain
not just what an operating administration plans to do with the
resources requested, but also describes expected results to be achieved
according to specific agency performance goals. This budget process has
been used for the last two years and the quality of the analysis has
improved significantly in this second year. A key lesson is that it
takes time and constant attention to make performance budgeting work.
DOT'S PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND BUDGET LINKAGE
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes. Appendix II of the Department's fiscal year 2001
Performance Plan contains a summary table of estimated obligation
amounts for each operating administration, and program activities
within each administration's budget request.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Yes. Please refer to the notes at the end of Appendix II to
DOT's fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan.
DOT'S PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND BUDGET STRUCTURE
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. The account and activity structure in the budget varies by
operating administration, but generally it is not organized by outcome
area but rather by grouping similar kinds of activities, or activities
with a common funding mechanism. Given the relationship between program
activities and outcomes--multiple programs promote single outcomes and
single programs promote multiple outcomes--perfect alignment is not
possible. Improvements in the existing structure will be recommended as
it becomes apparent that they would be useful.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposed, and Congress
approved, consolidation of two Federal Railroad Administration accounts
into a new Safety and Operations account. This change better reflected
the nature and the interrelationships of the existing Office of the
Administrator and Railroad Safety accounts. This is reflected in DOT's
fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan, Appendix II.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. No.
DOT PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND DATA
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. Performance measures were chosen to provide the information
needed to determine if DOT programs are achieving the desired strategic
outcome goals. Data availability was also a consideration. If
developing a database for a candidate performance measure appeared to
require excessive cost and time, an alternative measure was selected.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. The cost of data collection and verification was one of the
factors considered in selecting performance measures. DOT's hope is to
incrementally improve data so that cost can be minimized over time.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. DOT's performance report/plan uses established data systems
for most of its performance information. Most of these systems can
provide preliminary results that are both timely and sufficiently
accurate for communicating in our GPRA Program Performance Report. The
number of measures without data is minimal. The Department has data for
97 percent of its 1999 measures. The remaining 3 percent consisted of
three performance goals for which data were not available in time for
the first performance report. The states and the Environmental
Protection Agency provide the data for these three goals (pavement
condition, highway congestion and mobile source emissions). In last
year's ``dry run'' report, the Department had data for only 63 percent
of its goals. The ``dry run'' taught valuable lessons about where data
problems existed, allowing the Department to target the areas of most
concern and ensure their readiness for March 2000.
KEY DOT PERFORMANCE GOALS
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. The answer to this question must be prefaced with the
observation that all DOT Performance Plan performance goals and
measures are important, since they broadly represent many additional
performance goals and measures in each of the eleven departmental
operating administrations. The following subset of fiscal year 1999
Performance Plan output or outcome measures are important in tracking
overall DOT performance toward the five strategic goals:
Safety.--Transportation-related fatalities (outcome);
Transportation-related injuries (outcome); and Transportation Incidents
(outcome).
Mobility.--Highway Pavement Condition (output); Highway Congestion
(outcome); Aviation Delay (outcome); Impediments to Port Commerce
(outcome); Amtrak Ridership (outcome); and Transit Ridership (outcome).
Economic Growth and Trade.--Flight Route Flexibility (output); and
International Air Service (outcome).
Human and Natural Environment.--Mobile Source Emissions (outcome);
Wetland Protection and Recovery (output); Aircraft Noise Exposure
(outcome); Maritime Oil Spills (outcome); and Hazardous Material Spills
(outcome).
National Security.--Sealift Capacity (outcome); Coast Guard
Military Readiness (output); and Drug Interdiction (outcome).
Critical Infrastructure Protection (output--not established as a
measure until fiscal year 2000, but added due to its enduring
importance in providing a proper answer to this question).
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. As explained in detail in each major subdivision of DOT's
fiscal year 1999 Performance Report, and as assessed by the General
Accounting Office (see its report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, and House Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure (GAO/RCED-98-180R), the majority of DOT's performance
goals are outcome-oriented. Furthermore, each performance goal and
related performance measure is rationally related to eventual
achievement of longer-term strategic goals or objectives. See the
previous question for how each key measure is characterized.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. Please refer to the following table. [Attachment 1]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.017
DOT OUTCOME MEASURES AND MANAGING FOR RESULTS
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. The agency makes a decision at the beginning of each fiscal
year's performance planning process to use outcome measures wherever
possible. Output measures are used only if a good outcome measure for a
strategic outcome goal cannot be identified.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes. The Department of Transportation has made great
strides over the past several years in ensuring that program managers
focus on outcomes.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. The Department has identified customer service management
as one of its key Corporate Management Strategies in its Performance
Plan, and is currently developing a customer satisfaction measurement
program. When it is implemented, it will measure both internal and
external customer satisfaction. Some of the customer groups that will
be included in the measurement program include the traveling public,
transportation workers, grant recipients, and DOT information users.
DOT PERFORMANCE BUDGETING
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 1999
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 1999 budget?
Answer. Program performance was considered throughout the budget
formulation process for the Department's fiscal year 1999 budget. For
example, the Department requested $975 million--an 18 percent percent
increase--for aviation safety programs, including initiatives designed
to help achieve the Department's goal of reducing aviation fatalities
by 80 percent by 2007. And the Administration's ambitious goals for
drug interdiction, based on two years of record level seizures by the
Coast Guard, were reflected in the increased funding requested for
Coast Guard's operating expenses. These are programs with demonstrated
successes, and specific expected levels of performance in fiscal year
1999.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes. For each of the last two years, the Department has
submitted revisions to its goals based on appropriations action.
DOT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. In some cases we do and in others we don't. In the
instances where we rely on data reported by states, it is more
difficult and costly to receive performance data on a regular basis.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers too?
Answer. To the extent that information is available, it is
available to multiple management levels. The best examples can be found
in the two largest operating agencies of the Department: FAA and Coast
Guard. Operating data are garnered and aggregated at intervals
throughout the fiscal year, and are visible by managers throughout both
organizations.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Unfortunately, no. See Appendix I to DOT's fiscal year 1999
Performance Report and fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan.
DOT BUDGET ACCOUNT STRUCTURE
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. Generally, no. In general, DOT's and operating
administrations' budgetary accounts and program and financing schedules
are sufficiently straightforward for properly relating funding to
performance. To the degree that issues arise, it is generally where one
activity creates progress toward multiple outcomes. For instance, an
investment in transportation infrastructure has impacts not only on
mobility, but also in safety, and economic growth. Another example is
found in investments in capital equipment for the Coast Guard, where
ships, aircraft, and command and control investments contribute to many
different outcomes.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. At this point, the Department does not recommend making
changes in the budget account structure. But, as the Department
continues to evolve and refine overall long-term strategy and annual
performance plans, it may become apparent that changing some aspect of
the Department's budget account structure will allow more efficient
operations, and greater simplicity and clarity in presenting resource
requests to Congress, and in reporting performance results from those
investments.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. See the previous answer.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. See the previous answer.
linking performance measurement systems to financial systems
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. The majority of cost accounting expertise at DOT resides
within the individual modal administrations. For example, FAA is in the
process of developing a cost accounting system, which will be fully
implemented by 2002. As a new departmental accounting system is
installed over the next few years, it will significantly enhance DOT's
managerial cost accounting capability. The new system will enable DOT's
modal administrations to apply cost accounting standards to specific
functions.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. DOT is aggressively implementing a new financial management
system known as ``DELPHI'' which contains Activity Based Costing
functionality. Current implementation plans are that the last operating
administration will be converted to DELPHI in June, 2001. During fiscal
year 2002, the department will able to fully implement this new
functionality to improve overall departmental financial and performance
management systems.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes. But it is also important to remember that DOT largely
has outcome, not output, goals. Many variables may affect the
achievement of these goals. DOT does not in all cases control all the
variables that influence program outcomes and therefore does not always
have complete control over the ultimate achievement of the department's
strategic goals or objectives.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. DOT will be better able to show the per-unit cost of
activity inputs. Cost of achieving results is more difficult to pin
down, since many of DOT's partners and stakeholders have influence
equal to or greater than the department in achieving strategic goals or
objectives.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. In most cases, program and modal overhead costs are
reflected in the dollars associated with specific performance goals.
For example, $449 million is requested for the maritime search and
rescue program, to help achieve the Department's goal of saving at
least 85 percent of all mariners who are in imminent danger. This sum
includes operating expenses; acquisition, construction and
improvements; and research and development, as well as an allocated
portion of the Coast Guard's administrative expenses for staff
functions such as procurement, personnel, legal, and executive
leadership of the organization. Overall, about 98 percent of the
estimated obligations for fiscal year 2001 are considered part of the
direct program level, and are allocated based on the primary purpose of
the program. The remaining two percent are indirect costs, including
primarily Coast Guard retired pay, FAA staff offices for operations,
and OST salaries and expenses.
PERFORMANCE PLANNING AND REGULATORY REFORM
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. The Department is committed to improving the rulemaking
process and to minimizing the regulatory burden on the transportation
community. This commitment is documented in the Corporate Management
Strategies section of the performance plan and report. In 1999, the
Department implemented electronic participation in rulemaking and met
with industry and the general public to identify what could be done to
improve the rulemaking process. These efforts will continue in fiscal
year 2000 and 2001.
EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON DOT PERFORMANCE
Question. Does your fiscal year 1999 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. Although DOT cannot control its operating environment, by
clearly identifying the factors that need to be considered in
developing and implementing programs, managers are prepared to meet the
challenges presented. For example, one external factor that is expected
to have a significant influence on transportation is the growth of the
elderly population. This is being considered by DOT management in the
selection of initiatives that focus on ways to make travel for this
group safer and easier, e.g., easier to read signing, changes in
passenger boarding and alighting time for aviation, rail and transit
vehicles.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. External factors can have a significant impact on resource
estimates. For example, a major environmental catastrophe--such as a
hurricane, earthquake or oil spill--could significantly impact resource
requirements.
PROGRAMMATIC OVERLAP OR DUPLICATION
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. No. The authorization and appropriations structure of the
department and its operating administrations are such that no
duplication or overlap exists. However, the Department has closely
evaluated responsibilities where coordination is necessary. An example
of this is the recent program evaluation on hazardous materials.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. See previous question.
MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND PERFORMANCE REPORTING
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Yes. DOT has gone to great lengths to integrate the
department's and operating administrations' approach to addressing
management issues in conjunction with achieving strategic objectives.
In the few areas where results have not met expectations, the
Department is undertaking reviews of performance strategies and will
find better ways to achieve stated outcomes.
AGENCY DECISIONMAKING
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision-making?
Answer. DOT has a history of using performance measurement in
managing programs, particularly measures of the safety, condition, and
performance of the transportation system. GPRA has expanded the use of
performance measures and has led to two key advances: the integration
of program performance measures into a single DOT performance plan, and
a closer linkage of performance measures to the budget process. For
example, NHTSA has tied individual program performance to intermediate
outcomes, e.g., increasing seat belt use; and to overall outcomes,
e.g., reducing fatalities and injuries. These ``top level'' outcomes
are also integrated into the Department's Performance Plan. Budget
justifications, in turn, have used performance measures to justify the
allocation of resources and the specific results that programs seek.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so, in what
ways?
Answer. As DOT employees gain more experience in managing for
results, and in linking resources to outcomes, the thought processes
underpinning the Results Act will become more a part of daily activity.
As a result, overall DOT performance is expected to continuously
improve.
AGENCY PERFORMANCE AND THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. The department has devised the best set of performance
measures based on current knowledge of which departmental activities
and outputs most strongly influence progress toward achieving strategic
goals or objectives. These measures can and will be improved upon in
the ensuing years. DOT's performance data illustrate to senior decision
makers what things are going well, and where the areas of improvement
lie; where strategies need re-examination, or where different levels of
resources need to be applied; and to guide overall resource allocations
during the annual budget process. Program evaluations are utilized to
confirm the linkage between activities and effects. Additionally, the
department will continue to set performance goals sufficiently high so
that not every one of them will be attained.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. DOT exerts influence over highly complex human and
technological systems, throughout many levels of government and with
the private sector. Resource estimates, and performance estimates, will
always be subject to some level of uncertainty. But, the Department
expects that some uncertainties will be reduced over time as
performance, budgeting, management, and financial systems become better
integrated.
WAIVERS OF REQUIREMENTS
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. DOT has a waiver policy/process in place that allows DOT
employees to request waivers to existing, internal administrative
procedures that officials within the Department have the authority to
waive. The DOT Waiver Policy was developed in 1998 in response to the
President's Executive Memorandum of 4/21/98, ``Streamlining the
Granting of Waivers''. All employee waivers that have been requested
are listed on the DOT Waiver Website (waiver.dot.gov) by Operating
Administration (OA) and each OA has a point of contact for waivers. The
Department now has 74 waivers posted, 56 of those are from the USCG.
Examples of some of the waivers posted include: eliminating or reducing
paperwork for payroll/personnel functions; changes in delegated
approval levels for organizational changes; modifications to
requirements regarding USCG uniforms; and modifications to procurement
requirements.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. No. We have no such plans at this time.
DOT STRATEGIC PLANNING
Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. As provided by the Government Performance and Results Act,
DOT is in the midst of updating the department's strategic plan
referred to in the question. A new Strategic Plan will be published
later this year.
FUTURE PERFORMANCE REPORTING
Question. The Department is to be commended for the concise and
efficient performance report and performance plan. The document is
quite useful and the presentation is clear and well organized. In
future publications of the Performance Report and Performance Plan,
please provide the immediate three year prior goal targets and actual
results as well as the current fiscal year target and the prospective
target for the next fiscal year. Please provide for the record, the
1997, 1998, and 1999 goals and actual results as well as the target for
the current fiscal year and the prospective target for fiscal year 2001
in a table that simply lists the strategic goal, the individual (sub-
goals) under that strategic goal (performance progress reports) and the
requested information by year.
Answer. As data on actual results are obtained, the department will
publish these in annual performance reports. In the meantime, please
refer to the following table, which is extracted from the DOT fiscal
year 1999 Performance Report and fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan.
Note that there were no specific GPRA goals in 1997 and 1998.
[Attachment II]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.024
ATLANTA OLYMPICS FUNDING
Question. Please provide a comprehensive breakout of all federal
transportation funding provided to support the 1996 Atlanta Summer
Olympics. Please indicate from which agency and account the funds were
appropriated and in which legislation the funding was provided;
describe the use of each line item appropriation; and characterize the
eligible uses of the funds provided.
Answer. The information is included in the table below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.026
______
Questions Submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
TOWER AND CENTER OPERATIONS
Question. Please provide a table outlining total operations handled
by towers and en route center controllers over the past ten years.
Please also include the numbers of controllers in each category with
the operations numbers.
Answer. The following table provides the information requested.
TOTAL OPERATIONS BY TOWERS AND CENTERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers Towers
----------------------------------------------------------
Block
Fiscal year Aircraft update Airport Instrument BU
handled (BU) operations operations staffing
staffing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................................................. 37,464,206 6,680 63,668,880 46,866,201 7,965
1991................................................. 36,137,766 6,912 61,485,577 45,042,293 8,064
1992................................................. 36,474,871 6,945 61,471,727 45,643,834 8,202
1993................................................. 37,419,173 6,775 60,108,153 45,699,597 8,195
1994................................................. 38,839,795 6,632 60,298,149 46,733,058 8,321
1995................................................. 40,149,335 6,452 57,973,853 47,048,407 8,162
1996................................................. 40,419,365 6,331 54,409,886 46,628,546 8,029
1997................................................. 41,375,392 6,425 53,256,154 48,128,137 8,163
1998................................................. 43,196,004 6,639 52,987,600 49,272,910 8,327
1999................................................. 44,654,427 6,607 55,068,646 51,110,257 8,295
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WENDELL H. FORD AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Question. Given the FAA reauthorization legislation the President
just signed, please provide a revised budget request for FAA operations
constrained to the overall Budget Authority (BA) and Outlay constraints
of the President's overall BA and Outlays levels for the FAA in the
aggregate. To the extent that additional funds are desired by the
administration for FAA operations above the levels permitted by the
President's budget request (BA and Outlays) less the FAA
reauthorization bill's protected accounts, please reflect offsets from
other Transportation accounts. Failure to provide such a revised budget
request in the immediate aftermath of the President's endorsement of
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (FAIR-21) approach will constitute a tacit approval of making
up any resource shortfall with corresponding reductions in the FAA
operations appropriation.
Answer. The levels of funding provided in FAIR-21 are authorization
levels. Since no direct spending is provided in FAIR-21, actual
budgetary resources, including obligation limitations, are provided by
annual appropriations acts. FAIR-21 did not amend the Congressional
Budget Act, nor did it create new discretionary spending categories
such as were created in the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21). In addition, the ``protected accounts'' referred to
in the question are changes made in both House and Senate floor
procedures for action on future Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriation Bills. These procedures only apply to the standing rules
of House and Senate and do not impact the levels requested by the
President for the FAA, nor do they influence whether or not the
President would sign or veto an appropriations bill. Due to the reasons
stated above, there is no plan to amend the President's fiscal year
2001 budget request for the FAA.
AIR TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT SYSTEM
Question. Last June the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a
report on FAA's new safety inspection program called the Air
Transportation Oversight System (ATOS). While GAO supported ATOS in
principle it found several problems with the way it was being
implemented. These included lack of adequate advance training and
guidance for inspectors, lack of sufficient travel funds, and the
incompatibility of the ATOS database with the tracking system FAA has
spent nearly $100 million developing over the past several years. As a
result, GAO recommended that ATOS not be extended to other airlines
until these problems are remedied. What progress has FAA made in
addressing these problems, and what are your plans for further
expanding ATOS to cover more airlines?
Answer. The lack of adequate advance training and guidance for
inspectors has been addressed. The ATOS Certificate Management Office
(CMO) has developed and delivered several three-day ATOS
standardization seminars designed for principal inspectors and data
evaluation program managers. These seminars have been lauded by
participants for their content and ability to convey the intent of ATOS
and the processes the Agency uses to inspect air carriers. In addition,
the ATOS CMO developed a one-day seminar for the other 500 ATOS
certificate management team members. As for enhanced guidance, in
December 1999, the ATOS CMO published guidance for developing
comprehensive surveillance plans, for planning, conducting, and
reporting both safety attribute inspections and element performance
inspections, for ensuring data quality, and for surveillance reporting.
All of this guidance is available on the ATOS Web site. This new
guidance greatly enhances the understanding of ATOS implementation.
The Flight Standards ATOS CMO has been working to secure additional
funding. The budget plans through fiscal year 2002 have identified
appropriate levels of funding to accommodate ATOS travel requirements.
All of the issues will be addressed before the Flight Standards
Service extends ATOS to other airlines. The ATOS CMO has addressed many
of the problems incurred in the Phase 1 version of ATOS and an effort
is underway to complete the development of all eight modules of the
ATOS model. As a result of these efforts, and dependant upon the ATOS
funding situation, the tentative plan for ATOS expansion is slated for
fiscal year 2003.
Question. In particular, how have you addressed the database
incompatibility problem, and how will you ensure that such lack of
internal coordination will not occur again?
Answer. There is an effort currently underway to link the ATOS data
with the Safety Performance Analysis System and to accommodate an ATOS
data query capability. This effort is slated for completion in June
2000. In addition, the ATOS CMO is establishing processes to ensure it
is coordinated on and therefore cognizant of all automation issues
related to ATOS.
CONTRACT TOWERS
Question. We worked last year to fashion a very good Department of
Transportation (DOT) bill and the President signed it. Now, we
understand DOT may propose to cut off funding for nearly half the
contract towers across the country in a couple of months. The contract
tower program is very important from an aviation safety perspective and
it is providing significant ATC cost savings. In fact, audits by the
DOT Inspector General validate the important benefits of the program
and suggest that it might make sense to expand it. I am baffled DOT is
even considering a funding reduction and want you to explain why DOT
may propose action that could adversely affect aviation safety and will
penalize a program that is solidly justified from a benefit/cost
standpoint.
Answer. Withdrawing Federal funding from contract towers without
commercial services was one of many options being considered in
response to the agency's budgetary shortfalls. This option is no longer
under consideration.
Question. Please provide the number of operations handled at
contract towers by year over the past ten years. In addition, please
provide the number of controllers at contract towers by year over the
same period.
Answer. The approximate number of operations handled at contract
towers, by year, over the past ten years are listed below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
contract
Fiscal year Operations tower (FCT)
staffing \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 \2\.................................. 1,187,023 ............
1991...................................... 1,560,433 ............
1992...................................... 1,666,935 ............
1993...................................... 1,648,008 ............
1994...................................... 1,884,369 195
1995...................................... 4,446,574 456
1996...................................... 7,499,099 664
1997...................................... 10,413,335 837
1998...................................... 12,270,742 838
1999...................................... 13,0737,42 864
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Staffing numbers for contract towers were not formally kept prior to
1994, when the program was nationalized.
\2\ Database information is available beginning with January 1990.
Therefore, fiscal year 1990 only is for January through September
1990.
OVERFLIGHT FEE COLLECTIONS
Question. How much is anticipated for collection in overflight user
fees in fiscal year 2000 and in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 President's budget assumes collections
of $5.1 million in fiscal year 2000 and $22.1 million in fiscal year
2001.
funding for development of global positioning system (gps) approaches
Question. Please provide the breakout of FAA operations funding
associated with development of GPS approaches?
Answer. FAA Operations funding for development of GPS approaches is
$6,044,000. The breakout follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11xx............................... PC&B/Overtime/Flight $3,311,394
Time.
12xx............................... PC&B/PCS/Flight Time.. 693,991
21xx............................... Travel/PCS............ 28,700
22xx............................... PCS................... 4,500
25xx............................... Contract Service/ 1,720,425
Flight Time.
26xx............................... Supplies/Flight time.. 284,990
------------
Total................................................ 6,044,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRPORT SECURITY COSTS
Question. Please provide a breakout of airport security and related
costs included in the FAA Operations, Facilities and Equipment (F&E),
and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) requests.
Answer. The breakout of airport security and related costs in
fiscal year 2001 for FAA Operations, F&E, and AIP appropriations are as
follows:
Operations.............................................. $144,328,000
F&E:
Activity 5.......................................... 2,500,000
Explosives Detection Technology..................... 97,500,000
Facility Security Risk Management................... 19,339,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System..................... 2,109,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
F&E Total......................................... 121,448,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
AIP: Grants in Aid to Airports.......................... 16,000,000
FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT
Question. Please breakout the reimbursements/allocations of full-
time permanent employment for the three years listed on page 9 of the
justification by office.
Answer. The information is listed below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
Appropriation 1999 actual 2000 estimate 2001 estimate
employment employment employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations:
Air Traffic Services:
Air Traffic............................................ 24,087 23,795 23,795
NAS Logistics \1\....................................... 1,070 1,060 466
Systems Maintenance..................................... 9,259 9,142 9,344
ARS..................................................... 166 182 182
Flight Inspection \1\................................... 610 610 392
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Air Traffic Services........................ 35,192 34,789 34,179
===============================================
Aviation Regulation & Certification:
Flight Standards............................................ 4,605 4,557 4,597
Aircraft Certification...................................... 1,009 1,024 1,048
Accident Investigation...................................... 28 30 30
Rulemaking.................................................. 25 26 26
Planning, Direction & Evaluation............................ 34 35 35
Aviation Medicine........................................... 280 294 294
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, AVR............................................. 5,981 5,966 6,030
===============================================
Civil Aviation Security......................................... 1,136 1,155 1,221
Research & Acquisitions......................................... 573 581 551
Airports........................................................ 477 .............. ..............
Commercial Space Transportation................................. 31 34 69
Administration.................................................. 1,289 .............. ..............
Financial Services.............................................. .............. 128 ..............
Human Resources................................................. .............. 161 ..............
Region & Center Operations...................................... .............. 994 ..............
Staff Offices................................................... 547 562 1,989
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations...................................... 45,226 44,370 44,039
===============================================
Facilities & Equipment.......................................... 2,699 2,762 2,804
Research, Engr. & Devel......................................... 361 411 411
Grants-in-Aids for Airports..................................... .............. 485 503
Aviation Insurance.............................................. 3 3 3
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Direct............................................. 48,289 48,031 47,760
Total, Reimbursable \1\................................... 363 513 1,345
-----------------------------------------------
Total, FAA................................................ 48,652 48,544 49,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Employment Levels for NAS Logistics and Flight inspection decrease in fiscal year 2001, and Reimbursable
levels increase, due to the proposal to transfer aircraft. Maintenance and Logistics Center operations into
the Franchise Fund.
AVIATION RULEMAKING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Question. FAA has had a history of being slow in issuing rules to
safeguard aviation safety. Examples include the updating of rules
governing aviation repair station, and the use of flight data recorder
information. In 1991, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
was founded to move rules through the rulemaking process more quickly.
Has ARAC met this goal? Are any steps to better achieve the stated goal
being considered?
Answer. The ARAC was chartered to provide advice and
recommendations to the FAA's rulemaking activity with respect to
aviation related issues. Because ARAC provides advice and
recommendation based on consensus from the aviation industry the
process of rulemaking, in some instances, is expedited. The
incorporation of the ARAC's recommendations into proposed rulemaking
often results in fewer comments being received during the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) comment period. For example the training and
qualifications issues group of the ARAC forwarded to the FAA a
recommendation regarding certification requirements for aircraft
dispatchers. The FAA accepted the recommendations and subsequently
published an NPRM incorporating ARAC's recommendation. As a result, the
NPRM received only four comments in support of the NPRM thereby
expediting the rulemaking process because the FAA did not have to
expend resources addressing the comments and possibly change the
proposed rule based on the comments.
However, the activities of ARAC do not circumvent the normal
coordination process or public rulemaking procedures. In the
development of an ARAC recommendation or the development of a proposed
rule by the FAA, a considerable amount of resources are expended in
order to ensure that issues are thoroughly analyzed and consensus is
reached. The ARAC has found that attempts to reach consensus in certain
areas can be time-consuming, given the diverse interests of the public.
In fact, some ARAC working groups have been deliberating for several
years. In those kinds of instances, the FAA has allowed the ARAC to
forward recommendations without draft rulemaking documents. In
addition, the FAA has adopted the policy of chartering some ARAC tasks
to state specifically that consensus recommendations need not include
draft rulemaking documents. Instead, the ARAC may request a consensus
technical report.
The FAA continues to streamline the rulemaking process and has
gained efficiencies, however, staffing remains an issue. The FAA plans
to issue approximately 50 priority rulemaking projects, 250 exemptions,
and process 30 petitions for rulemaking requests this year. The
Agency's five-year plan contains over 250 rulemaking projects that are
critical to enhancing aviation safety.
COST FREE FACILITIES
Question. The FAA has recently reversed its decades-old practice of
paying below-market rates for FAA facilities located on airport
property, opting to force airport sponsors to furnish space to the
Agency without cost. What consideration has the Agency given to the
effect this change will have on the financial situation at airports--
particularly smaller airports--that have grown to rely on this rental
revenue over the past several decades?
Answer. There will be no change for many airports since these
airports did not charge rent to FAA for cost-free facilities. Other
airports will need to address the revenue change and for the most part,
the loss of revenue for individual airports is in the thousands of
dollars, while the impact to the FAA could be much more significant. In
addition, it is important to note that the cost-free provisions are
based in statute. The FAA's actions are intended to fairly, equitably,
and consistently apply these statutory requirements.
Section 47107(a)(12) of title 49, United States Code, states ``the
airport owner or operator will provide, without charge to Government,
property interests of the sponsor in land or water areas or buildings
that the Secretary decides are desirable for, and that will be used
for, constructing at Government expense, facilities for carrying out
activities related to air traffic control or navigation.'' This
requirement has been in statutes beginning with the Federal Airport Act
of 1946 and included in each similar legislation including the Airport
and Airway Development Act of 1970 and the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982.
Up until the early 1980's the FAA received such facilities on a
cost-free basis except in those instances in which the airport
constructed a facility on our behalf. Since the statute provides that
the construction of the facility must be at Government expense, the FAA
entered into leases to reimburse airports for the capital costs for the
construction. Since the early 1980's, however, the statutory provision
has not been applied consistently, but the FAA has continued to receive
facilities rent free at many airports.
In addressing this inconsistency in the application of the
requirement, the FAA recognized that many airports would not be able to
absorb the loss of revenue readily. FAA took care to minimize the
immediate financial effect on airports in a manner consistent with our
responsibilities as a steward of Federal taxpayer dollars. First, FAA
will be applying its rights to rent-free space only at the expiration
of existing leases involving the payment of rent for property interests
that would qualify for rent-free treatment. Since the FAA and the
airport negotiated these leases in good faith, the FAA will take no
action to terminate these leases before their expiration. Second, even
for airports with leases expiring, the FAA delayed implementation of
the enforcement of the statutory requirements until the beginning of
fiscal year 2001, to provide airports with adequate time to deal with
the reduction in their cash flow. Thus, for airports with leases that
expired in fiscal year 1999, FAA personnel are authorized to negotiate
one-year extensions, with rental payments as a transitional measure,
directed to achieving full compliance with statutory requirements.
Finally, the statutory provision does not give the FAA an unlimited
right to occupy airport property without compensation. The airport is
entitled to compensation for utilities and janitorial services provided
to the FAA. The FAA may also enter into a lease agreement with the
airport sponsor under which the sponsor performs alterations of space
and reimbursed by the FAA. The provision only applies to air traffic,
weather-reporting and air navigation facilities. Other FAA operations
would pay rent.
Question. If airports are unable to absorb these costs, they will
be forced to pass them on to other airport users because AIP grant
assurance require airports (Airport Advisory Number 24) to have a fee
and rental structure that make the airport as self-sustaining as
possible. Has the FAA studied the impact of this change on other
airport users?
Answer. The requirement for the provision of cost-free land and
building space is based on statute. Section 47107(a)(12) of title 49,
United States Code, states ``the airport owner or operator will
provide, without charge to Government, property interests of the
sponsor in land or water areas or buildings that the Secretary decides
are desirable for, and that will be used for, constructing at
Government expense, facilities for carrying out activities related to
air traffic control or navigation.'' The self-sustaining provision is
contained in the same statute.
For many airports, there will be no change, as these airports did
not charge rent to FAA for cost-free facilities. Other airports will
need to address the revenue change. However, it should be noted that
since the assurances have been inconsistently applied, many of these
airports have received Federal funds over the past 10-20 years. Also
for the most part, the loss of revenue for individual airports is in
the thousands of dollars, while the impact to the FAA's budget could be
much more significant.
Question. If this change is adopted, won't the FAA face the
perverse incentive to locate the facilities appropriately located off
airport property--such as Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACONS)--on
airport property to save money at the expense of airports? Has the FAA
studied the effect this would have on airport traffic, airport master
development plans, and airport operations?
Answer. The statutory provisions in Section 47107(a)(12) of title
49, United States Code, cover essentially two areas: cost-free land or
cost-free space in existing buildings. Generally, the FAA has not
sought space in airport buildings--either on a free or reimbursable
basis, but only cost-free land. Airports normally provide cost-free
land for FAA to construct its facilities. Since there has been no
change in the FAA's access to cost-free land, there would be no
additional incentive to locate facilities on the airport that could be
located off airport.
There should be no effect on airport traffic, airport master
development plans and airport operations. If FAA needs to locate some
facilities on the airport, it will be due to operational necessity and
not to save money. Many facilities such as airport towers, landing
aids, and weather sensors must be located on airport property.
UNIVERSAL ACCESS SYSTEM
Question. Section 102(b) of the FAA Reauthorization Bill authorized
$8 million for the voluntary purchase and installation of Universal
Access Systems (UAS). The legislative history directs the FAA to work
with organizations representing airports and airline pilots to rapidly
deploy the continuously--updated data needed on approved flight crew
members that will allow universal access systems to properly operate.
It also directs the Agency to partner with industry to develop the
universal data and standards needed to make such security systems
quickly available, and utilize digital networks that are designed for
airport sponsors and therefore maximize the incentives to deploy
universal security systems on a voluntary basis. Does FAA have an
official position on the direction suggested on this issue in the FAA
Reauthorization legislation?
Answer. The FAA is encouraging voluntary participation in a UAS
through cooperative agreements between airports and air carriers. Using
funds previously appropriated, FAA tasked the joint government-industry
UAS working group of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) to
develop the standards and protocols for a UAS. A test program using an
airline central database and two participating airports was successful.
The UAS working group went on to complete an implementation plan and a
few airports have linked to the central database. However, opposition
to wide implementation of UAS was expressed in the working group. The
ASAC subsequently voted to retire the working group at its meeting on
May 13, 1999. FAA remains willing to assist airport operators that may
request AIP funds for the installation of UAS.
TRAINING
Question. What cuts have been made in the training activity at the
FAA Academy in Oklahoma City? What cuts have been made in other FAA
training programs? Please provide a table with the anticipated 2000
budget request training levels for all FAA training activities and the
resulting training level in that fiscal year, as well as the
anticipated fiscal year 2001 budget request for training levels for all
FAA training activities.
Answer. Some FAA training activities, including air traffic
training at the Academy, have been cut this year due to the budget
shortfalls the Agency is facing. The only major cut that has been
imposed at the Academy is in the Air Traffic training program.
Additional training funds for the Air Traffic program at the Academy is
included in the supplemental funding requested by the President. The
fiscal year 2000 current estimate for training reflects the
appropriation below the request level. Absent the $77 million
supplemental request, training is expected to be about $4 million less
than the request level. The following table displays the amounts
assumed in fiscal year 2000 request, current fiscal year 2000 estimate,
and amounts in the 2001 President's budget.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION TRAINING COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total training program
-----------------------------------------------
LOB Current fiscal
Fiscal year year 2000 Fiscal year
2000 request estimate \1\ 2001 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Services:
Air Traffic................................................. $41,638,000 $38,952,000 $48,500,000
NAS Logistics............................................... 296,842 506,074 516,196
Systems Maintenance......................................... 43,990,998 38,700,000 53,831,000
Flight Inspection........................................... 3,400,000 3,941,423 4,000,544
ARS......................................................... .............. 70,755 85,728
-----------------------------------------------
Total, ATS................................................ 89,325,840 82,170,252 106,933,468
===============================================
Aviation Regulation & Certification:
Flight standards............................................ 44,492,000 44,492,000 56,709,000
Certification............................................... 6,200,000 6,200,000 7,496,000
Accident Investigation...................................... 574,000 837,000 872,000
Rulemaking.................................................. 80,000 80,000 100,000
PD&E........................................................ 76,000 65,000 65,000
Medical..................................................... 240,000 291,000 296,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, AVR................................................ 51,662,000 51,965,000 65,538,000
===============================================
Civil Aviation Security......................................... 4,200,000 3,878,700 4,968,700
Research and Acquisitions....................................... 1,711,070 1,406,000 1,427,090
Airports........................................................ 892,000 .............. ..............
Commercial Space Transportation................................. 21,000 25,100 37,300
Region/Center Operations........................................ .............. 2,069,448 2,100,490
Human Resource Management....................................... 11,000,000 12,470,000 13,700,000
Financial Services.............................................. .............. 136,000 950,000
Staff Offices:
AOA......................................................... .............. 8,000 10,000
ACR......................................................... .............. 22,760 25,036
APA......................................................... .............. 15,000 15,000
AGI......................................................... .............. .............. ..............
API......................................................... .............. 41,500 61,000
AGC......................................................... 6,000 500 500
ASY......................................................... .............. 9,000 15,000
AIO......................................................... .............. 502,500 509,535
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 6,000 599,260 636,071
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Operations......................................... 158,817,910 154,719,760 196,291,119
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes Administration's $77 million supplement request.
CONTRACT TOWERS
Question. Last year, before the House Appropriations Subcommittee,
Administrator Garvey and Acting Administrator Belger testified that the
fiscal year 2000 budget request envisioned $20 million in savings. Has
the FAA achieved those $20 million in savings as outlined in the House
testimony last year? The FAA also noted that the contract tower program
avoids some ``$30 million a year in costs that we would otherwise incur
if we were operating those facilities.'' What is the status of the
report to the Committee relating to the contact tower program that the
FAA has been delinquent on for so long. Please indicate which offices
that need to sign off on that report have failed to clear the report.
Answer. Providing air traffic control service at low activity
towers via contract support has generated savings of approximately
$250,000 per tower or $30 million per year. The fiscal year 2000 and
the fiscal year 2001 budgets utilize these savings to meet increased
air traffic staffing requirements in other areas. The report to the
Committee is in internal coordination.
COST SAVINGS
Question. Last year, the FAA Administrator testified in the same
hearing, ``I think it is absolutely critical and important (to contain
costs). We are putting every measure that we can in place to contain
costs--we always have to be looking at ways to keep those costs down.
As Ken Mead and others have said, it is particularly challenging when
you have a budget that is made up primarily of personnel costs. We have
to recognize that as we look at some of the efficiencies. I put a lot
of hope on the kind of efficiencies we have talked about in our
contract negotiations and our agreed-upon contract with National Air
Traffic Controller Association (NATCA). Asking people to take on more
responsibilities as well as some of the other efficiencies that we have
talked about are very important.'' To date, the subcommittee is unaware
of any significant cost savings that have emerged at the FAA due to
increased efficiencies. Please provide a list and quantify them for the
Subcommittee. In addition, the Subcommittee views the cost control
measures that the FAA has taken to be on the order of one time annual
savings--cutting training, travel, slowing hiring or replacement
personnel. What savings has the FAA instituted that have significant
efficiencies in the out years? Please provide a list and quantify the
out years savings.
Answer. During fiscal year 2000, the FAA has taken several actions
to operate within the reduced funding levels provided for the
Operations appropriation. First, a hiring freeze has been imposed,
which the Agency estimates will result in staffing levels about 800
below the fiscal year 1999 levels and over 2,300 below the levels
estimated in the fiscal year 2000 President's budget. There are some
delays in hiring taking place, particularly in Airway Facilities and
Aviation Regulation and Certification, but the savings associated with
the delays, which are one-time, are over and above the savings
mentioned above.
In addition to the staffing reductions, the agency has made
reductions to travel, contracts, supplies, and equipment. None of these
reductions should be considered one-time. There are no funds included
in the fiscal year 2001 budget to restore these reductions so they will
carry-over into future years just as cuts in prior years have. The
reductions will be offset by whatever programmatic increases are
approved through the appropriation process, but the programmatic
increases included in the budget are not restorations, they are
expansions of current initiatives or new requirements.
As mentioned in the question, most of the Operations appropriation
goes toward payroll costs. These costs represent about 75 percent of
total Operations costs. As a result, staffing represents the major
component of any effort to reduce costs. The Agency has significantly
reduced staffing since fiscal year 1992. The Agency has also reduced
our non-payroll costs since fiscal year 1992 after accounting for
inflation and added costs for such things as contract weather, contract
towers, contract maintenance, charting, and the Canine program.
SAVINGS IN THE OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
saved in Out year
Item fiscal year savings/
2000 (from year (from
99 levels) 92 levels)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Reductions (includes Contract Tower 145,497 434,336
and Flight Service Stations).................
Travel and Transportation Reductions.......... 5,600 52,100
Rents, Communications, and Utilities.......... ........... 43,773
Supplies...................................... 3,600 19,700
Contracts..................................... 3,300 \1\ 55,500
Equipment..................................... 26,600 33,800
-------------------------
Total................................... 184,597 639,209
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Represents savings after adjusting contractual cost for the new
requirements/initiatives that the Agency must now pay for.
ONBOARD STAFFING
Question. Please provide a listing by line of business and by major
organization within each line of business, comparing the current
onboard staffing levels to those shown in the fiscal year 1999 column,
the fiscal year 2000 column, and the fiscal year 2001 of the
President's budget.
Answer. The listing is provided below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2000 col. 2001 col.
Feb. 2000 Fiscal year of fiscal of fiscal
Appropriation onboard 1999 actual year 2001 year 2001
employment employment Pres. Pres.
budget budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations:
Air Traffic Services:
Air Traffic......................................... 23,888 24,087 23,795 23,795
NAS Logistics \1\................................... 1,034 1,070 1,060 466
Systems Maintenance................................. 9,100 9,259 9,142 9,344
ARS................................................. 166 166 182 182
Flight Inspection \1\............................... 590 610 610 392
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Air Traffic Services.................... 34,778 35,192 34,789 34,179
===================================================
Aviation Regulation & Certification:
Flight Standards.................................... 4,483 4,605 4,557 4,597
Aircraft Certification.............................. 974 1,009 1,024 1,048
Planning, Direction & Evaluation.................... 86 87 91 91
Aviation Medicine................................... 276 280 294 294
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, AVR..................................... 5,819 5,981 5,966 6,030
===================================================
Civil Aviation Security..................................... 1,124 1,136 1,155 1,221
Research & Acquisitions..................................... 524 573 581 551
Airports.................................................... 463 477 ........... ...........
Commercial Space Transportation............................. 32 31 34 69
Administration.............................................. ........... 1,289 ........... ...........
Region & Center Operations.................................. 977 ........... 994 ...........
Human Resource Management................................... 155 ........... 161 ...........
Financial Services.......................................... 124 ........... 128 ...........
Staff Offices:
Office of the Administrator............................. 49 52 57 57
Civil Rights............................................ 16 16 16 37
Government and Industry Affairs......................... 9 10 11 11
Public Affairs.......................................... 29 33 33 33
Policy, Planning, and Int'l Av.......................... 129 136 137 137
Chief Counsel........................................... 266 265 273 282
System Safety........................................... 35 35 35 35
Human Resources......................................... ........... ........... ........... 161
Financial Services...................................... ........... ........... ........... 167
Region & Center Operations.............................. ........... ........... ........... 994
Chief Information Officer............................... 45 ........... ........... 75
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Staff Offices............................... 578 547 562 1,989
===================================================
Total, Operations..................................... 44,574 45,226 44,370 44,039
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2001 staffing for NAS Logistics and Flight Inspection are reduced due to the proposal to include
aircraft maintenance and Logistics Center operations in the Franchise Fund.
END-OF-YEAR STAFFING LEVELS
Question. Please provide a listing by line of business and by major
organization within each line of business, comparing the current
planned end of year fiscal year 2000 staffing levels to those shown in
the fiscal year 2000 column of the President's budget request, compared
to the fiscal year 1999 actual levels.
Answer. This listing is provided below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year Current plan 2000 col. of
Appropriation 1999 actual for fiscal fiscal year
employment year 2000 2001 Pres.
budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations:
Air Traffic Services:
Air Traffic............................................. 24,087 23,795 23,795
NAS Logistics........................................... 1,070 1,060 1,060
Systems Maintenance..................................... 9,259 9,142 9,142
ARS..................................................... 166 182 182
Flight Inspection....................................... 610 610 610
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Air Traffic Services............................ 35,192 34,789 34,789
===============================================
Aviation Regulation & Certification:
Flight Standards........................................ 4,605 4,557 4,557
Aircraft Certification.................................. 1,009 1,024 1,024
Planning, Direction & Evaluation........................ 87 91 91
Aviation Medicine....................................... 280 294 294
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, AVR......................................... 5,981 5,966 5,966
===============================================
Civil Aviation Security......................................... 1,136 1,155 1,155
Research & Acquisitions......................................... 573 581 581
Airports........................................................ 477 .............. ..............
Commercial Space Transportation................................. 31 34 34
Administration \1\.............................................. 1,289 .............. ..............
Region & Center Operations \1\.................................. .............. 994 994
Human Resource Management \1\................................... .............. 161 161
Financial Services \1\.......................................... .............. 128 128
Staff Offices:
Office of the Administrator................................. 52 57 57
Civil Rights................................................ 16 16 16
Government and Industry Affairs............................. 10 11 11
Public Affairs.............................................. 33 33 33
Policy, Planning, and Int'l Av.............................. 136 137 137
Chief Counsel............................................... 265 273 273
System Safety............................................... 35 35 35
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Staff Offices................................... 547 562 562
===============================================
Total, Operations......................................... 45,226 44,370 44,370
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Administration ceased to exist after fiscal year 1999. For fiscal year 2000, the DOT appropriations bill
made region center operations, human resources, and financial services separate line items.
GSA RENT
Question. How much is included in your fiscal year 2001 request for
GSA rent, broken out by line of business?
Answer. The amount of GSA rent identified for fiscal year 2001 is
$91,798,018. Listed below is the breakout by line of business and staff
office.
Distribution of GSA
Lines of Business and Staff Offices Rent Cost
AGC..................................................... $3,179,871
API..................................................... 1,621,721
AGI..................................................... 149,387
APA..................................................... 369,179
ACR..................................................... 723,373
AHR..................................................... 4,677,464
ABA..................................................... 4,266,202
ASY..................................................... 442,459
AIO..................................................... 451,177
ARC..................................................... 3,312,151
ATS..................................................... 36,621,036
ARA..................................................... 9,392,393
AVR..................................................... 16,587,477
ARP..................................................... 4,110,170
ACS..................................................... 5,591,176
AST..................................................... 302,780
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 91,798,018
travel costs
Question. Please provide any update of the tables on travel costs
that started on page 454 through 457 of last year's House hearing
record.
Answer. The tables on travel costs follow:
TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS AND THINGS OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training travel........................ 32,754 26,702 34,838
Job performance travel................. 49,101 58,625 68,337
Other travel........................... 8,436 8,137 7,940
Transportation of things............... 20,658 22,026 19,959
--------------------------------
Total............................ 110,949 115,490 131,074
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURES OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Object Class Codes ---------------------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21Continental US Travel--Site $31,604,494 $28,015,124
Visit
21Continental US Travel-- 6,218,827 4,722,841
Information Meeting
21Continental US Travel--Speech 361,092 257,965
or Presentation
21Continental US Travel-- 1,475,824 1,116,888
Conference Attendance
21Continental US Travel-- 435,830 331,550
Relocation of Employees
21Continental US Travel--to 361,374 259,988
Seek Residence Quarters
21Nonforeign US Travel--To Seek 26,934 2,527
Residence Quarters
21Continental US Travel-- 177,013 181,127
Special Mission Travel
21Continental US Travel-- (232,851) (164,796)
Emergency Travel
21Continental US Travel--Other 11,720,581 8,838,463
Travel
21Overseas Travel--Site Visit 7,097,638 7,262,226
21Overseas Travel--Information 779,749 578,631
Meeting
21Overseas Travel--Speech or 86,698 52,100
Presentation
21Overseas Travel--Conference 49,519 34,249
Attendance
21Overseas Travel--Relocation 49,323 47,779
(PCS)
21Overseas Travel--Entitlement 246,761 199,092
21Overseas Travel--Special 33 ...............
Mission
21Overseas Travel--Emergency 9,045 3,509
21Overseas Travel--Other 447,401 416,771
21Continental US Travel-- 14,783 10,881
Expenses for Interviews
21Continental US Travel-- 292 ...............
Relocation Of New Appointees
and Student Trainees
2180 percent Optional Reduced ............... 5,260
Rate (TDY)
21Training Travel--Non-Gov Long- 1,817 74,513
Term (LT) College
21Training Travel--Non-Gov LT 3,155 30,110
Private
21Training Travel--Non-Gov 129,578 147,945
Short-Term (ST) College
21Training Travel--Non-Gov ST 6,974,792 4,908,785
Private
21Training Travel--Gov LT-- 77,243 90,461
Internal
21Training Travel--Gov LT-- 1,757 38,383
Interagency
21Training Travel--Gov ST-- 25,308,090 27,106,832
Internal
21Training Travel--Gov ST-- 501,570 356,971
Interagency
21Lease of Aircraft 59,901 13,684
21Rental of Motor Vehicles, 4,504,145 4,776,549
Government
21Rental of Motor Vehicles, 540,241 567,160
Commercial
21OH Dist--Travel 279 ...............
21Lost Discounts--Travel ............... 43
21Late Payment Interest 10,072 6,772
Penalty--Travel
22OH Dist--Transp ............... 8,203
22Mail & Messenger Services-- 461,205 398,184
Freight
22Mail & Messenger Services-- 209 466
Freight WCF
22Rental--Trucks & Other 9,687,347 12,813,510
Equipment
22Transp. of ADP Equipment 7,372 11,505
22Transp. of Government 3,738,877 4,093,326
Property
22Transp. of Government 25,615 367
Exhibits
22Transp. of Household Goods 4,403,033 3,080,113
For Employees
22Transp. of Privately-Owned 88,536 184,408
Vehicles
22Transp. of Things--Other 85,351 63,020
22Lost Discounts--Transp. 117 242
22Late Payment Interest 338 5,092
Penalty--Transp
-----------------------------------
Travel and 117,541,000 110,948,819
Transportation Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Also provide a listing of the use of the FAA G-IV
aircraft, the cost of the operation of the aircraft by trip, and the
overhead costs attributed to that aircraft for hangering and
maintenance as well as the marginal maintenance and staffing costs
directly attributable to that aircraft.
Answer. Below are the overhead costs attributed to the aircraft in
fiscal year 1999.
Hangering..................................................... $280,404
Maintenance................................................... 714,649
Marginal Maintenance.......................................... 376,282
Direct Staffing............................................... 336,609
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 1,707,944
FAA'S USAGE OF G-IV AIRCRAFT BY TRIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight
Date Agency Passenger hours Rate Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Flights:
10/08/98...................... DOC....................... Cabinet Member...... 2.7 2,658 7,176.60
12/01/98...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 7.3 2,658 19,403.40
12/02/98...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 6.4 2,658 17,011.20
12/03/98...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 6.5 2,658 17,277.00
12/04/98...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 4.0 2,658 10,632.00
12/15/98...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 6.9 2,658 18,340.20
12/16/98...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 6.0 2,658 15,948.00
12/17/98...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 6.0 2,658 15,948.00
12/21/98...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 8.6 2,658 22,858.80
04/22/99...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 5.4 2,658 14,353.20
04/26/99...................... FAA....................... Tech Center......... 2.7 2,658 7,176.60
05/28/99...................... DOT....................... Cabinet Member...... 12.2 2,658 32,427.60
05/30/99...................... DOT....................... Cabinet Member...... 13.2 2,658 35,085.60
06/02/99...................... NTSB...................... Board Member........ 4.2 2,658 11,163.60
06/03/99...................... DOT....................... Cabinet Member...... 8.6 2,658 22,858.80
06/04/99...................... DOT....................... Cabinet Member...... 4.2 2,658 11,163.60
06/11/99...................... NTSB...................... Board Member........ 9.5 2,658 25,251.00
06/15/99...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 5.6 2,658 14,884.80
06/16/99...................... FAA....................... Security (hazmat)... 4.2 2,658 11,163.60
07/10/99...................... FAA....................... Staff............... 2.4 2,658 6,379.20
07/14/99...................... NTSB...................... Board Member........ 5.0 2,658 13,290.00
07/15/99...................... NTSB...................... Board Member........ 4.6 2,658 12,226.80
07/29/99...................... FAA....................... Stars Program....... 2.1 2,658 5,581.80
07/30/99...................... FAA....................... Airshow support..... 3.9 2,658 10,366.20
07/31/99...................... FAA....................... Airshow support..... 3.7 2,658 9,834.60
08/01/99...................... FAA....................... Airshow support..... 3.4 2,658 9,037.20
08/17/99...................... FAA....................... Tech Center......... 5.0 2,658 13,290.00
08/20/99...................... FAA....................... Tech Center......... 4.8 2,658 12,758.40
09/02/99...................... FAA....................... Administrator....... 4.0 2,658 10,632.00
-------- -----------
Total......................................................................... 163.1 433,519.80
======== ===========
Reimbursable Flights:
10/05/1998.................... FEI....................... Fed Students........ 2.7 2,658 7,176.60
10/19/1998.................... NASA...................... Dep. Administrator.. 3.9 2,000 7,800.00
10/20/1998.................... NASA...................... Congressional 3.9 2,000 7,800.00
Staffers.
10/22/1998.................... NASA...................... Dep. Administrator.. 3.9 2,000 7,800.00
10/22/1998.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 3.2 2,000 6,400.00
10/23/1998.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 2.8 2,000 5,600.00
10/29/1998.................... NASA...................... Dep. Administrator.. 4.6 2,000 9,200.00
11/07/1998.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 3.8 2,000 7,600.00
11/09/1998.................... NASA...................... Dep. Administrator.. 3.3 2,000 6,600.00
11/10/1998.................... NASA...................... Dep. Administrator.. 2.0 2,000 4,000.00
11/24/1998.................... DOE....................... cabinet............. 4.0 2,658 10,632.00
12/07/1998.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 3.5 2,000 7,000.00
12/08/1998.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 2.4 2,000 4,800.00
12/10/1998.................... NASA...................... Congressional 3.9 2,000 7,800.00
Staffers.
02/28/1999.................... DOJ....................... cabinet............. 7.3 2,658 19,403.40
03/03/1999.................... DOJ....................... cabinet............. 4.6 2,658 12,226.80
03/04/1999.................... DOJ....................... cabinet............. 6.5 2,658 17,277.00
03/13/1999.................... Office VP................. VP wife............. 9.8 2,658 26,048.40
03/15/1999.................... Office VP................. VP wife............. 1.2 2,658 3,189.60
03/17/1999.................... Office VP................. VP wife............. 1.0 2,658 2,658.00
03/21/1999.................... Office VP................. VP wife............. 11.8 2,658 31,364.40
03/25/1999.................... Office VP................. VP wife............. 4.9 2,658 13,024.20
03/27/1999.................... Office VP................. VP wife............. 3.3 2,658 8,771.40
05/03/1999.................... NASA...................... Congressional 5.7 2,000 11,400.00
Staffers.
05/04/1999.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 2.0 2,000 4,000.00
05/04/1999.................... FEMA...................... Congressional....... 5.4 2,658 14,353.20
05/06/1999.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 2.0 2,000 4,000.00
05/13/1999.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 6.3 2,000 12,600.00
05/19/1999.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 2.1 2,000 4,200.00
05/21/1999.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 2.1 2,000 4,200.00
06/17/1999.................... FEMA...................... Director............ 5.0 2,658 13,290.00
06/18/1999.................... FEMA...................... Director............ 2.5 2,658 6,645.00
06/24/1999.................... NASA...................... Administrator....... 1.5 2,000 3,000.00
06/25/1999.................... NASA...................... Administrator....... 1.6 2,000 3,200.00
07/07/1999.................... NTSB...................... Board Member........ 2.0 2,658 5,316.00
07/19/1999.................... NASA...................... Administrator....... 1.8 2,000 3,600.00
07/20/1999.................... NASA...................... Congressional 1.7 2,000 3,400.00
Staffers.
07/21/1999.................... NASA...................... Administrator....... 1.7 2,000 3,400.00
07/22/1999.................... NASA...................... Administrator....... 1.9 2,000 3,800.00
08/03/1999.................... USMS...................... Prisoners........... 9.6 2,658 25,516.80
08/04/1999.................... USMS...................... Prisoners........... 6.9 2,658 18,340.20
08/05/1999.................... USMS...................... Prisoners........... 7.8 2,658 20,732.40
08/11/1999.................... DOJ....................... Staff............... 1.6 2,658 4,252.80
08/12/1999.................... St Lawrence Seaway........ Congressional 2.7 2,658 7,176.60
Staffers.
08/13/1999.................... NASA...................... Staff............... 3.4 2,000 6,800.00
09/13/1999.................... FEMA...................... Director............ 4.1 2,658 10,897.80
09/21/1999.................... FEMA...................... Director............ 2.3 2,658 6,113.40
-------- -----------
Total......................................................................... 182.0 434,406.00
======== ===========
Training:
04/19/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.3 2,658 14,087.40
04/20/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.9 2,658 15,682.20
06/01/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.9 2,658 15,682.20
08/30/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.3 2,658 8,771.40
08/31/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.1 2,658 13,555.80
-------- -----------
Total......................................................................... 25.5 67,779.00
======== ===========
Pilot Currency, Proficiency, and
Testing:
10/05/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 2.5 2,658 6,645.00
10/06/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.7 2,658 12,492.60
10/06/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.6 2,658 12,226.80
10/08/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.0 2,658 7,974.00
10/09/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 2.3 2,658 6,113.40
10/14/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.9 2,658 10,366.20
10/21/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.4 2,658 9,037.20
11/05/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.4 2,658 11,695.20
11/12/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 1.3 2,658 3,455.40
11/20/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.5 2,658 11,961.00
11/23/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.9 2,658 13,024.20
11/25/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 1.9 2,658 5,050.20
11/27/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.4 2,658 9,037.20
12/09/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 1.9 2,658 5,050.20
12/21/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 1.2 2,658 3,189.60
12/22/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.5 2,658 9,303.00
12/23/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.1 2,658 10,897.80
12/29/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.5 2,658 9,303.00
12/31/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.8 2,658 10,100.40
02/18/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.2 2,658 8,505.60
02/19/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.9 2,658 10,366.20
02/22/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.3 2,658 11,429.40
02/24/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.0 2,658 10,632.00
02/25/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 2.1 2,658 5,581.80
02/26/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.5 2,658 9,303.00
03/05/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 1.3 2,658 3,455.40
03/12/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.1 2,658 8,239.80
03/22/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.7 2,658 15,150.60
03/30/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.3 2,658 14,087.40
04/01/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.7 2,658 12,492.60
04/02/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 2.0 2,658 5,316.00
04/21/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.7 2,658 12,492.60
04/29/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.4 2,658 11,695.20
05/07/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.7 2,658 9,834.60
05/11/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.7 2,658 9,834.60
05/11/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 1.9 2,658 5,050.20
05/12/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.6 2,658 14,884.80
05/18/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.0 2,658 7,974.00
05/24/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.3 2,658 8,771.40
06/08/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.1 2,658 10,897.80
06/10/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.5 2,658 9,303.00
06/22/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.1 2,658 10,897.80
06/23/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.6 2,658 9,568.80
07/07/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.6 2,658 9,568.80
07/08/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.9 2,658 15,682.20
07/09/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.2 2,658 11,163.60
07/10/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 2.9 2,658 7,708.20
07/12/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.3 2,658 14,087.40
07/13/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.2 2,658 13,821.60
07/16/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.9 2,658 13,024.20
07/19/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 1.2 2,658 3,189.60
07/22/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.4 2,658 9,037.20
07/23/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.6 2,658 9,568.80
08/06/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.5 2,658 14,619.00
08/10/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.6 2,658 9,568.80
08/13/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 2.3 2,658 6,113.40
08/16/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.0 2,658 10,632.00
08/23/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.7 2,658 12,492.60
08/24/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.3 2,658 8,771.40
08/25/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.9 2,658 13,024.20
08/26/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.4 2,658 11,695.20
09/01/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.1 2,658 10,897.80
09/08/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.1 2,658 10,897.80
09/10/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.9 2,658 10,366.20
09/14/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.2 2,658 11,163.60
09/21/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 2.3 2,658 6,113.40
09/22/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.3 2,658 11,429.40
09/23/1999.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 5.0 2,658 13,290.00
10/27/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 3.9 2,658 10,366.20
12/18/1998.................... FAA....................... NONE................ 4.2 2,658 11,163.60
-------- -----------
Total......................................................................... 260.4 692,143.20
======== ===========
Aircraft Test and Ferry:
01/04/1999.................... .......................... .................... 2.4 2,658 6,379.20
01/04/1999.................... .......................... .................... 0.8 2,658 2,126.40
02/09/1999.................... .......................... .................... 1.8 2,658 4,784.40
04/12/1999.................... .......................... .................... 1.5 2,658 3,987.00
04/16/1999.................... .......................... .................... 1.3 2,658 3,455.40
08/18/1999.................... .......................... .................... 2.2 2,658 5,847.60
09/24/1999.................... .......................... .................... 1.5 2,658 3,987.00
-------- -----------
Total......................................................................... 11.5 30,567.00
======== ===========
Grand total................................................................... 642.5 1,658,415
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSIT SUBSIDY BENEFIT PROGRAM
Question. Please provide data on the transit subsidy benefit
program consistent with the information provided on page 470 of the
fiscal year 2000 House report but also provide for fiscal year 2001 the
anticipated cost of the transit benefit for employees making more than
$50,000 a year in salary by metropolitan area.
Answer. The tables follow.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FAA PARTICIPATION IN THE TRANSIT BENEFIT PROGRAM--FISCAL YEARS 1995-2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Headquarters Regions Admin. Ex.\1\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................ $1,141,454 $137,046 $51,964 $1,330,464
1996............................................ 1,210,360 225,408 59,506 1,495,274
1997............................................ 1,313,022 274,406 94,181 1,681,609
1998............................................ 1,486,887 309,165 83,804 1,879,856
1999............................................ 1,529,804 320,095 102,460 1,952,359
2000............................................ 1,513,358 458,669 112,603 2,084,630
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Admin. Ex. (administrative expense) is for headquarters only.
Note.--The 2000 data are projections. The headquarters and regions costs are based primarily on actual data for
the period (October through February).
Current Number of Enrollees in FAA's Transit Benefit Program by
Metropolitian Area \1\
Washington........................................................ 1,919
Chicago........................................................... 98
Kansas City....................................................... 42
Los Angeles....................................................... 32
Denver............................................................ 12
Atlanta........................................................... 17
Ketchikan, AK..................................................... 22
New York.......................................................... 73
San Francisco..................................................... 1
Honolulu.......................................................... 1
Seattle........................................................... 139
Salt Lake City.................................................... 25
Boston............................................................ 39
Miami............................................................. 9
______
Total....................................................... 2,429
\1\ Based on data for January and February
Note.--The anticipated fiscal year 2001 cost of transit benefits
provided to employees in the Washington, DC metro area who make more
than $50,000 in annual salary will be approximately $890,604. This
estimate was determined by researching the Washington, DC, FAA
Headquarters transit benefit program database. This database provides a
copy of each person's application for these benefits. There are
approximately 1,919 FAA transit benefit applicants in the Washington, DC
area. After reviewing 46 percent of all the applications, it was
determined that 59.5 percent of FAA employees who use this program are
GS-12 or above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other services--operations
Question. Please provide a breakdown of your fiscal year 2001
``other services'' request, similar in format to last year's House
report on page 480-481.
Answer. The table follows.
OTHER SERVICES--OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-76 contractual services.............. 66 94 134
AAC--engineering design and support.... ......... ......... .........
Accident prevention program............ ......... ......... .........
Aeronautical charting services \1\..... 34,412 33,178 36,226
Aircraft airworthiness composite and ......... ......... .........
major repairs.........................
Aircraft/simulator rental \2\.......... 5,605 5,270 9,070
Audio visual services.................. 21 23 24
Automated flight inspection system ......... ......... .........
(AFIS)................................
Automation support contract............ 14,300 16,611 20,537
Aviation safety analysis system (ASAS). ......... ......... .........
Center weather services--FAA/NOAA...... 7,265 7,800 8,200
Challenge 2000......................... 4,541 4,749 6,866
Contract maintenance \3\............... 81,157 48,393 136,430
Contract physicians.................... 215 215 215
Contractual data processing service \4\ 25,570 26,046 44,217
Contractual studies.................... 6,676 7,195 13,168
Contractual time-sharing teleprocessing 1,523 2,586 2,631
services..............................
Contractual training services \5\...... 19,621 19,310 26,050
Effective secretarial services (ESS)... 33 ......... .........
Employee assistance program services... 1,485 1,600 1,600
Employee involvement program services.. ......... ......... .........
Federal law enforcement training....... ......... ......... .........
Flight/nonflight training \2\.......... 23,267 21,723 33,850
Flight standards district office data 692 100 100
entry support Contract................
Flight training........................ 2,530 2,767 2,657
General working agreement at 20,138 17,611 19,678
Transportation Systems Center.........
Information Security \6\............... 2,442 4,885 27,450
Janitorial and guard services.......... 26,052 30,443 30,755
Contract for personal services for 4,564 4,164 4,174
clerical functions....................
Leased telecommunications \3\.......... 27,522 30,129 38,300
Maintenance of host computer........... 28,000 26,000 26,000
Maintenance of integrated communication ......... ......... .........
switching system......................
Master labor contract Tokyo............ ......... ......... .........
Medical clinic service for ARTCC's..... 140 140 140
Medical examinations................... 26 26 27
Handbooks.............................. 629 655 705
NAS supply support \3\................. 39,863 41,607 49,732
Not otherwise classified \7\........... 101,238 100,588 94,676
Office of automation technology & 10,950 546 600
services (OATS).......................
OMEGA.................................. ......... ......... .........
On-the-job training for flight ......... ......... .........
inspection and procedures.............
Operation of contract ATC towers \8\... 45,386 56,400 55,300
Overhaul of aircraft engines........... 3,196 2,058 7,305
Physical examinations.................. 1,682 1,888 1,893
Project SAFE--Technical training module ......... ......... .........
development...........................
Random drug testing.................... 2,593 2,720 2,850
AAD-60 support (aircraft) (HANGAR 6)... ......... ......... .........
Regional support (aircraft)............ ......... ......... .........
Regulatory analysis.................... 744 424 688
Repair and maintenance of ADP equipment 4,711 3,709 3,831
Repair/maintenance administrative, 6,400 6,989 7,055
operating, working, and test equipment
Repair, maintenance and inspection of 20,588 17,506 35,894
equipment and buildings \9\...........
Security investigations................ 1,069 1,132 1,524
Society of automotive engineers........ ......... ......... .........
Storage of household effects........... 1,259 1,204 1,509
Substance abuse program................ 200 200 70
Supervisory identification & ......... ......... .........
development program services..........
Technical Center:
Sector operations support contract ......... ......... .........
Other engineering support.......... ......... ......... .........
Traffic management system/Enhanced 3,219 3,380 13,023
traffic management system \10\........
USAF training of K-9 teams............. 8,329 7,690 8,690
Vulnerability Assessments \11\......... 200 223 1,700
Weather observation services........... 38,635 41,120 27,022
Transportation Administrative Services 28,600 24,163 24,959
Center (TASC).........................
Y2K Contracts.......................... 2,252 ......... .........
--------------------------------
Total, Other Services............ 659,607 625,260 827,525
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aeronautical charting services increase for fiscal year 2001, as
requested in the budget submission, is for maintenance of digital
aeronautical radar maps, and NASR Maintenance support.
\2\ Aircraft/simulator rental and Flight/nonflight training increases
from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 are due to AVR's technical
training required increases include in the budget request.
\3\ Contract maintenance, Leased Telecommunications and NAS Supply
Support increases from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 are due to
operationally required increases included in the budget request to
fund new NAS systems coming on line.
\4\ Contractual data processing service increase for fiscal year 2001,
as requested in the budget submission, is for fielding a new
electronic mail system to replace the agency's obsolete lotus cc:mail
system and to implement a secure and standardized E-mail System.
\5\ Contract training services increase reflects the air traffic budget
request to expand computer based instructions and on-the-job-training.
\6\ Information Security increase for fiscal year 2001, as requested in
the budget submission, is to support the establishment and operation
of a FAA information security program.
\7\ This line item includes miscellaneous items not identified by a
descriptive object class code.
\8\ Operation of contract air traffic control towers decrease from
fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 is due to the FAA's
discontinuance of the non-beneficial contract towers program as
reflected in the Budget request.
\9\ Repair, maintenance and inspection of equipment and buildings
increase from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 is required for
maintenance of unstaffed facilities and infrastructure sustainment, as
requested in the budget submission.
\10\ Traffic management system/Enhanced traffic management systems
increase funds the operation and maintenance of the Airspace Redesign
and Analysis Laboratory, as requested in the budget.
\11\ Vulnerability assessments increase reflects a continuance of the
need for conducting vulnerability assessments and development action
plans into 2001 as shown in the budget request.
SPECIAL PAYS
Question. Please provide a description of FAA special pays, a
breakdown, and line of business delineation for each of fiscal years
1999 through 2001, similar in format to that shown on pages 483-486 of
last year's House hearing record.
Answer. Under FAA personnel reform, FAA has implemented changes to
the premium pay rules to prohibit payment of Sunday pay and night
differential unless employees actually work the time for which the
premium pay is paid. The new agreement with the NATCA has changed a
number of pay provisions. For controllers and field supervisors and
managers in terminals and centers, the 5 percent operational
differential provision of the Air Traffic Revitalization Act has been
eliminated, and replaced with a corresponding increase in base pay of
4.1 percent. A Controller-in-Charge (CIC) payment has been established,
which pays a premium of 10 percent of base pay for time in which
controllers are assigned CIC duties. Other special pay categories
include:
Overtime pay (up to 150 percent) paid for time worked in excess of
eight hours in one day, 40 hours in a week, or 80 hours in a pay
period. Overtime rates vary depending on position and coverage under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is mandatory under FAA policy
adopted from 5 United States Code 5542 unless employees receive
compensatory time in lieu of overtime.
Sunday pay (25 percent) paid for hours worked on Sunday. This is
mandatory under FAA policy adopted from 5 United States Code 5546.
Holiday pay (100 percent) paid for up to eight hours of work on a
federal holiday. This is mandatory under FAA policy adopted from 5
United States Code 5546.
Night Differential (10 percent) paid for hours of work between 6
p.m. and 6 a.m. This is mandatory under FAA policy adopted from 5
United States Code 5545.
Hazardous pay (up to 25 percent) paid for all hours in a shift
during which the work involves exposure to hazards, physical hardships,
or working conditions of an unusual nature. Premium pay rate varies
depending on the types of hazard, hardship, or working condition under
a schedule issued by the Office of Personnel Management. This is
mandatory under FAA policy adopted from 5 United States Code 5545.
Standby pay (up to 25 percent) paid as a percentage of an
employee's basic rate of pay to employees whose positions require them
to remain at their duty station in a standby status. This is
discretionary under FAA policy adopted from 5 United States Code 5545
in lieu of overtime pay for standby time.
Operational responsibility differential (5 percent) paid for all
hours in a pay status to flight service specialists and airway
facilities technicians involved in direct operation of the air traffic
system, to flight test pilots, and to certain Academy instructors.
Currency differential (1.6 percent) paid for all hours in a pay
status for non-operational controllers who maintain currency in
controlling traffic.
Missed meal break premium (50 percent of pay for one-half hour)
paid to controllers required to work during the fourth to sixth hour of
their shift without an uninterrupted 30 minute meal break.
Interim Incentive Pay Program: quarterly payments of 10 percent of
an employee's basic rate of pay, paid to employees who are assigned to
a facility and position covered by the Interim Incentive Pay program.
Payments are intended to address chronic recruitment and retention
problems at a small number of critical facilities, and will end at the
time a new compensation system for covered employees is implemented.
These payments are discretionary under authority granted by Public Law
104-50.
A chart follows, which shows total FAA special pay for fiscal year
1999 and estimated special pay for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS APPROPRIATION SPECIAL PAY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Resp. Differential Pay.............................. 44,893 29,607 31,094
Premium Pay-Loss of Meal........................................ 447 468 486
Operational Currency Pay........................................ 418 438 454
Training in Excess of 40 Hours.................................. 443 464 481
Premium Pay-OJT................................................. 2,098 2,199 2,280
Pay Demonstration............................................... 97 .............. ..............
Interim Incentive/Controller Incentive Pay...................... 20,876 47,991 35,986
Overtime Pay.................................................... 45,455 53,472 62,096
Holiday Pay..................................................... 52,194 52,519 55,261
Sunday Differential............................................. 45,004 43,456 45,912
Night Differential.............................................. 39,555 38,117 40,207
Hazardous Duty Pay.............................................. 219 205 210
Post Differential............................................... 222 222 253
Fixed Premium Compensation...................................... 1,285 1,282 1,318
Physicians Comp. Allowance...................................... 617 622 625
Cash Awards..................................................... 5,277 3,826 4,263
Controller-in-Charge............................................ 5,912 6,385 7,025
-----------------------------------------------
Total Special Pay......................................... 265,010 281,272 287,949
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Interim incentive/controller incentive pay for fiscal year 2000 includes approximately $14 million in
retroactive controller incentive pay for fiscal year 1999 for both controllers and facility managers/staff.
Interim Incentive pay is still received by select Air Traffic, Airway Facilities, and Security staff.
A chart follows which shows individual line of business estimates
for special pay contained within their personnel compensation and
benefits budget requests.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.001
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) COSTS
Question. Please update the data on agency-wide average FTE costs
shown on page 495 of last year's House hearing record by providing data
for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
Answer. For the Operations Appropriation, the costs per FTE for
fiscal years 1997 through 2001 are as follows.
Fiscal year Amount
1997 actual................................................... $80,430
1998 actual................................................... 83,750
1999 actual................................................... 90,410
2000 estimate................................................. 99,110
2001 estimate................................................. 107,200
Note.--The figures displayed above were calculated excluding Workers'
Compensation and permanent change-of-station costs.
EMPLOYEE SEPARATIONS
Question. Please update the table on employee separations, by
office, as shown on page 498 of last year's House hearing record, by
providing data from fiscal year 1999 and to date in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The table is shown below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/30/98 Gains/ 9/30/99 Gains/ 2/29/00
Activity EOY (Separations) EOY (Separations) Current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Services:
Controllers.................................. 17,756 (117) 17,639 (143) 17,496
Field Maintenance............................ 8,455 (273) 8,182 (238) 7,944
Other........................................ 9,500 (129) 9,371 (33) 9,338
Aviation Regulation & Certification.............. 6,181 (200) 5,981 (162) 5,819
Civil Aviation Security.......................... 1,160 (24) 1,136 (12) 1,124
Airports......................................... 482 (5) 477 (14) 463
Research & Acquisitions.......................... 739 (166) 573 (49) 524
Administration................................... 1,353 (64) 1,289 (33) 1,256
Staff Offices.................................... 567 (20) 547 31 578
Commercial Space Transportation.................. 29 2 31 1 32
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 46,222 (996) 45,226 (652) 44,574
Facilities and Equipment......................... 2,161 538 2,699 (29) 2,670
RE&D............................................. 592 (231) 361 36 397
Aviation Insurance............................... 3 ............. 3 (1) 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total FAA Direct........................... 48,978 (689) 48,289 (646) 47,643
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Even though ``Administration'' doesn't exist in fiscal year 2000, the Feb 2000 employment for ABA, AHR,
and ARC are being shown under that line for comparison purposes.
operations positions
Question. Please update the table from page 503-507 of last year's
House record, showing number of positions assigned to each of your
offices and regions, similar in format from years past.
Answer. The table is provided below.
FAA DISTRIBUTION OF FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS (FTE'S) OPERATIONS
APPROPRIATION (DIRECT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------
Office 1999 2000 2001
estimate estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrator (Including Deputy Admin. & 56 63 63
Comm. Ctr.)..............................
Chief Counsel............................. 290 290 295
Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights.. 14 17 28
Assistant Administrator for Government & 13 12 12
Industry Affairs.........................
Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs 33 34 34
Assistant Administrator for System Safety. 36 35 35
Assistant Administrator for Policy, 9 9 9
Planning, and International Aviation.....
Office of Aviation Policy & Plans..... 58 54 54
Office of Environment and Energy...... 35 33 33
Office of International Aviation...... 18 18 18
International Area Offices............ 57 57 57
Assistant Administrator for Commercial 32 34 52
Space Transportation.....................
Assistant Administrator for Financial 134 129 148
Services/CFO.............................
Assistant Administrator for Human Resource 164 160 160
Management...............................
Assistant Administrator for Region/Center 9 9 9
Operations...............................
Assistant Administrator For Information 18 56 69
Services/CIO.............................
REGIONAL OFFICES:
New England........................... 1,843 1,804 1,808
Eastern............................... 5,222 5,071 5,101
Southern.............................. 7,487 7,312 7,393
Southwest............................. 5,158 5,064 5,096
Great Lakes........................... 6,381 6,298 6,333
Central............................... 2,415 2,365 2,376
Northwest Mountain.................... 4,102 3,956 3,983
Western-Pacific....................... 5,491 5,227 5,263
Alaskan............................... 1,345 1,293 1,297
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center..... 1,862 1,879 1,270
International......................... 55 55 55
Assistant Administrator for Airports...... 15 ........ ........
Office of Airport Planning and 38 ........ ........
Programming..........................
Office of Airport Safety and Standards 37 ........ ........
Associate Administration for Civil 53 55 55
Aviation Security........................
Office of Civil Aviation Security 38 39 39
Intelligence.........................
Office of Civil Aviation Security 76 76 76
Operations...........................
Office of Civil Aviation Security Policy & 48 46 46
Planning.................................
Associate Administrator for Regulation and 21 21 21
Certification............................
Aircraft Certification Service........ 149 154 166
Flight Standards Service.............. 241 235 237
Office of Aviation Medicine........... 91 93 93
Office of Rulemaking.................. 24 26 26
Office of Accident Investigation...... 29 30 30
Office of Suspected Unapproved Parts.. 15 15 15
Associate Administrator for Air Traffic 12 12 12
Services.................................
Director of Air Traffic Program....... 99 112 112
Air Traffic Airspace Management....... 78 77 80
Air Traffic Operations................ ........ 148 148
Air Traffic Plans and Performance..... 219 100 99
Air Traffic Resource Management....... 77 83 86
Director of Airway Facilities......... 53 53 53
NAS Transition and Implementation 16 17 17
Service..............................
Operational Support Service........... 15 15 15
Resource Management Service........... 85 86 86
NAS Operations Service................ 129 130 141
Spectrum Policy and Management Service 21 22 22
Flight Inspection and Procedures...... 607 599 398
Office of System Capacity and 13 12 12
Requirements.........................
Air Traffic Systems Requirements 169 177 182
Service..............................
Associate Administrator for Research & 11 11 11
Development..........................
Office Of Business Management......... 26 27 27
Chief Scientist for Software 4 ........ ........
Engineering..........................
Year 2000 Program Office.................. 8 ........ ........
Integrated Program Team for 15 13 ........
Information Systems..................
Integrated Program Team for 12 12 ........
Information Technology Services......
Integrated Program Team for 13 12 ........
Information Technology Acquisitions..
Integrated Product Team for Data 2 8 ........
Integration and Decision Support.....
Corporate Information Resource 3 ........ ........
Management...........................
Office of Acquisitions.................... 160 171 219
FAA Technical Center...................... 841 849 867
-----------------------------
Total............................... 45,899 44,872 44,444
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKLOAD INDICATORS
Question. Please update the table on pages 527-528 of last year's
House hearing record for fiscal years 1997-2001.
Answer. See table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forecast Made in March 1996:
Domestic Aviation Fuel 14.4 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5
Consumption (Billions of
Gal- lons)................
Revenue Passenger Miles 595.7 628.0 655.0 682.9 712.4
(Billions).................
General Aviation Hours Flown 23.4 23.7 23.9 24.1 24.5
(Millions).................
IFR Aircraft Handled 42.2 43.4 44.4 45.3 46.3
(Millions).................
Total Operations at Airports 64.5 65.7 66.7 67.6 68.6
with FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
Instrument Operations 49.1 50.2 51.1 52.0 52.8
Handled by FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
Forecast Made in March 1997:
Domestic Aviation Fuel 14.2 14.7 15.3 15.9 16.5
Consumption (Billions of
Gal- lons)................
Revenue Passenger Miles 608.1 637.4 666.4 696.9 729.8
(Billions) \1\.............
General Aviation Hours Flown 25.8 26.3 26.6 26.9 27.2
(Millions).................
IFR Aircraft Handled 40.9 41.8 42.5 43.5 44.4
(Millions).................
Total Operations at Airports 62.7 63.4 64.1 65.3 66.1
with FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
Instrument Operations 47.4 48.2 48.9 49.9 50.7
Handled by FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
Forecast Made in March 1998:
Domestic Aviation Fuel 14.3 14.8 15.1 15.4 16.0
Consumption (Billions of
Gal- lons)................
Revenue Passenger Miles 607.5 635.3 660.7 688.5 720.3
(Billions).................
General Aviation Hours Flown 26.5 26.9 27.3 27.8 28.3
(Millions).................
IFR Aircraft Handled 41.4 42.0 42.6 43.2 44.2
(Millions).................
Total Operations at Airports 63.4 64.2 65.0 65.9 67.0
with FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
Instrument Operations 48.5 49.2 49.8 50.6 51.6
Handled by FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
Forecast Made in March 1999: ACT ACT \2
\
Domestic Aviation Fuel 14.4 14.7 14.9 15.3 15.7
Consumption (Billions of
Gal- lons)................
Revenue Passenger Miles 608.0 623.0 647.4 671.5 698.0
(Billions).................
General Aviation Hours Flown 27.7 28.2 28.7 29.2 29.8
(Millions).................
IFR Aircraft Handled 41.4 43.2 44.2 45.2 46.2
(Millions).................
Total Operations at Airports 63.7 65.3 66.5 67.7 69.0
with FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
Instrument Operations 48.8 49.9 50.9 51.9 52.9
Handled by FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
Forecast Made in March 2000: ACT ACT ACT \2
\
Domestic Aviation Fuel 14.4 14.9 15.4 16.1 16.6
Consumption (Billions of
Gal- lons)................
Revenue Passenger Miles 608.0 623.4 652.1 681.1 709.3
(Billions).................
General Aviation Hours Flown 27.7 28.1 29.8 30.4 31.1
(Millions).................
IFR Aircraft Handled 41.4 43.2 44.7 45.7 46.8
(Millions).................
Total Operations at Airports 63.7 65.3 68.2 69.5 70.9
with FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
Instrument Operations 48.8 50.0 51.8 52.9 54.1
Handled by FAA and Contract
Towers (Millions)..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. commercial air carriers (domestic and international) and
regional/commuters total scheduled passenger traffic.
\2\ Preliminary.
LETTER OF INTENT COMMITMENTS
Question. Please provide a table outlining the letter of intent
commitments (LOI) made to date by the FAA and the impact for all the
relevant fiscal years from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2003.
Answer. The following table depicts total LOI payment schedules by
fiscal year, including fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2003.
AIP LETTERS OF INTENT--LOI APPROVALS BY YEAR--ALL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Discretionary Entitlement Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................................ $150,560,983 $38,379,384 $188,940,367
1998............................................................ 127,868,716 43,818,541 171,687,257
1999............................................................ 113,741,601 48,478,257 162,219,858
2000............................................................ 156,393,300 49,640,722 206,034,022
2001............................................................ 140,691,025 47,277,696 187,968,721
2002............................................................ 138,953,300 44,673,374 183,626,674
2003............................................................ 102,150,300 40,341,528 142,491,828
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKLOAD INDICATORS
Question. Please update the workload measures for the tables on
pages 527-536 of last year's House hearing record by adding the data or
the estimate for the next fiscal year, without deleting the first
reporting fiscal year on each individual table.
Answer. The charts follow:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.005
WORKLOAD MEASURES AND INDUSTRY TRENDS
DATA FOR LINE GRAPH ON GROWTH IN FAA OPS BUDGET AND AVIATION ACTIVITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport Instrument
Fiscal year FAA ops budget IFR aircraft operations FAA/ operations FAA/
handled contract contract
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.......................................... 4,642,720,000 40,419,300 61,908,900 47,217,200
1997.......................................... 4,952,912,000 41,411,800 63,666,300 48,778,900
1998.......................................... 5,252,550,000 43,195,900 65,257,700 49,980,500
1999 \1\...................................... 5,586,071,000 44,654,100 68,151,700 51,829,900
2000 (Est).................................... 5,893,390,000 45,653,500 69,462,300 52,928,400
2001 (Est).................................... 6,592,235,000 46,765,500 70,880,900 54,092,500
1996.......................................... ................ .............. .............. ..............
1997 (percent)................................ 6.68 2.46 2.84 3.31
1998 (pecent)................................. 6.05 4.31 2.50 2.46
1999 (percent)................................ 6.35 3.38 4.43 3.70
2000 (Est) (percent).......................... 5.50 2.24 1.92 2.12
2001 (Est) (percent).......................... 11.86 2.44 2.04 2.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes supplemental funding of $34.2 million for Y2K-related activities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.007
WORKLOAD MEASURES AND INDUSTRY TRENDS
The chart below reflects the forecasted controller work force and
the projected instrument operations (in thousands) at airports with FAA
traffic control service. The column on the far rights is the instrument
operations (in thousands) at air route traffic control centers
(ARTCC's).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IOPS IOPS
Year CWF (Terminals) (ARTCC's)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997................................. 17,388 48,128.2 41,411.8
1998................................. 17,756 49,272.9 43,196.0
1999................................. 17,639 51,110.3 44,654.4
2000................................. 17,599 52,087.7 45,653.5
2001................................. 17,599 53,237.8 46,765.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--FAA Aviation Forecasts fiscal years 2000-2011, March 2000
edition.
CONTROLLER WORKFORCE AND INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent IOPS Percent IOPS Percent
Year CWF change (Terminals) change (ARTCC's) change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996........................................ 17,080 ......... 46,628.5 ......... 40,419.4 .........
1997........................................ 17,388 1.80 48,128.1 3.22 41,375.4 2.37
1998........................................ 17,756 2.12 49,272.9 2.38 43,196.0 4.40
1999........................................ 17,639 -0.66 51,110.3 3.73 44,654.4 3.38
2000........................................ 17,599 -0.23 52,087.7 1.91 45,653.5 2.24
2001........................................ 17,599 ......... 53,237.8 2.21 46,765.5 2.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENT AND FATALITY RATES
Question. Please update the line graph showing the rate of
accidents per 100,000 departures for part 121 air carriers shown on
page 554, the table on page 556, and the table on page 558 relating to
general aviation accidents from last year's House hearing record.
Answer. The table and line graphs follow.
PART 121 CASUALTIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal........................................ 8 1 12
Serious...................................... 38 28 57
Minor........................................ 128 87 158
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.009
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Question. Please provide information on FAA's advisory committees
including the name of the committee, its purpose, and the estimated
fiscal year 2001 cost as well as the actual fiscal year 2000 cost.
Answer. The following chart displays each committee, its purpose,
and the estimated fiscal year 2001 cost as well as the actual year 2000
cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------
Name Purpose 2000 2001
cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Reviews air $44,361 $50,026
Commit- tee. traffic control
procedures and
practices.
RTCA, Inc., (Utilized as an Advances the art 300,000 380,000
Advisory Committee). and science of
aviation and
aviation
electronic
systems.
Aviation Security Advisory Examines all areas 89,000 60,000
Committee. of civil aviation
security with the
aim of increasing
safety for the
traveling public.
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Provides advice 110,000 105,000
Commit- tee. and
recommendations
on FAA's
rulemaking
activities.
Research, Engineering, and Provides advice on 150,000 183,000
Development Advisory Committee. aviation research
needs.
Commercial Space Transportation Provides advice on 41,200 41,850
Advisory Committee. all aspects of
U.S. commercial
space
transportation
activities.
Aging Transport Systems Provides advice on 50,000 50,000
Rulemaking Advisory Committee. the aging
transport
airplane systems.
-------------------
Total..................... 784,561........... 869,876
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER (FFRDC) SERVICES
Question. The Committee is aware that the FAA has expressed an
intention to sole source contract for FFRDC services. Please provide
the rationale for a sole source contract and a summary of the services
with estimated cost for each broad category of services anticipated
under a sole source contract. Concerns have been expressed that the
current use of the FFRDC by the FAA is more akin to a Systems
Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contract than an actual
independent expert capability. What is the FAA position as relates to
the need for FFRDC services as opposed to SETA capabilities?
Answer. In September 1990, as the result of a Memorandum of
Agreement with the MITRE Corporation, the FAA sponsored MITRE to
operate a FFRDC. The Sponsoring Agreement was renewed on April 9, 1996
effective for the five-year period ending April 8, 2001. MITRE operates
the FAA's FFRDC as an identifiable, separate operating unit.
The current eight-year research and development contract with MITRE
Corporation for the operation of the FFRDC was awarded in December 1992
and expires on November 30, 2000. Prior to extending the contract or
agreement with an FFRDC, acquisition directives require that the
sponsoring agency conduct a comprehensive review of the use and
continued need for the FFRDC. Based on the results of the recently
completed comprehensive review, it has been reaffirmed that a strong
need exists for continued support by the Center for Advanced Aviation
System Development (CAASD). CAASD performs studies, analysis and
concept formulation for continued advanced aviation research for the
Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and National Airspace System (NAS). Work
assignments are approved by the FFRDC Executive Board (FEB) and are
contained in annual Product Based Work Plans (PBWPs). Support for the
following FAA programs is included:
--Free Flight Phase 1
--Communications Navigation Surveillance Operational Capability
--Navigation Architecture
--NAS Architecture Implementation
--Near Term Procedural Enhancements
--Airspace Design and Analysis
--User Performance Planning and Research
--NAS Integration
--NAS Infrastructure Management
Only work that is appropriate to be performed by a research and
development FFRDC is authorized and approved for incorporation in the
annual CAASD work plan. Support that is appropriately performed by a
technical assistance contractor or any other contractor is not approved
for performance by CAASD. The fiscal year 2000 PBWP is currently under
development.
A market analysis was conducted in accordance with the requirements
of the FAA's Acquisition Management System (AMS) to determine the
availability of the needed research and analysis services. Evaluation
criteria included demonstrated technical capability in all of the
following areas: operations research, computer science, electrical and
mechanical engineering; demonstrated experience in highly specialized
simulation and computer modeling techniques and facilities to model
improvements across a broad spectrum of NAS systems and operations;
demonstrated capability to provide the main technical linkage between
the operational and the development requirements of FAA organizations;
demonstrated capability to support the FAA in rapidly and effectively
formulating new programs to meet emerging operational needs;
demonstrated capability to provide rapid response to safety issues
affecting the aviation community, and Congressional interests and
mandates; prior experience in support services for the FAA
communications system, including current programs that require digital
technology applications; demonstrated capability to provide services
related to the major operational functions of aircraft separation and
flight planning, and the problem of ATC system capacity; and background
knowledge in behavioral science and/or human performance as related to
the major NAS areas. These capabilities are required of any source
selected for operation of the FFRDC, because all too often, multiple
capabilities are needed quickly to meet program needs.
As a result of this market analysis, it was concluded that MITRE is
the only responsible source that can provide a comprehensive and
synergistic approach in all required areas. MITRE has the demonstrated
capability to meet the interrelated system requirements in the
functional areas and furnish the experienced professional staff needed
to complete ongoing CIP and NAS programs.
The FAA has taken steps to promote the use of subcontractors, where
appropriate, in specialized technical areas that are in support of the
major task assignments. The FAA has also taken action to award other
major contracts in support of the NAS on a full and open competitive
basis.
These competitively awarded contracts include the NAS
Implementation Support Contract (NISC), Technical Support Services
Contract, the System Engineering Technical Assistance Contract, various
Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Technical Assistance
Contracts, and the Air Traffic Systems Development Technical Assistance
Contract. The level of services called for in these contracts, however,
do not entail anywhere near the complexity of needed skills and
knowledge provided by the CAASD in requisite functional areas of
expertise.
RTCA CHARTER
Question. Please provide a summary of the RTCA charter, the
organizational and management structure, and a current list of members.
Answer. FAA Order (1110.77M) constitutes the charter for the
utilization of RTCA, Inc. as an advisory committee. It describes the
objectives and scope of activities (to seek solutions to problems
involving the application of technology to aeronautical operations that
impact the future air traffic management system); the organization
(comprised of a general membership, a chairman, a board of directors, a
Program Management Committee (PMC), a president and a vice president);
administration (FAA key officials are members of the RTCA policy board,
the PMC oversees the establishment and workings of the special
committees, meetings are scheduled, held, and conducted in accordance
with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act). The charter
also addresses public participation and availability of records.
RTCA, Inc. also has its own charter as a not-for-profit
corporation. Within its charter, the stated objectives address the
scientific and educational purpose of the corporation, which is to
advance the art and science of aviation and aviation electronic systems
for the benefit of the public. The RTCA specific objective list
includes those also contained in the FAA Order; they are:
--``coalesce aviation system user and provider technical requirements
in a manner that helps government and industry meet their
mutual objectives and responsibilities;
--analyze and recommend solutions to the system technical issues that
aviation faces as it continues to pursue increased safety,
system capacity and efficiency;
--develop consensus on the application of pertinent technology to
fulfill user and provider requirements, including development
of minimum operational performance standards for electronic
systems and equipment that support aviation;
--assist in developing the appropriate technical material upon which
positions for the International Civil Aviation Organization,
the International Telecommunications Union, and other
appropriate international organizations can be based; as well
as
--conduct the Corporation's affairs in a manner such that its
integrity remains beyond challenge.''
The RTCA management and organizational structure is depicted in the
following chart. It shows the relationship between the Policy Board,
the Program Management Committee and Special Committee activities, as
well as the Steering and Select Committee activities.
The current list of members also follows. It reflects 150 industry
member organizations, plus 58 international associate members, plus
five academic associate members, as well as the eight government
members--for a total of 221. Government members include: Federal
Aviation Administration, DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Center
for Atmospheric Research, United States Air Force, United States Army,
Department of Commerce, and United States Navy.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.017
RTCA ACTIVITIES
Question. What activities is the RTCA anticipated to conduct in
fiscal year 2001?
Answer. FAA anticipates RTCA involvement in the following
activities in fiscal year 2001 Special Committees (SC):
--SC-135--Environmental Testing
--SC-147--Traffic Alert & Collision Avoidance System
--SC-159--Global Positioning System
--SC-165--Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service
--SC-172--VHF Air-Ground Communication
--SC-181--Navigation Standards
--SC-186--Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
--SC-188--High Frequency Data Link
--SC-189--Air Traffic Services Safety and Interoperability
Requirements
--SC-190--Application Guidelines for RTCA/DO-178B (Software)
--SC-192--National Airspace Review Planning and Analysis
--SC-193--Terrain and Airport Databases
--SC-194--Air Traffic Management Data Link Implementation
--SC-195--Flight Information Services Communications
--SC-196--Night Vision Goggles
Steering/Select Committees:
--Free Flight Steering Committee and Free Flight Select Committee
--Certification Steering Committee and Certification Select Committee
Policy Board Committees: Future Flight Data Recorders
RTCA ACTIVITIES SELECTION PROCESS
Question. How are RTCA activities selected? How are group members
selected? What types of Chinese wall arrangements are created to make
sure that the roles of manager, facilitator, and contractor do not
become blurred?
Answer. The determination of activities is the decision of the FAA
Administrator. The following process is used to select members for the
various activities: Special Committee members are volunteers who have
an interest in the subject being addressed by the committee. Members
can come from across the full spectrum of the aviation community--
government and industry, users and suppliers, labor and management,
airports, service providers--and often include people from the
international as well as the domestic segments of the global aviation
community. The public and the aviation community are notified that a
new Special Committee is being formed via an announcement in the
Federal Register. It is important to note that because the committees
are open and inclusive, anyone may participate at any time without an
invitation. If, after the committee is organized, RTCA or the committee
determines that the perspectives of an individual or organization not
currently participating in the Special Committee are relevant to the
committee's deliberations, RTCA will extend an invitation to
participate in the committee's deliberations. All subsequent plenary
meetings of the committee are announced in the Federal Register.
(Membership in working groups under Special Committees is generally
drawn from the Special Committee membership, although others with a
relevant perspective are encouraged to participate in working group
activities when appropriate and needed. The results of working group
activities are provided to the Special Committee for consideration by
the full committee when the committee meets in plenary session.)
The membership process and criteria for an RTCA Task Force and
subordinate working groups parallels that of Special Committees.
Membership on the Government/Industry Free Flight Steering
Committee is by appointment. FAA and the RTCA Policy Board identify
potential Steering Committee members based on their organizational
responsibilities, professional experience, interest in Free Flight
issues being considered, and their group ``problem solving'' skills. If
the desired individual is interested in voluntarily serving on the
committee and their parent organization concurs with their appointment,
they are appointed to Steering Committee membership. Steering Committee
membership is dominated by operationally oriented organization
representatives given the safety, capacity, and efficiency nature of
the committee's mission. Some rotation occurs on an annual basis. The
process is documented and is available for review at RTCA. The Free
Flight Steering Committee only meets in plenary session. All meetings
are announced in the Federal Register. All meetings are open to the
public and the public is afforded an opportunity to express its views
throughout the meetings.
Membership on the Free Flight Select Committee (the working arm of
the Steering Committee) is by appointment. The process and criteria of
identifying Select Committee members are similar to those used in
identifying Steering Committee members. Select Committee tasking flows
from the Steering Committee. Select Committee meetings are not open to
the public. Select Committee working group membership is usually drawn
from Select Committee membership; however, as in the case for Special
Committee working groups, other people with relevant perspectives and
professional experience can be and are invited to participate in
working group deliberations. The process is documented and is available
for review at RTCA.
Membership for the Certification Steering and Select Committees
follows the process described for the Free Flight committees.
There are no arrangements to segregate the roles of participants in
RTCA activities. The fundamental premises upon which the RTCA
consensus-based process is based are as follows:
Acknowledge the inevitability of ``conflict of interest'' among the
disparate aviation community groups/individuals; for example,
government and industry, users and suppliers, labor and management,
commercial and general aviation, airports, and service suppliers.
Fully consider the diverse interests of these groups/individuals
and use the RTCA open, inclusive, consensus-based process to develop
recommendations that remove the parochial views of any one group. The
resulting recommended course of action serves the best interests of the
aviation community and the public.
CONTROLLER PAY AGREEMENT
Question. What is the current estimate of the NATCA controller pay
agreement cost? What percentage of the total dollar value of this
agreement does the agency calculate will be offset through productivity
gains and other quantifiable savings resulting from the agreement
itself? What is the total aggregate savings resulting from the
agreement to date--what is the cost of the agreement to date?
Answer. During the first part of fiscal year 1999, the FAA and
NATCA worked to finalize the rules associated with the various
productivity articles of the contract and the rules for the new pay
system. A metrics team was established to identify and track measurable
results of implementing the contract. Early indications from this
effort are showing some positive trends, and the FAA will continue to
refine and analyze this data to provide additional information to
Congress on the results of this contract.
There are many indirect results of the contract with NATCA,
including an improved and more productive working relationship between
FAA management and NATCA in modernizing the aviation system. An example
of this partnership is the manner in which Display System Replacement
(DSR) has been fielded throughout the country, resulting in FAA
completing many facilities well ahead of schedule. Another example is
the STARS program; FAA has fielded the first segment at El Paso and
Syracuse and is working on the advanced configurations of that program.
STAFFING STANDARD
Question. Please provide a table that lists for fiscal years 1995
through 2001 the staffing standard generated by the FAA systematically-
derived requirement figures, the actual number of controllers, the
differences, the average compensation per controller, and the aggregate
cost differential (negative or positive) of the actual staffing level
compared to the staffing standard multiplied by the average
compensation in each given year.
Answer. The following table provides the information requested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate
Staffing Actual on Average cost
Fiscal year standard board AOB-SS compensation differential
(SS) (AOB) per (dollars in
controller thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................... 14,232 14,614 382 $81,021 $30,949.9
1996............................................... 14,691 14,360 -331 83,728 -27,717.1
1997............................................... 14,261 14,588 327 86,240 28,200.6
1998............................................... 14,207 14,966 759 92,856 70,326.3
1999............................................... 14,282 14,902 620 104,747 64,943.3
2000............................................... 14,782 \1\ 15,00 218 120,826 26,340.1
0
2001............................................... 15,210 \1\ 15,00 -204 124,572 -25,412.7
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated.
BACKFILL OVERTIME
Question. Please provide backfill overtime data from 1995 through
2001.
Answer. The backfill overtime usage for fiscal years 1995 through
1998 averaged $3-4,000,000 per year.
In fiscal year 1999, the backfill overtime significantly increased
to $16,119,040 due to the DSR in eight air route traffic control
centers.
It is projected that there will be $17,715,868 spent in backfill
overtime to support the transition of the remaining ten air route
traffic control centers and the installation of the Center TRACON
Automation System (CTAS) at two sites in fiscal year 2000.
The current projections for fiscal year 2001 in backfill overtime
are $24,000,000. This figure covers the costs for developmental and
training activities associated with bringing new systems on-line and
operational in facilities, such as the Standard Terminal Automation
Replacement System (STARS) in terminal facilities, and the Automated
Radar Terminal System Color Displays (ACD) that will be installed in
fiscal year 2001 at terminal facilities that are not scheduled to
receive STARS. The current schedule for CTAS includes installation at
six sites, which requires instructor training, training of the
controllers, transition in the en route and terminal facilities, and
developmental activities for future site installations.
Additionally, there are several large TRACON's scheduled for
building and occupancy in fiscal year 2001. These facilities include
Atlanta, Northern California, and Potomac. These facilities will be
consolidating personnel and cross-training them in the different areas
to ensure that safety of the air traffic system is not compromised. All
of the aforementioned programs will require training and transition
time before the systems can become operational in the air traffic
environment.
CONTROLLER WORKFORCE
Question. Please update the table from page 571 of last year's
House hearing record on Controller Work Force (CWF) end of year
employment for fiscal years 1996 through 2001.
Answer. The following table provides the information requested. The
table shows the traffic management coordinators (TMC) and traffic
management supervisors (TMS) as a separate entry. The TMC/TMS are part
of the controller work force.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------
2000 2001
1997 1998 1999 estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center:
Controllers............................................... 6,425 6,639 6,607 6,635 6,635
Ops Supervisors (1st Line Sup)............................ 825 812 790 755 755
TMC/TMS................................................... 558 526 567 553 553
-------------------------------------------------
Center Controller Work Force............................ 7,808 7,977 7,964 7,943 7,943
=================================================
Towers:
Controllers.............................................. 8,163 8,327 8,295 8,330 8,330
Ops Supervisors (1st Line Sup)............................ 1,261 1,276 1,177 1,129 1,129
TMC/TMS................................................... 156 176 203 197 197
-------------------------------------------------
Tower Controller Work Force............................. 9,580 9,779 9,675 9,656 9,656
=================================================
Centers/Towers Combined:
Controllers............................................... 14,588 14,966 14,902 14,965 14,965
Ops Supervisors (1st Line Sup)............................ 2,086 2,088 1,967 1,884 1,884
TMC/TMS................................................... 714 702 770 750 750
-------------------------------------------------
Total Controller Work Force............................. 17,388 17,756 17,639 17,599 17,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNION TIME
Question. Please provide the estimated time granted by FAA managers
for union activities for fiscal years 1995 through 2001.
Answer. Listed below are the estimated hours granted by FAA
managers for union activities for fiscal years 1995 through 2001.
Fiscal year Hours (estimate)
1995.......................................................... 302,566
1996.......................................................... 302,566
1997.......................................................... 302,566
1998.......................................................... 394,351
1999.......................................................... 489,956
2000.......................................................... 457,339
2001.......................................................... 457,339
CONTRACT TOWERS
Question. How much funding is included in the fiscal year 2001
budget request to run contract towers. How much was included in the
fiscal year 2000 budget request? How much is anticipated being spent on
contract towers in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 includes $55,600,000 for the contract
tower program. The fiscal year 2000 budget request included $55,600,000
for the contract tower program. We anticipate spending the full
$55,600,000 during fiscal year 2000 on contract towers.
OPERATIONAL ERRORS
Question. Please update the table on page 583 of last year's House
hearing record relating to operational errors at contract towers and
FAA facilities from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal 2000 (if partial
year data is available). Do you have confidence in your operational
error data?
Answer. The following tables provide the information requested.
OPERATIONAL ERRORS FAA-- LEVEL I FACILITIES VS. CONTRACT TOWERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 11995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Facilities.......................................... 4 5 2 4 2 6 \1\ 2
Contract Towers......................................... 2 ...... 2 3 10 6 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The last 22 FAA Level 1 towers were converted to contract towers on October 1, 1999. There were 163 contract
towers at the end of fiscal year 1999.
OPERATIONAL ERROR RATE--FAA LEVEL I FACILITIES VS. CONTRACT TOWERS--CENTER
[Errors per 100,000 Operations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Facilities.......................................... 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.11
Contract Towers......................................... 0.12 ...... 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Fiscal year 2000 numbers are not available. At the beginning of fiscal year 2000, all FAA Level I towers
were converted to contract towers. The data is validated for accuracy by the Air Traffic Investigations Office
and entered into a database, which is retained by the FAA.
Question. Are some facilities more a problem with respect to
operational errors than others? Which ones?
Answer. There is no defined trend or problem facilities in the
Federal contract tower program. Operational errors continue to be a
very rare occurrence. The FAA is working to further reduce this already
low figure.
Question. Please update the table on pages 594-598 of last year's
House hearing recording relating to en route operational errors.
Answer. The following table breaks down the total number of en
route operational errors for the past five fiscal years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Facility Location -----------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
En route operational errors:
Albuquerque (ZAB)............. 8000 Louisiana Blvd., NE Room 1014 20 21 13 7 22
Albuquerque, NM 87109.
Anchorage (ZAN)............... 5400 Davis Highway Anchorage, AL 99506........ 3 2 3 4 9
Atlanta (ZTL)................. 299 Woolsey Road Hampton, GA 30228............ 51 36 38 41 52
Boston (ZBW).................. Boston ARTCC 35 Northeastern Blvd. Nashua, NH 6 13 12 15 12
03062.
Chicago (ZAU)................. 619 Indian Trail Road Aurora, IL 60506........ 28 26 22 36 41
Cleveland (ZOB)............... 326 East Lorain Street Oberlin, OH............ 30 32 27 46 48
Denver (ZDV).................. 2211--17th Avenue Longmont, CO................ 17 11 14 14 20
Fort Worth (ZFW).............. 13800 FAA Road Fort Worth, TX 76039........... 17 23 16 21 18
Houston (ZHU)................. Intercontinental Airport 2700 West Terminal 17 7 8 9 15
Road Houston, TX 77032-0032.
Indianapolis (ZID)............ Indianapolis Int'l Airport 1850 S. Sigsbee 38 39 29 48 55
Street Indianapolis, IN 46241.
Jacksonville (ZJX)............ 811 E. Second Street P.O. Box 98 Hilliard, FL 21 27 27 25 24
32046.
Kansas City (ZKC)............. 250 S. Rogers Road Olathe, KS 66062-1689...... 36 20 18 26 26
Los Angeles (ZLA)............. 2555 East Avenue Palmdale, CA 93550-2112...... 20 19 24 27 22
Memphis (ZME)................. 3229 Democrat Road Memphis, TN 38118.......... 18 21 25 26 21
Miami (ZMA)................... 7500 N. W. 58th Street Miami, FL 33166........ 21 15 14 14 14
Minneapolis (ZMP)............. 512 Division Street Farmington, MN 55024...... 10 13 10 14 23
New York (ZNY)................ 4205 Johnson Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779...... 40 44 41 46 47
Oakland (ZOA)................. 5125 Central Avenue Fremont, CA 94536-6531.... 11 20 17 12 21
Salt Lake (ZLC)............... 2150 West 700 North Salt Lake City, UT 84116.. 11 8 9 9 3
San Juan CERAP (ZUA).......... DOT/FAA San Juan CERAP/GPO Section San Juan, .... 1 .... .... ....
PR 00936.
Seattle (ZSE)................. ARTCC Building 3101 Auburn Way S. Auburn, WA 16 9 3 5 6
98092.
Washington (ZDC).............. 825 East Market Street Leesburg, VA 20041..... 22 24 25 42 74
-----------------------------
Total....................................................................... 453 431 395 487 573
=============================
Operational Errors by Calendar
Year:
Albuquerque (ZAB)............. 8000 Louisiana Blvd., NE Room 1014, 23 17 14 8 26
Albuquerque, NM 87109.
Anchorage (ZAN)............... 5400 Davis Highway Anchorage, AL 99506........ 2 2 4 4 10
Atlanta (ZTL)................. 299 Woolsey Road Hampton, GA 30228............ 49 43 33 43 61
Boston (ZBW).................. Boston ARTCC 35 Northeastern Blvd. Nashua, NH 6 15 16 15 12
03062.
Chicago (ZAU)................. 619 Indian Trail Road Aurora, IL 60506........ 29 24 26 47 46
Cleveland (ZOB)............... 326 East Lorain Street Oberlin, OH............ 34 32 30 47 51
Denver (ZDV).................. 2211--17th Avenue Longmont, CO................ 19 11 13 15 24
Fort Worth (ZFW).............. 13800 FAA Road Fort Worth, TX 76039........... 20 20 16 18 21
Houston (ZHU)................. Intercontinental Airport 2700 West Terminal 12 8 11 7 19
Road Houston, TX 77032-0032.
Indianapolis (ZID)............ Indianapolis Int'l Airport 1850 S. Sigsbee 33 38 33 49 57
Street Indianapolis, IN 46241.
Jacksonville (ZJX)............ 811 E. Second Street P.O. Box 98 Hilliard, FL 25 28 26 23 30
32046.
Kansas City (ZKC)............. 250 S. Rogers Road Olathe, KS 66062-1689...... 26 23 20 26 28
Los Angeles (ZLA)............. 2555 East Avenue P Palmdale, CA 93550-2112.... 20 17 26 28 22
Memphis (ZME)................. 3229 Democrat Road Memphis, TN 38118.......... 20 26 22 25 25
Miami (ZMA)................... 7500 N. W. 58th Street Miami, FL 33166........ 21 16 13 11 18
Minneapolis (ZMP)............. 512 Division Street Farmington, MN 55024...... 10 16 7 19 21
New York (ZNY)................ 4205 Johnson Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779...... 40 46 44 44 49
Oakland (ZOA)................. 5125 Central Avenue Fremont, CA 94536-6531.... 12 23 15 16 16
Salt Lake (ZLC)............... 2150 West 700 North Salt Lake City, UT 84116.. 14 6 10 7 4
San Juan CERAP (ZUA).......... DOT/FAA San Juan CERAP/GPO Section San Juan, .... 1 .... .... ....
PR 00936.
Seattle (ZSE)................. ARTCC Building 3101 Auburn Way S. Auburn, WA 15 9 1 5 6
98092.
Washington (ZDC).............. 825 East Market Street Leesburg, VA 20041..... 23 18 31 53 75
-----------------------------
Total....................................................................... 453 439 411 510 621
=============================
Error Rate by Fiscal Year:
Albuquerque (ZAB)............. 8000 Louisiana Blvd., NE Room 1014 1.35 1.33 0.84 0.40 1.07
Albuquerque, NM 87109.
Anchorage (ZAN)............... 5400 Davis Highway Anchorage, AL 99506........ 0.54 0.37 0.51 0.62 1.51
Atlanta (ZTL)................. 299 Woolsey Road Hampton, GA 30228............ 2.07 1.47 1.52 1.54 1.86
Boston (ZBW).................. Boston ARTCC 35 Northeastern Blvd. Nashua, NH 0.35 0.76 0.68 0.75 0.65
03062.
Chicago (ZAU)................. 619 Indian Trail Road Aurora, IL 60506........ 0.97 0.90 0.77 1.29 1.44
Cleveland (ZOB)............... 326 East Lorain Street Oberlin, OH............ 1.10 1.12 0.94 1.53 1.53
Denver (ZDV).................. 2211--17th Avenue Longmont, CO................ 1.19 0.73 0.88 0.86 1.21
Fort Worth (ZFW).............. 13800 FAA Road Fort Worth, TX 76039........... 0.80 1.08 0.76 0.97 0.83
Houston (ZHU)................. Intercontinental Airport 2700 West Terminal 0.90 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.74
Road Houston, TX 77032-0032.
Indianapolis (ZID)............ Indianapolis Int'l Airport 1850 S. Sigsbee 1.77 1.80 1.24 2.00 2.11
Street Indianapolis, IN 46241.
Jacksonville (ZJX)............ 811 E. Second Street P.O. Box 98 Hilliard, FL 1.15 1.44 1.40 1.19 1.09
32046.
Kansas City (ZKC)............. 250 S. Rogers Road Olathe, KS 66062-1689...... 1.84 1.01 0.87 1.22 1.19
Los Angeles (ZLA)............. 2555 East Avenue P Palmdale, CA 93550-2112.... 1.03 0.96 1.19 1.34 1.06
Memphis (ZME)................. 3229 Democrat Road Memphis, TN 38118.......... 0.89 1.06 1.24 1.22 0.97
Miami (ZMA)................... 7500 N. W. 58th Street Miami, FL 33166........ 1.06 0.76 0.70 0.68 0.65
Minneapolis (ZMP)............. 512 Division Street Farmington, MN 55024...... 0.50 0.65 0.49 0.68 1.09
New York (ZNY)................ 4205 Johnson Avenue Ronkonkoma, NY 11779...... 1.91 2.06 1.87 1.84 1.68
Oakland (ZOA)................. 5125 Central Avenue Fremont, CA 94536-6531.... 0.70 1.28 1.08 0.74 1.30
Salt Lake (ZLC)............... 2150 West 700 North Salt Lake City, UT 84116.. 0.77 0.54 0.60 0.58 0.21
San Juan CERAP (ZUA).......... DOT/FAA San Juan CERAP/GPO Section San Juan, .... 0.78 .... .... ....
PR 00936.
Seattle (ZSE)................. ARTCC Building 3101 Auburn Way S. Auburn, WA 1.12 0.65 0.21 0.36 0.42
98092.
Washington (ZDC).............. 825 East Market Street Leesburg, VA 20041..... 0.94 1.05 1.04 1.71 2.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTROLLER TRAINING
Question. Please provide estimated obligations under the current
controller training contract for each of the fiscal years 1996-2001.
Answer. The following is a breakdown of funding to support the air
traffic controller training program.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Activity -----------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 \1\ 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Instructional Services Contract......... 9,572.2 11,920.0 13,893.5 15,494.7 16,700.0 16,700.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the Administration's fiscal year 2000 Supplemental request.
CONTROLLER WORK FORCE
Question. Please provide a table consisting of the controller work
force divided into total air traffic activity by year from fiscal year
1992-2001. Please comment on the trend in this controller productivity
measure. Has the FAA developed any other metrics to measure controller
productivity. Please provide a note estimating the number of controller
staffing years that are incurred by virtue of backfill overtime.
Answer. The following table provides the information requested:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Operations
Year ATCS operations per ATCS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992............................... 15,147 143,590,432 9,480
1993............................... 14,970 143,226,923 9,567
1994............................... 14,953 145,871,002 9,755
1995............................... 14,614 145,171,595 9,934
1996............................... 14,360 141,457,797 9,851
1997............................... 14,588 142,759,683 9,786
1998............................... 14,966 145,456,514 9,719
1999............................... 14,902 150,821,483 10,121
2000............................... 15,000 152,105,300 10,140
2001............................... 15,000 155,524,300 10,368
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA does not believe that a good set of productivity metrics
exists today. The FAA and NATCA are working together to develop an
accurate set of performance indicators for the air traffic control
system, including productivity indicators. The FAA expects the report
to be finished and delivered by the end of May 2000.
Note.--The estimated numbers of controller staffing years that are
incurred by virtue of backfill overtime are:
Fiscal year
1998.............................................................. 44
1999.............................................................. 126
2000.............................................................. 130
CONTROLLER PRODUCTIVITY
Question. What tools are anticipated to be available in the next
fiscal year that will enhance controller productivity by virtue of
increasing the number of operations handled by the average controller
or by obviating the need for en route or other operations.
Answer. The following are tools that are anticipated to be
available in the next fiscal year that will enhance controller
productivity:
(1) Traffic Management Advisor (TMA), which provides the en route
controller with more accurate time-based metering. TMA also allows for
better, more effective coordination between the en route center and the
approach control in determining airport acceptance rates.
(2) Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool (PFAST) provides a runway
number and a sequence number to the terminal controller on the
Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) data block. It will assist the
controller in determining appropriate runway and sequence number to
aircraft entering the terminal environment. PFAST alleviates some of
the cognitive activity associated with manual determination of aircraft
sequence.
(3) User Request Evaluation Tool, (URET) is the prototype for the
Free Flight Phase 1 component, User Request Evaluation Tool Core
Capability Limited Deployment (URET CCLD). URET provides alert
notification of potential aircraft conflicts, enabling rapid analysis
of and response to aircraft requests. It also supports the controller
by providing electronic flight data management capabilities and
supporting some reduction in verbal coordination activities.
Prototyping activities will continue through fiscal year 2001, with
delivery of the Free Flight component URET CCLD at the keysite Kansas
City Air Route Traffic Control Center in September 2001.
DEPARTURE AND ARRIVAL PAIRS
Question. What are the average number of controller operations per
departure and arrival pair by year from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal
year 2001.
Answer. The FAA does not maintain data on ``departure and arrival
pairs.'' To develop a data base of that nature would be labor
intensive. However, the Agency does maintain a statistic called total
operations. It is made up of Instrument Flight Recorder aircraft
handled in centers, terminal instrument operations, and airport tower
operations. It does not include statistics from contract towers. Using
this statistic and the addition of the number of center and terminal
air traffic controllers (ATCS) database, the FAA has calculated the
number of total operations per ATCS for the fiscal years 1992 through
fiscal year 2001. The figures for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
are estimates based on forecasts.
The following table provides the information requested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Operations
Year ATCS operations per ATCS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992............................. 15,147 143,590,432 9,480
1994............................. 14,953 145,871,002 9,755
1995............................. 14,614 145,171,595 9,934
1996............................. 14,360 141,457,797 9,851
1997............................. 14,588 142,759,683 9,786
1998............................. 14,966 145,456,514 9,719
1999............................. 14,902 150,821,483 10,121
2000............................. 15,000 152,105,300 10,140
2001............................. 15,000 155,524,300 10,368
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS)
Question. Please provide the anticipated commissioning dates for
the AMASS system deployments.
Answer. The following table reflects AMASS delivery dates and first
and last operational readiness demonstration (ORD) dates. Following
completion of the In-service review decision scheduled for 01/01, ORDs
between San Francisco and Andrews Air Force Base will be in an order
prioritized by Air Traffic and are expected to occur at a rate of
approximately three every eight weeks. Commissionings are expected to
occur, depending on site-specific requirements, two to three months
after a site's ORD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivery
City date ORD date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit........................................... 8/29/97 .........
St. Louis........................................ 1/16/98 .........
FAA Technical Center.............................. 3/8/99 .........
San Francisco..................................... 6/15/99 6/01
FAA Academy....................................... 6/22/99 .........
Chicago........................................... 8/5/99 .........
Boston............................................ 8/16/99 .........
Los Angeles #1.................................... 8/25/99 .........
Los Angeles #2.................................... 9/2/99 .........
Salt Lake City.................................... 9/10/99 .........
Cleveland......................................... 9/16/99 .........
Seattle........................................... 10/8/99 .........
Newark............................................ 10/12/99 .........
Miami............................................. 11/2/99 .........
Minneapolis....................................... 11/5/99 .........
New York--Kennedy................................. 12/10/99 .........
Cincinnati........................................ 1/10/00 .........
Kansas City....................................... 1/12/00 .........
Portland.......................................... 1/19/00 .........
Pittsburgh........................................ 2/2/00 .........
Memphis........................................... 2/10/00 .........
Baltimore......................................... 3/6/00 .........
Philadelphia...................................... 3/6/00 .........
New Orleans....................................... 3/16/00 .........
Louisville........................................ 3/00 .........
Las Vegas......................................... 4/00 .........
Denver #1......................................... 4/00 .........
San Diego......................................... 4/00 .........
Dallas/Ft. Worth #1............................... 5/00 .........
Dallas/Ft. Worth #2............................... 5/00 .........
Anchorage......................................... 5/00 .........
Denver #2......................................... 5/00 .........
Charlotte......................................... 6/00 .........
New York--La Guardia.............................. 6/00 .........
Dulles............................................ 6/00 .........
La Guardia NY..................................... 6/00 .........
Houston #1........................................ 6/00 .........
Houston #2........................................ 7/00 .........
Reagan Washington National........................ \1\ TBD \1\ TBD
Andrews AFB MD.................................... 1/01 9/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Due to multipath on runways, DCA did not commission its ASDE-3 9/99.
To mitigate the mulitpath, the ASDE-3 antenna must be relocated. Funds
have not yet been identified for this task. Commissioning date cannot
be determined until funds have been allocated. This impacts the AMASS
commissioning.
LEASED TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Question. Please provide the actual obligations for leased
telecommunications for the past five fiscal years and the estimates for
fiscal year 2000 and 2001.
Answer. The following represent the actual obligation for leased
telecommunications for fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year1999 and the
estimates for fiscal years 2000 and 2001:
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year
1995.................................................... 312,477,400
1996.................................................... 314,776,900
1997.................................................... 314,981,600
1998.................................................... 307,835,300
1999.................................................... 273,332,200
2000.................................................... 277,716,000
2001.................................................... 355,819,000
IMPLEMENTATION OF OVERFLIGHT FEES
Question. Please reprint your reply to last year's question on the
implementation of overflight fees (page 717 of the House hearing
record) and respond to that question for the current budget cycle. In
light of that response, what gives the FAA any confidence that the new
user fees anticipated in the President's budget request will be
realized as projected in the President's request, particularly in light
of the deferral of work on the cost accounting system?
Excerpt from page 717 of last year's House hearings:
``Mr. Wolf. What is your schedule for implementing the
currently authorized overflight user fee, and what is your
estimate of collections for fiscal year 2000?
[The information follows:]
Our schedule has been driven by the overall schedule for
development of the Cost Accounting System. The necessary cost
accounting data should be available within the next two months,
and our goal is to have the overflight fees in effect by no
later than October 1, 1999. We cannot give a precise estimate
of collections at this point, pending availability of the cost
accounting information upon which the fees will be based. We do
know, however, that the fees and subsequent collections will be
lower than those estimated under the previous rule.''
Answer. With respect to the current budget cycle, we expect to
publish a new overflight fee document in the Federal Register in the
spring of 2000. The President's budget for fiscal year 2001 assumes
collections of $5,100,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $22,100,000 in fiscal
year 2001.
The deferral of certain work on the cost accounting system has no
adverse effect on the FAA's ability to realize $965,000,000 in the new
user fee revenues assumed in the President's budget. Those revenues
would come from new cost-based fees for air traffic control services.
The FAA already has good cost information of over $2,000,000,000 for en
route and oceanic services, and would build upon this information to
derive the new fees proposed in the President's budget.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL
Question. Please provide detail as to how the increase requested
for the Office of the Chief Counsel is to be used? What level of
contract legal support is currently being utilized by the FAA?
Answer. The Office of the Chief Counsel will primarily use the
increase to fund staff for support efforts in personnel and rulemaking
matters. AIR 21 restored Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) and
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) jurisdiction over personnel actions
taken by FAA supervisors and managers. FAA employees are allowed to
appeal adverse actions to MSPB. Actions appealable to the MSPB/OSC
involve serious personnel actions.
The Safer Skies agenda goals and initiatives have identified safety
interventions that will require additional advisory circulars, rules,
guidance and policy letters. Each of these will require legal review.
Backlogs in domestic Airworthiness Directives (AD's) and international
AD's Mandatory Continued Airworthiness Instructions are continuing and
can be expected to grow with the increased workload. Additional legal
expertise in the regional counsel office will help keep backlogs to a
minimum.
The FAA is not currently utilizing any contracted legal support;
the existing legal staff consists of FAA employees.
NEW PROGRAMS REQUESTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2001
Question. Please provide a list, with corresponding fiscal year
2001 funding, of all new programs, projects, or activities in the
fiscal year 2001 F&E budget request not requested in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. Listed below are the fiscal year 2001 programs not
requested in fiscal year 2000.
Free Flight Phase 2..................................... $50,000,000
Terminal Applied Engineering............................ 6,700,000
Mode-S.................................................. 1,974,000
Low Cost Airport Surface Detection Equipment............ 8,400,000
Weather Message Switching Center Replacement............ 2,500,000
ILS-Replace GRN-27...................................... 1,000,000
Gulf of Mexico Program.................................. 1,900,000
Distance Learning....................................... 2,200,000
NAS HANDOFF
Question. What level of NAS handoff funding was requested in
Operations for fiscal year 2000 and what is currently anticipated to be
funded out of the Operations account? How much NAS handoff funding is
requested for fiscal year 2001 in Operations? In F&E?
Answer. The FAA's increase for NAS handoff in fiscal year 2000 was
$85,500,000. The table, below, shows the disposition of the
appropriated funds.
Approximately 81 percent of the funds appropriated for NAS Handoff
had to be reprogrammed to cover operational shortfalls within the
affected lines of business. The NAS Handoff costs were either funded by
the F&E appropriation for another year, or were funded at greatly
reduced levels within the operations base funding for existing NAS
systems.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST--NAS HANDOFF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Budget activity 2000 Congressional Appropriation Reprogram Net program
request action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation and Certification.......... $3,730,000 .............. $3,730,000 -$3,730,000 ...........
Civil Aviation Security............... 1,800,000 -$713,000 1,087,000 -1,087,000 ...........
Air Traffic Services.................. 79,970,000 -15,050,000 64,920,000 -51,958,000 $12,962,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total FAA....................... 85,500,000 -15,763,000 -69,737,000 -56,775,000 12,962,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2001 request for NAS handoff is $135,426,600, all
in the Operations appropriation. The distribution by line of business
is: $2,900,000 for Regulation and Certification; $3,388,000 for Civil
Aviation Security; and $129,138,600 for Air Traffic Services.
PERCENTAGE OF F&E BUDGET REQUEST
Question. What percent of the F&E budget request for fiscal years
1999 through 2001 was for FAA salaries by year? What percentage for
direct research, development, or procurement of items to sustain or
modernize the NAS? What percentage is for overhead?
Answer. The percentages are listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries........................................ 12 14 13
Direct research................................. 1 1 1
Development..................................... 1 2 3
Procurement..................................... 86 83 83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overhead charges do not apply to the F&E appropriation.
APPROVED COST AND SCHEDULE BASELINES
Question. Please provide a listing of each baselined F&E program
providing a notation as to when the baseline was established and
whether such baseline is either the first or second baseline for the
program. In addition, please display the cost baseline, the schedule
baseline, and the current status of the program against such baseline.
Answer. The baselined listing follows:
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule baseline (last
Program name baseline date Total F&E cost baseline ORD) Current Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 programs initiated after
October 1996:
Host and Oceanic Computer $424.1.................. 9/99 (Phase I).......... Phase I completed.
System Replacement (HOCSR)
May 1998.
FSAS Operational and Initial: 174.7.......... Initial: 8/01........... Baseline under review.
Supportability System Re-baseline: 222.2 Re-baseline: 9/02
(OASIS) December 1996. Re-baseline: 249.5 Re-baseline: 5/05
Safety Performance and 32.3.................... 9/03................... No change.
Analysis System (SPAS)
August 1997.
Free Flight Phase One April 628.8................... 12/02................... No change.
1999.
Controller Pilot Data Link 159.9................... 12/05................... No change.
Communications-Build 1/1A
October 1998.
Next Generation Air/Ground 407.6................... 9/08.................... The program is currently
Communication System May being restructured due to
1998. budget deferrals.
FAA Telecommunications 205.7................... 12/08................... No change.
Infrastructure July 1999.
Systems Engineering and ........................ ........................ Contract to be awarded in
Technical Assistance June 2000.
Contract (SETA II) June
1999.
Facility Security Risk 148.3................... 9/05.................... No change.
Management February 1999.
NAS Infrastructure Initial: 100.8.......... 9/00.................... The FAA re-baselined the
Management System--Phase I Re-baseline: 60.3 program and has submitted
March 1997. a basis of determination
to Congress.
ACQUIRE December 1996....... 5.6..................... 9/98.................... Completed 12/98.
Local Area Augmentation Initial: 536.1.......... Initial: 12/06.......... Baseline under review.
System January 19998. Re-baseline: 718.5 Re-baseline: 10/11
Air Traffic Control Beacon 282.9................... 9/04.................... Baseline under review.
Interrogator Replacement
August 1997.
NAS Implementation Support 1337.0.................. 9/07.................... No change.
Contract October 1996.
30 programs initiated prior to
October 1996:
Display System Replacement 1,055.3................. 5/00.................... The program is reporting a
May 1996. $48.0M under-run to its
cost baseline.
Common ARTS (ARTS IIA, ARTS 86.1 (ARTS IIIE)........ 1/99 (ARTS IIIE)........ The last ARTS IIIE ORD was
IIIE) March 1997. 109.8 (ARTS IIE) 4/00 (ARTS IIE) completed in 6/99. The
last ARTS IIE ORD is
scheduled to be complete
in 5/00.
Standard Terminal Automation 1,076.1 (ceiling)....... 10/05 (ceiling)......... A new cost/schedule
Replacement System January baseline was presented to
1996. the Joint Resources
Council in 10/99. The
current estimate for the
cost baseline is $1402.6M
with a Last ORD of 9/08.
The revised APB is under
review and will be
approved shortly. The
primary reason for the
increase is computer-
human interface
modifications to the
system which require
significant custom
software development.
Oceanic--Build 1 July 1996.. 73.2.................... 10/99................... The Last ORD slipped to 6/
00 due to New York Center
priorities for deployment
of DSR and HOCSR over MS-
ODL.
Portable Performance Support 45.7.................... 9/04.................... No change.
System (PPSS) October 1998.
Integrated Flight Quality 18.7.................... 9/01.................... No change.
Assurance (IFQA) October
1998.
Voice Recorder Replacement 1,452.9................. 5/00.................... The program is reporting
Program January 1994. an underrun of $40.5M.
The schedule reflects the
Last ORD for VTABs.
Radio Control Equipment 260.4................... 12/01................... The Last ORD has slipped
October 1998. to 6/02 due to budget
deferrals.
Back up Emergency 54.1.................... Initial: 4/04........... Baseline under review.
Communications Replacement Re-baseline: 2/09
October 1998.
Voice Recorder Replacement 29.4.................... 5/02.................... The Last ORD has slipped
Program October 1998. to 6/04 due to budget
deferrals.
Potomac TRACON July 1999.... 92.4.................... 6/03.................... No change.
No. Cal TRACON October 1999. 88.1.................... 7/02.................... No change.
Atlanta TRACON October 1999. 62.2.................... 8/01.................... No change.
CAEG Replacement October 18.5.................... 4/02.................... No change.
1999.
Aeronautical Center-TSF/LSF 31.0.................... 9/04.................... No change.
April 1999.
Wilcox Cat II/III ILS 14.3.................... 12/99................... Program Complete.
Replacement October 1998.
AN/GRN-27 ILS Replacement 87.6.................... 12/99................... The Last ORD has slipped
October 1998. to 12/01 due to budget
deferrals.
Wide Area Augmentation Initial: 1,006.6........ Initial: 12/01.......... Baseline under review.
System January 1998. Re-baseline: 2,978.0 Re-baseline: 12/06
Airport Surface Detection 249.1................... 11/99................... The last ORD slipped to 2/
Equipment October 1998. 02. The schedule slip is
associated with the last
site, Charlotte, which is
a refurbished system
awaiting spare parts.
Airport Movement Area Safety Initial: 74.1........... Initial: 8/00........... Baseline under review.
System (AMASS) October 1998. Re-baseline: 151.8 Re-baseline: 9/02
Mode S December 1999........ 467.1................... 10/04................... No change.
Terminal Radar Program--ASR- 856.7................... 8/98.................... Completed 8/99.
9 October 1998.
Terminal Digital Radar--ASR- 743.3................... 9/05.................... Baseline under review.
11 November 1997.
Long Range Radar Program-- 415.8................... 6/99.................... Completed 3/00.
ARSR-4 October 1998.
Aviation Surface Weather 350.9................... 4/02.................... No change.
Observation Network (ASWON)
October 1999.
Terminal Doppler Weather 393.5................... 12/00................... No change.
Radar October 1998.
WARP Stage 0/1/2/3 October Initial: 125.6.......... Initial: 7/00........... The FAA has re-baselined
1998. Re-baseline: 143.6 Re-baseline: 2/01 the program. The cost
baseline increased $17.2M
due to increased
telecommunications
infrastructure costs,
additional time required
to complete deployment of
WARP Stage 1/2, and the
need to continue
providing WARP Stage 0
service to the field
until Stage 1/2
deployment. The Last ORD
slipped to 2/01.
Upgrade LLWAS to Expanded 43.5.................... 10/01................... The Last ORD has slipped
Network October 1998. to 3/02 due to the sub-
contractor defaulting on
the contract to produce
and deliver radio
transceivers for LLWAS
sensors. The cost
baseline increased $3.0M
for contractor
termination costs.
Integrated Terminal Weather 173.0................... 7/03.................... No change.
System (ITWS)-Initial
Operating Capability June
1997.
ASR Weather Systems 80.4.................... 9/02.................... The Last ORD slipped to 12/
Processor October 1998. 02 due to a 90-day
extension in the contract
start date as requested
by Northrop-Grumman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHEDULE FOR BASELINING REMAINING PROGRAMS
Question. Are all major acquisition programs baselined? Which
programs remain unbaselined, and what is the schedule for completion of
baselining those programs?
Answer. All major acquisition programs are either baselined, in
process or identified to be baselined. There are currently 44
acquisition programs baselined, accounting for approximately 70 percent
of the acquisition dollars in the agency's fiscal year 2001 F&E budget.
The list below identifies those either in process or identified to be
baselined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program name Planned completion date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
En Route Communications Gateway September 2000.
(Eunomia).
AFSS Voice Switch Replacement.......... May 2000.
Aeronautical Data Link--CPDLC Build II. TBD.\1\
Power Systems.......................... May 2000.
Information Security................... TBD.\1\
Runway Incursion (in two phases)....... August 2000.
ASDE-X Non-Radar....................... TBD.\1\
Oceanic--ATOP.......................... TBD.\1\
Airport Cable Loop..................... May 2000.
Aeronautical Center--CAMI.............. TBD.\1\
NAS Training Modernization............. September 2000.
Asset & Supply Chain Management........ September 2000.
Long Range radar Improvements-- TBD.\1\
Infrastructure Upgrades.
NEXRAD Upgrades........................ TBD.\1\
TDWR Computer Replacement.............. TBD.\1\
Aviation Safety Analysis System........ TBD.\1\
NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM)..... September 2000.
Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch......... September 2000.
A/G Communications..................... TBD.\1\
Alaskan NAS Interfacility August 2000.
Communications System Satellite
Network-Phase II.
Sustain Distance Measuring Equipment... TBD.\1\
NIMS--Phase II......................... May 2000.
Free Flight Phase II................... TBD.\1\
En Route Domain Infrastructure (ERDI).. TBD.\1\
Advanced Airport Security Systems...... TBD.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The baselines on TBD (to be determined) status are those programs in
the process of having an investment analysis performed. Baselines are
not established until an investment analysis of the alternatives is
completed.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT END OF YEAR OBLIGATIONS
Question. Please update the bar chart on page 783 of last year's
House hearing record concerning end of year F&E obligations.
Answer. The bar chart follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.018
FREE FLIGHT PHASE 1
Question. Please update the Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1) baseline
schedule on page 804 of last year's House hearing record.
Answer. The schedule follows.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.019
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS)
Question. Please provide the names of the FAA WAAS team members
working closely with Raytheon on resolving programmatic issues. Who is
the accountable FAA official for cost and schedule baseline targets?
Answer. Key team members from FAA's Global Positioning System (GPS)
Product Team who are working closely with Raytheon on resolving
programmatic issues include the following:
--Jack Loewenstein, Integrated Product Team Leader (IPTL) for
Navigation Systems
--Harry Kane, Deputy IPTL
--Steve Hodges, GPS Product Team Lead
--Hal Bell, Deputy GPS Product Team Lead
--Dan Hanlon, WAAS Program Manager
--Leo Eldredge, WAAS Phase 1 Project Manager
--Bill Wanner, Test and Evaluation Team Lead
--Tom McHugh, Deputy Test and Evaluation Team Lead
--Bruce DeCleene, Aircraft Certification
--Hank Cabler, Flight Standards, WAAS Program Sponsor
--Doug Davis, Airway Facilities, Communications, Navigation,
Surveillance and Infrastructure
--Susan Eicher, GPS Product Team Contracting Officer
--Linda Lewis, GPS Product Team General Counsel
In addition to the above, numerous other FAA personnel and various
technical experts from MITRE, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ohio
University, and Stanford University also provide extensive support to
the WAAS project.
The FAA Acquisition Executive is the FAA official who is
accountable for cost and schedule baseline targets. The FAA Acquisition
Executive is Steve Zaidman, Associate Administrator for Research and
Acquisitions.
SATELLITE NAVIGATION
Question. Please reprint your response to the satellite navigation
questions on pages 807 and 808 of last year's House hearing record.
Please, with hindsight, comment on the current difficulties the FAA and
Raytheon faces in the WAAS procurement and the studies findings?
Reprint of House hearing record p. 807--Satellite Navigation,
question 1:
``Mr. Wolf. The Johns Hopkins University recently completed
its review of satellite navigation systems. While the Air
Transport Association hailed the study's results, some outside
observers have attacked the report on technical grounds. What
are your views of the adequacy of this study?
[The information follows:]
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory did an
excellent job given the time and resources that were available
to them. The FAA is pleased with the study's findings that
sole-means and sole-service are technically achievable, and
that the risks to attaining those goals are manageable. The
report also identifies those areas where additional work is
necessary, such as the definition of the intentional
interference threat and a reassessment of the most cost-
efficient satellite navigation architecture. These findings are
not interpreted to mean that implementing of satellite
navigation will be easy, but rather to indicate where risk
mitigation efforts should be directed. The FAA is also
considering the criticisms of the report in determining future
satellite navigation policy.''
Answer. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
study identified interference and ionospheric propagation and
scintillation as areas of risk. The FAA has focused risk mitigation
efforts in these same areas as identified in the report. The FAA has
done a considerable amount of work in the mitigation of interference
and also has a variety of initiatives that focus on ionospheric issues.
As the report predicted, ionospheric issues have been challenging. The
FAA is addressing these issues with academia and various international
partners who face these same challenges.
Reprint of House hearing record p. 807--Satellite Navigation,
question 2:
``Mr. Wolf. Does this provide sufficient evidence for the FAA
to move ahead beyond phase one of WAAS?
[The information follows:]
We are encouraged by the Johns Hopkins risk assessment and
remain committed to delivering sole-means global navigation
satellite systems. The determination that ``sole-means'' and
``sole-service'' capabilities are feasible is an incentive to
finding an affordable end-state wherein risk is managed
effectively. The required levels of performance will not be
provided in Phase One. We are developing an action plan to
address all of the issues and recommendations that have been
raised by the study, and are preparing a Satellite Navigation
Investment Analysis to determine the most cost-effective means
of providing sole-means and/or sole-service capabilities.''
Answer. The Satellite Navigation Investment Analysis was completed
in September 1999. The findings were provided to Congress in November
1999. As a result of the investment analysis, satellite navigation,
despite its challenges, is still considered to be the most cost-
effective means sole and sole source capabilities. A combined WAAS/LAAS
approach, with a basic backup network of ground based NAVAIDS, was
shown to be the most cost-effective.
Reprint of House hearing record p. 808--Satellite Navigation,
question 3:
``Mr. Wolf. The Johns Hopkins study discusses a number of
operational and technical risks in achieving the potential of
GPS. Isn't it one thing to say that something is ``technically
possible'', and quite another to say it is cost-effective?
[The information follows:]
Yes. The Johns Hopkins study was conducted to answer the
``technically possible'' question. Another study, the FAA's
ongoing Satellite Navigation Investment Analysis, is intended
to determine its cost-effectiveness, particularly in comparison
to other navigation alternatives. That study is expected to be
completed in June 1999.''
Answer. The Satellite Navigation Investment Analysis was completed
in September 1999. The findings were provided to Congress in November
1999. One alternative retained all Very High Frequency Omnidirectional
Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment/Instrument Landing System in
lieu of augmented satellite navigation Wide Area Augmentation System/
Local Area Augmentation System (WAAS and LAAS). The study reaffirmed
satellite navigation as the most cost-beneficial navigation concept for
the future with a benefit to cost ratio 2.4 for the WAAS/LAAS
alternative.
Additionally, the FAA has been working closely with aviation user
groups to ensure that navigation solutions developed and implemented by
the FAA will be in line with the needs of the user community. Aviation
user groups have validated their support of the FAA's commitment to
satellite navigation. These groups have enthusiastically cited examples
of both current and potential benefits enabled by GPS and its
augmentations (WAAS/LAAS). These benefits include the provision of
navigation capability to areas where it currently did not exist,
increased safety through improved position-awareness, and increased
cost-effectiveness of operations due to the unique flexibility enabled
by satellite navigation.
Question. Please describe the FAA's anticipated strategy to address
the integrity issue as it relates to WAAS. Were any of the academic
experts working on this proposed solution involved in the John Hopkins
study? If so, which ones?
Answer. The FAA's approach for addressing the WAAS integrity issue
is two-fold. The FAA has developed a WAAS Integrity and Performance
Panel (WIPP) comprised of leading experts in the satellite navigation
field--including representatives from MITRE, NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Stanford University, Ohio University, Zeta, Raytheon
Corporation, and the FAA. The objectives of this panel will include the
identification of technical solutions and evaluation of future concepts
for the WAAS in the areas of algorithm and architecture, with the
emphasis of achieving integrity while balancing acceptable levels of
accuracy and availability performance. Additionally, a WAAS Independent
Review Board, consisting of a separate panel of technical and
operational aviation experts, will be formed to review the overall
approach and specific technical deliverables produced by the WIPP. The
charter and membership for these two groups is currently being
developed.
None of the technical experts involved in the current WIPP effort
was directly involved in the Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics
Laboratory GPS Risk Assessment Study, except to provide information as
requested by the university.
Question. Considering the certification difficulties involved with
WAAS that need to be resolved, and the recognition that the LAAS uses
similar GPS technology as its basis, please describe the FAA's
anticipated strategy to address the integrity issue as it relates to
LAAS. Will the same issue effect the LAAS certification process and how
does the FAA plan on avoiding repeating the WAAS history in the LAAS
program?
Answer. In 1995, LAAS was developed as a demonstration and
validation program. Operation requirements and approval to establish
LAAS standards were completed by February 1996. LAAS has used FAA's
other transaction authority to focus industry on development and
certification of ground and air segments, both beginning with
development of CAT I LAAS and then CAT II/III LAAS. The FAA has
obtained experience on the Special Category I (SCAT-I) systems,
privately developed local area augmentation systems. Recognizing from
the start that integrity is a key issue, the FAA created the LAAS
Integrity Panel (LIP) to address each SCAT-I vendor's approach to
integrity. This panel has continued to monitor the LAAS Government
Industry Partnerships (GIP) that were established in April 1999 and has
even spawned a similar panel with the WAAS procurement. The experience
gained by the LIP will continue to be applied to the LAAS development
through CAT III. That is, the FAA will apply its most knowledgeable
experts to the LAAS CAT III integrity problem, just as it has for SCAT-
I and LAAS CAT I.
The FAA is aware of the integrity challenge presented by LAAS and
is aggressively addressing this issue. The LAAS team is considering
integrity a key requirement at the start. Further, the LAAS team is
continually applying the experience gained on SCAT-I and will
eventually apply experience gained with LAAS CAT I. These factors
minimize the LAAS integrity risk.
Question. What are the future spending needs of the WAAS and LAAS?
Over what time frame will those funds be needed?
Answer. At this time, FAA's most accurate estimate is the December
1999 FAA Satellite Navigation Program Baselines. The future WAAS
program needs shall be determined once the Agency has the technical
solutions for the system integrity problem, which are expected in
December 2000.
RUNWAY INCURSIONS
Question. Does the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B) program have a role to play in addressing the runway incursion
issue?
Answer. Yes. ADS-B will be able to contribute two critical
components to the runway incursion issue. The first component would
provide ADS-B target information to the controllers. This capability
would be similar to radar based Airport Surface Detection Equipment
(ASDE) display functionality in the tower cab, but would provide
controllers with more accurate target information, such as aircraft
data tag and precise GPS derived position.
The second component is ADS-B driven cockpit surface moving map
displays. Safe Flight-21 is currently developing commercial cockpit
displays, which provide pilots critical information such as their
precise position on the airport surface relative to other aircraft
occupying runways or about to land. This tool should be very effective
in reducing the number of pilot and vehicle deviations, by providing
pilots and ground vehicles the same ``situational awareness'' picture
afforded only to tower controllers today. More importantly, since ADS-B
works between equipped aircraft pairs, cockpit moving map displays
would offer a level of safety at airports that currently don't have
ASDE equipment.
TOWER REPLACEMENTS
Question. Please update the data on tower replacements found on
pages 820-838 of last year's House hearing record.
Answer. The following table provides the information requested:
Tower Replacements--Funding and Construction Status
Fiscal year 1989:
Windsor Locks, CT:
Fiscal year:
1997..............................................$9,393,000
1999.............................................. 1,596,000
Status: Commissioned September 19, 1999.
Fort Smith, AR:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 1,295,000
1998.............................................. 2,310,000
1999.............................................. 35,000
Status: Commissioned September 17, 1999.
Fiscal year 1990:
St. Louis, MO (ATCT):
Fiscal year
1997.............................................. 1,130,000
1998.............................................. 760,000
1999.............................................. 1,900,000
2000.............................................. 1,600,000
Status: Commissioned May 15, 1999.
La Guardia, NY:
Fiscal year:
2000.............................................. 2,200,000
2001..............................................25,440,000
Status: Site adaptation engineering underway.
Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning
June 2003.
Remarks: Site selection and approval on this congested
airport required an unusually long time. Fiscal year
1999 funding decreased by Congress from $23,960,000 to
13,960,000. $13,960,000 reprogrammed to accommodate
Congressional adds and other construction.
Newark, NJ:
Fiscal year:
1998..............................................24,348,000
2000.............................................. 2,200,000
2001.............................................. 2,407,500
Status: Construction award September 1999.
Schedule: Commissioning November 2002.
Remarks: Site selection and approval on this congested
airport required an unusually long time.
Fiscal year 1991:
Syracuse, NY:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 25,000
1998.............................................. 2,400,000
1999.............................................. 941,000
Status: Commissioned December 12, 1999.
Houston Hobby, TX:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 25,000
1998.............................................. 1,100,000
1999.............................................. 1,015,000
2000.............................................. 400,000
2001.............................................. 818,550
Status: Electronic installation underway.
Schedule: Commissioning June 2000.
Beaumont, TX: Fiscal year 1998............................ 820,000
Status: Site has been selected. Engineering that was on
hold per Congressional direction, is underway.
Schedule: Construction award November 2000. Commissioning
March 2003.
Fiscal year 1992:
Portland, OR:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 7,526,000
1998.............................................. 2,130,000
1999.............................................. 596,000
2000.............................................. 50,000
Status: Commissioned December 5, 1999.
Stewart (Newburgh), NY:
Fiscal year:
1992.............................................. 3,000,000
1993 (Fiscal year 1993 funding under ATCT
Establish)...................................... 1,700,000
2001.............................................. 500,000
Status: Alternate site has been selected.
Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning
September 2004.
Fiscal year 1993:
Topeka, KS:
Fiscal year:
1999.............................................. 700,000
2001.............................................. 4,361,840
Status: Engineering is complete.
Schedule: Construction award October 2000. Commissioning
November 2003.
St. Paul, MN:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 115,000
1998.............................................. 110,000
1999.............................................. 298,000
Status: Commissioned November 6, 1999.
Salt Lake City, UT (ATCT):
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 2,289,000
1998.............................................. 1,370,000
1999.............................................. 727,000
Status: Commissioned June 26, 1999.
Little Rock, AR:
Fiscal year:
1999............................................. 1,076,000
2000.............................................. 740,000
2001.............................................. 642,000
Status: Electronic installation underway.
Schedule: Commissioning September 2000.
Islip, NY:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 367,000
1999.............................................. 50,000
Additional Cost to Complete........................... 5,714,500
Status: Architect/engineers proposal for site adaptation
design submitted and approved, and on hold.
Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning
September 2005.
Dallas Addison, TX:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 640,000
1999.............................................. 700,000
Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning
September 2004.
Fiscal year 1995:
Merrill, AK:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 5,202,000
1998.............................................. 150,000
1999.............................................. 130,000
2001.............................................. 321,000
Status: Commissioned November 2, 1999.
Remarks: Fiscal year 2001 funds are for old tower
demolition.
Salina, KS:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 184,000
2001.............................................. 267,500
Additional Cost to complete........................... 4,675,777
Status: Engineering is underway.
Schedule: Construction award November 2000. Commissioning
July 2003.
Newport News, VA:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 74,000
1999.............................................. 400,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 5,950,000
Status: Site selection is complete.
Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning
September 2004.
Roanoke, VA:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 578,000
1999.............................................. 100,000
2000.............................................. 4,900,000
2001.............................................. 2,140,000
Status: Engineering is underway.
Schedule: Construction award August 2000. Commissioning
September 2002.
Columbus, OH:
Fiscal year:
1999.............................................. 750,000
2000..............................................17,600,000
2001.............................................. 1,000,000
Status: Engineering is underway.
Schedule: Construction Award October 2000. Commissioning
April 2004.
Remarks: Fiscal year 1999 funding increased by Congress
from $50,000 to $750,000.
Manchester, NH:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 937,500
1999.............................................. 80,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 3,565,700
Status: Site has been selected. Engineering is underway.
Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning
November 2004.
Everett, WA:
Fiscal year 1999...................................... 1,050,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 5,541,655
Status: Engineering is underway.
Schedule: Construction will be in two phases. Phase I
(foundation) Construction award March 2000. Phase II
Construction award October 2002. Commissioning September
2005.
Remarks: Fiscal year 1999 funding increased by Congress
from $50,000 to $1,050,000.
Ft. Lauderdale Executive FL:
Fiscal year 1999...................................... 50,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 3,084,200
Status: Engineering is underway.
Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning
September 2005.
Oakland, CA:
Fiscal year:
1999.............................................. 50,000
2001..............................................25,912,347
Status: Engineering is underway.
Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning
August 2004.
Birmingham, AL:
Fiscal year:
1998..............................................10,130,000
1999.............................................. 550,000
2000.............................................. 1,250,000
2001.............................................. 1,359,540
Status: Under construction.
Schedule: Commissioning January 2001.
Salt Lake City, UT (TRACON):
Fiscal year:
1998.............................................. 1,320,000
1999.............................................. 50,000
Status: Commissioned June 26, 1999.
St. Louis, MO (TRACON):
Fiscal year:
1998..............................................11,630,000
1999.............................................. 1,050,000
2000.............................................. 3,800,000
2001.............................................. 3,317,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... TBD
Status: Under construction.
Schedule: Commissioning February 2002.
Fiscal year 1996:
Corpus Christi, TX: Fiscal year 2000 (Fiscal year 2000
funds added by Congress)................................ 1,500,000
Status: Under construction.
Schedule: Commissioning March 2003.
Remarks: Construction funded with fiscal year 2000 funds
that could not be obligated on the Boston TRACON.
Seattle (TRACON), WA:
Fiscal year 1999...................................... 50,000
Additional Cost to complete...........................24,577,263
Status: Site selection is underway.
Schedule: Construction Award October 2001. Commissioning
September 2004.
Champaign, IL:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 1,287,000
2001.............................................. 749,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 2,683,072
Status: Site has been selected. Engineering is underway.
Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning
September 2004.
Grand Canyon, AZ:
Fiscal year:
1999.............................................. 8,170,000
2000.............................................. 243,000
2001.............................................. 267,500
Status: Engineering is complete.
Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning
April 2003.
Vero Beach, FL: Additional Cost to complete............... 5,507,870
Status: Engineering underway.
Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning
September 2004.
Bedford, MA:
Fiscal year:
1999.............................................. 4,800,000
2001.............................................. 535,000
Status: Construction contract awarded January 26, 2000.
Schedule: Commissioning January 2003.
Fiscal year 1997:
Abilene, TX:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 693,000
1998.............................................. 1,010,000
Additional Cost to complete...........................12,990,000
Status: Site selection underway.
Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning
September 2005.
East St. Louis, IL:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 25,000
1998.............................................. 500,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 3,469,000
Status: Site selection underway.
Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning
September 2005.
Seattle (ATCT), WA:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 645,000
1998.............................................. 580,000
1999..............................................19,770,000
2000..............................................10,270,000
2001.............................................. 25,000
Status: Construction Contract awarded January 11, 2000.
Schedule: Commissioning June 2003.
Richmond, VA:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 525,000
1998.............................................. 1,350,000
2000 (Fiscal year 2000 funds added by Congress)... 3,000,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 6,002,100
Status: Site selection under review. The airport sponsor
has proposed construction of the tower under a leaseback
agreement.
Schedule: Construction award October 2001. Commissioning
September 2004.
Savannah, GA:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 288,000
1998.............................................. 680,000
2001.............................................. 7,741,015
Status: Engineering underway.
Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning
March 2004.
Boston (TRACON), MA:
Fiscal year:
1997.............................................. 1,110,000
1998.............................................. 1,880,000
1999.............................................. 1,870,000
2000..............................................10,000,000
2001..............................................24,944,308
Status: Site has been purchased. Design is complete.
Schedule: Construction award January 2001. Commissioning
November 2003.
Remarks: Fiscal year 2000 funding reduced by Congress.
Fiscal year 1998:
N. Las Vegas, NV:
Fiscal year:
1998............................................. 5,700,000
1999.............................................. 1,200,000
2000.............................................. 2,354,000
2001.............................................. 214,000
Status: Engineering is underway.
Schedule: Construction award March 2000. Commissioning
October 2001.
Remarks: Fiscal year 1999 funding increased by Congress
from $200,000 to $1,200,00.
Medford, OR:
Fiscal year 1998...................................... 600,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 8,565,708
Status: On hold.
Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning
September 2005.
Swanton (Toledo), OH:
Fiscal year:
1998.............................................. 700,000
2000.............................................. 700,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 8,386,873
Status: Site selection is complete. Construction will be
accomplished by sponsor.
Schedule: Dependent on sponsor.
Fiscal year 1999
Asheville, NC:
Fiscal year 1999...................................... 298,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 7,214,550
Status: On hold due to anticipated long lead-time for
construction funds.
Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning
April 2005.
Tulsa Riverside, OK:
Fiscal year 1999...................................... 298,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 7,525,470
Status: On hold due to anticipated long lead-time for
construction funds.
Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning
June 2005.
Reno, NV:
Fiscal year 1999...................................... 297,000
Additional Cost to complete........................... 8,636,360
Status: On hold due to anticipated long lead time for
construction funds.
Schedule: Construction award October 2002. Commissioning
September 2005.
Billings, MT:
Fiscal year:
1999.............................................. 1,000,000
2000 (Fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funds
added by Congress).............................. 1,000,000
Additional Cost to complete...........................11,000,000
Status: Site selection is complete.
Schedule: Construction award October 2003. Commissioning
July 2006.
Fiscal year 2000:
Atlanta International, GA:
Fiscal year:
2000.............................................. 1,800,000
2001.............................................. 167,900
Status: Construction to be accomplished by and funded by
airport sponsor. FAA funding is for equipment
procurement.
Phoenix, AZ: Fiscal year 2000 (Fiscal year 2000 funds
added by Congress)...................................... 4,000,000
Status: Site selection is underway.
Schedule: TBD
Fiscal year 2001 (Proposed):
Chantilly (Dulles), VA: Fiscal year 2001.................. 75,000
Broomfield, CO: Fiscal year 2001.......................... 75,000
Phoenix (Deer Valley), AZ: Fiscal year 2001............... 75,000
Gulfport, MS: Fiscal year 2001............................ 75,000
Kalamazoo, MI: Fiscal year 2001........................... 75,000
standard terminal automation replacement system (stars)
Question. Please provide a breakdown of the F&E funding requested
for STARS in the fiscal year 2001 request with appropriate funding for
fiscal year 2000 broken down in the same manner.
Answer. The breakdown of STARS F&E funding for fiscal years 2000
and 2001 follows.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Activity ---------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product development/Test.......................... 87.9 80.9
Production........................................ 7.9 21.6
Implementation.................................... 6.8 16.4
NAILS/Maintenance................................. 6.5 14.8
HQ Technical Assistance........................... 20.0 14.1
ANS Facility Upgrade.............................. 0.8 2.8
OGC/GFE........................................... 21.3 16.4
ACDs/ARTS IIIE.................................... 37.8 11.8
IOT&E............................................. ......... 0.5
---------------------
Total....................................... 188.9 179.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Provide an updated waterfall schedule for delivery of
STARS systems for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Answer. A STARS Site Deployment Working Group has recently been
formed to provide an updated waterfall schedule for delivery of STARS
systems through 2008. This updated waterfall will be available the end
of fiscal year 2000.
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)
Question. Please provide the updated ILS survey and analysis of
existing and future needs. Please provide the current list of the
locations for which the FAA has identified current of future ILS
requirements.
Answer. In September 1998, the FAA conducted a cursory benefit cost
analyses (BCA) of all potential precision approach locations in the
NAS. The results of this study which was based on Airport Planning
Standards Number One (APS-1) criteria, identified approximately 100
airport locations that yielded a positive BCA and were potential
candidates for precision approach services. The resultant listing
follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. State Airport Region RWY Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. FL............................. Jacksonville Int'l ASO............ 31............. CAT I
(JAX).
2. NC............................. Charlotte Douglas Int'l ASO............ 18W............ CAT III
(CLT).
3. NC............................. Charlotte Douglas Int'l ASO............ 36W............ CAT III
(CLT).
4. CA............................. Sacramento Int'l (SMF). AWP............ 34R............ CAT I
5. CA............................. Fresno (FAT)........... AWP............ 29R............ CAT 2/3
6. NY............................. New York (JFK)......... AEA............ 22R............ CAT 2/3
7. FL............................. Orlando-Sanford (SFB).. ASO............ 27R............ CAT I
8. NC............................. Charlotte-Douglas Int'l ASO............ 18R............ CAT III
(CLT).
9. NY............................. New York (JFK)......... AEA............ 13R............ CAT I
10. NY............................. New York (LGA)......... AEA............ 22............. CAT 2/3
11. NY............................. New York (LGA)......... AEA............ 13............. CAT 2/3
12. NV............................. Las Vegas-Mccarran Int. AWP............ 01R............ CAT I
(LAS).
13. WA............................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA).. ANM............ 16L............ CAT III
14. WA............................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA).. ANM............ 16W............ CAT III
15. FL............................. Daytona Beach Reg. ASO............ 25R............ CAT I
(DAB).
16. FL............................. Orlando Int'l (MCO).... ASO............ 18R............ CAT III
17. NV............................. Elko Muni-J.C. Harris AWP............ 23............. CAT I
Field (EKO).
18. CA............................. Palm Springs Regional AWP............ 31L............ CAT I
(PSP).
19. FL............................. Orlando-Executive (ORL) ASO............ 25............. CAT I
20. WI............................. Milwaukee (MKE)........ AGL............ 25R............ CAT I
21. TX............................. Houston (KHOU)......... ASW............ 22............. CAT I
22. NY............................. Buffalo (BUF).......... AEA............ 14............. CAT I
23. MN............................. Duluth (DLH)........... AGL............ 9.............. CAT II
24. VA............................. Norfolk (ORF).......... AEA............ 5.............. CAT 2/3
25. GA............................. Atlanta-Hartsfield ASO............ 28............. CAT II
Int'l (ATL).
26. GA............................. Atlanta-Hartsfield ASO............ 10............. CAT II
Int'l (ATL).
27. CA............................. Metropolitan Oakland AWP............ 27L............ CAT I
Int'l (OAK).
28. NJ............................. Newark (EWR)........... AEA............ 22L............ CAT 2/3
29. FL............................. Miami Int'l (MIA)...... ASO............ 9R............. CAT III
30. FL............................. Panama City-Bay Co. ASO............ 32............. CAT I
(PFN).
31. MO............................. Springfield-Branson ACE............ 2.............. CAT II
Regional (SGF).
32. FL............................. Kendall-Tamiami Exec. ASO............ 27L............ CAT I
(TMB).
33. LA............................. Baton Rouge (KBTR)..... ASW............ 31............. CAT I
34. PA............................. Philadelphia (PHL)..... AEA............ 27R............ CAT 2/3
35. NJ............................. Atlantic City (ACY).... AEA............ 31............. CAT I
36. PA............................. Allentown (ABE)........ AEA............ 24............. CAT I
37. AK............................. Anchorage (ANC)........ AAL............ 6L............. CAT I
38. FL............................. Kissimmee Mun. (ISM)... ASO............ 33............. CAT I
39. KY............................. CVG./North KY Int'l. ASO............ 27............. CAT 2/3
(CVG).
40. CA............................. Buchanan Field (CCR)... AWP............ 19R............ CAT I
41. GA............................. Savannah Int'l (SAV)... ASO............ 27............. CAT I
42. OK............................. Oklahoma City (KOKC)... ASW............ 35L............ CAT I
43. MI............................. Traverse City (TVC).... AGL............ 36............. CAT I
44. WA............................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA).. ANM............ 34W............ CAT I
45. WA............................. Seattle-Sea-Tac (SEA).. ANM............ 16R............ CAT I
46. FL............................. Tampa Int'l (TPA)...... ASO............ 36R............ CAT I
47. TN............................. Knoxville (TYS)........ ASO............ 23L............ CAT I
48. TN............................. McGhee Tyson (TYS)..... ASO............ 05R............ CAT I
49. VA............................. Chantilly (IAD)........ AEA............ 19R............ CAT 2/3
50. FL............................. Orlando Int'l (MCO).... ASO............ 18L............ CAT I
51. FL............................. Orlando Int'l (MCO).... ASO............ 35R............ CAT1
52. AR............................. Fort Smith (KFSM)...... ASW............ 7.............. CAT I
53. MD............................. Baltimore (BWI)........ AEA............ 15R............ CAT 2/3
54. MI............................. Flint (FNT)............ AGL............ 36............. CAT I
55. CA............................. Palmdale (PMD)......... AWP............ 4.............. CAT I
56. UT............................. Salt Lake City (SLC)... ANM............ 34L............ CAT III
57. KY............................. Bowman Field (LOU)..... ASO............ 24............. CAT I
58. TX............................. Midland (KMAF)......... ASW............ 34L............ CAT I
59. NV............................. North Las Vegas (VGT).. AWP............ 12............. CAT I
60. NC............................. Raleigh-Durham Int'l ASO............ 23L............ CAT 2/3
(RDU).
61. FL............................. Tampa Int'l (TPA)...... ASO............ 18L............ CAT III
62. DC............................. National (DCA)......... AEA............ 33............. CAT I
63. TX............................. Abilene (KABI)......... ASW............ 17R............ CAT I
64. DE............................. Wilmington (ILG)....... AEA............ 19............. CAT I
65. HI............................. Honolulu Int'l (HNL)... AWP............ 08R............ CAT I
66. TN............................. Nashville, JOHN C. TUNE ASO............ 19............. CAT I
(JWN).
67. AZ............................. Mesa--Falcon Field AWP............ 04R............ CAT I
(FFZ).
68. HI............................. Kahului (OGG).......... AWP............ 20............. CAT I
69. FL............................. Tampa Int'l (TPA)...... ASO............ 17............. CAT I
70. AL............................. Birmingham Mun. (BHM).. ASO............ 5.............. CAT I
71. FL............................. Tampa Int'l (TPA)...... ASO............ 35............. CAT III
72. GA............................. Valdosta Reg. (VLD).... ASO............ 17............. CAT I
73. NC............................. Greensboro/Piedmont ASO............ 5N............. CAT 2/3
Int'l (GSO).
74. MA............................. Martha's Vineyard (MVY) ANE............ 6.............. CAT I
75. FL............................. Southwest Fla. Reg. ASO............ 06R............ CAT I
(RSW).
76, FL............................. Southwest Fla. Reg. ASO............ 24L............ CAT I
(RSW).
77. FL............................. Southwest Fla. Reg. ASO............ 24............. CAT I
(RSW).
78. KS............................. Hays Muni (HYS)........ ACE............ 34............. CAT I
79. IA............................. Cedar Rapids/The ACE............ 9.............. CAT II
Eastern Iowa (CID).
80. FL............................. TAMPA, Vandenberg (X16) ASO............ 22............. CAT I
81. IA............................. Dubuque Regional (DBQ). ACE............ 36............. CAT I
82. FL............................. Tallahassee (TLH)...... ASO............ 18............. CAT I
83. FL............................. Tallahasee Reg. (TLH).. ASO............ 9.............. CAT I
84. AZ............................. Laughlin-Bullhead Int'l AWP............ 34............. CAT I
(IFP).
85. NJ............................. Wildwood (WWD)......... AEA............ 19............. CAT I
86. MI............................. Grand Radips (GRR)..... AGL............ 23R............ CAT I
87. OH............................. Columbus (CMH)......... AGL............ 10S............ CAT I
88. CA............................. Hayward Air Terminal AWP............ 28L............ CAT I
(HWD).
89. MN............................. Minneapolis (MSP)...... AGL............ 17............. CAT I
90. NY............................. Syracuse (SYR)......... AEA............ 32............. CAT I
91. CA............................. Napa County (APC)...... AWP............ 36L............ CAT I
92. FL............................. Pensacola Regional ASO............ 35............. CAT I
(PNS).
93. IA............................. Des Monies Int'l (DSM). ACE............ 5.............. CAT I
94. PA............................. Philadelphia (PHL)..... AEA............ 25............. CAT I
95. PA............................. Philadelphia (PHL)..... AEA............ 35............. CAT I
96. MI............................. Detroit (DTW).......... AGL............ 4.............. CAT III
97. MS............................. Olive Branch (OLV)..... ASO............ 18............. CAT I
98. CA............................. Long Beach-Daugherty AWP............ 25R............ CAT I
Field (LGB).
99. CT............................. Windsor Locks (BDL).... ANE............ 15............. CAT I
100. NC............................. Greensboro/Piedmont ASO............ 23N............ CAT I
Int'l (GSO).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS HANDOFF FOR SATELLITE-RELATED INSTRASTRUCTURE
Question. What operation and maintenance costs are anticipated in
fiscal year 2001 for NAS handoff requirements relating to operation and
maintenance of the satellite-related infrastructure, pursuant to the
eventual transition to a satellite-based navigational system?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 NAS handoff requirement is $10,000.
This money will be used to fund one month (September 2001) of interim
contractor depot logistics support.
FEDERAL FUNDED RESEACH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
Question. Please provide a copy of the November 30, 1999
comprehensive review of the Federally Funded Research and Development
Center (FFRDC), Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD)
that the FAA indicated would be complete in a response to the question
for the record last year.
Answer. A copy of the Comprehensive Review of the FFRDC for
Advanced Aviation System Development follows.
[Clerks Note.--Because of its volume the Comprehensive Review will
not be printed here but retained in the subcommittee files.]
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM
Question. The FAA's SatNav Investment Analysis and Report completed
late last year, said (page 86) ``* * *. The airlines support WAAS and
LAAS * * *. However, they are much less enthusiastic about WAAS than
LAAS, because in aircraft equipped with FMS, WAAS will not provide
substantial added economic or operational value to them beyond what
unaided GPS can provide, or beyond what they can achieve with RNAV-
capable FMS equipment * * *.'' If that's true wouldn't you agree it
would seem to make sense that we not continue to spend money on this
ever increasing and very expensive program?
Answer. WAAS is very beneficial for the entire aviation population.
The WAAS system will allow GPS to be used as a navigation system for en
route, non-precision approaches, and precision approaches in the United
States. Indeed, all airlines support the development of WAAS because it
will increase the capacity of major airports in the United States, by
allowing smaller aircraft to land at more airports by expanding
precision approach capability to smaller airports.
Question. That same analysis indicates that only with some very
generous assumptions, the benefit/cost (B/C) ratio for this program
appears to be barely better than 1.0. There must be other FAA programs
that promise better benefits and more prudent use of available
resources. What FAA programs have better B/C ratios than is currently
contemplated for the WAAS program that are not being funded adequately
or given the funding priority that the WAAS initiative is being given?
Answer. The latest acquisition program baseline for WAAS, signed in
December 1999, shows a B/C ratio of approximately 2.4 calculated with
Passenger Value of Time (PVT), per DOT policy, and a net present value
of $2,400,000,000. While these ratios are generally estimated as part
of the investment analysis, they are not the final determining factor
in all investment and funding decisions. There are some smaller
programs, which may have slightly higher ratios, but will not provide
the total overall return that WAAS is expected to. An important element
of the WAAS B/C ratio to remember is the fact that the FAA calculated
the ratio based on very conservative estimates. Indeed, the FAA
identified a number of benefits that were not quantified because of
data that could not be verified at a high-confidence level within the
resources of the study. If those benefits could be quantified and
incorporated into the study results, the WAAS benefit/cost ratio would
significantly increase. In addition, WAAS provides the enabling
technology for a number of more advanced systems which will provide the
basis of Free Flight. An example is ADS-B, which has received a great
deal of interest from the user community, and is expected to provide
significant additional safety and efficiency benefits, which would not
be available without the navigation accuracy that WAAS provides.
Question. We have heard reports that late last year (1999) WAAS
tests at the Tech Center were sufficiently poor as to cast a shadow on
the scheduled WAAS implementation date summer 2000. Provide the
committee the information about those tests and is a further delay
contemplated from FAA's previously announced WAAS implementation date?
Answer. There will be additional time required to achieve initial
operational capability (IOC). IOC is defined as a limited precision
landing capability called Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/
VNAV). The WAAS program now plans to deliver LNAV/VNAV that will
support a height above touchdown (HAT) of 350 feet in IOC.
The FAA is less certain about the approach for WAAS to achieve a
precision approach down to 200 feet HAT, which is regarded as final
operational capability (FOC). This lack of certainty is due to problems
encountered with the system integrity, or the ability of the WAAS
system to detect system errors and inform users of errors that can't be
corrected. To address these system integrity problems, the FAA has
engaged the knowledge and the experience of the WAAS Integrity and
Performance Panel (WIPP). The FAA will be able to better evaluate the
cost and schedule for FOC after the WIPP completes its work around
December 2000.
The GPS Product Team plans to rebaseline the WAAS and LAAS projects
in 2001 after firm cost and schedule estimates are developed. The
Agency cannot definitively project final cost and schedule baselines at
this time.
SATELLITE NAVIGATION
Question. The FAA is planning a transition from a ground-based
civil air navigation system using signals generated by the Department
of Defense's GPS. FAA is acquiring a WAAS-a network of equipment on the
ground and in space-to enhance GPS so that the system can meet civil
aviation requirements. Satellite-based navigation, using GPS/WAAS is
expected to improve the safety of flight operations and increase
airport and airspace capacity to meet future air traffic demands. Since
1995, WAAS has experienced significant cost growth of over
$2,500,000,000 and schedule slippage of over three years. Recent
announcements by the FAA that the program may experience more delays
and added cost have raised questions about whether the WAAS program is
heading in the same direction as the former Advance Automation System
(AAS), which FAA canceled after it incurred significant cost growth and
delays. What is FAA's current assessment of whether WAAS will meet its
performance goals within current cost and schedule baselines?
Answer. Additional time is required to achieve initial operational
capability. IOC is defined as a limited precision landing capability
called LNAV/VNAV. The WAAS program now plans to deliver LNAV/VNAV that
will support a height above touchdown (HAT) of 350 feet in IOC.
The FAA is less certain about the approach for WAAS to achieve a
precision approach down to 200 feet HAT, which is regarded as final
operational capability (FOC). This lack of certainty is due to problems
encountered with the system integrity, or the ability of the WAAS
system to detect system errors and inform users of errors that can't be
corrected. To address these system integrity problems, the FAA has
engaged the knowledge and the experience of the WAAS Integrity and
Performance Panel (WIPP). The FAA will be able to better evaluate the
cost and schedule for FOC after the WIPP completes its work around
December 2000.
The GPS Product Team plans to rebaseline the WAAS and LAAS projects
in 2001 after firm cost and schedule estimates are developed. The
Agency cannot definitively project final cost and schedule baselines at
this time.
Question. If the program will not meet its current goals, when will
FAA announce new cost, schedule, and performance goals?
Answer. At the March 15, 2000, SATNAV Summit, the FAA provided an
updated schedule projection for WAAS. It was stated that this schedule
will be better defined in six to nine months after the WAAS Integrity
and Performance Panel (WIPP) completes its work. The WIPP will address
the necessary technical details to solve integrity issues to get to
this initial capability and additionally will develop a high-level
roadmap for WAAS to achieve the end-state capability. The participants
of the SATNAV Summit, including key government and industry
representatives, agreed to meet again at the completion of the WIPP
activities, to present and discuss the results. Accordingly, the GPS
Product Team plans to complete rebaselining the WAAS and LAAS projects
in 2001 after a technical solution recommended by the WIPP is
quantified in terms of cost and schedule.
Question. What steps are FAA and its contractor taking to ensure
that WAAS does not become another AAS?
Answer. The FAA has learned from its experiences with AAS, and is
striving to apply lessons learned, as appropriate. For example, whereas
AAS strove to deliver a huge amount of capability at one time, WAAS is
being developed to be implemented in a phased approach. There are some
issues, however, that complicate this phased approach, and that is the
requirement for integrity. In order for WAAS to be used for safety
critical functions, the integrity requirement must be fully addressed
with the initial delivery. The FAA is aggressively addressing integrity
issues through the formation of the WIPP and the Independent Review
Board (IRB). The WIPP is a team of technical experts, which will detail
the work that needs to be done by Raytheon to correct the problems with
system integrity and identify the most realistic cost, schedule, and
performance expectations. The IRB, which is a team of independent
senior level experts, will oversee the work and progress of the WIPP
and report directly to the FAA Administrator. Another example of
applying lessons learned is the open communication with industry and
users. The FAA is focusing on routinely communicating a very candid
picture of the status and progress of the WAAS program.
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM
Question. The WAAS prime contractor has informed the Subcommittee
that extensive broadcasting of the WAAS signal will be required as part
of its continuing development activity, both to demonstrate system
performance as well as to validate assumptions that are part of the
fault analysis. This is consistent with the conclusion reached by the
Deleaney Commission in October 1997. Many WAAS avionics manufacturers
also require a steady signal for their receiver certification activity,
and some of these avionics manufacturers are also bringing to market
non-certified receivers that can use the signal in its present
configuration. Has the FAA considered making a public commitment that
the WAAS signal will be provided in a limited level of service during
the period leading up to FAA certification and declaration of initial
operational capability? Would such a ``test'' period provide advantages
to incrementally developing the various capabilities (runway incursion
identification and en route activities) that the signal might
ultimately be useful for, assuming the program can address the current
integrity shortcomings, does not suffer any further setbacks, and can
be cost beneficial at the margins with other programs?
Answer. Raytheon will indeed continuously broadcast WAAS signals,
though it may be intermittent for short periods of time (minutes to a
few hours in extreme cases) due to integration (that is, ground uplink
station (GUS) switchover tests, correction and verification (C&V)
failures from unproven private builds). Raytheon will be ``hands off'
the system during the five integration tests (21 day) and during the
60-day test. The details of these demonstrations are being finalized
with Raytheon. Once they are finalized, they will be shared with the
receiver manufacturers and those developing technologies that depend on
WAAS. Continuous broadcast of the WAAS signals are therefore critical
for the completion of WAAS receiver and WAAS ground system testing. The
FAA plans to officially announce to the public that the WAAS signal is
available for use in non-safety critical functions. This announcement
will be made after Raytheon has completed the 21-day stability test
(around June/July 2000). As such, the FAA plans to broadcast an
increasingly operational-like signal during several periods from now
through contract acceptance inspection (CAI), and then continuously at
all times from CAI on.
Some examples of non-safety critical functions include ADS-B
applications such as avoidance of runway incursions using runway
situational awareness, and terrain avoidance warning systems.
WAAS INTERNATIONAL POSITION
Question. The following excerpts are from an article in the
Thursday, March 30, 2000 Aviation Daily: ``Delegates to an
international symposium in Bonn rejected dependence on a single
technology in favor of retaining a diversity of systems as advanced
navigational technologies become operational. The March 22-23
conference, an initiative of the Germany Federal Ministry of Transport,
was organized by the German Institute of Navigation and supported by
the Northwest Europe Loran-C System (NELS) inter-governmental
consortium. Discussions focused on determining the optimum mix of
satellite and terrestrial systems to ensure safety of life and property
while minimizing costs to the provider and users.
Data communications using the Loran-C navigation system for
distribution of satellite error corrections and position integrity also
received much attention. Building on the concept employed by the United
States. Defense Department for communication with the Polaris submarine
fleet, a team of Delft University has developed an advanced error-
correcting version of the technology called Eurofix that is now being
installed for operational use in Europe. The technology and status of
Eurofix implementation was presented and supported with an on-air
demonstration. Further innovations to the Eurofix concept to provide an
alternative to the GPS WAAS were presented by the United States Coast
Guard.''
Given the continual difficulty the FAA has had with the WAAS
procurement and the concerns about sole source navigational concepts,
jamming, and other issues, is the FAA doing any work on evaluating or
exploring other satellite navigational architectures similar to what
the Aviation Daily article mentions (or other concepts)?
Answer. The FAA is currently in the process of evaluating Loran-C
as a potential means of providing navigation to users of the National
Airspace System (NAS). These evaluations include (a) use of a magnetic
field (H-field) antenna to reduce or eliminate precipitation static
that can severely affect the use of Loran during rain and snow
conditions; (b) next generation digital Loran receiver technology; (c)
feasibility of integrated GPS/Loran/Distance Measuring Equipment
receivers; and (d) capability of Loran to provide a data path for WAAS
correction information. An integrated Government/Academic/Industry team
led by the FAA and including members from the Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Academy, Ohio and Stanford University, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, and
Illgen Simulations is conducting these evaluations, which will include
actual flight demonstrations in fiscal year 2001. The FAA is also
working with the University of Alabama to explore feasibility of using
gyroscopic technology to provide a redundant aircraft navigation
capability. The challenge of this effort is to provide a precision
capability at costs acceptable to all users.
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM
Question. The Committee is hearing increasing concerns that signal
integrity may be a concern with the LAAS procurement and the difficulty
of assuring signal integrity increase as the system is evolved to
Category II and III approaches. What work has been done to address this
issue up front so as not to repeat the WAAS experience?
Answer. The FAA has been aware of the challenge of certifying the
LAAS integrity for a number of years. The challenge was first
recognized during the LAAS Special Category I (SCAT-I) Type Acceptance
certification process in the mid-1990's. During that time a special
LAAS Integrity Panel (LIP) was formed to review the applicant vendor's
integrity algorithms. The LIP certification process provided the LAAS
technical team members with valuable exposure to the various integrity
concepts being proposed as well as providing insight into the
particular technical challenge integrity certification posed. As
evidence of the success of the LIP process a number of LAAS SCAT-I
systems have already achieved FAA approval under the SCAT-I
certification guidance, FAA Order 8400. Although SCAT-I is less
challenging than CAT III the experience of the LIP has assisted in the
identification of the major elements of technical risk for development
and certification of a CAT III LAAS.
Based on the experience gained with the SCAT-I integrity
certification process, the LAAS project has retained the LIP concept as
part of its LAAS Cat I Type Acceptance process.
A more recent integrity certification challenge being addressed
involves the differential error correction standard deviation, known as
`Sigma', and ensuring our LAAS message error distribution standard
deviation overbounds the actual error. Special technical `tiger teams'
have been formed within the FAA and RTCA to address this issue. The
FAA's Integrity Tiger Team, known as the Sigma Overbounding group, has
reached an interim consensus on the integrity solution approach to take
for Cat I. RTCA Subcommittee-159 Working Group-4 is also actively
involved in ensuring that the integrity problem is addressed and solved
and is providing advice on the overbounding problem.
Unlike WAAS, the LAAS architecture is simplified by ensuring
integrity within the local area of the installed LAAS system. This is
in contrast to the integration of the wide area differential error
correction components that WAAS must use to generate and broadcast wide
area differential corrections. Differential corrections for a local
area simplify the integrity challenge for LAAS significantly.
In summary, the task of achieving and validating Cat III integrity
remains a significant challenge. The experience already gained from the
LAAS SCAT-I LIP and the experience being obtained from the LAAS Cat I
Type Acceptance LIP certification process have both served to help us
foresee the LAAS integrity certification.
USER REQUEST EVALUATION TOOL (URET)
Question. What is the timeframe and locations for URET deployment?
What are the challenges to greater deployment of the technology? What
procedures need to be established and implemented in order to fully
achieve the efficiency offered by this technology? What are the
procedural issues that must be addressed before greater utilization of
this technology?
Answer. The URET prototype is currently in daily use at
Indianapolis and Memphis. As part of Free Flight Phase 1, URET Core
Capability Limited Deployment (CCLD) will be deployed for initial daily
use to Memphis, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Cleveland, Washington,
Chicago, and Atlanta starting in November 2001 through February 2002.
URET CCLD development and deployment will address the major technical
challenges for greater deployment to the remaining centers.
Additionally, procedural issues are being addressed by both our
national and local (FAA/NATCA/PASS) user teams representatives based on
the daily use of the URET prototypes at Indianapolis and Memphis.
National and local procedures supporting reduced flight strip postings
and markings must be implemented to fully achieve efficiencies offered
by this technology. Both national and local procedures are being
modified and used at Memphis and Indianapolis. We anticipate procedural
issues will continue to evolve and we will address these issues,
resulting from increased utilization of the tool, as they arise.
STARS
Question. When will the FAA present revised STARS baselines to
Congress?
Answer. Revised STARS baselines will be presented to Congress upon
final OMB approval the Terminal Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The
Terminal APB is presently undergoing final FAA internal review. A STARS
Site Deployment Working Group has recently been formed to provide an
updated waterfall schedule for delivery of STARS systems through 2008.
This updated waterfall will be available the end of fiscal year 2000.
Question. How much program delay and added cost will the new
baselines reflect over existing baselines? Over the original STARS
baseline?
Answer. The ``existing'' STARS baselines did not change in cost but
reflect the new terminal automation strategy, known as Option 8R, which
addresses near-term infrastructure and modernization issues. In October
1999, the FAA Joint Resources Council (JRC) provided interim approval
for the STARS F&E rebaselining.
The new baseline as presented and approved by the JRC, reflects an
increase in F&E costs of $462,000,000. The following provides a
comparison of the STARS original and new cost/schedule baselines:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Option 8R
(9/96) (10/99)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost.............................................. $940.2 $1,402.6
Schedule:
First FAA full service site ORD............... 12/98 12/02
Last FAA full service site ORD................ 2/05 9/08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What outstanding issues must FAA address to ensure that
STARS is delivered within its new cost, schedule and performance goals?
Answer. There are two outstanding issues that must be addressed to
ensure that the STARS program is delivered within its new cost,
schedule and performance goals.
The foremost issue is the amount of software remaining to be
developed and tested to resolve human factors concerns. The current
estimate of total source lines of code (SLOC) to be developed is
415,000. The FAA has identified and initiated a risk mitigation
strategy via the implementation of incremental software builds, early
operational assessments, early user involvement initiatives and active
user community working group participation to ensure on time software
development and testing performance.
The other issue involves the definitization of the STARS contract
modification that incorporates the revised program strategy known as
Option 8R. The FAA completed negotiations on Option 8R on March 27,
2000, and will have a contract modification in place by the Spring of
2000. This contract modification includes the STARS human factor
enhancements requested by the unions. Based on the completion of these
activities, the FAA will have a new contract baseline in place against
which to track and monitor contractor performance.
Question. The FAA has a substantial investment in the deployment of
STARS. The system is being deployed and will be an integral part of the
FAA inventory of the next 20 years. STARS is based on commercial-off-
the-shelf/non-developmental item (COTS/NDI) systems that are in
operation worldwide for both terminal and en route applications and
include Radar Data Processing (RDP) and Flight Data Processing (FDP).
Inherent in STARS are safety critical en route automation functions
such as Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW), Mode C Intruder, and
Conflict Alert, all of which are included in the 2001 budget request.
The STARS program will also benefit from Pre-planned Product
Improvements (P3I) like the Center/TRACON Automation System (CTAS) and
ADS-B capability that not only provide benefits to the terminal area,
but also to the en route environment. Accordingly, has the FAA
considered using STARS for other air traffic automation applications
such as modernization of the en route system's emergency back-up
system?
Answer. As standard practice, the FAA assesses the ability of COTS/
NDI solutions, both in the existing FAA inventory and in the commercial
market place, to meet future system requirements. Through market survey
assessment, the En Route Integrated Product Team received inputs from
all interested vendors regarding the capabilities inherent in existing
systems that could satisfy future en route requirements. The assessment
determined that there is no existing system that could meet all en
route requirements, and that additional development would be needed.
Because of traffic volume and complexity, the United States en
route system requirements differ significantly from those of the
terminal environment and other en route civil aviation authorities. As
currently developed, the deployed STARS (and the COTS/NDI systems upon
which it is based) will not meet en route system requirements. For
example, the en route automation system must include all flight data
processing (FDP) capabilities not currently contained in the terminal
automation system.
Future en route system evolution will consider the integration of
COTS/NDI products as potential components for radar data processing and
FDP replacement solutions.
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR, MODEL 11 (ASR-11)
Question. Now that the Department of Defense (DOD) has made the
decision to proceed into production of the joint DOD/FAA ASR-11 radar,
does the FAA anticipate a timely production decision for the ASR-11
radar in order to remain in step with STARS deployment?
Answer. The FAA anticipates a timely production decision, and we
will ensure that this program is in proper alignment with STARS system
deployments.
OCEANIC AIRSPACE
Question. What is the FAA's current strategy for implementing new
communications, navigation, and surveillance technologies in oceanic
airspace?
Answer. The FAA has initiated the Advanced Technologies and Oceanic
Procedures (ATOP) acquisition to obtain an advanced and integrated
automation system for the three Air Route Traffic Control Centers
(ARTCCs) engaged in the control of oceanic air traffic.
The automation solution is expected to be adaptable to all three
sites and to consist of flight data processing integrated with
surveillance data processing, Controller Pilot Data Link
Communications, Air Traffic Services Interfacility Data Communications,
tools for dynamic workload allocation, and both short-term and long-
term conflict detection/prediction capabilities.
The ATOP acquisition strategy is one that will leverage the global
marketplace through taking advantage of available technology by
purchasing an non-developmental system. The strategy provides for an
iterative evaluation process where the FAA uses increasingly refined
filters to determine which one of the systems available provides the
best match between existing capabilities and our FAA workforce. It is
the FAA's intent to modify procedures, to the extent consistent with
the highest level of safety, to fit existing systems rather than engage
in a large developmental effort. Prior to obligating the government to
any significant resources, the FAA will have negotiated a multilateral
agreement between the FAA, its union workforce and the contractor,
which establishes low risk solution with firm price, schedule and cost
baselines.
The FAA has already completed the majority of the evaluation
process for the first filter. As part of the first filter, potential
vendors were allowed to bring their candidate systems to the FAA's
Technical Center for demonstration testing. The ATOP schedule provides
for the evaluations to be completed with a selection recommendation for
two vendors to move on to the next filter by the end of May 2000.
Planning for the second filter, which will include first level
operational testing, is already ongoing.
Question. What is the FAA's view on the contracting out of air
traffic control?
Answer. In the short term, the FAA has initiated an air traffic
control system replacement program called the Advanced Technologies and
Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) acquisition which will introduce new
Communication, Navigation and Surveillance technologies into the
oceanic environment, supporting our customer's growing needs. Our
controllers are very much involved in this activity and are working
with our technicians and engineers to choose the right system and
develop the operational procedures to support its introduction. On the
longer term, the President recently directed the FAA to come back to
him in 45 days with a plan for achieving broader reform of the air
traffic control system. The FAA will consider this proposal during its
deliberations.
Question. How much is the FAA paying potential oceanic contractors
to participate in the procurement?
Answer. Each contractor received approximately $500,000 to
participate in the show-me demonstrations for Advanced Technologies and
Oceanic Procedures, for a total of $1,500,000.
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM
Question. On April 1, 1996, the FAA began operating under a new
procurement system. The new system was to enable FAA to address the
unique needs of the agency and provide for more timely and cost
effective acquisition of equipment and materials. Despite the Congress
granting FAA this reform nearly four years ago, many FAA modernization
projects, such as WAAS and STARS, have encountered significant schedule
delays and cost overruns. Also, other projects, such as Oceanic
Automation and National Airspace System Infrastructure Management
System, have been significantly restructured. At least two independent
reviews of the FAA's acquisition management system found that the
agency had not achieved its acquisition goals of executing more timely
and cost-effective programs. What steps has FAA taken to develop
accurate information for use in decision making, including accurate
estimates of the cost of programs and the time to develop them?
Answer. The FAA has established the investment analysis process as
a way for the stakeholder organizations to work collaboratively to
identify potential alternative technical solutions or approaches to a
given shortfall in mission capability. This often includes a market
survey and identification of potential trade-offs between requirements
and cost and schedule. This emphasis on better cost and schedule
planning earlier in the process should result in more accurate
estimates.
Question. Since Congress granted the agency acquisition reform in
1996, how has this helped the FAA to meets its goals for ATC
Modernization?
Answer. The agency's acquisition reform first authorized in 1996
has helped simplify, integrate, and unify elements of life cycle
acquisition management into a more effective system. This has helped
the FAA to meet its goals for ATC.
Acquisition reform has shifted focus to life cycle management of
program, created an improved structure and processes for defining FAA
needs and investments, established corporate-level decision making for
FAA needs and investments, and increased involvement of stakeholders in
decision-making process.
Substantially streamlined procurement processes have produced a 50
percent reduction in the time to award contracts and has increased the
percentage of contracts awarded competitively and based on best value,
improved communications with FAA vendors, and has an impact on
improving delivery of products and services.
Question. What steps has FAA taken to ensure that it provides
oversight of all its modernization projects-those under development as
well as those in operation?
Answer. The FAA has initiated several different reform efforts
aimed at providing oversight of its modernization project.
Performance Plans. FAA took an important step in support of culture
change and improved performance by formulating and promulgating annual
outcome-based, mission-focused performance goals and indicators in
Lines of Business (LOB) performance plans. These plans are shared goals
between applicable LOB's.
FAA Acquisition Executive Advisory Board (FAB). FAB is an
established group of executives, across all lines of business to ensure
that the appropriate steps are taken in the front-end of the
acquisition process of all programs. FAB also, provides links between
the Research, F&E, and Operations budgets.
Quarterly Acquisition Reviews. The FAA schedules these Acquisition
Reviews for the sole purpose to inform senior managers and key
executives about the status and risks in acquisition projects that are
under way. Information from these reviews is intended to provide a
basis for building consensus and discussing challenges that could
inhibit the success of critical acquisitions.
Integrated Product Development System (IPDS). IPDS is a team-based
process that established cross-functional teams throughout FAA's lines
of business to produce effective and efficient products/services that
satisfy customer/user needs. Past examples of successful team-based
programs are the En-Route Display System Replacement (DSR) and Host and
Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR).
FAA-integrated Capability Maturity Model (FAA-iCMM). The Agency
developed and began using the iCMM as a unified approach for evaluating
its processes and improving them. This cross-functional process
involving employees from different LOBs and is anticipated to further
provide a more effective and efficient collaboration between Agency
organizations in order to achieve higher levels of maturity on the
model's scale.
Requirements Process. The requirements process was reengineered to
establish a single organizational entity in order to better manage
system requirements and ensure improved collaboration with the teams.
Portfolio Management. The FAA plans to implement portfolio
management to aggregate investment candidates into funding categories
in order to facilitate managing the capital investment portfolio as a
whole, increasing benefits, and managing risks.
Question. What is the status of FAA's effort to reform its culture,
including fully implementing integrated product development teams to
acquire and management systems?
Answer. The FAA's strategy for acquisition culture change is a
dynamic process that provides a framework and focal point for
integrating individual interventions of various organizational elements
and strengthens the drive toward better performance. The FAA has
instituted important structural and procedural changes designed to
eliminate culture, acquisition, and organizational problems of the
past:
Integrated Product Development System (IPDS). This process is
helping to transform how the Agency does business, and facilitates
breaking down stovepipe organizational barriers. Through IPDS, the
Agency is focusing on corporate issues and problems affecting the FAA,
such as human factors, and life cycle acquisition management. IPDS is
gradually changing how employees and management interrelate by
recognizing the value and utility of cross-functional teams for
applicable tasks and how employees are empowered by managers.
Other ongoing initiatives designed to change and improve the
Agency's culture include the requirements process and performance
planning. The requirements process has been reengineered to better
manage system requirements and ensure improved collaboration with the
teams. FAA has taken an important step in support of culture change and
improved performance by formulating and promulgating outcome-based,
mission-focused performance goals and indicators in our performance
plans.
Performance-driven behavior change within a large organization,
such as the FAA, is a challenging task. Change management of this
magnitude and difficulty can be successful over time and with the
consistent and focused attention of its leaders. The Agency is making
progress in all three areas identified in the 1999 Booz-Allen &
Hamilton Report. The FAA is making progress through a variety of
efforts to change the acquisition culture, overcome organizational
barriers (``stovepipes''), and recognize and address gaps in AMS. The
FAA is committed to having a workforce and business practices that are
adaptable to changing aviation and technological environments and that
provide the safest, most efficient and responsive aerospace system in
the world.
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
Question. In its April 1999 report on FAA's investment management
approach, GAO said that the Acquisition Management System was a good
first step in establishing a structured, disciplined process for
managing FAA's modernization investments, but concluded that the system
had some very significant shortfalls that limited its effectiveness.
GAO made five recommendations designed to correct problems it had
identified with the system. GAO directed the FAA to establish and
control a complete investment portfolio, including those projects
already in operation. What has been done to implement this
recommendation?
Answer. The FAA has developed the CIP with associated funding
requirements for five years that tie to OMB outyear targets. This plan
is the basis of the agency's investment portfolio for selecting and
controlling investment decisions. The FAA is developing full life-cycle
baselines for acquisition programs, which are included in the agency's
CIP. The agency will incorporate in to its CIP all of the future F&E
appropriation funded programs in its CIP.
Question. Exactly how many projects and systems are in the
modernization investment portfolio?
Answer. Within the agency's CIP, there are 113 identified projects
in the ATC services and facilities sustainment and new ATC services
groupings that constitute the agency's modernization effort.
Question. Of those, how many have reliable cost baselines?
Answer. The FAA has baselined 29 major acquisition programs in the
services and facilities sustainment groupings. There are an additional
17 major acquisition programs with baselines in process or identified
to be baselined.
Question. When will the FAA have reliable operations cost baselines
for every project in your investment portfolio?
Answer. To date the FAA has approved operations baselines for 15
CIP and ten legacy projects, accounting for over 55 percent of the
operations cost identified in the System Architecture. The 15 CIP
projects with operations cost baselines include seven baselined in
fiscal year 1999 and eight in fiscal year 2000. By the end of fiscal
year 2000, the FAA has targeted an additional ten CIP projects for
baselining. This would bring the total operations baselines of CIP
projects to 25. We are assessing how best to complete all baselines for
the 113 identified F&E projects.
REPORTING ON ESTIMATED VERSUS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
Question. GAO reported in April 1999 that information use to
control projects was incomplete since FAA had not fully implemented as
effective process for controlling the baselines for the costs,
schedules, benefits, performance, and risks of its investments. At that
time, FAA had approved baseline information for only half of the
required universe of projects and the agency's processes for tracking
actual performance against estimates frequently had provided incomplete
information. The acquisition management system had been in place for
three years when the GAO report was issued in April 1999. Why, then,
was the FAA only able to establish and approve baselines for half of
the projects during that three-year period?
Answer. The universe of projects targeted for baselining in GAO's
report were F&E funded programs. Many of the projects were undergoing
investment analysis and were, therefore, premature to baseline. The FAA
currently has 44 projects baselined, and plans to have four more
projects baselined by the Spring of 2000, which provides baselines for
over 70 percent of F&E expenditures.
Question. Why is it taking so long for the FAA to develop and
finalize the most basic baseline data on these key projects?
Answer. Of the F&E funded programs in the universe of projects
identified in GAO's report, many are still undergoing investment
analysis and will not have baselines until after the Joint Resources
Council (JRC) approves the investment. Since programs are being managed
to baselines, it is very important to develop accurate baselines. That
can not be done until the investment analysis is complete and the
number of systems to be purchased is determined along with a detailed
estimate of system costs.
Question. GAO also found that the FAA frequently has incomplete
reports on projects' estimated versus actual performance in the areas
of cost, schedule, benefits, and performance. What has the FAA done to
change this situation?
Answer. The FAA developed a centralized information system known as
the Simplified Program Information Reporting Evaluation database.
Programs are required to report variances to their cost, schedule,
performance, and benefits baselines monthly. All program variances are
tracked and included in a quarterly report to the JRC. Substantial
acquisitions with variances greater than 10 percent are reported to the
FAA Administrator for her determination to continue or terminate the
program.
Question. Given the substantial cost overruns, lengthy delays, and
significant performance shortfalls that have characterized FAA's
modernization program, how important is it for the FAA to closely
monitor and document its estimated versus actual performance?
Answer. A program's estimated versus actual performance is
monitored at the highest level in the FAA. The FAA has developed an
information system known as the Simplified Program Information
Reporting Evaluation system, in which programs report monthly on
variances to their program's baseline. Variances to baselines are
monitored and documented in a quarterly report to the JRC. In addition,
key officials are briefed monthly by the product teams on the status of
cost, schedule, performance, benefits, and risk. Similarly, members of
the JRC are briefed semi-annually on these same areas. The Associate
Administrator for Research and Acquisitions (the Federal Acquisition
Executive) obtains a monthly status of key milestones for critical
projects via updates to the Program Status Matrix wall charts. Finally,
the FAA Administrator is notified of substantial acquisitions with
variances of greater than 10 percent for her determination to continue
or terminate the program.
Question. What specific steps are being taken to implement the GAO
recommendations to ensure project officials fully track and document
estimated versus actual results on all baseline elements?
Answer. The development of the Simplified Program Information
Reporting and Evaluation System, variance tracking and reporting to FAA
management, and reporting to the FAA Administrator variances of greater
that 10 percent are some examples of FAA's progress in implementing the
GAO's recommendations to document estimated versus actual results on
the baseline elements.
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION
Question. When will the FAA have a complete and enforced systems
architecture for the ATC modernization program?
Answer. The FAA understands the question to relate to the technical
architecture for the en route air traffic automation modernization that
we define the allocation of functions, before the en route automation
software is replaced. The technical architecture timing is dependent
upon funding for fiscal year 2001. The technical architecture will be
completed within one year of program funding and before production
commitments are made to modify or replace the current 1970's technology
software.
Question. When will the FAA complete its efforts to
institutionalize sound cost estimating processes?
Answer. FAA uses sound cost estimating processes appropriate to the
level of detail needed for a given estimate. The Agency has established
a standard work breakdown structure, and completed the development of a
Cost Estimating Handbook, dated January 2, 1998, which provides
guidance for all our estimates.
COST ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Question. When will the FAA have a cost accounting system in place?
Answer. The FAA is implementing the cost accounting system in
phases by organization from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2002.
To date, the FAA has implemented en route and oceanic services for the
Air Traffic Services (ATS) line of business. The fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999 costs of these services have been identified. ATS
Flight Service Stations will be added in fiscal year 2000 and terminal/
tower services in the beginning of fiscal year 2001. The implementation
schedule for all organizations is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA organization Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATS Flight Service Stations............. June 2000.
ATS Terminal and Tower.................. October 2000.
Research and Acquisitions............... February 2001.
Aeronautical Center..................... April 2001.
Airports/Commercial Space Transportation November 2001.
Certification and Regulation............ February 2002.
Civil Aviation Security................. June 2002.
Staff Offices........................... September 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA SOFTWARE PROCESSES
Question. When will the FAA be able to report that its software
processes are at a mature level? What challenges are causing this
effort so long to complete?
Answer. FAA is improving its processes using an integrated approach
that improves systems engineering, software engineering, acquisition,
and management processes simultaneously via the FAA's integrated
Capability Maturity Model (FAA-iCMM). There are nine process areas that
must be performed at a planned and tracked, and repeatable capability
level to be considered maturity level 2. The nine process areas are:
Needs, Requirements, Outsourcing, System Test and Evaluation,
Transition, Project Management, Contract Management, Quality Assurance
and Management, and Configuration Management. The Agency has recently
completed a major appraisal of eleven engineering and acquisition
programs spanning the FAA acquisition lifecycle, and also have
appraised the maturity of several processes performed across the FAA
Technical Center. The results of these appraisals indicate that the
majority of the programs or organizations assessed have achieved
capability level 2 for most of the nine maturity level 2 process areas
that are relevant to the engineering and acquisition activities that
each program/organization performs. Several of the eleven programs
assessed have reached full maturity level 2. Those programs that have
not yet completely reached maturity level 2 are currently preparing
action plans, which when implemented, will allow them to reach full
maturity level 2 by the end of fiscal year 2000.
Additionally, the FAA continues to build on the process improvement
accomplishments to date. Overall, FAA is performing extremely well in
improving its processes following an integrated approach. This
integrated effort is being achieved at a pace faster than the industry
norm, where typically it takes 25 months to improve from level 1 to
level 2 on the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for software alone. In
roughly that timeframe, FAA has been achieving mature process on the
FAA-iCMM, which is equivalent to achieving comparable maturity on three
CMMs simultaneously: the CMMs for Software, Software Acquisition, and
Systems Engineering. Because of continuing changes in technology and in
the identification of new or improved ``best practices,'' process
improvement can never be considered complete.
ACQUISITION REFORM
Question. How has acquisition reform helped the FAA meet its goals
for ATC modernization? How has it impeded the FAA from meeting those
goals?
Answer. The agency's acquisition reform authorized in 1996 has
aided to simplify, integrate, and unify elements of life cycle
acquisition management into a more effective system, which has helped
the FAA to meet its goals for ATC modernization. Acquisition reform has
shifted focus to life cycle management of programs, created an improved
structure and processes for defining FAA needs and investments,
established corporate-level decision-making for FAA needs and
investments, and increased involvement of stakeholders in decisions.
Substantially streamlined procurement processes have produced a 50
percent reduction in the time to award contracts, increased the
percentage of contracts awarded competitively and based on best value,
improved communications with FAA vendors. It also improves the delivery
of products and services.
FACILITY SECURITY
Question. When will the FAA correct known weaknesses and complete
security accreditations for its 187 facilities?
Answer. The FAA has established a six-year program to upgrade
security and complete accreditation of approximately 1,000 staffed
facilities, not 187 as referenced in the question. Upgrades and
accreditations are planned for completion by 2005.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ASSESSMENTS
Question. When will FAA complete its efforts to assess, certify,
and accredit all air traffic control systems, as required by agency
policy?
Answer. The FAA plans are to complete the certification and
authorization of its critical air traffic control systems by May 2003.
This date is dependent upon required funding to support the risk
assessments and mitigation of any high-risk items or vulnerabilities
found during the assessment process.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
Question. When will the FAA complete its efforts to ensure that
specifications for all new ATC systems include security requirements
based on detailed security assessments?
Answer. The FAA will complete all risk assessments for new ATC
systems by May 2003, in accordance with Presidential Decision Directive
63. High-level NAS requirements have been developed. The FAA is
currently developing ``protection profiles'' at the system level in
compliance with National Institute of Standards and Technology
standards. These protection profiles will define security requirements
for new NAS systems.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
Question. In December 1999, GAO reported that the FAA had not
consistently performed background checks or investigations on
contractor employees, as required by its policy. In fact, GAO provided
an example in which 36 mainland Chinese nationals were provided copies
of some of FAA's most important air traffic control systems, but had
not undergone background searches as required by FAA policy. GAO made
several recommendations to address security weaknesses, and FAA agreed
to implement these recommendations. What are the FAA's plans for
enforcing its policy on background checks or investigations to ensure
that such a lapse does not occur in the future? When will the FAA
complete its efforts to address the GAO recommendation?
Answer. FAA has taken swift action to address the key issues
identified in the December 1999 GAO report, and continues longer-term
actions to ensure that it has the policies and procedures in place to
ensure background checks or investigations are conducted, as necessary,
on contractor employees.
FAA's Civil Aviation Security (ACS) provided contractor personnel
security requirement briefings to acquisition personnel during the
month of March 2000 to heighten their awareness of the requirements of
FAA Personnel Security Order 1600.1D, and remind them of their
responsibilities under the order.
The FAA Office of Acquisitions has developed, in coordination with
ACS and Legal Counsel for Procurement Policy, new security provisions
(clauses, guidance, prescriptions, and forms) for use in new, as well
as existing contracts. The new prescriptions require contracting and
operating offices to implement the requirements of 1600.1D in all
contracts, unless a determination is made that no access by Contractor
personnel to FAA facilities, sensitive information and/or resources is
required.
These new provisions clarify the requirements for conducting risk/
sensitivity level determinations for each applicable position under a
contract and for mechanisms to allow initiating appropriate background
checks/investigations prior to allowing a contractor employee to start
or to continue work on a FAA system.
Since January 2000, the FAA continues reviewing all of its existing
contracts, as well as all new contracts before issuance, to ensure
appropriate risk/sensitivity level designations for applicable
positions under those contracts are made. Where appropriate, FAA is
incorporating the appropriate security provision(s), which call for
contractor employees to provide necessary forms to allow the FAA to
conduct, as necessary and appropriate, the background checks/
investigations.
ACS is developing procedures, intended to be in place by September
2000, for conducting semi-annual audits of contracts for the sole
purpose of monitoring compliance with FAA order 1600.1D.
All existing, as well as newly awarded, contracts should be
modified by the first ACS review in September 2000.
In accordance with the order, ACS will ensure the required
background checks or investigations are conducted and will maintain a
contractor personnel database.
OVERSIGHT OF AVIATION REPAIR STATIONS
Question. Last summer, the FAA issued two NPRM's concerning
oversight of aviation repair stations. One concerned the training and
certification requirements for repair station personnel. This NPRM was
subsequently withdrawn. What are the reasons for the withdrawal of the
NPRM, and what is the FAA's plan for issuing a revised NPRM? The other
NPRM had been several years in the making and addressed more
comprehensively the oversight of repair stations. The comment period
was extended and expired the end of last year. Can you estimate when a
final rule will be published?
Answer. The Revision of Certification Requirements: Mechanics and
Repairmen NPRM was published on July 9, 1998. More than 1500
commentaries responded to the NPRM. Most of the commentaries opposed
the provision in the NPRM to establish the Aviation Maintenance
Technician and Aviation Maintenance Technician (Transport)
certificates. Several associations such as the Regional Airline
Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the
Aeronautical Repair Manufacturers, and the National Air Transportation
Association opposed the NPRM and some associations asked the FAA to
withdraw the NPRM. As a result, the notice to withdraw the Revision of
Certification Requirements: Mechanics and Repairmen NPRM was published
on August 5, 1999. The NPRM was withdrawn due to the large number of
comments that were received in opposition. A review is being conducted
to determine what actions are needed to bring Part 65 in line with the
comments received and whether or not to reissue Part 66.
The Part 145 Review: Repair Stations NPRM was published on June 21,
1999, with a comment period deadline of October 19, 1999. The comment
period deadline was extended to December 3, 1999. The FAA received 535
comments in regards to the NPRM. The FAA is currently analyzing these
substantive comments and anticipates publishing the rule April 3, 2001,
which is within 16 months of the comment period deadline and in
accordance with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 final rule
publication requirements.
PROTECTION OF VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED INFORMATION
Question. For many years flight safety experts have identified the
proactive use of data from flight data recorders as an essential means
of achieving the eighty percent reduction in aviation accident rates
set by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. One
of Administrator Garvey's first acts as FAA Administrator was to
expedite rulemaking that would enable the use of this information. Yet
it was only last fall that a NPRM protecting this information from
release under the FOIA was issued. Why did it take so long to issue
this NPRM, and when do you anticipate a final-rule?
Answer. The FAA initiated the Protection of Voluntarily Submitted
Information rulemaking on December 11, 1996, as a result of a
requirement established in the FAA Reauthorization Act (Act) of 1996
and a recommendation from the White House Commission on Aviation Safety
and Security. The Act allows the Administrator, through FAA
regulations, to protect from disclosure voluntarily provided
information related to safety and security issues. The White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security noted that the most
effective way to identify problems is for people who operate the system
to self-disclose the information, but there is reluctance to provide
information to the FAA unless it can be protected.
Throughout the NPRM process, the determining of the rule's scope
and approach and performing economic analysis required coordination
within FAA as well as the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and
the Office of Management and Budget. Issues identified at each stage of
the review process required resolution prior to the publication of the
NPRM.
The Protection of Voluntarily Submitted Information NPRM was
published on July 26, 1999, with a comment deadline of September 24,
1999. On September 21, 1999, the National Transportation Safety Board
requested that the FAA extend the comment period by 30 days.
Consequently on October 5, 1999, the FAA published a notice reopening
the comment period for an additional 30 days resulting in the closing
of the comment period on November 4, 1999. The FAA is developing the
final rule, and anticipates publishing the rule by February 26, 2001,
which is within 16 months of the close of comment period and in
accordance with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 final rule
publication requirements.
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS)
Question. Given the difficulties with AMASS procurement, does it
make sense to take a step back from the program and consider whether
other emerging capabilities within other procurements that have not
experienced comparable difficulties might have complementary or
corresponding capabilities that could obviate the concerns that the
AMASS program purportedly should address. Does the ADS-B program have a
role to play in addressing the runway incursion problem?
Answer. The FAA has completed an in-depth review and restructuring
of AMASS and concluded that the revised program goals will be met. The
AMASS system is a key player in helping prevent accidents that could
result from runway incursions. Yes. The ADS-B program does have a role
to play in addressing the runway incursion problem.
The total program quantity of 40 systems are on contract utilizing
prior year funding authority; 29 systems have been delivered and 23
systems have been accepted by the FAA. A total of 38 systems will be
installed at the 34 highest priority airports, with two support systems
in Oklahoma City. With active union participation and new program
management in place, the program is now on schedule. Human factor
issues critical to the commissioning process have been corrected.
Operational Test (OT) critical issues have been resolved and have
passed factory testing and field testing in Atlanta. The OT regression
testing to validate the corrections is on schedule to be completed in
June 2000. Initial operating capability (IOC) is on schedule for August
2000. The Independent Operational Test & Evaluation will follow
starting in September in San Francisco and in October in Detroit. First
AMASS commissionings are scheduled for early calendar year 2001,
following completion of the required FAA in-service review process.
The ASDE-3/AMASS is the only currently available technology that
includes safety logic that has been formally operationally tested with
the participation of FAA Airways Facilities and Air Traffic personnel.
Technologies such as multilateration and data fusion, which are being
tested at Dallas/Fort Worth airport, under a research and development
program, still required an extensive development effort to become
operationally suitable in the FAA's National Airspace System. A new
program named ASDE-X, now in the acquisition phase with a contract
award scheduled for September 2000, will incorporate these new
technologies. These new technologies will not include the safety logic
that is the core of the AMASS system. The ASDE-X systems are planned to
be deployed at airports other than the ASDE-3/AMASS sites. The current
schedule for AMASS includes commissioning of all systems by the end of
calendar year 2002, prior to the first possible commissioning of an
ASDE-X system scheduled for calendar year 2003.
ADS-B will be able to contribute two critical solutions to the
runway incursion issue. The first component would provide ADS-B target
information to the controllers. This capability would be similar to
radar based ASDE display functionality in the tower cab, but would
provide controllers with more accurate target information, such as
aircraft data tag and precise GPS derived position.
The second component is ADS-B driven cockpit surface moving map
displays. Safe Flight-21 is currently developing commercial cockpit
displays, which provide pilots critical information such as their
precise position on the airport surface relative to other aircraft
occupying runways or about to land. This tool should be very effective
in reducing the number of pilot and vehicle deviations, by providing
pilots and ground vehicles the same ``situational awareness'' picture
afforded only to tower controllers today. More importantly, since ADS-B
works between equipped aircraft pairs, cockpit moving map displays
would offer a level of safety at airports that currently don't have
ASDE equipment.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Question. Please provide a listing of the top 50 airside airport
projects that add capacity to the system. Please provide the estimated
costs of such projects and the years in which those costs occur. In
addition, please provide any relevant cost benefit information with
those projects.
Answer. New runways generally provide the largest increases in
airside capacity. Twenty-eight new runways have been identified at the
100 busiest airports in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
as a result of local planning efforts for a total estimated cost of
nearly $7,000,000,000 for all 28 runways. Construction of these new
runways represents many more than 50 airside airport projects; however,
for purposes of providing a meaningful level of information, projects
are listed at the airport level, without breaking airport initiatives
into lower level airside airport projects.
Of the 28 proposed new runways, four are under construction with
runway operational dates of: 2000 for Phoenix; 2001 for Detroit; 2003
for Minneapolis; and 2006 for Seattle. Following is the list of
airports with planned runways through 2010. Benefit-cost analyses and
funding plans (approved Letters of Intent) for Detroit, Minneapolis,
and Seattle have been completed. The remaining locations either are or
will be examined as the AIP project approval process evolves.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.020
REVENUE DIVERSION
Question. The GAO reported that (1) unauthorized land use at
general aviation airports had results in safety hazards and led to
revenue diversion or loss, which FAA has not always addressed; (2)
airport revenues have been diverted at Bader Field, New Jersey and at
Queen City Airport in Pennsylvania, since the early 1970's and (3)
FAA's decision to allow Kansas City to sell the Richards-Gebaur
Memorial Airport without an appraisal or ensuring the fair market value
was improper. In its response, FAA stated that its field offices were
aware of the cases cited by GAO. FAA said it prefers to address
noncompliance through negotiations and settlement with the airport
sponsor. FAA said it was carefully reviewing the proposed leases of the
Richards-Gabaur Airport and would consider amending the Memorandum of
Agreement or rejecting the structure of the sale. GAO recommended that
FAA's compliance policy guidance be revised to require among other
things, periodic on-site visits and to include specific criteria for
initiating enforcement actions and set reasonable time frames for
taking progressively stronger enforcement actions in cases where
efforts to achieve voluntary corrective action are unsuccessful. If FAA
field offices knew about these unauthorized land uses, safety hazards,
and diversion of revenues, abuses that in several cases cited by GAO,
went on for decades, why didn't the agency take actions to stop them?
Answer. In the past the FAA encouraged its field offices to resolve
compliance issues on an informal basis. The consequence was that some
negotiations took unacceptably long periods of time. Now, thanks in
part to the February 16, 1999, issuance of the FAA Policy and
Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue and the Rules of
Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Proceedings (published October
16, 1996), the issues are defined more clearly, negotiations are more
focused, and the FAA is quicker to use its administrative process to
assure compliance. Additionally, each region remains responsible for
monitoring and surveillance of airport sponsor compliance with Federal
obligations on a routine basis. FAA HQ monitors the regions compliance
monitoring and surveillance by requiring each region to submit a
semiannual compliance monitoring and surveillance report to the Airport
Compliance Division at FAA Headquarters. This report includes, but is
not limited to, each region's land release activities, compliance
evaluations and determinations, as-well-as corrective and enforcement
action taken to effect airport sponsor compliance.
Question. Is there a time frame for how long the FAA will allow
airport land to be usurped and revenues to be diverted before taking
action?
Answer. Once the FAA becomes aware of an alleged violation of an
airport sponsor's Federal obligations it acts immediately to
investigate the alleged violation either formally or informally. Our
first choice in addressing an apparent airport owner assurance
violation is always to seek voluntary compliance through the informal
compliance efforts of our regional offices, or to otherwise resolve the
issues at the regional level. However, when voluntary compliance cannot
be achieved, FAA Headquarters will initiate a formal FAA investigation
in accordance with FAR Part 16. FAA policies and procedures do not
provide a standard time frame in which corrective actions must be
completed because all cases are different. In most cases, the actual
time taken to complete enforcement action can be attributed to the time
associated with the FAA informal and formal administrative processes,
and the legal requirement to provide the opportunity for correction of
the condition prior to enforcement action, as provided in FAR Part 16.
The time frame for the compliance process may vary greatly depending on
the complexity of the case and the airport specific circumstances.
However, it has always been FAA's policy to resolve compliance matters
as quickly as possible.
Question. Provide some instances and dates when the FAA has taken
enforcement action in the past five years. More specifically, what
enforcement action has the FAA taken to resolve long-standing instances
of non-compliance and revenue diversion at the Queen City Airport in
Pennsylvania and at Bader Field, New Jersey?
Answer. The FAA has taken the following enforcement action with
regard to Queen City and Bader Field.
Queen City. The FAA worked extensively with the City of Allentown,
Pennsylvania, to resolve the Office of Inspector General's finding of a
$2,400,000 revenue diversion at the Queen City Airport. Although the
city disagrees with the amount of the finding, it entered into
negotiations with the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA) to
transfer the Airport to the LNAA as a means of repaying the diverted
revenue. As the result of the negotiations, the City and the LNAA
agreed in principle to the transfer, but the transfer has not occurred
yet, due to two unresolved issues. First, the city wants to continue
its use of the Vultree hangar as a municipal garage. Second, the city
proposed a plan to close both the Queen City and the Lehigh Northampton
Airports and replace them with a new facility. Since negotiations have
stalled, the FAA is currently taking action to re-coup the revenue
diversion reported in the audit finding.
Bader Field. The FAA continues to work with Atlantic City to
resolve the land-use and safety issues at the Bader Field Airport. With
regard to the land-use issues, the FAA is waiting for the city to
support its claim that it provides sufficient financial aid to the
Airport to offset any rent on the land that the city uses for non-
airport purposes. With regard to safety issues, on March 3, 2000, the
FAA issued an emergency Order of Compliance to the city that required
the city to operate the airport in a safe manner. On March 6th and 10th
the city met with the Assistant U.S. Attorney to discuss the steps the
city must take to comply with the Order. The outcome of those meetings
was a three-party agreement in principle among the city, New Jersey
Department of Transportation, and the United States Attorney to improve
signage and markings on the airport. The FAA is awaiting the signed
copy of the agreement. If the city refuses to sign the agreement, the
United States Attorney has the option of obtaining a court injunction
to enforce the order. In the meantime, the FAA is continuing to conduct
safety inspections at the airport.
Question. Has the FAA taken any steps to obtain information, either
through site visits by the FAA personnel or from interested parties,
regarding general aviation airport compliance with land and revenue use
requirements?
Answer. The FAA continues to believe that the extent of
unauthorized land use was overstated in the GAO report. GAO's random
sample of 506 airports produced issues at only nine airports, or fewer
than 2 percent of the airports surveyed. The FAA was aware of all those
issues, which had been previously identified under longstanding
procedures, such as FAA's formal and informal complaint processes,
through which airport users often bring matters of airport sponsor non-
compliance to the attention of the FAA. Moreover, the FAA is working on
and continues to address the issues identified by the GAO.
Information on compliance matters at general aviation airports can
come to the FAA from a number of sources or interested parties. Airport
users at the airport are usually the initial source of information
regarding potential problems with a sponsor's ability to comply with a
its a grant assurances. This information can be brought to the agency's
attention directly by the airport users in an aviation support group
such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots' Association Airport Support
Network. State aviation departments that routinely conduct inspections
of general aviation airports will also communicate with FAA local and
regional offices about safety and compliance problems.
Also, the FAA proposes to select annually a total of 18 general
aviation airports (two per region) to conduct on-site compliance
inspections. The selections will be made based on prior or current
knowledge of compliance issues at the airports. Absent such issues, The
FAA will concentrate on airports that are large in size (extensive
acreage as reported on the FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record), in
relation to the level of aircraft operations at the airport. Airports
with substantial acreage and no aeronautical purpose for such land
would presumably have more opportunity and incentive for unauthorized
land use. To achieve this goal, we will employ airport compliance
specialists in the field, or in the alternative, safety certification
inspectors knowledgeable of airport compliance requirements will
conduct on-site compliance reviews.
MILITARY AIRPORT PROGRAM
Question. Please provide a list of airports currently in the
Military Airport Program (MAP) Program.
Answer. The following is a list of the 12 airports currently in the
MAP. Eleven of these former surplus military airfields were declared
surplus under the recent Department of Defense Base Realignment and
Closure program and have been converted to reuse as civil airports.
Chippewa County International is a former surplused military airfield
currently being used as a civil primary commercial service airport. The
list of 12 airports includes:
Austin-Bergstrom Austin, TX (BSM) (Bergstrom AFB)
Homestead Regional Miami, FL (HST) (Homestead AFB)
Millington Municipal Memphis, TN (NQA) (Memphis NAS)
Williams Gateway Phoenix, AZ (IWA) (Williams AFB)
Alexandria International Alexandria, LA (AEX) (England AFB)
Rickenbacker International Columbus, OH (LCK) (Rickenbacker AFB)
Sawyer Airport Gwinn, MI (SAW) (K.I. Sawyer AFB)
Myrtle Beach International Myrtle Beach, SC (MYR) (Myrtle Beach AFB)
Southern California International Victorville, CA (VCV) (George AFB)
Chippewa County International Sault Ste Marie, MI (CIU) (Kincheloe AFB)
Pease International Tradeport Portsmouth, NH (PSM) (Pease AFB)
Cecil Field Jacksonville, FL (VQQ) (Jacksonville NAS)
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Question. Please provide a table showing AIP projects for which
obligations were incurred more than two years ago and no cash
expenditures have been made, similar in format to table provided in the
past to the appropriations committees.
Answer. The AIP projects table is listed below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Federal
Location Airport No. funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayward, CA................... Hayward 09-97 $150,000
Executive.
Oceano, CA.................... Oceano County... 03-97 374,000
Oceanside, CA................. Municipal....... 01-95 674,385
Sacramento, CA................ Metropolitan.... 21-97 3,594,191
San Carlos, CA................ San Carlos...... 07-97 108,000
San Luis Obispo, CA........... County.......... 15-97 704,007
Tracy, CA..................... Municipal....... 07-95 117,090
Hilo, HI...................... International... 07-97 2,371,500
Honolulu, HI.................. International... 39-97 933,000
Honolulu, HI.................. International... 40-97 5,625,000
Honolulu, HI.................. International... 41-97 3,455,075
Kalaupapa, HI................. Kalaupapa....... 02-97 243,000
Kaunakakai, HI................ Molokai......... 04-97 1,350,000
Lihue, HI..................... Lihue........... 19-97 3,422,963
Detroit, MI................... Detroit Willow 17-97 345,267
Run.
Keene, NH..................... Dillant-Hopkins. 13-97 962,280
New Hampshire................. State........... 01-97 83,041
Atlantic City, NJ............. International... 23-97 250,000
New Jersey State.............. Block Grant..... 07-97 285,000
Newark, NJ.................... International... 53-95 2,432,000
Newark, NJ.................... International... 55-96 1,000,000
Flushing, NY.................. LaGuardia....... 50-94 1,216,000
Newburg, NY................... Stewart 22-95 5,097,277
Interntional.
Newburg, NY................... Stewart 23-96 1,174,081
International.
Newburg, NY................... Stewart 24-97 1,492,183
International.
New York, NY.................. E. 34th Street.. 02-96 488,099
Syracuse, NY.................. International... 49-97 1,616,699
Utica, NY..................... Oneida County... 16-96 383,697
Las Vegas, NV................. McCarran 36-97 3,055,838
International.
Reno, NV...................... Reno/Tahoe 26-97 400,000
International.
Reno, NV...................... Reno/Stead...... 13-97 500,000
Hazleton, PA.................. Municipal....... 06-95 500,000
Pennsylvania.................. State of SB-97 225,000
Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia, PA.............. International... 25-90 975,000
------------
Total Fedral funds................................... 45,603,673
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a copy of each letter of intent issued
over the past year. Please provide a table outlining the commitment of
AIP funds for letters of intent projects.
Answer. The FAA did not issue any new letters of intent (LOI) in
fiscal year 1999. However, a number of applications were reviewed
during the year, resulting in the recommendation to approve four. Three
LOIs were issued after submission to Congress on March 3 for a 30-day
period. The fourth LOI, for Dallas-Fort Worth International is being
held pending development of mutually acceptable language concerning a
possible AIP grant compliance issue. Copies of the proposed LOIs with
commitments of AIP funds follow.
letter of intent
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
Project Description: Design and construct Runway 17C extension
(2,012 feet), Runway 18L extension (2,012 feet), Runway 18R extension
(2,012 feet), Northwest Holding Apron and associated taxiway
development.
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Apportionment Discretionary Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................................ .............. $6,292,000 $6,292,000
2001............................................................ .............. 2,292,000 2,292,000
2002............................................................ .............. 3,292,000 3,292,000
2003............................................................ .............. 4,892,000 4,892,000
2004............................................................ .............. 4,892,000 4,892,000
2005............................................................ .............. 5,692,000 5,692,000
2006............................................................ .............. 5,692,000 5,692,000
2007............................................................ .............. 2,752,000 2,752,000
2008............................................................ .............. 2,552,000 2,552,000
2009............................................................ .............. 5,292,000 5,292,000
2010............................................................ .............. 6,000,000 6,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 49,640,000 49,640,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miami International Airport Miami, Florida
Project description: Construct new northside runway complex,
consisting of: New Runway 8-26 (8,600 ft by 150 ft), relocated parallel
Taxiway ``L'' (8,600 ft by 75 ft) and taxiway connectors, parallel
Taxiway ``K'' (8,600 ft by 75 ft) and taxiway connectors; including
airfield lighting and signage, grading and drainage, runway grooving,
pavement marking, obstruction removal, removal of utilities, removal of
buildings, and removal of contaminated materials. Construction includes
airside service road and NAVAIDS (2 localizers with DME, REILS and 2
PAPIs).
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apportionment
Fiscal year (Entitlement & Discretionary Total
Cargo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................................ $7,000,000 $5,000,000 $12,000,000
2001............................................................ 7,000,000 3,000,000 10,000,000
2002............................................................ 7,000,000 2,840,000 9,840,000
2003............................................................ 7,000,000 4,000,000 11,000,000
2004............................................................ 7,000,000 5,000,000 12,000,000
2005............................................................ .............. 8,000,000 8,000,000
2006............................................................ .............. 7,550,000 7,550,000
2007............................................................ .............. 8,000,000 8,000,000
2008............................................................ .............. 4,000,000 4,000,000
2009............................................................ .............. 10,110,000 10,110,000
2010............................................................ .............. 8,540,000 8,540,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 35,000,000 66,040,000 101,040,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando International Airport Orlando, Florida
Project description: Construct New Runway 17L/35R (9,000 ft by 150
ft) and Associated Taxiways (parallel Taxiway M and connecting
Taxiways, crossfield Taxiways K, L, & Q) including airfield lighting
and signage, grading and drainage, runway grooving, pavement markings,
service/secure roadways, security fencing and equipment, obstruction
clearing, and building demolition.
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apportionment
Fiscal year (Entitlement & Discretionary Total
Cargo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................................ .............. $15,530,000 $15,530,000
2001............................................................ .............. 7,590,000 7,590,000
2002............................................................ .............. 5,000,000 5,000,000
2003............................................................ $4,600,000 5,000,000 9,600,000
2004............................................................ 5,100,000 3,000,000 8,100,000
2005............................................................ 5,360,000 .............. 5,360,000
2006............................................................ 5,620,000 .............. 5,620,000
2007............................................................ 5,900,000 .............. 5,900,000
2008............................................................ 6,200,000 .............. 6,200,000
2009............................................................ 4,780,000 .............. 4,780,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 37,560,000 36,120,000 73,680,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Jose International Airport San Jose, California
Project description: Airfield improvements consisting of the
reconstruction and extension of Runways 12L-30R and 12R-30L and
associated taxiway improvements including drainage, lighting, signs,
nav-aids and marking.
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apportionment
Fiscal year (Entitlement & Discretionary Total
Cargo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................................ $2,148,000 $20,000,000 $22,148,000
2001............................................................ 2,190,960 3,000,000 5,190,960
2002............................................................ 2,234,779 9,000,000 11,234,779
2003............................................................ 2,279,475 9,000,000 11,279,475
2004............................................................ 2,325,064 6,000,000 8,325,064
2005............................................................ 2,371,566 6,000,000 8,371,566
2006............................................................ 2,418,997 5,000,000 7,418,997
2007............................................................ 2,467,377 .............. 2,467,377
2008............................................................ 2,516,724 .............. 2,516,724
2009............................................................ 2,567,059 .............. 2,567,059
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 23,520,001 58,000,000 81,520,001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Question. Please provide a bar chart showing actual and estimated
PFC collections for fiscal years 1994 through 2001. Please shade the
actual bars with estimated commitment of collections to landside v.
airside projects.
Answer. The following bar chart provides the requested information
on actual and estimated PFC collections by calendar year. The FAA
produces passenger facility charge (PFC) collection data based on
calendar years (CY), not fiscal years, to avoid confusion among public
agencies that use a variety of different fiscal year definitions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.021
The FAA has been conservative in its official estimates of future
PFC collections. Estimated collections are based on latest published
actual enplanement statistics and airports collecting PFCs as of the
start of the year. CY 2000 and CY 2001 estimates in the bar chart do
not assume new PFC applications or PFC levels above $3 and are
therefore conservative. However, assuming new applications, PFC actual
collections may exceed $1.55,000,000,000 in CY 2000 at the
$1,600,000,000 in CY 2001 at the $3 level.
In addition, AIR-21 raises the maximum PFC level to $4.50. The FAA
is unable to ascertain at this time the number or airports that will
seek or the number of projects that will qualify for the higher $4.50
PFC. However, assuming that all eligible airports seek and implement
the higher PFC, it could generate as much as $200,000,000 in additional
CY 2000 and $700,000,000 in additional CY 2001 collections.
The next bar chart provides an estimated allocation of PFC
collections by landside, airside, and other projects. ``Landside''
projects in this chart include ground access and terminal projects.
``Airside'' projects include runways, taxiways, aprons, and associated
airfield projects. ``Other'' projects include debt payments (typically
for a blend of project types), planning, noise, and miscellaneous
items. Allocation to these categories was done by reviewing annual PFC
authority approved by project type and applying the resulting ratios to
collections in that year. This allocation approach provides the
clearest indication of annual variations in project mixes submitted to
the FAA for PFC approval. The project allocations for 2000 and 2001 are
based on the average ratios of the prior six years.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FAA.022
______
______
Questions Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE FUNDING
Question. Please provide a list of all bridges eligible for
discretionary bridge funding for which the agency has (or expects
within the next fiscal year) an application. Please indicate whether
such bridge is eligible for discretionary funding, other discretionary
programs.
Answer. The following lists contain bridge candidate projects (both
seismic and non-seismic) that were considered for fiscal year 2000
funding under the Discretionary Bridge Program. The status of our
actions on each project are noted in the tables. For fiscal year 2001,
the request for candidates was issued on April 15, 2000. We do not
expect to receive the fiscal year 2001 candidates before July 2000.
Those bridge projects on the Interstate system costing over $10 million
and ready for construction within one year of the allocation are
eligible for Interstate Maintenance discretionary funds which is
indicated on the lists for the appropriate projects. Discretionary
bridge applications do not contain the information necessary for us to
make a determination of eligibility for public lands discretionary or
the corridors/borders discretionary programs.
DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING
[Seismic Retrofit Candidates]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California...................... Golden Gate Bridge Funded with fiscal
year 2000 DBP
funds.
Tennessee and Arkansas.......... Hernando Desoto Funded with fiscal
Bridge. year 2000 DBP
funds. Also
eligible for IM
discretionary.
Washington...................... Spokane Street Meets rating
Over-crossing. factor criteria
(RF=40.7), but
did not meet
eligibility
criteria (a 4th
quarter project)
for funding in
fiscal year 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only two candidates submitted for fiscal year 2000 funds are well-
qualified according to the eligibility criteria. The Golden Gate Bridge
and the Hernando Desoto Bridge are continuing projects and have
received seismic retrofit discretionary funds in previous years. The
Hernando Desoto Bridge is in the New Madrid Fault region.
DISCRETIONARY BRIDGE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING
[Non-Seismic Candidates]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing Projects (Partially
funded in previous years):
Michigan.................... Dequindre Yard.... Funded with fiscal
year 2000 DBP
funds. Also
eligible for IM
discretionary.
Missouri.................... Chouteau Bridge... Funded with fiscal
year 2000 DBP
funds.
Tennessee................... Loudon City Funded with fiscal
Memorial. year 2000 DBP
funds.
Washington.................. Snohomish River Br Funded with fiscal
year 2000 DBP
funds.
South Carolina.............. Grace Memorial Did not meet
Bridge. eligibility
criteria (4th
quarter project)
for funding in
fiscal year 2000.
Olympic Cities Projects:
Utah........................ Kimballs Jct. Not funded in
Bridge. fiscal year 2000--
unfavorable
rating factor and
therefore low
benefit to cost
ratio. Also
eligible for IM
discretionary.
Utah........................ Silver Creek Jct. Not funded in
Bridge. fiscal year 2000--
unfavorable
rating factor and
therefore low
benefit to cost
ratio. Also
eligible for IM
discretionary.
Other Non-seismic Projects:
New Mexico.................. I-25/I-40 Funded with fiscal
Interchange. year 2000 DBP
funds. Also
eligible for IM
discretionary.
Illinois.................... Wacker Drive Funded with fiscal
Viaduct. year 2000 DBP
funds.
Kansas...................... Turner Diagonal Earmarked in H.R.
Bridge. 2084 Conference
Report and funded
with fiscal year
2000 DBP funds.
West Virginia............... Williamstown- Earmarked in H.R.
Marietta Bridge. 2084 Conference
Report and funded
with fiscal year
2000 DBP funds.
Also eligible for
IM discretionary.
New York.................... North Grand Island \1\ Eligible-not
Bridge. funded.
Minnesota................... Ford Bridge....... \1\ Eligible-not
funded.
New York.................... Stutson Street \1\ Eligible-not
Bridge. funded.
Michigan.................... Grand Rapids (R07) \1\ Eligible-not
funded.
New Hampshire & Vermont..... Rt. 9 over \1\ Eligible-not
Connecticut Riv. funded.
Rhode Island................ Washington Br. \1\ Eligible-not
Over Seekonk funded. Also
River. eligible for IM
discretionary.
Michigan.................... Grand Rapids (R06- \1\ Eligible-not
1). funded.
Michigan.................... Grand Rapids (R06- \1\ Eligible-not
2). funded.
Texas....................... Sabine River \1\ Eligible-not
Bridge. funded. Also
eligible for IM
discretionary.
New York.................... Ridge Rd. over \1\ Eligible-not
Railroads. funded.
Mississippi................. Jourdan River \1\ Eligible-not
Bridge. funded. Also
eligible for IM
discretionary.
Massachusetts............... Hadley Bridge \1\ Eligible-not
(Calvin Coolidge funded.
Mem. Br.).
West Virginia............... Star City Bridge.. \1\ Eligible-not
funded.
Massachusetts............... Fall River Bridge. \1\ Eligible-not
funded.
New York.................... Marcy Ave. Ramp... \1\ Eligible-not
funded.
New York.................... Manhattan Bridge.. Eligible-not
funded.
Mississippi................. Pascagoula River \1\ Eligible-not
Bridge. funded.
Missouri.................... Lexington-Missouri \1\ Eligible-not
Riv. Br. funded.
Massachusetts............... Fitchburg Bridge.. \1\ Eligible-not
funded.
Alaska...................... Kenai River Bridge \1\ Eligible-not
funded.
Texas....................... Trinity River \1\ Eligible-not
Bridge. funded.
Alabama..................... Clement C. Clay... Did not meet
eligibility
criteria (4th
quarter project)
for funding in
fiscal year 2000.
Florida..................... Royal Park Bridge. Did not meet
eligibility
criteria (4th
quarter project)
for funding in
fiscal year 2000.
Kentucky.................... Burnside- Did not meet
Monticello Bridge. eligibility
criteria (4th
quarter project)
for funding in
fiscal year 2000.
Maryland.................... Woodrow Wilson Did not meet
Bridge. eligibility
criteria (4th
quarter project)
for funding in
fiscal year 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These projects were eligible for funding, but because of the limited
amount of discretionary bridge program funds available for non-seismic
projects ($75 million less obligation limitation), they were not
selected for funding.
Seven other projects were submitted by States but are not shown
because the bridges were not eligible for various reasons--bridges not
deficient, rating factor greater than 100, or not a highway bridge.
Nine projects were earmarked in the Conference Report H.R. 2084.
Two were funded as shown above, but seven others were not because they
did not meet program eligibility criteria.
RABA TRANSFERS
Question. Please provide a revised version of the tables starting
on page II-15 of the Federal Highway budget justification to reflect
the levels for each line without the Administration's proposed
transfers from RABA and within the original program without exempting
any activity from the proportionate obligation limitation restriction
necessitated by the TEA-21 legislation's levels.
Answer.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------
2001
Programs 1999 2000 estimate
actual estimate (current
law)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
Surface transportation program.. 6,227 6,216 6,726
National highway system......... 4,888 5,319 5,757
Interstate maintenance.......... 3,357 4,419 4,785
Bridge program.................. 2,565 3,785 4,102
Congestion mitigation and air 1,145 1,509 1,635
quality improvement............
Minimum guarantee............... 2,167 1,763 2,000
Safety incentive grants for use 54 80 99
of seat belts..................
Safety incentive to prevent 43 70 79
operation of motor carrier by
intoxicated persons............
ITS standards, research and 75 98 97
development....................
ITS deployment.................. 71 124 114
Transportation research......... 208 220 216
Federal lands highways.......... 339 653 673
National corridor planning and 118 122 136
coordinated border
infrastructure.................
Administration.................. 331 304 316
Other programs.................. 2,162 432 582
High priority projects.......... 581 1,560 1,631
Woodrow Wilson memorial bridge.. 1 139 194
Transportation infrastructure 48 101 107
finance and innovation.........
Appalachian development highway 319 394 388
system.........................
Emergency Relief................ .......... .......... 9
Motor Carrier Safety .......... .......... 16
Administration.................
-----------------------------------
Total subject to obligation 24,700 \1\ 27,308 \2\ 29,662
limitation...................
===================================
Emergency relief program........ 129 111 100
Minimum allocation/guarantee.... 858 702 664
Demonstration projects.......... 248 394 275
-----------------------------------
Total exempt programs......... 1,234 1,207 1,039
Emergency relief supplemental... 97 15 ..........
-----------------------------------
Grand Total, Federal-aid 26,031 28,530 30,701
highways (direct)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Reflects estimated obligation which is less than the adjusted
obligation limitation.
\2\ At this level of obligation limitation, an estimated $29.677 billion
will be obligated
MISSISSIPPI DELTA
Question. On page 763 of the budget appendix, on line 00.34, $23
million is requested for the Delta initiative. On page 765 of the
budget appendix, under the RABA write-up, a $48 million Mississippi
Delta initiative is noted. Please provide a comparison of these two
initiatives and provide details as to the anticipated uses of the funds
requested for these initiatives. Is any of the requested money slated
for a particular project or community?
Answer. A total of $48 million is requested within highway program
funding for the Mississippi Delta initiative. Of this, $25 million
would be used for I-69 and the Great River Bridge.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Question. Please restructure the fiscal year 2001 request to
comport only with last year's appropriations report and TEA-21 and
submit all spending allocation tables.
Answer. With the exception of the Mainstreaming line item included
in the fiscal year 2000 Conference Report; the fiscal year 2001 budget
request contains the exact line items as included in the Conference
Report. The costs of exhibits, printing and publications, which
constitutes the Mainstreaming line item, have been included in the
various program line items in the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
All spending allocation tables are included as part of the response
to the next question.
Question. In addition, please submit for fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000 comparable spending allocation tables to those for the
fiscal year 2001 requests, as displayed on tab 4, pages 1-5 of the
fiscal year 2001 Budget Justification. Please describe how program
continuity is ensured.
Answer. Attached are spending allocation tables for fiscal years
1999 and 2000. We ensure program continuity by diligently comparing the
projects and various budget request program areas to overall ITS
program objectives and performance plans and then assuring that
spending plan allocations are in line with programs and projects as
included in our various budget requests. You will note that,
historically, the ITS program has maintained a structure of funding
which has remained relatively constant over the years, with changes
only being made to accommodate additional legislative and/or program
requirements. These processes assure program continuity.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 SPENDING PLAN FUNDING SOURCES AND BALANCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Prior year
Activity/project year ------------------------- Total Obligated Unobligated
1999 Unobligated Recoveries available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.................. 35,976 1,347 30 37,353 36,314 1,039
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL........ 4,637 1,001 30 5,668 5,654 14
Advanced Traffic Mgmt. Research... 265 375 .......... 640 640 ...........
Adaptive Control System....... 265 375 .......... 640 640 ...........
Chicago Evaluation........ 15 ........... .......... 15 15 ...........
Ramp Metering............. 250 375 .......... 625 625 ...........
Models............................ 3,410 625 30 4,065 4,065 ...........
TReL.......................... 2,030 ........... 30 2,060 2,060 ...........
DES....................... 1,310 ........... .......... 1,310 1,310 ...........
Onsite Support............ 720 ........... 30 750 750 ...........
TSIS--Enhancement and 850 ........... .......... 850 850 ...........
Maintenance..................
TRANSIM....................... ........ 500 .......... 500 500 ...........
Dynamic Traffic Assignment 150 125 .......... 275 275 ...........
(DTA) System.................
Lab Evaluation............ 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Site Testing.............. ........ 125 .......... 125 125 ...........
Computer Aided Design for 380 ........... .......... 380 380 ...........
Traffic Management Centers...
ITS Deployment Analysis System 450 ........... .......... 450 450 ...........
(IDAS)...........................
Other............................. 512 1 .......... 513 499 14
ATMS Research Support Services 298 ........... .......... 298 298 ...........
Capacity and Level of 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Service..................
Websites.................. 8 ........... .......... 8 8 ...........
ATMS Models Workshop...... 5 ........... .......... 5 5 ...........
Stand Alone Prediction 35 ........... .......... 35 35 ...........
Model....................
Support Services for FHWA 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Human Factors............
Publications.................. 84 ........... .......... 84 84 ...........
Turner-Fairbank Technical 65 ........... .......... 65 65 ...........
Support......................
Other......................... 24 1 .......... 25 25 ...........
IPA--Rudy Persaud, South 40 ........... .......... 40 26 14
Dakota DOT...................
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH.......... 20,924 1 .......... 20,925 20,431 494
Generation 0...................... 8,859 ........... .......... 8,859 8,859 ...........
Performance Specifications.... 1,650 ........... .......... 1,650 1,650 ...........
Objective Test Metrics.... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Driver Performance Data 1,650 ........... .......... 1,650 1,650 ...........
Collection Field Tests...
Generation 0 Field Tests...... 6,400 ........... .......... 6,400 6,400 ...........
Generation 0 Field Tests.. 6,000 ........... .......... 6,000 6,000 ...........
Evaluations--0 Field Tests 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Cross-Cutting................. 809 ........... .......... 809 809 ...........
Special Vehicle Needs 309 ........... .......... 309 309 ...........
Assessment...............
Develop C/B Methodology... 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Generation 1...................... 9,499 ........... .......... 9,499 9,499 ...........
Performance Specifications.... 3,549 ........... .......... 3,549 3,549 ...........
Rear-end Performance 601 ........... .......... 601 601 ...........
Specifications...........
Roadway Departure 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Lane Change/Merge 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Int. and Fleet Test of 600 ........... .......... 600 600 ...........
Safety Critical Systems..
Drowsy Driver DVI......... 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
EBS....................... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Test Multi Trailer 498 ........... .......... 498 498 ...........
Stability--Reaward Amp.
Suppression Sys..........
Transit LC/M Performance 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Specifications...........
Transit Rear End 550 ........... .......... 550 550 ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Transit Rear Impact 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Field Tests................... 5,550 ........... .......... 5,550 5,550 ...........
Rear-end CAS Field Test... 4,850 ........... .......... 4,850 4,850 ...........
Drowsy Driver Field Test 600 ........... .......... 600 600 ...........
(NHTSA)..................
Drowsy Driver Field Test 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
(MCS)....................
Cross-Cutting................. 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Lane Change Workshop...... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
HF Multi System 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Integration..............
Generation 2...................... 499 ........... .......... 499 499 ...........
Performance Specifications.... 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Vision Enhancement ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Intersection Performance 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Specifica- tions........
Cross-Cutting................. 249 ........... .......... 249 249 ...........
Sensor Friendly Roadway... 249 ........... .......... 249 249 ...........
Support........................... 2,066 1 .......... 2,067 1,573 494
TRB Review.................... 175 ........... .......... 175 175 ...........
Program Support (Incl. 494 ........... .......... 494 ......... 494
Mitretek)....................
NHTSA Support................. 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Transit Support............... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Human Factors Support......... 367 1 .......... 368 368 ...........
Turner-Fairbank Technical 88 ........... .......... 88 88 ...........
Support......................
ITS America................... 87 ........... .......... 87 87 ...........
Publications.................. 305 ........... .......... 305 305 ...........
AHS Lessons Learned............... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Adjustments Required.............. ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
RURAL RESEARCH........................ 985 122 .......... 1,107 610 497
Rural ITS Support................. 407 119 .......... 526 526 ...........
Decision Support Systems.......... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Rural Conference.................. 30 ........... .......... 30 30 ...........
Peer-to-Peer...................... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Publications, etc................. ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Turner-Fairbank Technical Support. 44 ........... .......... 44 44 ...........
Rural Weather Show................ ........ 3 .......... 3 3 ...........
Manassas Intersection Coll. 7 ........... .......... 7 7 ...........
Warning Sys......................
Rural PR's for No Cost Contract ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Modifications....................
Rural/Weather Requirements........ 497 ........... .......... 497 ......... 497
APTS RESEARCH......................... 988 ........... .......... 988 988 ...........
Advanced Fleet Management Research 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Traveler Information & ADA 180 ........... .......... 180 180 ...........
Compatibility....................
Welfare to Work (Planning)........ 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
General and Technical Staff 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Support..........................
Publications...................... 8 ........... .......... 8 8 ...........
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS......... 7,192 100 .......... 7,292 7,268 24
Safety Data Systems (Includes 3rd 3,005 ........... .......... 3,005 3,005 ...........
Mailbox).........................
CVISN Support for Level 1 1,600 ........... .......... 1,600 1,600 ...........
Deployment.......................
Architecture Consistency.......... 1,000 100 .......... 1,100 1,100 ...........
Architecture Consistency 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
(Other)......................
Freight Arch. Consistency..... 200 100 .......... 300 300 ...........
CVO Technical Assistance.......... 500 ........... .......... 500 476 24
CVO Technical Assistance-- 350 ........... .......... 350 326 24
(Other)......................
CVO Technical Assistance-- 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Freight......................
CVISN Technical Training.......... 998 ........... .......... 998 998 ...........
Publications...................... 89 ........... .......... 89 89 ...........
INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH........... 500 10 .......... 510 500 10
Operational Test--Facilitate 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Movement of Intermodal Freight...
TRB Conference on Intermodal ........ 10 .......... 10 ......... 10
Freight..........................
ENABLING RESEARCH..................... 600 114 .......... 714 714 ...........
DSRC Spectrum Issues.............. 450 58 .......... 508 508 ...........
Spectrum Consulting Services...... 150 50 .......... 200 200 ...........
Publications...................... ........ 1 .......... 1 1 ...........
State & Local Use of GPS.......... ........ 5 .......... 5 5 ...........
FREIGHT RESEARCH...................... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
OPERATIONAL TESTS......................... 7,080 2,089 724 9,894 5,040 4,854
APTS OPERATIONAL TESTS................ 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 1,000 ...........
Electronic Payment System for 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 1,000 ...........
Transit & Other App.............
CVO OPERATIONAL TESTS................. 2,000 1,000 .......... 3,000 2,890 110
CVISN Pilots...................... 2,000 1,000 .......... 3,000 2,890 110
RURAL OPERATIONAL TESTS............... 2,289 361 .......... 2,650 1,150 1,500
National Park Service Field 639 361 .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
Operational Test.................
Emergency Services Field 650 ........... .......... 650 650 ...........
Operational Test.................
Rural Transit Coordination Field 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Operational Test.................
Multistate Traveler Information... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
OPERATIONAL TESTS CONTINGENCIES....... 1,791 728 724 3,244 ......... 3,244
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT............. 5,510 634 .......... 6,145 6,145 ...........
EVALUATIONS........................... 3,558 634 .......... 4,192 4,192 ...........
MMDI.............................. 626 17 .......... 643 643 ...........
CVISN............................. 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
FOT Crosscutting Analyses......... 567 483 .......... 1,050 1,050 ...........
Rural FOT's....................... 805 ........... .......... 805 805 ...........
Intermodal Freight Evaluation..... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
APTS Field Operational Test 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Evaluations......................
APTS Field Operational Test 160 ........... .......... 160 160 ...........
Evaluations..................
APTS Operational Tests 40 ........... .......... 40 40 ...........
Evaluations (FTA)............
Highway-Rail Evaluations.......... 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
ADUS Support...................... 200 75 .......... 275 275 ...........
Publications...................... ........ 59 .......... 59 59 ...........
JPL Support....................... 410 ........... .......... 410 410 ...........
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT................ 1,952 ........... .......... 1,952 1,952 ...........
ITS Deployment Tracking........... 755 ........... .......... 755 755 ...........
Metro......................... 650 ........... .......... 650 650 ...........
Rural......................... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
CVISN Deployment Tracking..... 105 ........... .......... 105 105 ...........
JPL Support--Program Tracking. 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
ITS Policy Assessment............. 1,147 ........... .......... 1,147 1,147 ...........
Volpe Support to Assessment....... 880 ........... .......... 880 880 ...........
MMDI Expectations & Final 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Report.......................
ATIS Conference............... 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
CVISN Institutional Issues 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Final Repo...................
Review CVISN Business 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Practices....................
MMDI Customer Satisfaction 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Guidance.....................
Analytical Support for 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Metropolitan Track ing.......
Volpe B/C of MMDI............. 230 ........... .......... 230 230 ...........
Evaluation Guidelines Support. ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Volpe Support to Director JPO..... 267 ........... .......... 267 267 ...........
National Program Plan......... 155 ........... .......... 155 155 ...........
General Policy Support........ ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
ALERT......................... 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
SENTRI........................ 62 ........... .......... 62 62 ...........
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS................ 14,429 23 .......... 14,452 13,702 750
ARCHITECTURE.......................... 5,630 23 .......... 5,653 5,533 120
Architecture Deployment/ 2,825 23 .......... 2,848 2,848 ...........
Implementation Support...........
Deployment/Implementation 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
Support......................
Architecture Standards 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
Development Sup port.........
Architecture Data Base/ 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Configuration Control Support
Architecture Documentation (CD 98 ........... .......... 98 98 ...........
ROM/Web/Doc/Printing)........
Architecture Tool Development 377 23 .......... 400 400 ...........
(Turbo Architecture).........
Architecture Consistency 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Support......................
Rural User Service Architecture 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Development Efforts..............
Planning Data/Archiving 399 ........... .......... 399 399 ...........
Architecture Changes.............
Architecture Eng. Maint. Support.. 285 ........... .......... 285 285 ...........
Architecture Training (Deployment 926 ........... .......... 926 926 ...........
and Implementation Tng.).........
CVO Architecture.................. 675 ........... .......... 675 675 ...........
CVO Architecture--Other....... 375 ........... .......... 375 375 ...........
CVO Architecture--Freight..... 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Publications...................... ........ 1 .......... 1 1 ...........
Turbo Architecture................ 120 ........... .......... 120 ......... 120
STANDARDS............................. 8,799 ........... .......... 8,799 8,169 630
Research and Development.......... 594 ........... .......... 594 594 ...........
In-vehicle ICON............... 594 ........... .......... 594 594 ...........
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT............. 4,150 ........... .......... 4,150 4,020 130
Infrastructure and Safety..... 1,290 ........... .......... 1,290 1,290 ...........
Infrastructure and Safety. 1,190 ........... .......... 1,190 1,190 ...........
Standards Strategic Plan.. 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
CVO (EDI)..................... 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Transit....................... 1,200 ........... .......... 1,200 1,200 ...........
ISO TC 204 WG 8 Support 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
via Volpe................
Multi-Use Smart Card 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Guidelines/ Specs........
Other Transit Standards... 550 ........... .......... 550 550 ...........
Transit Standards 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Consortium to TSC........
Rail Standards Development.... 200 ........... .......... 200 70 130
Architectural Support......... 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
JPL........................... 760 ........... .......... 760 760 ...........
TESTING AND INTEROPERABILITY...... 2,300 ........... .......... 2,300 2,300 ...........
Interoperability Testing 1,800 ........... .......... 1,800 1,800 ...........
Support......................
Data Registration............. 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
IMPLEMENTATION.................... 1,255 ........... .......... 1,255 1,255 ...........
Resource Materials............ 670 ........... .......... 670 670 ...........
Lessons Learned............... 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Evaluation of Standards 285 ........... .......... 285 285 ...........
Implementation...............
STANDARDS CONTINGENCIES........... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
INTEGRATION............................... 5,676 925 681 7,282 5,325 1,957
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.................. 2,950 142 456 3,548 2,516 1,032
Information and Technology 1,358 142 65 1,565 1,566 ...........
Transfer.........................
Specifications and Contract 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Management...................
Work Program Scoping ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Effort...................
S&C Management Product 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Develop ment.............
Tailored Technical Assistance. 800 50 .......... 850 850 ...........
Peer-to-Peer.............. ........ 50 .......... 50 50 ...........
Service Plan Support...... 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
Service Plan Support-- 696 ........... .......... 696 696 ...........
Transfer to Resource
Centers..................
Other Service Plan 104 ........... .......... 104 104 ...........
Projects (NHI Training
Courses).................
DTAG, RTAG, APTS Stakeholders. 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
FTA--DTAG, RTAG< APTS 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Stakehold- ers..........
Quick Response................ 8 ........... .......... 8 8 ...........
Contracts Support............. 70 ........... .......... 70 70 ...........
Concept of Operation for TMC's 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
(A Cook book)................
Case Studies.................. 180 ........... .......... 180 180 ...........
Technology for 120 ........... .......... 120 120 ...........
Surveillance and
Detection................
ITS Work Zone Applications 60 ........... .......... 60 60 ...........
Morgan Room Support........... ........ 92 45 137 137 ...........
GMC ITS Priority Corridor ........ ........... 20 20 20 ...........
Information Clearinghouse....
Transit Technical Assistance...... 950 ........... .......... 950 950 ...........
Technical Asst. to Transit 225 ........... .......... 225 225 ...........
Authorities..................
Peer-to-Peer Program Support.. 125 ........... .......... 125 125 ...........
ITSA APTS Info. Exchange & 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Program Development..........
APTS Mobile Showcase.......... 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Systems Engineering Guidance 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Documents........................
P.B. Farradyne IQC................ ........ ........... 391 391 ......... 391
PTI Earmark....................... 442 ........... .......... 442 ......... 442
AASHTO Steering Group for 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Technology Deploy ment...........
PLANNING/POLICY....................... 450 ........... .......... 450 350 100
Management and Operations in 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Planning.........................
Management & Operations 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Product Development..........
Traveler Response to Advanced 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Travel Informa- tion............
FHWA--Traveler Response to 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Advanced Travel Information..
FTA--Traveler Response to 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Advanced Travel Information..
TRAINING.............................. 1,559 747 225 2,531 1,931 600
Delivery.......................... 615 735 225 1,575 1,450 125
ITS Software Acquisition...... 40 ........... .......... 40 30 10
Lessons in Procurement........ ........ ........... 225 225 225 ...........
CORSIM........................ 15 ........... .......... 15 ......... 15
Continuation of Existing 160 ........... .......... 160 160 ...........
Courses......................
Delivery of Materials......... ........ 35 .......... 35 35 ...........
Standards (NTCIP, TCIP)....... ........ 700 .......... 700 700 ...........
Standards (NTCIP, TCIP)-- ........ 384 .......... 384 384 ...........
FHWA.....................
Standards (NTCIP-TCIP)-- ........ 316 .......... 316 316 ...........
FTA......................
Distance Learning Pilots...... 350 ........... .......... 350 300 50
Architecture Training Course 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
(Field Travel, etc.).........
New Course Development............ 500 ........... .......... 500 300 200
FHWA--New Course Development.. 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
FTA--New Course Development... 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Update Existing Materials......... 33 12 .......... 45 45 ...........
Update Existing Materials-- 23 12 .......... 35 35 ...........
FHWA.........................
Update Existing Material-- 10 ........... .......... 10 10 ...........
Transfer to FTA..............
Support at NHI.................... 161 ........... .......... 161 136 25
Consultant Management............. 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS........... 717 37 .......... 754 528 225
Shipping and Handling Exhibits.... 117 17 .......... 134 134 ...........
New Exhibit Development........... 125 ........... .......... 125 125 ...........
National Associations Working 150 20 .......... 170 170 ...........
Group (NAWG).....................
National Governors' Association 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Initiative.......................
JPO Web-Based Activities.......... 225 ........... .......... 225 ......... 225
ITS Cooperative Deployment 225 ........... .......... 225 ......... 225
Network......................
PROGRAM SUPPORT........................... 8,566 674 226 9,465 5,494 3,971
ITS AMERICA........................... 2,777 ........... .......... 2,777 2,775 2
ITS AMERICA--Regular Contract..... 2,500 ........... .......... 2,500 2,500 ...........
Development of a Strategic Plan-- 247 ........... .......... 247 247 ...........
ITS America......................
ITSA Annual Meeting (Registration 30 ........... .......... 30 27 3
Fees)............................
MITRETEK.............................. 4,970 530 217 5,717 1,811 3,906
JPL SUPPORT........................... 380 ........... .......... 380 380 ...........
MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL SUPPORT....... 86 ........... .......... 86 86 ...........
Kan Chen.......................... 11 ........... .......... 11 11 ...........
MITRE (Chadwick).................. 75 ........... .......... 75 75 ...........
GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT............... 352 144 9 505 442 63
C&P Contractual Support........... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Columbia Services Computer Support 28 ........... .......... 28 28 ...........
Arrowhead Industries.............. 96 ........... .......... 96 96 ...........
Other Misc. Program Support....... 33 81 9 123 123 ...........
FCC Shared Resources.............. 45 ........... .......... 45 45 ...........
TASC--Traveler Information Center. ........ 35 .......... 35 ......... 35
Unfunded Interest Payments........ ........ 28 .......... 28 ......... 28
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES................. 92,715 2,610 3,522 98,847 71,929 26,918
FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL ........ 2,610 3,522 6,132 3,563 2,569
EARMARKS.............................
Northeast Corridor................ ........ 110 3,522 3,632 2,563 1,069
Commercial Vehicle Operations, I-5 ........ 1,500 .......... 1,500 ......... 1,500
California.......................
Dade County Expressway, Florida ........ 1,000 .......... 1,000 1,000 ...........
Toll Collection System...........
Rennselaer Polytechnical Institute ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
(RPI)............................
FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL 7,802 ........... .......... 7,802 7,052 750
EARMARKS--TEA-21.....................
Great Lakes ITS Implementation.... 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Northeast ITS Implementation...... 3,957 ........... .......... 3,957 3,207 750
Hazardous Materials Monitoring 1,211 ........... .......... 1,211 1,211 ...........
Systems..........................
Translink--Texas Transportation 1,050 ........... .......... 1,050 1,050 ...........
Institute........................
FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL 83,104 ........... .......... 83,104 59,505 23,599
EARMARKS-- APPNS.....................
Amherst, Massachusetts............ 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Arlington County, Virginia........ 594 ........... .......... 594 594 ...........
Atlanta, Georgia.................. 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Brandon, Vermont.................. 297 ........... .......... 297 297 ...........
Buffalo, New York................. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Centre Valley, Pennsylvania....... 396 ........... .......... 396 ......... 396
Cleveland, Ohio................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Columbus, Ohio.................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Corpus Christi, Texas............. 712 ........... .......... 712 712 ...........
Dade County, Florida.............. 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Del Rio, Texas.................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Delaware River, Pennsylvania...... 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Fairfield, California............. 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Fitchburg, Massachusetts.......... 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Greater Metro. Region--DC......... 3,957 ........... .......... 3,957 3,957 ...........
Hammond, Louisiana................ 3,166 ........... .......... 3,166 ......... 3,166
Houston, Texas.................... 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Huntington Beach, California...... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Huntsville, Alabama............... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Inglewood, California............. 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 1,187 ...........
Jackson, Mississippi.............. 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Kansas City, Missouri............. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Laredo, Texas..................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Middlesboro, Kentucky............. 2,374 ........... .......... 2,374 2,374 ...........
Mission Viejo, California......... 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Mobile, Alabama................... 1,979 ........... .......... 1,979 1,979 ...........
Monroe County, New York........... 317 ........... .......... 317 317 ...........
Montgomery, Alabama............... 989 ........... .......... 989 989 ...........
Nashville, Tennessee.............. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
New Orleans, Louisiana............ 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 ......... 1,187
New York City, New York........... 1,979 ........... .......... 1,979 1,979 ...........
New York/Long Island, New York.... 1,820 ........... .......... 1,820 1,820 ...........
Oakland County, Michigan.......... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Onandaga County, New York......... 317 ........... .......... 317 ......... 317
Port Angeles, Washington.......... 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Raleigh-Wake County, North 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Carolina.........................
Riverside, California............. 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
San Francisco, California......... 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 1,187 ...........
Scranton, Pennsylvania............ 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Silicon Valley, California........ 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 1,187 ...........
Spokane, Washington............... 356 ........... .......... 356 356 ...........
Springfield, Virginia............. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
St. Louis, Missouri............... 594 ........... .......... 594 594 ...........
State of Alaska................... 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 350 837
Alaska--CVO Deployment........ 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Alaska--Metro/Rural........... 837 ........... .......... 837 ......... 837
State of Idaho.................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Idaho--CVO Deployment......... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Idaho--Metro/Rural............ 441 ........... .......... 441 441 ...........
State of Maryland--CVO Deployment. 1,979 ........... .......... 1,979 1,979 ...........
State of Minnesota................ 5,619 ........... .......... 5,619 5,619 ...........
Minnesota--CVO Deployment..... 1,920 ........... .......... 1,920 1,920 ...........
Minnesota--Metro/Rural........ 3,699 ........... .......... 3,699 3,699 ...........
State of Mississippi.............. 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Mississippi--CVO Deployment... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Mississippi--Metro/Rural...... 441 ........... .......... 441 441 ...........
State of Missouri................. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Missouri--CVO Deployment...... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Missouri--Metro/Rural......... 46 ........... .......... 46 46 ...........
State of Montana.................. 554 ........... .......... 554 554 ...........
Montana--CVO Deployment....... 554 ........... .......... 554 554 ...........
Montana--Metro/Rural.......... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
State of Nevada................... 455 ........... .......... 455 105 350
Nevada--CVO Deployment........ 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
Nevada--Metro/Rural........... 105 ........... .......... 105 105 ...........
State of New Jersey............... 2,374 ........... .......... 2,374 2,374 ...........
New Jersey--CVO Deployment.... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
New Jersey--Metro/Rural....... 2,024 ........... .......... 2,024 2,024 ...........
State of New Mexico............... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
New Mexico--CVO Deployment.... 741 ........... .......... 741 741 ...........
New Mexico--Metro/Rural....... 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
State of New York................. 1,979 ........... .......... 1,979 1,312 667
New York--CVO Deployment...... 1,730 ........... .......... 1,730 1,063 667
New York--Metro/Rural......... 249 ........... .......... 249 249 ...........
State of North Dakota............. 1,148 ........... .......... 1,148 297 851
North Dakota--CVO Deployment.. 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
North Dakota--Metro/Rural..... 1,098 ........... .......... 1,098 247 851
North Dakota State 247 ........... .......... 247 247 ...........
University (ATAC)........
North Dakota State Univ.-- 302 ........... .......... 302 ......... 302
ATAC.....................
Univ. of North Dakota-- 549 ........... .......... 549 ......... 549
ATWIS....................
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania...... 11,081 ........... .......... 11,081 ......... 11,081
CVO Deployment................ 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
Metro/Rural................... 10,731 ........... .......... 10,731 ......... 10,731
State of Texas.................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Texas--CVO Deployment......... 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Texas--Metro/Rural............ 741 ........... .......... 741 741 ...........
State of Utah..................... 2,849 ........... .......... 2,849 2,849 ...........
Utah--CVO Deployment.......... 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Utah--Metro/Rural............. 2,649 ........... .......... 2,649 2,649 ...........
State of Washington............... 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Washington--CVO Deployment.... 610 ........... .......... 610 610 ...........
Washington--Metro/Rural....... 973 ........... .......... 973 973 ...........
State of Wisconsin................ 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 1,187 ...........
Wisconsin--CVO Deployment..... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Wisconsin--Metro/Rural........ 837 ........... .......... 837 837 ...........
Temucula, California.............. 198 ........... .......... 198 198 ...........
Tucson, Arizona................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Volusia County, Florida........... 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Warren County, Virginia........... 198 ........... .......... 198 198 ...........
Wausau-Stevens Point, Wisconsin... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Westchester/Putnam Counties, New 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
York.............................
White Plains, New York............ 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
EVALUATIONS OF EARMARKED PROJECTS..... 1,809 ........... .......... 1,809 1,809 ...........
NATIONAL ADVANCED DRIVER SIMULATOR........ 6,648 ........... .......... 6,648 6,648 ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTALS........................ 176,600 8,303 5,183 190,086 150,596 39,489
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SPENDING PLAN FUNDING SOURCES AND BALANCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior year
Activity/project Fiscal ------------------------- Total Obligated Unobligated
year 2000 Unobligated Recoveries available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................. 40,901 1,149 .......... 42,049 3,869 38,180
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL....... 6,200 14 .......... 6,214 1,439 4,775
Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) 1,900 ........... .......... 1,900 ......... 1,900
System..........................
Adaptive Control Systems Lite.... 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Pedestrian Detection............. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Models........................... 1,525 ........... .......... 1,525 800 725
ITS Deployment Analysis 175 ........... .......... 175 50 125
System (IDAS)..............
ITS Deployment Analysis 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
System (IDAS)
Development.............
ITS Deployment Analysis 125 ........... .......... 125 ......... 125
System (IDAS)
Maintenance.............
Traffic Software Integrated 1,350 ........... .......... 1,350 750 600
System (TSIS)...............
Support for TSIS Version 750 ........... .......... 750 750 ...........
5.0 Model Deployment....
CORSIMS Reengineering.... 600 ........... .......... 600 ......... 600
Traffic Research Lab.(TReL) Test 1,537 ........... .......... 1,537 320 1,217
Bed Devel. & Supp...............
Human Factors.................... 555 ........... .......... 555 220 335
Human Factors Computer Aided 220 ........... .......... 220 220 ...........
Design (CAD) for TMC's......
Advanced Traffic Mgmt. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Systems (ATMS) Support......
Traffic Mgmt. Centers (TMC) 35 ........... .......... 35 ......... 35
Work- shop.................
Traffic Mgmt. Centers 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Consortium..................
Archived Data User Service (ADUS) 100 ........... .......... 100 25 75
Case Studies....................
Other Research Items............. 233 14 .......... 247 74 173
Ramp Metering (split funding) 43 ........... .......... 43 43 ...........
McTrans Beta Testing......... 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
McTrans Reengineering Review. 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Freeway Capacity............. 35 ........... .......... 35 31 4
ITRAF Support................ 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Queue Measurement............ 5 ........... .......... 5 ......... 5
IPA--Rudy Persaud, South ......... 14 .......... 14 ......... 14
Dakota DOT.................
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH......... 23,001 494 .......... 23,495 758 22,736
Generation 0..................... 5,500 ........... .......... 5,500 ......... 5,500
Generation 0 Operational 4,500 ........... .......... 4,500 ......... 4,500
Tests.......................
Generation 0 Field Test 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
Evaluations.................
Generation 1..................... 10,335 ........... .......... 10,335 ......... 10,335
Rear-end Collision Avoidance 4,250 ........... .......... 4,250 ......... 4,250
System Field Test...........
Rear-end Collision Avoidance 1,400 ........... .......... 1,400 ......... 1,400
System......................
Rear-end Collision 900 ........... .......... 900 ......... 900
Avoidance System Test
(NHTSA).................
Rear-end Collision 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Avoidance System Test
(FHWA for NHTSA)........
Lane Change/Merge Collision 850 ........... .......... 850 ......... 850
Avoidance System............
Road Departure............... 2,250 ........... .......... 2,250 ......... 2,250
Road Departure Test 1,750 ........... .......... 1,750 ......... 1,750
(NHTSA).................
Road Departure Test (FHWA 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
for NHTSA)..............
Safety Impacting............. 335 ........... .......... 335 ......... 335
Safety Impacting Test 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
(NHTSA).................
Safety Impacting Test 35 ........... .......... 35 ......... 35
(FHWA for NHTSA)........
EBS.......................... 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Drowsy Driver Field Test..... 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
Drowsy Driver Field Test 750 ........... .......... 750 ......... 750
(NHTSA).................
Drowsy Driver Field Test 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
(CVO)...................
Enabling Research Consortium..... 4,090 ........... .......... 4,090 ......... 4,090
Forward Collision Warning.... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Workload Metrics............. 600 ........... .......... 600 ......... 600
ED Map....................... 1,500 ........... .......... 1,500 ......... 1,500
Transit Rear-end............. 550 ........... .......... 550 ......... 550
Multiple Systems Inegration 940 ........... .......... 940 ......... 940
Study.......................
FHWA Human Factors Research...... 425 ........... .......... 425 64 361
In-Vehicle Information 65 ........... .......... 65 64 1
Systems Behavioral Model....
Effectiveness of Multi-turn 5 ........... .......... 5 ......... 5
Preview on Route Following
Perf........................
Comp. of Audio/Visual Icons 5 ........... .......... 5 ......... 5
for Sign Recognition........
Societal and Institutional 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Issues......................
Develop Cost/Benefit 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Methodology.................
Generation 2..................... 1,300 ........... .......... 1,300 ......... 1,300
Intersection................. 800 ........... .......... 800 ......... 800
Intersection (NHTSA)..... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Intersection (FHWA for 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
NHTSA)..................
Sensor Friendly Roadway...... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Define Short Range 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Communication Needs.........
Define Radionavigation Needs. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Support.......................... 1,351 494 .......... 1,845 695 1,150
Showcase..................... 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
TRB Review................... 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
NHTSA Support................ 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
Transit IVI Technical Support 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Human Factors Support........ 155 ........... .......... 155 ......... 155
ITS America.................. 96 ........... .......... 96 1 95
IVI Program Support.......... ......... 494 .......... 494 494 ...........
RURAL RESEARCH....................... 2,350 497 .......... 2,847 497 2,350
Integration of APTS with 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Employment Service Sys..........
Rural Safety Services............ 600 ........... .......... 600 ......... 600
ACN/PSAP Integration......... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
E-911 Workshop............... 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Design of Variable Speed 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Limit (VSL) Sys.............
Rural Information and Operations. 1,450 ........... .......... 1,450 ......... 1,450
Development Decision Supp. 600 ........... .......... 600 ......... 600
Sys for Winter Maintenance..
Assimilation of Surface 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Condition & Weather Observ..
Sensors and Sensor Siting.... 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Refinement of Surface Transp. 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Weather Requirements........
Rural ITS Toolbox............ 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Rural/Weather Requirements....... ......... 497 .......... 497 497 ...........
APTS RESEARCH........................ 750 ........... .......... 750 ......... 750
Fleet Management Expert System... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Demand Response Dispatch 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Algorithm.......................
Wireless Technology Analysis..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Traveler Information and ADA ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Compatibil- ity................
ITS Rail Research................ 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
CVO RESEARCH......................... 7,500 134 .......... 7,634 1,165 6,469
Safety Data Systems.............. 2,650 ........... .......... 2,650 1,041 1,609
CVISN Support for Level I 1,200 ........... .......... 1,200 100 1,100
Deployment......................
Roadside Identification 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
Technology Research............
Architecture Consistency......... 1,245 ........... .......... 1,245 ......... 1,245
CVO Technical Assistance ......... 24 .......... 24 24 ...........
(Minnesota).....................
CVISN Pilots..................... 2,000 110 .......... 2,110 ......... 2,110
Available for Distribution....... 55 ........... .......... 55 ......... 55
INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH.......... 750 10 .......... 760 10 750
Harmonizing Freight Technology... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
ITSA Support for Reston II 150 ........... .......... 150 ......... 150
Confer- ence...............
ITSA Support for Intermodal 150 ........... .......... 150 ......... 150
Frt. Tech. Working Group....
International Border Crossing 450 ........... .......... 450 ......... 450
Program Support.................
IBC Program Support/IBC 365 ........... .......... 365 ......... 365
Architecture Update.........
Conduct 2 IBC Planning and 85 ........... .......... 85 ......... 85
Deploy. Mtgs................
TRB Conference on Intermodal ......... 10 .......... 10 10 ...........
Freight.........................
ENABLING RESEARCH.................... 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
DSRC Spectrum Issues............. 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Support for FCC and ITSA......... 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
OPERATIONAL TESTS........................ 6,090 4,744 231 11,065 400 10,665
APTS OPERATIONAL TESTS............... 1,090 ........... .......... 1,090 ......... 1,090
Fleet Management Expert System... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Demand Response Algorithm........ 590 ........... .......... 590 ......... 590
ALERT (Capitol Beltway).............. 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
RURAL OPERATIONAL TESTS.............. 3,750 1,500 .......... 5,250 400 4,850
Statewide PSAP................... 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
New York Statewide PSAP...... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Statewide PSAP............... 800 ........... .......... 800 ......... 800
Multi-agency Integration of Info 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
Sys & Trans. Coord..............
Rural Information and Operations. 1,750 500 .......... 2,250 ......... 2,250
Multi-State Traveler 1,000 500 .......... 1,500 ......... 1,500
Information.................
Road Weather Condition 750 ........... .......... 750 ......... 750
Forecasting.................
Nat'l. Park Service FOT.......... ......... 1,000 .......... 1,000 400 600
INTERMODAL FREIGHT--OPERATIONAL TEST. 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
OPERATIONAL TESTS CONTINGENCIES...... ......... 3,244 231 3,475 ......... 3,475
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT............ 6,000 ........... .......... 6,000 1,555 4,445
EVALUATIONS.......................... 2,860 ........... .......... 2,860 536 2,324
Field Operational Tests 1,135 ........... .......... 1,135 240 895
Evaluations.....................
Rural FOT Evaluations........ 570 ........... .......... 570 ......... 570
Intermodal Freight 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Evaluations.................
APTS Field Operational Test 365 ........... .......... 365 240 125
Evaluations.................
Transit FOT Evaluations 240 ........... .......... 240 240 ...........
(Transfer to FTA).......
Transit FOT Evaluations 125 ........... .......... 125 ......... 125
(FHWA for FTA)..........
Deployment Evaluations........... 1,025 ........... .......... 1,025 296 729
Metropolitan Evaluations..... 500 ........... .......... 500 104 396
CVISN Evaluations............ 425 ........... .......... 425 192 233
Hwy.-Rail Evaluations........ 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Special Benefits Reports......... 700 ........... .......... 700 ......... 700
Crosscutting Analyses........ 700 ........... .......... 700 ......... 700
ITS Deployment Tracking.......... 950 ........... .......... 950 870 80
Metropolitan ITS Deployment 600 ........... .......... 600 600 ...........
Tracking for Fiscal Year
2000........................
Rural Deployment Tracking.... 260 ........... .......... 260 260 ...........
CVISN Deployment Tracking for 90 ........... .......... 90 10 80
Fiscal Year 1998............
Program Tracking................. 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
ITS Policy Assessment............ 1,690 ........... .......... 1,690 149 1,541
Analytical Support........... 800 ........... .......... 800 ......... 800
General Policy Assessment 890 ........... .......... 890 149 741
Support to the Director.....
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS............... 14,000 750 .......... 14,750 5,573 9,177
ARCHITECTURE......................... 5,000 120 .......... 5,120 4,309 811
Architecture Deployment/ 2,590 ........... .......... 2,590 2,590 ...........
Implementation Support..........
Deployment/Implementation 1,140 ........... .......... 1,140 1,140 ...........
Support.....................
Architecture Standards 700 ........... .......... 700 700 ...........
Development Support.........
Architecture Support of 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Standards Testing...........
Architecture Data Base/ 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Configuration Control
Support.....................
Architecture Documentation... 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Architecture Tool Development 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Rural User Service/Architecture 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Changes.........................
Planning Data/Archiving User 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Service/Architecture Changes....
Weather User Service/Architecture 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Changes.........................
Intermodal Freight User Service/ 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Architecture Changes............
Emergency Services User Services/ 25 ........... .......... 25 25 ...........
Architecture Changes............
Regional Architecture Support, 175 ........... .......... 175 175 ...........
Peer to Peer...................
Architecture Engineering 315 ........... .......... 315 ......... 315
Maintenance Support.............
Architecture Training (Deployment 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
and Implementation).............
CVO Architecture................. 490 ........... .......... 490 ......... 490
Invitational Travel--Beta Test 5 ........... .......... 5 ......... 5
Turbo Architecture..............
Turbo Architecture............... ......... 120 .......... 120 120 ...........
STANDARDS............................ 9,000 630 .......... 500 1,264 8,366
Standards Development Activities. 4,400 130 .......... 4,530 130 4,400
Infrastructure and Safety.... 1,765 ........... .......... 1,765 ......... 1,765
Infrastructure & Safety.. 1,665 ........... .......... 1,665 ......... 1,665
Volpe.................... 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
CVO (EDI).................... 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
Transit...................... 1,055 ........... .......... 1,055 ......... 1,055
TCIP..................... 335 ........... .......... 335 ......... 335
Transit Signal Priority.. 110 ........... .......... 110 ......... 110
Transit Profile for LRMS. 110 ........... .......... 110 ......... 110
Smart Card............... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
ISO TC 204 WG 8 & WAG 8.. 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Rail......................... 200 130 .......... 330 130 200
FRA Support Devel. of ......... 130 .......... 130 130 ...........
Hwy.-Rail Intersection..
Rail..................... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Architecture Support......... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
JPL.......................... 780 ........... .......... 780 ......... 780
Mitretek..................... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Testing and Interoperability..... 2,500 ........... .......... 2,500 1,100 1,400
Interoperability Testing 1,700 ........... .......... 1,700 1,100 600
Support.....................
Battelle................. 1,100 ........... .......... 1,100 1,100 ...........
DSRC..................... 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
LRS...................... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Data Registration............ 800 ........... .......... 800 ......... 800
Implementation................... 1,900 ........... .......... 1,900 34 1,866
Resource Materials........... 500 ........... .......... 500 34 466
Lessons Learned.............. 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Technical Asst. (Peer to 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
peer).......................
Training..................... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Evaluation................... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Conformity....................... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Rule Making.................. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Policy Development........... 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Standards Contingencies.......... ......... 500 .......... 500 ......... 500
INTEGRATION/MAINSTREAMING................ 9,414 1,957 .......... 11,371 1,569 9,702
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE................. 4,766 1,032 .......... 5,798 1,361 4,437
Direct Technical Assistance...... 1,725 ........... .......... 1,725 377 1,348
Service Plan Implementation.. 1,500 ........... .......... 1,500 377 1123
Service Plan 798 ........... .......... 798 377 421
Implementation..........
Non-Targeted Funding 312 ........... .......... 312 ......... 312
Allotted to Resource
Centers ($312,000).....
Service Plan Funds 28 ........... .......... 28 ......... 28
Allotted to NHI.........
Targeted Service Plan 363 ........... .......... 363 ......... 363
Funding Allotted to
Divisions...............
FHWA/FTA Peer to Peer Program 225 ........... .......... 225 ......... 225
Technical Guidance............... 1,855 100 .......... 1,955 425 1,530
ITS Lessons Learned/Best 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
Practices Series............
ITS Lessons Learned/Best 325 ........... .......... 325 ......... 325
Practices Series........
APTA Best Practices 75 ........... .......... 75 ......... 75
Workshops...............
Technical Materials for Sys 120 100 .......... 220 100 120
Eng.........................
APTS Showcase................ 960 ........... .......... 960 300 660
APTS Showcase............ 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
APTS Mobile Showcase 660 ........... .......... 660 ......... 660
(FHWA for FTA)..........
National Architecture Use 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Guidelines..................
Architecture Consistency 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Outreach....................
Architecture Consistency 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Outreach................
Arch. Consistency 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Outreach Allotted to NHI
($50,000)...............
ACS Outreach................. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
IDAS Outreach................ 75 ........... .......... 75 25 50
Develop. of ATIS Data Collection 230 ........... .......... 230 194 36
Guide- lines...................
Crosscutting..................... 445 ........... .......... 445 ......... 445
Program Peer Review.......... 445 ........... .......... 445 ......... 445
ITSA Transit............. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
APTS Stakeholder Forum... 75 ........... .......... 75 ......... 75
TMAG..................... 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
FTA Technical Support.... 220 ........... .......... 220 ......... 220
AASHTO ITS Deployment Task Force. 75 ........... .......... 75 ......... 75
URBAN CONSORTIUM................. 436 442 .......... 877 224 653
PTI FISCAL YEAR 2000 EARMARK-- 436 ........... .......... 436 ......... 436
URBAN CONSORTIUM............
PTI Fiscal Year 1999 Earmark. ......... 442 .......... 442 224 217
PBFarradyne IQC.................. ......... 391 .......... 391 141 250
AASHTO Steering Group for ......... 100 .......... 100 ......... 100
Technology Deployment...........
PLANNING/POLICY...................... 500 100 .......... 600 ......... 600
Air Quality Impacts.............. 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Planning Tools to Support ITS.... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Traveler Response to Advanced ......... 100 .......... 100 ......... 100
Travel Information..............
FHWA--Traveler Response to ......... 50 .......... 50 ......... 50
Adv. Travel Info............
FTA--Traveler Response to ......... 50 .......... 50 ......... 50
Adv. Travel Info............
TRAINING............................. 3,350 600 .......... 3,950 200 3,750
Deliver Current Courses.......... 500 ........... .......... 500 30 470
Travel Management............ 500 ........... .......... 500 30 470
Update Existing Courses.......... 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Assist NHI and NTI with 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Continuing Update...........
Develop New Instructional 1,250 ........... .......... 1,250 ......... 1,250
Material........................
FTA Course--Data Management 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
for Transit Agencies........
New Courses to Fill Gaps..... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Develop Addtl. High Priority 750 ........... .......... 750 ......... 750
Courses.....................
Advanced WBT Course Development.. 250 ........... .......... 250 100 150
Support Detailed Curricula 250 ........... .......... 250 100 150
Development & WBT Evaluation
Program Management & Support..... 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
Onsite ISD Professional & 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Onsite Secretary............
Professional Training Spec. 150 ........... .......... 150 ......... 150
for NTI/ FTE................
Volpe Support for PCB Web 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Page Development............
CVISN Technical Training......... 900 ........... .......... 900 20 880
Consultant Management............ ......... 250 .......... 250 ......... 250
Distance Learning Pilots......... ......... 50 .......... 50 50 ...........
Training Funds Allocated to NHI.. ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
NHI Training Carryover from ......... 300 .......... 300 ......... 300
fiscal year 1999...............
ITS Software Acquisition..... ......... 10 .......... 10 ......... 10
CORSIM....................... ......... 15 .......... 15 ......... 15
Architecture Training Course. ......... 50 .......... 50 ......... 50
FHWA--New Course Development. ......... 200 .......... 200 ......... 200
Support at NHI............... ......... 25 .......... 25 ......... 25
OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS.......... 660 225 .......... 885 ......... 885
Publications (new and reprints).. 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Publications (new and 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
reprints)--Program Funding..
JPO Home Page.................... 180 ........... .......... 180 ......... 180
ICDN............................. 230 225 .......... 455 ......... 455
MAINSTREAMING........................ 500 ........... .......... 500 8 492
Shipping and Handling Exhibits... 120 ........... .......... 120 8 112
Exhibits (Creation/Maintenance).. 80 ........... .......... 80 ......... 80
Outreach......................... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
National Associations Working 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Group (NAWG)................
NGA Initiative............... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
PROGRAM SUPPORT.......................... 8,766 3,971 .......... 12,737 4,546 8,192
ITS AMERICA.......................... 2,600 2 .......... 2,602 600 2,002
MITRETEK............................. 5,500 3,906 .......... 9,406 3,906 5,500
JPL SUPPORT.......................... 380 ........... .......... 380 ......... 380
GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT.............. 286 63 .......... 349 40 309
Smart Technology................. 110 ........... .......... 110 ......... 110
Arrowhead Industries............. 130 ........... .......... 130 ......... 130
Other Misc. Program Support...... 46 ........... .......... 46 40 6
TASC-Traveler Information Center. ......... 35 .......... 35 ......... 35
Unfunded Interest Payments....... ......... 28 .......... 28 ......... 28
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES................ 98,423 26,918 100 125,441 1,430 124,011
FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL ......... 2,569 100 2,669 639 2,030
EARMARKS............................
Northeast Corridor (Various Proj) ......... 1,069 .......... 1,069 639 430
Commercial Vehicle Operations, I- ......... 1,500 .......... 1,500 ......... 1,500
5 California....................
National Inst. for Enviornmental ......... ........... 100 100 ......... 100
Renewal (NIER)..................
FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL ......... 24,349 .......... 24,349 791 23,558
EARMARKS............................
Alaska........................... ......... 837 .......... 837 ......... 837
Amherst, Massachusetts........... ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
Centre Valley, Pa................ ......... 396 .......... 396 ......... 396
Dade County Florida.............. ......... 791 .......... 791 791 ...........
Delaware River, Pa............... ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
Hammond, Louisiana............... ......... 3,166 .......... 3,166 ......... 3,166
Mission Viejo, California........ ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
Nevada--CVO Deployment........... ......... 350 .......... 350 ......... 350
New Orleans, Louisiana........... ......... 1,187 .......... 1,187 ......... 1,187
New York CVO Deployment.......... ......... 667 .......... 667 ......... 667
North Dakota State Univ.--ATAC... ......... 302 .......... 302 ......... 302
Northeast ITS Implementation..... ......... 750 .......... 750 ......... 750
CVO Northeast Corridor....... ......... 500 .......... 500 ......... 500
Tri-State Rural ATIS......... ......... 250 .......... 250 ......... 250
Onandaga County, New York........ ......... 317 .......... 317 ......... 317
Pennsylvania..................... ......... 11,081 .......... 11,081 ......... 11,081
CVO Deployment............... ......... 350 .......... 350 ......... 350
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ......... 10,731 .......... 10,731 ......... 10,731
Scranton, Pa..................... ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
University of North Dakota--ATWIS ......... 549 .......... 549 ......... 549
Volusia County, Florida.......... ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL 88,748 ........... .......... 88,748 ......... 88,748
EARMARKS............................
Albuquerque, New Mexico.......... 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Arapahoe County, Colorado........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Branson, Missouri................ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Central Pennsylvania............. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Charlotte, North Carolina........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Chicago, Illinois................ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
City of Superior and Douglas 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
County, Wisconsin...............
Clay County, Missouri............ 236 ........... .......... 236 ......... 236
Clearwater, Florida.............. 2,752 ........... .......... 2,752 ......... 2,752
College Station, Texas........... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Central Ohio..................... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Commonwealth of Virginia......... 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
Commonwealth of Virginia--CVO ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Commonwealth of Virginia-- 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
Metro/Rural.................
Corpus Christi, Texas............ 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Delaware River, Pennsylvania. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Fairfield, California........ 590 ........... .......... 590 ......... 590
Fargo, North Dakota.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Florida Bay County, Florida.. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Fort Worth, Texas................ 1,966 ........... .......... 1,966 ......... 1,966
Grand Forks, North Dakota........ 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Greater Metro. Capital Region, DC 3,932 ........... .......... 3,932 ......... 3,932
Greater Yellowstone, Montana..... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Houma, Louisiana................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Houston, Texas................... 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Huntsville, Alabama.............. 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Inglewood, California........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Jefferson County, Colorado....... 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Kansas City, Missouri............ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Las Vegas, Nevada................ 2,202 ........... .......... 2,202 ......... 2,202
Los Angeles, California.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Miami, Florida................... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Mission Viejo, California........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Monroe County, New York.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Nashville, Tennessee............. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Northeast Florida................ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Oakland, California.............. 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Oakland County, Michigan......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Oxford, Mississippi.............. 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Pennsylvania Turnpike, 1,966 ........... .......... 1,966 ......... 1,966
Pennsylvania....................
Pueblo, Colorado................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Puget Sound, Washington.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Reno/Tahoe, California/Nevada.... 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Rensselaer County, New York...... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Sacramento County, California.... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Salt Lake City, Utah............. 2,359 ........... .......... 2,359 ......... 2,359
San Francisco, California........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Santa Clara, California.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Santa Teresa, New Mexico......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Seattle, Washington.............. 1,651 ........... .......... 1,651 ......... 1,651
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia...... 1,966 ........... .......... 1,966 ......... 1,966
Shreveport, Louisiana............ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Silicon Valley, California....... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Southeast Michigan............... 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Spokane, Washington.............. 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
St. Louis, Missouri.............. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
State of Alabama................. 1,022 ........... .......... 1,022 ......... 1,022
Alabama--CVO Deployment...... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Alabama--Metro/Rural 1,022 ........... .......... 1,022 ......... 1,022
Deployment..................
State of Alaska.................. 2,359 ........... .......... 2,359 ......... 2,359
Alaska--CVO Deployment....... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Alaska--Metro/Rural 2,359 ........... .......... 2,359 ......... 2,359
Deployment..................
State of Arizona................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Arizona--CVO Deployment...... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Arizona--Metro/Rural 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Deployment..................
State of Colorado................ 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Colorado--CVO Deployment..... 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Colorado--Metro/Rural ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Deployment..................
State of Delaware................ 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Delaware--CVO Deployment..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Delaware--Metro/Rural 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Deployment..................
State of Idaho................... 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Idaho--CVO Deployment........ ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Idaho--Metro/Rural Deployment 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
State of Illinois................ 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Illinois--CVO Deployment..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Illinois--Metro/Rural 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Deployment..................
State of Maryland................ 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Maryland--CVO Deployment..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Maryland--Metro/Rural 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Deployment..................
State of Minnesota............... 5,505 ........... .......... 5,505 ......... 5,505
Minnesota--CVO Deployment.... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Minnesota--Metro/Rural 5,505 ........... .......... 5,505 ......... 5,505
Deployment..................
State of Montana................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Montana--CVO Deployment...... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Montana--Metro/Rural ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Deployment..................
State of Nebraska................ 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Nebraska, CVO Deployment..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Nebraska--Metro/Rural 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Deployment..................
State of Oregon.................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Oregon--CVO Deployment....... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Oregon--Metro/Rural 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Deployment..................
State of Texas................... 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
Texas--CVO Deployment........ ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Texas--Metro/Rural Deployment 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
State of Vermont Rural Systems... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
States of New Jersey and New York 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Statewide Transcom/Transmit 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
Upgrades, New Jersey............
Tacoma Puyallup, Washington...... 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Thurston, Washington............. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Towamencin, Pennsylvania......... 472 ........... .......... 472 ......... 472
Wausau-Stevens Point-Wisconsin 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Rapids, Wisconsin...............
Wayne County, Michigan........... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL 7,752 ........... .......... 7,752 ......... 7,752
EARMARKS--TEA-21....................
Great Lakes ITS Implementation... 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Northeast ITS Implementation..... 3,932 ........... .......... 3,932 ......... 3,932
Hazardous Materials Monitoring 1,204 ........... .......... 1,204 ......... 1,204
Systems.........................
Translink--Texas Transportation 1,043 ........... .......... 1,043 ......... 1,043
Institute.......................
EVALUATIONS OF EARMARKED PROJECTS.... 1,924 ........... .......... 1,924 ......... 1,924
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTALS....................... 183,955 39,489 331 223,775 18,942 204,833
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHWAY/RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS
Question. What is the status of each of the ITS projects intended
to advance safety at highway/rail grade crossings? For each project,
please list accomplishments to date, purposes and objectives, amount
obligated, amount planned to be spent, amount unobligated, scope and
nature of the project, status, and expected date of completion.
Answer. There are currently seven projects supported by USDOT that
examine how ITS can improve safety and efficiency of travel at rail-
highway grade crossings. These seven active projects are in addition to
the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS) field testing that was
completed in 1994. The Federal share of funding for these seven
projects comes from a wide variety of sources: FHWA, FRA and FTA.
Several are grass-roots initiatives that were included as part of
corridor or statewide ``high-priority'' (earmarked) programs that local
participants chose to pursue without federal assistance.
Minnesota Guidestar
Purposes and objectives.--The Minnesota Department of
Transportation entered into a partnership with 3M Corporation and
Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems (DVSS) to develop an in-vehicle warning
system, and test that system in a revenue service operational railroad
crossing environment. In addition, the partners tested a passive train
detection system developed by DVSS.
Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
This project was funded as part of Minnesota Guidestar--Minnesota's
statewide ITS program.
Scope and nature of the project.--The system uses 3M's wireless
vehicle and roadside communication antennas that can be built into the
crossbuck, ``RXR'' sign and front vehicle license plate. The track?side
unit picks up a signal from the railroad's train detection electronics
and transmits that signal to 3M's antenna-signs. The in-vehicle
display, provided by DVSS, alerts drivers using both visual and audible
signals. The passive system detects an internal radio frequency
communication emitted by the Front Rear End Device (FRED), which is
used by most freight railroads to coordinate braking between the front
and rear of the train. The FRED passive train detectors are installed
directly onto the vehicles, so that no special equipment is needed at
the crossing infrastructure. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. served as an
independent evaluator during the tests.
Status.--Testing took place on 30 school buses at five revenue
service crossings, operated by Twin Cities & Western Railroad, in
Glencoe, Minnesota--a rural community 30 miles west of the Minneapolis/
St. Paul metropolitan area. Testing of the in-vehicle warning system
took place from December 1997 to May 1998 and testing of the passive
train detection system took place in June 1998.
Expected date of completion.--The project was completed in August
1998 and a final evaluation report is available.
Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor
Purposes and objectives.--The Illinois Department of Transportation
is partnering with a team lead by Raytheon E-Systems to design and
install an in-vehicle warning system, test that system in a revenue
service operational railroad crossing environment, and provide on-going
maintenance of the system.
Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
This project is being funded as part of the Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee ITS
Corridor program.
Scope and nature of the project.--The contract team includes Cobra
Electronics, Calspan SRL and the Metro Transportation Group as
subcontractors. The advisory in-vehicle warning systems were installed
in 300 vehicles, including school buses, emergency service vehicles
(police, fire, EMS), and commercial vehicles which regularly traverse
the study area. The study area included five railroad grade crossings
on the Metra-Milwaukee North Line which is in the northern Chicago
suburbs. The in-vehicle receiver is capable of operating in three
modes: audible only, visual only and combination audio/visual. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is serving as an independent
evaluator during the test. The University of Illinois evaluation will
emphasize the reaction and perception of the drivers to the warning
information provided under different modal scenarios.
Status.--The track-side equipment was installed in Spring 1998, but
due to technical problems, the in-vehicle equipment had to be replaced.
This was completed in the Fall of 1999. Additional system refinement
postponed the beginning of the demonstration until early March 2000.
The system has begun a one-year testing period.
Expected date of completion.--The one year testing and evaluation
period should be completed by April 2001 and an evaluation report will
be finished by early Fall 2001.
Long Island Railroad
Purposes and objectives.--The New York State Department of
Transportation is partnering with Alstom Signaling (formerly known as
General Railway Signal Corp.) to develop an Inter-modal Control System
(ICS) that uses ITS technologies to perform a number of functions to
improve railroad crossing safety. NYSDOT and Alstom will test the ICS
in an operational environment.
Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
Thus far the amount of federal funds that have been spent is $4.8
million. The amount of federal monies remaining is $2.82 million. The
matching funds that have been spent are $5 million with $975 thousand
remaining. The total cost of the current project is $13.6 million and
no other sources of funding have been identified to complete the
project.
Scope and nature of the project: Several HRI-ITS technologies will
be tested at the New Hyde Park transit station of the Long Island Rail
Road:
--Uniform Time Warning System.--Sensors that detect the speed as well
as the presence of on-coming trains will activate bells, lights
and gates, so that the time between activation and the arrival
of the train is constant. This innovation is expected to reduce
gate down-time by up to 50 percent.
--Near-Side Station Stop.--Currently, when the train is stopped at
the station, the train activates gates and warning lights at
both crossings on both sides of the station platform, which
creates a situation where impatient drivers might drive around
the lowered gates. The combination automatic/manual override
system will improve this situation by activating the gates and
warning lights at crossings that are very close to the Hyde
Park Station.
--Variable Message Sign.--A variable message sign will provide
motorists and pedestrians with current information about train
operations, such as a second train approaching, etc.
--Priority Vehicle Preemption System.--Vehicles that require
expedited movement, such a ambulances or fire trucks, will have
equipment installed on their vehicles that will allow the
driver to request preemption at a desired crossing. An
approaching train would be slowed or stopped to allow the
priority vehicle to cross. If the train has already passed the
safe breaking point, the priority vehicle will be given advance
notice that it will need to wait at the crossing or use an
alternate route.
--Stalled Vehicle Detection.--If a vehicle becomes stopped or stalled
on the crossing for any reason, the ICS will detect the
situation and signal the train to stop before reaching the
crossing.
The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center will serve as an
independent evaluator during the test.
Status.--Simulations conducted have shown the reduction in delay to
motor vehicles at the crossing. The testing is expected to begin in the
summer 2000 and the demonstration of the full system capabilities is
expected to begin in the Fall 2000.
Expected date of completion.--The project is expected to be
completed and a final evaluation report made available by December
2000.
Baltimore Light Rail Transit ``Second Train Coming''
Purposes and objectives.--The Maryland Mass Transit Administration
tested a second train warning system, which consists of a variable
message sign that warns drivers on crossing multiple tracks that a
train is approaching. The system was tested in a revenue service
crossing environment.
Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
This project was funded by a grant from the Transit Cooperative
Research Project (TCRP) program of the Transportation Research Board.
The grant is administered by the FTA's Office of Technology (TRI-20).
Scope and nature of the project.--The system was tested at the
Timonium Road crossing in Timonium, MD, on the Maryland Mass Transit
Administration's light rail transit line.
Status.--The system became operational in September 1998.
Expected date of completion.--The project was completed as of the
Spring of 1999 and a final evaluation report is available.
Los Angeles Light Rail Transit ``Second Train Coming''
Purposes and objectives.--The Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transportation Authority is testing a second train warning system which
consists of a variable message sign that warns drivers on which of
multiple tracks a train is approaching. The system will be tested in an
operational railroad crossing environment.
Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
This project is being funded by a grant from the Transit Cooperative
Research Project (TCRP) program of the Transportation Research Board.
The grant is administered by the FTA's Office of Technology (TRI-20).
Scope and nature of the project.--The system is being tested at the
Vernon Avenue crossing in Long Beach, CA on the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's light rail transit line.
Status.--Installation of the equipment was completed and testing
began in the Fall 1999.
Expected date of completion.--The project is expected to be
completed and a final evaluation report is expected to be available by
the Spring 2000.
San Antonio AWARD
Purposes and objectives.--The Texas Department of Transportation
tested a train detection system for traffic management and traveler
information called Advanced Warning for Railroad Delays (AWARD). The
system was tested in an operational railroad crossing environment.
Amount obligated/Amount planned to be spent/Amount un-obligated.--
The AWARD project was part of the San Antonio Metropolitan Model
Deployment Initiative, a Federally-funded ITS program in four
metropolitan areas to develop and then showcase integrated ITS systems.
Scope and nature of the project.--Acoustic sensors and radar speed
guns were placed upstream of three crossings along the Union Pacific
Railroad line parallel to I-410 in San Antonio. These sensors were
expected to detect the presence, length and speed of approaching
trains. The time and duration of crossing blockage was then calculated.
The predicted delay was disseminated in three ways:
--Variable message signs upstream from the crossing to alert drivers
to take alternate routes or freeway exits to avoid delay.
--The TransGuide traffic management center includes delay information
updated each minute and distributed via the Internet to in-
vehicle displays.
--Emergency service vehicles such as ambulances use the delay
information to plan their routes in real-time.
MDI evaluation contractors SAIC, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center evaluated the system's
costs and its ability to reduce travel time and increase travelers'
perceived convenience.
Status.--The system became operational in the Summer of 1998 and
continued for one year through the Summer of 1999.
Expected date of completion.--The project has been completed and a
final evaluation report is available.
Connecticut Four-Quadrant Gate System
Purposes and objectives.--The Connecticut Department of
Transportation tested an in-locomotive warning system that warns the
locomotive engineer if an obstacle, such as a stopped vehicle, is
blocking the crossing in time to bring the train to a complete stop.
The system was tested in a revenue service operational railroad
crossing environment.
Amount obligated.--$800,000 has been obligated from Section 1036 of
ISTEA (FRA) with $200K matching funds provided by the State.
Amount planned to be spent.--All funds have been spent, which are
$800,000.
Amount unobligated.--$0
Scope and nature of the project.--A system of four-quadrant gates
is used rather than the usual two in order to totally block the
crossing. This four-quadrant gate system allows for the possibility
that a vehicle might get stuck between the gates. Sensors detect if a
vehicle or other obstacle is blocking the crossing and then signals the
locomotive engineer in time to stop the train before the train reaches
the crossing. A back-up system can also bring the train to a stop
automatically, if necessary.
Status.--The demonstration began in July 1998 and continues in
operation today. Furthermore, a second crossing in Stonington,
Connecticut, has been equipped and will become operational in 2000. Six
more crossings in Connecticut are scheduled to be equipped with this
system. An evaluation report will be prepared by the Volpe Center later
this year (2000).
Expected date of completion.--The project is complete and a final
evaluation report is available.
ITS INVESTMENTS
Question. What has been achieved as a result of past ITS
investments in that area? How much is budgeted for standards
development and operational testing in that area in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The investment in the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS)
project, which tested several competing in-vehicle warning
technologies, provided the opportunity to refine the passive train
detection system developed by Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems (DVSS).
The DVSS system was later tested in an operational environment in the
Minnesota Guidestar project.
The ITS Joint Program Office is sponsoring a cross-cutting study
that will derive common lessons learned from the activities described
above. One of the steps in data collection of the cross-cutting study
was the hosting of an HRI Evaluation Workshop, which was held in
Boston, Massachusetts May 6-7, 1999. Representatives from each of the
seven projects described above presented their project implementation
plan and evaluation results. This cross-cutting study will provide a
basis for a strategic plan for future Federal HRI-ITS activities. In
addition, the lessons learned will help guide communities throughout
the nation in the implementation of highway-rail crossing technology.
In addition, the Federal Railroad Administration in partnership
with the ITS Joint Program Office conducted an Highway-Rail
Intersection Standards Development Workshop in July, 1999. From that
workshop came the action to develop a strategic plan for standards
development and a plan for deployment guidance in the absence of
standards. The strategic planning efforts are planned to begin in the
Spring of 2000. They will be led by the Federal Railroad
Administration.
The fiscal year 2001 budget includes $200,000 in funding for
standards development and another $150,000 for HRI evaluation. The
intention in fiscal year 2001 is to finalize the HRI strategic plan and
get early adopted standards established. With this initial foundation,
guidance can be given to the communities for including the elements of
the HRI architecture in the engineering studies that are conducted for
determining the types of warning devices to be installed.
Question. For each of the last three years, please compare your
actual expenditures with the amounts appropriated for each ITS category
of funds specified in the conference report. Please indicate the amount
of carryover funds for each year by category and explain any deviations
from amounts specified in the various conference reports beyond the 10
percent flexibility that is allowed by the Committee.
Answer. Attached is a table which compares actual amounts allocated
to the various ITS fund category (program) to amounts included in the
Conference Reports accompanying the DOT Appropriations bills for fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
Fiscal year 1998 was an extremely unusual year in that the
appropriation bill was passed several months prior to Public Law 105-
178, TEA-21, an authorization bill which significantly changed funding
sources and programs from those envisioned at the time of the passage
of the appropriation bill. Therefore, although the table includes a
comparison of fiscal year 1998 Conference Report amounts with actual
allocations, no legitimate comparison can be made due to these
legislative changes.
For fiscal years 1999 and 2000, an adjusted amounts column has been
added, the purpose of these columns is to necessarily reduce the
Conference Report amounts to comply with reductions in the ITS Research
and Development funding as mandated annually by Section 1102(f) of TEA-
21. These reductions equated to 11.7 percent in fiscal year 1999 and
12.9 percent in fiscal year 2000.
In fiscal year 1999, after adjusting Conference Report amounts by
the Section 1102(f) reductions, all of the actual funding allocations
are within the 10 percent flexibility provision allowed by the
Committee with the exception of Operational Tests. Fiscal year 1999 ITS
Operational Tests were necessarily reduced to provide $6.648 million in
funding to the National Advanced Driver Simulator (NADS) project in
accordance with guidance included on page 1421 of the Conference Report
which read ``National advanced driving simulator. Within the funds
provided for ITS research and development and other surface
transportation research contract authority programs, sufficient funds
are included for ongoing activities of the national advanced driving
simulator.''
In fiscal year 2000, after adjusting Conference Report amounts by
the Section 1102(f) reductions, all of the actual funding allocations
are within the 10 percent flexibility provision allowed by the
Committee with the exception of Program Support. Most of the items
included under Program Support are multi-year contracts and cooperative
agreements with organizations such as ITS America, Mitretek, and the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory which provide technical programmatic and
administrative services without which the ITS program could not
successfully operate. Very little flexibility in the funding amounts in
these contracts is available; therefore, the full 12.9 percent overall
funding reduction required by Section 1102(f) could not be fully
applied to this activity. However, the current amount allocated for
Program Support ($8.765 million) is fully within the 10 percent
flexibility provision when compared to the actual amount of $9.0
million included in the Conference Report by the Committee.
ANALYSIS OF R&D FUNDING BY CATEGORY
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program category Est.
Amount in Actual Unoblig. Amount in Adj. Actual Unoblig. 9- Amount in Adj. Estimated unoblig. 9-
report allocated \1\ 9-30-98 report amounts \2\ allocated \1\ 30-99 report amounts \2\ allocated \1\ 30-00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT........................... $31,500 $39,651 $1,347 $38,000 $33,554 $35,976 $1,149 $47,450 $41,329 $40,901 ..........
OPERATIONAL TESTS.................................. 83,900 8,841 2,089 17,000 15,011 7,080 4,744 6,650 5,792 6,090 ..........
EVALUATION/PROG. ASSESSMENT........................ 7,000 6,000 634 6,500 5,740 5,510 .......... 7,000 6,097 6,000 ..........
ARCHITECTURE/STANDARDS............................. .......... 10,662 23 18,000 15,894 14,429 750 16,400 14,284 14,000 ..........
INTEGRATION/MAINSTREAMING.......................... .......... 10,837 925 6,000 5,298 5,676 1,957 11,700 10,191 9,776 ..........
PROGRAM & SYSTEM SUPPORT........................... 7,760 8,654 674 9,500 8,389 8,566 3,971 9,000 7,839 8,765 ..........
NAT'L. ADV. DRIVER SIM. (NADS)..................... .......... ............. ........ .......... ........... 6,648 .......... .......... ........... ............. ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................ 130,160 84,645 5,692 95,000 83,885 83,885 12,571 98,200 85,532 85,532 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Allocated Amounts reflect reductions in TEA-21 amounts authorized for ITS R&D as required by Section 1102(f) of TEA-21; i.e 10.9 percent in fiscal year 1998, 11.7 percent in fiscal year
1999 and 12.9 percent in fiscal year 2000.
\2\ Adjusted Amounts reflect proportionate reductions in Conference Report amounts as required by Section 1102(f) of TEA-21; i.e 11.7 percent in fiscal year 1999 and 12.9 percent in fiscal
year 2000.
Question. Please prepare a detailed table showing any unobligated
funds and funds that are obligated but not yet committed by year for
any ITS projects specified in the fiscal year 1996-fiscal year 2000
conference reports. What is the status of each of those projects?
Answer.
CONGRESSIONALLY EARMARKED PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Project State -------------------------------------------------- Total Obligated Unblig.
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Bal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidestar............................... Mn......................... 2,000 3,600 6,000 ........ ........ 11,600 11,600 .........
Northeast Corridor...................... Various.................... 3,500 ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 4,500 4,500 .........
Houston Corridor........................ Tx......................... 2,200 2,000 ........ ........ ........ 4,200 4,200 .........
Milwaukee Corridor...................... Wi......................... ........ ........ 5,500 ........ ........ 5,500 5,500 .........
New York State Thruway.................. NY......................... 1,500 3,000 ........ ........ ........ 4,500 4,500 .........
Johnson City............................ Tn......................... 1,500 ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,500 1,500 .........
Adv. Transp. Weather Info. Sys.(U of ND) ND......................... 1,000 1,000 775 ........ ........ 2,775 2,775 .........
Hazardous Materials Transp. Safety Pa?........................ 2,500 2,000 1,000 ........ ........ 5,500 5,500 .........
(NIER).
Santa Teresa Border Crossing............ NM......................... 900 ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 1,900 1,900 .........
Syracuse Congestion Mgmt................ NY......................... 1,500 ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 2,500 2,500 .........
Nat'l. Transp. Ctr. (Oakdale) (Dowling NY......................... 2,000 2,500 ........ ........ ........ 4,500 4,500 .........
Coll.).
Adv. Railroad/Hwy. Crossings............ NY......................... 1,250 2,000 ........ ........ ........ 3,250 3,250 .........
Green Light CVO Project................. Or......................... 7,000 7,000 ........ ........ ........ 14,000 14,000 .........
Paralympiad............................. Ga......................... 1,000 ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
I-10 (Mobile) (Fog Detection System).... Al......................... 3,000 2,000 ........ ........ ........ 5,000 5,000 .........
Capitol Beltway......................... Md/Va...................... 4,000 ........ ........ ........ ........ 4,000 4,000 .........
Texas Transp. Inst. (Texas A&M)......... Tx......................... 600 600 1,000 ........ ........ 2,200 2,200 .........
Western Transp. Inst. (Montana State Mt......................... 1,000 ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 2,000 2,000 .........
Univ.).
I-675/SR844/Col. Glenn (Fairborn)....... Oh......................... 1,000 ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
Salt Lake City.......................... Ut......................... 2,000 5,000 3,500 ........ ........ 10,500 10,500 .........
Inglewood............................... Ca......................... ........ 1,000 500 ........ ........ 1,500 1,500 .........
Mobile Adv. Traf. Mgmt. Sys. Al......................... ........ 1,000 ........ ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
(Montgomery).
Traffic Guidance System (Nashville)..... Tn......................... ........ 1,000 750 ........ ........ 1,750 1,750 .........
Operation Respond....................... Md......................... ........ 1,000 ........ ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
Pennsylvania Turnpike................... Pa......................... ........ 3,000 6,000 ........ ........ 9,000 9,000 .........
Nat'l. Capitol Region Congest. Various.................... ........ 3,500 6,000 ........ ........ 9,500 9,500 .........
Mitigation.
National Advanced Driver Simulator Ia......................... ........ 14,000 ........ ........ ........ 14,000 14,000 .........
(NADS).
Kansas City Region...................... Ks/Mo...................... ........ 2,500 1,000 ........ ........ 3,500 3,500 .........
US/Canada CVO........................... Wa......................... ........ 1,500 ........ ........ ........ 1,500 1,500 .........
Rochester Congestion Management......... NY......................... ........ 1,500 ........ ........ ........ 1,500 1,500 .........
Urban Transp. Saf. Sys. Ctr. (Drexel Pa......................... ........ 500 250 ........ ........ 750 750 .........
Univ., Phila.).
Arizona Nat'l. Ctr. for Traffic & Az......................... ........ ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
Logistics.
CVO, I-5 California..................... Ca......................... ........ ........ 1,500 ........ ........ 1,500 ......... 1,500
Cumberland Gap Tunnel................... Ky......................... ........ ........ 1,550 ........ ........ 1,550 1,550 .........
Dade County Expressway, Fla. Toll Fl......................... ........ ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
Collect. Sys.
Franklin County Ma. Traveler Info. Sys.. Ma......................... ........ ........ 875 ........ ........ 875 875 .........
I-90/I-94 Rural ITS Corridor............ Wi......................... ........ ........ 1,700 ........ ........ 1,700 1,700 .........
Louisiana I-55, I-10 & 610 ITS System... La......................... ........ ........ 5,500 ........ ........ 5,500 5,500 .........
Market St. & Pa. Convention Ctr. Info. Pa......................... ........ ........ 325 ........ ........ 325 325 .........
Ctr.
I-90 Connector, Rennselaer County, NY... NY......................... ........ ........ 1,250 ........ ........ 1,250 1,250 .........
I-275, St. Petersburg, Fla.............. Fl......................... ........ ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
Rt. 236/I-495, Northern Va. ITS System.. Va......................... ........ ........ 500 ........ ........ 500 500 .........
Southeast Michigan Now & Ice Mgmt. Mi......................... ........ ........ 1,150 ........ ........ 1,150 1,150 .........
(SEMSIS).
Reno ITS................................ Nv......................... ........ ........ 1,875 ........ ........ 1,875 1,875 .........
Barboursville/Ona. Traffic Management... Wv......................... ........ ........ 8,000 ........ ........ 8,000 8,000 .........
North Dakota State Univ. Adv. Traffic... ND......................... ........ ........ 600 ........ ........ 600 600 .........
Sullivan Co., NY Emergency Weather NY......................... ........ ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
System.
New York City toll plaza scanners....... NY......................... ........ ........ 1,100 ........ ........ 1,100 1,100 .........
Cleveland transit maintenance environ. Oh......................... ........ ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
Proj.
Op. Respond Haz. Mat. Response Software. Tx......................... ........ ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
Wash. State Radio Comm. Emergency Call Wa......................... ........ ........ 750 ........ ........ 750 750 .........
Boxes.
Wash. State Roadway Weather Info. Sys... Wa......................... ........ ........ 1,250 ........ ........ 1,250 1,250 .........
Colo. I-25 Truck Safety Improvements.... Co......................... ........ ........ 9,000 ........ ........ 9,000 9,000 .........
Tuscaloosa Traffic Integration and Flow Al......................... ........ ........ 2,200 ........ ........ 2,200 2,200 .........
Control.
Alaska Cold Weather ITS Sensing......... Ak......................... ........ ........ 1,000 ........ ........ 1,000 1,000 .........
Amherst, Massachusetts.................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 ......... 791
Arlington County, Virginia.............. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 594 ........ 594 594 .........
Atlanta, Georgia........................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,583 ........ 1,583 1,583 .........
Brandon, Vermont........................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ 297 ........ 297 297 .........
Buffalo, New York....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 396 ........ 396 396 .........
Centre Valley, Pennsylvania............. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 396 ........ 396 ......... 396
Cleveland, Ohio......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
Columbus, Ohio.......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
Corpus Christi, Texas................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 712 1,180 1,892 712 1,180
Dade County, Florida.................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
Del Rio, Texas.......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
Delaware River, Pennsylvania............ ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 ......... 791
Fairfield, California................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 590 1,381 791 590
Fitchburg, Massachusetts................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ 396 ........ 396 396 .........
Greater Metro. Region--DC............... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 3,957 3,932 7,889 3,957 3,932
Hammond, Louisiana...................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 3,166 ........ 3,166 ......... 3,166
Houston, Texas.......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,583 1,180 2,763 1,583 1,180
Huntington Beach, California............ ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
Huntsville, Alabama..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 393 1,184 791 393
Inglewood, California................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,187 786 1,973 1,187 786
Jackson, Mississippi.................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
Kansas City, Missouri................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 396 786 1,182 396 786
Laredo, Texas........................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
Middlesboro, Kentucky................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 2,374 ........ 2,374 2,374 .........
Mission Viejo, California............... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 786 1,577 ......... 1,577
Mobile Alabama.......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,979 ........ 1,979 1,979 .........
Monroe County, New York................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 317 786 1,103 317 786
Montgomery, Alabama..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 989 ........ 989 989 .........
Nashville, Tennessee.................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 396 786 1,182 396 786
New Orleans, Louisiana.................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,187 ........ 1,187 ......... 1,187
New York City, New York................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,979 ........ 1,979 1,979 .........
New York/Long Island, New York.......... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,820 ........ 1,820 1,820 .........
Oakland County, Michigan................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 786 1,577 791 786
Onandaga County, New York............... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 317 ........ 317 ......... 317
Port Angeles, Washington................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ 396 ........ 396 396 .........
Raleigh-Wake County, North Carolina..... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,583 ........ 1,583 1,583 .........
Riverside, California................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
San Francisco, California............... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,187 786 1,973 1,187 786
Scranton, Pennsylvania.................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 ......... 791
Silicon Valley, California.............. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,187 ........ 1,187 1,187 .........
Spokane, Washington..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 356 393 749 356 393
Springfield, Virginia................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 396 ........ 396 396 .........
St. Louis, Missouri..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 594 786 1,380 594 786
State of Alaska......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,187 2,359 3,546 350 3,196
State of Idaho.......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 1,573 2,364 791 1,573
State of Maryland....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,979 1,573 3,552 1,979 1,573
State of Minnesota...................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 5,619 5,505 11,124 5,619 5,505
State of Mississippi.................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
State of Missouri....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 396 ........ 396 396 .........
State of Montana........................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ 554 786 1,340 554 786
State of Nevada......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 455 ........ 455 105 350
State of New Jersey..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 2,374 ........ 2,374 2,374 .........
State of New Mexico..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
State of New York....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,979 ........ 1,979 1,979 .........
State of North Dakota................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,148 ........ 1,148 297 851
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania............ ........................... ........ ........ ........ 11,081 ........ 11,081 ......... 11,081
State of Texas.......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 3,146 3,937 791 3,146
State of Utah........................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 2,849 ........ 2,849 2,849 .........
State of Washington..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,583 ........ 1,583 1,583 .........
State of Wisconsin...................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 1,187 ........ 1,187 1,187 .........
Temucula, California.................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 198 ........ 198 198 .........
Tucson, Arizona......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
Volusia County, Florida................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 ......... 791
Warren County, Virginia................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 198 ........ 198 198 .........
Wausau-Stevens Point, Wisconsin......... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 1,180 1,971 791 1,180
Westchester/Putnam County, New York..... ........................... ........ ........ ........ 396 ........ 396 396 .........
White Plains, New York.................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ 791 ........ 791 791 .........
Albuquerque, New Mexico................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,573 1,573 ......... 1,573
Arapahoe County, Colorado............... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Branson, Missouri....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Central Pennsylvania.................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Charlotte, North Carolina............... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Chicago, Illinois....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
City of Superior & Douglas Co., ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Wisconsin.
Clay County, Missouri................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 236 236 ......... 236
Clearwater, Florida..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 2,752 2,752 ......... 2,752
College Station, Texas.................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Central Ohio............................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Commonwealth of Virginia................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 3,146 3,146 ......... 3,146
Delaware River, Pennsylvania............ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Fargo, North Dakota..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Florida Bay County, Florida............. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Fort Worth, Texas....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,966 1,966 ......... 1,966
Grand Forks, North Dakota............... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 393 393 ......... 393
Greater Yellowstone, Montana............ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Houma, Louisiana........................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Jefferson County, Colorado.............. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,180 1,180 ......... 1,180
Las Vegas, Nevada....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 2,202 2,202 ......... 2,202
Los Angeles, California................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Miami, Florida.......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Northeast Florida....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Oakland, California..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 393 393 ......... 393
Oxford, Mississippi..................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,180 1,180 ......... 1,180
Pennsylvania Turnpike, Pennsylvania..... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,966 1,966 ......... 1,966
Pueblo, Colorado........................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Puget Sound, Washington................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 786 ......... 786
Reno/Tahoe, California/Nevada........... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 393 393 ......... 393
Rensselaer County, New York............. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
Sacramento County, California........... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
Salt Lake City, Utah.................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 2,359 ......... ......... .........
Santa Clara, California................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
Santa Teresa, New Mexico................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
Seatle, Washington...................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,651 ......... ......... .........
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia............. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,966 ......... ......... .........
Shreveport, Louisiana................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
Silicon Valley, California.............. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
Southeast Michigan...................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,573 ......... ......... .........
State of Alabama........................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,022 ......... ......... .........
State of Arizona........................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
State of Colorado....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,180 ......... ......... .........
State of Delaware....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,573 ......... ......... .........
State of Illinois....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,180 ......... ......... .........
State of Nebraska....................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 393 ......... ......... .........
State of Oregon......................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
State of Vermont, Rural Systems......... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
State of New Jersey and New York........ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 1,573 ......... ......... .........
Statewide Transcom/ransmit, New Jersey.. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 3,146 ......... ......... .........
Tacoma Puvallup, Washington............. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 393 ......... ......... .........
Thurston, Washington.................... ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
Towamencin, Pennsylvania................ ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 472 ......... ......... .........
Wayne County, Michigan.................. ........................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 786 ......... ......... .........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................ ........................... 39,450 61,200 82,400 83,104 88,748 354,902 242,506 112,396
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPLOYMENT PROJECTS
Question. Please prepare a list of all of the fiscal year 1996-
fiscal year 2000 operational tests or earmarked deployment projects and
indicate their starting date, expected date of completion, expected
submittal date of final evaluation, remaining unobligated balances,
remaining obligated balances, and any anticipated challenges that might
interfere with their completion.
Answer. With the exception of the remaining obligated balances, our
response is provided in the tables below. In order to provide data
regarding unspent balances, we would have to conduct a coordinated
effort with our financial administrators both in the Headquarters,
Resource Centers and Division Offices to search databases and cross-
reference accounting codes.
Please note that the expected date of completion and expected
submittal date of final evaluation are the same dates in our definition
of project completion. Projects are not considered completed until the
final, publicly available evaluation report is approved and submitted.
The fiscal year 1999 earmarked deployment/integration projects are
listed with estimated completion dates. Accurate identification of
evaluation completion dates at this time is problematical since
evaluation planning is, in many cases, still in progress. There are
currently no unobligated balances of ITS funds associated with these
projects except those listed at the end of the response in a separate
table. The identification of anticipated challenges is based on project
description information only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected
Start completion/ Remain.
Project date final obligated
report date balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATIONAL TESTS
METROPOLITAN ITS INFRASTRUCTURE: 5/1/99 3/1/01 $1,000,000
DIRECT--Phase II...............
RURAL ITS INFRASTRUCTURE:
Acadia National Park........ 11/1/99 12/30/01 1,000,000
Arizona I-40 Traveler & 10/1/97 4/30/00 250,000
Tourist Information System.
Branson, MO TRIP............ 10/1/97 4/30/00 600,000
Cape Cod Rural Advanced 10/14/97 6/30/01 200,000
Intermodal Transportation
System.....................
FORETELL.................... 10/30/97 3/15/00 1,300,000
Greater Yellowstone Rural 6/30/97 7/30/00 1,500,000
ITS........................
North Florida Rural Transit 9/30/97 5/30/02 200,000
ITS........................
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE 1/6/97 3/30/00 1,540,000
INFRASTRUCTURE: Operation
Respond........................
INTERMODAL FREIGHT:
An Integrated Cargo Info & 9/29/99 11/30/01 698,805
Security System for
Intermodal Distribution....
Deployment of ITS Technology 9/9/99 11/30/01 1,032,500
to Facilitate Movements of
Intermodal Freight.........
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE INITIATIVE:
Generation 0--Freightliner 11/30/99 12/30/02 3,933,000
Corp.......................
Generation 0--Mack Trucks... 11/30/99 12/30/02 1,380,000
Generation 0--Minnesota DOT. 11/30/99 12/30/02 3,886,000
Generation 0--Volvo Trucks.. 11/30/99 12/30/02 3,490,000
DEPLOYMENT/INTEGRATION PROJECTS--
FISCAL YEAR 1997 TO JUNE 1998
METROPOLITAN ITS INFRASTRUCTURE:
Advance Corridor 97 6/30/01 9,884,839
Transportation Information
Center.....................
Inglewood, California ATMS 9/20/97 1/30/01 1,187,204
Project....................
Nashville, Tennessee Traffic 8/21/97 6/30/00 1,750,000
and Parking Guidance System
New York-New Jersey- 10/1/96 6/30/00 10,610,000
Connecticut (TRANSCOM) ITS
Infrastructure Model
Deployment.................
Pennsylvania Turnpike 9/30/97 7/30/01 9,000,000
Traveler Information System
Phoenix, Arizona AZTech 10/31/96 3/30/00 7,520,000
Model Deployment Initiative
Rochester, New York 8/6/97 12/31/01 1,500,000
Congestion Management.
Anticipated challenge:
Design analysis resulting
in delays..................
Salt Lake Valley ATMS 9/30/97 12/30/01 8,500,000
Systems Integration........
San Antonio, Texas 10/31/96 3/30/00 7,144,000
Transguide Metropolitan
Model Deployment...........
Seattle, Washington Smart 10/31/96 3/30/00 13,688,000
Trek Model Deployment......
RURAL ITS INFRASTRUCTURE: Coutts/ 5/28/97 6/30/00 500,000
Sweet Grass Automated Border
Crossing Proposal..............
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE 10/30/96 9/30/03 21,100,000
INFRASTRUCTURE: CVISN--Model
Deployment (Commercial Vehicle
Information Systems & Networks)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following table, the ``State of'' earmarks are designated by
the titles of ITS Integration Program project (metro/rural) with their
associated dates and funding. Additionally, a CVO Deployment amount
with no associated project-related data is also listed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected
Start completion/ Remain.
Project date final obligated
report date balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPLOYMENT/INTEGRATION JULY 1998
FORWARD
METROPOLITAN ITS INFRASTRUCTURE:
Colorado I-25 Truck Safety 10/30/98 9/30/01 $9,000,000
Improvements...............
Dade County Expressway, 10/1/98 TBD 1,000,000
Florida Toll Collection
System.....................
I-275 St. Petersburg, 10/1/98 TBD 1,000,000
Florida....................
I-90 Connector, Rensselaer 10/30/98 2/27/01 1,250,000
County, New York...........
Kansas City, Missouri 10/30/98 3/30/00 1,000,000
Intermodal Common
Communications Technology.
Anticipated challenge:
Schedule perform- ance....
Louisiana Interstate 55, 10 10/30/98 6/30/01 5,500,000
and 610, Intelligent
Transportation Systems.....
Market Street and 10/30/98 7/30/00 325,000
Pennsylvania Convention
Center Passenger
Information Center.........
MONITOR..................... 10/30/98 10/30/01 6,000,000
National Capital Region 10/1/98 4/30/02 6,000,000
Congestion Mitigation......
New York City Toll Plaza 10/30/98 3/30/02 1,100,000
Scanners...................
Route 236/I-495 Northern 10/30/98 10/30/00 500,000
Virginia ITS...............
Syracuse, New York Advanced 10/30/98 1/31/03 1,000,000
Transportation Management
System.....................
Tuscaloosa, AL Traffic 10/1/98 12/30/01 2,200,000
Integration and Flow
Control....................
Arlington, Virginia Transit 9/30/99 8/30/01 593,602
Priority and Emergency
Vehicle Preemption.
Anticipated challenge:
Possible institutional
issues across
jurisdictions..............
Atlanta, Georgia ITS 9/30/99 12/30/02 1,582,939
Component Integration--
Phase I....................
Cleveland, Ohio 9/30/99 12/31/00 791,470
Transportation Management
and Integrated
Communications Center.
Anticipated challenge:
Aggressive schedule........
Columbus, Ohio ITS 5/30/99 10/30/01 791,470
Integration--Phase I.......
Corpus Christi, Texas, 9/30/99 12/30/01 712,323
Integration of Intelligent
Transportation Systems.....
Del Rio, Texas Integration 9/30/99 TBD 791,470
of Intelligent
Transportation Systems.....
Great Lakes Implementation.. 9/30/99 3/30/01 1,582,939
Huntington Beach, CA I-405 9/30/99 12/30/00 791,530
Multi-Jurisdictional Smart
Corridor and Caltrans
District 12 Intertie
Project. Anticipated
challenge: Aggressive
schedule. Hardware software
integration................
I-880/SR 17 Smart Corridor 9/30/99 7/30/01 1,187,204
Improvements-Silicon
Valley, California.........
Intelligent Transportation 9/30/99 11/30/00 792,470
Systems Integration Project
for Transportation
Operators in Solano County.
Anticipated challenge:
Possible schedule problems.
ITS Improvement Project for 9/30/99 12/31/01 395,734
Niagara International
Transportation Technology
Coalition (NITTEC) and
Western New York Incident
Management.................
Jackson, Mississippi 9/30/99 12/31/00 791,470
Intelligent Transpiration
System Implementation......
Kansas City Region 9/30/99 12/31/00 395,735
Integrated Automation
System Devices.............
Laredo, Texas Integration of 9/30/99 12/30/02 791,470
Intelligent Transportation
Systems....................
Law Enforcement Intelligent 9/30/99 5/30/01 791,469
Network Systems............
Mobile, Alabama ITS 9/30/99 12/31/02 1,979,000
Integration................
Montgomery, Alabama 9/30/99 11/30/00 989,337
Intelligent Transportation
System. Anticipated
challenge: Possible
schedule challenges with
installation of
communications.............
Nashville, Tennessee Area 9/30/99 12/31/01 396,735
Intelligent Transportation
Sys- tem..................
Nevada Archived Data 9/30/99 12/31/00 105,095
Subsystem Component of Las
Vegas Area Freeway and
Arterial System of
Transportation.............
New York City Multi- 9/30/99 10/30/01 1,978,674
Operating Agency Integrated
Transportation Management
System (ITMS)..............
New York City/Long Island 9/30/99 10/30/01 1,300,380
Transportation Management
Center (TMC) Integration...
Raleigh/Wake Co., North 9/30/99 12/31/01 1,582,939
Carolina ITS Integration...
Riverside County Transit ITS 9/30/99 11/30/02 791,496
Demonstration..............
San Francisco, California 9/30/99 9/30/01 1,187,000
Integrated Transportation
Management System Project..
Springfield, Missouri Region 9/30/99 11/30/00 45,735
ITS Planning Document......
Springfield, Virginia 9/30/99 11/30/01 395,735
Interstate Interchange.....
St. Louis Region Smart 9/30/99 12/31/00 593,602
Integrated Metropolitan
Area Map...................
State of Minnesota-Metro/ 9/30/99 On-going 3,699,000
Rural...................... 1,920,000
CVO Deployment..............
State of Mississippi ITS 9/30/99 12/31/00 441,470
Integration Project-Metro/ 350,000
Rural......................
CVO Deployment..............
State of New Jersey-Metro/ 9/30/99 11/30/01 2,024,407
Rural...................... 350,000
CVO Deployment..............
State of New Mexico 9/30/99 11/30/00 50,000
Statewide ITS Architecture- 741,000
Metro/ Rural...............
CVO Deployment..............
State of Texas Statewide 9/30/99 11/30/01 791,470
Software and Systems 50,000
Integration Center-to-
Center Communications
Project-Metro/Rural........
CVO Deployment..............
Temecula, California I-15 9/30/99 11/30/00 197,867
Traffic Surveillance and
Signal System Integration
Project. Anticipated
challenge: Aggressive
schedule. Communications
interfaces.................
Tucson, Arizona Integration 9/30/99 6/30/02 791,469
of Real-Time Traffic
Information for Adaptive
Signal Control, Traveler
Information and Management
of Transit and Emergency
Services...................
Utah ITS Integration........ 9/30/99 12/31/02 2,849,290
Washington, DC Metropolitan 9/30/99 12/31/00 3,957,348
Region ITS Integration.....
Westchester/Putnam Counties, 9/30/99 10/30/01 915,734
New York Regional Transit
Operations Information
Integration................
White Plains-Westchester 9/30/99 10/30/00 791,470
County, New York
Interoperable Coordinated
Signal System. Anticipated
challenge: Aggressive
schedule. Communications
links......................
Dade County, Florida. 2/11/00 2/28/01 791,000
Anticipated challenge:
Ambitious schedule.........
RURAL ITS INFRASTRUCTURE:
Alaska Cold Weather ITS 10/1/98 9/30/00 1,000,000
Sensing....................
Cumberland Gap Tunnel and 9/1/98 6/30/01 3,924,409
Regional Deployment
(Middlesboro, Kentucky)....
Franklin County, 9/30/98 6/30/00 875,000
Massachusetts Travel
Information System.........
I-90/I-94 Rural Wisconsin 10/30/98 10/30/00 2,125,000
ITS Corridor...............
Oakland County, Michigan-- 9/30/98 12/31/01 Ph I--
Southeast Michigan Snow and 1,150,000 Ph
Ice Management (SEMSIM).... II--791,470
Sullivan County, New York 10/30/98 10/30/00 1,000,000
Emergency Weather System...
Washington State Radio 10/1/98 10/30/00 750,000
Communication Emergency
Call Boxes.................
Washington State Roadway 10/1/98 10/30/00 1,250,000
Weather Information System.
Brandon, Vermont............ 9/30/99 11/30/00 296,801
Fitchburg, Massachusetts- 9/30/99 7/30/01 395,735
Montachusett Regional
Transit Authority ITS
Integration................
Monroe County, New York 9/30/99 11/1/01 316,587
Integration Project........
Port Angeles, Washington.... 9/30/99 11/30/01 395,735
Rural ITS Swiss Army Knife 9/30/99 6/30/01 248,823
Trailer....................
Spokane, Washington State 9/30/99 4/30/01 356,161
Route 395 Traveler
Information Project........
State of Idaho ITS 9/30/99 12/31/01 441,000
Integration-Metro/Rural.... 350,000
CVO Deployment..............
State of Washington ITS 9/30/99 12/31/01 973,000
Deployment and Integration- 610,000
Metro/Rural................
CVO Deployment. Anticipated
challenge: Possible
software hardware
integration challenges.....
State of Wisconsin ITS 9/30/99 12/31/01 837,204
Integration-Metro/Rural.... 350,000
CVO Deployment..............
Warren County, Virginia..... 9/30/99 11/30/01 197,867
Wausau/Stevens Point, 9/30/99 6/30/01 791,470
Wisconsin..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following fiscal year 1999 earmarked sites for the ITS
Integration Program are in the final stages of preparing final funding
agreements, incorporating project details into State Transportation
Improvement Programs and other measures. Imminent completion of these
measures is anticipated at which time funds will be obligated.
Fiscal Year 1999 Earmarks which will be (but are not yet) obligated in
fiscal year 2000
Unobligated Funds
Alaska.................................................. 837,000
Amherst, Massachusetts.................................. 791,000
Centre Valley, Pennsylvania............................. 396,000
Delaware River, Pennsylvania............................ 791,000
Hammond, Louisiana...................................... 3,166,000
Mission Viejo, California............................... 791,000
New Orleans, Louisiana.................................. 1,187,000
North Dakota State University ATAC...................... 302,000
Tri-State Rural ATIS (Northeast ITS Implementation)..... 250,000
Onandaga County, New York............................... 317,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania............................ 10,731,000
Scranton, Pennsylvania.................................. 791,000
University of North Dakota--ATWIS....................... 549,000
Volusia County, Florida................................. 791,000
JPO SUPPORT
Question. Please specify on a contract by contract basis how the
fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001 program
support monies were used or will be used. Please indicate the scope,
nature, and amount of each contract.
Answer. There are two principal contractors that provide program
support to the JPO; ITS America, and the Mitretek Corp. ITS America is
the official advisory committee to the U.S. DOT on the ITS program, and
organizes and staffs the national committees that address each major
facet of the program. These committees are one of the formal forums to
bring together technical expertise in specific areas to review the
program, suggest research issues to be addressed, and provide a venue
for policy discussions with the ITS community. In addition, there are
specific tasks the U.S.DOT requests ITS America to perform that require
access to their membership, or that they are uniquely qualified to
provide. The U.S. DOT funding covers only these activities, and
represents $2.5 million of the approximately $11 million 2000 annual
budget of ITS America.
The Mitretek Corp. provides the principal technical support
function for the JPO. Mitretek's support can be categorized into 7
general areas:
--Program planning and assessment
--The rural program
--System architecture and deployment
--Communications and frequency spectrum
--Safety technology research for NHTSA
--IVI program
--Incorporating ITS into the transportation planning process
Mitretek is the technical arm of the JPO. As such, they review and/
or generate all of the technical guidance, analyses, and research
activities in which the JPO is engaged. Most of the small JPO staff are
each managing several areas of the program, and also provide the policy
development options and rationale for senior management. The Mitretek
staff is the support that allows the existence of a small JPO staff to
accomplish these tasks. In 1999, the JPO developed and produced
separate technical documents that encompassed technical guidance,
results of research and deployment, outreach, and informational
documents for use by cities and states across the country. Mitretek
drafted many of these documents and is the only entity that maintains
in depth technical expertise in all facets of the ITS Program.
There are several small activities that provide support to the JPO
in the areas of the computer network, the internet Web page, special
support for conferences and workshops, and consultants for special
issues that arise during the conduct of the program.
The expenditures for program support fall into three categories;
ITS America, Mitretek, and miscellaneous support activities.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -----------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS America......................... 2.5 2.6 2.6
Mitretek............................ 5.25 5.5 5.5
Misc. Support....................... 1.25 0.66 1.0
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 9.0 8.766 9.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS
Question. Please specify the amount and purposes of all fiscal year
1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000 contracts relating to the
national systems architecture and standards work.
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000,
$2.498 million, $4.306 million and $4.830 million, respectively, have
been placed on system architecture contracts in support of architecture
program activities. This includes $1.250 million in fiscal year 1998,
$2.103 million in fiscal year 1999 and $2.355 million in fiscal year
2000 to Lockheed Martin and $1.248 million in fiscal year 1998, $2.203
million in fiscal year 1999 and $2.475 million in fiscal year 2000 to
Iteris, Inc. (formally Odetics, ITS). These funds and contracts
support:
Architecture Deployment Support.--Deployment technical assistance
involves direct interface with state, local, and regional
transportation planners and engineers. As the top priority, the
Architecture Team is conducting workshops at many sites around the
country to help structure their individual site architectures, to
facilitate the identification of common interfaces, and to keep them
apprized of ITS standards related to their individual projects. As part
of this effort to broad groups of state and local transportation
planners, the Architecture Team has and is providing technical support,
reviewing draft transportation plans and architectures, and giving
presentations to stakeholders and ITS deployers at numerous meetings
and conferences throughout the country. In addition, development of an
interactive software tool, ``Turbo Architecture'', for ITS planners and
designers has been completed and will be available in May 2000. This
tool will assist them in using the National ITS Architecture as a
reference to develop their unique ITS regional and project
architectures.
Architecture Training.--The Architecture Team's previously
developed two and three-day architecture training courses have now been
given on more than 100 occasions to nearly 2200 persons throughout the
country through March 2000. These classes have both public and private
sector participation and considerable interaction between the students
and members of the architecture team. The courses include use of the
CD-ROM version of the architecture as well as practical exercises. A
three-day advanced architecture course has been developed as a follow-
on and is being given to FHWA and FTA ITS specialists to further
enhance their knowledge and understanding.
Architecture New User Service Changes.--The rural user community is
in the process of developing a new user service to define ITS needs in
the area of rural ``operations and maintenance''. This is expected to
become the thirty-second user service. Work should begin in late CY
2000 to expand the National ITS Architecture by integrating this
stakeholder user service as had been previously done with both highway-
rail intersection and archived data.
Maintenance of the National ITS Architecture.--The architecture
team is maintaining and keeping the National ITS Architecture current
based on ITS standards development efforts and deployment experiences.
Design documents from ITS deployment efforts and draft standards from
the five standards development organizations under DOT contract have
and are currently being reviewed for modifications and additions to the
architecture, with more than 100 such modifications in the most recent
revision. In addition, a new section, market packages, was developed in
response to stakeholder user requirements.
Distribution of the National ITS Architecture.--Two major means are
being used to put the architecture in the hands of transportation
planners and engineers. More than 9000 copies of the third version
(3.0) of the National ITS Architecture, which includes the Archived
Data User Service (ADUS), are being distributed on CD-ROM. Distribution
of this version began in December 1999. In addition, the most current
version of the architecture is and has been available on the FHWA ITS
web site as well as the ITS America web site.
In fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000, $7.673
million, $9.51 million, and $9 million, respectively, have been placed
on contracts to advance standards work. The standards program is
categorized into five areas:
1. Research and Development, which includes analyzing and defining
standards requirements.
2. Standards Development, which provides funding for standards
development organizations to write the standards and for technical
support organizations to analyze and report on current standards and
standards development efforts.
3. Testing and Interoperability, which involves investigating the
performance of the standards, measuring the degree of interoperability
in standardized systems, rigorously ``proving'' the standards in
realistic transportation settings under realistic operating conditions,
and providing information about their performance to public agencies.
4. Implementation, which provides transportation stakeholders
involved in deploying ITS systems with outreach, resource materials and
information, such as user guides and other documentation about the
standards, and training and technical assistance.
5. Conformity, which includes policy development and rulemaking
support. For the standards program, in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000, the following amounts (in thousands) were budgeted to advance ITS
standards in the five areas:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------
1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Development.................. 400 600 ........
Standards Development..................... 5,413 4,150 4,400
Testing and Interoperability.......... 1,860 2,300 2,500
Implementation........................ ........ 2,460 1,900
Conformity................................ ........ ........ 200
-----------------------------
Totals.............................. 7,673 9,510 9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the three-year period, contracts for the standards
development effort were primarily to standards development
organizations to write standards. Five standards development
organizations are supported through cooperative agreements. These are
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). Other contracts for standards development support were
awarded to the Volpe Transportation Systems Center, to provide planning
and analysis assistance, and The Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Laboratory, to develop and evaluate dedicated short range
communications and electronic data interchange standards. Mitretek
Systems and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) provided technical and
program management support.
In the area of testing and interoperability, Battelle Memorial
Laboratory ran the formal standards testing program, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory tested location referencing approaches and developed metrics
and tests for interoperability, and The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics
Laboratory tested commercial vehicle electronic data interchange
standards and dedicated short range communications (DSRC) standards.
In the area of implementation, lessons learned reports were
provided by Battelle and resource materials and training were provided
by JPL, ITE, Volpe, the U.S. DOT Peer-to-Peer Program, the U.S. DOT
Professional Capacity Building Program, and Equals3.
ITS SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
Question. During fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year 2000, which ITS
projects required supplemental federal funding above the amounts
specified in their original cooperative agreements? Why were these
additional funds added?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, $250,000 of additional funding was
added to the Automated Collision Notification Operational Field Test to
allow for additional data collection. While no other projects requested
funding increases, several received additional earmarked funding in the
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 appropriations.
INTERMODAL FREIGHT TECHNOLOGY
Question. Please provide a description of the two projects selected
for intermodal freight technology operational testing. What do you
expect to gain from these tests? How much money will be spent on each
project? What amount of cost sharing was received for each project?
Answer. The two tests are with the ATA Foundation in conjunction
with Illinois State DOT, and with Washington State DOT.
The ATA Foundation project with Illinois State DOT builds on a
phase I activity called the ``O'Hare Air Cargo Security Access System''
conducted by FAA, O'Hare Airport and the ATA Foundation. The phase I
project's objective was to develop a biometric smart card access system
that would both expedite the transfer of truck-air cargo and enhance
the process' security. The project was developed, installed, and tested
in Chicago using 87 trucking companies, 12 airlines and 500 drivers.
The Phase II project is called ``An Integrated Cargo Information
and Security System for Intermodal Distribution Channels'', which the
focus of the partnership with USDOT. In Phase II, a secured multimodal
electronic cargo manifest will be developed allowing for the automated
transfer of comprehensive cargo data across transportation modes and
political jurisdictions. The primary objective of Phase II is to
enhance operational efficiency for freight shippers and operators,
while ensuring cargo safety and security for the public good. Similar
to Phase I, Phase II will involve biometric smart card technologies to
ensure system integrity and security. The system will also utilize an
internet-based electronic manifest. Lastly, the project will be
installed and beta-tested in Chicago's O'Hare Airport using
approximately 10 manufacturers, 10-15 trucking companies, and 5-10 air
cargo carriers and receivers that will be recruited by SecurCom and the
ATA Foundation. After the beta-test is successfully completed, a second
airport and supply chain will be added at Newark, New Jersey.
The total project budget is $1,098,000 with $468,000 in federal
funds, a $630,000 match from ILDOT and ATA Foundation.
The second project is focused on the Pacific Northwest is in
partnership with the Washington State DOT. The purpose of the project
is to link public highway ITS technology with private port-side
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) systems. This will decrease operating
costs and reduce congestion by permitting freight organizations to
identify and bypass transportation bottlenecks.
The project will involve the Puget Sound Regional Council, the
Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, several maritime shipping lines, U.S.
Customs, a private company that manufactures electronic tags and the
Washington Trucking Association. Three test systems will be developed
and evaluated as part of this project:
--The use of disposable electronic container doors seal (E-Seals) as
a tool to track shipping containers both in the port and along
roadways.
--Several traveler information systems designed to reduce congestion
on roads leading to a port's gate. Systems being examined
include Internet cameras showing roads leading to port gates
and a trucker-oriented web site for container pickup
notification.
--Linking the many ITS in the region to collect freight data to
support local and regional freight planning.
--The total project budget is $700,000, with $350,000 in federal
funds, a $350,000 match from Washing State DOT.
NATIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE
Question. How are investments in earmarked ITS deployment projects
impacting the National ITS Architecture? What progress has been made
toward implementing the TEA-21 provision regarding conformance with the
National ITS Architecture and Standards? What issues remain?
Answer. USDOT is using investments in earmarked ITS deployment
projects to advance the National ITS Architecture by requiring that
these projects use the National ITS Architecture and, in most cases,
make provisions for development of a regional architecture.
Requirements for ITS earmarked projects are based on the proposed
policy on conformance with the National ITS Architecture and standards
as contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The project
proposal for the earmarked ITS project shall explicitly state how the
National ITS Architecture will be incorporated into the project. The
proposed integration project must be part of an existing regional ITS
architecture, or, if a regional ITS architecture does not exist, the
development of a regional ITS architecture must be either ongoing or
proposed to be developed in conjunction with the proposed integration.
Further, if the proposed project develops a regional architecture it
must use the National ITS Architecture in the development; must make
provision to include participation from all agencies with which
information-sharing is planned; and the regional architecture must
include a concept of operations and conceptual design.
Considerable progress has been made toward implementing the TEA-21
provision regarding conformance with the National ITS Architecture and
Standards. Two NPRMs have been developed that when taken together will
implement the TEA-21 provision regarding ITS architecture and standards
conformance. The NPRMs are currently in the signature process. The
proposed policy contained in the NPRMs was developed through
significant internal discussions and through extensive feedback from
stakeholder groups.
The proposed policy spans the transportation planning process and
project development; therefore, part of the proposed policy is
contained in the NPRM on metropolitan and statewide transportation
planning. The remainder of the policy is contained in an NPRM titled
``Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture and Standards.'' The
NPRMs are expected to be published in May 2000. A 90-day comment period
follows publication after which USDOT must assess and respond to each
comment. During the 90-day comment period, seven outreach sessions will
be held throughout the country. The purpose of the sessions is to
clarify the proposed rule and to encourage comment. If the comments are
not significant, a final policy can be developed based on the NPRM and
responses to the docket. A final policy could be published in late 2000
but, more likely, in early 2001. Extensive comments would require
additional time.
The primary issues lie after publication of the final rule.
Assuming the final rule is similar to the currently proposed rule, the
final rule will have impact on numerous transportation agencies. USDOT
is currently developing a strategy to support policy implementation
with 1) federal field staff and 2) stakeholders.
For federal field staff, technical expertise must be developed
sufficiently to enable clear understanding, and consistent
implementation and oversight of the policy. Additionally, we anticipate
that federal field staff are key to supporting policy implementation
with stakeholders. We find that developing sufficient technical depth
requires repeated exposure to and application of the policy's
principals. We anticipate training, application workshops and
repetitious video and teleconferences for federal field staff.
For stakeholders, technical expertise must be developed
sufficiently to implement the policy. Stakeholders include Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPO), state departments of transportation, city
and county transportation departments and others. Some stakeholders,
such as state, city and county transportation professionals and,
possibly, technical staff within an MPO, require technical expertise at
a depth that enables development and maintenance of a regional
architecture. Training will be necessary in the principals of the
policy, the technical applications of the National ITS Architecture,
and the systems engineering process. For non-technical planning staff
and decision-makers an understanding of the application of the policy
is necessary at a higher level. These stakeholders need to understand
the basic principles and benefits of integration and interoperability
in order to apply it locally. Different training will likely be
required for planning staff along with an outreach effort to increase
awareness of the policy requirements.
INTEGRATION GOAL OF TITLE V
Question. How are you using investments in earmarked ITS deployment
projects to advance the integration goal of Title V of TEA-21?
Answer. The stated goal of the ITS Integration Program is to
accelerate the integration and interoperability of ITS across system,
jurisdictional and modal boundaries. To that end, all ITS earmarked
projects in metropolitan areas are required to focus on integration.
Each earmarked project is required to submit a project proposal.
Included in the project proposal is an explicit identification of the
ITS components that are proposed for integration. Additionally, the
proposal must describe the systems that will be integrated and the
technologies that will be deployed to integrate them. USDOT guidance
for these projects states that funding shall be used for activities
necessary to integrate ITS infrastructure components that are either
deployed (existing systems) or will be deployed with other sources of
funds. For projects in rural areas, the funds may be used for
integration purposes as well as for limited deployment of ITS. The
guidance material goes on to specify eligible activities all of which
are focused on integration. Development of a regional ITS architecture
is also an eligible expenditure since it provides the ``blueprint'' for
integrated deployment. The project proposal must also discuss how the
project addresses the other requirements of TEA21 including match,
architecture and standards conformance, and evaluation.
All ITS earmarked projects are subject to a review by FHWA field
staff and an independent validation by a mutli-agency team composed of
headquarters FHWA and FTA staff and FHWA Resource Center staff. That
review makes use of a checklist of key issues that must be
satisfactorily addressed to award funding. Two items on the checklist
are specific to integration. One item requires validation that the
proposed project is consistent with the goals and purposes of the ITS
Program as describe in Title V of TEA21. The other item requires
validation that the project proposal identifies the ITS infrastructure
components that will be integrated.
We have prepared an interim report on the TEA-21 ITS Deployment
Program outlining how this program is supporting integration. This
report will be submitted to the Committees under separate cover.
EARMARKED ITS DEPLOYMENT PROJECTS
Question. How are you using investments in earmarked ITS deployment
projects to advance ITS standards work?
Answer. ITS projects funded through Title V of TEA21 are primary
targets for the standards testing program. The guidance materials for
these projects requires that the project proposal identify the
applicable ITS standards and interoperability tests that are being
considered or are expected to be specified in the project. Further, the
project proposal shall explicitly state that the proposed integration
project will cooperate with the test site analysis and be prepared to
serve as an ITS standards testing site if selected. Each project will
be analyzed as a potential test site for the US DOT ITS Standards
Testing Program. Each project will be evaluated based on a set of
established criteria to find ITS field sites that can be used in the
ITS testing program.
ITS STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
Question. With the first wave of ITS standards development nearing
completion, what steps are being taken to incorporate these standards
into deployment at both the state and local levels?
Answer. Earmarked ITS deployment projects, as well as all other ITS
deployment projects, are being treated as opportunities to advance ITS
standards deployment, at the state and local levels, through testing,
outreach, education, technical support, and conformity support
activities.
With the standards development activity now producing a number of
approved standards, the emphasis on the standards program is shifting
from development towards implementation support. Testing, training, and
technical support are being given a greater emphasis and being
supported by a greater portion of the standards budget.
Standards testing at actual deployment sites provides information
to potential users on the reliability, functionality and performance of
systems based upon the standards. Building confidence in the standards
through standards testing and the wide distribution of the test results
will encourage early voluntary adoption of ITS standards at the state
and local levels.
Classroom training on the application of standards will be used to
assist users in incorporating the standards into ITS deployments. This
training will be developed in a modular fashion to allow easy
incorporation into existing traffic management and operations training
courses and to allow modules to be combined to meet the needs of a
particular jurisdiction.
Technical support will be provided through the development of a
wide variety of materials such as fact sheets, user guides, sample
procurement specifications, lessons learned and case studies. In
addition, as sites are beginning to use standards and run into
technical issues, the standards program is prepared to offer technical
assistance through the Peer-to-Peer program. Individuals familiar with
the standards and their use will be made available to deployers of ITS
systems for short-term support and troubleshooting.
Question. When will each of the adopted standards be required to be
incorporated into any project receiving federal aid funds?
Answer. Two policy setting processes must be complete for ITS
standards to be required in a federal ITS project.
First, the rulemaking must be complete that will require use of ITS
standards. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM) has been developed
and is currently in the signature process which implements section
5206(e) of TEA21 on conformance with ITS architecture and standards. A
section of that NPRM addresses the use of standards. The proposed
policy states that any federally funded ITS project shall use USDOT
adopted standards. The NPRM is expected to be issued in May 2000. USDOT
must address any comments on the NPRM, and develop and publish a final
policy. This process will likely be completed in late 2000 or early
2001. Assuming the final policy is the same as the proposed policy
contained in the NPRM, the use of USDOT adopted standards will then be
required on all federally funded ITS projects.
Second, specific ITS standards must be officially adopted by the
USDOT. Once a standard is developed, tested, and deemed ready to use it
must go through its own rulemaking process. Standards are proceeding in
this manner today. DSRC for commercial vehicle operations (CVO)
credentials and safety reports is the first standard for which
rulemaking has been initiated. The DSRC NPRM closed on February 25,
2000. Comments are new under review. Once the rulemaking process is
completed, the standard is considered to be a USDOT adopted standard.
Question. When will each of the adopted standards be required to be
incorporated into any project receiving Title V TEA-21 funds?
Answer. They will be required as soon as they are adopted. See the
answer to the previous question for details on the adoption process.
In the meantime, ITS projects funded through Title V of TEA21 are
primary targets for the standards testing program. The guidance
materials for these projects requires that the project proposal
identify the applicable ITS standards and interoperability tests that
are being considered or are expected to be specified in the project.
Further, the project proposal shall explicitly state that the proposed
integration project will cooperate with the test site analysis and be
prepared to serve as an ITS standards testing site if selected. Each
project will be analyzed as a potential test site for the USDOT ITS
Standards Testing Program. Each project will be evaluated based on a
set of established criteria to find ITS field sites that can be used in
the ITS testing program.
DEPLOYING ITS INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. In 1996, DOT set a goal of deploying the basic ITS
infrastructure in the major metropolitan areas within 10 years. What
progress has been made in achieving that goal?
Answer. In January 1996, Secretary Pena set a goal of integrated
ITS deployment in 75 of the largest metropolitan areas by 2006. The ITS
infrastructure being tracked consists of nine components: Freeway
Management; Incident Management; Transit Management; Emergency
Management; Transit Management; Electronic Toll Collection; Electronic
Fare Payment; Highway Rail Intersections; and, Regional Multimodal
Traveler Information. The definition of a complete deployment will vary
for each of the 75 metropolitan areas being tracked, in response to
variations in local conditions. Factors such as levels of congestion,
population growth rates, available budgets, and road and ramp geometry
can create quite different sets of requirements for ITS infrastructure
in each metropolitan area. Any methodology for measuring progress
toward the Secretary's goal must take into account the lack of a single
`one size fits all' solution.
Because of the variation in deployment requirements, it is not
currently possible to devise a set of individual deployment goals for
each metropolitan area. However, experience in tracking deployment and
integration has shown that minimum threshold levels for deployment and
integration can be established. These thresholds can provide a common
frame of reference for rating deployment and integration progress in
the largest metropolitan areas. Using an assessment of the level of
metropolitan ITS infrastructure deployment and integration of the
individual infrastructure components, metropolitan areas can be
assigned ratings of either high, medium, or low for their levels of
integrated deployment.
This methodology is based on thresholds that indicate a significant
state of deployment--for example, the deployment of surveillance on 20
percent of freeway miles-without necessarily indicating that deployment
is complete. Five deployment component areas are used: Freeway
Management/Incident Management; Arterial Management; Transit
Management; Emergency Management; and, Regional Multimodal Traveler
Information. A high rating is achieved when all five thresholds have
been attained, low when none are met, and medium where some have been
met. Integration is based on the existence of links between Freeway
Management, Transit Management, and Arterial Management. When all three
have at least some links, the metro area is high for integration. A
single rating is assigned that combines the deployment and integration
score.
As portrayed in the following figure, 27 regions are characterized
low, 26 as medium, and 22 as high in deployment in fiscal year 1999.
This can be contrasted with the 1997 deployment baseline in which 39
areas were characterized as low, 25 as medium, and 11 as high. The
information suggests that considerable progress has been made in the
deployment of integrated ITS over the past two years. A total of 10
areas increased to a high level of deployment and two areas moved from
low to medium level of integrated deployment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY04.001
The significance of crossing a threshold for either deployment or
integration is that a metro area has made a sustained effort to deploy
a significant level of at least some of the technology associated with
the components or to begin to integrate. It does not mean that
deployment or integration are complete. A better way to consider the
high, medium, and low ratings is that they are indications of momentum.
A high rating indicates broad interest in deploying a regionally
integrated ITS infrastructure with at least a significant beginning in
deploying and integrating all major components.
The measurement of progress for 1999 can be set in a context of
yearly goals leading to successful achievement of the Secretary's 2006
goal. The following figure portrays the level of integrated deployment
measured in 1997 and 1999 along with projected levels of deployment for
each year through 2005. No data were collected in 1998; therefore, only
the projected levels of integrated deployment are shown for 1998. This
figure shows that as of 1999, nationwide integrated deployment is
advancing at a rate compatible with the achievement of the Secretary's
year 2005 goal.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MY04.002
FEDERAL AID FUNDS FOR ITS DEPLOYMENT
Question. What evidence exists that the Title V projects are
accelerating the use of federal aid funds for ITS deployment?
Answer. Little quantitative data exists to measure how much Title V
projects are accelerating the use of federal aid funds for ITS
deployment; however, it is clear from review of these projects that
federal aid funds are being expended for ITS and that deployment is
accelerating.
The Title V ITS project funds require a 50 percent match. Of that
50 percent match, 20 percent must be cash or in-kind contributions
wholly related to the project. The other 30 percent match may come from
other federal sources. Typically, the 30 percent match is met by other
related ITS projects that are funded with federal aid dollars, such as
NHS or CMAQ funds. It is common for other federally funded ITS projects
to be significantly larger projects than the Title V ITS project.
Additionally, Title V ITS funds are only eligible for projects that
directly support integration and interoperability. In order for an
integration project to be viable, infrastructure components must be in
place. Therefore, in areas that have little existing ITS infrastructure
in place, the Title V project provides the impetus for the installation
of infrastructure through other funds, typically other federal aid
funds. Local governments are anxious to take advantage of the Title V
funds and, in many cases, that provides enough incentive for other ITS
projects to successfully compete for federal aid funds.
Finally, approximately 50 percent of the fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000 Title V projects are in a top 78 metropolitan area.
Data from the deployment tracking surveys for these locations indicates
an increase in ITS deployment from 1997 to 1999. Of the top 78
metropolitan areas surveyed in 1997, eleven were classified as ``high''
deployment areas, 25 were classified as ``medium'' and 39 were ``low''.
In 1999, the data shows a noticeable change with 22 areas classified as
``high'', 26 as ``medium'' and 27 as ``low''. We believe that the Title
V ITS projects with their focus on integration has contributed to this
increase in ITS deployment.
STANDARDS PROGRAM
Question. How much of the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
funds are likely to be spent on each of the following activities:
standards development, standards testing, outreach and education, and
standards refinement?
Answer. Under the standards program, in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001, the following amounts (in thousands) are likely to be spent
for the listed activities:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards Development............................... 3,950 3,200
Standards Testing................................... 1,700 1,700
Outreach and Education.............................. 1,900 2,300
Standards Refinement................................ 450 350
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The standards development activity provides funding for standards
development organizations to write the standards and for technical
support organizations to analyze and report on standards development,
testing and deployment efforts. Standards testing includes formally
investigating the correctness, completeness and operation of the
standards, measuring the degree of interoperability in standardized
systems, rigorously ``proving'' the standards in actual transportation
settings under realistic operating conditions, and providing
information about standards performance to stakeholders. While
development and testing support has assisted in the technical elements
of standardization, an even more significant element of the program
relates to actual usage of the formalized standards. Outreach and
education are priority activities that provide transportation
stakeholders with educational resource materials and technical
assistance in support of the deployment of ITS systems. This
information combined with an understanding of the application of the
standards is essential for successful implementation of ITS Standards.
The specific products to be developed and delivered under the outreach
and education effort include: user implementation guides, application
fact sheets, lessons learned and case studies, sample procurement
specifications, application training courses, and technical assistance
with implementation. Standards refinement activities address needed
modifications and extensions to the standards based upon information
obtained from formal standards testing and from the experiences of
vendors and users of the standards. Since the formal testing program is
in its early stages, the amounts for standards refinement are
estimated. These estimates are projected to be approximately 10 percent
of the development costs and are currently funded out of the standards
development budget.
STRATEGIC VISION FOR ITS RURAL PROGRAM
Question. Please outline the progress that has been made in
implementing a strategic vision for the ITS rural program and describe
how the fiscal year 2001 request addresses priority challenges.
Answer. We have made significant progress in defining the Rural ITS
Program and laying out an aggressive agenda of research, field testing
and deployment incentives to develop and deploy ITS systems and
services that address the needs of rural travelers and operators. In
order to focus the rural ITS research and development program and
assure continuity, the program has been organized around a set of
development tracks which allows for long-range output-oriented program
development. These tracks include Regional Infrastructure, Emergency
Services, Rural Transit, Rural Crash Prevention, Rural Traffic
Management, Tourism/Traveler Information, and Operations and
Maintenance. For each of these development tracks we have developed
long-range goals and interim milestones that are being used to direct
the program.
Efforts are planned in fiscal year 2001 to further several of the
rural development tracks that we consider priority areas. We will be
pursuing the deployment of enhanced wireless 911 and automatic
collision notification; the development of advanced signal control
systems for small communities; the development of practical variable
speed limit systems; the deployment of regional/multi-state traveler
information; the availability of detailed road specific road surface
and weather information for winter maintenance and traveler
information; improved rural transportation services (in cooperation
with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor).
A number of important milestones will be achieved in fiscal year
2001. Under the research program, a weather decision support systems
for surface transportation users will be developed; signal control
systems and traffic control strategies for small communities will be
developed; strategies for the deployment of enhanced wireless 911 and
automated collision notification systems will be developed; several
examples of integrated subsidized transportation services using ITS
technologies will be completed. Under the operational test program, we
will initiate a test of a rural variable speed limit system; a field
test of one or more rural safety warning systems; a multi-state
traveler information service; a test of accurate road surface condition
information; an enhanced wireless 911 test and an integrated subsidized
transportation service field test.
ITS RURAL PROGRAM
Question. What is the rationale for the requested fiscal year 2001
distribution of funds between research and operational tests in the ITS
rural program?
Answer. We have developed a program in rural ITS that we believe is
appropriately balanced between research and operational tests. In
fiscal year 2001 we have proposed a research budget of $2.75 million to
define and develop various rural ITS systems and services as defined in
our long range program as well as $7.55 million in operational tests to
complement the research program. As we have stated previously, there
are a number of reasons why the emphasis has been placed on operational
tests in the Rural ITS Program. Field operational tests allow us to
engage other stakeholders in the program which is especially important
in rural ITS where many of the stakeholders are not currently engaged
in ITS nor see how ITS relates to their transportation problems. Field
operational tests also ensure that the systems and services developed
and tested are practical and deployable. Field operational tests allow
us the opportunity to address some of the non-technical challenges
associated with the deployment of rural ITS. We are also following
advice received from the Appropriations Committee several years ago,
when it urged FHWA to spend more on rural ITS operational tests and
less on studies related to this program. Having said that there is
still a need to carry on a robust program of research and development
to address those issues that cannot adequately or efficiently be
addressed in a field test. Field tests are not an appropriate tool for
such important activities as assessing the extent of a problem,
exploring alternate solutions, initial system development or guidance
development. We believe this budget reflects that balanced approach.
its training
Question. How much was spent on professional capacity building
related to ITS during each of the last three fiscal years and how much
is proposed for funding in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The following amounts were spent on training during the
past three fiscal years:
1998--$6.063 M (includes $1.298M for CVO)
1999--$3,529 M (includes $998 for CVO)
2000--$3.350 M (includes $900 for CVO)
ITS HELPING STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Question. Please describe how the Department's fiscal year 2001
budget request for ITS research and deployment could help states and
local government entities improve their operations and management of
the surface transportation system. Please exclude from the discussion
the use of the additional contract funds requested beyond the amount
now authorized.
Answer. ITS research and deployment funds are being used to produce
a wide variety of products designed to help states and local government
entities improve their operations and maintenance practices.
Snow, ice, fog, rain and other inclement weather reduce the
capacity and safety of road systems. The FHWA will develop and begin
testing a winter maintenance weather decision support system for
managers and traveler information for travelers. This effort will build
upon previous efforts that have focused on roadway winter maintenance,
shifting the focus to a variety of road users (e.g., private travelers,
commercial vehicle operators, school bus operators, transit operator,
and emergency responders). Prototype testing will be conducted to
determine optimal information presentation and the filtering and fusing
of the various information sources that must take place to achieve this
presentation.
In support of releasing the ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS),
the FHWA will develop case studies on its use in the transportation
planning process. IDAS is as a cost benefit software tool that helps
communities determine the costs and benefits of implementing specific
ITS improvements. These case studies will supplement the training
course on how to use IDAS most effectively. Delivery of the training
course will begin in fiscal year 2001, and the Operations CBU will work
through our field staff and resource centers to ensure its wide
distribution.
Adaptive Signal Control Systems (ACS) allow traffic signal control
systems to respond to current traffic conditions in real time. Field
tests on three alternative ACS algorithms will be completed in fiscal
year 2001. The algorithms that have been developed for various
conditions will be commercially available shortly thereafter. The
Operations CBU will work through our field staff and resource centers
to raise awareness of the application of ACS, what works under what
conditions, and provide technical assistance to agencies that wish to
implement ACS.
Turbo Architecture is a software tool that was developed in
response to our partners' needs in developing regional ITS
architectures. It walks the users through the National ITS Architecture
through a question and answer process, thereby helping them develop
regional and local ITS architectures consistent with the National ITS
Architecture. In support of its release at the 2000 ITS America Annual
Meeting, training courses will be completed and delivered in fiscal
year 2001. Also, the Operations CBU is working with the FHWA field
staff and resource centers to ensure that proper technical assistance
is available to Turbo Architecture users.
CORSIM (CORridor SIMulation), which is one of the most
comprehensive traffic simulation models in the world, allows users to
simulate traffic and traffic control conditions on street, corridor,
and freeway networks, and measure operational performance. Version 5.0
of CORSIM is integral to a new user friendly version of the traffic
simulation suite TSIS, which will provide for an easier method for user
to enter data and view the results of the simulation. TSIS 5.0,
released late in fiscal year 2000, enables state and local agencies to
simulate freeways and large street networks, including ramp metering
interactions, for alternatives analyses and planning. In fiscal year
2001, the FHWA will continue to support CORSIM users through the
McTrans center, as well as offer training courses on using the
simulation.
The ITS Professional Capacity Building (PCB) program has trained
almost 9,000 people in various travel management topics geared toward
the operation and management of the transportation system. We have also
trained over 3,000 people in CVO courses, and over 12,000 people have
seen the CVO technology truck. Several states have started to tailor
courses to meet their specific needs, including California, Virginia,
Florida, and Utah. The focus of the ITS PCB program, especially in
fiscal year 2001, is on distance learning, or providing the key
technical training courses to the people who need them, when and where
they can obtain the training. Working with university partners, three
web-based training courses will be delivered in fiscal year 2001, which
will reach many additional people to assist them in operating and
managing their transportation systems.
In addition to activities solely funded with ITS program funds, we
will also pursue other activities with a mix of ITS and Operations
program funding. In the area of improved work zone operations, FHWA
will be developing decision-making tools which will allow practitioners
to evaluate alternate strategies to mitigate the mobility and safety
impacts resulting from work zones. We will also continue to develop and
deliver technical guidance and training in a number of ITS and
operations areas, such as traveler information, traffic management,
incident management, arterial management, HOV facilities, and travel
demand management.
REALIGNMENT OF JPO
Question. Please discuss how and whether the realignment of the JPO
with the operations core business unit in FHWA has delivered more
effective guidance and technical assistance regarding ITS to state and
local government entities.
Answer. In general, the FHWA realignment has had little impact on
the operation of the ITS Joint Program Office (ITS JPO). The ITS JPO
continues to provide the planning, strategic direction, coordination
and oversight for the ITS program in an independent, multi-modal
manner. The Director of the ITS JPO continues to report to both the
FHWA Administrator and the Deputy Secretary of DOT. The significant
change as a result of realignment has been the ITS JPO Director serving
in a dual capacity as the FHWA Operations Core Business Unit, Program
Manager. This change has improved FHWA's ability to deliver guidance
and technical assistance regarding ITS to state and local governments
by:
--Streamlining the decision-making process and bringing about an
increased continuity between the ITS JPO and the FHWA units
charged with ITS Deployment;
--Integrating ITS into the FHWA leadership through the inclusion of
the Operations CBU, Program Manager as part of the FHWA
Management Council. In this capacity the Operations, Program
Manager works directly with the FHWA Headquarters and Field
leadership on the implementation of ITS programs and policies;
and
--Facilitating the creation of an ITS Deployment team within the
Operations CBU. This team works directly with the ITS staff in
the FHWA field offices to support deployment at the State and
local level.
REPORTS PERTAINING TO ITS
Question. Please list each of the reports or strategic plans that
pertain to ITS as specified in TEA-21 and discuss your progress on each
one to date. How much of the fiscal year 2000 budget is allocated to
complete those reports or plans and how much is requested in the fiscal
year 2001 budget to further these efforts.
Answer. There are two reports or strategic plans that pertain to
ITS that are specified in TEA-21. The first is in Section 5206(b), and
is the Report on Critical Standards. The TEA-21 required the Department
to submit a report to Congress, not later than June 1, 1999,
identifying which standards are critical to ensuring national
interoperability or critical to the development of other standards and
specifying the status of the development of each standard identified.
The ITS critical standards report was completed and submitted to
Congress in July 1999. The critical standards report is available on
the ITS website at www.its.dot.gov. Since the report is complete, no
funding will be required in fiscal year 2000 for this activity. The
second item is the National ITS Program Plan as required in Section
5205(a)(1) and (a)(2). In order to fulfill this directive in the most
timely and useful manner, the DOT has broken down the requirement into
three distinct parts: a Five-year Plan; a Ten-year Plan; and a National
Deployment Strategy.
The Five-year Plan concentrates on codifying the ITS program's
deployment road maps that were developed by DOT in 1998. It addresses
how DOT carries out the ITS program under TEA-21 and will broadly guide
all program, policy and budget decisions over the next five years. The
Draft Five-year Plan has been completed and will be transmitted to
Congress after the Office of the Secretary completes its final review.
It will be submitted as part of the Surface Transportation Research and
Development Strategic Plan.
The Ten-year Plan will focus on identifying a longer-term, next
generation ITS research agenda. It will be developed by DOT in
partnership with the larger ITS community through ITS America. The Ten-
year Plan effort began in February 2000 and will be completed by early
2001.
The National Deployment Strategy is the third part. Unlike the
Five- and Ten-year Plans, which focus primarily on DOT activities, the
National Deployment Strategy will define the larger array of actions
that must be undertaken. ITS America is leading this effort which
involves State and local governments, as well as industry, to define
the broader strategic actions necessary--beyond DOT spending--to bring
about widespread ITS deployment in the United States. The National
Deployment Strategy was completed in February 2000 and is being
printed. It will be transmitted to the Congress shortly.
It is anticipated that $250,000 will be required in fiscal year
2000 to develop the Ten-Year plan. No fiscal year 2001 funds have been
requested for this effort.
ITS INTEGRATION PROGRAMS
Question. As part of the ITS program, FHWA spends millions of
dollars on outreach, public information, mainstreaming, and training.
Please provide a table indicating the amount of funding spent on each
of those activities for each of the last three years and how much is
planned for fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The following table depicts what the ITS program actually
spent on Integration (Mainstreaming) programs in fiscal years 1998 and
1999 and the amounts anticipated to be spent on this activity in fiscal
years 2000 and 2001:
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Assistance........ $3,835 $2,950 $4,766 $5,800
Planning/Policy............. 20 450 500 1,000
Training.................... 6,063 \1\ 1,559 3,350 3,700
Outreach/Comm............... 919 717 660 580
Mainstreaming............... ......... ......... 500 .........
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 10,837 5,676 9,776 11,080
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $1.970M for CVO and Architecture training included under
those program categories.
Note: Fiscal year 2000 amount for Mainstreaming (printing and exhibits)
shown under Integration whereas in other fiscal years these costs were
included in program budgets.
INTERMODAL FREIGHT ACTIVITIES
Question. Please discuss the scope, nature, benefits and costs of
the Department's ITS intermodal freight activities. How much was
invested in that area during each of the last two fiscal years and how
much is requested for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The ITS intermodal program complements One DOT efforts to
coordinate planning and infrastructure development across transport
modes. It ensures that technologies applied are interoperable,
efficient, and well coordinated. Intermodal is increasingly the means
by which trade moves. Trade is also typically multijurisdictional; that
is, several States, localities, and other countries may be involved in
intermodal freight movement. Given the increasingly reliance on
intermodality and the issues of multijurisdictional coordination, a
strong Federal presence is required to ensure a strategic and
coordinated perspective by all parties. Between 1981 and 1997, the
share of U.S. GDP devoted to freight logistics declined from 18.1
percent to 10.4 percent, but has recently increased to 10.8 percent.
Developing a strong national ITS intermodal program to improve freight
flow efficiency will allow U.S. firms to (1) reduce freight logistics
costs; (2) adapt innovative manufacturing/distribution strategies to
compete more effectively in a global market; and (3) support advanced
corporate basic and applied research programs. The partnership between
industry and government will benefit both parties, strengthening the
U.S. economic base, protecting U.S. jobs and providing opportunities
for advanced technology job creation. This partnership is not possible
without strong Federal involvement.
Funding prior to fiscal year 1999 was focused on determining a need
for an ITS Freight Architecture, to support an Intermodal Freight
Technology Working Group within ITS America, and to develop a research
design for an intermodal freight operational test. Funding was also
used to help support an intermodal task force within US DOT.
During fiscal year 1999, $500,000 was used to fund ITS intermodal
freight pilot projects solicited by a March 1999 Request for
Applications (RFA). An additional $100,000 was used to support the ITS
America Intermodal Freight Working Group (IFTWG) initiation of the
mapping of the intermodal freight process from origin to destination.
The IFTWG, a one-of-a-kind public/private initiative, was identified at
the first ITS America Intermodal Freight Identification Technology
Conference in Reston, Virginia as the means by which a successful
intermodal freight program could be developed and implemented. The
creation of the IFTWG, and the process mapping project, are key inputs
to identifying potential improvements in inter-modal freight efficiency
including applications of ITS technology.
During fiscal year 2000, $1,000,000 is being used to conduct six
major tasks. The first of these is to complete the mapping of the
intermodal freight process under the IFTWG. The border operational
tests on safety systems, being conducted in conjunction with U.S.
Customs, is scheduled for completion. A border crossing modeling tool
will be developed to establish a baseline and to measure the benefits
of ITS improvements. Oversight and evaluation of the freight
operational tests in the Pacific Northwest and in Chicago and Newark
will continue. These operational tests include multimodal technology
applications to link appropriate information systems that will expedite
the movement of trucks through major metropolitan areas as they deliver
and pick up containers at port and air freight facilities. A National
Freight Technology Conference will be held in Rosslyn to continue the
partnership with the Department of Defense and industry on technology
harmonization.
In fiscal year 2001, $3 million is requested to build on lessons
learned and conduct additional operational tests in major metropolitan
areas to enhance the efficiency and safety of commercial vehicle
traffic. Additionally the focus of attention will be on the development
of a user service to begin the development of a freight architecture as
a component of the ITS National Architecture. The freight architecture
will support State and MPO responsibilities in facilitating interstate
commerce and ensuring public safety.
Included in that activity will be a border architecture to link the
activities of transportation, customs and immigration. The two
operational tests in the Pacific Northwest and Chicago and Newark are
expected to be concluded in fiscal year 2001 and there will be
continuing oversight on the commercial vehicle container drayage
project.
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS
Question. What progress have you made in meeting the TEA-21 goal to
``deploy CVISN in a majority of states by 2003?'' How many and which
states will be using a Level 1 CVISN by 2003?
Answer. Forty-two states are in one of the three steps for CVISN
Level 1 deployment-planning, design, or deployment. Currently, twelve
states are in step 1, planning; twenty states are in step 2, design;
and ten states (the original two prototype and eight pilot states) are
in step 3, deployment.
Based on a recent survey of all states, eight states have indicated
that they expect to complete Level 1 deployment by September 30, 2002.
They consist of the two CVISN prototype and six pilot states which have
been fully funded to complete Level 1 deployment. We expect Kentucky,
Maryland, Washington, and Virginia to be deploying CVISN Level 1
capabilities by the end of fiscal year 2000, and California and
Minnesota to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001. We also
expect Colorado and Connecticut to complete Level 1 deployment by the
end of fiscal year 2002.
Thirty additional states also responded that they expect to deploy
CVISN Level 1 capabilities by September 30, 2003, contingent upon
receiving fiscal year 2001 federal ITS deployment funds and/or state
resources to support CVISN deployment. The ability to direct federal
ITS deployment funds to states which are ready to begin CVISN
deployment will help the Department achieve the Congressional goal of
completing CVISN deployment in a majority of states by September 30,
2003. The lack of federal ITS deployment funds puts the FMCSA's, the
FHWA's and the states' ability to meet this Congressional goal in
jeopardy.
Question. Please discuss your plans to specify a DSRC standard for
commercial vehicles that would need to be used in projects using
federal aid funds. When do you anticipate a final standard? Will your
involvement in this standards process provide a neutral basis towards
both passive and active approaches?
Answer. Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) is the
technology that is used to perform the electronic screening and
clearance of commercial vehicles. Electronic screening allows trucks
and buses that are equipped with DSRC transponders to bypass weight/
inspection stations if they are safe and legal. Electronic clearance is
a component of CVISN, which is defined as the collection of information
systems and communication networks that support CVO.
The competitive battle over the selection of a technology for use
in Dedicated Short Range Communications applications has been going on
since the mid-eighties as part of the normal economic and competitive
market place. There are two basic transponder technologies employed for
DSRC: the ``passive'' approach provided by two suppliers, and the
``active'' approach provided by two other suppliers.
In the early nineties, when DSRC technology was applied to the CVO
application, two consortiums of states selected the active approach to
implement their CVO functions. These consortiums consisted of six
states on the west coast, the HELP Crescent project, and the Advantage
I-75 project consisting of six midwest states along the I-75 corridor.
(These consortia are now known by their commercial names; PREPASS and
NORPASS respectively.)
In parallel with these CVO activities, the industry was trying to
agree on a common standard through the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) standards setting organization.
The US DOT has been actively involved in this standards process
since 1996, and has convened numerous meetings with the various
elements of the industry and the users of DSRC technology to encourage
the industry to arrive at a consensus. Although the DOT has financially
supported ITS standards to accelerate the process, the industry,
manufacturers and users are the ones that must agree on a standard. The
DOT has not taken sides in the discussion. The DOT's interest is that a
standard be adopted.
However, because of their individual commercial interests and their
large installed base, principally in electronic toll collection, the
industry has been unwilling to agree on a single standard for DSRC.
Therefore, at the conclusion of the standards process, the industry
agreed to disagree and adopted a standards that includes both the
active and passive technologies.
As a result of the standards stalemate, the DOT entered a
regulatory process to require the use of a single technology for CVO
applications to ensure national interoperability.
The only option available to the DOT is to choose a technology that
was already being used by all the states using DSRC for CVO
applications. Thus, the proposed solution is to build upon the
equipment already installed, or being installed by 23 states. The
proposed rule would require the use of the active technology that is
now deployed, with the addition of features from the ASTM standard and
the IEEE standard that deals with the application of the devices. This
new device would be backward compatible with the existing equipment
installed or planned by the states. Therefore, states would not have to
modify their existing installations. It is proposed that this
provisional standard be employed after January 1, 2001. This
provisional standard would not effect electronic toll collection. This
proposed regulation was published on December 30, 1999, as FHWA Docket
No. 99-5844. The comment period on this proposed regulation closed on
February 28, 2000. The US DOT is in the process of evaluating the
comments received and expects to publish the final regulation by the
middle of 2000.
DSRC PLANS
Question. Which technology will be disadvantaged if the Department
proceeds with its current DSRC plans?
Answer. There currently exists a de facto standard for CVO
applications. All of the 23 states deploying CVO technology have chosen
the active approach. The DOT's proposed regulation would require that
all future deployments continue to use the active approach. Thus, the
current DSRC plans have the effect of disadvantaging the passive
technology.
DSRC STANDARDS
Question. Please discuss why the Department maintains that it must
get involved in the DSRC standard, paying particular attention to
regional considerations and cross country operations.
Answer. Section 5206(c)(1) of TEA-21 states that:
If the Secretary finds that the development or balloting of
an intelligent transportation system standard jeopardizes the
timely achievement of the objectives (interoperability), the
Secretary may establish a provisional standard after
consultation with affected parties, and using, to the extent
practicable, the work product of appropriate standards
development organizations.
After several years of trying US DOT has concluded that the
industry balloting process cannot nor will not achieve a standard for
commercial vehicle operations and that the lack of a DSRC standard will
result in non-interoperability among states and regions which are
routinely traversed by commercial vehicles in interstate commerce.
Section 5206(c)(2) goes on to state that:
If a standard identified as critical in the report under
subsection (b) is not adopted and published by the appropriate
standards development organization by January 1, 2001, the
Secretary shall establish a provisional standard after
consultation with affected parties, and using, to the extent
practicable, the work product of appropriate standards
development organizations.
The CVO application of DSRC is the only current use that is
considered as necessary for national interoperability, as defined in
the ``Critical Standards Report'' submitted to Congress on April.
The objective of the CVO program is to allow vehicles that have
good safety records to travel across the country without stopping for
interstate or intrastate inspections. This goal can only be achieved if
there is uniformity among the states in how the identification of
vehicles is accomplished. Since, the industry has not been able to
agree on a single standard for DSRC TEA-21 mandates that the DOT
establish a provisional standard. The proposed provisional standard for
DSRC would not apply to toll authorities, and thus, would not have any
impact on regional toll operations.
TRIPLE LAYER TAG
Question. How likely is it that any manufacturer will manufacture
the triple layer tag that is likely to be specified by the Department?
Answer. Both manufacturers of active DSRC devices have verbally
indicated that they will manufacture the standard being proposed by the
DOT.
NEXT GENERATION TAG
Question. Would it be worth waiting until the next generation tag
is developed before imposing a DSRC standard? What are the advantages
and disadvantages of waiting?
Answer. No. It is not worth waiting for the next generation DSRC
device for three principal reasons.
1. Even though the industry has begun talking about a standards for
the next generation DSRC device at the higher frequency of 5.9 Giga
Hertz, there is no assurance that we will actually have a single
standard. We would likely end up with the same dilemma that exists
today; a stalemate between the two technologies.
2. We have no clear indication when the next generation devices
will actually be developed, much less available for deployment. Thus,
the states that are planning to deploy DSRC for CVO would not know
whether to deploy or wait for the elusive next generation. It would
substantially delay the deployment of CVISN.
3. Right now, all states use the active transponder and have (or
can achieve) technical interoperability. Waiting exposes the interstate
commerce world to splitting the market between active and passive
mode--with one set or the other being forced to give up their installed
technology. By intervening now (as Congress directed in TEA-21) we
avoid that problem.
MAILBOX SYSTEM
Question. Previous reports have encouraged the DOT to advance the
``mailbox'' system to catch drivers who violate out-of-service orders
issued by MCSAP inspectors. What is the status of this system and what
challenges, costs, and benefits are associated with its deployment?
What progress have you made in implementing the directions regarding
this technology that were specified in last year's conference report?
Answer. The status is that currently over 3000 locations are
receiving the necessary software to connect to the SAFER data mailbox.
There are two problems delaying wide-spread implementation and use of
the SAFER data mailbox. One is funding for wireless communication from
the inspection location to the SAFER data mailbox. States are
indicating that the lack of funding for communications is the major
obstacle to implementation. Overall cost to get every state connected
to the SDM is estimated between $7-8 million. We have developed a
strategy to make it more cost-effective for the states to get previous
inspection information under the Past Inspection Query (PIQ) routine.
The states simply go through the PIQ instead of logging on and off of
each system separately. We are in the process of implementing that
strategy. The second is for institutional support from many of the
states due to concern of data ownership. Some states are concerned
about having their field officers upload inspections to the SAFER data
mailbox before their supervisors have a chance to check the inspections
for quality assurance. Through meetings with the states at a number of
national forums, these institutional issues can be overcome. Those
meetings are underway.
In terms of benefits, the SDM has been very successful in many
states, especially seven Eastern states. The SDM has allowed states to
detect uncorrected out-of-service violations, identify falsified log
books used to exceed safe hours of operation, and prevent duplicate
inspections where there is no evidence of problems. A study published
in 1998 showed that safety inspectors removed an additional 4,000
unsafe drivers and vehicles attributable to advanced information
systems. Connecticut, especially, has said that the overnight roadside
information has proven helpful in focusing their attention on the high
risk carriers. The SDM will be even more effective once the Unified
Carrier Register (UCR) is operational. The UCR will provide intrastate
carrier and commercial vehicle safety and credentials data that
roadside inspectors can use to more effectively target high-risk
operators.
As a result of directions specified in last years conference report
the strategy was developed that will allow states to query multiple
data bases through one gateway. Also FMCSA is providing a grant to
North Dakota to upgrade, distribute and maintain the PIQ software that
will support that multiple query capability, with North Dakota as the
lead state along the northern border.
Question. What are your plans, if any, to encourage the development
of a truly nationwide mailbox system?
Answer. The SDM technology is fully functional and can be deployed
nationwide. Any geographic areas where it is not functioning is due to
local State institutional and communication infrastructure issues. Full
deployment of a ``truly nationwide system'' requires considerable State
infrastructure and commitment to use state-of-the-art wireless
technology and communication protocols. The good news is that wireless
technology is rapidly evolving and will become steadily easier to
implement and widely available for use in State law enforcement. This
will provide State safety and enforcement officials at the roadside
access to near real-time inspection information on commercial vehicles
and their drivers that have been previously cited for out-of-service
violations. Additional funding and State encouragement would accelerate
State adoption of the SDM. We plan to meet with the states and
encourage their commitment to participate in the SAFER data mailbox
(SDM) program. We also plan to encourage states to consider using their
2001 MCSAP funds to cover wireless communication costs. With our
development of a system with a multiple query capability, states will
be able to access through one gateway previous inspections, make
registration decisions based upon safety history, check the overall
carrier safety status, get insurance and licensing information, and
make driver licensing queries. This will simplify the process and make
the inspector more effective in carrying out enforcement
responsibilities. This should help the states to justify the investment
for remote communication capabilities.
Question. How much is in your fiscal year 2000 spending plan to
address this technological option?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, we are spending $500,000 to enhance
and maintain the PIQ software.
Question. How much is in your fiscal year 2001 budget request to
address this technological option?
Answer. The Department plans on using $100,000 out of its fiscal
year 2001 ITS Budget SAFER request of $2,500,000 to provide enhanced
land-line and mobile communications support to new SAFER data mailbox
users. The Department's FMCSA fiscal year 2001 Budget request also
includes funds to support the Field Systems Group's efforts in
enhancing PIQ capabilities for streamlined access to multiple safety
systems through the SDM.
Question. What evidence do you have that the mailbox project has
been successful?
Answer. Identification of out-of-service violators has increased
during the operation of the SAFER Data Mailbox (SDM). However, this
increase is influenced by a number of factors and is not necessarily
attributable to the SDM. Anecdotal information from individual users
indicates that inspection queries to the SDM does help to identify
violators, including offenders with out-of-service (OOS) violations and
falsified log books that have been inspected earlier on the same trip.
In addition, the anecdotal evidence that Connecticut and 6 other
Northeastern states have had getting overnight roadside information
through the SDM has proven helpful in focusing their attention on the
high risk carriers.
INSPECTIONS WITH VIOLATION OF AN OUT OF SERVICE ORDER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
inspections Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.............................................. 923 .04
1998.............................................. 1,105 .05
1999.............................................. 1,654 .07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).
Note: Data does not include intrastate inspections.
CVISN PROJECTS
Question. How many states have completed their CVISN project plan
and ``top-level'' engineering design? How much of the fiscal year 2000
budget will be used to help the states achieve that technological
objective? How many states will be assisted during fiscal year 2001?
What are the expected costs of those efforts?
Answer. The two CVISN prototype states and eight pilot states
completed their CVISN project plans and top-level designs in June 1997
at a series of three workshops. The workshops are a week in length and
spaced over a 9 month period of time. The first deals with scoping, to
help the states to define the technical scope of CVISN and develop a
partial CVISN system design. The second deals with planning, to begin
the formal planning for the CVISN program. The third deals with design,
to complete the detailed design of the system using the first two
workshops as key building blocks.
We initiated a second round of technical workshops in July 1999 and
expect an additional 20 states to complete their CVISN project plans
and top-level designs by the end of fiscal year 2000. The cost for
those workshops conducted in fiscal year 2000 is estimated to be
$467,000.
We are planning to use $400,000 of fiscal year 2001 funds to
sponsor a fourth round of CVISN deployment workshops for up to seven
states that will begin during the third quarter of fiscal year 2001. In
addition, the I-95 Corridor Coalition has agreed to sponsor a round of
deployment workshops during fiscal year 2001 for up to six of its
member states. As a result, we expect that up to 13 additional states
will complete their CVISN project plans and top-level designs during
fiscal year 2001.
CVO BORDER PROJECTS
Question. Please discuss the purpose, status, challenges, and
results of the federal investment in each of the CVO border projects.
What are the fiscal year 2001 funding needs for each of those projects?
Answer.
Purpose.--The purpose of the CVO border projects was to demonstrate
the feasibility of using ITS technology and Dedicated Short-Range
Communication (DSRC) technology to facilitate trade and transportation
at our international borders. This was demonstrated by installing ITS
technology and DSRC at seven border crossing sites, in cooperation with
the Treasury Department. Based on the field operational tests (FOTs)
conducted at these seven sites, as well as the evaluations conducted of
the tests, we believe we have accomplished our intended purpose and
believe it is feasible to utilize ITS technology and DSRC at border
crossings to facilitate trade and transportation.
Status.--To date, DSRC and ITS technology has been installed at
border crossings sites in Otay Mesa, CA., Nogales, AZ., El Paso, TX.,
Laredo, TX. (two sites), Detroit, MI., and Buffalo, NY. The Department
is currently working with the Customs Service to specifically define an
architecture and the general design for instrumenting a border
crossing. An agreement was signed in September 1999 with US Customs to
conduct a test of the International Border Clearance Safety System
(IBCSS). The IBCSS communicates between the SAFER system and the
National Customs Automation Prototype (NCAP). The tests have been held
up due to Customs funding issues. It now appears that the tests will
move ahead during fiscal year 2000. There are no funding expectations
for fiscal year 2001 to complete the tests.
Program Challenges.--There are numerous program challenges to
achieving a seamless border environment that ensures safe and legal
commercial motor vehicles. These include:
--institutional challenges and impediments that have occurred with
getting cross-cutting, supportive budgets between USDOT and
Treasury;
--coordination by Federal agencies for planning, funding and
deploying related border crossing initiatives;
--Integration of disparate stakeholder processes (Federal, State, and
private);
--Reliability of DSRC during the FOTs; and
--North American Trade Automation Prototype to DSRC interface
stability.
Results of Federal Investment & Funding Needs.--All the start-up
and installation costs for existing FOTs were funded in previous years.
The current focus of the IBCSS is on finalizing the testing safety
screening capabilities at two border sites of Laredo, Texas and the
Detroit Ambassador Bridge.
Funds obligated in fiscal year 1998 were $1.125 million, and in
fiscal year 1999 were $1.1 million to complete the safety system tests.
No ITS funds were required in fiscal year 2000 or will be required in
fiscal year 2001 for operational tests but emphasis will be placed on
the TEA-21 Section 1118/1119 grant funds to the states for
international border crossings and trade corridors, and completion of
the IBCSS-SAFER tests at the border with Customs. This will feed into
completion of a border architecture for future technology application.
There will also be emphasis on the development of a simulation tool, in
cooperation with other agencies, to measure the effects of proposed
improvements. This will start in fiscal year 2000 and continue to the
extent necessary in fiscal year 2001.
The results of the federal investment can be summarized in an
evaluation of the IBEX project at Otay Mesa, California by Booz-Allen
and Hamilton. This evaluation focused on four major areas of interest:
documentation of the level of system and component technical
performance; assessment of the user acceptance of the technologies and
services provided; estimation of the potential impacts to the trade
community; and documentation of the institutional and technical lessons
learned.
System Technical Performance
While accurate statistical data regarding the technical performance
of the IBEX system are not available, a number of conclusions regarding
functionality can be made. As anticipated, the layout of an
international border compound, and the operations within it, present a
challenge in implementing current DSRC systems in a border environment.
The large number of trucks operating in close proximity, often looping
the inside of the compound going to and from secondary inspection
facilities, place a premium on appropriate reader and antennae
placement and tuning. In the import compound, the placement of the
advance reader, and the tuning of one of the exit readers, resulted in
both missed and extraneous transponder reads. The link between the DSRC
system and the NATAP system, referred to as the TRAFIC hub,
demonstrated that it was capable of providing communications between
transponder-equipped vehicles and the Treasury prototype. However,
review of system logs from both systems indicated a success rate of
around 60 percent. Thus, while the technical feasibility of the concept
was validated, success rates in excess of 90 percent would likely be
required for the system to be of value to users.
User Acceptance
Overall, carrier participants indicated that they liked the
simplicity of the transponders. They also indicated that they saw a
great deal of potential for enhancement of their operations using the
technologies provided at the border and on their trucks. A common
interviewee comment was that the provided technologies were capable and
adequate to perform the intended purpose, but the processes surrounding
the technology required further refinement. Participants generally
agreed that the cost of technology is continually declining, and they
do not believe that transponders and data entry devices will constitute
a significant investment. Considering the perceived potential return in
time savings and enhanced productivity, some initial investment was
considered acceptable provided the process was not required to be
duplicated on paper. The perception that the reengineering of the
existing paper-based processing is of primary importance was echoed in
the responses from participating customs brokers. The primary shipper
concern was the degree to which the NATAP program and other automated
data exchange programs could be integrated with their existing
processes and systems. It should be noted that the commercial
participants in this test take part in the maquiladora business model,
and as such, represent highly integrated, cross-functional
organizations consisting of companies operating under long-term
relationships. Therefore, the feelings expressed by these respondents
may not necessarily reflect those of other operating models.
Potential Impacts
Test participants were asked to indicate what reduction in border
crossing times that they perceived was achieved in using the services
and technologies provided by the IBEX program in conjunction with
NATAP. All respondents indicated that currently any time savings that
may have occurred is tempered by the pre-processing time investment,
and the preparation of all of the normal paper documentation that is
still required in this phase of the NATAP test. Only when the NATAP
test is moved to the next phase where paper documentation is not
required do the respondents believe that they will be able to quantify
any reduction in time required to move goods across the border. In
general, participants interviewed believe that as congestion at the
border increases that participation in automated pre-clearance programs
will make the difference in the efficiency and competitiveness of their
operations. One participant stated that benefits from the current
process indicated that participation in the automated border crossing
programs early will allow him to make business decisions based on the
future character of the border rather than the current situation, once
again, maintaining competitiveness in the market.
Lessons Learned
The institutional environment within which international goods
movement must take place is highly complex. This complexity has had two
major impacts. The first is the travel delay stemming from the
difficulty associated with processing goods, vehicles and drivers
through the port in a timely manner. The second is the genesis of
thriving commercial enterprises that prosper by capitalizing on the
secondary effects of inefficient processing and increasing demand. As
such, the implementation of systems such as IBEX and NATAP represent
positive change from a border operations perspective, and potentially
negative change from the perspective of the aforementioned commercial
interests. Understandably, there is considerable skepticism regarding
the near term success of such systems, especially as long as
participation remains voluntary. This skepticism is, however, tempered
by those companies who see themselves as forward-thinking, and are
confident they can offer participation as a competitive advantage for
clients.
CVO FUNDS
Question. How were CVO funds used at the border during fiscal year
2000?
Answer. ITS funds from fiscal year 1999 are being used to complete
the border operational tests on safety systems, being conducted in
conjunction with U.S. Customs. No additional funds are anticipated in
fiscal year 2000. The two tests are scheduled for completion in fiscal
year 2000 but are dependent upon US Customs for information systems
support. The support is contingent upon US Customs getting funding from
Congress to conduct a prototype test of their new import system. Also
in fiscal year 2000, a border crossing modeling tool will be developed
to establish a baseline and to measure the benefits of ITS
improvements. The tool is expected to be used to predict benefits and
to assess the benefits once improvements have been made. The model tool
will be built to use actual data from each border crossing being
evaluated.
ITS DEPLOYMENT FUNDS
Question. Please prepare a table showing the allocation of ITS
deployment funds to the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
recipients of Title V funds, being certain to show the amount used for
integration activities and the amount used for CVISN projects.
Answer. Attached are tables which list recipients of Title V ITS
Deployment funds in fiscal year 1999 and projected recipients in fiscal
year 2000. The tables also show, as requested, amounts allocated for
CVISN and Integration activities.
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVE FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressionally Designations Available for
designated exceed Total authorized Section 1102(f) Subtotal Project Adjusted total Available for integration
amounts authorizations \1\ evaluation \2\ available CVISN activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA-21 Earmarks............... $9,800,000.00 $836,585.37 $8,963,414.63 $1,048,719.51 $7,914,695.12 $113,067.07 $7,801,628.05 ................ $7,801,628.05
Great Lakes ITS 2,000,000.00 -170,731.71 1,829,268.29 -214,024.39 1,615,243.90 -32,304.88 1,582,939.02 ................ 1,582,939.02
Implementation...........
Northeast ITS 5,000,000.00 -426,829.27 4,573,170.73 -535,060.98 4,038,109.76 -80,762.20 3,957,347.56 ................ 3,957,347.56
Implementation...........
Haz. Mat. Monitoring 1,500,000.00 -128,048.78 1,371,951.22 -160,518.29 1,211,432.93 ................ 1,211,432.93 ................ 1,211,432.93
Systems..................
Translink--Texas Transp. 1,300,000.00 -110,975.61 1,189,024.39 -139,115.85 1,049,908.54 ................ 1,049,908.54 ................ 1,049,908.54
Inst.....................
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriation 105,000,000.00 -8,963,414.63 96,036,585.37 -11,236,280.49 84,800,304.88 -1,696,006.10 83,104,298.78 $10,634,022.25 72,470,276.53
Act..........................
Amherst, Massachusetts.... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Arlington County, Virginia 750,000.00 -64,024.39 685,975.61 -80,259.15 605,716.46 -12,114.33 593,602.13 ................ 593,602.13
Atlanta, Georgia.......... 2,000,000.00 -170,731.71 1,829,268.29 -214,024.39 1,615,243.90 -32,304.88 1,582,939.02 ................ 1,582,939.02
Brandon, Vermont.......... 375,000.00 -32,012.20 342,987.80 -40,129.57 302,858.23 -6,057.16 296,801.07 ................ 296,801.07
Buffalo, New York......... 500,000.00 -42,682.93 457,317.07 -53,506.10 403,810.98 -8,076.22 395,734.76 ................ 395,734.76
Centre Valley, 500,000.00 -42,682.93 457,317.07 -53,506.10 403,810.98 -8,076.22 395,734.76 ................ 395,734.76
Pennsylvania.............
Cleveland, Ohio........... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Columbus, Ohio............ 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Corpus Christi, Texas..... 900,000.00 -76,829.27 823,170.73 -96,310.98 726,859.76 -14,537.20 712,322.56 ................ 712,322.56
Dade County, Florida...... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Del Rio, Texas............ 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Delaware River, 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Pennsylvania.............
Fairfield, California..... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Fitchburg, Massachusetts.. 500,000.00 -42,682.93 457,317.07 -53,506.10 403,810.98 -8,076.22 395,734.76 ................ 395,734.76
Greater Metro. Region--DC. 5,000,000.00 -426,829.27 4,573,170.73 -535,060.98 4,038,109.76 -80,762.20 3,957,347.56 ................ 3,957,347.56
Hammond, Louisiana........ 4,000,000.00 -341,463.41 3,658,536.59 -428,048.78 3,230,487.80 -64,609.76 3,165,878.05 ................ 3,165,878.05
Houston, Texas............ 2,000,000.00 -170,731.71 1,829,268.29 -214,024.39 1,615,243.90 -32,304.88 1,582,939.02 ................ 1,582,939.02
Huntington Beach, 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
California...............
Huntsville, Alabama....... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Inglewood, California..... 1,500,000.00 -128,048.78 1,371,951.22 -160,518.29 1,211,432.93 -24,228.66 1,187,204.27 ................ 1,187,204.27
Jackson, Mississippi...... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Kansas City, Missouri..... 500,000.00 -42,682.93 457,317.07 -53,506.10 403,810.98 -8,076.22 395,734.76 ................ 395,734.76
Laredo, Texas............. 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Middlesboro, Kentucky..... 3,000,000.00 -256,097.56 2,743,902.44 -321,036.59 2,422,865.85 -48,457.32 2,374,408.54 ................ 2,374,408.54
Mission Viejo, California. 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Mobile, Alabama........... 2,500,000.00 -213,414.63 2,286,585.37 -267,530.49 2,019,054.88 -40,381.10 1,978,673.78 ................ 1,978,673.78
Monroe County, New York... 400,000.00 -34,146.34 365,853.66 -42,804.88 323,048.78 -6,460.98 316,587.80 ................ 316,587.80
Montgomery, Alabama....... 1,250,000.00 -106,707.32 1,143,292.68 -133,765.24 1,009,527.44 -20,190.55 989,336.89 ................ 989,336.89
Nashville, Tennessee...... 500,000.00 -42,682.93 457,317.07 -53,506.10 403,810.98 -8,076.22 395,734.76 ................ 395,734.76
New Orleans, Louisiana.... 1,500,000.00 -128,048.78 1,371,951.22 -160,518.29 1,211,432.93 -24,228.66 1,187,204.27 ................ 1,187,204.27
New York City, New York... 2,500,000.00 -213,414.63 2,286,585.37 -267,530.49 2,019,054.88 -40,381.10 1,978,673.78 ................ 1,978,673.78
New York/Long Island, New 2,300,000.00 -196,341.46 2,103,658.54 -246,128.05 1,857,530.49 -37,150.61 1,820,379.88 ................ 1,820,379.88
York.....................
Oakland County, Michigan.. 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Onandaga County, New York. 400,000.00 -34,146.34 365,853.66 -42,804.88 323,048.78 -6,460.98 316,587.80 ................ 316,587.80
Port Angeles, Washington.. 500,000.00 -42,682.93 457,317.07 -53,506.10 403,810.98 -8,076.22 395,734.76 ................ 395,734.76
Raleigh-Wake County, NC... 2,000,000.00 -170,731.71 1,829,268.29 -214,024.39 1,615,243.90 -32,304.88 1,582,939.02 ................ 1,582,939.02
Riverside, California..... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
San Francisco, California. 1,500,000.00 -128,048.78 1,371,951.22 -160,518.29 1,211,432.93 -24,228.66 1,187,204.27 ................ 1,187,204.27
Scranton, Pennsylvania.... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Silicon Valley, California 1,500,000.00 -128,048.78 1,371,951.22 -160,518.29 1,211,432.93 -24,228.66 1,187,204.27 ................ 1,187,204.27
Spokane, Washington....... 450,000.00 -38,414.63 411,585.37 -48,155.49 363,429.88 -7,268.60 356,161.28 ................ 356,161.28
Springfield, Virginia..... 500,000.00 -42,682.93 457,317.07 -53,506.10 403,810.98 -8,076.22 395,734.76 ................ 395,734.76
St. Louis, Missouri....... 750,000.00 -64,024.39 685,975.61 -80,259.15 605,716.46 -12,114.33 593,602.13 ................ 593,602.13
State of Alaska........... 1,500,000.00 -128,048.78 1,371,951.22 -160,518.29 1,211,432.93 -24,228.66 1,187,204.27 350,000.00 837,204.27
State of Idaho............ 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 350,000.00 441,469.51
State of Maryland......... 2,500,000.00 -213,414.63 2,286,585.37 -267,530.49 2,019,054.88 -40,381.10 1,978,673.78 1,978,673.78 ................
State of Minnesota........ 7,100,000.00 -606,097.56 6,493,902.44 -759,786.59 5,734,115.85 -114,682.32 5,619,433.54 1,920,000.00 3,699,433.54
State of Mississippi...... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 350,000.00 441,469.51
State of Missouri......... 500,000.00 -42,682.93 457,317.07 -53,506.10 403,810.98 -8,076.22 395,734.76 350,000.00 45,734.76
State of Montana.......... 700,000.00 -59,756.10 640,243.90 -74,908.54 565,335.37 -11,306.71 554,028.66 554,028.66 ................
State of Nevada........... 575,000.00 -49,085.37 525,914.63 -61,532.01 464,382.62 -9,287.65 455,094.97 350,000.00 105,094.97
State of New Jersey....... 3,000,000.00 -256,097.56 2,743,902.44 -321,036.59 2,422,865.85 -48,457.32 2,374,408.54 350,000.00 2,024,408.54
State of New Mexico....... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 741,469.51 50,000.00
State of New York......... 2,500,000.00 -213,414.63 2,286,585.37 -267,530.49 2,019,054.88 -40,381.10 1,978,673.78 1,729,850.30 248,823.48
State of North Dakota..... 1,450,000.00 -123,780.49 1,326,219.51 -155,167.68 1,171,051.83 -23,421.04 1,147,630.79 50,000.00 1,097,630.79
Commonwealth of 14,000,000.00 -1,195,121.95 12,804,878.05 -1,498,170.73 11,306,707.32 -226,134.15 11,080,573.17 350,000.00 10,730,573.17
Pennsylvania.............
State of Texas............ 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 50,000.00 741,469.51
State of Utah............. 3,600,000.00 -307,317.07 3,292,682.93 -385,243.90 2,907,439.02 -58,148.78 2,849,290.24 200,000.00 2,649,290.24
State of Washington....... 2,000,000.00 -170,731.71 1,829,268.29 -214,024.39 1,615,243.90 -32,304.88 1,582,939.02 610,000.00 972,939.02
State of Wisconsin........ 1,500,000.00 -128,048.78 1,371,951.22 -160,518.29 1,211,432.93 -24,228.66 1,187,204.27 350,000.00 837,204.27
Temucula, California...... 250,000.00 -21,341.46 228,658.54 -26,753.05 201,905.49 -4,038.11 197,867.38 ................ 197,867.38
Tucson, Arizona........... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Volusia County, Florida... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Warren County, Virginia... 250,000.00 -21,341.46 228,658.54 -26,753.05 201,905.49 -4,038.11 197,867.38 ................ 197,867.38
Wausau-Stevens Point, 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
Wisconsin................
Westchester/Putnam Co., 500,000.00 -42,682.93 457,317.07 -53,506.10 403,810.98 -8,076.22 395,734.76 ................ 395,734.76
New York................
White Plains, New York.... 1,000,000.00 -85,365.85 914,634.15 -107,012.20 807,621.95 -16,152.44 791,469.51 ................ 791,469.51
=================================================================================================================================================================
Project Evaluations........... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1,809,073.17 1,809,073.17 ................ 1,809,073.17
=================================================================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL............. 114,800,000.00 -9,800,000.00 106,000,000.00 -12,285,000.00 92,715,000.00 ................ 92,715,000.00 10,634,022.25 82,080,977.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reduction (11.7 percent).
\2\ Reduction (2 percent).
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVE FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressionally Designations Available for
designated exceed Total authorized Section 1102(f) Subtotal Project Adjusted total Available for integration
amounts authorizations \1\ evaluation \2\ available CVISN activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA-21 Earmarks............... 9,800,000 -771,056 9,028,944 -1,164,734 7,864,210 -112,346 7,751,864 ................ 7,751,864
Great Lakes ITS 2,000,000 -157,358 1,842,642 -237,701 1,604,941 -32,099 1,572,842 ................ 1,572,842
Implementation...........
Northeast ITS 5,000,000 -393,396 4,606,604 -594,252 4,012,352 -80,247 3,932,105 ................ 3,932,105
Implementation...........
Haz. Mat. Monitoring 1,500,000 -118,019 1,381,981 -178,276 1,203,706 ................ 1,203,706 ................ 1,203,706
Systems..................
Translink--Texas Transp. 1,300,000 -102,283 1,197,717 -154,506 1,043,212 ................ 1,043,212 ................ 1,043,212
Inst.....................
Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation 112,850,000 -8,878,944 103,971,056 -13,412,266 90,558,790 -1,811,176 88,747,614 7,297,106 81,450,508
Act..........................
Albuquerque, New Mexico... 2,000,000 -157,358 1,842,642 -237,701 1,604,941 -32,099 1,572,842 ................ 1,572,842
Arapahoe County, Colorado. 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Branson, Missouri......... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Central Pennsylvania...... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Charlotte, North Carolina. 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Chicago, Illinois......... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
City of Superior & Douglas 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Co., Wisc................
Clay County, Missouri..... 300,000 -23,604 276,396 -35,655 240,741 -4,815 235,926 ................ 235,926
Clearwater, Florida....... 3,500,000 -275,377 3,224,623 -415,976 2,808,647 -56,173 2,752,474 ................ 2,752,474
College Station, Texas.... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Central Ohio.............. 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Commonwealth of Virginia.. 4,000,000 -314,717 3,685,283 -475,402 3,209,882 -64,198 3,145,684 2,425,000 720,684
Corpus Christi, Texas..... 1,500,000 -118,019 1,381,981 -178,276 1,203,706 -24,074 1,179,632 ................ 1,179,632
Delaware River, 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Pennsylvania.............
Fairfield, California..... 750,000 -59,009 690,991 -89,138 601,853 -12,037 589,816 ................ 589,816
Fargo, North Dakota....... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Florida Bay County, 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Florida..................
Fort Worth, Texas......... 2,500,000 -196,698 2,303,302 -297,126 2,006,176 -40,124 1,966,053 ................ 1,966,053
Grand Forks, North Dakota. 500,000 -39,340 460,660 -59,425 401,235 -8,025 393,211 ................ 393,211
Greater Metro. Capital 5,000,000 -393,396 4,606,604 -594,252 4,012,352 -80,247 3,932,105 ................ 3,932,105
Region, DC...............
Greater Yellowstone, 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Montana..................
Houma, Louisiana.......... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Houston, Texas............ 1,500,000 -118,019 1,381,981 -178,276 1,203,706 -24,074 1,179,632 ................ 1,179,632
Huntsville, Alabama....... 500,000 -39,340 460,660 -59,425 401,235 -8,025 393,211 ................ 393,211
Inglewood, California..... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Jefferson County, Colorado 1,500,000 -118,019 1,381,981 -178,276 1,203,706 -24,074 1,179,632 ................ 1,179,632
Kansas City, Missouri..... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Las Vegas, Nevada......... 2,800,000 -220,302 2,579,698 -332,781 2,246,917 -44,938 2,201,979 ................ 2,201,979
Los Angeles, California... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Miami, Florida............ 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Mission Viejo, California. 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Monroe County, New York... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Nashville, Tennessee...... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Northeast Florida......... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Oakland, California....... 500,000 -39,340 460,660 -59,425 401,235 -8,025 393,211 ................ 393,211
Oakland County, Michigan.. 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Oxford, Mississippi....... 1,500,000 -118,019 1,381,981 -178,276 1,203,706 -24,074 1,179,632 ................ 1,179,632
Pennsylvania Turnpike, Pa. 2,500,000 -196,698 2,303,302 -297,126 2,006,176 -40,124 1,966,053 ................ 1,966,053
Pueblo, Colorado.......... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Puget Sound, Washington... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Reno/Tahoe, California/ 500,000 -39,340 460,660 -59,425 401,235 -8,025 393,211 ................ 393,211
Nevada...................
Rensselaer County, New 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
York.....................
Sacramento County, 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
California...............
Salt Lake City, Utah...... 3,000,000 -236,038 2,763,962 -356,551 2,407,411 -48,148 2,359,263 ................ 2,359,263
San Francisco, California. 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Santa Clara, California... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Santa Teresa, New Mexico.. 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 786,421 ................
Seattle, Washington....... 2,100,000 -165,226 1,934,774 -249,586 1,685,188 -33,704 1,651,484 ................ 1,651,484
Shenandoah Valley, 2,500,000 -196,698 2,303,302 -297,126 2,006,176 -40,124 1,966,053 ................ 1,966,053
Virginia.................
Shreveport, Louisiana..... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Silicon Valley, California 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Southeast Michigan........ 2,000,000 -157,358 1,842,642 -237,701 1,604,941 -32,099 1,572,842 ................ 1,572,842
Spokane, Washington....... 500,000 -39,340 460,660 -59,425 401,235 -8,025 393,211 ................ 393,211
St. Louis, Missouri....... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
State of Alabama.......... 1,300,000 -102,283 1,197,717 -154,506 1,043,212 -20,864 1,022,347 40,000 982,347
State of Alaska........... 3,000,000 -236,038 2,763,962 -356,551 2,407,411 -48,148 2,359,263 TBD 2,359,263
State of Arizona.......... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 786,421 ................
State of Colorado......... 1,500,000 -118,019 1,381,981 -178,276 1,203,706 -24,074 1,179,632 1,179,632 ................
State of Delaware......... 2,000,000 -157,358 1,842,642 -237,701 1,604,941 -32,099 1,572,842 ................ 1,572,842
State of Idaho............ 2,000,000 -157,358 1,842,642 -237,701 1,604,941 -32,099 1,572,842 393,211 1,179,631
State of Illinois......... 1,500,000 -118,019 1,381,981 -178,276 1,203,706 -24,074 1,179,632 ................ 1,179,632
State of Maryland......... 2,000,000 -157,358 1,842,642 -237,701 1,604,941 -32,099 1,572,842 900,000 672,842
State of Minnesota........ 7,000,000 -550,754 6,449,246 -831,953 5,617,293 -112,346 5,504,947 ................ 5,504,947
State of Montana.......... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 786,421 ................
State of Nebraska......... 500,000 -39,340 460,660 -59,425 401,235 -8,025 393,211 ................ 393,211
State of Oregon........... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
State of Texas............ 4,000,000 -314,717 3,685,283 -475,402 3,209,882 -64,198 3,145,684 TBD 3,145,684
State of Vermont, Rural 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Systems..................
State of New Jersey and 2,000,000 -157,358 1,842,642 -237,701 1,604,941 -32,099 1,572,842 ................ 1,572,842
New York.................
Statewide Transcom/ 4,000,000 -314,717 3,685,283 -475,402 3,209,882 -64,198 3,145,684 ................ 3,145,684
Transmit, NJ.............
Tacoma Puvallup, 500,000 -39,340 460,660 -59,425 401,235 -8,025 393,211 ................ 393,211
Washington...............
Thurston, Washington...... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
Towamencin, Pennsylvania.. 600,000 -47,208 552,792 -71,310 481,482 -9,630 471,853 ................ 471,853
Wausau-Stevens Pt. Wisc. 1,500,000 -118,019 1,381,981 -178,276 1,203,706 -24,074 1,179,632 ................ 1,179,632
Rapids, Wi...............
Wayne County, Michigan.... 1,000,000 -78,679 921,321 -118,850 802,470 -16,049 786,421 ................ 786,421
=================================================================================================================================================================
Project Evaluations........... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1,923,522 1,923,522 ................ 1,923,522
=================================================================================================================================================================
GRAND TOTAL............. 122,650,000 -9,650,000 113,000,000 -14,577,000 98,423,000 ................ 98,423,000 7,297,106 91,125,894
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reduction (11.7 percent).
\2\ Reduction (2 percent).
CVO OUTREACH
Question. Please specify the amounts that were spent or will be
spent on outreach related to CVO during fiscal year 1999, fiscal year
2000, and fiscal year 2001. What were the purposes of each activity and
what was achieved? Please break down in detail your current or expected
use of those monies on a project-by-project basis for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the FMCSA spent nearly $110,000 of ITS
funds on outreach related to CVO. These funds were used to maintain the
portable ITS/CVO kiosk and to ship it to and from 22 different
requesters' sites ($45,000); to produce 250 compact disk versions of
the portable ITS/CVO kiosk ($30,000); to replace a damaged ITS/CVO
kiosk ($26,000); and to maintain the ITS/CVO website for document
uploads and conversions ($8,000). No fiscal year 2000 or fiscal year
2001 ITS funds will be spent on the ITS/CVO kiosk.
In fiscal year's 2000 and 2001, the CVO program will coordinate
outreach activities with the ITS Joint Program Office as part of the
overall ITS program. Funds will be used, as part of the overall
program, to provide CVO stakeholders printed publications, training
materials, exhibit materials and presentations, as well as the linkage
of the ITS CVO website to the ITS JPO website.
CVO MONIES ALLOCATED
Question. Please break out in extensive detail how all of the CVO
monies are expected to be allocated during fiscal year 2000. Please
specify funds for all research, development, training, business plans,
earmarks, operational tests, and IVI projects.
Answer. The information on how all of the CVO funds for research,
development, training, and operational tests are expected to be
allocated during fiscal year 2000 is provided in the table below. We do
not anticipate using any fiscal year 2000 CVO funds for business plans
or IVI projects.
Research and Development:
Safety Data Systems................................. $2,650,000
CVISN Support for Level 1 Deployment................ 1,200,000
Roadside Identification Technology.................. 350,000
Architecture Consistency............................ 1,245,000
Training............................................ 900,000
CVISN Pilots........................................ 2,000,000
In fiscal year 2000, the states identified in the table below, were
selected by Congress to receive federal ITS earmarks. The table shows
the fiscal year 2000 earmark, the total adjusted amount of federal ITS
funds available to the state, and the amount of funds the state has
agreed to use for supporting CVISN deployment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Adjusted total Amount for
State 2000 earmark available CVISN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... $1,300,000 $1,022,347 $40,000
Alaska.......................................................... 3,000,000 2,359,263 ( \1\ )
Arizona......................................................... 1,000,000 786,421 786,481
Colorado........................................................ 1,500,000 1,179,632 1,179,632
Delaware........................................................ 2,000,000 1,572,842 ..............
Idaho........................................................... 2,000,000 1,572,842 393,211
Illinois........................................................ 1,500,000 1,179,632 ..............
Maryland........................................................ 2,000,000 1,572,842 900,000
Minnesota....................................................... 7,000,000 5,504,947 ( \2\ )
Montana......................................................... 1,000,000 786,421 786,421
Nebraska........................................................ 500,000 393,211 ( \3\ )
New Mexico-Santa Teresa......................................... 1,000,000 786,421 786,421
New York/New Jersey............................................. 2,000,000 1,572,842 ..............
Oregon.......................................................... 1,000,000 786,421 ..............
Texas........................................................... 4,000,000 3,145,684 ( \1\ )
Vermont......................................................... 1,000,000 786,421 ..............
Virginia........................................................ 4,000,000 3,145,684 2,425,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be determined.
\2\ Minnesota used its fiscal year 1999 earmark to fully fund CVISN deployment. The state will not use any of
its fiscal year 2000 earmark for CVISN deployment.
\3\ Nebraska is using its own state funds to support activities related to CVISN deployment in fiscal year 2000.
ITS SPENDING PLANS
Question. Please prepare comparable fiscal year 2000 and requested
fiscal year 2001 spending plans to demonstrate how and whether program
continuity and completion of projects will be achieved.
Answer.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 SPENDING PLAN FUNDING SOURCES AND BALANCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Prior year
Activity/project year ------------------------- Total Obligated Unobligated
1999 Unobligated Recoveries available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.................. 35,976 1,347 30 37,353 36,314 1,039
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL........ 4,637 1,001 30 5,668 5,654 14
Advanced Traffic Mgmt. Research... 265 375 .......... 640 640 ...........
Adaptive Control System....... 265 375 .......... 640 640 ...........
Chicago Evaluation........ 15 ........... .......... 15 15 ...........
Ramp Metering............. 250 375 .......... 625 625 ...........
Models............................ 3,410 625 30 4,065 4,065 ...........
TReL.......................... 2,030 ........... 30 2,060 2,060 ...........
DES....................... 1,310 ........... .......... 1,310 1,310 ...........
Onsite Support............ 720 ........... 30 750 750 ...........
TSIS--Enhancement and 850 ........... .......... 850 850 ...........
Maintenance..................
TRANSIM....................... ........ 500 .......... 500 500 ...........
Dynamic Traffic Assignment 150 125 .......... 275 275 ...........
(DTA) System.................
Lab Evaluation............ 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Site Testing.............. ........ 125 .......... 125 125 ...........
Computer Aided Design for 380 ........... .......... 380 380 ...........
Traffic Management Centers...
ITS Deployment Analysis System 450 ........... .......... 450 450 ...........
(IDAS)...........................
Other............................. 512 1 .......... 513 499 14
ATMS Research Support Services 298 ........... .......... 298 298 ...........
Capacity and Level of 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Service..................
Websites.................. 8 ........... .......... 8 8 ...........
ATMS Models Workshop...... 5 ........... .......... 5 5 ...........
Stand Alone Prediction 35 ........... .......... 35 35 ...........
Model....................
Support Services for FHWA 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Human Factors............
Publications.................. 84 ........... .......... 84 84 ...........
Turner-Fairbank Technical 65 ........... .......... 65 65 ...........
Support......................
Other......................... 24 1 .......... 25 25 ...........
IPA--Rudy Persaud, South 40 ........... .......... 40 26 14
Dakota DOT...................
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH.......... 20,924 1 .......... 20,925 20,431 494
Generation 0...................... 8,859 ........... .......... 8,859 8,859 ...........
Performance Specifications.... 1,650 ........... .......... 1,650 1,650 ...........
Objective Test Metrics.... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Driver Performance Data 1,650 ........... .......... 1,650 1,650 ...........
Collection Field Tests...
Generation 0 Field Tests...... 6,400 ........... .......... 6,400 6,400 ...........
Generation 0 Field Tests.. 6,000 ........... .......... 6,000 6,000 ...........
Evaluations--0 Field Tests 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Cross-Cutting................. 809 ........... .......... 809 809 ...........
Special Vehicle Needs 309 ........... .......... 309 309 ...........
Assessment...............
Develop C/B Methodology... 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Generation 1...................... 9,499 ........... .......... 9,499 9,499 ...........
Performance Specifications.... 3,549 ........... .......... 3,549 3,549 ...........
Rear-end Performance 601 ........... .......... 601 601 ...........
Specifications...........
Roadway Departure 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Lane Change/Merge 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Int. and Fleet Test of 600 ........... .......... 600 600 ...........
Safety Critical Systems..
Drowsy Driver DVI......... 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
EBS....................... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Test Multi Trailer 498 ........... .......... 498 498 ...........
Stability--Reaward Amp.
Suppression Sys..........
Transit LC/M Performance 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Specifications...........
Transit Rear End 550 ........... .......... 550 550 ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Transit Rear Impact 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Field Tests................... 5,550 ........... .......... 5,550 5,550 ...........
Rear-end CAS Field Test... 4,850 ........... .......... 4,850 4,850 ...........
Drowsy Driver Field Test 600 ........... .......... 600 600 ...........
(NHTSA)..................
Drowsy Driver Field Test 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
(MCS)....................
Cross-Cutting................. 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Lane Change Workshop...... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
HF Multi System 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Integration..............
Generation 2...................... 499 ........... .......... 499 499 ...........
Performance Specifications.... 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Vision Enhancement ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Performance
Specifications...........
Intersection Performance 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Specifica- tions........
Cross-Cutting................. 249 ........... .......... 249 249 ...........
Sensor Friendly Roadway... 249 ........... .......... 249 249 ...........
Support........................... 2,066 1 .......... 2,067 1,573 494
TRB Review.................... 175 ........... .......... 175 175 ...........
Program Support (Incl. 494 ........... .......... 494 ......... 494
Mitretek)....................
NHTSA Support................. 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Transit Support............... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Human Factors Support......... 367 1 .......... 368 368 ...........
Turner-Fairbank Technical 88 ........... .......... 88 88 ...........
Support......................
ITS America................... 87 ........... .......... 87 87 ...........
Publications.................. 305 ........... .......... 305 305 ...........
AHS Lessons Learned............... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Adjustments Required.............. ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
RURAL RESEARCH........................ 985 122 .......... 1,107 610 497
Rural ITS Support................. 407 119 .......... 526 526 ...........
Decision Support Systems.......... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Rural Conference.................. 30 ........... .......... 30 30 ...........
Peer-to-Peer...................... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Publications, etc................. ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Turner-Fairbank Technical Support. 44 ........... .......... 44 44 ...........
Rural Weather Show................ ........ 3 .......... 3 3 ...........
Manassas Intersection Coll. 7 ........... .......... 7 7 ...........
Warning Sys......................
Rural PR's for No Cost Contract ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Modifications....................
Rural/Weather Requirements........ 497 ........... .......... 497 ......... 497
APTS RESEARCH......................... 988 ........... .......... 988 988 ...........
Advanced Fleet Management Research 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Traveler Information & ADA 180 ........... .......... 180 180 ...........
Compatibility....................
Welfare to Work (Planning)........ 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
General and Technical Staff 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Support..........................
Publications...................... 8 ........... .......... 8 8 ...........
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS......... 7,192 100 .......... 7,292 7,268 24
Safety Data Systems (Includes 3rd 3,005 ........... .......... 3,005 3,005 ...........
Mailbox).........................
CVISN Support for Level 1 1,600 ........... .......... 1,600 1,600 ...........
Deployment.......................
Architecture Consistency.......... 1,000 100 .......... 1,100 1,100 ...........
Architecture Consistency 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
(Other)......................
Freight Arch. Consistency..... 200 100 .......... 300 300 ...........
CVO Technical Assistance.......... 500 ........... .......... 500 476 24
CVO Technical Assistance-- 350 ........... .......... 350 326 24
(Other)......................
CVO Technical Assistance-- 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Freight......................
CVISN Technical Training.......... 998 ........... .......... 998 998 ...........
Publications...................... 89 ........... .......... 89 89 ...........
INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH........... 500 10 .......... 510 500 10
Operational Test--Facilitate 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Movement of Intermodal Freight...
TRB Conference on Intermodal ........ 10 .......... 10 ......... 10
Freight..........................
ENABLING RESEARCH..................... 600 114 .......... 714 714 ...........
DSRC Spectrum Issues.............. 450 58 .......... 508 508 ...........
Spectrum Consulting Services...... 150 50 .......... 200 200 ...........
Publications...................... ........ 1 .......... 1 1 ...........
State & Local Use of GPS.......... ........ 5 .......... 5 5 ...........
FREIGHT RESEARCH...................... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
OPERATIONAL TESTS......................... 7,080 2,089 724 9,894 5,040 4,854
APTS OPERATIONAL TESTS................ 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 1,000 ...........
Electronic Payment System for 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 1,000 ...........
Transit & Other App.............
CVO OPERATIONAL TESTS................. 2,000 1,000 .......... 3,000 2,890 110
CVISN Pilots...................... 2,000 1,000 .......... 3,000 2,890 110
RURAL OPERATIONAL TESTS............... 2,289 361 .......... 2,650 1,150 1,500
National Park ServiceField 639 361 .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
Operational Test.................
Emergency Services Field 650 ........... .......... 650 650 ...........
Operational Test.................
Rural Transit Coordination Field 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Operational Test.................
Multistate Traveler Information... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
OPERATIONAL TESTS CONTINGENCIES....... 1,791 728 724 3,244 ......... 3,244
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT............. 5,510 634 .......... 6,145 6,145 ...........
EVALUATIONS........................... 3,558 634 .......... 4,192 4,192 ...........
MMDI.............................. 626 17 .......... 643 643 ...........
CVISN............................. 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
FOT Crosscutting Analyses......... 567 483 .......... 1,050 1,050 ...........
Rural FOT's....................... 805 ........... .......... 805 805 ...........
Intermodal Freight Evaluation..... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
APTS Field Operational Test 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Evaluations......................
APTS Field Operational Test 160 ........... .......... 160 160 ...........
Evaluations..................
APTS Operational Tests 40 ........... .......... 40 40 ...........
Evaluations (FTA)............
Highway-Rail Evaluations.......... 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
ADUS Support...................... 200 75 .......... 275 275 ...........
Publications...................... ........ 59 .......... 59 59 ...........
JPL Support....................... 410 ........... .......... 410 410 ...........
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT................ 1,952 ........... .......... 1,952 1,952 ...........
ITS Deployment Tracking........... 755 ........... .......... 755 755 ...........
Metro......................... 650 ........... .......... 650 650 ...........
Rural......................... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
CVISN Deployment Tracking..... 105 ........... .......... 105 105 ...........
JPL Support--Program Tracking. 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
ITS Policy Assessment............. 1,147 ........... .......... 1,147 1,147 ...........
Volpe Support to Assessment....... 880 ........... .......... 880 880 ...........
MMDI Expectations & Final 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Report.......................
ATIS Conference............... 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
CVISN Institutional Issues 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Final Repo...................
Review CVISN Business 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Practices....................
MMDI Customer Satisfaction 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Guidance.....................
Analytical Support for 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Metropolitan Track ing.......
Volpe B/C of MMDI............. 230 ........... .......... 230 230 ...........
Evaluation Guidelines Support. ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Volpe Support to Director JPO..... 267 ........... .......... 267 267 ...........
National Program Plan......... 155 ........... .......... 155 155 ...........
General Policy Support........ ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
ALERT......................... 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
SENTRI........................ 62 ........... .......... 62 62 ...........
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS................ 14,429 23 .......... 14,452 13,702 750
ARCHITECTURE.......................... 5,630 23 .......... 5,653 5,533 120
Architecture Deployment/ 2,825 23 .......... 2,848 2,848 ...........
Implementation Support...........
Deployment/Implementation 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
Support......................
Architecture Standards 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
Development Sup port.........
Architecture Data Base/ 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Configuration Control Support
Architecture Documentation (CD 98 ........... .......... 98 98 ...........
ROM/Web/Doc/Printing)........
Architecture Tool Development 377 23 .......... 400 400 ...........
(Turbo Architecture).........
Architecture Consistency 250 ........... .......... 250 250 ...........
Support......................
Rural User Service Architecture 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Development Efforts..............
Planning Data/Archiving 399 ........... .......... 399 399 ...........
Architecture Changes.............
Architecture Eng. Maint. Support.. 285 ........... .......... 285 285 ...........
Architecture Training (Deployment 926 ........... .......... 926 926 ...........
and Implementation Tng.).........
CVO Architecture.................. 675 ........... .......... 675 675 ...........
CVO Architecture--Other....... 375 ........... .......... 375 375 ...........
CVO Architecture--Freight..... 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Publications...................... ........ 1 .......... 1 1 ...........
Turbo Architecture................ 120 ........... .......... 120 ......... 120
STANDARDS............................. 8,799 ........... .......... 8,799 8,169 630
Research and Development.......... 594 ........... .......... 594 594 ...........
In-vehicle ICON............... 594 ........... .......... 594 594 ...........
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT............. 4,150 ........... .......... 4,150 4,020 130
Infrastructure and Safety..... 1,290 ........... .......... 1,290 1,290 ...........
Infrastructure and Safety. 1,190 ........... .......... 1,190 1,190 ...........
Standards Strategic Plan.. 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
CVO (EDI)..................... 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Transit....................... 1,200 ........... .......... 1,200 1,200 ...........
ISO TC 204 WG 8 Support 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
via Volpe................
Multi-Use Smart Card 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Guidelines/ Specs........
Other Transit Standards... 550 ........... .......... 550 550 ...........
Transit Standards 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Consortium to TSC........
Rail Standards Development.... 200 ........... .......... 200 70 130
Architectural Support......... 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
JPL........................... 760 ........... .......... 760 760 ...........
TESTING AND INTEROPERABILITY...... 2,300 ........... .......... 2,300 2,300 ...........
Interoperability Testing 1,800 ........... .......... 1,800 1,800 ...........
Support......................
Data Registration............. 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
IMPLEMENTATION.................... 1,255 ........... .......... 1,255 1,255 ...........
Resource Materials............ 670 ........... .......... 670 670 ...........
Lessons Learned............... 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Evaluation of Standards 285 ........... .......... 285 285 ...........
Implementation...............
STANDARDS CONTINGENCIES........... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
INTEGRATION............................... 5,676 925 681 7,282 5,325 1,957
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.................. 2,950 142 456 3,548 2,516 1,032
Information and Technology 1,358 142 65 1,565 1,566 ...........
Transfer.........................
Specifications and Contract 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Management...................
Work Program Scoping ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Effort...................
S&C Management Product 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Develop ment.............
Tailored Technical Assistance. 800 50 .......... 850 850 ...........
Peer-to-Peer.............. ........ 50 .......... 50 50 ...........
Service Plan Support...... 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
Service Plan Support-- 696 ........... .......... 696 696 ...........
Transfer to Resource
Centers..................
Other Service Plan 104 ........... .......... 104 104 ...........
Projects (NHI Training
Courses).................
DTAG, RTAG, APTS Stakeholders. 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
FTA--DTAG, RTAG< APTS 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Stakehold- ers..........
Quick Response................ 8 ........... .......... 8 8 ...........
Contracts Support............. 70 ........... .......... 70 70 ...........
Concept of Operation for TMC's 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
(A Cook book)................
Case Studies.................. 180 ........... .......... 180 180 ...........
Technology for 120 ........... .......... 120 120 ...........
Surveillance and
Detection................
ITS Work Zone Applications 60 ........... .......... 60 60 ...........
Morgan Room Support........... ........ 92 45 137 137 ...........
GMC ITS Priority Corridor ........ ........... 20 20 20 ...........
Information Clearinghouse....
Transit Technical Assistance...... 950 ........... .......... 950 950 ...........
Technical Asst. to Transit 225 ........... .......... 225 225 ...........
Authorities..................
Peer-to-Peer Program Support.. 125 ........... .......... 125 125 ...........
ITSA APTS Info. Exchange & 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Program Development..........
APTS Mobile Showcase.......... 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Systems Engineering Guidance 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Documents........................
P.B. Farradyne IQC................ ........ ........... 391 391 ......... 391
PTI Earmark....................... 442 ........... .......... 442 ......... 442
AASHTO Steering Group for 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Technology Deploy ment...........
PLANNING/POLICY....................... 450 ........... .......... 450 350 100
Management and Operations in 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Planning.........................
Management & Operations 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Product Development..........
Traveler Response to Advanced 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Travel Informa- tion............
FHWA--Traveler Response to 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Advanced Travel Information..
FTA--Traveler Response to 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Advanced Travel Information..
TRAINING.............................. 1,559 747 225 2,531 1,931 600
Delivery.......................... 615 735 225 1,575 1,450 125
ITS Software Acquisition...... 40 ........... .......... 40 30 10
Lessons in Procurement........ ........ ........... 225 225 225 ...........
CORSIM........................ 15 ........... .......... 15 ......... 15
Continuation of Existing 160 ........... .......... 160 160 ...........
Courses......................
Delivery of Materials......... ........ 35 .......... 35 35 ...........
Standards (NTCIP, TCIP)....... ........ 700 .......... 700 700 ...........
Standards (NTCIP, TCIP)-- ........ 384 .......... 384 384 ...........
FHWA.....................
Standards (NTCIP-TCIP)-- ........ 316 .......... 316 316 ...........
FTA......................
Distance Learning Pilots...... 350 ........... .......... 350 300 50
Architecture Training Course 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
(Field Travel, etc.).........
New Course Development............ 500 ........... .......... 500 300 200
FHWA--New Course Development.. 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
FTA--New Course Development... 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
Update Existing Materials......... 33 12 .......... 45 45 ...........
Update Existing Materials-- 23 12 .......... 35 35 ...........
FHWA.........................
Update Existing Material-- 10 ........... .......... 10 10 ...........
Transfer to FTA..............
Support at NHI.................... 161 ........... .......... 161 136 25
Consultant Management............. 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS........... 717 37 .......... 754 528 225
Shipping and Handling Exhibits.... 117 17 .......... 134 134 ...........
New Exhibit Development........... 125 ........... .......... 125 125 ...........
National Associations Working 150 20 .......... 170 170 ...........
Group (NAWG).....................
National Governors' Association 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Initiative.......................
JPO Web-Based Activities.......... 225 ........... .......... 225 ......... 225
ITS Cooperative Deployment 225 ........... .......... 225 ......... 225
Network......................
PROGRAM SUPPORT........................... 8,566 674 226 9,465 5,494 3,971
ITS AMERICA........................... 2,777 ........... .......... 2,777 2,775 2
ITS AMERICA--Regular Contract..... 2,500 ........... .......... 2,500 2,500 ...........
Development of a Strategic Plan-- 247 ........... .......... 247 247 ...........
ITS America......................
ITSA Annual Meeting (Registration 30 ........... .......... 30 27 3
Fees)............................
MITRETEK.............................. 4,970 530 217 5,717 1,811 3,906
JPL SUPPORT........................... 380 ........... .......... 380 380 ...........
MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL SUPPORT....... 86 ........... .......... 86 86 ...........
Kan Chen.......................... 11 ........... .......... 11 11 ...........
MITRE (Chadwick).................. 75 ........... .......... 75 75 ...........
GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT............... 352 144 9 505 442 63
C&P Contractual Support........... 150 ........... .......... 150 150 ...........
Columbia Services Computer Support 28 ........... .......... 28 28 ...........
Arrowhead Industries.............. 96 ........... .......... 96 96 ...........
Other Misc. Program Support....... 33 81 9 123 123 ...........
FCC Shared Resources.............. 45 ........... .......... 45 45 ...........
TASC--Traveler Information Center. ........ 35 .......... 35 ......... 35
Unfunded Interest Payments........ ........ 28 .......... 28 ......... 28
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES................. 92,715 2,610 3,522 98,847 71,929 26,918
FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL ........ 2,610 3,522 6,132 3,563 2,569
EARMARKS.............................
Northeast Corridor................ ........ 110 3,522 3,632 2,563 1,069
Commercial Vehicle Operations, I-5 ........ 1,500 .......... 1,500 ......... 1,500
California.......................
Dade County Expressway, Florida ........ 1,000 .......... 1,000 1,000 ...........
Toll Collection System...........
Rennselaer Polytechnical Institute ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
(RPI)............................
FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL 7,802 ........... .......... 7,802 7,052 750
EARMARKS--TEA-21.....................
Great Lakes ITS Implementation.... 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Northeast ITS Implementation...... 3,957 ........... .......... 3,957 3,207 750
Hazardous Materials Monitoring 1,211 ........... .......... 1,211 1,211 ...........
Systems..........................
Translink--Texas Transportation 1,050 ........... .......... 1,050 1,050 ...........
Institute........................
FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL 83,104 ........... .......... 83,104 59,505 23,599
EARMARKS-- APPNS.....................
Amherst, Massachusetts............ 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Arlington County, Virginia........ 594 ........... .......... 594 594 ...........
Atlanta, Georgia.................. 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Brandon, Vermont.................. 297 ........... .......... 297 297 ...........
Buffalo, New York................. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Centre Valley, Pennsylvania....... 396 ........... .......... 396 ......... 396
Cleveland, Ohio................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Columbus, Ohio.................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Corpus Christi, Texas............. 712 ........... .......... 712 712 ...........
Dade County, Florida.............. 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Del Rio, Texas.................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Delaware River, Pennsylvania...... 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Fairfield, California............. 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Fitchburg, Massachusetts.......... 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Greater Metro. Region--DC......... 3,957 ........... .......... 3,957 3,957 ...........
Hammond, Louisiana................ 3,166 ........... .......... 3,166 ......... 3,166
Houston, Texas.................... 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Huntington Beach, California...... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Huntsville, Alabama............... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Inglewood, California............. 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 1,187 ...........
Jackson, Mississippi.............. 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Kansas City, Missouri............. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Laredo, Texas..................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Middlesboro, Kentucky............. 2,374 ........... .......... 2,374 2,374 ...........
Mission Viejo, California......... 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Mobile, Alabama................... 1,979 ........... .......... 1,979 1,979 ...........
Monroe County, New York........... 317 ........... .......... 317 317 ...........
Montgomery, Alabama............... 989 ........... .......... 989 989 ...........
Nashville, Tennessee.............. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
New Orleans, Louisiana............ 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 ......... 1,187
New York City, New York........... 1,979 ........... .......... 1,979 1,979 ...........
New York/Long Island, New York.... 1,820 ........... .......... 1,820 1,820 ...........
Oakland County, Michigan.......... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Onandaga County, New York......... 317 ........... .......... 317 ......... 317
Port Angeles, Washington.......... 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Raleigh-Wake County, North 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Carolina.........................
Riverside, California............. 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
San Francisco, California......... 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 1,187 ...........
Scranton, Pennsylvania............ 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Silicon Valley, California........ 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 1,187 ...........
Spokane, Washington............... 356 ........... .......... 356 356 ...........
Springfield, Virginia............. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
St. Louis, Missouri............... 594 ........... .......... 594 594 ...........
State of Alaska................... 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 350 837
Alaska--CVO Deployment........ 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Alaska--Metro/Rural........... 837 ........... .......... 837 ......... 837
State of Idaho.................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Idaho--CVO Deployment......... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Idaho--Metro/Rural............ 441 ........... .......... 441 441 ...........
State of Maryland--CVO Deployment. 1,979 ........... .......... 1,979 1,979 ...........
State of Minnesota................ 5,619 ........... .......... 5,619 5,619 ...........
Minnesota--CVO Deployment..... 1,920 ........... .......... 1,920 1,920 ...........
Minnesota--Metro/Rural........ 3,699 ........... .......... 3,699 3,699 ...........
State of Mississippi.............. 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Mississippi--CVO Deployment... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Mississippi--Metro/Rural...... 441 ........... .......... 441 441 ...........
State of Missouri................. 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
Missouri--CVO Deployment...... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Missouri--Metro/Rural......... 46 ........... .......... 46 46 ...........
State of Montana.................. 554 ........... .......... 554 554 ...........
Montana--CVO Deployment....... 554 ........... .......... 554 554 ...........
Montana--Metro/Rural.......... ........ ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
State of Nevada................... 455 ........... .......... 455 105 350
Nevada--CVO Deployment........ 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
Nevada--Metro/Rural........... 105 ........... .......... 105 105 ...........
State of New Jersey............... 2,374 ........... .......... 2,374 2,374 ...........
New Jersey--CVO Deployment.... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
New Jersey--Metro/Rural....... 2,024 ........... .......... 2,024 2,024 ...........
State of New Mexico............... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
New Mexico--CVO Deployment.... 741 ........... .......... 741 741 ...........
New Mexico--Metro/Rural....... 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
State of New York................. 1,979 ........... .......... 1,979 1,312 667
New York--CVO Deployment...... 1,730 ........... .......... 1,730 1,063 667
New York--Metro/Rural......... 249 ........... .......... 249 249 ...........
State of North Dakota............. 1,148 ........... .......... 1,148 297 851
North Dakota--CVO Deployment.. 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
North Dakota--Metro/Rural..... 1,098 ........... .......... 1,098 247 851
North Dakota State 247 ........... .......... 247 247 ...........
University (ATAC)........
North Dakota State Univ.-- 302 ........... .......... 302 ......... 302
ATAC.....................
Univ. of North Dakota-- 549 ........... .......... 549 ......... 549
ATWIS....................
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania...... 11,081 ........... .......... 11,081 ......... 11,081
CVO Deployment................ 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
Metro/Rural................... 10,731 ........... .......... 10,731 ......... 10,731
State of Texas.................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Texas--CVO Deployment......... 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Texas--Metro/Rural............ 741 ........... .......... 741 741 ...........
State of Utah..................... 2,849 ........... .......... 2,849 2,849 ...........
Utah--CVO Deployment.......... 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
Utah--Metro/Rural............. 2,649 ........... .......... 2,649 2,649 ...........
State of Washington............... 1,583 ........... .......... 1,583 1,583 ...........
Washington--CVO Deployment.... 610 ........... .......... 610 610 ...........
Washington--Metro/Rural....... 973 ........... .......... 973 973 ...........
State of Wisconsin................ 1,187 ........... .......... 1,187 1,187 ...........
Wisconsin--CVO Deployment..... 350 ........... .......... 350 350 ...........
Wisconsin--Metro/Rural........ 837 ........... .......... 837 837 ...........
Temucula, California.............. 198 ........... .......... 198 198 ...........
Tucson, Arizona................... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Volusia County, Florida........... 791 ........... .......... 791 ......... 791
Warren County, Virginia........... 198 ........... .......... 198 198 ...........
Wausau-Stevens Point, Wisconsin... 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
Westchester/Putnam Counties, New 396 ........... .......... 396 396 ...........
York.............................
White Plains, New York............ 791 ........... .......... 791 791 ...........
EVALUATIONS OF EARMARKED PROJECTS..... 1,809 ........... .......... 1,809 1,809 ...........
NATIONAL ADVANCED DRIVER SIMULATOR........ 6,648 ........... .......... 6,648 6,648 ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTALS........................ 176,600 8,303 5,183 190,086 150,596 39,489
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SPENDING PLAN FUNDING SOURCES AND BALANCES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior year
Activity/project Fiscal ------------------------- Total Obligated Unobligated
year 2000 Unobligated Recoveries available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................. 40,901 1,149 .......... 42,049 3,869 38,180
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL....... 6,200 14 .......... 6,214 1,439 4,775
Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) 1,900 ........... .......... 1,900 ......... 1,900
System..........................
Adaptive Control Systems Lite.... 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Pedestrian Detection............. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Models........................... 1,525 ........... .......... 1,525 800 725
ITS Deployment Analysis 175 ........... .......... 175 50 125
System (IDAS)..............
ITS Deployment Analysis 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
System (IDAS)
Development.............
ITS Deployment Analysis 125 ........... .......... 125 ......... 125
System (IDAS)
Maintenance.............
Traffic Software Integrated 1,350 ........... .......... 1,350 750 600
System (TSIS)...............
Support for TSIS Version 750 ........... .......... 750 750 ...........
5.0 Model Deployment....
CORSIMS Reengineering.... 600 ........... .......... 600 ......... 600
Traffic Research Lab.(TReL) Test 1,537 ........... .......... 1,537 320 1,217
Bed Devel. & Supp...............
Human Factors.................... 555 ........... .......... 555 220 335
Human Factors Computer Aided 220 ........... .......... 220 220 ...........
Design (CAD) for TMC's......
Advanced Traffic Mgmt. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Systems (ATMS) Support......
Traffic Mgmt. Centers (TMC) 35 ........... .......... 35 ......... 35
Work- shop.................
Traffic Mgmt. Centers 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Consortium..................
Archived Data User Service (ADUS) 100 ........... .......... 100 25 75
Case Studies....................
Other Research Items............. 233 14 .......... 247 74 173
Ramp Metering (split funding) 43 ........... .......... 43 43 ...........
McTrans Beta Testing......... 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
McTrans Reengineering Review. 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Freeway Capacity............. 35 ........... .......... 35 31 4
ITRAF Support................ 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Queue Measurement............ 5 ........... .......... 5 ......... 5
IPA--Rudy Persaud, South ......... 14 .......... 14 ......... 14
Dakota DOT.................
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH......... 23,001 494 .......... 23,495 758 22,736
Generation 0..................... 5,500 ........... .......... 5,500 ......... 5,500
Generation 0 Operational 4,500 ........... .......... 4,500 ......... 4,500
Tests.......................
Generation 0 Field Test 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
Evaluations.................
Generation 1..................... 10,335 ........... .......... 10,335 ......... 10,335
Rear-end Collision Avoidance 4,250 ........... .......... 4,250 ......... 4,250
System Field Test...........
Rear-end Collision Avoidance 1,400 ........... .......... 1,400 ......... 1,400
System......................
Rear-end Collision 900 ........... .......... 900 ......... 900
Avoidance System Test
(NHTSA).................
Rear-end Collision 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Avoidance System Test
(FHWA for NHTSA)........
Lane Change/Merge Collision 850 ........... .......... 850 ......... 850
Avoidance System............
Road Departure............... 2,250 ........... .......... 2,250 ......... 2,250
Road Departure Test 1,750 ........... .......... 1,750 ......... 1,750
(NHTSA).................
Road Departure Test (FHWA 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
for NHTSA)..............
Safety Impacting............. 335 ........... .......... 335 ......... 335
Safety Impacting Test 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
(NHTSA).................
Safety Impacting Test 35 ........... .......... 35 ......... 35
(FHWA for NHTSA)........
EBS.......................... 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Drowsy Driver Field Test..... 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
Drowsy Driver Field Test 750 ........... .......... 750 ......... 750
(NHTSA).................
Drowsy Driver Field Test 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
(CVO)...................
Enabling Research Consortium..... 4,090 ........... .......... 4,090 ......... 4,090
Forward Collision Warning.... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Workload Metrics............. 600 ........... .......... 600 ......... 600
ED Map....................... 1,500 ........... .......... 1,500 ......... 1,500
Transit Rear-end............. 550 ........... .......... 550 ......... 550
Multiple Systems Inegration 940 ........... .......... 940 ......... 940
Study.......................
FHWA Human Factors Research...... 425 ........... .......... 425 64 361
In-Vehicle Information 65 ........... .......... 65 64 1
Systems Behavioral Model....
Effectiveness of Multi-turn 5 ........... .......... 5 ......... 5
Preview on Route Following
Perf........................
Comp. of Audio/Visual Icons 5 ........... .......... 5 ......... 5
for Sign Recognition........
Societal and Institutional 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Issues......................
Develop Cost/Benefit 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Methodology.................
Generation 2..................... 1,300 ........... .......... 1,300 ......... 1,300
Intersection................. 800 ........... .......... 800 ......... 800
Intersection (NHTSA)..... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Intersection (FHWA for 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
NHTSA)..................
Sensor Friendly Roadway...... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Define Short Range 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Communication Needs.........
Define Radionavigation Needs. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Support.......................... 1,351 494 .......... 1,845 695 1,150
Showcase..................... 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
TRB Review................... 200 ........... .......... 200 200 ...........
NHTSA Support................ 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
Transit IVI Technical Support 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Human Factors Support........ 155 ........... .......... 155 ......... 155
ITS America.................. 96 ........... .......... 96 1 95
IVI Program Support.......... ......... 494 .......... 494 494 ...........
RURAL RESEARCH....................... 2,350 497 .......... 2,847 497 2,350
Integration of APTS with 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Employment Service Sys..........
Rural Safety Services............ 600 ........... .......... 600 ......... 600
ACN/PSAP Integration......... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
E-911 Workshop............... 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Design of Variable Speed 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Limit (VSL) Sys.............
Rural Information and Operations. 1,450 ........... .......... 1,450 ......... 1,450
Development Decision Supp. 600 ........... .......... 600 ......... 600
Sys for Winter Maintenance..
Assimilation of Surface 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Condition & Weather Observ..
Sensors and Sensor Siting.... 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Refinement of Surface Transp. 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Weather Requirements........
Rural ITS Toolbox............ 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Rural/Weather Requirements....... ......... 497 .......... 497 497 ...........
APTS RESEARCH........................ 750 ........... .......... 750 ......... 750
Fleet Management Expert System... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Demand Response Dispatch 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Algorithm.......................
Wireless Technology Analysis..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Traveler Information and ADA ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Compatibil- ity................
ITS Rail Research................ 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
CVO RESEARCH......................... 7,500 134 .......... 7,634 1,165 6,469
Safety Data Systems.............. 2,650 ........... .......... 2,650 1,041 1,609
CVISN Support for Level I 1,200 ........... .......... 1,200 100 1,100
Deployment......................
Roadside Identification 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
Technology Research............
Architecture Consistency......... 1,245 ........... .......... 1,245 ......... 1,245
CVO Technical Assistance ......... 24 .......... 24 24 ...........
(Minnesota).....................
CVISN Pilots..................... 2,000 110 .......... 2,110 ......... 2,110
Available for Distribution....... 55 ........... .......... 55 ......... 55
INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH.......... 750 10 .......... 760 10 750
Harmonizing Freight Technology... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
ITSA Support for Reston II 150 ........... .......... 150 ......... 150
Confer- ence...............
ITSA Support for Intermodal 150 ........... .......... 150 ......... 150
Frt. Tech. Working Group....
International Border Crossing 450 ........... .......... 450 ......... 450
Program Support.................
IBC Program Support/IBC 365 ........... .......... 365 ......... 365
Architecture Update.........
Conduct 2 IBC Planning and 85 ........... .......... 85 ......... 85
Deploy. Mtgs................
TRB Conference on Intermodal ......... 10 .......... 10 10 ...........
Freight.........................
ENABLING RESEARCH.................... 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
DSRC Spectrum Issues............. 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Support for FCC and ITSA......... 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
OPERATIONAL TESTS........................ 6,090 4,744 231 11,065 400 10,665
APTS OPERATIONAL TESTS............... 1,090 ........... .......... 1,090 ......... 1,090
Fleet Management Expert System... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Demand Response Algorithm........ 590 ........... .......... 590 ......... 590
ALERT (Capitol Beltway).............. 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
RURAL OPERATIONAL TESTS.............. 3,750 1,500 .......... 5,250 400 4,850
Statewide PSAP................... 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
New York Statewide PSAP...... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Statewide PSAP............... 800 ........... .......... 800 ......... 800
Multi-agency Integration of Info 1,000 ........... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000
Sys & Trans. Coord..............
Rural Information and Operations. 1,750 500 .......... 2,250 ......... 2,250
Multi-State Traveler 1,000 500 .......... 1,500 ......... 1,500
Information.................
Road Weather Condition 750 ........... .......... 750 ......... 750
Forecasting.................
Nat'l. Park Service FOT.......... ......... 1,000 .......... 1,000 400 600
INTERMODAL FREIGHT--OPERATIONAL TEST. 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
OPERATIONAL TESTS CONTINGENCIES...... ......... 3,244 231 3,475 ......... 3,475
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT............ 6,000 ........... .......... 6,000 1,555 4,445
EVALUATIONS.......................... 2,860 ........... .......... 2,860 536 2,324
Field Operational Tests 1,135 ........... .......... 1,135 240 895
Evaluations.....................
Rural FOT Evaluations........ 570 ........... .......... 570 ......... 570
Intermodal Freight 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Evaluations.................
APTS Field Operational Test 365 ........... .......... 365 240 125
Evaluations.................
Transit FOT Evaluations 240 ........... .......... 240 240 ...........
(Transfer to FTA).......
Transit FOT Evaluations 125 ........... .......... 125 ......... 125
(FHWA for FTA)..........
Deployment Evaluations........... 1,025 ........... .......... 1,025 296 729
Metropolitan Evaluations..... 500 ........... .......... 500 104 396
CVISN Evaluations............ 425 ........... .......... 425 192 233
Hwy.-Rail Evaluations........ 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Special Benefits Reports......... 700 ........... .......... 700 ......... 700
Crosscutting Analyses........ 700 ........... .......... 700 ......... 700
ITS Deployment Tracking.......... 950 ........... .......... 950 870 80
Metropolitan ITS Deployment 600 ........... .......... 600 600 ...........
Tracking for Fiscal Year
2000........................
Rural Deployment Tracking.... 260 ........... .......... 260 260 ...........
CVISN Deployment Tracking for 90 ........... .......... 90 10 80
Fiscal Year 1998............
Program Tracking................. 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
ITS Policy Assessment............ 1,690 ........... .......... 1,690 149 1,541
Analytical Support........... 800 ........... .......... 800 ......... 800
General Policy Assessment 890 ........... .......... 890 149 741
Support to the Director.....
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS............... 14,000 750 .......... 14,750 5,573 9,177
ARCHITECTURE......................... 5,000 120 .......... 5,120 4,309 811
Architecture Deployment/ 2,590 ........... .......... 2,590 2,590 ...........
Implementation Support..........
Deployment/Implementation 1,140 ........... .......... 1,140 1,140 ...........
Support.....................
Architecture Standards 700 ........... .......... 700 700 ...........
Development Support.........
Architecture Support of 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Standards Testing...........
Architecture Data Base/ 500 ........... .......... 500 500 ...........
Configuration Control
Support.....................
Architecture Documentation... 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Architecture Tool Development 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Rural User Service/Architecture 400 ........... .......... 400 400 ...........
Changes.........................
Planning Data/Archiving User 100 ........... .......... 100 100 ...........
Service/Architecture Changes....
Weather User Service/Architecture 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Changes.........................
Intermodal Freight User Service/ 50 ........... .......... 50 50 ...........
Architecture Changes............
Emergency Services User Services/ 25 ........... .......... 25 25 ...........
Architecture Changes............
Regional Architecture Support, 175 ........... .......... 175 175 ...........
Peer to Peer...................
Architecture Engineering 315 ........... .......... 315 ......... 315
Maintenance Support.............
Architecture Training (Deployment 800 ........... .......... 800 800 ...........
and Implementation).............
CVO Architecture................. 490 ........... .......... 490 ......... 490
Invitational Travel--Beta Test 5 ........... .......... 5 ......... 5
Turbo Architecture..............
Turbo Architecture............... ......... 120 .......... 120 120 ...........
STANDARDS............................ 9,000 630 .......... 500 1,264 8,366
Standards Development Activities. 4,400 130 .......... 4,530 130 4,400
Infrastructure and Safety.... 1,765 ........... .......... 1,765 ......... 1,765
Infrastructure & Safety.. 1,665 ........... .......... 1,665 ......... 1,665
Volpe.................... 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
CVO (EDI).................... 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
Transit...................... 1,055 ........... .......... 1,055 ......... 1,055
TCIP..................... 335 ........... .......... 335 ......... 335
Transit Signal Priority.. 110 ........... .......... 110 ......... 110
Transit Profile for LRMS. 110 ........... .......... 110 ......... 110
Smart Card............... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
ISO TC 204 WG 8 & WAG 8.. 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Rail......................... 200 130 .......... 330 130 200
FRA Support Devel. of ......... 130 .......... 130 130 ...........
Hwy.-Rail Intersection..
Rail..................... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Architecture Support......... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
JPL.......................... 780 ........... .......... 780 ......... 780
Mitretek..................... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Testing and Interoperability..... 2,500 ........... .......... 2,500 1,100 1,400
Interoperability Testing 1,700 ........... .......... 1,700 1,100 600
Support.....................
Battelle................. 1,100 ........... .......... 1,100 1,100 ...........
DSRC..................... 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
LRS...................... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Data Registration............ 800 ........... .......... 800 ......... 800
Implementation................... 1,900 ........... .......... 1,900 34 1,866
Resource Materials........... 500 ........... .......... 500 34 466
Lessons Learned.............. 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Technical Asst. (Peer to 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
peer).......................
Training..................... 500 ........... .......... 500 ......... 500
Evaluation................... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Conformity....................... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Rule Making.................. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Policy Development........... 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Standards Contingencies.......... ......... 500 .......... 500 ......... 500
INTEGRATION/MAINSTREAMING................ 9,414 1,957 .......... 11,371 1,569 9,702
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE................. 4,766 1,032 .......... 5,798 1,361 4,437
Direct Technical Assistance...... 1,725 ........... .......... 1,725 377 1,348
Service Plan Implementation.. 1,500 ........... .......... 1,500 377 1123
Service Plan 798 ........... .......... 798 377 421
Implementation..........
Non-Targeted Funding 312 ........... .......... 312 ......... 312
Allotted to Resource
Centers ($312,000).....
Service Plan Funds 28 ........... .......... 28 ......... 28
Allotted to NHI.........
Targeted Service Plan 363 ........... .......... 363 ......... 363
Funding Allotted to
Divisions...............
FHWA/FTA Peer to Peer Program 225 ........... .......... 225 ......... 225
Technical Guidance............... 1,855 100 .......... 1,955 425 1,530
ITS Lessons Learned/Best 400 ........... .......... 400 ......... 400
Practices Series............
ITS Lessons Learned/Best 325 ........... .......... 325 ......... 325
Practices Series........
APTA Best Practices 75 ........... .......... 75 ......... 75
Workshops...............
Technical Materials for Sys 120 100 .......... 220 100 120
Eng.........................
APTS Showcase................ 960 ........... .......... 960 300 660
APTS Showcase............ 300 ........... .......... 300 300 ...........
APTS Mobile Showcase 660 ........... .......... 660 ......... 660
(FHWA for FTA)..........
National Architecture Use 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Guidelines..................
Architecture Consistency 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Outreach....................
Architecture Consistency 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Out- reach.............
Arch. Consistency 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
Outreach Allotted to NHI
($50,000)...............
ACS Outreach................. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
IDAS Outreach................ 75 ........... .......... 75 25 50
Develop. of ATIS Data Collection 230 ........... .......... 230 194 36
Guide- lines...................
Crosscutting..................... 445 ........... .......... 445 ......... 445
Program Peer Review.......... 445 ........... .......... 445 ......... 445
ITSA Transit............. 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
APTS Stakeholder Forum... 75 ........... .......... 75 ......... 75
TMAG..................... 50 ........... .......... 50 ......... 50
FTA Technical Support.... 220 ........... .......... 220 ......... 220
AASHTO ITS Deployment Task Force. 75 ........... .......... 75 ......... 75
URBAN CONSORTIUM................. 436 442 .......... 877 224 653
PTI FISCAL YEAR 2000 Earmark-- 436 ........... .......... 436 ......... 436
URBAN CONSORTIUM............
PTI Fiscal Year 1999 Earmark. ......... 442 .......... 442 224 217
PBFarradyne IQC.................. ......... 391 .......... 391 141 250
AASHTO Steering Group for ......... 100 .......... 100 ......... 100
Technology Deployment...........
PLANNING/POLICY...................... 500 100 .......... 600 ......... 600
Air Quality Impacts.............. 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
Planning Tools to Support ITS.... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Traveler Response to Advanced ......... 100 .......... 100 ......... 100
Travel Information..............
FHWA--Traveler Response to ......... 50 .......... 50 ......... 50
Adv. Travel Info............
FTA--Traveler Response to ......... 50 .......... 50 ......... 50
Adv. Travel Info............
TRAINING............................. 3,350 600 .......... 3,950 200 3,750
Deliver Current Courses.......... 500 ........... .......... 500 30 470
Travel Management............ 500 ........... .......... 500 30 470
Update Existing Courses.......... 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Assist NHI and NTI with 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Continuing Update...........
Develop New Instructional 1,250 ........... .......... 1,250 ......... 1,250
Material........................
FTA Course--Data Management 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
for Transit Agencies........
New Courses to Fill Gaps..... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
Develop Addtl. High Priority 750 ........... .......... 750 ......... 750
Courses.....................
Advanced WBT Course Development.. 250 ........... .......... 250 100 150
Support Detailed Curricula 250 ........... .......... 250 100 150
Development & WBT Evaluation
Program Management & Support..... 350 ........... .......... 350 ......... 350
Onsite ISD Professional & 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Onsite Secretary............
Professional Training Spec. 150 ........... .......... 150 ......... 150
for NTI/ FTE................
Volpe Support for PCB Web 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Page Development............
CVISN Technical Training......... 900 ........... .......... 900 20 880
Consultant Management............ ......... 250 .......... 250 ......... 250
Distance Learning Pilots......... ......... 50 .......... 50 50 ...........
Training Funds Allocated to NHI.. ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
NHI Training Carryover from ......... 300 .......... 300 ......... 300
fiscal year 1999...............
ITS Software Acquisition..... ......... 10 .......... 10 ......... 10
CORSIM....................... ......... 15 .......... 15 ......... 15
Architecture Training Course. ......... 50 .......... 50 ......... 50
FHWA--New Course Development. ......... 200 .......... 200 ......... 200
Support at NHI............... ......... 25 .......... 25 ......... 25
OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS.......... 660 225 .......... 885 ......... 885
Publications (new and reprints).. 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
Publications (new and 250 ........... .......... 250 ......... 250
reprints)--Program Funding..
JPO Home Page.................... 180 ........... .......... 180 ......... 180
ICDN............................. 230 225 .......... 455 ......... 455
MAINSTREAMING........................ 500 ........... .......... 500 8 492
Shipping and Handling Exhibits... 120 ........... .......... 120 8 112
Exhibits (Creation/Maintenance).. 80 ........... .......... 80 ......... 80
Outreach......................... 300 ........... .......... 300 ......... 300
National Associations Working 100 ........... .......... 100 ......... 100
Group (NAWG)................
NGA Initiative............... 200 ........... .......... 200 ......... 200
PROGRAM SUPPORT.......................... 8,766 3,971 .......... 12,737 4,546 8,192
ITS AMERICA.......................... 2,600 2 .......... 2,602 600 2,002
MITRETEK............................. 5,500 3,906 .......... 9,406 3,906 5,500
JPL SUPPORT.......................... 380 ........... .......... 380 ......... 380
GENERAL PROGRAM SUPPORT.............. 286 63 .......... 349 40 309
Smart Technology................. 110 ........... .......... 110 ......... 110
Arrowhead Industries............. 130 ........... .......... 130 ......... 130
Other Misc. Program Support...... 46 ........... .......... 46 40 6
TASC-Traveler Information Center. ......... 35 .......... 35 ......... 35
Unfunded Interest Payments....... ......... 28 .......... 28 ......... 28
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES................ 98,423 26,918 100 125,441 1,430 124,011
FISCAL YEAR 1998 CONGRESSIONAL ......... 2,569 100 2,669 639 2,030
EARMARKS............................
Northeast Corridor (Various Proj) ......... 1,069 .......... 1,069 639 430
Commercial Vehicle Operations, I- ......... 1,500 .......... 1,500 ......... 1,500
5 California....................
National Inst. for Enviornmental ......... ........... 100 100 ......... 100
Renewal (NIER)..................
FISCAL YEAR 1999 CONGRESSIONAL ......... 24,349 .......... 24,349 791 23,558
EARMARKS............................
Alaska........................... ......... 837 .......... 837 ......... 837
Amherst, Massachusetts........... ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
Centre Valley, Pa................ ......... 396 .......... 396 ......... 396
Dade County Florida.............. ......... 791 .......... 791 791 ...........
Delaware River, Pa............... ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
Hammond, Louisiana............... ......... 3,166 .......... 3,166 ......... 3,166
Mission Viejo, California........ ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
Nevada--CVO Deployment........... ......... 350 .......... 350 ......... 350
New Orleans, Louisiana........... ......... 1,187 .......... 1,187 ......... 1,187
New York CVO Deployment.......... ......... 667 .......... 667 ......... 667
North Dakota State Univ.--ATAC... ......... 302 .......... 302 ......... 302
Northeast ITS Implementation..... ......... 750 .......... 750 ......... 750
CVO Northeast Corridor....... ......... 500 .......... 500 ......... 500
Tri-State Rural ATIS......... ......... 250 .......... 250 ......... 250
Onandaga County, New York........ ......... 317 .......... 317 ......... 317
Pennsylvania..................... ......... 11,081 .......... 11,081 ......... 11,081
CVO Deployment............... ......... 350 .......... 350 ......... 350
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ......... 10,731 .......... 10,731 ......... 10,731
Scranton, Pa..................... ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
University of North Dakota--ATWIS ......... 549 .......... 549 ......... 549
Volusia County, Florida.......... ......... 791 .......... 791 ......... 791
FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL 88,748 ........... .......... 88,748 ......... 88,748
EARMARKS............................
Albuquerque, New Mexico.......... 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Arapahoe County, Colorado........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Branson, Missouri................ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Central Pennsylvania............. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Charlotte, North Carolina........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Chicago, Illinois................ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
City of Superior and Douglas 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
County, Wisconsin...............
Clay County, Missouri............ 236 ........... .......... 236 ......... 236
Clearwater, Florida.............. 2,752 ........... .......... 2,752 ......... 2,752
College Station, Texas........... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Central Ohio..................... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Commonwealth of Virginia......... 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
Commonwealth of Virginia--CVO ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Commonwealth of Virginia-- 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
Metro/Rural.................
Corpus Christi, Texas............ 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Delaware River, Pennsylvania. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Fairfield, California........ 590 ........... .......... 590 ......... 590
Fargo, North Dakota.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Florida Bay County, Florida.. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Fort Worth, Texas................ 1,966 ........... .......... 1,966 ......... 1,966
Grand Forks, North Dakota........ 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Greater Metro. Capital Region, DC 3,932 ........... .......... 3,932 ......... 3,932
Greater Yellowstone, Montana..... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Houma, Louisiana................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Houston, Texas................... 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Huntsville, Alabama.............. 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Inglewood, California........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Jefferson County, Colorado....... 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Kansas City, Missouri............ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Las Vegas, Nevada................ 2,202 ........... .......... 2,202 ......... 2,202
Los Angeles, California.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Miami, Florida................... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Mission Viejo, California........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Monroe County, New York.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Nashville, Tennessee............. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Northeast Florida................ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Oakland, California.............. 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Oakland County, Michigan......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Oxford, Mississippi.............. 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Pennsylvania Turnpike, 1,966 ........... .......... 1,966 ......... 1,966
Pennsylvania....................
Pueblo, Colorado................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Puget Sound, Washington.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Reno/Tahoe, California/Nevada.... 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Rensselaer County, New York...... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Sacramento County, California.... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Salt Lake City, Utah............. 2,359 ........... .......... 2,359 ......... 2,359
San Francisco, California........ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Santa Clara, California.......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Santa Teresa, New Mexico......... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Seattle, Washington.............. 1,651 ........... .......... 1,651 ......... 1,651
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia...... 1,966 ........... .......... 1,966 ......... 1,966
Shreveport, Louisiana............ 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Silicon Valley, California....... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Southeast Michigan............... 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Spokane, Washington.............. 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
St. Louis, Missouri.............. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
State of Alabama................. 1,022 ........... .......... 1,022 ......... 1,022
Alabama--CVO Deployment...... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Alabama--Metro/Rural 1,022 ........... .......... 1,022 ......... 1,022
Deployment..................
State of Alaska.................. 2,359 ........... .......... 2,359 ......... 2,359
Alaska--CVO Deployment....... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Alaska--Metro/Rural 2,359 ........... .......... 2,359 ......... 2,359
Deployment..................
State of Arizona................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Arizona--CVO Deployment...... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Arizona--Metro/Rural 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Deployment..................
State of Colorado................ 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Colorado--CVO Deployment..... 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Colorado--Metro/Rural ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Deployment..................
State of Delaware................ 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Delaware--CVO Deployment..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Delaware--Metro/Rural 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Deployment..................
State of Idaho................... 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Idaho--CVO Deployment........ ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Idaho--Metro/Rural Deployment 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
State of Illinois................ 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Illinois--CVO Deployment..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Illinois--Metro/Rural 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Deployment..................
State of Maryland................ 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Maryland--CVO Deployment..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Maryland--Metro/Rural 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Deployment..................
State of Minnesota............... 5,505 ........... .......... 5,505 ......... 5,505
Minnesota--CVO Deployment.... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Minnesota--Metro/Rural 5,505 ........... .......... 5,505 ......... 5,505
Deployment..................
State of Montana................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Montana--CVO Deployment...... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Montana--Metro/Rural ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Deployment..................
State of Nebraska................ 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Nebraska, CVO Deployment..... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Nebraska--Metro/Rural 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Deployment..................
State of Oregon.................. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Oregon--CVO Deployment....... ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Oregon--Metro/Rural 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Deployment..................
State of Texas................... 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
Texas--CVO Deployment........ ......... ........... .......... ......... ......... ...........
Texas--Metro/Rural Deployment 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
State of Vermont Rural Systems... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
States of New Jersey and New York 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Statewide Transcom/Transmit 3,146 ........... .......... 3,146 ......... 3,146
Upgrades, New Jersey............
Tacoma Puyallup, Washington...... 393 ........... .......... 393 ......... 393
Thurston, Washington............. 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
Towamencin, Pennsylvania......... 472 ........... .......... 472 ......... 472
Wausau-Stevens Point-Wisconsin 1,180 ........... .......... 1,180 ......... 1,180
Rapids, Wisconsin...............
Wayne County, Michigan........... 786 ........... .......... 786 ......... 786
FISCAL YEAR 2000 CONGRESSIONAL 7,752 ........... .......... 7,752 ......... 7,752
EARMARKS--TEA-21....................
Great Lakes ITS Implementation... 1,573 ........... .......... 1,573 ......... 1,573
Northeast ITS Implementation..... 3,932 ........... .......... 3,932 ......... 3,932
Hazardous Materials Monitoring 1,204 ........... .......... 1,204 ......... 1,204
Systems.........................
Translink--Texas Transportation 1,043 ........... .......... 1,043 ......... 1,043
Institute.......................
EVALUATIONS OF EARMARKED PROJECTS.... 1,924 ........... .......... 1,924 ......... 1,924
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTALS....................... 183,955 39,489 331 223,775 18,942 204,833
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMART CARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSES
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the Committee
requested that FHWA provide up to $1,000,000 for the testing and
development of a smart commercial drivers license utilizing smart card
and biometric elements to enhance safety and efficiency. What has FHWA
done to implement that objective? How much will be allocated during
fiscal year 2000 on those activities?
Answer. The FHWA began to implement this objective in 1996 with a
study of the feasibility of smart cards for commercial drivers
licenses. The study's final report concluded that: ``Analysis shows
that enhancing the CDL is most feasible through the use of a smart card
for all drivers, not only commercial drivers. However, smart card
tracking of hours of service was not found to be institutionally
feasible. Although beneficial to law enforcement, smart card tracking
of hours of service could be effectively opposed by drivers and
carriers at several stages of system implementation.'' The American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is working to standardize
smart card technology. One Canadian province is scheduled to issue
smart cards beginning in calendar year 2001.
Currently, the FMCSA is evaluating the best biometric elements to
uniquely identify a commercial driver. The FMCSA has a Cooperative
Agreement with the California Department of Motor Vehicles to determine
the optimum combination of fingerprint and facial images to best detect
license fraud and the optimum communication protocol to exchange
fingerprint images between states electronically. California is one of
3 states which will collect a total of 32,000 sample digital facial
images and sets of fingerprints from volunteers. A random sample of
records will be duplicated and sent to vendors to see if they can
identify the duplicate records. The project started in fiscal year 1999
with $100,000 in research funds. Funding for fiscal year 2000 is
$100,000 in Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funds and $100,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Operations funds.
The project is scheduled for completion in October 2001. No further
funding for fiscal year 2001 is planned.
In addition the Office of Freight Management within FHWA is
conducting an ITS freight operational test with the ATA Foundation and
the Illinois DOT on a secure freight movement system in conjunction
with an end-to-end electronic manifest system from manufacturer to
customer. The overall cost of the system is $1.1 million, with $468
thousand federal funds and the rest from the state and private
partnerships. The system will test biometric identifiers of all the
handlers of the freight, including commercial motor carrier drivers. A
smart card will be used with the fingerprint captured digitally for
each individual responsible for the freight as it moves from origin to
destination. The evaluation of this test, expected in 2001, will
provide additional information on the success of using a ``smart card
and biometric elements to enhance safety and efficiency''.
DEPLOYMENT OF CVISN LEVEL I
Question. FHWA states in the budget justification that in fiscal
year 2001 you will complete the deployment of CVISN Level I in the 10
pilot states. What is the empirical basis of this projection? What
could be done to help the Department achieve this milestone?
Answer. The budget justification states that CVISN is being
developed and deployed using a building block approach, designed to
achieve a 10-state CVISN network in fiscal year 2001. The empirical
basis of this projection was: (1) these states completed their CVISN
project plans and top-level designs in June 1997; (2) that it would
take approximately 2 years to complete CVISN Level 1 deployment; and
(3) that the funds necessary for these ten states to complete CVISN
Level 1 deployment by fiscal year 2001 would be available. In fact,
TEA-21 authorized a total of $184 million of federal ITS funds from FYs
1998-2003 to deploy CVISN in a majority of states by September 30,
2003. However, most of the federal ITS deployment funds originally
intended to support CVISN deployment are being designated by Congress
through the appropriations process to fund other ITS projects.
Both the ITS Joint Program Office and FMCSA have tried to
supplement the deployment of CVISN by using R&D and MCSAP funds have
used a limited amount of federal funds from the ITS and FMCSA programs
to support CVISN deployment in the prototype and pilot states. In some
instances, these states also received Congressional earmarks and used
all or a portion of those funds to support their CVISN deployment
activities. As a result, we expect Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia to
be deploying CVISN Level 1 capabilities by the end of fiscal year 2000,
and California, Minnesota, and Washington to be completed by the end of
fiscal year 2001. We also expect Colorado and Connecticut to be
completed by the end of fiscal year 2002.
The FMCSA's and the FHWA's highest priority for the use of federal
ITS deployment funds has been and will continue to be completing CVISN
Level 1 deployment in the pilot states. The ability to direct federal
ITS deployment funds to complete CVISN deployment in the remaining
pilot states of Michigan and Oregon will provide the essential
foundation for subsequent CVISN deployment of Level 1 capabilities
across the nation. The ability to direct federal ITS deployment funds
to states which are ready to begin CVISN deployment will help the
Department achieve the Congressional goal of completing CVISN
deployment in a majority of states by September 30, 2003. The lack of
full federal ITS deployment funds for CVISN puts the FMCSA's, the
FHWA's and the states' ability to meet the Congressional goal in
jeopardy. It is not a matter of spending more money but one of either
giving the Joint Program Office the discretion to focus the deployment
funds on the states that are already in the process of deploying, or
have Congress do that.
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE INITIATIVE (IVI)
Question. Please explain or justify the allocation between the
amount of funds requested for research versus the amount requested for
operational testing.
Answer. In the fiscal year 2001 budget request for IVI we have
requested $30 million. $14.4 million for research, $11.6 million for
field testing of longer term systems, and $4.6 million for the
Generation Zero Operational Tests.
--The Research budget funds problem size and causality, functional
analysis, performance specifications, human factors and
estimation of benefits. This can be characterized by laboratory
and test track work on systems which lack technical maturity.
--The field testing budget funds the test and evaluation of systems
that we have a significant understanding of their technical
performance, user acceptance and benefits. These systems are
sufficiently mature to be evaluated in an operational
environment but are not expected to be commercially available
within the next five years because of cost, performance and
institutional issues.
--The Generation Zero Operational Tests will evaluate systems which
are expected to enter production preparation by 2003. The
purpose of these tests is to measure their effectiveness on
real roads with real drivers. This will allow us to measure the
effectiveness as well as address any other obstacles to the
deployment of safety impacting systems.
In order to achieve the near-term program goals without ignoring
the increased benefits of more advanced systems, the program is focused
on developing multiple generations of vehicles which have increasing
capabilities. The generation vehicles will be developed in partnership
with industry and stakeholders for the purpose of evaluating the
benefits, technical capabilities and user acceptance of these systems.
This arrangement allows the government research investment to influence
the industries which must produce these systems as well as the
individuals and organizations that will use them.
Fiscal year 2001 will be the fourth year of the IVI program. Fiscal
year 1998 was spent on defining and organizing the program. In that
limited budget year, we focused on developing the early services which
were primarily developed under the predecessor programs to the IVI. In
fiscal year 1999, we initiated a program to test and evaluate
Generation 0 products (near market systems). The objective of this
activity is to measure the effectiveness of these technologies. While
this is in progress we will initiate field tests of some next
generation services (Generation 1) and conduct longer term research of
future generations (Generation 2 and beyond). All of this is conducted
in a framework which was defined by an industry-stakeholder-government
working group.
FUNDING UNDER IVI PROGRAM
Question. Please submit detailed spending plans of the activities
funded under the IVI program for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.
Delineate expenditures related to the passenger platform.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IVI FISCAL YEAR 1999 SPENDING PLAN
Total......................... $20,923 .......................
===========
Generation 0:
Performance Specifications:
Objective Test Metrics...... ......... Light Vehicle
Driver Performance Data $1,650 Light Vehicle
Collection.
Field Tests: Generation 0 Field $6,400 .......................
Tests.
Cross-cutting:
Special Vehicle Needs 309 .......................
Assessment/HF.
Develop C/B methodology..... 500 Light Vehicle
Generation 1:
Performance Specifications:
Rear-end Performance 601 Light Vehicle
Specifications.
Roadway Departure Perf Specs 250 Light Vehicle
Lane Change/Merge Perf Specs 150 Light Vehicle
Int. and fleet test of 600 .......................
safety Critical Sys.
Drowsy Driver DVI........... 100 .......................
EBS......................... 150 .......................
Test Multi Trailer Stability 498 .......................
Transit LC/M Perf Spec...... 300 .......................
Transit Rear End Perf Specs. 550 .......................
Transit Rear Impact Perf 350 .......................
Spec.
Field Tests:
Rear-END CAS Field Test..... 4,850 Light Vehicle
Drowsy Driver Field Test.... 700 .......................
Cross-cutting:
Lane Change Workshop........ 150 Light Vehicle
HF Multi System Integration. 250 Light Vehicle
Generation 2:
Performance Specifications:
Vision Enhancement Perf Spec ......... Light Vehicle
Intersection Perf Specs..... 250 Light Vehicle
Cross-cutting: Sensor Friendly 249 Light Vehicle
Roadway.
Support:
TRB Review...................... 175 Light Vehicle
Program Support (Incl 494 Light Vehicle
Mitretek).
NHTSA Support............... 400 Light Vehicle
Transit Support............. 150 .......................
HF Support.................. 367 Light Vehicle
TFHRC M&C................... 88 Light Vehicle
ITS America................. 87 Light Vehicle
Publications 2 percent...... 305 Light Vehicle
FISCAL YEAR 2000 IVI BUDGET
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH.... 23,000 .......................
GENERATION 0:
Gen O Op Tests.......... 4,500 .......................
Gen 0 Field Test 1,000 .......................
Evaluations.
GENERATION 1:
RECAS Field Test........ 4,250 Light Vehicle
Rear-end CAS............ 1,400 Light Vehicle
LC/M CAS................ 600 Light Vehicle
Road Departure.......... 2,100 Light Vehicle
Safety Impacting (Incl 335 Light Vehicle
$35k f/TFHRC workload
tool).
EBS..................... 250 .......................
Drowsy Driver Field Test 1,000 .......................
Enabling Research
Consortium:
Forward Collision 500 Light Vehicle
Warning.
Workload Metrics........ 600 Light Vehicle
EDMap................... 1,500 Light Vehicle
Transit Rear-End........ 550 .......................
Multiple Systems 940 Light Vehicle
Integration Study \1\.
FHWA Human Factors Research:
In-Vehicle Information 65 Light Vehicle
Systems Behavioral
Model.
Eff of Multi Turn 5 Light Vehicle
Preview on Route
Following Perf.
Comp of Aud & Visual 5 Light Vehicle
Icons f/Sign
Recognition.
Societal and 100 Light Vehicle
Institutional Issues.
Develop Cost/Benefit 250 Light Vehicle
Methodology.
Generation 2:
Intersection \4\........ 1,200 Light Vehicle
Sensor Friendly Roadway. 300 Light Vehicle
Define Short Range 100 Light Vehicle
Communication Needs.
Define Vehicle to 100 Light Vehicle
Vehicle Communication
Needs.
Support:
Showcase................ 400 Light Vehicle
TRB Review.............. 200 Light Vehicle
NHTSA Support........... 400 Light Vehicle
Transit Support......... 100 .......................
HF Support.............. 155 Light Vehicle
ITS America............. 95 Light Vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE-RELATED TECHNOLOGIES
Question. How much of the IVI program during fiscal year 1998,
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 was devoted to commercial
vehicle-related technologies? How were those funds used?
Answer. During fiscal year 1998, $1,824,000 was spent on commercial
vehicle elements of the IVI program. The Commercial Vehicle element of
the IVI program conducts research, analysis, information sharing, field
tests and evaluations aimed at developing selected deployable
commercial vehicle IVI technologies. The IVI Commercial Vehicle
technologies apply to trucks and non-transit buses and are intended to
improve safety and operational efficiency. Specifically, we invested
$649,000 in the vehicle stability and $790,000 in the driver condition
warning IVI Commercial Vehicle problems areas. In addition, we invested
$385,000 in electronic braking systems (EBS) performance testing. EBS
is an enabling technology for many of the IVI Commercial Vehicle
Services.
During fiscal year 1999, $5,250,000 was spent on commercial vehicle
elements of the IVI program. The Commercial Vehicle element of the IVI
program conducts research, analysis, information sharing, field tests
and evaluations aimed at developing selected deployable commercial
vehicle IVI technologies. The IVI Commercial Vehicle technologies apply
to trucks and non-transit buses and are intended to improve safety and
operational efficiency. Specifically, we invested $1,100,000 in the
vehicle stability and $1,500,000 in the driver condition warning IVI
Commercial Vehicle problems areas. In addition, we invested $150,000 in
EBS performance testing. Three Generation 0 Operational Tests were
awarded for Commercial Vehicle Projects and $4,500,000 was obligated to
these projects in fiscal year 1999. The objective of these tests is to
measure the effectiveness of systems which will be deployed by 2003.
Freightliner will test a rollover stability advisor system. Mack Trucks
will test an infrastructure assisted hazard warning system. Volvo will
test a rear-end collision warning system and an advanced brake system.
In fiscal year 2000, $5,750,000 was spent on commercial vehicle
projects. We invested $4,500,000 to continue the Generation 0
Operational Tests and Evaluation projects. We invested $250,000 to
initiate development of objective test procedures for advanced braking
systems. Fiscal year 2000 will be our final year of preparation for a
Drowsy Driver Field Test. We invested $1 million to complete a driver
vehicle interface and perform a final validation of the PERCLOS system.
Question. How much of the IVI program during fiscal year 2001 will
be devoted to technologies to improve commercial vehicle safety? How
will those funds be used?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $8.2 million of the IVI program
funding will be devoted to technologies to improve commercial vehicle
safety. The commercial vehicle platform will be the early deployer of
these technologies but as system performance improves, costs decrease
and benefits are demonstrated, these safety systems will become
available on the light vehicle platform. Our evaluation of these
projects will include the ``transferability'' to light vehicles. The
fiscal year 2001 funds will be used as follows:
Generation 0 Operational Tests and Evaluation.--$3,500,000. This
will be the final year of funding for the four Generation 0 operational
tests which were awarded during fiscal year 1999. Data collection will
be conducted in fiscal year 2001 and into fiscal year 2002. All work
should be completed in fiscal year 2002 using previous funding. This
project is focused on driver-assistance products that will be
commercially available within the next five years. We do not expect
that these systems will meet the full performance required to address
the individual problem areas, as described in our preliminary
performance specifications. It is important to determine if these
systems will have an impact on safety and performance, whether it is
positive or negative. Of equal importance to safety is the impact of
multiple systems on the driver's performance. The subject of the
operational tests follows:
A collision warning system (advanced Eaton-Vorad) including closing
distance warning, blind spot object warning, and adaptive cruise
control will be evaluated on 50 heavy vehicles and an additional 50
vehicles will be used as a control group. The 100 test vehicles will
operate in commercial service on public roads through the U.S.
Infrastructure-assisted road hazard warning will be evaluated on
143 commercial vehicle tractors. The test vehicles will operate in
commercial service on public roads throughout the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
A truck ``Rollover Stability Advisor'' (RSA) to warn truck drivers
of potential instability will be evaluated. Six tractors coupled to
tanker semi-trailers will operate in commercial service in the Midwest.
Three of the tractors will be equipped with the countermeasure and
three will serve as the unequipped control group. The test fleet will
be dispatched and managed from LaPorte, IN, about 45 miles southeast of
Chicago.
Generation 1--Vehicle Stability Operational Test--$1,000,000.--This
field test will build on technologies developed under the IVI
commercial vehicle platform in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 to
test on commercial vehicle operators in real world, revenue producing
operations the effectiveness of electronic braking systems (EBS). This
will also test the enhanced safety benefits of using EBS as these
systems have the potential to: reduce brake response and release times;
decrease stopping distance; improve anti-lock braking performance;
provide the capability for stability corrections by selective braking;
optimize braking strategies for brake pressure distribution, optimize
brake lining wear; enhance braking compatibility between tractors and
trailers; and foster development of collision avoidance systems for
commercial vehicles. It is expected that commercial vehicle
manufacturers and commercial vehicle fleets will cooperatively work
with the Department in field testing these devices. In addition, this
work may be done in separate tests in order to assess EBS performance
on double and triple trailer combination trucks. These systems
potentially offer many advantages, compared to pneumatically-controlled
systems, in terms of safety, efficiency, productivity and reliability,
including: reduced brake response and release times, decreased stopping
distance, and an optimized strategy for brake pressure distribution and
adhesion utilization.
Generation 1--Drowsy Driver Operational Test--$2,000,000.--This
operational test will be the second year of a three year operational
test of drowsy driver technology developed under the IVI commercial
vehicle platform in previous years. This technology detects and warns
of drowsiness of drivers of commercial vehicles in real world, revenue
producing operations. This Operational Test will evaluate the use of
such a system in preventing crashes involving fatigued commercial
vehicle drivers. It is expected that commercial vehicle manufacturers
and commercial vehicle fleets will be working cooperatively work with
the Department in field testing of these devices.
Generation 1--Vehicle Stability Field Test--$1,000,000.--This field
test will build on technologies developed under the IVI commercial
vehicle platform in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 to test on
commercial vehicle operators in real world, revenue producing
operations the effectiveness of electronic braking systems (EBS). This
will also test the enhanced safety benefits of using EBS as these
systems have the potential to: reduce brake response and release times;
decrease stopping distance; improve anti-lock braking performance;
provide the capability for stability corrections by selective braking;
optimize braking strategies for brake pressure distribution, optimize
brake lining wear; enhance braking compatibility between tractors and
trailers; and foster development of collision avoidance systems for
commercial vehicles. It is expected that commercial vehicle
manufacturers and commercial vehicle fleets will cooperatively work
with the Department in field testing of these devices. In addition,
this work may be done in separate tests in order to assess EBS
performance on double and triple trailer combination trucks. These
systems potentially offer many advantages, compared to pneumatically-
controlled systems, in terms of safety, efficiency, productivity and
reliability, including: reduced brake response and release times,
decreased stopping distance, and an optimized strategy for brake
pressure distribution and adhesion utilization.
Generation 2--Vehicle Stability Problem Area Research--$700,000.--
This project will support advanced activities in this problem area that
build on the capabilities addressed in the ongoing filed test. This is
a core activity of the Commercial Vehicle Intelligent Vehicle program
and will explore the most promising method of integrating the stability
enhancement and vehicle diagnostic research to develop the fully
integrated IVI Commercial Vehicle. The performance specifications
developed for other platforms will be expanded to incorporate adverse
weather, complex road geometry and night time driving conditions. It is
expected that the role of infrastructure cooperative and vehicle to
vehicle cooperative systems will be increased. Supporting research
areas include in-vehicle naturalistic vehicle following studies,
benefits methodology developments including NADS and traffic simulation
methods. This activity will also include the development of tools that
will be used to quantify the performance of concepts and specific
systems to be integrated in any IVI Commercial Vehicle Operational Test
of the developed technology.
IVI CHALLENGES
Question. Is the Department having any problems or facing any
challenges in moving the IVI forward expeditiously? If so, please
describe the scope and nature of those challenges and discuss how and
whether the fiscal year 2001 budget will address those concerns.
Answer. The IVI seeks to expedite the commercial availability of
advance vehicle control and safety systems that will reduce driver
workload and improve decision making in complex traffic or hazardous
situations. By its nature this is a difficult and complex problem to
solve. From its inception, this program has been designed to address
these challenges.
Developing solutions to the eight problem areas is a highly complex
undertaking. It involves determining causality, developing performance
specifications for potential countermeasures, measuring the technical
performance and user acceptance of applicable systems, estimating and
validating benefits. In order to provide near term benefits, the IVI
will not wait to develop the optimal solution, but will evaluate and
encourage the deployment of effective systems that may only partially
address the problem areas. In order to implement this incremental
approach, the IVI will focus on developing generations of vehicles with
increasing capabilities which address the eight problem areas. During
the period covered by TEA-21, U.S. DOT intends to support work on
generations zero, one, and two. Each succeeding generation is expected
to address systems with more advanced capabilities, higher levels of
integration and increased infrastructure cooperation.
Fiscal year 2001 will be the final year of funding for the
Generation 0 Operational Tests. These tests will demonstrate the
effectiveness and benefits of systems which will be deployed by fiscal
year 2003. We will continue our preparation for Generation 1 Field
Tests. This will include development of objective test procedures,
evaluation methodologies and driver vehicle interface requirements.
Generation 2 research will focus on extending the benefits of IVI
systems through cooperation with infrastructure and inter-vehicle
communications. A central theme which runs through all of our research
and operational testing is a concern for the effect IVI systems will
have on driver distraction and behavior. To address these issues we are
collecting naturalistic driving data, developing workload metrics,
developing driver-vehicle interface guidelines and field testing IVI
systems.
COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM
Question. In fiscal year 2001 does the Department intend to issue
another solicitation inviting participation in operational tests to
advance technologies tested in the passenger vehicle platform? What
would be the scope and nature of that solicitation?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, we intend to solicit participation in
a field test of a Generation 1 road departure collision avoidance
system for light vehicles (passenger vehicles). We intended to issue
this solicitation in fiscal year 2000, but it was delayed in order to
complete evaluation methodologies and objective test procedures. This
will be a competitive solicitation open to teams led by an automotive
manufacture or tier one supplier who will provide significant cost
share. This project will equip and test a fleet of vehicles with a
first-generation road departure collision avoidance system. This system
may be vehicle based or have infrastructure cooperative elements. The
evaluation will include a study of driver workload, driver acceptance,
and behavioral adaptation. This will be a 3-year effort.
NAS PEER REVIEW PANEL
Question. What are the principal findings from the National Academy
of Sciences peer review panel on the IVI?
Answer. The panel published its first letter report in June 1999. A
second report is expected in June of this year. A summary of the
committee's key findings and the DOT response from the June 1999 report
follows:
1. ``The main point of confusion was the scope of program
activities, specifically whether highway as well as vehicle
improvements are part of the IVI program mission. In their
presentations to the committee, IVI program staff made clear the safety
goal and vehicle-related, near-term focus of the program, but the
committee believes the documentation would be more compelling if
program goals were described more simply and clearly in future
revisions of these materials.''
The scope of the IVI covers vehicle-based systems. This includes
autonomous countermeasures which are completely contained on the
vehicle, and cooperative systems which have an on-board component that
communicate with an infrastructure-based component. The 1997 Business
Plan has been revised in part, to clarify the program goals.
2. ``The committee is unanimous in its support of safety as the
primary program goal. Moreover, it agrees that DOT has an appropriate
and important role to play in facilitating the development of IV
technologies, and evaluating their impact on safety as they appear on
more and more vehicles.''
We agreed with this statement and reiterated that the program goal
as documented in the business plan is to increase safety on U.S. roads.
3. ``The committee believes the safety goal of the IVI program
would be better served if DOT were to acknowledge the limits of its
role in accelerating the deployment of in-vehicle technologies, and
place greater emphasis on accelerating enabling research, facilitating
standards setting, and understanding the crash reduction potential and
other safety effects of candidate IV technologies both in development
and commercially available.''
We believe we have acknowledged our limitations. The program
mission states that we are ``facilitating'' the acceleration of
deployment. We have engaged the true deployers of these systems and
engaged them in cooperative research and testing. The activities that
were recommended (``accelerating enabling research, facilitating
standards setting, and understanding the crash reduction potential and
other safety effects of candidate IV technologies both in development
and commercially available'') are already the core activities of the
IVI program.
4. ``Consideration should be given to allocating part of the
program budget to human factors research on IV technologies that have
already reached the marketplace.''
The IVI program addresses technologies that have already been
deployed in two ways. First, we have defined a problem area titled
``Safety Impacting Services.'' This category addresses the system
performance as well as human factors related impact with regard to
safety of in-vehicle ITS systems, such as in-vehicle computers, that
are entering or already in the marketplace. Secondly, within each of
the other problem areas, we evaluate the performance of these systems
which are already on the market, on a case by case basis. For example
we are conducting an operational test of the Eaton-VORAD Collision
Warning System, and are conducting test track studies of in-vehicle
computing systems. We published a compendium of our ongoing and planned
human factors activities to document this.
5. ``The program would also benefit from a more detailed discussion
of how proposed human factors research will be integrated into each
stage of technology development and assessment.''
We provided a detailed presentation on this subject during the
November 1999 committee meeting. A briefing paper on our human factors
strategy and a copy of the compendium of our ongoing and planned human
factors activities was included in the committee's pre-meeting reading
materials and is available on our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
6. ``At the broadest level, the committee believes the federal
government's role in the IVI program should be to facilitate (rather
than accelerate) the development and to monitor and evaluate the
deployment of new motor vehicle technologies with the potential to make
the driving task safer.''
We agree with this statement and believe the activities described
in the program documentation are intended to achieve facilitation.
7. ``In the committee's judgment, the appropriate role for
government in the IVI program should be more sharply defined than it is
at present, so that the value added by government participation will be
evident.''
The IVI can only be effective at reducing motor vehicle crashes if
the widespread deployment of vehicle-based and infrastructure
cooperative safety enhancing products and systems is achieved. In order
to achieve this vision, U.S. DOT has a two-part role. The first, is to
ensure that safety is not comprised by the introduction of in-vehicle
systems. A particular interest for the IVI is the safety impact of
combining multiple systems, such as route guidance and navigation,
adaptive cruise control, cellular telephones, and in-vehicle computers.
We will investigate the impact that these systems may have on driver
behavior by measuring any changes in the level of driver workload and
distraction.
The second part of the Federal role in IVI, addresses our
responsibility for reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses
resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This role, which is a cornerstone
of U.S. DOT's mission, will be carried out by facilitating the
development, deployment and evaluation of driver-assistance safety
products & systems. An analysis conducted by NHTSA showed that the
widespread deployment of advanced driver assistance systems which
address just three of the 8 IVI problem areas can reduce motor vehicle
crashes by 17 percent annually. Based on this analysis, the IVI program
was formed to more definitively evaluate the effectiveness of these
technologies and depending on the results encourage their availability
in the marketplace.
There are several factors which influence the definition of an
effective role for U.S. DOT in this endeavor.
--IVI systems will be primarily developed by the private sector. U.S.
DOT will work cooperatively with industry to define performance
specifications for safety systems.
--IVI services will be deployed by the motor vehicle industry, fleet
operators and local transportation agencies. U.S. DOT will
support these stakeholders by providing information on the
necessary technical performance, user acceptance and benefits
of systems which address the IVI problem areas.
With these factors in mind, we have defined a role for U.S. DOT (as
documented in the revised business plan) that will define the
performance requirements for crash avoidance systems, evaluate their
effectiveness and depending on results encourage their market
availability. Some products which address the IVI problem areas with
varying levels of effectiveness have and will continue to be made
available even without a federally funded IVI program. But with the IVI
program, we may expect better systems available sooner.
8. ``In general, the government role in the IVI program should
encompass activities (Enabling research, Research on technology
integration, Research on unintended safety consequences of commercially
available IV technologies), that industry or others are unlikely or
unwilling to perform.''
The IVI program does encompass these activities. This is documented
in the program business plan.
9. ``Government should help provide at least three types of data
(Data and methodologies for benefit estimation, Baseline data on driver
behavior, Data on crashes).''
The IVI program will help provide this data. This is documented in
the program business plan.
10. ``A key government role is to facilitate the necessary
infrastructure investments for specific IV technologies that require
cooperation between the vehicle and the highway (e.g., intersection
collision avoidance systems).''
The scope of the IVI covers vehicle-based systems. This includes
autonomous countermeasures which are completely contained on the
vehicle, and cooperative systems which have an on-board component that
communicate with an infrastructure-based component. We will assess the
need for infrastructure cooperation within each of the problem areas.
We have initiated a system study for the intersection and road
departure collision problem areas. The results of these systems studies
will define the path of future research. We have formed a consortium of
State DOTs to address infrastructure issues. Additionally, we have
several cross-cutting activities that address sensor friendly
infrastructure and communication needs.
11. ``The committee urges that this information be brought together
in one place and clarified so that the federal role, and the resources
that support it, is clearly identified for each program activity.''
This has been done in the revised business plan.
12. ``Given the reduced budget, narrower mission, and near-term
objectives of the IVI program, the committee believes it is critical
for the program to be well focused and for the roles of government and
industry to be clearly defined.''
This has been documented in the revised business plan. A briefing
paper on this topic was provided to the committee and is available on
our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
13. ``DOT should set targets with respect to the crash reduction
potential of particular technologies, and establish milestones for
monitoring progress toward the deployment of those technologies and the
realization of safety benefits.''
A presentation on our strategy for benefits estimation was provided
during the November meeting. We have initiated an activity to develop
benefits estimates for the problem areas. This activity is difficult
because of the nature of crash avoidance (long deployment cycles,
difficult to measure) and the limited role of government (not a vehicle
developer or deployer) but our work will lead to surrogate measures and
protocols which will allow us to quantify benefits.
14. ``The committee applauds DOT efforts to keep the IVI program
focused. However, certain IV technologies also have important potential
application for improved crashworthiness and injury mitigation once
crashes have occurred. Some committee members urged that more provision
be made in the program for these applications.''
DOT recognizes and supports crash-worthiness efforts, however given
the reductions in funding for IVI activities; it is a conscious
decision by DOT to focus on crash avoidance.
15. ``An important role for government is to facilitate the
involvement of these new participants in appropriate partnership
arrangements and other relevant program activities.''
The mutual governance structure is intended to accomplish this. The
non-traditional players will be brought in either to support the car,
truck or infrastructure consortiums or the Federal Advisory Committee.
A briefing paper was provided to the committee and is available on our
web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
16. ``The committee urges that more of such material on problem
identification and expected safety benefits be included in future
revisions of IVI program documents.''
The committee was provided with a briefing paper on this topic
which is available on our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
NAS FINDINGS
Question. What actions has DOT taken to address these findings?
Answer. The panel published its first letter report in June 1999. A
second report is expected in June of this year. A summary of the
committee's key findings and the DOT response from the June 1999 report
follows:
1. ``The main point of confusion was the scope of program
activities, specifically whether highway as well as vehicle
improvements are part of the IVI program mission. In their
presentations to the committee, IVI program staff made clear the safety
goal and vehicle-related, near-term focus of the program, but the
committee believes the documentation would be more compelling if
program goals were described more simply and clearly in future
revisions of these materials.''
The scope of the IVI covers vehicle-based systems. This includes
autonomous countermeasures which are completely contained on the
vehicle, and cooperative systems which have an on-board component that
communicate with an infrastructure-based component. The 1997 Business
Plan has been revised in part, to clarify the program goals.
2. ``The committee is unanimous in its support of safety as the
primary program goal. Moreover, it agrees that DOT has an appropriate
and important role to play in facilitating the development of IV
technologies, and evaluating their impact on safety as they appear on
more and more vehicles.''
We agreed with this statement and reiterated that the program goal
as documented in the business plan is to increase safety on U.S. roads.
3. ``The committee believes the safety goal of the IVI program
would be better served if DOT were to acknowledge the limits of its
role in accelerating the deployment of in-vehicle technologies, and
place greater emphasis on accelerating enabling research, facilitating
standards setting, and understanding the crash reduction potential and
other safety effects of candidate IV technologies both in development
and commercially available.''
We believe we have acknowledged our limitations. The program
mission states that we are ``facilitating'' the acceleration of
deployment. We have engaged the true deployers of these systems and
engaged them in cooperative research and testing. The activities that
were recommended (``accelerating enabling research, facilitating
standards setting, and understanding the crash reduction potential and
other safety effects of candidate IV technologies both in development
and commercially available'') are already the core activities of the
IVI program.
4. ``Consideration should be given to allocating part of the
program budget to human factors research on IV technologies that have
already reached the marketplace.''
The IVI program addresses technologies that have already been
deployed in two ways. First, we have defined a problem area titled
``Safety Impacting Services.'' This category addresses the system
performance as well as human factors related impact with regard to
safety of in-vehicle ITS systems, such as in-vehicle computers, that
are entering or already in the marketplace. Secondly, within each of
the other problem areas, we evaluate the performance of these systems
which are already on the market, on a case by case basis. For example
we are conducting an operational test of the Eaton-VORAD Collision
Warning System, and are conducting test track studies of in-vehicle
computing systems. We published a compendium of our ongoing and planned
human factors activities to document this.
5. ``The program would also benefit from a more detailed discussion
of how proposed human factors research will be integrated into each
stage of technology development and assessment.''
We provided a detailed presentation on this subject during the
November 1999 committee meeting. A briefing paper on our human factors
strategy and a copy of the compendium of our ongoing and planned human
factors activities was included in the committee's pre-meeting reading
materials and is available on our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
6. ``At the broadest level, the committee believes the federal
government's role in the IVI program should be to facilitate (rather
than accelerate) the development and to monitor and evaluate the
deployment of new motor vehicle technologies with the potential to make
the driving task safer.''
We agree with this statement and believe the activities described
in the program documentation are intended to achieve facilitation.
7. ``In the committee's judgment, the appropriate role for
government in the IVI program should be more sharply defined than it is
at present, so that the value added by government participation will be
evident.''
The IVI can only be effective at reducing motor vehicle crashes if
the widespread deployment of vehicle-based and infrastructure
cooperative safety enhancing products and systems is achieved. In order
to achieve this vision, U.S. DOT has a two-part role. The first, is to
ensure that safety is not comprised by the introduction of in-vehicle
systems. A particular interest for the IVI is the safety impact of
combining multiple systems, such as route guidance and navigation,
adaptive cruise control, cellular telephones, and in-vehicle computers.
We will investigate the impact that these systems may have on driver
behavior by measuring any changes in the level of driver workload and
distraction.
The second part of the Federal role in IVI, addresses our
responsibility for reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses
resulting from motor vehicle crashes. This role, which is a cornerstone
of U.S. DOT's mission, will be carried out by facilitating the
development, deployment and evaluation of driver-assistance safety
products & systems. An analysis conducted by NHTSA showed that the
widespread deployment of advanced driver assistance systems which
address just three of the 8 IVI problem areas can reduce motor vehicle
crashes by 17 percent annually. Based on this analysis, the IVI program
was formed to more definitively evaluate the effectiveness of these
technologies and depending on the results encourage their availability
in the marketplace.
There are several factors which influence the definition of an
effective role for U.S. DOT in this endeavor.
--IVI systems will be primarily developed by the private sector. U.S.
DOT will work cooperatively with industry to define performance
specifications for safety systems.
--IVI services will be deployed by the motor vehicle industry, fleet
operators and local transportation agencies. U.S. DOT will
support these stakeholders by providing information on the
necessary technical performance, user acceptance and benefits
of systems which address the IVI problem areas.
With these factors in mind, we have defined a role for U.S. DOT (as
documented in the revised business plan) that will define the
performance requirements for crash avoidance systems, evaluate their
effectiveness and depending on results encourage their market
availability. Some products which address the IVI problem areas with
varying levels of effectiveness have and will continue to be made
available even without a federally funded IVI program. But with the IVI
program, we may expect better systems available sooner.
8. ``In general, the government role in the IVI program should
encompass activities (Enabling research, Research on technology
integration, Research on unintended safety consequences of commercially
available IV technologies), that industry or others are unlikely or
unwilling to perform.''
The IVI program does encompass these activities. This is documented
in the program business plan.
9. ``Government should help provide at least three types of data
(Data and methodologies for benefit estimation, Baseline data on driver
behavior, Data on crashes).''
The IVI program will help provide this data. This is documented in
the program business plan.
10. ``A key government role is to facilitate the necessary
infrastructure investments for specific IV technologies that require
cooperation between the vehicle and the highway (e.g., intersection
collision avoidance systems).''
The scope of the IVI covers vehicle-based systems. This includes
autonomous countermeasures which are completely contained on the
vehicle, and cooperative systems which have an on-board component that
communicate with an infrastructure-based component. We will assess the
need for infrastructure cooperation within each of the problem areas.
We have initiated a system study for the intersection and road
departure collision problem areas. The results of these systems studies
will define the path of future research. We have formed a consortium of
State DOTs to address infrastructure issues. Additionally, we have
several cross-cutting activities that address sensor friendly
infrastructure and communication needs.
11. ``The committee urges that this information be brought together
in one place and clarified so that the federal role, and the resources
that support it, is clearly identified for each program activity.''
This has been done in the revised business plan.
12. ``Given the reduced budget, narrower mission, and near-term
objectives of the IVI program, the committee believes it is critical
for the program to be well focused and for the roles of government and
industry to be clearly defined.''
This has been documented in the revised business plan. A briefing
paper on this topic was provided to the committee and is available on
our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
13. ``DOT should set targets with respect to the crash reduction
potential of particular technologies, and establish milestones for
monitoring progress toward the deployment of those technologies and the
realization of safety benefits.''
A presentation on our strategy for benefits estimation was provided
during the November meeting. We have initiated an activity to develop
benefits estimates for the problem areas. This activity is difficult
because of the nature of crash avoidance (long deployment cycles,
difficult to measure) and the limited role of government (not a vehicle
developer or deployer) but our work will lead to surrogate measures and
protocols which will allow us to quantify benefits.
14. ``The committee applauds DOT efforts to keep the IVI program
focused. However, certain IV technologies also have important potential
application for improved crashworthiness and injury mitigation once
crashes have occurred. Some committee members urged that more provision
be made in the program for these applications.''
DOT recognizes and supports crash-worthiness efforts, however given
the reductions in funding for IVI activities; it is a conscious
decision by DOT to focus on crash avoidance.
15. ``An important role for government is to facilitate the
involvement of these new participants in appropriate partnership
arrangements and other relevant program activities''
The mutual governance structure is intended to accomplish this. The
non-traditional players will be brought in either to support the car,
truck or infrastructure consortiums or the Federal Advisory Committee.
A briefing paper was provided to the committee and is available on our
web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
16. ``The committee urges that more of such material on problem
identification and expected safety benefits be included in future
revisions of IVI program documents.''
The committee was provided with a briefing paper on this topic
which is available on our web site (http://www.its.dot.gov).
research, development, and technology transfer (rd&t)
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 report, for surface
transportation RD&T the conferees encouraged FHWA to provide funding
for a list of specified projects. For each project listed, please
detail how FHWA responded to the request for support, being certain to
identify the amount of funding that will be provided for each project.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA-21 Conference
-----------------------------------------
EARMARK STR \1\ TDIPP \1\ TDIPP Total
(less (less (50 STR (50
OL) OL) percent) percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure............................................... $20,251 $17,420 $500 $4,425 $42,596
Seismic Research (UCSD).................................. 871 ......... ........ ........ ........
Seismic Res. Prog. (U. of Buffalo)....................... 1,742 ......... ........ ........ ........
Fundamental Prop. of Asphalts (WRI)...................... 2,613 ......... ........ ........ ........
Recycled Materials Res. Center (UNH)..................... 1,307 ......... ........ ........ ........
Asphalt Research (Auburn U.)............................. 218 ......... ........ ........ ........
Long-Term Pavement Performance........................... 8,710 ......... ........ ........ ........
Concrete Pavement........................................ 4,355 ......... ........ ........ ........
Corrosion Control and Prevention......................... 435 ......... ........ ........ ........
Geothermal Heat Pump (OK State U)........................ ........ 871 ........ ........ ........
Intell. Bridge Stiffener (U of OK)....................... ........ 871 ........ ........ ........
Innovative Bridge Research & Constr. Program............. ........ 15,678 ........ ........ ........
Geosynthetic Mat'l.--Pavements (Montana St.)............. ........ ......... ........ 200 ........
Polymer Additives--Asphalt Pavements..................... ........ ......... ........ 750 ........
Silica Fume HPC.......................................... ........ ......... ........ 500 ........
Polymer Binder (SC State/Clemson)........................ ........ ......... ........ 625 ........
Seismic Retro/NDE (Utah DOT)............................. ........ ......... ........ 750 ........
Adv. Eng./Wood Compos. (SD State/U of ME)................ ........ ......... ........ 600 ........
Center for Excellence (WVU)--Structures/Pvmts............ ........ ......... ........ 1,000 ........
ASR/LIthium--TDIPP....................................... ........ ......... 500 ........ ........
Planning and Environment..................................... 975 5,575 ........ 2,475 9,025
Global Climate Research (U of AL)........................ 174 ......... ........ ........ ........
STECRP Advisory Board \2\................................ 261 ......... ........ ........ ........
TCM Model \2\............................................ 261 ......... ........ ........ ........
Ecosystem Study \2\...................................... 87 ......... ........ ........ ........
Performance Indicators \2\............................... 105 ......... ........ ........ ........
Ferry Study \2\.......................................... 87 ......... ........ ........ ........
Adv. Vehicle Research (U of A @ Tuscaloosa).............. ........ 349 ........ ........ ........
Transp. Economic & Land Use Sys. (NJIT).................. ........ 871 ........ ........ ........
Low-Speed Urban MagLev (from Title III--FTA)............. ........ 4,355 ........ ........ ........
Native Vegetation Center (UNI)........................... ........ ......... ........ 150 ........
Continuation of the PM-10 study.......................... ........ ......... ........ 50 ........
Particulate Matter Study................................. ........ ......... ........ 500 ........
Nat. Transportation. Network Analysis Capability......... ........ ......... ........ 1,250 ........
Nat. Environmental Research Center....................... ........ ......... ........ 25 ........
Red River Trade Corridor (carryover fr. fiscal year 1998) ........ ......... ........ 500 ........
Operations................................................... ........ 2,932 1,000 ........ 3,932
Intelligent Transp. Infrastructure (PA).................. ........ 1,480 ........ ........ ........
Adv. Traffic Monitoring & Response (PA).................. ........ 1,452 ........ ........ ........
Ctr. for Adv. Sim. Tech., Long Island, NY (TDIPP)........ ........ ......... 1,000 ........ ........
Motor Carrier and Highway Safety............................. ........ 4,050 ........ 50 4,100
Adv. Trauma Care (U of A @ Birmingham)................... ........ 653 ........ ........ ........
Center for Transp. Injury Res. (Calspan; NY)............. ........ 1,742 ........ ........ ........
Head & Spinal Cord Injury Res. (LA St. & GWU)............ ........ 435 ........ ........ ........
Motor Vehicle Safety Warning Sys. (GA Tech).............. ........ 610 ........ ........ ........
Motor Carrier Adv. Sensor Control Sys.................... ........ 610 ........ ........ ........
MUTCD Highway/Rail Crossing.............................. ........ ......... ........ 50 ........
Highway Watch Program--(MC).............................. ........ ......... ........ 750 ........
Truck Driving Ctr Safety Init. (Crowder Col.)--(MC)...... ........ ......... ........ 500 ........
Truck Driver Alertness--(MC)............................. ........ ......... ........ 1,000 ........
Federal Lands................................................ ........ ......... ........ ........ ........
Agency-Wide (Policy)......................................... 436 ......... ........ ........ 436
International Outreach................................... 436 ......... ........ ........ ........
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 21,662 29,977 1,500 6,950 60,089
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ STR--Surface Transportation Research funds; TEA-21 Sec. 5001(a)(1). TDIPP--Technology Deployment Program
funds; TEA-21 Sec. 5001(a)(2).
\2\ Level of Funding Not Specified in TEA-21.
Note: Motor Carrier Earmarks Shown for Information Only--not computed in the table.
SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT
Question. Please delineate in detail how the $7.7 million proposed
for supplemental technology deployment will be used. Please break out
the proposed use of those funds.
Answer. FHWA proposes to distribute the $7.7 million Supplemental
Technology Deployment funds for marketing and technology delivery
programs proportionately among our strategic goals, based upon the
percentages in our original fiscal year 2001 budget request. Funds will
be provided to support activities in the Resource Centers, Division
Offices and Headquarters that promote innovation. Among the technology
deployment tools that will be supported are demonstration projects,
test and evaluation programs and the development of training materials
to introduce and implement new technology.
PRELIMINARY DISTRIBUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Percent of Portion of
Goal 2001 request request $7.7m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobility........................................................ $62,015 49 $3,773,000
Safety.......................................................... 18,950 15 1,155,000
Productivity.................................................... 14,525 12 924,000
Environment..................................................... 19,825 16 1,232,000
National Security............................................... 665 1 77,000
Tech.Del./Market................................................ 9,200 7 539,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 125,180 100 7,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Question. Please describe in extensive detail the scope, nature,
and objectives of your request for $1.85 million for performance
measures.
Answer. There are three key objectives in our request of $1.85
million for performance measures:
(1) Although some performance indicators were included in the FHWA
strategic plan, and others have been developed and reported to FHWA
management, considerable work remains. For example, there are a number
of unquantified GPRA measures like travel time, freight productivity,
life-cycle cost/return on investment, etc.
(2) A conceptual framework has yet to be put in place for measuring
the effectiveness of FHWA R&T expenditures. This activity is integral
to assessing how R&T programs contribute to successful achievement of
the agency's strategic goals. If we receive the level of funding
requested in fiscal year 2001, the strategic assessment framework for
evaluating R&T contributions should be in place by fiscal year 2002
with goal owners developing and applying performance measures to assess
the contribution of R&T activities to their strategic goals.
(3) In the highway field, Federal activities are generally only a
part of achieving results. Much of the responsibility for
implementation falls to the state and local goals and private sector.
As we implement GPRA responsibilities, we will continue to engage our
partners, customers, and stakeholders in improving, refining and
setting performance goals, targets and measures. The funds will be used
to complete implementation, coordinate data collection and conduct an
overall assessment of the approach.
Question. What is the empirical basis for this request? How much is
FHWA spending on similar activities, including the improvement of its
performance measures in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, FHWA is using a combination of our
general operating expenses, R&T funds, in-house staff, partners, and
consultants to assist us in developing performance measures,
facilitating meetings, and conducting GPRA-related studies.
Question. Why does FHWA maintain that it is important that this
proposal be funded now?
Answer. It is important that we fund this proposal now because FHWA
wants to develop and mobilize a long-term strategy for improving the
agency's ability to meet the GPRA responsibilities and to carry out our
overall mission. The funds will be used to develop a number of the
unquantified GPRA measures like travel time, freight productivity,
life-cycle cost/return on investment, etc.
The difficulty of linking R&T to specific outcomes does not
preclude the application of performance measures to FHWA R&T programs
or the incorporation of R&T into the broader framework of the Strategic
Plan. Likewise, it does not prevent meaningful consideration of the
real or potential contribution of specific research to future
accomplishments. The definition and attainment of performance measures
for future years will benefit from well-designed and implemented
research activities that increase the understanding of issues and
challenges, provide the foundation for solutions, demonstrate benefits,
and generally support the implementation of successful innovations.
If we receive the level of funding requested in fiscal year 2001,
the strategic assessment framework for evaluating R&T contributions
should be in place by fiscal year 2002 with goal owners developing and
applying performance measures to assess the contribution of R&T
activities to their strategic goals. In which case, the fiscal year
2002 funds would be used to complete implementation, coordinate data
collection, and conduct an overall assessment of the approach. If the
level of funding is reduced, fiscal year 2002 funds would be used to
put performance measures in place.
Question. Could some of these activities be conducted as part of
the surface transportation R&D analyzes performed by RSPA?
Answer. The U.S. DOT Research and Technology Coordinating Council
for DOT-level R&T strategic planning activities (as directed by TEA-21
Sec. 5108) requires support from all modal administrations for this
work. RSPA relies on input from FHWA and other modal administrations
which is provided through the Council. As the lead DOT agency for this
activity, RSPA advises us of system-level, policy research areas which
would contribute to Departmental R&T objectives. RSPA's analysis of the
surface transportation R&D does not get down to the individual program
level. It is primarily responsible for supporting the overall
departmental level of analysis and for balancing departmental
priorities and policy.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
Question. Could you now conduct some of these activities using the
Transportation Research Board at much less expense?
Answer. The Research and Technology Coordination Council of the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Research
Council (NRC), acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB),
convened the Committee for Review of the National Transportation
Science and Technology to review and comment on DOT's Strategic Plan,
Performance Plan, and Program Performance Report (required under GPRA)
with regard to surface transportation research and technology
development. The committee formulated two key recommendations: (1) R&T
priorities and activities should be tied more explicitly to the
Department's strategic and performance goals and their relationship to
these goals should be articulated more clearly; and (2) the R&D Plan
should include the funding budgeted for specific R&T activities and
performance goals, since budgets are a tangible reflection of the real
priorities of an agency. The committee also recommended that the
Department adopt explicit criteria and methodologies for prioritizing
R&T activities, and specific performance measures for analyzing
results. We believe that the Transportation Research Board has already
given us their recommendations and now it is up to FHWA to develop
strategies for implementing those recommendations in a systematic way.
To be most effective, performance measurement should be the
responsibility of the agency responsible for goal delivery.
GPRA RESPONSIBILITIES
Question. How are you now performing your GPRA responsibilities and
your strategic planning pertaining to the R&D program without these
funds?
Answer. We are now carrying out our GPRA responsibilities and
strategic planning pertaining to the R&D program with a combination of
general operating expenses, R&T funds, in house staff, partners, and
consultants. However, in order for goal owners to develop and apply
performance measures to assess the contribution of R&T activities to
their strategic goals, we should have in place a well-designed
strategic assessment framework for evaluating R&T contributions.
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees
directed that FHWA respond by December 1, 1999, to each of the
recommendations presented in the Transportation Research Board report
on technology deployment. Was this response submitted to both the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations? If not, please explain why.
Answer. Yes, on March 9, 2000.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND EVALUATIONS
Question. In light of the TRB report, how will FHWA improve its
mechanisms of technology transfer and evaluations. What changes will be
made in response to this report?
Answer. FHWA held a senior leadership retreat in January to examine
how the new organizational structure is working. The first
recommendation, that an FHWA headquarters office be assigned
responsibility for agency wide technology transfer management, was a
key item on the agenda. Our leadership agreed that while the new
organization was intended to create a closer connection with potential
users of technology, it also spread technology transfer expertise
across many offices, making a corporate view on technology transfer
difficult to achieve.
The FHWA senior leadership agreed to give responsibility for agency
wide coordination of technology transfer management to the Office of
Research and Technology Services, within the Research, Development, and
Technology Service Business Unit. That office will coordinate
technology transfer activities across the CBU's, as well as
coordinating the preparation of a management plan and strategy for the
agency's technology transfer activities, recommended by the RTCC. The
office will also serve as a repository for technology transfer
management expertise, identifying and sharing information regarding
what works in the long run, in terms of technology transfer methods,
for research products and FHWA customers.
In order to ensure close coordination between the various offices,
I have asked each CBU and RC to designate a lead position specifically
responsible for technology transfer. We have also agreed to establish a
staff level technology transfer coordinating committee which will
consist of representatives of each of the CBU's and RC's. Chaired by
the Office of Research and Technology Services, this committee will
develop an agency-wide technology transfer strategy and identifying
appropriate venues and mechanisms for technology transfer. The
committee will meet monthly to share expertise and coordinate
technology transfer activities.
Finally, with regard to the third recommendation, we agree with the
RTCC that FHWA needs to develop strong partnerships with those who use
and implement highway technologies, as well as the decision-makers who
are responsible for funding related to innovation. A National R&T
Partnership Initiative, is currently underway, facilitated and
coordinated by TRB, to establish stronger working relationships with
key partner and customer groups. The objectives of the National
Partnership Initiative are to broaden the range of contacts between the
FHWA and the user community, to help develop a national consensus on
the need for highway R&T, to determine priorities for highway R&T, to
establish a national R&T agenda, and to identify the appropriate roles
of the Federal Government, state and local governments, universities
and the private sector in implementing an R&T program. Five Working
Groups have been established under the National Partnership Initiative
covering the areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, policy analysis
and system monitoring, operations and mobility, and planning and
environment. Representatives of FHWA are active participants in these
working groups, and we will be tracking the overall FHWA effort, to
ensure that there is sufficient communication between the working
groups and a cross-cutting look at the issues identified.
Question. How is this reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request?
Answer. Although we did not specifically identify this function as
a line item the responsibility for this management function will be
with RD&T. Funding for this will be redirected from the Agency wide
activities supporting the R&T program.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNT
Question. For the surface transportation account, please compare
your actual expenditures for each RD&T budget category, including
technology assessment and deployment, against the amounts appropriated
for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. Please explain any deviation
of more than 10 percent and be certain to exclude any carryover funds.
Answer.
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------------------------
Transportation research 1998 1999 2000 2001
Enacted \1\ Enacted \2\ Enacted \3\ Request \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation...................................... $85,536 $85,651 $84,488 $98,000
Safety.................................................. 6,861 11,068 12,368 13,900
Pavements............................................... 9,243 11,611 11,367 11,240
Structures.............................................. 8,447 14,216 13,065 14,260
Environment............................................. 2,971 4,680 5,400 6,546
Policy.................................................. 4,123 4,768 3,484 7,000
Planning & Right-of-Way................................. 5,856 3,854 3,484 4,729
Motor Carrier........................................... 5,572 5,651 5,574 ...........
Highway Operations...................................... ........... 662 653 5,580
Freight R&D............................................. ........... ........... 436 ...........
Technical Assessment and Deployment..................... 10,163 12,362 12,194 ...........
R&T Technical Support................................... 8,711 6,623 6,533 8,600
Long Term Pavement Performance.......................... 10,000 8,830 8,710 10,000
Advanced Research....................................... ........... 883 784 900
International Outreach.................................. 889 442 436 1,500
National Advanced Driver Simulator...................... 11,806 ........... ........... ...........
SHARP II/RSPA........................................... 894 ........... ........... ...........
Federal Lands........................................... ........... 9 ........... 700
Asset Management........................................ ........... ........... ........... 1,400
Supplemental Technology Deployment...................... ........... ........... ........... 7,000
Agency-Wide Activities.................................. ........... ........... ........... 4,645
Technology Deployment Program............................... 31,185 30,905 34,840 45,000
Training and Education...................................... 12,474 13,245 13,936 18,000
National Highway Institute.............................. 4,455 5,298 5,226 7,000
Local Technical Assistance Program...................... 6,237 6,181 6,968 9,000
Eisenhower Fellowship Program........................... 1,782 1,766 1,742 2,000
Bureau of Transportation Statistics......................... 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).................... 174,636 176,600 183,955 218,000
Research................................................ 40,429 33,554 ........... ...........
Operation Test.......................................... 6,580 15,011 ........... ...........
Evaluation/Program Assessment........................... 6,000 5,740 ........... ...........
Architecture and Standards.............................. 10,662 15,894 ........... ...........
Integration............................................. 10,837 5,298 ........... ...........
Program Support......................................... 8,654 8,389 ........... ...........
Deployment Incentives--Earmarks......................... 1,483 ........... ........... ...........
ITS Deployment.......................................... 89,991 92,715 ........... ...........
University Transportation Research.......................... 22,854 22,649 23,735 27,250
---------------------------------------------------
Grand Total........................................... 357,685 360,050 371,954 437,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The column reflect the actual allocation of funds based on 89.3 percent of total contract authority contain
in TEA21.
\2\ The column reflect the actual allocation of funds based on 88.3 percent of total contract authority contain
in TEA21.
\3\ The column reflect the actual allocation of funds based on 87.1 percent of total contract authority contain
in TEA21.
\4\ These columns reflect the amounts authorized in TEA21.
CARRYOVER FUNDS
Question. Please indicate the amount of carryover funds for each of
the last three years by subaccount or research category.
Answer. The carryover funds for each of the last three fiscal years
are shown below by subaccount or research categories.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Program --------------------------
1999 1998 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation Research:
Safety................................... 594 100 1,235
Pavements................................ 1,873 1,408 .......
Structures............................... 2,212 1,634 88
Environment.............................. 251 370 95
Real Estate Services..................... 3 ....... .......
Policy................................... 60 ....... 30
Planning................................. 172 ....... .......
Motor Carriers........................... 454 858 2,327
Basic Research........................... 441 72 72
Technology Assessment and Deployment..... 937 65 300
Long-Term Pavement Performance........... 16 11 .......
R&T Technical Support.................... 1,419 345 .......
Local Technical Assistance Program....... 242 407 .......
National Highway Institute............... 718 130 669
Eisenhower Fellowship.................... 335 116 1
Advanced Research........................ 34 ....... .......
Highway Operations....................... 41 ....... .......
Minority Business Enterprise............. ....... ....... 14
International Transportation............. 101 191 168
Russia Technical Assistance.............. ....... ....... 2
Federal Lands Contamination Clean-up..... ....... 1,774 1,774
--------------------------
ITS Research and Development........... 38,129 3,773 351
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD ASSISTANCE
Question. For each of the last three years, how much did FHWA
allocate to TRB for coordination and technical assistance to the RD&T
program? Exactly what did TRB provide FHWA?
Answer. Over the last 3 years, FHWA has allocated to Transportation
Research Board (TRB) for coordination and technical assistance to the
RD&T program $2,665,740 in fiscal year 1998, $2,738,650 in fiscal year
1999, and $2,032,000 in fiscal year 2000.
TRB possesses a unique capability for the coordination and
dissemination of research and technology (R&T) results as well as the
promotion, review, and critique of the national program and has been of
significant assistance to FHWA. TRB provides a source of national and
international expertise to focus on critical national agenda items upon
which the FHWA could draw in formulating and delivering its Research
and Technology Program, and it provides a mechanism for considering the
views of research bodies, highway users, suppliers, and contractors,
along with economic, social, energy, and environmental concerns, as
these issues related to highway transportation research and technology
policy and programs. TRB also addresses issues related to the
implementation of research results and the application of technology in
the highway transportation field.
TRB brings its unique capabilities to performing a series of
activities in support of the FHWA's R&T Program.
Conduct an Annual Meeting.--TRB conducts an annual national meeting
in the Washington, D.C., area as a forum for the presentation of
highway research results. In conjunction with the annual meeting, it
provides FHWA with display areas and meeting facilities, arranges for
providing miscellaneous items such as electrical hookups, easels, spot
lighting, etc., and solicits, reviews, and selects appropriate papers
to be presented at the meeting. The annual meeting is held within the
context of an overall transportation research meeting involving various
modes of transportation. As part of and in conjunction with the annual
meeting, TRB provides facilities and support for the various technical
committees established by the TRB. TRB also provides for registration
of all FHWA employees requesting registration (approximately 600) at
the annual meeting at a lump sum amount.
Technical Committees.--TRB maintains standing committees of
authorities in subject areas of interest to the FHWA. These committees
are responsible for promoting the exchange of technical research
information, for advancing the state of the art in the areas of their
expertise, and for identifying research needs. It also establishes
appropriate new committees as the need is demonstrated to respond to
changing issues facing the transportation industry and conducts
committee-sponsored conferences and workshops as determined appropriate
by the technical committees.
Maintenance of National Overview of Highway Research.--TRB
maintains a national overview of highway research. It visits
approximately 17 State highway agencies per year and 50 State highway
agencies over a 3-year period to assess the interest, competency, and
relevancy of the research conducted by each State highway agency as
well as encouraging a coordinated national transportation emphasis. In
conjunction with these visits, TRB visits selected key universities and
public/private researchers responsible for highway-related research.
Maintenance and Dissemination of Research Results.--TRB processes
publications into the Transportation Research Information Service
(TRIS) (estimated at approximately 30,000 publications per year). In
addition, it provides TRIS searches for FHWA and it provides FHWA a
statistical summary of requests of TRIS which originate from State DOTs
on a semi-annual basis. TRB has also partnered with the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, to
develop and make available web access to TRIS as a means of increasing
accessibility to TRIS for users.
Publication and Distribution of Reports.--TRB develops, publishes,
and distributes a variety of reports and periodicals to assist in the
transfer of technical information. Publications include, among other
areas, general non-technical reports related to very specific topics.
Reports have also been developed to summarize and highlight some of the
key papers presented at the annual meeting. TRB also prepares and
annually updates a mailing list for distribution of all publications.
The annual update shall be coordinated through the AOTR.
Research and Technology Review, Coordination, and Communications
Program.--TRB conducts and documents a program to maintain a national,
federally-funded research and development coordination and
communications program. The program examines national highway research
needs and focuses on global transportation issues that
--Provides FHWA technical information about other ongoing research
needs and activities relative to FHWA's Research and Technology
Program.
--Ensures that the States, the private sector, all other highway
research bodies, highway users, associated interest groups, and
other highway research interests have input to the national
agenda of research needs and programs.
--Supports the National R&T Partnership Initiative and facilitate the
operations of the working groups established as part of the
initiative.
--Ensures that economic, social, cultural, manufacturing,
environmental, and technical voices are heard for planning and
developing highway research programs.
--Ensures that products evolving from the highway research process
are directed towards market development and application, both
in national and international arenas.
--Reduces redundancy and fragmentation, fosters innovation and
focuses resources in all major highway research programs.
--Positions the United States' highway research programs for
preeminent world leadership in technical expertise and
knowledge.
--Encourages improved government, public-private, and international
harmonization in other highway-related fields and in multi-
modal transportation research.
--Enhances interest, awareness, and opportunities for highway
research careers with all participating agencies.
--Increases opportunities for participation in FHWA programs by
public agencies and private sector constituents.
To accomplish these objectives, the TRB will use the services of a
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) established under
its auspices. The RTCC is composed of 15 to 20 members, selected from
among researchers, administrators, users, and practitioners from the
public, private, and academic sectors. Specifically it will provide
technical information in the following areas:
--Identify gaps in research which FHWA can use in formulating and
delivering its Research and Technology Program.
--Monitor and support the National R&T Partnership Initiative,
especially by contributing to the activities of the working
groups formed to advance this initiative, synthesizing the
output of the working groups and distributing appropriately,
and providing a mechanism for the groups to issue formal
consensus-based advice.
--Use national and international technical expertise to focus on
critical national highway research agenda items.
--Identify areas of duplication of effort.
--Provide a mechanism for gathering research needs from research
bodies, highway users, suppliers, and contractors, along with
identifying economic, social energy and environmental concerns
as they relate to highway research needs.
--Consider ways and means to increase State, local, and private
sector participation in highway research and innovation.
--Address issues related to the implementation of research results
and the application of technology in the highway field.
Through the agreement, TRB provides adequate staffing, travel, and
facilities support to meet its responsibilities including committee
support functions.
A second group, the Surface Transportation Environmental
Cooperative Research Program Advisory Board (STECREP), was established
by TRB on behalf of FHWA. STECREP was established as a result of
congressional direction in TEA-21 to create an advisory board to
recommend environmental and energy conservation research, technology
development, and technology transfer activities related to surface
transportation. The board includes 17 members representing perspectives
from various levels of government administration, environmental groups,
private industry, and university research centers. STECREP is
responsible for:
--Recommending a national agenda of environmental and planning
research priorities and technology transfer strategies to be
conducted by the Transportation community.
--Supporting outreach and collaborations on research by:
--Identifying and recommending opportunities for partnerships and
collaboration on outreach, research and development, and
technology transfer and dissemination, both among USDOT
offices and with other federal agencies, research
organizations, and partners.
--Identifying and recommending potential opportunities for pool-
funded research and opportunities to leverage research
findings.
--Supporting the coordination of environmental and planning
research conducted through programs such as NCHRP, TCRP,
and university research centers with that conducted through
USDOT offices.
--Supporting the increased visibility of research programs on
transportation and environment.
--Supporting research evaluation by directly participating in the
design of research program evaluation, products, and
technology dissemination activities, including the
assessment of customer satisfaction.
STECRP also serves as one of the working groups in the National R&T
Partnership Initiative for topics in areas relevant to its environment
and planning charter.
Conduct an Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA)
Program.--TRB conducts an annual Innovations Deserving Exploratory
Analysis (IDEA) Program, stressing innovation, product oriented
proposals, with the potential to produce significant technological
improvements in the highway community. The program is administered as
part of the NCHRP.
Individuals and members of institutions, universities, small and
large businesses, consulting firms and research laboratories in the
United States and abroad and anyone working in the broad science and
engineering areas that are associated with, or have relevance to,
highway technology are eligible for the program.
All proposals are evaluated on a competitive basis. The proposals
meeting the technical eligibility criteria are evaluated by an Expert
Task Group consisting of technical experts from the various science and
engineering disciplines. The awards under this program are fixed price
contracts in the range of $10,000 to $100,000 and with contract
durations ranging from a few weeks to a year.
As of fiscal year 1999, FHWA no longer contributes funds to the
IDEA Program. Even during FHWA's funding participation, the TRB
obtained additional funding from other sources, primarily the AASHTO
member States. Participating researchers in the projects are expected
to provide matching funds to those provided through the program.
Special Studies, Reviews, and Conferences.--In addition to the core
services TRB provides to the FHWA for the funds noted, TRB also
conducts special studies, program reviews, and conferences when
requested by FHWA. Each request is funded individually outside of the
funding for the core services.
Question. How much will be allocated for this assistance in fiscal
year 2001?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $2,800,000 will be allocated for TRB
for coordination and technical assistance to the RD&T program.
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROGRAM
Question. Please discuss the scope and nature of your fiscal year
2000 advanced research program and indicate the amount and purpose of
each relevant contract funded under that sub-account.
Answer: $100,000--This safety portion of the fiscal year 2000
Advanced Research funding sponsored a feasibility study aimed at
increasing the magnitude of improvements in impact performance of
roadside safety structures. The work is looking at the present safety
design process in reverse. Specifically, starting with a pre-selected
amount of safety improvement, the study will determine if present-day
computer power can be used to guide a designer to a structural
configuration that provides the selected level of improvement. Most of
the literature on this method (Inverse Analysis) focuses on linear
systems. There is a small research community trying to apply this
method to non-linear events. Vehicle/safety structure impacts are very
non-linear and this effort will establish feasibility for the use of
Inverse Analysis on this subject area. If successful, follow-on funding
will develop a production tool for use by practicing safety designers.
The goal is to more rapidly increase the level of potential crash
safeness residing within the roadside structures along the Nation's
highways.
$100,000--This safety portion of the fiscal year 2000 Advanced
Research funding sponsored development of an Automated Sign Recognition
System (ASRS) using previously developed Equation Shell Software (EQS)
which was delivered to the State of Connecticut in fiscal year 2000.
This effort produced ASRS software capable of recognizing a finite set
of individual traffic stop signs from the State's photolog database of
highway video images. The ASRS software will replace manual detection
of stop signs in the State's photolog database resulting in an
inventory maintenance cost saving. The ASRS software was interfaced
with the State's database and selected training sets for pattern
recognition have been provided. The ASRS software is presently being
develop with the State's most recent photolog data. $100,000--This
safety portion of the fiscal year 2000 Advanced Research funding is
sponsoring development of a Software Reliability Handbook. Public
safety depends on the correctness of the output of highway related
software in areas such as bridge and highway design, bridge monitoring,
collision avoidance and traffic management. Errors can result either
from bugs in the software, using the software incorrectly, or using it
outside its intended application area. This handbook will provide
techniques to lower the frequency of errors produced by software in
highway engineering.
Software called SpecChek was developed to test the correctness of
software and is being applied to the Interactive Highway Safety Design
Module (ISHDM) software. Tests of the ISHDM software are underway.
For the Infrastructure part of Advanced Research, the scope has
been considerably reduced since the passage of TEA 21 and the resulting
budget cuts. The program had to be severely reduced in fiscal year 1999
and now is focused on maintaining essential research capabilities at
Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center and associated activities at
the Center for Neutron Research at the National Institute of Standard
and Technology (NIST). This supports staff research in the areas of
materials science of concrete and nondestructive materials
characterization.
Specific staff research projects include: (1) application of
nonlinear 3-dimensional finite element computer models and chaos theory
analysis to structural health monitoring of bridges and (2) advanced
materials characterization of fly ashes for improvement of concrete
properties. These two projects are conducted by postdoctoral research
associates through an interagency program administered by the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences under a contract
with FHWA. Another area of staff research concerns the application of
nuclear nondestructive methods to highway materials. This is being done
through an in-house contractor, Wiss Janney and Elstner as part of the
NDE Validation Center at TFHRC. A fourth staff project concerns the
development of a detailed chemical kinetics model for the curing of
Portland cement concrete. This involves the use of neutron scattering
methods at the NIST Center for Neutron Research as well as the heavy
ion beam accelerator at the University of the Ruhr in Bochum, Germany.
Finally, a major in-house research program concerns the problem of
concrete deterioration associated with delayed ettringite formation.
This consists of experimental studies and chemical model development
performed in collaboration with the University of Maryland and Howard
University. It should be noted that these collaborations are not funded
by FHWA, but by NSF and DOE respectively.
In addition to contractor support for staff research, there are a
few research grants to universities to continue projects started in
prior years. Two of these involve advanced materials characterization
methods for the delayed ettringite problem. One is with the University
of California at Berkeley, cofunded with NSF, and uses neutron
diffraction an synchrotron radiation to determine micro structure
changes. The other, at the University of Hawaii, uses the scanning
acoustic microscope and Raman spectroscopy to characterize ettringite
mineralogy. The final grant to New Mexico State University, cofunded
with the New Mexico DOT, concerns the installation of Bragg grating
fiber optic sensors to monitor strain during construction and operation
of the Rio Puerco Bridge near Albuquerque, culminating several years of
research on this topic.
The allocation of fiscal year 2000 funds is summarized in Table
76.1 below. Please note that this does not include funds from
collaborating organizations which have averaged roughly $1 million per
year over the last 3 fiscal years.
Table 76.1.--Allocation of Fiscal Year 2000 Infrastructure Advanced
Research Budget
[In thousands of dollars]
Title (Contractor) Fiscal year 2000
Nuclear NDT Laboratory (Wiss Janney Elstner)...................... 99
Application of Neutron Methods (NIST)............................. 140
Postdoctoral Associates (National Academy of Sciences)............ 70
Concrete Deterioration Mechanisms (UC Berkeley/NSF)............... 50
Advanced Microscopy Methods for Concrete (U Hawaii)............... 45
Fiber Optics in Bridges (New Mexico State U.)..................... 35
Small Purchases for Services, etc................................. 45
______
Total....................................................... 484
TABLE 76.2.--EXTERNAL FUNDING FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS (FISCAL YEARS 1998-2000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partner
Project Partner Total share
funds (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ettringite expansion test.................... University of Maryland..................... $150 100
Concrete deterioration....................... UC Berkeley/NSF............................ 200 50
Neutron diffraction of ettringite............ Missouri U.\2\/NSF......................... 150 100
Calcium leaching in concrete Northwestern.... U./NSF..................................... 150 100
Cement hydration kinetics \1\................ W.R. Grace................................. 100 100
Neutron chloride measurement \1\............. W.R. Grace................................. 150 100
Ledyard Bridge Fiber Optic System............ Dartmouth College.......................... 10 30
Kealakaha Bridge Fiber Optic System.......... Hawaii DOT................................. 200 100
Rio Puerco Bridge Fiber Optic System......... New Mexico DOT............................. 60 70
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Fiber Optic System \1\. Drexel University.......................... 75 100
Fiber Optic Weigh in Motion.................. State Pooled Fund.......................... 118 100
Electrochemical ASR Tests.................... State Pooled Fund.......................... 230 100
Aerial Robotics Bridge Inspection............ State Pooled Fund.......................... 400 75
Microwave Fatigue Crack Detector............. SBIR....................................... 600 100
Digital Acoustic Emissions System............ State Pooled Fund.......................... 600 100
-----------
Total.................................. ........................................... 3,193 .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Proposed.
\2\ PI transferring to another university.
ADVANCED RESEARCH CONTRACTS
Question. Please discuss the scope and nature of your fiscal year
2001 advanced research program and indicate the amount and purpose of
each relevant contract likely to be funded under that sub-account.
Answer. $100,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds
will be applied to developing a final roadside safety design tool for
practicing safety designers assuming feasibility is demonstrated in
fiscal year 2000. (See fiscal year 2000, Inverse Analysis description.)
$100,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds will be
applied to an on-going effort by the Advanced Research staff in the
area of Data Mining and Multi-Dimensional Data Visualization. Past
funding on this subject has been small and limited in scope. The
objective is to make these general purpose powerful analysis methods
more readily available to the researchers at the laboratory in the form
of a free service. The goal is to accelerate the quantity and quality
of insight that is extracted from a variety of data available at the
laboratory. It is anticipated that the increase and improvement in
``problem domain insight'' will lead directly to increases in
innovative solutions.
$50,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds will be
applied to continue an on-going effort that utilizes a neural network
as a basis for a drowsy driver warning system. Preliminary work on this
topic has demonstrated feasibility, and, if no other source of funds
are available, Advanced Research funds will be used to continue
exploratory work on this topic. Although initial potential applications
were envisioned for the large truck portion of the Nations vehicle
fleet, the concepts explored in the feasibility phase indicate that it
can also be considered for the total vehicle fleet.
$100,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds will be
applied to extending the ASRS to recognize other types of signs and
roadside safety hardware. The condition of roadside hardware will be
addressed and application of the ASRS software to other State's
databases. The EQS software will be applied to other highway
applications such as traffic sensor and pavement applications.
$100,000--This safety portion of Advanced Research funds will be
applied to improving techniques and software for testing highway
software to improve reliability. The Software Reliability Handbook will
be applied to highway software to test the techniques in the handbook.
With no increase in funds over fiscal year 2000, the Infrastructure
part of Advanced Research would continue to be a maintenance level
activity with scope and nature the same as described in the answer to
the question above.
Increased funding in fiscal year 2001 would permit the accelerated
progress in existing research activities. It would also allow the
restarting of dormant research projects in the mechanisms of concrete
deterioration. These include: (1) application of ice mechanics to
freeze-thaw damage processes; (2) innovative methods for monitoring
corrosion of reinforcing steel; (3) advanced analytical methods for
determining alkali reactivity of aggregates; and (4) colloidal
chemistry of delayed ettringite formation. Additional funds would
permit new starts in: (1) application of nanotechnology to highway
structures as part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative; (2) aging
of steel in bridges; (3) optimization and standardization of fiber
optic bridge monitoring systems; and (4) nonlinear dynamic 3-
dimensional computer modeling of pavements.
earmarked projects
Question. For each of the earmarked projects or university
activities specified in TEA-21 for fiscal year 2001 that pertain to
RD&T, please specify the scope and nature of the RD&T to be conducted,
and describe how those projects or activities will be integrated into a
national research agenda.
Answer.
tea-21 earmarked projects or university activities--scope & nature of
R&T
Programs funded from Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnerships
Program [503]: Sec. 5001 (a)(2)
Organization.--University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa
Program Title.--Center for Advanced Vehicle Technologies
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($353,200), and
fiscal year 1900 ($348,400)
Current Status.--The Center began operation in late 1998. The
objective is to form a well-equipped interdisciplinary capability at
the University to address a range of issues related to advanced vehicle
development and operation.
Results.--During the first year of operation, progress was made to
develop the administrative structure for the Center. Highlights include
hiring of an administrative secretary and a key researcher to work in
the Center. Equipment was purchased to improve the measurement of key
engine properties including emissions. Five grants were awarded on
various vehicle issues and a lecture series was introduced which brings
experts from other parts of the country to share insights. Finally, Dr.
Bell made several presentations throughout the country to introduce the
Center to others and to begin build partnerships.
Organization.--Oklahoma State University
Program Title.--Smart Bridge Research Project
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($883,000), and
fiscal year 1900 ($871,000)
Current Status.--The researchers have submitted quarterly progress
reports, indicating all proposed tasks are well underway.
Results.--A medium-scale deck section has been constructed. They
are currently working to develop and validate advance modeling
software. The research team is refining their deck heating system
design. Continuous investigations are underway into systems to measure
and analyze weather data, including sensor testing and development of
integrated control strategies. Work has also begun on corrosion
assessment, life-cycle economic analysis, and an operational web site
for technology transfer.
Organization.--University of Oklahoma
Program Title.--Intelligent Stiffener for Bridge Stress Reduction
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($883,000), and
fiscal year 1900 ($871,000)
Current Status.--Due to the recent death of the principal
researcher, a proposal for this research grant has not been completed.
A new researcher has been designated for the project, and a proposal is
expected in the near future.
Results.--No results are available at this time.
Organization.--University of Alabama at Birmingham
Program Title.--Study of Advanced Trauma Care
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($662,250), and
fiscal year 1900 ($653,250)
Current Status.--The Alabama Trauma Registry (ATR) has been
established. Hospitals in the State that see a sizeable number of
trauma patients each year were identified and contacted to obtain their
support in collecting data using the American College of Surgeons (ACS)
trauma registry database (TRACS). A protocol and time line has been
developed to transfer the data to the ATR.
Results.--The transfer of data from the participating hospitals to
the ATR is presently in the pilot phase. However, it is expected that
all major trauma hospitals in the State will be providing trauma data
to the ATR by July 2000. Data from this project and others will be used
to make recommendations and establish protocol for the routine
collection of data to provide better patient care.
Organization.--Calspan--University of Buffalo Research Center
Program Title.--Transportation Injury Research
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($1,782,000), fiscal year 1999
($1,766,000), and fiscal year 1900 ($1,742,000)
Current Status.--Grantees are in their second year of effort of
interdisciplinary research on ways to reduce the occurrence, severity,
and consequences of crash related injuries that now amount to nearly
five million people each year in the U.S., including 42,000 deaths.
CenTIR projects are underway to provide real-world demonstrations and
evaluations of advanced technologies, systems and programs. These
projects are advancing crash detection and notification technologies
with crash injury assessment. The are also improving the process of
providing emergency triage, transport, and treatment of crash injured
people.
Results.--CenTIR research has advanced technical and governmental
understanding of technological opportunities for, and institutional
hurdles to, improving the safety of U.S. motorists. CenTIR research has
helped define the safety potential for automatic crash notification
technologies and the need for providing enhanced wireless 9-1-1 service
nationwide. CenTIR research is being used at the Federal, State and
local levels. At the Federal level, CenTIR communications on the safety
potential of using wireless technologies to improve crash safety has
been used in the NHTSA, FHWA, and JPO. In addition, CenTIR research has
been a part of the deliberations of the NTSB, the FCC, and the
Congress. On October 26, 1999, the President signed into law the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 that found
``emerging technologies can be a critical component...to reduce
emergency response times and provide appropriate care.'' Stated its
purpose as ``to encourage and facilitate the prompt deployment
throughout the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable
end-to-end infrastructure . . . to meet the Nation's public safety and
other communications needs.'' We expect that there will be continued
use of the findings of CenTIR research to advance the public safety by
DOT and other agencies at all levels of government.
Organization.--Louisiana State University and The George Washington
University
Program Title.--Head and Spinal Cord Research
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($441,500), and
fiscal year 1900 ($435,500)
Current Status.--Louisiana State University has commenced work in
the following areas: (a) development and implementation of a motor
vehicle crash victim data registry, (b) investigation of mechanisms of
neurotrauma, and (c) exploration and evaluation of novel
neuroprotective drugs.
The George Washington University has commenced work in collision
avoidance research and crash analysis research. Under collision
avoidance, the following tasks are underway: (a) literature review of
collision avoidance methods and developments, (b) development of a
driving simulator laboratory, and (c) review and comparison of specific
adaptive or intelligent cruise control systems. In the category of
crash analysis research, the following tasks are underway: (a) finite
element modeling of vehicles, (b) development of a folded/vented airbag
model, (c) mathematical simulation of crash test dummy certification
procedures and comparison to equivalent laboratory data, and (d) airbag
modeling code evaluation and validation.
Results.--Louisiana State University: (a) The motor vehicle crash
data base now contains data on 400 victims with more than 2000
documented injuries. A Microsoft Access database is maintained on an
Internet server, providing 24 hour update capability and access. (b) An
improved percussion apparatus has been developed to support
experimental head trauma experiments utilizing a rat model. (c)
Preliminary studies have been conducted to identify up-regulation of
the COX-2 gene in the brain preceding irreversible injury.
(d) Experimental strategies for screening and evaluation of
neuroprotective drugs have been devised.
George Washington University.--(a) Preliminary collision avoidance
literature review is completed. (b) All components required to assemble
the driver simulator are now available for assembly. (c) Portions of
vehicle model development have been completed. (d) Air bag code
evaluation has begun.
Organization.--Georgia Technical Research Institute
Program Title.--Motor Vehicle Safety Warning System
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($623,700), fiscal year 1999 ($618,100),
and fiscal year 1900 ($609,700)
Current Status.--The Georgia Technical Research Institute is
conducting an evaluation of radio and microwave technology for a motor
vehicle safety warning system. The three elements that comprise the
safety warning system are a mobile transmitter, a fixed site
transmitter for roadside deployment, and an in-vehicle receiver and
display unit. The study is currently evaluating the viability of
sending variable text messages to vehicles and assessing potential
application including rail crossing safety systems.
Results.--Georgia Tech. has confirmed that the fixed site
transmitter can be remotely programmed in real time via a modem. This
will allow an operator of an advanced traffic management system to
change the information as needed to provide timely safety warnings to
drivers through the remote fixed site transmitter. Potential
applications that take advantage of this function will now be
evaluated.
Organization.--Booz-Allen & Hamilton
Program Title.--Motor Carrier Advanced Sensor Control System
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($623,700), fiscal year 1999 ($618,100),
and fiscal year 1900 ($609,700)
Current Status.--The initial task of the study is underway. It
includes a literature review and related analyses of accident
databases. A meeting with interested original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) and Commercial Motor Vehicle operators will be held in late
February. The detailed project scope is under development. The Truck
Manufacturers Association is working with the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration and the contractor to implement this program.
Results.--No information available at this time.
Organization.--Signal Corporation
Program Title.--Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure System
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($1,514,700), fiscal year 1999
($1,501,100), and fiscal year 1900 ($1,480,700)
Current Status.--Project design is well underway in Pittsburgh and
will begin later this year in Philadelphia. System implementation is
expected around July 2000 in Pittsburgh and November in Philadelphia.
Results.--No results are available at this time
Organization.--State of Pennsylvania
Program Title.--Advanced Traffic Monitoring and Emergency Response
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($1,485,297), fiscal year 1999
($1,471,961), and fiscal year 1900 ($1,451,957)
Current Status.--Little, if any work has been initiated on this
project. A feasibility and needs' study is underway with completion
expected in July 2000.
Results.--No results are available at this time.
Organization.--New Jersey Institute of Technology
Program Title.--Development of a Transportation Economic and Land
Use System
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($891,000), fiscal year 1999 ($883,000),
and fiscal year 1900 ($871,000)
Current Status.--The TELUS project began in August of 1998. The
objective is to support State governments and Metropolitan Planning
Agencies by developing an automated data base to report on the status
of projects. The TELUS suite of programs will also include modules to
analyze economic and land use impacts of projects.
Results.--A Beta test group, composed of 15 MPOs, has been formed
and is currently testing an early release of TELUS. The Beta test group
has reported very good results and is anxious to receive the final
version.
Organization.--Twenty State Departments of Transportation
(discretionary)
Program Title.--Innovative Bridge Research and Construction
Program--Construction Component
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($8,910,000), fiscal year 1999
($13,245,000), and fiscal year 1900 ($14,807,000)
Current Status.--Allocations of funds have been made to all 20
States participating in the program for fiscal year 1998 & fiscal year
1999. There are 60 different projects being conducted on varying
schedules according to the individual States' construction programs.
Some projects have already awarded for construction. One example is the
replacement of deteriorated a concrete deck on the Salem Avenue Bridge
over the Great Miami River Bridge in Dayton, Ohio. Most other projects
are underway or will be awarded for construction in the Spring of 2000.
Results.--Results will vary according to the scope and complexity
of the individual projects. At the Great Miami River Bridge in Dayton,
Ohio, the deck replacement was completed successfully after solving
several installation problems.
Organization.--Various outside organizations (discretionary)
Program Title.--Innovative Bridge Research & Construction Program--
Research & Technology Component
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($891,000), fiscal year 1999
($13,245,000), and fiscal year 1900 ($14,807,000)
Current Status.--The Ohio DOT has completed the replacement of a
deteriorated concrete deck on the Salem Avenue bridge over the Great
Miami River. The new deck was constructed using modular sections of
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials. The complete
sequence of section fabrication and installation was videotaped in
order to provide other potential users with the benefits of Ohio DOT's
experience. The Precast Concrete Institute has scheduled the
International Symposium on High Performance Concrete for Bridges for
September 25-27, 2000, in Orlando, Florida.
The University of Nebraska--Lincoln is preparing to conduct the
National Conference on High Performance Steel for Bridges in Baltimore,
Maryland, November 29-December 1, 2000.
Results.--The results of the re-decking of the Salem Avenue bridge
over the Great Miami River have been documented. This project was the
first major project where a bridge was rehabilitated using a
lightweight modular FRP deck which was prefabricated offsite and
installed on the existing girders after the concrete deck was removed.
The lessons learned and captured on video during this pioneer project
will be disseminated to all bridge owning agencies in order to help
with the further application of FRP as a bridge material.
Organization.--General Atomics Corporations
Program Title.--Advanced Technology Pilot Program (low speed
magnetic levitation--Maglev)
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($4,455,000), fiscal year 1999
($4,415,000), and fiscal year 1900 ($4,355,000)
Current Status.--The FHWA is partnering with the FTA to carry out
this project. To date, one project group has been selected. General
Atomics Corporation (GA) will lead a team to develop Maglev technology
for the purpose of providing a solution to urban and regional
transportation problems. The GA team will develop low speed magnetic
levitation technology in the following main task areas: (1) system
studies, (2) base technology development (including technical risk
identification and resolution), (3) route specific requirements, and
(4) projection of overall system performance and a preliminary design
for a full scale demonstration system concept. The team comprises: GA,
Macklin Engineering, Hall Industries, Booz Allen & Hamilton, Western
Pennsylvania Maglev Development Corporation, Union Switch & Signal,
Port Authority of Allegheny County, Sargent Electric Company, Mr.
Richard Portis (DBE), P.J. Dick, Argonne National Laboratory, Carnegie
Mellon University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
Results.--The project was recently started and there are no
measurable results at this time.
Organization.--Dowling College and Auburn University
Program Title.--Advanced Simulation Technologies
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($0), fiscal year 1999 ($1,766,000), and
fiscal year 1900 ($1,742,000)
Current Status.--The contracts for this have been recently awarded
in early fiscal year 2000; little, if any work has been initiated on
this project.
Results.--No results are available at this time.
Discretionary programs
In support of the Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnership
Program, numerous activities under several core areas, to include:
Infrastructure, Safety, Planning and Environment, Federal Lands, and
Operations have been initiated.
Highlight of Several Activities:
--In a joint effort with Kansas DOT, developed a Concrete Pavement
Smoothness Implementation package, which included a video on
smoothness construction and benefits.
--Prepared documentation on the role of the Highway Economic
Requirement System Model in the statewide planning process.
--Updated the Pavement Management Systems Software catalog, and
expanded it to include pavement condition data collection
equipment.
--Instructed and deployed information to State DOT's on Heat
Straightening Repairs of Steel Bridges.
--Designed a booklet ``Building on the Past, Traveling to the
Future,'' which is aimed at promoting the use of transportation
enhancement funds for historic preservation projects and
providing technical information.
--Produced a guidebook for the planning practioner.
--Developed a methodology for establishing an initial baseline for
assessing the NEPA process.
--Supported International Scanning efforts in which several
significant technologies were observed and documented to
include: Bridge Scour Countermeasures, Steel Bridge Fabrication
and Erection Technology, Methods and Procedures to Reduce
Motorist Delay in Construction Zones, Recycled/Secondary
Materials, Sustainable Transportation Development, and
Durability of Concrete Segmental Bridges.
--Formulated the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and
reviewed the docket report.
--Converted the Federal Program manual to CD-ROM, and distributed to
industry.
--Continued implementation of High Performance Concrete and Superpave
into the Federal Lands program.
--Further development of the Rural ITS program.
--Coordinated development for Innovative Contracting activities.
--Developed a flow chart and mobility/safety recommendations and best
practices report.
--Supported initiatives under the International Operations and
Transportation Research Board and Performance Measures program.
--Supported the technology deployment initiatives of the Superpave
and concrete pavement programs to State and local governments.
Funding.--Fiscal year 1998 ($10,008,603), fiscal year 1999
($514,789), and fiscal year 1900 ($2,249,793)
Programs Funded from Surface Transportation Research Program
[Sec. 502]: Sec. 5001(a)(1)
Seismic Research Program
$5.2 million has been awarded to date. The research is focusing on
development of a Seismic Risk Analysis method which will be applicable
to a major metropolitan area. To date, preliminary testing of the
method has been tested using the Memphis, Tennessee area. A second
focus area is the development of a seismic retrofitting manual for long
span bridges. Finally, seismic specifications for standard brides has
been updated and will be submitted to AASHTO for their consideration in
fiscal year 2000.
Asphalt Research
Section 5116(c) calls for $250,000 grants in each of fiscal year
1999 and 2000 to Auburn University for asphalt research. The National
Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) at Auburn is currently
constructing a pavement test track for evaluating the performance of 26
asphalt test sections during 2 years of heavy loading. The TEA-21
grants are being used for the construction of two polymer-modified
asphalt sections (in the spring of 2000), to evaluate the rutting
performance of a common commercial modifier and of chemically modified
crumb rubber. The test track program is being funded by Alabama, 7
other States, the TEA-21 grants, and private sector partners. The
complete 26-section experiment will yield comparative performance data
on a number of asphalts and aggregates and further validate and improve
the Superpave binder selection and mixture design systems.
Fundamental Properties of Asphalts and Modified Asphalts
Under Section 5117(b)(5), the Western Research Institute is
continuing its study of fundamental properties of asphalts and modified
asphalts. Several techniques and concepts were developed which have the
potential to improve the Superpave binder specifications. A modulated
differential scanning calorimetry (MDSC) method was developed as a
reliable and rapid means of predicting low temperature asphalt
properties. Researchers found the physical properties of thin (< 50 m)
asphalt films--characteristic of asphalt mixtures and pavements--could
not be predicted from the bulk physical properties of asphalts which
are measured in the current Superpave binder specifications. The WRI
team also found water, in the form of saturated humidity, has a major
effect on the rheology of aged asphalts, and, further, found aging in a
humid environment was not predictable from the results of currently
used dry aging procedures. To validate these and other developments
from the TEA-21 research, the WRI researchers worked with the Wyoming
DOT to construct a well-controlled test pavement section in Albin,
Wyoming; construction of test sections is planned at three other sites
during the 2000 construction season.
Recycled Materials Resource Center
In 1999, the Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC) at the
University of New Hampshire fully established its staff and advisory
board. The RMRC initiated nine research projects covering a range of
topics, including a study of the weathering and leaching behavior of
by-product materials, development of specifications for recycled
materials in transportation applications, and monitoring of
construction projects using recycled materials. Most of these projects
involve State DOTs and industry. Outreach activities included
establishment of the center website and client database. In 1999, there
were 7,000 visitors to the website and over 400 clients have registered
with the center. The RMRC has also publicized and shared its work
through participation in and sponsorship of regional and national/
international conferences, and participated in a FHWA scanning tour to
review European recycling practices and innovations, for which center
personnel are preparing the final report.
Seismic Research
An initial $883,000 has been awarded to the University of
California at San Diego (UCSD) for the development of a major national
seismic shaking table which will be used to evaluate seismic design and
response of retrofitted highway bridges. The study is jointly funded by
the California Department of Transportation. The first series of
testing will evaluate seismic isolation systems that will be
retrofitted into major bridges in California.
Corrosion Control and Prevention
$883,000 has been awarded to CC Technologies and NACE for a two-
year study to investigate the cost of corrosion and develop preventive
strategies. To date, three reports have been published in the Materials
Performance NACE International Journal. The study will update the cost
of corrosion to the nation, estimated in 1975 to be 4.2 percent of GNP
or $70 billion for 36 specific industry sectors.
Long-term Pavement Performance (LTPP)
Significant accomplishments for the LTPP program last year include
the release of the DataPave 2.0 software. DataPave is a CD-ROM version
of the LTPP database that provides the LTPP data in an easy to
understand and useable format. DataPave 2.0 is a two CD-ROM set that
includes triple the amount of data in DataPave 1.0. FHWA and the
American Society of Civil Engineers sponsored a contest in the analysis
of the LTPP data. The contest winner in 1999 presented a new method of
analyzing and understanding the profile of concrete pavements that has
the potential to greatly improve the performance of future concrete
pavements. Another product that was improved and released is LTPPBind
2.1. The improved LTPPBind has more information and significant
improvements in functionality. This software enables highway agencies
and industry in the selection of the most cost effective Superpave
binders. Lastly, LTPP is cooperating with the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program efforts in the development of the 2002
Pavement Design Guide. LTPP plays a critical role in the development of
the new guide as the source of pavement data for the validation and
calibration of the new Guide and in several instances as a source of
information and procedures in the use of the new Guide.
Concrete Pavement
One of the significant products of the Concrete Pavement Program in
the last year was the delivery of the HIPERPAV software and
documentation. This user-friendly program allows engineers to predict
and prevent early-age distress which may occur during the construction
process. The result will be longer-lasting, better performing
pavements. Also, procedures and equipment were developed for measuring
the work ability of concrete prior to construction. This test will help
avoid problems with placing and consolidating the concrete on the job.
earmarked projects or university activities
Question. For each of the earmarked projects or university
activities specified in TEA-21 that pertain to RD&T, please specify the
expected fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 budget amount and
funding source.
Answer.
DESIGNATED PROGRAMS AND RECIPIENTS OF R&T FUNDS IN TEA 21 WITH TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Name 1998 \1\ 1999 \2\ 2000 \3\ \4\ 2001 2002 2003 Total Designated Recipient (if applicable) TEA 21 Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs Funded from Surface
Transportation Research Program [Sec.
502]: Sec. 5001(a)(1):
Seismic Research..................... ........ .883 .871 1.0 1.0 ...... 3.754 University of California at San Diego......... 5116(a)(5-73)
Global Climate Research.............. ........ .177 .174 .2 .2 .2 0.951 University of Alabama in Huntsville........... 5116(b)(5-73)
Asphalt Research..................... ........ .221 .218 ...... ...... ...... 0.439 Auburn University............................. 5116(c)(5-74)
Fundamental Properties of Asphalts .891 2.649 2.613 3.0 3.0 3.0 15.153 Western Research Institute at the U of Wyoming 5117(5)(5-81)
and Modified Asphalts.
Recycled Materials Resource Center... 1.337 1.325 1.307 1.5 1.5 1.5 8.469 U of New Hampshire............................ 5117(8)(5-83)
Seismic Research Program............. 1.782 1.766 1.742 2.0 2.0 2.0 11.29 Natl Center for Earthquake Engineering 5001(c)(1)(B), 5102[502(f)](5-18)
Research at the U of Buffalo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Designated Recipient Total......... 4.01 7.021 6.925 7.7 7.7 6.7 40.056
====================================================================
Corrosion Control & Prevention....... ........ 0.442 0.436 ...... ...... ...... 0.878 .............................................. 5117(b)(4)
International Outreach............... .446 0.442 0.436 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.824 .............................................. 5001(c)(1)(C), 5106 [506]
Long-Term Pavement Performance....... 8.910 8.830 8.71 10.0 10.0 10.0 56.45 .............................................. 5102[502(d)]
Concrete Pavement.................... 4.455 4.415 4.355 5.0 5.0 5.0 28.225 .............................................. 5001(c)(1)(D)
Advanced Research.................... ........ ........ ............ ...... ...... ...... ........ .............................................. 5102[502(d)]
Infrastructure Investment Needs ........ ........ ............ ...... ...... ...... ........ .............................................. 5102[502(g)]
Report.
Surface Transportation-Environment ........ ........ ............ ...... ...... ...... ........ .............................................. 5107[507]
Cooperative Research Program.
Surface Transportation Research ........ ........ ............ ...... ...... ...... ........ .............................................. 5108[508]
Strategic Planning.
Future SHRP.......................... ........ ........ ............ ...... ...... ...... ........ .............................................. 5112
Transportation Management Plan for ........ ........ ............ ...... ...... ...... ........ .............................................. 1223(d)
Olympics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Undesignated Recipient Total....... 13.811 14.129 13.937 15.5 15.5 15.5 88.377
STRP Total......................... 17.821 21.15 20.862 23.2 23.2 22.2 128.43
====================================================================
Programs funded from Technology
Deployment Initiatives and Partnerships
Program [Sec. 503]: Sec. 5001(a)(2)
Advanced Vehicle Research............ ........ .353 .348 .4 .4 .4 1.901 University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa........... 5116(d)(5-74)
Geothermal Heat Pump Smart Bridge ........ .883 .871 1.0 .5 ...... 3.254 Oklahoma State University..................... 5116(e)(5-74)
Program.
Intelligent Stiffener for Bridge ........ .883 .871 .5 ...... ...... 2.254 U. of Oklahoma................................ 5116(f)(5-75)
Stress Reduction.
Study of Advanced Trauma Care........ ........ .662 .653 .75 .75 .75 3.565 U. of Alabama at Birmingham................... 5116(g)(5-75)
Center for Transportation Injury 1.782 1.766 1.742 2.0 2.0 2.0 11.29 Calspan of Buffalo Research Center............ 5116(h)(5-76)
Research.
Head and Spinal Cord Injury Research. ........ .442 .436 .5 .5 .5 2.378 Louisiana State U. & Geo. Washington U........ 5116(i)(5-76)
Motor Vehicle Safety Warning System.. 0.624 .618 .610 .7 .7 .7 3.952 Georgia State is understood to be recipient-- 5117(1)(5-77), 5117(b)(1)
not stated in bill.
Intelligent Transportation 1.515 1.501 1.481 1.7 1.7 1.7 9.597 State of Pennsylvania......................... 5117(3)(5-78)
Infrastructure.
Advanced Traffic Monitoring and 1.485 1.472 1.452 1.667 1.667 1.667 9.41 Pennsylvania Transportation Institute at 5117(6)(5-82)
Response Center. Letterkenny Army Depot.
Transportation Economic and Land Use .891 .883 .871 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.645 New Jersey Institute of Technology............ 5117(7)(5-83)
System.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Designated Recipient Total......... 6.297 9.463 9.335 10.217 9.217 8.717 53.246
====================================================================
Transit/Magnetic Levitation.......... 4.455 4.415 4.355 5.0 5.0 5.0 28.225 .............................................. 3015(c)(3-62)
Innovative Bridge RD&T............... .891 .883 .871 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.645 .............................................. 5001(c)(2)(A), 503(b)(3)(A)(i)
Innovative Bridge Construction....... 8.910 13.245 14.807 20.0 20.0 20.0 96.962 .............................................. 5001(c)(2)(B, )503(b)(3)(A)(ii)
Motor Carrier Advanced Sensor Control 0.624 0.618 0.610 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.952 .............................................. 5117(b)(2)
System.
Driver Fatigue....................... ........ ........ ............ ...... ...... ...... ........ .............................................. 4021 (may use)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Undesignated Recipient Total....... 14.88 19.16 20.64 26.70 26.70 26.70 134.78
TDIP Total......................... 21.177 28.624 29.978 36.917 35.917 35.417 188.030
====================================================================
Designated Research & Technology Programs
Funded Separated from Title V:
TRANSIMS............................. 3.6 2.6 5.8 5.0 4.0 2.5 23.5 .............................................. 1210
Transportation & Community & Systems ........ 17.7 21.8 25.0 25.0 25.0 114.5 .............................................. 1221
Preservation.
School Transportation Safety......... ........ ........ 0.174 0.2 ...... ...... 0.2 TRB........................................... 4030 ``authorized to be
appropriated''
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 3.6 20.3 27.6 30.2 29.0 27.5 138.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligation limitation applied for fiscal year 1998 was 89.1 percent.
\2\ Obligation limitation applied for fiscal year 1999 was 88.3 percent.
\3\ Obligation limitation applied for fiscal year 2000 was 87.1 percent.
\4\ All amounts to be fully obligated by the end of fiscal year 2000.
Note: Section 1213, Studies and Reports, contains requirements for which funds may be sought from Section 5001 (a)(1). Two of these requirements also are given authority to appropriate
additional funds. Section 2007 requires two safety studies for which funds may be sought from Section 5001(a)(1).
IG AUDIT OF TURNER-FAIRBANK HIGHWAY RESEARCH CENTER
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees
directed that FHWA identify and submit specific corrections it plans to
take in response to the Inspector General's audit of the Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center contracting activities. That document
was to be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by December 1, 1999. When will this requirement be
implemented? What specific corrections are anticipated?
Answer. In response to the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the
Action Plan developed in response to OIG Report No. MA-1999-095 was
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on
November 30, 1999, under cover of letter from the FHWA Administrator.
The Action Plan, which was developed jointly by the FHWA Office of
Acquisition Management and the FHWA Office of Research, Development and
Technology, proposed a schedule of twenty-six specific corrective
actions to take place over the course of the period from June 1, 1999,
through September 30, 2000. Of these twenty-six actions, twenty-one
have been completed to date. Actions completed include the revision and
conduct of ethics training for hundreds of TFHRC and other FHWA
personnel, training for Contracting Officer Technical Representatives
(COTRs) in a number of areas, the issuance of agency guidelines on the
use of interagency agreements, a restructuring of COTR delegation
process, and a new reporting format for tracking progress under
contracts. Key actions remaining for completion include: a
comprehensive COTR guideline/manual on the FHWA StaffNet (the draft of
this manual is completed and electronic publication is anticipated by
the end of fiscal year 2000); an internal compliance review of the
Office of Acquisition Management (scheduled for completion by September
30, 2000); and the development of agency policy on monitoring and
control of Government property under contracts.
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND DEPLOYMENT FUNDS
Question. Please prepare a table showing the Technology Assessment
and Deployment funds derived from the surface transportation R&D
account for fiscal year 2000 and proposed for fiscal year 2001. To the
extent possible, please specify total amounts as well as amounts
associated with each of the traditional categories of surface
transportation R&D.
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 was the last year that Technology
Assessment and Deployment (TAD) was included as a separate line item in
FHWA's R&T budget request. With the closing of the Office of Technology
Applications, R&T initiatives under the TAD line item have been shifted
to the appropriate corporate business units (CBUs) and other parts of
the agency in accordance with FHWA's strategic goals. This approach
recognizes that development and delivery of technology is integral to
advancing FHWA goals and objectives, and meeting the needs of our
customers. The table below outline current program plans for funding
``TAD-type'' activities.
SAFETY RESEARCH
Question. Why are you proposing to reduce safety research funded
out of the surface transportation R&D account?
Answer. Actually, we are not. The fiscal year 2000 Appropriations
Conference Report indicated a total of $14.2 million for the safety
line item. After the required obligation limitation reduction (12.9
percent for fiscal year 2000), $12.4 million was available for the
traditional category of safety R&D. The fiscal year 2001 request is for
$13.9 million for the traditional safety R&D category. The
Administration's proposal includes a provision that the obligation
limitation requirement be removed from the R&T funding categories. With
approval of this provision the amount requested for fiscal year 2001 is
an increase over the amount provided in fiscal year 2000. In addition,
the Administration is proposing to increase TEA-21 authorization
amounts for research and technology categories by a total of $50
million, and safety would receive an additional $5 million as part of
this action. Approval of this request would improve our ability to
advance critical safety R&T initiatives.
With about 40,000 highway fatalities per year, safety is certainly
a high national priority. The fiscal year 2001 funds will be used for
research and development for run-off-road (33 percent), pedestrian and
bicycle (15 percent), human centered (12 percent), safety management
(14 percent), speed management (20 percent), and work zones (6
percent).
EDUCATIONAL AND OUTREACH EFFORTS
Question. Please update your answer from last year regarding
educational and outreach efforts to combat the problem of drivers
running off the road. Please estimate fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001 funds allocated or planned for this purpose and provide the
funding source of these monies. What other relevant activities have
been implemented?
Answer. The FHWA will have new starts and continue efforts started
in fiscal year 2001 and prior to combat the problem of drivers running
off the road. New starts include the development of training courses,
demonstrations, and showcasing start-of-the-art technologies for
practitioners. These include training courses/workshops for the highway
practitioner in designing safer roadways e.g. Interactive Highway
Safety Design Model, and Accommodating Older Drivers in Highway Design
and Traffic Operations; the development and dissemination of technical
guides and handbooks, e.g. Older Driver Highway Design Handbook,
Highway Safety Design and Operations Guide; the showcasing and
deployment of four Mobile Sign Retroreflectometer vans; and
accelerating the deployment of roadside safety hardware to States and
local communities.
Outreach efforts include a campaign on Run-Off-Road for safety
practitioners and the highway public. This started in fiscal year 2000
and will be intensified in fiscal year 2001. The focus will be on three
areas: keep the vehicle in lane, alert drivers when leaving their lane,
and minimize the impact of the vehicle in the event of running off the
road. Materials will be developed and disseminated focusing on these
issues, e.g. rumble strips, share-the-road, specific user groups,
techniques to improve roadside safety, skid resistant pavement,
improved geometric designs, traffic control devices, better and
improved methods for measuring the retroreflectivity of signs and
markings.
Funding source.--Surface Transportation Research (STR)
Funds.--Fiscal year 2000--$375,000; fiscal year 2001--$750,000.
run-off-the-road activities
Question. On a project-by-project basis, please break down your
request for $4.570 million regarding run-off-the-road activities.
Answer.
Project Request
Policy Review Module for Multilane Rural Highways....... $100,000
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model Training Course. 200,000
Rural Multilane Crash Prediction Model.................. 300,000
Safety Effectiveness of Roadway Improvements............ 200,000
Safety Effectiveness of Interchange Improvements........ 300,000
Beta Testing of IHSDM................................... 150,000
IHSDM Driver Performance Module......................... 330,000
Vehicle Performance for Operational Situations.......... 100,000
Safety Evaluation Measures from TWOPAS.................. 200,000
IHSDM Software Development.............................. 200,000
Geometric Design Laboratory............................. 500,000
Safety Evaluation of Ultraviolet Headlamps..............................
Night Visibility Enhancement............................ 210,000
Night Driving and Highway Lighting Requirements for the
Older Driver........................................................
Development of Fog and Ice Detection Systems (SBIR
funded).............................................................
Service Support for Photometric and Visibility Facility. 70,000
Dynamic Testing of Posts in Soil........................ 100,000
Safety Hardware Performance on Non-level Terrain........ 150,000
Vehicle Tripping and Rollover Mechanisms................ 300,000
Side-impact Relevance Study............................. 200,000
Simulation Centers of Excellence........................ 200,000
Cooperative Research, Maintenance & Operation of the
FHWA/NHTSA NCAC..................................... 360,000
Cooperative Agreement with AAMA to Use Finite Element
Analysis Instead of Crash Tests..................... 100,000
Development of DYNA3D Analysis Tools for Roadside
Hardware Applications...............................................
Federal Outdoor Impact Laboratory....................... 300,000
Roadside Safety Audits.................................. 150,000
Roadway Design Guide.................................... 100,000
Retroreflectivity....................................... 200,000
IHSDM Marketing......................................... 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 5,170,000
pedestrian and bicycle safety
Question. On a project-by-project basis, please break down your
request for $2.150 million regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Answer.
Project Request
Automatic Pedestrian & Bicycle Counting Devices......... $300,000
Accommodation of Non-Motorists in Restricted ROW........ 315,000
Intersection Hazard Index for Pedestrians (formerly
titled: Effects of Intersection Design on Pedestrian
& Bicyclist Safety)................................. 275,000
Evaluation of Safety, Design, and Operation of Shared
Use Paths (formerly titled: Design and Operations of
Shared Use Paths)................................... 230,000
Pedestrian Facilities Design Training Course (Funded by
NHI)................................................................
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Reference Set, Version 2........... 150,000
In-Service Trials/Technologies & Partnerships for
Pedestrian/Highway Safety........................... 450,000
Facilitator Training for ``Pedestrian Safety Roadshow''. 100,000
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Reference..........................................
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Awareness.......................... 330,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 2,150,000
EFFECTIVENESS OF SAFETY RD&T PROGRAM
Question. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your safety RD&T
program? What measures of success are used? Please describe those
results.
Answer. For products that are part of the Safety RD&T program,
action plans that have input from the user community are developed.
Part of the action plan includes what products have been developed and
who the users are. Measures of success are: when the product is
transferred from RD&T to CBUs and Field offices; delivery and
deployment of new RD&T products included in CBU, Resource Center and
Division Office Unit Plans; use of product by state DOT; and adoption
of new product by state DOT.
Also, the effectiveness of the RD&T program is evaluated on many
levels from determination of need to deployment and implementation at
the state and local level. In the determination of need, workshops are
held involving state and local personnel, FHWA field staff, and other
partners (e.g. AASHTO, TRB, ITE, NSC, etc) to assess the safety need,
research and/or focus area. During the program schedule additional
workshops are held to provide guidance and ensure that the output of
the activity meets the need and expectations of the user. The initial
output of the activity can be an applied research product (e.g. Older
Driver Highway Design Handbook), a process that improves highway design
and safety (e.g. Interactive Highway Safety Design Model, Equipment for
measuring signs and pavement marking retroreflectivity, Road Safety
Audits, etc), the development of training workshops (e.g. Facilitator
training for the Pedestrian Safety Roadshow), the deployment of
technologies for test and evaluation (e.g. In-Service Trials/
Technologies & Partnerships for Pedestrian Safety), the development of
Safety Campaigns (e.g. Red-light-Running, Work Zone Safety, etc.) and
the development of guidelines, safety brochures, PSA's or other safety
related information packages (e.g. Safely Moving across America CD).
Each of these incorporate unique and different methods of
evaluation, an example would be:
Older Driver Highway Design Handbook
First level of evaluation was based purely on demand for product--
more than 7,000 copies were requested and disseminated.
Second level of evaluation was based on user/safety practitioner
feedback to initial product--the safety practitioners, once exposed to
the issues on accommodating the older driver in highway design and
traffic operations, demand that a workshop be developed based on the
above handbook, also numerous requests were made to FHWA for
presentations at international (e.g. TRB, ATSSA, etc), national and
state meetings.
Third level of evaluation was based on demand for indirect
products--within a 30 month period FHWA conducted over 30 one-day older
driver workshops, providing classroom instruction and discussion to
over 1,000 engineers and other safety practitioners from the state and
local agencies.
Fourth level of evaluation is based on actual field deployment made
by states and local communities--in this particular activity we are now
evaluating this task.
Fifth level of evaluation is the measure of success--is to assess
the fourth level of evaluation by collecting data before and after
crashes and conflicts to determine success.
Sixth level of evaluation is inclusion into guidelines and policy
issued by FHWA (e.g. AASHTO Green Book, MUTCD, etc.). This is measured
by adoption of the state and inclusion in their policy and guidelines.
Finally, the last measure of the program--is in looking at the
overall crash picture, with focus on the segments to gauge the relevant
reduction in fatalities and injuries.
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES
Question. How much will be spent on technology deployment
activities related to safety? How will this help the states?
Answer. $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. The ``technology
deployment'' activities will help States by:
--Creating an awareness among top management and administrators of
the benefits, impacts, and resources associated with safety
process, countermeasures, and technologies.
--Providing information and demonstrations of proven state-of-the-art
safety technologies to practitioners.
--Promoting concepts of new technologies, both hardware and software.
--Effectively showcasing safety processes, countermeasures and other
related technologies.The technology deployment activities will
assist in improving the road safety of the nation by
accelerating the deployment/implementation of safety processes,
countermeasures and other related technologies at the state and
local level.
ROAD CONSTRUCTION WORK ZONES
Question. Please update your answer from last year regarding
training programs to educate new drivers on the dangers of road
construction work zones.
Answer. Currently PR # 42-01-0073 is being processed through
Acquisition Management. The PR was designed to develop a national
program effort to heighten the awareness of new drivers to the dangers
involved with traveling through work zones. The program is scheduled to
be awarded in September 2000 and consists of the following bullets:
(1) Literature Search/Catalog.--The first task is to collect as
much information as possible on the available literature, videos,
programs and other related materials and collect that into a training
best practices guide, which will be sent to the Work Zone clearinghouse
and appropriate State and local agencies.
(2) Training Video.--The video will concentrate on the dangers that
work zone patterns present to new, inattentive, aggressive or speeding
drivers.
(3) Other Materials.--A teachers/classroom manual, CD-ROM, posters
and stickers are just a few of the additional products expected to be
developed and distributed.
(4) Outreach and Marketing.--All products above are to be completed
by the end of March 2001. Outreach (distribution of video, CD-ROM,
manual, etc.) and marketing are to be completed before June 30, 2001.
(5) After one year the program is to be evaluated. A written report
and oral presentation will be provided by September 30, 2002.
HUMAN-CENTERED RESEARCH
Question. Please break out and describe in detail your proposal to
spend $1.730 million on human-centered research, paying particular
attention to research aimed at helping the elderly.
Answer. The following table shows a breakout of our proposed
spending on human-centered safety-related research:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elderly-
Project Request Related
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Perception of Curves and Run-Off-Road $350,000 X
Accidents (Resident Study)..................
Prototype Driver Models for Highway Design... 300,000 X
Older Driver Handbook........................ ........... X
Driver Selection of Speed (Resident Study)... 250,000 X
Driver Identification of Highway Hazards..... ........... X
Support Services for HYSIM Simulator 330,000 X
Laboratory (Resident Study).................
Identification and Evaluation of Driver ........... X
Errors......................................
Effects of Roadway Design on Traffic Speeds 200,000 X
and Crashes.................................
Traffic Control in Construction and ........... X
Maintenance Zones...........................
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Roadway Integration 300,000 X
(Resident)..................................
-------------
Total.................................. 1,730,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above projects are directed at making highways safer by
incorporating the human element into the design of the infrastructure.
Understanding the capabilities and limitations of drivers, pedestrians,
bicyclists, etc. can have an important impact on roadway safety. All of
the above projects involve the use of human research participants in
investigations of human/roadway interactions, and each project includes
the study of elderly participants to assess their special needs. The
products of this research are used by state and local agencies, highway
and traffic engineers and ultimately by the roadway-using public.
For example, the ``Pedestrian-Bicycle-Roadway Integration'' study
investigates older and younger pedestrian recognition and comprehension
of pedestrian crossing signals. Results of this study will lead to
recommendations on crossing signals that are readily understood by
older and younger road users. In the ``Perception of Curves'' project,
driver age is a key component so that safety benefits can be extended
to older and younger drivers. The ``Speed Selection'' project evaluates
acceptable and unacceptable operating speeds and traffic volumes from
the pedestrian's perspective, and will study pedestrians of all ages.
The ``Traffic Speeds and Crashes'' project uses an Operating-Speed
Estimation Method that will consider the most important design,
operational, and environmental factors influencing drivers' perceptions
of safe operating speeds. Driver characteristics, including age, will
be studied in the development and calibration of the method. The
``Older Driver Handbook'' is an extremely popular product of our
research effort. This Handbook gives guidance to highway and traffic
engineers on improving roads and highways to accommodate the unique
needs of the older driving population. Guidance is offered for
improving the design of intersections, interchanges, roadway curvature,
passing zones and construction and work zones, all from the perspective
of the elderly roadway user.
SAFETY CAMPAIGNS
Question. What new safety campaigns are planned for fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2001? Please indicate funding amounts for each
project.
Answer.
Pedestrian Engineering Outreach/Awareness (2000 start)
Goal.--To reduce the number pedestrian fatalities 5,220 (1998) that
occur on our roadway each year. This program is intended for safety
practitioners, the highway public, and other groups. Materials will be
developed and disseminated (hard copy and electronic) focusing on
pedestrian safety issues (e.g. Safety countermeasures--enhancing
pedestrian nighttime visibility, geometric design issues, specific user
groups, technologies--infra-red detection, and other processes).
Status.--Campaign started in fiscal year 2000.
Funds.--Fiscal year 2000--$200,000; fiscal year 2001--$330,000.
Run-off-Road Campaign
Goal.--To reduce the number of run-off-road crashes that account
for almost \1/3\ of all highway fatalities. This program will focus on
three areas; keep the vehicle in lane, alert drivers when leaving their
lane and minimize the impact of the vehicle in the event of running off
the road. Materials will be developed and disseminated focusing on
these issues, e.g. rumble strips, share-the-road, specific user groups,
techniques to improve roadside safety, skid resistant pavement,
improved geometric designs, traffic control devices, better and
improved methods for measuring the retro-reflectivity of signs and
markings.
Status.--Campaign started in fiscal year 2000.
Funds.--Fiscal year 2000--$200,000; fiscal year 2001--$300,000.
Speed Management Campaign
Goal.--To reduce speed related highway crashes (more than one-third
of all fatal crashes). This program will focus on restoring the
credibility of speed limits in the United States. This will include
promoting Variable Speed Limits and Reasonable and Safe Posted Speed
limits.
Status.--Campaign started in fiscal year 2000.
Funds.--Fiscal year 2000--$315,000; fiscal year 2001--$250,000.
Intersection Safety Campaign (fiscal year 2001 start)
Goal.--To reduce intersection related crashes (more than 22 percent
of all fatal crashes). This program will focus on intersections
(controlled and uncontrolled) and intersection related crashes. Focus
will include traffic control devices, sight distances, geometric, etc.
Status.--2001 start.
Funds.--Fiscal year 2001--$200,000.
HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE FACILITIES
Question. High occupancy vehicle facilities have drawn much
attention around the country. How is FHWA helping state and local
governments operate and maintain these facilities and how much of the
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 budgets will be allocated for
this activity.
Answer. In May 1999, FHWA issued program guidance to reiterate and
clarify its support of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities as part
of a regional or corridor approach to manage congested conditions. The
guidance emphasized the need to evaluate the performance of HOV
facilities over time, as one of the many strategies in the region to
manage congestion.
In response to questions that were received from State and local
agencies, the guidance also indicated when a Federal review of changes
to the operations of HOV facilities is needed, and what should be
included as part of that review.
Initiatives and associated funding for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001 include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop HOV System training course for state and ( \1\ ) ( \2\ )
local agencies.................................
Develop case-study on New Jersey I-80 & I-287HOV $25,000 ..........
lane conversions...............................
Co-sponsor HOV System Conference................ 15,000 ..........
Value pricing Ban alternative operating strategy \3\ 440,00 \3\ 675,00
available to optimize performance of HOV 0 0
facilities.....................................
Technical guidance for state and local agencies ( \1\ ) ..........
on combining pricing and HOV strategies........
Guidance on use of HOV lanes by inherently low ( \4\ ) ..........
emission vehicles..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded from prior year carry over funds.
\2\ NHI course offering.
\3\ Funded under the Value Pricing program.
\4\ Internal staff effort.
MULTI-AGENCY INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
Question. How much is FHWA planning to allocate in fiscal year 2000
to support the development and maintenance of regional multi-agency
incident management programs? Please describe those efforts and specify
how the effectiveness of your efforts is evaluated. What new
initiatives will be added in fiscal year 2001 and at what proposed
costs?
Answer. The revision of the Incident Management Handbook will be
delivered in Spring 2000. This handbook is a revision of the 1991
Freeway Incident Management Handbook and updates that handbook as well
as adding a section on systematic program development for a regional
multi-agency program. An ``Implementation Guide for Regional Traffic
Incident Management Programs'' is being developed and will be completed
mid-year 2000. This implementation guide discusses the steps needed to
develop and sustain a regional multi-agency program from a strategic
planning viewpoint. This document is intended to provide assistance in
developing a multi-agency approach to strategic planning for incident
management so that state and local agency goals are coordinated and
budget development for resources needed from both state and local
agencies is planned and coordinated. This strategic approach to
incident management programs is missing in most regional programs.
These efforts were funded under previous years' budgets.
FHWA will continue to provide technical support to the National
Highway Institute's Incident Management Workshop in fiscal year 2000.
The Workshop has been presented 42 times in 20 states from November
1998 through February 2000. The workshops are presented to mid-
management level persons in various response agencies consisting
primarily of police, fire, emergency medical, emergency management,
transportation, emergency communications and planning as well as
private sector partners in towing and recovery, hazardous materials and
traffic information media. The workshops have been followed up by high
level executive sessions involving state transportation and public
safety directors in four states with two others scheduled in 2000. The
Workshops include evaluation forms for participants to complete that
are used to evaluate effectiveness of presentation and indicate which
materials need updating. In fiscal year 2000, FHWA is providing $50,000
to allow the Workshop presenters to capture the incident management
experiences of the participants to provide information toward the
state-of-the-practice benchmarking activities.
A training course on Incident Management is being developed for
FHWA field personnel. The purpose of this training course is to
acquaint Resource Center and Division office personnel with both
technical and institutional issues related to incident management and
emergency services response. This training will better enable field
personnel to assist State and local agencies in the development,
refinement, and maintenance of regional multi-agency incident
management programs. This effort is split-funded between fiscal year
2000 ($45,000) and fiscal year 2001 ($50,000), and will be delivered in
fiscal year 2002.
The development of the IEEE P1512 Base Standard ``Common Incident
Management Message Sets for Use By Emergency Management Centers'' has
been completed. This standard will help provide a common communications
framework for all regional incident management agencies. The standard
was successfully balloted in November 1999. Comments received in the
ballot process are now being resolved. It is anticipated that this
standard will receive final approval by IEEE in early spring of 2000.
These initial efforts were funded under previous years' budgets.
A new effort is underway within the US DOT to develop a strategy
and program to facilitate the integration of transportation and public
safety systems at both the technical and institutional levels. This
effort is envisioned to also involve the Department of Justice, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Communications
Commission as well as police, fire, emergency medical and
transportation professional associations. The goal of this effort is to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public safety and
transportation systems through improved communications and data
transfer. While public safety communication systems have existed for
many years, they are undergoing rapid technological advancement. At the
same time new ITS systems and standards are being developed. The
benefits of integrating the systems are numerous. The challenges are
more institutional than technical. The development of ITS standards
which affect existing public safety communications systems have made
this effort essential.
Work will begin on a number of outreach and awareness initiatives
in a multi-year program to provide information (technical issue
documents, successful practices documents, etc.) which will facilitate
good incident management practices. Initial efforts started in fiscal
year 2001 at an estimated cost of $200,000, will address Incident
Command (ICS) Procedures and Practices for Transportation Agencies and
Liability Issues in Incident Clearance. ICS is an on-scene command and
control protocol used by public safety agencies and not widely
understood by transportation agency responders. Liability issues raised
at incident scenes may result in lengthy delays in reopening roadways
to travel. The liability issues are changing now and agencies may find
themselves at greater risk for not taking aggressive clearance actions.
VALUE PRICING PILOT PROGRAM
Question. What are the status, accomplishments, and remaining
challenges associated with the Value Pricing Pilot Program? What
impacts on operations to transportation systems have resulted from this
program?
Answer. STATUS.--As of February 29, 2000, approximately $2 million
of the TEA-21 Pilot Program funds had been obligated to support local
and Statewide value pricing planning and pre-implementation activities.
Because authorizations to support the TEA-21 Pilot Program did not
become available until fiscal year 1999 and authorizations had not been
available to support the ISTEA Pilot Program in fiscal year 1996 and
fiscal year 1997, new program initiatives were delayed until applicants
had time to move from initial project concepts to development of
detailed project proposals that could support Pilot Program cooperative
agreements.
Value pricing is likely to have far-reaching impacts on multiple
parties and activities and localities have been extremely careful and
deliberate in developing their proposals in order to include
comprehensive assessments and outreach activities before a commitment
to implement a project would be made. For this reason, even though FHWA
has received many inquiries about the Pilot Program, and several areas
are interested in applying to the program, only 4 cooperative
agreements have been signed since funding became available to the
program in fiscal year 1999. Two of those agreements are supporting
projects in the State of California, a third agreement is supporting a
pre-implementation study in the State of Maryland, and the fourth
agreement is with the State of Minnesota. We anticipate that additional
project agreements will be signed during the remainder of fiscal year
2000, with the States of Texas, California, Florida, New Jersey, New
York and Connecticut being likely candidates for program participation.
It is our expectation that at total of about $8 million to $10 million
of program funds will be obligated through the end of fiscal year 2000,
depending on the success of moving ahead with implementation at the
local level.
The initial cooperative agreement was signed in February 1999, to
continue the State of California effort to monitor the effects of the
private sector road pricing project on State Route 91 (SR91) in Orange
County. In September 1999, agreements were signed to support pre-
implementation studies in the States of California, Maryland, and
Minnesota. In addition, some of the projects funded with ISTEA funds
are continuing with use of previous year funding, or are continuing as
operating projects without Federal support. These operating projects
are of particular importance because they are beginning to provide
information about the impacts of value pricing on transportation
systems.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS.--The FHWA and its state and local project partners
have now had 9 years of experience with the Value Pricing Pilot Program
and its predecessor, the Congestion Pricing Pilot Program. Over this
time, the U. S. has become a world leader in investigating the
potential of this innovative approach to ease traffic congestion.
Fourteen project agreements have been funded over these years, and over
$32 million in Federal funds have been provided to support these
projects. Cities in all parts of the United States are showing interest
in value pricing, and the experience being gained through the Pilot
projects, as well as a private sector value pricing project in Orange
County, California, is providing valuable information to transportation
leaders in the U.S. and around the world.
Beyond the support being providing to state and local project
initiatives, one of the key functions of the Federal program has been
to establish a forum for discussion and exchange of information about
value pricing. Regional workshops sponsored by FHWA and its project
partners have fostered a high level of interest in value pricing in all
parts of the United States. The most recent workshop, held in New York
City, was highlighted by an announcement by the Executive Director of
the New Jersey Turnpike Authority that value pricing would be
established on the New Jersey Turnpike in the near future. This is just
one example where value pricing is moving beyond the pilot program
stage and is more widely being viewed as a way of managing demand on
congested facilities and increasing the efficiency of the
transportation system.
The ultimate test of the Pilot Program's accomplishments is, of
course, the extent to which the projects supported with program funds
move into the operational phase. In this regard we have had some
exciting accomplishments. Operational projects are being supported in
San Diego, California; Houston, Texas; and Lee County, Florida. In
addition, program funds are being used to support a monitoring and
evaluation study of priced express lanes on State Route 91 in Orange
County, California. These projects are now providing some early
results, which are summarized in the following section.
IMPACTS.--Perhaps the two most important findings resulting from
the operation of the early pilot projects are that drivers do alter
their behavior in response to variable pricing, and that highway users
are receptive to value pricing if it can be shown to provide them with
improved transportation services. In San Diego, where tolls on the I-15
Express Lanes vary dynamically with the level of congestion, value
pricing has led to improved use of available HOV lane capacity, and has
generated revenues to support express bus service in the corridor. The
vast majority of highway users in the corridor view this project as a
success, and the San Diego Association of Governments is studying the
feasibility of expanding the express lanes operation to cover more
miles of the I-15 facility.
In Lee County, Florida, the value pricing strategy has caused
drivers to shift trips out of the peak-congestion period into the
shoulders of the peak, leading to more efficient use of available
bridge capacity and improved service for bridge users. This project has
been well received by bridge patrons, and the County is currently
examining other value pricing options to improve local transportation
service. Value pricing is also being offered in Houston, Texas, on the
Katy Freeway's (I-10) HOV lane. This project has led to improved use of
existing HOV lane capacity, allowing more people to be moved through
the corridor. The project, after an initial infusion of start-up funds
from the Pilot Program, has become financially self-sufficient, and
users of the lanes report satisfaction with the service being provided.
The value pricing project with the longest history in the U.S. is
the Express Lanes project on SR91 in Orange County, California. This is
a privately owned and operated project, but the Pilot Program is
supporting the State of California's monitoring and evaluation of the
traffic and travel behavior impacts of the project. This project
consists of variably-priced express lanes that were constructed in the
median of SR91. The project has shown that value pricing can be used to
maintain free-flow traffic conditions, and that motorists value having
the option of paying to receive improved transportation service in this
highly-congested corridor.
In sum, the early results from pricing projects in the U.S. are
showing that travelers are willing to pay for improvements in
transportation service, and that pricing can lead to more efficient use
of existing highway capacity. People do respond to price signals when
making transportation decisions, just as they do in other parts of
their economic lives, and those responses can serve as important
investment guides for transportation planners and policy makers.
REMAINING CHALLENGES.--The major challenges surrounding value
pricing and the Value Pricing Pilot Program continue to be the
challenges of project design and public acceptance. The pilot tests
that have been initiated to date are pathbreaking projects that show
great promise for the future of value pricing in transportation. Yet,
these projects have been limited in both geographic scope and variety
of pricing innovations. Operational projects have been launched in
California, Texas and Florida. Even though interest exists in other
parts of the country, resistance to exploring new ways of charging for
road use has not yet been overcome. Peak-period value pricing charges
have been tested on a newly-constructed express lane facility and on
existing HOV lanes with excess capacity, and off-peak toll discounts
have been tested in Florida. Efforts to move beyond these initial
concepts have yet to be undertaken.
The challenge of the Pilot Program is to continue to test the
successful concepts in new areas, and to move beyond the initial
pricing concepts to new applications of value pricing, including
variable pricing on existing toll facilities, pricing of newly
constructed highway facilities, parking pricing, and other innovative
concepts. Continued information sharing and public outreach through the
Pilot Program approach has an important role to play in expanding the
number and variety of pilot tests. These tests show how greater use of
pricing principles in highway transportation can help bring more
rationality to transportation investment decisions, and can lead to
significant reductions in the billions of dollars of economic waste
associated with traffic congestion.
WEATHER IMPACTS ON HIGHWAY OPERATIONS
Question. How much are you spending in fiscal year 2000 and in
fiscal year 2001 to help state and local highway agencies mitigate the
impact of changes in weather on highway operations? How will this
information be used by road users and operators? Please specify
projects and their associated funding levels.
Answer. Proposed spending on research efforts in ITS and Operations
research funds, including field tests, to mitigate the impact of
changes in weather on highway operations is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS Operations Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
2000........................................................ $2,100,000 $100,000 $2,200,000
2001........................................................ 1,900,000 100,000 2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The heart of the weather and winter mobility program aims to
improve surface transportation outcomes under adverse weather through
the development of better (accurate, reliable, appropriate, and readily
available) road weather information. This vision recognizes that the
wealth of weather information available today is not tailored for road
users and operators, and hence leads to system inefficiencies.
Therefore, efforts under this program aim to develop improved decision
aids for the host of road users and operators. Work to date consists of
documenting the specific information needs of all users and operators,
and translating these needs into system requirements. Such an effort
serves two purposes: (1) it provides us with the material needed to
work with the federal weather community (e.g., the National Weather
Service) to see that their weather products and services satisfy these
requirements, and (2) it provides us with the foundation for further
research and field testing. The bulk of this research and field testing
is on these decision support systems that fuse and filter the seemingly
unending weather information and present it to road users and operators
in a manner that is easily interpretable. This will ultimately lead to
improved decision making because the users and operators will be
presented with road weather information that fits their specific
requirements, rather than having to make decisions based on generic
weather information.
To that end, the following research projects and field tests are
proposed for fiscal years 2000 and 2001:
Fiscal year 2000:
Refinement of Surface Transportation Weather Requirements. $300,000
Develop Decision Support System for Winter Maintenance.... 600,000
Environmental Sensor Station Siting and Road Condition
Forecasting Evaluation.................................. 750,000
Assimilation of Road Condition Observations............... 450,000
Outreach and Training (e.g., support AASHTO Snow & Ice
Cooperative Program, PIARC, regional maintenance
conferences, etc.)...................................... 120,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................. 2,220,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 2001:
Refinement of Surface Transportation Weather Requirements
(continuation of fiscal year 2000 project).............. 250,000
Field Test of the Winter Maintenance Decision Support
System.................................................. 750,000
Develop Decision Support System for Travelers............. 800,000
Evaluation of Automated Anti-icing Spraying Systems....... 100,000
Outreach and Training..................................... 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 2,000,000
Of the above totals, $2,100,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $1,900,000
in fiscal year 2001 are derived from the ITS program budget.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CHALLENGES
Question. What are the basic R&D and technology transfer challenges
facing the operations CBU?
Answer. We are currently in the process of identifying those issues
in order to form a 5-year operations research and technology agenda.
The first national discussion of those issues was held April 3rd thru
5th at the Institute of Transportation Engineers Conference in Irvine
California. The results will be incorporated in the report from
Transportation Research Board's National Transportation Research
Partnership.
Initial hypotheses and anecdotal evidence suggest that some of the
primary challenges in improving operations of the surface
transportation system are:
1. Institutional and cultural: Existing institutions are
extraordinarily fragmented and often have no institutionalized
processes or lines of communication for sharing information or
responses in systems operations. Most of the institutions are organized
to carry out capital projects. The existing planning process is
oriented toward capital planning. It generally does not include the
operations stakeholders nor are there processes in place for discussing
and systematically dealing with planning for operational improvements.
2. Tools: There are few planning tools that will help assess the
value of operations improvements. Most models have a 5, 10, or 20 year
horizon and are geared to a one time capital decision. Operations tools
need horizons of minutes.
3. Skill and priority: In part because federal policy has been
skewed toward capital investment, operations have been forced to
compete in the local budget arena. Evidence suggests it is becoming
``deprofessionalized'' rather that increasingly professionalized. Funds
and skill are apparently not available for even maintaining and
updating timing of traffic signals. Awareness of the consequences of
this neglect in terms of congestion and safety will be a major hurdle
to overcome.
4. Adequate ITS infrastructure: Although we are making progress,
installation of sufficient ITS infrastructure for surveillance and
management purposes continues to be a challenge. Even in areas with
substantial existing and planned infrastructure, integration of
infrastructure and information across jurisdictional, modal, and
functional boundaries remains an issue.
WORK ZONE DELAYS
Question. Work zone delays are a continuing issue with the
traveling public. How much are you spending in fiscal year 2000 and in
fiscal year 2001 to help state and local highway agencies address this
area? Please describe the scope and nature of your activities and their
associated funding levels on a project-by-project basis.
Answer. The Operations CBU's efforts cut across other offices
within FHWA. In addition to the $660,000 which is dedicated from
Operations, an additional sum of $500,000 is being provided by the
Safety CBU as part of FHWA's overall Work Zone initiative. The
additional funds are incorporated into the cost figures below.
The work zone budget for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 is
as follows. Details of these efforts follow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best Practices Guide Book............... 150,000 75,000
Work Zone Awareness Week................ 50,000 50,000
Technology Scan......................... 35,000 250,000
Delay Measure, Decision Tool & Guidance 865,000 825,000
to reduce delay........................
Training................................ 60,000 250,000
-------------------------------
Total Work Zone Operations........ 1,160,000 1,450,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best Practices Guide Book
Development of a Work Zone Best Practices Guidebook is being
carried out in partnership with the American Association of State
Highway Officials (AASHTO). The guidebook presents a collection of
highway community best practices, which focus on minimizing driver and
worker exposure in construction and maintenance work zones. With this
guidebook a process is established to update and maintain an initial
set of best practices, allowing the continued sharing of highway agency
success stories with practitioners across the Nation. Regional
seminars, which present the information in the guidebook and encourage
additional sharing of best practices are now being planned. To
supplement this guidebook, a checklist is under development that will
facilitate identification and correlation of practices, appropriate for
each stage of the project planning, design, and implementation
processes.
Work Zone Awareness Week
FHWA is partnering with AASHTO and the American Traffic Safety
Services Association to sponsor National Work Zone Safety Awareness
Week. The event is intended to heighten motorist and worker awareness
of the dangers encountered when driving through highway construction
and maintenance work zones. Through a network of government and
industry partners, media events and community outreach will focus on
education and awareness.
Delay Measure, Decision Tool, and Guidance to Reduce Delay
There is a need to develop user-friendly computer software tools
which accurately analyze and reliably predict work zone impacts. FHWA
has initiated development of decision making tools which will allow
practitioners involved in the project preplanning, planning,
development, and construction phases to weigh alternate strategies to
mitigate the mobility and safety impacts resulting from work zones.
Development of the first spreadsheet tool, which we are calling
``Quickzone,'' is underway with field beta testing to be accomplished
this summer, and full release planned for April 2001. In parallel with
development of the decision making tool, FHWA will investigate work
zone delay measurement practices and techniques, and work to quantify
current national impacts, and develop guidelines for quantifying
delays.
Technology Scan
In fiscal year 2000, FHWA will initiate a ``Technology Scan'' to
showcase state-of-the-art technologies. With this activity, new and
emerging work zone technologies, focused on improving mobility and
safety, will be identified, demonstrated and shared with the highway
community through field testing, evaluation and several multi-State
workshops. Improving mobility and safety on the Federal-aid highway
system, in light of construction and maintenance operations, is the
goal of this activity, and technologies scanned will range from
traveler information techniques, traffic management practices, means of
contracting, and improved materials/methods of construction.
Training
In fiscal year 2001, FHWA will develop a Work Zone Traffic
Management Training program. This training will facilitate an
organizational understanding of work zone traffic management
principles, shifting attention from the traditional site specific
traffic control. The training will focus on integrating work zone
traffic management principles into the early phase of project planning.
MULTI-MODAL FREIGHT ANALYSIS
Question. What is the purpose of the research effort on Multi-Modal
Freight Analysis Framework?
Answer. A new era in freight transportation is emerging. It is
driven by competitive global trade, new business and logistical
practices, and increasing reliance upon information technology. The
purpose of the multi-modal freight analysis is to:
--Marshal and/or develop freight analytical models, data sources,
communication channels, and professional expertise (taken as a
whole, these will provide freight intelligence support for the
FHWA, the Department, State and local jurisdictions, and other
public and private sector partners and investors who are
seeking to improve freight service);
--Define the essential functions of the U.S. and North American
freight corridors, connectors, and intermodal terminals; the
varied challenges to these freight system components' continued
performance, as defined by their current condition, extent,
probable evolution, and investment needs;
--Enhance the ability of the FHWA and state and local governments to
evaluate alternative infrastructure investment strategies vis-
a-vis alternative private sector investment strategies. For
example, major highway capacity investment for the purposes of
intermodal goods movement improvement needs to match port
capacity investment which in turn needs to match shipper and
carrier business strategies.
Question. What end-products do you anticipate from this investment?
How much will be allocated?
Answer. End products will include national databases on freight
flows and models capable of analyzing alternative infrastructure
investments relative to alternative futures and business practices.
Spending will be extensive: $900,000 was set-aside in fiscal year 2000;
$750,000 is requested in fiscal year 2001.
Question. How will this research help state and local governments?
What do you anticipate as achievements from your research on freight
performance measurement? How does the initiative support, or mesh with,
other freight initiatives being conducted by the Operations CBU? How
much are you planning to spend in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
on this research?
Answer. State and local governments will be better able to evaluate
and justify intermodal infrastructure investments. Performance
measurement is required as part of the FHWA and DOT strategic plans,
consistent with the GPRA. Measurement offers us the opportunity to more
quantitatively assess system performance and efficiency relative to a
critical user B shippers, carriers and ultimately the American public.
Literally millions have been spent on measures and models for
estimating system performance and investment benefits relative to the
commuter. Very little has been spent to measure similar performance for
goods movement. The advent of e-commerce makes such measures
increasingly critical.
Our efforts include a search for one or two validated national
measures to diagnose problem areas in freight transportation, and to
help us evaluate significant system investments. This research also
seeks to define specific measurements to use in assessing freight
corridor and border crossing movements. Research to date has pinpointed
some potential measurements that we may be able to use to diagnose
problem areas and generate solutions. Our next step is to present these
measurements to our partners and together seek consensus on an adequate
measure or set of measures. This initiative involves more than simply
establishing designated measurements' relevance to highway freight
transportation. It also seeks to address more pragmatic concerns, such
as the potential availability of reliable data and databases to support
measurement, and the accessibility of privately held industry data for
public use.
Ultimately, the application of performance measurements will
support agency strategic planning and become an important component of
our multi-year initiative to produce a freight analysis ``framework,''
a major effort to evaluate the current condition of U.S. and North
American freight transportation, generate future scenarios of need and
opportunity, evaluate potentially advantageous public policies, and
knowledgeably design strategic public sector investments to improve
freight performance and mobility. $250,000 was provided in fiscal year
2000 and a similar amount is proposed for fiscal year 2001 for this
research.
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
Question. Why is FHWA's Freight Management Office conducting
research and conducting projects that deal with our national economic
competitiveness and economic growth? How much money is being allocated
for research and projects in fiscal year 2000, and proposed for fiscal
year 2001? How will this help state and local governments? Please break
out specific projects and associated funding levels.
Answer. A primary justification of federal involvement in and
investment in transportation is to aid interstate and international
commerce. Several studies have recently shown (notably one completed by
Booz Hamilton, another by GAO, and the FHWA draft NHS Connector Study)
that freight related infrastructure investments tend to fare poorly in
the local planning process unless they can be justified based on
benefits to passenger travel. One reason is the lack of analysis tools
to demonstrate quantitatively the benefits of a freight related
investment and how those benefits are likely to be distributed.
During 2001 and 2002, we are seeking to develop a national
perspective on needed investments in, and improvements to, our national
competitiveness and economic growth. Subsequently, in 2003 and beyond,
we are proposing to expand our focus to include more local needs by
developing investment ``tools'' for our state and Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) partners that can be used to assess the costs and
benefits of freight projects.
These tools will help local officials to understand both the
importance and the effects of freight investment on their region's
economic productivity. Equally important they will assist in evaluating
the distribution of benefits relative to the distribution of costs
(both monetary and environmental).
The FHWA has allocated $500,000 for investment work in fiscal year
2000. We have proposed $750,000 in fiscal year 2001.
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
Question. What new tools, research, and skills are you working on
to help state DOTs operate and maintain their highway systems more
effectively?
Answer. The Operations Core Business Unit will be releasing the
updated edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in mid
fiscal year. This Manual contains the standards for signs, traffic
signals, and pavement markings, and incorporates the latest
technologies and research, especially of the needs of older drivers,
relating to the use of these traffic control devices to improve the
flow and safety of all roads opened to public travel. Once the Manual
is released, the text and figures will be available on our web site,
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov, and available on CD-ROMs. We will be working
with the professional and contractor organizations to provide training
for their staffs.
Snow, ice, fog, rain and other inclement weather reduce the
capacity and safety of road systems. The surface transportation weather
forecasting requirements will be developed and ready to serve as a
basis for FHWA to engage the weather forecasting community in preparing
weather forecasts for the surface transportation operations managers
and the traveling public, just as they do for the aviation users. Using
weather forecasts focused on the surface transportation system, as
opposed to the use of general, area wide forecasts, operations managers
will be better prepared to respond to snow removal, roads restricted by
high water or trees, and roads with reduced visibility. Additionally,
the FHWA will be completing the development and beginning the testing
of a winter maintenance weather decision support system for managers
and traveler information for travelers.
In the area of improved work zone operations, FHWA will be
developing decision-making tools which will allow practitioners to
evaluate alternate strategies to mitigate the mobility and safety
impacts resulting from work zones. Other products that will be
developed include work zone traffic management training, and guidelines
on reducing construction times, on higher quality pavement, innovative
contracting and innovative construction practices.
The Operations CBU will provide guidance to agencies on how to
consider transportation systems operations during transportation
planning processes. Also, guidance will be provided to operating
agencies on how to better plan for improved system operations and
maintenance from a performance-based perspective.
We will also continue to develop and deliver technical guidance and
training in a number of operational areas, such as traveler
information, traffic management, incident management, arterial
management, HOV facilities, and travel demand management.
The ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) will be released through
McTrans this spring. IDAS is a cost benefit software tool that helps
communities determine the costs and benefits of implementing specific
ITS improvements. In addition to its upcoming release, a training
course is under development that will show our state and local partners
how to use IDAS most effectively. The training course will be ready in
early next fiscal year and the Operations CBU will work through our
field staff and resource centers to ensure its wide distribution.
Research on Adaptive signal Control Systems (ACS) is continuing.
ACS will allow traffic signal control systems to respond to current
traffic conditions in real time. Currently, three alternative
algorithms have been developed for various conditions, and are being
field tested. The field tests will be completed next year, and,
ultimately, the algorithms will be made commercially available shortly
thereafter.
The Operations CBU is continuing to advance the widespread
deployment of Incident Management programs around the country. We are
continuing to work with NHI to deliver approximately two incident
management workshops per month. These multi-agency workshops cater to
DOTs, police, fire, emergency medical personnel, and emergency
communications operators. Also, a new Incident Management Handbook will
be released this spring, updating the 1991 manual which documents best
practices and procedures and key issues in incident management. An
Incident Management Implementation Guide will also be released this
spring which is geared toward helping communities develop an
institutional framework for sustained incident management programs in
the long term.
Turbo Architecture is also being released this spring. Turbo
Architecture is a tool which was developed in response to our partners'
needs in developing regional ITS architectures. It walks the users
through the National ITS Architecture by a question and answer process,
and helps to develop regional and local ITS architectures which will be
consistent with the National ITS Architecture. It will be rolled out
this spring at the ITS America Annual Meeting and then made available
for distribution through McTrans. Training courses are also underway
which will be provided through NHI when completed early next fiscal
year.
TSIS version 5.0, which is one of the most comprehensive traffic
simulation models in the world, is currently under development. This
new user-friendly version will provide for an easy user data inputting
interface. Once complete, TSIS 5.0 will enable our state and local
partners to simulate freeways and large street networks for
alternatives analyses and planning. When complete, it will be made
available to our partners through McTrans.
In the area of ITS training, we have trained almost 9,000 people in
various travel management topics geared toward the operation and
management of the transportation system. We have also trained over
3,000 people in CVO courses, and over 12,000 people have seen the CVO
technology truck. The ITS training program has been so successful that
we are now seeing several states tailoring our courses to meet specific
their needs, including California, Virginia, Florida, and Utah. FHWA
Divisions and Resource Centers continue to reach many people in the
profession. Associations such as ITE and ITS America are now developing
and delivering coursed under their own banners. ITE standards courses
have reached over 2,000 people. The thrust of the ITS training program
development now focuses on distance learning. In other words, providing
the key technical training courses to the people who need them, when
and where they can obtain the training. We are currently piloting three
web-based training courses through which we plan to reach many people
in the profession.
OPERATIONS CORE BUSINESS UNIT
Question. Please discuss the scope and nature of your fiscal year
2000 highway operations program and indicate the amount and purpose of
each relevant contract funded under that sub-account.
Answer. The objective of the Operations Core Business Unit is to
optimize the performance of the transportation system through unifying
all aspects of the surface transportation system. Within the 5 offices
of the CBU, there are 73 FTP, including the JPO, dedicated to this
task. The Transportation Operations Office handles safety and mobility
in construction/maintenance operations, Weather initiatives, MUTCD, and
Emergency Preparedness. The Office of Travel Management is responsible
for ITS Deployment, HOV Systems, Operations Planning Guidelines,
Congestion Management, Value Pricing, and Highway Capacity Analysis.
The Office of Freight Management and Operations handles Size and Weight
Enforcement, border crossings, National Freight Partnership, Multi-
state freight corridor development, National Highway System connectors,
and the Intermodal investment framework. The Office of Technology
Services is responsible for strategic planning, communications and
outreach, legislative coordination, research development and technology
coordination, policy coordination, and training support/university
programs. The ITS Joint Program Office is responsible for DOT-wide ITS
coordination, the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, Standards,
Architecture, and Evaluation and coordinates with many of the
initiatives throughout the other offices of the CBU.
The JPO maintains its role as a separate unit that serves all of
the Department for ITS development and benefits from the organizational
support as an office within FHWA. The Director of the JPO is also the
Director of the Operations CBU. In its Department-wide functions, the
JPO continues its extensive coordination and close working
relationships with program managers and senior officials in FHWA, FRA,
NHTSA, and FTA on the research, development and deployment of ITS
technologies. As an office within FHWA, the JPO benefits from the
program and administrative support of the agency and also relies on the
FHWA field organization to support its initiatives. With the creation
of the Operations CBU, FHWA better positioned itself to carry out the
strategic direction set by the JPO and to take a leadership role in
using the ITS infrastructure that is being put in place across the
nation.
In fiscal year 2000, the Operations Core Business Unit is pursuing
four strategies to advance more efficient operations as outlined in the
Mobility goal of the strategic plan:
1. Complete key ongoing initiative and invest in a limited number
of high impact ``low hanging fruit'' including: a. Completing the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices; b. Launching a major Work
Zone research and tech transfer initiative; c. Continuing the FHWA
weather response initiative.
2. Invest in supporting the deployment of the ITS infrastructure
including: a. Architecture consistency guidance and training; b.
Completing two-thirds of the proposed ITS standards and launching
testing and training; c. Implementing service plans in 55 of 78 largest
metro areas; d. Completing the ITS Deployment Analysis System, a tool
for planning ITS deployment; e. Developing and testing low cost
adaptive control for small communities.
3. Invest in laying an information, measurement and institutional
foundation for operations, including: a. Benchmarking; b. Developing
options for national and local performance measures; c. Conducting
national conferences and regional workshops to begin developing
planning guidelines, developing a research agenda, and establishing
local operations institutions.
The Operations Core Business Unit will pursue four strategies to
improve the efficiency and productivity of freight movement. 1. Conduct
analyses necessary to develop a cohesive set of long term freight
improvement strategies; 2. Invest in corridor and border improvements
thru the sec. 5118 and 5119 Borders and Corridor Program; 3. Continue
to nurture multi-state freight/trade institutional partnerships to
leverage public and private investments in freight related
infrastructure and intermodal operations improvements; 4. Develop and
test key elements of ITS technology.
The following chart shows the funding for the major programs for
the offices in the Operations CBU in fiscal year 2000:
Projects by Office Fiscal year 2000
Freight Management:
Decision-making Framework........................... $1,600,000
Institutional Partnerships.......................... 150,000
Performance Measures................................ 250,000
Transportation Operations:
Work Zone Operations (includes $500,000 from Safety
CBU).............................................. \1\ 1,160,000
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices........... 375,000
Improved Weather Response........................... 100,000
Emergency Preparedness.............................. 135,000
Travel Management:
Freeway & Incident Management & Operations.......... 195,000
Arterial Operations and Traffic Control............. 230,000
Travel Demand Management............................ 50,000
Performance Analysis & Tools........................ 325,000
Operations Technology Services:
Measures of Success................................. 500,000
Operations Outreach/Awareness and Institution
Building.......................................... 861,000
AASHTO/FHWA International Scan...................... 40,000
Congressionally Mandated Studies........................ 3,932,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 9,903,000
\1\ Includes $500,000 from the Safety CBU for Work Zone initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Question. Document how the fiscal year 2001 request ensures program
continuity with the fiscal year 2000 spending plan.
Answer. The 2001 budget request proposes to continue the strategies
outlined in the answer to the previous question. For example:
--The budget request will support nationwide dissemination of the
final MUTCD rule that will completed by fiscal year 2001.
--It will provide extensive training and outreach to state and local
agencies on proven ways to improve the safety of work zones and
to efficiently manage work zones. This will include development
and training on analytical tools to reduce construction times
and the costs of work zone delays.
--FHWA will continue programs to benchmark and share best practices
in travel management systems to help state and local
governments to use their current traffic systems most
effectively and to deploy ITS technologies and advanced
techniques to improve the performance of their system.
--We will continue development of the Freight Analytical Framework
launched in 2000.
--We will develop freight cost benefit analysis tools based on data
collected in the year 2000.
--We will gain consensus on and test performance measures developed
in 2000.
--We will continue regional workshops started in 2000 and add the
self-assessment ``operations audit'' tool to the discussion.
PAVEMENT RESEARCH
Question. Why are you proposing to decrease the amount for pavement
research funded out of the surface transportation R&D account?
Answer. The surface transportation research provisions of TEA-21
provide a fixed amount of authorized funds each year, which do not rise
in conjunction with the growing demands from emerging or expanding
areas such as transportation operations, freight, the environment and
policy issues. This has forced FHWA to make difficult decisions on
relative program priorities and some areas do show funding reductions,
as reflected in the request for surface transportation research funds
for pavement research being reduced in fiscal year 2001 over the fiscal
year 2000 level. We certainly recognize the value of continuing to
advance innovation through pavement-related R&T efforts and we have
been reluctant to cut financial resources provided by current TEA-21
authorizations, but we feel this has been unavoidable given the current
R&T funding environment. As outlined in response to the next question,
we have proposed that additional funds be authorized beyond current
TEA-21 levels to address this critical need.
Question. Your table comparing pavement research for fiscal year
2001 to that for fiscal year 2000 funded from the surface
transportation research account shows a substantial reduction in funds
for this research category. Please explain the strategic thinking
behind this request.
Answer. Strategically, we do believe that there is a critical need
to continue essential pavement-related R&T activities within the
highway community, as this is a very high-priority area among our
partners and customers. To achieve continuing advancement while FHWA
funding is reduced (as noted in the answer to the previous question),
we have worked very closely with key partners on collaborative
approaches; and our State DOT partners, in particular, have been very
responsive to this effort. The pavements area is a good example of
where such partnerships have been successful, as funds from State DOTs
have supported critical pavements-related work. However, our state
partners have made their belief clear that additional Federal resources
are needed for these efforts, and FHWA has taken the initiative to
request that additional R&T funds be authorized beyond current TEA-21
levels. This FHWA request for a total of $50 million in additional
funds ($40 million in surface transportation research, $6 million in
technology deployment, and $4 million for training and education)
includes a significant portion for pavement R&T to address the current
shortfall in R&T.
RESEARCH AREAS
Question. What has been done in response to the fiscal year 1999
conference committee's encouragement to support research into
geosynthetic materials, the use of polymer additives for pavements,
lithium-based technologies, and composite bridge systems with funds
provided for pavements? How much will be allocated for these research
areas in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000?
Answer.
Geosynthetic Materials
The FHWA technical representatives met with Montana DOT and the
Montana State University. A Work Order contract was established in
fiscal year 1999, to conduct the above effort. Since directed
activities exceeded funds provided under the legislation, only $600,000
was available for this effort in 1999. The Montana DOT, the FHWA, and
the University representatives have formed a technical advisory group
for this project. On January 25, 2000, the Montana State University
produced its 1st interim report on this effort. This report contains
the results of their work to model pavement performance and
applicability for pavement design.
Polymer Additives for Pavements
In fiscal year 1999, the FHWA was encouraged by the conferees to
investigate polymers produced by Martin Color-fi Incorporated of
Edgefield, South Carolina. In December of 1998, FHWA hosted a meeting
with Martin Color-fi, a producer of polyester fibers, to discuss the
FHWA polymer research program and to learn about the polymers produced
by this company.
The fiscal year 1999 appropriation provided funding of $1,500,000
for this effort. However, the pavements' program stipulated by the
original legislation and fiscal year 1999 appropriations totaled more
than the allotted budget. Subsequently, activities called for under the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations were only funded at 60 percent.
Therefore the actual funding provided for this effort was $900,000. In
fiscal year 1999, this funding was used by FHWA to support the
development of the chemically-modified product and to provide detailed
laboratory analysis. Planned expenditures in this area for fiscal year
2000 are $625,000.
Lithium-based technologies
Regarding research on lithium-based technologies (to mitigate
alkali-silica reaction in concrete), there were no funds specifically
designated for lithium work in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000,
$500,000 was allocated specifically for lithium work. In November 1999
and January 2000, FHWA met with lithium industry representatives to
discuss research and implementation needs, and several potential
projects were identified. An expert panel has been formed to assist
FHWA in planning and selecting projects, and the panel will be meeting
in early May to define the projects to be funded with fiscal year 2000
monies.
Composite Bridge Systems
On September 2, 1999, a cooperative agreement was signed with West
Virginia University. Funding for fiscal year 1999 was $600,000 in
federal funds, with $150,400 in matching funds from the university. The
project is investigating the applicability of composite materials for
dowel bars and reinforcement normally made of steel for use in concrete
pavements.
SECOND GENERATION COMPOSITE BRIDGE DECK SYSTEMS
Question. What was accomplished in response to the fiscal year 1999
conference committee's encouragement to develop second generation
composite bridge deck systems and technologies that may lead to better
constructed and longer lasting pavements? How much will be allocated
for these research areas in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. On September 2, 1999, a cooperative agreement was signed
with West Virginia University. Funding for fiscal year 1999 was
$600,000 in federal funds, with $150,400 in matching funds from the
university. The project is investigating the applicability of composite
materials for dowel bars and reinforcement normally made of steel for
use in concrete pavements. In fiscal year 2000, it is anticipated that
no additional funds will be allocated for this effort.
LONG-TERM PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE (LTPP)
Question. Please bring us up to date on the progress,
accomplishments, challenges, and outlook for the LTPP, as well as the
integration of this effort with the pavement R&D program proposed for
this fiscal year.
Answer. The progress, accomplishments and challenges for the LTPP
are described in the LTPP: 1999 YEAR IN REVIEW, FHWA-RD-00-020.
Highlights of the progress and accomplishments include the release of
the DataPave 2.0 software. DataPave is a CD-ROM version of the LTPP
database that provides the LTPP data in an easy to understand and use
format. DataPave 2.0 is a two CD-ROM set that includes triple the
amount of data in DataPave 1.0. FHWA and the American Society of Civil
Engineers sponsored a contest in the analysis of the LTPP data. The
contest winner in 1999 presented a new method of analyzing and
understanding the profile of concrete pavements that has the potential
to greatly improve the performance of future concrete pavements.
Another product that was improved and released is the LTPPBind 2.1. The
improved LTPPBind has more information and significant improvements in
functionality. This software enables highway agencies and industry in
the selection of the most cost effective Superpave binders. Lastly, the
LTPP is cooperating with the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program efforts in the development of the 2002 Pavement Design Guide.
The LTPP plays a critical role in the development of the new guide as
the source of pavement data for the validation and calibration of the
new Guide and in several instances as a source of information and
procedures in the use of the new Guide.
The principal challenge facing the LTPP is adequate funding.
Although TEA-21 provides $10 million per year for the LTPP, this is
insufficient to operate the program. This shortfall in funding has been
addressed by the State highway agencies. Through the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program the states have provided $4.7
million in 1999 and $5.025 million in 2000 for the LTPP. These funds
are used for data collection, analysis and product development.
The outlook for the LTPP is very positive. The program is producing
the quality data, analysis results and products that the State highway
agencies want. KEY FINDINGS from the LTPP Analysis, 1990-1999, FHWA-RD-
00-085 provides an overview of the significant findings and results
from the analysis of the LTPP data.
The LTPP data, analysis findings and products are being integrated
into FHWA's pavement technology program. An example is the National
Highway Institute course entitled Concrete Pavement Design Details and
Construction Practices which includes a concrete pavement design
procedure validated and calibrated with the LTPP data and analysis. The
course will be updated to include a number of the LTPP findings on
better performing pavements.
WOOD DEPOSITS AND LITHIUM TECHNOLOGY
Question. In House report 106-180, Congress encouraged FHWA to
support research into wood deposits and lithium technology to mitigate
the damage from alkali silica reactions. How much money was allocated
for this project in fiscal year 2000, and how much is requested for
fiscal year 2001? What progress has been made since last year?
Answer.
Wood deposits (s/b composites)
The Federal Highway Administration has entered into a cost sharing
contract with the University of Maine to develop advanced wood
composites for bridge construction. The government has obligated a
total of $900,000 ($600,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $300,000 in fiscal
year 2000) to this contract. The objective of the contract is to obtain
the services of the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood
Composites Center, its researchers, and engineers to conduct research
on fiber-reinforced glulam technology for the next generation of
vehicular wood bridges. The exact nature and extent of the Contractor's
work will be based on task orders issued by the FHWA.
Lithium technology
$500,000 was allocated in fiscal year 2000 specifically for lithium
work. Additional funding has not been requested for fiscal year 2001.
In November 1999 and January 2000, FHWA met with lithium industry
representatives to discuss research and implementation needs, and
several potential projects were identified including field trials,
information booklets and guidelines, and research. An expert panel has
been formed to assist FHWA in planning and selecting projects, and the
panel will be meeting in early May to define the projects to be funded
with fiscal year 2000 monies. In the months following this meeting,
projects will be advertised and selected.
GEOSYNTHETIC MATERIAL RESEARCH
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees
encouraged the FHWA to provide up to $400,000 for geosynthetic material
research, and up to $1,500,000 to study the potential benefits to
federally funded highway projects and asphalt surfaces of early
application of emulsified sealer/binder and research related to
development of low cost pavement with flexibility to tolerate heaves in
extreme climates. What has FHWA done to implement this request? How
much will be allocated during fiscal year 2000 on those activities?
Answer.
Geosynthetic Materials
For fiscal year 2000, the Senate Committee on Appropriations has
directed that an additional $400,000 be allocated to this effort. Since
Congressional directed activities for fiscal year 2000 exceed funds
provided under the legislation, only $200,000 is available for this
effort in fiscal year 2000. On May 1, 1999, the representatives from
the Montana DOT, the FHWA Montana Division, and the Montana State
University will meet as part of a conference on geosynthetic materials.
Work plans for utilizing these new funds will be finalized. The Montana
State University has submitted a draft proposal for these additional
funds and efforts are underway to modify the existing agreement to
accommodate this additional research.
Asphalt surfaces
In the area of asphalt surfaces, early application of emulsified
sealer/binder and research related to development of low-cost pavements
with flexibility to tolerate heaves in extreme climates, the following
is planned for fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2000, FHWA will provide
up to $375,000 to study the potential benefits to federally funded
highway projects and asphalt surfaces of early application of
emulsified sealer/binder. It is intended to conduct the workshop(s)
through FHWA's cooperative agreement with the Asphalt Institute to
identify a course of action based on user needs in this area. Based on
the proceedings, develop a work plan for test sections, identify sites
for test sections, develop a work plan for monitoring the test
sections, award contracts of the placement and monitoring of the test
sections and conduct a ``Lessons Learned'' workshop at the close of the
project(s) to implement the results.
FHWA will provide up to $375,000 to research related to development
of low-cost pavements with flexibility to tolerate heaves in extreme
climates. To this end, the following will be conducted, establish
points of contact at the FHWA Alaskan Division Office and Alaskan
Department of Transportation, initiate a meeting between FHWA, Alaskan
DOT, Industry, and Academia to discuss possible research activities,
develop a statement of work and initiate a contract and requests for
proposal and award and conduct the research.
POLYMER ADDITIVES
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees
encouraged FHWA to provide up to $1,250,000 for research costs
associated with constructing a segment of highway utilizing a binder
composed of polymer additives and to work with the South Carolina State
University and Clemson University to further research in this area.
What has FHWA done to implement those studies? How much will be
allocated during fiscal year 2000 on those activities?
Answer. In December of 1999, at the request of FHWA, the South
Carolina Department of Transportation (SC DOT) hosted a meeting which
included representatives from South Carolina State University (SC
State), Clemson University, SC Asphalt Pavement Association, Martin
Color-fi (SC polymer producer), and industry. SC DOT will be
constructing a segment of highway utilizing binders composed of polymer
additives in the Spring of 2000. SC State and Clemson are currently
developing a work plan to provide the project with on site testing and
continued monitoring.
The fiscal year 2000 appropriation provided funding up to
$1,250,000 for this effort. However, the pavements' program stipulated
by the original legislation and fiscal year 2000 appropriations totaled
more than the allotted budget. Subsequently, activities called for
under the fiscal year 2000 appropriations are only funded at 50
percent. Therefore the actual funding provided for this effort is
$625,000.
In fiscal year 2000, FHWA has provided technical and laboratory
efforts in support of this project at an approximate cost of $200,000.
Additional efforts by FHWA this fiscal year will cost approximately
$200,000. It is FHWA's intent to establish a cooperative agreement with
Clemson and SC State in support of the work plan being developed. It is
estimated that this effort will cost between $175,000 to $225,000 in
fiscal year 2000.
STRUCTURES RESEARCH
Question. For just the surface transportation R&D funds, please
break down in extensive detail the funds requested for structures R, D
and T and compare to fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
expenditures.
Answer. The information follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------
2001 2000 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Inspection............................................... $2,200,000 $2,101,000 $2,606,000
Bridge Management........................................... 400,000 401,000 665,000
Nondestructive Evaluation................................... 1,800,000 1,700,000 1,941,000
High Performance Materials...................................... 5,000,000 5,380,000 4,820,000
Concrete.................................................... 500,000 500,000 700,000
Steel....................................................... 700,000 .............. 1,920,000
Fiber Reinforced Polymers................................... 3,800,000 4,880,000 2,200,000
Engineering Applications........................................ 7,060,000 6,204,000 8,166,000
Design Technology........................................... 2,060,000 1,630,000 3,050,000
Natural Hazard Reduction.................................... 3,000,000 2,613,000 3,474,000
Geotechnical/Foundations.................................... 1,000,000 870,000 900,000
Corrosion Protection........................................ 1,000,000 1,091,000 742,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AREA FUNDING
Question. Please break out in extensive detail the projects or
research areas and associated amounts requested under bridge
inspection, high performance materials, and engineering applications.
Answer. The funding, research areas, and projects requested for
fiscal year 2001 are as follows:
Fiscal year 2001
Research Area:
Bridge Inspection................................... $2,200,000
Bridge Management Projects...................... 400,000
Nondestructive Evaluation Projects.............. 1,800,000
High Performance Materials.......................... 5,000,000
Concrete Projects............................... 500,000
Steel Projects.................................. 700,000
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Projects............... 3,800,000
Engineering Applications............................ 7,060,000
Design Technology Projects...................... 2,060,000
Natural Hazard Reduction Projects............... 3,000,000
Geotechnical/Foundation Projects................ 1,000,000
Corrosion Protection Projects................... 1,000,000
Question. Compare the fiscal year 2001 request with the fiscal year
2000 spending plan and demonstrate program continuity in each of these
areas.
Answer. Requested fiscal year 2001 research areas and projects
within each research area are the same as for fiscal year 2000, as
indicated in the table below. In addition to comparing research area
and project titles between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2000,
program continuity is demonstrated by the fact that the fiscal year
2001 budget request and actual fiscal year 2000 expenditures are based
solely on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Structures
Strategic Plan for Research, Development and Technology (RD&T).
Currently the FHWA Structures Strategic RD&T Plan is being coordinated
with the joint Transportation Research Board/American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (TRB/AASHTO) Strategic Plan
for Bridge Engineering Research. These plans will be merged into the
broader National R&T Partnership Initiative, which is being facilitated
by the TRB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
2001 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Inspection....................... $2,2000,000 $2,101,000
Bridge Management................... 400,000 401,000
Nondestructive Evaluation........... 1,800,000 1,700,000
High Performance Materials.............. 5,000,000 5,380,000
Concrete............................ 500,000 500,000
Steel............................... 700,000 ..............
Fiber Reinforced Polymers........... 3,800,000 4,880,000
Engineering Applications................ 7,060,000 6,204,000
Design Technology................... 2,060,000 1,630,000
Natural Hazards Reduction........... 3,000,000 2,613,000
Geotechnical/Foundations............ 1,000,000 870,000
Corrosion Protection................ 1,000,000 1,091,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
Question. What has been done in response to the fiscal year 1999
conference committee's encouragement to make use of unique research
opportunities while major interstate reconstruction is underway? How
much will be allocated for this activity in fiscal year 2000 and 2001.
Answer. In cooperation with the Utah Transportation Center, the
Utah Department of Transportation, Utah State University, the
University of Utah, and Brigham Young University, the Federal Highway
Administration provided $883,000 in fiscal year 1999 to fund 10 studies
related to: Fiber reinforced polymers; Earthquake resistant design and
retrofit; Curved bridge design; Foundation design; Nondestructive
evaluation technology; and Corrosion protection.
The Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the same
group identified above is providing $750,000 in fiscal year 2000
funding to fund a half dozen studies in similar areas. The Federal
Highway Administration is not planning on fiscal year 2001 funding to
the group because the inventory of original structures on the I-15
project will have been removed and replaced with new construction.
ADVANCED COMPOSITE MATERIALS
Question. What has been done in response to the fiscal year 1999
conference committee's encouragement to explore new technologies in
advanced composite materials and to support research into high
performance materials, bridge systems, coatings, and non-destructive
evaluations? How much will be allocated for those activities in fiscal
year 2000 and 2001?
Answer. At the encouragement of the conference committee, fiscal
year 1999 funds were used to advance technology in: Fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) bonded repair methods at the University of Missouri; Use
of carbon ribbon rods to rehabilitate steel bridges at San Diego State
University; Advanced wood composites at the University of Maine;
Acceptance test specifications for FRP used in highway bridge
applications at West Virginia University; FRP bridge deck development
at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Accelerated test methods for
FRP evaluation at the University of Wisconsin at Madison; High
performance bridge systems at Lehigh University; nondestructive
evaluations with Wiss Janey Elstner Associates; and Cost of bridge
corrosion with the National Association of Corrosion Engineers. Fiscal
year 2000 expenditures in the areas identified above total $8.1
million. Planned fiscal year 2001 expenditure in the areas will total
$7.8 million.
MINIMUM PAVEMENT MARKING LUMINANCE
Question. Is it correct that there are no consensus standards for
minimum pavement marking luminance? If so, what is FHWA doing about
this issue?
Answer. To date there are no standards on minimum retroflectivity
values. Guidelines are being developed by the FHWA with input from
state and local highway agencies and the general public through the
Federal Register rulemaking process. When the FHWA completes the
rulemaking process the guidelines (minimum retroflectivity values) will
be included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
The MUTCD is applicable to all roads, streets and highways in the
United States.
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION TIMES
Question. How does your fiscal year 2001 request respond to the
recommendations and conclusions of the TRB report entitled
``Dramatically Reducing Highway Construction Project Times: Suggestions
for Research?'' What has FHWA done to implement the recommendations of
this TRB report? What work is being conducted in fiscal year 2000? What
could be done in fiscal year 2001 with contract funds authorized in
TEA-21?
Answer. To implement the recommendations of this report, the
following activities have been initiated:
In fiscal year 2000, FHWA developed a Work Zone Best Practices
Guidebook in partnership with the American Association of State Highway
Officials (AASHTO). The guidebook presents a collection of highway
community best practices, as submitted from across the Nation, which
focus on minimizing driver and worker exposure in construction and
maintenance work zones. With this guidebook a process is established to
update and maintain an initial set of best practices, allowing the
continued sharing of highway agency success stories with practitioners
across the Nation. Regional seminars, which present the information in
the guidebook and encourage additional sharing of best practices are
now being planned. To supplement this guidebook, a checklist is under
development that will facilitate identification and correlation of
practices, appropriate for each stage of the project planning, design,
and implementation processes. This activity speaks directly to the
recommendations in the TRB report. In fiscal year 2001, advancement and
exposure of this activity will directly influence highway operations
and improved mobility and safety through work zones. Budget: fiscal
year 2000--$150,000; fiscal year 2001--$75,000
In fiscal year 2000, FHWA initiated development of user-friendly
computer software tools which accurately analyze and reliably predict
work zone impacts. The decision making tools which are now under
development will allow practitioners involved in the project
preplanning, planning, development, and construction phases to weigh
alternate strategies to mitigate the mobility and safety impacts
resulting from work zones. Development of the first spreadsheet tool,
which we are calling ``Quickzone,'' is underway with field beta testing
to be accomplished this summer, and full release planned for April
2001. In parallel with development of the decision making tool, FHWA
will investigate work zone delay measurement practices and techniques,
and attempt to quantify current national impacts, and develop
guidelines for quantifying delays. In addition, FHWA will initiate a
research project aimed at defining and describing highway construction
processes, and identifying potential changes which could lead to
significant reductions in highway construction project durations.
Improvements to existing methods and procedures will be identified,
providing a basis for future research into innovative technologies,
materials, and methods to achieve revolutionary changes in the highway
construction industry. In fiscal year 2001, the development of traffic
impact analysis, support decision-making, tools will be accelerated and
broadened. Budget: fiscal year 2000--$865,000; fiscal year 2001--
$825,000
TRANSMIS CONTRACT AND PLANNING RESEARCH
Question. Please break out in extensive detail how the TRANSIMS
contract funds and the planning research funds were or will be used
during fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The following activities have been funded or will be funded
with fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 contract funds. No funds
other than contract funds have been allocated to TRANSIMS in fiscal
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
--Completion of the TRANSIMS technical specifications, completion of
computer code and field testing of TRANSIMS in Portland.
TRANSIMS technical specifications have been completed and
computer code developed.
--Development of a commercial, user-friendly version of TRANSIMS. A
Request for Proposals (RFP) has been issued for the development
of a commercial version of TRANSIMS. Proposals have been
received and we are now in the contract negotiation process. An
award is expected in May of 2000 and funding for the commercial
version will commence after the award.
--Support Metropolitan Planning Organizations which are first to
implement TRANSIMS. Financial and technical support will be
provided to the first Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO)
to implement TRANSIMS. MPOs will be selected so as to include a
diversity of sizes, demographic characteristics and issues to
be addressed. The objective of this support is to demonstrate
TRANSIMS' applicability in a wide variety of areas and
situations.
--TRANSIMS Outreach. This includes development of training materials,
publications and disseminating technical information on
TRANSIMS capabilities. Three types of training materials will
be developed; an introductory overview on TRANSIMS for managers
and MPO officials, an introduction to TRANSIMS technical
methodology for MPO technical staff, and a University level
course on TRANSIMS theory. The University course is essential
to providing training to students who will eventually become
MPO staff. Publications will include descriptions of TRANSIMS
suitable for distribution to a wide variety of audiences
including MPO staff, elected officials, technical experts and
Universities. Information dissemination will include
conferences, presentations, technical support and use of a
Website.
BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURES
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion and Testing.............................. $2,400 $1,300
Commercialization................................... 3,000 2,000
Support to Metropolitan............................. ........ 500
Planning Organizations Outreach..................... 275 633
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The amount stated for commercialization is an estimate. The
specific amount will be determined during the contract negotiation
process.
Question. How much money was allocated to TRANSIMS during fiscal
year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000 and how much is
planned for fiscal year 2001? Furthermore, indicate by year the amounts
of cost sharing received from other federal agencies for this project.
Please break out in detail the specific activities funded with those
monies.
Answer.
TRANSIMS FUNDING--FISCAL YEAR 1998 TO FISCAL YEAR 2001
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion of Technical $6,411 $2,700 $2,400 $1,300
Specifications.................
Commercialization............... ........ ........ 3,000 2,000
Support for MPOs................ ........ ........ ........ 500
Outreach........................ ........ 300 275 633
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 6,411 3,000 5,675 4,433
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These activities are described in the previous question.
The table below describes TRANSIMS funding from sources other than
FHWA for fiscal years 1995 through the present:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA..................................... $500 $500 ...... ......
EPA..................................... 250 525 $275 $128
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA funds in the past have supported general TRANSIMS development
and ensured that transit issues are adequately addressed.
EPA funds have provided support for the development of the
emissions module and supported the coordination of TRANSIMS with other
emissions research. For the emissions module, these funds have provided
data from the University of California on the relationship of the
vehicle operating mode (speed, acceleration, temperature) and modal
emissions, and data from the University of West Virginia on medium and
heavy duty truck operating characteristics. Along with data gathering,
the funds have been directed to examining the interface between the
traffic micro- simulation module and the emissions module and technical
support on the emissions module. EPA has supported the development of
TRANSIMS capability to simulate the emissions reduction from the use of
modes other than the single occupant vehicle, including transit, ride
sharing, bicycle and pedestrian modes. EPA has funded the coordination
of TRANSIMS with other EPA research efforts and have the LANL staff
participation in EPA conferences on emissions research.
SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH
Question. Were any funds provided from any surface transportation
subaccount for research into sustainability.
Answer. No.
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
Question. The real estate services section of the FHWA
justification states: ``Video tapes and CDROMs will be produced on the
critical topics of business relocation, and residential dwelling
comparability.'' How is this a research and development activity? Why
isn't this request funded under LGOE?
Answer. This is largely a research and development activity because
the substance for these products must be thoroughly researched and
developed into usable best practices. Costs are almost entirely for the
research itself and in small part for the tapes and CDs to provide the
results to state and local officials.
input for planning research program
Question. Please discuss the scope and nature of input from MPOs
and various states and local governments that FHWA receives in shaping
the planning research program.
Answer. FHWA gets customer input, including input from MPOs, states
and local governments, on planning research needs through a series of
formal and informal methods. Informal input at the program and project
level is received through staff's active participation in conferences,
committees, workshops and other professional activities. In addition,
FHWA sponsors a regular conference through TRB ``Transportation
Planning Needs and Requirements of Small and Medium Sized
Communities.''
Formal input is received through four mechanisms. First, FHWA holds
an open forum on planning research immediately preceding the annual
Transportation Research Board meeting to review the current program and
discuss future needs. Secondly, FHWA works annually with the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program to refine and implement the
recommendations from the TRB conference on, ``Refocusing Planning for
the 21st Century: Transportation Technical Planning Research''. In
addition, FHWA sponsors scanning activities in several of the Priority
Areas that provide significant input to the research program. Finally ,
FHWA is also receiving additional input on planning research from the
STECRP.
EFFECTIVENESS OF PLANNING RESEARCH PROGRAM
Question. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your planning
research program? What does your most recent assessment tell you?
Answer. Feedback from intended users, typically through case
studies, provides the primary means of evaluation for projects and
priority areas. Scanning activities in priority areas is another
evaluation mechanism that is increasingly used within the Planning
Research Program.
An implicit measure of effectiveness of the overall program is
partnership opportunities, both within DOT and externally. FHWA
recognizes the value in partnerships and has worked to build consensus
on the planning research agenda by sponsoring conferences and workshops
to define critical areas and refine research issues. One example is in
the area of incorporation of safety issues into the planning process.
Safety has been defined by MPO's, states, local government as an area
needing research. In addition, safety is the highest priority for FHWA.
We have allocated funds to define the issues and develop an action plan
in cooperation with TRB, NHTSA, FMCSA and others in fiscal year 2000.
The Travel Model Improvement Program is another example of how FHWA is
using partnerships to advance the Planning Research Agenda.
Feedback FHWA has received to date indicates a continuing need for
training and technology transfer activities particularly addressing new
planning issues and educating new planning staff. Areas of customer
concern include equity analysis, planning for and implementing ITS.
PLANNING RESEARCH PROGRAM
Question. Please break out on a project-by-project basis how the
$3.924 million proposed for planning research would be used.
Answer. For fiscal year 2001, the Planning Research Program used
the following priority areas:
Fiscal Year 2001 Priority Areas
Intermodal Transportation Planning...................... $500,000
System Management & Operations.......................... 500,000
Transportation & Land Use............................... 840,000
Planning Processes & Decision-Making.................... 840,000
Forecasting Transport Demand & System Change............ 840,000
Safety Integration...................................... 400,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 3,920,000
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SPENDING PLAN
Question. Compare those expenditures to your fiscal year 2000
spending plan and discuss how program continuity is maintained.
Answer. For fiscal year 2000, the planning research program used
the same priority areas as in fiscal year 2001 with the addition of a
new category of Safety Integration in fiscal year 2001. The funds for
Safety Integration will focus on the implementation of the
recommendation of the action plan developed as part of the TRB workshop
on, ``Integration of Safety into the Planning Process''.
Program continuity in fiscal year 2000 continues to be an issue due
to earmarked projects and studies. For fiscal year 2000, priority areas
to date are funded based on customer and stakeholder needs as well as
amounts available after considering earmarks.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Question. Please break out on a project-by-project basis the
expected use of the $6.196 million requested for environmental research
and compare those allocations to the fiscal year 2000 spending plan to
demonstrate program continuity.
Answer. Major issues in Air Quality and Climate include particulate
matter (PM2.5) emissions rates from transportation sources; development
of model to assess NOX impacts of heavy-duty engines; and
development and evaluation of transportation control measures. It is
expected that they will be continued in fiscal year 2001. Approximately
$1.0 million have been allocated or planned for these studies for
fiscal year 2000. For fiscal year 2001, $1.702 million have been
requested for research in Air Quality and Climate.
Under Wetlands, Water Quality and Ecosystems, fiscal year 2000
funds have been allocated to support research in changes in constituent
loads of highway runoff created by changes in fuel composition and
vehicle components; emissions impacts on water quality from atmospheric
deposition; watershed and ecosystem-based management schemes; and
vegetation management. For fiscal year 2001, $567,000 has been
requested for Wetlands, Water Quality and Ecosystems.
Noise research focuses on reducing and managing the impacts of
traffic noise on communities. Continued research is needed to validate
and disseminate the latest Traffic Noise Model (TNM), and to
incorporate technological advances in highway traffic noise analysis
and abatement techniques. For fiscal year 2000, $290,000 have been
allocated for Noise research. For fiscal year 2001, $474,000 has been
requested for Noise research.
Global Climate Change research includes development and evaluation
of strategies to reduce greenhouse gases, and the development of
improved analytic techniques for tracking and quantifying them.
Research in fiscal year 2001 will continue in these areas in addition
to assessments of transportation sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
For fiscal year 2001, $475,000 has been requested for Global Climate
Change research.
Research in the Communities, Neighborhoods, and People area will
develop tools, techniques and methodologies to identify and collect
accurate data; and to analyze and reduce the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts of highways on communities, including social,
economic, and quality of life effects. Research includes: performance
indicators, context sensitive design, transportation enhancements. In
fiscal year 2000, approximately $335,000 is budgeted for this research.
For fiscal year 2001, approximately $560,000 has been requested.
The Environmental Justice focus area develops tools and techniques
and disseminates information to assess, prevent, and address these
potential discriminatory effects. In fiscal year 2000, approximately
$600,000 is budgeted for this research. For fiscal year 2001,
approximately $600,000 has been requested.
The objective of the Pedestrian/Bicyclist research effort is to
provide planning methodologies for localities to use to decide whether
investments in non-motorized projects will meet their community's
needs. In fiscal year 2000, $80,000 in surface transportation research
funds were budgeted for this effort. For fiscal year 2001,
approximately $210,000 has been requested.
Research in Cultural and Historic resources develops data
management techniques and predictive tools to assess the direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts of highway development,
reconstruction, and maintenance on historic and cultural resources. In
fiscal year 2000, $75,000 in surface transportation research funds were
budgeted for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, approximately $167,000
has been requested.
The livability research initiative will conduct research, develop
performance measures for livability, develop tools and methods and
provide educational materials to inform the public of livability
issues. It will also serve as a forum for research coordination among
federal agencies. The livability research will build on the results and
enhance FHWA's programs that support livable strategies including
traffic calming, CMAQ, Transportation Enhancements, flexible design,
and others. In fiscal year 2000, $80,000 in surface transportation
research funds were budgeted for this effort. For fiscal year 2001,
approximately $167,000 has been requested.
A number of research efforts related to environmental streamlining
are being funded in fiscal year 2000 including: $250,000 to address the
alternative dispute resolution provision in Section 1309 of TEA-21:
$100,000 to develop a new Technical Advisory to provide guidance for
the proposed joint FHWA-FTA regulations on NEPA and Transportation
Decision-making; $100,000 for conducting informational interviews with
Federal agencies, and non-federal entities, to explore the perspectives
and attitudes of those directly involved in the project delivery and
environmental review of transportation projects as they relate to
environmental streamlining; $300,000 for the development of an
environmental streamlining information clearinghouse web site and
related electronic communication to support successful implementation
of streamlining. For fiscal year 2001, approximately $1.27 million in
STR funds has been requested to support environmental streamlining
activities.
GUIDANCE UNDER SECTION 5107 OF TEA-21
Question. What advice and guidance has FHWA received from the
advisory board that was set up pursuant to section 5107 of TEA-21? In
your answer please specify for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 how much has
been and will be spent on the advisory committee and associated
outreach activities.
Answer. Pursuant to section 5107 of TEA-21, FHWA entered into a
cooperative agreement with the National Academy of Science,
Transportation Research Board (TRB) to establish the Surface
Transportation-Environmental Cooperative Research Program (STECRP)
Advisory Board.
The Advisory Board, a 17-member panel of experts from academia, the
States, metropolitan planning organizations, industry and environmental
organizations has been tasked to review, comment and recommend
strategies for collaboration in research and technology transfer
activities within the USDOT, and with other federal agencies and non-
federal organizations. Periodic reports to the USDOT and to the
Congress on their progress in developing a national agenda of surface
transportation-environmental and planning research priorities, and the
strategic direction of research conducted by the transportation
community will be submitted by the Advisory Board in Fall 2000 and
2001.
The Advisory Board, in its initial phase of formulation, met in
January and April of this year. As such, the Advisory Board has focused
on conducting extensive outreach to gather information from the USDOT
and its partners and stakeholders for meeting their goals, and is not
yet prepared to provide advice and guidance to the FHWA on surface
transportation research issues at this time.
The Advisory Board has required $300,000 for their activities
through fiscal year 2000. The FHWA estimates needs of between $150,000
to $200,000 for the remaining activities envisioned by the Advisory
Board for fiscal year 2001.
PARTICULATE MATTER RESEARCH
Question. Now that particulate matter research is underway by EPA,
FHWA, and other organizations, how much time and effort is anticipated
to obtain an understanding of PM-2.5 impacts on transportation
regulation, and to develop effective analytical tools and mitigation
strategies? How much is requested for this research in fiscal year
2001? How much is being allocated in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. FHWA anticipates that at least 3-4 years will be required
to gain an adequate understanding of the PM-2.5 issues. PM is a complex
pollutant that is both generated directly from engines and kicked up by
road dust, but also is formed in the atmosphere from smaller particles.
The draft work plan for PM views the overall effort in stages.
First, sources and the generation of PM pollution must be identified
with particular emphasis on transportation sources. This is critical
since the relationships between travel activity, emissions and
concentrations must be understood in detail before they can be
adequately modeled for conformity, NEPA and other purposes. This could
take at least 1-2 years, and possibly more. Second, the long and
painstaking process of model development must be accomplished, taking
perhaps another 1-2 years. Finally, initial research into cost-
effective mitigation strategies should occur which will likely be an
ongoing process.
NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Question. Did the NRC advisory committee review the scope and
nature of this research?
Answer. The Advisory board established under TEA-21 met in January
2000 for the first time, and again in April 2000. At the first meeting,
Board members were given some information relating to FHWA's PM
research effort but have not yet had an opportunity to provide input
into it. FHWA will soon be providing the Board with a draft of a
Strategic Workplan for Particulate Matter Research. This Workplan,
which is still underdevelopment, draws on the results of an extensive
literature review and a one-day symposium with transportation and air
quality experts from around the Country in January 2000.
TOOLS/MODELS TO EVALUATE BENEFITS/BURDENS
Question. What research are you pursuing to advance analytical
tools or models to evaluate the distribution of benefits and burdens in
transportation decision-making and investments and environmental
justice-related cases? How much is requested for this research in
fiscal year 2001? How much is being allocated in fiscal year 2000? Did
the NRC advisory committee review the scope and nature of this
research?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the FHWA allocated $600,000 towards
the evaluation of environmental justice and Title VI; however, the
fiscal year 2000 research allocations focused primarily on the
technical transfer of existing tools and methods to identify benefits
and burdens. The fiscal year 2000 the research effort will develop a
brochure to provide basic background information, a set of case studies
and effective practices on state of the practice for applying
environmental justice in the planning, project development, and right-
of-way decision making processes, and a website where a wide array of
resources, including the current fiscal year 2000 research will be
available. The final product of the fiscal year 2000 research will be a
workshop that will include case studies and effective practices of
using benefits and burdens analysis in transportation decision-making.
To evaluate the distribution of benefits and burdens FHWA is also
pursuing the application of existing tools such as Community Impact
Assessment for evaluating the distribution of transportation benefit
and burdens. FHWA is also developing a One-Day Workshop which will be
composed of different modules including data sources and methods,
community impact techniques, and effective public involvement.
In fiscal year 2001, the FHWA requested $600,000 for research in
the environmental justice and Title VI focus area. Anticipated products
would include improving existing analytic tools and models as well as
investigating new methodologies for assessing transportation impacts on
low-income and minority populations. The NRC advisory committee did not
review the scope and nature of our research.
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
Question. What would improve the effectiveness of state and local
transportation agencies in involving and engaging traditionally
underserved communities? What would be the associated monetary costs?
Answer. State and local transportation agencies should develop
public involvement strategies that specifically target traditionally
underserved communities. These strategies should be developed using
members of the community to provide input and suggestions for to help
gauge the effectiveness. State and local transportation agencies are
encouraged to improve research and data collection methods relating to
transportation needs of the traditionally underserved. Utilizing, as
appropriate, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU),
Minority Institutions (MI), Hispanic Serving Colleges and Universities
(HSCU), and Indian Centers to network and form community links is yet
another method to involve and engage under-served communities.
If a state or local transportation agency is unsure about how to
improve the effectiveness of engaging traditionally underserved
communities, there are several resources that are available from FHWA.
``Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-making''
offers several specific techniques to engage the traditionally under-
served. FHWA also provides methods and tools to enable State and local
transportation agencies to more effectively involve and engage
traditionally under-served communities through Title VI training for
State and local transportation agencies and through public involvement
training. FHWA also provides public involvement methods and tools which
are a fundamental component of all program operations, planning
activities, and transportation decision-making. Through research and
technical transfer, FHWA can provide state of the art techniques for
meaningful public involvement using non-traditional techniques.
The community impact assessment is a method to effectively involve
and engage traditionally under-served communities. The community impact
assessment is a process to evaluate the effects of transportation
action on a community and its quality of life. State and local
transportation agencies can also participate in transportation
enhancements (TE) activities to help foster the quality of life in
communities. TE benefits the communities by preserving the natural and
human environment and strengthening the public role in local and state
transportation planning.
It is difficult to develop monetary costs because the need to
improve the effectiveness will vary from location to location.
POLICY RESEARCH
Question. Please update your answer from last year regarding the
major components in the road map for policy research developed by FHWA
by indicating progress made in each areas since last year. How does the
fiscal year 2001 budget request help implement that road map?
Answer. Consistent with the restructuring of the FHWA, our research
is now targeted toward achieving the goals of our strategic plan. The
major components in the policy research agenda retain travel
monitoring, highway investment/performance analysis, personal travel
surveys, innovative financing and pricing strategies, highway cost
allocation/truck size and weight studies, and improving economic
productivity. Each of these areas is being advanced this year and the
fiscal year 2001 budget is aimed at making further progress in our
capabilities in these areas. Examples include:
Work is moving forward on the periodic National Personal Travel
Survey (NPTS). During fiscal year 2000, the planning phase continues
and the NPTS/ATS pretest is being fielded during February-May 2000.
Development of the full survey is focusing on the need to provide
travel data that will support both traditional travel demand
forecasting and TRANSIMS. Further, the inclusion of an enriched long-
trip data set will significantly enhance the ability to support
statewide planning. Conducting the full survey is the primary activity
planned for fiscal year 2001. The full 14-month coordinated NPTS/ATS
will begin during October 2000 and will be completed in December 2001.
Enhanced capabilities are being incorporated into the highway
investment/performance models used to predict capital investment
requirements. These enhancements include an improved pavement
deterioration model, improved emissions model to be consistent with the
latest EPA product, increased accuracy in the benefit/cost analysis
procedures, and development of a bridge investment/performance model
that incorporates economic as well as engineering criteria. We are
working toward use of the HERS model by States.
Research is underway to update data on travel characteristics by
different vehicle configurations and to improve analytical tools used
to assess pavement and bridge costs associated with operations of
different vehicle classes based on recent research by others. Work is
underway to complete tools for State highway cost allocation studies
and technical assistance to a number of States in the use of those
tools. New data on truck commodity flows have become available that
will significantly improve our ability to estimate changes in truck
configuration and usage that may be expected. Improved analytical tools
will provide FHWA and the States a much more complete picture of
current truck utilization patterns and how those patterns would change
under different policy options.
Research for the Value Pricing Pilot Program will provide improved
technical support which in turn will aid outreach to increase interest
and participation in the program. Research is underway to find better
ways of developing pricing strategies, carrying out feasibility
studies, and evaluation of pilot projects. Assessment includes the
ability of the Pilot Program to achieve program goals relating to
congestion relief, transit ridership, and air quality, as well as the
financial effects on low-income drivers.
Work is under way to add to the picture of economic benefits of
highway investment to the consumer sector and the business and industry
sectors of the economy. A consolidation and integration of these
aspects of highway transportation will lead to a better understanding
of the extent to which highways contribute to the national economy.
Preparation of a new Travel Monitoring Guide is underway to aid the
States in tracking travel trends. The guide is now undergoing a review
process and is expected to be published in 2001.
CHALLENGES IN POLICY RESEARCH
Question. What is the most pressing challenge in research that
needs additional attention during fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The most pressing challenge in research is to provide
timely answers to decision makers and to anticipate their needs for
resolution to research questions. Information on economics,
demographics, highway travel and spending trends is combined to provide
an understanding of the interrelationships between highway programs,
systems, and services. This understanding forms the basis of the
ability to assess the highway systems as a component of the overall
transportation system. This knowledge is further used to identify
issues, evaluate the effectiveness of current programs and policies,
and to evaluate alternative programs and policies. Research contributes
to these abilities through:
--systematic activities to anticipate future analytical needs.
--management of data systems, i.e., design, collection, assessment,
presentation, and distribution of data and information.
--development of sophisticated tools for distilling underlying trends
and relationships.
--design and testing of techniques to quantify relationships as a
means to balance competing or complimentary goals.
--incorporation of analytical capabilities into programs to measure
impacts and inform future program decisions.
STUDIES ON TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT
Question. How much of the policy research budget request will be
allocated towards studies regarding truck size and weight?
Answer. Approximately $450,000 from the policy research budget will
be allocated for studies relating to truck size and weight issues.
While essential for truck size and weight policy analysis, the data and
analytical tools developed in this research will also be used for other
freight-related studies conducted in cooperation with the Office of
Freight Management and Operations. It is anticipated that data and
analytical tools developed for Federal program and policy analysis will
also be made available to the states for their own analyses. Data and
analytical tools also are applicable to studies that estimate
relationships between highway investment and overall business logistics
costs.
STUDIES ON HIGHWAY COST ALLOCATION
Question. How much of the policy research budget request will be
allocated towards studies regarding highway cost allocations?
Answer. Approximately $475,000 from the policy research budget will
be allocated for studies related to highway cost allocation. This
research will feed directly into an update of the Federal highway cost
allocation study that will be completed before surface transportation
reauthorization. As with the truck size and weight research, data and
tools that are essential for analyzing the extent to which user fees
paid by various types of vehicles correspond to the pavement, bridge,
and other infrastructure costs those vehicles create are also used for
other program and policy studies. For instance, data and analytical
tools developed to estimate user fees paid by different vehicle classes
are also used to estimate future revenues to the Highway Trust Fund
impacts of various potential strategies to meet energy and
environmental objectives, and potential alternatives to the fuel tax
that are beginning to be discussed in the transportation community.
Work to estimate costs of highway-related air pollution, motor-vehicle
crashes, and other costs of motor vehicle use is conducted in
coordination with other offices within and outside FHWA.
NATIONAL PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION SURVEY
Question. If none of the funds requested for the NPTS are approved
under LGOE, how will work on this project proceed?
Answer. Unless funding can be obtained from other governmental
sources, it will not proceed. This includes the completion of the
actual survey and may impact the ``add-on'' samples requested by
various States, local governments and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs). At this time, approximately 20 states and MPOs
have indicated that they are considering the purchase of ``add-on''
samples for their jurisdictions. This increased interest in ``add-on''
samples reflects an increased awareness of the utility of the data set
as a tool for Statewide and metropolitan planning.
Question. What is to be the minimum amount needed to conduct
National Personal Transportation Survey activities during fiscal year
2001?
Answer. The $4,750,000 requested for fiscal year 2001 is for
conducting the data collection (not planning) for the coordinated 2000
NPTS/ATS. This is the minimum amount needed to continue work in fiscal
year 2001, largely because we are making up for the lack of funds
allocated to NPTS is fiscal year 2000. To assure that a complete
picture of household travel is developed, the collection of daily
travel through the NPTS is being closely coordinated with the
contemporaneous data gathering of long trip data as part of the 2000
American Travel Survey (ATS) conducted by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics.
Question. How much is to be spent on this work in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. There were no funds specifically identified for NPTS in the
fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act. However, the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS), our partner in the coordinated NPTS/
ATS effort, provided a very significant share of the fiscal year 2000
funding for the pretest activity. In addition, FHWA was able to carve
out some funding for NPTS from our general research funds.
Question. Is it likely that BTS or FTA will contribute funds
towards this project?
Answer. The NPTS has historically been sponsored by several DOT
agencies. In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, BTS provided
approximately $1.5 million and NHTSA has provided $200,000. FTA did not
provide any funding in fiscal year 2000, but currently has a request
for NPTS funding before the Committee at a minimum of $500,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND RESEARCH
Question. Please specify the number of planned and completed
international scanning trips taken during each of the last three years.
Please specify the total cost of those trips for each year and the
benefits derived from each trip. How do you assess the benefits of each
trip?
Answer. The FHWA completed four reviews in fiscal year 1998 at a
cost of approximately $450,000. The FHWA's cost for five fiscal year
1999 reviews was $520,000. Fiscal year 2000 was the formal start of the
Joint AASHTO/FHWA International Scanning Program. This program is
jointly managed and funded by AASHTO and the FHWA, and will thus reduce
the overall cost of this program for FHWA. AASHTO participation ensures
that scans serve the priority needs of the State DOT's for improved
technology and practices. There are 6 reviews planned for fiscal year
2000. The FHWA's share will be an estimated cost of $370,000.
Scanning benefits are assessed by scan team members and their U.S.
colleagues. Benefits appear in many forms and typically are realized
incrementally over the years after a scan takes place. Listed below are
some major results and emerging benefits of scans taken in fiscal year
1998 and 1999. Similar information for fiscal year 2000 scans is not
yet available.
Fiscal Year 1998 Scans:
Innovative and Emerging Traffic Controls for Congestion and Safety
The following devices and practices have been recommended for
further study with a view to possible adoption in the U.S.: (1)
variable speed limits with photo enforcement for freeway management;
(2) all-white pavement marking systems; (3) freeway queue detection and
back-of-queue warning to prevent rear-end collisions; (4) freeway lane
control signals to indicate downstream lane status; (5) special
markings to ease merging and diverging conflicts at multi-lane freeway
ramps; (6) detection and control logic to reduce rear-end collisions at
high-speed signalized intersections; (7) area display of real-time
parking availability and travel information to reduce travel and
improve customer service; (8) pictograms and symbols for dynamic
message signs; (9) use of symbols to indicate travel on freeway
diversion routes; (10) a strategic goal to eliminate fatalities on
highways; and (11) a stronger emphasis on the safety impacts of
operational improvements.
Projects/studies being undertaken as a result of the scan include:
(1) National Cooperative Highway Research Project (NCHRP) Project 4-28,
Feasibility Study for an All-White Pavement Marking System and (2)
NCHRP Project 3-59 Variable Speed Limit Implementation.
Motor Carrier Safety Technologies
Based on key findings, scan team recommendations include: (1)
create a greater safety focus for third-party organizations; (2)
collect crash data to establish crash causes; (3) consider standards in
the development of passive safety systems (cab crash worthiness) and
active safety systems (electronic interface); (4) use truck-only lanes;
(5) develop a comprehensive, standardized driver education curriculum;
(6) establish performance-based driver assessment; (7) encourage public
and private organizations for advancing driver and motor carrier
coordination; (8) develop a more systematic and scientific approach to
manage commercial vehicle driver performance; and (9) promote an
expanded focus on in-company inspections.
Geotechnology--Canada and Europe
Results of the scan have been directly integrated into: (1) NCHRP
Synthesis 276 Geotechnical-Related Development and Implementation of
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Methods; (2) two NCHRP
research studies related to updating and modifying the current AASHTO
LRFD code for retaining walls and structural foundations; and (3) the
National Highway Institute Course on Load and Resistance Factor Design
for Highway Bridge Substructures--a course that has been presented at
over 30 locations since July 1998.
As a result of the scan, the FHWA now represents the United States
on an international committee to implement LRFD methods in geotechnical
practice worldwide.
Winter Road Maintenance Practices II
Several states are experimenting with advanced European snow plows
that efficiently clear snow and ice while doing less damage to road
surfaces. The U.S. is embarking on wider use of road weather
information systems, similar to those used in Europe, that are highly
integrated into traffic management centers and intelligent
transportation systems.
The scan verified that the U.S. has made good progress in recent
years in acquiring and applying international advanced snow and ice
control technologies.
Fiscal Year 1999 Scans
Bridge Scour Countermeasures.--A major scan team finding is that
European practice uses riprap as a permanent solution for scour while
in the U.S., riprap is generally considered a temporary measure. As a
result of the scan, the design and installation techniques for riprap
and scour prediction manuals are being re-evaluated.
Also, a National Highway Institute stream stability and scour
course was developed in conjunction with the Wallingford Laboratory in
the UK and with participation from Switzerland, Germany, and the
Netherlands.
Steel Bridge Fabrication and Erection Technology.--Findings from
the scan are being considered by the steel bridge fabrication
community. Improvements in six areas are being considered for future
implementation: integrated computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-
aided manufacturing (CAM) software; automated recording; high
performance steels and coatings; cutting and joining; certification and
contracting; and design innovation.
A U.S. steel producer has begun testing weathering steel materials
in cooperation with a Japanese fabricator.
Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delay in Construction
Zones.--The scan identified several methods for potential applicability
in the U.S. The scan team recommendations include the following: (1)
shorten the contract time by using lane-rental concepts more
frequently; (2) improve communications with motorists by using advanced
and real-time information ITS technologies; (3) adopt a coordinated
policy, planning, and programming approach to work zone planning and
operations; (4) reduce lane widths; (5) design for future maintenance;
(6) evaluate the use of yellow markings in work zones; (7) use highly
visible traffic control devices and equipment to warn motorist of, and
guide them through, work zones; and (8) implement quality control/
quality assurance programs for traffic and worker safety.
Recycled/Secondary Materials.--Much was learned about the use in
Europe of recycled materials in highway projects and how materials
reuse contributes to the sustainability of transportation systems. As
follow-up to the scan, a national workshop on ``Applying Sustainability
Principles to Materials Use in the Highway Environment'' will be held
this year. The workshop will highlight recycling practices reviewed on
the scan, bring together key leaders from public agencies involved in
devising recycling solutions, and demonstrate recycling projects.
European Practices for Sustainable Development.--The scan
identified several broad measures to consider for possible
implementation in the U.S. These include: (1) an emphasis on policy
consistency and cooperative problem solving as a way to resolve
transportation-environmental conflicts and speed attainment of
environmental goals; (2) matching operating responsibility for transit
and highway systems with control over funding for those systems; (3)
strategic planning for both the long term and mid-term; and (4) use of
performance standards along with monitoring and reporting on progress.
More specific measures for potential applicability to the United States
include: car sharing and other eco-driving projects, and joint
development to help pay for expensive but socially and environmentally
attractive project designs.
Durability of Concrete Segmental Bridges.--The scan found that
segmental and cable-stayed bridge technology and developments in Europe
and the U.S. are converging. One major difference, however, is that
Europe relies heavily on waterproofing membranes and overlays to
protect bridge decks from corrosion caused by de-icing salts. Improved
grouting procedures to avoid corrosion were also found in Europe. The
scan has set the stage for further exchanges of knowledge between the
U.S. and Europe in these areas.
Fiscal Year 2000 Scans
Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices.--This scan has just been
complete; benefit assessment is not yet available.
New Road Lighting Technologies and Practices.--This scan has just
been completed; benefit assessment is not yet available.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO VARIOUS AFRICAN STATES
Question. Please assess the costs and benefits of the FHWA
investment in providing technical assistance to various African states,
and the Pan American Institute of Highways. Please estimate fiscal year
1999, fiscal year 2000, and requested fiscal year 2001 funds allocated
or planned for that activity and provide the funding source of those
monies.
Answer. Funding for the FHWA's sub-Saharan African countries:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Amount Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999.................................... $65,000 International Outreach Program Funds.
2000.................................... \1\ 200,000 International Outreach Program Funds.
2001.................................... \1\ 275,000 International Outreach Program Funds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.
The target countries in Africa receive information concerning U.S.
transportation technology and practices which enables them to more
effectively construct and manage their transportation systems, thus
supporting the U.S. foreign policy of encouraging economic development
and democratization of developing countries and countries in
transition.
Our focus on establishing technology transfer centers in target
countries aims at fostering a long-term commitment to technology
transfer though institutionalization of the process.
Institutionalization supports on-going improvement processes in the
road sector. We also aim to encourage synergies among the centers by
linking centers in the different world regions into a global network.
The technology transfers we support indirectly promote the exports of
U.S. highway related firms since the countries involved in technical
exchange and assistance activities tend to develop a preference for
U.S. standards and equipment.
Funding for the FHWA's Pan American Institute of Highways:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Amount Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999.............................. $220,000 GOE funds for PIH
contract staff.
Program funding
from International
Programs.
2000.............................. \1\ 220,000 GOE funds for PIH
contract staff.
Program funding
from International
Programs.
2001.............................. 220,000 GOE funds for PIH
contract staff.
Program funding
from International
Programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.
The FHWA's investment in the PIH directly supports the U.S. foreign
policy of encouraging economic development and democratization in Latin
America. By participating in the PIH Network, Latin American countries
and their technology transfer centers receive information about U.S.
transportation technology and practices which enable them to more
effectively construct, manage, and maintain their transportation
systems. The PIH Technology Transfer Centers are a cost-effective
mechanism for providing technical assistance to a country through its
own local organizations. The FHWA also leverages the annual dues paid
by the centers by providing consolidated services through the PIH
Headquarters to the overall network.
The FHWA's investment benefits the U.S. private sector by providing
a ready conduit for introducing U.S. highway-related products and
services to markets in the Americas. The PIH Centers are able to
provide information on possible solutions to selected transportation
problems as well as suitable U.S. products and services. In 1997, a
Latin American PIH Center workshop on winter de-icing technologies
resulted in the sale of U.S. de-icing technology. The PIH also allows
FHWA to stay abreast of investment opportunities made possible by the
numerous privatization and concession programs being successfully
implemented in the Americas. Other benefits include:
--Increased exposure to U.S. highway related products and services
through increased participation in U.S. Trade Shows and
exhibitions.
--Increased exposure to U.S. state-of-the-art and-practice
engineering techniques through training and distribution of
technical material.
--Increased exposure of U.S. companies to Latin American markets
through participation in PIH seminars and conferences.
--Increased partnership with the World Bank, Inter-American
Development Bank, and other developmental organizations.
--Increased exposure to U.S. technical materials, such as SUPERPAVE,
Long Term Pavement Performance Studies.
--Training provided through over 40 highway maintenance seminars
during the past 8 years in 17 countries for more than 7,000
participants.
--Preparation for, and limited assistance with, natural disasters.
technical assistance to the pan american institute of highways
Question. Please assess the costs and benefits of the FHWA
investment in providing technical assistance to the Pan American
Institute of Highway. Please estimate fiscal year 1999, fiscal year
2000, and requested fiscal year 2001 funds allocated or planned for
that activity and provide the funding source of those monies.
Answer. Funding for the FHWA's sub-Saharan African countries:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Amount Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999.................................... $65,000 International Outreach Program Funds.
2000.................................... \1\ 200,000 International Outreach Program Funds.
2001.................................... \1\ 275,000 International Outreach Program Funds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.
The target countries in Africa receive information concerning U.S.
transportation technology and practices which enables them to more
effectively construct and manage their transportation systems, thus
supporting the U.S. foreign policy of encouraging economic development
and democratization of developing countries and countries in
transition.
Our focus on establishing technology transfer centers in target
countries aims at fostering a long-term commitment to technology
transfer though institutionalization of the process.
Institutionalization supports on-going improvement processes in the
road sector. We also aim to encourage synergies among the centers by
linking centers in the different world regions into a global network.
The technology transfers we support indirectly promote the exports of
U.S. highway related firms since the countries involved in technical
exchange and assistance activities tend to develop a preference for
U.S. standards and equipment.
Funding for the FHWA's Pan American Institute of Highways:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Amount Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999.............................. $220,000 GOE funds for PIH
contract staff.
Program funding
from International
Programs.
2000.............................. \1\ 220,000 GOE funds for PIH
contract staff.
Program funding
from International
Programs.
2001.............................. \1\ 220,000 GOE funds for PIH
contract staff.
Program funding
from International
Programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.
The FHWA's investment in the PIH directly supports the U.S. foreign
policy of encouraging economic development and democratization in Latin
America. By participating in the PIH Network, Latin American countries
and their technology transfer centers receive information about U.S.
transportation technology and practices which enable them to more
effectively construct, manage, and maintain their transportation
systems. The PIH Technology Transfer Centers are a cost-effective
mechanism for providing technical assistance to a country through its
own local organizations. The FHWA also leverages the annual dues paid
by the centers by providing consolidated services through the PIH
Headquarters to the overall network.
The FHWA's investment benefits the U.S. private sector by providing
a ready conduit for introducing U.S. highway-related products and
services to markets in the Americas. The PIH Centers are able to
provide information on possible solutions to selected transportation
problems as well as suitable U.S. products and services. In 1997, a
Latin American PIH Center workshop on winter de-icing technologies
resulted in the sale of U.S. de-icing technology. The PIH also allows
FHWA to stay abreast of investment opportunities made possible by the
numerous privatization and concession programs being successfully
implemented in the Americas. Other benefits include:
--Increased exposure to U.S. highway related products and services
through increased participation in US Trade Shows and
exhibitions.
--Increased exposure to U.S. state-of-the-art and-practice
engineering techniques through training and distribution of
technical material.
--Increased exposure of U.S. companies to Latin American markets
through participation in PIH seminars and conferences.
--Increased partnership with the World Bank, Inter-American
Development Bank, and other developmental organizations.
--Increased exposure to U.S. technical materials, such as SUPERPAVE,
Long Term Pavement Performance Studies.
--Training provided through over 40 highway maintenance seminars
during the past 8 years in 17 countries for more than 7,000
participants.
--Preparation for, and limited assistance with, natural disasters.
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Question. Please discuss how FHWA is leveraging its funds for
international activities with those of other countries. Are you
promoting networks of technology transfer centers?
Answer. The FHWA is actively working to leverage its investment by
cost-sharing with other U.S. Government agencies and international
organizations. At the FHWA's urging, the World Road Association (PIARC)
reviewed the concept of technology transfer centers and recognized
their value in exchanging and transferring technology. Through its C-3
Technological Exchanges and Development Committee, PIARC is now
annually providing four to five developing countries with $10,000 each
to establish technology transfer centers. The FHWA is working to obtain
funding through USAID for two highway technology transfer projects in
the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region of Africa.
Additionally, the FHWA provided extensive training in the U.S. for 56
officials from the Turkish Directorate of Highways which was funded by
a World Bank loan. This project has been expanded to include assistance
in the development of a highway information system in Turkey which will
also be funded through the World Bank. The FHWA will continue to
develop relationships and partnerships with these agencies and
organizations as well as work to find the most efficient and cost-
effective method for providing technical assistance to developing
countries. The FHWA will also continue to leverage in-kind
contributions of staff time and technical information provided by
AASHTO, State DOTs, and LTAP Centers in conducting technical assistance
activities.
The FHWA is supporting regional networks of technology transfer
centers and encouraging regional networks to link globally. A global
technology transfer network will be an efficient mechanism for sharing
information on new technologies, innovations, and best practices among
transportation professionals throughout the world. Although the focus
is generally developing countries, the network needs to include
developing and developed countries in order to be effective. The
primary challenge in establishing such a network is how to share
information effectively and ensure that it reaches those who need it
most in a format that is likely to be used. The global technology
transfer network will serve as a conduit to promote U.S. expertise and
technology internationally. In addition, the network will serve as a
means to easily learn of new technology and best practices from the
FHWA's counterparts abroad.
MARKETING BY U.S. COMPANIES OF HIGHWAY RELATED TECHNOLOGIES
Question. Please provide estimates for fiscal year 1999, fiscal
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 of the amounts of funds used or planned
to be used to promote marketing by U.S. companies of highway-related
technologies abroad.
Answer. The FHWA's activities in this area focus on helping U.S.
firms become export-ready in collaboration with the Department of
Commerce. The FHWA spent no funds in fiscal year 1999. The FHWA plans
to spend $10,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $10,000 in fiscal year 2001.
INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Question. What benefits do FHWA's international technical
assistance programs provide for the U.S. highway community? Is any cost
sharing received? If so, please specify the nature and amount. If not,
what might be done to further leverage the federal investment?
Answer. The FHWA's technical assistance programs are developed in
response to the international mission the Congress set out in Title 23,
U.S.C., section 506. The International Outreach Program charges FHWA
with developing programs that: (1) inform the U.S. of technological
innovations in foreign countries; (2) promote U.S. highway
transportation expertise, goods, and services abroad; and (3) increase
transfers of U.S. highway transportation technology to foreign
countries.
Additionally, FHWA's technical assistance programs directly support
U.S. foreign policy by encouraging economic development and
democratization in developing countries. The countries that FHWA
cooperates with receive information about U.S. transportation
technology and practices which enable them to more effectively
construct, manage, and maintain their transportation systems.
This investment in technical assistance indirectly promotes the
exports of U.S. highway-related firms since the countries involved in
technical exchange and assistance activities tend to acquire a
preference for U.S. products and equipment. As these countries develop,
they are able to purchase more U.S. goods and services. Examples of
benefits include winter maintenance equipment sales to Chile,
construction equipment to Russia, and consulting services in South
Africa.
In addition, with the focus of our program being technology
transfer and exchange, the U.S. highway community also learns from less
developed countries. While some countries may be less developed
economically, they can be innovative technically and institutionally.
The FHWA is working to secure cost-sharing partners or outside
sources for its technical assistance project. For the FHWA's Russian
Technical Assistance Project, the FWHA provided approximately $5
million of in-kind assistance for a $300 million World Bank-funded
institutional building project from 1993 through 1998. For the FHWA's
Baltic Technical Assistance Program, the FHWA has provided
approximately $122,000 in technical assistance and its partner, the
Finnish National Road Administration has provided an similar amount of
in-kind support. The FHWA obtained approximately $527,000 in funding
from the World Bank to implement its Turkish Technical Training
Program. The FHWA is working to obtain funding through USAID for two
highway technology transfer projects in the Southern Africa Development
Community (SADC) region of Africa. The FHWA also leverages in-kind
contributions of staff time and technical information provided by
AASHTO, State DOTs, the private sector and Local Technical Assistance
Program (LTAP) Centers in conducting technical assistance activities.
The FHWA will continue to develop relationships and partnerships with
these agencies and organizations as well as work to find the most cost-
effective methods for providing technical assistance to developing
countries.
INTRA-REGIONAL TRANSPORT
Question. What efforts are underway in sub-Saharan Africa to
improve intra-regional transport? How much was and will be allocated
for this effort? Why is this an appropriate activity for FHWA to fund?
What are the benefits and costs of FHWA's technical exchange program
with other developed countries?
Answer. The funding for the FHWA's sub-Saharan activities is
summarized below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Saharan Africa.......................................... $250,300 $65,000 \1\ $200,00 \1\ $275,00
0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.
Under Section 506 of Title 23 U.S.C., the Congress charged the FHWA
with increasing the transfer of U.S. highway transportation technology
to foreign countries through training, demonstrations, research, and
other methods of technology transfer and exchange. The FHWA's
initiative in sub-Sahara Africa is designed to help improve sub-Sahara
Africa's access to road technology, including institutional and
program-building techniques. These will, in turn, facilitate
sustainable development, foreign direct investment and the flow of
international trade with and within sub-Sahara Africa. The FHWA's
initiatives directly support the Congress's charge in Section 506 as
well as the Administration's overall foreign policy objectives for
Africa.
FHWA is assisting in the establishment of a network of technology
transfer centers in sub-Sahara Africa with links to U.S. technology
centers and other technology transfer centers elsewhere in the world.
The geographic focus of this program is the Southern Africa Development
Community region which includes: Angola, Botswana, The Republic of the
Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. To date, FHWA has cooperated
most closely with South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. As this program
is implemented, we are urging the SADC region countries to examine the
role of AASHTO in the U.S. and whether a similar organization,
comprised of national road agencies, would facilitate the improvement
of intra--regional transport. FHWA, AASHTO, USAID and SATCC have had
discussions regarding cooperation in this area. FHWA with AASHTO and
USAID have further recommended that the countries of this region
cooperate in the following activities:
--Development of a regional (SADC) networking model to bring about
more consistent transport policies, programs, and standards
across the member countries.
--Furthering institutional restructuring, including the possibility
for a dedicated road funds.
--Advancing safety advocacy and results to reduce the injuries and
fatalities in transportation.
--Advancing additional technology transfer points in the SADC region.
--Furthering development of strategic roadway management approaches--
systems, data, training, etc.
The overall cost of the FHWA's exchange program with developed
countries, including the scanning program, is approximately $650,000.
The Joint AASHTO/FHWA International Scanning Program is managed
cooperatively with, and co-funded by AASHTO.
The FHWA's technical exchange programs are the bridge between the
U.S. and the other major producers of highway-transportation-related
innovations, mainly in Western Europe and selected countries on the
other side of the Pacific. Developed countries face similar
transportation opportunities and constraints. Our partners across the
Atlantic and Pacific are prolific sources of policy and technical
innovation in transportation and have a wealth of experience to share.
International exchanges have often served as catalysts for reviewing
and changing U.S. practices.
Our exchanges have resulted in improvements in the way we do
business in U.S. highway agencies, our approach to problems, and the
solutions we adopt:
--Some U.S. transportation agencies have been spurred to act more
like firms, inspired in part by the examples of Australia, New
Zealand, Sweden and the U.K., with a focus on accountability
and efficiency.
--The use of design-build, performance-specifications, and
performance warranties in contracts are drawing on and tempered
by experience gained abroad.
--Stronger concrete pavements designs, more durable asphalt
pavements, and accelerated pavement testing equipment are in
use here because of our international technical assessments.
--Over 25 research and demonstration projects concerning bridge
composite material have been influenced by foreign
observations.
--Steel bridge fabrication techniques based on computer-aided design
and manufacturing are advancing because of practices learned
abroad.
--High performance concrete use is spreading, inspired by successes
from Canada and other countries.
--New techniques for predicting bridge scour and for controlling it
are under study, stimulated by the European approach.
--Improved U.S. techniques and equipment for winter maintenance--
including anti-icing measures, road-weather information systems
and a large AASHTO Snow and Ice Cooperative Pooled Fund Program
that is transforming U.S. practice--owe their origin to
exchanges with Nordic and other countries.
--A cost-saving slope-stabilization technique is common practice in
the U.S. thanks to cooperation with France and nearby
countries. This technique is estimated to have saved $40
million to date.
--Safety audits are in frequent U.S. use based on successful
experience observed in Australia and New Zealand.
--Overseas experience has encouraged use of speed management
techniques such as variable speed limits, aggressive driving
surveillance equipment, red light running cameras, and
roundabouts and other traffic calming measures in residential
neighborhoods.
--Foreign practices have illustrated the benefits of all white
pavement markings and many innovative traffic control devices
to save costs and lives. These are under evaluation for
possible adoption in the U.S.
--Longitudinal tunnel ventilation introduced from abroad has saved an
estimated $40 million to date.
--Guidelines for implementing ITS, improved methods for measuring
pavement condition, and less road-damaging heavy vehicle
suspension designs have resulted from our international
cooperation.
ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Question. What is the status, strategic vision, and timetable for
this program? Answer. The AVP is entering its second year and
represents a successful transition and shift in emphasis of the
Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle (EV/HEV) program managed by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) from fiscal year 1993
through fiscal year 1998. Building on the momentum achieved from
investment by DARPA and private-public partners (a total of over $250
million from 1993-1998) for advancing medium and heavy electric and
hybrid-electric vehicle and infrastructure technologies.
Since assuming management in fiscal year 1999, DOT has announced
program directions for fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001-2003. In response to the fiscal year 1999 solicitation, DOT
awarded 26 projects to consortia in fiscal year 1999 for a total
federal contribution of $12 million--$5 million from DOT and $7 million
from DARPA. These important projects are underway and well ahead of
schedule in great part due to the AVP's fast-tracked public and private
partnership and the use of ``other transactions'' agreements. Project
selection for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 is nearing
completion. DOT will award funding for fiscal year 2001 projects upon
allocation of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations. Neither the
Department of Defense nor the Department of Energy contributed any
funds to this partnership in fiscal year 2000. The President's budget
for the Department for fiscal year 2001 is $20 million and is based on
a consensus of Departmental leadership of the program's importance to
addressing the nation's energy efficiency, environmental and national
security concerns.
The Department's strategic vision for the AVP is to have U.S.
commercially available and affordable, fuel-efficient, low-emission,
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The AVP seeks annually a balanced
portfolio of projects across various technologies and degrees of risk
and potential benefit. This approach provides significant opportunity
to capitalize on emerging developments that may not lend themselves to
a ``top-down'' planning approach with narrow objectives and schedules.
Instead, the technologies being pursued under the AVP support a broad
set of objectives: (1) reductions in vehicle emissions beyond the 2004
standards; (2) a 50 percent improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency; (3)
a globally competitive U.S. advanced vehicle industry; and (4)
increased public acceptance of advanced transportation technology. The
Department is starting to show early returns on its investment in the
AVP. Projects funded in fiscal year 1999 are beginning to deliver
products and demonstrate technologies, such as battery cyclers and
hybrid electric drive trains, that show promise in meeting the program
objectives.
Question. Please list the amount, nature, and participants in each
of the contracts awarded to date that use funds from the DOT
appropriations.
Answer. The amount, nature and participants in each of the projects
awarded to date under the AVP are contained in the attachment, ``Fiscal
Year 1999 Project Summaries.''
Question. How will fiscal year 2000 monies be used? On which
technologies?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 program direction to the seven
regional consortia was announced late last Fall. In response to this
solicitation, DOT received 26 proposals from eligible consortia. To
ensure continuity from fiscal year 1999 projects and to accelerate
project awards, the Department did not request concept papers and,
instead, asked the consortia to submit full proposals on high-priority
projects from fiscal year 1999. These projects either did not receive
funding in fiscal year 1999 or, given additional funding in fiscal year
2000, would accelerate technology deployment. The proposals have been
evaluated by a team comprised of reviewers from DOT operating
administrations, DARPA, and DOE with support from technical experts for
award selection. The team has made an initial selection of projects for
fiscal year 2000 funding, and negotiations are proceeding with the
consortia for project award in May. We will forward a summary of those
projects once awarded.
Question. What is the empirical basis for the amount requested? How
will those funds be allocated?
Answer. The Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Program
under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was funded
at an annual level of $15 million for the past several years.
Recognizing the need to continue the momentum of this partnership, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century authorized the AVP at an
annual level of $50 million.
Additionally, the transportation sector accounts for about 65
percent of the national petroleum consumption. The U.S. transportation
sector itself is 97 percent dependent on petroleum. This means that the
transportation sector accounts for nearly one-third of the
CO2 emissions in the U.S., with motor vehicles accounting
for about 25 percent alone. Pollutants from motor vehicles are major
contributors to problems with urban air quality. Technologies developed
through this program could significantly increase the energy efficiency
of vehicles while reducing their emissions. The program, if successful,
could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving fuel
efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and by using alternative
fuel and hybrid technologies. Several of the projects are now
graduating from a concept testing phase to a product implementation
stage, requiring two to three times larger project investment. The $20
million requested for fiscal year 2001 will enable DOT and the
consortia to sustain products emerging from the program to meet the
program objectives.
The fiscal year 2001 funds will be allocated using the current
competitive process developed under the DARPA Program. The exact
allocation in fiscal year 2001 is pending completion of the selection
process.
ADVANCED VEHICLE CONSORTIA PROGRAM
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees
directed that FHWA include with the fiscal year 2001 budget request a
report that delineates a detailed strategic spending plan for the
advanced vehicle consortia program. Please explain why the report is
not in the budget justification.
Answer. The Department recently completed a document, Medium- and
Heavy-duty Vehicle R&D: Strategic Plan. The Plan not only responds to a
Congressional mandate, but also provides a framework for the multitude
of research activities focused on advanced medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle technologies that are supported by DOT. The Secretary of
Transportation submitted the Plan to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Question. When will this requirement be implemented?
Answer. The Department recently completed a document, Medium- and
Heavy-duty Vehicle R&D: Strategic Plan. The Plan not only responds to a
Congressional mandate, but also provides a framework for the multitude
of research activities focused on advanced medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle technologies that are supported by DOT. The Secretary of
Transportation submitted the Plan to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Question. Please summarize your initial thinking regarding a
strategic spending plan.
Answer. The DOT Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicle R&D: Strategic Plan
builds on strategic planning efforts of the Department and the National
Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology's Transportation
R&D Subcommittee, as documented in the DOT Strategic Plan and National
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy, respectively. The Plan
addresses DOT research and development activities, including the
Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program (AVP), that support improvements
in environmental characteristics and energy efficiency of medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles. The Plan not only responds to the Congressional
mandate but documents the early stages of what will be an ongoing
strategic planning process specific to medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
R&D. In addition, it will be used as an input for a broader Federal R&D
Plan under the aegis of the National Science and Technology Council
Committee on Technology.
FIFTY PERCENT NON-FEDERAL MATCH
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees
directed that ``all development, demonstration, and deployment projects
to be funded within the advanced vehicle consortia program require at
least a fifty percent non-federal match and that none of the funds
provided for this program shall be used to advance magnetic levitation
technology.'' How is this requirement being implemented?
Answer. As with the DARPA Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Program, the AVP has maintained the requirement for the
consortia to at least match the Federal funding levels. The ratio of
private to public investment will be at least 1:1.
The Department of Transportation has mechanisms in place to ensure
that the funds provided for the AVP will not be used to advance
magnetic levitation technology. An executive team, made up of DOT and
other agency representatives, define and approve the technology focus
areas of the program that offer the most promise in meeting the
objectives of the program. A multimodal team of technical experts
evaluate and select project proposals that meet these technology focus
areas.
COST SHARING
Question. For each project funded, please specify the amount of any
cost sharing.
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 AVP projects and corresponding
consortia cost share are listed in the following table.
WestStart--CALSTART: Cost Share
Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power Unit for Over-the-Road Trucks...$1,055,000
Electric Propulsion System for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles................................................ 200,000
Hybrid Electric Transit Bus with Flywheel Power Management 629,975
All-Purpose Electric Airport Tow Tractor.................. 217,596
Electrochemical Capacitors Using Carbon Lead-Oxide
Electrodes.............................................. 87,000
ELECTRICORE:
The AV-900 Cycler: A 600-900 Volt Test System for Heavy
Duty Hybrid Electric Vehicles........................... 2,032,000
Installation of Capstone Microturbines into Cape Cod
Passenger Trams......................................... 37,500
Advanced Silicon Carbide Power Electronics................ 675,104
Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project:
Electric Vehicle Ready State.............................. 817,395
Zero-Emission 100 Passenger Electric Tram for Airports.... 1,938,000
Battery Cycle Life Prediction............................. 225,263
Mid-Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced Vehicles:
Unmanned Hybrid Electric High Mobility Multi-Purpose
Wheeled Vehicle......................................... ( \1\ )
20kWh Nickel Hydrogen Segmented Battery for Hybrid
Electric Military Vehicles, Commercial Trucks, and Buses 165,778
Optimization of a Compression Ignition Engine Generator
System for Heavy-Duty Hybrid Electric Vehicles.......... 308,000
Integrated Simulation and Testing System for Electric
Vehicle Batteries....................................... 532,224
Smaller, Better Inverters with Polymer Multi-Layer
Capacitors.............................................. 227,536
Hybrid Electric Bradley Fighting Vehicle Demonstrator
Testing and Model Refinement............................ ( \1\ )
Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium:
Model Park for the 21st Century........................... 570,000
Heavy-Duty Hybrid Electric Vehicle Emission Test
Certification Protocol.................................. 300,000
Battery Electric Dominant Heavy-Duty Hybrid Electric
School Bus.............................................. 312,000
Jet Vapor Deposition for Catalyzing Fuel Cell Membranes... 350,000
Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation:
Utility Industry Trouble Truck and Mobile Power Source.... 545,029
Hybrid Electric High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled
Vehicle Improvements.................................... ( \1\ )
Demonstration of Advanced Components on the Advanced
Technology Transit Bus.................................. ( \1\ )
Sacramento Electric Transportation Consortium:
Nickel Metal Hydride Battery System for an Electric Bus... 650,000
Plastic Lithium Ion Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery....... 821,000
\1\Match not required. These projects did not require a consortia match
because they are continuations of projects under the DARPA EV/HEV
Program, and the products/vehicles resulting from these projects will be
solely for military use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVALUATION OF THE ADVANCE VEHICLE PROGRAM
Question. What measures have you developed to evaluate the success
or progress of this program? What are your initial indications of the
value of this investment?
Answer. One of the major goals of AVP is to assist in the
commercialization of electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and to help
develop the supporting industrial and technological base and
infrastructure. To evaluate the success or progress of this program,
DOT has started to establish the current electric and hybrid electric
vehicle commercial and technology ``baselines'', from which future
progress can be measured. This is similar in approach to what DARPA did
at the start of its program in 1993-1994. ``Success and progress'' for
this program will include all aspects--growth and health of the U.S.
industrial base in this market area; technological advancements such as
improved range, energy efficiency, and reduced emissions; the
introduction of enabling technologies such as improved auxiliary
components and cheaper manufacturing capabilities; and deployment of
the advanced vehicles and supporting infrastructure. The vehicles
already in use are being quantified and will establish a baseline for
future comparisons. The same can be said for key technology
specifications of key components such as batteries, fuel cells, and
more efficient engines and drive trains.
Initial indications show good return on the Federal investment in
the AVP. The success of this program builds on that already realized
under DARPA's EV/HEV Program. Both New York City and Tempe have
recently procured or announced the intent to purchase hybrid electric
transit buses in quantity. The company (AVS, Chattanooga, TN) that is
filling the Tempe bus order has been a direct beneficiary of the AVP,
and the DARPA program before it, and would likely not be in this
position today without the Federal investment. Allison Transmission has
recently teamed with AeroVironment to develop through the AVP a 600-900
V battery cycler--essential new hardware for testing batteries and
drive system integration for higher voltage systems--the direction that
the industry is starting to move toward. The Army has announced an
intent to purchase a prototype high power, compact inverter that will
be completed under the AVP. Initial tests of using a small fuel cell in
a class 8 truck designed to take the auxiliary load (thus eliminating
the need for costly, inefficient, and environmentally unfriendly
overnight engine idling) have looked promising. If successful, the
opportunity for including a fuel cell as part of the propulsion system
for a hybrid electric truck may be closer to reality. Also, some early
results for high power switching devices based on Silicon Carbide
materials (being conducted at Rutgers University) look very promising
and could eventually result in some dramatic reductions in size and
weight of systems for electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles,
and revolutionize other markets as well.
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT INITIATIVE
Question. Please specify how the fiscal year 1999, fiscal year
2000, and fiscal year 2001 funds were or will be used.
Answer. Technology deployment is made up of two primary parts: the
Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnerships Program (TDIPP) and
the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program (IBRCP). These
programs also allow discretionary funding to foster alliances and
support efforts to stimulate advances in transportation technology
including testing and evaluation of Strategic Highway Research Program
(SHRP) products, further development and implementation of technology
in areas such as the SHRP Superpave system, support for SHRP's long-
term pavement performance product implementation and technology access,
and other activities in support of the five national goals of the TDIPP
program. For presentation purposes in response to this question, this
discretionary funding will be referred to as ``other.''
In fiscal year 1999--$30,905,000 available (Note: All funds reflect
a reduction of 11.7 percent for the obligation limitation ceiling):
--86.2 percent of the $4,989,000 in TDIPP funds were obligated for
designated recipients (5 of 6) under 5116. The remaining 13.8
percent (1 of 6--The principal investigator passed away and the
university is reconsidering their proposal) may be awarded
before the end of fiscal year 2000.
--100 percent of the $5,092,000 in TDIPP funds were obligated for the
five designated recipients under Sec. 5117.
--100.0 percent of the $4,415,000 in TDIPP funds were obligated for
the designated recipient under Sec. 3015(c)
--50.0 percent of the $1,060,000 in TDIPP funds were obligated for
the designated recipient under Senate Bill S.2307 [CAST/Auburn
University].
--89.0 percent of the $14,128,000 in IBRCP funds were obligated under
Sec. 5103.
--90.0 percent of the $1,221,000 in ``other'' funds were obligated.
In fiscal year 2000--$34,840,000 available (Note: All funds reflect
a reduction of 12.9 percent for the obligation limitation ceiling):
--100.0 percent of the $5,021,150 in TDIPP funds will be obligated
for designated recipients (6) under Sec. 5116
--100.0 percent of the $4,823,157 in TDIPP funds will be obligated
for designated recipients (5) under Sec. 5117
--100.0 percent of the $4,355,000 in TDIPP funds will be obligated
for the designated recipient under Sec. 3015(c)
--100.0 percent of the $14,807,000 in IBRCP funds will be obligated
under Sec. 5103. The remainder will be obligated before the end
of fiscal year 2000.
--100.0 percent of the $5,833,693 in ``other'' funds will be
obligated.
In fiscal year 2001--$36,217,000 available (Note: All amounts
following are projected. No obligation limitation ceiling estimated):
--100.0 percent of the $5,151,000 in TDIPP funds will be obligated
for designated recipients (6) under Sec. 5116
--100.0 percent of the $4,367,000 in TDIPP funds will be obligated
for designated recipients (5) under Sec. 5117
--100.0 percent of the $5,000,000 in TDIPP funds will be obligated
for the designated recipient under Sec. 3015(c)
--100.0 percent of the $21,000,000 in IBRCP funds will be obligated
under Sec. 5103
--100.0 percent of the $699,000 in ``other'' funds will be obligated.
All of the projects designated under Sections 3015(c), 4021, 5103,
5116, 5117, and Senate B. S2307 will be funded as part of the
Technology Deployment Program.
In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $36.9 million of Innovative Bridge
Research and Construction (IBRC) Program funds were allocated to 40
State Departments of Transportation (State DOT) in order to pay the
Federal share of 116 projects to repair, rehabilitate, or replace
bridges or structures using an application of an innovative material.
In fiscal year 2001, $20.0 million of IBRC funds will be allocated to
the State DOTs for similar bridge projects which also demonstrate the
application of innovative materials. Approximately 60 new projects will
be funded in fiscal year 2001. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $2.5
million of IBRC funds were/will be allocated to research, development,
and technology transfer (R, D & T) activities which include:
documentation and evaluation of performance of innovative material
bridge applications; dissemination of performance results to the U.S.
bridge engineering community; development of material specifications
and design codes to support successful innovative material
applications; and research into issues critical to further development
of innovative materials. In fiscal year 2001, $1.0 million will be
allocated to similar efforts.
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT
Question. Which projects will be funded and how will those benefit
the states? Please provide specific examples of the tangible benefits
and expected costs that are expected to result from that initiative.
Answer. Designated projects will benefit states by using advanced
materials and innovative technologies to extend infrastructure
durability and reduce life-cycle costs. Also, of benefit to States are
``quality of life issues'' where these innovative technologies can
reduce the human costs of run-off-the-road crashes and trauma-related
injuries; reduce user delays and improve safety during constructing and
maintaining surface transportation facilities; reduce the impact of
severe weather events on users of surface transportation systems; and
improve community-oriented transportation and sustainable development
and support and enhance the environment.
Four of the designated grant recipient institutions under the
Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnership Program (TDIPP) are
doing research into trauma and crash related injury mitigation.
Physicians define the ``Golden Hour'' as the time immediately following
a crash where access to appropriate medical care is critical to patient
survival. After considering the research to be performed by these
institutions, in a ``holistic'' sense, they all can be synergistically
tied to giving those injured in vehicular crashes a better chance of
survival. These technologies relate to improved monitoring and
coordination in emergency response; improved drugs to stabilize and
prevent deterioration of crash victims' injuries while at the crash
scene; improved vehicle occupant protective system operation and
deployment; and improved vehicle sensors to identify crash severity and
potential occupant injury.
Three of the designated grant recipient institutions under the
TDIPP are doing research related to developing and advancing prototype
deployment of operational intelligent transportation infrastructure
systems for measuring various transportation system activities to aid
in transportation planning and analysis in two major metropolitan
areas. Once these prototypes are operational and proof-of-concept
questions have been resolved; deployment of similar systems are planned
for deployment in 40 more major metropolitan areas.
Under the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction (IBRC)
Program many States are involved in developing new, cost-effective
innovative material highway bridge applications; reducing maintenance
costs and life-cycle costs of bridges, including the costs of new
construction, replacement, or rehabilitation of deficient bridges;
developing construction techniques to increase safety and reduce
construction time and traffic congestion; developing engineering design
criteria for innovative products and materials for use in highway
bridges and structures; developing cost-effective and innovative
techniques to separate vehicle and pedestrian traffic from railroad
traffic; developing highway bridges and structures that will withstand
natural disasters, including alternative processes for the seismic
retrofit of bridges; and developing new nondestructive bridge
evaluation technologies and techniques.
This program is intended to demonstrate the application of
innovative material technology in the construction of bridges and other
structures--grants are made to the states to pay the Federal share of
the cost of repair, rehabilitation, replacement, and new construction
of bridges or structures that demonstrate the application of innovative
materials. Also grants, cooperative agreements and contracts are
entered into with states, other Federal agencies, universities and
colleges, private sector entities, and nonprofit organizations to pay
the Federal share of the cost of research, development, and technology
transfer (R, D & T) activities related to bridge applications of
innovative materials.
The following information pertains to continuing initiatives being
funded in fiscal year 2001:
Center for Advanced Vehicle Technology.--The objective is to form a
well-equipped interdisciplinary capability at the University of Alabama
at Tuscaloosa to address a range of issues related to advanced vehicle
development and operation. During the first year of operation, progress
has been made to develop the administrative structure for the Center.
Equipment has been purchased to improve the measurement of key engine
properties including emissions. Five grants were awarded on various
vehicle issues and a lecture series was introduced which brings experts
from other parts of the country to share insights. Several
presentations have been made throughout the country to introduce the
Center to others and to begin build partnerships. Expected cost for
fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $400,000.
Smart Bridge Research Project.--The principle purpose of this grant
is to research, design, and demonstrate technically feasible,
economically acceptable and environmentally compatible Smart Bridge
systems to enhance the nation's highway system safety ad reduce its
life cycle cost. A medium-scale deck section has been constructed. They
are currently working to develop and validate advance modeling
software. The research team is refining their deck heating system
design. Continuous investigations are underway into systems to measure
and analyze weather data, including sensor testing and development of
integrated control strategies. Work has also begun on corrosion
assessment, life-cycle economic analysis, and an operational web site
for technology transfer. Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this
initiative is $1,000,000.
Advanced Trauma Care.--The Alabama Trauma Registry (ATR) has been
established. Hospitals in the state that see a sizeable number of
trauma patients each year were identified and contacted to obtain their
support in collecting data using the American College of Surgeons (ACS)
trauma registry database (TRACS). A protocol and time line has been
developed to transfer the data to the ATR. The transfer of data from
the participating hospitals to the ATR is presently in the pilot phase.
However, it is expected that all major trauma hospitals in the state
will be providing trauma data to the ATR by July 2000. Data from this
project and others will be used to make recommendations and establish
protocol for the routine collection of data to provide better patient
care. Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is
$750,000.
Transportation Injury.--The Center for Transportation Injury
Research (CenTIR) projects are underway to provide real-world
demonstrations and evaluations of advanced technologies, systems and
programs. These projects are advancing crash detection and notification
technologies with crash injury assessment. They are also improving the
process of providing emergency triage, transport, and treatment of
crash injured people. The CenTIR research has advanced technical and
governmental understanding of technological opportunities for, and
institutional hurdles to, improving the safety of U.S. motorists. The
CenTIR research has helped define the safety potential for automatic
crash notification technologies and the need for providing enhanced
wireless 9-1-1 service nationwide. The CenTIR research is being used at
the Federal, State and local levels. At the Federal level, the CenTIR
communications on the safety potential of using wireless technologies
to improve crash safety has been used in the NHTSA, FHWA, and JPO. In
addition, the CenTIR research has been a part of the deliberations of
the NTSB, the FCC, and the Congress. On October 26, 1999, the President
signed into law the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of
1999 that found ``emerging technologies can be a critical component . .
. to reduce emergency response times and provide appropriate care.''
Grantees are in their second year of effort of interdisciplinary
research on ways to reduce the occurrence, severity, and consequences
of crash related injuries that now amount to nearly five million people
each year in the U.S., including 42,000 deaths. Expected cost for
fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $2,000,000.
Head and Spinal Cord injury.--The Neuroscience Center for
Excellence and the Virginia Transportation Institute collectively are
working on the development and implementation of a motor vehicle crash
victim data registry, the investigation of mechanisms of neurotrauma,
and the exploration and evaluation of novel neuroprotective drugs
relative to this project.
Work has commenced in collision avoidance research and crash
analysis research. Under collision avoidance, the following tasks are
underway: (a) literature review of collision avoidance methods and
developments, (b) development of a driving simulator laboratory, and
(c) review and comparison of specific adaptive or intelligent cruise
control systems. In the category of crash analysis research, the
following tasks are underway: (a) finite element modeling of vehicles,
(b) development of a folded/vented airbag model, (c) mathematical
simulation of crash test dummy certification procedures and comparison
to equivalent laboratory data, and (d) airbag modeling code evaluation
and validation.
The motor vehicle crash data base now contains data on 400 victims
with more than 2000 documented injuries. A Microsoft Access database is
maintained on an Internet server, providing 24-hour update capability
and access. An improved percussion apparatus has been developed to
support experimental head trauma experiments utilizing a rat model.
Preliminary studies have been conducted to identify up-regulation of
the COX2 gene in the brain preceding irreversible injury.
Experimental strategies for screening and evaluation of neuroprotective
drugs have been devised.
Preliminary collision avoidance literature review is completed. All
components required to assemble the driver simulator are now available
for assembly. Portions of vehicle model development have been
completed. Air bag code evaluation has begun. Expected cost for fiscal
year 2001 for this initiative is $500,000.
Motor Carrier Advanced Sensor Control System.--The initial task of
the study is underway. It includes a literature review and related
analyses of accident databases. The detailed project scope is under
development. The Truck Manufacturers Association is working with the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the contractor to
implement this program. The first task under the contract, which is
nearly complete, was an assessment of several potential safety and
operationally-oriented categories of sensors and sensor systems. A
meeting with interested original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and
Commercial Motor Vehicle operators was held in late February, and the
draft task report is currently under review. A statement of work is
being prepared as a follow-on assessment for several of the sensor
categories reviewed in Task 1, and adding some others in response to
stakeholder input. The plan is to follow on with tasks to arrange
hands-on work in the lab and test track, and possible work in the field
environment. Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is
$700,000.
Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure System.--This project
provides for the development and deployment of a system that collects
and distributes real time traffic conditions data for operations
purposes; and archives this data for planning, analysis, and
maintenance purposes. The project design is well underway in Pittsburgh
and will begin later this year in Philadelphia. Authorization to
proceed in Philadelphia will be granted upon approval of the Pittsburgh
design. Given current progress, system implementation is expected
around July 2000 in Pittsburgh, and in November 2000 in Philadelphia.
The local user needs have been identified and the overall system
requirements have been defined in Pittsburgh. The sensor siting and
design are near completion and software development is under way. The
evaluation of the project will begin once the system is deployed.
Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $1,700,000.
Advanced Traffic Monitoring and Emergency Response.--The first
phase of the project has begun and involves a feasibility and needs
study to identify appropriate Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
user service requirements. Also, this phase involves defining the
overall scope of the project. Interviews with individual stakeholders
are being completed. To provide guidance for the feasibility study, an
Oversight and Technical Advisory Committees has been established. The
design phase will begin upon completion of the study, which is
anticipated by July 2000. An assessment of needs, along with relevant
technologies and best practice models, will be available upon
completion of the feasibility study. A conceptual plan and the
appropriate next steps will also be defined at that time. Expected cost
for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $1,667,000.
Technology of Transportation Economic and Land Use System
(TELUS).--The New Jersey Institute of Technology is currently in the
development and deployment phase of this program. The objective is to
support State governments and Metropolitan Planning Agencies by
developing an automated data base to report on the status of projects.
A Beta test group, composed of 15 MPOs, has been formed and is
currently testing an early release of TELUS. The Beta test group has
reported very good results and is anxious to receive the final version.
Expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $1,000,000.
Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program.--Under this
program repair, rehabilitation, and new construction projects involving
several different innovative materials and a broad range of structural
applications are being funded. Materials include fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) composites; high performance 70ksi weathering steel (HPS
70W); FRP reinforced wood glulam members; high strength, durable
concrete (HPC); stainless steel clad reinforcing bars; innovative
bridge coatings; innovative anodes for cathodic protection, etc.
Applications include durable, lightweight bridge decks; HPS 70W steel
bridge beams; HPC concrete bridge decks; durable concrete bridge decks
reinforced with FRP reinforcing bars or stainless steel clad bars;
understrength and/or deteriorated bridge members reinforced externally
with FRP sheets or FRP prestressing tendons; bridge columns,
susceptible to seismic damage retrofitted with FRP ``wraps''; etc.
One example of tangible benefits is installation of new lightweight
bridge decks which allow for increased load limits on posted bridges--
an example is the Maryland State Route 24 bridge over Deer Creek;
replacement of the concrete deck with a lightweight FRP deck will
enable the DOT to maintain this 1934 historic truss in service at
minimal cost and mitigate the need for more costly rehabilitation. Deck
installation is expected to require one week versus 5 to 6 weeks with a
reinforced concrete deck. Another example is new bridge decks
reinforced with stainless steel clad reinforcing bars, such as the
State Route 82 bridge over Red Creek in Delaware, where the deck is
expected to be resistant to salt induced corrosion and deterioration of
concrete decks reinforced with mild steel. On this project, the
understrength steel beams will also be reinforced with carbon FRP
sheets.
Technology transfer efforts such as an International Symposium on
High Performance Concrete for Bridges (co-sponsored with the
Prestressed/Precast Concrete Institute--PCI) and a National Conference
on High Performance Steel for Bridges (co-sponsored with the American
Iron and Steel Institute--AISI) will keep the bridge engineering
community abreast of developments in deploying innovative materials in
bridges. Total expected cost for fiscal year 2001 for this program is
$21,000,000.
Advanced Technology Pilot Program.--To date, one project group has
been selected. General Atomics Corporation (GA) will lead a team to
develop Maglev technology for the purpose of providing a solution to
urban and regional transportation problems. The GA team will develop
low speed magnetic levitation technology in the following main task
areas: (1) system studies, (2) base technology development (including
technical risk identification and resolution), (3) route specific
requirements, and (4) projection of overall system performance and a
preliminary design for a full scale demonstration system concept. The
team is comprised of federal, state, and local government
representatives along with many industrial organizations. Expected cost
for fiscal year 2001 for this initiative is $5,000,000.
EVALUATION OF THE ADVANCED VEHICLE PROGRAM
Question. What measures have you developed to evaluate the success
or progress of this program?
Answer. We have a Legislative Implementation Plan in effect whereby
Core Business Units and Service Business Units within FHWA (and program
offices in other modal administrations within U.S. DOT) have technical
representatives identified to track achievements and monitor progress
for each of these identified initiatives. Additionally, we develop
summary reports on progress of these initiatives and submit the reports
biennially to the Congress. Success of the IBRC program will be
demonstrated in 4 ways: (1) selection and funding of projects which
support the program goals established in TEA-21; (2) construction of
each innovative material bridge application in the field; (3)
monitoring and evaluation of the performance of each application during
short and long term service; (4) dissemination to the bridge
engineering community of ``lessons learned'' and material, design and
construction specifications developed so successful applications can be
deployed on a widespread basis.
Project selection is based on a set of criteria which incorporate
the TEA-21 IBRC program goals and which have undergone critical review
by the State DOTs, by the industries which produce innovative materials
and by the bridge engineering community at-large. The IBRC funded
projects including the 116 different projects already funded are being
conducted on varying schedules according to the individual States'
construction programs. Some projects have already been let for
construction. One example is the replacement of the deteriorated
concrete deck on the Salem Avenue Bridge over the Great Miami River
Bridge in Dayton, Ohio, which will be re-opened for traffic in May
2000. Most other projects are underway or will be let for construction
in the Spring of 2000. The FHWA division offices are closely monitoring
the implementation of each project.
The State DOTs are strongly encouraged to include instrumentation
and post-construction monitoring of the innovative material
applications in each project request. All of the 116 IBRC funded
projects have such a phase incorporated in the project plan. Most of
the evaluation efforts are being conducted by either State DOT research
agency and/or by University staff with extensive experience in the
innovative material being used. In addition, FHWA will initiate
regional and/or national evaluation studies for applications where
several projects are underway in different states and different
operating conditions. Examples include a coordinated evaluation of the
performance of at least 24 bridge decks constructed of fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) composites and a coordinated evaluation of stainless
steel clad reinforcing steel used in concrete bridge decks.
FHWA is developing a comprehensive database of all projects funded
under the IBRC. A wide range of information (as appropriate) will be
collected/measured on each project: type and size of bridge; traffic
volumes and loadings; innovative material and material specifications;
details of structural application; design loads and design codes used;
costs of fabrication and installation; cost and construction time
savings compared to ``traditional'' solutions to the projects being
built; performance data; etc. Progress and success of the program and
of individual project applications will be done on a continuing basis.
Dissemination of results, ``lessons learned'', etc. will be done
continually, via an IBRC web site and the IBRC database as well as
through engineering conferences, papers and presentations and site
specific technical assistance to State DOTs and local highway agencies
pursuing similar innovative material bridge applications.
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM
Question. What are your initial indications of the value of this
investment?
Answer. Technology Deployment program funds are a significant part
of FHWA's overall R&T program, as they help to create of an environment
for innovation among our partners and customers through encouraging the
application of new technologies and approaches.
This is especially true for the IBRC program, where initial
indications point to a high degree of success. Two solicitations for
bridge projects resulted in 289 applications with over 88 percent of
these eligible for IBRC funding. Total funds requested were in the
order of $190 million (versus $37 million available for allocation).
The degree of innovation is notable with many previously untried
applications including FRP composites, stainless steel clad
reinforcing, etc. being proposed. State DOTs and local agencies have
seen the program as not only a source of funds for innovation, but also
as helping to offset the risk of utilizing higher risk (in terms of
cost and technical performance) applications. Projects such as the
Salem Avenue bridge in Dayton are proving that the innovative
applications are feasible to build and do produce tangible benefits.
Projects such as the HPS 70W steel bridge on Tennessee State 58 over
the Clinch River are documenting the technical case for HPS steel as
well as the potential for lower capital construction costs. Other
projects in other states are expected to produce similar findings.
The TDIPP program also does contribute to innovation, as the
initiatives strengthen current relationships and broaden the range of
contacts which benefit FHWA in defining and executing R&T programs. The
Department's overall strategy is to sharpen the focus on delivering
innovation, and to work with all representatives of the transportation
community to ensure an effective and efficient transportation system.
The significant number of designated recipients of TDIPP funds has
limited our ability to focus these program resources on high-priority
areas, but we do actively work with program participants to advance
innovation and to maximize support of US DOT goals and objectives.
Question. For both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, how much
of the funds will be used for research purposes and how much for grants
to states and local governmental entities?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $700,000 was provided for TCSP
research, evaluation and technical assistance. A total of $871,000 has
been requested for research, evaluation and technical assistance in
fiscal year 2001.
Question. Please highlight some of the innovative strategies and
projects selected for fiscal year 2000.
Answer.
Colorado.--Denver Union Station Work and Entertainment Connection--
Cost effective and community-friendly alternative transportation
connections at a primary intermodal transportation center.
Delaware.--Centerville Village Plan--Innovative strategies to
preserve and revitalize historic community and protect surrounding open
space.
Florida.--Teenagers, Transportation Planners and Residents Team
Together to Tackle the Treasure Coast Transportation Plan.
Illinois.--A Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Plan for the
Route 47 Kishwaukee River Corridor Developed with a Watershed-based
Approach Through Community Consensus.
New Mexico.--Santa Fe/Solana Neighborhood Center B: A Model for
Growth Without Sprawl.
Oregon.--Oregon Telecommunity Center Project: A Replicable Model
for Sustainable Rural Communities.
transportation and community and system preservation pilot program
(tcsp)
Question. What is the need and demand for the additional $25
million in LGOE funds requested for the TCSP?
Answer. Requests for TCSP Program funding has consistently exceeded
the available TCSP funds. In fiscal year 2000, applicants from 48
states and the District of Columbia submitted 292 proposals totaling
$151 million for funding consideration. TEA?21 authorizes $25 million
for this program in fiscal year 2001. Applicants from 46 states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico submitted 298 proposals totaling
more than $196 million for consideration in the fiscal year 2001 TCSP
Program. This overwhelming response indicates a pressing need in
communities to leverage resources to make their communities more
livable. The increased funds would expand the number of communities
that are able to participate in the program and the range of strategies
that are implemented to improve linkages among transportation and
community planning and system preservation practices.
Question. What measures have you developed to evaluate the success
or progress of this program?
Answer. The evaluation of TCSP projects will focus on the following
key areas: process evaluation, product evaluation and outcomes.
However, appropriate goals and objective, performance measures and
evaluation methods will differ for each project because of the broad
range of initiatives as well as the diverse mix of geographic areas and
project scopes. The lessons learned from project evaluations will be
used in evaluating the overall TCSP Program. Lessons learned from this
pilot program will be shared with other communities across the country.
Question. What are your initial indications of the value of this
investment?
Answer. The TCSP Program allows States, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations and local governments to compete for funds to develop and
test new transportation approaches for addressing the relationship
between transportation and community and system preservation. The TCSP
program is meeting a critical need for funds to support community-based
planning and implementation projects. These funds are often used by
applicants to leverage other public and private moneys in order to
maximize transportation and community development investments. Lessons
learned from this pilot program will be shared with other communities
across the country.
surface transportation research fund categories
Question. Please provide a table showing carryover funds for each
of the last two years for each of the traditional surface
transportation research fund categories.
Answer. The carryover funds for each of the last three fiscal years
are shown below by subaccount or research categories.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
Program 1997
1999 1998 Carryovers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation Research:
Safety.............................. 594 100 1,235
Pavements........................... 1,873 1,408 ..........
Structures.......................... 2,212 1,634 88
Environment......................... 251 370 95
Real Estate Services................ 3 ........ ..........
Policy.............................. 60 ........ 30
Planning............................ 172 ........ ..........
Motor Carriers...................... 454 858 2,327
Basic Research...................... 441 72 72
Technology Assessment and Deployment 937 65 300
Long-Term Pavement Performance...... 16 11 ..........
R&T Technical Support............... 1,419 345 ..........
Local Technical Assistance Program...... 242 407 ..........
National Highway Institute.......... 718 130 669
Eisenhower Fellowship............... 335 116 1
Advanced Research................... 34 ........ ..........
Highway Operations.................. 41 ........ ..........
Minority Business Enterprise........ ........ ........ 14
International Transportation........ 101 191 168
Russia Technical Assistance......... ........ ........ 2
Federal Lands Contamination Clean-up ........ 1,774 1,774
ITS Research and Development........ 38,129 3,773 351
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVAL FOR FUNDING SHIFTS OF MORE THAN 10 PERCENT
Question. In House Report 104-177, reprogramming guidelines state
that congressional approval is required for funding shifts of ten
percent or more among programs, projects and activities. Please show
the amounts, nature, and source of any funding shifts that were
implemented in fiscal year 1999 and thus far in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. There were no funding shifts in fiscal year 1999 or thus
far in fiscal year 2000 which fall within the reprogramming guidelines
in House Report 104-177.
PURPOSE AND COSTS OF FOREIGN TRIPS
Question. Please provide a table listing the purpose and costs
incurred for each of the foreign trips taken by each of the Core
Business Program Directors during fiscal year 1999 and thus far during
fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The information is summarized in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Core Business Unit year Destination Purpose Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure................ 1999 Sweden, Denmark, To participate in the Recycled $4,934.50
Germany, Netherlands, Secondary Materials Scanning
France. Mission.
Operations.................... 1999 Sweden................. Participation in the World Road 2,388.34
Association (PIARC) bi-annual
meeting of the Intelligent
Transport Committee.
Environment and Planning...... 2000 Mexico................. To participate in the 12th Joint 1,326.03
Working Committee meeting.
Infrastructure................ 2000 Mexico................. To make a technical presentation at 1,529.03
the Asphalt Recycling and
Reclaiming Association's 24th
annual meeting.
Operations.................... 2000 Malaysia............... To participate in the PIARC XXIst 3,546.60
World Road Congress.
Operations.................... 2000 Canada................. To participate in the annual ITS 1,878.34
World Congress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT
Question. Please list each of the completed 1998 and 1999 reports
prepared by your Corporate Management Office. Also summarize the key
recommendations of each report. Please indicate how FHWA responded to
each of those recommendations.
Answer.
1. Review of the Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship
Program, (Internal Draft Report), February 1998--Internal report
concluded that both the Graduate Fellowship element and the minority
serving institutions elements (HBCU, HSI, and Tribal Colleges) of the
program are meeting the objective of ``attracting qualified students to
the field of transportation.'' Activities are underway to respond to
the recommendations to expand and improve advertisement of the program,
assure timely and reliable stipends, improve mentoring by
transportation professionals, improve and update the database of
participants and enhance networking opportunities for participants.
2. FTA/FHWA Metropolitan Office Status Review, March 1998--Internal
report concluded that ``the LA Metro Office is a success and has
markedly improved service to FTA and FHWA partners in the LA region.''
The report was used as a model for assessing the success of other
Metropolitan Offices.
3. The Role of the Federal-Aid Division in Highway Safety, April
1998--Recommendations focused on how to integrate highway safety across
all functions and through all organizational levels. A number of
activities have resulted from these recommendations including a
national conference for Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and
FHWA highway safety specialists, development of new training
curriculum, planning a leadership seminar for FHWA management, greater
involvement by field staffs with non-traditional partners, and improved
information sharing among both FHWA field offices and FHWA field
offices and headquarters. All of these activities have increased the
emphasis within FHWA for integration of highway safety issues in other
highway functions and advocacy activities by FHWA field highway safety
specialists.
4. Meeting the Customer's Needs for Mobility and Safety During
Construction and Maintenance Operations, September 1998--The report
recommended a variety of actions from development of improved
technology to working with our partners and customers to employ work
zone management principles to improve work zone operations. The report
established an operational baseline for FHWA to measure existing
conditions and future improvement. It also developed a ``Model Work
Zone Traffic Management Program and Self Evaluation Guide'' for use by
State and local units of Government. The report, and Executive Summary
and Guide were distributed to cities, counties, States, and industry. A
cross-functional team was created that has extensively used the report
recommendations identify its work. Activities of the team include the
following, all of which respond to recommendations of the report: (1) a
best practices guidebook which presents a collection of highway
community best practices, submitted from across the Nation has been
created in partnership with AASHTO, (2) in partnership with AASHTO and
the American Traffic Safety Services Association the FHWA sponsored
National Work Zone Safety Awareness Week, April 3-7, 2000, (3) is
developing user friendly computer software tools which accurately
analyze and reliably predict work zone impacts, (4) encouraging FHWA
field offices to engage states in assessment of their traffic
management program using the Self Evaluation Guide developed in this
review, and (5) developing a new driver work zone safety awareness
education program.
5. Evaluation of the Office of Motor Carrier's National Training
Center, May 1999--This internal evaluation concluded that the processes
and procedures in place at the NTC for the administration, management,
development, delivery, and evaluation of the motor carrier training
program met the Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) criteria and
compared favorably to other Federal agency's safety inspectors/
investigators training programs.
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS POSITIONS
Question. Please prepare a table listing the average number of
positions for the immediate Office of the Administrator and Office of
Public Affairs for each of the last three years.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Unit -----------------------
1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator:
Office of the Administrator................. 5 7 7
Office of the Deputy Administrator.......... 3 3 4
Office of the Executive Director............ 8 8 7
-----------------------
Total Staff............................... 16 18 18
=======================
Office of Public Affairs: Office Staff.......... 7 10 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Question. Please provide separate tables breaking down
administrative expenses into PC&B, permanent change of station, travel,
communication, information systems, training, ADP, non-mandatory
awards, and other administrative categories for each of the last four
years and the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Please present a table
showing net administrative expenses for each of the last four years and
the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Answer.
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries & Benefits...................................... $167,977 $174,369 $169,245 $193,939 $201,890
Performance Awards....................................... 891 996 1,020 1,117 1,158
PCS Moves................................................ 5,967 5,800 9,749 7,700 7,700
Travel................................................... 9,660 9,273 9,387 9,473 9,473
Transportation........................................... 548 556 1,506 663 465
Rental Payments to GSA................................... 17,408 17,480 18,475 20,275 16,537
Other Rent & Comm. & Util................................ 8,512 9,369 9,676 9,955 9,857
Printing & Graphics...................................... 3,072 \1\ 89 2,607 1,609 1,512
ADP Services............................................. 15,356 16,615 17,005 16,800 19,200
Other Services........................................... 11,649 16,629 26,908 35,798 39,074
Supplies................................................. 3,181 2,079 2,973 2,079 2,021
Equipment................................................ 3,811 6,303 2,841 4,947 6,947
------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................. 248,032 259,558 271,392 304,355 315,834
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for Printing and Graphics are also captured in TASC with Other Services.
EDUCATIONAL AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS
Question. For each of the last three years, please specify the
amount spent on the promotion of educational or technology transfer
activities in Russia, the Republic of South Africa, the Garrett-Morgan
initiative, technology transfer to Turkey, a summer jobs program
related to transportation, the support of possible careers in the
transportation field, and environmental cleanup at any FHWA-related
sites. What is the planned fiscal year 2001 level of expenditure for
each of these activities?
Answer. FHWA funding for the Russia Program, South Africa Program,
Turkish Program, and other programs are summarized in the chart below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Country or region ---------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Africa................................................ $220,000 $160,000 $150,000 $125,000
Russia...................................................... 300,000 55,000 50,000 100,000
Turkey...................................................... ........... ........... 10,000 35,000
Environmental clean-up of lab \1\........................... 930,000 1,300,000 1,500,000 2,900,000
The Summer Transportation Internship Program for Diverse 85,780 415,000 700,000 850,000
Groups (STIPDG)............................................
National Summer Transportation Institute (NSTI)............ 500,000 1,356,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Transportation and Technology Academy (TRANSTECH)........... 75,000 100,000 200,000 200,000
On-the-Job Training Support Services........................ 8,239,775 5,350,278 5,710,000 7,960,287
National Urban Sustainable Employment in Transportation 15,000 ........... ........... ...........
(NUSET)....................................................
Garrett A. Morgan Technology Transportation Futures......... 44,688 24,050 24,050 20,000
Dwight David Eisenhower Fellowship.......................... 1,782,000 1,766,000 1,742,000 1,742,000
University Programs......................................... 3,000,000 22,590,648 23,734,750 23,734,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes partial funding from the General Services Administration (GSA) through a Memorandum of
Understanding.
\2\ Planned.
\3\ Includes costs associated with closing FHWA's Moscow Office.
Question. Please indicate the exact source and amount of funding
for each activity listed above and discuss how those expenditures
affected the amount of funds available during fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000 for research, development, or technology transfer
programs that were justified in your budget requests.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Country or region --------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Africa......................... International Outreach N/A.................... TEA-21 International
Program funds. Outreach Program
funds.
Russia............................... International Outreach TEA-21 International TEA-21 International
Program funds. Outreach Program funds. Outreach Program
funds.
Turkey............................... N/A.................... N/A.................... TEA-21 International
Outreach Program
funds.
FHWA, CFLHD Groundwater & soil G.O.E. Public Law 105- G.O.E. Public Law 105- G.O.E. Public Law 105-
contamination clean-up. 205 & project overhead 205 & project overhead 205 & project overhead
charges. charges. charges.
On-the-Job Training Support Services. 23.USC. 140............ 23.USC. 140............ 23.USC. 140.
Garrett A. Morgan Technology Limit. On General Limit. On General Limit. On General
Transportation Futures. Operating Expense. Operating Expense. Operating Expense.
Dwight David Eisenhower Fellowship TEA-21, 5001(c)(3)(C).. TEA-21, 5001(c)(3)(C).. TEA-21, 5001(c)(3)(C).
Program.
University Programs.................. TEA-21, 5110........... TEA-21, 5110........... TEA-21, 5110.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These expenditures did not affect the amounts available for
research, development, or technology transfer programs that were
justified in the FHWA's budget request.
Question. Please indicate the amount of fiscal year 2001 funds
requested for any of those activities.
Answer. FHWA funding for the Russia Program, South Africa Program
and Turkish Program and other programs are summarized in the chart
below.
Country or Region Fiscal year 2001
South Africa.................................................. $125,000
Russia........................................................ 100,000
Turkey........................................................ 35,000
Environmental clean-up of lab \1\............................. 2,900,000
The Summer Transportation Internship Program for Diverse
Groups (STIPDG)........................................... 850,000
National Summer Transportation Institute (NSTI)............... 2,000,000
Transportation and Technology Academy (TRANSTECH)............. 200,000
On-the-Job Training Support Services.......................... 7,960,287
National Urban Sustainable Employment in Transportation
(NUSET).............................................................
Garrett A. Morgan Technology Transportation Futures........... 20,000
Dwight David Eisenhower Fellowship Program.................... 1,742,000
University Programs...........................................23,734,750
\1\ Includes partial funding from the General Services Administration
(GSA) through a Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW INITIATIVES
Question. During fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year 2000 were any
funds taken away from any RD&T activity to pay for any expenses related
to new initiatives that were not presented in the budget justification?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $331,000 R&T funds were used to
support the new DOT Climate Change and Forecast Center which was not a
part of the budget justification for that year.
CARRYOVER FUNDS
Question. Did you use any carryover funds to pay for shortfalls in
the management and coordination area during either fiscal year 1999 or
fiscal year 2000? If so, how much was allocated each year?
Answer. No carryover funds were used to pay for shortfalls in the
management and coordination area during fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year
2000.
revenue aligned budget authority (raba) distribution
Question. For each of the contract programs specified in TEA-21,
please prepare a table showing the amount of increase that would be
provided under current law resulting from the RABA of TEA-21 as
specified in Section 1105 and contrast that to the amount actually
specified in TEA-21's contract authority amounts.
Answer.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
[Fiscal year 2001]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEA-21
Contract programs authorization RABA Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation Research................................. $98,000,000 $9,044,350 $107,044,350
Technology Deployment Program................................... 45,000,000 4,153,018 49,153,018
Training and Education.......................................... 18,000,000 1,661,207 19,661,207
Bureau of Transportation Statistics............................. 31,000,000 2,860,968 33,860,968
ITS Standards................................................... 100,000,000 9,228,928 109,228,928
ITS Deployment.................................................. 118,000,000 10,890,135 128,890,135
University Transportation Research.............................. 27,250,000 2,514,883 29,764,883
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Question. Please break out in detail your request for an additional
$2.4 million for information technology. What is the analytical basis
of this request? How much is in the base for similar investments? Are
not computer costs continuing to decline per unit of information or
processing capability? Why is this amount of an increase requested at
this time?
Answer. The detail and basis for the expenditure is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of each Total Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 PCs at $1,700............... $1,700,000 Replaces \1/3\ of
agency PC's
annually.
24 servers at $7,500.............. 180,000 Replaces \1/3\ of
agency file &
printer servers
annually.
150 printers at $1,500............ 225,000 Replaces \1/4\ of
agency networked
printers annually.
12 networks at $25,000............ 300,000 Replaces \1/5\
agency field
network hardware.
----------------
Total....................... 2,405,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis: (Support for Baseline End-User Computing in FHWA).
Line 1 3000 FTE (post-FMCSA separation); replacement cycle is 3 years.
Line 2 60 field offices with file/print servers (52 Divisions, 4
Resource Centers, 3 Federal Lands, LAST).
Line 3 one printer for 5 employees; replacement cycle 4 years.
Line 4 60 field office networks; replacement cycle 5 years.
As FHWA re-writes its major information systems it is moving them
from a mainframe-based programming environment, to server-based systems
accessed with a personal computer over a local or wide-area network.
FHWA has not previously had a planned technology refresh rate for its
desktop computing environment. As the desktops become part of the
mission-critical support environment, they must be supported in a
planned rather than an ad-hoc fashion.
FHWA has reduced its per-unit computer costs in-line with industry
trends. Because FHWA bases its systems, which are used by States and
other external partners as well as the agency's staff, as much as
possible on commercial available off-the shelf software running on
industry standard computers and operating systems, the selected refresh
rate is necessary to maintain technology which is supported by the
hardware and software vendors.
TRAINING INCREASE
Question. What is the analytical basis for the $4.33 million
increase requested for training? How much is in the base for training
already? Why is this amount of an increase requested at this time?
Answer. The budget includes an increase of $4,330,000 for training.
The fiscal year 2000 budget base for the requested increase is $3
million dollars. The requested increase (which is not a one-time
increase) represents the resources needed agency-wide to expand
training and development in critical areas supporting FHWA's program
delivery and deployment of technology. We must not only maintain and
replace our current level of expertise, but build more depth in skills
and expertise to meet our charge as a leader in transportation
technology and program expertise. Following is a description of the
training requirements which currently exist and which will be met
through fiscal year 2001 and future budgets. We anticipate that future
fiscal year budgets will reflect a comparable level of investment, as
we hire and develop staff to meet program needs.
Using a variety of approaches, we aim to fully equip our employees
with the skills and experiences needed to work effectively in new roles
with the states and our other partners, to serve as a key resource for
technical advice and expertise, and to effectively develop and deploy
solutions to new and emerging transportation issues.
Our focus will be on developing our employees' skills in several
key areas and on investing in developmental programs for long-term
results. Included will be investments in technology-based learning
mechanisms as one way to expand access and availability of training.
Technical expertise.--Covering a wide range of disciplines
including safety, pavements, structures, planning, logistics,
environment, and civil rights. Resources will go to such programs/
initiatives as academic study in technical disciplines; technical
training and expansion of rotational and developmental assignments for
the gain of applied knowledge and experience by employees.
FHWA's business processes.--Providing training and development
activities in agency systems and processes in areas such as strategic
planning; budgeting and financial management, program performance
management, continuous improvement and measurement; and information
management.
Professionalism and related personal/interpersonal skills.--
Addressing core employee skills needed by employees to effectively
deliver program and technical expertise, including such areas as
negotiation, mediation, communication, making effective presentations,
and working collaboratively in our restructured organizational
environment.
Leadership and management.--Continuing to provide skills training
and development for a changing cadre of managers, supervisors and team
leaders. As our current generation of leaders moves toward retirement,
we need expanded resources to prepare a new generation to replace them.
We also anticipate participating in new Department of Transportation-
wide training initiatives as we seek to integrate a broader
Departmental perspective into our leadership and management development
programs.
Succession planning/career development.--Addressing future staffing
needs through implementing a redesigned career development/intern
program (known as the Professional Development Program). Additional
resources are needed to provide newly hired participants in this
program with a strong foundation of FHWA program delivery and technical
skills that will prepare them to quickly assume positions of
responsibility in the FHWA organization.
DELTA INITIATIVE
Question. Please provide additional justification to further
explain the request for $1 million for the Delta Initiative on page
III-27. How did this request originate? Why can't the LTAP centers
conduct some of these activities?
Answer. Some of the work to be supported by this funding is simply
an increase in existing activities, e.g., developing training and
technical assistance. Some of the work is new and directly
transportation related, e.g., developing a regional transportation plan
while some is less directly transportation related, e.g., developing a
tourism marketing plan.
The request to fund these activities under one program came about
based on the comments of members of delta region organizations and the
public in general at meetings sponsored by the U.S. DOT. The U.S. DOT,
in turn, acted as the lead agency on behalf of all cabinet members who
were part of the executive branch Delta Initiative task force. The
comments were, in part, informed by the historic role transportation
has had in tourism and other aspects of the region. For example,
Congress established the Great River Road program in 1973 based on a
Mississippi River Parkway program funded under the Federal Aid Highway
Act of 1954. During the administrative life of the Great River Road
program (1973-1991), over a billion dollars in Federal, state and local
funds were used for the Great River Road and various scenic overlooks,
bike trails, historic preservation, parks and recreation trails.
______
Questions Submitted to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
AMTRAK'S ROUTE SYSTEM
Question. Please provide the most recent route-by-route performance
statistics for all short and long distance routes, similar to that
found on pages 217-218 of Senate Hearing 106-221, the Senate
Appropriations Committee's fiscal year 2000 hearing record.
Answer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.001
FUNDING HISTORY AND AVAILABILITY
Question. Please prepare a table outlining federal funding to
Amtrak for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and requested in fiscal year
2001. (Please include only the ``glidepath'' capital request for fiscal
year 2001, and not the expanded intercity rail passenger service
funding request from Revenue Aligned Budget Authority funds.) Please be
sure to include funding made available by the Taxpayer Relief Act.
Characterize the eligible uses for these funds, and display a column or
row which shows how much of each year's funding is available for
obligation in each fiscal year.
Answer.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
---------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal grants:
Operating grant................... 202 ...... ...... ......
Capital funding................... ........ 609 571 521
NECIP/NHRIP funding............... 250 ...... ...... ......
Taxpayer relief act............... 2,184 ...... ...... ......
---------------------------------
Total Federal grants............ 2,636 609 571 521
=================================
Available for obligation:
Operating grant................... 202 ...... ...... ......
Capital funding................... ........ 243 594 551
NECIP/NHRIP funding............... 250 ...... ...... ......
Taxpayer relief act............... 2,184 ...... ...... ......
---------------------------------
Total available................. 2,636 243 594 551
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARKET BASED NETWORK ANALYSIS
Question. On February 28, 2000, Amtrak announced its comprehensive
market based assessment of the railroad's route structure, which
identifies opportunities for Amtrak to expand its national network and
improve the use of its assets. Please outline what routing and service
changes will be made by Amtrak during the next six months, before the
end of fiscal year 2000. What are the major challenges to implementing
each of these planned changes?
Answer. A chart indicating routes, approximate starting dates,
equipment needs, freight partners that would be necessary and
infrastructure needs is attached.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.004
Question. Please outline what MBNA-based routing and service
changes will be made by Amtrak during fiscal year 2001. What are the
major challenges to implementing each of these planned changes?
Answer. Amtrak is in the process of analyzing additional routes and
re-examining existing routes. The MBNA analytical process is a complex
one requiring significant inputs from most every Amtrak business unit
and department. Moreover, it is a dynamic process with continuous
analysis of alternative network configurations and schedules. Later in
this calendar year Amtrak anticipates announcing High Speed Rail
Corridors for further discussion with appropriate governments, rail
companies and other agencies. These routes will have been examined via
the MBNA analytical process. Also later in the year Amtrak will
announce additional traditional route additions and changes under the
Network Growth Strategy initiatives. Thus, at this time there are no
specific additional routing or service changes other than those
indicated in the table provided for in the previous question.
HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS
Question. Please update the Committee on all proposed regional
high-speed rail corridors which Amtrak is supporting through Strategic
Business Plan or Market Based Network Analysis actions. Please provide
detailed information on each proposed corridor, including: (1) total
projected cost for each corridor, as well as anticipated timeframe; (2)
the amount of capital funding committed by Amtrak, the affected States,
the freight railroads and other interested parties; (3) the level of
current services and what service improvements the high-speed corridor
will bring about; (4) each project's primary proponent, as well as
other parties in the coalition of forces; and (5) current ridership
figures, and estimated ridership growth.
Answer. Attached is a summary prepared by Amtrak that describes the
high-speed rail efforts current underway around the country. The
following chart addresses costs that have been identified by state
studies for these projects and funding commitments:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term Amtrak State
Corridor program cost commitment commitments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Empire Corridor.................... 500 85 85
Keystone Corridor.................. 500 75 75
Southeast HSR:
WAS-Charlotte.................. \1\ 1.2 75 130
Charlotte-Atlanta.............. TBD .......... ...........
Midwest Regional Rail.............. \1\ 5 25 140
California......................... \1\ 5 25 \2\ 700
Cascades........................... \1\ 1.8 35 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In billions of dollars.
\2\ Proposed by Governor Gray Davis.
The BNSF Railroad has invested some $15 million to improve
infrastructure for the Cascades services. CSX has committed to some $35
million for improvements between Washington and Richmond. Discussions
with freight railroads are on going with respect to partnering to
improve the high-speed rail corridors.
Question. An option that has been discussed for Amtrak operations
both ``on and off'' the Northeast Corridor is the use of dual-powered
locomotives that can operate under electric catenary as well as with
fossil fuel, thus avoiding the need for an engine change when moving
from electrified to non-electrified right-of-way. On which Amtrak
routes would the use of dual-powered locomotives be appropriate? Is
this option being considered on all these routes? Is there currently a
dual-powered locomotive in revenue service? If so, who is the
manufacturer, and where is this type of power car in service?
Answer. Amtrak did purchase several P-32 DM locomotives from
General Electric. These are used exclusively in service along the
Empire Corridor where electric power is transmitted through a third
rail and not by overhead catenary.
With completion of the New Haven-Boston electrification system,
Amtrak no longer requires a change of engines in New Haven for its
Northeast Corridor trains. However, the railroad is not electrified
south of Washington to Richmond and Charlotte, north from New Haven to
Springfield, or north of New York to Albany. As a result, passengers
either must change trains at these locations or await time-consuming
locomotive changes.
Amtrak is considering options for avoiding the need for these
delays, particularly for service between Charlotte/Richmond and
Washington. Options include:
--development of a dual-power locomotive that can operate under
electric catenary or fossil-fuel generated power;
--operation of trains with both an electric and a fossil fuel
locomotive;
--addition of an electric power unit to fossil-fuel trainsets
arriving in Washington from the south.
Amtrak expects to develop a specification for a dual power
locomotive this year for review by potential vendors. A decision on
which approach to pursue for these trains would follow.
northeast corridor operational and safety questions
Question. Please provide historical data from fiscal years 1991
through 1999 on trespasser and crossing fatalities on the Northeast
Corridor.
Answer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.005
Question. Please describe the efforts Amtrak is making to educate
the public concerning the north end electrification project. Since
Amtrak inaugurated electrical service on the North End of the corridor
on January 31, 2000, have there been any accidents or fatalities
related to electrification?
Answer. Amtrak has two structured outreach programs, one for school
children and one geared toward emergency responders such as fire,
rescue and police. The following is a numerical summary of our efforts
in public education concerning the electrification and high speed rail
operations.
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS/PRESENTATIONS--1998-99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schools Presentations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA............................................. 39 94
RI............................................. 94 246
CT............................................. 34 76
------------------------
Total.................................... 167 416
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These presentations are conducted primarily by Amtrak Police
Officers, are on going, and closely follow the guidelines of the
Operation Lifesaver training course.
SAFETY AND SECURITY TRAINING FOR FIRE, RESCUE AND POLICE--SINCE MARCH 2,
1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attendees
Classes on record
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA.................................................. 91 778
RI.................................................. 58 874
CT.................................................. 131 1,368
-------------------
Total......................................... 280 3,020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than a few remaining classes to be conducted west of New
Haven, training is now complete in these states. In fact, the program
is continuing south, down the Northeast Corridor to Washington, D. C.
To date, we have trained over 9,836 participants in 539 classes. This
project is unprecedented in it's magnitude and scope. We will soon
follow up on this work with a video that is being made to supplement
our training classes.
In addition to the four-hour classroom training, Amtrak purchased
and sent copies of OREIS Emergency Responder Software, developed by
Operation Respond, to one hundred and twenty ``911''-type dispatch
centers in the Northeast Corridor effectively blanketing our railroad
territory with this responder tool.
Besides these two major outreach programs, Amtrak has also
participated in Another forty-three Community Outreach Programs
involving displays and public events.
Finally, Amtrak developed and closely follow a detailed
notification process to both internal and external parties prior to
energizing any section of new catenary on the north end project. In
addition to verifying full compliance with the National Electric Code,
this final sign-off process ensures that notification to affected
employees, contractors, sub-contractors, adjacent utilities,
communities and emergency services occurs.
There have been no accidents or fatalities related to the
electrification project since the first section of catenary was
energized.
Question. Please describe the conversion to electrified service on
the North End of the corridor. Provide a schedule of electrified
locomotive integration, and milestones for the conversion process
through full implementation. What are the associated time savings for
electrified North End service (both for Acela Regional and Acela
Express)? What are the top running speeds for both services on the
South End and on the North End.
Answer. The remaining North End trains will be converted to
electric service as high horsepower locomotives are accepted. The
Consortium's estimate for the delivery of trainsets is as follows:
Trainset 1--July 2000; Trainset 20--March 2001; and Delivery rate
is 2 to 3 trainsets per month.
Locomotive schedule: Locomotive 1--May 2000; Locomotive 15--October
2000; and Delivery rate is 2 or 4 locomotives per month.
Acela Regional will save one to one and a half hours from the
previous multiple stop diesel service. The Acela Express is planned to
save approximately just under another hour. The top running speed for
Acela Express will be 150 mph on the North End. The top speeds on the
South End will be 135 mph. The top running speed for Regional Service
is 125 mph.
Question. Amtrak is the lead contractor for construction of the
``third track'' freight rail line paralleling the Northeast Corridor
between Quonset Point/Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island. In
last year's hearing record, Amtrak testified that the completion date
for the third track, as determined by the Rhode Island Department of
Transportation, is the last quarter of fiscal year 2001; Amtrak was in
the process of reviewing that schedule. Is this construction project on
schedule to be completed sometime in July-September, 2001? Has a site
been selected for the location of the Warwick Train Station at T.F.
Green Airport?
Answer. The Freight Rail Improvement Project (FRIP), or ``third
track'', will not be completed in 2001. Beginning in July of 1999, the
Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) began a value
engineering effort on the FRIP, which revisited many of the basic
premises and criteria associated with the project. Amtrak worked
closely with the State in this process, and as a result of that effort,
RIDOT has decided to focus on the Track 3 (milepost 168 to milepost
184) portion of the project. In April, Amtrak will begin the mainline
track undercutting necessary to accommodate tri-level and double stack
clearances. RIDOT is continuing their design efforts in the Track 3
segment, however these efforts are primarily related to bridge
modifications required for the project. In the Track 7 portion of the
project (milepost 184 to milepost 190), although Amtrak has completed
the 90 percent design, RIDOT has requested a suspension of all work
while they review options relating to the scope of work. Based on the
above, RIDOT has established summer of 2002 as the in-service date for
this project.
The Warwick Train Station at T.F. Green will be located at
approximately milepost 176.5, which is west of Coronado Road.
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR ELECTRIFICATION AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL TRAINSET
PROCUREMENT
Question. Due to findings of excessive wheel wear and a slower
trainset testing schedule than originally envisioned by Amtrak, the
Acela Express high-speed service, originally scheduled to begin by the
end of the calendar year 1999, has been delayed until July 2000, a
delay of more than six months. What is the adjusted timetable for the
delivery of Amtrak's 20 new high-speed rail trainsets and 15 new
electric locomotives? What is Amtrak's payment schedule for this
procurement?
Answer. The Consortium's estimate for the delivery of trainsets is
as follows:
Trainset 1--July 2000; Trainset 20--March 2001; and Delivery rate
is 2 to 3 trainsets per month.
Locomotive schedule: Locomotive 1--May 2000; Locomotive 15--October
2000; and Delivery rate is 2 or 4 locomotives per month.
Payment will be made as each unit is accepted.
Question. What are Amtrak's remaining challenges to meeting the new
start-up date of July 2000? Will the railroad meet this delayed
implementation schedule?
Answer. The primary focus is to successfully complete the required
qualification tests necessary to start the service on the NEC. The
Consortium is projecting that they will meet this schedule.
Question. Please update the Committee on the trainset testing. Is
all TTC-based testing completed? What on-corridor testing remains to be
done? Please prepare a table comparing the original trainset testing
schedule with the revised schedule, specifying detailed testing
benchmarks.
Answer. All scheduled TTC testing is complete. The remaining on-
corridor testing is primarily propulsion qualification testing, brake
qualification testing, high-speed stability testing and the shakedown
testing (60,000 mile test). There is other testing scheduled but
propulsion, braking, high-speed stability and shakedown are on the
critical path.
The schedule comparison between the contract and current schedule:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Consortium's revised
------------------------ schedule
-----------------------
Start Finish Start Finish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering and Qualification Tests............................. 7/10/99 9/27/99 5/28/99 8/10/00
Shakedown (60,000 mile test).................................... 8/28/99 1/24/00 3/2/00 6/28/00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualification testing required to start revenue service will be
completed by early July 2000. Qualification testing for operating a
double trainset will be completed by August 10, 2000. This testing is
not required to be completed for the start of revenue service since
Amtrak's current operating plan does not include operating a double
trainset.
Question. Is testing of the North End electrification complete? Do
any segments of the total electrification project remain incomplete? If
so, where are these segments and what is the timetable for their
completion, testing, and integration into revenue service?
Answer. The following segments of the total electrification project
remain incomplete:
Mainline Track 2 between View and Shaw's Cove Interlocks.--
Completion of testing and energization of this segment in the New
London West electrical section is scheduled for June 2000.
Mainline Track 2 from Cranston Interlock to Norton Switching
Station.--Completion of testing and energization of this segment in the
Warwick East electrical section is scheduled for May 2000.
Mainline Track 2 from Norton Switching Station to Sharon
Substation.--Energization of this segment in the Sharon West electrical
section is complete, but testing with AEM-7 locomotives prior to
revenue service is scheduled for May 2000 after the energization of the
Warwick East electrical section.
Mainline Track 2 from Sharon Substation to Transfer Interlock.--
Completion of testing and energization of this segment in the Sharon
East electrical section is scheduled for June 2000.
Crossovers between Mainline Tracks 1 and 2 at Plains and Cove
Interlocks.--Completion of this segment in the Sharon East electrical
section is scheduled for July 2000.
Incomplete items in the Boston Terminal Area (BTA) are as follows:
--Station Tracks 1-6 and 11-13.
--Track B5 between Cove and Tower 1 Interlocks (Block 25).
--Tracks D1, D2 12, 14 and 19 (Block 26).
--Wet and Dry Loop Tracks (Block 27).
-- Southampton Yard Tracks (Block 28).
Substantial completion of testing and energization of the above
items in the Boston Terminal area is scheduled for June 2000.
Question. Is testing of the track and other on-the-ground
infrastructure on the North End complete? What is a ``CPM schedule?''
Answer. Testing of the track for high-speed operation began in
January 2000 and occurs thereafter on a routine basis as mandated by
existing FRA regulations (49 CFR Part 213, Subparts A-G). Additional
track testing, ``GRMS'' (gauge restraint measurement system) has begun
and will be completed in the near future.
Signal testing of new/rehabilitated interlockings and other signal
improvements is an integral part of the initial installations and
occurs thereafter on a routine basis as mandated by existing FRA
regulations (49 CFR Part 236). A ``Critical Path Method'' schedule
calculates a single, early and late start and finish date for each
activity based on specified, sequential network logic and a single
duration estimate. The focus of CPM is on calculating float in order to
determine which activities have the least scheduling flexibility.
In summary, a CPM schedule determines the longest path through the
project, which is also the shortest time required to complete the
project
Question. Please list all non-Amtrak railroads or commuter agencies
that will need to be equipped with ACSES civil speed enforcement under
FRA's mandate. Who is responsible for paying for the installment of
these systems? Please describe any cost-sharing or reimbursement
agreements.
Answer. The testing requirements are: On board installation and
verification; Wayside installation and verification; Proof of Design
Test Program and Commissioning for revenue operation; and Regular
Testing and Inspection.
A copy of the ``AMTRAK TEST PLAN FOR ACSES'' is attached. The ACSES
system must be operational and testing results must be approved by the
Federal Railroad Administration prior to implementation of high-speed
rail service. Eighty five percent (85 percent) of the wayside
transponders have been installed along the tracks.
ACSES ON-BOARD INSTALLATION AND VERIFICATION
On board installation and verification will be divided into two
phases. Phase I will be to install the complete ACSES hardware less the
cardfile. Phase 2 will be to install the cardfile and initialize the
system.
Manufacturer of the ACSES equipment will document testing of
components and assemblies with serial numbers of each item shipped for
installation.
Phase I will consist of installation of the main ACSES box
including all the internal power supplies, ACSES antenna, CTV junction
box, speed sensors, aspect display unit, air brake manifold, MCP radio,
MCP antenna, audible alarm, acknowledgement push button, stop bypass
button, and all the necessary pneumatic and electrical connections.
Installation document will include locomotive number, serial
numbers of each of the major components, location and date installation
completed.
Upon completion of the enclosure installation and before plugging
the cardfile, all wires will be verified for continuity, and grounds. A
special test box (designed for this application) will be used to verify
power supplies, wiring and cable termination. Operation of the
pneumatic magnet valve, suppression pressure switches, and cut-in and
cut-out functions will be verified. This will be documented and records
will be kept at the location where locomotive installation is taking
place.
Phase 2 will require a laptop loaded with ACSES setup software to
initialize the system. Upon installation of the cardfile, setup
software will allow input of unit number, wheel diameter, speed sensor
type(s) and train type(s). ACSES self-tester will be then activated to
verify the internal and external system operation. This will include
verification of the software version, antenna and speed sensor checks.
Magnet valve operation, all the indications on the ACSES aspect display
unit, and alarm condition.
Records of these tests will be kept at the locations where
locomotives are undergoing modification. Upon completion of the above
tests, locomotive will be ready for revenue service.
Records of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 testing will be kept at the
designated Amtrak location.
ACSES WAYSIDE INSTALLATION AND VERIFICATION
Wayside installation and verification will be divided into two
phases. Phase I will be to install the transponders in the track
structure, insert the plugs and verify the messages. Phase 2 will be to
install the MCP data radios at the interlocking central instrument
houses, wire in the encoders and verify the data radio messages.
Manufacturer of the ACSES system will design and document the
transponder layouts, the message structures to be contained in each
plug, the wiring of the encoders, and the format structure contained in
the data radio messages.
Phase I will be divided into two parts.
Part I involves installation of the transponders at correct
locations and will require detailed transponder layouts from the
manufacturer. These will be prepared by the manufacturer from the
detailed layout engineering which determines deceleration curves by
train type, considering maximum authorized speeds, grades, interlocking
signal location, and location of the ``hs'', ``ds'', ``pds'', and other
intermediate transponder sets on each track. Amtrak Standard Plans will
be also prepared to insure proper location of the transponders within
each set. These plans show the correct distances between the individual
transponders in a set and between the first transponder in the set and
the nearest insulated joints, as recommended by the manufacturer.
Amtrak C&S employees will install the transponders according to the
detailed transponder layouts from the manufacturer and the Amtrak
Standard Plans. These documents will also be used to verify that the
installed locations of all transponders are correct.
Part 2 involves the insertion of the programmed plugs into the
transponders and verification of the messages on each transponder. A
programming tool is used to:
--Enter all pertinent transponder information from the detailed
transponder layouts provided in Part I (Railroad, line, M.P.
location in feet, track number, position within the set,
linkage distance to next transponder set in feet, etc.).
--Enter appropriate revision letter.
--Enter packages using pop down menus.
--Verify information.
--Compile plug information.
--Print transponder content.
--Print special plug label in indelible ink.
--Print hexadecimal bitmap for the transponder plug.
Programming of transponder plugs will be performed only by
qualified employees under the direct supervision of the Amtrak C&S
Design office in Philadelphia, PA, or by qualified employees of the
supplier. All documentation of individual transponder information,
bitmaps, and detailed engineered transponder layouts will be kept in
the Amtrak C&S Design office in Philadelphia, with copies to the
appropriate Division supervision and field personnel, as required.
Amtrak C&S employees will insert each plug into its appropriate
transponder, using the printed label on the plug to insure that each
transponder receives the correct plug. Each installation is then
verified at the site with the Transponder Reader. As each plug is
inserted, the Transponder Reader is placed on the transponder and the
bitmap, printed for that transponder is compared with the bitmap
displayed on the Transponder Reader screen, character by character. If
all hexadecimal characters on the Reader screen match the printed
bitmap for the transponder, the plug is the correct one for that
transponder. When all the transponders in a set have been verified to
contain the required message information, the required documentation is
signed off by the responsible C&S employee in accordance with AMT-27,
Test 28B.
Phase 2 will also be divided into two parts.
Part I involves radio coverage tests by Amtrak's Radio Department
to determine optimum antenna location and height to develop adequate
MCP data radio coverage throughout each interlocking area, out to the
distant signals approaching each interlocking. MCP data radios and
antennas are installed and signal strength throughout the coverage area
is verified to be adequate for reliable data message exchange between
train and wayside.
Part 2 involves installation and wiring of the Encoders at each
interlocking. Wiring of the Encoders will be verified by traditional
C&S point-checking from detailed signal circuit wiring plans prepared
by Amtrak from information furnished by the Manufacturer. Actual vital
messages to approaching trains via data radio will be in the same
formats as messages read from the transponders. A method to verify
radio messages similar to the method used to verify transponder
messages is to be developed and furnished by the manufacturer.
Records of these tests will be kept at the same locations on each
Division as all other AMT-27 Test Records, and will become part of
Amtrak's over-all C&S Test Documentation Files.
PROOF OF DESIGN TEST PROGRAM AND COMMISSIONING ACSES FOR REVENUE
OPERATION
Following is the procedure to fully implement the ACSES as per FRA
final order of particular applicability.
Testing and implementation are divided into two phases. Phase I
will prove design parameters and the test program. Phase 2 will be
commissioning of ACSES for revenue service.
Phase I will be divided into three parts.
Part I will be initial testing to verify the design concepts. This
will be done at AAR Pueblo test track.
Following parameters will be tested:
--Relationship between antenna and transponder at different heights
and power levels
--Consistency of reading transponder messages
--Transponder linking distances
--Enforcing civil speeds
--Running release
--Direction reversal
--Positive stop application without ATC
--Transponder plug programming tool
During the testing, the system will be demonstrated to Amtrak
operating department for refining ACSES operating rules and planned
training. FRA will be invited to receive initial comments.
Upon completion of these tests, modification will be made to the
initial design. Any remaining message ``packages'' will be added for
final design verification at the AAR test track. At this time ACSES
will be installed on a High Speed, High Horsepower Locomotive. This
will verify the wiring interface with the Cab signal system.
During this period, the system will be tested for functionality of
all ACSES features.
As a minimum, proper execution of the following features will be
verified:
--Train type dependent civil speed restrictions
--Enforcement of civil speeds for each train type
--Correct braking profile for initial speeds throughout the speed
range and for various grade configurations
--Dirction reversal
--Transponder linking and missing transponder(s)
--Positive stop application with and without ATC
--Temporary speed restrictions with temporary transponders
--Miscellaneous packages to verify train operation during catenary
phase break and voltage changes, and tilt enable and disable
operation
--ACSES territory entrance/exit validation
--Validation of communication link (Lonworks) between HST and ACSES
--High Speed operation to validate correct reading of the
transponders at maximum operating speeds
Test data will include:
--Name of the manufacturer
--Version number of the software
--Equipment in which software is installed
--Test location and date
--Test results and corrective action taken
Record of such test will be kept at the Amtrak designated Amtrak
NEC headquarters.
Part 2 will be to test the system between County and Ham
Interlocking in Amtrak NEC territory. One AEM-7 will be equipped with
final version of ACSES. Wayside location will have all the transponders
with proper messages necessary as per final design.
For the first two weeks, locomotive will be used in normal revenue
service with ACSES pneumatic valve cutout. During this period every
time the locomotive travels between County and Ham, the on board data
logger will monitor transponder messages, and verify linking distances,
civil speed restrictions, track numbers, and direction of travel.
Information collected will be downloaded every third day and forwarded
to the manufacturer for further analysis. Manufacturer will issue the
final report of this testing within four weeks. On-board and/or wayside
parameters will be changed accordingly to data collected.
Detail test plans will be used to verify proper execution of all
the features, and sheets with the test results will be signed off and
kept at designated Amtrak NEC headquarters.
Part 3 will be to validate the complete system using system
simulator in the lab environment. The manufacturer will perform
complete V. & V. FRA will then be given a demonstration and proof of
testing at the manufacturer's designated location.
Phase 2 will be commissioning of ACSES between New Haven and Boston
and designated four sections south of New York for revenue service. At
this time new ACSES operating rules will be made effective. This will
be contingent upon receipt of the final software for the On-Board
Computer and completion of electrification and all the related track
and signal work in that region.
Phase 2 is divided in to six parts scheduled to conform to other
related activities in the NEC. These include the track and station
improvements, electrification, signal work, availability of high-speed
train sets, equipping MBTA control units, and training. This will allow
the system to mature, gain operating experience, and make adjustment
without going through major rework.
Testing and commissioning procedure will be same for all six parts.
Part 1: One AEM-7, one High Speed Train Set, one P. & W. RR diesel
and one MBTA commuter car will be equipped with ACSES to verify all the
speed restrictions, train types, and positive stop scenarios at all the
interlocking home signals between New Haven, CT and Providence, RI.
Each train type will run at full track speed in each direction on
Track I and Track 2. Also shorter portions of Track 3 and Track 4 will
be run in each direction, so that all ACSES equipped main tracks will
be tested in each direction with each train type. During these runs the
ACSES pneumatic valve will be cut out. During each run, a qualified
employee will determine that all permanent speed restrictions are being
correctly displayed at the correct locations, checking these on test
sheets. ACSES will monitor all the transponder messages and speed
restrictions to verify the design parameters. Positive stop commands
will be generated internally, and the location where each positive stop
command occurs will be recorded to verify proper location and stop
distances, but trains will not be brought to a stop. The ``on-board''
data logger will be used to gather all the data necessary to confirm
all these functions following the test runs.
Proper braking distances for positive stop for example, will be
confirmed by logging the points where ACSES first warns the engineer
and then initiates the penalty approaching each interlocking home
signal, while running at track speed. The location of the transponder
set at the interlocking home signals will also be recorded; giving an
accurate recorded distance between each ACSES calculated point of
application and its corresponding stopping point. Following each test
run, qualified employees will review each of these ACSES calculated
braking distances to verify that each recorded braking distance is
adequate to stop the train for the speed recorded at the application
point. Proper braking distances for the civil speed reductions will
also be reviewed to back-up the on-board test sheets, which were filled
out while the test train was running at track speed.
The detailed test plan along with all test results will be kept at
Amtrak NEC Engineering Headquarters in Philadelphia, PA. Final on board
installation drawings will be kept at locomotive maintenance
facilities. Transponder installation drawings will be retained with
other signal plans at Amtrak NEC headquarters in Philadelphia, PA.
When all of the ACSES safety features have been validated, and all
MBTA, CDOT, P. & W. RR, CSX RR and Amtrak ACSES equipped units are
identified and verified with the final on-board software, ACSES will be
placed in service with ACSES Operating Rules in service.
Part 2: Testing between Providence, RI and Boston, MA.; Part 3:
Testing between County and Ham (New Brunswick, NJ to Trenton, NJ); Part
4: Testing between Ragan and Prince (Wilmington, DE to Perryville, MD);
Part 5: Testing between Morris and Holmes (Morrisville, PA to
Holmesburg, PA); Part 6: Testing between Grove and Landover (Odenton,
MD to Landover, MD).
Test Procedure:
Test procedure will have following minimum guidelines.
Test records will indicate: Test date, Location, Locomotive number;
Equipment in which software is installed; Name of the lead test
engineer; System description; Test results; and Comments, which should
indicate pass/fail criteria and any corrective action taken.
Test records will be kept at designated Amtrak location. Copy will
be forwarded to FRA.
Test Schedule
Phase 1, Part 1.--November 1, 1998 to October 31, 1999. Location:
TTCI (AAR) Test Center, Pueblo, Colorado. Tracks: Initially Transit
Loop, later on High Speed Loop. Locomotive: Amtrak No. 199 with test
car 10501 and HH locomotive 11.
Phase 1, Part 2.--July 26, 1999 to September 10, 1999. Location:
``County'' Intlg. (New Brunswick, NJ) to ``Ham'' Int1g. (Trenton, NJ).
Tracks: No 2 and No.3 Main Tracks. Locomotive: Amtrak AEM-7 No. 906.
Phase 1, Part 3.--December 1, 1999 to February 29, 2000. Location:
Simulator at PHW, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. Tracks: All main tracks between
New Haven and Boston, and tracks 2 and 3 between County and Ham will be
simulated.
Phase 2, Part 1.--April 1, 2000 to May 31, 2000. Location: New
haven, CT to Providence, RI. Tracks: All main tracks.
Phase 2, Part 2.--June 1, 2000 to August 31, 2000. Location:
Providence, RI to Boston, MA. Tracks: All main tracks.
Phase 2, Part 3.--September 1, 2000 to September 30, 2000.
Location: County, NJ to Ham, NJ. Tracks: No. 2 and No. 3 main tracks.
Note: Use of MCP for stop bypass, route dependency, and temporary
speed restrictions will be activated in stages between October 1, 2000
and October 1, 2001.
Phase 2, Parts 4, 5, and 6.--Dates will be provided at later time.
regular testing and inspection standards for acses
On-Board Equipment
Daily Test and Inspection.--Record the railroad (Amtrak), unit
number, date, time, location, and type of test on the proper form;
Visual inspection of the ACSES and MCP Radio antennas; Visual
inspection of the speed sensor; Secure and record the seals on
Pneumatic cut-out cock in cut-in position and ACSES cut-out switch in
cut-in position; With the power on, observe that the ACSES cut-in light
is lit on the ADU; Operate the self-test switch. (This will initiate
the following series of steps); Step 1, Observe that each LED in ADU is
illuminated; Step 2, ACSES antenna is powered; Step 3, ACSES magnet
valve is de-energized; Audible alarm will sound; Push and release the
acknowledge button; Reset the brakes by moving the brake handle to
suppression; Step 4, ACSES will request PTS; This will cause the
penalty application; Reset the brakes; This completes the self test and
ADU will only show the current status; Record any corrective action;
Inspection form to be signed by the qualified inspector performing this
Daily Test and Inspection.
Periodic Test.--Every 92 days the ACSES event log should be
downloaded to verify the ACSES activities.
Yearly Inspection and Test.--Verify the self tester operation as
per manufacturer specification; Verify the Pass/Fail ACSES antenna
strength; Sign off the proper form indicating the corrective action.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.006
Wayside equipment
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.006
Purpose:
Test 28A.--To insure that ACSES transponders are in good condition
for reading by ACSES--equipped trains.
Test 28B.--To insure that ACSES--equipped trains receive the
correct messages at each transponder upon new installation,
modification, or any disarrangement of a transponder that would require
a new programmed plug or require changing the programmed plug.
Test 28C.--To insure that ACSES--equipped trains receive the
correct messages from the encoder at each interlocking through the MCP
data radio upon new installation, modification, or any disarrangement
of the encoder, wiring of the encoder, wiring of the encoder, or
software in the encoder or MCP data radio.
Responsibility:
Test 28A.--Maintainer C&S.
Tests 28B & 28C.--Foreman C&S, Inspector C&S, Assistant Inspector
Test, Maintainer C&S Test, Signal Inspector or Maintainer C&S.
Records: Results of Test 28A shall be recorded on Form C&S 27.
Results of Test 28B shall be recorded on Form C&S 27 in duplicate with
one copy left in the house or case with the information sheet and
hexadecimal bitmap for each transponder at that location, and a copy
forwarded to the office of the Supervisor C&S. Results of Test 28C
shall be recorded on Form C&S 27 in duplicate with one copy left in the
house where the encoder is located with the information sheet and
hexadecimal bitmap for each encoder at that location, and copy
forwarded to the office of the Supervisor C&S.
Results: Any defects or discrepancies shall be noted on the test
form and corrected immediately. If defects cannot be immediately
corrected, the Supervisor C&S must be notified and arrangements must be
made to make the corrections as soon as possible.
TEST 28A--ACSES TRANSPONDER INSPECTION
Frequency: At least once every three months.
Inspection Procedure: Inspect all transponders adjacent to an
insulated joint location to insure they are operative and in good
condition. If the perimeter of any transponder is damaged so as to not
properly protect the imbedded antenna loop, the transponder must be
replaced.
TEST 28B--ACSES TRANSPONDER PLUG VERIFICATION
Frequency: Before a new or modified transponder and/or plug is
placed in service, or when a damaged transponder is replaced.
Procedure: 1. To insert a new or re-programmed plug into a
transponder:
a. Examine the label to insure that the plug for the right
Railroad, Line, Location, Track, Transponder Position within the Set,
Version, and CRC Number.
b. When all of the above parameters have been verified, and with
time on the track involved, insert the plug into the transponder.
c. Place the Transponder Reader on the center of the transponder.
Compare the hexadecimal bitmap on the Transponder Reader screen with
the printed bitmap furnished by the Amtrak C&S Design office, line by
line and character by character.
d. If all characters read on the Transponder Reader screen match
the corresponding characters on the bitmap furnished for the
transponder, the plug is the correct one for that transponder.
e. When all plugs in all transponders in the set have been
verified, the track may be placed in service. Record this test on Form
C&S 27 as Test 28B.I.
f. If any character(s) in the bitmaps do not match properly, the
plug must be immediately removed from the transponder.
2. To change out a single transponder:
a. Remove the transponder to be replaced from the track structure
and place it alongside the transponder which is to replace it, in a
location close to the track structure where it was located. Insure that
the old and new transponders are carefully isolated from all other
transponders throughout this process.
b. Immediately remove the plug from the old transponder. Examine
the label to insure that the plug shows the correct Railroad, Line,
Location, Track Transponder Position within the Set, Version and CRC
Number. If these parameters are correct, immediately insert the plug
into the new transponder. Care must be exercised that this plug is kept
isolated from all other plugs throughout this process.
c. Immediately place the new transponder, with the original plug
for that transponder location, attaching the transponder to the track
structure at that location.
d. If a, b, and c have been completed in sequence, with the
responsible employee in constant attendance and involved only in this
process, the track may be returned to service. Record this process on
Form C&S 27 as successful completion of Test 28.13.2 for the
transponder changed out.
e. If any doubt arises during the changeout process concerning the
correct handling of the plug, the transponder must be tested with the
Transponder Reader before returning the track to service for ACSES--
equipped trains. Test 28B. I must be followed and recorded on Form C&S
27.
TEST 28C--ACSES ENCODER AND MCP DATA RADIO VERIFICATION
Frequency: Before a new encoder/data radio package is placed in
service, when an encoder, or a radio is changed out, or when any wiring
to an encoder is changed.
Procedure:
1 . Examine the encoder, MCP data radio, antenna, coax cable and
connectors to insure that all components of the system are in good
operative condition.
2. Point check all wiring to the encoder to insure that all new or
modified circuitry added to drive the encoder is installed exactly
according to the authorized circuit plan.
3. Use the Data Radio Reader supplied by the manufacturer. Compare
the hexadecimal bitmap displayed on the Data Radio Reader screen with
the printed bitmap furnished for each aspect displayed on each signal
at the interlocking being tested.
4. Line routes and shunt track circuits to display each signal
aspect on each signal in the interlocking, comparing the bitmaps as
outlined in 3 above. Record the results of the test on each signal on
Form C&S 27.
Note: During the first two years of ACSES operation, the inspection
and test results will be checked for any adjustments in the procedure
or the frequencies.
Question. Please list all non-Amtrak railroads or commuter agencies
that will need to be equipped with ACSES civil speed enforcement under
FRA's mandate. Who is responsible for paying for the installment of
these systems? Please describe any cost-sharing or reimbursement
agreements.
Answer. The non-Amtrak railroads or commuter agencies that will
have their locomotives equipped with the Advanced Civil Speed
Enforcement System include the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA), the Providence & Worcester Railroad Company (P&W),
Connecticut DOT's Shoreline East service, and the CSX Transportation
Company.
Amtrak is currently paying all costs associated with the
installation of ACSES, at least at the outset. Amtrak believes the
costs for ACSES should be paid by the federal government. The Federal
Railroad Administration mandated the requirement for ACSES as a
stipulation to allow operation of any passenger railroad trains in the
New Haven to Boston territory where some trains would operate above 110
mph.
The costs for the infrastructure portion (or wayside) of the system
were incorporated into the improvements to the north end infrastructure
and paid by Amtrak. But the costs for computer control and
telecommunications equipment on each train should be the responsibility
of each operator using the Northeast Corridor.
In the interest of meeting the high-speed rail implementation
schedules, Amtrak has been forced to fund the acquisition and
installation of ACSES equipment for each operator listed above and to
determine funding responsibility after the installation. Amtrak funded
the installation of ACSES equipment on the High-speed trains sets and
other Amtrak locomotives that will be providing Acela service.
Question. Does the trainset procurement delay have a domino effect
on the implementation of high speed Acela services in fiscal year 2001,
as well, because the trainset delivery schedule has been set back?
Answer. The implementation of service is driven by the contractor's
delivery schedule, and yes, there is a ``domino'' effect. The
Consortium's estimate for the delivery of trainsets is as follows:
Trainset 1--July 2000; Trainset 20--March 2001; and Delivery rate is 2
to 3 trainsets per month.
Locomotive schedule: Locomotive 1--May 2000; Locomotive 15--October
2000; and Delivery rate is 2 or 4 locomotives per month.
Payment will be made as each unit is accepted.
Question. Last year, Amtrak testified that the budget result
improvement in fiscal year 2000 due to implementation of high-speed
service was projected to be $150,000,000. The fiscal year 2002
improvement was project to be $180,000,000. What are the financial
effects of this delay on Amtrak's revenue projections for fiscal years
2000, 2001, and 2002?
Answer. Amtrak has identified the revenue impact in fiscal year
2000 to be $156 million. The full financial impact for fiscal year 2001
is currently being assessed and will be determined upon finalization of
the Acela Express phase-in and operating plans.
We anticipate that fiscal year 2002 will be the first full year of
high-speed rail service in the NEC. It is in this fiscal year that the
implementation of high-speed rail results in an incremental bottom line
improvement of $180 million. It is not expected that the delay
continuing into 2001 will negatively impact fiscal year 2002, however
this assumption will be further assessed in the upcoming budget cycle.
Question. How has the Corporation made up for the lost revenue due
to the delay in implementing high-speed service in fiscal year 2000?
How do you plan to make up for lost revenue due to the delay in 2001?
Answer. For Amtrak's fiscal year 2000, the passenger revenue
shortfall resulting from the delay in the delivery of the new trainsets
is estimated to be $156 million. The budget gap created by this revenue
shortfall was resolved by identifying measures that offset this deficit
and was incorporated as part of the company's business plan.
These items include revenues associated with liquidated damages to
be paid to Amtrak by the consortium pursuant to the contractual
agreement between the two parties and equipment leasing transactions.
Interest expense savings stemming from the late delivery of the new
trainsets and operating cost savings for Acela Express due to the later
implementation of the service are also included.
Similar measures will be employed to offset revenue shortfalls
occurring in fiscal year 2001.
Question. What percentage of the trainset costs are ``Made in
America?'' Please break out material and labor?
Answer. Pursuant to its Agreements for the design and manufacture
of high-speed trainsets and high-horsepower locomotives, the ``United
States Content'' of the trainsets and locomotives is required to be at
least 67 percent and 63 percent respectively. These requirements exceed
significantly the statutory requirements of both Amtrak's Domestic
Buying Preferences, 49 USC Section 24305(f) and the Buy American Act,
41 USC Section 10a-10c. Amtrak will conduct a post delivery audit to
determine the actual percentage of the United States content of the
equipment. Such an audit will include a breakdown of appropriate labor
and material costs. Each Agreement carries penalties for non-
compliance. Moreover, as required by law, final assembly of the
trainsets and locomotives is being performed in the United States.
Question. Please outline the construction schedule and related
costs for the three high-speed maintenance facilities. Please describe
the cost-sharing arrangements for the construction and operation of
these maintenance facilities with Bombardier.
Answer. Amtrak issued a partial substantial completion for the Ivy
City and Southampton Facilities in February 2000. Amtrak will issue
substantial completion for Ivy City when the consortium completes the
Wheel Diagnostic, Trainset Washer and Split Rail Systems. The
consortium expects the Wheel Diagnostic and Trainset Washer to be
completed by the end of May 2000. The Split Rail System for is expected
to be completed by June 15, 2000. Amtrak will issue substantial
completion for Southampton when the consortium completes the Split Rail
System, estimated to be early June 2000. The consortium expects to
present the Sunnyside Facility to Amtrak for substantial completion in
late May 2000.
The Maintenance Facilities cost $112 million. There are no cost
sharing arrangements. Amtrak's contract with the Consortium is to
design and construct the facilities. Amtrak's contract with the
Consortium for Management Services requires the consortium to operate
and maintain the Maintenance Facilities.
Question. Please describe the contractual penalty clauses that
Bombardier is subject to regarding trainset delivery and maintenance.
What level of recoveries have been made to date due to the delay in the
trainset procurement? Given the current rollout schedule, what total
level of recoveries is Amtrak assuming in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Amtrak's contract with the Bombardier-Alstom consortium for
high-speed trainsets provides liquidated damages for late delivery. The
relevant contractual provisions provide Amtrak with the right to obtain
reimbursement or offset payments otherwise due the contractor with
liquidated damages beginning at $1,000 per day for each day an
individual trainset is delayed and escalating to $13,500 per day.
Amtrak's contract with Bombardier-Alstom for the management of
maintenance services also contains various liquidated damages
provisions relating to trainset availability, reliability, and
performance. As service has not yet commenced, no liquidated damages
have been incurred to date.
Question. Since Amtrak signed its procurement agreement with
Bombardier in 1996, have any contract changes or change orders been
made to the trainset and maintenance facility contract--either
financial or technical in nature? Please describe these changes and
when they were made.
Answer. In May of 1996, the original contract was signed for: 12
trainsets, 15 locomotives, 2 facilities.
September 1996--the Management Services option (trainset
maintenance) portion of the Contract was exercised.
October 1997--an option was exercised for a facility at Sunnyside,
NY, bringing the total to three.
December 1997--there was an interior change order adding the first
class car, cafe car and the Acela image to the train interior and
exterior.
March 1998--an option for six additional trainsets was exercised to
bring the total number of trainsets on order to 18.
July 1998--an option for two additional trainsets was exercised,
bringing the total number of trainsets to 20. The trainset simulator
was upgraded to a full motion simulator.
The Trainset Contract had five minor change orders for the month of
September 1997. These minor change orders consisted of items such as
printer and refrigerator in the operating cabs and five pairs of coach
seats for marketing purposes.
The Maintenance Facilities Contract had sixteen minor change orders
from the period of July 1997 to November 1997. These minor change
orders consisted of items such as the Split Rail System, Sanding System
and Vacuum System.
There was one minor Maintenance Facility change order in July 1998
relating to the yardmaster office in Sunnyside.
There are several relatively minor changes under price
negotiations.
south end capital needs
Question. Please outline the Amtrak's Northeast Corridor South End
short term plan (fiscal years 2001--2005) to address high priority rail
infrastructure needs between New York and Washington, DC. Include a
detailed cost sheet of major projects, sorted by benefit category
(i.e., life safety/mandated, operational reliability, high-speed rail,
shared benefit/capacity, and commuter/freight).
Answer. A copy of the South End Projects--Summary of Short Range
Plan for fiscal years 2001-2005 is attached.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA28.010
Question. Amtrak had proposed paying 50 percent of the costs
associated with these improvements, and having commuters and freights
pay the other 50 percent. What has the reception been from the
commuters and freights to this split cost proposal? Please describe any
project cost agreements that are negotiated at this time.
Answer. There has been no response from the commuter railroads or
the freight railroads regarding the proposed cost sharing proposals. A
presentation of the South End report to all South End stakeholders is
planned for May 17 to discuss the contents, assumptions and further
development of a jointly funded capital investment program for the
South End of the Northeast Corridor.
Amtrak's intent is to define a process and enter negotiations with
each carrier to develop the scope, schedule, budget and funding share
for the next five years (fiscal year 2001-2005) and the longer range as
well. The requirement to perform safety/mandated and operational
reliability is central to the adequate delivery of existing services
that affect all operators on the Corridor and the funding
responsibility for these investments must be shared. Further
improvements to maximize the potential of the South End from a travel
time and capacity viewpoint are also needed and should be apportioned
among the operators generally in proportion to the relative benefits
that result. A combined funding and development plan is required to
respond to these challenges.
The report incorporates the infrastructure improvements needed to
meet all operators' future needs-Amtrak, commuter railroads and freight
railroads. The infrastructure improvements (additional tracks, new
interlockings, improved switches, etc.) to accommodate future operating
plans were shared with the stakeholders. But the costs and funding
assumptions had not been shared with stakeholders as noted in the
report. The challenge is to develop a five-year funding plan that will
ensure safe, quality service delivery as well as develop the plan for
infrastructure improvements needed for the future. The South End Plan
is the first step in this process and will be periodically updated as
agreements are reached or priorities change.
CSX TRACK CONDITION
Question. What Amtrak routes operate over CSX-owned track? Has
Amtrak experienced track condition-related delays or slower running
times? What are the Corporation's alternatives for redress when the
condition of non-Amtrak owned track causes delays or even derailments?
Answer. CSX owns all or a portion of the trackage on the following
routes: Orlando--Los Angeles/Washington--Chicago via Pittsburgh/
Washington--Chicago via Charleston/New York--Chicago/Boston--Chicago/
Chicago--Jeffersonville/Sanford--Lorton/Boston--Newport News/New York--
Charlotte/Boston--Richmond/Chicago--Grand Rapids/New York City--Niagara
Falls/New York City--St. Albans/New York City--Rutland/Washington--
Albany/Syracuse/Schenectady/Washington--Boston via Springfield.
Particularly since CSX's merger with Conrail, Amtrak trains
regularly experience delays and slower running times which result in
late trains.
When freight railroad delays cause late trains, the freight
railroad foregoes incentive payments it would otherwise earn from
Amtrak for good on-time performance. If a freight railroad's on-time
performance falls below 70 percent on a route in a given month (as
measured based on exclusion of certain delays not within the railroad's
control), the railroad is penalized. For example, during February 2000,
CSX did not earn any of the $1.65 million in on-time incentive payments
it was eligible to earn, and was assessed penalties of $46,557. In
addition, virtually all of the operating agreements that Amtrak has
negotiated with freight railroads require the railroad to maintain the
rail lines over which Amtrak's trains operate to a ``level of utility''
that will enable those trains to operate at specified speeds and
schedules. The CSX Agreement has such a provision, with exceptions for
several ``low density'' segments of CSX rail lines. If a railroad fails
to maintain the required level of utility, Amtrak can initiate an
arbitration proceeding to obtain an order requiring the railroad to
restore its tracks to the contractually mandated level. Where
appropriate, Amtrak can also ask the arbitrators to award damages.
CATERING CONTRACT
Question. It has been one year since Amtrak commissaries were
turned over to Dobbs International Services, which has a seven-year
contract with Amtrak to provide food and beverage labor and management
services for all Amtrak-operated intercity trains. In last year's
record testimony, Amtrak estimated a net savings ranging from
$21,500,000 to $28,100,000 over the length of the contract. What level
of savings has been realized in the first year of this contract? Are
you on track to realize savings over the life of the contract within
the range estimated in last year's testimony?
Answer. Of the $5.2 million net labor savings targeted in the first
year of the contract, Amtrak has realized $2.548 million through
February 2000. Amtrak is ahead of the projected annual savings of $5.21
million by $0.377 million year-to-date. There was an additional savings
in fiscal year 1999 of $1.54 million as a result of funds budgeted but
not spent for employee buyouts.
AMTRAK REVENUE SOURCES
Question. Please update the table on pages 225-226 of Senate
hearing 106-221, showing the actual versus budgeted revenues for fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and anticipated for 2000, including all revenue
sources broken out by type.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------
Actual Budget Actual Budget Forecast \1\ Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core................................................. $1,294 $1,331 $1,395 $1,438 $1,555 $1,718
Commuter............................................. 260 267 261 255 258 258
Reimbursable......................................... 91 90 94 106 91 93
Commercial........................................... 63 69 78 51 48 55
----------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 1,708 1,757 1,828 1,850 1,952 2,124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Fiscal year 2000-2004 strategic business plan.
Question. Please update the table on page 226 of last year's
hearing record that breaks out commuter service revenue by route
location for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and anticipated for 2000.
Answer. The following schedule shows the breakout of commuter
services revenues by SBU by commuter agency:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
--------------------------
1998 1999 2000
Actual Actual Actual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass. Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA).... 154 164 165
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation (CDOT)... 5 6 5
Maryland Dept. of Transportation (MARC)...... 18 18 19
Virginia Railway Express (VRE)............... 8 10 11
--------------------------
Total NEC Commuter..................... 186 198 200
Metrolink Commuter Rail Service.............. 27 16 17
Caltrain Commuter Service.................... 37 40 41
Coaster Commuter Service..................... 7 7 7
--------------------------
Total West Commuter Service............ 71 83 65
Total Commuter Revenue................. 257 281 265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The figures for 1998 above do include the Florida Fun Train for
which Amtrak earned $4 million in revenue in that year. The train
service was terminated after that.
Question. Please update the table on pages 226-227 of last year's
hearing record that lists the Corporation's rent and retail locations,
amount of space, and associated income in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
projected for fiscal year 2000. Are all of Amtrak's commercial and
retail development assets on the Northeast Corridor?
Answer.
AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------
Revenue category 2000 Forecast
1999 Actual \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Estate......................... \2\ 2,536.4 \3\ 1,800.0
Retail.............................. \4\ 7,952.5 \4\ 7,700.0
Telephones.......................... 476.6 400.0
Pipe & Wire......................... 3,609.0 3,900.0
Parking............................. 4,150.9 4,000.0
Advertising......................... 3,108.4 3,000.0
Telecommunications.................. \5\ 25,463.0 \6\ 19,200.0
Other............................... \7\ 15,810.8 ................
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 63,107.6 40,000.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actuals through February and forecast March through September.
\2\ Includes: $1,280.0 one-time revenue events (i.e. property sales).
\3\ Includes: $575.0 one-time revenue events (i.e. property sales).
\4\ Includes: All Amtrak owned NEC Stations.
\5\ Includes: $4,800.0 flagging protection and $900.0 one-time payments.
\6\ Includes: $1,250.0 flagging protection and $3,800.0 one-time
payments.
\7\ Includes: $14,100.0 Providence Sale, $1,300.0 MA Condemnation,
$350.0 32nd Street Sale.
No. Amtrak does have commercial and retail development assets off
of the Northeast Corridor.
Question. Please update the table on page 227 of last year's
hearing record showing the actual and estimated income from express
freight and mail service for fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
Answer. [Information follows]
[In Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------
1999 \1\ 2000 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail........................ 80.6 103.8 114.5 118.2
Express..................... 17.2 72.2 78.0 99.5
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 97.8 176.0 192.5 217.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: FIS
Question. For fiscal years 1998, 1999, and anticipated through
2000, please breakout the level of state support by State, with totals
for each year.
Answer.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total operating subsidies from States.. 82.6 99.9 112.2
Total Capital subsidies from States.... 107.6 302.9 218.5
--------------------------------
Grand total...................... 190.2 402.8 330.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMTRAK CONTRACTS WITH FREIGHT RAILROADS
Question. Please describe all contracts between Amtrak and the
freights wherein the Corporation makes payments on a contractual or
incentive basis. Prepare a table that breaks out the types of payments
and the amount paid, by freight railroad and total, for fiscal years
1997, 1998, and 1999, and projected for 2000.
Answer. Based upon 49 United States Code 24101, et. Seq. (the Rail
Passenger Service Act, as amended) and as otherwise agreed by the
parties, Amtrak's agreements with the freight railroads spell out both
Amtrak's and the railroad's rights and obligations, provide for payment
for the railroad's incremental costs, and includes an incentive
provision to allow the railroads to earn payments above incremental
costs for quality service measured by on-time performance. Payments for
the fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 and projected payments for 2000
are attached.
AMTRAK'S PAYMENTS TO RAILROADS \1\
[Fiscal year 1999]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Incentives
reimbursement earned Total payment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroads with incentive contracts:
BNSF........................................................ $16,190,206 $12,231,404 $28,421,610
CN--Grand Trunk............................................. 307,716 .............. 307,716
CN--Illinois Central........................................ 2,452,508 1,118,038 3,570,546
CP--D&H..................................................... 534,121 405,110 939,231
CP--Soo Line................................................ 1,407,621 722,232 2,129,853
CSX......................................................... 13,520,071 3,002,421 16,522,492
FDOT........................................................ 569,611 337,497 907,108
Metra....................................................... 236,008 135,779 371,787
Metro North................................................. 6,101,376 498,832 6,600,208
New England Central......................................... 873,514 361,856 1,235,370
Norfolk Southern............................................ 5,661,923 1,528,166 7,190,089
SCRRA--Los Angeles.......................................... 1,187,242 983,049 2,170,291
Union Pacific System........................................ 13,835,954 2,446,428 16,282,382
Vermont Railway............................................. 136,587 7,933 144,520
-----------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................. 63,014,458 23,778,745 86,793,203
Railroads without Incentive Contracts:
Chicago Union Station....................................... 8,058,629 .............. 8,058,629
CN--Canadian National....................................... 700,592 .............. 700,592
Kansas City Terminal........................................ 139,308 .............. 139,308
Minnesota Commercial........................................ 279,109 .............. 279,109
NCTD--San Diego............................................. 1,493,924 .............. 1,493,924
Portland Terminal RR........................................ 122,952 .............. 122,952
VIA Rail Canada............................................. 1,194,515 .............. 1,194,515
-----------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................. 11,989,029 .............. 11,989,029
All Railroads............................................. 75,003,487 .............. 98,782,232
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on todays railroads after mergers.
Question. Please update the information on page 232 of last year's
hearing record describing all contracts between Amtrak and freight
railroads wherein freights are given access to routes over Amtrak-owned
tracks. What are the most recent payment levels from freight railroads?
Answer. Freight service is provided over the rail lines in the
Northeast and Michigan that Amtrak acquired in connection with
Conrail's formation in 1976 pursuant to trackage rights that were
granted to freight railroads at the same time. Certain of these rights
have subsequently been transferred to other railroads, most recently as
a result of the division of Conrail's rights between Norfolk Southern
and CSXT during 1999.
The terms of these rights are set forth in various agreements
between Amtrak and the freight railroads. The compensation Amtrak
receives under these agreements is for the most part based upon the
number of car miles (one freight car travelling one mile) that the
railroads operate over Amtrak-owned lines.
The following is a summary of the rights covered by these
agreements. Certain of these rights, including all of Delaware &
Hudson's rights, were not exercised during 1999.
--Norfolk Southern has rights between New York, NY, and Washington,
DC; Philadelphia, PA, and Harrisburg, PA; and Kalamazoo, MI,
and Michigan City, IN.
--CSXT has rights between New Rochelle, NY, and Washington, DC, and
over certain trackage in Southern Connecticut.
--Conrail has retained rights to provide local service on behalf of
Norfolk Southern and CSXT between Newark, NJ, and Philadelphia,
PA.
--Delaware & Hudson Railway, a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific
Railway, has rights between Perryville, MD, and Washington, DC,
and over short track segments in New York, NY, Philadelphia,
PA, and Harrisburg, PA.
--Springfield Terminal Railway, a subsidiary of Guilford Rail System,
has rights between New Haven, CT, and Springfield, MA.
--Providence & Worcester Railroad has rights over certain Amtrak-
owned lines in southern Connecticut, Rhode Island, and near New
Rochelle, NY.
--Connecticut Southern Railroad has rights between New Haven, CT, and
Springfield, MA.
Freight Railroad Payments for fiscal year 1999 Operations
Conrail......................................................$11,180,222
Norfolk Southern.............................................. 5,523,868
Connecticut Southern.......................................... 1,285,378
CSXT.......................................................... 221,226
Providence & Worcester........................................ 167,509
Springfield Terminal.......................................... 127,304
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total...................................................18,505,507
Certain of the above payments have not yet been made, and the
dollar amounts shown are subject to audit.
ridership and employment by state
Question. Please provide a breakdown of fiscal year 1999 Amtrak
ridership by State, as well as the number of residents employed
directly by Amtrak in each State.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Boardings Alightings Total Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. 26,052 25,152 51,204 26
Arkansas............................................ 8,442 8,767 17,209 28
Arizona............................................. 45,023 46,177 91,200 23
California.......................................... 3,258,809 3,248,256 6,507,065 3,490
Colorado............................................ 132,461 130,146 262,607 90
Connecticut......................................... 434,360 450,500 884,860 751
Washington, DC...................................... 1,576,025 1,594,735 3,170,760 343
Delaware............................................ 357,326 359,912 717,238 1,134
Florida............................................. 458,989 458,357 917,346 953
Georgia............................................. 73,518 74,675 148,193 69
Iowa................................................ 29,102 29,737 58,839 10
Idaho............................................... 2,190 2,158 4,348 1
Illinois............................................ 1,442,702 1,436,791 2,879,493 2,066
Indiana............................................. 55,507 59,688 115,195 1,232
Kansas.............................................. 17,829 18,127 35,956 21
Kentucky............................................ 5,289 4,982 10,271 3
Louisiana........................................... 95,507 96,825 192,332 338
Massachusetts....................................... 589,063 563,646 1,152,709 2,299
Maryland............................................ 820,280 813,379 1,633,659 2,494
Maine............................................... .............. .............. .............. 16
Michigan............................................ 293,593 292,166 585,759 155
Minnesota........................................... 78,264 79,604 157,868 77
Missouri............................................ 230,291 230,751 461,042 96
Mississippi......................................... 45,198 46,783 91,981 57
Montana............................................. 65,245 66,086 131,331 48
North Carolina...................................... 262,395 259,713 522,108 132
North Dakota........................................ 40,841 41,016 81,857 12
Nebraska............................................ 20,969 21,492 42,461 17
New Hampshire....................................... 888 933 1,821 166
New Jersey.......................................... 1,747,445 1,750,297 3,497,742 1,724
New Mexico.......................................... 51,807 51,304 103,111 62
Nevada.............................................. 42,106 51,118 93,224 31
New York............................................ 4,709,895 4,687,881 9,397,776 2,064
Ohio................................................ 85,007 84,795 169,802 68
Oklahoma............................................ 14,601 13,816 28,417 3
Oregon.............................................. 304,671 303,109 607,780 73
Pennsylvania........................................ 2,338,445 2,338,083 4,676,528 3,120
Rhode Island........................................ 181,274 188,963 370,237 399
South Carolina...................................... 91,800 90,929 182,729 53
Tennessee........................................... 22,220 22,335 44,555 14
Texas............................................... 84,718 83,463 168,181 180
Utah................................................ 16,694 17,871 34,565 45
Virginia............................................ 467,711 468,950 889,162 792
Vermont............................................. 48,927 51,073 100,000 12
Washington.......................................... 467,711 468,950 936,661 428
Wisconsin........................................... 250,670 250,011 500,681 79
West Virginia....................................... 18,479 19,859 38,338 32
United States Total................................. 21,386,663 21,379,538 \1\ 42,766,201 25,326
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The above figure represents total boardings and alightings in the United States. Since each trip contains
two endpoints, total ridership is equal to half of total boardings and alightings.
STATION RENOVATION
Question. Please update the tables on pages 234 and 235 of last
year's hearing record, providing data on station renovation costs for
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and planned for fiscal year 2001.
Answer. [Information for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 is attached.]
The fiscal year 2001 Capital Budget is currently under development and
therefore no specific information relating to station renovation costs
have been included.
FISCAL YEAR 2999 STATION RENOVATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Amtrak Funding other Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Street Station Intermodal Project.......................... 4,000,000 16,250,000 20,250,000
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN........................................ 500,000 .............. 500,000
Raleigh, North Carolina Station Expansion....................... 444,000 .............. 444,000
Chicago Union Station........................................... 5,519,000 .............. 5,519,000
Southern Pines, NC Station Restoration.......................... 800,000 .............. 800,000
Erie, PA Station Renovation..................................... 1,400,000 .............. 1,400,000
NEC Station and Customer Service Impro.......................... 4,850,000 .............. 4,850,000
Washington Union Station--Lower Level........................... .............. 3,200,000 3,200,000
MetroPark Station............................................... 600,000 .............. 600,000
Wilmington Station.............................................. 3,000,000 1,900,000 4,900,000
Tukwila, WA Station............................................. 500,000 24,200,000 24,700,000
Everett, WA Intermodal Project.................................. 1,000,000 40,430,000 41,430,000
Eugene, OR Multimodal Station................................... 500,000 3,600,000 4,100,000
Albany, OR Multimodal Station................................... 500,000 11,000,000 11,500,000
San Diego Station Improvement................................... 800,000 400,000 1,200,000
Salinas Station Improvement..................................... 300,000 2,979,000 3,279,000
Sacramento, CA Station Renovation............................... 1,500,000 36,580,000 38,080,000
Great American Station Foundation............................... 1,000,000 .............. 1,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Fiscal Year 1999 Station Renovations................ 27,213,000 140,539,000 167,752,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2000 STATION RENOVATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station Amtrak Funding other Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercity Leveraged Station Projects............................ 1,000,000 49,000 1,049,000
Minn-St. Paul Station Repairs................................... 75,000 .............. 75,000
Spartanburg, SC Station Improvements............................ 35,000 565,000 600,000
Great American Station Foundation............................... 950,000 .............. 950,000
Northern Auto Train Terminal Replac............................. 4,000,000 .............. 4,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Fiscal Year 2000 Station Renovations................ 6,060,000 614,000 6,674,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2000 CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Question. The Federal Railroad Administration was appropriated
$3,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 for the Michigan high-speed positive
train control project (a joint FRA/Amtrak/Michigan DOT and Harmon
Industries project). What level of funding for this project is provided
by each of the four partners for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and projected
for 2001? Is the project on track for completion in May 2001?
Answer. Attached is the funding allocation matrix for the complete
Michigan High-Speed Positive Train Control Project. The designated
fiscal years are actually based on the FRA funding granted to the
project. Funding agreements are in place through Phase 5 between the
FRA and Michigan DOT and Michigan DOT and Amtrak.
All funding agreements for Phase 5 (FRA fiscal year 1999 funding
and Amtrak fiscal year 2000 capital funding) indicate that Amtrak's
contribution to the project will be supplemented by $1 million.
However, during Amtrak's fiscal year 2000 capital authorization
process, only $900,000 was authorized, resulting in a shortfall of
$100,000. The FRA and Michigan DOT agreement and the Michigan DOT and
Amtrak agreement indicate the funding level of $1 million by Amtrak.
These agreements will require that Amtrak fund the shortfall.
Michigan DOT has submitted a grant application to the FRA for the
Phase 6 (fiscal year 2000) funding grant in the amount of $3 million.
Once the FRA and Michigan DOT have executed the funding agreement for
the FRA fiscal year 2000 funding, Michigan DOT and Amtrak will execute
the funding agreement for the supplemental monies.
Based on the FRA funding grant and the Michigan DOT and Amtrak
Agreement, the project completion date was extended as follows: Project
Completion: August 2001; Final Report Due: December 2001.
Phase 1 of ITCS (Incremental Train Control System) revenue service
implementation commenced on March 20, 2000 at 12:01 a.m./ET.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Percentage 5--Fiscal year 6--Fiscal year Total
1 2 3 4 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL FUNDING COMMITMENT & PLAN:
FRA............................................................ 41.92 $6,081,176 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 .............. $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $14,081,176
MDOT........................................................... 31.86 9,700,000 .............. 1,000,000 .............. .............. .............. 10,700,000
Amtrak......................................................... 11.58 2,891,000 .............. .............. .............. 1,000,000 .............. 3,891,000
Harmon Industries.............................................. 14.64 .............. .............. .............. .............. 4,916,569 .............. 4,916,569
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................................................ 100.00 18,672,176 3,000,000 2,000,000 .............. 6,916,569 3,000,000 33,588,745
============================================================================================================================
CURRENT FUNDING AUTHORIZED:
FRA............................................................ 42.05 6,081,176 3,000,000 1,000,000 .............. 1,000,000 3,000,000 14,081,176
MDOT........................................................... 31.95 9,700,000 .............. 1,000,000 .............. .............. .............. 10,700,000
Amtrak......................................................... 11.32 2,891,000 .............. .............. .............. 900,000 .............. 3,791,000
Harmon Industries.............................................. 14.68 .............. .............. .............. .............. 4,916,569 .............. 4,916,569
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL........................................................ 100.00 18,672,176 3,000,000 2,000,000 .............. 6,816,569 3,000,000 33,488,745
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLEET DATA
Question. Please provide a breakout of the active passenger car and
locomotive fleets owned and leased by Amtrak as of February 2000.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBU Active
Amtrak Active Equipment Inventory Total --------------------------
active NEC ICY AMW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotives:
Diesel Switchers................ 63 47 10 6
Metroliner Cab Cars............. 15 7 ....... 8
F 40 Cab Cars--NPCU............. 15 ....... 11 4
Diesel Locomotives.............. 292 75 183 34
P 42............................ 119 11 99 9
P 40............................ 41 ....... 41 .......
F 40............................ 67 39 24 4
P 32 (BW and DM)................ 36 18 18 .......
F 59............................ 21 ....... ....... 21
GP 40........................... 6 5 1 .......
FL 9............................ 2 2 ....... .......
Electric Locomotives............ 65 65 ....... .......
AEM 7........................... 52 52 ....... .......
E 60............................ 13 13 ....... .......
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 450 194 204 52
===================================
Turboliners:
Turbo Power Cars................ 2 2 ....... .......
Turbo Coach and Food Car........ 3 3 ....... .......
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 5 5 ....... .......
===================================
Mail, Baggage 8 Express Misc:
Mail/Baggage/RoadRailer......... 1,437 8 1,418 11
Mail Baggage (1700)............. 38 ....... 33 5
Baggage Cars (1000-1800)........ 92 8 78 6
Material Handling Cars (1400- 139 ....... 139 .......
1500)..........................
Express Cars.................... 250 ....... 250 .......
RoadRailer Equipment............ 918 ....... 918 .......
Vans (Mail 48') (Express 53')... 451 ....... 451 .......
Bogeys.......................... 324 ....... 324 .......
Coupler Mates (Mail, Express)... 123 ....... 123 .......
Reefer Railers (Ind. 12 vented 20 ....... 20 .......
53' vans)......................
Auto-Train Auto Carriers........ 64 ....... 64 .......
Inspection And Training Cars.... 7 2 5 .......
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 1,508 10 1,487 11
===================================
Passenger Cars:
Viewliner Passenger Cars........ 51 4 47 .......
Horizon Fleet Passenger Cars.... 99 ....... 64 35
Coaches......................... 82 ....... 54 28
Food Service.................... 17 ....... 10 7
Former Metroliner Cars.......... 5 ....... 5 .......
Amfleet I....................... 469 438 20 11
Coaches......................... 280 265 5 10
Custom Coaches.................. 6 6 ....... .......
Food Service.................... 121 105 15 1
Capstone........................ 62 62 ....... .......
Business Class Coach............ 9 9 ....... .......
Coach........................... 53 53 ....... .......
Amfleet II...................... 138 ....... 138 .......
Coaches......................... 113 ....... 113 .......
Food Service.................... 25 ....... 25 .......
Superliner I.................... 252 ....... 239 13
Coaches......................... 80 ....... 75 5
Diners.......................... 30 ....... 28 2
Lounges (incl. Autotrain 29 ....... 28 1
lounges).......................
Snack Coach..................... 9 ....... 8 1
Sleeper......................... 58 ....... 58 .......
Coach/Baggage................... 13 ....... 9 4
Smoking Coach................... 33 ....... 33 .......
Superliner II................... 175 ....... 135 40
Coaches......................... 31 ....... 21 10
Diners.......................... 28 ....... 24 4
Lounges......................... 23 ....... 18 5
Coach/Klddie Car................ 5 ....... ....... 5
Sleeper......................... 42 ....... 30 12
Sleeper/Deluxe.................. 6 ....... 6 .......
Trans. Sleeper.................. 40 ....... 36 4
Heritage Fleet Passenger Cars... 85 21 56 8
Automat & Table................. 1 ....... 1 .......
Diners.......................... 22 ....... 22 .......
Sleepers........................ 4 ....... 4 .......
Sleepers Crew Dorm.............. 23 ....... 23 .......
Lounge.......................... 3 3 ....... .......
Dome Coaches or Lounge.......... 3 ....... ....... 3
Clocker Coaches................. 18 18 ....... .......
SF Parlour Car.................. 5 ....... ....... 5
SF High Level Dorm, Coaches, 6 ....... 6 .......
Diner..........................
-----------------------------------
Total Passenger Cars.......... 1,274 444 699 99
===================================
Total Passenger & MB&E Cars... 2,782 454 2,186 110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TALGO TRAINSETS
Question. Has FRA issued a final rule regarding railroad passenger
car safety equipment? What are the potential implications for the use
of Talgo equipment in the United States if the rulemaking is
promulgated in the same form as the September 1997 proposed rule?
Answer. The final FRA rule regarding railroad passenger equipment
safety was published in May 1999. The regulations established a
procedure for obtaining permanent permission to operate equipment that
did not meet the newly promulgated buff strength requirements, and
allowed continued operation pending action by FRA on requests for
relief. Pursuant to those provisions of the final rule, Amtrak
petitioned the FRA for permanent permission to continue operating
(i.e., ``grandfathering'') five Talgo trainsets which were already
built and in operation at the time the final rule was issued. Four of
those trainsets currently operate in the Pacific Northwest Corridor;
one trainset will be used for Amtrak's Las Vegas Service. Amtrak's
grandfathering petition is still pending before the FRA. Because the
final rule called for a May 8, 2000 deadline for operation of non-
compliant equipment, and it does not appear that FRA will make a
determination by the May 8 deadline, Amtrak has submitted a separate
waiver petition requesting extension of the May 8 deadline in order to
continue to operate the Talgo trainsets pending final action by FRA on
our grandfathering petition. Amtrak's request for extension is
currently pending.
Question. What level of investment has Amtrak made or is Amtrak
planning to make in the Talgo leases for the Northwest Seattle to
Vancouver corridor and for the Los Angeles to Las Vegas service?
Answer.
Pacific Northwest Corridor.--Currently, Amtrak owns one Talgo
trainset and leases a second Talgo trainset for Amtrak's Pacific
Northwest Corridor operations. The Washington State Department of
Transportation owns two Talgo trainsets used in this service. Lease
payments on the trainset leased by Amtrak are $175,000 per month. All
lease payments made by Amtrak for the leased trainset will be applied
to the purchase price of the trainset if the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Transportation grants Amtrak's pending request for a
waiver of the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 24305(f) (Amtrak's Buy America
requirements). The purchase price for the leased trainset is
$11,124,000.
Los Angeles to Las Vegas Service.--Amtrak has entered into a lease
agreement with Talgo for one Talgo trainset to be operated in the Los
Angeles to Las Vegas Service for up to four (4) years. The lease
payments for the trainset, which are not to be paid until the service
begins, will be as follows: Year 1--$700,000; Year 2--$1.2 million;
Year 3--$1.2 million; and Year 4--$1.2 million.
Question. Last year Amtrak testified for the record that Los
Angeles-Las Vegas service could start as early as the first quarter of
fiscal year 2000. Has this service been inaugurated? If not, what has
slowed down the initiation of this service and when will it begin?
Answer. Amtrak held a ceremony for the Los Angeles-Las Vegas
service on December 14, 1999. Amtrak has announced that service is
expected to begin this fall.
In November, 1999, Amtrak signed an agreement with the Union
Pacific Railroad to construct about 20 miles of double track to ensure
a competitive run time. The contract allowed for up to 12 months to
complete construction. However, the Union Pacific has encountered
delays related to obtaining the necessary environmental permits for
construction of the 20 miles of double tracking and the twelve month
time frame for construction has been delayed. Amtrak has retained the
services of an attorney to assist the Union Pacific with obtaining the
permits. We are confident that the necessary permits can be obtained
and construction can be completed with few additional delays. While
Amtrak plans to run special trains prior to the initiation of regular
service, we are hopeful that the service will begin regular revenue
service by the end of the year.
Question. Are the cost sharing arrangements for the operation of
the Los Angeles to Las Vegas Talgo service which were described in last
year's hearing record still in place?
Answer. Operating funds for the service will come from four primary
areas: passenger revenues, gaming partners, state support and marketing
partners. The State of Nevada has allocated $2 million in Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality funds to support operating costs for the
start-up of the service. We are aggressively pursuing partnerships with
gaming properties. While the delay in service and transferring
ownerships have postponed the commitment of the properties who had
previously signed letters of intent to pre-purchase seats, Amtrak
continues to discuss a host of partnership agreements with specific
gaming properties.
Seat purchase negotiations continue with RIO Hotel and Suites as
well as other key Las Vegas properties. The Las Vegas Convention and
Visitors Authority remains committed to cooperative marketing programs.
A local firm, FFE Advertising, has also been retained for sales for
onboard advertising as a way to supplement the cost of the service and
revenue is already being generated through this program.
The combination of public and private funding--working with gaming
and resort properties, state elected officials and transportation
agencies and the railroads has created a business partnership unlike
any other in current Amtrak service.
Question. Please describe the capitalization issues that must be
resolved to make this service possible. What level of cooperation and
investment is being made by Union Pacific Railroad? What level of
capital support has Amtrak committed (in fiscal years 1999 and 2000)?
Answer. Amtrak and the Union Pacific Railroad have agreed to
provide $28 million of capital improvements prior to commencement of
service. Amtrak has agreed to fund half of that amount--$14 million--
for the two-year demonstration period. If service continues beyond two
years, Amtrak will provide the balance of those funds. The first $14
million is provided by $9 million of Taxpayer Relief Act funds and $5
million of federal funds secured in the 1999 Appropriations Omnibus
bill. Amtrak is also funding the construction of a new platform near
the Strip.
CAPITAL NEEDS BEYOND FISCAL YEAR 2002
Question. On an annual basis, approximately what level of capital
funding from federal sources will Amtrak require beyond the end of
fiscal year 2002? This question was not answered satisfactorily in last
year's hearing record.
Answer. Amtrak is currently in the process of developing a long-
term capital plan as part of its fiscal year 2001 strategic planning
process. The capital plan will incorporate the funding required to
maintain basic operations, to address state-of-good-repair needs, to
take advantage of market opportunities that exist today for the
national network, to develop high-speed corridors across the country
and to address excess RRTA requirements. Federal funding would be used
to support debt service, life/safety, operational reliability,
equipment overhaul and refleeting, infrastructure, state-of-good-
repair, high-speed corridor development and other capital investment
needs. The long-term capital program and budget will be included in
Amtrak's fiscal year 2001 business plan, issued in the fall of this
year, the annual value of which will be greater than $521 million.
BMWE LABOR COSTS AND CARRY-THROUGH TO OTHER UNIONS
Question. Have Amtrak's other unions used the BMWE agreement as a
blueprint? Which unions have reached agreement? What are the costs are
associated with these other agreements?
Answer. We have concluded negotiations with all of our bargaining
units for the round of bargaining that began in 1995. The BMWE labor
agreement set a conceptual framework that has been followed in our
subsequent labor agreements. Our agreements contained wage packages
valued at approximately 90 percent of those reached nationally by the
freight railroads. Additionally, wage increases will be offset by
productivity, work rule and/or other wage changes. Through fiscal year
1999 these savings have amounted to about $22.5 million. Preliminary
results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2000 show we will reach or
exceed our goal of $26 million this year. Additionally about $4 million
of the increased wage cost will be paid on reimbursable accounts.
Projections show the increased cost of the new agreements will be about
$260 million.
______
Questions Submitted to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator richard C. Shelby
STAFFING LEVELS
Question. Please provide a table that delineates the current fiscal
year 2000 and proposed fiscal year 2001 staffing levels by office, and
break down the allocation by state and resource center.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEADQUARTERS:
Administrator & Deputy............................ ....... 4
Assistant Administrator \1\ (Chief Safety Officer) 4 8
Regulatory Ombudsman.............................. ....... 1
Chief Counsel \2\................................. 2 14
Public & Consumer Affairs......................... 2 5
Civil Rights...................................... ....... 3
Associate Administrator Offices................... ....... 8
Budget, Finance & Management Services............. 6 17
Human Resources (includes NTC @ 9)................ 12 20
Research & Technology............................. 16 20
Data Analysis & Information Systems............... 51 49
Policy, Plans & Regulations....................... 19 20
Bus & Truck Standards & Operations................ 24 26
Enforcement & Compliance.......................... 35 37
Motor Carrier Safety Programs..................... 22 23
-----------------
HQ TOTAL........................................ 193 255
=================
FIELD ORGANIZATION:
Service Centers................................... 51 60
State FMCSA Division Offices...................... 470 534
-----------------
FIELD TOTAL..................................... 521 594
FMCSA TOTAL..................................... 714 \3\ 849
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 4 Exec Sec positions.
\2\ 12 legal position are in the field.
\3\ Includes 17.6 legal positions transferred from FHWA.
Question. Please provide a table that delineates the fiscal year
2000 and proposed fiscal year 2001 costs of training, transportation,
travel, international travel, PCS, communications, nonmandatory bonuses
or incentive (awards), and other administrative expenses.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries & Benefits--Salaries & Benefits 43,534,000 54,635,000
Salaries & Benefits--Incentive Awards... 179,000 225,000
Travel--Domestic........................ 3,505,000 4,184,000
Travel--International................... 15,000 30,000
Transportation.......................... 110,000 316,000
Rent.................................... .............. 4,561,000
Communications.......................... 419,000 423,000
Printing................................ 564,000 667,000
Supplies................................ 291,000 480,000
Equipment............................... 1,867,000 2,277,000
Other Services--Crash Data Collection... 4,000,000 2,750,000
Other Services--Crash Causation Database 3,000,000 ..............
Other Services--Census Update........... 4,500,000 ..............
Other Services--Incident Management..... 2,000,000 ..............
Other Services--School Bus Study........ 200,000 ..............
Other Services--Operation Respond....... 350,000 ..............
Other Services--Research & Technology... .............. 9,550,000
Other Services--Training................ 1,250,000 1,550,000
Other Services--PCS..................... 1,000,000 1,124,000
Other Services--ADP..................... 3,700,000 3,900,000
Other Services--Intrastate Data .............. 500,000
Enhancement............................
Other Services--Vision Waiver .............. 636,000
Administration.........................
Other Services--Basic Operation Costs .............. 4,386,000
from FHWA..............................
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 70,484,000 92,194,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL INSPECTORS
Question. What are the relative tradeoffs of increasing the number
of federal inspectors at the border in fiscal year 2001 versus
assigning those additional positions to other areas of the country
based solely on safety risks and number of motor carriers?
Answer. The out-of-service rate for Mexican domiciled vehicles at
the border is 39 percent compared to the national average of 25
percent. Even though the border rate is an improvement over past years,
it remains substantially higher than the national average. The Federal
inspectors assigned at the border were specifically hired to augment
the state enforcement presence already there to increase enforcement
and compliance activities and address border safety concerns. To
continue to address these safety concerns, we plan to increase the
Federal inspection presence at the border from 40 to 60 inspectors. As
the states' safety inspection facilities become operational and fully
staffed within the next 5 to 7 years, the Federal presence at the
border will be decreased and inspectors will be reassigned to other
responsibilities. At this time, assigning the Federal inspectors to
other areas is not possible without compromising safety along the
southern border.
TRUCK AND BUS SAFETY
Question. How does FMCSA propose to address each of the findings
and recommendations specified in the recent IG and GAO reports which
pertain to the effectiveness of the federal truck and bus safety
programs.
Answer. Provided below are the recommendations from the 1999 IG and
GAO motor carrier safety reports and the status of actions taken by
FMCSA.
IG Recommendation A1.--Strengthen its enforcement policy by
establishing written policy and operating procedures to take
enforcement action against motor carriers with repeat violations of the
same acute or critical regulation. Strong enforcement actions would
include assessing fines at the statutory maximum amount, the issuance
of compliance orders, not negotiating reduced assessments, and when
necessary, placing motor carriers out of service.
Status.--Enforcement guidance was issued in April 1999 and June
1999 which doubles the number of compliance reviews performed by safety
specialists and increases penalties as provided in TEA-21. The Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) established a repeat
violators policy and a limitation on negotiated settlements except in
unusual circumstances in June 1999. FMCSA issued an NPRM in August 1999
to implement the TEA-21 shutdown authority and expects to complete a
final rule by Fall 2000. At that time, new policy guidelines will be
issued to FMCSA field staff to ensure shutdown procedures are utilized
to the fullest extent. In the interim, the agency will follow current
procedures on compliance orders and out-of-service orders. The
enforcement manual identifies when out-of-service orders are used,
penalties, hearing procedures, and appeal rights. Out-of-service orders
are prepared by the legal staff in the Regional Service Centers, based
on the evidence collected by the field investigator and are signed by
the Area Administrator. The orders are prepared case-by-case, each case
is based on legal precedent and preparation of the order is specific to
the case. Compliance order directions are also contained in our
enforcement manual. A limited number of senior enforcement staff at the
Regional Service Center have the responsibility for preparing the
compliance orders. These officials are well versed in preparing and
issuing compliance orders. The FMCSA expects to publish a final rule
requiring motor carriers determined to be unfit to correct safety
problems within 60 days or face a shutdown. This requirement will
provide the FMCSA with its strongest enforcement tool yet.
IG Recommendation A2.--Remove all administrative minimum fines
placed in the Uniform Fine Assessment (UFA) program and increase the
maximum fines to the level authorized by TEA-21.
Status.--Congressional direction set in Section 222 of the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) of 1999 recommends that the
Secretary establish minimum and maximum civil penalties for violations
where there are repeated violations or a pattern of violations of
critical or acute regulations. A study of the effectiveness of penalty
provisions is also required by the Act. FMCSA will begin the study in
fiscal year 2001 and a report to Congress will be prepared by September
30, 2002. Guidance was issued in June 1999 that updates the UFA model
with the TEA?21 fine schedule, including progressive sanctions for
repeat violators.
IG Recommendation A3.--Establish stiffer fines that cannot be
considered a cost of doing business and, if necessary, seek appropriate
legislation raising statutory penalty ceilings.
Status.--Completed. FMCSA updated the Uniform Fine Assessment model
with the TEA-21 fine schedule and set progressive sanctions for repeat
violators with an effort to obtain settlement for the full amount of
the assessment. Guidance was issued to FMCSA field offices in June 1999
to establish a repeat violators fine policy and to limit negotiated
fines settlements. FMCSA continues to monitor the appropriateness of
fine levels. The average fine settlement has now increased from $3,650
in 1998 (as calculated by FMCSA) to $4,479 in the first quarter of
fiscal year 2000. The difference between the average amount claimed for
enforcement cases compared to average settlement was 17 percent in
fiscal year 1998. The difference between these two figures is now only
3 percent, demonstrating the effectiveness of the FMCSA policy limiting
negotiated settlements.
IG Recommendation A4.--Implement a procedure that removes the
operating authority from motor carriers that fail to pay civil
penalties within 90 days after final orders are issued or settlement
agreements are completed.
Status.--Section 206 of the MCSIA of 1999 includes authority to
take strong sanctions, including removing operating authority, against
carriers that fail to pay civil fines. The statute established a
deadline of December 9, 2000 to issue regulations by implementing this
provision.
IG Recommendation A5.--Establish criteria for determining when a
motor carrier poses an imminent hazard.
Status.--Section 208 of the MCSIA of 1999 revises the definition of
imminent hazard. A rulemaking to implement this provision will be
issued by summer 2001.
IG Recommendation A6.--Require follow-up visit and monitoring of
those motor carriers with a less-than satisfactory safety rating, at
varying intervals, to ensure that safety improvements are sustained or,
if safety has deteriorated, that appropriate sanctions are invoked.
Status.--FMCSA enforcement policy is to target high-risk carriers
for enforcement. The Agency employs the Safety Status Measurement
System (SAFESTAT), using motor carrier crash, roadside inspection and
compliance review data to target carriers for review. Given limited
staff resources, we believe this is the most effective safety strategy.
At present, follow-up is required only on carriers with enforcement
actions. Current policies dictate that enforcement follow-ups must be
recorded, tracked, and prioritized and the manner of handling follow-
ups must be documented. FMCSA has calculated the resource requirements
to conduct follow-up visits with all motor carriers receiving less-
than-satisfactory ratings. Our estimate is that 31 additional Safety
Investigators will be required to meet this requirement. If current
staff resources were diverted to meet this requirement, we estimate
that 1,500 fewer compliance reviews would be performed annually.
In the near future carriers with unsatisfactory safety ratings will
be subject to shutdown orders under a TEA-21 rulemaking requirement.
The final rule is under Departmental review and concurrence. The FMCSA
will issue a full operational policy, including follow-up provisions,
in advance of implementation of the rule, which will become effective
90 days after its publication in the Federal register.
The agency's priority program is the nationwide implementation of
the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM)
program. A key component of PRISM is the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Process (MCSIP). The MCSIP tracks high-risk carriers
through compliance reviews and applies progressive sanctions, if safety
improvements are not made. An eight month follow-up is required for
those carriers with an enforcement case. Additional funding was
requested by the Administration to rapidly expand PRISM. In addition,
carriers with unsatisfactory safety ratings will be subject to shutdown
orders under TEA-21.
IG Recommendation A7.--Establish a control mechanism that requires
written justification by the FMCSA State Director when compliance
reviews of high-risk carriers are not performed.
Status.--Completed. Consistent with FMCSA policy to focus
enforcement on problem carriers, each State Director is expected to
complete reviews on all high-risk carriers identified by semi-annual
reports. An eight month follow-up review is required for those carriers
with an enforcement case. list. A review may not be performed if the
carrier has been subject to a review within the previous 12 months. If
a review is not performed on a high-risk carrier, the Director must
have evidence of corrective action taken by the motor carrier.
Completion of compliance reviews on all high-risk carriers is monitored
by FMCSA headquarters.
IG Recommendation A8.--Establish a written policy and operating
procedures that identify criteria and time frames for closing all
enforcement cases, including the current backlog.
Status.--Enforcement guidance has been issued on closing the
backlog of enforcement cases. To date, FMCSA has reduced the overall
backlog by over 86 percent to 138 cases U.S. carriers and 43 foreign
cases. Written procedures for closing routine enforcement cases are
described in the FMCSA enforcement manual. The agency will reaffirm
these procedures with its field staff.
IG Recommendation B1.--Require applicants requesting operating
authority to provide the number of commercial vehicles they operate and
the number of drivers they employ and require all motor carriers to
periodically update this information.
Status.--FMCSA requires applicants for operating authority to
submit a Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form MCS-150, which
captures vehicle and driver data. Section 217 of the MCSIA of 1999
requires that motor carriers update their motor carrier identification
report one year from enactment. FMCSA is proposing to update the motor
carrier census by the statutory deadline of December 9, 2000 and
require periodic updates of the information. Also, to ensure that the
information is updated periodically, FMCSA is implementing the PRISM
program. States participating in PRISM require carriers to update their
MC-150 annually when their commercial vehicles are registered.
IG Recommendation B2.--Revise the grant formula and provide
incentives through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants
for those states that continue to report accurate, complete and timely
commercial vehicle crash reports, vehicle and driver inspection
reports, and traffic violation data.
Status.--FMCSA issued the March 1999 MCSAP Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking including incentive funding to encourage states to meet the
target deadlines for reporting accurate, complete, and timely data. The
final MCSAP rule is now in Departmental review.
IG Recommendation B3.--Withhold funds from the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants for those states that continue to
report inaccurate, incomplete, and untimely commercial vehicle crash
data, vehicle and driver inspection data, and traffic violation data
within a reasonable notification period, such as one year.
Status.--FMCSA is using incentive funding in the MCSAP program as a
means of prompting states to improve the timeliness and completeness of
commercial vehicle reports. In addition, FMCSA has targeted for
assistance through its Division offices a number of states with the
most significant data collection problems. The agency is concerned that
taking MCSAP funds from states with data problems may lead to reduced
levels of enforcement by the affected jurisdictions. This could have
the unintended consequence of diminishing safety without improving
state data collection. Studies identifying states with crash reporting
problems have been completed. In fiscal year 1999, 15 of the states
received special MCSAP grants to improve data collection and reporting.
All states are eligible for the grants. All states participating in the
MCSAP have submitted crash data improvement plans. The agency will
continue to work with the states and state enforcement organizations to
improve data collection.
IG Recommendation B4.--Initiate a program to train local
enforcement agencies for reporting of crash and roadside inspection
data, including associated traffic violations.
Status.--FMCSA has been working with the state of Minnesota to
create a crash investigation course for police to improve crash
investigation data collection. The course has now been expanded to
include training at facilities in Florida year-round. FMCSA will offer
the course more broadly in fiscal year 2000. Courses directed at MCSAP
personnel in reporting crash and inspection data are open to local
enforcement agencies, space permitting. Several MCSAP agencies have
local government sub-grantees. These local jurisdictions must meet the
same standards for roadside inspection and crash data reporting imposed
on the state. The agency has been working with the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance to persuade local governments to participate in motor
carrier safety programs, while ensuring that standards for data quality
and reporting are met.
IG Recommendation B5.--Standardize OMC (now FMCSA) and NHTSA crash
data requirements, crash data collection procedures, and reports.
Status.--FMCSA and NHTSA have been working together along with
organizations representing state safety agencies for several years to
standardize a core set of data elements that each state should include
on their police crash reports. The effort is a cooperative one with
NHTSA, the National Association of Governor Highway Safety
Representatives, American Automobile Association, International
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
and others. These criteria cover all crash reports, including trucks
and commercial passenger vehicles. This effort, the Model Minimum
Uniform Crash Criteria, would enhance crash data quality for both FMCSA
and NHTSA. The agency will continue to work with these organizations to
promote adoption of the criteria, which is voluntary.
IG Recommendation B6.--Obtain and analyze crash causes and fault
data as a result of comprehensive crash evaluations to identify safety
improvements.
Status.--FMCSA and NHTSA have an interagency agreement to conduct a
large truck crash causation study within the framework of the NHTSA
National Automotive Sampling System. This effort will collect detailed
crash data on a sample of serious large truck crashes and build a crash
causation data base. The crash causation study is required under
Section 224 of the MCSIA of 1999. Data collection methods and forms are
now in development and crash data investigations will begin in four
pilot sites in June 2000. The four pilot programs are in: Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Charles and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland; Chicago,
Illinois; and Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona.
GAO Recommendations.--The GAO recommended in their 1999 report on
the motor carrier program that the Department prioritize the activities
in the Agency's draft safety action plan according to their potential
for reducing the number of crashes and deaths and, to ensure that the
activities are completed in a timely manner, only undertake those that
the Office is reasonably sure it can complete within available
budgetary and human resources.
Status.--The final Safety Action Plan completed in February 2000 is
a statement of the Agency's top priorities for the next three years.
Within the Plan, the highest priority is assigned to strengthening
targeted enforcement, completing important rulemakings, improving
safety information and technology, and increasing safety awareness.
Over three quarters of the actions included in the Plan are required by
law in appropriations legislation, the MCSIA, TEA-21, or other laws.
The Plan sets out only a subset of the agency's overall activities.
Many research projects and rulemakings that are underway have not been
included. Taken together the actions in the plan will materially
contribute to the 50 percent fatality reduction goal Secretary Slater
has set for our agency. The Department of Transportation has
recommended increases in FMCSA funding and personnel levels in the
fiscal year 2001 budget, and we believe these are appropriate and
adequate to carry out the Plan in the near term. We believe achieving
the goal will be the result of the aggregation of our efforts in
targeted enforcement, data improvements, new technology, safety
awareness, and strengthening equipment and operating standards along
with the concerted efforts of all segments within the motor carrier
industry and safety community.
MCSIA
Question. Please describe how your budget request addresses each of
the new responsibilities specified in the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA).
Answer. MCSIA requirements to establish the FMCSA are included in
the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget. Both staffing and support
services necessary to operate independently in fiscal year 2001 are
included as part of the requested $92,194,000. The $65 million of
increased MCSAP funding provides $5 million for the crash causation
study and $5 million for information systems and the remaining $55
million will be distributed similarly to the $100 million in fiscal
year 2001 MCSAP funding provided in TEA-21. The proposed fiscal year
2001 budget plans to use all of the $5 million of MCSAP information
systems funds to support crash data collection efforts. The proposal to
fund CDL improvements with $10M of RABA funds will provide needed
funding to the states to improve their existing systems. The $12
million in information systems and strategic safety initiatives
requested for fiscal year 2001 broadly support both new and existing
FMCSA responsibilities. The information systems funds will in part
address new initiatives to update and improve carrier information. Data
analysis funding plays a critical role in evaluating planned and
existing safety initiatives. The evaluation of minimum and maximum
penalties is typical of data analysis evaluations. PRISM's $5 million
relates directly to new enforcement of carrier registration
requirements. The $1 million in driver programs directly supports the
broad mandate in MCSIA for CDL improvements.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Question. For each new regulatory or programmatic responsibility or
required study specified in the MCSIA, please detail an implementation
strategy, as well as the amount of fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001 funds that will be allocated to conduct each task.
Answer. The requested information is provided in the table below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCSIA requirement Implementation Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of long-term Performance Plan $155,000 of fiscal
strategy to improve CMV, and Safety Action year 2001 funds
operator, and motor carrier Plan issued in is estimated for
safety. February 2000; the strategic
Progress report planning
will be issued in initiative.
May 2000;
Strategic Plan
will be developed
by Fall 2000.
Improvements in Commercial Comprehensive FMCSA staff
Driver Licensing (including rulemaking will resources and in
driver disqualifications & be conducted to fiscal year 200l:
serious traffic violations, establish $10 million RABA
uniform state data definitions and $1 million Driver
transmission, and strengthened specific state Program.
state program requirements). requirements to
implement MCSIA
CDL improvements.
Include medical qualification Conduct FMCSA staff
certificate in CDL. rulemaking. NPRM resources.
is in review.
Study reporting of positive drug Conduct Limited fiscal
tests by CDL holders. feasibility study year 2001 funding
and report to is estimated.
Congress. Privacy
issues will be
given attention
in study.
Enforcement of carrier Develop specific FMCSA staff
registration requirements. procedures for resources.
carrying out
enforcement to
ensure due
process and
provide guidance
to field staff.
Revocation or suspension of Required FMCSA staff
registration for failure to pay rulemaking. resources.
penalties.
Minimum and maximum penalties; Examining changes $150,000 of fiscal
study of effectiveness. to Uniform Fine year 2001 data
Assessment model analysis funding.
and related
policy changes.
Preliminary
proposal is in
review to conduct
effectiveness
study.
Safety reviews of new motor Establish program FMCSA staff
carriers and minimum to assure safety resources in
requirements to ensure new fitness of new short-term and
carrier applicants are carriers potential fiscal
knowledgeable about FMCSRs. including (1) year 2002 funding
background requirements.
research and
review of past
studies; (2)
design conceptual
framework for new
entrant safety
fitness process;
(3) establish
minimum
requirements for
knowledge about
safety
regulations; and
(4) develop
procedures for
safety reviews of
new entrants
within 18 months
of beginning
operation.
Training and certification of Required FMCSA staff
motor carrier safety auditors. rulemaking. resources. Fiscal
year 2002 funding
requirements.
Implementation of DOT Inspector Detailed report FMCSA staff
General recommendations. addressing each resources.
recommendation
issued March 9,
2000. Followup
reports will be
sent to Congress
every 90 days.
Issuance of small passenger van Required FMCSA staff
regulations. rulemaking. Final resources.
rule in review.
Staffing standards for FMCSA is working FMCSA staff
international border areas. with Southern resources.
border states and
International
Association of
Chiefs of Police
to establish
criteria
(including MCSIA
criteria) for
setting standards.
Definition of imminent hazard... Technical rule FMCSA staff
change. resources.
24-hour operation of driver Modify agreement $375,000 in fiscal
hotline. with hotline year 2001.
contractor for
extended
operation.
Update of motor carrier Requests sent in FMCSA staff
identification reports. April 2000 to resources and
carriers to partial
update records on Information
voluntary basis; Systems funding.
mandatory carrier
refiling will be
required upon
completion of
final rule.
Commercial motor vehicle crash Nationally $5 million in
causation study. representative fiscal year 2001
data on the MCSAP funds.
primary and
secondary causes
of serious large
truck crashes
will be collected
by teams of
trained
investigators
from NHTSA's
National
Automotive
Sampling System
and FMCSA-funded
truck inspectors.
Testing in four
pilot sites will
begin in Summer
2000 and full
data collection
will begin
January 2001.
Program to improve collection FMCSA is working $7.75 million in
and analysis of commercial with NHTSA to fiscal year 2001
motor vehicle crash data. replicate the MCSAP and
success of the administrative
Fatality Analysis funds.
Reporting System
in collecting
fatal crash data
from the States.
Involvement will
include State
agencies which
receive federal
bus and truck
safety funds,
police agencies,
and other State
and local
agencies with
responsibility
for traffic
records
collection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the expected date of completion or initial
implementation of each provision?
Answer. This information is provided in the table below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCSIA requirement Expected completion date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of long-term strategy to Safety Action Plan and
improve CMV, operator, and motor carrier Performance Plan completed
safety. February 2000. Progress
Report May 2000. Strategic
Plan Fall 2000.
Improvements in Commercial Driver NPRM Fall 2000. Final Rule
Licensing (including driver Fall 2001.
disqualifications & serious traffic
violations, uniform state data
transmission, and strengthened state
program requirements).
Include medical qualification certificate NPRM Summer 2000. Final Rule
in CDL. Spring 2001.
Study reporting of positive drug tests by December 2001.
CDL holders.
Enforcement of carrier registration Summer 2000.
requirements.
Revocation or suspension of registration December 2000.
for failure to pay penalties.
Minimum and maximum penalties; study of Minimum and Maximum
effectiveness. Penalties--Fall 2000.
Effectiveness Study--
September 2002.
Safety reviews of new motor carriers..... December 2000.
Minimum requirements to ensure new December 2000.
carrier applicants are knowledgeable
about FMCSRs.
Training and certification of motor December 2000.
carrier safety auditors.
Implementation of DOT Inspector General Report issued March 9, 2000;
recommendations. Report each 90 days.
Issuance of small passenger van Final Rule Summer 2000.
regulations.
Staffing standards for international December 2000.
border areas.
Definition of imminent hazard............ Fall 2000.
24-hour operation of driver hotline...... May 2000.
Update of motor carrier identification Voluntary carrier update
reports. December 2000. Final Rule
requiring periodic update
Spring 2001.
Commercial motor vehicle crash causation Full crash causation study
study. data collection begins
January 2001. Study
completion 2004.
Program to improve collection and Pilot testing for large bus
analysis of commercial motor vehicle and truck data collection
crash data.. improvement programs in
2000. Implementation of data
collection improvement
programs in all states that
require them in 2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPRA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Question. What are the FMCSA's GPRA goals and objectives and how is
the fiscal year 2001 budget request designed to address each of those
goals and objectives?
Answer. As prescribed in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act
of 1999, the performance goals and indicators of the FMCSA are:
--reducing the number and rate of crashes, injuries, and fatalities
involving commercial motor vehicles.
--improving the consistency and effectiveness of commercial motor
vehicle, operator, and carrier enforcement and compliance
programs.
--identifying and targeting enforcement efforts at high-risk
commercial motor vehicles, operators, and carriers.
--improving research efforts to enhance and promote commercial motor
vehicle, operator, and carrier safety and performance.
Two performance indicators are used to measure progress towards
these goals: reduction of the number of fatalities in crashes involving
large trucks 50 percent by the end of 2009, using a 1998 baseline of
5,374; and reduction of the number of persons injured in crashes
involving large trucks 20 percent by the end of 2008, using a 1998
baseline of 127,000.
While there are no numerical goals established for the rates of
fatalities and injured persons involved in motor carrier traffic
crashes, the following performance indicators are also used by the
FMCSA to monitor progress toward the safety goals: reduction of the
rate of large truck-related fatalities per 100 million commercial
vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT); reduce the rate of motor vehicle-related
fatalities per 100 million commercial vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT); and
reduction of the rate of motor vehicle-related injuries per 100 million
commercial vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT).
In fiscal year 2001, the FMCSA will make progress towards achieving
these goals by:
--increasing enforcement and better targeting high-risk carriers and
commercial motor vehicle drivers;
--improving the timeliness of the issuance of vehicle equipment and
operating standards;
--improving safety information and commercial motor vehicle
technologies; and
--increasing the safety awareness of the driving public and motor
carrier industry.
In particular, the agency will continue to move aggressively to
significantly increase its targeted enforcement program. Targets for
increased compliance reviews have been established for each safety
investigator and guidance has been issued to limit the use of
negotiated fines. The agency will also strengthen its enforcement
efforts at the border by significantly increasing inspection staff in
preparation for full implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. With respect to data deficiencies, the agency is addressing
this issue through regulation and an effort to update existing census
information. In addition, FMCSA is working to improve the performance
of its vehicle inspection and crash data systems for the collection of
commercial motor vehicle crash data. These strategic initiatives are
included in the fiscal year 2001 budget request and in the Agency's
fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan. Funding requests for key areas of
the National Motor Carrier Safety Program include MCSAP ($165M),
Information Systems ($22M) and General Operating Expenses ($92.2M) for
staff enhancements and research and technology.
NAFTA IMPLEMENTATION
Question. Please provide an update on activities or efforts that
are intended to open up the southern border in order to implement the
NAFTA, being certain to address progress to date, remaining concerns,
and the status of each of the following: efforts to improve safety
monitoring of Mexican carriers, exchange of driver licensing
information, frequency and quality of training of Mexican inspectors,
out-of-service rates of Mexican carriers, and safety management systems
for Mexican carriers. Please provide quantitative data to support your
answer.
Answer. Although the United States and Mexico have been engaged in
safety consultations since 1996, the pace of the talks has slowed
considerably as the countries await a hearing before an arbitration
panel under the NAFTA's dispute resolution procedures. The panel met on
May 17, 2000 to examine Mexico's claim that the United States has
violated the NAFTA by not lifting restrictions on cross-border trucking
and bus services as provided in the Agreement's access liberalization
schedule. In an effort to prepare for the eventual implementation of
the NAFTA's land transportation provisions, the Department has
increased inspection capacities at the border. We believe, however,
that given the high volume of cross-border truck traffic, this step
alone is not sufficient to assure the highest level of safety
compliance. Adequate assurances of safety also require that Mexico
adopt safety controls within its own borders. Thus, the restrictions on
Mexican carrier operations will continue until Mexico has established
an effective motor carrier safety oversight program for carriers
seeking U.S. operating authority. The Department is committed to
continue to work cooperatively with Mexico to achieve this goal and
ensure safe cross-border operations.
The U.S. and Mexican Governments have agreed that Mexico will
complete the following actions before the Department begins to process
Mexican motor carrier applications for operating authority: (1) issue
final standards requiring a log book to record drivers' hours of
service; (2) use the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's criteria for
inspecting vehicles; (3) establish a roadside vehicle inspection
program near the U.S. border; (4) implement databases to provide DOT
with specific data on carrier applicants--including information on
their drivers and vehicles; and (5) put in effect a carrier safety
oversight program and provide the results to DOT. Mexico has taken
significant steps to improve its carrier safety program, but work still
remains to be done. For example, although Mexican inspectors have been
trained (with DOT's help) to conduct commercial vehicle inspections in
accordance with U.S. standards and procedures, Mexico does not yet have
a fully functioning vehicle roadside inspection program. Mexico has
developed an integrated information system linking driver, vehicle and
carrier safety and economic information. This information system
includes inspection/supervision, accident, and infraction modules.
Several of the modules are in final testing and Mexico anticipates they
will be fully operational in the summer of 2000. The carrier economic
data base information has been fully entered and the driver license
data base information is being entered now. This information system
will be electronically connected to the U.S. systems providing
enforcement officials with real-time access to the information.
In addition to our bilateral efforts with Mexico, we have been
working closely with the border states to increase their inspections
and other compliance and enforcement activities. Over the past 5 years,
we have allocated over $15 million in special funding for border
commercial motor vehicle safety programs and projects. These efforts
have helped improve compliance with federal safety requirements and
reduce the out-of-service rate of Mexican vehicles from over 50 percent
in 1995 to 39 percent in 1999. DOT also is working cooperatively with
the state enforcement agencies in the border states to make certain
that the long-term needs of the enforcement agencies--including funding
for inspection facilities and electronic clearance technologies--are
given priority consideration in the state's application for grants made
available under the Transportation Efficiency Act for the Twenty-First
Century's (TEA-21) National Corridor Planning and Development Program
(Section 1118), the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (Section
1119) and other Federal?Aid programs. Under the corridor and border
program, $10 million is being made available to the General Services
Administration (GSA) for the construction of transportation
infrastructure necessary for law enforcement in the border states.
Also, in fiscal year 2000, $10 million has been set aside for the
states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas for safety and
enforcement projects.
States are effectively leveraging their own revenues with federal
funds available under these programs to address the need for permanent
facilities along the border. California has state-of-the art facilities
at their two major commercial ports of entry. Arizona has purchased
land to construct a facility at Nogales. New Mexico plans on building a
facility at Santa Teresa. Texas intends to build facilities at eight
key locations.
MEXICAN DOMICILED COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
Question. What are the safety parameters that must be reached
before the Department is likely to open up the border to the entrance
of Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles beyond the commercial zone?
How far along are the Mexicans in reaching these parameters? What are
the remaining concerns? How do the Department's fiscal year 2000
activities contribute towards the attainment of those safety
assurances?
Answer. The U.S. and Mexican Governments have agreed that Mexico
will complete the following actions before the Department begins to
process Mexican motor carrier applications for operating authority.
(1) Issue final standards requiring a log book to record drivers'
hours of service.--Mexico's Secretariat of Communications and
Transportation (SCT) recently issued regulations mandating log book
requirements. In addition, SCT has established a committee to analyze
Mexico's current labor law to determine if work hour requirements can
be made more specific to commercial motor vehicle driver operations.
This work is yet to be completed.
(2) Use the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's (CVSA) criteria
for inspecting vehicles.--On June 9, 1999, SCT published proposed
inspection standards that are very similar to the CVSA criteria. The
requirements are being prepared for publishing criteria in final form.
(3) Establish a roadside vehicle inspection program near the U.S.-
Mexico border.--SCT maintains that it is conducting inspections at
locations near the U.S. border.
(4) Implement databases to provide DOT with specific data on
carrier applicants--including information on their vehicles and
drivers.--SCT has developed a state of the art information system that
integrates databases containing carrier, driver, and vehicle
information. SCT officials are currently entering information into
these databases and developing an electronic link to the U.S. system to
enable DOT and SCT to share carrier safety information.
(5) Put in effect a carrier safety oversight program and provide
the results to DOT.--SCT is in the process of developing a program for
carriers seeking authority to operate in the United States and for
carriers that transit the United States on the way to Canada.
SCT continues to make progress in achieving the agreed actions. The
Department's major concern is that there be a system in place in Mexico
to independently verify the safety compliance of the carriers that will
be operating across the border into the United States. We believe that
once these actions are completed, both countries will be better able to
ensure safe cross-border operations.
The Department's fiscal year 2000 activities continue to
concentrate on providing technical assistance to Mexico to complete
development and to populate its information systems. In addition, the
Department continues to emphasize the importance of developing
compatible motor carrier safety requirements throughout North America
as part of the trilateral discussions with Mexico and Canada.
Question. Please break out by project or activity exactly how much
the Department is allocating during fiscal year 2000 to promote the
safety of Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles and drivers that
currently enter the United States. In addition to specifying the
purpose and nature of each project and activity, please assess whether
and how these expenditures improve safety and compliance with U.S.
registration requirements and safety regulations.
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $4.75 million was made available to
the border states to promote safety at the border. Of the $4.75
million, $575,000 was allocated to develop software to provide better
network access to border inspectors, and to conduct a study to
determine the extent of the safety problems associated with the cross-
border commercial van operations commonly referred to as camionetas.
Sec. 212 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 requires
that we complete rulemaking to determine which small passenger vans
should be covered by FMCSRs.
Consistent with our goal to optimize the level of the enforcement
and compliance activities along the southern border, the majority of
the funds awarded to the states are used for state personnel services
and expenses to conduct inspections. Other initiatives include
training, education and outreach activities, and purchase of vehicles
and other equipment used by the inspectors. We estimate that these
increased enforcement efforts will result in over 83,000 commercial
motor vehicle inspections along the border regions.
In addition to the state grants, the FMCSA will spend approximately
$1,632,000 to support the Federal inspectors assigned at border
locations. We estimate that Federal inspection efforts will result in
an additional 14,000 inspections.
U.S SAFETY AND REGISTRATION
Question. Please break out the expected allocation of similar funds
requested for fiscal year 2001 and specify how fiscal year 2001
projects and activities are anticipated to further U.S. safety and
registration objectives.
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $7,750,000 will be made available for
border commercial motor vehicle safety program and enforcement
activities and projects directed at improving the compliance rate of
foreign commercial motor vehicle operations with both safety standards
and registration requirements. The funds are being made available to
both the northern and southern border states. However, in recognition
of the safety concerns that still exist along the southern border,
proposals received from California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas will
receive priority consideration.
Each border state is invited to submit a performance-based proposal
for these funds reflecting safety performance goals. In fiscal year
2001, priority consideration will be given to those projects that
include hiring additional permanent inspectors to increase the
enforcement presence along the border and implement the staffing
standards. These staffing standards are being developed in compliance
with Sec. 218 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. The
goal of the standards is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible,
that inspectors are on duty at all border crossings at all times the
U.S. Customs Services' ports of entry are open to commercial vehicle
traffic. States have been reluctant to use the special border grants to
hire additional inspectors because the availability of the funds in
subsequent years has been uncertain. Since TEA-21 provides support for
the special border grant program through fiscal year 2003, states are
being encouraged to consider using the funds to hire new personnel and
establish a more permanent presence along the border.
A portion of the available program funds may be set aside to
support the activities of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP) to complete Spanish translation of inspection training
videos, and to support other safety program activities that are of
mutual benefit to all border States and the nation.
All of these projects are directed at improving the states'
capabilities to increase enforcement and compliance activities and
establish a permanent and consistent enforcement presence along our
border.
OTHER SERVICES FUNDS
Question. Please break out in detail how FMCSA expects to spend the
$18.875 million of ``other services'' included within the fiscal year
2001 base. Please do the same for the fiscal year 2001 base amounts
requested for supplies and equipment. How are the Department's fiscal
year 2001 anticipated activities expected to contribute towards the
attainment of those safety assurances.
Answer. A break out of the $18.875 ``other services'' is provided
in the following chart. The same chart was prepared in response to a
previous question. Supplies and equipment funding supports FMCSA
operations in over 75 offices nationally. The funding for supplies and
equipment are allocated at the beginning of each fiscal year to
headquarters and our 52 Division Offices located in each state. The
allocation is generally based on size of the office and specific unique
annual needs. The typical allocation provides approximately 30 percent
of the funds to headquarters and 70 percent to the field offices. The
break out of supplies vs. equipment for both fiscal year 2000 and
fiscal year 2001 is also included in the chart that follows. In fiscal
year 2001, FMCSA's proposed additional administrative staff will study
and procure the support of a fiscal management and information system
that will provide ready access to more detailed expenditures of all
FMCSA accounts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries & Benefits--Salaries & Benefits 43,713,000 54,860,000
Salaries & Benefits--Incentive Awards... 179,000 225,000
Travel--Domestic........................ 3,505,000 4,184,000
Travel--International................... 15,000 30,000
Transportation.......................... 110,000 316,000
Rent.................................... .............. 4,561,000
Communications.......................... 419,000 423,000
Printing................................ 564,000 667,000
Supplies................................ 291,000 480,000
Equipment............................... 1,867,000 2,277,000
Other Services--Crash Data Collection... 4,000,000 2,750,000
Other Services--Crash Causation Database 3,000,000 ..............
Other Services--Census Update........... 4,500,000 ..............
Other Services--Incident Management..... 2,000,000 ..............
Other Services--School Bus Study........ 200,000 ..............
Other Services--Operation Respond....... 350,000 ..............
Other Services--Research & Technology... .............. 9,550,000
Other Services--Training................ 1,250,000 1,550,000
Other Services--PCS..................... 1,000,000 1,124,000
Other Services--ADP..................... 3,700,000 3,900,000
Other Services--Intrastate Data .............. 500,000
Enhancement............................
Other Services--Vision Waiver .............. 636,000
Administration.........................
Other Services--Basic Operation Costs .............. 4,386,000
from FHWA..............................
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 70,484,000 92,194,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please break out in detail how FMCSA is allocating the
$18.875 million of ``other services'' included with the fiscal year
2000 appropriation. Please do the same for the amounts appropriated for
supplies and equipment.
Answer. The previous answer provides the requested response for
both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
SHARE THE ROAD
Question. Please describe in detail what FMCSA is doing during
fiscal year 2000 to advance ``share the road'' activities. Exactly how
much is being spent on each aspect of this effort?
Answer. The FMCSA, in cooperation with NHTSA, is expanding the
scope of the ``share the road'' effort to include safety
recommendations for all types of highway users (drivers of passenger
cars, trucks, buses, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians) to
promote safe driving in, and around, trucks and motor coaches. We are
educating highway users about the operating characteristics and
limitations of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and developing
strategic outreach efforts for specific target audiences.
In addition to the ``No Zone'' visibility issue, we will increase
public awareness of the longer braking distances, weight differentials,
acceleration variances, turning radius', structural configurations and
basic survivability ratios of CMVs as compared with smaller vehicles.
Each provide very good safety reasons for being aware of, and cautious
around, large trucks and motor coaches. Knowledge of these
characteristics may lead to reduced aggressive driving behavior,
increased seatbelt use, and other improved driving practices around
CMVs on the highway. In addition, we will provide recommendations to
motorists about how to drive around commercial vehicles in real-life
driving situations. We will devote significant attention to CMV driver
behavior, by identifying and promoting best defensive driving
practices, work zone safety concerns and other safe driving skills.
Estimated costs for the various aspects of our fiscal year 2000
``share the road'' program include:
Development of new outreach materials......................... $100,000
Campaign distribution and dissemination....................... 325,000
Research--campaign awareness assessment....................... 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total estimated costs................................... 500,000
communication, computer and information systems
Question. Please submit budget justification information equivalent
to that previously provided by the FHWA for the communication,
computer, and information systems components of your program.
Answer.
[Dollars in millions]
1B funding for fiscal year 2000 is as follows:
ADP Services and System Support............................... $3.6
ADP Equipment and Supplies.................................... 0.2
Requested 1B funding for fiscal year 2001 is as follows:
ADP Services and System Support............................... 3.6
ADP Equipment and Supplies.................................... 0.2
Identify High-Risk intrastate Carriers........................ 0.5
Currently, 20 percent of the U.S. commercial fatalities are caused
by intrastate carriers. We cannot meet our 50 percent fatality
reduction goal until we focus on intrastate carriers. We have an
opportunity to use our substantial resources to identify high risk
carriers and help them improve with a relatively small marginal cost.
Including intrastate carriers in our databases does not require a
software database modification. It is information system mainframe
processing costs that prevent us from identifying the high-risk
intrastate carriers, resulting in lives lost. Numerous states are
requesting that we identify these high-risk operations using our
information systems capabilities. However, we contract for mainframe
processing and do not have sufficient funding in the budget to support
the annual operational mainframe expense of $0.5M associated with
maintaining and processing information on these operations.
Background on Current Initiatives
The FMCSA information technology system maintains an electronic
motor carrier safety history, and national motor carrier census that
systematically identifies ``at risk'' carriers and provides all of this
information electronically to Federal and state field managers and
investigators. This creates efficient, focused use of field resources
with high quality and uniformity. It also provides an industry
awareness that a carrier can no longer hide poor safety performance.
Thus, the information systems of the FMCSA are recognized throughout
the organization as extremely successful in providing crucial, daily
support to motor carrier safety programs. Federal and state usage of
the Motor Carrier Management Information System, (MCMIS), SAFETYNET and
our field data systems such as CAPRI and ASPEN) increases continuously
because these ``tools'' are an integral part of how the job of motor
carrier safety enforcement is performed today. Examples of other
enforcement system supported include CaseRite III (prepares legal
cases), UFA (Ensures Uniform Fine Assessment across the U.S.), CAPRI
(for compliance reviews), ASPEN v2 (for roadside inspection),
Inspection Selection System (ISS v2) identifies high risk carrier at
the roadside, Past Inspection Query (PIQ) v2 identifies out of service
violation and driver log book falsification, and Commercial Drivers
License Information System (CDLIS) roadside query v2.
MOTOR CARRIER REGISTRATION
Question. How much is specified within the fiscal year 2001 budget
request for the unified motor carrier registration system?
Answer. FMCSA has requested $1.5 million in fiscal year 2001 for
the unified motor carrier registration system. An additional $1.5
million has been requested by the ITS Joint Program Office for the
project, since this project meets the program goal of the FMCSA and ITS
Joint Program Office.
COMPLIANCE REVIEWS
Question. Please present data on the number of compliance reviews
performed by federal investigators during each of the last five years.
How has the targeting of those audits improved? How does FMCSA know
it's conducting the ``right'' number of compliance reviews?
Answer. During the last five years, compliance reviews by federal
investigators have been performed as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reviews conducted............................................ 6,240 4,587 4,013 5,414 5,553
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeting for compliance reviews has improved by using a
prioritization listing identified by SafeStat (Safety Status
Measurement System) is an automated, data-driven analysis system that
is designed to incorporate on-road safety performance information and
enforcement history with on-site compliance review information in order
to measure the relative safety fitness of interstate motor carriers.
SafeStat is designed with four evaluation areas, known as SEAs (safety
evaluation areas). These four areas (crash, driver, vehicle, and safety
management) fuel the SafeStat score.
Reviews on interstate motor carriers are targeted to the carriers
with the highest safety risks--those with high crash rates, driver and
vehicle problems or safety management problems. We track the SafeStat
list to ensure that the high risk reviews are being conducted. We
define the highest risk carrier as those carriers who are in the worst
25th percentile of three or four of the Safety Evaluation Areas.
Periodically throughout a six month time frame, we compare the SafeStat
list to the Motor Carrier Management Information System database to
determine the status.
The focus of compliance reviews is to improve safety performance of
problem carriers. The FMCSA is conducting the ``right'' number of
reviews by reviewing the ``right'' carriers--carriers which pose the
highest risk to safety. Reviews on the highest risk carriers are very
labor intensive, but provide the greatest safety return on the time
invested.
Question. Please present data on the number of compliance reviews
performed by state investigators during each of the last five years.
Answer. During the last five years, compliance reviews by state
investigators have been performed as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reviews conducted............................................ 2,677 2,149 2,900 3,848 4,022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IG AND GAO RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Question. In March 2000, the IG and GAO testified before the House
Committee on Appropriations and made recommendations to improve FMCSA
activities. Please specify in detail how the Agency will respond to
each of their recommendations and conclusions.
Answer. Testimony was presented to the House Committee on
Appropriations on March 2, 2000, by Mr. Ken Mead, the Inspector General
of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and Ms. Phyllis Scheinberg,
the Associate Director of the Transportation Issues, Resources,
Community, and Economic Development Division of the U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO). Mr. Mead recognized the progress of FMCSA to
increase compliance reviews and increase civil penalties for safety
violations. The Agency will continue to move aggressively to strengthen
its enforcement program. Mr. Mead recommended a total Federal presence
of 126 inspectors at the U.S.-Mexico border, noting that 2 inspectors
should be located at each crossing during all hours of operation and
additional inspectors should be stationed at high-volume crossings. The
OIG's recommendations for staffing levels will be considered when the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) prepares the border
staffing standards required in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act
of 1999 (MCSIA, Pub.L.106-159). The statutory deadline for completing
the staffing standards is December 9, 2000. FMCSA currently plans to
hire 20 additional Federal inspectors in fiscal year 2001 for the U.S.-
Mexico border, bringing our total contingent to 60. This is very close
to the level of Federal inspectors recommended by the May 1999 ``Review
of the Motor Carrier Program'' conducted by former Chairman Norman
Mineta for the Department. We are working closely with the States to
improve their border infrastructure and increase the number of state
personnel they assign to this work. We have seen good progress and
believe that these steps, along with the increased number of federal
enforcement personnel, will substantially upgrade overall enforcement
efforts at our southern border.
Mr. Mead indicated that mandatory shut down of motor carriers that
cannot meet basic safety fitness requirements is an essential, potent
tool for improving safety. A final rule to implement this provision,
which was included in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) at the request of the Department, is now in the last
stages of review. We intend to use our shut down authority as one of
our principal methods of ensuring high-risk carriers improve their
safety performance. Although it will be more common for us to use our
TEA-21 shut down authority, in some cases we will still need to rely on
imminent hazard authority for the immediate shut down of motor carriers
that pose an extreme safety risk. We agree with the Inspector General
that the circumstances which give rise to an imminent hazard should be
clarified. The Department proposed a legislative change in the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) to facilitate such a
clarification. We are making a technical change in our regulations
which should make this a much more useful and effective safety
enforcement tool.
The Inspector General stated that timely issuance of rulemakings
will be essential to achieving our aggressive goals for fatality and
injury reductions. FMCSA's new organizational structure establishes a
special rulemaking development unit to expedite the rulemaking process.
Also, we are filling a Regulatory Ombudsman position to help move
forward particularly complex or controversial rulemakings. It should be
noted that we are already making progress in rule development, with
several major rules in the final stages of consideration.
The Inspector General noted that leadership positions in the Agency
are still unfilled. Efforts to fill leadership positions in the
organization are progressing well. Secretary Slater is making every
effort to select a candidate for Administrator, and the Department has
secured approval from the Office of Personnel Management for new senior
leadership positions, including four Associate Administrators. But the
major accomplishments of current leadership should not be overlooked.
It has taken strong, focused leadership to produce the enforcement
results we have achieved since last May and to swiftly establish the
new FMCSA organization.
Mr. Mead's stated that major improvements are needed in commercial
driver licensing (CDL). Last year, the Department proposed legislation
to close loopholes such as granting of special licenses to drivers with
suspended licenses, and to include all traffic convictions on a
commercial driver's official record. We will be working vigorously to
develop the rules necessary to implement MCSIA's CDL reforms and a
strong Federal CDL oversight program. We have requested $10 million in
fiscal year 2001 to fund a CDL Improvement Pilot Program to speed the
exchange of drivers' record data, and have already begun discussions
with state motor vehicle administrators and AAMVA Net to address many
of the specific issues raised in Mr. Mead's testimony.
The GAO in its testimony recognized the progress of FMCSA on
initiatives to reduce truck-related fatalities. In commenting on the
FMCSA draft Safety Action Plan, Ms. Scheinberg of the GAO stated that
no prioritization has been given to the activities contained in the
Plan. FMCSA's final Safety Action Plan is a statement of the agency's
top priorities for the next three years. Within the Plan, we have
assigned the highest priority to strengthening targeted enforcement,
completion of important rulemakings, improving safety information and
technology, and increasing safety awareness. Over three quarters of the
actions included in the Plan are required by law in appropriations
legislation, the MCSIA, TEA-21, or other laws. The Plan sets out only a
subset of the agency's overall activities. Many research projects and
rulemakings that are underway have not been included. Together we
believe the effects of all these actions will materially contribute to
the 50 percent fatality reduction goal Secretary Slater has set for our
agency and all who play a role in motor carrier safety.
In addition, Ms. Scheinberg recommended a realistic evaluation of
whether expected budgetary and human resources will be sufficient to
achieve the actions in the Safety Action Plan. The Department has
recommended increases in our funding and personnel levels in the fiscal
year 2001 budget, and we believe these are appropriate and adequate to
carry out the Plan in the near term.
The GAO concluded that a comprehensive strategy is needed to
achieve the Secretary's goal to reduce bus and truck fatalities by 50
percent. The agency has established targets for fatality reduction for
each year to achieve this goal by the end of calendar year 2009. We
believe achieving the goal will be the result of the aggregation of our
efforts in targeted enforcement, data improvements, new technology,
safety awareness, and strengthening equipment and operating standards
along with the concerted efforts of all segments within the motor
carrier industry and safety community.
COMPLIANCE REVIEWS/ENFORCEMENT CASES
Question. How many compliance reviews, enforcement cases closed
with action (e.g., civil penalty), compliance orders, operations out-
of-service orders, and consent orders were conducted or issued under
each of the State Directors during each of the last three years?
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Closed Compliance Consent
Div reviews W/ENF orders orders OOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997:
AK....................................................... 6 10 .......... ....... .......
AL....................................................... 119 35 .......... ....... 1
AR....................................................... 86 30 1 ....... .......
AZ....................................................... 65 14 .......... ....... .......
CA....................................................... 175 89 .......... ....... .......
CO....................................................... 205 37 2 2 .......
CT....................................................... 124 50 .......... 8 .......
DC....................................................... 48 4 .......... ....... 1
DE....................................................... 20 16 2 1 .......
FL....................................................... 76 29 .......... ....... .......
GA....................................................... 271 110 .......... ....... .......
HI....................................................... .......... ....... .......... ....... .......
IA....................................................... 45 37 2 3 .......
ID....................................................... 44 24 .......... ....... .......
IL....................................................... 251 89 6 6 2
IN....................................................... 222 58 4 ....... .......
KS....................................................... 24 16 .......... 1 .......
KY....................................................... 168 30 .......... ....... .......
LA....................................................... 90 31 .......... ....... .......
MA....................................................... 82 30 .......... 2 .......
MD....................................................... 47 34 5 2 .......
ME....................................................... 26 25 .......... 4 .......
MI....................................................... 270 108 4 1 .......
MN....................................................... 381 75 2 1 .......
MO....................................................... 275 34 .......... 1 .......
MS....................................................... 77 30 .......... ....... .......
MT....................................................... 47 31 1 1 .......
NC....................................................... 156 47 .......... ....... .......
ND....................................................... 43 52 1 5 .......
NE....................................................... 63 26 .......... 3 .......
NH....................................................... 16 3 .......... 1 .......
NJ....................................................... 274 47 .......... 7 .......
NM....................................................... 137 17 .......... ....... .......
NV....................................................... 33 9 .......... ....... .......
NY....................................................... 190 64 .......... 9 .......
OH....................................................... 835 79 1 5 0
OK....................................................... 128 48 2 ....... .......
OR....................................................... 200 32 4 1 .......
PA....................................................... 79 74 2 ....... .......
RI....................................................... 31 17 .......... 2 .......
SC....................................................... 87 24 7 ....... .......
SD....................................................... 38 14 .......... 1 .......
TN....................................................... 101 29 .......... ....... .......
TX....................................................... 422 187 1 ....... .......
UT....................................................... 99 2 .......... ....... .......
VA....................................................... 53 21 .......... ....... .......
VT....................................................... 22 16 .......... 2 .......
WA....................................................... 252 93 2 14 .......
WI....................................................... 354 86 1 3 .......
WV....................................................... 26 11 .......... ....... .......
WY....................................................... 30 7 1 ....... .......
--------------------------------------------------
Totals 1997............................................ 6,913 2,081 51 86 4
==================================================
Fiscal year 1998:
AK....................................................... .......... 2 .......... ....... .......
AL....................................................... 139 57 .......... ....... .......
AR....................................................... 87 36 .......... 1 .......
AZ....................................................... 77 28 .......... ....... .......
BC....................................................... 1 ....... .......... ....... .......
CA....................................................... 272 88 .......... ....... .......
CO....................................................... 172 59 .......... 5 .......
CT....................................................... 95 44 .......... 4 1
DC....................................................... 15 13 .......... ....... .......
DE....................................................... 21 21 .......... ....... .......
FL....................................................... 103 29 .......... ....... .......
GA....................................................... 229 96 .......... 1 .......
HI....................................................... 7 1 .......... ....... .......
IA....................................................... 38 36 .......... 2 .......
ID....................................................... 38 25 .......... 2 .......
IL....................................................... 278 74 .......... 3 .......
IN....................................................... 200 42 1 7 2
KS....................................................... 24 25 1 1 .......
KY....................................................... 120 33 .......... ....... .......
LA....................................................... 100 19 .......... ....... .......
MA....................................................... 62 20 .......... 6 .......
MD....................................................... 24 36 2 ....... .......
ME....................................................... 8 16 .......... ....... .......
MI....................................................... 267 69 .......... 1 .......
MN....................................................... 374 92 .......... 1 .......
MO....................................................... 146 54 1 ....... .......
MS....................................................... 104 32 .......... 1 .......
MT....................................................... 52 25 1 2 .......
NC....................................................... 239 54 .......... ....... .......
ND....................................................... 41 39 .......... 4 .......
NE....................................................... 51 11 .......... ....... .......
NH....................................................... 27 6 .......... 1 .......
NJ....................................................... 215 59 1 5 .......
NM....................................................... 132 32 .......... ....... .......
NV....................................................... 58 10 .......... ....... .......
NY....................................................... 183 52 2 14 .......
OH....................................................... 769 67 .......... 3 .......
OK....................................................... 150 40 .......... ....... .......
OR....................................................... 150 25 4 ....... .......
PA....................................................... 73 62 1 1 1
RI....................................................... 6 7 .......... ....... .......
SC....................................................... 122 38 6 ....... .......
SD....................................................... 37 21 .......... ....... .......
TN....................................................... 112 28 .......... ....... .......
TX....................................................... 510 306 .......... ....... .......
UT....................................................... 87 14 .......... ....... .......
VA....................................................... 75 37 3 1 .......
VT....................................................... 25 32 .......... 5 .......
WA....................................................... 180 64 1 7 .......
WI....................................................... 339 90 .......... ....... .......
WV....................................................... 30 12 .......... ....... .......
WY....................................................... 72 12 1 4 1
--------------------------------------------------
Totals 1998............................................ 6,736 2,190 25 82 5
==================================================
Fiscal year 1999:
AK....................................................... 1 2 .......... ....... .......
AB....................................................... 1 ....... .......... ....... .......
AL....................................................... 146 28 .......... ....... .......
AR....................................................... 86 40 .......... ....... .......
AZ....................................................... 66 71 .......... ....... .......
BC....................................................... 1 ....... .......... ....... .......
CA....................................................... 378 112 .......... ....... .......
CH....................................................... 2 ....... .......... ....... .......
CO....................................................... 221 91 .......... 2 .......
CT....................................................... 117 40 .......... ....... .......
DC....................................................... 33 15 .......... 3 .......
DE....................................................... .......... 37 27 1 .......
FL....................................................... 150 42 .......... ....... .......
GA....................................................... 408 174 .......... ....... .......
HI....................................................... 3 4 .......... ....... .......
IA....................................................... 80 37 .......... ....... .......
ID....................................................... 60 18 .......... ....... .......
IL....................................................... 250 54 2 2 .......
IN....................................................... 304 58 1 3 .......
KS....................................................... 56 15 .......... ....... .......
KY....................................................... 336 37 2 1 .......
LA....................................................... 109 28 .......... ....... .......
MA....................................................... 74 34 .......... 2 .......
MD....................................................... 49 38 1 ....... .......
ME....................................................... 3 5 .......... ....... .......
MI....................................................... 249 67 .......... 6 .......
MN....................................................... 454 105 .......... ....... .......
MO....................................................... 309 86 .......... ....... .......
MS....................................................... 222 32 .......... ....... .......
MT....................................................... 71 28 .......... 2 .......
NC....................................................... 261 57 .......... 1 .......
ND....................................................... 45 31 .......... ....... .......
NE....................................................... 73 12 .......... ....... .......
NH....................................................... 49 9 .......... ....... .......
NJ....................................................... 268 54 .......... ....... .......
NM....................................................... 154 41 4 ....... .......
NV....................................................... 74 10 .......... ....... .......
NY....................................................... 213 86 2 4 .......
OH....................................................... 643 88 1 4 .......
OK....................................................... 185 46 1 1 .......
ON....................................................... 1 ....... .......... ....... .......
OR....................................................... 214 25 .......... ....... .......
PA....................................................... 290 175 .......... ....... 1
RI....................................................... 45 11 .......... ....... .......
SC....................................................... 127 45 3 ....... .......
SD....................................................... 62 28 .......... ....... .......
TA....................................................... 1 ....... .......... ....... .......
TN....................................................... 194 31 .......... ....... .......
TX....................................................... 715 226 .......... ....... .......
UT....................................................... 146 13 .......... ....... .......
VA....................................................... 107 59 .......... 2 .......
VT....................................................... 39 19 .......... ....... .......
WA....................................................... 240 42 .......... ....... .......
WI....................................................... 362 109 2 2 .......
WV....................................................... 94 41 .......... ....... .......
WY....................................................... 39 9 .......... ....... .......
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 8,917 2,555 20 35 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVO AND PRISM
Question. Given the progress made under the PRISM, why are
additional staff requested at this time?
Answer. Additional staff are requested for PRISM to be able to
manage the rapid influx of new states interested in participating in
the program and ensure consistent program implementation nationwide.
Each new state that joins the program requires ongoing program guidance
and technical assistance throughout the two year development phase of
the program. Resources are needed to conduct training for each new
state, assist states in the development of their implementation plans,
and provide technical assistance when problems arise. In addition, as
each state completes its two year program development, staff are need
to conduct program reviews to monitor state implementation and ensure
the terms of the grant agreement are met and maintain a level of effort
in carrying out the program. Finally, technical staff will be needed to
review, assess, and make improvements to the information and
communication systems that support the program and ensure they provide
the flexibility needed to address state needs and, if necessary,
examine emerging technologies that could improve program delivery at
both the Federal and state level.
Question. Please discuss the challenges, status, opportunities and
issues associated with PRISM.
Answer. Twelve states are currently participating in the PRISM
program. Of these, the original pilot states are Iowa, Colorado,
Indiana, Minnesota, and Oregon. The remaining seven states are
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Georgia, and
Kentucky. In addition, there are twelve other states (Arizona, South
Carolina, Alaska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Idaho,
Wyoming, New York, Illinois, and South Dakota) which have expressed
interest in participating in the program, and the number continues to
expand.
Every participating state has entered into a grant with the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to implement PRISM. Each of
the five pilot states have implemented the program and are operational.
The remaining states have received training on the program and are in
various stages of the implementation process, which generally takes
anywhere from 18-24 months to complete. During this period, states must
modify their registration systems to be PRISM compliant, establish and
update a complete census of all interstate carriers, establish
automated data improvement procedures for both registration and at the
roadside enforcement, and provide training to state registration and
enforcement personnel.
Pennsylvania has developed its implementation plan and expects to
be operational by October of this year. Maine's implementation plan has
recently been approved and the implementation process is expected to
begin in April. Rhode Island, Georgia, and Arizona are currently
developing their implementation plans. Connecticut, Tennessee, and
Kentucky have not yet developed their implementation plans, but are
expected to do so within the next 3-4 months.
PRISM provides many opportunities to improving highway safety.
These include:
--establishing accountability for safety by identifying the carrier
responsible for the safe operation of every commercial vehicle
on the road through the U.S. DOT number;
--improving overall data quality by establishing and updating the
current carrier census annually;
--establishing a link between motor carrier's registration and safety
fitness;
--expanding FMCSA's ability to reach a great many more carriers
through issuance of Warning Letters;
--accurately identifying high risk carriers based on actual over the
road performance through SafeStat, the algorithm developed
under the PRISM pilot program;
--providing equitable treatment to all interstate carriers.
There are, however, challenges and issues associated with full
deployment of the PRISM program. First, in most instances, new states
must pass legislation that will allow them to apply state vehicle
registration sanctions based upon a Federal Operations Out-of-Service
Order. All participating states have not yet passed this legislation.
Second, the FMCSA has experienced difficulty in issuing OOSOs. The
term imminent hazard, as defined prior to the new Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act, was operationally unworkable and thus not effective as
an enforcement tool. Clearly, without the issuance of out of service
orders, PRISM cannot be as effective as it was originally designed to
be. Under PRISM, states cannot suspend and/or revoke plates of a motor
carrier unless the FMCSA first issues an operations-out-of-service
order (OOSO) to the carrier.
In the past, the FMCSA has had difficulty is issuing out-of-service
orders. New policy directives encourage increased enforcement on unsafe
carriers. The new legislative definition for imminent hazard will
provide us with more effective enforcement tools to remove unsafe
carriers from the highways. Question. How many states are participating
in the program now?
Answer. Twelve states are currently participating in the program.
The states are Iowa, Colorado, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Georgia, and
Kentucky.
Question. What is the status of each state's program?
Answer. Every state that is a member of PRISM has entered into a
grant with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Each of the five pilot states (Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and
Indiana) have implemented the program and are operational. The
remaining states have received training on the program and are in
various stages of the implementation process which generally takes
anywhere from 18-24 months to complete. During this period, states must
modify their registration systems to be PRISM compliant, establish and
update a complete census of all interstate carriers, establish
automated data improvement procedures for both registration and at the
roadside enforcement, and provide training to state registration and
enforcement personnel.
Pennsylvania has developed its implementation plan and expects to
be operational by October of this year. Maine's implementation plan has
recently been approved and the implementation process is expected to
begin in April 2000. Rhode Island and Georgia are currently developing
their implementation plans. Connecticut, Tennessee and Kentucky have
not yet begun developing their implementation plans but are expected to
do so within the next 3-4 months.
CVO AND PRISM
Question. How many additional states want to participate?
Answer. Twelve additional states (Arizona, South Carolina, Alaska,
New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, New York,
Illinois, and South Dakota) have expressed interest in participating in
the program.
Question. Please break out in detail how the PRISM monies are
expected to be allocated during fiscal year 2000. Please specify the
nature and amount of each research project, training activity, outreach
function, and state deployment. For the fiscal year 2001 request,
please provide comparable data wherever possible. Please document how
program continuity is achieved.
Answer.
ESTIMATED ALLOCATION OF PRISM FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH................................ $500,000 $500,000
INFORMATION SYSTEM SUPPORT AND 875,000 1,200,000
IMPROVEMENTS...........................
TRAINING AND OUTREACH................... 800,000 1,000,000
STATE DEPLOYMENT........................ 2,700,000 2,300,000
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 4,875,000 5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2000, the research allocation will be used to
conduct a technology assessment of current PRISM hardware and software
and make enhancements to the SafeStat methodology; fiscal year 2001
funds will be used to identify data quality and timeliness issues and
develop solutions address them.
To make improvements to the program, we plan to allocate $875,000
in fiscal year 2000, and increase the allocation in fiscal year 2001.
These funds will be used to identify and resolve all issues related to
both Federal and state information systems that affect PRISM, updating
the national carrier census file to reflect state registration data,
and improving system specifications for States.
Approximately $800,000 will be spent on training and outreach in
fiscal year 2000 and plan to increase it to $1 million in fiscal year
2001 to accommodate an anticipated increase in PRISM states next year.
These funds will support two-day training for all new PRISM States,
briefings given to new states interested in joining the program, and
development and publication of a PRISM newsletter and other marketing
materials for use at public exhibits.
Finally, State deployment is the core program. New PRISM states
require approximately $450-500,000 to implement the program. Based on
this figure, we have set aside $2.7 million for new State deployment in
fiscal year 2000 (5-6 States) and $2.3 million (3-4 states) for fiscal
year 2001.
To ensure continuity, or uniformity, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) has developed a PRISM Implementation
Guide for all participating states. The Guide provides a list of all
registration and enforcement requirements that all PRISM states must
meet in order to obtain PRISM funds. States use the Guide to help
develop detailed implementation plans on not only how they will carry
out each requirement, but also the anticipated costs. The plan will be
used to help develop the grant to that state. Implementation plans must
be completed and approved prior to entering into a grant agreement with
the FMCSA. The FMCSA then uses these plans to monitor state compliance
with the program requirements.
IVI TECHNOLOGY
Question. Why did FMCSA decide to request additional staff to
support the IVI given the uncertainty as to whether this initiative
will be reauthorized in the next highway bill?
Answer. The success of IVI and other technologies is critical to
DOT and FMCSA achieving the goal of reducing the number of commercial
truck-related fatalities by 50 percent over the next ten years. Thus,
FMCSA is requesting additional staff to support the IVI to provide the
technical and program support necessary to ensure the success of the
IVI's commercial vehicle platform. This platform will test and evaluate
on-board safety systems and technologies designed to reduce commercial
motor vehicle crashes and enhance commercial vehicle and driver safety.
These involve complex, multi-year on-road operational tests such as the
ones planned for the IVI commercial vehicle platform in the areas of
drowsy driver and electronically controlled brakes. Additionally, the
added staff will test and evaluate new technologies for 2010 as well as
develop ways to use on-board safety information for roadside
enforcement.
CVO AND PRISM
Question. Please discuss how CVO could be used to further
strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of federal and state
enforcement and compliance activities if additional funds were provided
for this purpose in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $500 thousand is requested within
FHWA's R&D CVO program to support new technology for enforcement and
compliance, $150 thousand above the fiscal year 2000 level. These funds
will be used to assess new and existing technologies in a timely
fashion that will reduce crashes and improve: (1) the identification of
high-risk motor carriers, vehicles, and drivers; (2) the enforcement
of, and compliance with, performance-based regulations; and (3) the
efficiency and accuracy of safety data collection and access at the
roadside.
REAR-END COLLISION AVOIDANCE TECHNOLOGY
Question. How are you responding to the January 1995 NTSB
recommendation to sponsor fleet testing of rear-end collision avoidance
technology and incorporate testing results into demonstration and
training programs?
Answer. The IVI program recently awarded Volvo Trucks North America
a cooperative agreement to test the operational effectiveness of the
bundled advanced safety system of Collision Warning System (CWS),
Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and Electronically Controlled Brake
System (EBS). The advanced safety system bundle is expected to enable
truck drivers to reduce the number and severity of tractor-trailer
accidents specifically associated with rear end collisions (forward
crash) and lane change collisions. This project involves 100 new Volvo
tractors operated by USXpress Leasing Inc. and will operationally test
and evaluate the advanced safety systems in revenue generating, on road
operations. The results of this operational test will be disseminated
widely through reports and outreach activities. Significant market
penetration of this technology will also be assisted by working with
motor carriers to increase technology transfer and supporting tax
incentives for the voluntary adoption of this type of on-board safety
technology.
REGULATORY AND STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES
Question. Do you plan to establish a Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee in the near future? If not, please explain why. If you do,
please discuss the scope and nature of the responsibilities and topics
to be addressed. Would funds be needed in fiscal year 2001 to assist
this advisory committee, especially if it is requested to assist FMCSA
in addressing the regulatory backlog?
Answer. FMCSA has no objection to establishing a Motor Carrier
Safety Advisory Committee. We are in the very preliminary stages of
internal discussions on its scope and funding requirements. At this
time, we do not believe any additional funds are necessary for this
activity in fiscal year 2001.
Question. The Rail Safety Advisory Committee has helped FRA address
more than 10 regulatory challenges or tasks during the last few years.
What are the pros and cons of establishing a similar group to help the
FMCSA deal with its regulatory backlog?
Answer. An advisory committee could enhance communication between
FMCSA and safety organizations, industry, labor, enforcement officials,
state and local governments, and other stakeholders in motor carrier
safety. It could foster discussion and cooperation among stakeholders
and the agency and help to disseminate information about new regulatory
and safety initiatives. In some cases, an advisory committee could help
facilitate the rulemaking process by bringing together appropriate
interests to arrive at a consensus solution.
Establishing fair advisory committee representation may be a more
manageable process for the railroad industry given the fact there are
fewer than ten major railroads and approximately 500 short-line
railroads in the U.S. Ensuring balanced committee representation for
the large and extremely diverse motor carrier safety community could be
more daunting. There are literally hundreds of thousands of motor
carriers currently operating in the U.S. Also, the consensus process
may not be the most timely or successful approach in some controversial
rulemakings where affected interests are deeply divided on the issues.
The travel and administrative costs for an advisory committee can be
quite significant, as well.
Question. Please list each of the motor carrier safety provisions
of ISTEA or TEA-21 that have not yet been implemented and indicate your
time table for completing or fulfilling legislative intent. Please
document how your fiscal year 2001 budget request will help accomplish
or implement each of these provisions.
Answer. This information is provided in the tables below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected completion date Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISTEA requirement
Funding Sec. 4007(a) Training for Entry- NPRM Summer 2000................. FMCSA staff resources.
Level Drivers of CMVs.
Sec. 4007(b) Training for Operators and NPRM Fall 2000................... FMCSA staff resources.
Training Instructors in Multiple
Trailer Combination Vehicles.
TEA 21 Requirement
Sec. 4004 Information availability and Fall 2000........................ FMCSA staff resources.
privacy protection policy.
Section 4008 Requirements for Operators Summer 2000...................... FMCSA staff resources.
of Small Passenger-Carrying Commercial
Motor Vehicles.
Section 4008 Definition of CMV......... Summer 2000...................... FMCSA staff resources.
Section 4009 Procedures--Unsatisfactory Summer 2000...................... FMCSA staff resources.
Safety Ratings.
Section 4018 Insulin Treated Diabetes Summer 2000...................... FMCSA staff resources.
Mellitus Report.
Section 4019 Benefits of Graduated December 2000.................... Addressed with fiscal year 2000
Licensing. funds
Section 4020 Post-accident Alcohol Summer 2000...................... Addressed with fiscal year 2000
Testing Report. funds
Section 4022 Improved Flow of History December 2002.................... $10 million RABA request for CDL
Driver History Pilot Program. improvements will help fund the
driver history pilot program.
Section 4023 Study of effectiveness of June 2000........................ Addressed with fiscal year 2000
existing statutory employee funds.
protections.
Section 4024 Interstate School Bus ANPRM December 2000.............. FMCSA staff resources.
Transportation Safety Rulemaking.
Section 4026 Assessment of Shipper Summer 2000...................... FMCSA staff resources.
Contributions to Violations of Safety
Regulations.
Section 4014 Safety Performance History SNPRM July 2000. Final Rule FMCSA staff resources.
of New Drivers. January 2001.
Section 4032 Study on the effects of June 2000........................ Addressed with fiscal year 2000
MCSAP grant reductions. funding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How do you propose to implement each of these remaining
provisions?
Answer. The information is provided in the table below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISTEA Requirement
Training for Entry-Level Drivers of CMVs.. An NPRM has been drafted and
is under review within the
agency.
Training for Operators and Training The agency is working on the
Instructors in Multiple Trailer preliminary regulatory
Combination Vehicles. evaluation to assess the
costs and benefits of the
rulemaking. An NPRM will be
drafted later this year.
TEA 21 Requirement
Information availability and privacy FMCSA will examine other
protection pol- icy. government information and
privacy policies, request
stakeholder comment, and
formulate and notify the
public of its policy.
Requirements for Operators of Small A final rule is under review
Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor within the Department. This
Vehicles. rule has been combined with
``Definition of CMV.''
Definition of CMV......................... A final rule is under review
within the Department. This
rule has been combined with
``Requirements for
Operators of Small
Passenger-Carrying
Commercial Motor
Vehicles.''
Procedures-Unsatisfactory Safety Ratings.. A final rule is under review
at OMB.
Insulin Treated Diabetes Mellitus Report.. An assessment of the
feasibility of developing a
protocol has been
conducted. The agency is
preparing a report to
Congress and evaluating
alternatives for
implementation.
Benefits of Graduated Licensing........... Focus groups have been
conducted and a survey
instrument has been
developed. The agency is
seeking OMB approval for
conducting the survey.
Post-accident Alcohol Testing Report...... A draft report is in
development.
Improved Flow of Driver History Pilot A pilot program will be
Program. conducted to determine the
extent data covered in
Section 4022(a)(2)(A), such
as failures to appear,
should be included in
information systems. Costs,
benefits, and methods for
exchange of driver safety
data are being evaluated in
implementation of state
record exchange
requirements of the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement
Act of 1999.
Study of effectiveness of existing A draft study report is in
statutory employee protections. review and the agency plans
to submit a final report to
Congress this summer.
Interstate School Bus Transportation An ANPRM is in development.
Safety Rulemaking.
Assessment of Shipper Contributions to A study of the role of
Violations of Safety Regulations. shippers and other non-
carrier entities in
encouraging violations of
motor carrier safety
regulations has been
conducted. The agency is
reviewing policy options,
including submission of an
implementation plan to
Congress.
Safety Performance History of New Drivers. A supplemental NPRM has been
drafted in response to
comments for the Small
Business Administration and
concerns expressed by
employers about liability
for releasing personal
information about
employees.
Study on the effects of MCSAP grant A study has been performed
reductions. and a draft report is in
development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 4019 OF TEA-21
Question. What is FMCSA doing to implement Section 4019 of TEA-21,
which requires the Secretary to determine if the current system for
commercial driver testing is adequate and to identify ways to improve
testing and licensing standards? How much is in your budget request to
accomplish this task?
Answer. The FMCSA through a cooperative agreement with the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) is reviewing the
current CDL testing process. Over the past 18 months, the AAMVA in
cooperation with the FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), has conducted a series of meetings and forums
with state licensing agency administrators, state test experts (chief
examiners) and the commercial motor vehicle industry (bus and truck
carriers, training schools and insurance companies) to identify
perceived problems with the testing process. AAMVA will use this
information in an 18-month in-depth study to review and revise, as
needed, the current CDL skills tests. AAMVA will conduct field testing
and revise, as needed, the current CDL examiner's manual.
The FMCSA is also conducting a feasibility study to identify the
costs and benefits of a graduated CDL. To accomplish this, focus groups
have been held and a survey will be distributed later this year to
state, industry, insurance, driver, safety and other interested groups.
No new funding is being requested in our budget request to
accomplish these tasks. However, if a graduated CDL is feasible, we may
request funding in the future for implementation.
section 4026 of tea-21
Question. What is the status of the assessment required under
Section 4026 of TEA-21? What are you doing to further the development
of a plan and an enforcement strategy to deal with shippers and others
encouraging violation of motor carrier safety regulations?
Answer. The report on the Assessment of Non-Carrier Encouraged
Violations of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations is currently under
review by FMCSA. The purpose of the study was to examine the extent to
which commercial shippers and others involved in interstate commerce
impose demands for the timely delivery of goods that may result in
commercial motor vehicle operators' violation of Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations, including commercial driver hours of service (HOS).
The report recommends various options, which include legislative,
regulatory, and non-regulatory actions (e.g., education, outreach,
encouragement of industry best practice standards), to deal with
shippers and others encouraging violation of motor carrier safety
regulations.
The findings of the study and resultant proposals will be forwarded
to the Congress.
regulatory and statutory responsibilities
Question. Please describe what FMCSA is doing to implement Sections
4018, 4020, 4022 and 4026 of TEA-21? What is the status, progress made
or results of each of those efforts? Please specify the amount set
aside in your fiscal year 2000 spending plan to implement each of those
sections.
Answer. Section 4018 of TEA-21 directs FHWA (now FMCSA) to
determine if it is practical and cost-effective to have a program that
allows individuals with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) to
operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. This summer
the FMCSA will forward to the Congress, a report on the feasibility of
allowing ITDM drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. This
report include a description of the components of a screening protocol.
The FMCSA's fiscal year 2000 and 2001 budgets do not include a specific
set aside for implementing section 4018 of TEA-21.
To implement Section 40201, FHWA (now FMCSA) published, in the
Federal Register of January 27, 1999, a request for comments on the
feasibility of using law enforcement officers to perform post-accident
alcohol testing currently required of industry under the provisions of
49 CFR 382.303. Comments have been received from the law enforcement
community, motor carrier industry, and other interested parties. The
required report to Congress is now being prepared. The motor carrier
industry noted that, in many instances, it is impossible for them to
have the testing performed within the required two-hour time period.
However, there was virtually unanimous agreement among law enforcement
respondents that no testing can be performed in the absence of
``probable cause.'' Since it appears that there are serious obstacles
to non-probable cause testing by law enforcement officials, it is
anticipated that the current provisions of 49 CFR 382.303 will remain
in effect.
We have developed technical capabilities to support a plan we are
finalizing to conduct a pilot program with one or more states to
respond to Section 4022(a)(1) and (2)(A). The remainder of Section 4022
is being incorporated into our efforts to satisfy the requirements of
Section 221 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. To
date, we have allocated no fiscal year 2000 funds for this project.
A report on the analysis required by Section 4026, on the
Assessment of Non-Carrier Encouraged Violations of Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations, is currently under review by FMCSA. The purpose of the
study was to examine the extent to which commercial shippers and others
involved in interstate commerce impose demands for the timely delivery
of goods that may result in commercial motor vehicle operators'
violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs),
including driver's hours of service (HOS).
The report recommends various options and policy options, which
include legislative, regulatory, and non-regulatory actions (e.g.,
education, outreach, encouragement of industry best practice standards)
to deal with shippers and others encouraging violations of the FMCSRs.
The findings of the study and an agency proposal will be forwarded to
the Congress. We have set aside no fiscal year 2000 funds to implement
this section. We do, however, plan to allocate $150,000 for such an
effort in fiscal year 2001.
Question. If there is a specific funding set aside in the fiscal
year 2001 budget to implement each of these sections, please list the
amounts.
Answer. There are no specific funding set asides in the fiscal year
2001 budget for any of these activities. Staff resources are associated
with each of these activities and the costs associated with the
assigned staff are attributable to these initiatives.
REGISTRY OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
Question. Have you requested funds to begin to establish a registry
of medical examiners in fiscal year 2001? If not, is this a worthwhile
activity or is the idea premature? How much would be required to
initiate this project?
Answer. No. The FMCSA will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) this fall, requesting comments on its proposal to link the
driver physical qualification determination with the commercial
driver's license (CDL) process. After the FMCSA has reviewed the
comments to that docket, it will determine if a registry of medical
examiners should be established and what it would cost to initiate and
maintain such a registry.
REGULATORY DOCKETS
Question. Please list each of the open regulatory dockets
pertaining to motor carriers.
Answer. The following table lists each open regulatory docket of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. We have included
regulatory identification numbers for each rulemaking action; both the
old RINs assigned when the rules were initiated by the FHWA and the new
RINs assigned for the FMCSA. We have also included a brief description
of each rulemaking action and the current status of the open dockets.
regulatory actions
Question. Please list each of the regulatory actions taken during
fiscal year 1999 and thus far during fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The following table lists all rulemaking notices published
in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000, as of May 19, 2000. The
table presents the title of the rulemaking notice, identifies the type
of rulemaking action, and provides the Federal Register cite for
reference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title of rulemaking action Type of action Federal register cite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1999 Rulemakings
Safety Fitness Procedures........... Final rule, corrections........... 63 FR 62957; November 10, 1998.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Interim final rule; request for 63 FR 67600; December 8, 1998.
Regulations; Waivers, Exemptions, comments.
and Pilot Programs; Rules and
Procedures.
General Requirements Inspection, Advance notice of proposed 64 FR 7849; February 17, 1999.
Repair, and Maintenance; Intermodal rulemaking; request for comments.
Container Chassis and Trailers.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Notice of proposed rulemaking 64 FR 11414; March 9, 1999.
Program (MCSAP). (NPRM); request for comments.
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Final rule........................ 64 FR 15588; March 31, 1999.
Safe Operation; Lighting Devices,
Reflectors, and Electrical
Equipment.
Qualifications of Motor Carriers to Notice of proposed rulemaking 64 FR 24123; May 5, 1999.
Self-Insure Their Operations and (NPRM); request for comments.
Fees to Support the Approval and
Compliance Process.
Safety Fitness Procedures........... Notice of proposed rulemaking 64 FR 44460; August 16, 1999.
(NPRM); request for comments.
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Final rule........................ 64 FR 47703; September 1, 1999.
Safe Operation; Rear Impact Guards
and Rear Impact Protection.
Commercial Driver Disqualification Final rule........................ 64 FR 48104; September 2, 1999.
Provision.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Interim final rule; request for 64 FR 48510; September 3, 1999.
Regulations; Definition of comments.
Commercial Motor Vehicle.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Notice of proposed rulemaking; 64 FR 48518; September 3, 1999.
Regulations; Requirements for request for comments.
Operators of Small Passenger-
Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicles.
Fiscal Year 2000 Rulemaking Notices
Organization and Delegation of Final rule........................ 64 FR 56270; October 19, 1999.
Powers and Duties; Recission of
Delegation of the Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration and
Redelegation to Director, Office of
Motor Carrier Safety.
Organization and Delegation of Final rule........................ 64 FR 58356; October 29, 1999.
Powers and Duties; Redelegation to
the Director, Office of Motor
Carrier Safety.
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.... Final rule........................ 64 FR 58355; October 29, 1999.
Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier Final rule........................ 65 FR 7753; February 16, 2000.
Proceedings; Violations of
Commercial Regulations.
Safety Fitness Procedures; Safety Final rule........................ 65 FR 11904; March 7, 2000.
Fitness Rating Methodology.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Final rule........................ 65 FR 15092; March 21, 2000.
Program.
Hours of Service of Drivers......... NPRM.............................. 65 FR 25540; May 2, 2000.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Final Rule........................ 65 FR 25285; May 1, 2000.
Regulations: Technical Amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTOR CARRIER RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. In House Report 106-180, DOT was directed to improve the
budget justification for the motor carrier research area. The House
Committee stated that: ``Future budget requests should delineate the
specific projects that will be funded and the exact amount for each
project, similar to the format used by the Federal Railroad
Administration's next generation high-speed rail program.'' How was
this requirement implemented? How do you propose to further improve the
fiscal year 2002 research budget justification?
Answer. The FMCSA (formerly, FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers) has
significantly improved its budget requests over the past two years, and
will make further improvements in the fiscal year 2002 Motor Carrier
Research and Development (MCR&D) budget request. These improvements are
summarized below:
Fiscal year 2000.--The MCR&D program, and budget justification,
were reorganized by focus areas to provide better information on the
safety problems targeted by MCR&D projects.
Fiscal year 2001.--In accordance with the Congressional request and
in a similar manner to the Federal Railroad Administration, FMCSA
provided, for each of nine focus areas, a matrix listing all projects
receiving funding over three years (fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001)
and the amount(s) received or requested. A summary chart compared total
funding levels for each focus area across the three years. Each focus
area write-up included information on the most important FMCSA
programmatic safety goals being addressed (i.e., FMCSA Safety Action
Plan items), and each project receiving fiscal year 2000 and/or fiscal
year 2001 funding was described.
Fiscal year 2002.--The FMCSA MCR&D budget justification will be
expanded by the inclusion of paragraph summaries of all projects
receiving funding in the three years addressed (fiscal years 2000,
2001, and 2002). In addition, more detailed explanations and
justifications will be provided for new fiscal year 2002 initiatives
and for major changes in focus area funding.
school transportation safety and operation respond
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the conferees
stated that: ``$200,000 shall be available to conduct the school
transportation safety study and $350,000 shall be available for
Operation Respond.'' How much money was allocated for each of these
activities in fiscal year 1999, how much is planned in fiscal year
2000, and how much is requested for fiscal year 2001. What progress has
been made in implementing each directive?
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Transportation Study (NHTSA).... 50,000 200,000 .........
Operation Respond (FHWA)............... 375,000 350,000 .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA did not include funding for either of these initiatives in
the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget.
The Transportation Safety Board (TRB) School Transportation Safety
study mandated in TEA-21 (Sec. 4030) began with the award of $50,000
from NHTSA to TRB at the end of fiscal year 1999. An additional
$200,000 of fiscal year 2000 funds transferred from FHWA to NHTSA is
currently in the award process. A final amount of $200,000 is planned
to be awarded in fiscal year 2001. Currently TRB is finalizing the
selection of committee members. The first committee meeting will be
held at the beginning of June. The study is expected to be completed by
October 2001.
The funds for Operation Respond have been allocated to support a
detailed Statement of Work (SOW) recently completed and agreed to by
FMCSA, FHWA and Operation Respond. The Tasks in the SOW include:
--building an internet based version of the Operation Respond
Emergency Information System (OREIS);
--building an interface with intermodal technology initiatives being
conducted by FHWA;
--continued integration and installation of OREIS into two additional
Traffic Management Centers (TMCs); and
--to incorporate OREIS into select border crossing sites on the
Northern and Southern border, to promote the safe movement of
vehicles across our international borders.
SMART COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 conference report, the Committee
requested that FMCSA provide up to $1,000,000 for the testing and
development of a smart commercial driver's license, utilizing smart
card and biometric elements to enhance safety and efficiency. What has
FMCSA done to implement the objective? How much will be allocated
during fiscal year 2001 on those activities?
Answer. The FHWA began to implement this objective in 1996 with a
study of the feasibility of smart cards for commercial drivers
licenses. The study's final report concluded that: ``Analysis shows
that enhancing the CDL is most feasible through the use of a smart card
for all drivers, not only commercial drivers. However, smart card
tracking of hours of service was not found to be institutionally
feasible. Although beneficial to law enforcement, smart card tracking
of hours of service could be effectively opposed by drivers and
carriers at several stages of system implementation.'' The American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is working to standardize
smart card technology. One Canadian province is scheduled to issue
smart cards beginning in calendar year 2001.
Currently, the FMCSA is evaluating the best biometric elements to
uniquely identify a commercial driver. The FMCSA has a Cooperative
Agreement with the California Department of Motor Vehicles to determine
both the optimum combination of fingerprint and facial images to best
detect license fraud and the optimum communication protocol to exchange
fingerprint images between states electronically. California is one of
3 states which will collect a total of 32,000 sample digital facial
images and sets of fingerprints from volunteers. A random sample of
records will be duplicated and sent to vendors to see if they can
identify the duplicate records. The project started in fiscal year 1999
with $100,000 in research funds. Funding for fiscal year 2000 is
$100,000 in Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funds and $100,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Operations funds.
The project is scheduled for completion in October, 2001. No further
funding for fiscal year 2001 is planned.
NADS
Question. Please discuss FMCSA's expected involvement in the NADS
during fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
Answer. During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, FMCSA is conducting a
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) Utilization Study. The NADS
Utilization Study will identify potential, but realistic, uses of the
NADS as a tool to help FMCSA accomplish its motor carrier safety
research goals and objectives in areas such as fatigue, hours of
service, impact of drugs and alcohol on driver performance, medical
conditions, driver selection, driver performance evaluation and
enhancement, assessment of technologies for improving CMV driver
safety, and refinement of simulation technology for driver training and
licensing purposes. Specifically, this study will: (1) review the goals
and planned projects of the Motor Carrier Research and Development
(MCR&D) program and identify potential contributions of advanced
simulation research; (2) assess and delineate the capabilities and
status of the NADS for MCR&D and for CMV safety research in general;
and (3) identify specific NADS-related R&D opportunities. A ``menu'' of
potential projects will be described in terms of objectives, background
(problem discussion, summary of current knowledge, and rationale for
the study), research methodology (including principal tasks or phases),
critical NADS features/requirements (existing or new), critical
contractor capabilities/facilities, period of performance, funding
requirements, potential partners, final products and applications, and
product dissemination/implementation plans. FMCSA will fund experiments
on the NADS commencing in fiscal year 2002. FMCSA regards the NADS as a
potentially useful research tool for addressing many CMV driver safety
issues. However, like any research tool, its applicability and cost-
effectiveness for a research problem is being carefully assessed prior
to use.
Question. Please specify dollar amounts associated with each
project by year.
Answer. The NADS Utilization Study is funded at $100,000: $60,000
in fiscal year 2000 and $40,000 in fiscal year 2001.
UNSAFE CAR DRIVING PRACTICES
Question. What is the status of the DOT research project on unsafe
car driving practices in the vicinity of trucks? What is the purpose of
the study, and when will it be completed? What are the funding levels
for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 for that project? How much
will be spent during fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The purpose of this recently completed project was to
identify unsafe driving practices unique to cars traveling in the
vicinity of trucks and show the relationship between these behaviors
and crashes.
The study provided a list of unsafe driving acts that were
recommended to be included in training materials for law enforcement
officers, truck drivers, and novice operators of passenger vehicles. An
Unsafe Driving Acts Guide and a draft script for a training video
intended for law enforcement officers were prepared.
There were no funds expended on this project in fiscal year 1999.
In fiscal year 2000, we are implementing the recommendations in the
final report by developing training materials aimed at educating
passenger vehicle drivers about the mechanical and operating
characteristics of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), and what to do to
avoid crashes with CMVs. Funding for this effort is estimated at
$100,000.
In fiscal year 2001, we will expand the previous research to focus
on developing training materials to educate CMV drivers concerning how
to avoid crashes with other vehicles, emphasizing defensive driving
strategies and safe practices. Funding for this research is estimated
at $250,000.
The products of these efforts will be incorporated into FMCSA's
expanded share the road program, and will be distributed using a number
of marketing strategies, including the internet.
FATIGUE R&D PROGRAM
Question. Which aspects of your current fiscal year 2000 and
planned fiscal year 2001 fatigue R&D program will provide information
useful in conducting rulemaking related to each of the outstanding NTSB
recommendations on truck driver fatigue? How much is being allocated
for these activities?
Answer. There are four outstanding NTSB recommendations to FMCSA
relating to driver fatigue. These recommendations are listed below,
along with information on relevant FMCSA R&D projects:
H-95-3 Examine truck driver pay compensation to determine if there
is any affect on hours-of-service violations, accidents, or fatigue.
The FMCSA began a study of the impact of pay compensation practices
on safety in 1998. The Phase 1 work plan and literature review are
complete. The analysis of data on the possible relationship of pay
compensation method to safety is underway, and is due for completion in
the Spring of 2001. This project is allocated $100,000 in motor carrier
R&D funds in both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
H-95-4 Complete rulemaking within 2 years to amend 49 CFR 392 and
395 to prohibit scheduling practices and the acceptance or scheduling
of shipments which would require that the driver exceed hours-of-
service regulations.
The report on the Assessment of Non-Carrier Encouraged Violations
of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations has been completed and is currently
under review by the FMCSA. The purpose of the study was to examine the
extent to which commercial shippers and others involved in interstate
commerce impose demands for the timely delivery of goods that may
result in commercial motor vehicle operators' violations of Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, including commercial driver hours-of-
service (HOS). The report includes recommendations and policy options
for addressing this issue. In addition to prior funds committed to this
program from both MCR&D and non-MCR&D sources, the project is budgeted
for $200,000 in MCR&D funding in fiscal year 2001.
H-99-4 A fatigue video for motor coaches to include inverted sleep
periods.
FMCSA recently completed a project identifying unique factors
affecting motor coach driver fatigue, such as interactions with
passengers and inability to stop for naps or personal breaks, and
recommended countermeasures. The project produced a video targeted to
the motorcoach industry and drivers, which includes information on
circadian rhythms and inverted sleep cycles, and instruction on the
need for enlightened driver scheduling and on how to minimize the
effects of inverted sleep schedules. This project was allocated
$149,000 in fiscal year 1999. No expenditures are planned for fiscal
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
H-99-19 Establish within 2 years, science-based hours-of-service
regulations that set limits on hours of service, provide predictable
work and rest schedules, and consider circadian rhythms and human sleep
and rest requirements. The revised regulations should also (a) require
sufficient rest provisions to enable drivers to obtain at least 8
consecutive hours of sleep after either driving for 10 hours or being
on-duty for 15 hours, and (b) eliminate 40 CFR 395.1 paragraph b, which
allows drivers with sleeper berth equipment to cumulate the 8 hours of
off-duty time in two separate periods.
It is widely recognized that the current hours-of-service (HOS)
regulations are incompatible with current knowledge of human sleep
requirements. The FMCSA has prepared a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) on driver HOS, whose publication is imminent, that provides,
among other issues, enough daily time off for a driver to obtain
sufficient sleep. The NPRM is based on the most current scientific
knowledge of driver fatigue.
The split sleeper berth provision of the current HOS is one of the
most problematic of HOS issues and is one for which there is little
empirical data. Current Congressionally-mandated FMCSA research on
sleeper berths is gathering data on the quality of sleep under various
conditions, including sleeper berths in moving and parked vehicles. The
next phase of this research, beginning in fiscal year 2001, will
specifically address the split sleeper berth provision of the HOS.
FMCSA has allocated $400,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $410,000 in
fiscal year 2001 for HOS support, including cost-benefit analysis of
various options and related analysis and research on HOS-related
operational issues. Funding for sleeper berth research includes
$242,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $400,000 in fiscal year 2001.
Fatigue Management Technologies Pilot Test.--FMCSA has initiated,
in response to Congressional direction, a pilot test of fatigue
management technologies, including the actigraph (a wrist-worn sleep
monitor), in-vehicle alertness monitoring, lateral lane tracking, in-
vehicle ``black box'' performance monitoring, and fatigue-reducing
vehicle steering linkage. The project will incorporate a study of
individual differences in commercial motor vehicle driver
susceptibility to fatigue and employ two alternative work-rest
schedules. The use of alternative work-rest schedules is enabled by
TEA-21 legislation granting FMCSA broader waiver/exemption authority
for safety pilots. The Phase 2 data collection will begin in mid-year
2000. FMCSA believes that fatigue management technologies should be
viewed primarily as aids to self and fleet management, not as
instruments of surveillance. Both FMCSA Motor Carrier R&D and ITS
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative funds are contributing to this project;
Transport Canada is also contributing funds and participating in
project management. Part of the test will be conducted in Canada and
will involve international U.S./Canadian runs. This project is
allocated $518,000 in motor carrier R&D funds in fiscal year 2000 and
$518,000 in fiscal year 2001.
NEW PROJECT STARTS
Question. Please specify how each of the new project starts
requested in the fiscal year 2001 research budget request will be used
in direct support of current rulemakings or regulatory
responsibilities.
Answer. In addition to numerous ongoing studies, the FMCSA Motor
Carrier Research and Development program includes the new fiscal year
2001 starts listed below that are directly relevant to current or
planned rulemakings or the agency's regulatory responsibilities:
Crash Risk Analysis.--The FMCSA is planning a fleet-based case
control study in fiscal year 2001 comparing crash-involved and non-
crash involved drivers and vehicles to identify and quantify risk
factors relevant to FMCSA regulatory and other safety programs, such as
driver medical conditions and training history. This will supplement
the on-going major crash causation study being conducted by FMCSA in
conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
National Automotive Sampling System.
Economic Model for Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Safety
Interventions.--This fiscal year 2001 Regulatory Research and Analysis
Support project will develop and refine safety performance and cost
models that could be used to evaluate the expected safety benefits and
economic impacts of proposed regulatory initiatives, new enforcement
strategies, technology advances, or incentive programs on CMV safety.
Performance-Based Physical Qualifications: Diabetes.--Research
beginning in fiscal year 2001 will provide regulatory analysis support
to new performance-based physical qualifications relating to diabetes.
IMPLEMENTING MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Question. Congress enacted significant legislation to establish a
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration dedicated to truck and bus
safety. What are the key challenges in implementing the new Act? What
is the Department doing to meet these challenges?
Answer. The greatest challenges in implementing the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act of 1999 are in simultaneously, not sequentially,
addressing the breadth of its new programmatic directives and
establishing the new motor carrier safety agency. In fiscal year 2000,
this must be done without an increase in personnel. We have succeeded
in strengthening enforcement, conducting more compliance reviews and
increasing penalties. We have quickly established the new agency and
moved existing personnel into place. The Act requires major new
initiatives in driver licensing and record exchange, safety reviews of
new carrier entrants, enforcement of motor carrier licensing
requirements, and enforcement at the Southern border. The FMCSA will
substantially increase the number of safety investigators in the field
and inspectors at the Southern border; expand its work with
organizations such as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and other safety
partners; and enhance its regulatory process so stakeholders have a
greater opportunity to communicate with the agency and participate in
the initial stages of rule development.
Question. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 states
that foreign boundaries of a commercial zone can be subject to civil
penalties and will be disqualified from operating a commercial motor
vehicle anywhere in the U.S. How should the Department ensure that this
requirement is implemented and enforced?
Answer. FMCSA has already promulgated a final rule to incorporate
the civil penalty provisions of the MCSIA that are applicable to
foreign motor carriers discovered to be operating outside of the border
commercial zones. The new civil penalty provisions were recently
incorporated into a revised 49 CFR part 386. The final rule was
published on February 16, 2000 and became effective on March 17, 2000.
This rule is significant because FMCSA civil penalty assessment
procedures now apply to Mexican motor carriers for commercial zone
violations, whereas prior to the rule, the procedures were only
applicable for safety violations.
FMCSA will conduct an outreach program to make all state
enforcement partners fully aware of the prohibition on allowing
Mexican- based motor carriers to operate outside of the border
commercial zones. To aid in this effort, the FMCSA will issue a policy
statement this Spring requiring each state to detail its registration
enforcement activities in their respective Commercial Vehicle Safety
Plans (CVSPs). The FMCSA will explore adding a provision related to
commercial zone enforcement to the North American Standard Driver
Vehicle Inspection Course.
FMCSA is also developing automated reports to identify Mexican
based motor carriers that have been inspected outside the border
commercial zones. The reports will be compiled from the FMCSA's Motor
Carrier Management Information System. Preliminary plans call for these
reports to be provided to the FMCSA State Directors in CA, AZ, NM and
TX. Identified occurrences will be investigated and, if appropriate,
enforcement action will be initiated (i.e., civil penalty assessment)
by the FMCSA division offices.
FMCSA is developing training on collecting evidence sufficient to
support this enforcement. FMCSA will work with the states in setting up
agreements which will allow state enforcement official to participate
in this enforcement.
In accordance with the Act, intentional and repeat violators, as
well as foreign motor carriers that do not respond to civil penalty
notices, will be disqualified from operating in the U.S. through
suspension of their Certificates of Registration. FMCSA is developing
procedures to implement this requirement.
Question. Please break out in detail how the administrative funds
were used for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The information follows.
Fiscal Year 1999 Administrative Funds
Amount
$1,000,000 available:
National Training Center (For state training courses and
state Associate Staff travel)........................... $780,000
ASPEN-32 Technical Work Group (State travel funds for one
person from 10 States to participate on the TWG. This is
a two-year effort.)..................................... 60,000
Support for the Analysis and Information Web site......... 90,000
Guardian Newsletter....................................... 14,000
Miscellaneous MCSAP and FMCSA-related Services and
Supplies (e.g., invitational travel, conference room
rental, plaques, optical updates)....................... 56,000
$1,187,500 available:
National Training Center (For state training courses and
State Associate Staff travel)........................... 950,000
Printing of ``Stopping Safely'' Pocket Manuals (100,000
manuals printed and distributed during the International
Safety Week.)........................................... 15,495
Miscellaneous MCSAP-related Services and Supplies (e.g.,
invitational travel, conference room rental, plaques)... 37,780
1.25 percent of the MCSAP appropriation makes up the Administrative
Takedown. Legislation requires at least 75 percent of the
Administrative Takedown to be used for MCSAP State personnel training
and Associate Staff Travel costs. Traditionally, we have allocated
approximately 85 percent to 90 percent of the Administrative Takedown
funds for these purposes. The remainder is allocated for administrative
expenses.
RABA DISTRIBUTION
Question. How does FMCSA propose to use the increased funding that
would be derived from the RABA distribution specified under existing
law?
Answer. The FMCSA plans to use the increased funding from the RABA
distribution for Commercial Drivers License (CDL) improvement grants to
the states.
CRASH COLLECTION DATA BASE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Question. Is it correct that the fiscal year 2001 budget request
includes $2.75 million for the crash collection data base improvement
project and not the $5.0 million required under Section 225 of the
MCSIA?
Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2001 budget includes $2.75 million
from general operating expenses for the crash data improvement project.
However, the fiscal year 2001 budget proposal also includes $5.0
million from Section 225(f) Information Systems funding that FMCSA will
use for this initiative for a total of $7.75 million in fiscal year
2001. The $7.75 million budgeted for the early stages of this
initiative was considered an adequate funding level. Question. Does the
crash collection data base improvement project include all of the
required components or activities needed to implement Section 225?
Answer. Yes, the truck and bus crash data system project will
include all the requirements of the subsections of Section 225 as
follows: (1) Agreements will be signed with individual states to
improve the collection and reporting of crash data to NHTSA and FMCSA.
(2) FMCSA will sign a cooperative agreement with NHTSA to administer
the program. The document will include a provision for agreements with
the states for data collection and training for state and local
personnel involved in the data collection. (3) NHTSA will insure that
data (including driver citation data) on all truck and bus crashes are
reported to the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System which
has links to the Commercial Drivers License Information System
conviction data. FMCSA data files are and will be available to the
public. (4) A report to Congress will be prepared within the three-year
time frame. Question. How much will be spent on this effort during
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. FMCSA will spend $4 million on the Section 225 truck and
bus crash data improvement project during fiscal year 2000.
SECTION 225
Question. How do you propose to implement Section 225?
Answer. FMCSA and NHTSA have begun a cooperative effort to improve
the completeness, timeliness and accuracy of commercial vehicle crash
reporting. The first priority is to obtain selected data on the
approximately 50,000 truck and bus crashes each year that are not
reported by the states to FMCSA. These data are essential to identify
high risk carriers and improve reporting of driver citations to the
CDLIS and will be uploaded through the SAFETYNET software that the
states currently use. Up to ten states are expected to participate in
the first phase of this effort later this year. The second priority of
the project will be to collect an expanded set of truck and bus crash
data elements that will allow improved analysis of the circumstances
and reasons for these crashes. Efforts to collect these additional
analysis data elements will not begin until the first goal of
collecting data on all truck and bus crashes has been met.
SECTION 225 OF MCSIA
Question. Is the Agency legally required to allocate the amount
specified in Section 225 of MCSIA?
Answer. Yes. FMCSA has reevaluated Section 225(e) and concluded
that, as authorized, $5 million of 104(a)(1)(B) is only available for
the crash data improvement project. As discussed in the answer to #56,
FMCSA's proposal to use only $2.75 million was based on our assessment
that the overall funding of $7.75 million, was adequate for the early
stages of this initiative. Without further Congressional direction,
FMCSA will amend our spending plan to provide the full $5 million from
225(e) and reconsider whether the entire $5 million from 225(f) will be
used for this initiative.
POSITIONS SUPPORTING MCSAP
Question. Why did FMCSA decide not to request an increase in the
number of positions supporting the MCSAP? What additional workload will
be placed on the staff given the substantial increase in funding and
growth of the program provided under MCSIA? Are there any surveys or
covert operations planned to monitor this challenge with the results
being submitted to FMCSA?
Answer. FMCSA is committed to operating the headquarters office
with a minimum of staff resources and rely on the field staff, located
in the state Division Offices, to primarily deliver and oversee MCSAP.
The increase in MCSAP funding will appropriately expand existing State
programs and does not significantly impact the FMCSA overall oversight
responsibility. FMCSA is confident that our Division Offices will be
the front line managers of the MCSAP program and that adequate
resources are programmed to provide the appropriate level of assistance
and oversight to these State programs. No specific plans exist to
survey this challenge. However, FMCSA's new organizational structure
includes a State Programs Division and a Division that has the
responsibility to perform program evaluations. MCSAP will be given full
consideration for an early program evaluation.
MCSAP
Question. Please provide the empirical basis and strategic thinking
that were used to determine the allocation requested on page 4.5 of the
budget justification.
Answer. Of the original $165 million in MCSAP funds (before RABA),
$5 million each is allocated for Information Systems and the Crash
Causation Study. Of the remaining $155 million, 1.25 percent
($1,937,500) is set aside for State Training and Administration, and 10
percent ($15,500,000) is set aside for Border and High Priority
Initiatives. Of the remaining $137,562,500, 5 percent ($6,878,125) is
set aside for Performance Incentive Grants. The remaining $130,684,375
is reserved for Basic Motor Carrier Safety Programs.
BORDER AND HIGH PRIORITY INITIATIVES
Question. What is the rationale behind the $15.5 million request
for border and high priority initiatives? Please break out by activity
how those funds will be allocated?
Answer. High Priority projects to be funded for fiscal year 2001
have not yet been selected. The agency has developed a set of criteria
to use for evaluating proposed projects including the following
questions:
(1) How will this project serve to improve one or more of the MCSAP
National Program Elements? (e.g., inspections, compliance reviews,
traffic enforcement, data collection and analysis, and education and
outreach)?
(2) Will the project support identification of new technologies not
currently available for commercial vehicle safety enforcement or safety
programs?
(3) Will the project support or promote effective state commercial
motor vehicle safety program planning and implementation?
(4) What is the programmatic impact and evaluation design for the
project?
(5) How will this project serve to benefit, enrich, augment,
assist, or evaluate state(s) commercial motor vehicle safety programs?
A request for proposed projects will be made late this summer.
Final project decisions will be made early in the new fiscal year.
Question. Are you planning to use any of the high priority funds
for this purpose? If not, please explain why.
Answer. The $15.5 million allocated for border and high priority
initiatives represents the total of $7.75 million for each category. It
is not anticipated that high priority funds will be used for border
activities, since we typically receive more requests for high priority
projects than can be funded each year.
Question. Please list the high priority projects that were
sponsored with fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funds and the
associated amount of funding to conduct each activity or project.
Answer. The information follows:
AMOUNT
Fiscal Year 1999 ($4,500,000 available):
Congressionally mandated study of the effects of MCSAP
grant reductions........................................ $175,000
Performance-based MCSAP Training for state Personnel...... 120,000
Commercial Vehicle Safety Partnership Program (formerly
JOP).................................................... 100,000
National Judicial College................................. 50,000
Traffic Enforcement Effectiveness Study................... 150,000
Effective Sanctions Study................................. 50,000
Massachusetts Training Center............................. 108,000
Idaho Video Project....................................... 350,000
CVSP Database............................................. 98,000
Driver Diversion/Deferral Study........................... 225,000
Pilot Test New Driver/Brake Inspection Protocol........... 100,000
Minnesota Crash Investigation Course...................... 75,000
Risk Management Methodology and Safety Programs........... 125,000
State Intergovernmental Personnel Exchange (2)............ 206,000
National Traffic Law Center............................... 150,000
FMCSA Safety Compliance Microcomputer Support (VOLPE)..... 675,000
Maryland's Aggressive Driver Imaging and Enforcement
project................................................. 20,000
TML Information Systems work related to Mexico............ 450,000
Support for the Commercial Drivers License program (AAMVA) 100,000
Grants to states (WA, MN, NJ, UT, MA) to improve
inspection data quality................................. 108,000
Grants to states (FL, WV, LA, NC, OH, MS, MD, NV) to
improve accident reporting data quality................. 455,000
Grants to states (ME, NM) for the Driver History
Initiative pro-
ject.................................................... 110,000
Grant to Colorado to design a program to reduce commercial
vehicle accidents and fatalities........................ 200,000
Grant to North Dakota to continue the enhancement of the
ASPEN-32 third generation roadside inspection software.. 200,000
Grant to Kentucky for Infrared Brake screening, testing,
and evaluation.......................................... 100,000
Fiscal year 2000 (to date) ($4,750,000 available):
DIAP Analysis (EPIC) $64,000 Commercial Vehicle Safety
Partnership Program (formerly JOP)...................... 156,000
Risk based Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan training........ 300,000
Support for the Analysis and Information (A&I) Online
System.................................................. 100,000
Effective Sanctions Study................................. 75,000
Development and testing of Unique Identifiers for the CDL
pro-
gram.................................................... 100,000
Support for the Commercial Drivers License program (AAMVA) 100,000
Evaluation of Top Ten states and improve collection of
comprehensive and accurate crash data................... 268,000
Grants to CVISN pilot states (CT, WA, MI, OR)............. 2,000,000
MCSAP
Question. What has FMCSA done since last year to upgrade MCSAP
sites with new technology to help focus inspections on high-risk bus
and trucking companies?
Answer. FMCSA has devised a very effective means of focusing MCSAP
enforcement resources on high-risk motor carriers. SafeStat is an
information prioritization system which ranks motor carriers according
to safety risk and generates a score and rank order list every six
months. This process focuses enforcement efforts on problem carriers.
SafeStat scores are now fed into the roadside prioritization
algorithm which powers the Inspection Selection System. ISS is deployed
in all states except California and Texas and is used along the
roadside to prioritize selection of carriers for Driver/Vehicle Safety
Inspections. ISS is decision assisting software which, when offered a
U.S. DOT #, MC # or carrier name will display a recommendation of:
INSPECT, PASS, or OPTIONAL along with a numeric risk score (0-100).
This helps the roadside inspector decide whether to inspect a vehicle.
In addition ISS provides a variety of additional data which can be
consulted prior to an inspection. This type data includes carrier
insurance status, operating authority status, past inspection out-of-
service rate, past areas of excessive violations, fleet size, etc.
ISS, has been enhanced this year with introduction of ISS-2. The
new ISS-2 is an overall enhanced system with more accurate scoring and
easier identification of carriers. This summer FMCSA will introduce a
new ASPEN v2 driver/vehicle inspection software which will expedite the
inspection process even further.
ISS scores are also being used in the PrePass electronic screening
system and are being considered for NorPass. This will provide a
uniform safety screening process across the United States. California
is also moving toward use of ISS, possibility as early as this summer.
The FMCSA PRISM program to check carrier safety status during the
registration process generates a sanctioned carrier list for priority
inspection. ISS now flags these priority PRISM carriers and requests
that they be given priority for inspection.
FMCSA is encouraging expenditures for inspection selection
technology, with reimbursement under MCSAP. FMCSA continues to
encourage states to test and adopt technologies that serve to improve
roadside inspection effectiveness and efficiency.
Question. Please summarize the progress to date, remaining
challenges, and outlook for future deployments during the next few
years. Please assess the costs and benefits of those investments.
Answer. There are several projects underway to refine
identification of high risk carriers and focus enforcement resources
toward those companies. One ongoing project allows states to assign a
U.S. DOT # to intrastate carriers. Once carriers are identified with a
U.S. DOT #, all the various FMCSA data collection and analysis systems
will function. ISS scores, for example, can be generated for this large
group of carriers. This is particularly important because a significant
number of these carriers actually move between intra and interstate
commerce. There are significant additional FMCSA system costs ($0.5
million/yr) to process this data. These costs are not currently covered
in the FMCSA IT budget and that has slowed these efforts. The benefits
are substantial in that they allow us to focus our resources to
identify high risk intrastate carriers. Given that intrastate carriers
are responsible for 20 percent of our fatalities, it is important to
focus resources on them if we are to meet our 50 percent fatality
reduction goal and provide this substantial benefit to the program.
A decision is being evaluated to increase the SafeStat score
calculation rate from every 6-months to every three months. This will
enhance data accuracy and is highly favored by the motor carrier
industry because it allows their safety improvements to be more quickly
reflected in the prioritization systems. Cost is a major issue here
since SafeStat currently still runs on a mainframe system. FMCSA is
about 2-years from fully moving these systems to an enhanced Oracle
server system.
A new initiative at FMCSA is to develop a sophisticated third
generation unified query system called Query Central (QC) which will
allow combining six different critical safety information queries (ISS,
Past Inspections, Commercial Driver License Status, PRISM, Licensing
and Insurance) into a single, simple query. Targeted for early
deployment on the Mexican-American border, Query Central will greatly
speed delivery of decision level data to the roadside inspection sites.
This system will be based on the latest web-based technology and employ
considerable advanced analysis to deliver maximum information with
minimum effort at the inspector level. While initial development of QC
has been funded and will be done by the same group as ISS, the need
remains to build a wireless infrastructure to allow roadside and
carrier office queries to be entered into the web-based system.
FMCSA has a small wireless information delivery project underway,
but has no funding for a full development effort or grants to states to
allow procurement of a wireless infrastructure. Estimates for state
deployment are $7-$8 million, but before that, additional development
funding of $2 million is needed. States are very interested in early
deployment. FMCSA also has a small project for adding Voice Recognition
technology to this effort.
Another area of active development is enhancement of data quality
to further improve the prioritization systems. A new project is
underway to evaluate how most effectively to use commercial driver
citation data in the SafeStat system. There are also several projects
underway to improve collection of commercial motor vehicle crash
information.
An additional benefit that identification of out-of-service
violators has increased during the operation of the SAFER Data Mailbox
(SDM). While this increase is influenced by a number of factors and is
not completely attributable to the SDM, anecdotal information from
individual users indicates that inspection queries to the SDM does help
to identify violators. Individual enforcement officers have identified
multiple offenders in a single shift using the SDM, including offenders
with out-of-service violations and false log books that have been
inspected earlier on the same trip.
DEPLOY CVISN
Question. How are you using MCSAP funds to help the states deploy
CVISN?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, we are using $2 million of MCSAP high
priority funds to support the CVISN Level 1 deployment efforts in four
pilot states. The use of MCSAP high priority funds is critical for
helping the Department achieve the Congressional goal of completing
CVISN deployment in a majority of states by September 30, 2003. By the
end of fiscal year 2000, based on a combination of using MCSAP high
priority and ITS program funds, eight states (two CVISN prototype
states and six pilot states) will be fully funded to complete Level 1
deployment.
Both MCSAP and CVISN are focused on improving safety and reducing
the number of crashes involving commercial motor vehicles. CVISN
supports MCSAP by providing more timely and accurate safety and related
credentialing information, enabling state enforcement officials to use
their resources more effectively to concentrate on high-risk and
previously uninspected carriers, vehicles, and drivers.
BORDER PROJECTS
Question. Please list the border projects that were awarded during
fiscal year 1999 and 2000, the recipients, and the purpose and nature
of each project or activity along with associated funding amounts.
Answer. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
authorizes the Secretary to dedicate up to 5 percent of the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds for border commercial
motor vehicle safety program and enforcement activities and projects.
Congress has appropriated the full 5 percent for border assistance in
fiscal year 1999 ($4,500,000) and fiscal year 2000 ($4,750,000). These
funds have been made available to both the northern and southern border
states. However, in recognition of the special problems faced by the
southern border states in addressing the current safety concerns and in
preparing for full implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), proposals received from California, Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas have received priority consideration. Of the amount
made available in fiscal year 2000, we are reserving $575,000 to fund
two projects which will benefit all border states: (1) develop software
to provide better network access to border inspectors ($500,000) and
(2) conduct a study to determine the extent of the safety problems
associated with the cross-border commercial van operations commonly
referred to as camionetas ($75,000). Sec. 212 of the Act of 1999
requires that we complete a rulemaking to determine which small
passenger vans should be covered by FMCSRs and, at a minimum, apply the
safety regulations to camionetas. Following is a summary of the amount
awarded to each state that applied for the funds:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
State -------------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.............................. $1,505,800 $1,418,200
Arizona................................. 530,900 370,800
New Mexico.............................. 551,000 553,800
Texas................................... 1,826,300 1,832,200
Washington.............................. 60,000 ..............
Vermont................................. 26,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of the funds were used for personnel services to step
up state enforcement activities at the border. Other specific projects
funded include purchasing vehicles, laptop computers and other
equipment needed by inspectors, traffic enforcement activities, and
development of software to integrate Mexican motor carriers into the
existing automated pre-clearance systems. A portion of the funds
allocated to California in fiscal year 2000 will also be used to
conduct inspections targeting Mexico-domiciled commercial motor
vehicles traveling beyond the scope of their operating authority.
INSPECTION PROGRAM AT SOUTHERN BORDERS
Question. How have you addressed each of the findings and
recommendations specified in the IG's report number TR-1999-034 which
pertains to the effectiveness of the inspection program at the southern
borders?
Answer. We have responded to all the OIG's recommendations as
follows. Many of these activities were under way prior to the OIG's
report:
Recommendation 1.--Supplement border states with requisite federal
inspectors at border crossings, and provide inspection facilities
including communication lines and computers.
Response 1.--We have hired 40 federal inspectors to complement the
116 state inspectors working in the Southwest border area and plan to
hire an additional 20 inspectors in fiscal year 2001. In addition, we
purchased modular office space, including telephone and electrical
connections at six Texas locations. We continue to work with Customs
and INS to address space limitations within the ports of entry.
Recommendation 2.--Establish partnerships with border states to
ensure requisite inspection presence is maintained at the border and
throughout the states.
Response 2.--We continue to provide the states special funding
above basic Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants to
conduct additional compliance and enforcement activities and to
encourage the states to make certain that inspection facilities are
given priority consideration in the state's application for grants made
available under the TEA-21 National Corridor Planning and Development
Program (Section 1118), the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program
(Section 1119) and other Federal-Aid programs.
Recommendation 3.--Expedite procedural changes for Mexican carriers
to obtain authority to operate in U.S. and ensure carriers provide more
thorough information including the procedures they will use to ensure
compliance with U.S. safety regulations.
Response 3.--We have drafted three related Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRMS) that a include totally revised application
procedures for Mexican motor carriers. The proposed three-step process
involves a new application form, a safety screen, and compliance and
enforcement procedures. The draft rules are currently under review
within DOT.
Recommendation 4.--Develop DOT identification numbers that will
distinguish between commercial zone and long-haul Mexican trucks to
serve as a control at the border for safety inspections and to expedite
registration and insurance verification as border entry points are
equipped with electronic scanning devices.
Response 4.--One of the draft rules currently under review,
contains a method for easy identification of the type of operating
authority that will be granted to a Mexican carrier. We are also
testing the use of technologies for the electronic identification of
carriers at selected ports of entry. The goal is to be able to make
available to safety inspectors at the border information related to a
carrier's registration, insurance, and safety record.
Recommendation 5.--Establish a NAFTA program director to address a
consistent enforcement program from state to state, to identify needed
resources and infrastructure improvements, and to quickly realign
resources as needed.
Response 5.--The FMCSA has established a North America Borders
Safety Programs Division with a designated Chief to advance our safety
interests along the border.
Recommendation 6 (addressed to the Secretary).--Establish a federal
interagency group to coordinate border issues with the many federal and
state agencies with jurisdiction at the border.
Response 6.--The Department regularly participates in five
interagency working groups that also include Canadian and/or Mexican
government officials. These groups are charged with coordinating and
monitoring a wide range of issues related to cross-border operations,
facilitation, and infrastructure planning. DOT chairs two of these five
groups: the Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning (JWC)
and the Transportation Consultative Group (TCG). In response to the
inspector general's recommendation, the Office of the Secretary, which
heads the TCG, will strengthen its efforts to solicit the views of U.S.
federal and state agencies at U.S. delegation meetings to ensure that
U.S. interests are properly and comprehensively represented at
international meetings.
ALLOCATION OF INCENTIVE FUNDS
Question. What progress have you made in developing regulations to
determine the allocation of incentive funds under the MCSAP, and when
are those regulations likely to be issued in final form?
Answer. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Final Rule
became effective April 20, 2000. Contained therein are regulations
governing the allocation of MCSAP funds to the States, including
Incentive Funds. The new distribution formulas will be used to allocate
Basic Program Funds and Incentive Funds for fiscal year 2001.
RESEARCH BUDGET REQUEST
Question. What aspects of your research budget request pertaining
to MCSAP could legally be supported with MCSAP funding? Please break
out and specify amounts and projects.
Answer. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) High
Priority funds can be used to support Motor Carrier Research &
Development (MC R&D) projects if the projects increase either the
effectiveness or efficiency of state motor carrier safety activities.
The FMCSA MCR&D program contains a Compliance and Enforcement focus
area. The following projects in this focus area, which total $1,625,000
in the fiscal year 2001 MCR&D budget request, address commercial motor
vehicle enforcement procedures, data systems, and technologies:
Development, Evaluation, and Application of Brake Testing
Devices................................................... $150,000
Development of Voice Recognition Technologies................. 200,000
Development and Testing of Unique Identifiers for the CDL
Program................................................... 200,000
Data Quality Enhancement Study................................ 100,000
Evaluation of FMCSA Compliance & Enforcement Information
Process................................................... 250,000
Evaluation and Enhancement of CMV Driver Data Exchange........ 300,000
Development of SafeStat Algorithm for Motor Coaches........... 75,000
Technology Deployment for Improved Hours-of-Service Compliance 350,000
Even though the above research projects are eligible for MCSAP high
priority funding, many states also seek high priority funds for state-
wide efforts. Typically, the requests exceed the monies available and
only priority projects receive funding (See Q65 for High Priority
Guidelines). Therefore, FMCSA believes that both MCSAP High Priority
and MCR&D funding are needed to support the many improvements needed in
Federal and state CMV enforcement programs.
OPENING OF SOUTHERN BORDER
Question. Why is FMCSA requesting funds to hire additional staff to
inspect vehicles at the border when it appears that the opening of the
southern border does not appear to be imminent?
Answer. Additional Federal staff at the border is needed to address
the existing safety concerns as well as prepare for the full
implementation of the NAFTA provisions. According to the NAFTA truck
access provisions, the U.S. and Mexico were to have allowed access to
each other's border states for the delivery and backhaul of cargo by
December 1995. Also, by January 2000, all restrictions on cross-border
trucking were to have been lifted providing access to and from any
point in each other's country. Even though these cross-border
provisions have not been implemented because of safety concerns about
Mexican operations, Mexican trucks have been and continue to be allowed
to enter the U.S. and operate in limited commercial zones along the
border. These zones are generally within a radius of two to twenty
miles from the nearest U.S. border city. The NAFTA placed a new focus
on the safety concerns that exist on the Southern border and the need
to increase compliance and enforcement activities in advance of NAFTA.
Our efforts in dealing with these safety concerns include both
short term and long term strategies: In the short term we have hired 40
Federal inspectors to augment the existing state enforcement presence
at the border and plan to hire an additional 20 inspectors in 2001.
These Federal inspectors are needed until states are able to assume all
enforcement responsibilities. In the long term, we believe that the
most effective means to ensure safe cross-border operations is through
continued strengthening of the long-standing federal-state partnership
created by the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). As the
states build and staff inspection facilities along the border within
the next five to seven years, the Federal presence at the border will
be decreased and inspectors will be reassigned to other
responsibilities. As with all performance results approaches, specific
periodic evaluations will be designed to assist in this decision.
HIGHEST INCIDENT OF MOTOR CARRIER ACCIDENTS
Question. Please provide a list of the ten highway facilities with
the highest incident of motor carrier accidents with loss of life over
the past five years.
Answer. The following table lists the type of highway facility on
which fatal crashes involving at least one large truck occurred in the
last five-year period for which data are available. Almost one-fourth
(23 percent) of all fatal truck crashes took place on rural principal
arterial highways other than interstates. Over half of the fatal
crashes took place on rural roads.
FATAL CRASHES INVOLVING LARGE TRUCKS, 1994 TO 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal crashes
Roadway function class ---------------------
Total Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural--Other Principle Arterial................... 5,066 23
Rural--Minor Arterial............................. 2,932 13
Rural--Interstate................................. 2,794 13
Urban--Other Principle Arterial.................. 2,489 11
Rural--Major Collector............................ 2,383 11
Urban--Interstate................................. 2,068 9
Urban--Minor Arterial............................. 1,209 5
Rural--Local Road................................. 842 4
Urban--Local Road................................. 690 3
Urban--Freeway/Expressway......................... 785 4
Rural--Minor Collector............................ 427 2
Urban--Collector.................................. 278 2
Unknown........................................... 192 1
---------------------
Total....................................... 22,155 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 1994-1998.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ANALYSIS SECTION
Question. How do you intend on using the $5 million of additional
funds provided for information systems and analysis that are authorized
in MCSIA?
Answer. The $5 million will be used for the Section 225 truck and
bus crash data improvement project. In this project, FMCSA will work
with NHTSA and the states to improve the timeliness, completeness and
accuracy of commercial vehicle crash data.
COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH CAUSATION
Question. Will FMCSA allocate $5 million during fiscal year 2001 to
fund a study on commercial motor vehicle crash causation? How will
these funds be used? Please detail the scope and nature of cooperative
arrangements with NHTSA to improve data analysis and to conduct crash
causation studies.
Answer. The budget for the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (CCS)
for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
Activity -------------------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Research Board advisory $188,000 $194,000
committee..............................
Accident Expert......................... 100,000 100,000
State MCSAP Agencies.................... 500,000 900,000
MCSAP post crash vehicle truck 40,000 100,000
inspection training....................
NHTSA--Training......................... 17,000 2,000
NHTSA--Data form and coding manual 122,000 40,000
development............................
NHTSA--Data collection.................. 1,140,000 2,989,000
NHTSA--Software design and maintenance.. 893,000 675,000
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 3,000,000 5,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA and NHTSA have designed a crash causation study within the
framework of NHTSA's National Automotive Sampling System. Beginning
with the pilot study in four NASS sites this summer and continuing in
all 24 sites in 2001, crash causation data will be collected on
approximately 1,000 serious truck crashes. MCSAP inspectors will
conduct post crash Level 1 inspections on all the trucks selected for
the study. Both the NASS researchers and the MCSAP inspectors will
receive special training to be able to collect the information
necessary to determine the primary and secondary causes of the sampled
crashes. Data will be entered in the field electronically and will be
uploaded to a national database. A Transportation Research Board
advisory committee will meet twice a year for three years to evaluate
the study design, data collection protocol and preliminary results.
FMCSA has hired a consultant who formally was in charge of NHTSA's
Special Crash Investigation division and is an expert on crash
reconstruction and analysis to review and evaluate every detail of the
project.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ANALYSIS SECTION
Question. Please break out how the fiscal year 1999, fiscal year
2000, and fiscal year 2001 funds for information systems and analysis
have been or will be allocated. How much of these funds was or will be
used for FMCSA-generated studies and information systems and how much
was or will be allocated directly to the states?
Answer. The Information Systems budget is shown in the table below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis........................................................ $800,000 $1,100,000 $2,300,000
Information Systems............................................. 3,200,000 3,200,000 3,700,000
Driver.......................................................... 1,000,000 825,000 1,000,000
PRISM........................................................... 5,000,000 4,875,000 5,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of the Driver and PRISM funds go directly to the
states for driver safety initiatives or to participate in the PRISM
program. In general, the information systems funds do not go directly
to the states, but support data systems that are used by the states to
retrieve and upload safety data. In fiscal year 2000, however, one
state did receive a $500,000 grant for information systems work. The
analysis funds support FMCSA-generated studies and do not go directly
to the states.
PERSONNEL ISSUES
Question. Please prioritize the positions requested.
Answer. New Administration positions. FMCSA proposal to add 49
positions to ``staff out'' the management and administration and of
this new Administration will provide a staff, that by comparison, is
less than half the staffing level at similar sized DOT operating
administrations. These positions are considered the minimum of
additional personnel needed to effectively operate as an independent
administration in fiscal year 2001. Prioritizing these necessary
positions would require an evaluation of compromises to the overall
delivery of FMCSA programs. The 4* ``program positions'' of the 49 have
less priority than those needed to provide basic management and
administration of the FMCSA. Additional Program Positions (prioritized
below).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Existing positions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New administrative positions:
Agency Management........................... 1 9
Regulatory Ombudsman........................ .......... 1
Executive Secretariat....................... .......... 4
Civil Rights Office......................... .......... 3
Public and Consumer Affairs Office.......... 2 3
Chief Counsel Office \1\.................... 2 26
Fiscal & Budget Staff....................... 2 5
Personnel Staff............................. 1 6
Management Services Staff \2\............... 4 6
Passenger Carrier & International Program... 8 4*
Additional Program Staff Priorities:
Safety Investigators........................ 220 42
Border Inspectors........................... 40 20
Crash Data Analyst.......................... .......... 1
UCR Specialist.............................. .......... 1
Technology Specialists...................... 7 4
Regulatory Staff............................ 7 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: 17.6 Motor Carrier Legal Positions to be transferred from the
FHWA.
\2\ Note: Includes 3 existing FOIA positions.
Question. Please provide additional justification for each of the
positions requested. Please discuss each request in terms of workload,
agency performance goals, impacts on not funding, ability to use
existing field staff or attorneys, and number of personnel already
conducting similar functions.
Answer.
New Administration positions.--The additional staff proposed to
manage and administer the FMCSA is considered the minimum to deliver
the critical motor carrier safety programs that have been legislatively
established. The eight administrative positions that are now assigned
these duties are presently complemented by the full administrative
support of the FHWA. Without FHWA support in fiscal year 2001, the
first 46 positions listed above are necessary to establish an FMCSA
management structure and operate an Office of Administration for
fiduciary responsibility, management services and human resources. It
is planned that with the limited administrative staff requested, FMCSA
will have to procure the majority of support services needed to
operate. For example, FMCSA will procure from another DOT operating
administration services for a financial management system. The impact
of not funding these critical management and administrative positions
includes the possibility that the operation of FMCSA will have adverse
effects on program objectives. The remaining 6 positions are program
positions that address Congressional priorities identified in MCSIA.
Additional Program Positions.--FMCSA has prioritized the
enforcement and compliance of federal motor carrier safety regulations
through increased compliance reviews of motor carriers. To advance this
initiative 42 additional safety investigator are proposed to be hired
and assigned to locations that will be selected based on carrier
performance and existing staffing levels. In addition, 20 new border
inspectors are proposed to increase our ability to better inspect the
border crossings. Adding these 62 field positions is considered the
highest FMCSA staffing priority. The remaining 7 positions support
selected program initiatives that will deliver legislated initiatives
and high FMCSA priorities for meeting the goal to reduce motor carrier
related fatalities by 50 percent in ten years. The four technology
positions are particularly important since technological advances in
motor carrier safety are necessary to reach the 50 percent fatality
goal.
FMCSA's highest priority is the effective and efficient operation
of our ``front line'' field organization that delivers the program at
the state level. Consideration is not being given to utilizing field
staff to complement headquarters administrative or program operations.
In addition, all motor carrier associated field legal support is
obtained from the FHWA. On October 1st, FHWA will transfer 17.6 legal
positions to the FMCSA comprised of FHWA staff that presently support
motor carrier initiatives and vacant positions.
All of the 118 positions that are proposed to be added to FMCSA are
identified and discussed in the attached report, ``Justification for
Additional Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Personnel.'' The
comparison of existing and proposed positions is presented in the table
provided in response to the previous question.
______
Questions Submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE FOR TRANSFER OF MAGLEV FUNDS
Question. Has legislative language been proposed in the fiscal year
2001 Federal Highway Administration budget to authorize this transfer
of maglev funds to FRA for non-maglev program purposes? Would such
legislative authority be necessary to enable this transfer?
Answer. The FHWA budget contains an obligation ceiling
($25,000,000) for the maglev program and specific authority for FRA
administrative expenses and technical assistance ($3,500,000 of the
$25,000,000). Since Section 1218 of TEA-21, which authorized the maglev
program, contains no specific authorization for highway trust funds to
be spent for non-maglev purposes, specific legislative authority is
required to enable the contemplated transfer of $1,500,000 to non-
maglev programs. FRA would be happy to assist the Committee in drafting
such legislative authority, if requested.
IMPACT OF NOT RECEIVING $1.5M IN MAGLEV FUNDING
Question. Assuming that this proposed transfer is not enacted by
the appropriation process, what budgeted programs would you cut in
Safety and Operations to make up the $1,500,000 shortfall?
Answer. If the $1.5 million was not provided to the Safety &
Operations account, FRA would be forced to reduce safety staffing and
travel, other administrative costs, the Operation Lifesaver grant and
the ATIP contract. These reductions would have a detrimental impact on
our mission.
Therefore, it is critical that the $1.5 million be transferred to
FRA from the maglev program.
ATIP FISCAL YEAR 1998-2001 FUNDING
Question. In February 1999, FRA awarded a $3,700,000 grant to
ENSCO, Inc. of Springfield, Virginia for the acquisition of a new track
geometry measurement vehicle to replace the T-10 track geometry
measurement car. Please provide a detailed breakout of the program
costs for ATIP in the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and budgeted for 2000
and 2001. How much of the program costs in each of these years have
gone toward the procurement of the new track geometry vehicle? What is
the status of this procurement. Will the T-10 track geometry
measurement car be retired, or remain in use?
Answer. The program costs for fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year
2001 follow:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------
1998 actual 1999 actual 2000 projected 2001 requested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Costs................................. $1,325,000 $2,061,000 $2,925,000 $3,169,000
Equipment....................................... 350,000 2,761,000 589,000 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 1,675,000 4,822,000 3,514,000 3,169,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The acquisition of a new track geometry car was awarded to the
lowest bidder. The purchase price, $3.7 million, was $700 thousand more
than FRA's original estimate. To accommodate the shortfall, FRA reduced
the number of miles inspected in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
for savings of $111 thousand, and $589 thousand, respectively. The
fiscal year 2001 request reflects the total funds needed to operate the
new track geometry inspection vehicle over 25,000 miles of track per
year, the bare minimum needed for an effective track inspection
program.
Currently, ENSCO's subcontractor is fabricating the host vehicle.
Completion is scheduled for June 2000. Following the construction of
the host vehicle, ENSCO will install the computer processing equipment.
FRA anticipates the delivery of the new track geometry vehicle in the
Fall of 2000.
The continued operation of FRA's current T-10 track geometry car in
tandem with the new car is anticipated for a brief period, to
facilitate calibration of the new system. To date, no decision has been
made on the final disposition of the current T-10 vehicle.
LIGHT DENSITY LINE RAIL STUDY
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the small
railroad investment needs and financial options study that was funded
at a level of $150,000 in the fiscal year 2000 conference report. Will
FRA work with any other entities, such as the American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association, in conducting this study? When will the
study be completed?
Answer. FRA has met with the American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association to define the approach of the study, which is
costing $150,000. The study will be completed by the North Dakota State
University, the entity that manages the National Short Line Railroad
Database for the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association.
FRA anticipates that the study will be completed within a year.
STUDY ON 286,000-POUND RAIL CARS
Question. Is FRA currently conducting a study regarding track and
bridge requirements for handling 286,000-pound rail cars, as the agency
was encouraged to do in the fiscal 2000 House report? Will the findings
of the 286,000-pound railcar study be incorporated into the investment
needs study?
Answer. The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
(ASLRRA) has recently submitted its grant application to FRA,
requesting funds to carry out the study of 286,000-pound cars on light
density rail lines. FRA is processing the application now and expects
to award the grant shortly. The ASLRRA has already selected a
contractor and expects the study to be completed in mid-summer 2000.
The findings of this study of track and bridge requirements for
286,000-pound cars will be available in time for inclusion into the
investment needs study.
REQUEST FOR 10 ADDITIONAL POSITIONS
Question. FRA is requesting 10 new railroad safety field positions
in fiscal year 2001 (5 FTEs), with an associated dollar increase of
$564,000. Is the expected time in service in fiscal year 2001 an
average of 6 months? Please detail the anticipated deployment of these
ten positions--what will the job titles, GS ranking, and field office
assignment be for each? What is the average personnel cost per FTE?
Answer. FRA is requesting a total of $564 thousand for 10
positions. Funding provides salaries and expenses for 6 months (5
FTEs). Of the $564 thousand requested, $391 thousand is for PC&B and
$173 thousand is for expenses such as travel, IT and office equipment,
training, rent, and other support costs. Depending on the grade and
work performed, costs for each position range from $42--$77 thousand.
Exact titles have not been established for each position nor the
field assignment. Grades range from GS-11-14. The ten positions will
enable FRA to address several critical safety priorities, including
grade crossing, rulemaking, safety enforcement, railroad security, and
other RSAC/SACP related assignments.
PRIORITY OF ADDITIONAL POSITIONS REQUESTED
Question. Please prioritize the new positions requested, indicating
which are most important in view of the most pressing demands on FRA.
Answer. All of the positions are important and critical in meeting
the demands placed upon FRA. FRA is committed to meeting each of its
safety measures. FRA's ability to achieve these goals can be attained
only through a commitment to a broad array of safety initiatives. The
10 additional positions will enable FRA to keep its safety commitments.
FUNDING FOR FATIGUE COUNTERMEASURES
Question. Is FRA currently funding any partnership work on fatigue
countermeasures with the North American Rail Alertness Partnership or
the National Sleep Foundation, or with other organizations such as rail
labor unions? If so, please detail these contracts.
Answer. Under Technical Support for Human Factor Issues, FRA's
Office of Research and Development contracts the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to study a variety of topics, of
which fatigue may be a component. Examples of current Volpe activities
where fatigue may be a study component include 1-person crew operation
of Amtrak locomotives, locomotive cab ergonomics, and rail yard and
terminal safety.
FRA founded and sponsors meetings of the North American Rail
Alertness Partnership (NARAP) and agency representatives attend
meetings with the National Sleep Foundation, where strategies for
fatigue countermeasures are being discussed. The railroad industry has
begun to implement innovative measures to combat the threat of fatigue
based on the findings and recommendations of NARAP. Many of these
efforts are still in the embryonic stages. In March 1999, an agreement
between the carriers, the United Transportation Union, and the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers specifically deals with addressing
fatigue.
The $300 thousand requested in fiscal year 2001 in the Safety and
Operations account, will allow FRA to develop implementation strategies
and facilitate partnership efforts to further the adoption of fatigue
mitigation programs throughout the railroad industry. The funding also
will be used to help FRA obtain more accurate and complete data
regarding the role of fatigue in rail related accidents. Currently,
protocols for obtaining such documentation are unreliable. Delays in
addressing fatigue-related accident analysis will result in the
unnecessary loss of lives.
NHTSA'S WORK ON FATIGUE COUNTERMEASURES
Question. Is FRA aware of or involved with any of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ongoing work on fatigue
countermeasures? Please describe the level of involvement, if any, in
these efforts.
Answer. The Office of Safety has recently established informal
partnerships with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), at the regional level, to discuss the exchange of information
regarding fatigue related issues. FRA is interested in using the
results from NHTSA's drowsy driver initiative to address the fatigue
concerns of the Brotherhood of Maintenance-of-Way Employees and the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. Excessive travel requirements-and
possible fatigue ramifications-constitute a significant safety concern
for the members of these two rail labor organizations.
Under Secretary Slater's ONE DOT Initiative, the entire Department
coordinates its activities on fatigue and other human factors issues.
STAFFING FOR FATIGUE PROGRAM
Question. What level of commitment does FRA envision being
associated with this $300,000 program request?
Answer. The Office of Safety has allocated 1.5 FTEs to fatigue-
related issues which includes the position, Transportation Fatigue
Program Coordinator. FRA will use the initial funding for a systematic
approach to assessing how fatigue affects the rail industry and the
lives of its employees and customers. With continued annual support of
this effort, cost effective approaches to fatigue issues can be
developed and implemented.
In addition, the funding will provide the stimulus for expanding
the Administration's fatigue awareness initiatives within the railroad
industry. Initiatives associated with education and training (including
the development of innovative work/rest pilot projects) could also be
significantly accelerated. This will result in a reduction in injuries
and fatalities. Other initiatives that could be implemented or refined
include: (a) initiating near-miss pilot programs, (b) sponsoring
industry-wide conferences or executive roundtable discussions to
expedite solutions, (c) identifying and expediting fatigue
countermeasures for non-operating employees, and (d) contracting the
services of recognized experts in fatigue countermeasures to help
expand outreach/partnerships to rail and non-rail entities pertaining
to fatigue countermeasures.
The National Transportation Safety Board estimates that human
factor-caused accidents (including those containing a fatigue
component) constitute nearly 35 percent of all train accidents. An
effective fatigue mitigation program could reduce human factor-caused
train accidents by nearly a third.
The fundamental mandate of the Office of Safety is to undertake
whatever initiatives or measures are available to ensure the safest
environment within the railroad industry for employees, customers
(shippers/public), and all other stakeholders. The recognition and
resolution of fatigue problems is an integral issue in current and
future FRA initiatives. Under DOT's Safety Strategic Goal, fatigue
issues are a Flagship Initiative.
OPERATION LIFESAVER AND OUTREACH PROGRAM
Question. In fiscal year 2000, the conferees increased funding for
Operation Lifesaver from $600,000 to $950,000, and designated the
$350,000 increase as seed money for a national public service campaign
that has the financial and technical support of the railroad industry,
FRA, and the law enforcement community. Have those contract funds been
released to Operation Lifesaver? What is the current status of the
national public service campaign effort?
Answer. Operation Lifesaver, Incorporated (OLI) operates on a
calendar year budget cycle. Upon completion of a required annual
financial audit, OLI applies for the annual FRA grant. For fiscal year
2000, FRA received OLI's grant request on February 28, 2000. FRA
anticipates the first release of funds under the grant in April 2000.
The national public service campaign effort is well underway. FRA,
OLI, and the Association of American Railroads have met several times
to discuss basic concepts and have agreed upon key campaign issues. Law
enforcement interests are represented by the OLI Program Development
Council's Law Enforcement Committee whose members represent various
state and railroad police and a representative from the International
Association of Chiefs of Police. Requests for proposals were received
in January 2000, and a contractor and an advertising agency have been
selected. Design of the public service announcements currently are
underway. Upon completion, they will be tested on focus groups in at
least four major cities across the nation before being implemented
nationwide.
REQUEST FOR GRADE CROSSING OUTREACH PROGRAM
Question. In the fiscal year 2001 budget request, FRA is requesting
$500,000 for a highway-rail grade crossing safety outreach program. Is
this request a follow-on to the national public service campaign, with
the funds provided to Operation Lifesaver through the normal contract
process? Or is this a new, unique FRA outreach program, conducted
separately from Operation Lifesaver's public awareness and education
efforts? If it would be a separate new program, why is this necessary?
What unique and value-added contributions can FRA make that could not
be accomplished by Operation Lifesaver?
Answer. The funds requested in fiscal year 2001 will be used to
develop a new coordinated and branded public outreach program to
promote crossing safety. This effort will build on the national public
service campaign conducted by Operation Lifesaver, Incorporated (OLI).
FRA's campaign will be a comprehensive, long term program, developed in
coordination with OLI, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Motor Carrier Safety, the Federal Transit Administration, the
Association of American Railroads, rail labor and others.
The outreach program will explore the use of multiple messages
targeted to specific audiences. It will utilize pilot programs and
assessment tools to test the effectiveness of proposed slogans and
campaigns before they are implemented on a widespread basis. Some of
the funding will be used to broaden FRA's outreach to the law
enforcement and judicial communities, and to develop materials to
support these outreach efforts. Efforts also will be undertaken to
develop outreach strategies that address initiatives that have not
historically fallen within the purview of OLI. These include outreach
to communities that will be impacted by the Federal Train Horn Rule,
and development of educational materials concerning grade crossing
safety on rail lines that are converted to shared light rail/freight
rail operations. In addition, different partnerships will be developed
that need unique outreach support. These include non-traditional
partnerships with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's), national
insurance institutes, car manufacturers, and truck manufacturers.
FRA VS OLI OUTREACH CAMPAIGN
Question. How is it considered cost-effective for FRA to seek funds
to hire another firm to develop and carry out a ``branded'' PSA
campaign containing the same elements as the OLI/FRA/AAR campaign that
was approved and funded in fiscal year 2000? Doesn't this duplicate
FRA's ongoing support to Operation Lifesaver?
Answer. The ``branding'' effort that FRA proposes does not contain
the same elements as the OLI/AAR campaign approved and funded in fiscal
year 2000. It would build on that existing work and involve close
cooperation with OLI, the railroad industry, law enforcement, the
judicial system and other non-traditional partners. The process will
involve identification of a ``brand'' name and methods of assuring that
the name recognition for grade crossing safety and trespass prevention
messages resonate with the public. It would also identify and/or modify
internal and external management and communication processes that
facilitate delivery of a consistent message. In that sense, it focuses
on the development of effective management and communication strategies
that most effectively deliver that message.
OLI/AAR development and promotion of the current Public Service
Announcement (PSA) campaign will be a major component of FRA's
initiative. However, the proposed initiative goes beyond delivery of a
single message. It includes the development of an effective message
delivery system and a set of analytical tools to determine the
continued effectiveness of the message and the means for assuring the
redevelopment of new messages that consistently promote the ``brand
name'' associated with grade crossing safety and trespass prevention.
The proposal will supplement, not duplicate PSA crossing safety work
underway by OLI/AAR. It will be a comprehensive, long term program,
developed in coordination with OLI, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Motor Carrier Safety, the Federal Transit Administration, the
Association of American Railroads, rail labor, and others.
The outreach program will explore the use of multiple messages
targeted to specific audiences. FRA is already working with OLI and the
rail industry to prepare a demographic study of trespassers. FRA also
will ask NHTSA to update their 1994 demographic study of crossing-
related fatalities. The outreach program will utilize pilot programs
and assessment tools to test the effectiveness of proposed slogans and
campaigns before they are implemented on a widespread basis. Some of
the funding will be used to broaden FRA's outreach to the law
enforcement and judicial communities, and to develop materials to
support these outreach efforts. Efforts will be undertaken to develop
outreach strategies that address initiatives that have not historically
fallen within the purview of OLI. These include outreach to communities
that will be impacted by the Federal Train Horn Rule, and development
of educational materials concerning grade crossing safety on rail lines
that are converted to shared light rail/freight rail operations. In
addition, different partnerships will be developed that need unique
outreach support. These include non-traditional partnerships with
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, national insurance institutes, car
manufacturers, and truck manufacturers.
INCREASE IN TRAVEL COSTS
Question. In the object classification table for Safety and
Operations, the request for ``travel and transportation of persons''
increased $630,000 above the enacted base of $7,126,000. Is the
$500,000 increases in safety travel part of this increase? What type of
travel is the remaining $130,000 in the request associated with?
Answer. The $630 thousand increase reflects the following:
Safety travel................................................. $500,000
Ten new positions travel...................................... 27,000
Inflation and PCS-related increases........................... 103,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 630,000
impact of no increase in fra's travel budget
Question. What steps could be taken to reduce travel expenses if
the $500,000 requested additional travel funds are not provided?
Answer. With little discretionary spending authority, FRA will need
to reduce planned community outreach and railroad partnership
activities if the requested travel funds are not provided. This will
occur at a time when FRA's safety responsibilities continue to grow, in
large part due to fulfillment of statutory mandates to conduct
rulemakings and special studies.
FRA's safety programs require a balanced approach of inspections
coupled with partnerships, which enlist the cooperation of rail labor
and management to identify and correct safety concerns in the railroad
industry.
As a result of increased public, congressional, and Administration
expectations for the railroad safety program, FRA finds itself in a
position of extreme vulnerability. Without sufficient travel funds FRA
may find it necessary to curtail some SACP activities and random
inspection activity. A travel fund shortfall would constrain FRA from
assisting local communities that request FRA assistance in addressing
adverse impacts of rail mergers (e.g., noise exposure, blocked highway-
rail crossings and rail congestion issues) and in implementing new
rules for quiet zones. The current breakup of Conrail poses potential
major safety issues and FRA continues to work with communities
experiencing effects of the BNSF and UP/SP mergers.
TOTAL AND INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL
Question. Please identify total agency travel expenses for each of
the last five years, and list the purpose of each foreign trip and
associated expenses taken by each SES and political appointee staff
person in the last year.
Answer. Total FRA travel obligations for the last five years are as
follows:
Fiscal year Amount
1995.................................................... $5,978,000
1996.................................................... 5,673,000
1997.................................................... 6,273,000
1998.................................................... 6,379,000
1999.................................................... 6,868,000
FRA SES and political appointees attended 10 foreign events in
fiscal year 1999 as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Total
Trip purpose travelers cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend and participate in the Eurailspeed 1 $1,538
Conference (Berlin)..............................
Attend and participate in the American Public 3 4,242
Transit Commuter Rail/Rapid Transit Conference
(Toronto)........................................
Implement technical assistance provision of 3 8,080
Memorandum of Cooperation with the Polish Rail
System (Warsaw)..................................
Attend and participate in the Border 1 1,400
Infrastructure Conference (Tijuana)..............
Assess policy and procedures for shared use of 1 1,471
track (Karlsruhe)................................
Attend and participate in Safety Conference 1 458
(Buenos Aires)...................................
Attend and participate in Transport Canada meeting 1 776
(Montreal).......................................
Attend and participate in Transport Canada meeting 1 885
(Toronto)........................................
Attend and participate in Transport Canada meeting 1 818
(Ottawa).........................................
Attend and participate in International Railway 1 1,690
Safety Conference (Banff)........................
---------------------
Total....................................... 14 21,358
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUNDS FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION
Question. Please prepare a table that outlines the current base
level funding, if any, for each of the six initiatives outlined under
this requested increase (highway-rail grade crossing closure study,
highway-rail grade crossing warning device study, safety integration
plan merger surveillance tracking, study to amend passenger car safety
standards, switching operations fatality analysis study, and safety and
health committee support). Indicate the amount of the fiscal year 2001
request, and any planned outyear costs (if known).
Answer. The information follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Fiscal
base year 2001
funding request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway-rail grade crossing closure study......... ......... 100
Highway-rail grade crossing warning device........ ......... 100
Safety integration plan surveillance of mergers ......... \1\ 150
tracking.........................................
Study to amend passenger car safety standards..... ......... 100
Switching operations fatality analysis study...... ......... 35
Safety and health committee support............... ......... \2\ 13
---------------------
Total--Program Evaluation................... ......... 500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This amount is required annually for five years (fiscal year 2001--
fiscal year 2006).
\2\ This amount is required annually and would be adjusted to reflect
inflationary costs and new OSHA Safety and Health requirements, as new
regulations are issued.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 IT INITIATIVE FUNDING
Question. What is the base level for the IT initiative? Please
break out personnel related costs and program funding.
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, FRA was appropriated $732,000 for the
IT initiative--$689,000 in program costs and $43,000 in personnel
related costs.
COST OF ANNUALIZED FTE FOR IT PROJECT
Question. How much of the requested increase for the IT initiative
supports annualization of the new position approved in fiscal year
2000?
Answer. A total of $35,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
request for the annualized FTE.
IT INITIATIVE--IMPACT OF FIVE-YEAR VS FOUR-YEAR PLAN
Question. As directed by the conferees in the fiscal year 2000
conference report, FRA provided supplementary materials with the fiscal
year 2001 budget request which detailed the agency's spending plan for
the FRA-wide IT initiative. The total cost of this initiative is
$9,946,000 over four years (fiscal year 2000-fiscal year 2003). If
budgetary constraints forced the program implementation to be spread
over five years, what adjustments would be made to the fiscal year 2001
program budget?
Answer. Specific adjustments cannot be determined without knowing
if funding constraints would be imposed in fiscal year 2001 or
outyears. If reductions were made to the fiscal year 2001 request, FRA
would be forced to delay the start of the data mart initiative and
possibly the detailed transition plan to an ATM backbone.
BASE FUNDING FOR WEB-SITE SUPPORT
Question. What is the base level funding for web-site support?
Please break out personnel related costs and program funding.
Answer. There are no base funds for web-site support in fiscal year
2000. Work has been absorbed by staff in various program offices.
However, due to the increasing workload in this area and the need for
technical expertise in enhancing and expanding FRA's web-site, FRA
cannot continue to divert staff from program work to IT work, nor
continue to lag behind other DOT agencies in providing up-to-date web-
site information. FRA needs dedicated staff or contract support, for
this new IT tool. FRA is requesting $310 thousand in contract support
in fiscal year 2001.
FRA SAFETY WEBSITE--NEW APPLICATIONS
Question. Please detail the new applications that would be added to
the safety portion of the FRA website with a funding increase of
$300,000 (include associated costs for each).
Answer. The FRA Safety Data web page provides both the FRA and
outside users with charts, graphs, dynamic programs where users can
build their own requests for information, and retrievable databases.
The FRA also has a secure page for internal use, such as Complaint
Investigations and individual inspections by inspector.
There are a number of new Internet website applications which FRA
would like to offer. First, FRA has started collecting information
about railroad activity by county. This information could be displayed
on the Internet website with the accident and inspection information.
The addition of this information will provide FRA management with a
better picture of railroad activities and resource considerations:
approximate cost $145,000.
The highway-rail grade crossing inventory data is already on the
web site. However, many times the requestor does not know the crossing
identification number. A new search application would allow the user to
find any highway-rail crossing on a map with street names and railroad
tracks. The user could then select that crossing and get pertinent
information (i.e., accidents, if crossing has a hump, number of trains,
etc.). One added benefit is that concerned citizens can be alerted to
crossings that have high exposure to accidents: approximate cost
$55,000.
Finally, the current highway-rail crossing inventory is completed
separately by states and railroads using FRA-supplied client software.
This information is mailed into FRA for updating the inventory
database. FRA would like to develop a new application that allows
states and railroads to complete the highway-rail grade crossing
inventory on FRA's Internet website. This would allow states and
railroads to communicate quickly with each other on changes to highway-
rail crossing information: approximate cost $100,000.
INCREASE FOR EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT
Question. What is currently spent annually on employee development
(for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and budgeted for 2000 and 2001)? Why is
an increase of $660,000 needed above the base funding for fiscal year
2001?
Answer. FRA obligated $384 thousand and $464 thousand for training
or employee development in fiscal year 1998-1999 respectively. A total
of $662 thousand is budgeted in fiscal year 2000.
FRA is requesting a total of $1.34 million in fiscal year 2001, an
increase of $678 thousand over fiscal year 2000. Of this amount, $9
thousand is related to the requested ten new positions and $660
thousand is needed to enhance FRA's employee development program and
workforce planning activities.
Currently, FRA's training budget reflects only 1 percent of its
annual payroll as compared to 2.65 percent provided by private
industries and other Federal entities. The requested increase will
allow FRA to increase its training budget to approximately 2 percent of
its payroll. More important, it will allow FRA to begin developing a
comprehensive workforce planning strategy that addresses skills
assessment and training, recruitment and retention of employees,
diversity and other activities that support both organizational and
individual goals. Due to the robust economy and resulting competition
for skilled professionals, the aging workforce (more than 50 percent of
FRA's employees are over 48) and the impact of technology on work
conditions and skills, it is critical for FRA to begin planning for
what the Comptroller General has described as the ``human capital
crisis'' in the Federal Government.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Question. Please detail all employee development activities in
fiscal year 1999, describing each conference, class, workshop or
training session; number of FRA employees attending; and cost. What is
the budgeted funding level for employee development in fiscal year 2000
and requested for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The FRA offers and encourages annual participation in a
variety of learning and development opportunities to its employees,
e.g., off-the-shelf, in-house and technical training. FRA's employee
development or training is for the most part, managed at the office
level and there is no central source for detailed data. Actual total
obligations for training in fiscal year 1999 were $384 thousand. The
FRA also supports and provides for tuition reimbursement, as
appropriate.
A total of $662 thousand and $1.34 million is budgeted in fiscal
year 2000 and 2001 respectively. The requested increase in fiscal year
2001 will allow FRA to continue individual training and begin to
coordinate agency-wide career development programs that will meet the
needs of the organization.
FEDERAL COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Question. Please list the number of enforcement actions, the amount
of civil penalty assessments, the amounts collected or settled, and the
number and types of violation reports submitted for each of the past
three years and relate these measures to your continuing efforts
proposed for fiscal year 2001. What percentage of these actions have
come from federal inspectors and what percentage from state inspectors?
Answer. The tables below reflect the number of cases in which FRA
assessed an initial penalty for fiscal years 1997-1999, the aggregate
penalty assessment in those cases, the number of cases closed, the
amounts collected, and the number and types of violation reports
received from inspectors, with a breakdown of the percentage of those
reports received from state and Federal inspectors. Cases transmitted
in a given year are often settled in a following year, so the amounts
assessed in a given year do not correlate directly with the amounts
collected in the same year. These tables demonstrate a substantial
civil penalty program that will continue to be a major activity of FRA
inspectors and attorneys in fiscal year 2001. These enforcement actions
directly support achievement of the agency's safety goals.
CASES TRANSMITTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
Fiscal year No. of cases assessed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................... 1,014 $7,531,250
1998.................................... 1,022 9,991,250
1999.................................... 958 8,741,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASES CLOSED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Fiscal year No. of cases collected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................... 972 $3,792,380
1998.................................... 1,482 5,213,595
1999.................................... 1,122 6,046,050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER OF VIOLATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY TYPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Type --------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AD..................................... 94 90 52
AR..................................... 128 142 286
BW..................................... 2 1 3
EP..................................... 5 ......... .........
EQ..................................... 29 37 21
FCS.................................... 224 178 298
GC..................................... 24 44 37
GS..................................... ......... ......... 2
HMT.................................... 358 406 291
HS..................................... 213 146 211
HSR.................................... 370 453 106
LI..................................... 363 411 217
REM.................................... 16 2 2
ROP.................................... 25 38 17
ROR.................................... 4 5 4
RSP.................................... 13 3 3
RW..................................... 4 36 20
SA..................................... 358 836 297
SI..................................... 72 42 47
TS..................................... 66 82 93
--------------------------------
Total............................ 2,368 2,952 2,007
================================
Federal Inspectors (percent)........... 88 89 86
State Inspectors (percent)............. 12 11 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1999 SAFETY INSPECTIONS
Question. How many miles of track, freight cars, locomotives, and
track miles with signals and train control systems were inspected last
year? Please compare this level of inspection activity with that
achieved during the two preceding years. What changes in emphasis are
envisioned for fiscal year 2001 and how does the budget request
demonstrate those changes?
Answer. Below is a comparison of preliminary 1999 inspection data
with that of the previous two years. FRA collects the number of signal
and train control devices inspected each year, but not the number of
track miles with signal and train control systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent
1999 \1\ change change
from 1998 from 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track Miles Inspected.................. 227,915 -10.0 -8.3
Freight Cars Inspected................. 599,376 +5.8 +5.9
Locomotives Inspected.................. 24,819 +10.2 +12.0
Signal Units Inspected................. 93,842 +25.7 +30.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
A total of 12,600 track inspections were performed in 1999, which
represents a slight increase of 102 inspections above the number
performed in 1998. Despite the 10 percent decline in track miles
inspected, 73,000 defects were detected in 1999, which represents a
15.7 percent increase in defects from the previous year. Finding more
defects over less trackage is an indication that the ``Focused
Enforcement'' policy of FRA's Safety Assurance and Compliance program
is working. It is also an indication that the ever increasing amounts
of freight traffic are taking a toll on the nation's track structure.
The 10 percent decline in the number of track miles inspected can
be attributed to two factors. First, with the increase in railroad
traffic, it becomes increasingly difficult to secure inspection time on
the track. Second, it takes longer to perform track inspections on a
section of track with many defects than on a track section with few
defects. The track inspector often is required to stop and examine a
defect, recording pertinent information and assuring that proper
remedial action occurs. Because FRA inspections have been successfully
targeted on rail lines with a greater number of defects, fewer miles of
track were inspected, despite a slight increase in the number of
inspections.
FRA will continue to leverage its inspector resources by
coordinating the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) and
site-specific inspection duties in the most effective way. The goal of
SACP and the site-specific inspection program is to improve rail safety
by reducing systemic hazards in rail facilities, equipment, rolling
stock, and operations. FRA believes that it has achieved the proper
balance between the SACP and site-specific inspections.
SACP CHALLENGES
Question. Under the SACP, how many Class I and Class II railroads
have been analyzed to date? How many railroads have had two SACP
reviews? How many additional railroads need to be reviewed for the
first time under the SACP? What are the successes and remaining
challenges associated with the SACP? How does the fiscal year 2001
budget attempt to improve the SACP?
Answer. Since the inception of the SACP in 1995, the process has
been aggressively implemented throughout the railroad industry to
include all Class I carriers, a substantial number of Class II
carriers, commuter rail authorities (under FRA's jurisdiction), and
switching and terminal operators. In recent years, efforts have been
expanded to incorporate the hundreds of short line carriers under
various SACP related initiatives. With the transformation of the SACP
process from a strictly audit review (with specific time frames) to the
present ongoing partnership approach, the principles of SACP have been
integrated into the Office of Safety's compliance and enforcement
procedures. Routine inspection activities and those inspections of a
``SACP nature'' have now been merged together, for all practical
purposes, on Class I railroads. As a result, SACP inspections are
continuously underway on large rail carriers' properties. Consequently,
a quantitative measurement of the number of SACP examinations or audits
per carrier provides no indication of the effectiveness of the process.
Effectiveness is measured by improvements to a carrier's and the
railroad industry's safety record. For example, between 1993 and 1999,
the railroad industry reported the following safety improvements:
employee on duty fatalities declined 34 percent, employee-on-duty
casualties fell 45 percent, highway-rail grade crossing fatalities
dropped 36 percent, and rail-related fatalities declined more than 28
percent.
The success of SACP extends beyond the important safety indices of
reductions in injuries and fatalities. Dramatic changes in the safety
culture are occurring within the industry. As a consequence, changes
are occurring in disciplinary procedures, measures to address fatigue,
deadhead transportation issues, and staffing considerations.
The challenges facing SACP are complex. These include: (1)
furthering the culture change, a slow and laborious task but one
essential to the future of the industry; (2) refining the SACP process
to ensure the participation of all employees, from the executive level
to the newly hired rank-and-file employee; and (3) addressing
complicated issues such as work/rest schedules, train lineup
predictability, etc.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request will significantly help to
expedite meeting the above challenges by providing: (1) additional
travel funds to reach more short line carriers, (2) additional staff--
to address workload demands, (3) additional IT and contract support
funds--to help develop more comprehensive SACP related data bases and
program evaluation initiatives, and (4) additional support for special
outreach programs such as grade crossings and fatigue.
IMPACT OF SACP--FISCAL YEAR 1997-1999
Question. Please provide quantitative measures to indicate trends
in railroad safety, using a variety of measures of safety performance
for each of the last three years. What do you suggest is the role of
the SACP in the improvement of safety statistics?
Answer.
CASUALTIES IN ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Fatalities Injuries casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997................................. 1,063 11,767 12,830
1998................................. 1,008 11,459 12,467
1999 \1\............................. 915 11,309 12,224
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HWY-rail Total
Year Train Other xing accidents/
accidents incidents impacts incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................................... 2,397 10,437 3,865 16,699
1998............................................................... 2,575 10,420 3,508 16,503
1999 \1\........................................................... 2,661 10,161 3,420 16,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
ACCIDENTS/PROPERTY DAMAGE
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accident/
Train Total train million
Year accidents accidents train-
damage miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................. 2,397 $225,723 3.54
1998............................. 2,575 248,292 3.77
1999 \1\......................... 2,661 260,660 3.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
HIGHWAY-RAIL CASUALTIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Deaths Injuries casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................. 461 1,540 2,001
1998.................................. 431 1,303 1,734
1999 \1\.............................. 399 1,360 1,759
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
HIGHWAY-RAIL ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accidents/
Accidents/ million
Year incidents train
miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................ 3,865 5.71
1998............................................ 3,508 5.14
1999 \1\........................................ 3,420 4.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
CASUALTY RATES FOR EMPLOYEES ON DUTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casualties/
200,000
Year Total employee
casualties work-hours
rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................... 8,332 3.31
1998........................................... 8,425 3.27
1999 \1\....................................... 8,451 3.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
TOTAL TRESPASSER CASUALTIES (EXCLUDING HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Deaths Injuries casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997..................................... 533 516 1,049
1998..................................... 536 513 1,049
1999 \1\................................. 467 433 900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
Under SACP, examination of railroad compliance with Agency rules is
more comprehensive than with site-specific inspections. SACP is a
multi-discipline safety audit, whereas site-specific inspections
usually involve only a single inspection discipline. In addition,
compliance agreements under SACP safety audits usually apply across the
entire railroad property. Compliance with a site-specific inspection
may only apply to a particular point on the railroad property.
FRA believes that comprehensive safety examinations under SACP are
contributing to the improvement in railroad safety statistics. Railroad
operations are becoming more complex as the industry strives to attract
traffic from overcrowded highways. Advanced train-control systems are
being developed and tested under operating conditions, and electronic
braking is being tried on some equipment. New types of equipment are
being introduced to handle various types of traffic or to conduct
maintenance operations more efficiently. These have complex,
computerized safety systems, some of which are themselves integral
parts of safety systems composing the entire railroad.
In addition, many of the issues affecting railroads over the next
few years are systemic. For example, the recent Burlington Northern/
Santa Fe and Union Pacific/Southern Pacific mergers and the Surface
Transportation Board's approval of the acquisition of Conrail by
Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation (CSXT) all pose safety issues
resulting from the blending of different corporate cultures and
reconciliation of different operating rules and practices. Systems
approaches to safety inspections are necessary to address these issues.
FRA'S SACP EXPERIENCE WITH SMALL RAILROADS
Question. What is FRA's experience with the SACP as applied to
smaller railroads?
Answer. SACP uses a rail labor/management/FRA partnership approach
in identifying and solving safety concerns within the railroad
industry. The essential components of this approach--issue
identification, review of options for solution, implementation and
monitoring techniques--are utilized regardless of the category (Class
I, II, etc.) of a carrier. However, application of these components is
modified in recognition of the specific operating characteristics of a
small (short line) carrier versus that of a larger carrier.
In expanding the SACP process to short line carriers, the Office of
Safety has initiated a new approach. Various regional partnerships are
being formed between small railroads, state DOT's, the American Short
Line and Regional Railroad Association, and FRA to focus on the safety
related concerns of these carriers. For example, the Northeast Short
Line Railroad Council, which is comprised of representatives of the
railroad related entities located in the territories of FRA's Region
One and Two, is currently addressing the impact of hours of service,
roadway worker, and locomotive horn issues on the operations of short
line carriers. A similar council has been established in FRA Region
Three. Other councils are in the process of being formulated throughout
the remainder of FRA's regions.
Attention to the safety concerns of short line carriers is an
essential component of the Office of Safety's overall approach for
ensuring that elements of the railroad industry are in compliance with
Federal rules and regulations. The SACP process and its consensus
approach to alleviating safety-related problems is significantly
contributing to safer practices in the industry and to the safety of
employees for all carriers.
RAILROAD SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Question. Please break down all expenses associated with the RSAC,
including facilities, mailings, equipment, contract support, and the
``other'' support costs. Please further specify exactly how fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2001 monies were or will be used for RSAC. How
much is requested for fiscal year 2001.
Answer. FRA is requesting $200,000 for RSAC in fiscal year 2001,
the same level as in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. Funding
supports the following:
[In thousands of dollars]
Activity Amount
Travel............................................................ 5
Facilitation...................................................... 10
Contract Support.................................................. 70
Training.......................................................... 5
Space & Audio Visual.............................................. 65
Supplies, Printing & Mailing Services............................. 44
Interpreter Services.............................................. 1
______
Total....................................................... 200
The RSAC is comprised of voting representatives from 27
organizations. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, an estimated
800 full Committee, Working Groups and Task Force members and
alternates have participated in more than 175 meetings to address 15
tasks. Given the magnitude of the resources dedicated to this
successful process, the $200 thousand requested for Federal support is
nominal.
RULEMAKING ACTIVITY IN PAST YEAR
Question. Please list all final regulations, ANPRM's, NPRM's and
any new regulatory projects issued or pursued since last year.
Answer. The information follows.
Final rules issued in 1999
--Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (5/12/99)
--Steam Locomotive Inspection-general revision (11/7/99)
--Locomotive Engineer Certification-general revision (11/8/99)
Proposed rules issued in 1999
--FRA Policy Statement--Jurisdiction Over Railroad Passenger
Operations and Shared Use of the General system (5/25/99)
--FRA Policy on Jurisdiction (11/1/99)
FRA did not pursue any new major regulatory projects in 1999.
However, FRA did continue work on a number of other important
rulemakings, including
--Train Horns (Whistle Bans)
--PTC performance standards
--Cab working conditions (sanitation, noise, temperature)
--Event recorders--data survivability and other issues
--Locomotive crashworthiness
--Power Brakes
REGULATORY BACKLOG
Question. What is the current regulatory backlog? What are the
nature and status of each of those projects? Please identify which of
those are statutorily mandated, and when those are due for final
issuance.
Answer. Enclosed is an April 2000 summary of FRA's pending
regulatory workload, showing the nature and status of each of the
regulatory projects. The projects that are statutorily mandated are:
--Freight Power Brake Rules.--The statutory deadline for revision of
the power brake rules was December 31, 1993. FRA issued rules
on passenger train brakes as part of its passenger equipment
standards, issued in May 1999. One of the major mandates in the
statute concerned equipping trains with two-way end-of-train
devices. FRA issued a rule requiring those devices in January
1997, and railroads actually equipped trains with them prior to
the deadline for compliance stated in the statute. Remaining
freight power brake issues were dealt with in a proposed rule
issued in 1994. FRA withdrew that proposed rule and tasked RSAC
with developing rules in 1996. In June 1997, with RSAC
deadlocked on the rule, FRA withdrew the task from RSAC. FRA
published a proposed rule on September 9, 1998, and, after
public hearings and comment, is preparing a final rule. The
final rule is under review within the Administration.
--Use of Train Horns at Grade Crossings.--The Swift Rail Development
Act of 1994 required FRA to issue regulations providing for the
use of train horns at highway-rail crossings. The final rule on
the most hazardous crossings was due on November 2, 1996, and a
final rule on other crossings was due on November 2, 1998. This
second final rule would require the sounding of the locomotive
horn at a crossing unless alternative safety measures are in
place to compensate for its value as a warning to motorists.
FRA released a report on the national impacts of local whistle
bans on June 1, 1995, and has conducted an extensive program of
public outreach to make communities aware of the forthcoming
rulemaking and to seek information on supplementary safety
measures that would support the allowance of quiet zones in
communities sensitive to train horn noise. Numerous
congressional offices encouraged FRA to continue outreach and
data collection. FRA advised the Congress that the deadline for
an initial final rule would not be met. Immediately prior to
adjournment, the 104th Congress enacted the FAA reauthorization
bill (PL 104-264; 10/9/96), which included amendments to the
original whistle ban legislation. In general, the legislation
affirms the latitude available to the Secretary to provide for
phase-in of regulations and focus on safety results. FRA issued
the proposed rule January 13, 2000. Written comments are due
May 26, 2000. Public hearings are being held to receive oral
comments. FRA published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the proposed regulation in December 1999. FRA's
proposed rule strives to achieve the law's important safety
objective in a way that will provide communities maximum
flexibility and ample opportunity to maintain quiet.
In addition to the statutorily mandated rules, among the most
important pending rulemakings are:
--Positive train control.
--Locomotive cab working conditions.
--Locomotive crashworthiness.
--Event recorder revisions.
FRA expects to issue proposed or final rules on each of these
subjects in 2000. The enclosed overview contains specifics on each of
these projects.
Overview of the Railroad Safety Regulatory Program and Standards-
Related Partnership Efforts
Legend:
ANPRM--Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Italics--Indicates project has been identified for development
through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee or a similar forum for
collaborative rulemaking
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RSAC--Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
SACP-- Safety Assurance and Compliance Program
* * * * * * *
NOTE
Centralized Docket Management System.--Dockets established after
October 7, 1998, are available on the DOT Centralized Docket Management
System facility and can be accessed over the Internet (http:://
dms.dot.gov). Detailed information is available at the Web site to
assist in viewing documents.
Revised Docket Filing Procedures for FRA Rulemaking and
Adjudicatory Dockets.--Final Rule (64 FR 70193)--This final rule amends
certain FRA rules to provide accurate information to the public
regarding filing requirements for FRA proceedings. The final rule is
effective 2/14/00.
* * * * * * *
SUMMARY OF CONSENSUS RULEMAKING EFFORTS
Roadway Worker Safety.--Consensus achieved in formal negotiated
rulemaking; final rule published 12/16/96; effective 1/15/97. Denial of
AAR and APTA petitions for reconsideration published 4/21/97.
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards.--NPRM based on working group
recommendations was published 9/23/97. Public hearing held 11/21/97.
Written comments were due 11/24/97. Working group met 12/15-12/16/97
(general issues) and 1/6/98 (intercity and high speed issues). Final
rule published 5/12/99 (64 FR 25540).
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness.--NPRM based on working
group recommendations was published 2/24/97 with significant additions,
and a notice of public hearings was published 3/6/97. Public hearings
were held in Chicago on 4/4/97 and in New York City on 4/7/97. Written
comments were due by 4/25/97. Working group met 8/28/97 and reached
agreement in principle on changes for incorporation into the final
rule. Final rule published 5/4/98 (63 FR 24630).
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee:
Last full Committee meeting 1/28/1999.
Last RSAC Working Group Activity Update published in Federal
Register 12/17/99 (64 FR 707656).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task
No. Subject Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
96-1 Power Brake Working group charter extended to 1/15/
Regulations, freight, 97 to produce NPRM; impasse reached at
general revision 12/4/96 meeting, and subsequent
efforts to renew talks were not
successful. FRA withdrew task at 6/24/
97 meeting. FRA published second NPRM
9/9/98 (63 FR 48294) reflective of
what FRA has learned through the
collaborative process. Public hearings
10/26/98 and 11/13/98; technical
conference 11/23-24/98. Submission of
written comments date due extended to
3/1/99. Public meeting 5/27/99 on FRA
MPE database. FRA is preparing the
final rule.
96-2 Track Safety Standards, Consensus achieved; in balloting that
general revision concluded 11/21/96, RSAC voted to
accept working group report and
recommend NPRM. NPRM published 7/3/97;
public hearing held 9/4/97; comment
period closed 9/15/97. Final rule
published 6/22/98; effective 9/21/98.
FRA prepared final rule amendment on
Gage Restraint Measurement System
(GRMS) standards. Contingent upon
Working Group approval, the standards
will be forwarded to the full RSAC for
consideration.
96-3 Railroad Communications Final meeting of working group was held
(including revision of 1/23/97. Working group provided
Radio Standards and consensus NPRM to RSAC at 3/24/97
Procedures) meeting. RSAC voted to accept the NPRM
and forward to the Administrator in
voting concluded 4/14/97. NPRM
published 6/26/97; comment period
closed 8/25/97. Final rule published 9/
4/98 (63 FR 47182).
96-4 Tourist Railroads Open task to address needs of tourist
and historic railroads; working group
monitored steam task.
96-5 Steam-Powered Tourist & Historic Working Group met
Locomotives, revision with task force representatives 9/3/
of inspection 97. NPRM was approved by full
standards committee in voting that concluded 2/
17/98. NPRM published 9/25/98 (63 FR
51404). Public hearing held 2/4/99.
Task Force developed recommendations
in response to comments received;
Working Group consensus; approved by
full Committee voting ballot 9/29/99.
Final rule published 11/17/99 (64 FR
62828).
96-6 Locomotive Engineer Task accepted 10/31/96; first working
Qualification and group meeting held 1/7-9/97. NPRM
Certification, general approved by full committee 5/14/98.
revision NPRM published 9/22/98 (63 FR 50625).
Final rule published 11/8/99 (64 FR
60966).
96-7 Track Motor Vehicle and Task accepted 10/31/96. Task Force of
Roadway Worker Track Safety Standards Working Group
Equipment is finalizing a proposed rule.
Contingent upon Working Group
approval, the proposed rule will be
forwarded to the full RSAC for
consideration.
96-8 Locomotive Planning task accepted 10/31/96;
Crashworthiness and planning group met 1/23/97; two task
Working Conditions statements were accepted by the full
(planning task) Committee at 6/24/97 meeting [see 97-
1, 97-2]. Planning task is COMPLETED.
97-1 Locomotive Task accepted 6/24/97; working group
Crashworthiness held initial meeting 9/8-9/9/97.
Established task force to review
collision history and design options.
Working group reviewed results of
research and is drafting standards for
freight and passenger locomotives.
97-2 Locomotive Cab Working Task accepted 6/24/97; working group
Condi- tions held initial meeting 9/10-11/97. Noise
and Temperature task forces
established. Draft sanitation NPRM
under review by Working Group. Noise
Task Force preparing draft
recommendations for noise exposure
requirements.
97-3 Event Recorders (data Task accepted 6/24/97; working group
survivability, met 9/12/97. Task force established.
inspection, etc.) Working group and task force actively
meeting; draft proposed rule under
review.
97-4, Positive Train Control Tasks accepted 9/30/97 and assigned to
97-5, single working group. Standards Task
97-6 Force is working on proposed NPRM for
positive train control performance
standards. Data and Implementation
Task Force completed report on the
future of PTC systems; report accepted
for forwarding to FRA by full
Committee vote at 9/8/99 meeting.
97-7 Calculation of Damages Task accepted with modification 9/30/
for Reportable Train 97. Working group has been formed.
Accidents Initial meeting held 2/8/99.
00-1 Blue Signal Protection Task accepted 1/28/00; working group
of Work- men being formed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETY RULES AND REPORTS--GENERAL
Accident/Incident Reporting
Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 barred
FRA from adjusting the monetary threshold for reporting of train
accident until the methodology was revised. In addition, FRA identified
the need to comprehensively revise these regulations, which had not be
revised since 1974.
Deadline.--The report of the Committee of Conference on the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act,
1996, directed FRA to issue a final rule in this proceeding by 6/1/96.
History.--An NPRM was issued 8/19/94, followed by public hearings
and written comment. A public regulatory conference was convened 1/30-
2/3/95 in an effort to resolve outstanding issues. A notice of decision
to issue a supplemental NPRM was published 7/3/95, but was withdrawn in
a notice published on 1/24/96.
Status.--Final rule was issued 5/30/96 and published 6/18/96 (61 FR
30940). Stay requests were denied, and technical amendments were
published 11/22/96 (61 FR 59368). A notice of availability of custom
software was also published 11/22/96 (61 FR 59485). On 12/16/96, the
Administrator signed final rule amendments, which were published 12/23/
96 (61 FR 67477). Final rule became effective 1/1/97. Industry training
partnerships have been executed.
Next steps.--FRA offered RSAC a task on 9/30/97 to review the
definition of events required to be reported as train accidents, as
requested by the Committee on 6/24/97. By request of the Committee, the
task was limited to determination of damages qualifying an event as a
reportable train accident. A working group has been formed and held its
initial meeting 2/8/99.
Blue Signal Protection
Summary.--On 8/16/93, FRA published a final rule permitting one or
more utility employees to associate themselves with a train crew for
the purpose of performing normal operating functions that require
employees to go on, under or between rolling stock, without use of blue
signal protection (which is ordinarily appropriate for mechanical
duties). During the proceeding it was noted that rules for locomotive
engineers working alone were not clearly defined. FRA published a final
rule amendment governing single engineers working alone on 3/1/95, but
granted a requested suspension of the amendment on 6/9/95 pending
development of additional facts. Since that time, additional blue
signal issues have continued to emerge, including application of the
requirements to contractors performing the subject functions on
railroad property.
Status.--On 10/31/96, the RSAC advised FRA that this project should
not be proposed for early tasking, given conflicting demands on the
resources of member organizations. RSAC accepted task at the 1/28/00
full Committee meeting.
Bridge Displacement Detection Systems (Report)
Summary.--The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994
required FRA to submit a report on systems to detect bridge
displacement of the type that caused the derailment of the Sunset
Limited at Mobile, Alabama, 9/22/93.
Statutory deadline.--5/2/96
Status.--A technical evaluation report was published 6/23/94 and
made available to the respective committees. A formal report to the
Congress is in preparation.
Control of Alcohol and Drug Use; Application of Random Testing and
Other Requirements to Train Crews Based Outside the United
States Who Engage in Train Operations in the United States
Summary.--FRA applies only part of its regulation on control of
alcohol and drug use (49 CFR part 219) to a railroad's train operations
in the United States that are performed by train crews whose home
terminals are outside the United States (``extraterritorial train
employees''). In this notice, FRA proposes to make all of part 219
applicable to extraterritorial train employees who perform train
operations in the United States.
Status.--Drafting of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is in its
final stages, and FRA plans to send it for review soon.
Event Recorder Next-Generation Performance Standards
Summary.--The National Transportation Safety Board has noted the
loss of data from event recorders in several accidents due to fire,
water and mechanical damage. In issuing final rules for event recorders
which became effective 5/5/95, FRA noted the need to provide more
refined technical standards. NTSB proposed performance standard for
data survivability.
Background.--Conducted an initial meeting of an informal working
group comprised of AAR, RPI, and labor, and co-chaired by NTSB and FRA
experts, on 12/7/95 to consider development of technical standards. At
the RSAC meeting on 7/24-7/25/96, the AAR agreed to continue this
inquiry, and on 11/1/6, AAR reported to the RSAC the status of work on
proposed industry standards. On March 5, 1997, NTSB issued
recommendations regarding testing and maintenance of event recorders as
a result of finding in the investigation of the BNSF accident of 2/1/96
at Cajon Pass, California. On 3/24/97, the RSAC indicated its desire to
receive a task to consider NTSB recommendations with respect to crash
survivability, testing and maintenance.
Status.--RSAC accepted task 6/24/97. Event Recorder working group
first met 9/12/97. A task force was established. Draft proposed rule
under review. (Task No. 97-3).
Florida Overland Express
Summary.--FRA has received a petition for a rule of particular
applicability for operations over a new high-speed railroad between
Miami and Tampa via Orlando. The State of Florida had established a
dedicated funding stream of $70 million per year towards creation of
this new private/public partnership.
Status.--Received petition for rule of particular applicability 2/
18/97. FRA issued NPRM 12/12/97 (62 FR 65478). Comment period closed.
FRA reviewed comments received and held a public hearing on 11/23/98 to
discuss a variety of issues. The State of Florida withdrew its support
and funding for this project 1/99, suspending all activity on
development. FRA is not currently working on the final rule.
Freight Car Safety Standards; Maintenance-of-Way Cars
Summary.--Cars not in compliance with the Freight Car Safety
Standards may be operated at track speed in revenue trains if they are
company-owned, stenciled cars. FRA published an NPRM 3/10/94 to close
this loophole. FRA requested the Association of American Railroads to
amplify its comments by letter of 12/20/94.
Status.--AAR response received 8/4/95 is under review. FRA offered
a task to the RSAC to resolve final rule issues on 9/30/97, but
objection from the AAR prevented the matter from coming to a vote. FRA
will prepare final rule.
Locomotive Crashworthiness and Working Conditions
Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992
required FRA to conduct a proceeding regarding locomotive
crashworthiness and working conditions and to issue regulations or
submit a report. Areas for consideration included structural means of
preventing harm to crew members in collisions (collision posts,
anticlimbers, etc.) and matters related to safety, health and
productivity (e.g., noise, sanitation).
Statutory deadline.--3/2/95
Background.--FRA conducted research, outreach, and a survey of
locomotive conditions and finalized a report to the Congress
transmitted by letter of September 18, 1996. The report conveyed data
and information developed by FRA to date, closed out those areas of
investigation for which further action is not warranted, and defined
issues that should be pursued further in concert with the industry
parties, either for voluntary or regulatory action. On 10/31/96, the
RSAC accepted a preliminary planning task. The Locomotive Crew Safety
Planning Group met 1/23/97, and subsequent consultations led to
preparation of task statements.
Status.--RSAC accepted two tasks 6/24/97. (RSAC Task 97-1,
locomotive crashworthiness; and Task 97-2, locomotive cab working
conditions).
Locomotive Crashworthiness.--Working Group met 9/8-9/97 and
established a task force on engineering issues that has been active in
reviewing collision history and design options. The Working Group has
reviewed results of research and is drafting standards for freight and
passenger locomotives.
Locomotive Cab Working Conditions.--Working Group met for the first
time 9/10-11/97 and established task forces on noise and temperature,
which have been working actively. A draft sanitation NPRM is under
review by the Working Group. The Noise Task Force is preparing draft
recommendations for noise exposure requirements.
Locomotive Engineer Certification; Miscellaneous Revisions
Summary.--The final rule for locomotive engineer certification
became effective in 1991, but certain issues were left unresolved.
Experience under the rule has raised additional issues. Examples of
issues under review include the status of operators of specialized
maintenance of way equipment and types of conduct for which
decertification is appropriate.
Status.--An interim final rule amendment dealing with agency
practice and procedure concerning engineer certification appeals was
published 10/12/95. Issues related to procedures on the properties,
offenses warranting decertification, periods of decertification,
operation of specialized equipment, etc., are pending. The RSAC
accepted this task on 10/31/96. The Working Group's initial meeting was
held 1/7-1/9/97. Final meeting to review proposed rule language was
held 10/7-10/9/97, and task force on hearing and vision met 10/21/97 to
finalize language. The full committee voted 5/14/98 to recommend
issuance of the NPRM forwarded by the Working Group. The NPRM was
published 9/22/98 (63 FR 50625) (RSAC Task 96-6.) The Working Group met
to resolve issues presented in public comments, and on 1/28/99 the RSAC
voted to transmit recommendations regarding issues for which the
Working Group had received comments. The final rule was published 11/8/
99 (64 FR 60966); effective date 1/7/00. (FRA Docket No. RSOR-9. Notice
12).
Northeast Corridor (NEC) Signal & Train Control
Summary.--Amtrak is planning operations to 150 mph on portions of
the NEC and is implementing improvements to the automatic train control
system that will provide positive stop and continuous speed control
capabilities. FRA's Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (NCSC) met 9/
20/94 and approved a set of performance criteria for the new system.
Status.--On 1/30/97, Amtrak provided to FRA a draft system concept
for the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES), including
conditions for operation on designated territories on the south and
north ends of the NEC. Final details were received by FRA on 7/9/97. A
notice of Proposed Order for the new signal and train control system
authorizing speeds to 150 miles per hour (135 mph on the South End with
only high-speed trains equipped under ``flanking protection'') was
published 11/20/97 (62 FR 62097), and written comments were due by 12/
22/97. As a result of requests, a public hearing was set for 2/17/98
(63 FR 3389), and the comment closing date was extended to 2/24/98.
Final Order of Particular Applicability published 7/22/98 (63 FR
39343); effective 8/21/98.
NEC System Safety
Summary.--Mixed passenger and freight operations at speeds to 150
mph have not previously been attempted in this country. Through the
Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (or successor), FRA intends to
develop system safety criteria for this service territory, integrating
existing safety measures and identifying any areas of material risk not
previously addressed.
Status.--Timing of project initiation to be determined. Will focus
on enhancement and integration of individual railroad system safety
plans to address complex NEC operations.
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
Summary.--The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994
(enacted 11/2/94) required FRA to issue initial passenger safety
standards within 3 years and complete standards within 5 years. The
agency was authorized to consult with industry parties outside the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, making it possible to conduct an
informal negotiated rulemaking.
Statutory deadline.--11/2/97 (initial); 11/2/99 (final).
Status.--An initial meeting of the Passenger Equipment Safety
Working Group (passenger railroads, operating employee organizations,
mechanical employee organizations, and representatives of rail
passengers) was held on 6/7/95, and the group met regularly to develop
an NPRM. Manufacturer/supplier representatives served as associate
members. FRA prepared an ANPRM indicating the issues under review by
the working group, which was published 6/17/96 (61 FR 30672). The
working group held its final meeting on the NPRM 9/30-10/2/96, having
reached consensus on a portion of the issues presented. An NPRM was
published 9/23/97 (62 FR 49728). The public hearing was held 11/21/97
(see 62 FR 55204; 10/23/97). Comments were due 11/24/97. Final working
group meeting on the initial standards was held 12/15-12/16/97, and an
additional meeting on intercity and high speed issues was held 1/6/98.
The final rule was published 5/12/99 (64 FR 25540). (FRA Docket No.
PCSS-1, Notice No. 5). Following issuance of the ``initial'' final
rule, work will begin on additional passenger equipment safety
standards. FRA is reviewing several petitions for reconsideration.
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness
Summary.--The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994
required FRA to issue emergency preparedness standards for passenger
service. Initial standards were required within 3 years and complete
standards within 5 years. The agency was authorized to consult with
industry parties outside the Federal Advisory Committee Act, making it
possible to conduct an informal negotiated rulemaking.
Statutory deadline.--11/2/97 (initial); 11/2/99 (final)
Background: An initial meeting of the working group for passenger
train emergency preparedness standards was held on 8/8/95. The group
met 2/6-7/96 to develop elements of an NPRM and met jointly with the
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group on 3/26/96 to
consider related issues, including the implications of Emergency Order
No. 20 and recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board.
The working group included representatives of passenger railroads,
operating employee and dispatcher organizations, and rail passenger
organizations, and an advisor from the National Transportation Safety
Board. The working group approved draft rule text, which was
incorporated in an NPRM forwarded for review and clearance. Changes
requested during review and clearance were provided to the working
group during the week of 12/16/96.
Status.--The NPRM was published 2/24/97 (62 FR 8330), and a notice
of public hearings was published 3/6/97 (62 FR 10248). Public hearings
were held in Chicago on 4/4/97 and in New York City on 4/7/97. Written
comments were due by 4/25/97. The working group met 8/28/97 and agreed
in principle to revisions for inclusion in the final rule. The final
rule was published 5/4/98 (63 FR 24630), and a correction notice was
published 7/6/98 (63 FR 36376). (FRA Docket No. PTEP-1, Notice No. 3).
NOTE.--The following order is closely associated with the two prior
entries:
Emergency Order No. 20
Summary.--This order deals with the safety of push/pull and
electric multiple unit service. The order was issued 2/20/96 (61 FR
6876; 2/22/96), and amended 2/29/96 (61 FR 8703; 3/5/96). Intercity and
commuter passenger railroads were required to adopt operating rules
providing for observance of reduced speed where delays are incurred in
blocks between distant signals and signals at interlocking or
controlled points. Marking of emergency exits and testing of emergency
windows was required. Interim system safety plans were required to be
filed.
Status.--The order has been fully implemented. On 3/26/96, the
Passenger Equipment Safety Working Group and the Emergency Preparedness
Working Group met jointly to consider implementation issues and
crossover issues with the two rulemaking proceedings and recent
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. The
American Public Transit Association and it members have undertaken a
number of actions in response to the emergency order, including
development of comprehensive system safety plans. Codification,
revision or termination of provisions will be considered during the
second phase of passenger safety standards rulemaking.
Positive Train Control
Evaluation of needs and feasibility (implementation)
Summary.--These tasks involve defining PTC functionalities,
describing available technologies, evaluating costs and benefit of
potential systems, and considering implementation opportunities and
challenges, including demonstration and deployment. (RSAC Tasks 97-4
and 97-5).
Status.--Accepted by RSAC 9/30/97. Please see entry on RSAC
summary.
Performance standards for PTC systems
Summary.--Existing signal and train control regulations are built
around relay-based controllers and traditional track circuits, but
technology is rapidly advancing. This task requires revising various
regulations, including 49 CFR Part 236, to address the safety
implications of processor-based signal and train control technologies,
including communication-based operating systems. The purpose of the
effort is to encourage deployment of innovative technology by providing
a predictable environment. (RSAC Task 97-6).
Status.--Accepted by RSAC 9/30/97. Please see entry on RSAC
summary.
Progress Report to the Congress
Summary.--The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
submit a status report on the implementation of positive train control
as a follow-up to the 7/94 Report entitled Railroad Communications and
Train Control.
Statutory deadline.--12/31/95
Status.--FRA has provided testimony to the committees of
jurisdiction reporting the status of efforts to promote implementation
of positive train control. FRA plans to utilize the results of the RSAC
PTC working group and task forces efforts to provide an appropriate
status report.
Power Brakes
Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992
required FRA to revise the power brake regulations. The statute
required adoption of requirements for 2-way end-of-train telemetry
devices (EOTs) and ``standards for dynamic brakes.''
Statutory deadlines.--Final rule by 12/31/93; 2-way EOTs to be used
on trains operating greater than 30 miles per hour or in mountain grade
territory to be equipped by 12/31/97.
Status.--FRA published an NPRM 9/16/94 and conducted six days of
public hearings ending 12/94. Due to strong objections to the NPRM,
additional options were requested from passenger interests by 2/27/95
and from freight interests by 4/3/95. Further action is as follows:
(1) Passenger standards revision.--FRA requested the Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards Working Group to incorporate new proposals
for revisions of the power brake regulations in the NPRM for passenger
equipment safety. Working group proceedings on the elements of the NPRM
concluded 10/2/96 without full agreement on power brake elements. See
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for current status.
(2) Freight standards revision.--On 4/1/96, the RSAC accepted the
task of preparing a second NPRM. The working group initiated its
efforts in May, and on 10/31/96 the RSAC extended the deadline for a
final report until 1/15/97. At the working group meeting 12/4/96, an
impasse was declared, and subsequent efforts to revive discussions were
not successful. On May 29, FRA notified the working group by letter
that the task will be formally terminated. FRA withdrew task at 6/24/97
full Committee meeting. FRA prepared second NPRM reflective of what was
learned through the collaborative process. NPRM published 9/9/98 (63 FR
48294) (FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 13). (RSAC Task 96-1--
terminated). Public hearings were conducted on 10/26/98 and 11/13/98
and a technical conference was held on 11/23-24/98. Final date for
submission of comments extended until 3/1/99. FRA is preparing the
final rule.
(3) Two-way end-of-train devices.--FRA published notice on 2/21/96
that this issue would be separated from the balance of the freight
issues and expedited for completion of a final rule. A public
regulatory conference was convened 3/5/96 to explore remaining issues,
and written comments were due 4/15/96. (Railroads also agreed to an
expedited schedule that will ensure application of this technology by
12/15/96 on 2 percent or greater grades and by 7/1/97 for other
trains.) The final rule was published 1/2/97 (62 FR 278), (FRA Docket
No. PB-9, Notice No. 6), and it became effective 7/1/97. FRA received
two petitions for reconsideration (``local train'' definition and
implementation date for smaller railroads). A notice denying the
request to delete the tonnage restriction for local trains and granting
extension of the compliance date for railroads with fewer than two
million work hours was published 6/4/97 (62 FR 30461). On 11/4/97, held
technical conference on petition of American Short Line Railroad
Association regarding operation of very light trains over grade
territory (see 62 FR 52370; 10/7/97); subsequently granted limited
relief and received petition for reconsideration of conditions, which
is now under review.
On 1/16/98, FRA published NPRM to clarify application of two-way
EOT requirements to intercity passenger trains with express equipment
at the rear (63 FR 195). Final rule was issued 5/1/98 (63 FR 24130).
(FRA Docket No. PB-9, Notice No. 11).
Note.--On 2/6/96, the Administrator issued Emergency Order No. 18,
requiring use by the BNSF of 2-way EOTs or equivalent protection for
heavy grade operations over the Cajon Pass (61 FR 505; 2/9/96).
Railroad Communications (including Radio Standards and Procedures)
Summary.--In submitting the required report to the Congress on
Railroad Communications and Train Control on 7/13/94, FRA noted the
need to revise existing Federal standards for radio communications in
concert with railroads and employee representatives.
Status.--On 4/1/96, the RSAC accepted the task of preparing an
NPRM, including consideration of communication capabilities required in
railroad operations. The working group presented a consensus NPRM to
the full Committee on 3/24/97, and the Committee voted to recommend
issuance of the NPRM to the Administrator in balloting that ended 4/14/
97. NPRM issued 6/11/97 and published 6/26/97 (62 FR 34544) (FRA Docket
No. RSOR-12, Notice No. 4). Comment period closed 8/25/97. Final rule
published 9/4/98 (63 FR 47182). (FRA Docket No. RSOR-12, Notice No. 5).
(RSAC Task 96-3).
Regulatory Reinvention
Summary.--In response to the President's call for regulatory
review, elimination and reinvention, FRA took several actions to repeal
obsolete regulations and simplify agency processes that affect external
customers. Major elements of this effort are included in regulatory
revision efforts described under other headings.
Status.--Interim final rule amendments reducing frequency of
reporting regarding signal and train control systems (49 CFR Part 233),
simplifying review requirements for certain modifications of signal
systems (49 CFR Part 235), and making conforming changes regarding
inspection of ATC/ATS/ACS (49 CFR Part 236) published 7/1/96 (61 FR
33871). These changes should be finalized early in 1999. FRA is
considering inclusion of a legislative proposal to permit flexibility
for railroads to make accident/incident reports less frequently than
monthly and to eliminate outdated requirements for notarization of
reports in the Administration's proposed 1999 rail safety
reauthorization legislation.
Roadway Worker Safety
Summary.--In requiring the review of the Track Safety Standards,
the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to
evaluate the safety of maintenance of way employees. In addition, the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen petitioned FRA to issue ``on-track safety'' rules.
Background.--FRA published a notice 8/17/94 initiating a formal
negotiated rulemaking. The negotiated rulemaking committee reported a
statement of principles 5/17/95 and completed an NPRM draft 8/95. NPRM
published 3/14/96 (61 FR 10528); initial written comments were due 5/
13/96. Public hearing held 7/11/96.
Status.--The final rule was published 12/16/96 (61 FR 65959);
effective 1/15/97. Petitions for reconsideration were denied in a
notice published 4/21/97. A consolidated hearing on waiver petitions
was held 5/22/97, and written comments were due by 6/9/97. FRA is
issuing decisions on individual petitions as investigations and
analysis were completed.
Safety Integration Plans
Summary.--In response to the proposed acquisition of Conrail by
Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, FRA has suggested, and the
Surface Transportation Board has required, that the petitioners file
with the Board of Safety Integration Plans (SIPs). In coordination with
the Board, FRA proposed regulations requiring preparation and FRA
review of SIPs in connection with future railroad mergers.
Status.--FRA and the STB jointly issued an NPRM 12/31/98 (63 FR
72225) to institutionalize the SIP process to ensure that proper safety
planning and safety investments are undertaken during a merger. The
proposed rule spells out the types of transactions that will require
SIPs and outlines the roles of FRA and the STB in overseeing the SIP
process.
Small Railroads; Interim Policy Statement
Summary.--The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act and required, among other
things, that each agency establish small business communication and
enforcement programs.
Statutory deadline.--3/29/97
Status.--Interim policy statement published 8/11/97 (62 FR 43024).
FRA is reviewing comments received and developing a final policy
statement. Public meeting to address definition of ``small entity'' was
held on 9/28/99. FRA is preparing a final policy statement.
Steam Locomotives
Summary.--A committee of steam locomotive experts from tourist and
historic railroads has sought a partnership with FRA to revise the
steam locomotive regulations. Proposed revisions would relieve
regulatory burdens while updating and strengthening the technical
requirements.
Status.--Revision of the Steam Locomotive Inspection regulations
was tasked to the RSAC on 7/24/96. A task force of the Tourist &
Historic Railroads Working Group is actively working toward
finalization of a final rule. NPRM rule text agreed upon within the
task force was approved by the Tourist and Historic Working Group on 9/
3/97 and provided to the RSAC on 9/30/97. The full RSAC approved the
consensus NPRM by mail ballot 2/17/98. NPRM published 9/25/98 (63 FR
51404) (FRA Docket No. RSSL 98-1, Notice No. 1). (RSAC Task 96-5).
Public hearing held 2/4/99. Task Force formulated recommendations in
response to comments received. The recommendations were accepted by the
working group and the full Committee voted to incorporate the
recommendations in the final rule. The final rule was published 11/17/
99 (64 FR 62828) (FRA Docket No. RSSL 98-1, Notice No. 3); effective
date 1/18/00.
Track Motor Vehicle and Roadway Equipment Safety
Summary.--A 1990 petition to FRA from the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employes asked FRA, among other requests, to propose
standards for MOW equipment related to the safety of persons riding or
operating that equipment. FRA elected not to pursue that issue at that
time given other pending workload. However, this issue was renewed
during the deliberations of the RSAC Track Safety Standards Working
Group.
Status.--On 10/31/96, the RSAC accepted a task of drafting proposed
rules for the safety of this equipment. A task force of the Track
Safety Standards Working Group was formed to address this issue. The
task force has met several times. The task force is finalizing a
proposed rule. Contingent upon the approval of the working group, the
proposed rule will be presented to the full RSAC for consideration at
the 1/28/00 meeting. (RSAC Task 96-7).
Tourist Railroad Report/Review of Regulatory Applicability
Summary.--The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
submit a report to the Congress regarding FRA's actions to recognize
the unique factors associated with these generally small passenger
operations that often utilize historic equipment.
Statutory deadline.--9/30/95
Status.--Report submitted to the Congress 6/10/96. The RSAC
authorized formation of a Tourist and Historic Railroads Working Group
4/1/96. The working group held its initial meeting 6/17-6/18/96 and has
monitored completion of the steam task. (RSAC Task 96-4).
Track Safety Standards
Summary.--The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992
required FRA to revise the Track Safety Standards, taking into
consideration, among other things, the ``excepted track'' provision.
Other prominent issues include updating the standards to take advantage
of research findings for internal rail flaw detection and gage
restraint measurement. FRA also proposes to adopt track standards for
high-speed service.
Statutory deadline.--Final rule by 9/1/95.
Background.--FRA published an ANPRM 11/6/92 and conducted workshops
in the period 1/93-3/93. The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
accepted task of preparing an (NPRM) on 4/2/96. The Track Safety
Standards Working Group reported a draft NPRM to the full committee on
10/31/96. In balloting that concluded 11/21/96, RSAC voted to accept
the working group report and recommend issuance of the NPRM.
Status.--NPRM signed 6/19/97 and published 7/3/97 (62 FR 36138)
(FRA Docket No. RST-90-1, Notice No. 5). Hearing held 9/4/97; comment
period closed 9/15/97. Additional comment was invited regarding certain
high-speed track geometry issues by notice of 12/12/97 (62 FR 65401)
not later than 12/22/97. Final rule published 6/22/98 (63 FR 33991)
(FRA Docket No. RST-90-1, Notice No. 8); effective 9/21/98. FRA
prepared final rule amendment on Gage Restraint Measurement System
(GRMS) standards. (RSAC Task 96-2). Contingent upon approval of the
Track Safety Standards Working Group, the standards will be forwarded
to the full RSAC for consideration at the 1/28/00 meeting.
U.S. Locational Requirement for Dispatching of U.S. Rail Operations
Summary.--New 49 CFR Part 241 would require all dispatching of
railroad operation that occur in the United States to be performed in
the United States, with exceptions for emergency situations and for the
few limited track segments that were being dispatched from foreign
countries as of December 1999.
Status.--Drafting of the Interim Final Rule has been completed, and
FRA has sent it for review.
highway-rail crossing safety
Commercial Driver Disqualification--Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing
Violation
Summary.--To enhance the safety of commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
operations on our nation's highways and complete action initiated in
response to the requirements specificed in section 403 of the ICC
Termination Act of 1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
revised its regulations (49 CFR Parts 383 and 384) to require that CMV
drivers who are convicted of violating Federal, State, or local laws or
regulations pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossings be
disqualified from operating a CMV.
Status.--Final rule published on 09/02/99 (64 FR 48104).
Grade Crossing Signals (Inspection, Testing and Maintenance)
Summary.--FRA issued a final rule for inspection, testing and
maintenance of automated warning devices 9/30/94, and the rule went
into effect 1/1/95 (49 CFR Part 234). During the initial year, FRA
worked with railroads and signal employees to disseminate information,
conduct training, and identify any areas of ambiguity or weakness in
the standards. At a technical resolution committee (TRC) meeting during
the week of 3/13/95 that included participation by railroads, the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, and States, several issues were
identified that require clarification or refinement. An interim manual
dated 4/14/95 incorporated the findings of the TRC.
Status.--Interim final rule amendments published 6/20/96 (61 FR
31802). FRA is preparing a notice to make the changes final which is
expected to be published in the near future.
Locomotive Visibility /Auxiliary Alerting Lights
Summary.--In 1991, FRA initiated a new phase of research on
locomotive conspicuity in relation to safety at highway-rail crossings.
The Amtrak Authorization and Development Act of 1992 mandated that the
research be completed and that a regulation be issued to apply alerting
lights to locomotives.
Statutory deadline.--Final rule by 6/30/95.
Background.--FRA published a ``grandfathering rule'' on 2/3/93 and
amendments on 5/13/94. After the research was substantially completed
in early summer of 1995, FRA briefed the industry parties on the
results, discussed options for regulatory action, and elicited
additional information concerning railroads' progress in equipping
their fleets. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on 8/25/95.
The AAR and the ASLRA requested a technical conference to perfect the
rule for final issuance, and that conference was held 11/28/95. Written
comments were due by 12/12/95.
Status.--Final rule was published 3/6/96 (61 FR 31802). Equipping
of locomotives used as lead units at speeds exceeding 20 mph was
required to be completed by 12/31/97, as provided by law.
Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings
Summary.--The Secretary's Action Plan for Grade Crossing Safety (6/
94) commits FRA to conducting a special safety inquiry on private
crossings.
Status.--Conducted workshop on possible guidelines 7/93; timing of
further action to be determined.
Selection of Grade Crossing Automated Warning Devices
Summary.--FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 3/2/95 (60
FR 11649) and received over 3,000 written comments through 6/14/95.
Status.--Termination notice published 8/8/97 (62 FR 42733).
Use of Locomotive Horns (Whistle Bans)
Summary.--The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 required FRA to
issue regulations providing for the use of train horns at highway-rail
crossings.
Statutory deadline.--Final rule 11/2/96 (most hazardous crossings),
11/2/98 (other crossings).
Background.--This legislative mandate anticipated FRA follow up to
Emergency Order No. 15, which addressed local whistle bans on the
Florida East Coast Railroad between Jacksonville and Miami. FRA
released a report on the national impacts of local whistle bans on 6/1/
95 and has conducted an extensive program of public outreach to make
communities aware of the forthcoming rulemaking and to seek information
on supplementary safety measures that would support allowance of quiet
zones in communities sensitive to train horn noise. Contacts have been
made with 160+ jurisdictions known to have whistle bans in place. FRA
representatives have met with or addressed forums of state and local
officials and community groups. Met with AAR/BRS/AAHSTO/FHWA 12/13/95
to address technical specifications for 4-quadrant gates.
Numerous congressional offices encouraged FRA to continue outreach
and data collection. FRA advised the Congress that the deadline for an
initial final rule would not be met as a result. Immediately prior to
adjournment, the 104th Congress enacted the FAA reauthorization bill
(PL 104-264; 10/9/96), which included amendments to the original
whistle ban legislation. In general, the legislation affirms the
latitude available to the Secretary to provide for phase-in of
regulations and focus on safety results.
Status.-- NPRM published 1/13/00 (65 FR 2230) (Docket No. FRA-1999-
6439, Notice No. 1). Written comments due 5/26/00. FRA is holding
public hearings to receive oral comments.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
New Directions for Rail Hazardous Materials Safety
Summary.--FRA and RSPA have recently completed the two major
pending rulemakings addressing hazardous materials tank car safety
(crashworthiness and tank retests). With completion of these tasks, it
is now possible to turn attention to recommendations of the
Transportation Research Board regarding the tank car design and
construction process. In order to further this work, FRA is joining
with its public and private sector partners to define and prioritize
short and long-range research programs, identify needs for rulemaking,
and assist in development of improved industry standards.
Status.--A public workshop was conducted 2/13/96-2/14/96 in
Houston, with participation by labor, railroads, tank car owners, and
shippers. FRA is seeking means of advancing public/private partnerships
for North American tank car safety.
Tank Car Crashworthiness and Retest
Summary.--Research and Special Program Administration Dockets HM-
175A and HM-201 addressed further improvements in tank car
crashworthiness, and adoption of advanced non-destructive testing to
improve tank retest procedures, respectively.
Status.--Final rules published 9/21/95 (60 FR 49048).
Train Placement
Summary.--FRA is evaluating whether to recommend that the Research
and Special Programs Administration publish proposed amendments to the
in-train placement requirements for handling rail cars transporting
hazardous materials. FRA is reviewing accident/incident data to
determine whether the current non-hazardous materials buffer car
requirements are still necessary and whether (as recommended by the
National Transportation Safety Board) a buffer car should be required
at the rear of each train.
Status.--FRA is studying the feasibility of a proposed amendment.
other safety projects and partnership efforts
Bridge Structural Safety
Summary.--Following a survey of bridge conditions and railroad
inspection practices, FRA determined that regulatory action is not
necessary, but that FRA should continue to exercise an oversight role
regarding bridge structural safety programs. FRA issued an interim
statement of policy 4/27/95, with comments due 6/26/95.
Status.--Comments support continued FRA partnership role. Final
statement of policy is in review and clearance within the Executive
Branch.
Note.--On 2/12/96, the Administrator issued Emergency Order No. 19,
which removed from service a bridge on the Tonawanda Island Railroad in
New York State pending necessary structural repairs (61 FR 628; 2/16/
96).
Discolored Wheels
FRA has granted a master waiver of the Freight Car Safety Standards
permitting continued use of discolored heat-treated, curved plate
wheels, which have superior resistance to thermal abuse. Data gathered
under the waiver, together with results of analysis already provided,
may support a permanent change in the regulation.
Environmental Impacts
FRA revised its Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts to
update or eliminate outdated references to programs or statutory
authorities that no longer exist and to correct inconsistencies with
the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy
Act implementing regulations. The revised procedures were published in
the Federal Register on 5/26/99 (64 FR 28545).
Hours of Service Electronic Recordkeeping
Current hours of service record keeping uses paper and ink, but a
major railroad has been given relief to keep electronic records. Other
railroads have expressed interest, and similar waivers will involve
similar issues. At FRA's invitation, the AAR submitted a petition
seeking a master waiver for use of electronic record keeping. However,
individual railroads have elected to proceed separately, and FRA is
processing each on its merits. Permanent amendments to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements may be proposed. FRA is
assisting railroads in developing electronic systems by providing
guidance materials.
Remote Control Locomotives
Current regulations contemplate operation of a locomotive
exclusively from within the cab, and provision for the safety of the
operation is made within that context. FRA has previously proposed a
test program to gather more data on various types of operations. FRA
has also held an informal safety inquiry regarding use of one-person
crews and remote control locomotives on the Wisconsin Central (see 61
FR 58736; 11/18/96). Further action expected.
Shared Use of General Railroad System--Joint Statement of Agency Policy
FRA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have been working
together to develop a policy concerning safety issues related to light
rail transit operations on the general railroad system, how the two
agencies intend to coordinate use of their respective safety
authorities and the waiver process related to shared use operations. A
proposed joint statement of policy was published 5/25/99 (64 FR 28238)
with comments due on 7/30/99. Comment period extended on 7/28/99 to 10/
29/99 (64 FR 40931). Additional extension on 10/28/99 to 1/14/00 (64 FR
58124) (FRA Docket No. FRA-1999-5685, Notice No. 3).
Shared Use of General Railroad System--FRA Jurisdiction Policy
Statement
FRA issued a proposed statement of agency policy on 11/1/99 (64 FR
59046) (FRA Docket No. FRA-1999-5685, Notice No. 4) describing the
extent of its statutory jurisdiction over railroad passenger operations
(which covers all railroads except urban rapid transit systems not
connected to the general railroads system) and to explain how it will
exercise that jurisdiction. Comments are due by 1/14/00.
TOFC/COFC Securement
Summary.--Following a serious accident at Smithfield, N.C., on 5/
16/94, FRA formed a partnership with major railroads and labor
organizations to evaluate and improve securement of intermodal loads. A
report to the Secretary dated 9/15/94 documented the initial results of
that effort.
Status.--FRA held a meeting on 2/22/95 that focused on an item-by-
item discussion of the status and progress made within the industry
with respect to the seven recommendations identified in the report to
the Secretary. The AAR has established an Intermodal Equipment Handling
Task Force that has developed a number of training aids. A follow-up
TOFC/COFC loading and securement safety survey was conducted during
1996. FRA conducted additional loading and securement field evaluations
during July-August 1997. Joint training activity brought together
railroads, TTX and FRA to maintain strong emphasis on compliance with
AAR loading requirements. FRA continues to monitor securement of
trailers and trucks in transportation and to work on this issue through
SACP's on individual railroads.
Train Dispatcher Training
FRA submitted a report to the Congress on 1/5/95 regarding the
functions of contemporary train dispatching offices. The report noted
that traditional pools of candidates for recruitment of train
dispatchers are no longer adequate to the need. In partnership with the
American Train Dispatchers Department/BLE (ATDD), FRA identified the
need for a model train dispatcher training program.
Experts from Amtrak, the ATDD, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe
Railroad and FRA developed a list of elements for dispatcher training
programs. Required competencies and training program elements have been
abstracted from this effort for a model program. The RSAC was be
briefed on this effort on 3/24/97, with participants in the training
task force indicating reluctance to attempt a ``one size fits all''
regulatory approach. Development of curricula continues with FRA
support. Initial products of this effort were presented by an FRA
contractor.
Wisconsin Central R.R.; Informal Safety Inquiry
Summary.--FRA sought to gather information regarding plans by the
railroad to expand use of one-person crews and remote control
operations.
Status.--A notice of special safety inquiry was published 11/18/96
(61 FR 58736). A public hearing was held 12/4-12/5/96 in Appleton,
Wisconsin. Written submissions were requested by 12/2/96. FRA entered
into an agreement with the railroad providing for a moratorium on new
single person crew and remote control operations, together with other
undertakings related to compliance with FRA regulations. The railroad
has completed its responsibilities under the agreement.
safety advisories/directives/bulletins (federal register notices)
Advisories
99-3--Securement of floor beam cross-members on RoadRailer trailers:
Safety practices to prevent the highway tandem wheel on
RoadRailer trailers from falling onto the rails on moving
trains. Published 11/10/99 (64 FR 61377).
99-2--Not issued.
99-1--Lifting or jacking of railroad equipment: Safety practices
related to lifting or jacking of railroad equipment in
order to remove trucks or repair other components on a
piece of railroad equipment which requires individuals to
work beneath railroad equipment while it is raised.
Published 6/16/99 (64 FR 32300).
98-3--Safe Use of Prescription and Over-the-Counter Drugs: Safety
practices for the safe use of prescription and over-the-
counter drugs by safety-sensitive railroad employees.
Published 12/24/99 (63 FR 71334)
98-2--Emergency application of airbrakes: Safety practices to reduce
the risk of casualties caused by failure to activate the
available two-way end-of-train telemetry device (two-way
EOT) to initiate an emergency brake application beginning
at the rear of the train when circumstances require an
emergency application of the train airbrakes. Published 6/
5/98 (63 FR 30808).
98-1--Vision standards of certified locomotive engineers: Addresses the
vision standards of certified locomotive engineers in order
to reduce the risk of accidents arising from vision
impaired engineers. Published 5/28/98 (63 FR 29297).
97-3--Authorization of train movements past stop indications of
absolute signals: Safety practices to reduce the risk of
accidents arising from conflicting train movements when
train dispatchers and control operators authorize movements
past a stop indication of an absolute signal. Published 9/
18/97 (62 FR 49047).
97-2--Failure to property secure unattended rolling equipment: Safety
practices to reduce the risk of casualties from runaway
locomotives, cars, and trains caused by failure to properly
secure unattended rolling equipment left on sidings or
other tracks. Published 9/18/97 (62 FR 49046)
97-1--Protection of trains and personnel from hazards caused by severe
weather conditions: Safety practices to reduce the risk of
casualties from train derailments caused by damage to
tracks, roadbed and bridges resulting from uncontrolled
flows of water and similar weather-related phenomena. Note:
This was amended on November 12, 1997, by revising the
recommendations concerning the transmission of flash flood
warning to train dispatchers or other employees controlling
the movement of trains. Published 9/4/97 (62 FR 46794).
Directives
97-1--Review of operational tests and inspection programs and review of
train dispatching procedures in non-signaled territory:
Safety practices to evaluate the integrity of all
railroads' programs of operational tests and inspections to
ensure that safety-critical information is accurately
conveyed and acknowledged for operations in non-signaled
Direct Train Control (DTC) territory. Published 6/30/97 (62
FR 35331).
Bulletins
97-2--Initiating emergency application of train airbrakes descending
heavy grades: Safety practice to prevent run-away trains on
heavy grades of 2 percent or greater by initiating
emergency application of airbrakes whenever train speed
exceeds maximum authorized speed by five miles or more.
Published 2/27/97 (62 FR 9014).
97-1--Loss of dynamic braking due to unintentional activation of
emergency MU fuel-line cut-off device: Safety practices for
certain locomotives equipped with emergency MU fuel-line
cut-off devices located inside the locomotive control
compartment at a location which enables the cut-off device
to be activated unintentionally. Published 1/30/97 (62 FR
4569).
FISCAL YEAR 1999 HAZMAT ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS TRANSPORTATION
Question. Please chronicle all major hazmat-related accidents/
incidents during calendar year 1999, noting date, location, railroad,
type of hazmat, any fatalities, injuries, evacuations or other
complications, and the estimated cost of damage and loss for each.
Please also summarize the probable cause of each accident.
Answer. The following major hazmat-related accidents/incidents
occurred during calendar year 1999 (January 1-December 31, 1999):
Date.--January 9, 1999
Location.--Milford, Nebraska
Railroad.--Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Type of hazmat.--Unknown
Fatalities/injuries.--None
Evacuations.--None
Other complications.--None
Estimated cost.--$885,000
Probable cause.--Turnout front (spring) worn or broken
Date.--January 21, 1999
Location.--Fort Plain, New York
Railroad.--Consolidated Rail Corporation
Type of hazmat.--Propane
Fatalities/injuries.--None
Evacuations.--150 people
Other complications.--None
Estimated cost.--$1,039,000
Probable cause.--Coupler or draft system failure
Date.--February 11, 1999
Location.--Woods Cross, Utah
Railroad.--Union Pacific Railroad
Type of hazmat.--Toluene
Fatalities/injuries.--None
Evacuations.--None
Other complications.--None
Estimated cost.--$140,000
Probable cause.--Wide gage due to worn rails
Date.--March 24, 1999
Location.--Wartrace, Tennessee
Railroad.--CSX Transportation
Type of hazmat.--Cartridges for weapons and incendiary ammunition
Fatalities/injuries.--None
Evacuations.--Unknown
Other complications.--None
Estimated cost.--$223,000
Probable cause.--Journal (roller) bearing failure
Date.--July 2, 1999
Location.--Hamlet, North Carolina
Railroad/--CSX Transportation
Type of hazmat.--Methanol
Fatalities/injuries.--None
Evacuations.--None
Other complications.--None
Estimated cost.--$249,000
Probable cause.--Compound fissure (track failure)
Date.--July 10, 1999
Location.--Riverfront, Louisiana
Railroad.--Union Pacific
Type of hazmat: 2-ethyl hexanol
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: None
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $11,300
Probable cause: By-passed couplers due to crew switching failure
Date: July 11, 1999
Location: Paradise, Montana
Railroad: Montana Rail Link
Type of hazmat: Asphalt
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: None
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $1,442,000
Probable cause: Irregular track alignment (sun kink)
Date: July 24, 1999
Location: Katka, Idaho
Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Type of hazmat: Anhydrous ammonia
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: None
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $525,000
Probable cause: Journal (roller) bearing failure
Date: August 7, 1999
Location: Judd, Texas
Railroad: Union Pacific
Type of hazmat: Petroleum Distillate
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: None
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $392,000
Probable cause: Irregular track alignment (sun kink)
Date: September, 30, 1999
Location: Jens/Drummond Station, Montana
Railroad: I & M Rail Link/Montana Rail Link
Type of hazmat: Denatured alcohol
Fatalities/injuries: None
Evacuations: None
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $1,088,000
Probable cause: Equipment failure
Date: October 7, 1999
Location: Orpha, Wyoming
Railroad: Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Type of hazmat: Unknown
Fatalities/Injuries: None
Evacuations: None
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $134,300
Probable cause: Track failure
Date: October 31, 1999
Location: Canyon, Alaska
Railroad: Alaska Railroad
Type of hazmat: Aviation, turbine engine
Fatalities/Injuries: None
Evacuations: None
Other complications: None
Estimated cost: $700,000
Probable cause: Improper train make-up
GRADE CROSSING FUNDING
Question. Please update the table found on pages 421-425 of Senate
Hearing 106-221, which outlines on a project-by-project basis how
fiscal year 1999 and 2000 monies for grade crossing efforts were spent,
who the recipients of the funds were, and what the expected results of
these efforts are. Please add a column which delineates in a similar
manner the funds requested in fiscal year 2001 (adding lines for new
initiatives as necessary)?
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------
Activity 1999 2000 2001
obligated funding request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research & Development................. 830 1,085 1,435
Next Generation High-Speed Rail........ 4,738 3,897 4,000
Safety & Operations.................... 2,850 3,487 3,217
--------------------------------
Total............................ 8,418 8,469 8,652
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------
Appropriation/Project 1999 2000 Recipient Expected results
Pobligated funding 2001 funding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freight Car Reflectorization............ $6,260 $15,000 $15,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Freight cars will be more visible to
drivers, helping them avoid striking
the train. Report published.
Eval Wayside Horns Optimal Acoustic 26,138 15,000 15,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Locomotive horns will be optimized for
Warning. sound quality and effectiveness while
reducing noise pollution in surrounding
communities.
Driver Behavior Accident Causation 307,668 225,000 250,000 Volpe Ctr.................. To gain a better understanding of how
Driver Educa- tion. (Eq 50K) (Eq 140K) drivers react to grade crossings and
(HSR 175K) (Trk 110K) why accidents happen in order to
educate drivers.
Compendium of Grade Crossing Findings... 161,310 40,000 50,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Develop a compendium of findings from
research conducted on grade crossings.
Train Detection......................... 71,905 75,000 100,000 Assoc. of American Examine causes for loss of contact
Railroads. between rail and wheels, resulting in
intermittent operation of grade
crossing warning device (gate bobble).
Illumination Guidelines................. 9,931 15,000 15,000 Volpe Ctr.................. The use of street lights to illuminate
trains at night so drivers can see and
avoid running into the train.
Photo Enforcement....................... 6,521 50,000 50,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Assess the Ohio crossbuck and traffic
signals at crossings to improve warning
to drivers.
Obstacle/Intrusion Detection............ 38,489 75,000 75,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Building on the HSR Crossing Technology
project, examine the obstruction
detection systems suitable for use at
grade crossings and expand for use
along the right-of-way.
GIS support to HSR Corridors............ 10,044 ........... .............. Volpe Ctr.................. Develop GIS system to support
communication between grade crossing
signals and Positive Train Control
systems.
Volpe Center............................ .......... 75,000 75,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Support for assessing hazard elimination
(Eq) (Eq) projects
.......... 50,000 50,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Expand Corridor Risk Analysis for high-
speed corridors to additional
corridors.
Support................................. 14,963 (HSR) (TRK)
ITS Architecture & Support to ITS PO.... 24,706 25,000 .............. ITS JPO.................... The ITS Architecture is gaining a new
User Service--User Service #30--which
describes how grade crossing will be
incorporated into the overall
Intelligent Transportation System and
which will link train control systems
with advanced highway traffic control
systems. Standards development.
Passive & Private Crossings (new)....... .......... ........... 50,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Examine demonstrations at passive
crossings and develop the groundwork
for a more extensive future program
involving other modes.
Review Available Data Sources (new)..... .......... ........... 75,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Examine data elements and data bases to
determine additional information that
should be collected to analyze the
causes of accidents at grade crossings.
National Warrants (new)................. .......... ........... 50,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Develop criteria or warrants for
analyzing grade crossings and
determining the types of warning
devices that should be installed.
Criteria & overall evaluation .......... ........... 125,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Determine criteria for developing an
methodology. evaluation methodology usable for all
grade crossing R&D projects.
Test Interoperability of VPAS Systems... .......... 250,000 .............. Univ. of Alabama........... To test the interoperability of vehicle
(TRK) proximity alert systems and examine
potential for standards.
State-of-the art planning tools for .......... ........... 100,000 Volpe Ctr.................. To develop new cost/benefit planning
crossing consolidation. tools for rationalizing the planning
process to enable crossings to be
closed and consolidated while making
improvements to highways and transit
systems.
Assess 1010 & 1036 Demos and NGHSR BAA.. 127,776 150,000 175,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Evaluate the technology demonstration
(HSR) (TRK) projects funded under the Section 1010
& 1036 program in ISTEA (4-quad gate
with obstruction detection in CT and
Vehicle Arrestor Barrier in IL), and
assess BAA submittals.
Standardized before/after evaluations... .......... ........... 115,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Develop standardized before/after
evaluation techniques to measure safety
effectiveness of research projects.
Crossing Ranking Capability............. .......... ........... 25,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Building upon the risk assessment
techniques for analyzing grade
crossings, develop a user-friendly
technique for evaluating and ranking
grade crossings to improve allocation
of funding resources.
HSR Crossing Tech....................... 24,181 25,000 25,000 Volpe Ctr/Battelle......... To examine signaling and train control,
(HSR) (TRK) Labs....................... obstruction detection and warning
devices and barrier system technologies
available for use in high-speed
corridors. Develop methodology to
evaluate improved safety provided by
additional devices.
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal Research & Development... 829,892 1,085,000 1,435,000 ........................................
=========================================
Mitigating Grade Crossing Hazards....... 1,370,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 BAA Awardees............... BAA awards to date will include radar
vehicle detection systems/computer
video traffic recording systems.
ITS Architecture & Support to ITS PO.... 20,000 ........... .............. ITS JPO.................... The ITS Architecture is gaining a new
User Service--User Service #30--which
describes how grade crossing will be
incorporated into the overall
Intelligent Transportation System and
which will link train control systems
with advanced highway traffic control
systems. Standards development.
TRB HSR IDEA Program.................... 500,000 500,000 500,000 TRB........................ The TRB IDEA Program, supported by FRA,
TRB ITS IDEA Program.................... 500,000 500,000 500,000 TRB FHWA, NHTSA, and FTA, competitively
solicits concepts, conducts peer
review, and awards innovative
technology projects nationwide to
support development of High-Speed Rail
and Intelligent Transportation Systems.
Examples of completed projects include
a very-wide field of view camera
suitable for automated monitoring of
grade crossings and a scanning radar
antenna for surveillance systems.
Low Cost Innovative Technologies........ 1,100,000 947,000 1,050,000 BAA Awardees............... Awards under the latest BAA program have
not been announced.
Four Quadrant Gate Deployment Assessment .......... 50,000 50,000 Volpe Ctr.................. Analyze the 4-quadrant gates deployed in
(new). Florida and North Carolina and develop
standardized criteria for their use.
NC Sealed Corridor...................... 1,000,000 400,000 400,000 NCDOT...................... The North Carolina Sealed Corridor
Initiative will treat every crossing in
the 174-mile Charlotte to Raleigh
segment of the high-speed rail corridor
with innovative crossing devices like
median barriers, long gate arms, and 4-
quad gates. Redundant crossings will be
closed.
NY Locked Gate.......................... 25,000 ........... .............. NYSDOT..................... To design, fabricate, test and evaluate
a low-cost grade crossing gate system
suitable for low volume traffic
crossings on high-speed corridors.
Volpe Center Support.................... 223,301 ........... .............. Volpe Ctr.................. Support of assessing hazard elimination
projects. Corridor Risk Analysis for
Empire Corridor.
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal next generation high- 4,738,301 3,897,000 4,000,000
speed rail.......................
=========================================
Operation Lifesaver..................... 600,000 950,000 ( \1\ ) Operation Lifesaver, Inc... Public education about the laws
regarding grade crossings and
trespassing, the dangers at grade
crossings and on rail rights-of-way and
the importance to obey traffic and
trespass laws.
Public Awareness and Outreach........... 33,700 37,000 50,000 Various printing Promotional and audio-visual materials,
contractors, packing and conference registrations and display
shipping firms, equipment booth space and supplies. Materials are
rental firms, conference used or distributed when making
organizers, OL suppliers, presentations to schools, community
etc.. groups, workshops, conventions, etc.
Police Officer Detail................... 114,444 165,000 165,000 Erie County, NY............ The police officer detail is an outreach
Selection of regional program with the law enforcement
officers is pending. community to raise awareness of
crossing safety and trespass
prevention. One officer is detailed
full time to Washington, and one each
will be detailed part-time to four FRA
regions.
Outreach to Law Enforcement and Trespass 51,700 50,000 50,000 IACP, NSA, NFOP, etc. for Outreach to judges, prosecutors and law
Prevention. conference display booth enforcement to enhance their knowledge
space, registration fees, of crossing safety and trespass
and GPO printing for prevention issues, and materials to
pamphlets, brochures, and support FRA's regional manager
for other promotional promotions of highway-rail crossing
items. safety and trespass prevention
programs.
Analysis of High-Profile Crossings...... 14,600 15,000 15,000 Univ of West Virginia and Research and analysis of problems
local survey firms. associated with and alternatives for,
high-profile crossings and low-
clearance vehicles.
Airborne survey of crossing elevations.. 289,000 85,000 100,000 US Army Corp of Engineers.. For airborne measurement of ground
elevation and collection of data to be
used in analysis of high-profile
crossings on high exposure rail
corridors.
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory & Data 50,000 80,000 50,000 AMB........................ Simplify and refine the Highway-Rail
Bases. Crossing Inventory and collision data
bases reporting and report production
and accident prediction procedures.
Information Processing.................. 285,000 285,000 296,400 AMB........................ Supports Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory
and crossing module of the Accident/
Incident Report Processing.
Develop new outreach campaign........... .......... ........... 500,000 To be determined........... Creative phase of new public awareness
campaign development with focus
primarily on trespass prevention,
secondarily on crossing safety.
Regulatory Support...................... 25,000 ........... .............. Auburn University.......... Conduct literature search of warrants,
guidelines and best-practices for
determining appropriate warning
device(s) or grade separation for
highway-rail crossings.
Regulatory Support...................... 38,000 40,000 40,000 DeLeuw Cather.............. Assistance in preparation of EIS for
train horn NPRM.
Rail-with-Trails........................ 50,000 10,000 10,000 Reimbursable agreement with Best-practices for design and operation
FHWA to fund development of rails-with-trails projects.
of best-practices for
rails-with-trails,
contractor not yet
selected.
PC&B (Approximate)...................... 1,298,492 1,770,000 1,941,000 Supports staff dedicated to the crossing
and trespasser program.
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal Safety & Operations...... 2,849,936 3,487,000 3,217,400
=========================================
Total FRA......................... 8,418,129 8,469,000 8,652,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $600,000--Funded under Maglev funds.
top ten states with most grade crossing accidents
Question. Please list the ``top ten'' states that have the highest
number of highway-rail crossing accidents and fatalities, for calendar
years 1997, 1998 and 1999.
Answer. See the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collisions Deaths
State \1\ ---------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 \2\ 1997 1998 1999 \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas....................................................... 421 320 364 54 45 41
Illinois.................................................... 213 198 198 27 30 53
Indiana..................................................... 227 195 191 23 25 26
California.................................................. 159 187 190 22 32 24
Louisiana................................................... 203 214 176 30 25 20
Ohio........................................................ 178 154 144 26 15 21
Georgia..................................................... 138 140 134 12 13 7
Mississippi................................................. 148 133 131 19 24 17
Alabama..................................................... 135 146 122 19 11 12
Michigan.................................................... 152 104 114 14 11 14
Wisconsin................................................... 117 105 110 6 7 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ranking is based on total number of reported collisions at highway-rail crossings, both public and private
during 1997-1999.
\2\ 1999 data is preliminary.
IG AND NTSB REPORTS ON GRADE CROSSING
Question. Please discuss FRA's response to the recent Inspector
General and NTSB reports regarding grade crossing safety and how this
response is reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Answer. The Office of Inspector's General report on the
Department's Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan included five
specific recommendations. These recommendation are: implement cost-
effective strategies to reduce highway-rail grade crossing collisions,
develop a trespass prevention action plan, incorporate rail transit
crossing and trespassing incidents into the Action Plan's statistics,
periodically reconcile FRA's crossing collision database with the
National Response Center's rail accident reports, and update the grade
crossing inventory by states and railroads.
In 1998, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) published
Safety at Passive Grade Crossings (NTSB/SS-98-02). One of the
recommendations (H-98-028) to the Department of Transportation in the
report was the installation of STOP signs at all passive crossings
unless an engineering study found otherwise. While recognizing the
importance of STOP signs under many circumstances, the Department
responded to the NTSB with the recommendation that a system of
guidelines (or warrants) be created to provide guidance for the
selection of the appropriate safety treatment for all types of
crossings. Treatments would range from standard crossbucks to including
crossing closures and grade separations. The Board has classified the
Department's response as ``Open-Acceptable.''
FRA addresses the recommendations of the OIG as follows. FRA has
been actively promoting the use of traffic channelization, photo
enforcement and stricter penalties for crossing violations for a number
of years. Both traffic channelization and photo enforcement are
included in the proposed train horn rule, and FRA is developing a model
photo enforcement legislative package to help interested states
implement legislation. A specific trespass prevention action plan is
currently being developed within FRA and will be in place by May 1,
2000. FRA and FTA are working together to ensure that transit rail data
is available for Action Plan statistics. Ways to reconcile the
different reporting formats and requirements between transit agencies
and conventional railroads are being explored as well. FRA has already
begun the process of reconciling its database with the information in
the National Response Center's rail accident reports. FRA has committed
to reconciling the two databases on a quarterly basis. FRA has proposed
in its re-authorization legislation that the states and railroads be
required to update the crossing inventory database. FRA and FTA are
exploring methods to provide a complete and accurate database of the
nation's crossings.
To address the recommendation of NTSB, a ONEDOT Working Group has
been formed. Chaired by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy Development, the Working Group includes
representatives from the FRA, FHWA, NHTSA, FTA, and the ITS Joint
Program Office. The Working Group has developed a comprehensive project
plan for guidance to state and local traffic engineers regarding
highway/rail grade crossing traffic control devices and grade
separation. The Office of Secretary of Transportation (OST) has
approved the formation of a technical working group (TWG) to develop
the guidelines. The TWG includes representatives from the Department,
NTSB, state and local highway authorities, rail labor and management,
and other interested parties. A literature review funded by FRA has
been completed by Auburn University in Alabama. The review documents
existing guidelines, warrants, or best practices in use by recognized
organizations. There have been two meetings of the TWG and a final
meeting is scheduled in June 2000. A draft document containing the
guidelines will be provided by October 2000.
STATUS OF MODEL STATE LAWS PROMOTING GRADE CROSSING
Question. What progress have you made on developing model state
laws to promote grade crossing safety? How much is being allocated for
this activity in fiscal year 2000? How much is requested in fiscal year
2001?
Answer. FRA has drafted a model state bill defining various grade
crossing safety violations, setting penalties for each violation, and a
model state bill regarding photographic enforcement of grade crossing
safety laws. The documents are being reviewed within FRA. No specific
funds are dedicated to this project in fiscal year 2000-2001.
IMPACT OF ACTION PLAN ON GRADE CROSSING CHALLENGES
Question. Is it time for the Department to prepare an updated
action plan to promote grade crossing safety? How might such a plan
help manage and expedite the DOT approach to grade crossing challenges?
Is a separate plan needed to address trespasser challenges?
Answer. DOT's Intermodal Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Team has plans
to revise the 1994 Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan. The Team
will complete the revision this fiscal year. The ``new action plan''
can be expected to help expedite the DOT approach to the following
grade crossing challenges: development of strategic outreach efforts
(as contemplated by the FRA budget item for outreach), expanding
partnerships to include work with Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(these will help combat the proliferation of grade crossings with the
coming of new/expanded transit operations that result from shared use
of railroad rights-of-way for light rail/freight operations),
continued/expanded Intelligent Transportation System applications for
grade crossing safety, and focus on new technology. Trespass challenges
will be addressed in a separate plan. While some of the methods of
addressing trespass abatement are similar to crossing safety, i.e.,
education, enforcement, and engineering, they are not the same.
Different targeting methodologies and strategies need to be developed
for delivering the message about trespass prevention.
TRESPASS PREVENTION
Question. Please update the response to last year's question
regarding trespass prevention found on pages 426-427 of Senate Hearing
106-221. What ongoing and new initiatives were undertaken in fiscal
years 1999 and 2000? What initiatives are planned in fiscal year 2001?
Are there specific funding requests in the budget associated with these
ongoing or new trespass prevention initiatives?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, FRA and Transport Canada developed
pilot projects to test the effectiveness of the jointly-produced
Community Trespassing Prevention Guide in Oshawa, Ontario, and
Whistler, British Columbia. Both projects were very successful, with
anticipated implementation of the Oshawa project by surrounding cities.
A report on this project was presented at the April 2000 meeting of the
American Public Transit Association. The Whistler project, which
involved the British Columbia Railroad working with the community to
build walkways and paths away from the tracks, was so successful that
the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railroad will try to
implement it system-wide. In addition, a Salem, Oregon, project using
the new OLI trespass prevention presentation is ongoing.
In order to reduce potential trespass problems associated with
recreational trails on or adjacent to active rail rights-of-way, FRA
has led a ONE DOT effort to produce a Rails-with-Trails (RWT) Best
Practices Report. Requests for proposals were received late spring 1999
and a 30-month contract was awarded in August to produce the report.
The study has three sections: Literature Review, State-of-the-Practice
Review, and Best Practices Report. To date, the Literature Review is
nearly complete, and the State-of-the-Practice Review is underway. The
final report is anticipated in late 2001, following review for comment
by the identified stakeholders: local, State, and Federal government
agencies; railroad management, labor, and advocacy groups; and trail
proponents, planners, engineers, and advocacy groups.
One of the major problems facing FRA is the lack of demographic
data regarding the individuals who trespass. This data is needed to
focus outreach campaigns to specific ``at-risk'' groups. To address
this problem, FRA has ongoing partnership efforts with Operation
Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), and the railroad industry to obtain better
demographic information on railroad trespassers. In May 2000, FRA will
meet with OLI and the railroad industry to finalize what demographic
information will be collected. After the data is collected from arrest/
eviction/contact reports currently recorded by railroad special agents,
the information will be processed using demographic descriptor software
to obtain ``profiles'' of railroad trespassers. This information will
enable outreach efforts to reach the targeted groups.
Another major FRA initiative is to make law enforcement and
judicial communities aware of the trespass problem. FRA has begun to
supplement its full-time law enforcement liaison officer in
Headquarters with part-time regional law enforcement liaison officers
in its eight regions. These officers will work five days each month to
reach out to local law enforcement agencies and judges with messages
about the dangers of trespassing on railroad property. In addition, FRA
continues to encourage states to pass railroad-specific trespassing
laws using the model legislation developed by FRA. Another effort for
more effective enforcement of trespassing laws in known high-trespass
areas is the use of remote video monitoring. FRA will sponsor a
demonstration project in Pittsford, New York, where video cameras and
video imaging computer software will be used to capture trespassing
activity. An alarm and live video image will be sent to a local
dispatch center for appropriate law enforcement response. FRA expects
this project to start in the spring of 2000 and to continue for one
year.
Funding for FRA's trespass prevention efforts are included under
FRA's highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention
program. For fiscal year 2001, FRA is requesting $500,000 for an
outreach program that will help reduce highway-rail grade crossing
collisions and trespass casualties. The proposed cost-effective
outreach program will educate communities and highway users of the
dangers that exist on railroad property and at highway-rail crossings.
Fiscal year 2000-2001 funds will continue to support Police Officer
Details and Outreach to Judges. These efforts will contribute
significantly to the trespass prevention programs. In addition, FRA is
providing about 48 percent of the funding for the contract for the RWT
Best Practices Report, with the Federal Highway Administration funding
47 percent and the National Highway Traffic Safety and Federal Transit
Administration contributing 5 percent. Finally, OLI will use a portion
of FRA's annual grant to support trespass prevention efforts.
TRESPASS DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Question. It has been agreed that better demographic information
regarding who trespasses and where would be helpful in targeting
educational efforts to reduce trespassing incidents. Please update the
Committee on the trespass prevention demographic information gathering
process. What resources is FRA dedicating to this research? What is its
status?
Answer. One of the major problems facing FRA is the lack of
demographic data regarding the individuals who trespass. This data is
needed to focus outreach campaigns to specific ``at-risk'' groups. To
address this problem, FRA has ongoing partnership efforts with
Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), and the railroad industry to obtain
better demographic information on railroad trespassers. In May 2000,
FRA will meet with OLI and the railroad industry to finalize what
demographic information will be collected. After the data is collected
from arrest/eviction/contact reports currently recorded by railroad
special agents, the information will be processed using demographic
descriptor software to obtain ``profiles'' of railroad trespassers.
This information will enable outreach efforts to reach the targeted
groups.
FISCAL YEAR 1997-2001 SECTION 130 FUNDS
Question. Please confer with the Federal Highway Administration,
and report on available section 130 surface transportation program
safety funds, on a state-by-state basis, for fiscal years 1997 through
2001. Please indicate unobligated balances for each state's total
available section 130 funds.
Answer. The attached table shows the amount of funds available for
Section 130 programs for the fiscal years 1997 through 2000 on a state-
by-state basis. The funds available for fiscal year 2001 will not be
calculated until later this year. It is not expected that there will be
any major changes in the way funds are allocated to states. The
unobligated balance under TEA-21 includes fiscal year 2000 funds.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SAFETY SET-ASIDE FUNDS, HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS (23 U.S.C. 130, YEARLY APPROPRIATIONS AND UNOBLIGATED FUNDS AS OF 2/29/
2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
State ---------------------------------------------------------------- ISTEA funds TEA-21 funds
1997 approp 1998 approp. 1999 approp. 2000 approp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. $3,220,384 $3,220,384 $3,220,384 $3,220,384 $435,408.99 $6,608,920.00
Alaska.................................................. 2,439,186 2,439,186 2,439,186 2,439,186 .............. 6,265,503.00
Arizona................................................. 1,576,081 1,576,081 1,576,081 1,576,081 1,470,930.44 4,728,243.00
Arkansas................................................ 2,457,429 2,457,429 2,457,429 2,457,429 584,602.00 4,280,137.00
California.............................................. 10,182,716 10,182,716 10,182,716 10,182,716 437,192.65 5,713,426.16
Colorado................................................ 2,202,728 2,202,728 2,202,728 2,202,728 631,402.47 3,895,433.84
Connecticut............................................. 1,047,610 1,047,610 1,047,610 1,047,610 121,641.22 1,042,555.00
Delaware................................................ 504,776 504,776 504,776 504,776 364,869.79 835,717.20
District of Columbia.................................... 210,728 210,728 210,728 210,728 421,456.00 632,184.00
Florida................................................. 4,686,707 4,686,707 4,686,707 4,686,707 1,572,750.00 6,519,470.00
Georgia................................................. 4,696,264 4,696,264 4,696,264 4,696,264 3,897,484.93 10,082,116.71
Hawaii.................................................. 391,793 391,793 391,793 391,793 .............. 1,175,379.00
Idaho................................................... 1,429,320 1,429,320 1,429,320 1,429,320 0.25 2,358,256.00
Illinois................................................ 7,926,261 7,926,261 7,926,261 7,926,261 584,973.93 13,359,926.00
Indiana................................................. 4,962,375 4,962,375 4,962,375 4,962,375 105,939.98 7,192,472.14
Iowa.................................................... 3,795,673 3,795,673 3,795,673 3,795,673 129,344.28 2,742,497.10
Kansas.................................................. 3,286,936 4,870,650 4,870,650 4,870,650 84,378.92 1,945,620.00
Kentucky................................................ 2,535,034 2,535,034 2,535,034 2,535,034 650,319.52 7,051,062.00
Louisiana............................................... 3,176,113 3,176,113 3,176,113 3,176,113 453,959.42 1,862,618.41
Maine................................................... 938,057 938,057 938,057 938,057 827,384.48 2,699,571.00
Maryland................................................ 1,427,286 1,427,286 1,427,286 1,427,286 1,024,927.00 4,228,983.00
Massachusetts........................................... 2,011,267 2,011,267 2,011,267 2,011,267 153,571.00 6,647,022.00
Michigan................................................ 5,352,187 5,352,187 5,352,187 5,352,187 1,504,804.00 9,128,676.46
Minnesota............................................... 4,041,936 4,041,936 4,041,936 4,041,936 150,021.45 4,880,649.00
Mississippi............................................. 2,240,007 2,240,007 2,240,007 2,240,007 71,121.00 94,081.00
Missouri................................................ 3,998,022 3,998,022 3,998,022 3,998,022 91,000.00 449,048.11
Montana................................................. 1,613,367 1,613,367 1,613,367 1,613,367 120,161.23 3,491,197.00
Nebraska................................................ 2,661,323 2,661,323 2,661,323 2,661,323 1,234,915.21 3,775,169.00
Nevada.................................................. 783,990 783,990 783,990 783,990 60,388.00 921,733.00
New Hampshire........................................... 612,960 612,960 612,960 612,960 101,005.43 699,759.83
New Jersey.............................................. 2,691,259 2,691,259 2,691,259 2,691,259 287,187.38 4,946,367.00
New Mexico.............................................. 1,205,846 1,205,846 1,205,846 1,205,846 1,457.61 2,460,353.72
New York................................................ 6,020,444 6,020,444 6,020,444 6,020,444 197,141.00 6,333,322.00
North Carolina.......................................... 3,981,325 3,981,325 3,981,325 3,981,325 319,856.00 9,650,525.00
North Dakota............................................ 2,809,183 2,242,521 2,646,743 2,809,183 299,675.37 3,179,601.04
Ohio.................................................... 6,301,744 6,301,744 6,301,744 6,301,744 .............. 2,863,477.82
Oklahoma................................................ 3,300,832 3,300,832 3,300,832 3,300,832 4,395.63 3,325,266.00
Oregon.................................................. 2,194,099 2,194,099 2,194,099 2,194,099 639,030.96 6,582,297.00
Pennsylvania............................................ 5,117,791 5,804,391 5,804,391 5,804,391 348,802.57 5,081,603.91
Rhode Island............................................ 445,013 445,013 445,013 445,013 248,626.89 1,159,804.00
South Carolina.......................................... 2,584,926 2,584,926 2,584,926 2,584,926 205,139.58 2,749,828.83
South Dakota............................................ 1,654,832 1,654,832 1,654,832 1,654,832 65,555.08 3,873,795.00
Tennessee............................................... 3,267,384 3,267,384 3,267,384 3,267,384 386,320.82 2,911,250.53
Texas................................................... 10,906,280 10,906,280 10,906,280 10,906,280 163,840.00 11,901,540.00
Utah.................................................... 1,152,999 1,152,999 1,152,999 1,152,999 118,977.41 409,172.31
Vermont................................................. 618,632 618,631 618,632 618,632 1,927,777.25 1,855,893.00
Virginia................................................ 2,731,204 2,731,204 2,731,204 2,731,204 2,663,197.38 4,966,853.00
Washington.............................................. 2,717,360 2,717,360 2,717,360 2,717,360 1,856,426.98 3,818.151.20
West Virginia........................................... 1,708,309 1,708,309 1,708,309 1,708,309 412,885.00 1,932,078.00
Wisconsin............................................... 3,929,021 3,929,021 3,929,021 3,929,021 1,295,134.45 3,997,800.56
Wyoming................................................. 912,318 912,318 912,318 912,318 93,671.00 1,011,191.00
Puerto Rico............................................. 740,370 .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................ 153,399,687 154,362,968 154,767,191 154,929,631 28,821,051.95 10,317,596.88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-800 EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
Question. Section 301 of the 1994 Railroad Safety Act requires the
Secretary to conduct a pilot program to demonstrate an emergency
notification system using a toll-free telephone number for the public
to report any malfunctions or other safety problems at railroad-highway
grade crossings. Please bring us up to date on FRA's response to this
requirement. How is FRA promoting railroad investment in this area and
how does the FY-2001 budget contribute towards this goal?
Answer. The 1994 Swift Rail Development Act directs the Secretary
to demonstrate a toll-free emergency notification system to report
emergencies, malfunctions, and other safety problems, and to conduct a
pilot program in two states. However, the Congress did not appropriate
funds for this program. In 1995, a preliminary design concept and
implementation plan was completed and preliminary discussions were held
with the States of Illinois and Minnesota for a two-State pilot test
project. FRA's goal was to involve two States representative of both
urban and rural areas.
In 1996, $625,000 was appropriated by Congress for the development
of system hardware and software. No funds were appropriated for the
installation of signs at crossings, the public education and awareness
program, nor the final Report to Congress. FRA has reached an agreement
with FHWA to use Surface Transportation Program Funds from the safety
set-aside (Section 130) for the required signage part of this project.
Meanwhile in 1996, several major railroads, at their own expense,
started to install their own 1-800 Emergency Telephone Number signs at
crossings to report malfunctions and/or emergencies. Some railroads are
installing these at all of their public and private crossings, while
others are installing them at only the public crossings, and yet others
at only the active crossings (those with gates and/or flashing lights).
Preliminary discussions were held with Union Pacific (UPRR) and
Norfolk-Southern (NS) Railroads to evaluate methods for incorporating
the railroads' 1-800 Number Systems into the overall system planned for
the two pilot states.
In 1997, the FRA Administrator sent a letter to all States inviting
them to participate in the two-State pilot test program. FRA received
expressions of interest from only four states, California, Illinois,
New Mexico, and Minnesota.
In 1998, FRA awarded a 3-year contract to design, develop, and test
a 1-800 Toll-Free Emergency Notification System (ENS), capable of
reporting problems at highway-rail intersections to a centralized state
police emergency response communication center or railroad train
dispatch center. This 1-800 ENS will be designed for, and first tested
in, the State of Texas where emergency response communication center
personnel are familiar and knowledgeable with how such a system should
properly operate. This will also upgrade that State's currently
installed system. Subsequently, the 1-800 ENS Software Package will be
made available to two or more pilot States. The software package will
then be modified to operate from a railroad's perspective and offered
to and installed on a medium size (or larger) railroad. In October
1999, FRA delivered and installed a prototype version of the 1-800 ENS
Software Package at the State of Texas Department of Public Safety
(DPS), Division of Emergency Management (DEM). The State DEM has been
using this software successfully to record incoming calls at the rate
of about 1,000 calls per month, preferring it to their former system.
The final refinements are being completed and it is anticipated that
the final software package will be delivered to the State by the end of
April 2000.
FRA has conducted a poll of the major railroads and found that,
after completion of the Conrail merger, more than 55 percent of all
public at-grade crossings will contain a posted 1-800 ENS Number, and
an additional 10 percent are on railroads where an emergency telephone
number has been provided to local emergency service organizations
(police, fire, medical, etc.). Of the 158,784 public at-grade crossings
nationwide, a 1-800 ENS Sign has been installed at approximately 84,357
(53 percent) of the public at-grade crossings on the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), UPRR, NS, CSX Transportation and IC
Railroads. This represents 78 percent of all the active crossings
(those with flashing lights and/or gates) in the nation.
Since Texas and Connecticut have state-wide systems which include
some of the above crossings, FRA estimates about 56 percent of all
public at-grade crossings in the nation will soon be equipped. Some
railroads, for example, UPRR, NS and BNSF, are voluntarily considering
an expansion of their programs to include additional crossings (1) not
currently equipped with automatic warning devices and (2) private
crossings.
An effective emergency notification system will have a centralized
manned center to receive calls. This requires a telephone system for
receiving calls and a computerized system (software and hardware) for
fast, efficient, and accurate identification of the crossing location
on a highway-railroad grid. The 1-800 ENS Software Package will have
the ability for logging calls and accessing Inventory Files based on
the U.S. DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Number and
Inventory. It will also have supplemental files, incorporate a display
on a map, and the capability to forward the incoming call and
information to the appropriate railroad or highway authorities.
FRA is evaluating the possibility of having the railroads assume
responsibility for incoming 1-800 ENS calls since they are already
moving in that direction. Using this approach, FRA believes that it may
be possible to implement a 1-800 ENS on a national scale rather than in
just two pilot states, thereby achieving more coverage with the
appropriated funds.
FRA is currently focusing on railroad-centered programs. With the
developed ENS software for the State of Texas almost completed, FRA
plans to modify the software for use by other state and railroad
centered systems to support emergency management personnel in receiving
calls by logging the problem being reported, accessing inventory files
and assisting in forwarding the incoming calls to the correct control
center. The 1-800 ENS Software Package will have the ability for
logging calls and accessing Inventory Files for quick crossing look-up
based on the U.S. DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory
Number. It will also have supplemental files, incorporate a GIS
capability (display on a map) and forwarding the incoming call and
information to the appropriate railroad and highway authorities to
correct the situation. FRA also plans to encourage railroads and States
with 1-800 systems to keep their Inventory up-to-date (a key component
of a 1-800 system is to correctly identify the crossing number posted
on-site).
Since the original funds appropriated by Congress appear to be
sufficient to develop the software packages for both state and railroad
oriented systems, no additional funding was requested by FRA in the
fiscal year 2001 budget.
FUNDING FOR 1-800 EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
Question. Have you already used the money appropriated several
years ago for this purpose? Are any of these funds still available?
Answer. Of the $625,000 appropriated, $618,000 has been obligated
for the development of the necessary software package to operate a
state system, and for the conversion of this package to a railroad
oriented system by regional and shortline railroads. The remaining
balance of $7,000 may be used for computer hardware for a demonstration
with a regional or shortline railroad.
ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR 1-800 EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
Question. Are seed monies necessary to advance regional emergency
call centers to assist small railroads which have not invested in toll-
free emergency systems? How much would be required for this effort?
What are the expected benefits and costs? Does your fiscal year 2001
budget provide such funds?
Answer. In January 2000, FRA received a presentation for a proposed
National Transportation Emergency Call Center (NTECC) which would
establish a 24-hour 1-800 number emergency notification system center
for all shortline and even medium-sized railroads patterned from the
system used by BNSF. While the concept is in its infancy, the proposed
center would provide national coverage for the medium (regional) and
shortline railroads at a lower cost if each railroad established this
service themselves. This concept is in the process of being developed
and several railroads are being approached with the concept. It is
estimated that approximately $350,000 may be needed to help establish
such national and regional centers and possibly $150,000 per year to
initially keep operational until they can be self-sufficient through
payments from participating railroads.
FRA is evaluating the feasibility of providing seed funding or cost
sharing for a national or one or more regional contract arrangements
whereby smaller railroads (shortlines) could use the services of a
national/regional Emergency Notification & Command Center to receive
and respond to calls, and/or encourage American Shortline and Regional
Railroad Association participation in establishing a national/regional
emergency notification contract services.
In addition, FRA has established a partnership with the State of
Pennsylvania, a group of eight shortline railroads within the State,
and a County Emergency Management Authority (EMA) to create an
emergency and problem notification system for the eight shortline
railroads. The State of Pennsylvania is very supportive and desirous of
expanding the system state-wide after the original establishment. FRA
will supply the 1-800 Emergency Notification System software developed
for the State of Texas (after modifications to make it applicable for
railroad use) and possibly computer hardware. The State can provide
funding for installation of the signs (Sec. 130 money) and it is
anticipated that FRA would provide some seed money to help establish
the demonstration and center. The involved railroads are currently
preparing a plan for the establishment and operation of the proposed
center, determining the cost elements, and identifying the funding
needed. If successful, FRA will meet Congress' mandate for implementing
a 1-800 number program in two pilot States. This will also initiate the
effort to implement this program for crossings that do not belong to
the Class 1 railroads.
No funds have been included in the fiscal year 2001 budget for
regional emergency call centers.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND FISCAL YEAR 2001 R&D PROJECTS
Question. Please reproduce the research and development project
breakout table on page 75 of the budget justification. After each
subaccount (e.g. ``Train Occupant Protection''), list each research
project in that category, and delineate the fiscal year 2000 enacted,
current services level, new/expanded funding, and total fiscal year
2001 request for each project.
Answer.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------
Program activity/project 2000 2001
enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUIPMENT, OPERATIONS, & HAZMAT
Train Occupant Protection:
Locomotive Safety......................... 1,800 2,950
Develop model to evaluate, test, and
validate locomotive crashworthiness
features for oblique and raking
collisions; conduct full-scale tests to
validate; models; analyze fuel tanks;
conduct laboratory and full-scale
testing of upgraded locomotive nose
configuration...........................
Passenger Rail Car Safety/Performance..... 1,800 2,400
Test passenger rail car crashworthiness
features; conduct full-scale testing of
multi-car models; assess safety
performance of light-weight commuter
rail vehicles...........................
Rolling Stock Safety Assurance & Performance:
On-Board Monitoring Systems............... 480 480
Evaluate brake system safety; evaluate
on-board monitoring system via ECP brake
lines; evaluate train-health monitoring;
develop additional sensors for on-board
application.............................
Wayside Monitoring Systems................ 532 532
Evaluate NDE techniques for wheels;
evaluate improved wayside inspection/
detection methods for bearings and
suspension components; evaluate
prototype wayside inspection station....
Material & Design Improvements............ 275 275
Evaluate advanced braking subsystems,
including a fully automatic coupler and
cushioning devices......................
Human Factors:
Train Operations.......................... 2,178 3,028
Evaluate napping strategies and
vigilance monitoring techniques for
locomotive engineers; evaluate new
technologies for information management
in regular and high-speed operations;
evaluate the use of digital
communications in high-speed operations;
evaluate post-accident stress in
locomotive engineers; study teaming of
operating personnel; initiate research
on the application of behavior-based
safety to the railroad environment;
evaluate high-speed rail simulator......
Yard & Terminal........................... 550 550
Evaluate yard and terminal accidents to
reduce injuries to railroad operating
personnel, including maintenance-of-way
workers and ergonomic issues............
Hazardous Materials Transportation:
Hazmat Transportation Safety.............. 400 600
Evaluate low temperature impacts on
tank cars; evaluate the tank car service
environment, including accident forces;
study tank car reliability engineering..
Damage Assessment & Inspection............ 300 300
Evaluate new non-destructive techniques
for inspecting tank car welds and the
tank car shell for cracks and flaws;
evaluate techniques to replace the
periodic hydrostatic test; evaluate tank
car fatigue and critical flaw size;
develop and evaluate overload impact
sensors.................................
Tank Car Safety........................... 300 300
Evaluate new tank car steels; evaluate
proposed 286,000GRL tank car designs....
Grade Crossings Human Factors: Grade Crossings 435 835
Evaluate optimal acoustic warning systems;
evaluate driver behavior at highway-rail
grade crossings for freight, commuter rail
and high-speed operations; analyze accident
causes; evaluate innovative grade crossing
warning devices............................
Montana University Project: Real Time 250 ...........
Diagnostic Monitoring........................
Development of a Locomotive Health
Monitoring System to determine the
operating condition of the locomotive and
to provide the information to maintenance
professionals via a remote communications
link.......................................
-------------------------
Subtotal, Equipment, Operations & Hazmat 9,300 12,250
=========================
TRACK & VEHICLE TRACK INTERACTION
Track & Components Safety:
Material & Rail Inspection................ 1,600 1,850
Prevent and improve the detection of
material and structural defects in track
and its components; develop new methods
for reducing occurrence of fatigue
cracks and other failure modes in rail
and for improving inspection and
monitoring protocols; assess the safety
of new track materials and components;
develop technologies for detecting track
hazards such as broken, misaligned,
obstructed, or weakened rails ahead of a
moving train............................
Track Strength............................ 1,900 1,900
Deploy FRA track-testing vehicle to
assess performance-based method of
inspecting track gage strength along
mainline and shortline railroads;
develop risk-assessment methods to
prevent lateral buckling of track due to
thermal and vehicle-induced stresses;
develop and demonstrate methods for the
detection and prevention of weak
vertical track support..................
Bridge Safety............................. 250 400
Develop non-destructive evaluation
techniques for safety inspection of
steel and timber railroad bridges;
investigate the use of composite
materials in railroad bridge repair.....
Track--Train Interaction Safety:
Track Geometry............................ 700 700
Assess vehicle performance safety due
to anomalies in track geometry and
overall track geometry degradation;
assess vehicle/track interaction safety
due to commutative track panel shift....
Wheel/Rail Interaction.................... 800 800
Assess vehicle/track interaction safety
due to variations in wheel to rail
forces, wheel/rail profile and contact
conditions, as well as wheel climb and
other related derailment modes..........
Special Trackwork......................... 500 500
Assess vehicle/track interaction safety
in turnouts and other special trackwork;
examine safety performance of flange
bearing frogs; foster the development of
field retrofits to reduce high forces
generated in turnouts...................
Electrification Safety.................... 100 100
Foster the development of a prototype
non-destructive inspection systems for
catenary wire and third rail
installations...........................
Interaction under Heavy Axle Loads........ 300 300
Assess vehicle/track interaction under
heavy axle loads........................
Vehicle/Track Interaction Safety Standards 500 650
Provide research and other technical
services for the development and
implementation of performance-based
vehicle/track interaction, track
geometry, and track strength safety
standards...............................
Grade Crossings--Infrastructure:
Grade Crossings, Infrastructure........... ........... 600
Develop methods to mitigate potential
safety failures in commonly used signal
systems; investigate alternate
technologies for train presence
detection...............................
Train Control:
Advanced Train Control.................... 464 500
Foster the development and
implementation of advanced but cost-
effective train control technologies to
reduce the risk of train collisions.....
University of Alabama Project: Vehicle 250 ...........
Proximity Alert System.......................
University of Nebraska Project: Track 250 ...........
Subsurface Stability.........................
University of Missouri Project: Advanced 250 ...........
Composites for Bridge Repair.................
-------------------------
Subtotal: Track and Vehicle Track 7,864 8,300
Interaction............................
=========================
RAILROAD SYSTEMS SAFETY
Grade Crossings:
High-Speed Rail Safety Support............ 200 200
Evaluate the reliability, safety
record, and maintenance costs of high-
speed rail systems and disseminate this
information.............................
Environmental Impact Analysis............. 200 200
Evaluate effect of noise in HSR
operations and develop a facility to
evaluate mitigation measures; evaluate
EMF effects.............................
Safety of HSGT:
Accident Avoidance........................ 1,800 1,800
Assess the safety of prototype high-
speed rail positive train control
demonstrations; evaluate migration paths
for existing train control to commuter
rail and advanced systems; assess the
corridor risk; assess system safety
support; develop fire safety analysis
program.................................
Grade Crossing & Infrastructure........... 700 300
Evaluate driver behavior at high-speed
grade crossings; evaluate innovative
grade crossing warning devices; support
development of track safety standards
for high-speed operations...............
Accident Survivability.................... 1,400 1,400
Model crash energy management for
occupant protection; test new fire
safety standards for seats and other
materials; assess system safety and
emergency preparedness evaluations;
evaluate of glazing and platform safety
issues associated with high-speed
operations; analyze vehicle track
interaction.............................
High-Speed Test Support Equipment......... 500 500
Acquire advanced test support equipment
to maintain the safety of the high-speed
test track structure and to ensure safe
testing at the FRA's Transportation
Technology Center.......................
Performance-Based Regulations............. ........... 500
Evaluate methods for developing
performance-based regulations for their
applicability to FRA's regulatory safety
process.................................
-------------------------
Subtotal, Railroad Systems Safety... 4,800 4,900
=========================
R&D FACILITIES AND TEST EQUIPMENT
T-6 Vehicle................................... 500 500
Upgrade or replace as necessary the
Government's current track research
vehicle, T-6, used to assess and develop
new technologies for automated track
inspection.................................
TTC Support................................... ........... 850
Perform timely refurbishment or
replacement of facilities and equipment at
the Transportation Technology Center.......
-------------------------
Subtotal, R&D Facilities................ 500 1,350
=========================
Total R&D............................... 22,464 26,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R&D FIVE-YEAR PLAN
Question. The fiscal year 1997 Senate report (S. Rpt. 104-117)
directed FRA to prepare and submit a 5-year strategic research plan
that also incorporated next generation high speed rail research
initiatives. This plan has never been formally submitted to the
Committee. Why not? Will the plan, when it is submitted, reflect the
ongoing review of FRA's research program by the Transportation Research
Board?
Answer. FRA undertook the development of a 5-year plan for research
and development and for the next generation high-speed rail program
following the direction of the fiscal year 1997 Senate report and has
been updating it annually in draft form ever since. The R&D and next
generation staff have benefitted from the discipline of preparing these
drafts, and our budget requests reflect the updated plans. These drafts
have never reached final form in a time frame useful to the Committee,
since the R&D budget has changed during this time, and would have been
obsolete if submitted. FRA staff is working on another updated draft,
which we plan to submit to Congress this summer.
FUNDING OF TRB REVIEW
Question. What is the funding status and outlook for continued
support of the TRB review of the R&D and next generation programs? Will
you continue that activity during fiscal year 2001? Are there
sufficient funds?
Answer. The TRB review of FRA's R&D and Next Generation programs is
funded through fiscal year 2000, and FRA intends to continue the
activity in fiscal year 2001 even though no funding is explicitly
requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget request. FRA will fund this
support by using project funds from each area of its R&D and Next
Generation programs. The TRB activity is important in the project
selection and program evaluation process.
FRA RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. Please update the Committee on FRA's responses to each of
the recommendations issued by the Transportation Research Board
Committee for Review of the FRA R&D and High Speed Rail Program. In
your answer please be certain to show how changes are reflected in the
fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Answer. Following are FRA's responses to the most recent
recommendations issued by the TRB Review Committee:
Recommendation 1.--The committee recommends that the FRA
Administrator, in coordination with the Office of Safety and the Office
of R&D, take the necessary steps to improve FRA's data collection so
that the multiple contributing factors involved in an accident can be
correctly identified and analyzed and the sequence of events
characterized. One of the numerous benefits of more accurate and
complete accident data would be the ability to conduct R&D in closer
balance with actual safety risks. This effort could be initiated with a
research project that would define the need for improved safety data
and develop a taxonomy of causes. (A random sample of actual accidents
could be analyzed to provide a basis for identifying root causes. For
example, in conjunction with the American Public Transit Association,
FRA is conducting a full causal analysis of a sample of low-speed
commuter rail accidents.) Consideration should be given to collecting
data on incidents (near-misses), in addition to accidents, that could
indicate areas in which accidents might be avoided or prevented
(recognizing the limitations of voluntarily reported data). To the
extent that they are not fully exploited now, additional data sources
that could be used to determine accident causes include National
Transportation Safety Board reports, Office of Safety railroad audits,
and FRA dossiers on individual accidents. [Analysis of incidents can be
useful in determining mechanisms that helped prevent an incident from
becoming an accident, as well as in identifying new trends and
developing countermeasures. Companies have such information, but
generally do not share it with government agencies. It might be
possible for a neutral third party to serve as a repository for this
information, with company and individual identifiers being removed
(similar to the Aviation Safety Reporting System, administered for the
Federal Aviation Administration by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration through its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute).]
FRA's Response.--While FRA recognizes that better accident data
would be helpful, FRA does not intend to undertake a rulemaking in the
near future to change the reporting of accidents and incidents. The
most recent rule on data collection was issued only three years ago.
There are a number of regulatory topics that are of higher priority at
the present.
Current reporting thresholds for Railroad Accident and Incident
Reporting System of $6,500 in equipment damage allows for collection of
accident data on many incidents that have no fatalities or injuries.
From a safety perspective, these are indeed near misses. Collecting
additional information on the sequence of events that result in harm
should be focused on events that result in injuries or fatalities. This
is already the case since, between FRA and NTSB, investigations are
conducted in all incidents which result in an employee fatality and
many others involving passenger and highway fatalities.
FRA R&D managers review FRA and NTSB accident reports on a regular
basis. That is, the R&D program is conducted with an understanding of
the sequence of events that result in accidents and harm. Also,
railroads often share data with the FRA to support focused research
objectives. FRA does not believe that a neutral third party information
repository is necessary.
Recommendation 2.--[The harm index for grade crossings was reduced,
and losses associated with trespassers were excluded, even though each
of these represents a large proportion of railroad-related fatalities
and injuries.] The correlation between budget allocation and total risk
should be improved by including all sources of loss (or harm).
FRA's Response.--Property damage, trespassers, and highway user
fatalities are included in the updated analysis. In fact, trespassers
and highway user harm was included in the previous analysis. Research
has been conducted on many of grade crossing-related topics, including
lowering the cost of improvements for grade crossings. FRA has
satisfied the TRB committee that, taken together with other things the
Department is doing, FRA is investing an appropriate amount in R&D
related to grade crossing.
Recommendation 3.--As the next step, FRA should assess how to
connect the separate approaches used for risk assessment of the program
areas and for project evaluation.
FRA's Response.--Project evaluations were intended as a tool for
individual project selection, not as a way to aggregate risk to the
program areas. In the current process, specific risk attributes are
connected with each project. A specific accident may result or be
connected to a number of projects, such as engineman vigilance, train
control, crashworthiness, and emergency preparedness. When aggregating
the risk to the program level, there will inevitably be some level of
double counting. The real value in the process is in assuring that all
understood risk is considered in developing research plans.
Recommendation 4.--Once the above improvements to the risk
assessment process have been made, the committee recommends that FRA
begin using this process to assess the R&D projects slated for the
fiscal year 2001 budget.
FRA's Response.--The Volpe Center will attempt to complete a
failure analysis for FRA for all accident types during the summer of
2000, in time for the fiscal year 2002 budget proposal. The analysis
was not available to assess projects slated for the fiscal year 2001
budget.
Recommendation 5.--The committee recommends that FRA continue to
use the regulatory analysis outlined by the R&D staff at the meeting to
encourage R&D efforts in support of the move toward performance-based
standards and procedures. With respect to Recommendation 1 above,
accurate safety data are also critical to the development of metrics
and measurements needed to support performance-based standards. (For
example, in the commuter rail analysis mentioned above, most of the
accidents have been attributed to wheel/rail causes. The data generated
by this analysis could be used to support the development of
performance-based standards.)
FRA's Response.--FRA recognizes the need to use more performance-
based standards and procedures and has begun working with the FAA to
get their insight on the issue of performance-based regulations. FRA
has requested funding for performance based regulations research in its
fiscal year 2001 budget. In the meantime, we expect to continue with
meetings and in-house staff analyses.
Recommendation 6.--The committee recommends that FRA engage in
discussions with researchers in these other fields (e.g., aviation) to
a greater extent than is currently the case in order to utilize
existing knowledge and avoid replication of available research.
FRA's Response.--The process presented will identify multiple
causes of harm. Consequently, human factors issues will receive proper
emphasis. FRA will consider human factors research from other domains
when addressing incidents with human factors components. FRA has been
an active participant in the Department's Human Factors Coordinating
Committee (HFCC) and the Fatigue Working Group. Both of these groups,
which are made up of representatives from all of the DOT Operating
Administrations including FAA, share research ideas and results. Dr.
Thomas Raslear, of FRA's Office of R&D, is the current HFCC Chair. FRA
has worked closely with the highway mode in particular in the fatigue
vigilance monitoring effort.
Recommendation 7.--The committee recommends that the FRA
Administrator, in coordination with the Office of R&D and the Office of
Policy and the appropriate offices within FHWA, should develop a plan
for policy research related to grade crossings and aggressively press
for research related to standardization of grade separations and
crossing elimination. This research should draw on successful practices
in individual states, as well as other countries. These efforts would
not necessarily be costly, and should involve both state officials and
researchers exploring new concepts and approaches. The committee
encourages the initiation of such research as soon as possible, with a
project proposal being included at least in the fiscal year 2001
budget.
FRA's Response.--The FRA Administrator takes the recommendation
very seriously and FRA is coordinating efforts of the Offices of
Policy, R&D, and Safety with other Federal agencies and the states to
aggressively reduce hazards presented by grade crossings. In
particular, FRA will be working closely with the ITS Joint Program
Office to develop a strategic plan for the development, demonstration,
and deployment of ITS technologies at highway-railroad grade crossings.
The development of standards for ITS and grade crossings was initiated
at a well-attended workshop this summer. FRA has included $500 thousand
in its fiscal year 2001 budget for a national grade crossing outreach
program.
Recommendation 8.--The committee urges that in the future, the
staff of the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program provide the
committee with more complete reports on program developments, including
technical progress reports.
FRA's Response.--The Next Generation High Speed Rail Program staff
made a detailed presentation to the Committee at its most recent
meeting to keep it apprized of all developments.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COST SHARING
Question. Please prepare for each of the R&D categories and
subaccounts the amount of cost sharing and the amount of federal
funding for each of the last three years.
Answer. The amounts of cost-sharing include estimated values of
services, equipment, and materials contributed in-kind to the FRA R&D
projects. The following tables list the estimated R&D cost-sharing (in
thousands of dollars) with non-Federal entities for fiscal years 1998
through 2000:
TRACK, AND VEHICLE TRACK INTERACTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-
Fiscal year Federal Federal
funds funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................................. $6,950 $5,750
1999.................................................. 6,950 4,640
2000.................................................. 7,864 3,849
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUIPMENT, OPERATIONS, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-
Fiscal year Federal Federal
funds funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................................. $5,659 $2,296
1999.................................................. 7,468 1,300
2000.................................................. 9,300 676
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAILROAD SYSTEMS SAFETY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-
Fiscal year Federal Federal
funds funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................................. $4,650 $60
1999.................................................. 4,800 246
2000.................................................. 4,800 236
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R&D FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-
Fiscal year Federal Federal
funds funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................................. $770 $1,040
1999.................................................. 500 901
2000.................................................. 500 1,000
(est)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RATIONALE FOR LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY RESEARCH INITIATIVE
Question. What is the needs-based rationale for the locomotive
safety research initiative? Will there be a regulatory follow-on
reflecting the findings of this project?
Answer. An examination of railroad accident reports shows the need
to protect locomotive crews against the full range of collision
scenarios including oblique/raking collisions, rear end collisions, and
grade crossing collisions in addition to head on collisions. Hence most
of the work involves simulation modeling and testing of locomotive
structures in these different types of collisions. The Office of Safety
has a concurrent RSAC Working Group on crashworthiness with the
objective of developing regulatory requirements for locomotive
crashworthiness. Technical support is also being provided to this
working group through the locomotive safety research initiative. FRA
anticipates taking regulatory action, if necessary, based on the
findings of this research.
FUNDING FOR THE LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY RESEARCH INITIATIVE
Question. Is the locomotive safety research initiative an ongoing
or new research project? If it is ongoing, what prior research efforts
and funding have been committed? What is the anticipated fiscal year
2002 cost of the project?
Answer. The locomotive safety initiative is an ongoing research
effort. FRA's prior research efforts have focused on head-on-collisions
with finite element analyses of the force and crush resulting from the
collision. The force and crush indicates the extent to which the crew
cab space is invaded and the severity of the collision. FRA's more
recent efforts have focused on developing a new, dynamic collision
modeling approach suitable for oblique/raking collisions and rear end
collisions. This effort is continuing with comparisons of modeling
results with actual collisions. Also, parametric evaluation of improved
locomotive structures is anticipated. In addition, the FRA R&D supports
an ongoing Railroad Safety Advisory Committee Working Group's efforts
on Locomotive Crashworthiness, with research for model development,
design improvements, and fuel tank crashworthiness evaluation. The
funding for these efforts was $600,000 in fiscal year 1996, $300,000 in
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, and $600,000 in fiscal year
1999. The current fiscal year 2000 budget is $1,800,000. Fiscal year
2000 funds are committed to planning a locomotive component test
program, designing the testing fixtures, and planning one or more full
scale train to train collision tests at TTCI in Pueblo, Colorado.
Simulations of the proposed tests, to be conducted, will be used to
select the train consists and precisely predict the outcome.
In fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, the full-scale locomotive
structural components crashworthiness tests and one or more full-scale
train-to-train collision tests would be conducted and the results
evaluated. The findings will complete the development of
crashworthiness regulatory requirements. In addition, some efforts
would be devoted to emergency egress and fire safety. For fiscal year
2001, $2,950,000 in funding is requested.
FULL-SCALE CRASH TESTING
Question. What is the status of your full-scale crash testing of
rail passenger and locomotive equipment? What is the anticipated
schedule for implementing this project? Please detail the funding
history for this program, and outline what follow-on cost will be
required to complete the project.
Answer. On November 16, 1999, FRA conducted a test of a single
passenger rail car crash into a rigid barrier at the Transportation
Technology Center (TTC). On April 4, 2000, a second test was conducted
with two coupled passenger cars crashing into the barrier. Before the
end of fiscal year 2001, two more impact tests are planned in which
passenger cars will strike locomotives. In addition, collision tests of
modified equipment and tests of oblique collisions will be conducted
are planned in future years.
In fiscal year 1999, the impact testing for passenger rail cars was
funded at $2 million. In fiscal year 2000, passenger car and locomotive
impact testing is continuing, utilizing $3.6 million in funding. In
fiscal year 2001, a total of $5.4 million is included for this project.
This project will continue into fiscal year 2004.
GRANT TO MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY AT BOZEMAN
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, Congress
directed that $250,000 be provided to Montana State University at
Bozeman to pilot real-time diagnostic monitoring of rail rolling stock.
Has this contract been awarded? How does this contract complement FRA's
ongoing work with on-board freight car condition monitoring systems?
Answer. The FRA is currently reviewing the grant application from
Montana State University. The grant award has not been made. The draft
Statement of Work describes their effort to develop a locomotive health
monitoring system as an add-on device for older locomotives or as
original equipment for new locomotives. The system would determine the
operating condition of locomotive electrical, mechanical, and air brake
systems and be able to provide the information to shop forces over a
digital communications link. The initial components of this system will
be an on-board intelligent lubrication prognostics system and a
communication system capable of sending the information from the
locomotive to control centers and maintenance facilities. The
locomotive health monitoring system will provide for improved equipment
operation and reliability for the railroads and may improve safety.
FRA's on-board freight car condition monitoring system is aimed at
collecting information on safety-related parameters such as brake
piston travel, bearing temperatures, vibrations, and the like. The
information will be sent from the freight cars to the locomotive cab
over the communications channel of new electronically-controlled
pneumatic (ECP) brake systems. The information can then be sent to
control centers and maintenance facilities over the same radio channels
used by the locomotive health monitoring system.
FISCAL YEAR 1998-2000 FUNDING FOR HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAM
Question. Please provide an update of the progress that has been
made in the human factors program since last year. How much of the
fiscal year 1998, 1999, and 2000 allocated funds have been spent, and
for which purposes?
Answer. Following is a summary of the progress on projects during
fiscal year 2000, project objectives, and funding for fiscal years 1998
and 1999 and 2000. New phases or extensions of on-going research are
identified where applicable.
Train Operations
1. A study design for Engineer Napping Strategies was finalized in
June 1999. A pilot test of the study design was scheduled to follow
immediately, resulting in refinements to test and analysis approaches
by the end of the year. This work has been put on hold due to a
catastrophic failure of the RALES simulator, where a majority of the
work was to be conducted. The primary purpose of this research is to
determine to what extent and what types of on-duty napping can improve
locomotive engineer performance and safety. Realistic guidelines can
then be developed for the implementation of strategic napping policies
in the industry. Future year funding will be needed to complete this
project.
Fiscal year:
1998...................................................... $400,000
1999...................................................... 100,000
2000...................................................... 150,000
2. A preliminary catalogue of Vigilance Monitoring devices,
suitable to non-obtrusively measure alertness in on-duty locomotive
engineers, was completed in January 1999. Three devices have been
selected for testing and efforts continue to identify other promising
technologies. Suitable devices will be used in simulated and revenue
operations to gather data and test their usefulness in the railroad-
operating environment. The purpose of these tests is to provide
information on the validity and reliability of such devices, for the
use on railroads, which may wish to use this technology to manage
employee fatigue.
Fiscal year:
1998...................................................... $300,000
1999...................................................... 200,000
2000...................................................... 250,000
3. The Dispatcher Workload, Stress and Fatigue, Phase III project,
to determine the factors that affect workload, stress and fatigue, has
been completed and the final report is expected in June 2000. Phase IV,
to study staffing and scheduling issues, has begun and will be
completed in September 2000.
Fiscal year:
1998...................................................... $225,000
1999...................................................... 200,000
2000...................................................... 50,000
4. New technology in the form of communications and computerization
is changing the way the railroads operate. Previously, the effects of
new technology, such as automation, and information-mediated fatigue on
locomotive engineer vigilance (High-Speed Operator Stress and Fatigue),
were only considered in high-speed operations. Two reports on high-
speed operations and technology were completed by the Volpe Center and
will be revised per FRA comments. These studies evaluated situational
awareness and the monitoring of equipment failures under three
operational conditions: manual control, cruise control, and full
automation, and examined the role of preview displays in operator
workload and performance. The project focus was expanded to include all
railroad operations because of the rapid introduction of technology
throughout the industry, and the project was renamed (Information
Management and Control in Railroad Operations). The project will
determine the safety implications of increased information flow and new
information management technology in normal and high-speed operations
for locomotive engineers and dispatchers. Out year funding will be
needed to evaluate related issues.
Fiscal year:
1998...................................................... $200,000
1999...................................................... 200,000
2000...................................................... 308,000
5. The final report on Dispatcher Training Evaluation was published
in 1998, and a workshop on the findings of the report was held in
Chicago in October 1998. Workshop participants expressed a need for
information concerning the selection of personnel for dispatcher
training, and this issue is currently being addressed in Phase III,
which will develop selection criteria for dispatchers and also develop
training materials for readback/hearback, based on an FAA program for
air traffic controllers.
Fiscal year:
1998...................................................... $57,000
1999...................................................... 200,000
2000................................................................
6. A new initiative, Evaluation of Human Factors Safety Issues in
Digital Communications, was begun in fiscal year 1999. This multi-year
project will examine the human factors implications of using digital
communications between locomotive engineers and dispatchers. Currently,
such communications are by voice, which has proven to be less efficient
and precise than digital communications. Transition from voice to
digital communications will change the task of the locomotive engineer.
Therefore, the human factors effects of this transition need to be
evaluated. A report on datalink party line communications between
dispatchers and locomotive crews is in preparation, and work began on a
datalink tool for maintenance-of-way crews.
Fiscal year:
1998................................................................
1999...................................................... $100,000
2000...................................................... 300,000
7. The Advanced Display Interface project develops innovative
information displays to improve information management by locomotive
engineers, dispatchers, and traffic managers. Virtual reality displays
and associated software were developed and completed in January 1998. A
video demonstration of the displays was completed in September 1998.
Software, which was previously developed under this project, is being
converted to a Windows operating system, and a stringline interface and
planning tool is under development. Future work will explore a test
site in which to demonstrate the applicability of the display to
revenue service.
Fiscal year:
1998...................................................... $200,000
1999...................................................... 78,000
2000...................................................... 400,000
8. A new initiative, Post-Accident Stress in Locomotive Engineers,
began in fiscal year 1999. The first phase, which will be competed in
December 2000, will determine the descriptive epidemiology (incidence
and prevalence) of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in locomotive
engineers resulting from on-duty crashes. PTSD is debilitating and may
compromise safety, so the magnitude of the problem is important to
determine for future resource allocation. The second phase will develop
a model treatment intervention for locomotive engineers immediately
following crashes that result in traumatic injuries or loss of life.
Fiscal year:
1998................................................................
1999...................................................... $100,000
2000...................................................... 50,000
9. Operating rules form the basis of safe operations in the
railroad industry. Previous work on the Operating Rules Evaluation and
Safety Rules Consolidation project has focused on the influence of
railroad corporate culture on compliance with operating rules. A final
report on rules compliance and corporate culture was published in
October 1999. All safety procedures, including operating rules,
continuously expand and increase in numbers to avoid past accidents and
incidents. These additions to the rule books become increasingly
restrictive over time and reduce the range of permitted actions to far
less than what is necessary to complete a job under normal conditions.
As a result, compliance with rules decreases, and the rules no longer
function to promote safety. A major railroad has requested assistance
to consolidate all their safety rule books currently in use (8) into a
single book. The consolidation should enhance safety and provide a
model for other railroads. This effort will also serve as a platform
from which to launch projects on teaming and behavior-based safety.
This work was begun in fiscal year 1999 and is expected to continue
into fiscal year 2001.
Fiscal year:
1998...................................................... $50,000
1999...................................................... 50,000
2000...................................................... 70,000
10. The Switching Operations Fatality Analysis project in
conjunction with FRA's Office of Safety, rail labor and rail
management, completed a review and evaluation of the causes of fatal
accidents involving switching operations. A final report was produced
and follow-on work will continue.
Fiscal year:
1998................................................................
1999...................................................... $200,000
2000...................................................... 200,000
11. The Teaming of Operating Personnel project will define crew
resource management for the railroad industry. This project, which will
begin in fiscal year 2000, will use the base of labor-management
cooperation established in the Safety Rules Consolidation project to
develop group dynamics that enhance the safety of railroad operations.
Fiscal year:
1998................................................................
1999................................................................
2000...................................................... $300,000
12. The High-Speed Rail Simulator project will begin in fiscal year
2000. The project will evaluate the Amtrak High-Speed Training
Simulator to determine its usefulness as a research tool for future
research projects. In out years, the project will fund changes to the
simulator to allow its use as a research tool (if necessary) and to
conduct studies on human factors in high-speed operations.
Fiscal year:
1998................................................................
1999................................................................
2000...................................................... $100,000
Yard and Terminal
13. A final report on the multi-phase Yard and Terminal Safety
study is expected by the end of fiscal year 2000. The report will
characterize the practices and conditions that contribute to yard and
terminal injuries so that remedial actions can be investigated. For
instance, slips, trips, and muscles strains were determined to
constitute almost 50 percent of injuries in the yard and terminal
environment, and this information will serve as the basis for a new
project focused on ergonomic issues.
Fiscal year:
1998...................................................... $150,000
1999...................................................... 100,000
2000...................................................... 150,000
14. The Ergonomic Issues project will build on the results of the
Yard & Terminal Safety project to focus on ergonomic means to avoid the
slips, trips, and muscle strains that constitute almost 50 percent of
all yard and terminal injuries. The project will start in late fiscal
year 2000.
Fiscal year:
1998................................................................
1999................................................................
2000...................................................... $200,000
15. The Maintenance-of-Way Safety project will begin late in fiscal
year 2000. The project will focus on fatigue issues for maintenance-of-
way workers and will be conducted cooperatively with the industry
through the auspices of the North American Rail Alertness Partnership.
Fiscal year:
1998................................................................
1999................................................................
2000...................................................... $200,000
RAILROAD FATIGUE COUNTERMEASURE PROGRAMS
Question. What is FRA doing to either monitor or evaluate working
schedule pilot programs or other fatigue countermeasures now being
implemented by various railroads? What is the relationship between this
work and the $300,000 requested for the fatigue countermeasures
campaign under the ``Safety and Operations'' account?
Answer. Staff from the Human Factors program regularly attend
meetings of the North American Rail Partnership (NARAP) and serve on
several of its standing committees. NARAP has monitored programs for
fatigue management since its inception and publishes a report,
``Current Status of Fatigue Countermeasures in the Railroad Industry'',
on a regular basis. The evaluation of working schedule pilot programs,
however, has not yet begun, although NARAP recognizes the necessity of
this process. The Human Factors program has facilitated the start of an
evaluation program at NARAP by providing a one-day seminar on program
evaluation, complete with materials, and taught by a nationally
recognized expert on program evaluation. The ``Safety and Operations''
funding request for $300,000 would, in part, assist NARAP to implement
a systematic program evaluation of its various fatigue countermeasures.
The Human Factors program staff would serve as consultants to this
effort, but the Human Factors program would not provide funds.
GRADE CROSSING SAFETY RESEARCH FUNDING
Question. Please provide a break down of how the $835,000 requested
for grade crossing safety research will be allocated.
Answer. The requested $835,000 for grade crossing safety research
will be allocated as follows:
Compendium of Grade Crossing Research......................... $70,000
Evaluation of Driver Education Programs....................... 155,000
Freight Car Reflectorization.................................. 30,000
Railroad Horns................................................ 30,000
Optimal Acoustic Warning...................................... 70,000
Causal Analysis of Accidents.................................. 110,000
Evaluation of Driver Behavior................................. 90,000
High Speed Rail Crossing Technologies......................... 35,000
Review of Data Sources........................................ 60,000
Evaluation of School St 4-Quad Gates.......................... 100,000
CRAMCAT \1\................................................... 60,000
Technology Transfer with Other Research Organizations (UIC,
ERRI, etc.)............................................... 25,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 835,000
\1\ Corridor Risk Assessment Methodology Crossing Analysis Tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVALUATION OF PTC AND ITS SYSTEMS
Question. The budget justification states that research support is
needed in fiscal year 2001 to continue evaluating PTC and ITS for use
in grade crossing safety. Please discuss the scope and nature of this
research and relate this activity to that conducted during fiscal year
1999 and thus far during fiscal year 2000. What are the initial results
of this investment?
Answer. Implementation of PTC on high-speed corridors in Michigan
and Illinois and on the Alaska Railroad is behind schedule and no
evaluations were conducted in fiscal year 1999. Now that revenue
service testing of the Incremental Train Control System, which
incorporates monitoring and advanced activation of grade crossings, has
begun in Michigan, FRA will soon be able to initiate evaluation
activities.
FRA has worked with DOT's ITS Joint Program Office to develop an
architecture for ITS at highway-rail intersections and to initiate work
on standards. FRA has been meeting with Standards Development
Organizations, who are being instructed to incorporate PTC systems into
the standards they develop.
VOLPE GRADE CROSSING PLAN
Question. What is the status of the work of the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center on a research plan regarding the safety
of highway-railroad grade crossings? Was the plan ever published? How
is the Volpe work different from Operation Lifesaver activities?
Answer. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC)
assists the FRA's Office of Research and Development with all programs
in developing a process for project selection and program development
with a strategic focus on safety. For the grade crossing safety
program, this process is approximately 75 percent complete. The process
involves five steps: a review of historical and potential sources of
accidents and incidents; a failure analysis; a determination of
countermeasures requiring research and development; the development and
prioritization of individual projects; and the selection of projects
for funding. The process results in an on-going, internal working
document that is not intended for publication.
Operation Lifesaver is primarily a public awareness and driver
education program related to grade crossing safety, whereas the VNTSC
program addresses all aspects of grade crossing safety, including human
factors, grade-crossing technology, and accident causation.
IMPACT OF TRACK RESEARCH ON REGULATIONS
Question. How is your proposed track research related to the
development of new regulations at the FRA? What track-related
regulations have been recently issued or are being considered for
future issuance?
Answer. All FRA proposed research on track and vehicle/track
interaction is related to the development of new performance-based
safety regulations as well as the implementation of newly issued or
revised rules. During the past two years, revised track safety
standards were issued for conventional classes of track supporting
speeds of up to 80 mph. In addition, new rules were developed and
published for tracks supporting speeds up to 200 mph.
Below are some proposed research activities and their relationship
with newly issued standards and/or future rulemaking activities:
Rail Defect Replacement Time.--In the fiscal year 2001 budget,
research is proposed to continue work on factors that influence the
formation and growth of internal rail defects. This research would
allow FRA to better predict the growth of rail defects. Based on this
research, regulations are likely to be modified to reflect rail defect
removal based on a prioritized schedule.
Gauge Widening.--In the fiscal year 2001 budget, research is
proposed to develop data for inspection frequency and to monitor the
implementation of new standards on gauge widening inspection. In fiscal
year 1999, safety standards for high-speed rail were issued that
require a yearly inspection using a gauge restraint measurement device,
along with twice weekly visual inspections. Safety rules for lower
class tracks are being developed now to provide an alternate tie
inspection requirement that combines gauge restraint measurement with
less frequent visual inspection.
Track Degradation Model.--In the fiscal year 2001 budget, the
proposed research would focus on the development of a comprehensive
track surface degradation model. Safety rules and potential waivers for
inspection frequencies could be developed with results from this model.
Rail Wear Limits: In the fiscal year 2001 budget, the proposed research
will investigate actual or potential problems associated with worn
rails to determine whether there should be wear limit standards. If
standards are required, the rail wear limits also would be determined.
Passenger Wheel and Rail Profile Standards.--In the fiscal year
2001 budget, the proposed research would continue to support the
development of safety standards and guidelines for passenger car
wheels, rail profiles, and surface conditions with APTA. From the past
work of this joint research, a recommendation was produced for a
minimum flange angle on passenger wheels to prevent and reduce wheel
climb derailments. Future research would develop profile measurement
standards and investigate the feasibility of a way-side monitoring
system.
Buckling of Continuously Welded Rail.--In the fiscal year 2001, the
proposed research would continue to support the development of safety
standards and guidelines for maintaining and repairing continuously
welded rail tracks to prevent buckling.
TRACK AND COMPONENTS RESEARCH
Question. What track and components research would be deferred if
FRA did not receive the requested $500,000 increase for the vertical
support assessment project, and the agency was directed to follow its
own priorities within the current services funding level?
Answer. If FRA did not receive the requested $500,000, the vertical
support assessment project would be deferred. Deferring this work would
adversely impact other related track structure and subsurface condition
assessment research currently in progress. The most significant is the
development of a comprehensive track degradation model which would be
delayed due to the lack of adequate data for the vertical modulus, a
key parameter. Also, the completion and validation of complementary
work currently in progress under FRA's university research grants
program would be seriously impacted. This work includes subsurface
evaluation of track using ground penetrating radar and vibratory rail
tomography to detect weak locations.
It should be noted that FRA's past research produced a family of
instrumented railcars which are capable, at normal track speeds, of
measuring track geometry parameters against Federal Track Safety
Standards, and produced the GRMS which measures the ability of track to
maintain gage to preclude wide gag derailment. New developments in
technology in the areas of both data acquisition and processing make it
now possible to consider the inclusion of track vertical deflection
measurements. In this regard, the proposed project is in consonance
with FRA R&D's efforts to apply/adapt existing or emerging technologies
to specifically address track related accidents.
RESEARCH ON ADVANCED COMPOSITE MATERIALS
Question. What is the status of the contract for research on
advanced composite materials for use in repairing and rehabilitating
aging railroad bridges, for which the conferees provided $250,000 to
the University of Missouri-Rolla in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. FRA staff is working with University of Missouri-Rolla
staff to define the project scope and objective. The University
developed a cooperative research package that includes significant non-
FRA resources, both cash and in-kind donations over $100,000. On March
14, 2000, FRA received a draft technical proposal from the University.
The grant currently is being reviewed by FRA staff and is expected to
be awarded by July 2000. This deadline is at the suggestion of the
University to coincide with the start of their fiscal year.
PROXIMITY ALERT SYSTEMS
Question. What is the status of the contract for vehicle proximity
alert systems interoperability for which the conferees provided
$250,000 to the University of Alabama in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The scope of work for the contract is under development. A
white paper prepared by the principle investigators at the University
of Alabama on potential railroad crash avoidance technologies was
reviewed, and information regarding vehicle proximity alert systems
(VPAS) and the Intelligent Transportation System architecture was sent
to the University. The development of VPAs system is difficult because
none of the vehicle proximity alert systems tested at the
Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, several
years ago worked well enough to continue with field testing in an
actual railroad environment.
Two VPAS systems are being tested now. The system developed by
Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems (DVSS) is testing a warning system in
school buses and other priority vehicles as part of the Minnesota
Guidestar system (the State's overall Intelligent Transportation System
program). However, this system does not conform to the architecture of
Intelligent Transportation System User Service #30 developed for
highway-rail grade crossings. The testing of the University of Alabama
system recently started in the Chicago area, but it is too soon to
determine if the system will work as designed. FRA will continue to
work with the principal investigators at the University of Alabama to
develop a suitable scope of work from the interoperability contract.
INTEGRATED TRACK STABILITY
Question. What is the status of the contract for the development of
integrated track stability assessment and monitoring systems using
site-specific geo-technical/spatial parameter and remote sensing
technologies, for which the conferees provided $250,000 to Marshall
University and the University of Nebraska in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. On December 13, 1999, FRA met with representatives from
Marshall University and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to develop a
research grant framework and implementation plan. FRA staff agreed to
assist in the development of a statement of work. The contract will
serve as a basis for a single R&D cooperative agreement to be awarded
to the two Universities. The railroads, the railroad suppliers'
industry, and agencies in both states are to be encouraged to
participate and contribute resources, in-cash and/or in-kind. The
formal grant application is expected in April 2000, with the grant to
be awarded by May 31, 2000.
GRADE GROSSING HAZARD REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
Question. Please detail the grade crossing hazard reduction
technologies and the associated program costs funded by the $500,000
request for grade crossing infrastructure. Please list these projects
in priority order.
Answer.
Fiscal year
Project 2001 funding
Four-Quadrant Gate Assessment Model........................... $150,000
This research fosters development of appropriate and
useful analytic tools for future use by State agencies.
These funds will support a study to be conducted by the
University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana to develop a
theoretical model of safety issues related to the use of
four-quadrant gate systems. A four-quadrant gate
roundtable discussion is proposed as the initial phase
of this work to provide a focused approach to the
model's development and possible enhancements.
Detection of Trains and Vehicles within the Highway Rail
Intersection Limits....................................... 175,000
This initiative supports the deployment of ``off-the-
shelf'' technologies in the highway-rail grade crossings
environment. The current funds support actual
operational testing activities at the Transportation
Technology Center (TTC), in Pueblo, Colorado, of
prototype systems that utilize technologies new to the
grade crossing application, yet proven in other fields.
Photo Enforcement............................................. 75,000
Fiscal year 2000 funding will provide a synthesis of
techniques, results, and effectiveness of photo
enforcement at crossings. The synergies of work by NHTSA
and/or FTA will be explored, along with the possibility
of joint funding. The fiscal year 2001 budget request
would support the development of guidelines for use of
photo enforcement at highway-rail grade crossings.
Guidelines for Obstacle/Intrusion Detection................... 100,000
This initiative is an overview of system requirements
and ongoing work in the area of obstacle/intrusion
detection, and will involve the railroad right-of-way in
general, as well as grade crossings. The fiscal year
2001 budget request would support the development of
systems requirements for obstacle/intrusion detection
devices.
IMPACT OF NO FUNDS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATIONS
Question. What railroad systems safety research would be deferred
if FRA did not receive the requested $500,000 increase for performance-
based regulations, and the agency was directed to follow its own
priorities within the current services funding level?
Answer. If FRA did not receive the requested $500,000 for
performance-based regulations, FRA would delay this activity until
fiscal year 2002. This, in turn, would delay the application of
performance-based concepts in FRA's rulemaking processes and might also
impede FRA's ability to facilitate the introduction of new and more
effective technology.
FUNDING FOR TAMPER/LINER MACHINE
Question. How much of this new funding program request of $850,000
will be used to purchase a tamper/liner machine to maintain the TTC's
high speed test track?
Answer. FRA had originally planned to spend $430 thousand for a
tamper in fiscal year 2001. However, because the need for a tamper
became critical at the end of fiscal year 1999, FRA purchased a new
tamper using funds generated from the sale of the aluminum reaction
rail at TTC. FRA had planned to spend the funds from the sale of the
aluminum reaction rail on other TTC needs, however, the purchase of the
tamper was accelerated because (1) the old tamper was becoming
increasingly unreliable and was inadequate for the precision required
on the high-speed test track, and (2) the test track was essential for
testing Amtrak's new high-speed trains for service from Washington to
Boston. In fiscal year 2001, FRA plans to spend the $430 thousand on
the items delayed from fiscal year 1999 including:
Repairs to roofs (some of which are currently leaking)........ $180,000
Upgrading the fire alarm systems to eliminate deteriorating
components and to meet current code requirements.......... 150,000
Engineering and update of facility drawings and site master
plan, including facilities, utilities, environmental
compliance systems, and communication lines............... 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 430,000
TESTING USING THE HIGH-SPEED TEST TRACK
Question. What publicly-owned passenger railroads have performed
testing on the high-speed test track over the past two years? What
tests are scheduled for the next year?
Answer. Passenger equipment test programs conducted on the high-
speed test track by publicly-owned railroads over the past several
years include:
Long Island Railroad--Tests of 7-1-97 through 9-1-97
EMD dual-mode locomotive and
single-deck Kawasaki commuter
cars.........................
MARC (Maryland Mass 5-28-97 through 8-1-97
Transportation
Administration)--Tests of
double-deck Kawasaki commuter
cars.........................
Amtrak Talgo Trainset......... 11-98 one week
Amtrak High-Horsepower 11-16-98 through 2-28-00
Locomotive.
Amtrak Acela High-Speed 3-15-99 through 2-28-00
Trainset.
Amtrak Advanced Civil Speed 11-30-98 through 12-18-98
Enforcement system tests.....
Japanese RTRI Gauge-Change 6-01-99 through 3-31-01
Trainset.
Proposed Passenger Equipment test programs on the high-speed test
track for 2000:
Amtrak Surfliner......................... April 2000
FRA/Bombardier Gas Turbine Locomotive Late 2000
(for service on Amtrak).................
NGHSR OST/OMB BUDGET REQUEST
Question. Please present the Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Program budget request as it was submitted by FRA to OST and OMB.
Answer. FRA's fiscal year 2001 Budget Request for the Next
Generation High-Speed Rail Program was the same at each stage of the
budget process, including the OST/OMB budget submissions.
TOTAL NEED FOR DESIGNATED HSR CORRIDORS
Question. What level of funding does the FRA estimate will be
needed to develop high-speed rail systems in each of the 12 FRA
designated corridors in the U.S.? How much has already been spent and
what is the source of those funds? What is FRA's role in developing,
promoting or funding these corridors?
Answer. Only eight corridors have been designated thus far: five in
1992, under the ISTEA legislation, and three in 1998, as directed by
Congress in TEA-21. The FRA has developed preliminary estimates for
implementing high-speed rail at various service levels in the initial
five designated corridors.
For the three recently designated corridors, the FRA has
preliminary estimates for the Empire Corridor (New York-Albany-Buffalo)
and is well along in developing such estimates for the Keystone
Corridor (Philadelphia-Harrisburg). For the Gulf Coast Corridor
(Houston-New Orleans-Mobile with a branch linking New Orleans and
Birmingham), feasibility studies are still ongoing and no comprehensive
estimate exists. Table 1 summarizes the known cost estimates for future
development of high-speed rail at various service levels in the
designated corridors. Except where noted, the source is FRA's
commercial feasibility study report, High-Speed Ground Transportation
for America (1997).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED FUTURE INVESTMENTS TO ATTAIN HIGH-SPEED RAIL
[Cost Estimate--Dollars in millions unless otherwise noted]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
Corridor designated 90 mph 110 mph 125 mph Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Northwest....................... 1992 $598 $859 $1,233 Corridor links Eugene-Portland,
Ore., Seattle, Wash., and
Vancouver, B.C.
California North-South.................. 1992 $25 billion (State The State of California (High-
estimate) for a new, 200 Speed Rail Authority) is
mph system. (Source: High- actively pursuing a possible
Speed Rail Authority, new high-speed rail (200 mph)
Building a High-Speed system, for which their most
Rail System for recent published estimate is
California, Draft shown. Maglev (300 mph) is
Business Plan, January also being considered; the
2000.) technology selection would be
made as part of pending
environmental work.
Chicago Hub Network..................... 1992 1,062 1,487 2,438 Estimate covers three spokes
radiating from Chicago to:
Detroit, Milwaukee, and St.
Louis. (The recent extensions
from Milwaukee to the Twin
Cities, and from Chicago to
Cincinnati, are not included
in the estimate.)
Florida................................. 1992 1,235 1,305 1,494 Corridor links Tampa, Orlando,
West Palm Beach, and Miami.
Southeast Corridor...................... 1992 ( \1\ ) 1,047 ( \1\ ) Estimate covers line between
Washington, D.C., Richmond,
Va., and Raleigh-Greensboro-
Charlotte, N.C. (Subsequently
designated extensions to
Hampton Roads, Va., Atlanta-
Macon, Ga., and Columbia, S.C.-
Savannah, Ga.-Jacksonville,
Fla. are not included in the
estimate.)
Empire Corridor......................... 1998 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 1,932 Estimate covers entire route
between New York City, Albany,
and Buffalo, N.Y.
Keystone Corridor....................... 1998 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) Estimate will be available
later in calendar 2000.
Gulf Coast Corridor..................... 1998 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) Preliminary studies are
ongoing; estimates not yet
available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not available.
Table 2 presents actual investments in improved rail passenger
service, by State, corridor, and funding source, in the decade of the
1990s.
TABLE 2.--PAST INVESTMENTS TO IMPROVE RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE IN DESIGNATED CORRIDORS
[Funding by source (dollars in millions) in 1990s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Corridor State Local Amtrak Federal Railroads Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington........................ Pacific Northwest... $120.0 $6.4 $80.0 $3.7 $225.0 $435.1
California........................ California Corridor 1,215.1 161.0 390.1 69.2 95.2 1,930.6
and connecting
lines: improvements
to existing
conventional rail
segments.
Illinois.......................... Chicago Hub Network. 34.0 1.0 ....... 37.3 ......... 72.3
Michigan.......................... Chicago Hub Network. 42.0 3.0 ....... 19.4 ......... 64.4
North Carolina.................... Southeast Corridor.. 112.7 1.5 ....... 52.4 ......... 166.6
Virginia.......................... Southeast Corridor.. 3.9 6.5 ....... 41.7 5.0 57.1
New York.......................... Empire Corridor..... 153.4 10.0 70.6 55.2 ......... 289.2
Pennsylvania...................... Keystone Corridor... ....... 0.5 30.0 ....... ......... 30.5
-------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................ 1,681.1 189.9 570.7 278.9 325.2 3,045.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FRA has endeavored to assist the States, with both appropriated
funding and technical support, in developing and promoting these
corridors. In recent years, the Congress has made available $5.25
million annually in highway-rail grade crossing improvement funds under
Section 1103(c) of TEA-21. In each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $1
million was made available to the FRA, and allocated to the States, for
corridor planning. For fiscal year 2001, the FRA has requested $468
million to increase train speeds on track nationwide, which would be
matched on at least a 50/50 basis by the States and/or Amtrak. Some of
these funds might be used on these corridors.
Independent of funding levels, however, the FRA has served as a
catalyst for high-speed rail development nationwide. The FRA has
considerable expertise in high-speed rail planning as a result of its
over three decades' experience in Northeast Corridor planning,
engineering, and implementation, and in its capacity as the Federal
agency concerned with railroad safety. As a result, FRA has been able
to provide expert advice to the States and Amtrak on the design and
prioritization of corridor investments; on the environmental processes
as they relate to high-speed rail; on the evaluation of alternatives;
and on the safety aspects of infrastructure and equipment improvements.
For example, the FRA applied this expertise to its commercial
feasibility study of high-speed ground transportation, which continues
to provide both Amtrak and the States with a blueprint they can use for
the future development plans. FRA successfully completed the
environmental process for the electrification extension in the
Northeast Corridor, thus making possible this quantum leap forward in
Amtrak's performance. More recently, FRA has assisted Amtrak and the
States with focused staff assistance in the preparation of detailed
planning reports on specific corridors. The FRA stands ready to
continue its critical role of catalyst in response to the expressed
interest of the States and Amtrak.
CORRIDORS WITH HIGH BENEFIT-TO-COST RATIOS
Question. Which high-speed rail corridors offer the highest
benefit-to-cost ratios? What factors would FRA use to judge the
benefits and costs of high-speed rail projects? Will FRA develop a list
of funding priorities for high-speed rail projects, and how will this
list be tied to the projects' benefits and costs? If not, how can FRA
target limited funding to the corridors that offer the most benefits?
Answer. The Administration believes that Federal investments should
be justified by examining public benefits versus public costs. The
designated high-speed rail corridors produce highly favorable ratios
under this test. A list of the highest-performing designated corridors
in order of decreasing benefit-to-cost ratios follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of
Top public
Corridor Portion speed benefits to
(mph) public costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Corridor............ Washington, DC-- 110 207.0 to 1
Charlotte, NC.
Empire Corridor............... New York-- 125 3.7 to 1
Albany--Buffalo.
California.................... Los Angeles--San 90 3.3 to 1
Diego only.
Chicago Hub Network........... Chicago to: 110 2.8 to 1
Detroit,
Milwaukee, St.
Louis only.
California.................... Bay Area--Los 90 2.0 to 1
Angeles (via
Coast Line)--
San Diego.
Pacific Northwest............. Eugene, OR-- 90 1.6 to 1
Portland--Seatt
le, WA--
Vancouver, BC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extremely high ratio for the Southeast Corridor (Washington-
Charlotte) reflects the fact that the denominator of the ratio
approaches zero when revenues very nearly approach costs. This occurs
here because of connecting traffic to the Northeast Corridor. FRA does
not have benefit/cost projections for the recently-designated Keystone
and Gulf Coast corridors.
The Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Program is not
targeted towards the 8 high-speed rail corridors. It is available for
improved rail services nationwide, including increasing speeds at
levels below high-speed.
Since the funding program will require at least a 50 percent
contribution from State or other Amtrak funds, the FRA anticipates that
much of the project screening will occur at the level of State/Amtrak
partnership negotiations. States will only apply for projects that
justify significant State involvement, and Amtrak will need to manage
its corporate funds so as to secure the maximum return from its own
high-speed rail investments. Furthermore, as FRA's commercial
feasibility report indicates, the States are uniquely positioned to
consider localized benefits and costs (such as economic, job, and land-
use impacts) in evaluating whether to proceed with high-speed rail. For
all these reasons, the FRA anticipates that the States and Amtrak will
have significant input into the Secretary's decisions regarding grants
under the proposed program.
FRA would use a combination of factors, as described in the
commercial feasibility study report, to judge the benefits and costs of
high-speed rail projects. These factors would include but not be
limited to:
--Projected passengers, passenger-miles, and efficiency factors;
--Percentage of initial investment covered by operating surpluses;
--User benefits as measured by projected system revenues and consumer
surpluses;
--Airport congestion delay savings (from reductions in operational
delays and passenger delays);
--Highway congestion delay savings;
--Emission savings;
--Energy impacts; and
--Quality and realism of the State/Amtrak project schedule and
financial plan for each project, including the amount of
overmatch beyond the minimum 50 percent share.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING FOR RADIO SPECTRUM
Question. Radio spectrum must be available for many PTC. How does
your fiscal year 2001 budget request address this challenge?
Answer. FRA is working closely with the railroad industry to
address this need, as well as other issues related to radio spectrum
availability. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) sponsors a
Wireless Communications Task Force (WCTF) which has representation from
all major railroads, Amtrak, and communications suppliers. The FRA and
WCTF are working in partnership with the State of Oregon to install
state of the art digital radio communications in the Portland area, as
well as along both Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe
railroad routes between Eugene, OR, and Vancouver, B.C. This project
addresses new spectrum-efficiency requirements recently imposed by the
Federal Communications Commission, assures spectrum availability for
railroad operations in general, and also will be used to test digital
communications technologies to assure spectrum availability for future
PTC systems.
In fiscal year 2001, FRA expects to work with WCTF as well as with
the Transportation Technology Center, Inc., both to complete a digital-
radio-based equipment location system at TTCI (as proposed in the
Research and Development portion of the 2001 request), and to use a
part of the funding requested under the Innovative Technologies portion
of the NGHSR program, to establish communications test facilities at
TTCI. Such facilities are needed to compare the many and varied
potential forms of digital radio, which may be either railroad-owned or
commercially supplied, to assure the industry that future
communications investments provide the necessary capabilities,
transmission quality, and spectrum availability for future PTC
requirements. A total of $250 thousand will be devoted to radio
spectrum projects in fiscal year 2001.
INTEGRATION OF NGHSR TECHNOLOGIES
Question. The NGHSR account includes non-electric locomotive
development, train control technologies, and innovative signal and
grade crossing technologies. How close are FRA and the industry to
integrating these technologies in a revenue setting, i.e., a non-
electric locomotive pulling a train over track that includes smart
signal and grade crossings, dispatched and controlled by positive train
control technologies? When will it be appropriate to work specifically
on this kind of technology integration?
Answer. The developing corridors around the Nation are at widely
varying performance levels. No single corridor is presently ready to
apply all of the developing NGHSR technologies. FRA is working with the
various corridors to provide demonstrations which meet the earliest key
needs. For example, the Albany to New York City portion of the New York
Empire Corridor already has a conventional cab signal train control
system, therefore, FRA is working with New York on motive power and
grade crossing issues. In Michigan and Illinois, the demonstration
train control systems must become operative to permit higher speeds.
While each NGHSR demonstration project must take local conditions into
account, each project is selected for its general applicability on all
corridors. Each project is taken to completion to assure that results
are valid and, where possible, provide incremental benefits as a result
of the project alone. It is therefore not necessary to focus all
efforts on a single corridor to attain ultimate integration of the
technology development effort.
TRAIN SEPARATION SYSTEM AND POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
Question. Are there any integration or interoperability
opportunities between the Northeast Corridor ACES train separation
system and the positive train control technologies being developed in
Illinois and Michigan?
Answer. Yes. The Amtrak technical personnel who are directing the
development and installation of the Northeast Corridor ACSES system are
intensely involved in the Michigan and Illinois (North American Joint
PTC) projects. As the North American project develops industry
standards and a modular onboard approach, needs for freight locomotives
to operate into the ACSES territory are constantly monitored.
Ultimately, the industry standard platform should provide the basic
computer processing power, displays, and other locomotive interfaces so
that ACSES capability can be added to an industry-standard locomotive
at minimum cost on a plug-in basis. In addition, the ACSES design has
already been modified to employ digital data radio making use of
industry standard methods, permitting future addition of other industry
standard features to the baseline ACSES system.
TRAIN CONTROL AND LIABILITIES ISSUES
Question. Please outline any legal or liability concerns among the
industry concerning the application of positive train control
technology in revenue service. Does FRA's budget request or any part of
the project budget for the NAJPTC program address this issue? Should
resources be allocated to this issue?
Answer. FRA is not aware of any extraordinary legal or liability
concerns in the industry related to implementing PTC in revenue service
beyond those associated with any new train control system. Control
system suppliers and vendors have traditionally dealt with these issues
by extensive design verifications and product testing which will also
be followed for the NAJPTC demonstration system, in addition to
following the safety monitoring processes recommended by the Railroad
Safety Advisory Committee, specifically for new microprocessor-based
control systems. The liability issues associated with operating the
innovative NAJPTC demonstration train control system during the test
and installation phase are expected to be covered by insurance obtained
by the System Design and Integration (SDI) contractor. Costs for the
insurance are expected to be charged to the NAJPTC program; FRA and the
other program sponsors will have better estimates of these costs, as
well as any other major issues, after April 2000, when the SDI bids are
expected.
ILLINOIS PTC PROJECT
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the Illinois
flexible block high-speed train control system (now renamed the North
American Joint Positive Train Control Program). Why has the line item
description of this project in the fiscal year 2001 budget
justification changed from ``flexible block operation'' to ``radio-
based train control systems?'' Please list all the project participants
and outline the project's cost-sharing agreement (if any). Please
present the funding history for this project, and specify any
unobligated federal balances.
Answer. The line item description has changed to indicate that the
project objectives have expanded beyond flexible block operation on the
Chicago to St. Louis corridor, although the flexible-block objective
continues to be a key component of the program. Other issues now being
addressed include development of industry-wide standards for PTC. In
recognition of the value to the entire industry, the railroads through
the Association of American Railroads have pledged $20 million over
four years, or 33 percent of the estimated $60 million cost for the
program. The State of Illinois has pledged $12 million (20 percent) of
the estimated cost, and is also providing $70 million in related
funding to upgrade the corridor to make it suitable for high speed
operations. Illinois is preparing a grant request for the $6.5 million
appropriated to FRA for this project in fiscal year 2000.
The project funding history is as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State AAR Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 & prior.... $17,800 $8,000 $10,350 $36,150
Fiscal year 2001............ 7,000 3,000 5,000 15,000
Outyears.................... 3,200 1,000 4,650 8,850
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 28,000 12,000 20,000 60,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ILLINOIS PTC PROJECT
Question. For the NAJPTC project, please provide an estimate of
project costs for fiscal year 2001 and the out-years. Please specify
federal funds, industry share, and monies provided by the state of
Illinois.
Answer. The total program cost is estimated at $60 million. Funding
includes:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State AAR Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 & prior.... $17,800 $8,000 $10,350 $36,150
Fiscal year 2001............ 7,000 3,000 5,000 15,000
Outyears.................... 3,200 1,000 4,650 8,850
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 28,000 12,000 20,000 60,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIGAN PTC PROJECT
Question. Please summarize and assess the results to date of the
Detroit-Chicago Corridor incremental train control system. What are the
remaining technical and institutional challenges to adapting the
technology to meet industry interoperability standards so that the
Michigan project can integrate with the Illinois project? How does the
fiscal year 2001 budget request address these challenges?
Answer. The Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) will support
revenue-service high-speed operation for passenger trains on about 80
miles of the Detroit--Chicago corridor. Providing a demonstration
system for this specific territory was originally proposed by the team
of Michigan DOT, Amtrak, and Harmon Industries in 1995, and can be
called the ``baseline'' system.
The controlling units, both locomotives and cab cars, of all
passenger trains on the corridor are now equipped with operating ITCS
units. Six Norfolk Southern freight locomotives are also equipped, to
power the local freight service on the line. As of March, 2000, wayside
equipment is installed on virtually the entire 80 mile zone and is
operating on the first 20-mile segment. Test trains have operated at
over 110 mph. The remaining tasks to accomplish full high-speed
operation of the baseline system are associated with: (1) safety
verification and validation of the system design and software; (2) the
necessary testing to ``cut in'' the remaining wayside sections; and (3)
initiation of the system for freight trains. All participants in the
joint project are confident that the baseline system can deliver the
necessary levels of safety and reliability to support revenue service,
as intended. The demonstration has already shown that introducing these
complex new systems is very challenging to accomplish, since they
affect all aspects of railroad operations both on the demonstration
segment and at the terminals, such as Chicago and Detroit, where the
equipped trains originate.
The technical and institutional challenges associated with adapting
the baseline system technology to industry interoperability
requirements relate to the original nature of the baseline system,
which utilized relatively limited computer capabilities aboard the
locomotive and needed to operate on only a limited route structure
consisting primarily of single track. To be more generally applicable,
the system will need more capable onboard computers and improved
location system capabilities to deal with multiple track routes. These
technical needs can be accomplished while conforming the system to the
new modular industry-standard onboard platform being developed as part
of the North American Joint PTC Project for the Illinois corridor. The
$3,000,000 requested by FRA in fiscal year 2001 is to adapt the ITCS
system approach to the new platform and new industry standards, thereby
making this approach more widely available for other developing high-
speed corridors as well as for the so-far unequipped portion of the
Michigan corridor.
FUNDING FOR MICHIGAN PTC PROJECT
Question. What are the funding needs of the Michigan incremental
train control system (ITCS) high-speed passenger rail demonstration
project during fiscal year 2001 and subsequent years? Who are the
partners in this effort, and what cost-sharing agreements are in place?
Answer. FRA has requested $3 million in fiscal year 2001 to adapt
the ITCS system to the developing industry standards from the North
American Joint PTC project. Partners in the project are Michigan DOT,
Amtrak, and Harmon Industries, which is supplying the system hardware.
To date, Michigan DOT has invested over $22 million in upgrading the
infrastructure in the test section to permit speeds up to 110 mph.
Harmon Industries has contributed over $5 million in development
efforts, and Amtrak has supplied in-kind support such as test train
operations and crews as well as installation labor. New cost sharing
agreements will be needed as the baseline 80-mile system is completed
and the requirements of the developing industry standards and modular
onboard approach are defined in the North American Joint PTC Project.
STATUS OF HSR NON-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE PROJECTS
Question. Since last year, what specific progress has been made and
what contracts have you signed in each of these three areas: (a)
research on flywheel turbine technology; (b) development of non-
electric locomotive concepts; and (c) evaluation of the potential of
the recently developed locomotive car bodies at speeds of 150 miles per
hour. Please state the purpose of each relevant contract along with the
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 funding amount for each contract.
Please describe the progress in each of these three areas of research.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, FRA entered into a $2.4 million
Cooperative Agreement with the University of Texas Center for
Electromechanics (UT-CEM) to continue the Advanced Locomotive
Propulsion Systems (ALPS). An fiscal year 2000 agreement in the amount
of $3.9 million is expected to be awarded shortly. In addition, FRA
provided $275 thousand and $250 thousand in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000 respectively to the Naval Business center for activities in
support of the ALPS program, including the load testing of the ALPS
high-speed generator.
As of March 2000, fabrication of the full-scale flywheel is well
underway and the assembly of the high-speed generator is nearly
complete. Generator testing will begin shortly and is expected to be
completed by July 2000. Design of an integrated turbine/alternator
package to be installed and tested in the FRA/Bombardier High-Speed
Non-Electric Passenger Demonstration Locomotive is underway. Assembly
of the basic turbine-alternator components and control system will be
completed by the end of fiscal year 2000. Development of controls to
interface with the locomotive will take place in early fiscal year 2001
and the package will be ready for integration into the FRA/Bombardier
locomotive Demonstrator by June 2001. Final assembly of the flywheel is
planned for November 2000. Laboratory testing and integration of the
flywheel into a platform suitable for demonstration with the Bombardier
locomotive is expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001.
In fiscal year 1998, FRA entered into a Cooperative Agreement with
Bombardier Transit Corporation (Bombardier) to develop and demonstrate
a high-speed turbine electric locomotive. A total of $10 million was
provided in fiscal year 1999 ($7M) and fiscal year 2000 ($3M) for this
project. These funds will be split between the existing Cooperative
Agreement with Bombardier Transit Corporation and the Transportation
Technology Center Inc. (TTCI) in Pueblo, Colorado, to pay for testing
of the locomotive at TTC in late CY 2000 and early CY 2001. The split
of the funds between these two recipients has not yet been finalized.
FRA and Bombardier have shared equally in the development costs of this
locomotive.
Assembly of the FRA/Bombardier High-Speed Non-Electric Passenger
Demonstration Locomotive is well underway and expected to be completed
by the end of April 2000. After assembly is completed, the locomotive
will undergo extensive static and rolling tests and evaluation. Initial
operating capability at speeds up to 90 mph is expected by late
September. Extensive high-speed and operational testing will begin in
late 2000 at TTC, after which the locomotive will be capable of
entering revenue service demonstrations at speeds up to 150 mph.
CONSENSUS ON NON-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE DESIGN
Question. How is the non-electric locomotive program developing a
consensus about a common design that could serve several markets and
generate sufficient demand?
Answer. The locomotive is being developed in partnership with
Bombardier Transit Corporation (Bombardier), with Bombardier and FRA
each funding 50 percent of the cost. FRA has conducted extensive
outreach meetings to states which are potential users of the locomotive
technology. Due to this substantial investment by Bombardier, they have
a strong commercial interest in assuring the marketability of the
design and have undertaken the marketing and outreach efforts necessary
to assure that the design appeals to a broad base of potential high-
speed rail customers.
STATUS OF FLYWHEEL PROJECT
Question. What is the status of and challenges facing the flywheel
project, and what are the planned activities for fiscal year 2000? How
many additional years will be required to complete work on the flywheel
project, and how much will this cost? Please provide costs for both
development and large-scale testing. What are the cost-sharing
arrangements for this project? What is the likelihood that this
technology will be commercialized during the next five years?
Answer. The ALPS system consists of two major elements: a high-
speed gas turbine driven generator and an energy storage flywheel. The
project is currently well into the hardware fabrication of both these
elements, and preparations for demonstration in the FRA/Bombardier Non-
Electric Locomotive are underway.
Specifically, final assembly of the high-speed generator will be
completed by April 2000, and the associated no-load and static load
testing of the generator will be completed by the end of July 2000. The
challenges associated with this effort are technical: having the
generator rotor survive the very high rotational speeds associated with
direct drive from the turbine, while simultaneously handling extremely
high levels of electrical power and the resulting high temperatures in
the generator components.
Design of an integrated turbine/alternator package for insertion
into the Bombardier system is underway and assembly of the basic
turbine-alternator components and control system will be completed by
the end of fiscal year 2000. Development of controls to interface with
the locomotive will take place in early fiscal year 2001 and the
turbine-alternator package will be tested and ready for integration
into the Bombardier High-Speed Non-Electric Locomotive by June 2001.
The challenges associated with this activity include matching the new
turbine-alternator package to the existing locomotive and achieving
proper control of the system by adapting necessary control software.
Final assembly of the flywheel is planned for November 2000.
Laboratory testing and integration of the flywheel into a platform
suitable for demonstration with the Bombardier locomotive will be
completed by the end of fiscal year 2001. These schedules are
consistent with the current plan for demonstration of the Bombardier
High-Speed Non-Electric Locomotive, allowing for demonstration of the
ALPS system during fiscal year 2002. The major challenge for the
flywheel effort is achieving satisfactory sustained flywheel operation
despite the dynamic forces associated with a moving train.
As outlined above, the basic ALPS technologies will be completed
and tested in the laboratory by the end of fiscal year 2001.
Demonstration of the ALPS system can be completed during fiscal year
2002. To complete the planned activities for fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2002, funding of approximately $4 million per year will be
required.
A significant cost share for the program was originally provided by
GM-EMD, along with contributions by the State of Texas Match Pool,
Honeywell International (formerly AlliedSignal), and the US Navy. From
the inception of the project in 1995 through 1997, the project was cost
shared by the program participants at greater than 50 percent. In 1998,
Bombardier replaced GM as the locomotive integrator for the effort and
cost sharing by direct ALPS participants was reduced to about 15
percent. Bombardier, however is providing 50 percent cost share for the
development of the High-Speed Non-Electric Locomotive which will be
used for demonstration of the ALPS system.
There is a good chance that technology developed on the ALPS
program will be commercialized during the next five years. The turbine
and high-speed generator package is likely to be purchased for future
units of the high-speed locomotive. Successful demonstration of the
benefits of the flywheel energy storage system will address two key
issues concerning operation of gas turbines in the locomotive
environment: the relatively poor fuel economy at partial power and
turbine maintenance requirements due to thermal cycling. The ALPS
system also will help the rail industry meet future exhaust emissions
limits that may be difficult for diesel-electric locomotives to
achieve. In addition to the locomotive propulsion applications,
additional commercial and military applications of ALPS components and
technology are likely because of the extremely high power capability
offered for the size and weight of the system components.
TECHNICAL PROGRESS IN GRADE CROSSING HAZARD MITIGATION
Question. Please assess the technical progress made as a result of
FRA's investment in grade crossing hazard mitigation technologies. How
would the fiscal year 2001 proposal promote the transfer of this
knowledge to potential users?
Answer. FRA's investment in grade crossing hazard mitigation
technologies is now paying off on several levels. The North Carolina
Sealed Corridor Project has already demonstrated enormous success
employing innovative low-cost techniques to reduce driver misbehaviors,
such as running around closed crossing gates, by over 80 percent.
Additional demonstrations of advanced technologies are showing similar
success rates. Work with New York State has produced a comprehensive
approach to reducing corridor grade crossing risk despite increases in
train numbers and speeds. FRA is working with California DOT on the San
Joaquin corridor to apply the new methodology, as well as new laser-
based mapping techniques to provide the necessary information to better
assess the risks of each crossing. The fiscal year 2001 request will be
used, in part, to complete evaluation and reporting activities to make
these results available to additional states and corridors as they
become interested in high-speed rail. In addition, FRA will continue
the successful broad agency announcement (BAA) solicitation to assure
that worthwhile new demonstration projects which apply the techniques
can be pursued.
GRADE CROSSING HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECTS
Question. Regarding the development of grade crossing hazard
mitigation technologies, please prepare a table indicating separately
the status, problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1999,
fiscal year 2000, and planned fiscal year 2001 FRA investments for each
major project in this program. Please display this information
organized by subaccount, that is, mitigating grade crossing hazards,
low cost, innovative technologies, and North Carolina sealed corridor
initiative.
Answer. The information is contained in the following table:
FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
1999 enacted 2000 enacted 2001 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigating Grade Crossing Hazards............................... $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000
Low-Cost Innovative Technologies................................ 1,100,000 997,000 1,100,000
Sealed Corridor Initiative...................................... 1,000,000 400,000 400,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Grade Crossing..................................... 4,600,000 3,897,000 4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project area Status Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locked gate at private crossing. Being conducted by No significant
New York DOT, issues.
underway.
Vehicle counting and Demonstration The ability to
characterizati on at crossings. project to be characterize the
awarded shortly. types of vehicles
using a crossing
as well as their
number greatly
improves risk
predication
ability.
Crossing occupancy detection.... Project to adapt Reliable crossing
and evaluate an occupancy
ultrasonic-based detection can
crossing greatly reduce
occupancy risk to both
detection system highway and rail
to be awarded vehicles.
shortly.
Grade crossing topographical Laser-mapping of Rapidly acquired
characterizati on. crossing accurate data
topography will permit easy
conducted on two identification of
corridors, data humped crossing
analysis underway. and those with
limited sight
distance or other
characteristics
affecting risk,
allowing better
targeting of risk-
reduction
efforts.
Locked gate at private crossing. Being conducted by No significant
New York DOT, issues.
underway.
Broad Agency Announcement to To be released No significant
solicit additional proposals in shortly. issues at this
this technology area. time.
NC Sealed Corridor.............. The second long No significant
gate arm test is issues at this
complete with an time.
84 percent
reduction in
violations. Video
ticketing
complete with 67
percent reduction
in violations.
Implementation of
median
separators,
longer gate arms
and four quadrant
gates at
crossings between
Greensboro and
Charlotte
continues. Five
additional
crossings closed
since April 1999.
Design and
engineering has
begun on 10
crossings on
CSXT's portion
between Raleigh
and Cary.
Four quadrant
gates: 12
constructed, 2
authorized for
construction, 6
under design, 6
in planning
Median
separators: 15
constructed, 3
under design
Longer gate arms:
1 constructed, 17
under design, 11
auth. for const.
Stop signs
(temporary): 2
(to be closed in
next 1-4 years)
Closures: 26
completed, with
plans to close 8
more in the next
2 years..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESULTS OF SEALED CORRIDOR APPROACH
Question. Please assess the results thus far on the sealed corridor
approach and discuss how the fiscal year 2001 budget request will
continue those advances.
Answer. The Sealed Corridor approach has very successfully tested
and documented the results for deploying innovative, low cost grade
crossing warning and protection systems. The project has conclusively
demonstrated that these very practical approaches can reduce driver
misbehavior at grade crossings by 80 percent or more. The results are
now being analyzed for publishing, to be used by other states and in
the development of high-speed corridors. The fiscal year 2001 funding
will enable the construction of enhanced crossing devices and closure
efforts to be extended along the designated Southeast High-Speed Rail
Corridor between Raleigh and Charlotte, and completion of the analysis
and reporting activities now underway.
STATUS OF HAZARD ELIMINATION PROJECTS
Question. What is the status of each of the high speed rail
corridor crossing hazard elimination projects funded in fiscal year
1999 and fiscal year 2000 under TEA-21 section 1103(c)? How much
contract authority is available within the highway firewall in fiscal
year 2001 under current law?
Answer. The DOT is in the process of allocating $5.25 million
authorized in fiscal year 2000 according to the earmarks outlined in
the Conference Report. The status of the fiscal year 1999 projects is
presented in the following table and are for the funded amount of $6.95
million. A total of $5.25 million is available in fiscal year 2001.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 PROJECT STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
State allocated Project status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington....................... $500,000 Close two crossings,
install median barriers
at 12 crossings, and
support the construction
of a pedestrian
overpass. All projects
are in preliminary
engineering.
Oregon........................... 400,000 Conduct planning and
updating the national
inventory ($125,000).
With the balance,
$275,000, fund the
construction of an
access road to link
seven properties to a
major road with a public
grade crossing, and
close seven private
crossings. Work on this
is underway.
California....................... 250,000 Close the last ungated
crossing on the San
Diego line at Dana Point
($30,000), plus use
$220,000 for feasibility
studies and preliminary
engineering for the
egregiously unsafe
crossing in Martinez.
Preliminary engineering
and environmental
reviews for these
projects is underway.
Wisconsin........................ 500,000 Upgrade four crossings
between Milwaukee and
Chicago with new lights,
gates and constant
warning time devices
(CWT).
Illinois......................... 350,000 Install flashing lights,
gates and CWT at two
crossings and close one
crossing. No action has
been taken on these
projects due to the need
to support the Vehicle
Arresting Barrier
project.
Indiana.......................... 200,000 Study alternative routes
for the Cincinnati-
Indianapolis-Chicago
corridor and to identify
improvements needed and
crossings for
consolidation.
Michigan......................... 500,000 Close and upgrade
crossings between
Kalamazoo and Grand
Beach, MI near the
Michigan/Indiana border.
Preliminary work is
underway.
Texas............................ 125,000 Study alternative routes
for the corridor,
identify improvements
needed and crossings for
consolidation, and
update the national
grade crossing
inventory.
Louisiana........................ 325,000 Update the national
inventory ($75,000) and
upgrade one very
dangerous crossing at
Gentilly Road in New
Orleans ($250,000). The
latter is viewed as part
of the known alignment
that the Gulf Coast
Corridor must adopt
through New Orleans.
Preliminary design is
underway.
Mississippi...................... 355,000 Update the national
inventory ($75,000) and
upgrade two grade
crossings in Gulfport
(rated #4 in accident
prediction ranking in
the state) and Long
Beach (rated #7 in the
state) ($280,000).
Preliminary design is
underway.
Alabama.......................... 345,000 Update the national
inventory ($75,000) and
upgrade two grade
crossings ($270,000).
Preliminary design is
underway. Florida
300,000 Upgrade two
crossings, one with four-
quadrant gates and one
with median gates.
Preliminary design is
underway.
Georgia.......................... 250,000 Fund one half of the
total cost of the action
plan for upgrading and
consolidating all
crossings in Georgia's
high speed rail
corridors. South
Carolina 150,000 Develop
the action plan for
upgrading and
consolidating all
crossings in South
Carolina's high speed
rail corridors.
North Carolina................... 1,000,000 Realign two streets and
close two crossings,
install median barriers
at four crossings and
install long gate arms
at four crossings.
Virginia......................... 500,000 Construct grade crossing
improvements and support
construction of a
pedestrian overpass in
Prince William County to
eliminate trespassing on
the CSX mainline on the
high-volume Richmond
extension of the
Northeast Corridor.
Pennsylvania..................... 500,000 Begin design for the
highway grade separation
and bypass road. Design
is now underway.
New York......................... 400,000 Conduct design and
preliminary engineering
for grade separations,
the first step needed to
implement the State's
grade crossing
improvement plans based
on safety risk analysis.
Design is underway.
------------
Total...................... 6,950,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS OF TRACK AND STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGY
Question. Please prepare a table indicating separately the status,
problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1999, fiscal year
2000, and planned fiscal year 2001 FRA funding (and other funding
sources, when applicable) for each project in the track and structures
technology program.
Answer.
TRACK AND STRUCTURES FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
enacted enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount........................... $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRACK AND STRUCTURES STATUS AND ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project area Status Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk-based scheduling of Underway.......... Potential
ultrasonic testing for high- reduction in
speed tracks. track maintenance
costs and safety
improvements.
Increasing speeds through Underway.......... Techniques to
special trackwork. increase speeds
through existing
special trackwork
without replacing
entire units to
permit higher
speeds at minimal
cost.
Evaluation of techniques to 3 different Advanced
address subgrade failures. projects underway techniques to
or to begin stabilize weak
shortly--in subgrade can
service reduce life-cycle
demonstration of cost and the
the first to frequency of slow
begin shortly. orders.
Demonstration of low-cost Demonstrations Low-cost
techniques to improve ride underway. techniques such
quality and increase speeds as tie-pads and
over areas with large stiffness drainage
variations. improvements
offer
opportunities to
improve ride
quality and
permit higher
speeds at minimal
cost.
Broad Agency Announcement to To be released No significant
solicit additional proposals in shortly. issues at this
this technology area. time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS OF MAGLEV PROGRAM
Question. Please update the Committee on the accomplishments,
results, cooperative agreements, and challenges associated with the
maglev program funded under TEA-21.
Answer. FRA has made considerable progress since the enactment of
TEA-21. In October, 1998, FRA published an interim final rule setting
forth the procedures for the application for pre-construction planning
grants by interested states or state authorities. Eleven applications
were received and evaluated. On May 24, 1999, Secretary Slater
announced the seven projects that would receive grants. FRA signed
seven cooperative agreements providing $12.7 million in fiscal year
1999 funds and is in the process of finalizing amendments to those
agreements adding $14.8 million in fiscal year 2000 funds.
Last year, FRA selected a consulting firm, MK Centennial, to
monitor the planning work underway by the seven project sponsors and to
provide engineering support in subsequent phases of the program. The
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center is another member of the
team. Volpe will prepare the Environmental Impact Statements and assist
a Departmental technical evaluation panel in rating the plans and
recommending the best ones.
On February 29, 2000, FRA received an Environmental Assessment from
each of the seven applicants and by June 30, we expect to receive seven
detailed Project Descriptions. By 2003, the Secretary will select a
project as required by TEA-21. In fiscal year 2001, the President's
Budget does not include funding for construction.
MAGLEV FUNDING
Question. Please prepare a summary of authorized and appropriated
funding for the maglev program. What cooperative agreements have been
announced, what funds have been released and to which grantees? When
will the fiscal year 2000 cooperative agreements and related federal
funding be announced?
Answer. Following is a summary of the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000 funding for the Maglev Deployment Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Authority...................... $15,000,000 $20,000,000
===============================
Obligation Limit (percent).............. 88.3 87.1
===============================
Available for Obligation................ $13,245,000 $17,420,000
===============================
California.............................. $1,430,000 $1,959,750
Florida................................. 1,400,000 1,959,750
Georgia................................. 1,400,000 1,959,750
Louisiana............................... 1,400,000 1,959,750
Maryland................................ 1,300,000 1,959,750
Nevada.................................. 1,400,000 1,959,750
Pennsylvania............................ 4,415,000 3,048,500
-------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 12,745,000 14,807,000
-------------------------------
Other................................... 499,970 871,000
-------------------------------
Total Contract Authority.......... 13,244,970 17,420,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 1999 the Secretary of Transportation announced grants to
seven states and authorities for preconstruction planning. Cooperative
agreements between the various selected applicants and the FRA have
been executed, obligating $12.745 million in fiscal year 1999. An
additional $14.8 million in fiscal year 2000 funds will be obligated in
fiscal year 2000.The following lists the project sponsors, a short
description of the project, and the date amendments allocating fiscal
year 2000 funding were signed by the Federal Railroad Administrator.
Each of the first four project sponsors were advised of the amendment
to their cooperative agreement providing the additional federal
funding, by a letter from the FRA Administrator at the time that the
agreement was signed. The amendment to the cooperative agreement for
the project in New Orleans was announced by the Secretary of
Transportation on March 3, 2000. The amendments for the projects in Los
Angeles and Pittsburgh have not yet been signed or announced.
--California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission.--A 42-mile project
linking Las Vegas to Primm, Nev.; 02/02/00.
--Florida Department of Transportation.--A 20-mile project linking
Port Canaveral to the Space Center and the Titusville Regional
Airport; 02/02/00.
--Atlanta Regional Commission.--First 40 miles of 110-mile project
from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tenn.; 02/15/00.
--Maryland Department of Transportation.--A 40-mile project linking
Camden Yard in Baltimore and Baltimore-Washington International
Airport to Union Station in Washington, D.C.; 2/15/00.
--Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission.--A 40-mile project
linking New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal to the airport and
across Lake Pontchartrain to the fast-growing northern suburbs;
03/02/00.
--State of California.--A 70- to 75-mile system connecting Los
Angeles International Airport to Union Station in downtown Los
Angeles to Ontario Airport and further east into Riverside
County; Pending signature by FRA.
--Port Authority of Allegheny County.--A 45-mile project linking
Pittsburgh Airport to Pittsburgh and its eastern suburbs;
Pending negotiation of a Scope of Work.
MAGLEV ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Question. How much of the contract authority for the maglev program
in the fiscal year 2001 budget request will be used for administrative
needs? Please break out these costs.
Answer. A total of $3.5 million has been earmarked for
administrative expenses. Of this amount, $2M will provide contract
support for the maglev program. The remaining balance of $1.5million
will support other FRA administrative expenses.
FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 NDGPS FUNDS
Question. In fiscal year 2000, $5,000,000 was provided for the
NDGPS program from Federal Highway Administration administrative
expenses funds. For fiscal year 2001, the budget requests $18,700,000
from FHWA research and technology program funds. Who will administer
both the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 funds? Please break out
in detail both how the fiscal year 2000 funds are being spent
(categorize capital and operating expenses), and how the requested
fiscal year 2001 funds would be spent.
Answer. Both the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 funds will
be administered by the United States Coast Guard. Fiscal year 2000
funds are being spent as follows: $1.8 million for capital costs, and
$3.2 million for operating expenses. The requested fiscal year 2001
funds would be spent as follows: $13.2 million for capital costs, and
$5.5 million for operating expenses.
INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 NDGPS COSTS
Question. Why is the request for fiscal year 2001 ($18.7 million)
so much higher than the level requested in fiscal year 2000 ($10.4
million)? Is $5.4 million of the request meant to make up the shortfall
between last year's request and subsequent appropriation?
Answer. The request for $18.7 million in fiscal year 2001 is based
on FRA's plan to install 28 NDGPS sites in fiscal year 2001. This is
the same amount submitted in last year's funding summary for fiscal
year 2001, despite the fact that the funding requested for fiscal year
2000 was subsequently cut by more than half from $10.4 million to $5
million. Now that all of the Air Force Ground Wave Emergency Network
(GWEN) towers, equipment, and real estate have been conveyed from the
Air Force to the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard is obligated to pay the
costs of leasing and maintaining the sites, even where they are not yet
converted to NDGPS sites. Any funding limitations on the conversion
efforts results in the federal government paying the lease and
maintenance costs without receiving the benefits of operation.
NDGPS FUNDING HISTORY
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the
nationwide differential global positioning system and FRA's role in
that initiative. Provide a funding history to date, as well as a 5-year
schedule of benchmarks, anticipated costs, and anticipated funding
sources (please specify which DOT or other federal agencies will be
providing funds).
Answer. On March 15, 1999, the Secretary of Transportation and the
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard announced Full Operational
Capability of the Maritime DGPS Service, which provides differential
coverage along the coasts, the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi River.
At the same time, the Secretary and the Commandant announced the
expansion of that Service into a Nationwide DGPS (NDGPS) with the
addition of eight operational inland GWEN sites. FRA's role in this
initiative is to request funding for NDGPS because the Secretary of
Transportation delegated his authority to the FRA to determine the
Federal requirements for the NDGPS. A Memorandum of Agreement among the
Office of the Secretary, FHWA, FRA, and the Coast Guard gave to FRA,
the responsibility to submit and defend funding requests for
implementation, operation, and maintenance of the NDGPS. FRA was given
this responsibility because railroads especially need a continuous,
uniform, accurate, high-quality radionavigation signal for new Positive
Train Control systems. The funds are transferred to the Coast Guard
which is responsible for the actual construction, operation, and
maintenance of the NDGPS.
The NDGPS project will take 5 years to complete (1998-2002) at an
estimated cost of $37.1 million in capital funding. Once fully
implemented, the system is estimated to cost approximately $6.9 million
per year to operate and maintain. The allocation of Capital and
Operating costs by fiscal year is detailed in the table below:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Operating
Fiscal year costs costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................ \1\ 2.4 ..........
1999............................................ \1\ 5.5 ..........
2000............................................ \1\ 1.8 \1\ 3.2
2001............................................ \2\ 13.2 \2\ 5.5
2002 & Beyond................................... \3\ 14.2 \3\ 6.9
-----------------------
Total Capital & Annual Costs.............. \3\ 37.1 \4\ 6.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appropriated.
\2\ Requested.
\3\ Estimated.
\4\ Annual Estimate.
Based on the funding made available in the fiscal year 1998-1999,
nine GWEN sites, including one that was converted at Macon, Georgia on
March 17, 2000, have been integrated into the NDGPS. The fiscal year
2000 funding phase of this five-year project will expand the NDGPS by
an additional 14 transmitting sites by the end of calendar year 2000,
and complete the NDGPS Master Control Station installations at
Alexandria, Virginia, and Petaluma, California. The estimated cost
avoidance to the government resulting from the reuse of GWEN property
and equipment is $16 million. The current plan is for the establishment
of an additional 28 sites in fiscal year 2001, and 16 sites in fiscal
year 2002, for a total of 67 NDGPS stations. As required by Public
Law105-66, Section 346, the new sites will all be integrated into the
Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) and Precipitable Water
Vapor System (PWVS) networks operated by the U.S. Department of
Commerce.
NON-DOT AGENCIES INTEREST IN NDGPS
Question. Seven federal agencies are signatories to a memorandum of
agreement which outlines the federal governments commitment to the
establishment and long-term operation, management, and maintenance of
the NDGPS. Three of these agencies are not Department of
Transportation: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Air Force. Please
summarize each of these agencies interest in NDGPS technology, describe
benefits that accrue to the agency's activities, and the level of
financial or other support that each agency has contributed or is
planning to contribute to NDGPS establishment, operation, management
and maintenance. What level of funding is requested for the support of
NDGPS in fiscal year 2001 budget requests other than the Federal
Highway Administration?
Answer. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will
integrate each NDGPS reference station into Continuously Operating
Reference Station (CORS) system and will add Integrated Precipitable
Water Vapor System equipment to NDGPS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
will provide real estate services and property management services to
the NDGPS program including, but not limited to, real property,
planning, appraisal, acquisition, leasing, management, engineering,
design, environmental assessment, and construction management. The U.S.
Air Force is transferring decommissioned Ground Wave Emergency Network
(GWEN) sites and spare hardware to the Department of Transportation for
use as NDGPS reference stations. For more details, the interest of
these agencies in NDGPS technology and the benefits that accrue to
their activities were described in a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations titled ``The Department of Transportation
on Civilian Use of the Global Positioning System (GPS): The Nationwide
Differential Global Positioning System and Additional Civilian GPS
Signals,'' submitted on July 1, 1999, by the Federal Railroad
Administration in cooperation with the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal
Highway Administration, and the United States Coast Guard.
The Department of Transportation is the only department requesting
funding for NDGPS. The seven signatory Agencies agreed that FRA/DOT
should be the program sponsor responsible for requesting funding. As
noted above, every participating Agency is contributing resources, in
staff or in-kind, for this project.
NON-DOT FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR NDGPS
Question. The Committee has expressed its concern that ``DGPS-
related expenses should not be derived solely from the Federal highway
trust fund or other DOT accounts.'' (Senate report 106-55, p. 101). How
has the administration responded to this concern?
Answer. The seven signatory Agencies are providing support for this
project either through staffing, equipment or other in-kind services.
In addition, FRA described in some detail in a report submitted to
Congress on July 1, 1999, the significant contributions that the other
Agencies have made and continue to make to the establishment of NDGPS.
Unfortunately, the report was delivered after the Senate Report was
published.
The Department has proposed cost sharing from other Agencies;
however, the task group agreed that FRA/DOT should be the program
sponsor responsible for requesting funding since this is a
transportation navigational system. Further, it is believed that cost
sharing a relatively small project through seven Departments, and many
more Congressional Committees, only to transfer the funds back to the
Department of Transportation is counterproductive, increases
administrative costs and reflects government at its worst.
NDGPS AND PTC
Question. How is the NDGPS program being integrated with positive
train control efforts already underway?
Answer. All modes of transportation need precise positioning
information. This information must be in real time and must be accurate
to permit safe control of vehicles--trains, ships, aircraft, trucks,
automobiles, transit, and emergency response. Intelligent
Transportation Systems are being designed to incorporate precise
positioning information. Coverage and integrity are important
attributes of a positioning system.
Over a 7-year period, railroads experienced at least 876 collisions
and other accidents, which fully-implemented communications-based
positive train control (PTC) systems would likely have prevented. In
fact, the National Transportation Safety Board has listed PTC as one of
its ``ten most-wanted'' initiatives for national transportation safety.
FRA is facilitating the deployment of PTC within the railroad industry
by completing the installation of a Nationwide Differential Global
Positioning System (NDGPS) network, which FRA and several railroads
have determined to be a prerequisite for PTC.
In July, 1994, FRA published a report to Congress, entitled
Railroad Communications and Train Control, as required by the Rail
Safety Enforcement and Review Act. In that report, FRA outlined an
action plan and time line to advance PTC deployment by the end of the
century. FRA indicated that in fiscal year 1997 it would commence
rulemaking regarding the installation PTC on identified railroad
corridors. That rulemaking has begun and is taking place under the
auspices of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee.
In June, 1995, FRA published another report to Congress, entitled
Differential GPS: An Aid to Positive Train Control, in response to a
request from the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. It
concluded that if the Coast Guard's DGPS service were expanded
nationwide, it could satisfy the location determination system
requirements for PTC systems. Full nationwide deployment of the Coast
Guard DGPS network would significantly aid the development and
deployment of PTC systems by providing an affordable, uniform,
continuous, accurate, reliable, secure, real-time location
determination system throughout the United States. PTC systems that
would use positioning information from the NDGPS are being installed in
Alaska, Illinois, Michigan, South Carolina, and Georgia, and are being
considered in other areas of the country because of the need to handle
growing railroad freight, intermodal, intercity passenger, and commuter
rail traffic at higher levels of safety.
IMPACT OF REDUCING NDGPS SITES IN 2001
Question. Please discuss whether it is critical to PTC deployment
to fund the additional 28 NDGPS stations next year. What are the safety
implications of only funding half of these this year?
Answer. On December 8, 1998, the Federal Railroad Administrator
determined that, ``The FRA has an operational requirement for NDGPS in
the continental United States and Alaska to support Positive Train
Control for railroads.'' What is most critical to PTC deployment is not
so much the funding of 28 or some other specific number of NDGPS
stations next year, but that the project be completed no later than
fiscal year 2002 so that the investments to date are not wasted, the
ultimate costs are not increased, and the safety and economic benefits
(to railroads and a myriad of other users) are not lost. A delay in
nationwide coverage adversely impacts on FRA's ability to issue a
nationwide PTC rule.
STATUS OF RRIF RULE
Question. TEA-21 expanded the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing program to permit non-federal entities to provide
the subsidy budget authority needed to support a loan through the
payment of a credit risk premium. Has a final rulemaking been issued
which outlines the structure of the expanded loan program? Is FRA aware
of industry and commercial interest in utilizing this expanded loan
program?
Answer. A Final Rule, has been drafted and is currently in the
clearance process. The 92 comments received in response to the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking reflected a wide range of interest in the
program. Of the comments received, 57 small railroads indicated an
interest in participating in the program. A total of 13 State
Departments of Transportation wrote of the need for the program. In
fact, Iowa and Washington are considering requesting state
appropriations for the payment of credit risk premiums, required
pursuant to the Credit Reform Act of 1990.
RHODE ISLAND AUTHORIZATION
Question. Please cite the current authorization for the Rhode
Island Rail development improvement project, including the date
enacted.
Answer. The authorization for the Rhode Island Rail Development
Project is Section 9 of the ``Water Resources Development Act of 1999-
Technical Corrections'' (Public Law 106-109). It was enacted on
November 24, 1999.
RHODE ISLAND FUNDING
Question. Between fiscal years 1995 and 2000, the Rhode Island rail
development project has received $38,000,000 in federal appropriations.
What level of funding remains unobligated?
Answer. A total of $28 million was available through fiscal year
1999 and all the funds have been obligated. The $10 million provided in
fiscal year 2000 will be obligated by year-end.
STATUS OF RHODE ISLAND CONSTRUCTION
Question. Construction of 5 miles of Track 7 replacement track was
scheduled to begin in April 1999 and continue for 15 months. Did this
construction begin on schedule? When is it scheduled to be completed?
Answer. Beginning nearly a year ago, Rhode Island DOT (RIDOT)
undertook a comprehensive review of construction cost estimates to
complete the Freight Rail Improvement Project. It was evident from this
analysis that building vital sections of a new third track and
increasing clearances at bridges were likely to cost more than had
earlier been estimated. Because track 7 is currently in service, RIDOT
decided to postpone upgrades until work on the more important new
tracks and bridge clearances was complete. Track 7 will now be upgraded
near the end of the Project--mid-2001--when other, more vital work is
well underway and all costs are known. The exact scope of work on Track
7 will be determined by the available budget at the time.
STATUS OF THIRD TRACK CONSTRUCTION
Question. Is Third Track construction scheduled to begin in April
2000 and continue for 18 months, as outlined in last year's hearing
record? If not, why not?
Answer. Work on the third track has been delayed due to time spent
on the review of cost estimates and work on completing the NEC
electrified high-speed operations (Amtrak is RIDOT's primary
construction contractor.)
Amtrak has nearly completed all construction related to
electrified, high-speed operations and is now available for RIDOT
construction. A master schedule prepared by Rhode Island DOT's Freight
Rail Improvement Project office in early February 2000 shows third
track construction beginning late this calendar year.
STATUS OF BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Question. Have any bridge construction package contracts been
awarded? If so, which ones, and what are their schedules? Is the
project on track for construction of bridge construction packages to be
completed by summer of 2001, with high and wide operations commencing
in fall of 2001? If there have been setbacks to this anticipated
schedule, please outline the challenges and what steps Rhode Island DOT
and the FRA intend to take to complete the project within budget and
on, or close to, schedule.
Answer. No bridge construction contracts have been awarded. The
first, jacking of the Rocky Hollow bridge, is scheduled to be awarded
this summer with a construction ``notice to proceed'' issued by late
August. The last, Dexter Street bridge jacking, is being deferred as
part of the Track 7 decision. Two bridges, Hunt's River and Cranston
Street, will be improved using highway funds. All construction
schedules have been impacted by the comprehensive review of
construction cost estimates. This exercise was extremely important to
the ultimate success of this project because it addressed potential
cost overruns at the start of the process, eliminated non-critical
scope in order to free up funds to insure that the most essential
improvements are funded, and rescheduled certain less critical work to
the end of the project when the actual amount of remaining funds will
be known and assigned without fear of budget shortfalls. FRA and RIDOT
will monitor actual construction costs very closely and be in a
position to adjust scope and schedule so that a useable product that
meets the goal of accommodating high and wide loads will result.
IMPACT OF SPLIT FUNDING RHODE ISLAND PROJECT
Question. What would the affect be of appropriating the remaining
$17 million of federal commitment total into two equal appropriations
of $8,500,000 in fiscal year 2001 and $8,500,000 in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. All construction packages are currently scheduled to be
awarded by Spring 2001. A delay of twelve months in the appropriation
of $8,500,000 will push the last of these awards into 2002. Not only
would this end up increasing project costs, but also force significant
changes to construction schedules which have been coordinated with
Amtrak, the owner and operator of the adjacent Northeast Corridor high-
speed tracks, and RIDOT's prime construction contractor. Amtrak is
unlikely to support disruptions to its high-speed service, which is a
key source of revenue to eliminate its need for operating subsidy.
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE OF PENNSYLVANIA STATION PROJECT
Question. What is the current cost estimate for the Pennsylvania
Station project? How have the project cost estimates increased since
this project was first funded in fiscal year 1995? What is the level of
federal ``commitment'' to this project? What legal form does this
commitment take?
Answer. The current cost estimate for the Pennsylvania Station
Redevelopment Project is $788 million. The increase in cost, since
fiscal year 1995, is attributable to: additional project scope
including an expanded West End concourse with a new commuter level
concourse, an intermodal ticketing hall, improved loading facilities
for the United States Postal Service (USPS), increased retail area; the
addition of passenger handling facilities for airport access; lease
payments to USPS, including the cost of Amtrak force account; USPS
construction costs; financing costs; and contingency costs. The direct
Federal funding commitment is $348 million of which $128 million was
previously appropriated funds, $60 million was provided in advance
appropriations beginning in fiscal year 2001 and $160 million provided
in Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act credit
assistance. In addition, the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment
Corporation expects to receive certain Federal funds apportioned to the
State of New York, including $20 million from the Surface
Transportation Program and $64 million from the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Program. To date, the Federal Railroad Administration
has entered into grant agreements with Amtrak totaling $48 million and
the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation totaling $29 million
in previously appropriated funds. In addition, Amtrak has invested $20
million of its capital funds in Pennsylvania Station life safety
improvements.
FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR PENN STATION PROJECT
Question. Please detail all federal appropriations and other
federal funding(e.g. authorizations that carry contract authority,
TIFIA) to the Pennsylvania Station project to date? What level of
federal funding remains unobligated?
Answer. A detailed list of federal appropriations and other federal
funding to the Pennsylvania Station project follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal Year 1994 Supplemental Appropriations Act.................. 10.00
Fiscal Year 1995 Supplemental Appropriations Act.................. 21.50
Fiscal Year 1996 DOT Appropriations Act........................... 9.00
National Highway System Designation Act........................... 24.75
Taxpayer Relief Act............................................... 11.00
Fiscal Year 1998 DOT Appropriations Act........................... 12.00
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.................... 40.00
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act..........160.00
Fiscal Year 2001 Advance Appropriations........................... 60.00
______
Total.......................................................348.25
Note: A total of $91 million remains unobligated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT BUDGET FOR PENN STATION
Question. Please provide a project budget that outlines all sources
of funding, whether these funds are on hand or planned, what amount of
funding in each category has been obligated to date, construction
schedule milestones, and date of completion.
Answer. The project budget and sources of funding for the
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project follows:
Project Budget
[In millions of dollars]
Construction and contingencies.................................... 573
Financing and reserves............................................ 109
Professional services (architectural/engineering, risk management
and development manager)...................................... 68
Lease costs....................................................... 20
Administrative and consultants.................................... 18
______
Total....................................................... 788
Sources of Funds
[In millions of dollars]
Federal funding to Amtrak..................................... \1\ 68
Federal funding to PSRC.......................................56--\1\ 29
Advance Federal appropriation................................. \2\ 60
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act...... \3\ 160
New York State Department of Transportation:
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality..................... \4\ 64
Surface Transportation Program............................20--\1\ 10
State Multi-modal......................................... \4\ 20
Metropolitan Transportation Authority......................... \3\ 35
New York City Economic Development Corporation................ \1\ 25
United States Postal Service.................................. \4\ 125
New York State Urban Development Corporation.................. \3\ 155
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 788
\1\ Obligated.
\2\ Appropriated.
\3\ Planned.
\4\ Committed.
It is expected that the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project
will begin construction in the fall of 2000 with a construction period
of approximately 48 months. The West End Concourse is expected to be
opened for pedestrian traffic by December 2003, with substantial
completion of the station by December 2004.
PENN STATION--RENOVATION VS LIFE SAFETY REPAIRS
Question. Amtrak recently released a report to Congress on the
planned infrastructure improvements to the South End of its Northeast
Corridor (Washington, D.C. to New York City). Life safety improvements
to the tunnels below Pennsylvania Station in New York City are
estimated to cost more than $300 million over the next ten years or so.
In FRA's budget, $20 million is requested--and was already funded as an
advance appropriation in fiscal year 2000--for the Penn Station
Redevelopment Project. Will any of the $20 million in the
administration's budget for Penn Station be used for life safety
improvements to the tunnels? Please justify the administration's
decision to place a higher priority on funding the renovation of a
building (much of which will be for commercial use), than on funding
life safety repairs and improvements. How will the needed tunnel
repairs and improvements be paid for?
Answer. Both the upgrade of passenger related facilities at
Pennsylvania Station (Penn Station) and safety improvements to the six
tunnels providing access to Penn Station from New Jersey and Long
Island are necessary for the long term vitality of all passenger rail
service, commuter as well as intercity serving New York City. Both
initiatives share important attributes. They address the need to invest
in aging infrastructure and they require partnerships at the Federal,
state and local level. The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project
(Project) includes fire and life safety improvements to the portion of
the tunnels beneath Penn Station and the James A. Farley Post Office
building (Farley building). The $20 million funded by the Congress as
an advance appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is not specifically
targeted for improvements to the tunnels. However, a total of
approximately $54 million in life safety improvements below Penn
Station and the Farley building are included in the Project plan. The
need to invest in Penn Station is well documented, including the
inadequacies of the existing facility in terms of the safety of egress
and the inability to create any additional capacity through the
construction of new tracks and platforms. If the region's
transportation and environmental needs are to be met, then the existing
facilities must be expanded now. The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment
Corporation is endeavoring to do so through its innovative design for
combining parts of the Farley building with the existing Penn Station.
Upgrading the rail passenger tunnels accessing New York Penn
Station is vital to the long-term future of all rail passenger service
in the Northeast. The Department as well as Amtrak, New Jersey Transit
(NJT) and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) are mindful of the need to
upgrade the tunnels. Since 1976, a total of $106 million has been
invested in their upgrade by Amtrak and its partners and another $43
million will be invested in fiscal year 2000. Amtrak is also working
with NJT and LIRR to prioritize long-term tunnel improvement
investments and to develop an appropriate mechanism for allocating the
resulting costs which reflects Amtrak's ownership but minority use of
the tunnels.
CAPITAL GRANTS TO AMTRAK
Question. Please provide a funding history, by fiscal year, of
Amtrak's federal appropriations and other federal funds from the
Corporation's creation to present.
Answer. The information of Amtrak's Federal appropriations
including the Northeast Corridor Program follows:
Amtrak Federal Appropriations Including the Northeast Corridor Program
[In millions of current dollars]
Fiscal year Amount
1971.......................................................... 40.0
1972.......................................................... 170.0
1973.......................................................... 9.1
1974.......................................................... 140.0
1975.......................................................... 276.5
1976.......................................................... 659.1
1977.......................................................... 800.7
1978.......................................................... 1,116.0
1979.......................................................... 1,234.0
1980.......................................................... 1,223.4
1981.......................................................... 1,246.3
1982.......................................................... 905.0
1983.......................................................... 895.0
1984.......................................................... 816.4
1985.......................................................... 711.6
1986.......................................................... 602.7
1987.......................................................... 624.0
1988.......................................................... 607.5
1989.......................................................... 603.6
1990.......................................................... 629.1
1991.......................................................... 815.1
1992.......................................................... 856.0
1993.......................................................... 891.1
1994.......................................................... 908.7
1995.......................................................... 972.0
1996.......................................................... 750.0
1997.......................................................... 843.0
1998.......................................................... 594.0
1999.......................................................... 609.2
2000.......................................................... 571.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 21,120.1
AMTRAK'S YEAR-END NET OPERATING LOSSES
Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year operating losses, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation
to present.
Answer. Amtrak's net end-of-year operating losses by fiscal year
are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Year Net Operating Loss
1971 (Year end 12/31)............................................. 92
1972 (Year end 12/31)............................................. 151
1973 (Year end 12/31)............................................. 159
1974 (Year end 12/31)............................................. 273
1975 (Year end 12/31)............................................. 353
1976 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 343
1977 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 537
1978 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 582
1979 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 620
1980 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 27
1981 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 179
1980-1981 Adjustment..............................................\1\ 41
1982 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 795
1983 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 805
1984 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 763
1985 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 774
1986 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 702
1987 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 699
1988 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 650
1989 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 665
1990 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 703
1991 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 722
1992 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 712
1993 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 731
1994 (Year end 9/30)...........................................\2\ 1,077
1995 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 808
1996 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 764
1997 (Year end 9/30).............................................. 762
1998 (Year end 9/30).............................................\3\ 353
1999 (Year end) 9/30)............................................. 702
\1\ This adjustment was due to a change in Amtrak's method of accounting
for track structure depreciation which had the effect of increasing net
losses for fiscal year 1983, 1982, and 1980-81 by $35 million, $24
million and $41 million, respectively.
\2\ Includes $244 million of one-time expenses.
\3\ Offset of $577 million of TRA receipts, including interest earned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year debt load, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation to
present.
Answer. Amtrak's net end-of-year debt loads by fiscal year are as
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal debt Grand
-------------------------------------------------------------- total
Fiscal year Less non-Federal loan paid-in
--------------------------- NECIP/NHRIP Grand Total capital
Debt Guarantees \1\ funding \2\ capital items \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971................................... 0.7 25.0 ........... 25.0 25.7 25.7
1972................................... 7.1 7.1 ........... ......... 7.1 7.1
1973................................... 30.9 78.6 ........... 78.6 109.5 109.5
1974................................... 76.6 220.9 ........... 220.9 297.5 297.5
1975................................... 107.1 377.8 377.8 484.9 484.9
1976................................... 232.7 533.3 ........... 533.3 766.0 766.0
1977................................... 212.8 492.6 89.0 581.6 794.4 794.4
1978................................... 189.9 472.2 267.8 740.0 929.9 929.9
1979................................... 113.3 374.0 485.3 859.3 972.6 972.6
1980................................... 99.3 445.0 698.7 1,143.7 1,243.0 1,243.0
1981................................... 78.9 731.2 940.8 1,672.0 1,750.9 1,750.9
1982................................... 68.7 811.6 1,311.8 2,123.4 2,192.1 2,192.1
1983................................... 6.5 880.0 1,618.3 2,498.3 2,504.8 2,504.8
1984................................... 13.2 1,119.6 1,871.8 2,991.4 3,004.6 3,004.6
1985................................... 22.2 1,119.6 2,043.7 3,163.3 3,185.5 3,185.5
1986................................... 23.8 1,119.6 2,128.8 3,248.4 3,272.2 3,272.2
1987 \1\............................... 22.7 1,119.6 2,220.6 3,340.2 3,362.9 22.7
1988................................... 35.9 1,119.6 2,271.1 3,390.7 3,426.6 35.9
1989................................... 126.5 1,119.6 2,310.5 3,430.1 3,556.6 126.5
1990................................... 183.8 1,119.6 2,334.1 3,453.7 3,637.5 183.8
1991................................... 288.0 1,119.6 2,370.0 3,489.6 3,777.6 288.0
1992................................... 418.8 1,119.6 2,550.8 3,670.4 4,089.2 418.8
1993................................... 492.3 1,119.6 2,673.9 3,793.5 4,285.8 492.3
1994................................... 770.3 1,119.6 2,787.6 3,907.2 4,677.5 770.3
1995................................... 837.0 1,119.6 2,906.9 4,026.5 4,863.5 837.0
1996................................... 987.0 1,119.6 3,154.3 4,273.9 5,260.9 987.0
1997................................... 1,336.4 1,119.6 3,563.4 4,683.0 6,019.4 1,336.4
1998................................... 1,637.9 1,119.6 4,012.0 5,131.6 6,769.5 1,637.9
1999................................... 1,887.2 1,119.6 4,046.4 5,166.0 7,053.2 1,877.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note in the amount of $1,119.6 million was signed on October 5, 1983 in return for FRA payment of Loan
Guarantees. At that time, $238.7 million of deferred interest was also folded into this note. Note comes due
November 1, 2082 and is secured by Amtrak rolling stock.
\2\ These are borrowings under NECIP/NHRIP fundings.
\3\ Amounts in this column reconcile to Amtrak's Annual Reports.
\4\ Beginning fiscal year 1988 (with fiscal year 1987 restated for comparability), federal debt was reclassified
as ``federal paid-in capital (in italics)'' for financial reporting purposes.
LOANS TO AMTRAK
Question. Please list the loans made to Amtrak in fiscal year 1999
and thus far in fiscal year 2000 (through February 29). Please include
information on the lending institution, amount of loan, repayment
period, and interest rate.
Answer. The list of loans made by Amtrak during fiscal year 1999
and fiscal year 2000 is as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Term
Lender/lessor Description Amount (years) Interest rate (per year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999:
Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail High-speed trainsets 164.1 20 LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 75 bp.
Finance Corporation (of Japan). (additional draws).
Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail High-speed trainsets 64.0 20 LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 75 bp.
Finance Corporation (of Japan). (additional draws).
First Union National Bank Capital (19 F-59 locomotives)..... 42.8 20 5.6 percent.
Lease.
Wabash National Finance............ Capital Lease............. .1 20 6.0 percent.
Corporation........................ (4 inter-bogies).......... ....... ....... .........................
New York Air Brake Corporation..... Capital Lease (5 simula- 1.0 5 4.3 percent.
tors).
The Fuji Bank, LTD and MBK Finance AEM-7 Rebuild (additional 10.7 3 LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 110
Corp. (of Japan). draws). bp.
Wabash National Finance Corporation Capital Lease (173 Road 8.1 9 6.0 percent
Railers & Equipment).
Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau und Richmond Static Frequency 10.9 15 LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 110
Bayerische Landesbank. Converter (additional bp.
draws).
Fiscal year 2000 (thru February 29,
2000):
Wabash National Finance Corporation Capital Lease (173 Road 5.0 9 6.0 percent
Railers & Equipment).
The Fuji Bank, LTD and MBK Rail AEM-7 Rebuild (additional 4.5 3 LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 110
Finance Corp. (of Japan). draws). bp.
Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau und Richmond Static Frequency 5.5 15 LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 110
Bayerische Landes bank. Converters (additional bp.
draws).
Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail High-speed Trainsets 39.6 15 LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 75 bp.
Finance Corporation (of Japan). (additional draws).
Export Development Corp. & MBK Rail High-speed Trainsets 1.8 20 LIBOR (6 mos) Plus 75 bp.
Finance Corporation (of Japan). (additional draws).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING WITH EXPANDED DEFINITION
Question. If the Federal Transit Administration's expanded capital
definition were applied to Amtrak capital, what is the maximum amount
of the $521,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 request that could be used for:
maintenance of equipment, maintenance of facilities and maintenance of
way?
Answer. Amtrak's business plan projects that it will use the
expanded capital definition to fund approximately $242 million of
maintenance of equipment, maintenance of facilities and maintenance of
way expenses from the capital grant that would otherwise be funded from
operating revenues.
DOT VS. ARC BUDGET REQUEST
Question. What was the funding request sent to OMB for the Amtrak
Reform Council? What is the ARC's own request for funds in fiscal year
2001.
Answer. The ARC proposed a request of $1.4 million to OMB.
AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL STAFFING
Question. How many full time staff are currently at the Amtrak
Reform Council? How many staff are represented in the funding level
requested in the 2001 budget? Are the costs associated with the 2000
and 2001 cost of living increases (4.4 percent and 4.5 percent
respectively) reflected in the budget request? Is there any provision
for locality pay and benefit adjustments?
Answer. The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent agency. The
Department has no role in developing, reviewing, or approving their
budget requests or staffing plans. Questions such as this should be
directed to the Council. To the best of our knowledge, the Amtrak
Reform Council has five employees on board. The fiscal year 2001 budget
includes funding for 5 positions. Cost of living expenses for fiscal
years 2000 and 2001 are reflected in the budget request, as well as the
locality pay and benefit adjustments.
AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL SUPPORT COSTS
Question. What level of funding is assumed in the request for
travel and meeting costs?
Answer. A total of $980,000 is requested in fiscal year 2001 for
the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC); of which $32,000 is for travel. We do
not know how much is for meeting costs. This question should be
directed to the ARC.
______
Questions Submitted to the Federal Transit Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
TEA-21 PROGRAM GUARANTEES
Question. Do any of your fiscal year 2001 transit program budget
requests differ from the guaranteed levels in TEA-21? If so, please
outline the guaranteed program funding levels, and show the proposed
increase request. Why has the administration requested increased
funding levels in these programs?
Answer. The only program FTA requests above the TEA-21 Guaranteed
level is the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. For this program
FTA requests the full authorized level of $150 million. The guaranteed
level for this program in fiscal year 2001 is $100 million, therefore
FTA requests $50 million in addition to fully fund the program. The
administration requests these additional funds as part of the
redistribution of realigned budget authority (RABA) made available
under the Federal-aid Highway program. This program is a priority of
the administration and is critical to the success of Welfare Reform.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Question. Please prepare an organizational chart for the Federal
Transit Administration, showing the office structure and regional
office locations, as well as the current number of FTEs currently
assigned to each office.
Answer. The following table provides current Federal Transit
Administration organizational chart information:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12FTA.000
Question. Please break out Administrative Expenses by activity and
sub-activity. Prepare a table showing fiscal year 1999 funding for each
activity, fiscal year 2000 funding estimated, and fiscal year 2001
funding request.
Answer. The following chart shows fiscal year 1999, fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2001 Administrative Expenses by activity/sub-
activity:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION--ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------
Activity/sub-activity 1999 2000 2001
actual estimate request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salary & Benefits:
Salary....................... 32,040 34,244 36,499
Benefits..................... 6,263 7,296 7,787
Travel and Transportation........ 1,268 1,378 1,697
Rent............................. 3,659 3,955 4,321
Communications................... 1,389 1,923 2,044
Printing & Reproduction.......... 362 365 366
Contractual Services:
Audit and Financial Reviews ........... 1,500 1,000
Services....................
Building management /Services 1,336 1,065 1,129
Contractor Support (Service, 1,000 1,700 1,724
Help Desk,etc.).............
Accounting System (DELPHI)... ........... 200 303
Financial Systems (DAFIS).... 477 753 761
Grant Systems/TEAM(Includes 2,500 2,493 2,675
Y2K and training)...........
PDD63........................ ........... 300 550
Data Warehousing............. ........... ........... 150
Electronic Commerce.......... ........... ........... 150
Training/Workforce Planning.. 325 580 1,066
Other Contractual Services... 1,387 622 654
Supplies & Materials............. 193 202 209
Equipment & Furniture............ 1,139 986 915
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 53,338 59,562 64,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. Please specify what employee development activities have
been accomplished in fiscal years 1999 and thus far in fiscal year
2000. How has FTA paid for these activities? What planned activities
would be undertaken with the additional $347,000 for employment
training and development? What is the base enacted funding level for
this activity?
Answer. The Department's Learning and Development, workforce
planning, and flagship initiatives require the obligation of funds for
a variety of training courses to be offered to all employees throughout
the fiscal year. These learning and development activities keep
employees abreast of new developments in their fields and enhance their
knowledge and skills in the areas of transportation. Key management
training includes; supervisory; leadership development, interpersonal
skills, oral and written communication skills, and information
technology. Listed below are employee development activities that were
accomplished in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 courses for which
contracts have been awarded, or employees have completed the course:
Fiscal year 1999 Courses: Amount
Leadership for a Democratic Society....................... $44,500
Aspen Institute........................................... 8,700
Management Development Seminar............................ 9,150
Executive Development Seminar............................. 6,100
Presidential Management Intern Seminar.................... 5,325
Executive Potential Seminar............................... 14,700
Women's Executive Leadership Program...................... 7,300
Leadership Potential Seminar.............................. 15,250
Seminar for New Managers.................................. 6,100
Strategic Planning Through The Power of Vision............ 4,000
Advanced Leadership Program............................... 9,750
Supervisory Development Program........................... 2,250
Career Strategies Seminar For Prospective Managers........ 14,400
Basic Supervisory Skills.................................. 4,100
New Leaders Program....................................... 7,980
Aspiring Leaders Program.................................. 1,995
Negotiation Skills........................................ 1,920
Managing Up............................................... 1,125
General Employee Training................................. 154,355
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 319,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 2000 Courses Completed to date:
Amount Leadership for a Democratic Society................ 27,450
Developing Customer-Focused Organizations................. 3,050
Leadership Potential Seminar.............................. 18,300
Management Development Seminar............................ 9,150
Federal Budgetary Policies and Processes.................. 6,100
Supervisory Leadership Seminar............................ 9,150
Environmental Policy Issues............................... 6,100
Capitol Hill Workshop..................................... 3,580
White House Workshop...................................... 1,790
Executive Potential Program............................... 9,800
Congressional Operations Seminar.......................... 6,650
New Leaders Program....................................... 5,985
Advanced Leadership Program............................... 1,500
Motivating Others: Bringing Out the Best in People........ 7,375
Effective Writing......................................... 1,725
Grammar Review............................................ 1,800
Effective Briefing Techniques............................. 3,300
General Employee Training................................. 58,004
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 180,809
Fiscal year 2001 planned additional Learning and Development
activities to be funded from the administrative expenses account:
Course: Amount
Transit Academy........................................... $4,200
Leadership for a Democratic Society....................... 28,150
Aspen Institute Executive Seminar......................... 6,525
Developing Customer-Focused Organizations................. 4,000
Leadership Potential Seminar.............................. 21,350
Management Development Seminar............................ 9,150
Federal Budgetary Policies and Processes.................. 6,100
Supervisory Leadership Seminar............................ 12,200
Environmental Policy Issues............................... 6,100
Capitol Hill Workshop..................................... 5,570
White House Workshop...................................... 2,685
Women's Executive Leadership Program...................... 3,650
Executive Potential Program............................... 14,700
Congressional Operations Seminar.......................... 8,550
New Leaders Program....................................... 5,990
Advanced Leadership Program............................... 2,780
Motivating Others: Bringing Out the Best in People........ 7,575
Presidential Management Intern Leadership Seminar......... 5,700
Effective Writing......................................... 9,600
Effective Briefing Techniques............................. 9,600
Coaching Skills for Managers and Supervisors.............. 30,000
Interpersonal Communication Skills........................ 20,000
Conflict Intervention, etc................................ 14,000
Team Decision Making...................................... 18,000
Communicating With Style.................................. 37,800
Managing Multiple Priorities.............................. 26,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 319,975
The $319,975 does not include the $27,000 budgeted to support TASC
training. FTA has $575,000 included in the fiscal year 2000 base for
this activity.
STAFFING
Question. How much of the proposed salaries and benefits increase
(+$2,828,000) is associated with the pending reprogramming which
includes an FTE increase from 485 to 495? (Please be sure to include
any within-grade and step increase funding that is assumed to be
associated with these positions.) Over how many months in fiscal year
2000 does this portion of the increase cover?
Answer. Of the $2,828,000, $835,000 is associated with the pending
reprogramming. In fiscal year 2000, the FTA planned to hire 20 new
positions throughout the fiscal year thus increasing FTE from 485 to
495. In fiscal year 2001, these positions will be fully annualized,
therefore, increasing the FTE from 495 to 505. This portion of the
increase covers 12 months of the fiscal year.
Question. The FTA has proposed increasing the FTE level from 495 to
505 in fiscal year 2001. Please break out these staffing increases by
title, grade, and projected starting dates, including where each
position will be located.
Answer. The following chart provides a break out of the proposed
FTE funding increase:
FISCAL YEAR 2001 HIRING PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Positions (title/grade) EOD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Planning.................. Community Planner, GS-9/ 9/10/00
11/12.
Region 1............................ General Engineer, GS-11/ 9/24/00
12/13.
Region 3............................ Community Planner, GS-9/ 10/8/00
11/12.
Region 4............................ General Engineer, GS-11/ 10/22/00
12/13.
Region 5............................ Community Planner, GS- 11/05/00
11/12.
Region 6............................ Community Planner, GS- 11/19/00
11/12.
Region 9............................ General Engineer, GS-11/ 9/10/00
12/13.
Office of Program Management........ General Engineer, GS-11/ 9/24/00
12/13. 10/8/00
General Engineer, GS-11/
12/13.
Office of Research Demo. & Transportation Program 11/05/00
Innovation. Specialist, GS-12/13.
----------
Total--10 New Positions....... ....................... 10 FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a table similar to the one found on page
478-479 of Senate hearing 106-221, detailing FTA's FTEs for fiscal
years 1999, fiscal year 2000 on-board, estimated end-of-year (assuming
the approval of the pending reprogramming), and 2001 proposal.
Answer. The following table provides detail of FTA's FTE through
fiscal year 2001:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------
Organization 1998 1999 2000 on- 2000 2001
actual actual board estimated requested
FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters Offices:
Administrator........................................ 6 5 4 4 5
Public Affairs....................................... 11 12 12 12 12
Chief Counsel........................................ 32 29 31 31 33
Budget and Policy.................................... 46 49 50 52 53
Civil Rights......................................... 25 26 26 26 26
Administration....................................... 74 74 70 72 65
Res. Demonstration and Innovation.................... 41 41 45 44 46
Program Management................................... 57 55 58 59 60
Planning............................................. 25 29 32 31 33
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Headquarters.............................. 317 320 328 331 333
======================================================
Regional Offices:
Region 1, Cambridge, MA.............................. 13 13 14 14 14
Region 2, New York, NY............................... 17 18 19 19 20
Region 3, Philadelphia, PA........................... 20 20 21 20 21
Region 4, Atlanta GA................................. 21 21 20 21 22
Region 5, Chicago, IL................................ 22 23 24 24 24
Region 6, Fort Worth, TX............................. 16 17 16 16 17
Region 7, Kansas City, MO............................ 9 11 12 12 12
Region 8, Denver, CO................................. 7 8 8 8 9
Region 9, San Francisco, CA.......................... 20 21 22 22 23
Region 10, Seattle, WA............................... 9 9 9 8 10
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Regions................................... 154 161 165 164 172
======================================================
Total FTA.......................................... 471 481 493 495 505
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Question. Please lay out a schedule, by fiscal year and associated
cost, of information technology improvements from fiscal year 1999
through the anticipated completion of the current upgrade. Break out
each activity to major sub-activity levels.
Answer. The following table provides information technology
improvements at the major sub-activity level:
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Major sub-activity --------------------------
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2000: Conversion & Remediation.......... 1,350 ....... .......
Accounting Systems: DELPHI Conversion........ ....... 200 100
Financial Systems: DAFIS Operations.......... ....... 200 .......
TEAM System: Application Enhancements........ ....... 750 250
Contractor Support (Help desk, etc.)......... ....... 700 .......
PDD63: Awareness/Renovation & Testing........ ....... 300 250
Electronic Commerce:
Equipment & Software..................... 100 300 .......
Operations & Expansion................... ....... ....... 150
Data Warehousing............................. ....... ....... 150
DOT Bandwidth................................ ....... ....... 15
Standardize and Secure e-mail................ ....... ....... 26
Telecommunications: Infrastructure Upgrades.. 200 300 .......
IT Equipment and Software: Software Licensing 150 ....... .......
& Workstation Upgrades......................
--------------------------
IT Improvement Total................... 1,800 2,750 941
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Does not include increases for inflation adjustments.
Question. On pages 33-35 of the budget justification, you describe
the components of the requested $941,000 increase for information
technology. (This increase is predicated on the assumption that the
pending reprogramming increase for IT in fiscal year 2000 will be
approved.) Please present this list of activities in priority order,
and justify why each project is necessary in fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The increase in information technology activities cuts
across major governmental and departmental initiatives. All initiatives
have a high importance to proceed with activity in fiscal year 2001 due
either to Executive, Federal and/or Departmental mandates or flagship
initiatives. In priority order they are as follows:
--Presidential Decision Directive 63 ($250,000).--Federal mandate
requires FTA to protect the infrastructure of Federally
operated systems, and also to allow FTA to continue its
partnership with departmental initiatives involving electronic
commerce through mission critical systems accreditation.
$300,000 is planned for fiscal year 2000.
--Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) ($250,000).--
Funds will provide software, hardware and communications
necessary to implement the web-enabled TEAM application.
Transitioning to the internet will streamline FTA's business
process by making it easier to access the federal financial
assistance application process.
--Electronic Commerce in Procurement ($150,000).--To provide annual
lifecycle maintenance, licenses and core operations of FTA's
electronic commerce program. We are planning $400,000 in fiscal
year 2000.
--Data Warehousing ($150,000).--To continue the standardization of
``pockets of information'' so that information is accessible
and sharable from a single source, eliminating redundancy of
systems and information flow, and providing a more effective
and efficient information sharing environment. This is a new
activity in fiscal year 2001.
--DELPHI--Accounting System Conversion ($100,000).--To convert and
migrate the Agency's information in DAFIS to a new automated
accounting system. We are planning $200,000 in fiscal year
2000.
--Strategic Communications--Institution of a Standard and Secure
Departmental E-mail System in support of all Departmental Goals
($26,000).--This builds on securing information and systems and
fosters a ``OneDOT'' approach to sharing information over a
secured infrastructure, demonstrating that DOT is serious about
protecting its information and maintaining the public
confidence in the Department. Intermodal meetings were held,
however funding is requested in fiscal year 2001.
--Strategic Communications--Increase Bandwidth for Targeted Segments
of Departmental Networks ($15,000).--Under the ``OneDOT''
approach, this funding would provide required infrastructure
improvements for FTA to communicate efficiently and effectively
with selected Departmental systems.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
Question. Please detail the authorized takedown levels (percentage
and dollar amounts) for both formula and capital investment grants for
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, and the amounts requested and
enacted for PMO each of those fiscal years.
Answer. The following table provides a detail of FTA's Oversight
takedown levels:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1999-2001 OVERSIGHT BUDGET
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Section/Program 1999 oversight Percent 2000 oversight Percent 2001 oversight Percent
takedown of app. takedown of app. takedown of app.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Programs:
Alaska Railroad (Sec. 5307)...... $24,250 50 $24,250 50 $24,250 50
Urbanized Area Formula (Sec. 12,736,954 50 13,864,451 50 14,986,580 50
5307)...........................
Nonurbanized Area Formula (Sec. 889,618 50 968,065 50 1,046,416 50
5311)...........................
Capital Investment Grants:
Bus and Bus Facilities (Sec. 3,760,500 75 4,096,500 75 3,594,000 75
5309)...........................
Fixed Guideway Modernization 6,771,000 75 7,353,000 75 7,938,000 75
(Sec. 5309).....................
New Starts (Sec. 5309)........... 6,771,000 75 7,353,000 75 7,938,000 75
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 30,953,322 ....... 33,659,266 ....... 35,527,246 .......
==========================================================================
Amount Requested For PMO............. 16,000,000 ....... 18,067,000 ....... 17,520,000 .......
Actual Obligations (includes 23,502,000 ....... 21,887,000 ....... .............. .......
carryover)..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Why doesn't the budget request assume the fully
authorized takedown amounts for oversight activities in fiscal year
2001?
Answer. The budget request assumes the fully authorized take-down
of $35.5 million for oversight activities in fiscal year 2001. The
Oversight Program increases commensurately with the increase of the
Formula and Capital Investment programs. This level of funding is
necessary to meet the growing demands on the Oversight Program. These
funds are used to carryout our statutory oversight functions. As the
New Starts project list grows more funds are required to oversee these
projects. Over 61 percent of the funds are for Project Management and
Financial Oversight activities. Safety Oversight is funded with 9
percent of the funds; the remaining funds support procurement and
management oversight. As the FTA program grows under the guaranteed
level provided in TEA-21, so will the need for oversight. Therefore,
the percentage take-down from the capital portions of the FTA program
for oversight activities is an appropriate means of funding these
requirements.
Question. Please provide the names of contractors, their geographic
location, annual and total costs of contracts, and a short description
of each contract, for each PMO contract let in fiscal year 1999 and
thus far in 2000.
Answer. A total of 9 Project Management Oversight Contracts were
let in Fiscal year 1999 while none were awarded in fiscal year 2000.
This list does not include non-PMOC activities such as Financial
Management Oversight and Procurement System Reviews. The total and
annual cost of the 9 contracts is provided in the attached chart.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION--PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT CONTRACTORS--FISCAL YEAR 1999-FISCAL YEAR 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Contract --------------------------------
Contractor Location amount 1999 2000 PMO projects monitored
expenditures expenditures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Fleming, Inc.................. Camp Hill, PA.................... $12,183,951 $1,600,000 $1,701,763 Region IX Seattle.
Fluor Daniel, Inc..................... Irvine, CA....................... 10,391,273 2,000,000 1,300,000 LIRR, NYCDOT, NCTA.
Hill International, Inc............... Newport Beach, CA................ 11,533,331 3,012,183 2,337,617 Los Angeles Metro Rail Salt
Lake City.
Day & Zimmerman....................... Philadelphia, PA................. 10,810,846 1,934,484 1,665,692 WMATA, MBTA, and Region IV.
Sverdrup Civil, Inc................... Maryland Heights, MO............. 11,576,298 1,000,000 525,000 Chicago Miami-Dade.
Delon Hampton and Associates, Chtd.... Washington, D.C.................. 12,507,225 1,351,582 1,600,000 New Jersey Transit, Metro
North RR, CONNDOT.
STV, Inc.............................. Philadelphia, PA................. 13,850,585 3,728,466 1,902,469 RTD Denver MUNI & BART.
Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall.... Baltimore, MD.................... 9,474,885 1,480,000 590,357 Dallas & Railtran, Cleveland,
and Phoenix.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Herndon, VA...................... 13,065,484 .............. 260,000 Little Rock Junction Bridge/
Services. River Rail.
------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................................. 105,393,878 16,106,715 11,882,989
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a table similar to that found on page 484
of Senate hearing record 106-221, indicating oversight obligations by
activity broken out for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 estimate,
and 2001 planned.
Answer. The following table provides actual Oversight obligations
for fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1998 and estimated for fiscal
year 2000 through fiscal year 2001:
OVERSIGHT OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
actual actual actual estimate planned
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Management Oversight............................. 3,984 10,198 23,502 21,887 17,520
Financial Management Oversight........................... 2,060 3,533 3,530 4,500 4,500
Safety Oversight......................................... 2,825 3,000 2,827 4,010 3,100
Drug & Alcohol Compliance............................ 1,150 1,525 1,410 2,200 1,500
SAMIS................................................ 75 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
DAMIS................................................ 600 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
State Rail Safety Oversight.......................... 200 650 693 900 800
Security Audits...................................... 550 825 724 910 800
Alternative Fuels.................................... 250 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Procurement Oversight.................................... 1,130 1,588 1,320 1,784 1,500
Management Oversight..................................... 13,418 6,216 5,576 10,456 8,907
Civil Rights Reviews, DBE, EEO....................... 586 477 709 934 800
ADA Civil Rights Reviews............................. ......... 485 951 963 850
National Transit Database (NTD)...................... 4,308 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
NTD Phase 3 Redesign................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 1,515
Triennial and State Management Reviews............... 4,010 3,959 3,726 3,490 3,500
Electronic Grant Making.............................. 2,000 ......... ......... ......... .........
Planning Compliance.................................. 467 995 190 2,203 1,110
Rail Control Technology.............................. ......... ......... ......... 577 402
Bus Technology....................................... 500 300 ......... 642 230
Turnkey Oversight.................................... 1,546 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
ITS National Architecture............................ ......... ......... ......... 1,647 500
------------------------------------------------------
Total Oversight.................................... 23,417 24,535 36,755 42,637 35,527
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded under National Research and Technology.
\2\ Turnkey Oversight is funded under other oversight acitivites.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
Question. What financial management oversight (FMO) reviews were
conducted in fiscal year 1999? What FMO reviews are underway or planned
for fiscal year 2000? What FMO reviews are planned for fiscal year
2001?
Answer. The following FMO reviews were completed in fiscal year
1999:
Financial Capacity Assessments
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Maryland Mass Transit Administration
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Utah Transit Authority
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Sacramento Regional Transit District
Additional Financial Assessments (New Starts Evaluations)
Austin, Texas/Northwest/North Central Corridor
Chicago, Illinois/Central Kane Corridor
Chicago,Illinois/North Central Corridor
Chicago, Illinois/Southwest Corridor
Cincinnati, Ohio/Interstate 71 Corridor
Cleveland, Ohio/Euclid Corridor Improvement Project
Denver, Colorado/Denver Southeast Corridor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida/Tri-County Commuter Rail
Fort Worth, Texas/RAILTRAN Phase II
Kansas City, Missouri/Southtown Corridor
Las Vegas, Nevada/Las Vegas Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway
Little Rock, Arkansas/Little Rock River Rail Project
Memphis, Tennessee/Medical Center Rail Extension
Miami, Florida/Miami East-West Corridor
Miami, Florida/Miami North 27th Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota/Hiawatha Avenue Corridor
New Orleans, Louisiana/Canal Streetcar Spine
New York, New York/Long Island Rail Road Access toManhattan's East
Side (East Side Access)
Norfolk, Virginia/Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor
Northern New Jersey/Hudson-Bergen Waterfront Light Rail Transit
Northern New Jersey/Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link SystemMinimum
Operable Segment-2 (MOS-2)
Orange County, California/Orange County Transitway Project
Orlando, Florida/Central Florida Light Rail System
Phoenix, Artizona/Central Phoenix/East Valley Corridor
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania/Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway
Extension--Phase I
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh Stage II Light Rail Transit
Portland, Oregon/South-North Corridor
Raleigh, North Carolina/Regional Transit Plan Phase I Regional
Rail--Durham to North Raleigh
San Diego County, California/LOSSAN Rail Corridor
San Diego County, California/Mid Coast Corridor
San Diego County, California/Mission Valley East
San Diego County, California/Oceanside-Escondido Passenger Rail
Project
San Francisco, California/Third Street Light Rail Project Phase 1
San Juan, Puerto Rico/Minillas Extension
Seattle, Washington/Seattle Link Light Rail
Seattle, Washington/Seattle-Tacoma Sounder Commuter Rail
Tampa, Florida/Tampa Bay Regional Rail System
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area/Largo Metrorail Extension
Financial Management Systems Full Scope Reviews
Vermont Agency of Transportation
Port Authority of Allegheny County (PA)
City of Washington (PA)
Lehigh & Northhampton Transportation Authority
VA Department of Rail & Public Transportation
Borough of Pottstown (PA)
Triangle Transit Authority
Georgia Department of Transportation
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Council (Met Council)
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council
Metro Transit
Galveston-Island Transit
Brazos Valley Community Action Agency
Shreveport Transit Management, Inc.
Lincoln Transportation System
City & County of Honolulu
Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (Reno)
Metro (Seattle)
The FMO reviews that are planned, in process or completed in fiscal
year 2000 are:
Status
Financial Capacity Assessments:
New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority...... Planned.
Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh)..... Planned.
Miami-Dade Transit Agency........................... Planned.
MARTA (Atlanta)..................................... In Process.
Chicago Transit Authority........................... Planned.
Metra (Commuter Rail Division of the Chicago RTA)... Planned.
Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit (Minneapolis).... Planned.
Houston Metro....................................... In Process.
Colorado DOT........................................ Planned.
Regional Public Transportation Authority (Phoenix).. Planned.
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of
Oregon............................................ In Process.
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority...... Planned.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority...... In Process.
Memphis Area Transit Authority...................... In Process.
New Jersey Transit Corporation...................... Completed.
Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority.................. Completed.
Puerto Rico--Tren Urbano/Minellas Extension......... Completed.
San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.... Completed.
Denver Regional Transportation District............. Completed.
Bi-State Development Agency (St. Louis)............. Completed.
Additional Financial Assessments (New Starts
Evaluations):
Austin, Texas/Light Rail Corridors.................. Completed.
Baltimore, Maryland/Baltimore Central Light Rail
Double Tracking................................... Completed.
Boston, Massachusetts/South Boston Piers
Transitway--Phase II.............................. Completed.
Chicago, Illinois/Douglas Branch Reconstruction
Project........................................... Completed.
Chicago, Illinois/Ravenswood Line Expansion Project. Completed.
Chicago, Illinois/Central Kane Corridor Commuter
Rail.............................................. Completed.
Chicago, Illinois/North Central Corridor Commuter
Rail.............................................. Completed.
Chicago, Illinois/Southwest Corridor Commuter Rail.. Completed.
Cincinnati, Ohio/Interstate 71 Corridor............. Completed.
Cleveland, Ohio/Euclid Corridor Improvement Project. Completed.
Fort Worth, Texas/Trinity Railway Express Phase II.. Completed.
Hartford, Connecticut/New Britain--Hartford Busway.. Completed.
Johnson County, Kansas--Kansas City, Missouri/I-35
Commuter Rail..................................... Completed.
Las Vegas, Nevada/Las Vegas Resort Corridor Fixed
Guideway MOS...................................... Completed.
Little Rock, Arkansas/River Rail Project............ Completed.
Los Angeles--San Diego County, California/LOSSAN
Rail Corridor Improvements........................ Completed.
Maryland/MARC Commuter Rail Improvement Projects.... Completed.
Miami, Florida/East-West Corridor................... Completed.
Miami, Florida/North 27th Avenue.................... Completed.
Miami, Florida/South Miami-Dade Busway Extension.... Completed.
Minneapolis, Minnesota/Hiawatha Avenue LRT.......... Completed.
Nashville, Tennessee/East Corridor Commuter Rail.... Completed.
New Orleans, Louisiana/Canal Streetcar Spine........ Completed.
New York, New York/Long Island Rail Road Access to.. Completed.
Manhattan's East Side (East Side Access)............ Completed.
Norfolk, Virginia/Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor... Completed.
Orange County, California/Centerline Rail Corridor.. Completed.
Phoenix, Arizona/Central Phoenix/East Valley
Corridor.......................................... Completed.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania/Stage II LRT Reconstruction Completed.
Raleigh, North Carolina/Regional Transit Plan Phase
I Regional Rail................................... Completed.
Salt Lake City, Utah/CBD to University LRT.......... Completed.
San Diego County, California/Oceanside--Escondido
Rail Project...................................... Completed.
San Francisco, California/Third Street Light Rail
Project Phase 1................................... Completed.
Seattle, Washington/Central Link LRT (MOS).......... Completed.
Seattle, Washington/Everett-to-Seattle Commuter Rail Completed.
Tacoma, Washington/Lakewood-to-Tacoma Commuter Rail. Completed.
Tampa, Florida/Tampa Bay Regional Rail System....... Completed.
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area/Dulles Corridor
Rapid Transit..................................... Completed.
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area/Largo Metrorail
Extension......................................... Completed.
Aspen--Glenwood Springs, CO Corridor................ Planned.
Boston--Providence Commuter Rail.................... Planned.
Bridgeport, CT Intermodal Transportation Center..... Planned.
Charlotte North-South Corridor Transitway........... Planned.
Cleveland Berea Extension........................... Planned.
Cleveland Waterfront Line Extension................. Planned.
Dallas Northwest Corridor........................... Planned.
Dallas Southeast Corridor........................... Planned.
Louisville South Central Corridor................... Planned.
Minneapolis--St. Cloud Northstar Corridor........... Planned.
Minneapolis--St. Paul Riverview Corridor............ Planned.
Nashua--Lowell Commuter Rail Extension.............. Planned.
New York City Manhattan East Side Alternatives...... Planned.
Northern Indiana West Lake Corridor................. Planned.
Spokane South Valley Corridor....................... Planned.
Washington County, OR Wilsonville-Beaverton Corridor Planned.
Wilmington Transit Connector........................ Planned.
Financial Management Systems Full Scope Reviews:
Marble Valley Regional Transit District............. Planned.
Delaware DOT........................................ Planned.
Potomac and Rappahannock Transp. Commission......... Planned.
Greenville Transit Authority........................ In Process.
METRA--Commuter Rail Division of the RTA............ Planned.
Chicago Transit Authority........................... Planned.
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority........... Planned.
Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky.............. Planned.
Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority................ Planned.
Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking
Authority......................................... Planned.
Kansas DOT.......................................... Planned.
City of Pueblo...................................... Planned.
Easter Seals--Project Action........................ Planned.
In addition, FTA continues to monitor grantees that underwent
financial capacity assessments in fiscal year 1999 and prior.
FTA will determine the Financial Management Oversight program
reviews to be conducted in fiscal year 2001, by August 31, 2000. Each
summer, FTA goes through a Risk Assessment process that includes
recommendations from regional offices. The regional offices determine
the grantees' risk level and recommend the type of financial management
oversight review to be conducted. Among the areas under consideration
for Financial Capacity Assessments in fiscal year 2001 are: New
Orleans, Oceanside, CA, Cleveland, Little Rock, Nashville, and Clark
County, Nevada.
Among the potential new projects for which Financial Assessments
for New Starts Evaluations would be conducted in fiscal year 2001 are:
Boston North-South Rail Link, Canton-Akron-Cleveland Corridor, Denver
East Corridor, Eugene-Springfield BRT, Harrisburg Corridor One,
Indianapolis Northeast Corridor, Milwaukee Downtown System, New York/
New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown, Brooklyn-Manhattan Access, Omaha
Downtown Trolley System, Orlando Airport Connector, Philadelphia Cross
County Metro, Philadelphia Schuylkill Valley Metro, Ogden-Provo-Orem
Commuter Rail, Seattle SeaTac Airport PRT, and Tampa-St. Petersburg.
FTA undertakes, minimally, an annual Financial Assessment for each New
Starts project that is in either preliminary engineering or final
design.
Question. You have requested a $1,000,000 reimbursement to the DOT
Inspector General for costs associated with audits and review of new
fixed guideway systems. Will this reimbursement funding be provided
from PMO, or from administrative funds? Why do you feel justified in
requesting a lesser reimbursement level in fiscal year 2001, with an
increased number of pending full funding grant agreements which may
require baseline assessments or other Inspector General audits and
reviews?
Answer. The $1,000,000 reimbursement funding for the Office of
Inspector General will come from the Administrative Expenses account.
OIG activities were funded under Administrative Expenses in fiscal year
2000 and under the Oversight Program in fiscal year 1999. The reduction
in funding for the Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 2001, is
based on the expectation that there are no urgent emerging transit
issues expected to be investigated. FTA has been praised by the OIG for
appropriate management of projects. The $1,000,000 a year should be
sufficient to meet the audit and investigative needs of the New Starts
pipeline.
Question. What are the trigger factors in determining that the
Inspector General should perform a baseline audit of a full funding
grant agreement project?
Answer. The OIG has indicated to FTA that there are no specific
factors that trigger an audit. Departmental and Congressional inquiries
are given priority. The OIG attempts to survey projects on a continuing
basis to see if any emerging issues such as large cost increases or
lengthy schedule delays may indicate vulnerabilities.
JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE CONNUTE GRANTS
Question. Please provide a funding history table for the Job Access
and Reverse Commute grant program, showing the guaranteed firewall TEA-
21 funding level for each fiscal year in the authorization, the
administration's funding request (and source of additional funds), and
the enacted funding level for the program.
Answer. The following table provides a funding history table for
the Job Access and Reverse Commute grant program:
JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS FUNDING HISTORY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteed
Fiscal year funding Budget request Enacted level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................................................ $50,000 \1\ $100,000 \1\ $75,000
2000............................................................ 75,000 \2\ 150,000 75,000
2001............................................................ 100,000 \2\ 150,000 ( \3\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to TEA-21 Reauthorization.
\2\ RABA funds requested as source of additional funds.
\3\ Pending.
Question. What is the length of availability of federal funds made
available as grant awards under the Job Access and Reverse Commute
program?
Answer. As authorized in TEA-21, Job Access and Reverse Commute
funds are available until expended. However, FTA has urged that
projects be submitted that can be quickly implemented. The fiscal year
2000 notice states that project readiness is a factor to be considered
in awarding grants and that applicants must be able to implement a
project preferably within six months of award, but no longer than one
year after selection.
Question. Have all the fiscal year 1999 Access to Jobs funds been
obligated? If not, why not?
Answer. As of March 31, 2000, FTA had obligated $46.5 million of
the $70.8 million designated for selected projects in fiscal year 1999.
This represents 125 out of 191 selected projects. Causes of delays in
finalizing applications included meeting FTA standard grant
requirements, final securing of matching funds, and project scope
adjustments. These have all slowed applicants' progress in finalizing
grant applications. It must also be recognized that approximately half
of the projects involve non-traditional applicants who are dealing with
the FTA grant process and requirements for the first time.
Question. To what extent will DOT obligate all fiscal year 2000
Access to Jobs funds by the end of the fiscal year? What is the
timetable for selecting grantees for the discretionary program funding
(roughly $25,000,000) in fiscal year 2000? When will the FTA publish in
the Federal Register its selection of Job Access and Reverse Commute
awards for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. It is highly unlikely that FTA will have obligated all of
the fiscal year 2000 Job Access and Reverse Commute funds by the end of
the fiscal year. The national solicitation was issued on March 10, 2000
with proposals and applications due on May 9. The competitive projects
are expected to be selected and announced in the Federal Register in
early September. In cases where applicants submitted only proposals,
such applicants will then proceed to submit final applications
addressing FTA standard grant requirements. The two-step application
process is designed for new proposers. Applicants receiving
congressional earmarks or applicants seeking continued funding for
projects awarded in fiscal year 1999 will more likely submit a full
one-step application, and may be processed sooner.
Question. For the funds that it will receive in fiscal year 2001,
what are the Department's time frames for evaluating and awarding
additional grants?
Answer. FTA expects to solicit competitive projects within 30 days
of the enactment of the fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriation
for the Job Access and Reverse Commute program. Applicants will be
given 120 days to submit proposals and selections will be made within
120 days thereafter.
Question. How many applications did DOT receive in the fiscal year
1999 grant cycle? How much in requested funds is represented by these
applications? How many applications did DOT receive in the fiscal year
2000 grant cycle? How much in requested funds is represented by these
applications?
Answer. DOT received proposals for 266 projects in fiscal year
1999. These proposals requested a total of $108 million. Since fiscal
year 2000 proposals are due by May 9, 2000, DOT does not yet know the
number of proposals that will be received.
Question. Please clarify the response on page 489 of Senate hearing
106-221 regarding the use of Job Access and Reverse Commute program
funds to help individuals purchase cars.
Answer. Last year, we reported that FTA could not assist in the
purchase of automobiles reserved for individuals' personal and private
use. However, automobiles could be acquired by qualified public and
non-profit organizations as long as they were used for ridesharing or
other public transportation uses. The agency receiving the grant must
have continuing control of the vehicle to ensure that the purposes of
the grant are carried out in accordance to the provisions of the Act.
FTA recently reviewed this situation with regard to a specific
congressional earmark in the Job Access and Reverse Commute program.
FTA determined that funding loan programs to assist in the purchase of
an automobile is eligible as long as the recipient agency enters into a
contractual arrangement with the individual being assisted to ensure
that the vehicle is tied to a public transportation purpose. FTA's
determination is specific to this congressional earmark and is not
intended to encourage the use of limited FTA funding for this purpose.
Question. Given the gap between transit services in smaller
communities and the need for transportation for welfare-to-work
programs, would the Federal Transit Administration support a new
program to fund car-based initiatives where transit resources are
scarce or non-existent?
Answer. Generally FTA believes that the limited funds for this
program should be used to support mass transportation activities. FTA
believes that there are other sources of federal funds that are more
appropriate for funding car based initiatives such as the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding. The TANF program is funded
at $16.5 billion annually.
use of temporary assistance to needy families (tanf) funds
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 grant cycle for Job Access and
Reverse Commute grants, what percentage of local matching funds was
provided by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program
funds?
Answer. TANF funds were commonly used as matching funds. DOT is in
the process of gathering this information and will make it available as
soon as the information is collected.
Question. What problems have been experienced by Job Access and
Reverse Commute grant recipients in securing TANF and other federal
funds to be used for matching purposes? How has FTA assisted grant
recipients in resolving these problems?
Answer. Job access applicants have had timing problems in securing
the match. When Job Access and Reverse Commute grants were announced in
May 1999, some expected TANF matching funds had been reallocated to
other purposes since the end of the fiscal year was fast approaching in
many states. Additionally, some state human resource departments have
resisted the new flexibility to use TANF funding for new service
development. DOT has worked with the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) and the Department of Labor (DOL) to develop guidance
on the use of TANF and other Federal funds. This guidance is currently
being updated and will be reissued shortly.
More efforts are needed to clarify how TANF can be used for
transportation purposes. FTA is working with the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), the Community Transportation
Association of America (CTAA), the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) and the Association for
Commuter Transportation (ACT) in implementing an aggressive technical
assistance program to help applicants and grantees. FTA is planning to
hold a series of technical assistance regional conferences where the
use of TANF will be addressed by the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS). This subject will be addressed additionally at a
national employment transportation conference in June 2000.
Question. What problems have been experienced at the State level in
making TANF dollars available? What role has FTA played with the States
in resolving these problems?
Answer. As mentioned above, some state and local agencies seeking
to use TANF funding have found state budget or human service offices
resistant to the use of TANF funding to develop transportation
services. These agencies believe that TANF funding must be directly
tied to individuals being assisted under the TANF program and want an
individual-by-individual accounting of funding expenditures. New TANF
guidance does not require this when TANF funds are used to pay for the
start-up and operating cost of new service. DOT and DHHS are working
together to clarify further to states and local human service agencies
the flexibility that they have in applying TANF funds to the
development of new services. FTA is also meeting with AASHTO to work
together along with DHHS staff to resolve these issues.
Question. Are there advantages to using Social Services Block
Grants as matching funds for the JARC program rather than TANF dollars?
How could this process be improved?
Answer. At one time, there was an advantage to transferring TANF
funds to Social Service Block Grants (SSBG) because SSBG funds did not
impose time limits for individuals who received these funds and did not
require an individual tracking system as did TANF. New TANF funding
rules have largely reduced these advantages since tracking is not
associated with new service development and individuals receiving TANF
funding for transportation purposes alone do not trigger time limits.
FORMULA GRANTS
Question. Please provide a table displaying the state-by-state
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the program
categories for fiscal year 2001 (as shown on pages 490-491 of Senate
hearing 106-221). Please add a column to the far right of the table
that expresses each state's share of the formula grants program as a
percentage of the total program.
Answer. The following table provides a state-by-state distribution
of formula program funds:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2001 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS
[By State]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 elderly and Total formula State
State urbanized non-urbanized persons with programs percent of
area area disabilities total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................. $13,046,848 $4,974,114 $1,363,957 $19,384,919 0.59
Alaska.............................. \1\ 7,433,414 741,748 197,821 8,372,983 0.26
American Samoa...................... .............. 105,722 52,867 158,589 ..........
Arizona............................. 33,260,503 2,177,536 1,200,201 36,638,240 1.12
Arkansas............................ 5,119,390 3,976,597 946,967 10,042,954 0.31
California.......................... 482,887,208 9,705,577 7,477,863 500,070,648 15.27
Colorado............................ 37,142,854 2,071,753 926,429 40,141,036 1.23
Connecticut......................... 52,359,019 1,879,275 1,064,511 55,302,805 1.69
Delaware............................ 6,122,420 468,834 308,825 6,900,079 0.21
District of Columbia................ 27,169,899 .............. 306,385 27,476,284 0.84
Florida............................. 146,712,613 6,239,173 5,039,527 157,991,313 4.83
Georgia............................. 51,231,289 7,272,683 1,774,590 60,278,562 1.84
Guam................................ .............. 300,966 134,536 435,502 0.01
Hawaii.............................. 25,780,183 816,248 398,306 26,994,737 0.82
Idaho............................... 3,072,028 1,646,756 408,081 5,126,865 0.16
Illinois............................ 206,007,568 6,672,281 3,250,600 215,930,449 6.59
Indiana............................. 32,873,659 6,445,272 1,695,963 41,014,894 1.25
Iowa................................ 9,360,438 4,145,662 1,019,530 14,525,630 0.44
Kansas.............................. 7,996,681 3,297,743 851,478 12,145,902 0.37
Kentucky............................ 17,131,642 5,443,854 1,306,330 23,881,826 0.73
Louisiana........................... 27,667,179 4,502,461 1,310,621 33,480,261 1.02
Maine............................... 2,203,751 2,172,613 515,251 4,891,615 0.15
Maryland............................ 75,972,090 2,712,403 1,316,914 80,001,407 2.44
Massachusetts....................... 115,219,238 2,906,872 1,905,644 120,031,754 3.67
Michigan............................ 62,637,557 7,872,306 2,778,229 73,288,092 2.24
Minnesota........................... 29,392,604 4,530,057 1,335,764 35,258,425 1.08
Mississippi......................... 4,618,496 4,420,748 919,424 9,958,668 0.30
Missouri............................ 33,532,798 5,276,351 1,720,175 40,529,324 1.24
Montana............................. 2,324,606 1,334,002 372,751 4,031,359 0.12
Nebraska............................ 8,078,023 2,012,840 594,428 10,685,291 0.33
Nevada.............................. 18,703,029 657,162 437,100 19,797,291 0.60
New Hampshire....................... 3,256,965 1,739,992 411,825 5,408,782 0.17
New Jersey.......................... 178,188,359 2,487,820 2,291,863 182,968,042 5.59
New Mexico.......................... 6,743,181 1,955,803 520,371 9,219,355 0.28
New York............................ 511,629,104 8,757,424 5,337,074 525,723,602 16.06
North Carolina...................... 26,423,807 9,302,971 2,020,953 37,747,731 1.15
North Dakota........................ 2,266,047 986,554 314,324 3,566,925 0.11
Northern Marianas................... .............. 97,974 52,619 150,593 ..........
Ohio................................ 86,171,474 9,471,071 3,393,254 99,035,799 3.02
Oklahoma............................ 10,888,938 4,048,785 1,124,568 16,062,291 0.49
Oregon.............................. 26,177,070 3,214,771 1,044,095 30,435,936 0.93
Pennsylvania........................ 140,326,812 10,565,079 4,072,337 154,964,228 4.73
Puerto Rico......................... 42,415,576 3,157,178 989,437 46,562,191 1.42
Rhode Island........................ 10,057,038 404,440 456,412 10,917,890 0.33
South Carolina...................... 10,959,566 4,656,183 1,086,351 16,702,100 0.51
South Dakota........................ 1,634,658 1,202,532 341,032 3,178,222 0.10
Tennessee........................... 21,984,782 6,010,601 1,614,124 29,609,507 0.90
Texas............................... 158,452,230 12,690,049 4,206,514 175,348,793 5.36
Utah................................ 19,572,743 911,586 483,564 20,967,893 0.64
Vermont............................. 821,531 1,075,168 278,448 2,175,147 0.07
Virgin Islands...................... .............. 230,121 137,109 367,230 0.01
Virginia............................ 60,835,448 5,328,980 1,679,979 67,844,407 2.07
Washington.......................... 82,706,220 3,733,949 1,504,629 87,944,798 2.69
West Virginia....................... 3,960,684 3,174,933 788,425 7,924,042 0.24
Wisconsin........................... 35,490,834 5,485,912 1,536,567 42,513,313 1.30
Wyoming............................. 1,135,107 767,267 233,859 2,136,233 0.07
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................... 2,987,155,201 208,236,752 78,850,801 3,274,242,754 100
Oversight........................... 15,010,830 1,046,416 .............. 16,057,246 ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 3,002,166,031 209,283,168 78,850,801 3,290,300,000 ..........
===========================================================================
Clean Fuels......................... .............. .............. .............. 50,000,000 ..........
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility..... .............. .............. .............. 4,700,000 ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total................... .............. .............. .............. 3,345,000,000 ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.
USE OF FUNDING FOR DUES AND TRAVEL
Question. Can Section 5307 or Section 5309 funds be used by
grantees to:
--pay dues to the American Public Transportation Association,
--pay for transit conference registration fees, or travel thereto,
--pay for consultants, lobbyists, or other representatives who
attempt to affect national or state legislation?
Answer. The following gives a brief explanation of Section 5307 and
5309 eligibility requirements:
--Under Section 5309, funds may be used for capital expenses but may
not be expended by grantees for association dues, conference
fees or travel, nor to pay for consultants or lobbyist
activities.
--Section 5307 funds to urbanized areas over 200,000 may not be used
for association fees, conference fees or travel, nor may it be
used to pay for consultants or lobbyist activities.
--Section 5307 funds to urbanized areas under 200,000 in population
and may be used for operating expenses. Thus:
(1) grantees can use Section 5307 funds to pay dues to the
American Public Transportation Association. In accordance with
OMB Circular A-87, APTA dues are an eligible expense.
--FTA allows payment of 85 percent of such dues from
Section 5307 funds.
--The other 15 percent of such dues were determined
by an audit to be an ineligible expense because they
were used exclusively for lobbying; and
(2) Grantees may use Section 5307 funds to pay for transit
conference registration fees or travel thereto.
--Neither Section 5307 nor Section 5309 funds may be used to pay for
consultants, lobbyists or other representatives who attempt to
affect national or state legislation.
CLEAN FUELS FORMULA PROGRAM
Question. Of the bus and bus related projects identified in the
fiscal year 2000 appropriations act, which specific projects would have
been eligible for funding under the clean fuels formula program?
(Please arrange this list by state, and note the amount provided for
each project in the appropriations bill.)
Answer. We cannot identify the specific projects in fiscal year
2000 that would have been eligible for the Clean Fuels Formula program.
Based on fiscal year 1999 data, where Clean Fuel Formula program funds
were earmarked under the Capital Investment bus category. The following
bus purchases (40', 35', 30', and less than 30' bus) were purchased
under the Section 5309 Bus program. The following chart shows the
majority were clean fueled:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buses
Bus propulsion purchased Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel........................................ 851 78.1
Gasoline...................................... 73 6.7
CNG/LNG/LPG................................... 147 13.5
Methanol/Ethanol.............................. ........... ...........
Electric...................................... 11 1.0
Other......................................... 7 0.6
-------------------------
Total................................... 1,089 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since clean diesel fuel buses are eligible under the clean fuels
formula program, conceivably any projects for the purchase of clean
diesel buses could also qualify. However, under the clean fuels formula
program formula, only 35 percent of the clean fuel formula funds may be
used for clean diesel buses. Therefore, under the clean fuels formula
program, each clean diesel project may have received a lower funding
level than through earmarking of bus capital funds.
OVER-THE-ROAD BUS ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM
Question. The transit cooperative research program (TCRP) has
performed an analysis of the over-the-road bus accessibility program,
which includes data on the total capital needs of operators, compliance
deadlines, and the current matching fund requirements. A report on this
analysis was due to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by
March 1, 2000. Has the report been completed? If so, please provide a
copy of the executive summary of the report for the record. If not,
please summarize the findings of this analysis.
Answer. Neither the report nor the findings of the analysis have
been completed. Data that will form the basis of the analysis is being
collected and it is expected that the report will be submitted to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees by May 31, 2000.
Question. Beginning in October 2000, Class I over-the-road bus
companies are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to
purchase lift-equipped buses, or to install a wheelchair lift in any
new buses which they purchase. The entire fleet of buses owned by these
companies must be accessible by 2012. What is the TEA-21 guaranteed
funding level for the over-the-road bus accessibility program for each
year of the authorization? Are there any other federal funding programs
under which these privately-owned companies could apply for assistance
in meeting this mandate?
Answer. The Over-The-Road Bus Accessibility Program is the only
federal funding program under which the privately owned companies can
apply for assistance in meeting the mandate. The guaranteed funding
levels (in millions) for the over-the-road bus accessibility program
for each year of the authorization are:
OVER-THE-ROAD BUS ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM GUARANTEED FUNDING LEVELS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All others
Fiscal year Intercity (e.g. charter Total
fixed-route and tour)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................................................ $2.00 .............. $2.00
2000............................................................ 2.00 $1.70 3.70
2001............................................................ 3.00 1.70 4.70
2002............................................................ 5.20 1.70 6.95
2003............................................................ 5.30 1.70 6.95
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 17.50 6.80 24.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a list of each award made in fiscal year
1999, the recipient, the amount of the award and the purpose of the
award. When are the fiscal year 2000 grant awards expected.
Answer. Ten projects were selected for funding in fiscal year 1999.
The projects, purposes and Federal dollar amounts are listed in the
table below. Grant applications were then completed and are being
processed by FTA. One grant was awarded for $1.1 million in fiscal year
1999. The fiscal year 2000 project selections should be announced by
FTA in July 2000.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION--OVER-THE-ROAD BUS FISCAL YEAR 1999 AWARDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Cost of Funds
lifts on lifts on No. of Cost of obligated
Region Agency new new retrofits retrofits Training Total in fiscal
vehicles vehicles year 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... Peter Pan Bus Lines, 1 $17,000 ......... ......... $84,000 $101,000 ..........
Springfield, MA.
2......................................... Shortline (Hudson Transit ........ .......... 6 $120,000 30,000 150,000 ..........
Bus), Mahwah, NJ.
2......................................... Adirondack Transit Lines, ........ .......... 6 120,000 30,000 150,000 ..........
Kingston, NY.
3......................................... Capitol Bus (Capitol 6 92,293 ......... ......... 10,000 102,293 ..........
Trailways of PA )
Harrisburg, PA.
3......................................... Carl R. Beiber Tourways, 4 60,000 3 60,000 10,000 130,000 ..........
Kutztown, PA.
3......................................... Frank Martz Coach, Wilkes 3 45,000 ......... ......... 9,454 54,545 ..........
Barre, PA.
5......................................... Jefferson Lines, 7 95,280 ......... ......... 12,000 107,280 ..........
Minneapolis, MN.
5......................................... Peoria Charter Coach, ........ .......... 1 16,000 1,250 17,250 ..........
Peoria, IL.
6......................................... Greyhound, Ft. Worth, TX.... 58 1,015,000 ......... ......... 41,707 1,056,707 $1,056,707
7......................................... Burlington Trailways, West 6 81,000 ......... ......... 10,000 91,000 ..........
Burlington, IA.
10........................................ Northwest Stage, Spokane, WA 2 29,925 ......... ......... .......... 29,925 ..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... .......................... 87 1,435,498 16 316,000 238,411 1,990,000 1,056,707
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METROPOLITAN AND STATEWIDE PLANNING
Question. Please provide a table displaying the formula
apportionments to States and MPOs for the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001 Metropolitan and State Planning Funds.
Answer. Funds for the MPOs, the Metropolitan Planning program, are
apportioned by formula to the states for state distribution (by state
formulas) to the MPOs. The table below shows the actual apportionment
to the States for fiscal year 2000 for the Metropolitan and for the
State Planning programs. The fiscal year 2001 apportionments are based
on the guaranteed funding level for these programs for fiscal year
2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5303 Section 5313(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning Statewide planning
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Actual Actual
apportionment Guaranteed apportionment Guaranteed
fiscal year funding fiscal fiscal year funding fiscal
2000 year 2001 2000 year 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................... $434,813 $456,460 $113,592 $119,192
Alaska.......................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Arizona......................................... 790,795 830,166 163,970 172,054
Arkansas........................................ 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
California...................................... 8,463,459 8,884,840 1,572,168 1,649,677
Colorado........................................ 645,896 678,052 146,797 154,034
Connecticut..................................... 580,320 609,211 151,605 159,078
Delaware........................................ 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
District/Col.................................... 267,707 281,035 51,875 54,432
Florida......................................... 2,706,938 2,841,705 628,325 659,300
Georgia......................................... 958,264 1,005,971 201,301 211,224
Hawaii.......................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Idaho........................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Illinois........................................ 2,900,719 3,045,133 523,440 549,244
Indiana......................................... 704,204 739,263 166,235 174,430
Iowa............................................ 222,764 233,854 58,196 61,064
Kansas.......................................... 257,521 270,342 62,884 65,984
Kentucky........................................ 308,461 323,818 78,828 82,714
Louisiana....................................... 533,037 559,575 137,549 144,329
Maine........................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Maryland........................................ 1,152,512 1,209,890 221,105 232,005
Massachusetts................................... 1,405,704 1,475,688 292,035 306,431
Michigan........................................ 1,810,929 1,901,088 358,838 376,528
Minnesota....................................... 735,337 771,946 146,372 153,588
Mississippi..................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Missouri........................................ 813,010 853,487 171,795 180,264
Montana......................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Nebraska........................................ 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Nevada.......................................... 215,306 226,025 56,247 59,020
New Hampshire................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
New Jersey...................................... 2,461,011 2,583,534 409,281 429,457
New Mexico...................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
New York........................................ 4,997,493 5,246,297 871,467 914,428
North Carolina.................................. 593,830 623,394 155,134 162,782
North Dakota.................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Ohio............................................ 1,710,750 1,795,921 410,974 431,234
Oklahoma........................................ 320,052 335,987 83,612 87,733
Oregon.......................................... 359,506 377,404 87,669 91,990
Pennsylvania.................................... 2,218,797 2,329,261 444,961 466,897
Rhode Island.................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
South Carolina.................................. 337,161 353,947 88,081 92,423
South Dakota.................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Tennessee....................................... 524,150 550,245 136,931 143,681
Texas........................................... 3,373,131 3,541,065 702,076 736,686
Utah............................................ 311,831 327,355 81,464 85,480
Vermont......................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Virginia........................................ 1,109,510 1,164,748 236,432 248,088
Washington...................................... 884,320 928,346 198,465 208,249
West Virginia................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Wisconsin....................................... 619,141 649,965 152,162 159,663
Wyoming......................................... 198,569 208,454 51,875 54,432
Puerto Rico..................................... 538,076 564,864 131,205 137,673
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 49,642,128 52,113,600 10,374,946 10,886,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH
Question. Please provide a list by activity and amount of the
earmarks contained in TEA-21 that must be administered under the FTA's
transit planning and research account in fiscal year 2001. Are there
any TEA-21 project earmarks under the national research and technology
program for fiscal year 2001?
Answer.
Earmarks Contained in TEA-21 Administered under the FTA's Transit
Planning and Research Account in Fiscal Year 2001
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2001
Activity Amount
Metropolitan Planning......................................... 52,114
Statewide Planning and Research............................... 10,886
Transit Cooperative Research Program.......................... 8,250
National Transit Institute.................................... 4,000
Rural Transit Assistance Program.............................. 5,250
National Research and Technology.............................. 29,500
SEPTA Advanced Propulsion Control........................\1\ [3,000]
Project ACTION...........................................\1\ [3,000]
\1\ These projects are earmarked in TEA-21.
The SEPTA Advanced Propulsion Control project and Project ACTION
must be administered under the national research and technology program
for fiscal year 2001.
Question. If FTA had a constrained budget for the national research
and technology program, how would the agency allocate non-TEA-21
mandated programs with a discretionary allowance of $12,000,000?
Answer. FTA has requested $23,500,000 for non-TEA-21 mandated
programs in fiscal year 2001. If only $12,000,000 were made available
for use at FTA's discretion, we would allocate it to the following non-
TEA-21 programs, as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program 2001 Constrained
request level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.2. National Transit Database................ 2,500 2,500
1.5.1. Safety & Security Training (includes 1,300 1,300
Transportation Safety Institute).............
1.1.1. Grade Crossing Safety.................. 750 750
1.5.5.2. SAMIS................................ 400 400
1.5.5.3. Drug and Alcohol Testing Information 1,000 1,000
System (DAMIS)...............................
1.5.6. Safety & Security Clearinghouse and Web 200 200
Site.........................................
1.5.13. Transit Accident Causal Factors....... 300 300
1.4. Implementation of FTA Safety Task Force 1,000 1,000
Recommendations..............................
1.5.10. Joint Use/Safety Certification........ 200 200
1.5.2. Safety & Security Training Course 200 200
Development..................................
1.5.3. Drug and Alcohol Testing: Updated 250 250
guidelines and newsletters...................
1.5.12. Safety & Security Preparedness 200 200
Planning and Drills..........................
1.5.11. Safety Awareness Outreach............. 200 200
1.5.9. Fire Materials Testing................. 100 100
4.6. National Rural Transportation Assistance 750 750
Program......................................
5.2. FTA Internet Website..................... 200 200
4.1. Job Access Support and Study............. 250 250
7.5. Financial Planning....................... 200 200
3.3.4. BRT Project Administration............. 600 600
6.1. Transit Conditions, Performance and Needs 200 200
7.2. New Starts Planning and Project 550 550
Development..................................
3.3.2. BRT Data Collection & Analysis......... 500 500
2.5.1.3. Transit Construction Roundtable...... 80 80
6.3. Innovative Financing..................... 200 70
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 12,130 12,000
=========================
7.1. Transportation Planning and Programming.. 750 ...........
3.3.1. BRT Design & Operational Parameters, 300 ...........
Impacts......................................
8.1. Support for Title VI/Environmental 400 ...........
Justice......................................
6.5. Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey 500 ...........
7.3. Land Use and Environmental Planning...... 200 ...........
3.3.6. BRT: Professional Development 200 ...........
Workshops--Design, Vehicle Systems, Services,
System.......................................
9.3. Program Evaluation and Strategic Planning 200 ...........
(GPRA).......................................
7.4. Planning Methods......................... 500 ...........
3.3.3. BRT Systems Integration Workshop....... 250 ...........
6.4. Global Climate Change.................... 500 ...........
3.3.5. BRT: Technology Transfer............... 200 ...........
6.2. Benefits of Transit...................... 100 ...........
3.3.7. BRT: Lessons Learned Workshop.......... 150 ...........
5.3 Documentation and TRB Support............. 200 ...........
5.1.Computer Automation....................... 400 ...........
2.5.1.1. Turnkey Demonstration Program........ 400 ...........
2.1.1. Advanced Technology Buses: Small Heavy- 1,820 ...........
Duty Bus and Advanced Bus Technologies.......
2.4.1. Rail Communications-Based Subsystem 1,000 ...........
Deployment...................................
8.2. Garrett A. Morgan Trans. Tech. Program... 200 ...........
10.1.International Mass Transportation 500 ...........
Program: Technical Assistance and Training...
2.3.1. Hybrid Propulsion System Development 2,000 ...........
and Deployment...............................
9.1. National Transit GIS..................... 200 ...........
5.4. Small Business Innovative Research....... 400 ...........
-------------------------
Total................................... 23,500 12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL RESEARCH EARMARKS
Question. Please explain the difference between enacted funding
levels for congressionally designated national planning and research
projects in Public Law 106-69 and the fiscal year 2000 funding levels
displayed for these projects in the 2001 budget justification.
Answer. Section 301(a) of the fiscal year 2000 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-113) rescinded discretionary budget
authority Government-wide. To accommodate the reduced budget authority,
FTA reduced funding levels for congressionally designated national
planning and research projects, other than those dealing with Safety
and Security, by 1.15 percent.
Question. For each of the congressionally designated programs and
projects in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill under ``Transit
Planning and Research'', please note when the grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement was released and note who the official grantee
agency or entity is in each case.
Answer. The official recipient for each project and release dates
are indicated in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Programs and activities 2000 amount Release date Official recipient
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit Cooperative Research Program...... $8,250,000 Not yet released..... National Academy of Sciences/
TRB.
National Transit Institute................ 4,000,000 Not yet released..... Rutgers University
National Research and Technology:
Zinc-air battery bus technology 988,492 Not yet released..... Electric Fuel Corporation.
demonstration.
Washoe County, Nevada transit 1,235,616 Not yet released..... Regional Transportation
technology. Commission of Washoe County.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation 1,482,739 Not yet released..... Massachusetts Bay
Authority advanced electric transit Transportation Authority.
buses and related infrastructure.....
Palm Springs, California fuel cell 988,492 4/5/2000............. SunLine Transit.
buses.
Gloucester, Massachusetts intermodal 1,482,739 Not yet released..... Massachusetts Bay
technology center. Transportation Authority.
Southeastern Pennsylvania 2,965,477 Not yet released..... Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority advanced Transportation Authority.
propulsion control system............
Project ACTION........................ 2,965,477 4/10/2000............ Easter Seals Project Action.
Advanced transportation and 3,212,600 4/6/2000............. Westart-CALSTART, Inc.
alternative fuel technology
consortium (CALSTART)................
Hennepin County community 988,492 Not yet released..... Hennepin County Regional
transportation, Minnesota. Railroad Authority
Electric vehicle information sharing 741,369 Not yet released..... Chattanooga Area Transit
and technology transfer program. Authority.
Portland, Maine independent 494,246 2/29/2000............ Independent Transportation
transportation network. Network.
Wheeling, WV mobility study........... 247,124 Not yet released..... Ohio Valley Regional
Transportation Authority.
International program................. 988,492 Not yet released..... To be determined.
Transit Safety and Security Training.. 1,200,000 3/13/2000............ Transportation Safety
Institute.
Safety and security programs.......... 4,250,000 Not yet released..... Various recipients.
Santa Barbara Electric Transit 494,246 Not yet released..... Santa Barbara Electric
Institute. Transit Institute.
Pittsfield economic development 1,334,465 Not yet released..... Pittsfield Economic
authority electric bus program. Development Authority.
Citizens for modern transit, Missouri. 296,548 Not yet released..... East-West Gateway
Coordinating Council.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Why is FTA requesting bill language that provides
$750,000 from the national research and technology program to the Rural
Transportation Assistance Program, which already has a guaranteed
funding level of $5,250,000?
Answer. Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP) includes
$5.25 million in guaranteed funding distributed by formula. In
addition, historically FTA has funded a national component of $750,000
from National Research funding. The $5.25 million is apportioned to all
states using the Nonurbanized Area Formula Grants program formula. The
$750,000 was used to fund the national portion of RTAP that supports
rural operators by providing technical assistance and training. In
fiscal year 2000, the available funding that was unearmarked in the
National Research Program was insufficient to permit funding of the
national portion of RTAP. Thus, FTA set aside 10 percent of the RTAP
program funding to fund the national component of the program at a
reduced level of $525 thousand. The result was that both the grant and
national portions were reduced. Our proposal for bill language is
intended to ensure that both portions of RTAP, crucial to rural public
transportation, are funded at historic and statutory required levels.
SAFETY AND SECURITY ACTIVITIES
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $6,100,000 for safety
and security activities and products in fiscal year 2001. Please
reproduce the funding breakout table on page 150 of the justification,
noting the priority order of each of the 13 activities planned for
fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The table listing the priority of the fiscal year 2001
safety and security activities follows.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Program: FTA 1 Safety and Security year 2001 Priority
amount order
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Activities and Products
1. Safety and Security:
A. Technology................................. 1,750 .........
1.1 Railroad Grade Crossing Safety:
1.1.1. Grade Crossing Safety: 750 2
Operational test and evaluation......
1.4 Implementation of FTA Safety Task 1,000 7
Force Recommendations....................
B. Training and Technical Assistance.......... 4,350 .........
1.5.1. Safety & Security Training 1,300 1
(includes Transportation Safety
Institute)...............................
1.5.2. Safety & Security Training Course 200 9
Development..............................
1.5.3. Drug and Alcohol Testing: Updated 250 10
guidelines and newsletters...............
1.5.5.2 SAMIS............................. 400 3
1.5.5.3. Drug and Alcohol Testing 1,000 4
Information System (DAMIS)...............
1.5.6. Safety & Security Clearinghouse and 200 5
Web Site.................................
1.5.9 Fire Materials Testing.............. 100 13
1.5.10 Joint Use/Safety Certification..... 200 8
1.5.11 Safety Awareness Outreach.......... 200 12
1.5.12 Safety & Security Preparedness 200 11
Planning and Drills......................
1.5.13. Transit Accident Causal Factors... 300 6
---------------------
Total Budget Authority.................. 6,100 .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Of the activities requested within the safety and
security area, which are directly supported by or in response to NTSB
recommendations?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, FTA will undertake implementation of
recommendations resulting from the congressionally mandated review of
the National Transit Database and its component safety and security
data. The NTSB's recommendations regarding the development of accident
causal data will be addressed as part of that activity. In addition,
NTSB's recommendations concerning materials toxicity and flammability
will be addressed in phase II of a project to improve fire safety
standards for interior materials of transit vehicles.
RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING ACTIVITIES
Question. How is FTA's railroad grade crossing technology
demonstration and evaluation program coordinated with similar efforts
by the Federal Railroad Administration? Please list technologies that
have been tested or deployed by this program in the past two years, and
those technologies that FTA intends to explore with the fiscal year
2001 funding.
Answer. The FTA coordinates its grade crossing activities through
the USDOT Highway Rail Grade Crossing Team, an intermodal team of
professionals from the FTA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, and NHTSA that was formed
as the Department's response to the tragic grade crossing accident in
Fox River Grove, Illinois, in the early 1990's. This team meets
periodically to discuss and share information on innovative grade
crossing technologies and outreach initiatives to enhance safety along
the Nation's highway grade crossings. The following table lists grade
crossing technologies that have been evaluated during the past two
years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project No. and title Abstract Grantee and/or consultants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA-03-7001, Four Quadrant Gated Grade Evaluate design and operational standards/ Massachusetts Bay Area
Crossing. safety enhancements for commuter rail Transportation Authority.
grade crossings. Demonstrate use of four
quadrant gates with vehicle detection
system at commuter rail grade crossing..
MD-26-7024, Second Train Coming Warning Develop & evaluate use of active 2nd train Mass Transportation
Sign. warning sign for motorists at light rail Administration,
grade crossings. The warning sign will Baltimore, MD.
alert motorists who are stopped at the
crossing that a second high-speed train
is coming from the opposite direction..
CA-26-7017 Second Train Coming Warning Develop & evaluate use of graphic 2nd Los Angeles County
Sign. train sign for pedestrians at rail grade Metropolitan
crossings. This project is in conjunction Transportation Authority.
with MD-26-7024, and will include field
study of an active warning sign..
CA-26-7010, Assessment of Left Turn Field test and technical studies to Los Angeles County
Crossing Gates for LRT. investigate left turn railroad crossing Metropolitan
gated for light rail transit (LRT) grade Transportation Authority.
crossings. Field test to include
evaluation of track area vehicle
detection systems..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2001, the FTA intends to explore the integration of
advanced intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies at
highway-rail intersections (HRI) along light rail and rapid rail lines.
A USDOT ITS-HRI team has been convened and is developing strategies for
deployment of advanced grade crossing safety technologies. The FTA has
also identified a number of potential projects for fiscal year 2001.
--Train Approach Warning at Stations.--Sacramento Regional Transit
District: Since the light rail system began operation in 1986
there have been 32 collisions between pedestrians and light
rail vehicles. Nineteen of the incidents have occurred in the
immediate vicinity of light rail stations. Almost all of these
incidents have involved persons whose judgement was impaired by
drugs, alcohol, physical disability, emotional disability, or
developmental disability. The diminished ability to quickly
detect or avoid harm cannot entirely be ruled out as causal
factors in these incidents. The annunciation of the approach of
a train may provide the additional information necessary for
people to recognize the hazard or extra time to move out of the
path of travel. This project will involve the installation of
visual and audible warning devices in the station areas that
would activate in advance of the train warning. They need to be
easily accessed and understood by the disabled community. These
devices will utilize Train to Wayside communication to prompt
the station annunciation.
--Advanced Four Quadrant Gate Detection with In-Cab Alert Systems.--
LACMTA: This project will consist of a four quadrant gate
system with vehicle detection and an in-cab alert system that
would inform the train operator if a motorist was stopped or
stalled on the tracks at the Greenleaf Boulevard crossing in
the City of Compton, California. Most recently, there was a
tragic collision at this crossing that resulted in six
fatalities. Although the crossing is equipped with photo
enforcement camera equipment, it is clear that additional
improvements are needed if collisions are to be eliminated at
this crossing. Upon receiving an alarm in the cab with a
vehicle stopped on the tracks, the operator would start braking
and slowing the train with the intent of avoiding a collision.
The in-cab alert system would be particularly beneficial for
crossings where the visibility for train operators is limited
because of curves in the track geometry, obstructions at
crossings, bad weather conditions, and operations at night or
at crossings where there is insufficient street lighting. This
project has elements that duplicate the Los Angeles County
Transportation Authority's (LACMTA) four quadrant gate project
currently under evaluation and other four quadrant gate
projects being done elsewhere. However, it is significantly
different because of the in-cab alert system being proposed
plus differences in the street geometry and traffic conditions
at the Greenleaf Boulevard crossing.
--Magnetic Pedestrian Gates.--Los Angeles County Transportation
Authority (LACMTA): A second proposed project, targeted only
for pedestrians, is the installation and evaluation of a
magnetic pedestrian gate. Recently, the Metro Blue Line has
experienced a high number of pedestrian related accidents. Most
of these accidents have occurred in the corridor where LRTs
operate at speeds of up to 55MPH and share the corridor with
the Union Pacific freight railroad. This system when installed
at the demonstration location will provide a positive barrier
to control pedestrian traffic across the tracks. As a train
approaches the crossing, an alarm will sound followed by the
gate closing to prevent pedestrians from crossing the tracks,
and at the same time open an escape path allowing pedestrians
already in the track area to safely exit. Once the train passes
the crossing, the gate will automatically open giving access to
the pedestrian walkway. This type of a system has the potential
of being more effective than passive and even active warning
signs because it requires a conscious effort on the part of
pedestrians to ignore and circumvent the gate.
The resurgence of light rail transit and popularity of commuter
railroads across the United States brings concerns related to highway-
rail intersection safety that are shared by safety professionals and
planners. As more and more transit agencies begin new operations and
reenergize existing systems in mixed traffic corridors, the issue of
how to safely commingle the different transportation modes becomes
important and requires urgent attention. Although the behavior of some
motorists and pedestrians at grade crossings is incomprehensible,
transit agencies are implementing measures that go above and beyond
industry standards to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities
that occur at rail crossings. The projects briefly described above have
the potential of reducing these types of accidents thus decreasing the
number of injuries and fatalities and meeting the FTA and USDOT
strategic goals on safety.
Question. The Committee is aware of FTA's and FRA's joint work on
developing agency policy on shared use of the general railway system by
conventional railroads and transit systems. Please outline the status
of this policy's development, summarize the principle issues and
questions, and describe how the requested funds would be spent.
Answer. There has been extensive discussion in the transit industry
with regard to the construction and operation of light rail transit
systems on railroad rights-of-way. This concept of ``shared use'' or
``shared corridor'' involves use of an owner railroad's land as
differentiated from ``shared track'' in which instance transit vehicles
are operated on a portion of the general railroad system.
The safety concerns relevant to transit vehicles operating on
exclusive tracks but adjacent and parallel to railroad tracks are
minimal compared to shared track operations in which circumstance it is
necessary to maintain absolute physical separation between vastly
disparate vehicles (railroad locomotives and freight cars versus light
weight, streetcar-like rail transit vehicles).
The principal, and perhaps singular, safety concern in shared
corridor is the possibility of a derailment which might result in the
intrusion of a railroad train, or transit vehicle, into the path of a
dissimilar train or vehicle. This circumstance is best addressed
through appropriate design of the transit alignment to minimize, if not
eliminate, the probability of any derailment intrusion.
To that end, FTA is directing that our Project Management Oversight
process assures that, insofar as shared corridor is concerned, risk
assessment and hazard analysis is performed and that the preliminary
engineering effort results in designs which are acceptable to the
transit agency, the owner railroad and the State Safety Oversight
agency. FTA is proposing to amend its State Safety Oversight rule to
require state oversight at the preliminary engineering stage, and
thereafter, of rail fixed guideway transit projects.
The public comment period for the FTA/FRA Statement of Joint Policy
and FRA's Statement of Agency Policy ended on February 17th. FTA is
currently reviewing comments on the Statement of Joint Policy and
expects that a final version will be released in the next few months.
Conclusions drawn from the public comments will, along with other
agency considerations, determine the course that FTA will undertake in
implementing this policy. The funds requested will be used to provide
technical assistance to transit agencies planning joint trackage and
shared corridor use. Compliance guidelines are now being developed for
these situations. FTA will assist with and encourage coordination
between local planning organizations, transit agencies and their
engineering consultants, involved owner railroads and the FTA's project
management oversight contractors and field engineering staff.
Additionally, FTA intends to undertake studies of signaling and
operational practices to enhance the safety of joint trackage
operations and design standards for intrusion detection or prevention
in shared corridor situations.
EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $8,300,000 for equipment
and infrastructure activities in fiscal year 2001. Please reproduce the
funding breakout table on page 157 of the justification, noting the
priority order of each of the 6 activities planned for fiscal year
2001. Are any of these projects earmarked in TEA-21?
Answer. Below is the funding breakout table noting the priority
order of each of the 6 activities planned for fiscal year 2001. Of
these activities the SEPTA Advanced Propulsion Control System project
is earmarked in TEA-21.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Schedule
------------------------------------
Program: FTA 5 Research and Fiscal year
Technology Program Support --------------------------- Priority
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key activities and products
2. Equipment & Infrastructure:
2.1. Bus Technology Development $6,000 $9,243 $3,820 ........
2.1.1. Advanced Technology ....... ....... 1,820 3
Buses: Small Heavy-Duty Bus
and Advanced Bus Technologies.
2.2.2. Palm Springs, CA Fuel 1,000 989 ....... ........
Cell Buses....................
2.3.1. Hybrid Propulsion System ....... ....... 2,000 5
Development and Deployment....
2.3.1. Santa Barbara Electric 500 494 ....... ........
Transportation Institute......
2.3.2. Advanced Transit Systems 1,500 3,213
& Electric Vehicle Program
CALSTART......................
2.3.3. MBTA Advanced Electric 1,500 1,483
Transit Buses & Related
Infrastructure................
2.3.4. Zinc Air Battery 1,500 989 ....... ........
Research......................
2.3.5. Electric Vehicle ....... 741 ....... ........
Information Sharing and
Technology Transfer Program...
2.3.6. Electric Vehicle ....... 1,334 ....... ........
Information Sharing and
Technology Transfer Program...
2.4. Rail Equipment and Systems 3,750 4,449 4,480 ........
2.4.1. Rail Communications- ....... ....... 1,000 4
Based Subsystem Deployment....
2.4.2. SEPTA Advanced 2,000 2,966 3,000 6
Propulsion Control System.....
2.4.3 Gloucester, MA Intermodal 1,500 1,483 ....... ........
Technology Center.............
2.4.4. Vegetation Control on 250 ....... ....... ........
Rail Rights-of-Way Survey.....
2.5.1.1. Turnkey Demonstration ....... ....... 400 2
Program.......................
2.5.1.3. Transit Construction ....... ....... 80 1
Roundtable....................
---------------------------
Total Budget Authority....... 9,750 13,692 8,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Is FTA on track to complete the turnkey demonstration
program in fiscal year 2001? What activities will be supported with the
$400,000 requested in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. FTA will continue project monitoring and evaluation
activities through 2003. Two of the five turnkey demonstration projects
are completed, and the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Line will open in April
of 2000. The remaining two projects will become operational in 2002
(Tren Urbano) and 2003 (BART extension to San Francisco International
Airport).
Since each of the three active Turnkey Demonstration Projects
exceed $1 billion in construction funds, there is justification to gain
technical knowledge outside the normal oversight process. This includes
monitoring, data collection, reporting, and evaluation. A minimum level
of contracted technical analysis effort for these tasks is estimated at
one professional person-year per year of the projects' implementation
schedule, plus a subsequent year for the evaluation of systems
operation in the cases of the San Juan and New Jersey projects.
Therefore the Turnkey Demonstration Program will require about $400,000
annually for documentation and evaluation. In addition, the Turnkey
Demonstration Program requires funds to conduct special studies on key
issues of concern to FTA and a related industry workshop. One example
of an outstanding issue is the level of engineering that must be
completed before a turnkey contract is awarded.
Question. How will FTA's rail communication-based subsystem
deployment program be coordinated with similar efforts by the Federal
Railroad Administration? Who are the participants in the Joint
Partnership Program?
Answer. Regarding coordination with the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), the FTA expects, as part of the rail
communication-based subsystem deployment program, to coordinate
technology development and deployment activities with FRA through joint
meetings, program reviews, and by leveraging similar FRA research,
development, and deployment efforts. The Transit Cooperative Research
Program (TCRP) is one mechanism currently used by FTA to coordinate
with similar efforts by FRA. For example, FTA is participating in TCRP
Project D-7--Joint Rail Transit Related Research with the Association
of American Railroad's Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI).
This project will benefit the transit industry by leveraging research
already being performed by the FRA at the TTCI in the areas of broken
rail detection, transit switch design evaluation, rail welding
techniques, and wheel/rail friction control techniques. FTA has
identified broken rail detection as one of the key areas where further
technology development is necessary for the widespread deployment of
Communication-based Train Control (CBTC) technology. FTA will continue
to seek other mechanisms to use in order to fully coordinate with FRA.
Regarding participants in the Joint Partnership Program (JPP), FTA
received thirty-one applications in response to a Federal Register
solicitation dated October 2, 1998. One of the highly ranked
applications was submitted by a team of Harmon Industries and the San
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). The application
proposed to develop technology in several key areas in order to
facilitate the widespread deployment of CBTC technology. These areas
are: broken rail detection using alternate technologies, silent train
detection, accurate programmed stop/train position technology
development, remote interface development, and development of advanced
control algorithms.
FTA intends to use the fiscal year 2001 funding to develop and
deploy advanced broken rail detection technology. In addition to BART
and Harmon, team members would include: Penn State University, Sandia
National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the
Texas Transportation Institute.
Question. What is the current status and cost to complete the
Georgetown University fuel cell bus program?
Answer. In 1997, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program
was scaled back to develop only two fuel cell buses, one with a
phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) and one with a proton exchange
membrane fuel cell (PEMFC). This was a prudent decision at the time
since it was not clear which technology might better satisfy the
transit bus marketplace.
The PAFC bus development is complete. The fuel cell power plant was
fabricated, tested and integrated into a 40-foot Nova BUS platform.
Lockheed Martin Control Systems (LMCS) provided the power and
propulsion system (the same design that is being used on the hybrid-
electric buses in New York City). Emission testing of this vehicle will
take place in the spring of 2000, and the FTA plans to schedule a
congressional demonstration of the PAFC transit bus shortly thereafter.
The FTA has structured a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
Georgetown University (GU) to define the total program, schedule, end
products and funding requirements for the Fuel Cell Transit Bus
Program. It also includes the Intermodal Fuel Cell Transit Bus
Maintenance Facility so that the total Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program
activities are defined in a single document. The Fuel Cell Transit Bus
Program contains the following elements:
--A total of eight fuel cell transit buses (includes the two
currently completing development)
--Fuel cell power plants provided by up to two fuel cell vendors
--Remaining six fuel cell transit buses to be developed will be non-
hybrid (no batteries--200 kW fuel cell power plants)
--Testing and training at GU and at various transit agencies in
cooperation with the FTA.
The cost to complete the fuel cell transit bus program beyond the
$51 million in funding provided through fiscal year 2000 is $20.8
million.
Currently, all endeavors for transportation are now dedicated to
the PEMFC technology. This is being driven by industry support for
adapting PEMFC for automotive application. Fuel cell bus power plants
will scale the automotive fuel cells to bus requirements by coupling
the smaller units to increase power. FTA's first PEMFC bus employs two
DaimlerChrysler 50 kW automotive power plants to achieve the 100 kW
power level.
On a positive note, incorporating automotive technology should
greatly reduce the production cost of future bus fuel cells since
production levels will be much higher to meet the automotive demand.
One key lesson learned to date is that combining fuel cell and
battery technology into a hybrid configuration cannot meet the
commercial goals established for this program. Such buses are too heavy
and complex to satisfy the industry needs. Larger fuel cell power
plants are mandatory. Automotive power plants are now sized at 60 kW. A
non-hybrid 40-foot transit bus requires approximately 200 kW of power.
Although additional fuel cell stacks can be combined, non-recurring
engineering is needed to develop a responsive fuel processor to convert
the liquid methanol into the hydrogen-rich gas to feed the stacks.
There is interest within the Department of Defense to investigate
the use of fuel cells for Army land vehicle applications. The Tank
Automotive Command's National Automotive Center (NAC) funded a concept
study on the applicability of PEMFC power plants for various types of
Army trucks. The power levels of these vehicles are close to the fuel
cell power plants (200 kW) being developed for the next PEMFC bus. The
ability to operate on liquid fuel is paramount for military
applications although eventually a logistic military fuel (diesel or
JP-8) would have to be used. The NAC may be willing to participate in
the next fuel cell bus development to gain familiarity with the control
schemes and operation of this class of vehicle.
The 100 kW PEMFC power plant has been fabricated, tested and
integrated into a 40-foot Nova BUS platform. To our knowledge, this is
the largest PEMFC in the world that can operate on liquid fuel. In
January 2000, the bus was on exhibit just outside a hearing held by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to consider stringent new
emission standards for urban buses. At this time, the PEMFC power plant
is being tested for compatibility with other bus subsystems. Following
that, the bus will be sent to LMCS to fine-tune the electric drive
train. A public debut is planned for the American Public Transportation
Association Bus Technology Conference in Houston in May 2000.
The fuel cell power plants and the propulsion system are designed
to be integrated into any bus platform once the design and development
process is completed. The issue is a commitment from a fuel cell
manufacturer to manufacture and mass-produce the fuel cell transit
buses.
Two key factors are involved. First, the demand for fuel cell
transit buses will not exist until the transit agencies are assured
that the technology is viable and the buses meet the transit industry
requirements. This is the very reason that the MOA was structured to
produce sufficient vehicles to address this critical issue.
The current fuel cell vendors for the FTA program are XCELLSiS
(Daimler Chrysler majority owner) and International Fuel Cells
(division of United Technologies Corporation). Both are investing
millions of dollars to bring a fuel cell power plant to the automotive
marketplace. Daimler Chrysler is committed to producing a commercial
fuel cell bus by 2004. The FTA Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program will
incorporate multiple automotive fuel cell power plants to meet the
transit industry power requirements. Thus, bus power plants can be
built with the automotive economies of scale for production hardware.
However, it is still vital to develop and integrate these larger fuel
cell power plants into actual transit buses to address scale-up and
control issues, as well as to demonstrate resulting performance to the
transit community.
The projected acquisition costs of a fuel cell transit bus have yet
to be established but there are approaches to make realistic estimates.
First, it must be recognized that the rather small transit bus market
(3,000-4,000 vehicles per year) will not generate economies of scale
sufficient to drive cost reduction. Assuming that fuel cell buses
capture 10 percent of the transit bus market (a reasonable assumption
where transit agencies in air quality non-attainment areas may see this
technology as absolutely essential to meeting Federal or local
guidelines), then production numbers would be approximately 400 fuel
cell transit buses per year. This may seem a very small number, but it
is eight times more than the annual production rate of utility fuel
cell power plants.
The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) has
established a cost goal of approximately $50 per kW in automotive
production quantities. This would be cost competitive with current
internal combustion engines. If the fuel cell can be produced for $500
per kW (ten times greater then the PNGV goal), then a 200 kW power
plant would cost about $100,000. The electric drive train costs may add
another $40,000 to the total bus cost. The current diesel engine/
transmission combination costs about $65,000. If those cost projections
were attained, the acquisition cost premium of a fuel cell bus would be
$75,000. Thus a fuel cell bus would cost $325,000 versus approximately
$250,000 for a typical diesel bus.
The transit industry is buying thousands of Compressed Natural Gas
(CNG) transit buses to meet air quality standards. The CNG buses cost
about $320,000 and do not come close to the environmental benefits of
the fuel cell bus. It should be noted that DaimlerChrysler expects
manufacturing costs of fuel cell power plants to be less than those of
internal combustion engines based upon the manufacturing processes
involved. If true, the fuel cell bus acquisition cost could approach
that of today's diesel bus.
Question. What transit agencies are currently testing or have given
firm commitments to acquire the Georgetown University fuel cell/hybrid
electric buses?
Answer. There is insufficient experience to date with fuel cell
transit buses to convince any transit agency of the technology
readiness, operational benefits, or vehicle performance needed for
practical fleet implementation. Additional vehicles, demonstrations and
evaluations are absolutely essential to meet this objective. Several
agencies, including Chicago Transit Authority and SunLine Transit
Agency in Palm Springs, have expressed interest in the technology. They
are waiting to see the result of the non-hybrid (200 kW) fuel cell
transit bus development, the vehicle upon which procurement decisions
can be made. Towards that end, the Memorandum of Agreement with
Georgetown University established a Transit Review Committee (TRC)
comprised of interested transit agencies to review the Fuel Cell
Transit Bus Program. The objective of this review committee is to
ensure that fuel cell buses, maintenance and training satisfy the
operational requirements of the transit industry. Recommendations of
the TRC will help guide the Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program. The TRC
meets twice a year in conjunction with the APTA Annual Meeting and the
Bus Technology Conference.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT
Question. What is the total amount allocated to bus rapid transit
activities in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and planned for fiscal year
2001? What are the out-year costs associated with this program?
Answer. The table below indicates funds allocated to the BRT
program in fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and planned for fiscal
year 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Activity -----------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRT Design and Operational Parameters, Impacts.................. $150,000 .............. $300,000
BRT Data Collection & Analysis.................................. 250,000 .............. 500,000
BRT Systems Integration Workshop................................ 200,000 .............. 250,000
BRT Project Administration...................................... 500,000 .............. 600,000
BRT Technology Transfer......................................... 100,000 .............. 200,000
BRT Professional Development.................................... 200,000 .............. 200,000
BRT Lessons Learned Workshop.................................... 100,000 .............. 150,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology transfer of lessons learned and professional development
will continue to dominate the out-year costs through 2004. BRT projects
initially implemented in 2002 and 2003 will need to be monitored and
evaluated at least through 2004. As experience is gathered from these
projects and the important lessons learned are identified, this
information will be disseminated through BRT seminars, workshops and
reports. For example, BRT Professional Development will be enhanced
through knowledge gained regarding the cost and performance of specific
subsystem elements suitable for integration into a cohesive BRT system.
Findings from BRT demonstration projects and cross-cutting
documentation that compares multiple projects and draws general
conclusions will encourage replication of the BRT concept at other
sites. These information sources can be developed only after a BRT
project is implemented and operational. The lessons learned from BRT
projects implemented in 2002 and 2003 won't be fully documented until
2004.
Question. Were BRT demonstration projects selected and announced in
1999? Please list the selected agencies, and provide a brief
description of each BRT project and its associated schedule and budget.
What federal funding options are available to these projects? If the
projects have received discretionary federal funding in the past two
years, please note the amount of funding, when it was appropriated, and
the type of funding.
Answer. In 1999 seventeen sites were selected to participate in
FTA's BRT Program. Ten agencies were selected as demonstration sites,
and another seven agencies whose BRT projects were still in the concept
or early planning phase, were selected as other members of a BRT
Consortium. These projects could be funded through the New Starts
Program, the Bus Discretionary Program or the Formula Program.
Of the ten demonstration sites the Eugene-Springfield, Oregon site
has received Capital Investment Sec. 5309 Bus funding of $4.4 million
and $4.3 million in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000,
respectively. In addition, the Dulles Corridor, Virginia site has also
received Capital Investment, Sec. 5309 New Starts funding of $16.9
million and $24.5 million in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000,
respectively.
Descriptions of the ten demonstration sites follow:
Boston, MA.--The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's 3.8-
mile ``Silver Line'' on Washington Street will run to and through
downtown to the South Boston Piers and Logan Airport.
Status: Section A is expected to be completed in December 2002.
Section B is expected to be in construction this spring. Section C is
in the initial design phase with an expected completion date of
December 2008.
Charlotte, NC.--The City of Charlotte's Independence Corridor will
add to its exclusive busway in the median of Independence Boulevard.
This project potentially could be 13.5 miles long.
Status: The project is viewed as an element of a countywide, five-
corridor rapid transit system that should promote land use objectives
in addition to providing travel time savings. The approach is to plan
the entire corridor project with the Phase II busway project being
defined as part of the Major Investment Study (MIS) for the
Independence Boulevard transit corridor. The MIS process is currently
underway. A consultant team of both land-use and transportation experts
has been selected to prepare the MIS for the 13.5-mile corridor.
Contract negotiations are expected to be completed and work in the
corridor begun.
Cleveland, OH.--The Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation
Authority proposes to rebuild a 5.0-mile section of Euclid Avenue to
provide for exclusive transit lanes and a beautified avenue with
landscaping and transit shelters.
Status: Currently, the Euclid Corridor BRT is proceeding with the
preliminary engineering effort. It is expected that the project will
enter Final Design in July 2000 and begin construction in mid-2002.
Opening day for the Euclid Corridor BRT is scheduled to occur in 2005.
The environmental review process is being conducted in conjunction with
the preliminary engineering effort and an environmental finding is
expected to be issued in May 2000.
Dulles Corridor, VA.--The Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation proposes BRT as an intermediate phase to the extension
of Metrorail in this 22-mile corridor. BRT would operate mainly on the
Dulles Airport Access Road stopping at median stations which would be
converted to rail stations.
Eugene-Springfield, OR.--The Lane Transit District proposes to
implement BRT in a variety of exclusive lane configurations on a 10-
mile pilot corridor in Eugene and Springfield.
Status: Lane Transit District is pursuing an east-west pilot
corridor in Eugene-Springfield. The pilot corridor has been divided
into three phases for planning, engineering and public involvement
efforts. Phase 1 will operate between downtown Eugene and downtown
Springfield. Project planning and preliminary engineering for Phase 1
has been completed, and environmental review is currently underway.
Final approval of Phase 1 is anticipated by late summer 2000, and
construction is scheduled for completion in late 2001 or 2002. Phase 2
extends west from downtown Eugene approximately 3 miles. Preliminary
engineering has begun for Phase 2 of the project, with environmental
review to follow late in 2000. Operation of Phase 2 is planned for
2003. Phase 3 extends east from downtown Springfield to Thurston
Station, a major park and ride facility. Planning and engineering work
for the final phase of the pilot corridor is expected to begin in 2001,
and be operational within 3 years.
Hartford-New Britain, CT.--The Connecticut Department of
Transportation has proposed a nine-mile, 12-station exclusive busway to
be built on active and inactive rail right of way.
Status: Currently the project is in the Environmental Impact Study
(EIS) phase. The EIS is being prepared to evaluate the environmental,
social and financial impacts of the busway. Through the EIS the
appropriate environmental approvals will be obtained. Also, the EIS is
being used as the informational tool to educate and gain the support of
the public.
Honolulu, HI.--The City and County of Honolulu has proposed a 12.6-
mile system called ``CityExpress!'' with limited bus stops through the
primary transportation corridor, using HOV lanes on Hawaii's H-1
freeway and downtown exclusive lane.
Status: CityExpress! started service in March 1999, initially
between the Kalihi Transit Center and the University of Hawaii. The
first day's ridership through this 6.8 mile route was about 1,300. In
August 1999, CityExpress! expanded service to Pearlridge, adding an
additional 6.0-miles to the route. Total travel time between Pearlridge
and the University of Hawaii was formerly approximately one hour and
twenty minutes; CityExpress! reduced this to forty-five minutes.
Average daily ridership grew from 2,463 in March 1999 to 5,238 in
December 1999. Daily weekday ridership generally exceeds 6,000. The
average monthly ridership in Phase I was 83,500 and increased in Phase
II to 126,500.
CityExpress! operates Monday through Saturday between 5:30 a.m. and
9:30 p.m. providing 8- to 10-minute headways between the Kalihi Transit
Center and the University of Hawaii. Between Pearlridge and the Kalihi
Transit Center, the service operates with 15- to 20-minute headways. A
traveler information system will be installed at selected CityExpress!
bus stops within the next few months. Signal prioritization capability
is being installed aboard CityExpress! buses and will operate at five
intersections along the route. Route map ``Spinners'' are being
installed at CityExpress! bus stops to provide additional route
information. Future phases will see CityExpress! expand beyond
Pearlridge.
Miami, FL.--Metro-Dade Transportation Authority (MDTA) will extend
its existing 8-mile, 15-station busway another eleven miles to Florida
City, adding 22 new stations.
Status: A Notice to Proceed has been issued to a consultant for a
work order on the ``Busway/Grade Separation Analysis for the Bus Rapid
Transit Demonstration Project''. The analysis will include a study of
three alternatives: an elevated structure, a depressed by-pass, and at-
grade with warning devices and signals, as well as the selection of an
intersection within Phase I of the project as the location for the
selected alternative to be implemented. Regarding the South Miami-Dade
Busway Extension to Florida City, the Florida Department of
Transportation is continuing with right-of-way acquisition for Segment
I. MDTA is working with Florida DOT and the County's Public Works
Department on traffic signal issues critical to maintaining essential
features of a BRT system, and a consultant has been assigned the task
of preparing a Project Management Plan.
San Juan, Puerto Rico.--The Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation
Authority (PRHTA) will operate fast shuttle service on a new 2.5-mile
Rio Hondo connector linking the Bayamon Tren Urbano Station and the Rio
Hondo Tren Urbano Plaza.
Status: PRHTA is working on Phase I of its work plan for
development of Tren Urbano Plaza/Bus Rapid Transit. The purpose of the
Phase I effort is to develop the plaza/BRT concept up to the beginning
of final design. Phase I efforts include demand analysis, traffic
engineering, operations planning, environmental impact assessment and
permitting, land acquisition, and preliminary engineering. Current work
is directed at refining the concept design for the plaza facility,
operations planning for privatized operations of the bus service and
plaza facilities, and traffic engineering for bus rapid transit
operations.
Santa Clara County, CA.--The Santa Clara County Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) will improve operations on its 27-mile-
long Line 22 in six cities: San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain
View, Palo Alto and Los Altos.
Status: Design is near completion on the first queue jump lanes (to
be constructed on El Camino Real in Palo Alto and Los Altos). VTA is
negotiating procurement of up to 40 articulated buses, to be delivered
in the next 2 to 3 years, and working with Caltrans regarding the
signal priority research project and other elements of research funded
through the University of California, Berkeley. VTA is also beginning
the definition of ITS elements specific to its fiscal year 2000 ITS
earmarked project. This may include signal priority implementation and
real-time information displays at bus stops.
Question. Please update last year's summary of the results of FTA's
bus rapid transit research thus far. Have you developed preliminary
scoping of the concept data, including cost per mile, land use
parameters, efficiency measurements, and cost of operation?
Answer. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program is progressing
essentially as we described in last year's summary. These projects will
require several years to implement. Data will then be collected on
their operation so that conclusions can be drawn about their
effectiveness and efficiency. The ten demonstration sites are at
various stages of final planning or initial construction. The seven
other Consortium members are moving toward defining and choosing
alternative BRT configurations and initial planning.
Since last year, the focus has been on strengthening the Consortium
as the primary means of sharing information and experience relating to
BRT activities among its members and initiating BRT research sponsored
by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). There have been two
successful workshops focusing on specific BRT issues for Consortium
members. The first involved BRT Vehicle issues and the second focused
on BRT image and marketing. At the second workshop, research results
were presented on internal and external design of buses and the
relationship between buses and support facilities (stops, stations and
terminals).
Workshops on BRT operational and infrastructure issues and fare
collection are planned for this year. These workshops have attracted
other cities that are interested in BRT and have resulted in several
requests to join the Consortium.
Because these BRT projects have not entered the operational stage
data pertaining to costs per mile for construction, land use impacts,
costs of operation etc. are not yet available. The TCRP project will
document current practice with BRT as has occurred in Curitiba, Brazil;
Ottawa, Ontario; Orlando, Florida; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
research and technology support
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $1,200,000 for
information management and technology activities in fiscal year 2001.
Please reproduce the funding breakout table on page 178 of the
justification, noting the priority order of each of the 4 activities
planned for fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The following chart provides a funding breakout for
information management and technology activities:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Program: FTA 5 research and technology Fiscal year
program support Priority --------------------------
1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key activities and products
5.1. Computer Animation.................... 3....................................... ....... ....... $400
5.2. Multi-Media Information: FTA Website.. 1....................................... ....... $100 200
5.3 Documentation and TRB Support.......... 2....................................... ....... ....... 200
5.4. Small Business Innovation Research.... N/A (Statutory Program)................. ....... ....... 400
5.5. Technical Direction & Documentation of High.................................... ....... ....... .......
Research & Technology Projects............
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Budget Authority............... ........................................ ....... 100 1,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although funds were not specifically requested for Key Activity
5.5, because they will be set aside as part of any project funded, it
has a very high priority.
metropolitan/rural policy development activities
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $1,500,000 for
metropolitan/rural policy development activities in fiscal year 2001.
Please reproduce the funding breakout table on page 182 of the
justification, noting the priority order of each of the 5 activities
planned for fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The following table lists the metropolitan/rural policy
development activities for fiscal year 2001.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program schedule
---------------------------------
Program: FTA 6 Metropolitan/rural Fiscal year
policy development ------------------------ Priority
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key activities and products
6. Metropolitan/Rural Policy
Development:
6.1. Transit Conditions, $300 ...... $200 1
Performance and Needs............
6.2. Benefits of Transit.......... ...... ...... 100 5
6.3. Innovative Financing......... 100 ...... 200 2
6.4. Global Climate Change........ ...... ...... 500 4
6.5. Nationwide Personal ...... ...... 500 3
Transportation Survey............
6.8. City of Branson, Congestion 450 ...... ...... ........
Study............................
---------------------------------
Total Budget Authority.......... 850 ...... 1,500 ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the fiscal
year 1999 grant for the City of Branson, Missouri congestion study. Was
this funding applied for and released?
Answer. The Missouri Department of Transportation submitted a grant
application in February, 2000. The grant award is expected to be made
in the third quarter of fiscal year 2000.
Question. What statutory requirement motivates the request for
$500,000 to collect and analyze transit use and performance data
related to global climate change?
Answer. There is no statutory requirement that directly links
global climate change data with transit use and performance. However,
49 U.S.C. Sections 5301(b)(7) and 5301(e) establish the goals of
improving energy efficiency and preserving the environment, and Section
5335(a) requires the Secretary to maintain a reporting system using
uniform categories. While the categories that currently exist are
useful for reporting basic levels of transit use in specific urbanized
areas, they are not easily used to assess the impacts of varying levels
of transit use, by mode, on local or regional emissions and
accumulations of pollutants. These pollutants will differ according to
vehicle type, fuel type, vehicle energy efficiency, occupancy level,
and type of service (local vs. express).
The requested funding level would help to determine whether uniform
categories of information could be developed to measure this effect and
whether the resulting data could be incorporated with transportation
models in use within the Department and in various urban areas around
the country, to measure the effectiveness of transportation investments
in reducing one or more environmental emissions, including emissions
that may influence the global climate.
Question. Could the Bureau of Transportation Statistics assist FTA
in data collection and management related to the Nationwide Personal
Transportation Survey?
Answer. There is every reason to expect the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) to exercise increasing leadership in
the collection and management of Nationwide Personal Transportation
Surveys (NPTS). However, notwithstanding the importance of BTS, it is
essential that FTA, along with the other transportation modes, provide
independent financial and technical support for NPTS, so that their
distinct data needs and priorities are effectively incorporated into
the NPTS design and implementation.
Historically, FTA has used the Nationwide Personal Transportation
Survey (NPTS) to examine the role of transit for households and cities.
For many years, the NPTS data has enabled FTA to report on transit's
share of travel in large and small cities, among demographic groups,
and in different geographic regions. More recently, FTA has used NPTS
data to measure the value of transit benefits in market niches not
adroitly served by privately owned vehicles. This use of NPTS is
demonstrated in a book supplied to the Committee in late 1999: Policy
and Planning as Public Choice: Mass Transit in the United States,
(1999) by D. Lewis and F.L. Williams. Unfortunately, as discussed
below, a sharply increased effort will be necessary in the near future
to maintain data comparable in quality to earlier NPTSs. Without the
increased effort, FTA's ability to monitor transit's markets will be
severely compromised.
Under Dr. Ashish Sen's leadership, the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) has greatly increased its financial support for and
leadership in the NPTS process. BTS is poised to serve as the principal
leader for the modernization of methods to gather and manage personal
transportation data. Dr. Sen has voiced serious concern over the
erosion of telephone survey validity by decreasing response rates,
mostly due to intensive telemarketing efforts in recent years. Dr. Sen
has also observed that decision makers are requesting more frequent and
more quickly accessible travel data. FTA shares these concerns and FTA
expects to work with BTS, FHWA, and other NPTS partners to develop more
efficient and timely techniques to collect personal transportation
data.
Initially, innovative data collection could be comparatively
expensive to learn, design, put into place, and integrate. Smart cards,
geographic information systems, global positioning networks, highway
telemetry, and satellite photography offer promising new ways
unobtrusively to gather personal travel data while respecting the
privacy of individuals and businesses. Once established, these
technologies would be relatively inexpensive to maintain, upgrade, and
operate.
With the active support of FTA and other agencies within and
outside the Department, no organization is better positioned or better
able to lead and coordinate such a transformation than BTS. But, again,
experience teaches that an independent financial and technical
contribution by FTA and each other mode is the most effective means to
ensure the continued usefulness of NPTS.
PLANNING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $2,200,000 for planning
and program development activities in fiscal year 2001. Please
reproduce the funding breakout table on page 186 of the justification,
noting the priority order of each of the five activities planned for
fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The following table lists the planning and program
development activities for fiscal year 2001:
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program schedule
---------------------------------
Program: FTA 7 planning and project Fiscal year
development program ------------------------ Priority
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key activities and products
7. Planning and Project Development:
7.1 Transportation Planning and ...... ...... $750 3
Programming......................
7.2. New Starts Planning and $450 ...... 550 2
Project Development..............
7.3. Land Use and Environmental ...... ...... 200 4
Planning.........................
7.4. Planning Methods............. ...... ...... 500 5
7.5. Financial Planning........... ...... ...... 200 1
7.7. Citizens for Modern Transit.. ...... $297 ...... ........
7.8. Wheeling, West Virginia ...... 247 ...... ........
Mobility Study...................
7.9. Skagit County, WA, North 50 ...... ...... ........
Sound Connecting Communities
Project..........................
7.10. Desert Air Quality 1,000 ...... ...... ........
Comprehensive Analysis, Las
Vegas, NV........................
7.11. Seattle, WA Livable City.... 200 ...... ...... ........
---------------------------------
Total Budget Authority.......... 1,700 544 2,200 ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of each of the
three community planing and analysis projects included in the fiscal
year 1999 appropriations bill: (1) Skagit County, Washington North
Sound connecting communities; (2) Desert air quality comprehensive
analysis, Las Vegas, Nevada; and (3) Seattle, Washington livable city.
Have these grants been released? Are follow-on costs required or
anticipated?
Answer. All three projects were released (awarded) in fiscal year
1999. No additional follow-on costs are required or anticipated. The
project in Skagit County, Washington North Sound and connecting
communities, is intended to study a cross-border seamless
transportation system. A seamless system will improve the environment
and air quality, reduce freight movement delays, and enhance domestic
and international tourism through the Two-Nation vacation initiative.
The Desert air quality comprehensive analysis, Las Vegas, Nevada,
is research on specific air pollution problems existing in the Las
Vegas Metropolitan area. This will be a broad-scope study conducted by
the Desert Research Institute, an affiliate of the University and
Community College System of Nevada.
The Seattle, Washington Livable City project, will provide near-
term Improvements in travel times and reliability to transit users thus
encouraging higher ridership and reducing service costs. The City of
Seattle and King County Metro will cooperate in implementing speed and
reliability improvements.
PERFORMANCE AND REVIEW/EVALUATION
Question. The FTA has requested a total of $2,900,000 for
performance and review/evaluation in fiscal year, of which $2,500,000
is for the congressionally mandated National Transit Database program.
The fiscal year 2000 conference report directed FTA to work with the
National Academy of Sciences to design a new transit data base,
comprised of operational and performance measures and financial data
necessary to fulfill FTA's statutory responsibilities in distributing
formula grants, while providing meaningful data for state and local
governments, transit industry personnel, and academic institutions.
Consultation with the American Public Transportation Association in
developing the new data base was encouraged. Please summarize the
progress to date on developing this new data base model, which is to be
submitted to the Appropriations Committees and the General Services
Administration by May 31, 2000. Will the congressionally directed
deadline be met? Will FTA be able to utilize the new design in the
fiscal year 2001 cycle of federal grantee reports?
Answer. The FTA is on schedule to deliver a report to Congress on a
new, revised National Transit Database (NTD) for the 21st Century by
May 31, 2000. If funding is made available, the FTA is planning to
restructure and test the new NTD in time to work on report year 2001
data.
FTA is making progress on developing a new, revised NTD. FTA
conducted and completed three outreach-listening sessions with transit
professionals across the nation. These sessions were held in Chicago,
San Francisco, and Washington, DC. The Washington, DC session focused
on transit safety data. In addition, FTA met individually with transit
agencies and safety groups. A national FAX number and an Internet web
site were established to receive comments for those unable to attend
the outreach sessions.
FTA has worked closely with the Transportation Research Board of
the National Academy of Sciences (TRB/NAS). The TRB has formed a
committee to review our findings and recommendations. FTA met with the
TRB committee on April 10. In addition, FTA met with the APTA
committee, comprised of general managers and safety directors to review
the NTD and proposed changes. A report on recommendations to revise the
NTD (phase I of the project) is expected to be transmitted to Congress
by the end of May 2000.
FTA will summarize and synthesize the comments and recommendations
given to the FTA. All forms, procedures, and data elements will be
evaluated. FTA's goal is to improve the usefulness of the NTD to
transit without adding to the burden of reporting agencies. By the end
of April, FTA will have received TRB and APTA comments and will prepare
a draft report to Congress, completing Phase I of our action plan.
After submitting the report to Congress, and receiving comments on
that report from Congress, GSA, TRB and others, FTA will incorporate
these changes in the database forms, definitions, procedures,
circulars, and database structure. At the end of fiscal year 2000, FTA
plans to complete Phase II of the action plan, developing a prototype
of the final revised NTD. Phase III is to program the revised NTD which
will have a relational database. In fiscal year 2001, FTA has requested
$1.5 million to program the new NTD and load the NTD data into a new
relational database program. Completion of Phase III is expected to
take much of fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, FTA will test an
operational, new, revised NTD on report year 2001 data.
FTA'S URBAN MAGLEV AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM
Question. Federal Highway Administration funds are authorized
within the highway trust fund firewall for two urban magnetic
levitation technology programs to be administered by the Federal
Transit Administration. The two statutory provisions providing the
program's funding are Section 1218 of TEA-21, which authorizes a total
of $5 million over the life of the authorization to research and
develop low speed superconductive maglev technology; and Section
3015(c) of TEA-21, which authorizes $5 million per year for the 6 years
to carry out a broad maglev technology development program. The FTA
published a notice in the January 29, 1999 Federal Register soliciting
applications for this program, stating that the agency, ``anticipates
multiple awards resulting from this solicitation.'' How many proposals
were received by FTA before the March 1999 deadline? Of these
applicants, how many projects have received awards? Please list the
recipients and amounts.
Answer. Eight (8) proposals were received by the March 1999
deadline. To date, one project has received an award. Fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999 funding from Section 3015(c) was allocated to this
project, a total of $7,968,586. General Atomics Corporation (GA) will
lead a team to develop maglev technology for the purpose of providing a
solution to urban and regional transportation problems. In addition to
GA, the team is comprised of: Macklin Engineering, Hall Industries,
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Western Pennsylvania Maglev Development
Corporation, Union Switch & Signal, Port Authority of Allegheny County,
Sargent Electric Company, Mr. Richard Portis (DBE), P.J. Dick, Argonne
National Laboratory, Carnegie Mellon University, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, and the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation.
Question. To date, have all the authorized fiscal year 1998, 1999,
and 2000 funds been transferred from FHWA to FTA (both from the Section
3015(c) and 1218 programs)? Have all the available fiscal year 1998,
1999, and 2000 funds been awarded? If not, please elaborate on the
reasons for the delay.
Answer. For the Section 3015(c) program, fiscal years 1998, 1999,
and 2000 funds from 3015(c) have been transferred from FHWA to FTA. As
stated above, fiscal year 1998 and 1999 funding has been awarded.
Fiscal year 2000 funding was only recently transferred to FTA and has
not yet been awarded. Fiscal year 2000 funding for the Advanced
Technology Pilot Project will be used to fund cooperative agreements
with one or more project groups to develop advanced magnetic levitation
technology. The Federal Register Notice articulates the goals and
objectives for the Advanced Technology Pilot Project and the Urban
Maglev Program in general. FTA will again use this as a guide when
considering awards during fiscal year 2000 to additional project
groups. (Five other groups submitted ``technically competitive''
proposals in response to FTA's January 29, 1999 Federal Register
Notice).
For the Section 1218 program, FTA recently received $1,742,000 from
FHWA. FTA is currently working on an agreement with the Department of
Energy to obligate $1,000,000 for SERAPHIM, a motor technology being
developed by Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. For the
additional funding ($742,000), FTA will again consider one or more of
the groups that submitted proposals to FTA for Low Speed Maglev
technology development.
Question. Please detail all Congressional input, both legislative
and non-legislative, in the grant decision making process. Please
include copies of all legislative direction or Congressional
correspondence that influenced awards under this program.
Answer. Legislative guidance:
(1) The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) has
been the legislative guide to FTA for developing the Urban Maglev
Program. In Section 3015(c), TEA-21 created a low speed magnetic
levitation technology development project titled the Advanced
Technology Pilot Project. This project authorizes the Department of
Transportation to support further development of magnetic levitation
technologies to demonstrate energy efficiency, congestion mitigation
and safety benefits. The FTA Urban Magnetic Levitation Transit
Technology Development Program (Urban Maglev Program) was then
initiated through a January 29, 1999 Federal Register Notice to carry
out this project as well as a similar low speed Maglev project created
by TEA-21 and codified at 23 U.S.C. Section 322(i), entitled the Low
Speed Project. The Low Speed Project is similar to the Section 3015(c)
project except that funding is specifically for the development of
superconductive technology. The Urban Maglev Program combines these two
statutory provisions into a single program to include both
superconductive and non-superconductive maglev technologies.
(2) fiscal year 2000 Conference Report that accompanied the
appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year 2000 (Report 106-355) also provided
guidance. This Report directed DOT to make available $1,000,000 from
Section 322(h)(1)(B)(i) [the 1218 program] for the development of the
Segmented Rail Phased Induction Electric Magnetic Motor (SERAPHIM).
Non-Legislative Guidance:
(1) Letter dated July 12, 1999 from the United States House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
communicating the Committee's intent for the 3015(c) program.
(2) Letter dated December 3, 1999, from the United States Senate
Committee on Appropriations, which underscored the intent of the
Committee to make available $1,000,000 from the 1218 program for
SERAPHIM.
Congress of the United States,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 12, 1999.
Hon. Gordon J. Linton,
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Linton: We are writing to clarify the intent of
the advanced technology pilot project specified in Section 3015(c) of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-
178). Section 3015(c) provides funding for low-speed magnetic
levitation (MAGLEV) technology for public transportation purposes in
urban areas to demonstrate energy efficiency, congestion mitigation,
and safety benefits.
This provision was included in the House-passed version of TEA 21
in direct response to the Pittsburgh Airborne Shuttle System (PASS)
low-speed MAGLEV project, which to our knowledge, was the only low-
speed MAGLEV project seeking federal assistance at the time. In fact,
House Committee Report 105-467 Part 1, accompanying the House-passed
version of TEA 21, referred to the project, recognizing that $1 million
was provided in the fiscal year 1998 DOT appropriations bill to support
``low-speed magnetic levitation technology in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
through the Allegheny County Port Authority'' (page 204). In the
conference committee on TEA 21, the Senate receded to the House on
Section 3015(c), with the addition of new language clarifying the
application of Davis Bacon labor provisions.
It was, and continues to be, our expectation that these funds will
be made available to the Pittsburgh project. Congress clearly intended
that the energy efficiency, congestion mitigation and safety benefits
of the technology be demonstrated through the application of the
technology. This cannot be achieved by spreading the funding over
numerous projects. Concentrating the funding on one project, deploying
one system and measuring its effects, is the only way to satisfy
Congressional intent with respect to the advanced technology pilot
project specified in Section 3015(c).
We look forward to working with you and the Department on this
matter in the near future.
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
James L. Oberstar,
Ranking Democrat, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Thomas Petri,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Ground Transportation.
Nick Rahall, II,
Ranking Democrat, Subcommittee on Subcommittee on Ground
Transportation.
______
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC, December 3, 1999.
Hon. Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to clarify a provision in the
Conference Report accompanying the recently-enacted appropriations bill
for the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000 (H.R. 2084, Report 106-355). In
the fiscal year 2000 conference report, under the Magnetic Levitation
Transportation Technology Deployment Program, the Conferees specified
funding for the low-speed magnetic levitation program, which is
authorized under Section 322, subsection (h)(1)(B)(i) of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). You will note
that $1 million was designated in the report for the development of the
Segmented Rail Phased Induction Electric Magnetic Motor (SERAPHIM).
TEA-21 designated under the above-referenced subsection that a total of
$5 million shall be available for ``. . . the Secretary to make grants
for the research and development of low-speed superconductivity
magnetic levitation technology for public transportation purposes in
urban areas . . .'' Notwithstanding any other requirements of Section
322, subsection (h)(1)(B)(i), it was the intent of the Conferees that
the SERAPHIM technology be an eligible project under this section.
Additionally, it was the intent of the conferees that the authorized
set-aside for the low-speed magnetic levitation program be fully funded
over the life of the TEA-21 authorization. It is the understanding of
the Appropriations Committees that this program has not yet received
any funding, and therefore any available funds under the Magnetic
Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program which are not
otherwise Congressionally directed should be made available for the
low-speed magnetic levitation program. We respectfully request that you
proceed to allocate the funds already designated for SERAPHIM, and that
you give full consideration to the Colorado Intermountain Fixed
Guideway Authority's application for the Federal Transit
Administration's low-speed magnetic levitation technology program, as
directed in the statement of managers language. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Subcommittee staff.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Transportation, Appropriations.
Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Transportation, Appropriations.
capital investment grants unobligated funds
Question. Please provide a list of any unobligated contract
authority funds that have remained on the books for more than three
years (that is, funds appropriated or authorized in or prior to fiscal
year 1997).
Answer. Unobligated contract authority funds that have remained on
the books for more than three years include $1.3 million in Section
5309, Fixed Guideway Modernization which will be redistributed by
formula. Also, unobligated is $11.7 million in Section 5309, New Starts
funds for projects that have been extended by legislative action. An
example is the New Orleans Canal Street Corridor Project, the Virginia
Railway Express, and the Hartford, CT--Griffin Line Project.
Question. Please provide a list of recoveries by program/project
and amount made in fiscal year 1999 and estimated for fiscal year 2000.
Please describe how funds can be ``recovered'', and the process for
reallocating these funds.
Answer. A list of recoveries by program for fiscal year ending
September 30, 1999 is provided below. We estimate a similar
distribution of recoveries as they become available in fiscal year
2000.
Funds can be recovered when a project is closed or whenever there
is a mutual agreement between the grantee and FTA that funds are no
longer needed for a project. Recoveries for Section 5309 Bus and New
Starts projects that were previously earmarked are reprogrammed after
notification to and approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. Recoveries that are formularized and have not lapsed
remain available to the urbanized area in which they were recovered.
Recoveries that have become lapsed and were formularized remain with
that section and are reapportioned to all areas according to
legislative formula.
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Recovery
Activities
Program
Fiscal year 1999
Capital Investment Grants:
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Bus..................... $1,482,126
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, New Starts.............. 18,905,850
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Fixed Guideway
Modernization..................................... 29,777
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Rail Mod................ 602,357
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Oversight............... 3,693,679
Sec. 5309, Capital Program, Technology Introduction. 296,091
Sec. 5303, Special Studies.......................... 43,458
Sec. 5313, State Planning and Research.............. 967
Sec. 5314, National Planning and Research........... 15
Sec. 5307, Urbanized Area, 9(B)..................... 534,633
Sec. 5310, Elderly and Persons with Disabilities.... 105,639
Sec. 5311, RTAP..................................... 404
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Capital Investment Grants.............. 25,694,996
Question. Transit new starts and bus and bus facilities funds are
subject to the ``three-year rule'', wherein earmarked appropriated
funds not obligated after three fiscal years are available to be
reprogrammed. Please provide two tables--a new starts table and a bus
table--showing the updated obligation status of all projects whose
funding has expired or will expire at the end of fiscal year 2000.
Please note whether applications are in, what issues remain to be
resolved, and whether it is the agency's opinion whether the project
will be obligated before the end of the fiscal year.
Answer. The following tables lists the transit new starts and bus
and bus facilities funds:
CAPITAL PROGRAM--BUS AND BUS RELATED--STATUS OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 UNOBLIGATED EARMARKS AS OF MARCH 31, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBLIGATION FEDERAL
REG. AREA PROJECT NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE STATUS DOLLARS UNOBLIGATED
FUNDING (DATE) OBLIGATED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. NEW HAVEN, CT........ CT-03-O109-01........ BUS GARAGE/ $1,172,636 ........... ......... $1,172,636
IN FINAL PROCESSING; MAINTENANCE
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN FACILITY, FISCAL
FISCAL YEAR 2000. YEAR 1998 APPROP.
EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERMONT (STATEWIDE) VT-03-0028........... 9 BUSES/FACILITY 76,420 ........... ......... 76,420
(VAOT). IMPROVEMENTS,
APPLICATION EXPECTED FISCAL YEAR 1998
IN FOURTH QUARTER; APPROP. EARMARK.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BURLINGTON, VT....... VT-03-0031........... MULTIMODAL CENTER, 1,465,794 ........... ......... 1,465,794
APPLICANT REQUESTING FISCAL YEAR 1998
CONGRESSIONAL APPROP. EARMARK.
APPROVAL TO EXTEND
FISCAL YEAR1998
FUNDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2................................. BUFFALO, NY (NFTA)... NY-03-0342........... HUBLINK PROGRAM, 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
APPLICATION IN; UNDER FISCAL YEAR 1998
REVIEW; WILL BE APPROP. EARMARK.
APPROVED IN FISCAL
YEARY 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ROCHELLE, NY..... NY-03-00XX........... INTERMODAL FACILITY.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES;
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
FISCAL YEAR 1997
EARMARK EXTENDED.
FISCAL YEAR 97 1,235,000 ........... ......... 1,235,000
APPROP. EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 1998 1,465,794 ........... ......... 1,465,794
APPROP. EARMARK.
------------- ------------
TOTAL........... 2,700,794 2,700,794
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY NY-03-0362........... INTERMODAL FACILITY, 1,954,393 ........... ......... 1,954,393
(MTA). FISCAL YEAR 1998
IN FINAL PROCESSING. APPROP. EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEN ISLAND/ NY-03-0XXX........... MOBILITY PROJECT, 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
BROOKLYN, NY. FISCAL YEAR 1998
DESIGN WORK FOR HOV APPROP. EARMARK.
LANES OBLIGATION
EXPECTED IN FOURTH
QUARTER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YONKERS, NY.......... NY-03-0361........... INTERMODAL FACILITY/ 1,954,393 ........... ......... 1,954,393
IN FINAL PROCESSING.. PARKING FACIL. AT
LARKIN PLAZA,
FISCAL YEAR 1998
APPROP. EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3................................. FAYETTE & SOMERSET, PA-03-0292........... 2 30FT EXPAN. BUSES/ 125,998 ........... ......... 125,998
PA. 2 RADIOS FOR
APPLICATION EXPECTED FAYETTE CTY; 2 30FT
IN FISCAL YEAR 2000; EXPAN. BUSES/1 VAN
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN AND RADIO COMM.
FISCAL YEAR 2000. SYSTEM FOR SOMERSET
CTY, FISCAL YEAR
1998 APPROP.
EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOWANDA BOROUGH, PA.. PA-03-0311........... INTERMODAL BUS 1,954,393 ........... ......... 1,954,393
APPLICATION IN; FACILITY, FISCAL
ANTICIPATED FISCAL YEAR 1998 APPROP.
YEAR 2000 EARMARK.
OBLIGATION. APPROVAL
EXPECTED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILKES BARRE, PA..... PA-03-0XXX........... INTERMODAL FACILITY, 1,465,794 ........... ......... 1,465,794
PROJECT IN TIP/STIP; FISCAL YEAR 1998
APPLICATION EXPECTED APPROP. EARMARK.
IN FISCAL YEAR 2000;
MAY LAPSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PENNSYLVANIA PA-03-0XXX........... BUSES AND INTERMODAL 244,299 ........... ......... 244,299
(STATEWIDE). FACILITIES, FISCAL
RED ROSE TRANSIT YEAR 1998 APPROP.
AUTHORITY (PART OF EARMARK.
STATEWIDE); APPROVAL
EXPECTED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTINGTON, WV....... WV-03-0026........... INTERMODAL FACILITY 6,440,374 ........... ......... 6,440,374
APPLICATION UNDER AND BUSES, FISCAL
REVIEW. OBLIGATION YEAR 1998 APPROP.
EXPECTED IN FISCAL EARMARK.
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRIA, VA VA-03-00XX........... EXTEN. OF CANOPY TO 244,299 ........... ......... 244,299
(WMATA). PROVIDE WEATHER
NO APPLICATION; PROTECTION TO BUS
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN PATRONS AT
FISCAL YEAR 2000. CLARENDON METRO
STATION, FISCAL
YEAR 1998 APPROP.
EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DULLES, VA (WMATA)... VA-03-00XX........... 8-10 BUSES TO 2,442,991 ........... ......... 2,442,991
NO APPLICATION; SUPPORT EXPRESS
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN SERVICE, FISCAL
FISCAL YEAR 2000. YEAR 1998 APPROP.
EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHMOND, VA......... VA-03-0059-01........ MULTIMODAL CENTER, 2,442,991 ........... ......... 2,442,991
APPLICATION UNDER FISCAL YEAR 1998
REVIEW; ANTICIPATED APPROP. EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000
OBLIGATION.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW CASTLE, DE (DDOT) DE-03-00XX........... BUSES AND BUS 1,465,794 ........... ......... 1,465,794
APPLICATION EXPECTED FACILITIES, FISCAL
IN FISCAL YEAR 2000; YEAR 1998 APPROP.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4................................. TAMPA, FL FL-03-0XXX........... BUSES AND BUS 1,465,794 ........... ......... 1,465,794
(HILLSBOROUGH FACILITIES, FISCAL
COUNTY). YEAR 1998 APPROP.
NO APPLICATION; EARMARK.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. CAROLINA (NCDOT) NC-03-0036-01........ BUSES AND BUS 3,340,000 ........... ......... 3,340,000
(STATEWIDE). FACILITIES, FISCAL
STATE PROJECT FOR 8 YEAR 1998 APPROP.
AREAS; APPLICATION EARMARK.
EXPECTED FY 2000;
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FY 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATLANTA, GA GA-03-0048-04........ BUSES, FISCAL YEAR 2,060,830 ........... ......... 2,060,830
(MARTA)ANTICIPATED 1998 APPROP.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 EARMARK.
OBLIGATION.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVANNAH/CHATHAM, GA-03-0058........... BUS FACILITY, FISCAL 3,908,785 ........... ......... 3,908,785
AREA TRANSIT, GA. YEAR 1998 APPROP.
APPLICATION EXPECTED EARMARK.
IN FOURTH QUARTER;
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLUMBIA, SC......... SC-03-00XX........... BUSES & FACILITIES, 1,954,393 ........... ......... 1,954,393
ISSUES CENTER ON FISCAL YEAR 1998
TAKEOVER OF TRANSIT APPROP. EARMARK.
SYSTEM; MAY LAPSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORENCE, SC (PEE DEE SC-03-0015-02........ INTERMODAL 1,143,908 ........... ......... 1,143,908
RTA). FACILITIES, FISCAL
APPLICATION ON HOLD YEAR 1998 APPROP.
PENDING OUTCOME OF EAR- MARK.
OIG INVESTIGATION;
LACK OF LOCAL SHARE;
MAY LAPSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JACKSON, MS.......... MS-03-00XX........... MAINTENANCE & 1,954,393 ........... ......... 1,954,393
NO APPLICATION; ADMINISTRATION
GRANTEE DEVELOPING FACILITY PROJECT,
PROJECT SCOPE; FISCAL YEAR 1998
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN APPROP. EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRMINGHAM/JEFFERSON AL-03-00XX........... BUSES, FISCAL YEAR 2,931,588 ........... ......... 2,931,588
CTY, AL. 1998 APPROP.
NO APPLICATION; EARMARK.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIRMINGHAM, AL....... AL-03-00XX........... DOWNTOWN INTERMODAL 5,863,178 ........... ......... 5,863,178
NO APPLICATION; TRANSP. FACIL.,
DEVELOPING COST PHASE 2, FISCAL
ALLOCATION; APPROVAL YEAR 1998 APPROP.
EXPECTED IN FISCAL EARMARK.
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILE, AL........... AL-03-0020........... SOUTHERN MARKET 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
APPLICATION IN; NEEDS HISTORIC INTERMODAL
CLARIFICATION ON CENTER, FISCAL YEAR
TRANSIT ELEMENT; 1998 APPROP.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILE, AL........... AL-03-0021........... MUNICIPAL PIER 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
APPLICATION IN; NEEDS INTERMODAL
CLARIFICATION ON WATERFRONT ACCESS
TRANSIT REHAB PROJECT,
ELEMENT;APPROVAL FISCAL YEAR 1998
EXPECTED IN FISCAL APPROP. EARMARK.
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILE, AL (CITY).... AL-03-00XX........... BUSES, FISCAL YEAR 200,448 ........... ......... 200,448
OBLIGATION EXPECTED 1998 APPROP.
IN FISCAL YEAR 2000. EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILE, AL........... AL-03-0022........... INTERMODAL FACILITY, 5,374,579 ........... ......... 5,374,579
ANTICIPATED THIRD FISCAL YEAR 1998
QUARTER FISCAL YEAR APPROP. EARMARK.
2000 OBLIGATION.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5................................. MINNESOTA (METRO MN-03-00XX........... BUSES AND BUS 8,794,766 ........... ......... 8,794,766
COUNCIL TRANSIT FACILITIES, FISCAL
OPERA- TORS). YEAR 1998 APPROP.
NO APPLICATION; EARMARK.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST. PAUL, MN......... MN-03-0064........... SNELLING BUS GARAGE, 1,465,794 ........... ......... 1,465,794
IN FINAL PROCESSING; FISCAL YEAR 1998
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN APPROP. EAR- MARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILWAUKEE, WI........ WI-03-00XX........... RAIL STATION REHAB./ 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
NO APPLICATION; INTERMODAL FACILITY
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN REHAB, FISCAL YEAR
FISCAL YEAR 2000. 1998 APPROP. EAR-
MARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6................................. EL PASO, TX (CITY)... TX-03-0206........... EQUIP. FOR DEMAND 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
APPLICATION IN; RESPONSE FACIL.,
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN FISCAL YEAR 1998
FISCAL YEAR 2000. APPROP. EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALVESTON, TX........ TX-03-0XXX........... AFI VEHICLES/BUSES 1,486,665 ........... ......... 1,486,665
APPLICATION EXPECTED AND FACILITIES,
MAY 1; APPROVAL FISCAL YEAR 1998
EXPECTED IN FISCAL APPROP. EARMARK.
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAZOS, TX (BTA)..... TX-03-0205........... BUSES AND BUS 409,748 ........... ......... 409,748
COMBINED W/FISCAL FACILITIES, FISCAL
YEAR 1997 EM YEAR 1998 APPROP.
(LIBERTY/MONTGOMERY/ EARMARK.
POLK COUNTIES);
EXPECT APPLICATION
IN THIRD QUARTER.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MONROE, LA........... LA-03-0075-01........ BUSES AND BUS- 781,757 ........... ......... 781,757
APPLICATION EXPECTED RELATED FACILITIES,
FISCAL YEAR 2000; FISCAL YEAR 1998
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN APPROP. EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LA-03-00XX........... BUSES AND BUS- 293,159 ........... ......... 293,159
LA. RELATED FACILITIES,
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN FISCAL YEAR 1998
FISCAL YEAR 2000. APPROP. EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW MEXICO ST. HWY... NM-03-0024-01........ PARK AND RIDE 1,615,117 ........... ......... 1,615,117
APPLICATION EXPECTED PROJECT & TRANSP.
IN THIRD QUARTER; DEPT., FISCAL YEAR
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN 1998 APPROP.
FISCAL YEAR 2000. EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW MEXICO NM-03-00XX........... BUSES AND BUS 1,069,745 ........... ......... 1,069,745
(STATEWIDE). FACILITIES, FISCAL
APPLICATION EXPECTED YEAR 1998 APPROP.
IN FISCAL YEAR 2000; EARMARK.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8................................. SALT LAKE CITY, UT-03-0028-01........ 3 INTERMODAL 1,539,057 ........... ......... 1,539,057
OGDEN, UT & WEST TERMINALS, FISCAL
VALLEY, UT (UTA). YEAR 1998 APPROP.
APPLICATION EARMARK.
INCOMPLETE; APPROVAL
EXPECTED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURRAY CITY & SANDY, UT-03-0033-01........ TWO PARK AND RIDE 788,553 ........... ......... 788,553
UT (UTA). LOTS, FISCAL YEAR
APPLICATION IN; 1998 APPROP.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLORADO (STATEWIDE). CO-03-00XX........... BUS AND BUS 60,043 ........... ......... 60,043
IN FINAL PROCESSING.. FACILITIES, FISCAL
YEAR 1998 APPROP.
EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9................................. TUCSON, AZ........... AZ-03-00XX........... INTERMODAL CENTER, 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
NO APPLICATION; NEEDS FISCAL YEAR 1998
EA; APPROVAL APPROP. EARMARK.
EXPECTED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SONOMA COUNTY, CA.... CA-03-0503........... 3 PARK AND RIDE 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
NO APPLICATION; LOTS, FISCAL YEAR
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN 1998 APPROP. EAR-
FISCAL YEAR 2000. MARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLSOM, CA........... CA-03-0500........... MULTIMODAL FACILITY, 1,465,794 ........... ......... 1,465,794
APPLICATION IN; FISCAL YEAR 1998
INCOMPLETE; APPROVAL APPROP. EARMARK.
EXPECTED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INGLEWOOD, CA........ CA-03-0XXX........... TRANSIT CENTER 488,598 ........... ......... 488,598
NO APPLICATION; PROJECT, FISCAL
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN YEAR 1998 APPROP.
FISCAL YEAR 2000. EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAKE TAHOE, CA....... CA-03-0XXX........... INTERMODAL TRANSIT 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
APPLICATION EXPECTED CENTERS, FISCAL
FISCAL YEAR 2000; YEAR 1998 APPROP.
ANTICIPATED FISCAL EARMARK.
YEAR 2000 OBLIGATION.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA CA-03-00XX........... BUSES AND FACILITIES 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
(SCAG). & ITS APPLICATIONS,
APPLICATION FISCAL YEAR 1998
SUBMITTED; APPROVAL APPROP. EARMARK.
EXPECTED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MODESTO, CA.......... CA-03-0XXX........... BUS MAINTENANCE 1,710,093 ........... ......... 1,710,093
APPLICATION EXPECTED FACILITY, FISCAL
IN FOURTH QUARTER; YEAR 1998 APPROP.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIALTO, CA CA-03-0XXX........... METROLINK DEPOT, 1,074,916 ........... ......... 1,074,916
(OMNITRANS). FISCAL YEAR 1998
APPLICATION EXPECTED APPROP. EARMARK.
IN THIRD QUARTER;
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SACRAMENTO, CA....... CA-03-0XXX........... BUS FACILITY, FISCAL 977,196 ........... ......... 977,196
APPLICATION EXPECTED YEAR 1998 APPROP.
IN THIRD QUARTER; EARMARK.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN JOAQUIN, CA CA-03-0485........... BUSES & BUS 1,954,393 ........... ......... 1,954,393
(SMART). FACILITIES, FISCAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES; YEAR 1998 APPROP.
MAY LAPSE. EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANTA CLARA, CA...... CA-03-0512........... BUSES & BUS 2,442,991 ........... ......... 2,442,991
OBLIGATION EXPECTED FACILITIES, FISCAL
IN FISCAL YEAR 2000; YEAR 1998 APPROP.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOWNEY, CA........... CA-03-0517........... FACILITIES, FISCAL 1,942,991 ........... ......... 1,942,991
PORTION OF I-95 YEAR 1998 APPROP.
CONSORTIUM CITIES EARMARK.
JOINT POWERS FISCAL
YEAR 1998 EM;
APPLICATION IN;
ANTICIPATED FISCAL
YEAR 2000 OBLIGATION.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUENA PARK, CA....... CA-03-0XXX........... FACILITIES, FISCAL 1,942,990 ........... ......... 1,942,990
PORTION IF I-95 YEAR 1998 APPROP.
CONSORTIUM CITIES EARMARK.
JOINT POWERS FISCAL
YEAR 1998 EM; NO
APPLICATION.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10................................ EVERETT, WA.......... WA-03-0113........... MULTIMODAL 2,442,991 ........... ......... 2,442,991
APPLICATION PENDING. TRANSPORTATION
OBLIGATION EXPECTED CENTER, FISCAL YEAR
IN THIRD QUARTER. 1998 APPROP.
LAPSING FUND LETTER EARMARK.
FORWARDED TO EVERETT
JANUARY 2000.
ENVIRONMENT DONE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING COUNTY/SEATTLE, WA-03-0112-01........ MULTIMODAL FACILITY/ 2,442,990 ........... ......... 2,442,990
WA (METRO KING). METRO COMMUTER
2 KING COUNTY FISCAL INTERMODAL
YEAR 1998 EM'S CONNECTOR, FISCAL
COMBINED; YEAR 1998 APPROP.
APPLICATION IN; EARMARK.
OBLIGATION EXPECTED
IN FOURTH QUARTER.
LAPSE LETTER TO KING
COUNTY JANUARY 2000.
ENVIRONMENT DONE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING COUNTY, WA...... WA-03-0XXX........... PARK & RIDE 1,400,261 ........... ......... 1,400,261
APPLICATION EXPECTED EXPANSION, FISCAL
IN THIRD QUARTER; YEAR 1998 APPROP.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
LAPSE LETTER SENT TO
KING COUNTY JANUARY
2000. PROJECT FOR
ROW AND CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETING ENV'T.
EXPECT ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION MAY
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORVALLIS, OR........ OR-03-00XX........... BUSES & BUS 678,164 ........... ......... 678,164
APPLICATION EXPECTED FACILITIES,
IN THIRD QUARTER; AUTOMATED PASSENGER
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN INFORMATION SYSTEM,
FISCAL YEAR 2000. FISCAL YEAR 1998
LAPSING FUND LETTER APPROP. EARMARK.
MAILED JANUARY 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 UNOBLIGATED NEW START EARMARKS--NEW SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL
REG. UZA PROJECT NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONGRESS STATUS DOLLARS UNOBLIG.
EARMARK OBLIG. EARMARK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. BURLINGTON-ESSEX, VT. VT-03-0027........... BURLINGTON ESSEX $4,843,828 ........... ......... $4,843,828
APPLICATION FOR COMMUTER RAIL,
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FISCAL YEAR 1998
IS EXPECTED IN THE EARMARK.
THIRD QUARTER OF
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
GRANTEE WILL REQUEST
CONGRESSIONAL
APPROVAL TO EXTEND
$4,342,828 BALANCE
OF FISCAL YEAR 1998
FUNDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2................................. NEW YORK............. NY-03-00XX........... ST. GEORGE FERRY 2,491,914 ........... ......... 2,491,914
APPLICATION EXPECTED TERMINAL PROJECT,
IN FISCAL YEAR 2000, FISCAL YEAR 1998
APPROVAL IN FISCAL EARMARK.
YEAR 2000..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASSAU COUNTY, NY.... NY-03-0342........... NASSAU HUB RAIL LINK 498,383 ........... ......... 498,383
IN FINAL PROCESSING. EIS, FISCAL YEAR
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN 1998 EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW JERSEY (NJT)..... NJ-03-00XX........... BURLINGTON TO 1,488,750 ........... ......... 1,488,750
NO APPLICATION; GLOUCESTER LINE,
GRANTEE WILL NOT FISCAL YEAR 1995
APPLY FOR THESE EARMARK \1\.
FUNDS; LIGHT RAIL TO
BE LOCALLY FUNDED.
WILL NOT BE
OBLIGATED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3................................. PITTSBURGH, PA (PAT). PA-03-0227-08........ PITTSBURGH AIRPORT 4,983,828 ........... ......... 4,983,828
RECOVERY PLAN/ BUSWAY, FISCAL YEAR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 1998 EARMARK.
COMPLETED. FUNDS MAY
LAPSE SINCE PROJECT
IS UNDER BUDGET AND
FUNDS NOT NEEDED.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA (PRTC)...... VA-03-0066........... VIRGINIA RAILWAY 2,979,069 OBLIGATED $700,000 2,279,069
FD AND CONSTRUCTION VA-03-0066-01 EXPRESS--WOODBRIDGE
OF SECOND BRIDGE STATION
OVER QUANTICO CREEK IMPROVEMENTS,
FOR VRE NEED FISCAL YEAR 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL EARMARK.
DOCUMENTATION.
APPLICATION UNDER VA-03-0067........... FISCAL YEAR 1998 1,993,530 7-20-99 ......... 1,993,530
REVIEW. REHAB PARK EARMARK.
AND RIDE LOT AT
WOODBRIDGE AND
ALEXANDRIA KING
STREET. NEED
ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTATION.
ANTICIPATE
OBLIGATION IN 3RD OR
4TH QUARTER IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4................................. MIAMI, FL (MDTA)..... FL-03-0183........... METRO DADE EAST-WEST 4,983,828 OBLIGATED ......... 4,983,828
DUE TO FAILED SALES CORRIDOR PROJECT PE/ 11-20-98
TAX REFERENDUM EIS, FISCAL YEAR
PROJECT IS ON HOLD. 1998 EARMARK.
FEIS NEEDS TO BE RE-
EVALUATED. GRANTEE
WANTS TO REPROGRAM
FOR EXTENSION OF
EXISTING BUSWAY
(SOUTH DADE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMPHIS, TN (MATA)... TN-03-0040........... MEMPHIS MEDICAL 2 ........... ......... 2
IN FINAL STAGES OF CENTER RAIL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL EXTENSION PROJECT,
REVIEW. EXPECT FISCAL YEAR 1998
APPROVAL IN FISCAL EARMARK.
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH CAROLINA NC-03-0037-01........ TRIANGLE TRANSIT 11,961,188 OBLIGATED ......... 11,961,188
(RALEIGH-DURHAM). PROJECT, FISCAL
IN FINAL PROCESSING; YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JACKSON, MS.......... MS-03-0013........... INTERMODAL CORRIDOR, 2,990,300 OBLIGATED ......... 2,990,300
NO APPLICATION; FISCAL YEAR 1998
WARNED OF LAPSE IN EARMARK.
SEPTEMBER 2000.
WORKING WITH GRANTEE
TO DEFINE PROJECT.
FISCAL YEAR 2000
OBLIGATION NOT
EXPECTED.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5................................. CLEVELAND, OH........ OH-03-0185........... BEREA RED LINE 697,736 ........... ......... 697,736
NO APPLICATION EXTENSION TO
SUBMITTED. MIS HOPKINS INT.
UNDERWAY; EARLY IN AIRPORT, FISCAL
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
STAGE POSSIBLE LAPSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINNEAPOLIS, MN (TWIN MN-03-0058-01........ HIAWATHA CORRIDOR 6,589,188 OBLIGATED 6,467,000 122,188
CITIES). PROJECT, FISCAL 7-2-99
PENDING APPROVAL OF YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
FINAL DESIGN.
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6................................. HOUSTON, TX (METRO).. TX-03-0150-04........ REGIONAL BUS PLAN, 50,934,727 OBLIGATED ......... 50,934,727
FFGA; IN FINAL FISCAL YEAR 1998
PROCESSING; APPROVAL EARMARK.
EXPECTED IN FISCAL
YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN, TX........... TX-03-0XXX........... CAPITAL METRO 996,766 ........... ......... 996,766
APPLICATION IN; PROJECT, FISCAL
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
FISCAL YEAR 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DALLAS, TX (DART).... TX-03-0153-02........ DALLAS-FORT WORTH 7,974,126 OBLIGATED ......... 7,974,126
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN RAILTRAN PROJECT,
3RD QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 1998
FISCAL YEAR 2000. EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALVESTON, TX........ TX-03-0XXX........... RAIL TROLLEY 1,993,530 ........... ......... 1,993,530
APPLICATION EXPECTED (DIESEL) SYSTEM
IN 3RD QUARTER FOR PROJECT, FISCAL
$1 MILLION OF YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
EARMARK AND WILL
REQUEST CONGRESS TO
EXTEND PERIOD
AVAILABILITY FOR
REMAINDER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ORLEANS, LA (RTA) LA-03-0072-02........ NEW ORLEANS CANAL
APPLICATION NOT STREET, CORRIDOR
SUMBITTED. PROJECT AA/EIS.
ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK
POSSIBLE LAPSE.
FISCAL YEAR 1997 7,944,183 ........... ......... 7,944,183
EARMARK (extended).
FISCAL YEAR 1998 5,980,594 ........... ......... 5,980,594
EARMARK.
------------- ------------
Total........... 13,924,777 13,924,777
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ORLEANS, LA...... LA-03-0074-01........ DESIRE STREETCAR 1,993,530 ........... ......... 1,993,530
GRANT APPLICATION PROJECT, FISCAL
EXPECTED IN 3RD YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
QUARTER OF FISCAL
YEAR 2000. NEEDS TO
ENTER PE. POSSIBLE
LAPSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8................................. COLORADO (PITKIN CO-03-0082........... ROARING FORK VALLEY 1,993,530 OBLIGATED 1,200,000 793,530
COUNTY). RAIL, ASPEN TO 6-18-99
NEEDS PE APPROVAL; GLENWOOD SPRINGS,
TIGHT TIME SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 1998
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 EARMARK.
OBLIGATION.
DIFFICULTIES IN
COMPLETING AA/DEIS.
MAY LAPSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SALT LAKE CITY, UT UT-03-0034........... REGIONAL COMMUTER 3,987,062 OBLIGATED 1,200,000 2,787,062
(UTA). RAIL, FISCAL YEAR 8-5-99
UTA SEEKING TO REVISE 1998 EARMARK.
EARMARK LANGUAGE TO
FUND GATEWAY
INTERMODAL TERMINAL.
MAY LAPSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9................................. SAN DIEGO, CA........ CA-03-0531........... MID-COAST CORRIDOR 1,495,150 OBLIGATED ......... 1,495,150
APPROVAL EXPECTED IN PROJECT, FISCAL
FISCAL YEAR 2000. YEAR 1998 EAR-
MARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN DIEGO, CA........ CA-03-0XXX........... MISSION VALLEY EAST 996,766 ........... ......... 996,766
IN FINAL DESIGN; FFGA LRT CORRIDOR
PENDING; 3RD QUARTER PROJECT, FISCAL
APPROVAL EXPECTED. YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN DIEGO, CA........ CA-03-0XXX........... OCEANSIDE-ESCONDIDO 2,990,300 ........... ......... 2,990,300
IN FINAL DESIGN; PASSENGER RAIL
APPLICATION PROJECT, FISCAL
SUBMITTED; 3RD YEAR 1998 EARMARK.
QUARTER APPROVAL
EXPECTED.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN BERNARDINO, CA... CA-03-0XXX........... METROLINK EXTENSION 996,766 ........... ......... 996,766
APPLICATION EXPECTED PROJECT, FISCAL
4/2000. APPROVAL YEAR 1998 EAR-
EXPECTED IN FISCAL MARK.
YEAR 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Extended by Congress.
STATE BY STATE BREAKOUT OF FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDS
Question. For fiscal year 2001, please prepare a table that
includes all firewall formula program funds, new starts funds as
included in the administration's budget, and TEA-21 (Section 3031)
earmarked bus funds, breaking out the funding distribution by state and
category. Show a total at the bottom, and note what percentage of that
total is represented by each state's subtotal.
Answer. For the Formula program and Capital Investments New Starts
and Bus and Bus Facilities earmarks, the following table lists the
fiscal year 2001 funding distribution by state and category:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2001 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENTS/ALLOCATIONS BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 elderly & Section 5309 Section 5309 Section 5309 Metropolitan State planning RTAP section State total
State urbanized non-urbanized persons with new starts fixed guideway bus allocation planning section 5313 5311 selected FTA
area area disabilities modernization section 5303 programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... $13,046,848 $4,974,114 $1,363,957 .............. .............. .............. $456,460 $119,192 $110,266 $20,070,837
Alaska.......................... \1\ 7,433,414 741,748 197,821 \2\ $5,161,000 .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 71,750 13,868,619
American Samoa.................. .............. 105,722 52,867 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 10,962 169,551
Arizona......................... 33,260,503 2,177,536 1,200,201 .............. $1,886,447 .............. 830,166 172,054 84,816 39,611,723
Arkansas........................ 5,119,390 3,976,597 946,967 5,672,000 .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 101,188 16,079,028
California...................... 482,887,208 9,705,577 7,477,863 251,248,165 105,855,347 $50,000,000 8,884,840 1,649,677 153,323 917,862,000
Colorado........................ 37,142,854 2,071,753 926,429 40,203,485 1,399,669 .............. 678,052 154,034 83,853 82,660,129
Connecticut..................... 52,359,019 1,879,275 1,064,511 .............. 38,394,771 .............. 609,211 159,078 82,102 94,547,967
Delaware........................ 6,122,420 468,834 308,825 .............. 933,856 .............. 208,454 54,432 69,266 8,166,087
District of Columbia............ 28,364,148 .............. 306,385 .............. 53,515,908 \3\ 4,813,625 281,035 54,432 .............. 87,335,533
Florida......................... 146,712,613 6,239,173 5,039,527 38,800,000 17,274,352 .............. 2,841,705 659,300 121,778 217,688,448
Georgia......................... 51,231,289 7,272,683 1,774,590 25,000,000 21,678,953 .............. 1,005,971 211,224 131,183 108,305,893
Guam............................ .............. 300,966 134,536 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 12,739 448,241
Hawaii.......................... 25,780,183 816,248 398,306 \2\ 5,161,000 777,032 .............. 208,454 54,432 72,428 33,268,083
Idaho........................... 3,072,028 1,646,756 408,081 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 79,986 5,469,737
Illinois........................ 206,007,568 6,672,281 3,250,600 45,800,000 119,210,579 .............. 3,045,133 549,244 125,719 384,661,124
Indiana......................... 32,873,659 6,445,272 1,695,963 .............. 8,801,272 .............. 739,263 174,430 123,653 50,853,512
Iowa............................ 9,360,438 4,145,662 1,019,530 .............. .............. .............. 233,854 61,064 102,726 14,923,274
Kansas.......................... 7,996,681 3,297,743 851,478 .............. .............. .............. 270,342 65,984 95,010 12,577,238
Kentucky........................ 17,131,642 5,443,854 1,306,330 .............. .............. .............. 323,818 82,714 114,540 24,402,898
Louisiana....................... 27,667,179 4,502,461 1,310,621 .............. 2,789,416 .............. 559,575 144,329 105,973 37,079,554
Maine........................... 2,203,751 2,172,613 515,251 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 84,771 5,239,272
Maryland........................ 77,392,198 2,712,403 1,316,914 30,000,000 25,244,770 .............. 1,209,890 232,005 89,683 138,197,863
Massachusetts................... 115,219,238 2,906,872 1,905,644 35,969,249 66,655,030 .............. 1,475,688 306,431 91,453 224,529,605
Michigan........................ 62,637,557 7,872,306 2,778,229 .............. 567,771 .............. 1,901,088 376,528 136,640 76,270,119
Minnesota....................... 29,392,604 4,530,057 1,335,764 20,000,000 3,264,028 .............. 771,946 153,588 106,225 59,554,212
Mississippi..................... 4,618,496 4,420,748 919,424 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 105,230 10,326,784
Missouri........................ 33,532,798 5,276,351 1,720,175 60,000,000 2,105,783 .............. 853,487 180,264 113,016 103,781,874
Montana......................... 2,324,606 1,334,002 372,751 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 77,140 4,371,385
Nebraska........................ 8,078,023 2,012,840 594,428 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 83,317 11,031,494
Nevada.......................... 18,703,029 657,162 437,100 .............. .............. .............. 226,025 59,020 70,980 20,153,316
New Hampshire................... 3,256,965 1,739,992 411,825 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 80,834 5,752,502
New Jersey...................... 176,774,768 2,487,820 2,291,863 131,000,000 89,510,699 .............. 2,583,534 429,457 87,640 405,165,781
New Mexico...................... 6,743,181 1,955,803 520,371 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 82,798 9,565,039
New York........................ 511,629,103 8,757,424 5,337,074 15,000,000 334,423,700 .............. 5,246,297 914,428 144,694 881,452,720
North Carolina.................. 26,423,807 9,302,971 2,020,953 .............. .............. .............. 623,394 162,782 149,659 38,683,566
North Dakota.................... 2,266,047 986,554 314,324 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 73,978 3,903,789
Northern Marianas............... .............. 97,974 52,619 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 10,892 161,485
Ohio............................ 86,171,474 9,471,071 3,393,254 8,800,000 16,555,990 .............. 1,795,921 431,234 151,189 126,770,133
Oklahoma........................ 10,888,938 4,048,785 1,124,568 .............. .............. .............. 335,987 87,733 101,845 16,587,856
Oregon.......................... 26,177,070 3,214,771 1,044,095 40,209,232 3,583,779 .............. 377,404 91,990 94,255 74,792,596
Pennsylvania.................... 141,740,405 10,565,079 4,072,337 20,000,000 100,145,538 \4\ 2,977,500 2,329,261 466,897 161,145 282,458,162
Puerto Rico..................... 42,415,576 3,157,178 989,437 118,000,000 2,503,755 .............. 564,864 137,673 93,731 167,862,214
Rhode Island.................... 10,057,038 404,440 456,412 .............. 1,785,542 .............. 208,454 54,432 68,680 13,034,998
South Carolina.................. 10,959,566 4,656,183 1,086,351 .............. .............. .............. 353,947 92,423 107,372 17,255,842
South Dakota.................... 1,634,658 1,202,532 341,032 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 75,943 3,517,051
Tennessee....................... 21,984,782 6,010,601 1,614,124 22,974,990 88,672 .............. 550,245 143,681 119,698 53,486,793
Texas........................... 158,452,230 12,690,049 4,206,514 80,744,873 6,149,522 .............. 3,541,065 736,686 180,482 266,701,421
Utah............................ 19,572,743 911,586 483,564 15,718,006 .............. 35,000,000 327,355 85,480 73,296 72,172,030
Vermont......................... 821,531 1,075,168 278,448 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 74,784 2,512,817
Virgin Islands.................. .............. 230,121 137,109 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 12,094 379,324
Virginia........................ 58,221,090 5,328,980 1,679,979 .............. 5,863,181 .............. 1,164,748 248,088 113,495 72,619,561
Washington...................... 82,706,220 3,733,949 1,504,629 35,000,000 18,695,054 .............. 928,346 208,249 98,980 142,875,427
West Virginia................... 3,960,684 3,174,933 788,425 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 93,893 8,280,821
Wisconsin....................... 35,490,834 5,485,912 1,536,567 .............. 801,584 .............. 649,965 159,663 114,923 44,239,448
Wyoming......................... 1,135,107 767,267 233,859 .............. .............. .............. 208,454 54,432 71,982 2,471,101
Unallocated..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. \5\ 382,814,87 .............. .............. .............. 382,814,875
5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 2,987,155,201 208,236,752 78,850,801 1,050,462,000 1,050,462,000 475,606,000 52,113,600 10,886,400 5,250,000 5,919,022,754
Oversight....................... 15,010,830 1,046,416 .............. 7,938,000 7,938,000 3,594,000 .............. .............. .............. 35,527,246
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 3,002,166,031 209,283,168 78,850,801 1,058,400,000 1,058,400,000 479,200,000 52,113,600 10,886,400 5,250,000 5,954,550,000
===============================================================================================================================================================
Clean Fuels..................... 50,000,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. 50,000,000 .............. .............. .............. 100,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility. 4,700,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 4,700,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............... 3,056,866,031 209,283,168 78,850,801 1,058,400,000 1,058,400,000 529,200,000 52,113,600 10,886,400 5,250,000 6,059,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad.
\2\ Amount for Alaska/Hawaii Ferries distributed one-half to Alaska and one-half to Hawaii.
\3\ Includes $4,850,000 for the Fuel Cell Bus activities (excluding Oversight the total is $4,813,625).
\4\ Includes $3,000,000 for Bus Testing (excluding Oversight the total is $2,977,500).
\5\ Includes $15,000,000 for transit service for the Mississippi Delta Region.
Question. For fiscal year 2000 enacted, please prepare a table that
includes all firewall formula program funds, new starts funds as
earmarked in the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill
(before project management oversight is subtracted), and all earmarked
bus funds (before project management oversight is subtracted), breaking
out the funding distribution by state and category. Show a total at the
bottom, and note what percentage of that total is represented by each
state's subtotal.
Answer. For the Formula Grants and Capital Investments New Starts
and Bus and Bus Facilities earmarks, the following table lists the
fiscal year 2000 apportionments and allocations by state:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 5303 &
5313(b) Section 5311 Section 5310 Section 5309 State total State
State metropolitan Section 5307 non-urbanized elderly and Section 5309 fixed guideway Section 5309 selected FTA percent
and state urbanized area area persons with new starts modernization bus allocation programs of total
planning disabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................... $548,405 $12,150,687 $4,626,529 $1,263,045 $2,965,736 ............... $25,762,347 $47,316,749 0.8
Alaska....................................... 250,444 \1\ 7,278,545 689,915 191,890 15,026,397 ............... 15,495,348 38,932,539 0.7
American Samoa............................... ............... ............... 98,334 52,634 ............... ............... ............... 150,968 .........
Arizona...................................... 954,765 30,975,905 2,025,373 1,112,627 4,942,894 $1,537,626 6,920,044 48,469,234 0.9
Arkansas..................................... 250,444 4,767,749 3,698,718 880,019 ............... ............... 5,101,063 14,697,993 0.3
California................................... 10,035,627 449,718,653 9,027,365 6,878,982 192,772,850 96,152,878 37,744,718 802,331,073 14.3
Colorado..................................... 792,693 34,591,586 1,926,982 861,153 38,554,570 1,228,501 9,762,209 87,717,694 1.6
Connecticut.................................. 731,925 48,762,579 1,747,954 987,989 988,579 37,176,188 6,672,902 97,068,116 1.7
Delaware..................................... 250,444 5,701,883 436,072 293,852 988,579 761,099 2,471,444 10,903,373 0.2
District of Columbia......................... 319,582 25,303,653 ............... 291,611 ............... 46,733,862 7,266,050 79,914,758 1.4
Florida...................................... 3,335,263 136,635,219 5,803,188 4,639,244 20,265,864 13,928,047 14,581,527 199,188,352 3.6
Georgia...................................... 1,159,565 47,712,313 6,764,478 1,640,232 45,615,004 17,654,104 21,501,572 142,047,268 2.5
Guam......................................... ............... ............... 279,935 133,760 ............... ............... ............... 413,695 .........
Hawaii....................................... 250,444 24,009,395 759,209 376,045 5,140,609 630,723 4,201,456 35,367,881 0.6
Idaho........................................ 250,444 2,861,016 1,531,683 385,025 ............... ............... ............... 5,028,168 0.1
Illinois..................................... 3,424,159 191,857,322 6,206,031 2,996,023 31,634,518 115,365,239 8,748,916 360,232,208 6.4
Indiana...................................... 870,439 30,615,633 5,994,885 1,568,010 4,942,894 7,719,142 9,144,347 60,855,350 1.1
Iowa......................................... 280,960 8,717,488 3,855,969 946,671 ............... ............... 10,464,100 24,265,188 0.4
Kansas....................................... 320,405 7,447,404 3,067,301 792,307 988,579 ............... 6,702,560 19,318,556 0.3
Kentucky..................................... 387,289 15,954,904 5,063,445 1,210,112 ............... ............... 5,931,471 28,547,221 0.5
Louisiana.................................... 670,586 25,766,777 4,187,835 1,214,053 988,579 2,729,493 4,942,891 40,500,214 0.7
Maine........................................ 250,444 2,052,381 2,020,794 483,465 494,289 ............... ............... 5,301,373 0.1
Maryland..................................... 1,373,617 70,753,720 2,522,864 1,219,834 11,569,350 22,803,052 11,368,647 121,611,084 2.2
Massachusetts................................ 1,697,739 107,305,062 2,703,744 1,760,613 55,256,605 63,712,167 12,241,067 244,676,997 4.4
Michigan..................................... 2,169,767 58,335,107 7,322,200 2,562,126 ............... 443,456 27,185,880 98,018,536 1.8
Minnesota.................................... 881,709 27,373,685 4,213,503 1,237,149 45,276,905 2,895,851 23,986,424 105,865,226 1.9
Mississippi.................................. 250,444 4,301,261 4,111,832 854,719 ............... ............... 5,140,607 14,658,863 0.3
Missouri..................................... 984,805 31,229,498 4,907,646 1,590,250 51,900,383 1,897,058 14,532,097 107,041,737 1.9
Montana...................................... 250,444 2,164,933 1,240,784 352,572 ............... ............... 593,147 4,601,880 0.1
Nebraska..................................... 250,444 7,523,160 1,872,185 556,193 ............... ............... 996,241 11,198,223 0.2
Nevada....................................... 271,553 17,418,357 611,240 411,680 3,460,025 ............... 5,387,751 27,560,606 0.5
New Hampshire................................ 250,444 3,033,251 1,618,404 388,463 988,579 ............... 2,965,735 9,244,876 0.2
New Jersey................................... 2,870,292 165,948,966 2,313,974 2,115,374 113,192,257 86,282,903 10,775,501 383,499,267 6.8
New Mexico................................... 250,444 6,280,007 1,819,134 488,168 9,885,787 ............... 8,650,058 27,373,598 0.5
New York..................................... 5,868,960 476,486,339 8,145,467 4,912,556 6,425,761 319,167,476 26,884,383 847,890,942 15.1
North Carolina............................... 748,964 24,608,809 8,652,892 1,866,530 11,862,945 ............... 7,247,266 54,987,406 1.0
North Dakota................................. 250,444 2,110,397 917,615 298,904 ............... ............... 988,579 4,565,939 0.1
Northern Marianas............................ ............... ............... 91,127 52,406 ............... ............... ............... 143,533 .........
Ohio......................................... 2,121,724 80,252,528 8,809,245 3,127,059 5,437,184 15,660,310 13,603,082 129,011,132 2.3
Oklahoma..................................... 403,664 10,140,999 3,765,861 1,043,154 ............... ............... 4,942,891 20,296,569 0.4
Oregon....................................... 447,175 24,379,019 2,990,127 969,236 11,429,952 2,889,741 8,353,486 51,458,736 0.9
Pennsylvania................................. 2,663,758 130,688,045 9,826,805 3,750,831 23,231,600 97,354,625 28,562,002 296,077,666 5.3
Puerto Rico.................................. 669,281 39,502,140 2,936,559 919,030 31,634,519 1,983,748 593,147 78,238,424 1.4
Rhode Island................................. 250,444 9,366,240 376,178 429,419 ............... 1,457,827 3,256,377 15,136,485 0.3
South Carolina............................... 425,242 10,206,774 4,330,816 1,008,050 2,471,447 ............... 8,669,829 27,112,158 0.5
South Dakota................................. 250,444 1,522,376 1,118,501 323,437 ............... ............... 1,482,867 4,697,625 0.1
Tennessee.................................... 661,081 20,474,689 5,590,588 1,492,836 3,954,315 71,620 3,460,023 35,705,152 0.6
Texas........................................ 4,075,207 147,568,466 11,803,288 3,874,080 107,033,398 5,177,110 16,163,255 295,694,804 5.3
Utah......................................... 393,295 18,228,330 847,886 454,360 47,380,600 ............... 14,136,666 81,441,137 1.5
Vermont...................................... 250,444 765,102 1,000,036 265,950 ............... ............... 4,201,456 6,482,988 0.1
Virgin Islands............................... ............... ............... 214,041 136,122 ............... ............... 350,163 ............... .........
Virginia..................................... 1,345,942 56,656,783 4,956,598 1,553,327 27,877,920 994,643 10,562,959 103,948,172 1.9
Washington................................... 1,082,785 77,025,296 3,473,026 1,392,260 31,634,519 15,347,558 19,573,845 149,529,289 2.7
West Virginia................................ 250,444 3,688,632 2,953,073 734,389 ............... ............... 21,254,427 28,880,965 0.5
Wisconsin.................................... 771,303 33,053,041 5,102,564 1,421,596 988,579 643,953 20,018,705 61,999,741 1.1
Wyoming...................................... 250,444 1,057,139 713,651 224,993 ............... ............... ............... 2,246,227 .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. 60,017,074 \2\ 2,782,329,2 \3\ 193,685,449 \4\ 72,986,415 \5\ 969,202,571 980,400,000 \6\ 541,193,365 5,599,814,117 100.0
43
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 in funds appropriated for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.
\2\ Includes $4,589,012 in reapportioned recoveries.
\3\ Includes $72,481 in reapportioned recoveries.
\4\ Includes $39,614 in reapportioned recoveries.
\5\ Includes a reduction of $11,197,429 as part of Public Law 106-113.
\6\ Includes $1,199,750 of reallocated bus funds as part of Public Law 106-69; and a net reduction of $6,206,385 as part of Public Law 106-113.
ELIGIBILITY ISSUES
Question. Please provide a list of any of the fiscal year 2000 bus
and bus facilities projects or new starts grantees who have encountered
problems with having grants released because the project name listed in
the appropriations legislation does not precisely match the description
of the project forwarded by the grantee in their application.
Answer. The bus and bus facilities projects and new start grantees
who have encountered problems because the project name listed in the
appropriations legislation does not precisely match the description of
the project forwarded by the grantee are listed below:
--Fiscal year 2000 New Starts Earmark: AK Girdwood, Alaska Commuter
Rail Project ($9,810,787) Desired Change: AK Special Olympics,
South Anchorage double track, North Anchorage Commuter rail
service and track improvements
--Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: AK Whittier Intermodal facility and
pedestrian overpass ($1,133,165) Desired Change: AK Whittier
Intermodal facility and pedestrian underpass
--Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: AL Baldwin Rural Area Transportation
System buses ($981,096) Desired Change: AL Baldwin Rural Area
Transportation System vehicles, amenities and equipment
--Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: Huntsville Space and Rocket Center
intermodal center ($3,433,833) Desired Change: Huntsville Space
and Rocket Center Intermodal Centers, vehicles and facilities
--Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: MA Swampscott, buses ($63,772)
Desired Change: MA Saugus, buses
--Fiscal year 2000 Bus Earmark: MI Michigan statewide buses
($22,074,625) Desired Change: MI Michigan statewide buses and
bus facilities
bus and bus-related facilities
Question. Are there any fiscal year 2001 bus and bus facilities
earmarks in TEA-21? If so, please list the projects and locations, and
the amount which is designated in TEA-21.
Answer. There are three fiscal year 2001 TEA-21 bus and bus
facilities earmarks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Location TEA-21 amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleans Fuels Formula Program... ....................... $50,000,000
Fuel Cell Bus.................. Georgetown University.. 4,850,000
Bus Testing Facility........... Altoona, Pennsylvania.. 3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. FTA has requested that $50,000,000 of the fiscal year
2001 bus and bus facilities funds be made available in Los Angeles to
implement the Bus Consent Decree issued by the Special Master. How much
in Section 5307 formula funds has the LACMTA received in fiscal years
1999 and 2000, and will be receiving in fiscal year 2001? Can't these
funds be used to comply with the Bus Consent Decree?
Answer. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the LACMTA received $137
million and $91 million, respectively, in Section 5307 formula funds.
It is projected that in fiscal year 2001, LACMTA will receive $96
million in Section 5307 funds.
The $50 million requested could help the LACMTA accelerate the
purchase of 2,095 buses under its Accelerated Bus Procurement Program.
The MTA has options on current procurements, which it could exercise
immediately rather than wait a year or two when additional funds are
projected to be available. Under its 5-year capital program, MTA (the
programming agency for Los Angeles County) has chosen to apply fiscal
year 2000 and 2001 Section 5307 funds to the capitalized preventive
maintenance program and to capital improvements to bus facilities. New
buses for these years will be purchased with other sources of federal
funds, including CMAQ and STP. The MTA believes that this is the most
efficient use of its federal funding.
Question. Please specify all eligible activities for the
$35,000,000 in bus and bus facilities funds requested for the 2002
Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Answer. Capital Investment Bus category funds can be used for any
eligible purpose under U.S.C. Section 5309, including planning, bus
lease or purchase, park-and-ride facilities, maintenance facilities and
preventive maintenance expenses. Operational costs would not be
eligible. The Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) recently submitted
preliminary information outlining funding needs in fiscal year 2001 for
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Funding is proposed as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Planning.......................................................... 2
Venue Loading and Unloading....................................... 5
Transit Bus....................................................... 8
Bus Maintenance Facilities........................................ 2
Park-and-Ride..................................................... 18
______
Total....................................................... 35
Question. Please provide a complete summary of all federal transit
funding provided in support of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia.
Answer. The following table provides a summary of FTA funding for
the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta Georgia:
SUMMARY OF FTA FUNDS: 1996 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation
Project Number Grantee Date Description Local share Percent Federal share Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA FUNDED PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 1996 ATLANTA OLYMPIC GAMES
GA-90-X094......................... MARTA............ 7/25/95 Operating Assistance: .............. ......... $10,400,000 100
delivery, preparation,
maintenance, fuel, tire
lease, insurance, clean
up, and return of 1600
buses.
FTA FUNDED PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 1996 ATLANTA PARALYMPIC GAMES
GA-90-X094......................... MARTA............ 7/25/95 Operating Assistance: .............. ......... 4,350,000 100
Paralympic transit
expenses.
Planning Assistance: .............. ......... 250,000 100
Prepare Paralympic's
operations plan.
GA-90-X090......................... ARC.............. 3/14/95 Planning Assistance: .............. ......... 1,000,000 100
Paralympics
transportation planning.
-----------------------------------------------------
Total........................ ................. .............. .......................... .............. ......... 5,600,000 100
=====================================================
FTA FUNDED PROJECTS ACCELERATED IN SUPPORT OF THE 1996 ATLANTA OLYMPIC GAMES
GA-03-0036......................... MARTA............ 9/30/91 Capital Assistance: North 23,125,000 20 92,500,000 80
Line Rail Ext./ Medical
Center to Dunwoody.
GA-03-0050......................... MARTA............ 12/08/94 Capital Assistance: AUC/ 750,000 20 3,000,000 80
MARTA Pedestrian Walkways.
GA-03-0053......................... MARTA............ 7/25/95 Capital Assistance: MARTA 3,325,000 20 13,300,000 80
ITS Project.
-----------------------------------------------------
Total........................ ................. .............. .......................... 27,200,000 20 108,800,000 80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What states have traditionally submitted a consolidated
statewide bus and bus facilities grant request to FTA?
Answer. Alabama, Illinois, Iowa,, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have
traditionally submitted a consolidated statewide bus and bus facilities
request to FTA.
NEW STARTS
Question. Please provide a table broken out alphabetically by state
that shows all new start projects that received appropriated federal
funds in fiscal year 2000, with a federal funding history for each
project back to the first year of federal funding, and total for each
project.
Answer. The table below contains the information requested for all
New Starts projects that received appropriated federal funds in fiscal
year 2000.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION--CAPITAL NEW STARTS--DISPOSITION OF EARMARKS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Earmarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Total
State Project location and description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- earmarks
1991 &
prior 1992 1993 1994 1993 \1\ 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK/HI........................................ Alask or Hawaii Ferry Projects..... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... $10.32 $10.20 $20.52
AK........................................... Girwood, Alaska Commuter Rail ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 9.81 9.81
Project (under study).
AL........................................... Birmingham--Transit Center......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.94 2.94
AZ........................................... Phoenix--Metropolitan Area Transit. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... $3.99 $4.96 4.91 13.86
CA........................................... Sacramento--South LRT Extension.... ....... ....... $0.99 $0.99 ........ ....... $1.98 $5.96 20.23 23.31 24.53 77.99
CA........................................... San Franciso BART to the Airport ....... $22.50 18.25 14.75 ........ ....... 1.11 27.31 29.80 39.70 63.77 217.19
(Under Construction].
CA........................................... San Jose (San Jose LRT)--(Under ....... 34.77 25.97 13.24 ........ $20.00 8.77 ....... 21.33 26.80 19.62 170.50
Construction).
CA........................................... San Diego--Mission Valley-East LRT. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.00 1.49 19.62 22.11
CA........................................... San Diego--Mid-Coast (2 (3)........ $0.40 1.05 ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 1.49 1.50 1.99 4.91 11.33
CA........................................... San Diego--Oceanside-Escondido LRT ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 2.99 2.98 1.96 7.93
Project.
CA........................................... Los Angeles--North Hollywood ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 49.05 49.05
Extension Project.
CA........................................... Los Angeles--East Side & Mid-City ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 7.94 3.92 11.86
projects.
CA........................................... Los Angeles-San Diego CR (LOSSAN).. ....... 10.00 ....... ....... ........ ....... 8.40 1.49 ....... ....... 0.98 20.87
CA........................................... Orange County--Transitway Project.. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.98 0.98
CA........................................... Stockton-Altamont Commuter Rail ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.98 0.98
Project.
CA........................................... San Bernardino Metrolink Project... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.00 0.99 0.98 2.97
CO........................................... Denver--Southwest LRT Extension.... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 2.83 22.93 39.70 34.34 99.80
CO........................................... Denver--Southeast Multimodal ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.50 2.94 3.44
Corridor.
CO........................................... Roaring Fork Valley Rail........... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.99 ....... 0.98 2.97
CT........................................... Stamford, CT--Fixed Guideway ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 0.98 1.97
Connector.
DE........................................... Wilmington--Downtown Transit ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.98 0.98
Connector.
FL........................................... Ft. Lauderdale-Tri-County Commuter ....... ....... 4.64 9.93 ........ 9.93 9.88 8.94 7.97 3.97 9.81 65.07
Rail.
FL........................................... Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.49 0.49
Counties Rail Corridor.
FL........................................... Miami--East/West Corridor Project.. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 1.49 4.98 2.98 1.47 10.92
FL........................................... Tampa Bay Regional Rail............ ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ 0.49 0.49 1.99 1.00 0.99 0.98 5.94
FL........................................... Pinellas County-Mobility Inititive ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.45 2.45
Project.
FL........................................... Orlando--I-4 LRT Project........... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 1.99 31.70 17.37 4.91 55.97
GA........................................... Atlanta--DeKalb County Light Rail ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 0.66 1.00 0.99 0.98 3.63
Project.
GA........................................... Atlanta--Dunwoody--North Springs... 10.00 ....... 29.46 ....... ........ ....... 60.27 63.96 44.46 51.72 44.29 304.16
IL........................................... Chicago--Metra Com. Rail Exts. & ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 5.96 24.53 30.49
Upgrades Projs.
IL........................................... Chicago--Ravenswood & Douglas Br. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.98 ....... 2.98
Lines Projs.
IL........................................... Chicago--Ravenswood................ ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3.43 3.43
IL........................................... Chicago--Douglas Branch Line....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 3.43 3.43
IN........................................... Indianapolis--Northeast Corridor ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.25 ....... 0.98 2.23
Project.
IN........................................... Northern Indiana Commuter Rail..... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 0.50 3.99 2.98 3.92 11.38
KS/MO........................................ KC Area--Johnson Cnty, KS-I-35 ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 0.98 1.97
Commuter Rail.
LA........................................... New Orleans--Canal Street LRT...... ....... ....... ....... 3.57 ........ 9.93 4.94 7.94 5.98 21.84 0.98 55.18
ME........................................... Branch Rail Line Regional Transit ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.49 0.49
Program Calais (plan & env.).
MA........................................... Boston--S. Boston Piers Transitway-- ....... 10.75 37.96 9.93 $10.00 23.82 19.95 29.79 46.10 53.58 52.88 294.76
Phase 1 (MOS-2).
MA........................................... Boston Metropolitan Urban Ring..... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ 1.09 ....... ....... 1.00 0.74 0.98 3.81
MA........................................... Boston--North Shore Corridor ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 0.98 1.97
Project.
MA/NH........................................ Lowell, Ma-Nashua, NH Commuter Rail ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.98 0.98
Project.
MD........................................... MARC System-wide Improvements...... ....... ....... 9.93 23.32 ........ 13.90 9.88 32.96 30.90 16.91 0.69 138.49
MD........................................... MARC--Expansion Projects--Silver ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1.47 1.47
Spring Intermodal and Penn-Camden
Rail Connection.
MD........................................... Baltimore--Double Tracking Project. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 4.66 5.65
MD........................................... Washington, DC/MD--Largo Extension. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 4.66 5.65
MN........................................... Twin Cities--Transitways [other] ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.50 ....... 2.94 4.44
Projects.
MN........................................... Twin Cities--Transitway [Hiawatha] ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 10.46 16.87 41.99 69.32
Project.
MO/IL........................................ St. Louis--St. Clair LRT Extension 4.45 2.05 1.99 ....... ........ 5.95 1.98 31.77 29.90 34.74 49.05 161.88
(1).
MO........................................... St. Louis--Metrolink............... 275.71 17.92 41.29 7.05 ........ 6.05 10.37 13.40 ....... ....... 2.45 374.24
NC........................................... Charlotte--South Corridor ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.00 2.98 3.92 7.90
Transitway Project.
NC........................................... North Carolina--Research Triangle ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 1.99 11.96 9.93 7.85 31.73
Transit Plan.
NJ........................................... New Jersey Urban Core--Newark--Rail ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 5.96 11.77 17.73
Link.
NJ........................................... New Jersey Urban Core--Hudson- ....... ....... 21.86 16.74 ........ 50.49 ....... 9.93 59.81 69.48 97.13 325.43
Bergen LRT.
NJ/NY........................................ Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 4.91 4.91
NJ........................................... New Jersey--West Trenton--Commuter ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 0.50 ....... 0.99 0.98 2.47
Rail.
NM........................................... Albuquerque--Light Rail Project.... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 4.96 6.87 11.83
NM........................................... Santa Fe/El Dorado Rail Link....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.94 2.94
NV........................................... Las Vegas Clark Cnty--Fixed ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 4.98 3.97 3.43 12.38
Guideway Project.
NY........................................... New York--Whitehall Ferry Terminal. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ 2.48 2.47 3.72 2.49 ....... 1.96 13.12
NY........................................... New York--East Side Access (LIRR to ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 19.94 23.82 1.96 45.72
GCT).
OH........................................... Dayton--Light Rail Study........... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 0.98 1.97
OH........................................... Cincinnati--Northeast Corridor..... ....... ....... ....... 1.34 ........ 1.19 0.99 2.98 0.50 1.79 0.98 9.76
OH........................................... Cleveland--Euclid Ave Corridor/ 4.73 1.00 ....... 0.79 ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 1.99 0.98 9.49
Berea Ext. (2 (3).
OH........................................... Ohio--Canton-Akron-Cleveland ....... ....... ....... 0.99 ........ ....... 4.20 3.48 1.99 2.18 2.45 15.30
Commuter Rail.
OR........................................... Portland--Westside/Hillsboro 1.00 13.31 67.49 82.87 10.38 89.62 128.58 137.04 63.20 25.53 10.85 629.84
Extension.
OR........................................... Portland-Wilsonville to Washington ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.49 0.49
County, OR Connec. To Westside.
PA........................................... Harrisburg--Corridor One Project... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 0.49 1.48
PA........................................... Pittsburgh--Stage II LRT ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 3.97 7.84 11.81
Reconstruction.
PA........................................... Pittsburgh--North Shore CBD Transit ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 9.81 10.80
Options MIS.
PA........................................... Philadelphia--Cross County Metro ....... 0.51 0.70 ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 0.98 3.18
Study.
PA........................................... Philadelphia--Schuylkill Valley ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 2.98 3.92 6.90
Metro Project.
PR........................................... San Juan-Tren Urbano Phase I....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ 4.96 7.41 6.06 14.95 19.85 31.39 84.62
SC........................................... Charleston--Monobeam Rail Project.. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.50 2.18 2.45 6.13
TN........................................... Memphis--Regional Rail............. ....... ....... ....... 0.50 ........ ....... 1.23 3.02 1.00 2.18 2.45 10.38
TN........................................... Knoxville-Memphis Commuter Rail ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.49 0.49
Feasibility Study.
TN........................................... Nashville--Regional Commuter Rail ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 0.98 1.97
Project.
TX........................................... Austin--Capital Metro.............. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.00 0.99 0.98 2.97
TX........................................... Dallas--North Central.............. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ 2.48 2.96 10.92 10.96 15.88 49.05 92.25
TX........................................... Galveston--Rail Trolley System ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.99 ....... 1.47 3.46
Extension.
TX........................................... Houston--Regional Bus.............. 146.07 15.36 33.75 38.71 1.00 29.77 22.36 40.31 50.94 59.23 51.77 489.27
TX........................................... Houston--Advanced Regional Transit ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.00 1.99 2.94 5.92
Project.
UT........................................... Salt Lake City--South LRT.......... 15.52 2.56 2.98 2.98 ........ 4.96 9.64 34.75 63.20 69.48 37.21 243.28
UT........................................... Salt Lake City--Olympic Transport. ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 9.81 9.81
Infrastructure Investments.
VA........................................... Norfolk--Tidewater Rail Project.... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 1.99 7.94 0.98 10.91
VA........................................... Washington, DC/VA--Dulles Corridor ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 16.87 24.53 41.40
Project.
VA........................................... Virginia Railway Express- Commuter ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 2.98 1.99 1.99 2.16 9.12
Rail Project.
WA........................................... Seattle--Link LRT Project.......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... 2.98 8.97 4.96 24.53 41.44
WA........................................... Seattle--Sounder Commuter Rail ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... 8.97 40.69 4.91 54.57
Project.
WA........................................... Spokane, WA--Light Rail Project.... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.99 1.96 2.95
WI........................................... Wisconsin--Ken.-Rac.-Milw. Commuter ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... 0.50 0.98 1.48
Rail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................................... 457.88 131.78 297.26 227.70 21.38 277.11 317.86 495.13 663.24 811.46 961.76 4,662.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column reflects the FY 93 Reallocated Earmarks.
Question. Please provide a table detailing by existing FFGA the
amount of the FFGA, the actual amounts received through fiscal year
2000, the schedule 6 amounts through fiscal year 2000, any shortfalls
or overages to date, the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the fiscal
year 2001 schedule 6 amount, the amount of shortfall included in the
fiscal year 2001 budget, and total fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Answer. The following table lists the existing FFGA's and any
shortfalls or overages:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, EXISTING FFGAs SECTION 5309 NEW STARTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Shortfall
Total Total Cummulative ------------------------------------------------------------------------ included in
Geographic location Section 5309 appropriated attachment 6 shortfall 2000 2001 fiscal year
FFGA amount fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year 2000 enacted 2000 shortfalls/ proposed 2001 2001 budget
2000 & prior 2000 & prior 2000 & prior level attachment 6 overages budget attachment 6 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing FFGAs:
CA--Los Angeles-North Hollywood $681,037,000 $581,819,469 $621,747,443 ($39,927,974) $49,053,936 $50,000,000 ($946,064) $50,000,000 $50,000,000 ..............
(FFGA).............................
CA--Sacramento--LRT Extension....... 111,200,000 76,000,550 77,297,998 (1,297,448) 24,526,968 25,000,000 (473,032) 35,199,450 33,902,002 ($1,297,448)
CA--BART Extension to the SFO 750,000,000 217,198,700 298,317,849 (81,119,149) 63,770,116 84,000,000 (20,229,884) 80,000,000 80,000,000 ..............
Airport............................
CA--San Jose Tasman West LRT Project 182,750,000 170,501,285 182,750,000 (12,248,715) 19,621,574 20,000,000 (378,426) 12,248,715 ............ (12,248,715)
CO--Denver SW Corridor LRT.......... 120,000,000 99,796,515 108,000,000 (8,203,485) 34,337,755 35,000,000 (662,245) 20,203,485 12,000,000 (8,203,485)
GA--Atlanta-North Springs........... 305,010,000 304,820,496 305,010,400 (189,904) 44,287,860 52,103,000 (7,815,140) 25,000,000 25,000,000 ..............
MA--Boston-S. Boston Piers 330,726,320 294,757,071 330,726,320 (35,969,249) 52,875,235 53,961,528 (1,086,293) 35,969,249 ............ (35,969,249)
Trainsitway........................
MD--MARC--Commuter Rail Improvements 105,251,373 105,237,766 105,251,373 .............. 689,701 ............ .............. ............ ............ ..............
MO--St. Louis--MetroLink St. Clair 243,930,961 153,403,949 159,707,693 (6,303,744) 49,053,936 50,000,000 (946,064) 60,000,000 60,000,000 ..............
Extension..........................
NJ--Hudson--Bergen (MOS-1).......... 604,088,750 325,430,406 332,018,979 (6,588,573) 97,126,786 99,000,000 (1,873,214) 121,000,000 121,000,000 ..............
OR--Portland--Westside/Hills- boro. 630,060,336 629,851,104 630,060,336 (209,232) 10,852,698 ............ .............. 209,232 ............ (209,232)
PR--San Juan--Tren Urbano........... 307,409,845 79,665,280 189,409,854 (109,744,574) 31,394,519 82,000,000 (50,605,481) 118,000,000 118,000,000 ..............
TX--Houston--Regional Bus Plan...... 500,000,000 489,255,128 499,988,475 (10,733,347) 51,771,504 52,770,000 (998,496) 10,744,873 11,525 10,733,348
TX--Dallas--North Central LRT Exten- 333,000,000 92,267,653 92,838,717 (571,064) 49,053,936 49,625,000 (571,064) 70,000,000 70,000,000 ..............
sion..............................
UT--Salt Lake City--South LRT....... 237,393,530 236,675,524 237,393,530 (718,006) 37,210,353 60,000,000 (22,789,647) 718,006 ............ (718,006)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total--existing FFGAs............. 5,441,858,115 3,274,861,427 3,173,155,677 (313,824,464) 615,626,877 713,459,528 (109,375,050) 639,293,010 569,913,527 (69,379,483)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table that provides by project the
capital cost, federal share (dollars and percentage), and local share
(dollars and percentage) for each FFGA, those projects proposed for
FFGAs in the budget request, and the fifty remaining projects that are
furthest along in the planning and preliminary engineering process. Use
estimates where necessary.
Answer. The table below contains the information requested on New
Starts projects. It is based on the project sponsors requests for FTA
funds made during the submission of Section 5309 New Starts criteria
for the fiscal year 2001 Annual Report on New Starts as of November
1999. Thus, the federal and local share of project costs may be revised
subject to negotiations of proposed Full Funding Grant Agreements. The
table provides information regarding 33 additional projects rather than
the 50 since the information requested is only available for projects
approved for final design or preliminary engineering.
FTA FFGA STATUS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Federal
starts funds Non-
Section 5309 share Other percent Non-federal federal
City/Project Overall project rating Total new starts percent federal of the share of percent of
Project Cost share of total funds total project cost total
requested project proposed project project
cost cost cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing full funding grant
agreements:
Atlanta--North Springs....... FFGA........................ $463.18 $370.54 80 ........... 80 $92.64 20
Boston--South Boston Piers FFGA........................ 413.40 330.73 80 ........... 80 82.67 20
Transitway Phase 1.
Dallas--North Central LRT FFGA........................ 517.20 333.00 64 ........... 64 184.20 36
Extension.
Denver--Southwest Corridor FFGA........................ 176.32 120.00 68 $18.88 79 37.44 21
LRT.
Houston--Regional Bus Plan... FFGA........................ 625.00 500.00 80 ........... 80 125.00 20
Los Angeles--North Hollywood. FFGA........................ 2,781.09 1,416.49 51 377.15 64 987.45 36
Maryland--MARC Extension to FFGA........................ 131.56 105.25 80 ........... 80 26.31 20
Frederick.
Northern New Jersey--Hudson- FFGA........................ 992.14 604.09 61 281.65 89 106.40 11
Bergen LRT MOS-1.
Portland--Westside/Hillsboro FFGA........................ 963.72 630.07 65 74.00 73 259.65 27
LRT.
Sacramento--South LRT FFGA........................ 222.00 113.19 51 ........... 51 108.81 49
Extension.
Salt Lake City--North-South FFGA........................ 312.49 243.99 78 4.00 79 64.50 21
LRT.
San Francisco--BART Extension FFGA........................ 1,510.20 750.00 50 ........... 50 760.20 50
to SFO Airport.
San Jose--Tasman West LRT.... FFGA........................ 325.00 182.75 56 57.94 74 84.31 26
San Juan--Tren Urbano........ FFGA........................ 1,653.00 307.40 19 400.90 43 944.70 57
St. Louis--Metrolink St. FFGA........................ 339.20 252.41 74 ........... 74 86.79 26
Clair Extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 11,425.50 6,259.93 55 1,214.52 65 3,951.05 35
========================================================================================
Pending full funding grant
agreements:
Fort Lauderdale--Tri-Rail Recommended................. 327.00 110.50 34 91.41 62 125.09 38
Commuter Rail Upgrade.
Newark Rail Link (MOS-1...... Highly Recommended.......... 207.70 142.00 68 25.30 81 40.40 19
San Diego--Mission Valley Highly Recommended.......... 431.00 330.00 77 13.70 80 87.30 20
East LRT Extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 965.70 582.50 60 130.41 74 252.79 26
========================================================================================
Proposed full funding grant
agreements:
Baltimore--Central LRT Double- Recommended................. 153.70 120.00 78 2.95 80 30.75 20
Tracking.
Chicago--Douglas Branch Highly Recommended.......... 450.80 320.10 71 0.03 71 130.67 29
Reconstruction.
Chicago--Metra South West Highly Recommended.......... 165.50 103.90 63 ........... 63 61.60 37
Corridor Commuter Rail.
Denver--Southeast Corridor Recommended................. 882.50 525.00 59 ........... 59 357.50 41
LRT.
Memphis--Medical Center Recommended................. 69.10 55.30 80 ........... 80 13.80 20
Extension.
Minneapolis--Hiawatha Recommended................. 548.60 274.30 50 ........... 50 274.30 50
Corridor LRT.
Northern New Jersey--Hudson- Recommended................. 1,112.80 721.60 65 273.85 89 117.35 11
Bergen MOS-2.
Pittsburgh--Stage II LRT Recommended................. 383.70 100.20 26 10.23 29 273.27 71
Reconstruction.
Portland--Interstate MAX LRT Highly Recommended.......... 350.00 257.50 74 24.00 80 68.50 20
Extension.
Salt Lake City--CBD to Recommended................. 105.80 84.60 80 ........... 80 21.20 20
University LRT.
Seattle--Central Link LRT Highly Recommended.......... 1,500.00 500.00 33 ........... 33 1,000.00 67
(MOS).
Washington DC/MD--Largo Recommended................. 433.90 260.30 60 3.20 61 170.40 39
Extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 6,156.40.................... 3,322.80 54 314.26 59 2,519.34 41
========================================================================================
Final Design:
Dallas-Ft. Worth (Trinity Recommended................. 160.60 62.40 39 52.40 71 45.80 29
Railway Express- Phase II).
Little Rock (River Rail Not Rated................... 13.2 8.6 65 2.00 80 2.60 20
Project) \1\.
Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN Not Rated................... 35.7 24.1 68 ........... 68 11.57 32
Rail Corridor Imp. Project)
\1\.
New Orleans (Canal Streetcar Not Recommended............. 139.40 111.50 80 ........... 80 27.88 20
Spine).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 348.90...................... $206.70 59 54.40 75 87.85 25
========================================================================================
Preliminary Engineering:
Austin (Austin Area LRT Recommended................. 739.00 369.50 50 ........... 50 369.50 50
System).
Boston (South Boston Piers Not Recommended............. 363.70 291.00 80 ........... 80 72.70 20
Transitway Phase II).
Chicago (CTA Ravenswood Line Highly Recommended.......... 327.1 245.5 75 14.00 79 67.56 21
Expansion).
Chicago (Metra Central Kane Recommended................. 93.00 54.3 58 ........... 58 38.73 42
Corridor).
Chicago (Metra North Central Recommended................. 177.90 110.90 62 ........... 62 66.98 38
Corridor).
Cincinnati (I-71 Corridor)... Not Recommended............. 874.70 431.20 49 ........... 49 443.50 51
Cleveland (Euclid Corridor Recommended................. 220.00 135.00 61 50.00 84 35.00 16
Improvement Project).
Hartford (New Britain- Recommended................. 80.00 51.60 65 12.38 80 16.02 20
Hartford Busway).
Houston (Downtown to Recommended................. 300.00 64.90 22 36.00 34 199.12 66
Astrodome Corridor Light
Rail).
Kansas City, Johnson County Not Rated................... 30.90 24.80 80 ........... 80 6.10 20
(I-35 Commuter Rail) \1\.
Las Vegas (Resort Corridor Recommended................. 568.00 155.00 27 95.00 44 318.00 56
Fixed Guideway MOS).
Maryland (MARC Commuter Rail Not Rated................... 85.10 40.90 48 13.50 64 30.70 36
Improvements Projects) \1\.
Miami (East-West Multimodal Not Recommended............. 2,023.00 $808.00 40 ........... 40 1,215.00 60
Corridor).
Miami (North Corridor)....... Not Recommended............. 615.20 430.60 70 ........... 70 184.56 30
Miami (South Miami-Dade Recommended................. 87.80 61.30 70 5.65 76 20.90 24
Busway Extension).
Nashville (East Commuter Rail Not Rated................... 30.00 20.90 70 3.00 80 6.10 20
Project) \1\.
New York (Long Island Rail Recommended................. 4,350.00 $2,175.00 50 ........... 50 2,175.00 50
Road East Side Access
Project).
Norfolk (Norfolk-Virginia Not Recommended............. 524.60 288.50 55 29.40 61 206.70 39
Beach Corridor LRT).
Orange County (The Centerline Recommended................. 2,015.80 1,009.10 50 405.38 70 601.34 30
Orange County Rail Corridor).
Phoenix (East Valley Light Not Recommended............. 883.90 441.90 50 ........... 50 442.00 50
Rail Transit).
Raleigh (Phase I Triangle Not Recommended............. 284.00 111.00 39 45.00 55 128.00 45
Regional Rail Project).
San Diego (Mid Coast Corridor Highly Recommended.......... 123.00 48.30 39 ........... 39 74.65 61
Project).
San Diego (Oceanside Highly Recommended.......... 253.50 152.10 60 ........... 60 101.40 40
Escondido Rail Project).
San Francisco (Third Street Recommended................. 500.10 ............ ........ 51.11 10 448.99 90
Light Rail Project Phase 1.
San Juan (Tren Urbano, Recommended................. 478.30 382.60 80 ........... 80 95.70 20
Minillas Ext).
Seattle (Everett to Seattle Not Rated................... 104.00 24.90 24 ........... 24 79.10 76
Commuter Rail) \1\.
Seattle (Lakewood-to-Tacoma-- 86.00....................... 24.90 29 ........ 29 61.10 71
Commuter Rail) \1\Not Rated.
Tampa (Tampa Bay Regional Not Recommended............. 953.80 476.90 50 ........... 50 476.92 50
Rail).
Washington DC (Dulles Recommended................. 279.70 217.80 78 6.00 80 55.95 20
Corridor Rapid Transit).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 17,452.20................... 8,648.40 50 766.42 54 8,037.31 46
========================================================================================
Total New Starts Pipeline.. ............................ 36,348.67 19,020.31 52 2,480.01 59 14,848.35 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These projects are not rated based upon the exemption granted to projects where the anticipated Section 5309 New Starts share of the total estimated
Capital Cost is below $25 million.
Question. Please detail by fiscal year and project how the FTA
plans to allocate the $10,400,000 provided for Alaska or Hawaii
projects. Include in your answer the total cost and the local/federal
share of each project (in both dollar and percentage).
Answer. The amount available for Alaska and Hawaii projects is
$10,203,219, after applying the government-reduction required by the
fiscal year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the oversight
take-down. FTA plans to allocate the funds equally (50/50) between the
two states as was done in fiscal year 1999. If an allocated amount
remains unobligated by either state at the end of the period of fund
availability--the year of appropriation plus two years--then funds may
be reallocated to the other state. To date, no funds have been
obligated by either state.
Applications from the State of Alaska have been received for a
total project cost amount of $13.5 million ($10.8 million or 80 percent
Federal share) to date. The applicant, in light of New Starts and other
legislative requirements, is currently revising its applications.
Question. What is the ``lifespan'' of a Record of Decision? Does it
lapse, or need to be renewed if a project does not go forward after a
length of time?
Answer. An environmental Record of Decision (ROD) does not have a
lifespan; however, the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) upon
which a ROD is grounded does. If, after release of the final EIS, there
is a lull of three or more years in major project activities such as
final design, major work on land or vehicle acquisition, substantial
site preparation or other construction activities, then, prior to any
new FTA approvals or grants for the project, the final EIS must be re-
evaluated. The purpose of this reevaluation is to determine whether
there have been changes in the project, in the affected communities or
in the affected natural environment, or changes in relevant laws and
regulations such that the project would cause new, significant impacts
not evaluated in the final EIS. If new, significant impacts are not
found, the original ROD stands. This reevaluation and the resulting
conclusions must be done in writing. If new, significant impacts are
found, then a supplemental environmental review would have to be
conducted to reconsider the earlier decisions on the project itself, on
the project design, and on the mitigation of adverse impacts. The new
environmental review would have to be documented in a supplemental EIS
and a new or revised ROD.
Question. What new starts projects does FTA anticipate will be
requesting an amended full funding grant agreement during the balance
of this calendar year:
Answer. FTA anticipates requests for amendments to the following
FFGAs in calendar year 2000:
--BART--Extension to San Francisco Airport--The Amendment will delete
rail cars and add maintenance facility improvements. There is
no increase in the Section 5309 share of the project.
--South Boston Piers Transitway--The Amendment will add formula funds
to the project to cover cost increases. There is no increase in
the Section 5309 share of the project.
--Houston--Regional Bus Plan--The Amendment will delete some bus
projects and add other new bus projects. There is no increase
in the Section 5309 share of the project.
Question. Please list those current FFGA projects which have
undergone significant change in scope or cost increases beyond and
above the original project scope and baseline cost estimate. Please
provide a brief summary of the project's description, current status,
reason for cost increases or scope changes, and pending issues.
Answer. The following FFGA projects have undergone significant
scope change:
--New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) Hudson-Bergen Waterfront Light
Rail Transit System first Minimum Operable Segment (MOS-1).--
The New Jersey Corporation Hudson-Bergen Waterfront Light Rail
Transit System Minimum Operable Segment (MOS-1) is a 9.3 miles,
16-station light rail system from 34th Street in Bayonne on the
south to Hoboken Terminal on the north. Opening April 15, 2000,
on schedule and under budget, is Phase A, from Exchange Place
south to 34th Street in Bayonne and West Side Avenue in Jersey
City. Phase B, covering the last 2.0 miles between Exchange
Place and Hoboken Terminal is in construction and will open for
revenue service in April 2002. Because of Hoboken community
preference, the alignment changed in 1997 from the East Side to
the West Side of Hoboken (Phase B) necessitating further
environmental work and delaying construction on the last two
miles of the project. No issues are pending and there is no
increase in the Federal share of the project.
--Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Extension to San Francisco
Airport.--The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Extension
to San Francisco Airport project consists of 8.7 miles double
track (6.0 miles is subway, 1.5 miles at grade and 1.2 miles
elevated), 3000 parking spaces and transfer to Caltrain
commuter rail at Millbrae, 1,000 parking spaces at San Bruno
and 1,330 parking spaces at South San Francisco. Construction
of the airport extension is about 50 percent complete. Project
cost increases resulted from: 1) cost increases for material
and labor because of a booming local economy and heavy
competition for materials and labor; 2) rising real estate
costs and difficulty in negotiating settlements with 7 local
cemeteries; and 3) an increase in financing costs stemming from
shortfall in Federal appropriations scheduled in Full Funding
Grant Agreement. The proposed scope change consists of
substituting a $70 million shop and yard improvement program in
place of the originally planned acquisition of twenty-eight
(28) vehicles. This substitution will change the Revenue
Operation Date (ROD) from September 1, 2001 to July 1, 2002,
with an overall project completion date of January 31, 2003.
The financing arrangements for the project will increase the
local funding by $316 million, for a revised budget of $1,483
million and establish a new Capital Reserve Account (CAPRA)
capable of providing up to $27 million of local funds for any
future potential cost increases. No issues are pending and
there is no increase in the Federal share of the project.
--Tren Urbano.--This corridor is a 17-kilometer (10+ miles) fixed
guideway transit system that includes 16 stations. The project
Construction is 62.5 percent complete as of March 2000. The
FFGA was modified on July 19, 1999 to amend the scope and the
special terms and conditions and to recognize the increase in
total project cost from $1,250.3 million to $1,653.6 million.
The modification authorized the use of urban area formula and
flexible funds for the project ($141 million formula funds and
$259.9 million flexible funds); extended the revenue operation
date until May 31, 2002; and referenced the standard terms and
conditions applicable to this project. The reason for the cost
increases was largely due to contract bid over the costs
estimates, the addition of two stations and increased
construction management fees. Pending issues include several
Quality Assurance/Quality Control items and the Settlement and
Forbearance Agreement for Centro Medico and there is no
increase in the Federal share of the project.
--South Boston Piers Transitway.--This project is a 1-mile
underground transit tunnel from the existing South Station to
the World Trade Center. Three underground Transitway stations
are at South Station, the new Federal Courthouse/Fan Pier, and
the World Trade Center will provide connections to the existing
Red Line as well as commuter and inter-city rail and bus
services. The operating vehicle is a 60-foot, dual-powered,
trackless electric trolley/diesel articulated bus.
--An important feature of the Transitway Project is that the
underground alignment in the vicinity of South Station as
well as the World Trade Center area is coincident with the
$13.1 billion Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project that is
currently in construction. This approach provides
significant savings and reduced disruption for the local
community. The project is in final design and construction.
To date, six of the nine construction contracts are
underway, including the work associated with the three
joint CA/T contracts. Bids for vehicle procurement were
received in September 1999. The MBTA expects a vehicle
procurement award in late April 2000. The three remaining
construction contracts are to be advertised and awarded by
the MBTA by the second quarter of 2001, and have an
estimated value of approximately $60 million. To date, $231
million has been expended.
--The baseline estimate for the full funding grant agreement in
1993 dollars was estimated to be $413 million, and an
original revenue operation date of December 31, 2000. The
MBTA has submitted a ``recovery plan'' in January 1999 and
a draft ``Restated Project Budget, Scope of Work, and
Schedule'' in March 2000. These documents indicate the
project budget has increased to $601 million and the
revised revenue operation date is December 31, 2003. The
FTA has requested and received a ``Finance Plan'' in late
February 2000. A review by FTA, GAO and the OIG is ongoing;
however, there is no increase in the Federal share of the
project.
--Although the project scope has not changed, the MBTA has managed
to enhance the level of service that this project will
provide when revenue service begins in 2003. In lieu of
transit service from South Station to the World Trade
Center, the Transitway project will provide for enhanced
service with the integration of Massport's Airport
Intermodal Transit Connector project. This will result in
service from South Station to Logan Airport via the CA/T's
Ted Williams Tunnel.
--Also, as a result of a ``Restated Project Budget, Scope of Work,
and Schedule'', coupled with three CA/T joint construction
contracts, prevalent area bidding market conditions,
impacts of encountering differing site conditions and
complications during design, the budget has now grown to
$601 million.
--The outstanding issues are both technical and procedural.
Technically the project depends on the successful
completion of the CA/T joint construction contracts, as
well as the sophisticated work associated with constructing
a tunnel under existing historic structures. Procedural
issues include completion of the review and acceptance of
the MBTA's Finance Plan for this project and the
finalization of the amended FFGA.
--Los Angeles MTA.--The Los Angeles Metro Transit Authority Red Line
Project was planned, programmed and constructed in phases
through a series of ``minimum operable segments'' (MOSs). The
4.4 mile, 5 station segment of MOS-1 opened for revenue service
in January 1993. A 2.1 mile, three station segment of MOS-2
opened along Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996. An additional 4.6
mile, 5 station segment in MOS-2 opened along Vermont Avenue &
Hollywood Boulevard in June 1999. The 6.3 mile North Hollywood
segment of MOS-3 is currently under construction.
--Currently Segments 1 and 2 are in operation carrying
approximately 60,000 passengers per day. The Segment 3,
North Hollywood Extension is in the system test and start-
up phase with some surface construction work remaining at
the station locations. Revenue operations for this
extension are currently anticipated in the June/July 2000
timeframe, well in advance of the December 2000 FFGA date.
--The original MOS-3 consists of three extensions, North Hollywood,
East Side and Mid City, all funded under a single FFGA and
each planned with separate revenue operations dates. The
East Side and Mid City extensions as originally planned
have been indefinitely suspended and those corridors are
the subject of ongoing alternative alignment studies. As a
result of LACMTA's financial condition, the FTA took action
to segregate the Segment 3 scope, schedule and budget in
the three distinct project elements. This action has
resulted in the establishment of a Revised and Restated
FFGA for the North Hollywood Extension. Like action for the
remaining two project elements is pending LACMTA's ongoing
corridor studies and project re-evaluations. This may
ultimately result in three separate FFGAs pending MTA's
ability to demonstrate financial and technical capacity;
however, there is no increase in the Federal share of the
project.
--The MTA has undertaken a series of regional transit alternatives
analysis studies addressing the reformulation of the East
Side, Mid City and other transit Corridors. On February 24,
2000, the MTA Board addressed the results of the studies to
date for the East Side Corridor. The Board voted to
continue and narrow the study of an alignment for the East
Side that begins at Union Station and terminates at the
intersection of Beverly and Atlantic Boulevard. This
alignment includes a section of tunnel through the Boyle
Heights area between First and Boyle and First and Lorena
streets. In the February meeting, the Board also directed
the continuation of studies in the other corridors. Further
action addressing the studies was taken at the March 2000
Board meeting, modifying the `Exposition Right-Of-Way'
alignment to be studied for the Mid City/West Side
corridor. This alignment is in addition to the alignment
designated at the February Board meeting.
--The Bus Consent Decree was established in October 1996 to resolve
a law suit brought by the `Bus Riders Union'. The Decree
requires that the bus loading along heavily traveled
corridors be reduced in three steps. Initially the loading
was to be reduced to a factor of 1.35 (in other words no
more than 35 percent of the seated capacity of the bus
could be standees) by December 1997. Defining the exact
methodology for determination of compliance has been the
subject of several hearings before the `Special Master'
identified in the Decree and the Federal Court. The second
step is to achieve a load factor of 1.25 by June 2000. The
third step requires that the MTA achieve a load factor of
1.2 by June 2001.
--As a result of the interpretation of the load factor
requirements, the Special Master ordered the MTA to procure
532 additional buses over the 2,095 it had already planned
to purchase. MTA petitioned the Special Master for relief.
In May 1999 the Special Master reduced the requirement to
481 additional buses. The MTA has further appealed to the
9th Circuit Court, which has issued a `stay' of the lower
Court's order while it considers the MTA's appeal. The
hearing process is anticipated to continue through the June
2000 timeframe.
Question. What triggers a baseline financial review of a new starts
full funding grant agreement by Inspector General?
Answer. The OIG has indicated to FTA that there are no specific
factors that trigger an audit. Departmental and congressional inquiries
are given priority. The OIG attempts to survey projects on a continuing
basis to see if any emerging issues such as large cost increases or
lengthy schedule delays may indicate vulnerabilities.
Question. Please list all current, pending or anticipated full
funding grant agreement projects (those expected to be signed by the
end of fiscal year 2001, and included in the administration's budget
request). Please also note whether or not each project has a record of
decision, when the ROD was approved, and if no ROD, when the ROD is
anticipated. Note the date the FFGA was approved, or if pending or
anticipated, what approximate date FTA believes the FFGA will be
approved. Note the project total cost estimate, the federal share, the
local share, and a summary of the most recent project evaluation.
Answer. The following table lists all current, pending or
anticipated FFGAs expected to be signed by the end of fiscal year 2001:
CURRENT FFGAs AND PROPOSED FFGAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFGA approval date Project Requested
ROD approval date or anticipated 60 total federal Non-5309 Local
Project actual/ anticipated day letter to cost 5309 federal share Project evaluation
congress estimate share share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under FFGA:
Atlanta--North Springs....... .................... 20-Dec-94........... $463.18 $370.54 ......... $92.64 .............................
Los Angeles--North Hollywood. .................... 14-May-93........... 2,781.09 1,416.49 $377.15 987.45 .............................
Boston--Piers--MOS-2 (So. .................... 5-Nov-94............ 413.40 330.73 ......... 82.67 .............................
Sta. to Wo. Tr.).
Portland--Westside/Hillsboro .................... 29-Sep-92........... 963.72 630.07 74.00 259.65 .............................
extension.
Houston--Regional Bus Plan... .................... 30-Dec-94........... 625.00 500.00 ......... 125.00 .............................
MARC--Commuter Rail .................... 19-Jun-95........... 131.56 105.26 ......... 26.31 .............................
Improvements.
Salt Lake City--South LRT.... .................... 2-Aug-95............ 312.49 243.99 4.00 64.50 .............................
San Juan--Tren Urbano........ .................... 19-Jul-99........... 1,653.00 307.40 400.90 944.70 .............................
Denver SW Corridor LRT....... .................... 9-May-96............ 176.32 120.00 18.88 37.44 .............................
SF Area--San Jose Tasman West .................... 2-Jul-96............ 325.00 182.75 57.94 84.31 .............................
LRT.
St. Louis St. Clair MetroLink .................... 17-Oct-96........... 339.20 252.41 ......... 86.79 .............................
Extension [Phase IIa].
NJ Urban Core--Hudson-Bergen .................... 15-Oct-96........... 992.14 604.09 281.65 106.40 .............................
LRT.
Sacramento LRT Extension..... .................... 20-Jun-97........... 222.00 113.19 ......... 108.81 .............................
SF Area--BART Airport .................... 30-Jun-97........... 1,510.20 750.00 ......... 760.20 .............................
Extension.
Dallas--North Central LRT .................... 6-Oct-99............ 517.20 333.00 ......... 184.20 Recommended.
Extension.
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal--under FFGA....... 11,425.50........... 6,259.92............ 1,214.52 3,951.07 .........
============================================
Fiscal year 2000 proposed FFGAs:
San Diego--Mission Valley Aug. 1998........... 17-Mar-00 \1\....... 431.00 330.00 13.70 87.30 Highly Recommended.
East LRT Extension.
Newark Rail Link (MOS-1)..... Nov. 1998........... May 2000............ 207.70 142.00 25.30 40.40 Highly Recommended.
Fort Lauderdale--Tri-Rail Nov. 1999........... 23-Feb-00 \1\....... 327.00 110.50 91.41 125.09 Recommended.
Commuter Rail Upgrade.
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Fiscal year 2000 965.70.............. 582.50.............. 130.41 252.79
proposed FFGAs.
============================================
Fiscal year 2001 proposed FFGAs:
Portland--Interstate MAX LRT Jan 2000............ Sep 2000............ 350.00 257.50 24.00 68.50 Highly Recommended.
Extension.
Seattle--Central Link LRT.... Jan 2000............ Sep 2000............ 1,500.00 500.00 ......... 1,000.00 Highly Recommended.
Chicago--Douglas Branch May 2000............ Nov 2000............ 450.80 320.10 0.03 130.67 Highly Recommended.
Reconstruction.
Northern NJ--Hudson-Bergen Oct 1996............ May 2000............ 1,112.80 721.60 273.85 117.35 Recommended.
LRT--MOS-2.
Pittsburgh--Stage II LRT Feb 1996............ Sep 2000............ 383.70 100.20 10.23 273.27 Recommended.
Reconstruction.
Memphis--Medical Center Apr 2000............ Nov 2000............ 69.10 55.30 ......... 13.80 Recommended.
Extension.
Salt Lake City--CBD to Dec 1999............ Oct 2000............ 105.80 84.60 ......... 21.20 Recommended.
University LRT.
Minneapolis--Hiawatha Apr 2000............ Sep 2000............ 548.60 274.30 ......... 274.30 Recommended.
Corridor LRT.
Denver--Southeast Corridor Mar 2000............ Nov 2000............ 882.50 525.00 ......... 357.50 Recommended.
LRT.
Baltimore--Central LRT Double- Summer 2000......... Nov 2000............ 153.70 120.00 2.95 30.75 Recommended.
Tracking.
Washington, DC/MD--Largo Feb 2000............ Oct 2000............ 433.90 260.30 3.20 170.40 Recommended.
Extension.
Chicago--Metra Southwest Summer 2000......... Dec 2000............ 165.50 103.90 ......... 61.60 Highly Recommended.
Corridor Commuter Rail.
--------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Fiscal year 2001 6,156.40............ 3,322.80............ 314.26 2,519.34
proposed FFGAs.
============================================
Grand totals............... 18,547.60........... 10,165.22........... 1,659.19 6,723.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Submitted to Congress.
NEW STARTS EVALUATION CRITERIA
Question. How has FTA's application of the TEA-21 new starts
project evaluation criteria been modified over the last year? Please
discuss any changes in how the evaluation process is performed and how
the resulting ratings translate into a funding recommendation from the
FTA, or in recommendation to proceed to a full funding grant agreement.
Answer. FTA's application of the New Starts criteria has not been
significantly modified over the last year. As was done last year, FTA
analyzes the information submitted by project sponsors and assigns a
rating of high, medium-high, medium, low-medium, or low to each of the
individual project justification criteria and to the measures for local
financial commitment. These criteria/measure-specific ratings are then
combined into summary project justification and finance ratings. These
summary ratings are in turn used to determine overall project ratings
according to the following decision rule:
--Highly Recommended.--Projects must be rated at least medium-high
for both finance and project justification;
--Recommended.--Projects must be rated at least medium for both
finance and project justification;
--Not Recommended.--Projects not rated at least medium in both
finance and justification will be rated as not recommended.
These ratings serve as inputs to Federal budget decisions, but do
not in and of themselves translate directly into a funding
recommendation or commitment. Rather, FTA must also consider (1) the
readiness of projects to enter into full funding grant agreements
(FFGAs), and (2) the amount of commitment authority available on an
annual basis, and where that commitment is allocated. It is these
considerations which have been modified and enhanced since last year,
as described below:
1. FTA's ``project readiness'' screen reflects project sponsor's
technical capability to construct the project (as required by both
ISTEA and TEA-21), and ensures that projects proposed for an FFGA will
be ready to enter into such an agreement during the fiscal year for
which it is proposed. FTA used such a screen for development of the
fiscal year 2000 budget; however, the fiscal year 2001 screen has been
enhanced to reflect key project development milestones and issues:
--the anticipated dates for a Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) for each project (thus signifying
the completion of all Federally-required environmental work);
and
--the date that the project sponsor could adequately demonstrate its
technical capability to be approved by FTA to advance into
final design. Specifically, FTA considered the anticipated date
for a Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) for each project (thus signifying the completion
of all Federally-required environmental work); approval of a
project's management plan (PMP); and acceptance of a fleet
management plan, and
--the identification of all other outstanding issues and concerns--
and actions to be taken by the project sponsor to resolve
them--before FTA will enter into an FFGA on the project. Such
concerns may include reaching an acceptable level of design to
finalize project costs; securing any uncommitted local funding;
and addressing all outstanding right-of-way and real estate
issues.
For the fiscal year 2001 budget, FTA used its project management
oversight resources to carefully review the reasonableness of project
development schedules, and established an earlier readiness threshold
of summer 2000 to be in final design than for fiscal year 2000 (ROD/
FONSI by October 1999). This readiness threshold is consistent with
guidance in the Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2000
Department of Transportation Appropriations Act. The result of this
enhanced readiness review is that FTA is much more confident that all
outstanding local issues will have been adequately addressed for each
project prior to execution of an FFGA.
2. FTA also considers the overall level of New Starts funding made
available in metropolitan areas and states. FTA is hesitant to
administer multiple concurrent FFGAs to a single grantee or in a single
region, as FTA wants to ensure that a grantee is not be overburdened by
multiple commitments and has the financial resources and technical
capacity to carry out a project.
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the projects that are
likely to be ready for FFGAs in the near term (fiscal years 2000
through 2003). Include current stage of project development, project
description, estimated record of decision date, and estimated federal
share.
Answer. Nineteen projects are likely to be ready for FFGAs in the
near term. These include the 15 projects (pending and recommended
FFGAs) in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request and 4
additional projects expected to be ready in fiscal year 2002. The table
follows:
PENDING, RECOMMENDED, AND POSSIBLE FUTURE FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual or estimated Requested
Project Stage record of decision section 5309 Description
date funding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego--Mission Valley East LRT FD...................... Aug. 1998............ $329,958,000 A 5.9-mile, 4-station light rail extension of
Extension. existing Blue Line, from east of I-15 to La
Mesa, where it will connect to existing Orange
Line; includes elevated, at-grade, and tunnel
portions; includes 2 park and ride lots and a
new access road.
Newark Rail Link (MOS-1)............. FD...................... Nov. 1998............ 141,950,000 A 1-mile light rail extension of existing Newark
City Subway to be built mostly at-grade from
Newark's Penn Sta. to Newark's Broad St. Sta.;
will add 4 stations to existing 11-station
system; MOS-I is first segment of a proposed
8.8-mile, 15-station extension from downtown
Newark to downtown Elizabeth, with a stop at
Newark International Airport; will connect two
major rail lines that serve downtown Newark
with light rail service.
Fort Lauderdale--Tri Rail Commuter Completed PE............ Nov. 1999 \1\........ 110,500,000 Will double-track 44.31 miles of 71.1-mile
Rail Upgrade. commuter rail corridor (26.79 miles of double-
tracking included in Segments 1-4; includes
construction/replacement of bridges and
modification/renovation of stations to
accommodate second mainline track, right-of-way
and easement acquisitions, design/construction
of new maintenance and layover facility, and
revenue rolling stock acquisition; includes
safety improvements on entire 71.7 mile
corridor.
Hudson-Bergen MOS-2.................. FD...................... Oct. 1996............ 721,600,000 A 6.1-mile, 7-station extension connecting 3
intermodal transfer sites and 2 park and ride
lots; will be constructed in 3 phases: 5.1-
miles extending north from Hoboken Terminal
through the Weehawken Tunnel below Bergenline
Ave. to an at-grade station at Tonnelle Ave. in
Jersey City, the tunnel itself, and a 1-mile
southerly extension from 34th St. to 21st St.
in Bayonne; the second of 3 minimum operable
segments of a $2 billion, 20.1-mile, 30-station
LRT.
Portland--Interstate MAX LRT FD...................... Jan. 2000............ 257,500,000 A 5.6-mile, 10-station extension of the
Extension. Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) light rail
system, connecting Portland's CBD with the
regional Exposition Center in north Portland;
will connect with existing 33-mile East/West
MAX line at Rose Quarter Sta.
Seattle--Central Link LRT MOS-1...... FD...................... Jan. 2000............ 500,000,000 A 7.2-mile, 10-station light rail transit
project (Link LRT) running southeast from NE
45th St. to South Lander St., operating through
the 1.6-mile Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel;
first minimum operable segment of a 23.5-mile,
23-station LRT system running north to south
from Northgate, through downtown Seattle,
Southeast Seattle and the cities of Tukwila and
SeaTac; LRT is one element of a $3.914 billion
regional transit plan.
Chicago--Douglas Branch Completed PE............ May 2000............. 320,100,000 Complete reconstruction of 6.6-mile, 11-station
Reconstruction. Douglas Branch of Blue Line, extending from
Cermack Avenue to a point just west of downtown
Chicago; addresses high maintenance and
operating costs resulting from age-related
deterioration since segments on line opened
from 1896 to 1910, with upgrades made through
mid-80s.
Pittsburgh Stage II LRT FD...................... Feb. 1996 \1\........ 100,200,000 First segment of second phase of reconstruction
Reconstruction. of old 25-mile trolley lines to modern LRT
standards; includes reconstruction of 6.3 miles
on both the Overbrook Line and a portion of the
Library Line, construction of 2,400 park-and-
ride spaces, and purchase of 28 LRT vehicles.
Memphis--Medical Center Extension.... PE...................... Apr. 2000 \1\........ 55,300,000 A 2.5-mile, 6-station light rail extension to
the Main St. Trolley/Riverfront Loop village
rail system, expanding service from the CBD
east to the Medical Center area; will be
designed to accommodate light rail vehicles but
vintage rail cars will be used until proposed
regional LRT line is implemented and fleet of
modern LRT vehicles is acquired.
Salt Lake City--CBD to University LRT FD...................... Dec. 1999............ 84,600,000 A 2.5-mile, 4-station light rail extension in
eastern Salt Lake City, from the downtown area
to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of
Utah campus; will connect with existing 15-mile
North/South LRT line at Main Street.
Minneapolis--Hiawatha Corridor LRT... Completed PE............ Apr. 2000............ 274,300,000 An 11.5 mile, 15-station light rail line linking
downtown Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport, and the Mall of America
in Bloomington; will operate along the corridor
following Hiawatha Avenue and Trunk Highway 55;
will tunnel under runways and taxiways for .8
miles.
Denver--Southeast Corridor LRT....... Completed PE............ Mar. 2000............ 525,000,000 A 19.4-mile, 14-station double-tracked light
rail line between downtown Denver and Lincoln
Ave. in Douglas Cnty. along I-25, with a spur
along I-225 to Parker Rd. in Arapahoe Cnty.;
will operate over an exclusive right-of-way and
connect with existing Central Corridor LRT in
downtown Denver and Southwest LRT currently
under construction; part of a multimodal
program of highway and transit improvements.
Baltimore--Central LRT Double- FD...................... Summer 2000.......... 120,000,000 Will double-track 8 single-track sections
Tracking. totaling 9.4 miles of 29-mile Central Corridor
Light Rail Line, all of which are almost
entirely in existing right-of-way and located
between Timonium and Cromwell Station/Glen
Burnie; includes construction of second station
platforms at 4 stations, bridge and crossing
improvements, bi-directional signal system with
traffic signal preemption on Howard St., and
catenary and other equipment and systems.
Washington, DC/MD--Largo Extension... Completed PE............ Feb. 2000............ 260,300,000 A 3.1-mile, 2-station extension of the Blue Line
from Addison Rd. to Largo Town Center in Prince
George's Cnty., MD; Maryland Mass Transit
Administration managed project through PE,
WMATA will undertake final design/construction
and operate as an integral part of regional
Metrorail system.
Chicago--Metra Southwest Corridor PE...................... Summer 2000.......... 103,860,000 An 11-mile, 2-station extension to South West
Commuter Rail. commuter rail line, a 29-mile line providing
service from Orland Park, IL to downtown
Chicago; extends from existing station at 179th
St. in Orland Park southwest to Manhattan, IL;
includes 3 miles of double-tracking, parking
facilities, track/signal/station improvements,
expansion of 2 existing rail yards,
construction of third rail yard, rehab of
bridges, purchase of 2 diesel locomotives and
13 bi-level passenger cars, and relocation of
downtown Chicago terminal from Union Sta. to
LaSalle St. Sta.
San Diego--Oceanside-Escondido Rail PE...................... Mar. 1997 \1\........ 152,100,000 A 23.7-mile, 15-station rail transit line using
Project. diesel multiple unit rail vehicles; 22 miles in
on existing freight railroad corridor running
east from Oceanside through Vista and San
Marcos to Escondido; includes 1.7 miles of new
right-of-way to serve campus of California
Statue University San Marcos.
Chicago CTA--Ravenswood Line PE...................... Aug. 2000 \1\........ 245,500,000 Station expansions and tracking improvements to
Expansion. increase capacity on the 9.3-mile, 19-station
Ravenswood Line (AKA Brown Line); built between
1900 and 1907, line extends from Ravenswood on
the north side of Chicago, past Wrigley Field
to the downtown Loop.
Miami--South Miami-Dade Busway PE/FD................... Aug. 2000 \1\........ 61,300,000 An 11.5-mile, 12-station busway extension to
Extension. existing 8.3-mile South Busway; will run along
US Route 1, between Cutler Ridge Mall near SW
200 St. and Florida City; final design on 5-
mile portion is underway and remaining 6.5-mile
segment is in preliminary engineering.
Cleveland--Euclid Corridor PE...................... Aug. 2000 \1\........ 135,000,000 A 9.8-mile transit corridor along Euclid Ave.
Improvement Project. from Public Square in downtown Cleveland east
to University Circle; includes creation of a
2.43-mile exclusive bus rapid transit segment
(BRT), improvements to two streets, and
creation of a Transit Zone with exclusive
transit lanes on two streets; BRT will be
served by 60-foot electric trolleybuses with
doors on both sides of bus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fining of no significant impact instead of ROD.
PE--Preliminary Engineering.
FD--Final Design.
TIFIA LOANS
Question. Please list any new starts projects or other transit
grantees that received TIFIA loans in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and
the amount of each loan. What are the terms of these loans? What
transit projects currently have pending applications for the next round
of TIFIA loans?
Answer. To date, only two transit projects have been approved to
receive credit assistance through TIFIA. The Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority (WMATA) received a $600 million guarantee on a
loan made by Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. The guarantee allows WMATA
to advance several major contracts for its capital improvement program.
The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), is
currently negotiating a $300 million loan for the Tren Urbano, Phase I
(a FFGA project). The purpose of the loan is to assure timely
completion of the project and to lower the capital cost of the local
matching funds. The next phase (FY-2000) of the TIFIA program has not
been announced to date, so there are no pending applications. However,
FTA has received expressions of interest from major transit projects in
New York, New Jersey, and California.
LOS ANGELES TRANSIT PROJECTS
Question. On February 24, 2000, Los Angeles County MTA (LACMTA)
Board selected and approved locally preferred alternatives for the
Eastside, Mid City/Westside, and San Fernando Valley corridors of the
Los Angeles Metro project. Please describe each of the three corridor
project alternatives that were selected, and summarize the current
level of completion, federal funding received thus far, estimated total
project cost, federal share, local match percentage and amount, and
estimated construction/completion schedule for each.
Answer. The LACMTA Board selected bus rapid transit (BRT) options
for the Mid City and San Fernando Valley corridors and approved further
consideration of BRT and Light Rail Transit (LRT) in the Eastside
corridor. The next step is for the Board to formally identify the
Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPA) in accordance with FTA's major
investment requirements. The following excerpt from the Board meeting
provides additional description of the corridor alternatives:
--Eastside.--Light Rail Transit (LRT) from Union Station to Atlantic
via First Street with the specific choice of tunneling through
Boyle Heights from 1st and Boyle to 1st and Lorena, then
transitioning to Third Street and proceeding east via Third
Street/Beverly Boulevard to Atlantic, with the policy direction
from the Board that the preferred mode of transportation would
be light rail.
--Mid-City/Westside.--Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Wilshire Boulevard
from Vermont Avenue to downtown Santa Monica, with
consideration of minimal operable segments to San Vicente
Boulevard (east of La Cienega), Santa Monica Boulevard and San
Vicente Boulevard (west of I-405), including a study of a
busway route
--San Fernando Valley.--Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along the Burbank-
Chandler right-of-way from the North Hollywood Red Line Station
to Warner Center, with consideration of a minimal operable
segment between Woodman Avenue and Balboa Boulevard with rapid
bus connections at each end. With completion of the Regional
Alternatives Analysis and identification of LPA's, LACMTA can
request FTA approval to enter Preliminary Engineering and
develop the Draft and Final Environmental Impacts. A Section
5309 grant of $11.9 million was provided to MTA to support the
planning effort for the reformulated Mid City and East Side
projects.
The capital funding plan adopted by the MTA Board at its February
24 meeting is displayed below. As the projects are yet to be defined,
no schedule for their completion has been developed and the Total Cost
figures should be viewed as very rough order estimates.
PRELIMINARY CAPITAL FUNDING PLAN EXCERPT FROM 2/24/00 MTA BOARD MEETING MINUTES
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
cost in
Corridor fiscal Federal SB45 \1\ Local New state
year 2004 FFGA
dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Side................................................ 704 352 116 ......... 236
Mid-City................................................. 590 295 44 ......... 251
San Fernando Valley...................................... 291 ......... ......... $146 145
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 1585 647 160 146 632
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State SB45 funds in the amount of $116 million for the East Side and $44 million for Mid City reserved by
prior Board action will be applied to those corridors.
LOS ANGELES TRANSIT PROJECTS
Question. Does the total combined federal cost of the selected
panel of projects for Eastside, Mid City/Westside, and San Fernando
Valley match the remaining amount of federal contingent commitment
authority for Los Angeles Metro?
Answer. Los Angeles MTA has not selected a panel of projects
therefore the federal cost estimate of the projects for Eastside, Mid
City/Westside, and San Fernando Valley is not known at this time.
Question. What is FTA's official position on the remaining federal
contingent commitment authority for Los Angeles Metro? What is the
amount, excluding those funds associated with the North Hollywood FFGA?
Answer. All ``contingent'' commitments made during ISTEA were no
longer ``contingent'' once the FTA new starts program was re-authorized
by TEA-21. Thus, in principle, all the Full Funding Grant Agreements
transacted during ISTEA that included ``contingent'' commitments will
be honored with the 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5309 new starts commitment authority
currently available under TEA-21.
Insofar as the Mid-City and Eastside corridors of Los Angeles MOS-
3, however, former FTA Administrator Linton wrote to LACMTA on October
28, 1999, stating ``As you know, we advised you on July 15, 1999 that
FTA no longer had a Federal commitment in either the Eastside or Mid-
City corridors because both corridors lacked active projects.'' The
letter further stated that FTA would consider the prior Federal
commitment as an ``other factor'' in evaluating the identified projects
once the LACMTA identified viable projects in those corridors but the
projects will have to go through the rating process and be evaluated
against competing uses of the funds. There remains $647.11 million of
the original commitment to the projects that has not been appropriated.
ST. LOUIS METROLINK PROJECT
Question. Please update the Committee on what steps FTA and the
project sponsors for the proposed St. Clair extension to Scott Air
Force Base are taking to address concerns raised by the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees and the Senate Banking Committee.
Answer. FTA is continuing to work with the Bi-State Development
Agency to provide further evidence of the benefits of the project,
including anticipated economic development at and around the proposed
Scott-Shiloh station. Acting Administrator Fernandez and the Inspector
General Ken Meade met with local officials on April 20 to further
discuss how the Committee's concerns can be satisfactorily addressed.
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT PROJECTS
Question. Please list all the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
requests for funding in fiscal year 2001. Which of these projects have
been requested in the administration's budget?
Answer. The Department and FTA are supporting up to $50 million in
Federal Transit funding to assist mass transportation for the 2002
Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Salt Lake City. The fiscal year 2000
Departmental Appropriations Act provided approximately $15 million for
Olympics and Paralympics transportation activities, thus, the
administration's budget is requesting $35 million in appropriations
under the Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities program, consistent with
the limit on the Department's and FTA's support for the games. The
administration's budget does not request funding for particular
projects, per se, but recently, in response to our request, the Salt
Lake Organizing Committee submitted preliminary information outlining
its Federal transit funding requests for fiscal year 2001 for the 2002
Winter Olympics and Paralympics, as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Planning.......................................................... 2
Venue Loading and Unloading....................................... 5
Transit Bus....................................................... 8
Bus Maintenance Facilities........................................ 2
Park-and-Ride..................................................... 18
______
Total....................................................... 35
TREN URBANO
Question. Please prepare a table showing the annual sources and
uses of funds to pay for the capital costs of Tren Urbano at the
current $1,676,000,000 cost to complete. Identify the specific amounts
and sources of local and federal funding (Section 3, FHWA flex funding,
block grant transfers, or other federal) planned to complete the
current construction program, on an annual basis.
Answer. The table showing the annual sources and uses of funds to
pay for the capital costs of Tren Urbano at the current $1,676,000,000
cost to complete is below.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Section Total
5309 5307 FHWA Federal State Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.......................................... 7.4 20.8 ......... 28.2 8.4 36.6
1997.......................................... 6.1 20.2 ......... 26.3 87.2 113.5
1998.......................................... 15.0 20.0 31.7 66.7 268.3 335.0
1999.......................................... 19.8 20.0 108.2 148.00 180.9 328.9
2000.......................................... 82.0 20.0 40.0 142.0 199.8 341.8
2001.......................................... 118.0 20.0 40.0 178.0 153.7 331.7
2002.......................................... 59.1 20.0 40.0 119.1 47.0 166.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................ 307.4 141.0 259.9 708.3 945.3 1,653.6
Prior to FFGA................................. ......... 5.0 ......... 5.0 17.0 22.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 307.4 146.0 259.9 713.3 962.3 1,675.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table showing the annual sources and
uses of funds to pay for the capital costs of the Minillas extension of
Tren Urbano. Identify the specific amounts and sources of local and
federal funding (Section 3, FHWA flex funding, block grant transfers,
or other federal) planned to complete the current construction program,
on an annual basis.
Answer. Per Financial Plan dated August 1999, the PRHTA proposed to
pay for the capital costs associated with Minillas from two sources:
(1) Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) funds,
including the proceeds of PRHTA bonds and short-term borrowing; and (2)
FTA capital program funds (80 percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Local
Fiscal year 5309 share Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999................................... ......... $1.2 $1.2
2000................................... $10.8 0.7 11.5
2001................................... 57.8 14.5 72.3
2002................................... 62.9 15.7 78.6
2003................................... 70.4 17.6 88.0
2004................................... 110.8 27.7 138.5
2005................................... 69.9 17.5 87.4
--------------------------------
Totals........................... 382.6 94.9 477.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN FRANCISCO BART
Question. What is the current schedule for completion of the BART
extension to the San Francisco Airport? When will revenue service on
this extension begin? How is the schedule for the on-airport project,
which is being constructed with airport revenues, coordinated with the
larger transit extension schedule?
Answer. The overall completion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART) extension to the San Francisco Airport which includes
the maintenance shop modifications is January 2003. The current Revenue
Operation Date (ROD) for service on the 8.7 mile subway extension to
the San Francisco Airport is July 1, 2002. The work at the airport
station, which is being constructed with airport revenues, is 82
percent complete which is ahead of the schedule for the larger transit
extension.
Question. Has all right-of-way acquisition been completed for the
Colma to Millbrae BART extension?
Answer. Approximately 95 percent of the right-of way has been
acquired and the remaining acquisitions are not critical to the current
schedule.
Question. What is the current estimate of the cost to complete the
BART extension to the San Francisco Airport? How does this estimate
compare to the original estimate at the time the FFGA was negotiated?
Please identify by major cost activity or element what accounts for the
increases in cost?
Answer. The current estimate for the Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART) Extension to the San Francisco Airport is $1,483
million. The original Cost Estimate in the Full Funding Grant Agreement
was $1,167 million. The cost increase of $316 million resulted from
various factors:
[In millions of dollars]
Activity or element Increase
Construction increased due to competitive factors, greater than
budgeted escalation, omission of some scope from cost
estimates and a premium for the risks associated with design-
build implementation.......................................... 146
Third party contracts increased due to additional oversight of the
design-build contractors, more services required to purchase
real estate than anticipated and an early start on public
relations efforts............................................. 63
Force account costs increased due to re-evaluation of the cost of
work to be performed.......................................... 7
Right-of-way increased due to greater than anticipated real estate
escalation and unanticipated utility relocation costs......... 65
Finance costs increased due to lower than anticipated federal
appropriations................................................ 19
Project administration increased due to extending project and
support staff through the revenue date and extending core
project staff through claims and contract closeout............ 16
______
Total....................................................... 316
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Question. Section 331 of Public Law 106-69 transferred funds made
available under that Act and any prior year unobligated funds for the
Charleston, South Carolina Monobeam Corridor project to the transit
planning and research account. Please describe the Monobeam Corridor
project; outline the project's funding history, including what funds
presently remain unobligated; and explain why this project is more
appropriately funded in the transit planning and research account than
in the capital investment grants account.
Answer. The City of Charleston (``City''), South Carolina teamed up
with FUTREX, Inc. to develop and conduct a full scale demonstration of
FUTREX's System 21 Monobeam, elevated rail transit technology on a
segment of about 1.2 miles of track and four vehicles. FUTREX
anticipates that capital cost of the system would be in the range of
one-half to one-third of competing transit technologies. Some of the
advantages claimed of the system are its low footprint and modular
light weight design while being capable of providing two-way, bi-
directional operation on one slender elevated triangular guideway at
passenger-carrying capacities exceeding 20,000 passengers per hour per
direction. The full scale demonstration is estimated to cost about $35
million, which the partnership expects to raise from public and private
sources. When fully developed, the City intends to use System 21 to
link major employment, commercial and population centers in the greater
Charleston area such as the Charleston International Airport, a new
intermodal transportation center, the coliseum/convention center
complex, various commercial complexes and hotels, and the Charleston
Visitor and Regional Transportation center.
In fiscal year 1998, Congress earmarked $1.5 million for
Charleston, SC Monobeam rail project. The conference agreement provided
the $1.5 million for conceptual planning and engineering, and related
work for a full-scale demonstration monobeam rail line in the
Charleston, South Carolina area. The available funding of $1,495,150
has been obligated with Futrex, Inc. providing $403,431 (approximately
21 percent match) as local share. Prior to the earmark, FUTREX and the
City built a one-quarter scale model of the system with partial funding
of $1,250,000 from the Economic Development Administration of the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
In fiscal year 1999, Congress earmarked $2.2 million ($2,183,615
available after setting aside 0.75 percent for oversight). Obligation
of this increment is pending.
Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA), the
recipient of federal transit funds for the City of Charleston, and
FUTREX are proposing to use the fiscal year 1999 earmark for the
purpose of completing approximately 45,000 hours of final design and
engineering of System 21 monobeam vehicles. Provided there are
sufficient funds available upon completion of final design and
engineering, the Monobeam Partnership will commission the fabrication
of at least one of the four vehicles required for the demonstration of
a 1.25-mile System 21 Prototype installation in Charleston. Futrex will
provide a minimum of fifty percent local match for a total project
budget of $4.4 million for the vehicle initiative.
For fiscal year 2000, Congress earmarked $2,500,000 ($2,452,697
available takedown of 0.75 percent for oversight and a reduction of
1.15 percent per the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2000). Obligation of fiscal year 2000 funds is awaiting development of
the project scope of work.
Funding the Monobeam under the Transit Planning and Research
Account would minimize Federal requirements as compared to those
required under the New Starts program.
Question. Section 323 of Public Law 106-69 permanently amended TEA-
21 to provide that Vermont and Oklahoma are authorized to use transit
formula grants for capital improvements to, and operating assistance
for, intercity passenger rail service. Have either of these States
applied transit formula funds for intercity passenger rail purposes in
fiscal years 1998, 1999, or 2000?
Answer. Vermont used $668,000 of formula funds in fiscal year 1999
and plans to use additional formula funds in fiscal year 2000 for
intercity passenger rail purposes. To date, Oklahoma has not used
formula funds for intercity passenger rail service.
Question. Please explain what the effect of the proposed new
general provision section 327 in the budget request, regarding tribal
governments, will be.
Answer. This General Provision is requested as part of the Job
Access and Reverse Commute program set-aside for Indian Tribes. This
change in Section 3037 of TEA-21 will allow tribal entities to apply
for job access grants directly without being sponsored by the State.
This will allow them sovereignty in receiving job access funds.
Question. Please explain what the effect of the proposed new
general provision section 328, regarding technical direction and
documentation of research and technology projects, will be.
Answer. The effect will be that sufficient funds will be set aside
from every project to enable FTA to exercise responsible stewardship
over project implementation and to ensure that the results are fully
documented and shared with the transit community. Currently, that
expense is negotiated with the grantee. This method is not always
successful, depending on the flexibility of the grantee's internal
budget. In the case where the grantee is not willing to set aside third
party project review and reporting funds, the project may or may not be
reviewed depending on the availability of project managers in FTA
headquarters or regional offices and will likely not be documented in a
report. This provision will require all grantees to make provisions for
an outside review along with full documentation of the project. This
process follows the requirements outlined in the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) mandating fully documented project planning,
implementation, and review.
______
Questions Submitted to the Research and Special Programs Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
NEW POSITIONS
Question. Please prioritize all the new positions requested for
RSPA, including positions for Pipeline Safety.
Answer. The positions are identified as follows: (Funding for all
new positions are requested at one-half of a FTE for fiscal year 2001.)
--Five positions, Office of Emergency Transportation. First position
for a Regional Emergency Transportation Manager
--Second position for a Operations Chief
--Third position for a National Security Planner
--Fourth position for a National and International Disaster
Specialist
--Fifth position for a Mitigation and Recovery Specialist
--Four positions, Office of Pipeline Safety. All four positions are
for Inspectors to inspect new construction and to distribute
greater volume of inspector time to damage prevention.
--Two positions, Office of Research and Technology. Both positions
support the University Marine Transportation Grants Program.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
Question. Please prepare a table indicating various measures of
both the overall performance and the impacts of your program, showing
statistical trends for each of the last ten years. Please include data
on the number of serious releases (or an equivalent measure),
fatalities, injuries, costs, compliance measures, etc.
Answer. The following table is provided:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Serious \1\
Year incidents incidents Fatalities Injuries Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................................. 8,879 402 8 423 $32,353,276
1991............................................. 9,110 405 10 439 38,350,611
1992............................................. 9,310 376 16 604 35,164,057
1993............................................. 12,830 358 15 627 22,801,551
1994............................................. 16,087 427 11 577 44,185,413
1995............................................. 14,743 408 7 400 30,903,281
1996............................................. 13,950 466 120 1,175 46,849,243
1997............................................. 13,995 422 12 225 33,393,764
1998............................................. 15,349 432 13 198 45,796,084
1999............................................. 16,977 365 9 483 31,443,336
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RSPA defines a serious hazardous materials incident as one that involves a fatality or major injury due to a
hazardous material, closure of a major transportation artery or facility or evacuation of six or more persons
due to the presence of a hazardous material, or a vehicle accident or derailment resulting in the release of a
hazardous material.
PERSONNEL ISSUES AND OPERATING EXPENSES
Question. What steps have been taken to comply with the staffing
level that was approved by the conferees in fiscal year 2000? What is
your current FTE strength? Why does the budget justification reflect a
funding level of \1/2\ work year per position for the annualization of
fiscal year 2000 new positions?
Answer. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS)and the
Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) personnel office
worked to recruit suitable candidates for all current and anticipated
vacancies. Enacted appropriations for fiscal year 2000 gave OHMS a
full-time permanent (FTP) position ceiling of 129 and full-time
equivalent (FTE) funding for 125.5 positions. We currently are funding
121 FTE on board and are actively recruiting to fill the remaining
positions, including new regional technical assistance positions and
recent attrition vacancies. OHMS' new positions were requested and
funded at one-half FTE each to reflect hiring no sooner than April of
this fiscal year. Funding new positions for one-half of the first
fiscal year is typically requested and enacted to allow time to fulfill
administrative requirements (e.g., construction of work space,
development of position descriptions and standards) for selecting
highly qualified people.
Question. Please provide a table showing the authorized number of
inspectors for each of the last three fiscal years, and the actual
number of inspectors on-board during those periods.
Answer. The following table shows the authorized number of
inspectors and the actual number of inspectors on-board for the last
three years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Authorized On-board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................ 37 36
1998............................................ 37 34
1999............................................ 37 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. For each of the key offices under the Associate
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, please prepare a breakout
of the number of personnel assigned to each office for each of the last
three fiscal years, the grade level, and number of current vacancies.
Answer. The following table summarizes the on-board staff count,
grade levels, and current vacancies in OHMS for the last three years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1998--as of 4/15/98 1999--as of 4/5/99 2000--as of 4/5/00
Office -----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of No. of No. of
positions/ Grade positions/ Grade positions/ Grade
vacancies levels vacancies levels vacancies levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Administrator & Int'l 6/1 2-SES 6/0 2-SES 6/1 1-SES
Standards.............................. 1-15 1-15 1-15
1-14 1-14 1-14
1-13 1-13 1-13
1-7 1-8 1-8
1-7
Standards............................... 20/1 2-15 19/3 2-15 17/2 2-15
5-14 5-14 3-14
2-13 3-13 3-13
4-12 4-12 4-12
3-11 1-11 2-9
3-7 1-9 2-7
1-6 2-7 1-6
1-6
Technology.............................. 18/1 2-15 18/1 2-15 19/0 2-15
3-14 3-14 3-14
8-13 11-13 11-13
2-12 1-7 1-7
1-11 1-6 1-6
1-7
1-6
Exemptions & Approvals.................. 15/2 1-15 15/2 1-15 17/0 1-15
1-14 2-14 2-14
6-13 6-13 6-13
3-12 4-12 5-12
1-11 1-11 1-7
1-9 1-6 1-6
1-7
1-6
Enforcement............................. 35/3 1-15 35/3 1-15 39/0 1-15
7-14 7-14 7-14
5-13 5-13 5-13
10-12 17-12 22-12
10-11 3-11 2-11
1-9 1-9 1-7
1-7 1-7
Initiative s & Training................. 9/2 1-15 10/1 1-15 10/7 1-15
2-14 2-14 2-14
1-13 2-13 2-13
4-12 3-12 3-12
1-7 1-9 1-11
1-7 1-7
Planning & Analysis..................... 14/2 2-15 14/2 2-15 14/0 2-15
1-14 1-14 1-14
5-13 5-13 6-13
4-12 4-12 3-12
1-7 1-7 1-7
1-6 1-6 1-6
------------ ------------ ------------
Totals............................ 117/12 117/12 122 \1\/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes 2 positions for student employees working part time.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Question. Is intrastate incident data now being reflected in your
hazardous materials information system analyses? If so, what is the
value of this information and how is it being disseminated to the
states and local governments that might benefit from this resource?
Answer. RSPA has received an increased number of reports concerning
intrastate shipments--2,512 in 1999, compared with 2,031 in 1997. We
expect this number to continue to grow as more intrastate carriers
become aware of the reporting requirement.
The addition of intrastate incident data will enhance RSPA's
ability to increase safety. We expect that the new reports may reveal
risks specific to intrastate hazardous materials shipments. These new
data will be used to design new outreach, enforcement, and rulemaking
activities.
State and local government agencies have several alternatives in
accessing RSPA's hazardous materials incident data. Those agencies can
request data directly from RSPA. In 1999, 51 state and local government
agencies requested incident data from RSPA, compared to 20 agencies in
1998. They can also establish accounts with RSPA, and access the
incident data directly. Currently, 63 state and local government
agencies (from 27 different states) have direct access to the HMIS.
Lastly, state and local government agencies can access summarized
incident data through the Hazmat Web page on the Internet. These data
are updated monthly and are available to all Internet users.
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Question. What was accomplished with the additional funds provided
in fiscal year 1999 for research to address regulatory issues involving
propane gas services?
Answer. In support of a negotiated rulemaking (HM-225A), RSPA
contracted with the Volpe Center to provide technical assistance to the
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) during the development of
new regulations governing the transportation and unloading of liquefied
compressed gases. This support addressed issues related to automatic
controls that minimize product discharge during hose rupture of MC 330
and MC 331 vehicles (HM-225A). A computer model was developed to
determine whether pressure or flow sensing devices installed to detect
hose failure would always detect significant changes in pressure or
flow rate due to a hose failure. Results were documented in a report
entitled ``Analyses Investigating Hose/Pipe Shear Failures on Propane
Bob-Tail Delivery Trucks''. In addition, Volpe provided general
technical assistance during the negotiated rulemaking process. The
Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Illinois also applied
the HMIS database to model cargo tank motor vehicle accident scenarios
and to estimate average fatalities and injuries associated with the
transportation of liquified compressed gases over extended periods of
time using computer simulations. This work was a key component to risk
analyses performed by RSPA in support of the rulemaking.
RSPA is continuing to work with the Volpe Center, and the regulated
industry to monitor the development and testing of emergency discharge
control technology during the two-year implementation period authorized
in the final rule issued under HM-225A.
INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Question. What has RSPA done, in conjunction with Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, to develop an electronic intrastate
database to determine the effectiveness and impacts of HM-200? What is
RSPA's technical and financial involvement? What is the status of that
project? Are funds requested for that activity in fiscal year 2001?
What is the status of this intrastate database?
Answer. We have worked with FMCSA as it develops an intrastate
database intended to support an enforcement strategy and to determine
the effectiveness of HM-200 in contributing to a reduction in highway-
related incidents involving the intrastate transportation of hazardous
materials. RSPA staff have participated in meetings addressing the
planning of the new database to ensure cross- compatibility with other
hazardous materials data sources. RSPA has not provided funds for this
effort and is not requesting funding for the project in fiscal year
2001.
Question. Please calculate the average settlement percentage
[amount of civil penalties collected for valid claims divided by the
amount of civil penalties originally assessed for valid claims] for
those hazmat cases. Please provide data comparable to those provided
last year.
Answer:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 \1\ 1998 \1\ 1999 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalties Proposed............... $1,613,295 $2,053,196 $2,152,534
Penalties Collected.............. $1,167,154 $1,412,593 $1,512,323
Percentage Collected............. 72 69 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include tickets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ticket Proposed.................. $183,075 $301,343 $342,204
Penalties Ticket Collected....... $179,925 $300,602 $340,897
Penalties Percentage Collected... 98 99.8 99.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please discuss improvements in your training and outreach
program since last year. How were the new positions that were approved
last year used? How will they be used in the future? With the new
positions that were just approved, why is it necessary to contract for
part-time staff support for each of the five regional offices?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999 RSPA enhanced its training and outreach
efforts by partnering with state drivers license issuing offices to
promote compliance by providing informational materials and technical
assistance. We also increased cooperative efforts with State Emergency
Response Commissions and Local Emergency Planning Committees, the
primary beneficiaries of the HMEP grants program, and developed multi-
modal information packages and field compliance guides to educate
entities on areas of high risk and noncompliance. We increased industry
awareness of human error as a major cause of incidents.
RSPA is currently advertising to fill the new fiscal year 2000
technical assistance positions. RSPA will target high visibility
activities aimed toward industry, labor unions and employee
organizations and associations through partnering to develop training
materials and aids. RSPA will specifically target hazmat operations
through national and local industry associations. Our broad based
approach will assure the widest possible coverage of this critical
information. Over 50 percent of the new materials developed will be
targeted at areas of noncompliance, high risk, and new regulatory
requirements.
The new positions in each regional office are targeted for specific
training and technical assistance activities and will not replace the
support staff necessary to provide continuing administrative and
clerical support to the offices.
Question. Please present data on the number of times that each of
your inspectors working in the regional offices conducted joint
inspections or provided training for state officials.
Answer. In 1999, RSPA hazardous materials inspectors conducted 57
inspections with state agencies, some of which were joint inspections
with other Federal inspectors and/or included training of state
inspectors. RSPA also made 21 presentations to state agencies, some of
which included inspector training, and held nine meetings with state
inspectors on enforcement issues.
SAFE FOOD TRANSPORTATION
Question. What did OHMS do since last year to implement any aspect
of the SFTA?
Answer. RSPA conducted limited monitoring of United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
activities and consulted with USDA and FDA staff. RSPA provided
expertise on hazardous materials and other transportation safety issues
in support of USDA and FDA safety activities.
Question. What activities do you anticipate for fiscal year 2001
and for the rest of fiscal year 2000?
Answer. RSPA will continue the limited monitoring and support of
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) activities.
SHIPPER AND CARRIER REGISTRATION
Question. Please display the total registration fees collected for
each of the last five fiscal years by the shipper and carrier
registration program, broken out by emergency response activities and
administrative costs. How much do you expect to collect during fiscal
year 2000 and during fiscal year 2001?
Answer.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNDS RECEIPTS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing fee Grants program
Registration year receipts receipts Total receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ $1.426 $6.873 $8.299
1996............................................................ 1.419 6.910 8.329
1997............................................................ 1.527 7.372 8.899
1998............................................................ 1.650 7.970 9.620
1999............................................................ 1.582 7.635 9.218
2000 (est.)..................................................... 1.200 14.300 15.500
2001 (est.)..................................................... 1.200 14.300 15.500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please describe the shipper and carrier registration
program's industry technical assistance and customer assistance
program.
Answer. RSPA continues to enhance its support to the regulated
community to assist in meeting the registration requirements. RSPA
provides materials and detailed instructions on program requirements.
We maintain two customer assistance centers to provide direct
assistance via telephone. We are now developing an Internet-based
registration process, to offer on-line registration with credit card
payment capability.
Question. Please outline the registration fee assessment,
collection, and grant disbursement cycle.
Answer. In May of each year RSPA mails registration information and
application forms to companies that have previously registered and
companies whose names have recently been added to the FMCSA motor
carrier and shipper census or who have recently been named as a carrier
or shipper on a hazardous materials incident report. Between May and
September of each year, approximately 85 percent of the companies that
will register for the year submit the application and payment. Late in
September of each year RSPA makes grant allocations, distributing the
funds available to state and Indian tribal governments for their use in
the following fiscal year.
Question. In April 1998, the DOT Inspector General published a
management advisory on the hazardous materials registration program
which found that RSPA does not collect the full amount of potential
registration fees. Please discuss your response to the IG report and
how its recommendations were implemented. Please submit data indicating
the amount collected before and after the IG's recommendations were
implemented. How much of the increase from user fees can be attributed
to improved registration fee collection that was initiated, in response
to the recommendations? Since last year, what new strategies have you
tried to increase the amount of collected fees?
Answer. RSPA implemented the IG's recommendations by mailing
registration information to companies identified as carriers or
shippers of hazardous materials in the Office of Motor Carriers' census
of motor carriers and shippers. We also increased the number of follow-
up mailings to companies that had registered in the past. These efforts
identified approximately 1,000 new registrants and raised an additional
$500,000, including collections for prior years. The increased number
of registrants has been maintained for the 1999-2000 registration year.
On March 22, 1999, the IG determined that our actions were timely and
appropriate and reported the recommendations as resolved and closed. We
have continued the increased follow-up mailings.
We also amended the registration requirements as recommended by the
IG. A final rule establishing a two-tiered registration fee schedule
and expanding the requirements to all shippers and carriers of
placarded shipments of hazardous materials, with a limited exception
for farmers, was published on February 14, 2000, which becomes
effective with the 2000-2001 registration year. As a result of these
changes, RSPA expects that 45,000 companies will register for the 2000-
2001 registration year. As part of the program planned to inform the
public of the expanded registration requirement, RSPA plans to mail
information packets to approximately 100,000 companies.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. What are the major advances that have resulted from your
R&D program during each of the last three years? How has this
information been reflected in improvements in your program?
Answer. In 1999, RSPA completed a threat assessment of the
vulnerabilities of transporting hazardous materials in aircraft cargo
compartments in compliance and non-compliance situations, and
identified chemicals and substances that pose the greatest hazards in
this environment. Key recommendations have been incorporated into the
ONE DOT Flagship Initiative on Hazardous Materials /Incidents--a high
profile initiative consisting of 6 action areas with 16 specific
activities. The activities include: defining and encouraging industry
actions and developing rulemaking to increase awareness and compliance
with hazardous materials requirements in air transportation, and
examining the feasibility of using new non-invasive screening
technologies to detect undeclared hazardous materials. RSPA and the FAA
are working together to implement these tasks in accordance with
established milestones.
The ``National Transportation Risk Assessment for Selected
Hazardous Materials'' is in final draft and is currently undergoing
peer review. This multi-year research effort more accurately
characterizes the spectrum of risks involved in the transportation of
hazardous materials in comparison to historical data. Results of the
study will provide a better sense and understanding of hazardous
material transportation risk.
In fiscal year 1999, RSPA initiated development of a ``Guidance
Manual for Explosives Classification'' to provide explanatory and
advisory information pertaining to all sections of the hazardous
materials regulations dealing with classification of new explosive
substances and articles. The manual will be used internally and
externally as a reference and training document for RSPA employees and
explosives laboratories approved by RSPA involved in the examination,
recommendation, and technical review of new explosives and articles.
As a result of two severe accidents and a National Transportation
Safety Board recommendation, RSPA is completing a multi-phase study on
how to increase accident survivability of front heads on MC-331 cargo
tank motor vehicles. Results are being used to suggest improvements in
design for heads and secondary heads. Prototype designs are slated for
manufacture and testing during the final phase of this project, which
will be completed in fiscal year 2000. Successful demonstrations will
aid RSPA in rulemaking to reduce the risk associated with severe
accidents involving MC-330 and MC-331 Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles.
In support of publication of the Year 2000 Emergency Response
Guidebook (ERG2000), RSPA sponsored critical research aimed at
identifying greater numbers of water-reactive chemicals and applying
statistical methodology to predict initial isolation and protective
action distances. In addition, research and improved methodologies
permitted continued refinement of recommended actions based on spill
size as well as updating of initial isolation zones and health
criteria.
RSPA initiated research in fiscal year 2000 to develop methods and
procedures to implement non-destructive testing (NDT) for DOT
specification metallic and composite pressure vessels. The new NDT
methods will detect fatigue cracking and stress corrosion cracking as
well as wall thinning in a pressure vessel. This reduces environmental
impact, potential contamination, out-of-service time, and possibilities
of corrosion, compared to older hydrostatic test methods.
To promote and expand the use of risk assessment techniques and
risk management approaches, RSPA initiated a study of the applicability
of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) or similar
methodologies to the transportation of hazardous materials. We
anticipate this research will lead to voluntary ``best-practices'' or
guidelines for understanding and managing risks by all the parties
involved in hazardous materials transportation.
Research related to regulatory issues involving propane and other
liquified compressed gases are addressed under a separate question.
The enforcement program has conducted an aggressive package testing
program, targeting packages which it believes do not comply with UN
standards and thus present a risk to public safety. Through
enforcement, interaction with manufacturers, and dialogue with
industry, RSPA believes that it is enhancing the safety of UN
performance-oriented packaging standards used in the transportation of
hazardous materials.
A report entitled, ``Exploration of GPS to Enhance the Safe
Transport of Hazardous Materials,'' was completed in fiscal year 1998
and provided information on using GPS as a safety tool to aid emergency
response to hazmat incidents. While current deployment was seen as
practical on a company-by-company basis, federally mandated installment
or publicly deployed facilities were not.
``Identification of Factors For Selecting Modes and Routes For
Shipping High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel,'' was
also published in fiscal year 1998. Its compilation of risk data and
industry transport practices improved our risk management and industry
knowledge.
In fiscal year 1999, consistent with a TRB recommendation that the
Department periodically examine information technology's potential to
improve hazmat incident management, we completed an assessment of
current technology deployment within the emergency response community
to support efforts at facilitating safer, more efficient emergency
response. A report detailing the results of that research,
``Information Technology and Emergency Response: Current Applications''
will be published in fiscal year 2000.
An examination of the flows of US international hazmat traffic was
also undertaken in fiscal year 1999 with a report published in fiscal
year 2000 entitled, ``Hazardous Materials in U.S. Foreign Trade.'' This
research has identified potential risks in these particular hazmat
markets.
A study of the operating practices, traffic volumes and modal
shares of diagnostic specimens processed in the U.S. is scheduled to be
completed in fiscal year 2000. Findings from this effort will help
evaluate proposed regulations affecting the safe transport of
infectious diagnostic substances from hospitals, clinics, and other
health industry establishments to laboratory facilities that test the
specimens.
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC GOALS
Question. What has RSPA done since last year to implement the
provision of TEA-21 that requires strategic planning to design a
national surface transportation research and technology agenda? What is
the effectiveness and value of these efforts? What impacts have recent
federal and DOT strategic planning efforts for surface transportation
research and technology had on decisions about cross-cutting and modal
research projects and how they are performed?
Answer. In May 1999 the Secretary and the President's Science
Advisor jointly announced the Department's first Transportation
Research and Development Plan. This document was developed in part to
respond to a requirement in Section 5108 of TEA-21. It was developed
through an interagency strategic planning process, focused in DOT by
the Department's Research and Technology Coordinating Council.
On an interagency basis, the President's National Science and
Technology Council establishes overall directions and priorities for
transportation research through documents like its National
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy and related
implementation plans. Within the Department, the DOT R&D Plan then
links conduct of such important R&T to the achievement of DOT's overall
Strategic Goals. The DOT R&D Plan has quickly become a resource used by
DOT's modal R&T planners in developing their own programs and budgets.
This process has been used again to generate an updated DOT
Transportation R&D Plan (second edition), which is undergoing final DOT
reviews.
The second edition of the DOT Transportation R&D Plan (1) has a
five year and longer time horizon for the partnerships, research,
education, and technology transfer activities it discusses; (2)
includes extensive and detailed coverage of DOT modal programs,
developed with their involvement; and (3) includes a full chapter
developed with AASHTO on state transportation research initiatives. Its
safety elements have been the subject of a recent National Research
Council/Transportation Research Board panel review which focused on DOT
research that supports its safety goal. We expect the panel's findings
in May 2000. This and subsequent texts are to be provided to the
Congress as supplements to the Department's R&D budget requests. Most
importantly, the text specifically links R&D priorities--emphasis
areas--to accomplishment of DOT Strategic goals. As a result, research
activities have become more focused and are more definitively linked to
desired outcomes.
The process has been accepted well by the various DOT participants.
In fact, based on their view of the effectiveness of the process, the
Federal Aviation Administration is modeling the approach they are
taking to develop their next five-year research plan on that used for
the DOT Transportation R&D Plan.
The process of preparing the Plan, in conjunction with the
directions provided each year by OMB/OSTP Interagency R&D Priorities
guidance, and the NSTC interagency process, has heightened awareness of
related activities and promoted collaborative research efforts on an
intermodal and interagency basis. These efforts include: (1) National
Highway Research and Technology Partnership Initiative; (2) Intelligent
Vehicle Initiative; (3) the NHTSA Advanced Technology Program; (4) the
Interagency Initiative on Marine Fuel Cells; (5) the DOT initiative on
human-centered systems; (6) the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program;
(7) the Commercial Remote Sensing Program; (8) the Transportation
Infrastructure Assurance R&D Program; and (9) University Marine
Transportation Grants Program. In the longer term, an initiative on
nanotechnology applications is under discussion.
Question. Please list by contract and amount how comparable funds
provided in fiscal year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000 under the activity
R&D Planning and Management were used or will be used.
Answer. RSPA obligated and plans to obligate funds for activities
under R&D Planning and Management as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Activity -------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Planning:
S&T Strategy.............................. $50,000 ...........
Peer/Merit Review......................... 150,000 $200,000
Transportation Technology Plan............ 100,000 100,000
Private-public Partnership Outreach....... 350,000 175,000
Strategic Research Plan................... 100,000 100,000
Enabling Research Outreach................ 150,000 100,000
DOT R&D Plan.............................. 150,000 150,000
International S&T Assessments............. 100,000 100,000
Sustainability............................ 100,000 100,000
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 1,250,000 1,050,000
=========================
Research and Technology Coordination and
Facilitation:
Performance Measurement................... 50,000 50,000
Innovation Partnerships................... 50,000 50,000
National Research Council (GUIRR)......... 125,000 125,000
TRB Annual Fee............................ 50,000 50,000
International S&T (e.g., NAFTA,US-EU)..... 150,000 150,000
DOT R&D Tracking System................... 100,000 200,000
DOT Technology Sharing/Transfer........... 100,000 100,000
Homepages................................. 210,000 210,000
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 835,000 955,000
=========================
Intermodal and multimodal Research and 150,000 100,000
Education: Small Business Innovative Research
=========================
Total................................... 2,235,000 2,105,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please list by contract and amount how similar funds
requested for fiscal year 2001 will be used, being certain to list for
each topic specified on pages 119-124 its associated funding amount.
Answer. RSPA plans to obligate funds for activities under R&D
Planning and Management in fiscal year 2001 as follows:
Activity Fiscal year 2001
Strategic Planning:
Strategy.................................................. $200,000
Peer/Merit Review......................................... 200,000
Transportation Technology Plan............................ 100,000
Private-public Partnership Outreach....................... 180,000
Strategic Research Plan................................... 100,000
Enabling Research Outreach................................ 100,000
DOT R&D Plan.............................................. 150,000
International S&T Assessments............................. 100,000
Sustainability............................................ 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 1,230,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Research and Technology Coordination and Facilitation:
Performance Measurement................................... 50,000
Innovation Partnerships................................... 50,000
National Research Council (GUIRR)......................... 135,000
TRB Annual Fee............................................ 60,000
International S&T (e.g., NAFTA,US-EU)..................... 100,000
DOT R&D Tracking System................................... 200,000
DOT Technology Sharing/Transfer........................... 100,000
Homepages................................................. 210,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 905,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Intermodal and multimodal Research and Education: Small
Business Innovative Research.............................. 100,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 2,235,000
Question. Please break out separately funding for any conferences,
meetings, outreach activities, international scanning activities, or
panel discussions sponsored by RSPA using funds appropriated under the
research and technology subaccount for fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Answer. RSPA obligated and plans to obligate funds to support
conferences, meetings, outreach, international scanning activities, and
panel discussions as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Research Council/Transportation $100,000 $150,000
Research Board Workshops.....................
Public-private Partnerships and Enabling 450,000 250,000
Research Outreach............................
Civil Engineering Research Foundation 50,000 50,000
Workshops....................................
International Scanning........................ 100,000 100,000
-------------------------
Total................................... 700,000 550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please give specific examples of key needs in cross-
cutting or intermodal research that you plan to fund in fiscal year
2001. Could a portion of the human-centered systems operator fatigue
management research proposed for fiscal year 2001 be conducted under
this subaccount?
Answer. There are several key areas in which we plan to engage in
cross-cutting or intermodal research:
--Human-centered systems
--Transportation infrastructure assurance, including aviation safety/
security
--Advanced vehicle technologies
--Marine fuel cells (Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Support)
--University Transportation Research and Marine Transportation
Research
RSPA does not use the R&D planning and management funds for direct
research, other than SBIR. Direct R&D can be found in separate line
items within our budget.
Each of the cross-cutting areas above has been underscored as
national research priorities in several interagency documents,
including the NSTC National Transportation Science and Technology
Strategy, Transportation Technology Plan, and Transportation Strategic
Research Plan.
The operator fatigue management activities are a subset of the
human-centered systems research program. The human-centered systems
research program is a critical part of the Department's cross-cutting
research agenda. The results of that research agenda serve as a
multimodal base of knowledge from which all DOT administrations will be
able to profit in reducing loss of life and property from
transportation incidents.
Meeting the objectives of all of these research initiatives will
require all the resources requested for these activities in the fiscal
year 2001 budget request. This work will be critical to the
Department's ability to support transportation goals of safety,
mobility and security, while contributing to the reduction of adverse,
transportation-related environmental impacts.
Question. Did RSPA or OST obtain any funding in either fiscal year
1999 or 2000 from FHWA's surface transportation research and
development account for any purpose? If so, please specify the use and
amount of any funding received.
Answer. The FHWA provided funding to RSPA to support the
implementation of Section 5108 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century. Specifically, FHWA provided $200,000 in fiscal year 1999
and $250,000 in fiscal year 2000 to help accomplish the following:
(1) Develop the second and third edition of the DOT R&D Plan
($200,000);
(2) Conduct a National Research Council review of the DOT R&D Plan
and transportation R&D strategic planning process ($150,000); and
(3) Support the development of Performance Plans and Performance
Reports ($100,000).
Question. Please provide an explanation of how funds requested for
administrative expenses are used.
Answer. We plan to use funds requested for administrative expenses
as shown below:
Fiscal year 2001
(Estimated
Administrative Expenses Obligations)
Training...................................................... $8,000
Printing...................................................... 59,000
Supplies & Materials.......................................... 9,000
Equipment..................................................... 17,000
Travel........................................................ 15,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 108,000
Question. Please list each of the recommendations of the TRB
committee that reviews your work and RSPA's response.
Answer. The National Research Council/Transportation Research Board
Committee on the Federal Transportation R&D Strategic Planning Process
has conducted five major reviews to date of the Federal transportation
R&D strategic planning process for the National Science and Technology
Council Committee on Technology and its Subcommittee on Transportation
R&D. Each has been documented in a separate letter report. Four have
focused on interagency issues:
--The Strategic Planning Process itself (9/97)
--Technology Partnerships (9/98)
--Enabling Research (11/98)
--The Partnership for Infrastructure Renewal in Transportation, and
Medium-/Heavy-duty Vehicle Research (9/99)
The fifth review is the first to focus specifically on DOT
programs, in this case those supporting the DOT Strategic Goal of
enhancing Safety. The letter report from that review is attached for
your information.
The recommendations from the studies to date have been used to
focus process improvements. For example, the first interagency review
recommended integrating top-down and bottom-up planning, establishing
research priorities, recognizing directions in non-Federally funded
research, using the iterative nature of the planning process to refine
directions, linking research plans with an end-state vision, and
linking R&D planning with budget guidance. The new DOT R&D Plan, now in
final preparation, reflects many of these guidelines. DOT will continue
to incorporate insights from the reviews as research planning
continues.
National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC, March 28, 2000.
The Honorable Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary of Transportation,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Slater: At the request of Dr. Fenton Carey, Chairman of
the Research and Technology Coordination Council of the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), the National Research Council (NRC), acting
through the Transportation Research Board (TRB), convened the Committee
for Review of the National Transportation Science and Technology
Strategy (see Attachment 1 for a list of the committee members). The
committee is charged with fulfilling the congressional request in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to review and
comment on DOT's Strategic Plan, Performance Plan, and Program
Performance Report (required under the Government Performance and
Results Act [GPRA]) with respect to surface transportation research and
technology (R&T) development.
While Congress specified ``surface transportation research and
technology development'' in its request, DOT asked that all modes be
included in the committee's task; thus the committee has not limited
its scope to surface transportation. Moreover, although many of the
issues and questions addressed by the committee apply to the above
documents in a general way, in some cases it was necessary to perform a
more focused analysis of specific strategic goals and how R&T supports
them. In particular, at the request of DOT staff, the committee
performed such a focused analysis on the safety goal. The selection of
safety as a focus area reflects this goal's high level of importance to
society and to the Department. At the same time, the committee believes
that its observations on the safety elements of the documents are valid
for the other goal areas as well since DOT has applied the same
structure and process for all of its strategic goals.
The committee carried out its task by reviewing DOT's GPRA
documents and the first edition of the Department's Research and
Development Plan (R&D Plan), dated May 1999, as well as by holding a
meeting in Washington, D.C., on February 3-4, 2000. During the open
session of the meeting, the committee heard from Eugene Conti
(Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, DOT) and Fenton Carey
(Associate Administrator for Research, Technology and Analysis, DOT
Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA]) about the
Department's strategic planning efforts and how its R&T activities
support the achievement of its strategic goals. In addition, brief
presentations were made by research managers from several DOT operating
administrations.
BACKGROUND
Transportation makes essential contributions to the nation's
economy and quality of life. New knowledge and innovative technologies
derived from research have played a critical role in supporting and
enhancing those contributions, and in helping to mitigate some of
transportation's less desirable impacts with regard to safety and the
environment. Now more than ever, R&T offers promise for enhancing the
performance of the transportation system. However, resources for
research are limited. Strategic planning and analysis are required to
direct these resources to their most beneficial uses.
During the last several years, DOT has made considerable progress
in developing a strategic planning process for transportation R&T at
the levels of both the Department and the federal government.
Coordinating bodies at both levels--DOT's Research and Technology
Coordinating Council (RTCC) and the National Science and Technology
Council's (NSTC) Subcommittee on Transportation R&D, respectively--have
been established or reinvigorated. Several partnership initiatives,
involving federal agencies, the private sector, and state and local
governments, have been undertaken to advance research in promising
areas. Support for the role of R&T in enhancing transportation has been
exhibited consistently at the highest level of the Department. It is
the committee's hope that in the years to come, the strategic value of
R&T will continue to be accorded significant visibility, backed by
adequate institutional authority within the Office of the Secretary.
This NRC committee--which has undergone a number of transformations
since TRB coordinated the DOT-sponsored Forum on Transportation R&D in
1995--has been privileged to participate in and witness the progress
made to date. From 1997 through 1999, the committee reviewed elements
of the NSTC`s strategic planning process, and that effort will
continue. The committee's new task--focusing on DOT's use of R&T to
support its Strategic Plan--well complements the NSTC review. The two
tasks promise to be mutually reinforcing in a way that should enhance
the quality and usefulness of both reviews.
The remainder of this report contains the results of the
committee's review of DOT's GPRA documents and R&D Plan. It begins with
general observations regarding GPRA, research, and DOT's efforts to
present its R&T program within the GPRA framework. This is followed by
a description of the approach used by the committee to conduct its
review. The committee's recommendations are then presented, arranged
according to major topics relevant to research management. Attachment 2
contains the committee's more detailed findings, arranged according to
the questions that guided its review.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Since GPRA was passed in 1993, some questions have been raised
about its applicability to the research activities of government
agencies. Because the process required by GPRA is based on a 5-year
strategic planning horizon, concern exists within the committee that
GPRA constrains, and perhaps prohibits, the long-term thinking and
planning that should characterize the federal role in research. This
concern is particularly relevant for basic research, but even successes
from highly applied research (the type sponsored by DOT) can require
years before achieving widespread implementation. Nevertheless, the
committee believes that if issues related to GPRA's short planning
horizon are overcome, the requirement to align activities with
strategic goals and to apply some form of performance measurement is
entirely appropriate for R&T and a salutary discipline for agencies
entrusted with the public good.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more detailed treatment of the importance of evaluating
research activities and the need to use appropriate measures of
performance for different types of research, see Evaluating Federal
Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results
Act, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that R&T is an overarching corporate management strategy
for DOT represents a strategic decision or policy to use R&T to advance
the Department's goals. The documents reviewed by the committee
comprise DOT's initial attempt to plan and portray its R&T activities
under GPRA. Summarizing and presenting a large quantity of information
about very diverse activities in a succinct way is a difficult task.
There is a risk of oversimplifying a highly complex activity--
transportation research--in trying to facilitate the reader's
assimilation of the vast array of R&T that can contribute to the
system's improved performance. Overall, the Department has made a
commendable effort to accomplish this task. The main flaw of the
current R&D Plan is that it does not fully articulate DOT's many
important R&T activities and how they serve attainment of the
Department's strategic goals. The committee understands that
improvements are already being made in this regard for the next version
of the R&D Plan.
REVIEW APPROACH
As noted earlier, the congressional request that gave rise to this
review requires that the NRC examine DOT's GPRA documents ``with
respect to surface transportation research and technology development''
(TEA-21, Section 5108 ``Sec. 508(c)(3)''). The committee reviewed the
following specific GPRA documents:
--U.S. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan 1997-2002
--U.S. Department of Transportation 1999 Performance Plan
--U.S. Department of Transportation 2000 Performance Plan
--U.S. Department of Transportation 2001 Performance Plan and 1999
Performance Report
In addition, TEA-21 (Section 5108 ``Sec. 508(c)(1)'') requires DOT
to develop an ``integrated surface transportation research and
technology development strategic plan.'' Since this document--the R&D
Plan (first edition, May 1999)--is intended to present more detail
about the role of R&T in meeting DOT's strategic goals, it was included
in the committee's review as well
To perform its review, the committee began by assessing the R&D
Plan with regard to the contents required by TEA-21 (Section 5108
``Sec. 508(c)(2)''). In addition, the committee posed several questions
based on the required contents of GPRA documents. Both the TEA-21
requirements and these additional questions are used to structure the
committee's more detailed findings in Attachment 2.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee believes the R&D Plan should articulate explicit R&T
priorities, the methodology used to determine those priorities, and how
each priority is reflected in the Department's budget. The committee
formulated two key recommendations for improving the R&D Plan, as well
as the other documents reviewed, in this regard.
Recommendation 1: Alignment of R&T with Strategic Plan
R&T priorities and activities should be tied more explicitly to the
Department's strategic and performance goals,\2\ and their relationship
to these goals should be articulated more clearly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOT's Strategic Plan contains five ``strategic goals.'' Each of
these goals is further broken down into ``performance goals,'' which
reflect the specific ways in which the operating administrations will
contribute to the strategic goals. The Department's annual Performance
Plans and Performance Reports are focused primarily on the performance
goals, which may evolve over time as they are met or as other ways to
achieve the strategic goals are deemed more effective. Attachment 3
lists the strategic and performance goals for safety, taken from DOT's
fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall strategy of the Department with respect to R&T mirrors
the NSTC strategy, the main elements of which are strategic planning,
partnership initiatives, enabling research, and training and education.
It is not always clear from the GPRA documents, or the R&D Plan,
however, exactly how R&T supports the Department's strategic goals. R&T
activities--those listed in the GPRA documents as well as the
partnership initiatives and enabling research in the R&D Plan--should
be tied clearly to the Department's strategic goals through
articulation of their relationship to the performance goals associated
with each strategic goal. While it may not be appropriate for the
Strategic Plan or the Performance Plans to include such explanations,
it would be appropriate for the R&D Plan to do so.
The R&D Plan should be organized primarily in accordance with DOT
strategic and performance goals, rather than the partnership
initiatives and enabling research of NSTC. However, the committee
supports the use of the NSTC categories as a way of reflecting the
overall R&T corporate management strategy and demonstrating that DOT's
R&T activities are consistent with the multidepartment cooperative
perspective of the NSTC framework.
R&T is often many steps removed from the outcome goals in the
Strategic Plan, and the GPRA documents cover so many DOT activities
that they cannot provide detailed rationales for specific R&T
activities. The R&D Plan should show how the R&T activities are driven
(directly or indirectly, in the short or the long term) by the goals of
the Strategic Plan.
Recommendation 2: Resources
The R&D Plan should include the funding budgeted for specific R&T
activities and performance goals, since budgets are a tangible
reflection of the real priorities of an agency.
The R&D Plan contains no discussion of resource needs for R&T.
Funding devoted to specific R&T activities and performance goals should
be specified so the level of R&T effort toward each goal can be
ascertained. As mentioned in Recommendation 4, below, funding should
also be characterized according to the types of R&T activities so that
the mission focus of DOT will be more apparent from its R&T
investments.
Funding is not the only resource need. Human capital is just as
critical, particularly in the area of R&T. It is necessary to have
people who can discover new knowledge and develop and use new
technologies. The R&D Plan does not address the human resource needs of
DOT to support specific R&T efforts. Without the proper knowledge base
within DOT and its partner organizations, the promise of R&T will not
be realized.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the key recommendations presented above, the
committee formulated the following more specific recommendations.
Recommendation 3: Criteria and Methodologies for Program Development
DOT should employ rational criteria and methodologies in
prioritizing and budgeting for its R&T programs and should include
these criteria and methods in the R&D Plan.
The documents reviewed do not indicate what criteria and systematic
methodologies, if any, were used in determining the R&T activities to
be carried out by the Department. Alignment with strategic goals is
necessary, but not sufficient, since it is possible to identify many
more activities that are related to the goals than can be undertaken
with the limited resources available. As recommended in the committee's
previous letter report of September 3, 1999, the practices of
technology scanning \3\ and technology mapping \4\ are useful initial
R&T activities. In addition, in the safety area in particular, risk
analysis based on careful analysis of statistical data can help
identify the most promising approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Technology scanning is a review of research in a variety of
areas that could be applied to a subject of interest.
\4\ Technology mapping is a careful analysis that indicates those
points in specific systems that offer the highest leveraging potential
so the research to be undertaken can be directed toward critical
problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various criteria and methods can be used to prioritize R&T
activities. The committee would like to suggest that in preparing
future versions of the R&D Plan, DOT consider adopting a methodology
such as that presented by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
during the committee's meeting. A description and diagram depicting
FRA's methodology are presented in Attachment 4. While the method was
developed specifically to prioritize rail safety R&D, it is a good
example of a rational approach that could be adapted to broader
research prioritization efforts. The practice of focused and
transparent priority setting would help increase the credibility of
DOT's R&T programs by ensuring responsible and competent use of the
public funds entrusted to the Department.
Recommendation 4: Types of R&T Activities Undertaken
The documents should clearly explain DOT's role in transportation
R&T by identifying where its R&T activities are most appropriately
focused and demonstrating that its investments are, in fact, in areas
not likely to be covered by other agencies or the private sector.
The documents express a greater emphasis on ``technology'' than on
``research.'' For instance, the Research and Development Corporate
Management Strategy of the 1999 Performance Plan was revised for the
2000 Performance Plan. Language referring directly to alignment and
harnessing of research and to building of intellectual capital was
deleted. At the same time, language focused on innovation--``capacity
to transform new technologies, concepts, and ideas rapidly into new
products, processes and services . . .''--was added (see pages 5-6 of
the revisions to the final DOT fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan).
Since DOT's specific role in transportation R&T is not explained in the
documents, the reason for placing more emphasis on innovation than on
research is unclear.
It might be helpful, as the Department of Defense has done, to
employ a taxonomy for distinguishing longer-term or more advanced
research, shorter-term applied research, development, testing and
evaluation, and implementation support. Then DOT could articulate which
portions of the R&T spectrum are most clearly associated with its role
and indicate its level of investment in each, taking into consideration
possible variations among the operating administrations, in this
regard. The issue of agency roles and missions is addressed further
under Recommendation 5 below.
Recommendation 5: Public-Sector Organizational Roles and Coordination
The roles of various public-sector participants (other federal
agencies, DOT operating administrations, state and local governments)
and the mechanisms for coordinating their participation should be
described in the R&D Plan. The R&T activities DOT has chosen to pursue
should reflect these coordination efforts.
Although required in TEA-21, there is no general discussion in the
R&D Plan of the missions of the various federal departments and
agencies, their (presumably) complementary responsibilities, the
consequent differences in their roles in R&T, and the potential for
interaction and synergy. For instance, in 1997, approximately $5.1
billion \5\ was invested by federal agencies in transportation-related
R&D, of which DOT accounted for about 8 percent. The R&D Plan should
explain how DOT's efforts fit with those of other agencies; which
agencies, given their missions, focus more on specific portions of the
R&T spectrum; and what is provided by DOT efforts that is not covered
by the other agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Science and Technology Council, Transportation
Strategic Research Plan, Washington, D.C., May 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The R&D Plan also contains no overall discussion of the roles of
each operating administration within DOT over the next 5 years, as
required by TEA-21. For instance, given that 94 percent of fatalities
in transportation are highway-related, it would be appropriate to point
out the primary role of particular operating administrations (Federal
Highway Administration [FHWA], National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration [NHTSA], and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[FMCSA]; and FRA in the case of crashes involving highway-rail grade
crossings) in reducing transportation fatalities.
There is also no discussion of state and local R&T activities in
the plan. In particular, there is no acknowledgment of the role of
these agencies as owners and operators of important parts of the
transportation system and as major investors in research, and therefore
as critical partners in the prioritization and conduct of research and
the development and implementation of new technologies.
Regarding coordination, the R&D Plan refers to the RTCC at the DOT-
wide level, and to the NSTC Subcommittee on Transportation R&D and its
strategic planning documents at the federal government-wide level. The
committee applauds the RTCC and DOT's interaction with the NSTC
subcommittee; clearly, however, coordination does not take place
through the mere existence of committees and documents, but through
their impacts on priorities, budgets, and activities. The connection
between the committees and the operational realities of DOT's R&T
programs is not evident.
Recommendation 6: Outreach
The R&D Plan should be developed with input from the public,
private, and academic sectors. The methods of obtaining this input and
results of the outreach should be documented in the plan itself.
TEA-21 requires that DOT obtain comments on the R&D Plan from
outside sources and include responses to significant comments in the
plan itself. While comments from this NRC committee could not be
included since the committee first met after the initial version of the
R&D Plan had been published, it is not evident from the plan that DOT
solicited any comments from outside sources. Even though significant
outreach may not have been possible for this version of the plan, the
plan could have described the nature and extent of outreach to be
conducted for future editions. The plan would benefit from the input of
stakeholders in the public, private, and academic sectors.
Recommendation 7: Performance Measurement
Performance measurement of DOT's R&T activities should extend
beyond theoretical discussion. Specific measures, methods of applying
them and analyzing the results, and the actions to be taken in response
should be specified in the R&D Plan.
Chapter V of the R&D Plan, ``Measuring Success,'' provides a
general discussion of GPRA and performance measurement, but does not
indicate how the general theory has been applied to DOT's R&T programs.
A list of impact-based performance measures is included in Table V-2,
but these differ from the performance goals and indicators in the
Department's Strategic Plan and Performance Plans. Since R&T activities
are often far removed in time and in the chain of causality from the
ultimate outcomes expressed in DOT's strategic goals, it may be
necessary to establish intermediate goals for R&T activities. It should
be made clear, however, how achievement of these intermediate goals
will bring the Department closer to achievement of its ultimate goals.
The Strategic Plan indicates that the Department will measure the
impact of R&T on transportation system performance through benchmarking
efforts. However, this activity is not mentioned in the Performance
Plans. Instead, benchmarking efforts aimed at measuring the performance
of DOT R&T facilities are proposed. It is not clear that an assessment
of R&T facilities will serve as an assessment of R&T results.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
These recommendations focus on a small number of the important
issues surrounding the implementation of GPRA to research and
technology activities. In future years, the committee may choose to
address other issues, such as human resource requirements and the need
to balance planning and flexibility.
The committee is pleased to have had the opportunity to provide
feedback on DOT's efforts to use R&T to advance national transportation
goals, and hopes that its comments and recommendations will prove
useful. The committee looks forward to continued participation in the
Department's strategic planning efforts.
Sincerely,
Joseph Sussman,
Chair, Committee for Review of the National Transportation Science
and Technology Strategy.
Attachment 1
COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
Joseph M. Sussman, Chairman, Japan Rail East Professor and
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering
Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Director of
MIT's Association of American Railroads Affiliated Laboratory.
H. Norman Abramson [NAE], Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President
(retired), Southwest Research Institute.
A. Ray Chamberlain, Vice President and Area Manager, Parsons
Brinckerhoff.
Irwin Feller, Director and Professor of Economics, Pennsylvania
State University Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation.
Robert E. Gallamore, Assistant Vice President, Communications
Technologies and General Manager of the Positive Train Control Program,
Transportation Technology Center, Inc.
William C. Harris, President and Executive Director, Columbia
University's Biosphere 2 Center.
Christopher T. Hill, Vice Provost for Research and Professor of
Public Policy, George Mason University.
Margaret T. Jenny, Vice President, Corporate Business Development,
ARINC.
C. Ian MacGillivray, Director, Engineering Division, Iowa
Department of Transportation.
Sue McNeil, Braun/Intertec Visiting Professor, University of
Minnesota.
Steve T. Scalzo, Senior Vice President, Operations, Foss Maritime
Company.
Dale F. Stein [NAE], President Emeritus, Michigan Technological
University.
Michael S. Townes, Executive Director, Transportation District
Commission of Hampton Roads.
Attachment 2
DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF DOCUMENTS
Questions Guiding Assessment
To conduct its review, the committee began by assessing the R&D
Plan with regard to the contents required for this plan in TEA-21
(Section 5108 ``Sec. 508(c)(2)''). These required elements are as
follows:
(A) an identification of the general goals and objectives of the
Department for surface transportation research and technology
development;
(B) a description of the roles of the Department and other Federal
agencies in achieving the goals identified under subparagraph (A), in
order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort;
(C) a description of the overall strategy of the Department, and
the role of each of the operating administrations of the Department, in
carrying out the plan over the next 5 years, including a description of
procedures for coordination of the efforts of the operating
administrations of the Department and other Federal agencies;
(D) an assessment of how State and local research and technology
development activities are contributing to the achievement of the goals
identified under subparagraph (A);
(E) details of the surface transportation research and technology
development programs of the Department, including performance goals,
resources needed to achieve those goals, and performance indicators as
described in [GPRA--see Tab 1, Section 1115(a)], for the next 5 years
for each area of research and technology development;
(F) significant comments on the plan obtained from outside sources;
and
(G) responses to significant comments obtained from the National
Research Council and other advisory bodies, and a description of any
corrective actions taken pursuant to such comments.
The committee also developed additional questions derived from the
requirements found in GPRA. These questions are as follows:
(1) Do the Strategic Plan and Performance Plans include R&T as
contributors to achieving strategic goals?
(2) If so, is the R&T related to the goals and is the relationship
clearly explained in the documents?
(3) Does the Performance Report or the R&D Plan include: (a) A
summary of results of previous fiscal years' R&T? (b) An analysis of
the relationship between R&T results and DOT's strategic goals? (c) A
description of the methodology used for assessing results? (d) A
description of significant changes in the R&T undertaken compared with
what was included in that year's plan (planned R&T that was not
performed and why, unplanned R&T that was performed and why)?
(4) How are the following processes handled: (a) Gathering input
from stakeholders and incorporating it into the plan and report; (b)
Mechanisms for coordination and cooperation among public and/or private
entities; and (c) Tracking of progress on R&T activities.
Detailed findings
The committee's detailed findings based on the TEA-21 requirements
and the additional questions listed on the previous page are in italics
below.
Conformity of the R&D Plan to the requirements specified in TEA-21,
Section 5108 ``Sec. 508(c)(2)'':
(A) an identification of the general goals and objectives of the
Department for surface transportation research and technology
development
``The goals and objectives of the DOT Strategic Plan are
stated in the R&D Plan. However, the ``impact-based performance
measures'' stated in Chapter V of the R&D Plan differ from the
performance goals in DOT's Strategic Plan and Performance
Plans. For instance, in the area of safety, the R&D Plan
includes reference to motorcycle related fatalities and
injuries and child occupant fatalities, which are not mentioned
in DOT's performance goals. Conversely, the R&D Plan does not
mention other DOT safety performance goals, such as those
related to seat belt use and large-truck fatalities and
injuries, or any of the safety performance measures in
nonhighway modes.''
(B) a description of the roles of the Department and other Federal
agencies in achieving the goals identified under subparagraph (A), in
order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort
``The R&D Plan lists other (non-DOT) federal agencies
involved with each of the partnership initiatives (Chapter
III). A few specific interagency activities are mentioned in
the descriptions of the initiatives. Under ``Enabling
Research'' (Chapter IV there are a few references to joint
activities with other agencies, but there is no discussion of
related research that is not under DOT sponsorship. There is no
general discussion of the various missions of the different
agencies, their (presumably) complementary responsibilities,
the consequent differences in their roles in R&T, and the
potential for interaction and synergy. Chapter II mentions the
NSTC Subcommittee on Transportation R&D as a mechanism for
coordinating federal transportation R&D; however, the only
effort of this committee that is mentioned is the production of
a strategic plan. It is not clear how actual coordination of
federal activities is to take place.
``Also, regarding roles, there is more focus on
``technology'' than on ``research'' (see p. 6 of the 2000
Performance Plan, for example), which is considered more the
classic federal role. On the other hand, the distinction
between the technology partnership initiatives and the enabling
research is not well explained.''
(C) a description of the overall strategy of the Department, and
the role of each of the operating administrations of the Department, in
carrying out the plan over the next 5 years, including a description of
procedures for coordination of the efforts of the operating
administrations of the Department and other Federal agencies
``DOT's overall strategy with respect to R&T mirrors the NSTC
Strategy, the main elements of which are strategic planning,
partnership initiatives, enabling research, and training and
education. It is not always clear from the GPRA documents or
the R&D Plan, however, exactly how R&T supports the
Department's strategic goals.
``The efforts of the operating administrations are
coordinated through DOT's Research and Technology Coordinating
Council, which is mentioned in Chapter II. No further
description of coordination procedures is offered. The
operating administrations involved in each partnership
initiative are listed under the initiative, and many of the
research activities of the operating administrations are
described under enabling research. There is no overall
discussion of the roles of each administration over the next 5
years. (For instance, it would be appropriate to point out the
primary role of FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA in reducing
transportation fatalities, given that 94 percent of these
fatalities are highway related. Other operating administrations
may have stronger roles in supporting other strategic goal
areas.)''
(D) an assessment of how State and local research and technology
development activities are contributing to the achievement of the goals
identified under subparagraph (A)
``There is no discussion of state and local R&T activities in
the document. Even under the section ``Issues as Seen by the
Stakeholders'' there is no direct reference to state DOTs.
Under ``Paving the Way for R&D Implementation'' there is a
brief reference to ``state, tribal, county, and city government
agencies,'' but no acknowledgment of the role of these agencies
as owners and operators of important parts of the
transportation system, and therefore as critical partners in
the conduct of research and the development and implementation
of new technologies.''
(E) details of the surface transportation research and technology
development programs of the Department, including performance goals,
resources needed to achieve those goals, and performance indicators as
described in [GPRA--see Tab 1, Section 1115(a)], for the next 5 years
for each area of research and technology development
``Chapter V, ``Measuring Success,'' provides a general
discussion of GPRA and performance measurement, but this
discussion is not applied concretely to DOT's R&T programs. A
list of impact-based performance measures is included in Table
V-2, but these differ from the performance goals and indicators
in the Department's Strategic Plan and Performance Plans. It
may be necessary to establish intermediate goals for R&T
activities, but it should be clear how accomplishment of these
intermediate goals will bring the Department closer to
achievement of its ultimate goals. The goals in the R&D Plan
are not clearly associated with the specific R&T activities
described in the plan; that is, it is not clear which enabling
research or partnership initiatives are aimed at each
performance goal and how they are expected to contribute to
achieving that goal. There is no discussion of resource needs.
The only reference to time frame appears to be the
categorization of enabling research as near-term (5 years or
less) or long-term (more than 5 years).''
(F) significant comments on the plan obtained from outside sources
``Understandably, there are no comments from the NRC
committee since the committee met for the first time in
February 2000. However, there are also no comments from other
outside sources.''
(G) responses to significant comments obtained from the National
Research Council and other advisory bodies, and a description of any
corrective actions taken pursuant to such comments
``Again, it was not possible for responses to the NRC
committee to be included, but if other outside sources were
consulted, their comments should have received responses. If
none were consulted, such consultation should take place before
the next version of the plan is published.''
Assessment of GPRA documents and the R&D Plan with respect to the
committee-developed questions derived from the requirements found in
GPRA:
(1) Do the Strategic Plan and Performance Plans include R&T as
contributors to achieving strategic goals?
``The Strategic Plan and Performance Plans include R&T among
the activities DOT will undertake to achieve its goals. In
fact, R&T is identified as an overall management strategy for
the Department. The 1999 Performance Plan presents additional
R&T activities under each strategic goal area, categorizing
them by mode. The 2000 Performance Plan aligns R&T more
directly with performance goals under each strategic goal area.
There is little mention of research in the 2001 Performance
Plan. Many of the activities for 2001 are the same as or
similar to those in the 1999 Performance Plan. There is no
explanation of how the activities in each year differ.''
(2) If so, is the R&T related to the goals and is the relationship
clearly explained in the documents?
``The specific R&T activities in the Strategic Plan appear to
be merely illustrative since they clearly do not represent all
the R&T activities of the Department. It is not clear whether
these examples are the most closely related to DOT's strategic
goals.
``The format used in the 2000 Performance Plan gives a better
sense of how R&T supports the goals of the Department and
appears to have led to a better categorization of the R&T
activities. For instance, in the 1999 Performance Plan, the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles and testing of
intelligent transportation systems (ITS)/commercial vehicle
operator technologies at border crossings are categorized under
highway safety. While these activities may have safety
implications, they are more directly focused on the Human and
Natural Environment and Economic Growth and Trade goals,
respectively, which is where they are categorized in the 2000
Performance Plan.
``The relationship between specific R&T activities and the
performance goals is not explained in the Performance Plans;
however, it is probably not reasonable to expect such
explanation without these plans becoming overly long. A more
detailed explanation of how R&T activities support DOT goals
would more appropriately be included in the Department's R&D
Plan.
``In the R&D Plan, the descriptions of the partnership
initiatives provide better explanations, in some cases, of the
need for the technologies involved than is found in the
Performance Plans. However, while the partnership initiatives
are correlated with the strategic goals, they are not clearly
linked to the performance goals, which focus on more specific
outcomes. For instance, many of the partnership initiatives and
enabling research efforts are directed toward ``safety,'' but
it is difficult to tell whether they are oriented strategically
to address the issues and problems whose resolution offers the
most promise for reducing specific kinds of fatalities and
injuries. Therefore, the rationale for the R&T focus is not
always clear.''
(3) Does the Performance Report or the R&D Plan include: (a) A
summary of results of previous fiscal years' R&T?
``Such a summary is not included in either document.''
(b) An analysis of the relationship between R&T results and DOT's
strategic goals?
``Since the results of R&T are not included in the plan, such
an analysis is also not included.''
(c) A description of the methodology used for assessing results?
``The R&D Plan addresses performance measurement somewhat
theoretically, but does not apply it to specific R&T
activities. The Strategic Plan (p. 64) indicates that DOT will
measure the impact of R&T on transportation system performance
through benchmarking efforts. This particular activity is not
mentioned in the 1999 Performance Plan, although that plan does
indicate that DOT will consider using International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 certification and
Malcolm Baldridge or President's Quality Award criteria to
perform baseline assessments of the performance of DOT R&T
facilities. The 2000 Performance Plan indicates that this
baseline assessment will be completed in fiscal year 2000.
However, it appears that the criteria to be used had still not
been chosen when the plan was written since the three mentioned
above are still listed as possible criteria, and a fourth
(Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model
certification) is added. Also, it is not clear that an
assessment of R&T facilities will encompass an assessment of
R&T results. The reports do not assess the contributions of DOT
R&T to the achievement of goals and performance measures
relative to the contribution of other DOT actions and programs.
Although not explicitly called for in TEA-21 or GPRA, DOT may
wish to include this type of assessment in its benchmarking
efforts.''
(d) A description of significant changes in the R&T undertaken
compared with what was included in that year's plan (planned R&T that
was not performed and why not, unplanned R&T that was performed and
why)?
``This description does not appear to be provided in any of
the documents.''
(4) How are the following processes handled: (a) Gathering input
from stakeholders and incorporating it into the plan and report
``Answered under (F), above.''
(b) Mechanisms for coordination and cooperation among public and/or
private entities
``Coordination among modal administrations is addressed under
(C), above. Coordination among federal departments is addressed
under (B), above. The R&D Plan also lists nonfederal entities
that are (or could be) involved in particular partnership
initiatives. Coordination with these entities is not
discussed.''
(c) Tracking of progress on R&T activities
``There is no progress tracking in the R&D Plan. Since this
is the first plan of its kind under the GPRA regime, it may be
more reasonable to expect progress tracking in later versions
of the document.''
Additional Specific Comments About R&D Plan
In reviewing the R&D Plan, the committee identified some additional
specific areas in which the plan could be improved. Some of these are
matters of format, structure, or editing. Others refer more to the
substance of the plan. Addressing these observations should help create
a document that better reflects the transportation R&T enterprise and
is more understandable to the reader.
CHAPTER III: PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING
The partnership initiatives are ordered differently in the text and
in the tables of Chapter III. This makes it somewhat difficult to
compare the two.
It might be clearer to list DOT programs (pp. III-33 to III-43)
directly under the corresponding partnership initiatives (pp. III-3 to
III-25) so that it would be easier to see how they are related.
The Next Generation Vehicle initiative is referred to by different
names in various parts of the document. Consistent use of one name
would be clearer.
Descriptions of partnership initiatives and how they are related to
the strategic goals are not consistent. For instance, PNGV is included
under Next Generation Surface and Marine Transportation Vehicles on
page III-9 and under the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative on page III-34.
Safety is indicated as a primary DOT strategic goal for the Monitoring,
Maintenance, and Rapid Renewal of the Physical Infrastructure
initiative, but does not figure significantly in the descriptions of
this initiative on pages III-19 to III-20 and III-39 to III-41. Next
Generation Global Air Transportation is said to support Mobility and
Economic Growth and Trade on p. III-30, but the description of the
initiative on p. III-35 suggests a significant contribution to Human
and Natural Environment.
CHAPTER IV: ENABLING RESEARCH
The distinction between short-term and long-term in this chapter is
interesting, but somewhat confusing. Much of the research characterized
as long-term appears to be aimed at about the same time horizon as some
of the partnership initiatives, which might be expected to be more
short-term in nature. Where is the truly long-term, high-risk,
``enabling'' research being done?
CHAPTER VI: IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND INCENTIVES
The discussion of ``user stakeholder'' issues generally emphasizes
user obstacles to implementation, such as liability, economic, and
privacy concerns. This section should also include the opportunities
for implementation and the motivations users may have to support
implementation.
The chapter goes into some detail on implementation of a few
specific technologies (free flight and ITS technologies). It might make
more sense to include these discussions under the appropriate
partnership initiatives or enabling research areas and reserve this
chapter for analysis of overarching issues in the implementation of
R&T, such as institutional, procurement, educational, and liability
issues, which tend to arise in many technology areas.
The section on ``Paving the Way for R&D Implementation'' focuses
solely on procurement reform. Though this is a critical implementation
issue to address, it is not the only one. Studies have identified
various factors that appear to be associated with successful
implementation of R&T. For example, implementation is more successful
when users are involved with the research from the beginning (a good
argument for partnerships) and when there are champions at different
levels of an organization. This chapter could address some of these
factors.
Attachment 3
DOT STRATEGIC AND PERFORMANCE GOALS FOR SAFETY
These goals are taken from the U.S. Department of Transportation
Performance Plan for fiscal year 2000.
DOT has strategic goals in five areas: Safety; Mobility; Economic
Growth and Trade; Human and Natural Environment; and National Security.
The strategic goal for safety is: ``Promote the public health and
safety by working toward the elimination of transportation-related
deaths, injuries, and property damage.''
The performance goals contributing to the achievement of the
strategic goal for safety are:
Highway Fatality and Injury Rates.--Reduce the rate of highway-
related fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from
1.7 in 1996 to 1.5 in 2000. Reduce the rate for injuries from 141 in
1996 to 124 per 100 million VMT in 2000.
Alcohol-Related Highway Fatalities.--Reduce the percentage of
highway fatalities that are alcohol-related to less than 35 percent in
2000, from a 1996 baseline of 40.9 percent.
Seat Belt Use.--Increase seat belt usage nationwide to 85 percent
by 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. Usage in 1997 was 69 percent.
Large Truck-Related Fatality and Injury Rates.--Reduce the rate of
fatalities involving large trucks per 100 million truck VMT from 2.8 in
1997 to 2.5 in 2000. Reduce the rate of injuries involving large trucks
per 100 million truck VMT from 69.3 in 1997 to 64.4 in 2000.
Air Carrier Fatal Accident Rate.--Reduce the fatal aviation
accident rate for commercial air carriers from a 1994-1996 baseline of
0.037 fatal accident per 100,000 flight hours. The 2000 target is 0.033
per 1,000,000--with the reduction to be achieved in 6 key areas
outlined in the Safer Skies Agenda.
General Aviation Fatal Accident Rate.--Reduce the general aviation
fatal accident rate from a 1994-96 average of 1.67 per 100,000 flight
hours to (specific target to be developed).
Runway Incursions.--Reduce the number of runway incursions to a
level 15 percent below a 1997 baseline of 318 incursions. The fiscal
year 2000 target is at or below 270 incursions.
Operational Errors and Deviations (Air Traffic).--Reduce the rate
of operational errors and deviations by 10 percent from the 1994
baselines of 0.54 errors and 0.11 deviations per 100,000 facility
activities. The 2000 target rates are 0.486 for errors and 0.097 for
deviations.
Recreational Boating Fatalities.--Reduce recreational boating
fatalities to 720 (or fewer) fatalities in 2000. The 1997 baseline in
819 fatalities.
Maritime Search and Rescue.--Save at least 93 percent of all
mariners, and at least 80 percent of all property, reported in imminent
danger.
Passenger Vessel Safety.--Reduce the number of high-risk passenger
vessel casualties to 47 per 1,000 vessels in 2000. The 1996 baseline is
48 per 1,000.
Rail Crash and Fatality Rates.--Reduce the rate of rail-related
crashes from 3.91 per million train-miles in 1995 to 3.32 (or less) in
2000. Reduce the rate of rail-related fatalities from 1.71 per million
train-miles in 1995 to 1.54 (or less) in 2000.
Rail Grade-Crossing Crash Rate.--Reduce the rate of grade-crossing
crashes from 2.85 per the product of (million train-miles times
trillion highway VMT) in 1995 to 2.14 (or less) in 2000.
Rail Trespasser Fatality Rate.--Reduce the rate of rail-related
trespasser fatalities from 2.81 per the product of (million train-miles
times billion U.S. population) in 1995 to 2.53 (or less) in 2000.
Transit Fatality and Injury Rates.--Reduce the transit fatality
rate from 0.52 fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles-traveled in
1996 to 0.50 (or less) in 2000. Reduce the injury rate from 127 per 100
million passenger-miles-traveled in 1996 to 122 (or less) in 2000.
Pipeline Failures.--Decrease the number of natural gas transmission
pipeline failures from 4,933 in 1994 to 4,451 in 2000.
Hazardous Material Incidents.--Reduce the number of serious
hazardous materials incidents in transportation to 411 or fewer in 2000
from a peak of 464 in 1996.
Attachment 4
FRA R&D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND SELECTION PROCESS \6\
Currently, the FRA R&D program is developing a structured process
to document the method by which FRA R&D management identifies research
areas and selects specific R&D projects for funding. FRA R&D management
currently uses such a process when identifying projects for funding and
submitting budget requests. However, the current effort is intended to
provide documentation of the process so it is visible to all FRA R&D
stakeholders. FRA R&D is developing this structured approach with
guidance from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee for
Review of the FRA R&D Program. Most recently, the FRA R&D presented the
proposed approach to the TRB Committee during November 1999 and the
Committee recommended the FRA R&D program employ the approach in fiscal
year 2002 budget submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This material was provided by the Federal Railroad
Administration Office of Research and Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The structured approach for FRA R&D project development and
selection is presented below. The approach consists of five logical
steps which, initially, will be applied to the entire R&D program.
Subsequently, as new information becomes available about sources of
harm, the logical steps may be followed for specific types of harm to
add to the list of potential R&D projects.
STEP 1: REVIEW OF RAIL INDUSTRY HISTORICAL AND POTENTIAL HARM
The first step in the FRA R&D project development and selection
process is a review of recent rail industry harm data and an estimation
of causes of potential for harm. Historical harm data is compiled in
FRA rail accident databases and accident investigation reports.
Potential for future harm can be understood by reviewing rail industry
operating trends with expert knowledge of how railroad accidents occur.
The four relevant databases which hold historical rail incident
data are the FRA's Rail Accident/Incident Reporting System (RAIRS),
Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Database, Railroad Injury
and Illness Summary Database, and RSPA's Hazardous Materials Incident
Database. The information in these databases is very detailed in terms
of circumstances that contribute to accidents. However, these
databases, typically, do not address specific causes of the harm that
results from railroad accidents or incidents.
Detailed accident reports from the NTSB and the FRA are the most
important source of information, compiled by experts, about accident
circumstances that contribute to harm. While detailed investigations
are undertaken for relatively few railroad accidents, the most serious
accidents, in terms of harm, have been intensively investigated and
much can be learned through review of these reports.
Finally, since accident databases and accident reports can only
reflect historical accident causes and circumstances, meaningful
countermeasures to prevent harm must also address railroad industry
operational trends. In this way countermeasures may be developed to
address causes for harm that are not reflected in the historical
databases.
STEP 2: CONDUCT FAILURE ANALYSIS
For a given accident cause or factor contributing to harm, fault-
tree logic is applied to identify specific items to be addressed by
countermeasures. These specific items represent points along the
accident chain-of-events at which the accident, or subsequent harm, or
both, could have been prevented. Countermeasures are proposed with the
goal of breaking the accident or harm chain-of-events at the points
identified. These countermeasures are proposed with an understanding of
current regulatory and industry practices for the relevant area of rail
operations. Examples of types of contermaeasures proposed include:
Regulation; Industry standards and best practices; Equipment and
infrastructure improvements; Enforcement; and Education.
STEP 3: SURVEY GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY COUNTERMEASURES AND R&D
REQUIREMENTS
Once specific countermeasures are identified, FRA R&D will review
current and potential industry and government countermeasures to
identify areas of opportunity for R&D. That is, FRA R&D will identify
countermeasures that would be enabled by R&D. For example, a potential
operating rule may need research into the train speed regimes at which
a type of train control system affords safe operation.
STEP 4: DEVELOP AND RATE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS
For each countermeasure that may be aided by R&D, one or more R&D
project summaries are developed to describe projects that provide
information to enable the countermeasures. The project summaries are
structured descriptions of projects that will be used to compare and
select projects during R&D program development. Project summaries
address expected outputs and outcomes, project costs and durations, as
well as implementation issues for project results. Based on the project
summaries, projects are then rated according to objective criteria for
expected contribution to safety and likelihood of success. For a given
program area, these project ratings are plotted in two-dimensions
(likelihood of success versus contribution to safety) to provide a
high-level comparison tool for the project selection process.
STEP 5: SELECT PROJECTS AND ASSIGN TO PROGRAM AREAS
The last step in the FRA R&D program development process entails
selecting projects for each program area based on the two-dimensional
plots and project summaries. The goal is to select the best research
opportunities available to obtain the best return on investment
possible from the FRA R&D budget. That is, the most highly rated
projects, regardless of program area, are selected until the desired
overall funding request level is reached. Once the list of funded
projects is completed, each project is assigned to one of the FRA R&D
program areas. The FRA R&D budget request, for each program area, is
the sum of the funding required for each of the selected projects in
the program area.
Question. Assuming no increase in funds for fiscal year 2001, what
could be done to initiate research on transportation infrastructure
assurance and fatigue management?
Answer. The Administration has no alternative proposal to fund the
two critical, multi-modal research areas of transportation
infrastructure assurance and human-centered systems.
The funding requested in RSPA's budget for these two areas of
research is intended not to substitute for other operating
administrations' resources, but to build on and leverage these
resources as well as investments made by other Federal agencies, the
states and the private sector.
Question. Please describe in detail why funds are spent on
international science and technology assessment. Who receives those
funds and what is done with the results of this investment?
Answer. To ensure that the United States maintains its
technological lead in an ever-increasing global environment, it is
essential to understand the priorities and research activities of
competitor nations. International corporations, travel and
telecommunications, and the number of foreign students in institutions
of higher learning all over the globe are growing at a unprecedented
rate. As a result, both the practice and the propagation of
transportation research have attained global proportions.
RSPA released a National Science and Technology Council document
entitled Comparison of International Transportation R&D: Expenditures
and Priorities in September 1999. It documents research in the seven
countries that undertake the vast majority of transportation R&D around
the world today. The document was developed at the DOT Volpe Center,
with inputs from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the
Organization for European Cooperation and Development, the National
Academy of Sciences, and similar groups. The document is a key resource
in establishing research priorities, as well as areas for productive
collaboration. It is available on the Internet at http://
www.volpe.dot.gov/resref/strtplns/nstc/citrdep/index.html.
A second edition of this report is currently under development
covering the next tier of countries active in transportation R&D. They
are: Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, China, India, South Korea,
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.
In addition, the U.S. Library of Congress is assisting RSPA in
developing an International Transportation Research and Technology
Information base with information on current and future transportation
R&T developments in other developed nations. Such a database will help
ensure that Federal investment in transportation R&T is coordinated for
efficient use of Federal funds, focused on identified critical
projects, and limited to areas in which major public benefits can be
achieved through cost-shared Federal research.
Question. Please provide a discussion of the value and uses of
products obtained from research planning and management projects in
fiscal year 1999 or 2000. Please indicate which projects are ongoing
(into 2001), or have been completed.
Answer. As pointed out by the first NRC/TRB review of the Federal
Transportation Research and Development Strategic Planning Process,
this process helps leadership within the Department and across the
Federal Government define transportation priorities and identify key
R&D initiatives. The plans that have been developed as a result of this
process focus our attention on the priorities and provide the framework
for solving national transportation problems through R&D.
All of RSPA's planning and management projects undertaken in fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 are ongoing and will continue in fiscal
year 2001. Plans are revised as new knowledge is obtained, visions are
refined and goals are adjusted.
The variety of research planning materials that have been developed
under this activity have already had the following effects:
--Promoted collaborative research (e.g., aviation R&D, fuel cells)
--Promoted consideration of longer-term research (e.g.,
nanotechnology)
--Raised the consciousness of senior DOT leadership of R&D as a tool
to achieve Departmental goals and solve transportation problems
(e.g., R&T is a corporate management strategy for DOT)
--More explicitly linked research to accomplishment of Departmental
goals (e.g., 2001 Performance Plan and 1999 Performance Report)
--Created a better-focused agenda of research activities and
priorities (e.g., DOT Transportation R&D Plan (Second Edition))
--Identified new opportunities for co-operative implementation (e.g.,
Transportation Infrastructure Assurance R&D, Human-centered
Systems, Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program)
--More effectively involved non-Federal participants (industry,
State/local government, academia) in support and conduct of
research (e.g., Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, ITS Deployment,
National Highway R&T Partnership Initiative, National R&D Plan
on Aviation Safety, Security, Efficiency and Environmental
Compatibility)
transportation infrastructure assurance r&d
Question. Please identify all ongoing research in all DOT modes
that identifies and/or addresses transportation infrastructure and
security vulnerabilities. What levels of funding were appropriated for
these programs in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and what levels are
requested for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The following is a list of research in all DOT operating
administrations that address transportation infrastructure and security
vulnerabilities and the corresponding levels of funding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
DOT Administration Activity -------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA.......................... Explosive/ $41,700,000 $37,605,000
Weapons
Detection.
FAA.......................... Airport 2,708,000 2,385,000
Security.
FAA.......................... Human Factors.. 5,282,000 5,256,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Federal Transit Administration has carried out
limited investigations to improve personal security and property
protection at transit facilities leveraging DOD funds in fiscal year
1999 and fiscal year 2000.
The following is a breakdown of all DOT operating administrations'
funding requests for fiscal year 2001 to support the Transportation
Infrastructure Assurance Research and Development Program:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
DOT Administration Activity 2001
funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA................................ Passenger/Cargo $54,900,000
Security and
Intrusion Detection.
RSPA............................... Chemical and 3,400,000
Biological Agent
Detection, Intermodal
Terminal Security,
and Human Factors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These activities are described in a ``DOT Transportation
Infrastructure Assurance R&D Plan'' published in September 1999 which
aligns R&D investments with the missions and responsibilities of each
organization. The Transportation Infrastructure Assurance R&D Program
is intended to integrate all DOT efforts.
UNIVERSITY MARINE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
Question. Please identify all ongoing research at MARAD, Coast
Guard, and RSPA that addresses marine transportation mobility, safety,
environmental protection and security. What levels of funding were
appropriated for these programs in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and what
levels are requested for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The levels of funding for research related to marine
transportation mobility, safety, environmental protection and security
within MARAD, Coast Guard and RSPA are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
DOT Administration Activity --------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARAD..................................... N/A.......................... ........... ........... ...........
Coast Guard............................... Improve Search & Rescue $875,000 $1,162,000 $457,000
Capability.
Coast Guard............................... Waterways Safety & Management 2,116,000 1,444,000 1,196,000
and Aids to Navigation.
Coast Guard............................... Marine Safety................ 3,198,000 3,108,000 5,448,000
Coast Guard............................... Interagency Ship Structure 289,000 159,000 381,000
Committee.
Coast Guard............................... Marine Environmental 1,694,000 2,263,000 1,142,000
Protection.
Coast Guard Comprehensive Law Enforcement 1,129,000 3,213,000 4,422,000
Coast Guard............................... Technology Investment........ 4,350,000 3,746,000 3,991,000
RSPA...................................... University Marine ........... ........... 2,500,000
Transportation Research.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMAN-CENTERED SYSTEMS RESEARCH PROGRAM
Question. Please identify all ongoing human-centered systems
research at the Department of Transportation, within each modal
administration and interagency program. What levels of funding were
appropriated for these programs in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and what
levels are requested for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The Department's Operating Administrations have engaged in
modal-specific human factors research and development activities. They
promulgate their results, typically in the form of safety regulations,
to their specific transportation sector.
DOT did not receive appropriated funds for human-centered systems
research in fiscal year 1999 or fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2001,
RSPA has requested $3,000,000 to support this One-DOT effort. FAA,
NHTSA, FMCSA, FHWA, FRA, FTA and USCG also recognize the critical
importance of this effort in terms of its potential to reduce
fatalities and property loss due to human error. They are willing to
contribute funding for this effort in fiscal year 2000.
ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Question. What is the status and accomplishments to date of the
advanced vehicle technologies program?
Answer. The Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program (AVP), which is
entering its second year, represents a successful transition and shift
in emphasis of the Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Electric Vehicle (EV/
HEV) program managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1998. AVP builds on
the momentum achieved from investment by DARPA and private-public
partners (a total of over $250 million from 1993-1998) for advancing
medium and heavy electric and hybrid-electric vehicle and
infrastructure technologies. The partners have provided at least an
equal cost share with the Government to accelerate the development and
deployment of advanced vehicle, component and infrastructure
technologies into the market place. The DARPA partnership initiated
over 300 projects with 450 companies and helped develop:
--Hybrid electric transmissions
--Auxiliary power units and motors
--Advanced battery and charger systems, and controllers
--Flywheels to augment batteries
--Advanced materials to reduce weight.
Since management under DOT beginning in fiscal year 1999, program
directions have been announced for fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000
and fiscal year 2001-2003. In response to the fiscal year 1999
solicitation, 26 projects were awarded to consortia in fiscal year
1999. These important projects are underway and well ahead of schedule
in great part due to the AVP's fast-tracked public and private
partnership and the use of ``other transactions'' agreements. Project
selection for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 is nearing
completion. Funding for fiscal year 2001 projects will be awarded upon
enactment of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations.
Question. Please outline the makeup of the seven national
consortia, and describe the types of technologies each consortia are
developing.
Answer. The seven quasi-regional consortia consist of over 500
private companies, universities, laboratories and state and local
governments. The membership of the consortia fluctuates on a periodic
basis.
(1) WestStart--CALSTART is developing the following types of
technologies: a fuel cell auxiliary power unit for over-the-road
trucks; an electric propulsion system for medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles; a hybrid electric transit bus with flywheel power management;
an all-purpose electric airport tow tractor; and electrochemical
capacitors using carbon lead-oxide electrodes.
(2) ELECTRICORE is developing the following types of technologies:
a 600-900 Volt test system for heavy duty hybrid electric vehicles;
passenger trams with installed microturbines; and advanced silicon
carbide power electronics.
(3) The Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project is developing
the following types of technologies: electric vehicle charging
infrastructure; a zero-emission 100 passenger electric tram for
airports; and a battery cycle life prediction tool.
(4) The Mid-Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced Vehicles is
developing the following types of technologies: an unmanned hybrid
electric high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle; a nickel-hydrogen
segmented battery for hybrid electric military vehicles, commercial
trucks, and buses; an optimized compression ignition engine generator
system for heavy-duty hybrid electric vehicles; an integrated
simulation and testing system for electric vehicle batteries; smaller,
better inverters with polymer multi-layer capacitors; and a refined and
tested hybrid electric Bradley Fighting Vehicle demonstrator.
(5) The Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium is developing the
following types of technologies: a sustainable energy system for a
national recreation area; a heavy-duty hybrid electric vehicle emission
test certification protocol; a battery-electric-dominant heavy-duty
hybrid electric school bus; and jet vapor deposition for catalyzing
fuel cell membranes.
(6) The Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation is
developing the following types of technologies: a utility industry
trouble truck and mobile power source; an improved hybrid electric high
mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle; and advanced components that
have been demonstrated on the Advanced Technology Transit Bus.
(7) Sacramento Electric Transportation Consortium is developing the
following types of technologies: a nickel metal hydride battery System
for an electric bus; and a plastic lithium ion hybrid electric vehicle
battery.
Question. How is the program managed? Is there a strategic plan? If
so, has it ever been published?
Answer. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
manages the AVP in cooperation with other DOT operating administrations
and Federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Energy.
The Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Program (EV/HEV), from
which the AVP was derived, was managed by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) using seven geographically dispersed regional
consortia representing private industry and other non-Federal
organizations. The consortia were competitively selected to organize
industry teams to develop innovative technology solutions, enhance
competition, provide a decentralized management structure, and
accelerate technology development and national deployment.
The AVP continues to rely on this management approach and structure
as well as the use of innovative procurement mechanisms, such as
``other transactions'' to accelerate the development and deployment of
technologies. In response to an annual program announcement, projects
are selected through a process of proposal, submission, review, and
acceptance. Each proposal is reviewed jointly by DOT and, as
appropriate, other agencies.
RSPA recently completed a strategic plan for DOT medium- and heavy-
duty vehicle R&D. This plan, which covers the AVP, responds not only to
a Congressional mandate but documents the early stages of what will be
an ongoing strategic planning process specific to medium- and heavy-
duty vehicle R&D. Copies will be provided to the Committee upon
completion of the printing process, which should occur soon.
Question. Did the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy contribute any funds to this partnership in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of
Energy contributed any funds to this partnership in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Is any Department of Defense or Department of Energy
funding requested for the AVTP program in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request? If so, how much is requested in each budget, and from what
agencies and accounts?
Answer. Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of
Energy requested fiscal year 2001 funding for the AVP.
UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTERS GRANTS PROGRAM
Question. Specify what you have done since last year to improve the
effectiveness of the University Transportation Centers program.
Answer. The following activities have been accomplished since last
year to improve program effectiveness:
--established a new UTC grant requirement that requires a DOT
representative to participate in each UTC's research selection
process to promote the accomplishment of DOT goals and
objectives, as well as to facilitate information exchange;
--held an open competition for the ten regional UTC grants to ensure
that the grants were awarded to the best applicants;
--instituted baseline measures and annual performance indicators for
each UTC, in accordance with the Government Performance and
Results Act; and
--began holding site visits at the TEA-21 UTCs with multimodal DOT
teams assessing and evaluating each center's work.
Question. Please display the University Transportation Centers
(UTC) budget for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. Include funding
sources, amounts released in grants (by TEA-21 institution groupings),
and administrative and evaluation costs.
Answer. The following tables are provided. They do not include
funding for three RSPA FTE funded from the Highway Trust Fund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------
Funding sources 2000 2001
1999 (estimate) \1\ (estimate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA R&D Appropriations............................................. \2\ $5,940,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.......................... .............. 4,800,000 4,800,000
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund.......................... 22,640,000 23,670,000 23,670,000
--------------------------------------------
Total Program Funding........................................ 28,580,000 29,670,000 29,670,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reimbursable Agreements have not yet been executed with FTA and FHWA.
\2\ FTA did not indicate how much came from which source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------
Costs \1\ 2000 2001
1999 (estimate) (estimate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group A.......................... $8,744,360 $8,622,900 $8,622,900
Group B.......................... 2,097,600 3,449,160 3,449,160
Group C.......................... 6,528,500 6,527,026 6,527,026
Group D.......................... 10,992,000 10,898,320 10,898,320
Administration and Evaluation.... 217,540 172,594 172,594
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 28,580,000 29,670,000 29,670,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table indicates the fiscal year of the funding awarded and not
the year in which the grants were made.
Question. Please list all of the universities now receiving funds
authorized in TEA-21 and the amounts provided to each university in
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and anticipated for fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The following table is provided:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------
Name of recipient 2000-2001 2000-2001 est.
1999 1999 awarded authorized award (per
authorized (per year) year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama, U. of.................................. $750,000 $655,500 $750,000 $646,718
Arkansas, U. of................................. 750,000 655,500 750,000 646,718
Assumption College.............................. 300,000 262,200 500,000 431,145
California, U. of............................... 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
Central Florida, U. of.......................... 300,000 262,200 500,000 431,145
City U. of NY................................... 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
Denver, U. of................................... 300,000 262,200 500,000 431,145
George Mason U.................................. 2,000,000 1,748,000 2,000,000 1,724,580
Idaho, U. of.................................... 750,000 655,500 750,000 646,718
Iowa State U.................................... 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
Marshall U...................................... 2,000,000 1,748,000 2,000,000 1,724,580
MIT............................................. 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
Minnesota, U. of................................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Missouri-Rolla, U. of........................... 300,000 262,200 500,000 431,145
Montana State U................................. 2,000,000 1,748,000 2,000,000 1,724,580
Morgan State U.................................. 750,000 970,000 750,000 1,000,000
+250,000 + 250,000
NC State U...................................... 750,000 970,000 750,000 1,000,000
+ 250,000 + 250,000
NCA&T State U................................... 750,000 655,500 750,000 646,718
NJIT............................................ 750,000 655,500 750,000 646,718
ND State U...................................... 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
Northwestern U.................................. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Penn. State U................................... 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
Purdue U........................................ 300,000 262,200 500,000 431,145
Rhode Island, U. of............................. 2,000,000 1,748,000 2,000,000 1,724,580
Rutgers U....................................... 300,000 262,200 500,000 431,145
San Jose State U................................ 750,000 655,500 750,000 646,718
So. Carolina State U............................ 300,000 262,200 500,000 431,145
South Florida, U.of............................. 750,000 655,500 750,000 646,718
Southern Calif., U. of.......................... 300,000 262,200 500,000 431,145
Tenn., U. of.................................... 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
Texas A&M U..................................... 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
Wash., U. of.................................... 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
Wisc., U. of.................................... 1,000,000 \1\ 890,000 1,000,000 862,290
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount includes $874,436 of fiscal year 1999 funds and $15,564 of unobligated fiscal year 1997 UTC Program
funds. The fiscal year 1997 funds were used to increase the grants to the amount that had been publicized in
the UTC Program competition as expected to be available that year.
Question. For each university which has received grants from the
UTC program in fiscal years 1999 or 2000, please specify what research
programs are supported, and describe what the Department is doing to
integrate the research activities conducted by each center or
university with the Department's own research.
Answer. To date, UTC grants awarded under TEA-21 have involved
funding from fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Because UTC grants have
historically been awarded at the end of the fiscal year, no fiscal year
2000 funding has yet been awarded. The 10 UTCs in Group A, the so-
called Regional UTCs, were selected by competition in 1999 and thus
have received only one year's funding.
All UTCs are empowered to select their research projects, but they
must do so through a process that includes peers and other experts in
the field, including at least one employee from the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT). In addition to considering each proposal's
technical completeness and feasibility, a UTC's selection process must
include multiple additional rating factors, not least of which is the
project's relevance to the UTC's chosen theme and to the Department of
Transportation's strategic goals. Participation by DOT staff ensures a
two-way conduit for information about on-going research between DOT and
the university.
All UTCs are now required to post a brief project description for
each research project on the UTC's respective web sites. These
descriptions are to be provided in HTML format and are to use standard
Transportation Research Board keywords. All final reports on research
conducted with UTC funding, after required peer review, must be
published on the UTC's web site in the same manner. This innovation in
the program will greatly facilitate access to new and ongoing research
by DOT researchers and planners. In addition, RSPA posts all DOT-
sponsored university research on its website located at http://
utc.dot.gov. The Internet makes possible direct interaction between
academic researchers and outside experts.
All but one of the 33 UTCs have completed the strategic plan that
is required as their first activity under the grant. In that plan, the
UTC proposes and DOT approves a theme for its center that helps to
focus its research program. The 33 UTCs have the following themes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTC Location Center Theme
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption College........................ Transportation and
Environmental Education for
the Twenty-First Century.
City College of New York.................. Planning and Management of
Regional Transportation
Systems.
George Mason University................... Deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Systems.
Iowa State University..................... Sustainable Transportation
Asset Management.
Marshall University....................... Transportation and Economic
Development in Mountain
Regions.
Massachuset ts Institute of Technology.... Strategic Management of
Transportation Systems.
Montana State University.................. Rural Travel &
Transportation.
Morgan State University................... Transportation: A Key to
Human and Economic
Development.
New Jersey Institute of Technology........ Productivity Increases
through Transportation
Improvements.
North Carolina A&T State University....... Urban Transit Performance in
Small and Rural Areas.
North Carolina State University........... Transportation and the
Environment.
North Dakota State University............. Rural and Intermodal
Transportation.
Northwestern University................... Infrastructure Technology.
Pennsylvania State University............. Advanced Technologies in
Transportation Operations
and Management.
Purdue University......................... Safe, Quiet and Durable
Highways.
Rutgers University........................ Transportation
Infrastructure of High
Volume Systems.
San Jose State University................. Policy Guidance of
Transportation Management
Systems.
South Carolina State University........... Professional Capacity
Building in Transportation.
Texas A&M University...................... Transportation Solutions to
Enhance Prosperity and the
Quality of Life.
University of Alabama..................... Management and Safety of
Transportation Systems.
University of Arkansas.................... Improving the Quality of
Rural Life through
Transportation.
University of California.................. Transportation Systems
Analysis and Policy.
University of Central Florida............. Advanced Transportation
Systems Simulation.
University of Denver...................... Intermodal Transportation:
Assessment, Planning, and
Design.
University of Idaho....................... Advanced Transportation
Technology.
University of Minnesota................... Human-Centered
Transportation Technology.
University of Missouri-Rolla.............. Advanced Materials & Non-
destructive Testing
Technologies.
University of Rhode Island................ Intermodal Transportation
and Advanced Transportation
Infrastructure.
University of South Florida............... Transit and Alternative
Forms of Urban
Transportation.
University of Southern California......... Metropolitan Transportation.
University of Tennessee................... Transportation Safety.
University of Washington.................. Transportation Operations
and Planning.
University of Wisconsin................... Optimization of
Transportation Investment
and Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much of the fiscal year 1999 and 2000 monies will be
allocated to any other DOT budget, and how much will be contracted to
the partners?
Answer. Of the funds authorized in TEA-21 and allocated by FHWA and
FTA, $63,100 in fiscal year 1999 and an estimated $64,750 in fiscal
year 2000 was retained by FHWA, and $60,000 in fiscal year 1999 and an
estimated $60,000 in fiscal year 2000 was retained by FTA for
administrative expenses. Additionally, RSPA will be receiving
approximately $300,000 from FHWA (Highway Trust Fund) for three FTEs to
manage the UTC program.
Question. Please detail the agreements now in hand for industry
matching funds for this program. For each project funded during fiscal
year 1999 and 2000 show the amount of federal funding and any non-
federal cost sharing received.
Answer. As required by TEA-21, each UTC must supply a dollar-for-
dollar match for the federal funds awarded. Match must be from non-
federal government sources, with the exception of three specified
sources: (1) State Planning & Research funds; (2) LTAP; and (3) FHWA's
technology deployment program. Each UTC is responsible for securing
matching funds as a requirement of its grant. In the financial status
portion of its required annual progress report, each UTC must
demonstrate that the matching funds have been obtained and expended in
accordance with grant guidelines. However, in compliance with the
Office of Management and Budget rules for federal grants, RSPA does not
require the UTCs to supply information on federal vs. non-federal match
for each individual activity conducted under their grants (as hundreds
of research projects and dozens of educational activities are conducted
under UTC grants each year, this would be considered overly burdensome
under federal grant regulations).
Question. Which types of technologies are being pursued in this
program?
Answer. TEA-21 requires the UTCs to conduct combined programs of
research, education, and technology transfer under a strategic plan
that is completed as the first activity under each grant. In order to
promote innovation and originality among the centers, and to build most
efficiently on the grantee universities' existing or proposed areas of
expertise, the strategic plan allows the UTC to propose its own theme
for DOT approval. DOT ensures that each UTC has a unique theme that
relates to key national issues.
Once a UTC has chosen its theme, that theme provides a common focus
for the center's activities. The following is a list of each UTC's
theme:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTC Location Center Theme
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption College........................ Transportation and
Environmental Education for
the Twenty-First Century.
City College of New York.................. Planning and Management of
Regional Transportation
Systems.
George Mason University................... Deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Systems.
Iowa State University..................... Sustainable Transportation
Asset Management.
Marshall University....................... Transportation and Economic
Development in Mountain
Regions.
Massachuset ts Institute of Technology.... Strategic Management of
Transportation Systems.
Montana State University.................. Rural Travel &
Transportation.
Morgan State University................... Transportation: A Key to
Human and Economic
Development.
New Jersey Institute of Technology........ Productivity Increases
through Transportation
Improvements.
North Carolina A&T State University....... Urban Transit Performance in
Small and Rural Areas.
North Carolina State University........... Transportation and the
Environment.
North Dakota State University............. Rural and Intermodal
Transportation.
Northwestern University................... Infrastructure Technology.
Pennsylvania State University............. Advanced Technologies in
Transportation Operations
and Management.
Purdue University......................... Safe, Quiet and Durable
Highways.
Rutgers University........................ Transportation
Infrastructure of High
Volume Systems.
San Jose State University................. Policy Guidance of
Transportation Management
Systems.
South Carolina State University........... Professional Capacity
Building in Transportation.
Texas A&M University...................... Transportation Solutions to
Enhance Prosperity and the
Quality of Life.
University of Alabama..................... Management and Safety of
Transportation Systems.
University of Arkansas.................... Improving the Quality of
Rural Life through
Transportation.
University of California.................. Transportation Systems
Analysis and Policy.
University of Central Florida............. Advanced Transportation
Systems Simulation.
University of Denver...................... Intermodal Transportation:
Assessment, Planning, and
Design.
University of Idaho....................... Advanced Transportation
Technology.
University of Minnesota................... Human-Centered
Transportation Technology.
University of Missouri-Rolla.............. Advanced Materials & Non-
destructive Testing
Technologies.
University of Rhode Island................ Intermodal Transportation
and Advanced Transportation
Infrastructure.
University of South Florida............... Transit and Alternative
Forms of Urban
Transportation.
University of Southern California......... Metropolitan Transportation.
University of Tennessee................... Transportation Safety.
University of Washington.................. Transportation Operations
and Planning.
University of Wisconsin................... Optimization of
Transportation Investment
and Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please summarize the nature and amount of the research
contracts that you awarded thus far during fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000.
Answer. The UTC program does not award research contracts. In
accordance with TEA-21, 33 universities received multi-year UTC grants
in fiscal year 1998, which extend through fiscal years 1999, 2000, and
2001. Under its grant, each university is required to conduct a
multimodal program of transportation education, research, and
technology transfer. In fiscal year 1999, RSPA awarded $28.36 million
in federal funds to the 33 UTCs; in fiscal year 2000, RSPA will award
up to $33.25 million as designated by TEA-21, less any reduction due to
the Highway Trust Fund obligation ceiling.
EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION
Question. Why does RSPA consider it essential to have an SES
executive to head the OET?
Answer. The Director of the Office of Emergency Transportation has
numerous senior level managerial decision-making responsibilities
sufficient to support Senior Executive Service (SES) status. The
Director is responsible for the development and implementation of
policy, plans, and procedures for emergency management of the national
civil transportation system. The Director serves as the Department's
principal representative, spokesperson, and advisor on matters of civil
transportation emergency preparedness and response in the full spectrum
of crisis. The Director develops national policies, plans and
procedures, and is the primary liaison with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and other Federal, State, local and private
sector authorities. The Director provides direction to headquarters and
field response teams, and represent the Department on the Catastrophic
Disaster Response Group, a senior policy advisory group, chaired by
FEMA. As the manager of the Regional Emergency Transportation
Coordination (RETCO) program, the Director coordinates the activities
of Senior SES officials and U.S. Coast Guard admirals. On the
international level, the Director serves as the principal Departmental
representative, spokesperson, and advisor on matters of civil
transportation emergency preparedness and response in time of national
disasters.
Question. What new statutory or administrative requirements have
been placed on the Office of Emergency Transportation which
necessitates the increase of staff from 7 to 12 positions?
Answer. Presidential Decision Directives (PDD) 39, 62 and 63, and
67 place many new requirements on Office of Emergency Transportation
(OET). These PDDs address the critical topics of weapons of mass
destruction, continuity of operations and critical infrastructure
protection. They place an extraordinary responsibility on a small
office with a Department-wide mission. Since the terrorist attack on
the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, Federal departments
and agencies have had an increased responsibility for readiness to
respond to disasters. OET has been the focal point for this
responsibility in DOT. Current staffing cannot be stretched any further
to take on the added work required to meet the readiness requirements.
In addition to the PDD requirements, the increasing involvement by
DOT and OET in disaster-response efforts, the added responsibility of
maintaining and managing the DOT relocation site, coordinating the
development of DOT continuity of operations plans for the individuals
DOT operating administrations, and maintaining oversight for the
successful operation of the DOT Crisis Management Center, more staffing
is required to successfully carry out our critical life sustaining
mission.
Question. Of these requested five new positions, what are the two
most urgently required, and what would be the job titles and
responsibilities of these new personnel? What level of increased
funding would be associated with these two positions for six months?
Answer. All of the positions are most urgently needed to provide
readiness capability for the American people. However, if OET were
forced to select the two most critical positions necessary for
restoring the flow of life sustaining supplies and commerce, then the
choice would be the Regional Emergency Transportation Manager (GS-15)
and the Operations Chief (GS-13/14).
--Regional Emergency Transportation Manager.--Extensive technical
expertise in transportation emergency preparedness planning,
response and management are required for this position. The
manager would develop a stronger tie between headquarters and
the regions concerning the functions performed in the regions
in support of disaster response. This manager would establish
guidelines to assure parallel regional structures and systems
while recognizing geographical differences, manage the regional
training program, and develop continuity of operations (COOP)
plans since most response activities occur at regional level.
He or she would work closely with State and local agencies to
ensure their participation in the transportation planning and
response efforts. Due to the nature of the COOP work, a Top
Secret clearance is required. When natural disasters occur,
this manager would provide high-level coordination.
--Operations Chief.--This position would function as the lead policy
individual on the processes and procedures utilized in a crisis
environment. The Operations Chief would lead activations at
headquarters and the COOP site response centers during crisis
situations. It would be his or her responsibility to ensure
that emergency plans and response staffing plans are current
and ready to use and the individuals are trained. The
Operations Chief must coordinate with other Federal departments
and agencies and the DOT 24-hour Operations Centers. To do
this, extensive education, experience and training are
required. This individual will maintain and operate the
classified data systems used within the office. A Top Secret
clearance is required due to the nature of the work to be
performed on a daily basis.
We have requested $132,000 for both positions, which would fund
personnel compensation and benefits for one-half of the fiscal year for
each position. That level of funding would also allow us to establish a
work station (systems furniture, computers, phones, etc.), for each
employee.
Question. How many times in fiscal year 1999 was the Center
activated and for what reasons? How many times thus far in fiscal year
2000 has the Center been activated and for which reasons?
Answer. Any time a major incident occurs that disrupts the
transportation infrastructure, usually without advance notice, DOT
either partially or fully activates the DOT Crisis Management Center
(CMC). In 1999, the DOT Center was used at least a dozen times for
natural disasters including:
--flooding in Virginia,
--tornadoes in Arizona,
--Hurricane Floyd,
--winter storms in the Pacific Northwest,
--blizzards in the Midwest and the Northeast,
--severe cold weather in Alaska,
--winter storms in New York,
--the District of Columbia snow storm,
--Texas flooding, and o landslides in Idaho.
The center was also activated for one special event: the NATO
Anniversary held in Washington, DC. It was also activated to serve as
the Department's clearing house for the Y2K rollover and earlier in the
year for the Julian Calendar rollover on April 9, 1999.
Thus far in 2000, the center has been activated 24 hours a day for
several days during the Y2K rollover event and the leap year rollover
event. We plan to activate the center this Spring for a major National
Security Exercise.
We use the CMC daily. The Office of Emergency Transportation staff
researches information about ongoing disasters across the globe that
may impact the transportation system. Staff members prepare reports and
maintain communications with other Federal and State emergency
operations centers. They also use the CMC to provide readiness training
to Departmental and other Federal response personnel on a recurring
basis.
Question. For the Crisis Response Management program, please
provide a breakdown of how the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
funds were or willbe used.Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 Appropriation/Obligation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Program: Crisis Response Mgmt.... \1\ $450,000/\2\ $397,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Include $250,000 for Y2K supplemental.
\2\ Balance of funding was carried over to fiscal year 2000.
Funds were used for developing regional and headquarters training,
assisting the RETCOs as possible in the conduct of their program
operations, internal contracts for software support contracting, and
contracting for maintenance support in the Crisis Management Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 Appropriation/Obligation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Program: Crisis Response Mgmt.... \1\ $280,000/$323,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated obligations; includes unobligated balance from Y2K fiscal
year 1999 supplemental.
Fiscal year 2000 funding is for developing and conducting response
team training at headquarters and in the regions, for limited support
to the RETCO program, contract support for software systems, Crisis
Management Center maintenance and contracting, Continuity of Operations
(COOP) startup costs for the installation of a building access ramp
($55,000) at the DOT relocation site, and for minimal equipment
($25,000) for the relocation site.
PROGRAM SUPPORT
Question. Where is the Transportation Safety Institute? How many
personnel work there? Are these RSPA employees? How is the Institute
funded?
Answer. The Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) has two campuses
in Oklahoma City, with the main campus located at the Mike Monroney
Aeronautical Center, and the North Campus facility located at 4400 Will
Rogers Parkway. Currently 56 Federal employees work at TSI, 10 of which
are Coast Guard Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team
positions, and 1 is a detailed position from Office of Pipeline Safety.
Two of the positions (Director and Office Administrator) are RSPA
employees.
TSI is funded and staffed with resources provided from sponsoring
Federal Agencies through reimbursable agreements. TSI also receives
funding from private companies who wish to have safety training, such
as pipeline and hazardous materials safety training, provided for their
employees. Sponsor costs are reduced by tuition and user fees charged
to non-sponsor participants, such as international students, and state,
industry, and local government students who fill available classroom
slots, as permitted under specific legislative authority.
Question. Please explain the proposed move of 2 FTE associated with
the Transportation Safety Institute from the Research and Technology
budget to Program Support. How much of the increased request for
Program Support PC&B is associated with the proposed transfer of two
Transportation Safety Institute FTE?
Answer. The proposed move of two FTE associated with the
Transportation Safety Institute from the Research and Technology budget
to Program Support is due solely to the Secretary's reorganization of
the Research and Special Programs Administration. The increased request
for Program Support PC&B associated with the proposed transfer of two
Transportation Safety Institute FTE is $200,000.
Question. Department-wide, how much was allocated for the Garrett
A. Morgan Technologies and Transportation Futures Program during fiscal
year 2000 and how much will be allocated during fiscal year 2001?
Please specify the exact source of those funds.
Answer.
[The information follows:]
GARRETT A. MORGAN TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION FUTURES PROGRAM
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Operating Administration/Account -----------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG: General Operations.............................. $100 .......
FAA: General Operations............................... 50 .......
FHWA: Highway Trust Fund.............................. ....... $688
RSPA: RSP/Program Support............................. ....... 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2000, USCG and FAA were the sole sources of funding
for RSPA's Garrett A. Morgan Technologies and Transportation Futures
Program.
Question. What different functions does the new ``business
modernization'' program perform that are not met by the ``information
resource management'' program? Between these two programs, the fiscal
year 2001 budget request is almost $1,000,000 higher than the enacted
fiscal year 2000 funding level. If you got half the increase you
requested in these programs, what could be accomplished in fiscal year
2001, and what would need to be deferred?
Answer. The Information Resource Management (IRM) Program allows
RSPA to meet existing program office needs that translate into
achievement of the goals and activities in DOT's and RSPA's Strategic
Plans. The IRM Program request will ensure that we are able to provide
the systems, support and maintenance for RSPA's current electronic
infrastructure and automated business functions needed to provide the
public with hazardous materials safety, environmental protection,
mobility, national security and research and education.
The IRM program cannot support new initiatives. Business
Modernization is a major new initiative envisioned to change the basic
way RSPA will do business in a digitized government. RSPA needs
additional resources to accelerate the evaluation of its systems and to
automate additional business processes that make sense. Finding
appropriate automation tools to leverage technology across such a
diverse agency is a key challenge. Such automation is necessary to
accomplish more with less tomorrow and to achieve RSPA's customer
service goals.
Partial funding of half of the request would drastically narrow the
focus of the Modernization Program. RSPA would be able to meet its DOT
Wide Initiatives and with the Wide Area Network (WAN) Initiative
improve electronic communications and performance to the RSPA regional
offices.
Deferral of investments to Infrastructure and Programmatic
Operations will not enable RSPA to keep pace with the technological
development of its stakeholders, Government partners, and the public.
Without the new and expanded systems RSPA will lose the capability to
significantly improve data and information exchange and the analysis
supporting regulatory decisions. The lack of these investments will
deny RSPA the opportunity to maintain its oversight and regulatory
effort in the face of the growth in industries regulated in RSPA's
hazardous materials and pipeline programs. Ultimately, it would
undermine RSPA's ability to achieve its mission of transportation
safety, emergency response, and the development and dissemination of
research and technology.
Question. Please specify what employee development activities have
been accomplished in fiscal years 1999 and thus far in fiscal year
2000. How has RSPA paid for these activities? What planned activities
would be undertaken with the new $327,000 employment development
program?
Answer. From fiscal year 1999 until now technical training was
provided to employees who oversee hazardous materials transportation,
pipeline safety, advanced technology research, and national mobility/
security. This is critical training for employees in technical fields
who require an understanding and expertise in industrial processes and
techniques such as organic and physical chemistry, blasting and
explosives, welding inspection for pipelines and pipeline inspections
using intelligent pigs. This mission related training consumes the
majority of our budget. In fiscal year 1999, we recognized the need to
develop our staff's management competencies and were able to complete
management development training.
Administrative training (i.e., acquisition, budget, accounting,
human resources, diversity, etc.) including soft skills and basic
education training (i.e., writing, English and grammar, time
management, project management, communications skills, etc.) is only
accomplished once technical training needs are met. Creating a digital
government requires the Research and Special Program Administration to
develop and maintain a computer literate population. We were able to
accomplish limited training in this area during fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000. RSPA is experiencing nearly full staffing levels,
which makes alternate funding sources unavailable in fiscal year 2001.
The additional funding will provide for continuous learning
especially critical in technological fields such as those that RSPA's
employees oversee in the fields of hazardous materials transportation,
pipeline safety, advanced technology research and national mobility/
security. RSPA's technical workforce needs frequent re-training in
industrial processes and techniques merely to keep pace with
technological changes in the industries that it regulates.
Present day standard office technology, procedures and practices
require us to stay abreast of current trends and technology. We plan to
train existing employees in 21st century business processes and
innovations to increase their productivity, efficiency, and customer
service skills.
We anticipate using the additional fiscal year 2001 training funds
for customer service training. Based on the results of a National
Performance Review survey, the Department of Transportation plans to
ear mark customer service training as a high priority.
We plan to make greater use of distance learning technology, as
directed by Executive Order 13111 ``Using Learning Technology to
Improve Training Opportunities for Federal Employees'', to provide the
highest quality and most efficient training opportunities possible to
our employees.
The Secretary of Transportation's Workforce Planning Initiative
directs us to analyze and identify our workforce skills requirements
through fiscal year 2002, and to develop a strategy to maximize the
extent to which critical skills needs can be filled internally. The
additional funding will enable us to retrain employees in order to fill
skill gaps and build talents pools to meet future organization's needs.
Executive and management training, new skills requirements, greater
use of distance learning technology, workforce planning strategies, and
identified gaps in traditional skills all underscore the need within
RSPA for increased learning and development funding.
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS
Question. Please prepare a table showing the amount allocated to
each of the states for each of the last three years and display the
increase that would be provided if the full request was allowed.
Answer. The following table is provided:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTUAL ALLOCATIONS
--------------------------------------- FULL-
STATES FISCAL YEAR FUNDING INCREASE
--------------------------------------- FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000
1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA........................................ $117,942 $117,942 $158,656 $234,957 $76,301
ALASKA......................................... 41,180 41,180 55,396 81,870 26,474
ARIZONA........................................ 81,763 81,763 109,987 163,390 53,403
ARKANSAS....................................... 72,907 72,907 98,074 145,952 47,878
CALIFORNIA..................................... 485,207 485,207 652,701 968,081 315,380
COLORADO....................................... 83,356 83,356 112,131 166,906 54,775
CONNECTICUT.................................... 75,144 75,144 101,084 150,041 48,957
DELAWARE....................................... 44,913 44,913 60,418 89,190 28,772
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA........................... 37,448 37,448 50,374 74,421 24,047
FLORIDA........................................ 216,353 216,353 291,039 432,317 141,278
GEORGIA........................................ 142,701 142,701 191,961 285,628 93,667
HAWAII......................................... 44,789 44,789 60,250 89,045 28,795
IDAHO.......................................... 58,847 58,847 79,161 117,496 38,335
ILLINOIS....................................... 316,505 316,505 425,763 627,683 201,920
INDIANA........................................ 152,033 152,033 204,516 302,308 97,792
IOWA........................................... 104,755 104,755 140,917 208,943 68,026
KANSAS......................................... 117,072 117,072 157,486 233,105 75,619
KENTUCKY....................................... 90,198 90,198 121,334 180,362 59,028
LOUISIANA...................................... 103,884 103,884 139,745 207,412 67,667
MAINE.......................................... 53,871 53,871 72,468 107,180 34,712
MARYLAND....................................... 94,179 94,179 126,690 187,905 61,215
MASSACHUSETTS 108,362 108,362 145,769 216,762 70,993
MICHIGAN....................................... 169,076 169,076 227,442 338,439 110,997
MINNESOTA...................................... 129,639 129,639 174,391 258,659 84,268
MISSISSIPPI 88,831 88,831 119,496 176,963 57,467
MISSOURI....................................... 134,987 134,987 181,584 269,925 88,341
MONTANA........................................ 58,847 58,847 79,161 117,561 38,400
NEBRASKA....................................... 92,313 92,313 124,179 183,468 59,289
NEVADA......................................... 58,723 58,723 78,995 117,030 38,035
NEW HAMPSHIRE.................................. 52,252 52,252 70,290 103,807 33,517
NEW JERSEY..................................... 155,142 155,142 208,697 311,035 102,338
NEW MEXICO..................................... 73,776 73,776 99,244 146,658 47,414
NEW YORK....................................... 252,183 252,183 339,237 505,572 166,335
N. CAROLINA.................................... 151,533 151,533 203,843 302,243 98,400
N. DAKOTA...................................... 77,385 77,385 104,099 153,727 49,628
OHIO........................................... 264,376 264,376 355,639 525,378 169,739
OKLAHOMA....................................... 94,553 94,553 127,193 189,247 62,054
OREGON......................................... 91,941 91,941 123,679 183,750 60,071
PENNSYLVANIA................................... 210,132 210,132 282,670 420,164 137,494
RHODE ISLAND................................... ........... 46,281 62,257 92,064 29,807
S. CAROLINA.................................... 91,692 91,692 123,344 183,137 59,793
S. DAKOTA...................................... 61,708 61,708 83,010 123,089 40,079
TENNESSEE...................................... 123,044 123,044 165,519 245,487 79,968
TEXAS.......................................... 321,605 321,605 432,624 644,428 211,804
UTAH........................................... 70,169 70,169 94,392 139,661 45,269
VERMONT........................................ 41,927 41,927 56,401 83,387 26,986
VIRGINIA....................................... 121,177 121,177 163,008 241,893 78,885
WASHINGTON..................................... 99,033 99,033 133,219 198,471 65,252
WEST VIRGINIA.................................. 71,786 71,786 96,567 142,641 46,074
WISCONSIN...................................... 129,761 129,761 174,554 259,057 84,503
WYOMING........................................ 49,890 49,890 67,112 99,313 32,201
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................... 5,980,890 6,027,171 8,107,766 12,027,208 3,919,442
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How will the final regulation on registration fees
influence fee collection for the next two years? How does this
rulemaking influence the need for appropriated funds?
Answer. RSPA expects that under the revised registration
regulations, approximately 45,000 companies will be required to
register and that the grant program monies collected will be sufficient
to fund that program at the $14.3 million level reflected in the
Department's fiscal year 2000 budget. The increase in the amounts
collected under the revised registration requirements will be used to
increase the training and planning grants. All other program funding
levels will remain consistent with needs established in previous years.
Question. What would be the result if, for fiscal year 2001, the
Appropriations Committees reinstated the obligation ceiling for
emergency preparedness grants at $7,500,000? How would the excess
collections above the obligation ceiling be treated? Would the
hazardous materials registration rulemaking be revised?
Answer. RSPA would distribute grant program funds up to the
ceiling. All funds collected above any Congressionally-mandated ceiling
would be held in the Emergency Preparedness Fund for distribution
during the following year's grant cycle. An obligation ceiling on
current year authority would not impact the need to collect funds for
mandatory authority for the program in the future.
Question. Has RSPA performed any specific analysis to justify the
expansion of the HMEP program as proposed in its February 14, 2000
rule? If so, please summarize this analysis and your findings. Does the
analysis include an assessment of the role of privately funded, locally
funded, and state-funded hazardous materials emergency response
training?
Answer. The final rule published on February 14, 2000 was supported
by a Final Regulatory Evaluation that considered five regulatory
alternatives, including: (1) do nothing; (2) expand base of persons
required to register and adopt a two-tier fee schedule ($300 & $2,000);
(3) raise the flat fee for all persons currently required to register
($575); (4) expand base of persons required to register and increase
the flat fee ($360); and (5) adopt a two-tier fee schedule for all
persons currently required to register ($300 & $5,000). Our evaluation
found:
--the average annual level of funding (approximately $6.4 million) of
the HMEP program is approximately 50 percent of that authorized
by the Congress.
--40 percent ($2.56 million) of grant funds allocated for emergency
preparedness planning purposes goes to support activities of
the more than 3,000 Local Emergency Planning Committees
throughout the nation.
--60 percent ($3.84 million) of grant funds allocated for emergency
preparedness training purposes goes to support activities of
the nation's more than 2 million emergency responders (250,000
paid firefighters, 800,000 volunteer firefighters, 725,000 law
enforcement officers, and 500,000 emergency medical services
providers).
--approximately 800,000 shipments of hazardous materials make their
way through the national transportation system each day.
--the potential threats posed by the transportation of hazardous
materials require the development of emergency plans and
training of emergency responders to the full extent authorized
by law.
RSPA's analysis did not include an assessment of the role of
privately funded programs for hazardous materials emergency response
training, but did include some discussion of state-funded hazardous
materials emergency response training.
office of pipeline safety (ops) three year funding
Question. What activities can be funded with the monies that are
available for three years?
Answer. Three year funding availability is requested in our fiscal
year 2001 President's Budget as follows. We have indicated the funding
sources and note that an activity may be funded by more than one source
(e.g., State Pipeline Safety Grants).
Fiscal Year 2001 President's Budget
Program Activity Amount
Trust Fund Share of Pipeline Safety:
Operating Expenses:
Personnel Compensation & Benefits..................... $275,000
Administrative Expenses............................... 45,000
Contract Programs:
Information & Analysis................................ 400,000
Risk Assessment & Technical Studies................... 400,000
Compliance............................................ 100,000
Training & Information Dissemination.................. 100,000
OPA: Implementing the Oil Pollution Act................... 2,443,000
Grants: State Pipeline Safety Grants...................... 500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 4,263,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Pipeline Safety Fund:
Research and Development:
Information Systems................................... 400,000
Risk Assessment....................................... 300,000
Mapping............................................... 800,000
Outside Force Damage.................................. 644,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 2,144,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Grants:
State Pipeline Safety Grants..........................17,019,000
Risk Grants........................................... 500,000
One-Call Grants....................................... 1,000,000
Damage Prevention Grants.............................. 5,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total...............................................23,569,000
OPS UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
Question. What are the current unobligated balances in the various
sub accounts in the appropriation for the OPS? What amount will be
unobligated at the end of fiscal year 2000? Will any unobligated funds
be returned to the pipeline safety fund?
Answer. As of March 21, 2000, the total unobligated balance for the
Office of Pipeline Safety was $17.73 million. This includes $.458
million for operation expenses; $.273 million for contract program
activities (one year funds); $2 million for R&D program activities
(three year funds); and $15 million for grants. We plan to obligate all
contract program and grant funding by close of fiscal year 2000. We
estimate that our 3-year funding that was enacted in fiscal year 2000
for R&D will have an unobligated balance of approximately $600,000 at
the end of fiscal year 2000. At this time, we are estimating a lapse of
less than $100,000 of one year operating expenses. Unobligated ``one-
year'' funds for a given fiscal year are returned to the Pipeline
Safety Fund 5 years after the close of the fiscal year in which they
were appropriated.
REGULATIONS IMPACTING WORKLOAD
Question. How will the forthcoming pipeline integrity regulations
affect the OPS workload? How does the fiscal year 2001 budget request
account for those expected impacts on OPS? How will this new regulatory
requirement impact the workload of the OPS over the longer term?
Answer. We are currently analyzing the workload impact of these
regulations, but we do expect that they will present sizeable
challenges to OPS. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the impacts are primarily
in areas of regulatory and standards development. The four new
technical experts requested in fiscal year 2001 will help OPS develop
the compliance strategy and audit process for the integrity regulation
that we will implement in fiscal year 2002. We will begin training our
inspection personnel on the audit process we will use to review the
adequacy of internal inspection, hydrotesting, and analysis in fiscal
year 2001. We will use funds derived from the Risk Assessment and
Technical Studies account.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request does not account for the
majority of these integrity rule impacts as the largest workload will
begin in fiscal year 2002 with the review of operator-developed
assessment plans. We are currently working to define workload needs and
identify the appropriate mix between contractual and permanent staff to
efficiently and effectively carry out the associated responsibilities.
OPS STAFFING LEVELS
Question. Please provide a breakout of the current staffing levels
in OPS headquarters and the five regional offices. Are all 105 funded
positions currently filled? If not, where are the vacancies?
Answer. The following table is provided:
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY STAFFING LEVELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Authorized Onboard Vacant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters..................... 39 38 1
Eastern.......................... 10 10 ...........
Southern......................... 10 10 ...........
Central.......................... 14 12 2
Southwest........................ 13 12 1
Western.......................... 15 15 ...........
TSI.............................. 4 4 ...........
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 105 101 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIPELINE SAFETY RESERVE FUND
Question. Please prepare a comparative historical table displaying
the per mile user fee assessed to gas transmission and liquid pipeline
operators, and the total collected in user fees from each industry in
fiscal years 1997 through 1999 and anticipated for fiscal year 2000.
Answer. A table follows which shows the per mile rate and the total
collections for fiscal years 1997 through 1999. We are currently
collecting fiscal year 2000 user fees; therefore, the amounts shown
below indicate the assessment made to the gas and liquid operators. We
estimated the fiscal year 2000 figures based on the amount of
$30,612,888.65. This includes the President's Budget Request for the
Pipeline Safety Program of $36,879,000, less funds derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund of $5,479,000 and $1.4 million derived from
existing user fees, plus an offset to the Research and Special Programs
Appropriation for labor costs to support the Pipeline Safety Program.
Other variables include the offset from previous year collections. The
law allows RSPA to collect 105 percent of the appropriation.
1997-1999 PER MILE RATE/TOTAL COLLECTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Mile Total
Rate collected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas transmission:
Fiscal year:
1997................................. $67.48 $18,927,000
1998................................. 67.98 20,050,437
1999................................. 70.47 20,725,337
2000................................. 68.23 \1\ 20,458,589
Liquid:
Fiscal year:
1997................................. 61.27 8,869,716
1998................................. 59.59 8,864,335
1999................................. 57.88 9,102,548
2000................................. 63.11 \1\ 9,761,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 based on assessment.
Question. How did you allocate the user fee between gas
transmission lines and product lines for each of the last two fiscal
years? Does this accurately reflect the true allocation of your efforts
and resources? Please document your answer.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, RSPA charged gas
operators 55 percent of program costs and 87 percent of grants. We
charged liquid operators 45 percent of program costs and 13 percent of
grants. These percentages closely reflect the allocation of our efforts
and resources, as shown in the table that follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------
Program Activity 1999 Gas/ 2000 Gas/
Liquid Liquid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B \1\ for the Inspectors (Regions)............. 50/50 50/50
PC&B for HQ personnel............................. 67/33 60/40
Administration.................................... 50/50 50/50
Information and Analysis.......................... 50/50 50/50
Risk Assessment & Technical Studies............... 50/50 50/50
Compliance........................................ 50/50 50/50
Training & Information Dissemination.............. 75/25 75/25
Emergency Response (NRC).......................... 50/50 50/50
Public Education Campaign (One-call).............. 50/50 50/50
Research & Development............................ 50/50 50/50
Average Apportionment......................... 54/47 54/47
Actual Apportionment.......................... 55/45 55/45
Grants........................................... 87/13 87/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Personnel, Compensation & Benefits.
Question. Please justify in detail why OPS maintains it needs to
always have at least $11 million in the Pipeline Safety fund. Please
break down how that amount was determined.
Answer. RSPA recently re-evaluated the amount needed to sustain the
pipeline program until fees could be collected. We looked at
obligations for the first and second quarters and determined that, on
average, OPS spends about 34 percent of its appropriation. In prior
fiscal years 34 percent amounted to approximately $11 million. For
fiscal year 2001, 34 percent amounts to approximately $15-$16 million.
Currently, user fees are collected in the later part of the second
quarter (late March). March is the soonest we can expect to collect
fees, with a billing cycle that starts after we receive our enacted
appropriation in October, calculate rates for each operator, and issue
assessments.
Question. What is the current balance in the pipeline safety
reserve fund? Please provide an historical table displaying the annual
unappropriated balance in the fund from the end of fiscal year 1998
through fiscal year 2000 with an estimated level for fiscal year 2001,
assuming your full request were approved. Please describe how much of
the unobligated balance could safely be drawn down taking into account
replenishment of the fund through the collection of new fees.
Answer. The current balance in the Pipeline Safety (reserve) Fund
as of March 5, 2000, was $15,461,000 million. The historical table
requested is provided as follows:
UNAVAILABLE COLLECTIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001
actual actual enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
01.Balance, start of 17,354 18,490 17,738 16,338
year
02.Receipts 28,964 30,228 30,447 43,519
------------------------------------------------------------------
04.00 Total: 46,318 48,718 48,185 59,857
Balances and
collections
==================================================================
05.Pipeline safety -29,421 -30,158 -31,202 -42,874
appropriation
Research and -574 -574 -645 -645
Special Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------
05.99 Total -29,995 -30,732 -31,847 -43,519
appropriatio
ns
==================================================================
06.Unobligated balance 354 234 ......... .........
returned to
receipts
06.Other adjustments 71 -482 ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------
07.Balance, end of 16,748 17,735 16,338 16,338
year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need a balance in the fund sufficient to sustain OPS operations
through the second quarter when we collect user fees to replenish the
fund. Based on our rate of outlays for salaries, contracts and other
operating and administrative expenses, we estimate that about 34
percent of appropriated funds would be sufficient to sustain us. For
fiscal year 2001, 34 percent amounts to approximately $15-16 million.
Question. What has been the lowest balance that has been in the
Pipeline Safety Fund for each of the last 20 months? What was the
amount withdrawn from the Pipeline Safety Fund during each of the last
20 months?
Answer. The net balance in the Pipeline Safety Fund is determined
at the end of each month. It is not calculated daily, therefore, we are
unable to provide the lowest monthly balance for each month. The lowest
balance during fiscal year 1999 was in April 1999 in the amount of
$15,410.796. The lowest balance during fiscal year 2000 was in October
and November in the amount of $16,014,711. The withdrawal of monies
from the Pipeline Safety Fund for fiscal year 1999 amounted to
$30,974,000 (requested in April 1999), and $17,394,000 in fiscal year
2000 was withdrawn in February.
Question. Please recalculate the minimum dollar amount that should
be retained in the pipeline safety fund balance in order to maintain
the integrity of the pipeline safety program. What is the justification
for the recalculated amount?
Answer. We believe that $15-$16 million should be retained in the
Pipeline Safety Fund in order to maintain the integrity of the pipeline
safety program. We issue assessments in mid-December and receive
collections by late March to replenish the Pipeline Safety Fund.
Several years ago, we looked at OPS obligations during the first and
second quarters and determined that, on average, OPS spends about 34
percent of its appropriation before the fund is replenished. In prior
fiscal years, 34 percent amounted to approximately $11 million. For
fiscal year 2001, 34 percent amounts to approximately $15-$16 million.
Question. How could the billing and collection cycle be changed to
decrease this minimum reserve amount? Could RSPA initiate a rulemaking
that would make all fees due by the beginning of the federal fiscal
year, to optimize the full and efficient use of Pipeline Safety Fund
receipts?
Answer. RSPA changed the billing cycle in 1996, and issued user
fees in the first quarter of the fiscal year (mid-December). User fees
are based on the fiscal appropriation which is usually enacted on or
about October 1. RSPA cannot assess fees in advance of this
appropriation and it would be difficult to calculate the amounts due
and issue bills much in advance of December.
OIL POLLUTION ACT EXPENSES AND OIL PIPELINES
Question. Please specify and describe all OPS expenses that legally
could be associated with the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) in fiscal year
2001. What types of personnel related costs can be associated with
OSLTF funds, and what is the maximum level of personnel costs under the
current budget request that could be funded in this manner.
Answer. We estimate that the total amount that could legally be
associated with Oil Pollution Act program requirements is $11,473,000.
We estimate that this amount, described as follows, will ensure that
activities, including personnel costs, that directly relate to
preventing and mitigating the effects of oil spills into water and
environmentally sensitive areas are funded by the appropriate source
(OSLTF).
--PC&B and Administrative ($1,056,000): OPS HQ and Region staff and
administrative costs to address environmental policy,
regulatory development, spill response plan review & exercise,
pipeline inspection & spill response technical monitoring;
special task force/studies of oil pipeline company risk
management programs &
Over 360 hazardous liquid inspections, includes accident
investigations and pipeline construction.
3 area exercises and 20 table top drills.
--Information and Analysis ($700,000): Over half the incident
reporting, data collection, analysis and trending labor.
Identifying accident cause and consequence, evaluating and
acting on environmental impacts, particularly related to
protecting drinking water sources.
--Risk Assessment and Technical Studies ($650,000): Systematically
identify hazardous liquid risks, and compare relative
likelihood and consequences of an adverse events.
Monitor, report, and expand the Risk Demonstration and System
Integrity Inspection Pilot programs.
Increase public awareness about potential risks from liquid
pipelines.
--Compliance ($150,000): Technical field engineering support for
monitoring major spills and remediation.
Dedicated personnel for integrating public and private sector
incident coordination and decision support for protective
actions.
--Training & Information Dissemination ($400,000): Computer-based
training (CBT) to update safety evaluations of hazardous liquid
pipeline systems.
Classes and seminars specifically given to address hazardous
liquid risk and system integrity concerns.
--Emergency Notification ($50,000): The National Response Center
(NRC) provides immediate notification of hazardous liquid
pipeline spills.
--Damage Prevention/Public Education Campaign ($200,000):
Investigate, encourage, and inform communities on damage
prevention efforts on hazardous liquid pipelines.
--Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act ($2,443,000): Review and
approve pipeline operator spill response plans.
Contract support for 3 area exercises and 20 table top
drills.
Obtain data on environmental sensitive area, includes
drinking water and other ecological resource areas.
--National Pipeline Mapping System ($400,000): Collecting and
digitizing more accurate liquid pipeline location information
as it becomes avail-able. To be used in conjunction with data
on population, drinking water intakes, terrain. Needed to set
priorities for prevention and response actions.
--Outside Force Damage ($400,000): Research to detect encroachment on
pipeline right-of-way or mechanical damage to reduce accidents
from third-party damage to hazardous liquid pipelines.
--Pipeline Safety Grants ($5,024,000): State program which provides
oversight of intrastate hazardous pipelines operations and
maintenance, construction, repairs.
50 percent of one-call grants to states for programs to
increase training, education and compliance activities.
--50 percent of damage prevention grants to reduce impacts on the
environment from disruptions caused by excavation activities
around railroads, sewage lines, electric, telecommunications,
hazardous liquid pipelines.
Question. For fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, what was the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund transfer levels requested by RSPA prior
to the OMB passback?
Answer. RSPA's request for funding derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, prior to the OMB passback, was $8,814 million in
fiscal year 2000 and $4,263 million in fiscal year 2001.
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEXING
Question. Please describe progress made in the environmental
indexing effort. What was accomplished with funding provided in fiscal
year 1999? How much is being spent in fiscal year 2000 for this
activity, and for which purposes? What new initiatives will be
conducted during fiscal year 2001 and how much will that cost?
Answer. RSPA has been working with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), as mandated by statute, the Departments of Interior
(DOI), Agriculture (USDA), and Commerce (DOC), environmental
organizations, state agencies, technical experts, and the pipeline
industry to identify and locate drinking water and ecological resources
that are most susceptible to a hazardous liquid release, or for which
consequences would be most adverse if affected by a release.
RSPA has used fiscal year 1999 funding to pilot test a draft
definition and model that identify unusually sensitive drinking water
and ecological resource areas. The purpose of the pilot was to
determine if the definition and model could be used to identify and
locate unusually sensitive areas (USA's) using available data from
government agencies and environmental organizations. Major categories
in the definition include public drinking water systems, wellhead
protection areas, sole source aquifers, threatened and endangered
species, imperiled and critically imperiled species, depleted marine
mammal habitats, and areas where a large percentage of the world's
population of a species concentrates. The pilot was conducted in the
States of Texas, California, and Louisiana, since these states contain
approximately 45 percent of the nation's hazardous liquid pipelines and
a large number of ecological and drinking water resources. In Texas,
approximately 15,000 phone calls had to be made to determine if there
were adequate alternative drinking water resources available. RSPA has
used a portion of the fiscal year 1999 funding to gather drinking water
data from state agencies which will be used once the USA definition and
model are finalized. RSPA has also used a portion of the fiscal year
1999 funding to update a catalog that identifies the sources of
drinking water data in all 50 states and to begin work on an ecological
resource data catalog. The drinking water catalog can be found on the
following RSPA Internet site: http://ops.dot.gov.
RSPA expects to spend $900,000 in fiscal year 2000 on this
initiative. A portion of this funding will be used to conduct a
technical review of the pilot results. RSPA, other government agencies,
academia, and environmental groups are conducting a technical review to
determine if the pilot results actually depict the most unusually
sensitive drinking water and ecological resource areas. The definition
and model will be modified, if necessary, based on the pilot and
technical review results. The funding will also be used to gather and
process individual state datasets needed to identify drinking water and
ecological USA's. These areas will be mapped using our geographic
information system (GIS) technology and added to the National Pipeline
Mapping System. We will use the remainder of the fiscal year 2000 funds
to work with The Nature Conservancy, Association for Biodiversity
Information, and other government agencies on a national database for
sensitive ecological species. All of the location data on threatened
and endangered species and species at risk of global extinction are
created and maintained at the state level by State Heritage Programs or
State Nature Conservancies. The national database effort will gather
the individual state datasets into a common and standardized database.
RSPA is requesting $900,000 in fiscal year 2001. The funding will
continue our work with The Nature Conservancy, Association for
Biodiversity Information, and other government agencies on a national
database for sensitive ecological species, specifically to convert
previously collected paper data on sensitive resources to digital data.
The funding will also enable us to finish our initial mapping of
drinking water and ecological USA's and to make these maps available
over the Internet. The funding will also allow us to gather and process
data on other resources of national importance such as cultural and
recreational resources, transportation networks, historical sites, and
economic areas, and to create maps of these sensitive resource areas,
that we can make available over the Internet.
OIL SPILL RESPONSE PLANS/LESSONS LEARNED
Question. Please summarize the results of last year's review of
pipeline operators' emergency response plans. Include the number of
plans reviewed, the number accepted, and the number of plans which
required corrective measures.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, OPS reviewed 188 plans, of which 31
were new response plans and 87 were revisions to existing response
plans. Of the 31 new plans we reviewed, 14 were able to be approved
without requiring corrections, and 17 had at least one deficiency
requiring correction. Of the 87 revisions to existing plans, 17 of them
had at least one deficiency requiring correction. Under our
regulations, OPS plan approvals expire every five years. Because most
of the plans were initially approved in 1995, we are in the process of
reviewing all of the plans again to ensure that they are still current
and reflect the most current environmental and response information.
Question. Please discuss the amount of funds spent or planned to be
spent on spill response exercises during each of the last three years.
Given the lessons learned and the practice gained from past
simulations, why couldn't the number of drills be reduced during fiscal
year 2001?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, OPS spent $443,000 on spill response
exercises, $567,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $306,981 in fiscal year
1999. These amounts include contractor support for exercise design,
conduct, and evaluation. These figures also include an estimated
$15,000 per year for travel costs of OPS staff to participate in
exercises.
We expect to spend $450,000 on exercises in both fiscal year 2000
and in fiscal year 2001. This will fund approximately 20 tabletop
exercises and at least 2 large scale area exercises. The value of
conducting exercises is evident in the improvement of the pipeline
industry's spill response capabilities. In addition, Federal, state,
and local environmental and emergency response agencies improve their
actual spill response by streamlining communications and increasing
efficiency in command & control actions.
In the future, OPS is considering changing the exercise program mix
by conducting more large-scale field exercises and perhaps fewer
tabletop exercises. The exercises we conduct each year are a
representative sample of the 1,400 facility response plans for
facilities under our jurisdiction. We select operators based on risk
factors, as identified in our review of their response plans and as
suggested by our OPS regional staff. Until we reach a point of
diminishing returns, it would be premature to begin reducing our
exercise program.
Question. How are the lessons learned from both the actual releases
and drills reflected in changes in the OPS program?
Answer. The OPA 1990 exercise program started out with fairly
elementary table top and area drills in fiscal year 1997. Three years
later, the drills have resulted in lessons learned about how to improve
communications, command and control efficiency, and how to protect
environmentally sensitive areas. Perhaps the most valuable aspect of
the exercise program is that it allows emergency responders from
industry, Federal, State, and local agencies to familiarize themselves
with each other's procedures and priorities before an actual spill.
When we examined the exercise evaluation reports and after-action
reports from actual spills, we drew the following conclusions. Most
operators understand and use unified and incident command but could
hone these skills with more practice. Operators need to update their
notification lists more often and to strengthen their staffing
practices. Operators need to ensure that they have enough containment,
recovery, and temporary storage equipment available response in remote
inland areas.
We are taking steps to strengthen our exercise program. We have
implemented a quantitative, risk-based exercise selection methodology.
This ensures that we exercise operators that carry products in a wide
range of operating conditions and that range in size and in the
environmentally sensitive areas the pipelines cross. We are making
exercises more realistic by using maps showing sensitive areas and
spill trajectories. We are also asking our facilitators to ask tough
questions and to challenge assumptions about response capabilities.
ALYESKA--MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Question. Please update us on the implementation of the Alyeska
memorandum of agreement regarding valves and corrosion. Are there any
new issues in this area and how are those being addressed?
Answer. The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) continues to work with
Alyeska to address the items outlined in the memorandum of agreement in
addition to other safety issues. Following is a status update on the
corrosion coupon monitoring program, the corrosion mitigation project
for transition joints, the mainline valve program and our enforcement
action against Alyeska for overpressure events on the pipeline.
Coupon Monitoring Program: In March 1996, Alyeska began a long-
term, comprehensive study to specifically determine if corrosion
coupons could be used to evaluate cathodic protection on the large
diameter Trans Alaska pipeline system (TAPS). The results of the study
indicate that, although corrosion coupons represent an important
contributor to the monitoring of the cathodic protection system on
TAPS, they cannot be used as a stand-alone method for determining
adequate cathodic protection. However, coupons may be used in
conjunction with other acceptable engineering practices such as
internal inspection tools, close interval surveys, and local knowledge
of environmental conditions.
On February 14, 2000, OPS conditionally approved Alyeska's
Corrosion Control Management Program (CCMP). Final approval is pending
the Joint Pipeline Office (JPO) and OPS satisfaction with CCMP
implementation plan. OPS believes that the CCMP, when properly
implemented to meet regulatory and safety requirements, provides a
methodology for corrosion control on TAPS that will result in a level
of protection equal to or better than could be achieved through
reliance on single stand-alone method of cathodic protection
monitoring. Based on this and other information, OPS also modified an
existing waiver on TAPS to allow Alyeska to run an internal inspection
device on a 3-year rather than annual cycle. As a result of the CCMP
pending approval, OPS is working towards closing out the 1996 coupon
agreement and the 1992 TAPS monitoring report.
Corrosion at Transition Joints: Alyeska continues to work toward
meeting an OPS order to evaluate and, if necessary, repair all
aboveground fiberglass coating at transition joints to ensure that
water does not penetrate the external pipeline coating. The fiberglass
coating helps prevent corrosion where the pipeline transitions from
belowground to aboveground. This action was supported by reports of
corrosion at several of the transition areas.
Mainline Valve Program: We continue to closely monitor Alyeska's
maintenance of the large mainline valves used to shut off the pipeline
if an accident occurs. In 1995, we became concerned that many of these
valves did not seal properly and initiated action to assure that public
safety and the environment were not placed at risk. In 1996, Alyeska
began a system-wide review of these valves and in January 1997, agreed
with the Joint Pipeline Office on a plan for assessment of valves on
the TAPS. During 1997, Alyeska conducted a risk assessment on mainline
valves in order to prioritize these mainline valves for testing, and to
establish performance standards for internal leak through. One-hundred-
and-fifty mainline valves have been tested. The remaining 22 valves
will be tested during 2000.
Alyeska is in the process of rehabilitating or replacing many of
its valves. One remote gate valve in an environmentally sensitive area
near the Yukon River was replaced in 1999. Alyeska has revised its
valve testing, repair and maintenance program. The program now provides
for extensive maintenance and testing beyond what is required by the
pipeline safety regulations.
Overpressure of the Pipeline: We have taken enforcement action,
including a civil penalty assessment, against Alyeska following a
recent overpressure of pipeline facilities. This latest overpressure
event occurred after Alyeska was ordered to take corrective action to
prevent future overpressure of the pipeline. These actions were to
include SCADA system examination and adjustment, evaluation of the
pipeline control system and personnel training. OPS is reviewing
Alyeska's compliance with the order.
RISK ASSESSMENT AND TECHNICAL STUDIES
Question. Please assess the effectiveness and utility of the System
Integrity Inspection Program. How many companies have participated?
What are the remaining challenges? How does this program fit into the
more conventional inspection process?
Answer. The System Integrity Inspection (SII) program requires
compliance with regulations; only the OPS approach to inspection is
changing. OPS and the SII participants are reviewing a broad set of
system-wide safety and integrity issues, instead of the standard
regulatory compliance inspection. The SII inspections focus on areas of
greatest risk so that OPS and operators can work together to find and
fix problems related to significant risk at the earliest possible
stage. The system-wide focus ensures that not only individual fixes are
implemented, but also that the operator looks for analogous conditions
elsewhere in their system and corrects them before problems arise.
This, in effect, institutionalizes learning. As importantly, this
program provides a more in-depth opportunity for enhanced communication
and understanding of pipeline integrity issues between OPS and pipeline
companies.
Discussions between the participants and OPS are focusing on
corrosion control, hydrotesting and internal inspection, natural
hazard-related issues and use of new technologies for risk
identification and control. The SII allows OPS to investigate
integrity-related information not normally addressed in a standard
inspection and to address safety issues, like training, more
systematically throughout a company's operations.
Three companies have applied for acceptance. OPS is nearing formal
acceptance of two; the third only recently applied. A fourth company's
application was declined because they were too small to help fully
explore SII. We anticipate incorporating into our standard inspection
process valuable lessons we learn as we go. We expect our experience to
enrich our forthcoming rules requiring pipeline integrity management
programs and mandatory compliance strategy for internal inspection on
hydrotesting.
Question. Who are the current participants in pipeline risk
management demonstration projects? What progress has been made in each
of those projects? What challenges have been identified with the
implementation of this program? Have any adverse safety or
environmental impacts surfaced with any of the projects?
Answer. The Office of Pipeline Safety is submitting a report to
Congress on the status, and results to date, of the Risk Management
Demonstration Program shortly. This report will have detailed
information on the program, its participants and their projects,
programmatic challenges, as well as our assessment of the performance
of both the Program and its participants.
OPS has authority to enter into 10 Risk Management Demonstration
projects. The 10 companies are listed in a table that follows this
reply. Each of these companies voluntarily applied for acceptance into
the program. The companies were chosen by OPS because of their
potential to (1) provide superior safety, environmental protection, and
service reliability, and (2) help OPS test risk management
systematically as a regulatory alternative. Other factors considered
included operator's willingness to openly communicate with OPS and our
state partners, new technologies they were willing to test, corporate
commitment to their program, and their existing performance record. To
date, we have formally approved the Risk Management Programs of 6 of
the 10 companies; we continue to work with the remaining 4 companies.
We are actively auditing each of the approved companies against an
established set of program review protocols and against the legally
enforceable work orders produced upon approval of their programs.
Though our auditing continues, OPS believes that each of the companies
with formally approved programs, as well as several others we continue
to work with, have clearly demonstrated that their management of safety
and environmental protection can produce results that are superior to
those of companies that merely comply with the minimum standards
established by existing regulations. Each of these companies have, in
concert with the OPS, sharpened the focus on the highest risks to the
integrity of their pipelines, applied appropriate risk controls, and
enhanced communication with affected communities.
At present, OPS believes that risk management--at least in the near
term is best used in combination with, rather than as a replacement
for, existing regulations. Further, our experience with systematic
identification and control of risks shows that risk management is a
viable consideration in development of future performance-based
regulations. In fact, several OPS initiatives, as well as current and
pending regulatory proposals have already begun to incorporate this
lesson.
The 10 companies RSPA accepted into the Demonstration Program, and
their acceptance dates, are listed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Approved Affected State(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equilon.......................... 3/18/98......... Colorado,
Louisiana, New
Mexico, Texas.
Chevron.......................... 2/17/99......... Idaho, Utah.
Phillips......................... 8/10/98......... Texas.
Kinder Morgan.................... 12/31/98........ Arkansas, Colorado,
Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana,
Missouri,
Nebraska,
Oklahoma, Texas,
Wisconsin,
Wyoming.
Columbia/Columbia Gulf Candidate....... Kentucky,
Transmission Company. Louisiana,
Maryland,
Mississippi,
Pennsylvania,
Tennessee,
Virginia.
Enron............................ Candidate....... Arizona,
California,
Colorado, New
Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas.
Mobil............................ 8/10/98......... Illinois.
Duke............................. Candidate....... Alabama, Arkansas,
Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
Missouri, New
Jersey, New York,
Ohio,
Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas,
West Virginia.
Temmessee Gas/East Tennessee Candidate....... Alabama, Arkansas,
Natural Gas. Connecticut,
Kentucky,
Louisiana,
Massachusetts,
Michigan, New
Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York,
Ohio,
Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, West
Virginia.
Northwest........................ 1/11/00......... Colorado, Idaho,
Oregon, Utah,
Washington,
Wyoming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please elaborate on the specific contracts and their
associated funding amounts that have been or will be let to ensure
continued monitoring and progress in the risk management demonstration
projects.
Answer. Contract funding to ensure continued monitoring and
progress in the risk management demonstration projects is derived from
the Risk Assessment and Technical Studies account. One multi-year
contract covering risk management and other services was awarded to
Cycla Corporation for these services in 1996. This contract ends at the
end of calendar year 2000. OPS anticipates letting a follow-on contract
in fiscal year 2001 to continue these vital services. Funding under the
new contract in fiscal year 2001 is expected to parallel levels from
fiscal year 2000. Prior obligations under this contract directly
attributable to support of the risk management demonstration projects
follow:
Fiscal year
1996..........................................................$1,249,956
1997.......................................................... 1,069,053
1998.......................................................... 811,599
1999.......................................................... 708,346
2000.........................................................\1\ 900,000
\1\ Estimate.
Question. How much funding was or is associated with various
demonstration projects in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, and
how much is requested for these projects in the fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Funding to directly support the various risk management
demonstration projects involves personnel compensation, travel,
contract support costs, and state participation grants. The state
participation grants cover many risk-related activities not involved
with the risk management demonstration projects. Total costs under
these categories since fiscal year 1999 are itemized in the following
table; fiscal year 2001 funding is expected to remain level with fiscal
year 2000 except for state grants:
RISK MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------- 2001 (est.)
1999 2000 (est.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Personnel................ $393,000 $425,000 $425,000
Federal Travel................... 200,000 200,000 200,000
Contract Support................. 708,346 900,000 900,000
State Grants..................... 100,000 100,000 50,000
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 1,401,346 1,625,000 1,575,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding requested under the Risk Assessment and Technical Studies
account for fiscal year 2001 also covers continued oversight of the
System Integrity Inspection program, risk and integrity management
training of Federal and State inspection personnel, technical support
for the Local Distribution Company risk management team, as well as
needed administrative and clerical support.
In fiscal year 2001, we anticipate fewer consultation meetings and
have reduced our request for state participation grant funding
accordingly.
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM DATA
Question. For each of the last three fiscal years, please provide
data on all enforcement actions taken by OPS, including the number of
enforcement cases opened, closed, and the amount of civil penalty
assessments collected. Please compare these data with the number of
reportable events, number of deaths and injuries, and any other
measures of pipeline safety for both hazardous liquids and gases.
Answer. The enforcement actions listed below do not reflect the
actions OPS has taken to improve integrity and safety through voluntary
agreements with operators. During each inspection, we discuss with
operators ways to improve their operations and facilities beyond the
minimum requirements through non-enforcement means, as we are able to
positively impact safety performance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year
Measures ----------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement:
Cases Opened..................... 179 218 89
Cases Closed..................... 186 273 107
Civil Penalty Assessments $228,171 $316,846 \1\ $16,5
Collected....................... 00
Reportable events:
Incidents Reported............... 362 379 344
Deaths........................... 11 19 21
Injuries............................. 93 74 108
Property Damage (in millions)........ $65 $104 $97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This does not include civil penalties for a number of pending cases.
COMPLIANCE REINSPECTIONS
Question. How many of those companies provided with technical
education were reinspected? Did you find those companies still out of
compliance? If so, how many enforcement actions were taken against
those companies?
Answer. We provide technical education to every operator we
inspect. During exit interviews, we point out areas for improvement and
probable violations. We offer technical education on resolving these
issues. Forty-six of the companies that were inspected and received
enforcement actions in fiscal year 1998 were inspected at different
locations in their system during fiscal year 1999. Enforcement action
was initiated on 10 of these companies in fiscal year 1999. However, it
should be noted that the concerns found in fiscal year 1998 were not
necessarily the same items found in fiscal year 1999.
OPS INSPECTOR STAFFING
Question. Please prepare an updated table indicating the number of
pipeline safety inspectors on board and the number of pipeline safety
inspector positions authorized for each of the last three fiscal years.
Please show how the additional staff requested for fiscal year 2001
would be deployed.
Answer. RSPA will use the additional staff to help evaluate the use
of new technologies which identify the early stages of pipeline damage
and potentially harmful environmental conditions. A recent report from
the DOT Inspector General found RSPA pipeline inspector resources
inadequate for oversight tasks in numbers and qualifications. A soon-
to-be-released GAO report is expected to offer similar conclusions. The
additional staff will also help prepare operator compliance activities
for the forthcoming rule which will require operators to perform
testing and more comprehensive evaluation of the integrity of pipeline
systems. This will ultimately help prevent pipeline accidents, enable
early detection of pipeline damage and assure prompt and effective
mitigation of the accidents we cannot prevent.
NUMBER OF INSPECTORS ONBOARD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 \1\ authorized/ 1999 \1\ authorized/ 2000 \1\ authorized/
Region onboard onboard onboard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern....................................... 8/8 8/8 8/8
Southern...................................... 8/7 8/8 8/8
Central....................................... 12/11 11/11 \2\ 12/12
Southwest..................................... 11/11 12/12 11/11
Western....................................... 13/13 12/12 13/13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 51/50 51/51 52/52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These numbers do not include the five Region Directors or headquarter inspector positions that supply
technical support to all five regions. Some of the authorized inspector positions have been moved between
regions and the headquarters technical support to meet risk-based needs.
\2\ This includes two inspectors that we are in the process of hiring for the Central Region.
Question. How many accident investigations were conducted during
each of the last three fiscal years? Please include information on the
number of follow-up accident investigations and the results.
Answer.
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Onsite Investigations................. 51 48 46
Follow-up Investigations........................ 65 43 40
Accident Reports Generated...................... 5 4 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSPA reviews each pipeline accident report to assess factors
contributing to the failure and performs onsite investigation of those
with national safety implications, public interest, fatalities,
numerous injuries, significant property damage, or environmental
impact. The dividing line between the accident investigation and the
follow-on inspections is difficult to make and each may require months
to complete. An example is the continuing investigation into the
Olympic pipeline failure in Bellingham, Washington. Nine months after
the pipeline failed, RSPA inspectors and technical staff continue to
closely monitor Olympic's corrective actions and address the safety
factors identified during the investigation.
We perform follow-on investigations for many of the onsite accident
investigations and incorporate lessons learned into our inspection
processes and regulatory initiatives. Recent accidents have highlighted
the need for RSPA to conduct system-wide inspections and ensure
pipeline companies are integrating data about their pipelines in order
to make good preventative maintenance decisions.
Additionally, RSPA has set an aggressive schedule for
implementation of integrity management regulations. We are looking at
ways of increasing the capacity and capability of our field workforce
to apply new technology to assess the soundness of critical segments of
pipelines.
DAMAGE PREVENTION/PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
Question. How are you assuring that the results of the best
practices study are used? What evidence do you have that those
recommendations are being implemented? What are the next steps in
advancing this work?
Answer. OPS is working with interstate pipeline operators to
determine if operators: (1) are aware of the best practices identified
in the ``Common Ground Study of One Call Systems and Damage Prevention
Best Practices;'' (2) are aware of the various channels of access to
the best practices on the OPS Information System; and (3) have
evaluated their program against the best practices. OPS is coordinating
with its state agency partners to determine the same information for
intrastate pipelines.
We have been planning for implementation of a new grant program
provided for in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) which will provide financial assistance to states to help
encourage adoption of these practices. These funds will be provided to
state damage prevention programs that meet certain criteria consistent
with the provisions in TEA-21, which include evaluating a state's
damage prevention program against the Common Ground best practices.
OPS is also currently assisting in the formation of a non-profit
organization to advance damage prevention efforts consistent with the
best practices and in the same spirit of cooperation resulting from the
Common Ground Study. This organization will, among other things,
encourage implementation of the best practices identified in the Study,
and continue to identify future best practices to protect America's
underground infrastructure. One of the best practices involves public
education. OPS is actively working to expand use of our national Dig
Safely campaign to promote public education and awareness of damage
prevention programs.
Question. Please update your answer from last year regarding the
production of a TV public service announcement for the national damage
prevention campaign. What will the related costs be for such a PSA. Has
OPS approached interested excavators and underground utility
representatives about cost-sharing.
Answer. OPS is still considering production of a TV public service
announcement (PSA); however, advertising agency estimates indicate that
a TV PSA would cost a minimum of $50,000 and would more likely be in
excess of $100,000. At this time, OPS is working with the major
stakeholders in the damage prevention area to establish a private non-
profit organization which would assume the work of the supporting the
Dig Safely Campaign. This organization, to be funded entirely by the
private sector but with staff support from OPS, is scheduled to be
operating by the summer of 2000. The non-profit organization would
decide if it wanted to proceed with production of the PSA. OPS would
support the public education initiatives of the non-profit
organization.
Question. To date, what has been the Damage Prevention Quality
Action Team's assessment of the effectiveness of its national education
campaign? What improvements have been recommended?
Answer. All indications are that the campaign has been very well
received. It has been endorsed by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of
Oil Pipelines, the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, the National Telecommunications Damage Prevention
Council, One Call Systems International, and Southeastern One Call
Systems. Members of the Dig Safely Team have conducted thirty sessions
nationwide to train one-call centers, facility operators, and others in
the damage prevention community how to implement the campaign. Each
organization that attends receives a detailed instruction manual and
two CD ROMs with the campaign artwork. A number of one-call centers and
other stake-holders have set aside their own damage prevention programs
and are using the Dig Safely program exclusively. In addition, we have
received many requests for the safety training video; we have exhausted
our initial stock and are reproducing more videos and manuals.
Southwest Bell is using the Dig Safely logo on bill inserts which will
be distributed for three months across a five state area. One area of
improvement is production of Spanish language materials. A translation
of the manual into Spanish has been completed; we are preparing to dub
the training video and to print brochures in Spanish. In addition, the
files available on our web site were originally in a Macintosh format.
These were converted into a PC format at the request of those
interested in using the materials.
We need to continue conducting training sessions nationwide to
produce more materials for distribution at permitting offices, retail
outlets, equipment rental operations. At this point, the campaign has
been very well received. We need to sustain its momentum until the Dig
Safely message is recognized nationwide and the public reacts
appropriately to the Dig Safely message.
Question. What were the accomplishments of the Team during the last
year.
Answer. On June 30, 1999, the Team presented the National Dig
Safely Campaign to the Secretary of Transportation, who officially
launched the campaign's kickoff on a satellite broadcast. Team members
have conducted 35 training sessions across the country; 5 more are
scheduled in the next few months. The campaign received the official
endorsement of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the American
Petroleum Institute, the Association of Oil Pipelines, the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National
Telecommunications Damage Prevention Council, One Call Systems
International, and Southeastern One Call Systems. Team members have
received many invitations to speak to one-call centers, facility
operators, utility coordinating councils and industry groups which are
interested in adopting the campaign. One-call centers, industry groups,
and trade associations have produced materials bearing the Dig Safely
logo which have been widely distributed at trade shows, and industry
functions. Southwest Bell is using the Dig Safely logo on bill inserts
which will be distributed for three months across a five state area.
Question. What are the anticipated activities of this team during
the next year?
Answer. The Team is in a transitional phase, with necessary
turnover due to the pressure of other commitments. We are replacing
outgoing members of the team from those organizations as well as adding
additional representation from other groups with a large stake in
damage prevention, such as underground facility locators and the
National Energy Board of Canada. We have invited the National League of
Cities, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Cable Television
Association and other interested parties to provide representation on
the Team. The Team will continue to conduct training sessions across
the country and to accept speaking engagements to promote the campaign.
Some campaign materials are being translated into Spanish; the
translation of the manual has already been completed. We are exploring
other outlets for campaign materials such as permitting offices,
equipment rental centers, and retail home improvement sites. We expect
the private sector, non- profit organization to assume management of
the Dig Safely Campaign. We anticipate that the Team itself will then
function as a technical committee of the non-profit organization.
Question. Since last year, what have you done to motivate states to
improve their one-call notification systems and excavation damage
prevention activities? How much is planned for that activity in fiscal
year 2000?
Answer. Each OPS regional office works with its state pipeline
safety partners to encourage strong damage prevention programs and to
assess operators' performance against the best practices guidelines we
provided to states on how to perform these assessments. OPS also made
one-call grant funds available to States. For the past few years, many
States have significantly improved their one-call notification systems
and damage prevention activities by strengthening State one-call
legislation, increasing enforcement efforts, and continuing public
education. This considerable increase in one-call efforts has occurred
since agency one-call program activities began. For fiscal year 2000,
Congress authorized $1 million in grant funds for State pipeline safety
agency work in damage prevention and an additional $1 million to
support the advancement of Best Practices under a separate grant
program authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 grant funding will improve operational
efficiency of one-call systems, including marking, locating, planning
and design activities and would support States electing to implement
Best Practices developed by the damage prevention study. For the past
year and a half, State pipeline safety representatives served on the
damage prevention ``Best Practices'' study authorized by TEA-21. OPS
provided funding for their participation. Through their participation,
they became more knowledgeable on how to improve and enhance all
aspects of one-call system operations and how to minimize risks of
third-party damage.
Question. How much is planned for that activity in fiscal year
2001? Please describe the scope and nature of those activities.
Answer. For fiscal year 2001, OPS is requesting $1 million in grant
funds for activities of state pipeline safety, which is the same amount
requested last year. For the past few years, many state pipeline
agencies have significantly improved their one-call notification
systems and damage prevention activities by strengthening state one-
call legislation, increasing enforcement efforts, and continuing public
education. This considerable increase in one-call efforts has occurred
since agency one-call program activities began.
We plan to conduct a separate grant program authorized under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century at the $5 million level
in fiscal year 2001. This separate grant funding would improve
operational efficiency of one-call systems, including marking,
locating, planning and design activities and would support states
electing to implement Best Practices developed by the Common Ground
initiative.
Based on the assessment undertaken as part of the Common Ground
Study, we believe the vast majority of states have extensive work to do
to improve all aspects of their damage prevention programs. Funding
will be provided to improve the overall quality and effectiveness of
state damage prevention programs, including enhanced communication
systems, record retention capabilities, training and public education
efforts, and using more effective locating devices and other emerging
technologies. Common Ground showed us that damage prevention is a
responsibility shared by all stakeholders. This funding will allow for
improvement of damage prevention programs around the country, and prove
our commitment to the effort.
Question. What progress has been made in establishing a foundation
to advance damage prevention activities? How much seed money is DOT
going to provide to help establish such a foundation? What are the
expected total federal costs to ensure the successful operation of the
foundation for at least one year?
Answer. OPS is currently assisting in the establishment of a non-
profit organization to advance damage prevention efforts consistent
with the spirit of communication and shared responsibility resulting
from the Common Ground Study. Organizational teams are working on
drafting the necessary by-laws, developing a business plan for the
organization, and identifying any necessary criteria for membership.
OPS has committed ``seed resources'' to facilitate the initial
start-up of this organization, currently known as the damage prevention
``Path Forward.'' These resources consist of OPS staff and OPS-funded
consultants that work on the initiative.
After June 2000, this would include OPS assistance in the form of
technical services and the continued development of the web-based
information system, which provides fundamental communication services
among thousands of interested stakeholders. OPS has allocated close to
$200,000 in fiscal year 2000, and we requested an increase of $100,000
in fiscal year 2001 to continue to support the formation of the
organization. This funding would cover the maintenance and continued
development of the web-based information system; as well as print and
video communications, and exhibits, holding meetings, logistics, and
facilitation.
Question. Would the private sector likely continue that support
once federal support ended? How much cost sharing is the private sector
likely to contribute?
Answer. During the damage prevention ``Path Forward'' initiative,
OPS has committed seed resources for an 18-month start-up period to
support the formation of the non-profit organization. After this time,
we expect the organization to be largely self-sustaining and primarily
funded by affected industry stakeholder organizations. The Path Forward
Finance Team is currently developing a business plan that includes
funding strategies for the non-profit organization.
Question. How did you use the additional funds provided last year
to improve damage prevention programs. What would you do with
additional funds if a similar increase were provided for that activity
for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Additional funds provided last year were used to support
production of additional campaign materials; to conduct training
sessions across the country; and to provide campaign presentations at a
variety of trade, one-call center, and industry functions. Funds were
also used for production of a new Dig Safely brochure, which we
distributed in large quantities. Since we still receive many requests
for manuals and other campaign materials, we would use supplemental
fiscal year 20001 funds for production of additional materials and
training. We would also use the additional funds to help the new non-
profit damage prevention organization produce a video for distribution
to TV and cable channels.
We have requested an additional $100,000 in fiscal year 2001 to
support formation of the non-profit organization to advance damage
prevention to underground facilities. These costs include the
maintenance and continued development of the web-based information
system, planning conferences and team meetings, logistics, and other
communication costs.
Question. How are you working with NTSB to advance damage
prevention strategies?
Answer. OPS and NTSB co-sponsored a damage prevention symposium on
June 30, 1999, in Washington, DC. We presented the Common Ground Study
of one-call systems and damage prevention best practices to the DOT
Secretary at this event, and kicked off the Dig Safely public education
campaign. We have met with NTSB on several occasions to update them on
our efforts and have invited them to participate in the Common Ground
Study, as well as in the efforts to establish a non-profit organization
to advance underground damage prevention.
There are currently 11 NTSB Safety Recommendation dealing with
damage prevention issues. OPS has initially responded to these
recommendations, and will continue to do so as the development of the
non-profit organization progresses. All NTSB ``Open'' Recommendations
addressing underground damage prevention are currently classified as
``acceptable'' response. NTSB also recently closed a recommendation
regarding directional drilling practices as ``Closed--Acceptable
Action.''
Question. What specific commitments for cost sharing have you
gotten from the private sector to help pay the one-call/damage
prevention outreach effort. Please quantify cash and in-kind
contributions.
Answer. The American Petroleum Institute and Aegis Loss Control,
both of which are represented on the Dig Safely Team, underwrote
production of several hundred additional Dig Safely Training manuals
for distribution to their members and clients. Many one-call centers
and industry groups have paid for production of items which bear the
Dig Safely logo; these items are being widely distributed. The
following groups contributed to the national kick-off of the Dig Safely
Campaign: the American Gas Association, the American Public Gas
Association, Ameritech, the American Petroleum Institute, the
Associated General Contractors of America, the American Association of
Railroads, the Association of Oil Pipelines, the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of American, and the National Utility Contractors
Association. The following organizations have provided in-kind
contributions by supporting participation of their representatives on
the Dig Safely Team: the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; Aegis
Loss Control, One Call Systems International, the American Gas
Association, the American Public Gas Association, Associated General
Contractors of America, the American Petroleum Institute, the National
Telecommunications Damage Prevention Council, and the National
Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND MAPPING
Question. What is the current status of your pipeline safety R&D
plan? How can you assure the Committee that your R&D program will lead
to advances to meet your future challenges? Is it time to update that
plan.
Answer. The pipeline safety R&D plan which was developed in the
early 1990's is presently being updated to bring it in line with
current safety issues and needs of RSPA. We have polled our Region
Directors for their suggested input to the plan and are in the process
of prioritizing the R&D initiatives they have suggested. We will obtain
additional input from our headquarters technical staff to arrive at a
final plan. Many of our future R&D initiatives will be conducted as
collaborative research with the pipeline industry co-funding the
projects as is currently done.
We are presently developing agreements to conduct collaborative
research in three areas. The first area is advancing magnetic flux
leakage technology used on inline inspection (ILI) tools or ``smart
pigs'' to identify and characterize mechanical damage on pipelines. We
have just completed a RSPA funded $3.1 million, 40-month contract with
Battelle, Southwest Research Institute and Iowa State University. A
final report on this research should be available in two months. This
research involved examining mechanical damage with a magnetic flux
produced along the pipe's longitudinal axis. We are awarding a two-
year, $2 million dollar cooperative agreement with GRI to conduct
companion research with the magnetic flux oriented in the
circumferential direction around the pipe. This additional smart pig
research, scheduled to be awarded by the end of March 2000, will be
funded 50 percent by RSPA and 50 percent by GRI. The research will
provide for better identification and characterization of mechanical
damage oriented in the pipe's longitudinal axis. Mechanical damage from
excavators is the leading cause of major pipeline accidents.
The second area is advancing acoustic technology for real time
monitoring for pipeline right-of-way encroachment and outside force
damage. We have agreed to cooperatively fund this research with GRI,
which has already started the research. We are awaiting a statement of
work from them. The results from this research has the potential to
significantly reduce pipeline mechanical damage caused by excavators.
The third area is offshore research project to investigate the
validity of data on wall thinning gathered by internal inspection
tools. We would hydrostatically test to failure a number of abandoned
pipelines and comparing the failure data with the ILI inspection data.
We, along with industry and other government partners, are
participating in this research sponsored by the Minerals Management
Service.
Question. Please describe the progress made in your mapping
initiative since last year. When will the project be completed? How
much was appropriated and spent on this effort in fiscal years 1998 and
1999 and planned for fiscal years 2000 and 2001? What are the remaining
challenges? Will there be a need for funding over the long-term?
Answer. OPS is in the process of collecting natural gas
transmission and hazardous liquid trunk line data from pipeline
operators for the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). The NPMS
consists of a National Repository and 12 state repositories, funded
through cooperative agreements, located in Alabama, California,
Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Through a current Commerce Business
Daily announcement, we are requesting proposals for additional state
repositories to join the NPMS.
To date, the program has received data for 10 percent of the
pipelines that RSPA regulates. RSPA is working closely with the
American Gas Association, the American Public Gas Association,
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and the American
Petroleum Institute and the pipeline operators to achieve the goal of
collecting 70 percent of the pipeline data by the end of calendar year
2000. RSPA is also working on collecting the remaining 30 percent which
is generally represented by smaller interstate and intrastate
transmission operators. An educational workshop is being arranged with
the intrastate transmission trade associations to assist the smaller
operators with their data submissions. The NPMS repositories will
maintain the currency of the data after the initial operator data has
been collected, as pipelines are bought and sold, abandoned, and
constructed.
The appropriated mapping funds are 3-year Research and Development
money and therefore are not necessarily fully spent in the year they
are appropriated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated...................................................... $400,000 $800,000 $800,000 \1\ $800,00
0
Obligated......................................................... 510,000 818,000 212,000 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requested.
The biggest challenge facing NPMS is getting the pipeline operators
to participate in the voluntary mapping initiative and submit their
data to the NPMS. If we do not have adequate participation in this year
on a voluntary basis, we will proceed to a rulemaking.
The NPMS will require continued funding at current levels to
continue with NPMS initiatives in data collection, data processing,
performing outreach, data dissemination, and funding for the National
Repository and state repositories.
GRANTS
Question. For fiscal year 1999 and 2000, please list the states
that participated in your hazardous liquids and natural gas state grant
programs. For each participating state, display the amount requested by
state, the amount of federal grant funds received, and the percentage
of federal contribution to total costs represented by that grant. What
efforts were taken to increase participation in the grant program?
Answer. Attached are the allocations for fiscal year 1999. As soon
as the allocations for fiscal year 2000 are complete, we will forward
them to Congress.
RSPA has encouraged further intrastate jurisdiction and
improvements to state one-call damage prevention programs. In addition,
RSPA has enhanced participation by the states on risk management and
industry committee meetings- all of which increase the amount of money
available to the states.
1999 NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY GRANT ALLOCATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
State Request State Allocation of
points funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................... $385,591 100 $340,438 44
Arizona........................................................... 397,607 100 350,719 44
Arkansas.......................................................... 211,275 100 186,361 44
California........................................................ 1,155,167 100 1,018,945 44
Colorado.......................................................... 198,137 100 174,772 44
Connecticut....................................................... 225,000 95 188,544 42
Delaware.......................................................... 19,723 95 16,527 42
Florida........................................................... 56,000 95 46,926 42
Georgia........................................................... 301,936 100 266,330 44
Illinois.......................................................... 279,450 100 245,496 44
Indiana........................................................... 166,350 100 146,733 44
Iowa.............................................................. 198,550 100 175,136 44
Kansas............................................................ 346,538 100 305,673 44
Kentucky.......................................................... 252,050 100 222,327 44
Louisiana......................................................... 330,000 100 291,085 44
Maine............................................................. 56,900 90 45,243 40
Maryland.......................................................... 154,380 100 136,175 44
Massachusetts..................................................... 379,312 95 317,852 42
Michigan.......................................................... 308,650 95 258,640 42
Minnesota......................................................... 686,261 100 605,334 44
Mississippi....................................................... 133,500 100 117,757 44
Missouri.......................................................... 320,070 95 268,210 42
Montana........................................................... 22,818 95 19,120 42
Nebraska.......................................................... 77,246 95 64,730 42
Nevada............................................................ 189,051 100 166,757 44
New Hampshire..................................................... 101,182 100 89,250 44
New Jersey........................................................ 348,533 100 307,432 44
New Mexico........................................................ 170,143 90 135,071 40
New York.......................................................... 1,201,750 100 1,060,035 44
North Carolina.................................................... 134,975 100 119,058 44
North Dakota...................................................... 37,817 95 31,960 42
Ohio.............................................................. 499,541 100 440,633 44
Oklahoma.......................................................... 336,372 100 296,705 44
Oregon............................................................ 161,363 100 142,334 44
Pennsylvania...................................................... 297,179 95 249,027 42
Puerto Rico....................................................... 45,000 100 39,693 44
Rhode Island...................................................... 64,956 90 51,567 40
South Dakota...................................................... 28,840 90 22,895 40
Tennessee......................................................... 265,140 100 233,874 44
Texas............................................................. 1,246,612 100 1,099,606 44
Utah.............................................................. 160,325 100 141,419 44
Vermont........................................................... 48,095 100 42,423 44
Virginia.......................................................... 187,500 95 157,120 42
Washington, DC.................................................... 87,500 95 73,323 42
Washington........................................................ 270,000 100 238,161 44
West Virginia..................................................... 273,650 100 241,380 44
Wisconsin......................................................... 203,300 90 161,393 40
Wyoming........................................................... 83,700 95 70,138 42
---------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... 13,105,485 ....... 11,421,058 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The ``Request'' represents 50 percent of the states estimated budget. The `` Percent of funding'' is the
percentage of the budget represented by the allocation.
1999 HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY GRANT ALLOCATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
State Request State Allocation of
points funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................... $23,329 100 $20,758 44
Arizona........................................................... 42,810 100 37,762 44
Arkansas.......................................................... 975,000 100 860,024 44
Kentucky.......................................................... 10,700 90 8,494 40
Louisiana......................................................... 90,491 100 79,820 44
Minnesota......................................................... 161,850 100 42,764 44
Mississippi....................................................... 6,663 100 5,877 44
New Mexico........................................................ 9,350 85 6,935 37
New York.......................................................... 52,300 100 46,133 44
Oklahoma.......................................................... 100,767 100 88,884 44
Texas............................................................. 219,991 100 194,048 44
Virginia.......................................................... 17,500 100 15,436 44
Washington........................................................ 42,586 100 37,564 44
West Virginia..................................................... 39,250 100 34,621 44
---------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... 1,792,487 ....... 1,578,942 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The ``Request'' represents 50 percent of the states estimated budget. The `` Percent of funding'' is the
percentage of the budget represented by the allocation.
Question. RSPA and the states have agreed to attempt to provide 50
percent of the states' pipeline safety program funding from the federal
government. As an aggregate, what percent of the states' pipeline
safety program funds were appropriated through the OPS state grant
program in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000?
Answer. The funding levels for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999 were 41 percent and 44 percent, respectively. The funding level
for fiscal year 2000 will be 40 percent.
Question. Part of the original justification for the increase in
the pipeline grant program was that with increased funds the states
would be encouraged to expand their enforcement responsibilities.
Please provide quantitative data on a state-by-state basis indicating
whether that has happened.
Answer. The states have expanded their enforcement jurisdiction in
the past few years by adding new intrastate gas and liquid programs and
new areas of municipal, LPG, or master meter operators jurisdiction in
their particular state and enhanced one-call compliance.
Question. TEA21 authorized a $5,000,000 damage prevention grant
program in fiscal year 2001. If funding constraints do not permit full
funding of this program in fiscal year 2001, what would be the most
effective way to ramp this program up over a two-year period?
Answer. Congress has allocated $1 million for fiscal year 2000
consistent with provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21). We have structured a grant program consistent
with provisions in TEA-21. If the additional $5 million is never
allocated, the full effectiveness of this program will not be reached.
OPS could make awards as funding is available, requesting applicants to
show approved management plans to account for a longer funding period.
TEA-21 authorized grant funding to improve state damage prevention
programs that were lacking, and this money is badly needed. However, if
full funding is not provided, we will provide whatever funding is
appropriate based on the points of our award criteria on a pro-rated
basis to enhance damage prevention to the extent possible until the
full $5 million is available. We would pro- rate the grant to the
extent possible to reward those states that best meet our criteria. We
are assisting states in reaching a minimum level of progress and
encouraging consortium among states to share responsibility for damage
prevention.
Question. Please update past data provided on the status of one-
call systems, their completeness, effectiveness, legislative status,
and enforcement capabilities of the states. How many, and which, states
have utilized one-call grant funds to establish one- call programs?
Answer. Within the past 5 years, 18 States have passed or improved
one-call legislation: Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, New
Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming. Since the incident in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in 1996, we
have been working closely with Puerto Rico for legislation to create a
one-call center. This legislation was passed in September 1998. We also
supported Texas in the passage of its first one-call legislation in
1997.
There is also a growing number of States with a strong one-call
enforcement mechanism (Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia) that include:
--A specific agency with jurisdiction over excavators and facility
operators.
--Authority to issue immediate citations and the power to collect
penalties.
--Administrative encouragement and staff assigned to enforce the law.
Eleven States do not require all underground facility operators to
belong to one-call organizations. We expect several state legislatures
to enact or modify one-call legislation for this purpose.
More than 30 States have emergency service available on a 24-hour
basis. In States without 24-hour emergency service, excavators have to
notify operators of impending excavation after business hours.
OPS has also utilized one-call grant funds to support States to
establish one-call programs. This past year, 33 States have requested
one-call grants to further one-call activities. Many of these States
are preparing to request TEA-21 grant funds to expand their damage
prevention efforts by implementing Best Practices within their States.
VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTER
Question. For fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, what percent
of funds were contracted out? For fiscal year 2000 what percent of
funds do you plan to contract out?
Answer. For fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 77 percent and 73 percent,
respectively, of the Center's obligations were contracted to the
private and university sectors. We estimate the percentage to be
approximately the same for fiscal year 2000.
Question. What percent of your personnel costs are for contract
administration, technical program direction, and in-house research?
Answer. Five percent of personnel costs are for contract
administration. 70 percent is tied to specific project work, including
technical direction. No funding or staff was devoted to in- house
research (i.e., independent research and development not tied to a
client project) in fiscal year 1999 and none is planned for fiscal year
2000. The remaining 25 percent of personnel costs cover facility
operations, business services, staff development, managerial process
improvements, stakeholder reporting, and outreach. Question. Please
discuss the current staffing situation at Volpe in relationship to
current and anticipated workload.
Answer. The competitive nature of recruiting for technical skills
has caused some delays in filling positions needed for current and
projected work, especially in the areas of systems planning, analysis,
and simulation, surveillance, infrastructures, etc.
Question. Please break out, in tabular form, obligations by each of
the DOT modal administrations to the Volpe Center for each of the last
three fiscal years. What is the significance of these funding trends?
Answer. The following table shows Volpe Center obligations for
projects with the following DOT Operating Administrations in millions
of dollars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
actual actual estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA.................................... 84.5 72.0 78.6
FHWA................................... 11.8 13.3 13.4
USCG................................... 6.8 6.4 7.5
FRA.................................... 10.9 11.9 10.9
FTA.................................... 7.5 8.8 8.8
NHTSA.................................. 8.8 7.8 8.9
RSPA................................... 6.6 5.1 7.1
OTHER DOT.............................. 2.3 6.0 6.0
OST.................................... 2.6 0.7 0.8
--------------------------------
Total............................ 141.8 132.0 142.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Each amount includes the customers' participation in DOT's Small
Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, which the Volpe Center
manages.
The trends reflect changes in our customers' program emphasis as
well as changes to DOT's appropriations.
Question. What are the Volpe overhead charges and how have you
tried to reduce these charges? Please provide a detailed explanation
and dollar figures of all overhead costs for each of the last three
fiscal years.
Answer. Following is the distribution of the Center's indirect
expenses (in millions of dollars obligated):
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------
Indirect activity 1998 1999 2000
actual actual etimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Operations.................... $3.4 $3.4 $3.4
Business Services...................... 9.8 8.8 9.8
Line Management........................ 2.5 2.7 2.8
Center-wide Services................... 1.5 1.5 1.7
Computer & LAN Services................ 3.8 3.4 3.7
Industry Outreach...................... 0.3 0.3 0.4
Capability Development................. 0.3 0.3 0.4
Plans & Pgm Development................ 0.9 1.6 1.8
Chief Counsel.......................... 0.3 0.3 0.4
Executive Management................... 1.0 1.1 1.0
--------------------------------
Total Indirect................... 23.8 23.4 25.4
--------------------------------
Total Obligations \1\............ 197.0 174.0 202.0
--------------------------------
Indirect to Total (percent)...... 12.0 13.4 12.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Net of recoveries of prior year obligations.
The estimated fiscal year 2000 indirect expenses reflect increases
for salaries, benefits, negotiated contract price adjustments and other
normal cost growth plus an amount for depreciation of prior year
capital investments and increased investment in staff training and
recruitment. Current energy conservation technology has offset some of
the Center's increases.
Question. Please provide a detailed listing of all fiscal year 1999
and fiscal year 2000 new start reimbursable agreements that the Volpe
Center has with other Federal agencies. Include all costs that are paid
out to contractors hired by the Volpe Center.
Answer. Following is a list of all the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000 new start reimbursable agreements. NASA Aviation Safety
Program Risk Assessment and Mitigation is the only fiscal year 2000 new
start.
PROJECT: Aviation Mail Hazmat Support Services
SPONSOR: United States Postal Service (USPS)
FUNDING: $1.6 Million
CONTRACT PERCENT: 40 percent
The Volpe Center will support the Aviation Mail Security group by
assisting in the planning, development, implementation of policies, and
training supporting HAZMAT acceptance, handling, transportation, and
delivery.
PROJECT: Region 8 Site Assessment and Redemption
SPONSOR: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
FUNDING: $10.7 Million
CONTRACT PERCENT: 81 percent
To provide environmental support services in the assessment,
design, remediation, restoration and oversight of contaminated sites in
Region 8.
PROJECT: Information Transition & Organizational Planning Office
(ITOP)
SPONSOR: EPA FUNDING: $70 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 0 percent
Volpe will support EPA in designing and establishing its new Office
of Environmental Information.
PROJECT: Philadelphia Support Office
SPONSOR: Department of Interior/National Park Service (NPS)
FUNDING: $35 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 37 percent
The Volpe Center will work with NPS, Philadelphia Support Office,
in the planning for the management of parks in its region as they
relate to existing and anticipated transportation issues.
PROJECT: National Marine & Fisheries Vessel Monitoring
SPONSOR: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
FUNDING: $1.0 Million
CONTRACT PERCENT: 73 percent
The Volpe Center will support NOAA's National Marine and Fisheries
Service (NMFS) in the development of a comprehensive Vessel Monitoring
System (VMS) to ensure compliance with the NMFS fishing regulations and
international agreements on protection of controlled fish stocks.
PROJECT: Energy Motor Carrier Safety Evaluation
SPONSOR: Department of Energy (DOE)
FUNDING: $50 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 24 percent
Develop a safety status supported process for the Doe National
Transportation Program (NTP) to evaluate motor carriers for use in
transportation radioactive materials and waste from site cleanup.
PROJECT: Security Review of Treasury Facilities
SPONSOR: United States Treasury Department
FUNDING: $80 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 21 percent
Support will be provided for the development and implementation of
a physical security review concept of operations plan (PSR CONOPS). The
CONOPS documents a proposed course of action to be undertaken by
Treasury that, at a minimum, increases the physical security of
Treasury owned assets, as well as assets where Treasury employees work,
to the minimum physical security standard required by the 1995 US
Marshal Service Study. The Volpe Center will analyze the information
and develop the CONOPS that maps a course to increase facility security
for identified bureaus.
PROJECT: Advanced Communications for Aviation
SPONSOR: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
Glenn Research Center (GRC)
FUNDING: $75 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 60 percent
The Volpe Center will support NASA in the development of advanced
communications concepts (primarily satellite-based) for civil aviation.
Two tasks will be performed: (1) Identification of spectrum management
issues (including approaches to their resolution) that are likely to
arise when implementing new communications techniques in the National
Airspace System(NAS); (2) exploration of the feasibility of employing
the merging Ultra Wide Band (UWB) technology for aviation
communications.
PROJECT: NASA Small Aircraft Transportation System
SPONSOR: NASA Langley
FUNDING: $100 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 14 percent
Assess the commercial feasibility of a next generation small
aircraft and supporting air & ground infrastructure.
PROJECT: Environmental Support to Hanscom AFB
SPONSOR: U.S. Air Force (USAF)
FUNDING: $50 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 14 percent
Volpe Center will provide environmental oversight services to the
Air Force and Navy during the construction, demonstration, and
operation of this world class high-frequency radio wave generator in
Alaska.
PROJECT: National Airspace System (NAS) Engineering & Installation
Support
SPONSOR: USAF
FUNDING: $1.0 Million
CONTRACT PERCENT: 14 percent
The USAF Electronic Systems Center (ESC) National Airspace Systems
Program Office (GAA) has the responsibility for national airspace
systems implementation for the Department of Defense (DOD). ESC/GAA,
site implementation group (SIG), had been accomplishing the additional
site preparation effort at various DOD military bases. The Volpe Center
competed for, and won, the contract (in the form of a Reimbursable
Agreement) to accomplish site preparation at various DOD military
bases.
PROJECT: Naval Air Systems Command Advanced Technology Launcher
SPONSOR: U.S. Navy (USN)
FUNDING: $150 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 40 percent
Reviews conducted by the Naval Air Systems Command have indicated
technologies exist that, if utilized in an advanced technology
launcher, could eliminate the launcher's dependence on propulsion plant
system. A survey of industry confirmed that industry was capable of
developing selected technologies into operational launch systems with
Navy sponsorship. The Volpe Center will conduct assessments of
technologies expected to be proposed by the Advanced Technology
Launcher (ATL) contractor and provide technical expertise in linear
motor technology as well as linear motor and magnetic guidance and
suspension control systems.
PROJECT: DOD Duty Free Entry Program Evaluation
SPONSOR: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
FUNDING: $60 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 16 percent
The Volpe Center will support DLA in determining whether or not the
current Duty Free Entry program for foreign imports for DOD and its
contractors is economically viable. The Volpe Center federal staff will
work with the Defense Contract Management Command New York customs Team
that manages duty-free program and DLA's Operations Research and
Resources Analysis office (DORRA).
PROJECT: NASA Aviation Safety Program Risk Assessment and
Mitigation
SPONSOR: NASA Langley
FUNDING: $200 Thousand
CONTRACT PERCENT: 8 percent
The Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) is a NASA technology focus
program, which was formed to improve aviation safety through the
introduction of technical advances that enable the reduction of fatal
accidents. The Volpe Center, in collaboration with the NASA Safety and
Mission Assurance personnel at Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight
Research Center, Glenn Research Center, and Langley Research Center,
will help the AvSP projects identify, track, and identify ways to
mitigate risks.
Questions Submitted to the United States Coast Guard
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
fiscal year 1999 and 2000 reprogrammings and transfers
Question. Please provide the amount and description of all
reprogrammings or transfers of funds that occurred during fiscal year
1999 and thus far in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. There have been no congressional reprogrammings in the
Operating Expenses (OE) appropriation in fiscal year 1999 and thus far
in 2000. The table below shows the transfers to the OE appropriation in
fiscal year 1999 and thus far in 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Amount Reason for transfer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999:
Information Technology Systems $20,505,000 Y2K projects.
and Related Expenses.
Information Technology Systems 7,210,000 Y2K projects.
and Related Expenses.
Information Technology Systems 4,058,000 Y2K projects.
and Related Expenses.
Office of National Drug Control 94,798 High Intensity Drug
Policy (ONDCP). Trafficking Area
(HIDTA)
Fiscal year 2000: None
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been no transfers of funds in the Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) appropriation in fiscal year 1999
or thus far in fiscal year 2000. The following tables show the amount
and description of reprogrammings that occurred within AC&I in fiscal
year 1999 and thus far in 2000 for the appropriation.
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS--FISCAL YEAR 1999 REPROGRAMMING ACTIONS
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief description of
Fiscal year funding Project title reprogramming Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................... COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) PROJECT SAVINGS........... -$3,000
REPLACEMENT.
1999............................... DEEPWATER CAPABILITY REPLACEMENT INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........ -3,000
ANALYSIS.
1997............................... CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION.. PROJECT SAVINGS........... -1,500
1997............................... FLEET LOGISTIC SYSTEM (FLS)......... PROCUREMENT MODULE........ 1,500
1997............................... CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION.. PROJECT SAVINGS........... -800
1997............................... MARINE INFO FOR SAFETY AND LAW INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........ 800
ENFORCEMENT.
1998............................... TRAFFIC AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE PROJECT SAVINGS........... -1,000
SYSTEM(TCAS).
1999............................... ROLES AND MISSIONS.................. CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED 1,000
STUDY.
1997............................... TRAFFIC AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE PROJECT SAVINGS........... -500
SYSTEM(TCAS).
1997............................... GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........ 500
INSTALLATION.
1998............................... STATION BELLINGHAM--RELOCATION...... PROJECT SAVINGS........... -222
1998............................... ISC KODIAK HANGAR RENOVATION........ CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS.... 222
1999............................... COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) PROJECT SAVINGS........... -400
REPLACEMENT.
1999............................... ATS-CONVERSION...................... COMPLETE PRE-COMMISSIONING 400
OUTFITTING.
1998............................... CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT............ PROJECT SAVINGS........... -88
1998............................... ATS-CONVERSION...................... INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........ 88
1998............................... COAST GUARD DISTRICT ONE--CONST PROJECT SAVINGS........... -96
BAYONNE PIER.
1998............................... ISC KODIAK HANGAR RENOVATION........ CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS.... 96
1998............................... CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION.. PROJECT SAVINGS........... -130
1998............................... FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM (FLS)........ INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........ 130
1999............................... OPTIMIZE COAST GUARD TRAINING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.... -2,200
INFRASTRUCTURE.
1999............................... GROUP STATION NEW ORLEANS........... .......................... 2,200
1997............................... TRAFFIC AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE PROJECT SAVINGS........... -80
SYSTEM (TCAS).
1997............................... HC-130 ENGINE CONVERSION............ INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........ 80
1998............................... CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION.. PROJECT SAVINGS........... -170
1998............................... FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM (FLS)........ INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........ 170
1998............................... STATION BELLINGHAM--RELOCATION...... PROJECT SAVINGS........... -27
1998............................... ISC KODIAK HANGAR RENOVATION........ CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS.... 27
1996............................... COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) PROJECT SAVINGS........... -2,800
REPLACEMENT.
1996............................... SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT FUND CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER 2,800
(WLB).
1997............................... COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) PROJECT SAVINGS........... -8,100
REPLACEMENT.
1997............................... SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT FUND CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER 7,907
(WLB).
1997............................... POLAR ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT FOLLLOW- FUND START-UP TRAINING.... 193
ON.
1998............................... COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) PROJECT SAVINGS........... -3,150
REPLACEMENT.
1998............................... SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT FUND CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER 3,150
(WLB).
1998............................... DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM (DMS) PROJECT SAVINGS........... -140
IMPLEMENTATION.
1998............................... COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (COMSYS ) 2000 INSUFFICIENT FUNDS........ 140
PH II.
1999............................... STATION OSWEGO--47 FOOT MLB PROJECT SAVINGS........... -30
IMPROVEMENT.
1999............................... STA CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT 47 FOOT MLB CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS.... 30
IMPROVEMENT.
1998............................... STATION BELLINGHAM--RELOCATION...... PROJECT SAVINGS........... -35
1998............................... GROUP WOODS HOLE--WATERFRONT CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS.... 35
RENOVATION.
1997............................... COASTAL BUOY TENDER (WLM) PROJECT SAVINGS........... -1,170
REPLACEMENT.
1997............................... BUOY BOAT REPLACEMENT PROJECT (BUSL) CONTRUCTION OF FINAL TWO 1,170
HULLS.
1998............................... SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT OVERESTIMATED CONTRACT -1,400
(WLB). CHANGE ORDER.
1998............................... ATS-1 CONVERSION.................... COMPLETION OF CGC ALEX 1,400
HALEY CONVERSION.
1999............................... SEAGOING BUOY TENDER REPLACEMENT OVERESTIMATED CONTRACT -1,100
(WLB). CHANGE ORDER.
1999............................... ATS-1 CONVERSION.................... COMPLETION OF CGC ALEX 1,100
HALEY CONVERSION.
1999............................... PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF HYDE PARK. USE OF OFFSETTING -3,042
COLLECTIONS.
2000............................... COAST GUARD HOUSING--VARIOUS APPROVED BY CONGRESS...... 1,000
PROJECTS.
2000............................... CONSTRUCT PATROL BOAT MAINTENANCE APPROVED BY CONGRESS...... 465
FAC. SAN JUAN.
1999............................... HURRICANE GEORGE'S SUPPLEMENTAL..... APPROVED BY CONGRESS...... 1,000
2000............................... SURVEY AND DESIGN................... APPROVED BY CONGRESS...... 577
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNOBLIGATED AND CARRYOVER FUNDS
Question. Please provide a list of any unobligated funds and
carryover funds by account or program from previous fiscal years.
Answer. The Operating Expenses (OE) account was appropriated
$2,781,039,000 in fiscal year 2000, of which $791,117,233 was
unobligated as of 31 March. OE carried over $186,532,744 from fiscal
year 1999 to fiscal year 2000. Of these funds, $178,117,000 was carried
over and are available until September 30, 2000, for emergency Kosovo
funding pursuant to the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
Public Law 106-31. $8,415,744 were carried over and are available until
September 30, 2001, for Y2K funding, pursuant to the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1999, Public Law 105-277.
The following tables provide a list of unobligated funds carried
forward from previous fiscal years for the Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements (AC&I) appropriation.
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ACQUISITON, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS
APPROPRIATION ESTIMATED UNOBLIGATED BALANCES BY PROJECT--AS OF 03/31/00
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balance
by Project
Fiscal year appropriation Project titles fiscal total
year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................ 47-FOOT MOTOR $4 ........
LIFEBOAT (MLB)
REPLACEMENT.
1997............................ 47-FOOT MOTOR 131 ........
LIFEBOAT (MLB)
REPLACEMENT.
1998............................ 47-FOOT MOTOR 1,217 ........
LIFEBOAT (MLB)
REPLACEMENT.
1999............................ 47-FOOT MOTOR 750 ........
LIFEBOAT (MLB)
REPLACEMENT.
2000............................ 47-FOOT MOTOR 1,300 $3,402
LIFEBOAT (MLB)
REPLACEMENT.
1996............................ 82-FOOT WPB 2 ........
CAPABILITY
REPLACEMENT.
1997............................ 82-FOOT WPB 452 454
CAPABILITY
REPLACEMENT.
1997............................ 87 COASTAL PATROL 5 5
BOAT.
1998............................ ATS-1 CONVERSION 50 ........
(HALEY).
1999............................ ATS-1 CONVERSION 400 450
(HALEY).
1996............................ COASTAL BUOY 31 ........
TENDER (WLM)
REPLACEMENT.
1997............................ COASTAL BUOY 2,637 ........
TENDER (WLM)
REPLACEMENT.
1998............................ COASTAL BUOY 5,848 ........
TENDER (WLM)
REPLACEMENT.
1999............................ COASTAL BUOY 18,996 27,512
TENDER (WLM)
REPLACEMENT.
1998............................ COASTAL PATROL 1,266 ........
BOAT (CPB)
REPLACEMENT.
1999............................ COASTAL PATROL 2,231 ........
BOAT (CPB)
REPLACEMENT.
2000............................ COASTAL PATROL 1,000 4,497
BOAT (CPB)
REPLACEMENT.
1996............................ CONFIGURATION 3 ........
MANAGEMENT.
1997............................ CONFIGURATION 41 ........
MANAGEMENT.
1998............................ CONFIGURATION 88 ........
MANAGEMENT.
1999............................ CONFIGURATION 28 ........
MANAGEMENT.
2000............................ CONFIGURATION 3,700 3,860
MANAGEMENT.
NO YEAR......................... CUTTER SENSOR AND 2,806 ........
COMMUNICATION
SYSTEM.
NO YEAR......................... CUTTER SENSOR AND 209 3,015
COMMUNICATION
SYSTEM.
2000............................ DEEPWATER 3,000 3,000
REPLACEMENT
PROJECT.
NO YEAR......................... DEPLOYABLE PURSUIT 1,156 1,156
BOAT ACQUISITION.
1998............................ GREAT LAKES 32 ........
ICEBREAKER
CAPABILTY.
1999............................ MACKINAW 3,000 ........
REPLACEMENT.
2000............................ MACKINAW 13,000 16,032
REPLACEMENT.
1998............................ POLAR CLASS 854 ........
RELIABILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT (RIP).
2000............................ POLAR CLASS 4,100 4,954
RELIABILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT (RIP).
1997............................ POLAR ICEBREAKER 22 ........
REPLACEMENT (PIR).
1998............................ POLAR ICEBREAKER 124 ........
REPLACEMENT (PIR).
1999............................ POLAR ICEBREAKER 411 ........
REPLACEMENT (PIR).
2000............................ POLAR ICEBREAKER 478 1,035
REPLACEMENT
(HEALY).
1996............................ SEAGOING BUOY 227 ........
TENDER (WLB)
REPLACEMENT.
1997............................ SEAGOING BUOY 214 ........
TENDER (WLB)
REPLACEMENT.
1999............................ SEAGOING BUOY 509 ........
TENDER (WLB)
REPLACEMENT.
2000............................ SEAGOING BUOY 60,947 61,897
TENDER (WLB)
REPLACEMENT.
1997............................ STERN LOADING BUOY 10 ........
BOAT BUSL
REPLACEMENT.
1998............................ STERN LOADING BUOY 75 ........
BOAT BUSL
REPLACEMENT.
2000............................ STERN LOADING BUOY 2,288 2,373
BOAT BUSL
REPLACEMENT.
1997............................ SURFACE SEARCH 43 ........
RADAR REPLACEMENT.
1998............................ SURFACE SEARCH 8 ........
RADAR REPLACEMENT.
1999............................ SURFACE SEARCH 123 ........
RADAR REPLACEMENT.
2000............................ SURFACE SEARCH 2,851 3,025
RADAR REPLACEMENT.
1998............................ SURVEY & DESIGN-- 40 ........
CUTTERS & BOATS.
1999............................ SURVEY & DESIGN-- 300 340
CUTTERS & BOATS.
-------------------
TOTAL, VESSEL................................. 137,007 137,007
===================
NO YEAR......................... AIRCRAFT SENSOR 816 816
AND C-130 ENGINE
UPGRADE.
NO YEAR......................... APS RADAR DRUG.... 163 163
1998............................ GLOBAL POSITION 1,160 1,160
SYSTEM
INSTALLATION.
1998............................ HC-130 AIRCRAFT 476 ........
SENSOR UPGRADE.
1999............................ HC-130 AIRCRAFT 10,500 10,976
SENSOR UPGRADE.
1999............................ HC-130 ENGINE 225 ........
CONVERSION.
2000............................ HC-130 ENGINE 2,500 2,725
MODIFICATION.
2000............................ HC-130 LONG RANGE 5,900 5,900
SEARCH AIRCRAFT.
1999............................ HC-130 SIDE 132 132
LOOKING AIRBORNE
RADAR (SLAR).
1999............................ HH-60J NAVIGATION 177 ........
SYSTEM UPGRADE.
2000............................ HH-60J NAVIGATION 3,800 3,977
SYSTEM UPGRADE.
2000............................ HH-65 CONVERSION, 4,324 4,324
AIR FACILITY
SOUTHERN LAKE
MICHIGAN.
1999............................ HH-65A ENGINE 4,833 4,833
CONTROL PROGRAM.
2000............................ HH-65A ENGINE RE- 6,999 6,999
POWER PROGRAM.
1998............................ HH-65A HELICOPTER 126 126
KAPTON REWIRING
REPLACEMENT.
1999............................ HH-65A HELICOPTER 4,500 ........
KAPTON REWIRING
REPLACEMENT.
2000............................ HH-65A HELICOPTER 3,360 7,860
KAPTON REWIRING
REPLACEMENT.
1999............................ HH-65A HELO 43 ........
MISSION UNIT
COMPUTER
REPLACEMENT.
2000............................ HH-65A HELO 3,608 3,651
MISSION UNIT
COMPUTER
REPLACEMENT.
1999............................ HU-25 AIRCRAFT 872 872
AVIONICS
IMPROVEMENT.
2000............................ HU-25 RE- 6,000 ........
ENGINEERING.
1998............................ LONG RANGE SEARCH 1,578 1,578
AIRCRAFT
CAPABILITY
PRESERVATION.
NO YEAR......................... MARITIME PATROL 33,064 33,064
AIRCRAFT
ACQUISITN.
NO YEAR......................... OPERATIONAL TEST, 100 100
USE OF FORCE FROM
AIRCRAFT.
NO YEAR......................... REACTIVATE OF HU- 493 493
25 JETS.
2000............................ SIDE LOOKING 1,100 1,100
AIRBORNE RADAR PH
II.
NO YEAR......................... TRAFFIC ALERT AND 432 432
COLLISION
AVOIDANCE SYSTEM
(TCAS).
1998............................ TRAFFIC ALERT AND 1,203 1,203
COLLISION
AVOIDANCE SYSEM
(TCAS).
-------------------
TOTAL, AIRCRAFT............................... 98,484 98,484
===================
1998............................ AVIATION LOGISTICS 2,150 ........
MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION
SYSTEM (ALMIS).
1999............................ AVIATION LOGISTICS 1,000 ........
MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION
SYSTEM (ALMIS).
2000............................ AVIATION LOGISTICS 2,700 5,850
MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION
SYSTEM (ALMIS).
1999............................ COMMERCIAL 3,645 ........
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATION
UPGRADE.
2000............................ COMMERCIAL 4,049 7,694
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATION
UPGRADE.
1998............................ COMMUNICATION 2 ........
SYSTEM (COMMSYS)
2000.
1999............................ COMMUNICATION 425 427
SYSTEM (COMMSYS)
2000.
1998............................ CONVERSION OF 1,000 1,000
SOFTWARE
APPLICATION.
1998............................ DEFENSE MESSAGE 1 ........
SYSTEM (DMS)
IMPLEMENTATION.
1999............................ DEFENSE MESSAGE 800 ........
SYSTEM (DMS)
IMPLEMENTATION.
2000............................ DEFENSE MESSAGE 3,477 4,278
SYSTEM (DMS)
IMPLEMENTATION.
1998............................ FLEET LOGISTICS 20 ........
SYSTEM (FLS).
1999............................ FLEET LOGISTICS 27 ........
SYSTEM (FLS).
2000............................ FLEET LOGISTICS 3,001 3,048
SYSTEM (FLS).
1998............................ FREQUENCY SPECTRUM 1,246 1,246
REALLOCATION.
1999............................ LOCAL NOTICE TO 41 41
MARINERS (LNM)
AUTOMATION.
1998............................ MARINE INFORMATION 9 ........
FOR SAFETY AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT
(MISLE).
1999............................ MARINE INFORMATION 31 ........
FOR SAFETY AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT
(MISLE).
2000............................ MARINE INFORMATION 4,463 4,503
FOR SAFETY AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT
(MISLE).
1999............................ MARITIME 4,108 4,108
DIFFERENTIAL
GLOBAL
POSITIONING
SYSTEM (DGPS).
1998............................ NATIONAL DISTRESS 103 ........
SYSTEM
MODERNIZATION.
1999............................ NATIONAL DISTRESS 961 ........
SYSTEM
MODERNIZATION.
2000............................ NATIONAL DISTRESS 16,000 17,064
SYSTEM
MODERNIZATION.
1998............................ PERSONNEL 8 ........
MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION
SYSTEM/MIL PAY
SYSTEM.
1999............................ PERSONNEL 20 28
MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION
SYSTEM/MIL PAY
SYSTEM.
1998............................ PORTS AND 7 ........
WATERWAYS SAFETY
SYSTEM (PAWSS).
1999............................ PORTS AND 1,150 ........
WATERWAYS SAFETY
SYSTEM (PAWSS).
2000............................ PORTS AND 4,500 5,657
WATERWAYS SAFETY
SYSTEM (PAWSS).
1998............................ VHF-FM HIGH-LEVEL 615 615
SITE PHIII.
-------------------
TOTAL, OTHER EQUIPMENT.......................... 55,559 55,559
===================
1999............................ AIR STATION CAPE 385 385
COD--REPLACEMENT
ELECTRIC
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM.
2000............................ AIR STATION RAMP 3,800 3,800
STRUCTURAL
IMPROVEMENTS--ELI
ZABETH CITY, NC.
1999............................ AIRSTATION MIAMI-- 3,600 3,600
RENOVATE FIXED
WING HANGAR.
NO YEAR......................... COMSTA MIAMI 319 319
RESTORATION
(ANDREW).
2000............................ CONSTRUCT PATROL 3,100 3,100
BOAT MAINTENANCE
FACILITY--SAN
JUAN, PR.
1999............................ GROUP STATION NEW 2,878 2,878
ORLEANS, LA--
RELOCATION.
2000............................ HOMEPORTING OF 2,800 2,800
DRUG INTERDICTION
ASSETS.
NO YEAR......................... HURRICANE GEORGES 7,620 7,620
SUPPLEMENTAL.
1998............................ INTEGRATED SUPPORT 222 222
COMMAND (ISC)
KETCHIKAN REPLACE
BREAKWATER.
1998............................ INTEGRATED SUPPORT 98 98
COMMAND (ISC)
PORTSMOUTH, VA.
NO YEAR......................... MIDWEST FLOOD 171 171
SUPPLEMENTAL.
1998............................ MINOR AC&I SHORE 477 ........
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT.
1999............................ MINOR AC&I SHORE 405 ........
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT.
2000............................ MINOR AC&I SHORE 6,000 6,882
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT.
2000............................ MODERNIZE COAST 3,500 3,500
GUARD STATION
SHINNECOCK
HAMPTON BAYS, NY.
1998............................ PUBLIC FAMILY 10 ........
QUARTERS.
1999............................ PUBLIC FAMILY 70 ........
QUARTERS.
2000............................ PUBLIC FAMILY 3,175 3,255
QUARTERS.
2000............................ RELOCATE COAST 1,000 1,000
GUARD MARINE
SAFETY OFFICE AND
STATION
CLEVELAND, OH.
2000............................ RENOVATE AIR 3,500 3,500
STATION MIAMI
HANGAR, OPLOCKA,
FL PH II.
1998............................ STATION BELLINGHAM 51 51
RELOCATION.
1999............................ STATION DAUPHIN 3,191 3,191
ISLAND, AL--
RELOCATION.
1999............................ STATION NEAH BAY 71 71
WATERFRONT
RENOVATION.
1999............................ STATION OSWEGO 47 312 312
FOOT MLB
IMPROVEMENTS.
1998............................ SURVEY & DESIGN-- 1 ........
SHORE PROJECTS.
1999............................ SURVEY & DESIGN-- 1 ........
SHORE PROJECTS.
2000............................ SURVEY & DESIGN-- 4,500 4,502
SHORE PROJECTS.
2000............................ UNALASKA PIER..... 8,000 8,000
2000............................ WATERWAYS AIDS-TO- 5,000 5,000
NAVIGATION
PROJECTS.
-------------------
Total SHORE PROGRAM........................... 64,257 64,257
===================
TOTAL, ALL CATEGORIES......................... 355,307 355,307
------------------------------------------------------------------------
list of final rulemakings
Question. Please prepare a list of all final rulemakings that have
been issued since last year.
Answer. Below is a list of all final rules issued by Coast Guard
Headquarters program offices since January 1, 1999. Copies of all Coast
Guard final rules have been submitted to both Houses of Congress as
required by the Congressional Notification Act.
NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING PUBLISHED SINCE APRIL 1, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCKET NUMBER PUB DATE TITLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG-1998-3386...................... 2/1/99 Adjustment of Fees for
Issuing Numbers to
UndocumentedVessels in
Alaska.
USCG-1998-3868...................... 12/7/99 Outer Continental Shelf
Activities.
USCG-1998-4354...................... 3/22/99 Tank Vessel Response
Plans forHazardous
Substances.
USCG-1998-4593...................... 3/16/00 Revision to Federal
Blood Alcohol
Concentration (BAC)
Standard for
Recreational Vessel
Operations.
USCG-1999-4976...................... 11/15/99 Frequency of
Inspection, Alternate
Hull Examination
Program for Certain
Passenger Vessels, and
Underwater Surveys for
Passenger, Nautical
School, and Sailing
School Vessels.
USCG-1999-5040...................... 3/2/00 Safety of Uninspected
Passenger Vessels
Under the Passenger
Vessel Safety Act of
1993 (PVSA).
USCG-1999-5149...................... 4/8/99 Response Plans for
Marine Transportation-
Related Facilities
Handling Non-Petroleum
Oils.
USCG-1999-5700...................... 6/17/99 Traffic Separation
Schemes: Off San
Francisco, in the
Santa Barbara Channel,
in the Approaches to
Los Angeles-Long
Beach, California.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULEMAKING THAT THE COAST GUARD HAS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS
Question. Please list and explain the major notices of proposed
rulemaking that the Coast Guard has published in the Federal Register
in the last 12 months?
Answer. Below is a list of all notices of proposed rulemaking
issued by Coast Guard Headquarters program offices since April 1, 1999.
FINAL RULES PUBLISHED SINCE January 1, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCKET NUMBER PUB DATE TITLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG-1997-2799...................... 8/4/99 User Fees for Licenses,
Certificates of
Registry, and Merchant
Mariner Documents.
USCG-1998-3423...................... 5/17/99 Implementation of the
National Invasive
Species Act of 1996
(NISA) (Interim rule).
USCG-1998-3472...................... 4/24/99 Rules of Practice,
Procedure, and
Evidence for
administrative
Proceedings of the
Coast Guard (Interim
Rule).
USCG-1998-3821...................... 2/10/99 Coast Guard Child
Development Services
Programs.
USCG-1998-3824...................... 2/2/99 Maritime Course
Approval Procedures.
USCG-1998-4445...................... 10/19/99 Fire Protection
Measures forTowing
Vessels (Interim
Rule).
USCG-1998-4469...................... 4/27/99 Management Information
System (MIS)
Requirements.
USCG-1998-4819...................... 6/23/99 Year 2000 (Y2K)
Reporting Requirements
for Vessels and Marine
Facilities (Temporary
Interim Rule).
USCG-1998-4819...................... 8/2/99 Year 2000 (Y2K)
Reporting Requirements
for Vessels and Marine
Facilities (Temporary
Interim Rule).
USCG-1999-4976...................... 2/9/00 Frequency of
Inspection.
USCG-1999-5036...................... 3/2/99 Conformance of the
Western Rivers Marking
System With the United
States Aids to
Navigation System
(Final Rule; delay of
implementation date).
USCG-1999-5118...................... 11/30/99 Standard Measurement
System Exemption from
Gross Tonnage (Direct
Final Rule).
USCG-1999-5151...................... 3/1/00 Update of Standards
From the American
Society for Testing
and Materials
(ASTM)(Direct Final
Rule).
USCG-1999-5525...................... 6/1/99 Mandatory Ship
ReportingSystems
(Interim Rule).
USCG-1999-5832...................... 6/29/99 Technical Amendments;
Organizational
changes; Miscellaneous
Editorial Changes and
Conforming Amendments.
USCG-1999-6141...................... 3/20/00 Puget Sound Vessel
TrafficService (Direct
Final Rule).
USCG-1999-6216...................... 10/1/99 Technical Amendments;
Organizational
Changes; Miscellaneous
Editorial Changes and
Conforming Amendments.
USCG-1999-6224...................... 11/19/99 Licensing and Manning
forOfficers of Towing
Vessels(Interim Rule).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPERTIES EXCESSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND FISCAL YEAR 2001
Question. Please provide a list of all properties the Coast Guard
declared excess in fiscal year 2000 and expects to excess during fiscal
year 2001.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXCESS IN
DESCRIPTION FISCAL YEAR STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LORAN STATION MIDDLETOWN..................... 2000 CA
LIGHT STATION PATOS ISLAND................... 2000 WA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTICIPATED
EXCESS IN
DESCRIPTION FISCAL YEAR STATE
\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIGHT STATION GUARD ISLANDS.................. 2001 AK
LIGHT STATION MARY ISLAND.................... 2001 AK
AMELIA LIGHT................................. 2001 FL
BLYTHE ISLAND LIGHT.......................... 2001 FL
BOCA GRANDE LIGHT............................ 2001 FL
CAPE CANAVERAL LIGHT......................... 2001 FL
CITY LIMITS LIGHT............................ 2001 FL
CROOKED RIVER LIGHT.......................... 2001 FL
EGMONT KEY LIGHT............................. 2001 FL
SANIBEL LIGHT................................ 2001 FL
BUCK ISLAND LIGHT............................ 2001 PR
CULEBRITA LIGHT.............................. 2001 PR
CHARLESTON LIGHT............................. 2001 SC
SULLIVAN'S ISLAND LIGHT...................... 2001 SC
MATAGORDA LIGHT.............................. 2001 TX
SOUTH JETTY LIGHT............................ 2001 TX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Anticipated Excess.--The Coast Guard is in the process of preparing
the documentation necessary to determine if these properties are
excess to its needs. Other factors (such as environmental issues) may
impact the projected timelines and delay the actual Report of Excess
or Notice of Relinquishment.
EXPECTED ASSET SALE COLLETIONS
Question. Please provide a table showing a description of each
asset sale and the amount collected during fiscal years 1999, 2000, and
2001.
Answer. The following lists the personal property that has been
sold during fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and those projected for 2001.
These sales were conducted by the General Services Administration with
all proceeds returned to the general treasury. Items marked with an
asterisk are assets that are anticipated to be offered for sale
Fiscal year 1999--No asset sales.
FISCAL YEAR 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asset Sale date Sale price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCGC PAPAW..................... December 17, 1999........ $63,888.00
USCGC SORREL.................... December 17, 1999........ 75,010.00
USCGC PRIMROSE.................. March 9, 2000............ 79,999.88
CG-55012........................ March 9, 2000............ 52,886.88
Marine Engines, Cummings Model March 21, 2000........... 4,631.00
12900M w/trans. (2 engines).
Marine Engines, Cummings Model March 21, 2000........... 4,181.00
12900M w/o trans (2 engines).
Warping Drums for Anchor March 21, 2000........... 600.00
Windlass from 180 ft Buoy
Tender.
* USCGC SPAR.................... Summer 2000.............. TBD
* USCGC MALLOW.................. Summer 2000.............. TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asset Sale date Sale price \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
180-ft Seagoing Buoy Tenders Various................. TBD
and Spare Parts Kits.
82-ft Patrol Boats & Spare Various................. TBD
Parts Kits.
44-ft Motor Life Boats........ Various................. TBD
HU-25 Aircraft................ Various................. TBD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Individual asset sales prices are as yet undetermined. Consistent
with the President's Budget, however, the Coast Guard would anticipate
netting approximately $10 million from the collective sale of these
assets.
OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS FROM FEDERAL SOURCES
Question. Please explain the source and amount of offsetting
collections from ``Federal sources.''
Answer. The Coast Guard anticipates the collection of $125 million
in fiscal year 2001 from federal sources (per page OE-4). These
offsetting collections come from various federal agencies as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Amount Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dept. of Defense.................... $32 Funds for personnel
costs, medical/dental
services, parts and
maintenance,
maintenance of
aircraft radar, sonar,
and weapons.
Dept. of Transportation............. 9 Funds for USCG TSC
Telenet, National
Response Center,
DAFIS, NASSIF/TRANS
Medical Unit, Security
Policy and Planning,
OMEGA Project, FAA
liaison.
EPA................................. 3 Funds for personnel
costs, CERCLA,\1\
environmental
management, pollution
mitigation.
Other Govt. Agencies................ 56 Funds for NSF,\2\
NOAA,\3\ DOS,\4\
OSIA,\5\ Customs,
FEMA,\6\ Interior,
Panama Canal
Commission, icebreaker
fuel/maintenance,
security assistance,
Customs Forfeiture
Fund, migrant
interdiction.
OSLTF............................... 25 Funds for oil spill
response.
-----------
TOTAL......................... 125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comprehensive Environmental Response, and Compensation Liability
Act.
\2\ National Science Foundation.
\3\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
\4\ Department of State.
\5\ Order Sons of Italy in America.
\6\ Federal Emergency Management Agency.
MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES
Question. Please breakdown the military pay and allowances in
greater detail (basic pay, within-grade increases, specialty pay, etc.)
and compare to the fiscal year 2000 allocation.
Answer. The following breakdown in military pay and benefits
includes all appropriations:
COAST GUARD SPECIAL, INCENTIVE AND RETENTION PAY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL
(ALL APPROPRIATIONS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Category -------------------------------
2000 (est) 2001 (est)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility Pay...................... $138,000 $138,000
Diving Pay.............................. 65,000 65,000
Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay........ 680,000 680,000
Sea Pay................................. 13,600,000 13,750,000
Hardship Duty Pay--Location............. 108,000 110,000
Aviation Career Incentive Pay........... 7,500,000 7,500,000
Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay............ 5,500,000 5,500,000
Special Duty Assignment Pay............. 2,500,000 2,800,000
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses \1\...... 9,795,000 10,500,000
Aviation Career Continuation Pay........ 1,000,000 1,300,000
Targeted Enlistment Bonuses \1\......... 6,205,000 7,500,000
Applicant College Fund.................. 150,000 150,000
Clothing and Uniform Allowances......... 13,100,000 13,500,000
Subsistence and Rations................. 90,500,000 93,000,000
Housing Entitlements.................... 248,370,000 284,000,000
Station Allowances and COLA............. 29,000,000 39,000,000
Other Entitlements...................... 29,999,000 32,144,000
Basic Pay............................... 912,300,000 962,300,000
Social Security Admin. Payments......... 78,130,000 82,227,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,448,640,000 1,556,164,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table on page PPA-5 of the Coast Guard congressional stage
budget is incorrect. The correct information for Selective
Reenlistment Bonuses and Targeted Enlistment Bonuses are contained in
the above table.
CIVILIAN PAY AND BENEFITS
Question. Please breakdown the civilian pay and benefits in greater
detail and compare to the fiscal year 2000 allocation.
Answer. The following breakdown of Coast Guard civilian pay and
benefits includes all appropriations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Category -------------------------------
2000 (est) 2001 (est)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Pay--Full Time Permanent.......... $237,147,000 $251,681,000
Basic Pay--Other than Full Time 9,576,000 10,163,000
Permanent..............................
Health Insurance, Life Insurance & 57,362,000 60,878,000
Retirement.............................
Lump Sum Leave Payments................. 750,000 796,000
Bonuses & Awards........................ 2,674,000 2,762,000
Other Compensation...................... 11,978,000 12,712,000
-------------------------------
Total Pay & Benefits.............. 319,487,000 338,992,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRICARE REMOTE
Question. What progress has the Coast Guard made in improving
health care coverage for personnel stationed at remote locations where
TRICARE is insufficient or nonexistent?
Answer. The Coast Guard continues to use non-federal health care
contractual arrangements to provide active duty service members' health
care where there are no established TRICARE Prime network providers or
TRICARE Prime Remote services provided. In working with DoD/TRICARE,
providers in certain Alaska areas are now receiving higher
reimbursement. Signing new providers and retaining existing providers
indicates that many are satisfied with this increase. Also, additional
training is being given to providers on accurate coding or procedures.
Currently there is a significant disparity in services to family
members in remote areas, which affects approximately 50 percent of
these members. TRICARE Prime Remote is being developed in fiscal year
2001 to improve ``TRICARE Prime-like'' benefits for these personnel.
COAST GUARD PARTICIPATION IN TRICARE
Question. What legal requirements does the Coast Guard have by
virtue of being a participant in the Department of Defense's TRICARE
system?
Answer. The Coast Guard, as a Uniformed Service (Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the United States Public Health Service) is
required by law (statute) to be a full participant in the Department of
Defense TRICARE program. TRICARE combines the Military Healthcare
System and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed
Services; as such, it provides care for our active duty, retiree, and
family members. The Coast Guard is a full participant in the program,
and is required to provide care to members of each of the other
uniformed services on an equal basis. In addition, the Coast Guard
provides the same benefit packages to its members as do the other
Services. Likewise, the other military services are available to
provide care to Coast Guard beneficiaries. This care is provided on a
``fee-for-service'' basis.
MILITARY TRICARE VERSUS CIVILIAN HEALTH CARE COST
Question. What is the difference between the average cost to
provide TRICARE to military personnel, retirees, and their dependents
and healthcare benefits to Coast Guard civilian employees, retirees,
and their dependents?
Answer. Depending on location and options of coverage, the average
cost of healthcare for military personnel, retirees, and their
dependents and the cost of healthcare benefits provided to Coast Guard
civilian employees, retirees, and their dependents can vary
considerably. Using the fiscal year 2001 estimate of $176 million in
health care costs compared against our military FTE, the cost is about
$407 per month per military person. To compare the military plan to the
Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). We chose plan prices
for Washington D.C. as a reasonable median for medical insurance rates.
There are lower rates present in some rural areas, but there are also
many areas in which a significant number of Coast Guard personnel
reside where medical rates are much higher (e.g. the Atlantic, Pacific,
and Gulf seaboards; Alaska; and Hawaii). The rate that should be used
for comparison with military health plans for active duty personnel and
their dependents is the column labeled ``Monthly Fee.'' Full costs
should be considered, as TRICARE does not charge enrollment premiums
for active duty dependents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly Fee Gov't Employee
Company \1\ \2\ Portion \3\ Portion \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna............................ $761.57 $594.02 $167.55
Alliance......................... 1073.46 837.29 236.17
APWU............................. 829.20 646.77 182.43
Association...................... 904.33 705.37 198.96
Blue Cross Blue Shield........... 1323.09 1032.00 291.09
Capital Care..................... 762.93 595.08 167.85
Free State....................... 1071.69 835.91 235.78
GEHA............................. 912.61 711.83 200.78
George Washington................ 619.52 483.22 136.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This identifies the name of the company providing the medical
insurance. All rates quoted are for the Washington, D.C. area.
\2\ This is the total amount of premium. This fee provides insurance for
the employee and his/her family. This number must be used for a like
comparison to the military health care system since no premiums are
charged for active duty family members under TRICARE.
\3\ This identifies the amount the government pays under the FEHBP
insurance plan. For civilian employees, the government pays 78 percent
of the insurance premium.
\4\ This identifies the amount the employee pays under the FEHBP
insurance plan. For civilian employees, the employee pays 22 percent
of the insurance premium.
Source.--http://www.opm.gov/hr/insure/00/states/dc/index.html
ALLOCATION OF TRAINING AND EDUCATION FUNDS
Question. Please explain in detail, by center and course of
instruction, how the Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $85.557
million requested for training and education. How does this compare to
the allocation of funds provided during fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The funding information for training and education shown on
pages PPA-1 and PPA-24 is incorrect. The proper amounts shown should be
as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------- 2001 request
2000 estimate 2001 required level
level changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Training & Education......................................... 74,991 3,591 78,582
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The allocation of the $74,991,000 for fiscal year 2000 and
$78,582,000 for fiscal year 2001 is as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training Travel, Transportation, & Tuition. 34,703 37,192
Includes inter-service agreement with the Navy
for flight training..............................
Training Center Cape May, NJ. (enlisted accessions 8,746 8,994
training)........................................
Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT; (officer 12,908 13,180
accessions and leadership development training)..
Aviation Training Center, Mobile, AL, and Aviation 5,394 5,778
Technical Training Center, Elizabeth City, NC;
(officer and enlisted flight training)...........
Training Center Yorktown, VA; (enlisted and 8,380 8,505
officer advanced training).......................
Training Center Petaluma, CA; (enlisted and 4,860 4,933
officer advanced training).......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COAST GUARD RECRUITING BUDGET
Question. Why is the budget request for recruiting flat when
compared to fiscal year 2000 even though the Coast Guard has ambitious
recruiting goals and still faces stiff competition for personnel from a
strong economy?
Answer. The information contained on pages PPA-1 and PPA-25 is
incorrect. The fiscal year 2001 budget actually reflects an increasing
emphasis upon work force recruiting; the proper amounts should be shown
on page PPA-1 as follows: (in thousands of dollars)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------- 2001 request
2000 estimate 2001 required level
level changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Recruiting................................................... 10,877 2,305 13,182
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PACIFIC AREA COMMAND BUDGET
Question. Why is the budget request for Atlantic Area Command
increasing by $4.565 million while the request for Pacific Area Command
is decreasing by $4.322 million?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget proposes a change
to the reimbursement policy for polar icebreaking services provided to
the National Science Foundation (NSF). A programmatic reduction of
$7,800,000 in the Coast Guard's budget presentation has been included
to reflect this policy shift. Because the Coast Guard's three Polar
Class icebreakers fall under the operational control of the Pacific
Area Commander, this programmatic reduction impacts that funding
account.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Question. Please explain in greater detail by project or activity
the line ``other activities'' and how the Coast Guard proposes to
allocate the $1.653 million requested.
Answer. This PPA II line item provides funding for the Chief of
Staff's Contingency Account. The $1.653 million in funding for this
account is for agency contingencies, natural or mission related
emergencies below the scope of a supplemental appropriation, and
critical program needs arising since submission of the Congressional
budget.
HEADQUARTERS DIRECTORATES
Question. Please breakdown the request for Headquarters
Directorates, including a description of each office, number of
civilian and military personnel assigned to each office, and amount of
funding requested for each office.
Answer. The following table provides a detailed breakdown of the
Headquarters Directorates for fiscal year 2001. All military and
civilian personnel listed are funded by the Operating Expenses (OE)
appropriation.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2001
(projected Military Civilian
funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-M............................................................. 11,184 150 123
G-O............................................................. 47,038 219 116
G-S............................................................. 9,525 103 89
G-W............................................................. 27,773 126 92
G-A............................................................. 800 3 47
HSC and Other HQ Offices........................................ 127,093 201 205
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 223,413 802 672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of each office:
Marine Safety and Environmental Protection Directorate (G-M)
The Marine Safety and Marine Environmental Protection programs
support four of the five strategic goals of the Coast Guard: safety,
protection of natural resources, mobility and maritime security.
Principle responsibilities include establishing federal policies and
standards for the design, construction, equipment, manning, operations
and maintenance of commercial vessels, and for the qualifications of
their crew; developing standards for handling hazardous materials
onboard vessels & marine facilities; negotiating international maritime
safety and environmental protection standards on behalf of the U.S.;
assuring U.S. vessel compliance with domestic and international
standards and compliance by all vessels and regulated facilities in
U.S. ports and waters, through a combination of education, monitoring,
and enforcement; controlling vessel and facility operations to correct
or reduce significant safety, security, or environmental threats;
coordinating national protocols for preparedness planning, training,
and exercising; and directing response activities to mitigate the
effects of maritime casualties and pollution.
Operations Directorate (G-O)
The Operations Directorate develops doctrine and policy; provides
guidance; allocates resources; and coordinates with other countries,
government agencies, and industry to employ Coast Guard forces and
accomplish Coast Guard operational maritime missions. G-O is the
program manager for Coast Guard aircraft, cutters, and boats. The
Assistant Commandant for Operations (G-O) is responsible for ensuring
that operations resources effectively support the five Coast Guard
Strategic Goals of Safety, Protection of Natural Resources, Mobility,
Maritime Security and National Defense. Support is provided through
seven Operations Policy (G-OP) offices, which provide doctrine, policy
and resource requirements for Operational Programs such as the airborne
use of force initiative. In addition, support is also provided through
six Operations Capability (G-OC) offices, providing facility
management, capability and resource acquisition support. The Coast
Guard Investigative Service is also part of G-O.
Human Resources Directorate (G-W)
The Human Resources Directorate executes programs to meet the
personnel requirements of the Coast Guard. This includes the execution
of programs that ensure quality employee development and integrate
human resource support functions at minimal cost. Examples include
workforce management support for the active duty, reserve, and civilian
workforces, training and education, health and safety, inter-service
agreements with Department of Defense (DoD) for common personnel and
security, diversity enhancement, and Information Resource Management
(IRM) support for Human Resource management information systems. The G-
W Directorate meets the needs of Coast Guard people by providing
centrally managed quality of life support services, such as employee
assistance, transition assistance, family support, and housing support
programs.
Systems Directorate (G-S)
The Systems Directorate executes policy and programmatic management
of engineering, logistics, information and technology, and command,
control, communications, and computer functions and systems in support
of Coast Guard operations. The Engineering Division handles the
aeronautical, civil, naval, and ocean engineering programs along with
environmental compliance and restoration. The Logistics Division deals
with logistics policy and design, implementation, and oversight of
logistics systems. The Information and Technology Division encompasses
information systems architecture and planning, information management,
and research and development. The Command, Control, Communications, and
Computers Division manages the electronics engineering program and
communications and computer systems. The Systems Resource Management
Division oversees overall planning and fiscal efforts for the
Directorate. G-S also manages the Federal Telephone System (FTS),
Postal, and GSA rent central funds.
Acquisition Directorate (G-A)
The Acquisition Directorate is a specialized element of
Headquarters focused on acquiring major and non-major assets and
systems. G-A manages the timely acquisition of capable, supportable,
and affordable systems, products and services needed by sponsors to
accomplish Coast Guard missions. The directorate is composed of
resource management, technical, and contract support staff, and a
variety of acquisition projects. Recent acquisition projects include
the 175, and 225, buoy tenders, the icebreaker CGC HEALY, and the
Traffic and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) for use aboard Coast
Guard aircraft. Deepwater Concept Exploration, National Distress and
Response System Modernization Project, and Great Lakes Icebreaking
Capability Replacement are examples of current projects in G-A.
Headquarters Support Command (HSC) and other Headquarters Offices
Funding for the Headquarters Support Command provides consolidated
support for Coast Guard Headquarters including: administrative,
logistics, transportation, facilities, information services, and health
services. Also funded in this category are the Assistant Commandant for
Civil Rights, Legal, Chief of Staff, and the Office of the Commandant.
COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS MANAGED UNITS
Question. Please breakdown the request for Headquarters Managed
Units, including a description of each office, number of civilian and
military personnel assigned to each office, and amount of funding
requested for each office.
Answer. The following table provides a detailed breakdown of the
Headquarters-managed units for fiscal year 2001. All military and
civilian personnel listed are funded by the operating expenses
appropriation.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2001
(projected Military Civilian
funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Logistics Center..... 6,764 172 318
Finance Center.................... 7,247 45 247
Human Resources Service & 1,362 144 103
Information Center...............
Coast Guard Yard.................. 2,901 68 6
National Strike Force............. 3,758 29 9
National Pollution Funds Center... 1,357 19 33
Command & Control Engineering 6,424 90 17
Center...........................
Air Station Washington............ 856 15 .........
Operations System Center.......... 9,905 24 22
Telecommunications & Information 4,853 158 31
Systems Command..................
Navigation Center................. 1,633 94 10
Intelligence Coordination Center.. 568 25 8
Electronics Engineering Center-- 561 28 6
LORAN Support Unit...............
Container Inspection Training & 291 9 .........
Assist Team......................
Institute......................... 750 19 8
Research & Development Center..... 1,287 1 2
Coast Guard Personnel Command..... 2,221 393 135
National Maritime Center.......... 2,604 7 29
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 55,342 1,340 984
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of each unit:
Engineering Logistics Center (ELC)
The ELC, located in Baltimore, MD, is the focal point for
management of vessel and electronics logistics: managing platform and
equipment configuration; developing maintenance policy; setting vessel
parts allowance standards; providing design and engineering support;
managing and distributing approximately $190M of Coast Guard unique
inventory that cannot be effectively sourced directly from commercial
vendors and is not managed by Department of Defense logistics systems;
and developing, managing and providing technical information and
logistics information systems support. Funds within this account also
pay salaries for the included federal wage grade personnel employed by
the ELC.
Finance Center (FINCEN)
The FINCEN, located in Chesapeake, VA, is responsible for the
payment of all government and commercial bills and maintaining all
accounting records and submission of reports for all units within the
Coast Guard except Inventory Control Points (ICPs). In fiscal year
1998, the FINCEN managed more than 4,700,000 accounting transactions
while also coordinating the payments and acting as auditor of the
government-wide credit card program. The FINCEN provides guidance for
selecting and training individuals who have fund certification
authority, unit level guidance for separation of financial duties,
funds certification, account reconciliation, and Coast Guard-wide
management of the Large Unit Financial System (LUFS) functions.
Human Resources Service and Information Center (HRS&IC)
HRS&IC, located in Topeka, KS, gathers, maintains, and manages
personnel information on all active duty, reserve, and retired Coast
Guard military personnel. HRS&IC develops and provides personnel,
financial, and accounting reports and information for Coast Guard
managers and other government agencies. HRS&IC administers the
Personnel Management Information System/Joint Uniform Military Pay
System (PMIS/JUMPS), and provides payment and personnel support
services to active duty, reserve, and retired personnel, as well as
annuitants and the NOAA Officer Corps. HRS&IC processes all Coast Guard
travel claims, administers the evaluation program and the servicewide
examinations for active duty and reserve enlisted personnel; processes
reserve and active duty separations and retirements; administers the
in-service and out-of-service debt collection program, processes
allotments and garnishments, and receives and processes initial reports
of all Coast Guard and NOAA personnel casualties.
Coast Guard Yard
The Coast Guard Yard is the only shipbuilding and vessel repair
facility operated by the Coast Guard. The Yard's industrial operations
include the repair, modification, and construction of vessels; ordnance
overhaul and maintenance; manufacturing of miscellaneous equipment;
maintenance and repair of vessel components; and providing casualty
response support to the fleet. The Yard electronics shop completes
electronic work on cutters during yard periods and performs electronic
equipment overhauls and develops prototypes in support of Coast Guard
mission areas. The Yard has been certified by the Naval Sea Systems
Command (NAVSEA) as a Limited Repair Facility (LRF) for Navy owned
ordnance.
National Strike Force
The National Strike Force is comprised of three regional Strike
Teams (Atlantic Strike Team, Fort Dix, NJ; Gulf Strike Team, Mobile,
AL; and the Pacific Strike Team, Hamilton AFB, CA) and the National
Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC). Each Strike Team is comprised
of highly trained personnel and fully-outfitted with a contingent of
response and recovery equipment. The NSFCC provides a centralized
reporting point for spills of oil or hazardous substances and activates
the rapid deployment of oil pollution response resources. The NSFCC
also coordinates the National Pollution Response Exercise program,
enhancing the preparedness of a network of response capabilities in
bulk-liquid maritime ports throughout the country.
National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC)
NPFC administers laws and regulations relating to oil pollution
liability and compensation, including carrying out the responsibilities
in Title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 that have been delegated to
the Coast Guard. The NPFC also acts in a fiduciary capacity under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) for provisions managed by the Coast Guard. The NPFC manages
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) to provide funds for
response to oil spills in navigable waters of the U.S., adjoining
shorelines, and the exclusive economic zone. The NPFC coordinates with
the Environmental Protection Agency in matters pertaining to Coast
Guard involvement with expenditures and recovery of funds from the
Hazardous Substance Response Fund.
Command and Control Engineering Center (C2CEN)
The C2CEN located in Portsmouth, VA, is the Coast
Guard's Center of Excellence for integrating Command and Control
(C2) engineering and support for all Coast Guard
C2 systems ashore and afloat. Basic missions of the
C2CEN are to provide engineering, systems management and
training support at a centralized facility for the following systems:
--Command Display and Control (COMDAC) system
--Optical Surveillance System (OSS)
--Shipboard Command & Control Systems onboard 210,, 270, & 378,
cutters
--Radar
--Vessel Traffic System (VTS) upgrade
--Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)
--Short Range Aids to Navigation (SRAN)
--Land Based Support Facility for WLB/WLM Replacement
--Navigation Sensors
Air Station Washington
Air Station Washington operates and maintains the Coast Guard's
single Long Range Command and Control aircraft which provides necessary
and required transportation and airborne command and control for the
Commandant of the Coast Guard and certain members of the Commandant's
staff, the Secretary of Transportation and certain members of the
Secretary's staff, and occasional Congressional delegations.
Operations Systems Center (OSC)
OSC, located in Martinsburg, WV, develops, supports, and maintains
major operational information systems and databases. The OSC provides
services that are accessible to the Coast Guard 24-hours per day from
around the world to support operational mission accomplishment and
mission oversight analysis. The Coast Guard's operational databases
include:
--Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue (AMVER) system, which
tracks participating merchant vessels so as to provide a guide
to potential assistance in the vicinity when distress calls are
received.
--Computer Aided Search Planning (CASP), this system leverages the
world class search and rescue expertise of the Coast Guard to
produce fast, accurate, and comprehensive search planning that
incorporates weather, currents, and numerous other critical
factors.
--Law Enforcement Information system (LEIS) II; a client-server data
system with links to internal (Coast Guard) and external law
enforcement (LE) databases. LEIS II provides tactical LE
information to field units on a near real-time basis. It
provides the fundamental system for standardization and
automation of LE data collection and retrieval.
--Joint Maritime Information Element support system (JMIE): a group
of government agencies with common interest in maritime issues.
In order to improve their ability to exchange data and support
their business programs, the JMIE has developed the JMIE
Support System (JSS), a centralized database of maritime
information to which analysts from the JMIE consortium agencies
have access.
--Marine Safety Information System (MSIS); a mission critical system
that supports program management needs, field operations, and
decision support requirements. Data is collected at the port
level through vessel and facility inspections and compliance,
marine violations and casualties, and port activities.
--In fiscal year 1997, three more systems were transferred from the
Transportation Computer Center (TCC) in Washington, DC to the
OSC; Auxiliary Management Information System (AUXMIS), Search
and Rescue Management Information System (SARMIS), and
Automated Requisitioning Management System (ARMS). In
combination, the information systems at OSC serve as the heart
of Coast Guard's search and rescue, law enforcement, and marine
safety missions.
Telecommunication and Information Systems Command (TISCOM)
TISCOM, located in Alexandria, VA, is the Coast Guard's Center of
Excellence for operating, managing and providing technical support for
Coast Guard telecommunication and computer networks. TISCOM manages all
voice and message telecommunications including telephone, radio, and
satellite systems, security, and configuration control.
The Coast Guard telecommunication and computer systems form an
integrated network of voice and message communication capabilities to
ensure reliable continuity of operations around the world.
Navigation Center (NAVCEN)
The NAVCEN is collocated with the Telecommunications Systems
Command (TISCOM) in Alexandria, VA. The NAVCEN is responsible for
gathering, processing, and disseminating timely status and general
information about the Global Positioning System (GPS), maritime
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS), National Differential
Global Positioning System (NDGPS), and Long Range Navigation (LORAN)-C
systems to domestic as well as foreign users of the systems. The NAVCEN
also exercises operational control of the U.S. LORAN-C system, the
maritime DGPS service, and the Nationwide DGPS service.
Intelligence Coordination Center (ICC)
The ICC is the Coast Guard's strategic intelligence center serving
as the focal point for interaction with the intelligence components of
the Department of Defense, other law enforcement agencies, and the
intelligence community. The ICC is co-located with the National
Maritime Intelligence Center (with the Office of Naval Intelligence and
the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity) in Suitland, MD. The ICC serves
as the focal point for Coast Guard collection management as well as
submitting Coast Guard needs to the intelligence community.
LORAN-C Support Unit (LSU)
The Long Range Navigation (LORAN) Support Unit, located in
Wildwood, NJ, provides Coast Guard-wide support for LORAN-C marine
electronic navigation systems. LORAN-C provides electronic navigation
for commercial and privately-owned vessels and aircraft. In addition to
providing all maintenance and technical assistance for LORAN, the LSU
conducts a variety of projects for the Coast Guard and Federal Aviation
Administration to improve existing systems.
Container Inspection Training and Assist Team (CITAT)
The CITAT, located in Oklahoma City, OK, provides hazardous
materials identification and handling training to Coast Guard personnel
assigned duties as marine safety inspectors. The team also assists
field personnel in the performance of their duties to ensure the
highest level of proficiency by Coast Guard marine safety inspectors
who daily ensure the safety of American ports and waterways.
Coast Guard Institute
The Coast Guard Institute, located in Oklahoma City, OK, manages a
variety of training and testing materials for Coast Guard personnel for
purposes of advancement and nonresident training. The Institute manages
the distribution, administration, and scoring of courses and
examinations; as well as publishing advancement lists on the basis of
scored examinations.
Research and Development Center (R&D Center)
The R&D Center, located in Groton, CT, conducts applied research to
develop operational techniques, concepts, systems, equipment and
materials in support of the operational missions and regulatory
programs of the Coast Guard. The R&D Center assists Coast Guard
operating programs to identify emerging technology that can be
integrated into existing or new operational systems that will result in
future Operating Expenses (OE) savings. The R&D Center operates a
remote Fire and Safety Test Detachment in Mobile, AL which is the only
facility in the world that uses real vessel platforms for full-scale
fire testing. The R&D Center is the Administrative Target Unit (ATU)
for two tenant commands, the Marine Safety Lab, and the International
Ice Patrol.
Coast Guard Personnel Command (CGPC)
The CGPC, located in Washington, DC, manages the entire Coast Guard
military and civilian workforce. The CGPC oversees all Coast Guard
accessions, assignments, advancements and promotions, and separations.
The CGPC also conducts Physical Disability Evaluation Boards. The CGPC
consists of an administrative staff, an officer personnel management
division, an enlisted personnel management division, a reserve
personnel management division, a civilian personnel management
division, a recruiting center, and a records and correspondence
section.
National Maritime Center (NMC)
The NMC, located in Arlington, VA, is an independent USCG
Headquarters command that actively pursues new and innovative ways to
assist the maritime community in gaining and using the services of the
Coast Guard. NMC's primary function is to initiate and execute various
marine safety programs at a national and international level. The NMC
executes policy, regulations and standards developed by Headquarters,
and it acts as the ``voice of the program'' to external customers. The
NMC maintains an active public and industry awareness outreach program
aimed at communicating Coast Guard regulatory activities and policy
guidelines. NMC programs consist of several divisions located in
Arlington, VA, and four field units located throughout the nation. The
four field units are the Marine Safety Center, the National Vessel
Documentation Center, the Marine Personnel Administration Division, and
the Marine Safety Laboratory.
AVIATION MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question. What is the aviation maintenance backlog?
Answer. At the end of fiscal year 1999, the non-recurring Coast
Guard aviation maintenance backlog was $18.7 million.
ELECTRONICS MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question. What is the electronic maintenance backlog?
Answer. The electronics maintenance backlog includes preventative
maintenance that is not completed due to casualty response and obsolete
equipment that is in need of replacement. Preventative maintenance for
fiscal year 2000 is running at an 80 percent completion rate.
The fiscal year 2000 backlog to replace obsolete electronics
equipment is $24.7 million.
VESSEL MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question. What is the vessel maintenance backlog?
Answer. The maintenance backlog for vessels consists primarily of
depot level maintenance that is deferred. The maintenance backlog for
fiscal year 2000 is $12 milliion.
OCEAN ENGINEERING & SHORE FACILITY MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Question. What is the ocean engineering and shore facility
maintenance backlog?
Answer. The ocean engineering and shore facility maintenance
backlog consists of waterfront and station facility repairs; Aids to
Navigation repairs and replacements; building and housing maintenance
and repairs; dredging; structural inspections; utility system repairs;
code compliance projects; energy savings projects; safety and health
projects; etc. The backlog for ocean engineering and shore facility
maintenance this year will be $27.4 million.
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, & IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LIST
Question. Please provide a table which displays all Acquisition,
Construction, & Improvements (AC&I) projects, number of units required
(if appropriate), total prior year spending, fiscal year 2001 request,
and outyear funding projections.
Answer. A listing of the all Acquisition, Construction, &
Improvements (AC&I) projects is attached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR
2001 REQUEST
ITEM TOTAL UNITS REQUIRED PRIOR YEAR SPENDING (DOLLARS IN OUTYEAR
THOUSANDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VESSELS:
SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB) 16 hulls................ 11 hulls; $432.4M...... $123,730 $5,000
REPLACEMENT.
POLAR ICEBREAKER USCGC HEALY.. ........................ $36.5M CG funding plus 1,000 .........
Navy SCN funding.
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR 106 units............... $43.1M................. 1,150 .........
REPLACEMENT.
87 PATROL BOAT (WPB) 47 hulls................ $213.6M................ 7,000 .........
REPLACEMENT.
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER (GLIB) Single-hull replacement $20.3M................. 111,000 .........
REPLACEMENT. for CGC MACKINAW.
OTH CUTTER BOATS & SHIP MODS.. Install OTH boats on 5 ....................... 1,500 7,750
WMEC/WHECs.
POLAR CLASS RELIABILITY ........................ $33.1M................. 4,500 5,000
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (RIP).
ALEX HALEY CONVERSION......... ........................ $20.0M................. 3,200 5,000
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT ........................ $34.6M................. 3,600 .........
SYSTEM.
PATROL CRAFT (WPC) CONVERSION TBD..................... ....................... 1,000 .........
PROJECT.
DEEPWATER......................... TBD..................... $73.9M................. 42,300 350,000
AIRCRAFT:
H65 MISSION COMPUTER UNIT..... Replace MCU in 93 helos. $13M for 68 helos...... 3,650 4,700
H65 ENGINE LIFE-CYCLE COST Upgrades for 93 helos... $13M for engineering 1,000 9,900
REDUCTION. and some components.
AVIATION SIMULATOR Upgrade H65 and H25 ....................... 3,000 5,000
MODERNIZATION. simulators.
CGC HEALY AVIATION SUPPORT.... Provide 3 helos......... 0 units................ 36,000 .........
OTHER EQUIPMENT:
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM........ ........................ $36.8M................. 5,500 .........
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY ........................ $18.3M................. 8,100 17,600
SYSTEM (PAWSS).
MARINE INFO FOR SAFETY & LAW ........................ $45.1M................. 8,500 7,500
ENFORCEMENT (MISLE).
AVIATION LOSTICS MANAGEMENT ........................ $11.2M................. 1,100 .........
INFORMATION SYSTEM.
NATIONAL DISTRESS & RESPONSE ........................ $25.3M................. 22,000 .........
MODERNIZATION.
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM........ ........................ $6.0M.................. 2,471 7,500
PMIS/JUMPS II................. ........................ $15.0M................. 2,000 .........
COMMERCIAL SATCOM UPGRADE..... ........................ $8.1M.................. 5,459 .........
GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS & ........................ $5.1M.................. 3,083 4,900
SAFETY SYSTEM.
SAR CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT.. ........................ ....................... 1,500 1,400
LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS...... ........................ $1.25M................. 600 .........
SHORE:
REBUILD STATION PORT HURON, MI ........................ ....................... 1,300 3,000
RENOVAT AIRSTA KODIAK HANGAR.. ........................ $13.7M................. 8,200 10,800
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ........................ ....................... 8,000 6,300
ALAMEDA.
WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS ISC ........................ $1.0M.................. 2,400 .........
PORTSMOUTH.
MODERNIZE FACILITIES CAPE MAY. ........................ $2.2M.................. 5,800 .........
MODERNIZE AIRSTA PORT ANGELES ........................ ....................... 3,800 .........
HANGAR.
MINOR AC&I SHORE CONSTRUCTION ........................ ....................... 8,000 .........
PROJECTS.
HOUSING PROJECTS.............. ........................ ....................... 12,400 .........
WATERWAYS ATON INFRASTRUCTURE. ........................ ....................... 4,706 .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACQUISITION PROCESS
Question. Before one of the military services of the Department of
Defense begins the process of acquiring new equipment, it first must
establish a formal requirement for replacement equipment. That stated
requirement exists until that service declares through a similar formal
process, that the requirement is no longer valid. Would the Coast Guard
support the establishment of a similar process?
Answer. The Coast Guard follows this approach. As is required for
all Federal agencies, the Coast Guard has a capital management process
to establish clear linkages between strategic and performance goals,
strategies, activities undertaken to achieve goals, and the assets
employed in carrying out those activities. Capital planning and
portfolio management are the primary mechanisms by which the Coast
Guard equips itself to implement the Coast Guard's mission, vision, and
strategic goals. The capital planning process, through mission
analysis, establishes mission requirements that are the basis for
initiating acquisitions of new or replacement systems. Once an
acquisition is begun, mission requirements are revalidated at key
decision points throughout the process. If the requirement is found to
be no longer valid, business and capital plans are updated and the
acquisition is evaluated for modification or termination.
CUTTER AND BOAT DESIGN
Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity the
proposed allocation of the $500,000 requested for cutter and boat
design and compare to the fiscal year 2000 spending plan.
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 spending plan will follow a similar
theme to the fiscal year 2000 plan. It will concentrate on the
identification of design parameters and standards that have application
to existing and near term Coast Guard acquisitions. It will be used to
bridge the gap between existing research and hard design criteria. The
effort will have application across a broad spectrum of acquisition,
construction and improvement (AC&I) projects. This up-front work is
critical to the success/timely execution of projects in that Coast
Guard requirements can be better related to contractors through
acquisition specifications.
The spending plan includes dynamic stability criteria development,
surveys of new cutter technologies and investigations of new hull
forms. Efforts to develop improved dynamic stability criteria will
enable the Coast Guard to accurately describe and evaluate needed sea-
keeping performance in the Deepwater acquisition. The growing mission
need for deploying larger and faster boats at sea requires the
development of design criteria and the limiting sea conditions for the
recovery of these boats using technologies such as stern launch and new
davit systems. Efforts in these areas have direct application to
Deepwater as well as Over the Horizon (OTH) cutter boat davits for
legacy assets. Work with azimuth propulsion hydrodynamic performance
will prepare the Coast Guard for evaluating the Great Lakes Icebreaker
(GLIB) acquisition and may have implications for Deepwater. The model
testing of various boat and river tender hull forms will enable the
Coast Guard to develop design requirements for vessels operating in
environments that do not have similar commercial counterparts in order
to plan for the future replacement of utility boats and coastal aids to
navigation assets.
SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB) AVERAGE PRICE PER HULL
Question. The sailaway cost of hulls 10 and 11 of the Seagoing Buoy
Tender (WLB) replacement was $69.317 million. The sailaway cost of the
three Seagoing Buoy Tenders requested for fiscal year 2001 is $117.095
million. Is the average price of these ships increasing by
approximately $5 million, and if so, why?
Answer. No. The sailaway costs are consistent with project
requirements. Sailaway costs includes contract award for the three
ships requested in fiscal year 2001, unfunded items for ships already
awarded, plus fleet support and standardization costs. Unfunded items
for ships already awarded includes contract change allowance and
Economic Price Adjustment (EPA).
SEAGOING BUOY TENDER (WLB) BASE PRICE AND TOTAL UNIT COSTS
Question. Please provide a table delineating the contract base
price for each Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB), the unfunded liability of
each hull, and the total unit costs.
Answer. Contract base award and follow-on contract cost (economic
price adjustments and contract changes) information is provided below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED FUTURE
ADDITIONAL CONTRACT
CONTRACT COSTS ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
HULL BASE PRICE -------------------------- CONTRACT CONTRACT
AT AWARD FUNDED THRU COST TO COST AT
FISCAL YEAR UNFUNDED DATE COMPLETION
2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
201............................................ $40.7 ........... ........... $48.2 $48.2
202............................................ 26.8 ........... ........... 30.6 30.6
203............................................ 24.9 ........... ........... 28.4 28.4
204............................................ 24.2 ........... ........... 30.3 30.3
205............................................ 23.8 ........... ........... 27.5 27.5
206 \1\........................................ 34.2 $5.0 ........... 36.3 41.3
207............................................ 28.8 5.0 ........... 29.3 34.3
208............................................ 27.9 4.5 $0.5 28.2 33.2
209............................................ 27.9 4.5 0.5 28.2 33.2
210............................................ 27.5 2.0 3.2 27.6 32.8
211............................................ 27.5 2.0 3.2 27.6 32.8
212 \2\........................................ 27.4 ........... 7.3 ........... 34.7
213 \2\........................................ 27.4 ........... 7.3 ........... 34.7
214 \2\........................................ 27.4 ........... 7.3 ........... 34.7
215............................................ 27.4 ........... 9.3 ........... 36.7
216............................................ 27.4 ........... 9.3 ........... 36.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1st of B Class.
\2\ Hulls requested in fiscal year 2001.
Note.--Future average unit cost estimate is $41 milliion for the 16-ship WLB fleet. Future average unit cost
includes the Estimated Contract Cost At Completion, plus the total of non-contract costs, including Government
Furnished Equipment, Fleet Standardization and Support, Logistics/Facilities, Project Administration and Spare
Parts.
THIRD SEAGOING BOUY TENDER (WLB) IN FISCAL YEAR 2001
Question. If the third seagoing buoy tender is not procured in
fiscal year 2001, is there any legal restriction barring the Coast
Guard from negotiating a similar contract option for a third buoy
tender in 2002 or an option for another hull in 2003?
Answer. If fewer than 3 ships were procured in fiscal year 2001, a
non-competitive contract option would be required to procure the 16th
ship, with an expected increase in cost and delay in schedule.
COASTAL PATROL BOAT FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Question. If the Coast Guard is not requesting to procure 87-foot
patrol boats in fiscal year 2001, why is there a request for $7 million
in this procurement line?
Answer. With 47 boats on contract, the last Coastal Patrol Boat
(CPB) will not be delivered until June 2002, followed by a one-year
warranty period. The $7 million is required in fiscal year 2001 for
expenses associated with delivering 23 CPBs in fiscal year 2001 and
fiscal year 2002-nearly half of the CPB fleet. The primary fiscal year
2001 cost drivers for each CPB includes pre-commissioning crew
training, Preliminary Acceptance Trials, Project Resident Office
administration of the warranty program, contract closeout, plus
procurement and installation of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)
during post-delivery. The balance of the $7 million will enable the
Coast Guard to approve pending engineering changes and allow sufficient
funds to retrofit boats already delivered. These changes are required
to reduce maintenance and insert technology that will significantly
reduce life cycle costs over the CPB's 25-year service life.
COASTAL PATROL BOAT COST FOR HULLS 48-50
Question. What is the cost to acquire hulls 48-50?
Answer. The cost to acquire hulls 48-50 is $15 million, or $5
million per hull.
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER DETAIL $110M REQUEST
Question. Please break down in greater detail the $110 million
request for Great Lakes Icebreaker (GLIB).
Answer. The cost estimate of work to be done in fiscal year 2001 is
as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Ship Construction................................................. 98
Detailed Design; Construction; Outfitting/GFE; C4ISR Systems;
Integrated Logistics Support; Warranty; Testing
Studies........................................................... 6
Validation of design; Review of construction submittals; and
Homeporting study
Project Administration............................................ 6
Contract Administration; Project inspection office; ravel; amd
Crew training
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER FUNDS EXECUTION IN FISCAL YEAR 2001
Question. If the GLIB construction contract is not scheduled to be
awarded until fiscal year 2002, how much of the $110 million is
requesting can be executed in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The Coast Guard plans to award the construction contract in
the third quarter of fiscal year 2001. The acquisition strategy is a
competitive procurement using a single-phase award to design and
construct a multi-purpose icebreaker under a fixed price arrangement.
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKER FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING
Question. What is the status of the $10 million provided for
construction of the GLIB in the fiscal year 2000 transportation
appropriations act?
Answer. None of the $10M provided for construction in fiscal year
2000 has been obligated to date. The Coast Guard intends to award a
construction contract in fiscal year 2001 using fiscal year 2000 and
fiscal year 2001 funds, subject to full funding in fiscal year 2001.
PHASE II PROJECT OF USCGC ALEX HALEY
Question. Will the Phase II project of the CGC Alex Haley be
competitively bid?
Answer. Phase II of the USCGC ALEX HALEY project will not be
competitively bid. Exportable teams from the Coast Guard Yard will be
used to accomplish the work. This approach enables the work to be
conducted in homeport without impacting the operational schedule for
the vessel. It will also enable the Coast Guard to take advantage of
the Yard's previous work experience with the vessel.
CONVERSION OF PC-170 TO COAST GUARD PATROL CRAFT
Question. Please explain in greater detail the two phases of the
conversion of the PC-170 to the Coast Guard Patrol Craft (WPC) and the
funding of each phase. Will this work be competitively bid?
Answer. The conversion of PC-170 to a Coast Guard Patrol Craft is
divided into two phases. Phase I of the project includes $1.2 million
to purchase long lead-time material and to fund the initial stages of
overhauling the four main diesel engines.
Phase II of the repair and conversion will include outfitting the
ship with required equipment and spare parts, making hull structural
repairs, completing a dry-docking, upgrading the communications/
electronics suites for interoperability with other Coast Guard
platforms, and adding a stern ramp to accommodate small boat
operations. Phase II funding requirements have not yet been determined.
The Coast Guard intends to complete a majority of this work at the
Coast Guard Yard.
DEEPWATER DOT-IG CONCERNS
Question. It is my understanding that the planning phase for the
Deepwater project will not be completed before the Coast Guard submits
its fiscal year 2002 budget request or congressional action on that
request. The Department's Inspector General has stated that
``requesting budget authority without critical cost and schedule
information carries substantial risk and is inconsistent with
acquisition program best practices.'' What steps is the Coast Guard
taking to address this concern?
Answer. The Coast Guard has a sound strategy in place to justify
the planned project budget request. Conceptual designs were completed
in December 1999 by all three industry teams. The teams are now engaged
in the functional design phase, during which they will continue to
refine their designs. Functional Design deliverables include concept of
operations, total ownership and life-cycle costs estimates,
affordability analysis, and implementation plans. Because they are
scheduled for submittal throughout the design process, the information
will be available for use in justifying the fiscal year 2002 budget
request. Adequate cost and schedule information is available to prepare
and justify a fiscal year 2002 budget request. As noted by the
Department of Transportation Inspector General, the Deepwater planning
process is sound.
DEEPWATER $21 MILLION REQUEST
Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown, which includes
project description and level of funding, of $21 million requested for
the various assessments and analyses listed on page DEPWT-1 of the
budget justification.
Answer. During Functional Design, the Deepwater Project relies on
both private sector and government agencies to provide technical
support that is not readily available from within the Coast Guard. The
support and information obtained will be used in the Coast Guard's
assessment of deliverables from each of the three competing industry
teams and in preparing for Phase II of the Project. The $21 million
requested will be used for the following specific efforts:
--Trade-off Analyses, Technology Assessments, Technology
Demonstrations (approx. $8,5 million).--Analyses and studies to
assess industry optimization of various physical components of
their Integrated Deepwater System (IDS) proposals. Studies of
new technologies proposed by industry in their Deepwater
systems, including capabilities, limitations, applications and
best practices. Demonstrations of new technologies and analysis
of technical and other issues relating to the integration of
new technology into the proposed Deepwater systems and the
Coast Guard.
--Modeling and Simulation (approx. $2 million).--Continued refinement
and execution of the Maritime Operations Simulation model to
provide continuous assessment of Functional Design deliverables
and provide feedback to the industry teams. Modeling and
simulation complement and support the project's technical
assessment process as a means to further mitigate risk.
--Systems Supportability Analysis, Total Ownership Cost Baseline
Analysis (approx. $5 million).--Includes analysis of industry's
proposals for logistics support of their IDS, including
environmental impact, and facility and systems integration
assessments. In accordance with the Project plan and in
response to the GAO, the Deepwater Project is developing a
total ownership cost baseline of existing Deepwater legacy
assets. This information will provide the Coast Guard with a
cost baseline for comparison of industry's future Integrated
Deepwater System total ownership estimates.
--Matrix Project Team (MPT) Studies (approx. $3 million).--The MPTs
continually assess the industry teams in each of four principal
technical areas (surface, air, logistics, and command and
control).
--Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) and Test and
Evaluation (T&E) (approx. $2 million).--IV&V of the operational
effectiveness model is used to validate the model's stated
purpose and verify the underlying assumptions of the model,
which is to quantify the ability of a proposed IDS to meet
stated performance requirements. T&E plans and processes will
be initiated and protocols for testing established.
--Phase II Request for Proposal Preparation (RFP) and Technical
Evaluation Team (TET) Support (approx. $500,000).--Provides
direct support and analysis support for developing the Phase II
RFPs and establishment of the Phase II TET that will evaluate
the Phase II proposals received from industry.
DEEPWATER INDUSTRY TEAMS TASKS AND FUNDING
Question. How much funding is requested for each industry team and
what specific tasks is each team expected to accomplish during fiscal
year 2001?
Answer. The Coast Guard expects to provide $5.1 million to each
Deepwater industry team in fiscal year 2001, for a total of $15.3
million. These funds will be used for industry's continued refinement
of the functional design of their Integrated Deepwater System concepts.
Functional Design tasks to be completed during fiscal year 2001 include
refinement of: the Integrated Deepwater System and major asset designs;
Configuration Management; Logistics; System Implementation Plans;
Concept of Operations Plan; environmental impacts; Affordability
Analyses; Life Cycle Cost and Total Ownership Cost Estimates.
DISPOSAL OF ASSETS WITH PROCEEDS CREDITED TO DEEPWATER
Question. Has the Coast Guard disposed of any of the assets that
are authorized by the fiscal year 2000 transportation appropriations
act to be credited to the deepwater appropriation? If so, please
explain what was sold and how the funding is being allocated?
Answer. Of the assets authorized by the fiscal year 2000
transportation appropriations act, the Coast Guard disposed of:
--ESMT Portsmouth, NH.--disposed at no cost to the City of Portsmouth
under the park conveyance provisions in the Code of Federal
Regulations,
--ANT Huron, OH.--sold for approximately $110,000. The sale proceeds
have not yet been received, however the USCG expects
approximately $83,600 in net sale proceeds.
DEEPWATER CONTRACT AWARD
Question. When the Coast Guard awards the Deepwater contract, will
the award be solely to one industry team and its proposal or will the
Coast Guard pick and choose the best, most innovative procurement ideas
from each team and compete that item separately?
Answer. The Coast Guard intends to award the Integrated Deepwater
System acquisition contract to just one of the three competing industry
teams. However, to obtain essential contractual flexibility, the Coast
Guard intends to structure the Deepwater acquisition contract as an
indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity type contract. The Coast Guard
will issue separate delivery orders under this contract to perform the
upgrades and acquire the new assets comprising the industry's proposed
Integrated Deepwater System. In addition, the Coast Guard intends to
include specific Value Engineering and/or Technology Refreshment
contract clauses. These clauses will enable the Coast Guard to acquire
new technology that meets or exceeds proposed cost and performance
levels from firms not originally part of the selected Deepwater
industry team. While the so-called ``mix and match'' option has been
preserved, selecting specific assets or components from all three
Deepwater industry teams would shift the risk and responsibility for
systems integration and interoperability from industry to the
government. Similarly, such an approach would invalidate industry's
proposed operational effectiveness and total ownership cost estimates
as these are based upon the assets in their proposed Integrated
Deepwater System concepts. The Coast Guard seeks to acquire an
Integrated Deepwater System and this is best achieved by awarding a
Deepwater acquisition contract to one team.
FADEC FUNDING ALLOCATION
Question. The fiscal year 2000 transportation appropriations act
included $7 million for an HH-65 engine program which could be applied
to the fuel control (FADEC) upgrade or for technology insertion through
a parts replacement program based on the commercial version of the LTS-
101 engine. How is this funding being allocated?
Answer. The majority of these fiscal year 2000 funds are being
allocated for technology insertion through a parts replacement process.
The Coast Guard is replacing engine parts nearing the end of their
service lives with redesigned components that are more reliable,
supportable, and efficient. These improved components will extend the
overhaul interval on the LTS-101 engine, thus reducing maintenance
requirements and overall engine life-cycle costs. Installation of these
improved engine components is also a prerequisite for any future power
improvement effort.
HH-65 ENGINE POWER RESTORATION PROGRAM
Question. Is the Coast Guard considering an HH-65 engine power
restoration program? If this is the case, please describe the program
and explain its operational benefits, costs (including non-recurring
and recurring costs), and schedule.
Answer. The Coast Guard is studying the need for power restoration
for the HH-65 aircraft. Due to required aircraft modifications, as well
as the congressionally mandated Rescue Swimmer program, an additional
1,625 pounds has been added to the operational weight of the HH-65.
There has been no comparable improvement to the engine performance
capability to offset the additional weight. The Coast Guard is not
currently pursuing an HH-65 power enhancement program due to more
urgent capitalization priorities. Operational benefits, costs and a
schedule for a HH-65 power restoration program have not been
quantified.
HH-65 ENGINE POWER RESTORATION PROGRAM ACCELERATION
Question. If Congress wanted to accelerate this program by
providing non-recurring funding in fiscal year 2001 to reduce schedule
concurrency and improve sequencing, what amount could be executed and
for what purpose?
Answer. The Coast Guard currently has no program to restore power
for HH-65s. The existing HH-65 LTS-101 Engine Life Cycle Cost Reduction
Project will replace obsolete, maintenance intensive components, some
of which are required to be replaced if the Coast Guard pursues a power
enhancement in the future. Although additional off-the-shelf components
for this project could be purchased, they could not be installed in a
year's time due to operational commitments of the fleet.
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM
Question. Please provide a breakdown of the Coast Guard's specific
procurement plans for the fleet logistics system in fiscal year 2000
and fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The Fleet Logistics System (FLS) project received funding
of $6.17 million in fiscal year 2000 (including reprogrammed funds).
The FLS fiscal year 2001 budget request is $5.5 million. The Coast
Guard's updated procurement plan for these funds is:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------
2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLS Software Development and Implementation....... 4,239 4,440
FLS Web Based Training Development................ 525 515
FLS Maintenance................................... 660 .........
Equipment......................................... 300 100
Project Management................................ 446 445
---------------------
Total....................................... 6,170 5,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY SYSTEM
Question. On what basis were Berwick Bay, Louisiana and Sault Saint
Marie selected to receive the ports and waterways safety systems
(PAWSS)?
Answer. The Coast Guard has requested funds to install the Ports
and Waterways Safety System (PAWSS) in Berwick Bay, Louisiana, and
Sault Saint Marie, Michigan. The Coast Guard evaluated these ports
based on a comprehensive view of navigation risk taken together with
many years of experience in managing the risks inherent in these our
nation's waterways. They have been included in the PAWSS project
because there is a compelling federal interest in keeping these VTSs
fully operational. The equipment they are using is technologically
obsolete and in need of replacement. The Coast Guard recognizes the
need for traffic management at these critical waterways and is moving
to upgrade the equipment to take advantage of the Automatic
Identification System as soon as it becomes available. Converting
existing VTSs to the PAWSS operating system will improve vessel traffic
center operation and data management.
PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY SYSTEM
Question. The justification indicates that the Coast Guard surveyed
three additional ports for installation of PAWSS. On page 786 of the
House hearings report for fiscal year 2000, the Coast Guard listed
several ports under consideration, but PAWSS is not being implemented
at any of these ports. Why is this?
Answer. The areas listed in the House Hearings Report for fiscal
year 2000 were some of the ports in which the Coast Guard planned to
conduct formal risk assessments in 1999 and 2000. Subsequent
installation of a vessel traffic service (VTS) in any port under the
Ports and Waterways Safety System (PAWSS) project would only be done
had that assessment indicated a VTS was needed to mitigate an
unacceptable level of risk.
So far, the risk assessments the Coast Guard has completed in
conjunction with local maritime and stakeholder communities have not
revealed any additional ports (beyond those where a VTS already exists)
where a VTS is necessary or appropriate to mitigate identified risks.
Effective risk management remains a constant requirement for the Coast
Guard as port risk profiles change over time. The Coast Guard will
continue to perform periodic formal and informal risk assessments in
our nation's critical ports and waterways.
marine information and safety and law enforcement cost/schedule changes
Question. Please explain the nature and extent of cost overruns and
schedule delays associated with development of the Marine Information
and Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) program.
Answer. Prior to October 1999, MISLE development was being
accomplished under a contract to Computer Science Corporation (CSC).
Due to the nature of the contract, a decision was made to move MISLE
development to Operations Systems Center (OSC) at Kearneysville, WV.
The project scope remains the same. The OSC development effort is able
to utilize the system requirements work completed by CSC, allowing the
project to be completed on schedule. The new plan has less risk because
the development will be accomplished in incremental, usable pieces as
recommended by industry, OMB, and Congressional guidance. Under the new
plan, Phase I, in which Marine Safety Network (MSN) functionality
replaces Marine Safety Information System (MSIS), will be completed in
the third quarter of fiscal year 2001. Phase 2, which begins Law
Enforcement Information System (LEIS) II integration and additional
functionality, will be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year
2002; and Phase 3, which completes LEIS II and provides new
capabilities, will be completed in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2003. The project will be completed within the schedule and cost
baselines, given the requested budget amount.
NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION CONTRACT
Question. How much funding is requested for each industry team
competing for the National Distress and Response System Modernization
contract, and what specific tasks is each team expected to accomplish
during fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) for the
National Distress and Response System Modernization Project (NDRSMP)
Design Demonstration and Validation (Phase I) scope of work is $8.5
million. The contract will be structured with a base period (fiscal
year 2000 funding) and an option period (fiscal year 2001 funding). The
Coast Guard requested sufficient funds in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to
fund up to three (3) contracts for the NDRSMP Design Demonstration and
Validation. The entire period of performance for the Phase I contract
is 15 months.
As described in the Phase I Request for Proposal (RFP), each
contractor is required to:
--conduct surveys of five (5) Coast Guard Groups and the associated
units;
--develop a Functional Design to include the Functional Baseline
consisting of the System Specification, System Development
Specification and Interface Control Document;
--develop a Preliminary Design to include the Allocated Baseline
detailing each Configuration Item;
--propose a Product Baseline (production equipment list) developed
from the Allocated Baseline (functional list);
--conduct a Critical Functions demonstration to show compliance with
the functional requirements of the performance specification;
--perform a cost/performance trade-off analysis on each system
parameter identified in the RFP;
--develop an initial Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) based on the
Functional Design, and an updated LCCE based on the Preliminary
Design; and
--propose a project management plan for the Development, Production
and Deployment (NDRSMP Phase II) for their proposed Product
Baseline.
national distress and response system modernization project
Question. There still appears to be a significant amount of
concurrency in the program schedule for the NDRS modernization. Why is
this degree of concurrency necessary; how does it raise the technical,
costs and schedule risks of the program; and what specific management
controls has the agency implemented to mitigate these risks?
Answer. In November 1999, the Coast Guard Acquisition Review
Council (CGARC) approved a revision of the National Distress and
Response System Modernization Project (NDRSMP) Acquisition Plan to
incorporate a phased acquisition strategy that is generally sequential
and mitigates or improves control of project risk. The phased
acquisition strategy divides the project into a Design Demonstration
and Validation Phase (Phase I) and a Development, Production, and
Deployment Phase (Phase II).
During Phase I, a preliminary design will be developed for the
NDRSMP. The preliminary design will be demonstrated and validated to
show compliance with the functional requirements of the performance
specification. The majority of the Phase I activities are sequential
and build upon the prior activity. The Phase I activities were
developed to help control or reduce the technical risk.
During Phase II, the production design will be finalized and a
regional system built, installed, and tested to achieve Initial
Operating Capability (IOC). After IOC, additional systems will be built
and fielded to achieve Full Operating Capability (FOC). Several of
these activities are sequential, but there are instances when tasks can
be performed concurrently without significantly increasing the
technical, schedule or cost risk. A large degree of concurrency will
still be necessary in Phase II to accomplish the project's milestones
and schedule. Concurrent installation of the system at various Coast
Guard Groups and units is necessary to achieve timely FOC.
national distress and response system modernization project future cost
Question. Please break down the estimated future cost of $220
million for the NDRS modernization program.
Answer. The estimated future cost for the National Distress and
Response System Modernization Project (NDRSMP) provides funding of the
NDRSMP Development, Production and Deployment (Phase II). The Coast
Guard will be able to better estimate the future costs using the Life
Cycle Cost Estimates (LCCE) developed during the Design Demonstration
and Validation (Phase I).
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquisition
Estimated project
Element funding baseline
request (APB) range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Design Development................... 30 25-35
Production and Deployment....................... 190 181-223
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Design Development consists of developing the detailed
design and installing the regional system for Initial Operating
Capability (IOC), developmental testing and evaluation during this
period, and operational testing and evaluation for acceptance of the
IOC system.
Production and Deployment consists of pre-installation site
surveys, site preparation work, system production in quantity, and the
installation of the system equipment at various Coast Guard Groups and
units.
SELF-LOCATING DATUM MARKER BUOYS
Question. How many Self-locating Datum Marker Buoys are the Coast
Guard planning to procure as part of the search and rescue capabilities
enhancement project? How many are planned for purchase in fiscal year
2002? What is the deployment schedule?
Answer. The Coast Guard is planning on procuring 300 Self-Locating
Datum Marker Buoys (SLDMB) in fiscal year 2001 as part of the search
and rescue (SAR) capabilities enhancement project. In fiscal year 2002
the Coast Guard will begin annual purchases of 300 to 350 buoys. SLDMBs
are expendable, not intended to be recovered following use.
The SLDMBs will be initially distributed to Coast Guard air
stations (approximately ten per air station) and restocked as they are
used. The distribution to air stations will take place over several
months as the SLDMBs become available from the manufacturer.
Actual operational employment of the first SLDMBs in search and
rescue missions is expected in late March, 2001.
SURVEY & DESIGN SHORE FACILITY FUNDING BREAKDOWN
Question. With respect to the request of $7 million for survey and
design-shore facilities, please breakdown how the agency would allocate
funding by facility for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Answer. Amounts allocated to individual facilities follow. Many
2000 and 2001 figures are planning estimates and may change as project
schedules and design costs are solidified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Facility -----------------------------------------------
1999 actual 2000 planned 2001 planned
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academy, New London, CT......................................... $250,000 $150,000 $50,000
Air Station Astoria, OR......................................... .............. .............. 100,000
Air Station Barbers Point, HI................................... .............. 105,000 125,000
Air Station Elizabeth City, NC.................................. .............. 560,000 500,000
Air Station Miami, FL........................................... 205,000 210,000 ..............
Air Station North Bend, OR...................................... .............. .............. 100,000
Base Galveston, TX.............................................. .............. 150,000 150,000
Base San Juan, PR............................................... 845,000 475,000 150,000
Studies, designs & construction mgmt related to Streamlining.... 55,000 .............. ..............
Group Fort Macon, NC............................................ 215,000 .............. ..............
Group Key West, FL.............................................. 40,000 50,000 75,000
Group Long Island Sound, CT..................................... .............. 250,000 200,000
Group Port Angeles, WA.......................................... .............. 260,000 200,000
Group Woods Hole, MA............................................ .............. 45,000 ..............
Housing Market Surveys.......................................... .............. 80,000 ..............
ISC Alameda, CA................................................. 100,000 240,000 400,000
ISC Boston, MA.................................................. 260,000 .............. 100,000
ISC Honolulu, HI................................................ .............. 100,000 350,000
ISC Ketchikan, AK............................................... .............. .............. 100,000
ISC Kodiak, AK.................................................. 480,000 700,000 550,000
ISC Portsmouth, VA.............................................. 80,000 40,000 100,000
ISC Seattle, WA................................................. .............. 85,000 250,000
Minor AC&I Designs--Various Facilities.......................... 230,000 497,000 500,000
Misc expenditures $20,000 or less--Various Facilities........... 320,000 175,000 200,000
MSO Mobile, AL.................................................. .............. 200,000 100,000
MSO San Juan, PR................................................ .............. 300,000 70,000
MSO San Pedro, CA............................................... 250,000 96,000 ..............
MSO Valdez, AK.................................................. .............. 55,000 150,000
Program travel/admin/support.................................... 675,000 800,000 800,000
SEC Marianas, Guam.............................................. .............. .............. 100,000
Station Alexandria, VA.......................................... .............. .............. 100,000
Station Ashtabula, OH........................................... 30,000 .............. ..............
Station Bellingham, WA.......................................... 25,000 .............. ..............
Station Brunswick, GA........................................... .............. 55,000 400,000
Station Channel Island, CA...................................... .............. 44,000 ..............
Station Neah Bay, WA............................................ 350,000 .............. ..............
Station New Orleans, LA......................................... 60,000 270,000 ..............
Station Oswego, NY.............................................. 65,000 .............. ..............
Station Port Huron, MI.......................................... 185,000 130,000 250,000
Station Shinnecock, NY.......................................... 125,000 105,000 160,000
Station St. Petersburg, FL...................................... .............. 50,000 70,000
Training Center Cape May, NJ.................................... 155,000 300,000 300,000
USCG Yard, Baltimore, MD........................................ .............. .............. 300,000
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 5,000,000 6,577,000 7,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC&I PERSONNEL FUNDING INCREASE
Question. The agency is requesting a $3.97 million increase for
direct personnel costs. Why is such a large increase necessary?
Answer. The $54.151 million fiscal year 2001 request for direct
personnel costs is a $3.97 million increase over the fiscal year 2000
appropriation level. The increase is required to account for additional
personnel costs and entitlements such as civilian and military pay
increases, Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) adjustments and increased
medical costs. The slight increase also allows for an additional 9.5
Full Time Equivalents (FTE) over the actual fiscal year 2000 level. The
increase is required in order to provide for the increased personnel
requirements associated with the National Distress & Response System
Modernization, Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement, and Deepwater
projects during fiscal year 2001. These increases are taking place at
the same time that other large AC&I projects such as Coastal Patrol
Boats, Seagoing Buoy Tender Replacement, and Motor Lifeboat Replacement
are in full-scale production.
C&I PERSONNEL INCREASE
Question. How many new personnel are requested?
Answer. The requested funding level will provide for an increase of
9.5 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) over the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000
actual FTE level.
AC&I PERSONNEL LISTING
Question. Please provide a table listing all personnel funded with
AC&I appropriations, similar to the information the Coast Guard
provided on pages 806 and 807 of last year's House hearing record.
Answer. Information is attached.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 ACI PERSONNEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT LOCATION CO CWO ENL CIV TOTAL EXPLANATION OF CHANGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIREYE PROJECT.................... HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... ... .....
AVIATION LOGISTICS MGMT INFO SYS.. AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY 1 1 ... ... 2
CENTER.
===========================
AVIATION NEAR TERM SUPPORT HEADQUARTERS.............. 2 ... ... ... 2 First established in
STRATEGY. fiscal year 1999 as
LRSCP reprogrammed
to ANTSS billets.
===========================
BUOY BOAT (BUSL).................. ENGINEERING LOGISTICS ... ... 3 ... 3
COMMAND.
BUOY BOAT (BUSL).................. HEADQUARTERS.............. 1 2 ... 1 4
---------------------------
BUOY BOAT (BUSL) TOTAL...... .......................... 1 2 3 1 7 Last hull scheduled
for FISCAL YEAR 2001
delivery.
COASTAL PATROL BOAT............... PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE 5 2 8 1 16
BOLLINGER.
COASTAL PATROL BOAT............... ENGINEERING LOGISTICS ... 1 1 ... 2
COMMAND.
COASTAL PATROL BOAT............... HEADQUARTERS.............. 7 ... 3 2 12
COASTAL PATROL BOAT............... R&D CENTER................ ... ... ... ... .....
---------------------------
COASTAL PATROL BOAT TOTAL... .......................... 12 3 12 3 30 Decreased
requirement. Last
hull scheduled for
FISCAL YEAR 2003
delivery.
===========================
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000............ MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS 1 1 ... ... 2
COMMAND (LANT).
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000............ MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS 1 1 ... ... 2
COMMAND (PAC).
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000............ TISCOM.................... 1 1 ... ... 2
---------------------------
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000 TOTAL .......................... 3 3 ... ... 6 3 billets terminated
on schedule.
===========================
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT.......... HEADQUARTERS.............. 1 1 ... ... 2
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE............ HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... ... .....
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE............ OPERATIONS SYSTEMS CENTER. ... ... ... ... .....
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................ AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY 3 ... 1 1 5 S&D billet est at
CENTER. ARSC.
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................ C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER... 8 3 1 6 18
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................ ENGINEERING LOGISTICS 3 1 16 31 51
COMMAND.
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................ FINANCE CENTER............ ... ... ... 6 6
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................ HEADQUARTERS.............. 28 2 3 65 98
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................ PERSONNEL COMMAND......... 1 ... ... 1 2
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................ R&D CENTER................ 1 ... ... 2 3
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................ TISCOM.................... 4 ... 2 ... 6
CORE PROGRAM STAFF................ YORKTOWN.................. ... ... ... 4 4
---------------------------
CORE PROGRAM STAFF TOTAL.... .......................... 48 6 23 116 193 Workload
redistribution.
===========================
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM............ HEADQUARTERS.............. 1 ... ... ... 1
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM............ TISCOM.................... 4 6 1 1 12
---------------------------
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM TOTAL .......................... 5 6 1 1 13
===========================
DEEPWATER PROJECT................. HEADQUARTERS.............. 44 3 4 20 71
DEEPWATER PROJECT................. ELC....................... 1 ... ... 2 3
DEEPWATER PROJECT................. DETACHED--MSI............. 1 ... ... ... 1
---------------------------
DEEPWATER PROJECT TOTAL..... .......................... 46 3 4 22 75 Increased project
requirements.
===========================
DIFFERENTIAL GPS.................. HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... ... .....
EDENTON........................... HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... ... .....
EDENTON........................... ENGINEERING LOGISTICS ... ... ... ... .....
COMMAND.
---------------------------
EDENTON--TOTAL.............. .......................... ... ... ... ... ..... Project phase
completed.
===========================
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT.... HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... 1 1
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT.... C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER... ... 1 ... ... 1
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT.... TISCOM.................... ... 1 ... ... 1
---------------------------
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP .......................... ... 2 ... 1 3
PROJECT TOTAL.
===========================
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM............ HEADQUARTERS.............. 8 ... 1 7 16
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM............ DETACHED--GREENBELT....... 3 ... ... ... 3
---------------------------
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM TOTAL .......................... 11 ... 1 7 19 Scheduled termination
of billet.
===========================
GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS & SAFETY TISCOM.................... ... ... ... 1 1
SYS.
===========================
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM INSTAL.. AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY ... ... ... ... .....
CENTER.
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM INSTAL.. HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... ... .....
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING CAP HEADQUARTERS.............. 6 ... ... 5 11
REPLACE.
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING CAP ENGINEERING LOGISTICS ... ... ... 2 2
REPLACE. COMMAND.
---------------------------
GREAT LAKES ICE CAP REPLACE-- .......................... 6 ... ... 7 13 Increased project
TOTAL. requirements.
===========================
HC-130 ENGINE CONVERSION.......... AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY ... 1 ... 1 2 Terminate billet in
CENTER. FISCAL YEAR 2000.
===========================
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV.... AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY 1 1 4 ... 6
CENTER.
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV.... HEADQUARTERS.............. 1 ... ... ... 1
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV.... .......................... 2 1 4 ... 7 Increased project
requirements.
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION COMPUTER AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY 2 1 ... ... 3
CENTER.
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION COMPUTER HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... ... .....
---------------------------
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION .......................... 2 1 ... ... 3
COMPUTER TOTAL.
===========================
HH-65 LTS 101 LCC REDUC........... .......................... 1 1 1 ... 3 Additional engine
control
requirements.
HH-60J INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT.... HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... ... .....
HH-60J INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT.... AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY ... ... 1 ... 1
CENTER.
---------------------------
HH-60J INDEPENDENT NAV .......................... ... ... 1 ... 1
PROJECT TOTAL.
===========================
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT HEADQUARTERS.............. 1 ... ... ... 1
(RIP).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS 1 1 ... 7 9
(RIP). COMMAND (PAC).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT NAVAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT 2 ... 4 ... 6
(RIP). UNIT SEATTLE.
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT ENGINEERING LOGISTICS 1 ... ... ... 1
(RIP). COMMAND.
---------------------------
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY .......................... 5 1 4 7 17
IMPROVEMENT (RIP) TOTAL.
===========================
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY).... ENGINEERING LOGISTICS ... ... ... ... .....
COMMAND.
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY).... HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... 1 1
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY).... PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE ... ... ... ... .....
AVONDALE.
---------------------------
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT .......................... ... ... ... 1 1
(HEALY) TOTAL.
===========================
LONG RANGE SEARCH................. HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... 1 2 Reduced project
requirement.
===========================
MISLE PROJECT..................... HEADQUARTERS.............. 7 ... ... 6 13
MISLE PROJECT..................... OPS CENTER................ 1 ... ... ... 1
---------------------------
MISLE PROJECT TOTAL......... .......................... 8 ... ... 6 14 Increased project
requirements.
===========================
MOTOR LIFEBOAT.................... ENGINEERING LOGISTICS ... ... 2 ... 2
COMMAND.
MOTOR LIFEBOAT.................... HEADQUARTERS.............. 4 1 ... 4 9
MOTOR LIFEBOAT.................... PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE 2 2 8 ... 12
TEXTRON.
---------------------------
MOTOR LIFEBOAT TOTAL........ .......................... 6 3 10 4 23 Last hull scheduled
for fiscal year 2002
delivery.
===========================
NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GPS C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER... ... ... ... ... ..... .....................
PROJECT.
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM.......... HEADQUARTERS.............. 10 3 ... 9 22
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM.......... MLC (PAC)................. ... 1 ... 1 2
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM.......... MLC (LANT)................ 1 ... 1 ... 2
---------------------------
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM .......................... 11 4 1 10 26 Increased project
TOTAL. requirements.
===========================
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS...... HEADQUARTERS.............. 3 1 0 9 13
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS...... PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE ... ... ... 1 1
NEW ORLEANS.
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS...... District Eight............ ... ... ... 1 1
---------------------------
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS .......................... 3 1 ... 11 15
TOTAL.
===========================
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS....... HEADQUARTERS.............. 1 ... ... ... 1
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS....... AR&SC..................... ... 1 ... ... 1
---------------------------
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS .......................... 2 1 ... ... 3
TOTAL.
===========================
SHORE CORE PROJECT................ CIVIL ENGINEERING UNITS... 7 ... ... ... 7
SHORE CORE PROJECT................ FACILITIES DESIGN & 9 ... 2 50 61
CONSTRUCTION CEN (LANT).
SHORE CORE PROJECT................ FACILITIES DESIGN & 8 ... ... 29 37
CONSTRUCTION CEN (PAC).
SHORE CORE PROJECT................ HEADQUARTERS.............. 1 ... ... 16 17
SHORE CORE PROJECT................ MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS 1 1 2 3 7
COMMAND (LANT).
SHORE CORE PROJECT................ MAINTENANCE & LOGISTICS ... ... 1 5 6
COMMAND (PAC).
---------------------------
SHORE CORE PROJECT TOTAL.... .......................... 26 1 5 103 135
===========================
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL......... C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER... 1 ... 1 ... 2
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL......... HEADQUARTERS.............. 1 ... ... 2 3
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL......... COAST GUARD YARD.......... ... 1 ... ... 1
---------------------------
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL .......................... 2 1 1 2 6 Last system installed
TOTAL. 4th QTR fiscal year
2001.
===========================
TRAFFIC COLLISION & AVOIDANCE..... AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY ... ... ... ... .....
CENTER.
TRAFFIC COLLISION & AVOIDANCE..... HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... ... .....
---------------------------
TRAFFIC COLLISION & .......................... ... ... ... ... ..... Project completed.
AVOIDANCE TOTAL.
===========================
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)... ELECTRONIC SUPPORT DET ... ... 1 ... 1
KETCHIKAN.
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)... INTEGRATED SUPPORT COMMAND ... ... 2 ... 2
KETCHIKAN.
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)... TISCOM.................... ... ... ... ... .....
---------------------------
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D- .......................... ... ... 3 ... 3
17) TOTAL.
===========================
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)........ ENGINEERING LOGISTICS ... 1 1 2 4
COMMAND.
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)........ HEADQUARTERS.............. 12 1 ... 5 18
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)........ PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE ... ... ... ... .....
MARINETTE.
---------------------------
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER) .......................... 12 2 1 7 22 Reduced project
TOTAL. requirement.
===========================
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)........ HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... 1 1
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)........ PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE 15 11 23 ... 49
MARINETTE.
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)........ TRACEN PETALUMA........... 1 ... ... 1 2
---------------------------
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL) .......................... 16 11 23 2 52 Reduced project
TOTAL. requirement.
===========================
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER)......... ENGINEERING LOGISTICS ... 1 2 ... 3
COMMAND.
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER)......... HEADQUARTERS.............. 4 ... ... 2 6
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER)......... PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE ... ... 2 ... 2
MARINETTE.
---------------------------
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER) .......................... 4 1 4 2 11
TOTAL.
===========================
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL) AIRCRAFT REPAIR & SUPPLY ... 1 1 ... 2
Recompete. CENTER.
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL) ENGINEERING LOGISTICS ... ... ... ... .....
Recompete. COMMAND--TEMP.
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL) HEADQUARTERS.............. ... ... ... ... .....
Recompete.
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL) TISCOM.................... 1 2 ... ... 3
Recompete.
---------------------------
WLB RECOMPETE TOTAL......... PROJECT RESIDENT OFFICE 1 3 1 ... 5 Second WLB contract
MARINETTE. award.
===========================
TOTAL....................... .......................... 237 60 103 316 716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to maximize authorized FTP/FTE this plan includes a total of 716 billets/positions, 8 percent above
the fiscal year 2000 request of of 663. This plan reflects the fact that many of the billets are partial year
FTE and assumes that the historical lapse rate associated with additions/deletions will continue and that any
reduction due to unanticipated increase in the fill rate can be realized by postponing fourth quarter adds.
CHANGES TO AC&I PERSONNEL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTES)
Question. By program, project, and activity, please provide a table
indicating the changes from 1999 to 2000 in positions and FTE and the
reasons for such changes, similar to the information the agency
provided on pages 809 through 811 of last year's House hearing record.
Answer. Information is attached.
FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 ACI PERSONNEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR
--------------------------------------- CHG
PROJECT LOCATION 2000 2001 FTP CHG FTE EXPLANATION OF CHANGE
FTP 2000 FTE FTP 2001 FTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLIR/RADAR PROJECT..................... AR&SC.................... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
FLIR/RADAR PROJECT..................... HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
AIREYE PROJECT......................... HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
ALEX HEALY PHASE II.................... ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
ALEX HEALY PHASE II.................... HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
AVIATION LOGISTICS MGMT INFO SYS....... AR&SC.................... 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
AVIATION NEAR TEAM SUPPORT STRATEGY HEADQUARTERS............. 2 0.5 2 0.5 ...... ......... ..........................
PROJECT.
BUOY BOAT (BUSL)....................... ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... 3 3 3 3 ...... ......... ..........................
BUOY BOAT (BUSL)....................... HEADQUARTERS............. 4 4 2 3.75 -2 -0.25 ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
BUOY BOAT (BUSL) TOTAL........... ......................... 7 7 5 6.75 -2 -0.25 Reduced project
requirements
==========================================================
C130 NVG............................... HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
COASTAL PATROL BOAT.................... PRO BOLLINGER............ 16 16 16 16.25 ...... 0.25 ..........................
COASTAL PATROL BOAT.................... ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
COASTAL PATROL BOAT.................... HEADQUARTERS............. 12 12 12 12 ...... ......... ..........................
COASTAL PATROL BOAT.................... R&D CENTER............... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
COASTAL PATROL BOAT TOTAL........ ......................... 30 30 30 30.25 ...... 0.25 2 billets extended in
fiscal year 2001. No
decrease. Full production
complete in fiscal year
2003.
==========================================================
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000................. MLC (LANT)............... 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000................. MLC (PAC)................ 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000................. TISCOM................... 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNICATION SYS 2000 TOTAL..... ......................... 6 6 6 6 ...... ......... ..........................
==========================================================
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT............... HEADQUARTERS............. 2 2 2 2.5 ...... 0.5 Increased project
requirements--implementat
ion.
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE................. HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
CONVERSION OF SOFTWARE................. OPERATIONS SYS CENTER.... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF..................... AR&SC.................... 5 5 5 5 ...... ......... ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF..................... C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER.. 18 18 18 18 ...... ......... ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF..................... ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... 51 51 51 51 ...... ......... ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF..................... FINANCE CENTER........... 6 6 6 6 ...... ......... ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF..................... HEADQUARTERS............. 98 98 100 99.25 2 1.25 ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF..................... PERSONNEL COMMAND........ 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF..................... R&D CENTER............... 3 3 3 3 ...... ......... ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF..................... TISCOM................... 6 6 6 6 ...... ......... ..........................
CORE PROGRAM STAFF..................... YORKTOWN................. 4 4 4 4 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
CORE PROGRAM STAFF TOTAL......... ......................... 193 193 195 194.25 2 1.25 Required to support
increased AC&I budget.
==========================================================
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM................. HEADQUARTERS............. 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM................. TISCOM................... 12 7.75 12 7.75 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM--TOTAL.... ......................... 13 8.75 13 8.75 ...... ......... ..........................
==========================================================
DEEPWATER PROJECT...................... HEADQUARTERS............. 71 56 95 65.75 24 9.75 ..........................
DEEPWATER PROJECT...................... ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... 3 2.25 3 2.25 ...... ......... ..........................
DEEPWATER PROJECT...................... Detached--MSI............ 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
DEEPWATER PROJECT TOTAL.......... ......................... 75 59.25 99 69 24 9.75 Phase I Functional Design;
Phase II RFP development.
==========================================================
DIFFERENTIAL GPS....................... HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
EDENTON................................ HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
EDENTON................................ ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT......... HEADQUARTERS............. 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT......... C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER.. 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT......... TISCOM................... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRONIC PLANT RECAP PROJECT ......................... 3 3 3 3 ...... ......... ..........................
TOTAL.
==========================================================
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM................. HEADQUARTERS............. 16 11.75 15 10.75 -1 -1 ..........................
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM................. DETACHED--GREENBELT...... 3 0.75 3 0.75 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
FLEET LOGISTICS SYSTEM TOTAL..... ......................... 19 12.5 18 11.5 -1 -1 Reduced project
requirements.
==========================================================
GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS & SAFETY SYS.. TISCOM................... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM INSTAL....... AR&SC.................... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM INSTAL....... HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING CAP............ HEADQUARTERS............. 11 8 22 12.25 11 4.25 ..........................
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING CAP............ ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... 2 2 3 2.25 1 0.25 ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
GREAT LAKES ICEBREAKING TOTAL.... ......................... 13 10 25 14.5 12 4.5 Increased project
requirements.
==========================================================
HC-130 ENGINE CONVERSION............... AR&SC.................... 2 2 ...... ......... -2 -2 Reduced project
requirements.
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV......... AR&SC.................... 6 6 6 6 ...... ......... ..........................
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV......... HEADQUARTERS............. 1 0.25 1 0.25 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
HU-25 AIRCRAFT AVIONICS IMPROV... ......................... 7 6.25 7 6.25 ...... ......... ..........................
==========================================================
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION COMPUTER..... AR&SC.................... 3 1 ...... ......... -3 -1 ..........................
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION COMPUTER..... HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
HH-65 KAPTON WIRE/MISSION ......................... 3 1 ...... ......... -3 -1 ..........................
COMPUTER TOTAL.
==========================================================
LTS 101 LCC REDUC...................... ......................... 3 3 3 3 ...... ......... ..........................
HH60J--INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT......... HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
HH60J--INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT......... AR&SC.................... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
HH60J--INDEPENDENT NAV PROJECT......... ......................... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
(RIP).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT HEADQUARTERS............. 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
(RIP).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT M LC (PAC)............... 9 9 9 9 ...... ......... ..........................
(RIP).
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT NESU SEATTLE............. 6 6 6 6 ...... ......... ..........................
(RIP).
----------------------------------------------------------
ICEBREAKER RELIABILITY IMPROVE ......................... 17 17 17 17 ...... ......... ..........................
(RIP) TOTAL.
==========================================================
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY)......... ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY)......... HEADQUARTERS............. 1 1 1 1.25 ...... 0.25 ..........................
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY)......... PRO AVONDALE............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
ICEBREAKER REPLACEMENT (HEALY) ......................... 1 0.25 1 0.5 ...... 0.25 Project complete; 0.25FTE
TOTAL. for logistics wrapup @
HQ.
==========================================================
LONG RANGE SEARCH CAPABILITY PRES...... HEADQUARTERS............. 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
MISLE PROJECT.......................... HEADQUARTERS............. 13 12.25 8 8.25 -5 -4 ..........................
MISLE PROJECT.......................... OPS CENTER............... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
MISLE PROJECT TOTAL.............. ......................... 14 13.25 9 9.25 -5 -4 Reduced project
requirements.
==========================================================
MOTOR LIFEBOAT......................... ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
MOTOR LIFEBOAT......................... HEADQUARTERS............. 9 9 9 11 ...... 2 ..........................
MOTOR LIFEBOAT......................... PRO TEXTRON.............. 12 10.5 12 12.25 ...... 1.75 ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
MOTOR LIFEBOAT TOTAL............. ......................... 23 21.5 23 25.25 ...... 3.75 Last hull scheduled for
fiscal year 2002
delivery.
==========================================================
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM............... HEADQUARTERS............. 22 16.5 29 18.75 7 2.25 ..........................
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM............... TRACEN PETALUMA.......... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM............... MLC (PAC)................ 2 0.75 2 0.75 ...... ......... ..........................
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM............... MLC (LANT)............... 2 0.75 2 0.75 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DISTRESS SYSTEM TOTAL... ......................... 26 18 33 20.25 7 2.25 Additional project
requirements--Phase I
eval.
==========================================================
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS........... HEADQUARTERS............. 13 4.75 15 5.5 2 0.75 ..........................
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS........... PRO NEW ORLEANS.......... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS........... DISTRICT EIGHT........... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
PORTS & WATERWAYS SAFETY SYS ......................... 15 6.75 17 7.5 2 0.75 Additional project
TOTAL. requirements--deployments/
surveys.
==========================================================
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS............ HEADQUARTERS............. 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS............ AR&SC.................... 2 0.25 2 0.25 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
SELECTED MAJOR ACQUISITIONS TOTAL ......................... 3 1.25 3 1.25 ...... ......... ..........................
==========================================================
SHORE CORE PROJECT..................... CIVIL ENGINEERING UNITS.. 7 7 7 7 ...... ......... ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT..................... FD & CC (LANT)........... 61 61 61 61 ...... ......... ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT..................... FD & CC (PAC)............ 37 37 37 37 ...... ......... ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT..................... HEADQUARTERS............. 17 17 17 17 ...... ......... ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT..................... MLC (LANT)............... 7 6.25 7 6.25 ...... ......... ..........................
SHORE CORE PROJECT..................... MLC (PAC)................ 6 5.5 6 5.5 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
SHORE CORE PROJECT TOTAL......... ......................... 135 133.75 135 133.75 ...... ......... ..........................
==========================================================
SIMULATOR ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.......... ATC MOBILE............... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL.............. C\2\ ENGINEERING CENTER.. 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL.............. COAST GUARD YARD......... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL.............. HEADQUARTERS............. 3 2.25 3 2.25 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE SEARCH RADAR REPL TOTAL.. ......................... 6 5.25 6 5.25 ...... ......... ..........................
==========================================================
TRAFFIC COLLISION & AVOIDANCE.......... AR&SC.................... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
TRAFFIC COLLISION & AVOIDANCE.......... HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)........ ESD KETCHIKAN............ 1 .......... 1 ......... ...... ......... ..........................
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)........ ISC KETCHIKAN............ 2 1 2 1 ...... ......... ..........................
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17)........ TISCOM................... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... .........
----------------------------------------------------------
VHF-FM HIGH-SITE UPGRADE (D-17) ......................... 3 1 3 1 ...... ......... ..........................
TOTAL.
==========================================================
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)............. ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... 4 4 4 4.25 ...... 0.25 ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)............. HEADQUARTERS............. 18 18 17 17 -1 -1 ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)............. PRO MARINETTE............ ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER) TOTAL. ......................... 22 22 21 21.25 -1 -0.75 Change is -1.5 FTE to
balance increase in WLB
recompete for NO net
increase.
==========================================================
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)............. HEADQUARTERS............. 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)............. PRO MARINETTE............ 49 43.5 45 40.25 -4 -3.25 ..........................
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL)............. TRACEN PETALUMA.......... 1 1 1 1 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
WLB/WLM (SEAGOING/COASTAL) TOTAL. ......................... 52 46.5 48 43.25 -4 -3.25 Reduced project
requirements--last WLB to
be delivered fiscal year
2004.
==========================================================
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER).............. ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... 3 3 3 3 ...... ......... ..........................
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER).............. HEADQUARTERS............. 6 5.5 3 4 -3 -1.5 ..........................
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER).............. PRO MARINETTE............ 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER).............. R&D CENTER............... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
WLM (COASTAL BUOY TENDER) TOTAL.. ......................... 11 10.5 8 9 -3 -1.5 Reduced project
requirements.
==========================================================
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)--RECOMPETE.. AR&SC.................... 2 2 2 2 ...... ......... ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)--RECOMPETE.. ENGINEERING LOG CMD...... ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)--RECOMPETE.. HEADQUARTERS............. ...... .......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ..........................
WLB (SEAGOING BUOY TENDER)--RECOMPETE.. TISCOM................... 3 2.25 3 2.25 ...... ......... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------
WLB RECOMPETE TOTAL.............. PRO TBD AFTER AWARD...... 5 4.25 5 4.25 ...... ......... Second WLB Contract award.
==========================================================
TOTAL............................ ......................... 716 650.5 742 660 ...... ......... ..........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In an effort to maximize requested FTP/FTE, the current plan contains a total of 742 fiscal year 2001 billets/positions, 9.0 percent above the
requested number of 704 and a total of 660 FTE. This plan reflects the fact that many of the billets are partial year FTE and assumes that (a) the
historical lapse rate associated with additions/deletions will continue to some degree and that (b) any reduction necessary due to unanticipated
increase in the fill rate can be realized by postponing fourth quarter adds.
NDRSMP, GLIB and Deepwater project requirements require maximum utilization of AC&I personnel funding.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ALTERATION OF BRIDGES
Question. What bridges is the Coast Guard proposing to fund with
the fiscal year 2001 budget request and at what level of funding?
Answer. The Coast Guard proposes to fund the below list of bridges
in fiscal year 2001. Section 101(b) of public Law 104-324 (Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1996) allows for the transfer of funds, by the
Secretary of Transportation from the FHWA Discretionary Bridge account
to the Coast Guard Bridge Alteration account for highway bridge
alterations:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of bridge Location Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Lanier Highway................ Bridge Brunswick, $1
Georgia.
Limehouse Highway Bridge............. John's Island, South 1
Carolina.
Florida Avenue Railroad/Highway New Orleans, Louisiana.. 1
Bridge.
Chelsea Street Bridge................ Boston, Massachusetts... 1
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Burlington, Iowa........ 3
Bridge.
Fort Madison Railroad Bridge......... Fort Madison, Iowa...... 2
Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railway Divine, Illinois........ 1
Company Bridge.
CSX Transportation Company Bridge.... Hurricane, Alabama...... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBSTRUCTIVE BRIDGES TO NAVIGATION
Question. Please provide a list of all bridges that have been
declared obstructions to navigation as well as their location, the
estimated total cost of each bridge, and expenditures to date if
appropriate.
Answer:
1. Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge located across the Upper
Mississippi River at milepost 403.1 in Burlington, Iowa. Estimated
total project cost is $32 million and expenditures to date are
$777,363.00.
2. Fort Madison Railroad Bridge located across the Upper
Mississippi River at milepost 383.9 in Fort Madison, Iowa. Estimated
total project cost is $40 million and expenditures to date are
$206,518.00.
3. Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge located across the Brunswick River
at milepost 4.6 in Brunswick, Georgia. Estimated total project cost is
$112 million and expenditures to date are $30,728,000.00.
4. Florida Avenue Railroad/Highway Bridge across the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal at milepost 1.7 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Estimated
total project cost is $43 million and expenditures to date are
$1,513,455.00.
5. Chelsea Street Bridge across the Chelsea Creek at milepost 1.2
in Boston, Massachusetts. Estimated total project cost is $42 million
and expenditures to date are $415,074.00.
6. Limehouse Highway Bridge across the Stono River at milepost
479.3 in Johns Island, South Carolina. Estimated total project cost is
$33 million and expenditures to date are $2,536,368.00.
7. Bordeaux Railroad Bridge across the Cumberland River at milepost
185.2 in Bordeaux, Tennessee. Estimated total alteration project cost
is $21 million. The Coast Guard decision to alter or remove this bridge
is pending. No funds have been appropriated for this project.
8. Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railway Company Bridge across the
Illinois Waterway at milepost 270.6 in Devine, Illinois. Estimated
total project cost is $25 million and expenditures to date are
$4,000,000.
9. Union Pacific Railroad Bridge across the Upper Mississippi River
at milepost 518.0 in Clinton, Iowa. Estimated total project cost is
$26.5 million. No funds have been appropriated for this project.
10. Union Pacific Railroad Bridge across the Illinois Waterway at
milepost 151.2 in Pekin, Iowa. Estimated total project cost is $23
million. No funds have been appropriated for this project.
11.Canadian Pacific Rail System Bridge across the Upper Mississippi
River at milepost 534.9 in Sabula, Iowa. Estimated total project cost
is $20 million. No funds have been appropriated for this project.
12.Gateway Western Railway Company Bridge, across the Upper
Mississippi River at milepost 282.1 in Louisiana, Missouri. Estimated
total project cost is $21.5 million. No funds have been appropriated
for this project.
13.CSX Transportation Company Bridge across the Mobile River at
milepost 13.6 in Hurricane, Alabama. Estimated total project cost is
$27 million and expenditures to date are $2,000.00.
14. Canadian Pacific Railroad Bridge across the Upper Mississippi
River at milepost 699.8 in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Estimated total project
cost is $29 million. No funds have been appropriated for this project.
FUNDING FOR OBSTRUCTIVE BRIDGES
Question. The budget requests to fund these bridges from the
Federal-Aid Highways program. Are all of the bridges eligible for
funding under the Truman-Hobbs Act also eligible for funding under the
Federal-Aid Highways program?
Answer. No, only the highway bridges determined to be unreasonable
obstructions to navigation under the Truman-Hobbs Act are eligible for
funding from the Federal Aid Highways (FAH) program. Railroad bridges
are not eligible under the FAH program.
RETIRED PAY
Question. Is the retired pay appropriation based on an actuarially
sound system?
Answer. Yes. Annually, the Coast Guard retains the services of a
certified actuary firm to estimate the size of the Coast Guard's
liability for retirees. These estimates are used in the process of
preparing the Coast Guard's Retired Pay Appropriation Request.
RESERVE TRAINING
Question. What is the shortfall, if any, in the reserve training
account for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. As we are currently managing it, there is no shortfall in
the Reserve Training account for fiscal year 2000.
SELECTIVE RESERVE STRENGTH
Question. The budget justification indicates that the Coast Guard
intends to reduce SELRES strength by 300 to 7,300. I have been
informed, however, that the Selected Reserve strength is greater than
8,000 personnel, which would require a reduction of more than 600
personnel to meet the requested funding level. What accounts for this
discrepancy?
Answer. As directed in fiscal year 2000 report language, the Coast
Guard has made every effort to maintain a Selected Reserve of 8,000 by
adjusting the frequency of member drills. The Coast Guard has
determined, however, that this policy is less than optimal in the long
run and is subsequently adjusting the Selected Reserve to a level that
can be fully trained and supported. Furthermore, additional active duty
in fiscal year 2000 will relieve some of the Coast Guard's dependence
on the Selected Reserve to conduct normal operations and missions.
COAST GUARD PERSONNEL REDUCTION
Question. How does the Coast Guard propose reducing 600 people in
one year and what is your schedule?
Answer. The Coast Guard would reduce accessions and offer Reserve
personnel voluntary separations. If further reductions are needed, the
Coast Guard would pursue involuntary separations of personnel.
RESERVE FUNDING
Question. What would the cost be to fully fund the reserve
component at the present strength (about 8,000) at the optimal training
level?
Answer. The Coast Guard supports the President's Budget, which
supports a Selected Reserve of 7,300. To adequately fund a selected
reserve of 8,000 in fiscal year 2001, the Coast Guard Reserve Training
(RT) Appropriation would require an appropriation of $79.952,000,000.
OMB STUDY OF COAST GUARD SELECTIVE RESERVE
Question. Does the Coast Guard still agree with the findings of the
OMB directed study which concluded that a Selected Reserve of 12,300 is
necessary?
Answer. The 1997 Coast Guard Reserve Roles and Missions Study
concluded that 12,300 Selected Reserve (SELRES) would be required under
specific threat conditions. Under current treat conditions, the Coast
Guard supports the President's Request for 7,300 SELRES in fiscal year
2001.
FULL--TIME SUPPORT POSITIONS
Question. The budget justification indicates a reduction of 5
military full-time support billets and 2 civilian FTEs. What are the
number of full-time support positions requested for this account and
what functions do they perform?
Answer. There are currently 494 Full Time Support positions funded
by the Reserve Training Appropriation. Full Time Support personnel
perform functions associated with the organization, administration,
recruitment, instruction, maintenance, and supply support of the
Reserve. Full Time Support billets are deployed where they can optimize
and leverage Reserve Component readiness. Coast Guard reservists are
largely integrated into active component commands, and perform
virtually all Coast Guard functions side by side with their active duty
counterparts. The operations-focused deployment of the Coast Guard
Selected Reserve requires a similarly broad-focused deployment of Full
Time Support structure. These fulltime billets enable Reserve Component
readiness in the following areas:
--Attaining and Maintaining Reserve Component Strength (recruiting,
medical, personnel and systems support);
--Maximizing the Reserve Component Training (HQ and Training
Commands);
--Providing Augmentation Training to Maximize Mobilization Readiness
(organic training and administrative support for deployable
units, field units/activities); and
--Managing Reserve Force Plans, Policy, Organization and Employment/
Deployment (HQ policy/programs and regional force optimization
staffs).
research, development, test, and evaluation appropriation increase
Question. The Coast Guard is requesting an approximately 12 percent
increase for the RDT&E appropriation. Why is this increase necessary?
Answer. COLA increases account for $505,000 (2.6 percent) of the
$2,327,000 increase over the fiscal year 2000 request to fund increases
in pay and support service costs. The rest of the increase is needed to
fund new and current research and development (R&D) project work.
The fiscal year 2001 R&D project portfolio was developed to make
measurable improvements toward meeting Government and Performance
Results Act (GPRA) goals. The increase in project work is needed to
pursue three technologies having the potential to significantly improve
progress towards Coast Guard performance goals. Three new projects show
great potential to improve performance in the Coast Guard's GPRA goals
for safety and drug law enforcement.
A ``risk management'' project will provide the Coast Guard with
tools needed to analyze complex, interwoven systems most likely to
cause accidents and injuries. A ``fatigue countermeasures'' project
builds on successes to help reduce accidents in hazardous commercial
operations such as fishing and towing. New work in ``new sensor
technology'' includes investigation of a variety of airborne, surface,
and sub-surface sensor systems that provide Coast Guard commanders with
real time information about all threats in their area of
responsibility.
SEARCH AND RESCUE FUNDING RESEARCH ALLOCATION
Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $1.855 million requested for
research related to search and rescue. How does this compare to funding
provided for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Program & Finance Digest (page RDTE-2) provides the
Coast Guard's best estimate of that portion of all research proposed
for fiscal year 2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a
given mission area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven
traditional Coast Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly
with entries under ``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary
exhibit (p. RDTE-8). The Program Digest is a part of every
appropriation's budget presentation to provide a consistent view, based
on seven traditional Coast Guard missions areas, between very
dissimilar appropriations.
The amount requested in fiscal year 2001 for search and rescue is
$457,000, which appears on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8)
and on Budget Sheet G1: IMPROVE SEARCH AND RESCUE CAPABILITY (p. RDTE-
9). The Budget Sheet explains how the funds requested in fiscal year
2001 will be used. The $457,000 requested is for Search Planning Tool
Methodology research and direct project personnel costs. By comparison,
the fiscal year 2000 request contained $1.162 million for research
related to search and rescue.
AIDS TO NAVIGATION RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION
Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $2.577 million requested for
research related to aids to navigation. How does this compare to the
allocation of funding provided for fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The Program & Finance Digest (p. RDTE-2) provides the Coast
Guard's best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for
fiscal year 2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given
mission area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven
traditional Coast Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly
with entries under ``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary
exhibit (p. RDTE-8). The Program Digest is a part of every
appropriation's budget presentation to provide a consistent view, based
on seven traditional Coast Guard missions areas, between very
dissimilar appropriations.
The amount requested in fiscal year 2001 for aids to navigation is
$1.196 million, which appears on the Line Item Summary exhibit and on
Budget Sheet G2: WATERWAYS SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION
(p. RDTE-10). The Budget Sheet explains how the funds requested in
fiscal year 2001 will be used. The $1,196,000 requested is for research
in Advanced Vessel Traffic Systems, International Communications and
Navigation Standards, Navigational Aids Mix System Analysis, and for
direct project personnel costs. By comparison, the fiscal year 2000
request contained $725,000 for research related to waterways management
and safety and aids to navigation.
MARINE SAFETY RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION
Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $7.427 million requested for
research related to marine safety. How does this compare to the
allocation of funding provided for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8).
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
The amount requested in fiscal year 2001 for marine safety is
$5.448 million, which appears on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p.
RDTE-8) and on Budget Sheet G3: MARINE SAFETY (p. RDTE-11). The Budget
Sheet explains how the funds requested in fiscal year 2001 will be
used. The $5.448 million requested is for research in Risk-based
Planning and Management, Human Error and Human Performance, Fire Safety
for Commercial Vessels, and for direct project personnel costs. By
comparison, the fiscal year 2000 request contained $3.108 million for
research related to marine safety.
MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION
Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $2.87 million requested for
research related to marine environmental protection. How does this
compare to the allocation of funding provided for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8).
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
The amount requested for fiscal year 2001 for marine environmental
protection is $1.142 million, which appears on the Line Item Summary
exhibit (p. RDTE-8) and on Budget Sheet G5: MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (p. RDTE-13). The Budget Sheet explains how the funds
requested in fiscal year 2001 will be used. The $1,142,000 requested is
for research in Spill Response Planning, Management and Training,
Aquatic Nuisance Species Control, and for direct project personnel
costs. By comparison, the fiscal year 2000 request contained $2,465,000
for research related to marine environmental protection.
ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS AND TREATIES RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION
Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $5.80 million requested for
research related to enforcement of laws and treaties. How does this
compare to the allocation of funding provided for fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8).
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
The amount requested for fiscal year 2001 for enforcement of laws
and treaties is $4,422,000, which appears on the Line Item Summary
exhibit (p. RDTE-8) and on Budget Sheet G6: COMPREHENSIVE LAW
ENFORCEMENT (p. RDTE-15). The Budget Sheet explains how the funds
requested in fiscal year 2001 will be used. The $4,422,000 requested is
for research in Improved Surveillance Capability, Improved Vessel
Search Capability, Non-lethal Vessel Disabling Technologies, and for
direct project personnel costs. By comparison, the fiscal year 2000
request contained $3,826,000 for research related to enforcement of
laws and treaties.
ICE OPERATIONS RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION
Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $406,000 requested for research
related to ice operations. How does this compare to the allocation of
funding provided for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8).
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
There are no funds requested in fiscal year 2001 for research in
this specific area, nor were any requested for fiscal year 2000.
DEFENSE READINESS RESEARCH FUNDING ALLOCATION
Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity how the
Coast Guard proposes to allocate the $381,000 requested for research
related to defense readiness. How does this compare to the allocation
of funding provided for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Program & Finance Digest provides the Coast Guard's
best estimate of that portion of all research proposed for fiscal year
2001 that will contribute to advancing the state of a given mission
area. The Program & Finance Digest displays the seven traditional Coast
Guard Mission Areas, which do not correlate directly with entries under
``Program by activities'' on the Line Item Summary exhibit (p. RDTE-8).
The Program Digest is a part of every appropriation's budget
presentation to provide a consistent view, based on seven traditional
Coast Guard missions areas, between very dissimilar appropriations.
There are no funds requested in fiscal year 2001 for research in
this specific area, nor were any requested for fiscal year 2000.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPEMNT PERSONNEL, PROGRAM SUPPORT AND OPERATIONS
BREAKDOWN
Question. Please break down in further detail the line, ``R&D
Personnel, Program Support & Operations'' on page RDTE-8 of the budget
justification.
Answer. This line item is comprised of:
Administration/Support Personnel & Related Costs..............$3,049,000
Support and Operations........................................ 1,214,000
Fire and Safety Test Detachment, Mobile, AL Operations and
Mainten-
ance...................................................... 20,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 4,283,000
NATIONAL RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY PROGRAM FUNDING
Question. The TEA-21 Act made the appropriation for boat safety
mandatory spending and set the level of funding for this important
activity for fiscal year 2001 at $64 million, which is the same amount
as was provided for fiscal year 2000. Is this level of funding adequate
to maintain a national recreational boating safety program or is there
a shortfall as some have claimed? If there is a shortfall, what is the
amount?
Answer. The minimum funding level for State RBS programs was set in
TEA-21 at $59 million per year for fiscal years 1999 through 2003. An
additional $5 million for the Coast Guard's national coordination
activities is also a component of the TEA-21 formula. This funding is
provided through a transfer from the Sport Fish Restoration Account's
mandatory appropriation when there is no discretionary funding
provided. TEA-21 does not adjust the mandatory funding level to account
for inflation or for growth in recreational boating. This level was
adequate for the national recreational boating safety program in fiscal
year 2000.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
COAST GUARD YARD--CORE FACILITY
Question. I'd like to raise the issue of the Curtis Bay Coast Guard
Yard with Vice Admiral Card. As you know, the Coast Guard Yard has
played a vital role in ensuring the readiness of the Coast Guard fleet
through the construction, repair, and renovation of both vessels and
aids to navigation peculiar to the Coast Guard.
The Yard provides essential capabilities that are simply not
available in commercial shipyards. Those capabilities include the
Yard's instant response for emergency and non-emergency work, special
ordnance and electronic repair expertise, instant ability to obligate
funds without pre- and post-contract requirements and delays, and no-
risk performance guarantees. Without the help of the Yard, the Coast
Guard would be unable to maintain its fleet and therefore unable to
meet its mission of saving lives.
Do you consider the Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard to be a Core
Logistics Facility?
Answer. Yes. In response to requirements outlined by the Coast
Guard Authorization Act of 1988, the Secretary of Transportation
provided a list of ``essential logistics'' activities. The Coast Guard
Yard is on that list. The Yard remains an essential component to meet
Coast Guard support requirements for our fleet.
COAST GUARD YARD POLICY STATEMENT
Question. If so, will you state that the Curtis Bay Coast Guard
Yard is a Core Logistics Facility in the policy statement that is
currently being developed by Headquarters?
Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard will reaffirm the essential nature of
the Yard in our new policy statement. Over the past 100 years, the Yard
has adapted to significant changes and challenges the Coast Guard has
faced. The Yard's flexibility is a key component of its value to the
Coast Guard. The Coast Guard continues to evaluate how the Yard can
best meet the needs of the fleet and also lend its expertise to other
government agencies. The Coast Guard's assessment in this regard is a
continuous process and includes accounting for changes in its fleet
size and opportunities for new business.
REFURBISHING USCGC MACKINAW
Question. Also, is the Coast Guard giving serious consideration to
refurbishing the Great Lakes Icebreaker at the Curtis Bay Coast Guard
Yard?
Answer. The Coast Guard intends to replace (not refurbish) Coast
Guard Cutter MACKINAW with a new construction multipurpose icebreaker.
The Coast Guard has determined that a competitive procurement is
the most appropriate strategy to achieve performance, cost, and
schedule objectives. Market surveys conducted by the Coast Guard
reflect significant commercial interest in this acquisition.
USCGC MACKINAW REFURBISHMENT DECISION TIMELINE
Question. When will the Coast Guard decide where the Great Lakes
Icebreaker will be refurbished?
Answer. The Coast Guard intends to replace (not refurbish) Coast
Guard Cutter MACKINAW with a new construction multipurpose icebreaker.
The Coast Guard intends to award a commercial contract to design and
build the Great Lakes Icebreaker during the third quarter of fiscal
year 2001.
AIR-21 IMPACT
Question. Admiral Card, as you know, the Senate and the House
currently are conferencing on the so-called AIR-21, the FAA
reauthorization bill. One of the areas that remains unresolved is the
issue of budgetary treatment for aviation programs. The House has
proposed to create a firewall that would guarantee both trust funds
revenues as well as general tax revenues for aviation programs. What
impact would the House's budgetary treatment proposal have on Coast
Guard safety programs?
Answer. AIR-21 mandates large increases for FAA capital spending
under the budget caps, making it more difficult to fund other
discretionary programs, including the Coast Guard. Nevertheless, safety
programs are a core mission which we will attempt to protect and we
will continue to seek your support for the funding levels for the Coast
Guard requested in the President's Budget.
______
Questions Submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
NHTSA MAJOR CONTRACTORS
Question. Please provide a list of NHTSA's major contractors, what
projects they are working on, and the cost of each contract.
Answer. A list of NHTSA's major contractors' follows.
Contractor Amount
TRW, San Diego, CA 92198: DTNH22-94-C-07125--National
Advanced Driving Simulator.......................... $12,440,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48090: DTNH22-99-
H-07019--Automotive Collision Avoidance System
(ACAS) Field Operational Test....................... 8,374,013
========================================================
____________________________________________________
CALSPAN Corporation, Buffalo, NY 14225:
DTNH22-93-C-07024--Intersection Collision Avoidance
Using IVHS Countermeasures........................ 249,998
DTNH22-93-C-07034--Operation of Zone Center #1 for
the NASS.......................................... 3,343,463
DTNH22-94-D-07058--Establishment of Special Crash
Investigative Teams............................... 388,948
DTNH22-95-D-11000--Multiple FMVSS Compliance Testing 36,800
DTNH22-96-D-02010--Composite Crash Testing for New
Car Assessment Program (NCAP)..................... 292,034
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 4,311,243
========================================================
____________________________________________________
KLD Associates, Inc., Huntington Station, NY 11746:
DTNH22-93-C-07035--Operation of Zone Center #2 for
the NASS.......................................... 3,150,000
DTNH22-95-C-02029--Analysis of Insurer Reports
Rec'd. Pursuant to Chapter 331 of 49 U.S.C........ 43,618
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 3,193,618
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Signal Corporation, Fairfax, VA 22031: DTNH22-96-D-
01049--Information Technology Support............... 3,118,132
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Information Systems & SVCS., Inc., Silver Spring, MD
20910:
DTNH22-95-D-07159--Base Level On-Going Technical
Support & Indefinite Technical Services........... 2,246,848
DTNH22-97-C-07000--ADP Support for NHTSA Data Cen-
ter............................................... 763,132
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 3,009,980
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Information Management Consultants, McLean, VA 22102:
DTNH22-96-D-03100--OIRM Information Technology
Technical Support................................... 2,540,566
========================================================
____________________________________________________
National Safety Council, Itasca, IL 60611:
DTNH22-93-Y-05240--National Safety Belt Coalition... 551,470
DTNH22-94-Z-05063--Traffic Safety Rap Contest....... 43,935
DTNH22-96-H-05243--Technical Assistance for Occupant
Protection........................................ 645,000
DTNH22-97-H-05015--Third Annual ``Strides For
Safety'' Campaign................................. 79,106
DTNH22-97-H-05278--Research, Evaluation and Traffic
Records Initiatives and Support................... 945,565
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 2,265,076
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Information Dynamics, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20024:
DTNH22-97D-07008--ADP Support for FARS and NCSA LAN
Opera-
tions............................................... 1,304,465
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Capital Consulting Corporation, Fairfax, VA 22031:
DTNH22-93-D-07192--Computerized Quality Assurance,
QC & Stat. Support Services....................... 67,974
DTNH22-94-C-01043--Hotline Contact Representatives/
Transcribers...................................... 720,000
DTNH22-99-D-07009--Computerized Quality Assurance,
Quality Control, And Statistical Support Services. 497,601
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 1,285,575
========================================================
____________________________________________________
University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute, Ann Arbor, MI 48109:
DTNH22-94-Y-47016--Foster the Development,
Evaluation, and Deployment Of Collision Avoidance
Systems........................................... 296,000
DTNH22-97-D-25018--Evaluations Support of Traffic
Safety Programs................................... 50,000
DTNH22-99-H-07003--System for Assessing the Vehicle
Motion Environment................................ 788,103
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 1,134,103
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Enterprise III Systems, Reston, VA 22091: DTNH22-97-C-
03004--Imaging Network Support &Scanning Services... 1,133,340
========================================================
____________________________________________________
University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294: DTNH22-99G-
05139--Model State Head Injury Program.............. 1,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Louisiana Highway Safety Commission, Baton Rouge, LA
70806: DTNH22-99-H-15132--Targets of Opportunity:
State Demo. & Eval. Pgm. To Reduce Alcohol Related
Crashes............................................. 1,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Financial Technologies Inc., Chantilly, VA 22021:
DTNH22-98-C-05000--Teleprocessing for the National
DriverRegister (NDR)................................ 992,968
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Tennessee Governor's Office of Highway Safety,
Nashville, TN 37243:
DTNH22-99-H-07159--Crash Outcome Data Evaluation
System............................................ 300,037
DTNH22-99-H-25132--Targets of Opportunity: State
Demo. & Eval. Pgm. To Reduce alcohol Related
Crashes........................................... 600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 900,037
========================================================
____________________________________________________
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906:
DTNH22-93-Y-07028--Biomechanical Response of Human
Surrogates to Im-
pact................................................ 900,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Internat'l Assoc. of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA
22314: DTNH22-96-G-05235--IACP Traffic Enforcement
Initiatives......................................... 879,810
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Global Exchange, Inc., Bethesda, MD 20814:
DTNH22-95-D-05152--Public Information Technical
Assistance........................................ 479,293
DTNH22-97-F-05125--Roundtable on EMS & Managed
Care.............................................. 29,956
DTNH22-98F-05335--Aggressive Driving Summit
Logistics......................................... 140,000
DTOS59-95-C-00408--IQC for Conference/Media Support. 229,923
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 879,172
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Conwal, Inc., McLean, VA 22101:
DTNH22-98-C-05007--Operation of, and Information
Retrieval Support for, the Traffic Safety Pgm.
Resource Cen-
ter............................................... 693,601
DTNH22-99-P-09019--TSD: Database Documentation of
Innovative State & Community Highway Safety
Projects.......................................... 85,000
DTNH22-99-P-09036--TSD: Database Documentation of
Innovative State & Community Highway Safety
Projects.......................................... 21,996
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 800,597
NHTSA REPROGRAMMINGS
Question. Please provide the amount and description of all
reprogrammings or transfers of funds that occurred during fiscal year
1999 and thus far in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA received Congressional approval
to reprogram $2.35 million from the Research and Analysis and the
Highway Safety programs for the National Advanced Driving Simulator.
The reprogrammed funds were used to fund unanticipated cost overruns.
Without the reprogrammed funds, the program would have been delayed or
work would have stopped, causing greater delays to the program. In
fiscal year 2000, there have been no reprogramming actions to date. Any
funding shifts have been minor and represent minor but necessary fine-
tuning which typically takes place when the agency implements its
budget.
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
Question. Please provide a list of any unobligated funds and
carryover funds by subaccounts from previous fiscal years.
Answer. In the Operations and Research appropriation, an
unobligated balance of $8.669 million was brought forward and made
available for use in fiscal year 2000. This represents 5.4 percent of
the total funds available for spending in fiscal year 1999.
Approximately 30 percent of the carryover funding ($2.617 million) is
earmarked for the ITS program. The following is a listing of
unobligated balances brought forward:
[In thousands of dollars]
Salaries and Benefits............................................. 615
Headquarters and Regional Operating Expenses...................... 291
Contract Program:
Safety Performance............................................ 160
Safety Assurance.............................................. 409
Highway Safety................................................ 261
State and Community Services.................................. 20
Research and Development...................................... 6,102
General Administration........................................ 53
Miscellaneous..................................................... 758
______
Total....................................................... 8,669
Salaries and Benefits.--Carryover resulted from delays in hiring
and will be applied to the fiscal year 2000 personnel costs.
Headquarters and Regional Operating Expenses.--This amount
comprises carryover from both field and headquarters operating expenses
and was the result of underruns in telecommunications costs.
Safety Performance.--Carryover is associated with contract
underruns and will be applied to the Vehicle Safety and Consumer
Standards Program.
Safety Assurance.--Carryover is associated with underruns in
compliance testing. Highway Safety--Carryover is associated with
underruns in various programs.
State and Community Services.--Carryover is associated with
underruns in various programs and will be applied to the Buckle Up
America program.
Research and Development.--$2.617 million is earmarked for the ITS
program and resulted from delays in awards of ITS procurements; the
remaining $3.485 million resulted from delays in contract awards and
testing delays in the areas of Motor Vehicle Research ($1.185 million),
Biomechanics ($.6 million), Crash Avoidance ($.3 million), and Heavy
Vehicles ($.4 million). In addition, carryover resulted from delays in
contract awards in NCSA ($.6 million), PNGV ($.4 million). Carryover
will be applied to complete the awards and testing originally planned.
General Administration.--Carryover is associated with underruns in
various programs.
Miscellaneous.--Unallocated deobligations from prior years totaled
$758,000. Funds will be used to cover shortfalls in various operating
expenses and unanticipated intermodal reimbursable agreements.
NHTSA REGULATIONS
Question. Please prepare a list of all final rulemakings that have
been issued since last year.
Answer. Below is a list of all final rulemakings that have been
issued since April 1, 1999 through April 5, 2000:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Part No. Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
105............................... In response to a petition for
rulemaking, the agency corrected
Table II--Stopping Distances, which
contains the applicable stopping
distance requirements that was
published in the final rule on
March 10, 1995 (9/7/99--64 FR
48562).
105;135........................... In response to petitions for
reconsideration, the agency is
allowing regenerative braking for
electric vehicles (EV) to
facilitate new technology in the
braking system of an EV (2/9/00--65
FR 6327).
108............................... In response to a petition for
rulemaking, the agency is allowing
manufacturers of motor vehicles
with headlamp concealment devices
to choose between complying with
the existing provisions, or with a
new provision incorporating by
reference the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe's
standard (ECE standard) on those
devices (8/23/99--64 FR 45895).
201............................... In response to petitions for
reconsideration, the agency deletes
a humidity range specification for
calibration of the test device used
in the car-to-pole test (12/14/99--
64 FR 69665).
209............................... Deletes the provision requiring that
the lap belt portion of a safety
belt system be designed to remain
on the pelvis under all conditions
(5/19/99--64 FR 27203).
216............................... In response to petitions for
rulemaking, revises the test
procedure to make it more suitable
to testing vehicles with rounded
roofs or vehicles with raised roofs
(4/27/99--64 FR 22567).
216............................... Partial response to petitions for
reconsideration, the agency extends
the effective date of the April
1999 final rule to 10/25/00 to make
the roof crush resistance more
suitable to testing motor vehicle
with raised roofs (1/31/00--65 FR
4579).
221............................... Partial response to petitions for
reconsideration, the agency extends
the effective date of the November
final rule to 5/5/01 to reduce
deaths and injuries resulting from
the structural collapse of school
bus bodies during crashes (3/6/00--
65 FR 11751).
225............................... In response to several petitions for
reconsideration, the agency is
allowing vehicle manufacturers to
meet alternative requirements
during an initial several year
period (8/31/99--64 FR 47566).
531............................... Provides a procedure by which a
vehicle manufacturer may notify the
agency of the model year (MY) in
which it elects to consider
production of components and
automobile assembly in Mexico as
domestic value added (5/19/99--64--
27201).
533............................... Establishes the average fuel economy
standard for light trucks
manufactured in model year (MY)
2001 which is identical to the
standard for MY 2000, 20.7 mpg (4/7/
99--64 FR 16860).
533............................... Establishes the average fuel economy
standard for light trucks
manufactured in model year (MY)
2002 which is identical to the
standard for MY 2001, 20.7 mpg (4/5/
00--65 FR 17776).
572............................... Establishes design and performance
specifications for a more advanced
6-year-old Hybrid III test dummy (1/
13/00--65 FR 2059).
572............................... Establishes design and performance
specifications for a more advanced
fifth percentile Hybrid III test
dummy (3/1/00--65 FR 10961).
572............................... Establishes design and performance
specifications for a more advanced
3-year-old Hybrid III test dummy (3/
22/00--65 FR 15254).
572............................... Establishes design and performance
specifications for a more advanced
12-month-old Hybrid III test dummy
(CRABI) (3/31/00--65 FR 17180).
574............................... In response to a petition for
rulemaking, the agency amended the
standard to allow the date to be
expressed in 4 digits instead of 3
and reduced the minimum size of the
digits from 6 millimeters (mm) (\3/
4\ inch) to 4 mm (\5/32\ inch) (7/8/
99--64 FR 36807).
575............................... In response to a petition for
rulemaking, rescinds the
requirement that passenger car
manufacturers provide general
uniform tire quality grading
standard (UTQGS) information to
purchasers and potential purchasers
at the point of sale of new
vehicles requiring instead that
such information be included in
owner's manual (5/24/99--64 FR
27921).
575............................... In response to a petition for
reconsideration, the agency is
allowing manufacturers: to combine
the rollover and air bag alert
labels in one label; to comply with
either of two options for
installing both labels on the same
side of the sun visor until
September 1, 2000; and voluntarily
install on the same side of the sun
visor as the air bag label,
rollover warning labels in vehicles
for which they are not required (8/
30/99--64 FR 47119).
575............................... In response to petitions for
reconsideration, the agency is
staying with the requirement for
the inclusion of UTQGS information
in the owner's manual for one year
until 9/1/00 (9/27/99--64 FR
51920).
583............................... The agency extended the effective
date of the Automobile Parts
Content Labeling requirements to
June 1, 2000, while permitting
optional early compliance (7/28/99--
64 FR 40777).
587............................... Adds specifications for an offset
deformable barrier used in offset
deformable barrier test to evaluate
the crashworthiness of vehicles (65
FR 17196).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the number and nature of the major notices of
proposed rulemaking that NHTSA has published in the Federal Register in
the last 12 months.
Answer. Below is a list of the six notices of proposed rulemaking
published in the Federal Register from April 1, 1999 through April 5,
2000:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Part No. Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
121............................... The agency is proposing that the
braking-in-a-curve dynamic
performance test requirement apply
to single-unit trucks and buses
that are required to be equipped
with antilock braking systems (12/
21/99--64 FR 71377).
122............................... In response to a petition for
rulemaking, the agency is proposing
to reduce the minimum hand lever
force from five pounds (presently
specified to 2.3 pounds) and the
minimum foot pedal force from 10
pounds (presently specified to 5.6
pounds) in the fade recovery and
water recovery tests (11/17/99--64
FR 62622).
201............................... The agency is proposing to modify
the minimum distance between
certain target points on vertical
surfaces inside a vehicle (4/5/00--
65 FR 17842).
205............................... In response to a petition for
rulemaking, the agency is proposing
to update the standard on glazing
materials so that it incorporates
by reference the 1996 version of
the industry standard on motor
vehicle glazing (8/4/99--64 FR
42330).
401............................... The agency is proposing the
requirement that all new vehicles
with trunks come equipped with a
release latch inside the trunk
compartment beginning January 1,
2001 (12/17/9--64 FR 70672).
575............................... In response to a petition for
rulemaking, the agency is proposing
to amend our consumer information
regulations to require seat belt
positioners to be labeled as not
suitable for children for a certain
age, e.g., under 6-year-old, or of
a certain height (8/13/99--64 FR
44164).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tea-21 authorized funding level
Question. Under TEA-21, as amended, what is the authorized level of
funding for NHTSA for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. TEA-21 authorized a total of $402.376 million for NHTSA.
The authorization is as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Motor Vehicle Safety Act...................................... $98.314
Motor Vehicle Information & Cost Savings Act.................. 9.562
National Driver Register...................................... 2.000
Highway Safety R&D (Section 403).............................. 72.000
Section 2003(b) Child Passenger Protection.................... 7.500
Highway Traffic Safety Grants................................. 213.000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Authorized........................................ 402.376
Question. Does NHTSA's budget request for fiscal year 2001 comport
with the authorization act? If not, please submit to the Committee a
revised budget request that matches the authorized level of funding.
Answer. NHTSA's budget request exceeds the authorized levels by
$97.1 million. However, NHTSA has asked for an increase of $35 million
to the authorizing legislation. NHTSA does not propose to revise its
budget request and encourages the Congress to support the full amount
requested for NHTSA in the Presidents Budget.
SAFETY STANDARDS SUPPORT FUNDING
Question. Please break out how the funds for safety standards
support are expected to be used by rulemaking during fiscal year 2001
and compare activities and funding amounts to the fiscal year 2000
spending plan. Which rulemakings require additional analysis?
Answer. The following chart compares safety standards support
activities and funding amounts between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Safety standards support activity 2000 enacted 2001 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashworthiness......................... $293,000 $671,000
Fiscal year 2000--Funding is
targeted for testing or studies
relating to frontal offset and side
impact crashes, improved dummy
necks, head restraints, advanced
air bags, door lock retention, and
motorcycle helmet strength.
Fiscal year 2001--Funding will be
used on projects relating to
frontal offset crash safety,
improved child seats, child
protection in school buses crashes,
side impact protection, upgraded
roof-crush protection and fuel
system integrity.
Crash Avoidance......................... 315,000 1,037,000
Fiscal year 2000--Funding is
targeted for testing or studies
relating to tire safety, motorcycle
braking, and collecting data on
adaptive equipment for the disabled
population.
Fiscal year 2001--Projects will
cover safety issues such as light
vehicle and heavy truck braking,
tire safety, light vehicle rollover
propensity, trunk entrapment and
continued work relating to adaptive
equipment for the disabled
population.
Consumer Information Program............ 100,000 0
Fiscal year 2000 funds allocated to
consumer information activities.
-------------------------------
Total............................. 708,000 1,708,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the activities listed for fiscal year 2001, the significant
rulemaking projects carried over from fiscal year 2000 which require
additional analysis and safety standards support funding include
frontal offset and side impact protection, and light vehicle braking.
Although not in support of a specific rulemaking, carryover funding is
required to continue work begun on a non rulemaking project to collect
data on adaptive vehicles for the disabled population.
SAFETY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM FUNDING
Question. NHTSA is proposing to increase funding for the Safety
Performance Standards program by more than 100 percent. Why is this
large increase necessary?
Answer. This large increase for the Safety Performance Standards
program is necessary to accomplish goals in the following areas.
Safety Standards Support
Funding will be used to support the following activities:
--Based on the outcome of the current school bus occupant protection
research, develop test procedure to support rulemaking action
to amend the school bus occupant protection safety standard;
--Continue the agency's efforts to improve child seat safety; and
develop, through testing and evaluation, a revised FMVSS No.
213 test procedure, specifically with respect to design and
development of a bench seat fixture that is more representative
of the seat geometry for the current vehicle fleet and other
associated concerns;
--Continue agency information collection on vehicles that have been
adapted for the disabled population. Very little centralized
data exists on the number and types of vehicle modifications
and adaptive equipment installations done to accommodate
persons with disabilities. This lack of data hampers NHTSA's
efforts to determine the size of the modified vehicle fleet,
whether vehicles are made safely, and whether the consumers of
the equipment and modifications are experiencing any particular
problems, particularly those that might lead to crashes or
injuries;
--Assess the capability of Electronically Controlled Braking Systems
(ECBS) to improve braking performance for heavy trucks and
buses. As part of this effort, the agency plans to conduct test
track evaluations and operational (fleet test) evaluations on
ECBS-equipped vehicles;
--Continue development of test procedures for offset frontal testing;
--Develop through testing and evaluation, a more appropriate test for
bead unseating of radial tires. This harmonization activity is
in response to a petition from six tire manufacturers. The
petition requested the agency to begin rulemaking to amend its
federal motor vehicle safety standard for passenger car tires
(FMVSS No. 109) to conform to a proposed new Global Tire
Standard 2000 (GTS-2000) that has been developed by tire
manufacturers around the world. However, NHTSA's testing has
shown that tires can separate from light car and truck wheels
during hard maneuvering;
--Cost weight and lead time studies to support key rulemaking actions
in the areas of upgraded roof crush protection, side impact
protection, advanced electronic braking systems for trucks,
fuel system integrity, and child protection in school bus
crashes.
New Car Assessment Program
One in four e-mails to the agency's crash test website is from an
unhappy consumer who cannot find safety information on the vehicle he
or she wants to purchase. In 2000, the agency provided safety
information on 72 percent of vehicles sold. The agency needs increased
funding for fiscal year 2001 frontal and side impact testing to cover
80-90 percent of new vehicles for these most common crash modes. The
increase would raise consumer information to the 1997 fleet coverage
level of 86 percent.
Additional funding is necessary to add small size dummy tests to
NCAP. Distributions of trauma in real world crashes suggest that short
stature occupants have as great a risk of injury as mid-size occupants.
Also, the 10-15 crash tests for fiscal year 2001 using the small
stature dummy in the driver and passenger positions will test the
feasibility of using the 5th percentile female dummy in frontal crash
tests, to supplement the information gathered with the 50th percentile
male dummy.
In response to calls for a broader range of vehicle safety consumer
information, a demonstration project will conduct tests that will
provide information on the braking performance of passenger cars and
light trucks. In addition, support is needed for the development of
test protocols for rating the headlighting performance of new vehicles.
Consumer Information Program
Additional funding is necessary to expand our consumer information
activities in an effort to motivate manufacturers to improve the safety
of their vehicles and to further aid consumers with their purchasing
decisions. Funding will be used for new requirements and to sustain and
expand present activities and programs to meet the recommendations of
the National Academy of Science's 1996 Special Report, Shopping for
Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety Information.
The fiscal year 2001 program will use increased funding for
consumer research to support emerging issues, such as child safety seat
labeling, and expanding NCAP ratings and information (such as a summary
rating score). Increased funding will allow the agency to produce more
information products to meet the increasing demand for existing
publications and materials, which we presently cannot meet. At the same
time, the agency will undertake efforts to increase the content and
improve the quality of existing materials. Resources also are necessary
to sustain the growing needs of partnerships that we have established
to promote vehicle safety information (AAA, Goodyear, Jiffy Lube,
Championship Auto Racing Teams, etc.) and to cultivate new partnerships
with other organizations.
CONSUMER INFORMATION PROGRAMS
Question. How much is spent on consumer-related information
activities in fiscal year 2000 using NCAP funds or other agency funds?
Answer. Safety Performance Standards' consumer-related activities
are currently funded using $247,000 of NCAP and $100,000 of Safety
Standards Support funds.
Question. What is the basis for the amount requested in fiscal year
2001 for consumer-related information programs?
Answer. The basis for the requested budget for consumer information
programs in fiscal year 2001 is a combination of new requirements, and
the need to sustain and grow current activities and programs to meet
the recommendations of the National Academy of Science's 1996 Special
Report, Shopping For Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety
Information. The study recommended that NHTSA broaden the scope of the
information it provides to consumers, improve the presentation of the
information, and expand the dissemination of the information. Further,
increasing consumer awareness and demand for vehicle safety information
also substantiates the need for greater resources. For instance, the
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) web site hits have increased from
1,100 per month when the site was created in 1996 to over 33,000
presently. In the most recent NHTSA Customer Satisfaction Survey, 76
percent of the respondents rate safety as ``very important'' in their
selection of a motor vehicle for purchase.
The fiscal year 2001 program will utilize increased funding for
consumer research to support emerging issues, such as child safety seat
labeling, and expansion of NCAP ratings and information, such as a
summary rating score. Larger volumes of products will be produced to
meet the increasing demand for existing publications and materials,
which we presently cannot meet. At the same time, efforts to increase
the content and improve the quality of existing materials will be
undertaken. Resources are also necessary to sustain the growing needs
of partnerships that have been established to promote vehicle safety
information (AAA, Goodyear, Jiffy Lube, Championship Auto Racing Teams,
etc.) and to cultivate new partnerships with other organizations.
Question. If the consumer information activity were increased by
$.5 million from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, what additional
activities would be funded?
Answer. At a reduced level of effort, funding would be used for the
following activities: Conduct research for child safety seat labeling
issues to determine how to best present new or revised warnings and
information to child safety seat users.
--Conduct research to determine how to best develop and present new
or revised vehicle safety information required by rulemakings,
and how to most effectively disseminate this information. This
includes warning labels and owner's manual information.
--Develop new research-based information for development of new
campaigns and materials on high interest issues, such as air
bags, rollover, antilock brakes, adapted vehicles, and other
emerging issues. Use research results to upgrade and improve
existing publications, the web-site, and marketing strategies.
--Develop and deliver NCAP and other vehicle safety information more
effectively through new and enhanced materials such as
brochures and pamphlets, mass media campaigns, and electronic
media materials. Increase the quantities of the annual Buying A
Safer Car and Buying A Safer Car for Child Passengers, and
other brochures to meet public demand.
--Develop and deliver new comparative vehicle safety information on
braking performance. Facilitate the public's understanding of
the information and its value in making vehicle purchase
decisions.
--Develop diversity initiatives and materials to better reach
underserved populations.
--Continue and increase the leveraging effect of federal spending to
meet the requirements of participation in existing partnerships
and expand outreach efforts to new partners and constituents in
order to increase the marketing and dissemination of consumer
information materials.
NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (NCAP)
Question. If funding for the NCAP were increased by $1.0 million
from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, how many more vehicles would
be tested? With this amount of funding, what is the percentage of
vehicles in the U.S. fleet about which we would have frontal impact and
side impact safety information?
Answer. With a funding increase of $1.0 million over fiscal year
2000, NHTSA would crash about twenty additional vehicles in model year
2001. NHTSA had safety information on 72 percent of new vehicles sold
in the U.S. in model year 2000. With an additional $1 million in fiscal
year 2001, NHTSA would have safety information on 79 percent versus the
85 to 90 percent that could be achieved at the fiscal year 2001
requested level.
Question. Assuming a funding level for NCAP below the fiscal year
2001 budget request, what would NHTSA's priorities be in terms of
conducting additional frontal crashes, additional side crashes, or
testing smaller crash dummies?
Answer. NHTSA would first reduce the number of frontal and side
crashes by the same amount. As we drop frontal and side crashes, the
fleet coverage would decrease. The fleet coverage would fall from a
high of 85-90 percent of the vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2001. (NHTSA
assumes coverage of 85-90 percent of the fleet if the fiscal year 2001
budget request were to be approved.) Once the percentage of fleet
coverage fell to 80 percent, NHTSA would cease dropping frontal and
side tests. At the 80 percent level, testing with the smaller crash
dummy would be reduced.
Question. How many 6-year-old Hybrid III and 5th percentile female
dummies does NHTSA need to acquire and calibrate? How much will it cost
to procure and calibrate small stature dummies?
Answer. NHTSA needs five 6-year-old Hybrid III dummies and six 5th
percentile female Hybrid III dummies. To purchase five instrumented 6-
year-old dummies and do one calibration per dummy would cost roughly
$173,000. To purchase six instrumented fifth percentile female Hybrid
III dummies and do one calibration per dummy would cost roughly
$249,000.
Question. The agency's budget requests a $1 million increase for
safety standards support. Please explain how NHTSA proposes to allocate
the additional funds.
Answer. Additional funds for safety standards support will be used
to support the following activities:
--To continue the agency's efforts to improve school bus safety;
--To continue efforts to improve the child seat safety;
--To continue agency data information collection on vehicles that
have been adapted for the disabled population;
--To assess the capability of Electronically Controlled Braking
Systems for heavy trucks and buses;
--To continue development of test procedures for offset frontal
testing;
--To address the issue of increased glare from headlamps and other
front mounted lamps;
--To develop a more appropriate test procedure for bead unseating of
radial tires; and
--To support cost and lead time work in support of several priority
rulemaking actions.
Question. Please explain how you would allocate additional funding
if the contract funding for safety standards support were increased by
$.5 million.
Answer. If the agency were to receive $.5 million for safety
standards support, the additional funds would be used to support our
efforts to improve child seat safety, heavy truck brakes, frontal off-
set testing and tire safety.
SAFETY DEFECTS INVESTIGATION PROGRAM
Question. How many safety defect investigations has NHTSA initiated
each year over the past five years that led to a vehicle or equipment
recall?
Answer. [The information follows:]
NUMBER OF DEFECT INVESTIGATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN RECALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Equipment
Year in which investigation began investigations investigations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................... 48 11
1996.................................... 63 10
1997.................................... 31 10
1998.................................... 65 5
1999.................................... 55 4
-------------------------------
Total............................. 262 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vehicle investigations and equipment investigations in the
above table reflect the number of investigations opened in the
specified investigation year and not necessarily the year in which the
recall occurred. As additional recalls are initiated, the numbers in
the above table may increase slightly for investigation year 1998 and
significantly for investigation year 1999.
VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE
Question. Please explain how you would allocate the additional
funds requested if the contract funding for the vehicle safety
compliance program were increased by $1.0 million and $2.0 million.
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $5,000,000 for
current services and $2,245,000 for increased funding. The increased
funding would cover the following: $675,000 to return the agency's
compliance test program of full-scale vehicle crash testing to the
prior year level, $1,160,000 to purchase 16 new crash test dummies for
advanced occupant protection in frontal crashes, and $410,000 to
conduct five side-impact pole tests (which includes the cost of two
specialized dummies and five vehicles, and the cost of five tests). We
also requested funds to purchase 16 dummies for use in our forthcoming
advanced air bag compliance test program (eight dummies, of two sets,
would be required at each of two laboratories).
Our first priority is to restore the $675,000 deleted from the
compliance program in fiscal year 2000. If the program were only
increased $1.0 million in fiscal year 2001, we would use the remaining
$325,000 to purchase four dummies and not conduct any side impact pole
tests. If the increase were $2.0 million, we would allocate the funds
as follows:
Return full-scale vehicle tests to prior year level........... $675,000
Purchase 13 dummies--advanced air bag testing................. 1,015,000
Purchase 3 side impact pole tests and 3 vehicles.............. 150,000
Purchase 2 dummies--side impact pole tests.................... 160,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 2,000,000
The $2 million increase would provide for only 13 of 16 dummies
which are required to conduct advanced air bag testing at two
laboratories and would reduce the number of planned side impact pole
tests from five to three.
ADVANCED AIR BAG PROTECTION
Question. Please explain your plans for a testing program for
advanced air bag protection, explaining the minimum amount that would
be needed to initiate work in fiscal year 2001.
Answer. Vehicle performance requirements for advanced air bag
protection will be assessed using a number of test protocols, most of
which are different from the tests that are currently being conducted.
The differences involve how vehicles are tested, which test dummies are
used in those tests, and how those dummies are calibrated and
positioned in the vehicles. New test procedures (i.e., detailed
instructions to independent testing facilities) will be prepared for
positioning the test dummies in and performing tests on these vehicles.
The test procedures for crash testing also specify requirements for the
maintenance, preparation, and calibration of the test dummies used in
those tests. The minimum amount needed to initiate this work in fiscal
year 2001 would be $580,000 to purchase two sets of test dummies at a
cost of $290,000 per set:
Two six-year-old dummies...................................... $160,000
Two three-year-old dummies.................................... 160,000
Two fifth percentile female dummies........................... 200,000
Two 12-month-old dummies...................................... 60,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 580,000
Because of anticipated demand for these devices, it is imperative
to have this funding available at the beginning of fiscal year 2001 so
that orders can be placed. Also, past experience has shown that new
test dummies, as manufactured, will require some corrections by the
dummy manufacturer(s) prior to acceptance by NHTSA. Once the devices
have been accepted, they will be used by the staff in the vehicle
safety compliance office who will write the detailed test procedures.
In addition, vehicle manufacturers will have the option to certify
vehicles which have advanced air bag protection to the new requirements
beginning in mid-model year 2000. Therefore, it is anticipated that
some fiscal year 2001 tests for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 208 will use these new procedures. To be able to conduct these
tests, it is imperative that the new test dummies be available quickly
so that the test procedures can be completed.
While work can begin in fiscal year 2001 with two sets of dummies,
this amount is insufficient to conduct an advanced air bag compliance
test program. As proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget, a minimum of
two sets of dummies would be required at each of two test laboratories
to conduct a compliance test program. The estimated cost for dummies
would be $1,160,000 (4 $290,000 per set of dummies). A fully
operational program would require three sets of dummies at each of
three test laboratories. The third set of dummies would enable the
program to continue without extensive time delays when dummies are
damaged during testing. The estimated cost for dummies for a fully
operational program would be $2,610,000 (9 $290,000).
SAFETY DEFECTS INVESTIGATION FUNDING
Question. Please break out how the funds requested for safety
defects investigation would be used and compare the amounts expended
(or planned to be expended) in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. [The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Activity 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defect Identification and Evaluation... $1,613,000 $2,466,000
Testing and Surveys..................... 850,000 1,060,000
Recall Monitoring and Performance....... 200,000 200,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 2,663,000 3,726,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increases in the safety defect investigation request will
enable the agency to:
--$210,000--Restore defect investigation testing to the Vehicle
Research and Test Center;
--$145,000--Provide staff support to monitor and investigate small
population vehicle groups as transit buses, recreational
vehicles, fire and rescue vehicles, and motorcycles for which
the consequences of a vehicle defect can be catastrophic;
--$100,000--Enhance internet capabilities for both the agency and
public with additional hardware and software to expand Internet
search options;
--$218,000--Purchase equipment and expertise to conduct computer-
aided design analyses of vehicle components;
--$290,000--Provide contract staff support to conduct on-site
investigations of crashes; and
--$100,000--Enhance defect investigation databases to maintain
consistency with industry.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Question. In what states and when has NHTSA entered into
cooperative agreements to train law enforcement officers as odometer
fraud investigators?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, NHTSA entered into cooperative
agreements with the Florida Highway Patrol, the Colorado State Patrol,
and the Utah Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division. Each of these states
provided a law enforcement officer to NHTSA for training. In fiscal
year 1999, there were no cooperative agreements. In fiscal year 2000,
the agency entered into a cooperative agreement with Connecticut State
Police. An officer from this state is currently assigned to NHTSA for
training. The agency is in the process of soliciting applications from
several states for a second officer to be assigned in fiscal year 2000.
ODOMETER FRAUD
Question. The NHTSA budget submission requests funding to train
odometer fraud investigators in two states. From what two states does
NHTSA intend to train investigators?
Answer. States for fiscal year 2001 have not been selected. When
funds are available, NHTSA will solicit applications from all state
enforcement agencies involved in odometer fraud enforcement.
Question. What is the status and findings of the investigation to
determine the effectiveness of the odometer fraud enforcement program?
Answer. The Congress earmarked funds in fiscal year 1994 and an
initial Request for Proposal was announced in fiscal year 1995 but no
bids were submitted. A second Request for Proposals was announced in
fiscal year 1996 and a contract to perform this research was awarded in
July 1996. The contractor has collected the data and completed the
requirement of the contract. The agency is assessing and analyzing the
data and plans to complete the study by the spring of 2001.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM
Question. Please submit a copy of your fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000 spending plans which indicates major activities and contracts
approved.
Answer. Within the Highway Safety program areas, major activities
(such as Impaired Driving, Occupant Protection, etc.) are further
broken down in major areas of effort, e.g., Enforcement/Adjudication
and Public Education/Prevention. Although smaller program areas would
have similar areas of effort, the emphases and funding may vary from
year-to-year.
Attached is a table summarizing the major activities and funding
categories for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCCUPANT PROTECTION:
Program Development................. $4,867,900 $4,602,000
Public Information and Education.... 2,880,000 2,698,800
Technology Sharing.................. 1,250,000 1,370,000
Outreach............................ 2,475,100 1,071,200
-------------------------------
Total, Occupant Protection........ 11,473,000 9,742,000
===============================
IMPAIRED DRIVING:
Public Information and Education.... 4,715,000 3,675,000
Enforcement and Adjudication........ 3,190,000 2,900,000
Outreach............................ 2,200,000 2,102,000
Legislation......................... 543,000 615,000
-------------------------------
Total, Impaired Driving \1\....... 10,648,000 9,292,000
===============================
RESEARCH AND EVALUATION:
Alcohol and Drug Research........... 1,594,000 1,475,000
Aggressive Driving (Earmark)........ 0 1,000,000
Occupant Protection Research........ 1,018,000 969,000
Rural Trauma (Earmark).............. 0 875,000
Speed and Aggressive Driving........ 928,000 801,000
Evaluation and Technology Transfer.. 657,000 574,000
Pedestrian/Bicycle Research......... 380,000 522,000
Older Driver Research............... 555,000 493,000
EMS Research........................ 305,000 305,000
Fatigue Research.................... 0 138,000
-------------------------------
Total, Research & Evaluation...... 5,437,000 7,152,000
===============================
RECORD/LICENSING AND DRIVER ED:
Driver Licensing and Education...... 373,000 826,000
Traffic Records..................... 755,000 724,000
State and Community Services........ 789,000 746,000
-------------------------------
Total, Record/Licensing & Driver 1,917,000 2,296,000
Ed...............................
===============================
TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT:
Enforcement Demonstrations.......... 427,500 700,800
National Organizations.............. 270,000 460,200
Training and Technical Assistance... 444,500 400,000
Public Information and Education.... 321,000 375,000
Technology Transfer................. 250,000 100,000
-------------------------------
Total Traffic Law Enforcement..... 1,713,000 2,036,000
===============================
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES:
National Standard Curricula......... 1,600,000 755,000
EMS Leadership...................... 260,000 238,000
EMS System Component Support........ 387,000 220,000
Injury Prevention and Control....... 235,000 128,000
EMS Information, Technologies, and 110,000 84,000
Dissemination......................
-------------------------------
Total, Emergency, Medical Services 2,592,000 1,425,000
===============================
DRUGS, DRIVING, AND YOUTH:
Public Information and Education.... 267,000 310,000
Advanced Drugged Driving Training... 733,000 280,000
Law Enforcement Initiatives and New 0 260,000
Technologies.......................
Coordination and Data Collection.... 0 218,000
Drugged Driving Research............ 250,000 50,000
International Conference on Drug 0 20,000
Research...........................
Juvenile Judge Prevention Program... 0 0
National Summit Meeting............. 150,000 0
-------------------------------
Total, Drugs, Driving and Youth... 1,400,000 1,138,000
===============================
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER: Timesharing 1,110,000 1,110,000
Computer Services & Help Desk.........
===============================
PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND PUPIL
TRANSPORTATION:
Technical Assistance, Training, and 507,000 400,000
Infrastructure Support.............
Public Information and Education.... 340,000 373,000
Partnerships and Outreach........... 255,000 285,000
-------------------------------
Total, Pedestrian, Bicycle and 1,102,000 1,058,000
Public Transportation \2\........
===============================
NEW/EMERGING/TEA-21 ISSUES: Aggressive 0 1,000,000
driving, drowsy driving, older driving,
training...............................
===============================
NOPUS: Surveys.......................... 300,000 850,000
===============================
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY:
Information and Education........... 200,000 200,000
Technical Assistance, Training, and 234,000 164,000
Infrastructure Support.............
Partnerships and Outreach........... 75,000 50,000
-------------------------------
Total, Motorcycle Safety.......... 509,000 414,000
===============================
DRIVER LICENSE IDENTIFICATION: State 325,000 0
driver licensing system grants.........
===============================
Total............................. 38,526,000 37,513,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 combined the Alcohol and DEC programs.
\2\ Fiscal year 1999 included $357,000 from Patterns for Life.
Question. With respect to the fiscal year 2000 program, how did you
improve the allocation or targeting of the Highway Safety funds since
last year? How is this allocation consistent with the agency's
performance goals?
Answer. This budget request aligns our major priority areas with
funding needs. NHTSA's highway safety performance goals include
reducing alcohol-related fatalities; increasing the use of seat belts,
child safety seats, and motorcycle and bicycle helmets; reducing
speeding and aggressive driving related fatalities; reducing pedestrian
fatalities; reducing crashes associated with driver fatigue; enhancing
the older driver's ability to drive safely; and reducing the over-
representation of young drivers in crashes.
NHTSA's fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 budgets reflect small
adjustments to augment and emphasize certain programs that are
demanding the attention of the agency. For example, the small increase
in the Traffic Law Enforcement program reflects the congressionally
mandated pursuit driving training for law enforcement officers and the
agency's Strategic Plan to reduce speeding-related fatalities which
have been on the rise since the elimination of the national maximum
speed limit. Funding increases in the Highway Safety Research program
reflect congressional earmarks for an aggressive driving demonstration
in Maryland and head trauma research in Alabama. Increases in the
Records and Licensing budget will provide funds to examine different
licensing policies of several states as they relate to older drivers as
well as to enhance efforts to improve the quality, uniformity and
utility of traffic records data. The new Emerging Traffic Safety Issues
program provides educational programs and materials on problems
involving older drivers, aggressive drivers, and drowsy drivers.
The small decreases in the Occupant Protection and Impaired Driving
Programs were necessary to allow for means to address the above and do
not reflect a lower priority for these programs which remain NHTSA's
and DOT's highest priority programs. NHTSA's complete fiscal year 2001
budget request includes significant increases designed to meet
Presidential and Secretarial goals to increase seat belt usage and
reduce alcohol-related fatalities and child fatalities.
Question. Please explain how you would allocate the additional
funds if the contract funding for highway safety programs was increased
by $.5 million and by $1.0 million?
Answer. Any additional funding would be used to augment programs
throughout the Highway Safety program areas with a significant amount
of any funds going to the Impaired Driving and Occupant Protection
priority programs which have critical program targets.
OLDER DRIVER PROGRAM
Question. Please explain the scope and nature of your older driver
program, describing current demonstrations underway, research projects,
public information and educational activities, and assistance to state
licensing agents and physicians.
Answer. In 1989, NHTSA initiated a research program to address the
behavioral aspects related to older drivers focusing on (a) identifying
the functional capabilities required for driving, (b) identifying
problem drivers, and (c) identifying those conditions that may be
amenable to rehabilitation.
One ongoing demonstration addresses all three of these areas. It is
the Maryland Model Driver Screening and Evaluation Program. The primary
outcome of this project will be an evaluation of the value of the Gross
Impairment Screening tool (GRIMPS) in identifying drivers whose skills
or capabilities have declined to the point where it is not safe for
them to drive. Analyses will determine which individual portions of the
GRIMPS are most predictive of poor driving performance. Occupational
therapists in this study will determine if those persons identified as
having poor functional capabilities can be rehabilitated or retrained
to make them safer drivers.
Other demonstrations include a Florida evaluation of an automated
version of the GRIMPS in Memory Clinic settings, and a Texas project to
document a successful pedestrian program operating in a health
organization setting. This project will also adapt key components for
use by Hispanic populations.
Other research addresses the needs of licensing agencies,
physicians, and others who work with elderly people. Past research
includes an evaluation of the relative risk posed by drivers with
reported medical conditions. It will help the licensing authority in
the State of Utah to reexamine and revise its reporting requirements.
Another investigation will develop a matrix of health symptoms or
conditions that are common among older people. It will provide
recommendations regarding driving by persons with those symptoms, based
on the identified severity of the symptom. Such recommendations could
include referral to the licensing authority, counseling, or a variety
of rehabilitation options.
Development of public information and education materials regarding
older drivers is in its early stages. Currently, NHTSA is establishing
partnerships with organizations that have an interest in older driver
safety, including AARP and the USAA Educational Foundation. We will
develop a brochure to help older drivers recognize health changes that
might affect their driving, while directing them to changes in their
driving patterns or to professionals who can help them maintain and
improve their health and driving abilities.
Question. If funding for the older driver program were increased by
$.5 million, (not including the flagship initiative), what activities
would be funded?
Answer. With increased funding, our two primary objectives of
implementing public awareness efforts and continuing critical research
would be improved.
In terms of research, additional funds would enable NHTSA to
investigate the types of traffic safety messages that resonate with
older persons including those in diverse communities. These messages
would then be used to develop and produce materials that are relevant
to diverse target audiences. NHTSA would also form additional strategic
partnerships with senior citizen organizations and with other diverse
organizations to promote the new public awareness materials.
Additional funding would also enable NHTSA to redirect existing
safety programs to provide more emphasis on the needs of older drivers
and pedestrians. For example, increasing numbers of older people ride
bicycles, but NHTSA does not have any programs that encourage older
people to wear bicycle helmets. NHTSA could adapt bicycle helmet
programs that were designed for younger audiences to meet the needs of
this different population. NHTSA would examine all program areas and
adapt the programs in those that would have the greatest potential
safety impact.
.08 BAC LAWS
Question. Please describe the activities that have been conducted
or are planned in response to the Committee's assertion that more
guidance and research is needed on the impacts of 0.08 BAC laws and on
countermeasures targeted at drivers aged 21- to 34-year-old.
Answer. Since 1991, NHTSA has published five studies regarding the
effectiveness of .08 BAC laws in reducing alcohol-related fatal
crashes. These studies have provided consistent and persuasive evidence
that these laws, particularly in combination with administrative
license revocation (ALR) laws, are associated with reductions in
alcohol-related crashes and fatalities.
A project that began in fiscal year 1999 is examining the impact of
the Illinois .08 BAC law on alcohol-related crashes and the enforcement
and court systems. The final report will be available in 2001.
A fiscal year 2000 study will evaluate the .08 BAC legislation in
Texas. The final report is scheduled to be available in 2002.
Another fiscal year 2000 project will evaluate a program that is
targeted at 21-34 year olds, the highest risk impaired driving
population. In this study, scheduled to start in June 2000, NHTSA will
identify and screen existing programs to select one amenable to
evaluation. The study will describe the program, conduct a process
evaluation, and determine whether the program was effective in changing
DWI-related incidents and behavior(s).
Question. Please delineate the nature and amount of fiscal year
2000 contracts and fiscal year 2001 plans and associated funding
amounts to continue your efforts to further the adoption and
implementation of 0.08 BAC laws.
Answer. NHTSA provides public information and educational materials
that support the adoption and implementation of 0.08 BAC laws and, when
requested by state officials, offers testimony on 0.08 BAC issues.
In fiscal year 2000, $80 million is authorized for the Section 163
0.08 BAC Law Incentive Grant program, which was designed to encourage
states to pass and enforce 0.08 BAC laws. To be eligible for these
grants, states have until July 15, 2000, to enact complying laws.
Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have 0.08 BAC laws in
effect. For fiscal year 2001, $90 million is authorized for Section
163.
A fiscal year 2000 research and evaluation contract for $150
thousand is in place to measure the effectiveness of the Texas 0.08 law
and its impact on law enforcement and the courts. Similar research is
planned for fiscal year 2001 in the State of Washington.
Question. What studies has NHTSA initiated or supported to evaluate
the effectiveness, costs, or benefits of 0.08 BAC laws? What is the
status of the Illinois project? What studies on 0.08 BAC laws are
planned with fiscal year 2001 funds? How much has been allocated for
each study?
Answer. NHTSA has published five studies regarding the
effectiveness of .08 BAC laws in reducing alcohol-related fatal
crashes. They are:
--The Effects Following the Implementation of an 0.08 BAC Limit and
Administrative Per Se Law in California (1991) ($125,000)
--The Impact of Lowering the Illegal BAC Limit to .08 in Five States
in the U.S. (1995) (Conducted in-house--no contract funds)
--The Relationship of Alcohol Safety Laws to Drinking Drivers in
Fatal Crashes (1999) ($20,000)
--The Effects of .08 BAC Laws (1999) ($65,000)
--Evaluation of the Effects of North Carolina's .08 BAC Law (1999)
($80,000)
Other than the California study, these studies were restricted in
scope to examining the effectiveness of .08 BAC laws on alcohol-related
crashes. The California study analyzed changes in alcohol-related
crashes, and also examined the law's effect on enforcement and court
systems. The .08 law was not found to create a burden for either the
police or courts.
A fiscal year 1999 NHTSA study is examining the effectiveness of
Illinois' .08 BAC law. That study, modeled after the California study,
is also examining both alcohol-related fatalities and the impact on law
enforcement and the courts. To-date, police officers, prosecutors, and
judges have been interviewed in several Illinois jurisdictions
regarding the impact of the law on their work and on their agencies. An
interim report, documenting the results of these interviews, is due in
May 2000. The final report, including fatal crash analysis, is due June
2001. ($150,000)
A fiscal year 2000 study of Texas' .08 BAC law will parallel the
Illinois study, providing information on alcohol-related fatalities,
and impact on law enforcement and the court system. The report will be
available in 2002. ($150,000)
There are no studies planned with fiscal year 2001 funds. The only
other jurisdictions to recently adopt .08 are Washington (which
simultaneously adopted 12 other impaired driving laws) and Kentucky
(which we will consider evaluating in fiscal year 2002 when more data
is available).
OPEN CONTAINER LAWS
Question. Although the statutory deadline has not passed, how many
states are likely to face a diversion of some of their federal aid
highway funds for not adopting and enforcing an open container law as
specified in TEA-21? How does the fiscal year 2001 budget address the
issue of open container laws?
Answer. As of April 19, 2000, 32 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico do not have laws in place that meet the open container
provisions of TEA-21 and, therefore, face a diversion of some of their
federal aid highway funds in fiscal year 2001. The following 18 states
have enacted laws that comply: Arizona, California, Illinois, Iowa
Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wisconsin.
Open container laws are not addressed in the fiscal year 2001
budget, however, a research and evaluation project on the effectiveness
of open container laws is currently in progress and should be completed
in fiscal year 2001.
REPEAT OFFENDER PROVISIONS
Question. Although the statutory deadline has not passed, how many
states are likely to face a diversion of some of their federal aid
highway funds because they are not in compliance with the repeat
offender provisions of TEA-21?
Answer. As of April 19, 2000, 40 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico do not have laws in place that meet the requirements of
the repeat intoxicated driver provisions of TEA-21 and face a diversion
of some of their federal aid highway funds in fiscal year 2001. The
following ten states have enacted laws that comply: Arkansas; Arizona;
Colorado; Indiana; Maine; Michigan; Nevada; Nebraska; New Hampshire;
and Washington.
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Question. The states have adopted various statutes with the goal of
curing impaired driving. Has NHTSA conducted any studies to determine
which laws or combination of laws are the most effective? If so, what
does the research tell us about the contribution of congressionally
mandated laws, such as open container or repeat offender, in reducing
impaired driving?
Answer. Over the last 30 years, NHTSA and others have conducted
research on impaired driving laws to determine if they reduce the
number of alcohol-related fatalities. Studies include laws focused on
minimum drinking age, mandatory jail sentences, per se BAC limits
(including .08 BAC limits for adults and .02 BAC limits for drivers
under age 21), administrative license revocation, graduated drivers'
licensing programs, and vehicle sanctions.
In general, research suggest that (1) most of these laws have had
some impact in reducing alcohol-related crashes or fatalities; (2)
these laws are more effective when accompanied by publicity and
enforcement; and (3) combinations of laws (and other activities) are
more likely to reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes than are
individual laws (or activities).
Federally mandated laws can be effective. As a result of federal
legislation requiring age 21 Drinking Laws, all states enacted such
laws and research provides very consistent and convincing evidence that
they have reduced the number of alcohol-related crashes, deaths, and
injuries.
Prior to fiscal year 1999, NHTSA had not conducted any research on
the effectiveness of open container laws. A study initiated in fiscal
year 1999 is now examining the effectiveness of these laws in several
states.
No research has been conducted on the effectiveness of the repeat
offender transfer provision. However, NHTSA has conducted several
studies on the effectiveness of specific countermeasures included in
that provision that are targeted at repeat offenders, including the use
of vehicle sanctions, such as ignition interlocks, and vehicle
impoundment or immobilization. A project to determine the effectiveness
of the repeat offender provision is planned for 2001.
DRUG EVALUATION AND CLASSIFICATION (DEC) PROGRAM
Question. Please explain how the funds requested for the Drug
Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program would be used and compare
the fiscal year 2001 request to fiscal year 2000 expenditures.
Answer. NHTSA estimates that drugs are used by approximately 10 to
22 percent of drivers involved in crashes. Often these drugs are used
in combination with alcohol.
There is no longer a separate budget for the DEC Program. The DEC
program has been incorporated into the overall impaired driving program
and the Drugs, Driving, and Youth initiative. The following chart is
reflective of the drug-impaired driving budgeted items.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Projects 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request Advanced Drugged Driving $280,000 $250,000
Training...............................
Drugged Driving Research................ 50,000 50,000
International Conference on Drug 20,000 0
Research...............................
Law Enforcement Initiatives and New 260,000 350,000
Technologies...........................
Public Information and Education........ 310,000 300,000
Coordination and Data Collection........ 218,000 200,000
Juvenile Judge Prevention Program....... 0 250,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,138,000 1,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While great strides have been made in the area of reducing impaired
driving over the past 15 years, America's impaired driving crash rate
has stagnated for the past three years. Countermeasures are needed to
reduce the number of alcohol-impaired and other drug-impaired drivers
on the nation's highways. The funding will increase and promote
training in drugged driving detection, drug detection and training for
prosecutors; involvement of prosecutors in community drug prevention
programs; uniform sanctions for drug offenders; DEC related research;
collection and analysis of state arrest data on drug impaired drivers;
development of courtroom skills for testifying in alcohol and drug
impaired driving cases; and expansion of DEC to community policing
programs.
Public information and education materials are needed to educate
the public, health care providers, and the courts on the risks of
drugged driving. New programs will be initiated to involve juvenile
judges in prevention activities at the community level and to develop
educational materials for diverse communities.
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Question. Please provide an update on any studies that NHTSA has
underway or planned that will help the criminal justice system deal
with drug-impaired drivers. How much will be spent on those efforts
during fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001?
Answer. NHTSA currently has two important literature reviews
underway that examine drug-impaired driving. One review focuses on
antihistamine use and driving-related skills; the other is a state-of-
knowledge literature review covering the entire drug-impaired driving
area. This review will include all available scientific studies,
including specific studies of drug-impaired driving as it relates to
the criminal justice system (e.g., studies on the arrest and
adjudication process and sanctioning). Total funding for these two
projects is approximately $200,000.
A new fiscal year 1999 study will determine the feasibility of
developing a drugged-driver detection system, similar to the
Standardized Field Sobriety Test, based on observable signs and
symptoms of drug use. This study, funded at $175,000 will identify
potential performance measures that can be used to assess drug
impairment in any setting, as well as measures that could be used in
roadside situations. This project will include a field demonstration of
the selected performance measures.
Future funds will be used for a combination of epidemiological
research (e.g., determining the incidence of drug-related driving or
crash involvement), laboratory studies (e.g., measuring the
performance-related effects of various drugs), and countermeasure
development (e.g., developing tools for law enforcement).
Question. What is NHTSA doing to work with the states to improve
laws pertaining to drug-impaired driving? How much is in your fiscal
year 2000 spending plan and fiscal year 2001 budget request for that
activity?
Answer. NHTSA works with the states to provide public information
and educational materials on effective laws through publications such
as the Digest of State Alcohol-Highway Safety Related Legislation that
contrasts each state's impaired driving (alcohol and other drug) laws
and provides a resource for comparing and developing improved impaired
driving laws.
Considerable legal research and assistance are given to the states
directly through a contract with the National Prosecutor Research
Institute's National Traffic Law Center. The Center provides direct
technical expertise on existing alcohol and drug impaired driving laws,
provides opinions on proposed laws, and develops training for
prosecutors and judges.
The Drugs, Driving and Youth initiative of $1.1 million in fiscal
year 2000 and $1.4 million in fiscal year 2001 provides funding for
activities that support improvements to laws and countermeasures to
reduce drug and alcohol impaired driving.
Question. Please break out in detail by project or activity how
NHTSA proposes to use the $11,181,000 requested for impaired driving
and compare that to the allocation expected for fiscal year 2000.
Answer. Alcohol-related fatalities account for 38 percent of all
motor vehicle fatalities. While this represents a slight decline from
1998 levels, more investment is needed for reaching the high risk
groups.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Area 2000 2001 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaired Driving Program................ $9,292 $11,181
Public Information and Education........ 3,675 3,975
Outreach................................ 2,102 2,495
Legislation............................. 615 815
Enforcement and Adjudication............ 2,900 3,896
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slight increases are requested in the areas of public information
and education, outreach, and legislation to meet the needs of states
and communities. A more significant increase is requested in
enforcement and adjudication to continue to focus on states with high
alcohol-related fatalities using highly publicized enforcement
initiatives. In addition, maintaining up-to-date training and
technology applications for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges in
the detection and sentencing of DUI offenders will remain a priority
activity.
In fiscal year 2001, NHTSA will be exploring new strategies for
reaching the youth population, including underage college students.
Action grants will be awarded to engage strategic organizations to
support highly visible enforcement. In addition, outreach grants are
planned with national organizations and employers to support prevention
activities. The national public education campaign entitled You Drink &
Drive. You Lose. will be expanded to focus on a summer message due to
the high number of alcohol-related fatalities during that period. This
campaign will target the high risk 21-34 year old age group.
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
Question. The NHTSA budget requests to triple funding for
motorcycle safety. Why is such a large increase necessary?
Answer. Unlike other traffic safety performance indicators that
reveal that fatalities are declining, motorcyclist fatalities are
actually on an upward trend. In 1998, 2,284 motorcyclists were killed
and an additional 49,000 were injured in traffic crashes in the U.S.--8
percent more than the 2,116 motorcyclist fatalities, but 7 percent less
than the 53,000 motorcyclists injured in 1997. For 1999, preliminary
estimates indicate that this upward trend is continuing--while an
estimated 48,000 motorcyclists were injured, an estimated 2,537
motorcyclists were killed in 1999, 11 percent more than in 1998.
Moreover, motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes continue to have
higher rates of intoxication than driversof other vehicles.
In 1998, NHTSA facilitated development of the National Agenda for
Motorcycle Safety, a comprehensive plan that incorporates the diverse
viewpoints of the motorcycling community. The draft National Agenda for
Motorcycle Safety, released for comment in November, 1999, identified
51 recommendations to improve motorcycle safety.
Prior public investments in motorcycle safety issues have been
minimal. Recommendations in the draft Agenda include studies on the
efficacy of motorcycle training programs and the role of alcohol in
motorcycling.
In addition to continuing current program initiatives, the
requested budget increase will support efforts to:
--investigate the causes of motorcycle crashes;
--collect data to determine the impact and relationship of licensing
programs, training curricula content, behavior and attitudes,
and vehicle characteristics (e.g., braking systems) on crash
occurrence and involvement;
--undertake research to understand the role of alcohol in
motorcycling;
--characterize the extent and impact of the injuries sustained in
motorcycle crashes by supporting efforts to enhance the Crash
Outcome Data Evaluation Systems (CODES) program for linking
medical and crash data; and
--gather data on the costs of rehabilitation and disability resulting
from involvement in motorcycle crashes.
DRUGS, DRIVING AND YOUTH
Question. Please explain the expected costs of each of the new and
on-going initiatives specified under the Drugs, Driving & Youth
initiative.
Answer. The following table summarizes the planned expenditures, in
fiscal year 2001, for drugs, driving, and youth.
Fiscal year 2001
Projects request
Law Enforcement Initiatives & New Technologies................ $350,000
Public Information and Education.............................. 300,000
Advanced Drugged Driving Training............................. 250,000
Juvenile Judge Prevention Program............................. 250,000
Coordination and Data Collection.............................. 200,000
Drugged Driving Research...................................... 50,000
In 1998, 6,168 youth, ages 15 through 20, died in motor vehicle
crashes, a 1.2 percent decrease from 1997. Of this number, 2,210
fatalities were alcohol-related; this was a 4 percent decrease from
1997. Since 1982, youth fatality trends have compared favorably to
those of the adult (over age 21) population, with a 28 percent overall
decline for youth compared to a 2 percent increase for adults. However,
in terms of fatality rates per 100,000 population, youth are still
over-represented by a factor of 3 to 2 (9 to 7 for alcohol-related
fatalities).
Countermeasures are needed to reduce the number of alcohol and
other drug-impaired drivers on the nation's highways. Additional
training for law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges are
needed in the identification, prosecution, and adjudication of the
drug-impaired driver. A focus on technology support for the trained
drug recognition expert will also be supported. Funding will be
provided to collect additionaldata to more clearly define and
understand the extent of the drug impaired driving problem.
Public information and education materials will be developed to
educate the public, health care providers, and the courts on the risks
of drugged driving (particularly among youth) and potential prevention
strategies. A new program will be initiated to involve juvenile judges
in prevention activities at the community level, as well as the
development of educational materials for diverse communities.
GRADUATED DRIVER LICENSING (GDL) SYSTEMS
Question. How many states are now receiving grant funds to test and
evaluate graduated licensing systems? Please indicate funding amounts
and results of the various evaluations now being conducted.
Answer. Novice drivers are over-involved in crashes. Graduated
driver licensing systems are one means to reducing these crashes. Three
states, Kentucky, Michigan, and North Carolina, have received funds to
assist them in evaluations of their new graduated driver licensing
systems. Kentucky has received a total of $230,000 (fiscal year 1998,
fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000). Michigan has received a total
of $370,000 (fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999, and fiscal year 2000),
and North Carolina has received a total of $397,271 (fiscal year 1994).
Preliminary evaluation results from all three states will be
available in calendar 2000. However, until the evaluations are
completed (i.e., in CY 2001 for Kentucky and North Carolina, and CY
2003 for Michigan), it will not be possible to determine the impact of
these laws. It is expected, however, that all three evaluations will
further corroborate other graduated driver licensing systems
evaluations which have shown crash reductions of 5 to 30 percent for
novice drivers.
PRE-LICENSING DRUG TEST FUNDING
Question. Will any funds be spent on random or pre-licensing drug
tests for youth in fiscal year 2000 or fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No funding will been expended on pre-licensing drug testing
in fiscal year 2000 nor is any budgeted for in fiscal year 2001.
SEAT BELT USAGE
Question. According to the Department's 1999 Performance Report,
NHTSA missed its seat belt usage goal for 1999. NHTSA's goals for 2000
and 2001 in this are even greater than the missed goal. When a
performance objective like this is missed, does it make sense to review
outyear goals and reassign current objective to the future?
Answer. The seat belt use goal, while ambitious, has tremendous
potential in terms of significantly increasing safety and reducing the
toll associated with traffic crash fatalities and injuries. Reaching 85
percent seat belt use would prevent an estimated 4,200 deaths and
102,000 injuries and reduce substantially the societal costs associated
with highway traffic crashes. The Department, with its many partners,
has committed to mounting an all-out effort to meet the national goal
of 85 percent by the end of 2000.
The agency has outlined a two pronged approach to achieve a
significant increase in seat belt use over the next year. This two
pronged approach requires NHTSA to: (1) expand the scope of the Buckle
Up America Campaign in all 50 states; and (2) focus on several
opportunities including: states with high seat belt use rates, states
with new primary laws, states with potential to increase belt use, and
states likely to pass primary seat belt laws.
A key element of the campaign is working with states and law
enforcement agencies to increase enforcement activities throughout 2000
and 2001. NHTSA will continue to build upon the cadre of 7,000 law
enforcement agencies participating in the national seat belt
enforcement mobilizations targeted to the Memorial Day and Thanksgiving
Holiday weeks of each year.
To support this enforcement effort, the agency will provide
technical assistance to the states as they implement their fiscal year
2000 Section 157 innovative grants ($25 million) provided to increase
seat belt use. These funds were awarded under the TEA-21, Section 157
discretionary grant program, and will institutionalize periodic waves
of seat belt and child passenger protection enforcement. Additional
funds of over $54 million were awarded through the Section 157
incentive grant portion to states whose seat belt use rate exceeded the
national average or reported an increase in seat belt use from the
previous year.
A significant portion of these grants along with Section 403
Demonstration and 402 grant funds will support increased enforcement
for states by funding additional enforcement waves, equipment, and
statewide media campaigns.
MINI-NOPUS SURVEYS
Question. What were the results of mini-NOPUS surveys that were
conducted most recently in conjunction with the Buckle Up America
campaign?
Answer. The results of the mini-National Occupant Protection Use
Surveys (NOPUS) conducted most recently in conjunction with the Buckle
Up America campaign are as follows:
MINI-NOPUS PERCENT SHOULDER BELT USE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 98 June 98 Dec 98 Dec 99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall..................... 62 65 70 67
Drivers..................... 63 66 70 67
Passengers.................. 60 63 69 64
Passenger Cars.............. 66 69 72 70
Drivers..................... 67 70 73 71
Passengers.................. 62 66 72 66
Other Pass Vehicles......... 56 60 66 62
Drivers..................... 57 61 67 62
Passengers.................. 55 58 65 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mini-NOPUS conducted in May 1998 obtained observational
shoulder belt use prior to the 1998 Memorial Day Buckle Up America
blitz. The shoulder belt use rate obtained from this mini-NOPUS
provided a baseline by which to monitor restraint use. The mini-NOPUS
conducted in June 1998 obtained the data within five to seven days
after the 1998 Memorial Day blitz. The December 1998 mini-NOPUS was
conducted within five days after the 1998 Thanksgiving Day blitz. The
December 1999 mini-NOPUS was conducted within five days after the 1999
Thanksgiving Day blitz.
SEAT BELT USAGE RATE
Question. How many states had a lower seat belt usage rate in 1999
than 1998?
Answer. Eleven states reported lower seat belt usage rates for 1999
as compared to 1998. These included seven whose reported usage rates
were more than one full percentage point below the rates reported for
1998: The District of Columbia (down 3.9 percent); Indiana (down 4.5
percent); Maine (down 2.3 percent); Mississippi (down 3.5 percent); New
Hampshire (down 2.5 percent); Virginia (down 3.7 percent); and, West
Virginia (down 5.8 percent). The other four states reported decreases
of less than one full percentage point from 1998 to 1999: Colorado
(down 0.8 percent); Hawaii (down 0.2 percent); Texas (down 0.4
percent); and Puerto Rico (down 0.5 percent). South Dakota and Wyoming
reported no seat belt surveys for 1999.
SECTION 157 INNOVATIVE GRANT PROGRAM
Question. How many employees work on the innovative grant portion
of the Section 157 innovative grant program?
Answer. Because of the competitive nature of the Section 157
innovative program and the grant requirements themselves, a NHTSA
committee of interdisciplinary experts was formed to review the grant
proposals. Seven members serve on this committee. In addition to the
seven headquarters staff who serve on the grant evaluation committee,
two staff members in the Office of State and Community Services provide
coordination services to the regional office staff who have oversight
responsibilities for the Section 157 innovative grants.
In the Office of Contracts and Procurement, a contract specialist
is responsible for communicating and coordinating all correspondence
and information between the 52 potential applicants and the evaluation
committee. In addition, this staff person prepares all award documents,
contract modifications and other grant obligations.
In the NHTSA Regional offices, 41 staff members serve as
Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTRs) to carry out
management and oversight responsibilities for the 46 innovative grants
that were awarded.
Question. Please describe in detail each of the reasons why funds
for the innovative grant portion of the Section 157 program were not
distributed by October 1, 1999.
Answer. Current legislation requires states to submit applications
in the prior fiscal year with the intention that Section 157 innovative
grants will be awarded on the first of the new fiscal year, October 1.
However, grant funds cannot be awarded until annual appropriations laws
are signed and funds are made available to the agency. In addition,
funding for Section 157 innovative grants could not be determined until
after the award of Section 157 incentive grants. The Section 157
incentive grants were not awarded until November 2, 1999. Therefore,
final negotiations were delayed in 1999 until the exact amount of
funding available for fiscal year 2000 Section 157 innovative grants
was known.
Following the award of the Section 157 incentive grants, when exact
funding amounts could be determined, additional time was needed to
allow the transfer of funds from FHWA to NHTSA. Current legislation
requires funding to be allocated to FHWA and then distributed to NHTSA.
Even if the budget process would have allowed an October 1, 1999
award, the time to review the proposals would have made this date
difficult to meet. The competitive process for awarding these
innovative grants involved the review of 49 proposals and technical
negotiation with each applicant. The negotiation process involved two
or more rounds of technical questions about the proposal and
suggestions for improvement to raise the chances of award for each
particular state. Each state was given the required minimum of 10 days
to respond to technical questions. The six month time period time was
necessary to study and evaluate the proposals and negotiate the
contents of each proposal, within the guidelines of a competitive grant
process, prior to awarding 46 innovative grants.
Question. What steps are underway to ensure a more timely delivery
of those funds during the next grant cycle?
Answer. NHTSA is taking several steps to ensure that the Section
157 review-approval-award process proceeds more expeditiously in future
years.
First, NHTSA is seeking a legislative change in the timeline for
allocation of Section 157 innovative funds (moving application and
award dates forward), to create more separation between the incentive
and innovative portions of the program. In this way the agency expects
to provide the state applicants better information about available
balances for innovative grants, after incentive funds are allocated,
and to ensure that full funding is available and transferred from the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to NHTSA at the time award
decisions are scheduled to be made.
Second, NHTSA has conducted an assessment with the State Highway
Safety Offices to determine ways to improve the application, review and
approval process of the fiscal year 2000 Section 157 innovative grant
program.
Third, the Federal Register Notice for fiscal year 2001 will
contain more details about the specific components that need to be
included in each proposal and the criteria that will be used to
evaluate each proposal. Providing the states with more information in
the Federal Register Notice should improve the overall grant award
process.
The combined effect of these steps should result in a streamlined,
more efficient grant award process.
Question. What process did you use to award the innovative Section
157 grants?
Answer. The Section 157 innovative grants are intended to provide
funding to develop and implement new programs that increase seat belt
use.
To award the Section 157 innovative grants, an evaluation committee
comprised of seven staff people was established to review the
applications, prepare technical questions, evaluate the responses, and
make recommendations for awards.
The process for this grant program, similar to other discretionary
competitive grant programs, required that the committee members
evaluate the individual proposals, assign scores to each proposal based
on criteria described in the Federal Register Notice, assess applicant
responses to technical questions, and reach consensus on which
proposals to recommend for award.
Given the unique situation of evaluating proposals for future
fiscal year dollars, it was necessary for the committee to further
negotiate with several of the state applicants to ensure that the level
of effort proposed by the states matched the amount of grant funding
available.
Once decisions were made to award the selected states, funds were
transferred from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to NHTSA.
Current legislation requires funding to be allocated to FHWA and then
distributed to NHTSA.
Once the award and budget decisions were finalized, NHTSA prepared
grant award documents for signature.
SECTION 157 INNOVATIVE GRANT AND SECTION 403 FUNDING
Question. Please prepare estimates of the amount of funds that will
be available for the innovative grant portion of the Section 157
program for fiscal year 2001 and each of the remaining years of the
TEA-21 authorization period. How will these funds be integrated with
the ongoing NHTSA Section 403 program?
Answer. It is estimated that the Section 157 innovative grant
portion of the program will remain constant at 20 to 25 million dollars
annually. Currently the only estimates of funding available under
Section 157 are the amounts provided in the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) legislation for both the incentive and
innovative portions. Under Section 157, the TEA-21 legislation provides
for federal funding in the amounts of: $92 million for 2000, $102
million for 2001,$112 million for 2002 and $112 million for 2003. These
figures illustrate a steady upward trend in funding that levels off in
2002 and 2003.
As specified in the legislation, before determining the innovative
portion of the grant, the incentive portion for each state must be
calculated. Incentive grant amounts for each state are calculated based
upon savings in medical costs to the federal government that result
from increased seat belt use rates. As additional states qualify for
the incentive portion, the total amount allocated for that portion will
increase. However, given that the overall budget for the Section 157
program is also scheduled to increase, it is estimated that the
innovative grant amounts will remain relatively constant.
Section 403 funds are used primarily to develop, demonstrate,
evaluate and research new countermeasures or strategies and conduct
national public information and education campaigns. Section 157
innovative grant funds are used for developing and implementing
innovative strategies at the state level to increase seat belt use.
These strategies are based on each state's individual set of
circumstances. Section 157 innovative grant fund programs will utilize
information and countermeasures developed with Section 403 funds. The
combination of programs to increase seat belt use funded by Section 157
and Section 403 funds should provide the best opportunity for raising
seat belt use in individual states and, subsequently, raise our
nationwide performance.
PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT LAWS
Question. How many additional states enacted primary enforcement
laws last year? What was NHTSA's role in those legislative initiatives?
Answer. In 1999, Alabama and Michigan enacted primary enforcement
laws. NHTSA provided technical assistance to both states on the
effectiveness of a primary enforcement seat belt law in reducing deaths
and serious injuries in motor vehicle related crashes.
AIR BAG SAFETY
Question. Please provide an update on the results of NHTSA'S
efforts to reduce the adverse effects of airbag deployment,
specifically as related to serious injuries and fatalities.
Answer. To reduce the affects of airbag deployment, NHTSA has
completed the following activities:
--On March 19, 1997, NHTSA allowed vehicle manufacturers to quickly
change the design of air bags to make them less powerful. This
action resulted in air bags in most 1998 vehicles being
redesigned and reduced in power.
--On November 21, 1997, NHTSA changed the vehicle safety rules to
permit dealerships and repair shops to legally install air bag
on-off switches for consumers meeting certain criteria.
--The agency took broad steps of exploratory research to improve
future air bags. Collectively, these future improvements will
be called advanced air bags and result from this major program
of research to test and evaluate air bag systems.
--On September 17, 1998, and November 5, 1999, NHTSA published
proposals to amend the federal motor vehicle safety standards
to require advanced air bags in the near future. On May 12,
2000, the Final Rule for advanced air bags was published in the
Federal Register (65 FR 30680) amending Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to specify
the details of the required phase-in of advanced air bags.
This agency continues its program to increase belt usage. NHTSA's
educational activities to reduce the adverse effects of air bag
deployment are conducted through the Buckle Up America campaign to
increase education to consumers on the correct use of both safety belts
and child safety seats and to get children to ride in the back. For
example, since the Buckle Up America campaign began in 1996, motor
vehicle deaths of children (0-4 years) have been reduced 12 percent.
This reduction was the direct result of NHTSA's efforts to implement
the strategies of high visibility enforcement of child passenger safety
laws combined with public education. NHTSA plans to continue these same
strategies.
Question. How much of the fiscal year 2001 budget request would be
allocated to that area? Please break out those funds in detail.
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $23.2 million is programmed for
addressing air bag safety. This includes $11.9 million in funding
requested for air bag research to reduce the adverse effects of air bag
deployment, specifically as related to serious injuries and fatalities,
and $11.3 million for Highway Safety programs.
The following provides a brief description for each of the major
research areas:
Biomechanics Program--($5.0 million).--Research will continue to
address the near-term development of pediatric and small female injury
criteria associated with the intense and complex out-of-position air
bag-vehicle occupant interaction. These efforts have as their goal the
development of essential tools for the assessment of current and
emerging air bag deployment systems.
Safety Systems Program--($4.4 million).--Research will continue on
the development, performance, and monitoring of advanced air bag
systems that build upon the technological solutions to air bag problems
identified in the field experience, including those injuries resulting
from aggressive air bag deployments (especially to children and
occupants of short stature). Production vehicles with advanced safety
systems will be evaluated and performance requirements established
based on these systems. Such systems will include production multi-
stage air bag inflators, air bag suppression technologies through
occupant detection, seat position sensors, adjustable pedals, etc.
Research will also continue on the development of improved air bag
deployment timing through the use of anticipatory crash sensing
technology. High speed (56 kmph) crash protection will continue to be
evaluated for belted small female occupants in high severity crashes
(and mid sized male occupant protection will be analyzed through NCAP
performance testing). Also, research will include out-of-position
occupant tests (static and/or dynamic) to evaluate the performance of
side air bags and other related systems, i.e., Inflatable Tubular
Structure (ITS), deployable upper interior paddings, etc.
Special Crash Investigations--(SCI) (about $2.5 million).--During
fiscal year 2001, over 400 advanced air bag and side air bag cases
would be investigated. Research will continue to investigate, through
its SCI program, approximately 200 motor vehicle crashes that qualify
for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program and non-air bag related
vehicle safety problems.
Highway Safety ($11.3 million).--The most effective action anyone
can take to prevent air bag injury is to be properly restrained when
riding in a vehicle with an air bag. Therefore, NHTSA does not
distinguish between education to reduce the adverse effects of air bags
and education to increase the correct use of safety belts and child
safety seats. The entire fiscal year 2001 Highway Safety Occupant
Protection budget request of $11.3 million should be considered as
allocated to reducing the adverse effects of air bags.
SEAT BELTS
Question. How much is being spent in fiscal year 2000 and proposed
for fiscal year 2001 within the core NHTSA program (not counting
flagship initiatives) to determine why people do not wear their seat
belts?
Answer. A total of $500,000 is being spent in fiscal year 2000, and
$425,000 is proposed to be spent in fiscal year 2001, on projects that
will collect data to determine why people do not wear their seat belts.
NHTSA will conduct a national telephone survey on occupant
protection in the Fall (fiscal year 2000) that will include questions
regarding the reasons for seat belt use and non-use. This survey will
also collect data on attitudes and knowledge related to seat belts in
order to assess how (self-reported) seat belt use differs according to
various attitudes and knowledge levels. This project is funded at
$250,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $150,000 is proposed for fiscal year
2001.
NHTSA will also conduct telephone surveys both before and after
upcoming Buckle Up America (BUA) Enforcement Mobilizations. These
surveys will collect data to assess how enforcement-related and other
information affects decisions to wear seat belts. This project is
funded at $50,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $125,000 is proposed for
fiscal year 2001.
A third effort will explore reasons for non-use of seat belts among
African Americans. This research is part of a larger program to
identify the overall highway safety needs of African American
communities and to develop more effective approaches for promoting
highway safety in these communities. This project will be funded at
$200,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $150,000 is proposed in fiscal year
2001.
Not included in the activities identified above is countermeasure
development, based on past research to identify reasons for non-use of
seat belts. Our past research has indicated that ``part time'' users of
seat belts greatly outnumber persons who never use their seat belts. As
a result, NHTSA is in the process of developing and testing
interventions specifically designed for ``part time'' users. Project
funding is $261,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $200,000 in fiscal year
2001. These numbers are not included in totals provided above since
these activities are not for the purpose of identifying reasons for
non-use of seat belts. Rather, this project goes to the next step and
is developing countermeasures based on such reasons.
Question. How much is being spent in fiscal year 2000 and proposed
for fiscal year 2001 within the core NHTSA program (not counting
flagship initiatives) to develop and implement strategies to encourage
those high risk groups to use their seat belts?
Answer. Of the core NHTSA program, approximately $1,905,000 is
being spent to increase high risk group seat belt use in fiscal year
2000 and $1,794,000 in fiscal year 2001 through a combination of
outreach programs, information and materials development and
distribution, and research projects.
Of this amount, $1,044,000 is being distributed to organizations
that represent or serve people living in rural areas as well as youth,
truck drivers, the African American, Hispanic, and Native American
communities. Approximately 30 organizations are being funded in fiscal
year 2000, most of which are conducting outreach activities targeting
high risk populations. For example, a number of projects initiated in
fiscal year 1999 under the Buckle Up America Cooperative Agreement will
be continued and expanded in fiscal year 2000 and 2001. Of the 21
organizations funded, eight represent African American organizations,
five Hispanic organizations, and three youth, and two rural, with some
crossover among them. Other youth targeted projects include Black
Entertainment Television (BET), National Science Teachers Association,
National Organizations for Youth Safety (NOYS), the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America and the National Latino Children's Institute as well
as support for the Healthy Child Care America Campaign and Buckle Up
Kids Curriculum. We are continuing and expanding our outreach to the
Native American community through our interagency agreement with the
Indian Health Service. We are also funding several medical and health
organizations to conduct educational outreach programs such as the
Association of City and County Health Officials, American Hospital
Association, the National Medical Association and the National Hispanic
Medical Association, Emergency Nurses Association and Emergency Nurses
CARE, Inc., and the Meharry Medical College.
Approximately $300,000 is being spent on seat belt public
information and education materials to support Buckle Up America and
increase belt use among high-risk groups. This includes materials
printed in languages other than English and materials that target other
high-risk groups such as youth, truck drivers, the African American
community, and Americans who reside in rural communities. NHTSA expects
to devote roughly the same level of resources to these organizations
and for printing costs of public information and education materials in
fiscal year 2001.
In addition, a NHTSA project will explore reasons for non-use of
seat belts as part of a study focusing on African Americans. The
project goals will be to identify highway safety needs of African
American communities and ways of promoting highway safety to those
communities. Project funding is $200,000 in fiscal year 2000 and
$150,000 proposed in fiscal year 2001.
Finally, advanced project work based on past NHTSA research on
reasons for non-use of seat belts is being funded. That research has
shown that ``part time'' users of seat belts greatly outnumber non-
users. NHTSA currently is developing and testing interventions for part
time seat belt users. Project funding is $261,000 in fiscal year 2000
and $200,000 in fiscal year 2001. An additional $100,000 will focus
exclusively on research into pick-up truck driver non-seat belt use and
children being allowed to ride in the cargo area of pick-up trucks in
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
STATE SURVEY DATA
Question. Can NHTSA determine from state survey data of seat belt
use counties or regions within a state that are below the national
average? If so, please provide a table which depicts, on a state by
state basis, the counties or regions of each state with low seat belt
usage rates.
Answer. NHTSA cannot determine from state survey data of seat belt
use counties or regions within a state that are below the national
average. Under the NHTSA guidelines for seat belt observational
surveys, states use random probabilistic methods to select places where
seat belt observations will occur. Generally, this involves randomly
choosing a subset of sampling units and specific locations within the
selected sampling units where observations take place. States are not
required to sample usage in all counties or regions of the state. The
large majority of counties throughout the country are not surveyed.
Thus, it is not possible to list counties or regions where seat belt
usage is below the national average.
TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Question. What are the major challenges facing the law enforcement
community and how does your budget request address those challenges?
Answer. The major challenge facing the law enforcement community is
the need to continue conducting high visibility traffic law enforcement
initiatives with dwindling resources and increasing demands for
service. The traffic law enforcement budget request specifically
addresses initiatives directed at increasing safety belt and child
safety seat use and the reduction of impaired driving, speeding, and
aggressive driving.
Increasing safety belt and child safety seat usage and combating
impaired driving, speeding, and aggressive driving behaviors will
require innovative countermeasures and best practices that can be
tailored for use by law enforcement agencies throughout the country.
Also, agencies are looking for automated enforcement technologies to
supplement limited personnel resources. NHTSA is involved in
researching existing and new technologies to identify where and how
automated devices can supplement enforcement efforts for red-light
running, speeding and railroad grade crossing violations. Ensuring the
accuracy and reliability of these automated devices is crucial to their
acceptance in any legal proceeding.
Law enforcement is committed to strongly supporting the NHTSA goals
of reducing alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities to no more than
11,000 by the year 2005 and increasing seat belt use to 90 percent by
2005. To meet these ambitious goals and to also reduce the carnage
resulting from speeding and aggressive drivers, law enforcement
agencies must continue to conduct high visibility enforcement programs.
These programs, coupled with public information and education
campaigns, increase the public's perception that traffic law
enforcement efforts are widespread and critical to reducing motor
vehicle injuries and fatalities.
In direct support of both the TEA-21 initiatives and the NHTSA
strategic plan, the law enforcement community is working towards
reducing speed related fatalities. These fatalities have been on the
rise since the elimination of the national maximum speed limit. Through
a joint NHTSA and FHWA field demonstration project, emphasis will be
directed to restoring credibility to speed limits through enforcement,
engineering and education. NHTSA will continue to respond to high risk,
aggressive driving by promoting innovative enforcement practices and
new technologies and bringing more public attention to the issue.
AGGRESSIVE DRIVING
Question. What was the purpose and amount of each contract NHTSA
let to reduce aggressive driving in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000?
Answer. A fiscal year 1999 NHTSA demonstration and evaluation
project will soon be implemented in two sites. Two metropolitan law
enforcement agencies, or combinations of agencies, have been selected
to implement innovative enforcement techniques or strategies. Each
program will include a public information and education (PI&E)
component. The enforcement effort will be implemented in each site for
a minimum of six months, and the effectiveness of each program will be
evaluated. The funding for this effort in fiscal year 1999 was
$500,000.
In a fiscal year 2000 project, NHTSA is identifying specific
enforcement practices that show promise for deterring aggressive
driving. In addition, this project is developing a public education
effort to increase the public's perception of high risk driving
behavior. The cost of this project is $115,000.
An estimated $20,000 in fiscal year 2000 is also being used to fund
a law enforcement officer to work with NHTSA on a one-year assignment
to collect and summarize information from law enforcement agencies
across the nation that are conducting aggressive driving programs. This
information will then be entered into a database of aggressive driving
programs which can be used by other law enforcement agencies.
NHTSA and FHWA have convened an Aggressive Driving Implementation
Group to review progress in implementing the recommendations from the
1999 Aggressive Driving and the Law symposium. The group has reviewed
recommendations from this symposium and is currently establishing
priorities, identifying partners, and determining the next steps for
developing a National Action Plan. A total of $60,000 has been
identified to support this activity for fiscal year 2000.
TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING
Question. Please provide a table for the components in the Traffic
Law Enforcement Program which shows how funds requested for fiscal year
2001 are intended to be spent. In that table, please compare the amount
provided for similar activities for fiscal year 2000 and provide a
justification for the need for the requested increases above fiscal
year 2000 appropriations.
Answer. Efforts to reduce impaired driving, speeding, aggressive
driving, and other unsafe driving acts in addition to promoting
increased seat belt and child safety seat use are critical
responsibilities of our nation's law enforcement agencies.
The fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 funding levels for the
five Traffic Law Enforcement Program components are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program area 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement Demonstrations.............. $700,800 $903,000
Training and Technical Assistance \1\... 400,000 1,279,000
Technology Transfer..................... 100,000 262,000
National Organizations.................. 460,200 452,000
Public Information and Education........ 375,000 446,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 2,036,000 3,342,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congress has directed that NHTSA provide Pursuit Management training
and TEA-21 authorized $1M to fund this program.
The Traffic Law Enforcement budget directly supports both TEA-21
initiatives and the agency's strategic plan to increase seat belt usage
and reduce impaired, speeding and aggressive drivers.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request seeks continued funding for our
current partnerships with national law enforcement associations such as
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National
Sheriffs Association, the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement executives, and others. These partnerships provide an
efficient and economical method of promoting our traffic safety
initiatives. In addition, funding is needed for other traffic law
enforcement projects that are included in the DOT and NHTSA Strategic
Plan. The additional funds are needed to:
--Provide seminars on Traffic Safety in the New Millennium: Law
Enforcement Strategies for law enforcement executives, designed
to enable and prepare them to address emerging traffic safety
challenges;
--Provide a seminar on newly developed technologies designed to
supplement law enforcement efforts through automated
enforcement of red-light running, speeding, and railroad
crossing violations;
--Develop a resource guide for new technologies to ensure the
accuracy and reliability of enforcement devices for enforcement
agencies, the courts, and the motoring public;
--Develop a training program for law enforcement administrators
designed to aid in developing a broader, general emphasis on
traffic safety related programs while protecting the individual
rights of the motoring public; and
--Continue the development of the aggressive driving public in
formation materials.
INTEGRATED DRIVER LICENSING SYSTEM
Question. What is the status of the comprehensive integrated driver
licensing system? What costs, broken out by year, are associated with
its development? How much work remains to be done to fully implement
the system?
Answer. Currently, NHTSA is preparing a Report to Congress
regarding the National Driver Register's (NDR's) Problem Driver Pointer
System (PDPS), operated by NHTSA, and the Commercial Driver License
Information System (CDLIS), formerly operated by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and now operated by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA). This evaluation, required by the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (TEA-21), focuses on the
ability of these two systems to transfer records electronically and to
identify drivers with multiple licenses.
NHTSA is also conducting an assessment of various technologies to
facilitate processing of the large volume of data and transactions
which would be associated with an integrated driver licensing system.
The total expenditure for this activity, also required by TEA-21, is
$250,000provided to the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA). No additional funds have been provided for this
activity.
Much of the information for the Report to Congress comes from a
1997 study, conducted by NHTSA, FHWA, and AAMVA, which recommended
combining PDPS and CDLIS with the Driver License Reciprocity (DLR)
System (operated by AAMVA) to form an integrated national system. This
report suggested that such a system would greatly facilitate the
ability of motor vehicle administrators to transfer records
electronically and to identify drivers with multiple licenses.
There are some significant obstacles which must be overcome before
such a system, which would contain information on nearly 200 million
drivers, can be fully developed. First, as the 1997 Report concluded,
some form of unique identifier (e.g., social security number) will be
needed to differentiate between potentially thousands of similar
records in the system (e.g. nearly 2.4 million persons have the surname
``Smith''). This need for a unique identifier has been strongly opposed
by privacy advocates. Second, in order to identify drivers with
multiple licenses, it will be essential that all states participate.
Finally, the costs associated with developing such a system will be
formidable. Each of these issues will be addressed in the Report to
Congress.
OLDER DRIVER PROGRAM
Question. In Senate Report 104-325, the Committee indicated that
NHTSA should continue its work on demonstration activities for
technologies and practices intended to improve driver performance of
older drivers at risk of losing their licenses. How is that directive
reflected in the fiscal year 2001 budget request and in the fiscal year
2000 spending plan for the transportation safety program? Please
provide a list of each activity and its spending level.
Answer. For the fiscal year 2001 budget request, $300,000 is
planned for conducting up to three demonstration activities designed to
enhance the safety and mobility of older drivers and pedestrians. NHTSA
is still reviewing program alternatives to determine which specific
programs will be demonstrated. Programs under consideration include:
senior fitness programs that incorporate pedestrian safety and driving
health; conducting assessment activities at senior health fairs; and
assistance to a state licensing authority's medical advisory board to
develop an evaluation program for referrals that is grounded in
research. For the fiscal year 2000 spending plan, $130,000 is planned
for conducting demonstration activities specifically for identification
and potential rehabilitation of at-risk older drivers.
Question. How many states are involved in older driver
demonstrations supported with NHTSA funds?
Answer. Three states are currently involved in NHTSA older driver
demonstrations. They are as follows:
--Maryland is conducting an effort to determine the value of the
Gross Impairment Screening tool (GRIMPS) as a means for
identifying potential problem drivers in Department of Motor
Vehicle (DMVs) settings and in senior centers and its value in
providing counseling or rehabilitation to such persons.
--Florida is involved in a project to assess the value of using an
automated version of GRIMPS for identifying problem drivers.
The program, which will be administered in memory clinics, aims
to address those drivers whose cognitive abilities may have
declined and who may be unaware of how the declines are
affecting their driving. Beyond simply assessing individuals
with cognitive impairments, the program also aims to provide
counseling with regard to potential rehabilitation or, if
indicated, counseling individuals to stop driving and use other
options.
--Texas is in the process of documenting a program on elderly
pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver safety that is operated by
the Texas Department of Health and the Texas Department of
Transportation. This very successful and popular program will
be described in an evaluation report so that people in other
states or local agencies can copy components of the program.
This effort also involves modifying portions of the program to
meet the needs of Spanish-speaking older adults, a large
audience that has remained largely unaddressed.
Question. How much is allocated toward those efforts in fiscal year
2000? Will those efforts be expanded during fiscal year 2001? How much
is requested for those efforts in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. A total $263,000 in funding is planned for fiscal year 2000
older driver demonstration projects. Depending on the outcomes of the
efforts in Florida, Texas, and Maryland, NHTSA will either fund
additional activities at these sites or, if the results are
sufficiently definitive, new demonstrations will be initiated. These
additional activities might include aiding the Maryland medical
advisory board in adapting assessment tools for use on referred
drivers. Another program could entail the use of automated assessment
tools at senior health fairs to generate an understanding among seniors
of how their health influences their driving. For fiscal year 2001,
$300,000 has been requested for demonstration projects on older driver
and pedestrian safety. Thus, the level of effort will increase slightly
in fiscal year 2001.
HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH
Question. Please break out how the $7.446 million requested under
highway safety research would be allocated.
Answer. The Highway Safety Research breakdown is as follows:
Impaired Driving..............................................$1,900,000
Occupant Protection........................................... 1,400,000
Older Driver.................................................. 850,000
Pedestrian and Cyclist........................................ 876,000
Speed & Aggressive Driving.................................... 1,120,000
Emergency Medical Services.................................... 400,000
Evaluation.................................................... 650,000
Driver Fatigue & Inattention.................................. 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 7,446,000
NATIONAL OCCUPANT PROTECTION USE SURVEY
Question. What are the status and the results to date of the
National Occupant Protection Use Survey?
Answer. The results of the National Occupant Protection Use Survey
(NOPUS) to date are as follows:
TABLE 1.--NATIONAL OCCUPANT PROTECTION USE SURVEY--MOVING TRAFFIC STUDY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent restraint use
Belt and helmet use --------------------------------
Fall 1994 Fall 1996 Fall 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall................................ 58 61 69
Drivers............................ 59 62 70
Passenger.......................... 55 59 65
Passenger Cars......................... 63 65 71
Drivers............................ 64 65 72
Passengers......................... 59 62 68
Other Pass Vehicles.................... 50 56 66
Drivers............................ 51 58 67
Passengers......................... 49 53 61
Helmet Use............................. 63 64 67
Operators.......................... 67 66 64
Riders............................. 54 58 84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The restraint use rates presented in Table 1 were obtained through
the Moving Traffic Study portion of the NOPUS which provides overall
restraint use rates for drivers and right front passengers in passenger
vehicles (passenger vehicles are defined as passenger cars, pickup
trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles).
TABLE 2.--NATIONAL OCCUPANT PROTECTION USE SURVEY CONTROLLED INTERSECTION STUDY
[Percent Restraint Use by Year, Age, Sex, Race, and Urbanization]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
-----------------------------------------------
1994 1996 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age:
Infant...................................................... 87.7 85.2 96.9
Toddler..................................................... 60.7 60.1 90.7
Youth....................................................... 57.7 64.6 71.8
Young Adult................................................. 52.6 49.5 57.2
Adult....................................................... \1\ 59.1 62.4 69.8
Senior...................................................... \1\ 59.1 68.8 77.3
Sex:
Female...................................................... 64.4 68.0 76.3
Male........................................................ 54.4 56.8 62.8
Race:
White....................................................... 59.6 62.6 69.8
Black....................................................... 53.0 51.2 65.4
Other....................................................... 54.6 58.0 65.3
Urbanization:
City........................................................ 57.7 61.1 73.8
Suburban.................................................... 62.9 64.4 66.5
Rural....................................................... 52.8 60.1 66.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1994 NOPUS collected only Adult (25 years or older).
Table 2 shows the restraint use rates obtained from the Controlled
Intersection Study portion of the NOPUS which provides more detailed
information about shoulder belt use by type of vehicle and person
characteristics and child restraint use for occupants of passenger
vehicles.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)
Question. How much funding is NHTSA requesting to fund the proposal
to develop strategies for wireless E9-1-1? Please explain the specific
projects of this proposal and the level of funding associated with
each.
Answer. More than 100,000 wireless emergency calls are made per day
across the United States. The dramatic increase in the use of wireless
technology to call for help has heightened the need to address
institutional and other barriers to effective management of these
important calls, including proper call routing. The fiscal year 2001
budget request includes $162,000 to complete funding of a three-year
demonstration program in New York. This project will model strategies
for overcoming a range of institutional barriers to implementing
wireless E9-1-1. The total cost of this project will be $962,000, with
$600,000 being contributed by the Intelligent Transportation System
program and the remainder from the EMS Program.
To implement wireless E9-1-1, states need to resolve a number of
institutional issues, such as determining which state agency will
control the routing of wireless emergency calls. The New York
demonstration will model a consensus approach to resolving these
issues, led by members of the emergency medical community. The
emergency medical community is particularly well positioned to host
these negotiations, since they are focused on quick resolution of the
issues and are unbiased concerning specific institutional arrangements.
Resolving the wireless E9-1-1 issue was one of the top priorities in
the recent EMS strategic planning document, the EMS Agenda for the
Future.
Question. What are the planned activities and funding amounts
requested for the proposal to train emergency dispatchers for wireless
911 calls?
Answer. With more than 100,000 wireless emergency calls per day
coming in to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP's) across the
country, emergency dispatchers must be prepared to receive the calls,
identify location of the incident (with help of emerging technologies)
and dispatch appropriate EMS, fire or law enforcement resources to
thescene.
NHTSA is requesting approximately $100,000 to develop training
materials and outreach techniques to help local dispatch centers
implement wireless E9-1-1. To begin receiving and responding to
wireless E9-1-1 calls, each of the approximately 6,000 PSAP's across
the nation will need to make changes to current procedures and
equipment. This project will speed the adoption of these changes by
ensuring that dispatch centers receive accurate information and
guidance. The training is expected to include details about relevant
federal rules and regulations, options for local institutional
arrangements, and details on technology choices.
NATIONAL BYSTANDER TRAINING
Question. What are the objectives of the national bystander caren
training network? Please break down funding requested for this activity
and compare to fiscal year 2000.
Answer. Uninjured vehicle occupants or other motorists are often
the first people at the scene of a motor vehicle crash. These
``bystanders'', with proper training, could provide valuable lifesaving
assistance until emergency personnel arrive at the scene. During fiscal
year 2000, NHTSA is introducing a bystander care program to prepare
motorists to take proper actions when coming on the scene of a recent
crash. The program instructs the motorist to immediately call 9-1-1 and
then render lifesaving medical care, if needed, while waiting for
emergency medical services to arrive.
The bystander care program encourages medical professionals to
teach hands-on training to the public. In fiscal year 2000, NHTSA
dedicated $75,000 to initiate an outreach program to fund the costs of
conducting national bystander care training. These funds were
distributed through a number of national medical associations to
provide bystander care training at ten national medical conferences.
The goal is to establish a nationwide database network of bystander
trainers.
In fiscal year 2001, an additional $50,000 will be directed to
completing the training initiatives by funding five additional training
sessions in selected states.
EMS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES NETWORK
Question. Please explain in detail by project or activity the
proposal to expand EMS involvement in delivering community traffic
safety messages through the Safe Communities network. Is it necessary
to utilize the Safe Communities network to expand EMS involvement in
public safety campaigns?
Answer. The 1996 EMS Agenda for the Future, a consensus strategic
planning document supported by NHTSA, highlighted the importance of EMS
participation in prevention activities and specifically pointed out the
value of EMS involvement in the Safe Communities program. In fiscal
year 2000, NHTSA responded to this recommendation by initiating a
revision of the EMS PIER (Public Information, Education and Relations)
program to incorporate a module on Safe Communities. The agency's
fiscal year 2001 request includes funds to complete this revision.
The PIER program was developed in 1996 to encourage and prepare EMS
personnel to conduct community education activities. The program
instructs EMS personnel in community outreach and media skills. The new
module will educate EMS providers concerning their potential role in
Safe Communities either as leaders or participants.
While it is not necessary to use Safe Communities to engage EMS
personnel in prevention activities, this approach offers an attractive
incentive and efficient mode of giving EMS a clear and appropriate role
in community injury prevention.
EMERGING TRAFFIC ISSUES
Question. Please break out in detail by project or activity how
NHTSA proposes to use the $1,500,000 requested for new/emerging issues
and compare the requested amount to the allocation for fiscal year
2000.
Answer. Last year, Congress appropriated $1,000,000 for NHTSA to
use for new, emerging, and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) issues.
Primarily, the funds are used to develop, print and distribute
program materials, including aggressive driving, older drivers, and
drowsy driving, specifically identified by emerging research, and
requiring NHTSA's attention. Surveys suggest that aggressive driving is
becoming the top highway safety concern of the public. As the Baby
Boomers move into their later years, demographics show that problems
facing the older driver are becoming an increasing problem. A number of
states have identified drowsy driving as a significant problem; 70,000
injury-causing crashes and 1,550 fatalities annually are attributed to
drowsy driving. Specifically, the agency is (1) collaborating with the
Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc. on a national campaign
(billboards and bus placards) to curb aggressive driving; (2)
partnering with USAA to develop, and the American Association of
Retired People to develop, market and distribute materials targeted to
consumers and care providers to help older drivers remain safe and
mobile as long as possible; and (3) working with the Network of
Employers for Traffic Safety to market and distribute the drowsy
driving comprehensive program materials targeted to shift workers and
their families. Additionally, these funds are being used for large-
scale revisions to all of the NHTSA Professional Development training
programs for state and local highway safety officials in order to
incorporate major changes in programs due to the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). In addition, a new one-half day
course has been developed to provide a TEA-21 presentation piece for
use with highway safety executives and new employees.
With the training completed, the agency would continue the
activities initiated in 2000 and would initiate the following
activities with the $1,500,000 requested: (1) expand the drowsy driving
program materials to include the high-risk group that includes high
school youth and college students; (2) develop additional older drivers
program materials, market and distribute the program and materials to
additional intermediaries such as the increasing number of senior
centers, geriatric physicians, law enforcement, and the courts; (3)
develop new and focused media messages relating to aggressive driving
behaviors as we identify additional high risk groups, and materials on
aggressive driving; and (4) raise awareness and develop countermeasures
for the increasing problems related to increased activities inside the
vehicle, such as the use of cell phones, eating, reading, putting on
make-up and faxing, which can overload the driver with distractions.
TRAFFIC SAFETY DATA SYSTEMS
Question. How much funding is NHTSA requesting to assist states in
developing and implementing traffic safety data systems?
Answer. Traffic safety data systems are critical for the
identification of traffic safety problems and for the effective
evaluation and management of traffic safety programs. One of the major
deficiencies in state traffic safety data systems is the tracking and
exchange of citation and driver history information. For this reason,
NHTSA is requesting $325,000 to assist states in developing and
implementing data systems that allow for information tracking and
exchange. These funds will specifically be used for the development,
testing and implementation of traffic safety data technologies that
facilitate the exchange of traffic citation and driver history
information between law enforcement, the courts and driver licensing
agencies. This effort will be conducted in conjunction with the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has been mandated by
the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 to implement traffic
safety data systems that integrate driver citation and conviction
information.
Question. What is the difference between the funding in the highway
safety account for state safety records and the Section 411 incentive
grants?
Answer. Over the last 20 years, state and locally provided
resources for traffic safety data systems have eroded. This has had
negative consequences for state and national data bases that are used
to identify traffic safety problems and evaluate implemented traffic
safety countermeasures. As a result of the decreased state and local
resources, funding in the highway safety account is used for traffic
safety data system activities that provide information on both
standards and best practices that allow a state or local traffic safety
organization to maximize their available resources. Some of the
activities funded by the highway safety account include local, state
and national traffic safety data system conferences and meetings,
traffic safety data systems assessments that provide information on
best practices, data analysis courses and other training that promote
effective problem identification and evaluation processes, and
development, revision, and implementation of standards such as ANSI
D16, ANSI D20, and the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC).
The adoption of traffic safety data system standards is critical if the
impact of implemented traffic safety activities is to be compared over
time and across geographic areas.
Section 411 incentive grants are managed and coordinated by the
states. Funds can be used for a number of state and local data system
improvements and activities such as infrastructure development and
improvement, data collection, data management, system linkages, and
data access technologies. For many states, the availability of 411
funds has been an important resource for making improvements to their
traffic safety data system.
SAFE/LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
Question. The Department has delegated NHTSA as the coordinator of
the ``Livable Communities'' initiative. Please explain this initiative
in greater detail and identify the modes, specific programs, and
amounts that are being requested to further it.
Answer. The Safe/Livable Communities Initiative incorporates safety
and injury prevention programs into all Departmental programs involved
with ``quality of life'' issues (i.e. Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Pilot Program, Rural Initiative, and Livability
Initiative). The initiative promotes the implementation, in as many
communities as possible, of programs designed to improve safety,
efficiency and accessibility of all modes of transportation. Much of
the technical assistance the Department provides at the community level
is delivered through regional intermodal safety teams, working in
concert with state transportation agency partners. The initiative also
seeks to incorporate safety and injury prevention into community
improvement programs sponsored by other federal agencies.
The safety elements of the initiative include:
--Clearinghouse--$500,000.--NHTSA will expand the Safe Communities
Clearinghouse and website to incorporate information on other
agency community-based transportation safety initiatives and
will link to technical assistance sites.
--Training--$450,000.--NHTSA's Safe Communities Community
Practitioner's Course and Intermodal/Interagency Executive
Seminar will include information on ONE DOT safety messages and
modal safety training programs.
--Technical Assistance--$1,000,000.--NHTSA will coordinate a network
of multi-disciplinary assessment teams of experienced
practitioners to conduct assessments of communities' resources,
safety problems, capabilities, and trends and provide an action
plan for affecting improvements in the community.
--Materials--$791,000.--The Regional ONE DOT Teams are working across
modes to develop and deliver similar safety messages, i.e.,
buckle up in the car, in the air and on the water, to the
Department's wide range of partners.
--Partnerships--$300,000.--Through the Safe/Livable Communities
Initiative, NHTSA can deliver its highway traffic safety
message to partners to whom the agency might not have access
otherwise. NHTSA is able to expand the agency's reach across
the nation by having other modes and programs deliver buckle-up
and impaired driving messages.
Each modal administration assigns staff to the Department's
Community Outreach Task Force (chaired by NHTSA), which provides
overall direction to the Safe/Livable Communities Initiative. Each mode
has programs that enhance safety, mobility, economic development,
environmental protection and other factors that impact the quality of
community life. Each mode works within its organizational structure and
budget to develop and support these programs. Through the Task Force,
the modes lend overall support to one another's communication and
outreach efforts, and help to promote them through their own networks
of customers and partners. To date, these efforts have been part of the
ongoing activities of the field staffs of the individual modes. It is
not possible to segregate out the exact amount of funds that each
agency will expend to support this effort.
Question. What are the differences between funding requested by
NHTSA for this initiative and the Section 402 formula program and the
Safe Communities program?
Answer. The Section 402 formula grant program provides funds to the
states, the Indian Nations and the Territories to support a wide range
of highway safety programs to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities,
including occupant protection, impaired driving, motorcycle safety,
traffic records, and roadway safety programs. The states must direct at
least 40 percent of these funds to support community level programs.
Safe Communities is a tool for communities to utilize in identifying
their own injury problems and developing solutions to those problems.
At the discretion of the states, Section 402 funding can be used to
support Safe Communities.
The Safe/Livable Communities Initiative seeks funding for the
Department of Transportation efforts to incorporate safety and injury
prevention programs into the vast array of Departmental programs
designed to make communities better places to live and work, such as
the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program,
Rural Initiative, and Livability Initiative. To implement this effort
in as many communities as possible, the funds will be used to support a
clearinghouse, training, technical assistance, materials and
partnerships--all developed intermodally. The initiative will be
directed by the Department's Community Outreach Task Force, which has
representation form all modes and is chaired by NHTSA.
ADVANCED AIR BAGS
Question. What is the status of your R&D to advance smart air bags?
What are some of the remaining challenges and how does the fiscal year
2001 budget address them?
Answer. NHTSA recently completed near-term research and testing in
support of the Final Rule to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection'' to require
advanced air bags. Full-vehicle crash tests were conducted with belted
and unbelted mid-sized male and small female crash test dummies in
different crash configurations, seating positions and impact speeds.
Vehicles with advanced air bag technologies, such as dual stage
inflators, advanced crash sensors, belt use sensors and seat position
sensors were selected in the program. Air bag aggressivity tests were
conducted with out-of-position small female driver dummies and child
passenger dummies. NHTSA also completed a two-year cooperative
agreement effort with a major air bag supplier studying dual stage air
bag performance (both in terms of restraint potential and aggressivity
to out-of-position occupants of various sizes). NHTSA also worked
cooperatively with a vehicle manufacturer to test and evaluate pre-
production prototype MY 2000 vehicles equipped with advanced air bag
technologies. NHTSA continued another cooperative agreement working
with a supplier on the development of a dynamic occupant sensing system
for modulating air bag deployment. Additionally real world crash
investigations are continually being collected and analyzed on
redesigned air bag systems (model year 1998-2000 vehicles) and on air
bag-related serious injury and fatality cases. High severity crashes in
the National Automotive Sampling System were recently reviewed for
cases where the air bag was determined to be the cause of the fatality
or conversely, the air bag was not powered enough. Pediatric and small
female injury research was continued, and assessment tools in
predicting injury to out-of-position occupants were evaluated. NHTSA
will be publishing its latest injury criteria formulations for the
proposed family of dummies in the Final Rule on FMVSS No. 208.
The remaining challenges associated with smart air bag systems
include the evaluation and development of production-ready occupant
sensing systems. Research will continue to address the near-term
development of pediatric and small female injury criteria associated
with the intense and complex out-of-position air bag-vehicle occupant
interaction. These efforts have as their goal the development of
essential tools for the assessment of current and emerging air bag
deployment systems. Additionally, research will continue on the
development, performance, and monitoring of advanced air bag systems
that build upon the technological solutions to air bag problems
identified in the field experience, including those injuries resulting
from aggressive air bag deployments (especially to children and
occupants of short stature). Production vehicles with advanced safety
systems will be evaluated and performance requirements established
based on these systems. Such systems will include production multi-
stage air bag inflators, air bag suppression technologies through
occupant detection, seat position sensors, adjustable pedals, etc.
Research will also continue on the development of improved air bag
deployment timing through the use of anticipatory crash sensing
technology. High speed (56 kmph) crash protection will continue to be
evaluated for belted small female occupants in high severity crashes
(and mid sized male occupant protection will be analyzed through NCAP
performance testing). Also, research will include out-of-position
occupant tests (static and/or dynamic) to evaluate the performance of
side air bags and other related systems, i.e., Inflatable Tubular
Structure (ITS), deployable upper interior paddings, etc. During fiscal
year 2001, over 400 advanced air bag and side air bag cases would be
investigated. Research will continue to investigate, through its
Special Crash Investigation program, approximately 200 motor vehicle
crashes that qualify for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program and
non-air bag related vehicle safety problems.
ADVANCED AIR BAG FUNDING
Question. If this account were funded at $10 million above the
fiscal year 2000 level, how would you allocate the fundings? Please
explain your allocation within the context of your performance goals
and strategic plan.
Answer. Funding would be allocated as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program area 2000 level 2000 level + Delta ($k) (b-
($k) (a) $10 M ($k) (b) a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashworthiness................................................. 8,858 9,901 1,043
NTBRC........................................................... 13,232 14,200 968
Crash Avoid & Driver/Vehicle Perf............................... 2,948 8,050 5,102
Heavy Vehicles.................................................. 1,892 2,200 308
Fatality Analysis Reporting System.............................. 5,213 5,500 287
National Automotive Sampling System............................. 9,987 10,200 213
Data Analysis Program........................................... 1,924 2,800 876
State Data Systems.............................................. 2,344 2,500 156
Special Crash Investigation..................................... 1,553 2,600 1,047
Technology Transfer............................................. 0 0 0
PNGV............................................................ 0 0 0
VRTC............................................................ 950 950 0
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Research and Analysis.............................. 48,901 58,901 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 30 years, NHTSA has developed successful strategies
in addressing fatalities and injuries through occupant protection and
injury mitigation vehicle based countermeasures. However, easy gains in
safety improvements have already been made and new approaches through
collision avoidance, driving behavior, driving performance, and driver-
vehicle interaction research as well as research into the use of
advanced technologies to occupant protection and human injury research
must be undertaken to achieve the performance goals set by the agency.
Additionally, monitoring of real-world safety performance of vehicles
must continue at an increased pace to keep up with the changing vehicle
technologies.
Question. If this account were funded at $8 million above the
fiscal year 2000 level, how would you allocate the funding? Please
explain your allocation within the context of your performance goals
and strategic plan.
Answer. Funding would be allocated as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program area 2000 level 2000 level + Delta ($k) (b-
($k) (a) $8 M ($k) (b) a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashworthiness................................................. 8,858 9,401 543
NTBRC........................................................... 13,232 13,700 468
Crash Avoid & Driver/Vehicle Perf............................... 2,948 7,050 4,102
Heavy Vehicles.................................................. 1,892 2,200 308
Fatality Analysis Reporting System.............................. 5,213 5,500 287
National Automotive Sampling System............................. 9,987 10,200 213
Data Analysis Program........................................... 1,924 2,800 876
State Data Systems.............................................. 2,344 2,500 156
Special Crash Investigation..................................... 1,553 2,600 1,047
Technology Transfer............................................. 0 0 0
PNGV............................................................ 0 0 0
VRTC............................................................ 950 950 0
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Research and Analysis.............................. 48,901 56,901 8,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 30 years, NHTSA has developed successful strategies
in addressing fatalities and injuries through occupant protection and
injury mitigation vehicle based countermeasures. However, easy gains in
safety improvements have already been made and new approaches through
collision avoidance, driving behavior, driving performance, and driver-
vehicle interaction research as well as research into the use of
advanced technologies to occupant protection and human injury research
must be undertaken to achieve the performance goals set by the agency.
Additionally, monitoring of real-world safety performance of vehicles
must continue at an increased pace to keep up with the changing vehicle
technologies.
national advanced driving simulator (nads)
Question. Please delineate funding requests, by project, for
operation of the NADS.
Answer. The following human factors research projects are being
planned on the NADS. They will be conducted utilizing up to $5 million
of the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The detailed spending plan will
be determined only after the final appropriation of the funds.
--Relationship between Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) and driver
performance under demanding driving situations
--Driver Distraction due to advanced in-vehicle communications
systems
--Identification of driver cues in rollover crashes
DRIVER DISTRACTIONS
Question. Please discuss the scope, nature, and anticipated funding
amount for research regarding driver distractions.
Answer. NHTSA's program of research on driving distraction is a
coordinated effort involving the total human factors research spectrum
for which a total of up to $7 million may be allocated. To address
concerns on the level of driver distraction caused by advanced
information and communication systems, the Office of Human Centered
Research will conduct research using the National Advanced Driving
Simulator (NADS). Initial efforts will focus on: (1) the relative
safety of using various types of wireless devices (e.g., cell phones)
including hand-held, hands-free and voice activated systems in
vehicles, and (2) the level of driver distraction from more complex
information systems, including navigation, e-mail and general Internet
access.
This effort will develop design guidelines that will assist vehicle
designers in successfully integrating communication services and will
synthesize the results for major in-vehicle systems to ensure that
drivers can safely and effectively process inputs from multiple
information sources. The NADS will be used to identify knowledge gaps
and to help determine the optimal manner of organizing and presenting
in-vehicle information to drivers and preferable control/display
characteristics. Integration of information for the driver will include
such areas as message priority, multiple sensory channels, and modes of
driver-information integration.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION BIOMECHANICS RESEARCH CENTER (NTBRC)
Question. With respect to the medical institutions, hospitals,
trauma centers, and universities that are under contract to NHTSA in
support of the biomechanics program, what is the nature of research and
level of funding at each of them?
Answer. The following lists the medical institutions, hospitals,
trauma centers, and universities supporting the NHTSA's biomechanics
program, the nature of the research they are providing, and their
individual fiscal year 2000 levels of funding:
--Children's National Medical Center (Washington, DC): $400,000--
Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN)
participant with emphasis on pediatric injuries.
--Duke University: $300,000--Experimental investigations quantifying
mechanisms of injury to cervical spine.
--Harborview Hospital (Seattle, WA): $400,000--CIREN participant with
emphasis on pediatric injuries.
--Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory (Baltimore,
MD):--$140,000--Experimental and analytical investigations of
mechanisms of injury to lower body.
--Lehman Research Center/University of Miami (Miami, FA): $400,000--
CIREN participant with emphasis on thoracic injuries.
--Medical College of Wisconsin: $500,000--Experimental investigations
quantifying mechanisms of injury in side impact, cervical spine
injuries, and lower extremity injuries.
--National Study Center for Trauma and Emergency Medical Services
(Baltimore, MD): $400,000--CIREN participant with emphasis on
orthopaedic injuries.
--Ohio State University (Columbus, OH): $200,000--Experimental
biomechanics quantifying mechanisms of injury in side impact
crashes.
--San Diego County Trauma System (San Diego, CA): $400,000--CIREN
participant with emphasis on regional EMS issues.
--University of Medicine and Dentistry (Newark, NJ): $400,000--CIREN
participant with emphasis on frontal and side impact crashes.
--University of Alabama (Birmingham, AB): $1,250,000--Experimental
biomechanics investigating mechanisms of injury to the brain,
pelvis, and lower extremities. (also Mercedes funded CIREN
participant).
--University of Virginia (Charlottesville, VA): $1,051,000--
Experimental biomechanics investigating mechanisms of injury to
the thorax and lower extremities in frontal crashes, thoracic
and abdominal injuries resulting in out-of-position situations,
and evaluation of advanced test dummy components.
--University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI): $140,000--Experimental
biomechanics efforts investigating mechanisms of injury to
thorax, lower extremities, and the pelvis. $400,000--CIREN
participant with emphasis on trauma and burns.
--University of Washington (Seattle, WA): $138,000--Experimental
investigations quantifying injury mechanisms to the pediatric
cervical spine.
--Veterans Administration Medical Center (Milwaukee, WI): $200,000
from previous fiscal year--Experimental investigations
quantifying injury mechanisms to the pediatric and adult
cervical spine.
--U.S. Army Medical Research Command: $700,000--Development of
advanced head/brain and torso injury criteria, assessment of
motorcycle helmet performance, research in airbag noise-related
ear injuries, and quantifying airbag-occupant interaction when
in close proximity.
Question. Congress has urged NHTSA to redouble its efforts to
obtain cost-sharing with other organizations which benefit from the
national center. What progress has been made?
Answer. The National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center
(NTBRC) has entered into a long term Cooperative Agreement with the
Daimler Chrysler Corporation to fund a new Crash Injury Research and
Engineering Network (CIREN) center at the University of Alabama at
Birmingham Medical Center. The center is being funding by Daimler
Chrysler at $500 thousand per year for two years with options for
renewal for an additional three years. The NTBRC is also in the final
stages of negotiation with a major domestic auto company to fund
another CIREN center in Virginia. Additionally, the NTBRC has employed
``Cooperative Agreements'' as its main contractual mechanism with its
university-based research organizations whereby they contribute a
negotiated additional portion of support, in kind, to the total
research effort, either in the form of enhanced facilities, additional
equipment, and/or more staff time.
Other significant cost-sharing opportunities have been created by
the NTBRC's world-wide cooperative efforts to have interested parties
evaluate the performance of NHTSA's new advanced frontal dummy, THOR.
By offering use of the physical device along with technical support,
more than 16 research organizations, from both other governments and
the automotive industry, have extensively tested this device and shared
their test results and analyses with the NTBRC. This has offered the
participants the opportunity to preview and gain experience with
NHTSA's newly developed testing technologies as well as providing the
NTBRC the equivalent of more that $2 million worth of testing effort
without charge.
NHTSA has also had other agencies, such as the Federal Railroad
Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration, using the
agency's dummies for evaluation of occupant protection in rail and
airline transportation.
CIREN CENTERS
Question. How much funding was provided to each of the CIREN
centers in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000? What is the budget
request for each of the CIREN centers for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The funding and budget request follow:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
CIREN Center 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Research Center/University of Miami...................... $425,000 $400,000 \1\ $500,000
University of Medicine and Dentistry............................ 425,000 400,000 \1\ 500,000
National Study Center for Trauma and Emergency Medical Services. 425,0090 400,000 \1\ 500,000
Children's National Medical Center.............................. 425,000 400,000 \1\ 500,000
Harborview Hospital:
General Motors \2\.......................................... 150,000 0 0
Federal..................................................... 133,000 400,000 \1\ 500,000
University of Michigan:
General Motors \2\.......................................... 150,000 0 0
Federal..................................................... 133,000 400,000 500,000
San Diego County Trauma System:
General Motors \2\.......................................... 150,000 0 0
Federal..................................................... 133,000 400,000 500,000
University of Alabama: Mercedes \3\............................. 500,000 500,000 500,000
New CIREN Center................................................ 0 0 \1\ 500,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 3,049,000 3,300,000 4,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pending fiscal year 2001 Authorization, requested increase will enable centers to collect and analyze
additional biomechanics measurements for CIREN.
\2\ General Motors Funded CIREN Center.
\3\ Mercedes Funded CIREN Center.
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE INITIATIVE (IVI)
Question. Please break out in detail by project or activity how
NHTSA proposes to use the $30,000,000 requested for the IVI program and
compare that to spending in the area in fiscal year 2000.
Answer. Please see the table below. This table includes all IVI
projects funded by the DOT Intelligent Transportation System's (ITS)
Joint Program Office; those that involve NHTSA, as well as those that
do not. NHTSA staff will serve as contract technical representatives on
several light vehicle research projects, however only about $7 million
of these funds will be obligated for ongoing research projects through
NHTSA's Office of Contracts and Procurement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Activity/project 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Generation 0 Operational Tests and $5,500,000 $4,600,000
Evaluations............................
2. Generation 1 Rear-End Collision 4,250,000 \1\ 4,500,000
Avoidance System Field Test and
Evaluation.............................
3. Generation 1 Rear-End Collision 1,400,000 \2\ 700,000
Avoidance Systems Research
4. Generation 1 Lane Change/Merge 850,000 1,900,000
Collision Avoidance Systems Research...
5. Generation 1 Road Departure Crash 2,250,000 1,000,000
Avoidance Systems Research.............
6. Generation 1 Safety Impacting Systems 335,000 ( \3\ )
Research...............................
7. Generation 1 Electronic Braking 250,000 0
Systems for Commercial Vehicles........
8. Generation 1 Commercial Vehicle 0 1,000,000
Stability System Field Test and
Evaluation.............................
9. Generation 1 Drowsy Driver System 1,000,000 1,500,000
Field Test and Evaluation..............
10. Generation 1 Pedestrian Safety 0 600,000
Systems Research.......................
11. Enabling Research for Multiple 940,000 \4\ 500,000
Systems Integration....................
12. Enabling Research for Forward 500,000 ( \5\ )
Collision Warning......................
13. Enabling Research on Driver Workload 600,000 500,000
Metrics................................
14. Enabling Research on Enhanced 1,500,000 ( \6\ )
Digital Maps...........................
15. Enabling Research on Transit Rear- 550,000 0
End Collision Avoidance Systems........
16. Transit Rear-End Collision Avoidance 0 1,500,000
Systems Field Test and Evaluation......
17. Cross Cutting Human Factors Research 425,000 600,000
into Information Systems, Societal and
Institutional Issues, and Cost Benefit
Methodology............................
18. Generation 2 Rear-End Collision 0 700,000
Avoidance Systems Research.............
19. Generation 2 Road Departure Crash 0 1,000,000
Avoidance Systems Research.............
20. Driver Vision Enhancement Research.. ( \7\ ) \4\ 250,000
21. Intersection Collision Avoidance 800,000 \8\ 2,000,000
Systems Research.......................
22. Generation 2 Cross Cutting Research 500,000 1,000,000
on Sensor Friendly Roadway, Short Range
Communication, Radio Navigation, and
Cooperative System Requirements........
23. Generation 2 Commercial Vehicle 0 700,000
Stability Systems Research.............
24. Program Support..................... 1,351,000 \9\ 2,450,000
-------------------------------
Total Budget Request.............. 23,001,000 30,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA--GM Project under Cooperative Agreement.
\2\ NHTSA--Naturalistic Driving Data Collection.
\3\ Continued under (11) below.
\4\ NHTSA Project.
\5\ Continued under (3) above.
\6\ Continued under (3)-(5) above.
\7\ Continued under (6) above.
\8\ NHTSA Project for Data Collection--$550K.
\9\ NHTSA Project for Data Collection--$400k.
Notes:
--Generation 0 will assess the technical performance, determine user
acceptance, and measure the benefits of driver assistance systems that
are expected to enter production preparation by 2003.
--Generation 1 is expected to address systems with more advanced
capabilities than Generation 0, higher levels of integration and
increased infrastructure cooperation, and focus mainly on driver
warning and assistance systems.
--Generation 2 is expected to build on the accomplishments of Generation
1, especially with a greatly increased role of infrastructure-vehicle
cooperation.
CRASH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION SYSTEM (CODES)
Question. Please update your answer from last year's hearing record
regarding how NHTSA has conducted work beyond the CODES project in the
areas of injury assessment, costs, and relationships to the use of seat
belts, air bags, and other engineering enhancements.
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, NHTSA funded four new CODES states--
Arizona, Delaware, Minnesota, and Tennessee--to continue the
implementation of Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Systems (CODES) and the
development of state-specific applications for the CODES linked data.
These four states plan to focus on safety belt and roadway issues by
comparing injury severity and average hospital inpatient charges for
restrained and unrestrained victims of motor vehicle crashes. Arizona
plans to evaluate belt effectiveness in terms of sex and age group,
geographic location, type of road and driver characteristics. Delaware
wants the linked data to support primary belt legislation and identify
costs and injuries suffered by children involved in motor vehicle
crashes.Minnesota will partner with the surrounding CODES states (Iowa,
North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin) to identify the public's
share of the costs associated with non-use of safety belts. Tennessee
proposes to determine the relationship between the driver, vehicle,
roadway and crash characteristics and to use this information to
support law enforcement, EMS, roadway engineering and other prevention
efforts. Also, in fiscal year 2000, NHTSA has published ``Standardizing
Reporting Using CODES'' which presents management formats for reporting
medical and financial outcome information related to the use of seat
belts, air bags, and other engineering enhancements. In addition, ten
existing CODES states will be funded by NHTSA during May 2000 to
develop a CODES Data Network. Through this network, NHTSA and the Data
Network states will collaboratively evaluate crash injury costs and
outcome by payer source, air bag location, lateral impact crashes for
vehicles of a particular size and weight, injury type including lower
extremity injuries and injury patterns for the most recent five year
period. As the Data Network expands with the addition of more linked
data from both existing and new Data Network states, the range of
research opportunities for NHTSA analysts and the state CODES experts
also will expand.
Question. How is this different from the Section 411 grant program?
Answer. The Section 411 grant program provides three levels of
funding to states to organize a Traffic Records Coordinating Committee
(TRCC), develop a plan and then implement the plan for developing or
improving their traffic records. CODES, in comparison, does not fund
the development of traffic records data systems. Instead, it adds value
to existing traffic safety data by linking them to medical and
financial outcome information related to motor vehicle crashes. Data
quality problems which are identified during the linkage process can be
forwarded to the respective data owners. This feedback information,
available to the states which have implemented CODES, is useful to the
TRCC to target those areas that need the most resources. In turn, CODES
benefits when the quality of the data files being linked improves.
AUTOMATIC CRASH NOTIFICATION (ACN)
Question. Your agency is requesting funding for automatic crash
notification (ACN) in several different programs. Please provide a
table that lists each request for ACN, the amount requested, and a
description of each item.
Answer. The table below provides the requested information. This
research will address the final issues to fine tune capabilities
demonstrated in a recent field operational test of ACN by NHTSA, and
should facilitate the deployment of this type of system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds
Budget Request Requested Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Crash Investigations of ACN $300,000 The Special Crash
vehicles. Investigations
Program will team
with an industry
partner (e.g.,
General Motors) to
perform 10 or more in-
depth investigations
for crashes involving
vehicles with a
current ACN-like
system such as
OnStar. This
knowledge will help
inform development of
evaluation criteria
for triage procedures
for injured
occupants.
Injury Prediction Algorithms....... 150,000 This research will
lead to advanced
injury prediction
algorithms so that
more detailed and
appropriate warnings
can be automatically
sent to EMS dispatch
centers by advanced
ACN systems.
Advanced Technologies for ACN 376,893 This research will
Communication. explore transmission
alternatives and
develop institutional
requirements to
enhance the readiness
of the 911 community
to receive and
process automatic
crash notification
transmissions from
vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZED FULL TIME POSITIONS (FTP'S) AND ON-BOARD STRENGTH
Question. Please provide a table that compares, by office,
authorized full time employees to actual filled positions.
Answer. The following table compares the authorized full time
positions to on-board full time positions by office as of February 29,
2000.
AUTHORIZED FTP'S AND ON-BOARD STRENGTH BY OFFICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized FTP Actual FTP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Performance Standards............ 69 58
Safety Assurance........................ 97 92
Traffic Safety.......................... 203 194
Research and Development................ 124 103
Office of the Administrator and Staff 60 56
Offices................................
General Administration.................. 111 103
-------------------------------
Totals............................ 664 606
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA ON-SITE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES
Question. During the last three years, how many outside employees
are under contract with NHTSA? How much was spent on contract employees
in each year? How much is estimated to be allocated in fiscal year
2001?
Answer. Listed below is the information requested for NHTSA
contractor employees working on-site in the Nassif Building.
[In million of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Contractor Expended/ Planned
Fiscal year employees Expended projected allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................................ 117 $8.28 .............. ..............
1999............................................ 127 11.89 .............. ..............
2000............................................ 116 .............. $11.48 ..............
2001............................................ 108 .............. .............. $11.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Question. For fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and planned for
fiscal year 2001, please provide a table similar to that provided
previously to the Committee, showing the amount of funds spent or
allocated for non-mandatory awards and bonuses, PCS, overtime pay,
travel and training.
Answer. The following is a table showing the costs for awards and
bonuses, PCS, overtime pay, travel and training:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1999 actual 2000 enacted 2001 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awards and Bonuses.............................................. $707 $761 $820
PCS............................................................. 87 87 87
Overtime Pay.................................................... 131 200 215
Travel.......................................................... 1,141 1,155 1,777
Training........................................................ 207 216 219
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHWAY SAFETY DATA SYSTEMS AND TRAFFIC RECORDS GRANTS (SECTION 411)
Question. Please describe how the Highway Safety Data Systems and
Traffic Records Grant Program is being implemented. How are the states
using the funds received.
Answer. By January 15 of each year, states can submit an
application for a Highway Safety Data Systems and Traffic Records
grant. A state that applies for a grant for the first time has three
options for which it may apply: (1) an implementation grant, which
requires that the state have in place a traffic records coordinating
committee, an assessment or audit of its traffic records system that
was conducted or updated within the past five years, and a strategic
plan for effecting traffic records system improvements; (2) an
initiation grant, that also requires an in place traffic records
coordinating committee and an audit or assessment within the past five
years, but only requires that development of a strategic plan has
begun; or, (3) a start up grant, that requires the state to certify
that it does not meet the criteria for either an implementation or an
initiation grant. In fiscal year 2000--the second year of this
program--NHTSA awarded 46 grants totaling $7.6 million to 42 states,
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Marianas. Initiation
grants ($96,480 each) were awarded to 5 states and implementation
grants ($173,600) to 37 states, Puerto Rico, and the three territories.
All states that applied received funding.
A state that has previously received only a start up grant may
apply for either an initiation or an implementation grant in a
subsequent year, under the same criteria listed above. A state that has
previously received either an initiation or an implementation grant may
apply for a subsequent year grant, provided that its traffic records
coordinating committee continues to be in operation and continues to
oversee implementation of the strategic plan. States receiving any
grant funds are required to certify that the funds will be used only to
adopt and implement an effective highway safety data and traffic
records program, in accordance with 23 CFR 1335.10(b). A team of agency
subject matter experts reviews all applications from the states and
determines compliance with the grant criteria.
The following table indicates how the states are using the funds
received.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 411 STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY DATA IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant
State amount How state is using grant funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ $173,600 Traffic Records Assessment, update strategic plan, implement
statewide electronic submission of traffic citations.
Alaska......................... 173,600 Implement strategic traffic records plan develop an upgraded crash
report, develop health system and crash data linkages and improve
traffic records database interface.
Arizona........................ 173,600 Develop a simplified and timely system for data users to retrieve
crash data from traffic data systems and improve the compatibility
between the two systems, research the development of a statewide
citation tracking system, and support and/or provide access to
technology to local police agencies that will improve electronic
transfer of traffic data and increase on site data gathering.
Arkansas....................... 173,600 Improve timeliness and efficiency of the data entry process for
crash reports.
California..................... 173,600 Implemented Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Automation of Rural
Courts Project that provided automation hardware and software
technology to input, send and retrieve traffic conviction and other
data electronically, develop a laptop computer system for
completing crash reports at crash sites to facilitate the direct
entry of data into the crash file, and equip and train Highway
Patrol with evidential quality pre-arrest breath testing devices to
improve upon the alcohol detection at crash sites and in traffic
stops.
Colorado....................... 173,600 Complete a software upgrades for remote data entry of crash report
data, and initiating development of probability matching of crash
data and hospital data.
Connecticut.................... 173,600 Complete a Traffic Records Assessment, update the Traffic Records
Strategic Plan, complete an automated crash report form and report
analysis package for use by State and local police departments,
purchase new software to store the State crash file, develop an
electronic ticketing system, complete development of GIS mapping
capability, continue development of a data warehouse, and to
improve user accessibility to Crash Outcome Date Evaluation System
(CODES).
Delaware....................... 173,600 Create an Emergency Medical System (EMS) data network, develop an
automated Crash Reporting System, and create a GIS Crash Database.
Florida........................ 173,600 Implement regional data centers, revise crash report instruction
manual, crash report training.
Georgia........................ 173,600 Automate crash reporting system, survey & software.
Hawaii......................... 173,600 Develop file linkage, training for local police departments in crash
reporting and alcohol screening devices, and develop electronic
data transfer system.
Idaho.......................... 96,480 Develop a strategic traffic records plan.
Illinois....................... 96,480 Develop a traffic records strategic improvement plan.
Indiana........................ 173,600 Hire committee coordinator, improve crash data access, pilot test
new crash location system.
Iowa........................... 173,600 Capture of crash reports electronically, review crash report data,
technology transfer, emergency response information and mapping.
Kentucky....................... 173,600 Crash Project Phase IV--Develop, purchase Scanners.
Louisiana...................... 173,600 Implement data entry, electronic data transfer, networking, and
document imaging for crash reports and traffic records in State,
parish, and local communities.
Maine.......................... 173,600 Pilot test an automated crash report form, provide training to state
and local police, develop a new crash reporting data base with GIS
capabilities capable of receiving crash reports electronically,
coordinate Strategic Planning among state agencies, and design a
statewide system architecture for integrated traffic records files.
Maryland....................... 173,600 Support a Data Analysis Evaluation Coordinator, improve state crash
form, expand scope and use of GIS, and implement statewide
training.
Massachusetts.................. 173,600 Update the traffic records assessment and the traffic records
strategic plan. Activity continues to improve the quality of CODES
data files and to update the state crash report form to comply with
MMUCC (Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria).
Michigan....................... 173,600 Develop an internet access query system.
Minnesota...................... 173,600 Link two commercial vehicle crash systems, revise crash report form,
improve data collection.
Mississippi.................... 173,600 Software/Hardware for crash & citation data collection, data linkage
for state CODES study, revision of crash report.
Missouri....................... 173,600 STARS (Statewide Traffic Accident Reporting System) Data Base,
conduct annual conference & workshop, Data Base Evaluation and
Consultation.
Nebraska....................... 173,600 Crash file linkage, revise report for electronic transfer, update
existing traffic records files.
Nevada......................... 173,600 Form an interagency subcommittee of the Traffic Records Committee to
develop a 2001 legislative proposal to gain support and funding to
implement an updated traffic records system, implement Traffic
Accident System Planning and Design Project, and to promote a
statewide traffic records conference.
New Hampshire.................. 173,600 Purchase notebook PCs to complete crash reports in the field, revise
crash report form to be in compliance with MMUCC, and to develop
crash reporting software which can electronically capture driver
license/vehicle registration data and Global Positioning System
(GPS) location data.
New York....................... 173,600 Accident information system upgrade. This project would allow direct
electronic transfer of crash information from investigation agency
to the state DMV file. Another project is scheduled to upgrade the
ticket file. This upgrade would establish a ticket file
electronically on a client server data base and would allow the
courts to data-enter ticket disposition information electronically
to a data base.
North Carolina................. 173,600 Development of a new crash reporting form, pilot test for electronic
citation in one State Patrol District, and development of system to
retrieve data via Internet.
North Dakota................... 96,480 Development of traffic records strategic plan.
Ohio........................... 173,600 Complete interactive Internet web site, capture and image a redesign
crash report form.
Oklahoma....................... 173,600 Update traffic records strategic plan, address customer/client
access to data bases.
Oregon......................... 173,600 Linking health and crash data, DOT crash data retrieval and
analysis, crash location upgrade and a Division of Motor Vehicles
driver and vehicle files upgrade.
Pennsylvania................... 173,600 Conduct a series of regional traffic records symposiums to help
determine and refine the information needs of the users/customers.
Rhode Island................... 173,600 Complete successful electronic transfer of crash reports from state
and local police agencies to a central repository at DOT. All 39
cities and towns will be on line by September, 2000. State crash
file will have capability to reference intersection locations and
GIS mapping. Mobile data capture and transfer capability from
police cruiser laptops will also exist. ``Canned'' and ad hoc
report capability will be available from state crash file. RI will
be the first state in the nation with 100 percent of all police
agencies participating in electronic transfer of crash data to a
central repository.
South Carolina................. 173,600 Design/implement an upgraded statewide traffic records system with
linked citation and crash data.
Tennessee...................... 173,600 Improve state crash reporting equipment, establish data collection
in local law enforcement.
Vermont........................ 173,600 Redesign the uniform crash report to be in compliance with MMUCC,
develop software for a new crash data storage system which can
interface with law enforcement telecommunications systems, pilot
test electronic capture of EMS run data, develop software for
electronic transfer of data to a central repository at the
Department of Transportation, and to provide for Traffic Records
System program management capabilities.
Virginia....................... 173,600 Support statewide coordination, perform equipment and inventory
assessments, develop communication standards, and develop a
training package.
Washington..................... 173,600 Upgrade emergency Medical Services trauma registry, develop a
collision reporting system with Wisconsin DOT, a traffic records
awareness campaign and a collision analysis reporting system with
the Washington State Patrol.
West Virginia.................. 96,480 Support statewide coordination and strategic planning development.
Wisconsin...................... 96,480 Develop a traffic records strategic improvement plan.
Puerto Rico.................... 173,600 Contract data processing of Police Accident Report form, pilot test
pen based system to improve data collection and the use of Global
Positioning System to improve data related to location of crashes.
American Samoa................. 173,600 Develop a 24/7 network link, obtain computer workstation for police
dispatch and e substations, and develop pen based citation system
and citation form.
Guam........................... 173,600 Obtain manpower to input crash data, develop pilot project for a pen
based citation entry system, and purchase computer system for
Traffic Engineering Section.
Northern Marianas.............. 173,600 Improve driver file system by eliminating double typing of license
data and exploring adding a bar code/magnetic strip to driver
licenses, provide computers and software for EMS database and
connect the driver and EMS files to their main crash reporting
system.
-----------
Total.................... 7,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How are you overseeing the use of those funds by the
states? What technical assistance is NHTSA providing to the states?
Answer. States applying for Highway Safety Data Systems and Traffic
Records grants must certify that the funds will be used only to adopt
and implement an effective highway safety data and traffic records
program. After grant award, a state must document for NHTSA how it
plans to use these funds, as part of the its comprehensive Highway
Safety Plan. Then, NHTSA's regional staff work with the states on a
regular basis to provide oversight and technical assistance in
implementation of the states' highway safety plan. Also, prior to
receipt of a subsequent data grant, a state must document progress made
in improving highway safety data systems and traffic records since the
previous submission of a grant application, specifically including an
accounting of how previous grant funds were used. NHTSA's technical
assistance efforts include offering the services of regional data
analysis contractors. In addition, at a state's request, NHTSA
facilitates the conduct of an independent assessment of a state's
traffic records system by experts from across the nation.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT ADMINISTRATION
Question. Please break out how the administrative takedown funds
were used for each of the grant programs for fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The following table represents how the administrative draw
down funds were used in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000:
GRANT ADMINISTRATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1999 actuals 2000 enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits................... 6,736 7,500
Travel.................................. 334 336
Operating Expenses...................... 506 815
Contract Program........................ 1,562 1,689
-------------------------------
Total............................. 9,138 10,340
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How do you propose to use the takedown funds for your
grant programs in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The following is NHTSA's proposed used of the draw down
from the grant programs in fiscal year 2001:
Fiscal year 2001 grant administration
[In thousands of dollars]
Salaries and Benefits............................................. 8,207
Travel............................................................ 421
Operating Expenses................................................ 815
Contract Program.................................................. 555
______
Total....................................................... 9,998
CONTRACTS MANAGED OR OVERSEEN BY STATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Question. Please list the amount, nature, and benefits obtained
from each contract managed or overseen by regional operations during
fiscal year 1999 and thus far during fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The following table lists the amount, nature, and benefits
obtained from each contract managed or overseen by the Office of State
and Community Services (formerly the Office of Regional Operations)
during fiscal year 1999 and thus far during fiscal year 2000.
CONTRACTS MANAGED OR OVERSEEN BY STATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DURING FISCAL YEAR 1999 & 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract amount
--------------------------------
Nature Fiscal year Fiscal year Benefits
1999 funds 2000 funds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA $49,006 $50,000 These contracts provide the services of statisticians and data analysis
Region I. ( \1\ ) 0 experts who assist the states in setting goals and performance measures,
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA 50,038 ( \1\ ) designing and analyzing the results of seat belt observational surveys,
Region II. 50,000 ( \2\ ) implementing Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Systems, evaluating key
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA ( \1\ ) ( \2\ ) projects, updating strategic plans for traffic records and data systems
Region III. 50,000 ( \2\ ) improvements and in carrying out other analytic services appropriate to
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA ( \1\ ) ( \2\ ) the states' highway traffic safety missions.
Region IV. 47,436 ( \2\ )
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA 90,100 90,048
Region V.
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA
Region VI.
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA
Region VII.
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA
Region VIII.
Data Analysis and Evaluation Support--NHTSA
Region IX & X.
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region III......... 56,000 ( \2\ ) A key component of both the Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region V........... 27,500 ( \2\ ) Belt Use Nationwide and the DOT initiative to reduce alcohol-related
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region VI.......... 0 ( \2\ ) deaths and injuries is high visibility law enforcement. The Regional Law
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region VII......... 0 75,000 Enforcement Liaisons provide comprehensive technical assistance to state,
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region VIII........ 63,540 65,220 county, and local law enforcement agencies within the Region. The
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region IX.......... 33,050 ( \2\ ) Liaisons market and coordinate law enforcement activities for these
Law Enforcement Liaison--Region X........... 0 72,952 efforts.
75,740
Traffic Safety Digest....................... 85,000 ( \2\ ) The Traffic Safety Digest is a publication that highlights successful
traffic safety programs that are being implemented around the country. It
is distributed to over 3,000 traffic safety advocates on a quarterly
basis. The Traffic Safety Digest allows traffic safety advocates to
become aware of projects that are taking place nationwide and presents
them with ideas that can be replicated.
Region I Internship Co-op with Boston 121,000 ( \2\ ) This internship allows minority students the opportunity to study and gain
University. 21,000 ( \2\ ) hands-on experience in the field of traffic safety and other related
Region IV Internship Co-op with Clark 21,000 ( \2\ ) areas.
Atlanta University.
Region V Internship Co-op with Chicago State
University.
Media Support Contract--Region I............ 35,000 35,000 The purpose of the media support contract is to provide services for the
Media Support Contract--Region II........... 35,000 33,325 Regional Offices and their states to promote the goals of the Buckle Up
Media Support Contract--Region III.......... 35,000 33,740 America Campaign, You Drink and Drive. You Lose. Campaign, and highway
Media Support Contract--Region IV........... 35,000 35,000 safety educational programs in general. Through the technical assistance
Media Support Contract--Region V............ ( \1\ ) ( \2\ ) of experienced media consultants, NHTSA's critical highway safety
Media Support Contract--Region VI........... 35,000 34,000 messages can be effectively communicated to the public and policy makers.
Media Support Contract--Region VII.......... 35,000 29,127
Media Support Contract--Region VIII......... 35,000 35,000
Media Support Contract--Region IX........... 60,000 32,000
Media Support Contract--Region X............ 35,000 0
Highway Safety Training Services............ 1,555,000 787,647 The contract provides for a comprehensive package of highway safety
training services from the Transportation Safety Institute. The training
curricula is developed to assist the highway safety community in all
aspects of highway safety program administration and implementation.
Computer Support Services................... 25,000 80,000 The contract provides the ten NHTSA regional offices with onsite computer
service for both hardware and software on an ``as needed'' basis.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region 35,000 ( \2\ ) NHTSA's Regional Offices are using injury control cooperative agreements
I. 35,000 ( \2\ ) to promote collaboration among State Highway Safety Offices, medical and
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region 35,000 0 public health professionals (including HMO's and health plan
II. 35,000 ( \2\ ) associations), law enforcement, insurance, business groups and non-
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region 30,000 ( \2\ ) traditional partners in an effort to promote traffic safety initiatives.
III. 5,000 ( \2\ ) Injury control contractorsare helping to expand Safe and Livable
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region 35,000 ( \2\ ) Communities and promote Buckle Up America and the agency's
IV. 35,000 ( \3\ ) impaireddriving prevention programs.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region 35,000 ( \2\ )
V. 35,000 35,000
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region
VII.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region
VIII.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region
IX.
Injury Control Cooperative Agreement--Region
X.
REGION I:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase ( \4\ ) 354,200 These grants fund innovative statewide efforts to boost seat belt use rate
Seat Belt Use--Maine. 346,000 and improve child passenger protection. Grants were awarded to states
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase 153,134 based on competitive proposals. Each proposal included a plan for
Seat Belt Use--Massachusetts. 450,000 periodic or sustained intensified enforcement of the state's seat belt
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase 518,400 and child passenger protection laws, coupled with high visibility media
Seat Belt Use--New Hampshire. events and expanded partnerships.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase
Seat Belt Use--Rhode Island.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase
Seat Belt Use--Vermont.
REGION II:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 685,620
Seat Belt Use--New Jersey.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 1,215,974
Seat Belt Use--New York.
REGION III:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 360,000
Seat Belt Use--Puerto Rico.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 121,500
Seat Belt Use--Delaware.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 271,302
Seat Belt Use--District of Columbia.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 376,461
Seat Belt Use--Pennsylvania.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 820,000
Seat Belt Use--Virginia.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 229,500
Seat Belt Use--West Virginia.
REGION IV:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 810,405
Seat Belt Use--Alabama.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 1,353,000
Seat Belt Use--Florida.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 1,000,128
Seat Belt Use--Georgia.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 569,300
Seat Belt Use--Kentucky.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 499,432
Seat Belt Use--Mississippi.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 800,000
Seat Belt Use--North Carolina.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 884,286
Seat Belt Use--South Carolina.
REGION V:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 864,500
Seat Belt Use--Tennessee.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 546,640
Seat Belt Use--Illinois.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 669,800
Seat Belt Use--Indiana.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 1,042,277
Seat Belt Use--Michigan.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 365,200
Seat Belt Use--Minnesota.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 884,984
Seat Belt Use--Wisconsin.
REGION VI:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 237,000
Seat Belt Use--Arkansas.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 775,000
Seat Belt Use--Louisiana.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 316,000
Seat Belt Use--New Mexico.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 1,557,608
Seat Belt Use--Texas.
REGION VII:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 230,000
Seat Belt Use--Iowa.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 200,000
Seat Belt Use--Kansas.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 535,450
Seat Belt Use--Missouri.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 436,680
Seat Belt Use--Nebraska.
REGION VIII:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 727,000
Seat Belt Use--Colorado.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 204,000
Seat Belt Use--Montana.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 450,298
Seat Belt Use--North Dakota.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 221,700
Seat Belt Use--Utah.
REGION IX:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 490,900
Seat Belt Use--Arizona.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 228,418
Seat Belt Use--Hawaii.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 290,675
Seat Belt Use--Nevada.
REGION X:
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 495,400
Seat Belt Use--Alaska.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 500,000
Seat Belt Use--Idaho.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 349,764
Seat Belt Use--Oregon.
S. 157 Innovative Program to Increase .............. 500,000
Seat Belt Use--Washington.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Continued with prior year funds.
\2\ TBD.
\3\ No contractor.
\4\ No funds expended in fiscal year 1999.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS FUNDING
Question. How many states are receiving Section 410 grant funds
from fiscal year 2000 appropriations? Please indicate how much funding
was provided to each state and how each state spent the grant money.
Please provide similar tables for the other NHTSA administered grant
programs.
Answer. No state has received Section 410 Alcohol Incentive Grant
funds from fiscal year 2000 appropriations yet. The applications for
these funds are not due until August 1, 2000. Similarly, no fiscal year
2000 funds have been awarded yet under the Section 163 .08 BAC Law
Incentive Grant program and the Section 405 Occupant Protection
Incentive Grant program, since applications are due July 15 and August
1, respectively.
The NHTSA administered grant programs which have already awarded
fiscal year 2000 grant funds are (1) the Section 402 State and
Community Highway Safety formula grant program, (2) the Section 157
Seat Belt Use Incentive Grant program, (3) the Section 2003(b) Child
Passenger Protection Education Grant program, and (4) the Section 411
State Highway Safety Data Improvement Grant program. The following four
tables provide information on how much fiscal year 2000 funding was
provided to each state and how each state is spending the grant money
under each of these programs.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 402 STATE AND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY SAFETY FORMULA GRANT FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant
State amount How state is using grant funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... $2,516,007 $184K Planning & Administration, $592K Alcohol programs, $425K
Emergency Medical Services, $252K Occupant Protection, $146K
Police Traffic Services, $912K Community Traffic Safety
Project, $5K Railroad/Highway Crossings.
Alaska............................ 725,800 $67K Planning & Administration, $132K Alcohol Programs, $9K
Emergency Medical Services, $101K Occupant Protection, $52K
Pedestrian Safety, $238K Police Traffic Services, $63K Traffic
Records, $63K Safe Communities.
Arizona........................... 2,030,069 $203K Planning & Administration, $1,052K Alcohol programs, $90K
Emergency Medical Services, $104K Occupant Protection, $14K
Pedestrian Safety, $372K Police Traffic Services, $30K Traffic
Records, $48K Alcohol programs, $2K School Bus Safety, $45K
Safe Communities, $70K Roadway Safety.
Arkansas.......................... 1,818,023 $122K Planning & Administration, $644K Alcohol, $705K Occupant
Protection, $30K Traffic Records, $101K Speed Control, $6K
Rail/Hwy Crossings, $110K Safe Communities, $100K Roadway
Safety.
California........................ 13,888,151 $874K Planning & Administration, $134K Alcohol programs,
$2,561K Emergency Medical Services, $1,117K Occupant
Protection, $2,029K Pedestrian Safety, $4,311K Police Traffic
Services, $397K Traffic Records, $1,623K Safe Communities,
$842K Roadway Safety.
Colorado.......................... 2,125,636 $180K Planning & Administration, $388K Alcohol programs, $25K
Motorcycle Safety, $524K Occupant Protection, $11K Pedestrian
Safety, $413K Police Traffic Services, $315K Traffic Records,
$119K Safe Communities, $150K Roadway Safety.
Connecticut....................... 1,555,073 $155K Planning & Administration, $315K Alcohol Countermeasures,
$175K Motorcycle Safety, $235K Occupant Protection, $535K
Police Traffic Services, $90K Traffic Records, $50K Child
Restraints.
Delaware.......................... 725,800 $179K Alcohol Programs, $63K Planning & Administration, $254K
Occupant Protection, $38K Pedestrian Safety, $191K Police
Traffic Services, $1K School Bus Safety.
DC................................ 725,800 $244K Alcohol, $62K Planning & Administration, $197K Occupant
Protection, $25K Pedestrian Safety, $136K Police Traffic
Services, $62K Safe Communities.
Florida........................... 6,418,232 $149K Planning & Administration, $1,761K Alcohol programs,
$1,701K Occupant Protection, $654K Pedestrian Safety, $1,003K
Police Traffic Services, $121K Traffic Records, $429K
Community Traffic Safety Project, $600K Roadway Safety.
Georgia........................... 3,704,007 $380K Planning & Administration, $355K Alcohol programs, $827K
Occupant Protection, $150K Pedestrian Safety, $204K Traffic
Records, $1,300K Community Traffic Safety Project, $128K Speed
Control, $360K Safe Communities.
Hawaii............................ 725,800 $29K Planning & Administration, $342K Alcohol programs, $38K
Emergency Medical Services, $3K MC; $8K Occupant Protection,
$2K Pedestrian Safety, $1K Police Traffic Services, $192K
Speed Control, $111K Safe Communities.
Idaho............................. 850,553 $40K Planning & Administration, $251K Alcohol Programs, $37K
Emergency Medical Services, $160K Occupant Protection, $22K
Pedestrian Safety, $163K Police Traffic Services, $121K
Traffic Records, $12K Roadway Safety, $45K Paid Media.
Illinois.......................... 5,986,792 $235K Planning & Administration, $1,032K Occupant Protection,
$1,021K Alcohol programs, $130K Emergency Medical Services,
$90K Pedestrian Safety, $1,705K Police Traffic Services, $60K
Traffic Records, $1,655K Community Traffic Safety Project,
$60K Roadway Safety.
Indiana........................... 3,136,224 $250K Planning & Administration, $1,029K Occupant Protection,
$1,083K Alcohol programs, $392K Police Traffic Services, $275K
Traffic Records, $107K Community Traffic Safety Project.
Iowa.............................. 2,151,493 $125K Planning & Administration, $666K Alcohol Programs, $10K
Emergency Medical Services, $700K Occupant Protection, $25K
Pedestrian Safety, $599K Police Traffic Services, $26K Safe
Communities.
Kansas............................ 2,211,418 $142K Planning & Administration, $35K Emergency Medical
Services, $160K Motorcycle Safety, $502K Occupant Protection,
$542K Police Traffic Services, $11K Traffic Records, $150K
Speed Enforcement, $187K Safe Communities,$482K Alcohol
programs.
Kentucky.......................... 2,186,582 $91K Planning & Administration, $540K Alcohol Programs, $429K
Occupant Protection, $63K Pedestrian Safety, $799K Police
Traffic Services, $99K Community Traffic Safety Project, $125K
Driver Licensing, $40K Roadway Safety.
Louisiana......................... 2,296,547 $166K Planning & Administration, $402K Alcohol, $74K EMS, $299K
Occupant Protection, $865K Police Traffic Services, $269
Traffic Records, $179K Safe Communities, $43K Roadway Safety.
Maine............................. 725,800 $73K Planning & Administration, $65K Alcohol Countermeasures,
$45K Emergency Medical Services, $58K Police Traffic Services,
$180K Traffic Records, $104K Driver Education, $21K School Bus
Safety, $80K Child Restraints, $100K Safe Communities.
Maryland.......................... 2,262,382 $110K Alcohol, $58K Planning & Administration, $137K Emergency
Medical Services, $301K Occupant Protection, $8K Pedestrian
Safety, $36K Police Traffic Services, $1,233K Comprehensive
Traffic Safety, $336K Safe Communities, $44K Roadway Safety
Massachusetts..................... 2,822,652 $250K Planning & Administration, $236K Alcohol Countermeasures,
$23K Emergency Medical Services, $72K Motorcycle Safety, $285K
Occupant Protection, $189K Pedestrian Safety, $765K Police
Traffic Services, $335K Traffic Records, $648K Community
Traffic Safety Project, $19K School Bus Safety.
Michigan.......................... 4,950,255 $413K Planning & Administration, $720K Occupant Protection,
$1,283K Alcohol Programs, $25K Motorcycle Safety, $60K
Pedestrian Safety, $779K Police Traffic Services, $127K
Traffic Records, $1,202K Community Traffic Safety Project,
$71K Driver Education, $14K Safe Communities, $256K Roadway
Safety
Minnesota......................... 2,980,708 $110K Planning & Administration, $766K Occupant Protection,
$374K Alcohol Programs, $1,101K Police Traffic Services, $120K
Traffic Records, $510K Community Traffic Safety Project.
Mississippi....................... 1,719,141 $172K Planning & Administration, $209K Alcohol programs, $292K
Occupant Protection, $419K Police Traffic Services, $112K
Traffic Records, $118K Community Traffic Safety Project, $142K
Youth Alcohol programs, $172K Safe Communities, $83K Roadway
Safety.
Missouri.......................... 3,217,266 $140K Planning & Administration, $1,279K Police Traffic
Services, $485K Alcohol programs, $408K Youth Alcohol
programs, $214K Occupant Protection, $131K Traffic Records,
$218K Safe Communities, $342K Roadway Safety.
Montana........................... 948,242 $59K Planning & Administration, $190K Alcohol programs, $100K
Emergency Medical Services, $1K Motorcycle Safety, $208K
Occupant Protection, $51K Pedestrian Safety, $101K Police
Traffic Services, $156K Traffic Records, $83K Safe Communities
Nebraska.......................... 1,474,640 $50K Planning & Administration, $277K Alcohol programs, $122K
Occupant Protection, $75K Police Traffic Services, $20K
Traffic Records, $75K Identification & Surveillance, $788K
Speed Enforcement, $20K Speed Control, $48K Safe Communities.
Nevada............................ 904,578 $90K Planning & Administration, $76K Alcohol programs, $59K
Emergency Medical Services, $62K Occupant Protection, $27K
Pedestrian Safety, $148K Police Traffic Services, $420K
Community Traffic Safety Project, $23K Roadway Safety.
New Hampshire..................... 725,800 $73K Planning & Administration, $146K Alcohol Countermeasures,
$13K Emergency Medical Services, $108K Occupant Protection,
$43K Pedestrian Safety, $93K Police Traffic Services, $36K
Traffic Records, $36K Community Traffic Safety Project, $156K
Speed Control, $11K Safe Communities, $11K Roadway Safety.
New Jersey........................ 3,544,289 $338K Planning & Administration, $533K Alcohol programs, $307K
Occupant Protection, $131K Pedestrian Safety, $1,059K Police
Traffic Services, $238K Traffic Records, $449K Community
Traffic Safety Project, $335K Roadway Safety, $154K Paid
Advertising.
New Mexico........................ 1,159,542 $40K Planning & Administration, $87K Alcohol, $80K Emergency
Medical Services, $268K Occupant Protection, $39K Pedestrian,
$195K Police Traffic Services, $250K Traffic Records, $200K
Safe Communities.
New York.......................... 8,502,951 $560K, Planning & Administration, $400K Alcohol programs, $20K,
Emergency Medical Services, $650K Occupant Protection, $360K
Pedestrian Safety, $2,000K Police Traffic Services, $1,400K
Traffic Records, $2,741K Community Traffic Safety Project,
$300K Roadway Safety, $72K School Bus Safety.
North Carolina.................... 3,635,203 $275K Alcohol programs, $87K Motorcycle Safety, $553K Occupant
Protection, $292K Pedestrian Safety, $960K Police Traffic
Services, $197K Traffic Records, $48K Railroad/Highway
Crossings, $703K Safe Communities, $477K Roadway Safety, $43K
Youth Alcohol programs.
North Dakota...................... 1,028,261 $42K Planning & Administration, $89K Alcohol programs, $12K
Emergency Medical Services, $12K Motorcycle Safety, $228K
Occupant Protection, $172K Police Traffic Services, $156K
Traffic Records, $317K Safe Communities.
Ohio.............................. 5,552,083 $120K Planning & Administration, $1,007 Alcohol Programs, $370K
Occupant Protection, $1,395K Police Traffic Services, $75K
Traffic Records, $500K Community Traffic Safety Project, $410K
Speed Control, $1,600K Safe Communities, $75K Roadway Safety.
Oklahoma.......................... 2,303,115 $7K Planning & Administration, $725K Alcohol, $344K Occupant
Protection, $5K Pedestrian Safety, $1,118K Police Traffic
Services, $54K Traffic Records, $50K Roadway Safety.
Oregon............................ 1,933,728 $193K Planning & Administration, $344K Alcohol Programs, $50K
Emergency Medical Services, $195K Occupant Protection, $145K
Pedestrian Safety, $65K Police Traffic Services, $591K Drivers
Education, $50K Speed Control, $271K Safe Communities, $30K
Roadway Safety.
Pennsylvania...................... 6,011,050 $1,750K Alcohol, $1,350K Police Traffic Services, $280K
Emergency Medical Services, $2,006K Occupant Protection, $175K
Youth Alcohol, $200K Safe Communities, $250K Motorcycle
Safety.
Rhode Island...................... 725,800 $72K Planning & Administration, $348K Alcohol Countermeasures,
$27K Emergency Medical Services, $13K Occupant Protection,
$40K Pedestrian Safety, $25K Police Traffic Services, $10K
Community Traffic Safety Project, $50K Safe Communities, $140K
Paid Advertising.
South Carolina.................... 2,026,802 $193K Planning & Administration, $24K Emergency Medical
Services, $542K Occupant Protection, $789K Police Traffic
Services, $288K Youth Alcohol programs, $190K Safe
Communities.
South Dakota...................... 1,024,112 Planning & Administration $31K, Alcohol programs $72K,
Emergency Medical Services $191K, Occupant Protection $149K
Police Traffic Services $542K, SB $2K, Roadway Safety $37K.
Tennessee......................... 2,798,387 $250K Planning & Administration, $1,174K Alcohol programs,
$1,374K Occupant Protection.
Texas............................. 9,702,014 $41K Planning & Administration, $391K EMS, $394K Pedestrian
Safety, $2,147K Police Traffic Services, $2,737K Traffic
Records, $271K Drivers Education (Public Information/
Education), $3,049K Speed Control, $3K Safe Communities, $669K
Roadway Safety.
Utah.............................. 1,083,050 $89K Planning & Administration, $678K Community Traffic Safety
Project, $35K Emergency Medical Services, $141K Occupant
Protection, $48K Pedestrian Safety, $44K Police Traffic
Services, $19K Traffic Records, $2K Youth Alcohol programs,
$28K Roadway Safety.
Vermont........................... 725,800 $63K Alcohol Countermeasures, $10K Emergency Medical Services,
$80K Occupant Protection, $291K Police Traffic Services, $25K
Traffic Records, $131K Community Traffic Safety Project, $126K
Driver Education.
Virginia.......................... 3,198,873 $350K Alcohol programs, $300K Planning & Administration, $50K
Emergency Medical Services, $70K Motorcycle Safety, $327K
Occupant Protection, $78K Pedestrian Safety, $550K Police
Traffic Services, $85K Traffic Records, $350K Community
Traffic Safety, $549K Speed Control, $489K Roadway Safety.
Washington........................ 2,737,952 $239K Planning & Administration, $357K Alcohol Programs, $6K
Emergency Medical Services, $237K Occupant Protection, $321K
Pedestrian Safety, $236K Police Traffic Services, $272K
Traffic Records, $92K Drivers Education, $564K Safe
Communities, $414K Roadway Safety.
West Virginia..................... 1,064,072 $100K Alcohol programs, $100K Planning & Administration, $100K
Emergency Medical Services, $100K Occupant Protection, $100K
Traffic Records, $564K Safe Communities.
Wisconsin......................... 3,027,355 $480K Alcohol Programs, $190K Emergency Medical Services, $160K
Motorcycle Safety, $610 Occupant Protection, $261K Pedestrian
Safety, $475K Police Traffic Services, $155K Traffic Records,
$646K Community Traffic Safety Project, $50K Roadway Safety.
Wyoming........................... 725,800 Planning & Administration $58K, Alcohol programs $143K,
Emergency Medical Services $30K, Occupant Protection $81K,
Pedestrian Safety $10K, Police Traffic Services $29K, Traffic
Records $22K, Youth Alcohol programs $72K, Speed Enforcement
$234K, Safe Communities $40K, Roadway Safety $7K.
Puerto Rico....................... 1,599,990 $160K Planning & Administration, $382K Alcohol programs, $72K
Emergency Medical Services, $64K Occupant Protection, $159K
Pedestrian Safety, $279K Police Traffic Services, $55K Traffic
Records, $63K Community Traffic Safety Project, $239K Youth
Alcohol programs, $126K Roadway Safety.
BIA............................... 1,088,700 $478K Alcohol, $60K Occupant Protection, $263K Police Traffic
Services, $193K Safe Communities, $53K Roadway Safety, 41K
Planning & Administration.
American Samoa.................... 362,900 $36K Planning & Administration, $59K Alcohol programs, $26K
Emergency Medical Services, $51K Occupant Protection, $27K
Pedestrian Safety, $57K Police Traffic Services, $44K Traffic
Records, $38K Youth Alcohol programs, $10K Safe Communities,
$15K Roadway Safety.
Guam.............................. 362,900 $36K Planning & Administration, $107K Alcohol programs, $152K
Emergency Medical Services, $30K Occupant Protection, $20K
Youth Alcohol programs, $18K Safe Communities.
N. Marianas....................... 362,900 $36K Planning & Administration, $160K Alcohol programs, $10K
Emergency Medical Services, $10K Occupant Protection, $147K
Police Traffic Services.
Virgin Islands.................... 362,900 $36K Planning & Administration, $91K Alcohol programs, $70K
Emergency Medical Services, $70K Occupant Protection, $20K
Pedestrian Safety, $60K Police Traffic Services, $15K Traffic
Records.
-------------
Total....................... 145,160,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 157 SEAT BELT USE INCENTIVE GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total grant Allocation
(estimated to highway Allocation
State federal safety to federal How state is using grant funds
budget programs aid highway
savings) (402) programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.................................. $9,000 $9,000 $0 $8K Occupant Protection public
information & training, $1K
Police Traffic Services.
Arkansas............................... 179,400 44,850 134,550 $45K Occupant Protection,
Federal Aid Hwy Programs,
$135K Railroad Signal.
California.............................. 15,705,300 15,705,300 0 $574K Alcohol programs, $1,597K
TR, $92K Emergency Medical
Services, $893K Pedestrian
Safety, $9,810K Police Traffic
Services, $214K Occupant
Protection, $173K Roadway
Safety, $2,352K Planning &
Administration.
Colorado................................ 854,500 854,500 0 $373K Alcohol programs, $122K
Traffic Records, $29K
Pedestrian Safety, $160K
Police Traffic Services, $90K
Occupant Protection, $14K Safe
Communities, $16K Roadway
Safety, $50K Paid Advertising.
Connecticut............................. 1,613,400 1,613,400 0 $1,500K Police Traffic
Services, $113K Alcohol
Countermeasures.
Delaware................................ 6,900 6,900 0 6.9K Occupant Protection.
DC...................................... 417,900 417,900 0 $380K Police Traffic Services,
$38K Traffic Records.
Georgia................................. 3,014,200 2,214,200 800,000 $514K Driver Education, $1,100K
Community Traffic Safety
Project, Traffic Records
$400K, $100K Occupant
Protection, $100K Pedestrian
Safety, Federal-Aid: $800K
Traffic Management System.
Hawaii.................................. 375,400 375,400 0 $70K Alcohol programs, $166K
Motorcycle Safety, $89K
Occupant Protection, $50K Safe
Communities.
Idaho................................... 218,300 218,300 0 $200K on enhanced enforcement,
$18K on public information for
occupant protection.
Illinois............................... 1,007,300 1,007,300 0 $1,007K Occupant Protection.
Indiana................................. 1,755,300 1,755,300 0 $1,755K Occupant Protection.
Iowa.................................... 837,800 527,800 310,000 $528K Police Traffic Services,
Federal Aid: $90K Roadway
Safety, $110K Enforcement
Efforts Red Light Running &
Work Zone Safety, $110K School
Zone Strong Yellow & Green
Program.
Kansas.................................. 266,900 266,900 0 $267K Police Traffic Services.
Louisiana............................... 284,100 284,100 0 $84K Police Traffic Services,
$200K Occupant Protection.
Maine................................... 11,000 11,000 0 $11K Occupant Protection
Maryland................................ 2,950,800 2,950,800 0 $101K Community Traffic Safety
Programs, $50K Emergency
Medical Services, $950K
Pedestrian Safety, $650K
Police Traffic Services, $200K
Paid Advertising--Aggressive
Driving, $1,000K Occupant
Protection.
Michigan................................ 1,075,700 718,000 357,700 $718K Occupant Protection,
Federal Aid: $357K for-raised
payment markings at hazard
locations.
Mississippi............................. 1,051,000 800,000 251,000 $300K Traffic Records, $200K
Police Traffic Services, $100K
Occupant Protection, $200K
Safe Communities, Federal Aid
Highway Program: $251K PI&E
Campaign.
Montana................................. 131,600 131,600 0 $131K Occupant Protection.
Nebraska................................ 39,600 19,800 19,800 $19.8K Occupant Protection,
Federal Aid: $19.8K Work Zone
Safety PI&E effort.
Nevada.................................. 687,000 687,000 0 $568K Community Traffic Safety
Project, $30K Occupant
Protection, $55K Pedestrian
Safety, $34K Police Traffic
Services.
New Jersey.............................. 913,100 913,100 0 $913K Speed Control.
New Mexico.............................. 900,200 900,200 0 $233K Traffic Records, $176K
Police Traffic Services, $389
Occupant Protection, $92K Safe
Communities, $5K Roadway
Safety, $5K Planning &
Administration.
New York................................ 3,920,700 3,520,700 400,000 $3,520K Occupant Protection for
``Buckle Up NY'', Federal-Aid:
$400K commercial vehicle
oversight efforts.
North Carolina......................... 3,239,500 3,239,500 0 $606K Alcohol programs, $785K
Traffic Records, $480K
Emergency Medical Services,
$1,368K Occupant Protection.
Oregon.................................. 1,538,400 1,463,400 75,000 $491K Drivers Education, $30K
Alcohol Programs, $91K
Pedestrian Safety, $340K
Occupant Protection, $165K
Speed Control, $206K Safe
Communities, $140K Roadway
Safety. Federal Aid Program:
$75K Allocation to the Rail
Safety Program, installation
of Pedestrian safety barriers.
Pennsylvania............................ 964,500 964,500 0 $400K local & municipal
occupant protection
enforcement, $200K State
Police--occupant protection
enforcement, $300K paid
advertising--alcohol & belts,
$64.5K evaluation of paid
advertising.
South Carolina......................... 477,300 337,300 140,000 $267K Alcohol programs, $70K
Occupant Protection, Federal-
aid: $140K Occupant
Protection--
Texas................................... 5,325,700 1,775,234 3,550,466 $1,775K School Bus Safety
(Commercial Vehicle Safety),
Federal Aid Hwy Programs:
$1,775K Railroad Signal,
$1,775K Hazard Elimination.
Utah.................................... 221,700 221,700 0 $222K Occupant Protection.
Virginia................................ 1,258,200 1,258,200 0 $1,258K Occupant Protection.
Washington.............................. 2,433,900 446,000 1,987,900 $446K occupant protection
enforcement and public
information through Safe
Communities Program. Federal
Aid Program: $1,988K allocated
to Corridor Projects for
Washington State DOT.
Wisconsin............................... 549,900 549,900 0 $205K in Occupant Protection,
$200K Grad Licensing, $95K
Safe Communities, $50K Work
Zone Safety.
Puerto Rico............................. 375,200 375,200 0 $295K Enforcement, (vehicles,
overtime, saturation patrols,
training), $80K PI&E (mass
media and print material) and
training (store clerks,
mechanics, loaner programs,
nurses pediatricians, etc.).
---------------------------------------
Total............................. 54,610,700 46,584,284 8,026,416
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 2003B CHILD PASSENGER PROTECTION EDUCATION GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant
State amount How state is using grant funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................... $135,237 Education and outreach activities to reach rural and African American
populations, establish fitting stations, train new child passenger
safety (CPS) technicians.
Alaska...................... 37,500 Multi-cultural and multi-lingual messages to reach Alaskan Natives,
Spanish-, Korean-, and Tagalog-speaking Alaskans, materials for
children with special transportation needs, car seat clinics,
establish at least one fitting station, conduct NHTSA standardized CPS
training course.
Arizona..................... 109,097 Pilot a Judicial Program in Phoenix courts to educate violators about
child passenger safety, certify technicians and instructors, diverse
populations to be targeted are African American, Hispanic and Native
Americans.
Arkansas.................... 97,748 Use pediatric health care professionals and child-care professionals to
deliver CPS information to low socioeconomic and Hispanic speaking
populations, conduct CPS training sessions, distribute new TV public
service announcements (PSA's).
California.................. 746,132 Develop educational programs which are culturally sensitive, diverse
populations to be targeted are African American, Hispanic, Native
American, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Hmong, Korean, Arabic, and
East Indian (India), train instructors, technicians and specialist.
Colorado.................... 114,260 Brief CPS educators, professionals and law enforcement on new tether
requirement and increased use of booster seats, targeted families and
care givers in low income and rural communities, conduct CPS courses
using NHTSA curricula.
Connecticut................. 83,547 Educate low usage populations and non-English speaking communities,
train social workers, special needs providers, workshop on
transporting children with special needs, CPS technician training,
child safety inspection clinics, statewide central clearing house.
Delaware.................... 37,500 Public information campaign to increase booster seat use, CPS training,
child safety seat check up events, loaner program.
DC.......................... 37,500 Increase the number of fitting stations, conduct NHTSA Standardized CPS
courses, workshops and training on installation of special needs
seats.
Florida..................... 344,855 Focus education and outreach efforts in African American, Hispanic and
other diverse populations, establish state diversity coalition and
statewide occupant protection resource center, increase booster seat
use, training workshops for Head Start employees, establish fitting
stations, conduct child safety seat clinics.
Georgia..................... 199,066 Mini-grants to community organizations to promote child safety seat use
among low income, rural and minority populations (African American and
Hispanic), promote booster seat use, child safety seat/booster seat
clinics, recruit African American and Hispanics as certified CPS
technicians and instructors.
Hawaii...................... 37,500 CPS clinics and fitting stations, conduct CPS training classes, diverse
populations to be targeted for education and outreach are Pacific
Islanders, Philippine, Chinese and Japanese.
Idaho....................... 45,735 Conduct NHTSA Standardized CPS courses, child safety seat clinics, work
with EMS to establish permanent rural child safety seat fitting
stations.
Illinois.................... 321,705 Conduct CPS training courses, purchase three checkpoint trailers,
establish two child passenger resource centers/fitting stations (one
rural, one urban), establish a toll-free number for CPS information,
statewide booster seat campaign, target education and outreach to
African American, Hispanic, Asian and low-income populations.
Indiana..................... 168,549 Continue statewide CPS training, purchase convertible seats for
minority and low-income families, expand fitting station project.
Iowa........................ 115,678 Develop PSA's on misuse of child safety seats and booster seats,
establish fitting stations, conduct checkup events, CPS training.
Kansas...................... 118,918 Conduct NHTSA Standardized CPS course, develop statewide newsletter,
Bilingual (English and Spanish) brochure, billboards, television and
radio PSA's, develop CPS Checkup Event ``How TO'' packages, hold check-
up events.
Kentucky.................... 117,521 Employ a full time CPS specialist, establish statewide CPS committee,
conduct child safety seat clinics, CPS training.
Louisiana................... 123,414 Train CPS advocates using the NHTSA Standardized CPS course, serve
ethnic and low socioeconomic groups, develop printed materials,
conduct CPS clinics.
Maine 38,260 Target misuse and lack of child restraint use in rural and low-income
areas, fund state CPS coordinator, CPS training, fitting stations,
establish state clearinghouse for CPS public information.
Maryland.................... 121,547 Fitting stations, including mobile fitting stations, conference on
transporting children with special needs, CPS training.
Massachusetts............... 151,645 Targeting high risk populations with materials, PSA's and educational
program, increase community checkpoints and fitting stations, conduct
CPS training.
Michigan.................... 266,013 NHTSA Standardized CPS course, convert loaner programs into permanent
fitting stations, hire state coordinator. Target education and
outreach to African American, Latino/Hispanic, and Arab/Chadian
populations.
Minnesota................... 160,236 Purchase six trailers for CPS training and as mobile fitting stations
supplied with child safety seats, printed materials and training
equipment, develop public information materials in Hispanic and among
and for lower reading levels, provide mini-grants for community
training, clinics, and fitting stations, purchase child safety seats.
Mississippi................. 92,414 CPS messages to low-income and African Americans families, PSA's for
radio, television and print, billboards, conduct child safety seat
checkpoints, establish fitting stations, conduct CPS training.
Missouri.................... 172,933 Develop statewide public education program, including Child Restraint
Resource Guides, establish fitting stations targeting minority and low-
income families, conduct CPS training classes.
Montana..................... 51,004 Recruit fire departments to serve as fitting stations, CPS training for
health professionals, law enforcement and child care providers,
training, education and outreach targeted to Native American
populations.
Nebraska.................... 79,302 Conduct CPS training, conduct child safety seat checkpoints and seat
distributions, activities targeted to African American, Hispanic and
Native American populations.
Nevada...................... 48,634 CPS brochures to medical providers, develop CPS educational videos,
train CPS technicians and instructors, conduct checkpoints, education
and outreach targeted to African American, Hispanic and Native
American.
New Hampshire............... 37,500 Update child restraint law poster, brochure on correct child seat usage
and the new child restraint law, pilot CPS program/seat distribution
in low-income housing centers, conduct CPS training, increase number
of checkpoints.
New Mexico.................. 62,343 Target CPS messages to older children (between the ages of 11 and 16),
use peer education model with students, targeting low income and/or
minority schools districts (Hispanic, Native American).
New York.................... 456,826 Create information booklets and cards, posters and billboards targeting
low-income and minority populations, conduct CPS clinics and
checkpoints, establish fitting stations, conduct CPS training.
North Carolina.............. 195,356 Target outreach to rural mountain communities, Hispanic and low-income
communities, conduct child safety seat clinics and checkpoints,
distribute child safety seats and seats for special-needs children,
translate CPS brochures into Spanish, conduct CPS training, launch
pilot fitting station program with fire departments.
North Dakota................ 55,319 CPS education, outreach and child safety seat distribution program for
Native American tribes, develop billboards, pamphlets and posters,
conduct CPS training for new technicians, instructors, and for care
givers.
Ohio........................ 298,333 Expand the NHTSA Standardized CPS course, expand number of fitting
stations, emphasize booster seats, purchase child safety seats and
booster seats for distribution to low-income and minority (African
American and Hispanic) communities, establish toll-free number for CPS
information.
Oklahoma.................... 123,821 Child safety seats and booster seats distribution program, establish
fitting stations at ambulance facilities across the state, provide
seats to low-income families, conduct CPS training.
Oregon...................... 103,952 Establish state child safety seat resource center, target education and
outreach to rural, low-income areas, establish toll-free number for
CPS information, train CPS technicians and instructors.
Pennsylvania................ 322,988 Establish fitting stations, target education and outreach to minority
populations, expand child safety seat loaner programs in minority
communities, conduct CPS training.
Rhode Island................ 37,500 Conduct bilingual (English and Spanish) CPS campaign including new
brochures, billboard designs, and PSA's, conduct enforcement
checkpoints, child safety seat clinics, and community safety day
events in low-income or minority communities, conduct CPS training
courses, recruit bilingual CPS professionals.
South Carolina.............. 108,930 Improve child restraint use among children living in foster care,
conduct CPS training for foster parents and foster care association
employees/volunteers, distribute child safety seats and booster seats,
conduct enforcement checkpoints.
Tennessee................... 150,397 Target African American families and counties with low use rates,
conduct child safety seat clinics, seat distribution program
(including seats for special needs children), establish mobile fitting
stations, conduct CPS training.
Texas....................... 521,422 Produce new Spanish and English language materials, purchase additional
child safety seats for loaner programs and safety seat inspections,
conduct CPS training, develop Spanish language CPS course, conduct CPS
clinics, distribute CPS materials through Safe Communities.
Utah........................ 58,215 Target education, training and outreach to Native Americans
populations, especially the Navajo Nation, train law enforcement
officers from the reservations, provide training on seat installation
for children with special needs, conduct CPS training for new
technicians and instructors, provide tether update training, conduct
enforcement checkpoints.
Vermont..................... 37,500 Distribute child safety seats to low income families, establish fitting
stations, train CPS instructors and technician.
Virginia.................... 171,890 Establish mobile fitting stations in minority populations and
documented low usage areas, train CPS professionals.
Washington.................. 147,143 Conduct child safety seat clinics targeting low-income, rural and part-
time restraint users, and Native American and Hispanic families,
establish local CPS teams. Train CPS technicians and instructors.
West Virginia............... 57,190 Target education and outreach activities to low-come communities,
provide child safety seats to current loaner programs, conduct NHTSA
Standardized CPS courses.
Wisconsin................... 162,721 Target education and outreach activities to minority populations
(Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, and Hmong), conduct
statewide CPS conference, establish fitting stations, purchase CPS
trailer for training, checkpoints and to use as a mobile fitting
station.
Am. Samoa................... 18,750 Conduct fitting stations and child safety seat clinics, design roadside
messages to remind parents and care-givers to buckle up their
children, conduct CPS training.
Guam........................ 18,750 Develop and distribute CPS videos for nurseries and day care centers,
train CPS technicians, conduct checkpoints.
N. Marianas................. 18,750 Expand education and outreach activities, conduct NHTSA Standardized
CPS Course for technicians and instructors.
Puerto Rico................. 85,954 Develop messages to address child safety seat misuse, conduct CPS
clinics and fitting stations, conduct CPS training.
Virgin Islands.............. 18,750 Develop new CPS booklets, brochures and PSA's, conduct child safety
seat clinics and enforcement checkpoints, conduct NHTSA Standardized
CPS training for technicians.
B.I.A....................... 56,250 Conduct train-the-trainer courses for NHTSA Standardized CPS course,
conduct CPS clinics, workshops, demonstrations and presentations,
develop CPS literature and correct use video, establish CPS fitting
stations.
-----------
Total................. 7,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SECTION 411 STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY DATA IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant
State amount How state is using grant funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................... $173,600 Complete a Traffic Records Assessment, update strategic plan,
implement statewide electronic submission of traffic citations.
Alaska........................ 173,600 Implement a strategic traffic records plan develop an upgraded crash
report, develop health system and crash data linkages and improve
traffic records database interface.
Arizona....................... 173,600 Develop a simplified and timely system for data users to retrieve
crash data from traffic data systems and improve the compatibility
between the two systems, research the development of a statewide
citation tracking system, and support and/or provide access to
technology to local police agencies that will improve electronic
transfer of traffic data and increase on site data gathering.
Arkansas...................... 173,600 Improve timeliness and efficiency of the data entry process for crash
reports.
California.................... 173,600 Implemented Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Automation of Rural
Courts Project that provided automation hardware and software
technology to input, send and retrieve traffic conviction and other
data electronically, develop a aptop computer system for completing
crash reports at crash sites to facilitate the direct entry of data
into the crash file, and equip and train Highway Patrol with
evidential quality pre-arrest breath testing devices to improve upon
the alcohol detection at crash sites and in traffic stops.
Colorado...................... 173,600 Complete a software upgrades for remote data entry of crash report
data, and initiate development of probability matching of crash data
and hospital data.
Connecticut................... 173,600 Complete a Traffic Records Assessment, update the Traffic Records
Strategic Plan, complete an automated crash report form and report
analysis package for use by state and local police departments,
purchase new software to store the state crash file, develop an
electronic ticketing system, complete development of GIS mapping
capability, continue development of a data warehouse, and to improve
user accessibility to Crash Outcome Date Evaluation System (CODES).
Delaware...................... 173,600 Create an Emergency Medical System (EMS) data network, develop an
automated Crash Reporting System, and create a GIS Crash Database.
Florida....................... 173,600 Implement regional data centers, revise crash report instruction
manual, crash report training.
Georgia....................... 173,600 Automate crash reporting system, survey & software.
Hawaii........................ 173,600 Develop file linkage, training for local police departments in crash
reporting and alcohol screening devices, and develop electronic data
transfer system.
Idaho......................... 96,480 Develop a strategic traffic records plan.
Illinois...................... 96,480 Develop a traffic records strategic improvement plan.
Indiana....................... 173,600 Hire committee coordinator, improve crash data access, pilot test new
crash location system.
Iowa.......................... 173,600 Capture of crash reports electronically, review crash report data,
technology transfer, emergency response information and mapping.
Kentucky...................... 173,600 Develop Crash Project Phase IV--Purchase Scanners.
Louisiana..................... 173,600 Implement data entry, electronic data transfer, networking, and
document imaging for crash reports and traffic records in State,
parish, and local communities.
Maine 173,600 Pilot test an automated crash report form, provide training to state
and local police, develop a new crash reporting data base with GIS
capabilities capable of receiving crash reports electronically,
coordinate Strategic Planning among state agencies, and design a
statewide system architecture for integrated traffic records files.
Maryland...................... 173,600 Support a Data Analysis Evaluation Coordinator, improve state crash
form, expand scope and use of GIS, and implement statewide training.
Massachusetts................. 173,600 Update the traffic records assessment and the traffic records
strategic plan. Activity continues to improve the quality of CODES
data files and to update the state crash report form to comply with
MMUCC (Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria).
Michigan...................... 173,600 Develop an internet access query system.
Minnesota..................... 173,600 Link two commercial vehicle crash systems, revise crash report form,
improve data collection.
Mississippi................... 173,600 Purchase Software/Hardware for crash & citation data collection, data
linkage for state CODES study, revision of crash report.
Missouri...................... 173,600 Develop STARS (Statewide Traffic Accident Reporting System) Data
Base, conduct annual conference & workshop, Data Base Evaluation and
Consultation.
Nebraska...................... 173,600 Develop Crash file linkage, revise report for electronic transfer,
update existing traffic records files.
Nevada........................ 173,600 Form an interagency subcommittee of the Traffic Records Committee to
develop a 2001 legislative proposal to gain support and funding to
implement an updated traffic records system, implement Traffic
Accident System Planning and Design Project, and to promote a
statewide traffic records conference.
New Hampshire................. 173,600 Purchase notebook PCs to complete crash reports in the field, revise
crash report form to be in compliance with MMUCC, and to develop
crash reporting software which can electronically capture driver
license/vehicle registration data and Global Positioning System
(GPS) location data.
New York...................... 173,600 Upgrade accident information system. This project would allow direct
electronic transfer of crash information from investigation agency
to the state DMV file. Another project is scheduled to upgrade the
ticket file. This upgrade would establish a ticket file
electronically on a client server data base and would allow the
courts to data-enter ticket disposition information electronically
to a data base.
North Carolina................ 173,600 Develop of a new crash reporting form, pilot test for electronic
citation in one State Patrol District, and develop a system to
retrieve data via Internet.
North Dakota.................. 96,480 Develop traffic records strategic plan.
Ohio.......................... 173,600 Complete interactive Internet web site, capture and image a redesign
crash report form.
Oklahoma...................... 173,600 Update traffic records strategic plan, address customer/client access
to data bases.
Oregon........................ 173,600 Link health and crash data, DOT crash data retrieval and analysis,
crash location upgrade and a Division of Motor Vehicles driver and
vehicle files upgrade.
Pennsylvania.................. 173,600 Conduct a series of regional traffic records symposiums to help
determine and refine the information needs of the users/customers.
Rhode Island.................. 173,600 Complete successful electronic transfer of crash reports from state
and local police agencies to a central repository at DOT. All 39
cities and towns will be on line by September, 2000. State crash
file will have capability to reference intersection locations and
GIS mapping. Mobile data capture and transfer capability from police
cruiser laptops will also exist. ``Canned'' and ad hoc report
capability will be available from state crash file. RI will be the
first state in the nation with 100 percent of all police agencies
participating in electronic transfer of crash data to a central
repository.
South Carolina................ 173,600 Design/implement an upgraded statewide traffic records system with
linked citation and crash data.
Tennessee..................... 173,600 Improve state crash reporting equipment, establish data collection in
local law enforcement.
Vermont....................... 173,600 Redesign the uniform crash report to be in compliance with MMUCC,
develop software for a new crash data storage system which can
interface with law enforcement telecommunications systems, pilot
test electronic capture of EMS run data, develop software for
electronic transfer of data to a central repository at the
Department of Transportation, and to provide for Traffic Records
System program management capabilities.
Virginia...................... 173,600 Support statewide coordination, perform equipment and inventory
assessments, develop communication standards, and develop a training
package.
Washington.................... 173,600 Upgrade emergency Medical Services trauma registry, develop a
collision reporting system with Wisconsin DOT, conduct a traffic
records awareness campaign and a collision analysis reporting system
with the Washington State Patrol.
West Virginia................. 96,480 Support statewide coordination and strategic planning development.
Wisconsin..................... 96,480 Develop a traffic records strategic improvement plan.
Puerto Rico................... 173,600 Contract data processing of Police Accident Report form, pilot test
pen based system to improve data collection and the use of Global
Positioning System to improve data related to location of crashes.
American Samoa................ 173,600 Develop a 24/7 network link, obtain computer workstation for police
dispatch and e substations, and develop pen based citation system
and citation form.
Guam.......................... 173,600 Obtain manpower to input crash data, develop pilot project for a pen
based citation entry system, and purchase computer system for
Traffic Engineering Section.
Northern Marianas............. 173,600 Improve driver file system by eliminating double typing of license
data and exploring adding a bar code/magnetic strip to driver
licenses, provide computers and software for EMS database and
connect the driver and EMS files to their main crash reporting
system.
-----------
Total................... 7,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Prepared Statement of Linda J. Morgan, Chairman
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Linda J.
Morgan, Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board (Board). It is my
pleasure to submit the budget request for the Board for fiscal year
2001.
BACKGROUND ON THE BOARD
As you know, on January 1, 1996, the Board was established pursuant
to Public Law 104-88, the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA).
Consistent with the trend toward less economic regulation of the
surface transportation industry, the ICCTA eliminated the ICC and, with
it, several regulatory functions that it had administered. The ICCTA
transferred to the Board core rail functions and certain non-rail
adjudicative functions previously performed by the ICC. Motor carrier
licensing and certain other motor functions were transferred to the
Federal Highway Administration within the Department of Transportation
(DOT).
The Board is a three-member, bipartisan, decisionally independent,
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within DOT. The rail
oversight of the Board encompasses maximum rate reasonableness, car
service and interchange, mergers and line acquisitions, and line
constructions and abandonments. The important rail reforms of the
Staggers Rail Act of 1980 are continued under the ICCTA. The
jurisdiction of the Board also includes certain oversight of the
intercity bus industry and pipeline carriers; rate regulation involving
non-contiguous domestic water transportation, household goods carriers,
and collectively determined motor rates; and the disposition of motor
carrier undercharge claims. The ICCTA empowers the Board, through its
exemption authority, to promote deregulation administratively.
THE BOARD'S FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The Board's fiscal year 2001 budget request totals $17.954 million
and 143 FTEs, essentially adjusting the fiscal year 2000 level for
inflation and pay raises.\1\ This request reflects the relatively
constant workload that is expected and the statutory and regulatory
deadlines associated with the resolution of the cases filed. The
workload of the Board at any given time, other than motor carrier
undercharge cases, remains relatively constant because, even as cases
are resolved, new cases are filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Attached (Attachment #1) is a table that presents in more
detail the specifics of the Board's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board is confronted with three concerns involving the resources
necessary to adjudicate its constant workload and meet statutory and
regulatory deadlines. First, the Board must have a way of ensuring that
it can hire new employees in sufficient time to be prepared to replace
the 45 percent of experienced employees who will be eligible to retire
in the next 3 years. While some of these employees may wish to continue
to work after their retirement eligibility date, many will not. Second,
the Board must have the necessary resources to accommodate any
legislative changes that Congress might approve. And lastly, the
funding source for the Board must remain stable to carry out its
mandate. In this regard, a debate continues over whether the Board
ought to be fully funded through user fees, and the Administration has
included such a proposal in its fiscal year 2001 budget. Such an
approach would require additional legislative authority and until
Congress provides new direction, the financing mechanism of
appropriations and offsetting collections is the appropriate way to
proceed.
OVERALL GOALS OF THE BOARD
In the performance of its functions, the objective of the Board is
to ensure that, where regulatory oversight is necessary, it is
exercised efficiently and effectively, integrating market forces, where
possible, into the overall regulatory model. In particular, the Board
seeks to resolve matters brought before it fairly and expeditiously.
Through use of its regulatory exemption authority, streamlining of its
decisional process and the regulations applicable thereto, and
consistent application of legal and equitable principles, the Board
seeks to facilitate commerce by providing an effective forum for
efficient dispute resolution and facilitation of appropriate business
transactions. The Board continues to strive to develop, through
rulemakings and case disposition, new and better ways to analyze unique
and complex problems, to reach fully justified decisions more quickly,
and to reduce the costs associated with regulatory oversight.
To be more responsive to the surface transportation community by
fostering governmental efficiency, innovation in dispute resolution,
private-sector solutions to problems, and competition in the provision
of transportation services, the Board will:
--Continue to strive for a more streamlined process for the
expeditious handling of rail rate reasonableness and other
complaint cases, in an effort to provide additional regulatory
predictability to shippers and carriers;
--Continue to reduce processing time for all cases before the Board,
in particular to ensure that appropriate market-based
transactions in the public interest are facilitated; and
--Continue to develop new opportunities for the various sectors of
the transportation community to work cooperatively with the
Board and with one another to find creative solutions to
persistent industry and/or regulatory problems involving
carriers, shippers, employees, and local communities.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BOARD
During fiscal year 1999, the Board's workload included 926 Board
decisions and court-related work, involving adjudications and
rulemakings, dealing with rail and non-rail transportation issues.
These decisions pertained to rail carrier consolidations; review of
rail labor arbitral decisions; rail rates and service; line sales; line
constructions; set terms and conditions for continued rail service; and
abandonments. They also related to truck rate undercharge cases,
intercity bus merger and pooling matters, motor carrier collective
ratemaking oversight, and other non-rail matters such as pipeline rate
cases.
With respect to rulemaking activity, the Board issued decisions
exempting commodities, services, and other classes of transactions from
regulation where regulation is not necessary. The Board also issued a
decision in STB Ex Parte No. 385 (Sub-No. 4), Modification of the
Carload Waybill Sample and Public Use File Regulations, putting forth a
proposal to more accurately collect data on rail freight traffic as it
pertains to rail contract movements. Stemming from its review of rail
access and competition issues, the Board issued new rules in STB Ex
Parte No. 628, Expedited Relief for Service Inadequacies, permitting
shippers and connecting railroads who are receiving poor service from
an incumbent carrier to seek temporary service from an alternative rail
carrier. Also stemming from its rail access and competition review, in
STB Ex Parte No. 627, Market Dominance Determinations--Product and
Geographic Competition, the Board eliminated product and geographic
competition as considerations in determining market dominance in rail
rate cases, and denied a petition for reconsideration in this matter.
The Board concluded that removing the product and geographic
competition evidentiary standards would expedite rail rate cases in
accordance with Congressional intent, and would further level the
playing field between railroads and shippers regarding rate disputes.
In Ex Parte No. 574, Safe Implementation of Board-Approved
Transactions, the Board and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
have proposed that joint rules be established setting forth procedures
for developing and implementing safety integration plans concerning
financial transactions presented for consideration to the Board. In STB
Ex Parte No. 527 (Sub-No. 2), Expedited Procedures for Processing Rail
Rate Reasonableness Exemption and Revocation Proceedings, the Board
finalized a rulemaking seeking to clarify the exemption and revocation
procedures as to when additional information would be sought in
response to a petition.
With regard to specific cases, the Board made progress toward
resolving pending rail and pipeline rate complaints, including STB
Docket No. 42022, FMC Wyoming Corporation and FMC Corporation v. Union
Pacific Railroad Company; STB Docket No. 42038, Minnesota Power, Inc.
v. Duluth, Missabe, and Iron Range Railway Company; STB Docket No.
42027, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Consolidated Railroad
Corporation; STB Docket No. 41687, Grain Land Coop. v. Canadian Pacific
Limited and Soo Railroad Company d/b/a CP Rail System; and STB Docket
No. 41685, CF Industries, Inc. v. Koch Pipeline Company, L.P.. In
addition, STB Docket No. 41295, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company v.
Consolidated Rail Corporation, CSX Transportation Inc. and Norfolk
Southern Railway Company, and STB Docket No. 42034, PSI Energy, Inc. v.
CSX Transportation, Inc. and Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian
Pacific Railway, were resolved voluntarily by the parties--it is
important to note, however, that the Board had done significant work on
these cases by the time they were settled. Finally, the Board defended
court challenges to its decisions in the Bottleneck, McCarty Farms, and
Huron Valley rail rate proceedings.
With respect to rail restructuring, the Board continued its
oversight of the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific (UP/SP) merger and the
Conrail acquisition. Furthermore, the Board issued a decision approving
the acquisition of the Illinois Central (IC) by the Canadian National
(CN). The Board also issued various decisions relating to the
conditions imposed in the UP/SP merger and the Conrail acquisition
proceedings.
The Board issued decisions and participated in court proceedings on
various other rail matters, including 378 rail abandonment decisions,
25 rail line construction decisions, and 190 short-line and non-carrier
acquisition decisions. In particular, the Board has done significant
work on the transportation and environmental issues associated with the
construction and operation of a 281-mile segment of the Dakota,
Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (DM&E) in Wyoming (STB Finance Docket No.
33407, Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad Corporation Construction
into the Powder River Basin). This project would allow DM&E to extend
its existing system westward to access coal mines in the Powder River
Basin.
Regarding other rail matters, the Board issued a decision setting
the terms and conditions under which Amtrak could reintroduce rail
passenger service between Boston, MA and Portland, ME (STB Finance
Docket No. 33381, Application of the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)--Springfield Terminal Railway
Company, Boston and Maine Corporation, and Portland Terminal Company).
The Board also continued its work on the joint task force with the
Department of Agriculture to address shipper and railroad information
needs related to recurring seasonal problems affecting grain
transportation.
Non-rail decisions included 28 motor carrier undercharge decisions
and 22 decisions dealing with intercity bus merger cases and pooling
agreements, as well as action related to motor carrier rate bureaus.\2\
The Board also has worked on STB Docket No. WCC-101, Government of the
Territory of Guam v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., American President Lines,
Ltd., and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., and STB Docket No. WCC-102,
Ocean Logistics Management, Inc. v. NPR, Inc. and Holt Cargo Systems,
Inc., involving rates in the non-contiguous domestic water trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These numbers are subsets of the decisions included in the
workload summary table that follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND 2001 ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD
Attached is a table (Attachment #2) that shows workload trends and
accomplishments, which form the basis for the Board's request to
essentially maintain the current level of funding in fiscal year 2001.
As the table indicates, the Board believes that the number of decisions
issued and court-related work are the best measures of workload and
performance. In accordance with the Board's continued commitment to
resolving matters before it expeditiously, it anticipates a relatively
constant workload and output through fiscal year 2001.
During fiscal year 2000 and 2001, the Board will continue to look
for ways to streamline or otherwise improve applicable regulations and
the regulatory process and will resolve as expeditiously as possible
petitions for rulemaking filed by parties. In addition, the Board will
continue to monitor the implementation of rulemaking decisions and
private-sector initiatives and agreements reflecting the Board's
directives stemming from its rail access and competition proceedings
conducted in fiscal year 1998 and 1999.
Regarding major restructuring activity among larger railroads in
general, the Board held public hearings on March 7-10, 2000, on major
rail consolidations and the present and future structure of the North
American rail industry. This hearing addressed the industry's
restructuring that has occurred to date and the prospect for future
restructuring. The Board also, among other issues, addressed the
effects of railroad consolidations on the financial condition of the
railroad industry and the industry's ability to provide responsive
service at reasonable prices. As a result of the testimony presented,
the Board issued a decision on March 17, 2000, directing large
railroads not to pursue for 15 months further merger activities before
the Board until it has adopted new rules governing merger proceedings.
With respect to rail carrier consolidations, workload is expected
to increase in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. The Board will
continue to monitor the UP/SP merger, the Conrail acquisition, and the
CN/IC merger pursuant to the five-year oversight conditions that the
Board imposed as part of its approval of those transactions, and will
continue to handle any proceedings dealing with the interpretation of
other conditions imposed as part of the Board's approvals. In addition,
the Board will be defending its March 17 decision to suspend major rail
mergers until merger regulations are revised, and will be working on
rail merger rule changes called for in that decision, which are to be
finalized by mid-June 2001.
Regarding rail rates and services, the workload is expected to
increase in fiscal year 2000 and again in fiscal year 2001, in
particular due to the continuing expiration of long term coal
transportation contracts, the potential filing of complaints under the
Board's non-coal rate guidelines, and the application of the Board's
bottleneck decision. These new cases will be complex and require
significant staff attention as new standards are tested and shortened
timeframes for completion of rate proceedings are met. Also, the Board
has a number of complaint cases involving grain car allocation
procedures and unreasonable practices involving alleged breaches of
common carrier obligation to provide reasonable car service on request,
which it will be processing. In addition, the Board will proceed with
its 3-year study (Buffalo Rate Study) examining linehaul and switching
rates for rail movement into and out of the State of New York's Buffalo
area following the Conrail acquisition. The Board also will continue to
work on the various pending rate matters previously referenced.
In connection with other rail matters, rail abandonment decisions
are expected to increase slightly in fiscal year 2000 and then remain
stable through fiscal year 2001, reflecting the increased complexity of
abandonment filings requiring more than one decision. The Board will
continue to handle several rail line construction projects, which
involve significant environmental review issues, and we project that
line construction proceedings will increase in fiscal year 2000 and
remain constant through fiscal year 2001. For example, the Board
continues work on an application filed by Tongue River Railroad for the
proposed construction of an alternative route for a line already
approved for construction (STB Finance Docket No. 30186 (Sub-No. 3),
Tongue River Railroad Company--Construction and Operation--Western
Alignment). In addition, the Board continues to make progress toward
resolving the environmental issues associated with the DM&E case
referenced earlier. In Finance Docket No. 33824, Great Salt Lake and
Southern Railroad, LLC--Construction and Operation--in Tooele County,
UT, the applicant has recently filed for permission to construct and
operate a 32 mile rail line connected with the interim storage of spent
nuclear fuel. Other line transaction activity is expected to remain
somewhat constant in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 as carriers
continue to buy and sell unprofitable or marginally profitable lines as
alternatives to service abandonment.
Other rail activities, such as case activity involving passenger
rail issues and review of labor arbitral decisions, are expected to
increase in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. During fiscal year
1999, the Boards saw an increase in cases involving interpretations of
labor conditions and arbitration appeals resulting from rail
consolidations and other rail transactions. In fiscal year 2000 and
2001, the Board projects that this trend will continue due to recently
decided rail mergers. Another area of possible workload increase
involves passenger rail and, in particular, disputes related to the use
by Amtrak of tracks of the freight railroads.
Regarding non-rail matters, the truck rate undercharge workload has
decreased significantly from pre-fiscal year 1998 levels and will
remain relatively constant through fiscal year 2001 as the Board works
to close out its undercharge docket. The reduction in undercharge
decisions reflects the Board's continuing commitment to resolve its
undercharge docket. Other non-rail activities, including intercity bus
merger and pooling proceedings and non-contiguous domestic water trade
and pipeline rate cases, are expected to increase in fiscal year 2000
and fiscal year 2001. For example, although the WCC-102 proceeding
referenced earlier has just been settled by the parties, the Board will
be working on two other recently filed water carrier cases, STB Docket
No. WCC-104, Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Sea Star Lines, LLC, and STB
Docket No. WCC-105, DHX, Inc. v. Matson Navigation Company, et al. And
in accordance with a Board decision issued in early fiscal year 1999,
during fiscal year 2000 and 2001, the Board expects to finally resolve
the circumstances under which motor carrier rate bureau agreements
should be continued.
SUMMARY
The Board's budget request would ensure the resources needed for
the Board to continue to implement its responsibilities expeditiously
and effectively as Congress intends. I would be happy to answer any
other questions that the Committee may have about the Board's fiscal
year 2001 budget request.
ATTACHMENT 1.--SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------- Difference
2000 2001 from
1999 actual enacted request Enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Positions......................................... 131 140 \3\ 143 3
Full-time Equivalents....................................... 131 140 143 3
Personnel Compensation and Benefits......................... $12,420 $13,391 $14,122 $731
Former Personnel............................................ 14 5 10 5
Travel...................................................... 32 49 49 ...........
Other Costs................................................. 3,481 3,495 3,773 278
---------------------------------------------------
Total Budget Resources................................ 15,947 16,940 17,954 1,014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The requested increase in FTEs will allow the Board to hire entry level staff to replace the tenured,
retirement-eligible staff prior to their retirement dates. This would ensure the required transition for
current staff to new staff, who can gain working knowledge and expertise necessary to process the Board's
workload.
CHANGES IN RESOURCES
For personnel compensation and benefits, $14,122,000 is requested
to support the Board's permanent positions. This is an increase of
$731,000 over fiscal year 2000, of which $152,000 is required to fund
the annual cost of the January 2000 pay raise and $387,000 is required
for the January 2001 pay raise estimated at 3.7 percent. The request
also includes $50,000 for lump-sum leave payments to retiring
employees.
Funding for costs for former personnel unemployment payments is
requested at $10,000, which is an increase of $5,000 from fiscal year
2000. This request is for unemployment compensation payments to former
employees who were separated from Federal service.
A travel budget of $49,000 is requested primarily for on-site
visits to railroads to finalize audits and review public accountants'
workpapers, for physical inspection of proposed rail abandonment and
construction sites and verification of environmental data provided by
parties to proceedings, for defense of the Board's decisions in courts
across the country, and for the general presentation upon request of
issues within the Board's jurisdiction.
Funding to cover other costs is requested at $3,773,000, a $278,000
increase over fiscal year 2000. Included in this number is a rental
payment increase directed by the General Services Administration (GSA)
and regular cost increases in telephone service, copier rental, office
supplies, and reimbursable services acquired from other Federal
agencies.
ATTACHMENT 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2001 OMB BUDGET JUSTIFICATION WORKLOAD SUMMARY \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual fiscal Estimated \5\ Estimated \4\
year 1999 fiscal year fiscal year
board 2000 board 2001 board
Workload Category decisions and decisions and decisions and
court-related court-related court-related
work work work
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail Carrier Consolidations..................................... 117 199 197
Rail Rates and Service.......................................... 60 95 104
Rail Abandonments and Constructions............................. 403 442 442
Other Line Transactions......................................... 190 185 185
Other Rail Activities........................................... 67 102 101
Motor Carrier Undercharges...................................... \5\ 28 38 26
Non-Rail Activities............................................. 61 109 113
-----------------------------------------------
Total Decisions........................................... \6\ 926 1,170 1,168
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ At this time, the Board believes that the number of Board decisions and court-related work are the best
measures of workload at the Board. Certain activities performed at the Board that provide direct and indirect
support to rulemakings and decisions in specific cases are not reflected in these workload numbers. Such
activities not reflected include: enforcement action; rail audits and rail carrier reporting oversight;
administration of the rail waybill sample and development of the Uniform Rail Costing System; and case-related
correspondence and informal public assistance.
\5\ Estimated workloads for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 are based on historical information regarding actual
filings and best estimates of probable future filings by parties. Because the Board is principally an
adjudicatory body, it does not directly control the level or timing of actual case filings.
\6\ The motor carrier undercharge decisions projected for fiscal year 1999 have decreased from previous
estimates. This decrease reflects the Board's consolidation of several undercharge case dockets into a single
decision.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
BOARD MEMBERS' TERMS AND STAFFING
Question. When do the terms of the current Board members expire?
When was Ms. Morgan renominated and confirmed for another term?
Answer. The ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) provided that the
term for each Member of the Board shall be 5 years and shall begin when
the term of the predecessor of that Member ends. Also under the ICCTA,
a Board Member can only be reappointed for one additional term and, if
not reappointed, cannot serve more than one year past the expiration of
his or her term.
Board Members and Expiration of Terms.--William Clyburn Jr.,
December 31, 2000; Wayne O. Burkes, December 31, 2002; Linda J. Morgan,
December 31, 2003.
Chairman Morgan was renominated for a second term by President
Clinton on August 6, 1999, confirmed by the United States Senate on
November 10, 1999, and sworn in on December 1, 1999.
Question. How many staff are in each Board Member's office? What
are the job titles, GS level, and salary for each of these positions?
Are there currently any vacancies in the Members' personal staff?
Answer. Each Board Member has a staffing allocation of 3 FTEs, and
the Chairman has a staffing allocation of 3.5 FTEs. The allocations
include slots for the Board Member, an administrative assistant, and
professional staff. The following table reflects the current staffing
of each Board Member's office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job title GS level Salary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Morgan:
Chief of Staff...................... GS-905-15 $110,028
Special Assistant................... GS-301-13 66,979
Attorney-Advisor \1\................ GS-905-15 110,028
Vice-Chairman Burkes:
Expert.............................. GS-2110-00 101,140
Executive Assistant................. GS-301-11 44,148
Attorney-Advisor \2\................ GS-905-15 110,028
Commissioner Clyburn:
Staff Advisor....................... GS-301-12 59,738
Attorney-Advisor \2\................ GS-905-15 107,207
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Employee has been shared with Office of the General Counsel and will
be returning full-time to the General Counsel's office shortly.
\2\ On full-time detail from the Office of Proceedings.
Based on the allocations, there is technically a staffing vacancy
in the Office of Commissioner Clyburn because his professional staff
person is on detail from another office.
HIRING PROCESSES
Question. Please describe the hiring practices of Surface
Transportation Board staff, either for the Member's personal staffing
or in the program offices. What is the average time for hiring a new
STB staff person (both in-house hires and promotions and new hires from
outside the agency)? Is there any input from the Department of
Transportation in this decisionmaking? If so, why?
Answer. There are 3 types of hiring methods at the Board. The
length of time to recruit depends on the type of hiring process and
whether the Board is hiring experienced candidates or entry-level
candidates. In-house hiring or merit promotions, which are limited to
Board candidates, can be completed within 2-3 weeks after the process
is begun. Outside recruiting of status candidates (current Federal
employees) can take 6-8 weeks for a Government-wide dissemination of
the job announcement and recruitment for qualified candidates. Outside,
open-market recruiting can take 7-12 weeks after the request is made by
a program manager. The Board uses the services of the Office of
Personnel Management, on a reimbursable basis, to provide the required
nationwide staffing, recruiting activities, and evaluation of
applicants for the vacancies. Under each method, after a listing of
qualified candidates is provided to the program manager, the
interviewing process is completed, and a selection is made, a candidate
could be expected to begin employment at the Board within 4-6 weeks
after selection. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has no input in
the recruiting or final selection of the Board's candidates.
RELATIONSHIP WITH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Question. The Surface Transportation Board is an independent
adjudicatory body organizationally housed within the Department of
Transportation (DOT). Please describe the Board's relationship with
DOT, and describe in detail what being ``organizationally housed within
DOT'' entails, particularly as it affects support services,
administration, staff decisions, or other non-adjudicatory functions of
the Board?
Answer. The Board and DOT have worked together cooperatively to
ease any logistical challenges associated with a decisionally
independent body organizationally housed within DOT. The Board's
decisional independence is explicitly expressed in the ICCTA. However,
the Office of the Secretary is apprised of rulemakings and
adjudications as they are served or published. DOT may appear before
the Board as a party in the Board's proceedings, just as DOT appeared
before the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) as a party. Any role or
input that DOT might wish to have in a Board proceeding, as with any
other party, is through a filing of public record.
Organizationally, the Board is housed in DOT for a variety of
administrative and financial reporting provisions. The Board's annual
budget request and reporting of obligations incurred are included with
DOT's submissions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
Department of the Treasury; however, the Board is required by Public
Law 104-88 to transmit copies of its budget requests to Congress at the
same time they are sent to the Secretary of Transportation and DOT is
required to provide an assessment of the budgetary needs of the Board
in the President's Budget. The Board's personnel statistical data are
included with DOT's for reporting purposes to the Office of Personnel
Management. However, as the law provides, in the performance of Board
functions, the personnel of the Board shall not be responsible to or
subject to the supervision or direction of any officer of any other
part of DOT. The law also provides that the Board shall perform all
functions that, immediately before the effective date of ICCTA, were
functions of the ICC or were performed by any employee of the ICC in
the capacity as such officer or employee. In order to maintain its
adjudicatory independence, the Board performs a few administrative and
financial functions in-house. The Board obtains, on a reimbursable
basis, those administrative functions that are more cost efficient to
be performed outside the Board from other sources.
FUNDING HISTORY
Question. Please update the table found on page 607 of Senate
hearing record 106-221, displaying the Board's funding request, the
Administration's request, the enacted funding level, and the end of
year staffing level for each fiscal year from fiscal year 1996 to that
requested for fiscal year 2001. Please display both appropriated funds
and offsetting collections.
Answer. The following table displays the funding history of the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and the Board for fiscal years
1996 through 2001.
BUDGET REQUESTS & ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STB
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC Fiscal Fiscal year
year 1996 \7\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19966 \7\ 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board:
Appropriation..................... $32,892,000 .............. $12,344,000 $12,753,000 $14,190,000 $15,821,000 $17,054,000
Offsetting Collections............ 8,300,000 .............. 3,000,000 3,100,000 2,000,000 1,200,000 900,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request.................. 41,192,000 .............. 15,344,000 15,853,000 16,190,000 17,021,000 \8\ 17,954,000
=================================================================================================================
President:
Appropriation..................... 33,202,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ................
Offsetting Collections............ 8,300,000 .............. 15,344,000 14,300,000 16,000,000 17,000,000 17,954,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request.................. 41,502,000 .............. 15,344,000 14,300,000 16,000,000 17,000,000 17,954,000
=================================================================================================================
Enacted:
Appropriation \9\................. 13,379,000 $8,414,000 12,244,000 13,850,000 15,990,000 16,930,000 ................
Offsetting Collections \10\....... 3,200,000 652,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,600,000 \11\ 1,600,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request.................. 16,579,000 9,066,000 15,244,000 15,850,000 15,990,000 16,930,000 ................
=================================================================================================================
End of Year:
Staffing Level.................... \12\ 317 132 127 130 137 140 143
FTE Level......................... \12\ 86 106 131 129 131 140 143
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ During fiscal year 1996, the ICCTA was passed, the ICC was eliminated effective December 31, 1995, and the Board was established effective January
1, 1996. The enacted funding levels for the ICC for fiscal year 1996 reflect ICC operational and termination expenses for one quarter of the fiscal
year and the Board funding levels for fiscal year 1996 reflect Board operational expenses for three-quarters of the fiscal year.
\8\ The Board's fiscal year 2001 budget request essentially represents the Board's current funding level (for fiscal year 2000) plus inflationary and
personnel salary increases.
\9\ Enacted appropriations less enacted rescissions.
\10\ Actual offsetting collections. In fiscal year 1997, there was a carryover of $625,031 over the obligational limitation. In fiscal year 1998 , there
was a carryover of $315,586 over the obligational limitation.
\11\ The fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 enacted appropriations provided that fees not to exceed $2,600,000 and $1,600,000, respectively, shall be
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and that the sum appropriated shall be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis as such
offsetting collections are received.
\12\ As of December 31, 1995.
USER FEES AND OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS
Question. Please update the table on page 608 of Senate Hearing
record 106-221, displaying in tabular form the level of anticipated
user fee income in the Board's fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001
budget requests. Please also include columns displaying the President's
budget assumptions for user fee income in each of these four fiscal
years. In addition, please display the level of user fee offsets
included in the appropriations legislation for the Board in fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Finally, please include columns displaying
the actual amount of offsetting user fees collected in fiscal years
1998 and 1999, and projected through the end of fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The following table displays the offsetting collection of
user fees for fiscal year 1998 through 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Fee Anticipated Income in Budget Request.. $3,100,000 $2,000,000 $1,200,000 $900,000
President's Budget Assumptions................. 14,300,000 16,000,000 17,000,000 17,954,000
User Fee Offsets in Appropriations Language..... 2,000,000 \13\ 2,600,000 1,600,000 ..............
Offsetting Collections Actual.................. \14\ \15\ 2,31 802,883 \16\ 462,731 ..............
5,586
Projected end of fiscal year................... .............. .............. 765,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 enacted appropriation provided that fees not to exceed $2,600,000
and $1,600,000, respectively, shall be credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and that the
sum appropriated shall be reduced on a dollar for dollar basis as such offsetting collections are received.
\14\ These figures include $67,050 in fiscal year 1998 in user fees associated with the Conrail acquisition.
\15\ This figure includes $966,700 in user fees associated with the Canadian National Railway/Illinois Central
merger.
\16\ User Fees collected 10/1/99-03/31/00.
Question. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed that the
Appropriations Committees strike the fiscal year 2000 language
providing that any fees collected by the Board be credited to this
appropriation as offsetting collections. This provision holds the Board
harmless from any shortfall in collection of user fees. Why is the
fiscal year 2000 enacted provision necessary?
Answer. The Board prefers the bill language as provided in the
fiscal year 2000 appropriations law that allows the user fees to be
credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections and to reduce
the general fund appropriation on a dollar for dollar basis as the fees
are received and credited. Administratively, the tracking of the
collection of fees has been simplified as a result of this approach.
Under this provision, the Board receives the operating cash from one
source and deposits and credits the user fees collected to the general
fund appropriation, thereby reducing the overall general fund
appropriation required for operating expenses of the Board. Prior to
this provision, the Board was required to spend considerable staff
hours tracking the user fees collected by category and forecasting the
user fee categories monthly to derive an end-of-year projection to
ensure that there were sufficient resources to supplement the
appropriation. Also, the financial forecasting relating to day-to-day
operations constrained fiscal year planning due to the uncertainty of
the total resources available for the Board's operation.
Question. Why is the requested and anticipated level of user fee
collection in fiscal year 2001 ($900,000) so much lower than that
expected for fiscal year 2000 ($1,600,000) or fiscal year 1999
($2,600,000)?
Answer. Based on the fiscal year 1999 actual user fee collections
of $802,883, the Board projected that $900,000 would be collected in
fiscal year 2001. The basis for this projection presumed the same level
of collection activity as in fiscal year 1999 and added the
governmental pay raise and inflationary adjustment effects of the 2000
Update and 2001 Update on the fee items. We do not have any updated
data to indicate that this estimate for fiscal year 2001 would change
significantly.
COMPARISON OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND 2000 USER FEE COLLECTIONS
Question. What level of assessed user fees was collected in fiscal
year 1999? Please discuss the reasons for any delta above or below the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level of $2,600,000 in offsetting collections.
What is anticipated to be assessed in fiscal year 2000? What has been
the actual user fee collection level thus far in fiscal year 2000?
Please discuss the reasons for any anticipated delta above or below the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level of $1,600,000 in offsetting collections.
Answer. The Board collected $802,883 in user fees in fiscal year
1999. The Subcommittee had set the fiscal year 1999 collection level of
$2,600,000 anticipating a major rail merger filing with the associated
ancillary filings such as abandonments, trackage rights, and line sales
that normally accompany a major rail merger. However, this filing
activity did not materialize during fiscal year 1999. Also, user fee
collections were averaging $100,000 per month during fiscal year 1998,
which contributed to the base projection for the fiscal year 1999
enacted level.
The Board projects that it should collect an estimated $765,000 by
September 30, 2000. The Subcommittee had set the fiscal year 2000
collection level of $1,600,000 anticipating that more high-dollar user
fees would be collected. However, as shown in the table below, the
Board has collected $462,730 in user fees from October 1, 1999, to
March 31, 2000. That collection includes three rail construction
applications at $48,800 each and one rate complaint under the coal rate
guidelines at $54,500. Excluding these four one-time large fees, the
monthly average for the six-month period is $44,000 per month. The
Board collected $401,142 for that same period of time last year. The
breakdown is as follows:
MONTHLY USER FEE COMPARISON: YEAR TO DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Months -------------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October................................. $63,199 $117,355
November................................ 45,178 58,658
December................................ 78,255 56,351
January................................. 103,581 154,320
February................................ 69,902 46,962
March 41,027 29,084
-------------------------------
Total............................. 401,142 462,730
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What was the amount of carryover user fees from fiscal
year 1999 which was available for obligation after October 1, 1999?
Answer. The Board still has the $940,617 remaining that was carried
over from the two fiscal years in which there were Class I rail mergers
that resulted in user fee collections exceeding the Congressional
limits for those fiscal years. The Board has been able to fiscally
manage its workload within the fiscal year appropriation limits
provided by Congress. Should the Board require additional funding
resources for unanticipated caseload and additional cases requiring
processing within tight statutory timeframes, the Board would seek to
use the carryover funds.
COMPARISON OF RECENT USER FEE SCHEDULE UPDATES
Question. Has the Surface Transportation Board updated its user fee
schedule for 2000? If so, please detail in tabular form the 2000 user
fee update schedule, including all fee items or sub-fee items,
including both the 1999 and 2000 fee amounts, with a column showing the
amount of increase, if any (similar to the table found on pages 611-617
of Senate hearing record 106-221).
Answer. The following table lists the Board's user fee schedule as
experienced in Ex Parte No. 542, Regulations Governing Fees For
Services Performed In Connection With Licensing And Related Services,
for fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999. The fee increase column reflects
the net change between the fiscal year 1997 and 1999 fees. The fiscal
year 1999 fee schedule is currently in effect. The fiscal year 2000 fee
schedule has not yet been adopted by the Board. When the fiscal year
2000 user fee schedule is adopted, we will provide the Subcommittee
with a revised table that includes fee data for fiscal year 1998, 1999,
and 2000.
COMPARISON OF STB EX PARTE NO. 542 (SUB-NO. 1 FEE SCHEDULE TO STB EX PARTE NO. 542 (SUB-NO. 3) FEE SCHEDULE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STB EP 542 (Sub- STB EP 542 (Sub- STB EP 542 (Sub-
No. 1) No. 2) No. 3)
--------------------------------------------------------------- Percent
FEE DESCRIPTION Current fee New Fee New Fee Diff. change
---------------------------------------------------------------
Item Amount Item Amount Item Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLIC. POOLING OR DIV. 1.0 $2,600 1.0 $2,800 1.0 $2,900 $300 11.54
TRAFFIC NON-RAIL...........
APPLIC. PURCHASE, LEASE--MC 2.0 1,200 2.0 1,300 2.0 1,300 100 8.33
PASSANGERS.................
APPLIC. APPROVAL NON-RAIL 3.0 16,500 3.0 17,900 3.0 18,100 1,600 9.70
RATE ASSOC. AGREEMENT......
APPLIC. AMEND NON RAIL-RATE 4.1 2,700 4.1 3,000 4.1 3,000 300 11.11
ASSOC.--SINGF..............
AMEND NON-RAIL RATE ASSOC. 4.2 60 4.2 60 4.2 60 ......... ........
AGREE--MINOR...............
APPL. FOR TEMPORARY 5.0 300 5.0 300 5.0 300 ......... ........
AUTHORITY MC PASSENG.......
APPL. EXTENSION OR ACQUIS. 11.1 4,300 11.1 4,700 11.1 4,700 400 9.30
OR OPERATION...............
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 1150.31- 11.2 1,100 11.2 1,200 11.2 1,200 100 9.09
1150.35....................
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION 11.3 7,500 11.3 8,100 11.3 8,200 700 9.33
(EXCEPT CONSTRUCTION)......
APPL. INVOLVING THE 12.1 44,500 12.1 48,300 12.1 48,800 4,300 9.66
CONSTRUCTION OF A LINE.....
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 1150.36 12.2 1,100 12.2 1,200 12.2 1,200 100 9.09
CONSTRUCTION...............
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION 12.3 44,500 12.3 48,300 12.3 48,800 4,300 9.66
CONSTRUCTION OF LINE.......
FEEDER LINE DEVELOPMENT 13.0 2,600 13.0 2,600 13.0 2,600 ......... ........
PROGRAM APPLICATION........
APPL. CLASS II-III ACQUIRE 14.1 3,700 14.1 4,000 14.1 4,100 400 10.81
OR EXTE LINE...............
NOTICE OF EXEMPT. ACQUIRE OR 14.2 1,100 14.2 1,200 14.2 1,200 100 9.09
EXTEND LINE................
PETITION FOR EXEMPT ACQUIRE 14.3 3,900 14.3 4,300 14.3 4,300 400 10.26
OR EXTEND LINE.............
NOTICE OF MODIFIED 15.0 1,000 15.0 1,100 15.0 1,100 100 10.00
CETIFICATE PC&N............
APPLIC. TO ABANDON OR 21.1 13,200 21.1 14,300 21.1 14,500 1,300 9.85
DISCONTINUE SERVICE........
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ABANDON 21.2 2,200 21.2 2,400 21.2 2,500 300 13.64
OR DISCONTINUE.............
PETITION FOR EXEMPT. ABANDON 21.3 3,800 21.3 4,100 21.3 4,100 300 7.89
OR DISCONTINUE.............
APPLIC. TO ABANDON CRC-NE 22.0 250 22.0 300 22.0 300 50 20.00
RAIL SERVICE...............
ABANDONMENT FILED BY 23.0 1,100 23.0 1,200 23.0 1,200 100 9.09
BANKRUPT RAILROAD..........
WAIVER REQUEST FOR FILING 24.0 1,000 24.0 1,100 24.0 1,100 100 10.00
REQUIRE--ABANDONMENT.......
OFFER OF FINANCIAL 25.0 900 25.0 1,000 25.0 1,000 100 11.11
ASSISTANCE (OFA)...........
OFA--SET TERMS AND 26.0 13,500 26.0 14,600 26.0 14,800 1,300 9.63
CONDITIONS.................
REQUEST FOR A TRAILS USE 27.0 150 27.0 150 27.0 150 ......... ........
CONDITION..................
APPLIC. FOR USE OF TERMINAL 36.0 11,300 36.0 12,3,00 36.0 12,400 1,100 9.73
FACILITIES.................
AAPLIC. POOLING OR DIV. 37.0 6,100 37.0 6,600 37.0 6,700 600 9.84
TRAFFIC (RAIL).............
APPLIC. TO MERGE OR 38.1 889,500 38.1 966,700 38.1 976,500 87,000 9.78
CONSOLIDATE--MAJOR.........
APPLIC. TO MERGE OR 38.2 177,900 38.2 193,300 38.2 195,300 17,400 9.78
CONSOLIDATE--SIGNIFICANT...
APPLIC. TO MERGE OR 38.3 4,700 38.3 5,000 38.3 5,200 500 10.64
CONSOLIDATE--MINOR.........
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION MERGE OR 38.4 1,000 38.4 1,100 38.4 1,100 100 10.00
CONSOLIDATE................
RESPONSIVE APPLICATION MERGE 38.5 4,700 38.5 5,000 38.5 5,200 500 10.64
OR CONSOLIDATE.............
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION MERGE 38.6 5,600 38.6 6,100 38.6 6,100 500 8.93
OR CONSOLIDATE.............
APPLIC. NON-CARRIER TO 39.1 889,500 39.1 966,700 39.1 976,500 87,000 9.78
CONTROL--MAJOR.............
APPLIC. NON-CARRIER TO 39.2 177,900 39.2 193,300 39.2 195,300 17,400 9.78
CONTROL--SIGNIFICANT.......
APPLIC. NON-CARRIER TO 39.3 4,700 39.3 5,000 39.3 5,200 500 10.64
CONTROL--MINOR.............
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION NON- 39.4 850 39.4 900 39.4 900 50 5.88
CARRIER CONTROL............
RESPONSIVE APPLICATION NON- 39.5 4,700 39.5 5,000 39.5 5,200 500 10.64
CARRIER CONTROL............
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION NON- 39.6 5,600 39.6 6,100 39.6 6,100 500 8.93
CARRIER CONTROL............
APPLICATION TO ACQUIRE TRACK 40.1 889,500 40.1 966,700 40.1 976,500 87,000 9.78
RIGHTS--MAJOR..............
APPLICATION TO ACQUIRE TRACK 40.2 177,900 40.2 193,300 40.2 195,300 17,400 9.78
RIGHTS--SIGNIFICANT........
APPLICATION TO ACQUIRE TRACK 40.3 4,700 40.3 5,000 40.3 5,200 500 10.64
RIGHTS--MINOR..............
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ACQUIRE 40.4 750 40.4 800 40.4 800 50 6.67
TRACK RIGHTS...............
RESPONSIVE APPLICATION 40.5 4,700 40.5 5,000 40.5 5,200 500 10.64
ACQUIRE TRACK RIGHTS.......
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION 40.6 5,600 40.6 6,100 40.6 6,100 500 8.93
ACQUIRE TRACK RIGHTS.......
APPL. OF CARRIER TO PURCHASE 41.1 889,500 41.1 966,700 41.1 976,500 87,000 9.78
PROP--MAJOR................
APPL. OF CARRIER TO PURCHASE 41.2 177,900 41.2 193,300 41.2 195,300 17,400 9.78
PROP--SIGNIFICANT..........
APPL. OF CARRIER TO PURCHASE 41.3 4,700 41.3 5,000 41.3 5,200 500 10.64
PROP--MINOR................
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION CARRIER 41.4 850 41.4 950 41.4 950 100 11.76
PURCH PROPERTY.............
RESPONSIVE APPLICATION 41.5 4,700 41 5,000 41.5 5,200 500 10.64
CARRIER PURCH PROPERTY.....
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION 41.6 3,900 41.6 4,300 41.6 4,300 400 10.26
CARRIER PURCH PROPERTY.....
NOTICE OF A JOINT PROJECT 42.0 1,500 42.0 1,600 42.0 1,600 100 6.67
INVOLVE RELOCATION.........
APPLIC. RAIL RATE 43.0 41,600 43.0 45,200 43.0 45,700 4,100 9.86
ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT......
AMENDMENT RAIL RATE 44.1 7,700 44.1 8,400 44.1 8,500 800 10.39
AGREEMENT--SIGNIFICANT.....
AMENDMENT RAIL RATE 44.2 60 44.2 60 44.2 60 ......... ........
AGREEMENT--MINOR...........
AUTHORITY TO HOLD POSITION-- 45.0 450 45.0 500 45.0 500 50 11.11
OFFICER/DIRECTOR...........
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION BY 46.0 4,800 46.0 5,200 46.0 5,200 400 8.33
RAIL NOT OTHER COVERED.....
AMTRAK CONVEYANCE PROCEED. 47.0 150.00 47.0 150.00 47.0 150.00 .00 .00
45 USC 562.................
AMTRAK COMPENSATION PROCEED. 48.0 150 48.0 150 48.0 150 ......... ........
SEC. 402(a)................
COMPLAINT FILED UNDER COAL 56.1 23,300 56.1 27,000 56.1 54,500 31,200 133.91
RATE GUIDELINES............
FOR COMPLAINT--RAIL MAXIMUM 56.2 1,000 56.2 1,000 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ......... ........
RATES--SMALL SHIPP.........
COMPLAINT--ALL OTHER EXCEPT 56.3 2,300 56.3 2,600 56.2 5,400 3,100 134.78
COMPETITIVE ACCESS.........
COMPETITIVE ACCESS COMPLAINT 56.4 150 56.4 150 56.3 150 ......... ........
COMPLAINT OR PETITION 57.0 5,200 57.0 5,700 57.0 5,800 600 11.54
REQUESTING INVESTIGATION...
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY 58.1 1,000 58.1 1,000 58.1 1,000 ......... ........
ORDER--EXISTING RATE.......
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY 58.2 1,400 58.2 1,400 58.2 1,400 ......... ........
ORDER--ALL OTHERS..........
APPLIC. FOR SHIPPER 59.0 4,200 59.0 4,500 59.0 4,600 400 9.52
ANTITRUST IMMUNITY.........
LABOR ARBITRATION APPEAL 60.0 150 60.0 150 60.0 150 ......... ........
REVIEWS....................
APPEALS TO STB DECISION OR 61.0 150 61.0 150 61.0 150 ......... ........
PETITION REVOKE EXEMPTION..
MOTOR CARRIER UNDERCHARGE 62.0 150 62.0 150 62.0 150 ......... ........
PROCEEDING.................
APPLIC.--AUTHORITY RELEASED 76.0 700 76.0 800 76.0 800 100 14.29
VALUE RATES................
APPL. SPECIAL PERMITS SHORT 77.0 70 77.0 80 77.0 80 10 14.29
NOTICE OR WAIVER...........
TARIFFS, INCL. SUPPLEMENTS 78.1 14 78.1 16 78.1 16 2 14.29
AND CONTRACT SUMMARY.......
TARIFFS SUBMITTED BY FAX.... 78.2 1 78.2 1 78.2 1 ......... ........
SPECIAL DOCKET APPL. INVOL. 79.1 45 79.1 50 79.1 50 5 11.11
$25,000 OR LESS............
SPECIAL DOCKET APPL. INVOL. 79.2 90 79.2 100 79.2 100 10 11.11
OVER $25,000...............
INFORMAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT 80.0 350 80.0 350 80.0 400 50 14.29
RAIL APPLICATION...........
TARIFF RECONCILIATION PET. 81.1 45 81.1 50 81.1 50 5 11.11
MC $25,000 OR LESS.........
TARIFF RECONCILIATION PET. 81.2 90 81.2 100 81.2 100 10 11.11
MC OVER $25,000............
REQUEST AVAILABILITY OR 82.0 100 82 150 82.0 150 50 50
REASONABLE MC RATES........
FILING OF DOCUMENTS FOR 83.0 24 83.0 26 83.0 26 2 8.33
RECORDATION................
INFORMAL OPINIONS RATE 84.0 150 84.0 150 84 150 ......... ........
APPL.--ALL MODES...........
RAILROAD ACCOUNTING 85.0 650 85.0 700 85.0 700 50 7.69
INTERPRETATION.............
AN OPERATIONAL 86.0 850 86.0 950 86.0 950 100 11.76
INTERPRETATION.............
ARBITRATION COMPLAINT....... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 87.1 75 87.1 75 ......... ........
ARBITRATION COMPLAINT ANSWER ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 87.2 75 87.2 75 ......... ........
ARBITRATION 3RD PARTY ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 87.3 75 87.3 75 ......... ........
COMPLAINT..................
ARBITRATION 3RD PARTY COMPL. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 87.4 75 87.4 75 ......... ........
ANSWER.....................
ARBITRATION APPEAL.......... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 87.5 150 87.5 150 ......... ........
MESSENGER DELIVERY OF 96.0 19 96.0 20 96.0 21 2 10.53
DECISION--RR AGENT.........
REQUEST FOR SERVICE FR 97.0 14 97.0 15 97.0 16 2 14.29
NOTICE REQUIRED............
REQUEST CARLOAD WAYBILL NO 98.1 150 98.1 200 98.1 200 50 33.33
FR NOTICE REQUIREMENT......
REQUEST FOR SERVICE FR 98.2 400 98.2 400 98.2 400 ......... ........
NOTICE REQUIRED............
APPLICATION FOR THE STB 99.1 100 99.1 100 99.1 100 ......... ........
PRACTIONER'S EXAM..........
PRACTIONER'S EXAM 99.2 25 99.2 25 99.2 25 ......... ........
INFORMATION PACKAGE........
URCS--INITIAL PC VERSION PH 100.1 50 100.1 50 100.1 50 ......... ........
III SOFT PROGRAM...........
UPDATED PC VERSION CST FILE, 100.2 10 100.2 10 100.2 10 ......... ........
DISK BY REQUEST............
UPDATED PC VERSION COST 100.3 20 100.3 20 100.3 20 ......... ........
FILE, DISK BY STB..........
PUBLIC REQUEST FOR SOURCE 100.4 500 100.4 500 100.4 500 ......... ........
CODES--PH III..............
PC VERSION OR MAINFRAME VERS 100.5 400 100.5 400 100.5 400 ......... ........
URCS PH II.................
PC VERSION OR MAINFRAME VERS 100.6 50 100.6 50 100.6 50 ......... ........
URCS PH II.................
PUBLIC REQUEST FOR SOURCE 100.7 1,500 100.7 1,500 100.7 1,500 ......... ........
CODES--PH II...............
REQUESTS FOR PUBLICE USE 101.1 450 101.1 450 101.1 450 ......... ........
FILE R-CD FIRST YEAR.......
REQUESTS FOR PUBLICE USE 101.2 150 101.2 150 101.2 150 ......... ........
FILE R-CD ADDITIONAL YEAR..
WAYBILL--STB OR STATE 101.3 650 101.3 650 101.3 650 ......... ........
PROCEEDING ON R-CD FIRST...
WAYBILL--STB OR STATE 101.4 450 101.4 450 101.4 450 ......... ........
PROCEEDING ON R-CD DIFF....
WAYBILL--STB OR STATE 101.5 500 101.5 500 101.5 500 ......... ........
PROCEEDING ON R-CD SAME....
USER GUIDE LATEST AVAILABLE 101.6 50 101.6 50 101.6 50 ......... ........
CARLOAD WAYBILL............
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY 102.0 10 102.0 11 102.0 11 1 10.00
EXAMINATION OF TARIFFS OR 103.0 25 103.0 25 103.0 26 1 4.00
SCHEDULES--CERTIFICATION...
CHECKING RECORDS TO CERTIFY 104.0 17 104.0 17 104.0 18 1 5.88
AUTHENTICITY...............
ELECTROSTATIC COPIES 105.0 5 105.0 5 105.0 5 ......... ........
TARIFFS, REPORTS, ETC......
SEARCH AND COPY SERVICES ADP 106.0 44 106.0 45 106.0 46 2 4.55
PROCESS....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable in that year.
STAFFING AND RETIREMENTS
Question. The STB has requested an increase of 3 FTEs for fiscal
year 2001, from 140 to 143. Do you plan to bring on 6 new position for
one-half year each, or to hire 3 new people at the beginning of the
fiscal year? What workload increases are anticipated that would
necessitate increases in the Office of Compliance and Enforcement?
Please list the job title, salary, and general responsibilities of each
proposed new position.
Answer. The Board is currently recruiting for 7 new entry-, mid-,
and senior-level professional staff essentially to replace scheduled
employee retirements within the next few years. Two of the recruiting
actions are for Attorneys, with target grades of GS-15 (entry salary
$84,638), who would be involved in trial litigation in defense of the
Board's decisions in the courts and in analyzing rail filings involving
rail operations and compliance actions. Three of the recruiting actions
are for Transportation Industry Analysts, with target grades of GS 13-
14 (entry salary $42,724-$71,954), who would be involved in monitoring
rail operations, preparing rail analyses, and reporting on rail
operations and changes in carriers' practices. The Environmental
Protection Specialist position being recruited for, with a target grade
of GS-13 (entry salary $60,890), would analyze and report on the
various environmental issues related to rail abandonment, rails-to-
trail, and construction filings; carrier consolidations; and other
filings involving rail operations impacting the environment. The
clerical recruitment of a Welfare-to-Work employee, with a target grade
of GS 4-5 (entry salary $20,829-$23,304), would provide clerical
support in the rail operations and compliance area.
Question. The STB has stated that a large number of current Board
employees are already eligible to retire under current regulations and
that an even larger number of employees will become retirement eligible
within the next two to three years. How many STB employees retired in
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and have retired or are planning to retire
in fiscal year 2000? How many employees will be retirement eligible in
fiscal year 2001? Please express the actual and potential attrition
rates for each of the years listed as a percentage of on-board staff.
Answer. Between April 1, 2000 and September 30, 2002, 34.3 percent
of the Board's employees are eligible for voluntary retirement. There
were 2 retirements during fiscal year 1998, 2 retirements during fiscal
year 1999, and 7 actual and planned retirements during fiscal year
2000. The following table reflects the retirement eligibility of Board
employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Number of staff eligible
Retirement eligible by fiscal year employees to total
eligible staffing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
09/30/2000.............................. 27 19.7
09/30/2001.............................. 33 24.1
09/30/2002.............................. 47 34.3
09/30/2003.............................. 61 44.5
09/30/2004.............................. 73 53.3
09/30/2005.............................. 84 61.3
09/30/2006.............................. 88 64.2
09/30/2007.............................. 97 70.8
09/30/2008.............................. 101 73.7
09/30/2009.............................. 108 78.8
09/30/2010.............................. 109 79.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Question. The Board's fiscal year 2001 request is for $17,954,000,
$954,000 more than the enacted fiscal year 2000 level of $17,000,000.
Please detail how much of the personnel-related increases are
associated with: the increased fiscal year 2000 pay raise, inflation
and the 3.7 percent fiscal year 2001 civilian pay raise, and personnel
costs for the 3 new FTEs that the Board plans to hire?
Answer. The following table provides a crosswalk from the enacted
fiscal year 2000 level of $17,000,000 to the fiscal year 2001 request
of $17,954,000.
Fiscal Year 2000 Enacted Appropriation.................. $17,000,000
Annualization of Fiscal Year 2000 Pay Raise............. 132,000
Fiscal Year 2001 3.7 percent Pay Raise.................. 390,000
Mandatory Fiscal Year 2001 Within Grade Increases....... 33,000
New Compliance/Operations Staffing--3 FTEs.............. 140,000
Non-Pay Inflation and GSA Rent Increase................. 115,000
Records Storage (Federal Records Center)................ 80,000
Technical Systems Support............................... 55,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request......................... 17,954,000
Question. Please describe the Board's use of reimbursable
personnel. What positions are currently being held by reimbursable
personnel? What are the advantages to using reimbursable personnel? How
do the salaries and benefits costs for reimbursables compare to on-
board FTE costs?
Answer. Federal agencies must account to OMB for all FTEs funded by
direct appropriation (direct FTEs) and by reimbursable funds from other
agencies or offsetting collections (reimbursable FTEs). The Board has
permanent on-board employees funded by both direct appropriation and
reimbursable or offsetting collections. The number of on-board
reimbursable FTEs in a fiscal year is directly determined by the amount
of offsetting collections received by the Board in any given fiscal
year. The Board also has one employee who provides some services to
another branch of DOT and for which the Board is reimbursed.
In addition, the Board pays for certain administrative services
provided by other agencies. For example, the Board pays the
Environmental Protection Agency to provide payroll services, and the
Federal Transit Administration to provide accounting services. The
costs of performing these services in-house or reimbursing another
entity are comparable.
MONITORING OF DECISION IMPLEMENTATION
Question. Please describe how the Board monitors the implementation
of rulemaking decisions and private sector initiatives and agreements
that reflect Board directives.
Answer. The Board monitors its decisions and directives in various
ways. In major mergers or consolidations of rail carriers, the Board
normally provides for an oversight period, which generally extends for
5-years. The agency retains jurisdiction during that time to impose new
conditions on the merger or to take other actions that might be needed
to protect the public. With regard to rulemakings, after the Board
issues a decision in a rulemaking proceeding, questions about
implementation of the Board's decision are generally raised and
addressed in the context of a declaratory order or complaint that is
filed.
The Board encourages private-sector initiatives. The Board
particularly encourages parties to attempt to resolve their differences
by private-sector agreements and can put the force of law behind them.
When negotiations are successful and the parties reach agreements in
the context of a rail merger proceeding, for example, the agreements
themselves are often imposed as conditions to merger approval or the
agreements form the basis for other conditions imposed by the Board. If
problems or disagreements arise later, parties may seek to have the
Board enforce agreements to the extent that they have been imposed by
the Board as conditions or requirements. Sometimes the Board strongly
urges that a private-sector deal be reached and then indicates that it
will monitor its implementation. In this instance, the Board can make
the agreement a more formalized requirement if the need arises.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MAJOR RAIL CONSOLIDATIONS
Question. Please summarize the findings of the Board's March 2000
public hearings on major rail consolidations and the present and future
structure of the North American rail industry.
Answer. Given the prospect of significant further consolidation
within the rail industry, and our concern that the railroad industry
and the shipping public have not yet recovered from the service
disruptions associated with the previous round of mergers, the Board
instituted the STB Ex Parte No. 582 proceeding to obtain public views
on the subject of major rail consolidations and the present and future
structure of the North American rail industry. As part of this
proceeding, the Board took written and oral testimony from all sectors
associated with the rail industry: large and small rail carriers; large
and small shippers representing various commodity groups; intermodal
and third party transportation providers; rail employees; state and
local interests; financial analysts and economists; and Members of
Congress and other federal agencies.
As a result of the hearing in STB Ex Parte No. 582, the Board
issued a decision served on March 17, 2000, finding that the
overwhelming weight of the testimony was that, at a minimum, the
Board's rail merger policy must be reexamined now, before any new major
mergers are processed. Through that decision, the Board announced a
suspension for 15 months of all new rail merger activity before the
Board and that, over that 15-month period, it would initiate and
complete a proceeding that will provide new merger rules. In a decision
served on March 31, 2000 (and published in the Federal Register on
April 6, 2000) in STB Ex Parte No. 582 (Sub-No. 1), the Board issued an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on various
proposed changes to the Board's rail merger rules. The Board expects to
complete the rulemaking process by issuing final revised rail merger
rules by mid-June 2001. Please see the attached decisions in the STB Ex
Parte No. 582 lead proceeding and the (Sub-No. 1) rulemaking
proceeding.
RAIL MERGER POLICY DECISION
Question. Please summarize the Board's rationale for its decision
to suspend all major merger activity for 15 months (effective March 16,
2000). Justification.
Answer. As indicated already, in a decision served on March 17,
2000, in STB Ex Parte No. 582, the Board found that the overwhelming
weight of the testimony was that, at a minimum, the Board's rail merger
policy must be reexamined now before any new major mergers are
processed. The Board concluded that the rail community is not in a
position to undertake what will likely be the final round of
restructuring of the North American railroad industry, and that the
current rules are simply not appropriate for addressing the broad
concerns associated with reviewing business deals geared to produce two
transcontinental railroads. To permit the development of the new rules,
and to ensure that the industry has had the opportunity to fully
recover from service problems associated with recent mergers without
distractions associated with consideration of additional mergers, the
Board ordered a suspension of all merger activity, categorized as major
transactions, until after the final merger rules are issued, or a total
period of 15 months.
The Board stated that, not only would it be impracticable to try to
act on a final round of mergers while in the process of developing new
merger rules, but it would also be disruptive to the rail system and to
rail service that remains below acceptable levels in many areas.
Carriers whose management should be focused on fixing their service
problems would instead be fixated on finding merger partners, defending
their proposals, and responding in the regulatory arena to other
carriers' proposals. Investors, who have forsaken the railroad industry
in favor of businesses that they have come to believe may have more
favorable future prospects, could devalue the industry further. And
railroads could find it more difficult to finance the capital
improvements necessary to provide the better service that is key to
their financial revitalization. The disruption would go far beyond the
specific interests of Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Canadian
National and the carriers that compete with them; it could irreparably
damage the entire industry, to the detriment of the interests of
shippers, rail employees, and the national economy and defense.
The Board believes that the sheer size of the potential new mergers
poses unique risks and leaves no margin for error: if these mergers
were to fail, or lead to service problems, the effects could be
devastating for both the rail industry and the shippers that depend on
rail service. During the process of reexamining the merger rules and
making sure that the new merger rules take such risks into account, the
Board believes it necessary to maintain the status quo by directing
large railroads to suspend merger activity pending the development of
the new merger rules.
Question. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and
Canadian National Railway Company have filed an appeal with the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals of the STB's 15-month merger moratorium. What
is the schedule for a hearing and decision on this appeal?
Answer. The petitions for review were filed in court on March 17,
2000, and March 20, 2000. On March 29, 2000, petitioners Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corporation and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway Company filed with the court a motion to expedite judicial
review, under which briefing would be completed approximately one month
after the court rules on the motion, and under which oral argument
would be held as soon thereafter as possible. On April 11, 2000,
Canadian National Railway Company filed a similar motion. The court has
not yet ruled on the motions, and thus a briefing schedule has not yet
been set.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
[Clerk's note.--The following testimonies were received by
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies for
inclusion in the record. The submitted materials relate to the
fiscal year 2001 budget request.
The subcommittee requested that public witnesses provide
written testimony because, given the Senate schedule and the
number of subcommittee hearings with Department witnesses,
there was not enough time to schedule hearings for
nondepartmental witnesses.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of the ComCARE Alliance
I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to your
subcommittee on behalf the ComCARE Alliance for the record. ComCARE is
a non-profit coalition of more than 50 organizations who are dedicated
to building an end-to-end system to enhance public safety utilizing
wireless technologies.
Over the past decade, we have seen enormous advancements in the
fields of transportation, public safety, communications and EMS.
Unfortunately, many of these advancements have occurred on their own
and have not been integrated with one another. The ComCARE Alliance is
working across America to link technologies to complete a ``chain of
survival'' that will save lives, reduce the impact of debilitating
injuries, conserve resources, and improve the efficiency of our
nation's highways. Wireless communications is the critical link in this
chain. Last year, with the help of Commerce Committee Communications
Subcommittee Chairman Burns, and other leaders like Senators Lott,
Dorgan, Frist and others, The Wireless Communications & Public Safety
Act of 1999 was enacted into law, removing several of the barriers to
deploying these lifesaving technologies.
My testimony focuses on two central themes that describe how
connecting wireless to transportation, public safety and EMS functions,
gives the term ``integration'' a new meaning. The same communications
technologies that are used to locate emergency calls can be used to
identify real-time traffic patterns, pinpoint vehicle crashes, and
identify the positions of emergency response vehicles. Unfortunately,
no mechanism or process currently exists to bring together each of the
critical entities together at the federal or state levels to make
integration of all the building blocks a reality. Our program request
is modest because we believe there are other sources of funding that
can be used for integration purposes. Our goal is to leverage
significantly more public and private investment beyond what we are
asking from you today.
The ComCARE Alliance respectfully requests that this subcommittee
appropriate resources for two specific activities. These initiatives
will contribute to reducing highway fatalities and injuries, and they
will have significant benefits for other transportation objectives
(e.g. quality and efficiency). Our first request to you Mr. Chairman
and members of the Subcommittee is to advance trauma research, private
sector initiatives, and public understanding of automatic crash
notification (ACN). ACN technologies link crash sensors in equipped
vehicles to a wireless telephone. In the event of a crash, an emergency
call is automatically generated, opening voice communications and
sending crash data to help response agencies in deciding what
assistance needs to be dispatched to the scene. We request that $5-$10
million be included in the fiscal year 2001 Transportation
Appropriations bill to support national ACN field testing. Research
would be conducted by trauma centers in geographically diverse areas
across the country. Trauma centers will partner with other entities to
conduct data analysis and crash investigations.
Second, we respectfully request that Congress accelerate the
process of deploying integrated emergency communications and
transportation systems by launching a national and state-level dialogue
on the importance of integration. This will include both incentive
grants to states to conduct statewide planning and model deployments,
and a grant for a national educational effort with key stakeholder
groups. The National Communications & Public Education Program will
organize a national ``summit meeting'' to educate leaders of the
various constituency groups (Intelligent Transportation, Traffic
Engineers, EMS, 9-1-1, Wireless Carriers) about the value of working
together at the state and local levels to enhance public safety and
improve transportation efficiency. We request that Congress appropriate
$11.5 million for the State Planning Grant Program and the National
Dialogue in fiscal year 2001. $10 million would be distributed to
states to pay for an inclusive, coordinated planning and implementation
process, and for specific deployment costs (any part of the end-to-end
system). $1.5 million would fund a two year public education program in
conjunction with state planning activities described above. Since this
is not a function that the U.S. Department of Transportation currently
performs, resources to support this ``national dialogue'' program
should not be diverted from existing program funds. New resources need
to be directed for this important effort.
We are presented with an opportunity to work together to upgrade
our transportation systems, improve public safety and save lives on
America's roadways. The members of the ComCARE Alliance are dedicated
to working together with you and your colleagues to build these end-to-
end systems across the country.
I thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record.
I am honored to represent the ComCARE Alliance. ComCARE is a non-profit
coalition of more than 50 organizations including nurses, physicians,
transportation officials, emergency medical technicians, 9-1-1
directors, wireless companies, public safety and health officials, law
enforcement groups, automobile and technology companies, telematics
suppliers, safety groups, and others who are dedicated to building an
end-to-end system to enhance public safety utilizing wireless
technologies.
Over the past decade, we have seen enormous advancements in the
fields of transportation, public safety, communications and EMS.
Unfortunately, many of these advancements have occurred on their own
and have not been integrated with one another. The ComCARE Alliance is
working across America to link technologies to complete a ``chain of
survival'' that will save lives, reduce the impact of debilitating
injuries, conserve resources, and improve the efficiency of our
nation's highways. Wireless communications is the critical link in this
chain.
Last year, with the help of Senator Burns, and other leaders like
Senators Lott, Dorgan and Frist, the Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act of 1999 was enacted into law. That Act made ``9-1-1'' the
official number for emergencies across America, reduced barriers to
installing lifesaving wireless location technologies, and encouraged
the FCC to help get all the right groups get around the table to plan
and upgrade 21st century safety systems.
vision of integrated transportation and emergency communications
Assume for a moment that there was a serious three-car pile-up on
I-65, just north of Birmingham, AL, normally a 20-minute ambulance ride
to the closest emergency care facility under rush-hour conditions. It's
even farther to the advanced care trauma center. During this crash,
several of the passengers suffered significant injuries.
In this integrated illustration, an Automatic Crash Notification
device located in each of the impacted vehicles would be activated. A
wireless emergency call would automatically be dialed and the crash
data, how fast the cars were traveling, the principal direction of
force, whether the cars rolled over, and the type of cars in the crash
would be simultaneously sent to the 9-1-1 center and the nearest trauma
center (the latter because data indicated a very serious crash). The 9-
1-1 dispatchers would know the exact location of the crash since as it
was instantly plotted on a computerized map in front of them. They
would also know that Good Samaritans passing by the incident on I-65
and dialing 9-1-1 on their wireless phones were describing the same
emergency scene.
Based on the severity of the crash data, the trauma center and 9-1-
1 operator would know immediately whether only to send a patrol car,
two ambulances, or a Medi-Vac helicopter to UAB Medical Center. On the
same map identifying the location of the victims, the emergency
dispatcher would also be able to tell where the nearest police cars
were patrolling and where the closest ambulances and fire trucks were
currently located, using inexpensive AVL technology. To get a better
view, the nearest ITS-deployed camera, identified by this same location
data, would automatically be switched on and focused on the crash
scene. As EMS arrived on the scene and took the victims to the trauma
center (avoiding other tie-ups due to the dispatcher's access to
traffic data), the trauma teams would be getting prepared, knowing from
the crash data the specific kinds of internal and external injuries
that they should expect to treat.
Due to the integration of emergency communications with traffic
management, the same location technology would provide traffic managers
real-time descriptions of traffic patterns and speeds, and the crash
would be immediately reported, along with its effect on traffic. This
would allow diversion of traffic, saving time for other commuters
heading home to their families and immediate dispatch of equipment to
clear the highway. Wireless subscribers to traffic data services and
heading towards the incident would have instant access to the clogged
traffic situation ahead and be offered alternative routes. The same
picture would appear graphically via an Internet delivered service to
subscribers and any government official who was given access.
Inside the ambulance, devices would be hooked up to the victims,
communicating vital signs in real-time via wireless to the trauma
center. Each victim's medical history, blood type, and reactions to
medication would also be accessed from a secure database to better
prepare caregivers. And on the way to the trauma center, the ambulances
would not see a red traffic light, and would be routed along highways
with the least amount of congestion.
In addition to saving lives, the trauma center and medical networks
might be able to reduce their treatment and insurance costs by
providing assistance to these patients in a much shorter time, before
they sustained long-term debilitating injuries, and they would be
looking for internal injuries that were often missed before.
Unfortunately, no mechanism or process currently exists to bring
each of the critical entities together at the federal or state levels
to make this picture a reality. At the end of the day, a stronger focus
on integration will help get comprehensive systems deployed much, much
faster, and also ones that are more efficient and valued by end users.
THE NEED FOR INTEGRATING FUNCTIONS
ComCARE's testimony focuses on two central themes, and outlines a
modest program for your Subcommittee to consider. It would leverage
significant private and state resources to make these end-to-end
systems a reality. Last year's 9-1-1 bill focused on removing barriers
to lifesaving technologies. ComCARE's membership recognizes that
deployments of these technologies will have enormous transportation
benefits.
Mobile Integration
The first theme is that much more integration is possible in a
mobile society than ever before. The advent of the wireless phone and
ubiquity of mobile communications networks have brought about a
significant potential for extending transportation, public safety and
medical efficiencies to a traveling public.
More than 85 million wireless phones are used more than 100,000
times per day to report vehicle crashes, reduce crimes, and lower
response times to emergencies. According to statistics from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, since 1988, EMS
notification times concerning vehicle crashes have dropped nearly 30
percent in both urban and rural areas, roughly tracking the growth of
wireless phone use. Yet, long or delayed response times to crashes or
other life-threatening emergencies are still a major public health
problem in the United States, especially in rural areas. Our trauma
surgeons and emergency physicians know that faster action is critical
during the ``Golden Hour'' following a vehicle crash or other traumatic
emergency.
Wireless technologies also have tremendous benefits to the
transportation community. Wireless networks that are upgraded with
enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) \1\ capabilities for all phones have the
potential to improve transportation systems by providing for the
provision of real-time traffic information, utilizing aggregate
wireless phones as ``data probes,'' and providing a low cost platform
for supporting automatic crash notification (ACN) and automatic vehicle
location services. They can also be used as an early warning system for
traffic incidents. Finally, wireless communications also allow for
better sharing of information between each entity in the end-to-end
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``E9-1-1'' refers to wireless Enhanced 9-1-1; FCC Report and
Order 94-102 requires wireless carriers to provide a callback number
and location of emergency callers to Public Safety Answering Points on
a phased in basis. Federal Communications Commission. Revision of Rules
to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems. CC
Docket No. 94-102. RM-8143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
integration of the Building blocks
The second theme is that ``integration'' is badly needed among the
building blocks of the end-to-end system: transportation, public safety
and EMS. There are a multitude of federal and state programs that are
advancing the effectiveness of each of the individual blocks. However,
each program is primarily focused only on one block, rather than seeing
each as links in a whole chain. For example, the Federal Communications
Commission's Public Safety and Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) is
focused on spectrum for law enforcement but not focused on
transportation communications. The Department of Justice is making
grants for ``3-1-1'' information systems, but not linking 3-1-1 to 9-1-
1. Many states have excellent highway safety and EMS programs, but
other states don't know about them. There have been outstanding ``pilot
projects'' in Virginia and across the country demonstrating the
availability of real-time traffic information on primary highways, but
that data is not being shared with 9-1-1 centers who could better route
emergency vehicles. There is not one state which has an official
structure where all of the key stakeholders involved with
transportation, public safety, and EMS meet to develop integrated
policies and systems.
The term ``integration'' to transportation policymakers means
connecting one form of transportation to another form or another
technology. Intelligent transportation integration projects often
incorporate an advanced technology and ensure that it is compatible
with a national ``ITS architecture.'' These efforts are productive and
are improving transportation systems. But more can be done to promote
true integration in terms of sharing information, getting different
agencies and sectors working together, identifying synergies, and
deploying technologies for multiple purposes. If you use
communications, particularly wireless, to connect transportation,
public safety and EMS functions, the term ``integration'' takes on new
meaning. The same communications technologies that are used to locate
emergency calls can be used to identify traffic patterns, and keep tabs
on emergency response vehicles or trucking fleets. The opportunity to
improve transportation efficiency, enhance public safety, and save
lives stems from the intersection of transportation and emergency
communications.
REQUESTED APPROPRIATIONS
The ComCARE Alliance respectfully requests that this committee
appropriate resources for two specific activities. These initiatives
will contribute to reducing highway fatalities and injuries, and they
will have significant benefits for other transportation objectives
(e.g. quality and efficiency).
Our goal is to leverage significantly more investment beyond what
we are asking from you today. Our program request is modest because we
believe there are other sources of funding that can be used for
integrated purposes. The value of the funds we request today is that
they will encourage and leverage these other investments. Specifically
these others include 1) ITS deployment funds; 2) existing federal and
state transportation programs; and 3) the private sector.
We respectfully suggest you compliment the U.S. Department of
Transportation for its efforts to date in the following two areas, and
encourage it to do more of these activities from existing funds, as
well as the new funds we request today.
Automatic Crash Notification Research
Our first request to you Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee is to advance trauma research, private sector initiatives,
and public understanding of automatic crash notification (ACN). ACN
technologies link crash sensors in equipped vehicles to a wireless
telephone. In the event of a crash, an emergency call is automatically
generated, opening voice communications and sending crash data to
assist response agencies in deciding what assistance needs to be
dispatched to the scene. Crash data, such as speed of the crash, airbag
deployment, point of impact, and seatbelt use is extremely helpful to
trauma and emergency medical experts in predicting the severity and
type of injuries sustained in the crash. With serious field research
based on significant units, we can develop powerful and accurate
predictive capabilities.
Currently, U.S. DOT is conducting very limited field testing of ACN
technologies in two locations (Buffalo, New York and Rochester,
Minnesota) with only a few hundred vehicles. DOT and one of its
contractors are paying all the costs, including vehicle equipment.
While this research has demonstrated that the technology works and it
can be invaluable to emergency response, the number of units in the
field does not even begin to approach the number necessary to generate
sufficient crash data to verify predictions with actual patient
outcomes. Significant national testing is needed incorporating crash
data from a statistically significant number of vehicles, and exposing
ACN use in both urban and rural settings.
We request that $5-$10 million be included in the fiscal year 2001
Transportation Appropriations bill to support national ACN field
testing. Research would be conducted by trauma centers in
geographically diverse areas across the country. Trauma centers will
partner with other entities to conduct data analysis and crash
investigations.
ACN field testing would take two basic forms: (a) a national test
with crash data collected from the vehicles of one or more auto
manufacturers, and/or a retrofit company, and (b) a number of market
specific tests in a city or region. In-vehicle equipment would be
provided by commercial entities. Grant funds would be used for medical
and engineering field research and for establishing information
distribution systems among public safety and EMS entities and other
government agencies.
National Dialogue and State Planning Grants for Integrated
Transportation and Emergency Communications
Second, we respectfully request that Congress accelerate the
process of deploying integrated emergency communications and
transportation systems by launching a national and state-level dialogue
on the importance of integration. This will include both incentive
grants to states to conduct statewide planning and model deployments,
and a grant for a national educational effort with key stakeholder
groups.
Federal, state and local governments have spent significant sums on
transportation and emergency communications in recent years, but no
state has fully integrated these systems to improve public safety. Most
agencies need upgrades (e.g. to provide E9-1-1) and/or more broad
deployments (e.g. to provide more comprehensive traffic data). More
effectively linking some of the functions of these agencies at the
state and local level will save resources.
Because service areas of some of the providers (e.g. wireless
carriers) are state and regional, upgrade planning on a purely local
basis will not work. Governors need to bring together the key
stakeholders to develop and implement coordinated, efficient plans for
upgrading wireless emergency communications (E9-1-1), and integrating
that with transportation policies (e.g. traffic control and congestion
operations). This will serve both efficiency and safety goals.
In addition to planning, grants could be also used by states, in
their discretion, for completing any part of the chain of survival.
These activities include traffic reporting systems using 9-1-1 location
technology; upgrade of local 9-1-1 systems and networks to produce and
receive location of wireless 9-1-1 callers; integration with ITS
capabilities; and other pre-hospital emergency needs of states.
In addition, a National Communications & Public Education Program
is needed to support this state planning. The process of integrating
transportation, E9-1-1 and EMS systems will require leadership and
participation from members of the transportation, emergency medical,
consumer, and public safety communities. Traditionally these groups
have seldom worked with each other, and they have not considered
integrating communications technologies that can improve the way they
handle their respective responsibilities. To show stakeholders around
the country what they can do to build an end-to-end system in their
area, a national communications and public education program should be
established. The ComCARE Alliance and its member ITS America have
already begun this activity, but it needs to be expanded significantly.
This program would include: conferences of national, regional and
local stakeholder group leaders; workshops to discuss how federal,
state, and local funding sources can leverage private funds to pay for
infrastructure and staffing costs; research papers on deployment topics
and sharing of ``best practices;'' technology demonstrations; and the
development of materials that can be distributed to state and local
agencies, citizen groups and the media about the public safety and
transportation benefits.
To date, there is no federal or state program designed to bring
these different functions of government together with the private
sector and consumer groups to integrate their efforts in transportation
and emergency communications. For example, there is no table where the
9-1-1 community, the Department of Transportation, the American Heart
Association, and the Brain Injury Association come together to
coordinate their efforts to develop emergency transportation systems.
If local and state agencies and others work together to incorporate
advances in transportation and communications technologies, staff and
financial resources will be maximized and systems will be more
efficient.
The National Communications & Public Education Program will
organize a national ``summit meeting'' to educate leaders of the
various constituency groups (Intelligent Transportation, traffic
engineers, EMS, 9-1-1, wireless carriers) about the value of working
together at the state and local levels to enhance public safety and
improve transportation efficiency. The summit will also include
technology demonstrations. Following the summit, the Program will
facilitate working groups in 15-20 states to tailor integration models
to meet each state's needs. These sessions will bring together all of
the local stakeholder groups to determine what resources are available,
both public and private, to build an integrated system in their state.
To demonstrate different approaches, materials will be compiled and
circulated after workshops. These will include a ``Report on Best
Practices'' that will include chapters written by state leaders who are
heading up deployments.
We request that Congress appropriate $11.5 million for the State
Planning Grant Program and the National Dialogue in fiscal year 2001.
$10 million would be distributed to states to pay for an inclusive,
coordinated planning and implementation process, and for specific
deployment costs (any part of the end-to-end system). We estimate this
would cover activity in 5-7 states. $1.5 million would fund a two year
public education program in conjunction with state planning activities
described above. Since this is not a function that the U.S. DOT
currently performs, resources to support this ``national dialogue''
program should not be diverted from existing program funds. New
resources need to be directed for this important effort.
Leveraging Existing Integration Resources
The ``Intelligent Transportation System Integration Program'' at
the Department of Transportation's Joint Program Office was created to
encourage integration of advanced transportation technologies. This
program (Section 5208 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century) is an appropriate resource for state, county and municipal
governments to obtain some resources to support integration
deployments. These ITS deployment grants can serve as incentives, or
leverage money to help install a communications platform that can serve
multiple purposes, with cost savings to all participants.
We encourage communities across the country to use these ITS
Integration Deployment grants for the kind of transportation and
emergency communications purposes that ComCARE has outlined above. The
more places around the country that demonstrate the value of
integrating their local 9-1-1, EMS, traffic, and transportation
systems, the better. Communities can design specific applications that
address their needs such as improved communications and tracking
functions for snowplow contractors in the Northeast, or shared traffic
data between traffic control centers and EMS units in urban areas.
ComCARE members and others should work at the local level to create
partnerships that can use these grants to improve public safety.
conclusion
As we begin the Twenty-First century, it is no longer possible to
view transportation and emergency communications in separate boxes.
Technologies that have emerged in the information age make it possible
to integrate these two functions that affect every citizen's life. We
are presented with an opportunity to work together to upgrade our
transportation systems, improve public safety and save lives on
America's roadways. Modest federal support can leverage significant
private and local resources to get this done. The members of the
ComCARE Alliance are dedicated to working together with you and your
colleagues to build these end-to-end systems across the country.
______
Prepared Statement of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance, an international organization of truck and bus safety
enforcement officials and industry representatives in the U.S., Canada,
and Mexico.
With respect to the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, we suggest two projects for FMCSA that
may be eligible for funding under the category of high priority
initiatives. The first relates to the CDL program. The second relates
to a new requirement in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999 to certify motor carrier safety auditors.
In the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations Conference
Report, the then Office of Motor Carriers and Highway Safety was
directed to work ``work with states to assure that they have the most
up-to-date driving record for people that hold a commercial driver's
license (CDL) and that this information can be easily transferred . .
.'' Little or no progress has been made in this effort.
In addition, the MCSIA requires States to address current
deficiencies in the exchange of information relating to driver
violations that would result in either the suspension or revocation of
a CDL.
Thus, we recommend that FMCSA place renewed emphasis on the CDL
program and establish a pilot CDL compliance program to assist States
in determining what is impeding the speed with which driver convictions
are entered into the national system (CDLIS) and to further assist
States in taking corrective action to remedy the deficiencies.
This pilot program would accomplish these objectives through a
cooperative effort between FMCSA and the state MCSAP agencies. Funds
should be provided to the State MCSAP agency to obtain whatever
resources may be necessary to first determine any deficiencies within
its own operations that may contribute to the problem in obtaining and
exchanging the necessary driver conviction information but also to
enable the MCSAP agency to assist the State Motor Vehicle Licensing
Agency and any other state agency, including local law enforcement
agencies, in correcting whatever problems that may exist which impede
the efficient and timely posting and otherwise necessary flow of driver
conviction information through all appropriate channels so that drivers
with revoked or suspended licenses may not operate on our highways.
CVSA believes that without new and creative leadership of the
leading commercial vehicle safety enforcement agency at the federal
level and of the lead MCSAP agency at the state level, the important
national safety objective of improving the CDL program will not be
realized.
On the issue of certification, the MCSIA requires the Secretary to
complete a rulemaking within one year of enactment to improve training
and provide for the certification of motor carrier safety auditors,
including private contractors, to conduct safety audits. In addition
the MCSIA requires that all new motor carrier entrants be reviewed by a
safety auditor within 18 months of operation.
CVSA therefore recommends that FMCSA work with those groups and
organizations that may already have the experience and expertise in
establishing and operating similar certification programs in the
vehicle safety area such commercial motor vehicle inspections.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments to the
Subcommittee.
______
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
appreciates the opportunity to share our views on the fiscal year 2001
Transportation Appropriations measure, and in particular, the proposed
funding for pipeline safety activities. By way of introduction, INGAA
is the trade association that represents virtually all of the
interstate natural gas transmission pipeline companies operating in the
U.S., as well as comparable companies in Canada and Mexico. Our members
transport over 90 percent of the nation's natural gas.
Safety is a primary focus for our member companies. The natural gas
pipeline industry is already the safest mode of transportation,
according to figures complied by the U.S. Department of Transportation
and the National Transportation Safety Board. Although there are over 2
million miles of natural gas and petroleum pipelines in the United
States today, accidents are rare.
The reason the industry is so safe is the fact that INGAA's members
take safety very seriously. Accidents are few, but the consequences of
any accident can be significant. The American economy needs clean, low-
cost energy to grow, and natural gas is an integral part of that
growth. Due to its environmental benefits and low cost, most energy
analysts foresee a huge increase in the demand for natural gas over the
next 20 years for power generation and industrial processes (see
below). If our product is somehow viewed as being unsafe, however, the
general public will not accept continued pipeline operations and the
significant expansions that will be needed to meet this demand.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.001
Interstate natural gas pipelines spend about $600 million annually
on safety activities, which is about $3,400 per mile. We employ a
variety of techniques, including internal inspection devices (known as
smart pigs), hydrostatic testing, cathodic protection (which prevents
corrosion), pipeline right-of-way fly-overs and walking inspections,
and public awareness and education programs. Interstate natural gas
pipelines are also required to upgrade their pipeline as the population
density to the pipeline increases. These ``class location'' changes
result in pipelines either changing to a thicker-walled pipe, or
lowering the pressure on the line, to increase the margin of safety.
The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), which is part of the Research
and Special Programs Administration at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, is responsible for regulating the safety of interstate
natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. OPS is funded almost
entirely through user fees which transmission pipelines pay based on
the miles a pipeline operator owns. Accordingly, INGAA wants to see
that the dollars its members pay to fund OPS are used in ways which
enhance safety.
INGAA has several concerns about the Administration's proposed
budget for OPS. The Administration request would represent an increase
of over 21 percent in the total budget for OPS, from $38.879 million in
fiscal year 2000 to $47.137 million in fiscal year 2001. This is a
significant increase under any circumstances, but it is puzzling given
the outstanding safety record of natural gas pipelines and the fact
that the number of natural gas transmission accidents has actually
decreased, on average, in recent years. INGAA believes OPS should be
funded in a manner which allows the current programs to continue.
Regarding INGAA's specific concerns, the Administration request
includes sufficient funds to hire four new safety inspectors, although
they anticipate using only two new Full Time Equivalents in fiscal year
2001. Since OPS seems to be focusing a great deal of its attention on
oil pipelines and improving inspections on those facilities, INGAA
believes that the cost associated with these new inspectors should come
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
Because unintentional ``third-party'' damage is a leading cause of
accidents on natural gas pipelines, INGAA supports the funding for
public education and one-call damage prevention programs. We propose
that the $500,000 for public education, and the $1,000,000 in state
one-call grants, be funded through unexpended reserve account funds.
This reserve account consists of pipeline safety user fees which were
collected in previous years, but remain unspent in the OPS account.
Despite a gradual drawdown of this reserve account in previous fiscal
years, the balance is still approximately $18 million, which is much
more than is needed for any emergency contingencies.
Although INGAA also supports the state Damage Prevention Grants
which were authorized as part of the Transportation Equity Act of the
21st Century (TEA21), we strongly oppose this $5 million allocation
being paid through pipeline safety user fees, as the Administration has
currently proposed. In fact, the Administration proposal violates
Section 6107 of TEA21, which states that ``(a)ny sums appropriated
under this section shall be derived from general revenues and may not
be derived from the amounts collected under section 60301 (user fee
section) of this title.''
Congress was specific on this point for an important reason.
Underground damage prevention is not an issue that is unique to
pipelines. In fact, pipelines are affected by only about 17 percent of
all one-call center activity, with the remainder coming from such
entities as telecommunications, cable TV, electric utilities and water/
sewer facilities. Rather than have only pipelines pay to fund grants
which benefit a wide variety of industries--as well as the general
public--the Congress made it clear that damage prevention grants should
come from general revenues. INGAA urges the Subcommittee to reinstate
the intent of Congress by allocating the $5 million in one-time damage
prevention grants from general revenues.
INGAA is also concerned about the level of proposed funding for
state pipeline safety grants. Federal grant funds are made available to
those states which adopt federal minimum safety standards for intra-
state and local distribution pipelines. Section 60107 of U.S. Code
Title 49 states that the Secretary of Transportation ``shall pay not
more than 50 percent of the cost of the personnel, equipment and
activities the (state) authority deems reasonable'' in a given calendar
year. It is worth noting, however, that the state grants funds are
raised from user fees assessed almost exclusively on interstate
pipelines, which are regulated by federal rather than state
authorities.
In fiscal year 1999, the latest year for which complete figures are
available, pipeline safety grants to the states totaled $13 million.
This represented 44 percent of total state expenditures for pipeline
safety (see attached chart). In other words, state pipeline safety
grants have been close to the statutory limit of 50 percent federal
funding. However, the states have received federal grant money from
other accounts, and have benefited from the assistance of OPS in
obtaining new pipeline safety information systems.
The Administration's budget proposes $17.5 million for state grants
in fiscal year 2001, up from $13 million in fiscal year 2000. Based
upon the 1999 state requests, and factoring in increases for inflation,
the fiscal year 2001 total for state grants needed to reach a 50
percent federal contribution should be about $15.7 million. In
addition, the Administration request includes $50,000 for state risk
management grants, $1 million for state one-call grants, and the
aforementioned $5 million for state damage prevention grants. INGAA
believes that these grants total far more than the 50 percent cap on
federal funding of state programs which is currently in force. The
$17.5 million figure, in particular, is too high when you consider that
$13 million covered 44 percent of state expenditures for fiscal year
1999. INGAA believes that a far lower state grant number is both
appropriate and consistent with the Pipeline Safety Act.
Finally, INGAA takes note of the proposed $250,000 increase in
research and development. Our members have participated for several
decades in two organizations that seek new technologies to improve
pipeline safety--the Gas Research Institute and the Pipeline Research
Committee International (PRCI). We would welcome having OPS participate
in and contribute funds to PRCI, in order to better coordinate industry
and government research on natural gas pipeline safety.
In summary, INGAA believes the proposed budget increase of over 21
percent for the Office of Pipeline Safety is not justified. We support
the $5 million in grants to the states for damage prevention, so long
as these funds are allocated from general revenues consistent with
Congressional intent. INGAA encourages the Subcommittee to draw $1.5
million from the OPS reserve account for public education activities
and state one-call grants. As OPS is focusing more of its attention on
liquid pipelines in the coming year, we urge any substantive increases
in their funding to be drawn from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund--
not from natural gas transmission pipeline user fees. Thank you for the
opportunity to share our views with the Subcommittee.
______
U.S. COAST GUARD
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Paul Donheffner,
Boating Law Administrator for the State of Oregon and current President
of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators.
The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators
(NASBLA) is a professional association consisting of state officials
having responsibility for administering and/or enforcing state boating
laws.
Our Association is recognized for its stewardship of ``Recreational
Boating Safety.'' We have, over the years, worked closely with the U.S.
Coast Guard, the States, and others to insure that the intent of
Congress to promote uniformity and reciprocity among the various states
was given high priority. Testimonial of this are the many standards,
resolutions and model acts that have been generated by our Association
and adopted by the majority of the states and territories. In doing
this we bring to the table highly qualified personnel in the field of
boating law enforcement, education, boating safety, and on the water
search and rescue.
Our membership takes pride in their accomplishments and the many
words of praise we have received from the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard,
and the Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board over the years.
My testimony today will focus on the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund
(Wallop-Breaux) and more specific, the Boat Safety Account of this
fund.
The boat safety account of the trust fund is derived solely from
the tax boaters pay on their motorboat fuel. This user fee paid by the
boaters, is returned to the States to help defray their cost for
services provided to the recreational boater. We think this is indeed
in keeping with the user fee concept, (ie) user pays-user benefits,
thus not costing the general tax payer one cent and especially
noteworthy, does not add one penny to the national debt. Allowing the
States to recoup the federal marine gasoline tax that boaters pay on
marine fuel used in motorboats is a prime example of the user fees
helping the user.
The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators is
asking this Subcommittee for $70 million as authorized in Tea-21, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for fiscal 2001.
Our Association would emphasize that:
--States make the best use of these trust funds. The end product is a
major contribution by the States to maintain an overall
reduction in boating fatalities. Since the infusion of federal
funds in the 1970s, boating fatalities in the United States
have dropped from 1,754 in 1973 to 815 deaths in 1998. This
drop occurred despite more people using our waters in a wider
diversity of craft than ever before.
--The appropriation of federal assistance to the states from this
trust fund has resulted in a willingness on the States' part to
assume a major share of what is logically and statutorily a
joint responsibility.
--Stability in the appropriation process is very much needed to give
the states the credibility, consistency and resources to reach
the local boating public.
--The financial base provided by the federal government from this
user fee generated trust fund allows the states to concentrate
on establishing an administrative infrastructure, purchasing
equipment and promoting education and enforcement techniques to
stimulate increased boating awareness and decrease fatalities.
--The efforts of the states funded from this user fee generated trust
fund should result in savings to the federal government rather
than additional cost resulting from state curtailment, inaction
or indifference.
--The States willingly picked up the additional responsibility when
the Coast Guard removed their boating safety detachment teams
some years ago for a savings to the federal government of $10
million plus.
--The States have shown credibility, consistency and resources to
reach the boating public with a positive boating safety program
directed to make our waterways safer and the boaters experience
more enjoyable.
There is no question that state program interventions, made
possible with federal funds, are making a difference. Since 1973, when
the program began, the Coast Guard estimates that over 23,000 lives
have been saved. With full funding we will strive to keep up with the
ever increasing demand to better educate the boaters and further reduce
boating accidents and fatalities. The burden for boating safety has
shifted from the U.S. Coast Guard to the states, but this would not be
possible without federal assistance. We see the states being asked to
take an even greater lead role in boating safety, education and boating
law enforcement.
Congress is sometimes concerned over the use and effectiveness of
these trust funds. Following is a comprehensive listing of how states
use Federal Boat Safety Trust Funds:
--Develop new laws and regulations addressing key recommendations by
the National Transportation Safety Board in such areas as:
--Boating while intoxicated.
--Mandatory wear of life jackets by children
--Mandatory education and boat operator proficiency
--Personal watercraft safety
--Increase boating safety patrols.
--Conduct better boating accident investigations. By better
understanding accident causes, law enforcement and educational
programs can effectively address them.
--Increase enforcement officer training.
--Purchase better communications and enforcement equipment.
--Reach more boaters with free education classes.
--Study the effects of alcohol and boating.
--Construct kiosks to provide boaters information on coastal bar
crossings, navigation, equipment requirements, rules of the
road and related information including charts.
--Provide weatherproof signage with boater safety information at boat
launching ramps.
--Erect wind warning strobe lights across heavily used bodies of
water to warn boaters of impending high winds.
--Conduct courtesy boat safety inspections.
--Conduct boating surveys, which provide critical data for assessing
boat use, conflict areas and safety courses.
--Distribute free literature on boat noise, sailboarding safety,
commercial vessel right-of-way, hypothermia, pleasure craft,
use of life jackets (PFD's) and alcohol use.
--Create internet web sites with facilities access, rules,
regulations, news, safety, funding, fees, boating and alcohol
and other information.
--Mark hazards to recreational vessels.
--Develop school video curriculums and aids.
--Process regatta permits. Some states now process all such permits,
completely relieving the Coast Guard of this responsibility.
--Provide boating safety services. States picked up the full
responsibility for boating safety after the Coast Guard removed
their Boating Safety Detachment Teams (BOSDET) from joint
jurisdictional waters.
--Develop and make available boating safety home study courses.
--Develop and place boating information displays at marine dealers.
--Develop coloring books for elementary schools.
--Increase TV and radio public service announcements.
--Implement boating-while-intoxicated program, including purchase of
portable testers, training classes and public awareness
announcements.
--Computerize boat accident information and arrests, allowing states
to respond to public, legislative and other inquiries regarding
boating accident and water fatality statistics.
--Improve the integrity of boat registration systems.
--Expand our boating safety education capabilities.
--Purchase special search and rescue boats that are fully equipped
for marine law enforcement.
--Add additional full-time and part-time marine patrol officers and
boating safety educators.
--Implement special boating investigation teams to handle boat
accident investigations.
--Improve cooperation with volunteer groups such as the U.S. Coast
Guard Auxiliary by providing boat dock space, communication
stations, phone, utilities, etc. This has resulted in much more
visibility of search and rescue units and free boat safety
inspections.
--Bring together federal, state and local authorities in the interest
of boating safety, law enforcement, training and equipment
needs.
--Coordinate better with local governments to establish boating
restricted zones in heavy activity areas that present safety
hazards to the boating public.
--Update film and video libraries with additional programs and
equipment to provide to the general boating community and to
maintain literature dealing with safety equipment regulations,
safe boating information, registration, titling and numbering
requirements for statewide distribution. Make products visible
and readily available to the boating public.
--Improve communications system to provide for better and extended
coverage with waterway enforcement officers. The result is
improved response time to marine emergencies and provides
greater officer protection.
--Establish new aids to navigation and regulatory marker system for
controlled areas.
--Construct and repair boat access ramps.
--Inaugurate programs designed to prevent boating accidents by
reaching new generations of recreational boaters in the public
schools.
--Implement the Boating Accident Report Data Base (BARD) Electronic
Data Transfer Program.
Our joint efforts are paying off. We believe the Administration,
Congress, State Legislators and most of all, the boating public that we
serve, should recognize the benefits and dividends that are made
possible with federal boating safety funds.
In summary Mr. Chairman, We appreciate your continuing support and
again ask for your consideration for full funding of $70 million as
authorized in TEA-21 for the states boating safety program for fiscal
2001.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 19 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the U.S. Coast
Guard.
Though perhaps best known for its important work in coastal waters
and on the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard also provides essential
services on the nation's inland rivers. Nowhere are these services more
important than on the Upper Mississippi River System, which Congress
has designated as a nationally significant commercial navigation system
and a nationally significant ecosystem. The Coast Guard helps to ensure
that the river can continue to serve both of these important functions.
Of particular concern to the UMRBA is funding for the Coast Guard's
Operating Expenses account. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget
proposal includes $3.199 billion for this account, an increase of nine
percent from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Operating Expenses
account funds activities that are critical to the safe, efficient
operation of the Upper Mississippi River and the rest of the inland
river system, including aids to navigation, marine safety, and marine
environmental protection. Through these missions, the Coast Guard
maintains navigation channel markers, regulates a wide range of
commercial vessels in the interest of crew and public safety, and
responds to spills and other incidents. In calendar year 1999, the
Coast Guard's Upper Mississippi River System units inspected 644
vessels; responded to 100 oil spills; and managed 401 other reportable
marine casualties, including groundings, injuries, and vessel
breakaways. These numbers speak to the Coast Guard's vital role in
establishing and enforcing standards, maintaining navigation aids, and
responding to various incidents. The beneficiaries include not only
commercial vessel operators, but also recreational boaters; farmers and
others who ship materials by barge; and the region's citizens, who
benefit enormously from the river as a nationally significant economic
and environmental resource.
Recent years have brought a number of changes to the way the Coast
Guard operates on the inland river system, including elimination of the
Second District; closure of the Director of Western Rivers Office;
decommissioning the Sumac, the largest buoy tender on the Upper
Mississippi River; and staff reductions. The states understand that
these decisions have been driven by the need for the Coast Guard to
operate as efficiently as possible, and the states support that goal.
However, such changes must be carefully considered and their effects
monitored. The UMRBA is increasingly concerned that staff reductions
have impaired the Coast Guard's ability to serve as an effective,
proactive partner. The individuals serving in the Coast Guard are
dedicated, hardworking people; but they are spread too thinly.
Important regional initiatives are being negatively affected, including
a joint state/federal effort to ensure spills preparedness and
coordination on the river and an interagency effort to design and
establish mooring buoys to safely limit environmental damage from tows
waiting at locks. It is essential for the Coast Guard to retain the
capacity to perform its traditional missions on the Upper Mississippi
River. Toward that end, the UMRBA supports the President's fiscal year
2001 budget request for the Coast Guard's Operating Expenses account
and urges Congress to ensure that sufficient resources from within this
account are allocated to the Coast Guard's inland river work.
The UMRBA does not support the Administration's proposed fees for
navigation assistance services. The nation's navigable waterways are a
critical part of our transportation infrastructure, just as is the
national highway system. Providing the basic services required to
operate that infrastructure safely is a fundamental role of government.
The benefits of buoy placement and maintenance, vessel traffic
services, radio and satellite navigation systems, and waterways
regulation do not accrue only to the commercial operators who would be
subject to such fees. Recreational boaters also directly use these
services. Moreover, municipal and industrial water intake operators,
farmers and other shippers, consumers, the river's natural resources,
and citizens along the river all benefit indirectly from the
contributions that these Coast Guard services make to the safe,
efficient operation of the navigation system. One group simply should
not be required to pay the costs of services whose real benefits are
distributed so broadly.
Several other Coast Guard missions and programs are also important
to the Upper Mississippi River states. Unfortunately, devastating
floods in recent years have given many of this region's citizens direct
personal experience with the importance of the Coast Guard's
reservists. Reserve forces are a critical part of the Coast Guard's
ability to respond effectively to natural disasters and other large-
scale events. In addition, reservists perform key staff functions at
many of the marine safety detachments on the inland rivers. The role of
reservists in the region has become all the more crucial as the
detachments' active duty staffing levels have been reduced. The UMRBA
supports the President's request of $73 million for Coast Guard
Reserve, an amount intended to support approximately 8,000 reservists
nationwide.
In addition, the Coast Guard's boating safety grants to the states
have a proven record of success. The Upper Mississippi is a river where
all types of recreational craft routinely operate in the vicinity of
15-barge tows, making boating safety all the more important. As levels
of both recreational and commercial traffic continue to grow, so too
does the potential for user conflicts. Boat safety training and law
enforcement are key elements of prevention. The UMRBA asks Congress to
appropriate the maximum amount allowed by law to the Boat Safety
account to support the states in this important mission.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fleet Reserve Association
INTRODUCTION
Mister Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the
Fleet Reserve Association appreciates the opportunity to present its
views with regard to important ``people issues'' addressed in the
fiscal year 2001 Budget for the United States Coast Guard.
FRA's mission is focused on protecting and/or enhancing the pay and
benefits for Sea Service enlisted people, and the Association thanks
you and members of the Subcommittee for supporting the most significant
pay and benefit improvements in nearly 20 years which were enacted by
Congress during the First Session of the 106th Congress.
FRA also salutes you for your support, however, the Association is
concerned about the availability of adequate funding for these
improvements within the Coast Guard budget. FRA believes the Coast
Guard should not be required to rely on emergency supplemental
appropriations and/or the Department of Defense, or the shifting of
precious funds from operations and maintenance accounts to cover these
enhancements. As in the past, FRA remains totally committed to ensuring
Coast Guard parity with all pay and benefits provided DOD uniformed
personnel.
PAY
FRA strongly supports the proposed 3.7 percent active duty pay
increase included in the Administration's budget. This follows the
higher than Employment Cost Index (ECI) pay adjustment for 2000 (4.8
percent) and subsequent higher than ECI pay adjustments through 2006.
These increases are especially important to Coast Guard men and women
and positively send a powerful message to service members about the
importance and value of their service to our country. However, at the
end of this six-year period, a pay gap in excess of 8 percent will
remain between military and civilian pay levels.
Funding the pay increase along with pay table improvements which
become effective on 1 July of this year, and the reform of the Redux
retirement program so as to maintain parity with DOD is essential to
the Coast Guard. FRA is pleased that funds are included in the
Administration's budget plan to cover these improvements, however, it
cautions that as with pay, these improvements mark a beginning and not
the conclusion or solution to the recruiting and retention challenges
which determine readiness.
An example of this is the widespread perception within the
Uniformed Services enlisted ranks that the career petty officer
communities were overlooked in the reform effort enacted as part of the
Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Responding
to concerns voiced by its members and other senior enlisted leaders,
FRA examined the new pay tables and found that pay rates for grades E-
5, E-6, and E-7 are undervalued compared to other pay grades. The
Association studied this issue and recently released a report which is
endorsed by seven other enlisted organizations and is available on
request to FRA's Legislative Team at 703-683-1400, or via the
Association's web site at www.fra.org.
It's especially noteworthy to spotlight the growing importance of
enlisted leadership and management and the increasing reliance on
enlisted personnel to serve in positions of significant responsibility.
As is indicated in the FRA study, the Coast Guard has approximately 295
enlisted men and women in grades E-7 through E-9 assigned as Officers
in Charge of cutters and stations. The value of these personnel to
maintaining operational readiness cannot be overstated.
HOUSING
As of 31 January 2000, there were 34,631 personnel on active duty
in the Coast Guard and of this total only about 25 percent live in
military housing. The remaining 75 percent reside in communities at or
near their duty stations, many of which are high cost areas along our
coastlines.
FRA is grateful that additional housing allowance funds were
appropriated for fiscal year 2000 to hasten the implementation of new
BAH rates at various duty stations throughout the country. New rates
were originally protected to prevent reductions during the remainder of
current tours of duty. DOD, however, has recently reversed the plan and
announced that an additional $27 million will be allocated to the
program to ensure that rates remain at, or in cases of rate increases
above the 1999 levels.
Adequate funds are required in the Coast Guard budget to cover
these unanticipated costs for not only this year but subsequent years.
The cost projection for the current year (fiscal year 2000) to pay for
these improvements for Coast Guard members is $15 million.
A DOD priority for fiscal year 2001 is to further enhance the
housing allowance and a request for this is included in the
Administration's budget. The initiative includes paying down the
average out of pocket cost from 19 percent to 15 percent--the
contribution level intended by Congress--with a long term goal to
eliminate the remaining 15 percent over the next several years at a
cost of $3 billion for DOD. FRA strongly supports this proposal and
urges your support and the appropriation of adequate funds within the
Coast Guard budget to cover these enhancements over the implementation
period.
While these are solid improvements and funding is included in the
Coast Guard's fiscal year 2001 budget, they fail to address the lack of
accurate housing cost data in many rural and high cost resort areas
where nearly half of all Coast Guard personnel are assigned. The latter
remains a significant challenge for all members of the Coast Guard.
HEALTH CARE
Access to quality and affordable health care is characterized by
Vince Patton, the Master Chief of the Coast Guard, as ``probably the
most frustrating quality of life issue for U.S. Coast Guard
personnel.'' FRA concurs and notes that this frustration is cited by
some personnel choosing to end their Coast Guard service rather than
reenlist for another hitch.
Despite the assumption (and recruiting promise) that all active
duty personnel and their families will be provided with free health
care, many Coast Guard members have limited access to government health
care treatment facilities and face significant out-of-pocket expenses
for health care. Only half of these personnel are able to participate
in DOD's Tricare Prime managed care program because their duty location
is close enough to a military treatment facility (MTF). Those who are
not close to MTFs must select Tricare Standard for outpatient treatment
needs which requires a 20 percent out of pocket cost share along with a
$300 annual family deductible.
Compounding the situation for the latter is the fact that most
medical facilities charge more than the Tricare ``allowable charge''
for care, and service members must pay the difference on top of the
deductible and 20 percent out of pocket cost.
A second DOD priority for fiscal year 2001 is improving health
care. Although the budget includes no additional funds to address
significant health care problems facing military retirees, it does
include expanded Tricare Prime Remote coverage for family members
(following enactment of coverage for service members last year), and
the elimination of co-pays required from active duty families who do
not reside near MTFs. FRA strongly supports these enhancements.
The Tricare Prime Remote coverage is especially important to the
Coast Guard because so many of its members serve in locations far
removed from MTFs. Not only do these personnel face significant housing
costs in many of these areas, but also the added burden of these health
care costs.
RECRUITING, RETENTION AND RESERVE TRAINING (RT)
Just as its sister services are struggling to make recruiting
quotas, so too is the Coast Guard which despite the current
environment, achieved its mission for recruiting last year. In 2000,
Coast Guard recruiters are behind at the present time and must work
hard to enlist 4,700 active duty, 1,100 reservists and around 500
officers. This is a difficult challenge given the state of the economy,
declining unemployment rates and the low propensity of young people to
consider the uniformed services as an option in their life plans.
Equally challenging is effectively competing with the Department of
Defense and the individual services' larger advertising budgets.
The retention of seasoned mid-career and senior enlisted personnel
is also especially important to sustaining readiness and mission
capabilities. The thriving economy is a powerful draw to these service
members, many of whom can earn considerably more in the civilian
marketplace. This is not only a concern at the mid-career level, but
also in the senior enlisted ranks at the 20-year or beyond point.
Capable, experienced mid-grade petty officers and more senior chief
petty officers are essential to the force and when their ranks are
thinned by such departures, readiness suffers significantly. Therefore,
it's essential to retain as many of these key personnel as possible
through re-enlistment bonuses, benefit improvements and other career
incentives.
Unfortunately, the Coast Guard can only offer a fraction of the
bonuses and other benefits that the DOD services provide. For instance,
the Coast Guard provides $1,500 per year for individual tuition
assistance whereas DOD service members can draw a maximum of $3,500.
Enlistment bonuses for Coast Guard recruits range from $2,000 to
$12,000 and cannot be combined with a college fund stipend while DOD
offers from $2,000 to $20,000 combined with college fund amounts that
can total up to $70,000. (Note that the USCG college fund maximum is
$30,000 and DOD's is $50,000.) Finally, the Coast Guard can offer up to
$45,000 for selective reenlistment bonuses for key skill rates while
DOD offers up to $60,000.
Despite these variances, FRA notes progress in closing the gaps for
these and other allowances in recent years, however more must be done
to ensure parity.
During the past year Coast Guard recruiters also accessed adequate
numbers of reserve personnel to achieve the 8,000 billet end strength--
a major accomplishment given the environment discussed earlier.
However, funding for reserve training only supports 7,300 personnel in
the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request. Without an
additional $7 million, the Coast Guard may be required to reduce on
board selected reservists to match the funding level--an option FRA
believes is unacceptable given the demanding operational requirements
assigned to the Coast Guard and the increasing reliance on reservists
to augment active duty personnel.
Funding shortfalls are troublesome and can lead to declining
operational readiness and capabilities not only in the reserve ranks
but throughout the Coast Guard. Adm. James Loy, Commandant of the Coast
Guard, stated in his recent State of the Coast Guard address (March 7,
2000), that `` More than one quarter of our enlisted members at
operational marine safety units have not received the entry-level
marine safety course they need to perform their duties efficiently and
(they) have not been scheduled to receive this training before the end
of this year.'' Further, he stated that ``Our vessel traffic services
still face a 21 percent vacancy rate among the Quartermaster and
Radarman ratings--a problem that cannot help but introduce excess
fatigue to these safety sensitive positions.''
CONCLUSION
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Association's views. FRA again salutes you for your commitment to the
men and women serving today and also to those who've served in the
past. As indicated above, the FRA strongly supports the
Administration's budget proposal as the minimum necessary to sustain
the Coast Guard's current capabilities and its personnel. The five
percent increase over last year's budget is warranted and
enthusiastically endorsed by FRA and is hopefully the beginning of a
trend toward greater funding not only for compensation and other
personnel benefits, but also for maintenance, training,
recapitalization and other requirements.
The Coast Guard provides tremendous service to our Nation with a
minimal investment of roughly one quarter of one percent of the Federal
budget. The growth of responsibilities assigned to the service has not
been matched with adequate resources and this is imposing an exhausting
toll on its people who must sustain demanding operational commitments--
often without adequate training and/or equipment maintenance.
A recently published opinion piece by Christopher M. Lehman in the
Washington Times (Feb. 24, 2000) offers perspective on the current
situation. He wrote, ``Just like its sister military services . . . the
Coast Guard has been asked to perform more and more missions with fewer
resources. Aging ships and aircraft, increased operational tempo, fewer
people, inadequate training, spare parts shortages, and insufficient
funds for housing, pay and benefits--these are the symptoms of a
weakened U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is losing its edge. It has
been stretched to the limit.''
This scenario is real. Please support funding to adequately
compensate Coast Guard personnel for their tremendous and untiring
service to our Nation and fully fund other benefits so as to achieve
and/or maintain parity with those offered to DOD uniformed personnel.
Thanks for your strong commitment and continuing support of the men
and women serving so magnificently in the United States Coast Guard.
______
Prepared Statement of the Reserve Officers Association of the United
States
COAST GUARD RESERVE
We wish to thank this committee for the strong support that it has
provided the Coast Guard Reserve in the past. Nevertheless, funding for
the Coast Guard is very austere, providing only the minimum level
required for basic services. Similarly, funding for the Department of
Defense and the Department of the Navy remains constrained. Therefore,
it is vital to be farsighted as we cross into the 21st century, to
ensure a continued robust sea power.
We further recognize that the Coast Guard is not the Navy, but a
distinctive armed force with a separate identity and purpose.
Nevertheless, the Coast Guard's people, systems, and platforms provide
important national and international capabilities that complement the
U.S. Navy. As indicated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in ``Joint Force
Capabilities'' (Joint Pub 3-33 dated October 13, 1999):
``During deployment and redeployment operations for the joint
force, the Coast Guard can provide force protection of military
shipping at U.S. seaports of embarkation and overseas ports of
debarkation by conducting port security and harbor defense
operations with port security units and patrol craft. Major
cutters are deployed to participate in maritime interception
operations to enforce sanctions against another nation and to
conduct peacetime engagement activities. Port safety
responsibilities in the continental United States (CONUS)
include the establishment, certification, and supervision of
ammunition loading operations.''
Furthermore, as noted by Dr. Scott C. Truver in his paper,
``American Seapower in the 21st Century,'' the Coast Guard, along with
the other Naval Services, has a distinct history of port visits,
training and exercising with regional navies and coast guards, working
with local maritime agencies and organizations. Likewise, the Coast
Guard has played important roles in supporting U.N. sanctions around
the world. Coast Guard law enforcement detachments (LEDETs) conducted
literally tens of thousands of searches of ships suspected of violating
U.N. embargoes. During the U.N. embargo of the former Yugoslavia, Coast
Guard LEDETs served in U.S. Navy surface combatants and provided the
law-enforcement and search-expertise necessary to conduct boardings and
to detect contraband. Such maritime interdiction operations (MIOs) were
also conducted by Coast Guard LEDETs riding Navy warships in the
Persian Gulf and Red Sea. In addition, the USCG Cutter Morgenthau
(WHEC-722) deployed to the Persian Gulf to assist the U.S. Central
Command's enforcement of U.N. embargoes against Iraq.
In recent years, the Coast Guard has deployed three cutters--USCGC
Bear, USCGC Dallas and Gallatin--to the Mediterranean, Black and Baltic
seas. Coast Guard port security units and aviation squadrons have also
been sent to Turkey, the northern Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf.
The demand for high profile, visible overseas presence by U.S.
forces will not diminish in the years ahead. This need will almost
certainly increase as natural disasters; humanitarian crises, nation-
building programs, and threats to U.S. interests generate continuous
calls for active U.S. engagement and involvement. But, the Navy will be
increasingly challenged in its ability to meet all commitments. This
fact of life has significant implications for the Navy, the Coast
Guard, and the nation.
Because of the growing sophistication of naval weapons systems, the
Coast Guard will not perform ``high-end'' warfighting missions. This,
however, does not mean the Coast Guard will not have a warfighting
role. With a Navy of 116 or fewer surface combatants, and in a world
plagued with regional instability and strife, the Coast Guard's major
cutters--along with several hundred coastal patrol boats--take on new
significance. In this regard, the Coast Guard is a force-in-being,
trained, capable, and ready for small-scale contingency operations, and
force protection in major theater war. Most fundamentally, the
president and the unified CINCs require a full spectrum of naval
capabilities to meet tomorrow's maritime challenges.
In response to multiple assessments of future mission requirements
and a continuous scanning of the long-range planning horizon, the Coast
Guard is examining its ``deepwater capability'' for the next century.
From the Coast Guard's perspective, ``deepwater'' means any
operations--civilian or military--conducted more than 50 miles from the
coast. These ships would carry C4ISR architecture--especially the
Navy's evolving Network-Centric Warfare concept--which will link its
surface and airborne systems with shore-based command structures and
allow seamless integration of Coast Guard assets with all U.S. Armed
Forces.
The Coast Guard, however, currently operates ships with high
personnel and maintenance costs. Some ships have been in service for
more than 50 years. Simply stated, the continued protection of the
public, at a lower cost, requires further investment to enable the
Coast Guard to design more capable and less labor-intensive ships and
aircraft. Without the necessary investment, pressure will continue to
build on the operational account, as anticipated lower personnel and
maintenance costs that would be achieved through investment become
unachievable.
The need for this investment was recently highlighted in the report
of the Interagency Task Force on U.S. Coast Guard Roles and Missions.
This report was compiled by senior members of the Clinton/Gore
administration. The report concluded that the Coast Guard's roles and
missions support national policies that will endure into the 21st
century, and that the recapitalization of the Coast Guard's Deepwater
capability is a near term national priority. The report further stated
that Deepwater Acquisition is a sound approach to modernizing the Coast
Guard's aging fleet of assets.
Investment in the Coast Guard's ``Deepwater'' program, the Coast
Guard's plan to modernize its major cutters, aircraft, and command,
control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (C4I) systems is critical. Adequate
investment will sustain the Coast Guard's capability for providing
services critical to America's public safety, environmental protection,
and national security for the next 30 years--through the replacement of
assets that are at, or fast approaching, the end of their service
lives. The Coast Guard's medium and high endurance cutters, acquired
through the Deepwater program, will be readily available to support
critical Department of Defense operations such as maritime surveillance
and interception, convoy escort, search and rescue, and enforcement of
maritime sanctions, as was the case during Operation Desert Storm. Such
options allow Navy ``high end'' ships to be more effectively employed
in higher threat/combat operations. In addition, as the Navy surface
combatant fleet grows smaller, the future cutter will provide an
extremely cost-effective ``dual capability,'' by providing not only the
ability for the Coast Guard to perform its peacetime mission, but the
vital operational capabilities vitally needed by the Navy and DOD in
the 21st century.
With the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the
Congress has said to federal agencies that it supports results-based
government. The Coast Guard has whole-heartedly committed itself to
results-based government, as much as or more than any other federal
agency. The Coast Guard has overhauled its strategic planning and
capital asset management processes. The Commandant's Quality Award is
designed to encourage results-based government by using the attributes
of the President's Quality Award and the Malcolm Baldrige Award
criteria. The Coast Guard is often referred to as one of the taxpayers'
best investments. Government Executive magazine published in its March
2000 issue, a segment of its Government Performance Project examining
Coast Guard management practices and praising the Coast Guard for its
stewardship of the taxpayer's money. This praise is well deserved, and
while surely gratifying to members of Team Coast Guard, such accolades
alone will not send the signal to other agencies to follow the Coast
Guard's exceptional leadership.
Agencies that commit to results-based government must be rewarded
in the budget process with adequate funding. ROA urges the Congress to
consider most seriously which signal it wants to send federal agencies
through the budget process. The federal government is filled with
dedicated public servants and service members who applaud the intent of
GPRA, but many question the resolve behind it. With the Coast Guard,
the Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate its resolve by rewarding
this high performance agency example with adequate resources to do its
many jobs for the Nation.
COAST GUARD SELECTED RESERVE STRENGTH
The fiscal year 2001 administration request is to maintain the
Coast Guard Selected Reserve's authorized end-strength at the 8,000-
level, whereas the appropriation's request is for 7,300. As the Coast
Guard Reserve's current actual strength is over 8,000, thanks to the
$5,000,000 fiscal year 1999 Readiness Supplemental Appropriation to
meet the congressional mandate of 8,000 Coast Guard Reservists, we have
very serious concerns regarding the administration's proposal for an
appropriated end-strength of only 7,300. We also have concerns
regarding an authorized end-strength of only 8,000, in view of the fact
that the commandant, as directed by OMB, has conducted an in-depth
study that clearly indicates and justifies a requirement nearly 12,300
Coast Guard Reservists. Further, the 1997 Study did not include any
maritime security requirements needed to counter more recently
identified homeland security risks in U.S. ports and waterways from
weapons of mass destruction. In this regard, we would request that the
committee undertake a detailed examination of Coast Guard Reserve
requirements.
In recent years, the Congress, the administration, and Coast Guard
leadership have increasingly recognized the unique capabilities of the
Coast Guard Reserve. It is well recognized that the Coast Guard Reserve
is a value-added resource for peacetime day-to-day operations, as well
as a highly cost-effective source of trained personnel to meet military
contingency and other surge requirements. For example, as noted by the
House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Coast Guard
Reservists provided 25 percent of the total surge needed for the very
successful anti-drug initiative Frontier Shield. Furthermore, as the
nation faces the ever-increasing threat to homeland security from
weapons of mass destruction, it will be necessary to further rely on
the Coast Guard Reserve for its unique capabilities to provide a ready
trained surge force.
In view of the foregoing, a request to fund only 7,300 Reservists
simply makes no sense at a time when the Coast Guard has just succeeded
in completely eliminating the end-strength shortfall that has existed
over the past several years. The Coast Guard has increased its
recruiting capabilities and put into place a multi-year plan to keep
the Coast Guard Reserve at full strength. As of February 18, 2000 Coast
Guard Reserve strength was at 8,110, having increased from a 2-year low
of 7,243 in April 1998. Of further note, there were 183 Reservists, on
extended active duty and long-term active duty for special work,
filling active duty shortfalls. The number of Reservists on active duty
is the direct result of the Coast Guard's solicitation of volunteers
from the Selected Reserve to serve on extended active duty to fill
full-time active duty billets for periods of 2 to 4 years.
In addition, it must be noted that the Coast Guard has made
significant headway in intensifying its Reserve recruiting over the
past year. Such efforts have included the designation of at least 38
recruiters to access Reservists. In addition, there has been heightened
attention to Reserve recruiting, including intensive efforts to attract
more Reserve affiliations from the ranks of Active component members
leaving active duty for civilian life. In 1999, 26 percent of eligible
members leaving active duty chose to become reservists.
In summary, the Congress and the Coast Guard have made the
substantial financial and manpower commitment to rectify the Reserve
end-strength problem. As a result, significant progress has been, and
will continue to be made. In addition, the Coast Guard is now making it
easier for active duty commands to ascertain Reservists' skills and
availability for active duty through the newly established Reserve
Availability Pool web site (http://www.uscg.mil/reserve/respool/
respool.htm). As a result, the demand for Reservists to fill fleet
requirements in a Coast Guard that is short of personnel can only be
expected to increase. It, therefore, makes little sense at this
juncture to reverse course and force the Coast Guard Reserve end-
strength downward. This would amount to nothing less than squandering
the Congress' fiscal year 1999 Readiness Supplemental investment, which
resulted in the successful restoration of the Coast Guard Reserve Force
to its full 8,000 authorized strength.
COAST GUARD RESERVE FUNDING
The administration has requested $73.3 million for the Reserve
Training (RT) appropriation for fiscal year 2001, with $26.2 million in
reimbursement to operating expenses. Given the present procedures for
reimbursement for operating expenses and direct payments by the Coast
Guard Reserve, this is the minimum needed to fund a full training
program for 7,300 personnel. Even at this minimal funding level, Coast
Guard Reservists would continue to receive only 12 days of annual
training (AT) each year (all the other armed services prescribe to 14
days' AT as required by statute).
The funding required in fiscal year 2000 to support the full 8,000-
level authorized is approximately $77.4 million. It should, however, be
noted that the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, in appropriating
$72 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, limited the amount of Reserve
training funds that may be transferred to operating expenses to $21.5
million, giving the Reserve an effective budget of $73.65 million. This
resulted in an approximate $3.75 million operating shortfall, which
requires the Coast Guard Reserve to either reduce strength or to cover
by implementing painful current year cuts in accession/retention
bonuses, training, and support.
The Conference Report noted that although the appropriation was
constrained that: ``The conferees agree that all efforts should be made
to achieve and maintain a Selected Reserve level of at least 8,000
during fiscal year 2000.''
Given the continuing high OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO stress on the entire
Coast Guard workforce and the congressional language to hold strength
insofar as possible, the Coast Guard Reserve is trying to maintain its
strength for this year. The ROA urges the Congress to consider a
readiness supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2000 to enable the
Coast Guard Reserve to restore these cuts in training, recruiting and
support otherwise required to maintain their full-authorized strength.
ROA thanks the Congress for its recognition of the significant
capability provided by the Coast Guard Reserve and for the provision of
this additional funding through the limitation in reimbursement for
operating expenses. In this regard, the Coast Guard is the only
component among all the armed services that reimburses operating
expenses to the Active account. The Coast Guard is reviewing its
procedures for reimbursement with a view toward modification in fiscal
year 2001, and we agree that the proposed modification is fair and
equitable. We would, however, note, that the bottom line is that the
Coast Guard Reserve must have sufficient funding for 8,000 Reservists
and that the reimbursement cap has over the past 3 years provided over
$4 million of this much needed funding. Accordingly, we would ask that
any proposed change in procedures be closely examined and meticulously
monitored--to ensure that the Coast Guard Reserve strength is fully
funded at a level of 8,500 ($85 million, or $88.3 million with the
refund issue resolved).
Just as the Coast Guard has whole-heartedly committed itself to
results-based government, the Coast Guard Reserve has led the way
through the concept of Team Coast Guard. The Coast Guard Reserve
spearheaded this concept of AC/RC integration in 1994. With the goal of
increasing the taxpayer's return on investment, the Coast Guard Reserve
and Coast Guard took on the cultural challenge of creating Team Coast
Guard. There are no longer AC missions and RC missions, there are only
Coast Guard missions. There is one command structure, one support
structure, and one administrative structure. Coast Guard integration is
held as an effective model to DOD components. As the Coast Guard
Reserve continues to evolve AC/RC integration, ROA urges the Congress
to consider what signal it sends to other AC and RC components if it
does not fully fund the Coast Guard Reserve or funds it at the expense
of the Active component.
TEAM COAST GUARD
We continue to support the goals and objectives of Team Coast
Guard. The Coast Guard Reserve has become the ``bench-strength'' of the
active duty force. In this regard, a strength of 8,000 Coast Guard
Reservists equates to only 506 full-time equivalent positions. Of
further note, the Coast Guard Reserve provides the ability to surge the
Coast Guard by an additional 23 percent, at a cost of just 2 percent of
the Coast Guard's total budget. In this respect, the Coast Guard
Reserve is extremely cost-effective. Furthermore, the Reserve component
provides double benefit because Reservists are only paid when on duty
and because Reservists obtain their training for emergency response by
assisting the Coast Guard in its peacetime functions.
Simply stated, the Reserve leverages the entire organization and
stands ready to go in response to both domestic and national
emergencies. As a result, the Coast Guard is readily able to surge its
forces to meet domestic emergencies in an extremely cost-effective
manner, as well as to respond to national emergencies, including vital
harbor security for the Department of Defense with the Coast Guard
Reserve Port Security Units. At the same time, the failure to meet
Reserve end-strength requirements adversely affects the Coast Guard
and, therefore, adversely affects the safety of those operating on the
nation's ports, rivers and waterways and off the shoreline of the
United States.
In an effort to assess the progress of Team Coast Guard and its
impact on Reservists, we canvassed our membership in December 1999,
asking for their views. Of the many responses we received, several
issues emerged. These issues are as follows:
Travel reimbursement.--Many Reservists, including enlisted
Reservists, must travel long distances to drill. The following
quotations from drilling Reservists provide additional insight into
this issue.
``In many instances drilling Reservists have to travel
upwards of 330 miles one-way to reach their duty sites. This
issue of auto-travel-reimbursement is particularly problematic
for junior enlisted personnel whose drill pay is already
relatively small.''
``We currently have a number of enlisted traveling in excess
of 350 miles one-way to drill. One (junior officer) is
traveling 650 miles one-way to drill.''
``I have an E-3 who pays more for his transportation to
monthly drill than he gets paid. In other words, he is paying
cash in order to be able to drill.''
Meaningful billets and lack of flexibility upon advancement.--This
issue was addressed in the 1998 Coast Guard Reserve Policy Board report
that was approved by the Secretary of Transportation on December 1999.
The report states:
``When most Reserve command cadre billets were eliminated by
integration, senior Reserve officers and senior enlisted lost
their traditional management roles. The force structure and
roles for senior Reserve personnel need to be reviewed as
program requirements are established. [This issue]--is about
appropriately using personnel in whom taxpayers have invested
heavily. Furthermore, it is about ensuring that Reserve
personnel perceive they can engage in fully satisfying and
challenging work throughout a full career in the Reserve
Component.''
The following quotation from drilling Reservists provides
additional insight.
``I am still concerned that senior Coast Guard officers and
enlisted Reserve personnel may not have much to aspire to . .
.''
``A major issue still unresolved is how the Coast Guard will
more effectively utilize its senior officers and enlisted
Reservists consistent with their rank.''
``Due to many active command structures, there don't seen to
be as many opportunities as in the past. There certainly do not
seem to be as many opportunities for command or senior
executive staff positions. With the noted exception of port
security units, career paths for Reserve officers are not as
clear as previously.''
``With very few senior billets and minimum flexibility
(allowing senior people to fill lower ranking billets), many
see no real career path. We have seen at least two first class
petty officers that have refused to take the examination for
chief petty officer because there is not a chief's billet
available. In their cases, they had well in excess of 10 years
of service and were concerned that they would not be able to
maintain a billet long enough to finish 20 years if they were
selected as chief petty officers. The same situation applies to
lieutenants and to lieutenant commanders. There are many who
are seriously concerned about achieving 20 years' service.''
The 1998 Coast Guard Reserve Policy Board report, approved by the
Secretary of Transportation on December 9, 1999, also provides further
insight into this issue. It states as follows:
``Reserve force employment is not consistent throughout the
Coast Guard. It has evolved over the years based upon the
personalities and interests of commands, and the personalities
and capabilities of individual Reservists. The current Reserve
Personnel Allowance List (RPAL) was developed in 1996-97
largely upon then-existing Reserve assignments. As a result,
one unit may have a dozen RPAL billets while a similar unit may
have no billets. Even when Reserve billet structures are
consistent between or among similar commands, units often have
different philosophies on employing Reservists. Some commands
use Reservists interchangeably with Active duty personnel.
Other commands use Reservists primarily to replace Active duty
personnel when billets are vacant during the transfer season or
leave periods. Some assign Reservists to work independently on
special projects. We recognize that field units need
flexibility in employing Reserve forces. Yet headquarters,
areas, and districts need to identify program requirements for
Reserve employment, and to provide guidance to field units on
employing Reserves. Based on these program requirements and
guidance, the RPAL then can be revised to better reflect
service needs. When the workforce structure has been redefined
by a revised RPAL, Reserve personnel can be recruited, trained,
and assigned to meet established requirements. Reserve
personnel will have more meaningful assignments; they will not
have to create their own niches at each command.''
Difficulty in meeting Reserve-unique administrative and training
needs.--The following quotation from a drilling Reservist provides
additional insight into this issue.
``--for enlisted Reservists--many of their Reserve-unique
administrative and training needs are not being as adequately
addressed as--in the past. Ultimately, junior enlisted
personnel do not seem to be receiving the same level of
attention and direction needed for retention and advancement.''
COAST GUARD RESERVE EQUIPMENT
Like the other armed services, the Coast Guard is in need of
equipment for its Reserve Component. In fiscal year 1998, the Congress
provided over $13 million for the much needed refurbishment of its
existing three port security units and the establishment of three
additional port security units. Today, the Coast Guard Reserve is in
need of equipment for its Mobile Support Units, as well as chemical,
biological, and radiological defense equipment.
Mobile Support Units (MSUs) are Reserve units designed to be a
limited deployable logistical and maintenance support and repair
facility service for one, and under certain circumstances, for up to
two co-located squadrons of Coast Guard 110-foot patrol boats. These
units are staffed by Reservists and will support the Active component
(and the combatant commanders-in-chief) when deployed for operations
overseas. The MSU provides on-site repair facilities for hull
maintenance and engineering and electronics systems for use by support
personnel assigned for operational maintenance.
Mobile Support Unit Equipment
Item Cost
TRUCK, TRACTOR TRAILER........................................ $105,000
TRAILER, CONNEX BOX........................................... 30,000
TRUCK, PICK-UP................................................ 25,000
FORKLIFT, 10,000 LB........................................... 20,000
GENERATOR SET 160KW & SPARE PARTS KIT......................... 23,000
WELDER, GAS POWERED........................................... 3,000
TOOLS......................................................... 148,000
ADMIN SUPPORT KIT............................................. 5,500
COMPUTER HARDWARE............................................. 18,000
COMMUNICATIONS HARDWARE....................................... 23,000
EQUIPMENT, GENERAL............................................ 14,000
GENERAL U.S.E/CONSUMABLE ITEMS................................ 5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL................................................... 419,500
Chemical, biological, and radiological defense is required for
Coast Guard Reserve personnel assigned to the Marine Safety Offices who
have Department of Defense strategic load-out responsibilities. The
current mobilization requirements call for a Reserve personnel
requirement in excess of 3,500 personnel.
Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Equipment
Item Cost
Mask, Mark 40 A-1.............................................$1,080,000
CBR-D Gear.................................................... 1,656,000
Canister, CBR-D Mask.......................................... 57,600
Kits, CBR-D antidote.......................................... 295,200
Decon Kits.................................................... 46,800
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 3,135,600
LEGISLATIVE ISSUES
There is one legislative issue we would appreciate Congress'
examining. The fiscal year 1999 National Defense Department
Authorization Act included a provision prohibiting Selected Reserve end
strength fluctuations among the DOD reserve components of greater than
2 percent. This legislation did not apply to the Coast Guard Reserve.
We believe 10 U.S.C 115(c) should be amended to specifically include
the Coast Guard Reserve. This would improve parity among the Coast
Guard and the other military services while helping eliminate the
ongoing mismatch between authorized and funded Coast Guard Selected
Reserve end strength.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for this opportunity to present the association's views
on the fiscal year 2001 Coast Guard Reserve Budget. I also thank you
again for your past support of the Coast Guard Reserve. With your
continued support the Coast Guard Reserve will continue to play a key
role in the our national defense.
______
MISCELLANEOUS
Prepared Statement of the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
(LRRI)
Support from the U.S. Department of Transportation is requested for
the National Environmental Respiratory Center to conduct research and
provide information on the contributions of transportation sources to
the respiratory health risks from inhaling mixtures of air pollutants
from multiple sources.
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESPIRATORY CENTER IS A NEW MULTI-
STAKEHOLDER RESEARCH PROGRAM
The National Environmental Respiratory Center was established by
Congress through the fiscal year 1998 EPA appropriation. The mission of
the Center is to facilitate and participate in a long-range national
initiative to understand respiratory health risks from complex mixtures
of environmental air contaminants from many sources. The Center will
help place the respiratory health risks from variable, mixed pollutant
atmospheres in their appropriate context as a basis for strategic,
regulatory, and technological decision making. The work of the Center
is relevant to the interests of a broad range of government and non-
government stakeholders. From the outset, the Center was intended to
meet the needs of multiple stakeholders by building on core funding
from EPA as a joint effort among multiple federal and state agencies,
corporations and industry associations, and health and environmental
advocacy groups. The Center is operated by the independent, non-profit
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
THE CENTER WILL PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION IMPORTANT TO DOT
DOT Does Not Know the Contribution of Transportation Sources to the
Health Impacts of Air Pollution
We do not currently have a satisfactory understanding of the
relative contributions of emissions from transportation sources, air
pollutants from other man-made sources, and natural air contaminants to
the aggregate adverse health outcomes associated statistically with air
quality. This deficiency creates uncertainty in strategic and
regulatory decisions about choices among different transportation
technologies. For example, we do not have a solid understanding of the
total health gains or losses that might accrue by choosing between new
generation petroleum-based fuels and engines and alternate motive power
technologies such as natural gas or biodiesel-fueled internal
combustion engines or electric motors powered by batteries charged by
power from remote generation stations.
We do not even have, at present, a satisfactory understanding of
the relative contributions of the individual constituents of single
emission mixtures (such as engine exhaust) to the total effects of that
mixture. This deficiency is impeding the evolution of technology (such
as changes in engines, fuels, or exhaust after treatment) to mitigate
health risks by reducing emissions of specific classes of air
contaminants.
This Information Gap is Becoming More Critical with Time
As air quality in the nation improves, understanding the health
effects of mixtures of air contaminants is becoming progressively more
important. It is becoming less likely that the adverse health effects
observed in populations are attributable to single pollutants or
sources. We face an increasing difficulty in making strategic choices
and investments, and an increasing likelihood of making ill-advised
decisions.
The ``mixtures'' problem is not a new issue. It has long been
recognized, but has never been brought to the forefront of debate or
research focus. Many organizations have considered the issue and
consciously avoided making it a central theme because of its complexity
and because of financial incentives to focus on the ``pollutant of the
year''. The recent debates on the health effects of ozone, airborne
particles, and diesel exhaust have focused increasing attention on air
pollution mixtures and our ignorance concerning them. In contrast to
the past, few discussions about the health effects of air pollution
occur today without mention of the mixtures dilemma and our lack of
knowledge.
No Other Research Program has Focused on Air Pollution Mixtures
Our present regulatory and research approaches tend to steer
attention away from the truth that all exposures to air pollutants are
exposures to mixtures. Under the present Clean Air Act and other
regulatory mandates, the focus has been on debating the effects of
single pollutants and pollutant sources in a ``one-at-a-time'',
``revolving door'' manner. This approach results in the conduct of
reactive research focused on single pollutant classes. Thus, the
pressures of single-pollutant issues result in little emphasis being
given to work aimed at understanding the relationship between air
quality and health in an integrated manner.
The Center was Created Specifically to Meet these Needs
The National Environmental Respiratory Center was created by
Congress through the EPA appropriation in response to Lovelace's
proposal to develop a significant research and information program that
would join multiple federal, state, and non-government stakeholders
together in an effort to substantially improve our ability to place the
respiratory health risks of air pollution mixtures in their proper
context. Although the Center can not meet the full spectrum of
mixtures-related information needs, it was intended to play a
leadership role in integrating the support of multiple sponsors into a
substantial, multi-year program of focused research designed with broad
input and providing knowledge needed by the full range of stakeholders.
There are many possible approaches to mixtures research, and no
single program can encompass them all. The strategy for this Center was
selected to take advantage of the unique research strengths of Lovelace
to conduct work that will move our understanding of the importance of
key man-made pollution significantly forward. The strategy selected
could not be funded through typical grants programs and would not, and
perhaps could not, be undertaken by any other organization.
THE CENTER'S WORK HAS BEGUN AND DOT SUPPORT IS CRITICAL
The Center's Research Strategy Has Been Developed and Work Has Begun
By express intent, Lovelace involved a cross-section of
stakeholders and technical experts in developing the scope of the
Center's activities and the specific research strategy to be
undertaken. This strategy will not only ensure that the Center's
efforts are guided by the best current thinking, but will also
facilitate broad acceptance of its findings. A highly qualified
External Scientific Advisory Committee was developed with members from
academia, government, industry, and the health and environmental
advocacy sector. This Committee was integral to the process of defining
the Center's agenda as: (1) a highly-focused multi-year research
program; and (2) a source of information and a catalyst of cross-
disciplinary communication in the mixtures field. The first studies of
the Center's initial five-year research effort are now being initiated.
The complex atmospheres to be studied include heavy-duty and light-duty
engine emissions and paved and unpaved road dust. Although sufficient
support has been developed to initiate the work, there is not yet a
sufficient commitment to ensure that the work will continue, or
continue at a rate that fulfills the strategy or meets DOT information
needs in a timely manner. A commitment from DOT would ensure that the
information relevant to the Agency is produced, and within the Agency's
strategic timelines.
The first multi-year series of studies will generate a matrix of
data by applying identical, detailed, contemporary laboratory assays of
respiratory health effects to several real-world, man-made, complex
exposure atmospheres. The atmospheres will include engine exhaust
(diesel, old and new; gasoline, catalyst and non-catalyst), wood smoke
(hardwood and softwood), tobacco smoke, cooking fumes (meat and
vegetable), road dust, and power plant emissions (including secondary
transformation products). Importantly, these complex atmospheres will
provide an array of overlapping, but different compositions. A range of
predictive health assays was selected to span the types of health
impacts thought to be associated with air pollution. These effects
assays encompass the general categories of inflammation and tissue
toxicity, asthma and amplification of allergic responses, respiratory
defenses (particle clearance and resistance to infection), lung and
heart function, and cancer potential. The atmospheres will be
characterized in great detail, as a basis for determining the health
impacts of individual constituents.
The information resulting from the multi-year research matrix will
serve three principal purposes. First, the studies will produce
contemporary toxicity information on transportation-related emissions
of current concern. Second, the studies will make available, for the
first time ever, information allowing the direct comparison of the
health impacts of these atmospheres by identical health assays.
Finally, the identical health assays and the different, but
overlapping, compositions of the atmospheres will allow, for the first
time, the use of statistical and modeling procedures to identify the
contributions of individual mixture constituents, and classes of
constituents to the different health effects.
The Financial Commitment Required to Conduct the Work Has Not Yet Been
Achieved
As intended by Congress, the Center's agenda was developed by
identifying the most critical information needs and the best strategy
for meeting those needs, rather than constraining the plan to the
amount of resources provided through the EPA appropriation. Because the
information to be produced is important to a broad range of
stakeholders, it was intended from the beginning that other federal
agencies, states, and industry would also be recruited to support the
effort. If the research described above is conducted over a five-year
period beginning in early fiscal year 2000 and the statistical analyses
are completed within the following year, it is estimated that the total
six-year (fiscal years 2000-2005) cost of Center operations will be
over $24 million (in fiscal year 2000 dollars), or over $4 million per
year. Therefore, if EPA support continues at the fiscal year 2000 level
of $1.8 million per year, the level of funding must more than double.
The Department's Support will be Highly Leveraged by Other Stakeholders
The leg-work has already been done that creates an opportunity for
the Department to get information it badly needs cost-effectively by
sharing the cost with other stakeholders who need the same information.
Lovelace has undertaken the task of complementing the support from EPA
as necessary with support developed from other stakeholders.
Considerable effort is being expended to discuss the mission and
strategy of the Center with several federal and state agencies and a
wide range of non-government organizations and trade associations. This
effort has been successful, but is still far short of the goal. In
addition to support from EPA, the Department of Energy began funding
the Center during fiscal year 2000. Lovelace has developed
approximately $0.5 million in funding from industry, much of it from
the transportation sector. Contributing organizations include
(alphabetically) American Trucking Association, California Trucking
Association, Caterpillar Inc., Chemical Manufacturers Association,
Cummins Engine Co., Detroit Diesel Corp., Exxon Corp., Ford Motor Co.,
Navistar International, Phillips Petroleum, and the Southern Co.
Discussions are underway with numerous additional companies and trade
associations. Among states, the California Air Resources Board has
committed support, and discussion with other state agencies is
underway.
Lovelace Requests Support From the Department Of Energy
Financial support is growing, but falls short of the level required
to get the job done. We will need over $4 million per year over the
next six years to follow the consensus advice we have received. The
Center's work is relevant to the policy interests of the Department
regarding the nation's long-range transportation strategy, and the
influence of air quality issues as a driver of strategic choices.
Participation in this program can, in part, fulfill the Agency's
environmental mandates as well as meet strategic information needs.
Several discussions have been held with Department officials, and there
is agreement that the mission of the Center and the information it will
produce are relevant to the Department.
Lovelace respectfully requests that $2 million be allocated in the
fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation budget to support work of
the National Environmental Respiratory Center relevant to
transportation-related issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Stylin' Concepts Corporation
My name is John Milos. Together with my wife, I am the owner of
Stylin' Concepts, a small business located in Independence, Ohio, that
sells automotive accessories for safety, fuel efficiency, and other
uses. It is my privilege to testify today before you about the adverse
impact that a reduction in the availability of information from motor
vehicle records, let alone a total cut off, will have on my business.
As a direct marketer that mails to millions of Americans every
year, we applaud your spirit to protect the individual. In fact,
responsible direct marketers like Stylin' Concepts and others all over
this nation have taken extreme and costly efforts on our own for
decades to insure our customers' privacy. Privacy is nothing new to us.
As direct marketers, we really don't want to market to someone who
doesn't want to receive our material. It's just not good business sense
to be throwing money away. However, last year's amendments to the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act requiring an opt in for use of motor
vehicle record data for marketing purposes will do great damage to
consumers and employees in the direct marketing business. We are a
small business of approximately $8 million in sales and 75 percent of
our business comes from the Auto Registration records this law would
make unavailable.
We produce an automotive accessories catalog that features products
for safety, fuel efficiency, comfort and style. Other than the auto
registration records, there is no other source for this information.
This law, if it becomes effective, will eliminate 75 percent of our
business and force the layoff of dozens of employees, many of which are
single parents, college students, or handicapped.
It's important to understand that our interests are for consumers
who have a particular vehicle. When we know what type of vehicle a
consumer owns, we send them a catalog specific to that vehicle. The
names are gathered by Polk, the main compiler in the U.S. Polk then
sends the names to our printer, who puts the labels on the catalogs and
mails them. We never see the name nor do we keep it unless someone
calls us, decides to purchase something from us, and gives us their
name and address.
Ultimately, that consumer has the final choice of privacy. First,
by just throwing our catalog away, and secondly, any consumer can put
their name on the DMA's ``suppression'' list. Responsible mailers, like
Stylin' Concepts, run their prospect lists, such as the Motor Vehicle
Registration information, through this suppression list before every
mailing, at our cost, and that person never gets mailed to. In
addition, we maintain an internal suppression file for anyone that
tells us they do not want to receive our catalog.
We are only looking for the interested consumer who has the
specific vehicle that we have catalogs for. There is a high likelihood
this person will be interested in our products. Studies show the
average person in America overwhelmingly wants to receive direct mail
about products of interest to him or her. For example, if Jane Doe is a
gardener, she enjoys receiving gardening magazines and catalogs. If
John Smith enjoys gourmet cooking, he would welcome receiving a catalog
of the latest kitchen gadgets. These catalogs give the consumer great
ideas and deals they wouldn't otherwise have. If we cannot get specific
vehicle information, then we will be forced to take a more scattershot
approach, which is a waste of money and resources. In the process, many
people who don't want our catalog will get it anyway.
What harm is there to the consumer if this law goes into effect?
Safety and Convenience
Catalogs provide a consumer one-stop shopping for a wide variety of
products. Products that improve the safety, fuel economy, and
convenience of their vehicles.
--Safety products that we offer include a children's seat belt
adjuster that makes it more comfortable for a child to use
(which means the child will use it--and that saves lives), a
backup alert that warns children when a vehicle is backing up,
and products for people to keep in their vehicle in case of
emergencies.
--We have several products that improve fuel economy, such as
programmers that can actually reprogram a vehicle's computer to
increase mileage up to 25 percent, products that create less
wind drag and thus improve mileage, and improved air filters
and air intake systems. All these items save fuel, which is
extremely important with today's high fuel prices.
--Much appreciated convenience products include running boards that
make it easier for an elderly person, or a mom with a baby, to
get into their vehicle, as well as many items that make
traveling easier.
One of the most common responses we get from our customers is ``We
didn't even know this product existed!'' Unaware of the availability of
our products, and of our need to know about their vehicle registration
data, most of our customers probably would not have opted in had they
been required to do so.
Restriction of Competition
If this vehicle information is not made available to responsible
marketers, then the automakers will have a monopoly on direct marketing
to consumers that buy their vehicles. We all know what happens in a
monopoly situation. Prices increase and innovation decreases. We
currently charge 30 percent to 50 percent less than the car
manufacturers for the same products. Our marketing costs would increase
substantially under this law and these increases would have to be
passed on to the consumer. That's assuming we could even stay in
business. If businesses like ours are not able to stay in business,
then innovation will also surely decrease. Reduced competition always
results in reduced innovation--ultimately the consumer is the one who
gets hurt.
Increased Waste
If this law goes into effect, consumers will receive additional
mail that is not specific to them. We will have to start mailing our
catalog to consumers who might have the appropriate vehicle instead of
being sure that we're putting our catalog in the right hands. This is a
waste of paper and resources as well as additional expense and a true
bother to more Americans.
What is the effect of this law on businesses, such as ours, and the
people who are employed by them?
Effects on Employees
This industry, by its very nature of needing assemblers, packers,
and data entry personnel, lends itself to hire unskilled employees who
have a difficult time finding good jobs to support their families. At
Stylin' Concepts, of those employees who have children, 50 percent are
single parents, another 25 percent are students working their way
through school, and others are handicapped. The call center where we
receive calls from customers (we only receive calls, we never call
prospective customers) is perfect for those who need flexible hours and
a handicapped-friendly work environment that our company, and others
like ours, offers. These people are trained well by us and all they
want to do is keep their current job. The fact is, most of them will
lose their job under the new law.
Effects on Business
The impact on our business and others like ours will be huge. We
are aware of no other way to get this vehicle specific information. 75
percent of our business depends on it. The only way to maintain our
sales would be to mail out 10 times as many catalogs, at an enormous
increase in expense. Prices would have to be raised considerably, and
frankly, we doubt that the consumer would be willing to pay the higher
prices. Thus, the net effect would be to drastically reduce our sales
and the sales of other businesses like ours.
What other options are available?
Other options to protect the privacy of the individual are
available without hurting workers, consumers, and business. Some of
these are:
1. Fine tune the law so that information that is truly private
(such as driver's license photographs) is prohibited from sale, but
allow the sale of information that would not unduly harm the privacy of
the consumer and provide a benefit as well.
2. Create standards by which the information is used. As an
example, responsible direct marketers, at their cost, provide easy and
effective ways for the consumer to let the marketer know they don't
wish to receive mailings anymore. Continue to let consumers opt out of
allowing their information to be released. This seems to be a very
effective method for communicating this information. Only .002 percent
of consumers who receive our catalogs feel the need to contact us to
request they not get our catalog.
3. At the very least, we need time to assess the impact this law
will have on direct marketing workers and the businesses that employ
them. Given time, we may be able to minimize the impact of the law. But
right now, we can't, and too many people will be hurt.
We believe the opt-in choice, as stated in the law, is not a
practical solution for this issue. Most states seem to believe the
revenue received from this method would not offset the cost involved in
the changeover. It would require costly changes to their forms,
procedures, and computer systems. The states are saying they will
simply not make any data available anymore.
In summary, we agree the privacy issue needs to be addressed. We
have no desire to send our catalogs to anyone who does not wish to have
them. However, the impact of this law needs to be seriously considered
before it's implemented. We urge you delay the implementation of this
law until a sound economic impact study can be made, as too many
innocent and responsible businesses, workers, and consumers will be
hurt by this law as it currently stands. With some modification, the
law can make great strides in protecting the consumer from release of
sensitive information without hurting a great many companies and their
employees.
______
Prepared Statement of the Disabled American Veterans
My name is Max Hart and I am the Director of Fundraising of the
Disabled American Veterans (``DAV''). The DAV is a membership service
organization of more than one million members with an additional
177,000 Women's Auxiliary. Founded in 1920 and Chartered by Act of
Congress in 1932, DAV carries on service programs for all of America's
2.3 million disabled veterans and their dependents. These services are
totally funded by contributions from a generous American public raised
100 percent through the mail. Direct mail is the only medium through
which we can sustain our program service-all others are not viable.
I appear before you today on behalf of both the DAV and the Direct
Marketing Association Inc. (``The DMA''), of which we are a member. I
serve as chairman of The DMA's Nonprofit Council, which consists of 290
nonprofit organizations and their suppliers with interests in raising
funds through direct marketing. The National Easter Seals, the
Arthritis Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the March of Dimes,
and Consumers Union are among the organizations who are members of The
DMA Nonprofit Council. With scarce resources with which to make our
fundraising appeals, we all rely upon the ability to tailor our
messages to specific audiences by using lists from databases. Many of
these databases are updated and corrected through the use of motor
vehicle record information.
DAV's 65 million fundraising solicitations last year raised 83
percent of the organization's total revenue. That is, the DAV's
fundraising solicitations last year grossed $98 million in charitable
contributions and $2.9 million in bequests, trusts, and gift annuities.
Motor vehicle records have proven to be one of the single most
reliable sources of certain demographic information, including age
information, which we use in our targeted fundraising. This information
is particularly useful in narrowing our fundraising target mailings to
individuals that fall within a particular age range. Through the use of
age and other demographic information that originates in motor vehicle
records, we are able to better ensure that our messages will be heard
by the most responsive audiences.
The future success of our fundraising efforts depends, in large
part, on continued access to information in the motor vehicle records.
Requiring an opt-in for use of motor vehicle information potentially
threatens the ability of charitable organizations to raise the sums
they need to continue providing the services that they have
traditionally offered. Total cut off of all marketing uses of motor
vehicle records would only exacerbate the difficulties we will have in
obtaining lists that contain data derived from motor vehicle records.
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I thank
you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee as it
examines implementation issues surrounding positive notification
requirements for the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (``DPPA'').
My name is Max Hart and I am the Director of Fundraising of the
Disabled American Veterans (``DAV''). I appear before you today on
behalf of both the DAV and the Direct Marketing Association (``The
DMA''), of which we are a member.
My remarks today will concentrate on the extent to which an opt-in
requirement for marketing uses of motor vehicle records could
drastically impact DAV's fundraising efforts and programs, and those
undertaken by other nonprofit organizations. As I will illustrate, such
an approach will effectively deprive nonprofits of vital information
that is critical to the fundraising programs of many nonprofit
organizations. A decision by the states to cut off all marketing uses
of motor vehicle records rather than implement last year's changes only
serves to exacerbate our problems with an opt-in requirement.
After providing a brief background on the work of both the DAV and
the DMA's nonprofit council, I will explain: (1) how the DAV and other
nonprofits use motor vehicle information to most effectively tailor our
message in connection with fundraising efforts; and (2) the importance
of continued access to lists developed using certain demographic
information that is updated and corrected through the application of
motor vehicle record information.
THE DAV
The DAV is a membership service organization of more than one
million members with an additional 177,000 Women's Auxiliary. Founded
in 1920 and chartered by Act of Congress in 1932, DAV carries on
service programs primarily for the benefit of America's 2.3 million
disabled veterans and their dependents. These services, provided free
of charge to all veterans and their dependents, are totally funded by
contributions from a generous American public raised 100 percent
through the mail. Direct mail is the only medium through which we can
sustain our service programs--all others are not viable.
The DAV was founded on the principle that this nation's first duty
is to care for its wartime disabled veterans, their dependents, and
survivors. In fulfilling our mandate of service to America's service-
connected disabled veterans and their families, the DAV employs a corps
of 260 National Service Officers (NSOs), located throughout the
country. Last year, these men and women, all wartime service-connected
disabled veterans, represented almost a quarter of a million veterans
and their families in their claims for VA benefits, obtaining for them
more than $2.2 billion in new and retroactive benefits.
We are extremely proud of the services DAV volunteers provide to
our nation to assist it in fulfilling its mission to sick and disabled
veterans. Between October 1, 1998, and September 30, 1999, these men
and women continued to serve this great nation by providing more than
2.4 million hours of critical service to hospitalized veterans, saving
taxpayers more than $35 million in employee costs.
The DAV also employs 187 Hospital Service Coordinators at VA
facilities around the country to assist our nation's sick and disabled
veterans and their families. The DAV transportation program provides
essential transportation to and from VA health care facilities to those
veterans who could not otherwise access needed medical care. As of
September 30, 1999, DAV volunteer drivers transported more than half a
million veterans more than 19 million miles to and from VA medical
appointments during a 12-month period. From its inception in 1987, the
DAV's National Transportation Network logged in nearly 200 million
miles and transported almost five million veterans to VA health care
facilities. Since our transportation program began in 1987, DAV has
donated 890 vans at a cost of more than $17 million. This June, DAV
will donate an additional 102 vans at a cost of $2.4 million.
As you can see, as we have done for the past 80 years, the DAV
devotes its resources to the most needed and meaningful services for
our nation's disabled veterans. These services aid veterans directly
support and augment VA programs. We are able to do so only with the
continuing support of an American public that is grateful for all that
our veterans have done.
THE DMA NONPROFIT COUNCIL
The DAV is a member of The Direct Marketing Association. The DMA is
the largest trade association for organizations and businesses
interested in direct, database, and interactive marketing and
electronic commerce. The DMA represents more than 4,600 companies in
the United States and 54 foreign nations. Founded in 1917, its members
include direct marketers from more than 50 different industry segments,
as well as the non-profit sector.
As chairman of The DMA's Nonprofit Council, I preside over a body
that consists of 290 nonprofit organizations and their suppliers with
interests in raising funds through direct marketing. They include
organizations such as the National Easter Seals, Arthritis Foundation,
American Cancer Society, March of Dimes, Consumers Union, Special
Olympics, and Boystown, just to name a few. Our reliance upon lists and
databases to raise funds for our service programs is one of the things
that all of these non-profit organizations have in common. A good many
of these lists and databases are updated and corrected through the use
of motor vehicle records.
These nonprofit organizations are among the thousands of DMA
members who have signed on to the Privacy Promise. This initiative
requires that, as a condition of membership to The DMA, companies
participate in The DMA's mail and telephone preference services. These
services are offered free of charge to consumers, giving them the
ability to remove their names from the lists of national marketers,
substantially reducing their unsolicited commercial mail and telephone
marketing calls. Members must provide notice to consumers if they
transfer data to others and must provide the consumer with the ability
to opt out of such transfers.
THE SERVICE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OF AMERICA'S DISABLED VETERANS AND THEIR
DEPENDENTS ARE TOTALLY FUNDED BY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DIRECT MAIL
Last year DAV mailed 65 million fundraising solicitations which
grossed $98 million in charitable contributions and $2.9 million in
bequests, trusts, and gift annuities. This figure represents 83 percent
of DAV's total revenue from all sources including membership dues,
investment income, and sale of fraternal items. Of the 65 million
pieces mailed, 35 million were sent to DAV's 8 million active donors
and 30 million to outside mailing lists prospecting for new supporters
to DAV. Because we have an attrition rate of 20 percent each year, we
need to replace 1.6 million donors in order to maintain the active
donor file at its present level of 8 million.
As these figures attest, contributions from direct mailing
activities are critical to ensuring adequate funding to support our
service programs. The use of information from lists updated through the
use of motor vehicle records is instrumental to achieving our
fundraising goals, and to ensuring that we are able to continue to
provide our services.
ACCESS TO CERTAIN INFORMATION GLEANED FROM MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS IS
CRITICAL TO ENSURING THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF MANY NONPROFIT SERVICE
PROGRAMS THAT ARE DEPENDENT UPON DIRECT MAIL CONTRIBUTIONS
Although the DAV and other charities do not use driver's license
and motor vehicle information directly, the ability to access lists
from commercial databases with accurate and current information
revealing particular demographics is extremely important to the
nonprofit sector's fundraising efforts. Naturally, accurate name and
address information is important. But so is demographic data. Accurate
and complete data helps ensure that we direct our fundraising
solicitations to the members of the public most likely to respond to
them.
Motor vehicle record information is used in conjunction with other
demographic data to identify the characteristics that distinguish an
organization's best donor candidates. These characteristics are then
applied against outside lists for new donor acquisition mailings. This
is accomplished through predictive models and statistical regression
analysis which are commonly used on large direct response lists such as
Readers Digest subscription lists.
For example, our experiences indicate that age and income are two
of the most significant selection criteria in the use of outside lists.
The prime audience for most charities is the 50 years of age and older
market. Also, our supporters are typically middle income; high and low
income households have proven unproductive. Being able to identify
individuals that fall within these age and income categories helps to
ensure that our message is being most effectively communicated. List
owners rely substantially upon motor vehicle records because they are
excellent sources of both of these types of information.
Use of age information is also invaluable to fundraising efforts in
determining when to propose planned giving as a means of charitable
contribution. Our experience indicates that individuals over 70 years
of age respond at a much higher rate on Gift Annuity promotions. It is
most cost effective, therefore, to target this age range for this type
of fundraising solicitation. Similarly, age information is also an
accurate predictor of candidates likely to set up Charitable Remainder
Trusts. As a pre-retirement function, individuals who fall within the
early to mid-60's age range, often establish these trusts. Having
access to age information enables us to more effectively our efforts to
reach this segment of the population.
Through the use of this age information, the DAV and other
charitable organizations are able to expend their limited fundraising
resources in a cost effective manner by ensuring that we target our
solicitations at the most responsive audiences.
Certain financial information gleaned from motor vehicle
information also is important for fundraising associated with these
Charitable Remainder Trusts. Because these trusts typically involve
significant dollar amounts of $100,000 or more, the ability to target
more affluent individuals helps contribute to a better response rate.
Car model and year information have proven to be highly accurate
indicators of wealth information. Owners of late year model Cadillac,
Lincoln, Lexus, and BMW cars, in high income areas represent better
prospects for larger trusts. The ability to access this information
through the use of motor vehicle registration is thus an important tool
in these efforts.
Our discussion so far has focused upon solicitations from new
donors. But age and wealth information are also used to identify from
an organization's own donors those individuals who are the best
prospects for a ``planned gift'' (i.e., bequests, gift annuities, and
charitable remainder trusts). Organizations often overlay age
information from a database where age is derived from driver's license
information and wealth indicators where a part of the mathematical
equation is the make and year information from vehicle registration
information to help target their messages to the most responsive
audience.
Based upon studies that show that a majority of Americans do not
avail themselves of either opt outs or opt ins, we anticipate that last
year's opt-in requirement will result in far less information being
made available from motor vehicle records. This will make it more
difficult for us to obtain the highly reliable demographic information
available from motor vehicle records upon which we have come to rely,
and erode the quality of the lists upon which we rely upon for
fundraising. This in turn may require nonprofits and others to send
greater volumes of less targeted solicitations to compensate for the
loss of age and other predictor demographic data. This will raise our
costs and will result in more of our solicitations directed at the
wrong consumers. This, in turn, could adversely impact our ability to
provide our services.
I understand that many states may decide to cut off all marketing
uses of motor vehicle records rather than implement an opt in. This
will only serve to exacerbate our problems because it will block off
information from even those individuals who through an opt in would
agree to the use of the data in their motor vehicle records for
solicitation purposes.
CONCLUSION
The future success of our fundraising efforts depends, in large
part, on continued access to information in the motor vehicle records.
Requiring an opt-in for use of motor vehicle information potentially
threatens the ability of charitable organizations to raise the sums
they need to continue to provide the services that they have
traditionally offered. Total cut off of all marketing uses of motor
vehicle records would only exacerbate the difficulties we will have in
obtaining lists that contain data derived from motor vehicle records.
______
Prepared Statement of Financial Services, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Charles W. Taylor,
President of Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a www.vidnet.org. Thank you
for this opportunity to present our statement in support of the Video
Conferencing and Telecommuting in the 21st Century--Test and
Evaluation, proposed for the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).
I want to share with you our thoughts about an undertaking that can
produce significant savings in USDOT travel expenses, traffic
congestion relief, improvements in public safety, as well as contribute
to the economic future and quality of life for federal employees and
the public of our region and nation.
Significant improvements this past summer and fall in video
conferencing--telecommuting, and distance learning technology have been
made, particularly with the user interface and ease of connection,
which now make it possible for just about anyone to use this
technology. Cost wise, on the low end, a desktop or laptop personal
computer (PC) can be video conference--telecommute enabled for less
than $100, bringing the user cost within the reach of just about
everyone.
My technology will allow each user to easily see, talk with,
collaborate, and share data in real time with up to a dozen other
people, or more, at the same time on their own video conference--
telecommute enabled desktop/laptop PC, from their offices, homes, or
where ever, regardless of their location, worldwide via network,
Internet, or both, essentially by clicking on a web page link.
My proposal is to equip and enable a minimum of 1,000 USDOT desktop
and/or laptop PC's for high quality video conferencing and
telecommuting capability. The cost to enable video conference/
telecommute capability per desktop/laptop PC is expected to be between
$100.00 and about $400.00 each, depending on user preferences, quality
of service needs, and USDOT system requirements. The system proposed
includes desktop/laptop PC software, color digital PC cameras, PC
telephony devices (i.e. microphones or headsets), servers, server
software, and could enable IP broadcast capability to a USDOT web page,
if desired, on an internal or external, secure, USDOT network.
According to an analysis I completed earlier this year, assuming a
2 hour round trip commute, telecommuting only one day per week would
save a worker about 100 hours on the road, and about $250.00 in out of
pocket travel expenses over a year's time. A recent study by MCI-
Worldcom, ``Meetings in America,'' suggests that for an average
business meeting, an employer would save over $1,000.00 per employee,
per meeting, if the employee used video conferencing instead of the
traditional face to face--travel and time intensive method. In
addition, according to the study, the employer would recoup more than
12 hours in lost productivity per employee, per meeting due to meeting
travel and preparation time savings. On an annual basis, video
conferencing has demonstrated a cost benefit ratio of about 4 to 1.
In addition, low cost desktop video conferencing has particular
mobility implications for our elderly, homebound, travel limited, and
isolated persons. This new technology now makes it possible to see,
hear and talk with a dozen other people, or more, share text and data,
and collaborate on projects with business associates, neighbors,
friends, and relatives . . . or take a course at a world class
university . . . without leaving the home, or from any location
worldwide.
For our men and women in uniform, who must spend months away at sea
and in foreign lands defending our freedoms, they will now be able to
see, hear, talk with, and visit with their loved ones, friends, and
relatives, no matter where they are. They deserve no less.
My technology is proven. In fact, the proposed server software was
recently selected as part of the US Army's--First Data Division--
command and control communication system upgrade for it's superior
performance, lip sync quality, and ability to link servers for world
wide connectivity.
The Internet is no longer faceless, nor silent.
Given the high cost of fuel, horrific traffic congestion, and
extraordinary travel costs, it seems to me that it is long past time to
consider proven, cost effective technologies as part of the
transportation solution.
Secretary Slater has said that transportation is more than
``asphalt, concrete, and steel.'' We've talked the talk. It's time to
walk the walk.
The attached materials describe systems proposed. Additional
information is available on my website: WWW.VIDNET.ORG.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas
INTRODUCTION
This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Electric Vehicle
Association of the Americas (EVAA or Association), a national non-
profit organization of electric utilities, automobile manufacturers,
state and local governments and other entities that have joined
together to advocate greater use of electricity as a transportation
fuel. A membership list is attached.
THE ROLE OF ELECTRICITY IN THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The Association believes that utilization of electricity offers
significant advantages in transportation applications. Electric
transportation technologies present our nation with an important means
for reducing our dependency on foreign petroleum and increasing the
diversity of fuels relied upon in the transportation sector. During the
last gasoline price and availability crisis in 1973, the United States
was only 36 percent dependent on imported oil. Today, the U.S.
Department of Energy reports that net imports of petroleum in the year
2000 will account for 52 percent of total U.S. petroleum demand.
Clearly the need for this country to transition to the use of
alternative fuels is more critical than ever. According to the Energy
Information Administration (EIA), crude oil prices have pushed regular
gasoline prices to $1.50 per gallon, the highest level in nominal terms
since 1981. (In fact, EIA predicts that average retail gasoline prices
could reach a monthly average of $1.75-$1.80 per gallon some time
during the summer peak driving season.) A wide variety of
transportation modes--individual passenger and light-duty vehicles;
heavy-duty vehicles, like buses and trolleys; light rail; commuter
rail; maglev technologies, high speed rail; and heavy rail services--
can be powered by electricity--an abundant, clean, and domestically
produced energy resource generated from a variety of sources. All of
these technologies will reduce pollution, reduce our dependency on
imported oil, and improve the quality of life in many of our cities and
towns, while maintaining our high degree of mobility.
In addition to diversifying sources of transportation ``fuels'',
air quality considerations also are requiring municipal transit
operators to consider the use of alternative fuel technologies as a
means to reduce emissions and achieve air quality goals. For many urban
areas, electric transportation may be a particularly important means to
substantially reduce emissions of mobile source pollutants, including
volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen, that are the
precursors of smog. Electric vehicles, electric buses and maglev
technologies are truly ``zero emission'' transportation modes in
operation. They produce no tailpipe emissions and generate
insignificant emissions during operations. They also have the benefit
of being very quiet and energy efficient.
FEDERAL PROGRAM TO SHOWCASE ELECTRICITY AS THE 21ST CENTURY INTERMODAL
FUEL
The EVAA supports the establishment of a significant federal
program to demonstrate the environmental, energy security and economic
benefits of alternatively fueled, intermodal transportation networks in
our nation's urban centers. Vehicular traffic in ``center city rings''
has become a significant environmental and transportation problem not
just in the U.S., but around the world. Global trends toward increased
urbanization mean that current problems associated with transporting
people and goods will worsen. In Europe, Mexico and parts of Asia,
cities are imposing drastic measures; closing center city rings to all
vehicular traffic and/or imposing ``no drive'' days. In the U.S. local
officials and transportation authorities are examining various means to
relieve congestion, reduce emissions and noise from the transportation
sector, while still assuring urban residents and commuters convenient
and ready mobility.
The Association believes an industry and government partnership
should be created to demonstrate that people and goods in urban areas
can be moved cleanly, quietly and efficiently without using petroleum.
To demonstrate the versatility of electricity, and more importantly, to
focus upon alternative clean, efficient mechanisms to quickly move
people and goods in our country's urban centers, the EVAA recommends
the authorization and funding of a nationwide intermodal transportation
program. This national effort should be designed to demonstrate the
environmental, energy security and economic benefits of creating
electric-powered intermodal transportation networks in urban centers.
Such a program would provide highly visible ways to demonstrate
emerging technologies; evidence the value of electric-powered
transportation options in creating ``livable communities''; address
urban sprawl; and, encourage sustainable development and ``smart
growth''. Examples of model projects could include the use of electric
bikes and neighborhood electric vehicles by police and/or parking
enforcement officials; the use of electric/hybrid electric buses for
mass transit; EV ``station car'' connections to electric commuter rail;
and/or the use of electric ground support vehicles, shuttle buses and/
or EV rental car demonstrations at airports.
As envisioned, the proposed program would encourage energy
diversity by showcasing a variety of transportation modes in several
demonstration projects around the U.S. Such a program also would
further determine the best applications for many of these emerging
clean technologies. The demonstration program also would support the
increased development/use of supporting infrastructure which will
assist communities both in the near and long-term as they continue to
transition to the use of clean, alternative transportation modes.
evaa supports the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the cmaq program
AND THE CLEAN FUELS FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM
It is vitally important to fund transit programs, which encourage
innovative technological development with regard to electric, hybrid-
electric and fuel cell transportation applications. Therefore, the
Association urges funding--to the fullest extent authorized under the
Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21)--of public
transit programs. In particular, the Association encourages funding for
the following:
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
The CMAQ program provides critical funding for projects and
programs that reduce transportation-related emissions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas. EVAA encourages DOT to give priority to those
projects that have the greatest positive impact on air quality. An
important dimension to the CMAQ program is the Public/Private
Partnership Program that provides a mechanism through which the private
sector may access CMAQ funding. The Association is supportive of full
funding for the CMAQ program.
Clean Fuels Program
In TEA-21, Congress authorized a $60 million electric and hybrid
electric bus deployment program as part of the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) Clean Fuels Formula Grants program. During the
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 appropriations processes, funding
for the Clean Fuels program was merged with funding for the bus and
bus-related facilities program. Combining these programs allowed
Congress, during the appropriations process, to substantially increase
the pool of authorized funds that could then be designated to specific
projects. The Association encourages the Committee to appropriate
funds, as authorized, for the conduct of competitive solicitations to
test and demonstrate electric and hybrid electric buses.
The EVAA also believes that it is important for the Federal Transit
Administration to issue guidance on the implementation of the Clean
Fuels Program. The issuance of guidance documents would help to focus
attention on the jeopardy to technology development if projects are
designated specifically for funding and then implemented without regard
to standards, common goals or technology transfer.
CONCLUSION
The Association appreciates the opportunity to make its concerns
known to the Subcommittee and to submit for the record its funding
priorities for the upcoming fiscal year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark
County, Nevada
INTRODUCTION
The Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada
(RTC) is pleased to have the opportunity to submit this testimony to
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in support of our fiscal
year 2001 funding requests.
The RTC is a public entity created under the laws of the State of
Nevada with the authority to operate a public transit system and
administer a motor fuels tax to finance regional street and highway
improvements. In addition, the RTC is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the Las Vegas Valley. As the public transit
provider, the RTC operates Citizens Area Transit (CAT), a mass transit
system that now carries more than 51.6 million annual passengers and
recovers nearly 50 percent of its operating and maintenance costs from
the farebox.
COMMUNITY
The Las Vegas community is currently home to over 1.3 million
permanent residents. With 17 of the world's largest resort hotels
adding over 32 million annual visitors, the actual population of Las
Vegas on any given day exceeds 1.5 million persons. Meanwhile, the Las
Vegas metropolitan area continues to experience explosive growth. The
economy of the Las Vegas Valley is characterized by a favorable
business environment, a strong job market, an absence of a business and
personal income tax, and a comparatively low property tax by national
standards. This environment has fostered an era of extraordinary growth
that, since 1990, has fueled the creation of over 175,000 new jobs and
has witnessed the influx of over 500,000 new residents to the valley.
Current projections indicate that population and employment will
continue to increase, exceeding 2.1 million residents and over 1
million jobs by the year 2020. Ensuring adequate mobility is essential
to maintaining a superior quality of life for residents and a pleasant
visitor experience.
CITIZENS AREA TRANSIT
Citizens Area Transit (CAT) began service on December 5, 1992. At
that time, CAT represented the largest single start-up of new bus
service in North America. Annual CAT ridership has grown from 14.9
million riders in 1993 to over 51.6 million riders in 1999; a growth
rate of over 246 percent in only 7 years, catapulting CAT to the 25th
largest bus system in the nation. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city
in the United States, but the CAT system is growing at a rate faster
than any other local economic indicators, including population,
employment, hotel rooms, visitor volumes, airport passengers, vehicle
miles traveled, and auto registrations.
With 42 routes operating throughout the greater Las Vegas Valley,
as well as routes in the rural communities of Laughlin and Mesquite,
Nevada, CAT is now servicing over 4.5 million passengers per month.
While the CAT routes operating along the high-profile Las Vegas
Boulevard provide service to up to 900,000 passengers per month, these
routes account for only 25 percent of the total monthly ridership.
Clearly, many Las Vegas residents rely heavily on the CAT system to get
to work, school, shopping, medical services and recreational
facilities. Providing mass transit services throughout the Las Vegas
Valley, CAT has become essential to the fabric of the Las Vegas
community.
To address the ever increasing demand for transit services, the RTC
has continually increased bus service. Since startup, total annual
hours of revenue service have almost doubled, from 585,134 hours in
1993 to over 1.1 million hours in 1999. Similarly, annual vehicle miles
have also doubled; from 6,384,660 miles in 1993 to over 14,500,000
miles in 1999. In addition, the CAT system has continued to
successfully increase ridership while remaining operationally
efficient. Costs per passenger have dropped consistently since startup,
to approximately $1.29 per passenger. In 1997, CAT was recognized by
the American Public Transit Association (APTA) as the winner of the
Outstanding Achievement Award--Bus System of the Year for the 151-600
bus category. In 1998, and again in 1999, APTA again recognized the CAT
system by awarding it the William T. Coleman Silver Safety Award for
outstanding performance in traffic and passenger safety. For the past
four years, the annual University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Comparative Performance Report has also recognized CAT as one of the
nation's top bus systems in terms of system performance.
Although the CAT system has doubled service availability since
startup, the demands for even more service continue to escalate. The
urban boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley continue to push in all
directions, creating new areas of growth and transit demand. In
addition to under served areas, the frequency of service on most
existing routes serving the residential base of the valley is
substantially less then desired. The single largest constraint faced by
the RTC to providing more service continues to be fleet availability.
When compared to other peer cities, CAT transports up to 3 times the
number of passengers per vehicle.
BUS PASSENGER FACILITIES (HENDERSON INTERMODAL FACILITY)
The RTC is requesting $6 million in Section 5309 bus discretionary
funds for land acquisition and facility construction for an Intermodal
facility located in Henderson, Nevada.
With over 51.6 million annual passengers using the CAT system,
passenger comfort and convenience are essential components to
maintaining transit's viability as an alternative mode of
transportation. To enhance customer amenities and facilitate transfers
between routes, the RTC plans to build a network of terminal/transfer
facilities throughout the Las Vegas Valley. These facilities will
provide locations where passengers have the opportunity to easily
transfer between routes, passengers have shelter from the elements, and
coach operators have access to necessary amenities. In addition,
terminal/transfer facilities will provide opportunities for a
reasonable interface between fixed route and paratransit services. In
addition to the Downtown Transportation Center (DTC), the RTC is in the
process of siting a second terminal transfer facility at the southern
end of the Las Vegas Strip. An Environmental Analysis has been
performed on the South Strip site and RTC has received a Finding Of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) on the site. RTC is now engaged in the land
acquisition process and will soon be moving forward with final site
design and construction.
In the southeast area of the Las Vegas Valley, five CAT routes
provide services in the Henderson area. Until recently, these five
routes utilized private property belonging to a local casino as a ``de
facto'' terminal area. However, new ownership at the property recently
refused CAT's continued use of the property. Currently, the five CAT
routes are now using on street parking as a layover/transfer area, with
no nearby amenities or facilities. Clearly, a dedicated facility in the
Henderson area has become a priority for CAT services.
RTC has issued an RFP for consulting services to locate an
appropriate site for a dedicated CAT terminal in Henderson, as well as
to perform all necessary environmental analysis. By the end of calendar
year 2000, a preferred site will be identified. Acquisition and
construction funding will allow RTC to proceed with this project as
expediently as possible.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
The RTC also requests $7 million in Section 5309 bus discretionary
or Research and Technology funds for the implementation of a Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) project in the Las Vegas Valley.
Overall ridership on CAT has increased by over 246 percent since
its inception in 1992 and some CAT routes have shown even greater
increases, operating in excess of 200 percent of available capacity.
This significant ridership demand, coupled with the unique Las Vegas
environment and climate, create a distinct opportunity for the
implementation of new bus technologies and transit services.
The RTC is interested in the use of new and innovative technologies
to improve capacity, increase efficiency, and meet the ever increasing
needs for mass transit in the Las Vegas Valley. Toward this end, the
RTC is beginning the process of planning for the deployment of new Bus
Rapid Transit services. Specifically, RTC is developing operational
plans to deploy a high capacity vehicle with low floor accessibility,
perimeter seating, and off vehicle fare collection. In addition, RTC is
focusing on emerging technologies that utilize alternate fuels and
provide opportunities to reduce roadway spaces and minimize costly
traffic engineering improvements. From a research perspective, the most
significant element of the BRT project is the potential usage of an
automated guidance system. This guidance system will assist coach
operators in the approach to a bus stop and aligning the actual
stopping point of the vehicle at the bus stop. The service advantages
of such a system in BRT operations include maintaining close curb
distances, ensuring that vehicle doors are aligned with loading/exiting
areas, and eliminating gaps between the vehicle and the platform
stopping area.
The development of a reserved right of way for bus rapid transit
technologies is a new concept for the Las Vegas Valley. Las Vegas Blvd
North has been identified for the project due to the high demand for
transit in this corridor, the available right of way, as well as the
ability to determine the impacts of the reserved lane on automotive
traffic. In fact, CAT route 113 which serves Las Vegas Blvd North is a
key link in getting workers to the new jobs being generated in the
rapidly growing resort industry.
FLEET EXPANSION--CLEAN FUEL VEHICLES
The RTC requests the sum of $6 million in Section 5309 bus
discretionary funds or Clean Fuels program funds for the purchase of 25
CNG powered 40 foot vehicles to be dedicated to fixed route service.
The CAT fleet consists of 297 fixed route vehicles and 120 CNG powered
Paratransit vehicles. In its role as the MPO and transit operator, the
RTC is constantly promoting additional methods to help improve air
quality. When CAT paratransit services were initiated in December 1994,
the RTC mandated the entire paratransit fleet use an alternative fuel.
As a result, the RTC is currently the largest single sponsor of an
alternative fuel fleet in the State of Nevada. The RTC directly
contracts with a CNG wholesaler for the purchase of CNG fuel at the
lowest possible cost.
In 1999, the CAT fixed route fleet provided over 14,500,000 miles
of revenue service throughout the Las Vegas Valley. The fixed route
fleet currently provides almost double the operating miles per vehicle
than most other transit agencies. In addition to the need for vehicles
for fleet expansion, RTC aims to diversify the fixed route fleet to
also include alternative fueled vehicles.
FIXED GUIDEWAY
The RTC is requesting $2.5 million in Section 5309 new starts
funding for continuing environmental studies and engineering for the
Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway project. During the past year, the RTC
continued to engage in project definition activities, technical studies
in support of an environmental document, and preliminary engineering
activities. Most notably, the RTC adopted a Financial Plan that
utilizes STP and CMAQ funds, and capitalizes on local private equity
investments and the expected substantial ridership levels and revenues.
CONCLUSION
The Subcommittee has been very helpful in the past in recognizing
the ever increasing transit needs in Clark County. Consistent with that
past history, the RTC requests that the Subcommittee give positive
consideration to the projects described in this testimony.
Specifically, the RTC requests funding from Section 5309 in the amount
of $6 million for Bus Passenger Facilities; $7 million for a Bus Rapid
Transit emerging technology project, $6 million for transit bus
alternative fuel fleet expansion, and $2.5 million for continuing
activities related to the Resort Corridor fixed guideway project. As
shown in this testimony, these projects are indispensable to the
comprehensive development of an integrated intermodal transportation
system capable of meeting the needs of the fastest growing city in the
United States.
______
Prepared Statement of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority
Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Phil Gramm jointly submit this
written testimony on behalf of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
Authority. It is indeed a pleasure to reaffirm our support of DART and
to recommend to the Subcommittee their fiscal year 2001 appropriation
request of $100 million for the North Central Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Extension, purchase of transit buses, aquisition of property for the
Southeast Corridor, and DART's ITS Program. The request is for
inclusion in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal
Highway Administration Intelligent Transportation Systems portion of
the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
budget.
For fiscal year 2001, DART is requesting from the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) discretionary funding program, $70 million for the
North Central Light Rail Transit (LRT) Extension, which is an
installment of the $333 million Federal Share for the North Central
Corridor Full Funding Grant Agreement between DART and FTA. The $70
million of New Start funds will be dedicated to the North Central LRT
Extension of the 20-mile DART LRT Starter System. The funds will be
used totally for construction elements, light rail vehicles, and real
estate. Completion of the 12-mile North Central LRT Extension and the
companion 12-mile Northeast LRT Extension (100 percent local funds)
will more than double light rail coverage, to 44 miles, and penetrate
the DART suburban cities of Richardson, Plano, and Garland.
DART is requesting $10 million in FTA capital funds for the
purchase of transit buses. DART's Business Plan approves the multi-year
replacement of 740 buses under three contracts. The first contract has
been awarded for 489 buses which are currently being delivered to DART.
In fiscal year 2000, two additional contracts will be awarded for the
remaining 251 buses with deliveries in fiscal year 2001. The $10
million appropriation will be immediately obligated and expended for
the fiscal year 2001 bus deliveries.
Nine stations are planned for the Southeast Corridor of DART's LRT
System Project, seven of which will require the acquisition of
additional real estate in order to provide for patron parking areas
and/or busbays. The acquisition of this real estate is estimated to
cost approximately $10 million. DART is requesting $10 million for
property acquisition.
DART's approved Transit System Plan calls for deployment of
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). DART is requesting $10
million from the Federal Highway Administration Intelligent
Transportation Systems funding program.
WHY THE SUBCOMMITTEE SHOULD APPROPRIATE $100 MILLION TO DART
Full Funding Grant Agreement Approved.
--DART and FTA agreed on a $333 million Federal Share for the North
Central Corridor.
--The President's fiscal year 2001 FTA budget contains a line item of
$70 million for the North Central Corridor, which is an
installment of the $333 million Federal Share for the North
Central Corridor Full Funding Grant Agreement between DART and
FTA.
The North Central LRT Extension is under construction.
--The $70 million is needed immediately to meet cash flow
requirements for contracts authorized under a FTA Letter of No
Prejudice (LONP).
--DART has already awarded contracts totaling more than $298 million
for the NC-3 Line Section, 21 new light rail vehicles, real
estate, welded rail and fasteners, special trackwork, the
vehicle maintenance facility, and yard expansion.
--By the end of fiscal year 2000, virtually all the contracts, valued
at close to $1 billion for both the North Central and Northeast
(100 percent local funds) LRT Extensions will have been
awarded.
DART initiated construction before executing the Full Funding Grant
Agreement because of a citizen-approved sales tax.
--The citizens of the DART service area in 1983 voted to impose a 1
percent sales tax dedicated to DART for public transit.
--A total of $3.18 billion has been collected through December 31,
1999, with $332.7 million received in fiscal year 1999.
--DART uses sales tax receipts and short-term borrowing to finance
the initiation of construction; but, The timely receipt of
federal funds is critical to repaying these short-term notes
and minimizing the additional expenses associated with
borrowing funds before receipt of the federal funds.
DART continues to overmatch.
--The $860 million LRT Starter system was financed with 19 percent
($160 million) federal and 81 percent ($700 million) local DART
funds.
--The combined $992 million construction cost of the two LRT
extensions continues DART's philosophy of providing a
substantial local overmatch, as was done on the LRT Starter
System.
--DART local funds ($659 million) represent 66 percent of the total
project cost, with federal discretionary new start funds
accounting for just $333 million (34 percent).
Solid elected official and business support.
--Richardson Mayor Gary Slagel, Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Mary Poss, and
several business executives DART member cities have met with
most of the Delegation Members to voice their strong support
for the investment DART is making to bring major mobility
improvements to North Texas.
--DART member cities and service area chambers of commerce have shown
their support by writing letters and passing supporting
resolutions.
--DART, the City of Richardson, Hunt Petroleum, and Northern Telecom
are incorporating a rail transit plaza in the Galatyn Park
expansion of the Telecom Corridor.
DART is an economic engine to North Texas and the state.
--DART is providing a hefty boost to the North Texas and state
economies, with a total regional impact estimated at $3.7
billion and more than 32,000 jobs through 2003.
--The new study prepared by the Center for Economic Development and
Research at the University of North Texas looks at three
separate DART economic engines: the current $1 billion light
rail expansion, other capital projects, and ongoing DART
operations.
DART rail boosts property values and retail sales.
--Values of property near DART light rail stations are 25 percent
higher than for similar properties not served by the growing
rail system, according to a new study. DART has also helped
occupancies and retail sales, especially in Downtown Dallas.
The LRT Starter System was built on time and within budget.
--DART has shown that it can capably manage a large, multi-million
dollar project, keep it on schedule and within budget through
strong project management and strict cost control.
--DART has proven to be a cost-effective manager of both local and
limited federal funds through conservative financial policies
instituted and approved by the DART Board.
Since the opening of Light Rail in June 1996, private developers
have invested more than $800 million of private funds along the 20-mile
Light Rail System.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Major Accomplishments
DART operates a highly successful 20-mile light rail transit system
within Dallas, and a 10-mile commuter rail line between Dallas and
Irving. In addition to the rail services, DART operates a variety of
transportation alternatives including high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes, 130 bus routes, paratransit services for the mobility impaired,
rideshare programs and corporate trip-reduction programs. These multi-
modal systems are the result of thorough corridor planning and
implementing the right mode to match the corridor characteristic and
ridership. A mix of high capacity systems is being implemented and
operated in the Dallas area. This mix includes HOV lanes that are
planned, designed, built, and operated in partnership with the Texas
Department of Transportation.
Exceeding Expectations
DART's new LRT and commuter rail services are generating ridership
well beyond initial projections, with more than 41,000 passengers per
day. DART rail is generating extensive economic development around
stations and along rail corridors as it increases mobility choices for
workers. Consequently, business and community leaders are actively
supporting efforts to expand the rail system in a timely manner, in
accordance with the DART Transit System Plan. The citizens of North
Texas are eager for DART to complete these major transportation
projects in a timely and fiscally responsible fashion.
DART Rail Generates Major Real Estate Impact
The investment in DART is paying off. Through early 2000, more than
$800 million in private funds has been invested in development along
DART's $860 million, 20-mile Light Rail Starter System. Throughout the
DART Service Area, investors and developers are following DART rail
lines for the fastest track to successful developments.
DART is an economic engine to North Texas and the State of Texas
According to a February 1999 study prepared by the Center for
Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas,
DART is providing a hefty boost to the North Texas and state economies,
with a total regional impact estimated at $3.7 billion and more than
32,000 jobs through 2003. The study looks at three separate DART
economic engines: the current $1 billion light rail expansion, other
capital projects, and ongoing DART operations. Quoting from the study,
``By any measure, DART is a key economic engine for the North Texas
region, generating jobs and economic activity just in the amount of
money it spends on building new facilities and operating activities. If
we factored in the benefits DART brings by providing inexpensive
transportation to work and improved traffic and air quality, the number
would be even higher.''
Miles to Go
DART's Transit System Plan calls for the development of 93 miles of
light rail, 22 miles of commuter rail, and 110 miles of HOV lanes. The
Financial Plan portion of the fiscal year 1999 Business Plan projects
the sources and uses of funds for DART's projects through the next 20
years. The Financial Plan projects $7.3 billion in locally funded
operating expenses and a total of $4.6 billion in capital costs.
Because of DART's one-cent sales tax, it has been Board policy to use
the local funds for transit operations and DART has never sought or
received Federal operating assistance. Therefore, federal funding
accounts for only 19 percent of capital investments and 9 percent of
overall expenditures.
CONCLUSION
The citizens of the DART service area have invested their sales tax
dollars to implement the Transit System Plan. The $100 million request
is realistic based on the Board-approved DART fiscal year 1999 Business
Plan, which also has been examined by many of the finance directors of
DART's member cities.
As the Subcommittee deliberates the hundreds of funding requests,
remember:
--DART and FTA agreed on a $333 million Federal Share for the North
Central Corridor.
--The North Central LRT Extension is under construction.
--$298 million in contracts have been awarded.
--DART initiated construction before executing the Full Funding Grant
Agreement, because of sales tax revenues.
--DART continues to overmatch (66 percent local, 34 percent federal).
--There is solid elected official and business support.
--DART is an economic engine to North Texas and the State of Texas.
--The LRT Starter System was built on-time and within budget.
These are very compelling reasons to honor DART's $100 million
request that has our complete support. We urge your endorsement of
DART's fiscal year 2001 funding request of $100 million in order to
keep the momentum we have collectively gained. DART is planning,
building, and operating transportation services now for the future
mobility of the region.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
and the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD)
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate this
opportunity to submit written testimony, as prepared by the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Denver Regional
Transportation District (RTD), to discuss important transportation
issues in the Denver metro area. It is with pleasure that we present to
you our fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriation needs.
First, we want to thank you for the subcommittee's continued
support for the Denver Regional Transportation District's Southwest
Corridor Light Rail Project. The project is scheduled to open July
2000. Its Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) requires a final
appropriation of $20.4 million to complete the project's federal
funding, and we would urge you to provide these remaining funds. It is
a project that is on time and on budget.
Second, we are grateful for the $2.94 million in funding you
provided in fiscal year 2000 for the Southeast Corridor. These funds
were used for preliminary engineering. An appropriation of $63 million
is requested for the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project for fiscal
year 2001. The Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project team is working
aggressively to meet project readiness criteria, as established by the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), so that an approval of the FFGA
can be accomplished by the summer of 2000.
The $63 million requested in fiscal year 2001 for the Southeast
Corridor Multi-Modal Project light rail transit line will cover
critical right-of-way acquisitions, early utility relocation, and
critical items for federal funding. Last November, voters
overwhelmingly approved both state and local bond initiatives to
provide local funding for the multi-modal project to decrease traffic
congestion on Denver's transportation system.
There are two elements to this multi-modal project--highway and
transit. The highway element of the project will include additional
lanes and safety single project, single design and single construction
improvements. The project will also include 19 miles of new double-
track light rail which will run on the west side of Interstate 25 for
15 miles from the existing Broadway station in Denver to Lincoln Avenue
in Douglas County and within the median of Interstate 225 for four
miles from Interstate 25 to Parker Road.
The Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project connects the two largest
employment centers in the region and the State. Together the Denver
Central Business District and the Southeast Business District employees
over 230,000 people. The Southeast Business District alone generates 25
percent of the annual sales revenue of the State.
The Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project is a joint effort and
partnership of four agencies. Interagency agreements are in place
between CDOT, RTD and additionally between the Federal Transit
Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. It is a single
design and single construction of both highway and transit. We are
working cooperatively and collaboratively together on a ``ONE DOT''
approach to ensure that we deliver this project on time and within
budget.
Completion of the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project is vital
in helping Colorado address the challenges we face from rapid growth.
Moving forward with the Multi-Modal Project will go a long way in
demonstrating the Federal Government's commitment and support for
communities that look toward the future in meeting the long-term
mobility needs for the people of Colorado. We seek your support for our
fiscal year 2001 Appropriation Requests of $20.4 million to complete
our FFGA for the Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project and $63 million
for the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we thank you for this
opportunity to provide you with this written testimony regarding these
significant Colorado transportation projects.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chatham Area Transit Authority
Mr. Chairman and Member of the Subcommittee, on behalf of Chatham
Area Transit Authority (CAT), I appreciate the opportunity to present
this statement in the hearing record for outside witnesses.
First I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the funds provided
over the past four years for CAT's transit needs. CAT officials and
riders sincerely appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
At this point, it is anticipated that CAT will obligate the bulk of
prior year appropriations before the end of this calendar year.
For fiscal year 2001, CAT is requesting $8 million for (1)
Renovation and refurbishment of CAT's existing administrative and
service/repair facility ($1,000,000); and (2) Desperately needed bus
replacement funds ($7 million). In addition, CAT requests that $750,000
be allocated to the CAT system under the Access to Jobs provisions of
the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations Bill. Each component
is discussed below.
CENTRAL FACILITY REPAIR
The CAT central facility, which houses both administrative offices
and our bus repair and service functions, is in desperate need of
renovation and refurbishment. The facility has not received any major
improvements since CAT began operating from this location in 1984. The
needed improvements include the following: Safety and Code
improvements; Lighting and security improvements; Utilities upgrades
(water and natural gas); Pavement repairs; Improved operational
sequence; Drainage improvements; and Roof repairs.
BUS REPLACEMENT
Currently over half of CAT's bus fleet have accumulated over
500,000 miles per vehicle. This puts these buses beyond their useful
and designed life. None of the buses that require replacement meet the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The fiscal
year 2000 Appropriations of $2.5 million for the beginning of CAT's bus
replacement needs will permit less than 50 percent of the replacement
goal to be met. As each year passes, the percentage of CAT's bus fleet
that becomes outmoded increases significantly. The total funding needed
to replace these buses is now in excess of $12 million. CAT is seeking
$7 million of the total need in fiscal year 2001. Without this infusion
of additional funds for escalating bus replacement needs, CAT will (1)
fall behind capability to deliver existing service to our riders, much
less meet the growing ridership demand we have been experiencing for
the past three years, and (2) fail to provide service required under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
ACCESS TO JOBS
CAT provides transportation to and from work for a large segment of
the service area. The use of mass transit for these purposes makes CAT
eligible for additional funding under the Job Access funding category.
In prior years, this category had been available on an application
basis. Recently, only those systems identified in the appropriations
conference agreements have been recipients of these funds. In fiscal
year 1999, CAT received a competitive grant for access to jobs. These
funds are used under a public/private partnership to provide
transportation to CAT riders traveling to and from work. These funds
will expire soon, and the community has expressed its desire to
maintain this program. CAT requests that $750,000 be identified for CAT
in this funding category for fiscal year 2001.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present CAT's needs
before your Subcommittee. CAT's Board and I thank you for your efforts
on CAT's behalf last year. We earnestly and sincerely request that you
consider carefully CAT's defensible and justifiable request for $8
million for buses and bus related facilities, and $750,000 for Access
to Jobs from the Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2001.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
Mr. chairman and members of the Transportation subcommittee: On
behalf of Miami Beach, I thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony to the subcommittee.
The City respectfully submits a transportation-related project for
a discretionary earmark through the Federal Transit Administration,
within the fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriations bill. The
City-proposed earmark of ten million dollars will be used toward the
construction of a storage and maintenance facility/intermodal transit
station that will support the existing and future electric shuttle
service, known as the electrowave. FTA funds may also be used for
right-of-way acquisition, if needed.
Miami Beach is internationally known as a major tourist and
convention destination, as well as a successful and economically
healthy island community--which is undergoing a true renaissance. This
renaissance, however, has also brought congestion to our limited
roadway system. The City's response to the increasing congestion
problem is the provision of a reliable and attractive public transit
option, the Electrowave Shuttle Service. The existing shuttle route has
been operated by a fleet of seven (7) vehicles, carrying over 2.5
million passengers in two years of service. Its success is undeniable
and unprecedented.
This fleet will soon grow to eleven (11) vehicles, allowing for the
operation of an enhanced route that will extend service to the hotel
area of Miami Beach, which has over 20,000 rooms. However, eleven (11)
vehicles is the maximum number that the existing shuttle facility can
accommodate and maintain. If the Electrowave Service is to expand
further and accomplish its mission of reducing congestion citywide, it
is essential that a permanent facility be constructed to accommodate,
at a minimum, a fleet of twenty (20) vehicles.
The intermodal station component of this project will function as a
transportation collector for the area, where commuters and visitors
will have access to an information center, and to local and regional
transit services. Pending lot size and location, the facility will also
accommodate parking that will support a park-and-ride program. the
park-and-ride concept was proved successful during the millennium
celebrations, carrying 17,200 customers over the holiday weekend.
The City is conducting a site selection study for this shuttle
facility/transit station project, which will also explore the potential
for on-site economic development and joint mixed-use opportunities.
The electrowave is included in the five-year transportation
improvement program of Miami-Dade County, and has the financial support
of the City of Miami Beach, the Florida Department of Transportation,
the FTA/Miami-Dade Transit Agency, the Metropolitan Planning
Organization, the Florida Power & Light Company, and other clean air
and energy agencies.
A $10 million, fiscal year 2001 discretionary FTA fund earmark
toward the shuttle facility/transit center project is critical to the
long-term effectiveness of the electrowave program, and to the
continued attractiveness and economic vitality of a 21st century Miami
Beach.
Your consideration is sincerely appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Newark, New Jersey
Chairman Shelby and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
giving me the opportunity to present testimony on projects within your
jurisdiction which are critical to the people of Newark, New Jersey and
the surrounding region. The support of this Committee has been critical
in the past, and we wholeheartedly thank you for your aid to projects
that have truly impacted on the people of Newark and our economy.
Newark's transportation infrastructure needs are critical to enabling
us to maintain our position as a regional center for commerce,
government and entertainment.
Newark is truly at a crossroads: we are a City with all of the
problems of many major urban centers, but we are also a City with vast
potential, and there is a renewed vitality and sense of optimism in
Newark. As the physical crossroads of the Northeast Corridor, the
future economic viability of Newark is inextricably dependent upon the
continued modernization and expansion of our intermodal transportation
system. Improvements to our roadway network, our rail system, and our
port and airport facilities will directly translate into jobs and
economic prosperity for our City, State and Region.
The construction of major new facilities, including the three year
old New Jersey Performing Arts Center, our minor league baseball
stadium which opened last summer, and the Joseph G. Minish Passaic
Riverfront Park and Historic Area--on which the Army Corps of Engineers
has begun construction--are all related to the proximity and
effectiveness of our transportation network. The repopulation of older
office buildings, and construction of new ones, is occurring in large
part due to the ease of access for commuters. Your help on
transportation funding has improved access to not only the downtown
business, arts and entertainment district, but also the rapidly growing
Newark Airport/Port Newark complex. The success of University Heights,
where four institutions of higher learning provide educational
opportunities to over 50,000 commuter students per day, is also
directly related to the ease of access to the highway system.
We are working to further capitalize on the existing transportation
infrastructure by connecting current and proposed facilities with the
Newark Elizabeth Rail Link. The first segment of the Newark Elizabeth
Rail Link (NERL) will soon be under construction, thanks to your
previous support. The first operable segment will provide the missing
link between downtown Newark's two train and bus transportation nodes.
It will be a 0.94 mile connection between the Broad Street Station,
where trains from the western suburbs enter the City, and Newark Penn
Station, on the Northeast corridor line and the central hub for New
Jersey Transit trains and buses. There will be three new stations on
this segment--Broad Street Station, Washington Park/Riverfront Stadium,
and NJ Performing Arts Center/Center Street--which connect sites
mentioned above, as well as our renowned Newark Museum and Newark
Public Library, that are crucial to Newark's economic and cultural
growth. The line then will enter a portal where it will connect with
the existing City Subway tunnel to access Penn Station, which I will
discuss further in a moment. At full build-out, the NERL is planned to
be an 8.8 mile, fifteen station light rail transit line linking
downtown Newark with Newark International Airport and the City of
Elizabeth.
The NERL is an important and central component of our overall
transportation plan. We are proud that a full funding agreement for
this first operable segment of the Newark Elizabeth Rail Link has been
submitted to the FTA, and the Administration has included funding for
it in its budget. I respectfully ask this Committee to add its support
to a $47.5 Million fiscal year 2001 allocation for this vital
connection.
An additional related transportation issue is the next critical
step in our revitalization of Newark's downtown. Penn Station and the
presence of AMTRAK facilities is a central feature of Newark's
downtown/riverfront area. This station is the last northbound stop on
the Northeast Corridor before New York City, and provides rail and bus
linkages to the rest of New Jersey, and the region beyond. New Jersey
Transit is doing an admirable job of renovating and modernizing the
facility to accommodate increases in demand at the station, but the
portion of the overall rail infrastructure that is owned and operated
by AMTRAK is in great need of attention.
The renovation and upgrading of AMTRAK property to better serve the
City of Newark, its residents and visitors is a key factor in the
City's economic development and transportation initiatives. The key
property is at the south side of Penn Station, and improvements to it
will be a worthy investment.
The extension of the platforms at the southern end of Penn Station
will enable passengers to exit the rail facility without having to
navigate through passageways to exit through the station itself. This
improvement will enable the connection of a pedestrian walkway to a
planned economic development project, the new downtown sports and
entertainment complex. With this extension, an old abandoned railroad
bridge and right of way will be transformed into a productive
pedestrian corridor, linking passengers to a recently planned
intermodal transportation facility that will be housed adjacent to the
new sports facility. The project will help to revitalize the southern
portion of Broad Street--which is Newark's main commercial corridor--
just as other transportation projects have facilitated the renaissance
of the upper Broad Street area. The estimated cost for the platform
extension is $20 million, and I ask your support for funding to plan
and implement this exciting undertaking.
The assistance of this committee in funding these projects is
vital. The Newark Elizabeth Rail Link and the Penn Station/AMTRAK
facilities improvements are critical links in Newark's transportation
network, and your support for them is crucial to our continued economic
development. Your attention and consideration of the needs of Newark,
New Jersey are deeply appreciated, and I thank you for your time.
______
Prepared Statement of Metra
METRA OVERVIEW
Metra, the second largest commuter rail system in the U.S.,
provides service to north-eastern Illinois on twelve lines that serve
more than 120 communities with 240 stations and a stop at O'Hare
International Airport. The Metra system covers a territory the size of
Connecticut with a population of 7.5 million. Each week, Metra provides
nearly 4000 revenue trains and carries more than 1.5 million riders, 96
percent of whom use the system to go to and from work. On-time
performance has been well above 95 percent every year of Metra's
existence.
Metra has consistently been rated the best commuter rail service in
the country. In 1996, Metra was the recipient of the first APTA award
as the outstanding commuter rail operation. Metra has always emphasized
the development of internal operations that contribute to this overall
excellence. In 1995 and 1998, Metra received successive triennial
reviews from FTA that had no findings or follow-ups required.
METRA'S FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING REQUEST
In the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations legislation,
Metra is seeking $75 million in section 5309 New Start funds to
continue work on its Metra 2000 Capital program that extends and
upgrades three lines on the Metra system. They are the North Central
Service (Wisconsin Central), Union Pacific West Line to Elburn, and the
SouthWest Service to Manhattan.
For fiscal year 2000, Metra received $25 million in New Starts
funds for all three projects. These funds will be used for engineering
and design, track and signal work, and land acquisition. These funds
will also enable Metra to enter into Full Funding Grant Agreements
(FFGA) with the FTA on all three projects this year, all of which were
included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget.
Of the $75 million in Metra's fiscal year 2001 funding request, $35
million is slated for the North Central line. The funds will be used
for design, track and signal work and construction of new stations and
parking. $25 million is for the Union Pacific West Line, and will also
be used for design, track and signal work, and station and parking
construction. $15 million of the fiscal year 2001 request will be for
the Southwest Corridor for engineering and design work, track and
signal work, and stations and parking.
FEDERAL/STATE COST SHARE
The total cost of the three projects is $735,348,000. The federal
share of this project is $343,215,000, or 47 percent. The local share
is $392,133,000, or 53 percent. This is a very favorable federal/state
cost share, with the recognition by Metra to utilize as much of their
own local resources as possible to build these three very vital
transportation projects.
Fiscal Year 2001 Combined Capital Costs Metra Capital Improvement
Program
Federal New Start: [In thousands of dollars]
Engineering & Design...................................... 11,393
Management & Inspection................................... 6,433
Track & Signal............................................ 57,000
Storage Yards............................................. 5,000
Stations & Parking........................................ 13,923
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 93,749
Federal............................................... 75,000
Local Match........................................... 18,750
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Additional local commitment:
Land...................................................... 5,500
74th Street Connection (SWS).............................. 10,000
Belt Flyover (SWS)........................................ 6,000
Track & Signal (NCS)...................................... 10,000
Stations & Parking........................................ 2,475
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 33,975
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total Project Cost...................................... 127,724
Federal Share......................................... 75,000
Local Share........................................... 52,725
Percent Federal....................................... 59
Percent Local......................................... 41
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.002
NORTH CENTRAL CORRIDOR PROJECT
Since the initiation of service in this corridor in 1996, the line
has experienced unprecedented levels of ridership. Between 1997 and
1998, ridership increased by almost 27 percent, the greatest increase
on the Metra system. There is an acute need to double track the line
and provide more frequent full day and weekend service to meet the
demand. In addition, the freight traffic on the Wisconsin Central
Railroad has also seen dramatic increases, exacerbating the problem for
Metra. The corridor is experiencing rapid employment growth that is
expected to continue over the next 20 years.
The scope of the project on the North Central line will be an
upgrade of commuter service from the existing ten trains per weekday
schedule with only two mid-day trains and no weekend service to twenty-
two trains per weekday and provide increased train service during off-
peak periods. It also is hoped that limited weekend service will be
achievable as part of this alternative.
Capital improvements needed to provide the expanded service will
include the following:
--Twenty-six miles of new main line track on the Wisconsin Central,
Ltd. between the O'Hare Transfer Station and Mundelein;
--Twelve miles of track, signal and station upgrades on three main
line tracks of the Milwaukee-West between Franklin Park and
Union Station in Chicago;
--Four new stations at Franklin Park, Schiller Park, Rosemont,
Grayslake, and a transfer station at Deval Junction;
--4,500 new parking spaces at proposed and existing stations;
--Expansion of the Antioch and Western Avenue rail yards; and
--One new train set (locomotive and coaches).
The fiscal year 2001 funding request for the North Central line
will begin work on station construction and track and signal work. The
following is a detailed funding chart that outlines the scope of the
project.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.003
UNION PACIFIC WEST LINE EXTENSION
The western suburbs of the Chicagoland area have been experiencing
tremendous growth over the last 20 years. They are expected to grow by
nearly 60 percent by 2010. At the present time there is severe
overcrowding at existing stations on the UP West line, especially in
Geneva.
The Union Pacific Railroad and Metra are planning long-term signal
improvements to the major access route (UP West line) to Chicago. Great
benefits will accrue to Metra commuter operations, as well as to
freight operations. Some of these improvements will be included in the
New Start project costs; the remainder will be paid for by the UP and
Metra using their own funds.
The project will provide an extension of commuter service to Elburn
on the UP West line. It entails the same level of service to Elburn as
currently available in Geneva, namely thirty-seven trains per weekday
and weekend service.
Capital improvements needed to extend service to Elburn will
include the following:
--Seven miles of a new third main line track on the Union Pacific
West line between Randall Road and Elburn;
--Upgrades of train control systems and at-grade crossings along the
seven miles of track;
--Two new stations at Elburn and LaFox;
--1,600 new parking spaces at the proposed stations;
--New train storage yards in Elburn; and
--One new train set (locomotive and coaches).
The fiscal year 2001 funding request for the UP West extension will
be used for track and signal work, storage yards, and land acquisition.
The following is a detailed funding chart that outlines the scope of
the project.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.004
SOUTHWEST SERVICE EXTENSION AND UPGRADE
The SouthWest Service project will bring the line up to a full
service route, providing double-tracking of the line and an eleven mile
extension to Manhattan, serving Will County. This corridor, perhaps
more than any other Metra service, has a continuing problem with
freight interference. Metra has already undertaken a study of possible
actions that might be taken to ease some of this interference. Metra
has utilized $12.6 million of CMAQ formula funds and local monies for
improvements to some of the bottlenecks with freight traffic. In 1999
Metra included $20 million of its own funds for implementation of
recommended improvements that arose from the study.
The project provides for an upgrade to the existing service and
extension of limited service to Manhattan in Will County. The upgrade
of service on the SouthWest Service will provide approximately thirty
trains per weekday to Orland Park. This will improve the frequency of
trains during peak periods of travel and provide bi-hourly train
service during off-peak periods. Four trains per weekday will be
provided on the extension to Manhattan. Weekend train service to Orland
Park will also be provided as part of the service upgrade.
Capital Improvements needed to implement service expansions on the
SWS will include the following:
--Four miles of a new second main line track on the Norfolk Southern
between Palos Park and 143rd Street in Orland Park;
--Rehabilitation of bridges between 40th and 74th Streets;
--Upgrades of track, train control systems, and at-grade crossings
over 32 miles of right-of-way between 74th Street in Chicago
and Manhattan;
--Two new stations and parking in the Manhattan area;
--Improvements to existing stations and added parking capacity;
--New train storage yard in Manhattan and expansion of existing yard
at 47th Street;
--Relocation of the Chicago terminal to LaSalle Street Station;
--Additional locomotives and coaches; and
--Commuter and freight train interface improvements.
The fiscal year 2001 funding request for the SouthWest Service
extension will be used for engineering and design, track and signal
work, and land acquisition. The following is a detailed funding chart
that outlines the scope of the project.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.005
______
Prepared Statement of Bi-State Development Agency
Mr. Chairman I am pleased to report to you that your past support
for the Missouri/Illinois MetroLink Light Rail system continues to be
strongly vindicated. In 1992 the Bi-State Development Agency provided
40 million rides to the public. In 1999 the combined bus and rail
system provided over 53.6 million rides demonstrating that the bus
system benefits greatly from MetroLink and that the combined bi-state
system continues to attract a new discretionary market becoming more
and more willing to use public transit. As you may recall, our original
line was projected to attract 17,000 riders. The first year the system
opened we far exceeded that number and today are attracting in excess
of 44,000 riders a day that continues to grow.
Since your committee has emphasized the importance of inter-modal
connections we are also pleased to report that the two St. Louis
Lambert International Airport Metro Link Stations were expected to
generate about 800 riders a day and are instead generating over 3,200 a
day and has proven to be a major tool being used by the St. Louis
tourism and business community.
This overwhelming acceptance and demand for additional service
brings us to our fiscal year 2001 appropriations request of $60 million
to continue the vital expansion of Metro Link into St. Clair County
Illinois. This amount tracks the amount designated for the extension in
our Full Funding Agreement with FTA. An early look at the popularity of
this extension is evidenced by the fact that on the existing system,
the most east-ward stop in East St. Louis, Illinois has generated so
many riders trying to escape the bridge congestion into Missouri that
the parking lot originally designed for 150 cars has been expanded to
over 1,000 cars. Over 30 percent of the downtown St. Louis workers
reside in Illinois.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, MetroLink has increased bus ridership by 6
percent with the average age of our bus fleet exceeding nine years
resulting in a tremendous need for assistance in modernizing our fleet.
Therefore we are seeking a bus discretionary earmark of $15 million to
continue our important modernization program.
We thank you Mr. Chairman and all of the Members of the Committee
for your past support as we strive to continue expanding this highly
successful new rail start program.
______
Prepared Statement of Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County,
Texas
INTRODUCTION
My name is Robert Miller. I am Chairman of the Board of Directors
of the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, more
commonly known as Houston METRO. I am pleased to report on the progress
METRO has made in the past year to expand and enhance its public
transportation services. METRO's fiscal year 2001 appropriations
request builds on our past success while moving forward with aggressive
plans to enhance the service we provide to our customers.
1999 marked METRO's twentieth year as the Houston region's public
transit agency. We are proud of the service we provide in the city of
Houston and Harris County with our extensive network of buses, HOV
lanes, transit centers, and park & ride facilities. Because METRO
reduces highway congestion by 200,000 cars per day, everyone in the
Houston region benefits from METRO regardless of whether they use the
system.
While METRO is proud of its current bus system, we have a real and
immediate need to enhance our high capacity transit infrastructure in
certain corridors. It is projected that our region will grow in
population from 4.4 million in 1998 to 6.6 million in 2025, with
employment increasing from 1.5 million to 2.5 million. These dramatic
increases will put pressure on the public transit system that METRO
must anticipate and address. METRO's ridership has grown twelve percent
in the past two years alone. We believe our proposed capital projects
and service enhancements will draw additional riders to our system.
METRO, in partnership with the City of Houston, Harris County and
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) also operates a high-
tech transportation and emergency management center called Houston
TranStar. This consortium was formed to prevent the duplication of
traffic congestion efforts and coordinate the resources of the
participating agencies.
Houston TranStar is a control center that monitors and tracks
traffic using Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) devices. Some of
these include: a Computerized Freeway Transportation Management System,
a Regional Computerized Traffic Signal System, a Motorist Assistance
Program, and the HOV lane network and modernizing projects.
One program that is part of Houston TranStar that helps elevate
truck accidents is the Truck Safety system. This system identifies
unsafe speed conditions for various vehicle sizes and weights, and
initiates warning devices to prevent out-of-control accidents by these
vehicles.
METRO recognizes the importance of a strong transportation network
to the economic vitality of the Houston region. As we begin the 21st
century, METRO will complete construction of the various projects
comprising the Regional Bus Plan (``RBP'') and move forward with the
follow-on project--known as the Advanced Transit Program or the
``ATP.''
In 1999, METRO completed its Major Investment Study (MIS) for
enhancing mobility in the Downtown to Astrodome Corridor. The MIS
concluded that light rail in the corridor was the locally preferred
Houston alternative, and the METRO Board of Directors unanimously
adopted these findings. I can report to you first-hand that local
enthusiasm for the rail project is overwhelming. METRO looks forward to
working with Congress and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to
build a rail line that will carry thousands of passengers to and from
major business centers, medical facilities, universities, and cultural
attractions. We believe the rail line will have an added benefit--it
will reduce congestion in a city where pollution is a real issue. The
seventeen planned stations along the corridor will serve major
destinations, including downtown, midtown, University of Houston
Downtown, the Texas Medical Center, Rice University, Hermann Park, the
Museum district, and the Astrodome. We expect the rail project to
trigger economic development along the corridor and, accordingly, local
businesses led by the Main Street Coalition, have voiced strong support
for this project. Residential and commercial developers see the
potential for light rail to spur housing and commercial development.
Over 60 local organizations have endorsed METRO's Millennium Mobility
Plan and voiced support for the light rail transit project.
Without Congress, METRO could not have made such significant
progress on the rail project or many of its transit improvements.
Congress voiced its support for the RBP by providing the full funding
specified under the full funding grant agreement. Congress has also
provided ATP funding which METRO has used for the LRT the MIS and
preliminary engineering.
METRO seeks to build the rail project with funds already
appropriated under the RBP. In that regard, last fall the Federal
Transit Administration entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with METRO agreeing to amend the full funding grant agreement to
include rail, when the project meets all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements and after giving Congress the notice required
under the law. We are confident that the Members of this Committee will
recognize the tremendous benefits of the light rail project and support
the full funding grant agreement amendment.
Last year, I used the opportunity of submitting testimony to
introduce our new President, Shirley A. DeLibero. As you can see from
our progress this past year, Shirley's leadership, management skills,
and enthusiasm have benefited both METRO and our customers. We are
lucky to have Shirley to lead METRO in building our first rail line and
continuing to build infrastructure to support our extensive high
capacity bus system.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Regional Bus Plan--$10.86 million.--In fiscal year 2001, METRO
seeks final payment under the RBP full funding grant agreement. METRO
appreciates the overwhelming congressional support for this project,
comprised of high capacity transit projects including an HOV lane, park
& ride facilities, transit centers, buses for service expansion, and
related infrastructure. The METRO Board of Directors initially adopted
the RBP in 1992 as the comprehensive public transportation program for
the region. We continue to work toward the objective of implementing
approximately 40 individual projects whose independent utility provide
incremental improvements in facilities and services as projects are
completed. These projects include park and ride facilities, ramps and
other street improvements, and transit stations connecting the light
rail line to the network of bus routes.
As I discussed earlier, we look forward to working with Congress
and the Federal Transit Administration to incorporate construction of
the Downtown to Astrodome light rail project within the Regional Bus
Plan. This change to the full funding grant agreement is easily
accomplished, will have no effect on the cost of either the RBP or ATP
projects, and will not result in delays to any of the planned projects.
In fact, the idea for the change arose when the local community decided
it preferred a tollroad in Houston's Westpark Corridor instead of an
HOV lane as included in the full funding grant agreement. Because METRO
cannot build a tollroad with FTA funds, it sold a portion of the
Westpark Corridor to the Harris County Tollroad Authority. This change
freed up the bulk of the federal money needed to construct the rail
project under the existing RBP full funding grant agreement. A
tremendous benefit of this project substitution is that the funds are
already appropriated.
The federal share of the RBP full funding grant agreement is $500
million. With a final payment of $10.86 million, the federal government
will satisfy its commitment to the project.
We at METRO are excited about the many benefits of the RBP, which
is an example of how different projects work in different corridors. We
have always involved the community in the planning process, this has
resulted not only in an extensive and well-utilized HOV system, but in
a light rail project, which has independent utility because of the many
destinations it will serve and the potential home-to-work utilization.
METRO remains committed to working with Congress and the local
community to determine the most effective and efficient transit options
to meet the region's growing needs.
Advanced Transit Program--$28.1 million.--With RBP funding almost
complete, METRO is excited to move forward with the ATP. The ATP builds
on the successes of the RBP. Like the RBP, it is a program of
individual projects which will each have independent utility. Because
the ATP is a series of projects it will benefit many segments of our
service area. Projects include transit centers and other improvements.
While the Westchase Park & Ride facility construction and the clean
fuel engine project were originally in the RBP, METRO now plans to
construct them under the ATP without any compromise in schedule.
Congress has recognized the importance of the ATP to the Houston
region and appropriated almost $6 million in New Start funds for the
project in fiscal years 1998 through 2000. METRO has used this funding
for the Major Investment Study and to initiate PE on the light rail
project, and to initiate the clean fuel engine project. For fiscal year
2001 METRO is requesting $5 million in New Start funding to allow us to
advance desperately needed transit improvements on the Katy Freeway and
the West Loop. The improvements will insure that METRO can provide
transit access which will complement TxDOT planned freeway improvements
in this corridor.
In addition, METRO is requesting $23.1 million in Section 5309 Bus
funds for design and construction of several key ATP projects that are
scheduled for implementation in fiscal year 2001-2003. These projects
include the Gulfgate Transit Center, Hobby Transit Center, Westchase
Park & Ride, and the Clean Fuels Engine Program.
CONCLUSION
1999 has been an exciting year for Houston METRO and we look
forward to building on our success as we embark on the new millennium.
We operate a public transit system used by over 117 million people per
year, and are constantly adapting our plans to best meet the future
mobility needs of the people of Harris and surrounding counties. The
federal investment in transit in Houston continues to benefit the
millions of users who reach their destinations efficiently and the rest
of the community by spawning economic growth in the downtown area and
reducing congestion and pollution. As a business, METRO remains on
sound financial footing with no debt and is committed to seeking
innovative ways to operate more efficiently and contribute to the
growth of the economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these remarks. METRO is
prepared and looks forward to responding to any questions the Committee
may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the thousands of daily commuters who use
the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) in the South Florida
region, I (Linda Bohlinger) would like to express my sincere
appreciation of your support in funding the South Florida Rail Corridor
Improvement Program in the past years.
We are now requesting that the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations provide $30.0 million in New Starts
funds for Segment 5 of our Double Track Corridor Improvement Program as
part of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for the Department of
Transportation. This request is consistent with our Full Funding Grant
Agreement (FFGA) financial plan for the Segment 5 Project. Tri-Rail's
FFGA request is currently under review by your committee and other
committees of jurisdiction. We are hopeful the committee will recommend
FTA approve our request shortly. In addition, we are requesting $2.5
million in Bus Program funds (Section 5309) be allocated to Tri-Rail.
ABOUT TRI-RAIL
Mr. Chairman, the development of Tri-Rail must be understood within
the context of the demographic changes occurring throughout South
Florida since the 1970's. The South Florida region consists of the
counties of Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade. As a region, South
Florida's population has more than doubled since 1970 to more than 4.7
million people, and is expected to grow at a rate of 2 percent
annually.
As residential development out paced the provision of
infrastructure improvements, public attention increasingly shifted to
issues relating to regional mass transit and growth management. In
response, the Florida Department of Transportation and the three
Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the region formed the Tri-County
Transportation Subcommittee in 1985. The subcommittee recommended that
a commuter rail line be established and drafted a detailed action plan
to implement the recommendations. In 1986, Tri-County Commuter Rail
Organization was formed to begin the task of building a new commuter
rail system. The Tri-County Commuter Rail Organization was the
predecessor agency of the present Tri-Rail.
In 1988, the State of Florida purchased an 81-mile corridor, later
to be known as the South Florida Rail Corridor, from CSXT freight
railroad for $264 million. The corridor runs from West Palm Beach to
Miami. In a flurry of activity during 1988, rail vehicles and temporary
funding was quickly assembled, and the Governor signed a bill creating
Tri-Rail. On January 6, 1989, commuter rail service between West Palm
Beach and Miami was initiated. This was the first commuter rail start-
up in North America in over 20 years.
Today, Tri-Rail operates commuter rail service along 71.7-miles of
the South Florida Rail Corridor. The Tri-Rail system is currently
comprised of 18 stations, five in Miami-Dade County, seven in Broward
County, and six in Palm Bach County. Services to these stations are
provided by 28 weekday trains, 14 Saturday trains, and 12 Sunday
trains. Additional trains are occasionally furnished for special
events.
DOUBLE TRACK CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
During the first five years of Tri-Rail operations, ridership
increased at a steady rate. During the initial year of operations,
ridership averaged approximately 3,000 riders each weekday. In 1991,
system ridership increased to approximately 7,200 weekday riders and by
1993, average weekday ridership had grown to approximately 9,500.
In 1995, Tri-Rail ridership started to decline. This decline was
attributed to the over-capacity of the single mainline track in the
corridor resulting in poor on-time performance. Along with Tri-Rail,
the corridor is shared with CSXT freight service and Amtrak long-haul
passenger service. Under this type of operating condition, Tri-Rail's
ability to schedule commuter service is extremely difficult. Tri-Rail
can only operate service on one-hour headways during peak periods.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to Congress' investment in the federal transit
program, Tri-Rail in 1995 initiated the first of five segments of its
Double Track Corridor Improvement Program to address the corridor
capacity issues. We are pleased to report, Segments 1 and 2 have been
completed, Segment 3 is near completion and Segment 4 is in the final
design phase. Today, we are asking the Subcommittee on Transportation
to provide $30.0 million in New Starts funds for the final segment of
the double track program--Segment 5.
Once completed, the Double Track Corridor Improvement Program will
reduce congestion on I-95, shorten average trip time lengths and
provide travel alternatives in the largest travel market in South
Florida. Upon completion of the program in March 2005, Tri-Rail will
operate 20-minute headways. It is projected Tri-Rail ridership will
jump to 43,132 annual new riders in 2015. Finally, the program will
result in travel timesavings of 11.2 million annually and a 4.1 million
reduction in daily vehicle trips. This program will directly benefit
those businesses that rely on Tri-Rail to provide access to customers.
It will also benefit the thousands of daily commuters in South Florida.
Segment 5 Project
Tri-Rail is undertaking a major capital improvement program to
double track all 71.7-rail miles, with the objective of increasing
speed, reliability, and safety along the corridor, and is expected to
significantly increase current ridership. The scope of work covered by
the Full Funding Grant Agreement consists of 44.31 miles of double
track work (Segment 5). It includes the laying of a second mainline
track, rehabilitation of the signal system, grade crossing
improvements, station improvements, parking expansions, and rolling
stock acquisition. The other portion of the overall double track
program (approximately 27.39 miles) was divided into four segments, and
is either completed, under construction, or under design.
SEGMENT 5 FINANCIAL PLAN
Tri-Rail intends to complete the construction of the $327.0 million
Project through the execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement with
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), under which FTA will provide
$110.5 million in New Starts funds over the period fiscal year 2000-03.
The balance of the funds are derived from the State of Florida ($70.0
million in gas tax funds and $35.0 million in federal highway funds);
the Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning
Organizations ($22.2 million); Tri-Rail ($34.2 million in federal
formula funds); and a private sector loan or revenue bond issuance
($55.1 million).
Mr. Chairman, this project is a very attractive and cost-effective
new starts project, in that the total New Starts funds sought are 33
percent of the funding being provided from non-discretionary resources
(formula, flexible, and State funds); this is very high.
The Segment 5 Financial Plan calls for $30.0 million in New Starts
funds for fiscal year 2001. Allocation of the full amount will ensure
the project's construction schedule can be maintained and our
contractual obligations under the FFGA can be met.
RELIABILITY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
The phased approach used by Tri-Rail in the construction of the
double track program provides a level of reliability in the Segment 5
Project cost estimate that is unusual in new starts projects. The
initial four segments of the Double Track Corridor Improvement Program
each involve the design and construction of track, signals, and
stations. As a result, the same basic scope of work has been repeated,
from segment to segment, in what could be viewed as a series of smaller
projects. Segments 1 and 2 have been completed, Segment 3 is near
completion and Segment 4 is in the final design phase. With Tri-Rail's
past experience with Segments 1 through 4, Tri-Rail knows the actual
cost per mile of the track work and the actual cost of specific station
improvements.
Tri-Rail has the benefit of having actually incurred construction
costs in the same alignment and under the same conditions, which allow
Tri-Rail to base its cost estimates for the FFGA Project. This cost
experience was supplemented by the analysis done during preliminary
engineering for the FFGA Project and has provided Tri-Rail with highly
reliable cost estimates.
FEEDER BUS PROGRAM
Mr. Chairman, Tri-Rail is requesting $2.5 million in Bus Program
funds (Section 5309). The funds will be used to acquire buses to
support Tri-Rail's Feeder Bus Program. Tri-Rail's feeder bus service
was initiated in conjunction with the commuter rail service in January
1989.
The current bus network serving Tri-Rail is a combination of
service provided by the three local county bus operators in the South
Florida region. In addition, Tri-Rail operates six of its own shuttle
routes at various stations. With the requested funds, Tri-Rail will be
able to place an additional 20 buses into service. Such service is
needed to fully support the commuter rail system and ensure maximum
ridership.
The feeder and distribution bus network plays an essential role in
complementing and supporting Tri-Rail's service. In many cases, Tri-
Rail riders are dependent on bus service to connect to their employment
and/or residential destinations. Therefore, in order for Tri-Rail to
improve its ridership, increased rail frequency (20 minute headways)
will be largely insignificant without corresponding improvements in bus
service. These improvements will include matching service frequency
while ensuring reasonable wait times between bus and rail connections.
Another key element is the balance between adequate area coverage and
cost effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
In closing, Mr. Chairman we again thank you for this opportunity to
discuss before your Subcommittee the critical role Tri-Rail can and
does play in providing transportation service to millions in South
Florida. We urge your committee and other committees of jurisdiction
recommend to the FTA to approve and to execute our FFGA. This will
facilitate completing the double track program by March 2005. Once
completed, the South Florida Rail Corridor will increase accessibility
and mobility options to all persons, as well as improve freight
operations in South Florida.
We are also requesting that the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations provide $30.0 million in New Starts
funds for Segment 5 of our program as part of the fiscal year 2001
appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation. In addition,
we are requesting $2.5 million in Bus Program funds (Section 5309) be
allocated to Tri-Rail.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations. We
would be pleased to provide you additional information to assist you in
your deliberations.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
introduction
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) appreciates
the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2001 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
APTA's 1,270 member organizations serve the public interest by
providing safe, efficient and economical public transportation service,
and by working to ensure that those services and products support
national energy, environmental, community, and economic goals. APTA
member organizations include transit systems; design, construction and
finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions,
and state associations and departments of transportation. More than
ninety percent of the people who use transit in the U.S. are served by
APTA member systems. On the first day of this year, APTA adopted a new
name to reflect the broader role that APTA member organizations play in
addressing the transportation needs of our nation--The American Public
Transportation Association. Our members chose ``public transportation''
in lieu of ``public transit'' to better convey the full range of
transportation services that APTA members are engaged in--planning how
to meet local transportation needs, managing mobility demands, and
delivering a range of services in a number of ways, including commuter
rail, paratransit, and ferry boats, that are often not considered
``transit.''
Transit and TEA 21
Over its first three years, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA 21) has, with its policy changes and guaranteed
funding, been critical in assisting the public transportation industry
address mobility issues around the country. We sincerely appreciate
what the legislation, and its annual funding through the appropriations
process, has meant for our industry. But large unmet needs still exist
in the United States' public transportation sector. The U.S. Department
of Transportation finds that $14 billion needs to be invested each year
just to maintain and improve transit conditions and performance.\1\
With the most recent report from the Congressional Budget Office
projecting as much as $1.92 trillion in potential surpluses over the
next decade, we believe that there is no better time than the present
to invest in the future of our nation's transportation infrastructure.
Therefore, APTA urges the Subcommittee in its fiscal year 2001
Transportation Appropriations Act to fund the federal transit program
at the $7.3 billion level authorized in TEA 21. On a related issue,
APTA strongly opposes any efforts to repeal federal motor fuel taxes
dedicated to supporting federal investment in our surface
transportation infrastructure. In that regard, on March 12, 2000,
APTA's Board of Directors unanimously adopted a resolution opposing any
revision to the existing federal motor fuels tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1997 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System:
Condition and Performance; U.S. DOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET PROPOSAL
Mr. Chairman, we are pleased that the Administration's fiscal year
2001 Budget proposes to increase funding for transit by more than 9
percent. This proposal keeps us on track to improve mobility for
millions of Americans while easing traffic congestion and improving the
quality of life in communities throughout the U.S. Moreover, APTA
agrees with the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) assessment that
the vitally important Job Access and Reverse Commute Program should be
funded at the fully authorized level of $150 million as provided in TEA
21. However, we believe that this program should be fully funded by
using discretionary spending authority rather than by reopening TEA 21.
Some 94 percent of welfare recipients attempting to move into the
workforce do not own cars and must rely on public transportation to get
to work. And while 60 percent of welfare recipients live in central
cities, the majority of new jobs are in the suburbs. If we as a nation
wish to continue the positive trends in getting more people into
decent, productive employment, we must provide the necessary funding to
get them there. Not only do these programs get people to jobs, but they
also provide America's employers with access to the services of
thousands of new employees. This program is a non-traditional one that
needs to be implemented creatively. We commend FTA on its outreach
efforts to date, and urge it to continue its efforts to streamline the
program administratively and to focus on increased program coordination
at the federal, state, and local levels.
While certain transit welfare-to-work activities have been
enormously successful, more needs to be done. In October 1998, the APTA
Access to Jobs Task Force was created in an effort to coordinate and
assess APTA member welfare-to-work activities. Frequently described new
services include new routes to employment locations outside the
existing service area; more direct service to reduce very long trip
times; late night and early morning service; so-called reverse commute
service; and shuttles from rail stations and the ends of bus routes to
dispersed job locations. Regardless of the type of service made
available, APTA's 1999 Access-To-Work Best Practices Survey Summary
Report reveals that a number of welfare-to-work projects have been
hampered by funding deficiencies. That is why we believe increased
funding is warranted for this program.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to
appropriate the TEA 21 fully authorized level for all parts of the
federal transit program. Again, Mr. Chairman, transportation experts
agree that it would take $14 billion each year--nearly twice the amount
authorized under TEA 21 for the coming fiscal year--to effectively
preserve and expand our public transportation infrastructure.
Therefore, if Congress adjusts the spending caps put in place as a
result of the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, APTA strongly urges the
Subcommittee to use this additional spending authority to fund the
federal transit program at the $7.3 billion level authorized in TEA 21.
With an fiscal year 2001 Non-Social Security surplus projected to reach
as high as $69 billion, we can think of no better time to maximize
investment in our public transportation infrastructure.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RIDERSHIP AT RECORD LEVELS
Mr. Chairman, the latest numbers are in, and they indicate that
more and more people are choosing to use public transportation. Thanks
to Congress' investment in the federal transit program, improvements in
the transit commuter benefit tax law, and a healthy economy,
approximately 9 billion transit trips were recorded in 1999. Over the
last four years, transit ridership in the United States has grown by 16
percent, an average of 4 percent per year.
U.S. transit ridership was up 4.9 percent through the first nine
months of 1999.\2\ Ridership is on the rise in every mode, led by more
than a 7.3 percent increase in trolleybus passengers and a 6.6 percent
increase in heavy rail passengers. In the bus category, ridership
continues to grow in areas across America. For example, the following
areas experienced significant bus ridership increases: New York City,
10 percent; Buffalo, 13 percent; Cincinnati, 7 percent; Minneapolis, 10
percent and Canton, Ohio, 41 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ APTA Transit Ridership Report, Third Quarter 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Transportation Growing in Rural America and Small Cities
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, public transportation ridership is not just
growing in large cities and suburbs. Through the first nine months of
the year, bus ridership increased by the greatest percentage in areas
with less than 50,000 people.
Thanks to this Subcommittee, the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, and TEA 21, transit funding for rural communities and
smaller cities has increased significantly. For example, in fiscal year
1993, the Rural Capital and Operating Program was funded at $91
million. In contrast, during the most recent fiscal year, the transit
Rural Formula Program received more than twice that amount, nearly $194
million. Moreover, the fiscal year 2000 appropriation for rural areas
is 195 percent higher than it was only a decade ago.
Small urbanized areas have also seen dramatic increases in federal
transit funding over the last decade. In 1990, small urbanized areas
received approximately $150 million in federal transit funding. In
contrast, nearly $268.5 million was appropriated to these cities during
the current fiscal year. That's an increase of 79 percent over the ten-
year period. Thanks to this dramatic investment in public
transportation infrastructure in smaller cities, transit is now also
seen as a crucial mobility solution in areas outside America's
traditionally transit dependent regions.
As a result of this increased investment, bus systems across small-
town America were able to implement major expansions in service during
the last year. For example, Knoxville Area Transit has introduced new
antique-style trolley-replica buses, one of which connects the
University of Tennessee with downtown Knoxville. The agency has also
increased frequency of service and extended hours of operation. Trolley
operators have been trained as city ambassadors who can inform visitors
of attractions throughout the downtown Knoxville area. In State
College, Pennsylvania, the Centre Area Transportation Authority
recently began operating free LOOP service on two routes serving the
Pennsylvania State University and downtown State College.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DELIVERS
Public Transportation Has Significant, Positive Impacts On the U.S.
Economy
Beyond the increases in transit use, public transportation
generates a real return on the federal investment. In addition to the
300,000 people employed directly by the $27 billion-a-year public
transportation industry, thousands of other people employed in the
engineering, construction, manufacturing and retail industries rely
upon transit investment for their livelihood. A recent study prepared
by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. finds that transit capital investment is
a significant source of job creation. Every $10 million of transit
capital investment creates approximately 314 jobs and a $30 million
gain in sales for businesses. Furthermore, the changes in travel
patterns caused by transit investment remove vehicles from the traffic
stream, saving time for both transit and highway users. The increased
productivity caused by this significant timesaving serves to stimulate
the economy.
Public Transportation and Traffic Congestion
Mr. Chairman, there is no disputing the fact that traffic
congestion in the U.S. has reached epidemic proportions. However, as
bad as it is, imagine what it would be like without public
transportation! Regions like Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles would
require nearly 300,000 more cars on the road without transit. Chicago
would need approximately half a million more cars. But who would have
thought 20 years ago that places like Memphis, Tennessee would require
between 10,000 and 30,000 extra vehicles if there were no transit? \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Dollars & Sense: The Economic Case for Public Transportation in
America. Donald Camph, 1997, p. 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
increased public transit infrastructure investment is needed
As noted, Mr. Chairman, transit ridership is up and public
transportation delivers significant benefits. Even though highway and
transit spending has increased under TEA 21, transportation experts
agree that our capital investments still fail to keep pace with the
annual $14 billion needed for public transportation infrastructure in
the U.S. An unprecedented level of travel is taking place, and will
continue to take place, throughout this country. If current trends
continue, over the next 15 years alone, highway travel is expected to
increase by 40 percent, and transit use by 60 percent. In order to
accommodate such growth, it is critical to provide maximum investment
in all forms of surface transportation, including public
transportation.
More Investment Needed to Provide Mobility Choices
Mr. Chairman, traffic congestion has become a major political
issue. The average person need not be reminded of the size of the
problem; they are surrounded by it weekdays, weekends, no matter what
the time of day. Here in Washington, there have been countless
briefings, seminars, conferences and round table discussions focusing
on the issue of congestion, and possible solutions to enhancing our
mobility.
A new study released by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)
confirms our observations: traffic is bad, and it's getting much worse
every year. The study notes that in 1997, congestion cost travelers in
68 urban areas 4.3 billion hours of delay. The financial cost of
congestion now exceeds $72 billion annually, an increase of more than
$6 billion from the previous year. That's the equivalent of $755 per
eligible driver, or $3 every workday. Cities on top of the list include
Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago. The Washington, D.C.
region finished 2nd among very large cities.
Mr. Chairman, it's no wonder that so many American cities are
seriously debating the merits of asking local voters to start or expand
light rail, commuter rail, or bus service in their communities,
including Austin, Texas; San Antonio, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah;
Tampa, Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Dallas, Texas; and Cincinnati,
Ohio.
The need for more public transportation infrastructure is becoming
apparent to Americans in all corners of the nation. Last November, by
more than 60 percent of the vote, Denver area residents overwhelmingly
voted to endorse a light-rail project that will dramatically expand the
city's public transportation system along heavily congested I-25. Last
month, by a margin of almost two to one, voters in Phoenix, Arizona
approved the region's first light-rail system, as well as an expansion
of bus service. In addition, 60 percent of the electorate in Sonoma
County, California recently voted to increase the county's sales tax to
fund local transit improvements.
While the TTI study advances a number of possible solutions to
America's traffic congestion crisis, one of the obvious proposals to
increase mobility is very clear: offer citizens mobility choices. We
believe that public transportation can and will play an enormous role
in doing just that. In this regard, consider the New York City area.
APTA believes that it is no coincidence that the transit oriented New
York City-Northeastern New Jersey region, one of the most densely
populated areas in the entire world, ranks low on the TTI study's list
for annual congestion cost per eligible driver (number 27). If there
was no transit in that region, up to two million additional personal
vehicles would have to be added to the already crowded roads in that
area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Dollars & Sense, p. 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Funds are Required to Maintain ADA Compliance Standards
Since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, transit
agencies have made significant progress in the effort to ensure that
all forms of public transportation are accessible to individuals with
disabilities. According to an APTA survey of 300 transit agencies,
there were approximately 25,000 U.S. transit buses in 1993 that were
not wheelchair accessible. In 1998, that number was less than 14,000.
Similarly, commuter rail operators reduced the number of non-accessible
rail cars by more than half over the same period. However, as the
population ages, the need for demand response and paratransit service
will continue to rise. Public investment for these services and further
on-vehicle lift, ramp and station improvements must keep pace for
transit to meet mobility demands.
New Study: People Will Use Quality Public Transit Where it is Available
The steady increase in ridership figures reported above is
consistent with a new study released last spring by Paul M. Weyrich and
William S. Lind of the Free Congress Foundation. In their report
regarding the ability of public transit to get people out of their
cars, Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal, they dispel the
myth that a large percentage of people choose not to take public
transportation. Weyrich and Lind point out that this is simply not the
case. The authors explain that measuring transit ridership based on the
percentage of total trips taken throughout the United States is simply
wrong, and misleading. This is because there are large portions of the
U.S. where people do not have the option of taking the bus or the
train, because it is not readily available.
However, when given the choice between taking quality public
transportation and driving, many people are more than willing to leave
their cars at home. This is especially true with respect to those trips
where transit can compete, namely, trips to work and recreation. In
fact, in areas of the country where these criteria are met, public
transportation use reaches significant levels, even in areas where
people are entirely new to public transportation. For example, a recent
poll by the Dallas Morning News found that 8 out of 10 people said
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is worth the 1 percent sales tax it
collects. That simply wasn't the case only a few years ago.
Investment in Rail Safety
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as the federal transit program becomes
increasingly intermodal, all aspects of transportation appropriations
have become important to APTA. This includes programs funded through
the Research and Special Programs Administration, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the
Federal Aviation Administration, among others.
In this regard, APTA commends the Subcommittee for providing
funding through FRA's research and development program to perform crash
tests of rail passenger equipment at the Transportation Technology
Center in Pueblo, Colorado. The initial tests conducted provided data
that will be very useful in enhancing the safety of rail equipment. We
also commend the Subcommittee for providing funds for the development
of positive train control (PTC) systems, though we do urge that special
consideration be given to the applicability of these systems to
commuter rail operations. Crash avoidance systems such as PTC are a key
to the continued development of safety in rail passenger services.
CONCLUSION
APTA supports funding the respective components of the federal
transit program consistent with the full authorization levels and
program structure as embodied in TEA 21. Predictable funding levels as
provided through TEA 21 help America's transit agencies facilitate long
term capital planning and development. This has been especially
important in America's rural and small urbanized areas, where transit
agencies are taking full advantage of the transit formula distribution
set forth in TEA 21.
As we enter a new century, there has been much thinking about what
we would like our future to be. In order to keep pace with our nation's
growth, more than $14 billion in capital investment is needed every
year to preserve and expand our public transportation infrastructure.
Taking advantage of the favorable budgetary climate and surplus, now
would be an opportune time for Congress to step forward as the catalyst
for the ongoing renaissance of public transportation and its many
benefits. Let's get the job done! We believe that public transportation
has many positive impacts on the nation's economy, delivering an
enormous return on your federal investment. We urge the Subcommittee to
fund the federal transit program at the $7.3 billion level authorized
in TEA 21.
APTA appreciates the opportunity to testify on the development of
the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations Act. We would be
pleased to provide additional information to assist you in your
deliberations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
INTRODUCTION
My name is Lawrence M. Meckler and I am the Executive Director of
the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA). NFTA is a
regional multi-modal transportation authority responsible for air,
water and surface transportation in Erie and Niagara Counties. NFTA
businesses include a bus, rail and ADA paratransit system, two
international airports, a small boat harbor, and transportation centers
in Buffalo and Niagara Falls. I am pleased to testify today regarding
NFTA's federal legislative priorities for fiscal year 2001.
NFTA recognizes the importance of a strong transportation network
to the economic vitality of Buffalo and Western New York. As a result,
NFTA has aggressive plans for capital and operating improvements to its
surface and aviation systems. These improvements include projects to
enhance and increase transit ridership and projects to expand and
enhance operations at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BNIA)
and the Niagara Frontier International Airport (NFIA).
METRO BUS AND RAIL
NFTA operates the combined bus and light rail rapid transit system.
The system carries 83,000 bus passengers and 22,000 rail passengers
each day over a 1,575 square mile service area. Annual system ridership
totals 26.9 million passengers. The transit system's 1,100 employees
operate 330 buses, 18 paratransit vehicles and 27 rail cars.
NFTA and the City of Buffalo have received discretionary bus
capital fund allocations in recent years to construct an intermodal
transportation center and Amtrak passenger facility. NFTA and the City
of Buffalo have begun design of the project, an intermodal
transportation center for NFTA buses and Amtrak as well as an
intermodal connection to the Buffalo light rail system and Inner Harbor
project. NFTA has begun obligating previously earmarked funds for the
project.
New Bus Acquisition
NFTA seeks $5,400,000 in section 5309 discretionary funds to
purchase sixteen 40 foot and two 30 foot transit buses. The new buses
will replace buses purchased in 1988, which have exceeded their useful
life. NFTA's total bus and rail capital assistance needs exceed the
amount available to the NFTA under its annual section 5307 formula
apportionment. To assist NFTA to meet its capital needs, we request
priority consideration for an allocation of discretionary bus capital
funding for bus purchases. The new buses will enable NFTA to continue
to provide safe and reliable mobility to the Western New York
Community, achieve service standard goals for rolling stock
replacement, and succeed in its job access and reverse commute efforts.
Job Access And Reverse Commute Grant
NFTA seeks $500,000 in fiscal year 2001 funds under section 3037 of
TEA 21 for operational expenses associated with NFTA's Job Access and
Reverse Commute program. This program provides late night and extended
weekend service on seven existing bus routes and improved peak hour
service to address reverse commute needs on four existing routes. The
service was designated, through a collaborative planning process, as a
high priority for low-income individuals and welfare recipients to
access jobs.
BUFFALO NIAGARA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
BNIA is the NFTA's second largest business center. Eight major air
carriers--AirTran, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta
Airlines, Jet Blue, Northwest Airlines, United Airlines and US
Airways--service the area, supplemented by the regional services of
seven commuter carriers. The airport averages 108 daily flights and
provides nonstop service to 21 cities. BNIA served approximately 3.6
million passengers in 1999.
Hold Harmless Provision
BNIA is currently undergoing major airport expansion and safety
improvement projects at the airport, including the addition of seven
gates. BNIA has been successful in attracting competitive air service
to Buffalo, which has resulted in significant growth in air travel. As
a result, the number of passenger enplanements has increased
dramatically and we expect BNIA will graduate from a small hub to a
medium hub in fiscal year 2001. While we are excited about BNIA's
successes and the benefits of competitive air service to Western New
York, BNIA will be in a serious predicament as a result of its change
in hub status.
NFTA developed its financial plan for the BNIA expansion program
that is under construction on the assumption that the federal
government would fund 90 percent of the eligible costs of the projects
undertaken at the airport, which is the federal participation for small
hub airports. Because the federal participation is reduced to 75
percent for medium hub airports, BNIA will lose over $4.4 million in
federal funding eligibility for the terminal expansion project alone,
when BNIA transitions to a medium hub. Additionally, NFTA will lose
over $1.9 million in federal funding eligibility on the acquisition of
the Buffalo Airport Center property, acquired for both safety
improvements and the expansion program, and as much as $2.5 million on
the apron expansion and access improvement projects of the expansion
program. The total funding loss will depend on the amount of federal
funds NFTA receives in fiscal year 2000 before the airport transitions
to a medium hub.
NFTA requests that Congress include a provision in the fiscal year
2001 transportation appropriations legislation providing that the
federal share of allowable project costs for any airport project given
priority consideration in either the House or Senate Report or
Conference Report on Public Law 106-69 shall be no less than the
federal share in effect for the airport at the time of enactment of
such Public Law. NFTA also seeks to clarify that the term project means
the total project and not simply the individual grant applications for
a project.
BNIA Projects for Which NFTA Seeks Priority Consideration
Consistent with its expansion plans, BNIA has begun new projects
that will enhance safety and improve operations. NFTA seeks priority
consideration for AIP funding in the fiscal year 2001 transportation
appropriations legislation for the following projects:
Runway 14-32 Safety Improvements
NFTA seeks discretionary funds to extend Runway 14-32, the
crosswind runway, by approximately 1,790 feet to 7,163 feet and upgrade
runway instrumentation to make the runway safe for use by commercial
airlines. The extended runway will be a safe and viable alternative to
the main runway, Runway 5-23, when runway 5-23 is closed or if wind
conditions make takeoff from or landing on Runway 14-32 preferable. The
total project cost is $43 million.
ILS & MALS Installation on Runway End 32
NFTA requests $3,848,000 in the FAA Facilities and Equipment (F&E)
budget for fiscal year 2001 for the procurement and installation of an
Instrument Landing System (ILS) and Medium-intensity Approach Landing
System (MALS) on Runway End 32 at the Buffalo Niagara International
Airport. These navigational aids will enhance the operation of Runway
14-32 and provide for safer navigation.
BNIA Projects Which Congress has Given Priority Consideration
BNIA received priority consideration in previous years for two
projects that are currently underway--The Buffalo Airport Center (BAC)
Acquisition and Demolition project and the airport's terminal expansion
and access improvements. The BAC project will optimize clear zones, and
improve protection of transitional surfaces enhancing the safety of
Runway 14-32. NFTA financed the acquisition and demolition of the BAC
in anticipation of FAA and New York State grant award. In January 1999,
NFTA acquired the BAC property. It completed demolition of the BAC,
with the exception of the removal of the slab, in December 1999. FAA
has awarded grants totaling $7,720,041 for Phase I of the project and
$5,602,041 for Phases II through IV. NFTA will seek $11,486,113 in
fiscal year 2001 AIP discretionary funds to complete the federal
contribution to the acquisition and demolition of the BAC.
BNIA also received priority consideration for AIP funding for Phase
II of the east access improvements and expansion of the east terminal
apron. The terminal extension project adds seven gates to serve air
service passenger demand, while the access improvements will provide
safe and convenient access to the new east airport entrance and parking
areas. The apron expansion is required to serve the terminal extension.
NFTA will seek $2,430,900 in AIP discretionary funds to make
improvements to the circulatory road system to provide convenient
access to the new east airport entrance and parking areas. NFTA will
seek $12,605,175 to expand the apron associated with the East Terminal
expansion.
NIAGARA FALLS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
The Niagara Falls International Airport (NFIA) serves as a reliever
airport for the BNIA. It is operated under a joint-use agreement with
the U.S. military. The airport has a 9,130 square foot runway, making
the airport suitable for non-stop long haul service. Air Force Reserves
cargo transport units are based at the airport. One of NFIA's primary
goals is to develop business in charter, cargo and general aviation
markets.
NFIA Project for Which NFTA Seeks Priority Consideration--Taxiway ``D''
Rehabilitation
NFTA requests priority consideration for AIP funding for the
rehabilitation of Taxiway ``D'' at the Niagara Falls International
Airport. The project, which is currently underway, involves the
rehabilitation of the original taxiway pavement, including drainage and
lighting improvements. NFTA recently extended Runway ``D'' to 9,130
square feet. That project received priority consideration in the fiscal
year 1998 and 1999 transportation appropriations legislation. The
importance of rehabilitating the original pavement is underscored by
the fact that FAA rated the pavement fair to poor in its Pavement
Management Study. The total cost of the taxiway rehabilitation project
is $925,000.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding NFTA's federal
legislative priorities. We have an aggressive agenda, which will result
in improved transportation services for residents of and visitors to
the Buffalo region and will benefit the Western New York economy.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of New Jersey
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony. I am Jim Weinstein, Commissioner of
Transportation for the State of New Jersey and Chairman of the Board of
New Jersey Transit.
To begin, I wish to express the appreciation of the people and
State of New Jersey for the hard work and fine efforts of this
Subcommittee, its leadership, its members and its staff, which are so
critical to the annual appropriations process. Your good work makes
possible considerable financing which is key to the safe, effective and
efficient transportation network so important to our nation.
I want to provide you with a short overview of what we are doing in
New Jersey to address the very real transportation challenges of the
nation's most densely populated state, and to indicate where federal
appropriations in transportation provide a significant impact and role
in meeting those challenges which affect us all.
New Jersey is not big geographically, but our transportation needs
are great. We realize that traffic congestion and aging infrastructure
are two major issues demanding our attention, so that commerce--
international, national, regional and local--continues to prosper. We
recognize our responsibility not only to the residents of our state,
but also to the many visitors, users and beneficiaries of
transportation in New Jersey.
We have some of the worst traffic congestion in the nation. This is
taking its toll on our infrastructure, our economy, our air quality and
our citizens. Our success in dealing with this challenge depends on the
ongoing partnership between the State and the Federal Government. The
State of New Jersey has dedicated a full 40 percent of our state
Transportation Trust Fund to public transit this year. We match the
federal contribution to our transit capital program on a dollar-for-
dollar basis, and the financing for our new start transit project in
southern New Jersey is entirely state money.
We are making great strides in New Jersey to alleviate our traffic
problems. Public transit ridership in our state is at an all-time high,
with approximately 360,000 daily riders on our bus and rail system. The
Hudson Bergen Light Rail System between Bayonne and Exchange Place in
Jersey City will open this Spring. A new station on the Northeast
Corridor will serve Newark Airport starting in 2001. Our Secaucus
Transfer rail project will be completed on time in 2002. Our MidTown
Direct service, which opened in 1996, has attracted significantly more
riders than anticipated.
We have more work to do, and I ask for your continued support so
that we can achieve our goal of a single, seamless intermodal
transportation network. This year, we are seeking funding for several
important transit and rail projects that will further the connectivity
of our state's transportation network.
First and foremost is the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Line. New Jersey
is seeking, consistent with its Full Funding Grant Agreement, $121
million for fiscal year 2001 for the first segment of the project. When
completed, this new rail line in the nation's sixth-most-densely-
populated county is expected to carry 100,000 daily riders. The project
complements and serves the tremendous economic growth this area is
experiencing.
As construction of the first segment is nearing completion, we
intend to move directly into design and construction of the second
segment. We are currently negotiating a Full Funding Grant Agreement
with FTA which will enable us to finance the second segment. While we
will not actually be seeking federal funding for the second segment
this year, this Committee's support is critical if we are to get the
Full Funding Grant Agreement signed this year so that we do not lose
momentum on this important effort. Your support in this endeavor is
greatly appreciated.
Additionally, we are requesting $47.5 million in fiscal year 2001
for construction of a new light rail line connecting Newark's Broad
Street Station with Newark Penn Station. A Full Funding Grant Agreement
with FTA is pending. The construction of this vital link will allow
riders on our Morris and Essex lines to transfer to the Northeast
Corridor, which will also allow connection to our new Newark
International Airport Station. It will provide 13,000 daily riders from
both rail lines with access to offices, shopping and other destinations
in downtown Newark--and alleviate congestion.
We have also identified a significant rail connection needed to
improve the national and regional flow of freight rail through New
Jersey, which until recently had been focused on an east-west
orientation but is now increasing its focus on north-south. A major
bottleneck has developed in New Jersey at Marion Junction (Jersey
City)--an impact directly related to the national rail mergers of
recent years. Built to provide a smooth flow of traffic from the north,
this single-track structure must now also provide for flows from the
south destined to northeastern markets, as a result of the recent
takeover of Conrail by the Norfolk Southern and CSX Railroads. To
accommodate these bi-directional flows by two railroads, the structure
must be ``twinned.'' Additionally this project will enable the
railroads to vacate the former Conrail River Line east of the
Palisades, in order to free up that right-of-way for the future phase
of the previously described Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System.
The Marion Junction rail improvements are estimated at $30 million over
the course of the project, and we seek your consideration of this
because of its national implications.
An additional transit request is an earmark in the bus category to
assist in purchasing new buses to replace aging ones currently operated
by both NJ TRANSIT and private carriers in our state. We need
approximately 300 new buses to serve the large commuter market between
New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia. I ask that you consider an
earmark for the purchase of new buses at $400,000 per bus.
While we are asking for significant monies for public transit in
New Jersey, that investment has impacts throughout the country. We are
purchasing buses produced in Roswell, New Mexico, with engines built in
Columbus, Indiana. Another fleet of buses is assembled in Pembina,
North Dakota, with engines built in Pontiac, Michigan and transmissions
made in Indianapolis, Indiana. We have major bus components and systems
produced in Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota,
Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas, and we have a contract for rail cars to
be built in Hornell, New York. So you can see that the federal
investment in New Jersey's public transit system employs workers and
builds local economies all over the nation.
Let me again emphasize New Jersey's commitment to our own
transportation network. Governor Whitman recently announced her plan in
our state budget to provide one billion dollars in funding for
transportation in the next fiscal year alone.
New Jersey DOT is about to begin construction on the first projects
of its Portway initiative--a series of freight system improvements that
will strengthen direct access to and between the Newark-Elizabeth Air/
Seaport Complex and intermodal rail, truck and warehouse/transfer
facilities located within or near a linear corridor of about 12 miles.
We have allocated State funding on the order of $50 million to replace
a significant truck route bridge and related improvements in the City
of Newark. Multi-billion dollar transportation investments are planned
for the area by the State and the region's transportation authorities,
most notably the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. By properly
coordinating the many transportation projects of Portway, the nation
will benefit from the resulting regional improvements in this critical
corridor.
We have a vision of a single transportation network that is the
backbone of an economy--seamless, integrated systems from air travel,
to rail, to ferry, to bus and to car; moving large numbers of people
and goods fluidly through an intermodal network; alleviating
congestion, de-stressing our citizens and improving our environment.
This network is within our grasp, and I ask that you help fuel its
creation by funding its construction.
In conclusion, we look forward to the opening of the first part of
the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Transit System in the next few months. On
behalf of the State of New Jersey, I am sure I am joined by our senior
Senator, Frank Lautenberg, in inviting the members and staff of the
Subcommittee to visit New Jersey to see this new light rail system, as
well as the Portway district, and to personally view the first results
of what you have made possible in our transportation system in New
Jersey, that serves our region and the nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
submit this testimony on behalf of the Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation.
As many of you may know, Colonial Williamsburg is America's largest
outdoor living history museum spread over 170 acres with more than 600
original and reconstructed buildings. I hope many of you have been part
of the three million visitors Colonial Williamsburg attracts annually .
. . coming to hear the voices of Washington, Jefferson, and Henry
remind us all of America's rich history, while educating and exciting
our visitors about our country's democratic principles and ideals.
Ever since John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s vision of the restoration of
Williamsburg began in 1926, the Foundation has been faithful to Mr.
Rockefeller's mission statement, ``that the future may learn from the
past.'' We are active stewards of our American culture and principles,
and we consider this a responsibility we owe to all the people of our
nation as well as nations struggling to create democratic republics.
In the next five years, Colonial Williamsburg will be engaged in
the largest preservation effort since the restoration of the Historic
Area living museum began in 1926. This second restoration effort is
being undertaken to ensure that we are ready for our 75th anniversary
and the 400th anniversary of Jamestown in 2007.
As part of the more than $150 million dollar effort, we must
upgrade and expand our visitor center. This project has the
enthusiastic support of the Jamestown/Yorktown Foundation, the National
Park Service, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia
Antiquities, Busch Enterprises, the Hampton Roads Partnership, the
College of William and Mary, as well as the local Chamber of Commerce,
the three local municipalities, and the local hotel and motel
association.
Part of this visitor center project involves the construction of an
intermodal bus hub that will be the center for a new bus service that
will carry passengers to Jamestown, Yorktown, and Colonial Williamsburg
via the National Park System's Colonial Parkway. The National Park
System has already agreed with our proposal for this bus system and
approved the use of the parkway for this purpose. Since there are only
two, two-lane roads to Jamestown, a bus system will be essential to
ease traffic congestion and potential environmental impacts from
increased numbers of visitors to this important national Historic
Triangle area. Our plans call for increasing our parking area to
provide spaces for 3,000 cars and 250 tour buses at one time. Families
will be able to leave their cars and travel to the three historic
sites, and to other local attractions, such as Busch Gardens and Water
Country. Plans are also being made to provide for bus service from this
intermodal hub to other museums and attractions throughout the lower
Virginia peninsula. In addition the hub will be used as a link for the
bus systems of James City County, the College of William and Mary and
Colonial Williamsburg for the purposes of an integrated transit system
for the greater Williamsburg area.
While the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation is engaged in a
comprehensive fundraising campaign to secure private funds to cover
much of the cost of this restoration and expansion for 2007, we are
also seeking public funds as part of a private-public partnership. It
is our hope that federal funds could be made available to cover part of
the cost of the intermodal bus hub. We will also need help in replacing
8 diesel buses that have far outlived their expected life span. We have
been slowly replacing our buses with more environmentally friendly and
efficient natural gas buses. We will, however, have to purchase 10
additional natural gas buses in order to meet the needs for the service
we want to provide from our intermodal bus hub. New natural gas buses
are, as you know, initially more expensive, but in the long run more
efficient and less polluting. The cost for each bus is approximately
$230,000.
In order to assist Colonial Williamsburg in this significant effort
and to ensure the restoration work can be accomplished on time, we will
be seeking $3 million. This funding will allow us to purchase three
natural gas buses in the next year and cover part of the costs
associated with developing the intermodal bus hub. We will appreciate
any assistance that you may be able to recommend.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to have you as our guests
at Colonial Williamsburg in the near future.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Gainesville, Florida
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal
year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill to assist with the
following two projects: (1) an innovative Joint Communications
Technology Project the City is undertaking to improve public safety,
and (2) continuation funding for our Bus and Bus Facilities Project.
JOINT COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROJECT
The City of Gainesville is seeking $5.4 million for a joint
communications technology project to enhance public safety. The goal of
this effort is to facilitate communication between our urban area
public safety agencies through the use of system-wide communications
software and technology upgrades. The City and Alachua County have
initiated a joint communications system for the future. The impact for
the entire region is considerable, since this county serves as the
regional center for much of rural north Florida's medical care,
disaster management, and criminal justice services.
The agencies involved in this project are: Alachua County
Government (14 internal user agencies), Alachua County Sheriff
(includes Corrections Facility and Civil Division); Cities of
Gainesville (8 internal user agencies), Archer, Newberry, High Springs,
Alachua, LaCrosse, Waldo, Melrose, Hawthorne, and Micanopy; School
Board of Alachua County, Santa Fe Community College, University of
Florida, Gainesville-Alachua County Airport Authority, Gainesville
Regional Transit and Gainesville Regional Utilities (electric, gas,
water, wastewater, telecommunications).
To continue the Joint Communications Technology Initiative to the
next step requires the purchase of enhanced software and new equipment.
The urban area public safety agencies will need the following:
--Mobile Lap Top Computers /Data Terminals for urban area public
safety agencies ($4.8 Million)
--Crash Reporting Software for urban area law enforcement agencies
($120,000)
--System-Wide Communications Software ($200,000)
--Geographical Information System (GIS) Software and WEB Software
($280,000)
The need for the addition of lap top computers to this system is
partially driven by the Federal Government's ``re-farming'' of radio
frequencies through the Federal Communications Commission. Due to this
``re-farming'' and the high cost of radios, law enforcement agencies
will no longer have radios mounted in department vehicles. Radios
``mounted'' in vehicles traditionally have a much higher wattage output
and therefore are more reliable and robust than portable radios.
Additionally, portable radios can be lost or damaged during emergency
incidents. This creates a critical need for an alternative means for
officers to be able to communicate with the dispatch center. Mobile lap
top computers with the additional communication and software components
can become the secondary means of communication utilizing the
infrastructure currently being developed for the Alachua County Joint
Communication Center.
The use of lap top computers can fulfill the critical need for a
second communication device, and at the same time help accomplish
several other public safety objectives, including in-car computer aided
dispatch, automated report writing and the use of a GIS (Crime Mapping,
etc.).
RESULT # 1 MOBILE COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH
Utilizing lap top computers as in-car computer aided dispatch
terminals significantly increases public safety officers'
communications ability. Computers used in this manner can perform many
important tasks.
First, the computers can send and receive information between the
officer and the dispatcher, including calls for service. Non-emergency
calls are forwarded from the dispatcher to the appropriate unit without
the need to transmit the information verbally over the radio, thus
saving ``air-time'' for use in emergency situations. This also improves
the reliability of the information communicated and virtually prevents
the need for the information to be repeated. This also decreases the
need for additional dispatchers even when the number of calls for
service increases.
Secondly, officers and supervisors can find the location of other
officers and check on their current status. This eliminates the need
for officers to request this information from a dispatcher and gives
all members of the agency a complete picture of the availability of
officers for calls for service. Officers can also refer to information
about calls that have not yet been dispatched in addition to
information regarding previous calls for service.
Third, officers can communicate vehicle-to-vehicle. The computers
can be used to send messages from one officer to another. This also
eliminates the need for officers to waste ``air-time'' for less
important transfer of information.
Fourth, law enforcement officers can conduct FCIC/NCIC checks on
wanted persons and stolen vehicles without having to tie up a
dispatcher. This allows officers to check a large number of persons and
vehicles, which will significantly increase the number of people who
are arrested for warrants and the number of recovered stolen vehicles.
A single dispatcher can only handle 1 request at a time, while the
computer system, can handle numerous request all at the same time.
RESULT # 2 MOBILE AUTOMATED REPORT WRITING
Area law enforcement officers currently hand write law enforcement
reports that are manually filed. A small portion of that report is then
entered into a computer database at some later date. The benefits to
public safety of mobile automated report writing are numerous.
First, the time lapse between when a report is started and the time
that is entered into the computer is virtually eliminated. As a result,
analysis of the information is immediately available for enhancing
resource utilization.
Second, the time now spent on satisfying requests for copies of
paper-based reports and completing those requests can be better spent
on activities directly impacting public safety. Once filed, electronic
reports could be forwarded to anyone electronically as appropriate.
Third, the amount of storage space now required to house all of the
completed law enforcement reports could be freed up for better use.
Now, for example, reports are only kept at the police department for 3
years. The reports are then removed from the file one at time by a
records technician. The reports are then re-filed in a new folder and
transported to a storage warehouse. Any report over three years old,
must be retrieved from a storage company warehouse. Electronically
filed reports take up virtually no space at all and can be
electronically backed up for security purposes and stored on some form
of optical disk. This would eliminate the need for an entire room to
store reports.
Fourth, electronic reports can be created that will take the data
required for one report and automatically enter it on subsequent or
additional report forms. Now, an officer might be required to enter the
information on several report forms, including the original report, a
sworn affidavit, a vehicle tow sheet, a forfeiture request, an ATF
firearms report, etc. Thus filing the reports electronically would save
the officers significant time more urgently needed for public safety-
related activities.
Finally, many handwritten reports are nearly illegible and have
numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Some of the current report
forms are also 4 or 5-part NCR paper. Usually only the first one or two
copies of the NCR forms are legible. Filing reports electronically
would drastically reduce the number of spelling and grammatical errors,
it would allow officers to easily correct errors in reports, and it
would eliminate the need for NCR paper.
RESULT # 3 GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
For years Law Enforcement Agencies have tracked crime using pin
maps to geographically show where crimes were occurring. This method of
tracking crime has become impractical and too time-consuming for all
but the smallest of law enforcement agencies. The advent of
computerized geographical information programs, like ``ArcView'' has
enabled law enforcement agencies to return to the pin map method of
displaying crime patterns, but in a much more effective manner.
Additionally, mapping programs can contain several hundred data layers
that can be utilized by numerous public and private agencies. The
following objectives are examples of how a GIS system will enable us to
use the information immediately entered on mobile lap top computers.
Electronic Pin Maps.--Once a GIS system is established, all reports
that are generated will be mapped in several formats. Maps will be
generated for calls for service. This enables agencies to properly
decide where to deploy their limited resources. Electronic pin maps
also can be made time sensitive as well as location sensitive. Officers
working various shifts can identify hot spots by time and location. A
hot spot during the day, may not be a hot spot at night, or visa versa.
Additional maps can be generated for UCR (Unified Crime Reports)
crimes, Crime Analysis identified crimes, and calls verified by Florida
State Statutes. Information that is not immediately available is of
little or no use when it is entered at a later date.
Management of Resources Utilizing Computer Statistics.--Many law
enforcement agencies have begun to use a method of management which
utilizes crime data. Law Enforcement supervisors are being held
accountable for the level or increase in crime in their assigned
geographical area. The Gainesville Police Department has begun the
process of dividing the City into districts. Each District Commander
will be held responsible for the criminal activity and the utilization
of resources in that geographical area. GIS information will be used to
manage the department's limited resources.
WEB Mapping.--Sharing the information gathered in an effective
manner is another key component to this process. Many of the Law
Enforcement Agencies in Alachua County currently have a WEB site on the
Internet. In the future, crime maps developed by the GIS system will be
used to display maps over the Internet. Maps will be made available to
other law enforcement and governmental agencies and the public at
large.
Integration with other Agencies.--In order for a geographical
information system to be truly effective, it requires the cooperation
of several agencies. GIS systems with hundreds of layers of data can be
a useful tool for all the cooperative agencies. Law Enforcement
personnel will be able to view maps and aerial or satellite photographs
of any given area of the city. Crime data and analyses can be placed on
top of those maps and/or photographs at specified points that will be
available to all users. Law enforcement personnel will provide numerous
layers of data to the system and will in return be able to access the
layers from other agencies. Alachua County already has begun the
process of developing a GIS and the Gainesville Police Department is
currently working with the University of Florida to develop a method of
converting data to a format used by ``ArcView''.
BUS AND BUS FACILITIES PROJECT
Pursuant to the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations
Bill, approximately $0.5 million was reserved for Gainesville. The City
continues to pursue the $5.5 M that represents the remainder of the
original funding request. (The original request was for funding
assistance to purchase 25 new buses at an approximately cost of $7.5
million.) The balance will be used to purchase 19 ADA accessible buses.
The City is continuing to work with Alachua County, the University of
Florida and the Florida Department of Transportation to enhance bus
service in the metropolitan area.
Nineteen buses will replace used buses acquired from several other
transit systems to demonstrate the feasibility of this major expansion
of service to the University of Florida. The operation of these buses
will be supported by a unique partnership of the City of Gainesville,
Alachua County, the University of Florida, the Florida Department of
Transportation and the University of Florida Student government.
The University of Florida Presidential Task Force on Parking and
Transportation recommended an increase of 25 buses to serve the
commuting needs of UF students, faculty, and staff. The University of
Florida student population is currently estimated at 50,000 students.
The City of Gainesville through its Regional Transit System has
brought together the University of Florida, Alachua County, and the
Florida Department of Transportation to implement the recommendations
of the University of Florida Presidential Task Force. Service utilizing
eight buses was implemented to enhance several routes serving the UF
campus from Southwest Gainesville.
The enhanced service has already resulted in record-breaking
ridership for RTS during the past year. Express service utilizing two
additional buses from an off-campus park-and-ride lot is currently
operational. The University of Florida Student Government has
implemented a student transportation fee that allowed unlimited access
to all RTS routes by all 50,000 current UF students. In addition, a fee
increase has been approved for the upcoming year. The University of
Florida, the City and the County will be implementing a bus pass
program for City and County employees as well as University of Florida
faculty and staff to allow unlimited free access during the current
year.
In closing, federal support is critical for these initiatives. As a
result, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee give funding
assistance for our projects every consideration throughout the fiscal
year 2001 appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Memphis Area Transit Authority
The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) respectfully requests
that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation make
provision for an allocation of $14,174,990 in ``New Start'' funds for
the Memphis Medical Center Rail Extension in its fiscal year 2001 bill
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies. The Clinton Administration has proposed this level of funding
for the project and is working to draft a Full Funding Grant Agreement
(FFGA) to submit to Congress later this year. We also request the
support of the Committee in execution of the FFGA.
OVERVIEW
The Medical Center Rail Extension is a two-mile rail project in
downtown Memphis, Tennessee. The project represents an eastward
expansion of the existing 5-mile Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop
rail system. This project is proposed as the last segment of the
downtown rail circulation system as well as the first segment of a
regional light rail line. The two-mile extension will add six new
stations and a park-and-ride facility.
The Medical Center Rail Extension has been designed to link the two
largest employment centers in the region--the Central Business District
and the Medical Center--and accommodate increased trip demand generated
by new development along the line. Examples of new development include
a new Triple AAA baseball park (opened on April 1), a new elementary
school (under construction), and a major new apartment complex of 375
units (under construction). Existing development in the Medical Center
area includes seven hospitals, four colleges and universities, and
various related businesses and retail establishments.
Ridership on the two-mile extension is projected to be 2,100 per
day in the year of opening (2004) and will increase to 4,200 in the
forecast year (2020).
The Medical Center Rail Extension is expected to be a catalyst for
redevelopment and a tool to enhance the livability of the Medical
Center area in much the same way as the Main Street Trolley/Riverfront
Loop has helped to transform the Central Business District.
BACKGROUND
Since implementation of the Main Street Trolley in 1993 and
Riverfront Loop in 1997, ridership has grown steadily each year. In
calendar year 1999, 922,475 riders were carried representing an
increase of 13 percent over 1998. Data for January-March 2000 show
usage up by 30 percent over the first three months of last year.
The Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop has been credited with
playing a major role in the rebirth of downtown Memphis and its
emergence as an entertainment center and focal point for urban
residential development. The limits of activity have been stretched
north and south in part as a result of implementation of joint use
transportation terminals at each end of the line.
STATUS AND SCHEDULE
Preliminary Engineering has been completed. MATA expects Final
Design approval and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from FTA
in early April. The project schedule calls for development of 60
percent engineering plans and determination of cost estimates by July
2000 with submittal of the FFGA package to Congress by August 1, 2000.
Construction will be done in phases, with utility relocation beginning
late in calendar year 2000, followed by bridge construction in early
2001, and general construction in mid-2001. Revenue operation is
projected to begin in early 2004.
The project was rated ``Recommended'' by FTA in the Annual Report
on New Starts for fiscal year 2001.
FUNDING AND COST
The Medical Center Rail Extension has received earmarks from
Congress in the past several years, as follows:
Fiscal year:
1996................................................ $1,250,000
1997................................................ 3,039,000
1998................................................ 1,000,000
1999................................................ 2,200,000
2000................................................ 2,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................. 9,989,000
The Administration's fiscal year 2001 Budget proposes an FFGA and
funding totaling $14,174,990 in fiscal year 2001. The complete funding
schedule for the project is as follows:
Funds Appropriated \1\.................................. $8,932,176
Fiscal year:
2001................................................ 14,174,990
2002................................................ 14,826,027
2003................................................ 17,334,958
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL FEDERAL..................................... 55,268,151
TOTAL COST........................................ 69,085,189
\1\ Less monies expended for Preliminary Engineering and allocated to
FTA's Project Management Oversight (PMO) program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
We urge the committee to appropriate the recommended funding of
$14,174,990 in fiscal year 2001 in order to allow MATA to continue to
build on the past success of the downtown rail system. A substantial
appropriation is needed in fiscal year 2001 in order to maintain our
broad base of local support and keep the project on schedule. Your past
assistance is greatly appreciated and we look forward to continuing the
partnership.
______
Prepared Statement of Easter Seals
Mr. Chairman, I am Courtland Townes, III, Director of Services for
the Boston Center for Independent Living, Inc. in Boston,
Massachusetts. I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit testimony
on behalf of Easter Seals in support of Project ACTION. I currently
serve on the Project ACTION National Steering Committee. The National
Steering Committee is comprised of members of both the transit and
disability communities who support Project ACTION and work to ensure
that the Project's resources are devoted to the most critical
transportation accessibility issues facing the transit and disability
communities. On behalf of the people with disabilities and transit
operators that we represent, I want to say that we are grateful for the
Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee's ongoing support for
Project ACTION.
I work at an Independent Living Center in Boston and am also active
on the national level promoting disability issues as the Chair of the
Civil Rights Subcommittee of the National Council on Independent
Living. I know that many people are not yet familiar with the
Independent Living movement so please permit me to provide some brief
background. Independent Living is a philosophy and a movement of people
with disabilities who work for self-determination, equal opportunities
and self-respect. At the most basic level, Independent Living means
that people with disabilities expect and deserve the same choices and
control in our everyday lives that our non-disabled brothers and
sisters, neighbors and friends take for granted.
We want to grow up in our families, go to the neighborhood school,
use the same bus as our neighbors, work in jobs that are in line with
our education and abilities, and start families of our own. Just as
everybody else, we need to be in charge of our lives, think and speak
for ourselves. To this end we need to support and learn from each
other, organize ourselves and work for political changes that lead to
the legal protection of our human and civil rights.
This is the movement and philosophy that you and your congressional
colleagues embraced nearly 10 years ago when you enacted the landmark
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). In passing the ADA, you
and your colleagues recognized that, without access to transportation,
people with disabilities could not benefit from the promise of full
participation in society. I am submitting this statement to thank you
and to let you know how important Project ACTION is in the march toward
full integration and equal participation of people with disabilities.
As we approach the ADA's tenth anniversary in 2000, we should take
note of the tremendous progress we have made in recent years in terms
of transit access. The 1998 Survey conducted by Louis Harris &
Associates polling firm for the National Organization on Disability
demonstrated some of this progress. In 1986, 31 percent of people with
disabilities who were unemployed stated that lack of access to
accessible transportation prevented them from working. In 1998 this
percentage dropped to 24. It is too early to declare victory. Still one
quarter of the survey participants say that the lack of access to
transportation is an important reason they were not working, but we are
clearly headed in the right direction.
Accessibility is increasing all across America: bus fleet
accessibility has grown; rail station access has increased; and most
importantly the disability and transit communities have learned to work
together instead of meeting only in street protests and in costly
courtroom battles. Project ACTION is the singular, most positive force
bringing the transit and disability communities together. In recent
years you have heard testimony in support of Project ACTION from both
transit and disability leaders. The Project's broad-based support from
groups that have historically had an adversarial relationship is a
testament to its success at seeking cooperative solutions.
Despite this progress there are still issues to resolve. But thanks
to Project ACTION the disability community and the transit community
have a forum to work toward solutions in a cooperative fashion. Through
this cooperation we in the disability community have learned that many,
though not all, transit operators are earnestly working toward
compliance with the ADA and trying to provide the best quality service
to all Americans--those with disabilities and those without. But these
transit operators need ongoing assistance and guidance on
transportation accessibility issues. And people with disabilities need
to understand their rights and responsibilities under the ADA. This is
where Project ACTION has played and can continue to play a vital role.
With the support of this subcommittee in recent years, Project
ACTION has become the principal resource of tools, training and
procedures to make the ADA work. Since this subcommittee established
Project ACTION, it has sponsored innovative research, funded
demonstration projects, provided technical assistance to hundred of
transit providers, and developed an impressive resource center with
information on the most cost-effective ways to achieve accessibility.
Let me briefly describe some major initiatives that the Project
completed since we last submitted testimony to this subcommittee. In
June 1999, Project ACTION hosted two National Technical Assistance
Conferences, one in Dallas and the other in Portland, Oregon. These
conferences provided transit operators with every available resource to
implement cost-effective ADA compliance strategies. Conference topics
included:
--Reducing paratransit costs by transitioning riders from paratransit
to fixed route service
--Solving rural transportation issues
--Ferry and other water vessel accessibility
--Serving passengers who use seeing eye dogs and other service
animals
--Training transit operators to make stop announcements
--Dispute resolution principles.
This brief overview of these topics demonstrates that accessible
transportation encompasses so much more than just bus lift operations
for passengers in wheelchairs. Project ACTION has developed tools and
resources in all areas of accessibility. These conferences succeeded in
getting tools directly in the hands of the transit operators that need
them.
Last year we told you that we would reach out to the Over the Road
Bus companies to bring this industry into compliance with the ADA and
to open up intercity, cross-country and tour and charter travel to
people with disabilities. And this has and continues to be a primary
focus for Project ACTION. In conjunction with the American Bus
Association and a core group of operators, we have developed an
educational package and scheduled training events specifically tailored
to the unique needs of motorcoach operators.
The demand for Project ACTION information is strong and continues
to grow. We have new products on many of the significant issues facing
the transit and disability communities. We have developed guidance for
AMTRAK to help meet the needs of disabled rail passengers and also
created web-based software to assist rail systems in evaluating the ADA
accessibility of their facilities. We have also developed a best
practice guide to providing accessible water transportation on
passenger ferries.
We are meeting much of the demand from customers for information
through the Project ACTION website. We now have an Accessible Travelers
Database online. One of the challenges for passengers with disabilities
when they travel from place to place is not knowing what level of
accessible service exists in any location. To help prevent the
unpleasant surprises many disabled passengers face, we now have over
1,400 accessible transportation providers listed online for trip
planning purposes. The Project ACTION website has received over 212,000
visitors in calendar year 1999.
In the first quarter of fiscal year 2000, Project ACTION:
--Handled orders for 2,000 documents
--Responded to over 3,000 calls for assistance of various kinds
--Produced and distributed the Project ACTION Update to over 14,000
individuals and transit agencies
--Received 85,000 visits to the Project ACTION Webpage.
As this subcommittee has requested, we continue to work closely
with officials at the Federal Transportation Administration to
coordinate and plan project activities. Working with FTA, Project
ACTION is developing a 5-year strategic plan that will guide the
activities of the organization.
In February, Easter Seals submitted its fiscal year 2000 federal
application to the Federal Transit Administration. This document
outlines how Project ACTION will spend the $3.0 million in support that
this subcommittee approved in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill.
The funding that you provided will enable us to greatly expand our
activities. New activities that Project ACTION will undertake in the
near future based on requests from the field include:
--Hosting an event to teach transit professionals how to measure the
benefits of accessible public transit
--Creating a ``turnkey'' package for transit systems that will allow
them to assess, train and mentor new fixed route customers with
disabilities. And also provide driver sensitivity training and
customer service monitoring
--Providing direct technical assistance to motorcoach operators to
help them serve passengers with disabilities.
On behalf of the millions of people with disabilities who rely on
public transit, Easter Seals thanks this subcommittee for its past
support of Project ACTION. As we look toward the future, Project
ACTION's main focus will be to continue to find and implement creative
and cost-effective methods to promote ADA compliance and to reduce the
rising costs of paratransit. As a person who works on a full time basis
to promote civil rights for Americans with disabilities, I want to
emphasize how important the march toward 100 percent transit
accessibility is and to recognize the vital role that Project ACTION
plays in this struggle.
On behalf of Easter Seals, I respectfully request this subcommittee
to provide $3.0 million dollars to fund Project ACTION in fiscal year
2001. This funding level will ensure that Project ACTION can continue
to develop and disseminate workable solutions to the most critical
issues facing transit operators as they implement the ADA. We
understand the fiscal constraints under which this subcommittee
operates. However, Project ACTION is a credible, cost-effective, and
creative program that has strong support in both the disability and
provider communities and with the Federal Transit Administration. The
spirit of cooperation would not be possible without the leadership of
this subcommittee. Easter Seals is grateful for your support and we
look forward to continued collaboration.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Port Authority of Allegheny County
Chairman Shelby and members of the subcommittee, it is my pleasure
and honor to submit testimony on behalf of Port Authority of Allegheny
County, the principal public transportation provider in the Pittsburgh
urbanized area. Port Authority carries over 76 million public
transportation riders annually over a 730-square mile area including
the City of Pittsburgh. We operate and oversee a variety of services
including bus, busway, light rail, incline, and the nation's largest
specialized paratransit system known as access.
As chief executive officer of Port Authority of Allegheny County,
it is my privilege to present this testimony regarding Port Authority's
request for fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriations ``earmarks''
for two very exciting and important projects for the Pittsburgh
urbanized area--the north shore connector and the stage II light rail
transit projects, both of which are major components of Port
Authority's ``rail 21'' program.
I will also be including in my testimony a funding request for the
purchase of buses.
For fiscal year 2001, Port Authority is requesting $25 million of
section 5309 ``new start'' funds for the north shore connector and $40
million for the stage II light rail transit projects. Port Authority is
also requesting a section 5309 ``bus/bus facility'' earmark of $20
million to be used to acquire approximately 80 buses in fiscal year
2001. Procurement of new buses will enable Port Authority to continue
modernizing its fleet and ensure the continuation of quality transit
service to its customers.
``RAIL 21'' PROGRAM
North Shore Connector
The heart of the Pittsburgh metropolitan region is its golden
triangle, the center of business, employment, cultural and sporting
events, tourism, and government services. In order to accommodate and
facilitate its continued growth and vitality, there is pressing need to
better integrate the north shore area with the golden triangle by
providing much improved transit service along the downtown's Allegheny
River corridor. This corridor encompasses the north shore, cultural
district and strip district areas of downtown and is the region's
premiere tourist destination with three rivers stadium (the home of the
Pittsburgh Steelers and Pirates), the Carnegie Science Center, the
International Andy Warhol Museum, the National Aviary, the David L.
Lawrence Convention Center, three performing arts theaters, and the
Senator John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center all located
within this approximately one-square mile corridor.
Within this corridor, there are also significant levels of downtown
commuter parking and private and public development projects. During
the day, a large reservoir of parking on the north shore provides much
needed fringe parking for the golden triangle. In turn, the golden
triangle provides a significant amount of needed parking for north
shore events. Providing a better connection between the two areas will
fortify and enhance this relationship.
Development projects in the corridor include the Aluminum Company
of America's (ALCOA's) new corporate headquarters, a 240-unit apartment
complex, a new baseball park, a new football stadium, a new and
expanded convention center and hotel, an office building, a new
theater, parking facilities, and an accompanying retail and
entertainment complex.
Absent in this corridor are pedestrian friendly and efficient
transportation connections tying together these various attractions and
development projects and linking the corridor with the region's
transportation infrastructure. Overall, improved linkages between the
north shore, central business district and the station square area,
will help ensure the continued vitality and accessibility of the
region's core and enhance and support the private and public
development currently underway.
Since 1985, downtown Pittsburgh has been served from the south
hills as part of an overall 25-mile light rail transit system. A fixed
guideway transit connection from the north shore to Port Authority's
existing light rail system would enhance transit service to the north
shore area and better integrate golden triangle, north shore and
station square activities including regional attractions. the north
shore connector will:
--Support the economic development activities of the north shore,
such as the new ALCOA headquarters, a 240-unit residential
development, a riverfront park and the new baseball and
football stadiums.
--Improve access to current job and activity centers, such as the
Carnegie Science Center, Andy Warhol Museum, convention center,
the national aviary, cultural district and other entertainment
and cultural destinations on the north shore.
--Provide a direct transportation connection between north shore job
and activity centers and the south hills job and activity
centers serviced by Port Authority's light rail transit system,
the ``T''.
--Tie the north shore, downtown and station square together in a way
that would benefit all three business districts.
--Improve transportation for the one million annual visitors to the
cultural district in downtown Pittsburgh and the more than
three million people who annually visit the north side,
including fans of the pirates and steelers.
--Provide convenient transfers to other public transit service and
facilities, including the Martin Luther King, Jr. east busway,
the west busway/Wabash hov facility, Port Authority's bus
service network, the I-279 hov lanes and Amtrak and Greyhound
service.
--Continue to improve and expand public transit services for the
citizens of Allegheny County.
--Furthers Port Authority's effort to expand its LRT system into the
north side, strip district and other areas in the Pittsburgh
region.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is currently being
reviewed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with approval
expected within the next 30 days. The DEIS includes cost of the most
likely alternative at $390 million.
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STAGE II SYSTEM
Port Authority's light rail transit system, also known as the
``T'', is a 25-mile light rail transit system serving the City of
Pittsburgh and the south hills communities of Allegheny County.
The south hills light rail system, part of an extensive trolley
network formerly operated by the Pittsburgh Railways Company and its
predecessors, was acquired by Port Authority in 1964. Between 1980 and
1987, Port Authority completely reconstructed 10.5 miles of the system,
a project referred to as stage I.
Stage I entailed construction of the downtown Pittsburgh subway and
rehabilitation of Port Authority's panhandle bridge over the
Monongahela river, modernization of the old trolley line through
Allegheny County's south hills via Beechview and Mount Lebanon,
construction of a new Mount Lebanon transit tunnel, construction of a
new rail car maintenance facility and operations control center and
purchase of 55 articulated and air-conditioned light rail cars. Also
included in stage I was the completion of the 2.5-mile Allentown line
in 1992.
The stage II light rail transit system which was designated a ``new
start'' project in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Assistance Act
of 1991 (ISTEA) involves the reconstruction of 12.5 miles of the
overbrook, library, and drake trolley lines to modern light rail
standards. Preliminary engineering was completed for the project in
spring 1998. Rebuilding the three lines on their existing alignments
includes double-tracking the overbrook line, replacing bridges,
stabilizing slopes, adding retaining walls, constructing new stops and
stations, and installing signal, communications and electrical power
systems. All three lines are also to be built to modern light rail
standards. The project includes the acquisition of 28 new light rail
vehicles, and approximately 2,400 new park and ride spaces. The current
project is estimated to cost a total of $512.5 million. Among other
benefits, the reconstruction of the stage II line would promote
economic development opportunities, offer shorter travel time, add much
needed capacity for customers, provide safety enhancements, implement
park and ride expansion and improve operational efficiencies. We are
requesting $40 million for this project.
BUS PURCHASE
Port Authority is also requesting $20 million of section 5309 bus/
bus facility funds in the fiscal year 2001 transportation
appropriations to be used toward the procurement of approximately 80
buses. The new buses will replace buses which have completed their
useful service lives and are eligible for retirement by virtue of age
or mileage standards. The buses will be used in Port Authority's
overall route network, which serves 260,000 riders each day, or about
76 million annually.
It is our fervent desire that your subcommittee will continue
increasing the overall level of investment in transportation
infrastructure, which is of national importance. as a result of your
work, this subcommittee has enabled public transportation systems in
our great cities, suburban communities, and rural areas to be
rejuvenated. Your work has also helped create an interstate highway
system and an airport network that is the envy of the world. It is
imperative that we sustain this momentum and that all levels of
government continue to develop our transit and surface transportation
networks in order to keep American mobile and growing.
Finally, I want to thank you Mr. Chairman for your personal
leadership and all of the subcommittee members for their past support
and commitment to surface transportation programs, particularly for
those that affect public transportation.
I look forward to an active and ongoing dialogue with the
subcommittee and all of its members in the coming years. I would be
pleased to submit any additional information at this time as would be
useful to the subcommittee. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Regional Transit Authority
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement to the
subcommittee on behalf of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of New
Orleans and Jefferson Parish.
Before proceeding, the Regional Transit Authority extends its
sincerest appreciation to the members of this subcommittee for the
support demonstrated towards our requests for the last fiscal year. As
you may recall, upon enactment, the fiscal year 2000 transportation
appropriations bill included $3,300,000 for RTA's bus lease maintenance
program from Louisiana's $5,000,000 statewide bus appropriation, and $1
million for the canal streetcar project. We are very grateful to the
subcommittee for its role in providing that critical funding.
In summary, for fiscal year 2001, the Regional Transit Authority is
requesting Federal funding for the following projects:
--$76,000,000 for the canal streetcar project
--$40,000,000 for RTA's lease/maintenance program
--$10,000,000 for the desire corridor project
CANAL STREETCAR PROJECT
The canal street corridor project will restore light rail transit
service to the city's most important transit corridor. For fiscal year
2001, the Regional Transit Authority is requesting up to $76,000,000 of
FTA section 5309 new start rail funding to construct the project.
The project completed the major investment analysis phase in the
fall of 1995 and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed
in August of 1997. The FTA issued the favorable ``record of decision''
on August 28, 1997. currently, the project is undergoing final design.
The prototype streetcar has been completed and is operating regularly
as part of its testing. Construction is expected to begin in 2001.
The total cost of the canal streetcar project, including the
proposed city park spur, is approximately $156,600,000. To date,
Congress has appropriated $55.5 million towards the project.
The Regional Transit Authority recently took two major steps
towards ensuring the fiscal viability of the project as it strives to
obtain a full funding grant agreement. Unfortunately, both actions
occurred after the update submittal to the FTA to affect the project's
current ``not recommended'' status per the annual report on new starts
for fiscal year 2001 issued earlier this month.
While the project continues to enjoy positive ratings under the
project justification criteria, it suffers under the financial rating
criteria. To that end, as well as to ensure the financial stability of
both the project and the RTA system, the RTA enacted a fare increase
and obtained an additional source of sales tax revenues.
The fare increase was implemented in the fall of 1999 when the base
fare rose from $1.00 to $1.25. The expected decrease in ridership was
not as severe as projected while the revenue increases has done much to
reverse the negative operating budget outlook the RTA faced previously.
The additional sales tax will be the result of a settlement between
the RTA, the local hotel/motel industry, and tourism officials to share
in the proceeds of a previously unlevied sales tax on hotel and motel
rooms in New Orleans. The RTA will receive 60 percent of the
collections while the other two parties will split the remaining
amount. The new levy, which is expected to begin on May 1st, is
projected to generate an additional $6-$7 million per year for the RTA.
Those proceeds will be dedicated for both the canal streetcar and
desire corridor new start projects.
The canal street corridor connects with 70 percent of the Regional
Transit Authority's 59 transit lines and seven suburban routes. In the
future, the route could connect with Amtrak and the local Greyhound bus
terminal at the New Orleans union passenger terminal.
The streetcar's track will be placed primarily within existing
medians, which will allow the RTA to remove buses from the currently
congested traffic stream. The EIS analysis predicts 20 percent growth
of ridership over the 18,000 per day currently utilizing the bus
service within the corridor.
in a major effort to reduce the overall cost and scope of the
project, the RTA has implemented two strategies, both during
construction and operation:
First, the canal streetcar track will match the recently regauged
track of the riverfront streetcar and the historic St. Charles
streetcar line. The common gauge will allow the RTA to use the existing
Carrollton streetcar facility of the St. Charles streetcar as a heavy
duty maintenance facility for all three lines as well as the proposed
desire corridor line. Thus, the RTA will avoid the cost of duplicating
a similar facility. However, a separate storage and inspection facility
for daily maintenance and cleaning of the streetcars will be built due
to capacity constraints at Carrollton.
The second part of the strategy will be to assemble the streetcars
in New Orleans by the technicians and craftsmen at the RTA's Carrollton
facility whom recently built seven streetcars for the revamped
riverfront streetcar line and overhauled the entire 36 car St. Charles
fleet. This facility and its workers are uniquely suited to construct
the canal streetcars competently and economically. The RTA will be able
to save approximately $400,000-$600,000 per vehicle by taking this
approach. Estimates are that for an outside firm to bid on the
streetcars, which are a one-of-a-kind design, it would cost the
taxpayer anywhere from $1.6 to $1.8 per vehicle. RTA approximates its
cost at $1 million to $1.2 million.
the streetcars will be basically replicas of the venerable, and no
longer available, Perley Thomas type that now traverses the St. Charles
line. However, the canal streetcars will be ADA accessible and air
conditioned.
LEASE/MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
As its highest priority request under the FTA bus and bus facility
program, the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), is seeking $40,000,000
representing five years of payments under its innovative lease/
maintenance program approved by the Federal Transit Administration.
The RTA has entered into a lease and maintenance agreement with a
commercial leasing company for the lease and maintenance of 175 new
buses. The agreement will allow the RTA to benefit from the Federal
regulations that permits the treatment of maintenance costs under a
lease as an eligible capital expense. Penske truck leasing, through the
RTA's RFP selection process, is the lessor of the buses as well as
being responsible for the maintenance of the buses. The financing will
be by ABN-AMRO.
With 446 vehicles, the RTA operates the largest system in Louisiana
by providing service to nearly 180,000 riders per day in a city that is
20 percent transit dependent. The new buses has significantly reduced
the operating expenses of the RTA and has enhanced its ability to
provide dependable service.
This request will once again be a part of the fiscal year 2001
Louisiana statewide request for FTA bus program funding. That effort is
led by RTA staff and is coordinated through the Louisiana Public
Transit Association. We hope our cooperative attempt will yield
additional support once more to benefit the state's other transit
systems as well as the RTA.
DESIRE CORRIDOR PROJECT
The RTA is requesting $10,000,000 of FTA section 5309 new start
funds for the corridor once occupied by the fabled streetcar named
desire. The funding will allow the project to proceed to final design.
The major investment study (MIS) was completed in May of 1999. The RTA
is currently seeking approval from the FTA to proceed to preliminary
engineering and the environmental impact phase. To date, Congress has
appropriated $6 million of FTA new start funding to the project.
The completion of the major investment study (MIS) with extensive
public input resulted in the selection of the former St. Claude
streetcar route as the light rail alternative. Utilizing N. Rampart
Street and St. Claude Avenue, the four-mile (8 miles round-trip) would
travel through the historic New Orleans neighborhoods of Bywater,
Fauborg Marigny and the Vieux Carre (the French Quarter).
the project also includes a number of transportation systems
management (TSM) improvements including bus route changes, smaller
buses, intelligent transportation system (ITS) innovations, and bus
turn lanes.
The proposed streetcar line will allow the RTA to consolidate a
number of bus routes away from the historically and structurally
sensitive French Quarter. The line is expected to improve the overall
efficiency of the RTA system by allowing for higher operating speeds
and shorter travel time for buses now forced to use congested French
Quarter streets. The streetcar will provide direct service to the
French Quarter, Faubourg Marigny and Bywater neighborhoods that are
otherwise inaccessible to regular transit service. In addition, the
line will serve two major defense facilities; the U.S. Coast Guard
support center and the Navy's F. Edward Hebert defense complex.
Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on
behalf of the regional transit authority.
______
Prepared Statement of the Louisiana Public Transit Association
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to the house
subcommittee on transportation appropriations on behalf of the 120
transit providers represented by the Louisiana Public Transit
Association. Due to the difficulty in obtaining section 5309 funding
for bus and bus related facilities through the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) application process, the LPTA presents its
statement to this committee in an effort to meet the state's long-
standing transit needs.
Before explaining our project requests, the LPTA wishes to thank
the subcommittee for its role in appropriating $5,000,000 towards the
$35.7 million fiscal year 2000 request. That funding will go a long way
in helping the Louisiana Transit providers.
The total Louisiana request for fiscal year 2001 under FTA section
5309 bus and bus related funding is $65,551,000. The request is for 14
projects of varying size and cost from nine transit agencies. Briefly,
those requests are for:
The City of Alexandria, Alexandria Transit (ATRANS), is requesting
$1,030,000 for replacement vehicles. ATRANS needs to replace four
thirty foot buses and three vans for its ADA paratransit service. The
replacement vehicles will include surveillance cameras, two-way radios,
and fareboxes. The vehicles being replaced will soon exceed their
useful life.
The City of Baton Rouge, Capitol Transportation Corporation (CTC),
is requesting a total of $1,200,000 for two projects important to the
capital region.
Funding of $1,000,000 is being requested to begin the replacement
of seven buses and three vans that have exceeded their useful life. CTC
will have an additional ten buses that will need to be replaced after
2000. In addition, because of recent and well-received upgrades to the
transit service in the Baton Rouge area, CTC will also have to increase
its paratransit fleet to meet demand and ADA requirements.
CTC is also requesting $200,000 of funding to replace radio
equipment throughout the CTC system including base stations, bus
radios, van radios and supervisors' radios. The replacements are
necessary due to the recent purchase of a new regional 800 mhz system.
The replacement equipment will permit the coordination of
communications between police, transit dispatch, emergency medical
service, and the regional transportation management center.
Jefferson Parish, which funds and oversees two private transit
systems on each side of the Mississippi River, Louisiana transit on the
east and westside transit on the west, is seeking funding of $500,000
to begin the preliminary planning of an eastbank transit terminal. The
proposed site is located on airline drive near the intersection of
Causeway Boulevard, an area near several major transfer points. The
terminal would greatly improve the efficiency of the eastbank system by
providing easy access to transfer among three routes. The facility
would provide for better security, conveniences, and connections for
riders utilizing the system.
The City of Lafayette, through the City of Lafayette Transit System
(COLTS) is seeking the remaining $6,200,000 of Federal funds needed to
reconstruct and reconfigure a site currently operating as a postal
facility adjacent to an Amtrak station. The Lafayette multimodal
transportation center will serve as the terminal for the COLTS system,
a Greyhound station, and as an enhanced Amtrak stop for the sunset
limited. The postal service will also continue to use a portion of the
site. The city will house its traffic and transportation department's
development, transit, parking and planning divisions at the center. The
$10,500,000 project already has been designated with a positive
environmental impact statement and is in the design development phase.
Construction is scheduled to begin in late 2000.
COLTS is also seeking $1,600,000 to replace eight transit buses, 25
percent of the COLTS fleet, that have exceeded their useful life of
twelve years and are not accessible under ADA. By the end of fiscal
year 2001, over seventy-five percent of the transit fleet will have
reached the end of their useful life.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development,
specifically the Office of Public Transportation, is in need of another
$2,300,000 of Federal funding to allow the replacement of 78 vans for
both rural and specialized transit providers across Louisiana. All the
vans to be replaced are inaccessible under ADA, exceed the useful life
standard of 5 years by 2-4 years, and are far beyond the 100,000 miles
cited as the mileage standard. Obviously, safety and dependability
problems with vehicles of this size is a growing concern for the rural,
elderly and disabled community across Louisiana. Additional demands for
vans are expected to meet the needs of welfare-to-work.
In order to meet the increasing demand for transit service in
Louisiana's rural areas, the LPTA is requesting another $1,200,000 of
section 5309 funding for expansion of the state's rural transit systems
by 35 vehicles. Currently, many of the state's rural parishes do not
have rural transit providers due to the LA DOTD's backlog of
replacement needs for existing operators. In addition, many current
rural operators need to expand to meet the demands of welfare-to-work,
jobs access, and other basic transportation needs as the population
expands and ages in those rural areas. The program would be
administered through the existing rural transit program of the
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
The City of Monroe, through the Monroe Transit System (MTS), is
requesting funding to renovate, expand, and update their aging
maintenance facility in the amount of $2,000,000 for the $2,500,000
project. MTS will renovate the 15 year-old facility by adding bays to
be dedicated to conduct cost saving preventative maintenance checks and
to equip the facility with modern and safer equipment. In addition, MTS
is planning to reconfigure the facility to allow for drive-through
capability and space for added inventory. The facility is MTS only
maintenance garage and the work proposed will make it much more
efficient and economical to operate.
In addition, MTS is seeking $1,700,000 to replace seven forty-foot
transit buses that have exceeded their useful life. Currently, the
average age of the MTS fleet is 10 years.
The City of New Orleans, through the Regional Transit Authority
(RTA), is requesting $40,000,000, which represents five years of
payments under its innovative lease/maintenance program approved by the
Federal Transit Administration. This program allows the RTA to enter
into a lease and maintenance agreement with a commercial leasing
company for the lease and maintenance of 175 new buses. The agreement
permits the RTA to benefit from the FTA regulations that allow for the
treatment of maintenance costs under a lease as an eligible capital
expense. Penske truck leasing, through the RTA's RFP selection process,
was selected as the lessor of the buses as well as provide for the
maintenance of the buses. The financing will be by ABN-AMRO.
With 447 vehicles, the RTA operates the largest system in Louisiana
by providing service to nearly 180,000 riders per day in a city that is
20 percent transit dependent. The buses leased will significantly
reduce the operating expenses of the RTA and enhance its ability to
provide dependable service.
Finally, as you are probably aware, the RTA has pending two new
start rail requests, one for the Canal Street corridor project
(undergoing final design) for $76,000,000 and another $10,000,000 for
the desire corridor project. The RTA will provide detail of those
projects in a separate statement.
The next request is on behalf of the City of Shreveport and its
Sportran Transit System for funding of $7,680,000 to replace thirty-
four transit buses. The vehicles have exceeded their useful life of
twelve years and are not accessible under ADA requirements.
The last request is on behalf of St. Tammany Parish that is
requesting $300,000 for a park and ride facility to be located in
Mandeville, located within western portion of the parish. The park &
ride facility is proposed for a half-acre site in the vicinity of
Gerard Street. It will be near the Lake Pontchartrain causeway and is
expected to draw local residents which should help limit the expansive
growth of traffic on the causeway.
The proposed project will provide parking for up to 50 automobiles
including the required disabled spaces. There will be a bus pad capable
of handling a fully loaded 40-foot bus with proper ingress and egress
to the site. Amenities to the site will include lighting and
landscaping consistent with the surrounding natural environment. The
project will renovate an existing building to provide a transit
terminal containing telephones, water fountains and benches.
St. Tammany Parish is directly north and northeast of the City of
New Orleans across Lake Pontchartrain. It is the fastest growing area
of the region. the park-and-ride will reduce traffic impacts associated
with commuter traffic in St. Tammany Parish and help ameliorate air
quality concerns for the New Orleans region now designated as an air
quality maintenance area. This project will be the second park & ride
facility for the residents of St. Tammany Parish.
Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on
behalf of Louisiana's Transit Systems.
For your reference, attached you will find a summary of the fiscal
year 2001 Louisiana request.
NEW START RAIL, 49 U.S.C. Section 5309 (Formerly Section 3
Appropriations
New Orleans Canal Street Corridor Project (Construction) $76,000,000
New Orleans Desire Corridor Project (Final Design)...... 10,000,000
BUS AND BUS RELATED FACILITIES, 49 U.S.C. SECTION 5309 (FORMERLY SECTION
3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal \1\ Local Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria:
Four Thirty-foot Buses....... $880,000 220,000 1,100,000
Three Vans................... 150,000 37,500 187,500
Baton Rouge:
Buses and vans............... 1,000,000 250,000 1,250,000
Communications Equipment..... 200,000 50,000 250,000
Jefferson Parish: Eastbank 500,000 125,000 625,000
Terminal (preliminary design)...
Lafayette:
Multimodal Transportation 6,200,000 1,550,000 7,750,000
Center......................
Eight Forty-foot Buses....... 1,600,000 400,000 2,000,000
Louisiana Department of
Transportation & Development,
Public Transportation:
Replace 78 vans (Rural & E&H) 2,300,000 575,000 2,875,000
Rural Transit Expansion 1,200,000 300,000 1,500,000
(vans)......................
Monroe:
Renovate maintenance facility 2,000,000 500,000 2,500,000
Replace seven Forty-foot 1,500,000 375,000 1,875,000
buses.......................
New Orleans: Lease Maintenance 40,000,000 10,000,000 50,000,000
Program (5 years)...............
Shreveport: Replace 34 buses..... 7,680,000 1,920,000 9,600,000
St. Tammany Parish: Mandeville 300,000 75,000 375,000
Park and Ride Facility..........
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 65,551,000 16,377,500 81,887,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts to be prorated should full funding not be realized.
______
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of Iowa Statement University, Institute for Physical
Research and Technology
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. air transportation system is the best and the safest in
the world. It plays a key role in the U.S. economy carrying over 614
million passengers in 1998 alone. That number is expected to climb to
890 million passengers by the year 2008, nearly doubling in two decades
the 1998 number when it carried over 450 million. These increases will
be met by the continued operation of existing aircraft as well as the
introduction of new aircraft into the commercial fleet. The U.S. fleet
is expected to grow from 5,200 aircraft in 1998 to 7,200 by the year
2008, a 38 percent increase in only 10 years. The diligence that the
Federal Aviation Administration and the aviation industry employed in
the 20th century to ensure public safety must be ever-increasing to
ensure continued performance as we enter the next century. The
aerospace industry also plays a critical role in the U.S. economy,
employing almost 5 percent of the manufacturing work force in the U.S..
Congress is urged to continue their support to address the critical
safety and economic issues associated with this vital industry through
funding for the Aviation Safety budget of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence
(AACE), established by the FAA in 1997, offers a unique opportunity for
the government to work with industry on precompetitive aviation safety
research to their mutual benefit and the benefit of the flying public.
The AACE team is comprised of the best talents the U.S. has to offer in
technologies critical to the safe design and operation of aircraft.
This document provides details of the national importance and the
contributions possible through the Airworthiness Assurance Center of
Excellence.
BACKGROUND
Several incidents in the last fifteen years have focussed the
attention of the aviation community on the needs related to safety, and
in some instances provided direction to federally funded research
programs managed by the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center's
Aviation Safety Division. A chronology of those events is provided
here:
--In 1988, the Aloha incident drew the attention of the industry to
issues related to the structural integrity of aircraft systems.
The Aviation Safety Act of 1988 directed the FAA to better
predict the effects of design, maintenance, testing, wear, and
fatigue in the life of an aircraft; to develop methods for
improving aircraft maintenance technology and practices,
including nondestructive inspection; and to expand general
long-range research activities applicable to aviation systems.
--In 1990, the FAA Center for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR) was
established at Iowa State University to support the FAA's
research needs in the research and development of inspection
technologies. In 1991, the Airworthiness Assurance
Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center at Sandia National
Labs (AANC) was established as a sister program that supports
the validation and transfer of inspection technologies. The
resources of CASR and AANC provide the FAA with the full
spectrum of research capabilities for inspection technology,
spanning from basic research through applied research, which
has been fully validated in realistic settings.
--In 1989, a United Airlines DC-10 crashed in Sioux City, Iowa, as it
tried to land following a major in-flight malfunction. The
cause of the incident was traced back to the presence of a
melt-related defect known as ``hard alpha''. In response to
issues identified in the wake of this incident, the Engine
Titanium Consortium at Iowa State University was established in
1993 to address the inspection of critical jet engine
components.
--In 1996, the White House Commission on Aviation Security and Safety
undertook an intensive investigation into improving aviation
safety. Several incidents beyond those noted above, including
the TWA 800 event in Long Island, the ValuJet incident in
Miami, and the Delta incident in Pensacola, precipitated the
establishment of the White House Commission. After extensive
review, the Commission recommended that a concentrated effort
be put in place to reduce accidents five-fold over the next
decade. Reductions in the overall accident rate are needed in
light of the major increases in air travel and in order to
maintain the public's confidence in the air transportation
system.
The FAA has focussed its resources on the accident prevention steps
that hold the most potential. In April 1998, the FAA Administrator and
the Vice President announced the Safer Skies Initiative, which will use
the latest technology to help analyze U.S. and global data to find the
root causes of accidents and determine the best actions to break the
chain of events that lead to accidents. Safer Skies will use
partnerships between the FAA and the aviation industry to determine the
highest priority issues and develop programs to address those issues.
Already in existence, the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence
is a model for such partnerships, and it is expected to be a major
contributor to achieving the goals of this program.
RESPONSE TO A NATIONAL NEED
The FAA, the airline operators and the aviation systems
manufacturers share the responsibility for aviation safety. Each plays
a unique and complementary role in the lifecycle of commercial
aviation, starting with design, manufacture and certification of
aviation products followed by the operation and maintenance of the
commercial fleet. In 1997, the FAA established the Airworthiness
Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE) to address research, education,
and technology transfer and utilization in the area of airworthiness
assurance. Specifically, the FAA uses this center to ensure that the
most current technology is available to address the safety needs of
aviation. AACE, comprised of nearly 100 university and industry
partners, offers the full range of technologies needed to address
safety issues. Partnerships are already in place, and functioning well.
These enable business competitors to put aside competition and to work
together to address safety issues to the common benefit of the industry
and the flying public. AACE offers a unique opportunity for the
government to work with industry and leading research universities to
accomplish the following objectives:
--To promote and facilitate research in industrially relevant
subjects that will improve aviation safety
--To facilitate utilization of appropriate research results and
transfer of technology into aerospace applications
--To develop education and training tools for improving aviation
safety including participation of students in industrially
relevant research
AACE CAPABILITIES SUPPORT SAFETY NEEDS
Through the concentrated efforts of the industry and the
government, the overall commercial aviation safety record has seen
improvement from 0.121 fatalities per 100,000 flights in 1989 to 0.036
fatalities per 100,0000 flights in 1997. Continued diligence is needed
to further improve the safety record and accomplish the goal of a five-
fold improvement established by the White House Commission. New
technologies are being introduced in the manufacture of commercial
aircraft with new materials, new processes, and new inspections finding
their way into structural applications. As the aircraft and their
systems age, new challenges are evident in the maintenance, inspection
and repair of the commercial fleet. Comprehensive capabilities are
needed to address the wide range of technology needs to assure
continued safety improvements. AACE has successfully established a team
of aviation experts that includes the following expertise:
--Aircraft standards and specifications
--Inspection technology--airframe, propulsion, nonstructural systems,
and components
--Reliability and POD methodologies
--Maintenance and repair technology
--Composites development, repair, and certification
--Materials properties, characterization and computational modeling
--Flight loads analysis
--Fuels analysis
--Crashworthiness of aircraft structures
--Personal protection systems
--Propulsion materials and design
--Structural integrity and fracture mechanics
ESTABLISHMENT OF WORLD-RENOWNED SAFETY TEAM
AACE is comprised of eight core universities, Sandia National
Laboratories and over 100 other university and industry affiliates. The
nine core members, which include Iowa State, Ohio State, Northwestern,
Wichita State, UCLA, Arizona State, University of Dayton, University of
Maryland, and Sandia National Laboratories, provide expertise in all
the major research areas necessary to address FAA aircraft safety
needs. Results from the AACE program are already impacting the
aerospace industry and the safety of its operations. Major
accomplishments of AACE include:
Inspection development.--Tasks are under way at ISU, Northwestern
University, Ohio State University, and Wayne State University through
the CASR program. University researchers cooperate with engineers at
Sandia National Laboratories to transfer the results into industrial
use as part of the AANC. Efforts are under way to transfer thermal
wave, ultrasonic, and eddy current techniques into use at airline
maintenance and overhaul facilities.
--New approach to acoustic testing developed by ISU researchers is
used for finding delaminations in composite structures. The
approach is being developed and tested with Northwest Airlines
and Boeing with technical support from Sandia National Labs.
Beta site tests are under way with American Airlines, Delta
Airlines, and United Airlines; ongoing studies are in place
with the Iowa Army National Guard; and commercialization
discussions have begun.
--Software tool for optimized x-ray inspection was developed at ISU
and is currently being used by Boeing, Pratt & Whitney,
Honeywell, General Electric, Allison/Rolls Royce, and Howmet
for the evaluation and design of critical aerospace
inspections. The tool has been used to determine the effect of
inspection angle on the ability to detect cracks in structural
elements of airframes, to determine the detection sensitivity
for detrimental particles in jet engine components, and many
other safety-critical inspections.
--Crack detection for aging aircraft has been the focus of research
at Northwestern University. An approach to detect cracking in
hidden layers has been implemented by Northwest Airlines, Delta
Airlines and USAirways for inspection of the DC-9. This one
inspection has saved the industry over $1M and led to the
successful detection of cracking and corrosion.
Propulsion inspection research.--The Engine Titanium Consortium
Phase II program was established in 1999. The ETC includes research
efforts of ISU in partnership with the three major U.S. engine
manufacturers, General Electric, Honeywell, and Pratt & Whitney.
Efforts are under way to improve the detectability of critical flaws in
the titanium and nickel alloys that are commonly used in jet engines.
Tools for use in manufacture and operation of jet engines are under
development along with quantitative methodologies to assess the
reliability of the inspection processes.
--Improved inspection of titanium billet was the focus of the ETC
Phase I production efforts. The multizone system, optimized by
the ETC team, has been implemented at three inspection labs,
used to inspect millions of pounds of billet, and has prevented
hard alpha defects from entering jet engine parts
--Inservice inspection of critical jet components can now be
accomplished more rapidly and with improved sensitivity using
tools developed by ETC. The Portable Scanner is available as a
commercial tool and is being used in commercial and military
applications. Over 15 units have been sold for use in ensuring
safe operation of critical jet engine disks.
--Quantitative assessment of ultrasonic inspection is now possible
using methodologies developed by ISU and the partners of ETC.
Statistical approaches to assess the effectiveness of an
inspection enable the industry to make engineering decisions
about the method and frequency of inspection.
Jet engine materials improvements.--The Special Metals Processing
Consortium, headed by Sandia National Laboratories, working with the
major U.S. suppliers of jet engine alloys and the engine manufacturers,
develops improves melting processes for titanium and nickel alloys.
Their efforts are directed at reducing the occurrence of melt related
defects such as hard alpha, the defect that led to the Sioux City
crash.
Fuels safety.--Work is under way at Stanford Research Institute,
University of Dayton, and Arizona State University to understand the
source, nature, and potential hazards of copper and silver sulfide
deposits in aviation fuels. Results will have implications for
understanding the cause of the TWA 800 incident.
Materials research.--Today in the aviation industry, the use of
composite structures is more widespread. To fully realize the weight-
saving potential of composites, one must first understand the damage
tolerance of such structures. This understanding is essential first in
the design process in order to develop structures that are more
efficient and second, in serviceability to reduce the extent and
frequency of repair. Work is under way at Wichita State University,
University of Maryland, Northrop Grumman, and UCLA to understand the
damage mechanisms and provide data to the FAA in evaluating the safety
of composite materials.
AEROSPACE IS A KEY ELEMENT OF U.S. COMPETITIVENESS
The aerospace industry employed 893,000 people ($32.9M payroll) in
1998 down from a high of 1,314,000 ($34.2M payroll) in 1989 which
represents 4.8 percent and 6.8 percent of the overall manufacturing
employment respectively. Aircarriers employed another 621,000 people in
1998. In addition to its role as a major employer, the aerospace
industry also accounted for 9.4 percent of U.S. exports in 1998 with
nearly $35 billion exported through aircraft and engines sales. Given
the economic importance, continued research and development activities
for the overall safety of the industry are needed. AACE is uniquely
positioned to support the research efforts that enhance economic
competitiveness. The leading aviation research universities in the
country are partnered with national laboratories such as Sandia
National Laboratories and the Ames Laboratory to provide research
solutions to industry defined problems. This is the real advantage--the
industrial users and partners help define the needs and the preeminent
research organizations in the world are partnering to work toward their
shared results. Industry partners have defined the following goals for
AACE research:
--Reduce failures by order of magnitude
--Improve efficiency of operations and support to reduce cost
--Reduce certification time and costs These goals were arrived at
through the efforts of aircraft and engine OEMs, major U.S.
airlines, and aviation systems manufacturers, working with Iowa
State University, Northwestern University, Wichita State
University, Ohio State University, and Sandia National Labs.
OPPORTUNITIES BUILT UPON EXPERIENCE
Economic and competitive forces are changing the way aircraft are
developed, certified, and operated. These same forces impact the
operational life span of the aircraft. Factors affecting the future of
aviation include shorter design and certification cycle times, a
shrinking (and retiring) workforce, and increased outsourcing and use
of third party support. Preeminent FAA safety goals must be reconciled
with industry business needs to fully address the challenges ahead for
the aviation industry. The Airworthiness Assurance Center of
Excellence, established in 1997, combined the talents of the Center for
Aviation Systems Reliability at Iowa State University and the
Airworthiness Assurance NDI Validation Center at Sandia National Labs
with the capabilities of other major universities and industry
partners. CASR and AANC have considerable experience in the
development, validation, and implementation of inspection technologies.
Building on that experience base, AACE is uniquely positioned to
address the full range of safety and economic research needs of the
government and the industry. Opportunities to apply the best available
technology to the highest priority needs are in place.
Congress is strongly urged to continue their support for these
critical safety and economic issues through funding for the Aviation
Safety budget of the FAA. The Airworthiness Assurance Center of
Excellence offers a unique opportunity for the government to work with
industry on precompetitive aviation safety research to their mutual
benefit and the benefit of the flying public.
--AACE is in place, and it is working.
--It is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and the need it
serves is growing.
--It is providing demonstrable benefit to the aviation industry.
--It is a model of government, industry, and academic collaboration
to address the overriding safety concerns of the public.
--It is a vehicle enabling the best minds to work on major concerns,
and to do so while distanced from the competitive forces of the
normal workplace.
--It should be strongly supported as it continues the successful
performance of the work it was asked to do.
______
Prepared Statement of the FlightSafety International
This is in support of the justification by the City of Vero Beach,
Florida for $5.2 million in funding from the FAA Facilities and
Equipment fiscal year 2001 appropriations account to relocate and
replace the Air Traffic Control Tower at the Vero Beach Municipal
Airport.
URGENT SAFETY ISSUE
Air traffic controllers at the existing tower, built in 1973, have
their visibility limited by obstructions for about 30 percent of the
nearly 240,000 annual operations at the airport. For certain areas of
the airport they have no visibility at all of aircraft ground
movements.
Since 1973, the City has lengthened the main runway, improved the
secondary runway, added a third runway, and developed the central and
west areas of the airport. Vero Beach Airport traffic is projected to
grow to 270,000 operations annually in the next few years.
At Vero Beach, FlightSafety International operates 90 aircraft that
fly about 90,000 hours annually. Roughly 25 percent of the pilots
trained at Vero Beach, or about 1,000 pilots annually, are from
foreign-speaking countries worldwide who are being trained for
international airlines and international general aviation. This
situation demands the utmost in airport traffic control.
The existing tower is located just to the north of the main east-
west runway. Landing aircraft approaching this runway from either
direction after sunrise and before sunset are often difficult to see,
particularly in hazy conditions. Furthermore inbound traffic from the
south entering the landing pattern for either runway are equally
difficult to see for the same reason. (See attached airport diagram.)
The proposed location of the new tower, to the south of the east-west
runway, will alleviate this potentially dangerous situation.
The present tower has no radar, and control by tower personnel of
visual or instrument traffic can be daunting. With no approach control,
the tower cannot release aircraft for takeoff or clear the instrument
traffic for landing until visual contact is established.
The possibility of a mid-air collision is a very real danger
despite the controllers' continuing valiant efforts.
FlightSafety International, a U.S.-owned company, operates over 40
Learning Centers around the world and is the largest provider of flight
and simulator training in the world. The FlightSafety Academy at Vero
Beach is the only location operated by the Company that provides ab
initio pilot training.
RECOMMENDATION
We urge the Subcommittee to support the $5.2 million in fiscal year
2001 funding from the FAA Facilities and Equipment Account for the
construction of the Air Traffic Control Tower replacement at the Vero
Beach Municipal Airport.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Airport Executives
and Airports Council International--North America
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we are pleased to offer
this testimony regarding fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and other appropriations-related
issues on behalf of the American Association of Airport Executives
(AAAE) and Airports Council International--North America (ACI-NA). AAAE
is the world's largest professional organization representing the men
and women who manage airports; ACI-NA members are the local, state and
regional governing bodies that own and operate commercial service
airports in the United States and Canada.
Before looking forward to fiscal year 2001, we want to first offer
our sincere appreciation to the subcommittee for its long-standing
support of airports and its continued commitment to airport funding.
The $1.896 billion AIP obligation limitation for fiscal year 2000,
which is now being released with enactment of recently passed
reauthorization legislation, will undoubtedly make a big difference in
helping tackle much needed safety, security, capacity and noise
mitigation projects at airports nationwide.
These investments are critical to keeping pace with the significant
growth in aviation activity, which is projected to explode from
approximately 650 million passengers annually to more than one billion
within a decade. The subcommittee deserves a great deal of credit for
working to address these increasing demands, a task not easily
accomplished given the inadequacy of the Administration's recent budget
requests for AIP and in light of the subcommittee's obligation to other
programs under its jurisdiction.
Despite the subcommittee's dedication to increasing AIP funding
levels, much more is required from the federal government. According to
the General Accounting Office, there is an annual $3 billion gap
between existing airport needs and available capital for investment.
Continued under-investment of this magnitude is beginning to take a
toll on the aviation system as evidenced by the significant delays
experienced last summer and at numerous airports throughout the year.
In reality, those delays are only one symptom of a much deeper
problem that threatens to cripple the nation's air transportation
system, a system that Americans rely on to create economic growth
locally and to compete internationally. In 1997, the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission warned Congress that without prompt action,
the United States' aviation system would hit gridlock shortly after the
turn of the century, jeopardizing safety, harming the efficiency and
growth of the domestic economy, and hurting the nation's position in
the global marketplace.
Congress has taken action to secure additional resources for
aviation as part of FAA reauthorization legislation. That bill, which
was passed overwhelmingly by both Houses of Congress in March,
significantly increases investment in FAA capital accounts,
particularly AIP. We believe this increase in AIP funding is absolutely
justified and in the best long-term interest of airports, the
travelling public and the nation.
We commend the members of both the subcommittee and the full
committee for the critical role you played in shaping the final
compromise on the FAA reauthorization bill and for bringing the
conference committee to its successful conclusion. In the end, the bill
offered a fair and reasonable approach that provides desperately needed
capital while ensuring that those funds are wisely spent. Among other
things, the legislation provides important management changes at the
FAA and maintains the critical role of the subcommittee and the full
committee in maintaining oversight of the Agency.
Given the overwhelming needs of airports nationwide and with
important safeguards in place, we believe it imperative that the
subcommittee fund AIP at not less than the fully authorized $3.2
billion level in fiscal year 2001. The increase in AIP to $3.2 billion
combined with a modest increase in the federal cap on locally imposed
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) will help narrow the current airport
funding gap and enhance the safety, efficiency and capacity of the
nation's aviation system.
In addition, we urge you to carefully consider provisions in the
reauthorization legislation that allow the subcommittee to shift funds
from the facilities and equipment account to AIP, when appropriate.
Although Administrator Garvey deserves high marks for gaining a better
grip on the Agency's modernization program, it is clear that much
remains to be done to ensure that scarce federal resources are wisely
spent in this area. Given the ``bang for the buck'' that accompanies
AIP expenditures, we believe that there may be instances when funds
will be better spent for airport improvements.
We are aware of the concerns expressed by some about the strain the
newly enacted FAA reauthorization bill may place on the FAA operations
account and other federal transportation programs. While we are
sympathetic to those concerns, we oppose shifting funding from AIP to
other areas of the FAA's budget.
Unfortunately, efforts along those lines have already begun with
the current year's funding of the administration of the FAA Airports
Office from AIP and the President's proposal to do so again in fiscal
year 2001 along with $50 million from AIP for funding Essential Air
Service (EAS). While we support full funding of both the Airports
Office and EAS, we are adamantly opposed to raiding AIP for purposes
for which the program was not intended to support.
The reauthorization bill acknowledges the importance of the FAA
operations account in funding these types of programs and fulfilling
the FAA's critical safety mission. The bill calls for funding the
operations account at the President's requested level, to be paid for
in part from the general fund, as has been the case historically. Since
all Americans benefit from the aviation system, we believe a continued
general fund contribution is appropriate and necessary.
We have trouble accepting the premise that FAA operations will
somehow become abandoned with the enactment of the reauthorization
bill. The operations account has grown significantly from $3.8 billion
in 1990 to nearly $6 billion in fiscal year 2000, with most of the
increases coming at the expense of the capital accounts, which have not
enjoyed similar growth rates. The reauthorization bill simply stops the
constant chipping away at the capital accounts in recognition of their
importance to meeting future demands.
Further, we agree with the Department of Transportation Inspector
General that the passage of the reauthorization bill should move the
Agency forward in containing operations costs, developing a cost
accounting system and developing a strategic business plan. Those
efforts combined with the management reforms contained in the bill
should produce increased efficiencies and cost savings in FAA
operations.
One specific area for air traffic control cost savings the
Inspector General has touched on is the FAA Contract Tower Program. In
addition to providing approximately $30 million in ATC savings, the
program improves ATC safety, enhances regional airline service
opportunities and increases economic productivity in smaller
communities across the country. We appreciate the subcommittee's past
support of this program, which continues to receive high marks from the
IG.
We urge the subcommittee to continue its support of full funding
($55.3 million) for the Contract Tower Program as requested in the
President's budget request. We also ask for an additional $5 million to
be used exclusively for the continuation of the Contract Tower Cost-
Sharing Program supported by the subcommittee last year.
As we approach the delay-prone summer season it is important to
recall the role of airports in supplying the much-needed capital
investment in infrastructure to help address the serious and worsening
problem of delay. At the same time, there is significant investment
necessary by FAA in the new technologies needed to modernize the
National Airspace System.
Although FAA has acknowledged difficulties fielding advanced
technologies, it is enjoying the support of the industry in successful
programs such as Free Flight Phase 1. Nevertheless, a reliable and
adequate funding stream is essential if this success is to be repeated
across the entire NAS modernization effort. We urge your support of the
follow-on Free Flight Phase 2 projects. We also want to emphasize how
important the satellite navigation programs are to our members' ability
to increase capacity and safety at their airports.
Despite the recent setbacks in the Wide Area Augmentation System
(WAAS), it is an essential tool to providing basic instrument approach
procedures at many of our smaller airports with no approaches at all.
WAAS will also provide important new safety margins by supplying
vertical guidance on the many existing non-precision approaches where
controlled flight into terrain has been a continuing threat.
Development of WAAS should continue at a funding level commensurate
with FAA's current implementation schedule.
The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) promises greatly improved
navigation precision, which will be of tremendous value to our larger
airports. Development of this program is being carried out by
innovative Government-Industry Partnerships (GIP's) made possible by
the FAA acquisition reform flexibility provided by Congress. In these
GIP's, avionics and airframe manufacturers, airlines and airports are
jointly developing the basic, Category I precision landing capability.
However, in view of the delayed schedule for delivery of a Category I
capability by WAAS, it is essential that this effort be accelerated.
FAA needs sufficient funding to expedite their role in the development
of LAAS: provision of timely standards and certification, development
of the Category II/III LAAS system, and procurement of Category II/III
LAAS at more than a hundred airports.
A final new technology of importance to airports is Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast Mode (ADS-B). When coupled with
augmented signals from WAAS and LAAS, ADS-B holds significant promise
for reducing delay. In last summer's Ohio valley trials, ADS-B
demonstrated a real safety benefit by improving situational awareness.
It also showed that aircrews were able to safely maintain existing
visual separations, resulting in higher airport capacity, rather than
adding a several miles margin, as is current practice.
When coupled with high precision signals from LAAS, ADS-B promises
to revolutionize airport operations in instrument weather conditions.
If controllers and pilots can ``see'' each other and the landing runway
with accuracy of a few feet, as has been demonstrated with LAAS, then
the reduction in capacity at our member's airports during bad weather
can be finally be addressed. We believe that independent simultaneous
approaches to closely spaced parallel runways permitted by LAAS and
ADS-B will solve the bad weather delay problem at some of our nation's
most delay-prone airports. When coupled with the ability to ``see''
traffic on the airport surface (which several of our member airports
have already installed in ARFF and operations vehicles), LAAS will
provide a valuable tool for preventing the worst kind of runway
incursions--a blunder into an oncoming airplane by a large air carrier
aircraft.
Another area that merits the support of the subcommittee is the
recently created Air Service Development Program, which requires DOT to
establish a pilot program to help improve air service to communities
not receiving sufficient air service. If fully funded ($20 million in
fiscal year 2001), this program will go a long way toward providing
communities across the country with valuable assistance that will
likely result in improved airline service at more reasonable prices.
This program will be particularly beneficial to many smaller
communities that currently suffer from infrequent air service at high
prices. These problems are not only an inconvenience for local
travelers, they also hamper the ability of these communities to attract
and maintain businesses and develop economically. As any local chamber
of commerce will tell you, one of the first things any potential
business asks when looking at a new site is the availability of
reliable and reasonably priced air service.
The Air Service Development Program is designed to give communities
or consortia of communities modest funding for worthwhile projects
aimed at improving the current situation. Given the severity of the
problem in many areas throughout the country and the promise this
program offers in enhancing service and lowering prices, it is our
sincere hope that you will move forward with full funding.
In the safety area, the newly authorized Wildlife Mitigation
program and ATC Modernization pilot program will provide important
safety benefits, and they deserve funding from your subcommittee.
Another area of concern for many airports is the recent decision by
the FAA to reverse its decades old practice of paying below market
rates for FAA facilities located on airport property, choosing instead
to push airports to furnish space without cost. While airports are not
averse to providing the FAA land for ATC facilities without cost, we
feel strongly that the FAA should continue to pay reasonable rental
rates for FAA space occupied in airport sponsor-owned buildings.
For smaller airports in particular, the potential loss of rental
revenue--even at below market rates--will have a significant impact on
their financial situation. This new interpretation is completely at
odds with the requirement that airports have a fee and rental structure
that make the airport as self-sustaining as possible. On one hand they
are told by the FAA to be self-sufficient, and on the other they are
told that they can no longer expect the Agency to help foot its own
share of the bill, even for FAA facilities located on airport-owned
property.
In addition to being a significant financial burden, this situation
has become a cost-avoidance issue for the Agency at several locations
across the country. Rather than building facilities appropriately
located off airport property--such as TRACONS--the Agency is instead
choosing to build on the airport, knowing that they can expect to get
the land and use of the facility at no cost. Saddling airports with
these burdens is unfair and unwise.
In light of the significant financial burden the proposed FAA
policy change would impose on airports, it is our hope that the
subcommittee will be willing to work with both the Agency and airports
to find a solution that best serves both group's long-term economic
interests. Continuing the long-standing policy in that regard, rather
than applying a new standard that would allow the FAA to require
airports to furnish space for buildings without cost appears to be the
best option, in our view. Specifically, we ask you to include a general
provision in this year's bill forbidding the FAA from expending any
funds on the implementation or enforcement of new policy standards in
this area.
Finally, we would like to raise our concerns about language
included in last year's transportation appropriations legislation that
limits FAA's multi-year leasing authority to five years. The shift to
the five-year limit from the previous 20-year limit seriously hampers
the ability of airports to gain long-term financing for FAA buildings
given the short-term commitment. We hope you will revisit this issue
and grant multi-year leasing authority up to the previous 20-year
level.
There is great opportunity this year to provide America's airports
with the resources they need to meet the significant challenges they
face in enhancing safety, security, capacity, competition and noise
mitigation. This subcommittee has been instrumental in leading us to
this point, and we look forward to working with you, the full committee
and the staff to move forward. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of InVision Technologies, Inc.
BACKGROUND
Terrorism is a threat to National Security that requires constant
vigilance. Acts of extreme cowardice, such as the downing of Pan Am
flight 103, aimed at innocent members of a targeted entity are
punctuated by extended periods of seeming inactivity. While public
awareness of the specific acts of terrorism fades over time, our
national responsibility never fades. With regards to Aviation Security,
as one looks closer at the periods of apparent terrorist
``inactivity'', one finds a much different picture. Specific examples
exist of foiled plans far more evil than ever anticipated, technical
blunders that created apprehension opportunities, successful test cases
that confirmed new vulnerabilities and nothing short of continued
preparation by the terrorist enemy. Terrorists continue to advance
their capability to murder U.S. citizens in the name of their cause.
Therefor, at no time can we let our vigilance fade. We must always push
to maintain or improve our readiness to anticipate, prevent and respond
to thwart the menace of terrorism.
FUNDING
The tragedy of TWA 800, though thankfully not the apparent result
of a terrorist act, served to create a call to arms in aviation
security. Shortly after TWA 800, the GAO reported in Aviation Safety
and Security on March 5, 1997 that the ``. . . FAA is just beginning to
purchase explosives detection systems to deploy at U.S. airports,
although the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 set an ambitious
goal for FAA to have such equipment in place by November 1993.'' ``The
(Gore) Commission recommended that the federal government devote at
least $100 million annually to meet security capital requirements-
leaving the decision on how to fund the remaining security costs to the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission.''
The ``expeditious deployment'' of FAA certified Explosive Detection
Systems (EDS) was mandated and funded according to the recommendations
of the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. Indeed, the
mandate called for a security initiative involving multiple years at
funding levels never before experienced. It marked the creation of a
Security Equipment Integrated Product Team (SEIPT or IPT), staffed and
managed by the FAA to include airline and airport participation thereby
assuring industry access to the process. As a groundbreaking initiative
in aviation security and considering the enormity of the task,
consensus, efficiency and results were all hard fought successes.
However, some myths exist. Some four years after the Gore
commission, one might think, `the job is done'! Not so, in fact it has
only just begun. Some four years after the Gore commission, one might
think that InVision Technologies Inc., the primary manufacturer of
certified EDS has enjoyed four consecutive years of expenditures at the
rate of $100 million per year for EDS equipment. This too is not so. In
fact, in the year following the initial Gore Commission funding, no
funds were available in the 1998 FAA F&E account for EDS. In the 1999
budget, it took an emergency supplemental to fund the recommended $100
million. Not until the current 2000 budget has EDS or aviation security
in general, been part of the regular funding of the F&E account.
In addition, the portion of the annual funds actually spent to
procure certified EDS has continually decreased. This is true for
several reasons. The funding recommendation of $100 million per year
for EDS has been diluted by expenditures on other activities including
K-9 teams, enhancements for existing passenger X-ray machines and hand-
held ``sniffers''. The cost of integrating EDS products began to
increase as equipment integration contractors learned from the system
manufacturers about the planning requirements for integration,
utilization and optimization. While this cost is significant and
routinely underestimated it is more cost effective when the EDS system
manufacturer is tasked to perform the integration work. Due to the
decrease in funding, the equipment deployment goals of the Gore
Commission, let alone the 1990 Aviation Security Act, have not been
met. Too few bags at too few airports are being scanned today. The gap
between the goal and the reality is staggering and grows each day that
traffic to and from these airports increases.
It is time to change the direction of EDS funding. The FAA has a
plan to implement a security baseline by the year 2004. At that time a
small percentage of all bags will be scanned by certified EDS because
the use of CAPS, an automated profiling system greatly reduces the
quantity of bags that require certified EDS scanning. Even with that,
conservative estimates place the number of EDS units required at
approximately 400. That means approximately $100 million per year for
budget years 2001 through 2004 will need to be spent on the EDS
equipment alone and that achieves only about 5 percent of all bags
being scanned! The task from that point forward is the implementation
of a plan to move to 100 percent scanning of all bags. To accomplish
both the security baseline and the prudent plan to move beyond the
baseline, we must:
--Resolve to assure adequate funding to protect the public from the
national security threat posed by terrorists.
--Spend funds intended for EDS, on EDS, in the most cost-effective
way possible.
--Fund separately those programs that were not part of the assessed
requirements to secure checked baggage.
--Understand that while their quest for competition is commendable,
the FAA and Congress has failed to provide adequate funding to
stimulate and enhance the productivity of a single EDS
manufacturer, let alone provide the funding that can assure a
healthy, competitive marketplace.
The chart below graphically illustrates the lack of sustained
funding and acquisition of certified EDS.
TECHNOLOGY AND THE OPERATOR
Along with the funding issues mentioned above, the experience
gained over the past few years help us determine the best path for
system development currently underway and anticipated for the future.
First, it is well understood that the security opportunity provided by
certified EDS is significant. It is also understood that the role of
the equipment operator, as verified through years of experience in
checkpoint screening, is also crucial. Second, it is further understood
that the perfect system would require no operator intervention, have a
100 percent detection rate and no alarms that require operator
resolution. It is not likely that technology will produce this ``silver
bullet'' capability any time soon. So, while the early criticism of EDS
products was that they were not fast enough, the salient fact that
emerges is, the validity of EDS as a technology solution is equally
dependent on its performance in the reduction of alarms, as it is on
detection and throughput. Therefor the FAA and Congress must remain
vigilant to assure that certification standards are never compromised
to allow for systems that will increase bag alarms, increase dependence
on operator threat resolution and decrease end to end system
performance.
To further substantiate the significance of FAA certification
standards, it is well known that the FAA plans to reduce the threat
quantity detection requirement in its standards. New intelligence is
available everyday that directs the FAA in the establishment of
standards and technology requirements that get the job done! If
machines with non-certified False Alarm Rates (FAR) are considered
deployable now, one can only imagine the negative impact on the
aviation security system, if a technology that ``misses the mark'' of
current certification requirements, is deployed and further erodes the
nation's commitment to certified EDS.
In the area of operator training and performance, while our
knowledge base has increased, optimization remains elusive. Many
factors exist, but recent congressional inquiry has identified and
debated the issue of responsibility as an important factor. Should the
responsibility to provide operators remain with the airlines, shift to
the airports or become a government responsibility based on the
aviation threat as a national security issue. As always, all points
have supporters and detractors, but one thing for sure is that no
current plan exists to accurately quantify the true potential of EDS
technology with regards to delivered value.
As a solution, InVision urges the FAA and Congress to recognize the
extensive experience InVision has gained domestically and
internationally in the manufacture, integration and operator training
requirements of certified EDS in checked baggage screening.
Authorization and funding should be available to the FAA to contract
with InVision to provide as a test case for a total ``turnkey''
solution. With airline/airport partners InVision plans to use its
collective experience to optimize end to end system security. The
turnkey solution requires InVision to provide operators, plan and
implement equipment integration, provide the most cost-effective mix of
systems from its family of products in a 100 percent checked baggage
scanning initiative. This would allow the all parties to fully assess
the true cost and ramifications of a true solution. This would provide
the necessary data to understand the challenges we face after the
attainment of the security baseline by 2004 and the progression towards
the 100 percent screening by the end of the decade.
THE OPPORTUNITY
In spite of the difficulties faced in the mission to secure checked
baggage, the FAA, Congress and the traveling public are currently
provided more opportunity to advance the deployment of certified EDS
than ever before. As of this writing, the FAA has contracted with
InVision to provide a complete family of EDS products to satisfy the
variety of application requirements in our US aviation system. InVision
provides a family of EDS products covering a wide range of price/
performance ratios assuring a competitive supply of certified
equipment. The CTX 9000DSi is the fastest certified EDS in the world
featuring the largest belt size and scanner opening in the industry
making it perfect for integrated, high speed solutions, even if 100
percent scanning is necessary. The 5500DS remains the industry
workhorse with more than 150 systems delivered worldwide. The newest
member of InVision's family of products, the CTX 2500 is the smallest,
most cost-effective certified EDS available and is ideally suited to
smaller airline operations with low throughput requirements. A truck
mounted, mobile version of the 2500 is also available and will be in
Washington for demonstration in the month of May. As always with
InVision products, performance capabilities with regards detection and
low false alarms are never compromised. To the benefit of all, as many
as 180 systems are available under contract to expedite the attainment
of FAA goals and to combat the menace of terrorism in checked baggage.
This is an opportunity that should be adequately funded by Congress and
expeditiously implemented by the FAA.
______
Prepared Statement of the Air Traffic Control Association, Inc.
The Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. (``ATCA'') is a
professional association of forty-four years standing dedicated to
advancement in the science and profession of air traffic control and
aviation safety. Its membership is worldwide in scope, and represents
all aspects of the air traffic control discipline, from air traffic
control specialists and airway facilities technicians who operate and
maintain the air traffic control system, to those individuals and
companies who develop and manufacture the technology, equipment, and
services which support the system, to the citizens, government agencies
and airlines who use the system.
ATCA appears before you to urge increased funding for operations
and capital improvement programs of the Federal Aviation
Administration--activities that are fundamental to maintaining and
improving the safety and efficiency of the national air transportation
system.
At the dawn of a new millennium, the air transportation community
is facing intensifying challenges, as well as unprecedented
opportunities for improvements, in air traffic control and aviation
safety. Among the most significant challenges--both domestically and
globally--is relentless increase in the demand for aviation services
which will require more and better facilities to satisfy.
At the same time, however, aviation infrastructure is in dire need
of updating and improvement. Although this need has long been
recognized, years of deficit economics, budget capping, belt
tightening, down sizing, rationalizing, doing more with less, and just
plain doing less have taken their toll. Aging ATC equipment is
increasingly unreliable, expensive and difficult to maintain.
Replacement and modernization projects, starved for resources, are
extended or postponed, and the benefits of those improvements are
delayed or foregone. Staffing and support resources are so lean that
day to day operational needs are all-consuming, leaving little if any
time or energy for exploring innovative, efficiency enhancing
procedures and operating concepts.
Moreover, the effects of funding deprivation are cumulative. Expert
personnel departing through retirement or attrition are very difficult
to replace with people of equivalent expertise, especially when
resources for employee training and development are scarce, and hiring
freezes are the norm. Infrastructure improvement projects are
repeatedly interrupted, revised, and re-baselined in conformity with
artificial budget restraints; completion horizons recede; potential
benefits dwindle relative to cost; and good projects become obsolete or
are overtaken by events and scrapped. As refurbishment and improvement
is postponed, aviation infrastructure continues to crumble, users and
passengers more and more often are delayed and frustrated, and the job
of making needed improvements gets bigger and more difficult. No one
wants this--not the FAA, not aviation users, not the general public.
The good news, however, is that today's technology--high speed
computers, intelligent software, realistic displays and simulation,
satellites, advanced sensors and communications equipment--is bringing
dramatic improvements to air traffic control. Science and human
creativity pose few impediments. The real challenge is assuring that
funding, both for the technology, and for the people and support
services needed to implement it, is applied to aviation needs in a
timely way, and in amounts sufficient to get the job done. A related
challenge will be to devise ways and means for commercial, private and
military aircraft operators to make corresponding avionics improvements
in keeping with FAA's modernization timetable.
The Administration is requesting $11.222 billion for FAA activities
in fiscal year 2001, an increase of $1.281 billion (11 percent) over
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Air Traffic Control Association
urges the Congress to fund the Administration's request in full. This
is the very least amount necessary to sustain the current level of
activity. But more than that, the Association recommends that the
Administration, Congress and the aviation community work together to
increase the level of funding for FAA in fiscal year 2001 above the
amount proposed, in an amount sufficient for FAA to really address the
backlog of deferred needs, and to explore promising concepts and
technologies for meeting aviation needs of the new century. ATCA states
no position on how FAA needs should be accommodated relative to other
budget demands, but the Association does strongly urge that budget
relief be provided by some means.
The Administration is seeking $6.592 billion in fiscal year 2001
for FAA Operations, $698.8 million (11 percent) more than the fiscal
year 2000 enacted level. This amount includes funding for 202
additional field maintenance staff, 64 new certification/flight
standards staff, 35 oversight and assessment staff, and 94 security
related staff. It also includes an increase of $135.4 million to make
operational new equipment being delivered to support the NAS.
This proposed increase, although significant, is not enough to
sustain the current level of operations, much less ensure excellence
for the future. Demands on FAA's Operations funding are multiple and
growing. The Operations account pays for day-to-day provision of ATC
services, maintenance of ATC and other facilities, certification and
regulation, security, all administrative services, training, travel,
and payroll and benefits related to virtually all FAA personnel. Needs
in all of these areas are increasing in keeping with relentless growth
in demand for aviation services, and it is important for FAA to be
competitive for skilled personnel in a very robust job market.
Additionally, accommodating the greater financial burden of a large
union contract labor force is putting increased pressure on operations
resources.
Moreover, years of austerity budgeting including buy outs,
attrition and hiring freezes has depleted FAA's work force of its most
experienced and expert staff. As new equipment and systems are
delivered in the modernization effort, even the most experienced of
staff require education and training. The need for significantly
increased funding for personnel hiring and development activities
including training has never been greater.
Additional activities such as realistic cost accounting, ATC system
performance evaluation, and stepped up collection, analysis, sharing of
aviation safety and operations data all require substantial new
resources. Globalization of aviation requires increased safety
surveillance, more information collection, and collaboration with
aviation partners around the world, requiring more personnel, more
travel, and better tools for FAA personnel.
No one wants FAA to have to reduce the level or excellent quality
of the services it now provides. After years of belt tightening, the
aviation community has come to the conclusion that there is no margin
left in the ATC system for more economizing. To the contrary, the
aviation community universally agrees that FAA must undertake
significant additional activities to satisfy predicted increases in the
amount and complexity of air traffic foreseen for the future. Although
ATCA cannot say precisely what amount of Operations funding in fiscal
year 2001 would allow FAA to launch a full scale, vigorous effort to
build capabilities adequate for 21st Century aviation, the proposed 11
percent increase over current funding clearly will not do it. The
Association recommends that this increase be at least 20 percent in
fiscal year 2001, and that FAA be required to provide the Congress with
its estimated funding requirements unrestrained by budget caps.
The Administration is requesting $2.495 billion for FAA Facilities
and Equipment in fiscal year 2001, an increase of 22 percent over the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level. Even this increase, although
substantial, falls far short of the amount required.
Facilities and Equipment funds are used not only for ATC system
modernization, but also for sustaining and refurbishing current
equipment and systems, many of which will remain in place for the
foreseeable future. In 1998, FAA estimated that modernization costs
alone based on the National Aviation System Architecture Version 3.0 in
effect at that time would be approximately $3 billion per year.\1\
Adding to this the annual costs of sustaining and refurbishing
equipment already in use, it becomes clear that the true necessary
level of F&E funding for FAA in fiscal year 2001 and for the
foreseeable future is more in the order of $4.0 billion per year.
Because FAA's first priority is maintaining and replenishing equipment
and systems already in use, funding below this amount necessarily will
impact modernization activities in proportion to the shortfall. At the
proposed $2.5 billion level there would be very few modernization
projects immune to down scaling, schedule stretch, or interruption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Version 3.0 of the Architecture reflected a consensus view of
the aviation community on ATC modernization needs and priorities for
new operating capabilities in the National Airspace System. Subsequent
versions of the Architecture were revised downward to conform with
Administration funding projections for FAA in fiscal years 2000 and
beyond, and therefore do not necessarily reflect total modernization
needs or accelerated project schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration is proposing significant amounts of funding for
major projects which are central to modernization. Among these items
are the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System ($178.7
million), which will replace antiquated ATC terminal equipment with
uniform displays, workstations and software, which is needed to support
future ATC requirements. The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) ($111
million) will make the Global Positioning System (GPS) useable for en
route, terminal, non-precision, and near Category 1 precision
approaches. $105 million is proposed for Terminal ATC facilities
replacement, $198 million for Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11), $77.6
million for replacement of ATC Beacon Interrogator, and $75.5 million
for Terminal Automation. All of these are large undertakings with
substantial resource requirements. They are absolutely necessary for
meeting future needs and will deliver significant benefits both in
terms of safety and efficiency. Funding requests for these items must
be fully supported.
In addition to these major items, numerous smaller scale projects
are vital to modernization. Not only must the Administration's funding
requests for these items be fully funded, but additional resources in
these areas could accelerate delivery of safety and efficiency benefits
to the system. Among these classes of items are projects directed
toward improving detection and management of air traffic on the airport
surface (e.g. AMASS, ASDE-X), technologies to improve detection and
dissemination of aviation weather information (WARP, NEXRAD, TDWR,
LLWAS, ASOS, ITWS), communications improvements such as NEXCOM and the
FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure project (FTI), and Flight Service
Station improvements such as OASIS. Perhaps no one project promises
more significant benefits for the price than Controller Pilot Data Link
Communications (CPDLC), which provides controllers and pilots the
option of communicating through data exchange as well as voice. In test
and evaluation, this technology has proved the most effective, quickest
way to relieve radio frequency congestion, improve safety and increase
system capacity, while at the same time reducing controller workload,
and merits strong financial support.
Equally worthy of full funding are FAA's efforts to accelerate
implementation of technologies that will yield significant immediate
operating benefits. This activity, designated Free Flight, is very
important for maintaining user support for modernization, and to garner
near term safety and efficiency benefits for both users and FAA.
Products of this effort already successfully fielded include sharing of
schedule and ATC data to reduce delay and improve system efficiency
(CDM), better sequencing and metering tools for controllers in terminal
areas (CTAS), better management of traffic on the airport surface
(SMA), and a tool for evaluating airline routing requests for potential
air traffic conflicts (URET). In Phase 2 of this activity, FAA plans to
intensify implementation of CPDLC, and initiate Reduced Vertical
Separation Minima (RVSM), both of which have positive implications for
capacity enhancement. The Administration is seeking $221 million for
these activities. ATCA urges that this request be fully funded.
The Association also believes that there is a large, unrecognized
financial burden to be borne as the transition period between the
advent of new capabilities and the retirement of the old (e.g. GPS
navigation replacing VOR/DME) stretch out beyond past assumptions.
These costs will continue to be substantial and not subject to
deferral.
In short, FAA cannot possibly maintain the present ATC system,
refurbish current equipment, and continue full scale modernization/
replacement of NAS equipment with the current level of funding. When
only partial funding trickles down each year to crucial modernization
projects, implementations get delayed, costs increase, priorities are
readjusted constantly--in short, the entire effort suffers. ATCA urges
the Congress to assure that funding enacted for FAA in fiscal year 2001
and future years take into consideration all of the agency's F&E
requirements, and be sufficient to sustain a vigorous modernization
effort over and above sustainment of current capabilities.
The Administration is requesting only $184 million for Research,
Engineering, and Development in fiscal year 2001. The Air Traffic
Control Association estimates that the real RE&D funding needs of FAA
are more in the order of $500-$600 million in fiscal year 2001 and
future years.
The Association is concerned that funding levels for FAA RE&D over
the past two years signal an alarming reversal of the Nation's
historical commitment to robust aeronautical research and development,
particularly R&D that keeps the United States on the forefront of
advancements in the science of air traffic control. With more than half
of this account earmarked by law for safety, security and related
research, funding at the level the Administration proposes will provide
very little at all for the RE&D associated with implementation of the
NAS Architecture. In draft version 3.0 of the Architecture, FAA
estimated this need alone to be $348 million in fiscal year 1999,
increasing to $560 million in fiscal year 2000. Even these amounts
understate the overall cost of aviation RE&D that should be occurring,
because FAA activities traditionally have emphasized applied research.
As with all organizations having a highly technical mission,
significant funding should be appropriated for basic research--the type
of inquiry that can yield breakthrough concepts and technologies that
will bring significant long-term benefits. Without generous, continuous
support for this type of activity, scientific advance of the quality
the United States has heretofore achieved will become a thing of the
past.
The Association acknowledges a new level of cooperation between
FAA, NASA, DOD, and supporting organizations in achieving long term
research goals, embodied in the National Research and Development Plan
for Aviation Safety, Security, Efficiency, and Environmental
Compatibility, issued November 1999. These efforts certainly are
promising, but the Association does not envision them as substituting
for a vigorous, focused R&D program within FAA. These multi-
organization efforts will complement FAA programs, not substitute for
them. Both NASA and DOD recognize that FAA's role as system architect
dictates that FAA retain the leadership role in R&D activities feeding
into the NAS.
The Administration proposes $1.950 billion in fiscal year 2001,
equal to the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, for Airport Improvement
Grants. The Air Traffic Control Association urges the Congress to fund
this request in full.
The traveling public increasingly experiences the inconvenience and
frustration and of delays associated with inadequate system capacity.
The need is becoming more and more urgent for more runways, taxiways,
and other airport facilities, especially in growing communities.
Localities, especially small communities, are hard pressed to pay for
airport improvements that keep pace with the expanding aviation
marketplace, and yet their residents need to be fully integrated with
an economy that is increasingly global. Inadequacies in airport
infrastructure, no less than failings in other elements of the air
transportation system can become a limiting factor on trade, tourism
and local economic activity. Systematic and healthy Federal investment
in airport development is an essential component of a balanced plan to
meet aviation needs in the future. Certainly, during this time of
economic vigor, the Nation should be sustaining and increasing its
investment in airport infrastructure.
There is a continuing need for the aviation community and policy
makers to pursue consensus on a structure that will assure funding for
aviation that is reliable and predictable, as well as sufficient in
amount.
The Air Traffic Control Association has long advocated legislation
that would separate the Airport and Airway Trust Fund from the unified
Federal budget. Such legislation would improve the ability of the
Federal government to fund aviation infrastructure improvement projects
by eliminating any incentive to maintain positive balances in the trust
fund to offset funding deficits in other programs. Moreover, it would
facilitate more generous and reliable funding for capital improvements,
helping managers plan investment on multi-year basis.
The Association also supports a substantial contribution--at least
25-30 percent--by the Federal general fund toward the costs of FAA
Operations. This is right and fair because FAA is responsible not only
for operation of the air traffic control system, but also for safety
oversight, regulation, certification, and security. These latter
activities are inherently government functions necessary to protect the
public welfare. Moreover, the general public, even infrequent
travelers, benefit from a National Air Transportation System which
moves goods, products and mail efficiently and economically, stands
ready to assist the Department of Defense in times of crisis, and
supports the commerce and tourism that are fundamental to the Nation's
robust economy. These benefits are more than worth the public dollars
expended.
Research and discussion is ongoing among policy makers and the
aviation community about whether additional structural reforms could
make the provision of air traffic serves more economical and efficient.
Views on these issues at this point are various and divergent, and no
one perspective should be permitted to overcome others. ATCA is however
confident that deliberations will converge on practical, achievable,
consensus recommendations, provided the discussion continues to take
into account the needs of all stakeholders, and remains candid,
cordial, and positive.
At the dawn of the 21st Century there is great reason for optimism
in aviation. Although the challenges are significant--expanding demand,
pressing need for infrastructure expansion and modernization, advanced
technology is available to meet those challenges. What is needed is
consensus within the aviation community--the Administration, Congress,
users, the traveling public--about the importance of modernization for
meeting air transportation requirements of the future, and the
political will and commitment to funding it. Let us fail of neither.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Loran Association
On behalf of the International Loran Association (ILA), I am
submitting this Statement for the Record and respectfully request it be
added to the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee on
Federal Aviation Administration fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Bill.
In recent years the Committee has supported numerous steps and
provided more than $25 million in additional resources to ensure the
Loran-C system will be maintained and upgraded to meet ongoing
navigation and timing needs and to meet national transportation and
infrastructure safety objectives. In conjunction with work on the
fiscal year 2001 DOT Appropriations bill, we urge the Committee to
continue its critical support for Loran by providing $30 million in
fiscal year 2001 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Facilities and
Equipment resources for Loran system improvements and revitalization to
meet existing and future user requirements.
There has been considerable good domestic and international news
about Loran recently, which I am sure the Committee will find of
interest when considering our request. First, domestic Loran support
from its millions of users and beneficiaries has continued to be strong
and vocal. These individuals support Loran because it is a proven,
cost-effective, multimodal system and because it is uniquely
complementary to satellite technology. Users and groups as diverse as
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), BOAT/US, and
American Association of State Highway and Transportation (AASHTO) have
stood firmly behind Loran for years, and even Motorola has written
Secretary Slater to endorse Loran for telecommunications timing
applications essential to the stable operation of our national
infrastructure.
This widespread domestic support has also been validated by recent
Loran cost/benefit and performance studies conducted by Booz-Allen &
Hamilton (BA&H) and other independent groups for the DOT and FAA. These
studies document Loran provides a very positive cost/benefit to the
nation, and furthermore, new Loran technology offers important
opportunities to complement and enhance satellite system performance.
In fact, it is now generally acknowledged that GPS and Loran are
actually synergistic, i.e. a combined system integrating both
technologies can perform better than either alone, even with the
planned augmentation programs.
The FAA has recognized the opportunity to combine GPS and Loran,
and announced a new Loran program at the recent International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) meetings in Montreal. For the first time,
the FAA will flight test new Loran technology and develop/evaluate a
combined GPS/Loran receiver that offers tremendous promise for aviation
applications. This news was announced almost immediately after
installation of the Loran Aviation Blink System (ABS), which was
completed upon direction contained in earlier Committee actions.
It is also important to note the United States Coast Guard (USCG)
is well on its way to upgrading the Loran system. These improvements
have included the purchase and installation of new Cesium clocks and
the development of new monitoring receivers to improve performance of
the system. These and other planned enhancements will not only assure
improved Loran operations, but also reduce annual operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs by about 44 percent.
Overall, the truly multimodal benefits Loran currently provides our
nation are now broadly recognized and appreciated. For example, tens of
millions of Americans use wireless telecommunications networks for
functions as diverse as 911 calls, stock trades, and E-business, and
these networks utilize GPS as the primary timing reference. In such
applications, Loran provides a necessary backup timing reference of
equal quality to GPS, and ensures continued function of these national
infrastructure systems in case of GPS disruption.
The 1999 Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP) explicitly states Loran
will be continued. In further acknowledgment that Loran has an
important role within the future global navigation and timing
infrastructure, the DOT also requested that the Administration's fiscal
year 2001 budget include $30 million to continue revitalizing the U.S.
Loran system. In this context, the Committee should be aware that the
1998 BA&H studies indicate the costs to upgrade or decommission Loran
were virtually identical; now that significant upgrades have taken
place due to the Committee's actions, decommissioning this national
asset would actually cost more than the remaining upgrades.
Unfortunately, the Administration's budget includes a request for
only $20 million for Loran modernization, but the ILA hopes the
Committee remains convinced of the long term cost, performance and
safety benefits the $30 million will provide. Once the upgrades are
complete, the entire annual Loran O&M cost is expected to total $15
million, and years of operational experience substantiate that
estimate. This is a remarkably small cost for such a valuable national
asset--some even refer to Loran as a national insurance policy--and
represents less than 0.04 percent of projected DOT budgets.
Internationally, the Loran situation looks even brighter, and I am
pleased to report that future US exports of Loran-based products should
be able to address substantial global markets. For example, Europe is
proceeding with the distribution of differential GPS information using
their Loran system (i.e. the Eurofix system). A European initiative has
been formed entitled Global Augmentation for Satellite Systems (GAUSS),
and consists of a number of European Union (EU) government officials,
European manufacturers, and user groups. This GAUSS initiative will
support the global integration of Loran with satellite systems, and
assist in opening major new markets in Europe, Russia, and Asia. I also
expect GAUSS will help to grow international GPS markets for US
industry, as integrated GPS/Loran systems provide local autonomous
control for one part of the system, and alleviate international
concerns with U.S. control of GPS signals.
Another major international event was a March 22-23 Loran meeting
in Bonn, Germany that was organized by the German Institute of
Navigation and sponsored by the German Ministry of Transport, Building,
and Housing. Government and industry representatives from 15 European
countries and the US attended the conference, and interest in Loran and
private/public partnerships to develop systems was extremely high. In
addition, it is virtually assured the United Kingdom will now join the
Northern European Loran System (NELS), and discussions with Italy and
other countries will commence shortly.
In further support of prior Committee actions and increased funding
for upgrades, I am also pleased to convey Loran is now expected to play
a major role in US telecommunications exports to China. China has
recently opened its markets to US telecommunications technologies, but
did not want those systems dependent on GPS. As indicated above, GPS is
extensively used as the primary timing reference to synchronize vast
telecommunications networks in the US, where Loran is often used as a
backup to GPS. Since Loran can perform that same role indefinitely, it
plays a fundamental role in supporting our national infrastructure and
ensuring continuity of service. However, China also has a modern Loran
system, so Loran can replace GPS in this essential role and
simultaneously support U.S. exports and trade balance. Exports of U.S.
telecommunication equipment based on Loran as the primary timing
reference are expected to total a half billion dollars in 2000 alone,
with much greater future potential.
In summary, the last two years have been extremely good for Loran,
and with the Committee's help, the next decade looks much better.
Simply continuing the Loran upgrade program will not only save millions
of future taxpayer expenditures, but moreover, create substantial
domestic and international business opportunities for US companies.
Perhaps most importantly, upgrading the Loran infrastructure will
ensure our essential national navigation/timing infrastructure, which
literally affects nearly all Americans today, can continue to function
in case of a GPS failure, regardless of the cause. The Committee's
support will establish Loran as a national insurance policy for all
Americans, and at $15 million annually, this policy could not be more
cost effective.
In conjunction with your work on the fiscal year 2001 DOT
Appropriations bill, we respectfully urge the Committee to continue its
critical support for Loran by providing $30 million in fiscal year 2001
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Facilities and Equipment
resources for Loran system improvements and revitalization.
______
Prepared Statement of the Helicopter Association International
The Helicopter Association International (HAI) submits this
statement to Congress to add its unqualified support for Loran-C
navigation infrastructure. HAI is the professional trade association
for the civil helicopter industry. Its 1,500-plus member organizations
and 1,400-plus individual members, in more than 70 nations, safely
operate more than 5,000 helicopters approximately 2 million hours each
year. HAI is dedicated to the promotion of the helicopter as a safe,
effective method of commerce and to the advancement of the civil
helicopter industry.
Every day in the United States, helicopters save lives. Because of
their unique flight capabilities, rotorcraft are used extensively for
public safety missions, natural resource management, energy
exploration, security transportation, emergency medical evacuation, law
enforcement, and for numerous other functions which add tremendously to
America's quality of life.
The Loran-C signal has been used extensively by both commercial and
government helicopter operators. The rotorcraft industry has invested
millions of dollars in navigation equipment that depends on the Loran-C
signal. This fact is a bold testament that Loran-C is effective and
reliable. Loran-C is a companion to the future navigation system of
U.S.-GPS. It is important to recognize that the Loran-C signal is
qualitatively different from the GPS signal in these significant ways:
--GPS is a straight ``line-of-sight'' signal whereas Loran-C signals
are stronger and follow the curvature of the earth and its
topography. This is why Loran-C is perfectly suited not only
for ships at sea level, but for low-altitude aviation
operations.
--GPS can be lost due to aircraft position or Department of Defense
needs. By contrast, Loran-C is operated by the Department of
Transportation.
--GPS is a space-based system; maintenance requires multi-million-
dollar missions to repair. Loran-C is a ground-based system;
technicians drive themselves to the equipment.
--Ionospheric phenomena affect each system differently. Thus while
one system may be unusable the other is usually available.
--Not only is Loran-C supplementary to GPS, it is capable of serving
as a fully independent backup system.
These qualities make Loran-C the perfect compliment to GPS. HAI
fully supports GPS-based navigation as the principle navigation source
with Loran-C as a supplemental and backup system. GPS, WAAS, and LAAS
also will contribute substantially to helicopter safety and efficiency,
thus enabling them to conduct more lifesaving missions, particularly in
marginal weather conditions. HAI envisions a future in which aircraft
use inter-operable navigation systems that function by incorporating
both GPS and Loran-C signals. When events of nature or politics result
in loss of the space-based signal, even for an isolated region of
airspace, Loran-C can sustain aviation operations. But with the proven
performance of Loran-C, it is fully capable of supporting aviation
operations, including the public safety missions of helicopters.
HAI urges Congress to fully support Loran-C navigation
infrastructure. Sufficient funds should be made available for both
maintenance and performance enhancement of this time-proven system
which is uniquely adaptable and beneficial to cutting-edge technology.
For more information, please contact Bill Wanamaker, HAI Senior
Congressional Liaison at (703) 683-4646.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation.
This year UCAR, a university membership consortium composed of 63
North American institutions that grant the Ph.D. in atmospheric,
oceanic, and related sciences, celebrates its fortieth anniversary of
scientific discovery and university partnerships. The UCAR mission is
to support, enhance, and extend the capabilities of the university
community, nationally and internationally; to understand the behavior
of the atmosphere and related systems and the global environment; and
to foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for the betterment
of life on earth. UCAR is a non-profit, Colorado-based corporation that
manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) and the UCAR Office of Programs (UOP). It is supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies including
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Defense
(DOD).
According to the National Transportation Safety Board,
approximately 35 percent of aviation fatalities occur in weather-
related accidents. Last year almost 72 percent of recorded commercial
flight delays were caused by weather. To achieve the federal
government's goals of reducing fatal accidents by 80 percent and delays
by 20 percent, improved weather forecasts and dissemination become
critical. Regarding the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Federal
Aviation Administration, I would like to comment on aviation weather
research, an extremely important initiative to our nation and the
flying public:
Within the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D)
account, I urge you to support the request of $28 million for the FAA's
Weather Program. This is an increase of $8 million over fiscal year
2000 that will support a number of research programs within
universities and laboratories. Although much progress has been made,
weather today continues to be a major factor in causing aviation delays
and safety hazards. The FAAs aviation weather program focuses on
conducting applied research in partnership with the weather research
and user communities, and in transferring advanced weather detection
and prediction algorithms into operational use. The proposed increase
would support such new initiatives as hazardous weather forecasting and
the establishment of a national ceiling and visibility program. This
increase in funding also reflects strong support across the entire user
community for the broad focus and effectiveness of this critical safety
research.
NCAR, funded in large part by the National Science Foundation
(NSF), receives FAA Weather Program support to apply NSF-funded weather
research to aviation safety problems. NCAR's Research Applications
Program (RAP) conducts research and develops products for the aviation
industry and airports by utilizing NCAR and university community
meteorological research results and technology. During the past 15
years, the work of RAP and collaborating universities and industries
has resulted in major improvements to the safety of airports and
aircraft in the United States. FAA sponsored programs have improved
weather information for pilots, dispatchers, and controllers through
research and the development of technology related to the hazards of
thunderstorms, wind shear, turbulence, en route icing and ground
deicing, en route turbulence, teffain-induced turbulence, and in-flight
visibility.
The Aviation Digital Data Service (ADDS) is just one example of the
FAA funded weather aviation technologies being developed at RAP to
enhance aviation safety. Available on the Internet (at http://adds.awc-
kc.noaa.gov/), ADDS provides pilots, dispatchers and air traffic
control with real-time digital and graphical analyses of weather data,
forecasts, and observations of flight weather variables. An interagency
effort, it is being developed through a cooperative effort between RAP
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
On behalf of UCAR, as well as our nation's frequent flyers, I want
to thank the Committee for the important work you do for U.S.
scientific research, education, and training. I appreciate your
attention to the recommendations of our community concerning the fiscal
year 2001 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Vero Beach, Florida
This statement, in conjunction with work on the fiscal year 2001
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill,
seeks your support and the support of the Committee for $5.2 million in
funding from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Budget for
construction of a replacement Air Traffic Control Tower at the Vero
Beach, Florida Municipal Airport as an urgent aviation safety
initiative.
This is a facility that is operated by the FAA and staffed with FAA
controllers. The good news is that we are pleased that the FAA supports
this project and much work has already been accomplished on the
project. The bad news is every time we seem ready to get construction
funding our project is delayed.
We are compelled to seek your help because this is an urgent, long
overdue aviation safety project and it is the most important safety
enhancement that can be made at our airport to meet current and
anticipated future user requirements.
VERO BEACH AND THE TREASURE COAST
Vero Beach is located along the East Coast of South Florida in an
area known as the Treasure Coast. The area was named Treasure Coast
because of the Spanish galleons sunk along the coast by hurricanes, but
we like the name because the area is a true ``treasure'' to the local
residents.
We are the home of the Los Angeles Dodgers Spring Training
facility, the Vero Beach Disney Resort, and other well-known business
ventures. Vero Beach is a conservative community made up of working
professionals, young families, long-time residents, retired business
owners, and others who enjoy the lifestyle that South Florida has to
offer. Corporate executives have located homes and businesses in Vero
Beach both because of our quality of life and because of our access to
major metropolitan areas in Central and South Florida.
VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
The airport is owned and operated by the City of Vero Beach and
located in the heart of Indian River County, close to major highways
and modern business infrastructure. There are over 110 businesses
located at the airport, inside our Airport Industrial Park, and
surrounding the commercial center, and about 250 aircraft are based at
our facility. A recent update to our last economic study indicates that
businesses at the airport contribute almost $300 million annually to
the local economy. Our two largest aviation businesses, The New Piper
Aircraft, Inc., and FlightSafety International, Inc., contribute
significantly to our being a very busy general aviation airport.
According to the FAA's Terminal Area Forecasts for fiscal year
1998, traffic at Vero Beach has grown from about 180,000 to nearly
240,000 operations annually in recent years, indicating that operations
at the facility may rank it among the top 15 percent of towered
airports in the United States. In fact, based on the FAA data, our
airport--which has no radar--has become the second busiest general
aviation airport in Florida and future traffic growth is estimated to
reach 270,000 operations annually.
We are very fortunate and delighted that our airport is
headquarters for The New Piper Aircraft manufacturing facility and its
workforce of more than 1200 employees. Piper is a great partner with
the city, and an important economic asset to our community with its
payroll of about $42 million annually.
Also important--and it cannot be overemphasized from a general
aviation safety perspective--our airport is the home of the busiest
flight training organization in the world. FlightSafety International
has 42 locations worldwide, and they train over 65,000 pilots and
mechanics per year. Their largest and busiest flight school is at Vero
Beach, with a staff of more than 250 employees. Moreover, Vero Beach is
unique among all the FlightSafety training facilities because ours is
the only location where aircraft--not just simulators--are utilized for
training. The company operates a fleet of more than 90 aircraft, which
are logging nearly 90,000 hours of student flight training annually.
Nearly 1000 international airline cadet and other student pilots from
all over the world are taught and trained by FlightSafety every year at
Vero Beach, requiring constant vigilance and stringent air traffic
control.
Officials from both Piper and FlightSafety have asked that their
support for this request be conveyed to the subcommittee. The presence
of these two great aviation companies in Vero Beach has been of
enormous importance to our community and our airport.
We are also proud of the fact that Vero Beach has enjoyed a long-
standing partnership with major league baseball. The Los Angeles
Dodgers baseball organization has, since 1948, maintained close ties to
the community, and the Dodgers call Vero Beach home for its extensive
spring training operations and facilities, which are practically within
walking distance of the airport.
TOWER CONSTRUCTION FUNDING IS ESSENTIAL
We hope our testimony will help convince you and other members of
the subcommittee about the need and strong justification for funding
this essential aviation project.
At our airport we have an outstanding safety record. For the past
nine years we have achieved a perfect record in FAA safety inspections;
zero discrepancies on each FAA evaluation. A large measure of the
credit for the outstanding safety record goes to the extremely
dedicated and very experienced career FAA controllers working in Vero
Beach. They are doing an exemplary job at our current tower facility
under some very difficult conditions.
There is virtually unanimous agreement in our community among
pilots, controllers, airport officials, and airport tenants, government
officials and others interested in aviation that a new tower is an
essential safety priority for the airport.
Because the modern new tower structure will be considerably taller
than the present facility, we even took the important step of gauging,
and ultimately winning, community and public support for the FAA tower
replacement project through a public referendum that produced 84
percent voter support.
Specifically, we are seeking support from the Appropriations
Committee for: Fiscal year 2001 funding of $5.2 million from the FAA
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Account for the construction phase of a
replacement Air Traffic Control Tower at the Vero Beach Municipal
Airport as an essential aviation safety priority.
EXISTING TOWER OBSOLETE AND INADEQUATE
The existing tower has been in use since 1973 and simply cannot
accommodate current or anticipated aviation safety, user and air
traffic controller requirements.
The structure is obsolete, rusting, continually leaks water during
rainy weather, equipment space is cramped, the tower cab is inadequate
for new technology or equipment, electronic and electrical systems are
outdated and the communications system is aging.
Because of continuing airport growth and development over the past
25 years, controllers are limited by obstructed visibility for about 30
percent of our total annual operations and they have no visibility at
all of aircraft ground movements in certain areas of the airport.
All the training done by FlightSafety International makes our
airport one of the busiest training facilities in the world. It is
noteworthy that foreign speaking students comprise about 25 percent of
the hundreds of airline cadet and student pilots that are trained at
Vero Beach every year. A circumstance creating communications and other
challenges that demand constant caution, care and attention.
It is significant that the FlightSafety staff, working in close
coordination with our local controller workforce, also has a spotless
safety track record. Another remarkable example of the high level of
standards maintained by aviation professionals working at our airport.
Finally, there is an increasingly heavy volume of business and
corporate aviation traffic at the airport in the winter as pilots try
to avoid possible delays and congestion at other South Florida
airports. Then, again in the spring because of spring training baseball
activities at the Dodgers complex.
PROJECT STATUS
The FAA, in 1988, first identified an aviation safety need for a
new Air Traffic Control Tower at the Vero Beach Municipal Airport as a
result of growing traffic, increased line-of-sight problems caused by
airport development, human factors issues for controllers, and other
technology and modernization issues.
We have worked hand-in-hand with FAA Southern Region officials and
others since that time to advance this project and, as previously
mentioned, the FAA fully supports the project.
The FAA included a request for the tower replacement in a budget
request more than five years ago and began project funding in fiscal
year 1996. The planning at that time contemplated that tower
construction would start in 1998 with a commissioning date expected in
2001. All tasks including engineering, design, site work and an
environmental review have been completed. Since then, funding of the
construction phase of the project has been deferred because of other
priorities. It was first deferred until 2000 and then, this past
November, we were informed that construction will not begin until 2002
and the new tower will not be commissioned until 2005.
CONCLUSION
We have tried to be patient and we understand the difficult budget
choices that have to be made by the FAA, but pilots, controllers,
airport and government officials all believe there is an increasingly
urgent aviation safety requirement for a new Air Traffic Control Tower
at this extremely busy general aviation airport.
You and your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have
consistently supported steps and added considerable resources to the
FAA Budget to accommodate identified general aviation priorities like
ours that promise to enhance aviation safety.
The City of Vero Beach, airport staff, and all who share
responsibility for aviation safety at and around our airport are
equally focused on the goal of enhancing aviation safety in view of
anticipated future traffic growth estimated to reach about 270,000
operations annually at the facility.
We stay in constant communication and discussions with the FAA
staff in the Southern Region. We collaborate with pilots, controllers
and many of our tenants and concessionaires to keep a close eye on
opportunities to find any additional aviation initiative that will
offer constructive, cost-effective benefits.
At the same time, we will continue to do all possible to be
responsive to expressed needs and concerns in our community with
respect to airport issues.
Completing our new tower construction project, promises to
substantially enhance aviation safety, capacity and efficiency at our
airport; it has the full support of pilots, controllers, the community,
city and airport officials, the FAA and others interested in aviation
and; it is a prudent, cost-effective use of FAA resources that warrants
your support.
We respectfully urge the Committee to fully support our request for
$5.2 million in fiscal year 2001 funding from the FAA Facilities and
Equipment Account for the construction phase of the Air Traffic Control
Tower replacement project at the Vero Beach Municipal Airport.
______
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2001 funding request of $250,000
from the Department of Transportation (DOT) for CCOS as part of a
Federal match for the $8.6 million already contributed by California
State and local agencies and the private sector.
Ozone and particulate matter standards in most of central
California are frequently exceeded. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will require that California submit SIPs
to for the recently promulgated, national, 8-hour ozone standard. It is
expected that such SIPs will be required for the San Francisco Bay
Area, the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Mountain
Counties Air Basins. Photochemical air quality modeling will be
necessary to prepare SIPs that are acceptable to the U.S. EPA.
Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable central
California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program will be conducted in
the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional PM10/
PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major study of the origin, nature,
and extent of excessive levels of fine particles in central California.
CCOS includes an ozone field study, a deposition study, data analysis,
modeling performance evaluations, and a retrospective look at previous
SIP modeling. The CCOS study area extends over central and most of
northern California. The goal of the CCOS is to better understand the
nature of the ozone problem across the region, providing a strong
scientific foundation for preparing the next round of State and Federal
attainment plans. The study includes six main components:
--Developing the design of the field study (task already underway)
--Conducting an intensive field monitoring study, scheduled for June
1 to September 30, 2000
--Developing an emission inventory to support modeling
--Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region
--Designing and conducting a deposition field study
--Evaluating emission control strategies for the next ozone
attainment plans
CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well as
private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
$8.6 million for the field study. In addition, CCOS sponsors will
provide $4 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is
continuing to seek additional funding ($9.0 million) for a future
deposition study, data analysis, and modeling. California is an ideal
natural laboratory for studies that address these issues, given the
scale and diversity of the various ground surfaces in the region
(crops, woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas).
There is a national need to address national data gaps and
California should not bear the entire cost of the addressing these
gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
will take place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate
Matter Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local
and private sector funds. Thus, CCOS is timed to enable leveraging of
the efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and
personnel can serve dual functions so that CCOS is very cost-effective.
From a technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently is
a unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter
and ozone control efforts. CCOS will also be cost-effective since it
builds on other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study. To effectively address these issues requires
federal assistance and CCOS provides a mechanism by which California
pays half the cost of work that the federal government should pursue.
For fiscal year 2001, our Coalition is seeking funding of $250,000
from DOT through highway research funds. DOT is a key stakeholder
because federal law requires that transportation plans be in conformity
with SIPs. The motor vehicle emission budgets established in SIPs must
be met and be consistent with the emissions in transportation plans.
Billions of dollars in federal transportation funds are at risk if
conformity is not demonstrated for new transportation plans. As a
result, transportation and air agencies must be collaborative partners
on SIPs and transportation plans. SIPs and transportation plans are
linked because motor vehicle emissions are a dominant element of SIPs
in California as well as nationwide. Determining the emission and air
quality impacts of motor vehicles is a major part of the CCOS effort.
In addition, the deposition of motor vehicle emissions and the
resulting ozone is a nationwide issue.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the County of San Bernardino, CA
Honorable Chairman Shelby and members of The Subcommittee on
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations, we appreciate the
opportunity to present our Application for Grant funding for the
Etiwanda Interchange Improvements under the National Corridor Planning
and Development Program and Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program--
Implementation of the Transportation Equality Act for the 21st Century.
We are seeking with this Application a Grant of $10,000,000 to be
applied to the $5,949,100 in private match from the Kaiser Commerce
Center which equates to 37 percent. When funded, the re-construction of
the Etiwanda/Valley Boulevard, I-10 Interchange and significantly
enhance the overall safety of the existing interchange, as well as
provide a much needed 1,276 stall truck stop to accommodate the 43,000
tractor trailer trucks that are presently converging on the I-10 /I-15
interchange on a daily basis.
This project is presented for consideration based upon eligibility
Criteria number 5 as presented in the Federal Register. Criteria 5
relates to ``construction after review by the Secretary of a
development and management plan for the corridor or useable section of
the corridor''. The request contained within this application is for
construction funding for a ``useable section'' of the I-10 corridor
(Congressional High Priority Corridor Number 34).
The project presented will be developed in conjunction with the
adjoining land to the north of the interchange. Two land uses will be
constructed which when combined meet all of the selection Criteria set
forth in the Federal Register. A 200 acre multi-modal rail served
distribution complex is planned to be constructed along with a 75 acre
Truck Plaza offering 1,276 trucks and drivers cargo safety and drivers
rest.
With the project's proximity to the I-15 /I-10 interchange (1 mile
east on I-10) cargo can be moved by rail and truck from Mexico and the
Ports to regional and national destinations. Growth projections for
Southern California point to significant increases in the amount of
goods that are expected to be moved within and through the region.
Projects such as this will aid in relieving congestion and improving
the time it takes to move these goods. This is another piece of the
infrastructure required to accommodate current demands as well as the
projected future needs of Southern California.
In addition, this project provides a significant local/private
match of 37 percent of total construction costs to meet the goal of
maximum leveraging of Federal funds. Since this is a single project the
funds can be quickly obligated with construction commencing in early
2001 and completion by the Spring of 2002, while requiring no
additional Federal funding.
The project is in the state of California, County of San
Bernardino, and lies within the 42nd Congressional District of the late
Congressman George Brown Jr. and the newly elected Congressman Joe
Baca. This was a project of special importance to the late Congressman
Brown and Congressman Baca is enthusiastically endorsing the
reconstruction of the Etiwanda Interchange. Additionally, Senators
Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer enthusiastically support the
reconstruction of this critical interchange.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project objectives are to: (1) Improve operational efficiency
at the existing Etiwanda Avenue Interchange and Valley Boulevard Ramps
on I-10; (2) Reduce weaving conflicts on Etiwanda Avenue over I-10 and
on the I-10 collector-distributors roads under Etiwanda Avenue; (3)
accommodate projected traffic growth due to changes in land use on
Kaiser West End Properties north of I-10; (4) minimize effects of
construction activities on I-10 traffic; and (5) minimize disruption of
existing trucking operations along Etiwanda Avenue and Valley
Boulevard.
The project will be constructed concurrent with the development of
the adjacent properties to the North known as the Kaiser Commerce
Center. The Kaiser Commerce Center will provide a major multi-modal
industrial complex served by both major railroads in this region (the
BNSF and UP railroads), as well as provide a much needed truck plaza
facility offering rest and safety to approximately 1,276 trucks per
night.
PROPOSED WORK
The project will reconstruct the Interstate Route 10/Etiwanda
Avenue Interchange from the existing four-quadrant full-cloverleaf
interchange to a Partial Cloverleaf ``A'' configuration. The
improvement also included realignment of existing Valley Boulevard
further north. The existing Valley Boulevard on- and off-ramps would be
reconstructed to meet the realigned Valley Boulevard at a new local
road, ``lag Haul Road'' The proposed westbound on-ramp would be
elevated over the westbound I-10 Etiwanda Avenue off-ramp. The
eastbound exit ramp to Valley Boulevard under I-10 would be
reconstructed to provide standard vertical clearance. The proposed
improvement would utilize both a realigned Valley Boulevard ramp system
and improvements at the Etiwanda Avenue Interchange with I-10, as
described above. This configuration would provide easy entrance and
exit movements to the area north of I-10 west via the former Valley
Boulevard ramps, newly realigned to Slag haul Road. Access to and from
I-10 east would be provided via improved Etiwanda Avenue interchange
loop ramps.
The project includes the following detailed components:
Partially Reconstruct the Etiwanda/I-10 Interchange.--This
component would include the conversion of the existing four-quadrant
full-cloverleaf interchange to a two-quadrant partial cloverleaf
design.
Widen Etiwanda Avenue North of I-10.--Etiwanda Avenue from the I-10
interchange north to the intersection of Valley Boulevard would be
widened to three travel lanes in each direction plus double left-turn
lanes at intersections. This widening would be provided to improve
weaving conditions for traffic entering and exiting I-10.
Realign and Extend Valley Boulevard.--This component would include
reconstruction of Valley Boulevard from east of the UPRR spur track and
extend the road west to connect with the realigned I-10 ramps and a
future north-south roadway. The relocated Valley Boulevard would be
elevated over the Union Pacific Railroad Spur and the San Sevaine Flood
Control Channel, thus significantly improving traffic/railroad safety.
Two structures would be included in this segment:
Valley Boulevard Overhead would carry six lanes of traffic, plus a
median, sidewalks and traffic barriers over the Union Pacific Railroad
corridor.
Valley Boulevard Concrete Box Culvert would carry six lanes of
traffic, plus a median, sidewalks and traffic barriers over the San
Sevaine Flood Control Channel.
Valley Boulevard would be extended to Etiwanda Avenue, providing a
new arterial street parallel to I-10. This alignment would coincide
with a future relocation of Ontario Mills Parkway to ultimately provide
proper spacing on intersections. (The Valley Boulevard extension from
Slag Haul Road to Etiwanda is not part of this project. Kaiser Ventures
Inc. will construct this segment as part of the development of the
Kaiser Commerce Center. Non-Federal funds will be used to construct
this segment.) This extension would provide the major east-west
connection for sub-regional traffic and would provide access to
properties abutting I-10.
Reconstruct the Westbound Etiwanda/Valley Ramps to and from I-10.--
A major component of the project would be the reconstruction of the
existing Valley Boulevard ramps to and from I-10 west to become access
ramps to and from Slag Haul Road.
Slag Haul Road On-Ramp Separation would carry one land of traffic,
plus shoulders and traffic barriers over the Etiwanda Avenue Off-Ramp
from westbound I-10.
Construct and Eastbound Auxiliary Lane on I-10.--In order to
improve weaving conditions between I-15 and Etiwanda Avenue, a new 3.6m
(12 ft.) wide auxiliary land would be provided between the I-15 on ramp
to eastbound I-10 and the eastbound Etiwanda Avenue exit ramp.
PLANNING AND COORDINATION STATUS
The project is included in the 98/99-2004/2005 Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) as adopted by FHWA on July
31, 1998. The project reference number in the RTIP is 08-35-450, Page #
173.
TRAFFIC/SAFETY INFORMATION AND PROJECTIONS
The project improvements will considerably improve interchange
operations, reduce local street congestion, and accommodate projected
growth in the area. The project proposes to convert the existing
Etiwanda Avenue Interchange from a four quadrant full cloverleaf to
partial cloverleaf configuration. In addition, the project will realign
Valley Boulevard on- and off-ramps to the north to intersect with the
realigned Valley Boulevard. The Slag Haul Road (Valley Boulevard) on-
ramp would be braided over the westbound I-10 Etiwanda Avenue off-ramp,
thus eliminating weaving movements in that direction. The westbound I-
10 Etiwanda Avenue off-ramp, the existing westbound Etiwanda Avenue
loop on-ramp and enter the freeway.
The proposed project would improve safety throughout the
interchange. Presently, congestion and increased truck traffic result
in excessive delays, increased traffic accidents and operational
problems at Etiwanda Avenue interchange with Route 10.
The existing weaving on the westbound Etiwanda Avenue collector-
distributor road where the Valley Boulevard on-ramp merges would be
eliminated by the proposed ``braided ramp'' configuration. In addition,
the reconfigured Etiwanda Avenue Interchange would also eliminate
weaving for both eastbound and westbound on- and off-ramp traffic as
the existing loop off-ramps would be eliminated. The northbound
Etiwanda Avenue to westbound Ontario Mills Parkway traffic would have a
longer weaving distance, since the ramp terminus would be realigned to
a signalized intersection. Ultimately, Ontario Mills Parkway would be
realigned to coincide with the Valley Boulevard extension. This would
increase the distance between the off ramp terminus intersection and
the local intersection to 160m (524 ft.).
The realigned Valley Boulevard would be grade-separated over the
existing Union Pacific Railroad Spur, which would eliminate the
existing at-grad railroad crossing preventing potential rail/auto
accidents.
The substandard vertical clearances at the Valley Boulevard under
crossings of Route 10 would be improved to meet the federal standard of
5.1m (16.7 ft.). This would be accomplished by lowering the ramp
profile.
A three-year Traffic Surveillance and Analysis Survey (TASAS) study
for the period April 1, 1994 through March 31, 1997 was made for the
project vicinity. The study revealed that there were 98 accidents with
1 fatality and 35 persons injured. The actual accident rates for most
of the on- and off-ramps at the interchange were higher that the
average rate for similar facilities.
A total of 98 accidents were reported in the interchange ramp
system during the three-year study period. Forty-four accidents (45
percent) occurred in the four-loop-ramp system.
It is obvious that the reconstruction of the Etiwanda interchange
will dramatically improve safety to motorists and truck traffic. With
the development of the Kaiser Commerce Center's 7.8 million square feet
of industrial warehouse distribution space over the next six years,
this reconstruction is paramount to insure that public safety is at the
forefront to this critical transportation corridor.
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
The total estimated costs for improvements is as follows:
Roadway Items........................................... $10,108,000
Structure Items......................................... 1,120,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Sub-Total Construction............................ 11,228,040
Right of Way & Utilities................................ 1,100,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Project Construction........................ 12,328,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Design.................................................. 1,921,060
Construction Management................................. 1,300,000
Fees & Permits.......................................... 400,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Project Costs............................... 15,949,100
Previous Funding.--The project was allocated $1,5000,000 in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
AMOUNT OF NCPD PROGRAM FUNDS REQUESTED
$10,000,000 is requested per this application.
Commitment of other Funds.--The project is to be constructed
concurrent with the development of adjacent property owned by Kaiser
Ventures Inc. The project, known as the Kaiser Commerce Center, will
provide additional infrastructure to supplement the interchange
reconstruction. Of the Total $15,949,100 estimated cost for the
interchange reconstruction, Kaiser Ventures and its development
partners will provide the $5,949,100 portion of the project not funded
through Federal funds. This constitutes the above referenced 37 percent
local/private match of total construction costs.
Previous Funding.--The project was allocated $1,5000,000 in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
Commitment of other Funds.--The project is to be constructed
concurrent with the development of adjacent property owned by Kaiser
Ventures Inc. The project, known as the Kaiser Commerce Center, will
provide additional infrastructure to supplement the interchange
reconstruction. Of the Total $15,949,100 estimated cost for the
interchange reconstruction, Kaiser Ventures and its development
partners will provide the $5,949,100 portion of the project not funded
through Federal funds.
PROJECT BENEFITS
The proposed development will transform a marginally productive
site, formerly a portion of the Kaiser Steel Corporation steel mill
facility, which is used now only for slag recycling, and sand and
aggregate operations into a well balanced and carefully planned
community of general and transportation related industrial, commercial
and business park uses, which can take advantage of the site's
excellent highway and rail access. Specifically the project benefits
are:
--Increased safety for all motorists and trucks using this important
interchange. The new design addresses the key existing
deficiencies which have contributed to the increased traffic
accidents and will alleviate the weaving and congestion
associated with ingress and egress to I-10.
--The project site offers a unique location immediately adjacent to
the interchange to the Interstate 10 and Interstate 15
freeways, both of which serve as major trucking gateways for
goods entering California from the northern and eastern United
States as well as the increased goods which are coming into
this major distribution area as a result of the NAFTA
legislation. A primary component of the Kaiser Commerce Center
and Etiwanda Interchange reconstruction is the Truck Plaza.
Located immediately adjacent to the Etiwanda Interchange, the
Truck Plaza facility provides the needed services that long
haul truckers seek together with a secure place to obtain the
needed rest to insure overall traffic safety on Americas
highways.
--The project site also provides ready access to the two main rail
lines serving Southern California, The BNSF and the Union
Pacific, allowing for an efficient and economic use of existing
rail service by the proposed project component of rail-served
industrial uses. The close proximity to both major rail lines
provides this location with the unique ability to facilitate
the intermodal transportation objectives which were envisioned
in the National Corridor Planning and Development Program and
Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program. will provide the
proposed rail-served businesses with an edge to obtain
competitive rail shipping rates with timely and efficient
access to that service.
--The proponents of the Specific Plan will expend private dollars of
$5,949,100 to correct an existing traffic safety problem at the
I-10 Freeway/Etiwanda Avenue/Valley Boulevard on- and off-
ramps, in order to provide direct, and safe freeway ingress and
egress from the Truck Plaza as well as the entire surrounding
areas.
The project will create about 5,200 new, permanent jobs in San
Bernardino County: up to 635 jobs at the Truck Plaza and adjacent uses;
up to 2,328 jobs at the commercial/business park; and up to 2,326 jobs
at the industrial area. In addition, about 1,284 temporary construction
jobs will be created during the construction stage. The direct payroll
benefit is projected to be $133 million. For every permanent job
created within the proposed project site, it is estimated that an
additional 0.80 jobs, or about 4,200 additional new jobs would be
created in the County. The total payroll associated with the off-site,
or indirect, jobs in estimated to be about $83 million per year.
The project will create a total of nearly 9,500 new jobs (direct
and indirect, at fill build-out), in an area identified as a ``job
poor'' economy, that is, the number of locally-based jobs is low given
the number of local household requiring county residents to commute
elsewhere for work. Given the County's current job deficit, it is
anticipated that many of the newly created jobs will be filled by
County residents who are either unemployed or who must commute to jobs
outside of the County. The addition of almost 9,500 new jobs will
increase the County's jobs/housing ratio; thereby improving its current
``jobs poor'' status. This opportunity for new job formation, together
with the direct and indirect payroll benefits of over $217 million per
year will have a dramatic positive effect on the local and regional
economy.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit written testimony, as prepared by the Colorado
Department of Transportation, to discuss important transportation
issues in Colorado. It is with pleasure that I present to you our
fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriation needs.
Our first priority is the Interstate-25 Broadway Viaduct
Replacement Project. The interchanges and the bridges were constructed
in 1951 and have never been upgraded. A critical component of I-25
reconstruction is the replacement of the viaduct over Broadway, a major
Denver arterial, and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe
railroads. Over 50 freight trains a day pass under the viaduct and over
260,000 vehicles travel a day travel on the bridge. The project is
nationally significant because all of the Rocky Mountain Region's
north-south traffic, freight, truck and rail, are linked by this
bridge. In addition, this viaduct and interchange are a vital
connection for the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project. Once
completed, this project, along with the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal
Project, will provide an integrated system of moving people and goods
through the southern corridor of Interstate-25.
The bridge can be reconstructed in three phases totaling $75
million. The first major phase will be the replacement of the I-25
viaduct over Broadway. Subsequent phases will complete reconstruction
at the Broadway, Santa Fe and Alameda interchanges totaling $125
million. An appropriation of $20 million is requested for the
Interstate-25 Broadway Viaduct Replacement Project for fiscal year
2001.
Our second priority is the Powers Boulevard Corridor in Colorado
Springs. This 36-mile corridor will create a bypass around the eastern
part of the city. It provides a direct connection to the Colorado
Springs airport, as well as a vital link to five national defense
facilities: the Air Force Academy, Fort Carson, Peterson Air Force
Base, Shriever Air Force Base, and North American Defense (NORAD). Once
completed the project will reduce traffic congestion on both
Interstate-25 and the state highway system in that area. Even on the
small portion of Powers Boulevard, which has been constructed, daily
traffic volumes have doubled over the past eight years with an average
of 80,000 vehicles per day.
The overall cost of the Powers Boulevard Project is estimated at
$650 million. Through its Strategic Transportation Investment Program,
the Colorado Department of Transportation has committed $220 million
through the year 2010. An appropriation of $10 million for completing a
6-lane section of the highway for three miles and the construction of a
bridge is requested for the Powers Boulevard Project in fiscal year
2001. There will be savings generated by building six rather than four
lanes now instead of later.
Finally, we are grateful for the $2.5 million in funding in fiscal
year 2000 for the Traffic Operations Center. These funds are being used
in start-up integration activities for the Interstate-25 Southeast
Corridor Multi-Modal Project in Arapahoe County and for integration
activities in Jefferson County. An appropriation of $5.4 million is
requested for the construction of a Traffic Operation Center to benefit
the people of Colorado and the transportation agencies across the
state. The facility will be located in the Denver-metropolitan area.
For years the various agencies have attempted to coordinate daily
emergency responses from a non-centralized site. The current practice
of attempting to provide coordination has been difficult. The
construction of a statewide Traffic Operations Center facility will
have a significant impact on the coordination between agencies in the
design, construction, operations and maintenance of transportation in
Colorado. Increased coordination between agencies means lives are
saved, traffic congestion can be reduced, and accident locations can be
better identified. In short, the center will act as a primary facility
to support Intelligent Transportation System services throughout the
state.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we thank you for this
opportunity to provide you with this written testimony regarding these
significant Colorado transportation projects. We seek your support for
our fiscal year 2001 Appropriation requests of $20 million for the I-25
Broadway Viaduct Replacement Project in Denver, the $10 million request
for the Powers Boulevard Project in Colorado Springs, and the $5.4
million request for the construction of a Transportation System Traffic
Operations Center as a part of Colorado's Intelligent Transportation
System.
______
Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
The Squaxin Island Tribe of Washington State thanks the Senate
Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations for the opportunity to
present written testimony regarding the need and use of funding within
the Indian Reservation Roads Program. Having served two terms as
Chairman of the Squaxin Island Tribe and in other elective positions
over two decades, as an educator for 35 years, as a participant in
numerous tribal negotiations since 1981, and currently as the
Transportation Policy Representative for the Tribe and a Member of the
TEA-21 Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, My testimony speaks to the
enormous needs for transportation infrastructure improvements within
Indian Country.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Funding for Indian tribes through the IRR program is completely
inadequate to meet the needs of Indian tribes to develop transportation
infrastructure that promotes economic prosperity on Indian
reservations. Indian reservation roads continue to deteriorate at a
rapidly increasing rate, because the IRR Program continues lag well
behind state transportation programs in funding. This testimony is
presented in three sections as follows:
1. General funding concerns regarding the IRR Program.
2. Specific funding concerns of the Squaxin Island Tribe regarding
the IRR Program.
3. Recommendations for addressing general and specific funding
concerns.
HISTORY OF THE INDIAN RESERVATIONS ROADS PROGRAM
1. Indian Reservation Roads: What are they?
The Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) are those public roads
administered jointly by the Federal Lands Highways Office within the
Department of Transportation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs within
the Department of Interior. These roads comprise nearly 52,000 miles of
roads providing access to or located within Indian reservations or
other Indian areas. Approximately one half of the IRR System is
comprised of state and county roads and the remainder are BIA or tribal
roads maintained by the BIA.
2. Why are tribes interested in transportation?
Early in its history, the United States gave alternate sections of
land to entrepreneurs to build the transcontinental railroad system.
The land had been taken from Indian people and Indian tribes to fuel
the economic expansion of a nation. In the state of Washington, as in
much of the West, railroad companies became a thriving wood products
industry, and names like Weyerhaeuser and Rayonier are remembered more
for driving the timber-based economy of the Pacific Northwest for more
than a century than for their railroad heritage.
Whether harvesting and transporting natural resources or extracting
fossil fuels, the foundation of the national economy rests on lands
once inhabited by Indian people. Trails and waterways established for
eons and used for intertribal commerce became the principal routes for
the national highway system and marine transport. Now, as tribal
economies emerge and expand into new industries, existing
transportation infrastructure will no longer suffice. Private sector
investment in Indian industry requires that adequate investment be made
in the transportation systems serving Indian lands.
3. How is the Indian Reservation Road System funded?
In fulfilling its trust responsibility under treaties with Indian
tribes, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs developed the Indian
Reservation Roads System. With the 1982 passage of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act, the Federal Highway Administration
initiated its administration of the IRR System and BIA roads became
eligible for distributions from the Highway Trust Fund for the first
time. Congress recognized that Indian people bought gasoline and paid
gas taxes, but prior to 1982 received no benefit from the taxes paid.
All subsequent surface transportation legislation adopted by the
Congress authorized funding for the IRR System. Maintenance of the IRR
System continues to be funded through the Department of Interior
appropriations.
4. What funding has been available to tribes to improve the IRR System?
Prior to the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA), the maximum annual funding level for improvements to the IRR
System was $80 million. ISTEA increased the funding authorization to
$191 million and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
increased it to $275 million. While these increases are substantial,
not all of the funding is used to improve Indian reservation roads. In
1996, the last year of ISTEA, $167 million was distributed to BIA area
offices for road design and construction. Bridge construction was
funded by an additional 1 percent set aside for Indian tribes through
the FHWA Highway Bridge, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Program. Under
TEA-21, the Indian Bridge Program is funded within the IRR Program, and
the HBRRP set aside no longer exists. A more substantial reduction
results from the first-time application of obligation limitation to the
IRR Program. For 1999, IRR funding authorization was reduced by $31.7
million under Sec. 1102(f) of TEA-21 and redistributed to the states at
year end under Sec. 1102(d). FHWA and the BIA withheld 1.5 percent and
6 percent respectively for program administration.
Another two percent of the IRR funding is set aside for
transportation planning by tribal governments. The net result of the
takedowns is to distribute $203 million to BIA area offices for road
design and construction from $275 million authorized. This represents a
funding increase of 21.5 percent between ISTEA levels and TEA-21
levels, an increase that is less than one half of that experienced by
state highway programs.
5. What level of funding is needed to improve and maintain the IRR
System?
The BIA estimates its current construction needs inventory for BIA
roads within the IRR System at $7.2 billion. This does not include the
state or county components of the IRR System. Dirt roads comprise two-
thirds of the BIA road system; of these, three-quarters are unimproved
earth roads. The remaining one-third of the paved roads receives
inadequate maintenance during their life cycle and are often
reconstructed and resurfaced well in advance of their design life.
Frequently, reconstruction and resurfacing occurs within seven or eight
years of the original construction when this activity should occur no
more frequently than every 10 to 15 years.
Road maintenance is currently funded through Department of the
Interior appropriations, and the need to adequately maintain BIA-owned
roads is estimated by the Bureau to be $100 million annually.
Currently, the BIA receives only $25.5 million per year for road
maintenance. This represents less than $500 per mile for the BIA roads
within the IRR System. State highway agencies typically receive $4,000
to $5,000 per mile for their road maintenance programs. Inadequate
maintenance continues to plague the Indian Reservation Roads Program
and result in premature deterioration of roads and inefficient and
wasteful use of construction funding in rebuilding old roads rather
than building new roads supporting emerging tribal economies.
UNIQUE CHALLENGES FACED BY THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE
1. The Squaxin Island Tribe, as is true for the majority of primarily
small tribes, has not received a fair and equitable share of
IRR Program funding.
As many as 350 tribes have received little or no funding for
specific construction projects on or providing access to their
reservation under the IRR Program. Only recently under ISTEA, did the
BIA begin to provide funding for transportation planning to tribes so
that they could develop transportation plans and improvement programs
quantifying their relative need for transportation assistance. Even
when funding was allocated to a tribe under one of the several formulas
used by the BIA, tribes often did not receive funding for construction
because they lacked the resources to identify a proposed project to the
BIA. Since the inception of the IRR Program, the Squaxin Island Tribe
has received funding to construct less than one-tenth of a mile of
roadway in 1982. Funding was awarded through a ``638'' contract in 1999
to construct another two-tenths of a mile of roadway in 2000. Although
the formula allocation for the Squaxin Island Tribe totaled $360,000
under ISTEA between 1992 and 1997, the Tribe received only $12,400 for
a small chip-sealing project during the entire authorization period.
The Tribe is currently trying to secure IRR Program Funding to design
and build a half-mile access road to a planned 36-unit housing
development. Multiple layers of federal agency oversight and other
bureaucratic delays potentially jeopardizes more than $2 million in
federal, state, and Tribal funding commitments for the project.
2. The majority of the IRR System for the Squaxin Island Tribe is
comprised of state and county roads providing access to the
Squaxin Island Reservation.
The IRR System for the Squaxin Island Tribe includes 3.7 miles of
BIA roads built by the Tribe with funding from sources other than the
BIA, and 78.3 miles of county and state roads providing access to the
Squaxin Island Reservation. While the state roadways serving the
Reservation are generally well maintained, county road maintenance is
less certain and these roads are often at the bottom of county priority
lists for improvements if they are listed at all. Fortunately, the
Tribe and Mason County have developed a positive working relationship
over the past several years, and the Tribe secured 1997 Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) funding on behalf of
Mason County to rehabilitate an 80-year old bridge on the primary
access route to the Reservation. Because of the tribal contribution for
the bridge, Mason County is now proceeding with design to reconstruct
one mile of substandard roadway that includes the bridge project. The
combined projects represent a match of local to federal funds of better
than five to one. Although this type of project collaboration is
possible between tribes and other governments within the IRR program,
this particular project has taken more than five years to bring to
fruition, and yet construction is not anticipated to start for another
one and one-half years.
3. Being located in a suburban area of Washington state, the Squaxin
Island Tribe faces transit issues that the IRR Program is ill
prepared to address.
An extreme housing shortage on the Squaxin Island Reservation
forces many Tribal members to live some distance from the Reservation.
Those without dependable personal transportation are dependent on
public transportation to access employment, schools, medical care, and
other Tribal services. Without reliable transportation, these Indian
people are unable to use the services provided by the Tribe or to
access employment opportunities. Because of the number of Tribal
members finding themselves in this situation, the Squaxin Island Tribe
has developed a public transit system in partnership with the state of
Washington and the Mason County Transit Authority (MCTA). The Tribe has
initiated transit service with its one 15-passenger bus and has built a
transit station adjacent to U.S. Hwy. 101. The transit station is used
extensively by the Tribe with three daily stops and MCTA with 16
scheduled daily stops. No IRR funding or other federal funding has been
used by the Tribe to develop or operate its transit service. Because of
the inadequate funding within the IRR Program relative to the
construction need, the IRR Program generally has not funded transit
projects. There also are no direct Federal Transit Administration
Programs for tribal transit systems.
RECOMMENDED APPROPRIATIONS TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES IN THE IRR PROGRAM
1. In the short term, use part of the $3.0 billion in unplanned gas tax
collections not anticipated when TEA-21 was passed to increase
appropriations to the IRR Program.
Both the Administration and several United States Senators (see
attached White House Senate Plan, American Indian Programs for fiscal
year 2001 dated January 12, 2000 and distributed on January 24, 2000)
propose to increase funding for the IRR Program above fiscal year 2000
levels by $117 million to $392 million. The Squaxin Island Tribe
requests that beginning in fiscal year 2001, funding to the IRR Program
be increased by $117 million to $392 million.
2. In the long term, work to achieve funding parity between state
highway programs and tribal road programs.
Indian reservation roads make up 2.63 percent of this nation's
public highway system; yet, less than one percent of the annual
allocations for the highway program are directed at providing
transportation assistance for Indian reservation roads. The Squaxin
Island Tribe would like to see IRR program funding increased to levels
comparable with the states. Repealing the provisions of TEA-21 that
applied obligation limitations to the IRR program for the first time is
one way to increase direct funding to tribal transportation programs
without additional appropriations. Unlike state programs, the IRR
program does not recover obligation limitation takedowns when those
funds are redistributed.
3. Boost Interior appropriations for road maintenance.
On the Squaxin Island Reservation, many roads are approaching 25
years since original construction, but have never received maintenance,
reconstruction, or resurfacing by the BIA. The Squaxin Island Tribe
requests that Congress increase Department of the Interior
appropriations for road maintenance to $100 million annually to address
the deplorable condition of Indian reservation roads.
4. Appropriate separate funding for transportation planning and
capacity building to enable all tribes to participate in the
IRR Program.
Although the BIA is authorize to allocate at least 2 percent of the
IRR construction program appropriations for transportation planning,
for several BIA Regional Offices that level of funding is inadequate to
provide for transportation planning of all the tribes in the region on
an on-going basis. For the Northwest Region, less than $250,000 is all
that is available for the region's 44 tribes. Develop a set aside
program for transportation planning and capacity building similar to
the concept of minimum apportionment employed by the states for nearly
every Highway Trust Fund program allocation formula.
On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribe, I thank this Subcommittee
for allowing me the opportunity to submit written testimony on TEA 21--
a topic which will greatly impact the future, not only of my Tribe but
all Tribes, and our accessibility to others as well as our
accessibility to each other.
______
Prepared Statement of the New York State Department of Transportation
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
appreciates the opportunity to present testimony on the fiscal year
2001 transportation appropriations. New York has a truly intermodal
transportation system. NYSDOT has responsibility for a $1.6 billion
annual highway construction program, and a $1.6 billion annual transit
operating and capital assistance program. NYSDOT is currently
completing implementation of a balanced multi-year highway and mass
transportation capital programs valued at $24 billion, with each mode
receiving nearly $12 billion in Federal and State funds, and is now
developing a new comprehensive program to address the State's needs for
the next five years. In addition to highways and transit, as part of a
larger plan, NYSDOT is working in partnership with Amtrak to invest up
to $185 million in the State's passenger rail system over the next five
years to upgrade to 125 mph high speed rail service. New York State is
also undertaking an $80 million freight and passenger rail investment
program, and, over the past five years, has provided over $100 million
in assistance to commercial service airports to fund terminal and
infrastructure improvements.
In New York State, we have made a strong commitment to our
transportation systems. Federal funds comprise about 40 percent of New
York State's highway funding and 25 percent of transit capital
spending, making us one of the highest self-help states in the nation.
Despite these investments, New York's infrastructure, typical of the
Northeast, is older than most, very heavily utilized and in need of
modernization to attain the standards of other regions in the nation.
We need your continued support in securing Federal assistance, which is
so vital to our ability to meet our transportation needs.
In developing the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations,
we ask that you consider our views in the following areas:
Preserve the Structure and Intent of TEA-21
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) is a
carefully crafted bi-partisan agreement that was completed just two
years ago. TEA-21 struck a delicate balance between the needs of
highways and transit. Further, the bill reflects the results of several
years of negotiations over the distribution of Federal funds to the
states. Last year, during the appropriations debates, several proposals
were put forth that would have upset these hard-fought funding formula
agreements, threatening the integrity of TEA-21. New York strongly
supports TEA-21 and believes that the consensus reached in this bill,
which provides stability to state and local transportation planners,
should be honored. We urge you to maintain the structure and intent of
TEA-21 by rejecting provisions that would modify TEA-21.
Support Funding for Transportation Programs at the Levels Authorized in
TEA-21
TEA-21 provides for historic levels of investment in our surface
transportation systems, recognizing the critical role that
infrastructure plays in the nation's economic health and growth. Yet
even with these significant investments, the United States Department
of Transportation estimates that billions of dollars in annual needs
will remain unmet.
TEA-21 guarantees that money paid into the Highway Trust Fund will
be used for surface transportation improvements, and provides
additional general fund authorizations. New York is pleased that
Congress has made this commitment to our nation's infrastructure, and
asks that you appropriate funds for transportation programs at the
maximum levels authorized in TEA-21.
Support Full Funding for TEA-21's Transit Projects & Programs
New York State is pleased that Congress recognized the critical
importance of transit to the nation by providing significant increases
in transit funding in TEA-21. In New York State, transit provides a
lifeline to millions of riders each day, from the very urban areas like
New York City to the smallest upstate communities. Public
transportation in New York State accounts for nearly one-third of all
transit trips in the nation. Each day, more than 25 percent of New
Yorkers across the State use public transportation to travel to work--
the highest transit share in the nation.
New York State has an historic and continued commitment to public
transportation funding. New York State provides over $1.6 billion each
year in operating assistance to our transit agencies. Additionally,
more than 70 percent of the State's transit capital investment is from
non-Federal sources. Even with this commitment, New York State will be
unable to advance critical New Start and bus initiatives without
Federal support, as provided in TEA-21.
New Starts--Long Island East Side Access Project.--New York State
is pleased that Congress recognized the importance of New York's
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA's) Long Island Rail Road
(LIRR) East Side Access project in TEA-21 by authorizing a minimum of
$353 million for the project. In addition, TEA-21 designates that this
project be given priority consideration for funds made available under
the FTA New Start program. New York supports the MTA's request for $198
million for this project in fiscal year 2001.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Station is the busiest train station in
North America, serving a train per minute during rush hour, and
carrying approximately 140,000 Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road and New
Jersey Transit passengers every weekday morning. Currently, there is
significant crowding at the station. The LIRR East Side Access Project
will dramatically reduce crowding in Pennsylvania Station by providing
one seat service from points on Long Island to East Midtown. This
project will increase ridership by an estimated 109,000 weekday
passengers, and save 5.3 million hours of travel time annually for
commuters. Further, the project will allow full utilization of the
significant Federal investment already made in the 63rd Street Tunnel,
and provide a stimulus for economic growth and development. On March 6,
2000, the Federal Transit Administration transmitted to Congress, as
required by law, its recommendations for the allocation of funds for
new fixed guideway systems and extensions (``New Starts'') for fiscal
year 2001. In its report, the FTA recommended the LIRR East Side Access
project for allocation of New Starts funds. We urge you to honor the
commitment made in TEA-21 and support New York's MTA's request of $198
million for this critical project.
Bus & Bus-Related Requests.--New York State has submitted requests
for funds to support critical bus and bus-related initiatives
throughout the State. We ask you to consider funding these projects
which will provide valuable assistance in improving and expanding
transit facilities and replacing over-age buses with newer equipment
that will be ADA accessible and utilize new cleaner burning fuel
technology. In addition, TEA-21 provided several authorizations subject
to appropriations to support projects in New York State communities. We
ask that you support New York's request to fully fund these
authorizations.
Fully Fund the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(AIR-21)
New York congratulates Congress on passage of the landmark AIR-21
legislation and requests support for sufficient budget authority and
outlays to fully fund AIR-21, including general fund contributions to
ensure adequate resources to fully fund FAA operations.
Resist Earmarking of USDOT Discretionary Programs
TEA-21 created several new and important programs including the
$700 million Coordinated Border Infrastructure and National Corridor
Planning & Development programs (Border/Corridor programs), the $120
million Transportation & Community & Systems Preservation Pilot Program
(TCSP), the $1.0 billion Clean Fuels program, and the $750 million Jobs
Access and Reverse Commute program. In fiscal year 2000, these programs
were extensively earmarked. We ask that you provide full funding for
these programs, and allow for competitive selection of grant recipients
as provided in TEA-21.
Provide Adequate Funding for US Customs on the Northern Border
The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trading
relationship in the world. In 1995, there was $272 billion in total
merchandise trade, exceeding U.S. trade with the entire European Union
($256 billion) and more than double U.S. trade with Mexico ($110
billion). One-third of the value of imports from Canada to the US and
20 percent of the exports from the United States to Canada are carried
by New York State's transportation infrastructure and across New York's
border with Canada.
While billions in transportation infrastructure needs have been
identified along the border between Canada and New York alone, even if
all these transportation needs are met, until there is adequate
staffing by Federal agencies at the border with adequate systems
support, there will be significant congestion at the border. New York
was pleased to learn that, due in large part to the efforts of
Congressman McHugh, staffing will be increased at the northern border.
New York urges Congress to provide funds to increase U.S. Customs
staffing at the United States-Canada border in fiscal year 2001.
Further, New York supports full funding for Customs automation,
including the Automated Customs Environment. New York opposes
establishment of a user fee to raise the funds for this project. The
current Automated Commercial System has failed several times recently,
and can no longer accommodate peak volumes of entry transactions.
Replacement of this antiquated system will eliminate a major technical
impediment to the further development of innovative technologies such
as the Peace Bridge Electronic Commercial Vehicle Crossing System, for
which New York received a $1.8 million grant from the 1999 TEA-21
Border/Corridor programs.
Support Intercity Passenger Rail and Full Funding for High Speed Rail
Programs
Intercity passenger rail is a unique asset critical to the mobility
and economic well being of New York State and the nation. New York
thanks the subcommittee for its past support of Amtrak and High Speed
Rail investment, and urges your continued support of Amtrak in fiscal
year 2001 at a level equal to Amtrak's fully authorized level. This
assistance will help Amtrak continue its progress on the glidepath to
operating self-sufficiency by 2002, and make investments critical to
the future of a viable national passenger rail network.
Intercity passenger rail service investments beyond Amtrak capital
assistance are also important. TEA-21 continues several programs that
provide funding for High Speed Rail projects, including the Next
Generation High Speed Rail program, and the program to eliminate
highway-railroad grade crossing hazards in designated high-speed rail
corridors, including the Empire Corridor in New York. New York urges
your support of these programs.
New York State is committed to improving passenger rail service
within the State and implementing High Speed Rail service in an
incremental and achievable manner. While New York State is working with
Amtrak to invest up to $185 million in the State's rail system over
five years to provide faster, more convenient passenger train service
between New York City and Buffalo, this partnership is only part of a
larger $315 million high speed rail plan. New York State is actively
pursuing several important rail projects pursuant to our larger high
speed rail plan that are not funded within the Amtrak Memorandum of
Understanding.
New York State is seeking support for a comprehensive grade
crossing risk reduction program along the high-speed Hudson Line of the
Empire Corridor between Schenectady and New York's Pennsylvania
Station. This program includes grade crossing eliminations, separations
and high technology improvement projects to assist in bringing speeds
to 125 mph. We are also seeking funding for two rail-related studies (a
High Speed Rail Program Station and Land Side Access Study and an
Advanced Train Control Study) to further progress work in the Corridor.
These important projects will complement our historic funding agreement
with Amtrak, increase safety in the corridor and improve our ability to
implement high-speed service. We ask your support in securing funding
for these important initiatives.
NYSDOT thanks you for this opportunity to present testimony. We
appreciate your dedication to and support of the nation's
transportation systems.
______
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION AND AMTRAK
Prepared Statement of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) would like
to thank the subcommittee for its strong continuing support for the
nation's transportation system in general and transportation
investments in North Carolina in particular. Three central organizing
principles govern our approach to the provision of transportation
services: safety first, efficiency, and partnerships.
Rail services are an integral part of our statewide, intermodal
system. With a rising population and growth of highway and air traffic
in the state, rail is increasingly important as an alternative to auto
and air transportation for both freight and passengers.
The state of North Carolina sponsors two Amtrak-operated trains,
the Piedmont and the Carolinian. The Carolinian began operation in 1990
and the Piedmont in 1995. The Piedmont makes a daily round trip between
Raleigh and Charlotte. The state owns the equipment for the Piedmont
and contracts with Amtrak for maintenance and operations of the train.
The Carolinian makes one daily trip each way between Charlotte and New
York City. The Carolinian uses Amtrak equipment and is Amtrak-
maintained. The NC DOT reimburses Amtrak for the instate prorated
portion of Amtrak administrative, operating, station and other costs in
excess of passenger and miscellaneous revenues generated by the
Carolinian.
The state of North Carolina owns both the North Carolina Railroad
and the stations served by both trains. The state recently purchased
the minority shares in the NCRR for $72 million.
Both trains are experiencing significant growth in readership. The
Piedmont service, in particular, posted the second highest percentage
increase among Amtrak trains during the first quarter of fiscal year
2000 (October-December 1999). The Piedmont's ridership grew 22.2
percent when compared to the first quarter of 1999. The Carolinian
experienced a healthy 5.3 percent increase over the same period of
time.
Other Amtrak intercity passenger trains providing service to North
Carolina are the Crescent, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, and Silver Palm.
The Crescent provides service from New York City, Philadelphia,
Washington, D.C. through Greensboro, Charlotte and on to Atlanta and
New Orleans. The Silver Star takes passengers from New York City,
Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., through Rocky Mount, Raleigh and on to
Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa and Miami. The Silver
Meteor provides service from the Northeast Corridor through Rocky
Mount, Fayetteville and on south. The Silver Palm provides service from
New York to Miami with stops in North Carolina to Rocky Mount, Wilson
and Fayetteville.
Safety is our most important concern. In North Carolina there are
5,000 public grade crossings and over 3,000 route miles. There are an
additional 5,000 private grade crossings in the state. In order to
increase train speeds and thereby reduce travel times, the overall
number of grade crossings must be rationalized.
Grade crossing safety and elimination are part of the development
of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) between Washington
and Atlanta. The SEHSR Coalition's Report A Time to Act, released by
the Governors of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia
on February 29, 2000, specifically supports this vital effort. (Copies
of the report were provided to you and your staff under separate
cover.)
In this regard, we value your investment of High Speed Rail Grade
Crossing Improvement Program funds (section 1103c) in the SEHSR
Corridor. North Carolina has joined with our partners in a joint
request for continued funding in our four states. Because we are
increasingly one corridor from Washington to Atlanta, the federal share
reaps a much higher return on investment. In addition, we value our
partnership with the North Carolina Railroad, CSXT, Norfolk Southern
and Amtrak, which make these vital projects possible. We strongly
encourage your investment of $1 million in North Carolina and we
support the requests of our partners.
The NC DOT Rail Division has recently doubled the number of staff
in this critical area. Further, we have reorganized the administrative
responsibilities to ensure better delivery of the product-safety.
In order to improve the efficiency of the intercity passenger rail
system we encourage you to continue investment in the development of
the non-electric locomotive. The program promises to have broad benefit
to the Nation as a whole and North Carolina and the SEHSR Corridor in
particular.
We recognize that the state of North Carolina has a strong
responsibility to our federal state partnership. Most recently the
state worked with the North Carolina Railroad on a $48 million capital
investment program. We are currently working with the NCRR and Norfolk
Southern on another list of improvements.
We support Amtrak's request for $521 million to continue on its
``glide path'' to operational self-sufficiency. Should additional
general revenues be available to fund a greater portion of Amtrak's
authorization, we would suggest that the funds be used for life and
safety improvements on designated corridors. In this regard, we value
the testimony of the US Department of Transportation's Inspector
General. Penn Station New York is the most popular destination for
North Carolinians.
Notwithstanding these significant fire and safety needs, modest
capital investments in adjacent corridors like the SEHSR Corridor could
reap benefits as well. Should scarce, additional funds be available,
please continue your practice of equitably considering all requests.
For example, an investment of $5.3 million in North Carolina would
allow the acceleration of our nationally recognized grade crossing
elimination program through the closing of a serious grade crossing
between Greensboro and Raleigh. This line is used by 44 freight trains
and 6 passenger trains daily.
More than ever the Subcommittee faces serious challenges and
constraints. Again, we value your support for a national system. Thank
you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) wishes to thank
Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Lautenberg for the opportunity to
provide this testimony regarding the fiscal year 2001 U.S. Department
of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Appropriations. The subcommittee plays a
critical role in providing investments in the nation's vital intermodal
transportation system. The Governors commend the subcommittee's efforts
to provide increased levels of funding for highways and transit in the
fiscal year 2000 U.S. DOT appropriations, and urge continued support in
fiscal year 2001 to the levels authorized in the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). We also urge the subcommittee to
continue the important federal partnership role in strengthening the
nation's passenger and freight rail systems through continued
investments in rail safety and capital investment in Amtrak and other
critical rail projects. Continued federal investment in transportation
research and development is also an essential element of public and
private efforts to enhance the safety and capacity of the nation's
transportation system.
An integrated, safe, and fully-funded national surface
transportation system is critical to the economic, social, and
environmental well-being of the Northeast region and the nation. The
safety, preservation, and efficiency of the region's transportation
assets are primary concerns of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors.
As the subcommittee considers the fiscal year 2001 appropriations for
the Department, the Governors urge the subcommittee to support
transportation investments which have national and regional
significance. These investments, implemented in conjunction with state-
federal partnerships, contribute to a vibrant economy and improved
quality of life for the Northeast and the nation.
INVEST IN SAFETY
Safety on the nation's highway, transit and rail systems continues
to be a priority for the Governors. Support for a strong federal-state
partnership to correct hazardous conditions on the nation's highway
infrastructure and to undertake proactive measures which improve
highway safety is critical to reducing injuries and deaths on the
nation's highways. Continued support is also critical for successful
programs that contribute to a reduction in the number of highway-rail
crossing fatalities. Examples of these programs include grade crossing
improvements and education programs such as Operation Lifesaver. As
travelers throughout the nation seek alternatives to congested
highways, the Governors also strongly support full funding for advanced
development of high speed rail corridors by eliminating highway grade
crossing hazards, as provided in Section 1103(c) of TEA-21. One example
of important steps being taken to make passenger rail travel safer is
the successful demonstration of the nation's first quad-gate technology
by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Connecticut Department
of Transportation, and the movement to install this technology at other
grade crossings.
FULL FUNDING OF HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PROGRAMS
With increasing traffic volumes on the region's highways, the
Governors support funding of highway programs to the levels authorized
in TEA-21. This increased investment by the federal, state and local
governments is beginning to show results in improved conditions,
performance and safety of the region's and nation's highways and
bridges. The Northeast, with its extensive, heavily used and aging
highway infrastructure, has unique transportation needs. As a region
which serves as a global gateway and important consumer market for the
entire nation, investment in our highway system helps the region remain
competitive in the international marketplace by facilitating the
seamless flow of people and commerce.
The Governors also urge full funding for the transit programs at
the levels authorized in TEA-21. Transit plays a vital role in the
lives of millions of residents in urban, suburban, and rural areas of
the Northeast. It significantly decreases congestion on roads in
metropolitan and suburban areas, mitigates isolation in the region's
more rural cities and towns, and brings environmental benefits to the
entire region by saving fuel and reducing air pollution. Transit is
also the critical link in the region's Jobs Access and reverse commute
programs.
In the Northeast, as well as across the country, transportation is
a vital tool for economic development. Investments made possible by
federal, state and local government and the private sector partnerships
fostered by TEA-21 are enriching our communities by creating and
preserving jobs, enhancing global competitiveness, and contributing to
improved air quality and overall quality of life. Adequate funding
levels and flexible use of transportation funds are important to the
emergence of innovative intermodal solutions which can alleviate
congestion, improve capacity and encourage seamless movement of
passenger and freight traffic.
CONTINUE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL
Intercity passenger rail makes a unique contribution to the complex
fabric of the nation's transportation network. This is particularly
true in the Northeast where the region's passenger and freight rail
networks are critical assets for the region's economy. If the national
intercity passenger rail system is to maintain a safe, efficient
network and realize its potential to improve the overall transportation
capacity, its extensive capital needs must be addressed. The Governors
wish to thank the subcommittee for the funding provided for Amtrak in
fiscal year 2000, and urge that Amtrak be funded at its fully
authorized level in fiscal year 2001. This increased federal funding,
in combination with the significant capital investments being made by
state partners, is vital to the future of intercity passenger rail
service throughout the nation.
Northeast Corridor Fuels Passenger Rail Development.--The Northeast
Corridor is the financial linchpin in the national intercity passenger
rail network. Ridership and revenues from the Northeast Corridor
service provide essential financial resources used by Amtrak to
maintain and expand the entire intercity passenger rail system.
Therefore, it is vital that the level of federal capital funding for
Amtrak is adequate to ensure the integrity and efficiency of this
regional and national transportation asset. Investment by Amtrak, in
partnerships with state, commuter and freight users, is urgently needed
in such critical projects as life and safety improvements in
Pennsylvania Station New York and infrastructure maintenance throughout
the Northeast Corridor network.
Growth of Passenger Corridors.--Throughout the nation, states and
communities are stepping forward to work with the federal government
and private sector to bring about modern, efficient passenger rail
service. In addition to the Northeast Corridor, the region's rail
system supports important passenger and freight service to communities
and businesses. Recognizing the importance of this broader network, the
Governors support a strong federal commitment and financial
participation in federal-state-private sector partnerships which are
working together nationwide to provide high speed rail service in such
corridors as the Empire, Keystone, and Southeast; to improve service in
Vermont; and to restore service from Maine to Boston with stops in New
Hampshire.
INVEST IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
In many congested areas of the country, expanding existing or
building new infrastructure is not an option. Technology can greatly
enhance the safety and capacity of the existing highway and transit
systems. Federal support and investment are pivotal to state and
regional deployment of advanced transportation technologies. The
Governors support full funding for research and development,
specifically the Federal Railroad Administration's Next Generation
High-Speed Rail programs which continue to make a valuable contribution
to the development of the next generation non-electric locomotive.
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) research and deployment,
particularly through institutions such as the I-95 Corridor Coalition
and projects such as the northern New England development of a regional
intelligent transportation system for rural areas, can effectively
increase the safety and mobility of the regional transportation system
and lead to economic development
The CONEG Governors thank Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member
Lautenberg, and the entire subcommittee for the opportunity to present
this testimony. We appreciate your dedication and support for the
Nation's transportation investments.
______
Prepared Statement of the High Speed Ground Transportation Association
We thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify regarding
the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill. This
Subcommittee has been very supportive of the various rail initiatives
of the past few years and both the rail capital and rail safety
programs have greatly benefited from that support.
As you may know, the High Speed Ground Transportation Association
is made up of many parties interested in advancing high speed rail in
the United States. We now have over 800 members representing a broad
cross-section of private and public entities in the 48 contiguous
states and Alaska. Our members include industry suppliers, engineers,
transportation consultants, unions, rail operators, utilities, public
officials and members of the public. Our advocacy on their behalf falls
into three major areas:
--Adequate and appropriate continued funding of Amtrak and the
programs of the Federal Railroad Administration
--Creation, funding and construction of high-speed rail corridors
throughout the country
--Deployment of Maglev rail technology in the United States.
Before commenting on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2001, some
overview of the current status of the programs mentioned above is
required. In all of these areas, the situation is changing very
rapidly, probably more so than most thought as little as five years
ago. The structure of the TEA-21 legislation has quickly produced an
extremely energetic effort on the part of the States and metropolitan
areas to begin viewing rail options in transportation on a par with
traditional highway and airport programs. More and more, rail options
are being included in thinking and plans for integrated transportation
systems, particularly in the large urban centers of the country. There
is a recognition that highway lanes, airspace and landing slots are
limited or extremely costly. The existing rail rights of way and
emerging technologies in rail have yet to be exploited to a large
degree. Contending with the current spike in oil prices and an oil
market that is reliable only in its constant fluctuation, has lent
greater support for decreasing US dependency on oil in our
transportation alternatives. Increasingly, rail options are being
considered as an answer to continued public demand for fast, efficient
and safe transportation.
There is little doubt that rail ridership is on the rise and that
if we can bring higher speeds and safe service to the public, ridership
will go up even more. Amtrak reports total ridership for fiscal year
1999 at 21 million, up 10 percent since it began rebounding three years
ago. With the advent of high speed rail corridors envisioned in TEA-21,
there has been an explosion of interest and commitment on the part of
the States to move forward towards deployment of higher speed rail
systems. For example, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, comprised
of nine state Departments of Transportation, represents a cooperative
and ongoing effort to develop an expanded and improved rail system in
the Midwest. Midwest state legislators have also combined to form a
Midwest High Speed Rail Compact to demonstrate their dedication to
developing passenger rail. And Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Secretary Terence Mulcahy has formed a coalition, States for Passenger
Rail, garnering members from 17 states around the nation, to urge
federal funding of regional passenger rail initiatives.
The Midwest is only one among many regions actively pursuing
expanded passenger rail. California, with a projected population of 50
million people by 2020, is planning the most ambitious high speed rail
system in the nation: a 700-mile system spanning the state from
Sacramento to San Diego. 64 percent of Californians support the plan
and the \1/4\-cent sales tax that would help to fund it. The Southeast
is another region with significant state support for passenger rail.
The Virginia State legislature authorized $76 million in its budget for
funding passenger rail projects. North Carolina also approved $66
million for passenger rail funding.
These are but a few examples of the strong state interest
throughout the nation for high speed rail. In addition, there has been
a robust response to the TEA-21 Maglev deployment program. There are
seven Maglev proposals from around the country undergoing the FRA
review process that has been set up. The energy and enthusiasm behind
the proposals are impressive and the federal funds committed up to now
have been fully matched by the sponsors. On June 30th, detailed plans,
both physical and financial, are due from the sponsors to the FRA. We
believe these plans will be exciting and innovative in their scope and
concept and may well spark additional proposals from other parts of the
country.
In light of this movement from around the country, we need to cast
a critical eye toward the proposed budget and the future to make sure
we are headed on a path that is rational, realistic and that will best
serve the public.
AMTRAK
Amtrak is undergoing a significant turnaround as a result of its
new leadership team's strategic business plan focused on achieving
operational self-sufficiency and building a truly commercial
enterprise. In 1999, Amtrak achieved record revenues of $1.8 billion
including a 32-fold increase in revenues from the express business.
Commercial ventures achieved a record profit of $108 million. All of
this contributed to Amtrak beating its bottom-line targets for the
second straight year.
Amtrak has continued its aggressive business-like approach to
providing passenger rail service through several key programs: (1) the
implementation of an industry-leading service guarantee program; (2)
expansion of the national network to grow market share and improve
financial performance (the recently announced Network Growth Strategy);
and (3) the introduction of the Acela high speed service in the
Northeast Corridor.
Amtrak has requested $989 million for fiscal year 2001: $521
million would provide the base level of capital support required to
keep Amtrak on the path to operating self-sufficiency, and $468 million
would provide critically needed capital investment funds for the
development of high speed corridors all across the country. The
Administration also recommended $989 million for passenger rail
funding: $521 million for Amtrak's basic capital needs, and $468
million in a separate account for intercity passenger rail
improvements. The Association strongly supports the total amount of
funding requested by both Amtrak and the Administration, $989 million,
for investment in passenger rail. These funds are absolutely critical
to making progress to reach higher speeds along emerging high speed
corridors around the country.
We would like to note that the Administration has proposed shifting
$468 million from Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) to fund their
proposed separate account for intercity rail improvements. In order to
make such a shift, a change in the authorizing law would be required.
It is unclear at this time whether an authorizing bill contemplating
such a change will come to the floor of the House or Senate this year.
The same amount of funding could be realized simply using the existing
Amtrak authorization.
NEXT GENERATION HIGH SPEED RAIL
The Administration has proposed $22 million for continued
development of high speed technologies. The authorized level for these
programs is $35 million. $25 million of this amount is authorized for
technology. $10 million is authorized for pre-construction activities.
In addition, the Administration has proposed the $468 million for
intercity rail improvements mentioned above.
Once again, the Association strongly urges the appropriation of the
$468 million recommended by the Administration to assure the continued
development of next-generation high speed rail. The $35 million
authorization called for in TEA-21 for technology and pre-construction
activities is insufficient to meet the strong demand for next-
generation high speed rail in this decade. Transportation planners
estimate that the planning, development, construction and equipment
purchases for high speed rail corridors will require upwards of $17
billion over a ten year period. This is less than half of what the
federal government will spend on highways and aviation this year and,
of course, hefty increases are planned for future years, especially in
aviation. The $17 billion would produce incremental, but important,
improvements to achieve moderate successes in speed. For very high
speed rail projects, such as the one contemplated in California,
heavier investment is essential. These are wise investments that will
yield numerous benefits (a cleaner environment, most importantly) and
cost savings (increased efficiency and productivity due to decreased
congestion) down the line.
GRADE CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
The $5.25 million guaranteed funding for this program barely
scratches the surface of funding needs. We ask the Subcommittee to
reassert its dedication to grade crossing safety by approving a
sustained program of funding to eliminate or improve every grade
crossing along the designated high speed rail corridors.
MAGLEV
Maglev may hold out the most exciting promise for high speed ground
transportation. The advanced technology behind Maglev, allowing for
travel speeds only imagined a few years ago, could change the way
people move in the 21st century. The public-private partnerships that
will build and operate the Maglev systems may set a new direction for
how transportation infrastructure is financed and delivered in the
future.
The Administration has proposed fully funding the ``guaranteed''
portion of the Federal Aid Highways program that includes $25 million
for the Maglev deployment program. While this is the fully funded
amount envisioned in TEA-21 under the guaranteed funding, it is
insufficient to fully evaluate the seven projects around the country.
That is why HSGTA asks the Subcommittee for the guaranteed $25 million,
and an additional $30 million for completion of the seven projects'
Environmental Impact Statements.
The Maglev deployment program is quickly reaching a crossroads
where decisions have to be made about its long term future and
potential. It has become evident that there is great interest among the
sponsors to continue to move forward. While final results of current
planning work are not yet in, it is clear that at a minimum two or
three, and perhaps all, of the projects competing for federal funding
assistance will offer a successful demonstration of this exciting new
technology. It appears evident that the $950 million in non-guaranteed
funding will not in large part be appropriated during the TEA-21
funding cycle. This is due to budget constraints on the Subcommittee's
302(b) allocation. It also seems unlikely that actual construction of
one or more projects can begin by fiscal year 2003. With both of these
factors at work, it is clear that long-term decisions about Maglev
deployment will be made in the next authorization bill.
In the interim, we urge the Subcommittee to consider the following
alternative to allow the authorizing committee to make the best
informed decision possible and to best protect the sponsor's and
Federal government's investment up to this point. That investment will
be well in excess of $100 million by the end of fiscal year 2001.
The Maglev sponsors will submit their detailed plans to the Federal
Railroad Administration on June 30, 2000. While we expect these plans
to be thorough, both the sponsors and the Federal government can make
better investment decisions if a full Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) can be developed for each of the projects. Informally, we have
estimated the federal share of this stage of the program to be between
$42-$47 million to cover all 7 projects. The guaranteed portion of
Maglev funds for fiscal year 2001 is $25 million. We understand that
takedowns and obligation limitations required by law may reduce this
amount to $17 million actually spent in fiscal year 2001 on the
program. This would leave a gap of approximately $30 million to cover
the costs of full EIS's for the projects. Matching funds naturally
cover some portion of this figure.
Additional necessary funds can be appropriated from the $950
million authorization in TEA-21. The additional funds are a small
amount in absolute terms, and tiny when compared to the size of the
investment we have made already and the size of the investment in the
future. It is an extremely prudent hedge against poor decision making
in the future and will assure a complete picture for those who will be
making long-term decisions on the program during reauthorization.
Our estimate of these costs is our own. The Federal Railroad
Administration and seven project applicants could probably develop a
sharper figure on EIS costs. The important principle involved is that
the Congressional intent to deploy Maglev technology in this country,
as expressed in TEA-21, be fully realized and that maximum information
be available before a multi-year commitment is made on how this program
can best move forward. We hope that you will agree with us that this is
the prudent course of action.
______
Prepared Statement of the Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Consortium
The Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Consortium thanks the Subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify regarding the fiscal year 2001
Appropriations bill. This Subcommittee has been very supportive of the
various rail initiatives of the past few years for both rail capital,
safety and development initiatives. The Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev
initiative has considerably benefited from that support. We need
continued support for fiscal year 2001.
The Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Consortium's steering committee
consists of the following members: 1. Atlanta Regional Commission; 2.
Georgia Department of Transportation; 3. Georgia Regional
Transportation Authority; 4. Georgia Department of Transportation; 5.
Georgia Rail Passenger Authority; 6. The Chattanooga Institute; 7. The
City of Chattanooga; 8. Coosa Valley and North Georgia Regional
Development Centers; and 9. Cobb County Department of Transportation.
The ongoing Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment study is one of
seven being conducted simultaneously in the United States to determine
which location(s) would best showcase Maglev technology in this
country. The transportation corridor to best demonstrate that it can
successfully implement and operate a Maglev system will receive up to
$1 billion from TEA-21 for final development and construction of the
initial Project.
The Magnetic Levitation Transportation Program is an important and
exciting program designed to develop a new and much improved mode of
ground transportation. As our nation's, but especially the Greater
Atlanta Metro Area's airways and highways, become more and more
congested, and our environment and quality of life continue to
deteriorate, it is essential that we take advantage of every
opportunity to find new and better ways to improve our mobility and
enhance our environment.
Available Maglev technology is the fastest, most sophisticated
ground-transportation system in the world and has been tested at
operating speeds of over 240 mph. The technology selected for the
Atlanta-Chattanooga Corridor is Transrapid, a system that has been in
research and development in Germany since the late 1960's. Transrapid
rides over a fixed guideway supported, guided and propelled by magnetic
force alone with virtually no moving parts.
The Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev project is well underway and on
schedule to meet TEA-21 and Federal Railroad Requirements. It brings
together two key southeastern cities and states in a collaborative
effort to improve future transportation options. It provides economic
development opportunities and will create approximately 6,000 new jobs.
We believe the Atlanta-Chattanooga region should be the first in the
nation to manufacture and deploy this exciting new technology. While
the project will not solve all existing transportation and air quality
problems in the region, it certainly will provide an option that helps
air quality and traffic congestion in both Georgia and Tennessee. In
addition, the new transportation system could reduce the investment in
infrastructure necessary at the Hartsfield Atlanta International
Airport (HAIA), provide a reduction in commuter flights between Atlanta
and Chattanooga, and therefore, extend the life of the $5.4 billion
Masterplan improvement program that HAIA is initiating.
Since the study's inception in August of 1999, much progress has
been made in defining the details of the proposed Atlanta to
Chattanooga Maglev service. First, ridership and fare analysis have
shown that the project is indeed feasible, particularly with the level
of passenger travel to and from Hartsfield Atlanta International
Airport.
Second, it is clear that the portion of the corridor from
Hartsfield Airport to the Town Center in north Cobb county would meet
the criteria set by the Federal Railroad Administration to comply with
all aspects of the Maglev legislation in TEA-21. This section was
initially given greater emphasis because it would in essence become the
FRA Demonstration Project.
Ultimately two distinct Maglev services will be operated. Initially
a local project service will be operated between Hartsfield Airport and
Town Center in Cobb County. The 30-mile plus trip will stop at Vine
City (central Atlanta) and Galleria stations. Once the line is extended
to the Chattanooga Airport, additional service will operate between
Hartsfield and Chattanooga, stopping at all intermediate stations or
with express service directly between the airports.
While the cost is still being determined, experience demonstrates
that the range will likely be comparable to that of the MARTA system in
Atlanta on a cost per mile basis. However, operating cost is expected
to be paid by a combination of revenue from riders and the public-
private partnership. Federal and or local operating subsidies will not
be requested for operations or maintenance support.
The Administration has proposed fully funding the ``guaranteed''
portion of the Federal Aid Highways program that includes $25 million
for the Maglev deployment program for fiscal year 2001. After all the
takedowns and funding obligations are eliminated that will leave about
$17 million for the seven competing projects. This is insufficient to
evaluate the seven projects so that an appropriate down select decision
can be accomplished. In order to eliminate the risks for both the FRA
and the project applicants a full Environmental Impact Statement needs
to be completed for each project.
The Maglev deployment program is quickly reaching a crossroads
where decisions have to be made about its long term potential and
future. There is great interest among the seven sponsors to continue to
move forward. While final conceptual results will not be submitted
until June 30, 2000 it is clear that at a minimum Atlanta-Chattanooga
and perhaps two or three others, maybe all, projects competing for
federal funding will offer a successful demonstration of this exciting
new technology.
It appears evident that the $950 million non-guaranteed Maglev
funding authorization will not in large part be appropriated during the
TEA-21 funding cycle. This is due to budget constraints on the
Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. Also, because of the late start in
awarding the programs it seems unlikely that actual construction of one
or more projects can begin by fiscal year 2003. With both of these
factors at work, it is clear that long-term decisions about Maglev
deployment will be made in the next authorization bill.
For example a full Environmental Impact Statement would permit us
to fully evaluate the Vine Street station in downtown Atlanta to tie
MARTA, commuter rail, bus and taxi into a major intermodal connection,
where the whole will definitely be larger than any of its component
parts. This station would connect Phillips Arena, the World Congress
Center, the Georgia Dome and corporate headquarters of Coca Cola and
CNN. The station at HAIA would become the ``centerpiece'' for a truly
multi-modal transportation hub linking the future Southern Crescent
Transportation Service Center (housing commuter and high-speed rail,
local and regional bus systems, a future MARTA station and Maglev) to
the new East Terminal at HAIA.
Further completing the EIS process would permit us to fully
negotiate an agreement that is in process between Georgia Power and
Tennessee Valley Authority to work together to supply power for the
Maglev system, thus creating a new truly emission free transportation
alternative. Also, there are major private Maglev partners that are
``on the bubble'' that would truly revolutionize the concept of airport
travel (to, from and in the sky) in the Atlanta-Chattanooga Region. The
commitment of funding for the EIS will signal the resolve to move
forward with this new transportation technology. Importantly, all costs
under the EIS process will be completely defined as has been tested
under the Federal Transit Administration's Full Funding Grant Agreement
Process. This is a process that has been proven with over a decade of
experience.
We urge the Subcommittee to provide an additional $7 million for
fiscal year 2001 for the Atlanta-Chattanooga EIS to make the best-
informed decision possible and to best protect the sponsor's and
Federal government's investment. These additional necessary funds can
be realized from the $950 million Maglev authorization in TEA-21. The
additional funds are a small amount in absolute terms, and tiny when
compared to the size of the investment already made and the great
potential for this new, but tested, system in the future. This is an
extremely prudent hedge against making a poor decision in the future
and will assure a complete picture for those who will making long-term
decisions to improve mobility and the quality of life in the Atlanta-
Chattanooga corridor.
We would be pleased to respond to any of the Committee's questions
and urge your early recommendation of the fiscal year 2001 funding for
the Atlanta-Chattanooga Environmental Impact Statement. Please contact
Robert McCord at the Atlanta Regional Commission (404-463-3253) for any
follow-up that may be required.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor
The Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor is a partnership of
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to provide safe
and efficient intercity passenger rail service. Southeast High Speed
Rail will link cities where highway and airline congestion is the
greatest, providing the region with a much needed travel alternative.
Safety is our primary concern. We request a total of $5.5 million
in section 1103(c) funding in the fiscal year 2001 U.S. Department of
Transportation appropriation to be invested: Virginia $2 million, North
Carolina $1 million, South Carolina $1 million, and Georgia $1.5
million.
We will spend the funds wisely and promptly on vital safety
projects that will contribute to the mobility of people and goods in
our region. We will continue to work closely with our freight rail
partners to ensure the maximum return on these investments.
Each of us will also make you and the members of the subcommittee
aware of other projects and programs that are vital to our individual
states. We also invite your consideration of those activities.
The Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor is a unique, regional
transportation asset that enhances the social and economic life of
entire corridor. We value your partnership in this effort and we
appreciate you ongoing support for this project.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Railroad Passengers
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record. Our non-partisan Association--whose members are individuals--
has worked since 1967 towards development of a modern rail passenger
network in the U.S.
SUMMARY
We strongly support the fully authorized level of funding for
Amtrak for Fiscal 2001.
We support full funding of high-speed rail and rail corridor
development programs.
Amtrak usage and revenues continue to grow after a decline in the
mid-1990's.
Many opportunities lie ahead for improved passenger rail service,
but they will require a partnership that includes both the public and
private sector.
FISCAL 2001 AMTRAK APPROPRIATIONS
We strongly support the fully authorized level of funding for
Amtrak as set forth in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of
1997. This Act authorized $5.163 billion in appropriations for capital
and operations, for the five fiscal years of 1998 through 2002. For the
first three years (1998-2000), though $3.219 billion was authorized,
the Administration proposed $1.936 billion and Congress appropriated
$1.774 billion, leaving a total gap (thus far) of $1.445 billion (see
Table 1, next page).
TABLE 1.--APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED FOR AMTRAK, 1998-2002
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized
Fiscal year Amount Administration Amount amount not
authorized proposal Appropriated appropriated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................................... 1,138 744 594 544
1999.................................................... 1,058 621 609 449
2000.................................................... 1,023 571 571 452
2001.................................................... 989 989 n.a. n.a.
2002.................................................... 955 n.a. n.a. n.a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak and the Administration have said that the amount that was
appropriated in 1998-2000 is sufficient toward furthering Amtrak's
efforts to achieve operating self-sufficiency by 2003. However, as DOT
Inspector General Kenneth Mead has said, if they make it, they won't
make it by much. It is also clear that, at this rate, practically
nothing would remain for expansions that would let passenger rail
further increase its geographical reach and become a more relevant
presence in the transportation market in more places. Many states want
to help with these investments, but they are frustrated by the current
lack of a comprehensive federal partnership in this area. (I will
return to this in Section 4.)
We appreciate and support past actions by Congress to give Amtrak
the flexibility to spend part of its capital appropriation on items
relating to preventive maintenance. As is true for transit, preventive
maintenance expenditures can forestall the need for some capital
expenditures that are more expensive. They can enhance reliability and
help ease operating costs. This flexibility became crucial to Amtrak in
Fiscal 1999, which was the first year the Administration proposed no
Amtrak operating grant. We support extending this flexibility for both
equipment and maintenance-of-way at least through Fiscal 2002.
HIGH-SPEED RAIL FUNDING
We support funding at the authorized level of $35 million for high-
speed rail programs. This will allow the work of the Federal Railroad
Administration to continue in areas that will foster future corridor
development across the U.S. These areas include continued development
of a high-speed locomotive that doesn't require overhead electric
power, advanced signal systems, corridor planning, and advanced grade-
crossing safety technology.
AMTRAK USE IS GROWING, AND WILL GROW MORE
In fiscal year 1999, Amtrak ``core'' passenger revenues rose 6.0
percent, ridership rose 2.0 percent, and passenger-miles rose 0.5
percent (see Table 2, next page). This makes 1999 the third year in a
row that all three of these measures improved. By ``core'' we mean
intercity passengers; these numbers do not reflect Amtrak's contract
commuter operations.
TABLE 2.--AMTRAK CORE RIDERSHIP AND REVENUES, 1996-99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger
revenues ($ System ridership System passenger-
millions) (millions) miles (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal:
1996.................................................. $850.6 19.7 5,049.6
1997.................................................. $916.3 20.2 5,166.2
1998.................................................. $946.2 21.1 5,304.2
1999.................................................. $1,003.4 21.5 5,330.1
Percent change:
1996-99............................................... +18.0 +9.3 +5.6
1998-99............................................... +6.0 +2.0 +0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, we would like to have seen stronger gains. The Northeast
and West business units in fact did post stronger gains. The Intercity
unit suffered partly due to serious on-time performance problems. Many
of these problems were caused by the after-effects of the Union Pacific
meltdown, and--later in the year--by disastrous, new problems as
Norfolk Southern and CSX struggled with the complex Conrail
transaction.
We expect that all three indicators in Table 2 will increase as a
result of Amtrak's attaining a full level of Acela service in the
Northeast Corridor. While Congress made significant infrastructure
investments in the Northeast Corridor in the 1990's, the increased
service levels made possible by these investments are only just
beginning. The first increment of added service began January 31, with
conversion of two Boston-New York-Washington round-trips to all-
electric Acela Regional service, reducing the Boston South Station-New
York City running time to just under four hours. The ridership response
has been strongly positive. More service will be added throughout 2000
as remaining electrification work is completed, and as new locomotives
and new complete train sets are delivered for Acela Regional and Acela
Express services, respectively.
FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES EXIST, BUT REQUIRE A FEDERAL PARTNER
This investment in the Northeast, making possible faster, all-
electric service possible for the first time beyond New Haven to
Boston, is arguably the single-greatest passenger-rail-related
infrastructure investment by any agency in the U.S. since the Great
Depression. This project will have a direct regional impact on
transportation in the Northeast, by enhancing the attractiveness of
passenger trains and making them a much better alternative to
constrained highway and airport capacity. Also, the entire project
(infrastructure and new train sets) will demonstrate to other areas of
the country that modern, high-speed rail is not just for the Europeans
and Japanese.
We believe the evidence continues to show that Americans are eager
to ride good train service wherever it is provided. Whatever the short
term holds for oil prices, most experts--including those at the
International Energy Agency--believe that the era of cheap oil has at
most 10-15 years to go. The U.S. relies on energy-intensive domestic
aviation more than any other nation. Therefore, the stronger our
passenger rail system can become, the more it can soften the negative
impacts of future energy price increases on our economy and our quality
of life.
Public support for expanded service--which would be greatly aided
by appropriating the entire amount authorized for Amtrak--was
reinforced on February 1 at a Capitol Hill breakfast with the formation
of a bi-partisan coalition of state Departments of Transportation to
press for federal funding for intercity passenger rail. The confidence
this Subcommittee has shown in Amtrak is vindicated by statements like
the following from Illinois DOT Secretary Kirk Brown, made on February
1: ``Amtrak has done an outstanding job. Three years ago, we would have
said Amtrak was a problem. But they've changed the way they do
business. They have done a great job of building credibility with the
local communities.''
At the same meeting, North Carolina Deputy Secretary David King
said, ``We have been so bold as to rename the NEC [Northeast Corridor].
We call it the ACC. That's the Atlantic Coast Corridor. Two-thirds of
the people who board our trains [in North Carolina] want to go to the
Northeast Corridor. It's not a one-state business that we're about.
It's got to be national. Like Illinois, we're pleased at the progress
Amtrak has made . . . What really is missing is [meaningful] federal
money.'' New York DOT Assistant Commissioner Jack Guinan and Wisconsin
DOT Deputy Director Terry Mulcahy also praised Amtrak.
Another remarkable sign that passenger rail is popular among states
came last December when 26 governors wrote to this Subcommittee and
Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew asking that Amtrak be
funded at the fully authorized level in 2001.
The U.S. lags the world in making it easy for travelers to connect
between intercity passenger rail and airlines. Many people will be
surprised by the positive impact on Amtrak's revenues when the station
at Newark Airport opens in 2001. We are pleased that T. F. Green
Airport in Providence will get an Amtrak station (also in 2001), and
that planners in the Midwest are looking at air/rail connections in
Gary and Milwaukee and possibly elsewhere. We remain convinced that the
greatest untapped opportunity to exploit air/rail lies in extending
Amtrak trains--and O'Hare's Airport Transit (people mover)--to Metra's
O'Hare Transfer commuter rail station.
We strongly support adding key routes to the long-distance network.
Among the most important needs we see: Midwest-Nashville-Atlanta-
Florida and Seattle-Portland-Denver-Texas. Long-distance trains will
benefit from high-speed corridor initiatives, with better reliability
and travel times in territory shared by both types of service. This is
particularly true in the Midwest, where Chicago-East Coast trains have
been severely impacted by the 1999 split-up of Conrail.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Passenger Rail Coalition
Chairman Shelby and Members of the Subcommittee on Transportation
Appropriations, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to
the Subcommittee on the importance of the nation's intercity passenger
railroad--Amtrak--and the funding Amtrak needs to continue its success
in building ridership and revenues and to partner with states on
investments in high-speed rail on corridors around the country.
The American Passenger Rail Coalition (APRC) is an association of
the nation's railroad equipment suppliers and rail-related businesses
that are working for a financially strong, efficient and safe U.S.
intercity passenger rail system. APRC member companies manufacture
railroad cars and locomotives, railcar brakes, doors and lighting, rail
signaling systems, rail cable and ties and provide important services
such as track repair, computer and networking services, communications,
food delivery and other services. APRC member companies have
manufacturing plants and businesses in states across the country that
employ thousands of U.S. workers and contribute to the economic health
of states and communities.
MOMENTUM IS BUILDING NATIONWIDE FOR IMPROVED INTERCITY RAIL PASSENGER
SERVICE
Momentum is building in states and regions around the country--in
the Midwest, the Northeast, the Southeast, the South, the West and the
Pacific Northwest--for improved intercity passenger rail service.
States and communities are not only speaking out about the need for
improved rail service but are investing substantial amounts of their
own money to bring this about. An indication of this momentum was the
announcement in October 1999 by the states of Wisconsin, Illinois and
Michigan that they will, in partnership with Amtrak, develop a plan to
purchase new rail equipment capable of travelling 110 mph to operate on
three Midwest passenger rail corridors. What is becoming apparent is
that states from all regions of the country share a conviction that
intercity passenger rail must be an essential element of state and
national plans to assure future mobility, economic development and a
high quality of life.
STRONG FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL
Federal leadership through strong funding of Amtrak and a
partnership with the states is essential to ensuring the success of the
investments states and communities are making to improve rail service.
Partnership between the federal government and states has been basis
for construction and expansion of our nation's highways, airports and
other modes of transportation. This federal-state partnership enables
key capital and infrastructure investments to be made that result in
better service, greater capacity and ridership growth. With a federal-
state partnership, intercity passenger rail and high-speed rail service
will develop and attract a growing ridership.
APRC thanks the Subcommittee for the support it has shown for
Amtrak. APRC expresses special appreciation to Senator Frank Lautenberg
for his steadfast commitment and untiring efforts to secure the funding
Amtrak needs to continue to improve and grow. In fiscal year 2001, APRC
asks the Subcommittee to appropriate $989 million for Amtrak, the full-
authorized level Congress approved for Amtrak for fiscal year 2001 in
the Amtrak reauthorization legislation. This funding will keep Amtrak
on track to operational self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2003 and enable
Amtrak to partner with states in making capital investments in the
high-speed rail corridors.
More than half of the nation's Governors are on record supporting
$989 million for Amtrak in fiscal year 2001. State legislators, mayors
and community leaders, rail business and rail passenger associations,
labor and other organizations all have expressed support for funding
Amtrak at the full-authorized level in fiscal year 2001. This is a
critical time for federal leadership in intercity passenger rail. The
return to the nation for its investments in Amtrak and high-speed rail
will be high.
AMTRAK'S STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN IS YIELDING POSITIVE RESULTS
Under the leadership of the Amtrak Board of Directors and President
and CEO, George Warrington, and guided by the Strategic Business Plan
they have adopted, Amtrak is increasing its revenues and ridership and
entering into partnerships that are yielding increased efficiency and
growth. Indications of the positive results in the last fiscal year
(fiscal year 1999) include:
--Amtrak total revenues were $1.84 billion, the highest in Amtrak's
history.
--Amtrak exceeded the bottom-line target in its business plan by $8
million.
--Ridership was 21.5 million, up 2 percent from fiscal year 1998 and
nearly 10 percent over fiscal year 1997.
--Passenger-related revenues set a record again, topping $1 billion.
--Amtrak increased the number of trains operating in many states and
reintroduced passenger rail service to Oklahoma for the first
time in 20 years.
--Amtrak's mail and express freight service produced $98 million in
revenue, up 18 percent over the prior fiscal year.
In December 1999, Moody's Investment Services, after reviewing
Amtrak's finances and Strategic Business Plan, raised Amtrak's credit
rating to A3, a rating that means ``a stable outlook'' and noted that
it ``reflects Moody's assessment of the financial strength of Amtrak in
relation to its unique operations and prominence in the U.S.''
Each year, since 1994, Amtrak has presented to Congress a timeline
of its ``glidepath'' to becoming free of federal operating assistance.
The glidepath does not include nor has it ever included progressive
overhauls or depreciation, a non-cash expense, as federal operating
costs. Amtrak is on track to becoming free of federal operating
assistance as understood historically by both Amtrak and Congress.
Amtrak is fully intent on meeting the financial goals and reforms
established by Congress in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of
1997.
AMTRAK'S PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS YIELD NEW REVENUES AND
RIDERSHIP
The public and private partnerships, which Amtrak is undertaking,
are generating new revenues and opportunities to increase service.
Amtrak's mail and express business, which is central to improving the
economics of the long-distance trains, has been experiencing double
digit growth. On the Chicago-San Antonio Texas Eagle, which was nearly
cancelled three years ago, service has increased and ridership was up
17 percent in the first quarter of this fiscal year (Oct-Dec. 1999).
Amtrak ridership increased last year, reaching record levels on
some routes:
--New York-Washington D.C. Metroliner Service set its third
consecutive ridership record in fiscal year 1999, with 2.24
million passengers.
--The Philadelphia-Harrisburg Keystone Service, provided in
partnership with Pennsylvania, rose 18 percent to nearly 1
million passengers.
--Amtrak's partnership with Washington State and Oregon and the
popular European-style Talgo trains operating along the Pacific
Northwest Corridor boosted rail ridership to 450,000 in fiscal
year 1999. Amtrak ridership in the corridor has quadrupled over
the past six years.
On January 31, Amtrak celebrated the inauguration of all-electric
rail service between Boston and New York City. The new Acela Regional
service will reduce New York to Boston rail travel time by as much as
90 minutes. Completion of the final 156-mile section of the Northeast
Corridor electrification system from New Haven to Boston made this all-
electric service possible. With this final link, the entire Northeast
Corridor from Boston to Washington D.C. now has overhead
electrification. New, comfortable upgraded railcars and faster
downtown-to-downtown service will draw new business and other customers
to the rails. Later this year, Amtrak and the nation will celebrate the
launch of the Acela Express high-speed rail service in the Northeast
Corridor. The sleek new trainsets, manufactured by the consortium of
Bombardier and ALSTOM Transportation, will travel at top speeds of 150
miles per hour, cutting the Boston-New York travel time to under 3
hours, and will provide U.S. rail passengers with a new level of speed,
comfort and service quality. The Acela high-speed rail service, the
linchpin of Amtrak's strategy to achieve operational self-sufficiency,
is projected to attract an additional 2.6 million riders annually to
Amtrak and generate net revenues of at least $180 million. Design and
construction of the new trains generated contracts with businesses in
23 states, created thousands of jobs and will yield substantial
economic benefits for the Northeast region and the nation.
STATE COMMITMENTS TO HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT
States and regions are making substantial investments to improve
intercity passenger rail service. Some examples include:
--State transportation officials announced on February 1, the
formation of a new ``States for Passenger Rail'' coalition
through which states will work together for strong funding for
intercity passenger rail service and funding to advance the
designated high-speed rail corridors. Nineteen states have
already joined to coalition. Others are expected to join in the
weeks ahead.
--Nine Midwestern states, in cooperation with Amtrak and the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), are developing the Midwest
Regional Rail Initiative, a plan to improve intercity passenger
rail service on 3,000 miles of track throughout the region.
--A $185 million agreement was signed between New York State and
Amtrak to upgrade seven Turboliner trains that operate on NY's
Empire Corridor and for other infrastructure investments on the
corridor.
--In November 1999, Amtrak and Pennsylvania DOT announced a $140
million agreement to fund improvements on the Philadelphia-
Harrisburg Keystone Corridor, including electrification of the
route, purchase of equipment, upgraded track and other
improvements.
--In California, Amtrak made its largest state investment ever--$125
million for new trains for the popular San Diego-San Luis
Obispo rail corridor.
--In the Pacific Northwest, investments by Washington and Oregon to
improve intercity passenger rail service are yielding big gains
(cited earlier).
--Along the Gulf Coast, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama are working
on plans to improve rail service along the Gulf Coast high-
speed rail corridor.
FUNDING FOR FRA'S NEXT GENERATION HIGH SPEED RAIL PROGRAM AND FOR RAIL
SAFETY
APRC also asks the Subcommittee to provide strong funding for the
Federal Railroad Administration's Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Program, to continue the important contributions this program is making
in the development of a high-speed non-electric locomotive, advances in
positive train control, development and testing of advanced grade
crossing protection technologies and in other areas. Highway-railroad
grade crossing elimination programs are crucial to the development of
high-speed rail and APRC asks the Subcommittee to continue funding for
these important programs.
important legislative opportunities to improve intercity passenger rail
Finally, APRC would like to express its support for two important
pieces of legislation that will provide states with increased
opportunities to invest in passenger rail improvements. S. 1900, the
High Speed Rail Investment Act, introduced by Senator Lautenberg and
co-sponsors would authorize Amtrak to sell $10 billion in bonds over 10
years and invest the money in designated high-speed rail corridors. A
federal investment of $400 million would leverage billions in capital
for high-speed rail investment. The Senate bill has 40 co-sponsors. A
House companion bill has been introduced. S. 1144, the Surface
Transportation Act, led by Senator Voinovich, would allow states to use
flexible federal surface transportation funds (STP, CMAQ and NHS) for
intercity passenger rail, where the state believes rail is the best
transportation solution. This legislation is supported by many public
and private organizations. Enactment of these bills, along with strong
federal appropriations for Amtrak and to advance high-speed rail R&D
and rail safety, will enable Amtrak and the states to make crucial
passenger rail investments that will yield high returns for the nation.
APRC thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present this
testimony.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Aasmundstad, Eric, North Dakota Farm Bureau State President,
American Farm Bureau Federation:
Prepared statement........................................... 597
Statement of................................................. 595
Acton, Ken, Aviation Consultant.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Statement of................................................. 47
Aero Twin, Inc., prepared statement.............................. 65
Air Traffic Control Association, Inc., prepared statement........ 1480
Alaska Aviation Coordination Council, prepared statement......... 73
American Association of Airport Executives and Airports Council
International--North America, prepared statement............... 1474
American Passenger Rail Coalition, prepared statement............ 1512
American Public Transportation Association, prepared statement... 1448
Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Consortium, prepared statement........ 1508
Bailey, Hon. Sue, M.D., Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of Transportation:
Prepared statement........................................... 561
Statement of................................................. 559
Baker, Robert W., Vice Chairman, American Airlines, Inc.:
Prepared statement........................................... 166
Statement of................................................. 163
Basso, Jack, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.......... 77
Basso, Peter J., Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and
Chief Financial Official, Department of Transportation.......339, 381
Prepared statement........................................... 360
Statement of................................................. 359
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, statements of.367, 409
Bi-State Development Agency, prepared statement.................. 1442
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri:
Questions submitted by....................................... 250
Statement of................................................. 189
Bowers, Paul, Alaska Department of Transportation, Director,
Statewide Aviation............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Statement of................................................. 10
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Prepared statement........................................... 601
Statement of................................................. 600
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
Questions submitted by....................................... 256
Statements of..............................................185, 515
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, prepared statement........................... 1490
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
Questions submitted by................................252, 328, 335
Statements of..............................................187, 465
Card, Vice Admiral James C., Vice Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation................................... 259
Prepared statement........................................... 265
Statement of................................................. 263
Champion, David, Director, Auto Test Center, Consumers Union..... 532
Chatham Area Transit Authority, prepared statement............... 1433
City of Gainesville, Florida, prepared statement................. 1457
City of Miami Beach, Florida, prepared statement................. 1434
City of Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement................... 1435
City of Vero Beach, Florida, prepared statement.................. 1488
Claybrook, Joan, President, Public Citizen:
Prepared statement........................................... 528
Statement of................................................. 522
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement.......... 1503
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, prepared statement............. 1456
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Denver
Regional Transportation District (RTD), prepared statement..... 1432
Colorado Department of Transportation, prepared statement........ 1495
ComCARE Alliance, prepared statement............................. 1395
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, prepared statement........... 1401
County of San Bernardino, CA, prepared statement................. 1491
Coyner, Kelley S., Administrator, Research and Special Programs
Administration, Department of Transportation................... 259
Prepared statement........................................... 279
Statement of................................................. 278
Crichton, John, President and Chief Executive Officer, NAV
Canada:
Prepared statement........................................... 155
Questions submitted to....................................... 177
Statement of................................................. 153
Crigger, Gary, Executive Vice President, Business and Planning,
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc..................................... 548
Cross, Roger, Administrator, Wisconsin Division of Motor
Vehicles:
Prepared statement........................................... 448
Statement of................................................. 446
Crowe, Robert T., Vice President, Walter Industries, Inc.,
Birmingham, AL................................................. 585
Prepared statement........................................... 589
Statement of................................................. 587
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority, prepared statement.......... 1429
Disabled American Veterans, prepared statement................... 1421
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
Questions submitted by............139, 149, 174, 177, 236, 334, 337
Statement of................................................. 521
Duff, Diane, Executive Vice President, Alliance for Rail
Competition:
Prepared statement........................................... 605
Statement of................................................. 603
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois, prepared
statement...................................................... 130
Easter Seals, prepared statement................................. 1461
Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, prepared statement. 1425
Federal Aviation Administration, questions submitted to.......... 713
Federal Highway Administration, questions submitted to........... 807
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, questions submitted
to............................................................. 999
Federal Railroad Administration, questions submitted to.......... 1040
Federal Transit Administration, questions submitted to........... 1117
Ferro, Anne, Administrator, Maryland Motor Vehicle
Administration:
Prepared statement........................................... 442
Statement of................................................. 439
Financial Services, Inc., prepared statement..................... 1424
Fleet Reserve Association, prepared statement.................... 1407
FlightSafety International, prepared statement................... 1474
Garvey, Hon. Jane, Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation..................77, 459
Prepared statements.........................................92, 472
Questions submitted to....................................... 139
Statements of...............................................88, 469
Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Opening statement............................................ 77
Prepared statement........................................... 317
Questions submitted by....................................... 252
Statements of..............................................368, 518
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from Iowa:
Opening statement............................................ 95
Questions submitted by................................148, 179, 256
Greenberg, Sally, Senior Product Safety Counsel, Consumers Union. 532
Hamberger, Edward R., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads:
Prepared statement........................................... 627
Statement of................................................. 624
Harding, Richard, President, Peninsula Airways................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Statement of................................................. 34
Helicopter Association International, prepared statement......... 1486
Herman, Susan, Executive Director, National Center for Victims of
Crime:
Prepared statement........................................... 418
Statement of................................................. 416
High Speed Ground Transportation Association, prepared statement. 1505
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
prepared statement............................................. 129
International Loran Association, prepared statement.............. 1484
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, prepared statement 1401
InVision Technologies, Inc., prepared statement.................. 1478
Iowa State University, Institute for Physical Research and
Technology, prepared statement................................. 1470
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, prepared
statement...................................................... 131
Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, statements of....190, 369
Kragh, Edward, Newark International Airport Air Traffic
Controller, Secretary, Newark Local, National Air Traffic
Controllers Association:
Prepared statement........................................... 497
Statement of................................................. 493
LaBelle, James D., Chief, Alaska Office, National Transportation
Safety Board................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Statement of................................................. 23
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey:
Opening statement............................................ 79
Statements of...............................181, 260, 341, 467, 516
Questions submitted by...........................146, 255, 331, 395
Louisiana Public Transit Association, prepared statement......... 1467
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI), prepared
statement...................................................... 1416
Maguire, Felix, President, Alaska Airmen's Association........... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Statement of................................................. 42
Majerus, Larry, Vice President of Government Relations, Polk
Company:
Prepared statement........................................... 436
Statement of................................................. 434
Mead, Kenneth, Inspector General, Office of Inspector General,
Department of Transportation........................77, 339, 381, 459
Prepared statements....................................99, 353, 479
Questions submitted to....................................... 149
Statements of..........................................96, 350, 474
Memphis Area Transit Authority, prepared statement............... 1460
Metra, prepared statement........................................ 1436
Metropolitan Transit Authority, prepared statement............... 1443
Mierzwinski, Ed, Consumer Program Director, United States Public
Interest Research Group, statement of.......................... 414
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland:
Prepared statement........................................... 272
Questions submitted by...............................325, 332, 1314
Statement of................................................. 518
Millman, Rosalyn G., Acting Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.... 259
Statement of................................................. 270
Molitoris, Jolene, Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration, Department of Transportation................... 259
Biographical sketch.......................................... 293
Prepared statement........................................... 283
Statement of................................................. 281
Morgan, Linda J., Chairman, Surface Transportation Board:
Prepared statements.......................................654, 1377
Statement of................................................. 653
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Prepared statement........................................... 296
Questions submitted by....................................... 323
Statements of..............................................193, 466
National Association of Railroad Passengers, prepared statement.. 1510
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators,
prepared statement............................................. 1404
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, questions
submitted to................................................... 1315
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, questions submitted to.. 966
New York State Department of Transportation, prepared statement.. 1499
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, prepared statement.... 1452
Nojeim, Greg, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties
Union:
Prepared statement........................................... 422
Statement of................................................. 420
North Carolina Department of Transportation, prepared statement.. 1502
Office of the Secretary, questions submitted to.................. 677
Ono, Masatoshi, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.:
Prepared statement........................................... 549
Statement of................................................. 548
Petrauskus, Helen, Vice President, Environmental and Safety
Engineering, Ford Motor Company:
Prepared statement........................................... 552
Statement of................................................. 550
Pittle, David R., Senior Vice President and Technical Director,
Consumers Union:
Prepared statement........................................... 536
Statement of................................................. 532
Plumb, Morton V., Jr., Director, Anchorage International Airport. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Statement of................................................. 19
Poe, Patrick N., Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.......... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Statement of................................................. 6
Poole, Robert W., Jr., President and Director, Transportation
Studies, Reason Public Policy Institute, Los Angeles, CA:
Prepared statement........................................... 160
Questions submitted to....................................... 174
Statement of................................................. 158
Port Authority of Allegheny County, prepared statement........... 1463
Professional Airways Systems Specialists, prepared statement..... 63
Regional Transit Authority, prepared statement................... 1465
Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada,
prepared statement............................................. 1427
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, statement of......... 462
Research and Special Programs Administration, questions submitted
to............................................................. 1207
Reserve Officers Association of the United States, prepared
statement...................................................... 1410
Schlafly, Phyllis, President, Eagle Forum:
Prepared statement........................................... 412
Statement of................................................. 410
Security Aviation, prepared statement............................ 72
Shelby, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama:
Opening statements of.........81, 259, 339, 381, 405, 459, 513, 585
Prepared statement........................................... 514
Questions submitted by....................................... 176,
179, 227, 322, 326, 333, 377, 392, 399, 677, 713, 807, 966, 999, 1040,
1117, 1207, 1264, 1315, 1382
Slater, Rodney E., Secretary of Transportation, Department of
Transportation, Office of the Secretary........................ 181
Prepared statement........................................... 201
Statement of................................................. 197
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, questions
submitted by................................................... 148
Snowe, Hon. Olympia J., U.S. Senator from Maine, prepared
statement...................................................... 131
Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, prepared statement........... 1509
Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, statements
of...........................................................195, 519
Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared statement......................... 1496
State of New Jersey, prepared statement.......................... 1454
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of................................................. 194
Stylin' Concepts Corporation, prepared statement................. 1419
Thompson, Hon. Tommy, Chairman, Board of Directors, National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)........................ 339
Prepared statement........................................... 348
Statement of................................................. 345
Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, prepared statement........... 1445
Turner, Frank K., President, American Short Line and Regional
Railroad Association:
Prepared statement........................................... 640
Statement of................................................. 637
United States Coast Guard, questions submitted to................ 1264
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, prepared
statement...................................................... 1487
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 1406
Wardleigh, Tom, President, Alaska Aviation Safety Foundation,
statements of.................................................. 1, 40
Warrington, George, President, Amtrak............................ 339
Wyant, Bob, Vice President, Quality Assurance, Bridgestone/
Firestone, Inc................................................. 548
Young, Hon. Don, U.S. Congressman from Alaska:
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of................................................. 3
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Page
Acela rail service............................................... 214
Administration of the 0.38 reduction within the Federal-aid
obligation limitation.......................................... 240
Airline competition.............................................. 191
Amtrak.........................................................183, 221
Aviation safety................................................190, 250
Blood alcohol content (BAC)...................................... 216
Borders and corridors program.................................... 250
Budget authority, revenue aligned................................ 184
Civil aviation--Argentina........................................ 255
Coast Guard:
C-130 spares................................................. 236
Challenges facing the........................................ 218
Cutters...................................................... 217
Missions..................................................... 217
Operational readiness........................................ 212
Colorado Civil Air Patrol........................................ 253
Corridors and borders............................................ 193
Denver--Southest corridor LRT.................................... 255
Discretionary:
Bridge....................................................... 227
Projects..................................................... 206
Earmarks................................................. 227
Economic growth.................................................. 200
Building the foundation for.................................. 205
Emergency relief..........................................185, 224, 256
Highways..................................................... 232
Environment...................................................... 200
For our children, building an................................ 205
European Union's hushkit regulation.............................. 252
Evaluation and testing, nondestructive........................... 237
FAA:
Contract towers............................................232, 252
Cost-based accounting system................................. 238
Excise taxes and user fees................................... 238
Personnel and procurement flexibility........................ 232
Professionalism.............................................. 195
Receipts and interest........................................ 225
Federal-aid Highway Program--Treatment of 0.38 Reduction Under
the Fiscal Year 2000 Omnibus Appropriations Act................ 239
Fiscal year 2000:
Across-the-board reduction................................... 238
Full funding grant agreements................................ 211
Fiscal year 2001 budget.......................................... 197
Funding firewalls................................................ 208
Gas tax revenues................................................. 187
Great lakes icebreaker........................................... 191
Hazardous materials registration fees............................ 235
Heathrow, air carrier access to.................................. 216
High-speed rail.................................................. 183
Highway funding:
Redirecting,................................................. 186
Redistribution of............................................ 219
Highway:
Tax shift.................................................... 190
Trust fund................................................... 189
I-15 design-build project........................................ 192
Intercity rail capital, expanded................................. 235
LORAN-C radio navigation......................................... 191
Los Angeles:
Bus request.................................................. 234
MTA.......................................................... 211
Mass transit..................................................... 182
Mississippi Delta and Appalachia...............................187, 220
Mobility......................................................... 199
Solutions, building innovative............................... 203
Nation secure, keeping our....................................... 206
National security................................................ 200
Native American initiative....................................... 236
Nuclear waste.................................................... 188
Rail transportation of....................................... 253
Transportation............................................... 253
Passenger rail................................................... 213
Pennsylvania projects............................................ 196
Pipeline safety.................................................. 194
Puget Sound...................................................... 193
Radar outages.................................................... 196
Rail mergers..................................................... 223
Rail service, timely............................................. 222
Rail signaling systems........................................... 224
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority................................. 250
Safety........................................................... 199
Small Colorado airports, improvements for........................ 252
Sound transit.................................................... 252
TEA-21........................................................... 185
Train service, rerouting......................................... 222
Transit:
Full funding grant agreements................................ 209
New starts................................................... 232
Transportation safety record, building upon our.................. 202
Transportation System:
That meets the challenges of the 21st century................ 201
Of the 21st century.......................................... 198
User fees......................................................184, 207
Utah valley radar coverage....................................... 193
Volcano monitoring............................................... 195
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY INITIATIVES--FISCAL YEAR 2001
Addressing human error........................................... 280
Aggressive driving............................................... 332
Aging population, automotive safety for an....................... 329
Air bag:
Advanced 272
Initiatives.................................................. 274
Related adult fatalities..................................... 307
Rule, advanced............................................... 306
Test decision-making process, role of the NTSB in the........ 328
AIR-21 impact.................................................... 325
AirSta Sacramento SAR Case: Lack of readiness may already be
costing us lives............................................... 321
Amenities........................................................ 318
Aviation:
Firewall, impact of.......................................... 301
Runway incursions............................................ 337
Certification.................................................... 324
Coast Guard Strategic Goal: Maritime Safety...................... 265
Coast Guard Yard Policy Statement................................ 325
Coast Guard Yard--CORE facility.................................. 325
Consequences..................................................... 320
Crash:
Avoidance.................................................... 273
Data, collection and analyses of............................. 332
Crashworthiness.................................................. 275
Crossing safety, rulemaking for.................................. 286
Database, accident and fatality.................................. 305
Deformable barrier, modification of the.......................... 330
Fiscal year 2001 initiatives..................................... 271
Four program components.......................................... 271
Future challenges................................................ 288
Grade crossing:
Accidents, efforts used to reduce............................ 334
Collisions................................................... 304
Funds:
New Mexico............................................... 334
Under section 130, fiscal year 1998-2000................. 334
Safety:
And Trespass Prevention.................................. 284
Managers................................................. 282
Grants........................................................... 323
Hazardous materials.............................................. 281
Program, department-wide review of the....................... 322
Transportation registration fees............................. 303
Heavy Vehicle Safety............................................. 273
High priority initiatives........................................ 301
Highway:
Fatality trends.............................................. 272
Rail crossing inventory...................................... 309
Traffic safety grants........................................ 277
Impaired driving programs........................................ 273
Interstate pipelines............................................. 323
Introduction: Differences between Business and Military
Measurement.................................................... 318
Investigation.................................................... 269
Life safety improvements......................................... 308
Locomotive horn ruling........................................... 283
MSIS system...................................................... 312
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS).....................271, 276
National Center for Statistics and Analysis...................... 276
National Distress and Response System............................ 305
National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center............. 275
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)................................ 276
New Mexico, section 130 obligations for.......................... 334
Operation Lifesaver.............................................. 282
Optempo, Parts, and People....................................... 319
Other safety rulemaking and technology development............... 286
Outside force damage............................................. 280
Partnerships, Amtrak/freight..................................... 315
Periodic inspections............................................. 323
Pipeline safety.................................................. 279
Populations, minorities and rural................................ 271
Port security.................................................... 311
Preventing corrosion............................................. 280
Prevention....................................................... 265
Rail car crash tests:
Funding for full-scale passenger............................. 336
Need for future.............................................. 335
Other........................................................ 336
Purpose of:
Full-scale passenger..................................... 335
Second passenger......................................... 335
Rail line congestion............................................. 315
Readiness: The Reality Behind the Numbers........................ 318
Reauthorization bill............................................. 325
Research and development technology.............................. 324
Research--human error: fatigue................................... 281
Response......................................................... 267
Rollover:
Countermeasures.............................................. 329
Issues, addressing........................................... 311
Prevention, construction standards for....................... 317
Propensity:
Research................................................. 310
Trucks, vans, and SUV.................................... 310
Standards.................................................... 316
Safe:
Livable communities.......................................... 277
Mobility for an aging America................................ 277
Passages for youth........................................... 271
Safety:
Mission requires innovation strategy......................... 270
Statistics................................................... 281
Seat belts....................................................... 274
Usage........................................................ 327
Use, State survey on......................................... 327
Side glazing, advanced........................................... 326
Speed and aggressive driving..................................... 274
State:
Cooperation.................................................. 314
Data:
Collection uniformity.................................... 331
Funds, use of............................................ 331
Program.................................................. 331
Electronic files............................................. 331
Status of Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support
Proposals...................................................... 289
Target populations............................................... 275
Trainset testing, high-speed..................................... 313
Transit crossings................................................ 308
Trespasser fatalities, actions in preventing..................... 333
TTC, tests at.................................................... 336
USCGC Mackinaw:
Refurbishing................................................. 325
Refurbishment decision timeline.............................. 325
User fees........................................................ 323
Vans may be driven, regulations on how far/long.................. 329
Vehicle incompatibility.......................................... 316
IMPLEMENTING THE DRIVERS PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT EXPRESS CONSENT
REQUIREMENT
DPPA compromise its privacy promise, loopholes in the............ 423
Driver privacy, additional steps Congress should take to protect. 424
The Driver's Privacy Protection Act.............................. 422
1999 amendments to the....................................... 424
Questions regarding impact of section 350 in implementing
amendments to.............................................. 449
Drivers' personal information, abuse of.......................... 423
Maryland Privacy Act, fiscal impact of........................... 443
Maryland's:
1997 privacy initiative...................................... 442
1999 privacy initiative...................................... 442
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MODERNIZING THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
Acquisition and personnel reforms................................ 103
Air traffic control outages:
Pay increases................................................ 150
Recent....................................................... 141
Reform....................................................... 94
Air traffic controllers pay increases............................ 144
Airport movement area safety system (AMASS)...................... 147
Aviation:
Deserve a general fund guarantee while highways does not, why
does....................................................... 147
In the United States and Canada, comparison of............... 175
Technology and future of..................................... 139
Best structure for the United States............................. 175
Biological contaminant characterization.......................... 116
Cabin air quality, actions to improve..........................114, 119
Cosmic radiation exposures....................................... 115
FAA-NIOSH:
Aircraft cabin exposure assessment study, original........... 115
Project, participation of other groups in the................ 117
Federal Aviation Administration:
Actions on Aircraft Cabin Air Quality Research Program,
report to Congress on the.................................. 118
Financing.................................................... 106
Modernization program........................................ 139
Position on air traffic control restructuring................ 145
Program priority............................................. 145
Report to Congress on Aircraft Cabin Air Quality Research
Program.................................................... 113
Restructuring................................................ 101
Spending off budget, Senate should not take.................. 86
Federal Aviation Administration to the United States Congress
pursuant to Public Law 103-305, section 304 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization, report of the........... 118
Focused on, what we are.......................................... 93
Funding for modernization........................................ 149
In-flight disease transmission and symptomatology research....... 116
Managing differently............................................. 92
Minimize runway incursions, delayed efforts to................... 146
Modernizing the Federal Aviation Administration: challenges and
solutions...................................................... 99
Moving aviation trust fund ``off budget'' undermines the budget
process........................................................ 84
National Economic Council in FAA policy, role of the............. 148
NAV Canada:
Model in the United States, prospect of the.................. 178
Successes of................................................. 178
User fees structure.......................................... 177
What improvements in system performance have been achieved to
date by.................................................... 156
What is...................................................... 155
Non-share Capital Corporation, what is a......................... 155
Non-share Capital model, why did Canada choose to privatize and
to pick........................................................ 155
Our achievements................................................. 92
Personnel and procurement reforms, results of..................142, 151
Project delays................................................... 148
Research program implementation plans............................ 119
Restructuring, IG's opinion on................................... 150
Safety........................................................... 177
Shifting air traffic control to a user-funded corporation........ 160
Small and rural communities, access to........................... 178
Technology:
Ability to keep pace with.................................... 149
Current system and world trend............................... 174
User fee:
Proposal..................................................... 148
And cost-based accounting system......................... 145
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ALASKA AVIATION ISSUES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Age 60 rule..................................................34, 38, 55
Aging aircraft................................................... 37
Air cargo business............................................... 19
Airport facilities, reliable..................................... 51
Airports......................................................... 37
Alaska:
Airports..................................................... 7
Aviation issues for the 21st Century......................... 36
CAPSTONE..................................................... 5
State of general aviation in................................. 57
Alaska's:
Aviators..................................................... 4
Future, planning for......................................... 59
Unique needs................................................. 26
Alaskan NAS interfacility communications system (ANICS).......... 5
Anchorage International, needed investments at................... 28
Automated surface observing system............................... 5
Aviation safety initiative....................................... 5
CAPSTONE.........................................................28, 52
Project...................................................... 6
Cargo services/business opportunities............................ 21
Commuter rule.................................................... 37
DAWN system...................................................... 54
Distance plays an important role................................. 62
Eklutna float plane facility..................................... 60
FAA:
Maintaining an active dialogue with.......................... 62
Oversight and support........................................ 52
Policy, national............................................. 31
Fundamental needs of the future.................................. 51
Funding.......................................................... 37
General aviation services/business opportunities................. 22
Human factors.................................................... 31
Industry:
Challenges................................................... 50
Risk management issues....................................... 52
Infrastructure needs............................................. 30
Juneau weather research.......................................... 5
Ketchikan flight service station................................. 27
Korean visa waiver requirements.................................. 19
Lake Hood float plane:
Capacity issues.............................................. 58
Facility..................................................... 20
Major issues..................................................... 46
Mike-in-hand..................................................... 5
Mountain pass cameras............................................ 5
NTSB:
Study, actions taken in response to.......................... 23
View of safety progress...................................... 29
Older aircraft................................................... 32
Operational risk management...................................... 55
Passenger services/business opportunities........................ 21
Recognition of guests and appreciation to participants........... 62
Regulatory:
And safety issues............................................ 20
Initiatives.................................................. 36
Safety....................................................... 22
Responsive efforts............................................... 50
Revilla Corridor exemption....................................... 27
Safety:
First........................................................ 36
Improvement trend............................................ 53
Scheduled service, changing patterns of.......................... 53
St. George instrument landing.................................... 5
Transportation alternatives, lack of............................. 61
Weather:
Cameras...................................................... 7
Information.................................................. 51
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON AVIATION CONSUMER SERVICE AND DELAYS
Air carrier flight delays and:
Cancellations, growth in..................................... 480
Customer service............................................. 479
Air traffic control:
Equipment.................................................... 499
Slowdown in Chicago.......................................... 509
System....................................................... 475
Airline:
Commitment and plans are mixed, preliminary results on
implementation of the...................................... 482
Delays....................................................... 493
Mergers, factors impacting................................... 507
Airport delays................................................... 494
Arrivals and departures.......................................... 496
Aviation safety.................................................. 470
Concorde accident................................................ 504
Consistent and complete data..................................... 476
Crowded skies.................................................... 494
Customer:
Commitment................................................... 478
Needs, meeting............................................... 479
Service, merger impact on.................................... 509
Delay data....................................................... 499
Delays.........................................................496, 470
And cancellations..........................................475, 477
Notifying customers of................................... 478
Cause and impact of.......................................... 504
Costs of..................................................... 505
Departing times.................................................. 502
8.3 percent growth............................................... 499
Flight:
Cancellations and delays, reporting.......................... 501
Times........................................................ 477
Growth in capacity............................................... 499
High speed rail service, use of.................................. 503
Measuring performance............................................ 476
Modernization.................................................... 496
Passenger rights bills........................................... 505
Solutions........................................................ 472
Spring/summer plan............................................... 471
STARS at Philadelphia Airport.................................... 508
System capacity--Newark.......................................... 502
Taxi-out times................................................... 477
2000 supplemental funding........................................ 470
Truth, telling the consumer the.................................. 500
United and U.S. Airways merger................................... 506
Weather.......................................................... 495
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR
2001
Acquisition programs............................................. 391
Air traffic control modernization................................ 363
AIR-21........................................................... 381
Airport surveillance radar....................................... 403
Alameda corridor................................................. 400
AMASS..........................................................379, 393
Amtrak........................................................... 340
Acela delays................................................. 377
Financial viability and modernization........................ 365
Funding...................................................... 371
Aviation safety................................................351, 362
Central artery................................................... 388
Clean audit...................................................... 359
Coast Guard Deepwater Capability Replacement Project...........350, 366
Commercial driver's license program.............................. 401
Computer security..............................................351, 364
Consulting contracts............................................. 384
Contracting FAA functions........................................ 386
Cost accounting.................................................. 387
Deep water....................................................... 387
Deepwater replacement project..................................379, 394
Departmental management, overall................................. 360
Emergency relief................................................. 383
FAA.............................................................. 351
Financial statement.......................................... 394
Financing and reauthorization................................ 363
Procurement.................................................. 391
FAA-NATCA........................................................ 389
Financial Accounting/Chief Financial Officers Act................ 365
Financial:
Plans........................................................ 402
Statement.................................................... 352
Flight:
Delays....................................................... 389
Service station switch modernization program................. 395
Government Performance and Results Act implementation............ 367
Governor contributions for rail service.......................... 347
Great Lakes icebreaker replacement.............................379, 393
High speed corridors............................................. 346
High-dollar infrastructure:
Oversight of................................................. 392
Projects, oversight of....................................... 378
IG flight delays and airline pricing and customer service reviews 358
Infrastructure, surface, marine and airport...................... 363
Interstate 15.................................................... 400
Los Angeles MTA.................................................. 399
Management oversight issues...................................... 353
MARAD's ship-scrapping program................................... 350
Megaproject...................................................... 401
Mexico-Domiciled motor carriers.................................. 401
New York area:
ATC facilities, controller staffing at....................... 399
Deployment of new technologies in the........................ 398
New York terminal airspace redesign--Newark delay reduction...... 396
OIG's:
1998 list:
Items continuing from the................................ 356
Of top priority management challenges, changes from the.. 354
Reimbursements............................................... 399
Operational self-sufficiency..............................346, 347, 370
Owner controlled insurance program............................... 402
Procurement reform............................................... 390
Rail passenger service........................................... 345
Reach and connectivity........................................... 373
Ridership interest............................................... 371
Safety and Y2k................................................... 359
Ship Disposal Program............................................ 366
Surface transportation safety.................................... 361
Terminal voice switch replacement................................ 395
Transportation security.......................................... 364
Voice recorder replacement program............................... 395
WAAS............................................................. 384
Woodrow Wilson Bridge............................................ 400
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE FIRESTONE ATX AND WILDERNESS AT TIRE RECALL
Accident data, obligation to evaluate............................ 570
Actions we have taken............................................ 552
ATX tire recall should be expanded............................... 525
Bridgestone/Firestone aware of defects, was...................... 563
Bridgestone/Firestone recall...................................533, 536
Corporate responsibility to public safety........................ 573
Criminal prosecution............................................. 543
Customer focus................................................... 553
Defects and recall, foreign countries' response to............... 541
Effective deterrants............................................. 542
Firestone:
ATX/Wilderness recall........................................ 562
Tires on Ford vehicles in Saudi Arabia....................... 565
Ford Explorer suspension redesign................................ 582
Foreign notification unclear, law regarding...................... 534
Gag orders, effect of............................................ 546
Injury data not recognized, pattern of........................... 538
Inspection and certification, need for effective quality......... 545
Internal defect documentation, request for....................... 571
Investigative procedures......................................... 562
New Mexico Firestone tire accidents.............................. 532
NHTSA:
Budget and authority needs................................... 574
Defects investigation program................................ 526
Needs additional legislative authority....................... 524
Proposal on rollover information............................. 537
Providing documents to....................................... 564
Requests additional motor safety authority................... 572
Slowness in responding....................................... 583
Observations..................................................... 563
Overseas actions................................................. 553
Preventive measures, possible.................................... 538
Public safety needs to be strengthened........................... 545
Recall:
Broad enough, is............................................. 539
Economic impacts of.......................................... 581
Rollover:
Test needed, dynamic......................................... 540
Testing...................................................... 534
Safety:
Problems covered up.......................................... 523
Responsibility, car manufacturer's........................... 568
Standards.................................................... 526
SUV's:
And other passenger cars relative safety..................... 567
Safety of.................................................... 544
Tire:
Manufacturing differences.................................... 566
Safety, public information about............................. 541
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FREIGHT RAIL COMPETITION ISSUES
Adequate infrastructure investment............................... 625
Anti-competitive conduct......................................... 672
Board guidelines................................................. 604
Bottlenecks...................................................... 588
``Captive shippers'', defining................................... 621
Competition...................................................... 596
In terminal areas............................................ 588
Competitive:
Access, barriers to.......................................... 619
Rail service................................................. 587
Conrail acquisition.............................................. 669
CSX.............................................................. 670
Customer Service................................................. 633
Existing remedies................................................ 634
Facilities, funding to maintain and upgrade...................... 639
Integration problems............................................. 670
Intermodal competition........................................... 624
Market:
Dominance.................................................... 588
Power, competition from countervailing....................... 625
Merger problems.................................................. 653
In wake of major............................................. 648
North Dakota landlocked.......................................... 595
Open access...................................................... 650
Paper and steel barriers......................................... 597
Paper barriers.................................................647, 649
Rail:
Oversight system............................................. 603
Reregulation, the dangers of................................. 635
Service performance and market share......................... 623
Railroad:
Competition.................................................. 627
Do not have excessive market power........................... 636
Investment................................................... 629
Productivity................................................. 631
Profitability................................................ 632
Rates........................................................ 628
Regulatory environment, current.................................. 627
Reregulate railroads, proposals to............................... 634
Retaliation tactics.............................................. 604
Safety........................................................... 633
Senate bill 621.................................................. 670
Service.......................................................... 638
Short line:
And regional bill of rights.................................. 638
Members...................................................... 637
Staggers Act..................................................... 596
Trackage rights and haulage rights............................... 638
Transportation choices, limited.................................. 620