[Senate Hearing 110-1192]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1192
OVERSIGHT OF THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 18, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-189 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Paul Nagle, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 18, 2007................................. 1
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Kerry....................................... 28
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 7
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Lott........................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 25
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 9
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 8
Witnesses
Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Scovel III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Appendix
Letter, dated October 21, 2007, from the Sierra Club--National
Parks and Monuments Committee to the U.S. Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.......................... 49
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Mary E. Peters
by:
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 61
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 62
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 55
Hon. John F. Kerry........................................... 59
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 65
Hon. Trent Lott.............................................. 69
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 59
Hon. Ted Stevens............................................. 69
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Calvin L. Scovel
III by:
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 73
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 72
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 73
OVERSIGHT OF THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R.
Lautenberg, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Inouye is detained, and we want
to, with his suggestion, get this hearing started. And so,
we'll do just that. The starting time is not necessarily the
significant time, it's the finishing time that is most
important to him. We've got business to do and things to take
care of.
I want to open the hearing. Welcome, Secretary Peters. I'm
going to begin by saying that I am disappointed that President
Bush continues to pour his energy into ideology instead of
taking the steps necessary to solve our country's
transportation problems. It seems clear that this
administration wants to raise taxes on travelers and widen the
divide between those who can afford to pay more for their
travel and those who can't. For example, we know that the skies
over the New Jersey and New York region are crowded with
flights, but, instead of transportation--the Department of
Transportation using its authority to require realistic flight
schedules to reduce delays, the administration wants to charge
travelers more money to fly during certain times. This scheme
is called ``congestion pricing.'' Should just be called
``higher fares,'' and then everybody understands exactly what
we're talking about.
Now, we saw this same ideology this past summer, when the
Secretary offered New York City $355 million in Federal funding
if they would increase tolls on people entering the city. Now,
a couple of things. For people who commute from my state, who
have to drive because they don't have, or choose not to use
public transportation, can't find convenient times to travel
there, the costs for parking are enormous. And now, to suggest
that we're going to charge these people higher tolls, it
doesn't really--make a lot of sense, nor is it, frankly,
possible.
Charging higher tolls with gas prices at record levels is
not in the best interest of families who need to commute to
work. From our bridges to our airports to our railroads, we've
got real transportation problems. The holiday travel season is
almost upon us. After last year's debacle at the airports, I'm
concerned about our aviation system. Delays at our airports are
atrocious, and customer service has reached new lows. The
Department of Transportation needs to do a better job in
responding to travelers who have complaints. Now, I've worked
on the Appropriations Committee to include funding in next
year's budget to do precisely that.
Also, instead of preparing for the mass exodus of retiring
air traffic controllers by hiring and training new ones, this
administration is showing them out of the door--shoving them
out of the door--by imposing new working conditions instead of
bargaining with them.
Our highway and bridge funding needs are enormous. We
received a tragic reminder of the condition of our bridges
after the collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis this
summer, and we've got to adequately fund our transportation
infrastructure in the next highway bill.
Both the House and Senate recently passed a strong
transportation appropriations bill, but the President has
threatened to veto it. Now, along with improvements to our
roads, bridges, and aviation system, any long-term
transportation system must also improve passenger rail. Senator
Lott and I have a bill that would do just this. And, once
again, the administration has offered ideology in this debate
on the future of our rail system, and has tried to bankrupt
Amtrak. Over a 3-year period, there was a specific design to
bankrupt Amtrak. And we have 24 million people a year who are
using Amtrak. Are we going to tell them to go out and
hitchhike? The highways are too crowded. You can't get a ride;
and it's too slow, if you do. We are anxiously awaiting our
bill coming to the Senate floor.
So, it's time for President Bush to put the money and the
resources where the problems are and offer practical and
meaningful solutions to the transportation problems that have
increased under his watch.
And, with that, I'd call on the Senator from Alaska, the
Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much. Sorry to be
slightly late.
Madam Secretary, I do thank you for being here today, and I
want to congratulate you on what you've done in such a short
period of time. We do have some substantial problems in our
transportation systems, as you have indicated. The decline of
our transportation systems is apparent. The aging of America is
upon us because of so many things happening at the same time. I
look forward to your comments today, and your prepared
statement.
Let me point out that we have some substantial problems in
our state, not the least of which is that we have fewer roads
than Vermont. Vermont has 2 percent of the land that we have in
Alaska, and yet, they have more roads than we do. We have a
substantial problem with airports. We still have some airports
in the northern part of Alaska that do not have runway lights,
and yet, that's the only means of egress and access to those
small villages. And, in the wintertime we've had to improvise
in many ways to get medevac planes into those places. We also
have half the shoreline of the United States, and we have fewer
ports I think, than my friend here has in his----
Senator Lott. Seems fair to me.
Senator Stevens.--in his state.
[Laughter.]
Senator Stevens. Clearly, the problem is that we are an
enormous State with enormous transportation problems. So, we
look forward to working with you. My dream is to, before I
leave the Senate, extend the Alaska Railroad over to Canada, so
I'd like to take you up sometime to show you that 200 miles is
left before we hook up the railroad systems of the northern
part of this continent.
I see the Chairman's here. I'll ask that my statement be
printed in the record in full.
Mr. Chairman?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman [presiding]. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska
Thank you Chairman Inouye for holding today's hearing. We have not
had Secretary Peters before the Committee since her nomination hearing
and I am glad she could join us today.
The State of Alaska has a unique transportation infrastructure
system along with transportation challenges that most in the Lower 48
do not have to address.
To understand the infrastructure challenges it is important to take
into account Alaska's size and environment. Alaska's land mass is
591,004 square miles, which is more than twice the land area of Texas.
East to west, Alaska crosses what would normally be four time zones.
North to south, Alaska stretches approximately the distance from the
Gulf Coast to the Canadian border.
Environmentally, the State contains 17 of the 20 highest mountain
peaks in the U.S. Much of the State is designated wet lands and this
along with the long winters makes for a short and challenging
construction season.
While Alaska is the largest state in land area, it only has
approximately 14,000 miles of public roads, which is equivalent to the
miles of road in Vermont, a state with less than 2 percent of the land
area in Alaska.
Furthermore, over 70 percent of Alaska's communities are not
connected to a land highway system. This lack of highway infrastructure
creates a situation where commuter and air taxi flights routinely serve
as the traditional road system, making aircraft essential for personal,
commercial, cargo, and mail transportation to most Alaskan communities.
Alaska lies under 20 percent of the airspace in the National
Airspace System (NAS). Alaska ranks sixth in the total number of
airports with 583, including heliports and seaplane bases, a number
that equals approximately 3.5 percent of the total number of airports
in the U.S. These figures do not include the many places pilots land
where there is no constructed facility or published airport.
According to the FAA, each year air carriers in Alaska transport
the equivalent of four times the state's population, compared to about
1.7 times the U.S. population carried by air operators in all other
states.
Proudly, because of its unique obstacles, Alaska has become a major
test bed for new transportation systems and technology. The State has
done well by innovating out of necessity. It is important the
Department understands these challenges and makes a concerted effort to
work with this Committee to improve the states' transportation
infrastructure, rural access and construction challenges.
Thank you Chairman Inouye, I look forward to the testimony.
The Chairman. I, too, will place my opening statement in
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Transportation fuels our economy and improves the quality of our
lives. It permits industry to move goods and people to travel both
across our Nation and globally. Transportation is an economic catalyst
that drives our Nation's prosperity.
While the U.S. transportation system is first-rate, it is facing
substantial challenges that threaten to gridlock commerce. Many of our
highways, bridges, and tunnels, built in the middle of the last
century, are nearing the end of their design life and must be rebuilt
or replaced.
The tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse this past August highlighted
a growing problem across the entire nation, and serves as a wake-up
call to the crisis facing all of our transportation modes and their
essential infrastructure.
Simply replacing aged infrastructure will not be enough to meet the
needs of our Nation in the coming century. We also must expand the
capacity of our transportation systems to accommodate growing commerce
and an ever-increasing population. The growing daily congestion,
whether on our highways or railways, or in our ports or airspace, is
problematic for the public and American businesses, and is steadily
becoming worse. More highway, aviation, and port infrastructure must be
built, more railway tracks must be upgraded and laid, more intermodal
connections must be developed, and the entire system must be managed
and maintained more efficiently.
In addition to addressing the improvement of the mass
transportation modes, Congress is on the verge of addressing fuel
economy standards for the first time in several decades. The
opportunity to address our growing dependence on foreign oil and reduce
our greenhouse gas emission is here, and I look forward to partnering
with the Members of the House of Representatives and with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to have the fuel economy provisions
the Senate included in H.R. 6 sent to the President and signed into
law.
Improving safety, of course, is as important as taking action to
improve capacity and efficiency, and the two must proceed hand-in-hand.
In some areas, the DOT has made good progress on this mission. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has achieved an unprecedented
safety record over the past several years, and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) has helped reduce railroad accidents. But the
safety of other areas of our transportation system has not seen as much
progress. Highway and truck fatalities have either risen or remained
stubbornly high in recent years, and efforts by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), in particular, appear not to be
achieving the safety improvements that we expect and that the driving
public deserves. While the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has been executing the rulemakings mandated by
SAFETEA-LU, there are questions about the efficacy of the rules,
especially in the areas of roof crush and occupant safety.
I hope to hear from Secretary Peters that the DOT will redouble its
efforts to improve safety and remain vigilant in maintaining the safety
improvements we have achieved so far.
Finally, scarce fiscal resources compound the challenge of
efficiently replacing and expanding our aged infrastructure. The
Congressional Budget Office projects the Highway Trust Fund will be
depleted by the end of this decade, and the Government Accountability
Office has raised questions about the ability of the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund to sustain needed funding for the FAA and pay for the
modernization of the air traffic control system.
The DOT must act now to avoid catastrophic breakdowns across all
transportation modes in the system. Congress must find the resources to
fund new capacity and safety programs, and provide diligent oversight
to ensure goals are met. I look forward to the testimony of Secretary
Peters and Inspector General Scovel today and plan to work closely with
my colleagues in the Senate to ensure the challenges our transportation
system faces are met.
The Chairman. The only comment I have is that, like Senator
Stevens, I do a lot of traveling, and it gets a bit tiring when
you have to sit around. My last trip to New York City took me 5
hours going and 6 hours coming back. Of the 5 hours, I spent 3
hours on the tarmac.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, without interrupting, try
Amtrak.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Oh--to New York? I thought you were
talking about from New York to here.
The Chairman. New York, yes. Maybe I should. But they get
delayed, also.
Senator Lautenberg. You're the Chairman, sir.
Senator Stevens. I do interrupt. What you should do is join
me in asking the airlines to assign their pilots and crew to be
in the city they're going to fly out of on the night before.
All of these delays I've faced all summer have been because the
pilots or other members of the crew have been in some other
city.
Pardon me.
The Chairman. Would you support us, Madam Secretary?
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the
challenges with air traffic, and we are taking definitive steps
to deal with the congestion and the delays in air travel.
The Chairman. I have just one question before I call
someone else. I have a shoulder replacement, and it's been
there with me for many years now. When I received the surgery,
they gave me a card, and said, ``Just show it to the airline
people and they'll let you go through.'' That card is no longer
in use, because, whenever I show it, that's when I get the full
inspection.
So, with that, may I now recognize----
Senator Stevens. She hasn't made her statement.
The Chairman. Who?
Senator Stevens. She hasn't made her statement.
The Chairman. Oh, I'm sorry. Please.
Senator Lott. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes?
Senator Lott. Before our special witness here today makes
her statement, I would like to just make a very brief opening
statement please, because I'm anxious to hear her statement,
too.
The Chairman. Oh, please. Yes.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. But, Madam Secretary, thank you for being
here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. I think
it's very important that we do this.
I think you're doing a great job as our Secretary, and I
want you to do more, I want to empower you to do more. I am
firmly convinced that one of the areas where the Federal
Government really does have a key role is in the transportation
area. Lanes, trains, planes, ports, and harbors are absolutely
critical and essential for our future economic development. But
I do think that you, as our Secretary, and this administration
should be more proactive. We need less, you know, response or
reacting to what we're doing. You should be pulling us, but
we're pulling you. When it comes to the highway bill, when it
comes to Amtrak, when it comes to aviation, we're pushing the
envelope. And I wish y'all would get out ahead of us and
challenge us more and get the White House and the
administration to give a higher priority to transportation.
I don't mean that to be as critical as it sounds, but if
you don't act, we will do it, eventually. And these things,
like the New York airspace, I know that's complicated. It's not
easy to do. But we've got a problem there. You're going to have
to deal with it. Cross-border trucking, I supported you on
that, but we haven't pulled that off. But those are small
pieces of a bigger picture. And I just wish that you would
really, really push a lot more and help. We need an Amtrak
bill. The Senator from New Jersey and I have been working on
this for, I don't know, 5 years, and we've got a commitment for
it to come up, but we need you to help us get Amtrak the
flexibility it needs, the reform it needs, and the money it
needs. I'm not a guy to get huge benefit from Amtrak in my
State, but it makes common sense that we have this form of
transportation available in America. Planes and lanes can only
do so much. So, I challenge you to be aggressive. And if you'll
be aggressive, we will help you.
Meanwhile, thank you for what you do. We appreciate the
fact that you get around the country, you don't just stay holed
up in the Ivory Tower over there at the Department. And we want
you to do more.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Trent Lott, U.S. Senator from Mississippi
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I have long
believed that an efficient transportation system is vital to our
Nation's prosperity. I also believe that improving transportation is
vital at the State and local level to promote economic development.
That is why I was especially pleased when the President nominated a
former state transportation secretary to be the Federal Secretary of
Transportation.
Madam Secretary, the challenges you and the Department of
Transportation face are difficult and multi-faceted. And you also have
plenty of folks second guessing you and looking over your shoulder. So
I want to commend you for the effort you have made to reach out to this
committee when working on many of these issues.
Over the summer a great deal of attention was placed on the
aviation congestion and delays in New York. I think we all realize that
something has to be done before next summer to ensure we don't see a
repeat. But I hope that whatever you do for next summer is not seen as
a permanent solution. I think that the long term solution for New York
is increased capacity and a more modern air traffic control system. For
example, you have completed a redesign of the New York airspace that
the Department estimates will increase capacity by 20 percent. I would
urge you to implement that design as quickly as possible. I have heard
estimates of as long as 5 years to get all of the benefits--that's
really too long.
As the Department studies this problem, I hope that you consider
the effects of any solution on: consumer choice; ticket prices; and
service to smaller communities. For better or worse, small communities
are dependent on the hub and spoke system. If we start constraining
capacity at hubs rather than increasing capacity, the first flights
that will be dropped will be the lower volume flights from small
communities. The 747 full of business travelers from London is going to
be able to pay a pretty hefty congestion fee--a regional jet coming
from a smaller community will not be able to pay much. I am under
little illusion that my State is going to have much in the way of
direct flights to airports in the New York area. But my State does rely
on other hubs, such as Atlanta, Memphis and Dallas-Fort Worth, for
connections. These are all busy airports that will see increased
congestion in the future if projected traffic growth materializes.
We should not forget that the best way to address the burden to the
air space is to support the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
The entire aviation system needs an overhaul. We need a permanent
solution. I want to work with you on passing an FAA Reauthorization
bill that provides the financial and programmatic tools the FAA needs
to modernize.
Thank you and I look forward to the witness testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar?
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can attest firsthand that Secretary Peters does not stay
holed up in her Ivory Tower. We spent a lot of time together in
Minnesota this summer after the tragedy with our I-35W Bridge,
and I really appreciated how practical you were and how you
were able to work with everyone from the Governor to the Mayor
to our Congressional delegation. You helped us with that
emergency funding immediately. I think you saw how quickly our
State responded. And now, of course, we're working on the
appropriations, which I just urge you to bring the message to
the President that we'd like the transportation bill upheld.
What I said that day when we were standing next to each
other in front of that bridge was that a bridge just shouldn't
fall down in the middle of America. I continue to believe that,
and I think that if there was any silver lining to our tragedy,
it's that it triggered a national discussion about
infrastructure investment, not just in bridges, but also in
roads and in rail and, as Senator Lott pointed out, in harbors,
in ports, and our entire transportation infrastructure.
As President Kennedy once said, ``building a road or
highway isn't pretty, but it's something our economy needs to
have.'' I would like to make one point today, and I'd say that
there is nowhere that that's truer than in rural America. We
see this rejuvenation and revitalization in rural America, from
wind farms to ethanol plants, and, at the same time, these
industries are placing great demands on our transportation
infrastructure. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates
that truck freight in rural America is going to double by the
year 2020. You take ethanol, just as a specific example, an
average square mile of land in southern Minnesota, which now
generates the equivalent of 80 loaded semi trucks of grain per
year, could soon produce double that, 160 loads per year. And
the continuing trend toward greater reliance on trucking to
support these industries raises concerns about the wear and
tear, not only on our bridges, but on our roads. Many of these
roads and bridges were built before this trend was evident, and
they were not designed for this type of traffic.
I also support Senator Lautenberg's work with rail and
Amtrak, and I'd like to say, from a shipping standpoint with
rail, we have some major problems in the rural parts of our
country for captive shippers. Senator Dorgan and Senator
Rockefeller and Senator Vitter and I have a bill focused on
that, because we believe there's not a level playing field for
our captive shippers. We have numerous examples of places in
Minnesota, such as paper mills that are trying to ship their
goods, and it's cheaper for them to actually import--from their
plant in Europe--to Indiana by plane than it is to send them
down by rail. And some of that is because they are captive
shippers, the way they've priced things out, is difficult for
shippers to contest the prices now, and how much money they
have to even make a claim is a problem.
So, in the end, I think we need to commit to broadening our
transportation options, developing the right mix of multimodal
solutions to serve our emerging needs, while maintaining our
existing system of roadways. I believe this is going to include
a mix of high-occupancy vehicle and high-occupancy toll lanes,
rapid bus transit, and, of course, light rail.
At the moment, we are heading into a 21st century economy
on 20th century roads and rail. I'd say the same can be said
about our airports.
I appreciate you being here today, Madam Secretary. Thank
you for your time. We look forward to hearing what you have to
say.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Thune?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. And, as,
I think, maybe one or maybe two states in the country that
don't have Amtrak, we would take direct air service in lieu of
Amtrak if there is a bill that allows for that. But we have a
lot of infrastructure problems, as you know, in rural areas of
the country, and this summer's tragic events in my neighboring
state of Minnesota did bring to light a very stark reality for
our country, and that is that our aging infrastructure is
putting our citizens at risk, and action needs to be taken to
address the problem.
Of our Nation's 600,000 bridges, we're told that 12
percent, or about 72,000, are classified as structurally
deficient as of 2007. And I would argue that the highest
percentage of those structurally deficient bridges are going to
be found in rural areas, and I think the data supports that.
And, in fact, while deficiencies in most classes of bridges
have actually declined over the past decade, deficiencies of
interstate bridges in rural areas have actually increased. So,
to address the problem, Congress and the administration are
going to need to get together, and must place a high priority
on maintenance, inspection, reconstruction, and replacement of
our aging transportation infrastructure in the United States,
and we need to consider new and innovative ways to find
transportation--to fund transportation projects at the local,
State, and Federal levels. And I also recently introduced a
piece of legislation, along with Senator Wyden and other
members of this committee, that--it's a bipartisan bill; it's
called the Build America Bonds Act. The bill would provide $50
billion in infrastructure investment for all states across the
country, including many important projects that would improve
our aging and deficient infrastructure.
And, while Congress has allocated record funding levels to
States under the 2005 highway bill, the need for infrastructure
improvements far exceeds available Federal and State resources.
And so, the Build America Bonds Act is intended to replace--I
should say, is not intended to replace the current user-fee
structure we have in place in the Highway Trust Fund, but it
would be a supplemental funding stream that would allow States
to address the backlog of important highway, bridge, rail, and
waterway projects that exist literally in every State across
the country. The funding under the legislation would be
distributed directly to the States. Again, it's much-needed
funding. It would create over 2 million jobs, spur significant
economic growth, and save lives by addressing transportation
problems that exist from coast to coast.
In addition to the aging transportation infrastructure,
another issue that is of great importance, which was referenced
by my colleague from Minnesota, is the need for additional rail
capacity to deliver biofuels from the Midwest to blenders in
regional markets around the country. As you know, the President
has set a goal of reducing petroleum consumption by 20 percent
in the next 10 years. In order to achieve that goal, the
President has also proposed an alternative fuels standard of 35
billion gallons by the year 2017, and the Senate has acted upon
a similar renewable fuels standard--standard that we would
achieve by the year 2022. I don't have any doubt that the
American farmer and the innovative leaders of the ethanol
industry can achieve that very ambitious national priority. I--
however, I do believe that we've got to act with a true sense
of urgency to improve our transportation infrastructure to be
able to deliver this fuel to all parts of the country.
My home state of South Dakota is going to be producing a
billion gallons of renewable fuel alone by the year 2008.
Nationwide ethanol production capacity is expected to double in
the next 2 years. Considering cellulosic ethanol is still a few
years away, the near-term future of ethanol production
continues to remain concentrated in the Midwest. Absent a
dedicated ethanol pipeline, much of the ethanol must be moved
by truck, rail, or barge. And, in past years, railroads have
responded by securing additional tank and grain cars to
efficiently ship both ethanol and its byproducts. However,
railroads are already taxed by growing shipments of coal,
containers, and grain; capacity concerns remain on the horizon.
And according to the Association of American Railroads,
shipments of ethanol have tripled since 2001, and are expected
to top 140,000 carloads this year.
So, Madam Secretary, I look forward to hearing your
thoughts on this issue, of creating a more robust
transportation system that will keep our biofuels industry
growing. Again, Congress and the Administration have got to
develop a comprehensive plan to address an increased rail
capacity for the delivery of biofuels. And so, I welcome your
input and thoughts about that issue, as well as your thoughts
about Build America Bonds legislation that might address the
infrastructure problems we have across the country.
And, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding the
hearing and giving us an opportunity to exchange some of these
ideas.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Smith?
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Peters, it's great to see you here. I
understand you were recently in Oregon, and so, you got a
firsthand look at some of our issues as it relates to I-5 and
connecting. It's a vital link for transportation and commerce
between the states of Washington, Oregon, and California, and
it is in need of increased capacity and repair. And I know,
really, what we're all saying in a different way is that we
understand the need to balance the need for repair with the
need for expansion, and that is the challenge that you have.
I think Minnesota's bridge tragedy is a deadly reminder
that we're playing for keeps here, and we really do need to
focus on the work that you're doing.
The only other comment I have relates to the Essential Air
Service Program. You know, there are many rural communities
who, if they don't get this important aid, they don't have air
service. And it seems like Congress is consistently having to
fight the administration from attempts to cut funding for the
program. And I think that should stop. We need the program, I
think.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
And, finally, Madam Secretary?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Secretary Peters. Thank you. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman
Stevens, and distinguished Members of the Committee, I am very
pleased to appear before the Committee today to discuss the
various activities of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The U.S. has the world's largest and most capable
transportation systems. These systems have enabled our Nation
to have unprecedented growth in domestic and in international
trade, and have brought our States closer together and provided
a critical foundation for the amazing wealth-creation and
economic prosperity that have taken place in the United States
and around the world over the last 60 years.
When I returned to Washington last year, when I had an
opportunity to appear before this Committee as part of my
confirmation process, I told you that I wanted to seek to
ensure the Department focused on the most pressing challenges
facing our transportation system and on the most promising
solutions. In my view, those challenges are, first, reversing
the decline in overall transportation system performance. The
performance decline is increasingly imposing costs on American
families and American businesses and making us less competitive
in a global marketplace. And, second, ensuring a continued
reduction in transportation system fatalities and injuries,
even as traffic volumes grow, by emphasizing comprehensive
data-driven approaches and using new technologies that can save
lives. The results of the focus are a work in progress, but I
believe that the Department has made significant strides in the
last year and will certainly continue to work with you to do
so.
In order to bring about the type of change that I believe
is critical, we must recognize that the financing structure
that underpins our aviation, highway, and public transportation
systems is failing on multiple levels. More importantly, that
structure does not allow us to align prices and charges with
true cost, and, in that respect, the failures of our current
system are the result, not of poor engineering, but of poor
economics. And I think that, Senator Klobuchar, you hit the
nail on the head when you said we have a--we have 21st century
transportation needs with 21st century solutions--we need 21st
century solutions, rather--and nowhere is that more apparent
than in the funding strategies.
And let me speak to aviation, in particular. As the members
of this committee well know, there is a pressing need to
overhaul the Nation's aviation system, to improve economic
efficiency, and to maintain an impressive record of safety
performance. We project tremendous growth in that system, with
over a billion passengers expected to be flying on U.S.
commercial carriers by 2015. And, in light of this strong and
growing demand, which is a sign of our strong economy, the
administration, in February, offered a comprehensive proposal
to reform the way we finance air traffic control operations and
air traffic air infrastructure and to capitalize on market-
based tools so that we can ease the congestion that has
characterized air travel in more and more of the country today
and has affected each and every person in this room in one way
or another.
Our proposal would create a new funding structure, a
structure that would limit what--would link, rather, what users
pay, when they fly, to the actual costs they impose on the
system, and we commend this committee for the actions that it
has taken to date, and appreciate the seriousness of the
challenge. But we are concerned that Congress perhaps will
simply pass an extension of the existing program rather than
stepping up to what you and we have laid out, in terms of
reforms that are needed. We look forward to working with
Congress as the legislative process continues, and we urge that
any further action remain consistent with our February
proposal.
The priorities that I mentioned earlier apply to more than
aviation. The performance of the Nation's highway and transit
systems is wanting, as well. Indeed, we are suffering what can
only be called an intolerable decline in performance in the
form of travel delays and unreliability, with longer and more
costly delays affecting more and more cities around the Nation.
When I was in Portland earlier this week, I heard from the
business community about firms that had moved out of the area
because they weren't able to navigate the challenges, and
particularly, Senator Smith, the I-5 crossing over the Columbia
River bridge. We've got to fix that. This deterioration of our
surface transportation system is acute, and it is widespread,
and it affects passenger travel and freight movement.
The good news is, we are focused on this problem as never
before. We have sought to identify and attack the existing and
projected congestion in a very targeted way, particularly in
urban areas that account for so much of that congestion along
vitally important corridors that carry so much of our goods,
many of which are in our rural areas. These efforts offer the
hope of reduced congestion, reduced emissions, and greater
value to users.
The Department is also focused on bringing technological
advances to bear on both safety and congestion, including, for
example, building the urgent Next Generation Air Transportation
System that will improve safety, and improving vehicle safety
through advances such as our recent rule on the electronic
stability control and one that I signed yesterday on roof
crush.
The performance and the safety challenges ahead are
difficult. They are not difficult to identify. But, Mr.
Chairman, I believe that, working together, we can resolve
these issues. I so appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today, and would be pleased and honored to answer any
questions that you may have.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Peters follows:]
Prepard Statement of Hon. Mary E. Peters, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and distinguished Members,
I am pleased to appear before the Committee today to discuss the
various activities of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The United States has the world's largest and most capable
transportation systems. Those systems have enabled unprecedented growth
in domestic and international trade, have brought our diverse States
closer and closer together, and have provided a critical foundation for
the amazing wealth creation and economic prosperity that have taken
place in the U.S. and around the world in the last 60 years.
When I returned to Washington last year, I sought to ensure that
the Department was focused on the challenges that were most pressing
and solutions to those challenges that would have the most impact. In
my view, those challenges are: (1) reversing the decline in overall
transportation systems performance that is increasingly imposing costs
on American families and businesses, and (2) ensuring a continued
reduction in transportation system fatalities and injuries even as
traffic volumes grow by emphasizing comprehensive, data-driven
approaches and new crash prevention technologies. The results of this
focus are a work in progress, but I believe that the Department has
made significant strides forward in the past year.
To reverse the decline in our transportation systems, we need to
look beneath the surface and explore the foundation of the problems we
are facing. It is increasingly clear to me that the transportation
policies and programs of the past are poorly suited to the economic,
environmental and societal challenges of the future. In order to bring
about the type of change that I believe is critical, we must be honest
with ourselves and recognize that the financing structure that
underpins our aviation, highways, and public transportation systems is
failing on multiple levels. The financing structure prevents us from
making efficient investments in maintenance and new construction
because it does not allow us to allocate resources based on the highest
returns to the taxpayer and the customer. The financing structure fails
to sufficiently reward innovation and technology development. The
failure of this structure can be traced back to the fact that it does
not allow us to align prices and charges with true costs. The failures
of our current systems are not a result of poor engineering but of poor
economics.
Today's transportation systems suffer from congestion and
inadequate maintenance, but these are just symptoms of the fact that
investment decisions in these systems are not business decisions, but
political ones. Business from movie theaters to cell phone companies
charge less during off-peak periods to maximize the use of available
capacity--but political decisions made in the middle of the last
century limit our ability to use variable pricing to maximize the use
of our transportation systems. Similarly, transportation investment
decisions are made politically. During my many years in transportation,
I don't recall one ribbon-cutting after a much needed maintenance
investment. Transportation spending decisions are frequently not based
on estimated return on investment, but on the hometown of the Governor
or committee chairman. During the course of the next year, I hope we
can work together to improve the economics of transportation
investments.
As the Members of this Committee well know, there is a pressing
need to overhaul the Nation's aviation system infrastructure to improve
economic efficiency and maintain an impressive record of safety
performance. We operate the world's largest and most complex air
traffic system, one that controls aircraft transiting the domestic
United States and millions of square miles of international airspace.
By any measure, this is the safest period for aviation operations since
the dawning of the jet age and the enactment of the modern-era Federal
Aviation Administration Act in 1958, with a 65 percent decline in the
commercial aviation fatal accident rate over the last decade.
While we have made great strides in safety, we project tremendous
growth in the system. We expect over a billion passengers to be flying
on U.S. commercial carriers by 2015, partly as a result of the success
we have had in gaining access to international aviation markets around
the world. This increased demand will bring new airlines, aircraft,
flight crew, and controllers into the system. That is clearly a safety
challenge, but it also is an increased burden on system performance.
More and more, our skies and our airports are choked with aircraft,
passengers are badly delayed in reaching their destinations, and the
inefficiencies that we see are hampering growth across the economy.
Simply put, today's air traffic management system is incapable of
meeting the challenges presented by projected air travel demands in the
future.
That is why the Administration in February offered a comprehensive
proposal to reform the way we finance air traffic control operations
and infrastructure to capitalize on market-based tools to ease the
congestion that characterizes air travel in more and more of the
country today. Rather than settling for a status quo extension of the
existing program, our proposal would create a new funding structure
that would link what users pay when they fly to the actual costs that
they impose on the system.
Numerous bipartisan commissions have recommended cost-based funding
for the FAA over the last two decades, and air traffic control
providers in virtually every other developed country have it. This
reform is necessary to support our efforts to make the Next Generation
Air Transportation System--NextGen--a reality. Failure to adopt a cost-
based system will hinder the implementation of NextGen, and for the
first time in history we will risk placing the United States behind
other countries that are moving toward the future of aviation.
The Administration's proposal also includes market-based
mechanisms, such as auctions or congestion pricing, to allocate scarce
airspace and airport resources more efficiently. Charges for flying
into congested airspace or airports should more closely reflect the
true societal costs of those decisions. To the extent they do not, the
cost of delays will continue to accelerate and ripple throughout our
aviation system.
While many economists have stressed the potential demand-side
impacts of market pricing policies, such as peak period spreading and
increased overall passenger throughput, we believe the revenues
generated in connection with any form of market pricing can and should
be re-invested to expand aviation capacity at or near these
bottlenecks. In addition, just as excessive delays send signals about
where capacity expansion is most critical, the signals sent by market
mechanisms are even clearer. Congestion pricing has worked
exceptionally well in other areas of our economy such as highways,
electricity and telecommunications, and we believe the time has arrived
to pursue similar approaches in the aviation sector.
We commend this Committee for taking the actions that it has taken
to date and for appreciating the seriousness of the aviation challenges
before us. We look forward to working with the Congress as the
legislative process continues, and we urge that any further action
remain consistent with our February proposal.
As the reauthorization process progresses, the Department continues
to move forward on several fronts to improve system performance in
aviation and to ensure that consumers are treated fairly when they fly.
We issued the Record of Decision for a thorough redesign of airspace
over New York City, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. This redesign alone
will reduce delays by 200,000 hours annually. We have convened an
aviation rulemaking committee that is focused specifically on the New
York City area and that is considering numerous solutions--including
market-based tools--to ease the congestion that ripples out from the
Tri-State area to airports across the Nation. A third of the Nation's
air traffic moves through New York airspace, and two-thirds of the
Nation's air traffic can be affected when the New York area experiences
delays.
We can respond to aviation congestion in the New York region in one
of three ways--(1) continue with current policies and accept the fact
that the region will be congested; (2) re-regulate air traffic in this
region and have the Federal Government decide who can fly in this
airspace and when; or (3) use some form of pricing to optimize the use
of existing capacity. Some have suggested re-imposing slots in the
region. That would be a mistake for a variety of reasons. As we have
learned, slots limit competition and increase prices for consumers, and
I am always leery of any proposal that relies on the Federal Government
picking winners and losers in a market.
In addition to trying to improve the economics of our aviation
system, we also have pledged to improve the fairness and transparency
that passengers experience when they choose to travel. And we have
continued to enforce the Department's existing consumer protection
regulations vigorously. As the President put it when I met with him
several weeks ago to discuss this issue, ``We've got a problem, we
understand there's a problem, and we're going to address the problem.''
I certainly look forward to continuing to work with the President and
the Committee to do just that.
The priorities that I mentioned earlier apply to more than
aviation. The Department, of course, plays a major role in sustaining
and improving the Nation's highways and transit systems. Here, too,
system performance is wanting. Indeed, we are suffering what can only
be called an intolerable decline in performance in the form of travel
delays and unreliability. This deterioration in our surface
transportation system is acute and widespread, and it affects both
passenger travel and freight movement.
The numbers tell the tale. In the past 20 years, hours of delay and
wasted fuel have each increased by more than 400 percent. In 2005,
highway and transit congestion wasted 4.2 billion hours of time and 2.9
billion gallons of fuel. The cost for this wasted time and fuel was
over $78 billion--about 5 times the amount in 1982. If we add the extra
time people must allow in planning for congestion delay and the lost
productivity associated with it, the annual costs exceed $170 billion.
Even as it has been deepening, this problem has also broadened, to
cover more and more travelers and freight operations. Highway
congestion increased from affecting 33 percent of travel in 1982 to
nearly 70 percent of travel in 2005. Rush hours increased in duration
from 4.5 hours per day in 1982 to 7 hours per day in 2005. And the
delay associated with the average rush hour driver's trip increased
nearly three-fold--from 11 percent of normal trip time in 1982 to 30
percent in 2005. The cost to the trucking industry alone is estimated
to be $10.7 billion every year, and if the indirect but very real costs
to shippers are included, the total rises to about $20 billion.
This problem now affects the transportation of waterborne freight,
too, as several of our leading ports have become chokepoints for
intermodal container traffic, with others not far behind. Seattle/
Tacoma, Galveston/Houston, LA/Long Beach, New York/New Jersey--nearly
all our major ports are projected to experience enormous growth in
volumes within several years. In calendar year 2006, approximately 27
million cargo containers were unloaded at U.S. ports and reloaded onto
vessels, trucks, and railroad cars. Since many container ports are near
or at capacity, the Department is addressing freight and passenger
transportation issues from a system-wide perspective to support
improved port efficiency and intermodal connections to better enable
ports to handle increased volume and maintain growth.
Congestion is not merely an irritant to one's morning commute; it
has real ramifications for American economic competitiveness. The
efficient networks that we as a Nation have come to rely on have
allowed businesses freedom of location and the ability to quickly reach
customers across the Nation and around the world. Large U.S. firms that
depend on the international supply chain tell us that growing system
failures are propelling them to make inefficient decisions in the form
of facility re-locations, delivery time shifts, and building in more
and more expensive buffer time. The trend poses a real threat to a
``just-in-time'' inventory management revolution that has helped smooth
business cycles and reduce economic volatility. And with the costs of
building new capacity growing far more quickly than inflation, the
challenge is not getting any easier.
The good news is that we are focused on the problem as never
before. The initiative that we have undertaken is aimed at identifying
and then attacking in a targeted way existing and projected traffic
congestion. Our urban partnership program will provide over $800
million to support tolling and other congestion-relief demonstration
projects in Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Miami, and New York
City. New York's congestion pricing plan, if fully authorized by
legislation now before the General Assembly in Albany, will help
incentivize off-peak travel in Manhattan and finance substantial
upgrades to the Nation's largest transit system. The other cities plan
to partner with us as well to experiment with tolling and transit
improvements that we believe can have tremendous impact.
Through our Corridors of the Future program, we have identified six
critical multistate corridors that together carry nearly 23 percent of
the Nation's traffic, and have begun to work with applicants on making
improvements to these facilities. Elements of the program include
building new capacity, adding lanes to existing roads, building truck-
only lanes and bypasses, and integrating real-time traffic technology
such as lane management that can match available capacity on roads to
changing traffic demands. These advances offer the hope of reduced
congestion, reduced emissions, and greater value to the users.
As a former state transportation chief, I know that in some
circumstances there is no substitute for expanding physical capacity.
But, in other situations, it is simply not possible to build our way
out of the problem. The Department, therefore, also is focused on
bringing technological advances to bear on congestion. Let me offer
several examples.
In aviation, we have recently taken several major steps forward in
the deployment of what is known as ADS-B capability, a NextGen
technology that will give pilots real-time awareness of the location of
nearby aircraft and other information essential to improved operations
in crowded corridors. At our airports, we have continued to expand the
use of procedures such as area navigation (RNAV) and required
navigation performance (RNP)--advances that allow aircraft to fly more
precise routes for takeoffs and landings, thus reducing congestion and
emissions at crowded hubs and affording airlines greater flexibility in
point-to-point operations.
In our surface transportation programs and regulations, we are
seeing similar progress. Intelligent transportation systems
technologies are recognized as valuable tools not only to reduce
traffic congestion, but also to improve safety. We are witnessing a
rapid proliferation of real-time traffic information that is giving
drivers more choices and more awareness of system conditions. New
traffic signalization technologies can help to increase throughput and
provide smoother operating conditions in metropolitan areas.
Technological advances are in some circumstances primarily about
safety. In April, we finalized a rule requiring automakers to equip
their vehicles with electronic stability control (ESC), a technology
designed to improve the driver's ability to retain control of a motor
vehicle under certain adverse conditions. This technology is expected
to dramatically reduce the frequency of crashes due to the driver's
loss of control, particularly rollover crashes. We estimate that, once
all vehicles are equipped with ESC, the technology will prevent 5,300
to 9,600 highway deaths and 156,000 to 238,000 injuries every year.
In addition, new technology is now on-board trucks to help the
motor carrier industry automate the process of recording its drivers'
duty status, technology that eventually will allow for real-time
transmission of a vehicle's location and other operational information.
This technology has the potential to help reduce driver fatigue and
allow trucking companies to keep better information about far-flung
routes across the country. Also, DOT works closely with State and
local-level highway organizations to assure that effective life-saving
strategies and comprehensive, data-driven programs are advanced. The
touchstone for all these efforts, of course, is to reduce the number
and rate of fatalities on our highways, so that Americans can
confidently and safely take to the roads.
Earlier this year, the Federal Railroad Administration announced
approval of the first Positive Train Control system capable of
automatically controlling train speed and movements to prevent certain
accidents, including train collisions. The approved system, which
includes both digital communications and a global positioning system,
utilizes an in-cab electronic display screen that will first warn of a
problem and then automatically engage the train's braking system if a
locomotive engineer fails to act in accordance with operating
instructions. This is an encouraging preliminary development, and DOT
will work with industry and other stakeholders to consider cost-
effective options for broader implementation of PTC.
Turning to fuel economy, I was pleased that this Committee
responded to the President's proposal in his State of the Union address
to improve the fuel economy program for passenger automobiles. This
Administration demonstrated through its innovative light truck rule
that fuel economy can be increased while preserving consumer choice,
maintaining safety and not needlessly sacrificing jobs. We achieved
these goals by emphasizing that the path to greater fuel efficiency is
through utilizing fuel saving technologies. Following the President's
directive, we continue to address our Nation's energy security policy
goals and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles by improving
fuel economy and displacing gasoline with alternative fuels. Working
with EPA and other agencies, the Department intends to propose new
standards for fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles
before the end of this year. These standards will be based on sound
science and a cost-benefit analysis. This will ensure that for every
dollar in a fuel saving technology cost added to a vehicle, motorists
and society in general would see a dollar or more returned in benefit.
However, as the President stated, our efforts are not a substitute for
effective legislation. Accordingly, the Administration has articulated
clear principles to move America toward a strong, cleaner energy
future, and we continue to want to work with Congress as it moves ahead
with its fuel economy legislation.
The Administration also looks forward to working with the Committee
and Congress to improve the Nation's intercity passenger rail system,
not with technological advances but with financial reform. We currently
have a flawed model for providing intercity passenger rail service that
does not encourage innovation or emphasize accountability. The
Administration's goal is to create sustainable, demand-driven service
by, among other steps, empowering States and localities to direct rail
investment and fostering opportunities for participation by alternative
rail service providers. I think these are goals that everyone can agree
on, and I urge Congress to collaborate with the Administration to
develop a common vision for this important mode of transportation.
The challenges that lie ahead are difficult, though they are not
difficult to identify. Our transportation networks need improvement,
but as I and many others have made clear, the challenge is not to
simply spend more and more money, but to insist that we utilize Federal
resources with an eye to the performance improvements that we urgently
need. As the President has noted, we need innovation and creativity. We
should embrace real solutions, such as advanced technologies, market-
based congestion tools, private sector financing, and flexibility for
state and local partners. If we do this, the potential for improving
system performance and safety--and in the process to aid the Nation's
continuing economic vitality--is enormous.
My message today is simply that the time has come to acknowledge
that the financing structure that underpins our aviation, highways, and
public transportation systems is failing on multiple levels, prevents
us from making efficient investments in maintenance and new
construction, and needs fundamental reform at the statutory level.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the
Committee today, and I would be pleased to respond to questions that
you or other committee members may have.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
In your confirmation hearing, you pledged that truck safety
will be one of your priorities. And, as you know, from 2004 to
2005 fatalities rose. Have you been able to reverse this trend?
Secretary Peters. Senator Inouye, thank you for the
question, Mr. Chairman. And, yes, it is--it remains an
important area. I don't have the data right in front of me, but
I believe, as you said, there was a slight increase in the
number of truck fatalities. However, that was disproportionate
to the increase in truck traffic that we have seen on the
highways. But, nonetheless, it remains a very, very important
part of what we are doing to improve safety, and I continue to
work with Administrator Hill to advance that goal.
The Chairman. Your department has received the dubious
distinction of having its truck driver hours-of-service rules
struck down by the courts twice in a row. I'm deeply concerned
by the Department's failure to craft a rule that will clearly
increase truck safety and meet the requirements of law. Well,
how are you doing in this area?
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, as you said, the court just
recently struck down the rule that was passed and has been in
place since January of 2006. We are evaluating the court's
decision, and, as you may be aware, they have issued a stay
through the end of this calendar year. And, as soon as we reach
a decision, sir, on which way we should go forward, I will
communicate with you and with this Committee immediately.
The Chairman. Do you see any improvement possible?
Secretary Peters. Yes, sir, I do.
The Chairman. How are you getting along with Secretary
Chertoff?
Secretary Peters. I get along well with Secretary Chertoff.
The Chairman. Because we have been told that your
relationship is not as strong as it should be. Is it?
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, I hope that--and believe
that--that is not the case. In fact, Secretary Chertoff and
myself, along with our deputy secretaries, meet at least once a
quarter to discuss issues that are relevant to our two
agencies, and, in fact, just this last week, have had much
communication about a Memorandum of Understanding that we
signed between our agencies to assist with emergency
transportation, should there be events along the Gulf Coast.
So, we do communicate frequently, and it is not my opinion that
there is a bad relationship between us.
The Chairman. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 significantly enhanced whistleblower
protection. What is your plan for administering new provisions
to ensure that employees' identities are adequately shielded
from disclosure?
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, I, with you, share the
belief that when employees bring valid safety concerns forward,
they need to be responded to. My preference is to respond to
those without having to have people resort to whistleblowing,
but, when they do, they must be protected, and we must respond
to the issues that they raise. And, in fact, we are working
with the Office of Special Counsel at this time, dealing with
several issues that have been raised to his office by
whistleblowers.
The Chairman. I'm certain you're aware that the total
volume of goods shipped to or from the U.S. will double over
the next 20 years. What policies and programs are you
developing to assist ports in addressing this added capacity
demand?
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, you are so right, the
doubling of the freight volume that will hit our Nation's
transportation system over the next 20 years is something we
have to pay attention to in very much a cross-modal fashion. We
are working right now with the ports in L.A. and Long Beach to
employ methods that will help us move freight more efficiently
through that infrastructure, and we're using the Pure Pass
program, for example, which has been tremendously successful.
But I actually have our deputy administrator in the MARAD
administration working directly on that very issue of how we
can expand our port capacity so that we can meet the congestion
and the future needs in that area.
Like my predecessor and your good friend, Secretary Norm
Mineta, I do believe that a marine highway system in our
waterways can be a tremendous help in moving this increased
freight volume that we will see in the future.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Stevens?
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Again, I welcome you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Peters. Thank you.
Senator Stevens. I've mentioned to the Committee several
times that recently a 15-year-old girl in Juneau boarded a
plane and flew to Seattle without her parent's permission, and
she did that to go on and meet a person that she had met over
the Internet. This, I think, exposes a loophole in the travel
of underage persons. Have you had occasion to take a look at
that and to see whether we ought to find some way to put into
effect a paradigm that requires parental consent or the
accompaniment of an adult for an underage person to fly,
particularly interstate flying?
Secretary Peters. Senator, I have not dealt with that issue
specifically, but I will. I, like you, probably saw the
television coverage last evening of a young girl who also met
up with an Internet predator that kept her captive. And I--as a
mother and a grandmother, I'm very, very attuned to the dangers
that our children have, especially when predators that--contact
them through the Internet. So, I would be happy to follow up
with you along those lines.
Senator Stevens. I do hope you will, because I think this
is a very sad situation. We've got more and more information
concerning the predators on the Internet. I don't think we have
strong enough condemnation of that in our criminal laws. I
intend to follow up on it. But I do think the way to discover
it has to be brought out, and somehow or other we ought to deny
access to aircraft and interstate travel of any form, to
underage people. I think that's going to be a scourge of our
Nation if we don't watch out. This lovemaking over the Internet
doesn't set with my generation.
Secretary Peters. I will follow up with you, sir.
Senator Stevens. The question of identification when a
ticket is purchased, I think, has to be examined by the
Department.
And this Committee's getting tired of me commenting upon
the delays that are caused by the way that airline crews are
distributed around the country. Five times this past 2 months,
the aircraft I've been on has been delayed for over 4 hours,
waiting for crews. Once, we were going from here to New York;
we had to wait for a person coming down from Boston to be the
pilot of the plane going back to New York. Another time, we
were in Seattle, waiting for a person to come from Los Angeles
to be the pilot of a plane coming to Washington, D.C. And in
Minneapolis several times, we've been waiting for people to
come up from Florida to be the pilots of planes, or members of
the crews, going east. Now, that was not the situation in years
gone by with regard to the regulations of the old CAB regarding
the location of crews. And I think that the old CAB was right.
When I buy a ticket on an airline, the taxpayers buy mine--but
when I get there, they've made a contract with me that a plane
will be ready to go when I get to the gate. As a matter of
fact, you now require me to be there over an hour before this
plane leaves, but there's no such requirement for the crews,
and there's no penalty when they don't. And I've talked to
these people waiting up to 4 and a half hours in these waiting
areas of the airlines, the traveling public is as disturbed as
I am about this. Once, we got here past midnight, and there
were no baggage people to unload the plane. And when you get to
the delays involved in this, I think they're faking it, a lot
of times, saying, ``Oh, this is--this is some light on the
panel. We've got to have it examined,'' but suddenly the light
goes off when the pilot comes in the plane.
Now, I do believe that your Department has a role in this
and ought to look into it and examine! I have asked the GAO to
look into the concept of increasing delay in departure of
aircraft, and to give this committee a report. I hope they
will. But I hope you will look into it, also.
Secretary Peters. Mr. Vice Chairman, we absolutely will. In
fact, we are looking into it, at this time. In fact, as
recently as last spring I asked the Inspector General, who will
testify after me today, to look into the issue of passenger
concerns with these over--significant delays, passengers
trapped in airplanes for hours and hours on the tarmac. And
there are a variety of issues that we have to look into. As you
may know, I met with the President at the end of September, and
he directed me to really take a hard look at this. We want to
report--and will report back to you and to the President before
the end of the year--and we're working on a dual path, sir.
What I want to be able to do is address the symptoms of
aviation delays, these difficulties that people like you are
experiencing today, while, at the same time, correcting the
underlying cause so that we don't have passengers suffering
these delays. We are looking very hard--and appreciate the
Inspector General's work in this effort--to look at this
contract of carriage that you mentioned, this contract that you
have with the airlines that you enter into when you purchase a
ticket. We want to ensure that travelers have better travel
information about the on-time arrivals of particular flights.
We're investigating airlines that have chronically delayed
flights, and taking steps within our enforcement action to
discipline those airlines who have flights that are greater
than 15 minutes late greater than 70 percent of the time over
two quarters, which categorizes them as a chronically delayed
flight. We also, sir, are looking at the compensation that
passengers get when they take an involuntary bump, when enough
passengers are not willing to give up their seats and someone
is involuntarily bumped, and, in fact, have a rulemaking out on
that specific issue today that would likely double, depending
on the result of that rulemaking, how passengers are
compensated.
But the real issue is to stop these delays from happening.
The good news in our Nation is that air travel is up, and it's
back up to and exceeding the levels that we were seeing prior
to the tragic events of 9/11. But the system is not responding
to this additional traffic in a way that is consumer-friendly.
So, we are targeting the New York area with two specific
issues; one, an Aviation Rulemaking Committee, where we can
bring the airlines, the airports, travelers, general aviation,
business travelers all together to have an open discussion
about what we can do about this. And I am looking to that
Aviation Rulemaking Committee to give me recommendations,
recommendations that will fix this, not just for the short
term, for the long haul. And, concurrent with that, Mr. Vice
Chairman, we also have scheduled a scheduling meeting. We have
asked the airlines for all of their schedules for next summer,
and we want to take steps, either through voluntary methods or
through methods that the Department will impose if they don't
choose to do so, so that we don't have a hellish summer, like
we had in the summer of 2007, in the summer of 2008.
But, even before that, sir, the upcoming holiday travel
period--it is the time when many Americans are traveling to be
with their families, service members are coming home and have
limited time to be home, so I am calling together all of the
aviation executives on the 1st of November to challenge them in
the near term to do something about this so that we do not have
a difficult holiday travel season in advance of these longer-
term fixes that I hope to announce to you by the end of the
year.
So, you're--you are right, I told the President travelers
are very, very cranky, and they have good reason to be, and he
has directed us to fix it. And, sir, we will do so.
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much for your
interest. I think that continued complaints by the passengers
will lead to the restoration of power such as the CAB. And I
would be one to join that if this situation isn't fixed.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Peters, as I think about congestion pricing, I think
about the fact that businesses typically operate in hours that
would be considered peak hours. The conclusion I draw is that
if we continue to increase costs for arriving at work and
shipping materials and--that's what we're doing implies. We're
going to see the Administration, in my view, say that it's got
to cost more money to do business in America. That's what we
want to do, we want to increase the cost. Why, instead of
looking at expanded development of other means of
transportation, isn't that part of the solution, as simply
saying, ``Here's a tax we're going to impose on you,'' and when
there's all kinds of concerns about increasing taxes, but we're
willing to impose on those taxes on business and workers and
say that that's the best we can do in America? It doesn't seem
to me that that ought to be the approach.
It's apparent that Amtrak trains moving throughout the
country are delayed by slow-moving freight trains. This
represents cost increases for Amtrak and increases their need
for Federal funding. And since only the administration can
enforce that law which gives Amtrak trains the right-of-way
over these freight trains, what's your agency doing to address
this problem?
Secretary Peters. Senator Lautenberg, thank you for the
question. And let me answer the question about the sharing of
track between freight rail and passenger rail. That actually is
an area that's governed by the Surface Transportation Board. I
would be happy to talk with the director--the Chair of that
Board, Chip Nottingham, to raise these issues to his concern.
But let me address the issue that you raised first, and that--
--
Senator Lautenberg. Well, my time is limited, so if you
could consolidate your response, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Peters. Absolutely, I will, sir.
Sir, having additional options for travel is important, and
it is part of the solution. My home state of Arizona is
experiencing unprecedented growth. And, having come from there,
I certainly understand that we need to add more modes and more
capacity. But we also need to manage and get better throughput
from the capacity that we have today. And what we're
discussing, in terms of congestion pricing or value pricing, is
not a--not an additional way, but perhaps a replacement way
that we can use our transportation system, and, on highways,
for example, get as much as 40 percent greater throughput by
having dynamic pricing than we could on static, general-purpose
lanes. So, that is, in my opinion, one of the tools we must
have.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, one of the ways to relieve the
congestion at our airports might be an improved passenger rail
service--higher speed, more schedules throughout the country.
Don't you think that would help in reducing airport delays, as
well as traffic on the highways, if we could get that done?
Secretary Peters. Senator Lautenberg, I absolutely do. In
fact, when I flew to New York last to deal--to meet with people
about this aviation congestion issue, I had an experience not
unlike the Chairman's experience. It was not positive. And I
had wished, all day, I had taken the train up there instead.
But especially--especially in distances of 500 miles or less,
passenger rail traffic is a very good and very viable
alternative, and that, in fact, are some of the issues that
we're discussing on the Transportation Commission that is due
to report to you by the end of this year on surface
transportation.
Senator Lautenberg. So, Madam Secretary, then I'll assume
that you will enthusiastically support the Lautenberg bill for
Amtrak.
Last year, you testified that there are circumstances where
we could perhaps define situations where longer and heavier
trucks could be safe. Now, that was discussed somewhat by our
colleague, the Vice Chairman of the Committee. In light of the
recent Minneapolis bridge collapse, the presence of overweight
construction materials may have played a role. Have you changed
your views on allowing heavier trucks on our bridges and our
highways?
Secretary Peters. Senator Lautenberg, make--let me make
sure that I was clear in what I said earlier. I would only
support exceptions to the existing truck size and weight rules
if we had truck-only lanes, dedicated lanes that were built to
handle that longer, heavier traffic. I have not been, and am
not, a fan of revising the truck size and weight limits, except
on those type of dedicated facilities.
Senator Lautenberg. Earlier this year, I chaired a hearing
in this Committee on the use of electronic onboard recorders in
commercial trucks. The debate clearly indicated that many would
like to see these inexpensive, critical safety devices on every
truck, like they're required, in much of the rest of the world.
Did the Department have any plans with respect to this
proposal?
Secretary Peters. Senator Lautenberg, we are studying that.
And I, too, think electronic onboard recorders have tremendous
value. In fact, as the Chairman asked earlier about where we're
going after the hours-of-service ruling, that is one of the
issues that we are looking at.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. The FAA has always claimed that
understaffing of air controllers is not a safety issue, because
air traffic is simply slowed down to safe levels. How can we
make sure that our air traffic control system is adequately
staffed to prevent further delays, considering that there's
substantial retirement facing us, we are short-staffed. I would
urge, Madam Secretary, that you take a look at what the
population of--fully qualified controllers--is in the towers
throughout the country, because we've had some disagreements
with the FAA about the number of controllers, fully qualified,
in Newark or New York, the heavy congested airports in the New
York/New Jersey region. So, I'd appreciate it if your
Department would do some research on that and get back to us.
Secretary Peters. Senator Lautenberg, we would be happy to
do that. We have completed, just recently, the air traffic
controller workforce plan, and it looks at staffing, not only
in the overall sense, but at specific facilities. And, in fact,
we're pleased to report that we exceeded our recruitment goals
for this year in new air traffic controllers.
But let me say that I have the greatest respect for the men
and women who control the traffic in our skies. It's a very
important responsibility, and they have a great deal of the
credit due for the unprecedented safety record that we now have
in our Nation's skies. But----
Senator Lautenberg. No one's arguing----
Secretary Peters.--as you said, many of them are retiring,
and we must find a way to replace them with qualified
controllers.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. We can keep the record open for----
The Chairman. Oh, absolutely.
Senator Thune?
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, referencing some of the discussion that's
already occurred on air service, this last summer was, I think,
the worst in a very long time, in terms of on-time performance
with the airlines, and, in fact, I think it was three in ten--
almost one in three flights now is delayed. Would it--is it
fair to say that, if three in ten flights are delayed, that, if
you have to make a connecting flight, that there's a chance--
there's a six in ten chance that you're going to be delayed if
you have to have two operations to get to your destination?
Secretary Peters. Well, Senator Thune, you're--you are
exactly right. Regrettably, since we have started capturing
data, last summer was the worst that we've ever had on record,
and, as you said, fully 30 percent of the flights were delayed.
One of the reasons we're concentrating on the New York area in
the short term is because delays into, out of, or over the New
York airspace contribute to three-quarters of the delays,
systemwide. And you're absolutely right, if a plane is delayed,
and you have to make a connection, you're much more likely to
miss that connection. And if--even if there is a subsequent
flight, because planes are flying, on average, 80 percent full
today, it is even more difficult for you to get a seat on a
subsequent flight.
Senator Thune. And we all experience that and see it time--
most of us are frequent fliers, for better or worse. And--but,
I mean, if you have six in ten--a 40-percent chance, basically,
that an airline is going to be able to meet their contract
obligation to you to get to your destination on time, I mean,
that is a performance record that anyplace else in our economy
would be considered deplorable. And I--people always ask me,
``What's the best part and the worst part of your job?'' And,
of course, I'm someone who, like many of my colleagues, goes
back and forth on weekends, back to my home state, and my
answer always is, ``The worst part of it is getting to and from
it.'' And I think that that--and I'm--so I'm with my
constituents a lot in airports, we spend a lot of time in
airports. But I think that you have to--if you look at a record
like that--and everybody blames somebody else. I mean, the
airlines blame the air traffic control system; the air traffic
control system, FAA, DOT, say, ``Blame Congress. We need more
money to move to the NextGen system.'' But until we get there--
and I'm one who believes that we've got to modernize our air
traffic control system and use the very latest technology to
improve air service in this country--there has got to be some
way of dealing with this issue in--where we all--I'm--whatever
Congress can do to help you with that--and I appreciate your
commitment to make sure this doesn't happen next year, during
the summer season--but it's gotten to be where it's, kind of, a
year-round thing. I mean, there are a lot more people flying in
the summer season, but when you have flights that are delayed
or canceled, and with the higher load rates that they have
trying to get another flight, becomes virtually impossible. And
I see, like I said, constituents of mine in airports all the
time, and there is tremendous frustration and angst out there
about this. And I've introduced a bill, which is part of the
FAA modernization bill, that would require at least more
disclosure by the airlines. I mean, flights that are
chronically delayed, canceled all the time, at least customers
need to know what their chances or what their probabilities are
on some of these flights. And I think those are things that,
absent action by the Congress on FAA modernization--or
reauthorization, which I hope we will get--those are things, I
think, that you all could work with the airlines to impose, as
well. I mean, there has just got to be more done to address
this situation, because it affects our productivity, it affects
our competitiveness, when people are wasting time in airports,
like so many are, it just doesn't--the entire economy suffers.
So, I would just urge you to intensify the efforts that you
are making with the airlines, and at least people need to know
which ones are doing a good job, which ones aren't. And, I
think, not just on an overall month-by-month basis, but flight-
by-flight. I mean, I think people need to have that kind of
information when they make decisions. And it seems, at least in
the legacy airlines, they're all--the records are all fairly
similar, they're all kind of bad. But I guess it's--what I'm
expressing is a lot of frustration that I hear from people I
represent.
Let me just raise one other issue, and that's the issue
of--I talked about a little bit earlier, and that's railroad
capacity. We've got a serious need, in my part of the country,
for competition between railroads--we've got an ethanol--a
booming ethanol business. Obviously, a lot of coal and
agricultural commodities are hauled out of that area of the
country. And I guess I'm interested in your thoughts about
whether there is enough competition. Do we need another Class I
railroad? What steps can be taken to ensure that shippers have
at least an opportunity to have enough competition to where
they can keep their rates at a reasonable level? And I will
tell you, as a--that every power company, public or private,
that comes into my office, every agricultural shipper that
comes into the office, the issue is always the same, it's
transportation cost and service. And the STB, which is their
recourse to challenge some of those cases, seems to be less and
less independent. It seems like every decision comes down--
comes down on the side of the railroads. And I guess I'm
wondering what your thoughts are about, What can we do to
enhance and increase competition so that, as this ethanol
industry--if we try to get to 20 or 35 billion gallons by the
year 2017, that's a very ambitious goal and one that's going to
be complicated by the lack of infrastructure out there to
support the movement of that product around the country.
Secretary Peters. Senator Thune, you're exactly right, we
need to do a lot more for this type of transportation. And,
participatory, as both you and Senator Klobuchar mentioned,
rural areas of the United States are experiencing very
different transportation challenges and patterns today because
of the additional production of ethanol, as well as hauling
more coal out of the Powder River Basin and places like that,
as well. As part of the National Infrastructure Committee, the
one that is--was challenged at looking at future needs, we are
looking at freight rail capacity, as well as capacity for
trucks and--to carry this additional increase in freight that
we're seeing in the future.
I would also agree that we will likely need more of
everything in order to handle that, and, again, would be happy
to report back to you at the end of this year, when our report
is due, and to continue to work with STB on some of these
challenges that have been brought forward, in terms of captive
shippers, that I know is important to you, as well.
Senator Thune. One last question, if I might. I'd--I want
to come back to something I mentioned earlier in my opening
statement, and that's dealing with the broader issue of
infrastructure, the needs that are out there, the demand for
additional funding exceeding the supply of funds that we have
through the Highway Trust Fund and other sources of funding.
This Build America Bonds proposal that Senator Wyden and I have
introduced in the Senate is a way of increasing funding for
infrastructure, $50 billion, outside of the Highway Trust Fund,
that could be used by States to address some of these high and
urgent needs without raising taxes. And I know--the
administration, I'm told at least, is--has been opposed to this
in the past, but I'm interested in getting your thoughts about,
``If not this, what?'' And why can't a concept like this, which
is a fairly, I think, innovative financing proposal, be used to
address what are some very desperate infrastructure needs that
we have across the country, and not replace the Highway Trust
Fund, but act as a supplement to it? There are a lot of
deficiencies we have, and clearly it's going to take more money
to solve some of those.
Secretary Peters. Senator, I applaud your initiative--both
you and Senator Wyden--in putting forth a proposal to increase
funding for transportation. One of the concerns that we have
about it within the administration, and I, particularly, is the
underlying base funding and the reliability and sustainability
of that funding to repay those bonds over a period of time.
We're seeing the gas tax be less and less responsive to demand
in our Nation today. And, in fact, we, as a Nation, have agreed
that we want more fuel-efficient vehicles, we want cleaner-
burning fuels, we want greater reliability on our ability to
produce those fuels here in the United States, such as is being
produced in your home State, with the ethanol. And my main
concern is that there is not a good, solid base to repay that
over time, that we have to supplement and diversify our funding
for transportation in a much greater sense. That is why we have
been advocates of attracting private-sector investment, where
we can, to supplement existing revenues. And I think that that
certainly holds a great deal of promise, but it is not the
answer, in and of itself. We do have to look long term, and,
again, that's what this Commission is looking at, and will
bring back recommendations to you by the end of the year, in
terms of where we should go long term for funding surface
transportation in our Nation.
Senator Thune. Well, I would hope you'd take a new look at
this concept, because it does use tax credits in lieu of
interest payments, it is a way--a very cost-effective way of
using leverage to get a lot more funding out there, funding
that could be made available for States to use to determine--as
they determine what are their highest needs, and it would be
used for highway, rail, waterway, all types of infrastructure.
But you--the--what we've got coming into the Highway Trust
Fund, we already know, is going to be deficient by 2009, and it
seems, to me at least, we've got to come up with some ways--
some innovative ways of using the private sector to help
address some of these infrastructure needs that we have.
So, I would hope that you would take a hard look at that
and see if that might not be something that the administration
could work with us on.
Secretary Peters. Will do, sir.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Pryor?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Peters, good to see you again----
Secretary Peters. As well.
Senator Pryor.--and thank you for frequent contact with me
and my office on a variety of subjects. I'm going to ask you
about a lot of different subjects, so I'm going to try to go
quickly, and I hope you can help me by keeping your answers
short because I don't want to take too much of the Committee's
time.
But let me start with NHTSA and rollover protection the
roof-crush issue.
Secretary Peters. Yes.
Senator Pryor. What is the status of that rulemaking?
Secretary Peters. Senator, I signed that rulemaking
yesterday. It went to OMB and should have been published today.
Senator Pryor. OK. So, does that mean the rule is done?
Secretary Peters. It does not, sir. OMB has 90 days to redo
the--review the rule, and then it goes to final publication.
Senator Pryor. All right. The intent of Congress is pretty
clear in the legislation, that there be roof-strength testing
for driver and passenger sides of the vehicle. Does the rule
include driver and passenger sides?
Secretary Peters. Senator, to my knowledge, it does. I will
verify and get back to you on that. ``The rulemaking addresses
both sides of the vehicle (driver side and passenger side) one
after the other. We expect to publish a NPRM by the end of the
year.''
Senator Pryor. OK. And are you guys doing any different
type of testing on roof strengths now? Are you requiring the
manufacturers do a different type of testing than you did
before?
Secretary Peters. That, sir, is what the rule addresses,
that--the different types. And, again, I'll get back to you on
the specifics of that so that I don't spend too much of your
time here today.
Senator Pryor. Great, thank you very much.
Secretary Peters. Yes.
Senator Pryor. If we can stay with NHTSA just for a minute.
We all know the Senate passed some language on CAFE, and I'm
wondering about the Administration's position on the Senate
language in CAFE. Has the Administration taken a position?
Secretary Peters. Sir, we have not yet taken a position on
that language that came out of the Senate. As you know, we did
work with you during that period of time.
Senator Pryor. Right.
Secretary Peters. One of our concerns is that, when we set
fuel economy standards--and we do believe that we should have
the authority to do that at NHTSA--we want to take into
consideration what is technologically feasible, what is
economically feasible, and what the impacts on safety would be.
And our concern is that, without some valid, I'll call them
``off ramps,'' the goal may be set too high, it may not be
achievable, considering those three important factors.
Senator Pryor. I would strongly encourage either you or
your staff or someone in the administration to contact the
leadership in the House and Senate, because, as I understand
it, there are discussions now about putting together an energy
package, which would include this CAFE standard.
Secretary Peters. Yes.
Senator Pryor. The House hasn't passed one, we have--and
try to come up with something. I offered an amendment, along
with--a bipartisan group of Senators, and ours did not prevail.
We ended up not offering it, because we just couldn't get the
votes right. But, certainly, I think now is the time to weigh
in on that.
Secretary Peters. I agree. And, Senator, as recently as
yesterday I was meeting with House members on this very issue--
--
Senator Pryor. Great.
Secretary Peters --and I will get some further
documentation to you on that.
Senator Pryor. Great, thank you.
And, on the Mexican truck issue, which we've talked about
before--you and I have spoken about it two or three times--what
is the current status of GPS devices? I know, at one point we
thought they may be included, and then maybe not. What's the
status of GPS devices?
Secretary Peters. Sir, we are moving forward with the GPS
devices. What we found when we went--we had felt that, at the
one time, that there was only one provider that could provide
those devices, and thought we might be able to move to a more
immediate contract to do that. We have found that there are
several vendors who are interested in providing those devices,
so, appropriately, we're holding an open competition, and, by
the end of this calendar year, we should be able to have a
program in place to put a GPS device on every Mexican truck
that is participating in the demonstration program.
Senator Pryor. And on the issue of drug testing and alcohol
testing for the Mexican truck drivers, is that being done?
Secretary Peters. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. Are you are satisfied with how that's being
done?
Secretary Peters. Yes, I am. American labs are conducting
those tests, and I also asked the Office of Drug Control Policy
to validate that we have the proper procedures in place, as
well as the independent panel to validate those procedures.
Senator Pryor. Great. And are those procedures and the
protocols, are they public information? Can members of the
public find out what's going on there?
Secretary Peters. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. Great.
And, let's see, I just had a couple of more quick questions
for you. One is high-priority corridors. I know that you have
designated I-69 as a high-priority corridor. I just would like
to know where that is and how far along the I-69 building and
design and all the things you have to go through to do a new
interstate highway are--if you could just give me an update on
I-69.
Secretary Peters. Sir, I will. It was one of six corridors
selected, and those corridors were selected because together
they carry 23 percent of all freight in the United States, and
I-69 is certainly an important component of that. Some areas of
I-69 have not yet been completed, especially in some of the
southeast States and in Indiana. Let me get back to you on the
record with the specific completion.
But what being selected as a Corridor of the Future will
allow us to do is expedite processes so that we can complete
sections of that urgent highway more quickly than we might
otherwise be able to, as well as some funding to help
accomplish that.
Senator Pryor. That's great. Thank you.
And, really, the last question I had for you is on air
traffic control. I know I've been jumping all around, and thank
you for being patient. But, on air traffic control, we know
that--in September, the Memphis TRACON went down. Do we know
what happened, why that happened, how we're going to prevent
that in the future?
Secretary Peters. Senator, what happened was a wide-area
power outage, and that's what caused the problem in that area.
We're analyzing the specific impact on the Memphis TRACON. The
good news is that, almost immediately, because of the actions
of the air traffic controllers in that area, who literally
picked up their own cell phones and notified other TRACONs to
pick up that traffic, so there was minimal disruption that day.
But system redundancy is something that I've asked about, what
redundant paths do we have in the event that we get wide-area
power outages like that in the future? And, again, I have to
commend the controllers in the facilities for immediately
responding and getting that traffic picked up by other TRACONs.
Senator Pryor. Right. And Little Rock was part of that, and
we were proud to do that. But, you know, I think that the
Memphis system was down for about 3 hours----
Secretary Peters. It was.
Senator Pryor.--which caused at least 3 hours, and maybe a
full day, of disruption. But they got it fixed within 3 hours.
Last thing I just wanted to mention is Jim Ray, Chief
Counsel at FHWA--came to Arkansas on the Yellow Bend Port
issue. I don't know if you've been briefed on that. The people
in Arkansas were very, very happy that he came down and spent a
day looking at that issue. When you get back to the office and
have a minute, if you could, give us a written update on the
status of Yellow Bend Port, we would greatly appreciate it.
Secretary Peters. Senator, I know you and I talked about
that, and I wasn't personally able to go, but Jim did give me a
very positive report----
Senator Pryor. Good.
Secretary Peters.--and we'll get something in writing to
you.
Senator Pryor. Thank you very much. We very much appreciate
him, and he was great.
Secretary Peters. Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Everybody was very impressed with him.
Thank you very much.
Secretary Peters. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kerry?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, which is, I think,
one of the most important topics that we could be looking at in
this Committee, and, unfortunately, doesn't always get the kind
of attention that it deserves.
Secretary Peters, thank you for agreeing to be here today.
And we're going to hear, later this morning--from Inspector
General Scovel, about the strain that the Department of
Transportation is facing in the crumbling infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's a secret, the Secretary's
testimony--I wasn't here for it, but I just read the entire
thing through and through, and I want to ask a few things about
it. It talks considerably about the hours lost and the greater-
than-inconvenience that this represents to families, the
problems of productivity, the problems for our economy, which
are not insignificant. But I think it's fair to say, Mr.
Chairman, that, for a considerable period of time now, as a
country, we really are facing an urgent challenge--both safety
and economically with respect to our overall transportation
system. And I know the Department of Transportation has assumed
additional responsibilities to keep our highways and our
railways and skies safe from terrorist attack, and is
struggling to deal with some of the congestion issues, but
these record-setting delays, not just at airports, which is
sad, if not inexcusable, but in every major urban center in our
Nation, where the traffic just gets worse and worse, and the
numbers of single individuals driving single vehicles in
gridlock, using untold amounts of fuel, is ridiculous. Sadly,
reading through your testimony, Madam Secretary, while you cite
some of these problems, you talk about financial reform, you
don't really lay out an agenda or a program, a policy by this
administration, a strategy, to really deal with those issues,
particularly the issue of rail. I think rail gets a couple of,
mentions here, and I'll come back to that in a minute.
But I want to focus, first, on one particular problem that
has been ignored until tragedy strikes, and then we pay
attention to it, and that's the state--the fundamental state of
bridges and tunnels in the country. We're all familiar--and it
probably was mentioned previously--with the recent tragedy in
Mississippi, across the Mississippi River--in Minneapolis--that
brought everybody's focus back to this, at least temporarily.
But Minnesota isn't alone in this. And the question that we
ought to be asking is not just what went wrong there, but
what's next, and where, and what are we doing to make sure that
the next time you turn on your television set, you're not
reading about another tragedy?
Now, I say this as a Senator from a State, where, just this
last weekend, inspectors found cracks in a beam that supports
the 57-year-old Tobin Memorial Bridge in Boston, and the
inspection that identified that crack had been expedited after
the State received reports that large chunks of debris were
falling from the bridge onto the boats below. Now, fortunately,
those particular cracks were found to be minor, but that minor
disruption underscores the much larger problem. Across the
State, 12 percent of functioning bridges are classified as
being structurally deficient.
Now, for 88 percent, those folks who don't cross those
bridges, they're OK, but for the person crossing that
structurally deficient bridge, the tens of thousands of people
crossing it, that's 100 percent to them. It's 100 percent. And
it's 100 percent of the risk that goes with it. And those
bridges are scattered across the entire State, and they carry
literally hundreds of thousands of people in daily traffic.
There's a bridge in Springfield, with a structural rating of
zero, that sees average daily traffic of more than 104,000
people every day. The Wood Street extension bridge in Lowell
carries traffic of more than 38,000 people, while a bridge in
the town of Dennis, over Swan Pond River, carries traffic of
24,000. In Fall River, 15 bridges are rated as being
structurally deficient.
Now, it's true, as a Nation, that there are fewer bridges
with a rating of ``structurally deficient'' today than there
were 20 years ago, but, again, for the percentage left out
there, for those hundreds of thousands of people crossing them,
that's not an answer. And for a Nation that ought to be leading
in its efforts to guarantee safety, I don't think it's an
answer. We shouldn't be holding ourselves to a lower standard,
if you will.
So, I really want to know, what's the administration's
strategy to urgently deal with an urgent question about $32
billion of backlog in bridge repair? And--that's number one.
Number two, I'd like to know what's going to happen with
respect to increased oversight on these kinds of Federal-funded
projects. Earlier this year, I introduced the Safety and
Accountability in Construction Act, which would provide the
Secretary of the Department of Transportation--you, Madam
Secretary--with the authority to hire an independent engineer
to inspect the planning, design, and construction of federally
financed highway projects. I introduced that in response to the
problems that we had in the well-publicized problems in
Massachusetts with the Central Artery Project. During 15 years
of construction, spanning four Governors, five Federal Highway
Administrators, not once was an independent engineer brought in
to oversee the work that was being done, despite repeated
attention that this Committee and others drew to the cost
overruns, the delays, questionable construction methods, and
thousands of tunnel leaks. Tragically--and I know the Inspector
General will allude to this in his testimony--an innocent woman
lost her life when faulty ceiling panels fell from the I-90
connector tunnel into her car in July of last year.
Why is this oversight necessary? Well, amazingly, in the
case of the Central Artery Project, the main contractor,
Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff was, in fact, both constructing
the tunnels and acting as the safety inspector. The Federal
Government obviously needs to have explicit authority under
Federal law to bring in an independent engineer to oversee that
kind of project.
And then, finally, I just want to come back to this other
issue of rail. Reading through your testimony, Madam Secretary,
Senator Thune was referring to the bill--Senator Lott and I
introduced, in the Finance Committee, a $900 million bond
effort on rail. We did that, not the Administration. The
Administration has failed, in my judgment, to confront the
realities of these choices. We've got an old cow-path rail
system that goes through New England, that winds its way around
bays and coves, while other countries are building high-speed
systems. You go to Shanghai, you can go from Shanghai to
downtown now in about 12 minutes on a mag-lev train.
I remember sitting in this Committee when Senator Moynihan
was around here, and we used to talk about mag-lev and its
possibilities. There's nothing. I mean, leave ``mag-lev'' out,
if you don't like the technology. Where's the discussion? We
should be talking about taking the median strips of major
highways--which is the only rights-of-way you're going to get
today, given what's happened to the former rights-of-ways--in
order to build something that's straight and true and has the
ability to go fast. You can see the TGF or the Bullet Train in
Japan, where, people greatly benefit in those countries as a
consequence of their investment in infrastructure. Here we are,
priding ourselves as the greatest technological, innovative,
entrepreneurial Nation in the world, and we've got one of the
most ancient, unbelievably underinvested rail systems in the
world, behind tiny countries in Latin America. It's shameful.
Nowadays you can almost be competitive riding the rail
system, the Acela, from here to New York, and it's a lot more
comfortable and less hassle than going out to the airport and
taking off your shoes and going through security and everything
else, and you can plug in a computer, and you can get a meal.
Why don't we offer that to people in more communities?--I saw
that plenty of times in Seattle or in California or in Houston,
other places on the West Coast, where you just can't move.
People are taking 2 hours to get to work. And what's happened,
further, is families are being driven further away from the
centers of these communities, where they work, because they
can't afford to buy the home, so people are forced into this
hour-and-a-half commute each way, away from family, away from
work time, because we don't have adequate kind of
transportation system.
I've gotta tell ya, it just burns me up. It's beyond my
comprehension that we're not talking in this Nation about some
kind of funding mechanism to do the infrastructure, and put
Americans to work in every which way--in a comprehensive way.
So, I'd like to know, on each of those--on the bridges and
tunnels, the strategy for $32 billion, the accountability
issue, and, finally, this question of rail. Those are three
solid questions.
Secretary Peters. Senator, certainly, and I'll try to
answer your questions as quickly as I can.
First of all, we do have a national strategy to relieve
congestion, and we're very actively working that strategy. And,
in fact, several of the projects that we have authorized
recently have tremendous promise to help us reduce congestion
on those corridors that carry 23 percent of our Nation's
freight, as well as the urban areas, where some of the
congestion is the worst in our Nation. And these strategies, I
believe, will give us strong new tools to help relieve this----
Senator Kerry. Are you talking about the technology and the
Smart Roads, so to speak,----
Secretary Peters. Sir, it's a combination of----
Senator Kerry. Of what?
Secretary Peters.--tools. Of pricing, of using more
technology----
Senator Kerry. Pricing. How is pricing going to affect
Houston's traffic problem?
Secretary Peters. Well, the way pricing can affect it, sir,
is that, if we could take as little as 10 percent of the
vehicles off a road during high-peak times, we could achieve
almost free-flow status. A recent household travel survey has
indicated to us that almost 50 percent of the people who are on
a roadway during a peak period of time are not commuting to
work and back, and, in fact, very nearly a quarter of those are
retired. If there were some pricing mechanism so that they had
to pay more to be there on peak periods, less to be off-peak,
those drivers who do not have to be on that road during peak
periods of time would not be there. This mechanism, when it's
been tested, gives us as much as 40-percent greater throughput
on the same configuration of roadway, of so-called ``general
purpose lanes.'' So, that is one tool. But it is, by no means,
the only tool that we want to look at.
Senator Kerry. What's the alternative going to be for those
people if they deem themselves as ``needing'' to be there, but
not necessarily able to afford the increased prices?
Secretary Peters. Well, sir, those who can will move
themselves off the peak period, those who cannot will be able
to take the lower-cost, perhaps no-cost, options outside of
peak. If they do need to be there, and we, as a Nation feel
that we need to subsidize some of those drivers, we can
certainly do that, and do that through the technology that's
available to day.
What Mayor Bloomberg has proposed, in New York in a pilot
program, would actually funnel some $500 million almost
immediately and additionally into building transit options,
park-and-ride stations, things like that.
We need to--and you're very correct, sir--look at this
comprehensively--from not just a single modal status, but
comprehensively. I also very much agree with you that passenger
rail has to be part of the solution, and I think, particularly
in distances of up to 500 miles, or--that is an excellent,
excellent opportunity, and probably more cost-effective than
air travel. All of this, we are looking at, sir.
Let me answer, specifically, your questions about the----
Senator Kerry. You've only got about a year left to look at
it.
Secretary Peters. We're looking at it very hard, sir, and
our recommendations will come by the end of this year.
Sir, in terms of the bridges and tunnels and the backlog,
I've done several things in the aftermath of the tragedy that
occurred in Minneapolis. First, I asked our inspector general,
who you will hear from next, to do a very thorough review of
our bridge inspection program to ensure that the program was
sufficient and rigorous. But, as importantly, what do we do
with that data that comes out as a result of those
investigations and those inspections? And are we using that
appropriately to prioritize the expenditure of bridge funds or
other funds that could be spent on bridges?
I have also sent out two advisories to States, asking that
they reinspect their bridges. And I do believe, sir, that that
contributed to the reinspection of the Tobin Bridge.
I have also asked States to be very mindful of the loading
of construction materials and equipment on a bridge when they
are doing construction and repair on the bridge. These two
factors were brought to my attention by the Chairman of the
National Transportation Safety Board, and he and I spoke, as
recently as yesterday, about this, about what the cause would
be and how we might be able to not only ensure that a tragedy
like what happened in Minnesota does not happen again, but that
we do more aggressively deal with the backlog in repairs that
we do have.
Senator Kerry. What does that mean, in terms of the $32
billion?
Secretary Peters. I'm sorry, sir?
Senator Kerry. What does mean, when you say ``that we do
more aggressively''? I mean, you don't need a study to know
that you need to move more aggressively on the $32 billion.
Secretary Peters. Sir, there are funds available in States
today to do these necessary repairs. What we're asking is the
prioritization of those funds being appropriately made.
Senator Kerry. I don't think they think they are available.
I was told by my state's highway commissioner about a bridge in
New Bedford; it required $100,000 of repair, but the State
lacked the funding to do it. They lacked the flexibility to use
its apportionment of highway bridge funds to fix it. The bridge
went untended. The bridge got worse. Eventually, the entire
superstructure needed to be replaced, at $9 million. So,
$100,000 fix, which they weren't allowed to use the Federal
money, and, therefore, didn't have the money, became a $9
million price tag.
Secretary Peters. Well, sir, I'll--I will look into that
specific case, because my knowledge is, and my experience as a
State highway administrator, is that there is significant
flexibility.
I also wanted to mention, sir, what you asked about, in
terms of a bridge that was rated zero and is carrying 104,000
vehicles a day. My understanding of--is that if a bridge is
rated zero, it should be closed to traffic. So, I will
certainly investigate that.
Senator Kerry. Appreciate that. But, also, the President's
budget request is $4.388 billion. We upped that. We plussed
that up by an additional billion. Senator Murray put that
amendment in, and we passed it. And we've still got 72,500
bridges out there that need repair. It seems to me that there
just isn't that sense of urgency about it.
Secretary Peters. Sir, there is very much a sense of
urgency, and I think the Inspector General can repeat to you
what I have asked him to do. But, again, I have asked every
division administrator in every Federal highway office
throughout the country to review with the State DOT how they're
prioritizing the funds that they have available to ensure that
these important bridges are dealt with.
Further, sir, we will publish, by the end of this year, and
at your direction--and I think you were very appropriately
directing us to do so--standards for tunnel inspections, as
well.
Senator Kerry. Are you following the Inspector General's
recommendation with respect to implementing a data-driven,
risk-based approach?
Secretary Peters. Yes, sir, we are.
Senator Kerry. And when do you expect that that would be
fully implemented?
Secretary Peters. I will have to get back to you on that,
sir. I know that the inspector general is continuing his review
of the bridge inspection program, but that is something, in
fact, that I asked be part of this review.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Oh, and a final thing--the accountability?
Secretary Peters. Yes, sir.
Senator Kerry. The--independent inspectors?
Secretary Peters. Yes, sir. I think that's a very good
suggestion. We did a very comprehensive review. And, in fact,
you may recall, when I was with the Federal Highway
Administration, I met with you on that very issue. And I do
think that there are many, many lessons we can learn as a
result of the Central Artery Tunnel Project. And one of those
is how we have the independence of various folks, including the
Federal Highway Administration, on those projects.
Senator Kerry. But, here's the problem. We met, when you
served for about 4 years as the Federal Highway Administrator.
Secretary Peters. Yes, sir.
Senator Kerry. You went back to Arizona. You've come back
now. Still hasn't happened.
Secretary Peters. Sir, there is a very aggressive four-
point plan that is being implemented. In fact, I'll get the
date for you, but I spoke with Governor Deval within the last 2
months, I believe--I'll get you a date--about following through
on this very important plan to not only deal with the issues on
the Central Artery, which I did start earlier, but to do the
important follow-through that has to occur in a stem-to-stern
review.
[The information referred to follows:]
Update of FHWA and DOT OIG Activities
in Response to July 10, 2006, Central Artery Tunnel Ceiling Collapse
FHWA and the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) have
been involved in four activities:
1. The EOT/MHD immediate evaluations of the I-90 connector.
Activity 1 was remedial and aimed at reopening closed sections
of the I-90 corridor.
As of June 1, 2007, all roadways have been completely re-opened.
However, there are a number of non-safety related items that still must
be completed as part of the permanent corrective work. FHWA continues
to work with and monitor the State's progress toward completion of
these items. Due to weather constraints the remaining few items of work
are now scheduled for completion by June 30, 2008.
Each re-opening phase was accomplished by meeting 12 safety-related
criteria that were jointly developed by FHWA and the State, and each
re-opening was accomplished with concurrence from the OIG.
2. Support to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
and other investigations (e.g., U.S. Attorney's Office) of the
July 10 ceiling failure. Activity 2 was aimed at determining
the cause of the incident, which led to the fatality and
injury.
FHWA engaged in two primary activities to support the NTSB
investigation:
We conducted sustained-load (creep) testing on both the
Fast-Set epoxy used in the tunnel and the corresponding
Regular-Set epoxy.
We conducted a parametric study of the anchor system
considering such variables as preparation of the anchor holes
and proportioning of the epoxy components.
On July 10, 2007, the 1-year anniversary of the tunnel ceiling
collapse, the NTSB issued its final report of the investigation. The
NTSB determined that the probable cause of the July 10, 2006, ceiling
collapse was the use of an epoxy anchor adhesive with poor creep
resistance. The NTSB made safety recommendations to a number of
entities, including FHWA and the State departments of transportation.
NTSB recommendations to FHWA included: (1) working with AASHTO to
develop standards and protocols for testing adhesive anchors to be used
in sustained tensile-load overhead highway applications, (2)
prohibiting the use of adhesive anchors in sustained tensile-load
overhead highway applications until standards and protocols have been
developed, (3) seeking legislation authorizing FHWA to establish a
mandatory tunnel inspection program similar to the National Bridge
Inspection Program, (4) establishing a mandatory tunnel inspection
program once authorized, and (5) developing a tunnel design manual.
3. FHWA independent review of the July 10 ceiling failure.
Activity 3 can be viewed as an extension of Activity 2 in
looking at the broader process that led to the incident and
implications for the rest of the CA/T project, as well as
tunnels elsewhere.
The primary objective of the independent review was to evaluate the
probable cause of the failure of the ceiling anchor support system. A
nine person multidisciplinary team was established to execute a
comprehensive work plan that included looking at the ceiling system
design and loading, oversight roles and responsibilities, in service
inspection expectations, behavior of materials, workmanship, and
quality control/quality assurance. The independent review team relied
on the same testing that was done for the NTSB. The final report was
completed July 13, 2007. Most of the conclusions and corresponding
recommendations from the independent review coincide with the NTSB
recommendations and are being acted on.
4. The Governor's ``stem to stern'' risk-based safety review
was authorized by emergency legislation. The first phase report
was submitted to the Governor in November 2006. While the
``stem to stern'' review is a State initiative, FHWA has
provided input to the Governor on the Phase I report and is
overseeing the State's response to the recommendations
contained in that report and the development and implementation
of Phase II.
Based on the Phase I report submitted in November 2006 that
contained the results of the State's review of the structural and life
safety systems of the Metropolitan Highway System (which includes but
is not limited to the Central Artery Tunnel), the State developed a
Phase I implementation plan that identifies the status of each action
at the time of the hand-off of the ``stem to stern'' (STS) review to
Governor Deval Patrick. The corrective actions for the items of
immediate safety concern identified in the Phase I study have been
addressed. Other items of less immediate concern identified in the
Phase I study are currently being pursued by the State. The State
developed a Phase IA study that contains a small number of items that
required further analysis based on comments by FHWA and the DOT Office
of Inspector General. The Phase IA reports were made available to FHWA
and the DOT OIG for comment. FHWA continues to monitor the resolution
of all items identified in the Phase I Report. The State has also
developed the scope for a further Phase II study and work on this
effort was started on July 1, 2007. FHWA provided input on the scope of
Phase II study (which includes non-Central Artery MTA facilities) and
is currently involved in the resolution of the Phase II findings along
with the OIG. FHWA will continue to oversee implementation of the STS
findings and recommendations in coordination with the State and the
OIG. FHWA's Deputy Administrator continues to serve as FHWA's lead
official in this effort.
On August 16, 2007, the DOT OIG issued a report titled ``Initial
Assessment of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project Stem To Stern Safety
Review.'' Steps are being taken by the State to address the concerns
expressed in the report.
Senator Kerry. Well, we sure hope so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, I have a whole flock of questions here,
but I've noted that you've been very patient, you've had much
skill and grace, sitting there, responding to over an hour and
a half of nonstop questioning. And so, if I may, I'd like to
submit my questions to you for your consideration and response.
Secretary Peters. I would be delighted to do so, Senator.
The Chairman. And on behalf of the Committee, I thank you
for your presence here.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Our next witness is the Honorable Calvin L.
Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
General welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Scovel. Chairman Inouye, Members of the Committee, we
appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the
challenges facing the U.S. Department of Transportation and the
Nation's transportation system.
As you know, we report annually on the top management
challenges facing DOT, as required by Congress and the Office
of Management and Budget. We will issue our latest report
shortly.
At the outset, I would like to briefly highlight three
pressing transportation challenges that will require the
Department to work with Congress and other stakeholders to
identify policy solutions.
First, agree on a long-term solution on how to finance FAA.
The Congress has put in place a short-term FAA financing
measure that reflects the status quo, but a long-term
reauthorization is needed.
Second, achieve reform of intercity passenger rail.
Significant progress is unlikely without a new reauthorization
of Amtrak, one that addresses the critical questions of where
intercity passenger rail makes sense, what types of service
should be provided, how much it should cost, and who pays for
it.
Third, resolve the short- and long-term challenges related
to the Highway Trust Fund. The current surface transportation
authorization expires at the end of 2009, and DOT and the
Congress will need to determine funding levels and sources of
funding in light of the growing demand for Federal
infrastructure investments and escalating construction costs.
Now let me turn to the specific challenges that DOT needs
to address. We have assembled these issues along three cross-
cutting areas.
First, strengthen oversight to ensure surface safety and
make the most of the Federal investment in highway and transit
projects. There are five areas that need sustained management
focus.
One, ensure the safety of the Nation's tunnels. FHWA must
develop and implement a system to ensure that States inspect
and periodically report on tunnel conditions.
Two, improve oversight of the Nation's structurally
deficient bridges. Nearly 72,500 bridges across the Nation have
been designated as structurally deficient. As we testified last
month, Federal oversight of bridge inspections and funding for
bridge rehabilitation and replacement constitute one of the
most significant challenges facing DOT.
Three, carry out commitments to closely monitor Mexican
motor carriers allowed to operate throughout the United States
under the Department's demonstration project. Assuming the
demonstration continues, FMCSA must develop checks to ensure
that all drivers in the demonstration are properly licensed and
that all trucks have undergone a recent safety inspection.
Four, reduce highway project costs by promoting the use of
value engineering. States have foregone opportunities to
realize hundreds of millions of dollars in additional savings
that could have been reprogrammed to other transportation
projects. FHWA must improve its value engineering program to
strengthen oversight activities and disseminate best practices
to States.
And, finally in this area, provide vigilant oversight of
transit projects to control costs and schedules. FTA has
several massive infrastructure projects in various stages of
design or construction, and it will be challenged to ensure
that these projects stay within budget and on schedule.
Our second cross-cutting area is to enhance the safety of
the Nation's aviation system. Three issues here need
management's sustained focus.
One, take actions to improve runway safety. Reducing the
risk of runway incursions--that is, potential collisions on
airport surfaces--is a critical safety issue that requires
proactive and ongoing efforts on the part of FAA, airlines, and
airport operators.
Two, strengthen risk-based oversight system. In the past 9
years, FAA has made important progress in developing risk-based
approaches to safety oversight. However, to meet the demands of
an ever-evolving aviation industry, FAA must step up its
efforts to complete implementation of its air transportation
oversight system, to gather more complete data on the
facilities air carriers use to complete critical maintenance,
and to modify its risk-based system for manufacturers to
effectively respond to the growth in use of suppliers.
Finally, maintain a sufficient number of aviation safety
inspectors. The rapidly changing aviation environment makes it
imperative that FAA maintain a sufficient number of well-
trained inspectors in the right locations.
Our third cross-cutting area is to reduce airline delays
and meet anticipated demand for air travel, and address short-
and long-term challenges to operate, maintain, and modernize
the National Airspace System. Four areas need management's
sustained focus.
First, reduce delays and improve airline customer service.
These are urgent issues. During the first 7 months of 2007,
airlines' on-time performance was at the lowest percentage over
the last decade, with nearly 28 percent of flights delayed,
cancelled, or diverted. Secretary Peters is committed to
action, but there is no silver bullet to this problem. The
answer lies in a mix of solutions, including scheduling, air
traffic control modernization, and additional ground
infrastructure. Airlines and airports, likewise, must do their
part in the short term to effectively implement their customer
service plans, including contingency plans, especially when
there are extraordinary flight disruptions that cause
significant delays, cancellations, and diversions.
Two, hire and train a new controller workforce. Through
2016, FAA must hire and train over 15,000 new controllers as
controllers hired after the 1981 strike retire. FAA is making
progress, but further efforts are needed, particularly in terms
of reducing the time and costs associated with on-the-job
training, the longest and most expensive portion of new-
controller's training.
Three, reduce cost, schedule, and technical risks with
NextGen, the most complex, high-risk effort FAA has ever
undertaken. It will require multibillion-dollar investments by
the Government and airspace users. FAA needs to continue to
address complex engineering and integration issues, and develop
an effective human-factors program for controllers and pilots,
to ensure anticipated changes can be safely introduced.
And, four, keep existing modernization projects on track.
FAA's major acquisitions have a long history of cost growth and
schedule delays. These were a result of overly ambitious plans,
changing requirements, complex software development, and poor
contract oversight. FAA needs to prevent schedule slips, cost
growth, or performance shortfalls with ongoing projects, that
could delay much-needed NextGen capabilities for enhancing
capacity.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I'd be pleased
to answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scovel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and Members of the
Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the
challenges facing the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the
Nation's transportation system. I also want to express my appreciation
for the strong support that this Committee has shown for the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) and its mission.
As you know, we report annually on DOT's top management challenges
as required by Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. We
will issue our latest report on these issues in November.
This year, we will highlight nine challenges facing DOT across
multiple modes of transportation, including issues related to funding
and overseeing infrastructure projects; strengthening highway, rail,
and air safety; reducing congestion; and modernizing the National
Airspace System (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Fiscal Year 2008 Top Management Challenges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing To Enhance Oversight To
Ensure the Safety of an Aging
Surface Transportation
Infrastructure and Maximize the
Return on Investments in Highway
and Transit Infrastructure
Projects
Addressing Long- and Short-Term
Challenges for Operating,
Maintaining, and Modernizing the
National Airspace System
Developing a Plan To Address
Highway and Transit Funding Issues
in the Next Reauthorization
Reducing Congestion on America's
Transportation System
Improving Oversight and
Strengthening Enforcement of
Surface Safety Programs
Continuing To Make a Safe Aviation
System Safer
Strengthening the Protection of
Information Technology Resources,
Including the Critical Air Traffic
Control System
Managing Acquisition and Contract
Operations More Effectively To
Obtain Quality Goods and Services
at Reasonable Prices
Reforming Intercity Passenger Rail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary and her team have been responsive to the challenges
we have identified in the past. In fact, many of these are long-
standing priorities that are at the heart of DOT's mission. The
Department's Performance and Accountability Report also tracks progress
in addressing the issues that we have identified and shows whether
meaningful actions are underway to address them.
At the outset, I would like to briefly highlight several pressing
transportation challenges that will require the Department to work with
Congress and other stakeholders to identify policy solutions. They are:
Agreeing on a long-term solution on how to finance the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Several alternatives
have been proposed as to how to best fund FAA, including
imposing user fees, adjusting the existing excise tax
structure, and allowing the Agency to borrow for long-term
capital investments. The Congress has established a short-term
FAA financing measure that reflects the status quo, but a long-
term reauthorization is needed.
Achieving reform of intercity passenger rail. Significant
progress on reform is unlikely without a new reauthorization of
Amtrak. New reauthorization should address the critical
questions of where intercity passenger rail makes sense, what
types of service should be provided, how much it should cost,
and who should pay for it. DOT must continue to work with
Congress to improve the cost-effectiveness of Amtrak's
operations to free up funds for Amtrak's capital program within
the constrained Federal budget environment.
Resolving the short- and long-term challenges related to the
Highway Trust Fund. DOT and Congress must first decide how to
address Highway Trust Fund revenue shortfalls that may require
near-term reductions in Federal highway spending. The current
surface transportation authorization expires at the end of
2009, and DOT and Congress will need to determine funding
levels and sources of funding in light of the growing demand
for Federal infrastructure investments and escalating
construction costs.
Today, I would like to highlight the challenges facing DOT in the
areas of strengthening aviation and surface safety and getting the most
from our Federal transportation infrastructure dollars. We have
assembled these issues along three cross-cutting areas:
Strengthen oversight to ensure surface safety and make the
most of the Federal investment in highway and transit projects.
Enhance the safety of the Nation's aviation system.
Reduce airline delays, meet anticipated demand for air
travel, and address challenges for operating, maintaining, and
modernizing the National Airspace System.
Strengthen Oversight To Ensure Surface Safety and Make the Most of the
Federal Investment in Highway and Transit Projects
Recent fatal highway incidents highlight the need for the
Department to focus on ensuring the safety of the Nation's surface
transportation infrastructure, particularly for aging tunnels and
bridges needing costly rehabilitation, repair, or replacement.
Additionally, the recent decision to permit some Mexican carriers to
operate beyond the commercial zones along the border underscores the
need for the Department to provide vigilant oversight to ensure the
safety of the Nation's highways. The Department must also maximize the
Federal transportation investment by ensuring that highway and transit
projects are completed in a timely and cost-effective manner. This is
critical at a time when infrastructure needs are increasing and the
Nation's fiscal resources are struggling to meet growing demands.
Going forward, the Department will be challenged to balance the
need to provide funding for projects to repair or replace aging
infrastructures with funding for projects to reduce congestion with new
capacity. Accordingly, we have identified the following areas that need
continued management emphasis.
Ensuring the safety of the Nation's tunnels: In July 2006, a
motorist was killed by falling ceiling panels in a tunnel of the
Central/Artery Tunnel Project in Boston.\1\ The safety problems that
surfaced on this project call into question the oversight and quality
control processes for constructing and maintaining the Nation's highway
tunnels. Accordingly, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should
develop and implement a system to ensure that states inspect and report
on tunnel conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OIG Report Number MH-2007-063, ``Initial Assessment of the
Central Artery/Tunnel Project Stem To Stern Safety Review,'' August 16,
2007. OIG reports and testimonies are available on our website:
www.oig.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To begin addressing these problems, FHWA officials informed us that
they will issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking by December
2007 to seek input on the development of national tunnel inspection
standards. FHWA should move aggressively on this rulemaking and
establish rigorous inspection standards as soon as possible.
Improving oversight of the Nation's structurally deficient bridges:
In August 2007, 13 people were killed when the Interstate 35W Bridge in
Minneapolis, which spanned the Mississippi River, collapsed during the
evening rush hour. The National Transportation Safety Board is
investigating the cause of the collapse. This tragic incident
underscores the importance of vigilant oversight for structurally
deficient bridges (those that have major deterioration, cracks, or
other deficiencies in their structural components). Nearly 72,500
bridges across the Nation have been designated as ``structurally
deficient.'' As we testified last month, Federal oversight of bridge
inspections and funding for bridge rehabilitation and replacement
constitute significant challenges for DOT.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OIG Testimony Number CC-2007-095, ``Federal Highway
Administration's Oversight of Structurally Deficient Bridges,''
September 5, 2007.
Specifically, FHWA should sharpen its focus on developing a
data-driven, risk-based approach to bridge oversight to better
identify and target those structurally deficient bridges most
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in need of recalculation of load ratings and postings.
Further, FHWA must identify and implement a process to
determine the amount of Federal funds expended on structurally
deficient bridges.
Carrying out commitments to closely monitor Mexican motor carriers
allowed to operate throughout the United States under the Department's
demonstration project: On September 6, 2007, after responding to
Congress regarding our audit report issued that day, the Department
initiated a 1-year demonstration project to permit up to 100 Mexican
carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the United
States-Mexico border.\3\ Our report called on the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) to address the need for coordinated,
site-specific plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in
the demonstration project each time they cross the border into the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ OIG Report Number MH-2007-065, ``Issues Pertaining to the
Proposed NAFTA Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project,'' September
6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that future funding for the demonstration project is
approved and the project continues, FMCSA will need to coordinate with
the states and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to carry out the
plans for these checks. These checks must ensure that all Mexican
drivers participating in the demonstration project are properly
licensed and all trucks display a decal denoting a recent safety
inspection.
Reducing highway project costs by promoting the use of value
engineering: One way to more effectively use Federal highway funds is
to lower project costs by increasing value engineering (VE) usage. VE
is the systematic process of review and analysis of a project during
the concept and design phases. A multi-disciplined team of persons
independent of the project conducts the review. In our March 2007
report on FHWA's VE program, we found that states have missed
opportunities to realize hundreds of millions of dollars in additional
savings that could have been reprogrammed to other transportation
projects.\4\ FHWA should improve its VE program by strengthening
oversight and disseminating best practices to states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OIG Report Number MH-2007-040, ``Final Report on Value
Engineering in FHWA's Federal-Aid Highway Program,'' March 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing vigilant oversight of transit projects to control costs
and schedules: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has several
massive infrastructure projects in various stages of design or
construction. The Agency will be challenged to ensure that project
sponsors keep these projects within budget and on schedule. Vigilant
oversight of these projects will be particularly important as FTA
simultaneously continues its oversight of a large portfolio of other
transit projects across the country. For example, the magnitude of
ongoing major surface transportation projects in New York City, with an
estimated cost of over $16 billion (this includes about $8.48 billion
in Federal funds) warrants close FTA oversight to ensure that project
sponsors are exercising sound project and financial management.
Enhance the Safety of the Nation's Aviation System
Safety is FAA's highest priority. For more than 5 years, FAA and
the U.S. aviation industry have experienced one of the safest periods
in history--even though the industry has undergone dramatic changes.
However, the August 27, 2006, crash of Comair Flight 5191 (when pilots
attempted to take off from the wrong runway) serves as a reminder that
we must do more to make a safe system safer. We have identified the
following areas that need sustained focus.
Taking proactive actions to improve runway safety in light of
recent serious incidents: Reducing the risk of runway incursions
(potential collisions on airport surfaces) is a critical safety issue
that requires both proactive and ongoing efforts on the part of FAA,
airlines, and airport operators. As shown in Figure 2, the number of
runway incursions decreased from a high of 407 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2001
to a low of 323 in FY 2003. However, the number of runway incursions
has slowly increased since 2003, reaching a high of 371 in FY 2007--a
12-percent increase over FY 2006.
Serious runway incursions also continue to occur. For example, on
July 19, 2007, at Chicago O'Hare International Airport, a collision was
barely avoided when a United Airlines aircraft exited the wrong taxiway
and taxied directly underneath the path of an arriving U.S. Airways
aircraft. Although the controller instructed the U.S. Airways aircraft
to go around, it over-flew the nose of the United aircraft by 50 to 70
feet.
These incidents underscore the need for proactive efforts that are
both technological and programmatic in nature. A key technology for
reducing runway incursions is the Airport Surface Detection Equipment--
Model X (ASDE-X) program. FAA is developing ASDE-X to aid air traffic
controllers in preventing runway incursions.
Keeping this important technology on track is critical because
ASDE-X is currently at risk of not meeting its cost and schedule goals
to commission all 35 systems for $549.8 million by 2011.
When we testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee in
May,\5\ FAA had already expended about $288 million (52 percent of the
total ASDE-X planned funding) but had only deployed 8 of the 35
systems. Additionally, at the deployed sites, FAA had yet to implement
the planned capability to alert controllers of potential collisions on
intersecting runways and taxiways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OIG Testimony, CC-2007-054, ``FAA's FY 2008 Budget Request: Key
Issues Facing the Agency,'' May 10, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA also needs to take programmatic actions to reduce runway
incursions. In May, we reported \6\ that several national initiatives
for promoting runway safety (undertaken by FAA as early as 2000) have
waned as the number of incidents declined and FAA met its goals for
reducing runway incursions. Actions needed include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OIG Report Number AV-2007-050, ``Progress Has Been Made in
Reducing Runway Incursions, but Recent Incidents Underscore the Need
for Proactive Efforts,'' May 24, 2007.
Improving information sharing among users to identify root
causes of pilot deviations and communicate best practices to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reduce runway incursions.
Placing additional focus on controller human factors issues
and training to improve individual, team, and facility
performance.
Assigning greater authority and accountability at the
national level to ensure that runway safety remains a priority
for all FAA lines of business.
FAA has begun addressing these concerns. For example, FAA met with
airline and airport officials and agreed to a five-point, short-term
plan for improving runway safety. The plan's major focus includes
conducting safety reviews at airports where wrong runway departures and
runway incursions are the greatest concern, accelerating the deployment
of improved airport signage and markings at the top 75 airports ahead
of the June 2008 mandated deadline, and reviewing cockpit procedures
and air traffic clearance procedures. These efforts are clearly steps
in the right direction, but their success will depend on ensuring that
the current momentum continues and that runway safety remains a high
priority for all users of the National Airspace System.
Strengthening risk-based oversight systems for air carriers,
external repair facilities, and aircraft manufacturers: In the past 9
years, FAA has made important progress in developing risk-based
approaches to safety oversight of air carriers; aircraft manufacturers;
and, most recently, aircraft repair stations. According to recent data
provided by FAA, it has implemented the Air Transportation Oversight
System at 110 air carriers; however, 8 carriers still need to be
converted to the new system. FAA plans to complete this transition by
the end of calendar year 2007. In addition, ATOS requires the use of a
team of inspectors with specialized expertise, not only in technical
areas such as maintenance and electronics, but also in conducting risk
assessments. Based on information provided to us, FAA has not developed
a plan that details how this transition can be accomplished with the
Agency's limited inspector resources. FAA has indicated that it is
reconfiguring field offices to more efficiently use existing and newly
hired inspector resources in conjunction with the transition, but has
not fully addressed how it plans to ensure these inspectors have the
skills needed.
FAA needs to refine its safety oversight of aircraft repair
stations. For its new risk-based system to be effective, FAA must have
a sound process for determining where critical aircraft maintenance is
performed. FAA developed new inspector guidance and air carrier
processes to address this problem, but these efforts still fall short
of providing FAA with the information it needs. For example, FAA
developed a process for air carriers to report the top 10 critical
maintenance providers used each quarter, but this reporting is
voluntary; also, FAA inspectors are not required to validate the data
that air carriers submit.
Further, FAA's new risk-based system does not include a process for
overseeing critical repairs performed by non-certificated repair
facilities. In 2005, we reported that over 1,400 non-certificated
repair facilities were performing maintenance for U.S. air carriers and
that more than 100 of these facilities were located in foreign
countries.\7\ FAA's efforts to improve its oversight of non-
certificated repair facilities are still underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ OIG Report Number AV-2005-062, ``FAA Safety Oversight of an Air
Carrier Industry in Transition,'' June 3, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA will also need to modify its risk-based system for
manufacturers so that inspectors can more effectively oversee
manufacturing operations in today's complex aviation environment. The
new system was not designed to address the increasingly prominent role
that aircraft part and component suppliers now play in aviation. Rather
than build the majority of their aircraft within their own
manufacturing facilities using their own staff, manufacturers now have
large sections of their aircraft built by domestic and foreign part
suppliers. Therefore, FAA will also need to ensure that its risk-based
system includes an assessment of the number of suppliers manufacturers
now use.
Maintaining a sufficient number of inspectors: The rapidly changing
aviation environment makes it imperative for FAA to maintain a
sufficient number of inspectors in the right locations. FAA has
approximately 4,000 inspectors located in offices throughout the United
States and in other countries. These inspectors must oversee both
domestic and foreign aspects of air carriers' maintenance and
operations. FAA expects to hire approximately 287 aviation safety
inspectors in FY 2008. FAA also expects to lose approximately 200
aviation safety inspectors during the same period, which would result
in a net increase of 87 inspectors in FY 2008. FAA requested funding
for these 87 inspectors in FY 2008; this would be an increase over FY
2007 staffing levels. FAA faces an additional challenge with
approximately 48 percent of the inspector workforce eligible to retire
by 2012.
FAA must ensure that its inspectors are properly trained. Using
risk-based oversight systems is a foundational part of FAA's plan to
meet future oversight challenges, but it requires that inspectors be
skilled in risk analyses. Therefore, the Agency needs to improve its
hiring and training efforts if it is to maintain a sufficient number of
inspectors with the right skill set to oversee a dynamic aviation
industry.
Reduce Airline Delays, Meet Anticipated Demand for Air Travel, and
Address Challenges for Operating, Maintaining, and Modernizing
the National Airspace System
The Department is pursuing a national strategy to reduce congestion
across all modes of transportation. Congestion limits economic growth,
wastes fuel, and costs billions of dollars in lost productivity each
year. This will likely remain a prominent challenge for the Department
for some time, particularly with regard to air travel. We are seeing
record-breaking flight delays and cancellations, and forecasted air
travel demands will continue to strain system capacity. This year's
airline customer service issues drew national attention and underscored
the need for the Department's continued focus in this critical area.
While the Department has made progress on implementing a number of
congestion-related initiatives this past year, the strategy was
developed before this year's significant air travel problems. Reducing
aviation delays and customer dissatisfaction with air travel is the
most urgent congestion priority facing the Department. The Department
and FAA also face several challenges in operating and modernizing the
National Airspace System. This includes hiring and training a new air
traffic controller workforce, reducing risks associated with the Next
Generation Air Traffic Control System (NextGen), and ensuring that
current modernization projects remain on track.
Reducing delays and improving airline customer service while
meeting the anticipated demand for air travel: Reducing delays and
meeting the anticipated demand for air travel are urgent issues. The
National Airspace System is operating at the fringes of capacity, and
record-breaking flight delays and cancellations are leading to long,
on-board delays.
During the first 7 months of 2007, airlines' on-time performance
was at the lowest percentage over the last decade, with nearly 28
percent of flights delayed, canceled, or diverted. During the same
period, over 54,000 scheduled flights, affecting nearly 3.7 million
passengers, experienced tarmac delays of 1 to 5 hours or more (see
table). This is an increase of nearly 42 percent as compared to the
same period in 2006.
Table.--Number of Flights With Tarmac Delays of 1 to 5+ Hours
[January Through July of 2006 and 2007]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Period 2006 2007 % Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-2 Hrs. 33,438 47,558 42.23
2-3 Hrs. 3,781 5,213 37.87
3-4 Hrs. 710 1,025 44.37
4-5 Hrs. 120 189 57.50
5 or > Hrs. 27 44 62.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 38,076 54,029 41.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BTS data.
Consumer complaints are also rising. DOT's Air Travel Consumer
Reports disclosed that, for the first 7 months of 2007, complaints
relating to flight problems (delays, cancellations, and missed
connections) more than doubled, from 1,096 to 2,468, as compared to the
same period in 2006.
The Department should take a more active role in overseeing
customer service issues to ensure that airlines comply with their
policies involving flight problems. Secretary Peters is committed to
taking action, but there is no ``silver bullet'' solution to this
problem. We believe that a cumulative mix of solutions would help the
situation, including scheduling procedures, air traffic control
modernization, and additional ground infrastructure. Other solutions,
such as peak hour pricing, involve complex policy questions. It is also
important to remember that the traveling public will likely face
similar air travel problems in the spring and summer of 2008 and 2009
before they experience any real relief from capacity problems.
The airlines and airports must also do their part in the short term
to effectively implement their customer service plans--including
contingency plans--especially when their extraordinary flight
disruptions cause significant delays, cancellations, and diversions.
Hiring and training a new controller workforce: Through 2016, FAA
must hire and train over 15,000 new controllers as controllers hired
after the 1981 strike retire. In December 2004, FAA developed a
comprehensive workforce plan to address this challenge and issued the
first in a series of annual reports to Congress. FAA issued its first
update to the plan in June 2006 and the second in March 2007. In
February, we issued the results of our review of FAA's progress in
implementing its controller workforce plan.\8\ Overall, we found that
FAA continues to make progress in implementing a comprehensive staffing
plan to address the surge in retirements. However, further progress is
still needed in key areas. These include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OIG Report Number AV-2007-032, ``FAA Continues To Make Progress
in Implementing Its Controller Workforce Plan, but Further Efforts Are
Needed in Several Key Areas,'' February 9, 2007.
Completing validation of accurate facility-level staffing
standards. This is a critical component because FAA has over
300 air traffic facilities with significant differences in air
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
traffic levels and complexity.
Establishing baseline metrics to measure the effectiveness
of controller productivity initiatives. FAA must ensure that
reductions in staffing are a result of increased productivity
and not simply fewer controllers controlling more traffic.
Continuing efforts to reduce the time and costs associated
with on-the-job training. This is the longest and most
expensive portion of new controllers' training.
Reducing cost, schedule, and technical risks with NextGen: The
development and execution of NextGen is the most complex, high-risk
effort FAA has ever undertaken and will require multibillion-dollar
investments from the Government and airspace users. While costs for
developing and implementing NextGen remain uncertain, FAA expects to
spend $4.6 billion on NextGen initiatives between 2008 and 2012. The
bulk of these funds will be spent on developmental efforts and projects
such as the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Program--a
satellite-based system that allows aircraft to broadcast their position
to controllers and other properly equipped aircraft.
In our February 2007 report, we examined progress with FAA's Joint
Planning and Development Office,\9\ which is responsible for developing
a vision for NextGen, and highlighted needed actions. We recommended,
among other things, that FAA develop a strategy for obtaining the
necessary expertise to execute NextGen initiatives and review existing
modernization projects to determine required adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ OIG Report Number AV-2007-031, ``Joint Planning and Development
Office: Actions Needed To Reduce Risks With the Next Generation Air
Transportation System,'' February 12, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA has begun addressing our concerns. FAA must also continue to
address complex engineering and integration issues and develop an
effective human factors program (for controllers and pilots) to ensure
that anticipated changes can be safely introduced.
Keeping existing modernization projects on track: FAA's major
acquisitions have a long history of cost growth and schedule delays.
For example, two acquisitions, the Wide Area Augmentation System (a
satellite-based navigation system) and the Standard Terminal Automation
Replacement System (new software and hardware for controllers that
manage traffic in the vicinity of airports), have experienced cost
growth of over $4.2 billion since their inception. Problems with FAA
acquisitions are the result of overly ambitious plans, changing
requirements, complex software development, and poor contract
oversight.
It will be important to keep existing modernization projects on
track because about 30 of these are intended to serve as platforms for
NextGen. This includes the $2.1 billion En Route Automation
Modernization project to replace hardware and software for facilities
that manage high-altitude traffic. We note that the project is within
budget and on schedule to be deployed to Salt Lake Center in 2008.
While FAA has done a better job of managing acquisitions over the last
several years, some programs are still at risk of further cost growth,
schedule slips, or diminishing benefits. For example, the benefits
(expected cost savings) of the FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure
program (an effort to replace and consolidate all telecommunications
into a single system) have eroded as costs have increased and the
completion schedule has slipped. FAA needs to prevent schedule slips,
cost growth, and performance shortfalls with ongoing projects that
could delay NextGen capabilities needed to enhance capacity.
Enhancing air traffic control system security and continuity
planning: The President has designated air traffic control systems as
part of the Nation's critical infrastructure due to the important role
that commercial aviation plays in fostering and sustaining the economy
and ensuring citizens' safety and mobility. We previously reported
deficiencies in protecting this critical infrastructure in two areas:
(1) continuity planning to restore essential air traffic service in
case of prolonged service disruptions at en route centers and (2)
review of operational air traffic control services security outside of
the computer laboratory.
During FY 2007, under the Deputy Administrator's (now Acting
Administrator) direction, FAA undertook initiatives and made modest
progress in both areas, such as developing a concept of operations for
business continuity planning. However, these are multi-year efforts,
for which FAA still faces many uncertainties.
FAA also made progress during FY 2007 in reviewing air traffic
control systems in the field by developing a methodology to select
high-risk systems for testing. While this is a good initiative, we have
identified two areas requiring further attention.
First, there are about 100 systems used to direct air
traffic, none of which were reported as having a high-risk
impact. After this was brought to management's attention, the
Department's Chief Information Officer, the FAA Acting Deputy
Administrator, and the FAA Chief Information Officer all agreed
to collaborate with the Air Traffic Organization to ensure that
air traffic control systems are individually reviewed and
categorized in accordance with Government standards and
departmental policy, as a key priority for FY 2008.
Second, FAA needs to focus on identifying and preventing
unauthorized software changes made in air traffic control
systems to meet local (field site) operational needs. As
evidenced in our previous audit reports, such software changes
could inadvertently create vulnerabilities to air traffic
control operations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may
have at this time.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Mr. Scovel.
I'll be submitting a whole list of questions.
But, for this moment, on oversight, you've cited tunnels,
bridges--there are 7,000 of them--and Mexican motorists,
monitoring them. What is the estimated cost of carrying out
what you propose?
Mr. Scovel. Sir, with regard to the inspection of tunnels,
I don't have a cost figure with regard to that. Our
recommendation in this area arose from our study of the tunnel
ceiling collapse in the Big Dig Project in July of 2006, which,
as Senator Kerry mentioned, unfortunately killed a passenger in
the tunnel. We discovered, in the course of our review of that
event, and we recommended to FHWA, that it undertake a tunnel
inspection program. Frankly, we were surprised to discover, in
the course of reviewing the incident, that our country has no
tunnel inspection program. In light of what happened in Boston
and the age of many tunnels in this country, we thought that
would be prudent. We recommended it to FHWA. They will
implement it by the end of this year, as the Secretary
mentioned.
With regard to bridges, my understanding of the total cost
is that somewhere in the neighborhood upward of $60 billion
will be required to repair structurally deficient bridges.
There are 72,500 structurally deficient bridges in the country
right now. We have recommended an immediate plan for FHWA to
undertake, as Senator Kerry mentioned, our term, a ``risk-based
and data-driven'' approach to target its very limited inspector
resources on the most needy bridges.
The Chairman. How do you propose to finance this?
Mr. Scovel. Sir, I can't presume to speak for the
Department. I wish to make clear that our role is one of
inspection and independent and objective oversight, rather than
policymaking. We have, in addition to the short-term measures
that I know Senator Murray has introduced here in the Senate
and that Chairman Oberstar has introduced in the House, bridge
inspections and repairs necessarily need to be part of the
overall financing scheme to repair surface transportation in
this country. We've identified a number of alternatives, and,
as the Committee knows, two commissions are presently at work.
Secretary Peters chairs one of those, and it's due to report
out by the end of this year. But we've identified financing
alternatives, and we will leave it to policymakers to determine
the prudence of any one of those, or combination.
Certainly, there are exemptions, perhaps to--the fuel tax,
as the Committee knows. Those could conceivably be paid for
from the General Fund instead of the Highway Trust Fund. The
per-gallon fuel tax might be raised. It might be indexed to
inflation. It could be converted to a sales tax. User charges,
such as a per-container cargo fee, might be an option. Senator
Thune mentioned his bonding proposal, certainly that should be
on the table, as well as tolling and other innovative financing
techniques that the Department is looking at most
energetically. And, finally, mileage-based fees may be on the
table, although we believe that that would be a long-term
possibility, should the Administration and the Congress decide
to move in that direction.
The Chairman. Does the Administration have any
recommendations to make?
Mr. Scovel. I'm not aware of any at this time. I know
Secretary Peters is chairing the commission which is examining
a number of these alternatives, and we look forward to
reviewing them, as I know the Committee will, at the end of
this year, when it reports out.
The Chairman. On the matter of recommending monitoring
Mexican motorists, are you suggesting that we can't trust them?
Mr. Scovel. Can't trust Mexican drivers, sir? No, I don't
mean to suggest that at all. Our sustained focus for a number
of years now, ever since the proposal to honor our country's
agreement under NAFTA and institute a reciprocal trucking
arrangement with Mexico--our sustained focus has been on
oversight to make sure that that is done properly and safely. I
have a number of very capable staff, who, frankly, have made
their careers on this subject over the last 7 to 8 years.
With regard to the demonstration project, our immediate
concern has been the apparent absence, in the Department's
initial plans, for coordinated onsite plans to ensure that the
Department's promise, of ``every truck, every time'' to be
inspected, would be honored. We found, in our review over the
summer, that there were not coordinated onsite, site-specific
plans to accomplish that promise. We pointed that out to the
Department, they responded immediately and initiated the
demonstration project.
The Chairman. Runway safety, can you tell us what the
problems are?
Mr. Scovel. Sure. Mr. Chairman, a number of problems. And,
in fact, FAA has identified runway safety as its most pressing
immediate safety issue. As the Committee knows, aviation safety
has improved markedly over the last 5 years. However, runway
safety poses the greatest risk for tragic accidents; and, in
fact, the most costly accident, in terms of loss of life,
occurred between a collision of two jumbo jets some time ago--
not in this country, I should add. However, we have had a
number of--close calls, one in Chicago, one in San Francisco,
just this year, that, again, highlight the importance of runway
safety.
FAA is pinning a lot of its hopes in a system called ASDE-
X, which has great promise; however, in terms of management of
the contract to install ASDE-X, we have found problems with
FAA's performance. It's expended over 50 percent of the total,
it's obligated over 60 percent, yet only nine systems--eight
systems, in fact--and one has just recently been approved for
Chicago, so that might make nine systems of the 35--have
actually been installed, or will soon be installed.
The deadline--or the goal for installation of all 35
systems was to be 2011. I think, based on our review of the
project, we're hopeful, but we have to be realistically
skeptical, that FAA will be able to make it on time and on
budget.
To its credit--and my office always tries to be fair in
giving credit where credit is due--Bobby Sturgill, the Deputy--
former Deputy Administrator at FAA, currently Acting
Administrator--in August, convened a special Runway Safety Task
Force, and came up with a number of very short-term and
immediate actions that could be accomplished, having to do with
signage, marking, dissemination of best practices between
airports to ensure runway safety.
And I would also like to give credit to FAA for finally
making good on a point that we have emphasized for a number of
years, and that is, at the national level, at FAA headquarters
level, there seemed, to us, to be a lack of proper oversight.
The Runway Safety Office had lacked a permanent director for
over 3 years. That's recently been filled, we understand, and
we have hopes that runway safety will come back to the
forefront, in terms of proper FAA attention.
The Chairman. I've been advised that the most important
airspace in the United States is the New York/New Jersey one.
It's also the area that many of the problems originate, such as
delays and what have you. FAA just announced that final plans
for the redesign of this airspace is on its way. Are you
involved in this redesign?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're not involved in
the redesign. We have been watching it closely, because, in our
opinion, as you mentioned, New York City appears to be the
Gordian Knot of air traffic delays in this country. There is a
ripple effect from everything that happens or doesn't happen in
the New York area throughout the country.
Airspace redesign has the promise to be a key to cutting
that Gordian Knot. FAA estimates that 200,000 hours annually of
delay might be saved with proper airspace redesign. It has
exerted great energy in accomplishing airspace redesign in the
New York/Philadelphia/New Jersey area, where they're close. We
know FAA would like to move as fast as it possibly can. We're
aware of the possibility of litigation, and many folks on the
ground, particularly in areas of New Jersey, that might
experience jet noise for the first time, have objections to it,
and they may, indeed, bring suit.
But if the agency is successful in accomplishing air design
of the New York/New Jersey airspace, it will help. It is not a
silver bullet, but it will certainly help ease the congestion
and delays that result from all the traffic over the New York
area.
The Chairman. You said that you're not involved, but you
monitor. If you find anything wrong, would they take your
advice?
Mr. Scovel. With specific reference to airspace redesign,
sir?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Scovel. We have not found anything wrong. We've,
frankly, applauded their diligent efforts to move as fast as
they conceivably can, they believe they can, taking into
account the citizen objections to the new design.
The Chairman. About the 15,000 more air controllers?
Mr. Scovel. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How long will it take to train them?
Mr. Scovel. We have significant concerns in this area. As I
mentioned, and as the Committee knows, after the 1981 strike a
whole new controller workforce was hired. Many of those folks
are now eligible for retirement, and they are leaving. They
have left in larger numbers than FAA first estimated. However,
again, I'd like to give credit to FAA for doing a pretty good
job, in our estimation, of adjusting their plans to accommodate
the higher-than-expected retirement levels. FAA, again, has
also done a pretty good job of recruiting to fill the
vacancies. However, it's just that, that gives us concern.
There is a large number, now, of developmental air traffic
controllers. And that's the proper term that the agency uses
when it talks about these new-hires. I have some recent updated
numbers, just this morning. FAA--these are end of Fiscal Year
2007 numbers--FAA projected 700 retirements, the actual
retirements were 128 over that projection. Again, we think FAA
made a pretty good stab at quickly adjusting to that. FAA
projected 1,197 total losses; actual losses were 362 over that
projection. FAA planned to hire 1,386 new controllers in Fiscal
Year 2007, but actually hired 1,815. That was 429 above the
planned number. So, again, our credit to FAA for reacting
quickly.
However, this strengthens the case about the flood of
developmental controllers that now need to be trained. All of
these people who have been hired to fill those vacancies need
to go through the Air Traffic Controller Academy in Oklahoma
City, then they are sent out to the field to air traffic
control facilities, where their training, frankly, is a very
labor-intensive and time-intensive process. They are not fully
up yet--the newly hired employee--and a fully experienced air
traffic controller really must sit at their elbow in order to
educate them on processes and procedures for an extended period
of time. That ties down manpower within the facility.
We have recommended to FAA that it take steps to examine
and improve that training process so that it can get more
productivity from all its controllers.
The Chairman. If I hear you correctly, you're predicting
that we'll have more disasters or more delays. Is that correct?
Mr. Scovel. I have to be a realist. When you say
``disasters,'' I don't mean to try to predict that we are going
to have loss of life. What we will certainly have is great
dissatisfaction when the delays, that I do think are
inevitable, simply because--for one reason, we're approaching
the winter travel season--those delays are inevitable, and we
will have passengers stranded on the tarmac again for long
periods of time. And, because some of the air carriers have
been slow in properly designing and testing their passenger
care plans and their contingency plans, the carriers won't be
able to respond in good fashion.
The Chairman. If you had a very important engagement in New
York City next Saturday--not this coming Saturday--would you
take Amtrak or take a flight?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Scovel. I'd look very closely at Amtrak, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, I have ridden Amtrak between Washington and New York
on business during the week. I do a fair amount of traveling in
this job, much of it by air, and I've been delayed on virtually
every single trip, to some extent or another.
I think, for short-segmented travel, like between
Washington and New York, here in the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak
is a viable option.
The Chairman. The record of the Committee will be held open
for 3 more weeks, and if you wish, Mr. Inspector General--want
to change your testimony or add, you're free to do so. I will
be submitting questions to you, and I expect other members to
do the same. I hope you'll respond to them.
Mr. Scovel. I welcome your questions, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your attendance.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Sierra Club--National Parks and Monuments Committee
October 21, 2007
To: U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Re: Oversight Hearing on the Dept. of Transportation (Oct. 18,
2007)
The Sierra Club, with its 840,000 members nationwide, wishes to
comment for this Oversight Hearing on two current areas of concern
concerning the Department of Transportation and its Federal Aviation
Administration, re the failure to provide due-diligence,
straightforward, timely implementation, of either
1. The National Parks Air Tour Management Act (enacted April 5,
2000)
2. The proposed Aviation Noise Abatement Policy (issued by FAA
July 14, 2000 in a Federal Register Notice for Comment)
The National Parks Overflights Act of 2000 (NPATMA)
Congress had intended this legislation, within 2 years of its
original enactment, to prevent significant adverse impacts of air tour
noise on units of the National Park system, which were and still are
barraged by noisy helicopter and fixed-wing, low-level air touring
enterprises subject to management by the FAA.
This intent has been unacceptably delayed and frustrated.
The way Congress intended relief was to have the Park Service (NPS)
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) jointly develop air tour
management plans for national parks--though excluding those in Alaska,
and Rocky Mountain National Park and Grand Canyon National Park.
Unfortunately, not a single air tour management plan has been completed
well more than 7 years since the passage of the Act. Among other
factors, this has mainly been the result of FAA's consistently
challenging the authority of the Park Service, especially re the
significance of noise impacts from air tours on national parks.
Sierra Club believes that Congress should clarify the intent of the
NPATMA by making it explicit that the Park Service has the unimpeded,
sole authority to determine the significance of noise impacts on the
parks, while the FAA has the authority to ensure airspace safety. With
this clarification, the Park Service will have the clear authority it
needs to make progress in better protecting natural sounds and quiet in
the Parks.
Sierra Club also believes that Congress should stipulate additional
measures which FAA could have undertaken years ago under NPATMA, and
failed to do so, again by not exercising due diligence. These were the
subject of two recent General Accountability Office (GAO) reports. In
fact, specifics from these two reports have informed certain sections
in the pending FAA Reauthorization Act from either House.
If appropriately managed, air tours provide a unique way for a
reasonably controlled number of park visitors to experience some,
though not necessarily all, of America's parks. However, we believe it
is unfair for air tours and their noise to continue detracting from the
experience of other visitors.
FAA has not exercised the overall due-diligence required, and
otherwise has obstructed the progress which Congress intended. As an
unfortunate result, the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group
learned in June 2007, that (1) no air tour management plan (ATMP) was
near completion; and (2) that of $32 million earmarked for air tour
management, only $9 million had been spent, and that if there were no
ATMP's soon, the remainder would have to be returned to the U.S.
Treasury unspent.
The senior NPS representative at that June 2007 NPOAG meeting
deplored the situation, and said that the viability of this DOT program
could be seriously questioned without a single ATMP having been put in
place. The September 2007 meeting of the NPOAG heard this sad story
repeated, with the reasons for it essentially unchanged. After October
1 of next year, many millions of dollars, intended for national parks
protection from adverse air tour impacts, will increasingly return to
the Treasury unspent, unless the impasse between the agencies (largely
created by FAA's negligence, lack of due-diligence, and/or
obstructionism) is resolved.
FAA Proposed Noise Abatement Policy of 2000
The FAA has apparently abandoned its efforts to produce a revision
of its Noise Abatement Policy of 1976.\1\ It was improper, furthermore,
that the FAA made no disclosure of said abandonment to a thereby blind-
sided, concerned public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wyle Noise Bulletin #53--``FAA's Aviation Noise Abatement
Policy'' (Oct. 10, 2007--Wyle Laboratories, Inc., Arlington, VA),
available at http://www.wylelabs.com/content/global/documents/
FAA1976NoisePolicy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Three months after the FY 2000 enactment of the NPATMA, the FAA
issued its proposed ``Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000.'' The
Secretary of Transportation thereby published a departmental policy
statement, which included as Goal 5, ``to provide specific
consideration to locations in national parks and other Federally
managed areas having unique noise sensitivities.''
This was then translated to proposed ``Policy Element 6: Areas with
Unique Noise Sensitivities'', (discussed at length [see FR 43811]
within the subject announcement.)
This element had been a long-standing concern. This policy element
section had appeared within ``FAA's Noise Policy for Management of
Airspace over federally Managed Areas'', issued Nov. 8, 1996, by FAA
Administrator David R. Hinson. The FAA in 2000 reasserted through
Policy Element 6, a need/intention to focus, ``to identify the extent
to which low-level noise . . . may adversely impact areas with unique
noise sensitivities.''
Elsewhere in the same Federal Register 2000 notice, the FAA said in
``Section 4: Assessing Aviation Noise'', that it wanted to accomplish
such identification, ``in the vicinity of national parks in pristine
areas, and land uses such as wildlife refuges.'' (FR at 43821)
However, FAA's recent abandonment of the 2000 draft Noise Abatement
Policy, after all the public comment \2\ it provoked (See Docket FAA-
2000-30109), is unacceptable and incomprehensible. To thereby return
the Nation to an outdated, 40-odd year old noise policy is unworthy of
the Department of Transportation, and counter-productive to FAA's own
stated NextGen goals of a 3x increase in airspace capacity by 2025.
Aviation growth of such magnitude cannot occur without a properly
updated Noise Abatement policy. This would include metrics, parameters,
and thresholds more meaningful/acceptable to the general public, such
as recently developed by the Commonwealth of Australia.\3\ The
Australian document confirms the views of many acoustic specialists in
the U.S., that single-event metrics \4\ and the disclosure of
``respite'' intervals are especially needed and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, ``The Failure of America's
Aviation Noise Abatement Policy'', by Les Blomberg and James Sharp,
2002.
\3\ ``Guidance Material for Selecting and Providing Aircraft Noise
Information'', Commonwealth of Australia, 2003, at http://
www.dotars.gov.au/aviation/environmental/transparent_noise/pdf/
GuidanceMaterial.pdf.
\4\ ``What's In Your DNL?'' by William Albee, Tom Connor, Royce
Bassarab, Roger Odegard, and Clint Morrow, Oct. 2006, at http://
www.wylelabs.com/content/global/documents/dnl.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Questions: Was this 2000 Noise Abatement Policy abandonment
accepted by any Secretary of Transportation within the past 7 years,
and if so, by which one(s) and why? Was the interested public informed
of such abandonment, and how? How does FAA now intend to inform the
public, and promulgate a comprehensive noise abatement policy?
The many hundreds of commentators on the Draft Policy and FAA
Docket, and the Congress itself, deserve a full explanation. The Sierra
Club was one of those commenters (comment of October 21, 2000, on
``Draft 2000 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy.)
To make it clear to the Committee the problems at issue (since FAA
has suppressed them to date, without response and without a policy), we
are enclosing a copy of our October 21, 2000 official comment for the
Docket, now exactly 7 years after its original submission.
Conclusions
The implications for national parks' aviation noise assessment and
aviation noise mitigation generally, remain serious, as seen both from
1. FAA's obstinacy and/or stalling with the NPATMA; and
2. FAA's failure to achieve--or even offer--a cooperative
policy outcome, congruent with NPS, re national parks noise
assessment.
The result is no air tour management plan for any park, now heading
toward 8 years after the NPATMA, thus threatening the future viability
of the entire air tour management program for national parks.
Elapse of so much time on both these matters confirms that the Park
Service now ought to be legislatively assigned sole authority to
determine the significance of noise impacts on the Parks.
The Sierra Club appreciates the time of Committee staff and members
in undertaking to evaluate and correct this situation. We will respond
willingly to further inquiry as needed.
Sincerely,
Dickson J. Hingson, Ph.D.
Also attached: Sierra Club's Oct. 21, 2000 comment on FAA's Draft
Noise Abatement Policy
Sierra Club
San Francisco, CA, October 21, 2000
Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attention Rules Docket (ACG-200), Docket No. 30109,
Washington, DC.
Re: Draft 2000 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy: Sierra Club Comment
The Sierra Club, on behalf of our 650,000 members, welcomes this
comment opportunity on FAA's proposed Draft Noise Abatement Policy. We
are particularly interested in Goal 5 and Element 6 as to locations in
national parks and other federally managed, protected areas having
unique noise sensitivities.
The focus of many of our comments is on units managed by the
National Park Service. However, the following statements, and some of
our comments, apply also to the broader range of ``preserves'', i.e.,
those federally managed, protected areas thus bearing unique noise
sensitivities. Please note, however, that the Statement which follows
our Background Principles below is concerned specifically with scenic
air tours.
Background Principles of Sierra Club re Natural Quiet
I. The sounds and silences of nature are among the intrinsic
elements which combine to form the natural environment. Natural sounds
amidst intervals of stillness are inherent components of the ``scenery
and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife'' within National
Monuments, and units of the National Park System and National
Wilderness Preservation System (all hereinafter called preserves.)
II. Natural quiet is the extended opportunity to experience only
natural sounds amid periods of deepest silence. The quiet to be
preserved or restored is as defined by the National Park Service as
``the quiet at the lower end of the ambient sound level range that
occurs regularly between wind gusts, animal sounds, etc., not just the
average sound level.'' As the Park Service explains, ``Lulls in the
wind or interludes between animal sounds create intervals where the
quiet of a sylvan setting is quite striking. In considering natural
quiet as a resource, the ability to hear clearly the delicate and
quieter intermittent sounds of nature, the ability to experience
interludes of extreme quiet for their own sake, and the opportunity to
do so for extended periods of time (are) what natural quiet is all
about.''
III. Many of these preserves are vast, open places of astonishing
beauty and wilderness. Each preserve area has a distinct and powerful
aura, fully dependent upon the tenuous natural sounds and natural
quiet. As such, these areas afford unique opportunities for
undistracted respite, solitude, contemplative recreation, inspiration,
and education. Further, these units also provide scarce refuge and
undisturbed natural habitat for animals. Artificial, human-generated
noise can disturb some sensitive animal activities. Therefore, noisy
overflights which disturb the peace are not normally appropriate in our
preserves.
Reference: National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior,
Report to Congress on Effects of Aircraft Overflights, 1994.
Statement Concerning Scenic Air Tours
I. The Sierra Club supports management tools and methods to
diminish or eliminate impacts from aircraft tours and landings
(including bans of tours and landings wherever and whenever
appropriate) upon National Monuments and units of the National Park
System and National Wilderness Preservation System (all hereinafter
called preserves.)
II. A goal of agency managers should be to preserve and, where
impacted, fully restore the natural quiet within their individual
preserve and to address this issue in the preserve's general management
plan.
III. Key Statement:
a. Appropriate Control and Management:
The Sierra Club believes that, to be the most appropriate and
effective, control over air tour use of airspace above
preserves should entirely rest with the respective land
management agencies (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.) These are the agencies which are in position to
understand the preserves most intimately, and which are charged
to provide them the fullest possible resource protection.
b. External Sources of Noise:
The managing agency should work with responsible parties to
reduce or eliminate air tours or landings outside a preserve,
if needed to restore natural quiet within the unit. Federal
managers of adjoining preserves should coordinate their
management planning efforts.
c. Monitoring:
The Sierra Club supports the establishment of appropriate noise
standards and comprehensive baseline sound level monitoring and
sound source inventories of all preserves. This includes
continual assessment of noise from all human-generated sources
and incorporation of public comments about noise impacts.
The foregoing Sierra Club Background Principles and Statement
re Air Tours Over Preserves admittedly is significantly at odds
with FAA's past insistence on ``exerting (FAA) leadership'' in
`balancing' the interest of the general public and/or aviation
transportation versus ``the need to protect certain natural
environments from the impact of aviation noise.'' (Reference:
FAA 1996 Noise Policy for Management of Airspace Over Federally
Managed Areas, issued Nov. 8, 1996.)
The historical record is this: FAA' sense of ``balance'' or
``leadership'' in such matters has inevitably resulted in protracted,
legalistic delays, litigation, and inappropriate tour aircraft noise
derogation of premier preserves, such as at the Grand Canyon. This
stems from its industry-promoting organizational culture, above all.
FAA has historically failed--time and again--to truly protect the
natural preserves from the increasing impact of tour aviation noise.
(See Statement of The Wilderness Society, re this same Docket.) The
Sierra Club thus agrees with The Wilderness Society that FAA should
relinquish its felt need to pursue this sort of ``balancing'' insofar
as the environmental protection and assessment needs of natural
preserves is concerned. The FAA should instead, at the earliest
possible opportunity, cede control of environmental assessment,
standards, and criteria, and related NEPA process-control, etc.)
insofar as regulation of air tours in noise-sensitive airspace, i.e.,
preserves, is concerned. This may require FAA support for amending
present law as well as administrative procedure. The FAA would retain a
constructive consultative role, particularly with regards to various
airspace efficiency and safety matters.
A beneficial aspect of this change, from the FAA perspective, might
be a welcome lightening of its ever-increasing responsibilities
(becoming nearly impossible; see recent mass media coverage re summer
airport gridlock and radar failures, etc.) FAA would no longer be
beleaguered with convoluted NEPA leadership and public-process
responsibility for the preserves re air tours. Its role there would be
consultative, and re-focused on safety and efficiency. FAA solicitors
would also shed some of the enormous burdens of litigation which they
now carry. FAA would no longer bear the heavy burden of extensive
scientific noise modeling and baseline noise research involving
preserves. This consumes so much staff time and fiscal resources. That
duty would devolve more properly to NPS (or other land agency), perhaps
in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency.
FAA could then focus its concerns of ``balancing'' airspace
efficiency and technical practicability and environmental sensitivity
on air tours and other aviation noise over ``non-preserve'' areas.
These still represent the vast majority of the agency's airspace
management responsibility. They present--in themselves--more than
enough, ever-increasing headaches in ``balancing.''
The Sierra Club says all this because, historically, the FAA has
ignored Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act, generally preferring
end runs around it. It likewise has repeatedly ignored the first three
``bulleted'' items in its own Nov. 1996 ``Noise Policy for Management
of Airspace over Federally Managed Areas.''
Illustrative recent examples of FAA neglect of that policy's public
participation, communication, and ``consult actively'' requirements are
1. Zion National Park (Utah)
The inadequate and misleading draft Supplemental Noise Analysis
(June 2000) (re Zion National Park) for the St. George (Utah)
Replacement Airport was produced despite FAA ``oversight.'' It
is likely the Noise Analysis will have to be entirely redone.
Section 4(f) of the DOT Act likewise still remains
insufficiently addressed by FAA at Zion, in terms of this
project (For documentation, contact, Marty Ott, Superintendent)
2. Saddle Mountain Wilderness Area (Arizona)
FAA has failed to consult with USFS re this Wilderness, or
designate the area as ``noise-sensitive'' in response to the
USFS' request of 3 years ago, as protection against the
imminent derogation impacts of Grand Canyon air-touring upon
said Wilderness. It also neglected its NEPA responsibilities in
this regard. (For documentation, contact John Neeling,
Wilderness Manager for this unit at North Kaibab National
Forest, Fredonia, AZ)
3. Bryce Canyon and Grand Canyon National Parks
Noisy helicopter and propeller low-level touring has grossly
exceeded levels consistent with Sec. 4(f) of the DOT Act or
with the National Park Organic Act, or with the spirit and
intent of the 1987 Overflights Act (P.L. 100-91) and 1964
Wilderness Act. (For documentation, contact Fred Fagergren,
Superintendent, Bryce Canyon National Park, or Ken Weber at
Grand Canyon National Park)
In all of the specific instances cited, requisite FAA
consultation has, in our view, been either lacking,
insufficient, perfunctory, or otherwise not genuinely
comprehensive, responsive or timely.
The Sierra Club statement on air tours (above) provides some
further guidance which now may be applied to this next
(following) FAA statement, from the current policy draft.
FAA Statement:
``A primary focus for FAA is to identify the extent to which low-
level noise . . . may adversely impact areas with unique noise
sensitivities. At present, no scientifically verified, predictable
criteria have been established.'' We respond to this in three ways:
1. Sierra Club's introductory Statement on Air Tours (Sec. II-
(a) suggests rather, that FAA's more appropriate role would
instead support NPS (or USFS Wilderness Managers, etc.)
authority in making this identification and establishing
criteria for assessing low-level noise impacts. (This would
include establishing particularly stringent criteria for
helicopters, which FAA acknowledges are perceived by the
general public as more significantly annoying than other
aircraft operating at the equivalent decibel level.)
2. NPS policy prohibits the derogation of Park resources. Until
such time as criteria are established, there exists the
continuing derogation of Park resources by various low-level
air tour impacts. Therefore the current level of use should be
made static (i.e., capped) for 3 years (providing enough time
for NPS to develop criteria.) If new criteria are not
established in 3 years, then the level for existing tours
should be decreased 10 percent each year (based on the rate of
use at the trigger year), to a level not to exceed 10 percent
of use at the three-year trigger date.
3. The Sierra Club Statement thus means that in the creation of
comprehensive noise management plans, low-level scenic tour
aviation generally should adhere to NPS' definition of natural
quiet, and to NPS' legitimate mission to fully protect or
restore it. The standard for natural quiet should be based on
audibility and not noticeability standards for both tour and
commercial jet aircraft, and for general aviation.
FAA Statement:
``One of the cornerstones of the FAA's Year 2000 aviation noise
abatement policy is the continuation of aircraft source-noise
reduction.''
Sierra Club Comment:
1. The FAA should make use of best available technology such as
Global Positioning Systems to create flight corridors that
avoid areas with unique noise sensitivities. It is likely that
many commercial flight corridors over sensitive areas in use
today are done so out of precedent and not necessity.
2. The FAA should commit to establishing quiet technology
standards for aircraft under 75,000 pounds, as well as Stage IV
standards for larger aircraft. Quiet technology should address
not only reduction of high pitched engine noise, but also
deeper pitched low frequency noise.
Further Comment re Commercial Jet (High Altitude) Aviation
The Sierra Club's prefatory (italicized) Statement re Air Tours did
not specifically address the regulation of high-altitude commercial
jets traveling longer, point-to-point distances over Parks and
Wilderness units.
However, it is becoming obvious that growing jet traffic is
providing increasingly significant, frequent, and distracting noise
impacts over otherwise pristinely quiet National Park and designated
Wilderness units.
The nation's airspace efficiency needs obviously make it impossible
to route commercial transportation aircraft around so many Park and
Wilderness units as now (or may in the future) exist. However, the FAA
in consultation with the Park Service or other land agency could
designate a few national parks, and a few national Wilderness
preservation units as priorities for restriction from at least the bulk
of this traffic noise, at least for some critical period of the day
(e.g., sunset and evening hours.) A short (illustrative only) list of
premier, particularly vulnerable national parks to be so designated
might then be
Grand Canyon
Zion
Bryce
Yosemite
Rocky Mountain
(Four of these five are taken from the ``short lists'' of NPS
priority parks for aviation noise concerns, found in Sec. 10.3.4.1 and
Sec. 10.3.4.2 of the 1994 NPS Report to Congress on Aircraft
Overflights.) This author previously made similar suggestions in his
individual comments on FAA's Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking on
this subject, issued March 17, 1994. Six years later, the need for
relief and respite in at least a few parks is even more apropos as the
projected amount of commercial jet traffic--thus noise intrusions--is
steadily increasing.
A ``short list'' of a few wilderness units might be similarly drawn
up for special protection and mitigation.
The Sierra Club urges the FAA, in consultation with the NPS or
appropriate land-based agency managers, to so designate those few
national parks and designated wilderness areas as places for special
mitigation. The deference to the ``power of place'' of these special
places would certainly represent a welcome maturation of our
environmental consciousness and national pride in protecting them.
Affected transcontinental jet routes would thus be lengthened by
only a few miles, in most cases. For example, the existing commercial
east-west jet traffic routes could be ``bowed'' (slightly bent) 10
miles to either the north or to the south of the Grand Canyon National
Park's boundaries, with only minuscule additions to total flight
mileages. This is not a new concept to FAA; it does this sort of
accommodation all the time with respect to Military Special Use areas.
Conclusion
Visitors to our national parks and wilderness areas have a right to
experience the entire natural environment, including the soundscape,
unimpaired. Within units of the National Park System, natural quiet--
the extended opportunity to experience simple natural sounds amid
periods of deepest silence--must be preserved for the enjoyment and
inspiration of present and future generations. The FAA has an
obligation to reduce and even eliminate intrusions on the experience of
natural quiet. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed
Noise Abatement Policy 2000.
Sincerely,
Dickson J. Hingson, Ph.D.,
Chair, Subcommittee on Noise/Aviation,
Sierra Club--Recreation Issues Committee.
Commenter's Mailing Address: (original shows former address in
Rockville, UT).
Sierra Club--Headquarters Mailing Address: 85 Second Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. In your testimony, you discussed the need to
drastically overhaul the Federal transportation financing system in
order to increase the system's alignment with sound economics. How
would the Federal safety programs that are funded through the current
trust funds fit into this new paradigm? How do we fairly apportion the
safety risks among the system's users?
Answer. As I've emphasized since becoming Secretary of
Transportation, safety is the number one job of the Department.
Programs such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) play a
critical role in enabling States to plan, implement, and evaluate
safety projects, and I strongly support Congress's actions to
incentivize States to develop strategic highway safety plans (SHSPs) as
part of the HSIP. In fact, SHSPs actually include many of the
attributes that we would be well served to incorporate elsewhere in our
transportation decision-making processes. Within an SHSP, States must
set performance-based goals, and must focus their resources on the
areas of the greatest need. They must track progress toward their
performance goals, and must evaluate the results of safety projects
after their completion. SHSPs, unlike most of our surface
transportation funding programs, focus on performance and
accountability.
Regarding financing, I would anticipate that we would continue to
fund Federal safety programs in the surface sector through the Highway
Trust Fund, at least in the short term. As States transition to
alternative financing mechanisms, they could dedicate some portion of
new transportation revenues to safety expenditures. The transportation
reforms that I have called for would not reduce the amount of funding
for safety programs. They would simply--and over time--more closely
align the sources and amounts of funding with the costs that users
impose on the system.
In terms of apportioning safety responsibilities among system
participants, I believe the ``Next Generation Air Transportation System
Financing Reform Act of 2007'' transmitted to Congress in February 2007
serves as a model for maintaining safety roles set forth by law while
financing these activities with true user fees. Under our proposal, the
Federal Aviation Administration would retain its safety role, with
continuation of the current contribution from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund to safety operations. The only change in this area would be
that receipts to the Trust Fund would come from user fees, not excise
taxes. Our proposal is shaped to leave safety responsibilities
undisturbed.
Question 2. In your response to a question last year during your
confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, you pledged
to make truck safety one of the Department's top priorities and
committed to ensuring that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) aggressively implements truck safety
legislation. Truck fatalities rose from 2004 to 2005, increasing from
5,190 to 5,226. Has the Department been able to reverse this trend?
Answer. Safety is the Department of Transportation's top priority
and our efforts have produced results. The large truck fatal crash rate
per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for 2006 is at its lowest
rate, 1.94 fatal crashes per 100 million large truck VMT, since the
Department began tracking these figures 30 years ago. We are committed
to reducing the fatality rate even further.
Based upon a review of data from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS),
between 1997 and 2006, fatalities from large truck and bus crashes have
declined 7 percent from 5,709 in 1997 to 5,309 in 2006. Looking
specifically at large truck fatalities and excluding fatalities
associated with buses, from 2004 to 2005, truck-related fatalities
decreased from 5,235 to 5,212. The number of fatalities decreased
further in 2006 to 4,995 truck-related fatalities, a 4.7 percent
reduction over 2005. Relying on the FARS data, we are unable to account
for the specific statistics cited in the question.
One of the most important ways we could reduce truck-related
fatalities further is to increase safety belt usage of drivers of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Specifically, of the 805 large truck
occupant fatalities in 2006, 393 (49 percent) were not wearing their
safety belts. Of these 393 fatalities, 134 were ejected completely from
their vehicle. Many of these fatalities could have been avoided had the
large truck occupants been wearing their safety belts. Through focused
efforts in the last 2 years, we have seen safety belt use increase from
48 percent to 59 percent. You may rest assured that the Agency will
continue its efforts to raise the level of safety belt use.
Another way to bring the fatality numbers down further is the use
of technologies such as electronic and roll stability control systems,
lane departure warning systems, and forward collision warning systems.
The industry is starting to adopt these technologies at a faster pace.
FMCSA continues to promote and evaluate these technologies. We intend
to make the adoption of these technologies a part of our enforcement
regime through settlement agreements when carriers have failed to
demonstrate safety performance in their operations.
Question 3. Your Department has received the dubious distinction of
having its truck driver hours-of-service rules struck down by the
courts twice in a row. I'm deeply concerned by the Department's failure
to craft a rule that will clearly increase truck safety and meet the
requirements of law. What action is the Department going to take to
comply with the court's decision and how will this action improve truck
safety?
Answer. The Department has issued an interim final rule (IFR) that
addresses the court's concerns by thoroughly explaining the safety
basis for the rule and by giving ample opportunity for public comment
so that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) can
develop a new final rule in the coming year. The IFR keeps in place on
a temporary basis the 2 hours-of-service provisions set aside by the
court while FMCSA conducts its new rulemaking, thereby avoiding the
disruption in enforcement and compliance efforts that would result from
an immediate, short-term reversion to the pre-2003 requirements.
Question 4. The 9/11 Act requires significant levels of cooperation
and coordination between the TSA and the DOT in order to enhance
security while improving efficiency and the use of Department
resources. Can you describe the efforts that your agency is taking to
strengthen your relationship with DHS? Specifically, please describe
the progress required by Section 1541 of H.R. 1, the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, to develop an annex
for truck security to the existing Memorandum of Understanding between
the Departments for transportation security, as well as coordination
efforts on the awarding, distribution, and oversight of grants.
Answer. To strengthen the DOT-DHS relationship, Secretaries
Chertoff and I, along with other high-level officials, continue to meet
regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest. Effective October 11,
2007, we entered an important Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on
roles and responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response
activities.
On the 9/11 Act (the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007''), DOT and DHS, including TSA, have formed an
inter-agency working group to ensure both Departments coordinate and
cooperate in implementing the actions required by the Act. The group
holds meetings and conference calls and has agreed to coordinate draft
documents and reports between the Departments.
On the annex for truck security to the 2004 MOU between the
Departments, staff of DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
and DHS's TSA have been meeting regularly to discuss assignments under
the 9/11 Act and other subjects where the two agencies interact. These
discussions address subjects that in many cases we expect to cover in
the annex, which is due no later than August 3, 2008, under the terms
of the 9/11 Act. On coordination efforts on grants, the two agencies
continue to work cooperatively, with DHS serving as the agency with
primary jurisdiction for transportation security.
Question 5. Are you getting the cooperation you need from Secretary
Chertoff?
Answer. Yes, DHS leadership has been wholeheartedly supportive in
these efforts.
Question 6. The 9/11 bill significantly enhances whistleblower
protections for non-Federal railroad, public transportation, and motor
carrier employees that report safety and security violations or refuse
to work in hazardous conditions. What is the Department's plan for
administering the new provisions and ensuring that protected employees'
identities are adequately shielded from improper disclosure?
Answer. The Department has a Legislative Implementation Plan
underway for the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007'' (the Act), and the new whistleblower protections for
surface-transportation modes are included. We are currently working
with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the
Department of Labor and with the Transportation Security Administration
to implement this aspect of the Act in a manner that prevents improper
disclosure of employee identities.
Question 7. What specific steps is the FAA taking to address
congestion and delay in the short term?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary and the Federal Aviation
Administration are meeting regularly with the airline industry and
aviation officials from the most over-stressed part of our system--the
New York metro airspace--to develop a plan to alleviate congestion and
reduce delays, along with steps implemented to address the short term.
As you know, for the Thanksgiving holiday, the President announced the
U.S. military would make some of its airspace available for use by
civilian airlines to keep the air travel system running at full
capacity. Also, the FAA imposed a holiday moratorium on maintenance
projects that were not time-sensitive so all FAA equipment and
personnel could focus on keeping flights on time. With our
encouragement, many airlines had extra staff and airplanes available to
expedite check-in and help accommodate passengers affected by
cancellations and delays.
We are working to address the symptoms of aviation delays while at
the same time moving to correct the causes of those delays. In the
short term we are getting travelers better information about flight
delays, investigating airlines that have chronically delayed flights,
and considering stronger consumer protections, such as boosting the fee
airlines are required to pay for bumping passengers. For the New York
region, we are moving forward with an ambitious plan to redesign the
airspace routes over the northeastern United States to allow more
flights to safely operate in those congested skies. In conjunction with
these other initiatives, we held a scheduling reduction meeting for JFK
to develop recommendations for reducing the number of flights into and
out of that overcrowded airport.
Question 8. The FAA recently announced final plans to redesign the
New York/New Jersey airspace. To what extent is this redesign expected
to reduce delays? How soon can we expect to see the benefits of this
effort? Is there any way to speed that timeline up?
Answer. The Record of Decision (ROD) on the airspace redesign was
issued in September 2007. There are four stages of implementation
identified in the ROD, with each stage taking approximately 12-18
months to complete. Implementation activities and meetings are ongoing.
The first implementation meeting was the first week of October 2007 and
several additional meetings have subsequently occurred. We expect it to
take at least 5 years to complete implementation of the selected
project.
The selected project for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign will reduce delays by more
efficiently directing aircraft to and from major airports in the two
metropolitan areas. We estimate there will be a 20 percent reduction in
airport delay, once implementation is complete, compared to the case
where nothing had been done.
We expect to see benefits as soon as we implement any element of
the select project. The implementation of the first elements of the
selected project, dispersal departure headings at the Newark Liberty
International, John F. Kennedy International, and Philadelphia
International Airports, is planned for December 2007. These new
departure headings will increase departure efficiency and are expected
to reduce departure delay by as much as 20 percent during periods the
dispersal departure headings are in use.
This airspace redesign project is large and complex. The timing of
the implementation is driven more by the managing of operational
changes and identifying available infrastructure resources. It is not
currently limited by legal or regulatory restrictions. Legal action has
the potential to slow progress. Elements for each of the implementation
stages are being prioritized based on their ability to provide relief
to the congested airspace in the northeast.
Question 9. The Department appears to have committed to pursuing
some sort of congestion pricing for JFK or the NY airspace generally.
Can you provide specific information as to the steps that Department
has taken to validate that such an approach will reap real benefits in
terms of reducing delays?
Answer. Congestion pricing has been successfully deployed across a
wide range of industries, including aviation, to make the best use of
scarce capacity. Pricing encourages consumers to use a scarce resource
during off-peak hours and can dramatically increase the capacity of a
constrained system.
Question 10. What steps do you intend to take that will protect and
strengthen small community access to the NY airspace?
Answer. No decision has been made concerning how to address
aviation congestion in the New York area. However, in deciding on a
course of action, the impact on small community air service will be
considered.
Question 11. What do you believe is the impact of general aviation
on the NY airspace? How do you envision Teterboro Airport playing into
any broad plans the Department has to reduce congestion in the NY
region.
Answer. In Fiscal Year 2007, general aviation accounted for
approximately 26 percent of the operations at the New York Terminal
Radar Approach Control and approximately 13 percent of the operations
at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center. At the three New York
airports (Newark Liberty International, LaGuardia, and John F. Kennedy
International Airports), general aviation overall accounted for less
than 3 percent of the total operations. The New York Congestion
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), established in response to the
President's request, has taken a regional approach in examining the
congestion issue and includes Teterboro (in addition to JFK, LaGuardia
and Newark) as one of the airports being examined for potential
solutions to congestion. The Secretary will be receiving a report from
the ARC in December and owes a response to the President by the end of
the year.
Question 12. What are the expected benefits of the U.S.-EU Open
Skies Agreement?
Answer. The first-stage U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement will have
significant economic benefits for the United States and Europe. The
Agreement has the potential to fundamentally transform the framework
within which transatlantic air services operate, increasing
dramatically the quality of competition in the market and benefiting
consumers, communities, and employees who rely on air transport
services, both directly and indirectly. The agreement also represents a
next step in deregulation of the global airline industry, by removing
regulatory barriers to the emergence of the European airline,
establishing an EU-wide Open Skies regime with the United States, and
promoting trans-Atlantic cooperation in areas such as security,
competition policy, and consumer protection. We believe that these
benefits will transcend anything achieved through our traditional
bilateral Open Skies agreements.
Under the agreement every EU and every U.S. airline will be able
to:
fly between every city in the European Union and every city
in the United States;
operate without restrictions on the number of flights, the
aircraft used, or the routes chosen, including unlimited rights
to fly beyond the EU and United States to points in third
countries;
set fares freely in accordance with market demand; and
enter into cooperative arrangements with other airlines,
including code sharing and leasing.
In addition to the economic impact of the Agreement, both sides
have underscored their fundamental commitment to the highest standards
of aviation safety and security. The Agreement provides for enhanced
cooperation between European and American authorities in these vital
fields. It also envisions consultations and cooperation between the
European Union and the United States in the areas of competition law
and policy, government subsidies and support, environment, and consumer
protection. The Agreement will establish a Joint Committee to review
implementation and resolve questions and will further improve
cooperation between the two sides. Furthermore, the Agreement
represents a first stage of opening markets and enhancing cooperation.
The European Union and the United States have agreed to begin a second
stage of negotiations within sixty days of application of the
Agreement.
Question 13. A franchising agreement between a U.S. airline and a
foreign airline or investor would appear to give a foreign airline or
investor considerable influence over a U.S. airline's operational
decisions. While technically different from ownership, this seems to
violate the spirit of the foreign ownership prohibition. What checks
does DOT have in place, or what steps is the DOT taking, to ensure that
franchising agreements do not become de facto ownership arrangements?
Answer. Section 41102 of Title 49 of the United States Code (``the
Transportation Code'') directs us to determine that applicants for
certificate authority to provide interstate and/or foreign air
transportation of persons, property and mail are ``fit, willing, and
able'' to perform such transportation and to ensure that all operations
relating to this authority conform to the provisions of the
Transportation Code and the regulations and requirements of the
Department. To determine whether an air carrier is fit, the Department
must, among other things, find that the air carrier is a U.S. citizen
as defined in section 40102(a)(15) (49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(15)), which
requires that the president and two-thirds of the Board of Directors
and other managing officers be U.S. citizens, that at least 75 percent
of the outstanding voting stock be owned by U.S. citizens, and that the
applicant must be under the actual control of U.S. citizens. An arms-
length franchising arrangement between a U.S. airline and a foreign
airline must be structured to preserve the independence of the U.S.
airline and its ability to exist outside the franchise. Any substantial
change in a carrier's operations, ownership or management, including a
franchising agreement that could affect its ownership or control, must
be reported to the Department under 14 CFR 204.5.
In addition, the Department, as part of its responsibilities under
section 41110(e) (49 U.S.C. 41110(e)), periodically assess changes in
ownership, management, financial condition, and operations that may
affect a carrier's continuing fitness (including its control by U.S.
citizens) since its initial DOT authorization or last fitness review.
That section provides the Department with the authority to, among other
things, modify, revoke, or suspend a U.S. airline's authority if it
either fails to remain fit or fails to file such reports as the
Department deems necessary to determine whether it remains fit.
Further, section 41708 (49 U.S.C. 41708) empowers the Department to
request information and reports that it may deem necessary to carry out
its responsibilities under the Transportation Code and its regulations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. NHTSA is in the process of developing a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in connection with a provision contained in
Subtitle C section 10301 of SAFETEA-LU on occupant ejection. The
provision directs NHTSA to reduce full and partial ejections through
new performance requirements. Given the importance of this rule to
protect the driving public, during vehicle rollover and side impact
events, I would like assurances from you that all occupants regardless
of size, age or condition, belted or unbelted will be protected from
full and partial ejections.
Answer. In developing the proposal to fulfill the SAFETEA-LU
mandate for an ejection mitigation standard, NHTSA is addressing full
and partial ejections for all vehicle occupants. Research serving as
the basis for the proposal has used both child and adult dummies in
belted and unbelted conditions. NHTSA expects to complete this
rulemaking by the statutory deadline of October 1, 2009.
Question 2. Although the requirement to reduce full and partial
ejections will be implemented through a performance standard, a
systems-based approach combining advanced glazing, including laminated
glass, and side curtain air bags shows better performance than either
technology alone. As NHTSA moves forward with NPRM, are you focusing on
the benefits of adopting a performance standard that would lead to the
more protective combined system?
Answer. NHTSA is developing robust performance requirements that
will attain the most benefits feasible without specifying any
particular technology or technology combinations. NHTSA has conducted
tests of side curtain air bags in combination with laminated glass.
These tests have shown some level of improved performance over
individual technologies, and will be included in the body of tests used
to draft the occupant containment proposal.
Question 3. In the recent side impact final rule, NHTSA claimed
that side impact air bags will reduce partial occupant ejections and
that ``manufacturers will increasingly install air curtains in their
vehicles because air curtains can potentially be used as a
countermeasure in preventing ejections in rollovers.'' Does this mean
the curtains would have to have sustained inflation during the life of
a rollover crash rather than deflating after several milliseconds in a
side impact? Is NHTSA implying that air curtains are one of the
countermeasures that could be used to prevent ejections on rollovers or
whether they are the only countermeasure that the agency will select to
prevent ejections in order to comply with section 10301?
Answer. By their nature, rollover events are considerably longer
duration events than are side crashes, and tend to be measured in
seconds rather than milliseconds. In developing a robust occupant
containment requirement, NHTSA is taking this into consideration. While
side curtain air bags are one technology that could be used to meet the
requirements for occupant ejection, other technologies could also be
utilized to meet the requirements. NHTSA will specify the performance
requirement, but a particular countermeasure necessary to comply will
not be selected.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. I understand that Federal regulators have begun to meet
with airlines that use JFK International Airport to find ways to reduce
traffic levels. Any plan that comes from these meetings will
reverberate at airports across the Northeast, including in
Massachusetts. Please detail the Administration's preferred strategy
for reducing traffic at JFK, and provide insight as to how airlines are
reacting to this strategy. What alternative strategies have been
offered by airlines to meet the demands on a short term basis? When can
travelers expect the Administration to act on this critical issue? And
how will these strategies impact airports such as Logan International
in Boston?
Answer. The Department has been taking a multifaceted approach to
air congestion in the New York area. The Administration's preferred
strategy for reducing delays is through operational improvements and
capacity enhancements, such as airspace redesign and implementation of
the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Since these
operational and technology improvements will take time to come on-line,
the Administration is looking at several options to reduce delays at
JFK in the short and mid-term.
We are implementing new operational improvements that will reduce
delays in the short-term. We are designing new approach paths to JFK,
LaGuardia, and Newark (EWR). The Northeast airspace redesign will also
reduce delay for flights in the crowded New York region.
Additionally, the use of military airspace by commercial aircraft
was successful for the recent Thanksgiving holiday travel period. We
believe using this airspace during holiday periods, in combination with
the efficiencies gained by redesigning the airspace over the Northeast,
will reduce delay and provide other useful benefits such as less
exposure to noise and reduced fuel consumption.
The FAA has held a scheduling reduction meeting to reduce peak hour
flights at JFK to 81 per hour for the 2008 summer scheduling season.
This decision came after much analysis. The process is still ongoing,
but we expect to announce the results of the scheduling reduction
meeting soon.
We also chartered a New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to
help us understand what options are available and how any changes would
affect the ability of the airlines and airports to serve the traveling
public. Members of the ARC included officials from the Office of the
Secretary and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority), airlines, consumer groups,
and other interested parties. The New York ARC explored five policy
areas: Operational/Infrastructure Improvement--New York Airspace Czar,
General Aviation, Voluntary Reductions; Congestion Pricing, Auctions,
and Aircraft Gauge; Gate Utilization and Perimeter Rule; Priority
Aviation Traffic Preferences; and International Air Transport
Association World Scheduling Guidelines, Other Administrative Options.
No decision has been made concerning how to address aviation
congestion in the New York area; however, we expect to issue a proposal
soon. The Department recently announced that it will not pursue
congestion pricing in the New York area. However, we still prefer
market-based mechanisms to allocate scarce airspace and airport
resources more efficiently. Charges for flying into congested airspace
or airports should more closely reflect the true societal costs of
those decisions. To the extent they do not, the cost of delays will
continue to accelerate and ripple throughout our aviation system.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey recently announced
that it would prefer to use the International Air Transport
Association's World Scheduling Guidelines to allocate the airspace at
the New York major airports. The airlines also would prefer the use of
the World Scheduling Guidelines, but are willing to accept the limited
use of auctions.
Since three-quarters of the delays nationwide last summer resulted
from the congestion surrounding New York, we expect that a reduction of
congestion will benefit the entire air traffic system, including Logan
International in Boston.
Question 2. I understand that the FAA continues to deliberate over
how height limitations may be imposed on structures near airports.
These impending rules will have an impact on how building proceeds in
neighborhoods surrounding airports as well as how airports address
infrastructure improvements. When can a decision on height restrictions
be expected?
Answer. While current Federal Aviation Administration height limits
serve to protect the airspace around airports, new navigation
technologies and procedures, as well as the cumulative impact that
results from an increase of tall structures, have demonstrated the need
to consider changes in the FAA's obstruction evaluation process. The
FAA is working with several communities concerning building heights
around airports. This process considers the plans of communities
surrounding these airports and recommends building heights that are
conducive to the safe and efficient flow of air traffic. The FAA is
working with the airport authorities and local zoning entities in Las
Vegas, Nevada; Boston, Massachusetts; Miami, Florida; Phoenix, Arizona;
and Arlington, Virginia.
This is an ongoing effort because it involves multiple interested
parties that must take concurrent action such as zoning changes. It is
important to note the FAA can only recommend such height limitations
and it is the responsibility of the local governments to take
conclusive action to control growth around airports.
The FAA will continue to develop relationships with local zoning
entities to better secure and protect the diminishing national resource
that is the National Airspace System. Deliberations to inform these
decisions are on-going and a time-frame for finalizing them is not yet
determined.
Question 3. The General Accounting Office (GAO/RCED-99-155) and the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program have previously issued
reports detailing Owner Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIP).
Notwithstanding the length of time that has passed since the GAO and
NCHRP reports on OCIP were issued, are the findings and conclusions
from those reports still as accurate and reliable as they were when
they were originally issued? If so, please explain your response in
detail.
Answer. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis
Study #308--``Owner-Controlled Insurance Program Issues'' was published
in 2002. The General Accounting Office's report titled:
``Transportation Infrastructure: Advantages and Disadvantages of Wrap-
Up Insurance for Large Construction Projects'' was published in 1999.
The FHWA is not aware of any published report that has presented new
information regarding OCIPs.
Question 4. Notwithstanding the length of time since the issuance
of the Federal Highway Administration's Guidelines on Owner Controlled
Insurance Programs (OCIPs), are they still applicable and reliable for
the consideration, implementation and administration of OCIPs on
transportation projects? If not, please explain your response in
detail.
Answer. Yes, the guidelines issued on OCIP are still applicable for
transportation projects. We are not aware of any event or change in
policy that would necessitate a revision of the guidelines. We believe
these guidelines remain useful for the consideration, implementation,
and administration of OCIPs on transportation projects.
Question 5. Can Owner-Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIPs) be used
in the aftermath of a disaster to increase the employment of local
contractors and reduce the need to waive Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise participation requirements?
Answer. The FHWA's guidelines allow for the use of OCIPs on
Federal-aid projects as an eligible cost. The contracting agencies have
the discretion to decide when it is appropriate to use an OCIP with a
particular Federal-aid project or program of projects.
It is not clear how OCIPs would be used to increase the use of
local contractors. State DOTs are required to meet Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements on a statewide program basis. It
is not clear how or why OCIPs would reduce any need to waive DBE
requirements.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. With respect to the campaign you led in May-June 2007,
in which you and other U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) staff
communicated with and sought to contact state Governors and Members of
Congress seeking to have them oppose California's request for a waiver
under the Clean Air Act for the California regulations covering vehicle
emissions of greenhouse gases (referred to below as the ``lobbying
program''), please explain in detail how the lobbying program
originated and was planned. Specifically, was this lobbying program
entirely your doing, or did you or other DOT staff discuss it in
advance with anyone a part of or connected with the White House, the
Vice President's Office, EPA, or any other Executive Branch officials?
Please identify all persons involved in each of those discussions and
describe the substance of each such discussion.
Answer. The enclosed copies of documents previously provided to
Chairman Waxman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform reflect the
various participants and communications related to this matter.
Question 2. Did you or other DOT staff discuss the lobbying program
with industry representatives? Please identify all persons involved in
each of those discussions and describe the substance of each such
discussion.
Answer. I do not recall discussing this matter with industry
representatives, nor to my knowledge did anyone on my staff.
Question 3. Please provide me with copies of all documents
(including e-mails) held by the DOT relating to or reflecting the
lobbying program described above and any discussion or communication
with regard to such lobbying program.
Answer. Enclosed are copies of responsive documents provided to
Chairman Waxman in response to his request for documents related to
this matter.
Question 4. Internal DOT e-mails in late May 2007 stated you
personally directed the DOT lobbying program for the purpose of
``facilitating a pushback from Governors'' on the waiver. The e-mails
also included a script to be used in the lobbying contacts which
included the language: ``If asked our position, we say we are in
opposition to the waiver.'' Please state whether as of late May 2007 it
was your understanding that Bush Administration officials within the
White House, the Vice President's Office, EPA, or any other Executive
Branch agency other than DOT opposed granting the waiver requested by
California. Describe in detail the factual bases for your
understanding.
Answer. I do not know what position, if any, officials in those
agencies or offices held as of late May 2007 concerning the California
waiver request.
Question 5. Please provide copies of all analyses, memoranda, e-
mails, and other documents reflecting, supporting or relating to the
decision of DOT and any other person or unit within the Executive
Branch to take a position in opposition to the California waiver or
relating to the lobbying program as described above.
Answer. Enclosed are copies of responsive documents provided to
Chairman Waxman in response to his request for documents related to
this matter.
Question 6. In an e-mail dated May 23, 2007 from your colleague
Robert Johnson of DOT to Jess Sharp, White House Domestic Policy
Council Deputy Director, relating to the planned lobbying program, Mr.
Johnson stated that you [Secretary Peters] had ``an issue with EPA and
I need your [Mr. Sharp's] advice.'' Please describe fully the issue
with EPA that you had as to which Mr. Johnson was seeking advice from
Mr. Sharp.
Answer. The issue referenced in the e-mail was the appropriate way
for DOT to raise awareness of the implications of the California waiver
petition.
Question 7. In a response to Mr. Johnson later on May 23, Mr. Sharp
asked: ``Did you get a call from Marty Hall, COS at CEQ?'' An e-mail on
May 25, 2007, from Sandy Snyder of DOT to Robert Johnson, subject
``Phone call from Marty Hall'' stated: ``Marty Hall . . . OK w/S1
making calls, spoke with Steve Johnson yesterday.'' Please describe
fully what Mr. Hall reported to DOT as reflected in this e-mail, and
describe in detail DOT's understanding of the substance of Mr. Hall's
communications with Steve Johnson.
Answer. The May 25 e-mail reflects the full substance of Mr. Hall's
message, and I have no knowledge of the substance of Mr. Hall's
communications with Steve Johnson.
Question 8. In an e-mail you sent to Robert Johnson on May 31,
2007, you stated that your staff ``thought the WH had approved calls to
the Gov's on the issue I had discussed with Administrator Johnson.''
Please confirm that in this e-mail, ``WH'' stands for the White House,
and that the ``approved calls to the Gov's'' refers to the calls that
were to be made in opposition to the California waiver request, defined
in Question 1 above as the ``lobbying program.'' Please describe fully
the substance of your conversations with Administrator Johnson that you
referred to in this e-mail and your understanding of the White House's
approval. Please describe fully all other communications between or
among you (or other DOT officials or staff) and Administrator Johnson
(or other EPA or CEQ officials or staff) relating to the California
waiver request.
Answer. ``WH'' refers to the White House, but I later learned that
the relevant communication actually came from CEQ, not the White House.
The ``approved calls to Gov's'' refers to calls from DOT to Governors
informing them of the California wavier petition and its possible
implications for the current, nationally uniform regulatory scheme for
fuel economy, so that they could consider submitting comments to the
EPA docket. The substance of my discussion with Administrator Johnson
concerned DOT's longstanding support of a single Federal fuel economy
regulatory scheme, and the implications of California's waiver
petition.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. Madam Secretary, you have been on the record that the
Federal gas tax is inefficient and will not address congestion. You
have also said that you believe that future transportation investment
should come from the private sector. I am concerned that if we
privatize our transportation system, through long-term leases with
little accountability, the concerns of users and other citizens will be
ignored. What safeguards are you working to put in place to ensure that
privatization efforts do not just benefit private entities, but also
ensure accountability to the public?
Answer. I agree that safeguards are critical to the success of
efforts to finance future transportation facilities with reliance on
private funding sources, and I look forward to working with Congress to
assure that proper safeguards are in place. We face a shortage of funds
for needed projects, and the current financing structure prevents us
from making efficient investments in maintenance and new construction
and system management and operations, because it does not allow us to
allocate resources based on the highest returns to the taxpayer and the
customer.
It should be emphasized that no public transportation asset could
be built or operated by the private sector without authorization from a
public authority. That public authorization will be provided only on
the basis of a carefully negotiated agreement between the public
authority and the private operator. These agreements are written in
such a way as to provide accountability for the concerns of users and
other citizens. For example, an agreement for a private toll road could
guarantee that tolls will not rise above certain levels, and that the
facility will be operated and maintained in accordance with specified
performance standards. These agreements generally provide that failure
by the private partner to comply with the terms of the agreement leads
to the control of the highway reverting to the public authority. In
addition, where the private partner's revenues are made up of user
fees, such as tolls, if the private partner is not responding to the
concerns of users, the public would reduce use of the facility and
motivate improvements.
Private sector partners have a built-in incentive to operate as
efficiently and effectively as possible, and that incentive means that
private investment in our Nation's infrastructure is likely to result
in significant public benefits, such as reduced costs, accelerated
project delivery schedules, increased innovation, competition and
efficiencies, and increased revenues for use on other transportation
priorities.
Question 2. Madam Secretary, private sector financing works when
there is a revenue stream that can be used to finance future
investments. But for the majority of nation's transportation system,
that simply is not possible. Most, if not all, rural transportation
projects and many urban mega projects don't pencil out for the private
sector, and can't be tolled at a rate high enough to build the project.
Given your commitment to private sector financing, how can we expect to
build and maintain the vast majority of our transportation system when
it simply is not possible to generate the kind of money needed to
attract private sector investment?
Answer. You have raised an important element of the changes needed
to shift from the current excise-tax financing of our transportation
system to a more efficient and flexible means to obtain the resources
needed to maintain and expand our infrastructure in built-up and rural
locales.
Private sector participation is possible on projects where tolls
don't cover all costs and even on projects where there is no tolling.
The private sector can compete on the basis of the lowest level of
subsidy they will accept to carry out the project. This approach is
widely used in Europe. In the United States, it is being used for the
Missouri Safe and Sound Bridge Improvement Project, where two short-
listed bidders are competing largely on the basis of the lowest level
of ``availability payments'' they will accept (paid for from tax
revenues) to bring 802 of Missouri's lowest-rated bridges (many of them
in rural areas) up to satisfactory condition and keep them in that
condition for 25 years. A similar approach is ``shadow tolling,'' where
no toll is charged to highway users, but the payments to the private
partner depend on the level of traffic on the highway.
Question 3. Madam Secretary, under SAFETEA-LU, Congress created two
commissions to examine the financing of the system. The first is the
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and
the second is the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
Financing Commission. It is my understanding, that to date, neither has
reported on their findings. It would be helpful to have the insights of
these commissions as we begin to move forward on transportation
reauthorization and seek to address the shortfall in the Highway Trust
Fund. Can you please comment on the work of these commissions and let
us know when can we expect to receive their findings?
Answer. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Study Commission is coming to closure on the final wording of its
report. It intends to complete the report during December 2007 and
print and release the report to Congress and the public during January
2008. The Commission will coordinate with Congress on the exact January
release date.
The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing
Commission is finalizing an interim report that it expects to release
in January 2008. The interim report will state what the Commission
thinks the surface transportation infrastructure financing problem is,
list possible solutions to the infrastructure financing problem, and
solicit feedback from stakeholders on the solutions that it is
considering. The Commission plans to issue its final report in the
early part of 2009.
Question 4. Madam Secretary, I understand that you have asked the
Department's Inspector General to review the Federal bridge inspection
and repair program and provide recommendations for improving that
program. But having served as Federal Highway Administrator, you have a
unique and intimate knowledge of those programs, having been the person
in charge of them for 4 years. Based on your experience, what ideas do
you have for making DOT's bridge inspection and repair programs work
better? Is anything being done to take a fresh look at how the safety
of bridges are evaluated to assure that funds are going to those
structures posing the greatest risk to the public?
Answer. Immediately following the collapse of the I-35W bridge, the
DOT Inspector General (IG) was asked to conduct a rigorous assessment
of the Federal-aid bridge program and the National Bridge Inspection
Standards (NBIS). The IG will be reviewing our program to decide and
advise us what short- and long-term actions we may need to take to
improve the program. As demonstrated by the downward trends in
deficient bridge numbers and the long history of safe bridges across
the country, our current program is working; however, in the future, we
believe the program could be improved through the development of
performance standards that are data-driven and performance-based. As an
example, future transfers of funds out of the bridge program might be
permitted only if certain performance standards were achieved.
We continuously strive to ensure that the quality of our bridge
inspection program is maintained at the highest level and that our
funds are utilized as effectively as possible. We have quality control
systems that oversee the operations and use of our bridges. And we have
quality control over inspections of bridges to keep track of the
attention that a bridge will require to stay in safe operation. These
systems have been developed over the course of many decades and are the
products of the best professional judgment of many experts. We will
ensure that any findings and lessons that come out of the investigation
into the I-35W bridge collapse are quickly learned and appropriate
corrective actions are institutionalized to prevent any future
occurrence.
The FHWA recently completed a ``fresh look'' at the NBIS,
culminating in an updated regulation that took effect in January 2005.
The updated regulation included several provisions aimed at making the
program better, such as an increased emphasis on training, quality
control and quality assurance, and follow-up on critical inspection
findings.
The FHWA continues to support the States in the development and
implementation of comprehensive management systems to aid in improving
their bridge programs. Pontis, a bridge management software tool, was
developed with the assistance of FHWA and is supported through training
and technical assistance. The NHS Act of 1995 struck the penalty for
failure to meet the bridge management system requirement originally
established in the 1991 ISTEA, but most States still use and continue
to develop bridge management systems.
We are excited about future advances in bridge deterioration
modeling and bridge management that are expected to result from the
FHWA's Long Term Bridge Performance Program (LTBPP). The LTBPP has been
designed as a 20-year effort that will include detailed inspections and
periodic evaluations and testing on a representative sample of bridges
throughout the United States in order to monitor and measure their
performance over an extended period of time. The program will collect
actual performance data on deterioration, corrosion, or other types of
degradation; structural impacts from overloads; and the effectiveness
of various maintenance and improvement strategies typically used to
repair or rehabilitate bridges. The resulting LTBPP database will
provide high quality, quantitative performance data for highway bridges
that will support improved designs, improved predictive models, and
better bridge management systems. The program has been underway for
approximately 1 year.
Question 5. Madam Secretary, an effective mix of transit and road
improvements are needed to help relieve congestion, but Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration programs are managed
independently of each other. Are there ways of improving the
coordination of these two agencies? Is it your intention that the Urban
Partnership Program play such a coordination role?
Answer. The current highway and transit programs are structured and
funded to give States considerable flexibility in developing the
appropriate mix of investments to meet their surface transportation
needs. The Urban Partnership initiative is intended to demonstrate how,
with proper leadership and a flexible approach, we can improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of investments to reduce congestion. It
shows that FHWA and FTA, as well as RITA, can strategically work
together, coordinate efforts, and advance national policies to reduce
traffic congestion. The UPA initiative yielded two benefits for the
Department--funding and programs:
From the funding side, the Department strategically focused
its scarce discretionary dollars toward the national priority
of congestion reduction. The UPA initiative drew from 13
different FHWA, FTA, and RITA discretionary programs to deliver
one major national program to reduce congestion. Historically,
these funds would be delivered in a less focused manner to
support many projects to achieve many different goals and
objectives.
From the program side, it moved away from the Federal
transportation program's historical modal silos and toward a
more coordinated and multi-modal transportation policy. The UPA
initiative brought together the planning, environment,
operations, capital, research, and policy staffs from FHWA,
FTA, and RITA to enable the selection and award of the
demonstration projects.
This coordinated effort to advance these projects to the
implementation stage continues through a Department-wide Urban
Partnership Management Team. The decisions made by the team members to
manage the program and advance the five projects are developed in a
coordinated setting and delivered to the Urban Partners through
specific points of contact. In other words, we are delivering the Urban
Partnership initiative with one Departmental voice.
Question 6. The Administration has stated the Nation's
transportation improvement projects can be funded through Public
Private Partnerships, aggressive tolling, innovative financing and
redirecting earmarks, and that no increase in the Federal gas tax
increase is necessary. The Federal Highway Administration's most recent
Conditions and Performance Report to Congress concludes that Federal
revenues fall short of providing necessary maintenance of the existing
transportation network, and fall short of making necessary improvements
to the network.
Most, if not all, rural transportation projects, and many urban
mega projects, don't pencil out for the private sector, and can't be
tolled at a rate high enough to build the projects. As you know, my
state has received some funding for one mega project, the Alaskan Way
Viaduct, and has two additional potential mega projects including the
Columbia River Crossing and the five-twenty replacement bridge.
I understand that current and projected Federal transportation
revenue, even if redirected as you suggest, is insufficient to build
all the Nation's needed safety and congestion relief projects,
especially given the increasing costs of construction materials. States
and local agencies can't fund these projects on their own either, and
have only so much bonding capacity.
Can you give us today an estimated percentage of those Department-
identified shortfalls that would be met through public-private
partnerships, devolution, tolling and redirected current revenues?
Answer. Congestion pricing provides a powerful mechanism to reduce
capital investment needs and raise revenues. The 2006 Conditions and
Performance Report confirmed that congestion pricing, by improving the
performance of our current highway system, could significantly reduce
the level of future highway investment that would be required to
maintain or improve the condition of our highways. The 2006 C&P Report
found that applying congestion pricing to all of the congested roads in
the system could reduce the cost to maintain the system by $21.6
billion per year, or 27.5 percent, leaving it at $57.2 billion, which
is well below the current level of capital spending. In addition,
pricing of all congested highway would raise significant revenues, on
the order of $34 billion per year over the analysis period 2005 to
2024.
Public-private partnerships are also a powerful financing
mechanism, allowing States to generate revenues beyond their existing
funding and borrowing capacity, thus freeing up money for use on
projects that require subsidies.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. I understand that only the Administration can enforce
the Federal law which gives Amtrak trains ``preference'' in dispatching
over freight trains which share the same right-of-way. I also
understand that most delays of Amtrak trains are due to delays by host
railroads. What is your Department doing to pursue enforcement of this
``Amtrak preference'' statute?
Answer. I would like to clarify that it is the Department of
Justice rather than the Department of Transportation that brings about
an enforcement action in this area. Section 24103 of Title 49, United
States Code (``Transportation'') provides that ``. . . only the
Attorney General may bring civil action for equitable relief in a
district court when Amtrak or a rail carrier engages in or adheres to
an action, policy or practice inconsistent with this part . . .''.
The Department is not aware of a time within the last 10 years when
Amtrak has sought the assistance of the Attorney General in enforcing
its right of preference in dispatching. This is probably because
Amtrak's issues with on-time performance go far beyond whether or not
its trains receive preference in dispatching. Among the other areas of
concern include the reduction since 1980 in the amount and redundancy
of rail main lines on routes served by Amtrak, the record volumes of
freight moving over this smaller system, differences in speeds operated
by Amtrak and freight trains and the limited places where ``meets'' and
``overtakes'' can occur on single track rail lines, the lack of
redundancy in Amtrak, so that delays affecting one train are compounded
on others dependent upon the timely arrival of trains, and some might
argue, the unrealistic schedules for passenger trains using highly
congested rail facilities. I am not sure that litigation on this issue
would lead to a sustainable improvement in on-time performance.
FRA meets regularly with all the major freight railroads, and part
of these meetings is a review of Amtrak's on-time performance and ways
it can be improved. At least as important is the need to encourage
capital investment to address rail bottlenecks. The Administration
proposed a Federal/State program of capital investment benefiting
intercity passenger rail as part of the FY 2008 budget request. One of
the purposes for this program that the Administration highlighted was
making investments to address the bottlenecks that lead to poor on-time
performance.
Question 2. Do you believe that passenger rail service can provide
an adequate alternative to air travel for trips of less than 400 miles?
Answer. The primary factors influencing intercity travel choice
between air and rail are trip time, service frequency and the quality
of service. There are intercity corridors--Washington, D.C. to New York
City as an example--where rail has consistently demonstrated that it is
an effective alternative to air for center city to center city trips.
On the other hand, there are many intercity corridors of 400 miles or
less in length that do not possess the travel demand to justify the
capital investment necessary to provide air-competitive rail service.
Question 3. Do you support S. 294 as passed by the Senate? Will you
recommend the President veto the bill if it is presented to him in the
current form?
Answer. The Administration and department do not support enactment
of S. 294 in its present form. It fails to make the necessary reforms
to Amtrak and how this Nation provides intercity passenger rail service
that the Department believes are necessary for this form of travel to
achieve its potential to become an important part of our transportation
system. The Department would like to work with the Congress to address
these concerns as the legislative process moves forward.
Question 4. Do you believe that any agency or office within the
USDOT possesses any authority to regulate the environmental health and
safety of solid waste processing operations located on railroad
properties? If so, do you believe that the Federal Government should be
enforcing such authority? And if so, what activities are performed by
Department offices and instrumentalities under such authority, and how
much in Federal funding was used in Fiscal Year 2007 specifically for
enforcing this authority?
Answer. The Department of Transportation does not have any specific
authority to regulate the ``environmental health and safety of solid
waste processing operations located on railroad properties.'' The
Federal Railroad Administration (``FRA'') does enforce the Nation's
rail safety laws where applicable, which may include rail operations
related to solid waste processing. FRA's enforcement authority is
primarily directed to the promotion of safe rail operations for the
benefit of railroad workers and the general public, and does not
include authority to enforce environmental laws, except for the Noise
Control Act of 1972 (see 49 C.F.R. Part 210).
Question 5. Will you recommend imposing caps on the number of
flights at JFK Airport without recommending caps at Newark Liberty
International Airport as well?
Answer. We are still undergoing the scheduling reduction meetings
process for John F. Kennedy International Airport. No decision has been
made to hold scheduling reduction meetings for Newark Liberty
International Airport; however, we are still considering whether to do
so. The characteristics of Newark and JFK are quite different;
congestion management policies that work for one airport may not be
appropriate at another. While we recognize Newark Airport experiences
delays and actions to reduce those delays are necessary, we are still
analyzing whether caps at Newark are an appropriate measure at this
time.
The New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) has taken a
regional approach in examining the problem and is considering the
impact of a particular approach at one airport on the remaining
airports.
Question 6. Do you believe that implementing congestion pricing
schemes at New York-area airports will have an impact on the level,
timing, and amount of air noise experienced by residents in the New
York-New Jersey area?
Answer. The goal of congestion pricing is to encourage efficient
use of scarce resources at an airport by shifting a portion of the
demand to periods when capacity is readily available. Additionally, by
smoothing out operations throughout the day, congestion pricing would
reduce delay. This would reduce the time that aircraft spend in nearby
holding patterns waiting to land at JFK.
Question 7. The FAA has always claimed that understaffing of air
traffic controllers is not a safety issue, because air traffic is
simply slowed down to safe levels. How do you intend to make sure that
our air traffic control system is adequately staffed to prevent further
delays?
Answer. The FAA has been extremely successful at hiring and
training controllers nationwide over the past 3 years, following the
strategy outlined in its annual Controller Workforce Plan. This
systematic, continuing effort is central to FAA's ability to assure the
air traffic control system is adequately staffed.
Staffing at the vast majority of FAA Air Traffic facilities falls
within the authorized staffing range included in the Controller
Workforce Plan. In Fiscal Year 2007, the FAA hired 1,815 new air
traffic controllers and expects to hire a similar number of new
controllers this year. At the end of September 2007, the FAA had a
controller workforce of 14,874, well above the planned target of
14,807. The FAA monitors controller staffing on a daily basis at all of
its facilities, adjusting hiring as needed to account for all losses,
including retirements.
Total operations per controller are roughly the same as in 1999 and
2000 when the FAA was operating under a staffing agreement with the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association. The flexibility of the
2006 contract with NATCA gives the FAA more control over scheduling,
which helps to guarantee it has the right number of people to manage
expected traffic.
Question 8. What criteria did you use in selecting members of the
Aviation Rulemaking Committee? Why didn't you use the Federal Advisory
Committee Act procedures and standards in forming this committee? Why
did you decide not allow this committee to meet in an open forum,
available to the public and members of the media? What particular
background and experience of consumer advocates represented on the
Aviation Rulemaking Committee led you to choose them for participation?
Answer. The FAA has the authority to establish Aviation Rulemaking
Committees (ARC) that are exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (49 U.S.C. 106(p)(5)). In selecting members for the New York ARC,
we wanted a broad representation of the major interests in the New York
area. Airlines, airline associations, consumer groups, the Port
Authority, and the NY and NJ State DOTs, and other interested parties
were invited to attend. We wanted a broad, representative group, but we
also wanted to keep the list manageable. We included people that have
knowledge of the operational and technical use of the airspace. We also
wanted experts who could articulate what the impact of any changes to
the use of the airspace would be on the economy and airlines. Many of
the options that the NY ARC is considering likely will require an order
or rulemaking, both of which require notice and comment. Therefore,
there may be opportunity for public comment in the future.
Question 9. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has
collected survey data on aviation safety as part of a program called
National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service. Were you aware that
NASA was conducting this activity? Do you believe it can benefit the
Department's aviation safety improvement efforts? Have you or anyone
within the Department asked NASA for this survey data? Have you or
anyone within the Department been asked by NASA to provide analysis of
the data? Do you support further investigation by Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation into the handling of this data by
NASA and its contractor who collected it?
Answer. Staff from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) briefed the FAA Commercial Aviation Safety Team
(CAST), which is comprised of both representatives from industry and
government, on their efforts. Consequently, there were some FAA
officials present during the CAST briefing. The briefing was on some
preliminary results of the NAOMS survey in 2003. Because the NAOMS
survey relied on the subjective recollections of pilots over a period
of 2 to 3 months, the CAST representatives raised questions about the
methodology of the survey and asked how the results could be compared
to other sources of data that are routinely collected by aviation
safety experts. This was particularly important to understand, given
that it appeared the NAOMS data may differ from the information
collected from other sources.
Since that time, FAA and the industry have developed more robust
pilot reporting mechanisms, including the Aviation Safety Action
Program (ASAP), which encourages pilots to report events without fear
of retribution. ASAP requires the report to be submitted within 24
hours of the event and each report is reviewed by a committee comprised
of representatives from the airline, labor and the FAA. Because the
events are immediately reported and reviewed by experts to assure that
the information is complete, the credibility of these reports is quite
high.
When NASA releases the NAOMS data, FAA will incorporate it into the
Aviation Safety Information and Analysis System (ASIAS). Because of the
subjective nature of how the information was collected, however, and
FAA's inability to independently confirm its validity, it is unclear
how useful it will be, especially given the high reliability of the
other information input into ASIAS. Through ASIAS, the FAA integrates
over 20 data sources to help identify areas of emerging risk.
I believe it would be inappropriate to take a position on whether
or not the Committee should continue to investigate how the NAOMS data
was handled by NASA and its contractors.
Question 10. Do you believe that the Federal Government should be
spending Federal funds on projects--even those such as `truck-only
lanes'--which would support infrastructure to allow trucks to operate
with greater than 80,000-pound loads?
Answer. I would first like to clarify that the Department does not
support raising the Federal weight limit on trucks on the Interstate
System to greater than 80,000 pounds. At the same time, we are
supporting research on the potential of truck-only lanes as a means to
increase the overall productivity of our highway system. However, many
questions remain concerning the operating characteristics of such
facilities and of the economics and safety implications of permitting
trucks with weights greater than 80,000 pounds to operate on them.
Question 11. What are the Department's plans with respect to
requiring electronic on-board recorders on all new commercial trucks
and the vehicles of all new entrants?
Answer. On January 18, 2007, FMCSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its safety regulations to establish new
performance standards for EOBRs. Also under the proposal, motor
carriers that have demonstrated a history of serious noncompliance with
the hours-of-service (HOS) rules would be subject to mandatory
installation of these electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs).
The proposal provides that if FMCSA determined, based on HOS
records reviewed during each of two compliance reviews conducted within
a 2-year period, that a motor carrier had a 10 percent or greater
violation rate (``pattern violation'') for certain regulations, the
Agency would issue the carrier an EOBR remedial directive. The motor
carrier would be required to install EOBRs in all of its CMVs
regardless of their date of manufacture and to use the devices for HOS
recordkeeping for a period of 2 years.
Finally, under the proposed rule, FMCSA would encourage industry-
wide use of EOBRs by providing the following incentives for motor
carriers to voluntarily use EOBRs in their CMVs: (1) revising the
Agency's compliance review procedures to permit examination of a random
sample of drivers' records of duty status; and (2) providing partial
relief from HOS supporting documents requirements, if certain
conditions are satisfied.
We are currently analyzing the approximately 750 comments received
in response to the NPRM, and completing additional research and data
analysis as a result of those comments to determine the content of a
final rule. Although there are many complex technical issues involved,
we plan to publish a final rule addressing EOBR use in 2008.
Question 12. Do you believe universal helmet laws are vital to
prevent further fatal motorcycle crashes? Do you believe the USDOT or
any Federal safety agency of the U.S. Government should be prevented
from providing data to state legislatures regarding the effectiveness
of universal helmet laws in reducing fatal motorcycle crashes? Do you
believe that you should be required by law to wear a USDOT-approved
helmet when operating a motorcycle?
Answer. The Congress has determined, and the Department believes
properly, that implementation of a universal helmet law is an issue to
be left to the States for determination.
The Department has conducted evaluations in various States of the
effects of repeal of a universal helmet law and also, with the States,
collects crash data regarding motorcycles and helmet use. The
Department believes the evaluations and motorcycle crash and helmet use
data can be helpful to State legislative deliberations regarding
motorcycle helmet use and effectiveness. Consequently, the Department
would favor obtaining authority to share this information with State
legislatures as they prepare for or participate in consideration of
motorcycle helmet use and effectiveness issues.
The Department believes that all motorcyclists should wear a DOT-
certified helmet and other protective gear on every ride. As stated
earlier, universal helmet use requirements are within the purview of
the States and best left to the States to decide.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Stevens to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. Recently, a 15-year-old Alaskan girl from Juneau
boarded a plane and flew to Seattle without her parents' permission in
an effort to meet someone she met over the Internet. The incident
exposed a potential loophole concerning air travel and children between
the ages of 13 and 17. What steps does the department believe could be
taken by the industry, as a whole, to address unsupervised teenage air
travel and ticket purchase and would the department be willing to
review individual airline policies on allowing teenagers between the
ages of 13 and 17 to travel and purchase tickets without parental
consent?
Answer. The Department has the authority to communicate with air
carriers with respect to any air transportation issues. Individual air
carriers have the authority to establish contract of carriage rules
precluding the sale of tickets to, or the transport of, unaccompanied
minors of whatever age they should choose. Starting at age 12 on most
carriers (age 15 on some carriers), a child can travel alone and the
airline does not require unaccompanied-minor procedures. An
unaccompanied-minor procedure is a process that typically requires a
parent to fill out a form, the airlines to have employees chaperone the
minor, and an adult, identified on the form that the parent filled out,
to show identification when picking up the minor.
Question 2. In the Department's ongoing work to review congestion
and delays have you considered including delays and cancellations
related to airline crew problems including, but not limited to, duty
time requirements and policies?
Answer. Yes. In our review, we will be considering all factors
contributing to congestion and delays, whatever the cause.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Trent Lott to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. In your testimony you state that we can respond to
aviation congestion in the New York region in one of three ways----
(1) continue with current policies and accept the fact that the
region will be congested;
(2) re-regulate air traffic in this region and have the Federal
Government decide who can fly in this airspace and when; or
(3) use some form of pricing to optimize the use of existing
capacity.
It seems to me that there is a fourth option which is to modernize
the air traffic control system and add capacity. For example, in
September the Department issued a Record of Decision for a thorough
redesign of the New York airspace that the Department estimates will
increase capacity by twenty percent.
a. How soon will this redesign be fully implemented?
b. Is there anything that can be done to accelerate the
process?
c. What are you doing to make the FAA's operations more
efficient and to modernize air traffic technology?
d. As you consider options for New York, what are you doing to
ensure that consumer choices aren't limited and that ticket
prices don't increase?
Answer. (a) The NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign
project is very large and complex. The FAA has started implementation
planning and expects to see the earliest elements operational by late
2007 or early 2008. There are presently ten lawsuits filed and one
motion for a stay, which the FAA has denied. Implementation planning is
proceeding as the lawsuits are being addressed.
As described in the Record of Decision, implementation for airspace
redesign will proceed in four stages, with each stage lasting
approximately 12 to 18 months:
Stage 1: the first stage involves elements that do not require
large-scale changes to other parts of the system. These items
may be implemented without changes to the current airspace
structures or operations of neighboring facilities. Stage 1
includes dispersal headings at Newark, Philadelphia and JFK.
Presently procedures are being developed and training
requirements established. The additional elements of Stage 1
concentrate on initial relief to westbound departures.
Stage 2: the second stage of implementation entails the
integration of the terminal and en route airspace, but does not
change the current airspace structures or operations of
neighboring facilities.
Stage 3: the third stage requires changes at other facilities,
such as re-sectorization or shifting boundaries, but no changes
to the current operational structure.
Stage 4: the final stage of implementation requires changes at
FAA air traffic control facilities. This may include transfer
of sectors as well as operational changes for the New York area
facilities. These changes will be priority-based on the ability
to provide immediate relief to the congested airspace in the
northeast.
(b) Since the FAA is currently facing legal challenges regarding
the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign, we are moving
forward to implement the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign
as described in our Record of Decision. This process will move forward
as expeditiously as possible while still considering the need to safely
implement the procedures and the need to comply with all legal and
environmental considerations.
(c) FAA is undertaking a number of operational activities to
increase efficiency and modernize air traffic technology. These
activities include the following:
NY Aviation Rulemaking Committee: The Administration is
focusing several near-term efforts to address congestion
problems, including the development of a New York Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (NY ARC). The ARC has five working groups
to focus on the details of various congestion mitigation
approaches. Air Transport Association member airlines are
participating on this particular ARC Working Group.
Utilization of multiple runways at JFK and Newark: The FAA uses
multiple runway configurations whenever weather permits, when
there is sufficient demand, and when operationally feasible.
Because of the closeness of the three major airports, the
airport operations at the three airports must be carefully
coordinated. In the fall of 2006, a new runway configuration
was implemented at JFK Airport to increase capacity for
departures. JFK's three-runway configuration is to arrive on
two runways and depart one runway during arrival demand periods
and land on one runway and depart on two runways for the
departure configuration. Newark Liberty International Airport
runway planning uses both parallel runways as well as the 11/29
arrival or departure configuration. These actions and planning
have been ongoing since the early 1990s to address growing
traffic demands and are adjusted seasonally as well as daily in
response to weather and traffic demands.
Improved surface management: The FAA is expediting the
deployment of the Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X
(ASDE-X) system at the John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The target for initial operational capability of the JFK ASDE-X
system is August 31, 2008, nearly 1 year ahead of the program
baseline schedule. ASDE-X will provide safety and efficiency
benefits. While ASDE-X does not increase an airport's capacity,
it improves efficiency of the existing capacity. The FAA has
also committed to providing the airlines and the PANYNJ with
preliminary ASDE-X data (via the Data Distribution subsystem),
including implementation of additional remote units for
coverage of the ramp and gate areas by June 30, 2008.
Expand use of RNAV procedures: FAA has already implemented 13
performance-based navigation (PBN) procedures in the New York
area through Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. PBN is comprised of area
navigation (RNAV) and required navigation performance (RNP)
procedures. An additional 17 PBN procedures are in various
stages of development.
Create new routes where practical: Routing changes are the
central component to the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign. This
includes several new arrival and departure routes, as well as
changes to existing routes. Overflight routes and airways are
also made much more efficient. New routes are designed assuming
wide-spread application of RNAV and are not restricted to the
current location of ground-based navigational aids. FAA is also
pursuing a series of near-term initiatives to address
congestion in the northeast that were identified by the New
York Short Term Initiatives workgroup that was convened in
March 2007. These efforts were defined to be consistent with
the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign project and
also include routing changes in high altitude airspace.
Although these activities will help to address air congestion,
operational improvements alone will not fix the problem of flight
delays.
(d) As the President said on September 27, it is absolutely
essential that we address excessive congestion and delay at the New
York airports. Our intent is to ensure that passengers are able to make
their connecting flights and arrive at their final destinations on
time. By better matching demand with available capacity, we hope to
accomplish this goal.
As you note, we can respond to aviation congestion in the New York
area in three ways--do nothing, impose operational caps, or implement
some form or congestion pricing. Air fares will rise under either
operational caps or pricing. However, passengers currently are paying
for flight delays. A recent survey by Orbitz indicated that 32 percent
of those surveyed say they now book the earliest flight of the day or
travel the night before a meeting or appointment, to minimize risk of
delays and ensure arrival at their destination ahead of time. Doing so
involves paying for a hotel room and meals--expenses that would not
have been incurred otherwise.
Under operational caps or congestion pricing, air carriers have
several ways to ensure that passenger choice is preserved. First, with
respect to international flights, air carriers can, to some extent,
retime their flights into the New York region or use alternative
connection points within the United States. For example, Chicago,
Atlanta, and Detroit are just a few gateway airports that are available
to international flights. Another approach would be for air carriers to
up-gauge their aircraft size during period of peak congestion. The use
of larger aircraft enables more passengers direct access to the New
York region on the same (or fewer) number of operations that exist
today. I am confident that as air carriers put their passenger
interests first, within a capacity constrained environment, they will
be better able to accommodate their needs.
Question 2. Finally, I am concerned about how limiting flights
through either caps or congestion pricing will impact smaller
communities. For better or worse, small communities are dependent on
the hub or spoke system. If we start constraining capacity at hubs
rather than increasing capacity, the first flights that will be dropped
will be the lower volume flights from small communities. The 747 full
of business travelers from London is going to be able to pay a pretty
hefty congestion fee--a regional jet coming from a smaller community
will not be able to pay much. I am under little illusion that my State
is going to have much in direct flights to airports in the New York
area. But Mississippi does rely on other hubs, such as Atlanta, for
connections. As you go through this exercise in New York, what will you
be doing to ensure smaller communities aren't disproportionately
affected?
Answer. Maintaining service to small communities is important to
the FAA. The High Density Rules for both Chicago O'Hare Airport and
LaGuardia Airport contained provisions for service to small
communities. Most recently, in the proposed congestion management rule
that FAA published in August 2006 for LaGuardia Airport, the agency
designed three alternative ``carve-outs'' for small communities and
sought comment on those proposals.
As we continue to work toward a solution for congestion in the New
York area, we will consider the importance of connecting small
communities to the National Airspace System. If congestion pricing or a
market-based allocation mechanism were to be adopted in New York, FAA
would certainly consider the impact on small communities. However, we
are hesitant to develop a national system which politically allocates
scarce capacity.
Question 3. If the current aviation taxes are allowed to lapse, how
will this affect the FAA's programs and the Aviation Trust Fund? What
effect will this have on the modernization of our national aviation
system?
Answer. If the current aviation taxes are allowed to lapse, the
effects on both FAA's programs and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
would be substantial. We estimate that the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund's uncommitted balance at the end of Fiscal Year 2007 was
approximately $1.5 billion. This level provides a cushion of less than
2 months for the FAA's Trust Fund-based activities.
After the uncommitted balance runs out, FAA would have to rely
exclusively on General Fund appropriations for operating costs,
including payroll. It is likely that FAA would start to defer capital
projects even before the uncommitted balance runs out, in order to
preserve funding for day-to-day operations. Under no circumstances, of
course, would safety activities be curtailed in any respect.
Also, with a couple of minor exceptions, FAA cannot make new
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants without a programmatic
authorization. This also applies to Letters of Intent. FAA cannot honor
these commitments until the AIP program is reauthorized.
Question 4. In the FAA's Airport Capacity Benchmark Report for
2004, planned improvements at JFK airport included a Precision Runway
Monitor (PRM) radar system. The PRM allows simultaneous independent
approaches on closely spaced parallel runways less than 4,300 feet
apart, returning a portion of lost capacity during adverse conditions
and thereby reducing delay. I understand that there is currently not a
PRM at JFK. When will a PRM be installed at JFK?
Answer. The FAA originally planned to install a Precision Runway
Monitor (PRM) at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) but
changed those plans when an airspace study concluded that such an
operation would adversely impact operations at LaGuardia (LGA) Airport.
PRM safety procedures require that certain airspace be dedicated as a
safety zone for PRM breakout maneuvers. Unfortunately, because of the
close proximity of JFK and LGA, the required Kennedy PRM safety zone
would reduce LaGuardia's airspace. In summary, while a PRM at JFK could
increase operations at that airport slightly, operations at LaGuardia
would need to be reduced by a greater amount.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III
Question 1. What recommendations do you have for the Committee on
resolving the impending revenue shortfall of the Highway Trust Fund?
Specifically, do you have any ideas on how the auto and truck safety
programs should be funded as we look at changes to the financing
structure of the Highway Trust Fund in the future?
Answer. A comprehensive highway funding framework is needed quickly
as the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) faces a near-term funding crisis. HTF
revenues for 2009 are now expected to fall far short of the levels
previously anticipated. Unless addressed, this shortfall could lead to
reductions in obligation limitations for Federal highway programs below
the levels anticipated in the current authorization to prevent HTF
insolvency. For instance, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has projected a $4.3 billion Highway
Account revenue shortfall in 2009 that could require an obligation
reduction in the highway program of about $16 billion.
While we don't, at this time, have any specific recommendations,
the Department must help develop a consensus among the States, the
highway community, and Congress as to if, and how, this shortfall in
HTF revenues will be made up. Viable solutions will likely require a
combination of the following alternatives:
Paying for certain fuel tax exemptions, such as for school
buses and state and local government vehicles from the General
Fund rather than the HTF.
Raising the per gallon fuel tax, indexing it to inflation,
or converting it into a sales tax (which would generate greater
revenue as gas prices increased.)
Imposing other user charges and dedicate their revenues to
surface transportation, such as the per container cargo fee.
Increasing the use of bonding, tolling, and innovative
financing techniques.
Implementing a mileage based fee as has been field tested
recently in Oregon.
Currently, most auto and truck safety programs are funded from the
HTF. Finding both a near term and long term solution to the HTF revenue
shortfall problem would address any potential problems for these
programs as well. Funding these programs from the General Fund, rather
than the HTF, would eliminate any potential impact a future HTF revenue
shortfall may have. However, it would force these programs to compete
with all other domestic programs for funding. Funding them through a
separate, dedicated user fee or excise tax would make them no longer
subject to shortfalls in the motor fuel excise taxes. However, the
stability of these program's funding would be dependent upon the
stability of the new, and presumably much narrower, fee or tax.
Question 2. In your testimony, you discussed the tragic collapse of
the Interstate 35W Bridge in Minnesota this August and call for a
better system of oversight and funding for bridge repair. Have you
looked at the impact that large and heavy trucks are having on our
nation's bridges and whether the current protections in place are
enough to ensure that our nation's bridges are not being overloaded or
prematurely damaged due to high axle loads?
Answer. While we have not specifically looked at the impact of
large and heavy trucks, our previous work has evaluated the load
ratings and postings of the Nation's bridges. In March 2006, we issued
a report on FHWA's oversight of the load ratings and postings of
structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System. We found
that FHWA could improve its oversight of states to ensure that maximum
weight limit calculations and postings are accurate. The need for
improved oversight was evidenced by our findings that based on
statistical projections, load rating procedures were not properly
followed for 10.5 percent of the structurally deficient bridges on the
National Highway System and about 7.8 percent of the bridges were
required to be posted for weight limits but were not posted. Failing to
follow proper rating procedures or appropriately post maximum weight
limit signs creates safety concerns that may allow vehicles, including
trucks, exceeding those limits to use these bridges and accelerate
their deterioration.
Shortly after the August 1, 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35W
Bridge, the Secretary of Transportation asked us to undertake an
independent review of the National Bridge Inspection Program. As we
evaluate the program, we will look at current protections beyond those
reviewed in the March 2006 report, such as enforcement of legal truck
weights, and determine whether more can be done to ensure that our
Nation's bridges are not being overloaded or prematurely damaged by
heavy vehicles. We will take the results into consideration when
formulating any recommendations for improvements to FHWA's oversight of
the Nation's bridges.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III
Question 1. With respect to the DOT campaign in May-June 2007, in
which Secretary Peters and other DOT staff communicated with and sought
to contact state Governors and Members of Congress seeking to have them
oppose California's request for a waiver under the Clean Air Act for
its regulations covering vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases, please
explain in detail all steps taken by the DOT (including but not limited
to the DOT Inspector General's office) to investigate or evaluate the
facts relating to those matters.
Question 2. Please provide copies of all documents reviewed or
collected in the course of the evaluations(s) and investigation(s)
described in response to the question immediately above, as well as
copies of all draft and final memoranda, reports, findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and all other written work product
reflecting those investigations.
Answer 1-2. We are aware that the Department of Transportation
(DOT) made contact with states and Members of Congress or their staffs
regarding California's waiver request. We are also aware of a request
made by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, for documents related to DOT's
communications on this topic. In response, as indicated in the June 29,
2007 letter from the DOT General Counsel to Chairman Waxman (on behalf
of Secretary Peters), DOT concluded that its efforts to inform the
public and elected representatives about this issue were consistent
with its support of a single, national regulatory scheme for motor
vehicle fuel and economy. Our office has not conducted any reviews or
collected any documents regarding these communications.
Chairman Waxman has posted a copy of the DOT letter on his website:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1393.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III
Question 1. How will your office ensure that the FAA is hiring
enough controllers to replace those who leave, whether it is because of
retirements, or because they were unhappy with new working conditions
FAA unilaterally imposed upon them?
Answer. We have conducted several reviews and plan to continue
further assessments of FAA's progress in addressing the expected surge
in attrition within the controller workforce. In May 2005, we issued
our first assessment of FAA's progress in implementing key factors of
its controller workforce plan. We recommended that FAA develop hiring
plans by facility that identify specifically where and when new air
traffic controllers will be placed. We also recommended that FAA
provide information to facility managers so they can begin planning how
to handle the logistics of a significantly increased percentage of
trainees at their locations.
We further recommended that FAA initiate a planned assessment of
its current facility staffing standards, taking into consideration
factors such as airspace complexities and runway configurations when
determining appropriate staffing standards for each facility. FAA
published its estimates of attrition by location in the last update to
its controller workforce plan and is in the process of completing
validation efforts of its facility staffing standards.
In February 2007, we issued our second assessment of FAA's progress
in addressing controller attrition. Overall, we found that FAA
continues to make progress in implementing a comprehensive staffing
plan to address the surge in retirements. For example, we found that
FAA has significantly improved its hiring process and has reduced the
time and costs to train new controllers. However, further progress is
still needed in the following key areas:
Completing validation of accurate facility-level staffing
standards. This is a critical component because FAA has over
300 air traffic facilities with significant differences in air
traffic levels and complexity.
Establishing baseline metrics to measure the effectiveness
of controller productivity initiatives. FAA must ensure that
reductions in staffing are a result of increased productivity
and not simply fewer controllers controlling more traffic.
Continuing efforts to reduce the time and costs associated
with on-the-job training. This is the longest and most
expensive portion of new controllers' training.
We will continue to monitor FAA's progress and report on its
actions to address this significant challenge. We are currently
reviewing FAA's management of the controller on-the-job training
process and plan to issue a report early next year.
Question 2. Department employees have indicated to me many problems
with the new headquarters building--that it does not have enough space
for the entire Department, especially closed-door offices for adhering
to Federal privacy requirements; and telephone, Internet, and voice-
mail services are too unreliable to effectively conduct daily job
activities. Has your office investigated whether the new facilities are
adequate to allow Department employees to perform their duties
effectively, in light of the $275 million investment which Congress
made in this brand-new state-of-the-art building?
Answer. Our office has not conducted any reviews of the adequacy of
space or of the telephone, Internet, and voice-mail services at the new
DOT Headquarters building.