[Senate Hearing 111-606]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-606
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S
FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-892 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Acting Republican Staff Director
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican General Counsel
Nick Rossi, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 4, 2010.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 1
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 15
Witnesses
Hon. John D. Porcari, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. John D. Porcari
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 25
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 28
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 29
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 31
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 32
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison.................................... 32
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 35
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:18 p.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D.
Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. I apologize to all for being late, but votes
are votes. Actually, votes sometimes aren't votes, but you have
to do them anyway.
I'll just make my opening statement. Senator Begich is
going to be here, and then we'll ask you questions, after
you've given your statement. And I thank you for coming, and I
thank you for your patience.
So, we meet today to look at the Department of
Transportation's $79 billion request for 2011.
Transportation is our country's lifeblood; it facilitates
every aspect of the economy, creates jobs, drives new growth
here at home while connecting even our smallest communities to
something called a ``global marketplace.'' Yet, unfortunately,
our world-class transportation system, which was, is aging and
has failed to keep pace with the needs of our national economy
and our growing population. That could be said--some could say,
``Well, that's inevitable.'' We can't afford to say that. We
may not get the money to do it, but we can never stop fighting
for that.
And while everyone understands that we have to put more
money into our transportation system, we need to have national
goals in drawing those plans up, and we have to have very clear
objectives to guide and justify any kind of increase we get in
funding, particularly under the new budget world that we are
now living in.
That's why Senator Lautenberg and I introduced the Federal
Service Transportation Policy and Planning Act of 2009. To us,
this was important legislation, because it establishes goals
for Federal service transportation programs so that the
American taxpayers are confident that their tax dollars are
going to support transportation projects that improve safety,
combat congestion, promote energy independence, address climate
change, and, most importantly, allow our economy to grow.
I believe that the Department of Transportation's budget
proposal is an important first step that still recognizes the
call for serious cost controls, which is what we have mandated
upon us. And I'm pleased that this proposal makes sure that our
agencies have the resources they need--I hope--to bring safety
stage-center.
Secretary LaHood and the DOT have been on the forefront of
issues like distracted driving. I'm going to be doing an event
on that when I go to West Virginia this weekend--just on that
subject. There'll be a large turnout, I guarantee you. And it's
great to see that he's proposing $50 million for a new
distracted driver prevention program.
I have proposed my own bill to combat distracted driving,
because we already have seen too many lives needlessly cut
short, and that doesn't even--it's going to get more and more
complicated, worse and worse, and people will come to
understand its threat to an even greater extent.
This week, we heard important testimony about NHTSA's
deficiencies in enforcing vehicle safety regulations.
Therefore, there must be an increase in NHTSA's funding. I feel
very strongly about that. I actually gave a question to one of
my colleagues, because it was so good that I felt like being
generous. But, it made the point that we're spending more to
secure and protect our new embassy in Baghdad than we are on
all of NHTSA, and therefore all of safety in--you know, in all
of its forms. And that happens every year.
So, again, we have to have an increase in NHTSA's funding,
to hire more vehicle safety engineers, to investigate vehicle
defects. The FAA has hundreds of them. You know, NHTSA,
somehow, just doesn't have that many. They're going to get 60
more; that's not enough. They have to cover all modes of
transportation. And I feel strongly about that, but we'll see
what we can do.
I know the Administration has proposed a slight increase
for more personnel, but that proposal is simply not enough to
address the problems that this committee has uncovered to date
with vehicle safety, much less other kinds of transportation
safety.
I look forward to continuing our work with DOT to bring a
revived and very proactive commitment to safety and shared
responsibility to our roads, and to ensure the resources are
there for other agencies to take a similar focus on safety, as
well.
For example--I just said this--the FAA is committed to
addressing pilot fatigue and training. They have the people to
do that; they have the people to stay on that, a problem that
was terribly highlighted in that Colgan flight, tragic
accident, just over a year ago.
This budget also proposes $1.1 billion to jump-start the
modernization of our air-traffic control system. I could go on
for 3 days talking about that and my frustrations in fighting
for that in the past several years. We have to have that. It--
we're the only country in the industrial world that doesn't
have it. Mongolia has it. We don't. They do. But, we've got--I
think, what--36,000 airplanes in the sky at any given moment,
during the course of a day, probably fewer in the nighttime.
So, the question--these TRACONs, they have to keep track of
these folks, and they're just using ground radar, and it's like
X-rays, as opposed to MRIs or CAT scans. And it means that
airplanes have to be farther apart. They can't monitor activity
on the tarmac as well. They can't bring people in as carefully
as they could if they had a digitalized GPS system. And
therefore, we could reduce congestion, we could reduce delays.
But, we don't do anything about it. I'm not blaming you, I'm
blaming us.
One billion dollars has been proposed for a high-speed and
intercity passenger rail, which continues to be a priority for
this committee and for the Administration. And I'm encouraged
to see that DOT's commitment to finally addressing the
deplorable conditions--and this is distressing to me--that the
Merchant Marine Academy, by providing $31 million to capital
improvement programs--I'm going to ask you, in view of how
small their budget actually is and how large their capital
improvement requirements may be, How much is $31 million? I
support your effort to restore the Academy to the premier
educational institution that we all know it should be and that
the students there deserve.
I also want to take this opportunity to say that I know
that we sometimes take it for granted that the engineers at
NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
never stop investigating the safety of our vehicles. There just
aren't enough of them. This budget funds the agency's vehicle
safety program, and as we explored in this week's hearing with
Toyota's recall, NHTSA's success is fundamental to our public
safety. They have to do it right. We need to make sure it has
the tools and resources it needs to do the job we expect.
I also look forward to learning more about DOT's proposed
infrastructure fund to make Federal investments in
transportation projects of national or regional economic
importance, and how that funding mechanism could incorporate
the ideas that I presented on measuring the performance of our
transportation system.
Finally, as we begin the reauthorize--to authorize--
reauthorize the Federal Surface Transportation programs, we
need to continue to push for a long-term extension so that we
have the time to develop a strong reauthorization bill that
anticipates our Nation's future needs, while also avoiding
another disastrous delay, as we saw recently for a couple of
days. And I'm going to ask you about that, and you--you can
say, ``Well, that's history.'' Well, it isn't history. It can
happen again.
Now, I know that DOT faces many important challenges ahead,
even as it works to provide the safest transportation to the
American people. But, I'm absolutely confident that, given
proper resources and clear direction, you can, and the
Secretary is determined to, meet these challenges and succeed.
I assure you this committee will be tracking DOT's performance
closely, but I also want to assure you that we're for you, that
we're here to advocate for you as well as to, you know, to
point to shortcomings when those might appear.
So, thank you. I appreciate your coming, as I do appreciate
the coming of the gentleman who can just open his front door
and see Russia.
Senator Begich. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And I'm very grateful that you are here.
Senator Begich. It's always a pleasure to join my Chairman
in the Committee.
The Chairman. No, but, now you have to----
Senator Begich. I have no eloquent opening----
The Chairman. You have to. You have to----
Senator Begich. I have----
The Chairman.--so that my blathering attempt is put in some
context.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. Then I have to just make up stuff here for
a minute. No.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. I will say this. Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much.
I am looking forward to your statement. And, you know, when
you think about all the work we're doing down the floor on
jobs, there is no better producer of jobs than the focus of
what you do every day in the different departments that you
operate on, from FAA to Transportation, to others; these are
truly job creators. So, I'm looking forward to your comments,
and then I have a series of questions. Some will be parochial,
but some will be a broader perspective, and some that I'm very
interested in how the system that you operate under can
literally be reformed to be more streamlined.
As a former mayor, I've been subjected to--and I say that
in a somewhat positive but negative way, too--of the Federal
DOT system. And I think there are opportunities out there that
could move these dollars faster to local governments to produce
the road projects and other projects that you want to see done.
So, I have some thoughts I want to put on the table at the
appropriate time.
Mr. Chairman, I can never outdo your eloquence and your
speech, so I will just cease there, before I use up my time and
get thrown off the table, here.
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Do you know--thank you very much, Senator.
There's nothing wrong with the word ``parochial.'' I mean, in
your case, parochial is like 50 percent of the United States of
America. So, I wouldn't get too uptight about that.
Senator Begich. Thank you for that recognition.
The Chairman. And that's what we're here for; we fight for
our states, we fight for our people. And we try to--and do the
work of the Nation, too. But, you, above all, should not feel
uncomfortable with the word ``parochial.''
Senator Begich. I'm glad these are recorded. I am taking
notes for a later opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We welcome you.
Senator Begich. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Deputy Secretary--does that mean I--I can
call you ``Mr. Secretary,'' can't I?
Mr. Porcari. You can call me whatever you like, Mr.
Chairman.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, I know--I understand that. But, I----
Senator Begich. Now you see how I feel.
Mr. Porcari. Very good.
The Chairman. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, and thank
you, Senator.
It's great to be here to discuss the Administration's
Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the Department of
Transportation.
Secretary LaHood and I have traveled to more than 32 states
and 72 cities in the last year, and we've seen firsthand, up
close, how much our citizens depend on a safe, modern, and
reliable transportation system to access jobs, healthcare, and
other essential services.
The President's request for next year totals $79 billion.
That's a $2-billion increase over Fiscal Year 2010 levels.
These resources will support the President's and DOT's top
transportation priorities for safety on the roads and in the
air, making communities livable and sustainable, and
modernizing our infrastructure.
Safety is our highest priority at DOT. Our leadership
campaign against the perils of distracted driving--and you've
heard Secretary LaHood being very eloquent on this--which kills
thousands of Americans every day--every year--has been very
effective. It's critical that we continue to lead the charge.
That's why we're seeking $50 million for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration to develop an incentive-based
grant program that encourages more states to pass laws
prohibiting the unsafe use of cell phones and texting while
driving. The President is also asking for 66 additional
personnel assigned to highway and vehicle safety issues at
NHTSA.
Turning to aviation, the President's plan includes over $1
billion for NextGen, the program to modernize our air traffic
control system. That's a $275-million, or 32-percent, increase
over the Fiscal Year 2010 levels. These funds are essential for
transitioning from a ground-based radar surveillance system to
a more accurate and safer satellite-based one. This system, I'm
pleased to report, is already in use in the Gulf of Mexico, and
we look forward to building on our success in the area.
Our groundbreaking investments also in high-speed passenger
rail service, which have generated tremendous excitement around
the country, will go a long way to enhance livability in many
communities. Our budget seeks $1 billion to continue the 5-
year, $5-billion pledge made in this year's budget.
We want to thank the Congress for its commitment and
leadership on high-speed rail. The $2.5 billion provided the
Department high-speed rail grants last year, combined with the
$8 billion from the Recovery Act that we announced recently,
brings us closer to ushering in a new era for passenger rail
service in this country.
In the area of transit safety, we're seeking $30 million to
establish a new rail transit safety oversight program within
the Federal Transit Administration. We have never had that
before. This program will carry out a comprehensive safety
oversight strategy by establishing common standards--safety
standards nationwide, as envisioned by the Administration's
transit safety bill.
This is an important step forward for the rail transit
industry, which has suffered recent accidents, as you know, in
Washington, D.C., Boston, and San Francisco. These accidents
are unacceptable, and we must put strong remedies in place as
soon as possible. We urge the Congress to pass this legislation
this year.
Going forward, we have to find new ways to finance
infrastructure, so we're requesting $4 billion to establish a
national infrastructure innovation and finance fund. These
first-year funds would be used to invest in multimodal
transportation projects of regional and national significance.
Our crosscutting, outcome-based approach to funding will enable
us to move away from the silo mentality that has long hindered
our ability to respond to local and regional needs.
On reauthorization, the President proposes to continue
current spending levels, with $42.1 billion for highway and
bridges and $10.8 billion for transit. This request includes
$150 million for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority to address much-needed safety-related infrastructure
improvements.
Transportation has to be not only safe, but contribute to
livable, sustainable neighborhoods. The President's plan
provides record-level investments to make our communities more
livable. Specifically, we're seeking $527 million for livable
communities, which will help us build on the tremendous
successes we've achieved through our sustainability partnership
with HUD and the EPA. Together, we're helping State and local
governments make smarter investments in their transportation,
energy, and housing infrastructure, with better outcomes for
our citizens.
And finally, we're seeking $30 million to make long-overdue
infrastructure improvements at the U.S. Merchant Marine
Academy, which our Nation depends on to educate and train a new
generation of military and civilian maritime leaders. We've
been to Kings Point. We know these investments will have a
lasting, positive effect on this institution.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I'll be happy
to answer the Committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Porcari follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Porcari, Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Introduction
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget request for
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The Administration's FY 2011 budget request for the U.S. Department
of Transportation reflects the importance of strengthening our Nation's
transportation system. We have travelled throughout the country and we
know first-hand how important a safe and reliable transportation system
is to all Americans. The President's request totals $79 billion, a
nearly $2 billion increase over FY 2010 levels. These resources will
support the President's top transportation priorities: improving
transportation safety, investing for the future, and promoting livable
communities.
Highway Safety
Safety is and will continue to be our top priority. The budget
contains a number of new initiatives to increase road, transit, and
aviation safety. One of the most serious issues facing drivers today is
distracted driving. We must end the dangerous practice of unsafe cell
phone use or texting while driving. Too many lives have been lost
already due to distracted driving. Working together, we believe that we
can stop this dangerous practice--and save lives. The President's
Budget requests $50 million for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) for a new incentive grant program to promote
State laws to curtail unsafe cell phone use and eliminate texting while
driving. Today, our children don't think twice when they ``buckle
up''--and our goal is that tomorrow, our future generations won't think
twice about putting down their cell phone so that they can drive
safely. This new program will work alongside NHTSA's other highway
safety programs in making our highways safer for everyone. The
President is also asking for funds to support 66 additional personnel
for NHTSA to be assigned to highway and vehicle safety issues, and $7
million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for 118 new
truck safety personnel.
NextGen
The future of aviation is in our hands. The President's FY 2011
plan includes over $1 billion--an increase of $275 million over the
Fiscal Year 2010 levels--for ``NextGen''--the program to modernize the
air traffic control system. Currently, the Federal Aviation
Administration is undertaking a long-term effort to improve the
efficiency, safety, and capacity of the aviation system. But while we
are talking about the future of aviation, I'm pleased to report that
it's happening now. The funds requested under the Fiscal Year 2011
budget request will support the transformation from a national ground-
based radar surveillance system to a more accurate, satellite-based
surveillance system. This system is already being used in the Gulf of
Mexico, which is improving the safety and accuracy of air traffic
services in the Gulf. We will be building on the successes of our
research and development, to improve capacity to the flying public. We
will be developing more efficient routes through the airspaces, and
improving aviation weather information. As always, as we launch these
critical new applications, we will continue to keep our strong focus on
safety. Under our budget request, our vision of a modernized air
traffic control system is becoming a reality.
High Speed Rail
The budget also continues President Obama's vision to better
connect communities with a new, high-speed rail network. The budget
includes an additional $1 billion for High Speed Rail. This request
builds on the historic $8 billion down payment provided through the
Recovery Act, and continues the 5-year, $5 billion pledge made in the
Fiscal Year 2010 budget. The $2.5 billion provided to the Department
for high speed rail grants last year along with our recent
announcements of the first awards of the High Speed Rail Program will
put us one step closer to making High Speed Rail a reality.
This is an exciting time for the Nation. Looking ahead, high-speed
rail will one day provide the traveling public with a practical
alternative to flying or driving, particularly in highly congested
areas. With trains efficiently connecting city and business centers,
travelers will enjoy a new level of convenience not available in many
parts of the country today.
Rail Transit Safety
The President's request also includes resources to address rail
transit safety. While rail transit is safe, we must take substantive
steps now to make it even safer for the future. We are all well aware
that rail transit has the potential for catastrophic accidents
resulting in multiple injuries, considerable property damage, and
heightened public concern. Following the recent tragic accidents in
Washington D.C., Boston, and San Francisco, it is clear that we need to
strengthen the safety oversight of transit rail operations. Our budget
requests $30 million to establish a new transit safety oversight
program within the Federal Transit Administration. This program will
implement a comprehensive safety oversight strategy, as proposed in the
Administration's transit safety bill, to establish common safety
standards nationwide and to ensure the safety of our Nation's transit
riders.
Investing in Transportation Infrastructure
As we continue to focus on improving transportation safety, we must
also rethink the way we invest in our future transportation
infrastructure. That is why the President's plan includes $4 billion to
establish the new National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund
(Infrastructure Fund). This is the first year of a 5-year plan to
capitalize the fund with $25 billion. This Fund will invest in projects
of regional or national significance, and marks an important departure
from the Federal Government's traditional way of spending on
infrastructure through mode-specific grants.
Instead, the Infrastructure Fund will directly provide resources
for projects through grants or loans, or a blend of both, enabling us
to effectively leverage non-Federal resources, including private
capital. The projects funded under the Infrastructure Fund will be
based on demonstrable merit and analytical measures of performance.
Only the most worthwhile projects from around the Nation will be
selected. Projects eligible for funding from the Infrastructure Fund
consist of multi-modal projects that include highway, transit, rail,
aviation, ports and maritime components. This marks a bold new way of
thinking about investments in our transportation infrastructure and
will become a key component of the Administration's future surface
transportation proposal.
The reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation programs
is complex and has critical long-range implications for the future.
While the President and the Congress continue to work on a long-term
strategy for surface transportation, the President's plan continues the
current levels of spending: $42.1 billion is proposed for highways and
bridges and $10.8 billion for transit. Within this funding, $1.8
billion is included for ``New Starts'' and ``Small Starts,'' and $150
million to enable the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to
focus on badly needed safety-related infrastructure improvements.
Reauthorization is a challenging issue facing our Nation and we look
forward to working with the Congress to design a new Federal surface
transportation program that leads to higher performing investments,
increases transportation options, and promotes a sustainable
environment.
Livability
The President's plan also provides a record investment to make our
communities more livable. Our budget request allocates over $500
million toward investments that support the President's multi-agency
Partnership for Sustainable Communities. We have joined with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental
Protection Agency to stimulate comprehensive regional and community
planning efforts that integrate transportation, housing, energy and
other critical investments. Together, we will help State and local
governments make smarter investments in their transportation
infrastructure, to better leverage that investment and advance
sustainable development.
Recovery Act
February 17th marked the one-year anniversary of the Recovery Act
and I am pleased to report that much has been accomplished to improve
transportation infrastructure throughout the Nation. Overall, the
Recovery Act provided $48.1 billion for transportation programs to be
used for improvements to our Nation's highways and bridges, transit
systems, airports, railways, and shipyards. To date we have obligated
$36 billion on more than 13,700 projects nationwide.
In addition, Section 1512 of the legislation calls upon Recovery
Act fund recipients to report on the number of jobs created on
individual projects. We have now completed two rounds of recipient jobs
reporting. Based on the recent October--December 2009 reporting period,
we have created about 41,000 direct full time equivalent jobs for
transportation programs nationwide. I want to emphasize that the jobs
estimates included in this report are only those directly associated
with the individual transportation projects and do not include the many
other jobs created due to increased demand on supply chains and other
supporting services. When these indirect jobs are also taken into
account, it is clear that the Recovery Act resources have made a
significant impact on jobs and we expect these numbers to hold steady
as some of the larger transportation projects continue to come on-line.
Conclusion
Finally, I am proud of the proposed investments the President's
budget makes in the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy--one of our Nation's
five service academies. I have visited the young men and women at Kings
Point, and I'm greatly concerned about the conditions of their
facilities. They are old and badly in need of basic repair. The
President's plan includes $26 million to make long overdue capital
improvements that will help ensure midshipmen have a positive learning
environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present the
President's FY 2011 budget proposal for the Department of
Transportation. This plan supports our Nation's key transportation
priorities, and makes investments that will benefit all for years to
come. We look forward to working with the Congress to ensure the
success of our newest initiatives.
I will be happy to respond to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I'm going to start with Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, for being here. Last time we had a
conversation is when--through your confirmation process. So,
now you've been subjected to the process of working in the
Department, and now presenting the budget.
Couple of things. One, I greatly appreciate the increase
that is in the NextGen. As you know, that was piloted with the
Capstone project in Alaska, and NextGen is an incredible
technology. The $275 million additional amount that you talked
about, can you tell me, do you have a sense of what the
estimate is from DOT's perspective, and what it will take to
implement, in total, NextGen? In other words, you have a
billion going that direction--275 add-on. What will it really
take to finish out NextGen, in total dollars? Do you have a
number of that magnitude?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, I'll have to get you a total dollar
number. This is a multiyear program, and the planning horizon
for NextGen goes all the way to 2020----
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Porcari.--when you add in the general aviation
implementation and equipage, for example. I'll be happy to get
you that number.
[The information referred to follows:]
FAA'S capital investment for this mid-term system is expected to be
$9.6 billion through 2015. This cost does not include research, the
airport and associated airfield improvements, or the aircraft equipage
that is necessary to realize a fuller set of NextGen benefits. NextGen
costs beyond FY 2015 are still under development.
By 2018, the mid-term NextGen system (as characterized in the FAA's
2010 NextGen Implementation Plan) will include improvements in every
phase of flight and fundamentally change the way things operate in the
National Airspace System (NAS). Technologies such as Automatic
Dependant Surveillance-Broadcast and Data Communications, combined with
performance-based navigation procedures, will increase safety and
capacity as well as save time and fuel, decreasing carbon emissions and
improving FAA's ability to address noise. Common weather and system
status information will dramatically improve flight planning.
Mr. Porcari. The increase proposed in this budget allows us
to move forward with some really important components of
NextGen. I mentioned ADSB in the Gulf of Mexico has already
started. That's a portion of the Nation's airspace system,
where we have, at best, limited radar coverage now.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Porcari. We have about 10,000 flights a day. NextGen
brings a much increased level of safety to those flights.
Likewise, some of the enabling technologies that are
required for NextGen, like ERAM, are now operational in places
like Salt Lake City. So, there's a steady progression of the
components--and, as you know, NextGen is a system of systems--
--
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Porcari.--that will be completed over the next years.
I'll be happy to put that together for the Committee and
provide that.
Senator Begich. That'd be great. So, you can kind of show
me, on the national scale and then also, as you said, with the
general aviation fleets and so forth, what their--what you
think that will all play out, costwise and so forth; I'd like
to get a good sense. Because I'm assuming, as you start
ratcheting up, that number should increase, over the next
couple years, to a higher number. But, if you could do that,
that'd be great.
Mr. Porcari. I'd be happy to do that, Senator.
Senator Begich. Along with that, there are a couple of
things. And, again, very pleased with the proposal; I think
it's $182 million for the EAS funding--the Essential Air
Service program. As you can imagine, in Alaska, that is
critical, and we appreciate the President's support, appreciate
your support, and, obviously, Secretary LaHood's, for
recognizing the importance. That's just more for--you know, to
say thank you for that.
In regards to the National Infrastructure Innovation and
Finance Fund, I want to, if you could, just make sure I
understand. There are two parts. One, in your comment, I think
you said ``multimodal,'' which I'm all for, but what happens,
multimodal--rural states usually don't benefit as aggressively
as large urban--states with large urban populations. So, I--
when you said that phrase--I liked the idea, then I heard that
phrase. I got a little nervous, to be very frank with you,
because in rural states, sometimes just getting--you know, I
can't put multimodal in Kotzebue, Alaska, but I can put a
better transportation system for their interior road structures
there, that moves traffic better and cuts down dust pollution,
which is a huge problem in rural Alaska. But, when it suddenly
becomes multimodal, they're out of the question, because
there's going to be limited multimodal in Kotzebue, but a huge
demand. So, in this new program, how do you deal with, kind of,
the rural states--and I use mine as one that's very rural, but
I know West Virginia has very rural components--how do you deal
with that to make sure we're not lost in the mix? Now, maybe
you haven't thought that far out; I don't know. I'm just asking
the question.
Mr. Porcari. Senator, actually we have thought about that,
because an infrastructure fund that works for the country's
varied needs--and they vary greatly throughout the country--
needs to be able to adapt to whatever the local needs are. So,
for example, in the infrastructure fund, the Secretary would
have the authority to waive the minimum amount, which
specifically could help rural projects which tend to be
smaller, more specific, more localized. That's a specific
response to make the fund as helpful as possible for our rural
areas, as well.
Senator Begich. Would you--and I--my--the clock says zero,
so I'm not sure if I ran out of time already, but maybe I could
ask----
The Chairman. There is no clock.
Senator Begich. Oh, there is no clock. OK. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I'll just try to be brief and ask a follow-up on
that.
Would the--I'm nervous about waivers. Just so you know,
because that--you know, when you have a huge project come along
in a small rural area, it's a hard--it's hard to compete, to be
very frank. I mean we have a hard time on Corps of Engineer
projects, because of that exact fact. So, would you be willing
to, maybe, have an internal discussion about a rural component
of that, that is the same kind of innovation, same competition,
but maybe it's rural-to-rural? I'm nervous, to be very frank
with you--I just can give you the list of projects that I hear,
later on from the Federal Government, that says, ``Well, it
didn't score as high,'' and--because of A, B, C. And usually A,
B, C is--we can't change that; we're in a rural community. Is
there a willingness to examine that and maybe work with us on,
maybe, some ideas on how to--I don't want to call it a ``carve-
out'' because I'm--I want to make sure that it's a fair system
that's competitive, but maybe in a rural-to-rural versus rural
competing against--Kotzebue competing against Los Angeles, we
lose.
Mr. Porcari. We would be very happy to do that, Senator.
It's a----
Senator Begich. OK.
Mr. Porcari. Again, the fund needs to be relevant
throughout the country. We will be drafting some of the
specifics of the infrastructure fund. We will be happy to have
that discussion. Likewise, we would be happy to brief you on it
and go through the specifics as we're developing it, putting
the specific proposal together.
Senator Begich. That'd be great. I--and I--you know, I
speak for Alaska, but I know West Virginia has some rural
parts. I know some other states that serve on this committee.
The last comment I'll just make, and--on this one is--and
you don't have to do it now, unless you have a very quick
answer--and that is, How does this compare to the TIGER grants,
or are they two separate--or is this kind of the merging of it
into a more formal, sustainable program, or what--help me
understand those combos.
Mr. Porcari. They're not formally merged, but I think one
way to think of it is--to think of the TIGER grant process as a
precursor and in some ways maybe a prototype for----
Senator Begich. OK.
Mr. Porcari.--how an infrastructure fund, which could be
loans or grants, would function; the idea of merit-based
project selection, of being able to fund projects that don't
fall neatly into the silo programs that----
Senator Begich. Very good.
Mr. Porcari.--we have within our existing program. Those
same principles would likely apply within the infrastructure
fund. It's a recognition that we're looking for performance-
based outcomes and measurable outcomes on these transportation
improvements, as well.
Senator Begich. The TIGER grants had such a great demand--
59 billion or 50-some billion. I know mayors across the country
saw this as a great--I mean, this is like their dream, because
it's actually flexible; they don't get stuck in a silo. So,
could I say this, that the--that a TIGER grant--or this new
program--TIGER grants could morph into this newer program--and
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's kind of
where--as you called it, kind of a prototype. I'm not objecting
to that, I just want to make sure we don't create more
programs, but we have a very good, open program that creates
flexibility, and that's what you're trying to achieve, I think.
Mr. Porcari. That is what we're trying to achieve, because
the principles are the same. I think that's a fair
characterization of it.
Senator Begich. Very good.
Mr. Chairman, I'll stop there. I know you have questions,
too, and I don't want to burn up all the time.
The Chairman. And we can go back and forth.
Senator Begich. Oh, that'd be great.
The Chairman. We can interrupt each other.
Senator Begich. We don't do that here. So, this is good. I
look forward to it.
The Chairman. Yes. No, this is--that's why I'm so glad you
came, because----
Senator Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.--it's a freer, open forum.
I'm interested in--I said ``60,'' in my statement, and it's
66 new employees for NHTSA. But, what concerns me is that
they--the language appears to spread them, in terms of their
availability, across either NHTSA or the agency--I'm not--but I
think it's probably NHTSA. Our focus is on safety, and the
comparison and the shortfall of the comparison between safety
people available for all forms of transportation in NHTSA and
just anything else--you know, FAA, when they inspect. I mean,
we were, and still are, building a small jet airplane in West
Virginia, and there are 13,000 parts. And FAA--particularly in
the first few models of it, FAA scours each one of those 13,000
parts. They have the people to do it; hundreds of people. Now,
you've got very few, and now you're going to have 66 more, and
I'm wondering why those aren't specifically targeted. You have
a very good reason.
Mr. Porcari. Mr. Chairman, it's a great question. What
we're trying to do with those 66 positions is attack all
elements of safety. The Office of Defects Investigation is
clearly one of them. The rulemaking process has brought some
real safety innovations to the industry. Making sure that we
have a strong rulemaking process is also important. The
enforcement side of it, likewise. The research component of
it--the industry technologies are changing very quickly.
Safety, we think of, really, as a system, and within that
system, we want to make sure that we're addressing every one of
those safety issues. If there is one thing that is----
The Chairman. Do you contract out for new innovations? Do
you insist on doing it in-house, or do you contract out for it?
Mr. Porcari. We do both, Mr. Chairman. We have in-house
personnel. Because technology moves very quickly, we do need to
go outside and get very specific expertise, which we do all the
time, and we will continue to do. So, it's a combination of in-
house and outside, specialized expertise.
The Chairman. But, I interrupted you.
Mr. Porcari. If there's one thing, I think, that is drilled
into all of our heads since we began our positions, it's
Secretary LaHood's admonition that safety is our most important
priority, and that certainly applies in this case. You have
heard, from him, that we will not rest until we know the
specifics of some of the recent defects that have been
mentioned. We will use whatever resources we need to, to do
that. We think of safety across the board, both within NHTSA
and across the Department, as a really important priority.
I would mention that one aspect of this--Secretary LaHood
created a safety council that cuts across all the modal lines.
So, for example, in your very apt illustration of the Federal
Aviation Administration as a leader in safety, we can draw on
their expertise for the other portions of the transportation
system. I chair this activity for the Secretary. It's a very
conscious attempt to draw on the best ideas and resources.
Issues like fatigue and distraction cut across
transportation modal lines, and so, a more aggressive safety
effort includes new thinking along those lines, as well.
The Chairman. OK. We're joined by Senator Thune, and the--
our rules here, there is no time limit, so you can talk for 3
hours.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Now, Mark and I will be unhappy about that,
but you can technically do that.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. But, you know, one of the things--we had a
hearing the other day; we talked about complaints. And you get
a lot of complaints. Now, where do they go? How are they
handled? Do the safety people read them? Because there's a
direct relationship between doing safety and reading
complaints.
The President talks about reading 10 letters every night,
and people think that's just kind of a joke. You know, I ought
to be doing that. I read a lot of letters, but to sort of have
the discipline of getting variated letters that you need every
night that are fresh off of somebody's frustration and pen is
really a good idea. So, how are complaints handled when they
come in to your agency?
Mr. Porcari. NHTSA alone gets, I believe, about 30,000
complaints a year. Every one of those is looked at by staff.
It's one of the better ways----
The Chairman. Staff. Is that the safety staff? Is it a
separate staff?
Mr. Porcari. The specific staff. I will get back to you,
Mr. Chairman, and outline the specific staff.
[The information referred to follows:]
NHTSA'S Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) currently collects
consumer complaints in four primary ways. Complaints that are submitted
by consumers via the Internet or by a Hotline representative are
automatically entered into NHTSA's complaint data base. Complaints that
are submitted by consumers via letter, hard copy vehicle owners'
questionnaire or e-mail are entered into NHTSA's complaint database by
NHTSA contractors.
Every complaint received by NHTSA is reviewed at least twice by a
technical expert in the ODI. If the complaint is about an issue already
under investigation, the complaint is added to the appropriate
investigation file. If the complaint describes a problem that is unique
or for which no failure trend is yet apparent, it is retained in
NHTSA's complaint database and reviewed again, with other complaints to
determine whether there is an emerging safety issue that warrants a
defect investigation.
The Chairman. I really want to know that, because it's--it
becomes incredibly important. Because complaints, if they're
taken seriously, motivate. They can change a person's day--dump
a person on his back or make him or her optimistic. They're
really important, and they're--and, obviously, they're very
real. I assume some of them are just people making it up, but I
don't think many of them are.
Mr. Porcari. These are very real. If people are taking the
time to send in a complaint, in whatever form, we need to and
do take the time to look at every single one of them. And
it's----
The Chairman. Who does, and where does it go after it's
been read?
Mr. Porcari. I will outline that for you, Mr. Chairman: who
reads it, where it goes. And one of the primary users of that
information is our Office of Defect Investigation.
The Chairman. See, the word ``users'' is ephemeral,
because--how do you ``use'' a complaint unless you've ``read''
a complaint? I want the answer, of course, to be that they read
the complaint and then use the information from that to
motivate them to do whatever. That may be totally unreasonable
if there are 30,000 coming in a year. But, it's a question that
I care about a great deal.
Let me ask one more, then I'll go to Senator Thune.
You talked about NextGen, and that really has been on--has
bugged me for years. And you know the efforts that I tried and
failed on. I still think I'm right, but others don't, so I
gracefully exit the field, temporarily. But, I mean, there
needs to be an equity in the way our air traffic control system
is paid for. Every single plane, be it private or commercial,
legacy or not, requires the same attention. It may have three
people on it, it may have 300 people on it, but it requires the
same attention, both at landing and takeoff, TRACONs--all the
way through. And yet, one pays virtually 90 percent of the cost
of the whole system. And I'm not--I don't think that's fair.
So, yes, we are increasing general aviation about 30 cents-a-
gallon, and that's fine; we get a certain amount of money for
that. But, I really don't have a sense, in my own mind, of--I
think the Secretary--or maybe you said it--no, it was in--I
guess it was in my briefing, that you expect to, obviously,
expand what you've done in the Delta area.
But, to get it done across the country is kind of a--an
urgent demand. It's like safety--not having it cost lives, but
that doesn't get chalked up to a lost life, because it's not an
accident. It's just--it's something that happens--a crash or a
tarmac incident that happens because we didn't have accurate,
you know, laser-like oversight of it. So, you have some more
money for that, but I'm not sure exactly how you're going to
use it.
Mr. Porcari. One of the ways that we've been using it is,
as I mentioned, the greater usage of ADSB in the Gulf of
Mexico. It is also being pioneered in other parts of the
country. We, at the same time, need to move forward on the
equipage issue for aircraft, to make sure that they're
equipped. We're trying to incentivize that through the concept
of best equipped, best served. So, the aircraft with the----
The Chairman. How do you equip an aircraft, if you don't
have a ground system? Or you can do it, of course, but to what
advantage?
Mr. Porcari. What we're trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is
synchronize those so that the ground elements of NextGen, in--
at least in a rough sense--and the equipage, keep pace with
each other. You're right, we need to do both of them. There are
some very substantial gains, as you know, in safety, in
efficiency, and on the environmental side, in things like fuel-
burn from implementation. So, we're actively evaluating and
looking at where elements of NextGen like ADSB can best be
implemented in the near future to get the best--the most gains,
and we'll continue to do that.
The increase in NextGen funding is to accelerate those
opportunities and get some--quite frankly, some early wins that
show the benefits of NextGen to the industry, to our traveling
public, from all three of those perspectives--from safety,
capacity, and in environmental savings.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you.
Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You have a statement you want to make?
Senator Thune. Yes, if I could, Mr. Chairman. I'll submit
it for the record, and move into some questions.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thune follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Thune, U.S. Senator from South Dakota
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for rescheduling this
afternoon's hearing. I would also like to thank Deputy Secretary
Porcari for being here today; I look forward to your testimony.
I have one principal concern with the Administration's budget
proposal, and that is its policy recommendations that I believe would
be more appropriately considered by this committee as part of
authorizing legislation. For example, the budget proposes imposing a
user fee on the Nation's railroads to offset $50 million of the cost of
rail safety inspectors and related activities. That decision should be
made only after a careful policy debate by this committee in the
context of the rail safety program as a whole.
The budget also proposes a new ``National Infrastructure and
Finance Fund,'' initially funded at $4 billion, which would make multi-
modal grants and loans to projects of national and regional
significance. I understand the Administration will be submitting
authorizing legislation for the Fund, and again, believe that a careful
review of the policy implications of such a Fund should be made by the
Committee of jurisdiction before any action is taken by the
appropriators. I also have great reservations about this type of fund,
which I believe would principally benefit large metropolitan areas and
ignore the needs of rural states like my own.
Finally, Mr. Porcari, I understand the Department will be
submitting its principles for reauthorizing the highway program within
90 days. However, news reports suggest that actual legislation won't be
forthcoming until next year. I hope that is not the case. The
Administration's input, particularly on motor carrier and NHTSA
programs, will be important to keep the programs moving in the right
direction. But we need a formal proposal this year for it to be
relevant to the debate.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to today's
discussions.
Senator Thune. But, I want to thank the Secretary for being
with us today and responding to some of these questions on the
budget.
I think some of the ground that I was going to cover has
already been covered by Senator Begich. But, I do want to ask
you, too--and maybe this question's been answered--when the
Administration does intend to submit a formal proposal for
reauthorizing the highway program, including the motor carrier
and NHTSA safety programs. Do you have a timeline for releasing
that?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, we're working on building a proposal
right now. We have been supporting an 18-month extension, which
would take us to March of next year, and it's our intention to
have a proposal together, including all--the many elements that
we need for a really comprehensive authorization proposal in
that timeframe.
Senator Thune. And I guess I know that there's a proposal
right now to extend this into next year, but I was sort of
hoping that that wouldn't be the case. I think there's a lot of
uncertainty out there right now, with the State DOTs and
highway programs, about what the funding levels are going to
be, and I would like to see us get to work on a highway bill
this year. But, I guess, after what you've just said with
regard to timing, are there any recommendations, other than
those that are in the budget request, that you can talk about?
Do you know any aspects of that that are--that you can discuss
at this point?
Mr. Porcari. Some of the general principles have been
widely discussed, things like more flexibility. The point was
made earlier, for State and local partners on the ground that
actually are building and operating these projects in return
for performance measures, where we know and can measure what
the results are.
I would point out, also, in terms of timing, the extension
until December 31, starts to give the State and local partners
the kind of consistency and predictability you need, which is a
real contrast to short-term, 30-day extensions or even orderly
shutdowns of the program, which we just experienced.
Senator Thune. Right. And I wouldn't disagree with that. I
think that a longer term is better than these short, you know,
month-to-month type extensions that we've been dealing with
here lately.
One of the things that the Department's asked for is $500
million for this new Livable Communities program, and it seems
to me that it's a program that's going to overwhelmingly focus
on urban areas, and I guess I'm wondering what a program like
this will do, if anything, to help rural states, like South
Dakota.
Mr. Porcari. It's a fair question, Senator. It applies
equally throughout the country. In fact, some of the principles
and the examples of Livable Communities really were getting
back to the quality of life that many of us enjoyed in small
towns in the more rural areas. The concept of making
transportation an enabler for that kind of quality of life is
really one of the concepts behind Livable Communities. It is
not specific just to the urban areas.
If you look at some of the efforts that we've had, jointly,
with HUD and EPA, if you look at where some of the TIGER grants
have gone, it's clear that the livability portion of those
efforts really applies, as well, in rural areas as it does
anyplace else.
Senator Thune. One of the other programs that is, I think,
included in your proposals--and I think Senator Begich may have
covered a little bit of this already, but--this proposed
infrastructure fund and how that might be organized and how
useful that would be to rural states--and maybe you already
elaborated on that, but the question I would ask is, How is
that fund going to impact TIFIA?
Mr. Porcari. One way to think about the infrastructure
fund, sir, is--TIFIA, as an existing program, could be part of
a larger infrastructure fund. It could be one tool as part of
an infrastructure fund. TIFIA's been a very successful program.
Likewise, our RRIF program for railroads could be considered in
the same context, part of a larger infrastructure fund that has
both loans and grants available to attack specific
transportation problems.
Senator Thune. And you think it would--the infrastructure
fund would have some value in rural areas?
Mr. Porcari. I think it certainly would. One of the
advantages of that infrastructure fund would be its flexibility
to meet local needs, whatever those might be.
Senator Thune. Would each State get some assurance or
guarantee of funding under that? It would be formula-based? How
is that structured?
Mr. Porcari. The specifics of the infrastructure fund are
something we're working on right now and we will be submitting
as a detailed proposal. I hesitate to characterize it one way
or another now, knowing that there's a lot of discussion and
collaboration that we will want to go through before we have a
specific proposal in front of you.
Senator Thune. The--one of the other things that you--and I
think it was a proposal in the budget, as well--deals with a
railroad safety user fee to help offset the costs associated
with rail safety inspectors and their activities. I think
that's a proposal that's been made in the past on numerous
occasions. What, I guess, gives you reason to believe that,
this year, Congress might approve it?
Mr. Porcari. Well, first, Senator, it's very consistent
with ways that we fund other safety activities in the
Department. If you think about our HAZMAT program, and pipeline
safety, as two examples, they are funded by similar fees.
It was also, I'm told, instituted between 1991 and 1995, so
there is some history of that. We believe that, given the
safety imperative of the railroad system, that it's a fair and
equitable and an appropriate way to raise revenue--again,
similar to other parts of the transportation system.
Senator Thune. And I would--the only thing I would say--
and, Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of those issues that
really ought to--it would be more appropriately considered, by
this committee, as part of an authorizing bill. And a decision
like that, I think, should only be made after there's a careful
policy debate by the Committee, in the context of the rail
safety program as a whole. But, I know it's a recommendation
that gets made every year.
Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, sir.
Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Thune.
You've got a report coming out--or advisory coming out on
pilot fatigue? I don't think it's out yet.
Mr. Porcari. Yes. There are a couple of things going on,
Mr. Chairman, including a rulemaking process on the hours and
on flight and duty hours. The ``Call to Action'' that
Administrator Babbitt led immediately in the aftermath of
Colgan Air is--was one of the more immediate efforts on that
issue. There's a lot of research going on related to that, as
well, all leading to what we think will be a much more
comprehensive approach.
The Chairman. Comprehensive approach. Let's just look at
that. I have to tell you--I mean, it's--I almost hate saying
it, because it makes me sound trivial, but it was scary, this
thing, with the child, that was landing--a couple kids landing
airplanes for 3 or 4 minutes. And, you know, that that happens
once in a century--I was just shocked. I was absolutely
shocked. I mean, it--so, people just didn't care. There's
never--and, you know, in that business, in the tower, there's
no such thing as downtime, ever.
I don't want tarry on that. I--but, I--you carry that over
to the question of fatigue, and Senator Thune and I both
represent states where, you know, we don't have a whole lot of
jets landing in--you may, in South Dakota--we don't, in West
Virginia. It's this stuff. And the pilots are more junior, I
would guess. You tell me. They're probably paid less. And yet,
you're coming out with a notice of rulemaking or whatever. But,
at some point, you only have so many pilots, or the airplane--
airlines can only afford to have so many people.
So, one, I want to know, with Iraq and Iran going on, each
of them--well, both of them, somewhat down in their use of
airplanes--what the supply is out there, and therefore, what I
have a right, on the Commerce Committee, to expect the
availability of people who are skilled pilots, who are
professional pilots with military experience--maybe not private
experience, but that they can transfer easily--who just don't
do things like that. You know, they don't fall asleep, they
don't--I'm not talking about the tower thing, I'm just taking
about fatigue and what happened in Buffalo.
You don't--you know, when people get tired, they get tired.
And my real question is that--you know, that can be unexpected;
they could have been up all night, for whatever reasons, and--
human behavior is a tough thing to change. You have to start
with an ample supply of people who can fly airplanes, and do it
well, and be aggressive, and they're young and strong and
healthy, and well enough paid. And then you have to have two of
them up there all the time, and there has to be sort of an
alertness. You can't put that into rulemaking, I don't think.
That's called ``human nature.'' And it means, I think, that the
supply is adequate, that the pay is adequate to keep the supply
motivated, and that there is, you know, a lot of these--you get
onto an airplane, and it's called ``Colgan,'' but it's actually
owned by somebody else, and so you--the flying public doesn't
really know who it is, unless it's one of the legacy airlines.
So, it's kind of a diffused responsibility in smaller aircraft,
piston aircraft.
But, how do you--you know, you say that you're going to put
on a rulemaking. I mean, this fatigue business has to stop, and
that's like saying people can't get fatigued. Nobody in the
world can make that statement. So, what are some of the things
that you think might come out of this?
Mr. Porcari. There are a number of points you made there,
Mr. Chairman. And one of them is--the rulemaking process, as
it's being developed now, does need to recognize that adequate
rest is an imperative, that there are different ways to get
that, and trying, through the science behind it, to work around
things like circadian rhythms and the need to have, not just
downtime, but adequate quality rest time. That is,
specifically, one of the things that we're trying to get to
through this rulemaking process.
The Chairman. Now, does the rulemaking go to the airlines,
which then enforces it, or does it come directly from you to
the pilots?
Mr. Porcari. It would go to the airlines, and they would be
required to enforce it. The important underlying concept here
is one level of safety, Mr. Chairman, where--it shouldn't
matter if it's an international flight, a domestic flight, or a
regional turboprop--that one level of safety applies.
Administrator Babbitt is very committed to this--and has been
in his previous professional experience, too--to get to that
one level of safety, recognizing that it will take different
strategies for different parts of the aviation system.
There's an important part of this, as well--the
professionalism, which I think you've alluded to, in some of
the questions you've asked, things like observing the sterile
cockpit rule and paying attention to the primary flight
instruments and making sure that the workload management within
the cockpit is distributed correctly. All of those things are a
product of professionalism.
We do, and will, have fewer military pilots going into
commercial aviation in the future; that is a fact. So, in the
past, where there has been a fairly large supply of pilots
coming in with thousands of hours of flight experience before
they're getting into the commercial arena at all, will be less
and less prevalent. That puts a premium on training skills and
maintaining those skills. Again, I think that's part of a
larger system of safety. We need to attack every single aspect
of that, and that's what we're committed to doing.
The Chairman. Well, let me give you an example. I cannot
tell you how many times, flying out of Charleston or Morgantown
or Clarksburg or Bluefield or whatever, that pilots just aren't
available and they have to be flown in. So, you wait for
several hours, and it's worth the wait, because that's the only
place you're going to get to where you want to go--and so,
they're flown in. But, by the act of flying them in, you're
saying two things: One is they may very well be tired, but
they're reacting to an emergency situation. And then, second,
that gets back to supply. Why does that happen? I mean, it's
not like a mechanical failure at an airline. I mean, it's just
that there weren't enough people. So, again, the supply of
people. Yes, it may be diminishing, but right now, I would
think, would be a fairly healthy supply. So, can you address
those for me?
Mr. Porcari. Well, first, I think the rulemaking process
certainly will have implications for the supply and the
scheduling of pilots. We want to make sure that the industry is
doing more realistically and more appropriately scheduling the
flight and duty time. That's really one of the underlying
precepts behind the rulemaking effort right now.
The Chairman. But, the scheduling--I mean, I'm just not
going to let you get away with that--the scheduling is done,
and two pilots are scheduled to fly from here to there, then
something intervenes, something happens. On the receiving end,
in Charleston, West Virginia, I'm waiting for a couple of hours
for two pilots to fly in from Cincinnati or Detroit or
whatever, and I don't know what their--you know, how long
they've been flying before that. Now, the airlines does. So, in
order to attack the problem, you're going to have to be fairly
severe with the airlines.
Mr. Porcari. Yes. We will have to be--and the airlines will
have to be both realistic and rigorous about having rested
pilots. In your example, coming from Cincinnati to relieve the
pilots, that clearly has to be part of the process.
The Chairman. OK. So, what is the supplying situation now
of professional pilots?
Mr. Porcari. What I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is get you
the exact numbers. I don't know them offhand.
[The information referred to follows:]
The FAA does not have projections for pilot retirements. The agency
does publish the number of pilots certificated in both General Aviation
and Commercial categories.
While the FAA does not maintain pilot retiree projections, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a 12 percent increase in the demand
for aircraft pilots and flight engineers through 2018, equating to need
for over 27,000 new pilots and flight engineers.
Mr. Porcari. But, we do know that there's almost a
generational bow wave, as it were, of retirees--pilot
retirees--that will require a lot of new entrants. I think the
entire industry is worried about having an adequate supply of
trained, experienced pilots. As the industry grows, that
problem becomes even more acute.
The Chairman. Well, that's going to be very interesting,
what your report, so to speak, has to say on that, because
that's--as well as your response to my question--because that's
extremely important.
I've just, basically, got two more questions I--well, I've
got a lot of questions, but I'm just going to do two more.
On Amtrak--and Senator Thune was bringing that up--and
I'm--I don't--does Amtrak go through South Dakota, in part or
in whole? It doesn't.
Mr. Porcari. I don't believe so.
The Chairman. Well, it--West Virginia is lucky, in that it
does. You're getting another billion dollars for Amtrak. And
so, I have a couple questions. Is Amtrak planning on expanding?
You're asking for a billion dollars. A billion dollars to do
what? It says here, ``Amtrak system, in complying with
Americans With Disabilities Act.'' I guess that would mean
that--the cars and the trains themselves, but--or how you get
on or get off--but, what else does that billion dollars do?
And my second question is--it would be my impression, in
the rest of rail traffic, that the private trains that, you
know, perform most of this, that they take care of their rail
system, that they take care of the upkeep. On Amtrak, I don't
know. Do you--does Amtrak--responsible for that? Do they pay
for the upkeep of that?
Mr. Porcari. Amtrak is either responsible for the upkeep of
its own lines, which are the Northeast Corridor, essentially,
or is paying, through access fees, at least indirectly, paying
for the upkeep of lines that it operates on that it does not
own.
I would also point out on the Americans With Disabilities
Act, which you mentioned, would include both the rolling stock,
which in many cases is not ADA-accessible, but the stations and
the----
The Chairman. The stations themselves.
Mr. Porcari.--stations, as well.
The Chairman. In which case, a billion dollars isn't much.
Mr. Porcari. That's correct. The need is large. I would
point out, on the positive side, that the $1.6 billion in the
President's budget, if enacted, would be the highest--I
believe, the highest number ever for Amtrak. Significant
progress, I think, was made through the Recovery Act. The $1.3
billion in the Recovery Act for Amtrak returned to service some
coaches that had been sidelined--in some cases, for years.
Things like replacing a 102-year-old bridge over the Niantic
River. So, some really critical and long-overdue improvements
were funded through the Recovery Act. So, it is far from taking
care of all of Amtrak's needs, but I will tell you the trend
lines are positive.
I think it's also important to state that Amtrak, for the
first time in a long time, has put together a comprehensive
capital program that I think is both realistic and prioritizes
their critical needs. Like everyone else, there is more need
than money, but they are working hard and, I think, have a good
plan for moving forward.
The Chairman. OK. The final thing comes out of a
frustration with something called ``upkeep.'' I have a massive
frustration, with respect to the Coast Guard--not against them,
but on behalf of them--that they always seem to, you know, take
a second place to the other services. But, they save 5,000
lives a year. And their youngest ice cutters are--big ones--are
45 years old. In other words, they--when it comes to the
budget, they just get shafted. When it comes to their
leadership, they're not four-star, they're three-star. I
personally think they ought to be four-star. I don't know what
we're going to do about that, but we may try to do something
about that; simply because, in this town, if you're a three-
star, people listen to you a whole lot less than if you're a
four-star. And I'm not trying to interpret the military
culture, but that's sort of the way it works, and I don't think
the Coast Guard should take a second seat to anybody, in terms
of our Nation's needs.
Now, in the MARAD account, you have the Merchant Marine
Academy. You spoke about it. And you may not be able to give me
now, but I want to have a sense of, over the past decade, what
has been their tendency. I'm mean I'm not just talking about
painting windows, but basic replacement of pipes and electrical
circuitry and all the rest of it that keeps, simply, the
facility going. I'm not talking about the educational program
or anything else. I'd like to, but I'm not, on this. And what,
you know, is--you have--the 2011 request is $352 million, which
is a cut of $11 million. The first place, when it comes to cut,
is deferred maintenance.
[The information referred to follows:]
Here is a list of capital improvement projects that have been
completed or in progress over the last ten Fiscal Years.
The majority of the buildings on the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy's
82-acre campus were built within 18 months during World War II. Many of
the original campus buildings, academic structures, and gymnasium still
remain the same as when they were first built in 1943.
To identify the Academy's capital improvement needs, a detailed
facilities master plan was developed in 2002 by an Architecture/
Engineering firm. This plan was subsequently updated in March 2008.
Through Fiscal Year 9, the Academy has received close to $119 million
which is consistent with this capital plan. The table below provides a
list of completed capital improvement projects that have been completed
or are in progress.
USMMA Capital Improvement Plan Projects Completed or In Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects: Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design of six barracks and modification of rooftop parapets $3,000,000
Reconstruction of roofs to Barry and Jones Halls (Dormitories) 2,900,000
Construction contract for Jones Hall (1st of 6 Dormitories) 12,900,000
Safety, ADA, EPA, OSHA Projects 7,400,000
Critical deferred Maintenance for Academic Facilities and Physical Plant 28,300,000
Capital maintenance for TV KINGS POINTER 3,400,000
Restoration of Waterfront Seawall (First of several phases) 5,200,000
Construction contract for Barry Hall (2nd of 6 Dormitories) 12,500,000
Preliminary design for Ceremonial Center (Supplemental Operational Funds) 419,000
Mariner's Memorial Chapel Structural Repairs 3,500,000
Maintenance Dredging of Basin to Permit Training Ship Unrestricted Access 3,200,000
Initial Design of Mallory and Crowninshield Pier Renovations 600,000
Construction Contract for Palmer Hall (3rd and Largest of 6 Dormitories) 17,690,000
Construction Contract for Murphy Hall (4th of 6 Dormitories) 17,750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $118,759,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was President of a private college for 4 years, and--
during the early recession, in the 1980s--and that doesn't work
well. You defer maintenance, you pay, big-time, for it later
on. In terms of attracting people into the academy--students to
come there--maintenance is important--what their rooms look
like, how are they equipped, are they computer-friendly, all
the rest of that.
So, what do you do when you have an $11-million cut for
MARAD, and you want to keep up to date on renovating the campus
facilities at the Marine Academy?
Mr. Porcari. Secretary LaHood has made the Merchant Marine
Academy a real priority and a personal priority. In part, I
think it's fair to say, it's because of his perception, when he
first visited, of the state of the physical infrastructure on
the campus.
I think all of us who are involved in it feel the same way.
We know--and I'll be happy to put together for you, Mr.
Chairman, what's happened over the last decade, in terms of
investment or lack of investment. And it shows. We have made a
commitment to the midshipmen, we have made a commitment to the
families, and to the faculty and staff, that we are going to
improve that.
What you see in the President's budget is a substantial
commitment, and actually the beginnings of a real capital
program, to first renovate some of the facilities that are far
behind the curve for renovation, and getting to a more rigorous
system of maintaining a state of good repair of the facilities.
Again, none of us would argue that that exists now. It is
something we are very much committed to. We believe that the
specific improvements that we will be undertaking, and the
dollar amounts, are sufficient to actually get us started on
that road and make a substantial beginning on it.
We also have a blue ribbon committee, led by Admiral
Barrett, the previous Deputy Secretary, who have looked
comprehensively at the Academy, including the facilities and
the facility needs, and will be reporting in shortly on that.
So, this is a diamond-in-the-rough, in a sense, for the Nation.
It has an incredibly important mission for the Nation's future
maritime leaders. I think all of us would concede that we have
not done the job we need to in the past in maintaining the
facilities, in providing the opportunities, both with physical
infrastructure and other elements of the academy. We're
committed to doing that, and Secretary LaHood has devoted
considerable personal time to making sure that happens.
The Chairman. Well, you tell him I'm pleased, that I'm
really glad he feels that way, because when it--with the size
of the budget he has, and all the responsibilities that he has,
that Academy needs a champion. And I'm not saying there aren't
a lot of champions that are fighting for it, but I'm saying
having the Secretary of Transportation fighting for it is
really, really important. And so, I'll be interested to hear
from you and see what's going on there.
Mr. Porcari. I look forward to that.
The Chairman. But, those places----
Mr. Porcari. He's clearly----
The Chairman. I mean, that's--those are fine young men and
women; I've seen them. We have 200 of them in West Virginia.
And they're spectacular. I don't think anybody in West Virginia
knows they're there. I didn't until I went to visit them.
Mr. Porcari. And when they graduate, sir, they're in
incredible demand. They form the underpinnings, really, of a
U.S. maritime fleet and a U.S. maritime capability. Whether
they're in civilian service or in the military services--and
they, as you know do both--they're incredibly valuable and
well-trained.
The Chairman. I agree. Look, I thank you very much. I mean,
this----
Mr. Porcari. My pleasure.
The Chairman.--this could go on endlessly. But, you've been
very forthcoming and very good, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Porcari. It's my pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And I'm sorry that I was late.
Mr. Porcari. Not a problem at all. My pleasure.
The Chairman. Well, at least we had a full turnout.
Mr. Porcari. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Hon. John D. Porcari
Question 1. Does the FAA's budget proposal provide sufficient
resources to adequately implement the NextGen initiatives required by
[the Senate version] of FAA reauthorization?
Answer. The FY 2011 budget request will allow FAA to accomplish its
current NextGen commitments and milestones. If the provisions of the
Senate version of FAA reauthorization are passed, FAA will make the
appropriate adjustments to reflect any necessary changes to existing
plans.
Question 2. Why has the budget for installing ADS-B
infrastructure--the cornerstone of the FAA's GPS-based system--been
reduced in FY 2011 at a time when it is being deployed nationwide?
Answer. The baseline funding profile for ADS-B accounts for a
significant amount of development work (defining, designing, and
building the system) to be performed leading up to the In Service
Decision (ISD) in September 2010. The ISD will authorize FAA to proceed
with full NAS-wide deployment. While there is an extensive amount of
work required to deploy the system, it is anticipated that there will
be a reduction in required resources as the program shifts from the
development to deployment phase.
In addition, most of the software development efforts for the
automation platforms, with the exception of ERAM, will be completed in
2010. Also, the contract with ITT will transition from being cost-plus
to a fixed price subscription charge for ITT services to provide
surveillance inputs.
Question 3. On March 1, 2010, the Department of Transportation had
to furlough nearly 2,000 employees and shut down highway reimbursements
to states worth hundreds of millions of dollars because the Senate
failed to extend the authorizations of the surface transportation
programs. What is the total financial impact of this furlough on the
states? What is the value of the productivity lost because of the
furlough?
Answer. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) temporarily
suspended reimbursements to states from March 1, 2010 through March 2,
2010, due to the expiration of authority to make expenditures from the
Highway Trust Fund. This meant a delay in reimbursing the states over
$141 million for costs already incurred. On March 2, 2010, the
Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-144) extended surface
transportation programs and the related authority to make expenditures
from the Highway Trust Fund. All pending State reimbursement requests
were processed the next day minimizing, if not eliminating, any direct
financial impact on the states.
The value of productivity lost because of the furlough is difficult
to determine but must take into account the work lost for nearly 2,000
Department of Transportation employees being unable to oversee the many
programs and billions of dollars in their charge. States, which depend
on Federal funds as an important component of their total highway
investment and capital planning, generally took a wait and see approach
and did not modify their practices during the two-day period.
I am pleased that Congress has since passed an extension of surface
transportation programs through December 2010. This will give Congress
and the Administration more time to reach consensus on new, long-term
legislation and a way to fund it.
Question 4. What is your timeline for submitting a reauthorization
proposal to Congress?
Answer. Secretary LaHood has committed to releasing principles for
a reauthorization bill as soon as they are ready in order to lay out a
framework for reauthorization and engage in more substantive
conversations with our partners on Capitol Hill. We hope to use the
time between now and the end of the year, when the current extension of
the surface transportation program runs out, to make progress in
developing long-term legislation.
Question 5. Besides using this committee's recommendations, how
else does the Administration's plan address the dangers of distracted
driving?
Answer. The Department is developing a Distraction Plan which will
outline our efforts in four categories: improving the understanding of
the problem, reducing driver workload from in-vehicle systems
(interfaces), keeping distracted drivers safe (e.g., crash avoidance
warning and distraction monitoring system research), and increasing
public awareness to recognize the risks and consequences of distracted
driving. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
also published a model law, which can be used by states when drafting
new texting laws.
We have already begun several other projects outlined in the Plan.
For example, NHTSA is exploring ways to improve police reporting of
distraction-related crashes. NHTSA has also begun demonstration
programs in New York and Connecticut to test whether the High
Visibility Enforcement model used in other programs (``Click It or
Ticket'' and ``Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.'') would be
effective for distracted driving.
Question 6. When do you anticipate that the DOT will issue the UCR
fee assessment rulemaking for 2010 so that states will have funding
certainty for their motor carrier safety enforcement efforts?
Answer. The Department submitted the UCR fees draft final rule to
OMB on March 9, 2010. The Department anticipates publication of the
final rule in the summer of 2010. In addition, on March 2, 2010, the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published in the Federal
Register Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Applicability of Fees for
the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement (see 75 FR 9487).
This guidance allows states participating in the UCR Plan to consider
the option of assessing and collecting fees for registration year 2010
by applying the current fee structure. This option allows participating
states to continue meeting their commitment, in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 14504a(e)(1)(B) ``that an amount at least equal to the revenue
derived by the State from the unified carrier registration agreement
shall be used for motor carrier safety programs, enforcement, or the
administration of the UCR plan and UCR agreement.'' In addition,
participating states will also have funds available to meet their share
of the costs of participating in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program's grants, as permitted by 49 U.S.C. 31103(a).
Question 7. What is or what should be the collective plan between
Congress, the DOT, and the public and private railroads to make sure
the investments are made to meet the Positive Train Control (PTC)
installation deadline?
Answer. FRA recognizes the regulatory responsibility public and
private railroads face in meeting the December 31, 2015 PTC
implementation mandate. There are significant costs associated with
procurement and installation of the necessary equipment and with the
resolution of technical challenges posed by the requirement for
interoperability.
Cost to comply with the Positive Train Control rule will be borne
by the regulated entities, the railroads and rail system users.
However, at the Federal level there are a number of programs available
that railroads can access to finance investments like PTC. They include
the Railroad Refinancing Investment Fund (RRIF) loan program, the DOT
TIGER grant program, and the proposed National Infrastructure and
Investment Fund (I-Fund).
In FY 2010, the authorized level of $50 million was appropriated to
FRA for the Railroad Safety Technology Grant Program. To generate the
maximum impact with these funds, FRA plans to target awards to projects
that have a multiplier effect and that can effectively address broader
PTC implementation issues such as the resolution of the technological
challenges created by the PTC interoperability requirements. FRA has
posted this funding opportunity on Grants.gov and applications are due
July 1, 2010. FRA intends to announce award recipients by the close of
the calendar year.
Question 8. What progress has PHMSA made on its hazardous materials
special permits action plan to address these issues?
Answer. PHMSA has taken aggressive, comprehensive and expedited
action to address the issues identified by the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) and House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I)
Committee. A number of actions have been completed and even more are
underway to address every issue identified in both the special permits
and approvals program, including improving standard operating
procedures, implementing company fitness determination, IT
modernization and training of personnel. With current funding levels,
PHMSA has been able to utilize staff and resources to continue
addressing these commitments.
To further improve our strong safety record PHMSA has conducted
thorough reviews of its policies, procedures, staffing needs and action
plans. Addressing these various areas has already significantly
improved oversight and accountability. We are dedicated to ensuring
that operations authorized by special permits and approvals meet the
same high safety standard provided by the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR).
PHMSA has begun to execute action plans that have been specially
designed to establish initiatives prioritized according to a
combination of criteria including deadlines, overall urgency, staffing
and budget resources. To implement these initiatives, PHMSA assessed
and identified a means to enhance procedures, reduce redundancies, and
increase oversight and accountability.
Another key effort in this mission is to enhance data analysis to
strengthen program oversight through IT modernization. This is
especially important for facilitating the special permits and approvals
process. System modernization will enable the agency to process
applications to synthesize their safety and performance information
more efficiently--a process that will also benefit private companies
when applying for special permits or approvals.
A special management team is designated to address and monitor the
causes and effects of PHMSA's plans. The team routinely evaluates
whether action items are complete or whether additional revisions are
needed.
More information regarding PHMSA's three action plans (listed
below) can be found at http://hazmat.dot.gov.
Action Plan for Special Permits Program
Action Plan for IT Modernization and Data Collection/
Analysis
Action Plan for Approvals Program
Question 9. How does the Department propose to provide the same or
improved level of air service to small communities while spending less
money on Essential Air Service?
Answer. The FY 2011 EAS request of $182 million (including $50
million of mandatory funding from over-flight fees) was based on our
best estimate of the FY 2010 annualized cost of the EAS program at the
time the FY 2011 Budget was developed. The budget proposes authority to
restrain the rate of growth of the program by limiting it to those
communities receiving subsidized service on October 1, 2010. In
addition, the FY 2011 Budget provides for the transfer funds from FAA
to cover additional subsidy costs that may arise in FY 2011, such as
subsidy rate increases, thereby ensuring that adequate funds will be
available to fully fund the EAS program.
Question 10. Providing sufficient funding for the EAS program has
been a continuing challenge. Is the Department working on finding long-
term solutions to make certain small communities continue to have
access to air service?
Answer. The Department is reviewing the challenges facing EAS and
looks forward to working with Congress in an effort to develop a more
efficient and sustainable program. We have also formed the Federal
Aviation Advisory Committee to provide advice and guidance on a broad
range of aviation issues, including rural air service issues.
Question 11. The budget proposes to limit EAS to those communities
that receive subsidized service on October 1, 2010. How will small
communities that do not receive service on that date deal with this
restriction in the future?
Answer. The Department has considerable experience in working with
small communities and carriers on air service issues, and will be
pleased to extend that technical assistance to affected communities.
Question 12. Local and State governments are currently facing a
lack of access to credit markets. Has this led to an increase in demand
for TIFIA loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit? DOT announced a
new round of applications for the TIFIA program in December but the
program is expected to once again be oversubscribed. How will the
Administration prioritize these projects? What can be done to provide
funding for worthy projects of regional or national significance that
do not receive funding?
Answer. The TIFIA Program has seen a huge increase in demand for
credit assistance as a result of the financial crisis. TIFIA has been
oversubscribed since FY 2008 and does not have sufficient budget
authority to support all the projects seeking credit assistance.
In a recently published Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA),
TIFIA solicited Letters of Interest (LOIs) from project sponsors
seeking to apply for a limited amount of TIFIA resources currently
available. TIFIA received 39 LOIs in response, requesting almost $13
billion in credit assistance to finance over $41 billion in total
project costs. The magnitude of requests for the TIGER Discretionary
Grant Program was even greater--$59.7 billion in requests for only $1.5
billion in available grant money. Whether it is through grants or
loans, State and local governments are clearly seeking Federal support
to deliver transportation projects.
In addition to announcing the availability of a limited amount of
TIFIA resources to support new loans, the NOFA clarified TIFIA
selection criteria by incorporating consideration of livability,
economic competitiveness, safety, sustainability, and state of good
repair. In general, DOT will give priority to projects that have a
significant impact on desirable long-term outcomes for the Nation, a
metropolitan area, or a region.
TIFIA may exercise its authority to charge borrowers an up-front
fee to help offset a portion of the cost to the Government of providing
credit assistance as a means to stretch limited resources and further
leverage Federal dollars. This would make TIFIA credit assistance
available to more qualified projects than otherwise possible.
Question 13. What role can the TIFIA program play with the Livable
Communities program in the President's FY 2011 budget? Will the
partnership with HUD and EPA on livable communities be extended to
include financial assistance for communities that are looking to
promote these types of projects?
Answer. Our current livable communities proposal is focused on
capacity building exercises, not construction. While this work is
important and will save money long-term through better planning with
better information, it is not expensive and would not require
financing.
A sponsor seeking funding for a project that improves livability
will have the same options as any other sponsor. Should DOT identify
barriers to funding these types of projects, we may propose changes to
programs in reauthorization to help remove those barriers.
For states that turn to the TIFIA program for support for large
scale projects that improve livability, those applications would have
to meet TIFIA standards and requirements and be competitive against
other applications. Through competitive grant programs, like TIGER,
there might also be projects that support livability seeking innovative
financing. However, those projects would be reviewed according to the
same criteria as any other application for funding.
Question 14. The Administration has requested 33 new FTE positions
for NHTSA or 66 positions. How many of those positions would be
dedicated to vehicle safety? What steps are being taken to provide
NHTSA the internal software and electrical engineering expertise
necessary to identify vehicle defects in the market?
Answer. The President's FY 2011 budget requests an additional 66
positions (33 FTEs) to be strategically used by NHTSA to address high
priority safety areas. Of the 66 additional personnel requested, 46
positions (46 full time positions-FTPs; 23 full time equivalents-FTEs)
would be dedicated to support electrical vehicle safety, light vehicle
and heavy duty truck fuel economy and labeling standards, and import
surveillance of automotive equipment coming into the U.S. from foreign
countries.
NHTSA's Office of Defense Investigation, which conducts vehicle
research investigations, is assessing its need to determine what
additional resources in electronics, computer science, or other areas
of specialization are needed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Question 1. We are very grateful in Florida to have been awarded
one of the largest high speed rail grants for the first phase of our
statewide system, which will go between Tampa and Orlando. As with many
of the grant winners Florida was awarded half of what it requested--so
it will be able to get well underway with construction, but still has
to find the rest of the money somewhere too. Since I know you want to
see this project be successful just as much as we do, considering you
are investing a great deal in it, how do you plan on awarding future
high speed rail grants in the future? Will you focus on the projects
you have already chosen, or will it be a new competition every time?
Answer. Florida offers an opportunity for an early success for
high-speed rail, but many issues, including program management
structures and the State's commitment to ensure operating costs will
not become the responsibility of the Federal Government, still need to
be addressed before the Department will commit significant funds for
construction. These issues have been conveyed to the State.
The HSIPR Program remains a competitive program. The Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) will solicit applications under its FY
2010 program later this spring. If Florida demonstrates all of the
identified issues have been resolved, it may score well against the
evaluation criteria for these new applications.
Question 2. Why does the budget request for FY 2011 not include any
funding for the MARAD Title XI loan guarantee program?
Answer. While the request does not include new loan subsidies for
FY 2011, the request does include $3.7 million for Title XI
administrative expenses to enable the Title XI program to comply with
the Federal Credit Reform Act and the OIG and GAO recommendations on
portfolio management. No new funding for subsidies is requested in FY
2011 because ample resources received from DOD are available.
The current Title XI subsidy balance for new loans is $78 million.
The $78 million comprises carryover funding and funds provided in FY
2010 appropriation. The funding will enable MARAD to issue commitments
to several credit-worthy applicants whose projects are technically,
financially, and economically sound.
FY 2010 carryover subsidy is $43 million ($48 million was
received in Department of Defense FY 2009 appropriations for
loan subsidies).
$30 million is provided in the Department of Defense FY 2010
appropriation.
$5 million is provided in the Department of Transportation
FY 2010 appropriation.
The recent Vessel Management loan to subsidy ratio was 17 to 1.
Projecting this ratio on the remaining subsidy funds could generate
approximately $1.3 billion in additional loan guarantees.
As of December 31, 2009, MARAD's current portfolio was
approximately $2.3 billion. This represents 63 loan guarantee contracts
for 2 shipyard modernizations and over 300 vessels.
Question 3. We've talked a lot about the huge number of
applications you received for TIGER grant funding--over 1,400
applications worth almost $60 billion, for only $1.5 billion in
available money. I know that the budget request has $4 billion for a
new Infrastructure Fund; could you expand on how that will work, and
how it will address the massive need we have to invest in regionally-
significant infrastructure projects?
Answer. The National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (I-
Fund) will be established as a new entity within the Department. The I-
Fund would be headed by a Director, appointed by the President, who
would oversee the day-to-day operations and report to the Secretary.
The I-Fund investments would be governed by a policy and investment
advisory group of Federal officials that would establish and maintain
the criteria for the evaluation of investment projects and make
investment recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation. The
administrative structure of the I-Fund would include offices of policy,
budget, finance, administration and others as appropriate.
The I-Fund will have the authority to issue loans, grants, or a
combination of both. Although the request for FY 2011 is $4 billion,
the requested I-Fund capitalization over a 5-year period is $25
billion. By using credit assistance to leverage the Federal investment,
the I-Fund could assist with over $60 billion in infrastructure
projects. The projects that would receive the highest priority are
those that are regionally or nationally significant and would be
difficult to fund otherwise. These projects would have a demonstrable
merit and provide a significant economic benefit.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Question 1. The United States currently lags behind other developed
countries in use of passenger rail. Development of a strong high speed
rail network is critical to reducing congestion in the air and on the
roadway network. Unfortunately although the Intermountain West has been
identified as the fastest growing region in the United States, only
minimal funding was provided to states in the region wishing to develop
high speed rail.
This budget provides for $1 billion in High Speed/Intercity Rail
funds. How will you ensure that these funds support a high speed rail
system that is truly a national system that includes the intermountain
west?
Answer. The Department believes that the high-speed intercity
passenger rail program needs to be national in scope, under which
projects are identified where significant investment is justified
relative to the regional and national economic and transportation
benefits generated.
We recognize that many states have not yet undertaken the basic
planning necessary to develop a comprehensive intercity passenger rail
plan at a level of detail that supports allocation of significant
amounts of limited resources in a merit-based competitive program.
As part of the Department's FY 2011 President's Budget request, we
specifically proposed funding for high-speed rail planning activities
to assist states, such as those in the intermountain west, develop
their plans so that they are better positioned to participate in the
High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program.
Question 2. New Mexico is a primarily rural state. The proposed
National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund is anticipated to
work similar to the TIGER grants program and provide funding
recommendations based on demonstrable merit and analytical measures of
performance. You have testified that it will invest in projects of
regional or national significance. What criteria do you foresee being
established to ensure equitable distribution to ensure that projects
from smaller, more rural states are competitive in the granting
process?
Answer. The Administration recognizes that resources of the
National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund can benefit smaller
states and rural areas as well as larger states and more urbanized
areas. Although the minimum grant size for a capital project or a
unified program of smaller, related projects would generally be $25
million, the current proposal for the National Infrastructure
Innovation and Finance Fund would allow the Secretary to waive the
minimum grant size for the purpose of funding significant projects in
smaller cities, regions or states.
Question 3. The Department of Transportation's FY 2011 budget
proposes limiting the Essential Air Service program to those
communities in the EAS program on October 1, 2010. This could impact
three New Mexico that qualify for EAS but do not currently receive EAS
support. While I agree that the program could be more efficient, I am
concerned about how this DOT proposal could potentially harm two small
communities in my state. How would the Administration propose to
mitigate the impact to small communities that currently qualify for,
but do not receive, EAS support if their sole commercial carrier
decides to no longer provide service to their community?
Answer. The Department has considerable experience in working with
small communities and carriers on air service issues, and will be
pleased to extend that technical assistance to affected communities in
New Mexico and elsewhere.
Question 4. The FY 2011 proposes $527 million for a livable
communities program. Livability is a term most often used in
transportation discussions about large metropolitan communities. The
budget provides for 10 employees but does not elaborate how the
remaining funds will be distributed. How will the $527 million be
spent?
Answer. DOT requested $527 million for livable community efforts
for FY 2011. This funding will be divided into three programs: a
Livable Communities Program within the Office of the Secretary (OST);
transit funding to support livable communities in the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA); and a capacity-building grant program in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The purpose of these programs is
to provide transportation practitioners with the tools, resources, and
capacity they need to ultimately develop a transportation system that
provides transportation choices and complements land use, housing, and
water investments.
DOT has requested $20 million in the FY 2011 budget to establish a
new Livable Communities Program, including a new Office of Livability
within OST. This Office will provide leadership for DOT's livability
efforts, coordinate livability programs across the Department's modal
administrations, provide grants and technical assistance for improving
local public outreach, and assess the effectiveness of various programs
in supporting livability. Having one office focused on aligning
Departmental programs and priorities will significantly improve the
effectiveness of DOT's program delivery. Additionally, the Office of
Livability will serve as the focal point for interagency efforts such
as the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. This will include
spearheading efforts such as developing metrics and performance
measures for livability.
DOT's request of $307 million will refocus existing FTA programs to
expand transit access for low-income families and increase the planning
and project development capabilities of local communities. This program
would provide effective transportation alternatives that increase
access to jobs, health and social services, and other activities.
Aligning current programs, such as the Job Access and Reverse Commute
formula grants, Alternatives Analysis grants, and formula grants for
State and metropolitan planning, would allow DOT to fund efforts with
HUD and EPA to develop strategies that link quality public
transportation with investments in smart development.
DOT has requested $200 million in the FY 2011 budget to fund a
competitive livability program within FHWA. The focus of this
discretionary grant program is to increase capacity at all levels of
government to integrate transportation, housing, economic development,
and water infrastructure planning and investments while enhancing
natural resource conservation and improving health in urban and rural
communities. The funds could be used to improve modeling and data
collection--especially for transit and active transportation--provide
training, and support organizational changes to better carry out
integrated planning. This assistance would be available to states,
local governments, and tribal partners.
Question 5. How will this funding improve the livability of
communities in more rural states such as New Mexico?
Answer. The emphasis in the FY 2011 budget request for capacity
building can specifically help small communities who have outdated
models, poor data collection, and low technical expertise because of
budget or personnel limitations. The competitive grants for capacity
building would target those communities most in need of capacity
building in order to promote regional capacity for comprehensive
planning. This can be of great use to small and rural communities that
need this type of assistance to succeed in the Federal grant process
for other types of projects.
Additionally, Rural and small communities will have an opportunity
to submit ``Livable Communities Program'' grant applications through
the State Department of Transportation for consideration of an award by
the FHWA. State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, local governments (including rural and small
communities), tribal governments, and transit authorities may all apply
for ``Livable Communities Program'' funding for eligible projects that
demonstrate the development and implementation of transformational
changes and advances in livability.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Question 1. In February, Amtrak released a comprehensive plan for
the recapitalization of its fleet. What are the Department's views on
this plan? What role do you envision for the Department in helping to
implement it?
Answer. The Department recognizes that the fleet plan offers a
comprehensive view of Amtrak's current equipment needs. The plan also
outlines the timing of acquisitions necessary to keep equipment
availability from adversely impacting Amtrak's continuing ability to
meet current service needs with modest growth.
FRA is actively discussing with Amtrak, both separately and as part
of the Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool Committee, the
financial structures and other opportunities available to help procure
this essential equipment.
Question 2. One of the keys to realizing the President's vision for
high-speed rail will be integrating intercity passenger rail service
and stations with local transportation systems and ensuring they are
supported by land use patterns that are conducive to rail travel. To
what extent do you envision complementary roles between the proposed
FHWA and FTA Livable Communities programs and the President's high-
speed rail initiative, so as to promote not only sustainable and
integrated transportation choices within communities, but also between
them?
Answer. The President's high-speed rail initiative supports the
livability goal by providing modal choices for travelers and improving
the sustainability of our transportation system. High-Speed Rail
stations can serve as multi-modal hubs providing inter- and intra-city
connectivity that is safe and reliable. Coordination between FRA and
FTA and FHWA is essential to ensure complete access to these hubs.
High-Speed Rail will enhance the livability of the communities it
serves and the stations can be anchors for Transit Oriented Development
Coordinating our development and planning dollars with the rail
initiative will ensure that we can support the growth of livable
communities in these new mobility centers.
Additionally, the increase in accessibility and mobility in the
regions around high speed rail will certainly add to the area's
livability, as more people are able to travel further for cheaper, and
have increased access to a greater number of destinations and goods.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Question 1. What is the DOT's current estimate on how much funding
is required to fully deploy NextGen across the National Airspace?
Answer. FAA's capital investment for the mid-term system is
expected to be $9.6 billion through 2015. This cost does not include
research, the airport and associated airfield improvements, or the
aircraft equipage that is necessary to realize a fuller set of NextGen
benefits. NextGen costs beyond FY 2015 are still under development.
Question 2. What is DOT's current cost estimate for commercial and
private equipage with NextGen avionics?
Answer. The FAA is developing cost estimates for commercial and
private equipage for NextGen. Equipage cost estimates will depend on
the following types of variables:
which Next Gen technologies are factored into the estimate;
what the current fleet equipage rates are;
whether equipage will require retrofits or forward fits;
when the avionics will become available;
when equipage is mandated by FAA; or
the extent to which both the commercial and GA fleet must be
equipped to achieve optimal cost/benefit.
For ADS-B Out, the FAA estimates that the aviation industry will
incur total costs ranging from $2.5 billion to $6.2 billion to equip.
Estimates for other technologies such as Data Communications or ADS-B
In are still under development.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Question 1. Last year's budget proposal included a `footnote'
indicating future revenues from air traffic control user fees. This
year, the budget makes no mention of user fees. Does this omission mean
the Administration has now ruled out any future air traffic `user
fees'?
Answer. The FY 2011 President's Budget does not include a user fee
proposal for FAA reauthorization. The Budget assumes a continuation of
current law and anticipates future reauthorization.
Question 2. We are working hard to get an FAA Reauthorization bill
passed this year. The current Senate bill is a 2-year reauthorization
of the FAA. Does the Administration have any intent on advancing its
own FAA Reauthorization proposal?
Answer. Immediate passage of a multi-year reauthorization is a
priority for the Administration. At this point, the Administration's
focus is on continuing to work closely with Congress to enact a bill
during this session.
Question 3. Last year, the air traffic controller union was awarded
$750 million by an arbitration board. That $750 million is supposed to
be paid over the next 3 years. The proposed budget submitted by the
administration includes $166 million (sic, increase was stated as
$144M) for that contract in FY2011. In order to pay for that contract,
the budget indicates FAA is reducing expenditures for a variety of
activities. Could you provide the Committee with a list of the specific
expenditure reductions by activity?
Answer. The final arbitration decision on the NATCA contract
awarded the controllers $669 million in additional pay over 3 years. In
FY 2010, the additional cost to the agency is expected to be $74
million. The FAA will cover the costs by permanently reducing level of
effort in the areas listed below. In FY 2011, the incremental increase
will be $144 million which has been requested in the President's
Budget.
We have taken a number of steps this year to pay for the $74
million in additional pay requirements for air traffic controllers as a
result of the binding arbitration agreement signed last summer with
NATCA. These include:
Slow controller hiring to match the reduced traffic and
workload. There will be no operational impact since the slowed
economy and reduced retirements have lowered near term
controller requirements. (-$15.0M)
Reduce controller training to reflect reduced hiring and
reduced retirements. (-$8.0M)
Cap the Air Traffic Organization's hiring except for
critical air traffic control and NextGen positions. (-$10.0M)
Defer facility sustainment, repairs and renovations.
(-$17.0M)
Reduce replacement efforts for administrative IT equipment
and software. (-$13.6M)
Reduce expenditures in multiple areas including:
Second-level engineering contracts, (-$1.5M)
Reduce Service Center contract support for back office
functions, (-$0.3M) and
Reduce administrative travel across the board
(conferences, meetings, etc). (-$5.6M)
Reduce Airspace Management/Airspace Lab efforts in several
areas including work on new automation tools, aeronautical
studies, and digital maps; and delaying the establishment of
disaster recovery sites at the William J. Hughes Technical
Center and the Aeronautical Center for NAS support systems.
(-$3M)
Question 4. Additionally, what are the U.S. taxpayers receiving in
return for the $750 million pay raise? We are currently in a recession,
air traffic is down, and it would seem like a bad time for such a large
raise. What quantifiable benefits are we receiving as a result of the
increased wages?
Answer. We are already seeing benefits as a result of the new
contract with NATCA. Controller retirements have fallen well short of
our projections, which has helped us maintain more experienced
controllers at many of our larger and more complex facilities.
Grievances filed during the first 5 months of this contract are well
below the number of grievances filed in the first 5 months of the 2006
contract, which saves costs in processing grievances and the cost of
arbitrations. Additionally, NATCA and the controller workforce are
getting involved with more projects, such as facility realignments and
NextGen, lending valuable controller expertise to these programs.
Finally, our relationship with NATCA and our controller workforce is
improving.
Question 5. The budget touts an increase of $275 million for
NextGen. However, only about $35 million of that increase is for actual
FAA capital accounts. We are very concerned that FAA will continue to
expand the definition of NextGen in order to take advantage of any
NextGen specific funding Congress provides. Do you agree that any funds
delineated for `NextGen' should be prioritized for capital expenditures
instead of paying for operations? And, will you make sure NextGen funds
are spent on capital projects, not operations?
Answer. The FY 2011 budget increases FAA's NextGen portfolio by a
total of $275 million over FY 2010 (from $867.7 million enacted in FY
2010 to $1,142.8 million requested in FY 2011). Of this amount, $235
million is in the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) capital account, $5
million is in the Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) account,
and $35 million is in Operations.
The $35 million cited in the question is the increase in the total
F&E account, which incorporates both NextGen and non-NextGen
investments. The NextGen increase is achieved through offsets to other
F&E programs either nearing completion. For operations and RE&D, FAA
has included under the NextGen umbrella only those projects that
directly contribute to the NextGen mission.
Question 6. Could you explain how the proposed National
Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund would operate and what types
of projects would have the highest priority?
Answer. The National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (I-
Fund) will be established as a new entity within the Department. The I-
Fund would be headed by a Director, appointed by the President, who
would oversee the day-to-day operations and report to the Secretary.
The I-Fund investments would be governed by a policy and investment
advisory group of Federal officials that would establish and maintain
the criteria for the evaluation of investment projects and make
investment recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation. The
administrative structure of the I-Fund would include offices of policy,
budget, finance, administration and others as appropriate.
Projects that would receive the highest priority are those that are
regionally or nationally significant and would be difficult to fund
otherwise. These projects would have a demonstrable merit and provide a
significant economic benefit.
Question 7. Would projects be less likely to receive funding from
the proposed innovation fund if the mode receives separate funding, for
example, separate high-speed rail funding?
Answer. The mission of the I-Fund will be to seek out and invest in
infrastructure projects of regional and national significance that
would be difficult to fund otherwise. The broad eligibility criteria
for the I-Fund is intended to provide flexibility for the Department to
fund projects that will meet a variety of transportation or
transportation-related infrastructure needs. Availability of funding
from other sources for some portion of a project would not necessarily
disqualify that project from receiving I-Fund assistance.
Question 8. Why are the administrative costs of the proposed
innovation fund so high? The budget proposes 7 percent of the fund's
proceeds to be set aside for program administration ($70 million),
project planning and design ($150 million), and benefit-cost analysis
($50 million)--$270 million total. Shouldn't the majority of these
costs be borne by applicants seeking funding?
Answer. The I-Fund will be established as a new entity within the
Department and all of the administrative costs will be directly paid by
the I-Fund. The I-Fund will also rely on contractor support when in-
house experts are not available. It is anticipated that the I-Fund
would charge certain fees to help offset the cost to the Federal
Government of providing funding assistance. The administrative cost set
aside for the first year includes additional funds to help establish
the entity.
The set aside for project planning and design would be awarded to
fund required up-front expenses of planning and assessing potential
opportunities. These costs can often prevent otherwise beneficial
projects from becoming a reality and this funding provides the I-Fund
with an opportunity to gather valuable information on a potential
project prior to making a more significant commitment of resources. By
offering a source of funds for the up-front costs of new projects, the
program can help new and innovative infrastructure project proposals
compete for construction phase funding once the concept is proven.
The set aside for benefit-cost analysis will enable the I-Fund to
build a rigorous cross-modal evaluation tool capable of evaluating and
comparing the complete social return on investment of a diverse array
of potential projects. In addition, some of these funds will enable the
I-Fund to assist potential applicants with data and analysis production
required to complete its analytical work and make confident investment
recommendations to the Secretary.
Question 9. Why are 100 new employees needed to administer the
fund? That seems extraordinarily high.
Answer. The I-Fund will be a new entity within the Department and
all of those personnel will directly report to the I-Fund. Duties for
the proposed 100 FTE will include work for policy, financial, budget,
legal and risk analysis. The 100 FTE is comparable to other large scale
infrastructure programs. Further, the I-Fund will forge a revolutionary
path forward in Federal infrastructure investing that includes multiple
lines of business including both planning and project funding as well
as project origination activities that go beyond the typical
application solicitation approach. This forward-leaning
entrepreneurship will require additional staff capable of understanding
transportation infrastructure strategies nationwide.
Question 10. What types of aviation-related projects would be
eligible? Would `aircraft equipage' of NextGen technologies be
eligible? Why or why not?
Answer. The types of aviation-related projects could include
airport infrastructure projects currently eligible under Title 49.
Question 11. The Department has spoken about TxDOT's lack of a plan
for the development of high-speed rail. What does the State need to do
to be competitive for high-speed rail grants?
Answer. The State needs to make high-speed intercity passenger rail
service a priority in its transportation planning and allocation of
transportation resources.
With that as a foundation, the State needs to engage with passenger
mobility stakeholders within the State to develop a realistic vision
for high-speed intercity passenger rail service, a plan to implement
this vision (i.e., service development plan), and associated
environmental reviews and documentation (i.e., service development
NEPA).
Question 12. What realistically can be accomplished with $1 billion
for high-speed rail? How does the Department plan to distribute the
money it is requesting for high-speed rail? How can we ensure that
states don't end up ``holding the bag'' or being forced to pay for
projects if Federal funding dries up?
Answer. The FY 2011 request for $1 billion supports the second year
of the Administration's five-year, $5 billion high-speed rail
initiative. It is a complementary funding stream to FRA's high-speed
rail initiative that began with the $8 billion provided in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Delivering on the vision and realizing the potential benefits of
high-speed rail requires a long-term commitment at both the Federal and
State levels. This five-year initiative leverages resources at the
State and local level, as well as the private sector to fund strategic
investments that yield tangible benefits to intercity rail
infrastructure, equipment, performance and intermodal connections over
the next several years, while building capacity for future corridor
development.
FRA recognizes the long-term financial impact this program will
have on states. As a result, the program guidance that was developed
for the FY 2010 program, and that will be used as the basis for the FY
2011 program, requires all project and corridor development applicants
to: (1) contribute a 20 percent match (in cash or in-kind) and (2)
certify their ability to meet a number of program conditions including
the ability to fund future system operations.
Finally, the proposed FY 2011 program set asides mirror the FY 2010
program in that additional funds are targeted for high-speed rail
research and development activities (up to $30 million); corridor
planning activities (up to $50 million); and agency oversight and
administration of the program (up to $50 million).
Question 13. As an independent agency, the Surface Transportation
Board submitted its own budget request, asking for $31 million for
Fiscal Year 2011. Why did the Department submit a budget for the STB
that calls for $5 million less than requested by the agency?
Answer. The Department's budget request for the Surface
Transportation Board (STB) reflects the Administration's proposed
funding level for STB. However, section 703 of the statute (109 STAT.
934, P.L. 109-88) allows the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to
submit a request level different from the DOT request level.
Question 14. Why did the Administration zero out the Rail Line
Relocation Program? This program has a lot of potential for Texas and
other states. I understand rail relocation projects would be eligible
for funding under the innovation financing fund, but those projects
would have to compete with all sorts of other rail, highway, port, and
intermodal projects.
Answer. The Administration's vision for contributing to the
Nation's transportation railroad infrastructure requirements places
emphasis on funding larger, more flexible Federal assistance programs
(i.e., National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (I-Fund) and
TIGER grants), rather than funding multiple smaller programs, with
individual funding streams, which encourage program funding decisions
based upon the availability of Federal resources versus greatest need
or public benefit.
State investments needed for rail line relocation and improvements
are projects and activities that could benefit from funding
administered under programs such as I-Fund and TIGER.
Question 15. I have mentioned before that I believe states should
be allowed to enact distracted driving laws that meet its specific
needs. An approach that dictates too specifically to states how to
regulate in this area is the wrong method, in my opinion. What is DOT's
vision for this new distracted driving grant program and what criteria
would a state need to meet in order to be eligible for a grant?
Answer. Distracted driving is a significant safety problem. NHTSA
research indicates that approximately 6,000 people were killed in
crashes in 2008 in which distracted driving was involved. At any given
daylight time in 2008, estimates indicate that 800,000 drivers were
using a cell phone while driving. Younger drivers appear to be more
likely to use electronic communication devices while driving.
States are becoming increasingly active in addressing this threat:
21 states have laws that ban texting while driving, and 6 states have
laws that ban hand-held cell phone use by all drivers. The Department
will take into consideration the scope of these existing distracted
driving laws in determining the criteria for any distraction grants
funded by the Congress.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Question 1. Is it correct that a number of states have indicated
they will not enforce the Department's ban on texting while driving for
commercial drivers until a formal rulemaking is completed? How do you
plan to proceed?
Answer. The Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) recognizes that states are not required to adopt
and enforce the Agency's regulatory guidance published in the Federal
Register on January 27, 2010 (75 FR 4305). However, states are required
to adopt and enforce compatible safety regulations as a condition of
receiving Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants from
FMCSA. States must adopt and enforce compatible rules within 3 years of
the effective date of a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation.
See 49 CFR 350.335.
The purpose of the Department's regulatory guidance was to heighten
industry awareness of the safety risks associated with texting while
driving, and to emphasize that one of FMCSA's existing regulations may
be cited by enforcement officials for taking action against truck and
bus drivers who engage in this unsafe practice. Also, the guidance
explains that a civil penalty of up to $2,750 may be assessed against
these drivers by FMCSA. The Department leaves to the discretion of the
individual states the decision about what actions may be taken against
texting truck and bus drivers based on their respective State laws and
regulations, pending the completion of the Federal rulemaking on
texting.
The Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
explicitly prohibit texting by truck and bus drivers on April 1 (75 FR
16391). The rulemaking would provide driver disqualification penalties
for interstate truck and bus drivers, and amend the Department's
commercial driver's license (CDL) rules to provide a disqualification
provision for CDL holders convicted of violating State traffic laws
concerning texting. The CDL provision would apply to commercial motor
vehicle drivers employed by truck and bus companies or Federal, State
and local government agencies, including school bus drivers. The public
comment period for the NPRM ends on May 3, 2010. The Department will
then consider all the public comments received in preparing a final
rule later this year. States would then have 3 years to adopt and
enforce compatible rules concerning texting.
Question 2. I am encouraged by FMCSA's development of the
Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 program, since it will ensure that
all motor carriers are rated for safety purposes on a regular basis,
and that the rating is based on all of the safety data collected by
Federal and state enforcement officers. But there are concerns about
the accuracy of the data on which ratings will be based, especially
given the problems with the current SafeStat system. What is the
Department doing to address this concern?
Answer. The states are required to provide standard, basic
information about large truck and bus crashes to FMCSA within 90 days
of the crash event, and the results of roadside inspections within 21
days of inspection. The completeness, timeliness and accuracy of crash
data--and to a lesser extent roadside inspection data--vary from State-
to-State.
The FMCSA, in conjunction with our State partners, has made
significant improvements in the reported crash and inspection data used
to assess motor carrier performance. FMCSA's data quality program
includes a multitude of activities aimed at improving the completeness,
accuracy, and timeliness of motor carrier crash and inspection data.
These activities include: (1) State-by-State monitoring of data quality
on a monthly basis (as measured by the State Safety Data Quality map);
(2) on-site and off-site assessments of State crash data, and data
collection processes and procedures; (3) a process that allows for data
challenges by motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers via
our ``DataQ's'' website; and (4) individual State training courses to
assist State and local officers in properly collecting and reporting
motor carrier crashes and inspections. Additionally, FMCSA currently
has a grant program known as the Safety Data Improvement Program, or
SaDIP, that provides states funding to improve data quality. Through
these activities, there has been significant improvement in the overall
quality and quantity of state reported data over the last several years
as reflected below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul 08-
Data Quality 2007 2008 Jun 09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of crashes reported to FMCSA 94% 96% 96%
matched to a carrier
Percentage of inspections reported to 98% 99% 99%
FMCSA matched to a carrier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timeliness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of crashes reported within 90 86% 88% 89%
days
Percentage of roadside inspections 92% 94% 94%
reported within 21 days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completeness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of fatal crashes reported to 100% 100% 100%
FMCSA
Percentage of nonfatal crashes reported to 86% 86% 83%
FMCSA
Percentage of all crash reports with 69% 84% 92%
complete driver/vehicle data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: MCMIS (State-reported data); NHTSA (fatal crash data).
For details, see www.ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/DataQuality.
FMCSA fully recognizes the importance of this data as the
foundation for Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010. Working
collaboratively with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA),
FMCSA is undertaking several additional data enhancements and related
efforts.
FMCSA commenced these efforts at the CVSA annual meeting in October
2008. At that meeting CVSA founded the Data Uniformity Ad-hoc committee
to develop strategies to improve data uniformity and consistency. The
Ad-hoc committee has developed four core components of roadside data
uniformity. The same four components then became the foundation for the
collective efforts of the Committee. Those four components are:
1. Consistent documentation of roadside inspection and
violation data.
2. Standardized processes for responding to data challenges and
increased awareness of high level goals of the inspection
program.
3. Uniform inspection selection processes.
4. Raising awareness that every inspection counts.
FMCSA is actively addressing each of the above components and has
made significant progress in meeting these objectives. FMCSA's
accomplishments thus far include:
Consistent documentation of roadside inspection and
violation data--Through a FMCSA-funded high-priority grant, in
the spring of 2009, CVSA staff and State partners began work on
guidance that promotes the consistent documentation of roadside
inspection and violation data.
Standardized processes for responding to data challenges--
This initiative will provide procedural guidance on the
management of the roadside inspection and crash data challenge
process through our DataQ's management system. FMCSA and
several state partner subject matter experts formed a group in
the spring of 2009 to develop standardized procedures for the
data challenge process.
Increased awareness of high level goals of the inspection
program--This component of the roadside data uniformity
initiative focused on the increased importance of the roadside
violation data and an understanding of how the data will be
used. The goal is to ensure that the processes that are used in
the collection of the roadside data are validated and promote
the integrity of the programs that employ the data.
Uniform inspection selection processes--CVSA is considering
a proposed change to its operational policies that will
encourage member jurisdictions to review and formalize their
current policies that govern when and how commercial motor
vehicles should be selected for an inspection. The goal is to
raise awareness that a valid and consistent vehicle and driver
inspection selection process operated within the scope of a
jurisdiction's rules and policies is the critical foundation
upon which the integrity of our programs rest.