ANNUAL 

PERFORMANCE 

REPORT 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012

3 FOREWORD 

5 ORGANIZATION 

6 OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES 

7 OPERATING ADMINISTRATIONS AND INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS 

8 PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 

9 HOW DOT WORKS TO ACHIEVE ITS STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE GOALS 

10 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 

11 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY TABLES 

16 SAFETY 

32 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR 

39 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS 

57 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES 

66 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 

80 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION 

81 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL TOP MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES 

105 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

110 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS 

2 CONTENTS 
FOREWORD
�
4 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

FOREWORD
� The United States Department of Transportation’s (DOT or Department) 

Annual Performance Report (APR) for fiscal year (FY) 2012 provides an 

overview of the Department’s performance accomplishments to Congress, 

the President, and the American people. 

The Annual Performance Report is one in a series of reports 

required under the Government Performance and Results 

Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA Modernization Act). The 

report provides information about DOT’s highest priorities, 

achievements, initiatives, challenges, and performance as an 

organization. Additionally, the report details information about 

DOT’s stewardship over the financial resources entrusted to the 

Department. 

The Department’s FY 2012 annual reporting includes the following components: 

AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT (AFR) 

[PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 2012] 

DOT organizes the AFR into three major sections: 

The MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS section 

provides executive-level information on the Department’s 

history, mission, organization, key activities, analysis of 

financial statements, systems, controls and legal compliance, 

accomplishments for the fiscal year, and management and 

performance challenges facing the Department. 

The FINANCIAL DETAILS section provides a message from 

the Chief Financial Officer, consolidated and combined 

financial statements, the Department’s notes to the financial 

statements, and the report of independent auditors. 

The OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION section 

provides Improper Payments Information Act reporting 

details and other statutory reporting requirements.
 

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT (APR) 

The Department produces the APR in conjunction with the FY 

2014 President’s Budget Request and provides detailed performance information and descriptions of results by each key 

performance measure. 

Both reports are available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www.dot.gov/budget. 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

ORGANIZATION 

HISTORY 

Established in 1967, DOT sets Federal transportation policy and 

works with State, local, and private sector partners to promote 

a safe, secure, efficient, and interconnected National transporta

tion system of roads, railways, pipelines, airways, and seaways. 

DOT’s overall objective of creating a safer, simpler, and smarter 

transportation system is the guiding principle as the Department 

moves forward to achieve specific goals. 

­

HOW WE ARE ORGANIZED 

DOT employs more than 57,000 people in the Office 

of the Secretary (OST) and through twelve Operating 

Administrations (OAs), each with its own management 

and organizational structure. 

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL MOTOR 

CARRIER SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL RAILROAD 

ADMINISTRATION 

FEDERAL TRANSIT 

ADMINISTRATION 

MARITIME 

ADMINISTRATION 

ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR 

ADMINISTRATION 

BOARD OF 

CONTRACT 

APPEALS 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR BUDGET AND 

PROGRAMS & CHIEF 

FINANCIAL OFFICER 

OFFICE OF 

THE CHIEF 

INFORMATION 

OFFICER 

OFFICE OF 

CIVIL RIGHTS 

OFFICE OF 

DRUG & ALCOHOL 

POLICY & COMPLIANCE 

EXECUTIVE 

SECRETARIAT 

GENERAL 

COUNSEL 

ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR 

GOVERNMENTAL 

AFFAIRS 

OFFICE OF 

INTELLIGENCE 

AND SECURITY 

OFFICE OF 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

OFFICE OF SMALL 

& DISADVANTAGED 

BUSINESS 

UTILIZATION 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR 

GENERAL 

PIPELINE AND 

HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION 

RESEARCH AND 

INNOVATIVE 

TECHNOLOGY 

ADMINISTRATION 

SAINT LAWRENCE 

SEAWAY 

DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION 

SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION 

BOARD 

SECRETARY/

DEPUTY SECRETARY 

UNDERSECRETARY

FOR POLICY 

ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR 

TRANSPORTATION 

POLICY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR AVIATION AND 

INTERNATIONAL 

AFFAIRS 

5
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

▶	 

▶	 

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

3⁄4

OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES 

The Secretary of Transportation, under the direction of the 

President, exercises leadership in transportation matters. Section 

101 of Title 49 United States Code describes the United States 

Department of Transportation purposes as follows: 

The national objectives of general welfare, economic 

growth and stability, and security of the United States 

require the development of transportation policies and 

programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, efficient, 

and convenient transportation at the lowest cost consistent 

with those and other national objectives, including the 

efficient use and conservation of the resources of the United 

States. 

A Department of Transportation is necessary in the public 

interest and to— 

ensure the coordinated and effective administration 

of the transportation programs of the United States 

Government; 

make easier the development and improvement of 

coordinated transportation service to be provided by 

private enterprise to the greatest extent feasible; 

encourage cooperation of Federal, State, and local 

governments, carriers, labor, and other interested 

persons to achieve transportation objectives; 

stimulate technological advances in transportation, 

through research and development or otherwise; 

provide general leadership in identifying and solving 

transportation problems; and, 

develop and recommend to the President and 

Congress transportation policies and programs to 

achieve transportation objectives considering the 

needs of the public, users, carriers, industry, labor, 

and national defense. 

6
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

OPERATING ADMINISTRATIONS AND 

INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OST): The Office of the Secretary 

oversees the formulation of national transportation policy and 

promotes intermodal transportation. Other responsibilities 

include negotiation and implementation of international transpor

tation agreements, assuring the fitness of U.S. airlines, enforcing 

airline consumer protection regulations, issuance of regulations 

to prevent alcohol and illegal drug misuse in transportation 

systems, and preparing transportation legislation. 

­

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA): The Federal 

Aviation Administration’s mission is to provide the safest, most 

efficient aerospace system in the world. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA): The mission of 

the Federal Highway Administration is to improve mobility on 

our Nation’s highways through national leadership, innovation, 

and program delivery. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

(FMCSA): The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 

primary mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities 

involving commercial motor vehicle (CMV) transportation 

through education, innovation, regulation, enforcement, financial 

assistance, partnerships, and full accountability. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA): The mission of 

the Federal Railroad Administration is to enable the safe, reliable, 

and efficient transportation of people and goods for a strong 

America, now and in the future. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA): The Federal 

Transit Administration’s mission is to improve public 

transportation for passengers and America’s communities. 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION (MARAD): The Maritime 

Administration’s mission is to improve and strengthen the U.S. 

marine transportation system to meet the economic, environmental, 

and security needs of the Nation. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

(NHTSA): The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic 

costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, 

safety standards, and enforcement activity. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG): The Inspector General 

Act of 1978, as amended, established the Office of Inspector 

General as an independent and objective organization within 

the DOT. The OIG is committed to fulfilling its statutory 

responsibilities and supporting members of Congress, the 

Secretary, senior Department officials, and the public in 

achieving a safe, efficient, and effective transportation system. 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA): PHMSA’s mission is to 

protect people and the environment from the risks of 

hazardous materials transportation. 

RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION 

(RITA): The Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

works to advance DOT priorities for innovation and research in 

transportation technologies and concepts. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

(SLSDC): The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation’s mission is to serve the marine transportation industries 

by providing a safe, secure, reliable, efficient, and competitive deep 

draft international waterway, in cooperation with the Canadian 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD (STB): The Surface 

Transportation Board is charged with promoting substantive 

and procedural regulatory reform in the economic regulation 

of surface transportation, and with providing an efficient and 

effective forum for the resolution of disputes and the facilitation 

of appropriate business transactions. 

7
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

3⁄4

3⁄4

DOT ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENTS OF 

PERFORMANCE—A review of each Operating 

Administration’s performance is completed at the 

end of the fiscal year. The assessments measure each 

organization’s success in meeting Department-wide 

performance targets, achieving results of program 

assessments, and addressing management challenges 

or material weaknesses identified by DOT’s Office of 

Inspector General. The results of these assessments are 

factored in to the personal performance evaluations of 

the Department’s senior executives. 

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE PLANS—

PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 

PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 

All actions undertaken by the Department are aimed at making 

measurable improvements in our transportation system, the 

security of our Nation, and the quality of American life. In the 

Annual Performance Report, DOT holds itself accountable to the 

public for effectively bringing to bear the Department’s resources 

in improving the Nation’s transportation system. The Department 

uses these results to improve its strategies and resource decisions. 

OUR MISSION 

To serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, 

efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation 

system that meets our vital national interests and 

enhances the quality of life of the American people, 

today and into the future. 

DOT’s performance framework is as follows: 

The DOT STRATEGIC PLAN provides a comprehensive 

vision for improving the Nation’s complex and vital 

transportation system. DOT released a new Strategic Plan 

covering FY 2012 – 2016. The Plan, “Transportation for a 

New Generation,” serves as the framework for this year’s 

report. Through the Strategic Plan’s five strategic goals – 

safety, state of good repair, economic competitiveness, livable 

communities, and environmental sustainability – DOT is 

able to articulate the longer-term focus of the Department. 

In addition to the broad goals, the plan targets specific 

outcomes DOT wants to achieve and identifies 

key challenges. 

The DOT PERFORMANCE BUDGET operationalizes the 

Strategic Plan, and provides direct linkages between 

DOT’s budget request and the results the public can expect 

for programs within each of the Department’s Operating 

Administrations. The performance budget defines the 

performance goals and measures used to manage progress 

toward our strategic goals. It describes in detail one fiscal 

year’s resources and programmatic effort within a strategic 

context. The performance budget also aligns requested 

funding to the Department’s strategic goals. 

This DOT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT provides 

a public accounting of the Department’s FY 2012
 

performance results.
 

PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY for DOT organizations, 

senior executives, and employees embed the philosophy 

of managing for performance into the Department’s 

culture and daily practices. Performance accountability 

within the Department is accomplished through the 

following mechanisms: 

Prepared for 

each year, these plans document expected levels of 

employee performance that clearly link to DOT’s 

strategic goals through the performance framework. 

8
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

HOW DOT WORKS TO ACHIEVE ITS STRATEGIC GOALS 

AND PERFORMANCE GOALS 

The Department achieves its goals through its leadership role in 

U.S. transportation policy, operations, investment, and research. 

To influence results, DOT programs rely on a number of actions, 

processes, and tools. These include: 

DIRECT OPERATIONS AND INVESTMENT IN DOT CAPITAL 

ASSETS THAT PROVIDE CAPABILITY, such as air traffic 

control and the Saint Lawrence Seaway operations. 

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS AND OTHER GRANTS, 

such as grants for investment in highway, rail, transit, 

marine highways and shipyards, airport, and Amtrak capital 

infrastructure, and grants for safety, job access, or other 

important transportation programs. 

INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL TOOLS AND CREDIT PROGRAMS, 

such as those provided for by the Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and the 

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) 

Program. 

RULEMAKING, in a broad array of areas including: 

equipment, vehicle, or operator standards; for improving 

safety; and providing aviation consumer protection. 

STATE/LOCAL ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING, 

through training, best practices, peer-to-peer exchanges, 

and other activities that strengthen the capability of State 

Departments of Transportation, metropolitan planning 

organizations, and tribal and local governments to play 

their essential front-line role in planning, investing in, and 

operating highway and transit systems. 

ENFORCEMENT, to ensure compliance, including 

inspections, investigations, and penalty action.
 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND
�

APPLICATION, such as fostering new materials and 

technologies in transportation, and transportation 

related research.
 


 

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH, such as consumer

 awareness, public service, and campaigns to influence 

personal behavior. 

PUBLIC INFORMATION, such as that provided by the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics in RITA and other DOT 

Operating Administrations, so that States, localities, tribes, 

regions, and private sector entities can better plan their 

transportation activities. 

Some of these tools and actions reside entirely within the Federal 

Government, but most involve significant partnering with State 

and local authorities and with the transportation industry. The 

items identified include the broad areas of action that DOT – and 

State and local governments – commonly uses to realize desired 

results. 

9
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 

This is the first year that the Department of Transportation will 

report against “Transportation for a New Generation,” DOT’s 

Strategic Plan for FY 2012 – 2016. Under this Strategic Plan, 

the Department continues to track many of the measures found 

in the previous plan, but as the agency builds upon progress in 

improving transportation and develops new strategic priorities, 

some new measures were developed. 

An overview of the Department’s strategic goals and brief discussion of performance results are provided below. A complete 

analysis of DOT’s successes and challenges related to FY 2012 

performance targets is included in the following chapters. 

SAFETY 

Improving transportation safety remains DOT’s top priority. The 

Department tracks the safe movement of Americans and products 

on the highways, in the air, on transit systems, on railroads, and 

through pipelines. Preliminary performance results show that 

the Department is on target or exceeding the target for all but 

one of the goals based on the most current available data. DOT 

does not anticipate achieving its FY 2012 target for the number 

of fatal general aviation (GA) accidents per 100,000 flight hours, 

because the number of fatal GA accidents continues to decline 

more slowly than anticipated. Most of the fatalities occurred 

in the area of experimental aircraft, which are predominately 

amateur-built. These aircraft accounted for approximately 28 

percent of GA fatal accidents while contributing to less than 6 

percent of GA flying hours. FAA continues to pursue multiple 

avenues for addressing this issue. 

STATE OF GOOD REPAIR 

Recent reports on the condition of the Nation’s highways, 

bridges, transit assets, and passenger rail facilities reveal that 

many fall short of a state of good repair and thus compromise the 

safety, capacity, and efficiency of the U.S. transportation system. 

DOT’s role in achieving a state of good repair is through strong 

programmatic emphasis and new resources aimed at improving 

the condition and performance of the Nation’s transportation 

infrastructure. DOT also encourages its government and industry 

partners to make optimal use of existing capacity and apply 

sound asset management principles throughout the system. 

In FY 2012, preliminary results show that the Department met or 

exceeded its target for each of the state of good repair outcomes 

for which data are currently available. The Department will 

report 2011 and 2012 results for the backlog of transit capital 

assets in need of replacement or refurbishment following 

publication of the 2013 Conditions and Performance Report. 

ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS 

DOT has established a goal to support the U.S. economy by 

fostering smart, strategic investments that serve the traveling 

public and facilitate freight movement. The Department’s 

central strategies for achieving maximum economic returns on 

its policies and investments include leading the development 

of high-speed and intercity passenger rail and a competitive air 

transportation system; minimizing traffic delay due to conges

tion in urban areas and in freight-significant highway corridors; 

improving the performance of freight rail and maritime networks; 

advancing transportation interests in targeted markets around the 

world; and expanding opportunities in the transportation sector 

for small businesses. In FY 2012, final results show that the 

Department met or exceeded its targets for the economic compet

itiveness outcomes. 

­

­

LIVABLE COMMUNITIES 

Fostering livable communities – places where coordinated 

transportation, housing, and commercial development gives 

people access to affordable and environmentally sustainable 

transportation – is a transformational policy shift for DOT. 

Through the principles established in the livable communi

ties strategic goal, the Department will pursue coordinated, 

place-based policies and investments that increase transportation 

choices and improve access to public transportation services for 

all Americans. Based on preliminary and final results, DOT 

met or exceeded targets for six of eight livable communities. 

The Department will continue developing and implementing 

strategies to achieve the performance targets of the two remaining

 performance measures – increasing transit “market share” 

among commuters to work and increasing the percent of intercity 

passenger rail stations that comply with the requirements of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 2010. 

­

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 

While the transportation sector is a significant source of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Department is working to 

address and mitigate this challenge through strategies such as fuel 

economy standards for cars and trucks, more environmentally 

sound construction and operational practices, and by expanding 

opportunities for shifting freight from less-fuel-efficient 

modes to more-fuel-efficient modes. Based on preliminary 

and final results, the Department met the targets for 9 of 11 

performance measures. Though preliminary results show that 

the number of hazardous liquid pipeline spills with environmental 

consequences exceeded the target set for FY 2012, PHMSA 

has proposed to increase pipeline safety oversight to mitigate 

environmental impacts of future spills. 

10
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY TABLES 

Safety Performance Summary 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

 TARGET 

2012 

ACTUAL 

2012 

MET OR 

NOT MET 

Roadway fatality rate per 100 million 

vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). (NHTSA, 

FHWA, FMCSA) 

1.36 1.26 1.15 1.11 1.10* 1.05 TBD^ Met (2011)* 

Passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate 

per 100 million VMT. (NHTSA, FHWA, 

FMCSA) 

1.08 0.97 0.89 0.84 0.83–0.89* 0.85 0.83–0.89* TBD 

Motorcyclist rider fatality rate per 100,000 

motorcycle registrations. (NHTSA, FHWA, 

FMCSA) 

72.48 68.52 56.36 54.82 56–58* 63 56–58* TBD 

Non-occupant (pedestrian and bicycle) 

fatality rate per 100 million VMT. (NHTSA, 

FHWA, FMCSA) 

0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.16–0.17* 0.16 0.16–0.17* TBD 

Large truck and bus fatality rate per 100 

million total VMT. (NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA) 

0.169 0.153 (r) 0.122(r) 0.133 0.136* 0.117 0.110–0.127* TBD 

Number of commercial air carrier 

fatalities per 100 million persons onboard. 

(FAA) 

N/A 0.4 6.7 0.3 0.0* 7.6 0.0* Met* 

Number of fatal general aviation 

accidents per 100,000 flight hours. (FAA) 

N/A N/A 1.17 1.10 1.13* 1.07 1.10* Not Met* 

Category A&B runway incursions per 

million operations. (FAA) 

0.393 0.427 0.227 0.117 0.138 0.395 0.356 Met 

Pipeline incidents involving death or major 

injury. (PHMSA) 

45 39 48 38 36 43 32* Met* 

Hazardous materials incidents involving 

death or major injury. (PHMSA) 

36 24 29 23 33 34 26* Met* 

Transit fatalities per 100 million 

passenger-miles traveled. (FTA) (r) 

N/A N/A N/A 0.533 0.535 0.543 TBD# Met (2011) 

Rail-related accidents and incidents per 

million train-miles. (FRA) 

17.298 16.906 16.885 16.664 15.991 16.300 14.557* Met* 

Cumulative number of States and 

localities that adopt roadway designs 

that accommodate all road users 

(complete streets). (OST) 

N/A N/A 15 22 26 26 27 Met 

Notes: (r) Revised Performance Measure, * Based on Preliminary Results, ^ 2012 Actual Available December 2013, # 2012 Actual Available September 2013 

11
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

State of Good Repair Performance Summary 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

TARGET 

2012 

ACTUAL 

2012 

MET OR 

NOT MET 

Percent of travel on the National Highway 

System (NHS) roads with pavement 

performance standards rated “good.” (FHWA) 

N/A N/A N/A 55.0%(r) 54.3% 56.0% 56.2% Met 

Percent of deck area (i.e., the roadway surface 

of a bridge) on NHS bridges rated structurally 

deficient. (FHWA) 

8.4%(r) 8.2%(r) 8.2%(r) 8.3%(r) 7.8% 7.8% 7.1% Met 

Backlog of transit capital assets in need of 

replacement or refurbishment (as defined by 

an estimated condition rating of 2.5 or lower). 

(FTA) 

N/A N/A N/A $77.7 billion TBD^ $77.6 billion TBD^ TBD 

Percent of runway pavement in excellent, good, 

or fair condition for paved runways in the 

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. 

(FAA) 

96.6% 96.9% 97.0% 97.2% 97.4% 93.0% 97.5% Met 

Notes: (r) Revised, ^ 2011 and 2012 Actuals Available Following Release of Conditions and Performance Report 

12
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

Economic Competitiveness Performance Summary 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

TARGET 

2012 

ACTUAL 

2012 

MET OR 

NOT MET 

Travel time reliability in urban areas as measured by 

the Travel Time Index. (FHWA) 

1.24(r) 1.21(r) 1.19(r) 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.20 Met 

Travel time reliability in freight significant corridors 

as measured by the buffer index. (FHWA) 

15.0 14.4 13.8 13.7 13.8 15.0 13.5 Met 

Number of corridor programs that achieve initial 

construction. (FRA) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 1 1 Met 

Number of individual construction projects that 

achieve initial construction. (FRA) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 14 19 Met 

Average daily airport arrival and departure capacity 

at Core Airports. (FAA) 

102,545 103,222 101,691 101,668 87,338 86,835 88,590 Met 

Percent of operational availability for the reportable 

facilities that support Core Airports. (FAA) 

99.83% 99.82% 99.78% 99.79% 99.72% 99.70% 99.75% Met 

Initial operating capability on ERAM at continental 

U.S. En Route centers. (FAA) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 7 7 Met 

Percent of time the U.S. portion of the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway system and locks are available. (SLSDC) 

99.4% 98.8% 99.4% 99.8% 99.0% 99.0% 99.7% Met 

Ships available to meet DOD’s requirements for 

commercial sealift capacity (as measured by the 

number of ships contractually enrolled in the 

maritime security program). (MARAD) 

60 60 59 60 60 60 60 Met 

Operating days in U.S. foreign commerce and 

available to meet DOD’s requirements (as measured 

by the number of ship operating days that ships 

enrolled in the MSP were actually operating in U.S. 

foreign commerce). (MARAD) 

N/A N/A N/A 21,436 21,557 19,200 21,593 Met 

Number of Twenty Foot Equivalent (TEU) containers 

transported across America’s Marine Highway 

corridors. (MARAD) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,061 3,500 8,221 Met 

Number of U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) 

graduates. (MARAD) 

210 219 198 198 205 210 219 Met 

Number of State Maritime Academy graduates. 

(MARAD) 

N/A N/A N/A 575 545 592 642 Met 

Percent of NAS on-time arrivals at Core Airports. 

(FAA) 

86.96% 87.29% 88.98% 90.55% 90.41% 88.00% 92.36% Met 

Number of air carriers reviewed to ensure they meet 

the requisite standards for obtaining or retaining 

economic authority to operate. (OST) 

N/A N/A 22 20 26 18 27 Met 

Reach new or expanded bilateral and multilateral 

agreements to remove market-distorting barriers to 

trade in transportation. (OST) 

3 4 4 7 4 3 4 Met 

Percent of total dollar value of DOT direct contracts 

awarded to small, disadvantaged businesses. (OST) 

19.30% 16.19% 13.36% 14.00% 19.50% 15.00% 18.08% Met 

Percent of total dollar value of DOT direct contracts 

awarded to women-owned businesses. (OST) 

10.40% 8.12% 10.94% 8.00% 11.10% 6.00% 8.81% Met 

Notes: (r) Revised 

13
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

Livable Communities Performance Summary 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

TARGET 

2012 

ACTUAL 

2012 

MET OR 

NOT MET 

States with policies that improve 

transportation choices for walking 

and bicycling. (FHWA) 

N/A N/A N/A 21 24 26 26 Met 

States that have developed an 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) transition plan that is current 

and includes the public rights-ofway. (FHWA) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 12 15 Met 

Number of transit boardings 

reported by urbanized area transit 

providers. (FTA) 

9.9 billion 10.3 billion 10.1 billion 10.0 billion 10.1 billion 10.1 billion 10.3 billion# Met# 

Number of transit boardings 

reported by rural area transit 

providers. (FTA) 

118 million 128 million 131 million 141 million 142 million 144 million TBD^ Met (2011) 

Areas with increased transit “market 

share” among commuters to work 

in the 50 most populous urbanized 

areas. (FTA) 

N/A N/A N/A 0 1 4 TBD^ Not Met (2011)* 

Number of key rail stations verified 

as accessible and fully compliant. 

(FTA) 

N/A N/A N/A 513 522 531 567 Met 

Number of intercity rail passengermiles traveled. (FRA) 5.65 billion 6.16 billion 5.90 billion 6.33 billion 6.53 billion 6.60 billion 6.80 billion Met 

Percent of intercity passenger 

rail stations that comply with the 

requirements of the ADA. (FRA) 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2% 0% Not Met 

Notes: # Projection from Trends, ^ 2012 Actual Available Late 2013, * 2011 Interim Target Developed Prior to 2012-2016 Strategic Plan Release 

14
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 FOREWORD

Environmental Sustainability Performance Summary 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

TARGET 

2012 

ACTUAL 

2012 

MET OR 

NOT MET 

NAS energy efficiency (measured by 

fuel burned per miles flown). (FAA) 

-13.87% -13.52% -14.03% -15.25% -14.50% -14.00% -14.76% Met 

Number of people exposed to 

significant aircraft noise around 

airports. (FAA) 

N/A 383,465 291,768 317,596 315,293 386,000 319,901 Met 

Hazardous liquid pipeline spills with 

environmental consequences. (PHMSA) 

95 124 107 93 114 99 114* Not Met* 

Percent reduction of vehicle fleet 

petroleum use. (OST) 

11% 8% 14% 5% 4.9% 14% 14.5% Met 

Percent improvement in water 

efficiency. (OST) 

N/A 2% 3.3% (1.2%) (9.7%) 10% .9% Not Met 

Percent recycling and waste diversion. 

(OST) 

N/A N/A N/A ## ## 6% 11% Met 

Percent of all applicable contracts that 

meet sustainability requirements. (OST) 

N/A N/A N/A ## 95% 95% 95% Met 

Percent reduction in green-house gas 

emissions from facilities and fleets. 

(OST) 

N/A N/A N/A 7.9% 15.4% 4% 29% Met 

Percent reduction in green-house gas 

emissions from employee business 

travel and commuting. (OST) 

N/A N/A N/A (4.7%) 0.1% 2% 14% Met 

Cumulative number of ships safely 

removed from the Suisun Bay Reserve 

Fleet for disposal. (MARAD) 

N/A N/A N/A 11 26 2 36 Met 

Percent of alternative-fuel and hybrid 

vehicles in the transit revenue service 

fleet. (FTA) 

39% 42% 43% 44% 45% 46% TBD^ Met (2011) 

Notes: * Based on Preliminary Results, ^ 2012 Actual Available Late 2013, ## Data unavailable 

15
SAFETY
�
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

Safety is the Department of Transportation’s number one priority. 

Over the past decade, annual transportation-related fatalities have 

dropped from 45,300 to fewer than 34,500, based on preliminary 2011 

data. In FY 2012, DOT dedicated nearly $16.3 billion to improving safety 

on the roadways, in the air, on the railroads, and on transit systems. 

SAFETY 

NET BUDGETARY RESOURCES BY STRATEGIC GOALS: 

FY 2012 ENACTED 

RITA 

$9 M 

OST 

PHMSA 

$201M
 

FAA 

$8 B 

FHWA 

$6.2 B 

NHTSA 

$779 M 

FMCSA 

$528 M 

$100 M 

FTA 

$158 M FRA 

$170 M 

TOTAL $16,290,308,000 

ROADWAY SAFETY 

In the first decade of the 21st century, the United States experi

enced more than 400,000 fatalities and more than 26,000,000 

injuries on the Nation’s roadways. Roadway crashes are among 

the leading causes of death in the U.S., especially among young 

people. The Department strives to address these issues and make 

the U.S. roadway system the safest in the world. To accomplish 

this goal, DOT works with all of its stakeholders to reduce 

transportation-related fatalities and injuries. 

­

A comprehensive approach is needed to address roadway safety 

challenges and issues. To address this need, DOT developed 

the Roadway Safety Plan (RSP) in 2012 to coordinate safety 

initiatives across the Department (http://www.dot.gov/policy/ 

transportation-policy/dot-roadway-safety-plan). The RSP was 

initiated with the recognition that addressing the challenges of 

roadway safety requires the collective efforts of many people and 

organizations working together to significantly reduce crashes, 

serious injuries, and fatalities on the Nation’s roadways. Three 

agencies, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) are 

working together to address multiple dimensions of roadway 

safety. The goal, designated as one of the Department’s Agency 

Priority Goals, is to reduce the rate of roadway fatalities to 1.03 per 

100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) by the end of 2013. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

The roadway fatality rate is the total number of people killed in 

motor vehicle related crashes per 100 million VMT. Crashes that 

occurred exclusively on private property, including parking lots 

and driveways, are excluded. 

17
1.4 

1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (*) 2012 2013 

CALENDAR YEAR 

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

1.4 

1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (#) 2012 (#) 2013 

CALENDAR YEAR 

18

2012 RESULTS: TBD 

Target: 1.05 fatalities per 100 million VMT. 

Actual: TBD – DOT expects to release preliminary estimated 

data for calendar year 2012 in April 2013. 

Roadway Fatality Rate Per 100 Million Vehicle-Miles 

Traveled (VMT) 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

*Preliminary estimate for 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Since reaching a near-term high in 2005, there has been an 

unprecedented decline in roadway fatalities. Preliminary 

estimates for 2011 indicate roadway fatalities will reach the 

lowest level since 1949. This translates to a 1.9 percent decrease 

from the 32,999 fatalities in 2010. However, early projections 

for the first six months of 2012 show an increase of 9 percent in 

fatalities over the same period in 2011. Until additional informa

tion is available, it is too soon to know if this trend will continue 

through the end of 2012 or to determine the possible reasons for 

any increase over last year. 

In addition to the overall fatality rate, DOT tracks four broad 

subcategories of road user roadway fatality rates: passenger 

vehicle occupants, motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists 

(collectively referred to as non-occupants in this report), and 

fatalities from large trucks and buses. Dividing the overall 

roadway fatality rate into these subcategories allows the 

Department to pinpoint the challenges associated with each area 

and develop targeted solutions to reduce roadway fatalities. 

­

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Safer roads, vehicles, and drivers save lives, reduce 

injuries, and decrease damage to business and 

personal property. In fact, motor vehicle crashes 

not only impact the people involved but also the 

economy. The cost of roadway crashes in the U.S. 

is an estimated $230.6 billion per year (based on 

2000 data). NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA work to 

prevent roadway crashes though the development of 

data-driven, workable, and self-sustaining roadway 

safety programs. 

MEASURE #1 

Reduce the rate of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities per 100 

million VMT. (NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure calculates the number of occupants of passenger 

vehicles killed in crashes on public roadways. A passenger 

vehicle is a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds and includes passenger cars and 

light trucks (pickup trucks, vans, SUVs, and other light trucks). 

Passenger vehicles make up more than 90 percent of registered 

vehicles and account for nearly 90 percent of total VMT. 

2012 RESULTS: TBD 

Target: 0.85 passenger vehicle occupant fatalities per 100 

million passenger vehicle VMT. 

Actual: Preliminary estimates project 0.83–0.89 passenger 

vehicle occupant fatalities per 100 million passenger vehicle 

VMT in calendar year 2012. 

1.1 Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatality Rate Per 

100 Million Passenger Vehicle VMT 

#Projected based on preliminary data for 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Congress authorized the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) in 2005. In FY 2012, States significantly increased their 

spending of HSIP funds. In FY 2012, $1.6 billion was appropri

ated for the HSIP. Highway safety obligations by the States 

rose from 76 percent in FY 2011 to 80 percent in FY 2012. This 

increase in safety spending translates into many additional safety 

infrastructure projects, such as Safety EdgeTM, roundabouts, and 

rumble strips and stripes that will support reductions in roadway 

fatalities and serious injuries nationwide. FHWA hosted three 

Tribal Transportation Safety Summits in 2012. The summits 

provide an opportunity for tribal, State, and Federal transporta

tion staff, tribal leaders, and safety advocates to meet and identify 

safety issues affecting Native Americans, discuss and prioritize 

solutions, and coordinate ongoing activities. NHTSA continued 

to vigorously promote the successful “Click It or Ticket” high 

visibility enforcement (HVE) campaign in 2012. Largely as a 

result of these efforts, which involved approximately 10,000 

police agencies nationwide, National seat belt use increased to 86 

percent in 2012. Distracted driving also continues to be a major 

focus and priority of DOT. In Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century (MAP-21), a new grant program was authorized to 

­

­

ACTUAL 

TARGET 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

support the development of State distracted driving programs 

for States that have enacted and are enforcing comprehensive 

primary distracted driving laws. 

MEASURE #2 

Reduce the rate of motorcyclist rider fatalities per 100,000 

motorcycle registrations. (NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure compares the number of riders and passengers of 

motorcycles killed in crashes on public roadways compared to 

the total number of motorcycle registrations. The definition of a 

motorcycle includes mopeds, two- or three-wheeled motorcycles, 

off-road motorcycles, scooters, mini bikes, and pocket bikes. 

2012 RESULTS: TBD 

Target: 63 motorcyclist rider fatalities per 100,000 

motorcycle registrations. 

Actual: Preliminary estimates project 56 – 58 motorcyclist rider 

fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations in calendar year 

2012. 

1.2 Motorcyclist Rider Fatality Rate Per 100,000 

Motorcycle Registrations 

evaluate methods to increase compliance with motorcycle 

driver licensing requirements, and impaired riding enforcement 

demonstration efforts were initiated during 2012 in four States. 

MEASURE #3 

Reduce the rate of non-occupant (pedestrian and bicycle) fatali

ties per 100 million total VMT. (NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA) 

­

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure calculates the number of non-occupants killed 

in crashes per 100 million VMT. A non-occupant is any person 

who is not an occupant of a motor vehicle in transport and 

includes the following: pedestrians; bicyclists; occupants of 

parked motor vehicles; and others such as joggers, skateboard 

riders, people riding on animals, and persons riding in animaldrawn conveyances. 

2012 RESULTS: TBD 

Target: 0.16 non-occupant fatalities per 100 million total VMT. 

Actual: Preliminary estimates project 0.16 – 0.17 non-occupant 

fatalities per 100 million total VMT in calendar year 2012. 

1.3 Non-Occupant (Pedestrian and Bicycle) Fatality Rate 

Per 100 Million Total VMT 

80 

70 

60 

50 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

.18 

.16 

.14 

.12 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (#) 2012 2013 

CALENDAR YEAR 

#Projected based on preliminary data for 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The updated prioritization of the National Agenda for Motorcycle 

Safety has helped stakeholders employ effective countermeasures 

to reduce motorcyclist fatalities, as evidenced by a decline in 

motorcyclist fatalities and injuries in 2010. The final rule that 

upgraded the “DOT” certification labeling requirements to make 

it more difficult to mislabel novelty motorcycle helmets is intend

ed to support increased use of DOT-compliant helmets. In 2011, 

DOT-compliant motorcycle helmet use increased significantly 

to 66 percent (up from 54 percent in 2010). NHTSA estimates 

that helmets saved the lives of 1,550 motorcyclists in 2010. An 

additional 706 lives could have been saved if all riders had worn 

helmets during the year. 

­

In 2012, only 19 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico required helmet use by all motorcyclists. Research shows 

that motorcycle helmet use rates drop significantly after a State 

repeals mandatory helmet law while fatalities rise. Currently 

there is pending legislation in nine States to repeal the mandato

ry helmet use law for all motorcyclists. The “Model National 

Standards for Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training” are being 

voluntarily adopted by states through support from NHTSA 

efforts. A demonstration project was initiated in one State to 

­

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (#) 2012 2013 

CALENDAR YEAR 

#Projected based on preliminary data for 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

FHWA conducted technical assistance workshops and webinars 

that were attended by more than 2,800 people on non-occupant 

fatality topics including pedestrian hybrid and rectangular rapid 

flashing beacons, accommodating pedestrians at roundabouts, 

and engineering and design solutions at medians. The agency 

improved public and professional knowledge of pedestrian safety 

issues by writing articles and publishing newsletters focused 

on effective countermeasures and FHWA’s efforts in pedestrian 

safety. 

An evaluation of the effectiveness of NHTSA’s Walk and Bike 

Safely for Beginning English Language Learners curriculum was 

initiated in FY 2012. This curriculum is designed specifically for 

use by teachers and volunteers working with adult immigrants 

who are new English language learners. Four major ongoing 

pedestrian safety demonstration projects also continued in 2012. 

These projects combine education and enforcement efforts, for 

both pedestrian and motor vehicle drivers, to support engineering 

efforts in areas with elevated pedestrian fatalities. Efforts were 

initiated to update an existing educational video for children 

ages 7 to 12. 

19
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

MEASURE #4 

Reduce the rate of large truck and bus fatalities per 100 million 

total VMT. (NHTSA, FHWA, FMCSA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure compares the total number of fatalities in all 

crashes involving at least one large truck or bus to the total 

number of VMT. A large truck is defined as a motor vehicle 

with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 

pounds, and a bus is a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 

10 passengers, not including the driver. 

2012 RESULTS: TBD – 1,873 FATALITIES INVOLVING 

LARGE TRUCKS AND BUSES OCCURRED DURING THE 

FIRST SIX MONTHS OF CY 2012. 

Target: 0.117 fatalities involving a large truck or bus per 100 

million total VMT. 

Actual: Preliminary estimates project 0.110 – 0.127 fatalities 

involving a large truck or bus per 100 million total VMT in 

calendar year 2012. 

1.4 Large Truck and Bus Fatality Rate Per 100 Million Total VMT 

.18 

.16 

.14 

.12 

.10 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (#) 2012 (#) 2013 

CALENDAR YEAR 

#Projected based on preliminary data for 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In 2011, the estimated number of large truck and bus fatalities 

(4,018) increased by an estimated 1.8 percent over 2010 (3,944) 

while over the past five years (2007 – 2011) fatalities fell more 

than 21 percent. 

FMCSA expects large truck and bus fatalities to decline as it 

fully implements its Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) 

commercial vehicle enforcement model, which continues to 

modernize agency efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement 

activities through early contact with a greater number of 

motor carriers. 

In FY 2011, FMCSA implemented its “Rule of Three” strategic 

framework which is designed to: (1) raise the safety bar to enter 

the commercial motor vehicle industry; (2) ensure commercial 

motor vehicle operators maintain high standards to remain in the 

industry; and (3) remove high-risk carriers, vehicles, drivers, and 

service providers from operating. 

Raising the safety bar to enter the industry addresses the safety 

challenge of New Entrants. Congress authorized the New Entrant 

Safety Assurance Program (NESAP) in the Motor Carrier Safety 

Improvement Act (MCSIA) of 1999, and with the enactment 

of SAFETEA-LU in 2005, authorized $35 million in annual 

grant funds for States to conduct New Entrant Safety Audits of 

new motor carriers entering the industry. In FY 2010, FMCSA 

implemented a rule to strengthen the effectiveness of the NESAP 

by establishing more stringent safety criteria that would prohibit 

carriers not fit to operate safely from continuing to operate until 

safety improvements are made. Motor carriers that fail safety 

audits are required to submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) 

documenting how they are addressing safety. Failure to submit 

a CAP or adhere to the plan and failure to improve compliance 

results in the carrier being denied permanent registration. 

Additionally, to ensure that unsafe motor carriers are placed 

out-of-service and not reissued authority under new identities, 

the agency instituted a New Applicant Screening (NAS) system 

that helps detect unsafe carriers that disband operations and 

reincarnate as new entities in an attempt to avoid their previous 

safety records. FMCSA currently uses the system to screen all 

passenger and household goods carriers. Further, the agency 

continues to work toward a final rule for the Unified Registration 

System (URS), which will replace three current identification and 

registration systems, thereby improving the agency’s ability to 

prevent carriers from reincarnating. 

Maintaining high safety standards for carriers to remain in the 

industry is accomplished through the CSA enforcement model, 

the key tool for maintaining high safety standards and identifying 

and removing high-risk operators. CSA uses weighted statistical 

analysis of leading carrier risk indicators to prescribe measures of 

enforcement intervention commensurate with the carrier’s safety 

risk. The guiding principle is that early intervention can reform 

poor performance before it becomes a problem. With CSA, 

FMCSA is proactively addressing problems instead of reacting 

to tragic events. The primary tool is the Safety Measurement 

System (SMS), which prioritizes the targets of interventions and 

enforcement actions, thus optimizing scarce human resources. 

From the December 2010 rollout through the end of CY 

2011, violations per roadside inspection fell by 8 percent with 

driver violations per inspection falling by 10 percent, the most 

significant improvement in violation rates in the last 10 years. 

The agency implemented 11 changes to enhance the SMS in 

December 2012. These changes reflect public input and provide 

FMCSA more precise information to assess a carrier’s over-theroad safety performance. 

On April 21, 2012, FMCSA published the National Registry 

of Certified Medical Examiners final rule. The National Registry 

requires all medical examiners who conduct physical examinations 

for interstate Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) drivers to meet 

specific training and knowledge requirements so they can better 

determine whether a CMV driver’s medical fitness for duty meets 

FMCSA standards. Further, as of May 21, 2014, all medical certifi

cates must be issued by an examiner on the registry. 

­

20
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

In December 2011, the agency published a final rule to prohib

it the use of hand-held cell phones. In FY 2012, FMCSA 

launched the SaferBus App along with other free, user-friendly, 

online tools including FMCSA’s “Think Safety: Every Trip, 

Every Time” checklist to help consumers make sound and safe 

decisions on which bus company to select. 

­

Removing high-risk operators from the Nation’s roadways is 

where FMCSA takes final action after all other enforcement 

methods have been exhausted to ensure unfit carriers and drivers 

are removed from our National roadways. This includes strategic 

use of penalties, holding carriers accountable, removing arbitra

tion loopholes, and using new roadside enforcement technologies 

for screening unsafe vehicles and removing them from service. 

The ultimate sanction is the issuance of operations out-of-service 

orders to prohibit unsafe companies from continued operation. 

­

Hours of Service (HOS)—In December 2011, FMCSA published 

a final rule to amend the hours of service requirements for CMV 

drivers. The rule limits the use of the 34-hour restart provision 

to once per week and must include two rest periods between 1 

a.m. and 5 a.m. This change reduces the maximum on-duty time 

accumulated during the workweek before driving is prohibited, 

thereby reducing the fatigue-related crash risk involving CMVs. 

CSA Enforcement Model—FMCSA anticipates that CSA will 

help the agency and State partners achieve a greater reduction in 

CMV crashes, injuries, and fatalities by enabling enforcement 

personnel to address safety issues on a much larger population 

of motor carriers through a more effective and efficient use of 

resources. Additionally, CSA provides on-line tools that allow 

motor carriers to “self-evaluate” their safety performance. The 

tools help motor carriers identify where they are having difficul

ties so they can proactively make safety improvements in their 

operations before they become worse. 

­

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

DOT is committed to an integrated approach to safety that 

combines infrastructure engineering, education, enforcement, and 

emergency medical services. As demonstrated by the successful 

reductions in fatalities after the initiation of multidisciplinary 

State Strategic Highway Safety Plans, it is clear that an integrat

ed, collaborative approach provides the best safety results for the 

traveling public. The enactment of MAP-21 creates a stream

lined, performance-based, and multimodal program to address the 

many challenges facing the U.S. transportation system. MAP-21 

strengthens the successful HSIP by dramatically increasing the 

size of the program, strengthening the linkage among modal 

safety programs, and creating a positive agenda to make signif

icant progress in reducing roadway fatalities. MAP-21 also 

continues to build on other aggressive safety efforts, including 

the Department’s fight against distracted driving and its push to 

improve transit and motor carrier safety. 

­

­

­

Focus on People—FHWA will increase offerings of training 

courses for Federal, State, and local practitioners, particularly in 

focus States and cities, which promote engineering and design 

solutions to address safety needs. FHWA will also promote the 

use of highly effective countermeasures described in “Guidance 

Memorandum on Promoting the Implementation of Proven 

Safety Countermeasures.” FMCSA is working to help influence 

all drivers operating in and around CMVs and develop education 

programs for high-risk drivers operating around CMVs (e.g., 

young, aging, and aggressive drivers). FMCSA’s current effort 

is the Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks (TACT) partnership 

with State law enforcement, which targets traffic enforcement 

activities for unsafe driving. 

FMCSA efforts include: seeking to promote greater outreach 

and public involvement; ensuring high-risk populations receive 

education that positively impacts roadway safety and the CMV 

industry; increasing issuance of grants to a broader array of 

recipients (e.g., school educators and driver education programs, 

local enforcement, and safety outreach organizations); and 

expanding partnering efforts with new stakeholder groups (e.g., 

medical review officers, substance abuse professionals, laboratories, shippers, receivers, and brokers) to improve rulemakings 

and implementation of new initiatives. 

NHTSA will continue to work closely with States, territories, and 

tribes to implement traffic safety programs at the State and local 

levels. It will also conduct behavioral safety research, National 

high-visibility enforcement campaigns, and pilot tests to develop 

new safety countermeasures. The most significant upgrade to 

NHTSA’s data systems in 30 years was initiated in FY 2012. This 

multi-year data modernization project will enhance the agency’s 

ability to collect and analyze crash data and will improve the 

information technology infrastructure. These data collection 

systems and databases provide the foundation upon which 

NHTSA establishes and evaluates its programs. 

Focus on Roads—FHWA will pursue a broad range of activi

ties that will translate into safer roadways, including: working 

with State, tribal, and local agencies to expand data collection, 

analysis, and evaluation to focus on improvements that address 

the highest risks and provide the greatest safety benefits; 

engaging its full suite of resources including peer exchang

es, safety summits, technical assistance, training courses and 

workshops to advance deployment of the most effective tools and 

countermeasures; and using research and technologies to advance 

innovation. 

­

­

Focus on Vehicles—NHTSA is at the forefront of efforts to 

advance vehicle safety in the U.S. Ongoing research of new 

technologies in FY 2013 may offer great potential for enhanc

ing vehicle safety, such as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and 

vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications. In August 

2012, the agency initiated the largest-ever road test of connected 

vehicle crash avoidance technology in collaboration with the 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). 

­

21
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

Nearly 3,000 cars, trucks, and buses equipped with V2V “connected” 

Wi-Fi technology to enable vehicles and infrastructure to “talk” 

to each other in real time to help avoid crashes were deployed 

by December 2012. MAP-21 directs the Secretary to establish a 

Council for Vehicle Electronics, Vehicle Software, and Emerging 

Technologies within NHTSA to build and integrate the agency’s 

expertise in passenger motor vehicle electronics and other new 

and emerging technologies. 

Technology also contributes to driver distraction. NHTSA will 

continue to implement a multi-year comprehensive research plan 

to address this growing challenge. In FY 2013, NHTSA will 

complete a pilot project to evaluate the effectiveness of 

high-visibility law enforcement at the State level to reduce 

distracted driving. NHTSA has also begun developing voluntary 

Driver Distraction Guidelines for vehicle and system developers 

to promote device designs that minimize distraction potential. 

The guidelines are being produced in three phases. The first 

phase went out for public comment in 2012 and focused on 

visual-manual interfaces within the vehicle. The second phase, 

due out in 2013, will focus on portable aftermarket devices used 

by drivers. The third phase, in 2014, will deal with voice-based 

interfaces for in-vehicle and portable devices. 

FMCSA will enhance collaboration with existing partners 

and use them as a force multiplier in support of the agency’s 

regulatory process. The agency will enhance participation 

through fostering nontraditional partnerships to address CMV 

transportation issues. These issues include driver medical 

standards, passenger transportation, driver licensing, and 

consumer protection. FMCSA will continue to partner with 

other DOT agencies on safety standards for large trucks and 

buses. FMCSA expects to build a coordinated network of safety 

stakeholders to advance the agency’s CMV “Safety 1st” Culture 

strategic focus area, and it intends to implement new large truck 

and bus-related safety measures in support of the agency’s 

2012–2016 Strategic Plan. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

The combined effects of fluctuating gas prices, economic 

activity, and the change in both the mix of vehicles (i.e., towards 

increased use of smaller cars and motorcycles) and the means 

of transportation (i.e., towards walking and bicycling, as well 

as mass transit) indicate fundamental changes in the Nation’s 

transportation system. Though improvements can be made to 

affect the number and rate of roadway fatalities, these annual 

statistics are also affected by the number of people using 

occupant restraint systems and personal safety gear (e.g., seat 

belts, child safety seats, and motorcycle helmets), the number 

of impaired drivers on the road, the number of drivers who are 

speeding, and the number of drivers who are distracted. Traffic 

safety laws that are either passed or repealed by States also 

influence these numbers. For example, States that pass primary 

enforcement seat belt laws have higher overall seat belt use rates 

on average compared to those with secondary laws, where police 

officers are permitted to write a seat belt use citation only after 

a vehicle is stopped for some other traffic infraction. In contrast, 

States that repeal traffic safety laws can see the number of 

fatalities rise quickly. For example, this has occurred in States 

that have repealed all-rider motorcycle helmet use laws. 

For the CMV industry, the above external factors play a role in 

safety performance. When fuel prices rise and the economy is 

down, carriers that operate on the margin are more susceptible 

to cutting corners on safety and going out of business. This may 

remove less fit operators from the roads and reduce exposure 

by other non-CMV vehicles, which may influence performance 

measures in a positive way. However, when fuel prices are low 

and the economy is up, the opposite impact is generally realized 

for a short period until these external factors stabilize. 

PARTNERS 

DOT works closely with partners at the Federal, State, tribal, 

and local levels to address every facet of transportation safety. 

The Department provides guidance and technical assistance to 

State, tribal, and local governments, and to metropolitan planning 

organizations to help in the development and implementation of 

comprehensive safety programs. DOT also develops effective 

countermeasures and enforcement programs to promote safe 

driving behaviors for passenger and commercial vehicle drivers. 

Safety partner groups play an important role in disseminating 

and implementing training and educational efforts. DOT also 

works with partners in the private sector on the development of 

safer vehicles and roads and on improved business practices for 

commercial operators. 

22
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

AVIATION SAFETY 

This remains one of the safest periods in aviation history for 

both commercial and general aviation. Over the last three and 

a half years, more than 2.5 billion airline passengers reached 

their destinations safely. As the stewards of aviation safety in the 

U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its industry 

partners have built a system that operates more than 30,000 

scheduled commercial flights daily and has reduced the risks of 

flying to all-time lows. 

FAA will focus resources on improving air transportation 

safety by continuing to emphasize a positive safety culture, by 

making improvements to aviation standards, and through industry 

oversight. Additionally, FAA will take action to manage risk 

by proactively identifying hazards with a risk-based approach 

to the agency’s continuous analysis of aviation data. Commercial 

Aviation Safety, General Aviation Safety, and Runway Safety 

are three of the areas where FAA will concentrate efforts to 

improve safety. 

Reducing the risk of aviation accidents is one of the 

Department’s Agency Priority Goals. The goal sets performance 

targets and tracks the progress against General Aviation (GA) and 

Commercial Aviation fatal accident rates and runway incursions. 

Reducing the number of runway incursions also lessens the 

probability of accidents that potentially involve fatalities, 

injuries, and significant property damage. Approximately 80 

percent of fatal accidents are directly related to some form or 

combination of human factors. These run the range of external 

organizational influences, inadequate supervision, personnel 

factors (such as self-imposed stress), individual acts (such as 

skill-based errors), misperception errors, and judgment and 

decision-making errors. Fatal air carrier accidents have declined 

in terms of the average number of fatalities per accident. FAA 

oversees the safety of approximately 220,000 GA active aircraft 

in the United States. These aircraft include amateur-built aircraft, 

rotorcraft, balloons, and highly sophisticated turbojets. Therefore, 

by tracking the rate of fatal GA accidents per flight hours, FAA 

can more accurately pinpoint safety concerns or trends to help 

form different prevention methods. The success of FAA and 

industry collaborations on safety initiatives continues to drive a 

lower general aviation fatal accident rate. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

FAA’s aviation safety measures improve overall 

safety for the flying public. As fatal air carrier 

accidents have declined in terms of the average 

number of fatalities per person on board, the 

commercial aviation metric is helping FAA sharpen 

its focus on improving air travel safety. By tracking 

the rate of general aviation fatal accidents per 

flight hours, the FAA can more accurately pinpoint 

safety concerns or trends indicating potential safety 

concerns. The agency’s runway incursion metric 

helps reduce the probability that the public will 

be injured or killed in an accident resulting from a 

runway incursion. 

MEASURE #1 

Limit the rate of fatalities per 100 million persons onboard 

commercial air carriers. (FAA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This metric measures the number of fatalities per 100 million 

persons onboard commercial aircraft, and it includes both 

scheduled and nonscheduled flights of U.S. passenger and 

cargo air carriers and scheduled passenger flights of commut

er operators. It excludes on-demand (i.e., air taxi) service and 

general aviation. Accidents involving passengers, crew, ground 

personnel, and the uninvolved public are all included. 

­

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET, BASED ON 

PRELIMINARY RESULTS 

Target: 7.6 fatalities per 100 million persons onboard 

commercial aircraft.
 

Actual: 0 commercial air carrier fatalities occurred during 

FY 2012.
 

2.1 Number of Commercial Air Carrier Fatalities Per 100 Million 

Persons Onboard 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (1) 2012 (2) 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

1 Preliminary estimate. Final result available March 2013. 

2 Preliminary estimate. Final result available March 2014. 

23
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, with no commercial fatal accidents, FAA was 

successful in maintaining the commercial air carrier rate below 

7.6 fatalities per 100 million people onboard. The agency’s 

focused, data-driven safety agenda, with its emphasis on using 

the latest technology and training to break the chain of events 

that lead to accidents, along with the work of the Commercial 

Aviation Safety Team (CAST), continues to keep the skies safe 

for commercial airspace passengers. 

The technology used by pilots, mechanics, flight attendants, and 

air traffic controllers has evolved. Today, pilots must possess not 

only the navigation, stick, and rudder skills they have always had to 

learn, but they must be “system managers” who are intimately familiar 

with the complexity of operations. FAA’s training programs work 

to equip pilots with the skills required to deal with any situation. 

MEASURE #2 

Limit the general aviation (GA) fatal accident rate per 100,000 

flight hours. (FAA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This metric measures the number of fatal accidents per 100,000 

general aviation flight hours. This metric includes on-demand 

and general aviation flights. General aviation comprises a diverse 

range of aviation activities, including single-seat homebuilt 

aircraft, helicopters, balloons, single and multiple engine land 

and seaplanes, and highly sophisticated, extended range turbojets. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET NOT MET, BASED ON 

PRELIMINARY RESULTS 

Target: 1.07 general aviation fatal accidents per 100,000 

flight hours. 

Actual: 1.10 general aviation fatal accidents per 100,000 

flight hours. 

2.2 Number of Fatal General Aviation Accidents per 

100,000 Flight Hours 

1.20 

1.15 

1.10 

1.05

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (1)
 2012 (2) 2013 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

FISCAL YEAR 

1 Preliminary estimate. Final result available March 2013. 

2 Preliminary estimate. Final result available March 2014. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

FAA does not anticipate meeting its FY 2012 GA target. Based 

on preliminary estimates, FAA finished the year with a rate of 

1.10 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours. “Loss of Control” 

continues to be the leading cause of fatalities, accounting for 

about 70 percent of all fatal GA accidents. Estimates demonstrate 

that approximately 80 percent of fatal accidents are directly 

attributable to human factors. 

A large percentage of GA fatalities occurred in the area of experi

mental aircraft, which are mostly amateur-built. That is, they 

have been fabricated and assembled by people who undertook the 

construction project solely for their own education or recreation. 

These aircraft accounted for approximately 27.8 percent of GA 

fatal accidents in FY 2012 while contributing to slightly fewer 

than 6 percent of GA flight hours. 

­

Although Alaska accounts for only 2 percent of the Nation’s 

population, approximately 5 percent of GA accidents occur in 

the State. With more than three-quarters of Alaskan communi

ties having no access to highways or roads, many communities 

depend on general aviation for access to food, mail, jobs, schools, 

medical services, and travel. However, the State’s topography 

and extreme weather present unique safety challenges to pilots, 

resulting in a relatively high number of accidents. 

­

In FY 2012, FAA continued to work jointly with the Alaska 

aviation community through a number of organizations and 

safety programs, including the Medallion Foundation, the Circle 

of Safety program, the FAA Safety Team, the Alaska Air Carriers 

Association, the Alaska Aviation Safety Foundation, and the 

Alaska Airman’s Association. 

MEASURE #3 

Limit the rate of Category A & B runway incursions per million 

operations. (FAA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

A runway incursion is any occurrence at an aerodrome 

(a location from which aircraft flight operations take place) 

involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person 

on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing 

and takeoff of aircraft. Runway incursions can create dangerous 

situations that can lead to serious accidents potentially involving 

fatalities, injuries, and significant property damage. 

The FAA tracks all runway incursions and measures the rate of 

the following two categories of most serious runway incursions: 

CATEGORY A—a serious incident in which a collision was 

narrowly avoided. 

CATEGORY B—an incident in which separation decreases and 

there is a significant potential for collision, which may result in a 

time-critical corrective/evasive response to avoid a collision. 

24
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Limit runway incursions to 0.395 occurrences per 

million operations.
 

Actual: 0.356 runway incursions per million operations.
 

2.3 Category A&B Runway Incursions Per Million Operations 

.500 

.400 

.300 

.200 

.100
 

2012 2013 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The reduction in the number and severity of runway incursions is 

one of FAA’s top priorities. FY 2012 final results for the rate of 

Category A and B runway incursions was 0.356, just below the 

established end-of-year goal of 0.395 serious events per million 

operations. FAA has met expectations for this indicator with 18 

Category A and B Runway Incursion surface events. 

This year, FAA requested and received updated action plans 

from Airports, Terminal Services, and Flight Standards organiza

tions, describing steps to be taken to reduce runway incursions. 

Additionally, separate focused efforts were initiated to address 

surface risk associated with airport construction, closed runways, 

approach hold procedures, and call sign confusion. FAA has 

taken specific actions to instill an open reporting culture so that 

safety issues are brought to light and addressed. The implemen

tation of non-punitive voluntary safety reporting programs 

simplified safety reporting processes outlined in new FAA safety 

orders. New tools supporting these processes have resulted in 

removing barriers to reporting all surface events. 

­

­

Although the rate of Category A and B runway incursions was 

within the established target, the increase in the rate from the 

previous three years is a trend that is not acceptable. FAA is 

working diligently with the aviation community to implement 

mitigations, raise awareness, and educate pilots, drivers, and 

controllers on the risks of runway incursions. As many foreign air 

carriers operate within the United States, FAA also continues to 

support International Civil Aviation Organization runway safety 

programs. These efforts will be supported by the new Surface 

Risk Analysis Process, which will improve FAA’s ability to 

determine root causes and correct the hazards affecting runway 

safety. FAA anticipates these efforts will have a positive impact, 

resulting in a reduction in the number of runway incursions and 

risk to the flying public. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

While FAA achievements have brought aviation to an unprece

dented level of safety, identified sources of risk within aviation 

provide the basis for moving forward to the next level of safety. 

FAA’s work with stakeholders to stimulate cooperation for the 

open reporting of safety concerns is key to the agency’s successful safety efforts. Each member of the aviation community plays 

a vital role in the efforts to ensure the U.S. continues to have the 

safest airspace system in the world. 

­

The General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) 

continues efforts to take a more focused, data-driven approach 

to understanding fatal accident causes and contributing factors. 

This is a government-industry group that manages efforts to 

reduce fatal general aviation accidents. The GAJSC meets to 

review GA accident trends, establish areas for special emphasis, 

and share information. 

NextGen is a transformative change in the management and 

operation of how we fly, which will reduce delays, save fuel, 

and lower carbon emissions. This comprehensive initiative 

integrates new and existing technologies, including satellite 

navigation and advanced digital communications. Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) is FAA’s satellitebased successor to radar. ADS-B makes use of global positioning 

system (GPS) technology to determine and share precise aircraft 

location information, and streams additional flight information 

to the cockpits of properly equipped aircraft The introduction 

of ADS-B enhances GA pilots’ awareness of other traffic and 

improves safety in areas that radar cannot reach, such as Alaska 

and the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, FAA continues to work with 

various members of the GA community to promote education 

and training on night landings, weather, and other areas of 

concern. Furthermore, FAA will rely on GAJSC for a data-driven 

approach to improving safety, as well as focus on training initia

tives, such as the Airmen Testing Standards and Training Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee. 

­

FAA continues working on a number of projects directly 

tasked to the agency by Congress in the Airline Safety and FAA 

Extension Act of 2010. FAA is developing a pilot training rule 

(RIN 2120-AJ67) with a target completion date in FY 2013. 

Depending on the outcome of the final rule, this rulemaking 

effort is likely to represent the most significant overhaul of crew 

training in the last 20 years. If finalized, the provisions included 

in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) would require 

pilots, flight attendants, and dispatchers to demonstrate their 

skills in real operations. 

25
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶

Additional initiatives in FAA’s plan to reduce runway incursions 

include: 

RUNWAY SAFETY COUNCIL 

By 2013, reduce the rate of serious runway incursions by 25 

percent from 2008 levels 

As of September 30, 2012, the Root Cause Analysis Team 

analyzed and evaluated 18 Category A and B runway 

incursions and reported the results and recommendations 

to the Council 

RUNWAY SAFETY ACTION TEAMS (RSAT) 

Support Local RSAT meeting performed by Air Traffic 

Facility Managers 

Develop a new RSAT support model for airport stakeholders that enhances the ability to track actions and ensures 

the timely implementation of hazard mitigations 

RUNWAY STATUS LIGHTS 

By the end of 2015, runway status lights will be operational 

at 23 airports 

LOW COST GROUND SURVEILLANCE (LCGS) 

Conduct operational evaluation of LCGS at pilot sites 

FAA is committed to mitigating the risks of runway incursions. 

The agency continues ongoing outreach, education, and 

awareness programs to affected groups through mass electronic 

mail communications, training animations, and the following webpage: http://www.asias.faa.gov/portal/page/portal/

asias_pages/asias_home/welcome_tab. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Approximately 80 percent of fatal accidents are directly related 

to some form or combination of human factors including external 

organizational influences, inadequate supervision, personnel 

factors (such as self-imposed stress), individual acts (such as 

skill-based errors), misperception errors, and judgment and 

decision-making errors. Runway incursions are the result of an 

air traffic controller, pilot, or vehicle/pedestrian event. FAA has 

direct influence on air traffic controller performance, but indirect 

influence on pilots and airport personnel. 

PARTNERS 

FAA partners in this effort include the National Transportation 

Safety Board, Commercial Aviation Safety Team, General 

Aviation Joint Steering Committee, International Helicopter 

Safety Team, Congress, industry organizations, manufacturers, 

training schools, associations, and civil airworthiness authorities 

and international organizations. 

FAA co-chairs the Runway Safety Council with Airlines for 

America. Other Runway Safety Council members include the Air 

Line Pilots Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, 

National Association of Flight Instructors, National Business 

Aviation Association, Regional Airline Association, National Air 

Traffic Controllers Association, Airport Councils InternationalNorth America, and the American Association of Airport 

Executives. 

PIPELINE SAFETY 

MEASURE: Reduce the number of natural gas and 

hazardous liquid pipeline incidents involving death or 

major injury. (PHMSA) 

While pipelines are by many measures the safest mode for 

transporting hazardous liquid and natural gas, the nature of 

their cargo is inherently dangerous. To address this hazard, 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) has designed and implemented a strong, risk-based, 

systems approach to protect the safety, security, and reliability 

of the Nation’s pipeline infrastructure. This approach also 

helps provide secure and reliable transportation of the Nation’s 

energy resources. 

PHMSA recognizes the importance of a strong continued focus 

on excavation or construction-related damage—the leading cause 

of serious pipeline incidents involving death or injury, especially 

in natural gas distribution systems where people work and live in 

closest proximity to pipelines. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Reducing pipeline incidents involving death or 

major injury directly impacts public and occupa

tional safety, and contributes to achieving the DOT 

strategic goal for safety. 

­

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

Deaths and injuries reflect the most important safety outcomes in 

transportation, and the number of incidents with death or major 

injury reflects the risk of these outcomes. 

26
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET, BASED ON 

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE 

Target: 30-43 pipeline incidents involving death or major injury. 

Actual: 32 (projected) pipeline incidents involving death or 

major injury. 

3.1 Pipeline Incidents Involving Death or Major Injury 

50 ACTUAL 

TARGET 45 

40 

35 

30 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (p) 2013 

CALENDAR YEAR 

(p) Preliminary estimate. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Pipeline operators reported 32 incidents with death or major 

injury in FY 2012—including 26 from gas distribution systems, 

3 from gas transmission, and 3 from hazardous liquid pipeline 

systems. These incidents resulted in 14 deaths and 52 injuries. 

The largest single cause was “other outside force damage” to gas 

distribution systems, including damage by vehicles or a separate 

fire or explosion that damaged the pipeline. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

PHMSA is dedicated to improving oversight of pipeline safety, 

including oil spill response plan reviews and expansion of its 

participation in oil spill drills; and will continue to advance the 

“811 - Call Before you Dig” public awareness campaign, expand 

geospatial data collection and analysis to help identify high-risk 

areas, and gradually expand the risk-based inspection program. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Excavation damage, damage from natural forces (e.g., storms 

and flooding), and other outside force damage are all significant 

causes of pipeline failure. 

PARTNERS 

State pipeline safety agencies, which inspect approximately 

80 percent of all pipelines. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY 

MEASURE: Reduce the number of hazardous materials incidents 

involving death or major injury. (PHMSA) 

Energy products and hazardous materials underpin the American 

economy and our way of life. They also introduce some inherent 

risk to the public, the environment, and property. PHMSA is 

focused on protecting people and the environment from the 

risks inherent in transportation of hazardous materials. The 

agency leads the national program to identify and evaluate safety 

risks, develop and enforce standards for transporting hazardous 

materials, educate shippers and carriers, investigate hazardous 

materials incidents, conduct research, and provide grants to 

improve emergency response to incidents. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Reducing hazardous materials incidents involving 

death or major injury directly impacts public and 

occupational safety, and contributes to achieving the 

DOT strategic goal for safety.
 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

Deaths and injuries reflect the most important safety outcomes in 

transportation, and the number of incidents with death or major 

injury reflects the risk of these outcomes. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET, BASED ON 

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE 

Target: 22-34 hazardous materials incidents involving death 

or major injury.
 

Actual: 26 (preliminary) hazardous materials incidents involving 

death or major injury.
 

3.2 Hazardous Materials Incidents Involving Death or Major Injury 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (p) 2013 

CALENDAR YEAR 

(p) Preliminary estimate. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Hazardous materials carriers reported 26 (projected) incidents 

with death or major injury in FY 2012. These incidents resulted 

in 11 deaths and 29 injuries. There were also 107 evacuations 

involving more than 5,000 people to help prevent injuries from 

hazardous materials incidents. 

27
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

PHMSA will continue modernizing its transactional information 

systems and quality and program evaluation capabilities; increas

ing its enforcement and inspection capabilities; recruiting new 

special permits and approvals specialists, scientists, engineers, data 

analysts, and training specialists; and fulfilling the requirements of 

MAP-21. 

­

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will 

continue to seek to refine enforcement and compliance interven

tions through more intensive oversight of the motor carrier 

industry, including more fully defining the hazardous materials 

motor carrier population for purposes related to the Compliance, 

Safety, Accountability Safety Measurement System (CSA SMS), 

expanding enforcement of and compliance with the Hazardous 

Materials Safety Permit requirements, and continuing research 

into nurse tank integrity and testing procedures. 

­

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will continue to 

improve its stewardship of rail safety programs, including 

the hazardous materials safety program. FRA is committed to 

reducing the non-accident hazardous materials release rate to 

1.22 per 200 million hazmat ton-miles. 

In FY 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Hazardous Materials Safety Program (HMSP) will: (1) continue 

implementation of a Safety Management System (SMS) program 

that integrates risk-based oversight of air carriers through surveil

lance activities in coordination with FAA Office of Aviation 

Safety certificate management teams; (2) enhance regulatory 

oversight of air carriers and air mode shippers in accordance 

with the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HRMs) through new 

risk-based tools; (3) enhance outreach on air transportation of 

undeclared hazardous materials; (4) increase coordination with 

other civil aviation authorities to improve safety; (5) and, contin

ue research efforts with FAA’s Office of Aviation Research (Tech 

Center) to measure the risks associated with lithium batteries and 

possible mitigation through packaging and fire. 

­

­

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Since this measure is not normalized for changes in risk 

exposure, there are several factors that could affect the outcomes, 

including the volume shipped, total vehicle miles of travel, 

or changes in the mix of hazardous materials shipped. These 

external factors are driven largely by economic conditions. 

PARTNERS 

FMCSA, FAA, FRA, and the U.S. Coast Guard all contribute 

to achieving this goal through prevention programs focused on 

their modes of transportation. State and local emergency responders play an important role in mitigating the consequences of 

incidents that do occur. 

TRANSIT SAFETY 

MEASURE: Reduce transit fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles traveled. (FTA) 

According to the National Safety Council, passengers on the 

Nation’s bus, rail, and commuter rail systems are 40 times less 

likely to be involved in a fatal accident than passengers in cars 

and trucks. Nevertheless, each year there are more than 200 

fatalities related to public transportation. Slightly more than half 

of transit fatalities come from incidents involving the Nation’s 

heavy rail and light rail systems, even though such systems 

account for less than half of the Nation’s public transportation 

trips. Under laws in effect through June 2012, FTA established 

regulations for a State-managed safety oversight program for the 

Nation’s heavy rail and light rail systems with a goal of reducing 

fatalities on these systems. In addition, FTA established a 

program of voluntary oversight for transit bus systems, including 

on-site reviews for selected systems, and developed the require

ment for drug and alcohol testing for transit operators. Finally, 

FTA awards research grants that identify new technologies and 

best practices to enhance transit safety. 

­

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) 

enacted in July 2012 provides FTA with new authority to 

establish and regulate transit safety standards. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Safety is FTA’s highest priority. Every year, there 

are more than 10 billion boardings on the Nation’s 

public transportation systems. Monthly transit 

boardings exceed the total number of U.S. commer

cial airline boardings in an entire year, and transit 

accounts for almost as many boardings each day 

as Amtrak has in an entire year. With so many 

Americans relying upon public transportation for 

their everyday needs, safety on public transporta

tion is critical if it is to remain a viable option for 

meeting the Nation’s transportation needs. 

­

­

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

A fatality is reported for any death occurring within 30 days of a 

transit incident, as a result of that incident. The transit fatality 

data include all modes of transit, except commuter rail, the 

Alaska Railroad, and the New York-New Jersey Port Authority 

Trans-Hudson (PATH) Trains, as these systems are subject to 

safety regulations from the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA). Fatalities may occur while traveling on transit or while 

boarding, alighting, or waiting for transit vehicles to arrive. An 

injury or fatality may also occur while not using transit, such as 

in the cases of being struck by a transit vehicle as a pedestrian, 

or as a transit employee working in the transit right-of-way. 

Fatalities include suicides, but do not include deaths resulting 

28
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

from a medical condition (e.g., a heart attack or stroke) while 

riding transit. Fatalities also do not include deaths occurring in 

maintenance shops or administration buildings. 

Consistent with the safety performance measures for other modes 

of transportation, fatalities are compared to total passenger miles 

traveled (PMT). By dividing total fatalities by passenger miles, 

this measure is normalized for any increase in fatalities resulting 

simply from increased ridership. 

2012 RESULTS: TBD 

Target: 0.543 transit fatalities per 100 million PMT.
 

Actual: 2012 data not available. FTA’s National Transit Database 

will report fatality rates in September 2013. 

4.1 Transit Fatalities Per 100 Million Passenger-Miles Traveled 

(PMT) (r) 

.550 

.545 

.540 

.535 

.530 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012 2013 

CALENDAR YEAR 

(r) Revised.
 

*New target developed in 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Actual 2012 data are not yet available. FTA’s National Transit 

Database will report fatality rates in September 2013. There were 

228 transit fatalities in 2011, a slight increase from the 221 fatali

ties in 2010. Passenger miles also increased slightly from 41.5 

billion in 2010 to 42.6 billion in 2011. This caused a very slight 

increase in the transit fatality rate from 0.533 in 2010 to 0.535 in 

2011. Effectively, this measure is unchanged from 2010 to 2011. 

­

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

FTA will continue implementing its new safety oversight authorities for transit rail systems established in MAP-21, including new 

transit safety rulemakings. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Prior to the passage of MAP-21, FTA developed safety standards 

for transit agencies to reference as necessary. With the enactment 

of MAP-21, FTA will play a more proactive role in the regulation 

and oversight of public transportation safety. The agency will 

continue to work with its State Safety Oversight Agency partners 

to implement effective oversight of the Nation’s bus and rail 

transit systems. 

FTA does not directly operate public transportation systems. 

Local decisions and actions will continue to have a significant 

impact on the safety of public transportation. 

PARTNERS 

FTA’s partners in this effort include transit agencies, State 

Departments of Transportation, State Safety Oversight Agencies, 

local governments, and research entities. 

RAILROAD SAFETY 

MEASURE: Reduce rail-related accidents and incidents per 

million train-miles. (FRA) 

To ensure the safety of the Nation’s rail operations and infrastruc

ture, FRA relies on the issuance, implementation, and enforce

ment of safety regulations; administration of financial assistance 

programs to invest in selected rail corridors; and research 

and development of new technology and operating practices. 

Nevertheless, during FY 2012, rail-related incidents resulted in 

710 fatalities and 7,585 injuries. 

­

­

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Improved rail technology and equipment, increased 

awareness of highway-rail grade crossing safety, and 

better operating practices result in fewer deaths and 

injuries, fewer hazardous material releases into the 

environment, and lower medical expenses and lost 

productivity. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure summarizes FRA’s internal safety performance 

measures and reflects the complexity of America’s rail environment (e.g., train accidents, employee accidents/incidents, grade 

crossing incidents, and trespasser incidents). 

29
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: 16.300 rail-related accidents and incidents 

per million train-miles.
 

Actual: 14.557 rail-related accidents and incidents 

per million train-miles.
 

5.1 Rail-Related Accidents and Incidents Per Million Train-Miles 

18 

17 

16 

15 

14 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The FY 2012 rate of rail-related accidents and incidents was the 

lowest level since FRA began collecting safety data in the 1970s. 

For the 10-year period FY 2003 through FY 2012, the number 

of reportable rail-related accidents and incidents declined from 

14,295 to 10,788 (25 percent); train accidents fell from 2,991 

to 1,756 (41 percent); grade-crossing incidents decreased from 

2,934 to 2,020 (31 percent); and casualties dropped from 10,069 

to 8,295 (18 percent). 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

Preliminary data for FY 2012, along with analytical forecasting, indicate that the downward trend will continue for the next 

several years. FRA will continue to strengthen its inspector force 

and implement new approaches to reduce further rail-related 

accident and incident rates. In the next two years, FRA will: 

Develop and implement risk reduction programs on each 

class I railroad, each railroad with an inadequate safety 

record, and each passenger railroad. 

Expand to a nationwide program the Confidential Close Call 

Reporting System. This initiative enhances railroad safety 

cultures by building trust and relying on the program’s core 

operating principles—voluntary, confidential, non-punitive 

reporting and using data to recommend corrective actions. 

Integrate automated methods into the track inspection 

program, increasing efficiency and cost-effectiveness. 

Continue providing oversight and technical assistance for 

positive train control systems implementation. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

To achieve higher levels of safety performance, railroads must 

assimilate system safety and risk reduction programs and new 

technologies, such as positive train control. FRA is committed to 

helping to resolve technical and spectrum availability issues that 

could hinder positive train control implementation. Moreover, 

two categories of incidents—both with strong behavior influenc

es—account for almost 97 percent of rail-related deaths. 

Consequently, these incidents are difficult to address effectively. 

Many of the people killed in grade-crossing incidents die because 

motor vehicle drivers illegally avoid protective devices at grade 

crossings. Additionally, hundreds of people die while trespassing 

on rail rights-of-way. 

­

PARTNERS 

Private rail operators and labor; other Federal, State, and local 

governments; domestic and international associations, councils, 

and organizations as members of the Rail Safety Advisory 

Committee; and grant recipients. 

IMPROVED SAFETY EXPERIENCE FOR ALL 

ROAD USERS 

MEASURE: Increase the cumulative number of States and localities that adopt roadway designs that accommodate all road users 

(Complete Streets). (OST) 

Many communities have joined a national movement for 

Complete Streets, which encourages safe access to destinations 

for everyone, regardless of age, ability, income, ethnicity, or 

mode of travel. Rather than defining movement by mode of 

travel, an inclusive design focuses on the desired outcome of a 

transportation system that supports safe and universally inclusive 

roadway use. The policies at the State and local level can lead 

to transportation projects that are designed for the safe use of 

bicyclists, transit users, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Policies for roadway designs that accommodate all 

road users benefit communities by ensuring safe, 

accessible, and healthy streets in their communities. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

DOT measures the effectiveness of the DOT Safety and 

Livability initiatives by the increase in the number of States and 

localities that adopt roadway design policies that accommodate 

all road users. 

30
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 SAFETY

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: 26 States adopting roadway design policies that 

accommodate all road users.
 

Actual: 27 States adopted roadway design policies that 

accommodated all road users.
 

6.1 Cumulative number of States that adopt roadway designs that 

accommodate all road users (Complete Streets) 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

By the end of FY 2012, 27 States, the District of Columbia, and 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have adopted or committed in writing to Complete Streets policies. Additionally, 379 

regional and local jurisdictions have adopted or committed to 

Complete Streets policies aimed at achieving roadway designs 

that accommodate all road users in their community transportation networks. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

The outlook for additional States and communities to adopt 

inclusive and safer roadway design policies is good, given the 

increase in 2012. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

The estimates for States and jurisdictions that have adopted 

Complete Streets policies are based on reviews of State and 

community legislation or ordinances, transportation plans, 

comprehensive plans, and design guidance. However, due to the 

differences among States and communities in the various vehicles 

for the policies, a summary of these policies may not reflect some 

aspects of the policies. 

PARTNERS 

DOT’s partners in this effort include State DOTs, local 

transportation agencies and jurisdictions, bicycle and pedestrian 

advocacy groups, health advocacy groups, and Safe Routes 

to Schools coalitions. 

31
STATE OF GOOD REPAIR
�
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR

Preserving the health of our road, bridge, transit, and airport runway infrastructure is critical to 

the functionality and cost effectiveness of the Nation’s transportation system. According to the 

current data estimates, pavement conditions and roadway surfaces on the National Highway 

System’s roads and bridges are exceeding the 2012 targets.The Department is making efforts 

to reduce the backlog of transit capital assets in need of replacement or refurbishment, and the 

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) surpassed its 2012 runway condition target 

by maintaining 97.5 percent of NPIAS paved runways in excellent, good, or fair condition. 

STATE OF GOOD REPAIR 

NET BUDGETARY RESOURCES BY STRATEGIC GOALS: 

FY 2012 ENACTED 

FAA 

$100 M FRA 

FHWA 

$21.3 B 

FTA 

$2.6 B 

FAA 

$1.1 B 

RITA 

$44M 

$800 M 

TOTAL $26,052,172,000 

HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE (FHWA) 

Over the past five years, pavement condition declined for 34 

percent of all travel on the National Highway System (NHS). 

At the same time, more than 50 percent of States reported 

an increase in the number of bridges on the NHS eligible for 

rehabilitation. The condition of pavement and bridges across 

the country varies considerably, with many States struggling 

to maintain current conditions. The Department will contin

ue to make the State of Good Repair goal a top priority in its 

ongoing commitment to advance strategies and initiatives to 

improve the condition of the Nation’s roads and bridges. A key 

component of MAP-21 is the requirement that the States develop 

and implement asset management plans and performance plans 

specifically for highway and bridge infrastructure. 

­

The performance measures associated with this goal are used to 

assess the overall condition of pavements and bridges in order to 

determine if highway infrastructure on the NHS is able to support 

system mobility needs, and determine if investments made to 

maintain and improve infrastructure conditions are effective. 

Under MAP-21, the NHS is an approximate 223,000-mile 

network composed of the Interstate System, all principal arterial 

routes including border crossings on these routes, intermodal 

connectors including toll facilities, and a strategic highway 

network and its connectors that are important to national defense. 

It provides mobility to the vast majority of the Nation’s popula

tion and almost all of its commerce, supports national defense, 

and promotes intermodal connectivity. 

­

33
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Maintaining the National Highway System, including 

its bridges and roads, in a State of Good Repair 

benefits the American public through lower vehicle 

operating costs (i.e., less wear-and-tear) for NHS 

users and ensures better use of Federal and State 

funds for capital investment. 

MEASURE #1 

Increase the percent of travel on NHS roads with pavement 

performance standards rated “good.” (FHWA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure is derived from Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) 

data on reported NHS sections and pavement ride quality data 

reported using the International Roughness Index (IRI). IRI 

is a statistic used to estimate the amount of roughness in a 

measured longitudinal profile. An IRI of 95 inches per mile or 

less is necessary for a good rated ride. See the FHWA Highway 

Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Field Manual for more 

details at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/

fieldmanual/. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET, BASED ON PRELIMINARY 

RESULTS 

Target: 56.0 percent of travel on NHS roads with pavement 

performance standards rated “good.”
	

Actual: 56.2 percent of travel on NHS roads with pavement 

performance standards rated “good.”
	

1.1 Percent of Travel on the National Highway System (NHS) Roads with 

Pavement Performance Standards Rated “Good” 

60 

58 

56 

54 

52 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 (r) 2011 2012 (p) 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

(r) An estimate of 54.7% for the 2010 result was reported earlier. 

(p) Projection based on preliminary data. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Pavement conditions on the NHS improved in recent years 

through 2010, driven in part by the large increase in Federal 

highway capital investment under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 and a decrease in prices of construc

tion materials from a peak in 2006. This trend was reversed in 

2011, as construction materials prices began to rise and spending 

by all levels of government declined on NHS pavements. 

Highway spending is estimated to have increased slightly during 

2012, which would support a resumption of the long-term trend 

toward improvements in pavement condition. In 2012, an 

estimated 56.2 percent of vehicle-miles traveled on the enhanced 

NHS occurred on pavements with good ride quality. 

­

In FY 2012, FHWA worked with States to improve highway 

construction and performance on and off the NHS. A national 

workshop was held to discuss how key condition indices could 

be used to assess overall infrastructure health. These approaches 

were later piloted on a multi-State interstate corridor with good 

results. Efforts continued between FHWA and the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) to develop definitions for highway pavement 

condition and agree upon a national definition for 

State of Good Repair. 

In 2011, more than 3,600 miles of public roads accessing 

America’s national parks, forests, refuges, and tribal communi

ties were improved. The multimodal facilities accessing parks, 

forests, and wildlife refuges allow visitors to enjoy these national 

treasures for years to come. The transportation infrastructure in 

tribal areas provides vital access to critical community services 

including hospitals and schools. 

­

MEASURE #2 

Reduce the percent of deck area (i.e., the roadway surface of a 

bridge) on NHS bridges rated structurally deficient. (FHWA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure serves as an indicator of trends in bridge conditions 

across the Nation. The measure was revised in FY 2012 to 

track progress in addressing the structurally deficient class of 

bridges. A bridge is rated as structurally deficient if significant 

load carrying elements are in poor or worse condition due to 

deterioration and damage, or if the waterway opening provided 

is inadequate and could lead to overtopping that would cause 

intolerable traffic interruptions. The surface area of the bridge 

deck accounts for size differences among bridges and avoids the 

pitfall associated with counting bridges regardless of their size. 

34
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: 7.8 percent of deck area on NHS bridges rated structur

ally deficient.

­


	

Actual: 7.1 percent of deck area on NHS bridges rated structur

ally deficient.

­


	

1.2 Percent of Deck Area (i.e., the Roadway Surface of a Bridge) on NHS 

Bridges Rated Structurally Deficient 

9.0 

8.5 

8.0 

7.5 

7.0 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 (r) 2008 (r) 2009 (r) 2010 (r) 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

(r) Revised. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Between FY 2007 and FY 2012, percent of deck area on 

structurally deficient bridges on the NHS declined from 8.4 

percent to 7.1 percent. In FY 2013, the NHS has expanded to 

include principal arterial routes that connect to the NHS. States 

are in the process of identifying the additional bridges on the 

redefined NHS that will be included in the analyses of results 

beginning in FY 2013. FHWA continued to work with the States 

in the application of effective Bridge Management Systems, 

which are designed to assist decision makers in the selection of 

cost-effective bridge preservation, rehabilitation, and improve

ment strategies and actions. Targeted strategies such as providing 

technical assistance to specific States have been developed to 

further advance bridge management principles and practices. 

In addition, FHWA focused attention on ensuring the safety of 

existing bridges through enhanced oversight of compliance with 

national inspection standards. 

­

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

DOT continues to face the challenges of developing improved 

tools and techniques to help States better allocate scarce resources, and providing effective oversight of Federal investments 

through better use of data, management tools, and performance 

measures. FHWA will continue to work with AASHTO and other 

partners to develop and deploy best practices for bridge management and preservation, as well as improve pavement condition. 

Key initiatives will include: 

Enforcing the MAP-21 requirement for all States to 

maintain their NHS bridge conditions so that no more 

than 10 percent of the deck area is on bridges classified as 

structurally deficient; 

Inspecting and evaluating bridges, tunnels, and other 

highway assets, as well as providing training for bridge and 

tunnel inspectors; 

▶ Establishing standards and guidance for States for report

ing on the new National Highway Performance Program 

(NHPP) authorized under MAP-21; 

­

Developing data collection plans for new and existing 

federal partners and establishing performance measures 

and targets that support the Federal Lands Transportation 

Program; 

Establishing minimum condition levels for interstate 

pavements before repurposing NHPP funds for other 

needs; and, 

Issuing guidance and/or regulations that require each 

State to develop a risk- and performance-based Asset 

Management Plan for the NHS to improve asset condition 

and system performance. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

There are several factors that affect FHWA’s ability to improve 

pavement quality. The availability of transportation funding and 

available revenue from Federal, State, and local sources needed 

to support pavement condition improvements to the target levels 

is a critical factor. State and local highway agencies, not FHWA, 

select projects, which may or may not address pavement quality. 

Other factors include the costs of materials and construction 

services to deliver highway projects that are highly dependent 

on worldwide demand, and the quality of the design and 

construction of highway projects. States select bridge projects 

for programming and have considerable flexibility in prioritizing 

how the funds are used (e.g., type of work performed). Other 

factors are the increased costs of materials and construction 

services to deliver bridge projects, the availability of human 

and material resources, and the quality of the project design and 

construction. 

PARTNERS 

State DOTs, local transportation departments, universities, the 

Transportation Research Board (TRB), and AASHTO. 

TRANSIT ASSETS (FTA) 

MEASURE: Reduce the backlog of transit capital assets in need 

of replacement or refurbishment (as defined by an estimated 

condition rating of 2.5 or lower). (FTA) 

In the June 2010 National State of Good Repair Assessment, FTA 

estimated a $77-billion backlog of the Nation’s transit assets in 

need of replacement or refurbishment. This accounted for 29 

percent of all transit capital assets nationwide that FTA estimates 

are currently in marginal or poor condition. FTA continues to 

encourage its transit grantees to “fix it first,” and to adopt a 

comprehensive transit asset management plan to maintain safe, 

reliable, and efficient transit service. 

35
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR

According to FTA’s National Transit Database, transit agencies 

spent (outlayed) $10.5 billion in Federal funds in 2011. 

Two-thirds of this amount, $6.9 billion, was spent directly 

on capital projects. The remaining $3.6 billion went towards 

operating expenses, such as eligible operating assistance and 

projects for preventive maintenance on capital assets. From 

the more than $15.7 billion spent by transit systems on capital 

projects in 2011 from all sources of funding, 64 percent ($10.0 

billion) was spent on projects to replace and rehabilitate assets in 

order to achieve a state of good repair, as opposed to projects for 

system expansion. FTA has also initiated additional research on 

asset management practices in response to MAP-21 state of good 

repair requirements. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Transit assets in poor or marginal condition are less 

reliable and subject to in-service failures, which 

produces missed transit vehicle trips and other 

passenger delays. In the worst-case scenario, in-ser

vice failures may directly impact the safety of an 

otherwise safe system. Finally, transit systems not in 

a state of good repair do not produce quality service 

for riders, with impacts ranging from unsightly 

graffiti and general disrepair, to failures of the 

heating and air conditioning systems during extreme 

weather events. 

­

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

FTA annually estimates the Nation’s transit state of good repair 

backlog using its Transit Economic Requirements Model 

(TERM). TERM relies on a combination of data from FTA’s 

National Transit Database and TERM surveys to estimate the 

national capital asset inventory, including the age and replace

ment cost of each asset in the inventory. TERM uses this invento

ry and runs it through a set of pre-defined “decay curves” that 

allow it to estimate the condition of each asset in the inventory 

based upon age. These condition estimates form the basis of 

model results, with the replacement dollar value of each asset 

with an estimated condition rating of 2.5 or lower on a scale of 1 

to 5 being added to the national state of good repair backlog. 

­

­

National Transit Database data are collected monthly from 

urbanized area transit providers and annually from rural transit 

agencies. FTA analyzes the data and releases the results a year 

after the conclusion of each Federal fiscal year. 

2012 RESULTS: TBD 

Target: $76.8-billion backlog of transit capital assets in need of 

replacement or refurbishment from all funding sources. 

Actual: 2012 data are not yet available. The 2012 estimate from 

the TERM model will be developed once 2012 National Transit 

Database data are available in October 2013. 

2.1 Backlog of Transit Capital Assets in Need of Replacement or 

Refurbishment (As Defined by an Estimated Condition Rating of 

2.5 or Lower) 

$78 

$77 

$76 

$75 

$74 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

Dollars in Billions 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*The 2011 actual data for the state of good repair backlog of transit capital assets 

in need of replacement or refurbishment will be released as part of the 2013 

Conditions & Performance Report to Congress. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The data are not yet available to determine whether the FY 2011 

and FY 2012 targets were met. FY 2010 data was used as a 

baseline. MAP-21 requires FTA to collect comprehensive asset 

inventory data that will be available to support this measure 

beginning in FY 2013. An independent expert panel convened 

by the Transportation Research Board to review the FY 2010 

estimate will report its findings in early 2013. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

MAP-21 directed FTA to establish a national transit asset 

management system, which includes a requirement for each FTA 

grantee (including recipients and their subrecipients) to develop 

a transit asset management plan. Transit asset management plans 

provide a systematic way for transit agencies to prioritize investments for achieving a state of good repair. MAP-21 established a 

deadline of October 1, 2013, for a rulemaking to implement these 

state of good repair requirements. 

MAP-21 also created a new state of good repair grant program 

that will target Federal resources toward reducing this backlog. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

FTA does not directly operate transit systems and does not 

make specific funding decisions for transit agencies to prioritize 

state of good repair projects. Transit agencies and State and 

local governements decide how to spend FTA formula funds. 

Additionally, the lack of industry-wide asset management 

practices could limit progress. 

FTA estimates that at current funding levels from Federal, State, 

and local sources, the transit state of good repair backlog is likely 

to increase given the wide range of assets in service today. 

36
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR

 

PARTNERS 

FTA’s partners in this effort include transit agencies, State DOTs, 

local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, transit 

industry trade organizations, research entities, and private sector 

consultants and software developers in the asset management 

industry. 

AIRPORT RUNWAYS (FAA) 

MEASURE: Maintain percent of runway pavement in excellent, 

good, or fair condition for paved runways in the National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). (FAA) 

FAA has had a highly effective, well-established process in 

place for many years to ensure that runway conditions at the 

Nation’s airports are maintained in a state of good repair. FAA 

funds infrastructure development at eligible public-use airports. 

Funding for routine maintenance is limited to those airports 

that do not have sufficient revenue sources for periodic repairs, 

usually the smaller non-hub primary and non-primary airports. 

Airports of all sizes rely on FAA financial assistance for signif

icant rehabilitation, resurfacing, and reconstruction of runways 

and major taxiways. 

­

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Periodic maintenance of runways, particularly 

resurfacing, has proven a cost-effective way to 

delay the need for major runway rehabilitation. 

Maintaining runway pavement conditions requires 

careful coordination, often years in advance of a 

runway rehabilitation project. Projects must be 

timed carefully, regardless of whether they involve 

the phased reconstruction of a single-runway airport 

or the sequential resurfacing of multiple runways 

over a period of several years. Some of the nation’s 

largest airports resurface their runways on an 

established revolving basis. As a result, at times 

the FAA is able to exceed the goal. However, this 

does not necessarily represent a sustained trend. For 

major reconstruction, runways must typically be 

taken out of service for a full construction season or 

longer. It can be particularly challenging to rehabilitate one runway while keeping intersecting runways 

operational. FAA works with airports to ensure 

that the system never has too many runways out of 

service at any given time. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This metric tracks, on an annual basis, the percentage of open 

and paved runways at public use airports included in the Federal 

airport system that meet FAA’s standard for safe operation of 

aircraft considered to be in excellent, good, or fair condition. 

The metric covers all paved runways at federally funded 

NPIAS airports. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Maintain runway pavement in excellent, good, or 

fair condition for at least 93 percent of the paved runways in 

the NPIAS. 

Actual: Maintained runway pavement in excellent, good, or fair 

condition for 97.5 percent of the paved runways in the NPIAS. 

3.1 Percent of Runway Pavement in Excellent, Good, or Fair 

Condition for Paved Runways in the National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems 

99 

97 

95 

93 

91 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

FY 2012 performance results indicate the Nation’s airports 

continue to remain in a state of good repair. FAA was able to 

meet the FY 2012 and prior fiscal year targets due to the success 

of multiple efforts by the agency and the Nation’s airports. 

FAA prioritizes investments to preserve existing infrastructure 

in a state of good repair. Federally obligated airport sponsors 

are required to maintain a systematic approach to preventive 

pavement maintenance. All airports provide capital needs 

data included in the NPIAS on a biennial basis. High-priority 

capital projects, such as runway pavement rehabilitation and/or 

reconstruction projects, are prioritized and considered for Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) funding as part of the annual update 

of the three-year Airports Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) 

process. Funding runway pavement projects directly contributes 

to the goal of maintaining a certain level of runways in excellent, 

good, or fair condition. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

In addition to continuing these successful practices, FAA 

also plans to update priorities for infrastructure investments— 

including runway capabilities—to maintain and enhance 

existing airport capacity across all types of airports. 

37
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

The airport sponsor is responsible for maintaining runway 

pavement. Economic factors may determine when the airport 

sponsor is able to fund pavement rehabilitation. Note: an 

airport sponsor is defined as legally, financially, and otherwise 

able to assume and carry out the certifications, representations, 

warranties, assurances, covenants, and other obligations required 

of sponsors, which are contained in the Airport Improvement 

Plan (AIP) project application and grant agreement forms. 

PARTNERS 

FAA’s internal partners in this effort include Regional 

Airports Divisions and Airports District Offices, the Air 

Traffic Organization (especially the Technical Operations unit 

for coordination of impacts to navigational aids), the Flight 

Procedures Office, the Flight Standards Service, and the William 

J. Hughes Technical Center. External partners include State 

aeronautical agencies, aviation industry associations, airlines, 

and other aeronautical user groups. 

38
ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
�
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

Maintaining and preserving an efficient transportation network is critical to 

sustaining the competitiveness of our economy. The Department’s economic 

competitiveness goal is to foster smart, strategic investments that will serve 

the traveling public, facilitate freight movement, and bring equitable economic 

benefits to the Nation. In 2012, DOT invested nearly $11.4 billion to enhance the 

economic competitiveness of our Nation’s transportation system. 

ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS 

NET BUDGETARY RESOURCES BY STRATEGIC GOALS: 

FY 2012 ENACTED 

$32 M FRA 

$83 M 

FHWA 

$6.1 B 

FAA 

$4.6 B 

MARAD 

$308 M 

OST 

$115 M 

SLSDC 

OTHER 

OTHER 

FTA $4M 

FMCSA $3 M TOTAL $11,371,027,000 RITA $370K 

MAXIMIZE ECONOMIC RETURNS ON 

POLICIES AND INVESTMENTS (FHWA) 

Highway congestion adversely affects our economy, our 

communities, and our quality of life. According to the Texas 

A&M Transportation Institute’s 2011 Urban Mobility Report1

, 

traffic congestion continues to worsen in American cities of all 

sizes, creating a $101 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy 

in the form of 4.8 billion lost hours resulting from travel delay 

and 1.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel. Congestion causes the 

average peak-period traveler to spend an extra 34 hours of travel 

time and consume an additional 14 gallons of fuel annually, 

amounting to a cost of $713 per traveler. While automobile and 

truck congestion currently imposes a relatively small cost on 

the overall economy of about 0.6 percent, the cost of congestion 

grew at more than double the growth rate in the Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP) over the past 25 years. If current trends continue, 

congestion is expected to impose a larger proportionate cost in 

the future. Over the next 40 years, the U.S. population is expect

ed to rise by 43 percent and the GDP is expected to almost triple. 

To support this growth, the demand for both freight and passen

ger transportation is expected to increase by about two-and-a-half 

times by 2050. Maintaining and preserving an efficient transpor

tation system is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of 

our economy. 

­

­

­

Operational improvements to ensure an efficient transpor

tation system are critical to sustaining and enhancing the 

competitiveness of our economy, and new investment in the 

Nation’s infrastructure will still be required. Therefore, innova

tive strategies that combine project financing, procurement, 

financial management, and revenue generation techniques are 

being explored as a possible path forward in delivering critical 

transportation services. Additionally, FHWA administers the 

multimodal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

­

­

1. 2011 Annual Mobility Report, Texas A&M Transportation Institute: 

http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/. 

40
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

Act (TIFIA) program that provides credit assistance to 

help finance surface transportation projects of national 

and regional significance. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

The U.S. economic competitiveness position 

is strengthened by limiting travel delays for 

system users, leveraging Federal investment in 

highway infrastructure projects, and improving 

roadway efficiency and productivity that drives 

economic growth. 

MEASURE #1 

Reduce the Travel Time Index in Urban Areas. (FHWA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

The Travel Time Index (TTI) is the ratio of the average peak 

period travel time compared to a free-flow travel time, which is 

reported for 19 urban areas in the U.S. This measure provides a 

snapshot of the state of congestion on the Nation’s roads, specifi

cally in urban areas, and is the closest to a nationwide congestion 

measure that can be developed using existing highway sensor 

data and Highway Performance Monitoring System volume data 

sets and mature performance measurement methodology. For 

more details, see the FHWA Urban Congestion Report at

­

http://

ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/reliability_reports.htm. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Achieve a TTI of 1.21 in FY 2012. 

Actual: Achieved a TTI of 1.20 in FY 2012. 

1.1 Travel Time Reliability in Urban Areas as Measured by the Travel 

Time Index 

1.25 

1.23 

1.21 

1.19 

1.17 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 (r) 2008 (r) 2009 (r) 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

(r) Revised after measure was redefined to reflect congestion in 19 urban areas. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Since peaking in urban areas at 1.24 in FY 2007, the TTI 

declined to 1.19 in FY 2009 during a period in which travel 

nationwide also declined following the economic recession. In 

FY 2010, the TTI increased to 1.21, due to a return to normal 

levels of traffic, and remained at this level during FY 2011. In FY 

2012, the TTI declined slightly to 1.20. 

The TTI represents the extra time a driver spends in traffic 

during congested traffic as compared to light traffic. A TTI of 

1.20 means that a trip that normally takes 20 minutes in light 

traffic would take 24 minutes, or 4 minutes longer, on average in 

congested traffic. Therefore, the lower the number the better. The 

recent trends in TTI suggest that traffic congestion has improved 

slightly overall in these urban areas, even though significant 

delay from non-recurring events such as traffic crashes still occur. 

Past congestion reduction efforts have led to an increased 

availability of 511 traveler information telephone service 

for nearly 75 percent of the American public; the develop

ment, testing, evaluation, and implementation of innovative 

adaptive control, corridor management, and congestion pricing 

strategies; and a greater emphasis on improving reliability in 

major freight corridors, international border crossings, and 

intermodal connectors. In FY 2012, FHWA provided technical 

assistance and guidance to States in implementing the Real-Time 

System Management Information Final Rule; conducted traffic 

incident management workshops in 14 urban areas; conducted 

decision-maker meetings in 14 urban areas and States; and 

began conducting Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Traffic 

Incident Management Responder Train-the-Trainer sessions in 

urban areas. 

­

In FY 2012, FHWA implemented a robust awareness, capaci

ty building, and technical assistance program. Highlights of 

the program include: webinars that reached more than 3,000 

participants; individually tailored technical assistance events for 

five States; a National Project Oversight Managers conference 

that provided 25 technical training sessions for more than 90 

attendees; project management training for more than 25 FHWA 

employees; and publication of resource materials. Additionally, 

a Public-Private Partnership (P3) toolkit was developed and 

tested. The toolkit includes modules for Risk Assessment, Value 

for Money Analysis, and a Public Sector Comparator. The toolkit 

will help to ensure that Public-Private Partnership procurements 

are executed in a manner that serves the public. To further assist 

project sponsors, the multimodal Project Finance Center was 

established. The TIFIA program delivered $1.1 billion in credit 

support to advance the Presidio Parkway (CA), Downtown 

Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel (VA), and Crenshaw Light Rail projects 

(CA). In the aggregate, these loans will support $4.7 billion of 

public and private investment in infrastructure. 

­

FHWA provided training on Traffic Incident Management to 

U.S. and Mexican State officials as part of broader efforts to 

improve reliability of transportation in the border region. Unlike 

similar domestically focused efforts, this training event integrated 

foreign counterparts into discussions of border incident planning 

and response, building knowledge that should facilitate appropriate 

response to incidents affecting Mexican roads that carry traffic 

across the U.S. border. 

41
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

 

MEASURE #2: 

Improve travel time reliability in freight significant 

corridors. (FHWA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

The buffer index is a measure of travel time reliability, which 

represents the extra time commercial freight carriers should add 

to their average travel time in order to ensure on-time arrival, 

at least 95 percent of the time, for an end-to-end trip along a 

corridor. The extra time is added to account for unexpected 

delays. The buffer index, expressed as a percentage, decreases as 

trip reliability improves. The measure is derived from measured 

commercial vehicle average speeds for 25 interstates carrying 

significant freight volumes annually. For more details, see the 

FHWA Freight Performance Measurement: Travel Time in 

Freight Significant Corridors report at: 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/perform_

meas/fpmtraveltime/index.htm. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Limit the freight corridor buffer index to 15 percent 

in FY 2012.
 

Actual: Limited the freight corridor buffer index to 13.5 percent 

in FY 2012.
 

1.2 Travel Time Reliability in Freight Significant Corridors as Measured 

by the Buffer Index 

16 

15 

14 

13 

12 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, reliability on freight corridors declined slightly as 

the buffer index increased to an average of 13.5 percent. This 

represents a slight decrease compared to FY 2011. FHWA 

undertook activities to help improve the performance and 

reliability of the freight system through the construction of 

freight facilities and the deployment of advanced technologies, 

in addition to delivering a freight professional development 

program to educate and train freight transportation professionals. 

FHWA awarded six grants to States for construction of truck 

parking facilities that will help relieve parking shortages; held 

eight freight performance measure workshops for partners 

around the country to improve their understanding and use of 

tools to identify, measure, and develop solution sets for truck 

reliability and congestion issues; released ton-mile estimates 

and updated time series data for the Freight Analysis Framework 

for freight practitioners to better plan for trucks; published the 

Freight and Land Use Handbook that offers case studies and 

solutions for improving the efficiency of freight; and advanced 

the Freight Advanced Traveler Information System program. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

Future efforts will support the continued implementation of 

operations-based congestion reduction strategies in the Nation’s 

largest metropolitan areas, increase the availability of real-time 

traveler information, and focus on improving reliability in major 

freight corridors, international border crossings, and intermodal 

connectors. Key future initiatives include establishing techniques 

to measure congestion when it occurs; assessing the performance 

of the highway system, including measuring the relationship 

between freight movement and congestion; and fostering the use 

of techniques and tools to strengthen routine traffic operations 

and control practices while proactively managing the transpor

tation system during disruptions such as traffic incidents, work 

zones, adverse weather, special events, and emergency situations. 

­

MAP-21 requires DOT to establish a National Freight Network 

and develop a National Freight Strategic Plan, which will 

effectively serve as a National Freight Policy. These actions 

will guide investment decisions subject to the Transportation 

Secretary’s discretion, provide States with a national perspec

tive for their planning effort, influence State freight mobility 

decisions, and provide context to the potential increase of the 

Federal share for freight-oriented projects. DOT is further 

directed to encourage each State to establish a freight advisory 

committee and develop a freight plan that provides compre

hensive strategies for immediate and long-range activities and 

investments. This is particularly important since States now 

have broadened flexibility to use Federal funding to improve 

performance on the designated national freight network. DOT 

will also develop new and improve existing tools to support 

an outcome-oriented, performance-based approach to evaluate 

proposed transportation freight projects. 

­

­

Additionally, FHWA will continue its efforts to administer a 

robust program of awareness, capacity building, research, and 

technical assistance designed to assist State and local govern

ments in considering and implementing the innovative strategies 

to assemble the funding needed to deliver transportation projects, 

particularly for those projects that are large, complex, and costly. 

­

With MAP-21, the lending capacity of the TIFIA program 

increased dramatically. During MAP-21’s two-year authorization 

period, TIFIA will be able to provide up to $17 billion in credit 

assistance. In contrast, approximately $1 billion in loans were 

provided per year prior to MAP-21. The increased level of 

assistance now available could potentially leverage up to $50 

billion in additional public and private infrastructure investment. 

In the international arena, FHWA and DOT will establish 

and maintain information sharing relationships with specific 

countries, including Brazil, China, Russia, Australia, Netherlands, 

and Sweden; share U.S. practices through World Road 

Association technical committees and high-level management of 

42
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

its safety-related undertakings; and coordinate DOT-wide 

input into the National Export Initiative, including participation 

in interagency groups focusing on identification of export 

opportunities in key markets such as Brazil. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

There are a number of external factors that can affect the volume 

of travel and level of congestion. These factors include the level 

of unemployment, quantity of freight shipments, and the price 

of fuel. When the economy grows, freight volumes increase and 

place a strain on the available capacity. Private industry carriers 

determine which transport modes and facilities to use for moving 

freight, taking into account the cost and performance. While 

FHWA provides funds for constructing highway facilities and 

promotes improved strategies for operating highways, States and 

metropolitan planning organizations decide how funds are used 

for State and local highway improvements. 

PARTNERS 

Partners include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), U.S. Department of Commerce, State and local 

Departments of Transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, urban jurisdictions, retail and trade associations, and 

shipper and carrier associations. Industry associations, the private 

sector, and academic researchers are partners in developing the 

performance measurement methodology. International partners 

include organizations such as the World Road Association and 

transportation agencies in the Netherlands, Brazil, Australia, 

China, Sweden, and Russia. 

MAXIMIZE ECONOMIC RETURNS (FRA) 

High-performance passenger and freight rail play an essential 

role in maintaining and improving the economic vitality of 

America’s cities and metropolitan regions, where population and 

economic growth require mobility options. High-performance 

rail is a key element of America’s multimodal transportation 

system by offering faster travel times, better reliability, more 

frequent trains, and seamless connections to other modes of 

transportation. As a result, the Department selected this goal as 

one of its FY 2012 – FY 2013 Agency Priority Goals. 

The expanded and improved transportation network achieved 

through this effort will help provide the additional capacity and 

travel options necessary to serve America’s growing population and economic activity. In addition, investment in intercity 

passenger rail will revitalize domestic rail manufacturing 

and supply industries, and create highly skilled, well-paying 

American jobs. Prior year appropriations funded these projects, 

and FRA uses current year appropriations to monitor project 

progress, ensuring they are completed on schedule, within 

budget, and with their specified scopes and purposes. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Promote transportation policies and investments that 

bring lasting and equitable economic benefits to the 

Nation and its citizens. 

MEASURE #1: 

Increase the number of corridor programs that achieve initial 

construction. (FRA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

Number of intercity passenger rail corridor programs that 

achieve initial construction. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: One intercity passenger rail corridor program achieves 

initial construction.
 

Actual: One intercity passenger rail corridor program achieved 

initial construction.
 

2.1 Number of Corridor Programs that Achieve Initial Construction 

ACTUAL 4 

TARGET 

3 

2 

1 

0 

2007 (N/A) 2008 (N/A) 2009 (N/A) 2010 (N/A) 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

N/A - FRA did not set targets or track this measure prior to 2011. 

MEASURE #2 

Increase the number of individual construction projects that 

achieve initial construction. (FRA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

Number of individual intercity passenger rail construction 

projects that achieve initial construction. 

43
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

TARGET 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: 14 intercity passenger rail individual projects achieve 

initial construction.
 

Actual: 19 intercity passenger rail individual projects achieved 

initial construction.
 

ACTUAL 

2.2 Number of Individual Construction Projects that Achieve 

Initial Construction 

25
 

20
 

15
 

10
 

5
 

2007 (N/A) 2008 (N/A) 2009 (N/A) 2010 (N/A) 2011 2012 2013 FISCAL YEAR 

N/A - FRA did not set targets or track this measure prior to 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

FRA has obligated well over $9 billion for high performance 

and intercity passenger rail projects. By the end of FY 2012, four 

corridor programs had achieved initial construction. As projects 

move from planning into construction, FRA’s interactions with 

grantees increase. FRA is providing technical assistance to create 

deliverables and conducting the final review of these deliverables, 

such as environmental assessments, statements of work, project 

management and financial plans, and preliminary engineering 

and final design documentation. With FRA’s active participation 

and concurrence, grantees are able to initiate construction. 

To ensure that grantees deliver these construction projects on 

schedule, within budget, and with their specified scopes and 

purposes, FRA has established a monitoring program. Project 

monitoring is a comprehensive review of a grantee’s compliance 

with the grant conditions, as well as an assessment of the 

grantee’s performance in meeting key milestones. Monitoring 

is also intended to proactively identify issues and work with 

the grantee to correct them through technical assistance. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

FRA is on track to meet its corridor and individual project initial 

construction targets for FY 2013. Ongoing national planning 

efforts will result in further guidance for rail planners, project 

sponsors, and regional stakeholders. FRA is advancing network 

development principles driven by analysis of the market 

conditions, transportation needs of affected communities, and 

international experience. These principles recognize that a “one 

size fits all” approach is not appropriate—for example, the 

highest speed services do not make economic or transportation 

sense in every market. 

With a three-tiered passenger rail service strategy, FRA uses 

a market-based approach that reflects the differing needs and 

characteristics of corridors throughout the nation and funds 

projects that make sense for the corridors: 

Core express service—frequent trains at 125 to 250+ miles 

per hour in the nation’s densest and most populous regions; 

Regional services—90 to 125 miles per hour service 

between mid-sized and large cities; and,
 

Emerging services—up to 90 miles per hour service 

connecting communities to the passenger rail network and 

providing a foundation for future corridor development. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

While FRA monitors and performs oversight on grantees, the 

grantees are responsible for the construction of a project. A 

variety of factors with the grantee or natural causes, such as 

adverse weather, can delay construction. 

PARTNERS 

Partners include States, Amtrak and other railroad operators, 

freight railroads, and rail manufacturing and supply entities. 

MAXIMIZING ECONOMIC RETURNS (FAA) 

Minimizing delays in the air traffic control system can result in 

better economic returns for aviation. Air traffic delays can be 

impacted by the availability of the equipment necessary to provide 

service and this equipment directly affects the performance of the 

NAS. Loss of radar or communications equipment will affect the 

speed and number of aircraft that can be handled in the air traffic 

control system. 

Release 3 of the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) 

includes interfaces to NextGen transformational programs: 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and 

System Wide Information Management (SWIM). ERAM will 

facilitate the evolution of the National Airspace System to 

trajectory based operations and will incorporate future NextGen 

capabilities including en route automation processing necessary 

for DataComm in future releases beyond the current program 

baseline. Collectively, investments in technology enable FAA 

to move people and goods more efficiently, leading to a more 

competitive air transportation system. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Increasing National Airspace System capacity and 

assuring better reliability and availability of the 

current system helps the flying public by decreasing 

delays and increasing on-time arrivals. 

MEASURE #1: 

Maintain average daily airport arrival and departure capacity at 

Core Airports. (FAA) 

44
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This metric measures the average daily arrival and departure 

rates. Each airport facility determines the number of arrivals and 

departures it can handle for each hour of each day, depending 

on conditions, including weather. These numbers are the called 

arrival and departure rates of the airport for that hour. Average 

Daily Airport Capacity is the sum of the daily hourly-called 

arrival and departure rates at the relevant airports per month, 

divided by the number of days in the month. The annual capacity 

level is the weighted sum of the monthly capacity levels. 

In FY 2011, FAA revised the Average Daily Airport Capacity 

measure to include a new set of airports, replacing the original 

35 Operational Evolution Partnership airports. The revised list 

of airports is referred to as the Core Airports and it includes the 

current most congested airports in the country. Only the Core 

Airports are included in this metric. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Maintain an average daily airport capacity for Core 

Airports of at least 86,835 arrivals and departures.
 

Actual: Accomplished an average daily airport capacity for Core 

Airports of 88,590 arrivals and departures.
 

3.1 Average Daily Airport Arrival and Departure Capacity at 

Core Airports 

ACTUAL 

105 TARGET 

Numbers in Thousands 100 

95 

90 

85 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (1) 2012 (1) 2013 (1) 

FISCAL YEAR 

1 This metric was revised in FY 2011 to include a new set of airports, replacing the 

original 35 Operational Evolution Partnership airports. New targets were set. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The FY 2012 year-end result for daily airport capacity for Core 

Airports exceeds the goal. Positive outcomes in FY 2012 are due 

in part to the completion of runway construction projects ahead 

of schedule, as well as to more accurate rate-calling on the part 

of some air traffic facilities. 

MEASURE #2 

Maintain percent of operational availability for the reportable 

facilities that support Core Airports. (FAA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This metric measures the ratio of total available hours minus 

outage time to total available hours. The National Airspace 

Performance Reporting System (NAPRS) facilities necessary to 

maintain the provision of service in the overall NAS have been 

identified and are being monitored. For this metric, those NAPRS 

reportable facilities necessary for the provision of service at 

the Core Airports have been separately measured. Time out of 

service is adjusted to exclude hours when equipment is 

unavailable due to scheduled improvement down time. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Maintain an adjusted operational availability of the NAS 

at 99.70 percent.
 

Actual: Maintained an adjusted operational availability of the 

NAS at 99.75 percent in FY 2012. 

3.2 Percent of Operational Availability for the Reportable Facilities that 

Support Core Airports 

99.84 

99.80 

99.76 

99.72 

99.68 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The FY 2012 results exceed the adjusted operational availability 

target. FAA has implemented policies and procedures for 

maintaining and restoring navigation and communication 

equipment in order to minimize downtime. The goal for Adjusted 

Operational Availability is expected to remain at 99.7 percent. 

MEASURE #3 

Achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) on the En Route 

Automation Modernization (ERAM) system at continental U.S. 

En Route centers. (FAA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure is an Agency Priority Goal for the Department of 

Transportation. This metric measures the number of Air Route 

Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) that achieve initial operating 

capability (IOC) on ERAM. ERAM provides real-time displays 

of aircraft target information to air traffic controllers in the 

ARTCCs. ERAM enables FAA to maximize its use of airspace 

by substantially increasing the number of flights that can be 

tracked and displayed simultaneously, as well as providing an 

enhanced backup capability. ERAM replaces the 40-year-old 

En Route HOST Computer System and backup system used at 

ARTCCs around the country to help guide airplanes flying at high 

altitudes. While ERAM is needed to replace the aging legacy 

automation system infrastructure, it will also serve as a platform 

for NextGen capabilities. 

45
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Achieve IOC on seven ERAM ARTCCs. 

Actual: Achieved IOC on seven ERAM ARTCCs. 

3.3 Initial Operating Capability on ERAM at Continental U.S. 

En Route Centers 

12 

9 

6 

3 

0 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

FAA met the FY 2012 target by achieving IOC at seven new 

sites. Prior to FY 2012, FAA achieved IOC at two sites. By the 

end of FY 2012, ERAM was operational in some capacity at nine 

centers (IOC date): 

Salt Lake City, UT (October 2012) 

Seattle, WA (November 2010) 

Denver, CO (December 2011) 

Albuquerque, NM (December 2011) 

Minneapolis, MN (December 2011) 

Chicago, IL (January 2012) 

Oakland, CA (January 2012) 

Los Angeles, CA (January 2012) 

Houston, TX (April 2012) 

Site IOC preparation begins months in advance of the planned 

IOC date, and runs in parallel with national-level planning activities. As the process advances, the sites listed above completed the 

following activities prior to achieving IOC: 

Testing—Identify issues and provide sufficient lead time for 

the resolution of problems. 

Training—Orient (initially and through refresher) the 

workforce to the new software.
 

Procedures—Review and finalize locally maintained 

procedures in sufficient time to allow for development of 

supplemental training and as a means to understand adapta

tion requirements. 

­

Adaptation—Make final, pre-IOC adjustments to locally 

adapted software parameters. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

FAA plans to achieve IOC at the remaining 11 sites by the end 

of FY 2013. The following is the FY 2013 ERAM IOC schedule 

for centers: 

First quarter FY 2013—Kansas City, MO; New York, NY; 

and Boston, MA 

Second quarter FY 2013—Indianapolis, IN; 

Washington, DC; Cleveland, OH; and Memphis, TN
	

Third quarter FY 2013—Fort Worth, TX; and Atlanta, GA 

Fourth quarter FY 2013—Jacksonville, FL; and Miami, FL 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Called rates at airports, which are adjusted in real time throughout the day, are primarily impacted by weather, construction/ 

maintenance impacts, procedural changes, and equipment 

outages. Cyclical and long-term changes in economic activity 

have a strong impact on discretionary personal travel, driving 

demand for transportation infrastructure and services. ERAM 

does not expect external factors to impact the remaining IOC 

targets. 

PARTNERS 

Maximizing economic returns in air transportation is 

accomplished through a coordinated effort among many offices 

within FAA and through the collaboration with external partners. 

These partners include: 

The FAA Air Traffic Organization’s (ATO) Safety and 

Technical Training organization supports the work 

necessary to ensure the safe introduction of ERAM 

capabilities to the NAS, and to support development of 

the necessary material to train the ARTCC workforce on 

ERAM operations; 

FAA’s ATO service units support the successful deployment 

(En-Route ARTCC sites), integration (Terminal sites), and 

maintenance (Technical Operations personnel within each 

facility) of ERAM; 

The FAA Office of Aviation Safety responsible for support

ing the work necessary to ensure the safe introduction of 

ERAM capabilities to the NAS, including development and 

approval of safety documents; and, 

­

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), 

which supports the collaborative design, testing, and 

deployment activities of ERAM to the NAS. NATCA also 

provides national-level input on program direction, training 

materials, and implementation strategies. 

46
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

Other partners include the Air Line Pilots Association, Airlines 

for America, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, National 

Business Aviation Association, DOD, NASA, academic institu

tions, and corporate entities. 

­

MAXIMIZING ECONOMIC RETURNS (SLSDC) 

MEASURE: Maintain the percent of time the U.S. portion 

of the Saint Lawrence Seaway system and locks are available. 

(SLSDC) 

The Saint Lawrence Seaway is co-managed by the United States 

and Canada. It is the international shipping gateway to the Great 

Lakes, connecting the heartland of North America with the world. 

Commercial transportation on the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence 

Seaway System serves as competition to other maritime trade 

routes as well as other transportation modes, which benefits 

the nation in lower consumer prices of finished goods and raw 

materials and helps to reduce roadway and railway congestion. 

Each Seaway-size vessel carries roughly 25,000 metric tons of 

goods, which is the equivalent of 870 tractor trailers or 225 

rail cars. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

According to a 2011 economic impact study, 

maritime commerce on the Great Lakes Seaway 

System annually sustains more than 225,000 U.S. 

and Canadian jobs, $14.1 billion in personal income, 

$33.6 billion in transportation-related business 

revenue, $6.4 billion in local purchases, and $4.6 

billion in Federal, State, provincial, and local taxes. 

The binational waterway also provides approximately $3.6 billion in annual transportation cost savings 

compared to competing rail and highway routes. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

Lock operations and vessel traffic control on the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway2

 are conducted on a 24-hour day, 7-day week basis 

throughout the shipping season, which typically lasts from late 

March through December. SLSDC works to attain a system 

availability rate of 99.0 percent or better throughout the operating 

period, thereby providing an efficient and reliable commercial 

waterborne transportation route for global users. 

2 The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System, 

Martin Associates, October 2011. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Maintain Seaway system availability at 99.0 percent. 

Actual: Maintained Seaway system availability at 99.7 percent. 

4.1 Percent of Time the U.S. Portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway 

System and Locks are Available 

100 

99.5 

99.0 

98.5 

98.0 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, SLSDC successfully met this goal by achieving a 

system availability rate of 99.7 percent. Delays for the fiscal 

year totaling 20 hours, 12 minutes were due to minor vessel 

incidents/accidents (52 percent), lock equipment malfunction 

(30 percent), weather/visibility (12 percent), and other minor 

delays (6 percent). SLSDC continues to refine and improve 

its operations and maintenance programs to ensure continued 

success in providing near-perfect system availability to its global 

commercial users. In FY 2009, SLSDC began its multi-year 

Asset Renewal Program to address the Saint Lawrence Seaway’s 

long-term asset renewal needs, which include the two U.S. 

Seaway locks (Eisenhower and Snell), connecting channels, 

operational systems, and other infrastructure assets. 

These improvements are expected to help reduce the delay hours 

associated with lock equipment malfunctions. SLSDC will 

continue to strive for improvement, building upon its current 

policies and practices. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

SLSDC will work to improve its system availability performance 

by providing safer and more efficient vessel traffic control and 

passage through the U.S. locks and waters. These efforts include 

maintaining and rehabilitating U.S. Seaway infrastructure, 

performing safety inspections and ballast water examinations 

of all foreign-flag vessels, continuing close coordination 

and involvement with the Canadian Saint Lawrence Seaway 

Management Corporation (Canadian SLSMC) in all aspects of 

Seaway operations, and utilizing and enhancing technology to 

more efficiently manage vessel traffic control and lock transits. 

For example, in July 2012, SLSDC and Canadian SLSMC jointly 

introduced the availability of a new technology to enhance safety 

and increase cargo-carrying efficiency on the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway by providing mariners with real-time information on 

current and projected distances between a vessel’s keel and river 

bottoms. Known as the Draft Information System (DIS), the new 

onboard technology will reduce the potential for groundings and 

allow ships to carry more cargo by better taking advantage of the 

47
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

 

available water levels. The Seaway is the first inland waterway in 

the world to implement this technology. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Weather conditions and vessel incidents have historically been the 

two most common recorded causes of system unavailability on the 

Saint Lawrence Seaway, both of which are external to SLSDC 

operations. Weather delays are caused by poor visibility, high 

winds, fog, and other winter weather conditions that are significant enough to deem waterborne transportation unsafe. Vessel 

incidents involve ship operations, and are usually caused by 

human error on the part of a vessel’s crew. Incidents also include 

vessel breakdowns, which are caused by mechanical problems 

with a vessel. 

PARTNERS 

SLSDC operates the Saint Lawrence Seaway with its
 

Canadian counterpart, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Management
 

Corporation. In addition, SLSDC coordinates closely with the U.S.
 

Coast Guard on safety, security, and environmental programs.
 

MAXIMIZING ECONOMIC RETURNS (MARAD) 

The purpose of the Maritime Security Program (MSP) is to have 

a U.S.-flag commercial merchant fleet that is actively trading in 

U.S. foreign commerce while also being available to meet both 

national defense and other security requirements. In order to 

meet these requirements, MARAD provides an annual stipend 

for every ship in the MSP. As a condition for receiving these 

payments, each operator commits to making its ships available 

if needed by the Department of Defense (DOD). The operator 

also has to ensure that its vessel is operating in U.S. foreign 

commerce during the fiscal year. MARAD monitors MSP ship 

operating days to ensure that the MSP ships are complying with 

statutory requirements. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

The emphasis of the MSP program is to provide 

sealift capacity to the military in time of war or 

national emergency. MSP ships are carrying the bulk 

of military supplies and equipment in support of 

U.S. troops in and out of Afghanistan. Presently 90 

percent of the cargo carried to and from Afghanistan 

is carried by MSP carriers. The 60 U.S.-flag vessels 

sail internationally during peacetime and ensure 

a job base for U.S.-citizen merchant mariners on 

government owned/controlled and commercial 

fleets. During time of war or national emergency, 

MSP vessels provide the necessary sealift and 

mariners to meet security requirements across the 

globe, while also supporting a U.S. presence in 

foreign commerce. 

MEASURE #1 

Maintain the number of ships available to meet DOD’s 

requirements for commercial sealift capacity (as measured 

by the number of ships contractually enrolled in the Maritime 

Security Program). (MARAD) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

MARAD monitors MSP ship availability to ensure that ships are 

available to meet the economic and national security require

ments of DOD. In 2003, Congress passed the Maritime Security 

Act, which provides funding for each of the 60 ships enrolled in 

the program. The 60 U.S.-flag ships will ensure that the military 

has assured access to a sufficient number of commercial vessels 

and mariners to meet national security requirements. 

­

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Maintain 60 ships in the MSP fleet. 

Actual: Maintained 60 ships in the MSP fleet. 

5.1 Ships Available to Meet DOD’s Requirements for Commercial 

Sealift Capacity 

ACTUAL 75 

TARGET 70 

65 

60 

55 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The Maritime Security Act of 2003 authorized operation of 60 

ships for the MSP. For FY 2012, MARAD reported 60 vessels 

enrolled in the MSP program. This was accomplished through 

activities to monitor the agreements with the ship owners to 

maintain the 60 ships enrolled in the program. In addition, 

MARAD approves changes in MSP contracts that improve the 

quality of the MSP fleet to ensure the retention of modern and 

efficient ships and U.S.-citizen crews. Any ship offered as a 

replacement for an existing MSP vessel must be less than 15 

years old and must be approved by the Maritime Administration 

and the U.S. Transportation Command as the most militarily 

useful and commercially viable vessels available. 

MEASURE #2 

Maintain the number of operating days in U.S. foreign commerce 

and available to meet DOD’s requirements (as measured by the 

number of ship operating days that ships enrolled in the MSP 

were actually operating in U.S. foreign commerce). (MARAD) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

In order to ensure that the MSP fleet is available to meet the 

economic needs of the U.S. while also providing DOD with 

assured access to vessels and mariners, the Maritime Security Act 

48
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

of 2003 stipulates that MSP ships are required to operate in U.S. 

foreign commerce for a minimum of 320 days each fiscal year 

for full MSP payments. This measure monitors 60 ships enrolled 

in MSP and the minimum required operating days of at least 320 

days a ship per year, which equates to 19,200 operating days 

per year. MARAD monitors operating days on a monthly basis 

to verify that MSP ships are operating as required. Days when 

ships are in drydock for repairs beyond 30 days a year must be 

approved by MARAD or they are not considered operating days. 

The other major non-operating days are days when vessels are 

under charter to the U.S. Government and therefore not operating 

in international trade. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Maintain an annual requirement of at least 19,200 

operating days in U.S. foreign commerce. 

Actual: MSP ships operated a cumulative total of 21,593 days in 

FY 2012. 

5.2 Operating Days in U.S. Foreign Commerce and Available to Meet 

DOD’s Requirements 

23 

22 

21 

20 

19 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

Numbers in Thousands 

2007 2008 2009 2010* 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*Performance measure was first initiated in FY 2010. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Meeting the target for maintaining 60 ships enrolled in the MSP, 

as well as number of ship operating days for ships enrolled in 

the MSP, is critical to ensuring that MSP vessels are operating in 

international commerce and supporting DOD in the transportation of supplies and equipment to U.S. troops. All 60 vessels are 

required to meet the operating days target in order to ensure their 

availability to support DOD requirements. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

MARAD anticipates being able to maintain enrollment of 60 

vessels in MSP and meeting its target of 19,200 operating days in 

FY 2013. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Ships severely damaged or in need of major repairs could result 

in MSP ships missing the operating day target. MSP operators 

could offer a substitute ship, which would be subject to a delay 

while MARAD and U.S. Transportation Command approve and 

examine the ship capabilities and supporting documentation. If 

an MSP operator cannot provide a substitute ship, MARAD may 

choose to advertise the vacant MSP slot, which would require a 

lengthy evaluation process. 

PARTNERS 

MARAD partners in this effort include the Department of 

Defense, U.S. Transportation Command, U.S.-flag ship operators, 

and Maritime Labor Organizations (e.g., Marine Engineers’ 

Beneficial Association, American Maritime Officers, and 

Seafarers International Union). 

MAXIMIZING ECONOMIC RETURNS (MARAD) 

MEASURE: Increase the number of Twenty-Foot Equivalent 

containers transported across America’s Marine Highway 

corridors. (MARAD) 

The America’s Marine Highways (AMH) program was created 

to develop new and expand existing marine services to transport 

freight (in containers and trailers) and passengers. 

The America’s Marine Highways Program is focused on: 

Designating and supporting additional Marine Highway 

Corridors and Projects; 

Establishing new Marine Highway Services by facilitating 

partnerships between private vessel operators, shippers, and 

public entities such as Port Authorities; 

Partnering with State DOTs to integrate maritime 

infrastructure projects in State freight plans, making those 

projects eligible for surface transportation funding; and, 

Encouraging construction of Marine Highway vessels at 

U.S. shipyards. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

The AMH program transports heavy weight exports, 

such as containerized agricultural products. By 

transporting freight using TEU containers, ships are 

able to transport a higher volume of products than 

trucks are able to carry. This will reduce the per unit 

transportation cost and help U.S. exports compete 

in the global market. In addition, by reducing 

landside congestion and increasing the resiliency of 

the National transportation system, these fuel-effi

cient services reduce the Nation’s dependence on 

petroleum, contribute to transportation safety, and 

help to diminish the carbon footprint of freight. 

­

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

MARAD’s baseline measure of performance for the AMH program 

is volume of containers, or twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), 

moved by grant-program-assisted services. The container 

TEU metric is an indicator of direct, grant-related program 

performance and permits further downstream calculation 

of program benefits. 

49
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: 3,500 TEU containers transported across AMH corridors. 

Actual: 8,221 TEU containers transported across AMH corridors. 

6.1 Number of TEU Containers Transported Across America’s Marine 

Highway Corridors 

20 

15 

10 

5 

1 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

Numbers in Thousands 

2007 2008 2009 2010* 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*The performance measure was initiated in 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

For FY 2012, MARAD reported 8,221 TEUs transported across 

America’s Marine Highway corridors, exceeding the annual 

operating goal of 3,500 TEUs. This achievement can be attributed to 

MARAD’s efforts to work with both public sponsors and private 

partners to gauge business development activities, identifying 

best operating practices and reaching innovative solutions to 

overcome impediments to expand services. The AMH program 

was authorized to relieve congested landside corridors through 

designation of waterway transportation routes as extensions of 

the surface transportation system. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

During FY 2013 – FY 2014, new services are expected 

to begin due to funding received for infrastructure and 

equipment purchases through the Marine Highway and TIGER 

Discretionary Grants programs. These services are expected 

to increase the number of TEUs transported in 2013 and 2014. 

MARAD has established formal engagement programs to 

facilitate multijurisdictional public/private partnerships. State 

maritime coordinators are being identified in State DOTs 

that have commercially navigable waterways within their 

jurisdictions to advocate for the inclusion of maritime 

infrastructure in the national and State freight plans 

required by MAP-21. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Marine Highway services must be performed by U.S.-flag, Jones 

Act compliant vessels. There is a lack of right-sized vessels 

available to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Emissions Control Area engine and fuel requirements. The 

current economic climate and tightening credit restrictions are 

an impediment to construction of new purpose-built ships by 

industry. Additionally, vessels eligible to provide such services 

are subject to tax rules that provide an impediment to coastal 

service development. Federal freight policies lack modal parity, 

thereby inhibiting development of infrastructure necessary to 

support expanded utilization of Marine Highways. 

PARTNERS 

MARAD partners in this effort include FHWA, FRA, FTA, 

PHMSA, SLSDC, Federal Maritime Commission, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of 

Energy, Department of Commerce, Army Corps of Engineers, 

State DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations, and maritime 

transportation industry partners. 

MAXIMIZING ECONOMIC RETURNS (MARAD) 

MEASURE: Maintain the number of U.S. Merchant Marine 

Academy graduates. (MARAD) 

Federal support of mariner education helps ensure that highly 

qualified personnel are trained annually to maintain the nation’s 

pool of skilled merchant mariners who are available for service 

during national emergencies, to support strategic sealift, and to 

serve the nation’s commercial maritime transportation needs. 

This program supports the competitiveness of a viable and 

robust merchant marine and contributes to national defense and 

homeland security. 

The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA or Academy) is 

an accredited Federal institution of higher education operated 

by DOT and MARAD. The USMMA educates highly qualified 

merchant marine officers to crew U.S.-flag cargo vessels and 

work throughout the maritime industry and military and reserve 

communities. The USMMA offers a four-year program that 

centers on a rigorous academic and practical maritime-based 

training program leading to a Bachelor of Science degree in 

either Marine Transportation or Marine Engineering, a U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG) Merchant Marine Officer’s License as 

3rd Mate (deck officer) or 3rd Assistant Engineer (engineering 

officer), and an officer’s commission in the U.S. Navy Reserve or 

other uniformed service. 

All USMMA graduates are required by law to fulfill a mandato

ry service obligation, which includes the provisions to serve in 

the maritime industry afloat or ashore for at least five years, to 

maintain their USCG license for at least six years, and to serve in 

a reserve branch of the Armed Forces for at least six years. The 

service obligation requires USMMA graduates to be available to 

crew merchant marine vessels during a national emergency. 

­

50
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

USMMA graduates are leaders who are prepared 

for a career of service to the Nation in the maritime 

industry or in the armed forces and who have 

the potential for future development in mind and 

character to assume the highest responsibilities of 

command, citizenship, and government. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure tracks whether the Academy is graduating the 

target number of U.S. Coast Guard credentialed mariners, which 

are also commissioned in either the Strategic Sealift Officer 

program or active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces (required 

to fulfill their service obligation). The Academy also seeks 

to increase the overall percentage of students who graduate 

within four years of entering the program. The target number of 

graduates each year is the numerical goal that corresponds to the 

incremental increase in percentage of graduates that the Academy 

seeks to achieve over time. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Graduate 210 U.S. Coast Guard credentialed mariners 

in 2012.
 

Actual: Graduated 219 U.S. Coast Guard credentialed mariners 

in 2012.
 

7.1 Number of USMMA Graduates 

235 ACTUAL 

225 TARGET 

215 

205 

195 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The results show an overall increase in the number of graduates. 

There are many factors that will impact the number of graduates 

per year; these factors include the number of students admitted 

to the Academy, the number of Midshipmen that resign, and 

the number of Midshipmen that are disenrolled for academic, 

disciplinary, or medical reasons. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

The activities planned/undertaken to increase the number of 

graduates include: 

Hire a Director of the Academic Center of Excellence; 

Raise the minimum SAT score for admission; 

Increase Mentor involvement in tracking academic

 performance and Regimental performance of 

Midshipmen; and,
 

Change to Coast Guard licensing preparatory classes 

with the addition of more electronics and automation 

and an increased emphasis on the new test format 

instituted in 2011.
 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

None. 

PARTNERS 

MARAD partners in this effort include DOD, U.S. Navy, U.S. 

Coast Guard, other institutions of higher education, and industry 

partners across the broad maritime and intermodal transportation 

enterprise. 

MAXIMIZING ECONOMIC RETURNS 

MEASURE: Number of State Maritime Academy graduates. 

(MARAD) 

Federal support of mariner education helps ensure that highly 

qualified personnel are trained annually to maintain the nation’s 

pool of skilled merchant mariners. MARAD’s State Maritime 

Academy (SMA) program provides more than two-thirds of the 

newly credentialed U.S. merchant marine officers needed annually 

to serve the nation’s commercial maritime transportation needs. 

This program supports the competitiveness of a viable and robust 

merchant marine, and contributes to economic competitiveness, 

national defense, and homeland security. 

The SMA program provides funding and training vessels to the 

six SMAs: California Maritime Academy, Great Lakes Maritime 

Academy, Maine Maritime Academy, Massachusetts Maritime 

Academy, State University of New York Maritime College, and 

Texas Maritime Academy. Federal funding supplements SMA 

State government funding. The SMA program comprises three 

major program components: (1) annual assistance to each of the 

six State maritime academies for maintenance and support; (2) 

the Student Incentive Payment (SIP) program providing financial 

assistance to full-time SMA students in the merchant marine 

officer program; and (3) training ship maintenance and repair for 

six federally owned training ships used by the SMAs. 

51
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

The program effectively uses Federal resources in 

a well-defined, cost-shared partnership with the 

SMAs to produce highly qualified merchant marine 

officers. Additionally, the program ensures commis

sioning of graduates as an officer in the uniformed 

service of the United States or as an officer in a 

reserve unit of an armed force of the United States. 

The majority of graduates are commissioned into the 

U.S. Navy Reserve Strategic Sealift Officer Program 

and are available to crew MARAD Ready Reserve 

Force vessels during an activation should normal 

crewing processes fail. 

­

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure tracks the annual number of U.S. Coast Guard 

credentialed mariners graduating from the six SMAs. The target 

number of graduates each year is the numerical goal set by the 

academies to maintain or incrementally increase the number 

of graduates. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Graduate 592 merchant marine officers from the SMAs. 

Actual: Graduated 642 merchant marine officers from the SMAs. 

8.1 Number of State Maritime Academy Graduates 

650 

600 

550 

ACTUAL 

500 

TARGET 

450 

2007 2008 2009 2010* 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*The measure was initiated in 2010. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

This measure indicates incremental increases of the number of 

graduates at the SMAs. Graduating qualified merchant mariners 

supports the maritime economic and national security needs of 

the nation. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

The SMAs are planning new academic training initiatives 

using the training ships as academic and seagoing laboratories 

for license coursework and practical hands-on training for the 

merchant mariner licensed officer training programs at each 

academy. These new initiatives will improve the officer training 

program in order to continue to provide highly qualified officers 

for the U.S. merchant marine. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

The SMAs incur significant fuel costs during their training 

cruises to operate the training vessels. These training cruises 

play a critical role in training mariners at the SMA to ensure 

that cadets obtain the necessary sea time to qualify for a U.S. 

Coast Guard Merchant Marine Credential (MMC) with a license 

endorsement and a Standards of Training, Certification, and 

Watchkeeping (STCW) endorsement. The cost of fuel places a 

significant but necessary burden on the academies. 

The maritime academies are in the process of implementing 

new domestic and international training standards for mariners. 

Curriculum development and implementation of these new 

training requirements places a financial burden on the academies 

and increases the total training required for mariners entering 

training after January 1, 2013. 

PARTNERS 

MARAD partners in this effort include the cadets receiving Student 

Incentive Payments (SIP), Presidents and Superintendents of 

the six SMAs, SIP Coordinators, SMA Officers in Charge (OICs), 

DOD, U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, American Bureau 

of Shipping, other branches of the U.S. armed forces, other 

institutions of higher education, and industry partners. 

A COMPETITIVE AIR TRANSPORTATION 

SYSTEM RESPONSIVE TO CUSTOMER 

NEEDS (FAA) 

MEASURE: Maintain the percent of National Aviation System 

(NAS) on-time arrivals at Core Airports. (FAA) 

On-time performance is a measure of the ability of the FAA to 

deliver services. Reducing delays is one of the biggest challenges 

facing FAA. Commercial airline passenger delays in the U.S. 

amount to approximately $10 billion in delay costs each year. 

The problem is exacerbated by increased traffic and congestion 

concentrated at several major airports. Along with increased 

congestion, adverse weather conditions are a major contributing 

factor to airport delays. Approximately 70 percent of flight delays 

are caused by weather. While weather cannot be controlled, FAA 

can employ new technologies that contribute to more efficient 

arrival and departure performance, which helps decrease 

congestion and improve on-time arrival rates. For example, the 

Traffic Management Advisor contributed to more efficient arrival 

and departure performance at several large airports, including 

Atlanta, Charlotte, and Newark. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

This metric helps the flying public reach their intended 

destinations on time. On-time performance is a 

measure of the ability of FAA to deliver services. 

52
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This metric measures the percentage of flights arriving no more 

than 15 minutes late. A flight is considered on time if it arrives 

no later than 15 minutes after its published, scheduled arrival 

time. This definition is used in the DOT Airline Service Quality 

Performance (ASQP) and Aviation System Performance Metrics 

(ASPM) reporting systems. Air carriers file up-to-date flight 

plans for their services with FAA that may differ from their 

published flight schedules. This metric measures on-time perfor

mance against the carriers’ filed flight plan, rather than what may 

be a dated published schedule. 

­

The time of arrival of completed passenger flights to and from 

the Core Airports is compared to their flight plan scheduled 

time of arrival. For delayed flights, delay minutes attributable 

to extreme weather, carrier caused delay, security delay, and a 

prorated share of delay minutes due to a late arriving flight at the 

departure airport are subtracted from the total minutes of delay. If 

the flight is still late, it is counted as a delayed flight attributed to 

the NAS and FAA. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: A minimum of 88 percent of NAS on-time arrivals at 

Core Airports in FY 2012. 

Actual: 92.36 percent of NAS on-time arrivals at Core Airports 

were achieved in FY 2012. 

9.1 Percent of NAS On-Time Arrivals at Core Airports 

ACTUAL 

94 TARGET 

92 

90 

88 

86 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

FAA met the NAS on-time performance level for this metric 

in FY 2011 and again in FY 2012. Relatively good weather, 

efficient airline scheduling practices, runway construction 

and maintenance scheduling, as well as low ramp and airport 

congestion all contributed to FAA’s ability to meet this target. 

Improved performance is most likely due to the drop in 

scheduled and unscheduled operations in many major markets in 

addition to the impact of various FAA initiatives. This has led to 

less congestion in the NAS, less pressure on the air traffic control 

system, and improved on-time performance. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

To continue meeting NAS on-time targets in the future, FAA 

plans to begin implementing multi-center Q-routes to create 

efficient routing structures where needed; continue to support the 

commissioning of nine new runway/taxiway projects; continue 

implementing the New York Area Program Integration Office 

delay reduction plan milestones; and continue implementing 

the roadmap for performance-based navigation. Q-routes are 

published area navigation (RNAV) routes based on a series of 

waypoints, not constrained by the location of ground-based 

navigational aid systems (NAVAIDs). They provide routing 

structure where conventional routes were not practical and 

also allow for parallel routes where only single routes existed. 

Q-routes have also increased the capacity to connect major cities 

more efficiently. Implementation of these routes shortens flight 

time and reduces operating costs. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

A major weakness of using air carrier scheduled on-time 

performance as a metric is that it contains flight delays caused 

by incidents and factors outside FAA’s control. External factors 

include weather, airline scheduling practices, runway construc

tion/maintenance, and ramp/airport congestion. 

­

PARTNERS 

FAA partners in this effort include the Air Line Pilots Association, 

Airlines for America, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, 

National Business Aviation Association, DOD, NASA, academic 

institutions, and corporate entities. 

A COMPETITIVE AIR TRANSPORTATION 

SYSTEM RESPONSIVE TO CUSTOMER 

NEEDS (OST) 

MEASURE: Increase the number of air carriers reviewed to 

ensure that they meet the requisite standards for obtaining or 

retaining economic authority to operate. (OST) 

DOT is authorized to review airlines’ economic authority to 

ensure that newly formed airlines and existing airlines do not 

place American consumers at risk. DOT uses a three-part test to 

determine whether airlines are “fit, willing, and able” to operate. 

Specifically, DOT analyzes whether an airline: (1) will have (or 

has) the managerial skills and technical ability to conduct the 

proposed (or existing) operations; (2) will have (or has) sufficient 

financial resources to commence the operations proposed (or 

continue its current operations) without posing an undue risk 

to consumers or their funds; and (3) will comply (or complies) 

with the U.S Code and regulations imposed by Federal and State 

agencies. For FY 2012, DOT completed 27 reviews of airlines’ 

economic authority, exceeding its target by nine reviews. 

53
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

DOT’s authority to permit new airlines to 

operate and to ensure that existing airlines remain 

economically “fit” to operate protects American 

consumers from risk. Particularly, DOT’s review 

of airlines, financial resources identifies whether 

airlines have the financial wherewithal to operate without 

posing an undue threat to consumers or their funds. In 

addition, DOT’s efforts to issue economic authority to 

new airlines and to liberalize aviation relationships can 

result in increased air service opportunities and lower 

fares for consumers. Moreover, DOT’s action to 

redress unfair or discriminatory practices by foreign 

governments or carriers against U.S. airlines ensures 

that the traveling and shipping public enjoy the 

benefits of a free and fair marketplace. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

DOT measures the number of completed reviews on new 

airlines requesting initial economic authority and on existing 

airlines holding economic authority. In order to calculate the 

total number of reviews completed in a given fiscal year, DOT 

adds the number of issued final decisions for new airlines to the 

number of issued letters finding existing airlines remaining “fit.” 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Review 18 air carriers to ensure they meet the requisite 

standards for obtaining or retaining economic authority to 

operate. 

Actual: Reviewed 27 air carriers to ensure they met the requisite 

standards for obtaining or retaining economic authority to 

operate in FY 2012. 

10.1 Number of Air Carriers Reviewed to Ensure They Meet the Requisite 

Standards for Obtaining or Retaining Economic Authority to Operate 

35 ACTUAL 

TARGET 30 

25 

20 

15 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (*) 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*New performance measure. Future milestones will be based on 2011 and 2012 

actual data. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

At the beginning of FY 2012, DOT had 18 pending reviews 

for new economic authority and continuing fitness. During the 

course of the fiscal year, DOT received seven new applications 

for initial economic authority and initiated 25 continuing fitness 

reviews on existing airlines. In FY 2012, DOT issued eight 

airlines new economic authority and issued 19 airlines “continu

ing fitness approval” letters, for a total of 27 completed reviews. 

­

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

DOT expects to continue reviewing and issuing decisions 

on airline requests for initial economic authority, reviewing 

operating airlines to ensure that they continue to meet requisite 

economic standards, and exercising regulatory powers to redress 

unfair or discriminatory practices by foreign governments or 

carriers against U.S. airlines. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

DOT’s ability to review airlines to ensure that they meet the 

requisite standards for obtaining or retaining economic authority 

to operate is dependent upon the airlines submitting information 

that complies with the U.S. Code and Department regulations in 

a timely manner. 

PARTNERS 

The Office of Aviation and International Affairs partners in 

this effort include the Federal Aviation Administration, the 

Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, 

the National Transportation Safety Board, the Department of 

State, the Department of Treasury, and law enforcement agencies. 

ADVANCE U.S. TRANSPORTATION 

INTERESTS IN TARGETED MARKETS 

AROUND THE WORLD (OST) 

MEASURE: Reach new or expanded bilateral and multilateral 

agreements to remove market-distorting barriers to trade in 

transportation. (OST) 

A key mission of the Office of the Secretary is to negotiate new 

or expanded bilateral and multilateral aviation agreements aimed 

at removing market-distorting barriers to trade and transportation. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Open Skies and other liberalized aviation 

agreements benefit an array of air consumers, 

including travelers and shippers, airlines and 

airports, and affiliated businesses. Open and 

expanded air service agreements have made it 

possible for the U.S. airline industry to provide 

better quality, lower priced, and more competitive 

air service around the world. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

DOT is measuring the number of aviation-related agreements 

concluded on a yearly basis that remove barriers to greater trade 

and transportation. 

54
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Reach/expand three bilateral or multilateral agreements. 

Actual: Reached/expanded four bilateral or multilateral 

agreements. 

11.1 Reach New or Expanded Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements to 

Remove Market-Distorting Barriers to Trade in Transportation 

10 ACTUAL 

TARGET 8 

6 

4 

2 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

DOT reached four new Open Skies agreements in FY 2012 with 

Sierra Leone, Suriname, Montenegro, and St. Kitts and Nevis. 

The agreements provide for open routes and unlimited frequency 

and capacity in the marketplace. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

The Department of Transportation expects to continue making 

progress on liberalizing markets in the coming years with a focus 

on the Western Hemisphere, Africa, and Asia. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

These agreements are only achievable with the cooperation of 

foreign government partners and the support of the aviation 

industry. Global economic conditions often play a role in these 

negotiations. 

PARTNERS 

These agreements require DOT to work closely with the 

Department of State, the Department of Commerce, an assortment 

of aviation industry stakeholders, and the Office of the U.S. 

Trade Representative (USTR) on the aviation aspects of trade 

agreements. 

EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL 

BUSINESSES IN THE TRANSPORTATION 

SECTOR (OST) 

The mission of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business 

Utilization (OSDBU) is to ensure that small and disadvantaged 

businesses are provided maximum practicable opportunities to 

participate in DOT’s contracting process pursuant to the Small 

Business Act. OSDBU advocates small business interests in the 

DOT acquisition contracting process. OSDBU provides training 

and counseling to small businesses on doing business with the 

Department, and the office provides training and counseling to 

its internal stakeholders about contracting with small business

es and assists them in identifying resources that can provide 

­

opportunities for small and disadvantaged businesses. The 

mission of OSDBU is accomplished through outreach, counseling, and communicating with small business stakeholders. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

DOT’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization (OSDBU) is authorized to 

ensure that Federal small business policies and 

goals are implemented in a fair, efficient, and 

effective manner to serve small businesses. The 

primary responsibility of the DOT/OSDBU is to 

ensure that small businesses have an opportunity to 

compete for DOT contracting dollars and to provide 

technical assistance and financial services to the 

small business community. 

MEASURE #1 

Percent of total dollar value of DOT direct contracts awarded to 

small, disadvantaged businesses. (OST) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure tracks the percentage of total dollar value of DOT 

direct contracts awarded to small, disadvantaged businesses. The 

purpose of this goal is to expand economic opportunities for 

small, disadvantaged businesses in the transportation sector. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Award at least 15 percent of total dollar value of DOT 

direct contracts to small, disadvantaged businesses in FY 2012. 

Actual: Awarded 18.08 percent of total dollar value of DOT 

direct contracts to small, disadvantaged businesses in FY 2012. 

12.1 Percent of Total Dollar Value of DOT Direct Contracts Awarded to 

Small, Disadvantaged Businesses 

21 ACTUAL 

TARGET 19 

17 

15 

13 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (*) 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*Preliminary. SBA has not verified as of the publication date. 

55
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

MEASURE #2 

Percent of total dollar value of DOT direct contracts awarded to 

women-owned businesses. (OST)
 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure tracks the percentage of total dollar value of DOT

direct contracts awarded to women-owned businesses. The 

purpose of this goal is to expand economic opportunities for 

women-owned businesses in the transportation sector.


 


 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Award at least 6 percent of total dollar value of DOT 

direct contracts to women-owned businesses in FY 2012. 

Actual: Awarded 8.81 percent of total dollar value of DOT direct 

contracts to women-owned businesses in FY 2012. 

12.2 Percent of Total Dollar Value of DOT Direct Contracts Awarded to 

Women-Owned Businesses 

13 ACTUAL 

TARGET 11 

9 

7 

5 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (*) 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*Preliminary. SBA has not verified as of the publication date. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The Procurement Assistance Division negotiates fair and 

reasonable small business goals for the Department of 

Transportation. The division also works closely with DOT 

program and procurement officials to assist DOT in meeting 

those goals. In FY 2011 (the latest official data from SBA), 

DOT received an A rating under the SBA’s scorecard criteria. 

The Department continues to work with each Operating 

Administration toward small business goal achievement. 

The Financial Assistance Division, which administers the 

Short Term Lending Program (STLP), supports the DOT 

Economic Competitiveness strategic goal by partnering with 

participating lenders across the country to provide certified 

small businesses, including disadvantaged business enterprises 

(DBEs) and women-owned businesses, the opportunity to obtain 

short-term working capital at a reasonable interest rate in order 

to increase the number of small and disadvantaged businesses 

able to compete for and provide goods and services for DOT and 

DOT-funded transportation-related contracts across the country. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

OSDBU expects to continue providing contractual opportunities, 

technical assistance, and financial services to the small business 

community. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

The success of DOT meeting its goals relies on our external and 

internal DOT partners. 

PARTNERS 

OSDBU partners with DOT Operating Administrations, DOT 

procurement officials, OSDBU Short Term Lending Program 

participating lenders, and OSDBU’s Small Business Resource 

Transportation Centers. 

56
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
�
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

Fostering livable communities—places where people have access to adequate, 

affordable, and environmentally sustainable travel options—is a transformational 

policy shift for DOT. In order to effectively coordinate transportation planning and 

community development policies in an environmentally sustainable manner, DOT 

is collaborating with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create the Partnership for 

Sustainable Communities to make the best use of limited resources. 

LIVABLE COMMUNITIES 

NET BUDGETARY RESOURCES BY STRATEGIC GOALS: 

FY 2012 ENACTED 

$1 M 

FTA 

$7.5 B 

FHWA 

$3.4 B 

FRA 

$463 M 

OST 

$293 M 

NHTSA 

RITA 

$391K 

TOTAL $11,764,497,000 

IMPROVED NETWORKS AND IMPROVED 

ACCESS (FHWA) 

DOT issued a policy statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations in 2010. 

This statement signaled an increased commitment to support safe 

and convenient transportation choices, including walking and 

bicycling. More than half of the States currently have policies 

and plans that support improved transportation choices. FHWA 

provides funding support for reports, technical assistance, and 

training related to walking, wheeling, and bicycling. 

State and local governments with 50 or more employees are 

required to perform a self-evaluation, or inventory, of their 

current services, practices, and facilities such as curb ramps and 

sidewalks that do not, or may not, meet Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requirements. Each State must 

develop a transition plan describing in detail the methods that 

will be used to ensure that the public entity’s facilities are 

accessible. The plan also specifies the schedule for taking the 

steps necessary to achieve compliance. A milestone for the 

implementation of the ADA is for approximately one-third of the 

States to have current transition plans that include the public 

rights-of-way by FY 2016. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

By providing more choice and greater access to 

transportation facilities, Americans will have the 

opportunity to enjoy more livable, family-friendly 

communities, improve their health as a result of 

more physical activity, and make travel choices that 

reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use. 

58
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

MEASURE #1 

Increase the number of States with policies that improve 

transportation choices for walking and bicycling. (FHWA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure evaluates the number of States with policies 

that improve transportation choices for walking, wheeling, 

and bicycling. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Increase the number of States with policies that 

improve transportation choices for walking and bicycling to 

26 in FY 2012. 

Actual: By the end of FY 2012, 26 States have adopted policies 

that improve transportation choices for walking and bicycling. 

1.1 States with Policies that Improve Transportation Choices for 

Walking and Bicycling 

28 

26 

24 ACTUAL 

22 TARGET 

20 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

During FY 2012, Rhode Island and Georgia adopted policies 

that improve transportation choices for users, increasing the total 

number of States with similar policies from 24 to 26. FHWA 

continued to share information about the importance of considering transportation choices. The agency led livability workshops 

across the country to provide resources to practitioners and the 

general public to better consider the transportation needs of 

communities within the transportation planning process. FHWA 

also conducted exchanges with Sweden and China as part of 

its effort to improve knowledge of best practices related to the 

planning of livable communities.

 FHWA released a series of documents that demonstrate how 

transportation projects can foster livability in communities of 

varying sizes including in rural areas. FHWA submitted a report 

to Congress on the results of the Non-motorized Transportation 

Pilot Program, which demonstrates how communities benefit 

from policies and investments that support walking and bicycling. 

In September 2012, FHWA released a guide to assist communi

ties that are considering establishing bike share programs. FHWA 

launched a newsletter called Fostering Livable Communities 

and released a series of livability fact sheets, including several 

that pertain to the benefits of improving walking and bicycling 

facilities. Finally, the agency released a revised version of FHWA 

Order 6640.23a on Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 

­

MEASURE #2 

Increase the number of States that have developed an ADA 

transition plan that is current and includes the public rights-ofway. (FHWA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

Number of States that have developed an ADA transition plan 

that is current and includes the public rights-of-way. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Increase the number of States that have developed 

current ADA transition plans that include public rights-of-way 

to 12 in FY 2012. 

Actual: As of the end of FY 2012, 15 States have developed 

current ADA transition plans that include public rights-of-way. 

1.2 States That Have Developed an Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), Transition Plan That is Current and Includes the Public 

Rights-of-way 

16 

14 

12 

ACTUAL 

10 

TARGET 

8 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

FHWA conducted workshops and national webinars on the ADA 

and on designing pedestrian facilities for accessibility, as well as 

similar training in the area of best practices for ADA transition 

plans. A national webinar on Context Sensitive Solutions and 

the ADA was delivered in January and a best practice national 

webinar was delivered in April. To date, 15 States have current 

ADA transition plans that include the public rights-of-way. 

FHWA continued to provide technical assistance to States in 

developing and implementing their transition plans. The agency 

began developing training webinars focused on effective practices with regard to the development and implementation of ADA 

self-evaluation and transition plans. An analysis of the results 

from the civil rights program assessments that were conducted in 

FY 2010 and FY 2011 enabled FHWA to identify those elements 

within a State’s ADA program that require targeted technical 

assistance and/or training. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

FHWA is developing interim guidance for the Transportation 

Alternatives Program authorized by MAP-21. This new 

program incorporates funding eligibilities from Transportation 

Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and the Recreational 

Trails Program. Projects eligible to receive funding through 

the Transportation Alternatives Program include those able to 

achieve compliance with the ADA. 

59
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

An additional 29 States are actively developing ADA transition 

plans, with the majority of those States projecting a completion 

date within the next two to three years. FHWA will use the 

analysis of the assessments’ results in its provision of technical 

assistance to States and in developing training webinars. In 

addition, FHWA began to track queries from States requiring a 

technical assistance response concerning the ADA, as well as 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This approach will 

help FHWA identify specific challenges that create obstacles for 

the States in developing and/or implementing an ADA transition 

plan and in meeting regulatory requirements for both the ADA 

and Section 504. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

The development of ADA transition plan that includes the public 

rights-of-way must be preceded by the completion of an ADA 

self-evaluation plan, which is an inventory of all public right-of­

­

way facilities including sidewalks and curb ramps within a State. 

A transition plan includes a schedule of corrections to sidewalks 

and curb ramps that are in a deficiency status. The costs are high 

and considerable time is needed to complete both an inventory of 

this kind and to update the transition plan. In addition, the level 

of proficiency among individuals at the State level charged with 

ADA-related responsibilities needs to be improved. 

PARTNERS 

FHWA works closely with the State Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Coordinators and Safe Routes to School Coordinators. The 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, a national clearing

house on non-motorized transportation issues, helps share 

information with FHWA stakeholders, including State DOTs, 

metropolitan planning organizations, and the public. 

To achieve compliance with ADA, FHWA works closely with 

State DOTs, State and Federal agencies, tribal governments, 

interested parties, and the public. 

INCREASED ACCESS TO CONVENIENT AND 

AFFORDABLE TRANSPORTATION CHOICES 

(FTA) 

Every day, tens of millions of Americans benefit from having 

transit as a transportation option for getting to work, health care, 

education, shopping, and recreation destinations. FTA’s goal is to 

increase transit ridership by making public transportation increas

ingly available and convenient for transit-dependent populations, 

and by making transit a “mode of choice” to populations with 

multiple transportation options. 

­

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Increased transit ridership represents a met demand 

for alternative transportation options. Additionally, 

transit ridership carries a number of external benefits 

for all Americans, including reduced highway 

congestion, reduced air emissions, and increased 

safety. Transit produces less congestion and fewer 

emissions than the same trip taken by personal 

vehicle, and transit passengers are statistically less 

likely to suffer a serious or fatal injury compared to 

persons making the same trip by personal vehicle. 

MEASURE #1 

Increase the number of transit boardings reported by urbanized 

area transit providers. (FTA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure evaluates annual ridership on transit systems in 

urbanized areas. Each transit system operating in an urbanized 

area reports total boardings on all transit modes they operate to 

FTA’s National Transit Database each month. Reports are due 30 

days after the end of the month, and ridership totals are finalized 

over the course of the following year as each transit system 

conducts internal audits. Ridership is reported on the basis of 

unlinked passenger trips, which is the technical term in the transit 

industry for total boardings. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET, BASED ON PROJECTED 

DATA THROUGH AUGUST 2012 

Target: Achieve 10.1 billion transit boardings by urbanized area 

transit providers in FY 2012, an increase of 100 million riders 

over FY 2011. 

Actual: Projecting 10.3 billion transit boardings by urbanized 

area transit providers (preliminary) in FY 2012. This is an 

increase of 200 million riders over FY 2011 and is 200 million 

riders over the target. 

2.1 Number of Transit Boardings Reported by Urbanized Area 

Transit Providers 

ACTUAL 

16 

TARGET 

Numbers in Billions 

14 

12 

10 

8 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012# 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*This livable communities target was developed in 2011. 

#Projection based on data through August 2012. 

60
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Federal funding played a key role in sustaining urbanized area 

transit service during the recent economic downturn. As of 

September 2012, urbanized area transit ridership nearly matched 

the12-month peak level set in December 2008. 

MEASURE #2 

Increase the number of transit boardings reported by rural area 

transit providers to 144 million in FY 2012. (FTA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

State DOTs report ridership on rural transit systems through 

the Rural Module of FTA’s National Transit Database. Annual 

reports are also filed by tribal DOTs operating their own rural 

transit services. Rural ridership reporting is based on the number 

of unlinked passenger trips, which is the same basis used for 

urbanized area transit systems. Reports are due four months after 

the end of the fiscal year, and are validated by FTA. FY 2012 

data will not be available until September 2013. As fiscal year 

end dates for transit agencies vary, data are not entirely concur

rent across agencies. 

­

2012 RESULTS: TBD 

Target: Achieve 144 million transit boardings reported by rural 

area transit providers in FY 2012. 

Actual: FY 2012 data are currently unavailable, but rural transit 

systems achieved 142 million transit boardings in FY 2011 based 

on data reported in October 2012. 

2.2 Number of Transit Boardings Reported by Rural Area 

Transit Providers 

155 

Numbers in Millions 

145 

135 

ACTUAL 

125 TARGET 

115 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011(*) 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*This new livable communities target was developed in 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Demand for rural public transportation is growing faster than 

projected. The 2005 SAFETEA-LU authorization increased 

funding for this program by more than 50 percent from $251 

million to $384 million in 2006, and increased funding by an 

additional 21 percent (not adjusted for inflation) to $465 million 

just three years later in 2009. The impacts of these investments 

are shown in the increased ridership on rural transit systems. 

The MAP-21 authorization increases rural funding by a further 

29 percent, to nearly $600 million in FY 2013. 

MEASURE #3 

Increase the transit “market share” among commuters to work 

in the 50 most populous urbanized areas compared to the 2010 

baseline. (FTA) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

The U.S. Census Bureau annually conducts the American 

Community Survey (ACS) to collect a number of demographic 

characteristics about the U.S. population. Among the topics 

surveyed by the ACS is the mode of transportation used for 

commuting to work. By comparing the number of persons that 

used public transportation to commute to work in an urbanized 

area to the total number of workers in an urbanized area, the 

transit “market share” for that urbanized area can be calculat

ed. Since the ACS is based on a random sample survey, each 

measurement contains a certain margin of error. This measure 

assesses the transit “market share” in the 50 most populous 

urbanized areas showing statistically significant increases in 

transit market share compared to a 2010 baseline. 

­

2012 RESULTS TBD 

Target: Four urbanized areas that experienced an increase in 

transit “market share” among commuters to work in the 50 most 

populous urbanized areas, as compared to 2010. 

Actual: 2012 data are not available. The U.S. Census Bureau will 

publish 2012 data in late 2013. In 2011, only one urbanized area 

had a statistically significant increase in transit “market share.” 

2.3 Areas with Increased Transit “Market Share” Among Commuters to 

Work in the 50 Most Populous Urbanized Areas 

ACTUAL 

8 

TARGET 

6 

4 

2 

0 

2011(*,#) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*This target was developed in 2011, and 2010 represents the baseline. 

# Preliminary results. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

National transit ridership grew more slowly than anticipated in 

2011 due to overall weak economic conditions. With only one 

of the Top 50 urbanized areas reporting a statistically significant 

increase in transit market share in 2011, results for this goal are 

running behind target. This measure relies on three-year averages 

from the ACS. As a result, the 2011 number shares two years of 

data with the 2010 baseline. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

National transit ridership grew much more strongly in 2012 

compared with 2011, which may translate into increased transit 

market share in other urbanized areas. FTA expects to meet the 

2012 target. 

61
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

A number of factors impact transit ridership. These include: 

Gasoline prices—Higher retail gasoline prices increase the 

cost of driving and lead to more consumers choosing transit, 

which boosts transit ridership. 

Economic growth/Employment—Approximately 50 percent 

of transit trips are taken to or from work, thus transit 

ridership is positively correlated with employment. 

State and local funding—Federal funding accounts for 

approximately 18 percent of total funding for public 

transportation and about 8 percent of operating expenditures. State and local government sources account for more 

than half of transit operating expenses, so cutbacks in State 

and local funding for transit will reduce overall transit 

availability. 

PARTNERS 

FTA’s partners in this effort include transit agencies, State DOTs, 

local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and 

research entities. In addition, FTA will continue to work with 

Federal partners, including the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency 

through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities to improve 

the connectivity of transit to other community resources. 

IMPROVED ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION 

FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND 

OLDER ADULTS (FTA) 

MEASURE: Increase the number of key rail transit stations 

verified as accessible and fully compliant. (FTA) 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s report Americans with 

Disabilities: 2010, there are 56.7 million persons with disabilities 

in the United States, and this number is expected to increase 

as the population ages. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990 (ADA) requires that public transportation be accessible to 

and usable by persons with disabilities. This is vital to maintaining independence and mobility for people with disabilities and 

linking them to employment, health care, and other important 

services in their community. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Accessible public transportation is vital to 

maintaining independence and mobility for 

individuals with disabilities, linking them to 

employment, health care, and other important 

services in their community.
 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

A key rail transit station is designated by public entities that 

operate existing commuter, light, or rapid rail systems. Each 

public entity determines which stations on its system are 

designated key rail transit stations through its planning and 

public participation process using criteria established by DOT 

regulations. The ADA requires all new key rail transit stations to 

be accessible, and requires public entities to provide an extended 

timetable for legacy key rail transit stations to be upgraded for 

accessibility and full compliance with the ADA. FTA periodically 

conducts inspections of legacy key rail transit stations to verify 

that they are accessible and fully compliant to individuals with 

disabilities. New key rail transit stations are presumed to have 

been constructed to be accessible and fully compliant with the 

ADA unless they are found to be otherwise through an inspection 

conducted by FTA. The number of new key rail transit stations 

and the number of inspected legacy key rail transit stations 

found to be accessible and fully compliant are added together to 

produce this measure. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: 531 key rail transit stations verified as accessible and 

fully compliant. 

Actual: 567 key rail transit stations verified as accessible and 

fully compliant. 

3.1 Number of Key Rail Stations Verified as Accessible and 

Fully Compliant 

570 

555 

540 

525 

510 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012 # 2013 # 

FISCAL YEAR 

*This target was developed in 2010. 

#Multiple key rail transit stations with open findings were made accessible and 

fully compliant in FY 2012. The FY 2013 target is undergoing revision to reflect the 

accomplishments in FY 2012. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

FTA’s ongoing investment in new rail transit stations continues to 

increase the number of key rail transit stations that are accessible 

and fully compliant with the ADA. Most of this increase can be 

attributed to the construction of new rail transit stations. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

FTA will continue to invest in additional rail transit stations and 

pursue solutions to cases where existing facilities are not accessible due to the high cost of making them compliant. 

62
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Approximately six out of the 33 legacy rail transit systems 

affected by ADA compliance requirements continue to have key 

rail transit stations that are not yet accessible or fully compliant. 

These stations will need expensive structural changes or replacement of existing facilities to bring them into compliance. 

FTA does not directly operate these transit systems and cannot 

prioritize these investments relative to other funding needs. 

PARTNERS 

FTA’s partners in this effort include transit agency grant recipients, State DOTs, local governments, metropolitan transit organizations, research entities, transit industry trade organizations, 

members of the disability community, and the U.S. Architectural 

and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). 

IMPROVED ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION 

FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND 

OLDER ADULTS (FRA) 

MEASURE: Increase the percentage of intercity passenger rail 

stations that comply with the requirements of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA). (FRA) 

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires that 

all stations in the intercity rail transportation system be readily 

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs, as soon as practicable, but no 

later than July 26, 2010. Limited funding prevented Amtrak from 

meeting this deadline. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Foster livable communities through place-based 

policies and investments that increase transportation 

choices and access to transportation services. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This is a measure of the cumulative percentage of intercity 

passenger-rail stations that are compliant with the ADA, from the 

established baseline. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET NOT MET 

Target: 2 percent increase in the number of intercity passenger 

rail stations that are ADA compliant. 

Actual: 0 percent increase in the number of intercity passenger 

rail stations that are ADA compliant, due to a reevaluation of the 

definition of ADA compliance. 

4.1 Percent of Intercity Passenger Rail Stations That Comply with the 

Requirements of the ADA 

ACTUAL 

8 

TARGET 

6 

4 

2 

0 

2007 (N/A) 2008 (N/A) 2009 (N/A) 2010 (N/A) 2011 (N/A) 2012 (*) 2013 (*) 

FISCAL YEAR 

N/A FRA established targets for this measure prior to 2012. 

* Tracking will begin in FY2012 after Amtrak completes its reassessment of station 

designs & construction plans. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

As of January 2013, construction work was nearing completion at eight stations of almost 400 for which Amtrak has ADA 

responsibility (2 percent). Construction delays to accommodate 

recent rulemakings and guidance regarding ADA requirements 

prevented Amtrak from meeting the FY 2012 target. After 

Amtrak reassesses designs and develops changes for each station 

to comply with recent rules and guidance, Amtrak will establish 

a revised baseline and plan. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

Availability of funding to support station modifications will 

determine the pace at which Amtrak can achieve compliance. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Intercity rail stations are owned by a variety of public and 

private entities. Many stations have separate owners for different 

station components, such as track, platforms, parking areas, and 

buildings. Amtrak will need to develop agreements with these 

owners to implement modifications and upgrades. 

PARTNERS 

Partners include States, Amtrak and other railroad operators, 

freight railroads, metropolitan planning organizations, transit 

agencies, station owners, passenger rail advocates, and the 

disability community. 

63
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

Ridership Growth on Selected Passenger Rail Corridors, 2000 to 2012 

CALIFORNIA CORRIDORS 

SAN JOAQUIN (OAKLAND/SACRAMENTO-FRESNO/BAKERSFIELD) 

CAPITAL CORRIDOR (SAN JOSE/OAKLAND-SACRAMENTO/AUBURN) 

PACIFIC SURFLINER (SAN LUIS OBISPO-LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO) 

+127%

+67%

+69%

CHICAGO–MILWAUKEE 

+95%

CHICAGO–ST. LOUIS 

+116% CHICAGO–DETROIT 

+51%

BOSTON–PORTLAND 

+121%

CHARLOTTE–RALEIGH 

+196%

OKLAHOMA CITY–FT. WORTH 

+34%

LEGEND 

FY2000 CORRIDOR RIDERSHIP 

FY2012 CORRIDOR RIDERSHIP 

EUGENE–PORTLAND–

SEATTLE–VANCOUVER, BC 

+66%

VANCOUVER, BC 

SEATTLE 

PORTLAND 

OAKLAND 

SAN JOSE 

SAN LUIS OBISPO 

LOS ANGELES 

BAKERSFIELD 

FRESNO 

SAN DIEGO 

EUGENE 

CHICAGO 

BOSTON 

PORTLAND 

RALEIGH 

CHARLOTTE 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

DALLAS/FORT WORTH 

ST. LOUIS 

MILWAUKEE 

DETROIT 

SACRAMENTO 

1 MILLION RIDERS 

500 Miles 

Source: Amtrak 

INCREASED ACCESS TO CONVENIENT AND 

AFFORDABLE TRANSPORTATION CHOICES 

(FRA) 

MEASURE: Increase the number of intercity rail passenger-miles 

traveled. (FRA) 

Rail is well suited to complement America’s aviation and 

highway networks and help meet the mobility needs of the 

growing and aging U.S. population and the goods produced and 

consumed by that population. The U.S. Census Bureau projects 

that an additional 100 million people will reside in the United 

States by 2050, most in concentrated geographic areas called 

megaregions, resulting in the movement of an additional 4 billion 

tons of freight each year. As highway and aviation congestion 

rise, coupled with increasing energy costs, Americans and 

shippers seek new transportation options. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Foster livable communities through place-based 

policies and investments that increase transportation 

choices and access to transportation services. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure represents the annual passenger-miles traveled via 

rail. This measure is an indication of FRA’s success in promoting 

rail as a viable alternative to other methods of intercity travel. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: 6.60 billion passenger-miles traveled in FY 2012. 

Actual: 6.80 billion passenger-miles traveled in FY 2012. 

5.1 Number of Intercity Rail Passenger-Miles Traveled 

7.00 

6.50 

6.00 

5.50 

5.00 

ACTUAL 

TARGET 

Numbers in Billions 

2007 2008 2009 2010 * 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

* FRA did not establish targets for this measure prior to 2011. 

64
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Amtrak’s ridership continues to grow year over year as intercity 

passenger rail increases its reputation as a practical, reliable, 

and environmentally friendly mode of transportation. The map 

accompanying this section displays the growth in ridership on 

selected passenger rail corridors between 2000 and 2012. 

In addition, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor services have shown 

that intercity rail can free up airport capacity by shifting travelers 

from short-haul flights (under 500 miles) to rail. The Northeast 

Corridor carries 65 percent of the air-rail market between 

Washington, D.C., and New York, and it serves as a vital 

transportation backbone to the regional $2.4-trillion economy. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

▶	 By 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that an 

additional 100 million people will reside in the United 

States. The vast majority of this growth will be concentrated 

in a small number of “megaregions.” Intercity passenger 

rail is especially suited for addressing the transportation 

challenges that will arise in this increasingly 

urban environment. 

▶	 Highway and aviation congestion continues to rise, with 

an estimated economic impact growing from $24 billion in 

1982 to $125 billion in 2010 in lost time, productivity, and 

fuel.1 In many places with the worst congestion, expanding 

airports and highways is difficult, as land is limited and 

environmental and community impacts are significant. 

▶	 In addition to increasing congestion, air travel is becoming 

less accessible and convenient for many communities. 

Changes in airline economics have led to small and midsize 

cities losing 15 percent or more of their nonstop domestic 

flights, and fares in some of these markets increased 16 to 

18 percent from 2010 to 2011, compared to the average 

nationwide increase of 6 percent.2 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

▶	 External operators—FRA does not operate passenger 

railroads. As a result, FRA is unable to directly control 

factors that affect the desirability to travel by rail compared 

to other modes. 

▶	 Energy costs—The inflation-adjusted cost of oil increased 

129 percent from 1990 to 2010, and the Energy Information 

Administration expects crude oil prices to rise an additional 

50 percent between 2011 and 2035.3 

PARTNERS 

FRA’s partners in this effort include States, Amtrak and other 

railroad operators, freight railroads, metropolitan planning 

organizations, transit agencies, passenger rail advocates, and the 

disability community. 

1. Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Urban Mobility Report, Sept 27, 2011. 

2. Mouawad, Jad, When Flying 720 Miles Takes 12 Hours, The New York Times, 3. U.S. Energy Information Administration, AEO2012 Early Release Overview, 

May 2, 2012. January 23, 2012. 

65
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
�
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

At the current rate of growth, transportation’s share of the 

human-produced greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is projected 

to increase from 28 percent to 36 percent by 2020. DOT is working to 

achieve a balance between environmental challenges and the need 

for a safe and efficient transportation network. In 2012, DOT dedicated 

$5 billion to the protection of the natural and built assets of the 

Nation’s communities. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY 

NET BUDGETARY RESOURCES BY STRATEGIC GOALS: 

FY 2012 ENACTED 

OST 

$105 M 

FHWA 

$4.2 B 

FAA 

$476 M 

FRA 

$73 M 

FTA 

$60 M 

NHTSA 

$18 M 

MARAD 

$10 M 

RITA 

$1 M 

TOTAL $5,019,477,000 

REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS, IMPROVED 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND REDUCED 

DEPENDENCE ON OIL (FAA) 

MEASURE: Improve NAS energy efficiency (measured by fuel 

burned per miles flown). (FAA) 

The improvements in aircraft energy efficiency over the last 20 

years has outpaced other forms of transportation in the United 

States. Notwithstanding this success, there is renewed emphasis 

on improving the fuel efficiency of the National Aviation System 

(NAS). Fuel currently represents the largest operating cost for 

U.S. airlines, and this cost category has grown dramatically 

in recent years. Annually measuring and tracking NAS-wide 

fuel efficiency from aircraft operations allows FAA to monitor 

improvements in aircraft/engine. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

This metric supports the effort to reduce aviation’s 

impact on the environment and thereby improve public 

health and welfare. In addition, more fuel-efficient 

aircraft should contribute to improving the financial 

well-being of commercial airlines and a growing 

economy. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This metric measures fuel burned per mile flown and focuses 

on all U.S. commercial operations. Measuring and tracking 

fuel efficiency from commercial aircraft operations allows FAA 

to monitor improvements in aircraft/engine technology and 

operational procedures, as well as enhancements in the airspace 

transportation system. FAA measures performance against this 

target using the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). 

AEDT is a FAA computer model that estimates aircraft fuel 

burn and emissions for variable year emissions inventories and 

67
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

for operational, policy, and technology-related scenarios. For 

this target, AEDT is used to generate annual fuel burn and total 

distance flown data for all U.S. commercial operations. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Improve NAS energy efficiency by reducing fuel burned 

per mile flown by 14.00 percent from CY 2000 baseline. 

Actual: Improved NAS energy efficiency by reducing fuel 

burned per mile flown by 14.76 percent from CY 2000 baseline. 

1.1 NAS Energy Efficiency (Measured by Fuel Burned Per Miles Flown) 

-19 

-16 

-13 

ACTUAL 

-10 

TARGET 

-7 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

With a result of -14.76 percent, FAA exceeded the FY 2012 

energy efficiency target as measured by the calendar year 2011 

rate of fuel burned per revenue mile flown, relative to the 

calendar year 2000 baseline. FY 2012 performance demonstrates 

continued progress in maintaining efficiency of commercial 

aircraft operations within the airspace system, thereby

 minimizing environmental impact. 

A combination of factors is responsible for meeting the FY 2012 

target, including better aircraft fleet performance, low air traffic 

growth, and improved air traffic management of the airspace 

system. Aircraft fleet performance is still improving due 

to efforts by airlines to minimize use of aircraft that are 

less efficient. In addition, more fuel-efficient procedures are 

offered through FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen) modernization. Air traffic growth has not 

yet returned to the levels previously seen. Therefore, from 

a system standpoint, there is less likelihood of delays and 

congestion, which would influence this performance measure 

in a negative manner. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

The continued implementation of NextGen air traffic modern

ization should further improve efficiency by reducing delays and 

enabling more direct routings. Sustainable practices by airport 

operators can conserve energy, make use of renewable resourc

es (solar, wind, and geothermal), and deploy low-emission 

vehicles and ground support equipment. Moreover, advances 

in the development of sustainable alternative fuels offer great 

promise for emissions reduction. Nearly 100 percent of the jet 

fuel used in aviation operations is petroleum based—raising 

issues of energy supply, energy security, and fossil fuel emissions 

affecting air quality and climate. In response to these concerns, 

­

­

the Federal Government and the aviation industry have a strong 

interest in “drop in” alternative aviation fuels that can be blended 

with or replace petroleum jet fuel with no changes to existing 

engines, aircraft, ground infrastructure, and supply equipment. 

Sustainable alternative fuel options that use plant oils, sugars, 

or cellulose from plants have the potential to reduce the net 

carbon dioxide emissions from commercial aviation. Generally, 

all alternative aviation fuel options appear to reduce particulate 

matter emissions in engine exhausts—a cause of respiratory 

ailments, although not unique to aviation as a source. 

In FY 2009, FAA partnered with NASA to develop the 

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) 

program. The goal of this five-year program is to introduce 

CLEEN technologies into production aircraft in the 2015–2017 

timeframe. The partnership will help achieve NextGen goals 

to increase airspace system capacity by reducing significant 

community noise and air quality emissions impacts in absolute 

terms and limiting or reducing aviation greenhouse gas emissions 

impacts on the global climate. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

NAS Energy Efficiency is heavily dependent on commercial airline 

operating procedures and day-to-day operational conditions. This 

includes operating fleet and route assignments, air traffic conditions, 

weather, airport operating status, congestion in the system, and any 

disruptions that introduce delay in scheduled flights. For example, 

a major sustained disruption or enhancement in air traffic and/ 

or a significant shift in commercial operations among airlines, 

including changes in fleet composition and missions, could have 

a profound impact upon achieving the performance target. 

PARTNERS 

FAA partners in this effort include the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), 

the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the 

Aerospace Industries Association, and Airlines for America. 

REDUCE TRANSPORTATION-RELATED AIR, 

WATER, AND NOISE POLLUTION IMPACTS 

ON ECOSYSTEMS (FAA) 

MEASURE: Reduce the number of people exposed to significant 

aircraft noise around airports. (FAA) 

A critical component to ensure that the economic and social 

benefits of future air transportation demand are met will be 

to improve mobility (i.e., increasing efficiency and capaci

ty); however, these enhancements have the potential to be 

constrained by aviation’s environmental effects. The environ

mental vision for NextGen is to provide environmental protection 

that allows sustained aviation growth. Noise, air quality, climate, 

and energy are the most significant potential environmental 

constraints to increasing aviation capacity, efficiency, and 

flexibility. FAA has established several programs and activities 

­

­

68
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

 

aimed at addressing these constraints. For noise, that involves 

limiting the number of people exposed to significant noise levels. 

Significant noise is defined as a Day-Night Average Sound Level 

of 65 decibels. The number of people exposed to significant noise 

levels was reduced by approximately 90 percent between 1975 and 

2000. This is due primarily to the legislatively mandated transition 

of airplane fleets to newer generation aircraft that produce less 

noise. Most of the gains from quieter aircraft were achieved by 

FY 2000. There have been incremental improvements since that 

time. Absent further advances in noise reduction technologies 

and procedures and fleet evolution, the remaining problem 

must be addressed primarily through airport-specific noise 

compatibility programs. 

FAA pursues a program of aircraft noise control in cooperation 

with the aviation community. Noise control measures include 

noise reduction at the source, i.e., development and adoption 

of quieter aircraft, soundproofing and buyouts of buildings 

near airports, operational flight control measures, and land use 

planning strategies. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

The public will have reduced exposure to unwanted 

aircraft noise and increased capacity, reducing 

airport congestion and delays. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

The metric tracks the residential population exposed to significant 

aircraft noise around U.S. airports. Significant aircraft noise is 

defined as aircraft noise above a Day-Night Average Sound Level 

(DNL) of 65 decibels. The target is determined by reducing the 

number of people exposed to significant aircraft noise by at least 

2 percent per year from FY 2011 through FY 2016, compared to 

the baseline population exposed to significant aircraft noise 

in 2005. 

Beginning in FY 2012, the estimates of the number of people 

exposed to significant noise are calculated from the Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). Prior to the use of AEDT, 

estimates were calculated using the Model for Assessing Global 

Exposure to the Noise of Transport Aircraft (MAGENTA). The 

computational core of AEDT is FAA’s Integrated Noise Model 

(INM) with methodological improvements, the most widely used 

computer program for the calculation of aircraft noise around 

airports. Major assumptions on local traffic utilization come from 

obtaining INM datasets that were developed for an airport. The 

FAA is in the process of transitioning from INM to AEDT. In 

FY 2014, INM will be replaced by AEDT as the regulatory tool 

to calculate airport noise around airports. Major assumptions on 

local traffic utilization come from obtaining INM datasets that 

were developed for an airport. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Limit the number of people exposed to significant 

aircraft noise around airports to no more than 386,000 in 

FY 2012. 

Actual: Limited the number of people exposed to significant 

aircraft noise around airports to 319,901 in FY 2012. 

2.1 Number of People Exposed to Significant Aircraft Noise 

Around Airports 

ACTUAL 

475 TARGET 

425 

375 

325 

275 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (*) 2013 FISCAL YEAR 

* When reporting, the previous calendar year exposure is reported for the fiscal 

year, i.e., for FY 2012, the number of people exposed to significant noise in 

calendar year 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, FAA met its target to reduce noise exposure. Air 

carrier fleet and operational changes have driven the significant 

reduction in noise exposure since the base year of 2005. Carriers 

continue to retire older, less fuel-efficient aircraft that tend to 

produce more noise. In addition, passenger demand continues 

to be below 2005 levels, resulting in decreased air traffic. The 

persistence of significant levels of aircraft noise in communities 

around airports is the major impact, but not the only impact. 

There are increasing concerns in areas of moderate noise 

exposure and public complaints from suburban and rural areas 

where ambient noise is lower. 

At noise exposure levels below those involving health and 

welfare concerns, there are also sensitivities with respect to 

national resources such as national parks. While techniques 

and tools for measuring and modeling noise exposure provide a 

reliable means of assessing the levels of aircraft noise to which 

people are exposed, focused research could improve our scientif

ic knowledge base of the extent of impacts and appropriate 

mitigation below historically defined significant noise levels. 

­

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

NextGen technologies and FAA’s many noise mitigation 

approaches allow the agency to make significant improve

ments to aviation noise exposure. FAA continues to pursue 

a program of aircraft noise control, in cooperation with the 

aviation community and local governments, through source noise 

reduction, soundproofing, buyouts of homes and other noise-sen

sitive buildings near airports, operational flight control measures, 

and land use planning strategies. 

­

­

69
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

The primary external factors affecting performance are market 

forces that drive changes in commercial aircraft fleets and 

operations. Although FAA is authorized to provide funds for 

soundproofing and residential relocation, each project must be 

locally sponsored and part of a noise compatibility program 

prepared by the airport sponsor and approved by FAA. Other 

external factors include providing FAA with the authority 

and funding to accelerate the implementation of new aircraft 

emissions and noise technology. These programs help foster 

the type of fleet and performance change required to meet our 

current target. 

PARTNERS 

Partners include government agencies worldwide and the 

aviation industry through the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO), which periodically update noise standards 

and methodologies. FAA continues to partner with NASA in 

the development of CLEEN technologies for civil subsonic jet 

airplanes. 

REDUCE TRANSPORTATION-RELATED 

AIR, WATER, AND NOISE POLLUTION AND 

IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEMS (PHMSA) 

MEASURE: Reduce the number of hazardous liquid pipeline 

spills with environmental consequences. (PHMSA) 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) establishes safe land use standards for existing 

pipelines and new pipeline construction in proximity to populated areas using an enterprise approach working with local 

governments, real estate and development interests, insurers, 

pipeline operators, other Federal and State agencies, the Pipeline 

and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA), and others. PIPA helps 

communities understand where pipelines are located, who owns 

and operates them, and what other information is available for 

community planning. As pipelines expand into communities, it is 

vital to locate them where they pose the least potential hazard to 

people and the environment while also protecting pipelines from 

potential excavation damage, a leading cause of pipeline failures. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Reducing spills with environmental consequences 

helps to protect the natural environment directly. 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

DOT measures the risk pipelines pose to the environment by 

tracking hazardous liquid spills with reported impacts on water, 

soil, fish, birds, or other wildlife. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET NOT MET, BASED ON 

PROJECTED RESULTS 

Target: 80-99 hazardous liquid pipeline spills with environmental consequences.
 

Actual: 114 hazardous liquid pipeline spills with environmental 

consequences (projected).
 

3.1 Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Spills with Environmental Consequences 

1 

ACTUAL 150 

TARGET 

135 

120 

105 

90 

2007 2008 2009 2010 (1) 2011 2012 (p) 2013 

CALENDAR YEAR 

1 This was a new measure beginning in 2010. No targets existed for 

CY 2007 – 2009
 

(p) Projected 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

Pipeline operators reported 114 hazardous liquid spills with 

environmental consequences. Most of the reported releases (95) 

impacted the soil; 19 impacted the water; 1 impacted birds; and 2 

impacted fish. The spills resulted in the release of 38,000 barrels 

of crude oil, refined petroleum products, or highly volatile liquids 

which are a gas at ambient temperature. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

PHMSA is dedicated to improving oversight of pipeline safety, 

including oil spill response plan reviews and expansion of its 

participation in oil spill drills; and will continue to advance the 

“811 - Call Before You Dig” public awareness campaign, expand 

geospatial data collection and analysis to help identify high-risk 

areas, and gradually expand the risk-based inspection program.
 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Excavation damage, damage from natural forces (e.g., storms 

and flooding), and other outside force damage are all significant 

causes of pipeline failure. Operating error by individuals is 

another significant cause of failure. 

PARTNERS 

Some State pipeline safety agencies act as interstate agents for 

PHMSA, inspecting hazardous liquid pipelines on its behalf. 

70
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

INCREASED USE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY 

SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES (OST) 

Building, operating, and maintaining transportation systems have 

environmental consequences, and DOT has many opportunities 

for increasing sustainability, reducing carbon and other harmful 

greenhouse gas emissions, promoting energy independence, and 

addressing global climate change for the Department’s buildings 

and fleet. Under Executive Order (E.O.) 13514, the Department 

of Transportation is required to increase efficiency; measure, 

report, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; conserve and 

protect water resources; eliminate waste, increase recycling, and 

prevent pollution; acquire environmentally preferable materials, 

products, and services; design, construct, maintain, and operate 

high performance sustainable buildings; and strengthen the vitali

ty and livability of local communities. 

­

The Department of Transportation has prepared and is 

implementing a 10-year strategic sustainability plan, which 

requires annual progress in each of these areas. Additionally, the 

DOT Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan identifies the 

far reaching programs and activities that must be instituted to 

meet the 2010–2020 energy, environmental, and sustainability 

requirements of E.O. 13514. These energy, environmental, and 

sustainability efforts are incorporated in the Department’s overall 

2012–2016 Strategic Plan. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Policy implementation and program development 

will support the realization of environmental 

sustainability requirements and goals. Progress on 

these goals will not only help the Department reduce 

its environmental footprint and resource consump

tion, but also help ensure that its buildings and fleet 

are performing efficiently with the best return on 

investment for the American people. In addition, 

action towards these sustainability goals allows the 

Department to innovate and test new technologies, 

creating greater demand in the marketplace and 

helping to mainstream these new technologies. 

­

MEASURE #1 

Percent reduction of vehicle fleet petroleum use compared to 

2005 baseline. (OST) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

E.O. 13514 requires a reduction of petroleum consumption in 

agency fleets of 20 or more vehicles by 2 percent each year 

through FY 2020 compared to a FY 2005 baseline. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: 14 percent reduction of petroleum consumption in 

agency fleets compared to FY 2005 levels. 

Actual: DOT reduced its petroleum consumption by 14.5 percent, 

meeting its FY 2012 target. 

4.1 Percent Reduction of Vehicle Fleet Petroleum Use 

20 

15 

10 

ACTUAL 5 

TARGET 

0 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

71
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, the Department was able to reduce its overall fleet 

petroleum use by 14.5 percent from a FY 2005 baseline by 

completing the following: 

In FY 2012, DOT consumed 3,173,473 gallons of 

petroleum fuel. DOT also consumed 273,455 gasoline 

gallon equivalents of alternative fuel.
 

DOT conducted its first fleet “Right Sizing” exercise in 

FY 2009. As a result, the Department returned approxi

mately 60 underutilized vehicles to the General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

­

At the DOT HQ Motor Pool, DOT replaced its executive 

fleet vehicles (Ford Grand Marquises) with Ford Fusions 

and Chevrolet Malibu Hybrids. DOT Headquarters’ entire 

motor pool consists of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). 

DOT organizations have increased their alternative fuel 

usage by manually capturing alternative fuel usage resulting 

in a 300-percent increase from FY 2005. 

A directive has been issued to the Heads of Operating 

Administrations regarding DOT’s Fleet Management 

Performance, which outlined the fleet requirements 

mentioned in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) 

and E.O. 13514 and provided strategies to meet those 

requirements. 

DOT has met Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(EPACT), which requires that 75 percent of all covered 

light-duty vehicles acquired by Federal fleets in FY 1999, 

and each year thereafter, be AFVs. DOT met this require

ment the past four years by acquiring more than 3,585 

alternative fuel vehicles to date. 

­

DOT is looking at other innovative ways to reduce 

petroleum consumption by: Piloting 8 Chevrolet Volts in 

three locations in the United States [Sterling, VA (2); San 

Diego, CA (3); and Van Nuys, CA (3)]; and beta-testing 

an extended-range electric truck made by VIA Motors 

for one year. 

DOT is working with the Department of Energy (DOE) 

to introduce alternative refueling locations for Alternative 

Fuels. 

DOE also has provided a new data tool to assist DOT in 

reducing petroleum use. The fleet Sustainability Dashboard 

(Fleet-DASH) will enable the Department to track fuel 

consumption in GSA-leased vehicles and identify “missed 

opportunities” to use alternative fuel in dual-fuel vehicles 

when the alternative fuel is available nearby. 

MEASURE #2 

Percent improvement in water efficiency compared to FY 2007 

baseline. (OST) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

E.O. 13423 requires Federal agencies to reduce water consump

tion intensity (gallons per square foot) 2 percent annually through 

the end of FY 2015, or cumulatively by 16 percent by the end of 

FY 2015 from a FY 2007 baseline. 

­

2012 RESULTS: TARGET NOT MET 

Target: Reduce water consumption intensity by 10 percent 

compared to the FY 2007 baseline.
 

Actual: DOT reduced its water consumption intensity by 0.9 

percent from a FY 2007 baseline.
 

4.2 Percent Improvement in Water Efficiency 

16 

12 

8 

ACTUAL 4 

TARGET 

0 

2007 2008 (*) 2009 (*) 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*Data not verified. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, the Department was able to reduce its water 

consumption intensity by 0.9 percent from a FY 2007 baseline by 

completing the following: 

FAA’s Northern California TRACON (NCT) facility 

reduced total water usage by approximately 40 percent 

annually, with an estimated annual savings of more than 

3,200,000 gallons of water by installing a xeriscaping 

project, which replaced more than 75 percent of the grassy 

areas at the facility with colored rubber mulch made 

from 100-percent recycled California tires rubber and 

decomposed granite walkways. 

SLSDC has reduced its water intensity by more than 30 

percent by utilizing EPA’s WaterSense® devices. 

RITA’s VOLPE Center has reduced its water consumption 

by 26 percent through the use of water savings devices and 

reducing irrigation. 

FHWA has reduced its water consumption by 31 percent 

through the installation of high-efficiency devices and 

the implementation of a hydronic maintenance service. 

This represents a 10 percent improvement over the previous 

fiscal year. 

72
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

MEASURE #3 

Increase the percent of recycling and waste diversion compared 

to FY 2010 baseline. (OST) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

E.O. 13514 requires the Department to divert at least 50 percent 

of non-hazardous solid waste from landfills, excluding construc

tion and demolition waste, by the end of fiscal year 2015. 

­

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Increase recycling and waste diversion by 6 percent 

compared to FY 2010 baseline.
 

Actual: DOT increased its recycling and waste diversion by 

11 percent. 

4.3 Percent Recycling and Waste Diversion 

ACTUAL 

16 

TARGET 

12 

8 

4 

0 

2007 2008 2009 2010 (*) 2011 (*) 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*Actual data are not available for FY 2010 or FY 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, the Department was able to recycle or divert 

approximately 11 percent of waste from a FY 2010 baseline. 

MEASURE #4 

Maintain the percent of all applicable contracts that meet 

sustainability requirements. (OST) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

E.O. 13514 requires the Department to advance sustainable 

acquisition to ensure that 95 percent of new contract actions 

including task and delivery orders meet sustainable acquisition 

requirements annually. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: 95 percent of applicable contracts meet sustainability 

requirements in FY 2012.
 

Actual: 95 percent of applicable contracts met sustainability 

requirements in FY 2012.
 

4.4 Percent of All Applicable Contracts That Meet 

Sustainability Requirements 

ACTUAL 

98 TARGET 

96 

94 

92 

90 

2007 2008 2009 2010 (*) 2011 2012 2013 FISCAL YEAR 

*Actual data are not available for FY 2010. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, the Department was able to meet the goal of 

95 percent of all applicable contracts meeting sustainability 

requirements by completing the following: 

Quarterly tracking of contract actions; 

Training for the acquisition workforce; 

Issuing guidance about required clauses and other 

requirements; and,
 

Providing sample language to be included in statements of 

work. 

73
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

MEASURE #5 

Percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from facilities and 

fleets compared to 2008 baseline. (OST) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

E.O. 13514 requires the Department to reduce overall scope 1 

and 2 GHG emissions by 12.3 percent by 2020 relative to a FY 

2008 baseline. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Reduce overall scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 4 

percent relative to a FY 2008 baseline.
 

Actual: DOT Reduced overall scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 

29 percent compared to a FY 2008 baseline.
 

4.5 Percent Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Facilities 

and Fleets 

ACTUAL 

32 TARGET 

24 

16 

8 

0 

2007 2008 2009 2010 (*) 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*Actual data are not available for FY 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, the Department was able to reduce its scope 1 and 2 

greenhouse gas emissions by 29 percent from a FY 2008 baseline 

by completing the following: 

DOT reduced its GHG emissions from electricity 

consumption by 14 percent
 

DOT reduced its GHG emissions from petroleum 

consumption by 34 percent
 

DOT increased its use of renewable energy, which helped 

to reduce GHG emissions by 12 percent 

MEASURE #6 

Percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from employee 

business travel and commuting compared to 2008 baseline. 

(OST) 

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

E.O. 13514 requires the Department to reduce overall departmen

tal scope 3 GHG emissions by 10.9 percent by 2020 relative to a 

FY 2008 baseline. 

­

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Reduce overall Departmental scope 3 GHG emissions by 

2 percent relative to a FY 2008 baseline.
 

Actual: DOT reduced overall scope 3 GHG emissions by 14 

percent compared to a FY 2008 baseline.
 

4.6 Percent Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Employee 

Business Travel and Commuting 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

ACTUAL 

16 TARGET 

12 

8 

4 

0 

-4 

FISCAL YEAR 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, the Department was able to reduce its scope 3 

greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent from a FY 2008 baseline 

by completing the following: 

DOT reduced its GHG emissions from employee 

commuting by 12 percent
 

DOT reduced its GHG emissions from business air travel 

by 13 percent 

DOT reduced its GHG emissions from business ground 

travel by 2 percent 

DOT reduced its GHG emissions from solid waste by 

10 percent
 

74
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

▶	 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

In FY 2013, the Department is expecting to achieve the 

following: 

A 16-percent reduction in petroleum consumption from a FY 

2005 baseline 

A 12-percent reduction in water consumption intensity from 

a FY 2007 baseline 

An 8-percent recycling and waste diversion rate from a FY 

2010 baseline 

Attainment of sustainability requirements by 95 percent of 

all applicable contracts by 2020 

A 6-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 

facilities and fleets from a FY 2008 baseline 

A 4-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 

employee business travel from a FY 2008 baseline 

Award of approximately $36 million in estimated project 

value savings through performance-based contracts 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

The Department is committed to achieving the above sustainability initiatives, however the following factors may impact the 

effectiveness of these efforts: 

Increase of core mission responsibilities 

Alteration of existing and future appropriation of funds 

New or revised sustainability requirements 

Other unforeseen circumstances outside the control of the 

Department 

PARTNERS 

The Department has formed a strategic partnership with DOE’s 

Federal Energy Management Program to implement energy, 

environmental, and sustainability activities. This partnership 

will identify opportunities to enhance Energy Independence 

and Security Act (EISA) evaluations and water conservation 

measures at DOT buildings. It will also help to increase the 

number of High Performance Sustainable Buildings (HPSBs) 

within DOT. Finally, the partnership will identify opportunities to 

improve fleet performance by reducing petroleum consumption 

and increasing alternative fuel use in DOT vehicles. 

Other key partners are FAA Real Estate Management System 

(REMS) managers, the Environmental Protection Agency, 

the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE), 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Services 

Administration (GSA), and Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD). Through community outreach 

programs and the DOT-EPA-HUD Partnership for Sustainable 

Communities, DOT works with local community, academic, and 

social organizations to carry out the Department’s commitment 

to sustainability. 

As a key member of interagency workgroups, DOT has worked 

closely with GSA and DOE to provide comments and recommen

dations on government-wide issues related to HPSBs, the 

greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and the employee commut

er choice survey. Conversely, DOE, CEQ, and OMB serve as 

oversight agencies, which issue guidance and review DOT’s 

annual sustainability and energy-related reports. 

­

­

REDUCE POLLUTION OR OTHER ADVERSE 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM DOTOWNED OR –CONTROLLED SERVICES OR 

FACILITIES (MARAD) 

MEASURE: Increase the cumulative number of ships safely 

removed from National Defense Reserve Fleet sites in an 

environmentally sound manner. (MARAD) 

MARAD is the U.S. Government’s disposal agent for federally 

owned merchant type vessels that are 1,500 gross tons or more. 

The Ship Disposal Program provides resources to safely remove 

and dispose of obsolete government-owned merchant ships 

moored in National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) sites in an 

environmentally sound manner. 

In October 2010, the Deputy Secretary announced that the 

Department was taking action to resolve the long-standing 

environmental challenges that have adversely affected the Suisun 

Bay Reserve Fleet (SBRF) and the surrounding community over 

the last several years. The SBRF is one of three NDRF sites 

operated by MARAD. The settlement agreement was filed with 

the Circuit Court of California against MARAD in 2007 for 

Clean Water Act violations, which resulted in a consent decree 

that specifies the number of ships to be permanently removed 

annually from the SBRF through FY 2017. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

The removal of each non-retention vessel from 

the SBRF mitigates the current threat to the local 

environment presented by loose exterior paint 

falling into the waters of Suisun Bay. The reduction 

in the size of the non-retention fleet also reduces the 

threat to the environment in the future. 

75
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

This measure concerns the settlement agreement resulting from 

a lawsuit filed with the Circuit Court of California against 

MARAD in 2007 for Clean Water Act violations, which resulted 

in a court ordered consent decree. The consent decree specifies a 

cumulative number of SBRF non-retention vessels required to be 

removed annually for fiscal years 2010 through 2017, until the 

57 ships specified in the consent decree are permanently removed 

from the SBRF. The measure is indicative of a level of progress 

that directly mitigates the further discharge of loose exterior 

paint into the waters of Suisun Bay. 

2012 RESULTS: TARGET MET 

Target: Remove 28 total vessels by the end of FY 2012. 

Actual: Removed 36 total vessels by the end of FY 2012. 

5.1 Cumulative Number of Ships Safely Removed from 

 the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet for Disposal 

ACTUAL 

50 TARGET 

40 

30 

20 

10 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*Program performance measure was initiated in 2010 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

MARAD reports a total of 10 vessels removed for disposal 

from SBRF in FY 2012, resulting in a cumulative total of 36 

ships removed since FY 2010. Achieving the FY 2012 goal 

was possible due to MARAD’s aggressive and timely competitive solicitation and award of contracts for ship recycling and 

drydocking services. MARAD also attributes the success to 

favorable economic, industry, and market factors since 2010. 

Expedited disposal of the obsolete ships lessens environmental 

risk, avoids negative environmental impacts, and reduces costs. 

Due to the presence of onboard hazardous materials such as 

residual fuel, asbestos, solid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

and exfoliating paint/coatings, environmental cleanup costs are 

often higher than the cost of proper and timely disposal. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

MARAD’s actual cumulative removals for FY 2012 exceeds the 

cumulative target for FY 2013. Despite exceeding the cumulative 

removal targets for the past three years, MARAD will continue 

to aggressively contract for drydocking and recycling services to 

remove SBRF vessels ahead of annual consent decree requirements. The cumulative consent decree target for FY 2014 is 38 

vessels. MARAD expects to exceed this target in FY 2013. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

Continuation of this level of progress is dependent on no 

significant increase in the cost of drydocking, ship disposal, and 

towing, which are affected by economic, industry, and market 

factors. Sufficient local drydock availability is also necessary in 

order to avoid impeding or delaying the removal of vessels from 

the SBRF. Additionally, sufficient appropriations are necessary 

to purchase drydocking services and recycling services if vessels 

cannot be sold. 

PARTNERS 

MARAD’s partners in this effort include the Department of 

Defense, State of California, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency. 

REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS, IMPROVE 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND REDUCE 

DEPENDENCE ON OIL (FTA) 

MEASURE: Increase the percent of alternative-fuel and hybrid 

vehicles in the transit revenue service fleet. (FTA) 

Responsible economic development minimizes impacts on 

non-renewable environmental resources. Public transporta

tion inherently supports this goal by maximizing efficiency in 

the transportation sector through shared rides and trips. For 

example, harmful emissions per transit passenger-mile are 

around half those per personal vehicle passenger-mile because 

transit combines multiple passengers into single vehicle trips. 

Thus, emissions can be reduced by providing the public with 

additional transit options that encourage them to rely less on 

transportation by personal vehicles, as envisioned by the DOT 

Livable Communities strategic goal. FTA is committed to further 

reducing energy consumption and harmful emissions from public 

transportation vehicles. This commitment also includes taking 

prudent steps to prepare public transportation infrastructure to 

withstand the impacts of a changing climate. 

­

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Although transit inherently promotes energy 

efficiency and reduces emissions in the transpor

tation sector through shared trips, these benefits 

can be further enhanced by reducing transit’s own 

energy and emissions footprint. 

­

WHAT ARE WE MEASURING? 

FTA’s National Transit Database includes a revenue vehicle 

inventory that records the primary fuel type of each vehicle used 

for carrying passengers in public transportation. The revenue 

vehicle inventory includes all modes of public transportation, rail 

and non-rail. This measure is a count of all such vehicles that are 

recorded as not being powered directly by traditional fossil fuels, 

divided by the total number of revenue service vehicles. 

76
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

2012 RESULTS: TBD 

Target: 46 percent of the transit service revenue fleet is 

represented by alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles 

Actual: 2012 data not available. FTA’s National Transit Database 

will report 2012 data in October 2013. In FY 2011, the baseline 

year for this measure, FTA met the goal of 45 percent of alterna

tive-fuel vehicles in the transit fleet. This includes rail vehicles, 

which are almost all electric and so are counted here as alterna

tive-fuel vehicles. 

­

­

6.1 Percent of Alternative-Fuel and Hybrid Vehicles in the Transit 

Revenue Service Fleet 

47 

45 

43 ACTUAL 

41 TARGET 

39 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012 2013 

FISCAL YEAR 

*This measure was developed in 2011. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

The number of alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles in revenue 

service continues to grow by approximately 1 percent each 

year. This reflects increasing investment in heavy rail and light 

rail transit, as well as increasing investment in hybrid and 

compressed natural gas buses. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

MAP-21 did not extend the Clean Fuels Bus Program as a 

separate, stand-alone grant program. However, FTA will continue 

to fund a significant number of transit vehicles through other 

grant programs. The ongoing decline in prices for natural gas 

continues to make compressed natural gas an attractive 

alternative for many transit systems. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

FTA does not directly purchase vehicles used for operating 

public transportation service. Vehicle purchase decisions, 

including the decision on fuel type, are made at the local level by 

transit agencies. 

PARTNERS 

FTA’s partners in this effort include transit agencies, State DOTs, 

local governments, and metropolitan planning organizations. 

REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS, IMPROVE 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND REDUCE 

DEPENDENCE ON OIL (FHWA) 

The transportation sector accounts for 28 percent of total energy 

use in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed for transpor

tation is in the form of petroleum. In addition, the transportation 

sector is a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 

accounting for 28 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2010. 

Transportation is also a major contributor to criteria pollutants, 

and as of 2010, some 123.8 million Americans lived in counties 

or regions that exceeded health-based National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for at least one regulated air 

pollutant. On-road emissions of criteria pollutants have declined 

substantially during the past decade; additional efforts are 

necessary to reduce criteria pollutants. 

­

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

Benefits to the public are derived from resources 

and tools developed by FHWA aimed at helping 

States reduce GHG emissions and lessen impacts on 

public health from transportation sources. 

2012 RESULTS 

FHWA developed a greenhouse gas and energy emissions 

policy analysis tool that can be used by States to analyze and 

evaluate numerous strategy alternatives and scenarios for 

reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and 

fuel consumption. As a screening tool, it provides the capabil

ity to compare, contrast, and analyze the effects of various 

GHG reduction policy scenarios on GHG emissions from the 

surface transportation sector at a statewide level. The FHWA 

tool estimates the amount of travel in terms of vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) and the resulting GHG emissions, including 

fuel use and electricity use for battery charging by autos, light 

trucks, transit vehicles, and heavy trucks. FHWA conducted three 

climate change mitigation and adaptation peer exchanges for 

metropolitan planning organizations that focused on minimizing 

the impacts of climate variability and change on transportation 

systems, and integrating climate change adaptation into agency 

programs, projects, and operations. The reports generated from 

the peer exchanges offered metropolitan planning organizations 

best practices and strategies for overcoming common challenges. 

The reports also identified future technical needs of the agencies 

such as tools to identify and prioritize vulnerable assets, and 

tools to help agencies communicate impacts and adaptation 

options. Several additional resources were released during FY 

2012, including the Climate Change Adaptation Peer Exchanges: 

Comprehensive Report and the Reference Sourcebook for 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation 

Sources. 

­

77
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

FUTURE OUTLOOK PARTNERS 

Key initiatives in 2013 will include:	 Partners in this effort include State DOTs, metropolitan planning 

organizations, EPA, and FTA. 

Funding transportation control measures to help attain 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards; 

Providing capital and operating funding for traffic 

management and traveler information systems including 

truck-stop electrification systems; 

Evaluating the fuel savings and emissions reduction 

potential of mitigation strategies including highway 

operations;
 

Examining the suitability of travel activity and other 

emissions model input data in coordination with source 

leads; 

Funding projects that reduce emissions in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas; 

Developing procedures for implementing Congestion, 

Mitigation, and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 

Program performance plans required under MAP-21 and 

overseeing implementation; 

Implementing changes to the CMAQ Program under 

MAP-21 focusing on the priority set-aside for fine particles, 

under 2.5 microns in diameter, that result from fuel combus

tion by motor vehicles and other sources and the program

ming of projects, such as diesel retrofits; 

­

­

Identifying eligible projects and evaluating emissions 

benefits and cost-effectiveness; 

Conducting research to develop climate change mitigation, 

adaptation, and livability strategies; 

Analyzing emissions and transportation models to project 

air quality impacts from surface transportation; and, 

Exploring the role of State DOTs and metropolitan planning 

organizations in the deployment of electric vehicles and 

infrastructure. 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations are 

beginning to develop plans and undertake actions to both 

minimize impacts on transportation infrastructure and systems 

and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation 

sources. FHWA provides information and tools to assist the 

States in addressing this issue. However, further progress 

depends on the competing needs and actions in each State. 

REDUCE TRANSPORTATION-RELATED 

AIR, WATER, AND NOISE POLLUTION AND 

IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEMS (FHWA) 

The continuing emphasis by FHWA on ecosystem approaches 

has promoted broader mitigation and ecosystem conservation 

strategies, and wetland acreage has been mitigated at a rate 

exceeding impacts. However, Federal investments in transportation systems and infrastructure will be made more sustainable 

by broadly considering the secondary effects of construction and 

land use consequences. Although transportation projects comply 

with requirements for management of stormwater runoff, more 

must be done to meet the challenge of reducing transportation’s 

contribution to water quality problems. 

PUBLIC BENEFIT STATEMENT 

By lessening the impacts on ecosystems (e.g., 

decline in water quality due to stormwater runoff) 

from the design, construction, and use of highways, 

the long-term quality and viability of environmental 

resources will be better ensured. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS 

In FY 2012, FHWA launched the Infrastructure Voluntary 

Evaluation Sustainability Tool (INVEST) to help State DOTs, 

metropolitan planning organizations, and others consider sustain

ability through every phase of the transportation infrastructure 

lifecycle, including system planning, project management, 

maintenance, and operation. The tool helps transportation 

agencies make informed decisions with limited resources to 

balance economic, social, and environmental factors. 

­

FHWA continued to promote an expanded use of mitigation 

banking and in-lieu-fee programs through its Every Day Counts 

Initiative. The agency hosted a national ecological webinar 

on mitigation and conservation banking, delivered training 

on mitigation banking and in-lieu-fee programs, encouraged 

cooperative activities for pooling resources to balance wetland 

gains and losses, and provided educational outreach at national 

meetings and conferences. 

FHWA hosted two national dialogues on Context Sensitive 

Solutions, developed case studies, and delivered webinars to 

improve the linkages between planning and environment, as 

well as strengthen community collaboration in the transportation 

planning and project development processes. In collaboration 

with Federal land management agencies, FHWA designed and 

78
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

constructed two context sensitive transportation facilities that 

provide access to national parks, forests, and refuges. 

FHWA continued research to better identify tools to help manage 

stormwater issues associated with transportation projects. In 

cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department 

developed the Stochastic Empirical Loading Dilution Model, 

which provides planning-level estimates of runoff quality for 

storm events from individual transportation projects. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK 

FHWA will continue its efforts to reduce ecosystem impacts 

through the following efforts: 

Mitigating the impacts on the human and natural 

environment resulting from road and bridge construction, 

reconstruction, replacement, restoration, rehabilitation, and 

system preservation projects, including eligible wetland 

banking and in-lieu-fee projects; 

Developing and/or supporting accurate models and tools for 

evaluating transportation measures and developing indicators of economic, social, and environmental performance of 

transportation systems to facilitate alternative analysis; 

Marketing and promoting the use of the INVEST self-evaluation tool by States, metropolitan planning organizations, 

and Federal land management agencies through webinars 

and other outreach efforts; and, 

Conducting research to explore the viability of electric 

vehicle travel and identifying infrastructure barriers to 

electric vehicle use.
 

PARTNERS 

Partners in this effort include State DOTs, metropolitan planning 

organizations, EPA, FTA, and Federal land management agencies. 

79
OTHER ACCOMPANYING 

INFORMATION 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL’S FY 2012 

TOP MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL’S FY 2012 

TOP MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL APPROACH 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) issues an annual report on 

the Department of Transportation’s top management challeng

es to provide a forward-looking assessment for the coming 

fiscal year. The purpose of the report is to aid DOT Operating 

Administrations in focusing attention on and mapping work 

strategies for the most significant management and performance 

issues facing the Department. 

­

In selecting the challenges for each year’s list, the OIG 

continually focuses on the Department’s key goals to improve 

transportation safety, capacity, and efficiency. In addition to the 

OIG’s vigilant oversight of DOT programs, budgetary issues, 

and progress milestones, it also draws from several dynamic 

factors to identify key challenges. These include new initiatives, 

cooperative goals with other Federal agencies, recent changes in 

the Nation’s transportation environment and industry, as well as 

global issues that could have implications for the United States’ 

traveling public. As such, the challenges included on the OIG’s 

list vary each year to reflect the most relevant issues and provide 

the most useful and effective oversight to DOT agencies. 

As required by OMB Circular A-136, the OIG’s report briefly 

assesses DOT’s progress in addressing the challenges identi

fied. To track management challenges identified from year to 

year, the OIG provides an exhibit to the report that compares the 

current list of management challenges with the list published 

the previous fiscal year. In addition, the OIG may refine the 

scope of the management challenge from year to year based on 

program developments, external factors, or other information that 

becomes available. 

­

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 1: ENHANCING 

THE DEPARTMENT’S OVERSIGHT OF 

HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND TRANSIT SAFETY 

ISSUE 1A: STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL MOTOR 

CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION’S (FMCSA) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER INDUSTRY TO 

REMOVE UNSAFE OPERATORS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

The Department has seen a historic downward trend in traffic 

fatalities and injuries. To maintain this momentum, FMCSA 

must continue to work with its State partners and stakeholders, 

including the oversight organizations, in fulfilling its core safety 

principles of raising the safety bar to enter the industry, requir

ing operators to maintain high safety and ethical standards to 

remain in the industry, and removing high-risk operators from 

the Nation’s roads and highways. In OIG’s Top Management 

Challenges report for FY 2012, OIG urges FMCSA to focus 

its efforts to remove unsafe operators on strengthening the 

Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) program, enhancing 

passenger carrier safety initiatives, and developing a risk-based 

approach for identifying reincarnated carriers. 

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In FY 2012, FMCSA closed 18 OIG recommendations, with five 

of the 18 recommendations pertaining to this Top Management 

Challenge. In the past year, FMCSA has continued to strengthen 

the CDL program through the recent issuance of regulations 

to tighten controls over State CDL testing. Because countering 

CDL fraud remains a challenge, tough counter-fraud action is 

imperative, and the agency is working aggressively with State 

and international partners to strengthen the CDL program and 

regulations. In FY 2012, FMCSA strengthened the CDL program 

by requiring all CDL holders to provide information to their State 

driver licensing agencies (SDLA) regarding the type of commer

cial motor vehicle they drive or expect to drive. Drivers operating 

in certain types of commerce (Interstate excepted and non-excepted, and intrastate excepted and non-excepted) are required to 

submit a current medical examiner’s certificate to their SDLA to 

obtain a “certified” medical status as part of their driving record. 

CDL holders required to have a “certified” medical status who 

fail to provide and maintain an up-to-date medical examiner’s 

certificate with their SDLA will become “not-certified” and may 

lose their CDL. SDLAs are now required to include the medical 

certification status and the information on the medical examiner’s 

­

81
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

certificate in the Commercial Driver’s License Information 

System (CDLIS). 

As part of the Department’s effort to increase motorcoach safety, 

FMCSA has cracked down on unsafe passenger carriers through 

surprise passenger carrier inspections, full compliance reviews, 

and enforcement actions. In the past two years alone, FMCSA 

has issued as many imminent hazard orders placing unsafe bus 

and truck companies out of service as in the previous 10 years 

combined. The agency has also doubled the number of bus 

inspections and comprehensive safety reviews on passenger bus 

companies. Roadside inspections of motorcoaches have jumped 

nearly 100 percent, while compliance reviews are up 128 percent. 

In addition, FMCSA has initiated a greater number of enforce

ment cases against unsafe passenger carriers. The agency is 

shutting down unsafe carriers as quickly as its authority permits, 

and Congress has provided FMCSA with greater authority to 

pursue unsafe “reincarnated” passenger carriers by establishing a 

uniform federal standard to help determine whether a new carrier 

is a reincarnation of an old, unsafe carrier. Congress has also 

approved a new procedure that would allow FMCSA to conduct 

bus safety inspections at en route locations such as rest stops. 

To ensure passenger carriers operating in violation of the motor 

carrier regulations are punished, Congress has also raised the 

penalty for operating illegally or without authority from $2,000 a 

day to $25,000 per violation. 

­

In FY 2012, the agency unveiled a “Think Safety: Every Trip, 

Every Time” pre-trip safety checklist that helps consumers 

review a bus company’s safety record, safety rating, and U.S. 

DOT operating authority before buying a ticket or hiring a bus 

company for group travel. The agency also issued a free smart 

phone application that provides a quick and easy way to look up 

the safety record of any motorcoach company before booking a 

trip. Through the wide-ranging Motorcoach Safety Action Plan, 

the agency plans to address the root causes of crashes, which will 

enhance passenger carrier safety. 

The practice of motor carriers “reincarnating” to avoid negative 

safety performance history or enforcement actions causes a 

risk of harm to the public, because it hinders the agency’s 

ability to enforce Federal safety regulations and carry out its 

safety mission. As part of its core safety program, FMCSA has 

implemented a number of programs and initiatives to crack down 

on motor carriers that reincarnate and has additional authority 

to remove from service motor carriers deemed to be unfit or 

declared imminent hazards. 

In FY 2012, an amendment to FMCSA’s Rules of Practice 

provided procedures for the agency to issue out-of-service orders 

and/or record consolidation orders when carriers are deemed to 

be “reincarnated” or “affiliated” companies have been created. 

This amendment responds to an OIG recommendation, which 

was subsequently closed. Similarly, FMCSA conducts a rigorous 

screening and vetting process of all household goods and 

passenger carriers applying for authority to operate. The agency 

is thoroughly reviewing and enhancing the vetting process to 

prevent “reincarnated” or “affiliated” carrier manifestations 

and is also considering the development of a risk-based tool to 

identify potential reincarnated carriers, as recommended by OIG. 

Deployed in December 2010, FMCSA’s safety enforcement and 

compliance model, Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA), 

enables the agency to identify high-risk motor carriers and 

achieve improved levels of compliance with Federal commercial 

motor vehicle safety and hazardous materials regulations. The 

agency continuously improved the model throughout FY 2012. 

CSA improves large truck and bus safety and ultimately reduces 

crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving commercial motor 

vehicles (CMVs). The tool allows FMCSA and its State partners 

to contact a larger number of carriers earlier in order to address 

safety problems before crashes occur. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

FMCSA continues to use all of the tools at its disposal to get 

unsafe carriers off the road, and the agency is working aggres

sively to address OIG’s recommendations and implement the 

additional authorities granted in MAP-21. To further strength

en motorcoach safety, the agency is committed to publishing 

a final rule on passenger carrier leasing in the near future, as 

recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board and 

reiterated by OIG. FMCSA will also collaborate with its sister 

agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) to implement other new MAP-21 provisions for 

motorcoach safety, such as those related to safety belts, passen

ger evacuation, and crash avoidance measures. MAP-21 also 

provides FMCSA with important new enforcement tools to take 

unsafe operators off the Nation’s roads by allowing the agency to 

revoke the registration of reincarnated carriers. FMCSA revised 

its vetting process to identify reincarnated carriers applying 

for authority to transport passengers and household goods. In 

FY 2013, FMCSA plans to develop a risk-based model to best 

target its limited vetting resources, as recommended by OIG 

and the Government Accountability Office. Once completed, 

FMCSA will expand the vetting process to all new motor carrier 

applicants. Similarly, the agency will continue to work with the 

States by strengthening the CDL program through regulations 

that tighten controls over State CDL testing. 

­

­

­

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

In FY 2012, FMCSA made significant progress in fulfilling 

its core mission of safety and has a number of initiatives and 

programs under way to continue to build upon its recent success

es. The agency recognizes the important safety work that remains 

to be accomplished, which is detailed in its new 2012–2016 

Strategic Plan. The plan presents a new comprehensive direction 

to focus the agency’s efforts on outreach, oversight, and enforce

ment resources directed at the entire CMV transportation lifecy

cle. It establishes a framework that places safety as the highest 

priority and employs FMCSA’s three core principles: 

­

­

­

82
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

Convening the first meeting of vehicle safety enforcement 

agencies from other countries to support the development 

of an international network and working group on enforce

ment issues to better identity safety defects and exchange 

information on recalls. 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

Raising the safety bar to entry; 

Requiring operators to maintain high safety and ethical 

standards to remain in the industry; and, 

Removing high-risk carriers and drivers. 

FMCSA has adopted a vision for the future to “Save lives 

by striving towards a crash-free and fully accountable CMV 

transportation lifecycle.” The agency will continue to strengthen 

its Federal, State, local, and stakeholder partnerships to achieve 

its mission, vision, and performance goals. 

ISSUE 1B: IMPROVING NATIONAL HIGHWAY 

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

PROCESSES FOR IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING 

VEHICLE SAFETY DEFECTS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

In 2010, NHTSA’s defects investigation program came under 

increased scrutiny due to complaints of sudden unintended 

acceleration and crashes involving Toyota vehicles. A 2010 OIG 

review of NHTSA’s Office of Defect Investigations (ODI) found 

that ODI needs to improve its processes for identifying and 

addressing potential safety defects, reassess staffing needs and 

skill-sets needed, and seek out more international collaboration 

to better identify and address vehicle safety challenges in an 

increasingly global automobile industry. 

This issue goes to the core of NHTSA’s mission to reduce 

vehicle crashes, fatalities, and injuries. Addressing this issue will 

strengthen the vehicle safety assurance process in the U.S., and 

it will build consumer trust and confidence in the vehicle defect 

identification and recall process. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In FY 2012, NHTSA developed an action plan to address this 

management challenge. Key efforts include: 

Upgrading the computer tracking system to make it more 

fully automated to better review and respond to the 40,000+ 

consumer complaints received every year; 

Developing a new computer program to increase the analytic power to synthesize safety complaints and information 

from the manufacturers to better identify emerging trends or 

concerns; 

Strengthening internal controls to ensure that all personal 

information of consumers who submit complaints is totally 

protected; and, 

▶

­

ACTIONS REMAINING 

Elements of the plan that will be implemented in 

FY 2013 include: 

Better coordination and linkage of pre-investigation 

information from disparate sources, including tips and 

information from outside organizations; 

Development of a formal training program for ODI staff 

to ensure that investigators stay up-to-date with the latest 

automotive technology and office procedures; and, 

Revision of the investigation process to develop a standard 

documentation and filing procedure to ensure more consistent and complete records. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

These changes to the vehicle defect and recall system will 

improve the standardization of pre-investigation and investi

gation documentation procedures, and the consistency of the 

investigation and recall processes. Coupled with additional staff 

training, this will result in a more efficient and effective system 

that will allow NHTSA to better identify, document, and address 

vehicle safety defect issues in the future. 

­

ISSUE 1C: FOLLOWING THROUGH ON NEW 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) 

INITIATIVES TO ENHANCE BRIDGE INSPECTIONS 

AND MAINTENANCE 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

One-fourth of the Nation’s more than 600,000 bridges are 

considered deficient, which means that they are experiencing 

significant deterioration or have substandard geometric charac

teristics. Maintaining and monitoring the safety of these bridges 

while they serve the traveling public is vitally important. FHWA 

and the States are firmly committed to improving the existing 

National Bridge Inspection Program (NBIP) as well as the level 

of compliance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards 

(NBIS). The improvements being made to FHWA’s oversight of 

the program will enable the States to achieve a consistent level 

of safety and more efficiently manage their bridges, keep them 

safe for the traveling public, maximize their service life and 

functionality, and position themselves appropriately for future 

advancements in data collection, technology innovation, bridge 

management, and health monitoring opportunities. 

­

83
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

FHWA worked expeditiously in response to the OIG’s 2009 

and 2010 reports by identifying ways for the agency to move 

toward more risk-based, data-driven oversight. In March 

2011, FHWA implemented its new bridge inspection program 

oversight process that enables the agency to more objectively 

identify potential safety challenges related to bridges and to 

more clearly monitor bridge issues in each State. As a result of 

the agency’s actions since this time, OIG has closed 10 of its 

total 14 recommendations. Among many other actions taken to 

improve its oversight of the bridge inspection program, FHWA 

initiated efforts to better track Federal-aid projects on structurally 

deficient bridges. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

FHWA is implementing a plan to collect element-level data in 

accordance with MAP-21 requirements for NHS bridges only. 

FHWA is updating the coding guidance that defines the data to 

be reported to the National Bridge Inventory database. Updating 

the NBIS regulation and seeking OMB approval of the data 

collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act are also part of the 

plan. The agency is working with OIG to close the remaining 

four recommendations from the 2009 and 2012 reports. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

During the initial year of its new oversight initiatives, FHWA 

assessed 1,196 bridge inspection program metrics or 23 bridge 

metrics in each of 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. A total of 71 percent of the metrics were assessed 

at the satisfactory performance level. Improvements are under 

way to elevate the remaining metrics to this level over the next 

several years. While the 2011 assessment results revealed a need 

for specific improvements in certain facets of State inspection 

programs, the establishment of the NBIP and NBIS resulted in 

a robust inspection program within the U.S. Bridge owners are 

aware of the importance of inspecting bridges in accordance 

with the NBIS and are committed to accomplishing the actions 

needed to ensure that bridges remain safe. The newly established 

oversight process has also enabled the States and FHWA to 

understand more strategically the national inspection program 

and to articulate its importance, status, and needs. From this 

baseline, the States and FHWA together can engage in discus

sions about the successes, challenges, and program improvement 

opportunities in operating our Nation’s bridges. 

­

The FHWA has increased its oversight efforts, primarily through 

the new metrics process and improvements in its NBIP oversight 

organization. This effort was initiated in a desire to improve the 

current program, even though the NBIP has a proven history of 

providing safe bridges for our Nation’s highway transportation 

network. Measuring performance is a key ingredient to assessing 

quality and improving processes and procedures. The level of 

assessment undertaken produced a comprehensive view of the 

entire program. Extensive reliance on data, along with on-site 

verification and consideration and prioritization of risk, were 

critical components contributing to the success of this effort. 

Each program area in every State was evaluated against objective 

standards, and the Plan of Corrective Actions was tailored to 

achieve compliance with the NBIS. 

ISSUE 1D: ENHANCING THE FEDERAL TRANSIT 

ADMINISTRATION’S (FTA) OVERSIGHT OF RAIL 

TRANSIT SAFETY 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

FTA has proactively established regulations for a State-managed 

safety oversight program for transit rail systems, established a 

program of voluntary oversight and recommendations for transit 

bus systems, including on-site reviews for selected systems, 

and established a required drug and alcohol testing program 

for transit operators. Lastly, new statutory authority in MAP-21 

directs FTA to regulate transit safety through the creation of 

safety standards and oversight protocols. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

OIG recommended that FTA use a Federal Advisory Committee 

to address transit safety issues. The Transit Rail Advisory 

Committee for Safety (TRACS) consists of up to 25 voting 

members, and it provides recommendations to the Secretary 

of Transportation through the Administrator of FTA regarding 

transit safety and other issues. The TRACS committee met on 

four occasions in FY 2012. 

In addition, FTA began laying the groundwork for the new 

Safety and Oversight Office, following the signing of MAP-21 

in July 2012. Accordingly, a senior executive was assigned to 

take the lead for establishing this new office, developing the 

programs and processes called for by MAP-21, and working with 

the public transportation sector to “right-size” the new safety 

program. FTA also moved proactively to bring in key personnel 

from other FTA offices and from other DOT agencies with safety 

experience to assist in these efforts. FTA is currently developing 

the safety rulemakings required by MAP-21, which will form the 

framework of FTA’s safety efforts for years to come. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

Under MAP-21, FTA obtained statutory authority to address 

specific transit safety issues such as hours of service and vehicle 

and track safety standards. MAP-21 also provides addition

al enforcement authority and resources for safety oversight 

programs. FTA’s new Office of Safety will carry out statutory 

requirements and develop guidance. 

­

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Under MAP-21, FTA will develop an Office of Safety that will 

enable FTA to create consistent safety standards and oversight 

protocols for transit systems. Expected results include safer 

84
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

transit operations for passengers and workers, a smaller proportion of transit assets that are past their useful life, and more 

effective administration of transit funding programs. 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 2: ENSURING 

EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT ON KEY 

INITIATIVES THAT CAN IMPROVE AVIATION 

SAFETY 

ISSUE 2A: IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING 

THE CAUSES OF RECENT INCREASES IN 

OPERATIONAL ERRORS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

It is unclear whether the increase of operational errors from FY 

2009 to FY 2010 is due to an increased error rate or to improved 

FAA reporting. Through continued auditing, the OIG believes 

that other factors are contributing to the increase in operational 

errors, rather than the Air Traffic Safety Action Program. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

On January 30, 2012, FAA implemented new orders and tools 

that support a proactive approach to safety management. These 

orders addressed the reporting of safety occurrences, quality 

assurance, quality control, voluntary safety reporting, and 

individual performance management. 

Concurrent with these orders, FAA implemented Comprehensive 

Electronic Data Analysis and Reporting (CEDAR), Falcon 3, and 

Traffic Analysis and Review Program (TARP). CEDAR provides 

a transparent data repository, and Falcon 3 provides replay 

capabilities linked in CEDAR. TARP electronically collects 

airborne RADAR loss of separation alerts in terminal airspace. 

Potential safety occurrences are reported by operational person

nel through a user interface into CEDAR. In addition, TARP 

alerts are collected automatically in CEDAR. These data are 

reviewed and validated by ATO Safety and Technical Training 

staff in FAA service area offices daily. From January 29 to 

September 1, 2012, 103,585 occurrences were entered/collected 

in CEDAR and 99,792 of those records were reviewed/processed. 

This resulted in the validation of 2,692 losses of separation 

during this same time frame. 

­

The Risk Analysis Process (RAP) is a defined method of 

assessing severity and repeatability along with multiple 

sub-factors associated with individual occurrences to determine 

the level of risk. 730 of the 2,692 validated losses of separation 

from January 30 to September 1, 2012, were identified as 

Risk Analysis Events. Of these, 22 were classified by the Risk 

Analysis Process as high risk. Aggregate data from risk events 

are used to identify the “Top 5 Hazards” each fiscal year. 

On September 17, 2012, Quality Control Checks and Validations 

were implemented in CEDAR to support Quality Control 

Programs at each service delivery point. These processes and 

associated CEDAR modules use available data to identify issues 

and ensure compliance with established quality control processes. 

Implementation of the TARP waterfall at all terminal facilities 

was completed on September 1, 2012. TARP alerts are now 

collected and processed in CEDAR for all eligible terminal radar 

facilities. 

Seventeen of 19 interventions associated with the mitigations to 

the Top 5 Hazards have been implemented. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

Three additional interventions associated with the FY 2012 Top 5 

Hazards have projected due dates during FY 2013: 

Determine feasibility of voice recognition software used to 

detect incomplete/incorrect read backs; 

Develop and provide annual refresher training on coordination requirements contained in facility standard operating 

procedures (SOPs) and letters of agreements (LOAs); and, 

Validate and/or improve the parameters for airport surface 

detection equipment issuing false alerts. This will be a 

collaborative effort including representatives from Terminal 

Services (AJT), ATO Safety and Technical Training (AJI), 

and Technical Operations (AJW). 

On October 1, 2012, ATO issued the Top 5 Hazards in the 

NAS for FY 2013. ATO will work collaboratively to identify 

corrective actions for those Top 5 Hazards and will continue 

efforts to complete the remaining interventions from FY 2012. 

Interventions implemented in FY 2012 will be monitored to 

assess effectiveness. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

FAA expects the ongoing collection and analysis of these new, 

larger data streams to continue to foster the development of 

interventions designed to mitigate those hazards associated 

with the highest risk events in the NAS. These interventions 

will impact those specific factors associated with areas of high 

risk. Continued monitoring of these interventions will ensure 

that the interventions have the desired impact within the overall 

framework of the Safety Management System. 

85
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

ISSUE 2B: MAINTAINING MOMENTUM IN 

ADDRESSING PILOT TRAINING AND FATIGUE 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

The February 2009 crash of Colgan Air flight 3407 underscored 

the importance of addressing long-standing concerns about pilot 

training and fatigue. In April 2010, FAA issued a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to revise crewmember 

training requirements. FAA also published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to revise flight, duty, and rest requirements 

for commercial carriers. The OIG believes FAA still faces 

challenges in terms of tracking pilots with poor performance and 

training deficiencies, overseeing air carrier programs aimed at 

improving pilot skills, and improving its awareness of the extent 

of pilot commuting and fatigue within the air carrier industry. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

FAA continues to work on its final rule to revise crewmember 

training requirements. Additionally, FAA issued an NPRM that 

proposed to revise the requirements to obtain an airline transport 

pilot (ATP) certificate and to require all pilots operating in part 

121 to have an ATP. FAA has also done work in the area of stall 

warning and stick pusher activations training by issuing an 

advisory circular (AC) on Stall and Stick Pusher Training and by 

revising the Practical Test Standards for the ATP. Additionally, 

FAA has initiated a rulemaking project to revise qualification 

standards for flight simulators to support stall training in a 

simulator. 

In January 2012, FAA issued its final rule on flight, duty, and rest 

requirements for commercial air carriers. Additionally, FAA has 

drafted four ACs to support the rule. The ACs address Fatigue 

Education and Awareness Training, On-Board Rest Facilities, 

Fitness for Duty, and Fatigue Risk Management Systems 

(FRMS). Additionally, as a result of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012, FAA initiated rulemaking to include 

part 91 operations into a flight duty period for part 121. Finally, 

FAA approved all fatigue risk management plans for part 121 

air carriers and continues to review and approve revisions as 

proposed by the air carriers. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

FAA anticipates issuing its final rule on crewmember training 

by October 2013. Additionally, FAA anticipates issuing its final 

rule on pilot qualification in the near future. FAA is waiting for 

final recommendations of an Aviation Rulemaking Committee on 

upset recovery. FAA will use these recommendations to update 

guidance on addressing and training for upset recovery. 

The final rule for flight and duty time limitations becomes 

effective in January 2014. Furthermore, the FAA will finish its 

review of literature on the effects of commuting on fatigue by 

October 2013. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

FAA anticipates that new regulations for pilot qualification and 

pilot training will better prepare pilots for part 121 operations. 

The agency believes the new flight and duty time regulations, as 

well as the requirements for a Fatigue Risk Management Plan 

(FRMP), will address commuting concerns through the require

ments for fitness for duty and fatigue education and training. 

­

ISSUE 2C: ADVANCING RISK-BASED 

OVERSIGHT OF REPAIR STATIONS AND 

AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

Weaknesses are present in the FAA Organization Designation 

Authorization (ODA) program, which is FAA’s program for 

authorizing organizations to issue approvals and certificates on 

the agency’s behalf. FAA has not adequately trained engineers on 

enforcement responsibilities, and some offices have not effective

ly tracked or addressed poorly performing ODA personnel. In 

addition, ODA significantly reduced the agency’s role in approv

ing individuals who perform work on FAA’s behalf. 

­

­

The Risk-Based Resource Targeting (RBRT) process is used 

by engineers and manufacturing inspectors within the Aircraft 

Certification Service. RBRT is an IT solution that assesses risk 

associated with certification projects and policy development. 

RBRT is a subjective analysis of risk and does not include 

detailed data, such as accidents, to assess the risk of non-com

pliances to regulations. RBRT has not been effective in measur

ing risk and directing oversight efforts to higher-risk projects. 

Additionally, there has been a shortcoming in the training and 

preparing of the engineers in the organization to use RBRT. 

­

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

FAA mandated that agency personnel review each ODA unit 

selection decision made by an ODA holder for at least two years 

after an ODA holder is appointed. After two years, the ODA 

holder may select unit members without FAA review if they have 

demonstrated satisfactory performance. Improvements to the 

FAA Academy’s Delegation Management course were incorporated to address the mandatory review of selection decisions 

and the appropriate role of the agency in reviewing selection 

decisions. 

FAA conducted additional training of the Boeing and Gulfstream 

Aviation Safety Oversight Offices (BASOO and GASOO) 

personnel to clarify the organizational roles and responsibilities 

of those personnel as well as the FAA organizations in which 

they interface. 

FAA Headquarters has developed a compilation of best practices 

associated with ODA oversight that will be used as a baseline 

to assess the effectiveness of the GASOO and BASOO offices. 

A plan to assess those offices and identify any needed policy 

86
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

changes is a part of the 2013 Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) 

Business Plan. 

Additional emphasis on ODA regulatory violations, including 

participation by headquarters personnel, has been added to 

FAA’s Compliance and Enforcement training to ensure that field 

personnel responsible for overseeing ODA organizations are 

familiar with the compliance and enforcement process and tools. 

Although engineers from FAA field offices have not historically 

been involved in compliance and enforcement, all engineers 

with compliance and enforcement responsibilities will now 

attend the course. 

FAA has created oversight procedures and tools that will be used 

by the agency to track ODA unit members who are removed 

for misconduct. These procedures will be incorporated into a 

future revision to Order 8100.15B, Organization Designation 

Authorization Procedures, FAA’s policy for oversight of ODA 

organizations. 

Notice (IR 8110.115) was published January 20, 2012, with an 

effective date of March 31, 2012, requiring all offices to use 

RBRT for type certification and supplemental type certification 

projects. Since that time, FAA has issued deviation memorandum 

allowing for continued voluntary use until the agency issues new 

certification process policy for Order 8110.4D. FAA expects to 

issue the new certification procedures policy in late 2013, which 

will include the use of RBRT in a more structured environment. 

A new learning module was deployed in August 2011 and 

designed to provide more training to the engineers and inspectors 

who are required to use RBRT. All required users were identified 

and the training was added to their learning plans for completion by 

March 31, 2012. Additionally, AIR conducted a series of demonstra

tions to show engineers and inspectors how the RBRT process 

works. The demonstrations include both a presentation on the 

purpose of the process and a live demo of the actual IT tool. 

­

In March 2012, AIR developed and deployed a new version of 

the IT solution that incorporates a number of items identified 

by the community of users to make the tool more user-friendly 

and categorize risk more appropriately. A continuous improvement team was identified in April 2012. This team reviews 

feedback and explores the effectiveness of the process as well 

as recommends necessary changes for the tool. The team will 

continue to work on a long-term basis to make the process use 

more objective data in risk assessments. This will require other 

AIR programs to come on-line to develop those data sources. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

FAA plans to issue changes to the policy in Order 8100.15 by 

August 2013. The revision will mandate review of ODA unit 

selection decisions (as currently required by policy memo), 

require procedures for removal of ODA unit members when 

mandated by FAA, and allow for tracking of unit members 

removed for misconduct in agency databases. Additional changes 

will include modification of the order to identify the specific 

procedural steps and tools necessary for tracking unit members 

who have been removed for misconduct. 

Headquarters personnel from FAA will assess the Boeing and 

Gulfstream Aviation Safety offices in 2013 to determine whether 

they are compliant with Order 8100.15 and meet ODA oversight 

best practices. This assessment will ensure that those organiza

tions are performing satisfactorily before adopting any similar 

management structures for other ODA organizations. The assessment and any associated policy changes that have been deemed 

necessary are expected by the end of FY 2013. 

­

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Increased FAA participation in the selection of ODA unit 

members will help ensure that appropriate performance feedback 

is provided to ODA holders. This performance feedback will 

improve the selection processes for unit members and ultimately 

allow authorization to select unit members without FAA review. 

This will relieve workload on the agency and allow for increased 

systems-based oversight of the organization. 

FAA tracking of ODA unit members removed for misconduct 

will ensure that these individuals are not appointed as FAA 

designees or perform functions for other ODA organizations. 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 3: ENSURING 

EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT OF HAZARDOUS 

LIQUID AND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE 

SAFETY 

ISSUE 3A: STRENGTHENING PIPELINE OPERATORS’ 

INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

Federal regulations require that pipeline operators develop 

Integrity Management (IM) programs, which include conducting 

inspections, identifying and repairing defects, and continual

ly evaluating risks to pipeline integrity. Over the last decade, 

effective IM programs have become a key component of 

PHMSA’s national strategy to improve pipeline safety and reduce 

pipeline accidents—especially in densely populated or environ

mentally sensitive areas. According to PHMSA, this program 

has resulted in the discovery and repair of almost 40,000 

anomalies that later could have resulted in accidents. PHMSA 

and its State partners regulate and inspect these IM programs. 

Despite PHMSA’s efforts to oversee and strengthen operator 

IM programs, there has not been an appreciable reduction in 

significant IM-detectable hazardous liquid pipeline accidents in 

high-consequence areas. 

­

­

87
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

The National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) recent 

investigation of the San Bruno accident raises a number of 

concerns regarding Federal and State oversight of gas pipeline 

operators’ IM programs. Specifically, the NTSB recommended 

that PHMSA expand the use of meaningful IM metrics; revamp 

its inspection protocols to validate operator IM data; ensure that 

pipeline operators’ leak, failure, and incident data are incorporated 

into their risk models; and establish performance goals 

for operators. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

PHMSA advanced the goals of the NTSB recommendation to 

develop and use meaningful metrics in pipeline operator IM 

programs in the spring 2012 Pipeline Safety Data Workshop, and 

the agency continued to work with stakeholders and the NTSB to 

evaluate ways to improve those metrics. 

Additionally, PHMSA initiated changes to the IM inspection 

format to include some meaningful metrics and to encourage 

inspectors to focus on the verification of performance measures, 

record adequacy, data integration, and risk analysis. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

In FY 2013, an Advisory Bulletin will be published in the 

Federal Register that reminds operators of gas transmission and 

hazardous liquid pipeline facilities of their responsibilities, under 

Federal integrity management regulations, to perform evaluations of their integrity management programs using meaningful 

performance metrics. 

A data workshop and an IM workshop will be held in 2013 

regarding these metrics. PHMSA will continue issuing guidance 

and communicating with stakeholders to implement these actions. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

While PHMSA has several additional efforts under way to 

enhance its IM inspection program, such as focusing on the 

quality and number of field visits, the agency faces challenges 

in accomplishing these improvements while meeting its other 

inspection activities. The other activities include inspecting 

pipeline construction, control room management, gas IM, and 

managing other programs. 

ISSUE 3B: ENSURING THAT STATE PIPELINE 

SAFETY PARTNERS EFFECTIVELY EXECUTE THEIR 

PIPELINE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

PHMSA distributes Federal grant funds to encourage States to 

take on more responsibility for overseeing pipeline safety and to 

improve States’ program performance. These grants increased 

from $37.9 million in 2010 to $42.5 million in 2011. Despite 

these investments, the San Bruno explosion and other high-pro

file accidents call into question the effectiveness of States’ 

oversight of pipeline operators as well as PHMSA’s monitoring 

of State oversight programs. The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB), in recommendation P-11-18 issued September 26, 

2011, noted weakness in how PHMSA monitors State oversight 

programs due to a lack of meaningful metrics to assess whether 

States fully execute their responsibilities. 

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

PHMSA initiated discussions with both the National Association 

of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the National 

Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) to 

evaluate ways to improve the oversight of State programs and 

correct identified deficiencies. Task teams were established to 

help develop meaningful metrics for State program oversight and 

to make data more widely available to the public. 

In March 2012, PHMSA undertook efforts to revise the integri

ty management inspection protocol to incorporate a review of 

meaningful metrics and focus on the verification of performance 

measures, record adequacy, data integration, and risk analysis. 

These goals were further advanced during a spring 2012 Pipeline 

Safety Data Workshop with applicable stakeholder groups. 

­

ACTIONS REMAINING 

A data workshop and an integrity management workshop will 

be hosted in 2013. The agenda includes focusing on the topic of 

developing meaningful metrics. 

An Advisory Bulletin is scheduled to be published in FY 2013 

to remind operators of gas transmission and hazardous liquid 

pipeline facilities of their responsibilities, under Federal integrity 

management regulations, to perform evaluations of their integrity 

management programs using meaningful performance metrics. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Improved State inspection and documentation of operators they 

oversee, resulting in better overall safety. 

ISSUE 3C: ADDRESSING HUMAN FACTORS IN 

PIPELINE CONTROL ROOMS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

A 2005 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) study 

found that some aspects of an operator’s pipeline control system 

influenced the severity of 10 of 13 hazardous liquid pipeline 

accidents. In many cases, the problems were aggravated when 

controllers monitoring the systems failed to quickly recognize 

and respond to leaks. For example, controllers in Michigan 

misdiagnosed Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

(SCADA) alarms and chose to ignore them, continuing the flow 

88
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

of product into the Kalamazoo River. Pacific Gas and Electric’s 

SCADA systems were not sufficient to quickly identify the 

location of the failure. In each of these incidents, the consequenc

es of the accidents were exacerbated because controllers failed to 

implement procedures to quickly shut down the flow of product 

in the pipelines. 

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In December 2009, PHMSA issued a rule requiring operators 

that use SCADA systems to develop and implement control 

room management procedures by February 2013. However, the 

agency moved the implementation time frame up by 16 months, 

to October 2011, for most of the required procedures due to 

growing concerns about operator control room management. 

This was also done in response to NTSB recommendation 

P-11-10 issued September 26, 2011, requiring all operators using 

SCADA systems to equip their systems with tools to assist in 

recognizing and pinpointing the location of leaks. 

A public workshop on control room management (CRM) issues 

was held in March 2012, and PHMSA’s Leak Detection study 

mandated by the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job 

Creation Act of 2011 included CRM issues in the statement 

of work. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

The Leak Detection study, performed by Battelle Memorial 

Institute, was completed in late 2012. PHMSA plans to update 

the NTSB with a copy of the study as it relates to gas pipeline 

systems and plans to update Congress about the liquid aspects 

of the study by no later than January 3, 2013. 

PHMSA also plans to create a Leak Detection webpage on 

PHMSA’s external website to provide background information 

about the issues, focus on the drivers of necessary changes, and 

explain the actions taken by PHMSA. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

As with operator IM programs, the challenge for PHMSA will 

be ensuring that operators develop and implement effective 

control room management procedures while also meeting current 

oversight priorities. 

ISSUE 3D: FACILITATING THE SUCCESSFUL 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECRETARY’S CALL 

TO ACTION 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

Nearly 450,000 miles of natural gas and hazardous liquid 

pipelines (about 17 percent of the total pipeline mileage) 

are more than 50 years old or of unknown vintage and were 

built with bare steel, iron, copper, or “other” materials. These 

materials are more vulnerable to deterioration and failure than 

most of the plastic or protected steel materials commonly used 

today. Moreover, the condition of distribution pipeline is often 

unknown. Virtually all of the gas distribution pipelines are buried 

underground, and most are inaccessible by internal inspection 

devices. States widely acknowledge the need to replace bare steel 

and cast iron pipeline, but replacement programs extend up to 

100 years in some cases, with high replacement costs. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

PHMSA used several public meetings to promote the need for 

the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of high-risk pipelines 

with consideration to rate recovery issues. Additionally, letters 

that urged a commitment to action were sent to Governors, other 

high-ranking State and Federal officials, and stakeholders. 

A publicly transparent national cast iron inventory system was 

created to show the national and State mileage of cast iron, 

high-risk pipeline infrastructure for each year since 2004. This 

system was created one year earlier than the Congressionally 

mandated date of completion. Additionally, PHMSA created the 

Pipeline Safety Awareness website (http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.

gov/pipelineforum/index.html) to document and communicate 

the efforts that PHMSA, stakeholders, and pipeline operators 

have accomplished and are undertaking in implementing the 

Secretary’s Call to Action. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

Work will continue indefinitely with State pipeline safety 

programs and pipeline operators to assure the continued identi

fication, repair, rehabilitation, requalification, or replacement of 

high-risk pipelines, including the investigation of new technol

ogies to mitigate pipeline risks. PHMSA continues to issue 

guidance regarding pipeline safety and high-risk infrastructure. 

­

­

The pipeline Integrity Management program will also be extended to gas distribution pipeline systems, as 80 percent of the most 

serious safety incidents occur on these systems. PHMSA has 

published rules for this action, but implementation will take 

several years. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Achieving the Secretary’s Call to Action will not be easy. First, 

PHMSA lacks the authority to require operators to accelerate the 

repair or replacement of high-risk pipelines. Second, PHMSA 

relies heavily on its State pipeline safety partners to oversee 

much of this work. Third, PHMSA must rely on key Federal and 

State regulatory agencies that play important roles in achieving 

the Secretary’s program. Given this limited authority and the 

sizable resources needed to achieve the Call to Action, PHMSA 

will be challenged to ensure that corrective steps are taken to 

limit the threat of high-risk pipelines. 

89
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶

▶	 

▶	 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 4: ENSURING 

EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT OF ARRA 

PROJECTS AND APPLYING RELATED 

LESSONS LEARNED TO IMPROVE DOT’S 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM 

ISSUE 4A: MAXIMIZING THE RETURN ON HIGHWAY 

AND TRANSIT INVESTMENTS BY IMPROVING USE OF 

OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

provided $8 billion in highway funds for projects adminis

tered by local public agencies (LPAs). The Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) corporate risk assessments had 

previously identified sub-recipients as one of the agency’s top 

risk areas, and FHWA recognized from the outset that ARRA 

projects administered by LPAs presented a uniquely challenging 

set of risks. Using a multifaceted approach to risk manage

ment, including information from single audits and results 

from FHWA’s programmatic reviews and its Financial Integrity 

Review and Evaluation Program, FHWA continues to address 

inherent challenges with LPA oversight on projects funded 

through ARRA and the regular Federal-Aid Highway Program. 

­

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

For ARRA projects between June 8, 2009, and July 18, 

2011, the National Review Team (NRT) conducted more 

than 1,400 reviews, resulting in approximately 1,800 

total NRT recommendations for FHWA Division Offices’ 

appropriate action. The NRT reviews included a focus 

regarding LPA oversight on ARRA projects. GAO considers the NRT a FHWA success, and FHWA has since added 

independent headquarters-based reviews to the Program 

Management Improvement Team (PMIT) efforts modeled 

after the NRT. 

In order to strengthen oversight of projects administered 

by LPAs, FHWA issued new guidance in February 2012 to 

divisions offices on LPA project activities determined to 

have high incidences of noncompliance. 

In September 2012, FHWA launched a new informa

tion-sharing initiative, Federal-Aid Essentials for Local 

Public Agencies, designed to help LPAs and State DOTs 

manage their Federal-Aid Highway Program projects. 

Federal-aid Essentials for Local Public Agencies offers a 

central online library of informational videos and resources. 

Each video addresses a single topic—condensing complex 

regulations and requirements of the Federal-Aid Highway 

Program into easy-to-understand concepts and illustrated 

examples. (

­

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentials/index.cfm.) 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

FHWA is developing new policy to establish uniform procedures 

and criteria for Division Offices to use when assessing the ability 

of the State DOTs to assure that Federal-Aid requirements are 

met on LPA-administered projects. This new policy will help 

formalize FHWA Headquarters’ procedures to assess and monitor 

the effectiveness of LPA corrective action plans to ensure 

expedited resolution of identified deficiencies. Issuance of the 

new policy is targeted for completion by April 2013. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

In direct response to FHWA’s corporate risk assessments, the 

agency’s efforts provide useful tools and guidance to address 

known compliance issues with Federal requirements for locally 

administered projects, thereby reducing the risks related to LPA 

projects. 

ISSUE 4B: STRENGTHENING FINANCIAL 

OVERSIGHT OF GRANTEES THROUGH SINGLE 

AUDITS AND DETECTING IMPROPER PAYMENTS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant oversight has 

been reported as inadequate by the Office of Inspector General 

despite corrective actions previously taken. Management 

must ensure accuracy regarding single audit findings and have 

mechanisms in place that effectively prevent or detect improper 

payments. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In FY 2012, FAA’s Office of Airports (ARP) continued to track 

OIG findings through the OIG’s Transportation Inspector General 

Reporting system (TIGR). TIGR is a report disseminated by DOT 

that provides recommendations for all Operating Administrations. 

This report includes all closed, resolved, and unresolved findings. 

Once the report is received, ARP works closely with OIG to 

resolve single audit findings. A status report is prepared for the 

Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports, which disclos

es the status and actions taken to resolve open audit findings 

under the responsibility of the regional offices. 

­

As recommended by OIG, ARP updated its guidance to field 

offices and airport sponsors regarding the completion of a cost 

analysis for AIP procurements. This guidance clarifies the 

elements of a price or cost analysis and becomes part of the basis 

for future project payments. 

Although the FY 2012 Action Plan stated that reminder letters 

were specific steps to be taken in FY 2012, ARP opted to satisfy 

that need with teleconference meetings. ARP held weekly 

guidance teleconferences with field office managers to discuss 

current issues. 

90
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶	 

▶	 

On October 31, 2011, a sample was sent out to the regional 

offices of those sponsors that expended $500,000 or more per 

year in Federal awards. The regions were required to respond to 

ARP with a status report complete with comments. The report 

included documentation that showed whether a sponsor had filed 

with the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. ARP required a copy of 

the letter that was sent to the sponsor by the regions, as well as 

documentation from the Clearinghouse. 

ARP advised the regions that the annual Internal Regional Audit 

will now include the single audit review. Each regional office 

is subject to an annual review by an analyst from a different 

region. Samples are pulled for the internal audit as well as the 

single audit. Each grant selected is compared against a checklist 

that includes all required information deemed necessary by 

ARP’s guidance. At the end of each regional review, the manager 

is provided with a status report which serves as an alert for 

inadequate findings. 

ARP worked with Deloitte contractors and completed a system 

for providing a more robust method of evaluating airport sponsor 

risks for managing AIP grants and funding. The system allows 

greater grant oversight on those sponsors that pose the highest 

risk for potential improper payments. 

The development of a draft AIP handbook is under way, and it 

includes updates to the grant oversight risk model and policy. 

This rewrite gives ARP and FAA field personnel the steps that are 

required to properly administer the AIP-funded projects. Internal 

FAA procedural requirements are being removed from the 

handbook. These procedures will be maintained in an operations 

manual. FAA anticipates making the handbook available for 

public comment in early 2013. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

ARP will continue using the methods and tools described above 

to consistently improve oversight throughout its programs. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

ARP has taken great strides to improve previously used 

techniques. The office will continue to manage the regions to 

obtain greater grant oversight to effectively prevent or detect 

improper payments. 

ISSUE 4C: PROVIDING VIGILANT OVERSIGHT OF 

THE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GENERATING 

ECONOMIC RECOVERY (TIGER) PROGRAM TO 

ENSURE EFFECTIVE EXECUTION OF GRANTS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

In February 2010, the Office of the Secretary (OST) awarded 

$1.5 billion (TIGER I) in ARRA funding for TIGER discretion

ary grants to 51 recipients across the Nation. These multimodal 

surface transportation projects are expected to support economic 

­

recovery. The anticipated year-end result will be that many 

TIGER projects will be substantially complete, and the impact 

of these and a few additional projects will begin to be realized. 

Congress provided an additional $528 million in FY 2010 

(TIGER II), $527 million in FY 2011 (TIGER III), and $500 

million in FY 2012 (TIGER IV) in non-ARRA funds for the 

TIGER Discretionary Grant Program. The continued funding of 

discretionary grants underscores the need for strong oversight 

controls. 

OST has used the terms and conditions in the TIGER grant 

agreements to ensure effective execution of the grants. 

Additionally, OST has negotiated performance measures with 

each grantee and has conducted limited on-site monitoring using 

a risk-based approach. 

OST relies heavily on four Operating Administrations—FHWA, 

FTA, FRA, and MARAD—to carry out the program and ensure 

that recipients meet ARRA requirements. OST and the Operating 

Administrations coordinate to oversee TIGER program perfor

mance and ensure efficient use of ARRA funds. Each relevant 

agency has procedures in place to administer the grants in 

addition to mechanisms to track and monitor individual projects. 

Such mechanisms include consistent and accurate reports from 

grantees, current program risk assessments, and performance 

measures to assess whether projects are meeting program goals. 

Additionally, OST has fostered communication among the 

agencies by establishing multimodal programmatic working 

groups. OST will continue to work to strengthen communica

tion and collaboration between the relevant agencies to ensure 

effective oversight and management of ARRA-funded TIGER 

projects. 

­

­

The TIGER program is a high-profile, multimodal program that 

serves a unique role in demonstrating the feasibility of compet

itive cross-modal discretionary grant making. The Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, in collaboration 

with the agencies, has taken the lead in ensuring these grants are 

managed effectively. 

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

OST used the terms and conditions in the TIGER grant agreements to ensure effective execution of the grants. OST also negotiated performance measures with each grantee. By the end of 

FY 2012, all TIGER I and TIGER II projects have been obligated, 

and limited on-site monitoring of project progress of 11 projects 

occurred in the fall of 2012. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

OST will continue working with the agencies and grantees 

to bring the remaining FY 2011 and FY 2012 TIGER grants 

to obligation. OST expects to fully obligate FY 2011 and 

FY 2012 TIGER grants by September 30, 2013; and 

The Department will continue monitoring progress on 

TIGER I grants.
 

91
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

The anticipated year-end result will be that many TIGER projects 

will be substantially complete, and the impact of these and a 

few additional projects will begin to be realized. Accordingly, 

OST will be able to implement lessons learned to improve the 

administration and oversight of the TIGER program. Moreover, 

the Department will be able to analyze data collected from 

performance measures. These data will be a useful tool as the 

department looks for ways to improve current formula programs. 

ISSUE 4D: PREVENTING AND DETECTING 

TRANSPORTATION FRAUD THROUGH 

PROACTIVE MEASURES 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

To avoid potential risks throughout its programs, management 

must ensure that adequate oversight is performed and accountability is taken in order to meet its goals. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In FY 2012, the Office of Airports (ARP) worked with Deloitte 

contractors and completed a system for providing a more robust 

method of evaluating airport sponsor risks for managing Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) grants and funding. The system 

allows greater grant oversight on those sponsors that pose the 

highest risk for potential improper payments. A policy has been 

issued and implemented for FY 2013 that addresses 

these concerns. 

As recommended by OIG, ARP updated its guidance to field 

offices and airport sponsors regarding the completion of a price 

cost analysis for AIP procurements. The guidance clarifies the 

elements of a price or cost analysis and becomes part of the basis 

for future project payments. 

The draft AIP handbook is well under way and includes updates 

to the grant oversight risk model and policy. FAA anticipates 

making the handbook available in draft form for training purpos

es in FY 2013. 

­

As an outreach and educational effort at the annual Recurrent 

Financial Conference, ARP discussed the importance of 

becoming more proactive in protecting the agency against fraud, 

waste, and abuse. The discussions during the conference included 

the types of indicators to be aware of for common fraud schemes 

and how to report suspected fraud. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

ARP is on track and will continue using the methods and tools 

described above to consistently improve oversight throughout 

its programs. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

ARP has taken great strides to improve previously used 

techniques. It will continue to manage the regions to obtain 

greater oversight and accountability. 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 5: 

MANAGING THE NEXT GENERATION AIR 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ADVANCEMENT 

WHILE CONTROLLING COSTS 

ISSUE 5A: SETTING REALISTIC PLANS, BUDGETS, 

AND EXPECTATIONS FOR NEXTGEN IN A FISCALLY 

CONSTRAINED ENVIRONMENT 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

The Department of Transportation and FAA have struggled 

with defining NextGen and setting realistic expectations for 

what can be accomplished in the near, mid, and long term. The 

current constrained budget and problems with existing projects 

are forcing FAA to rethink its capital investments and NextGen 

priorities. Therefore, FAA will face challenges in sustaining 

existing projects and facilities while introducing new NextGenrelated capabilities. FAA has yet to make critical decisions 

regarding (1) what new capabilities will reside in aircraft or in 

FAA’s ground-based automation systems; (2) the level of automa

tion for controllers that can realistically and safely be achieved; 

and (3) the number and locations of air traffic facilities needed to 

support NextGen. Finally, FAA has not identified clear goals for 

performance capabilities or metrics for the NextGen initiative. 

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

Ground Based Automation System (GBAS)—FAA has 

determined that the GBAS did not provide a strong enough 

benefits case to proceed with further deployment and acquisition, 

though FAA support and approval for production of non-Federal 

systems will continue to be available. Despite FAA decisions, the 

agency assisted two U.S. airports, Newark Liberty International 

(EWR) and George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), that 

pursued non-Federal GBAS installations based on airline 

requests. Additionally, Moses Lake, Washington; and Charleston, 

South Carolina, have installed or are installing GBAS as private 

systems. Other airport locations currently investigating installa

tion of GBAS include Chicago, Illinois; Jackson Hole, Wyoming; 

and Seattle, Washington. FAA continues to support early 

implementers of GBAS within the U.S. in order to gain much 

needed operational experience with the system. 

­

Human Factors—The level of automation for controllers is 

being addressed through ongoing human factors research and 

through development work being supported by external research 

communities. FAA completed a strategic training needs analysis 

92
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

(STNA), and a preliminary analysis was published in June 2012. 

The final STNA is scheduled to be published in the near future. 

FAA continues to work closely with the safety organization by 

performing analyses of potential hazards associated with human 

performance in the NextGen mid-term. The agency completed a 

Human Performance Hazard Assessment in February 2012 and 

the NextGen Human Error/Safety Database for Off-Nominal 

NextGen Conditions in June 2012—an analysis of errors and 

other human performance issues in the National Airspace System 

(NAS) in off-nominal conditions in the NextGen time frame. 

FAA conducted low-fidelity simulations to determine how to 

best integrate the environed level of automation and reduce risk 

by exploring the level of service that can be achieved given 

the introduction of automation. The agency completed these in 

September 2012 and the project has since been terminated due to 

budget constraints. 

Additionally, the Human Factors Branch at the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center is supporting program offices in En Route 

and Traffic Flow Management to study automation in air traffic 

control and to offer guidance for implementation. This fiscal year, 

FAA conducted high-fidelity Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) experi

ments that involved National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

(NATCA) controllers, delivered technical reports, developed a 

thin-specification, participated in the Future ERAM ComputerHuman Interface (CHI) Team, and conducted cognitive 

walkthroughs. In support of Traffic Flow Management, FAA 

conducted analyses of where automation should be implemented 

and designed, and the agency developed new automation for 

traffic managers. 

­

Future Facilities—FAA has been working with stakeholders on 

developing a plan for future facilities. 

NextGen Metrics—FAA published the NextGen Performance 

Snapshots (NPS) website in March 2012. The NPS is designed 

to provide reports on operational performance as a result of 

the implementation of NextGen capabilities. The NPS shows 

both metrics data, developed in consultation with the aviation 

community through the NextGen Advisory Committee, as well as 

anecdotal information about changes in select locations. The NPS 

is expected to evolve to reflect ongoing progress on implemen

tation and continuing collaboration with industry. The NPS is 

publicly available at 

­

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/. 

A summary of FAA’s NextGen implementation efforts 

during 2011 is available in the 2012 update to the NextGen 

Implementation Plan, which also provides an overview of 

planned implementation activities over the next several years. 

Activities documented in the Implementation Plan include work 

on NextGen’s six core transformational programs: Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast, Data Communications, 

System Wide Information Management, Common Support 

Services-Weather, NAS Voice System, and Collaborative Air 

Traffic Management Technologies. The NextGen Implementation 

Plan is published annually, and is available at http://www.faa.

gov/nextgen. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

FAA NextGen GBAS work is focused on requirements valida

tion, and it supports a long-standing need for an alternative to 

the Instrument Landing System (ILS) (i.e., demonstrating the 

feasibility of GBAS), with planned completion of FAA contracts 

by July 2014. The technical team will be funded through 2016 

to support design approval, as required. FAA is cooperating with 

early GBAS implementers at Newark and Houston. The goal 

is to gain operational experience with GBAS to support future 

business case decisions. There is no current FAA GBAS acquisition, and future plans have been delayed indefinitely. Current 

operational needs are being met by the ILS. 

­

For FY 2013, the Human Factors Branch is planning 

high-fidelity HITL studies for Separation Management (SepMan) 

and Integrated Arrival and Departure Control Services (IADCS). 

The Branch will continue its involvement with the Future ERAM 

Computer-Human Interface (CHI) Team and the design and 

development of new automation for traffic managers. 

FAA plans to continue working with the appropriate stakeholders 

on the future facilities issues. It is expected that the reports will 

follow when this work is complete. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Results of work conducted by the Human Factors Branch 

have provided FAA with valuable data that have helped refine 

its future research needs and develop various user interfaces 

and functions. 

Based on post-publication feedback from key industry stakehold

ers, the NextGen Implementation Plan has helped the aviation 

community understand the activities under way that lead to the 

implementation of NextGen operational improvements. The 

NPS has been highlighted to members of the NextGen Advisory 

Committee, and FAA expects the NextGen Advisory Committee 

to provide further recommendations and continued dialogue on 

performance measurement. The agency will continue to update 

both sets of information over time. 

­

ISSUE 5B: ADVANCING NEXTGEN’S NEAR-TERM 

GOALS AND REALIZING BENEFITS AT ALREADY 

CONGESTED AIRPORTS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

The NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Report 

emphasized the importance of focusing on near-term operational 

benefits, and it encouraged FAA to use existing technologies 

and equipment to generate real user benefits. The Task Force 

93
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶

recommended the development of optimized Performance-Based 

Navigation (PBN) procedures and airspace at major metropolitan 

area airports. The Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in 

the Metroplex (OAPM) program was specifically developed in 

response to the Task Force recommendations. While the OIG 

identified concerns with establishing detailed milestones and 

providing beneficial Required Navigation Performance (RNP) 

procedures, these issues were resolved early in FY 2012. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In FY 2012, FAA continued to evolve the OAPM program. Tasks 

completed during this fiscal year include supplementing existing 

staff with experienced program management staff and contract 

support in the program office, developing a new schedule that 

reflects other ongoing efforts and more effective utilization of 

program resources, and developing a detailed Operations Plan. A 

systematic, metrics-based process reflecting input from FAA and 

industry was used to initially prioritize projects, and in FY 2012, 

the office developed detailed project milestones, which are being 

tracked by several Federal organizations. Internally, OAPM 

management is well informed about progress, and updates are 

provided on a monthly basis to track progress and to ensure 

milestones are met. 

In FY 2012, the following OAPM program actions were 

undertaken: 

Completion of the Design Phase for three metroplexes 

(Washington, D.C., North Texas, and Houston); 

Completion of the Study Phase for one additional metroplex 

(Central/South Florida); 

Completion of studies at eight metroplexes (Washington, 

D.C., North Texas, Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Northern 

California, Southern California, and Central/Southern 

Florida); and, 

Initiation of the Evaluation Phase for three metroplexes 

(Washington, D.C., North Texas, and Houston). 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

FAA has no remaining actions to address the concerns raised by 

the OIG, but work will continue to advance the OAPM program 

and meet future milestones. Early in FY 2013, FAA expects to 

initiate the Design Phase at one metroplex (Southern California) 

and begin the Study Phase at another (Phoenix). 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Going forward, FAA expects to deliver benefits to all first-round 

OAPM sites by 2017. 

ISSUE 5C: RESOLVING PROBLEMS WITH THE EN 

ROUTE AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION (ERAM) 

PROGRAM THAT HAVE COST AND SCHEDULE 

IMPLICATIONS FOR CRITICAL NEXTGEN INITIATIVES 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

Originally planned for completion in 2010, the En Route 

Automation Modernization (ERAM) program has experienced 

delays due to software-related problems. These problems have 

had a significant impact on the overall schedule and program 

budget. The ERAM program is working to resolve these issues 

as cost and schedule challenges have an impact on maintenance 

of legacy systems and associated resources, workforce-training 

requirements, and other NextGen program schedules. 

94
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012	� ERAM’s safety risk management (SRM) process has been 

reviewed and improvements were implemented. The focus 

of the improvements strengthen upstream safety analysis 

by Air Traffic subject matter experts, increase sharing of 

build content early in the process to facilitate SRM planning 

activities, and standardize safety documentation signature 

processes for efficiency gains. 

The ERAM program office has renegotiated the ERAM 

contract with the prime vendor for FY 2012 and FY 

2013 to deploy ERAM at FAA Air Route Traffic Control 

Centers. This includes new contractor incentive structure(s), 

relationships between software milestones and the trigger

ing of those incentive(s), and agency controls to strengthen 

processes around software acceptance. 

­

The ERAM program continues to utilize the National User 

Team (NUT) to develop operational requirements for new 

software functions, thus improving the operational suitability and maturity of software before it is delivered to the field. 

The ERAM program has developed a standing work group 

within the construct of the contract between FAA, the 

National Air Traffic Controller Association (NATCA), 

and the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS) 

to collaborate on program strategy, software content, site 

implementation needs, and a range of other activities. 

The Automated Issues Management System (AIMS) is 

used by all Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) 

facilities to capture operational issues observed with ERAM. 

The current process for intake, analysis, and disposition of 

issues has been streamlined. This includes system enhance

ments for end-user tracking and query of issue status. 

­

The ERAM program has improved processes and standards 

for packaging builds using a newly formed National 

Packaging Team (NPT) to provide more transparent and 

timely communication to facilities about build content and 

to enhance collaboration across program stakeholders as 

part of the packaging process. 

The ERAM program has initiated a series of deep-dive 

architecture reviews of the system. Lockheed Martin, the 

prime contractor, is conducting some of the reviews, and 

others involve an independent review, which is being led by 

the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 

This work focuses on areas of system stability, reliability, 

and interoperability with other NextGen systems. 

As a means of proactively managing cost and schedule 

performance, the ERAM program has expanded its existing 

earned value management (EVM) approach to serve as a 

program-wide performance reporting tool rather than solely 

focusing on the prime vendor activities. This will improve 

the ability of the program to comprehensively assess cost 

and schedule performance. 

A new governance planning board was implemented to 

establish a mechanism that allows ERAM leadership to 

monitor the overall health of the program from shorterterm operational and long-term strategic perspectives. The 

governance planning board will also assist ERAM leader

ship in implementing practices that increase efficiencies in 

managing change, coordinating schedules, and reporting 

progress. 

­

ACTIONS REMAINING 

In the near future, FAA expects to receive: 

Recommendations on the ERAM Architecture review; 

Initial recommendations on the ERAM IV&V project; and, 

Recommendations from the ERAM software planning and 

issues analysis board review. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Based on the approach outlined above, the ERAM program is 

expecting to see improvements in schedule and cost performance, 

thus addressing the issues raised in the report. The program 

expects to see a decline in software and technology related 

issues given the strengthened controls and end-user involvement 

throughout the system development lifecycle. 

ISSUE 5D: COMPLETING AN INTEGRATED 

MASTER SCHEDULE FOR NEXTGEN’S 

TRANSFORMATIONAL PROGRAMS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

FAA has not yet developed an integrated master schedule 

(IMS) for implementing NextGen Transformational Programs 

or established total program costs, schedules, or performance 

baselines. Decision makers in Congress, the Department, and the 

agency lack sufficient information to assess NextGen progress 

as requirements evolve. Without a master schedule, FAA will 

continue to be challenged to assess progress with NextGen 

efforts, establish priorities, and make necessary trade-offs 

between programs. 

95
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

FAA has made significant progress this year implementing 

the new Idea-to-In Service Process (i2i process). The i2i 

process provides the necessary structure and governance to 

better manage changes to programs, systems, NAS policy, 

and procedures, while complementing FAA’s Acquisition 

Management System (AMS). Additionally, both the NextGen and 

Air Traffic Organization (ATO) organizations have completed 

organizational changes that improve the strategic direction of 

NextGen and enhance ATO program management. Both actions 

support the development of the NextGen IMS. 

The next release of the NextGen Segment Implementation 

Plan (NSIP 5.0) has been drafted. NSIP 5.0 includes updates to 

Segment Alpha capabilities through 2015 as well as integrated 

planning data for Segment Bravo Operational Improvements and 

associated increments scheduled for implementation between 

2016 and 2020. NSIP Alpha updates reflect programmatic 

changes resulting from recent budget constraints and technical 

challenges. 

Initial NSIP Alpha 4.0 Operational Improvement schedules have 

been developed within the NextGen IMS for 10 NSIP Portfolios, 

as well as for NextGen Solution Set pre-implementation activi

ties funded with FY 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012 monies. 

­

Portfolio Management Review teams, led by recently appointed 

Investment Portfolio Managers (IPMs), have continued NSIP 

portfolio execution quarterly reviews. These reviews provide 

a cross-agency forum to review portfolio accomplishments, 

identify challenges to implementation and develop mitigation 

strategies, and provide updates to the IMS. Summary progress 

reports were provided to the NextGen Management Board 

(NMB) following the quarterly Portfolio Reviews. 

Finally, the 2012 NextGen Implementation Plan was published 

in March. The plan included schedule and programmatic 

information for NSIP 4.0 Portfolios and NextGen Solution 

Set pre-implementation activities. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

Complete the NextGen Segment Implementation Plan 

version 5.0 with ratification by the NextGen Management 

Board by December 2012. NSIP 5.0 will include Operation 

Improvements, capability increments, and schedule 

planning information for implementation activities through 

2020. 

Validate and baseline all NSIP Portfolio and NextGen 

Solution Set IMS schedules by the end of October 2012 

and identify key dependencies within and across NSIP 

Portfolios and Solution Sets by the end of CY 2012. 

Complete NSIP Portfolio Reviews for the remaining CY 

2012 quarter and report progress and issues to the NextGen 

Management Board. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

The NSIP Portfolio Management Framework will allow for 

development of an Integrated NextGen Program Plan that is 

baselined and progressed in the NextGen IMS. The NSIP and 

IMS will provide key Enterprise Management Tools for the 

integration and sequencing of NextGen initiatives. 

ISSUE 5E: CONTROLLING OPERATING 

COSTS THAT COULD CROWD OUT NEXTGEN 

CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
�

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

In 2009, FAA entered into a three-year collective bargaining 

agreement with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

(NATCA). FAA estimated that the agreement with NATCA 

would cost the agency $669 million more than it would have 

cost to extend the 2006 contract for three more years. The 

2009 contract also allows FAA and NATCA to negotiate local 

and regional memorandums of understanding (MOUs). Given 

past issues with unexpected cost overruns related to collective 

bargaining agreements, it is essential that FAA monitor and 

control costs associated with the current and successor NATCA 

agreements. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

Through the first two years of the NATCA contract (FY 2010 and 

FY 2011), FAA’s labor cost estimates were 99.6 percent accurate 

compared to actual payroll costs. Through July 2012, FY 2012 

payroll costs are also consistent with FAA’s original forecast. 

In addition to developing and maintaining accurate pay modeling 

tools, FAA has been able to keep costs in line with expectations 

through successful workforce planning. The agency has utilized 

multiple resources to develop accurate attrition forecasts and 

estimates on training times for new controllers. This, in turn, has 

allowed FAA to develop and execute new hire plans to ensure 

that new controllers are employed in the right place at the right 

time. 

FAA has also shown considerable improvement in compliance 

with established MOU processes. Briefings and supplemental 

training for the labor relations staff as well as outlining and 

emphasizing the proper procedures to follow when negotiating 

an MOU (and the subsequent updating of the MOU database 

[LERIS]) occur on a periodic basis. In addition, the standard 

operating procedures (SOPs) for the MOU database were 

recently reissued with a reinforced section on the requirement for 

including MOUs and supporting documentation. 

Finally, FAA recently signed an extension to the 2009 NATCA 

contract that will run into 2016. As part of the extension, FAA 

and NATCA agreed to future pay provisions that will ensure 

that controller pay increases will be generally the same as those 

96
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

granted to other FAA and Federal employees. This extension not 

only helps maintain the collaborative labor-management relationship, but it also ensures FAA costs are maintained at expected 

levels in the coming years. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

In the near future, FAA will conduct an internal review to 

compare actual FY 2012 costs with its original estimates to 

identify variances. In the future, FAA will use this information to 

adjust and improve the models, as needed. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

As a result of FAA’s increased focus on labor costs, workforce 

planning, and controls related to the MOU process, FAA expects 

that near-term payroll costs for the controller workforce will 

grow at a slower rate over the next few years than in the years 

immediately following the implementation of the 2009 contract. 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 6: MANAGING 

DOT ACQUISITIONS IN A MORE STRATEGIC 

MANNER TO MAXIMIZE LIMITED 

RESOURCES AND ACHIEVE BETTER 

MISSION RESULTS 

ISSUE 6A: STRENGTHENING DOT’S ACQUISITION 

FUNCTIONS AND PLANNING PROCESSES TO 

MANAGE ACQUISITIONS MORE STRATEGICALLY 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

OST and the Operating Administrations (OAs) have not 

implemented an effective acquisition and planning framework. 

A key concern is that DOT’s acquisition leaders and contracting 

officers do not have enough input into program planning and 

decision making to ensure that the billions of dollars DOT spends 

on contracting each year are cost effective and tied to mission 

success. 

Improved OA and OST strategic management of acquisition and 

acquisition planning have the potential to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of the Department’s acquisition program. A 

more effective acquisition planning program will support the cost 

effective use of resources. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In FY 2012, the Department: 

Established the Strategic Sourcing Executive Steering 

Committee (SSESC); and,
 

Leveraged the Strategic Acquisition Council (SAC) to 

help support strategic communication across all operating 

administrations. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

Over the next two years, the Department plans to: 

Finish Phase Two of Strategic Sourcing, which focuses on 

broader, more complex commodities, such as management 

support services and software and maintenance; and, 

Begin Phase Three of Strategic Sourcing, which addresses 

more complex categories, such as engineering services and 

program management support services. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Both the SSESC and SAC are playing major roles in the strategic 

management of acquisitions. The completion of five strategic 

sourcing decisions resulted in approximately $201 million in 

savings in FY 2012. 

ISSUE 6B: EQUIPPING DOT TO PERFORM EFFECTIVE 

MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT OF ITS ACQUISITIONS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

Weaknesses in DOT’s contract oversight and surveillance 

limits its ability to achieve desired contract results and save 

taxpayer dollars. DOT has not developed adequate training for 

performance monitors. A sustained focus on developing reliable 

information and data management systems will position DOT to 

conduct more strategic acquisitions. 

Improved contract oversight and surveillance will support the 

Department’s ability to ensure successful contract performance, 

and it will result in the more efficient use of contract dollars. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In FY 2012, DOT initiated a comprehensive update to the 

Transportation Acquisition Regulation (TAR) and Transportation 

Acquisition Manual (TAM). This project is still under way. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

Complete update of TAR and TAM within the next fiscal 

year; and, 

Develop and initiate a system of Program Management 

Reviews (PMRs) in cooperation with the 

operating administrations. 

97
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶

▶	 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

The update of the TAR and TAM will provide the foundational procedures and guidance to operating administrations. The 

foundational procedures will help produce more reliable contract 

oversight strategies and procedures used across the operating 

administrations. 

Conducting PMRs will help identify specific acquisition areas 

that require greater attention or guidance; the reviews will also 

identify organizational best practices that can be shared across 

the Department. 

ISSUE 6C: STRENGTHENING THE ACQUISITION 

WORKFORCE TO MANAGE DOT’S CONTRACTS FOR 

GOODS AND SERVICES 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

DOT relies on its acquisition workforce to negotiate and 

administer thousands of complex contracts valued at more than 

$5-billion annually. However, DOT has not made sufficient 

progress in implementing the strategies and goals in its acquisi

tion workforce strategic Human Capital Plan to increase the 

capability of the workforce. 

­

A skilled and knowledgeable acquisition workforce is central to 

the effective management of the Department’s $5-billion acquisition program. Through a more capable acquisition workforce, the 

Department will be able to leverage best practices, innovative 

acquisition strategies, and oversight techniques to improve the 

overall management of the Department’s acquisition programs. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In FY 2012, the Department: 

Leveraged the Strategic Acquisition Council (SAC) to 

highlight the importance of acquisition workforce training 

and Federal Acquisition Certificate (FAC) certification rates; 

Sponsored contracting officer’s representative (COR) 

training at DOT headquarters, in cooperation with the 

Federal Acquisition Institute; 

Identified and promoted the use of other free training 

opportunities offered by other Federal agencies; and, 

Leveraged government-wide contracts to help support the 

development of an OA-specific COR training course that 

meets FAC-COR certification requirements. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

In FY 2013, the Department plans to: 

Continue focusing on increasing FAC certification rates 

(FAC-C/FAC-COR); and, 

Increase training opportunities through both internal and 

external sources. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Resulting from these efforts, the Department expects: 

Increased career development opportunities that strengthen 

the skills and capabilities of the acquisition workforce and 

improve retention rates; and, 

Improved acquisition strategies, contract oversight, and 

compliance. 

ISSUE 6D: MAINTAINING PROGRAMS TO HELP 

ENSURE HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS AMONG 

DOT’S CONTRACTORS, EMPLOYEES, AND 

GRANT RECIPIENTS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

Various audits have concluded that there is a need for more 

vigilant oversight to detect and prevent both procurement and 

grant fraud, waste, and abuse within DOT and among its contractors and grant recipients. 

Ensuring high ethical standards and preventing fraud, waste, 

and abuse are central pillars to managing a credible acquisition 

program. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

As part of the Department’s FAC certification programs, all 

applicants are required to complete training, which includes 

specific coverage of ethics for acquisition personnel; and, 

The Department provided training to Agency Program 

Coordinators for the purchase card program, which included identifying purchase card fraud. 

98
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

ACTIONS REMAINING	� ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

Over the next two fiscal years, the Department plans to: The Department has moved up the capability maturity scale for 

programs that comply with the Federal Information Security 

Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), focusing on implementa

tion of policy and guidance by Departmental components and 

sub-components, and improving testing and integration with the 

Department’s IT governance. In FY 2012, the Department: 

Continue its focus on ethics training as part of all FAC 

certification programs; 

Initiate Program Management Reviews (PMRs) of operating administrations; 

Enhance the Suspension and Debarment System to 

safeguard against making awards to improper parties;
 

Mandate use of the “Do Not Pay” list; 

Include sessions that concentrate on ethics and fraud 

prevention during its annual procurement conference; and, 

Continue focusing on COR training, including procurement 

oversight. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Training will result in a greater understanding of procurement ethics and standards; 

Use of the “Do Not Pay” list will assist the Department in 

reducing improper payments; and, 

Improved oversight will help to prevent fraud, waste, and 

abuse of Federal resources. 

CHALLENGE 7: IMPROVING THE 

DEPARTMENT’S CYBERSECURITY 

ISSUE 7A: ESTABLISHING A ROBUST INFORMATION 

SECURITY PROGRAM 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

Various audits and assessments have recommended enhancements to the Department’s cybersecurity and information 

assurance program. 

­

Deployed an enterprise continuous monitoring solution 

across nine components and increased visibility to 66 

percent of known assets; 

Increased Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card 

enablement to 67 percent of personnel among non-FAA 

components; 

Issued significant guidance on the management and reporting of security weaknesses; 

Deployed technology to protect Departmental mobile 

devices;
 

Initiated deployment of a secure telework solution; and, 

Deployed workflow applications to improve oversight and 

auditing capabilities. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

In the next two fiscal years, the Department plans to: 

Establish regular perimeter vulnerability assessments of 

DOT networks; 

Establish risk and compliance reviews feeding the agency 

IT governance program; 

Establish a penetration-testing capability and begin testing 

DOT systems; 

Enhance network boundary protections to achieve 100 

percent use of authorized Internet access points, and at least 

90 percent compliance with Federal standards; 

Expand coverage of enterprise continuous monitoring to 95 

percent of assets; 

Increase the required use of PIV smart cards to 85 percent 

of agency personnel; and, 

Integrate cybersecurity risk management into the agency 

enterprise architecture. 

99
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶

▶

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

The Department’s cybersecurity program will begin to produce 

results derived from new policies. However, current plans 

for deployment of technology and services extend into 2014. 

Following full deployment, the Department expects: 

Performance for cybersecurity goals to exceed minimum 

Federal targets, and approach desired targets established 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS); 

Maturation of capabilities that support more timely corrective action; 

Security incidents associated with unauthorized access to 

be reduced through increased use of PIV cards for network 

login; and, 

Comprehensive cybersecurity risk information to facilitate 

improved resource prioritization and decision making. 

ISSUE 7B: STRENGTHENING AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 

SYSTEM PROTECTIONS 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

FAA’s planned Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) relies on a number of new technologies to achieve its 

goals. NextGen relies on the use of Internet Protocol (IP)-based 

commercial products and web applications, which are inherently 

more vulnerable to security risks than proprietary software. FAA 

is also outsourcing more of its operations to contractors. Because 

FAA owns only the data, not the system, it may have little control 

over security challenges that could arise. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

The Air Traffic Organization (ATO) established a formal security 

policy for NextGen-outsourced NAS systems and services 

through release of FAA Order 1370.114, “Implementation 

of FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure Services and 

Information Security Requirements in the NAS,” which defines 

security control requirements for both FAA-owned NAS data and 

systems and contractor-owned NAS systems and services. 

ATO has implemented a layered NAS security architecture to 

provide protection, detection, and response for NAS IP-based 

services and systems. This defense-in-depth approach comprises 

the following layers: 

Enterprise secure boundary protection services via the 

NAS Enterprise Security Gateway (NESG) that have been 

integrated into NextGen system development; 

Enterprise NAS network cyber detection and monitoring 

capabilities via the FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure 

NAS Intrusion Detection System (IDS) that has been 

integrated with NAS Cyber Operations (NCO). This cyber 

monitoring capability provides complete cyber situational 

awareness for the interconnected NAS; and, 

The foundation layer is anchored through governance that 

established an anomaly-based approach to NAS real-time 

cyber event detection and response (1370.101A draft). 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

FAA has no actions remaining to address this concern. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

FAA now has a set of enforceable security requirements for 

non-FAA-owned NAS services and systems that allow FAA to 

control the security of both FAA-owned NAS data and systems 

and contractor-owned NAS systems and services. FAA also has 

a layered security architecture that provides defense-in-depth 

protection against IP and web-based security threats. 

ISSUE 7C: INCREASING PROTECTION 

OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE 

INFORMATION (PII) 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

Increasing dependency on information systems, dramatic advanc

es in information technologies, and significant growth in new 

applications of those technologies in such areas as cloud comput

ing, Smart Grid, and mobile computing, information security 

and privacy are taking on new levels of importance in the public 

and private sectors. Protecting the privacy of individuals whose 

personally identifiable information (PII) is collected, used, 

maintained, shared, and disposed of by programs and informa

tion systems is a fundamental responsibility of the Department. 

­

­

­

100
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

ACTION TAKEN IN FY 2012 RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

In FY 2012, the Department focused on the following efforts: The Department currently faces significant risk of unauthorized 

collection, use and exposure of PII. Implementing a robust 

privacy program allows for privacy controls to be injected into 

the business and system development lifecycles early in the 

process, and it increases staff awareness of their responsibility to 

protect PII and report unauthorized activity. 

Compliance—Initiated biennial review of all DOT system 

of records notices (SORN) as required by the Privacy Act 

with particular emphasis on identifying scheduled records 

which should be disposed; 

Integration—Drafted new processes requiring privacy and 

records management review of all information collection 

requests to ensure limited PII collection and appropriate 

notice to subjects of collection; 

Data Loss Prevention—Engaged DOT’s Chief Information 

Security Officer (CISO) to establish policy and standards 

for “allowable” externally connected devices and identi

fied implementation costs and other resource constraints. 

Engaged with the CISO to identify capabilities within 

already deployed technologies that may be leveraged to 

support automated detection; 

­

Risk Management—Drafted new DOT Privacy Risk 

Management policy establishing roles and responsibilities 

for DOT and OA privacy programs; and, 

Transparency and Outreach—Participated in internal 

discussions and public forums regarding the Department’s 

high-profile activities with privacy risk implications such 

as the vehicle-to-vehicle, unmanned aerial vehicle, and 

electronic on-board recorder programs. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

Developing a robust culture of privacy within the Department 

will require a sustained effort over a number of years. Once the 

base culture is established, the Department will be required to 

apply resources on an ongoing basis to ensure that the process, 

policy, and technologies deployed protect PII and maintain 

currency with emerging threats. Over the next two fiscal years, 

the Department plans to: 

Develop an integrated data risk management approach 

encompassing privacy, records management, and information collection activities; 

Automate identification and subsequent protection of 

unprotected sensitive PII; 

Implement metrics-based management of privacy program 

based on NIST 800-53 Appendix J Privacy Controls; and, 

Enhance outreach to internal and external stakeholders 

regarding the use of automated data collection activities. 

ISSUE 7D: CREATING AN EFFECTIVE DEPARTMENTWIDE ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE (EA) PROGRAM 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

The Clinger-Cohen Act requires DOT to develop, maintain, and 

facilitate the implementation of a sound, secure, and integrated 

information technology architecture. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Common Approach to Federal Enterprise 

Architecture identifies Enterprise Architecture (EA) as the way to 

accelerate agency business transformation and new technology 

enablement. This is made possible by providing standardiza

tion, design principles, scalability, and a repeatable architecture 

project method that is more agile and useful and will produce 

more authoritative information for intra- and inter-agency 

planning, decision-making, and management. The OIG Findings 

on the DOT EA indicate that DOT is not currently meeting the 

requirement to have an effective enterprise architecture program. 

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

DOT is reinvigorating its EA program to support Departmental 

management planning and decision-making processes with 

quantitative information that ensures IT investments are delivering their desired outcomes. During FY 2012, the Department: 

Developed an Enterprise Roadmap that aligned with 

updated OMB guidance including Common Approach 

to Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), Collaborative 

Planning Methodology, Federal Shared Services Strategy, 

and PortfolioStat; 

Developed a draft Enterprise Architecture policy; 

Created a draft IT Software Standards Profile for Web 

Services to support interoperable services reuse across all 

segments; 

Conducted segment architecture reviews for grants and 

human resources systems in support of the PortfolioStat; 

and, 

Worked to close audit finding #6 from OIG Report FI-2012-

086 based on the submission of a PortfolioStat Plan for 

reduction of commodity IT. The audit findings #3 and #4 

were closed based on the FY 2014 budget submission for 

additional EA resources and contract services. 

101
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

In FY 2013, the Department plans to: 

Create an EA Board Charter and process for integration 

of EA into the major IT governance processes including 

strategic planning, acquisitions, investment management, 

and program control; 

Establish a process to synchronize the EA and Capital 

Planning Investment Control (CPIC) to support a performance-based FY 2015 budget cycle, including the submission of the annual EA Roadmap to OMB; and, 

Propose and architect one reusable service for the grants 

management segment based on identifying common 

processes. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

The Department will be able to save money by leveraging 

EA and partnering with other management disciplines to 

architect shared services in support of common business 

processes. Additional savings will result from IT infrastructure 

consolidation. 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 8: DEFINING 

CLEAR GOALS TO GUIDE THE FEDERAL 

RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION IN ITS 

TRANSFORMATION 

ISSUE 8A: COMPLETING A NATIONAL RAIL PLAN 

WITH CLEARLY DEFINED NATIONAL GOALS AND 

ROLES FOR STAKEHOLDERS IN THE VISION FOR 

INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

The 2008 Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) and Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) dramatically 

realigned and expanded FRA’s roles and responsibilities. In 

addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 

infused an unprecedented amount of new capital into new 

passenger rail programs and drastically accelerated time frames 

for implementation. However, three years later, FRA has yet to 

establish specific goals to guide its transformation and measure 

progress. 

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

FRA has a comprehensive, long-range planning strategy that 

recognizes different stakeholders’ needs and priorities and the 

need to address some planning issues at the regional and state 

levels. This strategy entails the release of materials that cumula

tively fulfill the goals of the National Rail Plan. Between June 

­

2009 and August 2012, FRA released several related documents, 

including: 

National Rail Plan Progress Report; 

High-Speed Rail Safety Strategy; 

Seven pieces of interim program guidance; 

FY 2012 and FY 2013 budget requests; 

Business and Public Investment Cases for corridors funded 

with FY 2010 appropriations; and, 

State Rail Plan Guidance. 

FRA will release additional materials and continue efforts to 

provide baseline data and best practices, such as the National 

Cooperative Rail Research Program and Northeast Corridor 

planning. Additionally, FRA is working with the Transportation 

Research Board to develop national rail planning data and 

methodologies through nine research efforts. FRA is extending 

its national planning strategy to include additional policy materi

als, technical guidance, and regional and State planning toolkits. 

­

Additionally, in FY 2012, FRA managed three ongoing efforts 

that are establishing the technical foundation for future 

analyses: (1) creation of a multi-State rail network plan in the 

Southwestern United States; (2) development of a network 

planning toolkit; and (3) initiation of the Northeast Corridor 

FUTURE study. Furthermore, FRA developed a Senior 

Executive Service position to lead FRA’s rail planning and policy 

analysis initiatives. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

By the end of FY 2013, FRA expects to: 

Develop its internal organizational model focused on rail 

policy and planning needs and activities; 

Finalize its strategy for completing and releasing national 

rail planning products; 

Initiate the process for additional regional rail development 

plans, pending availability of funds; 

Continue engagement with stakeholders in development of 

the Nation’s passenger rail system; and, 

Continue using its budget request materials to articulate the 

Federal passenger rail vision, direction, and stakeholder 

roles in achieving this vision. 

102
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

FRA will have the organizational structure and processes in place 

to provide for efficient and effective national and regional rail 

planning approaches. States, Amtrak, and other stakeholders will 

have additional clarity on their roles in developing the Nation’s 

passenger rail system. 

ISSUE 8B: BALANCING AND PRIORITIZING 

RESOURCES TO ADDRESS RESPONSIBILITIES BY 

USING ESTABLISHED GOALS FOR MEASURING 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

Without quantitative metrics and specific grant-related regula

tions, FRA cannot be sure that its award decisions are based on 

sound ridership and revenue forecasts, public benefits valuations, 

and operating cost estimates. Moreover, the agency cannot 

ensure that its investments are based on competing projects’
 

relative value. Developing a schedule for achieving specific, 

measurable performance goals that include estimated funds and 

staff resources needed to accomplish each goal could provide 

the basis for FRA to prioritize its ongoing and outstanding 

responsibilities.
 

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

In FY 2012, the Department of Transportation established, 

“advancing development of passenger rail in the United States 

by achieving initial construction on Federally-funded corridor 

programs and individual construction projects,” as one of its 

GPRA Modernization Act Agency Priority Goals. Moreover, FRA 

created (and is continuing to develop) its project management 

tool (PMT) that enables FRA to manage its workload associat

ed with reviewing 3,000 project deliverables and other project 

administration tasks. In addition, FRA is using a risk assessment 

methodology to help prioritize oversight activities and identify 

resource needs to secure successful project delivery. Furthermore, 

FRA developed a Senior Executive Service position to lead 

FRA’s rail planning and policy analysis initiatives in addition to 

performance evaluation and management. Finally, to improve 

the consistency of project development materials and enhance 

DOT’s ability to evaluate competing applications, FRA published 

draft State Rail Plan Guidance and developed a schedule 

for additional project planning and analysis tools, including 

cost-benefit analysis guidance and a network planning toolkit. 

­

ACTIONS REMAINING 

Technical guidance refinement and performance evaluation will 

be ongoing activities throughout FRA’s passenger and freight rail 

programs. By the end of FY 2013, FRA will: 

Develop internal resources to focus on program performance and evaluation;
 

Develop additional technical guidance on State rail planning 

and cost-benefit analysis; and, 

Develop planning-level toolkits and models to evaluate 

potential rail demand levels in corridors throughout the U.S. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

FRA will have additional technical guidance to ensure that 

investments are based on sound quantitative measures and to 

prioritize internal resources and activities. 

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE 9: UTILIZING 

DEPARTMENT CREDIT PROGRAMS 

TO LEVERAGE LIMITED FEDERAL 

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

RESOURCES 

ISSUE 9A: INCREASING PARTICIPATION IN CREDIT 

PROGRAMS WITH SIGNIFICANT EXCESS CAPACITY 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

In recent years, Highway Trust Fund receipts have fallen 

significantly short of outlays, further straining the Nation’s 

ability to meet its increasing surface transportation infrastruc

ture needs. Given the current fiscal environment, it is critical 

that the Department maximize the effectiveness of its credit 

programs and expand the use of innovative financing techniques 

to ensure the viability of our surface transportation infrastructure. 

Reducing the application timeline for the Railroad Rehabilitation 

and Infrastructure Financing program (RRIF) could expand use 

of the program and further leverage Federal support of surface 

transportation infrastructure projects. 

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

FRA is already implementing an action plan. FRA holds 

pre-application meetings with entities that express interest in 

applying for financing. During FY 2011 and FY 2012, FRA 

held 25 pre-application meetings—up from 15 in FY 2010. FRA 

works with each potential borrower to reduce the overall credit 

risk through risk mitigation, such as collateral and financial 

protections. FRA developed a business process guide to ensure 

that staff members understand their roles, identify opportunities 

103
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

▶

▶	 

▶	 

to streamline execution, and improve coordination with supporting organizations where possible. As a result, FRA’s increased 

focus on pre-application activity and coordination ensures that 

the applications are complete before submission to FRA. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

By the end of FY 2013, FRA will: 

Increase stakeholder outreach to a more diverse audience, 

e.g., state economic development offices; 

Enhance pre-application technical assistance, including 

face-to-face meetings and pre-application screening; and, 

Better coordinate activities such as environmental documentation review. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

FRA will be able to increase the number of complete applications and reduce review time through a streamlined application 

process and more extensive pre-application technical assistance. 

ISSUE 9B: EXPANDING THE CAPACITY OF CREDIT 

PROGRAMS THAT ARE OVERSUBSCRIBED 

WHY IS THIS ISSUE SIGNIFICANT? 

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 

(TIFIA) credit program has been oversubscribed by a factor of 10 

over the last three years. 

The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing 

Commission estimates that nearly $100 billion in Federal 

investment is needed annually to preserve and enhance the 

Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure. Given the current 

fiscal environment, it is critical that the Department maximize 

the effectiveness of its credit programs and expand the use of 

innovative financing techniques such as public-private partner

ships, where appropriate, to ensure the viability of the Nation’s 

surface transportation infrastructure. Beginning in FY 2008, 

the total TIFIA credit requests have exceeded the program’s 

available appropriation, which limited the amount of infrastruc

ture projects the program could help finance. 

­

­

ACTIONS TAKEN IN FY 2012 

The Department requested additional funding for the credit 

program in the FY 2013 budget request. 

ACTIONS REMAINING 

No further actions anticipated. 

RESULTS OR EXPECTED RESULTS 

Congress provided additional funding for the TIFIA program. 

MAP-21 increased TIFIA’s annual authorization to $750 million 

in FY 2013 and $1 billion in FY 2014 from the $122 million 

authorized in FY 2012. The TIFIA program office published a 

Notice of Funding Availability requesting project sponsors to 

submit a letter of interest for the increased lending capacity. 

104
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
�

Performance measures are used to assess progress in accomplishing 

Departmental goals, and the measures help to determine if 

agency efforts are having their intended outcomes. Program 

evaluation uses analytic techniques to assess the extent to which 

programs contribute to those outcomes and trends. 

INTRODUCTION 

TYPES OF PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

Program evaluation is an assessment, through objective measurement and systematic analysis, of the manner and extent to which 

programs achieve intended outcomes. Evaluations are of the 

following types: 

Impact Evaluations use empirical data to compare measur

able program outcomes with what would have happened 

in the absence of the program. These represent the highest 

standard of program evaluations and are often the most 

difficult and expensive to construct and interpret. 

­

Outcome Evaluations assess the extent to which programs 

achieve outcome-oriented objectives. These use quantitative 

methods to assess program effectiveness, but fall short of 

the rigorous causal analysis of impact evaluations. 

Process Evaluations assess the extent to which a program 

operates as intended. While a true process evaluation will 

use objective measurement and analysis, it falls short 

of assessing the causal links between intervention and 

outcome. 

Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses compare 

a program’s outputs or outcomes with the costs to produce 

them. These analyses conform to program evaluation when 

applied systematically to existing programs and when 

measurable outputs and outcomes are monetized. 

PROGRAM EVALUATION MANAGEMENT 

The programs selected for scheduled evaluations are vetted 

through the Department’s strategic planning process. Each 

OA nominates programs that are then reviewed by a strategic 

planning executive committee to ensure: (1) adequate breadth 

of program evaluations across OAs; and (2) alignment to the 

strategic objectives. The Office of Inspector General and the 

Government Accountability Office pursue program evaluations 

independent of this schedule. 

FHWA: STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN 

(SHSP) 

PURPOSE 

FHWA’s Office of Highway Safety initiated a program evalua

tion to assess the agency’s support of the States’ development, 

implementation, and evaluation of Strategic Highway Safety 

Plans (SHSPs). The evaluation included a review of statutory, 

regulatory, and agency materials that define SHSP requirements, 

an assessment of the consistency of program activities, and 

a determination of the strengths and weaknesses of the SHSP 

program. 

­

CONTRIBUTION TO GOAL PERFORMANCE 

An SHSP is a statewide safety plan, developed through coordination across agencies, that provides a comprehensive framework 

for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public 

roads. An SHSP is required to receive full funding from the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The purpose of 

the HSIP is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. 

METHODOLOGY 

A working group was established to evaluate the SHSP activities 

in three parts: 

Clarification of program theory and design—This part of 

the evaluation provided a baseline description of the Office 

of Safety’s internal processes that served as the foundation 

for evaluating how effectively the Office of Safety has 

supported the development and implementation of SHSPs. 

Evaluation of program processes—Based on the 

understanding of the program developed in the previous 

part, this part evaluated how the Office of Safety support 

works in practice including how user needs are identified 

and how products and services are developed, delivered, 

and marketed to meet those needs. 

Evaluation of program outputs and outcomes—This part 

assessed the extent to which user needs were met and the 

effect of the Office of Safety’s program on the capabilities 

of users through surveys, focus groups, and document 

review. 

STATUS 

Complete with actions initiated. 

105
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

PARTNERS 

The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

(Volpe) conducted the evaluation study. 

LISTED IN DOT PLAN 

This evaluation was listed in the FY 2012 – 2016 DOT 

Strategic Plan. 

TYPE 

Process. 

SOURCE 

External, completed by Volpe. 

FINDINGS 

Since the establishment of the SHSP requirement in SAFETEALU in 2005, FHWA has made significant progress and achieved 

notable success in meeting legislative and programmatic 

goals. All States now have an SHSP in place and most States 

are actively implementing and updating their SHSP. Today, a 

majority of States are on their second or third generation SHSP. 

Many States now consider the SHSP a living document that they 

update regularly with new safety information, emphasis areas, 

and strategies. 

FHWA support of the SHSP process was a critical factor in the 

establishment of a more data-driven, coordinated statewide 

approach to safety investments as envisioned in SAFETEALU. The study confirmed that many aspects of agency support 

of SHSP processes are considered effective by State SHSP 

representatives and FHWA Safety Specialists. FHWA has 

developed resources that address many of the support needs of 

State SHSP-Leads. Most FHWA Safety Specialists are actively 

engaged in supporting their State’s SHSP process, and 90 percent 

actively participate in State SHSP meetings. Many are consid

ered valued partners by their State SHSP-Lead counterparts. As 

State SHSP processes have matured and their needs have evolved, 

FHWA has developed new resources to meet those needs. 

­

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The advancement of the SHSP program at the State level has 

led to an evolution and diversification of States’ support needs. 

While new staff and stakeholders may still require basic informa

tion about SHSP requirements, most States no longer need 

support developing an SHSP that meets basic Federal require

ments. State support needs span a range of topics from updating 

and implementing the SHSP to evaluating, integrating, and 

marketing the SHSP. This diverse set of needs takes advantage of 

FHWA’s strengths and makes the most of limited resources. 

­

­

A proposed approach for future SHSP support would consist of 

the following elements for FHWA: 

Continue to proactively market flexible products and 

respond to State requests with timely, customized technical 

assistance; 

Develop modular content or modify existing content so that 

it may be delivered in a variety of formats and continue to 

provide easy access for customers with specific needs; 

Sponsor more forums for peer-based learning and exchange, 

as a tool for identifying and disseminating best practices 

and assessing State needs; and, 

Leverage its support of SHSP through existing and 

enhanced strategic partnerships with public and nonprofit 

agencies that share similar goals. 

LINKS 

N/A. 

PLANNED ACTIONS 

FHWA has already adopted elements of this approach by support

ing more peer exchanges, more closely monitoring the status 

of State SHSPs, promoting the evaluation of SHSP processes, 

and developing an online Community of Practice for sharing 

practices. The agency developed a strategic plan for the SHSP 

that identifies priority projects and incorporates findings from 

this study. In the near term, FHWA intends to enhance its SHSP 

monitoring and assessment processes and review and revise 

support materials. FHWA is also reviewing the structure of its 

website and working through the National Highway Institute to 

develop additional support resources. 

­

106
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

 

FMCSA: NEW ENTRANT SAFETY 

ASSURANCE PROGRAM 

PURPOSE 

Perform a program evaluation to assess the current effectiveness 

of the New Entrant Safety Assurance Program (NESAP). 

CONTRIBUTION TO GOAL PERFORMANCE 

The Secretary of Transportation is required by Title 49 U.S.C. 

Section 31144(a)(1) to “determine whether an owner or operator 

is fit to operate safely commercial motor vehicles.” In Section 

31144(g), safety reviews of new commercial motor vehicle 

(CMV) carriers requires each carrier and operator granted 

new operating authority to undergo a safety review within the 

first 18 months (9 months for passenger carriers) after they 

begin operations. Additionally, the Secretary shall establish the 

elements of the safety review, including basic safety manage

ment controls. In response, FMCSA initiated the New Entrant 

Safety Assurance Program (NESAP), which is driven by a 

Federal grant program—the Motor Carrier Safety and Assistance 

Program (MCSAP)—that provides financial assistance to partner 

States that participate in performing these audits. The goal of 

the NESAP is to reduce CMV-involved crashes, fatalities, and 

injuries through consistent, uniform, and effective CMV safety 

programs. The MCSAP New Entrant (NE) grant funds will 

be awarded, at the discretion of FMCSA, to States and local 

governments to fund salaries and related expenses of NE auditors, 

including training and equipment. Title 49 U.S.C. Section 31148 

requires the Secretary to certify and oversee motor carrier safety 

auditors, including private contractors. 

­

METHODOLOGY 

The program evaluation will assess whether FMCSA is in 

compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations related 

to the safety management of NE carriers, the status of certified 

motor carrier safety auditors, ascertain their relative perfor

mance before and after FMCSA safety-related treatments are 

applied, identify gaps in current policies and procedures, and 

identify alternatives that may improve efficiency and effective

ness and enhance safety. The evaluation team will employ a 

classic systematic approach to evaluate the NE program that 

includes collecting, analyzing, and using information to answer 

questions established under the “Objectives” section of the NE 

Program Evaluation Plan. The overarching goal of the evaluation 

is to analyze the effectiveness of the collective body of current 

FMCSA rules, regulations, and program initiatives designed to 

improve the safety performance, safety behavior, and compliance 

of NE carriers. The evaluation will provide FMCSA leadership 

with reasonable assurance that the agency’s collective enforce

ment, educational, partner-related support, and outreach efforts 

optimally support the intended goal of raising the safety bar to 

entry for new carriers. 

­

­

­

STATUS 

The evaluation is near completion and the final report is 

scheduled for concurrence in the near future. 

PARTNERS 

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and 

Federal Highways Administration. 

DOT PLAN 

This evaluation was listed in the FY 2012 – 2016 DOT 

Strategic Plan. 

TYPE 

Effectiveness analysis. 

SOURCE 

Contractor and staff support. 

FINDINGS 

To be determined (TBD). 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

TBD. 

LINK 

Not currently finalized for release. 

PLANNED ACTIONS 

TBD following authority to release. 

FRA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D) 

PROGRAM 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) review 

of FRA’s research, development, and demonstration program is 

to assess annually such topics as program management, structure 

and approach, allocation of resources among program areas, and 

project selection criteria. 

CONTRIBUTION TO GOAL PERFORMANCE 

The TRB review helps ensure that the major directions and 

content of FRA’s research and development program serve the 

needs of customers and stakeholders, internal and external to 

FRA. FRA has three research and development (R&D) program 

goals: supporting FRA’s safety regulatory mandate; technology development and demonstration; and implementation of 

high-speed rail transportation. The TRB review helps FRA 

achieve these goals by reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of FRA’s processes for setting program priorities, selecting 

projects, directing projects, and maximizing and measuring the 

impact of its programs. The committee provides recommendations to FRA on how to improve its processes for selecting, 

executing, and delivering value from its research, development, 

and demonstration program. 

107
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

 

METHODOLOGY 

FRA contracts with TRB to conduct an annual review and 

evaluation of FRA’s research, development, and demonstra

tion program. TRB selects industry experts to form the review 

committee. The committee receives presentations from FRA on 

program achievements and strategy. The committee publishes its 

findings in a letter report posted on the TRB website and made 

available to the public. 

­

STATUS 

TRB delivered its most recent report to FRA on May 31, 2012. 

Meetings occurred in February 2012 and March 2012. FRA is 

acting on the recommendations and preparing for the next review. 

PARTNERS 

TRB of the National Academies of Science is responsible for 

setting up the review committee, conducting the review, and 

publishing the results. 

DOT PLAN 

This evaluation was listed in the FY 2012 – 2016 DOT Strategic 

Plan. 

TYPE 

Process. 

SOURCE 

External, TRB. 

FINDINGS 

The committee recognizes a strong institutional commitment to 

continuous improvement in the management of the FRA R&D 

program. The R&D office’s alignment of projects to address the 

five major risk categories is an important step in rationalizing the 

R&D program. The committee recognizes the advances made 

by R&D management in developing disciplined and transparent 

program management practices. FRA research grants are a signif

icant source of support for academic programs that can produce 

qualified workers for the industry. The committee endorses the 

R&D office’s efforts, described at the meeting, to provide input 

to DOT workforce development planning and to expand its 

involvement with schools and universities. 

­

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The committee believes that additional improvements could be 

made through: 

Further focusing future resources on projects addressing 

the highest-risk categories with the largest potential safety 

benefit 

Development and reporting of program performance 

indicators
 

More complete evaluations and reporting of project 

outcomes.
 

Future directions to consider for R&D include continuing work 

on performance-based standards; research to aid the deployment, 

in-use evaluation, and refinement of new signaling and train 

control technologies; and research on operation of shared-use 

corridors for intercity passenger and freight service. 

LINK 

http://www.trb.org/Railroads/Blurbs/167226.aspx. 

PLANNED ACTIONS 

TRB’s next review is planned for February 2013. FRA is acting 

on the above recommendations and intends to report on progress 

at the next review. 

PHMSA OFFICE OF HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY 

PURPOSE 

To examine the hazardous materials transportation regulatory 

system, identifying potential safety risks within the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR) that are under-regulated or unregu

lated due to omissions, assumptions, definitions, and exceptions 

in the HMR. 

­

CONTRIBUTION TO GOAL PERFORMANCE 

The evaluation contributes to the goal of lowering the number of 

deaths and injuries due to hazardous materials. It was intended to 

assist the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety 

by illuminating areas that might present safety risk. It might also 

be useful as a foundation to better understand and systematically 

reduce the frequency of deaths and serious injuries. 

METHODOLOGY 

The evaluation relied on document analysis of Title 49 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and pertinent rulemaking 

documents in the Federal Register, as well as 25 interviews with 

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) staff, agency 

partners, and the first responder community. The evaluation 

utilized an iterative approach using in-house and intermodal 

subject matter experts to confirm the validity of the information 

and findings. The document focused exclusively on identifying 

and illuminating potential safety risks, but it did not quantify the 

extent of the safety risk. 

STATUS 

Complete without recommendations. 

PARTNERS 

PHMSA was the sole sponsor of the initiative, but FRA, FMCSA, 

and the U.S. Coast Guard contributed via qualitative interviews. 

DOT PLAN 

This evaluation was not listed in the DOT Strategic Plan. It was 

conducted to assist the Associate Administrator in managing 

the program. 

108
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

TYPE RECOMMENDATIONS 

Process. No recommendations. 

SOURCE LINK 

Internal—PHMSA’s Office of the Administrator. Not available online. 

FINDINGS PLANNED ACTIONS 

Definitions create boundaries, and definitions in the 

HMR’s regulatory system nearly always omit some things 

in order to simplify and clarify the applicability of safety 

requirements; 

The findings of this evaluation will be integrated into OHMS’s 

development of its Risk Management Framework. 

Thresholds are used to help distinguish different levels of 

requirements for different levels of risk, but these can create 

artificial breakpoints where risk is often a continuous or 

scalable variable; 

The use of external standards, including international 

recommendations, rules from non-governmental organizations, and regulations from other government agencies, 

creates the potential for disconnects that could emerge later 

and grow over time; 

Exceptions in the HMR provide lesser requirements for 

many groups and products, often based on factors (such as 

economics or prevalence of the activity) other than safety; 

Jurisdiction overlap and shared responsibilities among 

government entities, especially Federal agencies, creates 

opportunity for marginal disconnects, inconsistencies, and 

gaps; and, 

The normal lifecycle of hazardous materials means that 

they go into and out of transportation in commerce, and the 

areas outside of transportation of commerce can sometimes 

influence the level of safety risk in transportation. 

109
PERFORMANCE DATA 

COMPLETENESS AND 

RELIABILITY DETAILS
�
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

Each table includes a description of a performance measure 

and associated data provided by the agencies in charge of the 

measure. The Scope statement gives an overview of the data 

collection strategy for the underlying data behind the perfor

mance measure. The Source statement identifies the data 

system(s) from which the data for each measure was taken. 

The Statistical Issues statement has comments, provided by 

the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the agency in 

charge of the measure, which discuss variability of the measure 

and other points. The Completeness statement indicates limita

tions due to missing data or availability of current measures; 

methods used to develop projections are also provided, as 

appropriate. The Reliability statement discusses how the perfor

mance data are used in program management decision making 

inside DOT. 

­

­

­

ROADWAY FATALITY RATE PER 100 

MILLION VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELED (VMT) 

(NHTSA / FHWA / FMCSA) 

MEASURE 

Roadway fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) 

are calculated for each calendar year (CY). A roadway fatality is 

the fatality of any vehicle occupant (driver, passenger, all persons 

riding on the exterior of a motor vehicle), including motorcycle 

(two- or three-wheeled motor vehicle) rider or passenger, and any 

non-occupants (any person not an occupant of a motor vehicle in 

transport, such as a pedestrian or cyclist). 

VMT includes all vehicle-miles traveled by all types of vehicles 

including: 

Passenger cars; 

Motorcycles; 

Buses; 

All 2-axle 4 tire vehicles (including vans, pickup trucks, and 

sport/utility vehicles); 

Single unit 2-axle 6 tire or more trucks; and, 

Combination trucks. 

SCOPE 

The number of fatalities is a count of deaths which occur within 

30 days of a crash involving a motor vehicle traveling on a 

traffic-way customarily open to the public within the 50 States 

and the District of Columbia. 

SOURCES 

Roadway fatality data are obtained from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS). The FARS database is based on 

police crash reports and other State data, containing data derived 

from a census of fatal traffic crashes within the 50 States and the 

District of Columbia. 

Vehicle-miles traveled is estimated from the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Volume Trends (TVT) report. 

TVT is a monthly report based on hourly traffic count data and 

annual data in the Highway Performance Monitoring System 

(HPMS), which is analyzed by the FHWA Traffic Monitoring and 

Analysis System (TMAS). Passenger vehicle VMT (PVVMT) is 

derived from the HPMS. 

Roadway fatality rates for 2011 and 2012 were projected using 

recent fatality rate trend data. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

While based on historical data, the 2011 and 2012 fatality rate 

projections depend on the continuation of individual and market 

behavior regarding roadway safety policies, vehicle-miles 

traveled, seat belt use, and alcohol-related fatalities. The 2011 

and 2012 fatality rate projections do not reflect recent vehicle 

improvements. The assumptions inherent in these projections, 

together with the normal levels of uncertainty inherent in statisti

cal evaluations, may influence the accuracy of the projection. 

­

For HPMS, States provide annual average daily traffic (AADT) 

on all Federal-aid highway sections. These data are based 

on traffic counts taken at least once every three years on the 

National Highway System, Interstate, and Principal Arterials and 

at least once every six years on Minor Arterials and Collectors. 

Traffic counts are adjusted by the States to reflect day-of-week 

and seasonal variations, current year conditions, and axle correc

tions, as necessary. States provide summary data on the local and 

rural minor collector roads. The AADTs from HPMS are used as 

a baseline for the TVT report, which compiles data from about 

4,000 automated traffic recorders (ATRFs) provided by the States 

on a monthly basis. Because both HPMS and TVT are based on 

samples of the traffic, there are associated sampling errors. 

­

111
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

COMPLETENESS 

FARS has been in use since 1975 and is accepted as a complete 

measure for describing safety on the Nation’s roadways. Annual 

traffic fatalities are currently available through CY 2010. 

VMT is complete through 2010. For 2011 and 2012, it is project

ed as a percentage of the total VMT projections. The final 2011 

VMT number will be available in August 2013. The 2012 VMT 

estimate will be available by December 2013. 

­

RELIABILITY 

This measure informs and guides the following programs for 

NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA: 

Roadway safety policy; 

Safety program planning; 

Regulatory development; 

Resource allocation; and, 

Operational mission performance. 

Early indications show that fatalities have decreased while VMT 

have increased. However, it is too early to tell what the final 

result on the fatality rate will be, depending on the following 

factors, among others: 

High price of fuel; 

Economic downturn; 

Increased walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding; and, 

Greater use of mass transit. 

All of these factors are indications of fundamental changes in our 

mode of transportation that will adversely impact our ability to 

accurately estimate fatality and VMT projections for CY 2011 

and beyond. 

PASSENGER VEHICLE OCCUPANT FATALITY 

RATE (NHTSA / FHWA / FMCSA) 

MEASURE 

Passenger Vehicle Occupant fatalities per 100 million passenger 

vehicle VMT (vehicle-miles traveled) are calculated for each 

calendar year (CY). 

An occupant is any person inside or on top of a moving motor 

vehicle. This includes the driver, passengers, and all persons 

riding on the exterior of a motor vehicle. Passenger vehicle 

VMT (PVVMT) includes vehicle-miles traveled by all types of 

passenger vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and 

sport/utility vehicles) on public roads within the 50 States and 

the District of Columbia. 

SCOPE 

The number of fatalities is a count of passenger vehicle occupant 

deaths which occur within 30 days of a crash involving a motor 

vehicle traveling on a traffic-way customarily open to the public 

within the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

SOURCES 

Roadway fatality data are obtained from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS). The FARS database is based on 

police crash reports and other State data, containing data derived 

from a census of fatal roadway crashes within the 50 States and 

the District of Columbia. 

Vehicle-miles traveled is estimated from the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Volume Trends (TVT) report. 

TVT is a monthly report based on hourly traffic count data and 

annual data in the Highway Performance Monitoring System 

(HPMS), which is analyzed by the FHWA Traffic Monitoring and 

Analysis System (TMAS). Passenger vehicle VMT (PVVMT) is 

derived from the HPMS. 

Fatality rates for CY 2011 and 2012 were projected using recent 

passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate trend data. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

While based on historical data, the 2011 and 2012 fatality rate 

projections depend on the continuation of individual and market 

behavior regarding roadway safety policies, vehicle-miles 

traveled, seat belt use, and alcohol-related fatalities. The 2011 

and 2012 fatality rate projections do not reflect recent vehicle 

improvements. The assumptions inherent in these projections, 

together with the normal levels of uncertainty inherent in statisti

cal evaluations, may influence the accuracy of the projection. 

­

112
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES
�

For HPMS, States provide annual average daily traffic (AADT) 

on all Federal-aid highway sections. These data are based 

on traffic counts taken at least once every three years on the 

National Highway System, Interstate, and Principal Arterials and 

at least once every six years on Minor Arterials and Collectors. 

Traffic counts are adjusted by the States to reflect day-of-week 

and seasonal variations, current year conditions, and axle correc

tions, as necessary. States provide summary data on the local and 

rural minor collector roads. The AADTs from HPMS are used as 

a baseline for the TVT report, which compiles data from about 

4,000 automated traffic recorders (ATRFs) provided by the States 

on a monthly basis. Because both HPMS and TVT are based on 

samples of the traffic, there are associated sampling errors. 

­

COMPLETENESS 

FARS has been in use since 1975 and is accepted as a complete 

measure for describing safety on the Nation’s roadways. Total 

annual roadway fatalities are currently available through CY 

2010. 

VMT is complete through 2010. For 2011 and 2012, it is project

ed as a percentage of the total VMT projections. The final 2011 

VMT number will be available in August 2013. The 2012 VMT 

estimate will be available by December 2013. 

­

RELIABILITY 

This measure informs and guides the following programs for 

NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA: 

Roadway safety policy; 

Safety program planning; 

Regulatory development; 

Resource allocation; and, 

Operational mission performance. 

Early indications show that fatalities have decreased while VMT 

have increased. However, it is too early to tell what the final 

result on the roadway fatality rate will be, depending on the 

following factors, among others: 

High price of fuel; 

Economic downturn; 

Increased walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding; and, 

Greater use of mass transit. 

All of these factors are indications of fundamental changes in our 

mode of transportation that will adversely impact our ability to 

accurately estimate fatality and VMT projections for 2012 and 

beyond. 

MOTORCYCLIST FATALITY RATE (NHTSA / 

FHWA / FMCSA) 

MEASURE 

Motorcyclist fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations are 

calculated for each calendar year (CY). 

A motorcycle is a two- or three-wheeled motor vehicle designed 

to transport one or two people, including motorscooters, 

minibikes, and mopeds. 

SCOPE 

The number of motorcyclist fatalities is a count of motorcyclist 

(rider, operator, and passenger) deaths which occur within 30 

days of a crash in which the motorcycle was traveling on a 

traffic-way customarily open to the public within the 50 States 

and the District of Columbia. 

SOURCES 

Roadway fatality data are obtained from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS). The FARS database is based on 

police crash reports and other State data, containing data derived 

from a census of fatal roadway crashes within the 50 States and 

the District of Columbia. 

The States collect motorcycle registration data and provide the 

data to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which then 

provides the data to the public. 

113
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

Fatality rates for CY 2011 and 2012 were projected using recent 

motorcycle fatality rate trend data. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

While based on historical data, the 2011 and 2012 fatality rate 

projections are dependent on the continuation of both individual 

and market behavior regarding roadway safety policies, 

vehicle and equipment design, motorcycle registration, and 

alcohol-related fatalities. The assumptions inherent in these 

projections, together with the normal levels of uncertainty 

inherent in statistical evaluations, may influence the accuracy 

of the projection. 

The FHWA estimates of registered motorcycles may be an 

underestimate of the true number of motorcycles that are used on 

the roads each year. Data collected by the Motorcycle Industry 

Council (MIC) corroborate this possibility and have noted that 

not all motorcyclists register their bikes (National Transportation 

Safety Board—Safety Recommendation Date: October 3, 2007). 

COMPLETENESS 

FARS has been in use since 1975 and is accepted as a complete 

measure for describing safety on the Nation’s roadways. Annual 

motorcyclist fatalities are currently available through CY 2010. 

The motorcycle registration date varies among the States. 

Although many States continue to register specific vehicle 

types on a calendar-year basis, all States use some form of the 

“staggered” system to register motor vehicles. The “staggered” 

system permits a distribution of the renewal workload throughout 

all months. Most States allow pre-registration or permit “grace 

periods” to better distribute the annual registration workload. 

In order to present vehicle registration data uniformly for all 

States, the information is shown as nearly as possible on a 

calendar-year basis. Insofar as possible, the registrations reported 

exclude transfers and re-registrations and any other factors 

that could otherwise result in duplication of the vehicle counts. 

Motor vehicle registrations are reported by major vehicle classes: 

automobiles, buses, trucks, and motorcycles. 

RELIABILITY 

This measure informs and guides the following programs for 

NHTSA, FHWA and FMCSA: 

Roadway safety policy; 

Safety program planning; 

Regulatory development; 

Resource allocation; and, 

Operational mission performance. 

All State-reported data are analyzed by FHWA for completeness, 

reasonableness, consistency, and compliance with data 

reporting instructions contained in “A Guide to Reporting 

Highway Statistics.” State-reported data are adjusted if necessary 

to eliminate mistakes and to improve data uniformity among 

the States. The analysis and adjustment process is accomplished 

in cooperation with the States supplying the data. In some 

instances, corrections or revisions have been made in previously 

published data. 

The FHWA motorcycle registration data includes all vehicles that 

have been registered at any time during the calendar year. Data 

includes vehicles that were retired during the year and vehicles 

that were registered in more than one State. In some States, it 

is also possible that, contrary to the FHWA reporting instruc

tions, vehicles that have been registered twice in the same State 

may be reported as two vehicles. The NHTSA data include only 

those vehicles that are registered as of July 1 of the given year. 

Therefore, they do not include vehicles registered in the last half 

of the calendar year or vehicles that may only be registered for a 

part of a year such as those for farm use. 

­

Motorcycle registration projections into future years are problematic. Contributing factors include, but are not limited to: 

Increased motorcycle riding; 

The effect of the high price of fuel on increased 

motorcycle riding;
 

The economic downturn; 

Increased walking and bicycling; and, 

A greater use of mass transit. 

114
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

All of these factors are indications of fundamental changes in our 

mode of transportation that will adversely impact our ability to 

accurately estimate fatality and motorcycle registration projections for 2011 and beyond. 

NON-OCCUPANT FATALITY RATE (NHTSA / 

FHWA / FMCSA) 

MEASURE 

Non-occupant fatality rate per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled 

(VMT) is calculated for each calendar year (CY). 

A non-occupant is any person who is not an occupant of a motor 

vehicle in transport and includes: 

Pedestrians; 

Bicyclists and other pedalcyclists; 

Occupants of parked motor vehicles; 

Joggers and skateboard riders; and, 

People riding on animals and in animal-drawn conveyances. 

VMT includes all vehicle-miles traveled by all types of vehicles 

including: 

Passenger cars; 

Motorcycles; 

Buses; 

All 2-axle 4 tire vehicles (including vans, pickup trucks, and 

sport/utility vehicles); 

Single unit 2-axle 6 tire or more trucks; and, 

Combination trucks. 

SCOPE 

The number of fatalities is a count of non-occupant deaths which 

occur within 30 days of a crash involving motor vehicle traffic 

traveling on a roadway customarily open to the public within the 

50 States and the District of Columbia. 

SOURCES 

Roadway fatality data are obtained from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS). The FARS database is based on police crash 

reports and other State data, containing data derived from a 

census of fatal roadway crashes within the 50 States and the 

District of Columbia. 

Vehicle-miles traveled is estimated from the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Volume Trends (TVT) report. 

TVT is a monthly report based on hourly traffic count data and 

annual data in the Highway Performance Monitoring System 

(HPMS), which is analyzed by FHWA’s Traffic Monitoring and 

Analysis System (TMAS). 

Fatality rates for CY 2011 and 2012 were projected using recent 

non-occupant fatality rate data. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

While based on historical data, the 2011 and 2012 fatality rate 

projections are dependent on the continuation of both individual 

and market behavior regarding vehicle-miles traveled, infrastruc

ture, vehicle design, and alcohol-related fatalities. The assumptions inherent in these projections, together with the normal 

levels of uncertainty inherent in statistical evaluations, may 

influence the accuracy of the projection. 

­

For HPMS, States provide annual average daily traffic (AADT) 

on all Federal-aid highway sections. These data are based 

on traffic counts taken at least once every three years on the 

National Highway System, Interstate, and Principal Arterials and 

at least once every six years on Minor Arterials and Collectors. 

Traffic counts are adjusted by the States to reflect day-of-week 

and seasonal variations, current year conditions, and axle correc

tions, as necessary. States provide summary data on the local and 

rural minor collector roads. The AADTs from HPMS are used as 

a baseline for the TVT report, which compiles data from about 

4,000 automated traffic recorders (ATRs) provided by the States 

on a monthly basis. Because both HPMS and TVT are based on 

samples of the traffic, there are associated sampling errors. 

­

COMPLETENESS 

FARS has been in use since 1975 and is accepted as a complete 

measure for describing safety on the Nation’s roadways. Annual 

non-occupant fatalities are available through CY 2010. 

VMT is complete through 2010. For 2011 and 2012, it is project

ed as a percentage of the total VMT projections. The final 2011 

VMT number will be available in August 2013. The 2012 VMT 

estimate will be available by December 2013. 

­

115
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

RELIABILITY 

This measure informs and guides the following programs for 

NHTSA, FHWA and FMCSA: 

Roadway safety policy; 

Safety program planning; 

Regulatory development; 

Resource allocation; and, 

Operational mission performance. 

Early indications show that fatalities have decreased while VMT 

have increased. However, it is too early to tell what the final 

result on the fatality rate will be, depending on the following 

factors, among others: 

High price of fuel; 

Economic downturn; 

Increased walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding; and, 

Greater use of mass transit. 

All of these factors are indications of fundamental changes in our 

mode of transportation that will adversely impact our ability 

to accurately estimate fatality and VMT projections for 2011 

and beyond. 

LARGE TRUCK AND BUS FATALITY RATE 

(FMCSA/NHTSA/FHWA) 

MEASURE 

Large truck and bus fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles 

traveled (VMT). 

The number of large truck and bus fatalities includes all large 

truck/bus occupants, occupants of other vehicles, and non-oc

cupants who died in roadway crashes involving a large truck or 

bus. A large truck is defined as being over 10,000 pounds gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR), including single unit trucks and 

truck tractors. A bus is a large motor vehicle used to carry more 

than 10 passengers, including school buses, inter-city buses, and 

transit buses. VMT for this measure includes all vehicle-miles 

traveled by all types of vehicles including: 

­

Passenger cars; 

Motorcycles; 

Buses; 

All 2-axle 4 tire vehicles (including vans, pickup trucks, and 

sport/utility vehicles); 

Single unit 2-axle 6 tire or more trucks; and, 

Combination trucks. 

SCOPE 

The number of fatalities is a count of deaths which occur within 

30 days of roadway crashes involving large trucks or buses 

traveling on a traffic-way customarily open to the public within 

the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

SOURCES 

Roadway fatality data are obtained from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS). The FARS database is based on 

police crash reports and other State data, containing data derived 

from a census of fatal traffic crashes within the 50 States and the 

District of Columbia. 

Vehicle-miles traveled is estimated from the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Volume Trends (TVT) report. 

TVT is a monthly report based on hourly traffic count data and 

annual data in the Highway Performance Monitoring System 

116
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

(HPMS), which is analyzed by the FHWA Traffic Monitoring and 

Analysis System (TMAS). 

Fatality rates for CY 2012 were projected as a range of fatalities based on fatal crash data from CY 2007 – 2010, and partial 

data from CY 2011 – 2012. FMCSA extrapolated the CY 2012 

Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) 

fatalities into a projection for the entire year based on reports 

from CY 2007 – 2011. FMCSA analyzed the historical relationship between MCMIS and FARS fatality reporting to adjust the 

MCMIS number into a FARS projection for CY 2012. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

The CY 2012 fatality rate projection depends on the continuation 

of individual and market behavior regarding highway safety 

policies, vehicle-miles traveled, seat belt use, and alcohol-related 

fatalities for large trucks and buses. The assumptions inherent in 

these projections, together with the normal levels of uncertainty 

inherent in statistical evaluations, may influence the accuracy of 

the projection. A major source of error is an inconsistent use of 

the definition of a large truck. 

For HPMS, States provide annual average daily traffic (AADT) 

on all Federal-aid highway sections. The data are based on traffic 

counts taken at least once every three years on the National 

Highway System, Interstate, and Principal Arterials and at least 

once every six years on Minor Arterials and Collectors. Traffic 

counts are adjusted by the States to reflect day-of-week and 

seasonal variations, current year conditions, and axle corrections, 

as necessary. States provide summary data on the local and rural 

minor collector roads. The AADTs from HPMS are used as a 

baseline for the TVT report, which compiles data from about 

4,000 automated traffic recorders (ATRs) provided by the States 

on a monthly basis. Because both HPMS and TVT are based on 

samples of the traffic, there are associated sampling errors. 

COMPLETENESS 

FARS has been in use since 1975 and is accepted as a complete 

measure for describing safety on the Nation’s roadways. Total 

annual fatalities are available through CY 2010 (CY 2011 

projected estimates are available now). The MCMIS fatal crash 

data used in the calculation of Large Trucks are reported based 

on a subset of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria 

(MMUCC) used by FARS. Total annual fatalities are available 

from MCMIS through CY 2011 and partial data are available 

through December 2012. 

VMT is complete through 2010. For 2011 and 2012, it is project

ed as a percentage of the total VMT projections. The final 2011 

VMT number will be available in August 2013. The 2012 VMT 

estimate will be available by December 2013. 

­

RELIABILITY 

This measure informs and guides the following programs for 

FMCSA, NHTSA, and FHWA: 

Roadway safety policy; 

Safety program planning; 

Regulatory development; 

Resource allocation; and, 

Operational mission performance. 

It also tracks progress toward the goal of saving lives and 

reducing injuries by preventing large truck and bus crashes. 

Early indications show that fatalities have decreased while VMT 

have increased. The final result on the fatality rate will depend on 

several external factors which may include: 

The high price of fuel; 

The economic downturn; 

Changes in vehicle design; 

Guidelines for large truck/bus drivers; 

Increased walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding; and, 

A greater use of mass transit. 

All of these factors are indications of fundamental changes in 

our mode of transportation that will adversely impact our ability 

to accurately estimate fatality and VMT projections for 2011 

and beyond. 

117
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES
�

COMMERCIAL AIR CARRIER FATALITY RATE 

(FAA) 

MEASURE 

Number of commercial air carrier fatalities per 100 million 

persons onboard (FY). 

SCOPE 

This measure includes both scheduled and nonscheduled flights 

of U.S. passenger and cargo air carriers (14 CFR Part 121) and 

scheduled flights of commuter operators (14 CFR Part 135). It 

excludes on-demand (i.e., air taxi) service and general aviation. 

Accidents involving passengers, crew, ground personnel, and the 

uninvolved public are all included. 

Note: Part 121 and Part 135 define how airlines can operate. Part 

121 allows companies to act as scheduled airlines where they are 

allowed to run and publish a scheduled service. Part 135 allows 

airlines to run as charter companies. 

SOURCES 

The data on commercial fatalities come from the National 

Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Aviation Accident 

Database. The data for passengers on board are provided by 

air carriers, who submit information to the Office of Airline 

Information (OAI) within the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(BTS). FAA estimates crew on board based on the distribution 

of aircraft departures by make and model, plus an average of 3.5 

persons on board per Part 121 cargo flight. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Both accidents and passengers on board are censuses, having no 

sampling error. Crew on board is an estimate with a small range 

variation for any given make and model of aircraft. Departure 

data and enplanements for Part 121 are from the BTS. The 

crew estimate is based on fleet makeup and crew requirements 

per number of seats. For the current fleet, the number of crew 

is equal to about 7 percent of all Part 121 enplanements. The 

average number of cargo crew on board is 3.5 per departure, 

based on data from subscription services such as Air Claims, a 

proprietary database used by insurers to obtain information 

such as fleet mix, accidents, and claims. Cargo crews typically 

include two flight crew members, and occasionally another 

pilot or company rep, or two deadheading passengers. Part 

135 data also come from BTS and Air Claims databases, but is 

not as complete. Staffers in the Office of Policy, International 

Affairs & Environment (APL) contact airline operators where 

BTS data have gaps. Based on previous accident and incident 

reports, the average Part 135 enplanement is five per departure. 

Crew estimates for Part 135 are based on previous accident and 

incident data. Any error that might be introduced by estimating 

crew will be very small and will be overwhelmed by the passen

ger census. Also note that the fatality rate is small and could 

significantly fluctuate from year to year due to a single accident. 

­

COMPLETENESS 

NTSB and FAA’s Office of Accident Investigation meet regularly 

to validate the accident and fatality count. Accident data are 

considered preliminary. NTSB usually completes investigations 

and issues reports on accidents that occur during any fiscal 

year by the end of the next fiscal year. Results are considered 

final when all those accidents have been reported in the NTSB 

press release (published by March 2013). FY 2011 results will 

therefore be final after the March 2013 NTSB press release. In 

general, however, fatal and serious injury accident numbers are 

not likely to change significantly between the end of the fiscal 

year and the date they are finalized. 

The number of actual persons on board for any given period 

of time is considered preliminary for up to 18 months after the 

close of the reporting period. This is due to amended reports 

subsequently filed by the air carriers. Preliminary estimates 

are based on projections of the growth in departures developed 

by APL. However, changes to the number of persons on board 

should rarely affect the annual fatality rate. 

The FAA does comparison checking of the departure data collected by BTS. These data are needed for crew estimates. However, 

FAA has no independent data sources against which to validate 

the numbers submitted to BTS. FAA compares its list of carriers 

to the DOT list to validate completeness and places the carriers 

in the appropriate category (i.e., Part 121 or Part 135). 

To overcome reporting delays of 60 to 90 days, FAA must rely 

on historical data, partial internal data sources, and Official 

Airline Guide (OAG) scheduling information to project at least 

part of the fiscal year activity data. FAA uses OAG data until 

official BTS data are available. The final result for the air carrier 

fatal accident rate is not considered reliable until BTS provides 

preliminary numbers. Due to reporting procedures in place, it is 

unlikely that calculation of future fiscal year departure data will 

be improved substantially. The lack of complete monthly histori

cal data and independent sources of verification increases the risk 

of error in the activity data. 

­

RELIABILITY 

Results are considered preliminary since they are based on 

projected activity data. FAA uses performance data extensively 

for program management, personnel evaluation, and accountabil

ity. Most accident investigations are a joint undertaking. NTSB 

has the legal responsibility to determine probable cause, while 

­

118
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

FAA has separate statutory authority to investigate accidents 

and incidents in order to ensure that FAA meets its broader 

responsibilities. FAA’s own accident investigators and other FAA 

employees participate in all accident investigations led by NTSB 

investigators. 

GENERAL AVIATION FATAL ACCIDENT 

RATE (FAA) 

MEASURE 

Number of general aviation fatal accidents per 100,000 flight 

hours (FY). 

SCOPE 

The measure includes on-demand (non-scheduled FAR Part 135) 

and general aviation flights. General aviation comprises a diverse 

range of aviation activities including: 

Single-seat homebuilt aircraft; 

Helicopters; 

Balloons; and, 

All other aircraft, from single and multiple engine land and 

seaplanes to highly sophisticated extended range turbojets. 

SOURCES 

The data for general aviation accidents come from the 

National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Aviation 

Accident Database. Aviation accident investigators with 

the assistance of the NTSB develop the data. 

Annual flight hours are derived from the FAA’s annual 

General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey. Current 

year estimates are provided by FAA’s Forecast and 

Performance Analysis Division, APO-100. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

The NTSB determines the actual number of general aviation fatal 

accidents. Since this is a simple count of accidents, there are no 

statistical issues relevant to this data. 

The survey data for activity are highly accurate with a 

percent-standard error of less than 1 percent. The general 

aviation community and the General Aviation Joint Steering 

Committee (GAJSC) of the Safer Skies initiative recommended 

development of a data collection program that will yield more 

accurate and relevant data on general aviation demographics and 

utilization. Improved survey and data collection methodologies 

have been developed. 

As a result of these efforts, FAA, working with the General 

Aviation Manufacturers Association, the NTSB, and other 

aviation industry associations, has made many improvements 

to the survey. First, the sample size has significantly increased. 

Second, a reporting form has been created to make it much easier 

for organizations with large fleets to report. Third, the agency 

worked with the Aircraft Registry to improve the accuracy 

of contact information. As a result, an improved survey was 

completed in FY 2004. This survey created, for the first time, a 

statistically valid report of activity on which the general aviation 

community could agree. Each year since 2004, significant 

improvements have been made which, in turn, substantially 

improved the accuracy of the data. 

The GAJSC General Aviation Data Improvement Team has 

worked closely with the general aviation community and 

industry to develop this performance measure and target. There is 

unanimous support and consensus for the measure and target. 

COMPLETENESS 

The number of general aviation fatal accidents, even when 

reported as preliminary, is very accurate. NTSB and FAA’s 

Office of Accident Investigation meet regularly to validate 

the accident count. NTSB usually completes investigations 

and issues reports on accidents that occur during any fiscal 

year by the end of the next fiscal year. Results are consid

ered final when all those accidents have been reported in 

the NTSB press release, published by March 2014 at the 

latest for FY 2012. FY 2011 results will therefore be final 

after the March 2013 NTSB press release. 

­

GA Survey calendar hours are finalized by October 31 of 

the following year. 

RELIABILITY 

FAA uses performance data extensively for program 

management and personnel evaluation and accountabil

ity. Most accident investigations are a joint undertaking 

between FAA and NTSB. NTSB has the statutory respon

sibility; but, in fact, most of the accident investigations 

related to general aviation are conducted by FAA Aviation 

Safety Inspectors without NTSB’s direct involvement. 

FAA’s own accident investigators and other FAA employ

ees participate in all accident investigations led by NTSB 

investigators. 

­

­

­

As mentioned above, the large sample for FAA’s activity 

survey, along with the ease of data collection, produce 

highly accurate flight hour data. The low standard error 

which results ensures the reliability of these data. 

119
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

SERIOUS RUNWAY INCURSIONS RATE (FAA) 

MEASURE 

Rate of Category A and B runway incursions (most serious) per 

million operations 

SCOPE 

A runway incursion is any occurrence at an aerodrome involving 

the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the 

protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff 

of aircraft. They are grouped in three general categories: air 

traffic, pilot, or vehicle/pedestrian events. Runway incursions 

are reported and tracked at airports that have an operational air 

traffic control tower. Operations are defined as total takeoffs and 

landings. 

The FAA tracks four categories of runway incursions—A, B, 

C, D—but includes only those with the highest risk of collision, 

Category A and B incursions, in the measure. 

Category A—Separation decreases to the point that participants take extreme action to narrowly avoid a collision. 

Category B—Separation decreases, and there is a significant 

potential for a collision. 

Category C—Separation decreases, but there is ample time 

and distance to avoid a collision. 

Category D—There is little or no chance of collision, but 

the definition of a runway incursion is met. 

In FY 2002, FAA changed the focus of measurement for runway 

incursions from all incursions to those incursions with measur

able risk of collision, Categories A and B. Since Category C and 

D incursions were not likely to lead to an accident or a significant 

risk of an accident, their inclusion in the previous total tended to 

mask true safety risk. The new metric reflects the focus of FAA’s 

runway safety effort to reduce the rate of the incursions with 

demonstrable risk. 

­

SOURCES 

Air traffic controllers and pilots are the primary source of runway 

incursion reports. The data are recorded in the FAA Air Traffic 

Quality Assurance (ATQA) database, which has replaced the 

FAA National Incident Monitoring System. Preliminary incident 

reports are evaluated when received and evaluation can take up 

to 90 days. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

The data are typically not finalized for 90 days following the 

close of the fiscal year. Surface event reports are reviewed on a 

daily basis to determine if the incident meets the definition of a 

runway incursion. Runway incursions are a subset of the incident 

data collected and the completeness of the data are based on the 

reporting requirements and completeness for each of the incident 

types. 

If the operations data are not up to date, these calculations must 

be revised. The rate may also need to be recalculated if runway 

incursions are reported late. Historical volume data have been 

changed over the last three years, resulting in adjustments to 

current baselines. 

RELIABILITY 

FAA uses performance data extensively for program manage

ment, personnel evaluation, and accountability in prioritizing its 

facility evaluations and audits. The data are also used to track 

daily progress on performance goals. Annual runway incursion 

incident data are used to provide a statistical basis for research 

and analysis and outreach initiatives. FAA verifies and validates 

the accuracy of the data through reviews of preliminary and final 

reports. Reconciliation of the databases is conducted monthly 

and anomalies are explored and resolved. In cases where major 

problems are identified, a request to resubmit is issued. The FAA 

conducts annual reviews of reported data and compares them 

with data reported from previous years. 

­

NATURAL GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID 

PIPELINE INCIDENTS (PHMSA) 

MEASURE 

The number of pipeline incidents involving death or major 

injury (CY). 

SCOPE 

Natural gas pipeline incidents are reportable under 49 CFR 

191.15, and hazardous liquid pipeline incidents are reportable 

under 49 CFR 195.50. Both interstate and intrastate pipelines are 

subject to incident reporting requirements. 

An injury is reportable if it requires inpatient hospitalization 

resulting from a failure in a pipeline system in which there is a 

release of a hazardous liquid, CO2

, or natural gas being transport

ed. This includes operator employees, contractors working 

for the operator, other workers in the right of way, emergency 

responders, and the general public. If the person dies within 30 

days of the incident date it is counted as a death, not as an injury. 

Inpatient hospitalization means hospital admission and at least 

­

120
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

one overnight stay (detailed guidance is on the PHMSA website 

at www.phmsa.dot.gov). 

SOURCES 

DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) incident data are used. These data are derived from 

pipeline operator reports submitted on PHMSA Form F-7100.1 

and F-7000.1. Most incidents are reported online through the 

PHMSA website. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Results in any single year should be interpreted with caution. 

There is some normal annual variation in the number of reported 

incidents each year, particularly given the small number of these 

incidents, and this variation might not reflect real changes in the 

underlying risk. 

Targets are presented as ranges to account for this variation. 

The target each year is set at one standard deviation from the 

trendline to account for normal variation year-to-year (which 

shows a decline of about 10 percent on average every three years 

over the past 24 years (1988–2010)). This provides about 80 

percent probability of achieving the target if the risk continues to 

follow the trendline. An exponential trendline is used to reflect 

the concept of diminishing returns as the numbers decline. 

The performance measure is not normalized for changes in 

exposure—external factors such as changes in pipeline mileage, 

energy consumption, or U.S. population—that could affect the 

number of incidents with death or major injury. 

COMPLETENESS 

Compliance in reporting is very high and most incidents that 

meet reporting requirements are submitted. Operators must 

submit reports within 30 days of an incident or face penalties for 

noncompliance. There may be a 30-to-60-day lag in reporting 

and compiling information in the database for analysis. 

Projections from partial-year data include all months for which 

we have reliable data plus an estimated number for the missing 

months based on the historical fraction those months represent in 

the final totals over the past five years. 

RELIABILITY 

PHMSA routinely cross-checks incident/accident reports 

against other sources of data, such as the telephonic reporting 

system for incidents requiring immediate notification provided 

to the National Response Center (NRC). PHMSA inspectors 

also regularly discuss incidents with operator personnel during 

routine inspections. PHMSA continues to work to improve Best 

Management Practices to ensure quality of the incident data. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

TRANSPORTATION INCIDENTS (PHMSA) 

MEASURE 

The number of hazardous materials transportation incidents 

involving death or major injury (CY). 

SCOPE 

Hazardous materials transportation incidents are reportable under 

49 CFR Parts 171.15 and 171.16. All modes of transportation 

(air, water, rail, and highway) except pipelines are covered. In 

maritime transportation, tank vessels (where the vessel itself is 

the container) are exempt from reporting. This measure is limited 

to transportation-related releases of hazardous materials that are 

in commerce. 

An injury is reportable if a person receives an injury requiring admittance to a hospital as a direct result of a hazardous 

material—during the course of transportation in commerce 

(including loading, unloading, and temporary storage). This 

includes employees, emergency responders, and the general 

public. Hospitalization means admittance to a medical facility, not treatment and release from a facility such as a hospital 

emergency room where the person was never admitted to the 

hospital (detailed guidance is on the PHMSA website at www.

phmsa.dot.gov). 

SOURCES 

DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) incident data are used. These data are derived from 

reports submitted on Form DOT F 5800.1 and maintained in the 

Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS). 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Results in any single year should be interpreted with caution. 

There is some normal annual variation in the number of reported 

incidents each year, particularly given the small number of these 

incidents, and this variation might not reflect real changes in the 

underlying risk. 

Targets are presented as ranges to account for this variation. 

The target each year is set at one standard deviation from the 

trendline to account for normal variation year-to-year (which 

shows a decline of about 10 percent on average every eight years 

over the past 24 years (1988–2011)). This provides about 80 

percent probability of achieving the target if the risk continues to 

follow the trendline. An exponential trendline is used to reflect 

the concept of diminishing returns as the numbers decline. 

121
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

The performance measure is not normalized for changes in 

exposure—external factors such as changes in the amount of 

hazmat shipped, number of shipments, or U.S. population—that 

could affect the number of incidents with death or major injury. 

COMPLETENESS 

Compliance in reporting is very high and most incidents that 

resulted in death or major injury are reported. Each person 

in physical possession of a hazardous material at the time an 

incident occurs (loading, unloading, and temporary storage) 

during transportation must submit a Hazardous Materials 

Incident Report on DOT Form F 5800.1 (01-2004) within 30 

days of discovery of the incident. There may be a 30-to-60-day 

lag in reporting, verifying, validating, and compiling information 

in the database for analysis. 

Projections from partial-year data include all months for which 

we have reliable data plus an estimated number for the missing 

months based on the historical fraction those months represent in 

the final totals over the past five years. 

RELIABILITY 

PHMSA routinely cross-checks incident data against other 

sources of data, including matching incident reports with reports 

made to the National Response Center (NRC) and the use of 

a news clipping service to provide information on significant 

hazmat incidents that might not be reported. If sufficient 

information exists, PHMSA follows up with carriers and 

other responsible parties who may need to file an incident report. 

Incidents with death or major injury are considered to be the 

most reliable of the incident data. These incidents have addition

al verification and validation procedures to include follow-up 

contact with the company or individual who made the report, 

contact with state and local law enforcement and/or emergency 

response officials, and matching data with initial reports made to 

the NRC. 

­

TRANSIT FATALITY RATE (FTA) 

MEASURE 

Transit fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles traveled (CY). 

SCOPE 

Transit fatality data include passengers, revenue facility 

occupants, trespassers, employees, other transit workers (e.g., 

contractors), pedestrians, and others. A transit fatality is a death 

within 30 days of an incident related to transit revenue service. 

Excluded are deaths due to medical conditions or natural causes 

occurring on public transportation systems. Excluded are fatalities on commuter rail, the Alaska Railroad, and the Port Authority 

Trans-Hudson (PATH) trains, all of which are regulated by the 

Federal Railroad Administration. 

Previous to 2002, safety data was collected on a fiscal year, as 

opposed to calendar year, basis. 

SOURCES 

These data are reported annually by operators of urbanized area 

transit systems to the FTA National Transit Database (NTD). 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

The fatality counts in FTA’s Transit Safety and Security Statistics 

and Analysis are a census. The major source of uncertainty in the 

measure relates to passenger-miles traveled. Passenger-miles are 

an estimate typically derived from reported passenger trips and 

average trip length. Passenger-miles are the cumulative sum of 

the distances ridden on passenger trips. 

An unlinked trip is recorded each time a passenger boards 

a transit vehicle, even though the rider may be on the same 

journey. Transit authorities do not routinely record trip length. To 

approximate passenger-miles, total unlinked trips are multiplied 

by average trip length. To obtain an average trip length for their 

bus routes, transit authorities use Automatic Passenger Counters 

(APCs) with GPS Technology or an FTA-approved sampling 

technique. To obtain passenger-mile data on rail systems, ferry 

boats, and paratransit, transit authorities often use computerized 

tracking systems, such as the Smart Card. In some cases, such as 

small fare-free systems or large free-transfer systems (e.g., the 

New York City subway), passenger-miles are sampled directly 

since a 100 percent count of unlinked passenger trips is not 

available. Validation based on annual trend analysis is performed 

on the passenger-mile inputs from the transit industry. The 

validation is performed by analysts at the NTD program. 

COMPLETENESS 

The NTD collects a census of transit fatalities from its reporters. 

A small number of urbanized area transit operators do not report 

to the NTD because they are neither a recipient nor a beneficiary 

of urbanized area formula program (Section 5307) funds, and 

also choose to not report to the NTD on a voluntary basis. These 

operators likely have few, if any, fatalities each year. 

RELIABILITY 

The transit agency’s CEO certifies that data reported to the 

NTD are accurate. Submitted data are reviewed by analysts and 

compared to trend data for the transit system and to National 

benchmarks. Validation analysts also monitor published media 

reports of transit fatalities to ensure that all such incidents are 

ultimately reported to the NTD. 

122
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES
�

RAIL-RELATED ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT 

RATE (FRA) 

MEASURE 

Number of rail-related accidents and incidents per million 

train-miles (FY). 

SCOPE 

The Railroad Safety Information System (RSIS) is FRA’s principal repository for data relating to: 

Railroad accidents and incidents; 

Railroad inspections; 

Highway-rail grade crossings; and, 

Other rail safety-related information. 

The Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting Subsystem (RAIRS) 

compiles rail-related accidents and incident data that railroads 

submit as required under 49 CFR Part 225. This subsystem 

contains approximately 35 years of data on railroad casualties, 

train accidents, highway-rail grade crossing collisions, and 

operating statistics. 

A rail equipment (including train) accident is any collision, 

derailment, fire, explosion, act of God, or other event involv

ing the operation of railroad on-track equipment (standing or 

moving) that results in damages greater than the current reporting 

threshold to railroad on-track equipment, signals, track, track 

structures, or roadbed. The reporting threshold for CY 2012 

was $9,500. Reporting threshold for FY 2013 is $9,900. Train 

accidents are reported on form FRA F6180.54, “Rail Equipment 

Accident/Incident Report.” 

­

Operational data, including train-miles, are reported on form 

FRA F6180.55, “Railroad Injury and Illness Summary.” 

SOURCES 

FRA’s Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting Subsystem. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

Although railroads are generally required to report accidents 

and incidents within 30 days to FRA, FRA keeps its data files 

open for amendment for five years to capture late reports, audit 

findings, and other updates. As a result, FRA measures are 

subject to change and might differ from previous reports. A more 

detailed explanation of this process is available in FRA’s Guide 

for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports found at http://safety

data.fra.dot.gov

-

. 

Federal regulation (49 CFR Part 225) requires railroads to file 

monthly reports to FRA of all train accidents that meet or exceed 

the specified calendar year dollar threshold ($9,500 in CY 2012). 

The railroads are also required to file monthly operations reports 

of train-miles, employee-hours, and passenger train-miles. 

Accident/incident reports must be filed within 30 days after the 

end of the month in which the event occurred. Data must be 

updated if the costs of a particular accident are more than 10 

percent higher or lower than the initially reported cost. 

Data processing requires up to 30 days to prepare the information 

for merging into the database. 

Railroad systems that do not connect with the general rail system 

are excluded from reporting to FRA. Examples include: 

Subway systems (e.g., Washington, D.C., Metro; New York 

City Subway); 

Track existing inside an industrial compound; and, 

Insular rail (e.G., Rail that is not connected to the general 

system and does not intersect with a public highway-rail 

grade crossing or go over a navigable waterway). 

RELIABILITY 

FRA uses the data in prioritizing its inspections and safety 

reviews and for strategic management of its rail safety program. 

FRA inspectors review the railroads’ reporting records and 

have authority to write violations if railroads are not reporting 

accurately and completely. Violations can result in monetary 

fines. 

123
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT SAFETY MEASURES 

COMPLETE STREETS (OST) 

MEASURE 

Number of States and localities that adopt roadway designs that 

accommodate all road users (Complete Streets). 

SCOPE 

A Complete Streets approach redefines what a street is intended 

to do, what goals transportation agencies are striving to meet, 

and how a community will spend its transportation money. It 

breaks down the traditional separation of “highways,” “transit,” 

and “biking/walking” and instead focuses on the desired outcome 

of a transportation system that supports safe and universally 

inclusive roadway use. The National Complete Streets Coalition 

has developed ten elements that define an “ideal” Complete 

Streets policy. 

SOURCES 

The data for this metric were taken from the report “Complete 

Streets Policy Analysis 2011,” administered by Smart Growth 

America and the National Complete Streets Coalition (http://

smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/cs/cs-policyanalysis.

pdf). The report examines the approximately 350 existing written 

policies that have been adopted by States, regions, counties, and 

communities before January 1, 2012. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Data are obtained from a source external from DOT. 

While Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets 

Coalition are deemed reliable, the methodologies used in their 

calculations have not been verified by DOT. 

In the report “Complete Streets Policy Analysis 2011,” the 

Complete Streets Coalition evaluates the extent to which a 

community is in compliance with their definition of a Complete 

Streets Policy. Points per policy element and weighted points are 

described on page 15. The methodology used by the Coalition to 

determine the weighting given to each element is described on 

page 29. The assignment of points is determined by staff evalua

tion rather than by a direct measurement. 

­

COMPLETENESS 

Data are assumed to be complete. 

RELIABILITY 

Data are assumed to be reliable. 

124
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT STATE OF 

GOOD REPAIR MEASURES 

HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION 

(FHWA) 

MEASURE 

The percent of travel on National Highway Systems (NHS) that 

meets pavement performance standards for a “good” rated ride 

(CY). 

SCOPE 

Data include Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) on the Highway 

Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), reported NHS sections 

and pavement ride quality data reported using the International 

Roughness Index (IRI). IRI is a quantitative measure of the 

accumulated response of a quarter-car vehicle suspension experi

enced while traveling over pavement. An IRI of 95 inches per 

mile or less is necessary for a good rated ride. VMT represents 

the total number of vehicle-miles traveled by motor vehicles 

on public roadways within the 50 States and the District of 

Columbia. 

­

SOURCES 

Data for this measure are collected by the State Highway 

Agencies using measurement devices that meet industry set 

standards and reported to FHWA. Measurement procedures are 

included in the FHWA HPMS Field Manual. The VMT data are 

derived from the HPMS. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

The major source of error in the percentages is from data collection equipment error and differences in data collection methodologies between the States. 

States provide annual average daily traffic (AADT) on all 

Federal-aid highway sections. These data are based on traffic 

counts taken at least once every three years on the National 

Highway System, Interstate, and Principal Arterials and at least 

once every six years on Minor Arterials and Collectors. Traffic 

counts are adjusted by the States to reflect day-of-week and 

seasonal variations, current year conditions, and axle corrections, 

as necessary. States provide summary data on the local and rural 

minor collector roads. VMT is calculated from this traffic data. 

COMPLETENESS 

The 2011 actual results for this measure are based on 2011 data 

available as of November 2012. The projection for 2012 was 

made using the most recent trend data. 

RELIABILITY 

The HPMS data are collected by the 50 States and the District of 

Columbia in cooperation with local governments. While many of 

the geometric data items, such as type of median, rarely change; 

other items, such as traffic volume, change yearly. Typically, the 

States maintain data inventories that are the repositories of a wide 

variety of data. The HPMS data items are simply extracted from 

these inventories, although some data are collected just to meet 

Agency requirements. 

The FHWA provides guidelines for data collection in the HPMS 

Field Manual. Adherence to these guidelines varies by State, 

depending on issues such as staff, resources, internal policies, 

and uses of the data at the data provider level. An annual review 

of reported data are conducted by the FHWA, both at the 

headquarters level and in the Division Offices in each State. The 

reported data are subjected to intense editing and comparison 

with previously reported data and reasonability checks. A written 

annual evaluation is provided to each State to document potential 

problems and to encourage corrective actions. Data resubmittal is 

requested in cases where major problems are identified. 

HIGHWAY BRIDGE CONDITION (FHWA) 

MEASURE 

The percent of deck area on expanded National Highway System 

Bridges rated structurally deficient (CY). 

SCOPE 

The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) requires the 

inspection of all highway bridges located on public roads and 

the submission of the collected bridge inventory and inspection 

data to the FHWA for inclusion in the National Bridge Inventory 

(NBI). The FHWA maintains the NBI, which contains data on 

nearly 600,000 highway bridges. The information in the NBI 

contains 95 data items for each of the bridges as required by the 

Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and 

Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges. From the data provided, the 

FHWA monitors the condition of the Nation’s bridges, which 

includes identifying those bridges that are either Functionally 

Obsolete or Structurally Deficient. 

SOURCES 

The bridge information is collected by the State DOTs and other 

bridge owners and is provided to the FHWA at least annually. As 

part of the FHWA’s NBI, NBIS, and Highway Bridge Program 

monitoring and oversight responsibilities, the accuracy and 

reliability of the submitted NBI information is constantly evaluat

ed through data checks and field reviews by both Headquarters 

and field office personnel. 

­

125
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT STATE OF 

GOOD REPAIR MEASURES 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

As with any very large dynamic database, there is always the 

potential for data quality issues. However, procedures are in 

place to identify and correct data aresues as part of the annual 

submittal process. Because the performance measure relies on 

data associated with nearly 116,000 NHS bridges, the impact of 

any localized data quality problem is minimized in the overall 

national analysis. 

COMPLETENESS 

The NBI is the world’s most comprehensive database of bridge 

information. The 2012 actual results for this measure are reported 

based on 2011 data, which may not be complete until October of 

2012. 

RELIABILITY 

The bridge information is collected by the State DOTs and 

other bridge owners and is provided to the FHWA at least 

annually. (Note: Some States provide data quarterly.) As part 

of the FHWA’s NBI, NBIS, and Highway Bridge Replacement 

and Rehabilitation Program, the accuracy and reliability of the 

submitted NBI information is evaluated through data checks and 

field reviews by both Headquarters and field office personnel. 

TRANSIT CAPITAL ASSETS BACKLOG (FTA) 

MEASURE 

Backlog of transit capital assets in need of replacement or 

refurbishment (as defined by an estimated condition rating of 2.5 

or lower). 

SCOPE 

This measure includes all capital assets of the U.S. transit 

industry and, as such, incorporates all transit systems in the 

country both urban and rural. The replacement value of all U.S. 

transit assets is estimated at $663 billion, of which some $79 

billion are currently in need of replacement or refurbishment 

(2010 Conditions and Performance Report to Congress). It is 

FTA’s goal to try to reduce this backlog over time. 

SOURCES 

The size of the national state of good repair backlog is estimated 

by the Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) based on 

capital asset data from the National Transit Database (NTD) and 

other ad hoc capital asset surveys. Data on transit vehicles are 

reported annually to the NTD, but that represents only about 

one-quarter of the total value of transit assets. FTA updates 

other capital asset information included in the model on 

a periodic basis. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

This metric relies on a comprehensive database of transit assets 

most of which is reported by transit agencies, with some (at small 

agencies) being inferred from other data. The backlog is the sum 

of the replacement values of all assets that are determined to be 

past their average useful life expectancy. Calculation of average 

useful life is based on surveys of a limited number of assets that 

provide only a moderate level accuracy in the estimates and that 

are subject to obsolescence in an undetermined time frame. 

COMPLETENESS 

Most of the large, and many medium-sized, agencies have 

provided asset inventory data to the database that is used for this 

calculation. This has occurred over the last five years but may not 

include recent changes to the assets and may not have included 

consistent replacement cost data as there are several different 

ways to estimate replacement costs. Estimates for non-replace

able items, such as tunnels, are somewhat speculative. 

­

RELIABILITY 

The transit agency’s CEO certifies that the vehicle data reported 

to the NTD are accurate. These data are reviewed by analysts 

and compared to trend data for the transit system and to National 

benchmarks. The other three-quarters of transit assets are not 

updated annually so are not as reliable. 

RUNWAY PAVEMENT CONDITION (FAA) 

MEASURE 

Percent of runway pavement in excellent, good, or fair condition 

for paved runways in the National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (NPIAS). 

SCOPE 

This metric covers all paved runways at federally funded NPIAS 

airports. Maintaining runway pavement conditions requires 

careful coordination, often years in advance, of a runway rehabil

itation project. Projects must be timed precisely, regardless of 

whether they involve the phased reconstruction of a single-run

way airport or the sequential resurfacing of multiple runways 

over a period of several years. Some of the nation’s largest 

airports resurface one runway every year on a revolving basis. 

As a result, FAA is able at times to exceed the goal. However, 

this does not necessarily represent a sustainable trend. For major 

reconstruction, runways must typically be taken out of service 

for a full construction season or longer. It can be particularly 

challenging to rehabilitate one runway while keeping intersecting 

runways operational. FAA works with airports to ensure that 

the system never has too many runways out of service at any 

given time. 

­

­

126
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT STATE OF 

GOOD REPAIR MEASURES 

SOURCES 

Results of the inspections are entered into FAA’s National 

Airspace System Resource. FAA’s Regional Airports Divisions 

and Airports District Offices partner with individual airports to 

identify poor or failed pavement. FAA’s airport inspectors along 

with inspectors from state aeronautical agencies conduct visual 

inspections of the runways. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

As the measure is a census, statistical issues would be minimal 

and only exist in the case of misreporting or underreporting. 

COMPLETENESS 

The inspection and reporting of conditions are conducted in 

accordance with existing FAA guidance. The data are publicly 

available and therefore can be examined and evaluated by any 

federal auditor. 

RELIABILITY 

Data are considered to be reliable. 

127
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT ECONOMIC 

COMPETITIVENESS MEASURES 

TRAVEL TIME INDEX IN URBAN 

AREAS (FHWA) 

MEASURE 

Travel time reliability in urban areas as measured by the Travel 

Time Index (FY). 

SCOPE 

Data are from 19 urban areas in the U.S. The data reflect travel 

conditions on freeway networks that are outfitted with traffic 

sensors. Plans are under way to expand scope to include all 51 

urban areas with populations over 1,000,000 during FY 2013. 

The TTI measures peak hour travel times versus average travel 

times to gauge the extent of peak hour congestion. 

SOURCES 

Data are collected and provided by the State DOT from existing 

databases, or through the Transportation Technology Innovation 

and Demonstration (TTID) public- private partnership. FHWA’s 

Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) provides 

related volume data. The Texas Transportation Institute utilizes 

these data sources under contract to FHWA to derive the above 

measure. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

The methodology used to calculate performance measures has 

been developed by the Texas Transportation Institute and used 

by FHWA in its Urban Congestion Report (UCR) program since 

2007. 

COMPLETENESS 

The latest available volume data from HPMS was used to 

calculate the results. Typically, there is a lag in data availability 

of 12 to 18 months. For example, 2012 actual numbers will not 

be available from HPMS until October 2013. 

RELIABILITY 

The urban area traffic data are collected and maintained by the 

State DOT or local government. It is provided to the FHWA 

contractor, Texas Transportation Institute, on a monthly basis. 

Reliability has been an issue in the past. The UCR program 

had as many as 23 urban areas providing data, but due to local 

archive issues (e.g., loss of archiving equipment, poor mainte

nance), the number of urban areas providing reliable data was 

reduced to 19 the past few years. 

­

The HPMS volume data are collected by the States in cooperation with local governments. The FHWA provides guidelines 

for data collection in the HPMS Field Manual. Adherence to 

these guidelines varies by State, depending on issues such as 

staff, resources, internal policies, and uses of the data at the data 

provider level. An annual review of reported data are conducted 

by the FHWA, both at the headquarters level and in the Division 

Offices in each State. All reported data are subjected to intense 

editing, comparison with previously reported data, and reasonability checks. A written annual evaluation is provided to each 

State to document potential problems and to encourage correc

tive actions. Data resubmittal is requested in cases where major 

problems are identified. 

­

TRAVEL IN FREIGHT SIGNIFICANT 

CORRIDORS (FHWA) 

MEASURE 

Number of freight corridors with an annual decrease in the 

average buffer index rating (CY). 

SCOPE 

Travel time reliability is a key indicator of transportation system 

performance. FHWA uses measured speed data to calculate a 

Buffer Index (BI) for each freight significant corridor. The BI is 

a measure of travel time reliability and variability that represents 

the extra time (or time cushion) that would have to be added to 

the average travel time to ensure on-time arrival 95 percent of the 

time. 

SOURCES 

Travel time data for freight significant corridors is derived using 

time and location data from satellite communications equipment 

onboard mobile commercial vehicles. A Global Positioning 

System (GPS) or other communication device in the vehicle 

transmits a continuous or periodic signal to an earth orbit 

satellite. This technology allows commercial vehicles to serve as 

probes and enables direct measurement of commercial vehicle 

average operating speeds and travel rates and travel times. 

Selection of freight significant corridors and highway segments is 

largely based on the volume of freight moved on the segment. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

The key issues are long-term viability of data source, sampling 

size of the commercial vehicle probes, and frequency of the 

time and position sampling. In FY 2009, FHWA made progress 

in addressing the issues of sample size and the frequency of 

sampling. By entering into arrangements with two additional 

technology partners, FHWA added more than 150,000 vehicles to 

the sample size and enabled more precise detection of a vehicle’s 

location, direction, and speed. 

128
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

DETAILS ON DOT ECONOMIC 

COMPETITIVENESS MEASURES 

COMPLETENESS 

FHWA is partnering with vendors that collect automatic vehicle 

information from a customer base, primarily with interstate 

long-haul carriers. The data provides nationwide coverage from 

approximately 500,000 vehicles (trucks and trailers) in the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. The majority of the data are from 

fleets that have signals sent to vehicles with readings taken as 

often as every 15 minutes. The interval between probe readings 

depends on the subscription and which services the individual 

carriers have authorized. The intervals vary and may range from 

every two minutes to every two hours. 

The following data are transmitted: 

Truck id; 

Latitude; 

Longitude; 

Date and time; and, 

Interstate route. 

In FY 2009, FHWA enhanced the completeness of the data set 

by adding two additional vendors. This increases the percentage of local truckload carriers, increases the coverage area, 

and provides access to the data that more accurately pinpoints 

a vehicle’s location, direction, and speed. FHWA processes 

and manages the data provided by the vendors to gather the 

information for this measure. On average, the data set produces 

more than 340,000,000 truck positions monthly and more than 

4,000,000,000 positions annually. 

RELIABILITY 

Probe vehicle performance systems are designed to provide travel 

time and speed/delay information without traditional fixed-loca

tion traffic monitoring and data collection systems. Probe-based 

systems enable coverage of much larger geographic areas (i.e., 

entire roadway networks) without the cost of building fixed-lo

cation traffic data collection systems throughout those networks. 

This technique takes advantage of the significant reductions in 

the cost of GPS devices that report current location and time 

information with a high degree of accuracy. When placed in 

vehicles and combined with electronic map information, GPS 

devices are the primary component of excellent vehicle location 

systems. Storage and analysis of the GPS location data allow for 

very accurate roadway performance measurement. To provide 

reliable roadway performance estimates, a large enough number 

of vehicles must be equipped with GPS to provide an unbiased 

­

­

measure of roadway performance, and to provide the temporal 

and geographic diversity desired by the performance measure

ment system. A significant drawback to probe vehicle-based 

performance monitoring is that it does not provide information 

about the level of roadway use (i.e., vehicle volume), but only 

provides information about the speeds and travel times being 

experienced. 

­

IMPROVED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL 

SERVICE (FRA) 

MEASURE 

Construction initiated on seven high-speed rail corridors and 36 

high-speed rail projects (FY). 

SCOPE 

Through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) 

Program, FRA provided funding for construction projects to 

improve passenger rail services around the country. These 

projects are categorized as follows: 

Corridor programs—A corridor program is defined as a 

set of interrelated capital projects that will result in the 

introduction of new or substantially improved high-speed or 

intercity passenger rail services. 

Individual projects—For the purposes of this goal, an 

individual project is defined as (1) a discrete project not 

connected to a larger corridor program that will result in 

service benefits or other tangible improvements and (2) a 

corridor program with a total cost below $100 million. 

This measure has a completion date of September 30, 2013. 

SOURCES 

Quarterly HSIPR Project Status Tracker and quarterly 

progress reports. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

There are no statistical issues identified at this time. As data 

continue to be collected and updated, this metric will be reexam

ined and statistical issues identified as necessary. 

­

COMPLETENESS 

The HSIPR Project Status Tracker is an internal tool updated 

quarterly by FRA staff based on project status information 

provided by project sponsors and FRA’s contractors supporting the agency in monitoring projects. The Tracker categorizes 

construction projects into one of the four following statuses: 

129
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

DETAILS ON DOT ECONOMIC 

COMPETITIVENESS MEASURES 

Construction Complete—all major construction objectives 

are complete; 

Construction Underway—grantee reports that construction 

has begun; 

Construction Starts Within Six Months—estimate by project 

sponsors and FRA staff based on project schedule and 

progress; or, 

No Construction Planned in Six Months—estimate by 

project sponsors and FRA staff based on project schedule 

and progress. 

RELIABILITY 

These data are assumed to be reliable. 

AVERAGE DAILY AIRPORT CAPACITY (CORE 

AIRPORTS) (FAA) 

MEASURE 

Average daily airport arrival and departure rates at the Core 

Airports. 

SCOPE 

Only the Core Airports are included in this metric. Each airport 

facility determines the number of arrivals and departures it can 

handle for each hour of each day, depending on conditions, 

including weather. These numbers are the called arrival and 

departure rates of the airport for that hour. Data are summed for 

daily, monthly, and annual totals. (Note: In FY 2011, FAA revised 

the Average Daily Airport Capacity measure to include a new set 

of airports, renamed “Core Airports,” which replace the original 

35 Operational Evolution Partnership airports. The revised list 

of airports includes the current most congested airports in the 

country.) 

SOURCES 

The Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) database, 

maintained by the FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, 

provides the data for this metric. The individual air traffic 

facilities for the Core Airports provide arrival and departure 

rates. Staffers in the Office of Policy, International Affairs 

and Environment (APL) feed this information into the ASPM 

database. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

Fiscal year data are finalized approximately 90 days after the 

close of the fiscal year. 

RELIABILITY 

The reliability of ASPM is verified on a daily basis by the 

execution of a number of audit checks, comparison to other 

published data metrics, and through the use of ASPM by more 

than 1,500 registered users. 

ADJUSTED OPERATIONAL AVAILABILITY 

(FAA) 

MEASURE 

Percentage of hours operational availability for the reportable 

facilities that support the Core Airports during the maximum 

facility/service hours at those airports. 

SCOPE 

The National Airspace Performance Reporting System (NAPRS) 

facilities necessary to maintain the provision of service in the 

NAS overall have been determined and are monitored. For this 

metric, those NAPRS reportable facilities necessary for the 

provision of service at the Core Airports have been separately 

measured. Time out of service is adjusted to exclude hours when 

equipment is unavailable due to scheduled improvement (cause 

code 62) downtime. 

SOURCES 

The National Airspace System Performance Analysis System 

(NASPAS). NASPAS was developed to analyze outages of the 

air traffic control facilities in the NAS maintained by the FAA. 

NASPAS receives monthly updates of outage data from the 

National Outage Database (NODB). The Remote Monitoring and 

Logging System contains individual equipment outage data as 

recorded by the system specialist. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

The FAA’s Quality Assurance and Performance Team, under 

ATO-W, conducts a monthly review of all Log Interrupt Reports 

that are entered into the Remote Monitoring and Logging System 

to ensure the data, which resides in the NODB, are as complete 

and accurate as possible. 

RELIABILITY 

NASPAS is the official source of equipment and service performance data for the FAA. 

130
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶

▶	 

 

DETAILS ON DOT ECONOMIC 

COMPETITIVENESS MEASURES 

EN ROUTE AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION 

(ERAM) (FAA) 

MEASURE 

Number of continental U.S. Air Route Traffic Control Centers 

that achieve initial operating capability (IOC) on En Route 

Automation Modernization (ERAM). 

SCOPE 

This metric measures the ATO success in achieving IOC on 

ERAM at ARTCCs (Air Route Traffic Control Centers). The 

ERAM System replaces the 40-year-old En Route HOST 

Computer System used to manage high-altitude air traffic. 

SOURCES 

Declaration of IOC is an event that is closely coordinated across 

ATO lines of business. It is communicated to the ERAM program 

office and other ATO lines of business by facility managers and 

members of the ERAM facility team. Close coordination and 

communication is maintained across these stakeholder groups in 

the period leading up to, resulting in, and following the declara

tion of IOC. 

­

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

This metric has no statistical issues. 

COMPLETENESS 

The decision to declare IOC at a site includes the following, 

as articulated as part of the Benchmarking Standard Operating 

Procedure (SOP) for ERAM: 

Entrance Criteria—An IOC event is collaboratively endorsed 

by the ERAM Article 48/11 Work Group (consisting of FAA 

management and bargaining unit representatives). 

Site personnel identified in the IOC Readiness Checklist 

(air traffic manager, technical operations manager, district 

manager, program operations field manager, and the 

NATCA FAC representative) assess software viability via 

the exit briefing, planning the purpose, strategy, and length 

of the operational run, and coordination of the operation

al run strategy with the appropriate local and national 

stakeholders. 

­

Approval to proceed with an operational run is shared by 

the ATM and NATCA facility representative after input 

from site technical operations and field automation support 

team and external affected parties including but not limited 

to terminal, military, and air carriers. 

IOC is achieved when the site begins the first 

operational run. 

RELIABILITY 

This metric has no reliability issue. The ARTCC either achieves 

IOC on ERAM, or it does not. 

131
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

▶

DETAILS ON DOT GLOBAL 

CONNECTIVITY MEASURES
�

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY SYSTEM 

AVAILABILITY (SLSDC) 

MEASURE 

The percent of days in the shipping season that the U.S. portion 

of the Saint Lawrence Seaway is available (FY). 

SCOPE 

The availability and reliability of the U.S. sectors of the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway (including the two U.S. Seaway locks in 

Massena, NY) are critical to continuous commercial shipping 

during the navigation season (late March to late December). 

System downtime due to any condition (weather, vessel 

incidents, malfunctioning equipment) causes delays to shipping, 

affecting international trade to and from the Great Lakes region 

of North America. Downtime is measured by: 

Hours/minutes of delay for weather (visibility, fog, 

snow, ice);
 

Vessel incidents (human error, electrical and/or 

mechanical failure);
 

Water level and rate of flow regulation; and, 

Lock equipment malfunction. 

SOURCES 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) 

Office of Lock Operations and Marine Services. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

SLSDC is the agency responsible for the operation and maintenance of the U.S. portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. 

Furthermore, SLSDC’s lock operations unit gathers primary data 

for all vessel transits through the U.S. Seaway sectors and locks, 

including any downtime in operations. 

Data are collected on site, at the U.S. locks, as vessels are 

transiting or as operations are suspended. This information 

measuring the system’s reliability is compiled and delivered to 

SLSDC senior staff and stakeholders each month. In addition, 

SLSDC compiles annual system availability data for comparison 

purposes. Since SLSDC gathers data directly from observation, 

there are no limitations. Historically, the SLSDC has reported this 

performance metric for its entire navigation season (late March 

to late December). Unfortunately, due to reporting timelines, 

system availability data are only reported through September in 

this report. 

RELIABILITY 

SLSDC verifies and validates the accuracy of the data through 

review of 24-hour vessel traffic control computer records, radio 

communication between the two Seaway entities and vessel 

operators, and video and audiotapes of vessel incidents. 

132
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT ECONOMIC 

COMPETITIVENESS MEASURES 

COMMERCIAL SEALIFT CAPACITY (MARAD) 

MEASURE 

Ships available to meet DOD’s requirements for commercial 

sealift capacity (as measured by the number of ships contractually enrolled in the maritime security program). 

SCOPE 

The Maritime Security Program (MSP) was established to ensure 

that a core fleet of U.S.-flag commercial vessels operating in 

U.S. international trade with U.S. citizen mariner crews would be 

available to meet the economic needs of the United States while 

also providing the Department of Defense (DOD) with assured 

access to vessels and mariners. The Maritime Security Act of 

2003 establishes the MSP fleet for fiscal years 2006 through 

2015. The program authorizes payments and MSP operating 

agreements for 60 ships. MARAD monitors MSP ships on a 

monthly basis to ensure that ships are available to meet the 

economic and national security requirements of DOD. 

SOURCES 

Ships enrolled in the MSP have signed MSP Operating 

Agreements which require MSP participants to have ships 

enrolled in an Emergency Preparedness Agreement to support 

DOD requirements. MSP operators also have signed Voluntary 

Intermodal Sealift Agreements (VISA) for dry cargo vessels and 

Voluntary Tanker Agreements with MARAD. Any requests to 

leave the MSP must be approved by MARAD in consultation 

with the U.S. Transportation Command. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

The number of ships enrolled and available is tracked and 

managed on a regular basis, and considered final by the end of 

the fiscal year. 

RELIABILITY 

The data are reasonably reliable and useful in managing the MSP. 

COMMERCIAL SEALIFT CAPACITY (MARAD) 

MEASURE 

Operating days in the U.S. foreign commerce and available to 

meet DOD’s requirements (as measured by the number of ship 

operating days that ships enrolled in the Maritime Security 

Program (MSP) were actually operating in U.S. foreign 

commerce). 

SCOPE 

As a requirement for full MSP payments, ships must operate a 

minimum of 320 days each fiscal year. This equates to 19,200 

operating days each fiscal year for the 60-ship MSP fleet. 

SOURCES 

MSP operators provide MARAD with monthly vouchers detailing the days of operation for each MSP vessel. Days of non-operation are also reported. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

Data are complete. Final fiscal year results were made available 

in October. 

RELIABILITY 

Because of the monthly vouchers and independent verification by 

MARAD using available vessel operating databases, these data 

are reliable. 

133
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

 

DETAILS ON DOT ECONOMIC 

COMPETITIVENESS MEASURES 

AMERICA’S MARINE HIGHWAY (MARAD) 

MEASURE 

Number of Twenty Foot Equivalent (TEU) containers transported 

across America’s Marine Highway corridors. 

SCOPE 

MARAD’s baseline measure of performance for the AMH 

program is volume of containers, or TEUs, moved by grant-pro

gram-assisted services. The container TEU metric is an indicator 

of direct grant-related program performance and permits further 

downstream calculation of program benefits. In addition, all 

program grant agreements contain “volume of containers or 

TEUs transported” as the primary performance measurement 

criterion, which they are required to report to MARAD on a 

regular basis. As a note, TEU activity includes the shipment of 

empty containers and loaded containers. The benefits of moving 

a container over Marine Highway as opposed to truck or rail are 

similar regardless of whether the container is loaded or empty. 

­

SOURCES 

The Maritime Administration’s data are derived from quarterly 

reports submitted by the Marine Highway grantees. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

Final fiscal year results were made available in November. 

RELIABILITY 

The data are reasonably reliable and are submitted quarterly by 

Marine Highway grant recipients to MARAD. Data received are 

tracked and a trend analysis for the data are maintained, seeking to 

identify seasonality slumps and anomalies in reporting. Unusual 

or erratic reports are returned to the grantee and questioned 

for correctness. 

UNITED STATES MERCHANT MARINE 

ACADEMY (MARAD) 

MEASURE 

Number of U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) 

graduates. 

SCOPE 

This measure identifies the number of highly qualified mariners 

who graduate on an annual basis to contribute to maintaining 

the nation’s pool of skilled merchant mariners, and available for 

service during national emergencies, to support strategic sealift, 

and serve the Nation’s commercial maritime transportation needs. 

SOURCES 

Registrar; verified/cross checked with Midshipmen Personnel 

Office. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

Data are complete by the end of the fiscal year. 

RELIABILITY 

The data are reliable according to the Registrar and Midshipmen 

Personnel Office. Data are verified by the Acting Deputy 

Superintendent. 

134
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶

▶

▶

▶

DETAILS ON DOT ECONOMIC 

COMPETITIVENESS MEASURES 

STATE MARITIME ACADEMY PROGRAM 

(MARAD) 

MEASURE 

Number of State Maritime Academy graduates with merchant 

mariner credentials graduating annually. 

SCOPE 

This measure is based upon the number of U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) credentialed graduates annually from the six State 

Maritime Academies (SMA’s). These young men and women 

graduate after receiving essential on-the-job training and a 

maritime education with the necessary qualifications to crew 

merchant vessels. 

This measure identifies the number of highly qualified U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) credentialed mariners who graduate on an annual 

basis from the six State Maritime Academies (SMAs) to contrib

ute to maintaining the nation’s pool of skilled merchant mariners, 

and to be available for service during national emergencies, 

to support strategic sealift, and to serve the Nation’s commer

cial maritime transportation needs. This program supports the 

competitiveness of a viable and robust merchant marine, and 

contributes to national defense, homeland security, and economic 

competitiveness. 

­

­

SOURCES 

The total number of graduates per academy is provided by the 

registrars from the six State Maritime Academies. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

Data are complete. The State Maritime Academies have up 

to three graduations a year, sometimes as late as November. 

Therefore, final results on the number of graduates by fiscal year 

are not final until the end of December. 

RELIABILITY 

The data are reasonably reliable according to the information 

received from the SMAs. 

NAS ON-TIME ARRIVALS (FAA) 

MEASURE 

Percent of all flights arriving no more than 15 minutes late. 

SCOPE 

A flight is considered on time if it arrives no later than 15 minutes 

after the published, scheduled arrival time. This definition is used 

in both the DOT Airline Service Quality Performance (ASQP) 

and Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) reporting 

systems. Air carriers, however, also file up-to-date flight plans for 

their services with the FAA that may differ from their published 

flight schedules. This metric measures on-time performance 

against a carrier’s filed flight plan rather than the published 

schedule, which may be dated. 

The time of arrival of completed passenger flights to and from the 

Core Airports is compared to their flight plan scheduled time of 

arrival. For delayed flights, delay minutes are subtracted from the 

total minutes of delay to determine lateness. Such delay minutes 

include: 

Delay minutes attributable to extreme weather; 

Carrier-caused delay; 

Security delay; and, 

Share of delay minutes due to a late-arriving flight at the 

departure airport. 

If the flight is still late, it is counted as a delayed flight attributed 

to the National Aviation System (NAS) and the FAA. 

SOURCES 

The ASPM database, maintained by the FAA’s Office of Aviation 

Policy and Plans, and the DOT’s ASQP causation database, 

provide the data for this metric. By agreement with the DOT, 

certain major air carriers file ASQP flight data for all flights to 

and from most large and medium hubs. Flight records contained 

in the Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS) and flight 

movement times provided by Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) 

supplement the flight data. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Data are not reported for all carriers; only 20 carriers report 

monthly into the ASQP reporting system. 

COMPLETENESS 

Fiscal year data are finalized approximately 90 days after the 

close of the fiscal year. 

135
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

▶	 

DETAILS ON DOT ECONOMIC 

COMPETITIVENESS MEASURES 

RELIABILITY 

The reliability of ASPM is verified on a daily basis by the 

execution of a number of audit checks, comparison to other 

published data metrics, and through the use of ASPM by more 

than 1500 registered users. ASQP data are filed monthly with 

DOT under 14 CFR 234, Airline Service Quality Performance 

Reports, which separately requires reporting by major air carriers 

on flights to and from all large hubs. 

ECONOMIC AUTHORITY FOR AIR CARRIERS 

TO OPERATE (OST) 

MEASURE 

Review air carriers to ensure they meet the requisite standards for 

obtaining or retaining economic authority to operate. 

SCOPE 

DOT is authorized to review airlines’ economic authority to 

ensure that newly formed airlines and existing airlines do not 

place American consumers at risk. DOT uses a three-party test to 

determine whether airlines are “fit, willing and able” to operate. 

Specifically, DOT analyzes whether an airline: 

Will have (or has) the managerial skills and technical ability 

to conduct the proposed (or existing) operations; 

Will have (or has) sufficient financial resources to 

commence the operations proposed (or continue its current 

operations) without posing an undue risk to consumers or 

their funds; and, 

Will comply (or complies) with the Transportation Code and 

regulations imposed by Federal and State agencies. 

SOURCES 

Applicants requesting new economic authority from the 

Department submit their applications to the Department of 

Transportation Dockets (Dockets) through www.regulations.

gov. Dockets routes the appropriate applications to the Office 

of Aviation Analysis in OST for processing. For continuing 

fitness reviews, certificated and commuter air carriers submit 

the necessary information regarding their ownership, citizen

ship, financial condition, management, and compliance disposi

tion directly to the Office of Aviation for a redetermination of 

fitness. The Office of Aviation Analysis then sums the number 

of applicants that have received economic authority from the 

Department in a given year with the number of completed 

continuing fitness reviews during that same year to generate the 

actual completed strategic action items. 

­

­

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

As DOT measures the number of completed reviews on new 

airlines requesting initial economic authority and on existing 

airlines holding economic authority, there are no current 

statistical issues as it is a raw count. In order to calculate the 

total number of reviews completed in a given fiscal year, DOT 

adds the number of issued final decisions for new airlines to the 

number of issued letters finding existing airlines remaining “fit.” 

For FY 2012, DOT issued eight airlines new economic authority 

and issued 19 airlines “continuing fitness approval” letters, for a 

total of 27 completed reviews. 

COMPLETENESS 

In FY 2012, DOT completed 27 reviews of airlines’ economic 

authority, exceeding its target by nine reviews. 

RELIABILITY 

Data are reliable. 

INTERNATIONAL AVIATION (OST) 

MEASURE 

Reach three or more bilateral or multilateral agreements to 

remove market distorting barriers to trade in transportation. 

SCOPE 

One of DOT’s key missions is to negotiate liberalized, bilateral 

aviation agreements that result in increased air service opportunities and lower fares for consumers. 

SOURCES 

These negotiations require DOT, in cooperation with the 

Department of State, to conduct formal international meetings 

with foreign government counterparts with the goal of achiev

ing less restrictive agreements and, ultimately, “Open Skies” 

agreements. 

­

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Data collection is a manual process involving regular updating of 

OST’s internal tracking device (spreadsheet) and updating OST’s 

external website. 

COMPLETENESS 

The data are as complete as possible and under the supervision 

of OST. 

RELIABILITY 

The data are reliable. 

136
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶	 

▶	 

DETAILS ON DOT ECONOMIC 

COMPETITIVENESS MEASURES 

DISADVANTAGED AND WOMEN-OWNED 

SMALL BUSINESSES (OST S-40) 

MEASURE 

1. Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct 

contracts that are awarded to women-owned businesses 

(FY). 

2. Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct 

contracts that are awarded to small disadvantaged 

businesses (FY). 

SCOPE 

Includes contracts awarded by DOT Operating Administrations 

through direct procurement. It does not include FAA contracts 

exempt from the Small Business Act. 

SOURCES 

New data reports will come directly from the Federal 

Procurement Data System (FPDS). Data are compiled by 

USDOT contracting staff from Department contract documents. 

Selected information is either transmitted from the operating 

administration contract writing systems, or manually data-keyed 

into the FPDS database. The FPDS website can be queried to 

compute all needed statistics. 

All USDOT contracts are itemized. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

DOT is currently required to examine FPDS/NG data and 

resubmit it for validation. After re-verifying these data against 

internal sources, all known major errors in the data are eliminat

ed. Business types are identified in the Central Contractor 

Registration (CCR) database. However, random variation 

in the number of DOT contracts as well as the number of 

women-owned and small disadvantaged businesses each year 

results in some random variation in these measures from year 

to year. 

­

COMPLETENESS 

The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) is prescribed by 

regulations as the official data collection mechanism for DOT 

acquisitions. 

RELIABILITY 

There is extensive regulatory coverage to ensure data reliability. 

The system is used to prepare many reports to Congress, the 

Small Business Administration (SBA), and others. Performance 

goals follow actual data, as finalized by the SBA, and are the 

only reliable basis for program evaluations as mandated by the 

Small Business Act, Section 644(g). 

137
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT LIVABLE 

COMMUNITIES MEASURES 

STATES WITH POLICIES TO IMPROVE 

TRANSPORTATION CHOICES (FHWA) 

MEASURE 

Number of States with policies that improve transportation 

choices for walking, wheeling, and bicycling (FY). 

SCOPE 

This measure is assessed by monitoring the States to determine if 

any have enacted new policies related to transportation choices. 

A list of States with such policies is maintained by FHWA and 

the list is adjusted when new policies are enacted by a State 

legislature or adopted by a State DOT. The policies typically 

require that agencies design transportation facilities that support 

safe travel by all road users regardless of age or ability, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, drivers, and freight. 

State policies that improve transportation choices for walking, 

wheeling (a term that refers to individuals who use or must 

use wheelchairs, scooters, or other assistive wheeled devices), 

and bicycling are also referred to as Complete Streets policies. 

The basic concept is that the policies ensure that the safety and 

transportation needs of all road users are considered in transportation projects. These policies place particular emphasis on 

non-motorists such as walkers and bicyclists. 

SOURCES 

FHWA monitors State policies and maintains a list of States that 

have enacted or adopted such policies that is updated when any 

change occurs. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Not applicable. 

COMPLETENESS 

There are no issues related to completeness. The list, which is 

maintained by FHWA, is updated as soon as a State enacts a new 

policy. 

RELIABILITY 

FHWA uses the results for this measure as one way of determin

ing whether State DOTs are working to support the key principles 

of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which include: 

(1) Providing more transportation choices and (2) valuing 

communities and neighborhoods. 

­

STATES WITH ADA TRANSITION PLANS 

(FHWA) 

MEASURE 

Number of States that have developed an Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan that is current and includes 

the public rights-of-way (FY). 

SCOPE 

ADA transition plans are required by law and regulation. State 

and local governments with 50 or more employees are required to 

perform a self-evaluation, or inventory, of their current services, 

practices, and facilities such as curb ramps and sidewalks that 

do not or may not meet ADA requirements. The transition 

plan, which follows this self-evaluation, describes in detail the 

methods that will be used to make the public entity’s facilities 

accessible. The plan also specifies the schedule for taking the 

steps necessary to achieve compliance, which are prescribed in 

28 CFR 35.150(d). 

SOURCES 

Division Offices responses are based on the triennial Civil Rights 

Program Assessment (CRPA) and the first set of progress reports 

(i.e., how States are addressing deficiencies identified by the 

CRPA). A total of 29 states and the District of Columbia were 

required to complete the CRPA in FY 2010; the remaining 20 

States and Puerto Rico were required to complete the CRPA in 

FY 2011. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Not applicable. 

COMPLETENESS 

Transportation agencies from all 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported. 

RELIABILITY 

Although the CRPAs conducted in FY 2010-11 were self-report

ed, the reliability of the CRPA is high with respect to the ADA 

transition plan measure. Transition plans are easily obtained 

for FHWA internal review, and must be made available to the 

public, e.g., posted at a State Transportation Agency’s website. 

The criteria for determining whether or not a State is in compli

ance with the ADA transition plan regulations are among the 

more clearly defined ones, and are not subject to significant 

interpretation. 

­

­

138
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT LIVABLE 

COMMUNITIES MEASURES 

TRANSIT BOARDINGS IN URBANIZED 

AREAS (FTA) 

MEASURE 

The number of transit boardings reported by urbanized area 

transit providers. 

SCOPE 

This metric includes all passenger boardings from the approxi

mately 750 urbanized area transit systems in the U.S. that report 

annually to the National Transit Database (NTD). 

­

SOURCES 

Each transit system reports total boardings on all the transit 

modes they operate to the annual module of the NTD. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Data are reported by the individual transit systems at the end of 

their fiscal years. All transit systems that receive or benefit from 

FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Grants are required to report 

to the NTD. Although FTA requires a 100 percent count of 

boardings to be reported whenever possible, not every system has 

a 100 percent count available. In particular, several large subway 

systems with free transfers still rely on statistical sampling data 

to estimate the number of boardings each year. 

Since transit agencies operate on different fiscal years, the data 

do not represent a concurrent period of time. With year-end 

reporting from June 30 through December 31, the metric 

represents an 18-month period; so events may not impact 

ridership equally at all agencies. 

COMPLETENESS 

This measure includes almost all U.S. urban transit systems. 

However, there are a few that neither receive nor benefit from 

FTA Urbanized Area Formula Grant funds and choose not to 

report on a voluntary basis. These systems are estimated to be 

very small, and do not have a significant impact on the total 

number of boardings. 

RELIABILITY 

The transit agency’s CEO certifies that data reported to the 

NTD are accurate. Submitted data are reviewed by analysts and 

compared to trend data for the transit system and to National 

benchmarks. Since these data are used to apportion grant funds, 

FTA carefully validates the submitted data. Occasional reporting 

errors may remain undetected. 

TRANSIT BOARDINGS IN RURAL 

AREAS (FTA) 

MEASURE 

Number of transit boardings reported by rural area transit 

providers. 

SCOPE 

This metric includes passenger boardings from rural transit 

systems in every state and territory, as well as in many tribal 

areas. More than 1,000 U.S. rural transit systems report to the 

National Transit Database (NTD). 

SOURCES 

Each transit system reports total boardings on all the transit 

modes they operate to the rural module of the NTD. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Data are reported by the individual transit systems at the end of 

their fiscal years. All transit systems that receive or benefit from 

FTA’s Rural Area Formula (5311) Grants are required to report 

to the NTD. The quality of this metric is largely reliant upon 

the quality of the data collected and submitted by the individual 

transit systems. 

Although FTA requires a 100 percent count of boardings to be 

reported whenever possible, not every system has a 100 percent 

count available. In particular, some smaller bus systems still rely 

on statistical sampling data to estimate the number of boardings 

each year. 

Since transit agencies operate on different fiscal years, the data 

do not represent a concurrent period of time. With year-end 

reporting from June 30 through December 31, the metric 

represents an 18-month period; events may not impact ridership 

equally at all agencies. 

COMPLETENESS 

This measure includes most U.S. rural transit systems. However, 

there are a few that neither receive nor benefit from FTA Rural 

Area Formula Grant funds and thus are not required to report to 

the NTD. 

RELIABILITY 

The transit agency’s CEO certifies that data reported to the 

NTD are accurate. Submitted data are reviewed by analysts and 

compared to trend data for the transit system and to National 

benchmarks. Since these data are used to apportion grant funds, 

FTA carefully validates the submitted data. Reporters often lack 

technical resources and sophistication. Occasional reporting 

errors may remain undetected. 

139
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT LIVABLE 

COMMUNITIES MEASURES 

TRANSIT “MARKET SHARE” (FTA) 

MEASURE 

Transit “market share” among commuters to work in the 50 most 

populous urbanized areas compared to the 2010 baseline. 

SCOPE 

This metric indicates the relative share of transit as the transpor

tation choice of commuters in the 50 largest U.S. Urbanized 

Areas (defined by population in the 2010 Census). It reports the 

number of these cities that show a statistically significant increase 

in transit mode share minus the number of cities that show a 

statistically significant decrease relative to the 2011 baseline. 

These 50 systems account for more than 90 percent of all transit 

boardings in the U.S. 

­

SOURCES 

This metric relies on American Community Survey three-year 

data for workers over the age of 16, at the 90 percent confidence 

level. The Census Bureau collects annual data on mode of 

transportation to work for workers over the age of 16 as part of 

its ongoing American Community Survey. Survey numbers are 

aggregated into three-year rolling averages to increase sample 

size and thus statistical accuracy. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a continuous 

monthly survey that collects the data historically collected by the 

decennial Census long-form sample. ACS samples approximately 

three million housing unit addresses, in all counties and county 

equivalents in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. 

To improve accuracy, several years of ACS sample are pooled 

together to create “period” estimates. The first estimates based 

on three years of pooled ACS data were published in 2008 for all 

areas with a population of at least 20,000 using data from 2005 

through 2007. 

Small changes in transit market share from one survey release to 

the next often fall within the survey’s statistical margin of error. 

This metric counts the number of cities for which the change in 

transit market share from the 2010 survey release to the current 

survey release falls outside the statistical margin of error. 

COMPLETENESS 

This measure only includes the 50 largest urbanized areas. The 

urbanized areas studied contain approximately 46 percent of the 

Nation’s population. 

RELIABILITY 

Census Bureau data are highly reliable but represent a relatively 

small sample of commuters and questions used may not fully 

capture the extent of transit use. For example, the survey is only 

filled out for workers over the age of 16. 

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 

(ADA)-COMPLIANT RAIL TRANSIT 

STATIONS (FTA) 

MEASURE 

Number of key rail transit stations verified as accessible and 

fully compliant. 

SCOPE 

This measure includes all key stations at U.S. transit agencies 

that operate rail systems. FTA monitors the progress transit 

agencies have made toward ensuring that all their key rail 

stations are compliant with the ADA. Of the 3,175 rail transit 

stations, a subset are considered to be key stations based on their 

location at main transfer points or at the end of a line. In 2010 

these stations were 95 percent compliant. 

SOURCES 

Data are reported annually by rail transit operators to the FTA 

Office of Civil Rights. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

This measure is a census of a finite number of stations of which 

all characteristics are known; at this time there are no known 

statistical issues. 

COMPLETENESS 

This is a comprehensive annual review of key rail transit stations. 

This is a subset of all rail stations established by law. 

RELIABILITY 

Each transit agency’s CEO certifies, in an annual letter to the 

FTA, which stations are accessible. 

140
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

▶

▶

DETAILS ON DOT LIVABLE 

COMMUNITIES MEASURES 

INTERCITY RAIL PASSENGER-MILES 

TRAVELED (FRA) 

MEASURE 

Number of intercity rail passenger-miles traveled (FY). 

SCOPE 

This measure reports passenger-miles traveled on intercity

 passenger rail services. Amtrak currently operates all intercity 

passenger rail services in the United States, including the Northeast 

Corridor, State Corridor, and Long-Distance services, as well as 

Special Trains. This measure does not report passenger-miles 

traveled on contract commuter services or commuter services 

operating over infrastructure owned by Amtrak. Should other 

intercity passenger rail operators initiate service in the United 

States, this measure will also include passenger-miles traveled 

on those services. 

SOURCES 

Amtrak’s fiscal year-end Train Earnings Report. 

Note: Sources for additional operators will be determined as 

needed. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

There are no statistical issues identified at this time. As data 

continue to be collected and updated, this metric will be reexam

ined and statistical issues identified as necessary. 

­

COMPLETENESS 

Amtrak’s Train Earnings Report provides summary ridership, 

revenue, and operations data by route. The report is produced 

monthly by Amtrak’s finance department. 

RELIABILITY 

Data are assumed to be reliable. 

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 

(ADA)-COMPLIANT RAIL STATIONS (FRA) 

MEASURE 

Increase the percentage of rail stations (where Amtrak is responsible for compliance) that are compliant with the ADA and Sec. 

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (FY). 

SCOPE 

Amtrak is responsible for compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

at approximately 390 of the more than 500 stations it serves. 

Amtrak is managing this requirement through the Accessible 

Stations Development Program (ASDP). 

Compliance efforts at a station are determined to be complete 

when either: 

Amtrak’s station reassessment process (currently under 

way) determines that no further work is necessary, or, 

Major work elements defined as being necessary for achieving 

ADA compliance in the ASDP are complete and Amtrak 

signs off on substantial completion. 

SOURCES 

Amtrak’s Accessible Stations Development Program updates 

FRA oversight reports. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

There are no statistical issues identified at this time. As data 

continue to be collected and updated, this metric will be 

reexamined and statistical issues identified as necessary. 

COMPLETENESS 

As a result of limited oversight funding, FRA conducts limited 

reviews of Amtrak’s progress. 

As described in Amtrak’s August 2012 letter providing a status 

update on the ASDP to the Secretary of Transportation and 

House and Senate authorizing committee chairmen and ranking 

members, insufficient appropriations and recent Department of 

Transportation regulations and guidance have resulted in delays 

in Amtrak’s implementation of its ASDP plan. Progress reports 

are provided periodically; however, completing comprehensive 

plan updates will not be possible until a reassessment of current 

station compliance is complete. A comprehensive compliance 

report is therefore not available at this time. 

RELIABILITY 

The number of stations included within the ASDP is subject to 

fluctuation as a result of modifications to ownership and leasing 

arrangements, as well as variations in the ability and willingness 

of station owners to support work to establish compliance. 

141
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT ENVIRONMENTAL 

SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES 

NAS ENERGY EFFICIENCY (FAA) 

MEASURE 

NAS energy efficiency (measured by fuel burned per 

miles flown). 

SCOPE 

Measuring and tracking fuel efficiency from aircraft operations 

allows FAA to monitor improvements in aircraft/engine technolo

gy and operational procedures, and enhancements in the airspace 

transportation system. 

­

SOURCES 

FAA measures performance against this target using the 

Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). AEDT is an 

FAA-developed computer model that estimates aircraft fuel burn 

and emissions for variable year emissions inventories and for 

operational, policy, and technology-related scenarios. The model 

uses radar-based data from the Enhanced Traffic Management 

System (ETMS) and Official Airline Guide (OAG) schedule 

information to generate annual inventories of fuel burn and total 

distance flown data for all U.S. commercial operations. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Potential seasonal variability and variability from year to year 

can be expected when analyzing air traffic data and commercial 

operations. 

The extent to which enhancements are incorporated to improve 

model accuracy—for example, via more robust aerodynamic 

performance modeling algorithms and database of aircraft/ 

engine fuel burn information—will impact the overall results and 

thus the performance target. This could create some statistical 

variability from year to year if not properly taken into account. 

In cases where such enhancements have the potential to create a 

significant shift in baseline, annual inventories may need to be 

reprocessed and/or adjusted to ensure consistency and accuracy 

of results. 

The extent to which aircraft fleet improvements cannot be 

sufficiently modeled because of a lack of manufacturer propri

etary data may also influence the performance target results. In 

this case, attempts will be made to characterize such aircraft with 

the best publicly available information, recognizing that newer 

aircraft types in the fleet will likely exist in significantly lesser 

numbers, thus minimizing the influence upon the results. 

­

COMPLETENESS 

Data used to measure performance against the target are assessed 

for quality control purposes. Input data for the AEDT model are 

validated before proceeding with model runs. Radar data from 

the ETMS are assessed to remove any anomalies and check for 

completeness, and pre-processed for input to the AEDT model. 

ETMS data are verified against the OAG information in order to 

avoid any duplication of flights in the annual inventory. 

In some cases, ETMS data lack appropriate fields to conduct 

quality control and in these cases the data are removed. Data 

from the AEDT model are verified by comparing output from 

previous years and analyzing trends to ensure that they are 

consistent with expectations. In other cases, monthly invento

ries may be analyzed to validate the results. Model output is 

subsequently post-processed through spreadsheets to perform the 

calculations for the performance target. Formulae and calcula

tions are checked in order to ensure accuracy. 

­

­

Full documentation of this target is determined when the annual 

inventories have been accomplished and the post-processing 

calculations have been completed, resulting in a percentage 

reduction in fuel consumption per miles flown (or increase in 

fuel efficiency) relative to the baseline. The standard for this 

documentation is set by FAA’s Office of Environment and 

Energy, which is separate from the organization (DOT Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center) responsible for input 

and output associated with the AEDT model runs and annual 

inventories. 

RELIABILITY 

The measuring procedure used for this performance target is 

highly reliable. That is to say that the processing of data through 

the AEDT model including the performance of algorithms is 

not subject to random factors that could influence the results. 

However, as mentioned above, this performance target is 

potentially influenced by factors outside the control of FAA. 

We do not expect increases in fuel burn or decreases in distance 

traveled or both to degrade the fleet fuel efficiency significantly. 

Further, we do not expect this to prevent us from meeting the FY 

2012 target. However, we do expect that in the future, aircraft 

and engine technology improvements or air traffic manage

ment improvements or both may not be enough to offset traffic 

growth, congestion, and delays. In addition, the current metric 

for measuring and tracking fuel efficiency may not adequate

ly capture performance to the degree that would allow future 

decisions on technological and operational considerations. As 

we continue to review the impact of improvements on air traffic 

management and changes in operational trends, we will also 

assess the need for revised performance metrics for future targets. 

­

­

142
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT ENVIRONMENTAL 

SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES 

AIRCRAFT NOISE (FAA) 

MEASURE 

Number of persons exposed to significant aircraft noise around 

airports. 

SCOPE 

The metric tracks the residential population exposed to signifi

cant aircraft noise around U.S. airports. Significant aircraft noise 

is currently defined as values greater than or equal to 65 decibels 

(dB) Day Night Sound Level (DNL). The target is determined by 

reducing the 2005 population exposed to significant aircraft noise 

by 1 percent in 2006, and by 4 percent compounded rate from 

2007 through 2018. 

­

SOURCES 

FAA uses a noise exposure model, the Aviation Environmental 

Design Tool (AEDT), to develop noise exposure maps for U.S. 

airports with at least one daily jet operation. Prior to FY 2012, 

this metric was computed using the Model for Assessing Global 

Exposure to the Noise of Transport Aircraft (MAGENTA). 

Though AEDT provides enhancements, its core noise and perfor

mance methodologies remain fundamentally the same as those 

used in the MAGENTA model. Any airport with, on average, at 

least one daily jet operation is modeled for this analysis. Two 

methodologies are used for the analysis. For airports where 

FAA has access to the data, AEDT uses flight tracks that extend 

straight in and straight out from the runway ends. FAA has the 

detailed information for airports where more than 90 percent of 

the population exposed resides. 

­

AEDT also uses Geographic Imaging Software (GIS) to lay 

population data from the 2000 U.S. Census over the INM’s 

contour maps. The 2000 Census population is projected to 

the current year, and the AEDT and GIS outputs are used to 

determine the number of people living within the DNL 65 dB 

contour. The number of people relocated through noise compati

bility efforts funded under FAA’s Airport Improvement Program 

is subtracted from the data. The number of relocations each 

year is provided by FAA’s Office of Airports. To generate noise 

exposure contour maps, airport operations and aircraft type data 

are collected from FAA’s Enhanced Traffic Management System 

(ETMS). These data are used to populate the AEDT model. 

However, ETMS does not contain all the current-year data. The 

latest ETMS data available are entered into AEDT to start the 

modeling process, and FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) is 

used to project current-year flight operations. The results are 

classified as preliminary until the following year, when projected 

data are finalized. Military aircraft inventory data are used to 

verify specific aircraft operations at individual airports. 

­

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

This metric is derived from model estimates that are subject to 

errors in model specification. Trends of U.S. noise exposure may 

change due to annual improvements to the noise exposure model. 

A major change to AEDT may result in a significant change in 

the estimate of the number of people exposed to noise levels 

around U.S. airports. 

COMPLETENESS 

No actual count is made of the number of people exposed to 

aircraft noise. Aircraft type and event level are current. However, 

some of the databases used to establish route and runway 

utilization were developed from 1990 to 1997. Changes in airport 

layout including expansions may not be reflected. The FAA 

continues to update these databases as they become available. 

The benefits of federally funded mitigation, such as buyout, are 

accounted for. 

The noise studies obtained from U.S. airports have gone through 

a thorough public review process, either under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements or as part of a 

land use compatibility program. 

RELIABILITY 

The data collection and reporting methodology for this measure 

provides significant management oversight. To ensure accura

cy and reliability of the performance measure results, senior 

management from the Office of Policy, International Affairs and 

Environment thoroughly reviews noise exposure data before they 

are entered into FAA’s performance reporting system. 

­

HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SPILLS 

(PHMSA) 

MEASURE 

The number of hazardous liquid pipeline spills with environmental consequences (CY). 

SCOPE 

Hazardous liquid pipeline incidents are reportable under 49 CFR 

195.50. This measure tracks the number of spills of five barrels 

or more from hazardous liquid pipelines in the U.S. where the 

accident report noted any environmental consequences (fish, 

birds, terrestrial wildlife, soil, or water). 

SOURCES 

DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) incident data are used. These data are derived from 

pipeline operator reports submitted on PHMSA Form F-7000.1. 

Most incidents are reported online through the PHMSA website. 

143
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT ENVIRONMENTAL 

SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Results in any single year should be interpreted with caution. 

There is some normal annual variation in the number of reported 

incidents, particularly given the small number of these incidents, 

and this variation might not reflect real changes in the underlying 

risk. 

Targets are presented as ranges to account for this variation. The 

target each year is set at one standard deviation from the trendline 

to account for normal variation year-to-year (which shows a 

decline of about 5 percent on average each year over the 10-year 

period 2002–2011). This provides about 80 percent probabil

ity of achieving the target if the risk continues to follow the 

trendline. An exponential trendline is used to reflect the concept 

of diminishing returns as the numbers decline. 

­

The performance measure is not normalized for changes in 

exposure—external factors such as changes in pipeline mileage, 

petroleum consumption, or ton-miles moved through pipelines— 

that could affect the number of incidents with environmental 

consequences. 

COMPLETENESS 

Compliance in reporting is very high and most or all incidents 

that meet reporting requirements are submitted. Operators must 

submit reports within 30 days of an incident or face penalties for 

noncompliance. There may be a 30-to-60-day lag in reporting 

and compiling information in the database for analysis. 

Projections from partial-year data include all months for which 

there are reliable data plus an estimated number for the missing 

months based on the historical fraction those months represent in 

the final totals over the past five years. 

RELIABILITY 

PHMSA routinely cross-checks incident/accident reports 

against other sources of data, such as the telephonic reporting 

system for incidents requiring immediate notification provided 

to the National Response Center (NRC). PHMSA inspectors 

also regularly discuss incidents with operator personnel during 

routine inspections. PHMSA continues to work to improve Best 

Management Practices to ensure quality of the incident data. 

VEHICLE FLEET PETROLEUM USE 

(OST M-93) 

MEASURE 

Percent reduction of vehicle fleet petroleum use compared to the 

2005 baseline (FY). 

SCOPE 

This measure includes petroleum fuel consumed by all owned 

and leased vehicles in the fleets of the Department and its 

Operating Administrations. 

SOURCES 

Executive Order 13514 requires a reduction of petroleum 

consumption in agency fleets of 20 or more by 2 percent each 

year through FY 2020. Leased vehicle fuel consumption data 

are provided by GSA to the Department. Owned vehicle fuel 

consumption data are provided by the individual Operating 

Administrations. The Office of the Secretary is responsible for 

compiling these data into the Integrated Logistics Management 

System (ILMS). ILMS is owned and operated by the Department. 

Vehicle consumption data are formatted and uploaded into the 

Federal Automotive Statistical Tool (FAST), which is maintained 

by the Department of Energy. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

DOT and its Operating Administrations are responsible for 

examining vehicle data and validating for accuracy. After validating these data against internal sources, all known major errors in 

the data are eliminated. However, inaccurate coding of alternative 

fuel may occur within the GSA system, which is beyond the 

scope of DOT. 

COMPLETENESS 

The FAST data system is prescribed by regulations as the official 

comprehensive data collection mechanism for DOT vehicle fleet 

information. A 2005 baseline for these data has been established. 

Data for FY 2012 were finalized in January 2013. 

RELIABILITY 

There is extensive review of petroleum fuel consumption that 

occurs at the field, Operating Administration, and OST levels 

prior to entry into the DOE FAST data system. The DOE FAST 

system is used to prepare many reports to Congress and other 

regulatory agencies. Performance goals follow data as reported 

in ILMS and FAST, and are the reliable basis for petroleum 

reduction as required under Executive Order 13514. 

WATER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT 

(OST M-93) 

MEASURE 

Percent improvement in water efficiency compared to 2007 

baseline (FY). 

144
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT ENVIRONMENTAL 

SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES 

SCOPE 

This measure includes water consumed by all owned, directleased (non-GSA), and GSA-leased buildings (where utilities 

are paid separately) by the Department and its Operating 

Administrations. 

SOURCES 

Executive Order 13423 requires Federal agencies to reduce water 

consumption intensity (gallons per square foot) 2 percent 

annually through the end of FY 2012, or by 16 percent at the 

end of FY 2015. DOT utilizes multiple data sources for water 

information, some of which are actual and some of which are 

estimated from expense data. For those OAs (four of the five) 

that own 10 or fewer buildings, the Department has actual water 

consumption information stemming from monthly invoices. 

However, FAA—which owns more than 10 buildings—general

ly does not have actual water consumption for the majority of 

its facilities since its utility bills are centralized for payment 

processing. To calculate annual water consumption where actual 

water use data are not readily available, the Department uses 

water expense data from the DELPHI accounting system and 

a conversion factor (average $/gal rate per State per year). The 

Office of the Secretary is responsible for compiling these data 

from each Operating Administration as part of the Department’s 

annual greenhouse gas inventory. 

­

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

DOT and its Operating Administrations are responsible for 

examining water consumption data and validating for accuracy. 

However, where actual water use data are not readily available, 

the Department uses water expense data from the DELPHI 

accounting system and a conversion factor (average $/gal rate per 

State per year) to calculate annual water consumption. Therefore, 

some of the data are actual and some are estimated. 

COMPLETENESS 

Approximately 30 to 40 percent of the Department’s total water 

consumption is based on actual data from monthly invoices. 

Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the Department’s total water 

consumption is estimated from expense data within the DELPHI 

accounting system. A 2007 baseline for these data has been 

established. Data for FY 2012 were finalized in January 2013. 

RELIABILITY 

There is extensive review of water consumption, when actual 

utility bills are available, that occurs at the field, Operating 

Administration, and OST levels prior to entry into the 

Department’s greenhouse gas inventory. When water consumption is estimated from expenses within the DELPHI accounting 

system, the conversion factor used (average $/gal rate per State 

per year) may be a source of variability. 

RECYCLING AND WASTE DIVERSION 

(OST M-93) 

MEASURE 

Percent recycling and waste diversion compared to 2010 

baseline (FY). 

SCOPE 

This measure includes all waste recycled or diverted from 

landfills by the Department and its Operating Administrations. 

SOURCES 

Executive Order 13514 requires the Department to divert at least 

50 percent of non-hazardous solid waste, excluding construction 

and demolition waste, by FY 2015. Data regarding recycling and 

waste diversion efforts is currently being measured and collected 

from only a few DOT facilities. The methods of data collection 

and estimation also vary from site to site. The Department is 

in the process of developing a comprehensive methodology 

for measuring recycling and waste diversion efforts at all DOT 

facilities. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

DOT and its Operating Administrations are responsible for 

measuring and reporting recycling and waste diverted from 

landfills. However, few DOT facilities have implemented a 

system for tracking this performance measure. These data are 

not complete and should not be considered a statistically 

significant sample. 

COMPLETENESS 

The recycling and waste diversion data currently collected by the 

Department represent the actions of a few facilities. As such, the 

recycling and waste diversion data provided to external sources 

are likely to be accurate but underreported. A 2010 baseline for 

these data has been developed. Data are not available for FY 

2010 or FY 2011. Data for FY 2012 were finalized in 

January 2013. 

RELIABILITY 

The recycling and waste diversion data currently collected by 

the Department represent the actions of a few facilities. The 

Department must build a comprehensive system for collecting this information from all applicable DOT facilities. Once 

a system is in place, a reliable basis for recycling and waste 

diversion as required under Executive Order 13514 is anticipated 

to increase dramatically. 

145
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT ENVIRONMENTAL 

SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES 

CONTRACTS MEETING SUSTAINABILITY 

REQUIREMENTS (OST M-93) 

MEASURE 

Percent of all applicable contracts that meet sustainability 

requirements (FY). 

SCOPE 

This measure includes all applicable contracts issued by the 

Department and its Operating Administrations. 

SOURCES 

Executive Order 13514 requires the Department to advance 

sustainable acquisition to ensure that 95 percent of new contract 

actions including task and delivery orders meet sustainable 

acquisition requirements annually. Sustainable acquisition data 

are provided quarterly by individual Operating Administrations 

to OST via the sustainable acquisition compliance template. 

A secondary source for acquisition data are the Federal 

Procurement Data System (FPDS). The Office of the Secretary, 

Office of Procurement (M-60) is responsible for compiling these 

data. Sustainable acquisition data are formatted and uploaded 

into the OMB MAX Collect system annually as part of the 

Department’s Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. The 

White House Office of Management and Budget has prescribed 

that a determination can be made by the Department sampling 

5 percent of applicable contract actions quarterly to determine 

whether 95 percent of the sampled contracts meet the sustain

ability requirements. This is the methodology used by the 

Department. 

­

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

DOT and its Operating Administrations sample 5 percent of 

applicable contract actions quarterly to determine whether 95 

percent of the sampled contracts meet the sustainability requirements. These samples are not always randomly selected. DOT 

and its Operating Administrations are responsible for examining 

applicable contracts and validating for accuracy. After validating 

these data against internal sources, all known major errors in the 

data are eliminated. 

COMPLETENESS 

Each Operating Administration is responsible for reviewing its 

applicable contracts and reporting quarterly performance to OST 

using the sampling methodology described under sources. Data 

are not available for FY 2010. Data for FY 2012 were finalized in 

January 2013. 

RELIABILITY 

The quarterly data received from the Operating Administrations 

are considered a reliable source of sustainable acquisition 

information as required under Executive Order 13514. All 

applicable contract actions are not required to be reviewed; 

therefore, there may be errors or omissions if the sample is not 

representative of all contracts. 

REDUCTION IN GREENHOUSE GAS 

EMISSIONS—FLEET AND FACILITIES 

(OST M-93) 

MEASURE 

Percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from 

facilities and fleets compared to 2008 baseline (FY). 

SCOPE 

This measure includes all scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas 

emissions, including those from facilities and fleet vehicles 

owned and operated by the Department and its Operating 

Administrations. 

SOURCES 

Executive Order 13514 requires the Department to reduce 

overall scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 12.3 percent by 2020 

relative to a FY 2008 baseline. Greenhouse gas emissions 

from fleet vehicles are provided by the Federal Automotive 

Statistical Tool (FAST), which is maintained by the Department 

of Energy. Facility-related greenhouse gas emissions are 

collected at the field level and reviewed by the Operating 

Administrations. The Office of the Secretary is responsible for 

compiling all greenhouse gas emission data from each of the 

Operating Administrations’ facilities and fleet vehicles into 

the Sustainability and Greenhouse Gas Inventory workbook 

maintained by the Department of Energy. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

DOT and its Operating Administrations are responsible for 

examining greenhouse gas emission data and validating for 

accuracy. After validating these data against internal sources, 

all known major errors in the data are eliminated. 

COMPLETENESS 

The Sustainability and Greenhouse Gas Inventory workbook 

is prescribed by regulations as the official data collection 

mechanism for DOT greenhouse gas emissions. The annual 

submission from DOT to DOE is considered the most complete 

data set available. A 2008 baseline for these data has been 

established. Data for FY 2012 were finalized in January 2013. 

146
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT ENVIRONMENTAL 

SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES 

RELIABILITY 

There is extensive review of greenhouse gas emission data that 

occurs at the field, Operating Administration, and OST levels 

prior to entry into the DOE workbook. The DOE workbook is 

used to prepare many reports to Congress and others regulatory 

agencies. Performance goals follow data as reported in the DOE 

workbook, and are the reliable basis for greenhouse gas emission 

data as required under Executive Order 13514. 

REDUCTION IN GREENHOUSE GAS 

EMISSIONS—EMPLOYEE TRAVEL AND 

COMMUTING (OST M-93) 

MEASURE 

Percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from 

employee business travel and commuting compared to 2008 

baseline (FY). 

SCOPE 

Includes all scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, including 

those from employee business travel and commuting by the 

Department and its Operating Administrations. 

SOURCES 

Executive Order 13514 requires the Department to reduce overall 

departmental scope 3 GHG emissions by 10.9 percent by 2020 

relative to a FY 2008 baseline. Greenhouse gas emissions from 

employee commuting are calculated using the results of the 

Department’s annual Commuter Choice Survey. Greenhouse 

gas emissions from employee business travel are provided by 

the TravelTRAX Travel Management Information System and 

GovTrip Travel Voucher System, which are maintained by the 

General Services Administration. The Office of the Secretary is 

responsible for compiling all greenhouse gas emission data from 

employee business travel and commuting into the Sustainability 

and Greenhouse Gas Inventory workbook maintained by the 

Department of Energy. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

DOT and its Operating Administrations are responsible for 

examining greenhouse gas emission data and validating for 

accuracy. After validating these data against internal sources, all 

known major errors in the data are eliminated. 

COMPLETENESS 

The Sustainability and Greenhouse Gas Inventory workbook 

is prescribed by regulations as the official data collection 

mechanism for DOT greenhouse gas emissions. The annual 

submission from DOT to DOE is considered the most complete 

data set available. A 2008 baseline for these data has been 

established. Data for FY 2012 were finalized in January 2013. 

RELIABILITY 

The quarterly data received from the Operating Administrations 

are considered a reliable source of sustainable acquisition 

information as required under Executive Order 13514. All 

applicable contract actions are not required to be reviewed, 

therefore there may be errors or omissions if the sample is not 

representative of all contracts. 

SHIP DISPOSAL PROGRAM (MARAD) 

MEASURE 

Compliance with the April 2010 court-ordered consent decree for 

removal of Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet (SBRF) non-retention ships 

on an annual basis. 

SCOPE 

This measure concerns the settlement agreement resulting 

from a lawsuit filed with the Circuit Court of California against 

MARAD in 2007 for Clean Water Act violations, which resulted 

in a court ordered consent decree. The consent decree specifies 

a cumulative number of SBRF vessels required to be removed 

annually for fiscal years 2010 through 2017 until the 57 ships 

specified in the consent decree are permanently removed from 

the SBRF. 

SOURCES 

The Maritime Administration’s Office of Ship Disposal Program 

records and tracks the data. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

None. 

COMPLETENESS 

The recycling facility provides MARAD with the vessel’s certificate of destruction. Once MARAD receives the certificate and 

verifies the proper removal and destruction of the non-retention 

vessel, the vessel is counted toward the cumulative total for the 

metric. 

RELIABILITY 

The data are from the program source and are considered reliable. 

147
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012 PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

DETAILS ON DOT ENVIRONMENTAL 

SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES 

TRANSIT REVENUE SERVICE FLEET (FTA) 

MEASURE 

Percent of alternative-fuel and hybrid vehicles in the transit 

revenue service fleet. 

SCOPE 

This measure includes all transit vehicles not operating on diesel 

or gasoline. This includes compressed natural gas, liquefied 

natural gas, all-electric vehicles, and hybrid buses, which use 

conventional fuel but with greater efficiency. This measure 

includes all buses in rural and urban service, small, medium, and 

large. Articulated buses, commuter buses, and bus rapid transit 

buses are all part of this measure. All rail vehicles are also includ

ed as they are almost entirely electric. 

­

SOURCES 

These data are reported annually by operators to the FTA 

National Transit Database (NTD). The data are then aggregated 

across all U.S. transit systems. This metric is the total percentage 

of alternative-fuel and hybrid-propulsion vehicles in the fleet. 

STATISTICAL ISSUES 

Data are reported by the individual transit systems at the end of 

their fiscal years. All transit systems that receive or benefit from 

FTA’s Rural or Urbanized Area Formula Grants are required to 

report to the NTD. The quality of this metric is largely reliant 

upon the quality of the data collected and submitted by the 

individual transit systems. 

FTA requires a full inventory of revenue vehicles from each 

agency. This metric counts all revenue vehicles regardless of 

size. This size range is extensive, from 10-seat vans to 65-seat 

articulated buses. 

COMPLETENESS 

This measure includes almost all U.S. rural and urban transit 

systems. There are a few that do not receive FTA Formula Grant 

funds and choose not to participate. 

RELIABILITY 

The transit agency’s CEO certifies that data reported to the 

NTD are accurate. Submitted data are reviewed by analysts and 

compared to trend data for the transit system and to National 

benchmarks. 

148