[House Hearing, 112 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] A REVIEW OF THE FAA'S CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM ======================================================================= (112-93) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 18, 2012 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation _____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 75-148 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota BILLY LONG, Missouri HEATH SHULER, North Carolina BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania LAURA RICHARDSON, California RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida JEFF DENHAM, California JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee ------ 7 Subcommittee on Aviation THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois SAM GRAVES, Missouri PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio BOB FILNER, California FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Chair MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii BILLY LONG, Missouri STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida Columbia JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) (Ex Officio) REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv TESTIMONY Panel 1 Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation................................... 3 Hon. David Grizzle, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Hon. Julie Oettinger, Assistant Administrator for Policy, International Affairs and Environment, Federal Aviation Administration................................................. 3 Panel 2 Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E., Chair, Policy Board, United States Contract Tower Association, an affiliated organization of the American Association of Airport Executives..................... 20 Patricia Gilbert, Executive Vice President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association........................................ 20 Melissa K. Rudinger, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association......................... 20 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Hon. Jerry F. Costello, of Illinois.............................. 32 Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, of West Virginia......................... 35 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III........................................ 37 Hon. David Grizzle and Hon. Julie Oettinger, joint statement..... 51 Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E..................................... 56 Patricia Gilbert................................................. 68 Melissa K. Rudinger.............................................. 76 SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD Walter B. Strong, Jr., A.A.E., Chair, Policy Board, United States Contract Tower Association, an affiliated organization of the American Association of Airport Executives, letter providing additional information to his hearing remarks, sent to Hon. Thomas E. Petri, Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, July 30, 2012........................................................... 83 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] A REVIEW OF THE FAA'S CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Petri. The Subcommittee on Aviation session will come to order. Today we will hear testimony on the Federal Aviation Administration's Contract Tower Program. And I would like to welcome the witnesses, and we all look forward to your testimony. Thank you for the effort that you have made to prepare that. The Contract Tower Program has been in existence for some 30 years. This program allows Federal Government to contract with private entities to provide air traffic safety services at low-activity airports. Currently, 250 airports in over 45 States participate in the Contract Tower Program. Contract Towers handle approximately 28 percent of all air traffic control tower aircraft operations in the U.S., but account for just 14 percent of FAA's overall tower operation's budget. The safety and efficiency of the Contract Tower Program has been validated numerous times by the inspector general, the FAA, and the National Transportation Safety Board. In 2003, the inspector general conducted a review of the cost and safety record of the Contract Tower Program, and found that the program was just as safe as and less costly than comparable FAA-staffed towers. More recently, the inspector general has updated this audit. And again, the inspector general found little difference in the safety or quality of services provided by similar FAA and contract towers. The inspector general determined that contract towers had a lower number and rate of reported safety instances than similar FAA towers. The inspector general also found that the contract towers provided air traffic services to low-activity airports at lower costs than the FAA could otherwise provide. The inspector general determined that the average contract tower costs roughly $1.5 million less to operate than a comparable FAA tower, due largely to lower staffing and salary levels. I want to stress that we are talking about towers at low-activity airports. Operations per hour of these towers range from about 4 operations per hour to about 45 operations per hour. But there are also airports with mixed use and other operational conditions that make it essential they have a tower to ensure safety. Contract Tower Program is a key component of our Nation's aviation system, and provides vital air traffic services to communities, businesses, and travelers. After almost three decades, this program remains highly popular with its users. Without the program, many communities would not be able to afford these critical services. Contract towers are manned by highly experienced and highly trained professional controllers, 99 percent of whom are former military or FAA controllers, and average 20 years of experience. FAA retains safety oversight of the contract towers, and the controllers who staff them. All contract controllers are certified by the FAA. Contract facilities are monitored on a regular basis by the agency, and staffing plans are approved by the FAA. Contract controllers are subject to the same rules, medical exam requirements, operational procedures, and training as are FAA controllers. Contract Tower Program is cost- effective, safe, and well-regulated. So I believe today's testimony will confirm the importance of the Contract Tower Program to the national aerospace system. Before we turn to the witnesses for their statements, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for the record of the hearing. [No response.] Mr. Petri. And, without objection, so ordered. And I now recognize Mr. Costello for any opening remarks he would like to make. Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing today. I have a brief opening statement which I will enter into the record, and yield my time at this point to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Rahall. Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I appreciate that. And I also appreciate Chairman Petri for calling the hearing today on the Contract Tower Program at the FAA. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the role of the program for airports in many smaller communities that might not otherwise have control towers. There can be little doubt that a control tower, whether operated by the FAA or a contractor, enhances safety for pilots. The FAA has implemented a nationwide voluntary safety reporting program that actively encourages FAA controllers to report errors without fear of punitive action. The program shines a spotlight into the dark room of errors that may occur in FAA facilities, revealing safety issues that otherwise may have remained cloaked in the darkness. However, the FAA's safety program does not apply in contract towers. Peering into the dark room of errors that may occur in contract facilities, we have just a flashlight, the same flashlight that has always been used to find out about operational errors. Comparatively speaking, we know more about errors in FAA facilities because the FAA spotlight is bringing them out of the darkness. Without an equally broad view of errors in contract facilities, I think it is very difficult to draw absolute comparisons about safety. I would note that the Department of Transportation's inspector general observes that applying the FAA's voluntary reporting program to contract towers would ensure that errors are thoroughly reported. I understand that the FAA is encouraging its contractors to implement safety reporting programs, and I look forward to hearing more about these efforts. The IG has also found that contract towers cost less to operate than FAA facilities because, in part, they are staffed with fewer controllers. However, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, which actually represents controllers at a quarter of all current contract towers, has raised safety issues and concerns with lean staffing levels. For example, controllers may have to stay on duty for longer. They may have to multitask at a greater risk of distraction. They may have to work alone with no backup. Past accidents and incidents have taught us that there must be enough controllers on duty in towers to do the job safely. I am not suggesting that contract towers are not as safe as similar FAA facilities. Rather, I am saying we lack sufficient information to make a strong comparison, and contract towers have not adopted the best practices that would allow us to fully evaluate and improve safety at these facilities. Contract towers should implement the same proactive reporting programs that have been implemented at FAA towers, so that we can collect the best safety information. With that said, Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for these hearings, and I look forward to the hearings today. I yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Costello. Mr. Petri. Thank you. And we now turn to the first panel. Again, thank you for being here. And let me just briefly introduce the panel. It consists of the Honorable Calvin Scovel, who is the inspector general of the Department of Transportation, and a frequent testifier before this and the general committee; David Grizzle, chief operating officer of the Air Traffic Organization of the FAA; and the Honorable Julie Oettinger, assistant administrator of Policy, International Affairs and Environment, of the FAA. Again, thank you for being here. General Scovel. TESTIMONY OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. DAVID GRIZZLE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JULIE OETTINGER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Mr. Scovel. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on FAA's Contract Tower Program, which has been in place for 30 years, and now spans 250 towers nationwide. The program has provided a valuable service to smaller cities and airports that otherwise would not have air traffic control services, and has increased the level of safety for pilots and those communities. Our prior reviews of the program have found that safety at contract towers and similar FAA towers was comparable, and that contract towers provided services at lower costs than the agency could otherwise provide. My testimony today is based on our current review of the program, requested by the House Committee on Appropriations, and will focus on the safety and cost efficiency of contract towers, as well as actions FAA can take to improve program oversight. Overall, contract towers continue to provide safe air traffic services, and are supported strongly by their users. We compared safety incidents reported in fiscal year 2010 at 240 contract towers and 92 comparable FAA towers, and found that contract towers reported both a lower number and a lower rate of operational errors, operational deviations, and runway incursions. FAA's periodic evaluations of air traffic facilities' compliance with FAA directives also found fewer procedural, training, and administrative deficiencies at contract towers. Pilots, flight instructors, airport officials, and other stakeholders with whom we spoke are satisfied with the quality and safety of contract tower services. In several instances, pilots describe the services provided by FAA and contract towers as seamless. Contract towers also continue to provide cost-efficient air traffic control services, with the average contract tower costing about $1.5 million less to operate annually than a comparable FAA tower. The cost difference is primarily due to the fact that contract towers have lower staffing levels than FAA towers. The 30 contract towers in our sample had an average of 6 air traffic personnel per facility, while the sample of 30 comparable FAA towers had an average of 16 air traffic personnel. Also, contract tower controller salaries, which are based on Department of Labor wage rates, are lower than salaries paid to FAA controllers. While the Contract Tower Program continues to provide safe, cost-efficient air traffic services that are supported by users, there are opportunities for FAA to improve its oversight and strengthen program controls. First, FAA needs to implement a voluntary safety incident reporting program at contract towers. Controllers at FAA towers currently have the Air Traffic Safety Action Program, ATSAP, a voluntary, nonpunitive safety reporting program that encourages controllers to report operational errors and other safety incidents. Implementing a similar program at contract towers will help FAA's efforts to ensure one level of safety. Second, FAA needs to review annual labor hours worked, to determine if contractors provide the level of service stated in the contract. This is important, because we found in the past that some contract hours were not staffed according to contractor staffing plans. In response, FAA required contractors to comply with an approved staffing plan that includes the total number of hours controllers will work annually. However, we found that the effectiveness of this control is limited, because FAA only reviews the contractors' monthly reports, not the actual annual hours worked by contractors. As a result, FAA does not validate whether services paid for have been delivered. Finally, FAA needs to implement processes to regularly evaluate contract towers, as required by the recently enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act. While FAA's new risk-based oversight system allows the agency to target high-risk towers, lower risk towers, such as contract towers, could go years without being evaluated. In our opinion, periodic evaluations of contract towers are an important factor to ensure the safe and successful performance of this program. This concludes my statement. I would be happy to address any questions from you, Mr. Chairman, or other members of the subcommittee. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Grizzle. Mr. Grizzle. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the status of the Federal Aviation Administration's Contract Tower Program. At the outset, let me introduce my colleague, Julie Oettinger, assistant administrator for Policy, International Affairs and Environment. Ms. Oettinger's office is responsible for using the FAA's cost accounting data to refine the agency's cost- benefit analysis, and she is happy to answer your questions related to that topic. Since its inception in 1982, this program has been part of how the FAA delivers safe and cost-effective air traffic control. There is a general consensus that the program has been successful, and it has created measurable efficiencies in the system for both commercial and general aviation operators, while delivering safety benefits to the traveling public. The program has grown significantly over the years. It began as a pilot program to contract for air traffic control services for five lower activity towers that were closed as a result of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization strike in 1981. The program grew to 27 towers by 1993. In 1994, Congress provided funding for a multiyear program to convert additional FAA-operated lower activity towers to contract operations. The program was further expanded by including towers at airports that never had an FAA-operated tower. Today there are 250 contract towers in the program across 49 States and territories. The NAS is currently going through some significant changes. The economic downturn that hit the U.S. in 2008 had a profound impact on aviation operations. There has been a decline in commercial operations at contract towers of more than 13 percent, and a decrease in overall operations at those towers by just over 23 percent. Our forecasts do not see operational levels returning to those seen prior to the economic downturn in the near future. Consequently, we need to make sure we are managing a program that delivers the safety and efficiency benefits to deal with this changing pattern of aviation activity. We appreciate that Congress has spoken in consistent support of this program. It has authorized a cost share program so some communities with an airport that did not meet the required cost-benefit ratio to qualify as a fully funded contract tower could instead qualify for a contract tower where the cost-benefit ratio was used as a determination regarding how costs are shared between the FAA and the community. Last year, however, Congress included a provision that capped the amount any community could be required to pay toward the operating costs of a contract tower in the cost-share program at 20 percent of the total cost of the tower's operation, regardless of the cost-benefit ratio. This will certainly impact the cost associated with this program. In light of the economic realities, the FAA's ability to maximize its resources to benefit the overall needs of the NAS is extremely important. While it is generally recognized that the Contract Power Program is both cost-efficient and extremely safe, the FAA is always investigating ways to operate the towers it manages more cost-effectively by reviewing and adjusting, as necessary, staffing levels, operating hours, and deployment of system enhancements. For example, we welcome opportunities to safely incorporate best practices from the Contract Power Program into FAA tower operations. Let me now turn to how the FAA plans to refine the cost- benefit analysis that will be applied to the Contract Tower Program. We continue to use the same basic model for our current cost-benefit work, while updating model inputs including traffic changes, revision to the Department of Transportation's valuation for avoiding fatalities and injuries, and data from the FAA's maturing cost accounting system. We are discussing our approach to incorporating this new information with the U.S. Contract Tower Association to ensure that the FAA is considering all pertinent factors in its calculations of individual towers. The FAA is determined not to make any final decisions until we have had a full and informed discussion with interested parties. Finally, we are undertaking a number of efforts to ensure a well-grounded, longer term approach. The FAA's Aviation Safety organization is currently conducting a study to compare safety data between airports with staffed contract towers, whether Federal or contract, and airports that are unstaffed. This will provide the FAA with important information about future investment in air traffic control facilities and risk management. We also need to make sure that the Contract Power Program is well integrated into our NextGen endeavors. How we manage air traffic, how we use technologies, and how we organize our facilities and infrastructure will all change over time as we bring NextGen technologies into the system. We understand that taking a static view of equipment and services will not deliver the system the traveling public requires in order to adapt to dynamic circumstances. As new technologies emerge and are integrated into the system, the needs of the NAS, including those of contract towers, may change in order to take the best advantage of safety and efficiency opportunities. The FAA is the guardian of a system that has achieved a safety level that is envied around the world. We remain committed to the Contract Power Program as an important component of how we deliver safety and efficiency in the NAS. While fiscal realities must play a role in aviation investments, the FAA will not tolerate any degradation in safety, and we recognize that Congress and the traveling public share that view. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. I am happy to answer any questions you might have at this time. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you both. And I think we do have a number of questions. I would like to ask a few. Mr. Grizzle, you talk about it being a dynamic system. And, clearly, with the switch to digital and NextGen-type technology, that is going to provide more opportunities for dynamism in the system. There was a problem a few months ago that made it into the national media about periods at FAA towers where people were sleeping, and this sort of thing. And I think the solution was to man up and maybe put two people in instead of one. Is that a cost-effective way of dealing with the problem, or do you have a system of monitoring movements at airports and which airports could be switched to a virtual tower approach at certain low- use periods, so that TRACON or something can handle the air movements? Sometimes staffing levels need to change when the number of flights change. And if there are no flights for 6 or 8 hours, and yet someone is on the job, you can't really blame them for staying up the whole time if there are no scheduled flights in that. Could you talk about that as a cost that might be addressed? Mr. Grizzle. Certainly, sir. First of all, we took each of those incidents extremely seriously. Whether there might have been a more cost-effective solution was not our first concern. Our first concern was to do what we believed was absolutely essential for safety. So, we staffed each tower which had a level of operations that would have required us to keep it open during the midshift with two people. The same change was made with Federal contract towers that had a sufficient level of operations that we would have kept them open during a midshift if they had been federally operated towers. We are looking at various NextGen technologies with a possibility of changing fundamentally the way we do air traffic control in all of our facilities, not just our smaller towers. One of the beauties of NextGen technology is it is largely geographic-indifferent. And so we have opportunities to do our surveillance at locations that we previously wouldn't have been able to employ. But we don't have those online yet, but we are certainly looking at them for, again, small towers and all of our facilities. Mr. Petri. Because there are flights into airports where there are no towers operating that are handled by TRACON now, as I understand it, on a fairly common basis. Mr. Grizzle. It is not extremely common, but it does occur, yes. Mr. Petri. Are you--you were talking about new technology and changes and your analysis of it. Is the agency prepared to work collaboratively with industry and airport stakeholders as you analyze the opportunities and challenges of this new technology? Mr. Grizzle. Yes, very much so. Not only are we willing to work collaboratively, but we really have to. This system is a system of collaborative decisionmaking. Whether it is putting in new technology, putting in new roots, or initiating new procedures, we cannot do them without collaboration with industry in the actual development of these innovations. We certainly have to have industry's participation in the development, and consequently, we will have their participation in the utilization of these innovations. Mr. Petri. OK, just two more questions. You mentioned in your testimony about your new--the cost-benefit analysis. Are you going to be applying that to FAA towers as well as contract towers, or is that inappropriate? What are your thinking on that? Mr. Grizzle. We will be applying the same cost-benefit analysis to FAA-managed towers. But, we are doing that without any expectation that we will then convert any of those towers to Federal contract towers. We want to apply the best cost information we have to all of the facilities under our responsibility. Mr. Petri. Finally, Mr. Costello, I and other members of the committee have been working with stakeholder advisory groups and hopefully people in FAA on sort of bird-dogging and encouraging the forward movement on deploying NextGen. And one area that we have been hearing about is that a number of airports have been training, airlines have been training pilots as to new approach procedures and so on, but the manuals just have not been approved. And this is not directly air traffic control, but your controllers are, I am sure, being trained as well. And yet, all this money is being used, and it is not being effectively utilized if there is a snag in the system. And I am eager to ask you if you are willing to help work with the airlines and the others who are investing in this new future to actually put it into place in as many places as possible. It saves a lot of fuel and a lot of cost for everyone concerned. Mr. Grizzle. Chairman Petri, you have identified an extremely critical issue, and one that we are very focused on right now. I think what you are referencing is that we have a set of procedures that is called the controllers handbook, which very much governs the interplay between controllers and airspace users. That document is essentially 50 years old. We are in the process now, at the urging and with the participation of the airlines--and, obviously, with our controllers--of beginning to update that document so that it will support the way we currently do air traffic control, and especially the way we will do it in the future. It has been an impediment, we are aware of that, and we are fixing it. Mr. Petri. Do you have a timeline on that, or are you trying to update at particular airports, or overall, or exactly how is that---- Mr. Grizzle. It has overall applicability to the entire system. We are focused on those provisions of the controller handbook that have historically produced the most waiver requests from the individual facilities which we consequently granted; i.e., they are provisions that could stand to be changed. We are focusing on those first, and we are intending to have all of those changed within 3 years. Mr. Petri. Mr. Costello. Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. To follow up on the chairman's comments, we had a meeting just yesterday in the chairman's office with some of the stakeholders. And we were told that at one particular airport the handbook wasn't even available for the controller. I know that staff is--there is a meeting that will take place this coming Friday at the staff level, and then we intend to follow up with some questions for the agency, where Chairman Petri and I will be present to talk about those things, and to try and lay out a plan. Mr. Grizzle, there is a difference between reporting safety incidents at FAA-staffed towers versus the contract towers, particularly with the use of the voluntary, nonpunitive reporting system that is in place at the FAA. I wonder if you might elaborate on the differences between the reporting system used at FAA-staffed towers versus the contract towers. Mr. Grizzle. Certainly, sir. We currently have a voluntary reporting system that goes by the acronym ATSAP which has two principal features to it that make it very effective. One is that it is voluntary. Therefore, it eliminates some of the stigma that would ordinarily be associated with an error. Secondly, it provides for a nonpunitive feature, so that when a controller reports appropriately under ATSAP, that controller does not do so with fear that the disclosure that he or she has made will then be used in a punitive fashion. That has resulted in an abundant increase in the quality of information that we have about incidents, and consequently, about the risks which produce those incidents. We do not have that system in place now at Federal contract towers. We are working with our three contractors, who are, in turn, in negotiations with their unions, because the implementation of an ATSAP program is a multiparty investment. But we expect that all of them will, in fact, implement ATSAP in the Federal contract towers, because it is so important that we have to have it in all of our facilities that are handling traffic. Mr. Costello. So, as I understand it, the agency is concerned that the incidents at contract towers may not be fully reported today, as they are at FAA-staffed towers, because of the voluntary, nonpunitive program. So does the agency have concerns that incidents that are taking place at contract towers may not be fully reported, as they are at FAA- staffed towers? Mr. Grizzle. As I have testified before, we are unable to differentiate between an increase in incidents, or a greater number of incidents, and an increase in reporting. That applies to our own system, and it certainly applies to the disparity in Federal contract towers. But, as the IG has reported, since we don't have at staffed--there may very well be a lower level of reporting in the Federal contract towers. And so that is one of the reasons that we need to have that data going into our system. Mr. Costello. And so the goal is to put one system in place for contract towers and for the FAA-staffed towers? Mr. Grizzle. That is correct, sir. Mr. Costello. And the negotiations with the three contractors now, how are they going? Is there a deadline to try and implement a system? Mr. Grizzle. There is not a deadline. It is my understanding that the discussions are going well. The principal work to be done is actually between the contractors and the bargaining unit for their employees. The principal negotiation is not between the FAA and the contractors. But we have told the contractors that this is very important, and it will become a contract requirement. Mr. Costello. Can you go beyond the contractors that it is very important, and put it in as a part of the contract that you are awarding to a contractor to provide the services? Mr. Grizzle. We will come to that, sir. Mr. Costello. And how soon will you come to that? Mr. Grizzle. I do not have an answer for you. Mr. Costello. The contracts that are let to the three primary contractors, how often are they let? Is it an open- ended contract, or do they have specific terms when they expire? Mr. Grizzle. They have terms, but I do not recall the expiration date of the current set of contracts. Mr. Costello. And the reason I ask the question is if you are going to modify an existing contract, or if you are going to put additional requirements in a contract, can you do that now, or do you have to wait until it terminates? Mr. Grizzle. I would need to review the contract to give you a confident answer. Mr. Costello. Well, I would ask that you would do that and get back to us. Mr. Grizzle. We will do that, sir. Mr. Costello. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, in your testimony you indicate that additional oversight could help ensure accurate and comprehensive reporting of safety incidents at contract towers. Would you elaborate on that statement? Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Costello. Yes, we believe that increased and more comprehensive reporting would shed more light on the safety aspects of contract towers. We have noted that, while ATSAP was in place for FAA control towers for several years now, it was not made part of the current contract, which was initiated in 2010 and will expire in September 2014, sir. It certainly would have been appropriate at that time to build it into the current set of contracts, because the Congress and my office have long been supporters of voluntary safety disclosure reporting programs, both for air carriers and in the air traffic control world. I fully concur with Mr. Grizzle when he says that ATSAP data should be reviewed, and we trust that the data will ultimately provide a strong boost to the visibility that we have into the operational error world. Currently we don't have that at contract towers. I would note also that as we have testified before the House and the Senate in the past, not only the advent of ATSAP, but also the initiation of automated traffic analysis and review programs to catch all those errors automatically have been a significant impetus to better reporting and better safety analysis. We also don't have that in the tower world, either. Mr. Costello. And you have recommended to the FAA that they incorporate those provisions in the contract? Mr. Scovel. It is part of our testimony today. And our testimony today, sir, as you know, is based on an ongoing review we are doing for the House Appropriations Committee. That will be one of our recommendations; ATSAP should be included for contract towers. Mr. Costello. Has your--has the IG's office recommended that in the past? Have you brought this up to the FAA prior to them letting the last contract in 2010? Mr. Scovel. I don't believe we did. Our most recent review prior to the one now underway was finished in 2003. So I doubt that we had picked up on ATSAP and had had a chance to evaluate the merits of that program. Mr. Costello. And the reason that I am directing this line of questioning is that, you know, we ought to be on the same system here with FAA-staffed towers and contract towers. We shouldn't have apples and oranges here when we are reporting safety incidents. We ought to have the same system in place. And I would encourage you, Mr. Grizzle, to go back, take a look at when the contracts expire, if you have the ability in existing contracts to modify those contracts, and report back to the committee. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank---- Mr. Grizzle. We will do that, sir. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Lankford. Mr. Lankford. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, I want to pick up right there on that same line of questioning. Is it your perception--because I know you mentioned earlier there is a lower error rate in the contract towers--is it your perception that it is just a statistical anomaly that the reporting is different there, so it is not an apples-to-apples comparison? Or is it your thought that there is an actual lower error rate in the contract towers? Mr. Scovel. We don't know. What we need is better data. Obviously, that will drive our conclusions. Page 3 of the statement that we submitted to the committee for today's hearing has a table in it that notes both the absolute number of safety incidents, and the rate per 1 million operations, contrasting contract towers with FAA towers. And it appears, from the data in that table, sir, that contract towers may be safer, to use that term. I would not advance that conclusion, based on the data, primarily because what we have learned in looking at the enroute world and at the TRACON world, is that once ATSAP is in place, and once automated traffic analysis and reporting programs are in place, too, the number of reported operational errors increases. Whether that is simply better reporting or more errors being committed, we don't know. FAA does not yet have a solid base line on which to make that judgement. But we are going to get there. We can't get there right now in the tower world, because, at least when it comes to contract towers, we don't even have ATSAP in place. Mr. Lankford. A million and a half dollars cheaper to do a contract tower. Right now we don't know on safety issue. It looks like there is a lower error rate. We will have to see if that is just a statistical anomaly, based on the reporting side of it at this point. Are there other areas that we have talked about, or that you have discovered--Mr. Grizzle also mentioned this, as well--are things that FAA can learn from the functioning of the contract towers? Whether it be staffing, functionality, operation, whatever it may be, what can be learned in the other direction, as well? Mr. Scovel. Safety, we would conclude, is comparable between the two types of towers. When it comes to cost, there is, as our statement notes, almost a $1.5 million cost difference between contract and FAA towers. The primary drivers of that are the staffing levels and the pay that contract controllers get. The staffing levels are determined for contractors by virtue of their staffing plan that they submit to the agency for approval and if those staffing plans can be structured so as to avoid some of the cost drivers that may apply in the FAA world. For instance, the requirement that controllers not spend longer than 2 hours on position, the requirement that--or the practice that managers and supervisors not be used in an FAA tower to control traffic. They can be used in a contract tower to control traffic. Benefits for an FAA controller may be more generous, in terms of annual and medical leave, than they are in the contract world, too. And so that permits contract controllers to stay on the job perhaps a little bit longer. Those are the kinds of things that permit the contract towers to have lower staffing levels. Mr. Lankford. Ideas on efficiency. Can they move the other direction, or do you think structurally it is not possible for them to move the other direction? Can ideas move from contract towers to FAA towers to say this is working, they are at a correct level, their error rates, all the safety issues--or do you think there is a structural issue there to say, really, there is no way for ideas to move that direction? Mr. Scovel. I do want to say there is a way for good ideas to move where properly motivated people are involved. I will note that there are factors that must be considered--collective bargaining agreements and so forth, different traffic densities, FAA's training requirements for their controllers, and the requirement for on-the-job training that some of their controllers must engage in. All of that drives FAA's staffing levels, and we acknowledge the validity of those concerns. Mr. Lankford. Right. Inherently there are different types of towers, different quantity of takeoffs and landings. I understand that. Mr. Scovel. Right. Mr. Lankford. There are some inherent differences. But if there are some areas that we can go the other direction, process wise, how would that occur? Who would carry the water to say, ``Let's look seriously at this, and try to figure out how to do that''? Mr. Scovel. Right. Mr. Lankford. Is there is a certain office that you would know of that would make that evaluation to say, ``This is efficient.'' How do we get some of these efficiencies over here? Mr. Scovel. I would defer to Mr. Grizzle on that. I know that within the Air Traffic Organization he has resources whose mission it is to make those comparisons and recommendations. Mr. Lankford. OK. Mr. Grizzle, my time has expired. Would the chairman allow me an additional 30 seconds for Mr. Grizzle to respond? Mr. Grizzle. It is my responsibility to glean efficiencies from whatever source, including Federal contract towers. I will say that the opportunity for more efficient air traffic management in our larger facilities absolutely dwarfs our ability to move Federal contract tower practices into our comparably sized facilities. But, we are looking at all of them, because there is an opportunity. Mr. Lankford. OK, thank you. With that I yield back. Mr. Petri. Mr. Rahall. Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the expense of beating a dead horse, Mr. Scovel, let me ask you. When comparing error rates between contract towers and FAA towers, you refer to reported--reported, that is the key word--errors. Would you agree that there is a difference between the reported errors and actual errors that occur, particularly given that FAA's reporting program does not apply in contract towers? I mean I have one contract tower in the district I represent, Lewisburg, West Virginia. With the exception of some higher income people flying in to go to the Greenbrier, there is not many--not much activity at that airport. Mr. Scovel. There may be a difference. We don't know. I do have to couch the information that we have presented to the committee in terms of an inference that I can make, based on the experience of my office in looking at trends in operational errors as reported in the enroute and TRACON worlds. When automated programs were put in place, and when ATSAP came online, operational error numbers increased. And we have focused on that. We are trying to determine, as is FAA, whether it is an increase in reported numbers, or an increase in errors committed? We don't know, because there is not a good baseline. With time, we will get to that baseline, and then we will be able to determine an answer. In the tower world, sir, we don't have that yet, either. ATSAP is fairly new at the FAA towers, and it is not even in place at contract towers. So I can't say. Mr. Rahall. What is the basis for your recommendation in your written testimony, where you state that adoption of voluntary safety reporting program among contract towers would improve FAA safety oversight of those facilities? Mr. Scovel. We agree with FAA, and we have reached the conclusion independently that the nonpunitive nature of ATSAP, as it is in the air carrier safety action program, is a strong inducement to better reporting. We would strongly recommend to FAA that this be included for contract towers, if not by modifying the contract, then certainly when contracts come up for renewal in 2014. Mr. Rahall. OK. Mr. Grizzle, I know you have been asked this question before, but it is in regard to your testimony back in April, when you stated that you are confident that the reporting of incidents has increased, thanks to the FAA's new safety reporting program for air traffic controllers. My followup would be what is the FAA doing to ensure that contract towers adopt a voluntary reporting requirement or program? Mr. Grizzle. We are going to utilize the contractual opportunities that we have. If we have the ability in our current contract to require one, we will do so. Otherwise, when we come to a contractual renewal, we will require that our contractors effectuate an ATSAP program because, as the inspector general has said, it has unquestioned value in terms of providing us a greater amount of data about events that occur. Mr. Rahall. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Petri. Mr. Ribble. Mr. Ribble. Well, good morning, everybody. Thank you for your testimony today. I have got just a couple brief questions. But I would like to say one thing. I would like to commend you. I would like to commend the U.S. airline industry and the National Transportation Safety Board. I get on an airplane every single week. And you know what? I never think about safety. I just get on the airplane, and I usually work, and I land, and I go home, and I turn around a few days later, and do it again. And that is a real testament to what has been going on in this country and how safe air travel has become. With all that said, as I look through Mr. Scovel's testimony, I just want to read just the headlines, or the titles of the various sections. Contract towers continue to provide safe services and are supported by users. Contract towers have a lower number of reported safety incidents and deficiencies than comparable FAA towers. Users are satisfied with the level and quality of services provided by contract towers. Contract towers continue to provide cost-efficient services. FAA oversight of the Contract Power Program could be improved. Accurate incident reporting at contract towers is critical to maintaining safety. New oversight system does not ensure that contract towers receive regular safety evaluations required by Congress. FAA can improve its contractual oversight of the program. As I look and read those titles and then listen to the testimony, it almost seems as if the inspector general is more critical of FAA than contract tower operations. Why do you suppose that is, Mr. Grizzle? Mr. Grizzle. We rely very heavily upon the insights of the inspector general. Whenever the inspector general observes deficiencies in our operation, we immediately discern how we can make improvements that will address the deficiencies that he has noted, because that organization has, in every case, spent a lot of time looking very carefully at each situation. I think that the inspector general makes those comments because they entirely conform with what he has observed, and we intend to take those observations extremely seriously. Mr. Ribble. Well, I appreciate that. I most often fly out of Appleton, Wisconsin, which, as you are aware, is a contract tower. And I know how important that airport is to the economic development of northeast Wisconsin. It is critically important. And I just want to make sure that you are going to provide us some type of assurance that you are willing to work with the industry in a balanced approach to ensure that safety continues to happen, economic development continues to happen, and that the FAA doesn't unfairly just shift additional cost to the operation of that tower onto Appleton and other communities like it. Mr. Grizzle. We believe that each of our Federal contract towers provides an extremely safe operation. We are committed to maintaining that, and we are working to develop an ever more accurate cost accounting system to accomplish the other purpose that you requested of us. Mr. Ribble. Well, I want to thank you for that. And again, I want to thank you for taking the time to come in here today. And I don't want to lose sight of the fact that even though there was criticism here, and criticism this morning, that I don't recognize how great a job the U.S. air industry, in its totality, is actually doing. So, thank you for that work. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Hultgren. Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. I just have a few questions, as well. First, to Ms. Oettinger. I am wondering. Will the FAA commit today to work collaboratively with industry and airport stakeholders to reach consensus on any revisions to the benefit cost analysis for contract towers? Ms. Oettinger. Absolutely. We have committed to doing that, and we are, in fact, in the process of doing just that. We most recently met with the Contract Tower Association a couple of months ago to share with them the latest information that we had, and the analysis that we are doing. We are awaiting some feedback from them, and we have plans to meet with them again later this month. Mr. Hultgren. I wonder if I can ask you, and also Mr. Grizzle, if you could please talk about any effects that sequestration could have on the national air service, and what steps the FAA is taking to plan for these cuts. And also on that, I just wanted to see if you have begun communicating this plan in a coordinated action with our Nation's air traffic controllers. Mr. Grizzle. Although we have received no specific direction as to the impact of a sequestration on the FAA, we have done a great deal of internal planning, looking at different scenarios and how we would be required to shift our priorities in the event that different sequestration scenarios came into place. We have not begun sharing those with anyone yet, because we are not far enough along in designing those priorities. But suffice it to say that it would require a significant reprioritization of what we currently do. Mr. Hultgren. Is it your sense that there will be a big impact with sequestration, or is that uncertain right now? Mr. Grizzle. It could be. The answer is that we do not know, but it could be large. Mr. Hultgren. When will you know? Mr. Grizzle. We are in communication with various parts of the Administration. Our perceptions are developing as we are in these communications. Mr. Hultgren. Well, you know, I echo what my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Ribble, said. I am so grateful for the safety that we enjoy, and the confidence of getting on an airplane. But I think this is very important. And we haven't gotten a real sense from the Administration of what is the plan with sequestration. We see it impact the Department of Defense. But it very well, I think, could impact the safety of our skies. And so, we are asking you to reach out as well to the Administration to clarify this, of what is the intention here. We better get these plans in place now, I believe. Am I wrong? Tell me, you know, what your thoughts are. If there is any question that this could have an impact, we better know about that now and start making those plans, and I think start communicating with our air traffic controllers on what those plans are. Mr. Grizzle. We are committed to maintaining the highest level of safety. We will not undertake any change that would diminish that. Mr. Hultgren. Well, I appreciate that. I just--my fear is with sequestration. It is a meat ax approach, basically, of-- that could address and impact many departments. And it is just very unclear of what the Administration and the White House's plan is to deal with this. So, I would just ask for your help together to get some clarity here, get communicating for the sake of continuing that safety that we enjoy, that we really expect and I think have a right to expect to continue. So, just as my time is winding down, I just--getting back to contract towers, just wonder if each of you could just briefly touch on if you feel like if contract towers--is there any lack of redundancies resulting in safety issues in contract towers, or do they have any inferior equipment or facilities, or do you see, in your opinion, that contract towers have deficient training programs? What is your sense on those three issues? And I would ask each of you to comment quickly. Mr. Grizzle. We believe that the staffing, equipping, and the condition of the facilities in the contract towers are adequate for a very high level of safety, and we constantly monitor all of those. Mr. Scovel. Sir, we believe staffing and training are sufficient. The agency gives close attention to those measures. We know that the agency is stressed, at all air traffic facilities, when it comes to aging facilities and making sure that they are maintained in the best condition possible. Contract towers are no exception. The FAA's own facilities would also fall into that group. Mr. Hultgren. Well, thank you. My time has expired. I do appreciate it. I do think is an important issue that we are going to have to continue to talk about, and get some real answers as far as sequestration and potential impact on safety of our skies. We can't--as you have said, we can't allow any compromise in this, and we have got to make sure we work together to get some real answers of how this is going to impact. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Costello, you had a comment. Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to follow up on my friend from Illinois, his comments about sequestration and what may happen to the FAA in this particular case. While you may not have a plan in place, you do have a dollar figure. You know that when sequestration, if in fact it goes forward, you know how much money will be cut out of the agency. We had testimony either earlier this year, but I know that we had the former administrator, Marion Blakey, who testified before this subcommittee about NextGen, and what effect sequestration would have on NextGen. In fact, we had a meeting, as I referred to, yesterday, with some stakeholders in Chairman Petri's office. And the issue of sequestration was brought up again on how it would affect NextGen. Do you have a dollar figure, that if sequestration is--if, in fact, it takes place, how much money the agency would lose under sequestration? Mr. Grizzle. We have looked at various scenarios, we have done planning for a number that is larger than what we think is likely, and we have done planning for smaller numbers. I am not prepared to offer a number that is my prediction as to what would be the exact number. Mr. Costello. Well, the figure that I have heard used is-- on the bottom figure is $1 billion. Mr. Grizzle. We have done internal planning involving cuts that were smaller than that, and cuts that would be larger than that. Mr. Costello. Would--is it reasonable for one to assume that if there is a $1 billion cut to the FAA, that it would impact safety? If the delay of implementing NextGen--if it is pushed off for several years, NextGen is, of course--one of the assets of NextGen will be to improve safety. Mr. Grizzle. It will be our challenge to effect a---- Mr. Costello. In other words, you are not going to answer the question. Mr. Grizzle [continuing]. A cut of that magnitude safely. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Petri. Mr. Southerland. Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. On that line of questioning from my good friend, if you were going to face $1 billion in cuts due to sequestration--and I hear your hesitancy about confirming that--I don't think it is an unfair question to assume that if we then were going to turn around and cut DOD by $350 billion, that that too might have a very similar cause regarding safety to our war fighters and to the protection of this great Nation. So I mean, if we are going to use that rationale, then I think we need to examine, you know, all of the possibilities of sequestration. First of all, thank you all for being here. That was just a statement. I wanted--I am curious about the--Mr. Scovel, you had mentioned that today you were not here prepared to advance the theory that contract towers are safer. However, you--let me ask you a couple of questions. You know, you--are you of the opinion that the--are the contract towers--do they have equal equipment, equal facilities? Because I have heard general comments by both of you that said that we have aging towers, and that--so is it safe, then, to say that the towers that--the contract towers are equivalent in quality and--in the quality and the excellence of the equipment? Is that fair? Mr. Scovel. Yes, generally. They are comparable. They are comparable, in terms of safety, as well. And my point with regard to the safety data was simply if you were to look at the data presented in our statement, you might conclude that contract towers are safer. I attached a caveat to that because, based on our prior experience, we know that operational errors--and thanks to FAA's good work on the runway incursion side, as well--we know that those come up with better training and reporting methods. So that is the caveat that I would issue there. I will also note, sir, that FAA is responsible, in most cases, for the equipment and maintenance of that equipment at contract towers. Mr. Southerland. As far as the towers--as far as the staffing of the towers, are they equivalently staffed? And I am talking about the contract towers to the FAA towers. I mean would they be--and I know the volume is different, obviously. But based on the volume, are they staffed properly, as compared to the FAA towers? Mr. Scovel. We believe they are. And we believe that FAA towers, given the structure in which they must operate and their staffing requirements, are properly staffed. However, for contract towers, they are free of some of the restrictions that apply to FAA towers. And contractors have taken advantage of that by preparing their staffing plans accordingly. And the FAA has approved them after appropriate review. Mr. Southerland. Define for me a restriction. Mr. Scovel. For instance, a restriction in an FAA tower is that, by virtue of the collective bargaining agreement, a controller may not spend longer than 2 hours on position, on scope, before he or she takes a break or moves to another place. In other words, gets off that place and maybe gets out of that rut. That is not a requirement in the contract tower world. Mr. Southerland. So in that requirement that they be--that 2-hour requirement, they will be there for 2 hours and then they will leave and do whatever. So their focus might be interrupted because they have to leave in 2 hours. Mr. Scovel. Or, as some controllers would say, their focus can be renewed. Mr. Southerland. Right. But we all know that great running backs run better when they get the ball 25 times a game, as opposed to 5. Mr. Scovel. Right. Mr. Southerland. So there is a belief that you get in a zone that you are so good, you are so proficient, you are so excellent that you are left alone because of the restrictions of, in your words, collective bargaining. And A players do what they were created to do by God. They are excellent at what they do. So when they have the law of momentum providing safety, providing efficiencies, to yank them out of that, I could make an argument that those that I have employed do best when I leave them alone and don't micromanage them and restrict them as compared to maybe some of the contract towers, where those same restrictions do not apply. Is that a fair assessment? Mr. Scovel. Sir---- Mr. Southerland. Based on self-evident truths? [Laughter.] Mr. Scovel. As an inspector general, I am sworn not to indulge in self-evident truths, sir. Mr. Southerland. Yes, yes. Mr. Scovel. I must have data. Mr. Southerland. I am amazed at how this place up here continues to disregard common sense. Mr. Scovel. I know. Mr. Southerland. As if we know better, or know more than our founding fathers. But--well, thank you very much. I know I am over my time. Thank you both, all three, for testifying here today. I yield back. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to thank the panel for being here. Most of my questions have already been answered. But, Mr. Grizzle, does the FAA approve staffing plans for each contract tower? Mr. Grizzle. Yes, we do. Mr. LoBiondo. And do you think or believe that contract towers are understaffed? Mr. Grizzle. I do not believe they are understaffed. Mr. LoBiondo. OK. And are there plans to have contract tower controllers participate in the FAA's voluntary reporting program? Mr. Grizzle. Yes, there are. Mr. LoBiondo. When might that happen? Mr. Grizzle. Well, as we discussed earlier, we need to inject some deadlines into our contract structure with our contractors, which we have not done, but we will do. Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Long, did you have any questions, or--very good. Well, we would like to thank the panel for your testimony. And I note, Mr. Grizzle, you will be submitting some information---- Mr. Grizzle. Yes. Mr. Petri [continuing]. In response to Mr. Costello's questions. And we will now turn to the second panel. Thank you very much. Mr. Scovel. Mr. Petri, if I may take simply 15 seconds. We have had a lot of talk earlier this morning, and some of it by me, concerning the ATSAP program. We are strong endorsers of ATSAP. However, I would be remiss if I did not note that we will be issuing a report, hopefully by the end of this week, addressing the merits of ATSAP and areas where we believe the agency has strong opportunities for significant improvement. ATSAP is not yet a silver bullet. It is a step in a long series of steps to get us to better safety. FAA should be commended for embarking on the trail. And hopefully, our recommendations, which the Congress and the agency will receive this week, will advance that effort. Thanks. Mr. Petri. Thank you for that update. And thank you all. The second panel is assembling. And I would like to ask our colleague, Mr. Lankford, to introduce the first person on the panel who will testify, Mr. Strong. Mr. Lankford. Yes. Pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman. Walter Strong is the chairman of the United States Contract Tower Association Policy Board. And so, obviously, he brings a tremendous amount of expertise as far as interaction with his colleagues about contract towers. He also is extremely important in contract towers in Oklahoma. The Norman airport, Max Westheimer Airport in Norman, Oklahoma, is a contract tower location, and is vital to both the University of Oklahoma, and to a lot of business in the southern part of Oklahoma City and in the southern part of Oklahoma, itself. So, honored that he is here, and has given his time to be able to be a part of this, as well. Mr. Petri. Thank you. And Mr. Strong will be joined by Ms. Trish Gilbert, who is the executive vice president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Ms. Melissa Rudinger, the senior vice president of government affairs, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. And we thank you all for the effort that went into preparing your testimony. We invite you to summarize it in about 5 minutes. And we will follow that with questions, and begin with Mr. Strong. TESTIMONY OF WALTER B. STRONG, JR., A.A.E., CHAIR, POLICY BOARD, UNITED STATES CONTRACT TOWER ASSOCIATION, AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES; PATRICIA GILBERT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; AND MELISSA K. RUDINGER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Costello, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss FAA's Contract Tower Program. I would also like to thank Mr. Lankford for that kind introduction. Our partnership with the FAA program on this program is exemplified by our mission statement, the government-industry partnership dedicated to air traffic safety. And in today's challenging economic environment, I might also add the partnership dedicated to jobs and economic growth. Before we offer our thoughts on the many benefits of the program, I would like to raise a flag of caution about one current issue, that issue being the airport community's concern about potential changes to FAA's cost-benefit analysis, which determines participation in the program. While we are encouraged by FAA's stated desire to work with the industry in a collaborative, balanced, and transparent manner, we hope FAA stays on that path to avoid changes to the program that would jeopardize air traffic safety, economic growth, and jobs. FAA should ensure that the process full accounts for the broad array of significant benefits that the program provides to individual communities, to the Nation as a whole. This program should not simply be about black and white numbers. It must be about the best interests of advancing aviation safety. Additionally, these potential changes could result in FAA shifting costs to local communities that have little, if any, ability to absorb additional costs in these challenging economic times. The end result could be the closure of many contract towers, nationwide. As do most airports in the program, Westheimer Airport in Norman, we support our tower operations with local funds for utility cost, equipment costs, both installation, maintenance, and repair. So even though the FAA pays for the cost to staff the tower, we provide significant local funding in partnership with the FAA to provide first-class air traffic services to our aviation community. Mr. Chairman, FAA's Contract Power Program has a proven successful track record. Benefits include enhanced safety, improved air traffic services, significant cost savings to FAA and taxpayers, economic growth and job creation. The DOT inspector general has repeatedly validated those facts, and the program enjoys strong bipartisan support in Congress. All contract controllers are FAA-certified and meet the same training standards as FAA controllers. Additionally, FAA controls and oversees all aspects of the program, including operating procedures and staffing plans. I recently read the National Transportation Safety Board had added general aviation safety to its most wanted list of transportation safety improvements. In a national air transportation system that needs to stay vigilant to reduce accident rates, we believe that the safety benefits provided by the program are not optional, but mandatory. Let me be clear. Without this program, hundreds of communities across our Nation would not receive the critical safety benefits that these controllers provide. To illustrate cost-effectiveness of the program to taxpayers, FAA contract towers in fiscal year 2011, handled approximately 28 percent of all tower operations, but accounted for just 14 percent of FAA's overall tower budget. Now, that is a good deal for taxpayers. Also, of the 250 towers in the program, 136 were previously FAA-staffed low-activity towers that were converted to the contract operations in the 1990s. Based on anticipated cost information from the DOT IG, if FAA were still staffing those 136 towers, the additional annual cost to taxpayers would be approximately $200 million, which is $50 million more than the current budget to operate all 250 towers. Also, many contract towers are represented by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. The U.S. Contract Tower Association continues to have an open dialogue with NATCA, and cooperates on ways to work together effectively as part of a unified national air traffic control system. There is a clear role for both FAA and contract towers. In closing, airports deserve the safety and economic development benefits the FAA contract towers provide. We are encouraged by the highly effective partnership that airports, contract controllers, ATC contractors, and FAA have developed, and we urge Congress to continue its support of this critical program. Thank you very much for your time, and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. Mr. Petri. Well, thank you. Ms. Gilbert. Ms. Gilbert. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing me to testify today. NATCA is in a very unique position to offer an objective assessment of the Federal Contract Tower Program, and to evaluate the difference between FAA and contract towers, because we represent controllers that work in both. NATCA proudly represents air traffic controllers at 63 contract towers, as well as controllers in the FAA and in some DOD facilities. As a controller myself, I can tell you that our priority is simple. And, regardless of employer, and regardless of the challenges we face, our job every day is to ensure the safety of the flying public, and continue to operate the world's best air traffic control system. With that, NATCA does support the cost share component of the Federal Contract Tower Program. We believe it enables local communities that couldn't otherwise support a tower to reap the economic benefits aviation brings to them. NATCA also supports building new towers where ones do not currently exist. But we are opposed to the transfer or conversion of FAA towers into the Federal Contract Tower Program. First and foremost, it is NATCA's position that there is a fundamental flaw in comparing contract towers to FAA towers, in terms of safety, as defined by the number of incidents reported. The flaw derives from the fact that safety incidents, which include operational errors, deviations, and runway incursions, are unevenly reported. The GAO noted in 2003 that ``comparisons of operational error rates alone are not sufficient to draw conclusions about the relative safety records of air traffic control facilities.'' NATCA believes that a comparison of this type does the program a disservice, because safety at contract towers and FAA towers cannot be accurately compared through safety incident data at this time. That data is incomplete, and the baseline is different. Additionally, the FAA has moved to a true safety culture, where all controllers and employees are encouraged to report every safety issue, including errors. Contract towers are often driven by a punitive culture that discourages this reporting. As far as comparing costs, the FAA model was built on the premise of necessary redundancy to prioritize safety above all, whereas contract towers have incentive to prioritize to the bottom line. NATCA is not criticizing the fact that profit margins matter and are a factor. But our review of contract towers finds them to be understaffed with less support of their facilities and equipment, and also insufficient training for their controllers. These factors contribute to the contract tower's bottom line when it comes to cost. Staffing amounts to the bulk of the operating cost in these facilities. This motivates contractors to reduce staff in order to lower costs when competing for a contract. That said, the contract towers can lack necessary redundancy, especially when it comes to staffing. The FAA requires two controllers on shift, while contract towers are not bound by that, and frequently staff with only one controller for extended links of time. In terms of equipment, some towers still use radios that are so old they cannot accommodate a headset, and controllers must use the hand-held devices to communicate. This can be problematic in a profession where clear two-way communication is key to safety. Additionally, due to cost sharing arrangement between the tower, the sponsor, and the FAA, all three entities often disagree on who is responsible for the cost to maintain and/or repair facilities and equipment. The temporary tower at Opa-locka, Florida, in southern Florida, is a prime example of the funding battle that results in unsafe working situations for controllers. Six years ago the old tower failed county fire suppression requirements and was deemed unsafe to occupy. When both the FAA and the county refused to correct the problem, the FAA provided a temporary tower located on a closed runway in an old RV on top of eight large shipping containers. It still remains in that facility, 6 years later. Such a facility would not have been tolerated, had it been staffed by FAA personnel. It is only due to the exceptional dedication and skill of the controllers at Opa- locka that the facility has been able to provide the services that they do. Finally, NATCA believes that the 30-day training period that contract towers provide is insufficient, regardless of the controllers' experience. FAA towers are trained under a much more specialized training program that includes training teams, on-the-job training, classroom instruction, and simulations. NATCA made five recommendations in our written testimony. We believe that implementing these recommendations will shift contract towers toward a true safety-based model. We recognize that implementation of these recommendations would come at a financial cost. But we believe the benefits far outweigh the cost savings contract towers currently have, when you compare them to the cost of FAA towers. Thank you for allowing me to be here today, and I will take any questions when appropriate. Thank you. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Ms. Rudinger. Ms. Rudinger. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and members of the committee, good morning. My name is Melissa Rudinger, and I am with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify and give the user's perspective and the aircraft owner's perspective on contract control towers. The Contract Control Tower Program has provided cost- effective and essential air traffic services to general aviation airports since 1982. Of the 250 contract towers in the program, 89 serve general aviation airports exclusively. Your continued support of this critical program is important to aviation safety, economic development, and efficiency at airports and communities in this great Nation. My testimony today addresses three overarching points: first, contract towers enhance safety; second, contract towers are cost-effective; and third, contract towers help local economies. The Contract Power Program greatly enhances safety by providing vital air traffic service to communities that would not otherwise qualify for a federally funded tower. They enhance the safety of flight for all aircraft operating at an airport and in the surrounding airspace. For example, at a towered airport, all aircraft are required to establish and maintain two-way radio communication with the tower, unlike nontowered airports. Controllers also bring situational awareness and ensure the safe, efficient, and orderly flow of traffic. Additionally, airspace around airports with towers have higher weather minimums, which greatly increases the safety margin for all operators. As others have testified here, contract towers have consistently achieved good scores in every metric that you can measure a contract tower on. They are critical to the safety of local communities, such as Brown Field in San Diego, Palm Coast in Ormond Beach in Florida, and of course, Wittman Field in Oshkosh. All serve a very important role in enhancing safety at airports with robust general aviation activity. Other contract towers, like Martin State, here in our local area, provide a significant safety enhancement for a broad mix of operations. This includes intensive flight training and support of the 175th Wing of the Maryland Air National Guard. As far as costs are concerned, the FAA Contract Tower Program is one of the most cost-effective government-industry partnerships in the history of the agency. Virtually every performance metric of the program has a proven track record of sustained cost savings, efficiency gains, and economic value to local communities. In 2011, the 246 towers then in the program handled 28 percent of all tower operations, but only accounted for about 14 percent of the FAA's tower budget. In contrast, the 264 FAA- staffed towers that handled the remaining 72 percent of operations used 86 percent of the FAA's tower budget. Looking at it another way, the cost of operating a contract tower is roughly one-third the cost of operating an FAA-staffed tower. These numbers clearly highlight that the Contract Tower Program is of great value to the American taxpayer. Numerous studies have also shown that airports are economic engines for communities. And we also know that the establishment of an air traffic control tower drives even greater economic development through the creation of jobs, the growth of airport businesses, and other benefits. This was validated in a 2011 study by an independent contractor for the Commonwealth of Virginia. This study showed that each dollar spent by an aviation business or an aviation-related business generated $1.52 in economic activity. It also showed that airport jobs are desirable, and the average wage of a job at a Virginia airport was 40 percent higher than the average Virginia salary. For every job at a Virginia airport, nearly three are created in its visitor-related economy. And aviation-related businesses and employees annually contribute $105 million to the local tax base. The study also indicated that construction projects like airport control towers are beneficial because dollars spent by the State and local governments are leveraged with Federal and private funds. This multiplier effect results in generating an additional $2 in economic activity for each dollar spent. In conclusion, I would like to say that the FAA's Contract Power Program has a proven track record of providing cost- effective and essential air traffic safety services to general aviation airports, and they provide strong support to local economies. On behalf of the members of AOPA, I thank you for your leadership in examining this important program. This concludes my testimony. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. I do have a few questions. Mr. Strong, as the previous panel indicated, the FAA is in the process of revising the cost-benefit analysis for contract towers. And from what you know of their plans, do you believe they are considering the right cost and benefit factors? And if not, what would be more adequate or appropriate, in your opinion? Mr. Strong. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. We have been in consultation with the FAA. As Ms. Oettinger spoke earlier, we were in their offices just 3 or 4 weeks ago. Some of the items that they intend to include in the cost- benefit analysis we believe are appropriate. Probably our biggest concern is that the world has changed from what we once knew it to be in the world of contract towers, and there are a lot of activities that may not be picked up in their current process. And we want to make sure that all of the benefits, all of the things, all of the items that go on at the airports are actually included. At Westheimer in Norman, we have a really broad program of what goes on there. The University of Oklahoma has a significant flight training program, where we train pilots that will come into the system and be your pilots on airplanes and commercial service in future years. Those folks generate 200 to 250 flights a week during the semesters. We also have the Governor that flies in and out of our airport. We have a tremendous amount of law enforcement activity at our airport. And we also have the business community that comes and goes. And, on top of that, when we play football in the fall, on game days there is a tremendous influx of business jet and single engine aircraft activity that comes to the airport. So we are not certain that the FAA really includes those complexities and all of those things that are included in their cost-benefit analysis. And that is what we really want to work with them on, and make sure that they are including those things. Because we don't want to put any contract tower community in a position to even consider reducing services or closing a tower because they can't afford the shifted costs in their direction. Mr. Petri. The--I am sure you are aware--and I don't know if this question is directed for you, or if others would care to respond. But we live in a world--and certainly it is true in aviation--of rapidly changing technology. And I talk often with general aviation pilots, and they show me their things where-- we all have Garmins in our car and the satellite--the amount of data you can get as an automobile driver, let alone as an airplane pilot. And so, the world of air traffic control is--if it is not already--is rapidly about to change, and has for some of general aviation already. People have routes, they have information in the cockpit that enable them to dial in an airport and to get there. As that world evolves, could you discuss how--the contract towers and general FAA towers, the flight movements aren't constant throughout the day, there--possibility of transferring to TRACON or to regional--and a lot--and they can control flights into airports, there are programs to put sensors of-- ground equipment on airports so it will show in the cockpit for the pilot if anything is approaching. There are a lot of things that can be done now that minimize the need for expensive air traffic control for airports that--a lot of airports don't have any towers, anyway. And could you discuss how the impact of this technology is on both the general FAA and the contract tower situation? Mr. Strong. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I might characterize it in the following fashion. I am reminded of a day when I was at the Oshkosh event years ago, back in the 1990s, and I was talking to some FAA folks there. And there was a table in the tent that had NDB and ILS. And over on the end there was one young fellow that was talking about GPS. And I thought, ``I want to talk to him, because that is new technology, and it is coming at us.'' And around the year 2000 I asked FAA--we needed an ILS for Westheimer Airport in Norman. And we were told, ``You can't have an ILS.'' ``Well, why can't I have an ILS?'' ``Because you are not on the list.'' ``Well, why aren't we on the list?'' ``Because we are going to have full implementation of GPS by the year 2000.'' That was the answer that I got. I would submit to you that we are in the year 2012. And not to be overly critical with the FAA, but you are talking about new technologies that often take a tremendous amount of time to bring on board. So we did get our ILS. We still don't have full implementation of GPS. We do use a lot of security cameras at our airport. If you are referring to NextGen and coming online, I have heard talk about virtual contract towers, or virtual towers, where you might have a controller in a room looking at video screens that are, you know, feeding camera data from an airport to a video screen, so they can control traffic at more than one tower. I would submit to you that cameras--I don't think, personally, cameras are at that level of confident data. I just don't think it is there. At night time, the data that you get from a camera is reduced. You won't see a 12-point buck crossing the runway at night with a camera, where a controller with eyeglasses may see that. So while I believe new technology coming at us will make a benefit in the future, I think we are still a long distance off from that. And for the time being, I think we still need to work with the efficiencies that we have in the Contract Tower Program, and even the FAA tower program. I don't think it is time yet to shift to air traffic management from air traffic control. That is personal opinion. I was a controller for 17 years. I have worked towers and radars and enroute traffic, so I am familiar with the process. And I just don't think we are ready for air traffic management quite yet. Mr. Petri. Mr. Costello? Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Strong, one of the issues that I have heard with some of the contract towers-- in fact, one in my district--is that the FAA could do a better job of upgrading and maintaining their facilities and equipment. I wonder if you might comment on that. And I would ask the same question of Ms. Gilbert. Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Costello. I think we could all do a better job of upgrading our equipment. I know we have--for example, one of the comments earlier was old radios that are not used--you cannot use a headset with a radio. I will admit to you that we have a light gun in our control tower that is probably 30 years old. But it is functional. So do I need to go out and spend $15,000 or $20,000 to buy a new light gun, just so I can have a new light gun? I don't think so. There are times when we do need to be more effective and more efficient in adding new equipment. And the FAA, frankly, has put some new equipment in our control tower, because we are in the greater metropolitan area of Oklahoma City, and we have a reasonable amount of traffic. So they installed a radar system in our contract tower that quite a few contract towers don't have. So we do have some of those upgrades. But I wouldn't throw out an old radio just because it is old. If it still functions, you can still talk to the pilots, you still get the job done. Does it need to have new bells and whistles? Might be a little bit better, maybe a little more efficient. Is it necessary? Maybe not. Mr. Costello. Ms. Gilbert? Ms. Gilbert. I would agree that new doesn't necessarily mean better. Our concern would be where the equipment isn't functioning in a way that allows you to do the job, the very serious job, that air traffic controllers do in both Federal and contract towers. They are often distracted by maintaining equipment. Controllers are having to do it themselves, because there are not onsite technicians in the facilities. Then that distracts them from doing the job that they are there to do, which is the movement of air traffic in and out of the airport. As you well know, several years ago we didn't have the relationship with the FAA that we do now. So we had a lot of involvement with many Members of Congress on behalf of the contract towers that we represent, to get them appropriate and proper equipment in the facilities. In Georgetown, just on the outskirts of Austin, Texas, we were able to get a DBRITE in that facility to help them move planes in and out of that airport, with the help of Congressman John Carter. Now, however, we have a relationship with the FAA that allows us to better communicate the needs of those facilities, as well as the FAA facilities, with regard to not necessarily new equipment, but certainly equipment that will enhance safety and equipment that will improve efficiencies. We support that in both facilities. I would like to also give you one more perspective with regard to the voluntary reporting system that we have in the FAA that we would like to see in the contract towers. With that in place, and the collection of a lot of data, you are able to better prioritize equipment issues that need to be put in place to enhance safety, versus what might just be nice to have. When you get that good, solid data, it enables us in tight budget times to prioritize appropriately what should be deployed and where. So that is another benefit of the voluntary reporting system, that we see it. Mr. Costello. You just answered my second question about nonpunitive reporting, voluntary reporting at contract towers. The final question, Ms. Gilbert, is you mention in your written testimony that the FAA and contract towers have different ``safety cultures.'' What do you mean by that? Ms. Gilbert. Well, in the FAA, as you well know, we voluntarily submit data to the agency so we can better assess where the risks are, how to mitigate them, how to prioritize them, and fund them appropriately to address the concerns. Rather than a punitive culture, where the blame would go on an individual, and there would be no real effort to correct what might be a true safety concern or issue. We do not have that in the contract towers, and we are hoping that we are able to get that very soon. We do represent controllers under all three employers, and we are at different levels of discussions with them. However, I believe at this point in time their idea of a voluntary, nonpunitive reporting system and ours is very, very different. So we have a little ways to go there. Mr. Costello. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Lankford? Mr. Lankford. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Strong, do you think it is--there is a greater risk, landing and taking off at a contract tower? Mr. Strong. No. Mr. Lankford. What about in a--is there a difference in safety between a contract tower and an airport with no tower? Mr. Strong. No. Mr. Lankford. OK. Mr. Strong. And I pause because you have different humans working in different towers. And, to me, that is not whether it is a contract tower or if it is an FAA tower. That is a human issue. Mr. Lankford. Right. Mr. Strong. If the human is capable, and the human is on their game, if the human is Barry Sanders, as Mr. Southerland spoke to earlier, of the air traffic control world, then the human will be on their game and there won't be any difference. And we--typically, we don't see any. Mr. Lankford. OK. Ms. Gilbert. Could I answer that, please? Mr. Lankford. Sure. Ms. Gilbert. I was a controller at Houston Center for 21 years. And in my airspace, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, there are three airports in close proximity in that community. And there are no towers there. We provided the service out of the enroute facility. And it was a completely safe operation. However, for us to do that and not have a tower onsite, we were only able to provide one in, one out type of service. Mr. Lankford. Right. Ms. Gilbert. So you are not able to efficiently move aircraft in and out of the facility. Mr. Lankford. But you are typically talking about a lower rate of in and out, as well. You are not talking about someone doing takeoffs and landings every 3 minutes in a no-tower airport. Ms. Gilbert. No, only one is in. As soon as they taxi and they call you and they tell you they are off the runway, then you are able to then put another one in. In the meantime, those waiting to get in are holding. Mr. Lankford. OK. And, as Mr. Strong said, you can't see a 12-point buck at that point. Ms. Gilbert. Exactly. Mr. Lankford. So which--I would assume there would be multiple responses to a 12-point buck in most Oklahoma towers, if you looked at the window and saw that. Let me--ask a couple other questions on this, as well. How does--for Mr. Strong, there is a discussion about the cost sharing for the local municipality or the State or--how does that get covered? Now it is up to 20 percent. There are some recommendations up there to be up to 50 percent of the cost being a local cost. How does that get covered? What effect does that have? Mr. Strong. My concern, Mr. Lankford, is that it doesn't get covered. If we get to a place where the FAA asks a community to--``Your cost-benefit analysis has dropped to this place where we now want you to pony up to 50 percent of the cost to staff the tower on an annual basis,'' the community may already be looking at we have got to deal with DEQ regulations, we have got to take care of stormwater, we need more firefighters, we need more police, we have already got--we are already strapped with all of these things, and now the FAA comes to us and says, ``In order for you to remain fully functional, you are going to have to step up to $175, $200,000 a year to staff the control tower.'' It seems to me that we then put those community leaders--in our case, the University of Oklahoma--into a position of considering where do we get the money, if we don't have the money now, where are we going to find it, and then they begin to consider maybe a reduction in services, or even closing the control tower. That is my concern. Mr. Lankford. Right. Mr. Strong. We have come to a place where the control towers are in place, they are part of the NAS. Everybody that has testified so far today has all agreed that it is about safety, safety, safety. Mr. Lankford. Right. Mr. Strong. And any kind of reduction or putting a community in a position where they say, ``Well, we are going to have to shut this thing down,'' is simply---- Mr. Lankford. Is there a possibility to give you more flexibility that reduces cost in other areas, to say--you brought up multiple different regulations, stormwater and all the different regulations that also come down from the Federal Government into a community or onto an airport itself. Are there ways to be able to say, ``We will give you flexibility in these areas to take care of this, but you also have an increased cost, straight off''? Mr. Strong. I suppose that there might be, sir. I wouldn't know the answer to that, because it doesn't have wings, jet engines, or propellers on it. If it had one of those things, I might be a little bit better to answer it. But I suppose so. I don't really know the answer. Mr. Lankford. OK. Ms. Gilbert, you also mentioned that you were opposed to transitioning, or the organization was opposed to transitioning more airports from FAA to contract. In the mid-1990s was your organization also opposed to transitioning the 136 that are currently contract that used to be FAA? Was the organization opposed to that transition, as well? And if so--let me just get a chance to talk this through-- do you think it was a mistake that they were moved from FAA to contract towers, based on the current position the organization now, that we shouldn't have any more contract towers moved from FAA to that? Ms. Gilbert. We were opposed to the transfer and conversion of those towers. Just as our testimony says, our written testimony and the recommendations---- Mr. Lankford. Right. Ms. Gilbert [continuing]. Our concern is about proper training, proper staffing, and proper equipment maintenance, regardless of whether it is a contract tower or an FAA tower. Mr. Lankford. Right. Ms. Gilbert. So that is our position. Mr. Lankford. Was it a mistake to move those? Has it proved to be unsafe? Ms. Gilbert. It hasn't proved to be unsafe, but we have a concern about the margin of safety being stretched to accommodate the bottom line, versus safety first. Somebody has got to make money in a Contract Power Program, and that is our concern. And the way that they are able to do that is barebones staffing, the equipment issues that we have raised, and also, in a lot of cases, the hours of operations. A lot of those facilities reduced the hours that they provide service to their community when they transferred from FAA to contract tower. Mr. Lankford. OK. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back. Mr. Petri. Thank you. And--yes, sir? Mr. Strong. Mr. Chairman, if I might, there is a couple of things that I would like to speak to: the proper training, staffing, and equipping of the control towers. I have been a part of the U.S. Contract Tower Association Policy Board for about 10 years. And in that time, I have been the chair for about 6. I have met with the contractors on a frequent recurring basis. And each and every one of them, when we come to our meetings, it is always about safety first. How can we do this the best way we can possibly do it? Training, they always step up to the highest levels of training, be it recurring training or initial training. There was talk about the difference between certified controller and the training only being 30 days, and then you might get fired if you didn't make your--get your rating in 30 days. Controllers in the contract world come to the tower already certified by the FAA. They have a control tower operator certificate. So all they have to do is come to that tower, learn the particulars of the airspace at that airport, and then move forward. So, if there is something different about that facility that may require them to need a couple of extra days, I think the contractors would allow for that. There was comment about the punitive safety culture. That causes me great concern. Again, I have worked with these contractors for 10 years. I know what their heart is, I know what they are driven by, I know what their attention is. And they are not about punitive. Now, in the contract tower world, we do not yet have ATSAP. But the contractors are embracing that activity or that possibility. They want to move that forward. I would submit to you also, in the voluntary reporting of ATSAP, much like the NAS's callback--pilots are familiar with that--NAS's callback, if you make an error, you report it to callback, then you are not to be punished. And it seems to me that ATSAP is about the same thing for controllers. Even in NAS's callback, even though it is a very good program, you will never get 100 percent reporting. You are talking about humans. If--some people, if they make an error, and they don't think anybody saw it, they may not report it, whether it is a contract tower or an FAA tower. Unless we have some other nonhuman methodology of tracking the error, I don't think you will ever get 100 percent. But I would say this. I know the hearts and the minds and the intentions of these contractors. And they are dead set on having ATSAP or some functioning reporting system like that, as FAA does. And currently, I might add, they are serious about-- the only time that you will get punished is for not reporting an error. If you have an error or a deviation in the system, if you don't report it, then you have got a problem. If you do report it, we want to know about it, because we want to know what caused it, and how could we move forward, how can we learn from that and move forward in a safer condition. Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]