[Senate Hearing 112-700]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-700
NOMINATION OF MICHAEL P. HUERTA
TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 21, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-392 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
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROY BLUNT, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK WARNER, Virginia MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK BEGICH, Alaska KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
DEAN HELLER, Nevada
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
David Quinalty, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 21, 2012.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 4
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 21
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 23
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 25
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 27
Statement of Senator Boozman..................................... 29
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 31
Witnesses
Michael P. Huerta, Nominated to be Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration........................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Biographical information..................................... 8
Appendix
Letter dated June 19, 2012 from Hans Ephraimson--Abt, Chairman,
Air Crash Victims Families Group to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV 35
Response to written questions submitted to Michael P. Huerta by:
Hon. John F. Kerry........................................... 35
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 36
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 38
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison.................................... 39
Hon. Jim DeMint.............................................. 49
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 51
Hon. Pat Toomey.............................................. 58
NOMINATION OF MICHAEL P. HUERTA
TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria
Cantwell presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. The Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation will come to order, and I'd like to
thank our witness for being here, Mr. Huerta, who is the
nominee to be the FAA Administrator and our colleague from the
Committee Senator Boxer. I'm presiding at the request of the
chairman of the full Committee, who is here, and I'm going to
go ahead and make an opening statement.
Mr. Huerta, I want to congratulate you again for your
nomination by the President to be the next FAA Administrator.
I'm glad the President has put your name forward for two
reasons: first, you earned the nomination and you've served
capably as Deputy Administrator and as Acting Administrator for
the past several months and when you came in front of this
committee the first time, I recall there were many whispers
about whether you had enough background in aviation. Well, you
have demonstrated that that is a non-issue and you have brought
a great skill set, a great mind set, to this job and we thank
you for that.
To me what's most important is that once you were
confronted with the challenges of running such a large and
complex agency you demonstrated strong leadership and strong
judgment in this job. Now, that is not to say that there aren't
problems to solve. There are several areas where we need
improvement, and I do feel that overall the FAA has been making
great progress under your watch.
Second, it is important that the FAA have a confirmed
administrator as soon as possible. I know it's a Presidential
election year and I know the FAA Administrator term is for 5
years, but not having an Administrator sends the wrong message
to the airline industry and to others about how important an
Administrator is in this next phase of implementation of
NextGen technology.
Also, under the leadership of Chairman Rockefeller and
Ranking Member Hutchison, they were instrumental in enacting an
FAA authorization bill in February, and there are a number of
rulemakings and other actions that are supposed to be completed
within the next 6 to 9 months or even a year after this
enactment. So I believe that without a confirmed Administrator
that will make all of those issues more difficult and punted
down the road.
As a result, I expect the implementation of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act--if we don't implement an
Administrator--we will have challenges in getting that done on
time.
So, Mr. Huerta, if you are confirmed you are going to have
a lot of challenges ahead. We had a chance to speak about some
of those in my office. We spoke about aviation safety, and
safety is the FAA's top priority. It is also one of the top
priorities of the Aviation Subcommittee.
We spoke about the challenges of modernization of our air
transportation system and I know you have had some firsthand
experiences with that. We touched on the Greener Skies
Initiative, a pilot program out of Seattle that demonstrates
the NextGen capabilities in the near term. And we spoke of the
improved sequencing process for FAA certification.
So I understand the FAA has real resource constraints, but
the FAA certification process should not be a bottleneck
costing aerospace sales or exports or ultimately jobs. The FAA
bill requires the agency to look at ways to improve the process
and I know that this is under review.
Finally, we spoke about the FAA in its efforts to help
those of the active duty military interested in careers in
aviation in maintenance repair and overhaul of the airframe
system get the certifications they need to help us and to help
our industry.
So I look forward to your testimony today, and again thank
you for your willingness to serve. And now I'll turn it to----
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Madam Chairman, may I ask a point--make a
point of personal privilege, a request to my friends? I'm in
the middle of literally 24-7 negotiations on the highway bill
and it's going well, and I'm due to meet with Chairman Mica. Do
you mind if I just gave one and a half minutes of praise for
this wonderful man and then charge out the door? Would that be
all right?
Senator Hutchison. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. I am so grateful. I am so grateful.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you for the job you're doing on
the highway bill.
Senator Boxer. Well, it's going to turn to you and Senator
Rockefeller momentarily to resolve the last few issues. I'm
very hopeful, is all I could say. But thank you.
So I will ask unanimous consent to place my entire
statement into the record at this time and I will summarize.
I'm so pleased with the nomination of Mr. Michael Huerta to
be Administrator of the FAA, and I want to congratulate Michael
and his family. Ann, would you stand, and Matthew, would you
stand. We're so happy you're here, literally behind your
wonderful dad and husband.
I am proud that a Californian has been nominated, of
course, by President Obama. I won't be repetitive. Mr. Huerta
has a long history of service. His nomination to be Deputy was
confirmed unanimously by the Senate. So this is a tested
gentleman, and the leadership roles he played at the Port of
San Francisco, at the Salt Lake City Olympics, as chief of
staff for the Secretary of Transportation under the Clinton
Administration, will serve him well.
I won't go into the task. We all know it. It's a huge job,
and it's a life-and-death job.
So in closing, I want to just note and pay tribute to a
number of families, family members of victims of the tragic
crash of Flight 3407 near Buffalo in 2010. They're here in the
audience today, and they're here to remind us all of what is at
stake when it comes to the need for adequate safety
regulations. I know Mr. Huerta carries that responsibility very
close to his heart, and I believe his breadth of experience and
leadership make him an excellent choice to fill the role of
Administrator at the FAA.
I want to thank my friends on the Committee, all of you,
for this opportunity, and I look forward to a swift
confirmation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from California
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to support the
nomination of Mr. Michael Huerta to be Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). I would like to congratulate Michael and
his family, his wife Ann and his son Matthew, on his nomination.
I am proud that a California native and a University of California,
Riverside graduate has been nominated by President Obama to lead the
FAA.
Mr. Huerta has a long history of service in the transportation
sector, and his nomination to be Deputy Administrator was confirmed
unanimously by the Senate in 2010.
Prior to his work at the FAA, Mr. Huerta served in a number of
leadership roles ranging from the Executive Director at the Port of San
Francisco, to coordinating transportation for the Salt Lake City
Olympics to serving as the Chief of Staff for the Secretary of
Transportation (DOT) under the Clinton Administration.
I worked with him on several transportation initiatives that were
important to California. These projects brought jobs to California, and
greatly increased California's ability to move goods and people in our
state. I am confident he will continue to bring that same leadership to
key FAA programs.
The FAA is facing many challenges.
The U.S. commercial aviation system operates over 30,000 flights
every day and carries over 700 million people per year. The number of
passengers is expected to reach one billion by 2021.
And the FAA is tasked with ensuring the safety of our aviation
system while working to modernize that system to meet the increasing
needs of our Nation.
I know that I will join many of my colleagues on this Committee in
urging the FAA to continue to expedite its important work to improve
safety.
I understand that there are a number of family members of victims
of the tragic crash of Flight 3407 near Buffalo in 2010 who are in the
audience today, and who are here to remind all of us of what is at
stake when it comes to the need for adequate safety regulations.
One of Mr. Huerta's responsibilities during his time at the FAA has
been shepherding the development of the NextGen system, which will
modernize our air traffic control system and make our skies safer and
more efficient.
I know that he is familiar with this project, and his experience
managing large, complex organizations will help to ensure the steady
progress we need to modernize our air traffic control system in the
coming years.
Mr. Huerta's breadth of experience and leadership make him an
excellent choice to fill the role of Administrator at the FAA.
I look forward to working with him in his new capacity and
congratulate him again on his nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Thank you for
being here this morning. We appreciate your activity on the
Committee and the FAA bill.
Now we'll turn to the--unless the Chairman wants to make a
statement?
The Chairman. No.
Senator Cantwell. We'll turn to the Ranking Member if she
would like to make an opening statement. Senator Hutchison,
would you like to make an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Yes. Did you, Mr. Chairman, want to?
The Chairman. I'll put mine in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
I want to congratulate you, Mr. Huerta, on your nomination to be
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If
confirmed, you will be charged with leading the most complex aviation
system in the world and an agency that faces several critical
challenges.
Chief among these tasks is making sure the agency takes the steps
necessary to maintain the highest levels of safety in the aviation
industry. Although the aviation sector is enjoying one of its safest
periods in history, we have experienced some troubling incidents over
the past few years. The agency has already made substantial progress
implementing the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
Extension Act of 2010. Among other accomplishments, the FAA has issued
new pilot fatigue rules and moved forward on the use of Safety
Management Systems. As the new Administrator, I expect that you make
sure the industry continues to embrace a strong culture of safety.
The next Administrator will also have to execute the mandates of
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Aside from safety,
modernizing the air transportation system remains the most important
challenge. The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) will
make our aviation system safer, more efficient, and strengthen the
airline sector's ability to help drive economic growth. It is
encouraging that the FAA has been able to move forward on some key
components of NextGen, including satellite-based navigation (ADS-B)
capabilities in the Caribbean, and the development of more precise
landing and take-off procedures (RNAV and RNP) at airports across the
Nation. Much of this progress has been achieved under your direction,
Mr. Huerta, so I have high expectations that you will continue this
positive trend.
You already have first-hand knowledge of the challenges confronting
the FAA and its operations, and you have received high marks for your
performance. I look forward to hearing from you today on how we can
strengthen our aviation system.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I think that the presiding
Chairwoman said most of the important things. I do think that
you have had a very good record in your time as Acting and
Deputy. You took over quite quickly and I think there was a
seamless transition.
Certainly NextGen is the biggest thing on your plate and we
all are going to want to know what the setbacks are and how
you're going to proceed forward.
I do want to bring up another couple of things. Number one
is the U.S. Office of Special Counsel wrote to Congress raising
concerns about ongoing safety lapses at the FAA, some of which
we certainly have read about in the newspapers with the air
traffic controllers. The counsel strongly recommended that more
rigorous oversight measures be put in place at the Department
and the FAA.
Second, the current Federal budget realities require every
agency to have cost-cutting measures, and I will want to hear
what you're doing in that regard.
So with that, let me say that I think you have stepped in
at a big time at the FAA and you have kept the trains running
on time, so I will look forward to hearing your testimony and
then asking you a few questions.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Hutchison.
Mr. Huerta, if you could now make your statement. Again,
welcome, and again thank you for having your family with you
this morning.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. HUERTA, NOMINATED TO BE ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Huerta. Thank you very much, Chairman Rockefeller,
Ranking Member Hutchison, Chairman Cantwell, and I'd also like
to thank Senator Boxer for that generous introduction. It is an
honor to appear before you today as President Clinton's nominee
for Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. I'm
humbled by this nomination and the opportunity that it presents
to serve our nation.
I'd like to thank Secretary LaHood for his leadership and
support, and I'd also like to recognize my family members who
were introduced who are with me today: my wife Ann and my son
Matthew, and my sister Rose, who is visiting from California.
Of course, I'd also like to thank my late parents, who I know
are with me in spirit today.
At the Federal Aviation Administration, we operate the
largest and safest aviation system in the world. The safety of
the traveling public is our number one priority and it's our
mission. We're constantly working to identify and to address
potential risks long before there is a problem. We have
achieved a greater level of collaboration with our workforce
and we are working constantly to enhance our safety culture.
Congress has helped us in our efforts by passing the FAA
reauthorization earlier this year, and I want to thank all of
you, the members of this committee, for your role in this major
accomplishment. The reauthorization gives the dedicated
employees of the FAA greater financial guidance and it provides
greater stability to all of our programs. All of this is vital
to keeping the economic engine of civil aviation at full
capacity. It helps expand on the 10 million jobs and $1.3
trillion that civil aviation already contributes to the
American economy each year. Thank you again.
Now I would like to share a little about my background with
you today. I have spent my entire career in transportation,
with rewarding professional experiences in both the public and
the private sectors. I've held senior policy positions at the
U.S. Department of Transportation under President Clinton.
There I gained valuable insight into the day to day operations
of many Federal agencies, including the FAA.
Later I was a managing director for transportation with the
Salt Lake Olympic Committee. This experience taught me that an
immovable deadline can be extremely powerful in motivating and
in focusing a team toward a common objective.
More recently, in the private sector I led a large
transportation technology services company. I managed the
operations of a global organization and a diverse and technical
workforce to ensure that we met our financial targets. I came
to develop a great appreciation for the benefit of mission-
focused partnerships between government and business.
Two years ago I returned to the Federal Government, where
I've had the opportunity to serve as Deputy Administrator of
the FAA and now as Acting Administrator. I'm honored that
President Obama has nominated me to lead this great agency. In
the last 2 years I've focused on positioning the FAA to deliver
NextGen, the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
We recently established a new organization within the
agency to focus on implementing major technology programs. This
will improve the coordination among all of our NextGen
initiatives, helping us to usher them from the drawing board to
live operation.
What we do over the next several years is going to
determine the course of aviation in this country for decades to
come. That is why it's critical that the FAA work closely with
Congress, with other government agencies, and all the
components of the aviation industry and the communities they
serve as we lay this foundation for the future.
NextGen is the total transformation of the way we handle
air traffic. We're moving from radar to satellites, from radios
to data messages, and from airways that zigzag the country to
more direct routes. We need public-private collaboration to
create this new way of doing business.
NextGen means enhanced safety, greater access to airports,
a smaller impact on the environment, and more predictable
schedules for travelers. We're already seeing these benefits in
metro areas around the country now.
As we move forward, I've asked my senior leadership team to
focus on three main areas this year. First, we need to make the
safest aviation system in the world even safer and smarter.
Second, we need to realize even more the benefits of NextGen
and we need to realize them today. And third, we need to make
sure that we empower our 48,000 FAA employees to embrace
innovation and to work efficiently.
Mr. Chairman, I'm honored by the trust the President has
placed in me as his nominee and, if confirmed, I pledge to
continue to enhance the safety of our system for the traveling
public and to guide the FAA through the many challenges that
lie ahead.
I would like to thank this committee again for its
consideration of my nomination and I look forward to continuing
our close working relationship. I'm pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Huerta follow:]
Prepared Statement of Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration
Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison and
members of the Committee. It's an honor to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee for Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
I am humbled by this nomination and the opportunity to serve our
nation. I'd like to thank Secretary LaHood for his leadership and
support, and also recognize my family who is with me today--my wife Ann
and my son Matthew.
At the Federal Aviation Administration we operate the largest and
safest aviation system in the world. The safety of the traveling public
is our number one priority and our mission. We are constantly working
to identify and address potential risks long before there is a problem.
We have achieved a greater level of collaboration with our workforce
and are always enhancing our safety culture.
Congress has helped in our efforts by passing the FAA
reauthorization earlier this year. I want to thank the members of this
committee for their role in this major accomplishment. The
reauthorization gives the dedicated employees of the FAA greater
financial guidance and it gives greater stability to our programs.
All of this is vital to keeping the economic engine of civil
aviation at full capacity. It helps expand on the 10 million jobs and
1.3 trillion dollars that civil aviation already contributes to the
American economy each year. Thank you again.
Now, I would like to share a little about my background with you
today.
I have spent my entire career in transportation with rewarding
professional experiences in both the public and private sectors. I held
senior policy positions at the U.S. Department of Transportation under
President Clinton. There, I gained valuable insight into the day-to-day
operations of many Federal agencies, including the FAA.
Later, I was a managing director for transportation with the Salt
Lake Olympic Committee. This experience taught me that an immovable
deadline can be extremely powerful in motivating and in focusing a team
toward a common objective.
More recently, in the private sector, I led a large transportation
technology services company. I managed the operations of a global
organization and a diverse and technical workforce, to ensure that we
met our financial targets. I came to develop a great appreciation for
the benefits of mission-focused partnerships between government and
business.
Two years ago I returned to the Federal government, where I have
had the opportunity to serve as Deputy Administrator of the FAA, and
now, as Acting Administrator. I am honored that President Obama has
nominated me to lead this great agency.
In the last two years I have focused on positioning the FAA to
deliver NextGen--the Next Generation Air Transportation System. We
recently established a new organization within the agency to focus on
implementing major technology programs. This will improve the
coordination among NextGen initiatives, helping us usher them from the
drawing board to live operation.
What we do over the next several years is going to determine the
course of aviation in this country for decades to come. That is why it
is critical that the FAA work closely with Congress, other government
agencies, all the components of the aviation industry, and the
communities they serve, as we lay the foundation for the future.
NextGen is the total transformation of the way we handle air
traffic here and around the world. We are moving from radar to
satellites, from radios to data messages and from airways that zig-zag
the country to more direct routes. We need public-private collaboration
to create this new way of doing business.
NextGen means enhanced safety, greater access to airports, a
smaller impact on the environment and more predictable schedules for
travelers. And we're already seeing these benefits in metro areas
around the country now.
As we move forward, I have asked my senior leadership to focus on
three main areas this year. First, we need to make the safest aviation
system in the world even safer and smarter. Second, we need to realize
even more benefits from NextGen today. And third, we need to make sure
that we empower our 48,000 FAA employees to embrace innovation and to
work efficiently.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored by the trust the President has placed in
me as his nominee. If confirmed, I pledge to continue to enhance the
safety of our system for the traveling public and to guide the FAA
through the many challenges that lie ahead.
I would like to thank this Committee again for its consideration of
my nomination, and I look forward to continuing a close working
relationship. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (include and former names or nicknames used): Michael Peter
Huerta, Mike Huerta.
2. Position to which nominated: Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration.
3. Date of nomination: March 27, 2012.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: 800 Independence Avenue, SW Room 1010, Washington, DC
20591.
5. Date and place of birth: November 18, 1956; Riverside,
California.
6. Provide the name, position and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Spouse: Ann L. Sowder, Financial Planner, Sagemark Consulting
(A Division of Lincoln Financial Advisors), 8219 Leesburg Pike,
Suite 200, Vienna, VA 22182; child: Matthew Sowder Huerta, age
15.
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs,
Princeton University, MPA, International Relations, 1980.
University of California at Riverside, BA, Political Science,
1978.
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all
management-level jobs and any non-managerial jobs that relate to the
position for which you are nominated.
December 2011 to present, Acting Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration.
July 2010 to December 2011, Deputy Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration.
April 2009 to June 2010, President, MPH Consulting, LLC.
April 2008 to March 2009, Executive Vice President and Group
President, Transportation Solutions, Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc.
June 2005 to April 2008, Senior Vice President and Managing
Director, Transportation Solutions Affiliated Computer Systems,
Inc.
March 2002 to June 2005, Senior Vice President and Managing
Director, Transportation Systems and Services, Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc.
April 2001 to March 2002, Vice President, Marketing and
Business Development
Lockheed Martin IMS, sold in August 2001 to Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc.
September 2001 to March 2002, Managing Director, Transportation
Communications, Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic
Winter Games of 2002 (Loaned Executive from Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc.)
October 1999 to April 2001, Director, Federal Government
Relations, Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic
Winter Games of 2002.
September 1998 to April 2001, Principal, Cambridge Systematics,
Inc.
July 1998 to September 1998, Independent Consultant.
January 1997 to June 1998, Chief of Staff, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation.
May 1993 to January 1997, Associate Deputy Secretary of
Transportation, Director, Office of Intermodalism, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
January 1989 to April 1993, Executive Director, Port of San
Francisco.
March 1986 to January 1989, Commissioner, New York City
Department of Ports, International Trade and Commerce (The
agency name was changed twice during my tenure and was also
known as New York City Department of Ports and Trade and New
York City Department of Ports and Terminals).
July 1980 to March 1986, Consultant, Supervising Consultant,
Manager, Coopers and Lybrand Management Consulting Services.
June 1979 to September 1979, Federal Summer Intern, U.S.
Mission to N.A.T.O., U.S. Department of Defense.
9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years.
Chair, Oversight Committee, National Cooperative Freight
Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational, or other institution within the last five years.
President, MPH Consulting, LLC, April 2009 to present (company
has been inactive since June 2010).
Member, Advisory Board, Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corporation,
June 2009 to March 2010.
Consultant, Securing America's Future Energy, May 2009 to March
2010.
Chairman, Board of Directors, Intelligent Transportation
Society of America, June 2009 to January 2010.
Elder, Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church, May 2007 to May 2010.
Deacon, Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church, May 2004 to May 2007.
Chair, Oversight Committee, National Cooperative Fright
Research Program, Transportation Research Board, 2007 to
January 2010.
Consultant, Mark IV IVHS, June 2009.
Consultant, Chicago 2016, April 2009.
Member, Board of Advisors, College of Engineering, Center for
Environmental Research and Technology University of California,
Riverside, 1995 to February 2012.
Executive Vice President, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
April 2008 to March 2009,
12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold in any civic, social, charitable, educational,
political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious
organization, private club, or other membership organization. Please
note whether any such club or organization restricts membership on the
basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap.
Member, The City Club of Washington, 1993 to April 2012.
Member, Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church, 2003 to present.
Cubmaster, Cub Scout Pack 52, 2007-2008.
Member, Train Collectors Association, 2005 to present.
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
personally liable for that debt.
January 1997 to June 1998, Chief of Staff, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation.
May1993 to January 1997, Associate Deputy Secretary of
Transportation; Director, Office of Intermodalism, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
I have no outstanding campaign debts.
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years. Also list all offices you
have held with, and services rendered to, a state or national political
party or election committee during the same period.
Contributions:
Dennis Herrera for Mayor (San 12/2/2010 $500
Francisco, CA)
Rush Holt for Congress 5/20/2009 $1,000
Obama for America 9/30/2008 $2,300
Josh Zeitz for Congress 9/23/2008 $2,300
Linda Stender for Congress 6/20/2008 $2,300
Friends of Mark Warner 4/4/2008 $500
Friends of Jim Oberstar 3/21/2008 $500
Josh Zeitz for Congress 11/11/2007 $2,300
Hillary Clinton for President 10/12/2007 $2,300
Linda Stender for Congress 9/28/2007 $2,300
Mitt Romney for President 4/2/2007 $2,300
Linda Stender for Congress 6/29/2006 $500
Menendez for Senate 4/10/2006 $500
Menendez for Congress 4/7/2005 $500
Democratic National Committee 4/5/2006 $2,500
National Voter Coalition 10/10/2005 $1,000
Democratic National Committee 10/25/2004 $2,000
Ameripac: Fund for a Greater 6/25/2004 $1,000
America
Mitt Romney for Governor (MA) 4/22/2004 $500
Mitt Romney for Governor (MA) 11/2/2003 $500
Lipinski for Congress 5/13/2003 $500
Committee
Mitt Romney for Governor (MA) 10/24/2002 $500
Victory 2002 9/21/2002 $1,000
Steve Westly for Controller 6/21/2002 $1,000
(CA)
Torricelli for U.S. Senate 5/9/2002 $1,000
I have not held any offices with, nor rendered services to, a state
or national political party or election committee during the last ten
years.
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements: None.
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you
have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
Following is a listing of relevant speeches:
World Aviation Training Symposium, ``The Next Level of
Training'' (04/17/2012).
Houston Metroplex Press Event, ``Satellite-Based Routes in
Houston Improve On-Time Flights, Enhance Safety and Fuel
Efficiency'' (04/04/2012)
Sun N' Fun, ``Sun N' Fun Meet the Administrator'' (03/30/2012)
Oakland Metroplex Press Availability, ``More Direct Routes with
NextGen'' (03/19/2012)
2012 Women in Aviation Conference, ``Remarks'' (03/09/2012)
37th Annual FAA Aviation Forecast Conference, ``Growing with
NextGen'' (03/08/2012)
Atlanta and Charlotte Metroplex Design & Implementation
Kickoff, ``Atlanta and Charlotte Metroplex Design &
Implementation '' (02/29/2012)
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 2012 AASHTO Washington Briefing, ``How States Have
Fostered NextGen'' (02/27/2012)
Commercial Space Transportation Conference, ``Commercial Space
Transportation'' (02/16/2012)
Archie League Medal of Safety Awards Banquet, ``Communicating
for Safety'' (02/02/2012)
Fort Lauderdale International Airport Runway Expansion
Groundbreaking, ``Ft. Lauderdale International Airport Runway
Expansion'' (01/23/2012)
New Horizons Forum, ``NextGen: Transforming our National
Airspace System into the Next Century of Flight'' (01/10/2012)
Press Conference, ``Pilot Flight and Duty Time'' (12/21/2011)
2011 Federal Highway Administration Civil Rights Symposium,
``Assuring Equal Access to Aviation Business Opportunities''
(12/08/2011)
Diversion Forum, ``Proposed Recommendations'' (12/01/2011)
NextGen Advisory Committee, ``FAA Report'' (09/29/2011)
U.S.-China Aviation Symposium, ``Meeting the Challenges of the
Future'' (09/28/2011)
Global Air Navigation Industry Symposium (GANIS). ``Towards a
Seamless Global Aviation System'' (09/23/2011)
National Hispanic Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees
Annual Training Conference. ``What I Know for Certain'' (08/02/
2011)
Air Traffic Control Association, ``NextGen--A Worthy Investment
in Our Nation's Future'' (05/18/2011)
China Civil Aviation Development Forum, ``Working Together for
NextGen'' (05/11/2011)
IT/ISS Conference, ``Cybersecurity and NextGen'' (03/15/2011)
UC Davis, ``Aviation Noise & Air Quality'' (02/28/2011)
Wichita Town Hall, ``Something Extraordinary'' (02/10/2011)
Regional Plan Association, ``Jump Starting the Discussion''
(01/27/2011)
ATCA 55th Annual Conference and Exposition. ``Moving Forward
with NextGen'' (10/26/2010)
Sixth Triennial Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference.
``Tangible Benefits'' (10/20/2010)
Recovery Act Press Event, ``Groundbreaking of New Air Traffic
Control Tower'' (10/18/2010)
NextGen Conference, ``American Association of Airport
Executives '' (10/04/2010)
Jeppesen Connect Seminar, ``Filled with Reasons to
Participate'' (09/30/2010)
RTCA Annual Forum, ``Building Bridges that Last'' (09/22/2010)
National Black Coalition of FAA Employees National Convention,
``Respect and Consideration'' (09/15/2010)
Bemidji Terminal Expansion, ``A Bright Future'' (07/24/2010)
National Hispanic Coalition Conference, ``United We Stand''
(07/14/2010)
16th ITS World Congress; Stockholm, Sweden (09/21/2009).
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, Board of
Directors; San Francisco, CA (04/16/2009).
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental on non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each
testimony.
March 22, 2012--Testimony as Acting Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, before the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States House of
Representatives, at a hearing on the Administration's FY 2013
budget request.
October 5, 2011--Testimony as Deputy Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, before the Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States
House of Representatives, at a hearing on benefits of the Next
Generation Air Transportation System.
January 26, 2010--Testimony as nominee to be Deputy
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, before the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, at a hearing
to consider nominations.
September 9, 2002--Testimony on behalf of the Coalition for
America's Gateways and Trade Corridors before the Subcommittee
on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine, Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate,
and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure and
Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
United States Senate, on Freight Transportation and Intermodal
Connections.
March 13, 1997--Testimony as Associate Deputy Secretary of
Transportation before the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, on reauthorization of the surface transportation
program.
February 24, 1997--Testimony as Associate Deputy Secretary of
Transportation before the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives, on the
Department of Transportation's ``Year 2000'' activities.
June 19, 1995--Testimony as Associate Deputy Secretary of
Transportation before the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives, at a
hearing in Chicago, IL on streamlining Federal field office
structures.
May 17, 1993--Testimony as nominee to be Associate Deputy
Secretary of Transportation before the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, at a hearing to
consider nominations.
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that
position?
The FAA's mission is to provide the safest, most efficient
aerospace system in the world. It does that as a regulator and as an
operator. It works in collaboration with key stakeholders, including
the private sector. It relies on sophisticated technology. The agency
is a large and complex organization and it has an ambitious agenda for
transitioning to a next generation air traffic control system, while
continuing to operate on a daily basis the largest air traffic system
in the world.
In my career, I have worked both in government and the private
sector. Since July 2010, I have served as FAA Deputy Administrator and
have developed a broad understanding of the agency and its mission. In
addition to my role in helping to ensure that the FAA's safety mission
is carried out, I have had the primary responsibility for overseeing
the FAA's deployment of the Next Generation Air Traffic System
(NextGen) and played a major role in the FAA's Foundation for Success
initiative, which reorganized the agency to improve its efficiency and
effectiveness.
I also held senior policy positions at the U.S. DOT, which gave me
valuable insight into how Federal agencies work and, in particular, the
important role played by the FAA.
Before joining the FAA, I led a large transportation technology
services organization. In that capacity, I had responsibility for the
operations of a large, global organization, managing a diverse and
technical workforce and, of course, ensuring that the organization met
its financial targets. Our customers were for the most part state and
local government agencies and we provided critical systems that were
central to them successfully executing their missions.
I am excited about the prospect, if confirmed, of leading the FAA
at a critical time in its history. The agency is managing a major
technological transformation at the same time its workforce is going
through a generational change. The decisions that need to be made in
the next five years will set the course of the FAA more many years to
come.
I believe that my background and experience will assist the FAA in
carrying out its mission in the coming years.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large
organization?
As Administrator, I would serve as the chief executive of the
agency with the primary responsibility to ensure adherence to the best
management processes. Effective management of a large organization
means that the leaders of that organization need to ensure that
reporting systems are in place to provide them the visibility they need
into what is going on in the organization. At the same time, they need
to ensure that appropriate controls are in place.
Before joining the FAA, I served as an officer of a Fortune 500
corporation and have a good understanding of the dynamics of large
organizations. It is important to be able to delegate and empower line
managers but at the same time, to recognize that ultimate
responsibility rests at the top. I have found that managing to specific
and quantifiable targets is an effective means of building
accountability, but also innovation. In addition, it is important to
spend time engaging with the workforce throughout the organization.
Talking to line managers and front-line employees informally can
provide important insights about what is going on.
As Deputy Administrator at the FAA, I have focused on improving the
agency's program management practices and its delivery of services. As
a result, the agency has stabilized a troubled deployment of a new
technology system, getting it back on track and well on the way to a
successful deployment nationwide.
If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the FAA's
employees and stakeholders, and particularly Congress, in meeting the
agency's objectives in the coming years.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency, and why?
1. Maintaining and building upon an exceptional record of
aviation safety. Commercial aviation is an exceptionally safe
mode of transportation but it is important that we continue to
find ways to make the system even safer and smarter. The FAA
has in recent years begun to focus more on identifying risk
factors that could affect safety in the future. The idea is to
look for clues that might prevent an accident before it
happens. This proactive approach uses science to analyze risks
in the system as well as historical accident data. By combining
the two, we get a more complete picture of potential problems
and ways to address them. As traffic increases and technologies
become more advanced, this approach is essential to maintaining
the highest levels of safety.
2. Successfully deploying NextGen. The FAA's deployment of
NextGen is critical to sustaining the contribution of aviation
to the U.S. economy. Today, aviation accounts for $1.3 trillion
in economic activity annually and accounts for over 10 million
jobs. That number is expected to grow dramatically in the years
ahead. NextGen will integrate new technologies into our air
traffic system transforming how we fly. The result will be
reduced delays, savings in fuel consumption and lower carbon
emissions, and we need to find ways to accelerate these
benefits. This transformation combines new technology with more
efficient operations and management. It is much more than a new
computer system. It requires the FAA to change how it hires and
trains people, and how they do their jobs. And all this must be
done while the aviation system continues to operate safely 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
3. Practicing fiscal responsibility while empowering and
engaging employees. Every government agency is being called
upon to find ways to carry out its mission as effectively as
possible and at the lowest cost to the taxpayers. It is
essential that the FAA focus on finding ways to reduce its
operating costs and continually improve efficiency. Continued
collaboration with and among employees will result in greater
efficiency and effectiveness, while also moving the agency
toward its goal of becoming a workplace of choice.
b. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
accounts.
While employed by Affiliated Computer Systems, Inc., (ACS) I
participated in a deferred compensation plan and, at the time I
enrolled, I elected to receive deferred compensation in five annual
installments following my departure from ACS (March 2009). In 2010, ACS
was acquired by Xerox Corporation. I will receive two remaining annual
payments from ACS, A Xerox Company, with the final payment expected in
April 2013.
During my employment at ACS, I was granted ACS stock options. These
were converted to Xerox Corporation stock options upon Xerox's
acquisition of ACS in 2010. I still hold Xerox stock options, and
intend to continue to hold them as market conditions warrant.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
association, or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
ethics official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any
potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the
terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the
Department's designated agency ethics official and that has been
provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential
conflicts of interest.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships, which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
ethics official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any
potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the
terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the
Department's designated agency ethics official and that has been
provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential
conflicts of interest.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
ethics official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any
potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the
terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the
Department's designated agency ethics official and that has been
provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential
conflicts of interest.
5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you
have been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing
the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting
the administration and execution of law or public policy: None.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
ethics official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any
potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the
terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the
Department's designated agency ethics official and that has been
provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential
conflicts of interest.
c. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for breach of ethics by,
or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency,
professional association, disciplinary committee, or other professional
group? If so, please explain: No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain: No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were and officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation. If so, please explain.
I am aware of three suits that were filed against my previous
employers or that named me in an official capacity. None of these
involved any allegation related to my own conduct.
In my official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City
Department of Ports and Trade, I was named in two suits against the
city in the late 1980s involving nonpayment of rent at port facilities.
I had no involvement in the litigation of these cases. The NYC
Department of Ports and Trade may have been a party to other legal
actions, but I had no involvement in any such cases.
In 1994 or 1995, I was deposed in a sexual harassment case that an
employee had brought against the City and County of San Francisco. I
had been the Executive Director of the Port of San Francisco until
April 2003, and I testified that I had met the employee only once and
had no knowledge of the complaint. The Port of San Francisco may have
been a party to other legal actions, but I had no involvement in any
such cases.
During the time when I was an officer of Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc., a Fortune 500, publicly traded company with extensive
domestic and international operations, the company may have been a
party to administrative proceedings and litigation; however, I had no
involvement in any such cases.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including please of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain: No.
5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or
any other basis? If so, please explain: No.
6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination.
N/A.
d. relationship with the committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
resume of michael p. huerta
Professional Experience
Acting Administrator--Federal Aviation Administration, Washington,
D.C., December 2011 to present.
Deputy Administrator--Federal Aviation Administration, Washington,
D.C., July 2010 to December 2011--Acting chief executive of the agency
responsible the safety and efficiency of the largest aerospace system
in the world. Oversees a $15.9 billion dollar budget, over 47,000
employees and is focused on ensuring the agency and its employees are
the best prepared and trained professionals to meet the growing demands
and requirements of the industry. Responsible for the FAA's multi-
billion dollar NextGen air traffic control modernization program as the
United States shifts from ground-based radar to state-of-the-art
satellite technology.
President--MPH Consulting, LLC, Washington, D.C., April 2009 to June
2010--Consultant on transportation policy, technology and financing.
Clients include international technology companies and not-for-profit
organizations.
Executive Vice President and Group President, Transportation
Solutions--Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Washington, D.C., April
2008 to March 2009
Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Transportation Solutions--
Affiliated Computer Systems, Inc., Washington, D.C., June 2005 to April
2008
Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Transportation Systems and
Services--Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Washington, D.C., March
2002 to June 2005--Chief executive of ACS' transportation technology
services line of business. ACS is a premier provider of diversified
business process outsourcing and information technology services and
solutions to government and commercial clients worldwide. The company
provides a wide variety of revenue collection, regulatory compliance
and technology services to the transportation industry throughout the
world. Products and services include:
System integration and customer service center operations
for electronic toll collection systems including E-ZPass in the
northeastern United States and FasTrak in California
Fare collection and parking revenue control and management
systems to public transit authorities, airports, and cities
The nationwide PrePass electronic commercial vehicle pre-
clearance program
A full suite of photo enforcement solutions designed to
promote road and highway safety
System integration and design of PierPASS, a congestion fee
collection program used at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, California.
Vice President, Marketing and Business Development--Lockheed Martin
IMS, Transportation Systems and Services Washington, D.C., April 2001
to March 2002--Responsible for expanding IMS' leadership position in
intelligent transportation marketplaces such as electronic toll
collection, commercial vehicle operations, and electronic payment
systems.
Consultant, Director, and Managing Director--Salt Lake Organizing
Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002, Washington, D.C. and
Salt Lake City, Utah, July 1998 to April 2002--Served in various
positions as an independent consultant and an employee of the
organization. Responsible for (a) designing and running, in cooperation
with the Utah Department of Transportation, the highly successful
Travel Demand Management (TDM) program used during the XIX Olympic
Winter Games held in Utah during February 2002, and (b) securing
funding for a $250 million program of temporary and permanent
transportation projects to support the transportation requirements of
the Games.
Principal--Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Washington, D.C., September
1998 to April 2001--Principal of an employee-owned, nationally known,
transportation consulting firm. Responsibilities included new business
development for freight and intermodal transportation. Services
provided included freight transportation planning, transportation
planning for special events, project financing, and strategic planning.
Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary--United States Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C., January 1997 to June 1998--
Responsibilities included serving as chief strategist and policy
advisor to the Secretary of Transportation and day-to-day manager of
the Office of the Secretary. Involved oversight of high-profile
projects, major initiatives, and federal government financial
assistance.
Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation and Director, Office of
Intermodalism--United States Department of Transportation, Washington,
D.C., May 1993 to January 1997--Responsibilities included coordinating
federal policy on intermodal transportation and initiating policies to
promote efficient intermodal transportation in the United States.
Selected accomplishments:
$400 million federal loan as part of financing package for
$1.9 billion Alameda Corridor port access project in Southern
California. The federal loan was an innovative, direct loan
which completed the financing package and enabled this project
to move forward.
Airport access projects in San Francisco and New York which
involved blending airport, transit and highway revenues in new
ways to provide mass transit links to these airports.
Executive Director--Port of San Francisco, January 1989 to April 1993--
Chief executive of the port, a self-supporting public agency that
develops and administers maritime facilities, commercial development,
and fishing facilities on San Francisco's waterfront. Completed a port
strategic plan, which led to substantially increased container shipping
volume. Initiated planning and construction for modernizing and
expanding the port's shipping terminals and fish handling facilities.
Completed an award-winning public access pier in downtown San
Francisco.
Commissioner--New York City Department of Ports, International Trade
and Commerce, March 1986 to January 1989--Chief executive of the city
department responsible for developing and administering marine, air,
rail and truck facilities throughout the city; promoting international
trade and investment; operating and regulating the city's public
markets.
Management Consultant--Coopers & Lybrand, Washington, D.C., July 1980
to March 1986--Consultant serving a variety of public and private
sector clients in economic studies, feasibility analysis and
international trade services.
Education
MPA 1980, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs,
Princeton University BA 1978, University of California, Riverside
Senator Cantwell. Again, Mr. Huerta, thank you for your
willingness to serve and thank you for your testimony this
morning.
I'd like to start. You mentioned obviously safety, which is
a high priority. As I mentioned earlier in my statement, we had
oversight hearings on this issue. There are several rulemakings
that are required under the FAA Extension Act of 2010 and some
of those rulemakings for new flight and duty time rules have
been completed and others haven't.
In the hearings that we had in the aftermath of the Colgan
3407 flight, one of the issues identified was the shortcoming
of pilot training and co-pilot training. So what is the status
of that rulemaking on pilot training? When can we expect those
rules to be released? How much time will be given to airlines
to comply? And when can we expect that transformation to be in
place?
Mr. Huerta. We continue to work on a final rule to update
our commercial pilot training requirements. This is a very
important rule. It's something that I care very deeply about.
I was distressed to learn of the time involved in moving
this rule forward and I've made it a very high personal
priority to do all we can to expedite the development of this
rule. The initial rulemaking was under way before the passage
of the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of 2010. Subsequent
to the passage of that statute we had to issue a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking. We received a very large number
of comments in response to that and we have reviewed those
comments. I've instructed my staff to work diligently and
quickly in the completion of the rule so that we can get it out
there for final implementation.
We expect that we will complete that by October 2013. I
know that's a long time and we're doing all that we can to move
it as quickly as possible.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Huerta, what can we do in the
meantime? 2013 is a long time from now as it relates to this. I
mean, this seems to be something we needed in 2011.
Mr. Huerta. The FAA will continue to work closely with
industry to find out what we can do in advance of rulemaking.
Focusing on training is a very important priority and I want to
work closely with industry to do that.
Senator Cantwell. What about pilot commute times? That was
one of the issues in the Colgan Air case, the amount of time in
commuting, pilots showing up after long distance travel.
Mr. Huerta. Every pilot has an important responsibility to
report to work fit for duty and safe to fly. This is one of the
things that was a high priority to address in the pilot fatigue
rule and I think that there is a responsibility that we all
have to ensure that pilots can report to work fit for duty.
Senator Cantwell. What else can we do to address some of
these issues, given that, obviously, we want to implement the
right rules, but 2013 is a long time.
Mr. Huerta. As I said, we are doing everything that we can.
It's a large and complex rule and I pledge my own personal
commitment to push our team as quickly as we can to get this
done expeditiously.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I may have questions on that
coming up.
But, Mr. Chairman, would you like to? Ranking Member
Hutchison?
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me start with the Office of
Special Counsel and also the relatively large number, according
to the Special Counsel, of whistleblowers at the FAA. What
oversight measures are you putting in place in response to that
report, or what measures are you taking to assure that there is
some way to assure that an air traffic controller isn't taking
a nap on the job or leaving the tower? Those kinds of things
are obviously very troubling.
How are you dealing with that and putting a tighter rein on
the information flow?
Mr. Huerta. Sure. There are two things that you suggest,
Ranking Member Hutchison. First and foremost, every FAA
employee has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the
traveling public. That means that they need to report to work
fit for duty all the time every day.
The second thing is that we need to have an environment and
a climate where anyone who sees that there is a potential
safety risk in the system feels that no crash is in a safe
environment to elevate that to higher leadership. In doing that
it ensures that we're able to take strong and appropriate
action to deal with safety risks that might exist in the
system.
A couple of years ago we put in place a whistleblower
office within the FAA. We actually set it up with the
assistance of a former FAA whistleblower. What we wanted to do
was ensure that it was clear where people can go if they have
concerns about safety, about compliance with rules, and
everything that's associated with that.
I think that that has done a lot to create an appropriate
environment and quick responses. As a result of doing this,
we've identified areas where--in one instance, we completely
changed out the management of a facility so that we could
ensure that an appropriate focus was being given to safety.
I think that every employee of the FAA bears a specific
responsibility. I think it's a duty. It's my expectation that
if there are challenges in the system, if employers see things
that represent a risk to safety, then they have to be brought
forward so that we can deal with them and deal with them
expeditiously.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Huerta, one of the things that you
read about and hear about are how difficult it is to discipline
and fire if necessary a Federal employee because there are so
many requirements and it's a bureaucratic tough situation. All
of us have--well, not all of us, but I've certainly been in a
Federal agency myself and I know there are a lot of rules and
sometimes it's been difficult even if someone was not doing
their job and had all the requirements.
I'm asking you if you have had trouble with these safety-
essential personnel, like an air traffic controller or a
mechanic, have you had trouble with the bureaucratic
constraints or union activity that would keep you from taking
an action that you felt is necessary to assure that a person
not doing the job is not able to stay on the job?
Mr. Huerta. All of us as managers of the FAA, and in fact
in any Federal agency, have a special responsibility to ensure
that the requirements and expectations for our workforce are
absolutely clear and that we document when we see infractions
and when we see that standards are not being complied with, and
we do do that. That's something that I think is an important
first step in ensuring that these whistleblower complaints are
appropriately dealt with.
The FAA takes very seriously its safety-sensitive
responsibility and, with appropriate documentation and
appropriate leadership, if we've found problems we have been
able to deal with them.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
I do have another quick question, and that is what steps
are you taking to live within the lower budgets that we're
going to have across the board until we get the deficits down
and the debt under control? What measures are you taking that
would suggest that you could do things more efficiently and
that you're doing the part for your agency?
Mr. Huerta. Well, first of all I'd like to thank this
committee and the appropriators for the support they've shown
the FAA. But you've given us a challenge, and that challenge
is, as you suggest, Senator Hutchison, the need to do things as
effectively and efficiently as possible.
We have within our organizational structure embarked on a
major restructuring where we've identified how to minimize
administrative costs and find greater efficiencies to operating
the agency. We've identified savings in excess of $100 million.
I think that's an important step.
The other thing that we're doing----
Senator Hutchison. Give me a couple of examples?
Mr. Huerta. A lot of that is in technology systems, in
general and administrative systems for the agency. Technology
benefits are huge in a large complex agency such as ours, where
we can deal with ensuring that there are not duplicative
systems and that we're also taking advantage of our size and
leveraging that as we go through major procurements for these
sorts of systems. So that's one very important area where we've
been quite successful. But we can do more.
The other thing relates to the delivery of NextGen. This
committee and the Congress in general have made NextGen a very
high priority, but that means we have a responsibility to
develop and implement it as efficiently as possible and that
means creating priorities. We've established in our NextGen
implementation plan what our specific goals are that we want to
accomplish both in the midterm and the long-term. To sum it up,
the major focus is on how do we deliver benefits early? If we
deliver benefits early to the users of the system, it means for
an airline that they can reduce track miles flown--that's a
reduction in fuel. Fuel is a reduction in cost. It's also a
reduction in emissions. And it benefits communities because
they have a more efficient system with less noise. It's those
things that we need to keep our focus on.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
Senator Cantwell. Chairman Rockefeller, would you like to?
Senator Lautenberg. Yes----
Senator Cantwell. I'm sorry. I think the Chairman's going
to ask some questions.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, that's OK.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Cantwell, very much.
Mr. Huerta, I'm sort of aghast here, because we had a very
good talk in my office and you talked to me very directly,
answered questions very directly, and this morning you seem to
be answering them as if scripted by OMB. I have to be frank
about that because this is not a favorable impression.
You used the word ``expeditiously,'' ``diligence'' all the
time to answer the questions. Chairman Cantwell asked you a
question about aviation safety and the standards, actually
required December 2011. We're now finding out that this cannot
be done until 2013, and then an additional five years, so
that's 2015. Then you just simply said: Well, we're working
with the airlines and we'll be expeditious and diligent and do
our very best. It's just not an answer at all.
I want to know, what is it that makes it so difficult to
get the airlines or the FAA to work together to get this done
before 2015, indeed by 2013, if not by 2011, which is what we
required in the law? What is your answer?
Mr. Huerta. Chairman Rockefeller, as I mentioned, this is a
very large and complex rulemaking, and no one is more
frustrated than I am at the time it has taken----
The Chairman. Please answer my question.
Mr. Huerta. What we are doing is working through a large
number of comments and ensuring that we can develop a rule that
will stand the test of time and that will deliver on the
benefits that we want. People are working very hard in getting
it done, but we have a lot of comments. It's a complicated
rule.
The Chairman. So it's a complicated bill. There's a lot of
comments. There's always a lot of comments. Washington draws
lots and lots of comments. It's you and it's the airlines and
it's the pilots. I don't understand why this is taking so long
or why--don't talk to me about lots of comments and this is a
complicated process. Everything is like that around here.
Mr. Huerta. Mr. Chairman, I am very committed to getting
this rule done.
The Chairman. And I understand that. But what are you doing
about it? So far I've heard that there are a lot of comments
and it makes it more difficult. Now, so how do you weigh
through this and get it? Don't wait until 2015. Lots of
Lackawannas could happen by 2015.
Mr. Huerta. Mr. Chairman, I will do all I can to direct my
staff and provide the resources to get this done as quickly as
possible.
The Chairman. Well, let me just make it known for the
record, and this is going to seem to be an unfriendly comment.
As you know, I support your candidacy, but any Federal person
making testimony before any committee of Congress has to have
that testimony reviewed and cannot give it until it's approved
by the Office of Management and Budget, and that is the same
with yours. And that's what you're sounding like.
I just can't live with ``I'm going to do everything I
can.'' I want to know what it is that you will do to make sure
it will happen. I'm sticking on this thing, 2015.
Mr. Huerta. Mr. Chairman, once a week I meet with our
safety organization and we go over every rule that we have
pending. The questions that I ask are: Where is it, who is
involved in it, what are the challenges that we have, and do
you have resource problems? Are there legal challenges that
you're running into? It creates a forum for us to work through
what are very complex issues.
I share your frustration. I want this to be done quickly.
The Chairman. Well, air traffic controller fatigue, 4,000
violations, we read about it in the Washington Post, required 9
hours of rest. My question--I think I'm going to get the same
answer: what's the agency done to address these violations, to
make sure we don't hear more about this?
I understand that you're standing up in an air traffic
control tower or in one of the ground-based or underground-
based places and things are difficult and people get tired and
all the rest of it. Nine hours of sleep helps, but please tell
me what you are doing to make sure that this happens? I don't
think that's that complicated.
Mr. Huerta. It's not. What we did last year was we put in
place a requirement, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, for nine hours
of rest between shifts. To ensure compliance with it, we----
The Chairman. Does that 9 hours include the time to get
home?
Mr. Huerta. It's a nine-hour rest opportunity, that's
correct.
The Chairman. So that means maybe six and a half hours and
then an hour and a half commute.
Mr. Huerta. It could mean 8 hours if you had 30 minutes
each way.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Huerta. What we have done since then to ensure
compliance is we conducted a review of a large number of
clocking in of controllers, and we determined that, while the
majority of controllers were in compliance with the nine-hour
rest period, we did find that there were some controllers who
were clocking in a few minutes early.
In most cases they were a matter of a couple of minutes.
None exceeded 30 minutes. In light of that, we at the agency,
in conjunction with the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association, last week issued guidance to everyone in air
traffic control reminding them of the nine-hour rule.
We are also now updating our timekeeping system so that
they cannot physically clock in until the nine-hour requirement
is met, and we will continue to focus on this.
The Chairman. My time is up. I thank the chair.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, and I just want to go over the
order of members because people have come in and out of the
hearing room. We'll next call on Senator Thune, who's the
ranking member on the Subcommittee, followed by Senator Begich,
if Senator Boxer reappears, then Senator Lautenberg, then my
other colleagues.
So, Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you
and the Ranking Member for holding the confirmation hearing
today, and Mr. Huerta for appearing before the Committee as the
nominee to be the next Administrator of the FAA.
Aviation is an important part of our U.S. economy. It's
obviously very important in my state of South Dakota. It
contributes about $1.2 billion annually to the economy and
employs 14,000 people. I think we have to acknowledge that FAA
operates the largest and safest air space system in the world.
As we know, since the mid-1990s the commercial air carrier
accident rate has fallen by nearly 80 percent. Achieving that
low of a U.S. air carrier accident rate while transporting
almost 800 million passengers per year is no simple feat.
But, having said that, even with the high rate of safety,
improvements can be made, and last month's letter from the
Office of Special Counsel, which cited 178 FAA disclosures, of
which 97 were safety-related, is a startling reminder that
safety's got to be a top priority.
The agency faces several other future challenges, including
reducing regulatory burdens, streamlining its operations,
maintaining professionalism in its work force, and implementing
the recently enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act.
So I appreciate, Mr. Huerta, hearing from you about your
ideas on how to address those many challenges. I do want to
quickly get your response to something. We have a bill, Senate
bill 1956, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
Prohibition Act that Senator McCaskill and I and others have
introduced, which gives the Secretary of Transportation the
authority to take the necessary steps to ensure America's
aviation operators are not penalized by any system unilaterally
imposed by the EU. We had a hearing about this recently in
front of this committee and I'm wondering what your thoughts
are about whether this legislation might help you in your
negotiations with the European Union.
Mr. Huerta. Senator Thune, thank you very much. The
European Union's efforts to impose unilaterally an emissions
trading scheme are something that we are very much in
opposition to. We feel that the appropriate forum to work
through this is the International Civil Aviation Organization
and we've joined with many other countries to express our
opposition and to make it clear to the Europeans that we oppose
what they're trying to do and are prepared to take action as
necessary in order to respond to that.
ICAO is the appropriate forum and all options are on the
table. While we're supportive of the goals of reducing
aviation's emissions impact on the environment, we think that
what the Europeans did is entirely the wrong way to go about
it. The Europeans know that and we continue to work on that.
Senator Thune. Wouldn't having a legislative solution give
you additional leverage in confronting the Europeans on this
issue and dealing with it?
Mr. Huerta. I think the Europeans are well aware of the
universal opposition that exists in this government to what it
is that they're trying to do, and we continue to communicate
that to them.
Senator Thune. At the same time, you've got this thing
already in effect, essentially, and lots of American air
carriers covered by it and in many cases having to pass those
costs on. It seems to me at least that the legislation would at
least provide temporary relief from this until such time as you
can work through the appropriate forum, if that's ICAO, to get
the right resolution in place.
So it just seems to me at least that it gives you one more
piece of ammunition, one more tool, if you will, in dealing
with the EU if you had Congress on the record and giving our
air carriers in this country some relief from what is an unfair
violation of international law and sovereignty of the United
States.
Mr. Huerta. Well, Senator, as I mentioned, I think that the
fact that there is such widespread opposition in our government
is quite significant. We are committed to working with Congress
on how best to respond to it.
Senator Thune. Well, let me ask you one other question
quickly. There is a recent IG report that highlighted that the
FAA has not yet established total program cost, schedule, or
performance baseline for all of the six NextGen
transformational programs. When does the agency plan to do
this, since without baselining we will not have complete
information about when these programs will be completed, what
they will deliver, and how much they're going to cost the
American taxpayer?
Mr. Huerta. NextGen is a program that, as I talked about in
my opening statement, is critical for the FAA to get right as
we deploy the transformational aviation system of the future.
My own background, as leader of a large technology company, I
think has served me well as I've worked at the FAA.
One of the first things that I did when I arrived at the
agency a couple of years ago was to direct the establishment of
a program management office, with the sole responsibility for
delivering NextGen programs as their major area of focus. At
the same time I strengthened our NextGen organization to ensure
that they had the resources and the tools they needed to make
tradeoffs, to establish priorities, and to ensure that the
agency is meeting its NextGen commitments.
Of the six transformational programs, three have been
baselined and we are on track for meeting the commitments in
those baselines. But we're trying to find the appropriate
balance in how we mitigate risk based on developing the
appropriate levels of information so that we know what we're
getting into before we establish the baselines. We're very
focused on delivering benefits and hitting our targets, and I
think we're making good progress.
Senator Thune. Do you have a schedule for the last three?
You mentioned three that you are----
Mr. Huerta. I'm sorry?
Senator Thune. The other three of the six that you said
that have not--that are not baselined, when do you expect? What
do you expect in regard to those?
Mr. Huerta. We would be happy to meet with your staff and
go over each of the programs and where they are.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
My time has expired. Thanks.
The Chairman. Senator Begich.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Huerta. Let me ask
you a couple questions, one on avgas. As you know, the general
aviation community from my State and Senator Thune's, others,
it's very important, the rural aspect of it. But the EPA has
issued an NPRM on avgas. We've heard a lot of comments. I'm
sure FAA has also heard a lot of comments.
Our concern is, and as you know, FAA is ultimately
responsible for certifying the type of gas that goes into
aviation or into airplanes. We are--I want to make it very
clear that we are hopeful that there are no moves by EPA or FAA
to phaseout avgas until there is truly an appropriate and
economical drop-in substitute fuel. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Huerta. Senator Begich, we share that concern. Avgas is
unique. It is the remaining leaded fuel, but it meets the
unique requirements that exist in general aviation. The FAA
completely understands the importance of having reasonable
alternatives before any effort is made to phaseout avgas. I'm
very committed to working with EPA so as to ensure that that
doesn't happen.
Senator Begich. When you say reasonable, economical is part
of that equation?
Mr. Huerta. Certainly.
Senator Begich. OK, good, because for us in Alaska it's
truly, it's the highway in the sky. It's critical that we have
the right ability. When we converted a much higher level of
leaded gas to unleaded, which was our vehicles, it took many,
many, many years to do that. It wasn't overnight. I'm worried
that EPA has a different view of life here, that they can flip
the switch and make it all magic. I'm glad that you have made
the statement you just said, because I think you understand the
FAA component of this and the aviation component of this. So
thank you very much.
Will you keep us, at least our office, informed if there
are some milestones occurring that we need to be aware of,
because I guarantee you we'll hear very quickly in Alaska and
we want to make sure we're on top of this issue.
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely, we'd be happy to.
Senator Begich. Thank you.
The other one is, we have this battle on a fairly regular
basis. The administration in the 2013 budget had the $100 user
fee on GA, general aviation users. I honestly think that is--
it's creating another system that doesn't need to be created.
We have a per-gallon tax assessed. The aviation community is in
support of it. It's already an existing system. It works well.
It's creating another system where now it's a $100 user fee for
certain GA users. I think it's just going to be burdensome.
It's going to create another bureaucracy within FAA, and the
reality is we already have a system that general aviation
supports and always works with FAA on.
So can you comment on that? I know it's a budget issue and
I'm sure OMB has their views on it, but from a practical
implication of how you implement it, it seems like it's
creating another system that we don't need when we have a user
fee tax that people have been accustomed to and have been
supportive in the past of adjusting when necessary.
Mr. Huerta. Senator Begich, the President put forward a
proposal with the intent of finding better ways to share the
costs of the operation of the aviation system with the users of
the system. That was why it was included in his proposal for
the fiscal 2013 budget. The appropriators have not seen fit to
act on that. We understand that how we look at the long-term
financing questions of the FAA is something that we need to do
very much in consultation with Congress, and we look forward to
continuing that conversation with you.
Senator Begich. Great. I know from our end we'd obviously
be happy to engage with you on that. I think the general
aviation folks, aviation in general, I think always are happy
to--if there is a process and they know the value comes back to
the users in this case, they're always willing to sit down and
work these issues out. So I look forward to that.
Do you--I just want to follow up on what Senator Thune
talked about on NextGen, if I can, and that is just very
quickly, and that is you talked about the baselines, three more
to go. If you were to say--if you could give a percentage of
where do you think you're at with full implementation of
NextGen in the level that we had asked for in the FAA
reauthorization bill, where would you say we are? 10 percent,
20 percent, 30 percent? Do you have a fair--in all the pieces--
I know there are multiple pieces, but if you could take a
30,000 view looking down, where do you think we're at?
Mr. Huerta. I think it's important to look at it in the
context of there being both a geographic component to it, as we
move it out across the country, and then there are varying
levels of capability that it enables. We are making progress in
both of these areas.
We made a commitment to the industry to deploy one of the
foundational technologies, a technology known as Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B). We committed that it
would be deployed throughout the country by 2013, and we are on
track to deliver the ground infrastructure by 2013. This, as
you know, is a technology that we first deployed in Alaska.
Senator Begich. That's right.
Mr. Huerta. And what it gives a pilot is much greater
situational awareness. It gives us a very precise view of
what's happening in the air space system. So we're well on
track to delivery this.
This year we're giving a particular focus on performance-
based navigation, which results in more precise routes that
reduce for airlines the track miles flown and enables them to
reduce costs on fuel. This is a high priority. What we're
trying to do is reduce the deployment time for individual
procedures from what would ordinarily be five to ten years down
to three and sometimes 2 years. We're doing that in
metropolitan areas all across the country.
Later this summer, we will take a first step in deploying
our DATACOM program. DATACOM is a transformational technology
because what it addresses head-on is one of our principal
challenges for efficiency as well as for maintaining safety,
and that is to ensure that communications between controllers
and pilots are accurate, precise, and delivered in a timely
fashion. So we're on track for beginning the delivery of that
program later on this year.
We're making good progress, but I have to stress it's a
long-term delivery program. We have milestones that go all the
way out to 2025 for the delivery of NextGen and it's important
to us that we hit those milestones and deliver the benefits to
the users of the system.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thanks for your
testimony. I'll look forward to supporting you in the final,
but I just want to say thank you very much for coming here.
Thanks for spending time with me yesterday on all the other
issues we talked about.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Begich.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Huerta, my recommendation to you would have been when
Senator Boxer finished her introduction that you say: I plead
my case, and let it go at that, because you're getting some
pressures here for things that I really don't think are
justified.
We have been fiddling around with NextGen technology before
the turn of the century, and company after company, the best
names in technology, aviation technology, were included. I was
in the computer business before I came here, and the fact of
the matter is that there was failure after failure after
failure, with billions of dollars spent.
So while we want you to push along, hurry it up as much as
you can, but I think on balance that it has to be recognized
that you're not responsible for the delay, but you will be
responsible for the management of where we go, and we look
forward to that.
I think that we're fortunate that you're here, willing to
serve at this job, because you're not going to get lots of pats
on the back no matter what you do.
The air traffic control tower at Newark Liberty Airport is
critical to the entire aviation system, to the flying public.
But the tower is constantly understaffed. I've received many
assurances from the FAA over the years that this issue would be
remedied, but the problem persists. We're still short a
significant number of fully trained controllers.
When might the Newark tower be fully staffed?
Mr. Huerta. Senator Lautenberg, as you and I spoke about,
the staffing range for Newark Liberty Airport is estimated to
be somewhere between 32 and 38 controllers. We currently have
below that number, in the high 20s, of actual certified
controllers in the facility.
We have an effort under way this year to transfer a number
of additional controllers into the facility and plans for 2013.
Also, in recognition of the unique complex air space that we
have in northern New Jersey and greater New York, we placed a
tower simulator in the Newark Liberty facility to provide the
ability to do more on-the-ground training for controllers in
the facility simulating the unique air space requirements of
that area.
That went into place earlier this year in March and I think
that we're seeing some benefit associated with it. But we have
to continue to focus on that.
The New York area is critical for us and Newark Liberty is
part of that. Most of the delays in the air traffic system have
as their starting point the New York area. So focusing on
ensuring that we have the appropriate technology and the
appropriately trained staff in place, is something that we have
to continue to focus on.
Senator Lautenberg. You were asked a question some minutes
ago about what kind of performance we might expect if there is
less funding. Can things get better with less funding?
Mr. Huerta. Clearly, funding is essential in our ability to
deliver the Next Generation Air Transportation System. This
committee and the Congress have been very supportive of those
efforts. But we in the agency bear the responsibility to do it
as efficiently as possible and to ensure that we are
prioritizing those things that deliver the benefits for the
users of the system.
That's a conversation that we will continue to have. We're
all in government. We all understand the fiscal challenges that
we as a country face and the FAA needs to be part of that
conversation.
Senator Lautenberg. The FAA authorization which was signed
into law earlier this year exempts certain NextGen projects
from environmental review. I think perhaps Senator Thune was
raising that question. The exemption has raised concerns in my
region that there will be potentially more noise as a result of
NextGen implementation. How is FAA going to provide communities
with an opportunity for public input? That's critical, and
that's a complaint that we hear about regularly and really in
some instances very angrily, as you can imagine.
So what can we do there?
Mr. Huerta. The specific provision that you're referring to
deals with environmental reviews related to the development of
navigation procedures. We are working to figure out how best to
implement a process that ensures that we're doing whatever
environmental process we need to do as efficiently as possible.
Having said that, the real intent behind the provision is
why do these things take so long to develop? There is benefit,
great environmental benefit, in getting navigation procedures
out as quickly as possible. The benefit is that you reduce fuel
burn, you reduce track miles, and you reduce noise. So getting
them into the system as quickly as possible is generally a good
thing.
What the legislation suggested is find ways to cut down
that time. So we're looking at the full scope of what needs to
be done --everything from the development of the procedures to
how they are designed, the environmental process, how it is
deployed, operationalized, and then how we evaluate whether
it's doing what it was originally intended to do.
That's the process that we're trying to cut from 5 to 10
years down to 2 or 3. So clearly the direction we receive from
Congress in the environmental area is an important factor that
we're focused on, but we're looking at the full scope of what
is needed to be done here so that we can cut the overall time
down.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, I close with this, Mr.
Huerta, if I might. That is, I'd like your commitment that
you're going to devote the time and energy to solving the
Newark air traffic control problem that we wrestle with
constantly.
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Cantwell. Senator Blunt.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Thanks for the good job you're doing. As you and I talked
about, as I said when we visited the other day, probably hard
to find a group of 535 people that fly more or think they're
more experts in air traffic, air travel, than Members of
Congress. So it makes your job harder than a lot of the other
regulatory jobs. But I've been impressed by the way you've been
doing it and hope that moving permanently into the position
allows you to finalize some things even in a better way.
I have two or three things I want to ask about. On the
pilot flight rule, at one point it looked to me like the FAA
was moving toward having the same flight rules for passenger
pilots as cargo pilots, which I didn't think was necessary.
Eventually you decided that wasn't necessary, either. Is that
the position the FAA will continue to have, that there's a
different--the cargo pilots are under the rules that they've
been working under and you're moving the passenger pilots to
other rules; is that the status?
Mr. Huerta. When we finalized our pilot flight duty and
rest rule at the end of last year, we did exempt the cargo
industry from the provisions of the rule as it was finally
enacted. However, at that time Secretary LaHood and I
encouraged the cargo industry to voluntarily opt into the
program and to do the same things that are required for
passenger operations in the rule in order to manage fatigue
within the system.
We've met with the cargo industry and we continue to urge
them to abide by the provisions of the rule.
Senator Blunt. But you're not requiring them--you're
requiring them to abide by the provisions of the previous
rules, right?
Mr. Huerta. That's correct.
Senator Blunt. On the cost of that, I noticed there was a
wide discrepancy--I think the FAA thought that cargo companies
complying with the rule would cost about $30 million and they
thought $600 million. Have you looked more carefully at that
cost-benefit, how they could have that big a number, how the
numbers could be that widely divergent?
Mr. Huerta. We're evaluating the cost-benefit provisions of
the cargo portion of the analysis that we did, and we've
brought a third party in to advise us in doing that. We expect
to complete that review in the coming couple of weeks.
Senator Blunt. Would you send me a copy of that review when
it's available?
Mr. Huerta. Certainly.
Senator Blunt. I'd like to--this cost-benefit--I think
there are going to be more and more pressures on cost-benefit
generally as regulation is becoming a bigger and bigger concern
at all levels. Maybe you can figure out how to help set the
standard even for how to make that work.
On the FAA training and conference center, there's language
in the Senate appropriations bill that directs the FAA to
continue to pursue new leased space for that center. You were a
long way down that path last year and didn't get there at the
end. What's your ongoing plan for how to look at the future of
how you're going to conduct those training facilities, moving
people in and out of one training facility to get their
training?
Mr. Huerta. Senator, as we talked about when we met, when
the FAA was evaluating our training needs, we had developed an
approach which included two components. One was to enter into a
lease for a facility; and then the second, for the development
of the training itself.
In light of the fiscal challenges that we were facing as we
were doing our work on that project, one of the things that we
had some concern about was entering into a long-term lease,
such as a ten-year lease, given the fiscal challenges that we
knew that we were going to face in the future. At the same
time, however, we were hearing that there were alternative
models to conduct training where we would contract for services
from entities that would provide both the training and the
facility. So it was in that spirit that we suspended work on
looking at a training facility.
All of our options are on the table as we look at this
review going forward of what is the best way to conduct
training for the FAA's needs. We're a very technical
organization, so training is critical to our mission. As I
mentioned, the proposals that we had received on the training
facility were very good proposals and none of the bidders did
anything that represented a problem. It really is a question of
is it prudent to enter into a long-term lease when we might
have an alternative to contract for services.
Senator Blunt. Well, I don't know about all of the bidders.
I do know that in Kansas City, which bid for this, they had
invested lots of money in that bid, which is also something
that the FAA needs to think about. When you go out for bid and
you have competitive bidders making substantial investments to
try to make that work, and then just decide, well, maybe that's
not what we needed, you probably ought to pull that trigger
when you're a little more sure of where you're headed, though
economic circumstances clearly are different than they may have
been a handful of years ago when that discussion could have
started.
Will you make a decision on whether to go for bids that
include training or whether to go for bids that only include
facilities at some point, do you think?
Mr. Huerta. At some point we have to decide whether we want
to contract for training as a service, where the trainer would
provide everything, the facility, the materials, the actual
instruction, or whether we would want to use the model we've
used in the past, which is to first have a facility and then
bring trainers into it, with the FAA having the responsibility
for development of the materials. That's exactly the analysis
that we're in the middle of.
Senator Blunt. And are the trainers right now FAA full-time
employees?
Mr. Huerta. They're contractors.
Senator Blunt. They're contracted employees now and would
be. In a sense, it just depends on who contracts with them, you
or the successful bidder for the training?
Mr. Huerta. They're always contract employees, and it can
be any of a number of models.
Senator Blunt. One last question on----
The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Blunt, I hate to be rude,
but----
Senator Blunt. We have votes, Chairman.
The Chairman. Is that OK? All right. Thank you for your
courtesy.
Senator Boozman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate your being here, and we do appreciate your
service. I know you've worked really hard in the past. Let me
ask you about FAA's certification. Certainly this is so
important. We've got to be effective. It's got to be
sufficient. We produce a lot of aviation products. We're a
global marketplace, and it's really important that this is done
in a timely fashion.
Unfortunately, sometimes that's not the case; it's not done
very timely. Can you comment a little bit on perhaps some ideas
that you have how we can do a better job of that in the future,
and any proposals that you've got in solving that problem?
Mr. Huerta. Senator, I think there are two parts to it. The
first is to ensure that we are establishing the right
priorities and that we're carrying out our certification
responsibilities as efficiently as we possibly can. In recent
years we've put in place mechanisms that enable us to establish
those priorities and to do things in parallel so that we're not
taking a lot of time to certify these things.
Now, as you well know, the certification process is
important because that's how we ensure safety of aviation
equipment, aircraft, and everything that goes into the
operation of our aviation system.
The second thing, though, is working cooperatively with
industry through designations for some of the technical aspects
of certification. This is where we can rely on the industry to
perform some of the technical work, leaving for the FAA the
analysis and ultimately the determinations as to airworthiness.
That has given us greater bandwidth, more ability to move more
things through the process.
We have been successful in working down our backlog. We're
not where we need to be. So to me what that means is we have to
give renewed emphasis to what we can do through designations,
for some of the technical aspects, and continue to find ways to
make the process more efficient.
Some of it is just doing things in parallel, as opposed to
waiting for one aspect of the analysis to be done before moving
on to the next one. But I've met with many, many interests in
the general aviation industry, and in the aircraft
manufacturing industry. We've learned a lot, and I think it's
something that requires a very high level of my focus to ensure
that we stay the course there.
Senator Boozman. Good. I appreciate that. You know, we
talked a lot about jobs and the economy, which we can't talk
too much about it. Again, these are the things that play into
that.
In relation to that, I understand that we're moving more
toward a risk-based safety oversight. Would certification be
one of those things that either is going to be done in that way
more or something to be considered in that regard?
Mr. Huerta. The risk-based approach is how we evaluate
where there might be operational issues in the system. In the
past, we tended to use more of a forensic approach, you know,
which was that as a problem emerged or an accident happened,
you reviewed what caused it, and then the focus was on how do
you prevent that from happening in the future.
Through data-driven approaches, what we're trying to
develop is more information about where there might be the
potential for risk. What does the data tell us in terms of
patterns that might be developing where, if not addressed,
there might be a problem that would emerge down the road. This
is definitely where we are focused: how can we use risk
management techniques to identify areas of risk, in order to
address them before there is a problem.
That's what I referred to in my opening statement when I
talked about how do you take the safest system in the world and
make it safer. Well, you do it by making it smarter. That means
we have to rely on data. We have to use that data in ways where
we can develop a better understanding of where there might be
risk and take actions to mitigate it.
Senator Boozman. Again, it does seem like--and I think
we're really saying the same thing--that with the certification
process, that some things people need to devote more time to
than other things. But again, hopefully, working together we
can make that a little bit more effective.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you so much, Acting Administrator Huerta, for being here
today and answering our questions in a straightforward manner.
The airport improvement program is essential to many
communities, both rural and urban. Additionally, smaller
airports, which are central to rural commerce--we have a lot of
them in my state--often struggle to get the funds needed for
infrastructure updates for airports and runways. The local
match requirement for small airport projects recently doubled
from 5 to 10 percent. I'm concerned about the effect that this
new requirement would force--that it could force small
airports, which in the scheme of things aren't as small as
some, like the one we have in Duluth, and elsewhere, to delay
completion of critical infrastructure projects that were under
way before the higher local match went into effect.
I don't think it's fair to change the rules midstream, and
I hope you'll work to find a way to help these airports
complete their projects, because it's obviously very important.
You can't just change the rules midstream and then expect
everything to keep going as planned.
So I'm going to be in Duluth tomorrow--we've had some major
flooding up there--and was just wondering what I can tell them
about this.
Mr. Huerta. Well, Senator Klobuchar, the small airports
play a very important role in our national system of airports.
As you know, I had the pleasure of joining you in Bemidji a
couple of years ago, which is a very important airport in
Minnesota that I think serves an important need in the
community.
This question of the local match is something that was
included in the FAA authorization, and we certainly recognize
the burden that it represents for some of our smaller airport
sponsors, particularly those that are midstream in projects. We
think that, generally, the challenges that they have are pretty
project-specific and very site-specific. Therefore, we have
been aggressively and actively reaching out to airport
sponsors: is this presenting a problem? How can we work with
you to manage through these match issues to ensure that, at the
end of the day, we get a successful project consistent with the
provisions of the AIP program?
So what you can tell your constituents in Duluth is that if
they have not been in contact with their local airport's
district office----
Senator Klobuchar. Oh, they have.
Mr. Huerta.--then we need to make sure that we sit down and
work through an actual project plan to see how we can manage
through this.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, that would be very helpful.
Then also I hope you can commit to making sure that cold
weather airports, such as the ones you just discussed, Bemidji,
Duluth, get the flexibility they need to complete
infrastructure improvements with the short construction season
issue. This is, again, they're waiting for awarded funds to be
released so they can try to get this construction done through
the summer season.
Mr. Huerta. Two aspects to that. The FAA Authorization Act
creates a framework under which we would prioritize cold
weather airports for grantmaking purposes, and we're working on
the implementation of that. But on an informal basis right now,
what we're doing is making those determinations of where do we
have an airport with a short construction season that has a
specific need to get something done quickly. We're making those
a priority as we move through the system in recognition of the
unique circumstances they face.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, good, because you came to Bemidji in
the summer. Otherwise I'm going to make you come to Duluth when
it's 20 below zero and do construction. So we have to try to
fix it. I really appreciate that.
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely.
Senator Klobuchar. Then last, I wanted to just ask about
the pilot fatigue issue. I understand that in the final order
of the new regulations that it only applied to commercial
pilots. Cargo pilots were not included. Can you expand on why
the FAA chose to do this?
Then I also have a concern about commuting practices. I
know Senator Cantwell touched on this, and that some pilots
commute across the country to their hubs and we have the issue
where the FAA isn't following through with this request from
the Inspector General about this particular commuting issue.
Mr. Huerta. Well, first of all, as it relates to the pilot
fatigue rule, as we talked about, the rule as it's currently
drafted does exclude the cargo industry, but I've been very
vocal in suggesting that the cargo industry should abide by the
provisions of the rule. We've encouraged them to do that.
Secretary LaHood has encouraged them to do that, and it's
something that we've stressed should represent a good business
practice for them in assuring a safe system.
We will continue to meet with the cargo industry to apply
aspects of the rule, to make sure that they have an
understanding of what compliance looks like. Again, I encourage
them to abide by the provisions of the rule. We couldn't make
it work from a cost-benefit standpoint and so we're asking for
their voluntary compliance.
As it relates to the provisions of commuting, clearly
pilots have a responsibility to report to work fit for duty.
This is one of the things that we wanted to address in the
fatigue rule, and I think we've come a long way in doing that.
There is a level of personal responsibility that exists in the
pilot community and I think the pilots have heard that and they
understand that they bear a responsibility. We have to be
vigilant to ensure that they have the opportunities for rest
that they need so that they can report to work fit for duty.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you very much and I
look forward to working with you on this. We'll put a few more
questions on the record. Thanks.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Voting has started. Senator Cantwell has probably already
voted and is racing back here because she has a couple more
questions she'd like to ask. But in the mean time, Senator
Blunt, who I so rudely interrupted, wants to finish his
questioning.
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Chairman. I was failing to
watch the clock and you weren't rude at all, and I was taking
time that should have gone to others and did.
What I was going to ask you about was on--we talked about
the Columbia, Missouri, airport the other day. On these
airports like that, that have moved off Essential Air Service,
are there things that the FAA can do to encourage their ability
to stay off Essential Air Service? Have you got some ideas
there of ways that those kinds of airports that need to be
planning for more travelers and more service could get some
assistance in doing that?
Mr. Huerta. Senator Blunt, as we talked about, Columbia is
to be congratulated for being able to develop a level of air
service that gets them off of the Essential Air Service program
but as you quite correctly pointed out, how do we ensure they
stay there?
There's an infrastructure component to that. After we met,
I sat down with our airports staff to find out what we knew
about Columbia and have encouraged them to meet with the
leadership at Columbia airport. One thing that we will
certainly need to do is recognize the fact that the airport's
master plans are quite old. We probably need to update them.
The FAA is certainly willing to be supportive of that and to
work with the airport sponsor on what their long-term needs are
to maintain an efficient airport.
Senator Blunt. Well, that would be helpful. I think as
these airports move to where they're not getting the Essential
Air Service support, things that we can do to help them stay
there are really beneficial and make money. As long as we have
an Essential Air Service program, when we can help people stay
off of it, it's hard to imagine that that's not a better
investment than the VSA support that we normally would give
those same airports. So thank you for looking at that.
Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
What I need to do now is, because we've got--Senator
Klobuchar, who's finishing her third book over there, we----
Senator Klobuchar. I'm tweeting about you. No, I'm not
really. You wish.
The Chairman. I wish.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell is on her way back. So what
I'd like to do, with your forbearance, is simply to recess this
for a couple of minutes. She'll be back finishing her
questions, and then we will adjourn. But Senator Klobuchar and
I need to go vote.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, sir.
[Recess at 11:15 a.m.]
[At the direction of the Chair and Ranking Member, the
hearing was adjourned without further testimony at 2:43 p.m. by
John Williams, General Counsel for the Commerce Committee.]
A P P E N D I X
Air Crash Victims Families Group
Ridgewood, NJ, June 19, 2012
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transport,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Nomination The Honorable Michael P. Huerta, Federal Aviation
Agency (FAA)
Mr. Chairman:
We support the President's nomination of the Honorable Michael P.
Huerta for a full term as the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Agency (FAA).
Since 2011, Mr. Huerta serves already at the Federal Aviation
Agency (FAA), first as a Deputy Administrator to which appointment you
gave your Advice and Consent and the full Senate confirmed him.
Presently he is the FAA's Acting Administrator.
Considering the heavy workload of your Committee, we appreciate
that some time was found to give the nominee the opportunity of a
confirmation Hearing which--we do hope should be followed by timely,
appropriate action of the full Senate, implementing your Advice and
Consent to his nomination.
The nominee has a proven, distinguished and wide ranging record as
an able administrator not only presently at the FAA--but also at the
Department of Transportation (DOT)--in the wider field of
transportation, at large events and by education in the international
field.
We respectfully request that this letter be made part of Mr.
Huerta's confirmation file, be distributed to the distinguished members
of your committee and to the general public, if appropriate.
Respectfully,
Hans Ephraimson-Abt,
ACVFG--Chairman.
With: James Brokaw--Victoria Cummock--Miles Gerety--Jim Hurd--Richard
Kessler--Kendra St. Charles
By e-mail and surface mail.
cc:--The Hon. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Ranking Member
The Hon. Maria Cantwell, Chairman, Aviation Subcommittee
The Hon. Senator John Thune, Ranking Member
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Michael P. Huerta
Question 1. In October, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia said the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
misread its own rules when assessing Cape Wind renewable energy project
off Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts. Specifically, the court
determined that the FAA did not adequately determine whether Cape
Wind's 130 turbines--each 440-foot tall--would pose a danger to pilots
relying on sight rather than the plane's instruments. The court vacated
the government's ``no hazard'' finding and sent the case back to the
FAA, agreeing with plaintiffs that ``the FAA did misread its
regulations.'' I understand that you were not at the FAA when this
proposal was approved.
It is my understanding that the Federal Aviation Administration is
reconsidering its approval for the Cape Wind renewable energy project
in Nantucket Sound. If confirmed to be the Administrator of the FAA,
will you assure the Commerce Committee that the FAA will provide an
appropriate and fair review to both sides of the safety issues related
to the Cape Wind application will be done before any final decision on
this project is made?
Answer. If confirmed as Administrator, I will continue to ensure
that FAA's objective to promote air safety and the efficient use of the
navigable airspace will be maintained. In evaluating potential
obstructions to air navigation, the standards and processes FAA uses to
make obstruction determinations and their effect on the safe and
efficient use of the airspace are prescribed by statute and FAA
regulations and orders.
As the Senator noted, on May 17, 2010, FAA issued written
determinations that each of 130 wind turbines proposed to be built by
Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound would not be a hazard to air navigation if
properly marked and lighted. FAA issued these determinations only after
it conducted an in-depth, year-long aeronautical study on the proposed
project's effect on the operation of air navigation facilities and the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace, as required
by statute. As a result of the court case referenced by Senator Kerry,
FAA will be issuing new determinations for the Cape Wind project in
accordance with our statutes and regulations while factoring in the
Court's decision issued last October. The FAA determinations will
reflect the rigorous, science-based analysis FAA has undertaken to
evaluate the Cape Wind proposal. Our approach will provide an
appropriate and fair review of the Cape Wind application.
Question 2. As you may know, the Westfield Barnes Regional Airport
in Westfield, Massachusetts is utilized by commercial and private
aircraft as well as the Air National Guard. Runway 2/20, the primary
runway, is in dire need of reconstruction. The runway is over 27 years
old and has sustained continued deterioration despite investment from
the FAA for patches. This runway is a critical asset in Western
Massachusetts for commercial and private aircraft tenants and visitors
but also by the 104th Fighter Wing and the missions they support at the
Air National Guard level as well as Homeland Security in the F-15C
Eagles. For the well being of all planes that land and take off from
Westfield Barnes Regional Airport it is imperative that Runway 2/20 be
looked at for a rebuild prior to the scheduled date of 2015. Would you
be willing to review the runway's status and see if the repaving can be
sped up?
Answer. The FAA is willing to review the runway's status and see if
the repaving can be sped up per the Senator's request. However, as the
Senator notes, the runway is used by both civilian and military
aircraft. AIP funds may only be used for the portion of the runway
rehabilitation that is justified by civilian operations, and the
military would fund the additional length of the runway that is needed
for military operations. (The civilian aircraft using the runway do not
need as much runway length as the military aircraft do.)
The FAA has confirmed that the recent runway repairs that have been
funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), the Air
National Guard (2011) and the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (2011) have brought the runway up to a level of safety
that will allow it to perform until the scheduled 2015 rehabilitation
can be completed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Michael P. Huerta
Question 1. I understand that you will be revising the OMB cost
estimates for the pilot fatigue management rulemaking that was recently
issued. Senator Snowe and I have introduced legislation, the Safe Skies
Act of 2012, to close the current loophole in the new fatigue
management plans for pilots that would exempt cargo airline pilots to
ensure that they are included in the same requirements as commercial
airline pilots. Will you share the outcome of this revised study with
us? Will you take into account the concerns expressed by pilots
regarding the exception for cargo carriers?
Answer. The FAA has asked the Volpe Center to evaluate the final
regulatory evaluation to identify and correct errors in the calculation
of potential costs and benefits to all-cargo operations. These errors
were discovered by the FAA during the course of litigation associated
with the agency's decision not to include these operations in the new
part 117. This new regulation imposes new flight, duty and rest
requirements on part 121 passenger operations. This fall, the FAA
intends to issue a draft supplemental regulatory evaluation that will
correct any errors and also better explain our underlying assumptions
and methodologies in calculating the anticipated costs and benefits
detailed in the final regulatory evaluation. Once the supplemental
regulatory evaluation is complete, it will be published in the Federal
Register for notice and comment. All interested parties are invited to
comment on that document. After the FAA has had a chance to evaluate
comments received, the agency will issue a notice indicating whether
the supplemental regulatory evaluation and the agency's review of
comments justify any change to the final rule.
Question 2. Following the tragic crash of Flight 3407, the NTSB
investigation revealed some significant issues in how the pilots were
trained, especially in regards to handling a stall. In light of that,
Congress unanimously passed legislation aimed at improving safety,
including the training of commercial pilots. The FAA is already behind
on the rulemaking to address pilot training. Is the FAA still planning
to delay this rulemaking until October 2013? If so, how is the FAA
planning to expedite efforts to address concerns the Flight 3407
families have raised regarding the lengthy implementation time frame?
Answer. The Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and
Aircraft Dispatchers Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM)
is a comprehensive training rule that includes revised airline pilot
training requirements. The SNPRM public comment period closed in
September 2011 and the FAA is currently developing the final rule. The
agency currently projects a publication date of October 2013 for the
final rule, but I am committed to working to accelerate that if
possible. The final rule will permit the certificate holder to use its
approved programs while it transitions to the new requirements. In the
SNPRM we proposed up to 5 years for that transition. New air carriers
must train under the new requirements from the first day of operations.
However, we will consider the transition period as we draft a final
rule.
To accommodate training on stall and stall recovery, we also had to
make changes to the fidelity of the simulators used for that training.
The Rulemaking Action Plan for that rule was approved and the team is
developing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
We reinstated the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Aviation
Rulemaking Committee to address aircraft stall training and to develop
mitigating upset recovery training strategies. This group will provide
the FAA with additional recommendations in Fall 2012. The FAA is
participating in initiatives of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS)
and International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes
(ICATEE) to address loss of control. ICAO has also extended invitations
to other national aviation authorities (NAAs) to observe these
proceedings and facilitate harmonization in the development of future
training standards. These harmonized efforts will ensure U.S. pilots
will continue to receive the highest quality and relevant training
available.
These are complicated rulemaking endeavors that require a
substantial investment of time and resources, including executive
review within the Administration. Nevertheless, I am committed to doing
everything we can to finalize rulemakings as quickly as possible.
Question 3. The Flight 3407 accident also raised serious issues
regarding pilot qualifications among regional airlines and the major
commercial airlines. Where is your agency at in the process of
completing the pilot qualifications rulemaking process? What progress
have regional airlines made in implementing stronger pilot hiring
standards? Are they making the same investment in safety as the major
airlines?
Answer. P.L. 111-216 required all part 121 flight crew members to
hold an ATP certificate by August 2, 2013. Although the NPRM
incorporates the ATP certificate requirement, the Act's requirement is
self-enacting and will take effect on August 2, 2013 independent of any
FAA rulemaking action. The FAA is working to have a final rule out
prior to August 2, 2013. The FAA issued Information to Operators (InFO)
10024 on December 15, 2010 to notify air carriers of the ATP
requirement.
The Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air
Carrier Operations Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which provides
training requirements for achieving an airline transport pilot
certificate and includes the requirement that all airline pilots have
an airline transport pilot certificate, closed for public comment on
April 30, 2012. We are currently reviewing and considering the more
than 550 comments received to the proposal as we develop the final
rule. The NPRM is consistent with a mandate in the Airline Safety and
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-216).
The NPRM would require first officers to hold an Airline Transport
Pilot (ATP) certificate, which requires 1,500 hours of pilot flight
time. Currently, first officers are required to have only a commercial
pilot certificate, which requires 250 hours of flight time. The
proposal also would require first officers to have an aircraft type
rating. The proposal included modified flight time requirements based
on military or academic experience.
We are working towards publication of a final rule that will
address the comments in advance of the August 2013 self-enacting
statutory requirement that all pilots in Part 121 operations have an
airline transport pilot certificate.
All regional airlines and major airlines are covered by 14 CFR Part
121 and must meet the same safety standards.
Question 4. In the 2010 Airline Safety and Federal Aviation
Administration Extension Act of 2010, Congress sought to address the
issue of keeping better track of pilot records by creating a federal
electronic record database for all pilots. In response to my question
for the record for the Commercial Airline Safety Oversight hearing in
March, the FAA said that the proof of concept for the database would be
completed in the 4th quarter of 2012 and you will then evaluate and
determine a rulemaking timeline. Can you comment as to when the
rulemaking timeline would come out after the evaluation is completed?
By what date could we expect to have the rulemaking finalized?
Answer. Depending on what we learn in the proof of concept phase,
we expect to develop the plan for rulemaking by November of 2012. This
scenario would yield a Pilot Record NPRM in March of 2014 and a final
rule in November of 2015.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Michael P. Huerta
Question 1. Do you believe you have the necessary statutory
authority to implement Section 221 (Public-Private Partnerships) in the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95)? If not, please
explain and provide the agency's plans for implementation.
Answer. Based on the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, the FAA
believes that additional statutory authority is required to create an
incentive program. The FCRA requires either budget authority, a loan
limitation or other provision in an appropriations act before the FAA
can make or guarantee loans. Since Section 221 of the ``FAA
Modernization and Reform Act'' requires the Secretary to finance any
program established under this section through the collection of
collateral, fees and premiums, a loan limitation is most applicable.
The FAA is currently evaluating various options to see how this
provision might allow us to provide incentives for equipage that would
accelerate the benefits of NextGen. We are also evaluating other
government incentive programs and assessing feedback from stakeholders
to develop and then implement an effective incentive program. The
agency held one public meeting and another is scheduled for August 7 to
share the evolution of our thinking based on what the agency heard from
stakeholders and to communicate next steps. Additionally, the agency
released a market survey to determine interest in this incentive
program by both private parties and users of the National Airspace
System. Based on review of other incentive programs and stakeholder
feedback, the agency is designing an equipage incentive program for
possible implementation.
In order to complete the stand-up of the equipage incentive
program, the FAA must evaluate stakeholder feedback; finalize the
design of the incentive program; determine that such a program will
meet the goals of accelerating equipage and delivery of NextGen
benefits; receive additional statutory authority; and complete the
administrative processes in support of the Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990.
Question 2. How is the FAA working to ensure Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast equipage is accelerated and what milestone based
timelines are you working toward?
Answer. Through a monitoring capability, the ADS-B program office
has detected more than 775 properly equipped aircraft (mostly General
Aviation) on the East Coast, West Coast, and in Alaska that are taking
advantage of traffic and weather information services. In addition,
there are approximately 150 aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out rule
compliant avionics.
To expedite equipage, the agency has signed agreements with several
airlines, including JetBlue, United, UPS, and US Airways. These
agreements are set up to demonstrate the benefits of advanced ADS-B
applications and procedures during revenue service and allow the FAA to
share costs and risks with the participants. The operational
evaluations will give the agency detailed cost and benefit data, and
encourage airlines to equip early to capitalize on ADS-B benefits.
Under these agreements, the following equipage will occur:
35 JetBlue A320 aircraft
12 United 747 aircraft (DO-260 complete, upgrades to be rule
compliant in 2013)
20 US Airways A330 aircraft
143 UPS aircraft (747, 767, A300, and MD-11)
To ensure FAA ADS-B projects meet established goals and timelines
for the acceleration of equipage, the Flight Standards (AFS) and
Aircraft Certification (AIR) offices in Washington, D.C. coordinate
directly with the supporting certification (ACO) and certificate
management offices (CMO) to provide guidance and assist in the
management of priorities and workload. AFS and AIR coordinate with
avionics manufacturers, ACOs, and CMOs to expedite the certification,
installation, and operational approvals of new ADS-B avionics to aid in
increased equipage. Additional technical standards are being developed
that target the needs of the general aviation community within the US.
These new standards will allow manufacturers to produce and market ADS-
B equipment at a lower price, making ADS-B equipage more affordable for
this large group of NAS users.
The agency has also agreed to fund upgrades to the avionics for
approximately 54 helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico. These operators
voluntarily equipped with an earlier version of ADS-B avionics before
the ADS-B rule requirements were published. In addition, the FAA will
award a contract this fall to upgrade approximately 400 air taxi
aircraft that were equipped under the legacy Capstone program in
Alaska.
The ADS-B Out Final Rule was published in May 2010, with compliance
effective after January 1, 2020. In conjunction with publication of the
rule, associated technical standards and installation guidance were
published to enable the manufacture and installation of ADS-B Out
avionics to begin 10 years before the mandate. The ADS-B program office
considers 2012 to be early for self-equipage under the rule, as
manufacturers are just now starting to submit avionics through the
FAA's certification process. The FAA anticipates equipage to increase
in 2013 and beyond, as more certified, rule-complaint avionics become
available.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Michael P. Huerta
Question 1. Fundamental NextGen programs have suffered delays and
cost increases, raising concerns over the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) ability to deliver NextGen benefits in a timely
fashion. How will you get this critical initiative moving forward
again?
Answer. NextGen has a high priority in the Administration, the
Department of Transportation and the FAA. Its complexity and
interdependencies make it different from anything the FAA has ever
done. In 2010, an external organization was tasked by the FAA
Administrator to diagnose the current state of NextGen via interviews
and surveys with employees across the Agency. Agency leadership
recognized the need for a transformation that would result in one FAA
moving towards successful integration of the extremely complex NextGen
vision of National Airspace System (NAS) modernization.
The assessment resulted in two key recommendations to better
position the agency to successfully implement NextGen:
Create increased internal and external visibility of the
NextGen organization by establishing a direct line of reporting
to the Deputy Administrator, as well as a restructure of
positions and groups to better align with organizational goals
and the NextGen mission. The agency implemented this change as
part of our reprogramming request last year.
Develop a process in which an idea is developed and
implemented in the National Airspace System (NAS) through
cross-agency collaboration, increased transparency, defined
roles and responsibilities, and establishment of clear decision
authorities
NextGen requires an expanded and more collaborative acquisition
process for the NAS than we have traditionally used. From May to
September of 2011, the Functional Design Consideration Team (FDCT)
worked extensively to address the above recommendations. The FDCT
included members from the NextGen organization and representation from
across the agency. Specifically, the group developed the Ideas to In-
Service framework (i2i) to move a concept from an idea to in-service
management. Highlights of i2i include:
A deliberate reduction in ``hand-offs'' in favor of
collaboration. NextGen, program management offices, operations
and other FAA offices engage throughout the capability
lifecycle from beginning to end.
A single FAA-wide process for changes to the NAS that works
with all contributors to the NAS.
A collaborative approach that requires shared
accountability, responsibility and risk. This is achieved
through direct and obligatory engagement.
Capture Teams, which consist of representatives across the
agency who are responsible for activities such as requirements
management, configuration management, and assumption/constraint
management. Capture Teams minimize rework and retain the same
stakeholders to manage a portfolio of products from the
managing requirements stage all the way through to in-service
management.
The framework was approved on September 26 by the FAA's NextGen
Management Board (NMB). The FAA is currently in the process of
integrating i2i into the agency's training and workflows.
The FAA also created the Program Management Organization or PMO.
This new central program office within the Air Traffic Organization
assembles in one organization the majority of programs that specialize
in program management. This allows our operational groups to focus on
the key daily mission of safely separating air traffic and maintaining
our airspace system. It allows our program organization to focus on
managing for better outcomes by developing improvements to our airspace
and making sure these solutions are on time, cost effective and within
scope.
The PMO will improve consistency of program execution through
robust information sharing with stakeholders, institutionalization of
acquisition best practices and community review of lessons learned. The
PMO will standardize the required steps, from definition and design
through development and deployment, creating a bridge between concepts
and operational use of technologies. Having a portfolio of programs
under one umbrella provides the potential for streamlining, better cost
control and economies of scale to better manage uncertainty.
The PMO will also ensure greater visibility, tighter alignment and
closer integration of complex, interdependent NextGen initiatives and
innovative technology. The PMO will play a critical role in the success
of NextGen by acting as the bridge between strategic requirements and
tactical program implementation to improve the safety and efficiency of
our National Airspace System.
The PMO's success will depend on developing and maintaining
relationships with other FAA organizations. Most critical among these
are our relationships with NextGen, which will help set the overall
direction of some of our highest priority program work, and with
Mission Support's requirements and concept validation office, which
will help ensure operational adaptability and validity.
An added benefit for our coworkers is the PMO will recognize and
elevate the profession of program management within the agency. The PMO
will clarify and enhance program management and related acquisition
career paths, and help us attract and retain highly skilled and
motivated individuals on program management teams.
The PMO will play a critical role in each of the tenets of our new
flight plan, Destination 2025: moving to the next level of safety,
creating a workplace of choice, delivering aviation access through
innovation, sustaining our future, and advancing global collaboration.
Question 2. The Special Counsel's May 8, 2012 letter cites
whistleblower disclosures regarding recurring safety lapses and
inaction to solve these problems even after the establishment of the
FAA whistleblower office. At the hearing, you cited the establishment
of this office as a tool to help to resolve safety issues before they
affect the travelling public. But the persistence of these issues years
after the establishment of the office raises concern. What are your
plans to more effectively improve the safety culture at the FAA?
Answer. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel's (OSC) May 8, 2012
letter to the President, to Congress, and to the Secretary of
Transportation closed seven whistleblower cases filed by eight FAA
employees. Four of the seven cases were repeat disclosures dating back
to 2008 and filed again by the same whistleblowers. Only one of the 7
cases (Seeley) is an entirely new case referred by OSC after the
establishment of FAA's new Office of Audit and Evaluation (AAE,
``whistleblower office''). Two of the seven cases involve a single
whistleblower who has filed a total of seven OSC disclosures since 2008
for primarily related issues at Detroit (DTW) tower.
AAE's mission was formally established by the agency in December 6,
2010 and enacted into law on February 14, 2012 when the President
signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Thus, our new procedures
for dealing with whistleblower disclosures were not in place when most
of these cases were initially referred to the FAA.
In the Seeley case, which was investigated and overseen by the AAE
organization, the OSC complimented the FAA and found our actions
comprehensive, timely, and reasonable. In all of the seven cases, the
FAA initiated immediate actions on any safety issues which were
substantiated (many were not), long before OSC's May 8 closures, and in
no case was the safety of the travelling public significantly impacted.
In all of the four repeat disclosures, the FAA was already working with
the whistleblowers on corrective actions prior to their decision to
file the repeat disclosures with the OSC.
The OSC delayed their closure of these cases, in some cases, for
more than a year after they had received the investigative reports from
the DOT Office of Inspector General (OIG) or FAA AAE. In none of the
cases did either OIG or AAE find that there was ``a substantial danger
to public safety.'' However, all of them were vigorously addressed
because of our desire to correct any safety deficiency that is
identified, even if that issue involved small levels of risk.
In the other six cases covered in the May 8 letter,the OSC did not
allege FAA ``inaction.'' Rather, they alleged that the agency's
responses were ``unreasonable because of delays or the lack of
appropriate or timely corrective action'', and the FAA strongly
disagrees with the OSC's conclusions. In all of those cases, the FAA
implemented comprehensive corrective actions and continues to audit the
effectiveness of those actions.
While the FAA applauds the OSC's good intentions and diligence in
its oversight efforts, the Pay increases under the recent contract
extension are not based on individual or agency performance. The
contract provides two raises to employees. The January raise is equal
to the Presidential Increase so employees would not receive a raise if
there are continued freezes in the general schedule. The second raise
is paid in June and is fixed at 1.6 percent. The June raise will ``not
be granted in any year in which a prohibition on step increases under
the General Schedule (GS) is enacted by statute.'' The FAA must proceed
very carefully when making changes in air traffic procedures or to the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), and any proposed change must be
carefully evaluated so as to ensure that the proposed action will
effectively address a known safety issue and will not introduce new and
unintended consequences, which could introduce new risk factors more
serious than the issue under consideration for appropriate corrective
action. That careful evaluation process requires painstaking evaluation
and data collection and usually takes a considerable amount of time.
Sometimes, new procedures are introduced on a trial basis, but are
later withdrawn because the data either do not support their
effectiveness, or better changes and refinements are identified during
the data collection and safety risk evaluation process.
The aviation community, in general, has a long history of safety
reporting, and aviation professionals have always been more inclined to
report safety issues than employees in other venues. In large part,
this culture of safety reporting has contributed to the remarkable
safety improvements and to the astonishingly strong commercial aviation
safety record, which has no peer in any other environment.
The FAA believes that a strong measure of a healthy safety culture
is an environment with a consistently large number of safety
disclosures, and we believe that the OSC arrived at an erroneous
conclusion by implying that more safety disclosures somehow infers the
presence of more safety problems or negatively implicates an
organization's safety culture.
We believe the opposite to be true. That is, the absence of safety
disclosures is more characteristic of an unhealthy safety culture where
employees are reluctant to report their concerns.
To bolster our safety culture, we are continually encouraging the
reporting of all safety concerns by both FAA employees and any other
member of the aviation community by providing a non-punitive reporting
environment, where a safety disclosure can be filed without fear of
retaliation or other negative consequences. AAE was established as an
entirely independent office reporting to the Administrator for that
very reason. Programs like the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP),
the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP), Voluntary Self-
Disclosure Program (VDRP), the Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP),
and other reporting programs are all aimed at increasing our number of
safety disclosures to provide us with more safety data trends, and thus
continually bolster the strength of our safety culture.
Question 3. What actions did you take to address each of the safety
issues raised in the Special Counsel's May 8, 2012 letter to the
President and Congress?
Answer. The corrective actions implemented by the FAA in all of the
seven cases closed by the OSC on May 8, 2012 are summarized below:
Foster
This is repeat disclosure originally referred to the FAA in 2008.
The OSC concluded that the FAA's actions were ``unreasonable,'' but
only because of what they perceived to be an unreasonable delay in
implementing a comprehensive corrective action plan. The OSC does not
suggest that the corrective action plan now in place is
``unreasonable'' or in any way ineffective.
The main thrust of this issue is not the actual safety or
airworthiness of the emergency medical system (EMS) helicopters
retrofitted with night vision imaging systems (NVIS), per se. The
disclosure pertained exclusively to regulatory compliance with NVIS
installation specifications and thus, only to operations while using
the NVIS systems, which is a small fraction of EMS operations. The
corrective action plan did take a considerable amount of time to
implement because almost every one of the hundreds of EMS helicopters
fitted with NVIS is unique, and each installation had to be customized
for an individual aircraft. Thus, aircraft, so equipped, had to be
visually inspected by the FAA, and new airworthiness guidance for the
installation in each individual aircraft had to be developed. That did
take considerable time and consumed an extraordinary number of FAA
aviation safety inspector resources.
There were no reported safety incidents involving malfunctioning
NVIS systems, but if there had been a pilot could simply have taken the
night vision goggles off. In the FAA's inspection of NVIS-equipped
helicopters, 51 identified ``potential safety concerns'' were given to
a team of senior airworthiness experts for analyses, but only one was
judged to be an actual safety concern.
Nonetheless, all of the identified discrepancies were addressed.
While there was no violation of ``law, rule, or regulation,'' the FAA
does agree that FAA guidance was inadequate to address to complexity of
installing and maintaining the regulatory compliance of NVIS systems,
and new guidance was put into place. In short, no significant danger to
public safety existed in this case, but the issue was aggressively
addressed.
Seeley
The OSC concluded that FAA actions were ``reasonable.'' The FAA
removed the entire management team at the New York Air Route Traffic
Control Center (ZNY-ARTCC), and all of the allegations substantiated
during our investigation were the result of lax and inadequate
management. Actions were taken to terminate the facility manager, and
other subordinate managers were served with disciplinary proposals and
removed from the management ranks.
The new management team implemented a comprehensive set of
management reforms and facility management procedures changes. The AAE
continues to monitor compliance with these new procedures, and level of
compliance with FAA policies at ZNY-ARTCC is now high.
Iacopelli
This investigation was referred prior to the formal stand-up of AAE
and was performed by the DOT-OIG with FAA support. The OSC again
concluded that the FAA's actions were ``unreasonable,'' but only
because of what OSC felt were delays in its resolution. Despite this
finding of ``unreasonable,'' the OSC goes on to acknowledge in the May
8 letter that the resolution was satisfactory.
This safety disclosure pertained to a visual flight rules (VFR)
departure procedure (``Dalton Procedure'') at Teterboro, NJ (TEB)
airport, which was designed to minimize the risk of uncontrolled VFR
traffic conflicts with arrivals at nearby Newark Liberty International
Airport (EWR). The complainant reported that pilots were sometimes
flying the procedure incorrectly, which increased the risk of a traffic
conflict with a EWR arrival.
The OIG concluded that the Dalton Procedure may pose a hazard, but
neither the FAA nor the OIG had sufficient evidence to conclude that a
safety issue existed. Thus, the FAA immediately agreed to begin
auditing Dalton compliance, while in the meantime instructing
controllers not to offer the use of that procedure unless pilots
specifically requested it. OIG agreed with this approach and the
logical rationale that only pilots familiar with Dalton would request
it, decreasing the probability they would fly it incorrectly.
FAA and OIG both agreed that cancelling the Dalton Procedure would
have posed a greater danger to public safety because pilots could still
have requested a VFR departure, in which case there would have been no
guidance from FAA other than ``see and avoid'' all traffic. Dalton was
an attempt to impose stricter guidelines on VFR operations.
After collecting sufficient data, the FAA agreed that the Dalton
Procedure could, and should, be revised. The whistleblower worked with
the FAA and agreed that the revision would correct the problem, and
steps were taken to implement and evaluate it on a trial basis. The new
Dalton Procedure has proven effective, and after final validation, it
will be published as a permanent procedure soon.
This case also illustrates that the process of implementing
airspace procedures changes always requires considerable time, because
it would be irresponsible to implement changes in the absence of
compelling evidence of a severe risk to public safety without a
systematic data collection and safety risk analysis. To do so would run
the risk of introducing unintended consequences, with greater risk to
public safety than the original procedure.
Lund/Mirau
This is a repeat disclosure of a case that was originally referred
in 2008 by one of the same whistleblowers (Lund). The 2008 case
involved Northwest Airlines (NWA), whose fleet has now been
incorporated into Delta Airlines (DAL), and the newer case also
involved the same former NWA aircraft. The OSC concluded that the
investigative findings and corrective actions were ``reasonable,'' but
questioned FAA's surveillance program because additional discrepancies
were noted, related to the 2008 case, and suggested that FAA took too
long to implement effective corrective actions.
The OSC contention that actions took ``too long'' does not take
into account the sequence of events leading up to the whistleblowers'
allegations. The process began with the fact that Mr. Lund had not
completed the assigned task for the review of the B-757 maintenance
program at DAL. Subsequently, he was assigned to complete this task
with the assistance of another safety inspector. He failed to complete
the task and contacted the OSC. Following this action, the DAL FAA
certificate management office (CMO) conducted an independent review
with three DAL CMO inspectors of the B-757 program. This inspection led
to two enforcement action filings and an action plan audit script to
correct the administrative deficiencies discovered. This audit script
was applied to all nine fleet types operated by DAL, both by the
company and a 100 percent review by each fleet assigned FAA maintenance
inspection manager. The airline agreed to conduct a safety analysis
review for the correct application & implementation of all of the
airworthiness directives (AD) associated with the maintenance program.
This review was completed by December 31, 2011 and all minor
administrative issues were resolved, with only one AD requiring
corrective action. Such reviews are part of FAA's continuing
surveillance process and procedures implemented after the 2008
disclosure, and well prior to the more recent OSC disclosure.
On June 2-9, 2011, a FAA Headquarters-appointed Flight Standards
(AFS) investigation team conducted a review of the whistleblower
allegations and did not substantiate the alleged non-compliance of DAL
with AD 2008-10-11. The investigation did not substantiate the
allegation that the Operations Specifications (OPSS) were approved with
known deficiencies. The FAA investigation determined that the
administrative discrepancies revealed were not significant enough for a
safety of flight concern. However, enforcement action is still being
contemplated against DAL for non-compliance in certain areas.
The FAA's final conclusion after an administrative review of
maintenance documentation, interviews with ASI's and Delta personnel
was that there was no immediate safety of flight issues or unsafe
conditions associated with the allegations, even though both FAA and
the OIG identified some compliance discrepancies. The complexity of
this timeline, the technical implications of the non-compliance
findings, and the complexity of the various reviews underway well prior
to OSC's referral again all underscore the challenges OSC faces in
making appropriate determinations of ``reasonableness'' and
``timeliness.''
Diaz
This is another repeat disclosure originally referred in 2008. This
case pertains to deviations of foreign-controlled air traffic (foreign
facility deviations, FFDs) into U.S. airspace around Puerto Rico (PR).
An FFD is not a ``near miss'' or a ``close call.'' It is simply an
unauthorized and uncoordinated deviation into U.S. airspace because no
prior communication has taken place prior to the entry into U.S.
airspace. The allegations were partially substantiated, and OSC
criticized the FAA for taking too long to resolve the problems
identified in 2008.
However, OSC's May 8 conclusion does not correlate with the trend
data on FFDs in PR airspace. In 2009, there were 52 recorded FFDs. In
2010, there were 76, but in all of 2011 there were only 18, and the
2012 year-to-date numbers remain consistent with 2011 levels, as a
result of better coordination between San Juan controllers and foreign
facilities, primarily the Dominican Republic.
The FAA agrees with the OIG's finding that FFDs into PR airspace do
not pose a substantial and specific danger to aviation safety. These
FFDs occur when a non-US controlled aircraft from foreign airspace
deviates into (enters) adjacent airspace controlled by the San Juan ATC
facility, at other than expected/intended location or at altitude/
route/speed other than expected/intended without timely coordination/
clearance or authorization.
The OSC stated that FAA has not completed all promised corrective
actions. The most important of these is the development of a radar
sharing agreement between the U.S., the Dominican Republic, and San
Maarten, as well as the installation of a ``shout line'' between San
Juan and the Dominican Republic that will enable instant, direct
communication between facilities, and it is true that these actions
have not been completed.
However, the U.S. cannot unilaterally force another sovereign
nation to install equipment into its ATC facilities. The FAA has been
and remains ready to install the necessary equipment in our facilities.
Diplomatic efforts to persuade the appropriate foreign nations to speed
up these installations continue.
Sugent/Gault
In this case, the OSC concluded that FAA's actions were
``unreasonable'' and ``unresolved.'' The DOT-OIG partially
substantiated the complainants' allegations that two competing
directives pertaining to aircraft separation and missed approach
procedures could be interpreted as being in conflict and not possible
to simultaneously adhere to. In particular, the investigation found
that some controllers at DTW, including management, misunderstood the
directives and a lack of training was cited.
The FAA reviewed the published arrival and missed approach
procedures at DTW, and Notices to Airmen were published on April 3,
2012, announcing new missed approach procedures, which seek to clarify
any remaining confusion. The FAA reviewed the application of national
air traffic policies in place at the time, and the agency does not
agree that the procedures in question conflict with any other policies
necessary for safe operations at DTW. In short, nothing inconsistent or
unique was found at DTW, and that operating environment is common to
other large airports with parallel runways and simultaneous operations.
Thus, the national guidance is consistent.
In order to further reduce any remaining controller confusion, DTW
updated their training materials related to simultaneous operations to
ensure controller training was properly focused and understandable, and
the facility retrained all local controllers responsible for
simultaneous operations on the proper application of FAAO 7110.65
paragraphs 5-8-3, 5-8-4, and 5-8-5. The training of local controllers
was completed Mar. 11-20, 2012. The FAA will continue to audit the
effectiveness of the new guidance and procedures.
Sugent
The DOT-OIG and FAA-AAE investigation of this disclosure did not
substantiate the allegations and concluded that the complainant's
allegations did not constitute any safety problems. Nonetheless, the
OSC concluded that the report and FAA's actions are ``not reasonable,''
but they did not provide any technical justification to support this
conclusion.
The complainant alleged that wind measuring equipment at DTW was
``faulty.'' The two types of sensors installed at DTW sometimes
displayed different, usually small discrepancies, in wind readings, but
the vast majority of their measurements were relatively consistent.
Testing revealed no system flaws, and that the slight variations at DTW
are entirely normal and characteristic of the current state-of-the-art
in wind measurement. FAA's experts disagree with the complainant's, and
the OSC's conclusions regarding problems with the wind sensors. We do
not agree that the wind sensors performance at DTW is any different
than sensors installed in locations all over the system and that the
sensors function as intended. There is inherent imprecision in wind
sensor technology.
DTW opted for the newer wind sensor technology, and ``ASOS'' was
selected as the primary wind sensor. ASOS is owned and maintained by
NWS (NOAA, Department of Commerce), while the Wind Measuring Equipment
(WME) is owned and maintained by the FAA. ASOS uses electronic
transducers capable of converting pressure into an analog electrical
signal. Pressure applied to the transducer produces a mechanical
deflection that generates an electrical resistance change proportional
to the pressure. Unfortunately, ASOS is susceptible to pressure changes
when birds arrive, hover, and leave the ASOS measuring tower.
Currently, DTW controllers see both wind sensor readouts, ASOS and
WME. Prior to March 2012, wind sensor readouts from the ASOS were
archived but the WME readouts were not. With a new software patch
installed in the WME at DTW, wind readouts are now archived for a short
period that allows local technicians to download wind sensor readouts
if an anomaly between the two sensors is spotted. DTW is in the process
of re-designating the WME as the primary wind sensor for their
facility, and they soon will be trained to download archived data that
can be analyzed following wind sensor readout discrepancies between the
two systems at DTW.
In the same case, but on an entirely unrelated matter, the OSC also
criticizes FAA for its ``very slow progress'' on implementing new
standard instrument departures (SIDs) at DTW. With redesign of the
airspace around Chicago, the high altitude airspace between DTW and
Ohio was largely delegated to Cleveland ARTCC (ZOB). Although delayed,
the recent cooperation between DTW and ZOB has created options to link
existing Standard Instrument Departures (SID) to Cleveland, Cincinnati,
and Columbus.
Procedures changes such as the publication of SIDs take time
because of the careful evaluation, including flight checks, that must
take place in order to avoid introducing new safety problems into the
system. New DTW SIDs will be issued in the near future.
Question 4. Have all of the issues raised in the letter, including
repeated air traffic controller misconduct, been resolved?
Answer. The FAA believes that all of the issues raised in the May
8, 2012 letter have been effectively addressed, including the
allegations of controller misconduct. However, as discussed extensively
in our response to question 3, it is imperative that the FAA
continually audit all previously implemented corrective actions for
effectiveness and compliance. As previously discussed, we operate in a
complex and dynamic environment, and we must remain ever vigilant for
new issues which may well arise in order to ensure continued procedural
and regulatory compliance and the highest levels of safety.
Question 5. Given the current Federal budget pressures, what is
your plan to keep personnel costs under control? What is your plan to
balance agency priorities, including NextGen, against rising personnel
costs within the agency budget as provided in the recently enacted FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012?
Answer. Over the past five years, FAA has managed to maintain its
annual growth in Personnel, Compensation & Benefits (PC&B) costs in the
Operations account to 3.3 percent per year--the same rate of growth
experienced by the Operations account as a whole. As such, PC&B costs
accounted for 69.6 percent of total Operations spending in FY 2011,
essentially the same percentage as FY 2006.
There are two factors that make controlling personnel costs more
challenging for the FAA as compared to other Federal agencies. First,
the need to hire and retain a highly skilled and technical workforce
creates and upward pressure on personnel costs. Second, unlike most
other Federal agencies, FAA is required by statute to negotiate pay
with its employee bargaining units.
Nonetheless, the FAA has achieved some recent successes to control
labor costs despite these challenges. Our collaboration with the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) resulted in an
extension of the 2009 collective bargaining agreement for FAA's air
traffic controllers (referred to as the Red Book Contract). This
extension of the Red Book contains pay raises equal to the raises
received by other Federal employees under the General Schedule. The
contract extension also contains a clause that does not allow any
additional employees to go over their pay band maximums. The extension
will slow the growth of PC&B costs for one of our largest and mostly
highly compensated workforce segments. In addition, FAA has made
improvements in recent years to manage overtime costs at our air
traffic facilities. Overtime hours as a share of controller hours
worked has fallen slightly, from 2.4 percent in 2008 to 2.1 percent
year-to-date in 2012.
For non-safety related positions, we have established strict
staffing targets to help the Agency maintain staffing levels consistent
with efficient operations. Total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) levels in
the Operations account have subsequently plateaued at about 42,500.
While FTEs in the Operations account averaged 2.3 percent annual growth
from FY 2007 to FY 2009, that growth has reduced to an average of 0.4
percent over the past two years.
Many Air Traffic Organization (ATO) processes have been
standardized under a ``shared services environment'' concept with
regional resources consolidated under service centers. Since
implementation began in 2006, we have realized a net savings and cost
avoidance of approximately $330 million. And effective management of
worker compensation claims has resulted in cost avoidance of over $117
million since FY 2005.
We continue to search for new ways to control costs in the future.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the National
Academy of Sciences to review the air traffic controller and technical
operations staffing standards to ensure the Agency continues to improve
its methods for determining staffing for its air traffic operations. We
look forward to reviewing the NAS findings when they become available
and will work diligently to address their recommendations.
The FAA is committed to realizing cost efficiencies and avoidance
wherever possible. We have taken a hard look at our organizational
structure, and we are making changes to create a more streamlined and
efficient agency.
Question 6. Growing demand for unmanned aircraft here in the United
States is pushing the FAA to develop standards for their safe
integration into the national airspace system, which could support as
many as 23,000 jobs in the U.S. over the next 15 years, according to
some estimates. If confirmed, how would you plan to safely integrate
unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system?
Answer. The FAA is developing new policies, procedures and approval
processes to address the increasing desire by public and civilian
operators to fly UAS in the NAS. Developing and implementing these new
UAS standards and guidance is a long-term effort. As part of this
effort, the FAA chartered a UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee in 2011
to develop inputs and recommendations on appropriate operational
procedures, regulatory standards and policies before allowing routine
UAS access to the Nation's airspace. In addition, the FAA has asked
RTCA--a group that facilitates expert advice to the agency on technical
issues--to work with industry to assist in the development of UAS
standards. RTCA's technical group will address questions about how UAS
will handle communication, command and control and how they will
``sense and avoid'' other aircraft.
The FAA continues to work closely with its international aviation
counterparts to harmonize standards, policies, procedures and
regulatory requirements.
Question 7. We have seen an increase in the number of reported
mishaps by controllers called ``operational errors.'' This increase has
taken place while overall traffic levels are in decline, which should
mean fewer errors, not more. What is the root cause of the sharp
increase in operational errors, and what is FAA doing to address this
serious safety problem?
Answer. Over the past several years, the FAA has methodically
transitioned to a non-punitive error reporting system at its air
traffic facilities and began implementing electronic monitoring of
controller and pilot performance. These changes in safety reporting
have produced a wealth of information to help the FAA identify
potential risk and take swift action to address it.
As anticipated, these changes resulted in higher numbers of
incident reports involving loss of required separation between aircraft
than in previous year. Notwithstanding this increase in reporting, the
number of incidents is very small; in fact, more than 99.9 percent of
operations occur completely according to procedure.
These increases in reporting are consistent with the implementation
of similar systems in the airline industry, e.g., FOQA and ASAP
programs, that have been extremely successful in the identification and
reduction of potential risk and are absolutely necessary to an
effective safety management system.
However, we have no intention of treating our extraordinary safety
performance as good enough.
First, we are moving from an events-based, reactive approach
to safety analysis to a risk-based proactive approach through
which we analyze vastly greater volumes of data in order to
preview, predict and prevent risk situations that we might not
have fully understood, or even known about, in the past.
Second, we are generating this greater volume of data by
moving to a safety culture where people are encouraged to
provide essential safety-related information
As a result of these new systems we have implemented an SMS-based
approach to separation loss mitigation. This new measure incorporates a
risk analysis process that will increase our ability to mitigate risks
associated with losses of separation.
Electronic monitoring of radar data coupled with voluntary
reporting from controllers has enabled the FAA to develop a
standardized risk analysis process and addressed dozens of identified
safety concerns.
Information contained in our voluntary reporting system has
resulted in well over 100 formal and informal corrections to;
procedures, equipment, training, phraseology, etc. Examples:
Chicago O'Hare (ORD): Construction Confusion
Denver Centennial Airport (APA) New Wind Equipment
Dalton Departure procedure at Teterboro and effect on EWR
arrivals
Airline Flights Incorrect Routing at San Francisco (SFO)
Additionally, consistent with industry best practices, the FAA is
currently addressing five top areas to mitigate risks. The FAA
determined the ``Top Five'' by analyzing collected safety data,
considering the severity of an incident and the likelihood it will
occur. The corrective action plans for each risk will reassess policy,
procedures and training to prioritize resources. The ``Top Five''
includes:
1. Turns to Final--Arrival sequencing to final (angle and speed
control.) Aircraft vectors at a speed and/or angle that result
in an overshoot of final approach.
2. Parallel Runway Operations--Arrival sequencing at the same
altitude and on parallel runways. (Aircraft overshoots turn to
final at the same altitude as arrival traffic to a parallel
runway.)
3. Go-Arounds--Unexpected go-around operations. (Arrival aircraft
executes an unexpected go-around resulting in conflict with
departing traffic as well as false ASDE-X alarms triggering a
late go-around)
4. Clearance Compliance Altitude--Aircraft at other than expected
altitude, for example, incorrect hearback/readback.
5. Coordination--Lack of appropriate or incomplete coordination
among operational employees. (Aircraft handoff to controller at
an altitude or route other than expected
Examples of Specific Improvements
Chicago O'Hare (ORD): Construction Confusion
Issue: Airport construction shortened the available runway length
but use of the term ``full length caused confusion between pilot and
controller. Pilots interpreted ``full length'' to mean the actual
runway length rather than the useable runway length.
Resolution: There was a national briefing created about ``lessons
learned'' at ORD at towers who will be undergoing construction and/or
are already undergoing construction. The Airport Construction Advisory
Council followed up by amending the Controllers Handbook to eliminate
use of the term ``full length'' from clearances whenever construction
reduces the length of a runway, and also changed ATIS requirements to
ensure that pilots are warned about shortened runways. Effective
September 22, 2011, the ACAC also added requirements to the 7210.3 for
air traffic managers to train controllers ahead of time and develop
local directives for construction projects that affect their
facilities. In addition, the ACAC has developed a compilation of best
practices and a runway and taxiway construction checklist both of which
can be found on their web page.
Denver Centennial Airport (APA) New Wind Equipment
Issue: Faulty wind instruments at APA created a safety issue due
the proximity of the mountains and the thunderstorms in the vicinity of
Centennial airport.
Resolution: A Stand Alone Weather System (SAWS) was installed in
June 2010.
Dalton Departure procedure at Teterboro and effect on EWR arrivals
Issue: The Dalton Departure Procedure allowed pilots to depart
Teterboro's Runway 19 under visual flight rules (VFR) in Class D
airspace, at the same time as IFR aircraft are arriving at Newark
Airport directly above them in Class B airspace. Because flights
operating under the Dalton Departure procedure remain outside of Class
B airspace, the pilots are responsible for maintaining safe separation
from aircraft descending into Newark.
Resolution: N90 proposed an interim procedure to plan for a gap in
the EWR Rwy 22L final traffic to provide an extra level of mitigation
to minimize the probability of a TEB Rwy 19 departure on the Dalton
conflicting with an EWR Rwy 22 arrival during a potential altitude
excursion. Procedures were to plan for a gap in the EWR Rwy 22L final
traffic to minimize the probability of a TEB Rwy 19 departure on the
Dalton conflicting with a EWR Rwy 22 arrival during an unforeseen
altitude excursion. This required several levels of coordination and
possible Traffic Management initiatives. This requires several levels
of coordination and possible Traffic Management initiatives.
Additionally, the following were other changes to the Dalton Departure
Procedure that have been implemented:
--added a no radio/lost communications procedure,
--added a ``wake turbulence'' advisory,
--TEB ATCT Implemented an altitude reminder to departing
aircraft,
--reduced location of the westerly turn after takeoff from 4
miles to 2 miles south of TEB.
Albuquerque Airport vehicle confusion
Issue: At Albuquerque (ABQ), several airport vehicles were using
similar-sounding and confusing call signs. This presented a safety
issue for the Tower, since vehicle operators often took each other's
instructions, or had to ask that the instructions be repeated. To
change long-standing call signs and practices was a challenge for the
city.
Resolution: After numerous ATSAP reports, and at the urging of the
ERC, the City of Albuquerque (the operator of the airport), the
facility and NATCA, the parties reached agreement on new, less similar
call signs, which were implemented in July 2011.
Airline Flight Computer Discrepancies at Denver (DEN)
Issue: An airline flying into Denver International Airport (DEN)
was having issues with the routings stored within the Flight Management
System (FMS). The FMS would divert to a Standard Terminal Arrival Route
(STAR) different than what was filed in the flight plan. This could
cause dangerous deviations from the expected flight, placing the
aircraft into conflict with other traffic. The issue was thought to be
resolved with a software upgrade to the FMS. However, an ATSAP
submitter identified that the issue was reoccurring.
Resolution: In February 2011, the ERC shared the report with the
airline's Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). The ASAP's ERC
immediately discovered that when a pilot enters new information into
the FMS resulting from a runway change, the FMS applies the
preferential routing of the wrong STAR regardless of the clearance. In
February 2011, the airline's Director of Safety immediately notified
the pilots and the FMS was fixed within weeks. The airline's ASAP ERC
commented that this would have taken them far longer to identify if it
were not for the ATSAP report.
Instrument Landing System at Savannah (SAV)
Issue: The Instrument Landing System (ILS) at Savannah/Hilton Head
International Airport (SAV) became unusable when aircraft were
approximately a mile from the runway threshold.
Resolution: In January 2011, the ERC issued a Corrective Action
Request (CAR) to address the safety problem. Technical Operations
personnel evaluated the issue and were able to correct it by moving the
localizer shelter and making improvements to the radar antenna. In
March 2011, the ILS was returned to service without restrictions.
Interference with radar at Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP)
Issue: Since July 2009, the Greer Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR)
at Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport (GSP) has had reduced
coverage due to the inadequate height of the radar antennae and
surrounding tree growth. The multiple actions to mitigate the issue
have resulted in little resolution.
Resolution: In November 2010, the ERC issued a Corrective Action
Request (CAR). After some reluctance, the airport authority removed the
trees affecting the ASR in December 2011. For a long-term solution, the
funding and construction to raise the antennae is to be completed in
calendar year 2013.
Confusion with Student Pilots at Fargo, ND (FAR)
Issue: In 2011, the ERC began receiving reports about an issue at
FAR ATCT where student pilots from the University of North Dakota would
come over to practice. The pilots had predetermined routes that they
would fly on departure. When they would depart FAR, the controller
would say ``proceed on course''. To the pilot, that was interpreted to
mean proceed on their predetermined route which actually caused the
pilot to turn back towards the airport and begin their route from
there. For the controller, it means proceed direct from the present
position on course, but not back towards the airport which would cause
conflict with other departures.
Resolution: With encouragement from the ERC, FAR ATCT met with
representatives from UND and worked out an agreement that the
controllers would use vectors to help the pilots join their desired
route.
Airline Flights Incorrect Routing at San Francisco (SFO)
Issue: On occasion, one airline's flights departing San Francisco
International Airport (SFO) would track towards a fix that was not
evident on their flight plan.
Resolution: Through the Confidential Information Share Program
(CISP), the report was shared with the airline's Aviation Safety Action
Program (ASAP). It was discovered that the navigational data update for
the Flight Management System (FMS) was missed mistakenly and it was
subsequently discovered that the update did not occur at several other
airports as well.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim DeMint to
Michael P. Huerta
Question 1a. In March of this year, you agreed to a four-year
extension of the FAA's contract with the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association, until July 1, 2016. Under the contract: What
is the average compensation for the 100 highest-paid air traffic
controllers, including overtime pay and all additional compensation
allowed under the collective bargaining agreement?
Answer. The maximum salary for air traffic controllers is the
statutory cap for Federal employees of $179,700. In addition,
controllers are eligible for premium pay, such as overtime, night,
holiday pay, etc. In FY11, the 100 highest-paid controllers earned
average cash compensation of $245,300. This does not include benefits
such as pension, health, OASDI, etc.
Question 1b. How are air traffic controller raises linked to
performance?
Answer. Pay increases under the recent contract extension are not
based on individual or agency performance. The contract provides two
raises to employees. The January raise is equal to the Presidential
Increase so employees would not receive a raise if there are continued
freezes in the general schedule. The second raise is paid in June and
is fixed at 1.6 percent. The June raise will ``not be granted in any
year in which a prohibition on step increases under the General
Schedule (GS) is enacted by statute.''
Question 1c. How has the recently signed contract with air traffic
controllers affected the pay gap between air traffic controllers and
all other FAA employees? Specifically, what is the current pay gap
between air traffic controllers covered under the March 2012 agreement
with all other FAA employees, in percentage terms?
Answer. The recent contract extension calls for air traffic
controllers to receive pay increases that are the same as those granted
to other Federal employees for FY13-FY16. The average Certified
Professional Controller (CPC) earned 26 percent more than the average
non-controller FAA employee. The average earnings of all controllers
(including both CPCs and developmentals) was 14 percent higher than the
average non-controller FAA employee.
In FY11, the average air traffic controller (CPCs only) earned
$119,900 in salary and an additional $17,900 in premiums for an average
cash compensation of $137,800. The average air traffic controller
(including both CPCs and developmentals) earned $109,300 and an
additional $15,600 in premiums for an average cash compensation of
$124,900.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash % above All
Employee Group Salary Premiums Compensation Other FAA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPC $119,900 $17,900 $137,800 26%
CPC + $109,300 $15,600 $124,900 14%
Developmental
All Other FAA $105,100 $4,400 $109,500 n/a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. What percentage of the agency's budget goes to
personnel costs? Given the current budget situation, what is your plan
to keep personnel costs of the agency under control?
Answer. Nearly 70 percent of FAA's Operations budget is Personnel,
Compensation & Benefits (PC&B) related. FAA will staff safety and
support related positions to maintain the safety of the National
Airspace System (NAS).
FAA issues various workforce plans, such as the Controller
Workforce Plan and Aviation Safety Workforce Plan that explain the
staffing needed to meet the operational and safety requirements. For
non-safety related positions, we have established strict staffing
targets to help the Agency maintain staffing levels consistent with
efficient operations. Total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) levels in the
Operations account have subsequently plateaued at about 42,500. While
FTEs in the Operations account averaged 2.3 percent annual growth from
FY 2007 to FY 2009, that growth has reduced to an average of 0.4
percent over the past two years.
Over the past five years, FAA has managed to maintain its annual
growth in Personnel, Compensation & Benefits (PC&B) costs in the
Operations account to 3.3 percent per year--the same rate of growth
experienced by the Operations account as a whole. As such, PC&B costs
accounted for 69.6 percent of total Operations spending in FY 2011,
essentially the same percentage as FY 2006.
There are two factors that make controlling personnel costs more
challenging for the FAA as compared to other Federal agencies. First,
the need to hire and retain a highly skilled and technical workforce
creates and upward pressure on personnel costs. Second, unlike most
other Federal agencies, FAA is required by statute to negotiate pay
with its employee bargaining units.
Nonetheless, the FAA has achieved some recent successes to control
labor costs despite these challenges. Our collaboration with the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) resulted in an
extension of the 2009 collective bargaining agreement for FAA's air
traffic controllers (referred to as the Red Book Contract). This
extension of the Red Book contains pay raises equal to the raises
received by other Federal employees under the General Schedule. The
contract extension also contains a clause that does not allow any
additional employees to go over their pay band maximums. The extension
will slow the growth of PC&B costs for one of our largest and mostly
highly compensated workforce segments. In addition, FAA has made
improvements in recent years to manage overtime costs at our air
traffic facilities. Overtime hours as a share of controller hours
worked has fallen slightly, from 2.4 percent in 2008 to 2.1 percent
year-to-date in 2012.
For non-safety related positions, we have established strict
staffing targets to help the Agency maintain staffing levels consistent
with efficient operations. Total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) levels in
the Operations account have subsequently plateaued at about 42,500.
While FTEs in the Operations account averaged 2.3 percent annual growth
from FY 2007 to FY 2009, that growth has reduced to an average of 0.4
percent over the past two years.
Many Air Traffic Organization (ATO) processes have been
standardized under a ``shared services environment'' concept with
regional resources consolidated under service centers. Since
implementation began in 2006, we have realized a net savings and cost
avoidance of approximately $330 million. And effective management of
worker compensation claims has resulted in cost avoidance of over $117
million since FY 2005.
We continue to search for new ways to control costs in the future.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the National
Academy of Sciences to review the air traffic controller and technical
operations staffing standards to ensure the Agency continues to improve
its methods for determining staffing for its air traffic operations. We
look forward to reviewing the NAS findings when they become available
and will work diligently to address their recommendations.
The FAA is committed to realizing cost efficiencies and avoidance
wherever possible. We have taken a hard look at our organizational
structure, and we are making changes to create a more streamlined and
efficient agency.
Question 3. Please explain how the scheduling practice for air
traffic controllers, known as ``2-2-1'', works. Does this schedule
present a safety issue for the travelling public? What are you doing to
address any safety concerns raised by this scheduling practice?
Answer. All services and industries that operate 24/7/365 encounter
employee scheduling and human factors issues. These continuous
operations environments are often associated with health, safety and
emergency services.
As with other safety service providers, air traffic control, faces
issues with employee fatigue. To examine this issue, the FAA created a
Fatigue Risk Management office in 2009. The establishment of this
office within the FAA was coincident with an increased focus in the
human fatigue area within the international aviation community, both
commercial aviation operators and air navigation service providers. FAA
research and analysis into the effects of fatigue in the operational
ATC workforce has now been underway for several years.
Our own, as well as other fatigue research, has indicated that the
critical period for human fatigue during 24/7 operations is any period
when an employee is required to remain on duty, awake and alert, after
midnight. This is the time of greatest circadian pressure for humans to
fall asleep. The research indicates that employee fatigue issues are
present regardless of the type of schedule utilized to deliver an
employee to that post midnight work period.
The 2-2-1 schedule is one of several basic types of watch schedules
utilized for air traffic controllers. The schedule is comprised of two
(2) evening shifts, two (2) day shifts followed by one (1) middle (Mid)
of the night shift. A typical 2-2-1 rotation would comprise the
following shift start times for an employee; 3 PM, 2 PM, 7 AM, 6 AM and
10 PM.
The 2-2-1 schedule has both positive and negative fatigue aspects.
The most negative aspect of the 2-2-1 schedule is the duration of the
off-duty period between the second evening shift and the first day
shift. Prior to the FAA examination of fatigue in the operational
workforce the minimum interval for this off-duty period was 8 hours.
Our research indicated that increasing this interval to 9 hours would
result in a 14 percent reduction in fatigue impact and assist employees
in combating the circadian pressure to fall asleep during the middle of
the night shift later in the work week. The minimum off-duty time
between these types of shifts was increased to 9 hours approximately
one year ago.
The most positive aspect of the 2-2-1 schedule is the extended
recovery period between the end of last shift in a week and the
beginning of the next work period. For a Monday through Friday work
schedule this recovery period extends from 6 AM Friday morning until
the beginning of the next work shift at 3 PM on the following Monday
afternoon. This allows employees a significant period to overcome any
accumulated sleep deficit from the prior week.
The FAA has introduced changes into fatigue education, training and
scheduling as a result of our ongoing research. In addition, aviation
medicine is introducing methodologies for the identification of sleep
apnea in both the ATC and pilot communities. We are confident that our
efforts are increasing operational employees' ability to manage the
effects of fatigue during their on-duty work week. We will continue our
research and introduce further fatigue mitigations as they are
identified.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Michael P. Huerta
Question 1. A recent IG report highlighted that the FAA has not yet
established total program cost, schedule, or performance baselines for
all of the six NextGen transformational programs. When does the agency
plan to do this, since without baselining we will not have complete
information about when these programs will be completed, what they will
deliver, and how much they will cost the American taxpayer? Can you
please give a specific exact date or date range.
Answer. The Inspector General's Office report suggests that it is
both possible and desirable to establish cost, schedule and performance
baselines for the entire life cycle of a program in its earliest stages
of research and concept development. This is contrary to well
established best practices as reflected by the Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-11 Appendix J Principals of Budgeting for Capital
Assets. As directed by the Circular, agencies should implement programs
in phased, successive segments and make use of prototyping and pilot
programs in order to gain better information before moving into
production. The FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) Lifecycle
adheres to this best practice and policy guidance. The AMS requires
five key decision points across six phases of work designed to mature
concepts and define requirements for major acquisition investments. At
each decision point, the work that is to be done during the phase is
approved, the agency's enterprise architecture reflects the schedule by
which the work is anticipated to be completed, and a limited amount of
funding is provided to accomplish this work. As part of each decision
point, the FAA considers the estimated cost and benefit of the entire
program not just the immediate segment--but the FAA also recognizes
that in the earliest stages these estimates are not, and cannot be
precise.
The beginning phases are Service Analysis and Concept and
Requirements Definition (CRD). During these phases both
technical and operational analyses are conducted to determine
the operational needs, shortfalls, rough order cost estimates,
and technical alternatives to achieve the desired improvements
to the national airspace system, and to ensure operational
needs are recorded in the FAA's Enterprise Architecture..
Before progressing beyond CRD, into the next phase, the
FAA's Joint Resources Council (JRC) determines if the program
has completed sufficient analysis and engineering assessments
to define technical requirements for a solution to the need.
The middle phases are Initial Investment Analysis and Final
Investment Analysis. Initial Investment Analysis includes
analyzing of performance, cost, benefit, and risk of different
alternative solutions to the need, developing the business case
for the alternatives, updating program requirements, and
ensuring a mature safety assessment. Using this information,
the JRC selects one alternative solution for further analysis
and planning. During Final Investment Analysis, detailed cost
and schedule estimates, and other analyses are conducted
specific to the chosen alternative. This information is
presented to the JRC for decision. If the program receives
approval--the ``Final Investment Decision'' or FID in AMS
terminology--the program then receives a financial, schedule,
and performance baseline and the Agency proceeds with the
necessary contract awards.
The last phases are Solution Implementation and In-Service
Management. During solution implementation, contractors
typically develop systems, equipment, or services and FAA
oversees the effort. When the system and other deployment
planning activities are completed, the JRC makes an in-service
decision authorizing deployment of the system into the national
airspace system.
As of June of 2012 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B), Collaborative Air Traffic Management-Technologies (CATM-T), System
Wide Information Management (SWIM) and DATA Communications are
baselined. The Joint Resources Council made a Final Investment Decision
and established the baseline for the first segment of the National
Airspace System Voice Switch on July 18. The NextGen Network Enabled
Weather (NNEW) received its Investment Analysis Readiness Decision in
December 2010 and is scheduled for a Final Investment Decision in
September 2013.
These investment decisions are not the last that these programs
will see. The transformational programs are not ``end-state'' programs.
Rather, they are interrelated building blocks upon which the FAA will
continue to grow, in order to meet the changing demands of all aviation
users, as well as allow for evolving technology. For example, ADS-B is
being purchased as a service, instead of purchasing and installing an
FAA infrastructure, precisely because technology is quickly evolving,
which would limit our ability to meet service improvements required by
our customers. As such, and consistent with OMB guidance, the
transformational programs are built in segments. These are included in
the Enterprise Architecture (EA), which establishes a most likely path
for implementation and the evolution of the National Airspace System
(NAS). Since the EA extends beyond a decade, we develop the levels of
planning according to the maturity of the investment. For near-term
investments, the detail provided in the EA is of higher fidelity
reflecting the baseline decision made at the final investment. Beyond
the ten-year horizon, the plan provides an affordable estimate for the
outyears, along with projected milestones, schedules and costs, based
upon engineering judgment for the long-term investments.
Question 2. The En Route Automation Management (ERAM) system is a
backbone for other NextGen platforms like System Wide Information
Management (SWIM). The IG Report highlighted that ERAM is expected to
be delayed by four years. What is causing the delay in ERAM and how
does it affect progress on NextGen in general? Do you have an estimate
on cost increases because of the delay?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has made
substantial progress on the ERAM program since the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) began the subject audit. The FAA has already implemented
several of the OIG's recommendations.
Early in the deployment of the system, the operational runs at the
key sites (Salt Lake City and Seattle) identified problems that were
not seen during the multiple testing phases conducted at the FAA's
William J. Hughes Technical Center. Therefore, the FAA decided to
suspend the waterfall in order to address the critical issues
identified at the key sites and prepare for sustained operations.
The original ERAM program (2003) was rebaselined in June 2011 to
include a $330M cost variance and a three-year, eight-month schedule
variance. The program is currently operating within that new baseline.
The last site Operational Readiness Date (ORD) milestone shifted from
December 2010 to August 2014. Although the agency will continue to
adjust deployment dates for individual sites within the approved
baseline, there is a high degree of confidence in the program's final
completion date. To date, the ERAM delays have had a minimal impact to
the deployment of NextGen capabilities.
Beginning in early 2011, the ERAM Program Office has undertaken a
series of management initiatives to also help get the program back on
track. This includes addressing contractual, strategic, structural,
process, personnel, and incentive aspects of the program's overall
approach.
The OIG's assessment appears to have been based upon the state of
the program in October 2010 before the system achieved major deployment
milestones. Since that time, those milestone accomplishments include:
Achieving Initial Operating Capability (IOC) at seven more
sites, bringing the current total to nine sites.
Achieving ORD at two of those nine sites, and achieving
continuous operations at another three (meaning they are
operating on ERAM with no planned fall-back to the legacy HOST
system), while the remainder continue to work through the
progression of longer and longer operational runs toward
continuous operations.
Declaring IOC on the first ERAM software release enabled
with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B),
allowing for operational use of both ERAM and a key NextGen
program in Houston.
Decommissioning of the legacy HOST system at Seattle and
Salt Lake Centers.
The growing level of ERAM-enabled operations has led to multiple
instances where nearly one half of the Nation's air traffic was being
served by ERAM-based air traffic control procedures. Since December of
2011, the system has accumulated over 2,600 hours of operations across
a range of varying airspace needs and traffic volumes, excluding Salt
Lake and Seattle. The program is well positioned to continue to
activate sites within the current budget and schedule as planned into
FY13.
Question 3. One of the major hurdles to successfully transition to
NextGen is to have air carriers equip their aircraft with appropriate
technology. However, we know they are hesitant to invest in new
technology until there is sufficient guarantee that they will stand to
benefit from new air traffic control technologies. How are you going to
address their concerns and what progress has the agency made in regards
to the provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act on
incentivizing air carriers to equip?
Answer. The user community has requested more clarity and detail in
the FAA's plans for implementing NextGen capabilities at specific
locations in order to assist in user investment decisions. The FAA has
provided more specificity in the NextGen Implementation Plan and will
continue to provide updates as information becomes available.
Additionally, the FAA has collaborated with the NextGen Advisory
Committee (NAC) to work through many of the challenges associated with
NextGen implementation, including equipage and incentives.
To address concerns with regard to incentivizing NextGen equipage,
the agency is evaluating incentive initiatives--both financial and
operational. Financial and operational incentives are related
activities and we are treating them as such. Work for both incentive
tracks is underway.
Section 221, Public-Private Partnerships, in the Act granted
authority for the Secretary of Transportation to establish an equipage
incentive program to equip U.S. registered aircraft in the interest of
achieving NextGen capabilities. The goal for an equipage program is to
encourage deployment of NextGen capable aircraft in the NAS sooner than
would have occurred otherwise. The FAA is currently evaluating various
options to see how this provision might allow us to provide incentives
for equipage that would accelerate the benefits of NextGen.
Specifically, FAA would aim to increase the speed of adoption of base
levels of NextGen equipage, which will accelerate delivery of NextGen
benefits by reducing the time of mixed equipage operations.
The agency held a public meeting on May 30, to seek initial input
from interested stakeholders about program design and implementation of
an equipage incentives program for both commercial aircraft and general
aviation to equip their aircraft with NextGen capabilities. The agency
also released a market survey to solicit interest from both operational
stakeholders and those interested in being private partners. A second
public meeting is planned for August 7 to share the evolution of our
thinking based on what the agency heard from stakeholders, to seek
additional information, and to communicate the agency's next steps.
The FAA understands that financial incentives by themselves will
most likely be insufficient to encourage operators to equip and that
operational benefits must come with any financial incentive. Over the
last several years, the FAA has worked with various stakeholders to
demonstrate in an operational environment the benefits of various
NextGen capabilities.
For example, one NextGen initiative, Greener Skies Over Seattle,
has the goal to prove that satellite-based navigation approaches can be
flown using the same separation standards as procedures using ground-
based instrument landing systems have today. Initial feedback on the
Greener Skies initiative has been positive, producing fuel savings. The
FAA will add 27 new procedures, expanding the use of Optimized Profile
Descents (where the airplane essentially glides in idle to the runway
threshold), Area Navigation (RNAV) arrivals (which are GPS-guided
arrivals) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches (which
take RNAV to an additional level of precision). These procedures will
be available to any properly equipped aircraft next spring.
Additionally, the FAA is working with several air carriers to
obtain Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data to
validate the business case for early adoption of new equipment. These
efforts are governed by memorandums of agreement in which the
government and the air carriers contribute to the project.
Realizing NextGen benefits requires more than installed avionics or
technologies. Procedures, training, and policies for both operators and
controllers are necessary to implement the capability that produces
operational benefits.
Both the NAC and the NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force
requested the FAA to identify candidate NextGen capabilities for
operational incentives. The FAA held a public meeting on March 13 to
solicit stakeholder feedback on candidate operational scenarios. The
agency has included this stakeholder feedback in its implementation
planning activities.
Among the candidates under consideration for implementation are
scenarios providing priority service to aircraft capable of performing
complex precision approaches at specified airports in the National
Airspace System (NAS) during limited time periods. The candidate
scenarios also provide operational solutions such as: 1) separating air
traffic in areas where multiple airport operations conflict, 2)
providing improved approaches in poor weather at airports with closely
spaced parallel runways, 3) increasing access to specific Atlantic
routes, and 4) enabling more fuel-efficient operations in specific
Pacific oceanic routes.
The FAA continues to encourage user equipage through various
means--demonstrations and incentives--and to develop both operational
and financial incentives.
Question 4. Could you provide a status on what FAA is doing to
improve airspace procedures for aircraft flying into and out of major
and non-major metropolitan airports (implementing procedures such as
Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance)? Where does the
FAA stand in improving airspace efficiencies as part of delivering
NextGen to the American public?
Answer. Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigational
Performance (RNP) are the key components of Performance-Based
Navigation (PBN) in the National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA, by
adopting PBN, has improved airspace and procedures design which has led
to improvements in system capacity and efficiency. It has done this by
leveraging existing and emerging cockpit capabilities and by working in
close collaboration with key stakeholders. Since 2002, the FAA and
industry have formally collaborated to plan and implement PBN routes
and procedures across the NAS.
There are currently 351 PBN approaches published and in use at the
35 Core airports. For the 35 non-Core airports identified by the FAA to
serve as a basis of comparison, there are currently 21 published
approaches. However, the FAA is aggressively pursuing an active PBN
development and publication process that will substantially increase
the number of published approaches. The implementation plan for
deploying PBN approaches at Core airports calls for an additional 73
new procedures by the end of 2012 with 162 completed by the end of
2013. Another 110 will be added by the end of 2014. These objectives
are well ahead of the targets directed in recent Congressional
legislation. Further, the total number of new procedures published for
the selected non-Core airports will reach 48 by the end of this
calendar year, with a total of 75 scheduled before the end of 2014.
Again, this is well ahead of the targets established in the FAA's
Authorization.
Additionally, the FAA in cooperation with the RTCA Task Force 5,
has embarked on the Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the
Metroplex (OAPM). This process is a systematic, expedited approach to
optimizing both procedures development and airspace redesign in 21 key
metropolitan areas. To date, the FAA has initiated study team efforts
at eight (8) of the 21 metropolitan locations. Further design and
implementation efforts are underway at six (6) of those locations. FAA
is on track to address all 21 locations through OAPM or traditional PBN
study efforts by the end of FY 2016.
Question 5. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides the FAA
Administrator with the authority to improve environmental reviews via
the use of categorical exclusions for performance-based navigation
procedures. Are you providing such exclusions while improving
procedures in and around major airports? If so, how has this speed up
the deployment of performance-based navigation?
Answer. The FAA has several categorical exclusions that are
currently being used for performance-based navigation (PBN) procedures.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 established two additional
legislative categorical exclusions for procedures that meet specified
conditions. It has been necessary for the FAA to undertake technical
and legal analyses as a prerequisite for developing implementing
guidance that must comport with these conditions. These analyses are
currently nearing completion. At the same time, we are adding the two
categorical exclusions, using the text directly from the Act, to the
list of categorical exclusions in the update to FAA Order 1050.1E,
which provides the FAA's guidance for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). At this time, it is premature to
report on the practical effect of the new categorical exclusion
authority.
Question 6. The FAA has already issued a rule requiring all air
carriers operating in U.S. controlled airspace to equip with ADS-B Out
by 2020. As required in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, will the
FAA be conducting rulemaking anytime soon to require air carriers to
equip with ADS-B In by 2020? What is the status of the agency's
interaction with the ADS-B In Aviation Rulemaking Committee?
Answer. Section 211 (b) in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
directs the FAA to initiate a rulemaking within the year (by February
2013) with guidelines and regulations for ADS-B In technology and
requires ADS-B In to be mandated by 2020 for congested airspace,
congested airports, or in any other airspace deemed appropriate. On May
30, 2012, the charter for the existing ADS-B In Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (ARC) was extended to assist the agency in meeting the
requirements of this language.
The FAA tasked the ADS-B In ARC to provide recommendations on how
to target an ADS-B equipage mandate that could offer sufficient
benefits to cover costs. The ARC has been asked to identify: (a) in
what airspace, and/or (b) at what airports, and/or (c) by what other
criteria one could apply to limit an ADS-B-In mandate (examples
including, but not limited to, by operator class or aircraft class). It
should be noted that the ARC may indicate resistance to a compliance
date of 2020, given that currently available ADS-B-In equipment
standards and guidance is limited for a number of applications.
After receiving the recommendations from the ARC this fall, the FAA
will be able to decide among options for moving forward and initiate
rulemaking formally by the February 14, 2013 deadline. Options for the
requirements could be, for example, tying the ADS-B In mandate to the
airports capacity-constrained by slot regulations (i.e., New York
airports). The ARC may develop other options as part of their tasking.
Question 7. I know the FAA has agreements with some airlines like
JetBlue and UPS to help deploy initial ADS-B avionics for trials that
will help incentivize fleet-wide acquisition of this equipage. Are any
further agreements to fund ADS-B equipage planned with U.S. commercial
or general aviation carriers?
Answer. To expedite early equipage, the agency has signed
agreements with several airlines, including JetBlue, United, UPS, and
U.S. Airways. These agreements are set up to demonstrate the benefits
of advanced ADS-B applications and procedures during revenue service
and allow the FAA to share costs and risks with the participants. The
operational evaluations will give the agency detailed cost and benefit
data, and encourage airlines to equip early to capitalize on ADS-B
benefits. Under these agreements, the following equipage will occur:
35 JetBlue A320 aircraft
12 United 747 aircraft (DO-260 complete, upgrades to be rule
compliant in 2013)
20 USAirways A-330 aircraft
143 UPS aircraft (747, 767, A300, and MD-11)
The agency has also agreed to fund upgrades to the avionics for
approximately 54 helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico. These operators
voluntarily equipped with an earlier version of ADS-B avionics before
the ADS-B rule requirements were published. In addition, the FAA will
award a contract this fall to upgrade approximately 400 air taxi
aircraft that were equipped under the legacy Capstone program in
Alaska.
In summary, the ADS-B program has entered into several additional
agreements beyond those with JetBlue and UPS that will help fund early
ADS-B equipage. The ADS-B program office may consider additional
agreement opportunities if proven to be an economically sound decision;
however, given the current funding limitations, these agreements are
expected to be limited. The FAA anticipates voluntary equipage will
increase in 2013 and beyond, as more certified, rule-complaint avionics
become available.
Question 8. In order for NextGen to be successful, FAA leadership
will need to initiate a culture change that will ensure that workforce
at all levels (analyst, manager, executive) are empowered to breakdown
intra-agency and inter-agency barriers and promote cross-organizational
learning and collaboration. What steps have you taken so far to achieve
this culture change, what have been your biggest challenges, and what
more needs to be done?
Answer. NextGen has a high priority in the Administration, the
Department of Transportation and the FAA. Its complexity and
interdependencies make it different from anything the FAA has ever
done. In 2010, an external organization was tasked by the FAA
Administrator to diagnose the current state of NextGen via interviews
and surveys with employees across the Agency. The assessment resulted
in two key recommendations to better position the agency to
successfully implement NextGen:
Create increased internal and external visibility of the
NextGen organization by establishing a direct line of reporting
to the Deputy Administrator, as well as a restructure of
positions and groups to better align with organizational goals
and the NextGen mission. The agency implemented this change as
part of our reprogramming request last year.
Develop a process in which an idea is developed and
implemented in the National Airspace System (NAS) through
cross-agency collaboration, increased transparency, defined
roles and responsibilities, and establishment of clear decision
authorities.
NextGen requires an expanded and more collaborative acquisition
process for the NAS than we have traditionally used. From May to
September of 2011, the Functional Design Consideration Team (FDCT)
worked extensively to address the above recommendations. The FDCT
included members from the NextGen organization and representation from
across the agency. Specifically, the group developed the Ideas to In-
Service framework (i2i) to move a concept from an idea to in-service
management. Highlights of i2i include:
A deliberate reduction in ``hand-offs'' in favor of
collaboration. NextGen program management offices, operations
and other FAA offices engage throughout the capability
lifecycle from beginning to end.
A single FAA-wide process for changes to the NAS that works
with all contributors to the NAS.
A collaborative approach that requires shared
accountability, responsibility and risk. This is achieved
through direct and obligatory engagement.
Capture Teams, which consist of representatives across the
agency who are responsible for activities such as requirements
management, configuration management, and assumption/constraint
management. Capture Teams minimize rework and retain the same
stakeholders to manage a portfolio of products from the
managing requirements stage all the way through to in-service
management.
The framework was approved on September 26th by the FAA's NextGen
Management Board (NMB). The FAA is currently in the process of
integrating i2i into the agency's training and workflows.
The FAA also created the Program Management Organization or PMO.
This new central program office within the Air Traffic Organization
assembles in one organization the majority of programs that specialize
in program management. This allows our operational groups to focus on
the key daily mission of safely separating air traffic and maintaining
our airspace system. It allows our program organization to focus on
managing for better outcomes by developing improvements to our airspace
and making sure these solutions are on time, cost effective and within
scope.
The PMO will also ensure greater visibility, tighter alignment and
closer integration of complex, interdependent NextGen initiatives and
innovative technology. The PMO will play a critical role in the success
of NextGen by acting as the bridge between strategic requirements and
tactical program implementation to improve the safety and efficiency of
our NAS.
The PMO's success will depend on developing and maintaining
relationships with other FAA organizations. Most critical among these
are our relationships with NextGen, which will help set the overall
direction of some of our highest priority program work, and with
Mission Support's requirements and concept validation office, which
will help ensure operational adaptability and validity.
The PMO will play a critical role in each of the tenets of our new
flight plan, Destination 2025: moving to the next level of safety,
creating a workplace of choice, delivering aviation access through
innovation, sustaining our future, and advancing global collaboration.
The FAA also continues our collaborative work with other agencies.
The JPDO provides a National, big-picture perspective that encompasses
a broader Federal view for air transportation than just FAA. The JPDO
ensures efficient coordination and collaboration among NextGen partner
agencies. It addresses key interagency priorities identified by the
Cabinet-level Senior Policy Committee (SPC) for NextGen.
Question 9. The FAA's 2012 Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan
details the fact that the FAA staffed 20 of 23 en route air traffic
control centers and 237 of the FAA's 293 terminal facilities above the
maximum staffing range. Considering the FAA sets these ranges
themselves, it appears you have hired way too many controllers.
Understanding that FAA is expecting a wave of retirements and there is
a need to train incoming controllers, I still think there is a problem,
especially considering that ten of the en route centers and 67 of the
terminal facilities have at least as many certified professional
controllers hired as the high staffing ranges prescribed for total
controller staffing. In a time of economic and fiscal challenges, the
entire Federal government is cutting back on its spending and Federal
agencies are tightening their belts. Can you explain this overstaffing,
especially given the high cost of air traffic controller salaries?
Answer. In many facilities, the current Actual on Board (AOB)
number is higher than the range maximum. This is because the workforce
includes larger numbers of developmental controllers in training to
offset expected future attrition. The FAA hires 2-3 years in advance of
expected attrition so that trainees are fully prepared to take over
responsibilities when senior controllers retire.
As noted above, some facilities have certified professional
controllers (CPCs) above the range maximums. There are multiple reasons
this can occur:
1. Changes in Traffic--Traffic levels are projected to increase
over next the few years after a period of flat to slightly
negative traffic growth. Increased traffic operations within
ATC facilities require more efficient staff usage and increased
staffing at some facilities. Given the prolonged training
cycles and compounding of traffic growth during that period,
the FAA must hire now to meet future demand.
2. Changes in Attrition--Retirement decisions are made by
individual Air Traffic Controllers and therefore difficult to
project at an individual level. FAA has been very accurate at
predicting system-wide retirements in recent years, but
experiences greater variability at the individual facility
level.
Retirement behavior has been impacted in recent years by
externalities such as current economic conditions and the labor
contract (NATCA) situation. Any improvement in macro economic
conditions may cause an increase in Controller retirements. The recent
NATCA contract extension will likely not drive significant changes in
Controller retirement behavior.
Because it takes 2-3 years to train new controllers, and because
FAA does not typically force controllers to move to other locations,
unexpected changes in traffic and attrition occasionally lead to
overstaffing at some facilities.
Staffing Ranges are updated every year as part of the Controller
Workforce Plan development process. In general, the system-wide
staffing ranges have been dropping over the past 5 years. Mostly driven
by reduced traffic, the system-wide total range is now several hundred
lower than it was five years ago. With these reduced ranges, lower
attrition than expected can result in relatively higher levels of CPCs
on board relative to these reduced ranges at some facilities.
Similarly, higher than normal training success rate or reduced training
times can lead to additional CPCs onboard certain facilities.
Question 10. In February, the FAA announced proposed rules to raise
the qualifications for first officers from 250 hours to 1,500 hours.
Included in these rules are two exceptions that provide flight hour
credit for military pilots and baccalaureate aviation degrees. If this
rule becomes permanent, how much more difficult will it be for
carriers, especially regional carriers, to find first officers that
qualify?
Answer. The changes to first officer qualifications will affect
pilot supply for the airlines, but the magnitude of the impact is
uncertain. The FAA developed the proposed rules in response to the
Congressional requirements of P.L. 111-216, which required that all
pilots in part 121 operations have an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP)
certificate. Consistent with the statute, the FAA proposed to allow
academic and military credit in place of flight hours in issuing a
restricted ATP certificate. While pilot supply is not the reason the
FAA believes a restricted ATP is appropriate, it addresses some of the
pilot supply concerns.
Question 11. It is my understanding that the FAA is considering the
development of a new policy where the FAA, in its airspace hazard
determinations, would require consideration of airline One Engine
Inoperative (OEI) procedures upon take-off at airports. It appears to
me this change would have an enormous impact on private property
rights, building heights, urban development, and jobs. Can you please
provide the Committee with an update on this issue and let us know if
the FAA intends to provide a notice-and-comment period for interested
stakeholders or a comprehensive cost-benefit analyses?
Answer. The FAA has not made any policy changes pertaining to one
engine inoperative procedures. However, there have been discussions
within the FAA about whether one engine inoperative procedures should
be included in aeronautical studies considered under Title 14 Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 77. If the agency decides to pursue a policy
change of this nature, we will provide notice and comment in the
Federal Register.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Pat Toomey to
Michael P. Huerta
Question 1. In the past, the FAA has stated that the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 and the Federal
Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 supports its
position that mineral rights on airport lands are subject to the
Airport Revenue Use Restriction. What precise language of the 1994 Act,
the 1996 Act or the congressional record supports the FAA's position
that Congress mandated that mineral rights on airport property are
subject to the Airport Revenue Use Restriction?
Answer. Over time, FAA has been directed by Congress on several
occasions to ensure that airports are as financially self-sustaining as
possible. Listed below is the specific Congressional language on
airport financial self-sustainability as well as specific language on
mineral revenue from airports. In addition, provided below is an
explanation as to how FAA has implemented those congressional
requirements. Language particularly pertinent is bolded below.
House Conference Report No. 103-677, August 5, 1994
60. Section 112. Revenue Diversion. Secretary was required to
establish within 90 days from the date of enactment, policies and
procedures to enforce grant assurances requiring airports to develop
fee structures to make their operations self sustaining, and
prohibiting diversion of revenues.
61. Section 110. Policy Statement on Airport Fees. Adds policy
statements that airport rates and fees must be reasonable and used only
for purposes not prohibited by the Act, that airports should be as self
sustaining as possible, and that airports should not seek to create
surpluses which exceed the amounts needed for the airport system,
including reasonable reserves and allowances for contingencies.
P.L. 103-305 (August 23, 1994)
Section 110. Airport Fees Policy. 49 U.S.C. Section 47107(a)(13)
that airports should be as self-sustaining as possible under the
circumstances existing at each particular airport and in establishing
new fees, rates, and charges, and generating revenues from all sources,
airport owners and operators should not seek to create revenue
surpluses that exceed the amounts to be used for airport system
purposes and for other purposes for which airport revenues may be spent
under section 47107(b)(1) of this title, including reasonable reserves
and other funds to facilitate financing and cover contingencies.''
Section 112 Additional Enforcement Against Illegal Diversion of
Airport Revenue. 49 U.S.C. 47107(l) Policies and Procedures To Ensure
Enforcement Against Illegal Diversion of Airport Revenue. (1) In
general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
subsection (August 23, 1994), the Secretary of Transportation shall
establish policies and procedures that will assure the prompt and
effective enforcement of subsections (a)(13) and (b) of this section
and grant assurances made under such subsections. Such policies and
procedures shall recognize the exemption provision in subsection (b)(2)
of this section and shall respond to the information contained in the
reports of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation on
airport revenue diversion and such other relevant information as the
Secretary may by law consider. (2) Revenue diversion.--Policies and
procedures to be established pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection shall prohibit, at a minimum, the diversion of airport
revenues (except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section)
through--(A) direct payments or indirect payments, other than payments
reflecting the value of services and facilities provided to the
airport; (B) use of airport revenues for general economic development,
marketing, and promotional activities unrelated to airports or airport
systems; (C) payments in lieu of taxes or other assessments that exceed
the value of services provided; or (D) payments to compensate
nonsponsoring governmental bodies for lost tax revenues exceeding
stated tax rates. (3) Efforts to be self-sustaining.--With respect to
subsection (a)(13) of this section, policies and procedures to be
established pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection shall take
into account, at a minimum, whether owners and operators of airports,
when entering into new or revised agreements or otherwise establishing
rates, charges, and fees, have undertaken reasonable efforts to make
their particular airports as self-sustaining as possible under the
circumstances existing at such airports. (4) Administrative
safeguards.--Policies and procedures to be established pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall mandate internal controls, auditing requirements,
and increased levels of Department of Transportation personnel
sufficient to respond fully and promptly to complaints received
regarding possible violations of subsections (a)(13) and (b) of this
section and grant assurances made under such subsections and to alert
the Secretary to such possible violations.
H.R. Rep. 104-714(I) (July 26, 1996)
Revenue Diversion . . . Current law 49 U.S.C. 47107(b) requires any
airport receiving an AIP grant to promise, as a condition to that
grant, that all revenues generated by the airport will be spent on the
capital and operating costs of that airport. This prohibition against
revenue is designed to prevent airports from using their monopoly power
to gouge airlines and other airport users in order to build huge
surpluses that could be diverted to other local programs that have
nothing to do with aviation. Given that most airport users do no vote
in the area of the airport but are merely visiting or making
connections, it was feared that local officials would be tempted to
raise airport fees rather than local taxes of those fees could be used
for nonairport projects. The revenue diversion prohibition ensures that
money raised at the airport will be spent on the airport. In light of
the important safety, capacity, and noise mitigation needs at most
airports, it is vital that the money is spent in this way. The revenue
diversion prohibition was also imposed in recognition of the fact that
money is fungible. Congress did not want an airport to receive an AIP
grant for a specific project and then divert a like amount of money off
the airport for a nonairport purpose. The revenue diversion prohibition
ensures that all airport and AIP money is used for airport purposes.
P.L. 104-264 (October 9, 1996) Section 802. Findings; Purpose
(a) In general, Congress finds that (1) section 47107 of title 49,
United States Code, prohibits the diversion of certain revenue
generated by a public airport as a condition of receiving a project
grant; (2) a grant recipient that uses airport revenue for purposes
that are not airport related in a manner inconsistent with chapter 471
of title 49, United States Code, illegally diverts airport revenues;
(3) any diversion of airport revenues in violation of the conditions
referred to in paragraph (1) undermines the interest of the United
States in promoting a strong national air transportation that is
responsive to the needs of airport users; (4) the Secretary and the
Administrator have not enforced airport revenue diversion rules
adequately and must have additional regulatory tools to increase
enforcement efforts; and (5) sponsors who have been found to have
illegally diverted airport revenues . . .
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this title is to ensure that airport
users are not burdened with hidden taxation for unrelated municipal
services and activities by (1) eliminating the ability of any State or
political subdivision thereof that is a recipient of a project grant to
divert airport revenues for purposes that are not related to an
airport, in violation of section 47107 of title 49, United States Code;
(2) imposing financial reporting requirements that are designed to
identify instances of illegal diversions referred to in paragraph (l);
(3) establishing a statute of limitations for airport revenue diversion
actions; (4) clarifying limitations on revenue diversion that are
permitted under chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code; and (5)
establishing clear penalties and enforcement mechanisms for identifying
and prosecuting airport revenue diversion.
Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (Revenue
Use Policy), 64 Fed. Reg. 7,696, 7,702 (Feb. 16, 1999)
Just as proceeds from the sale or lease of airport property
constitute airport revenue, proceeds from the sale or lease of a
partial interest in the property--i.e., water or mineral rights--should
also be considered airport revenue . . . In addition, the revenues
generated by these activities will still flow to the sponsor for its
use for a legitimate local governmental activity, the operation and
development of its airport.
House Conference Report No. 112-381, February 1, 2012
Section 813. Use of Mineral Revenue at Certain Airports. In
General. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration may declare certain revenue
derived from or generated by mineral extraction, production, lease, or
other means at a general aviation airport to be revenue greater than
the amount needed to carry out the 5 year projected maintenance needs
of the airport in order to comply with the applicable design and safety
standards of the Administration.
FAA implementation of Congressional requirements on airport
financial self-sustainability:
In 1999, the FAA published its Policy and Procedures Concerning
the Use of Airport Revenue (64 Fed. Reg. 7696) (Revenue Use
Policy). Among other things, this policy defined mineral rights
revenue as revenue derived from the sale of sponsor owned
mineral, natural, agricultural products or water taken from the
airport. Prior to 1999, the FAA did not have a formal Policy
pertaining to revenue use, including revenues from mineral
royalties. The Revenue Use Policy was developed in response to
Congressional mandates. First, under the 1994 FAA Authorization
Act, Congress instructed the DOT Secretary to establish
policies and procedures to assure enforcement of the airport's
self-sustaining and revenue use grant assurances (codified at
49 U.S.C. Sec. 47107(a)(13) and 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47107(b)
respectively). Specifically, under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47107(b),
Congress imposed a revenue-use requirement on recipients of FAA
airport development grants. This statute defines airport
revenue as ``revenues generated by a public airport.'' [49
U.S.C. Sec. 47107(b)(1)]
FAA interprets the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,
Section 813 as clearly recognizing that revenue derived from the
extraction of minerals on a federally obligated airport is airport
revenue. Congress provided a process for using mineral revenue at
general aviation airports for local transportation infrastructure
projects. Congress did not provide a similar process for commercial
service airports.
Question 2. For purposes of its Airport Revenue Use Restriction,
the FAA has stated that a Water Treatment Facility would not be subject
to the Airport Revenue Use Restriction but that mineral rights would
be. What is the distinction between revenues generated from a Water
Treatment Facility and those generated by naturally occurring mineral
rights?
Answer. Under current FAA policy on Revenue Use, a municipal water
treatment facility located on airport property and without direct
benefit to the airport would be required to pay the airport a ground
lease set at Fair Market Value for use of the airport land. Mineral
rights owned by the airport are thus airport property and therefore any
revenue gained by their extraction would be airport revenue.
In developing the Revenue Use Policy, the FAA was cognizant that
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA) did not define
the term airport revenue. Section 511(a)(1)(12) of the AAIA requires
the sponsor of a public airport to use revenues generated by the
airport for the capital or operating costs of the airport, the local
airport system, or other local facilities which are directly and
substantially related to the actual air transportation of passengers
and property. The legislative history of section 511(a)(12) suggests
that Congress did not intend airport revenues to apply to revenues
generated by facilities, which are located on the airport, but are
unrelated to air operations or services which support or facilitate air
transportation. The House Report 2.H.R. Rep. No. 760, 97th. Cong., 2d
Sess., 712 (1982) lists a water reservoir or convention center located
on the airport as examples of such facilities. The FAA followed the
guidance of the legislative history in defining airport revenue, but as
stated in the Revenue Use Policy no longer considered the analogy
between mineral extraction and operation of a convention center or
water treatment plan to be appropriate. The FAA determined that mineral
and water rights represent a part of the airport property and its
value, and thus should be considered airport revenue.
Accordingly, on February 26, 1996, the FAA issued its initial
Proposed Policy on the Use of Airport Revenue. (61 Fed. Reg. 7134,
February 26, 1996) After reviewing all comments received in response to
this notice, the FAA issued a Supplemental Notice on December 11, 1996,
and requested further public comment. (61 Fed. Reg. 66735, December 18,
1996) Many comments on the original notice of proposed policy were
addressed in the supplemental notice. The Proposed Policy did include
royalties from mineral extraction on airport property earned by a
sponsor as airport revenue. As noted in the disposition of comments in
the Final Policy, one airport sponsor objected to this scope citing the
Erie letter from 1985. Drawing on the context of Congressional
direction in the 1994 Act to address generating revenues from all
sources'' in its Policy, the FAA determined the value of airport
property, if sold or leased, was a source of airport revenue. [See,
Section 110 of Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of
1994] The FAA based the scope of this interpretation on the previously
held opinion issued in the Erie letter that the sale of the property
with the minerals would require consideration of that value and
appropriate compensation to the sponsor. The Erie letter stated the
sale of the property should recognize the value of the minerals and
``all proceeds from the sale of the mineral rights should be used for
airport-related purposes.''
With the publication of the final Revenue Use Policy in 1999, FAA
applied 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47107 to certain \1\ revenue generated by a
public airport property, including property owned by the airport, to be
used for airport purposes. This application is based on Congressional
intent as cited previously and the Agency's interpretation is supported
by case law. Interpretation of grant assurances by the FAA (issued
after notice and comment) are entitled to substantial deference. [See
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997)] The Agency's publication of
the initial and supplemental notices enabled the FAA to meet this
standard to implement the policy interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The exclusion of certain revenue is limited by statute to
grandfather provisions permitting certain uses of airport revenue for
non-airport purposes that predate the AAIA. None of which reference
mineral rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
In making its determination on the value of airport property, the
FAA considered the basics of real estate law. Specifically, the FAA
recognized there are some instances where airport sponsors do not own
the minerals located under the surface of the airport. For example, at
an airport in Texas, prior to becoming a federally funded airport, the
airport land was deeded to a sponsor with a provision specifically
reserving all interests in underground minerals from the transfer.
Thus, the airport sponsor does not have an interest in those assets,
nor in any proceeds derived from the mineral rights. In this case, the
proceeds are not airport revenue. Because property interests can be
separated, reserved, or transferred by a deed, the FAA reasonably
concluded in its interpretation airport revenue includes the value of
the airport property. Thus, in the absence of any specific reservation
of the mineral rights or other interests in an airport property
conveyance, such interests belong to the airport sponsor. Reaching any
other conclusion would be tantamount to saying that a person does not
own the minerals under his or her home because they belong to the prior
homeowner. Unless specifically exempted in the deed of conveyance,
property interests are whole, and any corresponding revenue generated
is airport revenue.
The House Conference Report for Public Law 97-24, (H.R. Conf. Rep.
97-760, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 760, 97TH Cong., 2ND Sess. 1982, p. 712),
explains the intent of the airport revenue provision.
. . . airport users should not be burdened with ``hidden
taxation'' for unrelated municipal services . . . This
provision is not intended to apply to revenue generated by
facilities which are located on airport property but are
unrelated to air operations or services which support or
facilitate air transportation. It would accordingly not apply
to revenue generated by such facilities as a water reservoir or
a convention center which happen to be located on airport
property, but which serve neither the airport nor any air
transportation purpose. It would apply to such facilities as
terminal concessions and parking lot serving the terminal or
other air transportation purposes.
The legislative history for the Airport and Airway Safety and
Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100-223 (December 30, 1987),
reaffirms the earlier statement that Sec. 511(a)(12) is not intended to
apply to revenue generated by facilities located on airport property
but unrelated to air operations or services that support or facilitate
air transportation. (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 100-484, 100th Cong., 2d Sess.
63 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2638; see also, H.R. Rep. No.
100-123 (II), 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 14, reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N.
2601, 2613.)
7716 b. Revenue from sponsor activities on the airport. Airport
revenue generally includes all revenue received by the sponsor for
activities conducted by the sponsor itself as airport owner and
operator, including revenue received: i. From any activity conducted by
the sponsor on airport property acquired with Federal assistance; ii.
From any aeronautical activity conducted by the sponsor which is
directly connected to a sponsor's ownership of an airport subject to 49
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 47107(b) or 47133; or iii. From any nonaeronautical
activity conducted by the sponsor on airport property not acquired with
Federal assistance, but only to the extent of the fair rental value of
the airport property. The fair rental value will be based on the fair
market value.
Question 3. Does the FAA believe it has the right to restrict the
use of proceeds from mineral rights beneath airport lands when the land
is owned by an independent third party and is leased to the airport for
use as an airport? If so, under what specific statutory authority?
Answer. In the case in which an airport is built on land in which
the sub-surface mineral rights continue to be retained by a third
party, the proceeds are not considered airport revenue. However,
Allegheny County Airport and Pittsburgh International Airport are
different. It does not matter whether the County or the Authority owns
the mineral rights because the County, as original owner of the
airports took Federal airport grants and accepted FAA revenue use
polices which mandate mineral revenues extracted from airport property
remain airport revenue as long as the site remains an airport, even if
the sponsor of that airport changes.
Allegheny County claims that it owns the mineral rights underneath
the airport property according to Pennsylvania law, while Allegheny
County Airport Authority is only leasing the land for airport purposes.
In 1999, Allegheny County, the original airport sponsor, created an
airport authority to operate the Airport. The County has the power to
dissolve the Airport Authority and operate the Airport as it did prior
to 1999 when the County took grants subject to the grant assurance
requirements, including the revenue use requirements. As a condition to
the transfer, the County was not released from the revenue use
requirements. When the FAA approved the transfer from Allegheny County
in the fall of 1999, after the adoption of the Revenue Use Policy in
February 1999, both the County and the Airport Authority were advised
that each must adhere to Federal law and regulations concerning the use
of airport revenue. The County was informed that it is subject to
revenue use restriction as long as the property is used as an airport.
Consequently, any proceeds received from the oil deposits located on
airport property are airport revenue and must be used for airport
purposes.
Question 4. The FAA committed to promulgating a standards-based
rulemaking for portable oxygen concentrators when SFAR 106 was
published in 2005 so that individual manufacturers would not have to
seek a specific rulemaking approval for every device. Nevertheless, 7
years later the FAA has not initiated that rulemaking and the current
device approval process persists. With that in mind, will the FAA make
individual device rulemakings a priority so as to not disrupt new and
improved technologies from coming to market?
Answer. I understand your desire to ensure new products are able to
come to market in an expeditious manner. Shortly we expect to issue a
rule approving additional O2 concentrators for use on aircraft. This
rule will address all requests for approval currently at the FAA. We
will continue to make individual requests a priority until a final rule
is published.