Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on JPDO and the
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues
(29-MAY-07, GAO-07-918R).
This letter responds to Congress's April 24, 2007, request that
GAO address questions submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee related to the March 29, 2007, hearing entitled JPDO
and the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and
Issues.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-918R
ACCNO: A70035
TITLE: Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on JPDO
and the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and
Issues
DATE: 05/29/2007
SUBJECT: Air traffic control systems
Air traffic controllers
Air transportation
Commercial aviation
Concept of operations
Enterprise architecture
Future budget projections
Program evaluation
Program management
Strategic planning
Systems conversions
Transportation planning
Next Generation Air Transportation
System
Federal Aviation Administration
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-918R
* [1]Enclosure.pdf
* [2]Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
May 29, 2007
The Honorable Mark Udall
Chairman
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Committee on Science and Technology
House of Representatives
Subject: Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on JPDO and the
Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues
Dear Chairman Udall:
This letter responds to your April 24, 2007, request that we address
questions submitted for the record by Members of the Subcommittee related
to the March 29, 2007, hearing entitled JPDO and the Next Generation Air
Transportation System: Status and Issues. As agreed with your Office, in
addition to the responses that we provided on May 18, 2007, to two of the
questions you submitted regarding the role of JPDO, we are answering the
remaining questions submitted by you and by Representative Calvert on
behalf of the Minority Members of the Committee. Our attached responses to
these questions are based on our previous and ongoing work and our
knowledge of the areas addressed by the questions. We prepared our
responses during May 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Because our responses are based on our previously
issued products1 for which we sought and incorporated agency comments, as
well as updates that we obtained through interviewing FAA officials and
reviewing their documentation, we did not seek agency comments on our
responses to these questions.
We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, and the Director, Joint Planning and Development
Office. We will make copies available to others on request. The report is
also available on GAO's Web site at [3]www.gao.gov .
1 GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status of the Transition
to the Future Air Traffic Control System, GAO-07-784T (Washington D.C.:
May 9, 2007); GAO, Joint Planning and Development Office: Progress and Key
Issues in Planning the Transition to the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, GAO-07-693T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2007); GAO,
Federal Aviation Administration: Key Issues in Ensuring the Efficient
Development and Safe Operation of the Next Generation Air Transportation
System, GAO-07-636T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2007) and GAO, Next
Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges Associated
with the Transformation of the National Airspace System, GAO-07-25
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2006).
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the responses, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [4][email protected] .
Sincerely yours,
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director
Physical Infrastructure Issues
Enclosure
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions for the Record
"JPDO and the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues"
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Committee on Science and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
Hearing held on March 29, 2007
Questions for Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham, Director
Physical Infrastructure Issues
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Mark Udall
1. How long should the Joint Planning and Development Office
(JPDO) exist, and should its role evolve from its current one? If
so, in what ways?
JPDO was established to plan and coordinate the development of the next
generation air transportation system (NextGen) and should exist for the
duration of those tasks. The basic planning documents that JPDO is
developing for NextGen are near completion, but further iterations of
these planning documents will be needed as NextGen technologies are
developed and implemented. As NextGen has progressed from the initial
planning to the early implementation phase, JPDO's role has evolved to
include coordination and facilitation activities, as well as planning
activities. GAO believes this is a reasonable evolution and a proper role
for JPDO and is consistent with the language of JPDO's authorizing
legislation.
One example of this evolution is the role JPDO has begun to play in
incorporating NextGen goals and activities into the Air Traffic
Organization's (ATO) strategic plans. ATO has expanded and revamped its
Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) to become the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) implementation plan for NextGen. The Review Board
that oversees the OEP is cochaired by JPDO and ATO. If JPDO ceased to
exist before NextGen was more fully developed, some alternative means of
planning and coordinating NextGen's development would have to be
established, which could delay NextGen's implementation. Similar
developments are expected to occur with other partner agencies as JPDO
completes a Memorandum of Understanding with these agencies.
JPDO's role could further evolve to include more coordination and
oversight activities. For example, JPDO could establish a program
oversight capacity that would enable it to perform such functions as (1)
harmonizing the enterprise architectures among the partner agencies; (2)
coordinating the research, development, and systems-engineering and
integration activities of the cooperating agencies and industry; (3)
overseeing multi-agency projects; (4) overseeing, with FAA, the selection
of products or outcomes of research and development that would be moved to
the next stage of a demonstration project through the Joint Resources
Council (JRC);1 (5) overseeing the fundamental research activities that
support the long-term strategic investments of NextGen by managing a
research portfolio among NASA, academia, federally funded research and
development centers, and industry; and (6) maintaining a baseline modeling
and simulation environment for testing and evaluating alternative concepts
to satisfy NextGen enterprise architecture requirements.
1 FAA's Joint Resources Council establishes and manages acquisition
program baselines which define cost, schedule, performance, and benefit
parameters for programs over the full lifecycle of the program.
Another example of the evolution of JPDO's role is the organizational
shift from integrated product teams to working groups. This shift reflects
the extension of JPDO's role beyond planning to development of work
products or "outcomes" that will contribute to the early development of
NextGen and facilitate its implementation. As JPDO assumes more
responsibility for facilitating NextGen's implementation, greater
authority and resources would allow it to do more to coordinate the
efforts of the partner agencies and work with the Office of Management and
Budget as the principal NextGen point of contact. With adequate funding
and authority, JPDO could acquire staff with the project management and
systems engineering skills needed for JPDO to be an effective oversight
and coordinating office.
2. Should JPDO be moved out of the Federal Aviation
Administration's Air Traffic Organization to be given greater
visibility and authority? For example, should it report directly
to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation? Why or why not?
Currently, JPDO is located within FAA and reports to both the FAA
Administrator and the Chief Operating Officer of ATO. In GAO's view, JPDO
should not be moved out of FAA. Since JPDO provides the vision for the
future air traffic control (ATC) system and ATO is to be the principal
implementer of that vision, the two organizations need to continue working
closely together.
However, JPDO's dual reporting status hinders its ability to interact on
an equal footing with ATO and the other partner agencies. On one hand,
JPDO must counter the perception that it is a proxy for the ATO and, as
such, is not able to act as an "honest broker." On the other hand, JPDO
must continue to work with ATO and its partner agencies in a partnership
in which ATO is the lead implementer of NextGen. Therefore, it is
important for JPDO to have some independence from ATO. One change that
could begin to address this issue would be to have the JPDO Director
report directly to the FAA Administrator. This change may also lessen what
some stakeholders now perceive as unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape
associated with decision making and other JPDO and NextGen processes.
As a part of any change in the dual reporting status of JPDO's Director,
consideration could be given to the possibility of creating the position
of Associate Administrator of NextGen and elevating the JPDO Director to
that post. This would give greater credibility, authority, and visibility
to this important position.
JPDO should not report to the Secretary of Transportation because placing
JPDO in the Secretary's office would remove it too far from the
implementation and operations of NextGen.
3. What are the specific roles of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD) in JPDO?
a. Do we know how much DOD plans to spend on NextGen for its
development and implementation? If so, how much will it be?
b. Do we know how much DHS plans to spend on NextGen for its
development and implementation? If so, how much will it be?
The specific role of DHS in JPDO is to lead the Security Working Group and
to develop an effective security system for the national airspace system
(NAS) without limiting mobility or civil liberties. DHS carries out this
role through its Transportation Security Administration (TSA). More
specifically, DHS's task, through TSA, is to develop and implement a
real-time network to share information with appropriate parties about
passengers, cargo, and aircraft and to create a transparent set of
security layers that will deliver security without causing undue delays,
limiting access, or adding excessive costs and time.
The specific role of DOD in JPDO is to lead the Net-Centric Operations
Working Group and to establish user-specific situational awareness.
Situational awareness means that each user of the NAS, including DOD and
the civilian sectors, has the awareness needed to reach decisions through
the creation of a combined information network. All users of the system
will have access to the air transportation system data they require for
their operations.
The specific roles of both DHS and DOD in JPDO are related to the
"curb-to-curb" approach to air traffic management that Vision 100
established for NextGen. Under this approach, JPDO envisions an expansion
of the air transportation system that includes airport departures and
arrivals as well as flights. The JPDO working groups, which evolved from
FAA's former integrated product teams (IPT), focus on eight strategies,
such as how to use weather information to improve the performance of the
NAS. The working groups are composed of personnel from FAA, other federal
agencies, and the private sector. Each of the working groups is headed by
a steering committee under both a federal agency--in this case, DHS or
DOD--and a private sector representative.
We do not know how much either DOD or DHS plans to spend on NextGen.
However, we are aware that DOD, FAA, and DHS each plan to provide $5
million for net-centric (i.e., a continuously-evolving network of
information sharing and situational awareness) demonstrations. Both DOD
and DHS also provide a variety of "in-kind" services through personnel
assigned to the JPDO working groups and through the potential leveraging
of mission-specific research that could support the development and
implementation of NextGen.
4. NextGen technologies will increase flight efficiency by means
of automated flight operations and reduced separations.
a. Will this render the system more brittle against
disturbances such as terrorism and equipment failure
and acts of nature?
b. How will we ensure the continued safe operation of
the system in the event of such disturbances?
NextGen technologies will not render the system more brittle than the
current system. Although no system is 100 percent safe, GAO has not seen
any data or other information indicating that the planned satellite based
navigation system is more vulnerable to security threats than the current
ground based radar system. JPDO's plans call for robust security system
protocols and firewalls to increase protection, as well as sufficient
redundancies within the system to reduce vulnerabilities and offset any
disruptions. Security will exist in "layers of defense" designed for early
detection of threats from terrorism, equipment failure, and natural
disasters and will provide appropriate intervention. Additionally,
although the system will become more automated, there will still be
opportunities for human intervention if the system fails.
Questions for the Record Submitted by Rep. Calvert
Implementation by Other Federal Partners
1. In your written statement, when discussing the planning efforts of the
JPDO partner agencies (exclusive of NASA and FAA), you stated that they
are not as far along developing implementation plans and
institutionalizing JPDO goals into their planning documents. Why is that?
Does this reflect a lack of commitment?
The current situation does not necessarily reflect a lack of commitment on
the part of the partner agencies. JPDO partner agencies face competing
mission and resource demands. In addition, NextGen is an extraordinarily
complex undertaking, and some agencies are still learning to work
collaboratively. By contrast, FAA and NASA have a long history of working
with each other, and the core effort of JPDO is within their purview.
The partner agencies will engage more collaboratively as NextGen's
processes and mechanisms mature. For example, the Department of
Transportation (DOT) was recently designated as the Managing Partner
responsible for ensuring collaboration among the partner agencies in
implementing NextGen-related research and development. DOT is also
responsible for submission of the OMB 300 for the NextGen as a portfolio
project after review by JPDO.2 JPDO's decision to develop a Memorandum of
Understanding to broadly define the roles and responsibilities of the
partner agencies is another positive step. Additionally, the extent to
which Congress provides JPDO with the authority and resources it needs for
program oversight will affect the nature and scope of the partner
agencies' collaboration.
FAA Financing Proposal
2. What would be the effect, if any, on the NextGen budget if Congress
does not enact the Administration's proposed aviation financing reform
package (ticket taxes; aviation fuel taxes) as part of a new
authorization, but instead leaves the current ticket and fuel taxes in
place?
The current FAA funding structure can provide sufficient funding for
NextGen--with some caveats. Congress has used the current funding
structure--excise taxes plus a General Fund contribution--to fund FAA for
many years. As the number of air travelers has grown, so have excise tax
revenues. Even though revenues fell during the early years of this decade
as the demand for air travel fell, they began to rise again in fiscal year
2004, and FAA estimates that if the current taxes remain in effect at
their current rates, revenues will continue to increase. According to
projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),3 revenues
obtained from the existing funding structure will increase substantially.
Assuming the General Fund continues to provide about 19 percent of FAA's
budget, CBO estimates that through 2016 the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
(Trust Fund) can support about $19 billion in additional spending over the
baseline FAA spending levels CBO has calculated for FAA (the fiscal year
2006 funding level, with projected growth for inflation) provided that
most of the spending occurs after fiscal year 2010. How far this money
will go to fund modernization is subject to a number of
uncertainties--including the future cost of NextGen investments, the
volume of air traffic, the future cost of operating the NAS, and the
levels of future appropriations for the Airport Improvement Program, all
of which influence the amount of funding available for FAA.
2 Section 300 of OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and
Execution of the Budget (Nov. 2, 2005), sets forth requirements for
federal agencies for planning, budgeting, acquiring, and managing
information technology capital assets.
3 Congressional Budget Office, Financing Investment in the Air Traffic
Control System (Washington, D.C.: Sept 27, 2006)
However, if the desired level of funding exceeded what was likely to be
available from the Trust Fund at current tax rates, Congress could make
changes within the current structure to provide FAA with additional
revenue. Congress could raise more revenue from airspace system users for
NextGen or for other purposes by raising the rates on one or more of the
current excise taxes. Congress could also provide more General Fund
revenues for FAA, although the nation's fiscal imbalance may make a larger
contribution from this source difficult.
JPDO Organizational Authority
3. Would GAO recommend any changes to the authorities and resources now
provided to JPDO to enhance its effectiveness in coordinating the partner
agencies, and if so, what would they be?
Yes, providing JPDO with the authority and the resources to establish a
program oversight capacity would enable JPDO to perform such functions as
(1) harmonizing the enterprise architectures among the partner agencies;
(2) coordinating the research, development, and systems-engineering and
integration activities of the cooperating agencies and industry; (3)
overseeing, with FAA, the selection of products or outcomes of research
and development that would be moved to the next stage of a demonstration
project through the Joint Resources Council (JRC); (4) overseeing the
fundamental research activities that support the long-term strategic
investments of NextGen by managing a research portfolio among NASA,
academia, federally funded research and development centers and industry;
and (5) maintaining a baseline modeling and simulation environment for
testing and evaluating alternative concepts to satisfy NextGen enterprise
architecture requirements.
JPDO will need additional funding and staff to expand its role in
coordinating the efforts of the partner agencies and working with the
Office of Management and Budget as the principal NextGen point of contact.
However, JPDO's dual reporting status hinders its ability to interact on
an equal footing with ATO and the other partner agencies. Therefore, it is
important for JPDO to have some independence from ATO. One change that
could begin to address this issue would be to have the JPDO Director
report directly to the FAA Administrator. This change might also lessen
what some stakeholders now perceive as unnecessary bureaucracy and red
tape associated with decision making and other JPDO and NextGen processes.
As a part of any change in the dual reporting status of JPDO's Director,
consideration could be given to the possibility of creating the position
of Associate Administrator of NextGen and elevating the JPDO Director to
that post. This would give greater credibility, authority, and visibility
to this important position.
NASA's Role in JPDO
4. Traditionally NASA has developed promising technologies to a high
maturity level, enabling FAA to incorporate them into its air traffic
control system without too much additional development. Now that NASA is
confining its development work to a basic level of technical maturity, do
FAA and the other federal partners have the resources and capability to
fill this void?
It is not clear whether FAA and the other federal partners have the
resources and capability to fill this void. As your question indicates,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formerly
conducted the type of intermediate research and development (R&D) and
demonstration projects that will be needed for the NextGen program, but
the funding for these efforts was discontinued when NASA's aeronautical
research portfolio was restructured to focus more on fundamental research.
Although FAA has not fully determined the impact of the NASA restructuring
on the R&D needs for NextGen, some additional R&D funds will be needed and
are critical for the timely development of NextGen. FAA recognizes that
this is a critical issue and has already taken some action to address it.
For example, in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for FAA,
funds have been included for developmental and transition research in the
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) Activity 1 account. In light of the NASA
restructuring, FAA has also undertaken a study to assess the nature and
scope of its NextGen R&D needs. According to JPDO officials, this study
will be completed in August 2007. More work remains to completely assess
the research and development needs of NextGen and the ability of FAA and
the other JPDO partner agencies to budget for and conduct the necessary
initiatives. One way to fill an identified research and development need
might be to make more use of the resources available at the FAA Technical
Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the FAA Aeronautical Center in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Certification
5. In his statement before the Subcommittee, the President and CEO
of the Aerospace Industries Association, Mr. Douglass expressed
concerns about the time required to prototype, validate, and
certify new technologies required for NextGen, in addition to the
time required for rulemakings. Do you share Mr. Douglass's
concerns? How much of a risk do these processes pose to the timely
development of NextGen?
Yes, we share Mr. Douglass's concerns. The time required to prototype,
validate, and certify a technology can present a significant risk to the
timely and cost effective implementation of NextGen. We have studied the
lead times required to prototype, validate, and certify new technologies.
JPDO or FAA do not currently have sufficient resources to prototype,
validate, and certify new technologies, and cannot currently develop them
internally without causing significant delays in the implementation of
NextGen. In addition, stakeholders have expressed concern over the time it
takes to develop rules for new equipment and the problems caused when
equipment is fielded before rules are finalized. Any activities that will
be required to implement new policies, demonstrate new capabilities, set
parameters for the certification of new systems, and develop technologies
will take time. Just as important, the time required to prototype,
validate, and certify a new technology must be balanced against the need
to ensure the reliability of the technology and the safety of the flying
public.
Accountability
6. In his statement before the Subcommittee, Mr. Douglass raised concerns
about the potential lack of accountability and authority in the current
JPDO structure, especially with regard to partner agencies. He recommends
that each partner agency designate a senior-level official as the
responsible individual for all NextGen-related programs. Do you share Mr.
Douglass's concerns? Should agencies designate a senior program official?
Yes, we share Mr. Douglass's concerns and further note that these
fundamental leadership issues are exacerbated by the apparent inactivity
of JPDO's Senior Policy Committee (SPC). This committee is responsible for
overseeing the work of JPDO, but has met only four times in 3 years and
has not convened as a body since November 2005. The committee is chaired
by the Secretary of Transportation and includes senior leaders from the
partner agencies and the Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy. SPC was established to provide policy guidance and
review; make legislative recommendations; and identify and align
resources. A more regular schedule of meetings and an agenda for SPC could
lead to more participation and accountability on the part of the partner
agencies.
Additionally, assigning sole responsibility for supporting NextGen to a
senior official from each agency would be a positive step. As a point of
contact and coordinator for NextGen activities, that person should, within
prescribed limits, have access to, and authority from, the SPC member from
their agency to make decisions and act on behalf of their agency.
Finally, to the extent that the pending Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the partner agencies defines the roles and responsibilities of
each agency, it will, when signed, be a useful document for ensuring
accountability.
(540155)
References
Visible links
3. http://www.gao.gov/
4. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***