[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAA
REAUTHORIZATION AND REFORM ACT:
ONE YEAR LATER
=======================================================================
(113-3)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-556 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin RICK LARSEN, Washington
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
SAM GRAVES, Missouri Columbia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JEFF DENHAM, California ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chair (Ex Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Steve Cohen, of Tennessee................................... 44
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas............................. 45
PREPARED STATEMENT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY
WITNESS
Hon. Michael P. Huerta:
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Answers to questions from the following majority subcommittee
members:
Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey................................ 58
Hon. Patrick Meehan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania.............................. 72
Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wisconsin................................. 74
Answers to questions from the following minority subcommittee
members:
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas................................ 76
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington.................................... 81
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, insert for the record addressing the amount of
money that would be saved if the FAA delayed its unmanned
aircraft systems program, as asked by Hon. Thomas Massie, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky.......... 26
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79556.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79556.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79556.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79556.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79556.005
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAA
REAUTHORIZATION AND REFORM ACT:
ONE YEAR LATER
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order. I would like to welcome everybody to our first official
hearing of the Aviation Subcommittee. We are looking forward to
having a very production committee agenda, focusing on results
and where we can solve some problems.
So, while the original intent of this hearing was to
oversee the progress made by the FAA on implementing the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act, the topic of sequestration is of
a concern to everyone. So I am hoping that we will hear from
Administrator Huerta more on the details of the FAA's plan to
handle sequestration and, in particular, how we are going to
ensure the safety and security of the traveling public.
I remain deeply concerned about the impact of
sequestration, and I believe we should work for a long-term
solution targeting wasteful and unnecessary Government spending
without raising taxes. I am disappointed with some of what has
been laid out there, with a list of threats of what may take
place and different bad things that are going to happen. I
think what we really need to do is focus on how we can get
results and how we can make sure that the traveling public
understands that their safety and security is the utmost
importance.
A review of the FAA's budget shows that there are
significant dollars that might be able to be redirected to
minimize and alleviate the problems and challenges this poses.
But let me repeat: The FAA can and must find every way to meet
the required cuts while ensuring the safety and security of the
traveling public. And this is something, Mr. Administrator, I
am very confident that you are able to orchestrate.
I would like to now address the original subject of the
hearing, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, called the
Reform Act, which was signed into law February 14, 2012. In the
last year, the FAA has taken on the task of implementing the
many requirements included in the Reform Act. Ensuring
implementation of the important FAA reauthorization mandates
remains a top priority of the subcommittee. The FAA has had
some successes and it has also faced some challenges during the
last year. Today I look forward to hearing from Administrator
Huerta on the plan that the FAA is going to use to fully
implement the Reform Act.
I thank you for coming this morning. Before we turn to the
Administrator, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials for this hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection, so ordered.
I would now like to yield to Mr. Larsen for any comments he
may have.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the
hearing today on implementing the FAA reauthorization bill. We
have--Mr. Chairman, we have an excellent cooperative
relationship, working together in the last Congress and the
Coast Guard Subcommittee, and I look forward to continuing that
work on aviation.
At the outset, I should point out that I didn't vote for
the FAA authorization bill, because it amended the Railway
Labor Act in a way that I believe will--is harmful to the right
of workers to organize and to collectively bargain. That said,
the bill did provide much-needed stable, long-term funding for
Federal airport infrastructure grants. Additionally, the bill
provided a new policy direction for NextGen air traffic control
and established a process for safely integrating new
technologies like unmanned aircraft systems into the National
Airspace System. The bill also included several provisions to
ensure the agency is adequately staffed and that its workforce
is adequately trained.
Additionally, I want to praise Administrator Huerta and his
staff for efforts to extend occupational safety and health
protections to flight attendants in their high-altitude
workplace, as mandated by the bill.
Democrats in this committee fought to include that mandate
in the final conference report, and I was pleased to see the
FAA has published a proposed policy statement last December and
solicited public comments. I hope a final policy statement will
be adopted in short order, and look forward to hearing from the
Administrator on where we stand now on extending long-overdue
legal protections to tens of thousands of flight attendants.
I look forward to receiving a status report on how all
these important provisions, in fact, are being implemented.
Mr. Chairman, it does concern me that the bill's successful
implementation can be derailed, and is about to be derailed,
due to looming spending cuts. At its heart, the authorization
bill is a funding bill, a multiyear authorization of funding
for the agency. Yet we are only a few days away from budget
sequestration, which will mean several hundred million dollars
in automatic cuts for this year below the funding levels
authorized in the bill, and larger cuts going forward.
Absent these funding levels, the FAA's priority in the next
few years may not be in implementing the bill, but managing a
self-inflicted budgetary crisis while attempting to safely
downsize the U.S. aviation system. Long-term investments and
new technologies that Congress sought to advance in the bill
may be postponed, and the delivery of some critical NextGen
systems could be delayed for years.
According to the FAA, sequestration will result in the
furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers,
technicians, and aviation safety employees that will cause
travel delays and disruption. Service at over 200 air traffic
control towers could be eliminated.
These furloughs could also impact aviation manufacturers
who need FAA safety certifications for new NextGen
technologies. Aviation manufacturing is a significant driver of
the economy in Washington State, so I am particularly concerned
about the effect of sequestration on that part of the industry.
And finally, the FAA's greatest asset is its people. The
FAA's dedicated and professional workforce operates the
largest, most complex, and safest aviation system in the world.
However, one-third of the total workforce of FAA will be
retirement-eligible in 2014. The possibility of furloughs
accompanied by pay and benefit cuts could cause many devoted
FAA veterans to throw up their hands and say, ``I am done.''
Administrator Huerta, as you consider managing the agency
with increasingly scarce budgetary resources, I would urge you
to prioritize your investment in your people. The FAA must
continue to invest in the training, development, recruitment,
and retention of a world-class, 21st-century workforce.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for a chance for
opening comments. I look forward to hearing from our witness.
Mr. LoBiondo. We thank you, Mr. Larsen. We are very pleased
to welcome the Chair of the full committee, Mr. Bill Shuster.
Mr. Chairman, the floor is yours.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. And thank you
and Ranking Member Larsen for organizing the first hearing of
the Aviation Subcommittee. And I know there will be many more
to come as you aggressively have oversight on the FAA.
And I want to welcome Administrator Huerta. Thank you for
being here today, and congratulations on being confirmed. I
know you haven't been in the chair that long, and it is already
hot. But we appreciate the work you have been doing. And you
have one of the most important agencies in Government, 47,000
employees and a $16 billion budget. So we look forward to
working with you, and we know it is a tough job.
And, as I mentioned, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act,
I know that Chairman LoBiondo and Larsen and myself will be
looking very closely at it to make sure that timelines are met
and progress is made. And there has been progress, but there is
still a lot of work that needs to be done.
But now that you are firmly in place, also we expect to see
NextGen, which is extremely important to our airline--our
aviation industry, to make sure that it moves forward, and we
make sure we are measuring and putting those pieces in place as
quickly as possible. Because I think the Nation benefits as a
whole by having the most efficient airspace in the world.
I also would like to briefly address sequestration. I think
we all agree it is not the best way to address our deficit and
debt problem we have, but it is what we have to deal with
today. The FAA, like other agencies, is going to have to make
some tough decisions. I am a little frustrated that the FAA
has, instead of looking at the budget and come forward with a
plan to be able to see where you can move money, which I know
is possible--we need to make sure that we don't allow safety to
be questioned or challenged at all.
And again, my looking, with my staff looking at the budget,
there are places that you can shift money around and make the
tough choices you need to make. And we are here committed to
continue to explore with you ways to address the sequestration
situation that we see today, and with maintaining the highest
level of safety.
So, I look forward to working with Chairman LoBiondo and
Ranking Member Larsen. And again, thanks for being here today
and taking the time to be with us. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are very pleased
to welcome Mr. Rahall, the ranking member. Nick, you are
recognized.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman LoBiondo. I commend you
for calling today's hearing on the implementation of the FAA's
reauthorization bill. The bill was signed into law 1 year and 2
weeks ago, which would ordinarily make this an appropriate time
for the subcommittee to hear about how the FAA is implementing
the bill's many requirements.
But it is rather ironic that we are in the situation that
we are, and that Administrator Huerta, to whom I commend for
your excellent efforts to ensure the safety of our traveling
public--you and your agency do a tremendous job, given the
circumstances in which we find ourselves.
But it is ironic that we are here today, talking about
sequestration, obviously, rather than a true review of the FAA
reauthorization bill. Sequestration is the big elephant in the
room that seriously threatens the stability that we thought we
had achieved by enacting this multiyear FAA bill.
If sequestration occurs on March 1st, as appears likely,
almost every single one of the FAA's 47,000 employees will be
furloughed. Radio beacons and radars could sit unused while the
technicians who repair them are at home without pay. And the
figures go on and on. We are all aware of what the
possibilities are. Planes will stack up in the air and line up
on the ground as air traffic control struggles to cope with the
furlough of hundreds of controllers on any given day. And more
than 200 air traffic control towers, including almost all the
control towers in my home State of West Virginia could be
closed, possibly for good.
Sequestration will have dire consequences for rural America
which, in many ways, depends on aviation much more than any
other part of our country. Congress made a commitment in the
FAA bill to protect aviation for rural America by, for example,
continuing the essential air service program, by improving the
safety of air ambulances that save the lives of thousands of
Americans in rural areas, by directing FAA to give pilots more
tools to access rural airports in bad weather. But I fear that
if the FAA is forced to absorb a $600 million-plus budget cut,
the needs of rural America could be put aside as FAA struggles
to cope with the demand in major metropolitan areas where
flight delays could be up to 90 minutes.
As we stand on the precipice, I cannot help but think here
we go again. The FAA limped along under 23 short-term
extensions--which I am sure the Administrator agonized through
every one of those--before a long-term reauthorization was
finally enacted last year. And in 2011, the Republican
leadership--and I am not referring to Chairman Shuster or
Chairman LoBiondo by any stretch of the imagination--but the
Republican leadership in 2011 conducted a scorched earth policy
of negotiating the long-term bill that caused a 2-week FAA
shut-down that almost 4,000 employees on furlough without pay,
and cost almost $400 million in lost revenue. Now the
Republican leadership's failure to come to the table at that
time and work out a balanced approach to our fiscal challenges
will again cost the flying public, not to mention tens of
thousands of dedicated Federal employees dearly.
So, I look forward to today's hearing, look forward to you,
Administrator Huerta, on the FAA's plans to implement
sequestration while ensuring that rural America, where aviation
is a vital, vital, vital lifeline, and a way of life, is not
forgotten. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Rahall. I would like to
briefly recognize Mr. Larsen for a motion.
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record the statement for the record from
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Mr. LoBiondo. So ordered.
Now it is our pleasure to welcome our FAA Administrator,
Michael Huerta.
Michael, thank you for being here today. The floor is
yours.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
Larsen, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, members of the
subcommittee.
A year ago, Congress reauthorized the Federal Aviation
Administration. After 4\1/2\ years of uncertainty and stop-gap
measures, the predictability that reauthorization provided was
very welcome. It allowed us to invest with greater certainty in
the future of our aviation system, and we are grateful for the
efforts of this committee. We have been working very diligently
in the past year to implement the provisions of
reauthorization.
A year later, however, we again face fiscal uncertainty and
unpredictability. The sequester is looming, and massive budget
cuts are set to go into effect just 2 days from now.
I want to make a clear distinction about how sequestration
differs from previous Government shut-downs that have been
caused by a failure to pass a budget, or by the temporary lapse
in authorization which took place in 2011.
First, almost all of our FAA accounts would be affected.
Therefore, this would affect almost all of our employees. We
are looking at all options to reduce costs. We are looking at a
hiring freeze, at cutting contracts and travel and other items
not related to day-to-day operations. But to reach the large
figure we need to cut, we have little choice but to make up the
rest through furloughing employees. This is not something that
we take lightly.
Unlike a Government shutdown, under the sequester, almost
all of our employees would be affected, even what we would
traditionally call essential personnel. The vast majority of
our employees, including these essential workers, would have to
be furloughed. Under the sequester, our flexibility is very
limited because we must cut proportionately from all affected
accounts. We can't move money around, and we have limited
flexibility to choose what it is that we are able to cut.
Now, a very large portion of the Department of
Transportation's budget is exempt from the sequester. What this
means is that the FAA will take more than 60 percent of the
sequester cuts for all of DOT, even though our agency only
makes up about 20 percent of the Department's budget. Now,
within the FAA, the airport grant program is also exempt from
the sequester. So this, again, limits the choices we have on
where to cut the money.
And, finally, we have a very short time to make the bulk of
these massive cuts: about 6 months. And that means that the
cuts would need to be deeper to have the same effect as if we
could spread them out.
It is my hope, and the hope of everyone at the Department
of Transportation, that our leaders can work together to rally
around the improvements that we need for our Nation's air
transportation system. We hope that we can continue to support
the programs that we all acknowledged were so important just 1
year ago.
As we move forward, the number one mission of the FAA is
safety. That will always be our priority. Let me say with
regard to the Boeing 787, we are working around the clock to
conduct a comprehensive review of the critical systems of the
aircraft, including the design, the manufacture, and the
assembly of the Dreamliner. As part of that review, we are
working closely on a data-driven process to identify the cause
of the recent battery issues, and mitigations for them.
I appreciate the expression of confidence in the FAA's
actions from committee Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member
Rahall, as well as from subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo and
Ranking Member Larsen. We all had a productive briefing just a
couple of weeks ago.
Last week we met with senior executives from Boeing to
discuss the status of the ongoing work to address the 787
battery issues. We will carefully analyze Boeing's proposal to
address these issues. But the safety of the flying public is
our top priority, and we won't allow the 787 to return to
commercial service until we are confident that any proposed
solution has addressed battery failure risks.
In the last few years, Congress has given us much guidance
on how to advance aviation safety, and we have accomplished a
great deal. The FAA overhauled flight and duty rules to
guarantee that airline pilots have the opportunity to get the
rest they need to operate safely. We are raising the required
hours of experience before a pilot can operate at the controls
of any airline flight. We are also finalizing a rule that will
require more rigorous and realistic training, so that flight
crews can better handle rare but serious scenarios.
While we are enhancing the safety of the system that we
know today, we are also working to deliver the benefits of new
technology to create the aviation system of tomorrow through
NextGen. We are working to safely integrate unmanned aircraft
systems into our airspace.
Earlier this month, we requested proposals to host six test
sites across the country to test unmanned aircraft systems. We
need to better understand the operational issues to safely
integrate unmanned aircraft into our airspace. We need to
explore pilot training. We need to make sure that unmanned
aircraft sense and avoid other aircraft in the system. If an
unmanned aircraft loses the link to its ground-based pilot, we
need to make sure that it operates safely.
In addition, we are requesting comments from the public
about how to address privacy concerns with these test sites.
Each site operator will be required to obey all laws protecting
an individual's right to privacy.
To bring NextGen to fruition, we need to collaborate across
the FAA and across the industry. Reauthorization asked us to do
this, and we have made great strides in collaborative efforts
on many fronts. We have worked with our labor unions to lay the
foundation for NextGen with the En-Route Automation
Modernization, or ERAM. The collaboration has been exceptional.
We are now using this new computer system to guide airplanes at
high altitudes at nearly half of our sites across the Nation.
Chairman LoBiondo, as you know, a lot of the research that
propels NextGen takes place in Atlantic City. The William J.
Hughes Technical Center plays a key role in fostering NextGen,
and we appreciate your support.
We are collaborating with industry. As a result of the work
we are doing with our many partners, we are producing
satellite-based navigation procedures much more quickly. We are
using these NextGen procedures right now to reduce the miles
that aircraft must fly to create more direct routes, to reduce
fuel burn, and to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Right here in
Metro Washington, DC, airlines have started using these NextGen
procedures to fly into Dulles and Reagan National. We estimate
the airlines will save $2.3 million in fuel per year.
Reauthorization laid out a vision to address the future
needs of our Nation's aviation system. These needs have not
gone away. It is important for us to work together to protect
the great contribution that civil aviation makes to our
economy. Aviation is our largest export industry. It
strengthens our balance of trade. It adds $1.3 trillion to the
economy, and provides for 10 million jobs.
I look forward to working with you, and I sincerely hope
that we can work together to make sure that America continues
to operate the largest and safest aviation system in the world.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, thank you very much. This will probably
be the first in a number of hearings and interchanges with the
FAA, since it is so comprehensive and there is so very much to
be gained from this moving in the right direction. So what we
don't cover today we are likely to cover in future sessions.
But just a couple of questions on sequestration. Mr.
Administrator, in your correspondence with the aviation
industry, you mentioned a plan to close about 100 towers as a
result of the sequestration. But I believe the FAA sent out a
list that has something like 235 or 40 towers that might close.
Can you maybe explain to us what the difference in these two
numbers would be?
Mr. Huerta. Certainly. The list that we provided
encompasses all towers that have 150,000 annual operations and
10,000 commercial operations. These are our lowest activity
towers. The principle that we were working from was to provide
the least impact on the largest number of travelers. Now, the
list represents the universe of facilities that we feel we need
to look at.
We are engaging in discussions with our labor partners and
the industry stakeholders to actually understand the specific
operating characteristics of each of those towers. But in order
to achieve the savings we need to achieve this year, we have to
cast a very broad net and look at a wide range of towers.
In terms of how and where we ultimately land, a lot of it
is determined by the ongoing contract tower review we have
underway, as well as the savings we can achieve this year. Our
effort is to minimize the impact on travelers, but these are
very significant cuts, and we have to look at our lowest
activity towers in order to preserve the maximum benefit for
the maximum number of travelers.
Mr. LoBiondo. Discussing the maximum benefit for the
maximum number of travelers, recognizing that all towers are
important, but certainly in some of our major metropolitan
areas where there are critical concerns about how this will all
work, and along with staffing, will such staffing-critical
facilities or areas be identified in advance of sequestration
and on a continuing basis? And what are your plans to try to
minimize for these major facilities?
Mr. Huerta. This is something that we have to look at, and
we are looking at it on a facility-by-facility basis. The
characteristics of each facility are quite different, and we
need to consider the impacts overall. I will give you an
example. We might have a modest impact through furloughs on
controller hours at large, complex facilities. But how it
affects the operations at those facilities will be very
dependent on the specific facts of that facility.
Let me give you a specific example. Chicago O'Hare
International Airport is one of our largest facilities, and it
has significant impacts across the entire system. It is a
somewhat unique facility, in that it operates with two air
traffic control towers, one on the north side of the airfield
that controls the north side of the airport, and one in the
center of the airport. It runs at a very tight level of
staffing. If we need to reduce controller hours, one factor
that we would need to consider is, in certain weather
conditions, we may need to close the north tower.
If we need to close the north tower, that effectively
removes a runway from operation. We would do everything that we
can to mitigate against that, but if we have fewer controller
hours to work with, these are the sorts of impacts that could
affect the large-hub airports.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. I will have some additional questions on
round two. Mr. Larsen, the floor is yours.
Mr. Larsen. If we can just continue a little bit on towers.
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Mr. Larsen. Can you tell me a little bit more about how you
will prioritize air traffic control traffic closures, how you
came up with 150,000 hours and 10,000 operations?
Mr. Huerta. Yes. The 150,000--it is annual operations, and
then 10,000 commercial operations.
Mr. Larsen. Oh, all right.
Mr. Huerta. What that represents is the universe of lower
level activity towers.
In terms of operations and passengers, they represent a
relatively small percentage of the total. But it is a large
number of facilities. The cost of operating these facilities,
through contracts, through utilities, through personnel costs,
are quite significant.
What we are focused on is, again: How do we maximize the
benefit for the maximum number of travelers? We do recognize
that some of these small facilities might serve unique needs.
For example, they might support some sort of a military
operation. That is a factor that we need to consider as we look
at our options. But for every facility that we are able to
preserve, we have to find an offsetting cost saving someplace
else. So we will just need to continue to work through that.
Mr. Larsen. So, in that sense, you do have some
flexibility, but you still have to meet an overall number.
Mr. Huerta. Correct.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Some have suggested that the FAA has--
could avoid furloughs, in part by saving over half-a-billion
dollars on consultants and $200 million on travel and supplies,
statements which seem to have been refuted by a fact-checker
article that ran today in the Washington Post.
Can you provide FAA's response to the suggestion that the
saving could be found through consultant contracts and through
travel and supplies?
Mr. Huerta. The $500 million figure that is referenced
represents the universe of contracts that are included within
our operations account. These contracts are not limited to
consultants. In fact, our estimate is that only about $21
million of that number would truly be designated as consulting
services. That represents only 1 percent of our total contract
obligations for last fiscal year.
What is included in this number are some very large service
contracts, the largest of which is a program called FTI, our
Federal Telecommunications Infrastructure program. That program
is about a $228 million program, that is the telecommunications
infrastructure that underlies the whole air traffic control
system. This is provided to us by a private contractor, but for
budget classification purposes, it falls into this larger
account.
Mr. Larsen. And the travel and supplies?
Mr. Huerta. Travel and supplies have been an area where we
have cut 30 percent over the last year, and I think we have
made significant improvement in our travel budget. The travel
that we are preserving is actually travel that is essential for
carrying out our safety mission.
For example, an aviation safety inspector needs to actually
visit a facility to provide inspections or a tech ops employee
actually needs to visit a facility in order to provide repairs
and needed maintenance for our facilities. So there is a level
of travel that is necessary for us to do our job to preserve
the safety of the system.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I see you don't have me on
the clock, and I want to be respectful of that. I have a couple
of rapid-fire questions, and then in the second round I will
probably move on to more mundane issues like the actual
implementation of the bill.
But let me ask you this, and I will end with just four
rapid-fire, yes-or-no kind of questions. On this topic of
sequestration, it has been suggested, as we have talked about,
the FAA could absorb possibly this half-a-billion dollars the
rest of the fiscal year without compromising efficiency. But
would you, first off, on the following actions, would you agree
that efficiency would be compromised if we took actions like
cutting a half-a-billion dollars?
First off, would the efficiency be compromised if we
furloughed the vast majority of all FAA employees?
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. Eliminating midnight shifts in over 60 control
towers?
Mr. Huerta. It would certainly have an impact, yes.
Mr. Larsen. Closing over 100 control towers.
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. Reducing preventative maintenance and
equipment--provisioning for FAA equipment?
Mr. Huerta. That introduces into the system a level of risk
that may result in delays in restoring services if a piece of
equipment breaks, or if something goes out of service.
Mr. Larsen. Great. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK, thank you, Mr. Larsen. Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huerta, the
controllers are all in an organization called the Air Traffic
Organization, or the ATO. Is that correct?
Mr. Huerta. That is correct.
Mr. Shuster. And that is a line of business?
Mr. Huerta. Correct.
Mr. Shuster. And its operating budget is $7.4 billion a
year, is that right?
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Shuster. And the 5-percent cut that applies to the $7.4
billion would be $370 million for ATO. Does that sound about
right?
Mr. Huerta. For a total, yes, that sounds about right.
Mr. Shuster. So could you find $30 million a month savings
in a $7.4 billion budget?
Mr. Huerta. As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, our focus is
starting first with a hiring freeze, then focusing on
contracts. In discussing the contracts, one of the things that
it is important to point out is that our largest contract is
the telecommunications infrastructure, so that is one that is
very important for maintaining the operation of the National
Airspace System.
Likewise, we are focusing in other contractual areas, and
we are taking significant reductions in things like training,
like travel, consulting services----
Mr. Shuster. So it sounds to me like you are headed down a
road to figuring out how to find that $30 million a month----
Mr. Huerta. But----
Mr. Shuster [continuing]. Without furloughs, without
jeopardizing safety. Is that correct?
Mr. Huerta. But the point is this. Our third largest
contract is for contract tower services. These are the lower
level towers that we talked about.
In addition, what we are shooting for is the amount of
money that we would need to achieve through furloughs. We are
making every effort to reduce that number as much as we can.
But I don't see any way to avoid it.
Mr. Shuster. You--so you don't think you can find $30
million a month in savings?
Mr. Huerta. We have identified a wide variety of savings,
but I don't think I can completely eliminate furloughs.
Mr. Shuster. Well, what I would just ask you and challenge
you to go back there. You know, the history of the FAA has been
one of financial stumbling and bumbling--before your time, but
there needs to be real reform in the financial management of
FAA. And I believe this is an opportunity for the FAA to go
back and go through these contracts. And it sounds like you are
doing that. And I know your reputation and your experience
before is excellent. But this is a time that we really need you
to sharpen the pencil of the FAA, go back, and I got to believe
you are able to find $30 million a month in a $7.4 billion
budget without the threat of furloughs, without the threat of
endangering safety.
So, I encourage you to go. This committee stands ready. We
have been working around the clock, looking at the budgets,
talking to the Budget Committee. We believe you have the
flexibility within those lines of business to move money, and
there just seems to me to be enough there to be able to figure
this out. So, again, I would urge you to do that.
Mr. Huerta. The sequester applies by project, program, and
account, and----
Mr. Shuster. Right.
Mr. Huerta [continuing]. We are looking within each of
those areas.
Mr. Shuster. Right.
Mr. Huerta. It does limit our flexibility. But----
Mr. Shuster. But in project, program, accounts, you do have
flexibility to move money.
Mr. Huerta. Within a single PPA.
Mr. Shuster. Correct.
Mr. Huerta. Correct.
Mr. Shuster. Which would be--the ATO is a line of business,
which is a PPA, correct?
Mr. Huerta. But the key point is that we need to focus on
what cuts can we get out of contracts, as I talked about.
Mr. Shuster. Right.
Mr. Huerta. We want to minimize the impact on personnel,
pay, and benefits. Right now, based on where we are, based on
where our contracts are, I don't see a way to avoid it. We will
continue to work on it.
Mr. Shuster. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. Mr. Rahall?
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, at
the risk of beating a dead horse, I have to return to the
closure of control towers and their effect upon rural
communities. You heard my opening comments and how important--
and I am sure you know how important these rural airports are
to the economies, to jobs in rural America. You know, as well
as I do, how much a sticking point essential air service was in
the last FAA reauthorization, which we are supposed to be here
examining today, and how I am sure it will continue to be a
sticking point in future reauthorization of the essential air
service program.
My question is, you know, of the 200-some hit list that you
issued as far as towers that may be closed around the country,
there were 5 in my State of West Virginia. My question is, have
you considered alternatives? I heard you respond to the
chairman's opening question you look at the numbers and all
that, the most effected traveling public. But have you
considered any alternatives to those towers that may be closed
in rural America?
Mr. Huerta. Obviously, we are trying to work closely with
industry to understand the impacts in each of these areas, and
that is a conversation that we began this week.
The reality is that we are looking at a series of bad
choices. As I mentioned, our overall principle has been how can
we protect the maximum number of travelers. That said, we are
looking at each of these facilities to understand their place
and how they contribute within the National Airspace System.
The challenge that we are going to have is for every one
that we identify the need to preserve at some level of
operation, we need to find some sort of a budget offset in
order to be able to meet the overall sequester total. That is
going to be the thing that we will need to achieve.
We have heard from some local sponsors that perhaps there
is a willingness to step in with local resources, and that is
something we would be able to consider. But those are the kinds
of discussions that we are in the middle of right now.
Mr. Rahall. OK. I am still not sure I heard any
alternatives to the closures in rural America. But please keep
that in mind. It is just so vital for so many areas. And I have
to add weather, as well.
Mr. Huerta. I understand.
Mr. Rahall. We have tragic weather events in rural America.
You know, those small rural airports are essential, as far as
air weather service, as well.
Let me ask you one further question on the--on what is
deemed essential employees. When we failed to reauthorize the
FAA for a period during the--that tumultuous period in 2011,
air traffic controllers continued to work as if they were
deemed essential employees. Why are they not deemed essential
employees under sequestration?
Mr. Huerta. The provisions of the Sequester Act are just
fundamentally different. Previous interruptions in funding have
generally operated under an assumption that the funding would
be restored on the back end. It is for that reason that the
Government has, as a whole, drawn the distinction between
essential and nonessential appointees.
The sequestration is a different framework, in that it is
actually a budget reduction that takes place that we need to
manage across all of the accounts of the FAA. We can't assume
that the funds will be restored, because we are not seeing
anything that would suggest that will be the case. So we have
no choice but to take the steps that assume that we will need
to operate at a lower funding level.
Mr. Rahall. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Administrator, for coming in. We
appreciate it.
My question is--it is real basic, to be quite honest with
you. What does this take you--if sequestration goes into place,
what does this take you back to? Funding levels in what year?
Staff tells me it is 2010.
Mr. Huerta. I think it is probably about 2008.
Mr. Graves. 2008 or 2010?
Mr. Huerta. There is----
Mr. Graves. Well, OK. Let's assume 2008. What is so much
different today--or then than today? I mean everything was
operating just fine in--is it 2010? OK. So what is so
different?
I mean I feel like the sky is falling at any moment now,
because of sequestration. But yet we are not really--we are not
going back that far.
Mr. Huerta. Yes. In the intervening years the FAA's
operations account has increased by about $910 million. Now
that is from 2008 to 2012. In that period of time, our
personnel costs increased by about $887 million. We have been
absorbing reductions in our nonpay spending for the last 5
years, and those cost savings have resulted in significant
savings across the wide variety of accounts.
I would also like to point out that we have spent a lot of
money for things the industry wants: to implement things like
advanced navigation procedures and develop new, much more
efficient, approaches and departures from airports. We do this
for a very important reason. The airlines want to see benefits,
and they want to save fuel, and they want to save on the cost
of operation in the system. All of that costs us money. It
costs money to develop and maintain these procedures. So we
have a much more complex aviation system than we had back in
2008, and it will continue to become more complex in the years
ahead.
I think that we have been successful in achieving savings
through things like strategic sourcing. But at our core, we are
a people-based organization, and our people costs have
increased in the intervening years.
Mr. Graves. Well, that--you know, more efficient approaches
in departures into airports and all, I mean, is that an ongoing
cost? I mean----
Mr. Huerta. It does.
Mr. Graves. It looks like that is one of the major things,
you know, obviously, that you have spent money on. But----
Mr. Huerta. It is.
Mr. Graves [continuing]. What did you do differently?
Mr. Huerta. It is an ongoing cost, because in addition to
developing procedures, which are new procedures at an airport,
we then have to maintain them. That carries with it costs
associated with regular maintenance, with flight-checking, with
ensuring its safety; all of which represent ongoing costs.
Mr. Graves. So you are talking about just changing--you are
coming up with, obviously, new approach procedures, which--you
are printing those and maintaining--what is it that you are
maintaining that is going to--that is costing so much money?
Mr. Huerta. Flight-checking it or providing for----
Mr. Graves. But you were doing that before. I mean----
Mr. Huerta. We are flight-checking----
Mr. Graves [continuing]. Procedures and departure plans in
and out of airports, I mean, they may have changed, but you
were doing that before, too, and you were flight-checking them
before, too, and you were--look, I just don't understand----
Mr. Huerta. We are flight-checking more of them.
Mr. Graves. OK, you are flight-checking more of them. And I
don't mean to belabor this, but you are not going back that
far. The sky isn't falling. We aren't going to have more
meteors hit because of sequestration.
It is just I don't understand why it is that the
Administration continues to take this attitude that the world
is absolutely falling apart as a result of this. And yet I
don't see that much changing, to be quite honest with you. And
maybe I am completely wrong, but the FAA, which I know very
well, you know, what you are doing, and your procedures and
processes and what it takes and all, and I just don't
understand the--you know, what the attitude is, you know. It
baffles me.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Graves. Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, I
congratulate both of you on your rising to leadership of this
subcommittee. I look forward to working with you over the next
2 years. I want to thank you also for holding this hearing on
implementation of FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act. And I am
going to surprise everyone by actually asking a question about
that Act.
While this Reform Act was not perfect, it provides guidance
and predictability to FAA as an agency that develops Next
General Air Transportation System, and works to meet the day-
to-day needs of the National Airspace System. So, I would like
to begin by asking about the status of section 221 of the bill,
which relates to NextGen public-private partnerships.
We all know that NextGen can't happen if planes don't have
new enhanced equipment. These upgrades aren't going to happen
overnight by themselves. That is why I was happy to work to
include section 221 in the bill, which authorizes the FAA to
establish an incentive program for equipping general aviation
and commercial aircraft with communications, surveillance,
navigation, and other avionics equipment necessary for NextGen.
Administrator Huerta, can you describe what the FAA has
done over the past year to implement the NextGen public-private
partnerships related to equipage?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. That has been a
discussion that we have been having on a continuous basis with
the stakeholders in the industry. What we wanted to develop was
an understanding with industry of how we would measure the
benefits, and what incentives that they actually need and are
looking forward to, in order to encourage them to participate
in the new system.
That got us very quickly into a conversation about
operational incentives, as well as financial incentives. An
operational incentive is essentially: How do I know that, if
there are advanced procedures, or if I can take advantage of
new technology, that a controller is actually going to be able
to allow me to use it? So that is related to developing the
metrics, and knowing, with certainty, that they will be able to
realize the benefits of fuel burn, reduced track miles flown,
and everything that goes with that.
Our stakeholders want us to deliver metrics for measuring
the delivery of these operational incentives. One of the things
that has become very clear in these conversations with our
industry stakeholders is the financial incentives, while
important, become less important if the operational benefit is
delivered. We are working closely with our stakeholders to
focus on how can we put more precision around those operational
benefits.
Mr. Lipinski. Are you saying you are not moving ahead with
the----
Mr. Huerta. No, no. But the two are related. The two are
related. You have to be able to demonstrate the operational
benefit.
On the financial benefit side, we do need appropriations
authority to proceed, but we are continuing to work with the
stakeholders to frame what financial incentives should look
like.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Yes. I can't yield back without
going on to everyone's favorite topic, here, the sequester. It
is amazing to me to hear that the sequester would actually be
worse for the flying public than if we had a Government
shutdown, where we have--essential employees will have to be at
work. But it just shows the craziness of what is going on right
now.
I wanted to ask a question, because this is what my
constituents are asking me. Midway Airport is in my district.
You talked a little bit about O'Hare, which is also important,
but I want to ask about Midway. What is going to be the impact
there at Midway? I have heard that perhaps the Midway tower
will be closed at night, and just wondered what--if that is
true, and what this would mean for local air traffic.
Mr. Huerta. Well, Midway Airport is one of those facilities
where we are considering a midnight closure. But we are in
conversations with the industry to understand what sort of
operations would be affected.
Again, what we are focused on is the universe of facilities
that fall into a certain category; 150,000 operations or 10,000
commercial operations or fewer. Then, as it relates to the
midnight closures, we look at those airports that have the
smallest number of midnight operations.
This is exactly the nature of the conversation that we are
having with the industry stakeholders. We need to understand
the impacts to the system and determine if there is a way to
mitigate them. Again, if we identify mitigations, we have to
find offsetting costs.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. A lot of people have questions, I
am going to yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Bucshon.
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
your testimony today, and for the work the FAA does on behalf
of the American people, including people in my district in
Indiana.
There has been a threat, because of sequester, the FAA will
have to furlough the majority of their 47,000 employees,
putting our Nation's air traffic and airport safety at risk.
But I personally find this hard to believe, since FAA funding
has increased 41 percent since 2002, despite the fact that
domestic flights are actually down by 27 percent in that same
timeframe.
In my State, in Indiana over the past 8 years, we have
streamlined and made more effective State government. And we
went from being $700 million in debt to a $2 billion surplus.
In fact, instead of tax increases, we have given every taxpayer
an automatic refund. When it comes to the number of State
employees, we have the same number of employees in Indiana that
work for the State that we had in the late 1970s, and
universally it is believed in my State that services from the
State government have dramatically improved.
With fewer employees, our government has worked better for
every citizen in the State. I would also like to say that was
done through attrition and retirements. No one was furloughed,
no one was laid off. This is making government more effective
and efficient.
With that said, I would like--my question, can you remind
us again what your annual budget is?
Mr. Huerta. Our annual budget is about $16 billion.
Dr. Bucshon. $16 billion. And what is your share of the
sequester cuts that the FAA will have out of your $16 billion
budget?
Mr. Huerta. $627 million.
Dr. Bucshon. $627 million. OK. If the sequester were half
that size, would that make a difference?
Mr. Huerta. Yes, if the sequester were a smaller number,
yes, it would----
Dr. Bucshon. As some people out there are proposing to
increase taxes to cover half of it and then still have some
cuts, you wouldn't have to furlough anybody if you had only
$300 million in cuts, versus $600 million?
Mr. Huerta. We are focused on, very broadly, what we can do
with contracts and what will be our pay and benefits cuts.
Right now, our planning is at the $627 million level. We
haven't seen any alternative to that.
Dr. Bucshon. OK. And the NextGen program--I guess there is
three programs related to implementation and developing this
modernization program. And do you have any idea what,
approximately, the cost overruns are on those so far?
Mr. Huerta. Our ADS-B program is within its baseline
budget. You may be referring to the En Route Modernization
Program that we re-baselined a couple of years ago. It is now
operating within its new baseline.
Dr. Bucshon. Because what I have, the data I have, shows
that of the three key modernization programs, cost overruns
have a combined total of about $4 billion. And so, my question
is where does that $4 billion come from if we have this much
cost overrun, trying to modernize the FAA? Where does that come
from?
And, I mean, just for everyone, $4 billion versus $600
million in cuts to the FAA, where does that money come from?
Where are you getting that money to continue to have
inefficiencies in the way that we spend the taxpayer dollar at
the FAA? I just find it hard to believe that, you know, if it
is--if we can spend more than $4 billion over what it is
supposed to cost, that we can't find $600 million in savings in
a $16 billion annual budget. Do you have any idea where that
money comes from?
Mr. Huerta. I am neither aware of which programs you are
talking about, nor the period of time that you are talking
about. But as we have testified before Congress for our annual
appropriations, we have explained where we are in each of those
programs, and Congress has been supportive of them.
Dr. Bucshon. So, what you are saying is each time we give
you more money?
Mr. Huerta. Every year we come before Congress with our
program plan for the year, and Congress has been supportive of
it.
Dr. Bucshon. OK. So if we give you--so we are giving you
more money on top of what we normally would appropriate to
cover that cost overrun. That is what you are saying?
Mr. Huerta. Again, I don't know what programs you are
speaking about, or the period of performance that you are
talking about. So I can't respond directly to----
Dr. Bucshon. OK, thank you. One last question, then.
Related to how our State has helped our State government by
making it more effective and efficient, do you know
approximately how many employees the FAA had in 2008? Have any
idea?
Mr. Huerta. I do not.
Dr. Bucshon. About 4 years ago. Right now there are about
47,000 employees.
Mr. Huerta. Correct.
Dr. Bucshon. You know how many of those are based in the
Washington, DC, area? Or is that spread throughout the country
pretty uniformly?
Mr. Huerta. Eighty-five percent of our employees are in the
field and outside of our major centers.
Dr. Bucshon. OK, great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
opportunity to serve with you on this subcommittee, and look
forward to working with you and Mr. Larsen.
Administrator Huerta, first I want to thank you for all the
courtesies you have shown Memphis. And you came down and we
dedicated the historic marker to Lt. Col. Weathers, historic
Tuskegee airman, at the Memphis Airport, and that was an
occasion of great significance to my community, and I thank you
for that.
How much discretion do you have, if any, in where these
cuts--I mean they have to go kind of across the board, but do
you have some discretion in the cuts, as far as which airports,
or which times, or how you implement them?
Mr. Huerta. The cuts need to be applied across the board
within a program, project, or account, as laid out in the FAA's
budget. The only exempt program is the airport improvement
program. Aside from that, our remaining three accounts--our
operations account, our facilities and equipment account, and
our research account--the cuts must be applied across the board
there.
Within each program, project, or account, there is some
ability to work within the account. But when you are talking
about an organization that is largely driven by people, that
flexibility is limited.
Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you this. You have estimated, I
believe, that in the larger cities--you said New York, San
Francisco flights--could be delays of up to 90 minutes. Is
there any way to--if you didn't do that, if you didn't have
these delays, would the alternative be risking safety?
Mr. Huerta. We are always going to err on the side of
safety. Now, that could mean that we would have a
disproportionate impact on efficiency. But we are always going
to be doing everything that we can to ensure the system is
safe.
Mr. Cohen. So These cuts, if they come about with
sequestration, unless the efficiency is sacrificed, which is
what you are going to have to do, would jeopardize, potentially
jeopardize, the flying public. Is that correct?
Mr. Huerta. Well, our focus is on maintaining a safe
system. Where I think we see the principal cost benefit is if
there is less efficiency.
Mr. Cohen. Is there any----
Mr. Huerta. Principal impact----
Mr. Cohen. Excuse me, sir, I didn't mean to cut you off.
Mr. Huerta. No, principal impact. I think I said something
else.
Mr. Cohen. OK. Everything that I have heard has been
referred--and it is important--on commercial traffic, or
passenger traffic. And that is important. We all fly back and
forth to Washington, and many people travel all over this
country and the world. But there is a commercial impact, as
well. And obviously, Federal Express and UPS deliver a lot of
product. Is there going to be--mostly they do a lot of their
work at night. Will there be an opportunity to look into the--
how will this affect their services, and will they absolutely
positively be able to deliver the next day?
Mr. Huerta. We had our industry forum a couple of days ago
where we met with members of industry. Both FedEx and UPS were
present. We understand the impact on the cargo industry and its
unique characteristics. That is a factor we need to consider as
we look at our actions.
Mr. Cohen. So it is a possibility that, since it is
nighttime, and there are not as much commercial, that it would
not be--the traffic wouldn't be interrupted.
Mr. Huerta. Well, again, we are looking at two factors. One
is total operations, the other is commercial operations.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Well I would just ask you--and I am
sure you will--when you look into the cuts, that you will
consider the impact that that could have on commerce. Because
what happens to FedEx--used to be what happens to General
Motors is what happens to America. Well, now it is what happens
to FedEx. So thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. Yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Meehan?
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me take a
moment, as my colleagues as well, to congratulate you on your
ascension to this seat, and I look forward to working with you.
And Administrator Huerta, as well, we welcome you and look
forward to working with you.
And I particularly, as a congressperson who represents the
city of Philadelphia and the airport outside the city of
Philadelphia, but the airport within Philadelphia, we look
forward to working with you on a number of the efficiencies
that the FAA is part and parcel of, including the
implementation of NextGen. So I am grateful for those efforts,
but look forward to your leadership in helping to push that as
effectively as we can.
I know in addition to--one of our challenges has been, as
you have discussed, looking at all the options, to reduce
costs. And as part of the Reform Act, there has been direct
responsibilities to look for ways to streamline the offices, to
seek greater efficiencies, and to eliminate wasteful practices.
So, as part of that process, one of the things that I know has
been undergone has been efforts to seek consolidation in
various places, including consolidations of the air traffic
control facilities in certain places.
Are you familiar in much detail with that planning at this
point in time?
Mr. Huerta. Yes. That is a high priority for us, because it
has the potential to yield significant long-term efficiencies
for the agency across the board.
Mr. Meehan. Are you familiar with--I am holding in my hand
an RFI, which is a request with respect to the air traffic
control facilities in the Northeastern United States. Are you
familiar with that project, itself?
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Meehan. Well, that is good, as well, because on the RFI
one of the things that I was sort of struck by was the idea
that you were looking for consolidation--was that you--the
request is for an interest in properties that can be sold, land
that can be sold to the United States.
Why are we selling--why are we looking to purchase property
when, arguably, there is a great deal of governmental property
that is out there that is underutilized?
Mr. Huerta. Well, that is certainly something that we are
also looking at. But the basic issue that we are looking at is
these air traffic facilities need an upgrade. We need to
replace facilities that, in some instances, are over 50 years
old. Long term, what we need to have is a property interest in
them to ensure that we do not have ongoing lease costs. Your
question is----
Mr. Meehan. Well, what kind of a property interest, though?
I mean the--you need a property interest.
Mr. Huerta. But----
Mr. Meehan. There is a lot of properties that the
Government already owns. We have a property interest in certain
locations, don't we?
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Mr. Meehan. I'm speaking--if we have a place in which there
is a viable, already-owned Federal facility, shouldn't that be
a preference over purchasing private property?
Mr. Huerta. It is very specific to the location factors in
question with that property. Clearly, we will look at it.
Mr. Meehan. What--tell me what the location factors are,
and how are they relevant to the decisionmaking.
Mr. Huerta. Well, we are considering the impact on
employees. What would relocation costs be associated with
relocating our employees? What are the utility costs? How is
the facility hardened, so that it can be a secure facility for
the management of air traffic? I mentioned that we need access
to utility services and access to the facility itself. Is it
well located? Are we able to reach it? There are a wide variety
of traditional location factors that any business would
consider.
Mr. Meehan. Well, I am reading this and it is saying--the
facility is asking for a facility that is located in the State
of New York within 150 miles of downtown New York City, but
located in the State of New York. Why must it be located in the
State of New York?
Mr. Huerta. The principal factor we are considering is how
to minimize the impact on the existing employees, who are
currently based on Long Island.
Mr. Meehan. And what are the--they are based in Long
Island.
Mr. Huerta. Long Island, New York.
Mr. Meehan. Where one of the factors is cost of living, and
things of that nature?
Mr. Huerta. That is a factor throughout the entire
Northeast.
Mr. Meehan. So if there is a region in which the cost of
living may be cheaper than actually living in New York, is that
a factor that will be considered, as well?
Mr. Huerta. We are considering the all-in cost of operating
the facility over its useful life.
Mr. Meehan. Are you familiar with the Willow Grove Naval
Air Station?
Mr. Huerta. I am not.
Mr. Meehan. Is it something that you can get yourself
familiar with in time to be responsive to this January 31st
request? It is within 150 miles of New York City, but it is not
within the city of New York or the State of New York.
So I don't understand why there would be a solicitation
that first would ask that we potentially purchase private
property, when we own public property, as a government entity
already. The Willow Grove Naval Air Station has been BRAC'd,
has been reduced, has security, has a lower cost of living than
that which exists in New York for your employees, and a variety
of other kinds of infrastructure that is already there,
including infrastructure in which they have been handling
flights for a period of time. Wouldn't those all be factors
that will be, I think, naturally conducive to sort of a
retrofitting of this?
Mr. Huerta. As I mentioned, I am not familiar with the
site. It is certainly something we can----
Mr. Meehan. Can I have your commitment, as this process
goes along, that we will not automatically have a preferential
consideration for one State? And then explain to me why that
preference would be there.
Mr. Huerta. You have my commitment to certainly look at the
site.
Mr. Meehan. You didn't tell me, though, why we would prefer
one State over another. Why?
Mr. Huerta. As I mentioned, it is to minimize the impact on
the employees based on Long Island.
Mr. LoBiondo. Excuse me, Mr. Meehan, you can go to round
two, if you choose. We are going to try to respect the other
Members. Thank you. Mr. Carson?
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Huerta,
you mentioned in your opening statement the issue of unmanned
aircraft systems, or drones. The reauthorization allows for
safe integration of civil, unmanned systems into our national
airspace by 2015 for missions such as search and rescue,
wildlife, and weather research, border patrol, and other law
enforcement purposes. As a former police officer, I am
particularly concerned about the challenge of balancing the
risk of privacy intrusions with the benefits of protection from
physical harm that drone technology can provide.
The reauthorization calls for the FAA to work in
collaboration with other appropriate Government entities to
develop an authorization or licensing process for civilian
drone operations. Please tell us what other Government entities
the FAA is working with, and the status of the drone
collaboration that is taking place right now. I have seen
reports about the work kind of falling behind schedule, and
would like to know if this is correct, and what can we do on
the subcommittee to get things on track.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. Carson. Unmanned aircraft
represents a very significant challenge for integration into
the National Airspace System. It also represents a very
significant opportunity. It is something that we are taking
very seriously.
Just a couple of weeks ago we released the screening
information request, inviting proposers to compete for
designation of one of the six unmanned aircraft test sites that
are called for within the reauthorization. We are expecting
that we will receive a lot of proposals. There has been very
significant interest in this. The purpose of the test site
designation is to develop data on how these types of aircraft
operate within the National Airspace System, and how they can
be safely integrated with manned aircraft that also operate
within the National Airspace System.
As we were developing the screening information request,
one thing that we learned--and I touched on it in my opening
statement--were that a lot of concerns were being raised with
respect to protecting individuals' rights to privacy. So it is
for that reason that we worked closely with other agencies
across the administration to develop a framework. At the same
time we are seeking proposals, we are also soliciting comment
on a proposed implementation of a privacy policy. Whoever is
selected would be expected to have a proposed privacy policy.
We have received a lot of comments on this, and we will
continue to receive a lot of comments.
With respect to safe integration of UAS, we have worked
very closely with our colleagues in the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the Department of Defense, and the
Department of Homeland Security. We have also had a lot of
conversations with State and local government entities. You
mentioned law enforcement as being one area where there is a
significant level of interest. We are expecting that a lot of
the proposals we will see will be in support of that particular
interest.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this
timely discussion. And thank you, Administrator, for being
here. I have a question, a local question.
I represent the Orlando area in Florida. Orlando
International Airport is at or close to one of the final--
largest final destinations in the world. And we get over 40
million visitors every year to our fine parks. And I would
imagine everybody on this panel has been there at some point in
time in their life, maybe even yourself.
Several years ago, they purchased--the Orlando
International Airport purchased some property next to their
airport for about $54 million. The U.S. Code requires that
airports should be as self-sustaining as possible. And so their
idea was to develop that with some commercial ventures so that
it would become more self-sustaining. Since 2007, they have
been attempting to work through the environmental process
necessary to get approval to use that land and began holding
hearings in 2008. And much of that has been stalemated, and
here is why it was stalemated. And I am just looking for
advice, or an answer to a question with advice.
The general counsel for the FAA has denied approval based
on National Environmental Policy Act and--because they need a
suitor that would be developed in a 5-year period of time, from
the time of approval. They have tried to get people to relocate
their maintenance facilities, and so forth. However, none of
them want to relocate without NEPA certification.
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Webster. So it is like a--we are against a brick wall.
We can't get anybody to come unless we have approval, we can't
get approval unless we have somebody coming. And so I am just
asking. Have you got any advice for me?
Mr. Huerta. Mr. Webster, I am going to have to get back to
you. I am not familiar with that particular issue, but I can
certainly consult with my staff and we can get back to you and
ensure we have the right people available.
Mr. Webster. Could somebody work with me on maybe coming to
a solution?
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Mr. Webster. OK.
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely.
Mr. Webster. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Maloney?
Mr. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to serve with you on the subcommittee; I am looking forward to
it very much. And to Mr. Larsen, as well.
I am tempted to--as the only New Yorker on this
subcommittee, I am tempted to correct my colleague from
Pennsylvania on the--on his misguided ideas on the superiority
of all things located in the State of New York. But because we
have limited time and out of respect for Mr. Huerta, let me
just focus on a couple of quick things.
I am very curious about the impact on small airports. I
represent the Hudson Valley.
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Maloney. Duchess County Airport is on your list of
facilities that may face tower closures. Would you just say a
word about what that means in practical terms for a small
airport like Duchess County?
Mr. Huerta. Well, what it means is if we find ourselves in
a situation where we need to close the tower at a smaller
airport, then the airport converts to a status of a nontowered
airport. There are procedures that are in place to operate
within a nontowered airport. In general, we provide approach
control to the facility, and then there are provisions that
kick in, in terms of how you actually arrive and depart the
airport.
In general, it is less efficient, because in inclement
weather, we rely on one in, one out, meaning that an airplane
needs to confirm that it is off the airfield before another
aircraft can be launched or can arrive at the airport. But
there are well-established procedures in place to operate at a
nontowered airport.
Mr. Maloney. Is it fair to say, though, that if you had
your preference, as a matter of safety, as a matter of
efficiency, you would never operate an airport in that manner
if you could avoid it?
Mr. Huerta. Well, I think it is fair to say that we are not
going to do anything that isn't safe. If you don't have a tower
on the facility, it is certainly going to be less efficient, in
order to preserve safety.
Mr. Maloney. Can I ask you the same question with respect
to the airports--many of the folks who I represent rely on the
airports in the New York City----
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Maloney [continuing]. Metropolitan area. Could you say
a word about the impact on those airports and what we can
expect?
Mr. Huerta. Well, the New York facilities are responsible
for some of our most complicated airspace in the NAS. In fact,
it is understood that how New York goes, in terms of
efficiency, does impact the overall National Airspace System.
The New York facilities are complicated for us to staff and
to maintain, and so any reduction in hours in those facilities
does create the potential for them to operate less efficiently
and to introduce delays into the system. That is one of the
factors that we are currently studying carefully.
Mr. Maloney. You know, I am curious. One of the things that
I think is lost in this conversation often is that this is not
a debate about whether we make cuts, since all of us agree that
cuts are necessary. But it is a debate about our choices and
our prioritization of choices. I was just on the House floor
talking about the cuts to West Point, one of our most
extraordinary American institutions, and the fact that we are
going to make the cadets suffer and do with less because we
won't make other choices about cuts.
And so, I am curious whether you have ever looked at the
impact of, for example, reducing the benefits to corporate jet
owners that would also be possible, as a reduction--as a--to
end a tax expenditure, and the impact that might have, or
whether it would have any impact on the efficiency and safety
of our airports.
Mr. Huerta. Well, I think this is all part of the larger
fiscal discussion that Congress and the administration have
been debating for many years. Over the last couple of budgets
the President has made proposals to provide additional
resources for the aviation system. But Congress and the
administration haven't been able to reach agreement that
defines what a way forward would look like.
So now we find ourselves in a situation of looking at
reductions. I think that the contribution of the aviation
system, as a whole, is very significant. I think it is
important that we all come together and figure out how best to
support this important industry that in turn, supports the
economy. It is our largest export industry.
Mr. Maloney. Well, thank you, Mr. Huerta. Thank you for the
work you do. Thank you for the service you provide to the
American people. I think that it is very easy to criticize the
work of folks in our Federal agencies, but the work you do
every day gets us around the country and makes us safe. So
thank you for your service. And I yield back my time.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Administrator Huerta. I represent the district of Kentucky that
contains the Cincinnati Airport, CVG Airport. So air travel is
very important to our district. And having spent most of my
career in business, and having spent a recent stint as a county
administrator, I can appreciate the task that you have in front
of you in balancing your budget in the face of the belt-
tightening that we have.
But usually it comes down to prioritization when you are
trying to make the cuts that are necessary to balance the
budget. And so, within my district I have--you know, I am new
to Congress, but I have received hundreds of phone calls
already, and I have received phone calls from people who are
concerned about privacy issues of unmanned aircraft, and also
from pilots in our district who work at CVG about the safety of
them. So--and I understand that is going to be a tough problem,
integrating those unmanned aircraft into the airspace. But
the--none of the constituents in my district have called me and
kind of pounded on me and said, ``We need to integrate unmanned
aircraft now,'' or ``today,'' but they all care about passenger
air travel.
So, the question I have for you is, if you had the
flexibility to do it, if you could delay the implementation of
the unmanned aircraft systems that you have been tasked with
doing, how much could you save from the budget, and would that
help with the sequester belt-tightening?
Mr. Huerta. These are all difficult choices. I think that
what we are actually spending right now out of the FAA budget
in our unmanned aircraft office represents a relatively small
percentage of the budget, because what we are principally
focused on is the designation of a national policy, as well as
the designation of the test sites.
The determination we need to make is for safe integration
of these aircraft into the National Airspace System. Longer
term, as we hit the 2015 deadline for integration, and as UAS
become more prevalent through the NAS, they would become a
significant operating cost. But that is not the case today.
Mr. Massie. OK. Can you give me a rough idea of what
portion of the budget--I don't entertain any fantasies it would
solve the sequester by delaying this indefinitely. But, you
know--and my experience tells me that you are going to have to
find a lot of small cuts----
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Massie [continuing]. Across the board. So what would be
the order of magnitude of the budget for implementing the
unmanned aircraft systems?
Mr. Huerta. I think I would be better advised to take an
IOU and actually get back to you with an exact number there.
Mr. Massie. OK. Could you put that in the written portion
of the record?
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79556.006
Mr. Massie. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huerta, I--you
know, there has been a lot of talk about your flexibility here,
and I am still trying to--it would have been better if you
brought, like, a chart that showed, you know, how things were
affected. We even have these--you know, you could have
displayed it up there.
But this is a statement today from an OMB official, and he
said, ``The way the sequester law is written is that even
underneath the account, even at the program, project, and the
activity, they all need to be cut by the same percentage.'' And
then he goes on to actually say, ``So, for example, the FAA,
they have to cut resources in a way that is going to impact the
air traffic controller workforce.''
What he talks about here are program, project, and
activity. Can you sort of explain how that flows down to your--
the controller workforce? Are they an activity? What are they--
what--in OMB-speak, what are they?
Mr. Huerta. The program, project, and activity are the
actual budget lines within the budget. It is cut according to
the nature of the accounts that we have.
Starting at the top, we have four accounts that are funding
categories for the FAA: the operations account, which is the
largest; the airport improvement program is the next largest;
then the facilities and equipment account; and then the
research and development account, which is very small.
Each of those accounts are allocated across the lines of
business of the FAA, one of which is air traffic. In order to
achieve cost savings in the operations account, I have to find
the equivalent percentage out of that particular activity
within that account. That account is largely people. I am doing
everything that I can to focus on cutting contracts, but that
is why it comes down to furloughing controllers.
Mr. DeFazio. And there is no--I mean you can't say, ``Well,
we are just going to do administrative cuts,'' not--things that
would affect it longer term--it would have an impact on the
organization at an administrative level, but it has actually
got to get down to the operations level.
Mr. Huerta. Yes. The key point is that we are a field-based
organization. We are a very large organization, but 85 percent
of our people are actually in field facilities providing
aviation safety and air traffic functions.
Mr. DeFazio. And I haven't--we haven't recently revisited
this issue but, you know, we have been concerned over a number
of years about the attrition, the retirements, the number of
fully trained controllers versus controllers who are still--I
mean how many, you know--where is your workforce now, in terms
of a percentage of 100 percent?
Mr. Huerta. Well, our total headcount now is about 47,000
people, of which about 15,000 are controllers. This is the
largest single category of our workforce. That category does
not include any of the frontline supervisors or managers that
actually run the air traffic facility, nor does it include the
people who maintain the equipment that the controllers use to
actually carry out their jobs. Our next largest category of
employees are aviation safety inspectors. Those are individuals
that perform the safety oversight function for all segments of
the aviation industry.
In terms of the composition of our workforce, we are an
older workforce. We do project that between now and 2014, about
a third of our workforce will become eligible to retire. Now,
that is the become eligible; that is not to say that they
actually will retire. But it is for that reason that, a couple
of years ago, we began the process of really trying to bring up
a new class of employee into the system. It takes us a couple
of years to train a controller, so there is a natural bubble
that you have if you are expecting a lot of retirements. You
have to hire up in anticipation of those requirements.
Mr. DeFazio. Mightn't, you know, people getting notices of
furlough who are senior--I assume if you apply this, there is
probably some rules about--personnel rules. You can't just say,
``Well, we are just going to apply the rules to those who
aren't fully qualified, but not apply the furlough to those who
are fully qualified,'' because they are all under the same
bargaining agreement. Correct?
Mr. Huerta. Well, we need to find savings across the entire
workforce. If we were to make some exception in one area, it
actually means we have to hit in another area harder.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Huerta. That actually introduces more inefficiency into
the system.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Would--just last question. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the tolerance. But don't you believe it might
accelerate your retirements if, you know, these senior people
start getting notices that, well, you are going to be
furloughed one or two--it says per pay period. Is it biweekly?
Mr. Huerta. A pay period is 2 weeks.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Do you think that would hasten
retirements?
Mr. Huerta. I can't speculate on it. We have been operating
in a difficult fiscal environment for the last couple of years.
But it all depends on what options are available to the
individual employee. We have seen an acceleration of
retirements, just due to budgetary uncertainties.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Daines?
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Steve Daines from
the State of Montana, another one of these rural States. And
the gentleman from West Virginia also had some concerns about
what is going on in some of the States that are sometimes
called flyover States, but we do have airports.
Mr. Huerta. Mr. Daines, one of my favorite States is
Montana.
Mr. Daines. Oh, thank you.
Mr. Huerta. I have visited it many times.
Mr. Daines. We share a common favorite.
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Daines. Well, and I am grateful for, truly, what you do
to provide safe travel. My wife and four children are grateful,
too, that I can do this job because of safe and reliable
airspace.
I have spent 28 years in the private sector. I have just
joined Congress. And many times I have had to deal with these
kind of situations, the curve balls that come of finding ways
to tighten up budgets in the middle of fiscal year.
Relating back to maybe the Montana question, the
eliminating the midnight shifts, some of the air traffic
control, as well as reduction in towers, any sense of about how
many dollars that might represent, that we are looking at for
savings? And this is not a Montana--just looking at the 60 and
the 100 that you talked about, the 60 ATCs and the 100 towers.
Mr. Huerta. It is dependent on the status of the facility,
whether it is a contract tower or whether it is an FAA tower.
In general, what I am expecting is that as a result of the
closures of contract towers, the cost savings would be in the
area of somewhere between $45-$50 million this year.
Mr. Daines. OK. In this fiscal.
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Daines. And I was chatting--I am kind of a numbers guy
at heart running businesses, and I know you never appreciate
people looking over shoulders on budgets. My understanding is
we were about $100 million underspent in the first quarter.
Now, there may be some seasonality issues, I understand that.
Could you----
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Mr. Daines [continuing]. Talk to that a little bit?
Mr. Huerta. Yes. We do have seasonal issues. In the first
quarter we did, indeed, run at less than one-quarter of our
total Federal allocation. But we also ran ahead of what our
typical first quarter costs have been for the last 2 years.
The reason for that is that many of our large services
contracts get paid in the second half of the year. For example,
I mentioned the telecommunications program that we talked about
earlier. The second half of the year also includes the summer
travel season. That is when we would ordinarily experience
significant overtime, because we don't hire up for the summer.
What we actually do is cover the increased demand on the air
traffic system through overtime.
Mr. Daines. Do you--I have seen this phenomenon, I guess,
in a number of agencies, where the last month of the fiscal,
the last week of the fiscal, is kind of a spend it or lose it.
Do you have that experience at the FAA?
Mr. Huerta. That is something that I certainly have been
trying to stamp out ever since I got here.
I also come out of business. My own experience is that the
important thing is to effectively manage your resources
throughout the year, so as to ensure that you are hitting your
budget limit exactly as you should at the end of the year.
The problem that we have with the sequester is, in
business, you would have much more flexibility. It is the
determination that this project, program, and activity must
receive an equivalent percentage of cuts that limits our
flexibility. This means that we are not able to take a long-
term view, and that really challenges us.
Mr. Daines. Well, I appreciate your efforts to try to stamp
out that Dilbert hockey stick at the end of the fiscal year,
which is part of the problem here in this town, of spend it or
lose it, in terms of accountability.
One other question. There was a letter out last Friday to
the industry, where you and Secretary LaHood stated you
expected airlines to change their schedules and perhaps cancel
flights. Have you heard anything from the airlines that might
back up that prediction?
Mr. Huerta. It is a little early to tell. We met with the
airlines earlier this week and talked about what the impacts
would be. One of the things that came up in that conversation
was a discussion of a concept called debanking. What happens at
large hub airports is that airlines tend to put their flights
in a peak period of time, and that is called a bank of flights.
What that does is it minimizes connection time.
One of the points that was made by the air carriers was
whether that might be a factor that they could consider to
change. But they also have to consider what happens on the
other end, particularly for international flights. For example,
Europe is closed at night. So that limits the ability of an
airline to adjust their schedule on our end, because they have
to work within whatever the hours of operation are in that part
of the world.
It is a complicated undertaking. This is something that
each carrier is going to need to work through. They need to
consider the tradeoff of frequency versus reliability if they
are operating with a tighter window, in terms of scheduling
flights. That is a decision that they will each make
individually.
Mr. Daines. Yes.
Mr. Huerta. We have a command center program, where we get
together with the airlines every day. One of the things that we
want to understand is what their plans will be, because that
affects what our plans need to be.
Mr. Daines. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK, thank you. Mr. Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Huerta, for being here. Mr. Huerta, I am just curious. Not
curious. Bottom line, $627 million worth of cuts is what you
are looking at at the moment. Hopefully some smaller number if
somebody gets some little sanity around here. But a big cut. Is
that a fair----
Mr. Huerta. That is fair.
Mr. Capuano. My presumption is that you don't have an
account somewhere in the FAA that is labeled ``waste, fraud,
and abuse.'' Is there a line item with that title?
Mr. Huerta. I do not have a line item with that title.
Mr. Capuano. Yes. And with your business background, I am
sure that you are very keen on getting rid of any waste, fraud,
and abuse that might be in the accounts. Is that a fair
statement? Or do you like waste, fraud, and abuse?
Mr. Huerta. That would be a fair statement. I do not like
waste, fraud, and abuse.
Mr. Capuano. I was hoping to hear that. I am glad to hear
that.
I guess--I hope you realize that Members of Congress are
going to be hit with the sequester as well, on our office
budgets, and we are going to be cutting around the same
percentage, and that range is what we have been led to believe,
in the 5-percent range. And from what I know, I have been
hearing a lot of Members and committee Chairs telling me that
they may have to lay off staff, and they may have to lay off
committee staff, or leave positions unfilled. So, if we can't
do it, is it fair and reasonable to think that you should be
able to do it without cutting personnel?
Mr. Huerta. Everything that I am seeing today indicates
that, in spite of all the work we have done on contracts, and
with hiring freezes, I still don't see a way to get to the $627
million without furloughing employees.
Mr. Capuano. And I apologize being out today. I am on
another committee that has Chairman Bernanke there. I assume
that no one here suggested any specific cuts that would total
$627 million. Did I miss that today?
Mr. Huerta. No.
Mr. Capuano. So that you are faced with a situation that is
obviously impossible. With--and I believe--it is my
understanding that the FAA's top priority is safety, as it
should be. We all accept that, we all agree with that. We all
embrace it and hold it as an absolutely firm commitment. I know
you share that, so I don't have to ask that question.
But within the bounds of safety, within the bounds of
safety, I guess--I am going to ask you the same question I
asked Chairman Bernanke. As I read through these cuts, are any
of these cuts things that you think should happen, regardless
of economic situations? Do you think that we should be cutting
TSA employees? Do you think that we should be closing airports?
Do you think that we should be closing down or limiting air
tower operations? Do you think that that is a good thing for
the country, no matter--again, regardless of the economic
situation we face at the moment, is this something you would be
doing, if you weren't forced to be doing it?
Mr. Huerta. The aviation industry is a significant
contributor to the economy of the United States. We want to
maintain as safe and efficient an aviation system as we
possibly can. We are never going to compromise on maintaining a
safe system, so what suffers is efficiency. If the country
wants a less efficient aviation system, we will manage to do
that.
Mr. Capuano. So I guess--is it fair to paraphrase what you
are saying, that the sequester, as it applies to the FAA in
today's economy, in today's world, and our desires and demands
as an economy, that the sequester as currently enacted and as
what you will be implementing as of Friday is basically a
stupid idea?
Mr. Huerta. I think that I would say that it is a difficult
program to administer under the rules that it is structured
under.
Mr. Capuano. Well, I--that is a very nice way to--in my
opinion, I think you just said it was a stupid idea, but that
is OK. I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.
I guess as you make these cuts, you are going to make--
again, first thing should be safety. We all agree with that. No
cuts should be made that will impact safety whatsoever. I fly
as frequently as anyone. So I am not looking to be unsafe,
either.
But there will come a time when you have to decide which
airport to close, or which air tower to close. And I would hope
that it is taken into consideration that those of us who are
supportive of the FAA's mission, both in safety and economic
activity, that that is taken into consideration.
When you have to make these tough choices--and I say this
as a former mayor. I had to make cuts, too, my first 2 years as
mayor, 15 percent per year for 2 years in a row for the same
reason. There were cuts imposed on the city at the time. First-
year cuts really not too tough, we did them, nobody liked them,
but we did things that people didn't see. Apparently you can't
do that. We did a lot of capital cuts. With the AIP being
exempted, you won't be able to do that as much. But so be it.
But there comes a time when you have to make a decision. I
can only plant two trees. Guess which decision I made? The
trees went to the people that understood that Government played
a positive role. When it comes time to close towers, when it
comes time to cut those TSA employees so that my constituents
are standing in longer lines, my hope is that you remember who
stood with the FAA, who stood with the flying public to try to
avoid these stupid cuts. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Radel.
Mr. Radel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for
being here today. I am actually going to deviate off sequester
for a second here.
The FAA, it appears, is planning to impose a new regulation
regarding what is called one engine inoperable restrictions.
Just for a real--a simple context for everyone here, basically
around airports, as a matter of safety, there are restrictions
on how high you can build a building----
Mr. Huerta. That is correct.
Mr. Radel [continuing]. Near the airport. But it appears
that a new regulation would create more limits and stretch it
out even further, expanding the range. We really don't have a
lot on this, except a PowerPoint presentation here given out at
what appears to be at some sort of a conference.
Just a real quick question first, Mr. Huerta. Can you tell
me how many one engine inoperative takeoff incidents resulted
in any fatal crashes last year or the past few years?
Mr. Huerta. None have resulted in fatal crashes.
Mr. Radel. No fatal crashes. So we know the FAA is here to
protect Americans, ensure our safety, safety of the airspace,
but there are also real-world consequences. You come with a
background of business.
With that said, can you tell me? Is this going to happen?
Is this stringent rulemaking, even though we have a low-
probability occurrence, is this in the works?
Mr. Huerta. Let me talk first about what it is.
Mr. Radel. Sure.
Mr. Huerta. It is a safety regulation to deal with the
possibility, as rare as it might be, that one engine going out
in an aircraft on departure would need to have a larger clear
zone so as not to collide with a building or structure within
the immediate area of the airport.
This is an issue that we are continuing to review. We are
working with, and seeking the input of, interested parties to
come up with a balanced public policy solution, in addition to
assessing the economic impact on airports, airlines, and the
local development efforts that are impacted. We are committed
to supporting the airports in their efforts to be good partners
in the communities they serve. We haven't made any decisions;
we are still in the fact-finding stage. These conversations
will continue.
Mr. Radel. OK, good. That is all reassuring, because in the
State of Florida and the district I represent, potentially this
would negatively impact us. There are--within that presentation
to--Miami in particular would be severely impacted by this. And
it kind of scares me when I see this being kicked around, that
even though we don't have, you know, evidence of fatal crashes,
again, I understand protecting people. But when I see--we need
something with--quote and in big capital letters--``TEETH.'' We
need something with teeth.
Will you conduct a cost benefit analysis as this moves on
to determine whether this is necessary or not?
Mr. Huerta. We are certainly considering all the input that
we have, and we have to find the right balance of economic
impact and safety, which we are committed to doing.
Mr. Radel. OK. All right. Thank you. I yield the rest of my
time. Thank you.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations to you. This is my 25th year on this
subcommittee, so obviously I think it is a very important and
fascinating subcommittee, and I know you will be a great
chairman for it.
Mr. Administrator, I apologize to you because I had to be
at another committee hearing for a while, and I didn't get to
hear your statement. And probably you have responded to this,
but I assume you have seen the release put out by Chairman
Shuster in which he says the United States continues to see a
smaller airline industry, domestic flights are down 27 percent
from 2000 traffic levels between 2002 and 2012, FAA's
operations account has increased by 41 percent, or almost $3
billion. I would like to know your response to that.
And then, secondly, that same release says there are $2.7
billion in nonpersonnel operations costs, including $500
million for consultants. And I have been told that many or most
of those consulting contracts have been given to former high-
level FAA employees or retired FAA employees, and also that
almost every contract that the FAA puts out goes to a company
that has former high-level FAA employees. And I would like to
know if you have ever looked into that. It is referred to at
the Pentagon as a revolving door, but I understand that there
is a revolving door--a pretty active revolving door--at the
FAA. And I would like to hear your response to both of those
things.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Taking the first
question, it is true that overall domestic flights are down
from 2007. But in key cities, the 30 or 35 core airports,
traffic has rebounded to 2008 levels. What we have seen is a
concentration of traffic within these large and complex
systems.
While we have been reducing our out-of-pocket costs, we
have been increasing capacity in the National Airspace System
in several key areas. Let me give you a few examples.
We have new runways at Washington Dulles Airport,
Charlotte, Atlanta, Denver, and Chicago that give us greater
capacity at these critical and large hubs. We have also been
implementing more navigation procedures at a large number of
airports, including area navigation and required navigation
performance, which are procedures that enable air carriers to
fly much more fuel-efficient routes. But the development of
these procedures is something that costs money.
In addition, we have spent a lot of time developing new
techniques that enable us to have simultaneous arrivals at
closely spaced parallel runways which also provides additional
runway capacity. These represent additional operating costs to
the system.
I think the key point is that, yes, while domestic flights
in total might be down, what we are seeing in our largest and
most complex facilities is that flights are actually up, and
that airspace is more complex.
Let me turn to your second question, and that is the
account that you referred to of $500 million in consultant
fees. That is a large account that includes a variety of our
services contracts. For example, the largest contract in that
is the FAA's telecommunications infrastructure contract, which
annually has a cost of $228 million. Since it is not a
construction contract, it falls, as a services contract, into
this particular category. That contract is the communications
backbone for the entire air traffic control system.
Of the $500 million, our estimate is that only about $21
million is something that you would truly call consultant
services, which includes our environmental, industry, and
management consultants.
I also want to address the point that you raised with
respect to our procurement process. That is something that I
have taken an active interest in. We have a very structured
process of selecting contractors, which does not involve me or
anyone in my office. What it is very focused on is ensuring
that we are getting the best value for the Government,
according to a very structured and data-driven process.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, in your
letter last Friday you stated in that letter part of an ongoing
dialogue, I guess, between the FAA, unions, aerospace users, et
cetera, which of these groups have been part of developing this
plan to furlough the some 47,000 FAA employees, you know, to
close the towers, you know, the midnight shifts? Which ones
have been in part of that plan involved with you?
Mr. Huerta. What we have developed at this point is our own
internal proposal of a way to get there. We have begun the
process of working with all of the stakeholders across the
industry, both the workforce as well as the users of the
system, to talk through the details. That work is ongoing.
Mr. Meadows. So the dialogue that you have been having
really hasn't included them as part of the plan. You have come
up with a plan and now you are conveying that to them? I----
Mr. Huerta. No. We presented it as a universe of things we
want to talk about, and we are seeking their input before we
finalize anything.
Mr. Meadows. OK. So there is not a plan to really furlough
at this point.
Mr. Huerta. There is, at this point, a scenario where what
we look at is that based on what we know about our contracts,
what our efforts resulted in, and the benefits that we are
seeing from the hiring freeze that we have put in place. Based
on this information, we see no way to close the funding gap
without looking at furloughs. But that is a conversation that
is ongoing.
Mr. Meadows. OK. So let me make sure I am clear. There is
not a plan specifically today to furlough any employees. Is
that correct?
Mr. Huerta. There is a program that we have developed, and
we are going to use the coming weeks to work with the industry
to finalize the details.
Mr. Meadows. OK. So in any rhetoric that we have with
regards to ``We are going to furlough X number of employees for
this length of time'' is not in place at this point. Is that
correct?
Mr. Huerta. We don't see a scenario where we can do this
without furloughs. What we are looking to do is minimize the
number of furlough days.
Mr. Meadows. OK. And you have made that decision without
input of unions and the aerospace users, is that correct?
Mr. Huerta. That is a discussion that we are having right
now, in consultation with all those parties.
Mr. Meadows. OK. Let me go on a little bit further. You
know, as--in your letter--and, actually, I read this yesterday.
We talked about 90-minute traffic delays in Chicago, Atlanta,
and--and I fly in and out of Atlanta quite a bit. And so to
accurately say a 90-minute delay, it amazes me that you can
come with that kind of accuracy to do that. But in doing--what
data, specifically, are we looking at to calculate, because of
sequestration we are going to have a 90-minute delay in those
major hubs?
Mr. Huerta. I can't tell you with precision that it would
be 90 minutes every day. Let me talk about a specific example.
Atlanta currently operates under an arrival stream of three
simultaneous arrivals. Atlanta is fortunate that it has
multiple parallel runways. It is an airport that has the
potential to operate very efficiently
If I have fewer controller hours available to me, then I
have to allocate them to the most efficient allocation of
airspace sectors to maintain safety.
Mr. Meadows. OK.
Mr. Huerta. Under certain conditions such as the number of
controller hours available and weather conditions, that may
mean that I need to leave certain positions vacant, which could
restrict the arrival stream to two, as opposed to three.
Mr. Meadows. OK.
Mr. Huerta. That has an impact on efficiency.
Mr. Meadows. All right. But from a data standpoint, so what
you are saying is this is an overarching macro kind of, well,
if we have got less people there is going to be delays in these
major hubs. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Huerta. That is exactly what we are now working through
with the stakeholders. For example, we are working with the
users of the system in Atlanta to figure out how we would
manage this.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I guess my concern is--following up from
my first question, if there is not a plan that you are
currently in dialogue with those stakeholders, as you say, and
there is not any precise data, to come out and say that we have
90-minute delays is problematic, because if we don't have a
plan, we are not sure what we are going to not have, in terms
of air traffic controllers. Is that correct?
Mr. Huerta. I think what we are saying is these are
illustrative of the impacts we would expect to see.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so your--so there is no
incentive to make sure that we don't have these 90-minute
delays in Chicago or Atlanta or----
Mr. Huerta. Oh, quite to the contrary, I think that our
incentive is to minimize inconvenience for the maximum number
of travelers----
Mr. Meadows. OK, so assuming that sequestration happens, is
that something that you can manage?
Mr. Huerta. It is very difficult to manage, given the rules
of the sequester, and that is what we have been saying all
along. The fact that we have to take these cuts by program,
project, and account, and they have to be evenly distributed
within this fiscal year, is a significant challenge to manage.
Mr. Meadows. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point
out the irony, Administrator, that if you did have a line item
of waste, fraud, and abuse of $627 million, under the sequester
rules you could only cut that 8 to 10 percent.
Could you rate the FAA's performance in collaborating with
labor, since enactment of the bill on the issue of decisions
you are making on NextGen technologies and facility
consolidation?
Mr. Huerta. I think that we have developed a very
cooperative relationship with the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association, and in fact, all of our labor
organizations. We think that is a very good investment.
These are the people that are in the field that have the
firsthand knowledge of how the facilities operate. They have
great ideas, and they approach these collaborative
decisionmaking processes with a level of enthusiasm that is
truly remarkable. It is something that I am personally very
committed to, and I know that our colleagues in labor are very
committed to as well. In fact, everyone at the FAA who has been
involved in this will tell you that the work that is being done
by these groups is really without comparison. Let's just take
the work we are doing to optimize airspace procedures.
You are familiar with a program called Greener Skies Over
Seattle, which is a redesign of the airspace to develop much
more efficient arrival and departure routes into the Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport. That is something that we are
doing cooperatively with the people that actually work in the
facilities at the surrounding airports. In addition, we are
working with the Boeing Company, the Port of Seattle, the
people that operate the facilities, and our military partners.
It is a process that takes you a little longer on the front
end, but the benefits you get on the back end are dramatic.
This eliminates situations where you implement something and
you learn, belatedly, from the people in an air traffic control
tower center, ``Oh, this doesn't work, and if you had simply
asked me upfront, you would have known that this won't work for
the following reasons.'' So this collaborative process is
working very, very well.
Are there ways to make it better? There always are. We
continue to be--to focus on that. One of the challenges that we
need to continue to manage is that people are investing a lot
of time in this. This is something that costs a lot of money. I
think it is money well spent, because I think we get a better
aerospace system as a result, but these are some of the things
that we also have to look at as we look at the possibility of
the sequester.
Mr. Larsen. Right. Well, some other questions on
implementation. Section 204 requires a selection of a chief
NextGen officer. Where is the FAA in that process?
Mr. Huerta. Our concept is that the chief NextGen officer
will be the Deputy Administrator of the agency. When I first
joined the agency back in 2010, it was as the Deputy. As the
Deputy, I informally acted as the chief NextGen officer. With
the passage of FAA authorization, I would have become the chief
NextGen officer, had I not become Acting Administrator. That is
still our plan.
We are well along the way to selecting a Deputy
Administrator. That person will be the chief NextGen officer.
Mr. Larsen. Section 608 requires a study on air traffic
controller study--sorry, staffing. Where is FAA on that?
Mr. Huerta. On the air traffic controller staffing, I
believe we are in review on that, and we should provide the
study shortly to the committee.
Mr. Larsen. OK, good. And then also on staffing of FAA
system specialists under 605, where is the FAA?
Mr. Huerta. Yes, let me get you some exact dates for those.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much. With regards to flight
3407----
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Larsen [continuing]. I want you to discuss the
implementation of the two pilot training rules required. And
are the completion of these rules--first off, are they--where
do they sit in your priorities? And second, can you just review
again whether or not you are going to meet timelines you have
laid out for completion?
Mr. Huerta. These two rules are my two highest priorities
to complete this year. As it relates to the pilot
qualifications--that is the hours of qualification for the
pilots--that is on track to be completed in August of this
year. It is important that it be completed in August of this
year, because this is a provision that becomes self-executing
even if the rulemaking doesn't hit that timetable.
With respect to the pilot training rule, as you know that
is a very complicated rule. I have given my commitment to have
that rule completed by October of this year, and I intend to
hit that.
Mr. Larsen. Just a few more questions, Mr. Chairman. And I
do have a set of questions after everyone is done, just to
finish up. No? OK. Thank you very much. Watch me.
Rulemaking on ADS-B technology. Where are you--where is FAA
on that?
Mr. Huerta. We convened an aviation rulemaking committee on
ADS-B. They provided us with some very useful information. One
of the things they noted was there is a great deal of
skepticism and concern on the part of the industry about a
mandate. We are currently working through that issue with them
to see how to work through it before we can then commence any
sort of a formal rulemaking process. We are trying to figure
out how we can reach agreement with the stakeholders on this
issue.
Mr. Larsen. All right. And you may have mentioned this, the
framework for consolidation and realignment of FAA's facilities
as the report required in 804.
Mr. Huerta. That is a very complicated undertaking for us.
The important thing is to get it right. We have had, as you
well know, Mr. Larsen, many false starts in trying to
consolidate facilities. That has been because we haven't had
consistent criteria and repeatable processes to look at how to
consolidate. We haven't taken account of the airspace impacts,
which would enable us to actually yield substantial savings.
So, our focus is on correcting those problems, working
collaboratively with our unions to figure out how best to
structure that program. It has taken longer than we would like,
but I think we are making good progress.
Mr. Larsen. I have one final question in round two, and it
goes back to greener skies. I appreciate what you have said
about talking to stakeholders, making sure everyone is
involved.
Naturally, as you know, when you changed flight patterns
you go over people's houses that you weren't--that planes
weren't going over before. So, as a result, we have heard
concerns from local electeds there reflecting what they are
hearing from people about increased noise. And I am just
wondering how you are approaching the involvement of the
community itself in communicating the value of greener skies,
and what can be done to address their issues.
Mr. Huerta. We have had a lot of discussions with Alaska
Airlines and the Port of Seattle, who actually hear more of the
local complaints than we do. We are working very closely with
them to respond to the complaints.
In general, the benefit for noise is a huge benefit
because, as a result of these advanced procedures, aircraft
tend to glide in on arrival, as opposed to the more traditional
stair-step arrival at an airport. That results in a lot less
noise, and it also reduces the noise footprint. But there is
always a lot of energy around airplanes flying over
communities, particularly communities which are adjacent to
airports. We work closely with our airport partners to make
sure that they have information on what we are actually doing
in response to noise complaints.
Mr. Larsen. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If
I--again, just at the end, I do have a set of questions. I
appreciate that.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Huerta, Mr. Larsen asked a question about
the requirement in the FAA authorization bill to create a
report on the plan to consolidate and realign FAA facilities to
support NextGen. Is that going to be comprehensive or region by
region?
Mr. Huerta. It is not going to be region by region. We are
looking at the whole country. We may approach it by types of
facilities, but we do need to look at the whole country.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. After the many short-term extensions
which prevented the FAA from planning long term on many
projects, could you elaborate on the tools that the FAA
authorization bill provided the FAA to make progress in areas
that were previously either stunted or delayed, or made it
impossible? What good has come from that?
Mr. Huerta. Well, I think the major benefit has been that
FAA reauthorization lays out a clear road map for
implementation of NextGen. As you know, the committee has been
incredibly supportive of our ability to transition to the
airspace system to NextGen, and that requires there to be a
level of certainty and predictability around how we would
actually deliver new navigation techniques and the underlying
platforms and support systems.
So reauthorization, in addition to laying out a consistent
direction from Congress and program support for that direction,
also provided frameworks for consultation with members of the
industry. It also provided guidance to the agency on how we
should best staff to ensure that NextGen has the priority that
it requires.
We have reorganized the agency. In fact, we have a
dedicated NextGen organization that includes the staff that is
responsible for the integration of these systems. That is
probably the most difficult part of implementing NextGen. I
think we have made very, very good progress on integration. We
have to get the chief NextGen officer in place to complete that
transition, but I do believe that we have made very good
progress in coordinating how we deliver large, complex
projects.
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, we have got a wonderful
team at the tech center that are right in the middle of all of
this, because they are our principal test bed for how we
deliver these new programs.
A second area--or unless you want to stop me there----
Mr. LoBiondo. No, no, no, go ahead.
Mr. Huerta. A second area where I think we have seen
benefits is for our airport partners. One of the things that
our airport partners were extremely concerned about was the
notion that they were seeing airport grants coming in very
small increments, which makes for a great deal of inefficiency
for actually executing a construction program. The fact that we
were able to get past that and into long-term authorization has
given them more certainty. It makes for a much more efficient
delivery and much lower project costs.
Finally, I want to return to the point that Mr. Larsen
raised, and that is planning for the future. The FAA has had a
set of facilities. It has had a set of procedures. It has had a
set of regulations that have served us very, very well for the
last 50 years. As we look forward, as the aviation system is
transitioning, we are all transitioning to a completely
different way of how we move airplanes. We are not relying on
radar, we are relying on satellite-based systems to help us
move aircraft and ensure safety throughout the system.
That is more than a technological change. It is a cultural
change and an operational change. There are huge opportunities
for efficiency in the system down the road, and we have to
manage to those efficiencies.
I tell my employees all the time that we are at a critical
place in aviation. Decisions that we are making in the next
couple of years, with the guidance from this committee and with
the support that you have given us, are going to shape what
aviation looks like for decades to come. And we have to take
that very seriously.
Mr. LoBiondo. How would you--with commercial air carriers
that--the promise of NextGen and the safety benefits and the
economic benefits are so huge. And I know a period back there
was concern about some of the bumps in the road and how that
was coming together. There were even some concerns expressed
about the level of communication with the FAA from the
commercial carriers. I know you have taken some steps to
address that.
How would you rate, at this point, where you see the
interaction with the commercial carriers, as far as NextGen,
the ideas and frustrations that they may have, and they have
the ability to address them so that this could move forward
with the real world, as I like to call it? And not just in
theory.
Mr. Huerta. Sure. That is an area that has been a high
priority for me and all of us at the FAA. You correctly point
out that it wasn't that long ago, where there was a great deal
of frustration and skepticism about NextGen. I think we have
come a long way, but I would characterize that there is still
some skepticism. The skepticism is over whether the benefits
will really be there.
What is different now is that we are talking. We are now
struggling together to develop the metrics and to develop the
certainty around delivery of benefits. I view that as a very
positive development.
I talk to airline CEOs almost on a daily basis. We have
each other's cell phones and speed dials. But communication is
not just at that level. We have great communication that is
taking place at many different levels within the organization.
I talked about the airspace redesign activities that we
have underway, where we have brought the operations executives
of an air carrier at a particular airport together with the
tower, center and TRACON managers to actually talk through how
to improve service in Atlanta. How to redesign the airspace so
that it works for Delta and for the other carriers that operate
at that airport. Delta is sitting right there.
Likewise, Alaska was critical in getting us through Greener
Skies Over Seattle as the major hub carrier there. We are doing
this at every airport around the country, United at Newark and
Houston; American Airlines with the work that we have been
doing at north Texas.
As we work in these metropolitan areas, I have taken the
position that it is pointless to argue about whether carriers
are getting benefits, or aren't getting benefits. I think it is
much better to have the conversation, ``Let's sit down and
actually solve a specific problem, and talk about how we
achieve the benefit.'' Those conversations continue, and they
have gone very well. They will certainly be what will
characterize our work in the years ahead.
Mr. LoBiondo. We will certainly try to explore that
further. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will be the last
set of questions for me.
As you know, I have closely monitored the progress of the
work that FAA has done with Boeing to fix the issues that led
to the grounding of the 787. And I have heard both from you all
and from Boeing that you are working cooperatively together, it
is a good relationship, trying to move things forward. That is
great news. I understand, as well, you met with Boeing
executives last week, and I have two questions.
The first question is just can you briefly outline the
proposed fixes for the 787?
Mr. Huerta. Sure. As you know, the problem that was
identified in the incidents that took place relate to the
lithium ion batteries that power the aircraft. There are two
batteries that are within the airplane. One is in the forward
cargo bay, and that is the main battery for the main power
system of the airplane; one in the aft cargo bay, which powers
the auxiliary power unit, which is how the airplane receives
power when it is on the ground.
In the two incidents reported, one in Boston, one in Japan,
the investigations are showing that problems developed in the
batteries themselves. Boeing's proposal has had a lot of
outside peer review. We have been involved in as well. Boeing
has been working cooperatively with the National Transportation
Safety Board and their Japanese counterparts. We have brought
together the best technical experts to really understand what
is going on here.
What Boeing has presented to us is a proposal that
identifies a handful of potential areas of probable cause--all
within the battery itself--and then provides three levels of
mitigation to ensure that these problems cannot present
themselves again.
Each battery has eight cells, so you have three
possibilities of events.
One is that you can have a problem in a single cell. So
what Boeing is proposing, and what we are evaluating with other
safety authorities from other countries, is mitigations and
corrections and re-engineerings of designs that will prevent a
cell event from taking place.
The second potential problem is that a problem in one cell
propagates to adjacent cells. There is another set of
mitigating activities that have been presented, and that our
engineering teams are evaluating for their effectiveness in
preventing that propagation from happening.
The third level is that if the problem propagates to the
entire battery. We need to mitigate and ensure that such an
occurrence does not become an event that affects the airplane.
So we are working at the cell level, the battery level, and the
airplane level. The plan that Boeing has presented is a
comprehensive plan that addresses all of those areas.
We have only received the plan last week. Our transport
airplane directorate in Seattle is reviewing the plan in
significant technical detail. I expect to receive a report on
it next week. Once we approve the plan, then we have to go
through the process of actually implementing the plan, which
will involve a great deal of testing, a great deal of further
analysis, and re-engineering before these planes go back in the
air.
Mr. Larsen. When you say ``back in the air,'' you mean back
operating for the airlines?
Mr. Huerta. Correct.
Mr. Larsen. So the second question I have, though, is--just
since--even since less than 24 hours ago, there have been
conflicting reports about whether the FAA is close to allowing
test flights of the 87 to try these fixes out. Can you just
give some clarity on where the process is on that point?
Mr. Huerta. I don't have an application in front of me for
any further test flights.
Mr. Larsen. So there is no decision to be made----
Mr. Huerta. Correct.
Mr. Larsen [continuing]. Today or tomorrow or--until that
happens?
Mr. Huerta. That is correct.
Mr. Larsen. Right, right. So, just to clarify, FAA has not
made a decision to allow test flights?
Mr. Huerta. We haven't received an application for further
test flights.
Mr. Larsen. For further--right, for further test flights.
Mr. Huerta. Correct.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Huerta. There have been two.
Mr. Larsen. Already, yes, correct.
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's go back to this
battery. So what you are saying is the incident that we are
talking about is really contained to the battery component
within the aircraft. Is that correct?
Mr. Huerta. What we saw in both events were heat-related
events within the cells of the batteries that then propagated
to other cells.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so, assuming that we have got
Boeing being the manufacturer of that component, is that
something that they are manufacturing?
Mr. Huerta. No.
Mr. Meadows. Or did they get that from another supplier?
Mr. Huerta. They obtained that from another supplier.
Mr. Meadows. And so are we--is that supplier coming in to
help address that problem? Because you acted like it was
Boeing's engineers.
Mr. Huerta. Yes----
Mr. Meadows. But if it is a battery component made by
somebody else----
Mr. Huerta. This is one of the things that we are currently
evaluating. Let's separate where we were and where we are.
Where we were was a battery was manufactured by a third-party
supplier, pursuant to a design by a Boeing subcontractor. The
subcontractor, in turn, provided the battery to Boeing. Boeing
is stepping in and, in this review, is assuming responsibility
for the design and for the testing. That testing on the battery
is something we need to oversee and ultimately certify.
You know, any re-engineering solution, how it will get
built, has yet to be worked out.
Mr. Meadows. So what you are saying is they are assuming
responsibility, but indeed, the battery may have not been their
responsibility. And thus, its failure is not Boeing's.
Mr. Huerta. That investigation is still ongoing, in terms
of the actual cause of the incidents in question. That is what
the NTSB and the JTSB--the Japanese Transportation Safety
Board--are trying to identify. What was the specific cause of
the event.
What Boeing's work is really focused on is determining what
we know is within this universe of causes. How do we prevent
them, and how do we mitigate them?
Mr. Meadows. All right. And what was the supplier of that
battery?
Mr. Huerta. A company named GS Yuasa. It is a Japanese
company.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so they have supplied--and so
are they involved in possibly in any of the re-engineering of
that battery component, or in consultation with Boeing right
now?
Mr. Huerta. I can't speak to what the level of
consultations have been between those two organizations. My
inspectors have visited the battery factory to observe. We are
evaluating data relating to its manufacture, and that work is
ongoing.
Mr. Meadows. So, indeed, the failure could be, indeed, from
a supplier, not from Boeing itself.
Mr. Huerta. At this point that is something we are still
looking at.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Huerta, for being here today.
I just want to say that I know I have seen up close and
personal the dedication of the thousands of employees at Tech
Center in my district. And the commitment to excellence and
service is extraordinary. And I am sure that cuts across the
entire operation.
So, in these very difficult times for you and your team, we
appreciate the dedication of the employees of the FAA to
keeping the traveling public safe and secure. I am sure we are
going to have a lot we are going to have to work on together.
And we appreciate your being here today.
And the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]