U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

61–204 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

FAA AND Y2K: WILL AIR TRAVEL BE STOPPED OR

SIGNIFICANTLY DELAYED ON JANUARY 1ST AND BEYOND?

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 9, 1999

Committee on Government Reform

Serial No. 106–53

Committee on Science

Serial No. 106–51

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and the

Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JIM TURNER, Texas

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

MATT RYAN, Professional Staff Member

CHIP AHLSWEDE, Clerk

TREY HENDERSON, Minority Counsel

(III)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., (R–Wisconsin), Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

LAMAR SMITH, Texas

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan*

DAVE WELDON, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

MERRILL COOK, Utah

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin

STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California

GARY G. MILLER, California

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

JACK METCALF, Washington

RALPH M. HALL, Texas, RMM**

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan

ZOE LOFGREN, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland, Chairwoman

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota*

THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

MERRILL COOK, Utah

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin

STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California

GARY G. MILLER, California

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan**

LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

EX OFFICIO

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,

Wisconsin+

RALPH M. HALL, Texas+

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 9, 1999 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Garvey, Jane, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration .................. 58

Mead, Ken, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ........... 38

Willemssen, Joel, Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information Management Division, U.S. General Accounting

Office .............................................................................................................. 12

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Garvey, Jane, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration:

FAA project plan ....................................................................................... 77

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61

Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

Mead, Ken, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 41

Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 8

Willemssen, Joel, Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information Management Division, U.S. General Accounting

Office, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 15

(1)

FAA AND Y2K: WILL AIR TRAVEL BE STOPPED

OR SIGNIFICANTLY DELAYED ON JANUARY

1ST AND BEYOND?

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY, JOINT

WITH THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology) presiding.

Present from the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology: Representatives Horn, Biggert, Walden,

Ose, and Turner.

Present from the Subcommittee on Technology: Representatives

Morella, Weldon, Gutknecht, Miller, Barcia, Rivers, Wu, Weiner,

Gordon, and Baird.

Staff present from the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology: J. Russell George, staff director and chief counsel; Matt Ryan, professional staff member;

Bonnie Heald, communications director and professional staff member; Chip Ahlswede, clerk; P.J. Caceres, intern; Trey Henderson,

minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant.

Staff present from the Subcommittee on Technology: Jeff Grove,

staff director; Ben Wu and Michael Quear, professional staff members; Joe Sullivan, staff assistant; and Marty Ralston, staff assistant.

Mr. HORN. This joint hearing of the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology and the Subcommittee on Technology will come to order.

Over the past several years, these subcommittees have been

prodding departments and agencies in the executive branch of the

Federal Government to prepare their computer systems for the

year 2000. In only 113 days, these systems must be ready for action.

The leadership of most agencies, including the Federal Aviation

Administration, claim that their essential computer systems are

ready and are now being tested. Time is running very short. Millions of American citizens and businesses are counting on the Federal Aviation Administration to keep the Nation’s vital air transVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 Mar 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\61204 pfrm08 PsN: 61204
2

portation system functioning, whether the date is December 1999,

or January 2000. The job is unquestionably difficult.

The FAA must ensure that its own systems, many of which are

antiquated and stretched to capacity, continue working after the

clocks tick past midnight on December 31st. Yet, if U.S. air travel

is to maintain its high standard of safety, the agency and the public must also be assured that our airlines and airports are equally

prepared for the impact of the date change.

You may have noticed that our panel consists of only three witnesses. We invited other members of the national and international

aviation industry to participate in this hearing, including representatives from the airlines and airports. They declined.

Although the FAA does not have direct control over these privately and publicly operated businesses, the FAA’s safety mission

demands that it carefully assess the year 2000 readiness of our

aviation infrastructure and the degree to which public safety might

be affected.

This morning we will also examine the air traffic inter-connections between the North American continent and Europe, Africa,

Asia, and Latin America. We will discuss these and other challenges the FAA must meet in order to guarantee to all passengers

that air travel remains safe in the year 2000.

I welcome our witnesses and look forward to their testimony.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]

3

4

Mr. HORN. I am now delighted to yield to the gentlewoman of the

House Science Committee on Technology for her opening statement.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Chairman Horn.

My timing was, I think, pretty precise.

I want to welcome everybody to this morning’s hearing. It’s the

latest in a series of ongoing hearings of our House Y2K working

group, made up of the Science Committee’s Technology Subcommittee and the Government Reform Committee’s Government

Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee.

As the chairwoman of the Technology Subcommittee, I’m pleased

to collaborate again with my colleague, Steve Horn, who chairs the

Government Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee, as well as our distinguished ranking members, Mr. Barcia and Mr. Turner and members of both subcommittees.

Since we began the congressional review on the year 2000 computer problem 31⁄2 years ago, we have focused with particular attention and concern on the Federal Aviation Administration. In

fact, this is the fifth hearing that we’ve held in the past year-anda-half on the FAA and the potential for Y2K aviation disruptions.

That underscores the vital nature of the safe and efficient air

transport of people and goods to our Nation.

In this globally interconnected age, grounding flights is synonymous with grounding our economy, and yet, it became painfully

clear from the beginning that the FAA was woefully behind other

Federal agencies in recognizing and repairing a Y2K problem in

their mission-critical systems.

It was also clear that, to be Y2K compliant, FAA was required

to undertake a major coordination effort throughout the agency,

and that the myriad number of computer systems, languages, and

platforms used in the national airspace system were all mission

critical.

Since those first hearings, the FAA has responded to our congressional criticism with determination and diligence, despite its dangerously late start, in order to assure the American people that the

highest levels of air traffic safety would be maintained and that

any potential business disruptions would be limited.

When Administrator Jane Garvey, who was appointed after our

first set of FAA Y2K hearings, initially appeared before us, she assured us that she would pilot FAA through the Y2K turbulence,

and everyone at FAA would fasten their seat belt to get the job

done.

As a result, the FAA recognized the agency’s mistakes of the past

and moved forward, making the Y2K issue a top priority and enlisting the full support of the executive management.

Administrator Garvey and her staff, I think, should receive welldeserved accolades for FAA’s remarkable Y2K progress and for the

growing consumer confidence within the aviation industry. I applaud the FAA’s recent announcement that all of its systems are

now fully Y2K compliant and all of its agency’s computers requiring Y2K repairs have been successfully implemented or installed

across the United States.

5

Now, while all of this is pretty encouraging, I must remind the

FAA, however, that the job is not finished and there is still much

left to be done.

As we know, the FAA relies on hundreds of computer systems to

carry out its mission. As components of the systems break down,

they need to be fixed or replaced, and as changes are made, systems need to be revalidated to ensure Y2K compliance. This process is ongoing and it must continue through January 1, 2000,

through that deadline and even beyond.

In addition to making sure that their own internal systems maintain their Y2K compliance over the coming months, several issues

still need to be addressed as a result of the hundreds of interdependent data exchange interfaces that support aviation operations. Every component that supports aviation, from navigation to

ground-based maintenance and fueling operations, must demonstrate its ability to work together flawlessly with other aviation

components. As a result, the FAA must coordinate its efforts with

all of its external interfaces, including airports, airlines, and other

foreign air traffic control systems.

Today, with just 113 days remaining before the immovable deadline of January 1, 2000, significant concerns still remain regarding

the status of airports, airlines, and international cooperation. For

example, the FAA recently conducted a survey for the International

Civil Aviation Organization, and that found that only 20 percent of

our Nation’s airports have complied with their Y2K preparations,

and only one-third of our airline systems are Y2K compliant. Additionally, almost 30 percent, which is 53 out of the 185 countries

that are members of the ICAO, have not yet responded to the survey, and that provides us with no assurance of those countries’ ability to handle air traffic on or after January 1, 2000.

Until these remaining issues are resolved, the potential still exists for possible Y2K disruptions to delay or cancel flights around

the country and throughout the world, and for this reason the FAA

needs to continue working with all of its domestic and international

partners in the development of contingency plans that ensure that

certain flights will continue and that the transportation of people,

goods, and services are not significantly impaired.

Finally, I just want to say to the American people who may be

watching this hearing today on C–SPAN or on the Internet broadcast, that I fully trust Administrator Garvey when she stresses

that safety is the single-most important concern of the FAA.

It cannot be emphasized enough that every single person that

boards an aircraft in the United States will not be placed in any

peril by the FAA because of Y2K. Administrator Garvey has assured us that any flight that presents a possible safety issue arising from Y2K complications will simply not be allowed to take off.

My concern is not with the safety of our Nation’s airline passengers, but rather with the potential economic and personal disruptions that may be caused by flight delays and cancellations.

Thank you, Chairman Horn. I’m pleased to co-chair this hearing

with you and look forward to the testimony of our distinguished

panelists.

Mr. HORN. We now yield for the purpose of an opening statement

to the distinguished colleague from Texas, Mr. Turner.

6

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’m glad to join with you and Chairwoman Morella to discuss the

FAA’s progress in meeting the challenges of the Y2K computer

problem.

I want to welcome Ms. Garvey, Administrator of the FAA; Transportation Department’s Inspector General’s Office; and the General

Accounting Office. We appreciate the hard work that each of you

have put in on this problem.

I often am asked, having served on the Government Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee, how I am going

to personally respond to Y2K, and my answer has always been that

I think we’re going to be fine, I just will not fly on January 1st.

So I’m here today, as many Americans to be convinced that it

would be and will be safe to fly on January 1st.

When these committees last had a meeting on this issue back in

March, we learned that the FAA was behind on its Y2K conversion

efforts. However, I understand that, due to diligence and hard work

at the highest levels, the agency has been able to meet its self-imposed deadline, and on July 21st of this year the Department of

Transportation announced that all of the FAA’s computer systems

were Y2K compliant.

According to the FAA, after more than 3 years of effort involving

1,100 technical experts, all of the FAA’s Y2K computer repairs

have been successfully completed. During its Y2K effort, the FAA

conducted extensive end-to-end testing above and beyond individual system testings. Four system integrity tests, which link

more than 30 mission-critical air traffic control systems have been

successfully completed. And in April of this year the FAA also successfully conducted a major air traffic control test using Y2K-compliant systems with live traffic flying between Denver, Colorado

Springs, Grand Junction, and Longmont.

The air traffic control systems handle the rollover to the simulated new year safely and without incident.

The agency will continue testing its systems and contingency

plans up to December 31st, 1999 and through leap day on February

29th, 2000.

The FAA and those who have worked to turn the Y2K program

around from where it was last March deserve great credit; however, there are still significant challenges to coordinate efforts with

other countries to ensure seamless transition for international

flights.

In this area, the FAA is coordinating its Y2K efforts primarily

with six countries that represent 60 percent of flights to and from

the United States. The FAA continues to meet with representatives

from airlines, cargo carriers, general aviation airports, fuel suppliers, telecommunication, and other aviation stakeholders to coordinate the Y2K efforts and to work on contingency plans for all

scenarios.

Aviation is a segment of the transportation industry critical to

Y2K. It is very important that we are here today to assess the

7

progress that has been made in Y2K compliance and to discuss

matters which may remain surrounding this issue, and I hope, at

the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Chairman, I can say that I will

fly on January 1st, 2000.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]

8

9

10

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you for that succinct statement.

I now yield for the purpose of an opening statement to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Barcia, the ranking member on the

House Subcommittee on Technology.

Mr. BARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join all my colleagues in welcoming our distinguished

panel to this morning’s hearing.

When I became the ranking member of the Technology Subcommittee, the topic of my first hearing was the FAA’s Y2K efforts.

Administrator Garvey had only been at FAA for a few months, and

FAA’s Y2K efforts were far behind schedule. In fact, at that hearing GAO painted a bleak picture of FAA’s ability to meet the challenge.

Administrator Garvey said that addressing Y2K issues was a priority for her and that she would take personal responsibility for

FAA’s efforts. I am convinced that, without her personal leadership, the FAA would not be so far along in completing its task.

Still, challenges remain. FAA needs to ensure that any

vulnerabilities are minimized and that corrective actions can be

quickly taken in event that there are problems. However, FAA,

alone, is not responsible for the operation of the national airspace

system. If there are to be no problems, the airports and air carriers

must also be Y2K compliant.

I am concerned that we still lack a complete picture of the status

of the Nation’s airports and air carriers.

I understand that FAA has surveyed these entities, and I would

be interested in FAA’s objective assessment of their Y2K efforts.

I have not been a strong advocate that Y2K issues would pose

a serious safety threat to air travel; however, I am concerned about

the potential of Y2K issues to reduce or disrupt the capacity of our

airspace. I have these same concerns about international air travel,

and, again, I would encourage the Administrator to be blunt in her

assessments about the potential for disruption in international air

travel.

I also hope that Administrator Garvey will address FAA plans to

fully inform the public about any concern they might have about

international air travel.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend GAO and

the FAA’s Inspector General for their efforts and assistance to FAA

in working on their Y2K efforts. This has been an example of how

GAO, the Inspector General, and FAA have worked effectively together to the benefit of FAA.

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before our subcommittees and look forward to your remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. I thank you, and I now recognize the vice chairman

of the committee, Mrs. Biggert from Illinois, the gentlewoman from

Illinois, for an opening statement.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you

for holding this timely hearing.

Let me start by commending you for your excellent work in putting together this series of hearings to highlight our Nation’s readiness for the year 2000.

11

Little more than 3 months remain until January 1, 2000, and I

think that the start of the new millennium really holds unlimited

potential. At the same time, it presents an enormous challenge to

those who are charged with ensuring that the Government’s mission-critical systems are Y2K compliant. And, of course, this is why

we are here today—to assess the progress being made by the Federal Aviation Administration to become Y2K compliant.

FAA’s role in safeguarding our Nation’s aviation industry is critical to secure transportation; yet, reports released earlier this year

indicate that FAA’s air traffic control system was not fully prepared for the Y2K date change. This is troubling.

Our Nation’s commercial airlines, including an airline in my

home State, have made Y2K compliance their top and highest priority. In fact, several of the officials have told me earlier this year

that they expect all of their senior executives to fly on New Year’s

Day 2000, and I know that Ms. Garvey has also said that she will

be in the air, and I’ve said several times this year that I doubt that

I will be in the air that day. However, I am going to be in the air

on January 2nd, so I’m hoping to hear some very positive remarks

this morning from Ms. Garvey, and I also look forward to hearing

from our other witnesses, and their expertise in the aviation field

will be important and useful as we examine whether or not air

travel in the United States on January 1, 2000, and beyond will be

delayed or perhaps stopped.

I’m also interested in knowing the thoughts on progress being

made in other parts of the world to ensure that airline passengers

are not placed in harm’s way by the Y2K bug.

So, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this important

hearing. I’ve enjoyed working this past year with you on the Y2K

matters and trust we will continue to raise the public’s awareness

of this issue.

Mr. HORN. Well, we thank you very much for that statement and

what you’ve done to be helpful on these various hearings.

I now yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, for

purpose of an opening statement.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important

hearing and I’m anxious to hear the witnesses, so I will yield my

time.

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman for his generosity of spirit.

I now yield to the gentleman from California, who is also on the

House Subcommittee on Technology of House Science, Mr. Gary

Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here today, too.

We’ve had a series of these hearings on Y2K. One issue that has

come to my attention that I’d like you to address today is basically

a request from the U.S. airport operations urging the FAA to dismiss proposal on stringent Y2K testings on New Year’s Day. That

seems to be a major concern.

I’m going to limit my opening remarks because I’d like to hear

a response on that.

I represent Ontario Airport, and that has been brought to my attention and that’s a concern, so perhaps you can address that.

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.

12

Mr. HORN. I thank you and now yield to the gentlewoman from

Michigan, Lynn Rivers of the House Subcommittee on Technology

of House Science.

Ms. RIVERS. I also am interested in hearing from the speakers

and will defer on an opening statement.

Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht, who is a member also of House Subcommittee on Technology of House Science.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank

you and Chairwoman Morella for holding these hearings. I remember when we had the first one about 4 years ago. There were just

a handful of people in the audience and no television cameras, and

all of the sudden I think America does realize this is a very serious

matter.

I think the good news is we are making real progress, not only

the FAA but both public and private agencies, but it is one that

I think we have to continue to monitor, and I would hope we would

have several hearings on this issue between now and the end of the

year.

Mr. HORN. We thank you.

Now, these are three experienced witnesses before us, and you

know the routine with the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology and that is we swear in all witnesses. After being sworn in, we will go with the agenda, as prepared, and we will also limit the opening comments to 10 minutes.

If you could summarize the statement—10 minutes for each of the

three witnesses—this morning, we’ll have more of a chance for dialog and question and answer and getting at some of the situation

that many have talked about, including the Administrator.

So, if you will, stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note all three witnesses have affirmed

the oath.

We now start with our lead witness at every hearing, and that’s

our colleague, Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information Management Division, U.S. General Accounting Office.

I don’t know how many States we’ve had Joel go to this year, but

it must be at least 10 where you’ve been the lead witness to give

the over-all picture on behalf of the General Accounting Office,

which is part of the legislative branch of the Government. We

thank you and your staff for the outstanding work they’ve done on

this year 2000 problem.

Mr. Willemssen.

STATEMENT OF JOEL WILLEMSSEN, DIRECTOR, CIVIL AGENCIES INFORMATION SYSTEMS, ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING

OFFICE

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairwoman

Morella, ranking members, Congressmen, Congresswomen. Thank

you for inviting us to testify today on FAA’s Y2K readiness.

As requested, I’ll very briefly summarize our statement, probably

in less than 10 minutes.

13

Overall, FAA continues to make excellent progress on Y2K. It reported earlier this summer that 100 percent of its systems were

compliant. Our review of a sample of these systems found sufficient

documentation to support implementation in all cases.

Despite this progress, FAA’s work is not yet done. For example,

key challenges remain for the agency’s internal systems.

First, FAA must manage and control changes made to systems

after those systems have been certified as compliant. As we testified before you in January, changes made to systems after they

have been certified as compliant can introduce new Y2K problems.

In recognition of this, FAA established a policy calling for system

owners to assess whether modifications to compliant systems might

affect the system’s status, and to report this to the Y2K program

office. However, in reviewing FAA’s maintenance management system, we identified about 1,000 system changes entered after June

30th that should have been linked to Y2K change reports but were

not. In response to this, FAA officials told us that they plan to followup on all of these to ensure that system Y2K compliance is

maintained.

Second, regarding the contractor that FAA hired to provide independent verification and validation of systems, FAA should try to

gain key documentation from this contractor detailing the issues

and problems it identified with specific systems and how these

problems were resolved. Such documentation can provide further

assurance of systems’ compliant status.

Third, in the time remaining, FAA should consider performing

additional end-to-end testing of multiple systems. FAA has performed valuable end-to-end testing of selected systems; however,

these tests have not been comprehensive in that not all critical systems and components of the national airspace system were involved.

In addition to these remaining risks, FAA faces the risk that external systems will fail—namely, those of airports, airlines, and

international partners. FAA has been collecting information on

U.S. airports, and the latest available information shows about 20

percent of the 113 airports surveyed were reporting that they had

completed their Y2K preparations. Another 58 percent estimated

they would finish by the end of this month, with the remaining 22

percent planning on a later date or not providing a date.

FAA is also collecting information on airlines. The latest available information shows that about 33 percent of the 146 airlines

surveyed reported that their systems were Y2K compliant, with 35

percent planning to complete their efforts by September 30th, and

the remainder planning on a later date or not providing a date.

On August 31st, FAA requested that we treat information on

specific airports and airlines as for official use only, and therefore

I am unable to provide site-specific information in this public

forum.

Because of the risk of system failures, whether from internal systems or from external partners, FAA needs a comprehensive business continuity and contingency plan to ensure continuing operations through the turn of the century. FAA has such a plan. It

identifies risks and mitigation strategies for core business areas.

14

In the time remaining, it is important that FAA continue testing

this plan and train its air traffic controllers and system specialists

in using the plan should it be necessary to do so.

In conclusion, it is clear that FAA’s progress on Y2K has been

impressive. Nevertheless, FAA’s job is not yet done.

In the few remaining months, the agency must still tackle several key issues to ensure the Y2K readiness of air travel.

That concludes the summary of my statement, and at your convenience I’m here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willemssen follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Mr. HORN. And we now move to the Inspector General of the

U.S. Department of Transportation, Mr. Mead.

The Inspector General is a role in the Federal Government of 24

of the Cabinet departments and independent agencies. They are

separate from the political appointees within each Department, and

the Congress, which established them two decades ago. Look to

them for objective analysis of the various functions within the Department, as a whole—in this case, the Department of Transportation.

So we are glad to have you here, Inspector General. You’ve been

before the subcommittee on many times over the last 5 years.

Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF KEN MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, and

members of the subcommittees.

Mrs. Morella said five hearings. I thought it was four, so I’ve just

dropped that out of the statement. I’m sure it’s five and you’re

right.

When we were here in February 1998, we were saying that the

FAA was 7 months behind schedule and at that point just assessing its systems. There were real questions about whether the socalled ‘‘host computer’’—that’s the computer that controls high-altitude air traffic, 20,000 feet and above—could even make it to the

year 2000. The program lacked central leadership. FAA was planning to have its systems ready, by the end of November 1999. It

didn’t seem to leave much room for a cushion.

Frankly, as all your opening remarks indicated, and GAO’s statement as well, all that has changed with strong congressional oversight, leadership by the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and FAA Administrator Garvey, and truly by very hard work on FAA’s part at

the staff level all across the Nation.

FAA has established strong central management for its year

2000 efforts. They do have a sense of urgency. They have replaced

most of the host computers and will complete them all in a couple

of months. And they did meet their June 30th milestone. They

have been responsive to nearly all of our recommendations.

I think it is useful to highlight what FAA is going to be focusing

on for the duration, and in that regard, it is useful to distinguish

what they’re doing internally and what they’re doing externally.

Internally, there are four areas I’d like to highlight. First, local

computer programs may vary from facility to facility in the air traffic control systems; second, upgrades to computers; third, testing

FAA’s systems with foreign interfaces; and, fourth, business contingency plans.

Externally, FAA will be focusing on airports, airlines, and international readiness.

I’d just like to say a word about each of those.

Before installing the year 2000 fixes into the online ATC system,

FAA tested the systems at its test facilities and conducted a live

test at the Denver Airport. But over the years various FAA facilities have adopted local computer programs that tend to complement or supplement their major systems. They need to make

39

sure they know where all those modifications are, and FAA is in

the process of identifying those now, because sometimes those local

modifications can impact in a negative way on a system that has

already been determined to be Y2K compliant.

They are similar issues on upgrades. You’ve heard the air traffic

control system is being modernized. They are deploying new systems. It is important that, once they determine that a system is

compliant, that the compliance fix is not undone by an upgrade.

With regard to business contingency plans, no matter how extensive the effort, there’s no absolute guarantee that every year 2000

glitch is going to be found, so FAA has a business contingency plan.

We think it is largely workable.

There are a couple of issues we do have comments on. The controllers will need refresher training on how to operate the system

if they have to go, on a local or national basis, to a non-radar procedure.

The controllers union tells us that they feel they need that training.

FAA has made significant progress with its Air Traffic Control

Union. We think the maintenance union needs to participate more

in the contingency plan, because if something goes wrong the controllers aren’t going to fix it, it’s going to be the maintenance technicians.

FAA has invited them to participate, but their participation to

date has not been that significant.

Moving to external, FAA has taken an active role working with

domestic aviation industry associations, but airports truly got a

late start in fixing their problems.

In June 1998, FAA sent a letter to over 5,300 public airports to

alert them to year 2000 problems. Based on association reporting,

airports handling about 90 percent of passenger enplanements are

making good progress, and will be ready on time. I think generally

FAA’s work tends to support that view.

But smaller airports—their number is significant, over 4,600 of

the 5,300. They handle only about 10 percent of the traffic. We

know very little about their state of compliance.

FAA’s survey reported that 83 percent of airport safety systems

are now year 2000 compliant, and others will be rolling within the

next couple of months.

If not ready by October 15th, FAA plans to send airport operators a warning letter with possible actions they may take with regard to affected airports.

FAA also plans to require airports to perform readiness tests

during the early hours of January 1, 2000, and I know that’s the

subject of some controversy. Maybe we can get into that later.

With regard to airlines, FAA surveyed over 3,300 certified carriers and received responses from 41 percent of those carriers. Almost all of the large carriers responded.

We feel comfortable with the large carriers in this country, but

our sense is that FAA is going to really have to put the pedal to

the metal with respect to the more than 50 percent that haven’t

even responded to a questionnaire about their readiness.

40

I might note that this is one area where we did make a recommendation to FAA that they require airlines to certify that they

are compliant from a Y2K standpoint.

FAA chose to take another approach. Since they took that other

approach, that’s one reason why they have to go out now and get

roughly 2,000 airlines that didn’t bother responding to say whether

they are compliant or not.

So it’s not too late to consider that recommendation.

Last, moving to the international arena, with just over 100 days

to go, two significant uncertainties exist.

The first uncertainty is that the International Civil Aviation Organization sent out a questionnaire to about 185 nations and asked

them about their Y2K compliance—34 of 185 nations did not respond. Later, we can get into the areas of the world to which those

countries pertain. Frankly, it’s uncertain what is happening in

those countries, and the fact that you don’t respond to a questionnaire does raise some questions about what you might say if you

did have to respond.

A second uncertainty is what we are going to do with respect to

countries that in December we don’t know whether they are compliant or we do know and we have some reservations about whether they are compliant.

We have a recommendation on the table that FAA say what it

is going to do with respect to those countries.

That concludes my oral statement, sir.

Mr. HORN. We thank you very much for that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

Mr. HORN. We now have Administrator Garvey, and we thank

you for coming. You’ve done a great job since you’ve arrived in

Washington, and we look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JANE GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much.

Chairman Horn, Chairwoman Morella, and members of the committee, good morning and thank you very much for the opportunity

to appear before you this morning to report on the status of the

FAA’s Y2K compliance efforts.

When I last appeared before your committees, I promised you

that the FAA would be Y2K compliant by June 30, 1999. I am

pleased to report to you today that we met that deadline. And I’m

also pleased to say that the DOT’s Inspector General conducted a

sample review of our work and has approved it, while an independent contractor has validated our approach, has validated our

compliance.

Each of our components in which a Y2K fix was required has undergone multiple testing and validation. I know there are some additional questions, and we’d be happy to talk about that in the

question and answer period. These components’ parts and their

fixes were then tested in an end-to-end test on April 10th of this

year.

During this end-to-end test, our air traffic control systems were

set forward to December 31, 1999, and rolled over to January 1,

2000. The results were that our system fixes operated through this

transition flawlessly. Nevertheless, we will continue to test portions of the system as we progress through the next few months.

A critical question for us is maintaining the integrity of our Y2K

compliance status by making sure that any changes we make to

our systems in the normal course of business, such as routine

maintenance and software upgrades, are Y2K compliant, and both

the Inspector General and the GAO have raised that issue.

Moreover, we’ve established a moratorium on changes to the National Airspace System from mid-November through early January

2000. We believe we’ve got a process in place to protect that integrity, and, in addition, we will have a moratorium for any changes

to the National Airspace System, as well.

In addition to our operational fixes and our testing, we’ve developed a comprehensive business continuity and contingency plan. I

think that is critical, as well. This plan really builds upon our previously existing contingency plans to specifically address potential

disruptions caused by the Y2K phenomena.

Our contingency plan has been developed, it has been modified

with the participation of our labor work force and their elected representatives. We know that that’s something we want to constantly

do—continue to work with our labor unions to make sure that they

are very much involved in this.

We are confident that, given the success of our end-to-end test,

as well as with the multiple testing conducted prior to this event,

we will safely transition into the year 2000.

59

And, while it’s true that the air traffic control system has been

and is our priority, our efforts do not end at FAA’s door, and I

think the IG has appropriately highlighted some of these issues.

We are aggressively working with our industry partners, with

airlines, with the airports, and with the international community

to raise their awareness and their need to achieve Y2K compliance

in order to satisfy their obligation under the FAA’s safety regulations. For example, we’ve told the domestic airport operators that

we expect airport systems which may have an immediate effect on

safety to be Y2K compliant by October 15, 1999, or they must provide an alternative means of compliance with current safety regulations. So they’ll tell us by October 15th either they are Y2K compliant or what their contingency plan is.

For domestic air carriers, all U.S. certificate holders must be able

to demonstrate regulatory compliance with operations and maintenance requirements on or after January 1, 2000.

While confidence grows within the United States—and I think it

appropriately grows—we know that there is increasing anxiety

about the international community.

The FAA and the Department of Transportation, along with the

Departments of Defense and State, lead an interagency working

group which is currently reviewing the information gathered from

the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO].

And I want to stress that we are doing this very much in harmony and cooperation with the Departments of Defense and Departments of State.

And, while we are still in the process of reviewing the information, the preliminary analysis suggests that, if there should be a

Y2K-related incident, it would take the form of limited disruption

in service at some international destinations.

Let me assure you, though, as I have in the past, as I know the

Deputy Secretary has said before this committee, that, should we

gain knowledge or learn of an incident that would affect the safe

operations of the civilian air fleet, we are prepared to act appropriately. I think it is going to be critical that we monitor the information that we have.

I can also tell you that the information that we’re receiving will

be up on the Web, summaries of that, by the end of September. The

information will be available publicly. Since we believe that the

public has a right to know, we do plan then to publicly disseminate

international Y2K assessments by the end of this month.

Let me conclude on two notes. First, I am extraordinarily proud

of the efforts of the FAA staff, for their dedication and their commitment to reaching that June 30th deadline. It was a terrific effort. As Ken Mead has said, it involved people throughout this

country working overtime, giving up vacations, and just pressing

ahead on that June 30th deadline.

But I’m also very grateful to the personal involvement of both

the Inspector General and GAO. They personally—both of these

gentleman personally have been at meetings that we hold. Their

staffs have been out to the field with us. And I really think they

have been critical to the success we’ve received and met to date.

And, finally, also, I’d like to thank publicly the members of this

committee. I believe—and I’d like to say that I think we would

60

have responded appropriately in face of the Y2K challenge, but

there is no doubt that the attention of this committee, the focus

that you’ve brought to the issue I think really has kept the debate

very much on the public stage, if you will, and that has been extraordinarily helpful.

We are confident, but I want to stress that we are not overly confident. We agree with all of the comments that have been made

this morning that there is still a great deal of work to do. There

is still much that needs to be accomplished between now and January 1st, but we remain committed and I remain personally committed to seeing this effort through to an absolute wonderful completion.

And, Mr. Turner, I don’t know if we’ve convinced you yet, but

we’ll save you a seat on that plane.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Garvey follows:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Mr. HORN. We’re going to have a series of questions, and each

member will have 6 minutes in which to answer the questions.

We’ll then have another round if we haven’t finished with the various questions.

Let me begin with just clarification here. I think I heard you

right in your oral testimony that a lot of the data would be released, hopefully by the end of the month, but let me go through

this, to make very sure for the record that we’re talking on the

same things.

Federal Aviation Administration compiled a wealth of information on domestic airline and airport year 2000 readiness. The data

was provided to the International Civil Aviation Organization in

July. Furthermore, this information was provided to the General

Accounting Office in August. However, on August 31st of this year,

FAA notified GAO that this information was ‘‘for official use only,’’ essentially placing a gag order on GAO for not discussing this information today.

Last night, we received this data.

Let me ask you, why was the data essentially deemed to be for

official use only?

Ms. GARVEY. Mr. Chairman, in discussions with the general

counsel’s office at DOT, as well as our own FAA counsel, there

were questions raised about what we could and what we could not

release.

We were very eager to release the information as quickly as we

could. We’ve worked closely and hard since the end of August, with

both general counsel at DOT and our own chief counsel, to resolve

the issue. We’ve had discussions with ICAO, and yesterday our

general counsel at DOT agreed and gave us the OK, if you will, to

release the document that we had given to GAO.

There were some questions, particularly on the international,

whether some of that information was classified, but we’ve talked

with ICAO and we’re comfortable in releasing it.

The information that we will be releasing at the end of September is information that we’ve reviewed with State, with the Department of Defense, and we’ll be doing summary information that

will go up and I hope will be a very customer-friendly way for the

American public to be able to take a look at what’s happening in

all of those countries.

But it was essentially a legal issue. We’ve resolved it. And I’m

glad to say we’ve resolved it.

Mr. HORN. In terms of domestic airports, then, we will certainly

be able to release that information, I take it?

Ms. GARVEY. Yes. Absolutely.

Mr. HORN. And ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, will not have a veto on that?

Ms. GARVEY. Absolutely. And, again, that information, in addition, will be up at the end of September in a more customer-friendly way, if you will.

Mr. HORN. Now, if we move across from the United States, and

particularly Los Angeles, where I land every other week, or New

York, or Chicago, will there be any difficulty in finding out the situation at Frankfurt, let’s say, or any other major international airport?

71

Ms. GARVEY. No, it should not.

Yesterday there was still, I think, one remaining question. We

just wanted to further clarify with ICAO that some elements may

have been deemed classified.

We don’t think they are, and I believe that that call didn’t take

place last night. It will take place this morning, but more as a

courtesy to them, as well.

But in conversations that I’ve had with senior members of ICAO,

I think they have been expecting at some point more information

to be released.

Mr. HORN. Well, I’m delighted to hear that. So there’s no problem with airports. How about with airlines on releasing those data?

Ms. GARVEY. Well, one of the reasons I understand that the airlines are not here today is they are beginning a pretty aggressive

public effort in major U.S. cities, beginning in New York today and

traveling to all of the major cities, to talk about Y2K compliance

and their information that they have to date, so I think, again, as

we get closer, we will be releasing that.

Some of that information we have to date, and others of it we

don’t yet have, so we will be gathering that over the next several

weeks, Mr. Mead said.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Willemssen noted in his testimony—and I think

we’ve all agreed—that the survey had 20 percent of the airports

were completed and 58 percent by the end of September, and then

22 percent later. We don’t know what ‘‘later’’ means, whether it is

October, whether it is December 31st.

Are you confident, then, on the airport data, that where they will

be, let’s say at the end of November? Do you think they’ll all be

compliant at the airport side?

Ms. GARVEY. Well, I’ll be able to answer that better, I think, on

October 15th, and that’s why that’s so critical.

I can say that we did do site visits to 150 of the major airports

earlier this summer, and that encompasses over 93 percent of the

enplanements, so those are the important, very important, airports.

And we were very, very encouraged, the information that we were

able to get at that point.

And, again, I will stress that our focus are the safety systems,

and there are about 20 systems that are actually regulated and

about 7 or 8 on airports that are directly linked to safety, and those

are the ones that, obviously, from our perspective, are the most

critical. It involves lighting and communications, fire trucks, those

sorts of things.

Mr. HORN. At this point, is there any airport of, let’s say, a medium-sized airport and up, that is sort of a basket case at this

point and has a lot to do?

I’m not asking you to name it, particularly. I’m just saying, are

there some problems like that out there, based on your first survey?

Ms. GARVEY. I’m more confident with the larger airports. I think

they are in very good shape. I would say that some of the mid-sized

airports, when last I looked at it, probably had some work to do,

but there was nothing that was causing us great alarm at that

point. October 15th will be important, though.

72

Mr. HORN. How about the international airports and the international aviation firms? Any feeling there that they are lagging

quit a bit behind the United States, or what?

Ms. GARVEY. Well, I think we have some concerns. I think, as

Mr. Mead said, the information, the early information from ICAO

raised some flags for us in some areas, but we’ve gone back to

those areas. ICAO has put a very hard press on.

So, again, the information that we’re getting in this month is

critical, and having that on the Web at the end of the month I

think will be very helpful.

Good progress, more progress at the end of the summer than certainly the beginning of the summer. I think ICAO was really keeping the pressure on, and I think that’s appropriate and very good

to do.

But, again, we will be releasing that information, and full disclosure is really going to be our motto, if you will.

Mr. HORN. Yes, Mr. Mead?

Mr. MEAD. I have to get accustomed to the technology. This advanced technology—— Ms. GARVEY. I can explain it to you after, Mr. Mead, if you like.

Mr. HORN. We need a GAO survey, first. [Laughter.]

Mr. MEAD. I think that the key for airlines and airports, and

internationally, is not only the public disclosure, but that there be

some consequences attached to not responding to the Federal Aviation Administration.

We have roughly 2,000 small carriers out there, for example—I

alluded to them in my statement—that have chosen simply not to

respond to the agency that licenses them. I don’t think that should

be permitted.

So I think the disclosure, coupled with an announcement that

there will be some consequences if we don’t have a comfort level,

will do the trick.

Mr. HORN. Well, can their license be yanked, shall we say? That

isn’t just north of the Mason-Dixon line. But just what can the FAA

do about that to make sure they answer the survey?

Mr. MEAD. Well, I think they can make it a condition of their

continued operation that they respond.

And, with regard to foreign nations, I do think the U.S. Government has some control over at least U.S. airlines and where they

fly to.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Willemssen, any comments before I turn to Mrs.

Morella for questioning?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Just to add that, in our experiences on Y2K beyond aviation, one of the biggest motivational tools to get entities

on board on Y2K is to publicize site-specific Y2K readiness information. That has been a tremendous motivational tool to get those entities who are behind on track with the program and in compliance

in time.

So I would just echo that statement.

Mr. HORN. Well, I’m delighted to hear you say that, because

you’re absolutely correct, and there is no gag order now, and the

data will be out by the end of this month. So we thank you.

I now yield for questioning to my colleague and co-chairman,

Mrs. Morella of the House Subcommittee on Technology.

73

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Chairman Horn.

I just want to again thank the three of you for being so exemplary in the teamwork, working together, where you’ve got GAO

that can be critical and look internally, and the Inspector General,

who also scrutinizes very closely, and the FAA Director.

I think you are a great example for other agencies, also, in working together.

Mr. Mead, this is the fourth time you have testified, but we have

had five hearings on the issue. I wanted to ask you, the FAA has

identified 21 mission-critical systems that could pose the greatest

risk to the national airspace system if they’re not available on January 1, 2000. Of the 21 systems, only eight have been tested, as

I understand it, in an end-to-end environment. Why haven’t the

other 13 systems been part of an end-to-end test?

I wonder—I would imagine, but I wonder, do you have them as

far as the plans in the future for this end-to-end testing?

Ms. GARVEY. Congresswoman, the 12 or so that you’ve mentioned—let me back up a little bit.

We had a certain criteria when we looked at the end-to-end test.

One was that they had to have gone through Y2K repairs, because

some of our systems, though critical, didn’t need to have Y2K repairs. So they had to have gone through the Y2K. They had to be

an integral part of the system—in other words, not just stand-alone

systems, but an integral part of the system, and they had to be

used nationwide.

So we’ve taken a look at those 12 additional systems, if you will,

and they did not meet that criteria, which is why they were not

part of the end-to-end testing. But I will say that systems that

need to be tested, even those that stand alone, are tested as standalone systems.

Remember from our previous discussions that one of the

uniquenesses of the FAA system is how interconnected this system

is. So if they are stand-alone systems, they were still tested, but

they were not tested as part of the end-to-end. We were looking for

those systems that were interconnected.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Willemssen, could I ask you to comment on

that, also?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Yes. Some of those systems are stand-alone

systems, and therefore it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to test them

end-to-end. Some of those systems are not stand-alone systems. Indeed, some of them are communications systems which, by definition, are not stand-alone systems.

We would like to see, in the remaining months, some effort made

by FAA to try to test those in an end-to-end environment. Given

that we have the months remaining to do it, I think that FAA

should embark on that kind of effort.

I would not necessarily agree that, just because a particular system early on was not judged to need Y2K repairs, that we shouldn’t

test it in an end-to-end fashion at this point in time.

We have seen other examples where one system was deemed

compliant, again outside of FAA, another system was deemed compliant, but when they worked together there were problems because of the differences in how that compliance status was attained, and therefore I still think, in the remaining months, that

74

it would be especially important for FAA to take another look at

that, especially on those critical communication systems, to see

what additional testing can be done.

Mrs. MORELLA. Splendid. Will you do that, Ms. Garvey?

Ms. GARVEY. We will.

Mrs. MORELLA. Good.

I have time, I think, for another question in this first round, and

that is, I’m concerned that 53 countries have not responded to the

ICAO survey. What further steps—I would ask each of you—should

the FAA take to learn more about the status of these countries?

Mr. Mead?

Mr. MEAD. Well, we know who they are.

Mrs. MORELLA. We know who they are.

Mr. MEAD. I think that should be publicized.

Mrs. MORELLA. OK.

Mr. MEAD. I believe that serious consideration should be given

to placing restrictions on U.S. carrier flights to countries that will

not even respond to a questionnaire about where they stand on

Y2K compliance.

In some of these nations, frankly, the Y2K problem may be the

least of the problems. Some of their air traffic equipment may be

ancient, and there may be even deeper problems.

But I would try that approach. I agree with Mr. Willemssen and

Ms. Garvey about disclosure being a motivational factor, but I believe that needs to be coupled with some indication that there will

be consequences for not responding.

Mrs. MORELLA. So how do we do that? I mean, tell us. Be practical in terms of what the next step should be and what you will

be doing. Ms. Garvey?

Ms. GARVEY. Just to pick up a little bit on what Mr. Mead said,

I think, for example, the fact that we know where they are is extraordinarily helpful.

Obviously, we can send or ICAO can send some all teams in to

work with them. And we’ve done that, by the way, internationally,

from, you know, for the last year or so. We’ve had people that are

assigned just to the international efforts and have been part of

ICAO teams that have gone into countries and worked with them

to figure out exactly where they are with Y2K.

So I think knowing where they are and sending in specific teams,

in fact, is occurring and should occur.

I think the public disclosure, again, at the end of this month is

going to be extraordinarily helpful, and I think Mr. Mead is right—

keeping on the table further restrictions or travel restrictions from

the United States—well, obviously, we would involve State in those

discussions and they would not be taken lightly. I think having

that as a sort of ultimate step is one way to also keep some pressure on, as well.

I certainly hope in the last couple of weeks that number, 53, has

gone down. Some of that is information that may, you know, be updated, and we’re looking at that every day.

Mrs. MORELLA. And we assume you’ll be working with our State

Department and the consular office in——

Ms. GARVEY. Absolutely.

75

Mrs. MORELLA [continuing]. Getting this information out. Thank

you.

Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.

Mr. MEAD. Mrs. Morella, if I might just say, if you consider the

time of year that is most critical here that we’re all focusing on,

I think it is probably the early period of January, a key vacation

time. Some of these places are popular vacation destinations.

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes.

Mr. HORN. I now yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner,

for questioning for 6 minutes.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Following up on what Mrs. Morella was asking, it seems to me

that it would be appropriate for this joint committee to ask you,

Ms. Garvey, to give us some written plan that will reveal to us exactly what you are going to ask for and what kind of public disclosures will be made.

It seems that what we ought to be seeing here is the hammer

that Mr. Mead is talking about, it needs to be disclosed to the airlines and to the international community, give them time to recognize what you plan to do if they don’t respond to you. In fairness

they need notice. If they refuse to comply, then they know that you

are going to publish a list or you’re going to have a press conference or you’re going to post it on the Internet, or whatever actions you are going to take. If you’re going to demand that no

flights go into a certain country because you haven’t heard the status of their compliance those kind of things, in fairness, need to be

known by those other parties, and then, if they fail to comply—or

even if they do comply—then it is time to give the American people, the air travelers, notice in some specific way regarding the failure of those other airlines or those other countries or airports to

be compliant.

And unless you have a specific plan, it doesn’t seem to me that

we can be fair to all the parties involved, nor can we get the right

information to the American public.

It seems to me, even if our airlines understand that you are

going to take a certain action at a certain date, they will increase

the pressure on the international community to get into compliance. So that seems to me what Mrs. Morella was talking about,

and it doesn’t seem that we really have heard that today, and perhaps you could do that for us and then we could be assured that

all of these things that we’re talking about really have some form

and substance to them.

Ms. GARVEY. Mr. Turner, I would agree. And I think you’re right,

by the way, in terms of pressure even from the airlines. They are

extraordinarily, I think, effective in that regard, as well.

Let me do two things. One is, we can submit to you and for the

record an in-depth discussion, if you will, our plan that we have

internationally, both what we’ve done to date and some of the very

specific steps where we might be having site visits, what might be

76

some of the followup information in terms of the survey, and we’ll

definitely submit that for the record.

Mr. HORN. Without objection, that will be put in the record at

this point.

Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The information referred to follows:]

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

Ms. GARVEY. Let me also go back to a discussion we had in Montreal last year. It was the fall of last year, and this I think goes

right to your point about letting countries know, we had an international gathering of all of my colleagues from around the world

representing aviation agencies in their respective countries, about

185 countries, in total.

The United States, at that forum, introduced two very critical

resolutions. One was that ICAO publish a list of criteria for Y2K

compliance and that be published by January of last year, which

ICAO did. A lot of discussion around these resolutions, but it

passed overwhelmingly and ICAO did follow through on that.

The second was a resolution that said, ‘‘Look, if the countries do

not submit information by June 30th—’’ this past June 30, 1999—

‘‘then other countries—’’ in this case it was the United States making the resolution—‘‘had the option of issuing travel restrictions,’’

what’s called in the aviation world ‘‘NOTAMS.’’ But it is essentially

the ability to issue travel restrictions.

So those were resolutions that were discussed in an open, public

forum, with international countries in attendance, and was accepted by the body. So I think those were two very important steps in

certainly giving the heads-up, but we will submit the plan, the detailed plan, for the record, as well.

Mr. TURNER. It seems to me that what is going to happen if we

don’t have some time table and some point at which we——

Ms. GARVEY. Absolutely.

Mr. TURNER [continuing]. Reveal to the American public the status of their air safety, that we are going to have air travelers making their travel plans and their reservations with airlines, and

they’re going to be saying, ‘‘Well, is it OK to fly into such-and-such

a country?’’

Ms. GARVEY. Sure. Absolutely.

Mr. TURNER. I think Chairman Horn has done an excellent job

of using the bully pulpit and the publicity that can be generated

from a congressional committee to talk about Y2K and to urge compliance and get information out. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could

have a similar event regarding air safety. It seems to me that

somewhere around December 1st——

Ms. GARVEY. Oh, absolutely.

Mr. TURNER [continuing]. The American public deserves to know

the exact status of Y2K compliance, and that it be publicized in numerous ways in order to be sure the information is available to

them.

Ms. GARVEY. Right. I think the first introduction on the Website

at the end of this month is going to be very closely watched, and

travel agents and so forth, and I think the average traveler, too,

is going to want to access that information. I think you are absolutely right. And our challenge will be to keep it updated, not just

stopping at the end of September but adding to it in October, adding to it again in November, and I expect there will be many questions around that as we get closer. I think you’re right.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman. I was thinking of maybe Halloween for a hearing or something on this.

92

I now yield to the vice chairman, Mrs. Biggert, the gentlewoman

from Illinois, for 6 minutes of questioning.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just one more question on the international flights. Does the

FAA have the authority to ground international flights if there is

a computer problem or civil unrest in some of these other countries

because of Y2K, or whatever it would be? Do you have that authority in case of, for instance, war times or severe weather conditions?

Ms. GARVEY. The FAA has the authority, when safety is at risk—

and, again, we want to get back to our mission of safety, when

safety is at risk—to issue travel restrictions. It takes the form of

what is called NOTAMS, or special, you know, restrictions that we

might put in place. And sometimes when you go into an airport

you’ll see a sign that the Secretary of Transportation has restricted

air travel to certain countries. So we would use those same regulatory powers.

But, again, I want to stress it is when safety is at risk. We take

that, as Congresswoman Morella said, very seriously.

Mrs. BIGGERT. So you will consider that in case there is a problem?

Ms. GARVEY. That is certainly an option if safety is at risk.

Mrs. BIGGERT. There was something in the paper or the media

at some point—and I’m sorry I don’t have the exact article—but it

talked about having, after the first flights, the turnover December

31st into January 1st, talking about somewhat of a shutdown to do

testing right after that. Do you recall?

Ms. GARVEY. Congresswoman, I believe that refers to the rule

that—we are in the process of rulemaking right now. We have proposed that airports, after midnight of January 1st, before their official operations begin, that they do a sort of post-testing to make

sure everything is all right.

Of their critical safety systems that we regulate—for example,

that would be lighting, that they test their lighting, that they test

the fire trucks to make sure that they are still working appropriately and so forth. So it is a very limited number of systems that

would be tested.

We have proposed that. We’ve received a number of comments

that are technical in nature that suggest making some changes to

it. We are reviewing those comments now.

Mr. Miller mentioned when he was here that his airport was particularly concerned about it.

We don’t want to be burdensome to airports in any way. on the

other hand, we do think it is prudent to do some testing to make

sure everything is still OK, so we’re reviewing those comments

right now, and I believe that’s what the press was referring to.

Mrs. BIGGERT. That’s right. That’s what it was.

Do you foresee, in doing that, that there would be then a shutdown or a slowdown?

Ms. GARVEY. We’re not envisioning, Congresswoman, a real shutdown, but we’re saying before those operations begin in earnest—

and, again, we’re talking between the hours of 12 midnight, when

there are not a lot of operations, ordinarily—there is no need to go

through the drill on January 1st. But sometimes testing the system

93

requires that the system be capable of having the clock rolled forward to January 1, 2000.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, it seems that there have been so many

changes since July 1st, 1999, so many change orders or changes on

the computer systems, but then doesn’t that require further testing

so until you really get to that date, there might have been changes

that could affect the system?

Ms. GARVEY. Well, first of all, I believe we’ve got a very good

process in place to make sure that those changes are Y2K compliant, but I do want to mention, because I think that GAO appropriately brought up a concern about 1,000 changes that they had

seen, we’re going back and just taking another look at that, but

what we believe at this point is that the vast majority of those

changes occurred before June 30th. So we think they can be accounted for. But we’re going to double check, and we think GAO

is right to flag that.

We think it is only about 66 that have actually occurred since

June 30th.

I might also mention we have a wonderful team. Ray Long, who

used to head the Y2K office, has moved to a new position, and he

is responsible for all the sort of organizational support to these systems, and he is going in and doing a kind of validation and double

checking of what’s happening at the local facilities and those

changes that have taken place, and no one will understand it better than he.

Right question. I think we’ve got a good answer to it and I think

we’re on top of that.

Mrs. BIGGERT. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. Thank you. It is—if I might ask, you have an acting

person in that position now. Is there going to be confirmation of

that individual, or what?

Ms. GARVEY. Mr. Chairman, there will be very soon, and I might

say the acting person, Mary Powers King—who is sitting, I think,

right behind me—is doing an extraordinary job. She has been a

very able deputy since we put the program in place and hasn’t

missed a beat. So it is wonderful to have her there, as well.

Mr. HORN. Well, I’m glad to hear that, because we’ve been stressing the management aspect of this problem—— Ms. GARVEY. Right.

Mr. HORN [continuing]. Not just technology, and we need managers in there.

Ms. GARVEY. Great team. Thank you.

Mr. HORN. I now yield to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu,

of the House Committee of Science, Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Administrator Garvey, I’d like to apprise you of a situation out

on the west coast. It is not of a global nature, such as a Y2K problem, but it is very much connected with technology, and, unlike the

situations that we might be concerned about at Frankfurt or LAX,

this has to do with a community airport in the community of

Astoria, OR. And it just so happens that Astoria is in my congressional district.

The airport has the good fortune to be at the mouth of the Columbia River, one of the most dramatic places in the world. UnforVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 Mar 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\61204 pfrm08 PsN: 61204
94

tunately, the drama is not just in the river but it is also in the

weather there.

Now, this airport is not a large, international airport. I believe,

under your system, it is a level D airport. And it used to have four

women observing the weather, and those four individuals have

been replaced by ASOS, and I’ve had the pleasure of flying in and

out of that airport—— Mr. HORN. Can someone explain what that term means?

Mr. WU. It’s an automated weather system—— Mr. HORN. OK.

Mr. WU [continuing]. That is basically a hardware/software combination. It’s supposed to monitor the weather accurately and in

real time. But I believe that there are some special conditions at

this airport which may cause some problems with the ASOS system. I have tried to bring this issue to the attention of General

Kelley at the National Weather Service, and thus far we haven’t

had a satisfactory resolution of the situation.

Basically, ASOS looks straight up, I believe, and, having been

through that airport, I know that conditions at one end of the runway can be very, very different from conditions at the other end of

the runway, and basically what can happen is ASOS can tell you

that the weather is clear when the other end of the runway may

be socked in, or, conversely, it may tell you that the airport is

socked in when the other end of the runway is clear. And under

one set of circumstances someone flying in visually would be flying

into an instrument weather condition, potentially, and under the

other situation VFR pilots might be turned away from the airport

because they think that it’s IFR conditions.

This is a problem for the community, and I just wanted to apprise you of the situation. It is not of the scope of an LAX, Frankfurt. It is not of the scope of a Y2K situation. But it is very important to the community and I wanted the FAA to know about it because the National Weather Service thus far has not responded, in

my view, in a sufficient manner.

Ms. GARVEY. We’ll take a look at that, Congressman, and certainly the issue of safety is really critical, and in those cases where

we’ve had ASOS we’ve been very careful about monitoring to make

sure that we’re not compromising safety in any way, so let me take

a look at that.

Mr. WU. Thank you.

Mr. HORN. I’d like to have a response to the committee on that

issue and, without objection, it will be put in the record at this

point. You’ve raised a very good and important question.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. You’re welcome.

Mr. WU. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HORN. I now yield to Mr. Ose, the gentleman from California.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A couple of questions, if I might.

I’m a little bit confused about something. I think it was Ms. Garvey, you mentioned the 53 locations that are of concern at present

in terms of international travel.

95

Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, it was 53 countries that had not yet

responded to the Y2K survey, and I would, again, just add that

that may be a lower number today than it was—— Mr. OSE. So it might be 45 or 30 or whatever?

Ms. GARVEY. Exactly.

Mr. OSE. Well, the reason I ask that question—and I’m aware of

the delicate nature of saying anything reflecting on this, but when

I’ve traveled internationally I make my plans 90 to 120 days in advance, and it seems a stretch, if I were to be making my plans 90

to 120 days in advance, to wait until December 1st to advise the

American public about countries that maybe they don’t want to

travel to.

So I’m interested in finding out whatever the list is. I’m interested in finding out what countries there are that either have not

responded or not complied or that otherwise pose a potential danger, if you will, to American citizens flying in and out of those

countries.

Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, we can provide that information.

We’ve forwarded some information yesterday to the committee, and

we also have an inter-agency group now with the Department of

Transportation, State, and the Department of Defense that’s taking

a look at all the information as it is coming in and will be putting

up on the Web at the end of this month the most current information that we have. But we have even more detail, probably more

than would go up on the Web because it wouldn’t be very customer

friendly, if you will, but we can certainly provide that to the committee and to you, individually, and we would be happy to come up

and brief you in detail.

But I do want to stress, again, we are working with State, and

State will be putting out that information beginning at the end of

September and will be adding it to the Web, so we’ll be doing it

in those two ways and we will be updating it from the end of September on.

Mr. OSE. So it will be a matter of public record on or after September 30th?

Ms. GARVEY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. OSE. And the reason for not making it public record today?

Ms. GARVEY. Well, in some ways it is public, because we’ve been

able to give the information to the committee. What is occurring

between now and September 30th is that the inter-agency group is

reviewing all of that information and is summarizing it, getting it

ready for the Web, making some assessments as a team, and also

still gathering the information. Some of this information is still

coming in.

Certainly, though, the issue about which countries have not responded to date, while I want to update that, is something that we

could provide to you.

Mr. OSE. So today being September 9th, you’re—I perceive implicitly that your advice to people would be between now and September 30th maybe they ought to hold their fire on making any

plans traveling over—I mean, I’m trying to get to this. I don’t understand why it is that we can’t at least perhaps make the information public today. It might affect——

Mr. HORN. Would the gentleman yield for a comment?

96

Mr. OSE. Certainly.

Mr. HORN. And I just want to bring you two together here, and

I agree with Mr. Ose.

Would it be appropriate for, since you furnished some of this to

the subcommittee already—and we went over a lot of it yesterday—

would it be appropriate for us to issue a statement, if you don’t

issue it this week, as to which countries have not replied to the

survey?

Ms. GARVEY. I think, you know, Mr. Chairman, that would

be——

Mr. HORN. Just to warn people that this is——

Mr. GARVEY [continuing]. That would be fine. I would see if I

could get more updated information for you. I’d like to give you the

most up to date. That’s my only hesitation here.

Mr. OSE. Sure.

Ms. GARVEY. And, as usual, I would——

Mr. HORN. If you want to do it, fine. But I think it ought to be

done this week that we’re serious about it.

Ms. GARVEY. All right. And we will certainly communicate with

State and make sure we’re staying within the bounds of what you

have outlined, as well.

Mr. HORN. I asked that question because we have jurisdiction

over the Freedom of Information Act, and we’re very conscious of

this.

Ms. GARVEY. I understand.

Mr. HORN. And so we don’t like things hidden in bureaucratic

barns, shall we say.

Ms. GARVEY. And I think that’s why we were so eager to get that

resolution with our legal folks.

Mr. HORN. Good. Well, we appreciate you doing that last night,

because this could have gotten very explosive if you hadn’t taken

that decision to get off that official use business. So thank you for

doing that and getting it done.

Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman——

Mr. HORN. People have a right to know.

Mr. OSE [continuing]. For your clarifying.

If there’s anything I can do to help, I’m happy to do that.

Mr. HORN. Well, thanks for the question. I think it is a very good

one.

Mr. OSE. I have two other questions, if I could.

In terms of the actual turnover on the clock on December 31st,

is it Greenwich Mean Time that we need to be concerned with, or

is it local time that is affecting pilots in the air? I mean, I’m trying

to figure out, in terms of the software, which time is it that we are

focused on in terms of the actual tick-over?

Ms. GARVEY. It is Greenwich Mean Time, which is 7 Eastern

time.

Mr. OSE. So it’s midnight in Greenwich, 7 Eastern time, 4 Pacific

time. That’s the key moment, if you will?

Ms. GARVEY. That is correct, Congressman.

Mr. OSE. And then, finally, Mr. Willemssen, you have extensive

knowledge about these matters. I’m going to put you on the spot

97

here. Would you fly on the evening of December 31st or the morning of January 1st?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. I’ll answer that in two ways.

First of all, I have several years of experience in looking particularly at FAA systems and how well they have been developed and

maintained.

In my experience, from a systems perspective, safety has always

been the paramount issue to FAA, so that, to the extent that there

has been a problem or they expect a problem to occur, they will always from my experience and, from a systems perspective—take

the necessary measures to ensure that safety is adequately dealt

with.

Speaking more specifically to Y2K, we have presented some

issues today in terms of the work not yet being done.

I’d like to see some additional evidence from the standpoint of

FAA on how they plan to respond in a detailed fashion to some of

those issues before I’d be comfortable in standing here today and

saying unequivocally I’m going to embark on a flight at that time.

Mr. OSE. You think we’re making progress, though?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. There’s no doubt that the progress has been

extremely impressive. I give a lot of the credit to that, to the Administrator, and to their program management structure.

But, as we testified some time ago, the massive nature of this job

made it almost mission impossible, and that’s why the progress

that has been made is so impressive.

But I don’t think it is time to let up at this point.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. I thank you.

I now yield to the—what happened to the gentleman from New

York? They’re voting.

The gentleman, Mr. Baird, from Washington.

Mr. BAIRD. No, sir.

Mr. HORN. Any further questions? The gentlewoman from Maryland?

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A couple of questions.

First of all, Ms. Garvey, I understand that you were on a plane

a while ago and there was a delay, so you checked on what caused

the delay, and the pilot had announced it was a Y2K problem. You

checked on that and found that that wasn’t the case at all.

I use that as an example to ask you if you have a concern that

there may be too many situations where people use the Y2K compliance problem as a cover-up for some other problem. And have

you taken any steps to make sure that, you know, the airlines are

not hiding behind that?

Ms. GARVEY. Well, I think the fact that we’ve had and continue

to have such direct communication with the airlines about where

we are—we talked about public disclosure. We’ve been very up

front about exactly where we are with Y2K compliance and with

our testing, and so forth, and so, from my perspective, those are

the best steps we can take is to keep that communication, those

lines of communication, open.

I certainly hope that in the case of my experience that was just

one unique situation where he just either misunderstood what

98

somebody had told him about what the situation was. That pilot,

in particular, may just have gotten the wrong information. So I’m

certainly hopeful that that was just a very unique situation.

I think the communication, making sure that they know exactly

where we are and being very public about what our testing schedules are, and so forth, is all that we can continue to do.

Ken, you may—— Mr. MEAD. I think the direct answer to your question is yes.

Problems masquerading as Y2K problems on January 1st, I think,

are a matter of concern. In fact, one has already come to our attention—not in the airline or travel area, but involving pipelines. An

individual acquired some stock options in anticipation of being able

to cash in those options shortly after January 1st at a high price.

At the same time, there were allegedly some plans afoot to plant

a bomb on the pipeline on January 1st. The disruption of the pipeline flow would have been attributed to a Y2K computer problem.

That was a wake-up call.

Mrs. MORELLA. Yes. So we have to be vigilant, do all we can to

make sure we inform the public.

Ms. GARVEY. And I think, Congresswoman, that day one of our

great challenges—we talked about this yesterday in a table top exercise we did with DOT. We’re going to be getting a lot of information in, and, even, for example, with airports, there may be situations or there may be problems and they may, as Mr. Mead said,

not be Y2K compliant.

So, as we get the information in, sorting out what’s the cause of

it is going to be very, very challenging, and I’m not sure we’ve yet,

you know, figured out the answer to how we are going to sort everything out.

We had a map, for example, up on the screen yesterday, and it

showed all the airports, and it said you could end up having a disruption there and it could show up as red, but, once you get into

it, you find out, in fact, it’s not related to Y2K but it’s something

entirely different. And that’s going to be a great challenge getting

that correct information and then letting the public know the exact

information.

Mrs. MORELLA. I couldn’t agree with you more, and this is September 9, 1999, so I guess we’re going to be Y2K OK on September

9, 1999. I guess you would agree. I’d like you to answer it in a moment, but I do have another question before my time is up.

In March, before our subcommittees, Mr. Mead recommended

that the FAA actually should take a more active role to certify that

the entire industry, particularly small carriers and suppliers, are

compliant, rather than relying on their self-reported data.

I just wondered, Ms. Garvey, why FAA decided not to embark on

that recommendation of the Inspector General.

Ms. GARVEY. We had an awful lot of discussion on that. As Mr.

Mead suggested, we’ve really gone—we’ve really agreed with just

about every recommendation, and came pretty close on this one

with the intensive surveys.

We’re working within the regulatory framework that we have.

We also, frankly, are working with—we know what our resources

are and what we can deliver on and what we can promise. We felt

that getting the assessments and then following up with the indiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 Mar 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\61204 pfrm08 PsN: 61204
99

vidual site visits—we’ve got over 3,000 inspectors now who are all

keyed in on working those remaining folks that we haven’t heard

from.

Mr. Mead asked again today that we take another look at this,

and, of course, we will, but I think we are making very good

progress and I think we still want to stay within our regulatory

charge.

Mrs. MORELLA. Final point, Mr. Mead, you want to emphasize

or——

Mr. MEAD. Sure. I think that the current situation reinforces the

strength of the recommendation that the airlines simply be told,

‘‘By October 15th we want a certification in hand that you’re Y2K

compliant.’’ There are 2,000 air carriers, and they’re small—admittedly, very

small—that have chosen not to respond. Now, are we just going to

leave that hanging? People will be flying on these carriers around

about January 1st.

I don’t think it is a Draconian step to ask an airline to certify.

I make certification to the Department of Motor Vehicles and no

one loses a lot of sleep over that. And I think it is a reasonable expectation that air carriers who have people’s lives in their hands

could make a certification to FAA like that.

Maybe they could have a caveat: ‘‘We’ve done our best, and, to

the best of our knowledge, everything is compliant.’’ I understand

that they may need some wiggle room. But I think it would help

clean up this universe of 2,000 out there that hasn’t responded.

Mrs. MORELLA. Sounds very logical to me.

Ms. Garvey, would you reconsider?

Ms. GARVEY. We will, Congresswoman.

Mrs. MORELLA. OK. Good. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. Well, besides reconsider, are you getting close to saying that’s the right approach?

Ms. GARVEY. Well, first of all, every time Mr. Mead raises an

issue I take it very seriously, and he is always very compelling.

I want to also be very careful that we are promising what we can

deliver. I think we are very close to what he has already described—that is, with a caveat. I mean, I think the survey that we

put out, it pretty much comes to the came conclusion.

I’ll take another look whether we can be even tougher on it or

put a specific date.

We have, with airports, done that, and we’ll take another look at

it.

Mr. HORN. I would hope in this country that if any of them are

watching some of this hearing, they’d fax the answer to you right

now.

I find when people have to put their name on a document, that

helps.

Ms. GARVEY. Absolutely. And, again, I get back to the public disclosure. I think having just—‘‘Here are the airlines that have not

yet responded.’’ You don’t even have to say anything more than

that. That is a terrific leverage. That is the kind of information

that will be on the Web.

Mr. HORN. Good. We’ll work something out with you.

100

I now yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Garvey, you said that you had provided to the subcommittee

and to the joint committee a list of the 53 nations that hadn’t complied with the ICAO survey. Could someone, a member of your

staff, point to where that is, because I have the document you provided to the committees in front of me and I don’t see it anywhere.

Ms. GARVEY. Let me double check with our folks, but I believe

that part of what we gave the committee last night was the information that we had to date, and that is, again, a little bit dated,

which includes the surveys from the individual——

Mr. WEINER. I don’t see any reference to ICAO nations that have

not responded.

Ms. GARVEY. I’m sorry. I think we would be—the way the book

is laid out, it gives a list of all the countries and which ones have

responded, but we can extract which ones have not and provide

that in—sort of on a separate page.

Mr. WEINER. Do you have that with you, Ms. Garvey?

Ms. GARVEY. I don’t, but I can get that for you.

Mr. WEINER. Do you have that with you, Mr. Mead?

Mr. MEAD. I have regions, specific regions of the world that did

not respond. The answer is no, I do not have by specific country.

I do have by region.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Mead, you, in response to another question—

I think it was by my colleague, Mr. Turner—said that there was

some nations—I thought you said some nations on that list that fell

into the category of vacation destinations. Can you give some examples?

Mr. MEAD. I was thinking of the Caribbean, and some places in

South America.

Mr. WEINER. Now, you were referring to regions or nations when

you made that answer?

Mr. MEAD. I’m referring to regions. I am not personally able to

specify the countries that have not responded.

Mr. WEINER. I see.

Ms. Garvey, now, this survey is done, an airport-to-airport survey? Is it one airport by one airport? Is it each airline gets a survey? Is it—how is it done that it’s broken down by region in the

documents that you have? Is it an interview by regions? Explain

how that’s done.

Ms. GARVEY. The work was done by ICAO, was done by the

international organization. We were part of that team. It is done

both by regions and also talks about—if you look at—I’m not sure

that this is included in the report, but we can certainly get it—the

supporting documentation that would break it down by the airports

and by the airlines.

What we have talked about putting up on the Web with State

at the end of September is a summary of the country, because

there’s going to be so much information, so we’re talking about a

summary of the country.

Obviously, if somebody has got a particular concern, I would

think, about a particular airline or a particular airport in a country, that we could provide that subsequently to that——

101

Mr. WEINER. But in response to a previous question you mentioned to the chairman that the information had been provided to

the committees and the chairman then I think very appropriately

suggested that we might beat you to the punch and release it sooner, because many of us don’t believe, as Mr. Ose said earlier, that

waiting to the end of the month, waiting for the State Department

to shake hands with the FAA—can you provide that information in

a more timely manner to members of the committee?

Ms. GARVEY. We can provide specifically which countries have

not yet responded, and we can do that. We’ll do that—I hope I’m

not over-promising by saying today we can get that information

out.

Mr. WEINER. Great.

Ms. GARVEY. What I would like to do, if I could—— Mr. WEINER. Sure.

Ms. GARVEY [continuing]. Is perhaps update it to give you the

best information that we have. If the number has moved from 53

to 45, I’d like to give you that.

Mr. WEINER. Well, you know, I have a theory about this that you

might not share. If a nation or an airport or an airline is unwilling

to make a June 30, 1999, deadline to even respond to a survey

about what they had to do to come into compliance by December

1999, I’d be very surprised if these truants then began sprinting to

get you information.

What it probably speaks to is they’re not taking the problem very

seriously.

And, echoing what Mr. Ose and what the chairman and what

Mr. Turner said earlier, we don’t have a great deal of time. Putting

aside the travel time, they don’t have a great deal of time, if I understand the time line for doing some of these tests and doing some

of the research necessary.

I don’t know who we are protecting at this point and what leverage we’re trying to protect by not releasing it, frankly, on June

30th. That’s probably the way to do it. If we’re going to be serious

about a deadline, that should be it.

But if you can provide that information by the end of the day,

I would certainly appreciate seeing that, because I have a fantasy

about some day taking a vacation, as well.

Let me just ask you—I’m not sure if it is Mr. Willemssen who

might want to answer this question—putting aside the abstract notion of Y2K problems, is there any scenario whereby a plane falls

out of the sky on January 1st, 2000, or is the worst-case scenario

delays and inconveniences? Is there any scenario where there is catastrophe?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. We haven’t been able to identify any evidence

at this point that there would be any scenario of a plane falling out

of the sky.

Mr. WEINER. So I think that it would be helpful for consumers

and Members of Congress to keep in mind that what we’re talking

about is, frankly, having delays on the ground, canceled flights,

and the like—in other words, like a typical day at LaGuardia.

We have to be careful that we don’t reach a level of hysteria surrounding this issue that people begin, you know, hunkering down,

driving to Sweden rather than taking a plane, and things like that.

102

I think that this committee does a great service to the Nation by

keeping in mind the parameters of this potential problem, but also

using the leverage that we have in making sure that people are

aware of what nations and what airlines are not complying with

basic requests.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baird, for 6 minutes.

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Garvey, I spoke with the members of the aviation industry

a while back, and they expressed some concern about some changes

that preceded the Y2K issue as FAA was updating installations

and expanded—I believe it is called ‘‘miles in trail distance.’’

Ms. GARVEY. Yes.

Mr. BAIRD. One of their concerns was that they felt there had not

been adequate consultation about that and that the miles and trail

distance had remained at an extended length, and that was, in

fact, responsible for a great number of delays that we currently experience, many of us who fly a lot.

Help us understand how FAA has worked with the aviation companies, themselves, with the airlines, on this issue of Y2K, and can

we expect to see greater cooperation and perhaps a reduction in the

miles in trail distance at some time in the future?

Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, in fact, we already have. And you’re

absolutely right. The miles in trail was instituted as a result of

some of the transition to new technology. In particular, it was a

transition to DSR. And we wanted to keep a very, very great separation as we were transitioning to new equipment.

The airlines, I think appropriately, raised some questions about

whether we were, A, too conservative and, B, whether or not we

had kept the miles in trail restrictions in place too long.

Mr. BAIRD. Yes.

Ms. GARVEY. We had some very good discussions with them over

the last 2 weeks, and we have seen a reduction of miles in trails.

I want to make it very clear, though, again, never at the expense

of safety. That is our paramount concern, and I think it is to the

airlines, as well.

So, while we’ve reduced the miles in trail restrictions, we have

still always stayed well above the minimum standards, the minimum safety standards.

And we’re talking with the airlines every morning and every

evening from our command center. We’re getting immediate real

time feedback about how the miles in trail restriction is working,

as well as how our ground stock delay program is working, as well.

Both of those are tools that we can use to manage the air space

system safely and efficiently, and that’s really our focus.

Mr. BAIRD. I hope you’ll continue that, because I know it is a

critical issue——

Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.

Mr. BAIRD [continuing]. And I can imagine it recurring with the

Y2K concerns.

Ms. GARVEY. Yes. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

103

Mr. HORN. I thank you very much, and I want to thank all of

our witnesses, and I want to thank the staff. And let me just note,

for the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,

and Technology, we have Russell George standing over there by the

door, staff director and chief counsel; behind me with particular

emphasis on this hearing and this subject is the senior policy director, Matt Ryan; Bonnie Heald, director of communications and professional staff member; Chip Ahlswede is the clerk; and Mr.

Caceres is an intern, and we’re glad to have that free help.

On the minority staff, we have Jean Gosa, staff assistant, and

Trey Henderson, minority counsel.

And for the Technology Subcommittee we have Jeff Grove, staff

director; Ben Wu, counsel; Joe Sullivan, clerk; Mike Quear, minority professional staff; and Marty Ralston, minority staff assistant.

And our court reporter today is Mel Jones.

We thank you all, and with that this is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of their respective Chairs.]

Æ