U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–159 PDF 2010

NEXTGEN: LONG-TERM PLANNING 

AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION 

(111–104) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

April 21, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

VACANCY 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio, Vice Chair 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

DINA TIUS, Nevada 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Bolsinger, Lorraine A., President and Cheif Executive Officer, General Electric Aviation Systems LLC .................................................................................. 4 

Dillingham, Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, United States 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 4 

Pennington, Steven, Executive Director, Department of Defense Policy Board 

on Federal Aviation .............................................................................................. 4 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, United States Department 

of Transportation ................................................................................................. 4 

Shin, Jaiwon, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration .................................. 4 

Toner, Karlin, Director, Joint Planning and Development Office ....................... 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 22 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 23 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 30 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona ............................................................................ 33 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 34 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 38 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bolsinger, Lorraine A. ............................................................................................. 42 

Dillingham, Geralde ................................................................................................ 52 

Pennington, Steven .................................................................................................. 77 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L. ...................................................................................... 81 

Shin, Jaiwon ............................................................................................................. 96 

Toner, Karlin ............................................................................................................ 102 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bolsinger, Lorraine A., President and Cheif Executive Officer, General Electric Aviation Systems LLC, response to request for information from Hon. 

Richardson, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ......... 49 

Dillingham, Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, United States 

Government Accountability Office, response to request for information from 

Hon. Richardson, a Representative in Congress from the State of California 72 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, United States Department 

of Transportation, response to request for information from Hon. Richardson, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ...................... 92 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 56159.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 56159.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 56159.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 56159.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 56159.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 56159.006
(1) 

NEXTGEN: LON-TERM PLANNING AND 

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION 

Wednesday, April 21, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F. Costello [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair 

will ask all staff, Members and everyone to turn electronic devices 

off or on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony regarding NextGen: Long-term Planning and Interagency Cooperation. I 

will give a brief opening statement and I will submit a longer statement for the record. Then I will recognize the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Petri, for his statement or any remarks that he may have, and 

then we will go to our panel of witnesses. 

Let me welcome everyone to the aviation Subcommittee hearing 

today on NextGen: Long-term Planning and Interagency Cooperation. Today’s hearing will explore how the Federal agencies responsible for implementing NextGen are reconciling near, mid-term and 

long-term goals. This hearing will also examine how the Joint Planning and Development Office will work in collaboration with partner agencies. 

This is the fourth hearing that Ranking Member Petri and I 

have held in the 111th Congress on NextGen. I will continue to 

hold regular hearings on NextGen-related issues to provide congressional oversight and a forum for open dialogue to explore the 

challenges that lie ahead. 

The FAA has made progress in planning and developing 

NextGen, and has tested key technologies such as ADS-B that allows an aircraft to transmit its own position and receive information from similarly equipped aircraft. I want to continue to work 

with the FAA and industry stakeholders to ensure these near-term 

programs stay on schedule for long-term advancements, in order 

for them to be made. 

Successful implementation of NextGen depends on strong leadership and a clear organizational structure. The JPDO is responsible 

for facilitating coordination among partner agencies on how to 

apply each agency’s respective expertise, research and technology 

to the task of building the NextGen system. To increase the authority and visibility of the JPDO, the House FAA reauthorization bill 

2 

elevates the director of the JPDO within the FAA reporting directly 

to the administrator. Clarity on the JPDO director’s leadership and 

role is essential. 

In our NextGen near-term hearing in March 2009, the Government Accountability Office testified about uncertainty over the 

JPDO’s authority and role and a lack of leadership to clarify and 

define their role. Almost a year later, the FAA announced several 

changes to the JPDO structure and named Dr. Toner the director 

of the organization. 

As the FAA implements near and mid-term NextGen capabilities, 

near to mid-term plans must be connected to the long term vision. 

In addition, I firmly believe there needs to be greater White House 

involvement in facilitating collaboration among partner agencies. I 

am hopeful that the recent changes to the JPDO signal this administration’s support. 

With that, I welcome all of our witnesses here today and I look 

forward to hearing their testimony. 

Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his opening statement, I ask 

unanimous consent to allow 2 weeks for all Members to revise and 

extend their remarks and to permit the submission of additional 

statements and materials by Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

At this time the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for calling this hearing. The transition to NextGen is a complex undertaking worthy of rigorous oversight. Sometimes I think when 

the government is involved, it is more complex and it takes longer 

than it might otherwise be. And one of the reasons we are having 

this hearing is to see if we can’t make it more efficient and actually 

get NextGen deployed in a reasonable period of time. 

In October of 2003, we approved the Vision 100 FAA reauthorization that, among other things, created, as you pointed out, the 

Joint Planning and Development Office to manage the interagency 

coordination implementation of the effort to move us to NextGen. 

The goal was to leverage existing resources of JPDO partner agencies to facilitate the NextGen transition as well as to ensure that 

the future modernized national airspace system capabilities will 

meet the needs of JPDO partner agencies. Vision 100 requires the 

JPDO to develop annual integrated work plans to provide step by 

step work plans for the JDPO partner agencies. 

I am interested to learn how and to what extent the partner 

agencies are dedicating resources to the development of NextGen. 

There are plenty of examples of NASA and Department of Defense 

research and developed technologies that have found their way into 

daily civilian life. So I am interested to hear how human factors 

research and technology transfer efforts between JPDO partner 

agencies are facilitating the advancement of NextGen. 

Vision 100 also established the Senior Policy Committee comprised of cabinet secretaries and agency heads of the JDPO partner 

agencies along with the head of the White House Office of Science 

and Technology. The purpose of the Senior Policy Committee is to 

provide guidance on key NextGen policy questions and to maintain 

senior level accountability for advancing the NextGen effort. 

3 

The bipartisan NextGen provisions of the pending House FAA reauthorization bill elevates the position of the JPDO director within 

the FAA. In November of 2008, President Bush signed an executive 

order that restores the focus of senior administrative level officials 

on the NextGen planning and implementation process, and the current administration has seemingly endorsed this approach. 

I look forward to hearing the IG and GAO’s assessments of the 

current levels of engagement between the JPDO and the Senior 

Policy Committee and the FAA executives. I am also interested in 

hearing from all of the witnesses on just who they believe is in 

charge of NextGen. 

A challenging factor within NextGen is that the transformation 

must happen on a system that can never be turned off for repairs. 

In addition, the exigencies of the day-to-day operation of the national air space system can overpower any long-term planning 

focus. I would like our witnesses to address how the JPDO is handling the challenges associated with balancing the needs of the current system integration of long-term improvements and planning 

for future needs. It must also address the need to ensure international harmonization of satellite-based surveillance and air traffic control modernization. Not only must we ensure air traffic control sources are interchangeable, but timelines matter, too. 

With regard to satellite-based surveillance, it is not just a matter 

of keeping up with the Joneses. We must be sure to keep with Europe, Australia, and even Mongolia’s accelerated ADS-B timetables. 

The value of being first means that you set the standard to which 

avionics are built. That could mean good-paying jobs here in the 

United States, a benefit not lost on Americans given the current 

unemployment levels. 

I am interested in hearing about the JPDO’s efforts to keep the 

U.S. the world’s leader for air traffic modernization. Finally, it is 

argued that NextGen will result in significant cost savings and environmental benefits, more direct precise routing, and improved air 

traffic management which will result in significant reductions in 

fuel burn and emissions. 

According to an October 2009 GAO report, the procedures that 

will result in many environmental benefits are often mired in review processes mandated by Congress under NEPA that can take 

years and can cost millions of dollars. We should seriously explore 

how to best get the environmental benefits of new navigation procedures in the most timely and efficient way. I believe that the slow 

pace of the environmental review of new air traffic control procedures threatens the entirety of the NextGen enterprise. It is impossible to achieve the goals of NextGen if the FAA can only clear a 

limited number of high quality procedures through the environmental review process each year. 

Both the environmental benefits promised and the overall success of the NextGen enterprise seem to depend on our ability to 

overcome this challenge. I think we can preserve the goals of NEPA 

while improving the FAA’s ability to implement more environmentally friendly air traffic procedures, and I welcome any specific 

proposals on this issue from our witnesses. And I understand we 

do have several of these from the General Electric witness. 

4 

So I thank all of you for participating, and thank you for your 

testimony. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now 

I will recognize our witnesses. 

First is Dr. Karlin Toner, director of the Joint Planning and Development Office with the FAA and senior staff adviser to the Secretary of Transportation on NextGen; Dr. Gerald Dillingham is the 

director, physical infrastructure issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office; the Honorable Calvin Scovel, III, Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation; Dr. Jaiwon Shin, 

associate administrator, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

for NASA; Steven Pennington, Headquarters Air Force, Director of 

Bases, Ranges and Air Space, and the executive director for the Department of Defense Policy Board on Federal Aviation; Lorraine 

Bolsinger, President and CEO of GE aviation systems. 

I understand, Ms. Bolsinger, you have to leave at 4 p.m. We appreciate you being here to testify before the Committee, and hopefully we will be able to get your testimony and adhere to the time 

you have to leave. 

STATEMENTS OF KARLIN TONER, DIRECTOR, JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE; GERALD DILLINGHAM, 

DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, UNITED 

STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JAIWON SHIN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION 

DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; STEVEN PENNINGTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY BOARD ON FEDERAL AVIATION; AND LORRAINE A. BOLSINGER, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, GENERAL ELECTRIC AVIATION SYSTEMS LLC 

Mr. COSTELLO. Before I call on our first witness to testify, you 

will see me leave about 2:40 and another Member, Mr. Boswell, 

will take the Chair for a short period of time. I am going down the 

hall to the Financial Services Committee where I will be testifying 

on a bill that I have an interest in, and after my testimony is completed, I will be back here in the Chair. 

With that, the Chair now recognizes Dr. Toner. All of your statements will be entered into the record in their entirety and we ask 

that you adhere to the 5-minute rule to summarize your statements so we have time for discussion. 

Dr. Toner. 

Ms. TONER. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. First, I want to thank 

you for inviting me to talk with you today about what the Joint 

Planning Development Office work is in long-term planning and 

interagency cooperation for NextGen. 

Today I am appearing before you as the new Director of the 

JPDO, a position I have had the privilege of serving for just 60 

days now and I realize that this is not an easy job. I first worked 

with the JPDO 6 years ago at that time as a NASA researcher. 

Back then I served on an integrated product team and helped 

brainstorm the ideas and the concepts that are NextGen. 

5 

Since then, Administrator Babbitt has realigned the Joint Planning Development Office so that the director reports directly to the 

FAA Deputy Administrator. And I note from Ranking Member 

Petri’s opening comments, the FAA Deputy Administrator is the 

point person on NextGen. 

I also continue to meet regularly with Secretary LaHood’s office 

to advise him on NextGen progress and plans, a practice that started when I served as his NextGen Senior Adviser. 

My job as the Director is to refine our longer term goals and to 

account for the changing realities of our aviation world. NextGen 

capabilities are beginning to be implemented today. And as we gain 

experience, our past work will help us chart a realistic course forward. 

Today’s world is different than the one in which NextGen was 

originally envisioned. The economy, the airlines, the environment, 

and our security needs have changed dramatically. I think we have 

observed the economic impacts in the past week with volcanic eruptions. To account for these changes in our world, we must take a 

more flexible approach to longer-term NextGen planning. We must 

blend evolution and transformation to meet the national needs for 

air transportation. 

Of equal importance, my responsibilities also include expanding 

the opportunities for collaboration among the partner agencies. The 

JPDO provides a forum for interagency engagement and monitors 

the follow-up of the partners. JPDO will develop strategic issues for 

the Senior Policy Committee, a cabinet-level decision making body. 

We will continue to identify long-term research needs, making sure 

that they are integrated into current implementation. And we will 

continue to consult with industry and assess how they can best 

contribute to policy and R&D planning today. 

I am looking at all of the possibilities for successful interagency 

cooperation. We are very fortunate that with the increased visibility and responsibility of the JPDO and the Administration’s 

focus on NextGen, we now have even more tools to choose from to 

ensure productive partnerships across the government. 

Of course the more productive these cooperative efforts are, the 

better the service that the FAA can provide to the traveling public. 

Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for inviting me to share my views with 

you today. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be 

happy to answer questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Dr. Toner, and now recognizes Dr. Dillingham. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Petri. 

My written testimony focus on two issues. First, the challenges 

FAA faces in coordinating planning and implementation of 

NextGen internally across the various lines of business and externally with the partner agencies; and second, FAA’s efforts to integrate near term and mid term implementation plans with the long 

term NextGen vision. 

Regarding internal coordination challenges, we have previously 

reported to this Committee that FAA would find it challenging to 

shift from a focus on systems acquisition and individual programs 

6 

to a focus on integration and coordination. Two recent organizational changes may help to address this ongoing challenge. First, 

FAA has determined that the deputy administrator will be the executive in charge and responsible across all FAA lines of business 

for the implementation of NextGen. This development adds to the 

urgency of filling this critical position. 

Additionally, FAA has begun coordinating some office functions 

and moving towards a portfolio approach for implementation. 

These are positive, but relatively recent developments, and it remains to be seen how well they will address concerns expressed by 

industry and the Congress about exactly what is NextGen and who 

is in charge of NextGen and whether that official has sufficient authority and accountability to ensure effective implementation. 

With regard to the challenges related to interagency coordination, we have identified several issues that have impeded the effectiveness of two key mechanisms designed to facilitate this kind of 

coordination, the Senior Policy Committee and JPDO. 

The senior policy Subcommittee is the highest level coordinating 

body and includes all of the partner agencies. Our research has 

shown that the Senior Policy Committee has met infrequently. According to senior JPDO officials, they are working with Senior Policy Committee Members to improve its operations. JPDO is tasked 

with managing the partner agency’s day-to-day coordination and 

collaboration. It has several mechanisms to support its efforts such 

as advisory boards, working groups, and research transition teams. 

However, our work has identified some issues which have limited 

JDPO’s effectiveness. 

For example, JPDO’s leadership and organizational position has 

undergone frequent changes. JPDO now has its fourth Director in 

7 years and its placement within the NextGen structure has 

changed several times. These changes have created uncertainty 

about JPDO’s role and authority among stakeholders. 

Some other issues have affected FAA’s coordination with the 

partner agencies, including the limited funding and staffing that 

some partner agencies dedicate to NextGen activities, differences in 

agency mission priorities, particularly those of FAA, DHS and DOD 

as well as a relative lack of specificity in key NextGen planning 

documents as to how partner agencies will be involved. 

Provisions in both the House and Senate FAA reauthorization 

bills could help address some of these challenges. 

Turning to FAA’s efforts to integrate near term and mid-term implementation plans with the long-term NextGen vision, currently 

FAA is modeling the potential impact on the NextGen vision of a 

variety of scenarios which could be implemented in the mid term 

and the long term. The relative cost benefits and risks that are 

identified through these scenario modelings will help to shape policy decisions about how programs, technologies and capabilities can 

best be implemented in the mid term and become stepping stones 

for the long term NextGen vision. These policy decisions include developing a strategy for equipping the Nation’s aircraft fleet, expediting standards development, certification, and environmental reviews. 

And finally, realigning air traffic control facilities and planning 

for new runways to help address problems with system delays that 

7 

NextGen technologies alone are not likely to fully resolve. These efforts are very much works in progress and FAA should continue to 

seek and include the input and buy-in of stakeholders. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair recognizes the inspector general, Mr. 

Scovel. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member 

Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on FAA’s progress in implementing the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen. FAA is developing NextGen to create a new air transportation system that will 

handle three times more traffic than today. NextGen involves a significant overhaul of the current national air space system, to shift 

from a ground-based to a satellite-based operation. Accomplishing 

this will require multibillion dollar investments from both government and industry. 

Since the effort began in 2005, we have testified before this Subcommittee on the operational and management challenges that 

must be addressed to successfully implement NextGen in the near 

and midterm. Today I will discuss three areas that will have a significant impact on advancing NextGen’s long-term goals. One, risks 

with ongoing FAA modernization projects that form the platforms 

for NextGen; two, fundamental research and development issues 

that will impact performance; and three, actions needed to maximize the multi-agency approach. 

FAA is making progress in its efforts to implement NextGen but 

continues to face challenges in implementing ongoing modernization project that provide platforms for new NextGen capabilities. 

Key multibillion-dollar programs have experienced problems, and 

FAA has yet to fully determine their NextGen-specific requirements. 

For example, FAA’s $2.1 billion en route automation modernization, or ERAM program, for managing high-altitude traffic is experiencing software-related problems at its key initial operating site 

in Salt Lake City. These include problems in handing off traffic between controllers and matching critical flight information to the 

right aircraft. FAA is spending about $14 million a month to resolve these problems and deploy ERAM at other sites. However, 

FAA officials acknowledge that it is unlikely that all 20 systems 

will be operational nationwide by December 2010 as originally 

planned. FAA must take steps to ensure that problems with ERAM 

are resolved and that they don’t impact NextGen efforts now and 

in the future. 

Likewise, recent problems with FAA’s telecommunications infrastructure, FTI, raise questions about whether the system can be relied on for NextGen initiatives and whether FAA is adequately 

overseeing the FTI contractor. An FTI failure last November delayed over 800 flights nationwide, and it took FAA and the contractor over 5 hours to diagnose, correct, and restore service. In response to the outage, FAA established review teams to assess the 

overall system design and FAA’s oversight. However, it remains 

unclear if the planned FTI network as designed or planned can 

support future NextGen initiatives. Therefore, it will be important 

8 

for FAA to follow through on its plans to examine the broader implications of the November outage with respect to NextGen and the 

agency’s management of FTI. 

A critical step to avoid risks with NextGen’s cost schedule and 

capabilities is leveraging resources between FAA and partner agencies. FAA and the JPDO have made important progress in coordinating diverse research and multi-agency efforts. For example, 

NASA is playing a major role in developing software for NextGen 

capabilities. Overall, we found that NASA’s work is fairly well 

aligned with JPDO plans. However, FAA needs to resolve issues 

with the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security regarding integrating weather information, determining joint 

surveillance needs, and determining how to incorporate unmanned 

aircraft systems into the mix. 

We have identified a number of actions that can strengthen the 

multi-agency approach, better leverage resources, and prevent duplicative efforts. These include clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the JPDO, establishing research priorities and developing 

an integrated NextGen budget document that aligns with these priorities, completing an assessment of partner agency research, making use of already developed technology, and securing the skill sets 

necessary to execute NextGen and oversee its contracts. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that FAA is making 

progress in addressing NextGen’s challenges. However, a number 

of critical actions are still needed for successful implementation of 

this multibillion-dollar effort, and these issues must be effectively 

addressed in the near term in order for NextGen to deliver the 

long-term benefits needed to meet the expected demand for air 

travel. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 

to address any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Inspector General Scovel, thank you for your testimony, and the Chair now recognizes Dr. Shin. 

Mr. SHIN. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member 

Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity today to discuss how NASA works with the JPDO and how 

NASA’s research efforts support NextGen. 

Advancements to aircraft and aircraft operations produced dollars and jobs for the U.S. economy, improve the environment, and 

supports energy and independence. Aviation is also a major contributor to U.S. exports. However, the increase in air traffic congestion and the noise and emissions generated by aircraft is a significant issue facing our Nation and the world. Current air traffic 

management processes and procedures do not provide enough flexibility for innovative solutions to address these growing demands. 

In order to meet the need for increased capacity and efficiency, 

while improving safety, new technologies and processes must be 

implemented. Addressing this problem will require research and 

development in both efficient air traffic operations and in new vehicle concepts. 

The intricate cross-cutting nature of national air space systems 

requires cooperation and coordination among Federal agencies as 

9 

well as the aerospace industry in order to achieve both the nearterm improvements and the NextGen vision. 

From the earlier days of JPDO, NASA has made significant contributions to the development of NextGen vision and key planning 

documents. We have aligned our research programs to address research needs identified by the JPDO’s integrated work plan, and 

continue to make vital science and technology investments with the 

goals of realizing near-term improvements and enabling the longterm NextGen vision. The need for increased levers of cooperation 

is ever present if the U.S. is to leverage each Federal agency’s 

areas of expertise and ensure close coordination of research programs and investment decisions. 

Among NASA’s four aeronautic research programs, the air space 

systems program most directly addresses one of NextGen’s goals to 

advance air traffic management. NASA’s research in this area is 

multifaceted from near-term improvements to innovative concepts 

and technologies covering gate to gate operations on the airport 

surface, on runways, in defense terminal areas, and in the many 

unmarked sectors of the national air space system. 

However, achieving full benefits of NextGen will require contributions from all four research programs to ensure revolutionary 

new air traffic capabilities are introduced, safety of the system is 

improved, and environmental impacts due to aviation is mitigated. 

The NASA aeronautics research program is not limited to research activities at low technology resident levels. With the start 

of the integrated systems research program in fiscal year 2010, and 

through a new structure of the air space systems program, NASA 

is committed to develop advanced technologies and applications 

that target NextGen needs and support maturity of those applications for transition to implementing organizations. 

NASA has also been actively making close and collaborative engagements with the FAA. For example, NASA and the FAA created 

research transition teams in order to accelerate progress for 

NextGen advancements and effectively transition advanced capabilities to the FAA for certification and implementation. The explicit intent of these cross-agency collaborations is to help bridge 

the maturity gap between advanced concept development and the 

validation of such concepts in relevant operational environments 

enabling the FAA to make informed investment and deployment 

decisions. Effective cross-agency collaboration has resulted in several recent demonstrations of advanced technology benefits. 

Let me provide one example. NASA has been developing concepts, technologies and procedures to support continuous descent 

arrival for improved efficiency and reduced environmental impact. 

A complementary project, the inroads system adviser, combines 

scheduling of high density flows in terminal area air space with a 

concept known as tailored arrival and airborne precise precision 

spacing. Tailored arrivals allow aircraft to fly continuous rising/descents at low-engine power from cruise altitude to the runway, 

thereby minimizing fuel consumption, environmental emissions and 

noise pollution. NASA and the FAA jointly conducted a successful 

field evaluation in the fall of last year with the participation of airline operators. 

10 

NASA is committed to perform collaborative efforts with the 

JDPO member agencies and industry partners necessary to improve the level of safety, security, efficiency, quality, and affordability of the NextGen. NASA believes interagency NextGen activities continue to be a vital element for supporting U.S. economic 

growth and environmental improvement. 

Chairman Costello, thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

Mr. BOSWELL. [presiding.] Thank you, Dr. Shin, and we now 

would like to call on Mr. Pennington. 

Mr. PENNINGTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your 

invitation to testify today. Thank you, Ranking Member Petri and 

the rest of the Subcommittee Members. We look forward to this 

testimony. 

As you know, the national air transportation system is a critical 

asset to our national security. The Department of Defense places 

a high priority on being a valuable contributor and responsive partner in operating that system today. And on planning for it its 

transformation to meet the challenges of tomorrow, the DOD has 

a strong partnership with the JPDO at both the executive and the 

action officer levels. This partnership extends across the many domains of NextGen, and is aggressively working towards a future 

air transportation system that integrates to the maximum extent 

possible while protecting the safety of the public, manned and unmanned aircraft, point to point and special-activity users, and the 

management of both cooperative system participants and potential 

hostile actors that threaten our Nation. 

This interagency team is actively engaged on initiatives such as 

sensing a void, adaptive air space, and integrated surveillance in 

support of these goals. 

Mr. Chairman, you wanted to know if the agencies participating 

in NextGen are properly resourced. Let me preference our answer 

for DOD to your question by saying that we are unique in that we 

play several different roles related to our national air space. Not 

only are we the largest single user of our national air space system 

with over 14,000 aircraft, manned and unmanned in our fleet, we 

also are an air space manager, and air navigation and airport service provider to military and civilian users in the U.S. and abroad, 

and a regulator of our aircraft aviators and service providers. 

So with the diverse missions that we have related to the national 

air space system, I can tell you that you won’t find in the DOD 

portfolio any one specific budget item labeled NextGen. But what 

you will find are several capability areas that support the NextGen 

transformation. 

In the fiscal year 2011 President’s budget, we requested approximately $200 million to fund these NextGen capability areas over 

the future year’s defense program, and we are building on that 

funding request in our input to the fiscal year 2012 President’s 

budget for the outyears. 

As a user, the DOD shares the civil aviation community’s challenge with the setting aside of resources to equip our aircraft with 

new technologies. With over 200 types of aircraft in the DOD inventory and a 6-year budget planning cycle, this is never a small 

task. We are currently investigating ways to synchronize ADS-B 

11 

avionics upgrades with aircraft equipment upgrades that are already planned. But even with careful planning, proposed ADS-B 

upgrades represent a significant new investment for the Department of Defense in the near, mid, and long term. 

We greatly appreciate the efforts that the FAA has made to coordinate with air space users, including DOD and other Federal 

agencies, in developing proposed ADS-B requirements, and we 

share the commercial aviation community’s view that aircraft equipage requirements should be closely aligned with procedural 

changes that will yield the maximal operational benefits and cost 

savings to the most users. 

I would like to add one point to Dr. Toner’s comments by addressing the importance of GPS to the entire NextGen transformation. To date, the Department has invested over $15 billion 

in GPS and the precise position, navigation and timing information 

that it provides is a critical component of meeting the performancebased construct of the NextGen transformation. Maintaining that 

capability is essential to the effective functioning of NextGen and 

its international counterparts, as well as the ability of our civil and 

military aircraft to operate around the globe. The interagency partnerships we have on the NextGen team are essential. Together we 

can meet our challenges head on and build an air transportation 

system that is secure, adaptive, and responsive to the users of 

today and tomorrow. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and also the 

rest of the Subcommittee Members for the opportunity to provide 

comments to the Committee. This concludes my prepared remarks, 

and I am happy to address any questions you may have. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOSWELL. Ms. Bolsinger. 

Ms. BOLSINGER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri and 

Members of the Committee, I am currently president and CEO of 

GE Aviation Systems. In 2005 and for 3 years, I was privileged to 

lead GE’s ecomagination initiative, an initiative which was to grow 

our business while solving some of the world’s most difficult and 

challenging environmental problems. I mention this because elements of these principles are evident in the FAA’s NextGen program; that is, to balance economic growth with environmental responsibility. 

We all recognize that the transformation of our air transportation system has the potential to reduce carbon emissions that 

threaten our planet, and it is clear that fuel efficiencies brought 

about through NextGen can lessen our dependence on foreign oil 

and help control rising energy costs. It also will strengthen the 

U.S. aviation industry while preserving existing jobs and creating 

new ones. However, today as we arrive at the brink of NextGen implementation, Congress must recognize that all of the decades of 

planning and work that have brought us to this point will be for 

naught if we cannot solve the problem that I am about to describe. 

Forty years ago, Congress passed NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of legislation that makes us 

stewards of the environment. It is ironic, though, 40 years after the 

passage of NEPA that FAA’s well-intentioned efforts to apply this 

law have instead become a major obstacle to achieving NextGen enVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:02 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56159.0 KAYLA
12 

vironmental benefits. It is to address this unfortunate and unforeseen circumstance that we seek your leadership and your help. 

Within our grasp are new technologies that can significantly reduce CO2 emissions, reduce fuel consumption, and reduce the impact of aircraft noise on our communities. One of these technologies 

is required navigation performance or RNP. RNP makes it possible 

to harness GPS and the advanced flight management systems on 

today’s aircraft to create multiple environmental benefits through 

the design of extremely precise, predictable aircraft paths. 

The benefits of RNP are well understood, and as I speak, are reducing fuel burn and CO2 emissions and helping control community noise in Australia, China, South America and Canada. Studies 

show that in the U.S. alone at the 10 busiest airports, RNP could 

cut CO2 emissions by 2 million metric tons per year. 

From real experience, we know that we can design RNP procedures for an airport in about 40 days. And in Brisbane, Australia, 

a medium-density airport about the size of San Diego or Dallas 

Love Field, RNP procedures were designed, put through environmental review and placed into service in about 4 months. But in 

the U.S., bureaucracy and red tape stand in the way of achieving 

environmental benefit. Perversely, it is the bureaucracy and red 

tape surrounding the administration of NEPA that is causing the 

problem. We now face a situation where environmental process 

trumps environmental progress placing the entire NextGen program at risk. 

The FAA, like any government agency, must comply with NEPA 

requirements. And currently, environmentally beneficial navigational procedures are subjected to the same expensive and timeconsuming review process as procedures that adversely affect the 

environment. That review process can last many years and cost 

hundreds of thousands of dollars. So multiply this by 1,200 or so 

new procedures that will be required to modernize our air space at 

our 100 largest airports and you can begin to see the magnitude 

of this problem. 

The problem I am describing today does not just affect GE. FAA’s 

own efforts to design and deploy new, environmentally beneficial 

navigational procedures also are impinged. So what is the answer? 

We should apply a new, expedited environmental approval process when a new navigation procedure meets the following simple 

three-part test: One, if it reduces an aircraft’s CO2 emissions; two, 

if it reduces fuel burn; and three, it results in a reduction or at 

least a no-net increase in the noise-affected area on the ground. 

Congress has the opportunity to take action now to require FAA 

to develop its expedited environmental approval process as it conferences the FAA reauthorization bill. Section 314 of the Senate bill 

calls for expedited environmental review of RNP procedures. We 

support the concept but believe that further language is required. 

We look forward to working with you, others in Congress and the 

FAA, the Council on Environmental Quality and other interested 

stakeholders to accelerate the delivery of environmental benefits in 

the national air space through NextGen. 

Thank you. I am happy to take your questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. [presiding.] Thank you. 

13 

Mr. COSTELLO. Let me ask General Scovel, you state in both your 

written and verbal testimony today that under the technical problems with ERAM, both cost and schedule risk for NextGen. Can 

you talk about those technical problems and are they problems that 

exist because of technology or is it personnel problems? Explain to 

us what the problem is. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ERAM has been experiencing a significant number of software-related problems. So to answer one of your questions, I would say that they appear to be 

technical problems rather than people problems at this point. 

As the Committee will remember, ERAM has been installed at 

Salt Lake City, its initial operating site. It is also being installed 

at a number of other en route traffic control centers across the Nation. However, at Salt Lake City and also in Seattle, the softwarerelated problems have popped up, and they became serious last 

year. FAA realized this and has been making efforts to try to correct those. 

The technical problems, as I mentioned in my statement, involve 

radar processing failures, difficulties with passing traffic from controller to controller, and erroneous identification information being 

assigned to various aircraft. The FAA is spending about $14 million a month right now to further deploy ERAM and also to try to fix the problems. Unfortunately, on the problem-fixing side, it has been unable to properly 

diagnose the problem and to generate a solution that doesn’t in 

turn cause even more problems. It has been a serious enough problem that FAA has seen the need to delay certain key decisions that 

had been slated for resolution in December 2009. These were the 

operational readiness decision and the in-service decision. Those 

have slipped by another 6 months. So June 2010 we hope, and FAA 

hopes, those will be ready for resolution. 

Across the NAS among all 20 en route control centers, ERAM 

was to have been in service and up and running by the end of this 

year. It is now apparent to us and to FAA that those dates will 

probably slip, too. 

Looking long term across NextGen, the implementation is this, 

Mr. Chairman. ERAM is essential for ADS-B and data communications. As final dates, installation dates, and operational decision 

dates slip further down the calendar, the ability for controllers at 

en route centers to make the most effective use of data communications and ADS-B will also move down the calendar, and that has 

a ripple effect across the NAS and NextGen implementation 

projects. 

Mr. COSTELLO. What are the top three or four things that you 

believe need to be done to move NextGen forward? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Chairman, we would ask FAA, the Secretary, 

who has been assigned by the executive order as having top responsibility for NextGen, FAA and the JPDO, to consider these three 

items. First, completing an integrated budget document. Once requirements have been developed, and I know from discussions with 

DOD that that is a prime concern of theirs, it has been a continuing effort on the part of FAA who realizes the significance of 

that as well, so it is an iterative process. It is a continuous work 

in progress to try to develop this integrated budget document, but 

14 

it does have the benefit of pulling together requirements, projects, 

helping FAA and partner agencies identify research gaps, identify 

funding streams, and trying to close those research gaps. 

We would also assign or ask the FAA to assign as a top priority 

to JPDO this, a focus on technology transfer. Both NASA and DOD 

have recognized the importance of this. It has been done on previous occasions, especially between NASA and DOD on one side 

and the FAA on the other. The research transition teams that Dr. 

Shin has identified would be essential to this. Entrance and exit 

criteria and well defined hand off points will be key for FAA to receive the benefits of the transfer of technology from the other two 

agencies. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Dr. Toner, would you agree with General Scovel’s 

assessment that we will see at least a 6-month delay because of the 

technical problems that have developed with ERAM? 

Ms. TONER. So I am aware of the problems that have been developed with ERAM in the Salt Lake City installation. I would need 

to confirm that it is indeed a 6 month delay; but yes, I understand 

that it is delayed. From my perspective that the JDPO, working 

with NextGen, and ERAM not being a NextGen program—however, 

it is an underpinning to NextGen— we are concerned with the linkages from the near and mid-term implementation onto the longterm path, and that is where I will be most closely monitoring. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You state in your testimony that JPDO needs to 

have a more flexible approach to long-term NextGen planning. Tell 

me what you mean by that. 

Ms. TONER. So I think when we look at the vision that was established beginning 6 years ago and we laid out a very bold vision, 

and from a researcher’s perspective, at that time we laid out a vision that we needed to carefully test and identify which elements 

of that vision we needed to meet up with the national needs. 

I think we have got a clear view of that long term and where we 

are going, but I think we have to take evolutionary steps. So in the 

next 5 years, we are much more certain on what we can do. And 

the 5 years after that, we are a little less certain. I think we can 

begin to do a better job. I think it all ties back to the technology 

transfer piece. How are we making sure that when the FAA has 

a 2018 implementation path, that we have something to move over 

in 2019? I think we need to carefully build out the vision in that 

fashion. 

Mr. COSTELLO. You heard Dr. Dillingham testify about the participation with the partner agencies, and it seems to run from a 

significant amount of participation to not very much participation. 

I know you have only been on the job about 60 days, but what is 

your assessment? 

Ms. TONER. So each of our partners is unique and brings unique 

aspects to the table. In terms of NASA research, FAA is really the 

customer who is going to be receiving that research. DOD has an 

abundance of knowledge that we really need to understand and see 

where it benefits circulation, so it is a different type of relationship. 

We have also had a very good relationship with NOAA and the 

Department of Commerce on the weather integration. I think there 

are some issues in the integration in the near term, but really 

when we look at the NextGen piece, we are making progress toVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:02 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56159.0 KAYLA
15 

ward an integrated picture of the weather. And I think as everyone 

here knows, and weather accounts for 70 percent of the delays in 

our system. 

DHS participates in other ways. They participate as working 

group members and leads. They participate in the JPDO board 

which advises me, and they participate in one key strategic area 

for us which is integrated surveillance. DOD and FAA participate 

there as well. 

Mr. COSTELLO. How about the participation by the air traffic controllers and technicians, have they been participating in meetings 

since you have been on the job? 

Ms. TONER. So I actually just last week met a gentleman named 

Mel Davis, who is the new NATCA rep for NextGen, and he and 

I are going to be meeting. And he actually is going to be sitting in 

on some of our meetings. So we are starting down that path, yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I have expressed and I think other Members of 

the Subcommittee have expressed the importance of involving all 

of the stakeholders here. The people who design the system should 

be the people who are going to run the system, that they should 

not be left out. That has happened in the past, and we hope you 

recognize that and make certain that the technicians, controllers 

and others are involved in the planning process. 

With that, I will ask my final question and then I will turn it 

over to the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. Who are you reporting to 

in the Secretary’s office? 

Ms. TONER. In the Secretary’s office, I report to Secretary 

LaHood. I directly report to the deputy administrator of the FAA 

and it is a matrix reporting to the Secretary. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And the deputy administrator’s appointment is 

being held up in the other body right now? 

Ms. TONER. That is correct, so I am reporting to the Acting Deputy Administrator. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions. I will try to get as many in in the time allocated as possible. 

The first question is for Dr. Dillingham. There is concern that 

the FAA will not be able to increase efficiencies, reduce costs and 

at the same time transition to NextGen while it continues to maintain and operate World War II era facilities, many of which may 

be redundant. Are you aware of any plans of the FAA to right-size 

FAA facilities as part of the NextGen process? Or is it going to be 

overlaid over the existing structure that we have in place even 

though it may not be necessary once the new equipment is out 

there? 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you for the question, Mr. Petri. Based 

on our work, we understand that FAA would like to do realigning 

and right size the facilities. I think there are provisions within the 

reauthorization that speak to that. 

I would like to add that it is very important in terms of achieving 

the cost effectiveness that is associated with NextGen if you, in 

fact, are going to take advantage of the technologies that would 

allow you to realign or right size. It is a very, very difficult nut to 

crack, though. It takes sort of the cooperation of a lot of different 

16 

parties involved in this. But we are aware that they have in fact 

begun to think about and want to move toward right sizing ATC 

facilities across the NAS. 

Mr. PETRI. The sooner that process starts, the less disruptive it 

will be for people and their lives because you can just go through 

attrition and give reassignment opportunities and all of the rest of 

it. It will save money if it is done sooner, and it would also save 

inconvenience. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PETRI. I have a question for Ms. Bolsinger. I wonder if you 

can expand on your discussion of RNP. You indicated that this 

process has tremendous environmental efficiencies and savings and 

that some of these new procedures and efficient flight paths and all 

the rest, and GE makes the technology, among others, is already 

deployed. Americans are flying on planes that land in Brisbane as 

we speak under the new procedures. FAA’s job is to protect American flyers. 

It hasn’t approved these procedures here in the United States, 

shouldn’t it be banning them from flying in Brisbane? Or speeding 

up the procedures so we can realize the environmental efficiencies? 

Maybe we should be putting in a procedure to find best practices 

all around the world and implementing them rather than not invent it here as our approach. I don’t know how you operate at General Electric but you are global corporation. I suspect you probably 

take the latter rather than the former approach. Can you comment 

on any of that? 

Ms. BOLSINGER. Yes. You couldn’t be more right. We do steal best 

practices everywhere around the world. Very frankly, it is disheartening to me as an American to be implementing these procedures 

not in the United States first. 

However, we are a global company, and we do have to respond 

to these customers around the world. Probably the most advanced 

is Australia where in Brisbane they have been able to complete all 

of the procedures and their environmental impact studies in about 

4 months time. It is not a large airport, it is a medium-sized airport. Their plan is to role that out across the entire country of Australia through their Air Australia services, their national air space 

service provider, within 5 years. So it is certainly very doable. 

I don’t think there is any sentiment anywhere in the United 

States to preclude these procedures from being done. I think again 

it is the perverse nature of the NEPA regulations which forces us 

to go through environmental impact studies which actually can 

have deleterious effects and certainly slow down the process by 

years. 

Mr. PETRI. I wonder if, Dr. Toner, you would care to respond on 

any of that? I know you are under some administrative handicaps 

right now and are still relatively new on the job, but will you be 

taking a look at trying to speed up the procedure so as to realize 

the environmental savings? And if something is, in fact, already in 

place in another country and Americans are allowed to fly on it, 

and it is the same kind of things that we ask the Europeans when 

it comes to genetically engineered foods, do they get sick at a restaurant in New York? 

17 

They are banning the food over in Europe supposedly, and we 

kind of wonder whether there is a hypocrisy level there. Here there 

is just a waste issue because we are missing the opportunity to 

save on energy and all of the rest. 

Ms. TONER. With NextGen, when we look at efficiency and capacity, we know they are directly related. We want to be flying the 

most efficient routes. What I can tell you is that we want aviation 

to first be a good steward of the environment. We are fully aware 

of how tough it is getting some of these environmental impacts 

done. 

That said, we actually are implementing some on RNP routes in 

the U.S. under NextGen, those where the benefit is very clear. Of 

course noise is the issue. And the FAA really supports streamlining 

the processes as long as we still are protecting the environment. So 

I think it is an issue that is right up front. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now 

recognizes Mr. Perriello. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. I have no questions at this time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of the 

Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you all for your contributions, for your 

thoughtful and well-presented papers. 

Inspector General Scovel, we have been around this now for 

many years. The en route system from the 9020s to display system 

replacement after going through several iterations of AAS and so 

on; STARS, standard terminal automation replacement system for 

the TRACONs; terminal Doppler weather radar and then terminal 

Doppler color radar for towers and also for TRACONs and DSCS, 

one of the most successful of all of these high-dollar technical systems installed which was done over one weekend without shutting 

down the system for 20 seconds, but all of these had delays, cost 

overruns, costs in the sense not of overruns but of escalating costs 

because of program mismanagement. And now you are saying well, 

we have a slippage here by 2 months and then we have ERAM and 

that will affect the other downstream systems. What has FAA 

learned from the past? 

I remember some years ago when the new administrator of FAA 

brought in the Navy procurement office and had them review all 

of these multi-billion-dollar systems, and they came back and said 

at our Committee hearing in this room, they said they don’t now 

how to manage multi-billion-dollar systems. They have never done 

anything this big, and this is what we propose to do. And it is not 

just a problem of the FAA, it is also the industry side because in 

those days, you couldn’t tell where IBM left of and the FAA began. 

And they were hand in hand, partners in failure. 

And now we have this movement to NextGen. So have they 

learned something about managing multi-billion-dollar contracts, 

engaging industry and the air traffic controllers in the design of 

the systems, engaging the airlines and also participating in the design of the systems, not over promising and not over designing, not 

over rating things? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And now we have a joint program, development 

office. You have got a director and an institute, an institute management counsel, and we don’t seem to be getting any further 

18 

ahead. Now it is true that in two Congresses, three Congresses, the 

108th 109th and the 110th, we didn’t pass the appropriations necessary to provide the dependable flow of funds out into the future, 

but that is not an impediment to the planning and the thinking 

and the process that I think has been a failure here. I am just 

stressed with it. I want you to respond and I want to see what the 

others think. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Oberstar, let me take one of your minor 

points and then I would like to address your major theme, if I 

could. In one of his questions, Chairman Costello asked Dr. Toner 

about the involvement of controllers in the design of a number of 

the systems that will be necessary for NextGen, and Dr. Toner responded that controllers are now involved. I think Chairman 

Costello’s point was specifically with regard to the STARS program, 

where controllers had not been involved, and human factors, problems, being what they were, they cropped up when the systems 

began to be installed. Controllers were unable to use them effectively, which contributed to the delay and the escalating cost in the 

STARS program. It should be a lesson for all of us, and I know that 

lesson is still repeated today over at FAA. I think your larger point, 

sir, is this, and this is one that we have debated in my office in 

response to our questions back and forth about what makes some 

programs effective and efficient within FAA and what makes others not so. We have come down to this, stable requirements, whether those, the input in determining those requirements come from 

controllers, from industry, from engineers and specialists within 

NASA and FAA. Once those requirements are set, the program can 

be designed and engineered and bought, the chances of staying on 

time and on budget increase dramatically. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have to interrupt you at that point because that 

was a problem in 1990 with FAA and IBM in the evolution of what 

became DSR, display system replacement. And at a hearing up at 

the IBM facility up in Germantown where—it was actually Mr. 

Mica’s first year on the Committee and he was a little astonished 

at my anger with the way things were proceeding. And I said to 

Mr. Ebcur, I am going to nail your shoes to the floor. He said why? 

I said so you can’t move. We need to freeze those requirements. 

Every time we have a meeting on this or a hearing, you are changing the requirements. Stay put. Fix, freeze the program, and then 

go forward with it. And it was thanks to Mr. Costello and his persistence and also the participation of Mr. Petri, the persistence 

with the FAA that engaged the controllers. 

We learned that with STARS. They had the track ball embedded 

in the console in the upper right-hand corner. What about the lefthand controllers? You have to turn your body around and spin 

around? No. Why couldn’t they move? They said, We asked for a 

movable track ball. Oh, no, we can’t do that. Well, they did after 

a couple million dollars of wasted effort. So let’s engage them. Go 

on. You hit on a sore point of mine. Go ahead. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I was going to simply make a point, Mr. Chairman, 

that among the programs that we have discussed in our testimony 

today of course is ERAM. For years now, ERAM has enjoyed the 

distinction at FAA of having fairly stable requirements, and it appeared to the specialists in my office who have been working with 

19 

FAA and ERAM for all this time that ERAM was well managed, 

it enjoyed stable requirements and until very recently was on time 

and on budget. Now anytime we are dealing with software, any of 

us in the real world know today that things happen, and that is 

what has happened with ERAM and FAA now is trying to make 

corrections. But in comparison to other programs—and of course 

STARS would be one, the distinction between ERAM and others 

like STARS would be manifest. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, it seems to me that NextGen is envisioning 

a much more complicated structure than DSR, than TDWR, than 

STARS, of all of those together with VSCS. I was going to ask also 

for comparison of the NVS with the VSCS and what improvement 

there is. But you can submit that in writing. I want to ask Dr. 

Dillingham whether FAA has created here another headache, an 

overload of management within management, with the JPDO, the 

director and the NextGen Institute and the Institute Management 

Council, what is all that achieving? 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. To be determined, Mr. Oberstar. Clearly there 

is a need that all of these plans and councils be synchronized so 

that all the things that come together for a complicated undertaking like NextGen you clearly have to have lots of streams going 

into it. At this point since things are so new in the sense of Dr. 

Toner’s appointment and the movement that this Committee was 

instrumental in getting a more direct reporting to the Deputy Administrator and the Secretary, it is still to be determined if this is 

going to work and if this is going to just become sort of become sort 

of moving the Chairs around at this point in time. So we are optimistic that this is going to make a change, but we are watching 

it as well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Good. That is not a very inspiring response, I 

must say. It is an honest response, and I appreciate it. And Dr. 

Toner, I hope you can wrap arms around it and do some mud wrestling with this organization. But it damn well better start doing 

something. We are going to, by the way—I would say for all Members and others of interest—that we are progressing toward an authorization bill. The Senate has acted. Senator Rockefeller and I 

have had conversations. Our staffs are meeting and ironing out the 

differences between our two bills and I am confident that within 

a couple of weeks, we are going to have first aviation authorization 

bill in 4 years. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the distinguished Chairman of 

the Full Committee. And let me say that that is one of the reasons 

why in the reauthorization bill that passed this Committee and 

passed the House not only in 2007 but again in 2009, we had the 

head of the JPDO reporting directly to the administrator as opposed to the system under the previous administration and the current system announced by this administration. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs. 

Schmidt. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you and I will be brief. My questions are 

for Ms. Bolsinger. Ms. Bolsinger, in your written testimony—I don’t 

believe you said it in your oral—but in your written testimony, you 

mentioned that Southwest Airlines and the investment they have 

made in RNP and my question to you is: How are they able to imVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:02 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56159.0 KAYLA
20 

plement RNP with these environmental hurdles that you have testified about today? 

Ms. BOLSINGER. Thank you for that question. Unfortunately, 

Southwest is not able—despite the fact that they have spent tens 

of millions of dollars are, I would say, a maverick airline, one of 

the few that makes money, one that has made our industry very 

viable and a strong employer of U.S. citizens. But unfortunately, 

they are not able to get their RNP procedures finished. So they 

have done the equipage. They have spent the money. And I think 

they will stand as a terrible example to other airlines of what not 

to do, not to get ready. So unfortunately, without the procedures 

being approved, all of the investments that they have made will be 

for naught. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, thank you for clearing that up for me, 

ma’am. And you also testified that ′′GE is rolling out our RNP in 

locations around the world.′′ Do these other nations have the same 

environmental hurdles that we have? 

Ms. BOLSINGER. They all have an environmental impact study 

that is done, and they all go through their own procedures. They 

aren’t identical to the United States, and of course they don’t necessarily have the same regulatory—let me say the NEPA sort of 

oversight that we have. In some ways, newer infrastructures are 

easier. So China will probably be much more advanced than we are 

because they don’t have any infrastructure today. So that is part 

of our issue. But again, if we were to put our minds to it, we could 

expedite. And what we are asking for is an expedited process not 

to lift NEPA but in fact to have a different implementation that 

says if, in fact, a procedure meets three criteria, less noise or equal 

noise, less emissions, and less fuel burn, that it would be considered a no impact and be able to be on an expedited path which 

should be determined by experts. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. I have no further questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Scovel, the 

Joint Planning Development Office states that one of their goals is 

to identify existing research and development in technologies within each partner agency that benefits the NextGen effort. However, 

the GAO has said that questions still remain over which entities 

are going to fund and conduct some of the necessary R&D and 

demonstration projects to achieve certain NextGen capabilities. So 

I know that you have testified that disagreements among partner 

agencies have delayed the decisions of implementing certain technologies. Could you summarize those disagreements and delays? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I could mention one, sir. It is addressed in our 

statement and it has to do with the weather capabilities that FAA 

seeks to obtain from the Department of Commerce and NOAA specifically. There have been technical disagreements about the 4D 

Weather Cube that the Department of Commerce and NOAA are 

in the process of establishing nationwide, which of those capabilities will be made available to FAA. Commerce is proceeding with 

its own requirements but looks to FAA to define its requirements 

and also to fund those appropriately. The Agency and the Department have established the executive weather panel in an attempt 

21 

to iron out those disagreements that ease the funding concerns, 

and we look forward to having that happen. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Do you sense, at least from NASA’s perspective, 

that the shift back towards research and development from the 

previous administration’s focus on deep space exploration is going 

to augment and help this? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Most definitely. It is a very positive development. 

Frankly, sir, my office is greatly encouraged to have NASA’s statement that it is now moving beyond simply fundamental research 

and moving even into development and perhaps even a prototype 

development on behalf of FAA. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you. And I would add just for the record 

that we hope that NASA Glenn Research Center in northeast Ohio 

plays an integral role in that as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And the Chair 

would ask any other Members—votes have been called on the floor. 

We have 5 minutes to get to the floor. The Chair would ask if any 

other Member has any questions of these witnesses. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would like to express my appreciation to the 

Chair, to Mr. Petri and Mr. Ehlers, thank you for being here, our 

resident scientist on the Committee, for keeping the sharp spotlight 

of attention focused on this multibillion-dollar program. With your 

continued work, we are going to keep them on course and get this 

program off on the right course and achieve these initial interim 

objectives. But if we don’t, aviation suffers. It won’t be shut down 

worldwide like the volcano did. But that ought to be a reminder to 

us again of what can happen if we don’t advance the state of the 

art of technology in air navigation guidance. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks Chairman Oberstar and thanks 

our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. As 

Chairman Oberstar indicated and Mr. Petri have indicated many 

times that we intend to continue aggressive oversight on this massive project and undertaking and to make certain that not only the 

administration, but all of the agencies and stakeholders are in fact 

engaged and working together to move the process forward. 

Let me, in addition to thanking the witnesses, let me thank some 

of the family members from the Colgan tragedy who are here 

today. We deeply appreciate you being here and you continuing to 

work with us to provide oversight and to hopefully move an FAA 

reauthorization bill to the President’s desk in the not too distant 

future. As Chairman Oberstar indicated, we are negotiating at the 

current time, and we hope to bring that to a successful conclusion. 

But we deeply appreciate you being here today and we have less 

than 2 minutes to get to the floor to vote. So that concludes the 

hearing today. We thank our witnesses for being here. The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

22 


Insert offset folio 7 here 56159.007
23 


Insert offset folio 8 here 56159.008
24 


Insert offset folio 9 here 56159.009
25 


Insert offset folio 10 here 56159.010
26 


Insert offset folio 11 here 56159.011
27 


Insert offset folio 12 here 56159.012
28 


Insert offset folio 13 here 56159.013
29 


Insert offset folio 14 here 56159.014
30 


Insert offset folio 15 here 56159.015
31 


Insert offset folio 16 here 56159.016
32 


Insert offset folio 17 here 56159.017
33 


Insert offset folio 18 here 56159.018
34 


Insert offset folio 19 here 56159.019
35 


Insert offset folio 20 here 56159.020
36 


Insert offset folio 21 here 56159.021
37 


Insert offset folio 22 here 56159.022
38 


Insert offset folio 23 here 56159.023
39 


Insert offset folio 24 here 56159.024
40 


Insert offset folio 25 here 56159.025
41 


Insert offset folio 26 here 56159.026
42 


Insert offset folio 27 here 56159.027
43 


Insert offset folio 28 here 56159.028
44 


Insert offset folio 29 here 56159.029
45 


Insert offset folio 30 here 56159.030
46 


Insert offset folio 31 here 56159.031
47 


Insert offset folio 32 here 56159.032
48 


Insert offset folio 33 here 56159.033
49 


Insert offset folio 34 here 56159.034
50 


Insert offset folio 35 here 56159.035
51 


Insert offset folio 36 here 56159.036
52 


Insert offset folio 37 here 56159.037
53 


Insert offset folio 38 here 56159.038
54 


Insert offset folio 39 here 56159.039
55 


Insert offset folio 40 here 56159.040
56 


Insert offset folio 41 here 56159.041
57 


Insert offset folio 42 here 56159.042
58 


Insert offset folio 43 here 56159.043
59 


Insert offset folio 44 here 56159.044
60 


Insert offset folio 45 here 56159.045
61 


Insert offset folio 46 here 56159.046
62 


Insert offset folio 47 here 56159.047
63 


Insert offset folio 48 here 56159.048
64 


Insert offset folio 49 here 56159.049
65 


Insert offset folio 50 here 56159.050
66 


Insert offset folio 51 here 56159.051
67 


Insert offset folio 52 here 56159.052
68 


Insert offset folio 53 here 56159.053
69 


Insert offset folio 54 here 56159.054
70 


Insert offset folio 55 here 56159.055
71 


Insert offset folio 56 here 56159.056
72 


Insert offset folio 57 here 56159.057
73 


Insert offset folio 58 here 56159.058
74 


Insert offset folio 59 here 56159.059
75 


Insert offset folio 60 here 56159.060
76 


Insert offset folio 61 here 56159.061
77 


Insert offset folio 62 here 56159.062
78 


Insert offset folio 63 here 56159.063
79 


Insert offset folio 64 here 56159.064
80 


Insert offset folio 65 here 56159.065
81 


Insert offset folio 66 here 56159.066
82 


Insert offset folio 67 here 56159.067
83 


Insert offset folio 68 here 56159.068
84 


Insert offset folio 69 here 56159.069
85 


Insert offset folio 70 here 56159.070
86 


Insert offset folio 71 here 56159.071
87 


Insert offset folio 72 here 56159.072
88 


Insert offset folio 73 here 56159.073
89 


Insert offset folio 74 here 56159.074
90 


Insert offset folio 75 here 56159.075
91 


Insert offset folio 76 here 56159.076
92 


Insert offset folio 77 here 56159.077
93 


Insert offset folio 78 here 56159.078
94 


Insert offset folio 79 here 56159.079
95 


Insert offset folio 80 here 56159.080
96 


Insert offset folio 81 here 56159.081
97 


Insert offset folio 82 here 56159.082
98 


Insert offset folio 83 here 56159.083
99 


Insert offset folio 84 here 56159.084
100 


Insert offset folio 85 here 56159.085
101 


Insert offset folio 86 here 56159.086
102 


Insert offset folio 87 here 56159.087
103 


Insert offset folio 88 here 56159.088
104 


Insert offset folio 89 here 56159.089
105 


Insert offset folio 90 here 56159.090
106 


Insert offset folio 91 here 56159.091
107 


Insert offset folio 92 here 56159.092
108 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 93 here 56159.093