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

75–851 PDF 2013

A REVIEW OF AND UPDATE ON THE 

MANAGEMENT OF FAA’S NEXTGEN PROGRAM 

(112–103) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

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 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

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 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota, Vice Chair 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

VACANCY 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Hon. John D. Porcari, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation .. 6 

Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ........................................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 6 

PANEL 2 

David J. Barger, President and Chief Executive Officer, JetBlue Airways 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 31 

Paul Rinaldi, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association ............... 31 

Ed Bolen, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Business Aviation 

Association ............................................................................................................ 31 

Susan M. Baer, Director of Aviation, Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey .................................................................................................................... 31 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Russ Carnahan, of Missouri .......................................................................... 45 

Hon. Jerry F. Costello, of Illinois ........................................................................... 48 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 52 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. John D. Porcari and Hon. Michael P. Huerta, joint statement .................. 54 

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III ........................................................................................ 66 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. ................................................................................... 81 

David J. Barger ........................................................................................................ 104 

Paul Rinaldi ............................................................................................................. 116 

Ed Bolen ................................................................................................................... 124

Susan M. Baer ......................................................................................................... 129 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration: 

Responses to questions from Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ................................... 59 

Responses to questions from Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Wisconsin ............................................. 64 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Marion C. Blakey, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace Industries Association of America, written testimony ................................................ 133 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75851.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75851.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75851.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75851.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75851.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75851.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75851.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75851.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75851.009
xiii 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75851.010
xiv 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75851.011
xv 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75851.012
(1) 

A REVIEW OF AND UPDATE ON THE 

MANAGEMENT OF FAA’S NEXTGEN PROGRAM 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The hearing will commence. And my colleague, Mr. 

Costello, will be here shortly, but I will begin with my opening 

statement. And I suspect that by the time I am finished, he will 

be here and we will be able to benefit from that, as well. 

Today the subcommittee will hear from Government and aviation 

industry stakeholders on the FAA’s management of and progress 

toward transforming our Nation’s air traffic control system. This 

program, known as NextGen, is among the largest and most ambitious public works projects in our Nation’s history. The successful 

implementation of NextGen is critical to the future of our air transportation system and U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. 

Today our air traffic control system is very inefficient. In order 

to accommodate the roughly 730 million passengers each year and 

70,000 flights each day, we need to modernize our system. NextGen 

will transform air transportation by transitioning to a satellitebased surveillance system, improving communications between pilots and controllers, and developing more efficient navigation 

routes from start to finish. 

The goal is to create a system that is safer, less impacted by 

weather conditions, better for the environment, and more consistent, with fewer delays. The FAA has made some progress, but 

it also faces significant challenges. FAA is currently spending 

roughly $1 billion each year to develop and implement what we call 

NextGen. The aviation industry will have to invest billions of dollars to equip their aircraft with the avionics from which the benefits of NextGen will be derived. Unfortunately, the FAA’s progress 

is slower than expected. And, as a result, the industry has been reluctant to invest. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the benefits that the FAA has delivered to airspace users. The witnesses will discuss FAA’s progress 

with major transformational and NextGen programs. Likewise, the 

witnesses will discuss challenges the FAA is facing in the implementation of these programs, many of which are outlined in recent 

2 

Department of Transportation inspector general and General Accounting Office reports. 

It is very clear that everyone, including industry, FAA, and Congress, wants NextGen to succeed. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act enacted earlier this year devoted an entire title to 

NextGen. Among the many reforms included in the law is the creation of new leadership positions within the FAA that are responsible and accountable for NextGen implementation, and requirements for the FAA to define performance metrics to measure 

progress and to establish operational or financial incentives for avionics equipage. 

Like other major infrastructure programs, NextGen is expensive 

and hard. This is further complicated by the tight Federal budget. 

But, according to the Department of Transportation Inspector General, funding has not been a problem. And certainly congressional 

support for NextGen remains strong. 

At the end of the day, the FAA must overcome the challenges 

and get the job done. The success or failure of NextGen depends 

on cooperation from everyone involved. And while we need to make 

more progress, nobody thought this would be easy. And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I thank each of you for 

your participation here today. 

And before we turn to the witnesses for their statements, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for 

the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered. And before recognizing 

Mr. Costello, I would just like to note that over the 6 years that 

we have led this subcommittee, he as chairman and me as ranking, 

or with the situation in reverse this last Congress, we have been 

committed to working together on a bipartisan basis to provide 

proper oversight and to ensure that NextGen continues to move 

forward. This was the case when he was chairman, and it continues today. This will be the last NextGen oversight hearing that 

we will preside over together on this subcommittee, and I thank 

him for his diligence and his hard work on this issue over many, 

many years. 

And with that, I now recognize Mr. Costello for his opening remarks. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have 

a formal statement that I will enter into the record, and make 

some brief remarks. 

But I do want to state for the record that the chairman is correct. 

This project, NextGen, is a major project, one of the most difficult 

undertakings that the FAA and the Department has attempted to 

undertake in many, many years, if ever. And we have worked very 

closely together. I think that other committees and subcommittees 

and the Congress in general could learn some—a few things by 

watching how this subcommittee has operated. It has been bipartisan, both when I chaired it—I also reached out to—not only to my 

ranking member, Mr. Petri, but also Members on the other side of 

the aisle. And Chairman Petri, since he has taken the committee 

over, he has done the same. He has consulted me, he has worked 

3 

with Members on our side of the aisle. So it truly has been bipartisan. 

And I have said publicly before that I could not have had a better 

partner on this subcommittee, both as chairman and when he was 

my ranking member. And he has been more than fair with me and 

with our side of the aisle since he has been chairman. So I appreciate all of the courtesies and the friendship that we have established. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling the hearing today. As you 

know, as we have discussed in the past, and most people in this 

room who have followed and have been involved in NextGen, they 

know that I have said many times that the best way to keep 

NextGen on track is for us to hold everyone involved accountable 

for their actions, that we develop a plan to implement NextGen, 

and that for—this subcommittee needs to make certain that we 

monitor the progress. 

When I chaired the subcommittee, we held multiple hearings, 

roundtables. We had a lot of discussions when we started calling 

hearings, actually, and roundtables. It was very clear to me that 

the stakeholders, the people that were going to run the system, the 

people who, in fact, were involved in the system, were not at the 

table. They were not consulted, which concerned me and concerned 

Mr. Petri, as well. 

I thought it was crazy to try and design a multibillion-dollar system using taxpayers’ money without involving those who, in fact, 

would operate the system. And, in fact, in one of our early 

roundtables, Mr. Petri will recall, I asked one of the people from 

the FAA to describe what NextGen was. 

Mr. PETRI. I very much remember that. 

Mr. COSTELLO. In layman’s terms. And the individual could not 

describe what NextGen was in layman’s terms. In fact, he couldn’t 

describe it at all. 

So, we knew we had a problem on our hands at that point. And 

we came together and we have held a number of hearings. It is my 

hope that in the next Congress, with, I hope, Mr. Petri as chairman 

of this subcommittee, that we will hold—you will hold additional 

hearings in the future, to make certain that the stakeholders are 

involved, everyone is working together. 

And we have, in fact, achieved and seen a lot of progress since 

those early days. We have come a long way, but we have a long 

way to go. And I trust that the subcommittee will stay actively involved and will provide the oversight that is necessary. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am yielding back the balance of 

my time, looking forward to hearing our witnesses. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Chairman of the full committee, John 

Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, 

and Mr. Costello, for your leadership. In fact, we are going to miss 

you. We are getting towards the end here of the Costello regime. 

But you guys have—both of you provided great leadership to this 

committee and to aviation. We wouldn’t have had an FAA reauthorization without your help, even though it was very difficult to 

pass that bill and to get the President—although he did it in the 

4 

dark of night on February 14th, never sent me flowers or candy, 

but we did get the bill done. 

And one of the most important components of the FAA reauthorization which was stalled again—unfortunately, Mr. Oberstar could 

not move it when he had the House, the Senate, and the White 

House, and before that 4 years on the other side, 17 extensions. 

But one of the most important aspects of not passing that legislation was not having a blueprint, a formal blueprint, which the FAA 

authorization provides. And we found in our review that we needed 

desperately to have milestones, that we need to hold people’s feet 

to the fire, put folks in charge. And we did just that with the bill, 

and the bill has provided a framework to move forward. It has been 

the law since February. 

But now we find ourselves looking at the progress that has been 

made. Some you might—some of the blame for not moving forward 

you might assign to Congress for not having the bill and the policy 

in place. But nonetheless, it also requires FAA, in its management 

and leadership role, to act and to provide the administrative and 

executive leadership to get the—this important program an advancement, taking us from a ground post-World War II radar-based 

system into a satellite 21st-century system. 

Simple thing is—well, let me say two things. One, a few weeks 

ago we had some near misses. I guess one was at Reagan. But we 

see them—unfortunately, they are all too common occurrences with 

aircraft flying close together and near misses, near misses on the 

ground. And we have only to realize that we will be doubling some 

of the air traffic over the next couple of decades, and that we will 

have more planes in the air, we will have more congestion, and our 

good fortunes to date of not having a major incident in which we 

lose a large number of lives is—I think that good luck is about running out. 

So, shame on Congress for not having acted earlier, the administration on not acting earlier. But now we have the blueprint in 

place. 

The report by the inspector general does highlight, quite frankly, 

a lack of leadership combined with a bureaucratic—just stalemate, 

as the FAA fails to move forward on some aspects of getting this 

new equipment and technology in place. And it is not acceptable, 

period. 

Now, I know we have got a stalemate in the position of—a major 

position of leadership. But that is not an excuse. This isn’t an excuse that Congress hasn’t provided. When the policy or, two, the 

funding, both are in place—and now what we need is moving forward and, again, making certain that the hardware, the software, 

the systems, and the equipment, and all of the above, as they are 

in—as they are developed, that they are also deployed in an expeditious fashion. 

Another point that I want to make here, too—and I will do everything I can to keep FAA out of the development of the technology 

itself—FAA should not be developing this technology, or step in the 

way of its development. This we have seen time and time again, 

that the private sector does a better job. So we have got to keep 

the private sector in the forefront with somebody making the deciVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:43 Jan 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\9-12-1~1\75851.TXT JEAN
5 

sions and meeting the milestones and, again, the blueprint that 

has been set out by law. 

So, we will hold this hearing, additional hearings, and hold 

FAA’s feet to the fire. The safety of the flying public, the future of 

aviation, relies on this. 

And finally, this is a contest in which, right now, we are maybe 

slightly a little bit ahead. And it is not because of what we have 

done—because we haven’t done what we should, and FAA hasn’t 

provided the leadership—but this is an international contest to 

dominate the field of development of next generation air traffic control technology. 

This is a contest. The European Union and others who are trying 

to win this contest, only by their even grosser use of bureaucracy 

and constraints by bureaucracy, only because they are worse than 

we are, we are slightly ahead, in my estimation, in this process. 

But this will determine who controls the market, both domestically, in changing out the—again, all of the equipment, the software systems—domestically in the United States, and long term, 

the whole world—and that is very important for jobs, for economic 

opportunity for the future, and for the future of aviation in the Nation and the world. 

So, this is a critical mission. We are here to—we are going to 

hear today from the inspector general on some of the shortcomings. 

We need to mark each of these shortcomings and check them off 

and not tolerate them as we move forward in this process. So 

again, I am—I intend—and I will be here, unfortunately for some 

folks—but I will hold people’s feet to the fire—ask Mr. Petri and 

others on the committee for also holding FAA’s feet to the fire. We 

are going to get this done, one way or the other. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Representative Bernice Johnson, Texas. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you for holding this hearing. 

With this year’s passage of the FAA reauthorization bill, 

NextGen modification, modernization, will transform the national 

airspace system. Through NextGen satellite-based traffic management, we will be able to address increased congestion in our Nation’s skies, while improving safety and reducing environmental 

footprint of air transport. 

Transitioning to the GPS-based air traffic control system will 

allow airlines to reduce flight delays, save fuel, and cut the amount 

of harmful emissions from aircraft engines. In addition, the successful implementation of NextGen will boost our economy and enable the creation of more jobs. 

The Dallas Metroplex is a prime example of the significant 

growth in the aviation market, and the potential benefits of 

NextGen deployment. As with any metroplex, this growth comes 

with growing pains. Metroplex sites, by their nature, are located in 

busy, metropolitan areas. NextGen’s use of satellite-based technology is developing more efficient and direct routes in and out of 

these major airports. 

With this efficiency comes with shorter travel times for passengers, fuel savings for airlines, and decreases in emissions for 

the environment. Yet these advances come with a hefty price tag. 

6 

By the FAA’s estimates, the development of NextGen will require 

between $20 billion and $27 billion in funding from 2012 to 2025. 

In addition to Federal funding, private industry is making significant investments in the development of aircraft upgrades and 

NextGen-capable avionics. 

Both as a member of this committee and as ranking member of 

the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, as well as 

a conferee on the FAA reauthorization, I recognize making our 

skies safer, less congested, and cleaner will require a substantial 

investment. We must invest in the future. But we must invest 

wisely. I am concerned with the Department of Transportation inspector general’s April 2012 report that the end route automation 

modernization program implementation schedule has slipped by 4 

years and over budget by $330 million. 

In addition, I understand that although progress is being made, 

the agency has had difficulties in developing performance metrics 

for NextGen goals. 

I want to thank you, Chairman Petri and Ranking Member 

Costello, for calling this hearing. And I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today. Because I do believe that we need to 

implement the NextGen technology. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And now we turn to our first panel. And 

I would like to welcome the Honorable John Porcari, who is the 

Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation; Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator of the FAA. Welcome both, 

to both of you. And our regulars on this panel, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Honorable Calvin Scovel, as well as Dr. Gerald Dillingham, director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office. 

Thank you all for being here. Thank you for—and your staff, for 

the effort that went into your prepared statements. And, as you 

know, you are invited to summarize them for—in about 5 minutes 

for the panel before we turn to questioning. 

We will begin with Deputy Secretary Porcari. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. MICHAEL P. 

HUERTA, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND 

GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk about the 

progress that the Department has made in transforming our Nation’s air transportation system through NextGen. 

As you know, we run the largest and safest air transportation 

system in the world, and we are recognized as a global leader in 

aviation. At the Department of Transportation, we continually 

strive to enhance safety. 

7 

NextGen is one of the largest infrastructure investments in the 

United States today. We are moving from a ground-based navigation and surveillance of the last century to a satellite-based system 

of the 21st century. NextGen is the way of the future, not just for 

the United States, but for the world. It will improve safety, reduce 

delays, relieve bottlenecks, and foster the flow of commerce. 

Our estimates show that by 2020 NextGen improvements will reduce delays by 38 percent, as compared to what would happen if 

we didn’t do anything. Our forecasts show that airline passenger 

traffic is expected to nearly double in the next 20 years. 

NextGen prepares us to handle this increased demand on our 

system. The challenges associated with such a complex transformation require the right kind of leadership. Acting Administrator Michael Huerta has done an outstanding job in the last 2 

years, intensifying the focus on NextGen within the FAA and with 

our stakeholders. We needed someone who could take the many 

technologies of NextGen from concept to reality, and we needed 

someone who could forge public-private partnerships. Michael has 

done both. 

Under his direction and leadership, we have changed the way we 

manage large acquisition programs, and we have changed the 

NextGen management structure. We are already seeing positive results. I applaud Michael for his leadership, and I remain hopeful 

that the Senate will pass his nomination to lead the FAA. We need 

a steady hand, a proven professional at the helm to steer us 

through the many technological changes ahead. Confirming Michael Huerta as the Administrator of the FAA would allow us to 

name a Deputy Administrator who would serve as the chief 

NextGen officer, continuing the important day-to-day oversight of 

NextGen. 

We are already seeing real improvements today from NextGen 

technology. Satellite-based surveillance in the Gulf of Mexico, for 

example, gives more precise images of the airspace where there is 

no radar coverage. We worked in collaboration with the oil and gas 

industry to place radio transceivers on the oil rigs in the gulf. And 

the largest helicopter company operating in the gulf has equipped 

its aircraft. 

The technology gives pilots much better weather information at 

lower altitudes, where they operate, which enhances safety. It allows us to increase the number of aircraft flying in the gulf during 

low visibility conditions, because we know exactly where each aircraft is located. Equipped helicopters in the gulf save up to 10 minutes and 100 pounds per fuel per flight because of the greater efficiency, and they do that in greater safety. That is just one example. 

The FAA has also partnered with JetBlue to equip some of its 

aircraft to take advantage of more direct NextGen routes from Boston and New York down to Florida and the Caribbean. These 

routes are like HOV lanes that bypass the congestion. 

You may have noticed that these examples share something in 

common. They reflect our commitment to creating public-private 

partnerships. The Department cannot implement NextGen alone. 

We are collaborating with industry to discuss the best way to go 

about this major transformation of our air traffic control system, 

and what actions we need to take first to produce the best results. 

8 

We are working hand in hand with all of our aviation stakeholders. 

This communication is critical because it helps us align our work 

with what will produce the best results for the traveling public 

now. 

As this committee well knows, civil aviation is vital to our economy. It contributes 10 million jobs and $1.3 trillion annually to our 

Nation’s economy. NextGen will help make sure these contributions 

continue for years to come. 

I will stop here and allow Michael to give you more details. 

Thank you for your support of America’s aviation system, and for 

keeping this economic engine running at full throttle. 

Mr. PETRI. Administrator Huerta, go ahead. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman 

Mica, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, and members of 

the subcommittee. 

As you just heard from Deputy Secretary Porcari, NextGen is 

happening now. It is not something we are doing alone. It is a public-private partnership that will enhance the safety of our aviation 

system, and lay the groundwork for the United States to continue 

to operate the safest aviation system in the world. 

I have made it a priority to step up our collaboration with our 

stakeholders externally to increase the focus on NextGen, and to 

bring benefits to the traveling public now. The FAA has a long history of engaging with industry to develop consensus around policy, 

programs, and regulatory decisions. We have worked closely with 

our industry partners such as RTCA, and have incorporated important advice from that organization in our NextGen planning. 

We have also established a broad-based panel, the NextGen 

Avisory Committee, to provide guidance and recommendations on 

how to equip for NextGen, and how to measure our success. We 

value the advice of the Joint Planning and Development Office, 

which handles interagency coordination and long-term planning for 

NextGen. And we work with the experts at the Institute Management Council, which oversees the NextGen Institute. As always, we 

work with airlines that are enthusiastic about our pilot programs, 

and help us to gain valuable NextGen data. 

Let me share a few examples of our partnerships for NextGen 

and the progress that we are making around the country. In Seattle, Washington, as part of the Greener Skies initiative, we are 

partnering with Alaska Airlines, the Port of Seattle, and the Boeing Company. We have created new NextGen approaches for airlines flying into Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. These flight 

tracks are shorter. They are more fuel-efficient, and more environmentally friendly. That is a lot of hard work by all of our partners. 

And, thanks to that, we reached a milestone this summer. For 

the first time, Alaska Airlines is flying customers into Sea-Tac 

using these new NextGen approaches. In fact, these procedures will 

help all equipped airlines flying into Sea-Tac to significantly cut 

total fuel consumption annually, reduce carbon emissions, and deliver other important benefits. 

And in addition to our partnerships, we have also taken steps to 

change the way we do business and improve the efficiency of our 

internal workflow. The results are apparent in our work, tackling 

9 

the problem of congested airspace over busy metropolitan areas 

around the country. 

The old way of doing businesses was to improve air traffic procedures at one airport, separate from all the others. But we are now 

taking a different approach. We are looking at metro areas as a 

whole, and bringing all the stakeholders to the table: airports, airlines, our air traffic controllers, and Federal agencies. We are working together to improve air traffic flow around all the airports in 

a metroplex. We are creating new and more direct routes that will 

relieve congestion and improve safety and efficiency. 

By changing the way we approach the problem, we are improving 

our airspace in 3 years. And under the old way of doing business, 

these changes would have taken 5 to 10 years. We are seeing great 

progress in Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, California, north Texas, 

and right here in Metropolitan Washington, DC. And more regions 

will follow. 

We have learned lessons from the past regarding our large acquisition programs, and we have developed best practices, moving forward. We have elevated and strengthened our NextGen organization, and we have created a new program management organization specifically focused on implementing major technology programs, such as ERAM, which is our En Route Automation Modernization program. This will strengthen and improve the coordination among NextGen initiatives, ushering them from the drawing 

board to live operation. 

This new approach, as well as our improved working relationship 

with our unions, is already showing results. ERAM already is operating at nine en route centers around the country. We plan to use 

it at a total of 20 centers. And now, five centers are using ERAM 

as the primary technology to direct air traffic. This sets the stage 

for taking advantage of more NextGen capabilities throughout the 

air traffic control system. 

This is truly an exciting time in aviation history. NextGen is fundamental to ensuring that we continue to operate the world’s safest 

air transportation system for many years to come. It will allow us 

to deliver more on-time and more fuel-efficient flights. It is a better 

way of doing business for the FAA, the airlines, the airports, and 

the traveling public. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. This concludes my testimony, and I am happy to take any 

questions you might have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

General Scovel? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Mica, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member 

Costello, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

to testify on FAA’s progress in developing NextGen. Since FAA 

launched this complex program almost 9 years ago, we have reported on cost and schedule risks, as well as challenges that FAA 

must address to deliver NextGen benefits. 

FAA has been responsive to our recommendations, and has taken 

important steps toward moving NextGen forward, such as establishing a new program management office. However, transitioning 

from planning to benefits delivered continues to challenge the 

agency. Today I will focus on three key challenges FAA faces. 

10 

The first challenges concerns FAA’s Metroplex initiative, an effort to improve the flow of air traffic in major metropolitan areas 

and reduce delays. FAA has made important progress by aligning 

budgets and plans, completing airspace and procedure studies, and 

performing design work at several locations. Despite this progress, 

the expected completion date is September 2017, 15 months later 

than initial plans. 

Industry representatives are concerned that Metroplex may not 

deliver all desired benefits, nor adequately integrate other critical 

capabilities. Of particular concern are delays in implementing 

DataComm, a capability industry considers key to more precisely 

manage aircraft for improved fuel consumption and operating costs. 

Additionally, FAA’s Metroplex effort faces barriers such as working 

across diverse agency offices, improving implementation of new 

flight procedures, and training of controllers on advance capabilities. 

The second challenge relates to the deployment of ERAM, FAA’s 

flight data processing program for high-altitude operations. FAA 

has installed ERAM at nine sites, a significant step forward, since 

testing at the two initial sites revealed many software problems associated with safely managing aircraft. FAA’s progress is largely 

due to senior leadership’s sustained commitment to resolve problems and improve risk management. Still, controllers, technicians, 

and users familiar with ERAM have reported an excess of 900 new 

high-priority software issues, delaying ERAM’s nationwide deployment, and resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in increased 

costs. 

Problems with ERAM exposed fundamental weaknesses in program management and contract oversight. For example, ERAM’s 

cost incentive fee did not motivate the contractor to stay below cost 

targets, because FAA simply increased the targets as requirements 

grew. Consequently, FAA paid the contractor $150 million in incentives, even though ERAM costs exceeded the budget by at least 

$330 million. 

In response to our findings, FAA modified the ERAM contract to 

better align incentives to performance targets. FAA is also taking 

steps to address other programmatic and contract management 

issues we have identified, including modifying its contract to better 

track costs. However, unresolved technical and programmatic problems with ERAM continue to affect the cost and schedule of 

NextGen. 

The third challenge relates to the development of NextGen’s six 

transformational programs, which FAA expects will cost $2.4 billion over the next 5 years. Three programs in particular, ADS–B, 

SWIM, and DataComm, will provide critical technologies for 

NextGen, and allow for efficient data sharing among airspace users 

and better management of air traffic. To date, FAA has yet to develop total cost, schedule, and performance baselines for the six 

programs. 

For example, to realize ADS–B’s full range of benefits, FAA must 

finalize requirements for displaying traffic information in the cockpit. It must also modify the systems that controllers rely on to 

manage traffic, reduce radio frequency congestion, implement procedures for separating aircraft, and assess security vulnerabilities. 

11 

FAA also lacks an integrated master schedule to mitigate operational, technical, and programmatic risks. Dividing larger programs into smaller, more manageable segments, as FAA has done 

for ADS–B, SWIM, and DataComm can reduce some risks. However, as requirements continue to evolve, programs are left with no 

clear end state, and decisionmakers lack sufficient information to 

assess progress. Also, delays with one program can significantly 

slow another, since the programs have complex interdependencies 

with each other and with other FAA systems. FAA is now developing an integrated schedule. But to fully populate it, the agency 

must identify required data such as key system dependencies. 

FAA’s recent actions to reorganize its NextGen efforts demonstrate its commitment to improve the management of NextGen 

and its major acquisitions. These efforts are in the early stages, 

and will focus on improving airspace efficiency at congested airports, resolving problems with ERAM, and addressing uncertainties in NextGen’s transformational programs. These challenges are 

significant, and we will continue to monitor the results of FAA’s organizational changes. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you or other members of the committee may 

have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Dr. Dillingham. 

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

Costello, Chairman Mica, Mr. Duncan, and other members of the 

subcommittee. GAO has been monitoring the transition to NextGen 

for this subcommittee since planning for the initiative began in 

2003. We have made numerous recommendations to FAA to address delays in NextGen’s development and acquisitions, improve 

business processes, and focus on accountability and performance. 

Over the last 2 years, FAA has taken several steps, instituted 

many changes, and implemented several of our recommendations to 

address these issues. While initial planning focused on having 

NextGen in place by 2025, more recently FAA has emphasized improvements that can be implemented through the mid-term, which 

the agency now defines as through 2020. 

Our work indicates that FAA views this emphasis as a means to 

respond to industry skepticism about its ability to implement 

NextGen, to build support for long-term NextGen investments, and 

to more quickly address existing inefficiencies and delays in the national airspace system. Overall, FAA is making progress in implementing NextGen. However, our work also shows that stakeholders 

are concerned about the pace of implementation and, in some cases, 

about the extent to which the full benefits of NextGen will be realized. 

My written statement highlights five challenges, in addition to 

what the DOT IG just explained, with regard to implementing the 

NextGen, and the actions FAA has taken to address these challenges. 

The five challenge areas that we include: one, delivering and 

demonstrating NextGen’s near-term benefits for stakeholders; two, 

encouraging operators to equip with NextGen technologies; three, 

keeping key systems acquisitions on budget and on schedule; four, 

12 

clearly defining the NextGen leadership roles and responsibilities 

for both internal and external stakeholders; and finally, balancing 

the priorities of the current air traffic control system through the 

transition to NextGen. 

In light of the Federal budget environment, this balancing is particularly important to ensuring NextGen’s implementation stays on 

course, while also sustaining the current air traffic system, a system that will be core of the national airspace system for several 

years to come. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello, and members of the 

subcommittee, while NextGen is certainly critical to modernizing 

the current system, increased efficiencies from NextGen improvements alone may not be sufficient to meet projected increases in 

demand for aviation system capacity. FAA’s modeling indicates 

that even if all NextGen technologies are implemented, some of the 

35 busiest airports in the Nation may not be able to handle the 

forecasted increase in air traffic. If these projections are accurate, 

additional capacity, including the construction of additional runways, taxiways, and terminal gates will also be needed. Making infrastructure improvements can be a very costly and lengthy process, requiring substantial planning and analysis before they can be 

implemented. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my prepared statement. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your statements. And 

I would like to begin questioning by asking Mr. Porcari or Mr. 

Huerta if you have any comments or reactions to the—General 

Scovel or Mr. Dillingham’s statements that were made. 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In both cases, the reports have been very helpful in helping us structure steps forward. 

We appreciate the fact that they recognize the steps that have been 

taken on NextGen implementation. This is a system of systems, so 

it is very complex in its implementation. But in every case, we 

have tried to increase the collaboration with industry, with our 

partners across the industry spectrum to actually get this technology out there, and get these procedures out there and usable as 

quickly as possible. 

We do recognize this is a U.S. technological leadership issue that 

is very important. 

Mr. HUERTA. Just to add to that, Mr. Chairman, as the Deputy 

Secretary said, we have had a lot of discussions with the IG and 

with GAO on the oversight and management of the program. But 

I think one thing that I want to stress is the management changes 

that we have made, and the focus on near-term benefit has been 

just that. It has been what can we do to ensure that, as we make 

investments, and as our industry partners make investments, and 

as we collaborate with the workforce that makes all this happen, 

how do we ensure that, as we make these investments, we are 

matching benefits so that the users of the system are seeing benefits as these investments move forward. 

That is extremely important, and that is what our initiatives 

such as Metroplex are all about. How do we make sure that users 

are actually getting benefits now, in things like fuel burn, reduced 

emissions, reduced cost? And this benefits not only the air carriers, 

13 

but also the general aviation community, the business aviation 

community. Everyone benefits from greater efficiency of the use of 

the national airspace system. 

We want to assure that our system continues to be the safest in 

the world, and also the most efficient in the world. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, I know it is a complicated process, and you have 

to sort of break it down into pieces, and it involves redoing training 

manuals and procedures and airlines retraining personnel, and all 

the rest of it, and coordinating into actually get things done. And 

trying to coordinate that with investments and new equipment 

schedules is a perilous process sometimes. 

But Mr. Porcari, you have mentioned several times, and we have 

known the United States has, we think, generally led the world in 

aviation since the Wright Brothers. And it has been a great asset 

for the United States, and I think a benefit for the world. Can you 

discuss some of the implications of what we call NextGen for that 

leadership, and why it makes a difference beyond, you know, cheering for the good old USA? 

Mr. PORCARI. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the question. As you point out, the U.S. has led the world in aviation since 

the Wright Brothers. NextGen, in particular, because it really is 

the future of aviation in many ways, is a great opportunity. 

While we are collaborating, for example, with the European 

Union on technological standards for SESAR, their equivalent of 

this, that has been primarily a planning exercise to date. What we 

have really focused on, and what Acting Administrator Huerta and 

the NextGen implementation team have really worked on, is operational benefits now. And we have done that in a way that has 

been a collaboration with industry. 

As Michael pointed out, we have worked hard to bring our workforce into this, something that was not done in the beginning of 

this program. I think we all understand we would have benefitted 

from greater collaboration. But we see this today and into the future as an opportunity for the United States, worldwide. 

I mentioned before the $1.3 trillion per year economic impact of 

the overall industry, both from an export perspective and certainly 

for future domestic growth. It is something that we see as a core 

part of our mission. Transportation is also economic development. 

This is one of the ways that we make the foundational investments 

for a better future in America. NextGen, as one of the largest infrastructure investments that we are making as a Nation, is one of 

our primary tools for doing that. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dr. Dillingham, when 

you concluded your testimony you made the statement that 

NextGen may not be able to handle traffic at the busiest airports 

in the United States. I wonder if you might elaborate on that and, 

one, why you believe that, and, number two, what needs to be done 

to address that issue. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. I was referring to the fact that, based 

on FAA’s forecast of traffic and the current airport capacity, we are 

still going to have congestion at those airports. The technology of 

NextGen will help us move planes from place to place and, in some 

ways, also help manage traffic on the ground. 

14 

But if the forecasts come true, we are clearly going to need additional runways and taxiways in order to accommodate that demand. Otherwise, we are going to see the levels of congestion that 

generated the need for a NextGen. 

Mr. COSTELLO. So it is a funding issue. In order to make those 

improvements, you are dealing with the passenger facility charge 

and the airport improvement program. Is that correct? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Clearly, it is a funding issue. But it is also a 

planning issue. I think one of the big obstacles to infrastructure 

construction oftentimes, is not bringing in all of the stakeholders 

early on; particularly the communities, with regard to environmental issues, noise, and emissions. So it is money, as well as 

stakeholder involvement and some of the other issues. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I know that you are aware that in the bill that 

the House passed in 2007 and again in 2009, we attempted to—in 

fact we did, in that bill—increase the passenger facility charge. In 

other words, take the cap off at $4.50 and take it up to $7, and 

increase the AIP fund, where, in fact, the law that—the bill that 

was passed and the President signed into law, of course, keeps the 

cap on the PFC fund at $4.50 and actually reduces funding for the 

AIP program. So that is a challenge that we are going to have to 

deal with in the future. 

Let me move on to the next question. You have talked about 

progress has been made on planning and implementation of 

NextGen. Give some concrete examples as to the progress that has 

been made in the planning and implementation. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. I will start with what has been mentioned a couple of times this morning. That is back when FAA contracted with RTCA to bring all the stakeholders together in one 

room. That was one of the seminal events where everybody came 

together and agreed on how to move forward, which was a unique 

situation. From that, FAA has, as mentioned earlier, identified and 

prioritized metroplexes to start on integrated implementation of 

NextGen. 

We have seen demonstrations at various airports around the 

country with savings in fuel and lessening of emissions. Those 

kinds of things, from our perspective, build credibility for FAA, in 

terms of the airlines’ willingness to put forth the money to equip, 

or at least stay in the game until these benefits can be seen and, 

therefore, they are more likely to equip moving forward. 

We have recently seen a reorganization in FAA for more accountability and oversight which also came out of the bill. The reorganization is new at this point, so we don’t know how it will play out. 

We have seen reorganizations before that didn’t yield all the things 

we thought it would. But I think those are some examples of what 

we mean when we say progress is being made, although not as fast 

as any of us might have wanted or expected. But as has been said 

this morning, it is very complex, and one of the biggest things the 

U.S. is doing at this point in time. 

Mr. COSTELLO. In addition to monitoring the implementation of 

NextGen here in the United States, this subcommittee has asked 

you to monitor what they are doing in Europe, as well, as far as 

progress that is being made to improve their air traffic control sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:43 Jan 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\9-12-1~1\75851.TXT JEAN
15 

tem. I wonder if you might give us an update as to where Europe 

is, versus the United States. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. I think Chairman Mica probably captured it when he said we are ahead, but just by a little bit. There 

is a lot of cooperation, and some competition, between the U.S. and 

Europe. I think what is important is that this effort could go off 

track at any point in time. If we fall behind in implementing 

NextGen, and they keep moving ahead, we could, in fact, find ourselves in a different position. 

On the other side, they have to deal with multiple nation states 

to get permission to do the kinds of things that we do here, since 

we have one system. At this time, in small measure, the U.S. is in 

the lead. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Final question—Chairman, you have been generous with my time—Secretary Porcari, it wasn’t too long ago that 

we had David Grizzle, who heads up, of course, the ATC—or ATO 

organization at the FAA. And I asked about 2 months ago, when 

he testified before the subcommittee, I asked him how sequestration would affect the FAA. And he said that he would get back with 

us, that there were no specific hard numbers. 

So you have had plenty of time, and hopefully your agency is 

planning both for—if sequestration happens or if it doesn’t happen. 

And I think it is in the interest of everyone here—people, regardless if they support sequestration or they are opposed to it, they 

should know what is going to happen. So, what will happen if sequestration, in fact, goes forward? What happens to the FAA, as far 

as funding is concerned? And specifically, what happens to progress 

that has been made with NextGen? 

Mr. PORCARI. Under sequestration we would face some very drastic service cuts, which is why we would all urge Congress to act 

quickly to avert those sweeping cuts. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Secretary, we heard that from David Grizzle. 

What I am asking you specifically is to give me some figures. You 

obviously know. You have had to plan for sequestration. So, if sequestration goes forward, is it $1 billion out of the FAA budget? 

And, if so, one, what is the figure, and how will it affect, dollarwise, NextGen? 

Mr. PORCARI. If I can start with the impact part of it, first, our 

primary objective would be to make sure it does not impact safety. 

Safety activities excepted, we know it will have impacts on air traffic control services, NextGen implementation, which will be slowed 

down, and aircraft certification for manufacturers, among other activities. 

The cuts are estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at 7.8 

percent for the nondefense agencies. What I would emphasize there 

is that if this happens in January, we are already a quarter of the 

way through the fiscal year. So the impact would be greater, because it is not spread over an entire fiscal year, three-quarters of 

one, instead. 

We are working closely with the Office of Management and 

Budget through their guidance on specific impacts. I know that 

OMB has indicated that later this week, most likely, there will be 

a report to Congress with more specifics. 

16 

Mr. COSTELLO. You are aware that the Aerospace Industries Association took a look at one of two possible scenarios under sequestration, and they said that full NextGen implementation could be 

delayed until 2035 or beyond, resulting in 1.3 million job losses and 

annual reductions in economic activity growing from $40 billion in 

2020 to $80 billion in 2035. You have any reason to doubt those 

figures released by AIA. 

Mr. PORCARI. We have seen the Aerospace Industry Association 

figures. They are based on very specific assumptions, as are some 

of the other studies that are out there on potential sequestration 

impacts. Depending on what assumptions you make, those will obviously drive the conclusions on the impact of service. 

We appreciate the work they have done, but we don’t have any 

specific comment on that or other studies, because they are all 

based on individual assumptions which may or may not play out 

under a sequestration scenario. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Chairman Mica. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Inspector General and Mr. Dillingham, you both 

did some reviews here. What period of time did you cover in your 

review, Inspector General? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Mica, we have covered the last several 

years, both with regard to ERAM—— 

Mr. MICA. OK. Would—but did you include the post-period after 

February 14th, when we signed the new legislation, or is most of 

this before that? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Much of it is before that, sir. We do have updates 

with regard to specific programs and FAA initiatives post-February. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Dillingham? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Most of our work preceded 

the February 14th date, but we also updated the work where we 

could in the time allowed. 

Mr. MICA. The reason I ask is we put some pretty specific parameters in law, again trying to deal with some of the problems that 

had been disclosed before in management oversight, milestones, 

leadership. 

Secretary Porcari—well, we have got an Acting Administrator. If 

I was going to say somebody in charge is supposed to be—I guess 

the Deputy, is that Mr.—is that right, Mr. Huerta, of a Deputy Administrator? 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes. The Deputy Administrator position—— 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Mr. PORCARI [continuing]. Is the chief NextGen—— 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Mr. PORCARI [continuing]. Officer. So—— 

Mr. MICA. But Huerta is acting, and then the deputy is acting, 

right? 

Mr. PORCARI. Michael is a two-hatter at this point. He is Acting 

Administrator. Until confirmed, if he is confirmed as Administrator, we cannot fill the Deputy position. So he has two day jobs 

right now. 

17 

Mr. MICA. But basically, then, if I have to look at somebody and 

say who is in charge under the new law, then we have to say the 

Acting Administrator. 

And are you lacking anything in direction from the law, or you 

see some difficulty in implementation? Or—I mean we passed that 

6 months ago. Is there something missing? Do you have the tools 

to do the job? And is the guideline specific enough that we provided? 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Chairman, we very much appreciate the support and guidance that has been provided by the committee. And 

as—— 

Mr. MICA. No, but the law. 

Mr. HUERTA. I will come back to exactly what we are doing. 

The law provides for us to establish roles and functions within 

the NextGen organization, which we have done, and the Joint 

Planning and Development Office, which we have done. 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Mr. HUERTA. Both of those organizations report to the chief 

NextGen officer. Our concept—— 

Mr. MICA. But that is you. 

Mr. HUERTA. Which is me. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Have you delegated that? 

Mr. HUERTA. I have delegated the role of chief NextGen officer, 

on an interim basis, to Vicki Cox, who is the head of our NextGen 

organization. But I stay very personally involved in it. 

Mr. MICA. And that is adequate? You are able to now identify 

who is in charge and move forward, and you don’t see—what I 

am—I want to know if what we did is adequate. Do you have the 

legislative tools and direction? Yes? No? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes, that is correct, I would love to have a deputy. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, that I can’t change. But again, we have got 

to make certain. 

Now, the other thing, too, is we took the head of the JPDO and 

we raised it to an—raised it to, what, Associate Administrator position. Has that been done? 

Mr. HUERTA. It hasn’t been done—— 

Mr. MICA. Why not, Porcari? 

Mr. PORCARI. First, going back to Michael’s comment, there is a 

chain of command issue here. Having an Administrator—— 

Mr. MICA. I know, but one of the things we directed in law was 

to elevate that position. We have—OK, we give you February, 

March, April, May, June, July, August. We are into September. 

When will we see that position elevated and filled? 

Mr. PORCARI. The filling of the position is not in any way holding 

up NextGen implementation, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. No, but what I want—you know, I just come from a 

business background. I don’t have a lot of experience, no Harvard 

Ph.D. in business or anything, but you got to have somebody in 

charge. That is what we identified as part of the problem, OK? So 

I want identifiable people in place, the positions, and what the law 

provided for, and then people doing their jobs getting this in order. 

Now, they said it wasn’t—we said it wasn’t money, but some said 

it may be money. OK. Now who is in charge for a 31⁄2 to—well, almost a half-a-billion dollar overrun in the ERAM, and a 3—the 

18 

ERAM, isn’t that the—one of the key components to the whole program, guys? Yes? Yes? 

Mr. PORCARI. It is. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Mr. PORCARI. It is a foundational technology—— 

Mr. MICA. It is 31⁄2 to 4 years late. Now that is post. And it is— 

I have $330 million to half-a-billion dollars in overruns. Did you 

pinpoint responsibility for that, gentlemen? Mr. IG? It is not a 

small amount, and it is not a small component to getting this 

whole thing in place. 

Mr. SCOVEL. It is not a small amount. And you are absolutely 

right, Chairman Mica. The problems with ERAM began with the 

design of the contract, and persisted all the way through development and implementation. 

Mr. MICA. Which was developed by FAA—— 

Mr. SCOVEL. By FAA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. And implemented by the contractor in 

changes, et cetera. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Right. 

Mr. MICA. Now, somehow, whoever is in charge and the people 

that are in charge, we have got to make some progress, and keep 

the cost under control. If you work for me and you had a $330 million or a half-a-billion dollar cost overrun and a 4—I give you a 3- 

to 4-year delay, your butt would be fired. OK? So that is not acceptable. 

And what we have got to do, we learn from the past. We have 

got to have—I have got to have the pattern that we set in place 

by law executed, and then we have got to have somebody in charge 

and managing the contract and getting it implemented. Is that the 

identifiable problem, Mr. Scovel, Mr. Dillingham? 

Mr. SCOVEL. That is it. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. OK. OK. Mr. Dillingham, don’t want to put any words 

in your mouth. 

Two quick things before I go—I won’t be gone permanently, unfortunately. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. Talked to manufacturers. Now, we need to move some 

people around somewhere in FAA on certification for manufacturing of equipment. Some regions, it appears, or offices, they can 

get it done faster. Others are sitting on it. We are losing a competitive advantage in manufacturing and opportunities for putting people to work and capturing markets. 

The longer that delays—now, don’t tell me it is a personnel problem, because the personnel are out there, and some can do it. If we 

have to move people around, somebody has got to have a plan. 

Come back to the committee with a plan so that manufacturing 

certification can be accomplished, and that we—and I know there 

are positions that can be moved around or personnel that can be 

made available to accomplish those goals. Or, at least some standardization in the process, so one place has some ding dong requirements and keeping things at bay. Can you do that for us, Mr. 

Huerta? 

19 

And then, one of the other things, I want you to come back. We 

had talked before about working conditions for air traffic controllers, which is a concern. Some of them are working in dumps. And 

some of them are working in conditions that are not conducive to 

doing a good job or being on the job alert, awake, and all of that. 

And we had started talking about this with your predecessor, and 

now I want to see a plan to start implementing it. 

So, they are our key, because this air traffic control system of 

Next Generation won’t be around for a little while, so we have to 

rely on the men and women that are actually doing the job, and 

making certain they are capable of doing the job, working in an atmosphere that is conducive to accomplishing that simple goal. So, 

can you get back to us on that? 

Mr. HUERTA. Certainly. 

Mr. MICA. All right. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just a general note before I begin specific questions, but I would note that 

there were two iterations of an FAA reauthorization: one that was 

written on our side of the aisle, which would have increased AIP 

and would have allowed an increase in PFCs, which would have 

dealt with some of the issues that Dr. Dillingham is talking about 

here and some of the issues just raised by the chairman in terms 

of staffing and these programs. And, of course, AIP was cut and 

PFC was capped in the legislation that ultimately passed. So we 

have created some problems there. I don’t think the resources are 

adequate, but let me go to some other issues. 

Dr. Dillingham, is there going to be a guarantee of interoperability between whatever it is the EEU is doing and whatever it 

is we are doing? I have sat in hearings for 26 years on NextGen. 

I still don’t know what it is, what it is going to cost, when or how 

we are going to deploy it, but is whatever it is we are going to do 

going to be compatible with whatever it is they are going to do? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. DeFazio, that’s the plan. That’s the activity 

and action that’s taken place to make sure that it is, in fact, going 

to be interoperable. Because, as you know, aviation is a global undertaking at this point in time. And FAA is working very cooperatively and collaboratively with SESAR to make sure that it happens. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So say they aren’t a bit dismayed at some of 

the problems we’re having, like with the ERAM or that? I mean 

how does that—you know? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. I am sure they are dismayed, but they have 

problems of their own as well, Mr. DeFazio. They aren’t at the 

same place we are with regard to actually implementing some of 

the technology. They’re still planning and designing those kinds of 

things. But, again, they have a very complex system and there’s a 

lot of cooperation going on. So I think from our work, they understand the situation that occurs. Also, you think you can do something quicker than you can do it, particularly when it involves new 

technology, new procedures, and all of the other things that are associated with such a major project. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. But I have got to reflect that I think it’s outrageous that the contractor is still getting cost incentives when 

20 

they are at 100 percent over budget and 4 years behind schedule. 

How do we explain that? Who would like to explain that? Why are 

they still getting cost incentives? They should be getting a whack 

on the top of the head. 

Mr. RINALDI. Mr. DeFazio, we have restructured the contract. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Restructured in causing them some pain? 

Mr. RINALDI. I think that we have got their attention and they 

are very focused in working with us. And, as I mentioned, we do 

have ERAM at a point now where I am feeling that we are well 

on our way toward final deployment there. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. What’s the 900 urgent software glitches identified 

by air traffic controllers and others that are kind of problematic? 

Where we have got the plane with the wrong route and wrong 

number? And we don’t really know who it is where? 

Mr. RINALDI. It is certainly not of that magnitude. ERAM is actually our primary technology that is in use at two of our air traffic 

control centers; well, actually at five in continuous operations 

where we have decommissioned the system at two of those with a 

plan to get it out to all 20. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And these urgent software fixes do not apply to 

those fully operational airports? 

Mr. RINALDI. In any operational system deployment you have 

software issues and the important thing to focus on is their relative 

priority and how quickly you can get those resolved. We do that 

collaboratively with the workforce. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Well, we will hear from a practitioner from 

the workforce later; and, if you will, they think it is more serious. 

I just said this is, you know, 26 years. It has been a long haul. I 

have been on this committee 26 years and I have seen many reports from Mr. Scovel and Dr. Dillingham about NextGen, but even 

before that, you know. We began these discussions my first term 

in Congress. And I guess this leads me, Mr. Porcari, to a question 

I opposed previously, and this is not directed personally of you. 

But, why is it that the only agency of the Government of the 

United States of America than is worse than acquisitions than the 

Pentagon, who’s famous for massive waste and cost overruns, is the 

FAA? I mean what is wrong with your procurement process, and 

how are we going to fix it? 

Mr. PORCARI. As you have heard, Mr. DeFazio, in retrospect, the 

ERAM contract would have been and should have been structured 

differently. I will tell you that we got the contractor’s attention at 

the CEO level to get the changes that we needed done quickly. The 

profile of the kind of work that the FAA does is very high-risk, 

sometimes at the technological leading edge, sometimes the bleeding edge. It is that kind of project, more likely—especially when it’s 

as complex as NextGen is—to have setbacks and delays. 

When you take the six, separate, foundational technologies that 

constitute NextGen in the interplay and interaction between them, 

it gets an order of magnitude more complex. That is not an excuse, 

but what it puts a premium on is better project management skills 

and understanding the risks from the beginning, and we’re very 

much focused on that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

21 

Mr. Chairman, just one other quick question. I read something 

yesterday about potentially using the iridium system for the data 

management and maybe being able to move along more quickly by 

contracting with them. Is that something under active discussion? 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. DeFazio, it is under active discussion. At this 

point, what we’re trying to get is a better understanding of the relative cost of investing in the iridium. Iridium is a space-based 

ADS–B technology which would supplement investments that are 

already being made in ground-based ADS–B. We want to ensure, 

before we make any decision with respect to funding or contracting, 

that there is a valid benefit case to be made, that this technology 

provides us something that we wouldn’t otherwise get and that it 

merits the investment that would be required. But we are looking 

at it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And, Mr. Ribble? 

Mr. RIBBLE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, 

I have some information regarding ADS–B that I would like to submit for the hearing record, and ask unanimous consent to do so. 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yeah. Thank you. Well, I appreciated my friend Mr. 

DeFazio’s questioning. I’ve only been here 2 years, and I’ve got to 

tell you I’m struck by the whole NextGen—I want to call it debacle, 

but maybe it’s not a debacle, but it feels like it when I listen to 

your comments. And I guess I’ll start with Dr. Dillingham. In your 

opinion, has the FAA ever suffered from lack of funding for 

NextGen? Because I’m beginning to sense it’s not NextGen. It’s 

NextNextGen, or NextNextNextGen by the time we get this done. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. We have not seen any evidence where a lack of 

funding has been a major contributing factor to the issues that 

we’ve seen with regard to NextGen. Similarly, we have not seen a 

situation where the availability of technology, specifically, has been 

a major contributing factor. 

Mr. RIBBLE. OK. Do you believe that there are stakeholders that 

aren’t committed to NextGen? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Our work shows that stakeholders are guardedly optimistic of NextGen’s progress. Stakeholders that we talked 

to would like to see some evidence of benefits. They’d like to see 

a small victory with regard to NextGen implementation to build 

their confidence in FAA’s ability to come through with the larger 

investment. The airlines can take that business case showing the 

return on investment to their management. At this point, stakeholders are guardedly optimistic, as best I can tell. Stakeholders 

have been in the same room, and have said if FAA does these 

things, if FAA provides these near-term benefits, then stakeholders 

will be on board. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Gen. Scovel, do you agree with that assessment on 

stakeholders? The fact is I hear a lot of cynicism from stakeholders. 

They don’t think it is going to get done. 

Mr. SCOVEL. There is a lot of concern, Mr. Ribble. FAA’s effort 

to advance the Metroplex project is key to this because as a result 

of the RTCA task force recommendations, FAA moved out to try to 

drop portfolios of initiatives on specific locations. A key problem 

with many of the users is FAA’s misplaced focus, as they would 

22 

characterize it, on a certain type of instrument flight procedure improvement that provides very limited benefit. Some are equipped to 

take advantage of more advanced procedures. 

Others are not, and that’s the specific rub. As you’ll probably 

hear from the next panel, some users are very much cheerleaders 

for FAA to move ahead as quickly as possible with advanced procedures to embed those and train the air traffic controllers. Others, 

who haven’t yet made the investment, may candidly tell you that 

they’re kind of happy with the status quo. So it’s somewhat of a 

mixed bag. Conceptually, they are all in favor of NextGen, big picture; but, where are we today? What’s the return on investment? 

How much money have we already put into systems aboard aircraft? That’s a different kind of picture. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yeah. Secretary Porcari—and I am just curious. I 

think it was back in 1961 when President Kennedy challenged 

NASA, prior to manned space flight, to have someone on the Moon 

within the next decade. And they were able to accomplish what 

seems to me, looking at it through a historical prism, an extraordinary feat within 9 years. Was this harder than that? 

Mr. PORCARI. This is not harder than that. That was certainly an 

extraordinary feat, and as you’re a student of that, I’m sure you 

know that there were numerous setbacks along the way. There was 

concurrent development of numerous technologies that ultimately 

had to work together in synchronicity. It didn’t happen without setbacks. 

We can certainly, as Americans, accomplish anything we put our 

minds to. We view NextGen as one of the most important infrastructure investments that we need to make as a Nation, and, as 

you have heard before, as an element of U.S. technological leadership nationwide. So we take it very seriously. We appreciate the 

support that Congress has shown for NextGen. We are starting to 

see, and it’s easier on the inside, sometimes, to see the progress 

that is being made in operationally deploying usable parts of this 

that are making a meaningful difference, in terms of completing 

flights in bad weather, greater capacity, greater safety, and those 

benefits will start to compound as well. 

Mr. RIBBLE. OK. Thank you, the panel, for being here today. This 

has been helpful for me. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Rep. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to thank 

the panel. Several of you have been to Memphis and I appreciate 

your courtesies and service to our country. 

One issue—and I think Federal Express has been a leader in 

working on NextGen, and, of course, Federal Express is a leader 

in all things. In aviation, in package delivery, in sports, and every 

other way. Having made a comment, a word from our sponsor, but 

let me ask. 

I think probably Mr. Huerta might be the correct person to ask. 

I asked you, I think, in Memphis about the proposed rule that you 

all have about structures around airports. And, of course, Memphis 

is one of the cities that helps to become and is becoming, or some 

would say is becoming an metropolis, and is a major economic engine for us. And so limitations on the size of structures around the 

airport can be limiting in terms of economic development. What is 

23 

the status of that particular rule about safety, aircraft and height 

of buildings around there, and is there going to be comment periods 

and rigorous cost to evaluation examination? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. Mr. Cohen, I will need to get back to you with 

a specific timetable and steps going forward; but, in general, the 

issue is that we need to find the appropriate balance for the areas 

around airports. We need to plan, not only for what are the routine 

flight paths that everyone takes in and out of an airport, but also 

how can we ensure that, should a mishap occur and an aircraft has 

a missed approach; or, something that would be more dangerous, 

that they have time to recover. We need to ensure that there are 

not hazards in the way that would preclude their ability to recover. 

Finding that balance is extremely important. That is something 

that we have to do in a very thoughtful way for the reasons that 

you talked about. The interests of the airport’s ability to operate, 

which represents one economic engine and one economic benefit, 

versus surrounding property owners who are located near the airport for the obvious reason that they want to take advantage of 

that proximity. But, it’s something that we’re looking at very carefully, and we’ll get back to you with more detail on what the next 

steps are forward. 

Mr. COHEN. I appreciate it, and I understand safety is the utmost concern, but it needs to be balanced in terms of you can still 

have safety and have the economic development. We have great 

hopes for economic expansion around the airport area. Because of 

Federal Express, so many people have wisely brought their distribution centers to Memphis. 

More companies should be thinking about bringing their distribution centers to Memphis, because it’s so easy from there, because 

of rails, runway, roads, and river, to move their product all over 

the world. In fact, probably, the Department of Defense should 

probably plan on moving its operations entirely to Memphis to 

move everything out of Memphis which we could do at a financially 

successful manner in an efficient manner. But, we don’t want to 

have our buildings limited so we can’t house them when they come 

there, and I know they’re all coming. 

Mr. HUERTA. And we’re saying the same thing. It’s finding the 

right balance and ensuring we are operating a safe airport, while 

at the same time providing opportunities for industry. 

Mr. COHEN. And there will be opportunities for comment and an 

analysis based on cost as well? 

Mr. HUERTA. We are looking at it carefully. We will get back to 

you with what the process is going forward. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you very much, and thank you for all of your 

work. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Rep. Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. How about if we pool 

some positive gee’s. Dr. Dillingham, can you tell me some of the 

positive things about NextGen and the FAA? What is it doing right 

now? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. I think we can point to the fact that 

with congressional urging and reports from both us and the IG, we 

are now beginning to see some goals and metrics for NextGen, so 

the Congress and GAO can better monitor progress. Some of the 

24 

other panel members mentioned that some of the demonstration 

projects that are taking place at the various airports around the 

country are showing stakeholders that they can, in fact, benefit 

from NextGen in terms of fuel savings, and reduction in emissions 

for the community surrounding the airports. 

I think, again, progress is clearly based on the fact that we still 

have interested stakeholders who are willing to participate, though 

they are becoming less willing to participate as time goes on. We 

again would say progress is being made, albeit not as fast as not 

any of us might want it to occur. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, sir. I am a big believer in NextGen, 

if we can ever get it. Look forward to hearing from JetBlue to see 

how it’s affected theirs. Has it alleviated any congestion in the airports? Can you comment on that at all? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. In those airports where the demonstrations 

have taken place, FAA and the stakeholders are reporting that 

they’ve seen efficiencies with arriving and departing. Some of the 

issues that still remain are related to integrating surface management with NextGen improvements. So, getting aircraft to the airport is improving, but moving the aircraft on the service around is 

still a work in progress. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Man, do I hear you on that one? I would hate a 

taxiing aircraft at Chicago. OK. Gotcha. All right. 

Mr. Scovel, what do you mean when you say that the FAA may 

not be delivering the desired benefits? What, exactly, do you mean 

by that? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Let me look. You and Dr. Dillingham were just talking about the Metroplex initiative and the need to integrate procedures with surface management operations, and so forth. The key 

aspect that I would seek to reinforce is that FAA should respond 

to industry’s demands. The users’ requests for a focus on the most 

advanced levels of procedures that are possible, RNP. 

Our data indicates that 67 percent of main line carriers’ aircraft 

are equipped for RNP. Forty-nine percent of the aircraft are 

equipped and have crews that are approved to fly them. In order 

to derive the most benefits from advanced procedures, which would 

be precise routes and curved approaches, RNP needs to be in place. 

Our data indicates 136 solutions were produced by FAA, but only 

3 incorporated advanced procedures with those precise routes and 

curved approaches. 

So there is a disconnect between what FAA is capable or willing, 

at this point, to produce, and what the most advanced segment of 

the airline carrier industry would like to see happen. So there’s 

that difference between what is expected or requested and what 

can be delivered. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Do you think this is going to be a good return on 

our investment? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Absolutely. Come the Promised Land, you know, 

when we all get to Jerusalem and NextGen is in place, it will be 

an excellent return on investment. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Amen. OK. Sounds good. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CRAVAACK. On a little but more of a touchy subject in this 

regard, recently, on May 23, 2012, at a staff meeting a gentleman 

25 

by the name of Mr. Hickey, the Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Aviation Safety made what I thought were some inappropriate 

comments. If Republicans win office—‘‘If Republicans win office, 

jobs may be affected. If Democrats win office, their jobs would not 

be affected.’’ I think these comments are extremely inappropriate, 

and I would like to know where these comments are coming from. 

Is this an independent speaking? Is it coming from the administration? Is it coming from the White House? Where is this man speaking from? 

Mr. HUERTA. It is certainly not coming from the administration 

or the White House. I take, and the FAA takes, any potential violation of the Hatch Act extremely seriously. We do understand that 

the Office of Special Counsel has opened up an investigation into 

this particular instance, and we are cooperating fully with that. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Good enough for me. Thank you, sir, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this will be 

a little bit repetitive, because I share some of the same frustration 

that Chairman Mica and Mr. DeFazio earlier expressed, but I read 

in General Scovel’s report. I see these headlines, ‘‘Unresolved problems with Iran continue to impact the cost and pace of NextGen.’’ 

And then I see it says below that, ‘‘ERAM software related problems have caused cost overruns and schedule delays.’’ 

In a staff memo, they have that $640 million has been spent on 

Iran that was meant for other programs. And I suppose that I have 

been to every hearing that we have ever had on NextGen from the 

very start and have been to a couple of FAA facilities to try to 

learn what this is all about and see how it would operate. And I 

sure don’t understand all this, but I said at maybe the first or the 

very early hearings on this—that I guess I either made a statement 

or asked the question—was some future Aviation Subcommittee 

going to come in here and hear about delays and cost overruns, because that’s what everybody sort of expected what happened. And, 

sure enough, it has happened; not just on Iran, but on other things 

as well. 

What I am wondering about, since it is similar to a question I 

asked or a statement I made years ago, are we going to have a 

meeting of the Aviation Subcommittee 6 or 8 years from now and 

hear about additional delays and cost overruns? And I understand 

I’ve been told over the years that when it comes to all this technology that everything is obsolete the day they take it out of the 

box, and I know that there are always additional bells and whistles 

that people want. But, I will ask all of you. Do you feel that we 

are doing everything that could be done, or are there any additional things that could be done to see that we don’t have additional cost overruns before this is fully implemented in 2020 or 

whenever? Mr. Porcari? 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I think it is a fair question and it is one that we take very seriously in the sense that we 

have looked at some of the lessons learned. If you take ERAM as 

one example, that contract would have been structured differently. 

In hindsight, we would have brought in our workforce from day one 

26 

to help us develop it, and that was in my opinion a large part of 

the problem. 

We, if anything, would have had greater interaction from the beginning with industry and users, and we have a very collaborative 

effort that Mr. Huerta has described to you. It has greatly benefitted the implementation of NextGen, including picking some of 

the early procedural implementation parts of it where we determine what and where is operationally implemented for benefits. 

It is, I think, not possible to say that there will never be any 

problems going forward with this, but I will tell you I have a much 

greater level of confidence. As the Department’s largest infrastructure program, it is something that I have been very personally involved in. I have a much greater level of confidence in where we 

are headed and the trajectory we are on now than a couple of years 

ago. In part, I would credit Acting Administrator Huerta’s personal 

involvement as Deputy and continuing as Acting Administrator. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Anybody else what to—yes. 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Duncan, when I joined the agency a little over 

2 years ago, my background was program management, large, complex technology deployment. What I saw when I arrived was that 

we had a deployment that was encountering problems. The problems we had were that we were starting deployment in live facilities. We were running into operational difficulties, workforce interface issues, things that posed significant challenges that we needed 

to work through. 

What we did at that time was to put a couple of things in place. 

One was a diagnosis of what the problem was. We brought in third 

parties to look at it. We determined that what hadn’t occurred 

early enough in the program was the human interaction. Involving 

the people that are actually going to operate this program must be 

involved in its development. In addition, our testing had been insufficient to really understand how this was going to work in a 

real-world environment. 

As a result of evaluating this program, we started putting management changes in place. We established a centralized program 

management organization that will bring best practices at program 

management to ensure that we can hit deadlines, that we can hit 

milestones, and that we can hit budgets. That’s why we elevated 

and expanded the responsibilities of our NextGen organization so 

that we can ensure that we have appropriate system integration, 

that we’re taking account of how one project affects other projects, 

other schedules, and so forth. 

What we wanted to do was make sure that we were using best 

practices that are used in any business for managing a large complex undertaking of this sort. It was in June of 2011 that we rebaselined the ERAM program. At that time, we said that that 

project was going to be 3 years and 8 months behind schedule because of the problems that I told you about, and that it was going 

to cost $330 million more. 

Today, that is still exactly where we are. We have hit the milestones that we put in place at that point, and I think that we have 

turned the corner on that program. I certainly wish that we had 

never gotten ourselves into this situation, but I think we are well 

on the way to solving it. 

27 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, before I run out of time, let me just say this. 

I mean what is frustrating is years ago when all this was started, 

when it was brought up, I think everybody probably expected that 

there would be cost overruns and delays. I doubt there is anybody 

in this room that is shocked or surprised that there have been cost 

overruns and delays, or that there will be in the future. But, let 

me ask you this. How much have we spent on NextGen? 

ERAM is not the whole NextGen program. How much has been 

spent on the whole NextGen program so far, and how much is 

going to be spent before it is fully implemented? And I’m wondering if anybody can answer that question. I guess it is almost an 

impossible question; and, I know that this is a difficult thing. I 

know everything looks easy from a distance, but I also know that 

we have an obligation to try to stay on top of this. 

Mr. HUERTA. We have been spending at a rate of about $1 billion 

a year. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am sorry. I didn’t hear what you said. 

Mr. HUERTA. We have been investing in NextGen at a rate of 

about $1 billion a year, with the support of Congress. The Federal 

investment in ERAM is a $20 to $27 billion expenditure due to the 

cost overruns as we have talked about. Now, that does not include—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. $27 billion? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yeah. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And that does not—OK. Go ahead. 

Mr. HUERTA. That does not include what industry invests in 

equipping their aircraft and everything that would be associated 

with that. From our standpoint, we are managing this program as 

a series of building blocks. We have six foundation technologies 

that are baselined and all are operating within their baselines. 

We have adopted an approach which is premised upon best program management approaches. That is a risk mitigation strategy 

where we make incremental investments, match them up with benefits, so that we can ensure that it makes sense to continue making 

those investments. In a program of this nature, investments are 

being made over an extended period of time, in a very dynamic industry that is going through its own changes, that deals with uncertainties, such as cost of fuel, and what is the market doing. We 

believe that this is the most prudent approach to ensure the best 

stewardship of the Federal taxpayer investment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I apologize. I ran over my time. This is all 

very interesting to me. But I remember many years ago they told 

me they had biographical sketches of all the Members of Congress 

down at the Department of Transportation, and at the bottom 

under each Member they had questions typically asked. And under 

most Members, they didn’t have questions; but, under mine it says, 

‘‘How much will it cost?’’ And I didn’t realize that I was so transparent, I guess, but I have been concerned about that on this program, and I still have those concerns. And it is a fascinating thing, 

but also a lot of concern too. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, under the next fellow, we’ll hear from, Mr. 

Coble, they probably have, have you taken a sharp pencil to this 

program. Harry Coble. 

28 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been involved with 

a simultaneous hearing between here and Judiciary, so I have had 

to play catchup. I apologize for my belated arrival. Good to have 

you all with us. 

Mr. Scovel, I assume that the proposed trip to Jerusalem will not 

depart today? 

Mr. SCOVEL. It certainly won’t, I regret to say. 

Mr. COBLE. We all want to go, but not today. 

Mr. SCOVEL. OK. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Porcari, do you believe there are any stakeholders not fully committed to the proper implementation of 

NextGen? 

Mr. PORCARI. At this point I believe all the stakeholders are committed to it, and we have worked hard on stakeholder interaction 

and understanding their needs to make sure they see the benefits 

of it. So I believe the stakeholders are committed. 

Mr. COBLE. So, no naysayers known to you? 

Mr. PORCARI. Well, I do think there is appropriate skepticism 

from everyone involved—— 

Mr. COBLE. I gotcha. 

Mr. PORCARI [continuing]. That we get the proper benefits for the 

investment. 

Mr. COBLE. Their own balance supportive. 

Mr. PORCARI. Supportive. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Huerta, how will NextGen improve the productivity of air controllers, A; and, B, do you believe that NextGen has 

delivered an increased productivity? 

Mr. HUERTA. To answer the second question first, I do. But I 

think more needs to be—— 

Mr. COBLE. Could you pull that mike a little closer to you, Mr. 

Huerta? 

Mr. HUERTA. How’s this? 

Mr. COBLE. Better. 

Mr. HUERTA. I do believe that it has increased productivity, but 

much more needs to be done and we will continue to deliver more 

productivity benefits. The major benefits that we are seeing, and 

which we are really focused on, is improved air traffic control procedures. You get the maximum productivity by focusing on what 

you can do around airports. 

There are two dimensions to that: First, can you reduce track 

miles flow on arrival and departure? What that gets you is reduced 

fuel burn, reduced emissions and reduced cost. Another example is 

something called an optimized profile descent, which we are very 

focused on. Traditional descents into airports are a lot like walking 

down the stairs. That is the aviation equivalent of stop-and-go driving in traffic—very fuel inefficient. With an optimized profile descent, engines idle, so you are reducing your fuel burn. 

All of that represents huge enhancements in productivity. So improving the way aircraft approach and depart airports gets you a 

lot more efficiency and gets you a lot more ability to manage more 

aircraft in congested airspace. 

The second benefit that it gets you is the ability to ‘‘deconflict’’ 

airports. In large, metropolitan areas, say Dallas-Fort Worth, because of the nature of older technology and just the geography of 

29 

where airports are located, we need to manage airports in conjunction with one another. Traffic at DFW affects traffic at Dallas Love, 

and controllers need to manage both in tandem. 

With advanced navigation procedures, we can separate those airports, because of the curved approaches that Mr. Scovel talked 

about. And since the tracks do not conflict, that greatly increases 

the capacity of both of those airports. That’s what we’re trying to 

get at through the deployment of advanced navigation procedures, 

and the benefits are quite real. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. Anybody else want to weigh-in on 

that? 

Good to have you with us. Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And before Mr. Costello has something to 

say, as long as you are here, Mr. Porcari, it’s a little unrelated to 

the subject of this hearing, but I wonder if you could comment on 

the status of sort of the international negotiations, if that’s the correct way of framing it, in dealing with the European—what I think 

and Congress has been on record as criticizing—illegal emissions 

trading scheme in that they are trying to impose it extra territorially. Would you comment on where that whole issue stands? 

Mr. PORCARI. I’d be happy to comment on it. First, we have serious legal and policy concerns with the proposed emissions trading 

scheme. It is extra territorial. It is fundamentally unfair in its approach, and we believe it’s not the right way to do it. If you look 

at precedents, using ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, for consensus building on international aviation issues is a 

much more effective way to do this. 

We have been clear, both on the record, off the record, and at 

every level with our EU counterparts that this is unacceptable, 

that we do not support it. And, I think if you are looking closely 

at the reaction around the world, you’ll see that we have a lot of 

other nations that in concert with the United States also believe 

that the unilateral imposition of that emissions trading scheme is 

inappropriate. 

Finally, there appears to be some recognition on the European 

side of late that there are real consequences for doing this. So we 

will continue to press for the appropriate avenues for resolution of 

an issue like this. We are continuing to make it clear that we have 

serious concern sand do not believe it should be implemented. And 

I think the consequences of the European Union moving ahead unilaterally are much better understood by the EU these days. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Just a few comments, 

and I think it is worth noting oftentimes we point out when there 

are mistakes made or cost overruns. But I just have to say that 

since I have been involved in NextGen, I mentioned in my opening 

remarks, there was a time when the FAA couldn’t tell us in laymen’s terms what NextGen was. 

It wasn’t until Secretary LaHood was appointed Secretary of 

Transportation, and Randy Babbitt, the former Administrator, 

came into office; and, of course, with the Acting Administrator in 

board 2 years ago, that there was in fact stakeholder involvement. 

Many of you heard me say from this seat, and actually that seat 

at that time, we heard Dr. Dillingham. We heard General Scovel 

30 

agree that we needed to get stakeholders involved. But, that logjam 

did not free up until Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt 

came into office, and then we started involving stakeholders. 

We started talking about near-term benefits, and we actually 

came up with a blueprint, which Chairman Mica mentioned. Many 

of the things that are in the bill that was signed into law in fact 

came from—the task force came from Secretary LaHood, Randy 

Babbitt and the Acting Administrator here today. So I think it is 

worth noting that much progress has been made since that day. 

I remember when Secretary LaHood was nominated. He came to 

see me, and he said: ‘‘What are the challenges with aviation?’’ And 

I said, ‘‘You have to do two things and you have to do them quickly; 

and, one of the things is you have got to free up this mentality at 

the FAA that we don’t want the stakeholders involved. We don’t 

want to hear from them.’’ And so to his credit and to the credit of 

the former Administrator, Mr. Babbitt, and the Acting Administrator who is here today, we have made progress. We have made 

a long way to go, but we’ve come a long way from just a few years 

ago. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And I must say, too, I think currently the 

FAA’s internal management competence in this sort of process are 

due in part to several who are here as before is leagues ahead of 

where it was just a couple years ago, because this is a different 

type of process and it takes a different type of experience. And we 

than you very much for your testimony, and the first panel is adjourned. 

We will turn to the second panel, and as they are coming forward, let me introduce them. It consists of Mr. David Barger, who 

is the president and CEO of JetBlue Airlines. And we are particularly appreciative. We know he has a number of important commitments and we have to select between them, and we appreciate his 

attendance at this hearing today. In a sense, it may be his swan 

song in that he is finishing up a distinguished period of public service as the head of the NextGen Advisory Board, and it has been 

a major contribution moving this from dead center, or even slipping 

back in some areas, to making real progress. 

And I think it is to his credit that usually one good measure of 

how someone is doing is whether they are preparing someone to 

take their place and someone who is strong. And I think in Bill 

Ayers, where you have another person of competence and experience in this area, and I am impressed by the fact I hear from some 

of his associates that he is blocking off some extra time in his 

schedule so that he can engage in helping on this process and turning some of his day-to-day responsibilities over to others at the 

Alaska Airways. So that is a tribute to you, in part, and we thank 

you for that. 

Others on the panel are Paul Rinaldi, who is the president of National Air Traffic Controllers Association. He has been before us before. Thank you for being here again. And that’s true also of Ed 

Bolen, president and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association; and, Ms. Sue Baer, Director of Aviation, Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey. 

31 

Welcome. Thank you all for being here. We look forward to you 

summarizing your prepared statements in about 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Barger. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. BARGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION; PAUL 

RINALDI, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION; ED BOLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION; AND SUSAN M. BAER, DIRECTOR OF AVIATION, 

PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY 

Mr. BARGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the very kind words as well. Thank you, Ranking Member Costello, 

as well, for your ongoing support over the years. And to distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the more than 

14,000 crewmembers of JetBlue Airways, thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. 

I am delighted to be here at this testimony. This morning, I 

would like to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for your genuine passion on this topic, educating all Americans about the importance of NextGen. I know as we have spent time over the years 

we think about, of course, your home State and the robust aviation 

community in the State of Wisconsin, and what happens over the 

course of the most spectacular week of the year at the Oshkosh Air 

Show with the EAA. 

And, with that said, I also juxtaposed my thoughts and comments regarding just the home base of operation that I come from 

at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport and the congestion, and 

the airspace challenges that we have across places like the New 

York metropolitan area, Philadelphia, and certainly airports here 

in the Metropolitan Washington area. And all that said, Mr. Chairman, and certainly to Ranking Member Costello, as well, in all of 

my meetings over the years, you have certainly been passionate 

about pursuing just real meaningful solutions to these problems as 

if they had been right in your own backyard, your own congressional districts across the country. And we certainly appreciate that 

as an industry. 

You have held hearings and conducted informational sessions 

and have always had an open door, as you sought not to assign 

blame, but really in terms of driving a shorter path to progress in 

the future. And I have served for the past 2 years as chairman of 

the FAA’s NextGen Advisory Committee. I thank you and the 

Members, again, for today’s hearing, and I am wearing two hats 

today, and, that is in the role of the chairman of the NAC as well 

as CEO of JetBlue Airways. 

Now, on the NextGen Advisory Committee, where as you mentioned I will soon conclude my 2-year role as chairman, we’re a diverse group of 28 aviation leaders, really, from across the world, 

that’s both volunteer driven and volunteer led. We provide consensus-based recommendations on complex policy issues to the FAA 

in response to specific questions or taskings that they represent to 

us. 

Now, the NAC through the RTCA has reported back to the FAA’s 

taskings with recommendations or initial reports on 17 items critVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:43 Jan 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\9-12-1~1\75851.TXT JEAN
32 

ical to the implementation of NextGen ranging from selecting and 

prioritizing Metroplex sites, NextGen rollout within these sites to 

performance metrics, equipage incentives to the issue of 

DataComm, and the 17 items have been submitted in my written 

testimony. Now, as I have undertaken the equivalent of a graduate 

level studies course on all things NextGen over the past 2 years, 

in my spare time, I am delighted to report that I could not be more 

pleased with the progress of this group that I have chaired, including those, and the support of my fellow panelists here with me this 

morning—and also with our partners of the FAA, as you both mentioned in your closing comments that we’ve worked with so closely 

over the past 2 years of my chairmanship. 

My fellow NAC members are participating in our meetings. We 

are voting with our feet and we are there at each and every meeting. In fact, over the past 2 years, we have held our sessions here 

in Washington, DC. We have been down at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach. We have been up in New 

York at Kennedy Airport, and with Mayor Bloomberg at Gracie 

Mansion, and even at the Boeing complex in Seattle recently. And, 

in just a couple of weeks, we’ll be hosted by the Department of Defense at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. The thought here—this 

in Dayton, Mr. Chairman—is to get out and see what is happening 

across aerospace, whether it is education or whether it is the different facets of aviation as we talk about these issues tied to 

NextGen. 

The NAC is engaged. The NAC is committed. And I would be certainly remiss if I didn’t thank our subchairs over the course of the 

past 2 years: Tom Hendricks from A4A, who has since moved on, 

and also Steve Brown at NBAA for their tremendous work, and literally hundreds of volunteers working on work groups and task 

groups. That was really led by RTCA with Margaret Jenny, and I 

would also like to also thank Andy Cebula with his help over the 

years. 

Just as the NAC members are engaged in our work, we have 

been very pleased with the knowledge and level of engagement by 

Acting Administrator Michael Huerta, first as a designated Federal 

official to the NAC while serving as the FAA Deputy Administrator. Michael has become even more, not less active in our work 

since being elevated to the role of Acting Administrator. With Michael at the helm and with his interest in working closely with the 

aviation community, I am confident in our collective ability to overcome some of the barriers to implementing NextGen. 

Now, you commented about succession planning. And I am very 

pleased that with my chairmanship sunsetting—and I will remain 

on the committee—Bill Ayres, who is chairman of the Alaska Air 

Group, Bill has been formally leading the Alaska Air Group as 

chairman and CEO, who as an experienced aviator, will be taking 

over the chairmanship of the NAC on a go forward basis as we pass 

the baton at Wright Patterson Air Force Base here in October. 

I believe the Greener Skies initiative was illuminated upon by 

both the Deputy Secretary and the Acting Administrator of just 

tremendous success stories. And, while I won’t go into details about 

that, this collaboration, this work with the Port of Seattle with 

Alaska Airlines with the FAA, over several years, moving flight 

33 

tracks over water, reducing miles flown, optimizing descent profiles 

and altering air traffic control procedures, all enhancing navigational performance, while Alaska Airlines, the largest carrier in Seattle along with others, they’re reducing fuel burn and emissions 

today, reducing noise exposure in the community. And Alaska expects to save over 2 million gallons of fuel annually as a result of 

this collaborative effort. This is NextGen that is happening today 

in the Seattle Metroplex. 

Mr. Chairman, the success taking place in Seattle is as much 

about the technological improvements as it is about surmounting 

the nontechnical barriers to implementing NextGen. I am expecting 

that the final tasking from the FAA to the NAC during my chairmanship will be to explore these nontechnical barriers, and I look 

forward to recommending paths to effectively cut through these 

barriers in the future. 

A couple of closing thoughts: As I just put on my JetBlue hat for 

today, first of all, JetBlue operates primarily in the congested 

Northeast airspace, with our two biggest focus cities being that of 

New York’s Kennedy Airport, one of Sue’s airports, where we are 

the largest airline, and also at Boston Logan Airport, where we are 

the largest carrier. And JetBlue believes in the promise of 

NextGen. We certainly do. The industry does. Well, candidly, in our 

airspace, we are requiring solutions today, and this is on behalf of 

the 30 million people that we are caring, accommodating, over the 

course of 2012 and growing. 

So when we think about some of the partnerships, and, again, illuminated, I won’t go into details by the Deputy Secretary and Administrator, the ADS–B out partnering that we are doing in terms 

of equipping 35 Airbus A320’s to pioneer new routes, more fuel efficient routes, more emission friendly routes, shorter elapsed time 

routes from the Northeast to Florida and the northern Caribbean 

I think is a very important example of collaboration. And, also, I 

would just say that pioneering with the FAA the use of what we 

would call the RNP 13 left and 13 right approach into John F. Kennedy Airport is also allowing us greater predictability into our 

home base of operations in New York. These unique, performancebased navigation procedures utilize a constant vertical descent in 

conjunction with a precise curved flight path resulting in a stabilized approach path, shorter flight times, as well as reduced fuel 

burn emissions and noise similar to the Greener Skies initiative in 

Seattle. 

I think in my closing thoughts very good progress is taking place, 

I believe, on behalf of our airline, as I put my JetBlue hat on. I 

think that I would be remiss if I didn’t comment that we were a 

little bit disappointed that a new procedure that was put into place 

at LaGuardia Airport has been suspended, because we do think the 

deconflicting some of the airports in the New York Metroplex—and 

this just happened recently—I think we’ll work through this with 

a solution, will benefit all of us in the New York Metroplex. But 

all that said, very pleased about the partnership that’s taking 

place. 

In closing, NextGen is a vital and necessary evolution for the 

aviation industry. It is just as important for our Nation’s economy. 

NextGen will reduce aviation fuel burn, save energy and improve 

34 

the environment. Implementing NextGen will also improve the efficiency and safety of aviation while adding jobs and strengthening 

our economy. The case for NextGen has been and continues to be 

compelling. I would again like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Costello, distinguished members of certainly the committee, for hosting the panel today. I look forward to any questions 

you might have. Thank you again, sir. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Rinaldi? 

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

Costello, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for hosting this 

hearing today on important issue of NextGen. 

NextGen is a catchall phrase over the last 10 years that means 

everything to everybody in the aviation community. NATCA is 

proud to be involved as an essential stakeholder in NextGen development and fully participates in the NextGen Advisory Committee, 

which Mr. Barger just spoke of. The NextGen Advisory Committee 

has done an outstanding job of simplifying the elevator speech, so 

to say, of what NextGen really is, of using satellite-based technology and streamlining approaches to reduce carbon emissions, 

using best technology to reduce voice communications or voice saturation on frequencies. 

That’s what NextGen is as we are moving forward in the short 

term and the near term. We have heard a lot about the equipment 

and we have heard a lot about ERAM. Believe it or not, ERAM is 

not considered a NextGen program. ERAM was supposed to be implemented by now. Collaboration is key for NextGen to work. Collaboration is key for anything to work, I think, in life. But ERAM 

in 2009 when Randy Babbitt took over, and when Secretary 

LaHood was confirmed, and when Michael Huerta got involved, we 

were not involved in ERAM at all. And at that time it was already 

over budget, and it was not deployed in any facilities across the 

country. And it was in January 2010 when we actually started to 

get involved in identifying those numbers of areas that we were 

getting on the positions as we were testing ERAM in the back room 

that it was unacceptable and unsafe to run in air traffic control facilities to track airplanes. 

Through hard work, through collaboration, through the passion 

of our controllers being involved in ERAM, we are proud to say it 

is up and running continuously in five facilities across the country; 

and, hopefully, we meet the goal in making of 2014 being deployed 

across all of our facilities en route facilities. The important thing 

to note is ERAM started to be developed in 2003, and in 2009 it 

was supposedly ready to be deployed, spent 100 percent of its contract, and it wasn’t even close to being finished. 

In 2 short years we have brought it from not being able to work 

in any facilities to working in five facilities right now. And we are 

working hard, and real important, to get ERAM involved in the 

NextGen discussion. Here is why. ADS–B, which we talked about, 

the satellite-based navigations, DataComm, which we talked about, 

the texting communications between pilots and controllers, SWIM, 

which is the information component that will go to the cockpit on 

real time necessity to get there, all of that doesn’t work unless 

ERAM is deployed. 

35 

So we have to focus on ERAM in making sure that that actually 

is deployed properly, continues to be focused on there. We put our 

reps, our reps are very proud of what they have done in ERAM, 

and when we put them in place we said make it safer, make it better, and make it work. And the collaborations started with developing, testing, training and implementing. And we take it short 

steps at a time, and here’s why. Let’s not ever lose the fact that 

we are running the safest, most efficient system in the world. And 

we are trying to change technology, and it’s not a flip of a light 

switch. 

While we are changing the technology, it is like changing a tire 

on a car that’s running down the highway at 65 miles an hour. We 

are still moving 100 percent of the airplanes and changing the 

technology at the same time. So as we incrementally take these 

steps in success, we have to understand how we are getting here. 

We understand how ERAM became a complete failure and is over 

budget, because stakeholders were not involved. 

Now that stakeholders are involved, we are seeing the success of 

it. And, as we move forward, and I have heard a lot of discussions 

about future panels on NextGen, we cannot forget how we got to 

the success of ERAM to every program in NextGen, that you need 

real stakeholder involvement, so that when we deploy, we train, we 

test and we develop. They’re involved on the front end, so we save 

money and keep it going. 

One of the things I wanted to talk to you about is recently one 

of ERAM programs called TAMRA, which is a terminal replacement, and our rep stumbled across a monitor problem where it 

flickers. And when you turn the lights down it just flickers, and it’s 

a huge distraction. And for anyone who’s seen a radar scope, you 

can’t look at that for a long time as it’s flickering like that. 

We found work-arounds, where we were going to save the agency almost $9 million. Now, I know that doesn’t seem like a lot when 

we talk about $27 billion, but if we are involved early, as we were 

in TAMRA, that is how we can save money and deliver our entire 

products. Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify in 

front of you. I do want to thank you for holding this hearing. I urge 

you in the next Congress to hold more hearings so that we continue 

to keep the focus on NextGen and its important programs. Thank 

you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Bolen? 

Mr. BOLEN. Well, thank you, Chairman Petri and Mr. Costello. 

As you know, I am here today both as a representative of the National Business Aviation Association and in my capacity as vice 

chairman of RTCA. And you are very familiar with both of those 

organizations. I would like to use my time here today to pick up 

on the theme that I think Congressman Costello articulated so 

well, which is where we were and where we are hoping to go. 

You know. Mr. Rinaldi said that when we started on this 

NextGen kind of meant everything to everyone, which is another 

way of saying it meant nothing to anyone. Right? If everything’s a 

priority, nothing is. But, I think where we are today is NextGen 

is beginning to mean the same thing to everyone, and that’s a pretty important accomplishment. We’ve talked today about the fact 

36 

that NextGen is transitioning from ground-based navigation to satellite-based navigation, transitioning from analog communications 

to digital communications. And we are doing that for very specific 

reasons. 

We are doing that because we believe NextGen can give us substantial capacity increases that will reduce delays. We are doing it 

because we believe that NextGen will enhance safety by improving 

our situational awareness, and we are doing it because we believe 

NextGen, by providing more direct routing, can reduce our environmental footprint. So we are embarking on this transformation for 

some very specific benefit. And we are laying out a path. 

I think the JPPO has done a great job of laying out a vision for 

where we want to go. And over the course of the past several years, 

RTCA has been taking taskings from the FAA and beginning to figure out how we actually move forward very clearly. And that movement forward is not without its challenges. We are learning that 

NextGen is not just about technologies. Clearly, ERAM is part of 

it. ADS–B is part of it. SWIM is part of it, but it’s also about policies and it’s about procedures. 

It all has to fit together if we are going to move forward. We are 

seeing ourselves beginning to move from a vision to an operational 

system, beginning to take philosophical approaches to issues, such 

as deciding that it’s not a big bang, one size fits all, let’s do it everywhere all the time, but in more measured, Metroplex approach 

that looks at some of the unique attributes of the community. 

I think a lot of the progress that we have made so far is directly 

attributable to this subcommittee, the leadership that you have 

provided and the accountability you have demanded. And I also 

want to say that I think a lot of the progress is a result of the tremendous leadership that Dave Barger and the NAC has been able 

to provide. The NAC has brought together the diverse industry 

stakeholders that you have demanded. 

We have the military involved. We have general aviation involved. We have airports involved. We have the airlines. We even 

have community representatives, and we are all trying to move forward, because we understand that we are all going to benefit. The 

question was asked earlier, do all the stakeholders support it. 

I can speak for NBAA, and I think I can speak for the broader 

general aviation community saying we do support it, because the 

reality is the system that we have in the United States, just like 

everywhere else, was built largely to accommodate the needs of the 

commercial airlines, and that is entirely appropriate. General aviation, including business aviation, participates in that, but what we 

have seen is time and time again as airspace becomes congested or 

airports become congested, general aviation gets pushed out a little 

bit. I remember when Midway Airport was a great general aviation 

airport, or Fort Lauderdale Executive, or San Jose or Manchester. 

You see how that begins to evolve. 

We want to make sure that we can expand that capacity, enhance the safety, realize the environmental benefits, and I think 

we are moving forward today. We’ve got a lot of challenges ahead. 

We can see the potholes. We can see the wet pavement, but we 

have an opportunity to move forward, and I want to thank you for 

37 

the leadership and the accountability that has been demanded by 

this subcommittee, because the benefits have been very tangible. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Baer. 

Ms. BAER. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello 

and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak 

today. 

I am the Director of Aviation for the Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey. We are the ones responsible for the busiest airport system in the country, comprised of JFK, Newark International, LaGuardia, Stewart and Teterboro Airports, dedicated 

solely to general aviation. Together, these airports serve more than 

107 million annual passengers. That means about 20 percent of all 

U.S. flights operate into or out of one of our airports. 

First, let me begin by applauding the members of this committee 

for delivering a 4-year FAA Reauthorization Bill. I particularly appreciate how you included a strict timeline and metrics in the bill 

that will help us analyze the delivery and benefits of NextGen. I 

also have to thank Acting Administrator Huerta, who is also our 

designated Federal officer on the NextGen Advisory Committee, together with Dave Barger, who has been positively brilliant. 

He has led the NAC, providing careful guidance on how to move 

the NextGen agenda forward, and I am very proud to be known as 

a member of that committee. I was also honored to be part of 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s Future of Aviation Advisory Committee, where NextGen was a fundamental element of 

nearly every conversation we had, no matter what the subcommittee, and a prevailing theme throughout all the committee 

recommendations. 

I should be clear. I really never intended to learn this much 

about NextGen, but in many ways I just had to. With experts like 

Vicki Cox or Paul Rinaldi here today, I can’t claim really to be an 

expert, but I know more than I’d ever hoped to about the subject. 

And it’s no secret that our airports are consistently ranked at or 

near the bottom and on time performance. And those delays in our 

airports trickle throughout the country. 

MITRE tells us that one in three U.S. flights are affected by 

delays in the New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia airspace, 

and 40 to 50 percent of the national airspace ground stops and 

ground delays occur in New York. That means right now about half 

of all flights in the country being held at a gate or delayed on the 

tarmac can trace their delays to one of the airports in the New 

York/New Jersey region. 

Delays and ensuing capacity constraints have stifled growth and 

effectively put a no vacancy sign on JFK, Newark and LaGuardia. 

Our economists have calculated that for every million potential additional passengers whom we cannot serve, there are 5,000 jobs 

that don’t get created in our region. So, delays are not just an annoyance. They cost money, real money, and have real economic consequences. Extra fuel, a new flight crew, hotel vouchers, missed 

meetings, business deals not done, extra meals in an airport, and 

so on. 

In 2010 a University of California, Berkeley study found that 

flight delays cost the United States $32.9 billion a year; and, most 

38 

unsettling of all is the fact that air passengers bear the largest burden. Delays are a threat to this Nation’s global competitiveness. So, 

how can we, as a Nation, continue to rely on an air traffic control 

system that is fundamentally what was used in the 1940s? We 

can’t. And we must act quickly to fix this problem, because the cost 

of inaction is simply too great. 

NextGen is the fundamental backbone of the solution. It is not 

the only solution but it is the backbone. Not to be selfish, but if 

I am told that my airports are responsible for 50 percent of the 

problem, I really think that NextGen has to be implemented in 

Newark, New Jersey region as soon as possible, where it can deliver the greatest benefits to the country. But, I’m realistic. I understand the wholesale revamping of the way our national airspace 

functions can happen overnight. 

However, by attacking the problem where it is most acute, 

NextGen can deliver improvements to constituents throughout the 

country from Green Bay to Tampa Bay, from Portland, Oregon to 

Portland, Maine, and all the points in between. Because according 

to the 2010 GAO report, our three airports, along with Philadelphia, Atlanta, O’Hare and San Francisco account for 80 percent of 

all the departure delays across the entire country. So you fix it in 

New York and a few others, and you can fix the problem everywhere. 

The problem in New York is so acute that we can’t wait until 

2018 or 2020, or whatever the date is when the first NextGen benefits should be realized. Recognizing that our problem was truly an 

issue of national urgency in 2009, the Port Authority established 

the National Alliance to Advance NextGen, a coalition of business, 

civic and industry groups and organizations devoted to getting out 

the message about NextGen. 

We continued to grow, and last month we reached 1,000 members. In fact, the thousandth member was the Chicago Land Chamber of Commerce from Ranking Member Costello’s home State. In 

all, we have members from all 50 States and Washington, DC, 

firms like Sherwin Industries from Wisconsin, organizations like 

the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce in California, Air Dat, LLC, 

from North Carolina, St. Louis Business Travelers Association, and 

hundreds more. Together, these organizations represent tens of 

millions of U.S. air travelers who are demanding improvements to 

our national air traffic control system through the implementation 

of NextGen technology, policies and procedures. 

We have already begun piecing together elements of NextGen on 

the ground, including a revolutionary ground management system 

at JFK that has helped to meter departures and minimize delays. 

We have done that in conjunction with our friends at the FAA and 

the airlines. Using JFK in a very collaborative effort it’s been very 

successful. We are working with the FAA to expand the program 

to LaGuardia and Newark airports. At JFK alone, this system has 

saved nearly 5 million gallons of fuel and almost 15,000 hours of 

taxi time annually. 

Over the last decade, our agency has invested more than $1 billion to make airport operations on the ground more efficient. Our 

initiatives have delivered. We have invested in building high-speed 

taxi way exits, multiple entrance taxi ways, minimizing runway ocVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:43 Jan 07, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\AV\9-12-1~1\75851.TXT JEAN
39 

cupancy time, enabling a more efficient queuing procedure. The 

bottom line is that tens of thousands of hours of delay have been 

adverted to say nothing of the reduction in emissions and environmental benefits that come from curbing delays and congestion. 

And, as we move forward with NextGen, we have made a number of efforts to be better neighbors, having recently launched a 

single phone number that pulled together all our airports’ noise 

complaint hotlines together with a Web site that enables the public 

to express concerns regarding aircraft noise. This new system provides feedback in real time, has a standardized repository, and offers the ability to analyze noise complaints better than we have in 

the past. 

As we have before, we will share complaint statistics with the 

FAA to ensure that they are aware of the volume and origin of 

complaints so they may consider any operational adjustments such 

as runway selection, if feasible. All of this is well and good, except 

that admittedly these efforts are not making improvement, or are 

making improvements at the margins. It doesn’t mean we are 

going to stop, nor will I stop advocating for the swift implementation of NextGen. 

Members of Congress, we cannot afford for it not to happen; not 

in this economy; not in any economy, frankly. In a time of tightened budgets and other fiscal restrictions, it will prove challenging 

to fully fund NextGen. But, do we instead continue to risk the 

mounting challenges we will face as a Nation stuck with a World 

War II era radar-based Air Traffic Control system? 

With so much at stake, I urge members of this committee and 

Congress to move quickly to implement NextGen Technology. We 

certainly stand ready, willing and able to assist at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you and thank you all for your testimony. 

Mr. Barger, you have had the opportunity to spend a couple of 

years immersing yourself in some of the issues involved in pieces 

of this problem, and I think you have looked at it from the point 

of view of your own organization and the opportunities and challenges. I don’t know, but I would be remiss if I didn’t ask if you 

have any ideas or suggestions, or feelings about how the process is 

going and how it can be speeded up. How skeptical people in the 

industry—some of them feel burned one or two times. This has 

been on again, off again. 

The technology keeps changing, and they’re wondering when 

they ought to leap and they actually like to see a return on the investment when they do. How can this process be—Mr. Bolen said 

it’s a policy and procedure as well as a technology. How can we 

help encourage sort of positive leadership to help move this thing 

forward faster, so that boards see opportunities and have something specific investment opportunities that would in fact not just 

involve new equipment, but some new flight plans and all the rest 

so there would be a payoff for their organizations? Could you sort 

of discuss how you see us moving this thing forward? 

Mr. BARGER. Sure. Thank you so much, Chairman, and if I may 

I think I tend to be a cadence person. And when I think about 

these past 2 years and Bill Ayres now moving into the chair role 

40 

at the NAC, and, by the way, this is working on behalf of the very 

good work of organizations like task force 5, previously, collaborating with the FAA. But, ensuring that again the opportunity for 

industry stakeholders to have a seat at the table, to respond to 

these taskings to the FAA, which are complex, when you start 

thinking about Metroplex. 

Seattle is different than New York. North Texas is different than 

Atlanta, but the ability to talk about these complex issues and respond to the tasking. So I think first and foremost I’d keep the 

committee, such as the NAC in place, with a cadence put in place 

for Federal advisory meeting cadence with the FAA. 

Number two, continue the taskings. And so the taskings that I’ve 

come across so far from the FAA, such as equipage incentives, 

Metroplex further definition and roll out are prioritization, performance metrics. And, by the way, what are the metrics? Is it access to the system? Is it lapsed time en route? Is it fuel burn? Defining what these metrics are, the use of DataComm, right, as Mr. 

Rinaldi talked about with the use of technology to communicate, 

driving efficiency, I am very excited about potentially taskings that 

talk about these nontechnical barriers. So I think cadence, continue 

the taskings. 

We have 28 members, including the leader of SESAR. When we 

talk about the impact over in Europe, including the director general of Euro control, including stakeholders here in the United 

States, this harmonization that’s so important. And I would just 

close, Chairman, by saying that really the benefits of these policies, 

procedures, the equipage, everybody being on the same page, when 

you look at the return on capital of the business case—and I’ll take 

an airline perspective—40 percent of our cost of JetBlue, up to 40 

percent, is fuel in terms of producing a unit of measurement and 

available seat mile. 

Well, I mean we all are looking at fuel, whether it is Mr. Bolen’s 

group with NBAA, whether it is corporate aviation, but again, it’s 

access. The benefits are obvious. The return on investments are obvious. The business case to the boardroom is obvious. And my 

sense is that’s what we have to continue to do and last but not 

least, as Mr. Rinaldi said, we are all using the same language, the 

definition of what it is—what’s the elevator speech—because we 

were not, even as airlines, let alone the rest of the industry, defining NextGen the same way. 

Sir, thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, we tend to, and it is understandable, but in 

Government we try to have rules and be fair and equal for everyone. Then there is the tendency for top down and follow our rules 

or you are going to get in trouble, or whatever. And in this case 

it strikes me that you need to get the incentives right and get some 

kind of where people make a decision to participate or to move forward faster and have a system that has enough flexibility to accommodate that. 

So, for example, if we get the basic technology out there, then if 

an airport, say Dallas-Fort Worth, were to go to get its procedures 

in place to be a NextGen airport, presumably it would be more 

competitive from the point of view of travel to that airport. The 

ticket prices, likely, would be less, because the flights would be 

41 

more efficient. The fuel cost would be less, and so on. And that 

committee would have a little bit of an advantage in competing, 

say, with Atlanta or someone else. 

And why not figure out ways of getting some dynamics so that 

people around the country, who are operating airports or are trying 

to promote the regions, aren’t starting to bang on us and on the 

FAA and others saying move this thing forward, because there’s 

some opportunities for us here. Let us get ourselves approved for 

this new procedure, because it will make us more competitive. 

Would you comment on that? 

Mr. BARGER. Yes, Chairman, and I think two further thoughts. 

One is the theme of best-capable-best-served. And other members, 

including Mr. Rinaldi may have comments regarding first-comefirst-served versus best-capable-best-served, not unlike an HOV 

lane, if you think about access to moving on a congested highway. 

And so I think that when you look at this concept, which is one 

of these nontechnical barriers to implementing NextGen, bestequipped-best-served, best-capable-best-served, there’s different terminology for it. 

My sense is, again, the incentives are going to be obvious; and, 

these two partnerships that JetBlue is collaborating with, the FAA, 

the approach into Kennedy Airport—and I’ll take the ADS–B out— 

pioneering offshore from the Northeast down to the Caribbean, for 

us to save 6 minutes en route each way on an airplane that burns 

750 gallons per hour times $3 and whatever it is per gallon, let 

alone getting the airplane back earlier, so that maybe at the end 

of the day we can operate another flight on a multimillion-dollar 

asset. The incentive is obvious. 

One other thought: I think of the success again of the Greener 

Skies initiative in Seattle. This was many years worth of work. 

Alaska Airlines, the FAA for many different components of the 

FAA in the Port of Seattle working to really harmonize not just 

Sea-Tac, but all the type of operations that were happening in that 

airport, because you also want to be careful about disadvantaging, 

right, because there is mixed equipage. 

So I do think a couple thoughts there, sir, and things like the 

issue of best-capable-best-served. It seems so obvious. It really 

does. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was pleased to hear from this panel that we seem to have made 

so much progress from some of the earlier efforts. I just would like 

to know that it’s both deep, i.e., that it relates to the planning for 

NextGen and some of the things that were specified in the reports 

by the IG and the others about not having yet set parameters for 

a number of the major programs. And, secondly, revisiting a little 

bit what changed so much, and I guess I’d go to Mr. Rinaldi first 

with the ERAM program. I mean what was the change here? What 

you described was much more typical of my experience over many 

years with acquisitions with the FAA. 

Mr. RINALDI. Sure. Thank you. What changed with ERAM was 

our involvement, our involvement from a human in the loop testing 

at the tech center in Atlantic City before it reached the floor out 

in Seattle and Salt Lake. What they wanted to do was deploy it in 

42 

live traffic, and it just wasn’t working. As you said, it was tracking 

the wrong airplanes or it would freeze up with a big red X. And 

once the controllers don’t have confidence in setting out the position that it’s actually giving you accurate information, then that’s 

what you rely upon. That’s how we get through the day. So what 

happened was there was delays. 

Now, we pull it back. We actually test, identify what really is 

problems, and the actual testing is controllers hitting the keys that 

they would normally hit in a routine sequence on a regular basis. 

And what that was doing was actually shutting the program down 

in many cases. And the reason that was happening is because you 

didn’t have real live testing going on, or real testing going on with 

air traffic controllers. They had, you know, engineers doing it. 

Not anything against engineers, but if you’re going to build a system for air traffic controllers, you need air traffic controllers involved. Once we got to that point, and then they had to rewrite a 

whole bunch of code. Lockheed Martin can tell you exactly how 

much code that they had to write, but it was a lot to change the 

direction of ERAM to actually get it to function with human air 

traffic controllers. 

Once we got to that point, we’re incrementally testing it now in 

nine more facilities and each time we test it we develop it, we find 

another problem. But we’re not implementing until that problem is 

fixed or we have an acceptable work around of that problem; such 

as, don’t touch the ABC key and then hit enter. And you get a big 

work around, so you don’t do that. 

The reason I talked about ERAM in my opening was regardless 

of who’s in charge of this committee or the White House, or who 

the FAA Administrator is, the NAC has seen it. The industry has 

seen it, and Congress has seen how we have success by having us 

involved in the very beginning. Is it perfect? No. We are not there 

yet with the agency that we’re involved at pre-decisional, very beginning of what NextGen technologies. 

We want NextGen. We want the latest technology. We want 

them to save fuel and be very successful, because we want the best 

aviation system in the world. What it comes down to is us really 

saying is this piece of equipment making it safer, more efficient, or 

making everybody’s job better. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Good. Mr. Barger, just from your experience 

chairing the committee, do you think we’ve seen a systemic change 

in the FAA and its relationship with stakeholders, and not just air 

traffic controllers, but all the stakeholders? Because in the past as 

Mr. Rinaldi said there was a procurement. They went out, they got 

engineers involved. Then the FAA started sending change orders, 

and yet there was no relationship going on over here that the people were actually going to have to implement, either buy the equipment or actually operate the system itself. 

Mr. BARGER. Congressman, I have seen a change, but again, my 

visibility is from 2 years back chairing the NAC to today, and then 

obviously looking forward on the committee. But, what I’ve learned 

with RTCA, task force 5, all the work that was done before, JPDO, 

again, longer term, shorter term, and then day of, I think the comments by the chair, as well as ranking member, regarding the Acting Administrator, Michael Huerta, has been 100 percent focused, 

43 

in place, present, whether it says Deputy Administrator or as the 

Acting Administrator, as the DFO in my 2-year term. 

Randy Babbitt before that as well has commented, and then people like Vicki Cox in this room, David Grizzle, and a significant 

number of FAA leaders. But, what I think is really interesting, 

Congressman, is that again 28 members on the committee, and 

they’re there, whether it’s down at Embry Riddle or out at Seattle, 

going into Memorial Day weekend, or here in Washington or a 

hangar in New York. People are truly—they’re present. And, again, 

whether you’re an equipment provider, whether you’re building airplanes, you’re operating airplanes, whatever that make might be, 

whether it’s corporate and whether it’s general aviation military 

airline, European, USA, I mean, I think that that collaboration 

speaks volumes to stakeholders being engaged. So I can say that 

it’s a very healthy meeting, because you know when you have 

something that’s not healthy. You absolutely know that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Bolen? 

Mr. BOLEN. Well, I agree with exactly what’s been said. I think 

what has changed is now everybody is in the room. We’re collaborating, and we sense that at the top of the FAA there’s a commitment. And I think that has led us all to believe this is possible. We 

can do it. I don’t want to underestimate, however, the challenges 

that remain ahead. You know. 

Dave Barger mentioned best-capable-best-served. We want to 

make sure that as we go forward no one misinterprets our commitment to best-capable-best-served as not-capable-not-served. One of 

the reasons we were so enthusiastic about what we saw with the 

Greener Skies initiative up in Seattle is we saw that those who invested in the NextGen equipment were able to receive shorter approaches and saved fuel. Those who were not equipped were treated the same way they have always been treated. They weren’t suddenly shut out. 

We are going to be operating in a mixed use environment for a 

very, very long time. The military, general aviation and some international, there are groups they can’t equip. We have got to find a 

way to do that, and I think we are beginning to see the pathways. 

And I think there’s this clear vision now on how we get there. We 

need to make sure the policies and the procedures support that. 

I do want to make sure we understand. Getting NextGen right 

is not just getting the technologies out there, but getting the benefit to be received. It’s not enough to have ERAM, ADS–B and 

SWIM. We’ve got to have more capacity, better safety, reduced environmental footprint; and, that is going to be a challenge. We are 

talking about equipage. Are you going to invest in the technology 

and put it on your airplane? Only if I truly believe the benefits are 

there. So I would urge this committee to stay very focused as we 

move forward on whether or not we are realizing benefits, not just 

deploying technologies. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Excellent. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any questions, but I 

think it is probably a good time to wrap this hearing up based 

upon what Mr. Bolen just said. I think he is exactly right, and I 

44 

think it is the responsibility of this subcommittee. And I know that 

you will take the challenge on to make certain that the benefits, 

in fact, are there and that we are monitoring NextGen as we go 

forward. 

I just want to thank the witnesses, not only for their testimony 

here today, but for your service on the committee, and in particular, you, Mr. Barger. You have taken the time for the past 2 

years to not only get engaged and get involved, but for your leadership. You truly have made a real difference in bringing us to where 

we are today. So we don’t want that to go unnoticed. Thank you 

for your service, and we look forward to continuing to work with 

you. 

Mr. BARGER. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I will be working with all of you in a different capacity, but this subcommittee will continue to work with you in the 

future. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. One of the secrets of America is that many, many people contribute in different ways, sometimes sung and sometimes 

unsung, to the success of our national enterprise, and this is one 

example. There are actually many others up and down the line and 

it helps make us a great country. 

So we thank you all for your testimony, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

45 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75851.013
46 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75851.014
47 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75851.015
48 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75851.016
49 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75851.017
50 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75851.018
51 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75851.019
52 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75851.020
53 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75851.021
54 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75851.022
55 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75851.023
56 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75851.024
57 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75851.025
58 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75851.026
59 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75851.027
60 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75851.028
61 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75851.029
62 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75851.030
63 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75851.031
64 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75851.032
65 


Insert offset folio 33 here 75851.033
66 


Insert offset folio 34 here 75851.034
67 


Insert offset folio 35 here 75851.035
68 


Insert offset folio 36 here 75851.036
69 


Insert offset folio 37 here 75851.037
70 


Insert offset folio 38 here 75851.038
71 


Insert offset folio 39 here 75851.039
72 


Insert offset folio 40 here 75851.040
73 


Insert offset folio 41 here 75851.041
74 


Insert offset folio 42 here 75851.042
75 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75851.043
76 


Insert offset folio 44 here 75851.044
77 


Insert offset folio 45 here 75851.045
78 


Insert offset folio 46 here 75851.046
79 


Insert offset folio 47 here 75851.047
80 


Insert offset folio 48 here 75851.048
81 


Insert offset folio 49 here 75851.049
82 


Insert offset folio 50 here 75851.050
83 


Insert offset folio 51 here 75851.051
84 


Insert offset folio 52 here 75851.052
85 


Insert offset folio 53 here 75851.053
86 


Insert offset folio 54 here 75851.054
87 


Insert offset folio 55 here 75851.055
88 


Insert offset folio 56 here 75851.056
89 


Insert offset folio 57 here 75851.057
90 


Insert offset folio 58 here 75851.058
91 


Insert offset folio 59 here 75851.059
92 


Insert offset folio 60 here 75851.060
93 


Insert offset folio 61 here 75851.061
94 


Insert offset folio 62 here 75851.062
95 


Insert offset folio 63 here 75851.063
96 


Insert offset folio 64 here 75851.064
97 


Insert offset folio 65 here 75851.065
98 


Insert offset folio 66 here 75851.066
99 


Insert offset folio 67 here 75851.067
100 


Insert offset folio 68 here 75851.068
101 


Insert offset folio 69 here 75851.069
102 


Insert offset folio 70 here 75851.070
103 


Insert offset folio 71 here 75851.071
104 


Insert offset folio 72 here 75851.072
105 


Insert offset folio 73 here 75851.073
106 


Insert offset folio 74 here 75851.074
107 


Insert offset folio 75 here 75851.075
108 


Insert offset folio 76 here 75851.076
109 


Insert offset folio 77 here 75851.077
110 


Insert offset folio 78 here 75851.078
111 


Insert offset folio 79 here 75851.079
112 


Insert offset folio 80 here 75851.080
113 


Insert offset folio 81 here 75851.081
114 


Insert offset folio 82 here 75851.082
115 


Insert offset folio 83 here 75851.083
116 


Insert offset folio 84 here 75851.084
117 


Insert offset folio 85 here 75851.085
118 


Insert offset folio 86 here 75851.086
119 


Insert offset folio 87 here 75851.087
120 


Insert offset folio 88 here 75851.088
121 


Insert offset folio 89 here 75851.089
122 


Insert offset folio 90 here 75851.090
123 


Insert offset folio 91 here 75851.091
124 


Insert offset folio 92 here 75851.092
125 


Insert offset folio 93 here 75851.093
126 


Insert offset folio 94 here 75851.094
127 


Insert offset folio 95 here 75851.095
128 


Insert offset folio 96 here 75851.096
129 


Insert offset folio 97 here 75851.097
130 


Insert offset folio 98 here 75851.098
131 


Insert offset folio 99 here 75851.099
132 


Insert offset folio 100 here 75851.100
133 


Insert offset folio 101 here 75851.101
134 


Insert offset folio 102 here 75851.102
135 


Insert offset folio 103 here 75851.103
136 


Insert offset folio 104 here 75851.104
137 


Insert offset folio 105 here 75851.105
138 


Insert offset folio 106 here 75851.106
139 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 107 here 75851.107