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

78–392 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 112–700 

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL P. HUERTA 

TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 21, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Republican Staff Director 

DAVID QUINALTY, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 21, 2012 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Boxer .................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 4 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 21 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 23 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 25 

Statement of Senator Blunt .................................................................................... 27 

Statement of Senator Boozman .............................................................................. 29 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 31 

WITNESSES

Michael P. Huerta, Nominated to be Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ................................................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 8 

APPENDIX

Letter dated June 19, 2012 from Hans Ephraimson—Abt, Chairman, Air 

Crash Victims Families Group to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV ....................... 35 

Response to written questions submitted to Michael P. Huerta by: 

Hon. John F. Kerry .......................................................................................... 35 

Hon. Barbara Boxer ......................................................................................... 36 

Hon. Mark Pryor ............................................................................................... 38 

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison ............................................................................. 39 

Hon. Jim DeMint .............................................................................................. 49 

Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 51 

Hon. Pat Toomey .............................................................................................. 58 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL P. HUERTA 

TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. The Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation will come to order, and I’d like to 

thank our witness for being here, Mr. Huerta, who is the nominee 

to be the FAA Administrator and our colleague from the Committee 

Senator Boxer. I’m presiding at the request of the chairman of the 

full Committee, who is here, and I’m going to go ahead and make 

an opening statement. 

Mr. Huerta, I want to congratulate you again for your nomination by the President to be the next FAA Administrator. I’m glad 

the President has put your name forward for two reasons: first, you 

earned the nomination and you’ve served capably as Deputy Administrator and as Acting Administrator for the past several 

months and when you came in front of this committee the first 

time, I recall there were many whispers about whether you had 

enough background in aviation. Well, you have demonstrated that 

that is a non-issue and you have brought a great skill set, a great 

mind set, to this job and we thank you for that. 

To me what’s most important is that once you were confronted 

with the challenges of running such a large and complex agency 

you demonstrated strong leadership and strong judgment in this 

job. Now, that is not to say that there aren’t problems to solve. 

There are several areas where we need improvement, and I do feel 

that overall the FAA has been making great progress under your 

watch. 

Second, it is important that the FAA have a confirmed administrator as soon as possible. I know it’s a Presidential election year 

and I know the FAA Administrator term is for 5 years, but not 

having an Administrator sends the wrong message to the airline 

industry and to others about how important an Administrator is in 

this next phase of implementation of NextGen technology. 

2 

Also, under the leadership of Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking 

Member Hutchison, they were instrumental in enacting an FAA 

authorization bill in February, and there are a number of 

rulemakings and other actions that are supposed to be completed 

within the next 6 to 9 months or even a year after this enactment. 

So I believe that without a confirmed Administrator that will make 

all of those issues more difficult and punted down the road. 

As a result, I expect the implementation of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act—if we don’t implement an Administrator—we 

will have challenges in getting that done on time. 

So, Mr. Huerta, if you are confirmed you are going to have a lot 

of challenges ahead. We had a chance to speak about some of those 

in my office. We spoke about aviation safety, and safety is the 

FAA’s top priority. It is also one of the top priorities of the Aviation 

Subcommittee. 

We spoke about the challenges of modernization of our air transportation system and I know you have had some firsthand experiences with that. We touched on the Greener Skies Initiative, a pilot 

program out of Seattle that demonstrates the NextGen capabilities 

in the near term. And we spoke of the improved sequencing process 

for FAA certification. 

So I understand the FAA has real resource constraints, but the 

FAA certification process should not be a bottleneck costing aerospace sales or exports or ultimately jobs. The FAA bill requires the 

agency to look at ways to improve the process and I know that this 

is under review. 

Finally, we spoke about the FAA in its efforts to help those of 

the active duty military interested in careers in aviation in maintenance repair and overhaul of the airframe system get the certifications they need to help us and to help our industry. 

So I look forward to your testimony today, and again thank you 

for your willingness to serve. And now I’ll turn it to—— 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Madam Chairman, may I ask a point—make a 

point of personal privilege, a request to my friends? I’m in the middle of literally 24–7 negotiations on the highway bill and it’s going 

well, and I’m due to meet with Chairman Mica. Do you mind if I 

just gave one and a half minutes of praise for this wonderful man 

and then charge out the door? Would that be all right? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. I am so grateful. I am so grateful. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you for the job you’re doing on the 

highway bill. 

Senator BOXER. Well, it’s going to turn to you and Senator Rockefeller momentarily to resolve the last few issues. I’m very hopeful, 

is all I could say. But thank you. 

So I will ask unanimous consent to place my entire statement 

into the record at this time and I will summarize. 

I’m so pleased with the nomination of Mr. Michael Huerta to be 

Administrator of the FAA, and I want to congratulate Michael and 

his family. Ann, would you stand, and Matthew, would you stand. 

3 

We’re so happy you’re here, literally behind your wonderful dad 

and husband. 

I am proud that a Californian has been nominated, of course, by 

President Obama. I won’t be repetitive. Mr. Huerta has a long history of service. His nomination to be Deputy was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. So this is a tested gentleman, and the leadership roles he played at the Port of San Francisco, at the Salt 

Lake City Olympics, as chief of staff for the Secretary of Transportation under the Clinton Administration, will serve him well. 

I won’t go into the task. We all know it. It’s a huge job, and it’s 

a life-and-death job. 

So in closing, I want to just note and pay tribute to a number 

of families, family members of victims of the tragic crash of Flight 

3407 near Buffalo in 2010. They’re here in the audience today, and 

they’re here to remind us all of what is at stake when it comes to 

the need for adequate safety regulations. I know Mr. Huerta carries that responsibility very close to his heart, and I believe his 

breadth of experience and leadership make him an excellent choice 

to fill the role of Administrator at the FAA. 

I want to thank my friends on the Committee, all of you, for this 

opportunity, and I look forward to a swift confirmation. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to support the nomination of Mr. 

Michael Huerta to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

I would like to congratulate Michael and his family, his wife Ann and his son Matthew, on his nomination. 

I am proud that a California native and a University of California, Riverside graduate has been nominated by President Obama to lead the FAA. 

Mr. Huerta has a long history of service in the transportation sector, and his nomination to be Deputy Administrator was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 

2010. 

Prior to his work at the FAA, Mr. Huerta served in a number of leadership roles 

ranging from the Executive Director at the Port of San Francisco, to coordinating 

transportation for the Salt Lake City Olympics to serving as the Chief of Staff for 

the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) under the Clinton Administration. 

I worked with him on several transportation initiatives that were important to 

California. These projects brought jobs to California, and greatly increased California’s ability to move goods and people in our state. I am confident he will continue 

to bring that same leadership to key FAA programs. 

The FAA is facing many challenges. 

The U.S. commercial aviation system operates over 30,000 flights every day and 

carries over 700 million people per year. The number of passengers is expected to 

reach one billion by 2021. 

And the FAA is tasked with ensuring the safety of our aviation system while 

working to modernize that system to meet the increasing needs of our Nation. 

I know that I will join many of my colleagues on this Committee in urging the 

FAA to continue to expedite its important work to improve safety. 

I understand that there are a number of family members of victims of the tragic 

crash of Flight 3407 near Buffalo in 2010 who are in the audience today, and who 

are here to remind all of us of what is at stake when it comes to the need for adequate safety regulations. 

One of Mr. Huerta’s responsibilities during his time at the FAA has been shepherding the development of the NextGen system, which will modernize our air traffic control system and make our skies safer and more efficient. 

I know that he is familiar with this project, and his experience managing large, 

complex organizations will help to ensure the steady progress we need to modernize 

our air traffic control system in the coming years. 

Mr. Huerta’s breadth of experience and leadership make him an excellent choice 

to fill the role of Administrator at the FAA. 

4 

I look forward to working with him in his new capacity and congratulate him 

again on his nomination. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Thank you for 

being here this morning. We appreciate your activity on the Committee and the FAA bill. 

Now we’ll turn to the—unless the Chairman wants to make a 

statement? 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

Senator CANTWELL. We’ll turn to the Ranking Member if she 

would like to make an opening statement. Senator Hutchison, 

would you like to make an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. Did you, Mr. Chairman, want to? 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ll put mine in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Huerta, on your nomination to be the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If confirmed, you will be 

charged with leading the most complex aviation system in the world and an agency 

that faces several critical challenges. 

Chief among these tasks is making sure the agency takes the steps necessary to 

maintain the highest levels of safety in the aviation industry. Although the aviation 

sector is enjoying one of its safest periods in history, we have experienced some 

troubling incidents over the past few years. The agency has already made substantial progress implementing the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration 

Extension Act of 2010. Among other accomplishments, the FAA has issued new pilot 

fatigue rules and moved forward on the use of Safety Management Systems. As the 

new Administrator, I expect that you make sure the industry continues to embrace 

a strong culture of safety. 

The next Administrator will also have to execute the mandates of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Aside from safety, modernizing the air transportation system remains the most important challenge. The Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) will make our aviation system safer, more efficient, and strengthen the airline sector’s ability to help drive economic growth. It 

is encouraging that the FAA has been able to move forward on some key components of NextGen, including satellite-based navigation (ADS–B) capabilities in the 

Caribbean, and the development of more precise landing and take-off procedures 

(RNAV and RNP) at airports across the Nation. Much of this progress has been 

achieved under your direction, Mr. Huerta, so I have high expectations that you will 

continue this positive trend. 

You already have first-hand knowledge of the challenges confronting the FAA and 

its operations, and you have received high marks for your performance. I look forward to hearing from you today on how we can strengthen our aviation system. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I think that the presiding Chairwoman said most of the important things. I do think that you have 

had a very good record in your time as Acting and Deputy. You 

took over quite quickly and I think there was a seamless transition. 

Certainly NextGen is the biggest thing on your plate and we all 

are going to want to know what the setbacks are and how you’re 

going to proceed forward. 

I do want to bring up another couple of things. Number one is 

the U.S. Office of Special Counsel wrote to Congress raising conVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78392.TXT JACKIE
5 

cerns about ongoing safety lapses at the FAA, some of which we 

certainly have read about in the newspapers with the air traffic 

controllers. The counsel strongly recommended that more rigorous 

oversight measures be put in place at the Department and the 

FAA. 

Second, the current Federal budget realities require every agency 

to have cost-cutting measures, and I will want to hear what you’re 

doing in that regard. 

So with that, let me say that I think you have stepped in at a 

big time at the FAA and you have kept the trains running on time, 

so I will look forward to hearing your testimony and then asking 

you a few questions. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. 

Mr. Huerta, if you could now make your statement. Again, welcome, and again thank you for having your family with you this 

morning. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. HUERTA, NOMINATED TO BE 

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you very much, Chairman Rockefeller, 

Ranking Member Hutchison, Chairman Cantwell, and I’d also like 

to thank Senator Boxer for that generous introduction. It is an 

honor to appear before you today as President Clinton’s nominee 

for Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. I’m humbled by this nomination and the opportunity that it presents to 

serve our nation. 

I’d like to thank Secretary LaHood for his leadership and support, and I’d also like to recognize my family members who were 

introduced who are with me today: my wife Ann and my son Matthew, and my sister Rose, who is visiting from California. Of 

course, I’d also like to thank my late parents, who I know are with 

me in spirit today. 

At the Federal Aviation Administration, we operate the largest 

and safest aviation system in the world. The safety of the traveling 

public is our number one priority and it’s our mission. We’re constantly working to identify and to address potential risks long before there is a problem. We have achieved a greater level of collaboration with our workforce and we are working constantly to enhance our safety culture. 

Congress has helped us in our efforts by passing the FAA reauthorization earlier this year, and I want to thank all of you, the 

members of this committee, for your role in this major accomplishment. The reauthorization gives the dedicated employees of the 

FAA greater financial guidance and it provides greater stability to 

all of our programs. All of this is vital to keeping the economic engine of civil aviation at full capacity. It helps expand on the 10 million jobs and $1.3 trillion that civil aviation already contributes to 

the American economy each year. Thank you again. 

Now I would like to share a little about my background with you 

today. I have spent my entire career in transportation, with rewarding professional experiences in both the public and the private 

sectors. I’ve held senior policy positions at the U.S. Department of 

Transportation under President Clinton. There I gained valuable 

6 

insight into the day to day operations of many Federal agencies, including the FAA. 

Later I was a managing director for transportation with the Salt 

Lake Olympic Committee. This experience taught me that an immovable deadline can be extremely powerful in motivating and in 

focusing a team toward a common objective. 

More recently, in the private sector I led a large transportation 

technology services company. I managed the operations of a global 

organization and a diverse and technical workforce to ensure that 

we met our financial targets. I came to develop a great appreciation 

for the benefit of mission-focused partnerships between government 

and business. 

Two years ago I returned to the Federal Government, where I’ve 

had the opportunity to serve as Deputy Administrator of the FAA 

and now as Acting Administrator. I’m honored that President 

Obama has nominated me to lead this great agency. In the last 2 

years I’ve focused on positioning the FAA to deliver NextGen, the 

Next Generation Air Transportation System. 

We recently established a new organization within the agency to 

focus on implementing major technology programs. This will improve the coordination among all of our NextGen initiatives, helping us to usher them from the drawing board to live operation. 

What we do over the next several years is going to determine the 

course of aviation in this country for decades to come. That is why 

it’s critical that the FAA work closely with Congress, with other 

government agencies, and all the components of the aviation industry and the communities they serve as we lay this foundation for 

the future. 

NextGen is the total transformation of the way we handle air 

traffic. We’re moving from radar to satellites, from radios to data 

messages, and from airways that zigzag the country to more direct 

routes. We need public-private collaboration to create this new way 

of doing business. 

NextGen means enhanced safety, greater access to airports, a 

smaller impact on the environment, and more predictable schedules 

for travelers. We’re already seeing these benefits in metro areas 

around the country now. 

As we move forward, I’ve asked my senior leadership team to 

focus on three main areas this year. First, we need to make the 

safest aviation system in the world even safer and smarter. Second, 

we need to realize even more the benefits of NextGen and we need 

to realize them today. And third, we need to make sure that we 

empower our 48,000 FAA employees to embrace innovation and to 

work efficiently. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m honored by the trust the President has placed 

in me as his nominee and, if confirmed, I pledge to continue to enhance the safety of our system for the traveling public and to guide 

the FAA through the many challenges that lie ahead. 

I would like to thank this committee again for its consideration 

of my nomination and I look forward to continuing our close working relationship. I’m pleased to answer any questions you might 

have. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr. 

Huerta follow:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison and members of 

the Committee. It’s an honor to appear before you today as President Obama’s nominee for Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

I am humbled by this nomination and the opportunity to serve our nation. I’d like 

to thank Secretary LaHood for his leadership and support, and also recognize my 

family who is with me today—my wife Ann and my son Matthew. 

At the Federal Aviation Administration we operate the largest and safest aviation 

system in the world. The safety of the traveling public is our number one priority 

and our mission. We are constantly working to identify and address potential risks 

long before there is a problem. We have achieved a greater level of collaboration 

with our workforce and are always enhancing our safety culture. 

Congress has helped in our efforts by passing the FAA reauthorization earlier this 

year. I want to thank the members of this committee for their role in this major 

accomplishment. The reauthorization gives the dedicated employees of the FAA 

greater financial guidance and it gives greater stability to our programs. 

All of this is vital to keeping the economic engine of civil aviation at full capacity. 

It helps expand on the 10 million jobs and 1.3 trillion dollars that civil aviation already contributes to the American economy each year. Thank you again. 

Now, I would like to share a little about my background with you today. 

I have spent my entire career in transportation with rewarding professional experiences in both the public and private sectors. I held senior policy positions at the 

U.S. Department of Transportation under President Clinton. There, I gained valuable insight into the day-to-day operations of many Federal agencies, including the 

FAA. 

Later, I was a managing director for transportation with the Salt Lake Olympic 

Committee. This experience taught me that an immovable deadline can be extremely powerful in motivating and in focusing a team toward a common objective. 

More recently, in the private sector, I led a large transportation technology services company. I managed the operations of a global organization and a diverse and 

technical workforce, to ensure that we met our financial targets. I came to develop 

a great appreciation for the benefits of mission-focused partnerships between government and business. 

Two years ago I returned to the Federal government, where I have had the opportunity to serve as Deputy Administrator of the FAA, and now, as Acting Administrator. I am honored that President Obama has nominated me to lead this great 

agency. 

In the last two years I have focused on positioning the FAA to deliver NextGen— 

the Next Generation Air Transportation System. We recently established a new organization within the agency to focus on implementing major technology programs. 

This will improve the coordination among NextGen initiatives, helping us usher 

them from the drawing board to live operation. 

What we do over the next several years is going to determine the course of aviation in this country for decades to come. That is why it is critical that the FAA work 

closely with Congress, other government agencies, all the components of the aviation 

industry, and the communities they serve, as we lay the foundation for the future. 

NextGen is the total transformation of the way we handle air traffic here and 

around the world. We are moving from radar to satellites, from radios to data messages and from airways that zig-zag the country to more direct routes. We need public-private collaboration to create this new way of doing business. 

NextGen means enhanced safety, greater access to airports, a smaller impact on 

the environment and more predictable schedules for travelers. And we’re already 

seeing these benefits in metro areas around the country now. 

As we move forward, I have asked my senior leadership to focus on three main 

areas this year. First, we need to make the safest aviation system in the world even 

safer and smarter. Second, we need to realize even more benefits from NextGen 

today. And third, we need to make sure that we empower our 48,000 FAA employees to embrace innovation and to work efficiently. 

Mr. Chairman, I am honored by the trust the President has placed in me as his 

nominee. If confirmed, I pledge to continue to enhance the safety of our system for 

the traveling public and to guide the FAA through the many challenges that lie 

ahead. 

I would like to thank this Committee again for its consideration of my nomination, and I look forward to continuing a close working relationship. I am pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

8 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (include and former names or nicknames used): Michael Peter Huerta, 

Mike Huerta. 

2. Position to which nominated: Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. 

3. Date of nomination: March 27, 2012. 

4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses): 

Residence: Information not released to the public. 

Office: 800 Independence Avenue, SW Room 1010, Washington, DC 20591. 

5. Date and place of birth: November 18, 1956; Riverside, California. 

6. Provide the name, position and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage). 

Spouse: Ann L. Sowder, Financial Planner, Sagemark Consulting (A Division of 

Lincoln Financial Advisors), 8219 Leesburg Pike, Suite 200, Vienna, VA 22182; 

child: Matthew Sowder Huerta, age 15. 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, MPA, International Relations, 1980. 

University of California at Riverside, BA, Political Science, 1978. 

8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all management-level 

jobs and any non-managerial jobs that relate to the position for which you are nominated. 

December 2011 to present, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. 

July 2010 to December 2011, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration. 

April 2009 to June 2010, President, MPH Consulting, LLC. 

April 2008 to March 2009, Executive Vice President and Group President, 

Transportation Solutions, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. 

June 2005 to April 2008, Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Transportation Solutions Affiliated Computer Systems, Inc. 

March 2002 to June 2005, Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Transportation Systems and Services, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. 

April 2001 to March 2002, Vice President, Marketing and Business Development 

Lockheed Martin IMS, sold in August 2001 to Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. 

September 2001 to March 2002, Managing Director, Transportation Communications, Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 

2002 (Loaned Executive from Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.) 

October 1999 to April 2001, Director, Federal Government Relations, Salt Lake 

Organizing Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002. 

September 1998 to April 2001, Principal, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 

July 1998 to September 1998, Independent Consultant. 

January 1997 to June 1998, Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

May 1993 to January 1997, Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation, Director, Office of Intermodalism, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

January 1989 to April 1993, Executive Director, Port of San Francisco. 

March 1986 to January 1989, Commissioner, New York City Department of 

Ports, International Trade and Commerce (The agency name was changed twice 

during my tenure and was also known as New York City Department of Ports 

and Trade and New York City Department of Ports and Terminals). 

July 1980 to March 1986, Consultant, Supervising Consultant, Manager, Coopers and Lybrand Management Consulting Services. 

June 1979 to September 1979, Federal Summer Intern, U.S. Mission to 

N.A.T.O., U.S. Department of Defense. 

9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached. 

9 

10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the last five years. 

Chair, Oversight Committee, National Cooperative Freight Research Program, 

Transportation Research Board. 

11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational, or other institution within the last five 

years. 

President, MPH Consulting, LLC, April 2009 to present (company has been inactive since June 2010). 

Member, Advisory Board, Kapsch TrafficCom Holding Corporation, June 2009 

to March 2010. 

Consultant, Securing America’s Future Energy, May 2009 to March 2010. 

Chairman, Board of Directors, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, 

June 2009 to January 2010. 

Elder, Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church, May 2007 to May 2010. 

Deacon, Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church, May 2004 to May 2007. 

Chair, Oversight Committee, National Cooperative Fright Research Program, 

Transportation Research Board, 2007 to January 2010. 

Consultant, Mark IV IVHS, June 2009. 

Consultant, Chicago 2016, April 2009. 

Member, Board of Advisors, College of Engineering, Center for Environmental 

Research and Technology University of California, Riverside, 1995 to February 

2012. 

Executive Vice President, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., April 2008 to 

March 2009, 

12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold in any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. 

Member, The City Club of Washington, 1993 to April 2012. 

Member, Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church, 2003 to present. 

Cubmaster, Cub Scout Pack 52, 2007–2008. 

Member, Train Collectors Association, 2005 to present. 

13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office (elected, nonelected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding 

debt, the amount, and whether you are personally liable for that debt. 

January 1997 to June 1998, Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

May1993 to January 1997, Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation; Director, Office of Intermodalism, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

I have no outstanding campaign debts. 

14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past 10 years. Also list all offices you have held with, and services rendered to, a 

state or national political party or election committee during the same period. 

Contributions: 

Dennis Herrera for Mayor (San Francisco, CA) 12/2/2010 $500 

Rush Holt for Congress 5/20/2009 $1,000 

Obama for America 9/30/2008 $2,300 

Josh Zeitz for Congress 9/23/2008 $2,300 

Linda Stender for Congress 6/20/2008 $2,300 

Friends of Mark Warner 4/4/2008 $500 

Friends of Jim Oberstar 3/21/2008 $500 

Josh Zeitz for Congress 11/11/2007 $2,300 

Hillary Clinton for President 10/12/2007 $2,300 

Linda Stender for Congress 9/28/2007 $2,300 

10 

Mitt Romney for President 4/2/2007 $2,300 

Linda Stender for Congress 6/29/2006 $500 

Menendez for Senate 4/10/2006 $500 

Menendez for Congress 4/7/2005 $500 

Democratic National Committee 4/5/2006 $2,500 

National Voter Coalition 10/10/2005 $1,000 

Democratic National Committee 10/25/2004 $2,000 

Ameripac: Fund for a Greater America 6/25/2004 $1,000 

Mitt Romney for Governor (MA) 4/22/2004 $500 

Mitt Romney for Governor (MA) 11/2/2003 $500 

Lipinski for Congress Committee 5/13/2003 $500 

Mitt Romney for Governor (MA) 10/24/2002 $500 

Victory 2002 9/21/2002 $1,000 

Steve Westly for Controller (CA) 6/21/2002 $1,000 

Torricelli for U.S. Senate 5/9/2002 $1,000 

I have not held any offices with, nor rendered services to, a state or national political party or election committee during the last ten years. 

15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements: None. 

16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of 

these publications unless otherwise instructed. 

Following is a listing of relevant speeches: 

World Aviation Training Symposium, ‘‘The Next Level of Training’’ (04/17/2012). 

Houston Metroplex Press Event, ‘‘Satellite-Based Routes in Houston Improve OnTime Flights, Enhance Safety and Fuel Efficiency’’ (04/04/2012) 

Sun N’ Fun, ‘‘Sun N’ Fun Meet the Administrator’’ (03/30/2012) 

Oakland Metroplex Press Availability, ‘‘More Direct Routes with NextGen’’ (03/ 

19/2012) 

2012 Women in Aviation Conference, ‘‘Remarks’’ (03/09/2012) 

37th Annual FAA Aviation Forecast Conference, ‘‘Growing with NextGen’’ (03/08/ 

2012) 

Atlanta and Charlotte Metroplex Design & Implementation Kickoff, ‘‘Atlanta and 

Charlotte Metroplex Design & Implementation ’’ (02/29/2012) 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2012 

AASHTO Washington Briefing, ‘‘How States Have Fostered NextGen’’ (02/27/ 

2012) 

Commercial Space Transportation Conference, ‘‘Commercial Space Transportation’’ (02/16/2012) 

Archie League Medal of Safety Awards Banquet, ‘‘Communicating for Safety’’ 

(02/02/2012) 

Fort Lauderdale International Airport Runway Expansion Groundbreaking, ‘‘Ft. 

Lauderdale International Airport Runway Expansion’’ (01/23/2012) 

New Horizons Forum, ‘‘NextGen: Transforming our National Airspace System 

into the Next Century of Flight’’ (01/10/2012) 

Press Conference, ‘‘Pilot Flight and Duty Time’’ (12/21/2011) 

2011 Federal Highway Administration Civil Rights Symposium, ‘‘Assuring 

Equal Access to Aviation Business Opportunities’’ (12/08/2011) 

Diversion Forum, ‘‘Proposed Recommendations’’ (12/01/2011) 

NextGen Advisory Committee, ‘‘FAA Report’’ (09/29/2011) 

U.S.-China Aviation Symposium, ‘‘Meeting the Challenges of the Future’’ (09/28/ 

2011) 

Global Air Navigation Industry Symposium (GANIS). ‘‘Towards a Seamless 

Global Aviation System’’ (09/23/2011) 

National Hispanic Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees Annual Training 

Conference. ‘‘What I Know for Certain’’ (08/02/2011) 

Air Traffic Control Association, ‘‘NextGen—A Worthy Investment in Our Nation’s 

Future’’ (05/18/2011) 

China Civil Aviation Development Forum, ‘‘Working Together for NextGen’’ (05/ 

11/2011) 

11 

IT/ISS Conference, ‘‘Cybersecurity and NextGen’’ (03/15/2011) 

UC Davis, ‘‘Aviation Noise & Air Quality’’ (02/28/2011) 

Wichita Town Hall, ‘‘Something Extraordinary’’ (02/10/2011) 

Regional Plan Association, ‘‘Jump Starting the Discussion’’ (01/27/2011) 

ATCA 55th Annual Conference and Exposition. ‘‘Moving Forward with NextGen’’ 

(10/26/2010) 

Sixth Triennial Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference. ‘‘Tangible Benefits’’ 

(10/20/2010) 

Recovery Act Press Event, ‘‘Groundbreaking of New Air Traffic Control Tower’’ 

(10/18/2010) 

NextGen Conference, ‘‘American Association of Airport Executives ’’ (10/04/2010) 

Jeppesen Connect Seminar, ‘‘Filled with Reasons to Participate’’ (09/30/2010) 

RTCA Annual Forum, ‘‘Building Bridges that Last’’ (09/22/2010) 

National Black Coalition of FAA Employees National Convention, ‘‘Respect and 

Consideration’’ (09/15/2010) 

Bemidji Terminal Expansion, ‘‘A Bright Future’’ (07/24/2010) 

National Hispanic Coalition Conference, ‘‘United We Stand’’ (07/14/2010) 

16th ITS World Congress; Stockholm, Sweden (09/21/2009). 

International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, Board of Directors; San 

Francisco, CA (04/16/2009). 

17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a governmental on non-governmental capacity and specify the 

date and subject matter of each testimony. 

March 22, 2012—Testimony as Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States 

House of Representatives, at a hearing on the Administration’s FY 2013 budget 

request. 

October 5, 2011—Testimony as Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, United States House of Representatives, at a hearing on 

benefits of the Next Generation Air Transportation System. 

January 26, 2010—Testimony as nominee to be Deputy Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, before the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, at 

a hearing to consider nominations. 

September 9, 2002—Testimony on behalf of the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation 

and Merchant Marine, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

United States Senate, and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure 

and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United 

States Senate, on Freight Transportation and Intermodal Connections. 

March 13, 1997—Testimony as Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation 

before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, on reauthorization of the surface 

transportation program. 

February 24, 1997—Testimony as Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation 

before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives, on the Department of Transportation’s ‘‘Year 2000’’ activities. 

June 19, 1995—Testimony as Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives, at a hearing in Chicago, IL on streamlining Federal field office 

structures. 

May 17, 1993—Testimony as nominee to be Associate Deputy Secretary of 

Transportation before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate, at a hearing to consider nominations. 

18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major operational objectives 

of the department/agency to which you have been nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for apVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78392.TXT JACKIE
12 

pointment to the position for which you have been nominated, and why do you wish 

to serve in that position? 

The FAA’s mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the 

world. It does that as a regulator and as an operator. It works in collaboration with 

key stakeholders, including the private sector. It relies on sophisticated technology. 

The agency is a large and complex organization and it has an ambitious agenda for 

transitioning to a next generation air traffic control system, while continuing to operate on a daily basis the largest air traffic system in the world. 

In my career, I have worked both in government and the private sector. Since 

July 2010, I have served as FAA Deputy Administrator and have developed a broad 

understanding of the agency and its mission. In addition to my role in helping to 

ensure that the FAA’s safety mission is carried out, I have had the primary responsibility for overseeing the FAA’s deployment of the Next Generation Air Traffic System (NextGen) and played a major role in the FAA’s Foundation for Success initiative, which reorganized the agency to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. 

I also held senior policy positions at the U.S. DOT, which gave me valuable insight into how Federal agencies work and, in particular, the important role played 

by the FAA. 

Before joining the FAA, I led a large transportation technology services organization. In that capacity, I had responsibility for the operations of a large, global organization, managing a diverse and technical workforce and, of course, ensuring that 

the organization met its financial targets. Our customers were for the most part 

state and local government agencies and we provided critical systems that were central to them successfully executing their missions. 

I am excited about the prospect, if confirmed, of leading the FAA at a critical time 

in its history. The agency is managing a major technological transformation at the 

same time its workforce is going through a generational change. The decisions that 

need to be made in the next five years will set the course of the FAA more many 

years to come. 

I believe that my background and experience will assist the FAA in carrying out 

its mission in the coming years. 

19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that the 

department/agency has proper management and accounting controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large organization? 

As Administrator, I would serve as the chief executive of the agency with the primary responsibility to ensure adherence to the best management processes. Effective management of a large organization means that the leaders of that organization 

need to ensure that reporting systems are in place to provide them the visibility 

they need into what is going on in the organization. At the same time, they need 

to ensure that appropriate controls are in place. 

Before joining the FAA, I served as an officer of a Fortune 500 corporation and 

have a good understanding of the dynamics of large organizations. It is important 

to be able to delegate and empower line managers but at the same time, to recognize that ultimate responsibility rests at the top. I have found that managing to specific and quantifiable targets is an effective means of building accountability, but 

also innovation. In addition, it is important to spend time engaging with the workforce throughout the organization. Talking to line managers and front-line employees informally can provide important insights about what is going on. 

As Deputy Administrator at the FAA, I have focused on improving the agency’s 

program management practices and its delivery of services. As a result, the agency 

has stabilized a troubled deployment of a new technology system, getting it back on 

track and well on the way to a successful deployment nationwide. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the FAA’s employees and 

stakeholders, and particularly Congress, in meeting the agency’s objectives in the 

coming years. 

20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the department/ 

agency, and why? 

1. Maintaining and building upon an exceptional record of aviation safety. Commercial aviation is an exceptionally safe mode of transportation but it is important that we continue to find ways to make the system even safer and smarter. 

The FAA has in recent years begun to focus more on identifying risk factors 

that could affect safety in the future. The idea is to look for clues that might 

prevent an accident before it happens. This proactive approach uses science to 

analyze risks in the system as well as historical accident data. By combining 

the two, we get a more complete picture of potential problems and ways to address them. As traffic increases and technologies become more advanced, this 

approach is essential to maintaining the highest levels of safety. 

13 

2. Successfully deploying NextGen. The FAA’s deployment of NextGen is critical 

to sustaining the contribution of aviation to the U.S. economy. Today, aviation 

accounts for $1.3 trillion in economic activity annually and accounts for over 10 

million jobs. That number is expected to grow dramatically in the years ahead. 

NextGen will integrate new technologies into our air traffic system transforming how we fly. The result will be reduced delays, savings in fuel consumption and lower carbon emissions, and we need to find ways to accelerate these 

benefits. This transformation combines new technology with more efficient operations and management. It is much more than a new computer system. It requires the FAA to change how it hires and trains people, and how they do their 

jobs. And all this must be done while the aviation system continues to operate 

safely 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. 

3. Practicing fiscal responsibility while empowering and engaging employees. 

Every government agency is being called upon to find ways to carry out its mission as effectively as possible and at the lowest cost to the taxpayers. It is essential that the FAA focus on finding ways to reduce its operating costs and 

continually improve efficiency. Continued collaboration with and among employees will result in greater efficiency and effectiveness, while also moving the 

agency toward its goal of becoming a workplace of choice. 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement accounts. 

While employed by Affiliated Computer Systems, Inc., (ACS) I participated in a 

deferred compensation plan and, at the time I enrolled, I elected to receive deferred 

compensation in five annual installments following my departure from ACS (March 

2009). In 2010, ACS was acquired by Xerox Corporation. I will receive two remaining annual payments from ACS, A Xerox Company, with the final payment expected 

in April 2013. 

During my employment at ACS, I was granted ACS stock options. These were 

converted to Xerox Corporation stock options upon Xerox’s acquisition of ACS in 

2010. I still hold Xerox stock options, and intend to continue to hold them as market 

conditions warrant. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation, or practice with any business, association, or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation’s ethics official to identify 

potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in 

accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the 

Department’s designated agency ethics official and that has been provided to this 

Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships, which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation’s ethics official to identify 

potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in 

accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the 

Department’s designated agency ethics official and that has been provided to this 

Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last ten years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or 

acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict 

of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation’s ethics official to identify 

potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in 

accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the 

Department’s designated agency ethics official and that has been provided to this 

Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy: None. 

14 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation’s ethics official to identify 

potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in 

accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the 

Department’s designated agency ethics official and that has been provided to this 

Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for breach of ethics by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, please explain: No. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal, 

State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were and officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation. If so, 

please explain. 

I am aware of three suits that were filed against my previous employers or that 

named me in an official capacity. None of these involved any allegation related to 

my own conduct. 

In my official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of 

Ports and Trade, I was named in two suits against the city in the late 1980s involving nonpayment of rent at port facilities. I had no involvement in the litigation of 

these cases. The NYC Department of Ports and Trade may have been a party to 

other legal actions, but I had no involvement in any such cases. 

In 1994 or 1995, I was deposed in a sexual harassment case that an employee 

had brought against the City and County of San Francisco. I had been the Executive 

Director of the Port of San Francisco until April 2003, and I testified that I had 

met the employee only once and had no knowledge of the complaint. The Port of 

San Francisco may have been a party to other legal actions, but I had no involvement in any such cases. 

During the time when I was an officer of Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., a Fortune 500, publicly traded company with extensive domestic and international operations, the company may have been a party to administrative proceedings and litigation; however, I had no involvement in any such cases. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including please of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No. 

5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other basis? If so, please 

explain: No. 

6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination. 

N/A. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes. 

RESUME OF MICHAEL P. HUERTA

Professional Experience 

Acting Administrator—Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., December 2011 to present. 

Deputy Administrator—Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., July 

2010 to December 2011—Acting chief executive of the agency responsible the safety 

and efficiency of the largest aerospace system in the world. Oversees a $15.9 billion 

dollar budget, over 47,000 employees and is focused on ensuring the agency and its 

15 

employees are the best prepared and trained professionals to meet the growing demands and requirements of the industry. Responsible for the FAA’s multi-billion 

dollar NextGen air traffic control modernization program as the United States shifts 

from ground-based radar to state-of-the-art satellite technology. 

President—MPH Consulting, LLC, Washington, D.C., April 2009 to June 2010— 

Consultant on transportation policy, technology and financing. Clients include international technology companies and not-for-profit organizations. 

Executive Vice President and Group President, Transportation Solutions—Affiliated 

Computer Services, Inc., Washington, D.C., April 2008 to March 2009 

Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Transportation Solutions—Affiliated 

Computer Systems, Inc., Washington, D.C., June 2005 to April 2008 

Senior Vice President and Managing Director, Transportation Systems and Services—Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Washington, D.C., March 2002 to June 

2005—Chief executive of ACS’ transportation technology services line of business. 

ACS is a premier provider of diversified business process outsourcing and information technology services and solutions to government and commercial clients worldwide. The company provides a wide variety of revenue collection, regulatory compliance and technology services to the transportation industry throughout the world. 

Products and services include: 

• System integration and customer service center operations for electronic toll collection systems including E–ZPass in the northeastern United States and 

FasTrak in California 

• Fare collection and parking revenue control and management systems to public 

transit authorities, airports, and cities 

• The nationwide PrePass electronic commercial vehicle pre-clearance program 

• A full suite of photo enforcement solutions designed to promote road and highway safety 

• System integration and design of PierPASS, a congestion fee collection program 

used at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. 

Vice President, Marketing and Business Development—Lockheed Martin IMS, Transportation Systems and Services Washington, D.C., April 2001 to March 2002—Responsible for expanding IMS’ leadership position in intelligent transportation marketplaces such as electronic toll collection, commercial vehicle operations, and electronic payment systems. 

Consultant, Director, and Managing Director—Salt Lake Organizing Committee for 

the Olympic Winter Games of 2002, Washington, D.C. and Salt Lake City, Utah, 

July 1998 to April 2002—Served in various positions as an independent consultant 

and an employee of the organization. Responsible for (a) designing and running, in 

cooperation with the Utah Department of Transportation, the highly successful 

Travel Demand Management (TDM) program used during the XIX Olympic Winter 

Games held in Utah during February 2002, and (b) securing funding for a $250 million program of temporary and permanent transportation projects to support the 

transportation requirements of the Games. 

Principal—Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Washington, D.C., September 1998 to April 

2001—Principal of an employee-owned, nationally known, transportation consulting 

firm. Responsibilities included new business development for freight and intermodal 

transportation. Services provided included freight transportation planning, transportation planning for special events, project financing, and strategic planning. 

Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary—United States Department of Transportation, 

Washington, D.C., January 1997 to June 1998—Responsibilities included serving as 

chief strategist and policy advisor to the Secretary of Transportation and day-to-day 

manager of the Office of the Secretary. Involved oversight of high-profile projects, 

major initiatives, and federal government financial assistance. 

Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation and Director, Office of Intermodalism— 

United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., May 1993 to January 1997—Responsibilities included coordinating federal policy on intermodal transportation and initiating policies to promote efficient intermodal transportation in 

the United States. Selected accomplishments: 

• $400 million federal loan as part of financing package for $1.9 billion Alameda 

Corridor port access project in Southern California. The federal loan was an inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78392.TXT JACKIE
16 

novative, direct loan which completed the financing package and enabled this 

project to move forward. 

• Airport access projects in San Francisco and New York which involved blending 

airport, transit and highway revenues in new ways to provide mass transit 

links to these airports. 

Executive Director—Port of San Francisco, January 1989 to April 1993—Chief executive of the port, a self-supporting public agency that develops and administers maritime facilities, commercial development, and fishing facilities on San Francisco’s waterfront. Completed a port strategic plan, which led to substantially increased container shipping volume. Initiated planning and construction for modernizing and expanding the port’s shipping terminals and fish handling facilities. Completed an 

award-winning public access pier in downtown San Francisco. 

Commissioner—New York City Department of Ports, International Trade and Commerce, March 1986 to January 1989—Chief executive of the city department responsible for developing and administering marine, air, rail and truck facilities throughout the city; promoting international trade and investment; operating and regulating the city’s public markets. 

Management Consultant—Coopers & Lybrand, Washington, D.C., July 1980 to 

March 1986—Consultant serving a variety of public and private sector clients in 

economic studies, feasibility analysis and international trade services. 

Education 

MPA 1980, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton 

University BA 1978, University of California, Riverside 

Senator CANTWELL. Again, Mr. Huerta, thank you for your willingness to serve and thank you for your testimony this morning. 

I’d like to start. You mentioned obviously safety, which is a high 

priority. As I mentioned earlier in my statement, we had oversight 

hearings on this issue. There are several rulemakings that are required under the FAA Extension Act of 2010 and some of those 

rulemakings for new flight and duty time rules have been completed and others haven’t. 

In the hearings that we had in the aftermath of the Colgan 3407 

flight, one of the issues identified was the shortcoming of pilot 

training and co-pilot training. So what is the status of that rulemaking on pilot training? When can we expect those rules to be released? How much time will be given to airlines to comply? And 

when can we expect that transformation to be in place? 

Mr. HUERTA. We continue to work on a final rule to update our 

commercial pilot training requirements. This is a very important 

rule. It’s something that I care very deeply about. 

I was distressed to learn of the time involved in moving this rule 

forward and I’ve made it a very high personal priority to do all we 

can to expedite the development of this rule. The initial rulemaking 

was under way before the passage of the Airline Safety and FAA 

Extension Act of 2010. Subsequent to the passage of that statute 

we had to issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. We 

received a very large number of comments in response to that and 

we have reviewed those comments. I’ve instructed my staff to work 

diligently and quickly in the completion of the rule so that we can 

get it out there for final implementation. 

We expect that we will complete that by October 2013. I know 

that’s a long time and we’re doing all that we can to move it as 

quickly as possible. 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Huerta, what can we do in the meantime? 2013 is a long time from now as it relates to this. I mean, 

this seems to be something we needed in 2011. 

17 

Mr. HUERTA. The FAA will continue to work closely with industry to find out what we can do in advance of rulemaking. Focusing 

on training is a very important priority and I want to work closely 

with industry to do that. 

Senator CANTWELL. What about pilot commute times? That was 

one of the issues in the Colgan Air case, the amount of time in 

commuting, pilots showing up after long distance travel. 

Mr. HUERTA. Every pilot has an important responsibility to report to work fit for duty and safe to fly. This is one of the things 

that was a high priority to address in the pilot fatigue rule and I 

think that there is a responsibility that we all have to ensure that 

pilots can report to work fit for duty. 

Senator CANTWELL. What else can we do to address some of 

these issues, given that, obviously, we want to implement the right 

rules, but 2013 is a long time. 

Mr. HUERTA. As I said, we are doing everything that we can. It’s 

a large and complex rule and I pledge my own personal commitment to push our team as quickly as we can to get this done expeditiously. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. I may have questions on that 

coming up. 

But, Mr. Chairman, would you like to? Ranking Member 

Hutchison? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, let me start with the Office of Special 

Counsel and also the relatively large number, according to the Special Counsel, of whistleblowers at the FAA. What oversight measures are you putting in place in response to that report, or what 

measures are you taking to assure that there is some way to assure 

that an air traffic controller isn’t taking a nap on the job or leaving 

the tower? Those kinds of things are obviously very troubling. 

How are you dealing with that and putting a tighter rein on the 

information flow? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. There are two things that you suggest, Ranking Member Hutchison. First and foremost, every FAA employee 

has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the traveling public. 

That means that they need to report to work fit for duty all the 

time every day. 

The second thing is that we need to have an environment and 

a climate where anyone who sees that there is a potential safety 

risk in the system feels that no crash is in a safe environment to 

elevate that to higher leadership. In doing that it ensures that 

we’re able to take strong and appropriate action to deal with safety 

risks that might exist in the system. 

A couple of years ago we put in place a whistleblower office within the FAA. We actually set it up with the assistance of a former 

FAA whistleblower. What we wanted to do was ensure that it was 

clear where people can go if they have concerns about safety, about 

compliance with rules, and everything that’s associated with that. 

I think that that has done a lot to create an appropriate environment and quick responses. As a result of doing this, we’ve identified areas where—in one instance, we completely changed out the 

management of a facility so that we could ensure that an appropriate focus was being given to safety. 

18 

I think that every employee of the FAA bears a specific responsibility. I think it’s a duty. It’s my expectation that if there are challenges in the system, if employers see things that represent a risk 

to safety, then they have to be brought forward so that we can deal 

with them and deal with them expeditiously. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Huerta, one of the things that you read 

about and hear about are how difficult it is to discipline and fire 

if necessary a Federal employee because there are so many requirements and it’s a bureaucratic tough situation. All of us have—well, 

not all of us, but I’ve certainly been in a Federal agency myself and 

I know there are a lot of rules and sometimes it’s been difficult 

even if someone was not doing their job and had all the requirements. 

I’m asking you if you have had trouble with these safety-essential personnel, like an air traffic controller or a mechanic, have you 

had trouble with the bureaucratic constraints or union activity that 

would keep you from taking an action that you felt is necessary to 

assure that a person not doing the job is not able to stay on the 

job? 

Mr. HUERTA. All of us as managers of the FAA, and in fact in 

any Federal agency, have a special responsibility to ensure that the 

requirements and expectations for our workforce are absolutely 

clear and that we document when we see infractions and when we 

see that standards are not being complied with, and we do do that. 

That’s something that I think is an important first step in ensuring 

that these whistleblower complaints are appropriately dealt with. 

The FAA takes very seriously its safety-sensitive responsibility 

and, with appropriate documentation and appropriate leadership, if 

we’ve found problems we have been able to deal with them. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

I do have another quick question, and that is what steps are you 

taking to live within the lower budgets that we’re going to have 

across the board until we get the deficits down and the debt under 

control? What measures are you taking that would suggest that 

you could do things more efficiently and that you’re doing the part 

for your agency? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, first of all I’d like to thank this committee 

and the appropriators for the support they’ve shown the FAA. But 

you’ve given us a challenge, and that challenge is, as you suggest, 

Senator Hutchison, the need to do things as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

We have within our organizational structure embarked on a 

major restructuring where we’ve identified how to minimize administrative costs and find greater efficiencies to operating the agency. 

We’ve identified savings in excess of $100 million. I think that’s an 

important step. 

The other thing that we’re doing—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Give me a couple of examples? 

Mr. HUERTA. A lot of that is in technology systems, in general 

and administrative systems for the agency. Technology benefits are 

huge in a large complex agency such as ours, where we can deal 

with ensuring that there are not duplicative systems and that 

we’re also taking advantage of our size and leveraging that as we 

go through major procurements for these sorts of systems. So that’s 

19 

one very important area where we’ve been quite successful. But we 

can do more. 

The other thing relates to the delivery of NextGen. This committee and the Congress in general have made NextGen a very 

high priority, but that means we have a responsibility to develop 

and implement it as efficiently as possible and that means creating 

priorities. We’ve established in our NextGen implementation plan 

what our specific goals are that we want to accomplish both in the 

midterm and the long-term. To sum it up, the major focus is on 

how do we deliver benefits early? If we deliver benefits early to the 

users of the system, it means for an airline that they can reduce 

track miles flown—that’s a reduction in fuel. Fuel is a reduction in 

cost. It’s also a reduction in emissions. And it benefits communities 

because they have a more efficient system with less noise. It’s those 

things that we need to keep our focus on. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. 

Senator CANTWELL. Chairman Rockefeller, would you like to? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes—— 

Senator CANTWELL. I’m sorry. I think the Chairman’s going to 

ask some questions. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, that’s OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Cantwell, very much. 

Mr. Huerta, I’m sort of aghast here, because we had a very good 

talk in my office and you talked to me very directly, answered 

questions very directly, and this morning you seem to be answering 

them as if scripted by OMB. I have to be frank about that because 

this is not a favorable impression. 

You used the word ‘‘expeditiously,’’ ‘‘diligence’’ all the time to answer the questions. Chairman Cantwell asked you a question about 

aviation safety and the standards, actually required December 

2011. We’re now finding out that this cannot be done until 2013, 

and then an additional five years, so that’s 2015. Then you just 

simply said: Well, we’re working with the airlines and we’ll be expeditious and diligent and do our very best. It’s just not an answer 

at all. 

I want to know, what is it that makes it so difficult to get the 

airlines or the FAA to work together to get this done before 2015, 

indeed by 2013, if not by 2011, which is what we required in the 

law? What is your answer? 

Mr. HUERTA. Chairman Rockefeller, as I mentioned, this is a 

very large and complex rulemaking, and no one is more frustrated 

than I am at the time it has taken—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Please answer my question. 

Mr. HUERTA. What we are doing is working through a large number of comments and ensuring that we can develop a rule that will 

stand the test of time and that will deliver on the benefits that we 

want. People are working very hard in getting it done, but we have 

a lot of comments. It’s a complicated rule. 

20 

The CHAIRMAN. So it’s a complicated bill. There’s a lot of comments. There’s always a lot of comments. Washington draws lots 

and lots of comments. It’s you and it’s the airlines and it’s the pilots. I don’t understand why this is taking so long or why—don’t 

talk to me about lots of comments and this is a complicated process. Everything is like that around here. 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Chairman, I am very committed to getting this 

rule done. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I understand that. But what are you doing 

about it? So far I’ve heard that there are a lot of comments and 

it makes it more difficult. Now, so how do you weigh through this 

and get it? Don’t wait until 2015. Lots of Lackawannas could happen by 2015. 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Chairman, I will do all I can to direct my staff 

and provide the resources to get this done as quickly as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me just make it known for the record, 

and this is going to seem to be an unfriendly comment. As you 

know, I support your candidacy, but any Federal person making 

testimony before any committee of Congress has to have that testimony reviewed and cannot give it until it’s approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget, and that is the same with yours. And 

that’s what you’re sounding like. 

I just can’t live with ‘‘I’m going to do everything I can.’’ I want 

to know what it is that you will do to make sure it will happen. 

I’m sticking on this thing, 2015. 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Chairman, once a week I meet with our safety 

organization and we go over every rule that we have pending. The 

questions that I ask are: Where is it, who is involved in it, what 

are the challenges that we have, and do you have resource problems? Are there legal challenges that you’re running into? It creates a forum for us to work through what are very complex issues. 

I share your frustration. I want this to be done quickly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, air traffic controller fatigue, 4,000 violations, we read about it in the Washington Post, required 9 hours 

of rest. My question—I think I’m going to get the same answer: 

what’s the agency done to address these violations, to make sure 

we don’t hear more about this? 

I understand that you’re standing up in an air traffic control 

tower or in one of the ground-based or underground-based places 

and things are difficult and people get tired and all the rest of it. 

Nine hours of sleep helps, but please tell me what you are doing 

to make sure that this happens? I don’t think that’s that complicated. 

Mr. HUERTA. It’s not. What we did last year was we put in place 

a requirement, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, for nine hours of rest 

between shifts. To ensure compliance with it, we—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Does that 9 hours include the time to get home? 

Mr. HUERTA. It’s a nine-hour rest opportunity, that’s correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. So that means maybe six and a half hours and 

then an hour and a half commute. 

Mr. HUERTA. It could mean 8 hours if you had 30 minutes each 

way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

21 

Mr. HUERTA. What we have done since then to ensure compliance is we conducted a review of a large number of clocking in of 

controllers, and we determined that, while the majority of controllers were in compliance with the nine-hour rest period, we did find 

that there were some controllers who were clocking in a few minutes early. 

In most cases they were a matter of a couple of minutes. None 

exceeded 30 minutes. In light of that, we at the agency, in conjunction with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, last 

week issued guidance to everyone in air traffic control reminding 

them of the nine-hour rule. 

We are also now updating our timekeeping system so that they 

cannot physically clock in until the nine-hour requirement is met, 

and we will continue to focus on this. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time is up. I thank the chair. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, and I just want to go over the 

order of members because people have come in and out of the hearing room. We’ll next call on Senator Thune, who’s the ranking 

member on the Subcommittee, followed by Senator Begich, if Senator Boxer reappears, then Senator Lautenberg, then my other colleagues. 

So, Senator Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you 

and the Ranking Member for holding the confirmation hearing 

today, and Mr. Huerta for appearing before the Committee as the 

nominee to be the next Administrator of the FAA. 

Aviation is an important part of our U.S. economy. It’s obviously 

very important in my state of South Dakota. It contributes about 

$1.2 billion annually to the economy and employs 14,000 people. I 

think we have to acknowledge that FAA operates the largest and 

safest air space system in the world. As we know, since the mid1990s the commercial air carrier accident rate has fallen by nearly 

80 percent. Achieving that low of a U.S. air carrier accident rate 

while transporting almost 800 million passengers per year is no 

simple feat. 

But, having said that, even with the high rate of safety, improvements can be made, and last month’s letter from the Office of Special Counsel, which cited 178 FAA disclosures, of which 97 were 

safety-related, is a startling reminder that safety’s got to be a top 

priority. 

The agency faces several other future challenges, including reducing regulatory burdens, streamlining its operations, maintaining professionalism in its work force, and implementing the recently enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act. 

So I appreciate, Mr. Huerta, hearing from you about your ideas 

on how to address those many challenges. I do want to quickly get 

your response to something. We have a bill, Senate bill 1956, the 

European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act that 

Senator McCaskill and I and others have introduced, which gives 

the Secretary of Transportation the authority to take the necessary 

steps to ensure America’s aviation operators are not penalized by 

22 

any system unilaterally imposed by the EU. We had a hearing 

about this recently in front of this committee and I’m wondering 

what your thoughts are about whether this legislation might help 

you in your negotiations with the European Union. 

Mr. HUERTA. Senator Thune, thank you very much. The European Union’s efforts to impose unilaterally an emissions trading 

scheme are something that we are very much in opposition to. We 

feel that the appropriate forum to work through this is the International Civil Aviation Organization and we’ve joined with many 

other countries to express our opposition and to make it clear to 

the Europeans that we oppose what they’re trying to do and are 

prepared to take action as necessary in order to respond to that. 

ICAO is the appropriate forum and all options are on the table. 

While we’re supportive of the goals of reducing aviation’s emissions 

impact on the environment, we think that what the Europeans did 

is entirely the wrong way to go about it. The Europeans know that 

and we continue to work on that. 

Senator THUNE. Wouldn’t having a legislative solution give you 

additional leverage in confronting the Europeans on this issue and 

dealing with it? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think the Europeans are well aware of the universal opposition that exists in this government to what it is that 

they’re trying to do, and we continue to communicate that to them. 

Senator THUNE. At the same time, you’ve got this thing already 

in effect, essentially, and lots of American air carriers covered by 

it and in many cases having to pass those costs on. It seems to me 

at least that the legislation would at least provide temporary relief 

from this until such time as you can work through the appropriate 

forum, if that’s ICAO, to get the right resolution in place. 

So it just seems to me at least that it gives you one more piece 

of ammunition, one more tool, if you will, in dealing with the EU 

if you had Congress on the record and giving our air carriers in 

this country some relief from what is an unfair violation of international law and sovereignty of the United States. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, Senator, as I mentioned, I think that the fact 

that there is such widespread opposition in our government is quite 

significant. We are committed to working with Congress on how 

best to respond to it. 

Senator THUNE. Well, let me ask you one other question quickly. 

There is a recent IG report that highlighted that the FAA has not 

yet established total program cost, schedule, or performance baseline for all of the six NextGen transformational programs. When 

does the agency plan to do this, since without baselining we will 

not have complete information about when these programs will be 

completed, what they will deliver, and how much they’re going to 

cost the American taxpayer? 

Mr. HUERTA. NextGen is a program that, as I talked about in my 

opening statement, is critical for the FAA to get right as we deploy 

the transformational aviation system of the future. My own background, as leader of a large technology company, I think has served 

me well as I’ve worked at the FAA. 

One of the first things that I did when I arrived at the agency 

a couple of years ago was to direct the establishment of a program 

management office, with the sole responsibility for delivering 

23 

NextGen programs as their major area of focus. At the same time 

I strengthened our NextGen organization to ensure that they had 

the resources and the tools they needed to make tradeoffs, to establish priorities, and to ensure that the agency is meeting its 

NextGen commitments. 

Of the six transformational programs, three have been baselined 

and we are on track for meeting the commitments in those baselines. But we’re trying to find the appropriate balance in how we 

mitigate risk based on developing the appropriate levels of information so that we know what we’re getting into before we establish 

the baselines. We’re very focused on delivering benefits and hitting 

our targets, and I think we’re making good progress. 

Senator THUNE. Do you have a schedule for the last three? You 

mentioned three that you are—— 

Mr. HUERTA. I’m sorry? 

Senator THUNE. The other three of the six that you said that 

have not—that are not baselined, when do you expect? What do 

you expect in regard to those? 

Mr. HUERTA. We would be happy to meet with your staff and go 

over each of the programs and where they are. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. 

My time has expired. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Huerta. Let me ask 

you a couple questions, one on avgas. As you know, the general 

aviation community from my State and Senator Thune’s, others, 

it’s very important, the rural aspect of it. But the EPA has issued 

an NPRM on avgas. We’ve heard a lot of comments. I’m sure FAA 

has also heard a lot of comments. 

Our concern is, and as you know, FAA is ultimately responsible 

for certifying the type of gas that goes into aviation or into airplanes. We are—I want to make it very clear that we are hopeful 

that there are no moves by EPA or FAA to phaseout avgas until 

there is truly an appropriate and economical drop-in substitute 

fuel. Can you comment on that? 

Mr. HUERTA. Senator Begich, we share that concern. Avgas is 

unique. It is the remaining leaded fuel, but it meets the unique requirements that exist in general aviation. The FAA completely understands the importance of having reasonable alternatives before 

any effort is made to phaseout avgas. I’m very committed to working with EPA so as to ensure that that doesn’t happen. 

Senator BEGICH. When you say reasonable, economical is part of 

that equation? 

Mr. HUERTA. Certainly. 

Senator BEGICH. OK, good, because for us in Alaska it’s truly, it’s 

the highway in the sky. It’s critical that we have the right ability. 

When we converted a much higher level of leaded gas to unleaded, 

which was our vehicles, it took many, many, many years to do that. 

It wasn’t overnight. I’m worried that EPA has a different view of 

life here, that they can flip the switch and make it all magic. I’m 

glad that you have made the statement you just said, because I 

24 

think you understand the FAA component of this and the aviation 

component of this. So thank you very much. 

Will you keep us, at least our office, informed if there are some 

milestones occurring that we need to be aware of, because I guarantee you we’ll hear very quickly in Alaska and we want to make 

sure we’re on top of this issue. 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely, we’d be happy to. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. 

The other one is, we have this battle on a fairly regular basis. The administration in the 2013 budget had the $100 user fee on 

GA, general aviation users. I honestly think that is—it’s creating 

another system that doesn’t need to be created. We have a per-gallon tax assessed. The aviation community is in support of it. It’s 

already an existing system. It works well. It’s creating another system where now it’s a $100 user fee for certain GA users. I think 

it’s just going to be burdensome. It’s going to create another bureaucracy within FAA, and the reality is we already have a system 

that general aviation supports and always works with FAA on. 

So can you comment on that? I know it’s a budget issue and I’m 

sure OMB has their views on it, but from a practical implication 

of how you implement it, it seems like it’s creating another system 

that we don’t need when we have a user fee tax that people have 

been accustomed to and have been supportive in the past of adjusting when necessary. 

Mr. HUERTA. Senator Begich, the President put forward a proposal with the intent of finding better ways to share the costs of 

the operation of the aviation system with the users of the system. 

That was why it was included in his proposal for the fiscal 2013 

budget. The appropriators have not seen fit to act on that. We understand that how we look at the long-term financing questions of 

the FAA is something that we need to do very much in consultation 

with Congress, and we look forward to continuing that conversation 

with you. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. I know from our end we’d obviously be 

happy to engage with you on that. I think the general aviation 

folks, aviation in general, I think always are happy to—if there is 

a process and they know the value comes back to the users in this 

case, they’re always willing to sit down and work these issues out. 

So I look forward to that. 

Do you—I just want to follow up on what Senator Thune talked 

about on NextGen, if I can, and that is just very quickly, and that 

is you talked about the baselines, three more to go. If you were to 

say—if you could give a percentage of where do you think you’re 

at with full implementation of NextGen in the level that we had 

asked for in the FAA reauthorization bill, where would you say we 

are? 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent? Do you have a fair—in all 

the pieces—I know there are multiple pieces, but if you could take 

a 30,000 view looking down, where do you think we’re at? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think it’s important to look at it in the context 

of there being both a geographic component to it, as we move it out 

across the country, and then there are varying levels of capability 

that it enables. We are making progress in both of these areas. 

We made a commitment to the industry to deploy one of the 

foundational technologies, a technology known as Automatic DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78392.TXT JACKIE
25 

pendent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS–B). We committed that it 

would be deployed throughout the country by 2013, and we are on 

track to deliver the ground infrastructure by 2013. This, as you 

know, is a technology that we first deployed in Alaska. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s right. 

Mr. HUERTA. And what it gives a pilot is much greater situational awareness. It gives us a very precise view of what’s happening in the air space system. So we’re well on track to delivery 

this. 

This year we’re giving a particular focus on performance-based 

navigation, which results in more precise routes that reduce for airlines the track miles flown and enables them to reduce costs on 

fuel. This is a high priority. What we’re trying to do is reduce the 

deployment time for individual procedures from what would ordinarily be five to ten years down to three and sometimes 2 years. 

We’re doing that in metropolitan areas all across the country. 

Later this summer, we will take a first step in deploying our 

DATACOM program. DATACOM is a transformational technology 

because what it addresses head-on is one of our principal challenges for efficiency as well as for maintaining safety, and that is 

to ensure that communications between controllers and pilots are 

accurate, precise, and delivered in a timely fashion. So we’re on 

track for beginning the delivery of that program later on this year. 

We’re making good progress, but I have to stress it’s a long-term 

delivery program. We have milestones that go all the way out to 

2025 for the delivery of NextGen and it’s important to us that we 

hit those milestones and deliver the benefits to the users of the system. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Thanks for your testimony. I’ll look forward to supporting you in the final, but I just 

want to say thank you very much for coming here. Thanks for 

spending time with me yesterday on all the other issues we talked 

about. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Huerta, my recommendation to you would have been when 

Senator Boxer finished her introduction that you say: I plead my 

case, and let it go at that, because you’re getting some pressures 

here for things that I really don’t think are justified. 

We have been fiddling around with NextGen technology before 

the turn of the century, and company after company, the best 

names in technology, aviation technology, were included. I was in 

the computer business before I came here, and the fact of the matter is that there was failure after failure after failure, with billions 

of dollars spent. 

So while we want you to push along, hurry it up as much as you 

can, but I think on balance that it has to be recognized that you’re 

not responsible for the delay, but you will be responsible for the 

management of where we go, and we look forward to that. 

26 

I think that we’re fortunate that you’re here, willing to serve at 

this job, because you’re not going to get lots of pats on the back 

no matter what you do. 

The air traffic control tower at Newark Liberty Airport is critical 

to the entire aviation system, to the flying public. But the tower 

is constantly understaffed. I’ve received many assurances from the 

FAA over the years that this issue would be remedied, but the 

problem persists. We’re still short a significant number of fully 

trained controllers. 

When might the Newark tower be fully staffed? 

Mr. HUERTA. Senator Lautenberg, as you and I spoke about, the 

staffing range for Newark Liberty Airport is estimated to be somewhere between 32 and 38 controllers. We currently have below that 

number, in the high 20s, of actual certified controllers in the facility. 

We have an effort under way this year to transfer a number of 

additional controllers into the facility and plans for 2013. Also, in 

recognition of the unique complex air space that we have in northern New Jersey and greater New York, we placed a tower simulator in the Newark Liberty facility to provide the ability to do 

more on-the-ground training for controllers in the facility simulating the unique air space requirements of that area. 

That went into place earlier this year in March and I think that 

we’re seeing some benefit associated with it. But we have to continue to focus on that. 

The New York area is critical for us and Newark Liberty is part 

of that. Most of the delays in the air traffic system have as their 

starting point the New York area. So focusing on ensuring that we 

have the appropriate technology and the appropriately trained staff 

in place, is something that we have to continue to focus on. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You were asked a question some minutes 

ago about what kind of performance we might expect if there is less 

funding. Can things get better with less funding? 

Mr. HUERTA. Clearly, funding is essential in our ability to deliver 

the Next Generation Air Transportation System. This committee 

and the Congress have been very supportive of those efforts. But 

we in the agency bear the responsibility to do it as efficiently as 

possible and to ensure that we are prioritizing those things that deliver the benefits for the users of the system. 

That’s a conversation that we will continue to have. We’re all in 

government. We all understand the fiscal challenges that we as a 

country face and the FAA needs to be part of that conversation. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The FAA authorization which was signed 

into law earlier this year exempts certain NextGen projects from 

environmental review. I think perhaps Senator Thune was raising 

that question. The exemption has raised concerns in my region that 

there will be potentially more noise as a result of NextGen implementation. How is FAA going to provide communities with an opportunity for public input? That’s critical, and that’s a complaint 

that we hear about regularly and really in some instances very angrily, as you can imagine. 

So what can we do there? 

Mr. HUERTA. The specific provision that you’re referring to deals 

with environmental reviews related to the development of navigaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78392.TXT JACKIE
27 

tion procedures. We are working to figure out how best to implement a process that ensures that we’re doing whatever environmental process we need to do as efficiently as possible. 

Having said that, the real intent behind the provision is why do 

these things take so long to develop? There is benefit, great environmental benefit, in getting navigation procedures out as quickly 

as possible. The benefit is that you reduce fuel burn, you reduce 

track miles, and you reduce noise. So getting them into the system 

as quickly as possible is generally a good thing. 

What the legislation suggested is find ways to cut down that 

time. So we’re looking at the full scope of what needs to be done 

—everything from the development of the procedures to how they 

are designed, the environmental process, how it is deployed, 

operationalized, and then how we evaluate whether it’s doing what 

it was originally intended to do. 

That’s the process that we’re trying to cut from 5 to 10 years 

down to 2 or 3. So clearly the direction we receive from Congress 

in the environmental area is an important factor that we’re focused 

on, but we’re looking at the full scope of what is needed to be done 

here so that we can cut the overall time down. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, I close with this, Mr. 

Huerta, if I might. That is, I’d like your commitment that you’re 

going to devote the time and energy to solving the Newark air traffic control problem that we wrestle with constantly. 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator CANTWELL. Senator Blunt. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thanks for the good job you’re doing. As you and I talked about, 

as I said when we visited the other day, probably hard to find a 

group of 535 people that fly more or think they’re more experts in 

air traffic, air travel, than Members of Congress. So it makes your 

job harder than a lot of the other regulatory jobs. But I’ve been impressed by the way you’ve been doing it and hope that moving permanently into the position allows you to finalize some things even 

in a better way. 

I have two or three things I want to ask about. On the pilot 

flight rule, at one point it looked to me like the FAA was moving 

toward having the same flight rules for passenger pilots as cargo 

pilots, which I didn’t think was necessary. Eventually you decided 

that wasn’t necessary, either. Is that the position the FAA will continue to have, that there’s a different—the cargo pilots are under 

the rules that they’ve been working under and you’re moving the 

passenger pilots to other rules; is that the status? 

Mr. HUERTA. When we finalized our pilot flight duty and rest 

rule at the end of last year, we did exempt the cargo industry from 

the provisions of the rule as it was finally enacted. However, at 

that time Secretary LaHood and I encouraged the cargo industry 

to voluntarily opt into the program and to do the same things that 

28 

are required for passenger operations in the rule in order to manage fatigue within the system. 

We’ve met with the cargo industry and we continue to urge them 

to abide by the provisions of the rule. 

Senator BLUNT. But you’re not requiring them—you’re requiring 

them to abide by the provisions of the previous rules, right? 

Mr. HUERTA. That’s correct. 

Senator BLUNT. On the cost of that, I noticed there was a wide 

discrepancy—I think the FAA thought that cargo companies complying with the rule would cost about $30 million and they thought 

$600 million. Have you looked more carefully at that cost-benefit, 

how they could have that big a number, how the numbers could be 

that widely divergent? 

Mr. HUERTA. We’re evaluating the cost-benefit provisions of the 

cargo portion of the analysis that we did, and we’ve brought a third 

party in to advise us in doing that. We expect to complete that review in the coming couple of weeks. 

Senator BLUNT. Would you send me a copy of that review when 

it’s available? 

Mr. HUERTA. Certainly. 

Senator BLUNT. I’d like to—this cost-benefit—I think there are 

going to be more and more pressures on cost-benefit generally as 

regulation is becoming a bigger and bigger concern at all levels. 

Maybe you can figure out how to help set the standard even for 

how to make that work. 

On the FAA training and conference center, there’s language in 

the Senate appropriations bill that directs the FAA to continue to 

pursue new leased space for that center. You were a long way down 

that path last year and didn’t get there at the end. What’s your ongoing plan for how to look at the future of how you’re going to conduct those training facilities, moving people in and out of one training facility to get their training? 

Mr. HUERTA. Senator, as we talked about when we met, when 

the FAA was evaluating our training needs, we had developed an 

approach which included two components. One was to enter into a 

lease for a facility; and then the second, for the development of the 

training itself. 

In light of the fiscal challenges that we were facing as we were 

doing our work on that project, one of the things that we had some 

concern about was entering into a long-term lease, such as a tenyear lease, given the fiscal challenges that we knew that we were 

going to face in the future. At the same time, however, we were 

hearing that there were alternative models to conduct training 

where we would contract for services from entities that would provide both the training and the facility. So it was in that spirit that 

we suspended work on looking at a training facility. 

All of our options are on the table as we look at this review going 

forward of what is the best way to conduct training for the FAA’s 

needs. We’re a very technical organization, so training is critical to 

our mission. As I mentioned, the proposals that we had received on 

the training facility were very good proposals and none of the bidders did anything that represented a problem. It really is a question of is it prudent to enter into a long-term lease when we might 

have an alternative to contract for services. 

29 

Senator BLUNT. Well, I don’t know about all of the bidders. I do 

know that in Kansas City, which bid for this, they had invested 

lots of money in that bid, which is also something that the FAA 

needs to think about. When you go out for bid and you have competitive bidders making substantial investments to try to make 

that work, and then just decide, well, maybe that’s not what we 

needed, you probably ought to pull that trigger when you’re a little 

more sure of where you’re headed, though economic circumstances 

clearly are different than they may have been a handful of years 

ago when that discussion could have started. 

Will you make a decision on whether to go for bids that include 

training or whether to go for bids that only include facilities at 

some point, do you think? 

Mr. HUERTA. At some point we have to decide whether we want 

to contract for training as a service, where the trainer would provide everything, the facility, the materials, the actual instruction, 

or whether we would want to use the model we’ve used in the past, 

which is to first have a facility and then bring trainers into it, with 

the FAA having the responsibility for development of the materials. 

That’s exactly the analysis that we’re in the middle of. 

Senator BLUNT. And are the trainers right now FAA full-time 

employees? 

Mr. HUERTA. They’re contractors. 

Senator BLUNT. They’re contracted employees now and would be. 

In a sense, it just depends on who contracts with them, you or the 

successful bidder for the training? 

Mr. HUERTA. They’re always contract employees, and it can be 

any of a number of models. 

Senator BLUNT. One last question on—— 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Senator Blunt, I hate to be rude, 

but—— 

Senator BLUNT. We have votes, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that OK? All right. Thank you for your courtesy. 

Senator Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We appreciate your being here, and we do appreciate your service. I know you’ve worked really hard in the past. Let me ask you 

about FAA’s certification. Certainly this is so important. We’ve got 

to be effective. It’s got to be sufficient. We produce a lot of aviation 

products. We’re a global marketplace, and it’s really important that 

this is done in a timely fashion. 

Unfortunately, sometimes that’s not the case; it’s not done very 

timely. Can you comment a little bit on perhaps some ideas that 

you have how we can do a better job of that in the future, and any 

proposals that you’ve got in solving that problem? 

Mr. HUERTA. Senator, I think there are two parts to it. The first 

is to ensure that we are establishing the right priorities and that 

we’re carrying out our certification responsibilities as efficiently as 

we possibly can. In recent years we’ve put in place mechanisms 

30 

that enable us to establish those priorities and to do things in parallel so that we’re not taking a lot of time to certify these things. 

Now, as you well know, the certification process is important because that’s how we ensure safety of aviation equipment, aircraft, 

and everything that goes into the operation of our aviation system. 

The second thing, though, is working cooperatively with industry 

through designations for some of the technical aspects of certification. This is where we can rely on the industry to perform some 

of the technical work, leaving for the FAA the analysis and ultimately the determinations as to airworthiness. That has given us 

greater bandwidth, more ability to move more things through the 

process. 

We have been successful in working down our backlog. We’re not 

where we need to be. So to me what that means is we have to give 

renewed emphasis to what we can do through designations, for 

some of the technical aspects, and continue to find ways to make 

the process more efficient. 

Some of it is just doing things in parallel, as opposed to waiting 

for one aspect of the analysis to be done before moving on to the 

next one. But I’ve met with many, many interests in the general 

aviation industry, and in the aircraft manufacturing industry. 

We’ve learned a lot, and I think it’s something that requires a very 

high level of my focus to ensure that we stay the course there. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. I appreciate that. You know, we talked 

a lot about jobs and the economy, which we can’t talk too much 

about it. Again, these are the things that play into that. 

In relation to that, I understand that we’re moving more toward 

a risk-based safety oversight. Would certification be one of those 

things that either is going to be done in that way more or something to be considered in that regard? 

Mr. HUERTA. The risk-based approach is how we evaluate where 

there might be operational issues in the system. In the past, we 

tended to use more of a forensic approach, you know, which was 

that as a problem emerged or an accident happened, you reviewed 

what caused it, and then the focus was on how do you prevent that 

from happening in the future. 

Through data-driven approaches, what we’re trying to develop is 

more information about where there might be the potential for risk. 

What does the data tell us in terms of patterns that might be developing where, if not addressed, there might be a problem that 

would emerge down the road. This is definitely where we are focused: how can we use risk management techniques to identify 

areas of risk, in order to address them before there is a problem. 

That’s what I referred to in my opening statement when I talked 

about how do you take the safest system in the world and make 

it safer. Well, you do it by making it smarter. That means we have 

to rely on data. We have to use that data in ways where we can 

develop a better understanding of where there might be risk and 

take actions to mitigate it. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Again, it does seem like—and I think we’re 

really saying the same thing—that with the certification process, 

that some things people need to devote more time to than other 

things. But again, hopefully, working together we can make that 

a little bit more effective. 

31 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

thank you so much, Acting Administrator Huerta, for being here 

today and answering our questions in a straightforward manner. 

The airport improvement program is essential to many communities, both rural and urban. Additionally, smaller airports, which 

are central to rural commerce—we have a lot of them in my state— 

often struggle to get the funds needed for infrastructure updates 

for airports and runways. The local match requirement for small 

airport projects recently doubled from 5 to 10 percent. I’m concerned about the effect that this new requirement would force— 

that it could force small airports, which in the scheme of things 

aren’t as small as some, like the one we have in Duluth, and elsewhere, to delay completion of critical infrastructure projects that 

were under way before the higher local match went into effect. 

I don’t think it’s fair to change the rules midstream, and I hope 

you’ll work to find a way to help these airports complete their 

projects, because it’s obviously very important. You can’t just 

change the rules midstream and then expect everything to keep 

going as planned. 

So I’m going to be in Duluth tomorrow—we’ve had some major 

flooding up there—and was just wondering what I can tell them 

about this. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, Senator Klobuchar, the small airports play a 

very important role in our national system of airports. As you 

know, I had the pleasure of joining you in Bemidji a couple of years 

ago, which is a very important airport in Minnesota that I think 

serves an important need in the community. 

This question of the local match is something that was included 

in the FAA authorization, and we certainly recognize the burden 

that it represents for some of our smaller airport sponsors, particularly those that are midstream in projects. We think that, generally, the challenges that they have are pretty project-specific and 

very site-specific. Therefore, we have been aggressively and actively 

reaching out to airport sponsors: is this presenting a problem? How 

can we work with you to manage through these match issues to ensure that, at the end of the day, we get a successful project consistent with the provisions of the AIP program? 

So what you can tell your constituents in Duluth is that if they 

have not been in contact with their local airport’s district office—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Oh, they have. 

Mr. HUERTA.—then we need to make sure that we sit down and 

work through an actual project plan to see how we can manage 

through this. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, that would be very helpful. 

Then also I hope you can commit to making sure that cold 

weather airports, such as the ones you just discussed, Bemidji, Duluth, get the flexibility they need to complete infrastructure improvements with the short construction season issue. This is, again, 

32 

they’re waiting for awarded funds to be released so they can try to 

get this construction done through the summer season. 

Mr. HUERTA. Two aspects to that. The FAA Authorization Act 

creates a framework under which we would prioritize cold weather 

airports for grantmaking purposes, and we’re working on the implementation of that. But on an informal basis right now, what 

we’re doing is making those determinations of where do we have 

an airport with a short construction season that has a specific need 

to get something done quickly. We’re making those a priority as we 

move through the system in recognition of the unique circumstances they face. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK, good, because you came to Bemidji in 

the summer. Otherwise I’m going to make you come to Duluth 

when it’s 20 below zero and do construction. So we have to try to 

fix it. I really appreciate that. 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Then last, I wanted to just ask about the 

pilot fatigue issue. I understand that in the final order of the new 

regulations that it only applied to commercial pilots. Cargo pilots 

were not included. Can you expand on why the FAA chose to do 

this? 

Then I also have a concern about commuting practices. I know 

Senator Cantwell touched on this, and that some pilots commute 

across the country to their hubs and we have the issue where the 

FAA isn’t following through with this request from the Inspector 

General about this particular commuting issue. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, first of all, as it relates to the pilot fatigue 

rule, as we talked about, the rule as it’s currently drafted does exclude the cargo industry, but I’ve been very vocal in suggesting 

that the cargo industry should abide by the provisions of the rule. 

We’ve encouraged them to do that. Secretary LaHood has encouraged them to do that, and it’s something that we’ve stressed should 

represent a good business practice for them in assuring a safe system. 

We will continue to meet with the cargo industry to apply aspects of the rule, to make sure that they have an understanding 

of what compliance looks like. Again, I encourage them to abide by 

the provisions of the rule. We couldn’t make it work from a costbenefit standpoint and so we’re asking for their voluntary compliance. 

As it relates to the provisions of commuting, clearly pilots have 

a responsibility to report to work fit for duty. This is one of the 

things that we wanted to address in the fatigue rule, and I think 

we’ve come a long way in doing that. There is a level of personal 

responsibility that exists in the pilot community and I think the pilots have heard that and they understand that they bear a responsibility. We have to be vigilant to ensure that they have the opportunities for rest that they need so that they can report to work fit 

for duty. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Thank you very much and I look 

forward to working with you on this. We’ll put a few more questions on the record. Thanks. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

33 

Voting has started. Senator Cantwell has probably already voted 

and is racing back here because she has a couple more questions 

she’d like to ask. But in the mean time, Senator Blunt, who I so 

rudely interrupted, wants to finish his questioning. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, thank you, Chairman. I was failing to 

watch the clock and you weren’t rude at all, and I was taking time 

that should have gone to others and did. 

What I was going to ask you about was on—we talked about the 

Columbia, Missouri, airport the other day. On these airports like 

that, that have moved off Essential Air Service, are there things 

that the FAA can do to encourage their ability to stay off Essential 

Air Service? Have you got some ideas there of ways that those 

kinds of airports that need to be planning for more travelers and 

more service could get some assistance in doing that? 

Mr. HUERTA. Senator Blunt, as we talked about, Columbia is to 

be congratulated for being able to develop a level of air service that 

gets them off of the Essential Air Service program but as you quite 

correctly pointed out, how do we ensure they stay there? 

There’s an infrastructure component to that. After we met, I sat 

down with our airports staff to find out what we knew about Columbia and have encouraged them to meet with the leadership at 

Columbia airport. One thing that we will certainly need to do is 

recognize the fact that the airport’s master plans are quite old. We 

probably need to update them. The FAA is certainly willing to be 

supportive of that and to work with the airport sponsor on what 

their long-term needs are to maintain an efficient airport. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, that would be helpful. I think as these airports move to where they’re not getting the Essential Air Service 

support, things that we can do to help them stay there are really 

beneficial and make money. As long as we have an Essential Air 

Service program, when we can help people stay off of it, it’s hard 

to imagine that that’s not a better investment than the VSA support that we normally would give those same airports. So thank 

you for looking at that. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Blunt. 

What I need to do now is, because we’ve got—Senator Klobuchar, 

who’s finishing her third book over there, we—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I’m tweeting about you. No, I’m not really. 

You wish. 

The CHAIRMAN. I wish. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cantwell is on her way back. So what 

I’d like to do, with your forbearance, is simply to recess this for a 

couple of minutes. She’ll be back finishing her questions, and then 

we will adjourn. But Senator Klobuchar and I need to go vote. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, sir. 

[Recess at 11:15 a.m.] 

[At the direction of the Chair and Ranking Member, the hearing 

was adjourned without further testimony at 2:43 p.m. by John Williams, General Counsel for the Commerce Committee.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

AIR CRASH VICTIMS FAMILIES GROUP

Ridgewood, NJ, June 19, 2012 

Hon. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transport, 

Washington, DC. 

SUBJECT: NOMINATION THE HONORABLE MICHAEL P. HUERTA, FEDERAL AVIATION

AGENCY (FAA)

Mr. Chairman: 

We support the President’s nomination of the Honorable Michael P. Huerta for 

a full term as the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA). 

Since 2011, Mr. Huerta serves already at the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), first 

as a Deputy Administrator to which appointment you gave your Advice and Consent 

and the full Senate confirmed him. Presently he is the FAA’s Acting Administrator. 

Considering the heavy workload of your Committee, we appreciate that some time 

was found to give the nominee the opportunity of a confirmation Hearing which— 

we do hope should be followed by timely, appropriate action of the full Senate, implementing your Advice and Consent to his nomination. 

The nominee has a proven, distinguished and wide ranging record as an able administrator not only presently at the FAA—but also at the Department of Transportation (DOT)—in the wider field of transportation, at large events and by education 

in the international field. 

We respectfully request that this letter be made part of Mr. Huerta’s confirmation 

file, be distributed to the distinguished members of your committee and to the general public, if appropriate. 

Respectfully, 

HANS EPHRAIMSON-ABT, 

ACVFG—Chairman. 

With: James Brokaw—Victoria Cummock—Miles Gerety—Jim Hurd—Richard 

Kessler—Kendra St. Charles 

By e-mail and surface mail. 

cc:—The Hon. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Ranking Member 

The Hon. Maria Cantwell, Chairman, Aviation Subcommittee 

The Hon. Senator John Thune, Ranking Member 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN F. KERRY TO

MICHAEL P. HUERTA

Question 1. In October, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) misread its own rules when assessing Cape Wind renewable energy project off Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts. 

Specifically, the court determined that the FAA did not adequately determine 

whether Cape Wind’s 130 turbines—each 440-foot tall—would pose a danger to pilots relying on sight rather than the plane’s instruments. The court vacated the government’s ‘‘no hazard’’ finding and sent the case back to the FAA, agreeing with 

plaintiffs that ‘‘the FAA did misread its regulations.’’ I understand that you were 

not at the FAA when this proposal was approved. 

It is my understanding that the Federal Aviation Administration is reconsidering 

its approval for the Cape Wind renewable energy project in Nantucket Sound. If 

confirmed to be the Administrator of the FAA, will you assure the Commerce Committee that the FAA will provide an appropriate and fair review to both sides of 

36 

the safety issues related to the Cape Wind application will be done before any final 

decision on this project is made? 

Answer. If confirmed as Administrator, I will continue to ensure that FAA’s objective to promote air safety and the efficient use of the navigable airspace will be 

maintained. In evaluating potential obstructions to air navigation, the standards 

and processes FAA uses to make obstruction determinations and their effect on the 

safe and efficient use of the airspace are prescribed by statute and FAA regulations 

and orders. 

As the Senator noted, on May 17, 2010, FAA issued written determinations that 

each of 130 wind turbines proposed to be built by Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound 

would not be a hazard to air navigation if properly marked and lighted. FAA issued 

these determinations only after it conducted an in-depth, year-long aeronautical 

study on the proposed project’s effect on the operation of air navigation facilities and 

the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace, as required by statute. 

As a result of the court case referenced by Senator Kerry, FAA will be issuing new 

determinations for the Cape Wind project in accordance with our statutes and regulations while factoring in the Court’s decision issued last October. The FAA determinations will reflect the rigorous, science-based analysis FAA has undertaken to 

evaluate the Cape Wind proposal. Our approach will provide an appropriate and fair 

review of the Cape Wind application. 

Question 2. As you may know, the Westfield Barnes Regional Airport in Westfield, 

Massachusetts is utilized by commercial and private aircraft as well as the Air National Guard. Runway 2/20, the primary runway, is in dire need of reconstruction. 

The runway is over 27 years old and has sustained continued deterioration despite 

investment from the FAA for patches. This runway is a critical asset in Western 

Massachusetts for commercial and private aircraft tenants and visitors but also by 

the 104th Fighter Wing and the missions they support at the Air National Guard 

level as well as Homeland Security in the F–15C Eagles. For the well being of all 

planes that land and take off from Westfield Barnes Regional Airport it is imperative that Runway 2/20 be looked at for a rebuild prior to the scheduled date of 2015. 

Would you be willing to review the runway’s status and see if the repaving can be 

sped up? 

Answer. The FAA is willing to review the runway’s status and see if the repaving 

can be sped up per the Senator’s request. However, as the Senator notes, the runway is used by both civilian and military aircraft. AIP funds may only be used for 

the portion of the runway rehabilitation that is justified by civilian operations, and 

the military would fund the additional length of the runway that is needed for military operations. (The civilian aircraft using the runway do not need as much runway length as the military aircraft do.) 

The FAA has confirmed that the recent runway repairs that have been funded by 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), the Air National Guard (2011) 

and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (2011) have brought the runway up to a level of safety that will allow it to perform until the scheduled 2015 

rehabilitation can be completed. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BARBARA BOXER TO

MICHAEL P. HUERTA

Question 1. I understand that you will be revising the OMB cost estimates for the 

pilot fatigue management rulemaking that was recently issued. Senator Snowe and 

I have introduced legislation, the Safe Skies Act of 2012, to close the current loophole in the new fatigue management plans for pilots that would exempt cargo airline pilots to ensure that they are included in the same requirements as commercial 

airline pilots. Will you share the outcome of this revised study with us? Will you 

take into account the concerns expressed by pilots regarding the exception for cargo 

carriers? 

Answer. The FAA has asked the Volpe Center to evaluate the final regulatory 

evaluation to identify and correct errors in the calculation of potential costs and 

benefits to all-cargo operations. These errors were discovered by the FAA during the 

course of litigation associated with the agency’s decision not to include these operations in the new part 117. This new regulation imposes new flight, duty and rest 

requirements on part 121 passenger operations. This fall, the FAA intends to issue 

a draft supplemental regulatory evaluation that will correct any errors and also better explain our underlying assumptions and methodologies in calculating the anticipated costs and benefits detailed in the final regulatory evaluation. Once the supplemental regulatory evaluation is complete, it will be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment. All interested parties are invited to comment on that 

37 

document. After the FAA has had a chance to evaluate comments received, the 

agency will issue a notice indicating whether the supplemental regulatory evaluation and the agency’s review of comments justify any change to the final rule. 

Question 2. Following the tragic crash of Flight 3407, the NTSB investigation revealed some significant issues in how the pilots were trained, especially in regards 

to handling a stall. In light of that, Congress unanimously passed legislation aimed 

at improving safety, including the training of commercial pilots. The FAA is already 

behind on the rulemaking to address pilot training. Is the FAA still planning to 

delay this rulemaking until October 2013? If so, how is the FAA planning to expedite efforts to address concerns the Flight 3407 families have raised regarding the 

lengthy implementation time frame? 

Answer. The Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) is a comprehensive 

training rule that includes revised airline pilot training requirements. The SNPRM 

public comment period closed in September 2011 and the FAA is currently developing the final rule. The agency currently projects a publication date of October 

2013 for the final rule, but I am committed to working to accelerate that if possible. 

The final rule will permit the certificate holder to use its approved programs while 

it transitions to the new requirements. In the SNPRM we proposed up to 5 years 

for that transition. New air carriers must train under the new requirements from 

the first day of operations. However, we will consider the transition period as we 

draft a final rule. 

To accommodate training on stall and stall recovery, we also had to make changes 

to the fidelity of the simulators used for that training. The Rulemaking Action Plan 

for that rule was approved and the team is developing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

We reinstated the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Aviation Rulemaking Committee to address aircraft stall training and to develop mitigating upset recovery 

training strategies. This group will provide the FAA with additional recommendations in Fall 2012. The FAA is participating in initiatives of the Royal Aeronautical 

Society (RAeS) and International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE) to address loss of control. ICAO has also extended invitations to 

other national aviation authorities (NAAs) to observe these proceedings and facilitate harmonization in the development of future training standards. These harmonized efforts will ensure U.S. pilots will continue to receive the highest quality 

and relevant training available. 

These are complicated rulemaking endeavors that require a substantial investment of time and resources, including executive review within the Administration. 

Nevertheless, I am committed to doing everything we can to finalize rulemakings 

as quickly as possible. 

Question 3. The Flight 3407 accident also raised serious issues regarding pilot 

qualifications among regional airlines and the major commercial airlines. Where is 

your agency at in the process of completing the pilot qualifications rulemaking process? What progress have regional airlines made in implementing stronger pilot hiring standards? Are they making the same investment in safety as the major airlines? 

Answer. P.L. 111–216 required all part 121 flight crew members to hold an ATP 

certificate by August 2, 2013. Although the NPRM incorporates the ATP certificate 

requirement, the Act’s requirement is self-enacting and will take effect on August 2, 

2013 independent of any FAA rulemaking action. The FAA is working to have a 

final rule out prior to August 2, 2013. The FAA issued Information to Operators 

(InFO) 10024 on December 15, 2010 to notify air carriers of the ATP requirement. 

The Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which provides training requirements for 

achieving an airline transport pilot certificate and includes the requirement that all 

airline pilots have an airline transport pilot certificate, closed for public comment 

on April 30, 2012. We are currently reviewing and considering the more than 550 

comments received to the proposal as we develop the final rule. The NPRM is consistent with a mandate in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration 

Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–216). The NPRM would require first officers to hold 

an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, which requires 1,500 hours of pilot 

flight time. Currently, first officers are required to have only a commercial pilot certificate, which requires 250 hours of flight time. The proposal also would require 

first officers to have an aircraft type rating. The proposal included modified flight 

time requirements based on military or academic experience. 

38 

We are working towards publication of a final rule that will address the comments 

in advance of the August 2013 self-enacting statutory requirement that all pilots in 

Part 121 operations have an airline transport pilot certificate. 

All regional airlines and major airlines are covered by 14 CFR Part 121 and must 

meet the same safety standards. 

Question 4. In the 2010 Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, Congress sought to address the issue of keeping better track 

of pilot records by creating a federal electronic record database for all pilots. In response to my question for the record for the Commercial Airline Safety Oversight 

hearing in March, the FAA said that the proof of concept for the database would 

be completed in the 4th quarter of 2012 and you will then evaluate and determine 

a rulemaking timeline. Can you comment as to when the rulemaking timeline would 

come out after the evaluation is completed? By what date could we expect to have 

the rulemaking finalized? 

Answer. Depending on what we learn in the proof of concept phase, we expect to 

develop the plan for rulemaking by November of 2012. This scenario would yield a 

Pilot Record NPRM in March of 2014 and a final rule in November of 2015. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK PRYOR TO

MICHAEL P. HUERTA

Question 1. Do you believe you have the necessary statutory authority to implement Section 221 (Public-Private Partnerships) in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112–95)? If not, please explain and provide the agency’s 

plans for implementation. 

Answer. Based on the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, the FAA believes that 

additional statutory authority is required to create an incentive program. The FCRA 

requires either budget authority, a loan limitation or other provision in an appropriations act before the FAA can make or guarantee loans. Since Section 221 of the 

‘‘FAA Modernization and Reform Act’’ requires the Secretary to finance any program 

established under this section through the collection of collateral, fees and premiums, a loan limitation is most applicable. 

The FAA is currently evaluating various options to see how this provision might 

allow us to provide incentives for equipage that would accelerate the benefits of 

NextGen. We are also evaluating other government incentive programs and assessing feedback from stakeholders to develop and then implement an effective incentive 

program. The agency held one public meeting and another is scheduled for August 7 

to share the evolution of our thinking based on what the agency heard from stakeholders and to communicate next steps. Additionally, the agency released a market 

survey to determine interest in this incentive program by both private parties and 

users of the National Airspace System. Based on review of other incentive programs 

and stakeholder feedback, the agency is designing an equipage incentive program 

for possible implementation. 

In order to complete the stand-up of the equipage incentive program, the FAA 

must evaluate stakeholder feedback; finalize the design of the incentive program; 

determine that such a program will meet the goals of accelerating equipage and delivery of NextGen benefits; receive additional statutory authority; and complete the 

administrative processes in support of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

Question 2. How is the FAA working to ensure Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast equipage is accelerated and what milestone based timelines are you 

working toward? 

Answer. Through a monitoring capability, the ADS–B program office has detected 

more than 775 properly equipped aircraft (mostly General Aviation) on the East 

Coast, West Coast, and in Alaska that are taking advantage of traffic and weather 

information services. In addition, there are approximately 150 aircraft equipped 

with ADS–B Out rule compliant avionics. 

To expedite equipage, the agency has signed agreements with several airlines, including JetBlue, United, UPS, and US Airways. These agreements are set up to 

demonstrate the benefits of advanced ADS–B applications and procedures during 

revenue service and allow the FAA to share costs and risks with the participants. 

The operational evaluations will give the agency detailed cost and benefit data, and 

encourage airlines to equip early to capitalize on ADS–B benefits. Under these 

agreements, the following equipage will occur: 

• 35 JetBlue A320 aircraft 

• 12 United 747 aircraft (DO–260 complete, upgrades to be rule compliant in 

2013) 

39 

• 20 US Airways A330 aircraft 

• 143 UPS aircraft (747, 767, A300, and MD–11) 

To ensure FAA ADS–B projects meet established goals and timelines for the acceleration of equipage, the Flight Standards (AFS) and Aircraft Certification (AIR) offices in Washington, D.C. coordinate directly with the supporting certification (ACO) 

and certificate management offices (CMO) to provide guidance and assist in the 

management of priorities and workload. AFS and AIR coordinate with avionics manufacturers, ACOs, and CMOs to expedite the certification, installation, and operational approvals of new ADS–B avionics to aid in increased equipage. Additional 

technical standards are being developed that target the needs of the general aviation community within the US. These new standards will allow manufacturers to 

produce and market ADS–B equipment at a lower price, making ADS–B equipage 

more affordable for this large group of NAS users. 

The agency has also agreed to fund upgrades to the avionics for approximately 

54 helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico. These operators voluntarily equipped with an 

earlier version of ADS–B avionics before the ADS–B rule requirements were published. In addition, the FAA will award a contract this fall to upgrade approximately 

400 air taxi aircraft that were equipped under the legacy Capstone program in Alaska. 

The ADS–B Out Final Rule was published in May 2010, with compliance effective 

after January 1, 2020. In conjunction with publication of the rule, associated technical standards and installation guidance were published to enable the manufacture 

and installation of ADS–B Out avionics to begin 10 years before the mandate. The 

ADS–B program office considers 2012 to be early for self-equipage under the rule, 

as manufacturers are just now starting to submit avionics through the FAA’s certification process. The FAA anticipates equipage to increase in 2013 and beyond, as 

more certified, rule-complaint avionics become available. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

MICHAEL P. HUERTA

Question 1. Fundamental NextGen programs have suffered delays and cost increases, raising concerns over the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) ability 

to deliver NextGen benefits in a timely fashion. How will you get this critical initiative moving forward again? 

Answer. NextGen has a high priority in the Administration, the Department of 

Transportation and the FAA. Its complexity and interdependencies make it different 

from anything the FAA has ever done. In 2010, an external organization was tasked 

by the FAA Administrator to diagnose the current state of NextGen via interviews 

and surveys with employees across the Agency. Agency leadership recognized the 

need for a transformation that would result in one FAA moving towards successful 

integration of the extremely complex NextGen vision of National Airspace System 

(NAS) modernization. 

The assessment resulted in two key recommendations to better position the agency to successfully implement NextGen: 

• Create increased internal and external visibility of the NextGen organization by 

establishing a direct line of reporting to the Deputy Administrator, as well as 

a restructure of positions and groups to better align with organizational goals 

and the NextGen mission. The agency implemented this change as part of our 

reprogramming request last year. 

• Develop a process in which an idea is developed and implemented in the National Airspace System (NAS) through cross-agency collaboration, increased 

transparency, defined roles and responsibilities, and establishment of clear decision authorities 

NextGen requires an expanded and more collaborative acquisition process for the 

NAS than we have traditionally used. From May to September of 2011, the Functional Design Consideration Team (FDCT) worked extensively to address the above 

recommendations. The FDCT included members from the NextGen organization and 

representation from across the agency. Specifically, the group developed the Ideas 

to In-Service framework (i2i) to move a concept from an idea to in-service management. Highlights of i2i include: 

• A deliberate reduction in ‘‘hand-offs’’ in favor of collaboration. NextGen, program management offices, operations and other FAA offices engage throughout 

the capability lifecycle from beginning to end. 

40 

• A single FAA-wide process for changes to the NAS that works with all contributors to the NAS. 

• A collaborative approach that requires shared accountability, responsibility and 

risk. This is achieved through direct and obligatory engagement. 

• Capture Teams, which consist of representatives across the agency who are responsible for activities such as requirements management, configuration management, and assumption/constraint management. Capture Teams minimize rework and retain the same stakeholders to manage a portfolio of products from 

the managing requirements stage all the way through to in-service management. 

The framework was approved on September 26 by the FAA’s NextGen Management Board (NMB). The FAA is currently in the process of integrating i2i into the 

agency’s training and workflows. 

The FAA also created the Program Management Organization or PMO. This new 

central program office within the Air Traffic Organization assembles in one organization the majority of programs that specialize in program management. This allows 

our operational groups to focus on the key daily mission of safely separating air traffic and maintaining our airspace system. It allows our program organization to focus 

on managing for better outcomes by developing improvements to our airspace and 

making sure these solutions are on time, cost effective and within scope. 

The PMO will improve consistency of program execution through robust information sharing with stakeholders, institutionalization of acquisition best practices and 

community review of lessons learned. The PMO will standardize the required steps, 

from definition and design through development and deployment, creating a bridge 

between concepts and operational use of technologies. Having a portfolio of programs under one umbrella provides the potential for streamlining, better cost control and economies of scale to better manage uncertainty. 

The PMO will also ensure greater visibility, tighter alignment and closer integration of complex, interdependent NextGen initiatives and innovative technology. The 

PMO will play a critical role in the success of NextGen by acting as the bridge between strategic requirements and tactical program implementation to improve the 

safety and efficiency of our National Airspace System. 

The PMO’s success will depend on developing and maintaining relationships with 

other FAA organizations. Most critical among these are our relationships with 

NextGen, which will help set the overall direction of some of our highest priority 

program work, and with Mission Support’s requirements and concept validation office, which will help ensure operational adaptability and validity. 

An added benefit for our coworkers is the PMO will recognize and elevate the profession of program management within the agency. The PMO will clarify and enhance program management and related acquisition career paths, and help us attract and retain highly skilled and motivated individuals on program management 

teams. 

The PMO will play a critical role in each of the tenets of our new flight plan, Destination 2025: moving to the next level of safety, creating a workplace of choice, delivering aviation access through innovation, sustaining our future, and advancing 

global collaboration. 

Question 2. The Special Counsel’s May 8, 2012 letter cites whistleblower disclosures regarding recurring safety lapses and inaction to solve these problems even 

after the establishment of the FAA whistleblower office. At the hearing, you cited 

the establishment of this office as a tool to help to resolve safety issues before they 

affect the travelling public. But the persistence of these issues years after the establishment of the office raises concern. What are your plans to more effectively improve the safety culture at the FAA? 

Answer. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) May 8, 2012 letter to the 

President, to Congress, and to the Secretary of Transportation closed seven whistleblower cases filed by eight FAA employees. Four of the seven cases were repeat disclosures dating back to 2008 and filed again by the same whistleblowers. Only one 

of the 7 cases (Seeley) is an entirely new case referred by OSC after the establishment of FAA’s new Office of Audit and Evaluation (AAE, ‘‘whistleblower office’’). 

Two of the seven cases involve a single whistleblower who has filed a total of seven 

OSC disclosures since 2008 for primarily related issues at Detroit (DTW) tower. 

AAE’s mission was formally established by the agency in December 6, 2010 and 

enacted into law on February 14, 2012 when the President signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Thus, our new procedures for dealing with whistleblower 

disclosures were not in place when most of these cases were initially referred to the 

FAA. 

41 

In the Seeley case, which was investigated and overseen by the AAE organization, 

the OSC complimented the FAA and found our actions comprehensive, timely, and 

reasonable. In all of the seven cases, the FAA initiated immediate actions on any 

safety issues which were substantiated (many were not), long before OSC’s May 8 

closures, and in no case was the safety of the travelling public significantly impacted. In all of the four repeat disclosures, the FAA was already working with the 

whistleblowers on corrective actions prior to their decision to file the repeat disclosures with the OSC. 

The OSC delayed their closure of these cases, in some cases, for more than a year 

after they had received the investigative reports from the DOT Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) or FAA AAE. In none of the cases did either OIG or AAE find that 

there was ‘‘a substantial danger to public safety.’’ However, all of them were vigorously addressed because of our desire to correct any safety deficiency that is identified, even if that issue involved small levels of risk. 

In the other six cases covered in the May 8 letter,the OSC did not allege FAA 

‘‘inaction.’’ Rather, they alleged that the agency’s responses were ‘‘unreasonable because of delays or the lack of appropriate or timely corrective action’’, and the FAA 

strongly disagrees with the OSC’s conclusions. In all of those cases, the FAA implemented comprehensive corrective actions and continues to audit the effectiveness of 

those actions. 

While the FAA applauds the OSC’s good intentions and diligence in its oversight 

efforts, the Pay increases under the recent contract extension are not based on individual or agency performance. The contract provides two raises to employees. The 

January raise is equal to the Presidential Increase so employees would not receive 

a raise if there are continued freezes in the general schedule. The second raise is 

paid in June and is fixed at 1.6 percent. The June raise will ‘‘not be granted in any 

year in which a prohibition on step increases under the General Schedule (GS) is 

enacted by statute.’’ The FAA must proceed very carefully when making changes in 

air traffic procedures or to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), and any proposed change must be carefully evaluated so as to ensure that the proposed action 

will effectively address a known safety issue and will not introduce new and unintended consequences, which could introduce new risk factors more serious than the 

issue under consideration for appropriate corrective action. That careful evaluation 

process requires painstaking evaluation and data collection and usually takes a considerable amount of time. Sometimes, new procedures are introduced on a trial 

basis, but are later withdrawn because the data either do not support their effectiveness, or better changes and refinements are identified during the data collection 

and safety risk evaluation process. 

The aviation community, in general, has a long history of safety reporting, and 

aviation professionals have always been more inclined to report safety issues than 

employees in other venues. In large part, this culture of safety reporting has contributed to the remarkable safety improvements and to the astonishingly strong 

commercial aviation safety record, which has no peer in any other environment. 

The FAA believes that a strong measure of a healthy safety culture is an environment with a consistently large number of safety disclosures, and we believe that the 

OSC arrived at an erroneous conclusion by implying that more safety disclosures 

somehow infers the presence of more safety problems or negatively implicates an organization’s safety culture. 

We believe the opposite to be true. That is, the absence of safety disclosures is 

more characteristic of an unhealthy safety culture where employees are reluctant 

to report their concerns. 

To bolster our safety culture, we are continually encouraging the reporting of all 

safety concerns by both FAA employees and any other member of the aviation community by providing a non-punitive reporting environment, where a safety disclosure can be filed without fear of retaliation or other negative consequences. AAE 

was established as an entirely independent office reporting to the Administrator for 

that very reason. Programs like the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), the Air 

Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP), Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program (VDRP), 

the Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP), and other reporting programs are all 

aimed at increasing our number of safety disclosures to provide us with more safety 

data trends, and thus continually bolster the strength of our safety culture. 

Question 3. What actions did you take to address each of the safety issues raised 

in the Special Counsel’s May 8, 2012 letter to the President and Congress? 

Answer. The corrective actions implemented by the FAA in all of the seven cases 

closed by the OSC on May 8, 2012 are summarized below: 

42 

Foster 

This is repeat disclosure originally referred to the FAA in 2008. The OSC concluded that the FAA’s actions were ‘‘unreasonable,’’ but only because of what they 

perceived to be an unreasonable delay in implementing a comprehensive corrective 

action plan. The OSC does not suggest that the corrective action plan now in place 

is ‘‘unreasonable’’ or in any way ineffective. 

The main thrust of this issue is not the actual safety or airworthiness of the emergency medical system (EMS) helicopters retrofitted with night vision imaging systems (NVIS), per se. The disclosure pertained exclusively to regulatory compliance 

with NVIS installation specifications and thus, only to operations while using the 

NVIS systems, which is a small fraction of EMS operations. The corrective action 

plan did take a considerable amount of time to implement because almost every one 

of the hundreds of EMS helicopters fitted with NVIS is unique, and each installation had to be customized for an individual aircraft. Thus, aircraft, so equipped, had 

to be visually inspected by the FAA, and new airworthiness guidance for the installation in each individual aircraft had to be developed. That did take considerable 

time and consumed an extraordinary number of FAA aviation safety inspector resources. There were no reported safety incidents involving malfunctioning NVIS systems, 

but if there had been a pilot could simply have taken the night vision goggles off. 

In the FAA’s inspection of NVIS-equipped helicopters, 51 identified ‘‘potential safety 

concerns’’ were given to a team of senior airworthiness experts for analyses, but only 

one was judged to be an actual safety concern. 

Nonetheless, all of the identified discrepancies were addressed. While there was 

no violation of ‘‘law, rule, or regulation,’’ the FAA does agree that FAA guidance was 

inadequate to address to complexity of installing and maintaining the regulatory 

compliance of NVIS systems, and new guidance was put into place. In short, no significant danger to public safety existed in this case, but the issue was aggressively 

addressed. 

Seeley 

The OSC concluded that FAA actions were ‘‘reasonable.’’ The FAA removed the 

entire management team at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZNY– 

ARTCC), and all of the allegations substantiated during our investigation were the 

result of lax and inadequate management. Actions were taken to terminate the facility manager, and other subordinate managers were served with disciplinary proposals and removed from the management ranks. 

The new management team implemented a comprehensive set of management reforms and facility management procedures changes. The AAE continues to monitor 

compliance with these new procedures, and level of compliance with FAA policies 

at ZNY–ARTCC is now high. 

Iacopelli 

This investigation was referred prior to the formal stand-up of AAE and was performed by the DOT–OIG with FAA support. The OSC again concluded that the 

FAA’s actions were ‘‘unreasonable,’’ but only because of what OSC felt were delays 

in its resolution. Despite this finding of ‘‘unreasonable,’’ the OSC goes on to acknowledge in the May 8 letter that the resolution was satisfactory. 

This safety disclosure pertained to a visual flight rules (VFR) departure procedure 

(‘‘Dalton Procedure’’) at Teterboro, NJ (TEB) airport, which was designed to minimize the risk of uncontrolled VFR traffic conflicts with arrivals at nearby Newark 

Liberty International Airport (EWR). The complainant reported that pilots were 

sometimes flying the procedure incorrectly, which increased the risk of a traffic conflict with a EWR arrival. 

The OIG concluded that the Dalton Procedure may pose a hazard, but neither the 

FAA nor the OIG had sufficient evidence to conclude that a safety issue existed. 

Thus, the FAA immediately agreed to begin auditing Dalton compliance, while in 

the meantime instructing controllers not to offer the use of that procedure unless 

pilots specifically requested it. OIG agreed with this approach and the logical rationale that only pilots familiar with Dalton would request it, decreasing the probability 

they would fly it incorrectly. 

FAA and OIG both agreed that cancelling the Dalton Procedure would have posed 

a greater danger to public safety because pilots could still have requested a VFR 

departure, in which case there would have been no guidance from FAA other than 

‘‘see and avoid’’ all traffic. Dalton was an attempt to impose stricter guidelines on 

VFR operations. 

After collecting sufficient data, the FAA agreed that the Dalton Procedure could, 

and should, be revised. The whistleblower worked with the FAA and agreed that 

43 

the revision would correct the problem, and steps were taken to implement and 

evaluate it on a trial basis. The new Dalton Procedure has proven effective, and 

after final validation, it will be published as a permanent procedure soon. 

This case also illustrates that the process of implementing airspace procedures 

changes always requires considerable time, because it would be irresponsible to implement changes in the absence of compelling evidence of a severe risk to public 

safety without a systematic data collection and safety risk analysis. To do so would 

run the risk of introducing unintended consequences, with greater risk to public 

safety than the original procedure. 

Lund/Mirau 

This is a repeat disclosure of a case that was originally referred in 2008 by one 

of the same whistleblowers (Lund). The 2008 case involved Northwest Airlines 

(NWA), whose fleet has now been incorporated into Delta Airlines (DAL), and the 

newer case also involved the same former NWA aircraft. The OSC concluded that 

the investigative findings and corrective actions were ‘‘reasonable,’’ but questioned 

FAA’s surveillance program because additional discrepancies were noted, related to 

the 2008 case, and suggested that FAA took too long to implement effective corrective actions. 

The OSC contention that actions took ‘‘too long’’ does not take into account the 

sequence of events leading up to the whistleblowers’ allegations. The process began 

with the fact that Mr. Lund had not completed the assigned task for the review of 

the B–757 maintenance program at DAL. Subsequently, he was assigned to complete this task with the assistance of another safety inspector. He failed to complete 

the task and contacted the OSC. Following this action, the DAL FAA certificate 

management office (CMO) conducted an independent review with three DAL CMO 

inspectors of the B–757 program. This inspection led to two enforcement action filings and an action plan audit script to correct the administrative deficiencies discovered. This audit script was applied to all nine fleet types operated by DAL, both 

by the company and a 100 percent review by each fleet assigned FAA maintenance 

inspection manager. The airline agreed to conduct a safety analysis review for the 

correct application & implementation of all of the airworthiness directives (AD) associated with the maintenance program. This review was completed by December 

31, 2011 and all minor administrative issues were resolved, with only one AD requiring corrective action. Such reviews are part of FAA’s continuing surveillance 

process and procedures implemented after the 2008 disclosure, and well prior to the 

more recent OSC disclosure. 

On June 2–9, 2011, a FAA Headquarters-appointed Flight Standards (AFS) investigation team conducted a review of the whistleblower allegations and did not substantiate the alleged non-compliance of DAL with AD 2008–10–11. The investigation 

did not substantiate the allegation that the Operations Specifications (OPSS) were 

approved with known deficiencies. The FAA investigation determined that the administrative discrepancies revealed were not significant enough for a safety of flight 

concern. However, enforcement action is still being contemplated against DAL for 

non-compliance in certain areas. 

The FAA’s final conclusion after an administrative review of maintenance documentation, interviews with ASI’s and Delta personnel was that there was no immediate safety of flight issues or unsafe conditions associated with the allegations, 

even though both FAA and the OIG identified some compliance discrepancies. The 

complexity of this timeline, the technical implications of the non-compliance findings, and the complexity of the various reviews underway well prior to OSC’s referral again all underscore the challenges OSC faces in making appropriate determinations of ‘‘reasonableness’’ and ‘‘timeliness.’’ 

Diaz 

This is another repeat disclosure originally referred in 2008. This case pertains 

to deviations of foreign-controlled air traffic (foreign facility deviations, FFDs) into 

U.S. airspace around Puerto Rico (PR). An FFD is not a ‘‘near miss’’ or a ‘‘close call.’’ 

It is simply an unauthorized and uncoordinated deviation into U.S. airspace because 

no prior communication has taken place prior to the entry into U.S. airspace. The 

allegations were partially substantiated, and OSC criticized the FAA for taking too 

long to resolve the problems identified in 2008. 

However, OSC’s May 8 conclusion does not correlate with the trend data on FFDs 

in PR airspace. In 2009, there were 52 recorded FFDs. In 2010, there were 76, but 

in all of 2011 there were only 18, and the 2012 year-to-date numbers remain consistent with 2011 levels, as a result of better coordination between San Juan controllers and foreign facilities, primarily the Dominican Republic. 

44 

The FAA agrees with the OIG’s finding that FFDs into PR airspace do not pose 

a substantial and specific danger to aviation safety. These FFDs occur when a nonUS controlled aircraft from foreign airspace deviates into (enters) adjacent airspace 

controlled by the San Juan ATC facility, at other than expected/intended location 

or at altitude/route/speed other than expected/intended without timely coordination/ 

clearance or authorization. 

The OSC stated that FAA has not completed all promised corrective actions. The 

most important of these is the development of a radar sharing agreement between 

the U.S., the Dominican Republic, and San Maarten, as well as the installation of 

a ‘‘shout line’’ between San Juan and the Dominican Republic that will enable instant, direct communication between facilities, and it is true that these actions have 

not been completed. 

However, the U.S. cannot unilaterally force another sovereign nation to install 

equipment into its ATC facilities. The FAA has been and remains ready to install 

the necessary equipment in our facilities. Diplomatic efforts to persuade the appropriate foreign nations to speed up these installations continue. 

Sugent/Gault 

In this case, the OSC concluded that FAA’s actions were ‘‘unreasonable’’ and ‘‘unresolved.’’ The DOT–OIG partially substantiated the complainants’ allegations that 

two competing directives pertaining to aircraft separation and missed approach procedures could be interpreted as being in conflict and not possible to simultaneously 

adhere to. In particular, the investigation found that some controllers at DTW, including management, misunderstood the directives and a lack of training was cited. 

The FAA reviewed the published arrival and missed approach procedures at DTW, 

and Notices to Airmen were published on April 3, 2012, announcing new missed approach procedures, which seek to clarify any remaining confusion. The FAA reviewed the application of national air traffic policies in place at the time, and the 

agency does not agree that the procedures in question conflict with any other policies necessary for safe operations at DTW. In short, nothing inconsistent or unique 

was found at DTW, and that operating environment is common to other large airports with parallel runways and simultaneous operations. Thus, the national guidance is consistent. 

In order to further reduce any remaining controller confusion, DTW updated their 

training materials related to simultaneous operations to ensure controller training 

was properly focused and understandable, and the facility retrained all local controllers responsible for simultaneous operations on the proper application of FAAO 

7110.65 paragraphs 5–8–3, 5–8–4, and 5–8–5. The training of local controllers was 

completed Mar. 11–20, 2012. The FAA will continue to audit the effectiveness of the 

new guidance and procedures. 

Sugent 

The DOT–OIG and FAA–AAE investigation of this disclosure did not substantiate 

the allegations and concluded that the complainant’s allegations did not constitute 

any safety problems. Nonetheless, the OSC concluded that the report and FAA’s actions are ‘‘not reasonable,’’ but they did not provide any technical justification to 

support this conclusion. 

The complainant alleged that wind measuring equipment at DTW was ‘‘faulty.’’ 

The two types of sensors installed at DTW sometimes displayed different, usually 

small discrepancies, in wind readings, but the vast majority of their measurements 

were relatively consistent. Testing revealed no system flaws, and that the slight 

variations at DTW are entirely normal and characteristic of the current state-of-theart in wind measurement. FAA’s experts disagree with the complainant’s, and the 

OSC’s conclusions regarding problems with the wind sensors. We do not agree that 

the wind sensors performance at DTW is any different than sensors installed in locations all over the system and that the sensors function as intended. There is inherent imprecision in wind sensor technology. 

DTW opted for the newer wind sensor technology, and ‘‘ASOS’’ was selected as 

the primary wind sensor. ASOS is owned and maintained by NWS (NOAA, Department of Commerce), while the Wind Measuring Equipment (WME) is owned and 

maintained by the FAA. ASOS uses electronic transducers capable of converting 

pressure into an analog electrical signal. Pressure applied to the transducer produces a mechanical deflection that generates an electrical resistance change proportional to the pressure. Unfortunately, ASOS is susceptible to pressure changes when 

birds arrive, hover, and leave the ASOS measuring tower. 

Currently, DTW controllers see both wind sensor readouts, ASOS and WME. Prior 

to March 2012, wind sensor readouts from the ASOS were archived but the WME 

readouts were not. With a new software patch installed in the WME at DTW, wind 

45 

readouts are now archived for a short period that allows local technicians to 

download wind sensor readouts if an anomaly between the two sensors is spotted. 

DTW is in the process of re-designating the WME as the primary wind sensor for 

their facility, and they soon will be trained to download archived data that can be 

analyzed following wind sensor readout discrepancies between the two systems at 

DTW. 

In the same case, but on an entirely unrelated matter, the OSC also criticizes 

FAA for its ‘‘very slow progress’’ on implementing new standard instrument departures (SIDs) at DTW. With redesign of the airspace around Chicago, the high altitude airspace between DTW and Ohio was largely delegated to Cleveland ARTCC 

(ZOB). Although delayed, the recent cooperation between DTW and ZOB has created 

options to link existing Standard Instrument Departures (SID) to Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus. 

Procedures changes such as the publication of SIDs take time because of the careful evaluation, including flight checks, that must take place in order to avoid introducing new safety problems into the system. New DTW SIDs will be issued in the 

near future. 

Question 4. Have all of the issues raised in the letter, including repeated air traffic controller misconduct, been resolved? 

Answer. The FAA believes that all of the issues raised in the May 8, 2012 letter 

have been effectively addressed, including the allegations of controller misconduct. 

However, as discussed extensively in our response to question 3, it is imperative 

that the FAA continually audit all previously implemented corrective actions for effectiveness and compliance. As previously discussed, we operate in a complex and 

dynamic environment, and we must remain ever vigilant for new issues which may 

well arise in order to ensure continued procedural and regulatory compliance and 

the highest levels of safety. 

Question 5. Given the current Federal budget pressures, what is your plan to keep 

personnel costs under control? What is your plan to balance agency priorities, including NextGen, against rising personnel costs within the agency budget as provided in the recently enacted FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012? 

Answer. Over the past five years, FAA has managed to maintain its annual 

growth in Personnel, Compensation & Benefits (PC&B) costs in the Operations account to 3.3 percent per year—the same rate of growth experienced by the Operations account as a whole. As such, PC&B costs accounted for 69.6 percent of total 

Operations spending in FY 2011, essentially the same percentage as FY 2006. 

There are two factors that make controlling personnel costs more challenging for 

the FAA as compared to other Federal agencies. First, the need to hire and retain 

a highly skilled and technical workforce creates and upward pressure on personnel 

costs. Second, unlike most other Federal agencies, FAA is required by statute to negotiate pay with its employee bargaining units. 

Nonetheless, the FAA has achieved some recent successes to control labor costs 

despite these challenges. Our collaboration with the National Air Traffic Controllers 

Association (NATCA) resulted in an extension of the 2009 collective bargaining 

agreement for FAA’s air traffic controllers (referred to as the Red Book Contract). 

This extension of the Red Book contains pay raises equal to the raises received by 

other Federal employees under the General Schedule. The contract extension also 

contains a clause that does not allow any additional employees to go over their pay 

band maximums. The extension will slow the growth of PC&B costs for one of our 

largest and mostly highly compensated workforce segments. In addition, FAA has 

made improvements in recent years to manage overtime costs at our air traffic facilities. Overtime hours as a share of controller hours worked has fallen slightly, 

from 2.4 percent in 2008 to 2.1 percent year-to-date in 2012. 

For non-safety related positions, we have established strict staffing targets to help 

the Agency maintain staffing levels consistent with efficient operations. Total Full 

Time Equivalent (FTE) levels in the Operations account have subsequently 

plateaued at about 42,500. While FTEs in the Operations account averaged 2.3 percent annual growth from FY 2007 to FY 2009, that growth has reduced to an average of 0.4 percent over the past two years. 

Many Air Traffic Organization (ATO) processes have been standardized under a 

‘‘shared services environment’’ concept with regional resources consolidated under 

service centers. Since implementation began in 2006, we have realized a net savings 

and cost avoidance of approximately $330 million. And effective management of 

worker compensation claims has resulted in cost avoidance of over $117 million 

since FY 2005. 

We continue to search for new ways to control costs in the future. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the National Academy of Sciences to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78392.TXT JACKIE
46 

view the air traffic controller and technical operations staffing standards to ensure 

the Agency continues to improve its methods for determining staffing for its air traffic operations. We look forward to reviewing the NAS findings when they become 

available and will work diligently to address their recommendations. 

The FAA is committed to realizing cost efficiencies and avoidance wherever possible. We have taken a hard look at our organizational structure, and we are making changes to create a more streamlined and efficient agency. 

Question 6. Growing demand for unmanned aircraft here in the United States is 

pushing the FAA to develop standards for their safe integration into the national 

airspace system, which could support as many as 23,000 jobs in the U.S. over the 

next 15 years, according to some estimates. If confirmed, how would you plan to 

safely integrate unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system? 

Answer. The FAA is developing new policies, procedures and approval processes 

to address the increasing desire by public and civilian operators to fly UAS in the 

NAS. Developing and implementing these new UAS standards and guidance is a 

long-term effort. As part of this effort, the FAA chartered a UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee in 2011 to develop inputs and recommendations on appropriate 

operational procedures, regulatory standards and policies before allowing routine 

UAS access to the Nation’s airspace. In addition, the FAA has asked RTCA—a 

group that facilitates expert advice to the agency on technical issues—to work with 

industry to assist in the development of UAS standards. RTCA’s technical group will 

address questions about how UAS will handle communication, command and control 

and how they will ‘‘sense and avoid’’ other aircraft. 

The FAA continues to work closely with its international aviation counterparts to 

harmonize standards, policies, procedures and regulatory requirements. 

Question 7. We have seen an increase in the number of reported mishaps by controllers called ‘‘operational errors.’’ This increase has taken place while overall traffic levels are in decline, which should mean fewer errors, not more. What is the root 

cause of the sharp increase in operational errors, and what is FAA doing to address 

this serious safety problem? 

Answer. Over the past several years, the FAA has methodically transitioned to 

a non-punitive error reporting system at its air traffic facilities and began implementing electronic monitoring of controller and pilot performance. These changes in 

safety reporting have produced a wealth of information to help the FAA identify potential risk and take swift action to address it. 

As anticipated, these changes resulted in higher numbers of incident reports involving loss of required separation between aircraft than in previous year. Notwithstanding this increase in reporting, the number of incidents is very small; in fact, 

more than 99.9 percent of operations occur completely according to procedure. 

These increases in reporting are consistent with the implementation of similar 

systems in the airline industry, e.g., FOQA and ASAP programs, that have been extremely successful in the identification and reduction of potential risk and are absolutely necessary to an effective safety management system. 

However, we have no intention of treating our extraordinary safety performance 

as good enough. 

• First, we are moving from an events-based, reactive approach to safety analysis 

to a risk-based proactive approach through which we analyze vastly greater volumes of data in order to preview, predict and prevent risk situations that we 

might not have fully understood, or even known about, in the past. 

• Second, we are generating this greater volume of data by moving to a safety 

culture where people are encouraged to provide essential safety-related information 

As a result of these new systems we have implemented an SMS-based approach 

to separation loss mitigation. This new measure incorporates a risk analysis process 

that will increase our ability to mitigate risks associated with losses of separation. 

Electronic monitoring of radar data coupled with voluntary reporting from controllers has enabled the FAA to develop a standardized risk analysis process and addressed dozens of identified safety concerns. 

Information contained in our voluntary reporting system has resulted in well over 

100 formal and informal corrections to; procedures, equipment, training, phraseology, etc. Examples: 

• Chicago O’Hare (ORD): Construction Confusion 

• Denver Centennial Airport (APA) New Wind Equipment 

• Dalton Departure procedure at Teterboro and effect on EWR arrivals 

• Airline Flights Incorrect Routing at San Francisco (SFO) 

47 

Additionally, consistent with industry best practices, the FAA is currently addressing five top areas to mitigate risks. The FAA determined the ‘‘Top Five’’ by 

analyzing collected safety data, considering the severity of an incident and the likelihood it will occur. The corrective action plans for each risk will reassess policy, 

procedures and training to prioritize resources. The ‘‘Top Five’’ includes: 

1. Turns to Final—Arrival sequencing to final (angle and speed control.) Aircraft 

vectors at a speed and/or angle that result in an overshoot of final approach. 

2. Parallel Runway Operations—Arrival sequencing at the same altitude and on 

parallel runways. (Aircraft overshoots turn to final at the same altitude as arrival traffic to a parallel runway.) 

3. Go-Arounds—Unexpected go-around operations. (Arrival aircraft executes an 

unexpected go-around resulting in conflict with departing traffic as well as 

false ASDE–X alarms triggering a late go-around) 

4. Clearance Compliance Altitude—Aircraft at other than expected altitude, for 

example, incorrect hearback/readback. 

5. Coordination—Lack of appropriate or incomplete coordination among operational employees. (Aircraft handoff to controller at an altitude or route other 

than expected 

Examples of Specific Improvements 

Chicago O’Hare (ORD): Construction Confusion 

Issue: Airport construction shortened the available runway length but use of the 

term ‘‘full length caused confusion between pilot and controller. Pilots interpreted 

‘‘full length’’ to mean the actual runway length rather than the useable runway 

length. 

Resolution: There was a national briefing created about ‘‘lessons learned’’ at ORD 

at towers who will be undergoing construction and/or are already undergoing construction. The Airport Construction Advisory Council followed up by amending the 

Controllers Handbook to eliminate use of the term ‘‘full length’’ from clearances 

whenever construction reduces the length of a runway, and also changed ATIS requirements to ensure that pilots are warned about shortened runways. Effective 

September 22, 2011, the ACAC also added requirements to the 7210.3 for air traffic 

managers to train controllers ahead of time and develop local directives for construction projects that affect their facilities. In addition, the ACAC has developed a compilation of best practices and a runway and taxiway construction checklist both of 

which can be found on their web page. 

Denver Centennial Airport (APA) New Wind Equipment 

Issue: Faulty wind instruments at APA created a safety issue due the proximity 

of the mountains and the thunderstorms in the vicinity of Centennial airport. 

Resolution: A Stand Alone Weather System (SAWS) was installed in June 2010. 

Dalton Departure procedure at Teterboro and effect on EWR arrivals 

Issue: The Dalton Departure Procedure allowed pilots to depart Teterboro’s Runway 19 under visual flight rules (VFR) in Class D airspace, at the same time as 

IFR aircraft are arriving at Newark Airport directly above them in Class B airspace. 

Because flights operating under the Dalton Departure procedure remain outside of 

Class B airspace, the pilots are responsible for maintaining safe separation from aircraft descending into Newark. 

Resolution: N90 proposed an interim procedure to plan for a gap in the EWR Rwy 

22L final traffic to provide an extra level of mitigation to minimize the probability 

of a TEB Rwy 19 departure on the Dalton conflicting with an EWR Rwy 22 arrival 

during a potential altitude excursion. Procedures were to plan for a gap in the EWR 

Rwy 22L final traffic to minimize the probability of a TEB Rwy 19 departure on 

the Dalton conflicting with a EWR Rwy 22 arrival during an unforeseen altitude 

excursion. This required several levels of coordination and possible Traffic Management initiatives. This requires several levels of coordination and possible Traffic 

Management initiatives. Additionally, the following were other changes to the Dalton Departure Procedure that have been implemented: 

—added a no radio/lost communications procedure, 

—added a ‘‘wake turbulence’’ advisory, 

—TEB ATCT Implemented an altitude reminder to departing aircraft, 

—reduced location of the westerly turn after takeoff from 4 miles to 2 miles 

south of TEB. 

48 

Albuquerque Airport vehicle confusion 

Issue: At Albuquerque (ABQ), several airport vehicles were using similar-sounding 

and confusing call signs. This presented a safety issue for the Tower, since vehicle 

operators often took each other’s instructions, or had to ask that the instructions 

be repeated. To change long-standing call signs and practices was a challenge for 

the city. 

Resolution: After numerous ATSAP reports, and at the urging of the ERC, the 

City of Albuquerque (the operator of the airport), the facility and NATCA, the parties reached agreement on new, less similar call signs, which were implemented in 

July 2011. 

Airline Flight Computer Discrepancies at Denver (DEN) 

Issue: An airline flying into Denver International Airport (DEN) was having 

issues with the routings stored within the Flight Management System (FMS). The 

FMS would divert to a Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) different than 

what was filed in the flight plan. This could cause dangerous deviations from the 

expected flight, placing the aircraft into conflict with other traffic. The issue was 

thought to be resolved with a software upgrade to the FMS. However, an ATSAP 

submitter identified that the issue was reoccurring. 

Resolution: In February 2011, the ERC shared the report with the airline’s Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). The ASAP’s ERC immediately discovered that 

when a pilot enters new information into the FMS resulting from a runway change, 

the FMS applies the preferential routing of the wrong STAR regardless of the clearance. In February 2011, the airline’s Director of Safety immediately notified the pilots and the FMS was fixed within weeks. The airline’s ASAP ERC commented that 

this would have taken them far longer to identify if it were not for the ATSAP report. 

Instrument Landing System at Savannah (SAV) 

Issue: The Instrument Landing System (ILS) at Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport (SAV) became unusable when aircraft were approximately a mile 

from the runway threshold. 

Resolution: In January 2011, the ERC issued a Corrective Action Request (CAR) 

to address the safety problem. Technical Operations personnel evaluated the issue 

and were able to correct it by moving the localizer shelter and making improvements to the radar antenna. In March 2011, the ILS was returned to service without restrictions. 

Interference with radar at Greenville-Spartanburg (GSP) 

Issue: Since July 2009, the Greer Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) at GreenvilleSpartanburg International Airport (GSP) has had reduced coverage due to the inadequate height of the radar antennae and surrounding tree growth. The multiple actions to mitigate the issue have resulted in little resolution. 

Resolution: In November 2010, the ERC issued a Corrective Action Request 

(CAR). After some reluctance, the airport authority removed the trees affecting the 

ASR in December 2011. For a long-term solution, the funding and construction to 

raise the antennae is to be completed in calendar year 2013. 

Confusion with Student Pilots at Fargo, ND (FAR) 

Issue: In 2011, the ERC began receiving reports about an issue at FAR ATCT 

where student pilots from the University of North Dakota would come over to practice. The pilots had predetermined routes that they would fly on departure. When 

they would depart FAR, the controller would say ‘‘proceed on course’’. To the pilot, 

that was interpreted to mean proceed on their predetermined route which actually 

caused the pilot to turn back towards the airport and begin their route from there. 

For the controller, it means proceed direct from the present position on course, but 

not back towards the airport which would cause conflict with other departures. 

Resolution: With encouragement from the ERC, FAR ATCT met with representatives from UND and worked out an agreement that the controllers would use vectors to help the pilots join their desired route. 

Airline Flights Incorrect Routing at San Francisco (SFO) 

Issue: On occasion, one airline’s flights departing San Francisco International Airport (SFO) would track towards a fix that was not evident on their flight plan. 

Resolution: Through the Confidential Information Share Program (CISP), the report was shared with the airline’s Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP). It was 

discovered that the navigational data update for the Flight Management System 

(FMS) was missed mistakenly and it was subsequently discovered that the update 

did not occur at several other airports as well. 

49 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JIM DEMINT TO

MICHAEL P. HUERTA

Question 1a. In March of this year, you agreed to a four-year extension of the 

FAA’s contract with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, until July 1, 

2016. Under the contract: What is the average compensation for the 100 highestpaid air traffic controllers, including overtime pay and all additional compensation 

allowed under the collective bargaining agreement? 

Answer. The maximum salary for air traffic controllers is the statutory cap for Federal employees of $179,700. In addition, controllers are eligible for premium pay, 

such as overtime, night, holiday pay, etc. In FY11, the 100 highest-paid controllers 

earned average cash compensation of $245,300. This does not include benefits such 

as pension, health, OASDI, etc. 

Question 1b. How are air traffic controller raises linked to performance? 

Answer. Pay increases under the recent contract extension are not based on individual or agency performance. The contract provides two raises to employees. The 

January raise is equal to the Presidential Increase so employees would not receive 

a raise if there are continued freezes in the general schedule. The second raise is 

paid in June and is fixed at 1.6 percent. The June raise will ‘‘not be granted in any 

year in which a prohibition on step increases under the General Schedule (GS) is 

enacted by statute.’’ 

Question 1c. How has the recently signed contract with air traffic controllers affected the pay gap between air traffic controllers and all other FAA employees? Specifically, what is the current pay gap between air traffic controllers covered under 

the March 2012 agreement with all other FAA employees, in percentage terms? 

Answer. The recent contract extension calls for air traffic controllers to receive 

pay increases that are the same as those granted to other Federal employees for 

FY13–FY16. The average Certified Professional Controller (CPC) earned 26 percent 

more than the average non-controller FAA employee. The average earnings of all 

controllers (including both CPCs and developmentals) was 14 percent higher than 

the average non-controller FAA employee. In FY11, the average air traffic controller (CPCs only) earned $119,900 in salary and an additional $17,900 in premiums for an average cash compensation of 

$137,800. The average air traffic controller (including both CPCs and 

developmentals) earned $109,300 and an additional $15,600 in premiums for an average cash compensation of $124,900. 

Employee Group Salary Premiums 

Cash 

Compensation 

% above All 

Other FAA 

CPC $119,900 $17,900 $137,800 26% 

CPC + Developmental $109,300 $15,600 $124,900 14% 

All Other FAA $105,100 $4,400 $109,500 n/a 

Question 2. What percentage of the agency’s budget goes to personnel costs? Given 

the current budget situation, what is your plan to keep personnel costs of the agency under control? 

Answer. Nearly 70 percent of FAA’s Operations budget is Personnel, Compensation & Benefits (PC&B) related. FAA will staff safety and support related positions 

to maintain the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS). 

FAA issues various workforce plans, such as the Controller Workforce Plan and 

Aviation Safety Workforce Plan that explain the staffing needed to meet the operational and safety requirements. For non-safety related positions, we have established strict staffing targets to help the Agency maintain staffing levels consistent 

with efficient operations. Total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) levels in the Operations 

account have subsequently plateaued at about 42,500. While FTEs in the Operations account averaged 2.3 percent annual growth from FY 2007 to FY 2009, that 

growth has reduced to an average of 0.4 percent over the past two years. 

Over the past five years, FAA has managed to maintain its annual growth in Personnel, Compensation & Benefits (PC&B) costs in the Operations account to 3.3 percent per year—the same rate of growth experienced by the Operations account as 

a whole. As such, PC&B costs accounted for 69.6 percent of total Operations spending in FY 2011, essentially the same percentage as FY 2006. 

There are two factors that make controlling personnel costs more challenging for 

the FAA as compared to other Federal agencies. First, the need to hire and retain 

a highly skilled and technical workforce creates and upward pressure on personnel 

costs. Second, unlike most other Federal agencies, FAA is required by statute to negotiate pay with its employee bargaining units. 

50 

Nonetheless, the FAA has achieved some recent successes to control labor costs 

despite these challenges. Our collaboration with the National Air Traffic Controllers 

Association (NATCA) resulted in an extension of the 2009 collective bargaining 

agreement for FAA’s air traffic controllers (referred to as the Red Book Contract). 

This extension of the Red Book contains pay raises equal to the raises received by 

other Federal employees under the General Schedule. The contract extension also 

contains a clause that does not allow any additional employees to go over their pay 

band maximums. The extension will slow the growth of PC&B costs for one of our 

largest and mostly highly compensated workforce segments. In addition, FAA has 

made improvements in recent years to manage overtime costs at our air traffic facilities. Overtime hours as a share of controller hours worked has fallen slightly, 

from 2.4 percent in 2008 to 2.1 percent year-to-date in 2012. 

For non-safety related positions, we have established strict staffing targets to help 

the Agency maintain staffing levels consistent with efficient operations. Total Full 

Time Equivalent (FTE) levels in the Operations account have subsequently 

plateaued at about 42,500. While FTEs in the Operations account averaged 2.3 percent annual growth from FY 2007 to FY 2009, that growth has reduced to an average of 0.4 percent over the past two years. 

Many Air Traffic Organization (ATO) processes have been standardized under a 

‘‘shared services environment’’ concept with regional resources consolidated under 

service centers. Since implementation began in 2006, we have realized a net savings 

and cost avoidance of approximately $330 million. And effective management of 

worker compensation claims has resulted in cost avoidance of over $117 million 

since FY 2005. 

We continue to search for new ways to control costs in the future. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the National Academy of Sciences to review the air traffic controller and technical operations staffing standards to ensure 

the Agency continues to improve its methods for determining staffing for its air traffic operations. We look forward to reviewing the NAS findings when they become 

available and will work diligently to address their recommendations. 

The FAA is committed to realizing cost efficiencies and avoidance wherever possible. We have taken a hard look at our organizational structure, and we are making changes to create a more streamlined and efficient agency. 

Question 3. Please explain how the scheduling practice for air traffic controllers, 

known as ‘‘2–2–1’’, works. Does this schedule present a safety issue for the travelling public? What are you doing to address any safety concerns raised by this scheduling practice? 

Answer. All services and industries that operate 24/7/365 encounter employee 

scheduling and human factors issues. These continuous operations environments are 

often associated with health, safety and emergency services. 

As with other safety service providers, air traffic control, faces issues with employee fatigue. To examine this issue, the FAA created a Fatigue Risk Management 

office in 2009. The establishment of this office within the FAA was coincident with 

an increased focus in the human fatigue area within the international aviation community, both commercial aviation operators and air navigation service providers. 

FAA research and analysis into the effects of fatigue in the operational ATC workforce has now been underway for several years. 

Our own, as well as other fatigue research, has indicated that the critical period 

for human fatigue during 24/7 operations is any period when an employee is required to remain on duty, awake and alert, after midnight. This is the time of greatest circadian pressure for humans to fall asleep. The research indicates that employee fatigue issues are present regardless of the type of schedule utilized to deliver an employee to that post midnight work period. 

The 2–2–1 schedule is one of several basic types of watch schedules utilized for 

air traffic controllers. The schedule is comprised of two (2) evening shifts, two (2) 

day shifts followed by one (1) middle (Mid) of the night shift. A typical 2–2–1 rotation would comprise the following shift start times for an employee; 3 PM, 2 PM, 

7 AM, 6 AM and 10 PM. 

The 2–2–1 schedule has both positive and negative fatigue aspects. The most negative aspect of the 2–2–1 schedule is the duration of the off-duty period between the 

second evening shift and the first day shift. Prior to the FAA examination of fatigue 

in the operational workforce the minimum interval for this off-duty period was 8 

hours. Our research indicated that increasing this interval to 9 hours would result 

in a 14 percent reduction in fatigue impact and assist employees in combating the 

circadian pressure to fall asleep during the middle of the night shift later in the 

work week. The minimum off-duty time between these types of shifts was increased 

to 9 hours approximately one year ago. 

51 

The most positive aspect of the 2–2–1 schedule is the extended recovery period 

between the end of last shift in a week and the beginning of the next work period. 

For a Monday through Friday work schedule this recovery period extends from 6 

AM Friday morning until the beginning of the next work shift at 3 PM on the following Monday afternoon. This allows employees a significant period to overcome 

any accumulated sleep deficit from the prior week. 

The FAA has introduced changes into fatigue education, training and scheduling 

as a result of our ongoing research. In addition, aviation medicine is introducing 

methodologies for the identification of sleep apnea in both the ATC and pilot communities. We are confident that our efforts are increasing operational employees’ 

ability to manage the effects of fatigue during their on-duty work week. We will continue our research and introduce further fatigue mitigations as they are identified. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

MICHAEL P. HUERTA

Question 1. A recent IG report highlighted that the FAA has not yet established 

total program cost, schedule, or performance baselines for all of the six NextGen 

transformational programs. When does the agency plan to do this, since without 

baselining we will not have complete information about when these programs will 

be completed, what they will deliver, and how much they will cost the American taxpayer? Can you please give a specific exact date or date range. 

Answer. The Inspector General’s Office report suggests that it is both possible and 

desirable to establish cost, schedule and performance baselines for the entire life 

cycle of a program in its earliest stages of research and concept development. This 

is contrary to well established best practices as reflected by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–11 Appendix J Principals of Budgeting for Capital Assets. As directed by the Circular, agencies should implement programs in phased, 

successive segments and make use of prototyping and pilot programs in order to 

gain better information before moving into production. The FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) Lifecycle adheres to this best practice and policy guidance. 

The AMS requires five key decision points across six phases of work designed to mature concepts and define requirements for major acquisition investments. At each 

decision point, the work that is to be done during the phase is approved, the agency’s enterprise architecture reflects the schedule by which the work is anticipated 

to be completed, and a limited amount of funding is provided to accomplish this 

work. As part of each decision point, the FAA considers the estimated cost and benefit of the entire program not just the immediate segment—but the FAA also recognizes that in the earliest stages these estimates are not, and cannot be precise. 

• The beginning phases are Service Analysis and Concept and Requirements Definition (CRD). During these phases both technical and operational analyses are 

conducted to determine the operational needs, shortfalls, rough order cost estimates, and technical alternatives to achieve the desired improvements to the 

national airspace system, and to ensure operational needs are recorded in the 

FAA’s Enterprise Architecture.. 

• Before progressing beyond CRD, into the next phase, the FAA’s Joint Resources 

Council (JRC) determines if the program has completed sufficient analysis and 

engineering assessments to define technical requirements for a solution to the 

need. 

• The middle phases are Initial Investment Analysis and Final Investment Analysis. Initial Investment Analysis includes analyzing of performance, cost, benefit, and risk of different alternative solutions to the need, developing the business case for the alternatives, updating program requirements, and ensuring a 

mature safety assessment. Using this information, the JRC selects one alternative solution for further analysis and planning. During Final Investment 

Analysis, detailed cost and schedule estimates, and other analyses are conducted specific to the chosen alternative. This information is presented to the 

JRC for decision. If the program receives approval—the ‘‘Final Investment Decision’’ or FID in AMS terminology—the program then receives a financial, schedule, and performance baseline and the Agency proceeds with the necessary contract awards. 

• The last phases are Solution Implementation and In-Service Management. During solution implementation, contractors typically develop systems, equipment, 

or services and FAA oversees the effort. When the system and other deployment 

planning activities are completed, the JRC makes an in-service decision authorizing deployment of the system into the national airspace system. 

52 

As of June of 2012 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B), Collaborative Air Traffic Management-Technologies (CATM–T), System Wide Information Management (SWIM) and DATA Communications are baselined. The Joint Resources Council made a Final Investment Decision and established the baseline for 

the first segment of the National Airspace System Voice Switch on July 18. The 

NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) received its Investment Analysis 

Readiness Decision in December 2010 and is scheduled for a Final Investment Decision in September 2013. 

These investment decisions are not the last that these programs will see. The 

transformational programs are not ‘‘end-state’’ programs. Rather, they are interrelated building blocks upon which the FAA will continue to grow, in order to meet 

the changing demands of all aviation users, as well as allow for evolving technology. 

For example, ADS–B is being purchased as a service, instead of purchasing and installing an FAA infrastructure, precisely because technology is quickly evolving, 

which would limit our ability to meet service improvements required by our customers. As such, and consistent with OMB guidance, the transformational programs 

are built in segments. These are included in the Enterprise Architecture (EA), which 

establishes a most likely path for implementation and the evolution of the National 

Airspace System (NAS). Since the EA extends beyond a decade, we develop the levels of planning according to the maturity of the investment. For near-term investments, the detail provided in the EA is of higher fidelity reflecting the baseline decision made at the final investment. Beyond the ten-year horizon, the plan provides 

an affordable estimate for the outyears, along with projected milestones, schedules 

and costs, based upon engineering judgment for the long-term investments. 

Question 2. The En Route Automation Management (ERAM) system is a backbone 

for other NextGen platforms like System Wide Information Management (SWIM). 

The IG Report highlighted that ERAM is expected to be delayed by four years. What 

is causing the delay in ERAM and how does it affect progress on NextGen in general? Do you have an estimate on cost increases because of the delay? 

Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has made substantial 

progress on the ERAM program since the Office of Inspector General (OIG) began 

the subject audit. The FAA has already implemented several of the OIG’s recommendations. 

Early in the deployment of the system, the operational runs at the key sites (Salt 

Lake City and Seattle) identified problems that were not seen during the multiple 

testing phases conducted at the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center. Therefore, the FAA decided to suspend the waterfall in order to address the critical issues 

identified at the key sites and prepare for sustained operations. 

The original ERAM program (2003) was rebaselined in June 2011 to include a $330M cost variance and a three-year, eight-month schedule variance. The program 

is currently operating within that new baseline. The last site Operational Readiness 

Date (ORD) milestone shifted from December 2010 to August 2014. Although the 

agency will continue to adjust deployment dates for individual sites within the approved baseline, there is a high degree of confidence in the program’s final completion date. To date, the ERAM delays have had a minimal impact to the deployment 

of NextGen capabilities. 

Beginning in early 2011, the ERAM Program Office has undertaken a series of 

management initiatives to also help get the program back on track. This includes 

addressing contractual, strategic, structural, process, personnel, and incentive aspects of the program’s overall approach. 

The OIG’s assessment appears to have been based upon the state of the program 

in October 2010 before the system achieved major deployment milestones. Since that 

time, those milestone accomplishments include: 

• Achieving Initial Operating Capability (IOC) at seven more sites, bringing the 

current total to nine sites. 

• Achieving ORD at two of those nine sites, and achieving continuous operations 

at another three (meaning they are operating on ERAM with no planned fallback to the legacy HOST system), while the remainder continue to work 

through the progression of longer and longer operational runs toward continuous operations. 

• Declaring IOC on the first ERAM software release enabled with Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS–B), allowing for operational use of both 

ERAM and a key NextGen program in Houston. 

• Decommissioning of the legacy HOST system at Seattle and Salt Lake Centers. 

The growing level of ERAM-enabled operations has led to multiple instances 

where nearly one half of the Nation’s air traffic was being served by ERAM-based 

53 

air traffic control procedures. Since December of 2011, the system has accumulated 

over 2,600 hours of operations across a range of varying airspace needs and traffic 

volumes, excluding Salt Lake and Seattle. The program is well positioned to continue to activate sites within the current budget and schedule as planned into FY13. 

Question 3. One of the major hurdles to successfully transition to NextGen is to 

have air carriers equip their aircraft with appropriate technology. However, we 

know they are hesitant to invest in new technology until there is sufficient guarantee that they will stand to benefit from new air traffic control technologies. How 

are you going to address their concerns and what progress has the agency made in 

regards to the provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act on incentivizing 

air carriers to equip? 

Answer. The user community has requested more clarity and detail in the FAA’s 

plans for implementing NextGen capabilities at specific locations in order to assist 

in user investment decisions. The FAA has provided more specificity in the NextGen 

Implementation Plan and will continue to provide updates as information becomes 

available. Additionally, the FAA has collaborated with the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) to work through many of the challenges associated with NextGen implementation, including equipage and incentives. 

To address concerns with regard to incentivizing NextGen equipage, the agency 

is evaluating incentive initiatives—both financial and operational. Financial and 

operational incentives are related activities and we are treating them as such. Work 

for both incentive tracks is underway. 

Section 221, Public-Private Partnerships, in the Act granted authority for the Secretary of Transportation to establish an equipage incentive program to equip U.S. 

registered aircraft in the interest of achieving NextGen capabilities. The goal for an 

equipage program is to encourage deployment of NextGen capable aircraft in the 

NAS sooner than would have occurred otherwise. The FAA is currently evaluating 

various options to see how this provision might allow us to provide incentives for 

equipage that would accelerate the benefits of NextGen. Specifically, FAA would 

aim to increase the speed of adoption of base levels of NextGen equipage, which will 

accelerate delivery of NextGen benefits by reducing the time of mixed equipage operations. 

The agency held a public meeting on May 30, to seek initial input from interested 

stakeholders about program design and implementation of an equipage incentives 

program for both commercial aircraft and general aviation to equip their aircraft 

with NextGen capabilities. The agency also released a market survey to solicit interest from both operational stakeholders and those interested in being private partners. A second public meeting is planned for August 7 to share the evolution of our 

thinking based on what the agency heard from stakeholders, to seek additional information, and to communicate the agency’s next steps. 

The FAA understands that financial incentives by themselves will most likely be 

insufficient to encourage operators to equip and that operational benefits must come 

with any financial incentive. Over the last several years, the FAA has worked with 

various stakeholders to demonstrate in an operational environment the benefits of 

various NextGen capabilities. 

For example, one NextGen initiative, Greener Skies Over Seattle, has the goal to 

prove that satellite-based navigation approaches can be flown using the same separation standards as procedures using ground-based instrument landing systems 

have today. Initial feedback on the Greener Skies initiative has been positive, producing fuel savings. The FAA will add 27 new procedures, expanding the use of Optimized Profile Descents (where the airplane essentially glides in idle to the runway 

threshold), Area Navigation (RNAV) arrivals (which are GPS-guided arrivals) and 

Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches (which take RNAV to an additional level of precision). These procedures will be available to any properly 

equipped aircraft next spring. 

Additionally, the FAA is working with several air carriers to obtain Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) data to validate the business case for early 

adoption of new equipment. These efforts are governed by memorandums of agreement in which the government and the air carriers contribute to the project. 

Realizing NextGen benefits requires more than installed avionics or technologies. 

Procedures, training, and policies for both operators and controllers are necessary 

to implement the capability that produces operational benefits. 

Both the NAC and the NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force requested 

the FAA to identify candidate NextGen capabilities for operational incentives. The 

FAA held a public meeting on March 13 to solicit stakeholder feedback on candidate 

operational scenarios. The agency has included this stakeholder feedback in its implementation planning activities. 

54 

Among the candidates under consideration for implementation are scenarios providing priority service to aircraft capable of performing complex precision approaches at specified airports in the National Airspace System (NAS) during limited 

time periods. The candidate scenarios also provide operational solutions such as: 1) 

separating air traffic in areas where multiple airport operations conflict, 2) providing improved approaches in poor weather at airports with closely spaced parallel 

runways, 3) increasing access to specific Atlantic routes, and 4) enabling more fuelefficient operations in specific Pacific oceanic routes. 

The FAA continues to encourage user equipage through various means—demonstrations and incentives—and to develop both operational and financial incentives. 

Question 4. Could you provide a status on what FAA is doing to improve airspace 

procedures for aircraft flying into and out of major and non-major metropolitan airports (implementing procedures such as Area Navigation and Required Navigation 

Performance)? Where does the FAA stand in improving airspace efficiencies as part 

of delivering NextGen to the American public? 

Answer. Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigational Performance (RNP) 

are the key components of Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) in the National 

Airspace System (NAS). The FAA, by adopting PBN, has improved airspace and procedures design which has led to improvements in system capacity and efficiency. It 

has done this by leveraging existing and emerging cockpit capabilities and by working in close collaboration with key stakeholders. Since 2002, the FAA and industry 

have formally collaborated to plan and implement PBN routes and procedures 

across the NAS. 

There are currently 351 PBN approaches published and in use at the 35 Core airports. For the 35 non-Core airports identified by the FAA to serve as a basis of comparison, there are currently 21 published approaches. However, the FAA is aggressively pursuing an active PBN development and publication process that will substantially increase the number of published approaches. The implementation plan 

for deploying PBN approaches at Core airports calls for an additional 73 new procedures by the end of 2012 with 162 completed by the end of 2013. Another 110 will 

be added by the end of 2014. These objectives are well ahead of the targets directed 

in recent Congressional legislation. Further, the total number of new procedures 

published for the selected non-Core airports will reach 48 by the end of this calendar year, with a total of 75 scheduled before the end of 2014. Again, this is well 

ahead of the targets established in the FAA’s Authorization. 

Additionally, the FAA in cooperation with the RTCA Task Force 5, has embarked 

on the Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM). This 

process is a systematic, expedited approach to optimizing both procedures development and airspace redesign in 21 key metropolitan areas. To date, the FAA has initiated study team efforts at eight (8) of the 21 metropolitan locations. Further design and implementation efforts are underway at six (6) of those locations. FAA is 

on track to address all 21 locations through OAPM or traditional PBN study efforts 

by the end of FY 2016. 

Question 5. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides the FAA Administrator with the authority to improve environmental reviews via the use of categorical exclusions for performance-based navigation procedures. Are you providing such 

exclusions while improving procedures in and around major airports? If so, how has 

this speed up the deployment of performance-based navigation? 

Answer. The FAA has several categorical exclusions that are currently being used 

for performance-based navigation (PBN) procedures. The FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 established two additional legislative categorical exclusions for 

procedures that meet specified conditions. It has been necessary for the FAA to undertake technical and legal analyses as a prerequisite for developing implementing 

guidance that must comport with these conditions. These analyses are currently 

nearing completion. At the same time, we are adding the two categorical exclusions, 

using the text directly from the Act, to the list of categorical exclusions in the update to FAA Order 1050.1E, which provides the FAA’s guidance for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). At this time, it is premature to report on the practical effect of the new categorical exclusion authority. 

Question 6. The FAA has already issued a rule requiring all air carriers operating 

in U.S. controlled airspace to equip with ADS–B Out by 2020. As required in the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act, will the FAA be conducting rulemaking anytime soon to require air carriers to equip with ADS–B In by 2020? What is the status of the agency’s interaction with the ADS–B In Aviation Rulemaking Committee? 

Answer. Section 211 (b) in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act directs the 

FAA to initiate a rulemaking within the year (by February 2013) with guidelines 

55 

and regulations for ADS–B In technology and requires ADS–B In to be mandated 

by 2020 for congested airspace, congested airports, or in any other airspace deemed 

appropriate. On May 30, 2012, the charter for the existing ADS–B In Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) was extended to assist the agency in meeting the requirements of this language. 

The FAA tasked the ADS–B In ARC to provide recommendations on how to target 

an ADS–B equipage mandate that could offer sufficient benefits to cover costs. The 

ARC has been asked to identify: (a) in what airspace, and/or (b) at what airports, 

and/or (c) by what other criteria one could apply to limit an ADS–B-In mandate (examples including, but not limited to, by operator class or aircraft class). It should 

be noted that the ARC may indicate resistance to a compliance date of 2020, given 

that currently available ADS–B-In equipment standards and guidance is limited for 

a number of applications. 

After receiving the recommendations from the ARC this fall, the FAA will be able 

to decide among options for moving forward and initiate rulemaking formally by the 

February 14, 2013 deadline. Options for the requirements could be, for example, 

tying the ADS–B In mandate to the airports capacity-constrained by slot regulations 

(i.e., New York airports). The ARC may develop other options as part of their 

tasking. 

Question 7. I know the FAA has agreements with some airlines like JetBlue and 

UPS to help deploy initial ADS–B avionics for trials that will help incentivize fleetwide acquisition of this equipage. Are any further agreements to fund ADS–B equipage planned with U.S. commercial or general aviation carriers? 

Answer. To expedite early equipage, the agency has signed agreements with several airlines, including JetBlue, United, UPS, and U.S. Airways. These agreements 

are set up to demonstrate the benefits of advanced ADS–B applications and procedures during revenue service and allow the FAA to share costs and risks with the 

participants. The operational evaluations will give the agency detailed cost and benefit data, and encourage airlines to equip early to capitalize on ADS–B benefits. 

Under these agreements, the following equipage will occur: 

• 35 JetBlue A320 aircraft 

• 12 United 747 aircraft (DO–260 complete, upgrades to be rule compliant in 

2013) 

• 20 USAirways A–330 aircraft 

• 143 UPS aircraft (747, 767, A300, and MD–11) 

The agency has also agreed to fund upgrades to the avionics for approximately 

54 helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico. These operators voluntarily equipped with an 

earlier version of ADS–B avionics before the ADS–B rule requirements were published. In addition, the FAA will award a contract this fall to upgrade approximately 

400 air taxi aircraft that were equipped under the legacy Capstone program in Alaska. 

In summary, the ADS–B program has entered into several additional agreements 

beyond those with JetBlue and UPS that will help fund early ADS–B equipage. The 

ADS–B program office may consider additional agreement opportunities if proven to 

be an economically sound decision; however, given the current funding limitations, 

these agreements are expected to be limited. The FAA anticipates voluntary equipage will increase in 2013 and beyond, as more certified, rule-complaint avionics become available. 

Question 8. In order for NextGen to be successful, FAA leadership will need to 

initiate a culture change that will ensure that workforce at all levels (analyst, manager, executive) are empowered to breakdown intra-agency and inter-agency barriers and promote cross-organizational learning and collaboration. What steps have 

you taken so far to achieve this culture change, what have been your biggest challenges, and what more needs to be done? 

Answer. NextGen has a high priority in the Administration, the Department of 

Transportation and the FAA. Its complexity and interdependencies make it different 

from anything the FAA has ever done. In 2010, an external organization was tasked 

by the FAA Administrator to diagnose the current state of NextGen via interviews 

and surveys with employees across the Agency. The assessment resulted in two key 

recommendations to better position the agency to successfully implement NextGen: 

• Create increased internal and external visibility of the NextGen organization by 

establishing a direct line of reporting to the Deputy Administrator, as well as 

a restructure of positions and groups to better align with organizational goals 

and the NextGen mission. The agency implemented this change as part of our 

reprogramming request last year. 

56 

• Develop a process in which an idea is developed and implemented in the National Airspace System (NAS) through cross-agency collaboration, increased 

transparency, defined roles and responsibilities, and establishment of clear decision authorities. 

NextGen requires an expanded and more collaborative acquisition process for the 

NAS than we have traditionally used. From May to September of 2011, the Functional Design Consideration Team (FDCT) worked extensively to address the above 

recommendations. The FDCT included members from the NextGen organization and 

representation from across the agency. Specifically, the group developed the Ideas 

to In-Service framework (i2i) to move a concept from an idea to in-service management. Highlights of i2i include: 

• A deliberate reduction in ‘‘hand-offs’’ in favor of collaboration. NextGen program 

management offices, operations and other FAA offices engage throughout the 

capability lifecycle from beginning to end. 

• A single FAA-wide process for changes to the NAS that works with all contributors to the NAS. 

• A collaborative approach that requires shared accountability, responsibility and 

risk. This is achieved through direct and obligatory engagement. 

• Capture Teams, which consist of representatives across the agency who are responsible for activities such as requirements management, configuration management, and assumption/constraint management. Capture Teams minimize rework and retain the same stakeholders to manage a portfolio of products from 

the managing requirements stage all the way through to in-service management. 

The framework was approved on September 26th by the FAA’s NextGen Management Board (NMB). The FAA is currently in the process of integrating i2i into the 

agency’s training and workflows. 

The FAA also created the Program Management Organization or PMO. This new 

central program office within the Air Traffic Organization assembles in one organization the majority of programs that specialize in program management. This allows 

our operational groups to focus on the key daily mission of safely separating air traffic and maintaining our airspace system. It allows our program organization to focus 

on managing for better outcomes by developing improvements to our airspace and 

making sure these solutions are on time, cost effective and within scope. 

The PMO will also ensure greater visibility, tighter alignment and closer integration of complex, interdependent NextGen initiatives and innovative technology. The 

PMO will play a critical role in the success of NextGen by acting as the bridge between strategic requirements and tactical program implementation to improve the 

safety and efficiency of our NAS. 

The PMO’s success will depend on developing and maintaining relationships with 

other FAA organizations. Most critical among these are our relationships with 

NextGen, which will help set the overall direction of some of our highest priority 

program work, and with Mission Support’s requirements and concept validation office, which will help ensure operational adaptability and validity. 

The PMO will play a critical role in each of the tenets of our new flight plan, Destination 2025: moving to the next level of safety, creating a workplace of choice, delivering aviation access through innovation, sustaining our future, and advancing 

global collaboration. 

The FAA also continues our collaborative work with other agencies. The JPDO 

provides a National, big-picture perspective that encompasses a broader Federal 

view for air transportation than just FAA. The JPDO ensures efficient coordination 

and collaboration among NextGen partner agencies. It addresses key interagency 

priorities identified by the Cabinet-level Senior Policy Committee (SPC) for 

NextGen. 

Question 9. The FAA’s 2012 Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan details the fact 

that the FAA staffed 20 of 23 en route air traffic control centers and 237 of the 

FAA’s 293 terminal facilities above the maximum staffing range. Considering the 

FAA sets these ranges themselves, it appears you have hired way too many controllers. Understanding that FAA is expecting a wave of retirements and there is a 

need to train incoming controllers, I still think there is a problem, especially considering that ten of the en route centers and 67 of the terminal facilities have at least 

as many certified professional controllers hired as the high staffing ranges prescribed for total controller staffing. In a time of economic and fiscal challenges, the 

entire Federal government is cutting back on its spending and Federal agencies are 

57 

tightening their belts. Can you explain this overstaffing, especially given the high 

cost of air traffic controller salaries? 

Answer. In many facilities, the current Actual on Board (AOB) number is higher 

than the range maximum. This is because the workforce includes larger numbers 

of developmental controllers in training to offset expected future attrition. The FAA 

hires 2–3 years in advance of expected attrition so that trainees are fully prepared 

to take over responsibilities when senior controllers retire. 

As noted above, some facilities have certified professional controllers (CPCs) above 

the range maximums. There are multiple reasons this can occur: 

1. Changes in Traffic—Traffic levels are projected to increase over next the few 

years after a period of flat to slightly negative traffic growth. Increased traffic 

operations within ATC facilities require more efficient staff usage and increased 

staffing at some facilities. Given the prolonged training cycles and compounding 

of traffic growth during that period, the FAA must hire now to meet future demand. 

2. Changes in Attrition—Retirement decisions are made by individual Air Traffic Controllers and therefore difficult to project at an individual level. FAA has 

been very accurate at predicting system-wide retirements in recent years, but 

experiences greater variability at the individual facility level. 

Retirement behavior has been impacted in recent years by externalities such as 

current economic conditions and the labor contract (NATCA) situation. Any improvement in macro economic conditions may cause an increase in Controller retirements. 

The recent NATCA contract extension will likely not drive significant changes in 

Controller retirement behavior. 

Because it takes 2–3 years to train new controllers, and because FAA does not 

typically force controllers to move to other locations, unexpected changes in traffic 

and attrition occasionally lead to overstaffing at some facilities. 

Staffing Ranges are updated every year as part of the Controller Workforce Plan 

development process. In general, the system-wide staffing ranges have been dropping over the past 5 years. Mostly driven by reduced traffic, the system-wide total 

range is now several hundred lower than it was five years ago. With these reduced 

ranges, lower attrition than expected can result in relatively higher levels of CPCs 

on board relative to these reduced ranges at some facilities. Similarly, higher than 

normal training success rate or reduced training times can lead to additional CPCs 

onboard certain facilities. 

Question 10. In February, the FAA announced proposed rules to raise the qualifications for first officers from 250 hours to 1,500 hours. Included in these rules are 

two exceptions that provide flight hour credit for military pilots and baccalaureate 

aviation degrees. If this rule becomes permanent, how much more difficult will it 

be for carriers, especially regional carriers, to find first officers that qualify? 

Answer. The changes to first officer qualifications will affect pilot supply for the 

airlines, but the magnitude of the impact is uncertain. The FAA developed the proposed rules in response to the Congressional requirements of P.L. 111–216, which 

required that all pilots in part 121 operations have an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) 

certificate. Consistent with the statute, the FAA proposed to allow academic and 

military credit in place of flight hours in issuing a restricted ATP certificate. While 

pilot supply is not the reason the FAA believes a restricted ATP is appropriate, it 

addresses some of the pilot supply concerns. 

Question 11. It is my understanding that the FAA is considering the development 

of a new policy where the FAA, in its airspace hazard determinations, would require 

consideration of airline One Engine Inoperative (OEI) procedures upon take-off at 

airports. It appears to me this change would have an enormous impact on private 

property rights, building heights, urban development, and jobs. Can you please provide the Committee with an update on this issue and let us know if the FAA intends 

to provide a notice-and-comment period for interested stakeholders or a comprehensive cost-benefit analyses? 

Answer. The FAA has not made any policy changes pertaining to one engine inoperative procedures. However, there have been discussions within the FAA about 

whether one engine inoperative procedures should be included in aeronautical studies considered under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77. If the agency 

decides to pursue a policy change of this nature, we will provide notice and comment 

in the Federal Register. 

58 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. PAT TOOMEY TO

MICHAEL P. HUERTA

Question 1. In the past, the FAA has stated that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 and the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 supports its position that mineral rights on airport lands are 

subject to the Airport Revenue Use Restriction. What precise language of the 1994 

Act, the 1996 Act or the congressional record supports the FAA’s position that Congress mandated that mineral rights on airport property are subject to the Airport 

Revenue Use Restriction? 

Answer. Over time, FAA has been directed by Congress on several occasions to 

ensure that airports are as financially self-sustaining as possible. Listed below is 

the specific Congressional language on airport financial self-sustainability as well as 

specific language on mineral revenue from airports. In addition, provided below is 

an explanation as to how FAA has implemented those congressional requirements. 

Language particularly pertinent is bolded below. 

House Conference Report No. 103–677, August 5, 1994 

60. Section 112. Revenue Diversion. Secretary was required to establish within 90 

days from the date of enactment, policies and procedures to enforce grant assurances 

requiring airports to develop fee structures to make their operations self sustaining, 

and prohibiting diversion of revenues. 

61. Section 110. Policy Statement on Airport Fees. Adds policy statements that 

airport rates and fees must be reasonable and used only for purposes not prohibited 

by the Act, that airports should be as self sustaining as possible, and that airports 

should not seek to create surpluses which exceed the amounts needed for the airport 

system, including reasonable reserves and allowances for contingencies. 

P.L. 103–305 (August 23, 1994) 

Section 110. Airport Fees Policy. 49 U.S.C. Section 47107(a)(13) that airports 

should be as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at each particular airport and in establishing new fees, rates, and charges, and generating revenues from all sources, airport owners and operators should not seek to create revenue surpluses that exceed the amounts to be used for airport system purposes and 

for other purposes for which airport revenues may be spent under section 

47107(b)(1) of this title, including reasonable reserves and other funds to facilitate 

financing and cover contingencies.’’ 

Section 112 Additional Enforcement Against Illegal Diversion of Airport Revenue. 

49 U.S.C. 47107(l) Policies and Procedures To Ensure Enforcement Against Illegal 

Diversion of Airport Revenue. (1) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this subsection (August 23, 1994), the Secretary of Transportation 

shall establish policies and procedures that will assure the prompt and effective enforcement of subsections (a)(13) and (b) of this section and grant assurances made 

under such subsections. Such policies and procedures shall recognize the exemption 

provision in subsection (b)(2) of this section and shall respond to the information 

contained in the reports of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation on airport revenue diversion and such other relevant information as the Secretary may by law consider. (2) Revenue diversion.—Policies and procedures to be 

established pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection shall prohibit, at a minimum, the diversion of airport revenues (except as authorized under subsection (b) 

of this section) through—(A) direct payments or indirect payments, other than payments reflecting the value of services and facilities provided to the airport; (B) use 

of airport revenues for general economic development, marketing, and promotional 

activities unrelated to airports or airport systems; (C) payments in lieu of taxes or 

other assessments that exceed the value of services provided; or (D) payments to 

compensate nonsponsoring governmental bodies for lost tax revenues exceeding stated tax rates. (3) Efforts to be self-sustaining.—With respect to subsection (a)(13) of 

this section, policies and procedures to be established pursuant to paragraph (1) of 

this subsection shall take into account, at a minimum, whether owners and operators 

of airports, when entering into new or revised agreements or otherwise establishing 

rates, charges, and fees, have undertaken reasonable efforts to make their particular 

airports as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at such airports. (4) Administrative safeguards.—Policies and procedures to be established pursuant to paragraph (1) shall mandate internal controls, auditing requirements, and 

increased levels of Department of Transportation personnel sufficient to respond fully 

and promptly to complaints received regarding possible violations of subsections 

(a)(13) and (b) of this section and grant assurances made under such subsections and 

to alert the Secretary to such possible violations. 

59 

H.R. Rep. 104–714(I) (July 26, 1996) 

Revenue Diversion . . . Current law 49 U.S.C. 47107(b) requires any airport receiving an AIP grant to promise, as a condition to that grant, that all revenues generated by the airport will be spent on the capital and operating costs of that airport. 

This prohibition against revenue is designed to prevent airports from using their 

monopoly power to gouge airlines and other airport users in order to build huge surpluses that could be diverted to other local programs that have nothing to do with 

aviation. Given that most airport users do no vote in the area of the airport but 

are merely visiting or making connections, it was feared that local officials would 

be tempted to raise airport fees rather than local taxes of those fees could be used 

for nonairport projects. The revenue diversion prohibition ensures that money raised 

at the airport will be spent on the airport. In light of the important safety, capacity, 

and noise mitigation needs at most airports, it is vital that the money is spent in 

this way. The revenue diversion prohibition was also imposed in recognition of the 

fact that money is fungible. Congress did not want an airport to receive an AIP grant 

for a specific project and then divert a like amount of money off the airport for a 

nonairport purpose. The revenue diversion prohibition ensures that all airport and 

AIP money is used for airport purposes. 

P.L. 104–264 (October 9, 1996) Section 802. Findings; Purpose 

(a) In general, Congress finds that (1) section 47107 of title 49, United States 

Code, prohibits the diversion of certain revenue generated by a public airport as a 

condition of receiving a project grant; (2) a grant recipient that uses airport revenue 

for purposes that are not airport related in a manner inconsistent with chapter 471 

of title 49, United States Code, illegally diverts airport revenues; (3) any diversion 

of airport revenues in violation of the conditions referred to in paragraph (1) undermines the interest of the United States in promoting a strong national air transportation that is responsive to the needs of airport users; (4) the Secretary and the Administrator have not enforced airport revenue diversion rules adequately and must 

have additional regulatory tools to increase enforcement efforts; and (5) sponsors who 

have been found to have illegally diverted airport revenues . . . 

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this title is to ensure that airport users are not burdened with hidden taxation for unrelated municipal services and activities by (1) 

eliminating the ability of any State or political subdivision thereof that is a recipient 

of a project grant to divert airport revenues for purposes that are not related to an 

airport, in violation of section 47107 of title 49, United States Code; (2) imposing 

financial reporting requirements that are designed to identify instances of illegal diversions referred to in paragraph (l); (3) establishing a statute of limitations for airport revenue diversion actions; (4) clarifying limitations on revenue diversion that 

are permitted under chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code; and (5) establishing 

clear penalties and enforcement mechanisms for identifying and prosecuting airport 

revenue diversion. 

Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (Revenue Use Policy), 

64 Fed. Reg. 7,696, 7,702 (Feb. 16, 1999) 

Just as proceeds from the sale or lease of airport property constitute airport revenue, proceeds from the sale or lease of a partial interest in the property—i.e., water 

or mineral rights—should also be considered airport revenue . . . In addition, the 

revenues generated by these activities will still flow to the sponsor for its use for 

a legitimate local governmental activity, the operation and development of its airport. 

House Conference Report No. 112–381, February 1, 2012 

Section 813. Use of Mineral Revenue at Certain Airports. In General. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may declare certain revenue derived from or generated by mineral extraction, production, lease, or other means at a general aviation airport to be revenue greater than the amount needed to carry out the 5 year projected maintenance 

needs of the airport in order to comply with the applicable design and safety standards of the Administration. 

FAA implementation of Congressional requirements on airport financial self-sustainability: 

In 1999, the FAA published its Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (64 Fed. Reg. 7696) (Revenue Use Policy). Among other things, this 

policy defined mineral rights revenue as revenue derived from the sale of sponsor owned mineral, natural, agricultural products or water taken from the airport. Prior to 1999, the FAA did not have a formal Policy pertaining to revenue 

use, including revenues from mineral royalties. The Revenue Use Policy was deVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Jan 31, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78392.TXT JACKIE
60 

1The exclusion of certain revenue is limited by statute to grandfather provisions permitting 

certain uses of airport revenue for non-airport purposes that predate the AAIA. None of which 

reference mineral rights. 

veloped in response to Congressional mandates. First, under the 1994 FAA Authorization Act, Congress instructed the DOT Secretary to establish policies and 

procedures to assure enforcement of the airport’s self-sustaining and revenue 

use grant assurances (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(13) and 49 U.S.C. 

§ 47107(b) respectively). Specifically, under 49 U.S.C. § 47107(b), Congress imposed a revenue-use requirement on recipients of FAA airport development 

grants. This statute defines airport revenue as ‘‘revenues generated by a public 

airport.’’ [49 U.S.C. § 47107(b)(1)] 

FAA interprets the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 813 as 

clearly recognizing that revenue derived from the extraction of minerals on a federally obligated airport is airport revenue. Congress provided a process for using mineral revenue at general aviation airports for local transportation infrastructure 

projects. Congress did not provide a similar process for commercial service airports. 

Question 2. For purposes of its Airport Revenue Use Restriction, the FAA has 

stated that a Water Treatment Facility would not be subject to the Airport Revenue 

Use Restriction but that mineral rights would be. What is the distinction between 

revenues generated from a Water Treatment Facility and those generated by naturally occurring mineral rights? 

Answer. Under current FAA policy on Revenue Use, a municipal water treatment 

facility located on airport property and without direct benefit to the airport would 

be required to pay the airport a ground lease set at Fair Market Value for use of 

the airport land. Mineral rights owned by the airport are thus airport property and 

therefore any revenue gained by their extraction would be airport revenue. 

In developing the Revenue Use Policy, the FAA was cognizant that the Airport 

and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA) did not define the term airport revenue. Section 511(a)(1)(12) of the AAIA requires the sponsor of a public airport to 

use revenues generated by the airport for the capital or operating costs of the airport, the local airport system, or other local facilities which are directly and substantially related to the actual air transportation of passengers and property. The 

legislative history of section 511(a)(12) suggests that Congress did not intend airport 

revenues to apply to revenues generated by facilities, which are located on the airport, but are unrelated to air operations or services which support or facilitate air 

transportation. The House Report 2.H.R. Rep. No. 760, 97th. Cong., 2d Sess., 712 

(1982) lists a water reservoir or convention center located on the airport as examples of such facilities. The FAA followed the guidance of the legislative history in 

defining airport revenue, but as stated in the Revenue Use Policy no longer considered the analogy between mineral extraction and operation of a convention center 

or water treatment plan to be appropriate. The FAA determined that mineral and 

water rights represent a part of the airport property and its value, and thus should 

be considered airport revenue. 

Accordingly, on February 26, 1996, the FAA issued its initial Proposed Policy on 

the Use of Airport Revenue. (61 Fed. Reg. 7134, February 26, 1996) After reviewing 

all comments received in response to this notice, the FAA issued a Supplemental 

Notice on December 11, 1996, and requested further public comment. (61 Fed. Reg. 

66735, December 18, 1996) Many comments on the original notice of proposed policy 

were addressed in the supplemental notice. The Proposed Policy did include royalties from mineral extraction on airport property earned by a sponsor as airport revenue. As noted in the disposition of comments in the Final Policy, one airport sponsor objected to this scope citing the Erie letter from 1985. Drawing on the context 

of Congressional direction in the 1994 Act to address generating revenues from all 

sources’’ in its Policy, the FAA determined the value of airport property, if sold or 

leased, was a source of airport revenue. [See, Section 110 of Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994] The FAA based the scope of this interpretation on the previously held opinion issued in the Erie letter that the sale of the 

property with the minerals would require consideration of that value and appropriate compensation to the sponsor. The Erie letter stated the sale of the property 

should recognize the value of the minerals and ‘‘all proceeds from the sale of the 

mineral rights should be used for airport-related purposes.’’ 

With the publication of the final Revenue Use Policy in 1999, FAA applied 49 

U.S.C. § 47107 to certain 1 revenue generated by a public airport property, including 

property owned by the airport, to be used for airport purposes. This application is 

based on Congressional intent as cited previously and the Agency’s interpretation 

is supported by case law. Interpretation of grant assurances by the FAA (issued 

61 

after notice and comment) are entitled to substantial deference. [See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997)] The Agency’s publication of the initial and supplemental notices enabled the FAA to meet this standard to implement the policy interpretation. 

Note: 

In making its determination on the value of airport property, the FAA considered 

the basics of real estate law. Specifically, the FAA recognized there are some instances where airport sponsors do not own the minerals located under the surface 

of the airport. For example, at an airport in Texas, prior to becoming a federally 

funded airport, the airport land was deeded to a sponsor with a provision specifically reserving all interests in underground minerals from the transfer. Thus, the 

airport sponsor does not have an interest in those assets, nor in any proceeds derived from the mineral rights. In this case, the proceeds are not airport revenue. 

Because property interests can be separated, reserved, or transferred by a deed, the 

FAA reasonably concluded in its interpretation airport revenue includes the value 

of the airport property. Thus, in the absence of any specific reservation of the mineral rights or other interests in an airport property conveyance, such interests belong to the airport sponsor. Reaching any other conclusion would be tantamount to 

saying that a person does not own the minerals under his or her home because they 

belong to the prior homeowner. Unless specifically exempted in the deed of conveyance, property interests are whole, and any corresponding revenue generated is airport revenue. 

The House Conference Report for Public Law 97–24, (H.R. Conf. Rep. 97–760, 

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 760, 97TH Cong., 2ND Sess. 1982, p. 712), explains the intent 

of the airport revenue provision. 

. . . airport users should not be burdened with ‘‘hidden taxation’’ for unrelated 

municipal services . . . This provision is not intended to apply to revenue generated by facilities which are located on airport property but are unrelated to 

air operations or services which support or facilitate air transportation. It would 

accordingly not apply to revenue generated by such facilities as a water reservoir or a convention center which happen to be located on airport property, 

but which serve neither the airport nor any air transportation purpose. It would 

apply to such facilities as terminal concessions and parking lot serving the terminal or other air transportation purposes. 

The legislative history for the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion 

Act of 1987, Public Law 100–223 (December 30, 1987), reaffirms the earlier statement that § 511(a)(12) is not intended to apply to revenue generated by facilities located on airport property but unrelated to air operations or services that support 

or facilitate air transportation. (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 100–484, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 

63 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2638; see also, H.R. Rep. No. 100–123 (II), 

100th Cong., 2d Sess. 14, reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2601, 2613.) 

7716 b. Revenue from sponsor activities on the airport. Airport revenue generally 

includes all revenue received by the sponsor for activities conducted by the sponsor 

itself as airport owner and operator, including revenue received: i. From any activity 

conducted by the sponsor on airport property acquired with Federal assistance; ii. 

From any aeronautical activity conducted by the sponsor which is directly connected 

to a sponsor’s ownership of an airport subject to 49 U.S.C. §§ 47107(b) or 47133; or 

iii. From any nonaeronautical activity conducted by the sponsor on airport property 

not acquired with Federal assistance, but only to the extent of the fair rental value 

of the airport property. The fair rental value will be based on the fair market value. 

Question 3. Does the FAA believe it has the right to restrict the use of proceeds 

from mineral rights beneath airport lands when the land is owned by an independent third party and is leased to the airport for use as an airport? If so, under 

what specific statutory authority? 

Answer. In the case in which an airport is built on land in which the sub-surface 

mineral rights continue to be retained by a third party, the proceeds are not considered airport revenue. However, Allegheny County Airport and Pittsburgh International Airport are different. It does not matter whether the County or the Authority owns the mineral rights because the County, as original owner of the airports 

took Federal airport grants and accepted FAA revenue use polices which mandate 

mineral revenues extracted from airport property remain airport revenue as long as 

the site remains an airport, even if the sponsor of that airport changes. 

Allegheny County claims that it owns the mineral rights underneath the airport 

property according to Pennsylvania law, while Allegheny County Airport Authority 

is only leasing the land for airport purposes. In 1999, Allegheny County, the original 

airport sponsor, created an airport authority to operate the Airport. The County has 

the power to dissolve the Airport Authority and operate the Airport as it did prior 

62 

to 1999 when the County took grants subject to the grant assurance requirements, 

including the revenue use requirements. As a condition to the transfer, the County 

was not released from the revenue use requirements. When the FAA approved the 

transfer from Allegheny County in the fall of 1999, after the adoption of the Revenue Use Policy in February 1999, both the County and the Airport Authority were 

advised that each must adhere to Federal law and regulations concerning the use 

of airport revenue. The County was informed that it is subject to revenue use restriction as long as the property is used as an airport. Consequently, any proceeds 

received from the oil deposits located on airport property are airport revenue and 

must be used for airport purposes. 

Question 4. The FAA committed to promulgating a standards-based rulemaking 

for portable oxygen concentrators when SFAR 106 was published in 2005 so that 

individual manufacturers would not have to seek a specific rulemaking approval for 

every device. Nevertheless, 7 years later the FAA has not initiated that rulemaking 

and the current device approval process persists. With that in mind, will the FAA 

make individual device rulemakings a priority so as to not disrupt new and improved technologies from coming to market? 

Answer. I understand your desire to ensure new products are able to come to market in an expeditious manner. Shortly we expect to issue a rule approving additional 

O2 concentrators for use on aircraft. This rule will address all requests for approval 

currently at the FAA. We will continue to make individual requests a priority until 

a final rule is published. 

Æ