U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–888 CC WASHINGTON : 1999

WILL TRANSPORTATION AND THE FAA BE READY

FOR THE YEAR 2000?

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 15, 1999

Committee on Government Reform

Serial No. 106–43

Committee on Science

Serial No. 106–46

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

Committee on Science

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JIM TURNER, Texas

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

MATT RYAN, Senior Policy Director

MASON ALINGER, Clerk

FAITH WEISS, Minority Counsel

(III)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

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

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

LAMAR SMITH, Texas

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

JOE BARTON, Texas

KEN CALVERT, California

NICK SMITH, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan*

DAVE WELDON, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

MERRILL COOK, Utah

GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin

STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California

GARY G. MILLER, California

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

JACK METCALF, Washington

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California, RMM**

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

TIM ROEMER, Indiana

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan

ZOE LOFGREN, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

VACANCY

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland, Chairwoman

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota*

THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

MERRILL COOK, Utah

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin

STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California

GARY G. MILLER, California

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan**

LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

BART GORDON, Tennessee

TIM ROEMER, Indiana

EX OFFICIO

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,

Wisconsin+

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California+

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 15, 1999 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Willemssen, Joel C., Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, General Accounting Office; Mortimer L. Downey, Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation; Jane F. Garvey, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; and Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, Department of Transportation ................................................................................. 8

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

Downey, Mortimer L., Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 33

Garvey, Jane F., Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 39

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

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

Mead, Kenneth M., Inspector General, Department of Transportation:

Letter dated May 20, 1999 ....................................................................... 79

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52

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

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 6

Willemssen, Joel C., Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, General Accounting Office, prepared statement of ........................................... 10

(1)

WILL TRANSPORTATION AND THE FAA BE

READY FOR THE YEAR 2000?

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOV- ERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECH- NOLOGY OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY OF

THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

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

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology) presiding.

Present: Representatives Horn and Morella.

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

Heald, director of communications; Mason Alinger, clerk; Faith

Weiss, minority counsel, Committee on Government Reform; and

Jean Gosa, minority staff assistant, Committee on Government Reform.

Staff present from the Subcommittee on Technology: Jeff Grove,

staff director; Ben Wu, professional staff member; and Joe Sullivan, clerk.

Mr. HORN. A quorum being present, I call this joint hearing of

the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, and Subcommittee on Technology to order.

Each year more than 500 million passengers board airplanes.

Most of them are secure in the knowledge that they will reach their

destination safely and reasonably on time. They depend on the intricate computers that keep the network of communications and

mechanical systems running—whether the year is 1999 or 2000.

But that’s only one part of the Nation’s vital transportation infrastructure. The railroads are an equally integral part of the travel

and commerce that support everyday life in America.

Each year, thousands of lumbering freight trains move across the

Nation’s network of rail lines, carrying millions of tons of goods and

raw materials. These are the items that keep our store shelves

filled and our factories open. The railroads remain one of the most

vital links to the continued prosperity of this country.

The port of Long Beach, which is in my district, is the busiest

container port in the United States, sixth busiest in the world. In

1997, nearly 60 million metric tons of cargo moved through the

port, everything from petroleum, iron, and steel, to electronics,

2

toys, and motor vehicles. Fifty percent of these imports are moved

by train to cities in the Midwest and East.

We must make sure that neither of these vital networks falls victim to the year 2000 computer problem.

The challenge, often called the ‘‘Millennium Bug’’ or simply ‘‘Y2K,’’ dates back to the 1960’s and 1970’s when computers were

bulky in size but small in memory. To conserve limited space, or

memory, programmers began designating the year by using two

digits rather than four. The year 1967, for example, appears as

‘‘67.’’ The first two digits are assumed to be ‘‘19.’’ Unless corrected, these data-sensitive computer systems and

microchips, embedded in countless mechanical devices, may misinterpret the two zeros in 2000 as 1900. The fear is that this confusion may cause the systems to generate erroneous information, corrupt other systems, or possibly shut down.

In February the Department of Transportation, which is responsible for overseeing the Nation’s air and rail lines as well as Federal highways and waterways, reported that only 53 percent of its

mission-critical computer systems are year 2000 compliant.

At the same time, the Federal Aviation Administration, which

oversees air safety and operates the Nation’s vital air traffic control

system, reported that only 60 percent of its mission-critical systems

were ready for January 1, 2000.

The FAA has said it cannot meet President Clinton’s March 31st

deadline to be 100 percent compliant. But will the agency be able

to meet its own self-imposed deadline of June 30, 1999?

To its credit, the FAA has historically maintained one of the finest safety records in the world, and we have no doubt that everyone at this agency is working extremely hard to retain that highly

regarded status.

We are here today to learn how the enormous year 2000 challenge is being met—in the air, on the ground, and on the Nation’s

waterways.

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

3


g:\graphics\60888.001
4

Mr. HORN. I welcome today’s witnesses and look forward to their

testimony. We have a good part of the leadership of the Department of Transportation, with Deputy Secretary Mortimer Downey,

Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration Jane Garvey.

We will start with our first witness, which is the representative

of the General Accounting Office which is the Congress’s programmatic and fiscal auditor. We try to send them into every agency. And so we welcome Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies

Information Systems, GAO, part of the legislative branch, and Mr.

Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, Department of Transportation.

As you all know, we swear in all witnesses before this subcommittee, and I would ask you if some of your assistants are

going to contribute to the dialog, I would just as soon swear in everybody now. That is what I did with the Department of Defense

on another subject, and that saves me giving oaths. So if all will

stand up, please raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. HORN. I note that there are roughly 10 or 11 that affirmed

that oath.

And so we will begin with Mr. Willemssen—— Mrs. MORELLA. Would you like me to make an opening statement?

Mr. HORN. Sure. I didn’t see you come in.

Mrs. MORELLA. I am so small.

Mr. HORN. The distinguished co-chairman of the working group,

task force, on the House side, but more important, chairman of the

Subcommittee on Technology of the House Committee on Science.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be

here as chairman of the House Science Committee’s Technology

Subcommittee. I am pleased to join the Committee on Government

Reform’s Government Management, Information, and Technology

Subcommittee in this important hearing to explore the impact of

the year 2000 computer problem upon critical components of our

Nation’s transportation system.

Our transportation system consists of many interlocking components, supported by a complicated aviation infrastructure and 5.5

million miles of public roads, rail track, waterways and pipelines.

Over the years, advanced technologies and computers have been

implemented by the transportation sector to improve efficiency.

Inadvertently, its reliance on technology also exposes the transportation sector to significant Y2K risks. Clearly transportation

and the movement of people and goods is absolutely vital to our

Nation. We simply cannot afford to allow the mobility of our society

to be disrupted by the millennium bug.

The Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting

Office and the Inspector General, as well as the Congress, have

been very critical of the Department of Transportation’s Y2K efforts to date. Most of the criticism is due to the fact that the Department and the FAA did not begin to seriously address the extent of the year 2000 problem until February 1998, much too late.

For its part, I must say that the Federal Aviation Administration

under the leadership of Administrator Jane Garvey has been very

forthright in recognizing its mistakes of the past. I am pleased to

5

commend Administrator Garvey and the agency for the remarkable

progress it has made in the last year. However, the job is not finished. There is still much work to do.

Currently the FAA has implemented Y2K changes in roughly

one-third of its air traffic control systems at its field sites. The remaining two-thirds are more complex and have to be installed at

3,000 different locations over the next 3 months. In addition to

making sure that their own internal systems work, the FAA has

also got to coordinate its efforts with airports, international organizations and other Federal agencies.

There is still much to do and a very short amount of time to ensure that the right Y2K solutions are put into place. While I have

confidence in their leadership, I am convinced that it is critical for

the Department and the FAA to work proactively with all transportation stakeholders in the development of contingency plans that

ensure that the transportation of people, goods and services are not

significantly impaired on January 1, 2000 and beyond.

So I am pleased that today we have a very distinguished panel

of witnesses before us. I look forward to their comments, their recommendations. The fact that this is the fourth hearing we have

held on transportation and year 2000 underscores its importance to

our subcommittees and to our Nation. We all share the same goal

of a seamless transition to the year 2000. The American people expect no less.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, and without objection, the

opening statement of the ranking minority member, Mr. Turner of

Texas, will be put in the record at this point.

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

6


g:\graphics\60888.002
7


g:\graphics\60888.003
8

Mr. HORN. We now begin with our first witness, Mr. Joel

Willemssen, the Director of Civil Agencies Information Systems of

the General Accounting Office. Mr. Willemssen.

STATEMENTS OF JOEL C. WILLEMSSEN, DIRECTOR, CIVIL

AGENCIES INFORMATION SYSTEMS, GENERAL ACCOUNTING

OFFICE; MORTIMER L. DOWNEY, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AND KENNETH M. MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

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

Morella, and thank you for inviting GAO to testify today on DOT’s

Y2K readiness. As requested, I will briefly summarize our statement and in particular focus on the Y2K readiness of the Federal

Aviation Administration.

Over the past year FAA has made tremendous progress on Y2K.

After a very slow start, FAA now has a strong management structure, an overall Y2K strategy, detailed standards and guidance,

schedules and milestones for key activities, and a draft business

continuity and contingency plan. Despite this progress, FAA still

has a long way to go. Trying to play catch-up after such a slow

start, especially given the complexity of FAA’s systems and environment, is an enormous undertaking.

For example, many of FAA’s mission-critical systems are not due

to be implemented until after OMB’s deadline this month. Several

of these are among FAA’s most critical systems. FAA also faces the

challenge of making sure that validation of systems is sufficient

and complete. In reviewing reports and test documentation for a

sample of six mission-critical air traffic systems, we found that validation of three was supported. However, we found one other system’s testing to be insufficient, and two systems lacked supporting

documentation to determine whether testing was adequate.

For example, for the automated radar terminal or ARTS–IIIA,

system which provides aircraft position and flight plan information

to controllers, FAA’s validation may have been premature. This

system continues to rely on a 1960’s vintage computer. Home computers available today have 250 times the memory of this computer.

Ten years ago we reported on the flight safety risks associated

with this old computer and recommended to FAA that it pursue alternatives to replace the system. However, this computer is still

used by air traffic controllers at over 50 locations. In looking at this

system for Y2K compliance, we found shortcomings in the analysis

of the software, testing, and the contractors’ determination of compliance.

FAA faces other challenges. It still needs to deploy about 75 systems to hundreds of air traffic facilities. Concurrently rolling out

numerous system changes to multiple sites will be time-consuming

and resource-intensive, and FAA has acknowledged that schedules

are tight—with no room for delay.

Data exchanges represent another major challenge for FAA. It

reports more than 1,000 in its inventory and more than 100 requiring modification, and we are continuing to review FAA’s progress

9

in this area. In-depth testing of multiple systems that have individually been deemed compliant is another key activity. FAA has

made progress on this since our last testimony and now has developed detailed end-to-end test plans that we are continuing to review.

In addition to the risks of its internal systems, FAA is also at

risk that external systems will fail. For example, we recently reported on airports’ efforts to address Y2K. Of the 234 airports responding to our surveys, about one-third reported that they would

complete their preparations by June 30th. The other two-thirds

planned on a later completion date or did not have an estimated

completion date, and half of these did not have contingency plans

for any of their core business functions.

Because of the risk of system failures, whether from internal systems or reliance on external partners and suppliers, FAA needs a

comprehensive business continuity and contingency plan to help

ensure continuing operations. FAA has drafted such a plan and intends to release four more iterations of this plan throughout the

year.

That concludes a summary of my statement, and I would be

pleased to address any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willemssen follows:]

10


g:\graphics\60888.004
11


g:\graphics\60888.005
12


g:\graphics\60888.006
13


g:\graphics\60888.007
14


g:\graphics\60888.008
15


g:\graphics\60888.009
16


g:\graphics\60888.010
17


g:\graphics\60888.011
18


g:\graphics\60888.012
19


g:\graphics\60888.013
20


g:\graphics\60888.014
21


g:\graphics\60888.015
22


g:\graphics\60888.016
23


g:\graphics\60888.017
24


g:\graphics\60888.018
25


g:\graphics\60888.019
26


g:\graphics\60888.020
27


g:\graphics\60888.021
28


g:\graphics\60888.022
29


g:\graphics\60888.023
30


g:\graphics\60888.024
31

Mr. HORN. We thank you very much for that very succinct statement. We are going through all of the witnesses first, and then we

will have questions for all panelists.

I am delighted to present now the Deputy Secretary for the Department of Transportation, Mortimer L. Downey. Welcome.

Mr. DOWNEY. Thank you, Chairman Horn and Chairwoman

Morella, for this opportunity to report on DOT’s efforts to resolve

the Y2K problem. I have a longer written statement which I would

like to submit for the record.

Mr. HORN. Automatically, all statements are put in the record

the minute I mention your name.

Mr. DOWNEY. I am here today fully confident that all DOT’s vital

computer systems will effectively make the transition on January

1, 2000. I am sure most of you realize that OMB has classified

DOT as an agency that is making limited progress, and that congressional evaluations have continually ranked us at the low end

of government.

While I understand how these determinations are made, they

should not be taken as showing any lack of effort or commitment.

Indeed, extraordinary effort is being applied to this challenge by

many dedicated DOT employees, including Ms. Garvey and her

staff and the IG’s office, whose seal of approval goes on before any

of our reports go out. We also appreciate the role of GAO, the questions that they raise as well as the model plans they have to guide

our efforts.

As of last Friday, March 12th, 64 percent of the Department’s

607 mission-critical systems were Y2K compliant, as compared

with our February report of 53 percent. And since this rate of

progress is not linear, I should note that 85 percent are projected

to be compliant by March 31st.

The FAA projects completion of its work by the schedule that

they had set, which is the end of June 1999, and they have met

their other goals to date. At that time, the end of June, approximately 99 percent of the Department’s systems will be compliant.

Those systems projected to be completed after June belong to the

U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard has scheduled completion of its

final system, the Valdez, Alaska Vessel Traffic System, for October

1999. Due to complicated logistics and the weather conditions in

Alaska, it is not possible to accelerate this project any further.

I will continue to work closely with all of our DOT Administrators to ensure the success of our remediation efforts, but even with

confidence that we have that our goals will be reached, we are preparing and will continue to refine comprehensive business continuity and contingency plans for each of our administrations to ensure that vital services will continue to operate; whatever the cause

might be for any system failure.

With respect to the broader challenges, we have aggressively

reached out to our transportation partners, domestic and international, in all modes, land, sea and air, and will be happy to comment on those today. There has been a productive exchange of information which will continue, and we will inform this committee

and the public of any potential areas of concern.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the commitment that Secretary Slater and I have to ensuring that all DOT systems will opVerDate 23-FEB-2001 10:31 Mar 02, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60888 pfrm07 PsN: 60888
32

erate properly before, during and after the millennium change, and

we will keep you advised of our progress over the coming weeks

and months.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Downey follows:]

33


g:\graphics\60888.025
34


g:\graphics\60888.026
35


g:\graphics\60888.027
36

Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

We will now move to Ms. Garvey, a very distinguished Administrator in the past and currently, the Administrator of the Federal

Aviation Administration.

Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Horn and Chairwoman Morella. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to address

the Y2K efforts of the FAA.

Let me say at the outset that we have made tremendous

progress, and I appreciate the General Accounting Office’s comments in particular. We have made tremendous progress since I

first appeared before this committee in February 1998. Since that

time we have worked virtually around the clock to ensure that our

skies would be safe and that air traffic will be as efficient as possible come midnight December 31st.

Within the past year, we have caught up with much of the rest

of the Federal Government, and I believe we may have surpassed

the expectations of many people. I realize that you, Mr. Chairman,

and many members of this committee have some concerns, and I

hope that I can answer some of those concerns today.

Currently the agency is in the validation phase, during which all

repaired systems must be tested to ensure that all of the work accomplished during the renovation phase is complete, is correct, and

is consistent. As of February 28th, we validated almost 80 percent

of our mission-critical systems. We fully expect to complete validation for 100 percent of all of our systems by March 31st. That figure is for mission-critical and non-mission-critical.

Our validation process includes an independent verification and

validation review by an outside contractor, as well as some very

helpful work from the IG’s office. It also includes comprehensive

end-to-end tests which test the interrelationships of our systems

and whether the individual fixes will actually work together as a

whole. In particular, we will be conducting an end-to-end test of

FAA’s operational facilities in Denver, CO on April 10th.

As you know, after a system has been validated, it progresses to

the implementation phase for key site testing and deployment. We

have scheduled implementation to be completed, as the Deputy

Secretary said, by June 30, 1999. Let me also stress while we will

complete implementation by June 30th, we will continue to test

and retest our systems for as long as possible and as rigorously as

we can to make absolutely sure that we are prepared.

Let me briefly mention our agency’s contingency plan. The key

to a successful contingency plan is involvement, we know, of our

labor partners. Last October, the FAA briefed representatives from

several unions on our contingency plan. That was followed by a series of workshops and meetings from October to December, resulting in a draft version of the contingency plan.

As GAO has testified, the first version of that plan will be released on April 15th. We will continue to review that plan and to

revise it as needed. We are working very closely with our labor

unions on that issue. It is important, we think, to have a good contingency plan facility-by-facility. We see the development of the

contingency plan as an evolutionary process.

Within the aviation industry, we have sponsored several ‘‘Industry Days,’’ which bring together key stakeholders from all sectors

37

of the aviation industry. In addition, at the request of the President’s Council on Y2K Conversion, we established an aviation industry Y2K steering group and a FAA outreach team. The purpose

of this effort is to identify the issues, to develop a coordinated approach to solutions and, finally, to avoid duplication of effort.

The steering committee is chaired by the FAA and membership

includes leaders from a number of industry trade organizations.

The committee meets biweekly and is responsible for keeping industry and government executives informed of the status of the

Y2K effort.

Airport readiness is another area of our outreach. I know this is

a concern to members of the committee, given the GAO’s recent report on airport readiness. GAO has appropriately raised some concerns in this area. I want you to know that the FAA is doing everything within our regulatory powers and even beyond to help airports achieve Y2K compliance.

We are focused first and foremost on those elements that have

the greatest effect on airport safety and security. We have provided

a list of commonly used airfield equipment that use computers or

embedded microchips. We have set criteria for verifying Y2K readiness of airport equipment, and we have detailed a 10-person FAA

team to monitor progress by airport operators. The FAA wants to

ensure, in fact we must ensure, that the airports achieve compliance with our safety regulations even if they cannot be fully Y2K

compliant.

Internationally, our work encompasses several efforts. Last April,

the FAA issued a Y2K International Project Plan, outlining an effective strategy of cooperation and coordination with our international partners. We are working very closely with the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO], and the International

Air Transport Association. An FAA employee has been assigned to

work full-time with ICAO in their Montreal, Canada office to offer

guidance and support for their Y2K coordination efforts. Both the

Deputy Secretary and I had an opportunity on individual occasions

to be briefed in Montreal over the last 2 weeks.

Last September, I represented the FAA at the ICAO general assembly in Montreal, where the United States sponsored two resolutions. Both resolutions, I am pleased to say, were accepted. One directs the ICAO Secretary General to develop and publish standard

Y2K assessment criteria. That was completed and issued at the

end of January. The second resolution urges States to submit to

ICAO the status of their Y2K readiness. That information must be

reported to ICAO by June 30, 1999.

FAA has also initiated informal working groups with different

international entities to solve common Y2K problems. We know

that cooperation between Canada, Mexico and the United States is

critical to ensure that the North American air transportation system does not suffer malfunctions on January 1st. Our three countries have agreed to share information on national efforts regarding

air navigation systems.

Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I am very proud

of the progress that we have made to date, we are not overconfident. We continue to work diligently on our own Y2K challenges

38

while supporting the efforts of the aviation industry as best as possible.

We have overcome many obstacles to get where we are today, but

we know that many challenges lie ahead. I continue to remind the

Y2K team that we have got to stay the course, that each benchmark, each inch mark, if you will, is critical. Each milestone is critical.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be

happy to answer any questions with my colleagues. Thank you very

much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Garvey follows:]

39


g:\graphics\60888.028
40


g:\graphics\60888.029
41


g:\graphics\60888.030
42


g:\graphics\60888.031
43


g:\graphics\60888.032
44


g:\graphics\60888.033
45


g:\graphics\60888.034
46


g:\graphics\60888.035
47


g:\graphics\60888.036
48


g:\graphics\60888.037
49

Mr. HORN. Thank you. That is a very succinct statement also.

We are now honored to have with us the Inspector General of the

Department of Transportation, Kenneth Mead. Are we still in the

20th year of Inspectors General, or did that finish with 1998? This

is a vital resource in our government. Proceed.

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

First, a little over a year ago we testified before the same subcommittees. Our report then was not at all encouraging. We testified that FAA was then 7 months behind schedule in assessing the

scope of their Y2K problems, let alone repairing the problems.

There were serious questions whether the HOST computer used to

control high altitude air traffic, would even make it to the year

2000, and FAA’s schedule for fixing its computers was literally the

11th hour, or November of this year, leaving no cushion.

We made a series of recommendations at that hearing. Chief

among them was establishing strong central management and moving up completion milestones to June 1999. FAA responded, Mr.

Chairman, and responded well to all these recommendations.

Looking back, that February seems to me to mark a turning

point. Commitment, leadership by the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the FAA Administrator, Mr. Koskinen and others, including

oversight of this committee and GAO, have resulted unambiguously

in a great deal of progress.

Overall, we have a much higher level of confidence today than

we did a year ago that DOT mission-critical systems, such as air

traffic control will indeed be Y2K compliant, and that there will be

sufficient room in the schedule to address computer interface problems that may develop. However, the job is not nearly done. We

can’t let up; there is still much to do. Here is where matters stand.

DOT has 607 mission-critical systems. About 300 were OK to

begin with; 309 had Y2K problems that had to be fixed. All but five

of these have been, fixed, but this does not mean the fix has been

installed at all field facilities which have a particular system.

DOT, as has been noted, will not meet OMB’s March 31 milestone to have all systems compliant, and compliant means not only

fixed but tested and installed in all locations. DOT expects to be

85 percent compliant by March 31st, 99 percent by June, and finished by late October.

FAA and the Coast Guard have 90 of the 91 systems that won’t

be compliant by March 31st. I would like to move to the display

chart that each of you have to explain more fully what this means.

First, our numbers are as of February 28th. We had to have a

cutoff to validate, but this is a moving target. Things have changed

even since then. The 85 percent compliant figure on March 31st

that you will hear about applies to the total universe of the 607

DOT mission-critical systems, which include systems not needing

fixes. But let’s focus for a moment on the 309 systems for which

repairs were required.

First, all of the 151 FAA systems—I don’t know if your eyes are

good enough to read that, Mr. Chairman, mine aren’t—but for

FAA, all of the 151 systems which had to be fixed are fixed. Most

have been tested.

The same is true for over 90 percent of the Coast Guard’s systems that had to be fixed. The Coast Guard has the five systems

50

that as of February 28th needed to be fixed, and only two of its 66

systems which require repairs have been fixed, tested and installed

at all field locations. The Coast Guard bears watching, but we are

certain that they are up to the task.

Third, the 16 FAA tested systems reflects at least one of each

mission-critical system has been repaired and tested. Once tested,

FAA installs the fix at all air traffic facilities in the field. There

are multiple units of the same computer system throughout the

United States.

In other words, the same repair or fix that was made to the computer system in the laboratory must now be made at air traffic facilities throughout the United States. That is the real challenge,

Mr. Chairman, for both FAA and the Coast Guard, to install the

fix in the field and make sure it works.

To illustrate, as shown in red on that chart, for the 65 air traffic

systems that needed to be repaired, one-third have been fixed, tested, and installed throughout the country. That means the fixes for

the remaining 44 air traffic systems have to be installed at field

locations between now and the end of June. That equates to several

thousand locations.

For the Coast Guard, 64 of 66 system fixes must now be deployed

to afloat or shore activities by the end of June. Also, we are paying

special attention to the validation numbers, which is testing the

fix. We found a need for FAA to be a bit more disciplined in providing support for the test results, and I think Mr. Willemssen has

already alluded to that.

I point these out not to detract, Mr. Chairman, in any way from

the progress that has been made, but rather to illustrate the scope

and importance of the remaining work.

Second, with the short time remaining, DOT has to finalize workable contingency plans. We are concerned that FAA’s two major

unions, the controllers and maintenance technicians, still need to

play an active role in the composition of these plans. These are the

people who have to continue operations if unexpected failures

occur.

Third, moving to the industry, DOT, Coast Guard, Transit, and

FAA, have done a good job of injecting a high level of Y2K awareness. Can more be done? Absolutely. Our sense of industry readiness in the aviation area is that major passenger and cargo carriers are managing Y2K preparation quite well.

But we think, and I am speaking here only for the Office of Inspector General, that they should certify for the Department by November 1, large and small alike, that their systems are Y2K compliant. The Federal Transit Administration is requiring this of

transit authority. We think that the FAA should require that as

well. We have to make certifications to the Secretary, and the Secretary in turn to the Office of Management and Budget. I don’t see

any persuasive reason why regulated entities which carry passengers and cargo should not do likewise.

GAO has already touched on airports, and I won’t.

Fourth, the international arena is one of continued concern. DOT

has been working with various international organizations. Although awareness has increased greatly, there are at this hour far

too many unknowns in other parts of the globe. We believe it is

51

time to develop a policy as to whether U.S. carriers or U.S. codeshare flights will be allowed to fly to countries that are not known

to be Y2K compliant.

Finally, I would like to close with the point that we in the Office

of Inspector General stand ready to help in any way that we can.

We found at all levels of the Department, regardless of the operating administration, an openness and support for the oversight

and checking, and responsiveness to the recommendations that we

have made.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]

52


g:\graphics\60888.038
53


g:\graphics\60888.039
54


g:\graphics\60888.040
55


g:\graphics\60888.041
56


g:\graphics\60888.042
57


g:\graphics\60888.043
58


g:\graphics\60888.044
59


g:\graphics\60888.045
60


g:\graphics\60888.046
61

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much. My co-chairman and I will be

alternating and questioning for about 5 minutes each until we get

through all 200 questions that we have prepared here. Don’t worry,

it is only 190.

Let me ask the Secretary a couple of things here.

Do you concur that those are accurate figures as far as you see?

Those are generally developed by your people, and the IG has gone

in to look at it and I would ask Mr. Mead, are you pretty sure

those figures are sound?

Mr. MEAD. Yes, sir, as of the end of February. Mr. Downey alluded to some more recent figures that we haven’t validated yet,

and that is why I was not sourcing those.

Mr. HORN. February 12th was of course the quarterly report and

that is what we based our judgment on. Is there anything new that

wasn’t in this chart of the Inspector General?

Mr. DOWNEY. We issue a monthly report to the OMB that was

validated by the Inspector General. That is the report that would

bring us up to 57 percent. The 64 percent was our informal review

as of Friday, and before you get a monthly report at the end of this

month it will also be validated by the IG, but that is the one that

we expect to be at 85 percent.

Mr. HORN. Besides seeing how rapidly an agency is implementing the testing and getting full compliance, we had four other

criteria which the Department of Transportation was simply, ‘‘in

progress,’’ whether it was 1 percent progress or 200 percent

progress we don’t know. On the contingency plan, it was in

progress. What is the contingency plan of the Department of Transportation?

Mr. DOWNEY. There will be about a dozen separate contingency

plans, one for each of the major administrations. By the end of this

month I think most of them will be complete in draft. Some of them

will be issued in final. All of them will continue to be worked on

right up to the end of the year as we work with other partners, because there will be contingency plans not only for things that

should be within our control but for contingencies that will be beyond our control.

Mr. HORN. Can you give me one example of one system that you

have a contingency plan for?

Mr. DOWNEY. We have a full published contingency plan for the

Federal Railroad Administration. It covers the internal systems of

FRA. It also covers our work with the industry on safety related

matters for the industry. We can provide that to you.

Mr. HORN. What is the particular system you have that is the

contingency? Is it another system in another agency or what?

Mr. DOWNEY. Well, for example, in Federal Rail one of the major

systems is managing our Federal inspection activities. We can fall

back to do it by paper and pencil, but we want to be sure that the

business functions can continue.

Mr. HORN. Have people in the Federal Railway Administration,

have they been checking on microchips and what it might mean to

their signaling?

Mr. DOWNEY. Yes. Throughout the industry we have worked with

the railroads, large and small, and have found that signal systems,

locomotives, crossing gates and all of the other safety-related equipVerDate 23-FEB-2001 10:31 Mar 02, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60888 pfrm07 PsN: 60888
62

ment within the industry should perform well. While there are numerous microchips, they are all event-sensitive and not date-sensitive, and so we should see those systems working.

The thing that the industry is continuing to work on, and we are

monitoring their progress, is the interrelated systems they have for

managing freight cars and managing the flow of traffic. Those have

to work not only within each railroad but across the entire industry. The American Association of Railroads has taken the lead on

that, and is working with each of the major carriers to be sure that

their systems will work together. The current report we have from

them is that they are about 85 percent complete with the implementation and expect to meet a June 30th deadline.

Mr. HORN. Besides completion, our second criteria on the February 12th reports was the degree to which your telecommunications system would be able to serve the computers on this. Is

that true?

Mr. DOWNEY. We are including those telecommunication systems

which are under our own control, such as FAA and Coast Guard

systems, as part of our modernization and implementation efforts.

We have to work with the telecommunication carriers where we are

involved in using commercial systems. We are continuing to work

with them, along with FCC and the General Services Administration, to be sure that those systems will be working.

Mr. HORN. So you have your own internal systems and switches,

that if say Bell Atlantic or whatever it is goes under because of

some computer glitch in their switch, you have your own way of

communicating with your people?

Mr. DOWNEY. In some cases, and in some cases they are directly

linked through the commercial system, and in that case we have

a risk in problems with the commercial system. That is one of the

reasons for having our contingency plan. Should an issue beyond

our control, as a Bell Atlantic or MCI switch fail, we have to have

alternate means. Typically that means having alternate routings

for the data flow.

Mr. HORN. Those of us that were around when President Kennedy was assassinated recall that everybody picked up the phone

to talk to their loved ones or whatever it was, and the switches just

broke down. Have we looked at that situation and the disaster area

since? In California it will be an earthquake or something.

Mr. DOWNEY. That is something that, working through the Y2K

Council with John Koskinen, the Telecommunications Working

Group is involved in that discussion. There are priority uses and

priority users, and I think we will have an ability to be sure that

the priority uses will be met. We cannot assure that every person

in America will have a dial tone on their phone, but I think the

safety-sensitive activities will be met.

Mr. HORN. Our third criteria was embedded systems. To what

degree are you getting into those systems and seeing what these

little microchips will do?

Mr. DOWNEY. We are working that not only through the things

through our own controls but through the industry. We have

worked with aviation. Aviation is an easier one to work with because FAA maintains configuration control on all aircraft and realVerDate 23-FEB-2001 10:31 Mar 02, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60888 pfrm07 PsN: 60888
63

ly can tell us where there are chips, and they have found the areas

where changes need to be made.

We are concerned in the maritime area because there are thousands of ships out there and they are all unique, and at a later

point I can tell you internationally what we are doing on that. We

held a conference in London recently.

We have checked out the transit systems, and we are now surveying the auto industry, who have told us informally there are no

chips in our automobiles that we should worry about; but we would

like to get a more formal response from them that says no individual automobile will go out of control because of a chip.

Mr. HORN. That is good to know. I have a 1988 Mercury and I

love it, and I bought it strictly because of that dashboard, and

something has gone wrong already because a third of it doesn’t

show anything, but that is OK. Just keep after them.

Just one last question on this. External data exchange, that was

our further criteria. What have you got to do on that?

Mr. DOWNEY. We are working through our external data exchange. The FAA is most critical, with interchanges with the industry and with the Weather Service. My recollection is of about

1,000 areas of interchange, there were roughly 100 that might have

problems and something like half of those have now been corrected,

but we are working through all of our interchanges.

Other areas that are important, maybe not safety-sensitive but

important, are our flow of funds to the States for all of our grant

programs. The States are very anxious to be sure that those payment flows can be made, and we will be working end-to-end tests

with them as well.

Mr. HORN. I am delighted to yield 6 minutes to Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. I must say this is a situation where I see very

honest criticism of the system, with GAO, Inspector General, with

our Deputy Secretary of DOT and our Administrator of FAA, criticism and cooperation, too. I think it is probably a singular exemplary example that could be followed, particularly because as we

look at FAA it started, as we have all mentioned, so very, very late.

Ms. Garvey, I would like to ask you to give us your response.

Will FAA be ready by June 30th with contingency plans?

Ms. GARVEY. Yes, Congresswoman, we will be ready with a contingency plan. Our first version is going to be issued April 15th and

it contains two volumes. But again, those plans are going to be revised. We expect a second one to come out this summer, and then

a third one in the fall, and the whole premise is that we will continue to work it.

I think one of the issues—and I might add, by the way, that I

think the involvement of the unions to date, and I absolutely hear

what Mr. Mead says, that that must continue and we must involve

them again and again, but I think the involvement to date has

made the plan a better plan. And I expect that we will continue

to work it facility-by-facility so that we are prepared. I want to

publicly commend both Mr. McNally and Mr. Fanfalone for their

personal involvement. It really has involved the highest levels of

the union.

Mrs. MORELLA. That is another element of the partnership that

I commend, and I am so pleased that you are all working together

64

cooperatively. I am glad to hear about the fact that you also believe

that you will meet that deadline.

I want to ask a question about the fact that you plan to conduct

a lot of end-to-end tests in the coming weeks. When will the FAA

interface with foreign air traffic control organizations as part of an

end-to-end test?

Ms. GARVEY. Congresswoman, we have begun some of that testing now, particularly with Canada. NAV Canada has been a very

active partner with us in conducting those tests. We have some

more tests scheduled this month, around March 23rd, and we have

a trilateral scheduled in May to talk with Canada and Mexico

about the very issue of testing.

We are continuing to work with a number of other international

partners on testing through the spring and early summer. I can

give you exactly what that schedule includes, but it includes a

number of countries in Latin America as well as, of course, Mexico

and Canada and European countries as well. I would be happy to

follow up on that, with specific schedules.

Mrs. MORELLA. And just expanding that question just a bit more,

what steps will the FAA take to ensure that U.S. air carriers or

U.S. code-share flights will only fly to countries that are proven to

be Y2K compliant?

And then I am going to ask if Mr. Willemssen and Mr. Mead

would also comment on the questions that I have asked. Maybe Mr.

Downey would like to, too.

Ms. GARVEY. The code-sharing, I may defer to the Deputy Secretary.

Just to emphasize the work that we are doing with ICAO, we expect that the information that we all have internationally on June

30th is going to be very critical. I was briefed in Montreal on Friday, and I was pleased to see the work that ICAO and IATA were

able to do to date, but we have some very hard decisions post June

30th, together with the State Department, with the industry, once

we I think fully understand what the situation is. We will have

some difficult decisions. But I am pleased with the information that

is coming in and pleased with the forthrightness that really I think

all of the countries have approached this issue.

Mr. DOWNEY. If I can followup on the code-share issue, which is

an economic issue, we will be looking at that same information

and, together with State, make two levels of public information

available. One would be travel advisories with respect to foreign

countries, and this would not only be with respect to their aviation

systems but generally the state of play in those countries.

With respect to U.S. carrier or code-shares where U.S. tickets are

being used on a foreign airline, I believe we will look at safety as

the issue, not necessarily Y2K compliance but assurance of safety,

as we do today. We do not allow U.S. carriers to fly into any circumstance where we believe the air travel system is unsafe, and

this would be one consideration as part of that.

Mrs. MORELLA. How do you check the safety and compliance of

international carriers? Do you rely on what they tell you?

Mr. DOWNEY. We do two things. We get information from the carriers. We put a lot of reliance on our review and ICAO’s review of

the certifying authority in the local country. We want to be sure

65

that if country X certifies its carriers and airports as safe, that

they actually have a good regime for doing that. We publish our

evaluations of those regimes, and we take with considerable doubt

any statement that comes from a country whose certification regime is less than adequate.

Mrs. MORELLA. Do you feel some countries will be closed, their

airports, thinking of Indonesia, some countries of that nature, their

airports will be closed?

Mr. DOWNEY. We will know better after July, when we get the

information from ICAO, and before September, and we have the

full opportunity to evaluate it.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Willemssen and Mr. Mead, do you have any

comments to the series of questions?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. In terms of contingency plans, we think that

FAA has made very good progress in this area. They have put together an initial framework. I think their strategy of going forward

with additional iterations makes sense, especially as they get more

detail on the exact nature of the contingencies that they want to

activate. There has been very good progress in that area.

Likewise in the end-to-end testing area that you mentioned, they

have got some good guidance put together and some good strategies

for testing the most critical air traffic systems. We are going to continue evaluating to make sure that as much thorough testing is

done as possible on those most essential air traffic systems.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Mead.

Mr. MEAD. Just two comments. I would agree with Mr.

Willemssen. I would underscore, though, that with respect to the

business continuity plans I think we need to pay special attention,

as the Administrator I am certain is, to the involvement of both the

maintenance technician union and the controllers, because at the

individual system level if they need to use manual procedures, you

definitely want their concurrence, and I am sure that they will

have it.

Second, on the code-sharing, the more we look at this, I think the

public disclosure or advisories may not be sufficient and that we

will need policy concerning whether U.S. airlines and the codeshare airlines should be flying in certain foreign airspace. We will

know a lot more by June about the readiness level of foreign countries.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. Thank you. Just for the record, when you hear the

word ‘‘ICAO’’ it is not a boxer knocking somebody out. It is the

International Civil Aviation Organization, which if I remember

goes back to the League of Nations and it was inherited by the

United Nations. That is where most people can get together and

battle things out on international policy, and it is a very worthwhile organization.

Let me ask a few questions in which I also want to involve the

IG and the GAO. The FAA has established June 30th to have its

computer system be ready to go. Do you think the FAA will make

the June 30 deadline? Mr. Mead, will they?

Mr. MEAD. Yes, I do. I would not be surprised if there are some

last minute testing issues that may extend it a bit past that day,

66

but that is why FAA moved this milestone up from November to

June, to allow that cushion for unexpected problems.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Willemssen.

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. I think it will be extremely difficult to meet

that date with the kind of thoroughness of testing that we would

expect on individual systems.

Mr. HORN. Well, if they won’t, why won’t they make the deadline? What are the factors that affect that?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. The major factor affecting that is so many systems to implement at so many locations. Late last week the FAA

program manager estimated to us that he had about 4,500 events

between now and the end of June. Each event means one system

at one location. Multiply that by 4,500 in a little over 3 months,

and have it all go the way that it is supposed to go—with that

many systems and that many locations—will be extremely difficult

to do. If FAA can pull it off, great. We hope that they can. However, I am not sure that they can with the thoroughness of testing

that we will be looking for.

Mr. MEAD. I would rather, Mr. Chairman, if we see in our monitoring of validation that Mr. Downey alluded to disclosures on the

cutting of corners on testing, I would rather see implementation

slip by 2 or 3 weeks rather than come up with a nice rosy report

and later have to back off of it.

Mr. HORN. I think everybody up here shares that view, also.

Let’s do it right. Are those in the regional centers or in the actual

airports that these events take place?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. A range of facilities from en route centers to

terminal radar approach control facilities to automated flight service stations. We counted up the different types of facilities and

came up with a number of 654 different types of facilities, some

with maybe one system, some with multiple systems. That is a

huge challenge for any organization to have to deal with in a little

over 3 months.

Mr. HORN. Ms. Garvey.

Ms. GARVEY. First of all, let me say we do not minimize the challenge ahead of us. It is a big challenge, but I really do think that

we have it laid out in such a methodical and thoughtful way that

will allow us to meet that challenge.

There are 100 events per sector. There are 33 sectors. We have

the best technicians in the world, who know this system and have

grown up with this system. In addition, we have 250 specialists

also assigned to it. So while it is an enormous challenge, we have

it laid out by sector in such a way that it can be met, we think.

But I would certainly agree and restate what the Inspector General

said: We want to make sure that the testing is accurate and valid,

and we welcome the involvement of both the GAO and the Inspector General in that effort.

Mr. HORN. Any other comments to be made on this? In other

words, you all agree if it is slippage of a few weeks, don’t worry

about it as long as we get the job done.

Mr. DOWNEY. None of us will stop worrying until the job is done.

Mr. HORN. One of the first strategies in finding out how a system

will perform through the year 2000 date change is to contact the

vendor of the key components to determine if the vendor will cerVerDate 23-FEB-2001 10:31 Mar 02, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60888 pfrm07 PsN: 60888
67

tify that their products are Y2K compliant. FAA did not do this on

the so-called ARTS–IIIA hardware. Now, why didn’t we do this?

Ms. GARVEY. Mr. Chairman, we had some very intensive testing

done with Lockheed Martin, and also actually with the firm that

originally put together the ARTS–IIIA, and we have had lengthy

discussions with GAO as recently as Friday. We think that the

testing and validation is solid and good and we expect to get a letter today from Lockheed Martin to that effect. But we also agree

if GAO has some concerns, Lockheed Martin has said that they will

be happy to run the testing again so we can all have a level of comfort that we need. So we stand by the testing, and Lockheed Martin

has done the validation, but we are happy to run it again if that

would help.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Willemssen, how do you feel about this?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. To the extent that the contractor in this case

can provide a certification that this particular piece of hardware,

manufactured more than 30 years ago, is indeed Y2K compliant,

that will give the Federal Aviation Administration a greater level

of assurance that issues will not come up.

In terms of the software, there does need to be some additional

testing done. The report that has been done thus far by the contractor indicates that the year is represented by two digits, not

four. There are some Y2K ramifications possible, and we would like

to see more thorough testing of the radar tracking function in particular to make sure that this issue doesn’t surface.

Again, one thing to keep in mind here, you vary the level of testing depending on the criticality of the system. This system is absolutely essential. It provides flight information and identification information to controllers, and therefore we think the bar needs to

be pretty high.

Mr. HORN. Well, does it also have to be earlier? As I look at the

data from our own staff, these systems support critical FAA functions, as you noted, include aircraft surveillance and weather data

processing, yet 12 of these systems will be among the last of the

FAA systems to be completed. Is that a problem?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Well, it is something that we wanted to point

out in the statement in terms of making sure that FAA focuses, as

I testified in August, on the most critical air traffic systems, and

to make sure that the thoroughness of testing is especially focused

on those particular systems. So it is noted that they are later in

the process but again, as mentioned a few minutes ago, to the extent that it takes even a little longer than the current milestones

to make sure that they are thoroughly tested, we would support

that.

Mr. HORN. Any other comments?

Ms. GARVEY. Just to reiterate, Lockheed Martin is very comfortable with it, but we would be happy to continue those discussions and further testing if necessary.

Mr. HORN. Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to first of all pick up on the contingency plan concept. Ms.

Garvey, if Mr. Willemssen’s suggestions that contingency plans

could be in a little difficulty with regard to meeting the deadline,

68

which contingency plans, for which particular sector? Can you be

specific?

Ms. GARVEY. There are about six systems that are critical, including the ARTS–IIIA, as GAO has testified. In addition, HOST,

for example, is very, very important to us as well. So we would

focus on those particular systems that are really critical to the

working of the system, the heart and soul of the system.

For example, HOST, if HOST fails, we have a backup system

that would come into place and ultimately, if we are concerned

enough, we would increase the separation or slow up the traffic to

some degree. So those are the kinds of contingency plans, but you

can look at a system like HOST, see what the backup system is

and see what the backup is to that, with the ultimate being separation or further separation of the aircraft, actual delays if we need

to.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Willemssen, you want to comment on that?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. I would. Again, we have been very supportive

of the focus that FAA has had on the contingency planning over the

last several months. They have focused from a business function

perspective—that is, to look at it from end-to-end. For example, in

the surveillance of aircraft, one would focus on making sure that

they are still appropriately separated and looking at the various

things that could potentially go wrong, and if those events realize

themselves, what kind of backup they would have in place. And I

think they are moving in that direction. They have a good draft in

hand that is ready to be fleshed out with some more details.

Mrs. MORELLA. I see this as really very, very important because

of the ‘‘house of cards’’ concept. One thing is connected to another.

If one topples, the whole situation could be chaotic, and I guess you

would agree with that.

Mr. WILLEMSEN. Yes.

Mrs. MORELLA. It was just the other day I talked to some members. There was a conference here in the travel industry, and actually they did a reservation check and they found—it was in February, early February they found that their reservation system

came through without a hitch for reservations, you know, January

2000 and beyond. However, they are obviously concerned about

whether or not they will be able to fulfill these reservation contracts with their clients.

So I guess I would ask you, in terms of the connections, what

about luggage systems at airports? Are you overseeing the airports’ alternative power sources, I mean, the electric generators? What

about, you know, other terminal systems? Would you like to comment on some of those specifics?

Ms. GARVEY. Let me make a brief comment about that. From our

perspective, from the FAA’s perspective, we are focused on those

systems that are related to safety and security. Airfield lighting,

for example, is absolutely critical as are the condition of the fire

trucks, and whether they are actually ready and Y2K compliant.

That is really our focus. It is those elements that are part of the

part 139 certification processes that airports need to go through.

However, I will say that as we have the joint discussions every

other week with industry, many of those other issues are coming

up, and I know that ACI and AAAE and even ATA are spending

69

a good deal of time with the airport operators on some of those

issues. But really our critical issue is the safety and security element of it.

Mrs. MORELLA. Would the rest of you agree? Would you, Mr.

Willemssen?

Mr. WILLEMSEN. I think that is the appropriate focus. Again,

since there is so much to do and limited time to do it, you have

to focus on those important areas.

Mr. DOWNEY. We are comfortable the FAA should put their focus

on the safety side, but we are also working with the industry because if some of these other systems fail, it could have a significant

effect on the movement of commerce. We don’t want to see serious

delays there, but it is safety first and then the other issues. We are

concerned that some of the airports have not really looked at all

the things they need to look at.

Mrs. MORELLA. So there are a number of entities that need to be

looked at, that are not within your purview because they don’t involve safety, but they certainly could involve inconvenience at a

minimum, you know, minimally, and as others should be looking

at. I am wondering about the cruise industry, Secretary Downey.

Is there any checking on whether or not the cruise ships are Y2K

compliant?

Mr. DOWNEY. Coast Guard has been working with all of the elements of the maritime industry, and had a very successful conference in London earlier this month at which a code of good practice was agreed to by the industry. We believe it will be endorsed

by the International Maritime Organization, which usually takes

many years to get things agreed to. I think in this case they are

going to speed up their process. This will allow the Coast Guard

to have a quick checklist of any ship entering U.S. waters and determine quickly what they have done and what they have not done,

and under our regime of port control, we could bar ships that are

not ready for the year 2000.

Mrs. MORELLA. The Coast Guard is the one who has the responsibility to deal with those vessels.

Mr. DOWNEY. The Coast Guard has the ability to deal with that

in U.S. waters. We are looking at it internationally because it is

an international issue.

Mrs. MORELLA. Absolutely. Right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. On that very point, some have told us, looking at it

on a worldwide basis, that microchips are in the refineries, they

are in the ships, they are in the unloading and everything else. To

what degree is the Department of Transportation concerned that

we can’t get a gasoline, a petroleum and oil supply into this country?

Mr. DOWNEY. We are working with the pipeline industry and the

tanker industry and the refineries to assure that there will be a

continuity of supply. The question of chips is a concern. We have

pretty much ruled out the problem with respect to the pipelines.

They have done complete checking. The issue with the ships is

a lot more difficult than with aircraft because there is not the kind

of tight configuration control. This is why we were so pleased to get

the major elements of the industry together, to turn the problem

70

over to them with a clear checklist of what they have to do. We

now will know whether tankers, for example—and InterTankO, the

trade association, was part of this agreement—will now have a set

of steps that each operator can go through and that we can followup on to see if in fact they have been done.

We cannot completely rule out the problem yet, especially in

ports all around the world. The cargo cranes, for example, we

heard when we met with Mexico a few weeks ago that they have

been checking in their ports. They found half the cranes are OK

but they haven’t been able to verify the other half as well. So Coast

Guard will be ready, as they always are, to deal with any emergencies that are generated and to be sure that we can maintain an

adequate flow of critical materials.

Mr. HORN. The Department of Defense has a cooperative relationship with Russia in terms of having our officers in their air defense commands, their officers in ours. Russia provides most of the

energy supply, at least gas, coming out of Russia into Eastern Europe and part of Central Europe. This whole thing, if something

goes awry, is at winter season.

To what degree is the Department of Transportation offering to

help Russia if they have problems? Now, it is primarily a pipeline

going there. Maybe we are not worried about pipelines, I gather,

but has any exchange been done between this country and Russia?

Mr. DOWNEY. Not formally, yet, but I believe there will be discussions at the very senior levels, and certainly the Department will

be ready to be part of any team that is provided to Russia.

Mr. HORN. I think that is a good idea because if that system goes

out of whack, you are going to have millions of Europeans freezing.

They just won’t have the supply for the heat.

Let me ask Mr. Willemssen, the Federal Aviation Administration

has contracted with a firm, and I don’t know if there is a name for

it, it is SAIC. What does that stand for, pray tell? Another acronym

in Washington.

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. That is how most of us refer to it, SAIC.

Mr. HORN. Is it SI-AC or what?

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Just SAIC.

Mr. HORN. SAIC. OK. To perform independent verification and

validation activities. In your opinion, are they performing both

verification and validation?

Mr. WILLEMSEN. I think it is an excellent step that FAA took, to

get such a contractor into the system on this effort. One of the

areas that they may want to consider is having SAIC or another

similar contractor also perform work for them in addition to double-checking, so to speak, on the documentation and paperwork behind certifications. They also may want to go a bit further and

have another independent source rerun some of the tests to see if

indeed the same results come out of those tests as the original tests

that were done. That is especially true for those systems that are

most essential to the air traffic control system. Again, it is not necessary for all systems.

Mr. HORN. What are the potential consequences of not independently validating the system test?

Mr. WILLEMSEN. Well, one thing an independent test gives you

is added insurance, especially if that independent tester has a menVerDate 23-FEB-2001 10:31 Mar 02, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60888 pfrm07 PsN: 60888
71

tality that ‘‘We are going to try to find problems here’’ as opposed

to, ‘‘Well, let’s try to check this box and go on to the next step.’’

You really need mentality with the organization that is doing the

independent tests, in order to have some pretty rigorous test

scripts that can identify potential issues that could surface themselves, if not on Janaury 1, 2000, on some of the other critical

dates. So I think that is an important consideration for FAA to

keep in mind.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Mead, in your February memorandum you noted

the President’s Council on the Year 2000 Conversion identified

computer security as a potential concern due to the magnitude of

year 2000 renovation work that is being performed. So I guess the

obvious question is, how vulnerable are the Department’s computer

systems to security threats? And is the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, particularly vulnerable?

Mr. MEAD. I think it is fair to say that FAA as well as other

parts of the Department need to step up their efforts in the computer security area, and it is a very formidable undertaking. I

know DOT is not the only agency in government facing this issue,

but internally it is something FAA and Coast Guard face, particularly these operational agencies.

Mr. HORN. Is there one administration within the Department of

Transportation that is particularly vulnerable? Or are they all

equally vulnerable? Looks like the Railway Administration, for example, doesn’t have as many problems as we might have thought

they would have.

Mr. MEAD. We attempted payroll penetrability a couple years

ago. The system was so old it was difficult to penetrate.

Mr. HORN. You were trying to give Inspectors General an increase in pay, or what?

Mr. MEAD. That would be acceptable, too, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. Somebody’s 17-year-old high school student penetrated it, right?

Mr. MEAD. Frankly, even though FAA and the Coast Guard are

both operational agencies and have to take care of people’s lives as

part of their daily mission, it is also true that the Federal Highway

Administration dispenses, large amounts of money, and so computer security is an equal concern across the board at DOT.

Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could add a bit on that, the Y2K

Council has been working very closely with the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office which is part of the National Security Council, and we really view Y2K as a dress rehearsal for what we have

to do on computer security not just in the government but across

all of industry. It is an important area and we have learned a lot

in the last year about what we need to do.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Mead triggered in my brain the magic words, like

Groucho Marx, the Federal Highway Administration. I am told

back in either 1987 or 1989 a very able programmer laid it all out

for him and said we ought to be doing this just like Social Security

did in 1989, and the old boy network just gave no credence to a

woman programmer, which is nonsense.

And what I want to know now is, in 1987–1989 the Secretary

never had a chance to talk about that issue. There was no manageVerDate 23-FEB-2001 10:31 Mar 02, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60888 pfrm07 PsN: 60888
72

ment system within Transportation to get that idea percolating to

the top so he could talk or she could talk, as the case may be.

Do any of you in these different administrations, Rail and Coast

Guard and Federal Aviation, have a problem? And I would think

the FAA Administrator at that time would have nodded his head,

‘‘Yes, sounds like we’d have a problem.’’ It didn’t get there. I guess

I would ask the question, have the management lines within the

Department of Transportation shaped up from those days?

Mr. DOWNEY. I think one of the things that will help in that regard is the creation of the Chief Information Officer position within

the Department and equivalent positions. One has just been hired

at the FAA. And that crosscutting network of individuals who have

shared concerns, whether it is the CFO on finance or the Chief Information Officer or other comparable activities, do get us more of

the sharing of activities.

We also try to work better among the Administrators, to be sure

that the line activities are also well coordinated. We have a concept

now called ‘‘One DOT.’’ When someone learns something like that,

sharing it is viewed as a very important activity within the Department.

Mr. HORN. So nothing like this would happen again?

Mr. DOWNEY. I would hope not.

Mr. HORN. Well, we all hope that but the problem is, is there a

mechanism to get tough questions up to the top?

Let me see. Ms. Garvey, the Department of Transportation’s

Chief Information Officer has issued guidance cautioning that the

year 2000 windowing technique, which is only a temporary fix,

could result in slower system performance. What kind of fixes are

the Department and FAA using to ensure that its systems are Y2K

ready?

Ms. GARVEY. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, you mean the——

Mr. HORN. Well, as I understand it from what staff have said

from looking around, Transportation’s Chief Information Officer

has issued guidance concerning the so-called windowing technique,

which is only a temporary fix, and it could result in slower system

performance. Well, if it is a fix, is that going to help the Department and the FAA in the long run to really make sure you have

done the job?

Ms. GARVEY. I think from our perspective, I may have to turn to

staff for this, but what we are trying to do is renovate the systems

that we have in place.

Are you familiar with that? Let me turn to Mr. Long.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Long, just identify yourself and give us the answer.

Mr. LONG. I am Raymond Long. I am the Director of the FAA’s

year 2000 project. The FAA is using a windowing technique on our

existing legacy, older systems. On all of the new systems that are

being deployed into the FAA, we are requiring that those contracts

be modified to show four digit date expansion.

The only place for using windowing is in our legacy, older systems. We have not tested for system degradation as we are doing

the window technique. It has not been a problem up until now because the air traffic control system does not use the date like your

73

microcomputers or your other systems. It is something we can include in our post-implementation activity if we felt we needed to.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Willemssen, do you have any comment on this?

Mr. WILLEMSEN. Windowing is a commonly accepted technique,

especially as time grows short and there is not enough time to expand all the date fields. The biggest issue that I would be concerned about, rather than a performance issue, is one of data exchanges because if a particular system has been windowed and is

staying with two digits, and if that particular data is sent to another organization and they are expecting full expansion, and if the

relationships and bridges have not been worked out, you risk having some degraded data going into another system. Windowing is

a generally accepted technique but like all techniques, it has its

risks.

Mr. MEAD. In our February comfort letter to the Secretary and

Deputy Secretary on this matter, we indicated that tests on performance issues should be more robust.

Mr. HORN. OK. Mrs. Morella, 8 minutes, since I ran over. Equity

is what we engage in.

Mrs. MORELLA. You’re so precise. Thank you.

Secretary Downey, I represent Montgomery County, MD, and

Montgomery County, MD, has been recognized nationally for its advanced transportation management system and other technologies

that are used for transportation. I wondered what you are doing to

work with a jurisdiction like that, particularly in terms of assisting

other localities and jurisdictions with regard to what’s been done

and what can be done?

Mr. DOWNEY. Montgomery County has in fact been one of our

poster children for good practice and good progress. We held a

workshop in January at the Transportation Research Board, which

is the get-together that has thousands of people from highway and

transit management around the country. We got all of the entities

together that have concerns about Y2K and we asked Gordon

Ayogi, who is running the emergency center in Montgomery County

to take everyone through what, in fact, they have done, and it was

very helpful for us.

The Intelligent Transportation Society of America [ITSA], has

been our partner in reaching out to traffic control, traffic information, and other computer-based systems around the country, and

we think things are in pretty good shape in that area, but we appreciate the help from Montgomery County in sharing their experience.

Mrs. MORELLA. Excellent. Glad you are utilizing that with other

jurisdictions.

I guess I would ask this question of maybe Mr. Mead, and Mr.

Willemssen may want to comment, maybe Ms. Garvey. Actually,

most completed and planned tests of the air traffic control systems

have been done at the FAA’s tech center. In the past, has the FAA

experienced problems installing tech center solutions out in the

field? Ms. Garvey, you may want to comment on it also.

Mr. MEAD. In some instances, and you’ll note in our statement

that we make a point, as a cautionary note, that testing in the laboratory can sometimes be different when you go into the real world.

One reason for that, particularly for the FAA, is throughout the

74

National Airspaces system, the FAA has made local adaptations to

their software systems, and for that reason, occasionally when you

install something that works in the laboratory, it may not work in

the field because of local adaptation. This particular factor is one

that contributes to the great challenge remaining in the next 3

months.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Willemssen, you want to comment.

Mr. WILLEMSEN. I would concur with the Inspector General’s

comments. That is not to say that the technical center testing has

necessarily been deficient, but it is to be expected that once you go

with live operational testing, that you will come up with some

issues that weren’t fully identified or considered in the laboratory.

Ms. GARVEY. I think that is absolutely correct, and that is why

the Denver test, which really is a live site, is going to be so important. And again, we very carefully laid it out step-by-step. It is

going to be very carefully monitored. Obviously it is 2 a.m., so traffic will be less, but we expect that that will be very useful, very

similar to what Wall Street did a couple of weeks ago in testing

some of their systems. We think this is going to be a critical and

important test, and we are looking forward to it.

Mrs. MORELLA. Did you say April was when you were going out

to Colorado?

Ms. GARVEY. April 10th, yes.

Mrs. MORELLA. I think we all agree that this is an area that is

fraught with challenges and problems. Let me ask you, first of all,

would you be doing any other testing after Denver?

Ms. GARVEY. That is the one that is scheduled right now. I think

a lot will depend on what we learn from that test. We don’t have

any other similar tests like that. We have lots of tests planned at

the tech center but for live tests, that is it for right now.

Mrs. MORELLA. You may want to do that.

Ms. GARVEY. Oh, yes. And of course at each center as it is implemented will be tests, as the Deputy Secretary reminds me.

Mrs. MORELLA. I also note that a report I think is going to be

forthcoming, I want to ask you about it, of what are the six most

populous sites in terms of an assessment or appraisal of them, like

Canada, Bahamas. Would you comment on that?

Ms. GARVEY. There are six countries where about 60 percent of

the Americans travel. We are working very, very closely with each

one of those. Knowing that that is such a high percentage, we are

working very closely with those.

In fact, either the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary or I have met

with them at some point during the last year, and in each case we

will be developing a very coordinated work plan for dealing with

some of the issues, the travel issues that we have. Not surprisingly,

we are probably a little further along with Mexico and Canada. We

have a trilateral meeting, as I mentioned, in May, and that will be

discussed there.

But Joe Morgan, who leads our international effort, has worked

very closely with these counties, went to Mexico and spent a good

deal of time working on a plan together with them. As I mentioned

earlier, we are doing the testing this month with Canada. We will

follow it up with Mexico, and the other countries as well.

75

But that was the first critical issue that we looked at. We said,

where is it? As everyone has suggested, the international presents

some real challenges, so the first thing we said, are there areas

where we really need to focus some efforts? Looking at those six

countries where so many people travel seemed to be very important.

Mrs. MORELLA. It is interesting that 60 percent travel there.

Mr. DOWNEY. We also had, under the auspices of the Y2K Council, a meeting a few weeks ago with Canada and Mexico on all of

the systems, power, travel systems, railroads, police, anything in

which there is exchange across the border, and I think we have a

very good working relationship with those two countries.

Mrs. MORELLA. What have you learned so far?

Mr. DOWNEY. We have learned some interesting things. Mexico,

for example, has done I think a much more careful measure of how

they are assessing their progress. They have a weighted average

that really gives credit to how much work has been done leading

up to the completion of a system so that they really know at any

given time, I think better than we do, where they are on the whole

process.

And of course there are—you know, there are always surprises

that pop up. There is useful information exchanged about what are

you hearing, what are the rumors in your country, and it turns out

to be similar to the rumors in our country, but these kinds of discussions country-to-country and industry-to-industry are very helpful.

We had one the other day for all industries that lead to getting

coal to the power plants. The power plants are clearly critical but

they won’t work if coal doesn’t get there. So we had the mining industry, the barge and the railroad industry all in one room at one

time. The biggest issue for the mines was elevators. They are now

comfortable their elevators are going to work, for the same reason

that elevators will be working in buildings.

Mrs. MORELLA. Any kind of dangerous issues that came up so

far?

Mr. DOWNEY. None yet. Nothing that sort of a light bulb went

off and where we said we better take critical action.

Mrs. MORELLA. Very good.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HORN. Thank you. Let me just ask Mr. Downey, I have forgotten what year you joined the Department of Transportation as

Deputy Secretary.

Mr. DOWNEY. Most recently as Deputy Secretary in 1993, although I was in the Department in the 1970’s.

Mr. HORN. Well, you’ll remember that in 1993–1994 you had that

operation—I forgot, was it in Germantown or somewhere out

there—were working on a new radar system. Maybe you don’t want

to remember it.

Mr. DOWNEY. I try to forget that.

Mr. HORN. It started before you, so you don’t have to worry about

it.

Mr. DOWNEY. We shut that one down, but it was a good example

of bad management.

76

Mr. HORN. I knew that as I walked into the room. The $4 billion

was dumped. IRS did the same thing. Now, all I am asking about

is not to rehash that dog but to—is that HOST a successor to that,

or are you underway on some other type of successor?

Mr. DOWNEY. HOST is a piece of that and it is an interesting

piece. Once we made the decision that a single contract with a single contractor for unlimited funds and unlimited time was not the

way to proceed, working with the FAA, and largely these were FAA

decisions, we broke the system down into a number of pieces: the

display system radar at the major en route centers, which is now

moving well; the system at the terminals, which is in reasonable

shape although it has some problems; and then the HOST, which

is the heart of the computer capacity at the centers.

At the time, 1992–1993, it was thought that the HOST could be

put at the far end of this process as we did each piece, but when

we came to look at Y2K issues, and similar to the question you

raised earlier, the manufacturer was unable to certify this equipment. We said, whoa, it is time to accelerate that as part of the

modernization process, but also as a backstop for Y2K. Having it

as a separate module as opposed to part of this overall process allowed us to break out a separate contract, move that ahead.

It is going very well. In fact—was it Friday—Thursday the Administrator and the Secretary were up in New York to dedicate the

first HOST, and several of them are now in business and operating

regularly as part of the air traffic control system. All of them

should be in place by the end of the year. If they are not, there are

backup strategies to be sure they will be Y2K compliant. But

breaking that massive project into a series of manageable pieces

was the right thing to do, and it is working for us here as it is in

the modernization effort.

Mr. HORN. So HOST is 2000 compliant?

Mr. DOWNEY. HOST will be 2000 compliant. How many centers

is it now functioning? In 10 centers it is working today in a Y2K

compliant mode.

Mr. HORN. And it would have to work in how many centers between now and January?

Mr. DOWNEY. Ten more have to be installed.

Mr. HORN. So it is a total of 20?

Mr. DOWNEY. Total of 20.

Mr. HORN. What is this project costing, just for curiosity?

Ms. GARVEY. In total, I would have to get the number for you,

Mr. Chairman, but it is certainly far less than the number you

talked about earlier.

Mr. HORN. Less than $4 billion. But you were right to pull the

plug. This was long before Ms. Garvey came to bring order out of

chaos.

Mr. MEAD. $172 million.

Mr. HORN. How much?

Mr. MEAD. $172 million.

Mr. HORN. $172 million is the HOST 10. How about the next 10?

Mr. MEAD. $172 million for the whole job.

Mr. HORN. For the whole job?

Mr. MEAD. Yes. I think it is important to note that last time we

testified before this subcommittee, we had run out of spare parts,

77

but if FAA cannot replace all 20 HOST computers in this year,

they’ll have enough cannibalized HOSTs to generate spare parts.

Mr. HORN. They’ll no longer have to use Post-Its on the windows

of the control tower?

Mr. MEAD. No.

Mr. HORN. That is reassuring to me, because I am carrying my

own Post-Its in case they needed it in L.A.

Do you have any thoughts in the end, unless you have more

questions?

Mrs. MORELLA. I will just ask another question, and then I’m

going to ask them if there is anything they’d like us to know as

we conclude this particular hearing and before we get the final report.

Actually, I guess GAO, to begin with FAA identified 26 air traffic

systems as posing the greatest risk to the national airspace system

that may not be operational through the year 2000, and these systems are going to be among the last FAA systems to be completed.

And I guess the question is, why would the most at-risk systems

be left for last, and why wouldn’t—why aren’t they scheduled for

completion earlier?

Mr. WILLEMSEN. I think among the reasons for that is often they

are the most challenging systems to fully validate and implement

at a number of facilities throughout the country. So I don’t know

that it necessarily was a conscious decision on their part. That is,

we have no evidence that FAA said, ‘‘Well, these are the most critical so we will wait till the end.’’

On the contrary, the evidence we saw, as one might expect, was

that those systems are among the most difficult to implement and

therefore, everything else being equal, will take longer. But I think

your point is a very good one, that FAA has to still focus on priorities, and we have to make sure that those most essential systems

are dealt with not only timely but, as I have mentioned earlier,

thoroughly. Also, someone must aggressively seek out to identify

any and all problems that may occur, and there must be enough

time left in the remainder of this year to address those problems.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Mead, would you agree? Do you think that

because they would take longer and be more critical, that they

should be looked at earlier? I moved up on the timetable.

Mr. MEAD. In an ideal world, yes. These are probably the most

complex of all the undertakings and because of the late start, that

had a cascading effect throughout the schedule. So in an ideal

world, I wish it had already been done. I am sure everybody does.

Mrs. MORELLA. Do you have a gnawing concern about it?

Mr. MEAD. No, I think FAA has a sensible plan. I know it is a

compressed schedule, but I have confidence in FAA’s year 2000

management. They set their mind to it. I think they can get it

done.

Mrs. MORELLA. I think the FAA has been working very diligently, and as I have mentioned before and you mentioned in your

opening statement, Ms. Garvey, working around the clock. It is

such a tremendous system and so connected in so many ways.

Secretary Downey, also on another transportation issue, how

about Metro? What are you doing to sort of coordinate what’s hapVerDate 23-FEB-2001 10:31 Mar 02, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60888 pfrm07 PsN: 60888
78

pening, to make sure that the public transit systems are going to

be compliant?

Mr. DOWNEY. We have worked with the public transportation

systems around the country. We had a conference in Houston just

a few weeks ago to compare notes and to share information. We

have also asked, under Federal Transit Authority’s general authority to regulate the funding that flows to these entities, to get that

funding they have to be technically proficient, and we have set Y2K

compliance or comparable safety levels as part of that proficiency.

We have asked the boards of each public transit agency in the

country to certify to us by the end of June that they are compliant

or tell us what their alternate plans are.

So we look forward to hearing from Metro on that. I know that

they work closely on this issue. I have talked with Dick White

about it. I know they are having some trouble as we speak with

their computer systems, but that shows that they are very much

focused on making that system work and work safely.

Mr. MEAD. Mrs. Morella, I would like to just submit for the

record, if it would be permissible, the letter from Administrator

Linton of the Federal Transit Administration asking for all transit

properties to certify their compliance before the year 2000 because

this is a comparable recommendation we are making to FAA.

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

this point.

[The information referred to follows:]

79


g:\graphics\60888.047
80


g:\graphics\60888.048
81


g:\graphics\60888.049
82


g:\graphics\60888.050
83


g:\graphics\60888.051
84


g:\graphics\60888.052
85


g:\graphics\60888.053
86


g:\graphics\60888.054
87

Mrs. MORELLA. Are you finding that they are having—I mean

transit systems, not just Metro, and I am going to specifically ask

you about what our Metro here in Washington is doing in terms

of its compliance, but in general are these public transit systems

encountering problems with funding because they get some of it

from States and localities?

Mr. DOWNEY. Having been in the public transit business most of

my life, I would say public transit systems are always having problems with funding, but in this case most of them have put the Y2K

compliance issue at the top of their list. We helped in that respect

by giving clear guidance that any and all Federal funds that they

receive may be used for this purpose, simplifying the process to get

planning approvals, and also giving approval for simplified procurement where it was needed to use the funds effectively.

We don’t think that that should be a problem. We think getting

focused on it, working through the issue of how their rail equipment or bus equipment may differ from anybody else’s bus or rail

equipment, it is what they have to do. The large transit agencies

around the country I think are working very hard at this. They are

all in town this week. Both the Administrator and I will be speaking with them this afternoon, and this will be on my list in terms

of what we expect them to be doing.

Mrs. MORELLA. You tell them that Congress feels the same way,

too, and the Washington—I mean the Nation’s Capital system

should be a leader. Are they a leader?

Mr. DOWNEY. They are a leader in working on this.

Mrs. MORELLA. I just want to—I want to thank you from my

point of view for answering so honestly, not only answering our

questions and being here, but the work that you have done preparatory to that and how all along you have worked so very well

with Congress. We wish you well.

And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that

Mr. Barcia, the ranking member of the Technology Subcommittee,

that his statement and statements of any other members of our

two subcommittees be included in the record.

Mr. HORN. Without objection, they will be put after Mr. Turner

at the beginning of the hearing record.

I want to thank all of the four witnesses. You have been very

helpful to us.

First I want to thank, before I close this, the staff that put this

hearing together: J. Russell George, the staff director and chief

counsel in the corner down there, of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology; Matt Ryan, the

senior policy director specifically responsible for this hearing, right

behind me; Bonnie Heald, professional staff member, director of

communications, immensely helpful; Mason Alinger, our clerk who

has been very helpful. And for Mrs. Morella’s Subcommittee on

Technology of the House Science Committee, Jeff Grove, the staff

director on Technology, we thank him and Joe Sullivan, the clerk,

and Ben Wu, the professional staff member. And our friends on the

other side of the aisle, Faith Weiss, the counsel, and Jean Gosa,

the clerk, and Mike Quear, the professional staff member, and

Marty Ralston, the clerk, have worked and done a very helpful job.

And we thank our court reporters, as usual, Doreen Dotzler and

88

Laurie Harris. It takes a lot of people to prepare the hearing and

permit us to have questions that are so interesting to you.

Let me now thank those that are here, and say that I think this

testimony of yours has been very compelling, and it has shown that

Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration will continue to be industrious and vigilant in order to solve this problem,

and we appreciate that burst of energy that will be needed to get

around the course and win the game.

The Department of Transportation and the FAA provide vital

services to our country. Our citizens and our economy depend on

the safe and expedient transportation of both personal and business travel, goods and services, and I am concerned we have a lot

of work to do. I have got a lot of faith in the people before us, that

it will be done, and that you’ll need the continued collaboration of

Departmental officials, the airline industry, the airports themselves

to ensure that the system is ready by January 1, 2000.

I appreciate the Secretary’s and the Administrator’s reinvigorated leadership to solve some of these technology challenges, and

I think a lot of work still remains to satisfy all of us. And we will

know, won’t we, on January 1st when you are flying and I am flying? Just don’t bump into my plane when we go across America.

And I have told you, before be very nice to the controllers for the

week before we board those planes.

And our oversight activities will continue on this agency as well

as all others. Later in the week we are going to hear from the Federal Aviation Administration’s other hat and our other hat, the financial management practices, which have nothing to do with Y2K

except ‘‘Where’s the money?’’ as somebody said, and can you put a

balance sheet out. So Mr. Willemssen will be back and we will be

back.

So I thank you all for your helpfulness on this, and we wish you

well in the months ahead. With that, the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.]

Æ