U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

79–556 PDF 2013

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAA 

REAUTHORIZATION AND REFORM ACT: 

ONE YEAR LATER 

(113–3) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chair 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ....... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Steve Cohen, of Tennessee ............................................................................. 44 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 45 

PREPARED STATEMENT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESS 

Hon. Michael P. Huerta: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Answers to questions from the following majority subcommittee members: 

Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey ............................................................................... 58 

Hon. Patrick Meehan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 72 

Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wisconsin ........................................................................................... 74 

Answers to questions from the following minority subcommittee members: 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas ........................................................................................ 76 

Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington ............................................................................................ 81 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

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

insert for the record addressing the amount of money that would be saved 

if the FAA delayed its unmanned aircraft systems program, as asked by 

Hon. Thomas Massie, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky ...................................................................................................................... 26 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 79556.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 79556.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 79556.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 79556.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 79556.005
(1) 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAA 

REAUTHORIZATION AND REFORM ACT: 

ONE YEAR LATER 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. I would like to welcome everybody to our first official hearing of the Aviation Subcommittee. We are looking forward to having a very production committee agenda, focusing on results and 

where we can solve some problems. 

So, while the original intent of this hearing was to oversee the 

progress made by the FAA on implementing the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, the topic of sequestration is of a concern to 

everyone. So I am hoping that we will hear from Administrator 

Huerta more on the details of the FAA’s plan to handle sequestration and, in particular, how we are going to ensure the safety and 

security of the traveling public. 

I remain deeply concerned about the impact of sequestration, and 

I believe we should work for a long-term solution targeting wasteful and unnecessary Government spending without raising taxes. I 

am disappointed with some of what has been laid out there, with 

a list of threats of what may take place and different bad things 

that are going to happen. I think what we really need to do is focus 

on how we can get results and how we can make sure that the 

traveling public understands that their safety and security is the 

utmost importance. 

A review of the FAA’s budget shows that there are significant 

dollars that might be able to be redirected to minimize and alleviate the problems and challenges this poses. But let me repeat: The 

FAA can and must find every way to meet the required cuts while 

ensuring the safety and security of the traveling public. And this 

is something, Mr. Administrator, I am very confident that you are 

able to orchestrate. 

I would like to now address the original subject of the hearing, 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, called the Reform Act, 

which was signed into law February 14, 2012. In the last year, the 

FAA has taken on the task of implementing the many requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-27-1~1\79556.TXT JEAN
2 

ments included in the Reform Act. Ensuring implementation of the 

important FAA reauthorization mandates remains a top priority of 

the subcommittee. The FAA has had some successes and it has also 

faced some challenges during the last year. Today I look forward 

to hearing from Administrator Huerta on the plan that the FAA is 

going to use to fully implement the Reform Act. 

I thank you for coming this morning. Before we turn to the Administrator, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials for this hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would now like to yield to Mr. Larsen for any comments he may 

have. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the hearing 

today on implementing the FAA reauthorization bill. We have—Mr. 

Chairman, we have an excellent cooperative relationship, working 

together in the last Congress and the Coast Guard Subcommittee, 

and I look forward to continuing that work on aviation. 

At the outset, I should point out that I didn’t vote for the FAA 

authorization bill, because it amended the Railway Labor Act in a 

way that I believe will—is harmful to the right of workers to organize and to collectively bargain. That said, the bill did provide 

much-needed stable, long-term funding for Federal airport infrastructure grants. Additionally, the bill provided a new policy direction for NextGen air traffic control and established a process for 

safely integrating new technologies like unmanned aircraft systems 

into the National Airspace System. The bill also included several 

provisions to ensure the agency is adequately staffed and that its 

workforce is adequately trained. 

Additionally, I want to praise Administrator Huerta and his staff 

for efforts to extend occupational safety and health protections to 

flight attendants in their high-altitude workplace, as mandated by 

the bill. 

Democrats in this committee fought to include that mandate in 

the final conference report, and I was pleased to see the FAA has 

published a proposed policy statement last December and solicited 

public comments. I hope a final policy statement will be adopted 

in short order, and look forward to hearing from the Administrator 

on where we stand now on extending long-overdue legal protections 

to tens of thousands of flight attendants. 

I look forward to receiving a status report on how all these important provisions, in fact, are being implemented. 

Mr. Chairman, it does concern me that the bill’s successful implementation can be derailed, and is about to be derailed, due to 

looming spending cuts. At its heart, the authorization bill is a funding bill, a multiyear authorization of funding for the agency. Yet 

we are only a few days away from budget sequestration, which will 

mean several hundred million dollars in automatic cuts for this 

year below the funding levels authorized in the bill, and larger cuts 

going forward. 

Absent these funding levels, the FAA’s priority in the next few 

years may not be in implementing the bill, but managing a self-inflicted budgetary crisis while attempting to safely downsize the 

3 

U.S. aviation system. Long-term investments and new technologies 

that Congress sought to advance in the bill may be postponed, and 

the delivery of some critical NextGen systems could be delayed for 

years. 

According to the FAA, sequestration will result in the furlough 

of a large number of air traffic controllers, technicians, and aviation safety employees that will cause travel delays and disruption. 

Service at over 200 air traffic control towers could be eliminated. 

These furloughs could also impact aviation manufacturers who 

need FAA safety certifications for new NextGen technologies. Aviation manufacturing is a significant driver of the economy in Washington State, so I am particularly concerned about the effect of sequestration on that part of the industry. 

And finally, the FAA’s greatest asset is its people. The FAA’s 

dedicated and professional workforce operates the largest, most 

complex, and safest aviation system in the world. However, onethird of the total workforce of FAA will be retirement-eligible in 

2014. The possibility of furloughs accompanied by pay and benefit 

cuts could cause many devoted FAA veterans to throw up their 

hands and say, ‘‘I am done.’’ 

Administrator Huerta, as you consider managing the agency with 

increasingly scarce budgetary resources, I would urge you to 

prioritize your investment in your people. The FAA must continue 

to invest in the training, development, recruitment, and retention 

of a world-class, 21st-century workforce. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for a chance for opening 

comments. I look forward to hearing from our witness. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We thank you, Mr. Larsen. We are very pleased 

to welcome the Chair of the full committee, Mr. Bill Shuster. 

Mr. Chairman, the floor is yours. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. And thank you 

and Ranking Member Larsen for organizing the first hearing of the 

Aviation Subcommittee. And I know there will be many more to 

come as you aggressively have oversight on the FAA. 

And I want to welcome Administrator Huerta. Thank you for 

being here today, and congratulations on being confirmed. I know 

you haven’t been in the chair that long, and it is already hot. But 

we appreciate the work you have been doing. And you have one of 

the most important agencies in Government, 47,000 employees and 

a $16 billion budget. So we look forward to working with you, and 

we know it is a tough job. 

And, as I mentioned, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, I 

know that Chairman LoBiondo and Larsen and myself will be looking very closely at it to make sure that timelines are met and 

progress is made. And there has been progress, but there is still 

a lot of work that needs to be done. 

But now that you are firmly in place, also we expect to see 

NextGen, which is extremely important to our airline—our aviation 

industry, to make sure that it moves forward, and we make sure 

we are measuring and putting those pieces in place as quickly as 

possible. Because I think the Nation benefits as a whole by having 

the most efficient airspace in the world. 

I also would like to briefly address sequestration. I think we all 

agree it is not the best way to address our deficit and debt problem 

4 

we have, but it is what we have to deal with today. The FAA, like 

other agencies, is going to have to make some tough decisions. I am 

a little frustrated that the FAA has, instead of looking at the budget and come forward with a plan to be able to see where you can 

move money, which I know is possible—we need to make sure that 

we don’t allow safety to be questioned or challenged at all. 

And again, my looking, with my staff looking at the budget, there 

are places that you can shift money around and make the tough 

choices you need to make. And we are here committed to continue 

to explore with you ways to address the sequestration situation 

that we see today, and with maintaining the highest level of safety. 

So, I look forward to working with Chairman LoBiondo and 

Ranking Member Larsen. And again, thanks for being here today 

and taking the time to be with us. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are very pleased 

to welcome Mr. Rahall, the ranking member. Nick, you are recognized. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman LoBiondo. I commend 

you for calling today’s hearing on the implementation of the FAA’s 

reauthorization bill. The bill was signed into law 1 year and 2 

weeks ago, which would ordinarily make this an appropriate time 

for the subcommittee to hear about how the FAA is implementing 

the bill’s many requirements. 

But it is rather ironic that we are in the situation that we are, 

and that Administrator Huerta, to whom I commend for your excellent efforts to ensure the safety of our traveling public—you and 

your agency do a tremendous job, given the circumstances in which 

we find ourselves. 

But it is ironic that we are here today, talking about sequestration, obviously, rather than a true review of the FAA reauthorization bill. Sequestration is the big elephant in the room that seriously threatens the stability that we thought we had achieved by 

enacting this multiyear FAA bill. 

If sequestration occurs on March 1st, as appears likely, almost 

every single one of the FAA’s 47,000 employees will be furloughed. 

Radio beacons and radars could sit unused while the technicians 

who repair them are at home without pay. And the figures go on 

and on. We are all aware of what the possibilities are. Planes will 

stack up in the air and line up on the ground as air traffic control 

struggles to cope with the furlough of hundreds of controllers on 

any given day. And more than 200 air traffic control towers, including almost all the control towers in my home State of West Virginia 

could be closed, possibly for good. 

Sequestration will have dire consequences for rural America 

which, in many ways, depends on aviation much more than any 

other part of our country. Congress made a commitment in the 

FAA bill to protect aviation for rural America by, for example, continuing the essential air service program, by improving the safety 

of air ambulances that save the lives of thousands of Americans in 

rural areas, by directing FAA to give pilots more tools to access 

rural airports in bad weather. But I fear that if the FAA is forced 

to absorb a $600 million-plus budget cut, the needs of rural America could be put aside as FAA struggles to cope with the demand 

5 

in major metropolitan areas where flight delays could be up to 90 

minutes. 

As we stand on the precipice, I cannot help but think here we 

go again. The FAA limped along under 23 short-term extensions— 

which I am sure the Administrator agonized through every one of 

those—before a long-term reauthorization was finally enacted last 

year. And in 2011, the Republican leadership—and I am not referring to Chairman Shuster or Chairman LoBiondo by any stretch of 

the imagination—but the Republican leadership in 2011 conducted 

a scorched earth policy of negotiating the long-term bill that caused 

a 2-week FAA shut-down that almost 4,000 employees on furlough 

without pay, and cost almost $400 million in lost revenue. Now the 

Republican leadership’s failure to come to the table at that time 

and work out a balanced approach to our fiscal challenges will 

again cost the flying public, not to mention tens of thousands of 

dedicated Federal employees dearly. 

So, I look forward to today’s hearing, look forward to you, Administrator Huerta, on the FAA’s plans to implement sequestration 

while ensuring that rural America, where aviation is a vital, vital, 

vital lifeline, and a way of life, is not forgotten. Thank you again, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Rahall. I would like to briefly 

recognize Mr. Larsen for a motion. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to 

enter into the record the statement for the record from Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So ordered. 

Now it is our pleasure to welcome our FAA Administrator, Michael Huerta. 

Michael, thank you for being here today. The floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member 

Larsen, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, members of 

the subcommittee. 

A year ago, Congress reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration. After 41⁄2 years of uncertainty and stop-gap measures, the 

predictability that reauthorization provided was very welcome. It 

allowed us to invest with greater certainty in the future of our 

aviation system, and we are grateful for the efforts of this committee. We have been working very diligently in the past year to 

implement the provisions of reauthorization. 

A year later, however, we again face fiscal uncertainty and unpredictability. The sequester is looming, and massive budget cuts 

are set to go into effect just 2 days from now. 

I want to make a clear distinction about how sequestration differs from previous Government shut-downs that have been caused 

by a failure to pass a budget, or by the temporary lapse in authorization which took place in 2011. 

First, almost all of our FAA accounts would be affected. Therefore, this would affect almost all of our employees. We are looking 

at all options to reduce costs. We are looking at a hiring freeze, at 

cutting contracts and travel and other items not related to day-toVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-27-1~1\79556.TXT JEAN
6 

day operations. But to reach the large figure we need to cut, we 

have little choice but to make up the rest through furloughing employees. This is not something that we take lightly. 

Unlike a Government shutdown, under the sequester, almost all 

of our employees would be affected, even what we would traditionally call essential personnel. The vast majority of our employees, 

including these essential workers, would have to be furloughed. 

Under the sequester, our flexibility is very limited because we must 

cut proportionately from all affected accounts. We can’t move 

money around, and we have limited flexibility to choose what it is 

that we are able to cut. 

Now, a very large portion of the Department of Transportation’s 

budget is exempt from the sequester. What this means is that the 

FAA will take more than 60 percent of the sequester cuts for all 

of DOT, even though our agency only makes up about 20 percent 

of the Department’s budget. Now, within the FAA, the airport 

grant program is also exempt from the sequester. So this, again, 

limits the choices we have on where to cut the money. 

And, finally, we have a very short time to make the bulk of these 

massive cuts: about 6 months. And that means that the cuts would 

need to be deeper to have the same effect as if we could spread 

them out. 

It is my hope, and the hope of everyone at the Department of 

Transportation, that our leaders can work together to rally around 

the improvements that we need for our Nation’s air transportation 

system. We hope that we can continue to support the programs 

that we all acknowledged were so important just 1 year ago. 

As we move forward, the number one mission of the FAA is safety. That will always be our priority. Let me say with regard to the 

Boeing 787, we are working around the clock to conduct a comprehensive review of the critical systems of the aircraft, including 

the design, the manufacture, and the assembly of the Dreamliner. 

As part of that review, we are working closely on a data-driven 

process to identify the cause of the recent battery issues, and mitigations for them. 

I appreciate the expression of confidence in the FAA’s actions 

from committee Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall, 

as well as from subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking 

Member Larsen. We all had a productive briefing just a couple of 

weeks ago. 

Last week we met with senior executives from Boeing to discuss 

the status of the ongoing work to address the 787 battery issues. 

We will carefully analyze Boeing’s proposal to address these issues. 

But the safety of the flying public is our top priority, and we won’t 

allow the 787 to return to commercial service until we are confident that any proposed solution has addressed battery failure 

risks. 

In the last few years, Congress has given us much guidance on 

how to advance aviation safety, and we have accomplished a great 

deal. The FAA overhauled flight and duty rules to guarantee that 

airline pilots have the opportunity to get the rest they need to operate safely. We are raising the required hours of experience before 

a pilot can operate at the controls of any airline flight. We are also 

finalizing a rule that will require more rigorous and realistic trainVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-27-1~1\79556.TXT JEAN
7 

ing, so that flight crews can better handle rare but serious scenarios. 

While we are enhancing the safety of the system that we know 

today, we are also working to deliver the benefits of new technology 

to create the aviation system of tomorrow through NextGen. We 

are working to safely integrate unmanned aircraft systems into our 

airspace. 

Earlier this month, we requested proposals to host six test sites 

across the country to test unmanned aircraft systems. We need to 

better understand the operational issues to safely integrate unmanned aircraft into our airspace. We need to explore pilot training. We need to make sure that unmanned aircraft sense and avoid 

other aircraft in the system. If an unmanned aircraft loses the link 

to its ground-based pilot, we need to make sure that it operates 

safely. 

In addition, we are requesting comments from the public about 

how to address privacy concerns with these test sites. Each site operator will be required to obey all laws protecting an individual’s 

right to privacy. 

To bring NextGen to fruition, we need to collaborate across the 

FAA and across the industry. Reauthorization asked us to do this, 

and we have made great strides in collaborative efforts on many 

fronts. We have worked with our labor unions to lay the foundation 

for NextGen with the En-Route Automation Modernization, or 

ERAM. The collaboration has been exceptional. We are now using 

this new computer system to guide airplanes at high altitudes at 

nearly half of our sites across the Nation. 

Chairman LoBiondo, as you know, a lot of the research that propels NextGen takes place in Atlantic City. The William J. Hughes 

Technical Center plays a key role in fostering NextGen, and we appreciate your support. 

We are collaborating with industry. As a result of the work we 

are doing with our many partners, we are producing satellite-based 

navigation procedures much more quickly. We are using these 

NextGen procedures right now to reduce the miles that aircraft 

must fly to create more direct routes, to reduce fuel burn, and to 

cut greenhouse gas emissions. Right here in Metro Washington, 

DC, airlines have started using these NextGen procedures to fly 

into Dulles and Reagan National. We estimate the airlines will 

save $2.3 million in fuel per year. 

Reauthorization laid out a vision to address the future needs of 

our Nation’s aviation system. These needs have not gone away. It 

is important for us to work together to protect the great contribution that civil aviation makes to our economy. Aviation is our largest export industry. It strengthens our balance of trade. It adds 

$1.3 trillion to the economy, and provides for 10 million jobs. 

I look forward to working with you, and I sincerely hope that we 

can work together to make sure that America continues to operate 

the largest and safest aviation system in the world. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, thank you very much. This will probably be 

the first in a number of hearings and interchanges with the FAA, 

since it is so comprehensive and there is so very much to be gained 

8 

from this moving in the right direction. So what we don’t cover 

today we are likely to cover in future sessions. 

But just a couple of questions on sequestration. Mr. Administrator, in your correspondence with the aviation industry, you mentioned a plan to close about 100 towers as a result of the sequestration. But I believe the FAA sent out a list that has something like 

235 or 40 towers that might close. Can you maybe explain to us 

what the difference in these two numbers would be? 

Mr. HUERTA. Certainly. The list that we provided encompasses 

all towers that have 150,000 annual operations and 10,000 commercial operations. These are our lowest activity towers. The principle that we were working from was to provide the least impact 

on the largest number of travelers. Now, the list represents the 

universe of facilities that we feel we need to look at. 

We are engaging in discussions with our labor partners and the 

industry stakeholders to actually understand the specific operating 

characteristics of each of those towers. But in order to achieve the 

savings we need to achieve this year, we have to cast a very broad 

net and look at a wide range of towers. 

In terms of how and where we ultimately land, a lot of it is determined by the ongoing contract tower review we have underway, 

as well as the savings we can achieve this year. Our effort is to 

minimize the impact on travelers, but these are very significant 

cuts, and we have to look at our lowest activity towers in order to 

preserve the maximum benefit for the maximum number of travelers. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Discussing the maximum benefit for the maximum number of travelers, recognizing that all towers are important, but certainly in some of our major metropolitan areas where 

there are critical concerns about how this will all work, and along 

with staffing, will such staffing-critical facilities or areas be identified in advance of sequestration and on a continuing basis? And 

what are your plans to try to minimize for these major facilities? 

Mr. HUERTA. This is something that we have to look at, and we 

are looking at it on a facility-by-facility basis. The characteristics 

of each facility are quite different, and we need to consider the impacts overall. I will give you an example. We might have a modest 

impact through furloughs on controller hours at large, complex facilities. But how it affects the operations at those facilities will be 

very dependent on the specific facts of that facility. 

Let me give you a specific example. Chicago O’Hare International 

Airport is one of our largest facilities, and it has significant impacts across the entire system. It is a somewhat unique facility, in 

that it operates with two air traffic control towers, one on the north 

side of the airfield that controls the north side of the airport, and 

one in the center of the airport. It runs at a very tight level of staffing. If we need to reduce controller hours, one factor that we would 

need to consider is, in certain weather conditions, we may need to 

close the north tower. 

If we need to close the north tower, that effectively removes a 

runway from operation. We would do everything that we can to 

mitigate against that, but if we have fewer controller hours to work 

with, these are the sorts of impacts that could affect the large-hub 

airports. 

9 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. I will have some additional questions on 

round two. Mr. Larsen, the floor is yours. 

Mr. LARSEN. If we can just continue a little bit on towers. 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

Mr. LARSEN. Can you tell me a little bit more about how you will 

prioritize air traffic control traffic closures, how you came up with 

150,000 hours and 10,000 operations? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. The 150,000—it is annual operations, and then 

10,000 commercial operations. 

Mr. LARSEN. Oh, all right. 

Mr. HUERTA. What that represents is the universe of lower level 

activity towers. 

In terms of operations and passengers, they represent a relatively small percentage of the total. But it is a large number of 

facilities. The cost of operating these facilities, through contracts, 

through utilities, through personnel costs, are quite significant. 

What we are focused on is, again: How do we maximize the benefit for the maximum number of travelers? We do recognize that 

some of these small facilities might serve unique needs. For example, they might support some sort of a military operation. That is 

a factor that we need to consider as we look at our options. But 

for every facility that we are able to preserve, we have to find an 

offsetting cost saving someplace else. So we will just need to continue to work through that. 

Mr. LARSEN. So, in that sense, you do have some flexibility, but 

you still have to meet an overall number. 

Mr. HUERTA. Correct. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Some have suggested that the FAA has—could 

avoid furloughs, in part by saving over half-a-billion dollars on consultants and $200 million on travel and supplies, statements which 

seem to have been refuted by a fact-checker article that ran today 

in the Washington Post. 

Can you provide FAA’s response to the suggestion that the saving could be found through consultant contracts and through travel 

and supplies? 

Mr. HUERTA. The $500 million figure that is referenced represents the universe of contracts that are included within our operations account. These contracts are not limited to consultants. In 

fact, our estimate is that only about $21 million of that number 

would truly be designated as consulting services. That represents 

only 1 percent of our total contract obligations for last fiscal year. 

What is included in this number are some very large service contracts, the largest of which is a program called FTI, our Federal 

Telecommunications Infrastructure program. That program is 

about a $228 million program, that is the telecommunications infrastructure that underlies the whole air traffic control system. 

This is provided to us by a private contractor, but for budget classification purposes, it falls into this larger account. 

Mr. LARSEN. And the travel and supplies? 

Mr. HUERTA. Travel and supplies have been an area where we 

have cut 30 percent over the last year, and I think we have made 

significant improvement in our travel budget. The travel that we 

are preserving is actually travel that is essential for carrying out 

our safety mission. 

10 

For example, an aviation safety inspector needs to actually visit 

a facility to provide inspections or a tech ops employee actually 

needs to visit a facility in order to provide repairs and needed 

maintenance for our facilities. So there is a level of travel that is 

necessary for us to do our job to preserve the safety of the system. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I see you don’t have me on the 

clock, and I want to be respectful of that. I have a couple of rapidfire questions, and then in the second round I will probably move 

on to more mundane issues like the actual implementation of the 

bill. 

But let me ask you this, and I will end with just four rapid-fire, 

yes-or-no kind of questions. On this topic of sequestration, it has 

been suggested, as we have talked about, the FAA could absorb 

possibly this half-a-billion dollars the rest of the fiscal year without 

compromising efficiency. But would you, first off, on the following 

actions, would you agree that efficiency would be compromised if 

we took actions like cutting a half-a-billion dollars? 

First off, would the efficiency be compromised if we furloughed 

the vast majority of all FAA employees? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Eliminating midnight shifts in over 60 control towers? 

Mr. HUERTA. It would certainly have an impact, yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Closing over 100 control towers. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Reducing preventative maintenance and equipment—provisioning for FAA equipment? 

Mr. HUERTA. That introduces into the system a level of risk that 

may result in delays in restoring services if a piece of equipment 

breaks, or if something goes out of service. 

Mr. LARSEN. Great. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK, thank you, Mr. Larsen. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huerta, the controllers are all in an organization called the Air Traffic Organization, or the ATO. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is correct. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And that is a line of business? 

Mr. HUERTA. Correct. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And its operating budget is $7.4 billion a year, is 

that right? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And the 5-percent cut that applies to the $7.4 billion would be $370 million for ATO. Does that sound about right? 

Mr. HUERTA. For a total, yes, that sounds about right. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So could you find $30 million a month savings in 

a $7.4 billion budget? 

Mr. HUERTA. As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, our focus is starting 

first with a hiring freeze, then focusing on contracts. In discussing 

the contracts, one of the things that it is important to point out is 

that our largest contract is the telecommunications infrastructure, 

so that is one that is very important for maintaining the operation 

of the National Airspace System. 

11 

Likewise, we are focusing in other contractual areas, and we are 

taking significant reductions in things like training, like travel, 

consulting services—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. So it sounds to me like you are headed down a 

road to figuring out how to find that $30 million a month—— 

Mr. HUERTA. But—— 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. Without furloughs, without jeopardizing safety. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. But the point is this. Our third largest contract is 

for contract tower services. These are the lower level towers that 

we talked about. 

In addition, what we are shooting for is the amount of money 

that we would need to achieve through furloughs. We are making 

every effort to reduce that number as much as we can. But I don’t 

see any way to avoid it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. You—so you don’t think you can find $30 million 

a month in savings? 

Mr. HUERTA. We have identified a wide variety of savings, but 

I don’t think I can completely eliminate furloughs. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, what I would just ask you and challenge you 

to go back there. You know, the history of the FAA has been one 

of financial stumbling and bumbling—before your time, but there 

needs to be real reform in the financial management of FAA. And 

I believe this is an opportunity for the FAA to go back and go 

through these contracts. And it sounds like you are doing that. And 

I know your reputation and your experience before is excellent. But 

this is a time that we really need you to sharpen the pencil of the 

FAA, go back, and I got to believe you are able to find $30 million 

a month in a $7.4 billion budget without the threat of furloughs, 

without the threat of endangering safety. 

So, I encourage you to go. This committee stands ready. We have 

been working around the clock, looking at the budgets, talking to 

the Budget Committee. We believe you have the flexibility within 

those lines of business to move money, and there just seems to me 

to be enough there to be able to figure this out. So, again, I would 

urge you to do that. 

Mr. HUERTA. The sequester applies by project, program, and account, and—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. HUERTA [continuing]. We are looking within each of those 

areas. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. HUERTA. It does limit our flexibility. But—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. But in project, program, accounts, you do have 

flexibility to move money. 

Mr. HUERTA. Within a single PPA. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Correct. 

Mr. HUERTA. Correct. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Which would be—the ATO is a line of business, 

which is a PPA, correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. But the key point is that we need to focus on what 

cuts can we get out of contracts, as I talked about. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

12 

Mr. HUERTA. We want to minimize the impact on personnel, pay, 

and benefits. Right now, based on where we are, based on where 

our contracts are, I don’t see a way to avoid it. We will continue 

to work on it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. Mr. Rahall? 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, at 

the risk of beating a dead horse, I have to return to the closure of 

control towers and their effect upon rural communities. You heard 

my opening comments and how important—and I am sure you 

know how important these rural airports are to the economies, to 

jobs in rural America. You know, as well as I do, how much a sticking point essential air service was in the last FAA reauthorization, 

which we are supposed to be here examining today, and how I am 

sure it will continue to be a sticking point in future reauthorization 

of the essential air service program. 

My question is, you know, of the 200-some hit list that you 

issued as far as towers that may be closed around the country, 

there were 5 in my State of West Virginia. My question is, have 

you considered alternatives? I heard you respond to the chairman’s 

opening question you look at the numbers and all that, the most 

effected traveling public. But have you considered any alternatives 

to those towers that may be closed in rural America? 

Mr. HUERTA. Obviously, we are trying to work closely with industry to understand the impacts in each of these areas, and that is 

a conversation that we began this week. 

The reality is that we are looking at a series of bad choices. As 

I mentioned, our overall principle has been how can we protect the 

maximum number of travelers. That said, we are looking at each 

of these facilities to understand their place and how they contribute within the National Airspace System. 

The challenge that we are going to have is for every one that we 

identify the need to preserve at some level of operation, we need 

to find some sort of a budget offset in order to be able to meet the 

overall sequester total. That is going to be the thing that we will 

need to achieve. 

We have heard from some local sponsors that perhaps there is 

a willingness to step in with local resources, and that is something 

we would be able to consider. But those are the kinds of discussions that we are in the middle of right now. 

Mr. RAHALL. OK. I am still not sure I heard any alternatives to 

the closures in rural America. But please keep that in mind. It is 

just so vital for so many areas. And I have to add weather, as well. 

Mr. HUERTA. I understand. 

Mr. RAHALL. We have tragic weather events in rural America. 

You know, those small rural airports are essential, as far as air 

weather service, as well. 

Let me ask you one further question on the—on what is deemed 

essential employees. When we failed to reauthorize the FAA for a 

period during the—that tumultuous period in 2011, air traffic controllers continued to work as if they were deemed essential employees. Why are they not deemed essential employees under sequestration? 

13 

Mr. HUERTA. The provisions of the Sequester Act are just fundamentally different. Previous interruptions in funding have generally operated under an assumption that the funding would be restored on the back end. It is for that reason that the Government 

has, as a whole, drawn the distinction between essential and nonessential appointees. 

The sequestration is a different framework, in that it is actually 

a budget reduction that takes place that we need to manage across 

all of the accounts of the FAA. We can’t assume that the funds will 

be restored, because we are not seeing anything that would suggest 

that will be the case. So we have no choice but to take the steps 

that assume that we will need to operate at a lower funding level. 

Mr. RAHALL. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Administrator, for coming in. We appreciate it. 

My question is—it is real basic, to be quite honest with you. 

What does this take you—if sequestration goes into place, what 

does this take you back to? Funding levels in what year? Staff tells 

me it is 2010. 

Mr. HUERTA. I think it is probably about 2008. 

Mr. GRAVES. 2008 or 2010? 

Mr. HUERTA. There is—— 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, OK. Let’s assume 2008. What is so much different today—or then than today? I mean everything was operating 

just fine in—is it 2010? OK. So what is so different? 

I mean I feel like the sky is falling at any moment now, because 

of sequestration. But yet we are not really—we are not going back 

that far. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. In the intervening years the FAA’s operations 

account has increased by about $910 million. Now that is from 

2008 to 2012. In that period of time, our personnel costs increased 

by about $887 million. We have been absorbing reductions in our 

nonpay spending for the last 5 years, and those cost savings have 

resulted in significant savings across the wide variety of accounts. 

I would also like to point out that we have spent a lot of money 

for things the industry wants: to implement things like advanced 

navigation procedures and develop new, much more efficient, approaches and departures from airports. We do this for a very important reason. The airlines want to see benefits, and they want to 

save fuel, and they want to save on the cost of operation in the system. All of that costs us money. It costs money to develop and 

maintain these procedures. So we have a much more complex aviation system than we had back in 2008, and it will continue to become more complex in the years ahead. 

I think that we have been successful in achieving savings 

through things like strategic sourcing. But at our core, we are a 

people-based organization, and our people costs have increased in 

the intervening years. 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, that—you know, more efficient approaches in 

departures into airports and all, I mean, is that an ongoing cost? 

I mean—— 

Mr. HUERTA. It does. 

14 

Mr. GRAVES. It looks like that is one of the major things, you 

know, obviously, that you have spent money on. But—— 

Mr. HUERTA. It is. 

Mr. GRAVES [continuing]. What did you do differently? 

Mr. HUERTA. It is an ongoing cost, because in addition to developing procedures, which are new procedures at an airport, we then 

have to maintain them. That carries with it costs associated with 

regular maintenance, with flight-checking, with ensuring its safety; 

all of which represent ongoing costs. 

Mr. GRAVES. So you are talking about just changing—you are 

coming up with, obviously, new approach procedures, which—you 

are printing those and maintaining—what is it that you are maintaining that is going to—that is costing so much money? 

Mr. HUERTA. Flight-checking it or providing for—— 

Mr. GRAVES. But you were doing that before. I mean—— 

Mr. HUERTA. We are flight-checking—— 

Mr. GRAVES [continuing]. Procedures and departure plans in and 

out of airports, I mean, they may have changed, but you were doing 

that before, too, and you were flight-checking them before, too, and 

you were—look, I just don’t understand—— 

Mr. HUERTA. We are flight-checking more of them. 

Mr. GRAVES. OK, you are flight-checking more of them. And I 

don’t mean to belabor this, but you are not going back that far. The 

sky isn’t falling. We aren’t going to have more meteors hit because 

of sequestration. 

It is just I don’t understand why it is that the Administration 

continues to take this attitude that the world is absolutely falling 

apart as a result of this. And yet I don’t see that much changing, 

to be quite honest with you. And maybe I am completely wrong, 

but the FAA, which I know very well, you know, what you are 

doing, and your procedures and processes and what it takes and 

all, and I just don’t understand the—you know, what the attitude 

is, you know. It baffles me. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Graves. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, I 

congratulate both of you on your rising to leadership of this subcommittee. I look forward to working with you over the next 2 

years. I want to thank you also for holding this hearing on implementation of FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act. And I am going 

to surprise everyone by actually asking a question about that Act. 

While this Reform Act was not perfect, it provides guidance and 

predictability to FAA as an agency that develops Next General Air 

Transportation System, and works to meet the day-to-day needs of 

the National Airspace System. So, I would like to begin by asking 

about the status of section 221 of the bill, which relates to NextGen 

public-private partnerships. 

We all know that NextGen can’t happen if planes don’t have new 

enhanced equipment. These upgrades aren’t going to happen overnight by themselves. That is why I was happy to work to include 

section 221 in the bill, which authorizes the FAA to establish an 

incentive program for equipping general aviation and commercial 

aircraft with communications, surveillance, navigation, and other 

avionics equipment necessary for NextGen. 

15 

Administrator Huerta, can you describe what the FAA has done 

over the past year to implement the NextGen public-private partnerships related to equipage? 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. That has been a discussion that we have been having on a continuous basis with the 

stakeholders in the industry. What we wanted to develop was an 

understanding with industry of how we would measure the benefits, and what incentives that they actually need and are looking 

forward to, in order to encourage them to participate in the new 

system. 

That got us very quickly into a conversation about operational incentives, as well as financial incentives. An operational incentive is 

essentially: How do I know that, if there are advanced procedures, 

or if I can take advantage of new technology, that a controller is 

actually going to be able to allow me to use it? So that is related 

to developing the metrics, and knowing, with certainty, that they 

will be able to realize the benefits of fuel burn, reduced track miles 

flown, and everything that goes with that. 

Our stakeholders want us to deliver metrics for measuring the 

delivery of these operational incentives. One of the things that has 

become very clear in these conversations with our industry stakeholders is the financial incentives, while important, become less important if the operational benefit is delivered. We are working 

closely with our stakeholders to focus on how can we put more precision around those operational benefits. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Are you saying you are not moving ahead with 

the—— 

Mr. HUERTA. No, no. But the two are related. The two are related. You have to be able to demonstrate the operational benefit. 

On the financial benefit side, we do need appropriations authority to proceed, but we are continuing to work with the stakeholders 

to frame what financial incentives should look like. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Yes. I can’t yield back without going 

on to everyone’s favorite topic, here, the sequester. It is amazing 

to me to hear that the sequester would actually be worse for the 

flying public than if we had a Government shutdown, where we 

have—essential employees will have to be at work. But it just 

shows the craziness of what is going on right now. 

I wanted to ask a question, because this is what my constituents 

are asking me. Midway Airport is in my district. You talked a little 

bit about O’Hare, which is also important, but I want to ask about 

Midway. What is going to be the impact there at Midway? I have 

heard that perhaps the Midway tower will be closed at night, and 

just wondered what—if that is true, and what this would mean for 

local air traffic. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, Midway Airport is one of those facilities 

where we are considering a midnight closure. But we are in conversations with the industry to understand what sort of operations 

would be affected. 

Again, what we are focused on is the universe of facilities that 

fall into a certain category; 150,000 operations or 10,000 commercial operations or fewer. Then, as it relates to the midnight closures, we look at those airports that have the smallest number of 

midnight operations. 

16 

This is exactly the nature of the conversation that we are having 

with the industry stakeholders. We need to understand the impacts 

to the system and determine if there is a way to mitigate them. 

Again, if we identify mitigations, we have to find offsetting costs. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. A lot of people have questions, I am 

going to yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Mr. Bucshon. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your 

testimony today, and for the work the FAA does on behalf of the 

American people, including people in my district in Indiana. 

There has been a threat, because of sequester, the FAA will have 

to furlough the majority of their 47,000 employees, putting our Nation’s air traffic and airport safety at risk. But I personally find 

this hard to believe, since FAA funding has increased 41 percent 

since 2002, despite the fact that domestic flights are actually down 

by 27 percent in that same timeframe. 

In my State, in Indiana over the past 8 years, we have streamlined and made more effective State government. And we went 

from being $700 million in debt to a $2 billion surplus. In fact, instead of tax increases, we have given every taxpayer an automatic 

refund. When it comes to the number of State employees, we have 

the same number of employees in Indiana that work for the State 

that we had in the late 1970s, and universally it is believed in my 

State that services from the State government have dramatically 

improved. 

With fewer employees, our government has worked better for 

every citizen in the State. I would also like to say that was done 

through attrition and retirements. No one was furloughed, no one 

was laid off. This is making government more effective and efficient. 

With that said, I would like—my question, can you remind us 

again what your annual budget is? 

Mr. HUERTA. Our annual budget is about $16 billion. 

Dr. BUCSHON. $16 billion. And what is your share of the sequester cuts that the FAA will have out of your $16 billion budget? 

Mr. HUERTA. $627 million. 

Dr. BUCSHON. $627 million. OK. If the sequester were half that 

size, would that make a difference? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes, if the sequester were a smaller number, yes, 

it would—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. As some people out there are proposing to increase 

taxes to cover half of it and then still have some cuts, you wouldn’t 

have to furlough anybody if you had only $300 million in cuts, 

versus $600 million? 

Mr. HUERTA. We are focused on, very broadly, what we can do 

with contracts and what will be our pay and benefits cuts. Right 

now, our planning is at the $627 million level. We haven’t seen any 

alternative to that. 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK. And the NextGen program—I guess there is 

three programs related to implementation and developing this modernization program. And do you have any idea what, approximately, the cost overruns are on those so far? 

Mr. HUERTA. Our ADS–B program is within its baseline budget. 

You may be referring to the En Route Modernization Program that 

17 

we re-baselined a couple of years ago. It is now operating within 

its new baseline. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Because what I have, the data I have, shows that 

of the three key modernization programs, cost overruns have a 

combined total of about $4 billion. And so, my question is where 

does that $4 billion come from if we have this much cost overrun, 

trying to modernize the FAA? Where does that come from? 

And, I mean, just for everyone, $4 billion versus $600 million in 

cuts to the FAA, where does that money come from? Where are you 

getting that money to continue to have inefficiencies in the way 

that we spend the taxpayer dollar at the FAA? I just find it hard 

to believe that, you know, if it is—if we can spend more than $4 

billion over what it is supposed to cost, that we can’t find $600 million in savings in a $16 billion annual budget. Do you have any 

idea where that money comes from? 

Mr. HUERTA. I am neither aware of which programs you are talking about, nor the period of time that you are talking about. But 

as we have testified before Congress for our annual appropriations, 

we have explained where we are in each of those programs, and 

Congress has been supportive of them. 

Dr. BUCSHON. So, what you are saying is each time we give you 

more money? 

Mr. HUERTA. Every year we come before Congress with our program plan for the year, and Congress has been supportive of it. 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK. So if we give you—so we are giving you more 

money on top of what we normally would appropriate to cover that 

cost overrun. That is what you are saying? 

Mr. HUERTA. Again, I don’t know what programs you are speaking about, or the period of performance that you are talking about. 

So I can’t respond directly to—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK, thank you. One last question, then. Related 

to how our State has helped our State government by making it 

more effective and efficient, do you know approximately how many 

employees the FAA had in 2008? Have any idea? 

Mr. HUERTA. I do not. 

Dr. BUCSHON. About 4 years ago. Right now there are about 

47,000 employees. 

Mr. HUERTA. Correct. 

Dr. BUCSHON. You know how many of those are based in the 

Washington, DC, area? Or is that spread throughout the country 

pretty uniformly? 

Mr. HUERTA. Eighty-five percent of our employees are in the field 

and outside of our major centers. 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK, great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to serve with you on this subcommittee, and look forward 

to working with you and Mr. Larsen. 

Administrator Huerta, first I want to thank you for all the courtesies you have shown Memphis. And you came down and we dedicated the historic marker to Lt. Col. Weathers, historic Tuskegee 

airman, at the Memphis Airport, and that was an occasion of great 

significance to my community, and I thank you for that. 

18 

How much discretion do you have, if any, in where these cuts— 

I mean they have to go kind of across the board, but do you have 

some discretion in the cuts, as far as which airports, or which 

times, or how you implement them? 

Mr. HUERTA. The cuts need to be applied across the board within 

a program, project, or account, as laid out in the FAA’s budget. The 

only exempt program is the airport improvement program. Aside 

from that, our remaining three accounts—our operations account, 

our facilities and equipment account, and our research account— 

the cuts must be applied across the board there. 

Within each program, project, or account, there is some ability to 

work within the account. But when you are talking about an organization that is largely driven by people, that flexibility is limited. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you this. You have estimated, I believe, 

that in the larger cities—you said New York, San Francisco 

flights—could be delays of up to 90 minutes. Is there any way to— 

if you didn’t do that, if you didn’t have these delays, would the alternative be risking safety? 

Mr. HUERTA. We are always going to err on the side of safety. 

Now, that could mean that we would have a disproportionate impact on efficiency. But we are always going to be doing everything 

that we can to ensure the system is safe. 

Mr. COHEN. So These cuts, if they come about with sequestration, unless the efficiency is sacrificed, which is what you are going 

to have to do, would jeopardize, potentially jeopardize, the flying 

public. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, our focus is on maintaining a safe system. 

Where I think we see the principal cost benefit is if there is less 

efficiency. 

Mr. COHEN. Is there any—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Principal impact—— 

Mr. COHEN. Excuse me, sir, I didn’t mean to cut you off. 

Mr. HUERTA. No, principal impact. I think I said something else. 

Mr. COHEN. OK. Everything that I have heard has been referred—and it is important—on commercial traffic, or passenger 

traffic. And that is important. We all fly back and forth to Washington, and many people travel all over this country and the world. 

But there is a commercial impact, as well. And obviously, Federal 

Express and UPS deliver a lot of product. Is there going to be— 

mostly they do a lot of their work at night. Will there be an opportunity to look into the—how will this affect their services, and will 

they absolutely positively be able to deliver the next day? 

Mr. HUERTA. We had our industry forum a couple of days ago 

where we met with members of industry. Both FedEx and UPS 

were present. We understand the impact on the cargo industry and 

its unique characteristics. That is a factor we need to consider as 

we look at our actions. 

Mr. COHEN. So it is a possibility that, since it is nighttime, and 

there are not as much commercial, that it would not be—the traffic 

wouldn’t be interrupted. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, again, we are looking at two factors. One is 

total operations, the other is commercial operations. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. Well I would just ask you—and I am 

sure you will—when you look into the cuts, that you will consider 

19 

the impact that that could have on commerce. Because what happens to FedEx—used to be what happens to General Motors is 

what happens to America. Well, now it is what happens to FedEx. 

So thank you, sir. Appreciate it. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. Yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Meehan? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me take a moment, as my colleagues as well, to congratulate you on your ascension to this seat, and I look forward to working with you. And Administrator Huerta, as well, we welcome you and look forward to 

working with you. 

And I particularly, as a congressperson who represents the city 

of Philadelphia and the airport outside the city of Philadelphia, but 

the airport within Philadelphia, we look forward to working with 

you on a number of the efficiencies that the FAA is part and parcel 

of, including the implementation of NextGen. So I am grateful for 

those efforts, but look forward to your leadership in helping to push 

that as effectively as we can. 

I know in addition to—one of our challenges has been, as you 

have discussed, looking at all the options, to reduce costs. And as 

part of the Reform Act, there has been direct responsibilities to 

look for ways to streamline the offices, to seek greater efficiencies, 

and to eliminate wasteful practices. So, as part of that process, one 

of the things that I know has been undergone has been efforts to 

seek consolidation in various places, including consolidations of the 

air traffic control facilities in certain places. 

Are you familiar in much detail with that planning at this point 

in time? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. That is a high priority for us, because it has 

the potential to yield significant long-term efficiencies for the agency across the board. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Are you familiar with—I am holding in my hand 

an RFI, which is a request with respect to the air traffic control 

facilities in the Northeastern United States. Are you familiar with 

that project, itself? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, that is good, as well, because on the RFI one 

of the things that I was sort of struck by was the idea that you 

were looking for consolidation—was that you—the request is for an 

interest in properties that can be sold, land that can be sold to the 

United States. 

Why are we selling—why are we looking to purchase property 

when, arguably, there is a great deal of governmental property that 

is out there that is underutilized? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, that is certainly something that we are also 

looking at. But the basic issue that we are looking at is these air 

traffic facilities need an upgrade. We need to replace facilities that, 

in some instances, are over 50 years old. Long term, what we need 

to have is a property interest in them to ensure that we do not 

have ongoing lease costs. Your question is—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, what kind of a property interest, though? I 

mean the—you need a property interest. 

Mr. HUERTA. But—— 

20 

Mr. MEEHAN. There is a lot of properties that the Government 

already owns. We have a property interest in certain locations, 

don’t we? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I’m speaking—if we have a place in which there is 

a viable, already-owned Federal facility, shouldn’t that be a preference over purchasing private property? 

Mr. HUERTA. It is very specific to the location factors in question 

with that property. Clearly, we will look at it. 

Mr. MEEHAN. What—tell me what the location factors are, and 

how are they relevant to the decisionmaking. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, we are considering the impact on employees. 

What would relocation costs be associated with relocating our employees? What are the utility costs? How is the facility hardened, 

so that it can be a secure facility for the management of air traffic? 

I mentioned that we need access to utility services and access to 

the facility itself. Is it well located? Are we able to reach it? There 

are a wide variety of traditional location factors that any business 

would consider. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, I am reading this and it is saying—the facility is asking for a facility that is located in the State of New York 

within 150 miles of downtown New York City, but located in the 

State of New York. Why must it be located in the State of New 

York? 

Mr. HUERTA. The principal factor we are considering is how to 

minimize the impact on the existing employees, who are currently 

based on Long Island. 

Mr. MEEHAN. And what are the—they are based in Long Island. 

Mr. HUERTA. Long Island, New York. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Where one of the factors is cost of living, and 

things of that nature? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is a factor throughout the entire Northeast. 

Mr. MEEHAN. So if there is a region in which the cost of living 

may be cheaper than actually living in New York, is that a factor 

that will be considered, as well? 

Mr. HUERTA. We are considering the all-in cost of operating the 

facility over its useful life. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Are you familiar with the Willow Grove Naval Air 

Station? 

Mr. HUERTA. I am not. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Is it something that you can get yourself familiar 

with in time to be responsive to this January 31st request? It is 

within 150 miles of New York City, but it is not within the city of 

New York or the State of New York. 

So I don’t understand why there would be a solicitation that first 

would ask that we potentially purchase private property, when we 

own public property, as a government entity already. The Willow 

Grove Naval Air Station has been BRAC’d, has been reduced, has 

security, has a lower cost of living than that which exists in New 

York for your employees, and a variety of other kinds of infrastructure that is already there, including infrastructure in which they 

have been handling flights for a period of time. Wouldn’t those all 

be factors that will be, I think, naturally conducive to sort of a retrofitting of this? 

21 

Mr. HUERTA. As I mentioned, I am not familiar with the site. It 

is certainly something we can—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. Can I have your commitment, as this process goes 

along, that we will not automatically have a preferential consideration for one State? And then explain to me why that preference 

would be there. 

Mr. HUERTA. You have my commitment to certainly look at the 

site. 

Mr. MEEHAN. You didn’t tell me, though, why we would prefer 

one State over another. Why? 

Mr. HUERTA. As I mentioned, it is to minimize the impact on the 

employees based on Long Island. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Excuse me, Mr. Meehan, you can go to round 

two, if you choose. We are going to try to respect the other Members. Thank you. Mr. Carson? 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Huerta, 

you mentioned in your opening statement the issue of unmanned 

aircraft systems, or drones. The reauthorization allows for safe integration of civil, unmanned systems into our national airspace by 

2015 for missions such as search and rescue, wildlife, and weather 

research, border patrol, and other law enforcement purposes. As a 

former police officer, I am particularly concerned about the challenge of balancing the risk of privacy intrusions with the benefits 

of protection from physical harm that drone technology can provide. 

The reauthorization calls for the FAA to work in collaboration 

with other appropriate Government entities to develop an authorization or licensing process for civilian drone operations. Please tell 

us what other Government entities the FAA is working with, and 

the status of the drone collaboration that is taking place right now. 

I have seen reports about the work kind of falling behind schedule, 

and would like to know if this is correct, and what can we do on 

the subcommittee to get things on track. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Carson. Unmanned aircraft represents a very significant challenge for integration into the National Airspace System. It also represents a very significant opportunity. It is something that we are taking very seriously. 

Just a couple of weeks ago we released the screening information 

request, inviting proposers to compete for designation of one of the 

six unmanned aircraft test sites that are called for within the reauthorization. We are expecting that we will receive a lot of proposals. There has been very significant interest in this. The purpose of the test site designation is to develop data on how these 

types of aircraft operate within the National Airspace System, and 

how they can be safely integrated with manned aircraft that also 

operate within the National Airspace System. 

As we were developing the screening information request, one 

thing that we learned—and I touched on it in my opening statement—were that a lot of concerns were being raised with respect 

to protecting individuals’ rights to privacy. So it is for that reason 

that we worked closely with other agencies across the administration to develop a framework. At the same time we are seeking proposals, we are also soliciting comment on a proposed implementation of a privacy policy. Whoever is selected would be expected to 

22 

have a proposed privacy policy. We have received a lot of comments 

on this, and we will continue to receive a lot of comments. 

With respect to safe integration of UAS, we have worked very 

closely with our colleagues in the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, the Department of Defense, and the Department of 

Homeland Security. We have also had a lot of conversations with 

State and local government entities. You mentioned law enforcement as being one area where there is a significant level of interest. We are expecting that a lot of the proposals we will see will 

be in support of that particular interest. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Mr. Webster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this timely 

discussion. And thank you, Administrator, for being here. I have a 

question, a local question. 

I represent the Orlando area in Florida. Orlando International 

Airport is at or close to one of the final—largest final destinations 

in the world. And we get over 40 million visitors every year to our 

fine parks. And I would imagine everybody on this panel has been 

there at some point in time in their life, maybe even yourself. 

Several years ago, they purchased—the Orlando International 

Airport purchased some property next to their airport for about $54 

million. The U.S. Code requires that airports should be as self-sustaining as possible. And so their idea was to develop that with 

some commercial ventures so that it would become more self-sustaining. Since 2007, they have been attempting to work through 

the environmental process necessary to get approval to use that 

land and began holding hearings in 2008. And much of that has 

been stalemated, and here is why it was stalemated. And I am just 

looking for advice, or an answer to a question with advice. 

The general counsel for the FAA has denied approval based on 

National Environmental Policy Act and—because they need a suitor that would be developed in a 5-year period of time, from the 

time of approval. They have tried to get people to relocate their 

maintenance facilities, and so forth. However, none of them want 

to relocate without NEPA certification. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. So it is like a—we are against a brick wall. We 

can’t get anybody to come unless we have approval, we can’t get 

approval unless we have somebody coming. And so I am just asking. Have you got any advice for me? 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Webster, I am going to have to get back to you. 

I am not familiar with that particular issue, but I can certainly 

consult with my staff and we can get back to you and ensure we 

have the right people available. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Could somebody work with me on maybe coming 

to a solution? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Maloney? 

23 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

serve with you on the subcommittee; I am looking forward to it 

very much. And to Mr. Larsen, as well. 

I am tempted to—as the only New Yorker on this subcommittee, 

I am tempted to correct my colleague from Pennsylvania on the— 

on his misguided ideas on the superiority of all things located in 

the State of New York. But because we have limited time and out 

of respect for Mr. Huerta, let me just focus on a couple of quick 

things. 

I am very curious about the impact on small airports. I represent 

the Hudson Valley. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. MALONEY. Duchess County Airport is on your list of facilities 

that may face tower closures. Would you just say a word about 

what that means in practical terms for a small airport like Duchess 

County? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, what it means is if we find ourselves in a situation where we need to close the tower at a smaller airport, then 

the airport converts to a status of a nontowered airport. There are 

procedures that are in place to operate within a nontowered airport. In general, we provide approach control to the facility, and 

then there are provisions that kick in, in terms of how you actually 

arrive and depart the airport. 

In general, it is less efficient, because in inclement weather, we 

rely on one in, one out, meaning that an airplane needs to confirm 

that it is off the airfield before another aircraft can be launched or 

can arrive at the airport. But there are well-established procedures 

in place to operate at a nontowered airport. 

Mr. MALONEY. Is it fair to say, though, that if you had your preference, as a matter of safety, as a matter of efficiency, you would 

never operate an airport in that manner if you could avoid it? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I think it is fair to say that we are not going 

to do anything that isn’t safe. If you don’t have a tower on the facility, it is certainly going to be less efficient, in order to preserve 

safety. 

Mr. MALONEY. Can I ask you the same question with respect to 

the airports—many of the folks who I represent rely on the airports 

in the New York City—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. MALONEY [continuing]. Metropolitan area. Could you say a 

word about the impact on those airports and what we can expect? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, the New York facilities are responsible for 

some of our most complicated airspace in the NAS. In fact, it is understood that how New York goes, in terms of efficiency, does impact the overall National Airspace System. 

The New York facilities are complicated for us to staff and to 

maintain, and so any reduction in hours in those facilities does create the potential for them to operate less efficiently and to introduce delays into the system. That is one of the factors that we are 

currently studying carefully. 

Mr. MALONEY. You know, I am curious. One of the things that 

I think is lost in this conversation often is that this is not a debate 

about whether we make cuts, since all of us agree that cuts are 

necessary. But it is a debate about our choices and our 

24 

prioritization of choices. I was just on the House floor talking about 

the cuts to West Point, one of our most extraordinary American institutions, and the fact that we are going to make the cadets suffer 

and do with less because we won’t make other choices about cuts. 

And so, I am curious whether you have ever looked at the impact 

of, for example, reducing the benefits to corporate jet owners that 

would also be possible, as a reduction—as a—to end a tax expenditure, and the impact that might have, or whether it would have 

any impact on the efficiency and safety of our airports. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I think this is all part of the larger fiscal discussion that Congress and the administration have been debating 

for many years. Over the last couple of budgets the President has 

made proposals to provide additional resources for the aviation system. But Congress and the administration haven’t been able to 

reach agreement that defines what a way forward would look like. 

So now we find ourselves in a situation of looking at reductions. 

I think that the contribution of the aviation system, as a whole, is 

very significant. I think it is important that we all come together 

and figure out how best to support this important industry that in 

turn, supports the economy. It is our largest export industry. 

Mr. MALONEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Huerta. Thank you for the 

work you do. Thank you for the service you provide to the American people. I think that it is very easy to criticize the work of folks 

in our Federal agencies, but the work you do every day gets us 

around the country and makes us safe. So thank you for your service. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Massie. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator Huerta. I represent the district of Kentucky that contains 

the Cincinnati Airport, CVG Airport. So air travel is very important to our district. And having spent most of my career in business, and having spent a recent stint as a county administrator, I 

can appreciate the task that you have in front of you in balancing 

your budget in the face of the belt-tightening that we have. 

But usually it comes down to prioritization when you are trying 

to make the cuts that are necessary to balance the budget. And so, 

within my district I have—you know, I am new to Congress, but 

I have received hundreds of phone calls already, and I have received phone calls from people who are concerned about privacy 

issues of unmanned aircraft, and also from pilots in our district 

who work at CVG about the safety of them. So—and I understand 

that is going to be a tough problem, integrating those unmanned 

aircraft into the airspace. But the—none of the constituents in my 

district have called me and kind of pounded on me and said, ‘‘We 

need to integrate unmanned aircraft now,’’ or ‘‘today,’’ but they all 

care about passenger air travel. 

So, the question I have for you is, if you had the flexibility to do 

it, if you could delay the implementation of the unmanned aircraft 

systems that you have been tasked with doing, how much could 

you save from the budget, and would that help with the sequester 

belt-tightening? 

Mr. HUERTA. These are all difficult choices. I think that what we 

are actually spending right now out of the FAA budget in our unVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-27-1~1\79556.TXT JEAN
25 

manned aircraft office represents a relatively small percentage of 

the budget, because what we are principally focused on is the designation of a national policy, as well as the designation of the test 

sites. 

The determination we need to make is for safe integration of 

these aircraft into the National Airspace System. Longer term, as 

we hit the 2015 deadline for integration, and as UAS become more 

prevalent through the NAS, they would become a significant operating cost. But that is not the case today. 

Mr. MASSIE. OK. Can you give me a rough idea of what portion 

of the budget—I don’t entertain any fantasies it would solve the sequester by delaying this indefinitely. But, you know—and my experience tells me that you are going to have to find a lot of small 

cuts—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. MASSIE [continuing]. Across the board. So what would be the 

order of magnitude of the budget for implementing the unmanned 

aircraft systems? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think I would be better advised to take an IOU 

and actually get back to you with an exact number there. 

Mr. MASSIE. OK. Could you put that in the written portion of the 

record? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 

26 


Insert offset folio 6 here 79556.006
27 

Mr. MASSIE. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back my time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huerta, I—you 

know, there has been a lot of talk about your flexibility here, and 

I am still trying to—it would have been better if you brought, like, 

a chart that showed, you know, how things were affected. We even 

have these—you know, you could have displayed it up there. 

But this is a statement today from an OMB official, and he said, 

‘‘The way the sequester law is written is that even underneath the 

account, even at the program, project, and the activity, they all 

need to be cut by the same percentage.’’ And then he goes on to 

actually say, ‘‘So, for example, the FAA, they have to cut resources 

in a way that is going to impact the air traffic controller workforce.’’ 

What he talks about here are program, project, and activity. Can 

you sort of explain how that flows down to your—the controller 

workforce? Are they an activity? What are they—what—in OMBspeak, what are they? 

Mr. HUERTA. The program, project, and activity are the actual 

budget lines within the budget. It is cut according to the nature of 

the accounts that we have. 

Starting at the top, we have four accounts that are funding categories for the FAA: the operations account, which is the largest; 

the airport improvement program is the next largest; then the facilities and equipment account; and then the research and development account, which is very small. 

Each of those accounts are allocated across the lines of business 

of the FAA, one of which is air traffic. In order to achieve cost savings in the operations account, I have to find the equivalent percentage out of that particular activity within that account. That account is largely people. I am doing everything that I can to focus 

on cutting contracts, but that is why it comes down to furloughing 

controllers. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And there is no—I mean you can’t say, ‘‘Well, we 

are just going to do administrative cuts,’’ not—things that would 

affect it longer term—it would have an impact on the organization 

at an administrative level, but it has actually got to get down to 

the operations level. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. The key point is that we are a field-based organization. We are a very large organization, but 85 percent of our 

people are actually in field facilities providing aviation safety and 

air traffic functions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And I haven’t—we haven’t recently revisited this 

issue but, you know, we have been concerned over a number of 

years about the attrition, the retirements, the number of fully 

trained controllers versus controllers who are still—I mean how 

many, you know—where is your workforce now, in terms of a percentage of 100 percent? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, our total headcount now is about 47,000 people, of which about 15,000 are controllers. This is the largest single 

category of our workforce. That category does not include any of 

the frontline supervisors or managers that actually run the air 

traffic facility, nor does it include the people who maintain the 

equipment that the controllers use to actually carry out their jobs. 

28 

Our next largest category of employees are aviation safety inspectors. Those are individuals that perform the safety oversight function for all segments of the aviation industry. 

In terms of the composition of our workforce, we are an older 

workforce. We do project that between now and 2014, about a third 

of our workforce will become eligible to retire. Now, that is the become eligible; that is not to say that they actually will retire. But 

it is for that reason that, a couple of years ago, we began the process of really trying to bring up a new class of employee into the 

system. It takes us a couple of years to train a controller, so there 

is a natural bubble that you have if you are expecting a lot of retirements. You have to hire up in anticipation of those requirements. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mightn’t, you know, people getting notices of furlough who are senior—I assume if you apply this, there is probably 

some rules about—personnel rules. You can’t just say, ‘‘Well, we 

are just going to apply the rules to those who aren’t fully qualified, 

but not apply the furlough to those who are fully qualified,’’ because they are all under the same bargaining agreement. Correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, we need to find savings across the entire 

workforce. If we were to make some exception in one area, it actually means we have to hit in another area harder. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. HUERTA. That actually introduces more inefficiency into the 

system. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Would—just last question. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for the tolerance. But don’t you believe it might accelerate your retirements if, you know, these senior people start getting notices that, well, you are going to be furloughed one or two— 

it says per pay period. Is it biweekly? 

Mr. HUERTA. A pay period is 2 weeks. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Do you think that would hasten retirements? 

Mr. HUERTA. I can’t speculate on it. We have been operating in 

a difficult fiscal environment for the last couple of years. But it all 

depends on what options are available to the individual employee. 

We have seen an acceleration of retirements, just due to budgetary 

uncertainties. 

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

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Mr. Daines? 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Steve Daines from 

the State of Montana, another one of these rural States. And the 

gentleman from West Virginia also had some concerns about what 

is going on in some of the States that are sometimes called flyover 

States, but we do have airports. 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Daines, one of my favorite States is Montana. 

Mr. DAINES. Oh, thank you. 

Mr. HUERTA. I have visited it many times. 

Mr. DAINES. We share a common favorite. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. DAINES. Well, and I am grateful for, truly, what you do to 

provide safe travel. My wife and four children are grateful, too, 

that I can do this job because of safe and reliable airspace. 

I have spent 28 years in the private sector. I have just joined 

Congress. And many times I have had to deal with these kind of 

29 

situations, the curve balls that come of finding ways to tighten up 

budgets in the middle of fiscal year. 

Relating back to maybe the Montana question, the eliminating 

the midnight shifts, some of the air traffic control, as well as reduction in towers, any sense of about how many dollars that might 

represent, that we are looking at for savings? And this is not a 

Montana—just looking at the 60 and the 100 that you talked about, 

the 60 ATCs and the 100 towers. 

Mr. HUERTA. It is dependent on the status of the facility, whether it is a contract tower or whether it is an FAA tower. In general, 

what I am expecting is that as a result of the closures of contract 

towers, the cost savings would be in the area of somewhere between $45–$50 million this year. 

Mr. DAINES. OK. In this fiscal. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. DAINES. And I was chatting—I am kind of a numbers guy 

at heart running businesses, and I know you never appreciate people looking over shoulders on budgets. My understanding is we 

were about $100 million underspent in the first quarter. Now, 

there may be some seasonality issues, I understand that. Could 

you—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

Mr. DAINES [continuing]. Talk to that a little bit? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. We do have seasonal issues. In the first quarter we did, indeed, run at less than one-quarter of our total Federal 

allocation. But we also ran ahead of what our typical first quarter 

costs have been for the last 2 years. 

The reason for that is that many of our large services contracts 

get paid in the second half of the year. For example, I mentioned 

the telecommunications program that we talked about earlier. The 

second half of the year also includes the summer travel season. 

That is when we would ordinarily experience significant overtime, 

because we don’t hire up for the summer. What we actually do is 

cover the increased demand on the air traffic system through overtime. 

Mr. DAINES. Do you—I have seen this phenomenon, I guess, in 

a number of agencies, where the last month of the fiscal, the last 

week of the fiscal, is kind of a spend it or lose it. Do you have that 

experience at the FAA? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is something that I certainly have been trying 

to stamp out ever since I got here. 

I also come out of business. My own experience is that the important thing is to effectively manage your resources throughout the 

year, so as to ensure that you are hitting your budget limit exactly 

as you should at the end of the year. 

The problem that we have with the sequester is, in business, you 

would have much more flexibility. It is the determination that this 

project, program, and activity must receive an equivalent percentage of cuts that limits our flexibility. This means that we are not 

able to take a long-term view, and that really challenges us. 

Mr. DAINES. Well, I appreciate your efforts to try to stamp out 

that Dilbert hockey stick at the end of the fiscal year, which is part 

of the problem here in this town, of spend it or lose it, in terms 

of accountability. 

30 

One other question. There was a letter out last Friday to the industry, where you and Secretary LaHood stated you expected airlines to change their schedules and perhaps cancel flights. Have 

you heard anything from the airlines that might back up that prediction? 

Mr. HUERTA. It is a little early to tell. We met with the airlines 

earlier this week and talked about what the impacts would be. One 

of the things that came up in that conversation was a discussion 

of a concept called debanking. What happens at large hub airports 

is that airlines tend to put their flights in a peak period of time, 

and that is called a bank of flights. What that does is it minimizes 

connection time. 

One of the points that was made by the air carriers was whether 

that might be a factor that they could consider to change. But they 

also have to consider what happens on the other end, particularly 

for international flights. For example, Europe is closed at night. So 

that limits the ability of an airline to adjust their schedule on our 

end, because they have to work within whatever the hours of operation are in that part of the world. 

It is a complicated undertaking. This is something that each carrier is going to need to work through. They need to consider the 

tradeoff of frequency versus reliability if they are operating with a 

tighter window, in terms of scheduling flights. That is a decision 

that they will each make individually. 

Mr. DAINES. Yes. 

Mr. HUERTA. We have a command center program, where we get 

together with the airlines every day. One of the things that we 

want to understand is what their plans will be, because that affects 

what our plans need to be. 

Mr. DAINES. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK, thank you. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Huerta, for being here. Mr. Huerta, I am just curious. Not curious. 

Bottom line, $627 million worth of cuts is what you are looking at 

at the moment. Hopefully some smaller number if somebody gets 

some little sanity around here. But a big cut. Is that a fair—— 

Mr. HUERTA. That is fair. 

Mr. CAPUANO. My presumption is that you don’t have an account 

somewhere in the FAA that is labeled ‘‘waste, fraud, and abuse.’’ 

Is there a line item with that title? 

Mr. HUERTA. I do not have a line item with that title. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes. And with your business background, I am 

sure that you are very keen on getting rid of any waste, fraud, and 

abuse that might be in the accounts. Is that a fair statement? Or 

do you like waste, fraud, and abuse? 

Mr. HUERTA. That would be a fair statement. I do not like waste, 

fraud, and abuse. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I was hoping to hear that. I am glad to hear that. 

I guess—I hope you realize that Members of Congress are going 

to be hit with the sequester as well, on our office budgets, and we 

are going to be cutting around the same percentage, and that range 

is what we have been led to believe, in the 5-percent range. And 

from what I know, I have been hearing a lot of Members and committee Chairs telling me that they may have to lay off staff, and 

31 

they may have to lay off committee staff, or leave positions unfilled. So, if we can’t do it, is it fair and reasonable to think that 

you should be able to do it without cutting personnel? 

Mr. HUERTA. Everything that I am seeing today indicates that, 

in spite of all the work we have done on contracts, and with hiring 

freezes, I still don’t see a way to get to the $627 million without 

furloughing employees. 

Mr. CAPUANO. And I apologize being out today. I am on another 

committee that has Chairman Bernanke there. I assume that no 

one here suggested any specific cuts that would total $627 million. 

Did I miss that today? 

Mr. HUERTA. No. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So that you are faced with a situation that is obviously impossible. With—and I believe—it is my understanding that 

the FAA’s top priority is safety, as it should be. We all accept that, 

we all agree with that. We all embrace it and hold it as an absolutely firm commitment. I know you share that, so I don’t have to 

ask that question. 

But within the bounds of safety, within the bounds of safety, I 

guess—I am going to ask you the same question I asked Chairman 

Bernanke. As I read through these cuts, are any of these cuts 

things that you think should happen, regardless of economic situations? Do you think that we should be cutting TSA employees? Do 

you think that we should be closing airports? Do you think that we 

should be closing down or limiting air tower operations? Do you 

think that that is a good thing for the country, no matter—again, 

regardless of the economic situation we face at the moment, is this 

something you would be doing, if you weren’t forced to be doing it? 

Mr. HUERTA. The aviation industry is a significant contributor to 

the economy of the United States. We want to maintain as safe and 

efficient an aviation system as we possibly can. We are never going 

to compromise on maintaining a safe system, so what suffers is efficiency. If the country wants a less efficient aviation system, we 

will manage to do that. 

Mr. CAPUANO. So I guess—is it fair to paraphrase what you are 

saying, that the sequester, as it applies to the FAA in today’s economy, in today’s world, and our desires and demands as an economy, 

that the sequester as currently enacted and as what you will be implementing as of Friday is basically a stupid idea? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think that I would say that it is a difficult program to administer under the rules that it is structured under. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Well, I—that is a very nice way to—in my opinion, 

I think you just said it was a stupid idea, but that is OK. I 

wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth. 

I guess as you make these cuts, you are going to make—again, 

first thing should be safety. We all agree with that. No cuts should 

be made that will impact safety whatsoever. I fly as frequently as 

anyone. So I am not looking to be unsafe, either. 

But there will come a time when you have to decide which airport to close, or which air tower to close. And I would hope that 

it is taken into consideration that those of us who are supportive 

of the FAA’s mission, both in safety and economic activity, that 

that is taken into consideration. 

32 

When you have to make these tough choices—and I say this as 

a former mayor. I had to make cuts, too, my first 2 years as mayor, 

15 percent per year for 2 years in a row for the same reason. There 

were cuts imposed on the city at the time. First-year cuts really not 

too tough, we did them, nobody liked them, but we did things that 

people didn’t see. Apparently you can’t do that. We did a lot of capital cuts. With the AIP being exempted, you won’t be able to do 

that as much. But so be it. 

But there comes a time when you have to make a decision. I can 

only plant two trees. Guess which decision I made? The trees went 

to the people that understood that Government played a positive 

role. When it comes time to close towers, when it comes time to cut 

those TSA employees so that my constituents are standing in 

longer lines, my hope is that you remember who stood with the 

FAA, who stood with the flying public to try to avoid these stupid 

cuts. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Radel. 

Mr. RADEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for being 

here today. I am actually going to deviate off sequester for a second 

here. 

The FAA, it appears, is planning to impose a new regulation regarding what is called one engine inoperable restrictions. Just for 

a real—a simple context for everyone here, basically around airports, as a matter of safety, there are restrictions on how high you 

can build a building—— 

Mr. HUERTA. That is correct. 

Mr. RADEL [continuing]. Near the airport. But it appears that a 

new regulation would create more limits and stretch it out even 

further, expanding the range. We really don’t have a lot on this, 

except a PowerPoint presentation here given out at what appears 

to be at some sort of a conference. 

Just a real quick question first, Mr. Huerta. Can you tell me how 

many one engine inoperative takeoff incidents resulted in any fatal 

crashes last year or the past few years? 

Mr. HUERTA. None have resulted in fatal crashes. 

Mr. RADEL. No fatal crashes. So we know the FAA is here to protect Americans, ensure our safety, safety of the airspace, but there 

are also real-world consequences. You come with a background of 

business. 

With that said, can you tell me? Is this going to happen? Is this 

stringent rulemaking, even though we have a low-probability occurrence, is this in the works? 

Mr. HUERTA. Let me talk first about what it is. 

Mr. RADEL. Sure. 

Mr. HUERTA. It is a safety regulation to deal with the possibility, 

as rare as it might be, that one engine going out in an aircraft on 

departure would need to have a larger clear zone so as not to collide with a building or structure within the immediate area of the 

airport. 

This is an issue that we are continuing to review. We are working with, and seeking the input of, interested parties to come up 

with a balanced public policy solution, in addition to assessing the 

economic impact on airports, airlines, and the local development efVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-27-1~1\79556.TXT JEAN
33 

forts that are impacted. We are committed to supporting the airports in their efforts to be good partners in the communities they 

serve. We haven’t made any decisions; we are still in the fact-finding stage. These conversations will continue. 

Mr. RADEL. OK, good. That is all reassuring, because in the State 

of Florida and the district I represent, potentially this would negatively impact us. There are—within that presentation to—Miami in 

particular would be severely impacted by this. And it kind of scares 

me when I see this being kicked around, that even though we don’t 

have, you know, evidence of fatal crashes, again, I understand protecting people. But when I see—we need something with—quote 

and in big capital letters—‘‘TEETH.’’ We need something with 

teeth. 

Will you conduct a cost benefit analysis as this moves on to determine whether this is necessary or not? 

Mr. HUERTA. We are certainly considering all the input that we 

have, and we have to find the right balance of economic impact and 

safety, which we are committed to doing. 

Mr. RADEL. OK. All right. Thank you. I yield the rest of my time. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

congratulations to you. This is my 25th year on this subcommittee, 

so obviously I think it is a very important and fascinating subcommittee, and I know you will be a great chairman for it. 

Mr. Administrator, I apologize to you because I had to be at another committee hearing for a while, and I didn’t get to hear your 

statement. And probably you have responded to this, but I assume 

you have seen the release put out by Chairman Shuster in which 

he says the United States continues to see a smaller airline industry, domestic flights are down 27 percent from 2000 traffic levels 

between 2002 and 2012, FAA’s operations account has increased by 

41 percent, or almost $3 billion. I would like to know your response 

to that. 

And then, secondly, that same release says there are $2.7 billion 

in nonpersonnel operations costs, including $500 million for consultants. And I have been told that many or most of those consulting contracts have been given to former high-level FAA employees or retired FAA employees, and also that almost every contract 

that the FAA puts out goes to a company that has former highlevel FAA employees. And I would like to know if you have ever 

looked into that. It is referred to at the Pentagon as a revolving 

door, but I understand that there is a revolving door—a pretty active revolving door—at the FAA. And I would like to hear your response to both of those things. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Taking the first question, 

it is true that overall domestic flights are down from 2007. But in 

key cities, the 30 or 35 core airports, traffic has rebounded to 2008 

levels. What we have seen is a concentration of traffic within these 

large and complex systems. 

While we have been reducing our out-of-pocket costs, we have 

been increasing capacity in the National Airspace System in several key areas. Let me give you a few examples. 

34 

We have new runways at Washington Dulles Airport, Charlotte, 

Atlanta, Denver, and Chicago that give us greater capacity at these 

critical and large hubs. We have also been implementing more 

navigation procedures at a large number of airports, including area 

navigation and required navigation performance, which are procedures that enable air carriers to fly much more fuel-efficient routes. 

But the development of these procedures is something that costs 

money. 

In addition, we have spent a lot of time developing new techniques that enable us to have simultaneous arrivals at closely 

spaced parallel runways which also provides additional runway capacity. These represent additional operating costs to the system. 

I think the key point is that, yes, while domestic flights in total 

might be down, what we are seeing in our largest and most complex facilities is that flights are actually up, and that airspace is 

more complex. 

Let me turn to your second question, and that is the account that you referred to of $500 million in consultant fees. That is a large 

account that includes a variety of our services contracts. For example, the largest contract in that is the FAA’s telecommunications 

infrastructure contract, which annually has a cost of $228 million. 

Since it is not a construction contract, it falls, as a services contract, into this particular category. That contract is the communications backbone for the entire air traffic control system. Of the $500 million, our estimate is that only about $21 million 

is something that you would truly call consultant services, which 

includes our environmental, industry, and management consultants. 

I also want to address the point that you raised with respect to 

our procurement process. That is something that I have taken an 

active interest in. We have a very structured process of selecting 

contractors, which does not involve me or anyone in my office. 

What it is very focused on is ensuring that we are getting the best 

value for the Government, according to a very structured and datadriven process. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, in your letter last Friday you stated in that letter part of an ongoing dialogue, 

I guess, between the FAA, unions, aerospace users, et cetera, which 

of these groups have been part of developing this plan to furlough 

the some 47,000 FAA employees, you know, to close the towers, you 

know, the midnight shifts? Which ones have been in part of that 

plan involved with you? 

Mr. HUERTA. What we have developed at this point is our own 

internal proposal of a way to get there. We have begun the process 

of working with all of the stakeholders across the industry, both 

the workforce as well as the users of the system, to talk through 

the details. That work is ongoing. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So the dialogue that you have been having really 

hasn’t included them as part of the plan. You have come up with 

a plan and now you are conveying that to them? I—— 

Mr. HUERTA. No. We presented it as a universe of things we 

want to talk about, and we are seeking their input before we finalize anything. 

35 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK. So there is not a plan to really furlough at 

this point. 

Mr. HUERTA. There is, at this point, a scenario where what we 

look at is that based on what we know about our contracts, what 

our efforts resulted in, and the benefits that we are seeing from the 

hiring freeze that we have put in place. Based on this information, 

we see no way to close the funding gap without looking at furloughs. But that is a conversation that is ongoing. 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK. So let me make sure I am clear. There is not 

a plan specifically today to furlough any employees. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. There is a program that we have developed, and we 

are going to use the coming weeks to work with the industry to finalize the details. 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK. So in any rhetoric that we have with regards 

to ‘‘We are going to furlough X number of employees for this length 

of time’’ is not in place at this point. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. We don’t see a scenario where we can do this without furloughs. What we are looking to do is minimize the number 

of furlough days. 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK. And you have made that decision without 

input of unions and the aerospace users, is that correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is a discussion that we are having right now, 

in consultation with all those parties. 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK. Let me go on a little bit further. You know, 

as—in your letter—and, actually, I read this yesterday. We talked 

about 90-minute traffic delays in Chicago, Atlanta, and—and I fly 

in and out of Atlanta quite a bit. And so to accurately say a 90- 

minute delay, it amazes me that you can come with that kind of 

accuracy to do that. But in doing—what data, specifically, are we 

looking at to calculate, because of sequestration we are going to 

have a 90-minute delay in those major hubs? 

Mr. HUERTA. I can’t tell you with precision that it would be 90 

minutes every day. Let me talk about a specific example. Atlanta 

currently operates under an arrival stream of three simultaneous 

arrivals. Atlanta is fortunate that it has multiple parallel runways. 

It is an airport that has the potential to operate very efficiently 

If I have fewer controller hours available to me, then I have to 

allocate them to the most efficient allocation of airspace sectors to 

maintain safety. 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK. 

Mr. HUERTA. Under certain conditions such as the number of 

controller hours available and weather conditions, that may mean 

that I need to leave certain positions vacant, which could restrict 

the arrival stream to two, as opposed to three. 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK. 

Mr. HUERTA. That has an impact on efficiency. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. But from a data standpoint, so what 

you are saying is this is an overarching macro kind of, well, if we 

have got less people there is going to be delays in these major 

hubs. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is exactly what we are now working through 

with the stakeholders. For example, we are working with the users 

of the system in Atlanta to figure out how we would manage this. 

36 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I guess my concern is—following up from 

my first question, if there is not a plan that you are currently in 

dialogue with those stakeholders, as you say, and there is not any 

precise data, to come out and say that we have 90-minute delays 

is problematic, because if we don’t have a plan, we are not sure 

what we are going to not have, in terms of air traffic controllers. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think what we are saying is these are illustrative 

of the impacts we would expect to see. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And so your—so there is no incentive 

to make sure that we don’t have these 90-minute delays in Chicago 

or Atlanta or—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Oh, quite to the contrary, I think that our incentive 

is to minimize inconvenience for the maximum number of travelers—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK, so assuming that sequestration happens, is 

that something that you can manage? 

Mr. HUERTA. It is very difficult to manage, given the rules of the 

sequester, and that is what we have been saying all along. The fact 

that we have to take these cuts by program, project, and account, 

and they have to be evenly distributed within this fiscal year, is 

a significant challenge to manage. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out 

the irony, Administrator, that if you did have a line item of waste, 

fraud, and abuse of $627 million, under the sequester rules you 

could only cut that 8 to 10 percent. 

Could you rate the FAA’s performance in collaborating with 

labor, since enactment of the bill on the issue of decisions you are 

making on NextGen technologies and facility consolidation? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think that we have developed a very cooperative 

relationship with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, 

and in fact, all of our labor organizations. We think that is a very 

good investment. 

These are the people that are in the field that have the firsthand 

knowledge of how the facilities operate. They have great ideas, and 

they approach these collaborative decisionmaking processes with a 

level of enthusiasm that is truly remarkable. It is something that 

I am personally very committed to, and I know that our colleagues 

in labor are very committed to as well. In fact, everyone at the FAA 

who has been involved in this will tell you that the work that is 

being done by these groups is really without comparison. Let’s just 

take the work we are doing to optimize airspace procedures. 

You are familiar with a program called Greener Skies Over Seattle, which is a redesign of the airspace to develop much more efficient arrival and departure routes into the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. That is something that we are doing cooperatively 

with the people that actually work in the facilities at the surrounding airports. In addition, we are working with the Boeing 

Company, the Port of Seattle, the people that operate the facilities, 

and our military partners. 

37 

It is a process that takes you a little longer on the front end, but 

the benefits you get on the back end are dramatic. This eliminates 

situations where you implement something and you learn, belatedly, from the people in an air traffic control tower center, ‘‘Oh, 

this doesn’t work, and if you had simply asked me upfront, you 

would have known that this won’t work for the following reasons.’’ 

So this collaborative process is working very, very well. 

Are there ways to make it better? There always are. We continue 

to be—to focus on that. One of the challenges that we need to continue to manage is that people are investing a lot of time in this. 

This is something that costs a lot of money. I think it is money well 

spent, because I think we get a better aerospace system as a result, 

but these are some of the things that we also have to look at as 

we look at the possibility of the sequester. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. Well, some other questions on implementation. Section 204 requires a selection of a chief NextGen officer. 

Where is the FAA in that process? 

Mr. HUERTA. Our concept is that the chief NextGen officer will 

be the Deputy Administrator of the agency. When I first joined the 

agency back in 2010, it was as the Deputy. As the Deputy, I informally acted as the chief NextGen officer. With the passage of FAA 

authorization, I would have become the chief NextGen officer, had 

I not become Acting Administrator. That is still our plan. 

We are well along the way to selecting a Deputy Administrator. 

That person will be the chief NextGen officer. 

Mr. LARSEN. Section 608 requires a study on air traffic controller 

study—sorry, staffing. Where is FAA on that? 

Mr. HUERTA. On the air traffic controller staffing, I believe we 

are in review on that, and we should provide the study shortly to 

the committee. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK, good. And then also on staffing of FAA system 

specialists under 605, where is the FAA? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes, let me get you some exact dates for those. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you very much. With regards to flight 

3407—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. LARSEN [continuing]. I want you to discuss the implementation of the two pilot training rules required. And are the completion of these rules—first off, are they—where do they sit in your 

priorities? And second, can you just review again whether or not 

you are going to meet timelines you have laid out for completion? 

Mr. HUERTA. These two rules are my two highest priorities to 

complete this year. As it relates to the pilot qualifications—that is 

the hours of qualification for the pilots—that is on track to be completed in August of this year. It is important that it be completed 

in August of this year, because this is a provision that becomes 

self-executing even if the rulemaking doesn’t hit that timetable. 

With respect to the pilot training rule, as you know that is a very 

complicated rule. I have given my commitment to have that rule 

completed by October of this year, and I intend to hit that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Just a few more questions, Mr. Chairman. And I do 

have a set of questions after everyone is done, just to finish up. No? 

OK. Thank you very much. Watch me. 

38 

Rulemaking on ADS–B technology. Where are you—where is 

FAA on that? 

Mr. HUERTA. We convened an aviation rulemaking committee on 

ADS–B. They provided us with some very useful information. One 

of the things they noted was there is a great deal of skepticism and 

concern on the part of the industry about a mandate. We are currently working through that issue with them to see how to work 

through it before we can then commence any sort of a formal rulemaking process. We are trying to figure out how we can reach 

agreement with the stakeholders on this issue. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. And you may have mentioned this, the 

framework for consolidation and realignment of FAA’s facilities as 

the report required in 804. 

Mr. HUERTA. That is a very complicated undertaking for us. The 

important thing is to get it right. We have had, as you well know, 

Mr. Larsen, many false starts in trying to consolidate facilities. 

That has been because we haven’t had consistent criteria and repeatable processes to look at how to consolidate. We haven’t taken 

account of the airspace impacts, which would enable us to actually 

yield substantial savings. 

So, our focus is on correcting those problems, working collaboratively with our unions to figure out how best to structure that 

program. It has taken longer than we would like, but I think we 

are making good progress. 

Mr. LARSEN. I have one final question in round two, and it goes 

back to greener skies. I appreciate what you have said about talking to stakeholders, making sure everyone is involved. 

Naturally, as you know, when you changed flight patterns you go 

over people’s houses that you weren’t—that planes weren’t going 

over before. So, as a result, we have heard concerns from local 

electeds there reflecting what they are hearing from people about 

increased noise. And I am just wondering how you are approaching 

the involvement of the community itself in communicating the 

value of greener skies, and what can be done to address their 

issues. 

Mr. HUERTA. We have had a lot of discussions with Alaska Airlines and the Port of Seattle, who actually hear more of the local 

complaints than we do. We are working very closely with them to 

respond to the complaints. 

In general, the benefit for noise is a huge benefit because, as a 

result of these advanced procedures, aircraft tend to glide in on arrival, as opposed to the more traditional stair-step arrival at an 

airport. That results in a lot less noise, and it also reduces the 

noise footprint. But there is always a lot of energy around airplanes flying over communities, particularly communities which 

are adjacent to airports. We work closely with our airport partners 

to make sure that they have information on what we are actually 

doing in response to noise complaints. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I— 

again, just at the end, I do have a set of questions. I appreciate 

that. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Huerta, Mr. Larsen asked a question about 

the requirement in the FAA authorization bill to create a report on 

39 

the plan to consolidate and realign FAA facilities to support 

NextGen. Is that going to be comprehensive or region by region? 

Mr. HUERTA. It is not going to be region by region. We are looking at the whole country. We may approach it by types of facilities, 

but we do need to look at the whole country. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. After the many short-term extensions which 

prevented the FAA from planning long term on many projects, 

could you elaborate on the tools that the FAA authorization bill 

provided the FAA to make progress in areas that were previously 

either stunted or delayed, or made it impossible? What good has 

come from that? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I think the major benefit has been that FAA 

reauthorization lays out a clear road map for implementation of 

NextGen. As you know, the committee has been incredibly supportive of our ability to transition to the airspace system to 

NextGen, and that requires there to be a level of certainty and predictability around how we would actually deliver new navigation 

techniques and the underlying platforms and support systems. 

So reauthorization, in addition to laying out a consistent direction from Congress and program support for that direction, also 

provided frameworks for consultation with members of the industry. It also provided guidance to the agency on how we should best 

staff to ensure that NextGen has the priority that it requires. 

We have reorganized the agency. In fact, we have a dedicated 

NextGen organization that includes the staff that is responsible for 

the integration of these systems. That is probably the most difficult 

part of implementing NextGen. I think we have made very, very 

good progress on integration. We have to get the chief NextGen officer in place to complete that transition, but I do believe that we 

have made very good progress in coordinating how we deliver large, 

complex projects. 

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, we have got a wonderful team 

at the tech center that are right in the middle of all of this, because 

they are our principal test bed for how we deliver these new programs. 

A second area—or unless you want to stop me there—— 

Mr. LOBIONDO. No, no, no, go ahead. 

Mr. HUERTA. A second area where I think we have seen benefits 

is for our airport partners. One of the things that our airport partners were extremely concerned about was the notion that they 

were seeing airport grants coming in very small increments, which 

makes for a great deal of inefficiency for actually executing a construction program. The fact that we were able to get past that and 

into long-term authorization has given them more certainty. It 

makes for a much more efficient delivery and much lower project 

costs. 

Finally, I want to return to the point that Mr. Larsen raised, and 

that is planning for the future. The FAA has had a set of facilities. 

It has had a set of procedures. It has had a set of regulations that 

have served us very, very well for the last 50 years. As we look forward, as the aviation system is transitioning, we are all 

transitioning to a completely different way of how we move airplanes. We are not relying on radar, we are relying on satelliteVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-27-1~1\79556.TXT JEAN
40 

based systems to help us move aircraft and ensure safety throughout the system. 

That is more than a technological change. It is a cultural change 

and an operational change. There are huge opportunities for efficiency in the system down the road, and we have to manage to 

those efficiencies. 

I tell my employees all the time that we are at a critical place 

in aviation. Decisions that we are making in the next couple of 

years, with the guidance from this committee and with the support 

that you have given us, are going to shape what aviation looks like 

for decades to come. And we have to take that very seriously. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. How would you—with commercial air carriers 

that—the promise of NextGen and the safety benefits and the economic benefits are so huge. And I know a period back there was 

concern about some of the bumps in the road and how that was 

coming together. There were even some concerns expressed about 

the level of communication with the FAA from the commercial carriers. I know you have taken some steps to address that. 

How would you rate, at this point, where you see the interaction 

with the commercial carriers, as far as NextGen, the ideas and 

frustrations that they may have, and they have the ability to address them so that this could move forward with the real world, as 

I like to call it? And not just in theory. 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. That is an area that has been a high priority 

for me and all of us at the FAA. You correctly point out that it 

wasn’t that long ago, where there was a great deal of frustration 

and skepticism about NextGen. I think we have come a long way, 

but I would characterize that there is still some skepticism. The 

skepticism is over whether the benefits will really be there. 

What is different now is that we are talking. We are now struggling together to develop the metrics and to develop the certainty 

around delivery of benefits. I view that as a very positive development. 

I talk to airline CEOs almost on a daily basis. We have each other’s cell phones and speed dials. But communication is not just at 

that level. We have great communication that is taking place at 

many different levels within the organization. 

I talked about the airspace redesign activities that we have underway, where we have brought the operations executives of an air 

carrier at a particular airport together with the tower, center and 

TRACON managers to actually talk through how to improve service in Atlanta. How to redesign the airspace so that it works for 

Delta and for the other carriers that operate at that airport. Delta 

is sitting right there. 

Likewise, Alaska was critical in getting us through Greener 

Skies Over Seattle as the major hub carrier there. We are doing 

this at every airport around the country, United at Newark and 

Houston; American Airlines with the work that we have been doing 

at north Texas. 

As we work in these metropolitan areas, I have taken the position that it is pointless to argue about whether carriers are getting 

benefits, or aren’t getting benefits. I think it is much better to have 

the conversation, ‘‘Let’s sit down and actually solve a specific problem, and talk about how we achieve the benefit.’’ Those conversaVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-27-1~1\79556.TXT JEAN
41 

tions continue, and they have gone very well. They will certainly 

be what will characterize our work in the years ahead. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We will certainly try to explore that further. Mr. 

Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will be the last set 

of questions for me. 

As you know, I have closely monitored the progress of the work 

that FAA has done with Boeing to fix the issues that led to the 

grounding of the 787. And I have heard both from you all and from 

Boeing that you are working cooperatively together, it is a good relationship, trying to move things forward. That is great news. I understand, as well, you met with Boeing executives last week, and 

I have two questions. 

The first question is just can you briefly outline the proposed 

fixes for the 787? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. As you know, the problem that was identified 

in the incidents that took place relate to the lithium ion batteries 

that power the aircraft. There are two batteries that are within the 

airplane. One is in the forward cargo bay, and that is the main battery for the main power system of the airplane; one in the aft cargo 

bay, which powers the auxiliary power unit, which is how the airplane receives power when it is on the ground. 

In the two incidents reported, one in Boston, one in Japan, the 

investigations are showing that problems developed in the batteries 

themselves. Boeing’s proposal has had a lot of outside peer review. 

We have been involved in as well. Boeing has been working cooperatively with the National Transportation Safety Board and their 

Japanese counterparts. We have brought together the best technical experts to really understand what is going on here. 

What Boeing has presented to us is a proposal that identifies a 

handful of potential areas of probable cause—all within the battery 

itself—and then provides three levels of mitigation to ensure that 

these problems cannot present themselves again. 

Each battery has eight cells, so you have three possibilities of 

events. 

One is that you can have a problem in a single cell. So what Boeing is proposing, and what we are evaluating with other safety authorities from other countries, is mitigations and corrections and 

re-engineerings of designs that will prevent a cell event from taking place. 

The second potential problem is that a problem in one cell propagates to adjacent cells. There is another set of mitigating activities 

that have been presented, and that our engineering teams are evaluating for their effectiveness in preventing that propagation from 

happening. 

The third level is that if the problem propagates to the entire 

battery. We need to mitigate and ensure that such an occurrence 

does not become an event that affects the airplane. So we are working at the cell level, the battery level, and the airplane level. The 

plan that Boeing has presented is a comprehensive plan that addresses all of those areas. 

We have only received the plan last week. Our transport airplane 

directorate in Seattle is reviewing the plan in significant technical 

detail. I expect to receive a report on it next week. Once we apVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:17 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-27-1~1\79556.TXT JEAN
42 

prove the plan, then we have to go through the process of actually 

implementing the plan, which will involve a great deal of testing, 

a great deal of further analysis, and re-engineering before these 

planes go back in the air. 

Mr. LARSEN. When you say ‘‘back in the air,’’ you mean back operating for the airlines? 

Mr. HUERTA. Correct. 

Mr. LARSEN. So the second question I have, though, is—just 

since—even since less than 24 hours ago, there have been conflicting reports about whether the FAA is close to allowing test 

flights of the 87 to try these fixes out. Can you just give some clarity on where the process is on that point? 

Mr. HUERTA. I don’t have an application in front of me for any 

further test flights. 

Mr. LARSEN. So there is no decision to be made—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Correct. 

Mr. LARSEN [continuing]. Today or tomorrow or—until that happens? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is correct. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right, right. So, just to clarify, FAA has not made 

a decision to allow test flights? 

Mr. HUERTA. We haven’t received an application for further test 

flights. 

Mr. LARSEN. For further—right, for further test flights. 

Mr. HUERTA. Correct. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Mr. HUERTA. There have been two. 

Mr. LARSEN. Already, yes, correct. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s go back to this 

battery. So what you are saying is the incident that we are talking 

about is really contained to the battery component within the aircraft. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. What we saw in both events were heat-related 

events within the cells of the batteries that then propagated to 

other cells. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And so, assuming that we have got Boeing being the manufacturer of that component, is that something 

that they are manufacturing? 

Mr. HUERTA. No. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Or did they get that from another supplier? 

Mr. HUERTA. They obtained that from another supplier. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so are we—is that supplier coming in to help 

address that problem? Because you acted like it was Boeing’s engineers. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But if it is a battery component made by somebody else—— 

Mr. HUERTA. This is one of the things that we are currently evaluating. Let’s separate where we were and where we are. Where we 

were was a battery was manufactured by a third-party supplier, 

43 

pursuant to a design by a Boeing subcontractor. The subcontractor, 

in turn, provided the battery to Boeing. Boeing is stepping in and, 

in this review, is assuming responsibility for the design and for the 

testing. That testing on the battery is something we need to oversee and ultimately certify. 

You know, any re-engineering solution, how it will get built, has 

yet to be worked out. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you are saying is they are assuming responsibility, but indeed, the battery may have not been their responsibility. And thus, its failure is not Boeing’s. 

Mr. HUERTA. That investigation is still ongoing, in terms of the 

actual cause of the incidents in question. That is what the NTSB 

and the JTSB—the Japanese Transportation Safety Board—are 

trying to identify. What was the specific cause of the event. 

What Boeing’s work is really focused on is determining what we 

know is within this universe of causes. How do we prevent them, 

and how do we mitigate them? 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And what was the supplier of that battery? 

Mr. HUERTA. A company named GS Yuasa. It is a Japanese company. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And so they have supplied—and so are 

they involved in possibly in any of the re-engineering of that battery component, or in consultation with Boeing right now? 

Mr. HUERTA. I can’t speak to what the level of consultations have 

been between those two organizations. My inspectors have visited 

the battery factory to observe. We are evaluating data relating to 

its manufacture, and that work is ongoing. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, indeed, the failure could be, indeed, from a 

supplier, not from Boeing itself. 

Mr. HUERTA. At this point that is something we are still looking 

at. 

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

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Huerta, for being here today. I 

just want to say that I know I have seen up close and personal the 

dedication of the thousands of employees at Tech Center in my district. And the commitment to excellence and service is extraordinary. And I am sure that cuts across the entire operation. 

So, in these very difficult times for you and your team, we appreciate the dedication of the employees of the FAA to keeping the 

traveling public safe and secure. I am sure we are going to have 

a lot we are going to have to work on together. And we appreciate 

your being here today. 

And the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

44 


Insert offset folio 7 here 79556.007
45 


Insert offset folio 8 here 79556.008
46 


Insert offset folio 9 here 79556.009
47 


Insert offset folio 10 here 79556.010
48 


Insert offset folio 11 here 79556.011
49 


Insert offset folio 12 here 79556.012
50 


Insert offset folio 13 here 79556.013
51 


Insert offset folio 14 here 79556.014
52 


Insert offset folio 15 here 79556.015
53 


Insert offset folio 16 here 79556.016
54 


Insert offset folio 17 here 79556.017
55 


Insert offset folio 18 here 79556.018
56 


Insert offset folio 19 here 79556.019
57 


Insert offset folio 20 here 79556.020
58 


Insert offset folio 21 here 79556.021
59 


Insert offset folio 22 here 79556.022
60 


Insert offset folio 23 here 79556.023
61 


Insert offset folio 24 here 79556.024
62 


Insert offset folio 25 here 79556.025
63 


Insert offset folio 26 here 79556.026
64 


Insert offset folio 27 here 79556.027
65 


Insert offset folio 28 here 79556.028
66 


Insert offset folio 29 here 79556.029
67 


Insert offset folio 30 here 79556.030
68 


Insert offset folio 31 here 79556.031
69 


Insert offset folio 32 here 79556.032
70 


Insert offset folio 33 here 79556.033
71 


Insert offset folio 34 here 79556.034
72 


Insert offset folio 35 here 79556.035
73 


Insert offset folio 36 here 79556.036
74 


Insert offset folio 37 here 79556.037
75 


Insert offset folio 38 here 79556.038
76 


Insert offset folio 39 here 79556.039
77 


Insert offset folio 40 here 79556.040
78 


Insert offset folio 41 here 79556.041
79 


Insert offset folio 42 here 79556.042
80 


Insert offset folio 43 here 79556.043
81 


Insert offset folio 44 here 79556.044
82 


Insert offset folio 45 here 79556.045
83 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 46 here 79556.046