[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ENABLING A 21ST-
CENTURY AVIATION SYSTEM
=======================================================================
(114-7)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 3, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-580 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
ROB WOODALL, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
JOHN KATKO, New York JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
(ii)
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Columbia
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California
ROB WOODALL, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
TODD ROKITA, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MIMI WALTERS, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida Officio)
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
WITNESSES
Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Responses to questions for the record from the following
majority-side Representatives:
Hon. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania........................ 43
Hon. Don Young of Alaska................................. 44
Hon. Rob Woodall of Georgia.............................. 48
Hon Mimi Walters of California........................... 49
Responses to questions for the record from the following
minority-side Representatives and Delegate:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.......................... 50
Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington........................... 53
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia... 55
Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois......................... 56
Hon. Andre Carson of Indiana............................. 62
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.................................. 23
Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington................................... 27
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ENABLING A 21ST-
CENTURY AVIATION SYSTEM
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The committee will come to
order. Thank you all for being here, particularly Administrator
Huerta for being here. And the Colgan family members, thank you
for being here.
On September 30th of this year the current Federal Aviation
Administration reauthorization expires. This current
authorization occurred after 5 years of short-term extensions
and a partial shutdown, which resulted in tremendous
instability and uncertainty for the agency, industry,
stakeholders, and the flying public. Chairman Shuster and I
have repeatedly talked about this and pledged to do our very
best, along with Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Larsen, to see that this
will not happen again.
As we draft the new authorization, there are several key
areas that must be addressed. Technological advances since the
last bill are at the heart of two key areas of focus, the move
towards GPS-based air traffic control under NextGen and the
growth of commercial interest in unmanned aerial systems. These
technologies hold enormous potential that could improve the
efficiency and safety of our airspace system while unlocking
billions of dollars in economic activity for the country.
As Administrator Huerta will concur, NextGen utilizes many
technologies that would not only increase capacity, but also
improve the safety of our airspace. Many of these technologies
were researched, developed, and tested at the FAA Technical
Center, the premier research and development facility for the
FAA, which is in my district.
While progress has been made on establishing NextGen
foundational programs, it is clear that the FAA has a great
deal of work to do before passengers and operators begin to
realize more significant benefits. For the past year, we have
received an extensive amount of input from stakeholders
regarding the slow place of FAA implementation of NextGen, as
well as the agency's inefficient and overly burdensome
certification processes, which we think is impacting in a
negative way on the economics of the country.
Many of these problems have been identified in several
oversight hearings conducted by this subcommittee, as well as
by the DOT inspector general and Government Accountability
Office. In addition, we have raised them directly with
Secretary Foxx and Administrator Huerta, and I would again
convey that Congress as a whole is closely monitoring the FAA's
progress on NextGen and the subcommittee will continue its
vigorous oversight in light of recent reports from the DOT
inspector general on cost overruns and delays.
Furthermore, after months of delay, the FAA finally
released its proposed rule on the integration of small unmanned
aerial systems, or UAS, into the national airspace, but the
estimate timeline of 2017 for finalization of the rule I think
just seems too long. Other countries are moving ahead more
quickly than us as we speak, and the American leadership simply
cannot be taken for granted and/or allowed to slip.
I urge the FAA to act both quickly and carefully to ensure
the United States leads the world in safe UAS integration.
Having the resources of the FAA Technical Center and the six
UAS test sites at its disposal, I believe the agency can
achieve this important goal, and Mr. Larsen and I stand with
the committee ready to work with Administrator Huerta, with you
on this and on other issues.
As we move forward with the FAA Reauthorization Act, we
must ensure that our efforts to address these longstanding
problems do not adversely impact safety, which has and will
continue to be a top priority of the committee. On that note, I
would like to hear from the Administrator on the FAA's efforts
to implement one of the last outstanding requirements of the
Airline Safety Act of 2010, the establishment of a pilot
records database.
On a final note, we are now well in the 21st century.
However, many of our systems and regulatory platforms are for a
20th-century world. Now it is time for Congress, stakeholders,
and the community to work together to do something big to
ensure that our leadership in aviation is maintained.
Before I recognize my colleague Mr. Larsen for his
comments, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material for the record of this hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
And now I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen for any opening
remarks.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an opening
statement that I will just summarize given the interest of time
and the interest of the Members here today at the hearing. I
want to just emphasize a few things in my opening statement.
First off is safety, that as we do the FAA reauthorization,
safety must be first thing on our mind.
Second is investment. We need to find a way to work with
FAA to ensure stable and adequate funding to mitigate impacts
of sequestration and other constraints on the agency.
Third is NextGen. Although there have been problems with
implementation, with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and working
with the RTCA and NextGen Advisory Committee we have been able
to ensure a development of four key recommendations. That
funding has been in the 2015 budget for those recommendations
and we need to start looking at what the next steps are for
NextGen reauthorization.
Fourth is certification. As you mentioned, the consistent
regulatory environment for consistent certification approvals
for components and platforms is critical.
And finally, the integration of UAS in the commercial
airspace.
These are some of the issues that I know we will be dealing
with. But with that, I would ask unanimous consent for my full
statement to be put in the record.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. With that, I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Chairman Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. LoBiondo, for holding
this hearing.
And, Administrator Huerta, thank you for being here today.
I will be brief also because I know the Members have
questions and we have shortened time here today. But I
appreciate you being here today, and I think my two colleagues
have laid out all the issues that we all want to solve. I hope
that we can continue to be talking and start maybe a more
intense debate about how we do significant reform, you and I
have had these conversations, where we look around the world
today and the air traffic control organizations literally
across the world are being pulled out of Government and
functioning more as a business. And they are maintaining
safety. They are run more effectively, efficiently. They are
limiting the political process.
We have seen the 23 extensions, the sequestration, the
Government shutdown, the political infighting that goes on.
When you take it out of Government then they can operate and
make decisions. They can make those investments long term
without Congress as part of the problem.
So, again, I look forward to having the discussions. And I
will ask my question right now. So maybe somewhere in the
process are you open to talking about serious, significant
reform to the FAA to move the organization more to what the
rest of the world is doing? So I look forward to hearing your
testimony and questions today. So thanks for being here.
I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Chairman Shuster.
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have put my remarks regarding the
reauthorization in the record. I share many of the concerns and
objectives that have been raised. But I want to raise something
else because I am quite concerned.
GAO released a report yesterday--I was one of the
corequesters of that report--which pointed out significant
problems with the FAA in terms of cybersecurity. And I don't
think I have ever seen a GAO report before that had 168
corrective actions and 17 general recommendations. And I have
got to say that I am very, very concerned. To me, it is a
nightmare scenario. I spent a number of years on the Committee
on Homeland Security. We know there is an enduring interest in
terrorist groups in aviation. They have used our aviation
system as weapons. One can imagine they might be interested in
hacking the system and perhaps could facilitate a midair
collision.
So I am very, very gravely concerned about this, and I hope
that the Administrator can briefly address what he intends to
do and how quickly we can move to secure the system. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
Today we are very pleased to welcome the Honorable Michael
Huerta, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Thank you for being here. We look forward to your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Huerta. Thank you. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
DeFazio, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, members of
the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before
you today to speak about reauthorization of the FAA.
It seems like not that long ago we were united behind the
FAA reauthorization of 2012 with a sense of urgency to provide
long-term funding to support our Nation's aviation system, and
now we are here to continue that work. We have a joint
responsibility, Government and industry, to pull together to
create the air traffic system that will carry this Nation well
into the 21st century.
In the last 5 years, the FAA has made major progress in
transforming our airspace system through NextGen, and that
progression continues as we speak. The FAA has delivered on its
commitment to build the foundation that will support the many
applications of NextGen. In 2014, we completed the coast-to-
coast installation of a network of radio transceivers that will
enable a satellite-based air traffic control system that
provides a more precise and efficient alternative to radar.
With this foundation now in place, we are working with the
airline industry and the general aviation community to help
them to do their part to meet the requirement to equip by the
2020 deadline. By the end of this month we will finish the
upgrade of our en route air traffic control automation system.
This system will accommodate the new technologies of NextGen.
This is one of the largest automation changeovers in the
history of the FAA, and it results in a more powerful air
traffic system that can handle the challenges of the coming
decades.
Through our collaboration with industry, last year we
identified and agreed on key priorities in implementing NextGen
and we have been following through. We now have more satellite-
based procedures in our skies than radar-based procedures. We
have created new NextGen routes in cities across America that
are saving millions of dollars in fuel burn, shortening flight
paths, decreasing carbon emissions, and cutting down on delays.
All of this means that airline schedules are more predictable
and travelers face fewer delays.
The United States stands as a leader in aviation
internationally and we intend to remain the gold standard. Our
manufacturers produce innovative aircraft and avionics that
help maintain our Nation's positive balance of trade. We are
truly unique in that we have the most diverse aviation
community, which includes new users like unmanned aircraft and
commercial space vehicles. Civil aviation contributes 12
million jobs and $1.5 trillion to our national economy.
America's leadership in aviation is being challenged on a
global level, however, with the growth of foreign competitors
and the shifting dynamics of supply chains. Domestically, the
FAA faces challenges I think we can all acknowledge. We have
competing priorities among our stakeholders, one of the
byproducts of a healthy and diverse system, and we have had to
navigate a constrained fiscal environment in recent years with
nearly two dozen short-term extensions prior to the 2012
reauthorization.
The FAA needs to prioritize its resources to leverage new
technology and to respond nimbly to evolving challenges. To
maintain our global leadership and to continue to reap the
economic benefits of this industry we should use the upcoming
reauthorization to provide the FAA with the tools necessary to
meet the pressing demands of the future. A lot is at stake, and
we need to get this right.
To that end, the Administration has developed a set of
principles that we believe will improve our Nation's airspace
system and set the course for future progress. First, we need
to maintain our excellent safety record and foster the use of
data and the use of analysis to focus our precious resources on
the areas of highest risk in our aviation system. We must
continue the modernization of our air traffic control system.
Part of that effort is to ensure stable funding for core
operations and NextGen investments, and collaboration with
industry is absolutely essential. We need to deliver benefits
and the industry needs to equip to use these improvements.
FAA reauthorization should secure appropriate funding for
our Nation's airports. It should also enable the integration of
new users into our airspace system and support the agency in
fostering a culture of innovation and efficiency.
The FAA also needs to realign today's airspace system with
current demands. We need the flexibility to make investment
choices that further the health of our airspace system so that
everyone can benefit.
Finally, we need to maintain our position of aviation
leadership on the world stage. This means the FAA needs to
remain at the table to shape and harmonize international
aviation standards and promote seamless travel around the
world.
We are extremely proud of America's aviation heritage and
the innovation and inspiration that our strong and diverse
system has always provided. I look forward to working together
to make sure that the United States continues to lead the world
as we create the right conditions for further innovation and
achievement in the second century of flight.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Huerta.
On the topic of NextGen, we have spent a lot of time, and I
know there are tangible and now some measurable results, but
there is still, in the minds of many Members and certainly for
a lot of the stakeholders, a serious disconnect between what
the Government auditors are saying and what the FAA is saying.
And I am hoping you can shed some light and explain why
there is such a disconnect where we have the FAA stating that
NextGen is on time and delivering the benefits expected and
Government auditors, which we heard from as recently as last
week, talking about little benefits and slow implementation.
And we are not talking about from 10 years ago. We are
talking about this report we got last week was, like, in the
last couple of years. Could you help us understand this?
Mr. Huerta. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NextGen is a very complex undertaking and it requires the
deployment of core foundational technology upon which we build
applications that the users are able to take advantage of. Both
of those activities need to continue in tandem.
The agency has been very focused on delivering the core
infrastructure programs, such as the ADS-B program that I
referenced in my opening statement, as well as the en route
automation platform. The ADS-B program was delivered on time
and on budget. The ERAM program was delayed, but we are coming
to the conclusion of that. These programs create an important
foundation.
At the same time, however, the FAA has taken the step to
work with the stakeholders, the airline industry and the
general aviation community, to deliver specific benefits and to
deliver them now. The focus of that has been on performance-
based navigation where we have developed a number of programs
in metropolitan areas to redesign airspace to result in very
efficient flight paths that reduce fuel burn and therefore
reduce cost to the industry.
Last year there were two very significant developments with
the redesign of the airspace around Houston, where we deployed
61 new air traffic procedures in a single day, followed by
north Texas, where we delivered 81 new efficient procedures in
a single day.
We have also done airspace redesign projects here in
Washington, DC, and in northern California and in Seattle, and
other metropolitan areas are following. These metropolitan-
focused benefit programs yield very, very significant fuel
savings.
Longer term, with the foundational infrastructure in place,
we can focus on the national benefit programs, programs such as
DataComm that we have been doing trials on and which we expect
to complete in 2019.
It is true that it is a project that has taken many years,
but we are delivering benefits for users and we are delivering
them now, and that pace will continue in the years ahead.
Mr. LoBiondo. On the issue of safe integration of unmanned
aircraft systems, of course it is of great interest to many
people across the country, as you know. How does the FAA plan
to utilize the test sites while it works through the small UAS
rulemaking?
Mr. Huerta. The test sites play a critical role in serving
as the focal point for data and analysis and research in the
areas of unmanned aircraft systems. As a result of research
that is taking place at the FAA's Tech Center in Atlantic City,
a lot of good research is being done on critical technologies
that are essential for safe integration of unmanned aircraft.
These include technologies such as detect and avoid, how do
these aircraft sense other aircraft, which is critical to
ensuring that they can be safely integrated. Likewise, it
serves as the repository to share research data among the six
test sites so that the research done at one test site can be
broadly understood and can be used to eliminate research in all
the other test sites. The Tech Center plays a critical role.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, Administrator Huerta, you outline in your testimony,
your oral testimony and written, some of the advances you have
made in NextGen implementation. So I have two questions on
that. Despite that outline, there are still concerns not just
from the industry, the airlines, but from other folks that
nothing is being done or we are still way behind, all sorts of
criticisms along those lines. Can you briefly address that?
Mr. Huerta. The key developments that we have been able to
make with NextGen have really brought the system a long way in
realizing those benefits. I understand the skepticism that the
industry and others in the system have had over many years, but
I would encourage everyone to look at the very significant
progress we have made in the last 5 years, as we have built out
the foundational technologies and as we have been very, very
focused on delivery of benefits.
Under the direction and with the support of this committee,
we have engaged actively with industry. The key part of doing
that was to ensure that what we were focused on was delivering
the priorities that industry want. As you know, we reached
agreement with industry on four key areas of priority that they
want us to focus on in the near term for the delivery of
benefits. That was done through a collaborative process. We
reached agreement on those priorities and we are tracking to
the milestones that were set forth in those priorities.
They include a significant increase of and focus on
performance-based navigation, which we are doing through our
Metroplex program. They want us to focus on surface operations,
which we are very, very committed to. We also have a
significant focus on DataComm. Right now the program is running
in trials in two airports and will be deploying in two more in
the months ahead.
So by working in collaboration with industry we have
identified their priorities. We are very focused on continuing
to deliver in those areas.
Mr. Larsen. OK. And the chairman and I sort of feel like ex
officio members of the NAC at times when it comes to NextGen.
So I know on UAS there is a significant backlog of section
333 exemption requests. What can we do to help make this
process more streamlined? I know we have talked about
approaching it from a programmatic approach rather than a one-
off exemption approach without compromising safety. Can you
provide an opinion of this programmatic approach that some of
us have talked about?
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely. Under section 333 of the
reauthorization of 2012, Congress granted us the authority to
grant exemptions to integrate particular users of unmanned
aircraft into the National Airspace System, and that has proven
to be a very popular tool. We have a very large number of
applications that have been received from industry.
Mr. Larsen. About 450 or so?
Mr. Huerta. Yes. The challenge that we have is that
exemptions are granted to an individual or a company for a
specific purpose. The agency has very limited ability to grant
blanket exemptions to whole classes of users. So what that
means is that we have to evaluate each application on its own
individual merits and the specifics of what they want.
Mr. Larsen. Would the agency argue that that is the
language that section 333 says it has to do?
Mr. Huerta. It has to do with the nature of an exemption.
What section 333 authorized was the ability to grant an
exemption. An exemption is to an individual for a specific
purpose, and so it is the relationship of the two things.
Anything that we can do that would enable us to look at classes
of operators that have substantially identical facts or very
similar characteristics I think could be quite helpful.
Nonetheless, in the near term we are looking at what we can
do to continue to streamline the process of granting the
exemptions as we are currently doing them.
Mr. Larsen. All right. That is fine.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Chairman Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Again, welcome, Mr. Huerta.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. I laid out for you in my opening statement the
problems we have seen with the sequestration, the 23
extensions, the problem with the DOT inspectors, the GAO report
that Mr. DeFazio pointed out. And, again, my question is about,
is the time ripe for us to be engaged in a debate to do
significant reform?
One of the things I learned in the last week or so was that
Verizon, which does a lot of the same kind of things as you,
manage data signals, moving things around, they have replaced
their system four times in the last 10 years. They would still
be in the 1G program instead of the 4G program. They have been
able to do that, four times replacement in 10 years, and we
have been talking about NextGen for 25 years.
Blame the Congress too because of the way we have operated,
23 extensions, Government shutdowns. Those things aren't
helpful either. But I think it is time for us to, again, look
around the world and see that they have taken and moved the air
traffic control organization out of Government. Let the FAA do
what they are supposed to do, and that is regulate, make sure
we get more certainty in the certification program.
So, again, my question to you, is the time right for us to
really be sitting down and talking about a significant
restructuring with governance and the financing system of the
FAA?
Mr. Huerta. Mr. Chairman, there are three things that I
think any structure needs to yield for the FAA as a whole. The
first and most important we can agree on is that we have to
maintain the safety of the system. The second is that we have
to have an expeditious and orderly way to deploy technology and
to make it operational. And the third is to recognize the tight
relationship that exists between developing new operational
procedures and certifying them for safe use within the system.
The Secretary and I are both very open to a discussion on
structures that would enable us to achieve that, but I would
stress that what we have to ensure is that there are not
unintended consequences that could actually set back the
significant progress that we are making.
The other point that I would like to make is that the
technology systems that the FAA is responsible for are
fundamentally different in many ways from telecommunications
and other technology systems in this respect: Their principal
purpose is to ensure that a system is safe. What that means is
it imposes, and I think correctly, a very high threshold on the
performance of those systems, as well as mitigations and
backups, to ensure that they don't in any way compromise
safety.
Clearly, we are all focused on how we can do that as
efficiently as possible, and we are open to a discussion about
how best to do that.
Mr. Shuster. All right. And I agree with you
wholeheartedly. It has got to be safety, safety, safety. And
you also have industry. Boeing wants their planes to fly
forever. And so they are fixated on safety, which they should
be. But would you agree that there are examples around the
world that are doing things very differently than we are and
they still maintain that high level of safety in their
operations?
Mr. Huerta. There are examples around the world of very
different models, but it is also important to recognize that we
have a significantly different aviation system than any other
part of the world.
Mr. Shuster. Just in size alone, is that the----
Mr. Huerta. In size alone, but also in composition and mix.
There is no one that has the robust and highly diverse general
aviation industry that we have. There is no one that has the
mix of metropolitan and rural areas that we have and the mix of
airspace and the challenges associated with management that go
with that. There is no one that has the diversity of users that
we have, particularly the new ones, such as the development of
commercial space and the development of unmanned aircraft
systems.
What we have to come up with is an operational model that
works for the United States, not for other countries. I think
that what will come out of that, recognizing the uniquely
American set of circumstances that we have, is to come up with
uniquely American solutions to address them.
Mr. Shuster. And I agree with that. Making those points
drives me to believe that NextGen, the technology is absolutely
essential and we have been talking about it and talking about
it. And finally the time comes we have to do it, and that is
why I believe so firmly that we have got to do something
different. Again, not only because of things not going right at
FAA, but because of Congress' starts and stops when it comes to
funding and things that we do up here.
So, again, I appreciate your openness to talk about this
and to debate this and look forward to working with you.
Yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, I directed a question at the beginning,
there are concerns about the GAO report. Do you want to tell me
your reaction, what you are going to do, how quickly you can
deal with this?
Mr. Huerta. Sure. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
First and foremost, the system is safe. GAO acknowledged in
their report that the agency has made significant progress in
identifying the issues that they talked about, and of the many
recommendations, many have already been mitigated, and we are
working closely with them to continue to focus on outstanding
concerns.
I am very actively focused on the recommendations. As I
mentioned, we have remediated a very significant number of the
technical findings already. We established a Cybersecurity
Steering Committee a number of years ago. This was part of an
initiative to give greater focus to the whole question of
cyber. I have asked them to provide oversight on behalf of the
agency on a risk-based approach as we address each of these
recommendations. They are not all equal.
We have been proactive in identifying other potential
actions to enhance the cybersecurity posture of our National
Airspace System, as well as the agency as a whole, and we have
been working with our other Government partners, those that,
like us, have technology-based organizations to ensure that we
are using best practices. It is something that I am very
committed to and very concerned about, and we are remediating
this as quickly as we can.
Mr. DeFazio. You are moving or intending to move a lot to
the cloud. Doesn't that raise concerns?
Mr. Huerta. It raises an important question. As we have
transitioned our National Airspace System from what has largely
been a closed system to an IP-based system where we are buying
services from the private sector, what it means is not so much
that we are opening up a problem that we haven't had, but it
means that we have to ensure that we are using private sector
best practices to ensure that we have the appropriate cyber
controls in place.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, I haven't had a chance to read the
168 SSI recommendations, but I have got to say I am going to be
looking for some very specific assurances when I find some
critical deficiencies, because a hack of the air traffic
control system could lead to catastrophic consequences, in my
opinion.
Quickly on a couple of other issues. I started maybe 15
years ago raising concerns about foreign repair stations with
more and more work moving there. I have concerns that these
people don't undergo background checks, but also at least
minimally drug and alcohol testing. We have been working on a
rule for I don't know how long. Where are we at?
Mr. Huerta. We did publish an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking on drug testing in foreign repair stations. We
received a number of comments. We are evaluating those now and
we want to get the notice out in the near future.
Mr. DeFazio. It has been about, I think, a decade.
Then how about the centralized database for pilot records?
Where are we on that?
Mr. Huerta. We have done a fair amount of work on a
centralized database. One of the things that we wanted to see
is what we could learn from other industries that focus on
centralized records from a wide variety of different technology
sources.
This one is technically very difficult for us to work
through and to do it in a way that we can ensure that it meets
the appropriate cost-benefit hurdles that it needs to meet. But
it is something that is within the agency, and I am hopeful
that we are going to have a resolution of it in the not too
distant future.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And then we have had a lot of talk about
certification. I am concerned about whether or not you are able
to have adequate oversight with the proliferation of the ODAs
out there? I mean, are you concerned about those staffing
levels? Are you looking at augmenting those staffing levels? My
understanding is these inspectors are carrying massive
workloads and they are going to get around, like, once every 3
years maybe to look at something.
Mr. Huerta. The challenge is to come up with the
appropriate balance of how do we use data to determine the
highest areas of risk and to focus our efforts on those areas.
Even if the FAA had all of the resources in the world, aviation
by its very nature is all about innovative technology, and we
have to ensure that we get the expertise from the people that
have it. Sometimes that will be from the industry, and the
designation process is intended to find that right balance
between what the agency retains and what we rely on industry to
do on our behalf.
Mr. DeFazio. So do you think it is optimal at this point
then?
Mr. Huerta. I don't think it is optimal because I think the
industry is always evolving. I know that we have to be more
nimble in how we do our part of it. Likewise, we have to have
appropriate tools that enable us to audit industry acting on
our behalf to ensure that there are not problems in the system.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
expressing our continuing concern about the cost overruns on
the NextGen contracts and so forth.
But, Mr. Administrator, I have two other concerns. First of
all, there is great interest in and even great concern about
unmanned aircraft, drones, and the DOT inspector general
several months ago issued a report about the FAA being behind
schedule and there being what they called a magnitude of safety
and privacy concerns about drones. We are reading that Amazon
and a lot of other big companies want to do potentially
millions of deliveries by drones. People are wondering about
are they going to walk through their neighborhood and have to
dodge these vehicles, and privacy concerns, and so forth.
Where do you see all of that heading and are we going to be
able to put limitations or control on some of these unmanned
vehicles?
Mr. Huerta. Mr. Duncan, I think you have very well
summarized the three competing things that need to be balanced
as we integrate unmanned aircraft. On the one hand, there are
the innovators that want to take advantage of the technology to
do as much as they can. On the other hand, the public has
expressed concerns about how they are safely integrated. There
are also concerns that have been expressed about ensuring that
individuals' rights to privacy are protected.
The FAA is extremely concerned and very focused on how we
balance the first two of these. How can we provide for
integration, but how do we ensure that it is done safely? The
small UAS rule that we put out earlier this year strikes a
balance between dividing the industry into different classes of
unmanned aircraft; very small, where there might be less risk,
and then larger, where we would suggest that there would be
different requirements that should be created for them.
We have proposed to create a different class of operator,
not a pilot's license but an unmanned aircraft operator, and
for certain classes we have proposed that they be exempt from
the certification requirement. But they still need to meet
appropriate standards of safety.
On the same day that we announced our rule, the White House
put out a policy related to privacy, and I think that reflects
the larger concern that we as a Government need to be concerned
about, and that is how do we ensure the appropriate levels of
protection for personal privacy.
The Government's policy deals with the Government's own use
of unmanned aircraft, but the President also tasked the
Commerce Department through the NTIA to really take the lead in
looking at these larger questions of privacy and how do we
ensure that individuals' privacy is protected.
We are going to need to balance all of these things as we
integrate unmanned aircraft into the airspace system and as we
do it safely.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you. There are other aspects to
that, but I don't have time to get into all that. I do want to
raise my other topic that I have always had so much concern
about. In the late 1990s, Atlanta Airport testified before us
that their main, longest runway took 14 years from conception
to completion. It took only 99 construction days.
And in every aspect or every part of the work that this
committee does, highway projects, the rail bill that we will
have in there today, we have tried to put in environmental
streamlining. Sometimes over the years it seems that we have
been more successful at lip service than we have about actual
action and speeding things up. And we seem to take about three
times as long as other developed nations on almost all these
other major transportation projects.
Are you satisfied that we are doing everything that needs
to be done, speeding up project delivery times and an
environmental streamlining, so we can get these things done in
cost-effective ways?
Mr. Huerta. The Congress gave us some important tools in
our last authorization in 2012. Those are dealing with the
environmental process as it relates to airspace redesign, which
is critical for us to deliver performance-based navigation and
NextGen. There were two categorical exclusions where Congress
directed us that, under certain criteria, we could make a
finding of a categorical exclusion, which greatly accelerates
the environmental process.
The first one we adopted as policy. The second one we
worked with the NextGen Advisory Committee to come up with a
way forward of how to implement it. So this is something that
we are very focused on.
I will say that in your home airport in Atlanta, one of the
things that we have been focused on in the airspace redesign is
how we can get more capacity out of the runways that they have
already built. As a result of that activity we have been able
to get a significant increase in both the arrival and departure
capacity as a result of doing airspace changes and relying on
this streamlined process that we are talking about.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A few questions that I have. First, I will start out with
this one. Lewis University Airport is located in Will County,
which is an important part of my district, one of the fastest
growing regions in northeastern Illinois. Lewis University
Airport submitted a list of capital needs to the Illinois
Department of Transportation, which administers the FAA State
Block Grant Program.
A few of the priorities include land acquisition for runway
safety, a runway rehabilitation project, and most importantly,
a control tower, which is critical to support the airport's
role as a generator of regional economic growth, an important
reliever airport for Midway and O'Hare International Airports,
and also a training school.
I appreciate the meeting that we are going to have next
month to discuss these important needs. I look forward to that
meeting and discussing what potential ways there are for the
FAA to fund these projects, but especially the control towers.
That leads me to a more general question. I am wondering if
you can provide any updates on the remote tower initiative that
is ongoing?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you. The FAA has started a program and is
conducting research on what technology enables us to do in
terms of using a remote tower capability. Essentially, it is a
combination of sensors, cameras, and other technology that
creates, if you will, a virtual tower. The controllers that are
actually removed from the facility in question have the ability
to operate it as if it is a tower that is located on the field.
This is technology that has been deployed in some very remote
regions of the far northern parts of Europe, and we have been
focused on working with that technology.
We do have a program that we are doing in conjunction with
the Commonwealth of Virginia to actually test this here at
Leesburg Airport. This is a project that we are working
cooperatively with our labor partners, as well as the airport,
in order to test this technology and understand how it works,
not only for Leesburg, but how it works in conjunction with the
congested airspace surrounding the Washington airports.
The interaction between what we are doing at this
particular airport I think will be very useful. If the results
are promising, this is something that I want to move out on
very aggressively because it holds great potential to address
the needs that you are discussing.
Mr. Lipinski. Any sense of when you may have the results
that you are confident in?
Mr. Huerta. It depends on where this takes us. The program
is really just getting started at Leesburg right now. We have
to develop some data in terms of how it operates in different
kinds of weather and different traffic conditions. We can
provide detailed information on that to your office on a
regular basis so that we can give you a sense of what we are
learning from that.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Lewis University is one of the 36 Air Traffic Collegiate
Training Initiative schools, and students from my district and
across the Nation chose to attend Lewis because of the
advantages that CTI schools provide. We all know that the
hiring process was changed just over a year ago and this really
hurts the students who decide at a young age to enroll in a
program fostered by the FAA. I understand that a graduate of a
CTI school is never guaranteed a job, but they did have an
advantage in the hiring process that they gained in exchange
for working hard in school while paying tuition.
I think the unique nature of these degrees is also worth
noting. While a CTI graduate with a specialized degree can
always pursue a different career path, the window to become an
air traffic controller closes shut at age 31 and there is no
going back.
I am wondering, I would like to know what the FAA is
planning to do this year to build off the language of H.R. 83
to help students who enrolled or graduated after the hiring
changes. I understand the purposes of the hiring changes, but I
am concerned about the students who have put all of the time
and effort and money into the CTI programs.
Mr. Huerta. Sure. We are implementing the provisions of the
piece of legislation that you mentioned in this year's hiring
program, and we have identified all the individuals that are
affected by those provisions going forward.
I would like to step back and talk about the broader points
that you make about the benefit of the education program, as
well as the point about there being no guarantee. This is a
highly competitive job. We received 28,000 applicants for 1,600
positions, so under any scenario there will be a lot of people
that would like the job that don't get it.
But of those that we selected, two-thirds were CTI
graduates, which I think indicates the value of the CTI
education and how it positions people to compete for this
highly competitive profession.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. My time I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Rokita.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the Chair.
And, good morning, Administrator. Good to be with you. And
could you keep your microphone really close to your mouth?
Maybe that would help.
Mr. Huerta. OK. Sorry about that.
Mr. Rokita. Yeah. Thank you very much.
Listening to your testimony and some phrases have popped
out. Let me reiterate them, and I apologize for the paraphrase.
Feel free to push back if I am unfair in the paraphrasing. But
you have testified so far that we need to keep our leadership
position in aviation on the world stage. You said no one else
in the world has a GA industry as robust as ours. That is fair.
And then you said we need to come up with uniquely American
solutions because we have an airspace system and a population
of different stakeholders and users that is unique. Fair?
Mr. Huerta. Fair.
Mr. Rokita. I agree with all that as well. My question is,
it is clear to me you are not a short order cook. OK? It is
clear to me the agency is not a short order cook, nor should we
be when it comes to promulgating regulations. I believe in the
old adage measure twice, cut once. But how long do you think it
should take to come up with these uniquely American solutions
in terms of promulgating regulations?
Take the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act, the
legislation that would repeal the third-class medical
requirement, generally. We have talked about that. You have
written rules, apparently, but we haven't seen them. You said I
would like the rules, and perhaps 180 of us as cosponsors would
like the rules, perhaps love the rules. Maybe I will use the
word love. Maybe you said like. I am waiting to like. I am
waiting to love.
Are you satisfied with how long it is taking for either
these rules or how long it took for the UAS rules to come out
or the fact that the part 23 rewrite has gone way beyond the
time?
And I am not trying to give you a gotcha question. Just as
a fellow leader, and as a person who used to run a big agency
himself, how do you keep the accountability train moving? How
do you measure metrics? How did you measure progress in these
situations?
Mr. Huerta. The regulatory process, as you know, is quite
deliberate. It can be quite frustrating. It is intended to
balance and to deliberate over many competing objectives that
are out there.
On the point of the third-class medical, you are correct,
the agency has done a lot of work in this area, and we have
been in a discussion with our administration partners on what
is the best way to proceed going forward and how we could
proceed on this and make it available for comment.
I think that the process certainly takes longer than I
would like. It is something that I understand, though, because
there are many competing points of view and in the other
regulatory----
Mr. Rokita. These haven't even gotten out to the public. It
is not just about GAPPA. It is about the part 22 rewrite.
Mr. Huerta. I understand.
Mr. Rokita. It is about the UAS that just hit the street,
those regulations. I mean, yes or no, satisfied?
Mr. Huerta. I think that I would like to see a quicker
process, but I understand that there are a lot of competing
interests that need to be resolved.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you. In that same vein, when do you
anticipate implementing the Aviation Rulemaking Committee
recommendations for sections 312 and 313 of the last
reauthorization that had to do with the aircraft certification
and the streamlining competing regulations?
Mr. Huerta. Section 312, we submitted the report to
Congress in 2012, as you know. We have completed, I believe, 10
of the 14 recommendations or activities that we put forward
with respect to that and we are focused very much on the
others.
Mr. Rokita. Any timeline?
Mr. Huerta. I will have to get back with a specific
timeline on that.
Mr. Rokita. When can you get back to me?
Mr. Huerta. We can get back to you soon.
Mr. Rokita. Next week, 2 weeks?
Mr. Huerta. Next week. Next week. We will get back with you
next week with a report.
Mr. Rokita. Thanks, Administrator.
Next question that I had, regarding AIPs and PFCs, do you
have any comments, does the agency have any comment on what the
cap should be and is it time to raise the passenger facility
charge, or is it time to tweak the measurements or the formula
or the priorities that we issue AIP moneys, especially in the
pure discretionary area?
Mr. Huerta. The Administration set forward its proposal in
the President's budget, which would raise the PFC from the
current cap of $4.50 to $8 for large airports and at the same
time remove the large airports from the entitlement formula
program. The thought here is that the large airports have the
ability to generate significant revenues based on their own
activities, but at the same time to preserve the basic access
requirements for smaller communities and smaller airports.
Mr. Rokita. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
A couple of notes for the good of the order. There has been
a request because of the time crunch, and we covered this at
the beginning, but just to make it clear, any Members who have
questions that there will not be time for, we will submit for
the record.
And, Mr. Huerta, I am sure your team will help get back to
us.
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely.
Mr. LoBiondo. And then I would like to ask unanimous
consent, in light of the hard stop at 10:40, very hard stop at
10:40, in consultation with Mr. Larsen and Mr. DeFazio and Mr.
Shuster, that we go to a hard 3-minute questioning.
Mr. Larsen, would you like to comment?
Mr. Larsen. You had talked to us about it, Mr. Chairman,
and I know it is going to be difficult for Members with that,
but with the hard stop facing us, we accept that.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. So without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Carson, you are recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.
Administrator Huerta, thank you, sir.
Indiana airport directors who are here today briefed our
delegation this morning about their consensus regarding the
need for Congress to raise the cap on passenger facility
charges. Now, they are being as creative as they possibly can
be to finance the critical infrastructure, as you know, sir,
the projects needed across the great Hoosier State. But it is
not enough. I think we all know that.
First, sir, do you think it is possible, or even realistic
for that matter, for local airports to make the infrastructure
improvements they need without raising PFCs? And secondly, if
you agree that the PFCs need to be raised, how should that be
done? What does that look like in real terms? And what are your
thoughts about any recommendations?
Mr. Huerta. Well, our proposal clearly would indicate that
we do think it is an appropriate time to raise the PFC for the
larger airports, in particular. The proposal to take it from
$4.50 to $8 essentially has the effect of adjusting it for
inflation from when the last time that the PFC was set.
I think that it is important that those airports that have
the ability to derive revenues locally do have all of the tools
at their disposal, and the PFC is a very, very important tool
in that toolbox to enable them to meet their needs.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Carson.
Mr. Hanna for 3 minutes.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you.
There is a theme here today that the FAA is fundamentally
behind in everything, right? So the question I have for you is,
along with Mr. Rokita's comments, we are seeing U.S. companies
going overseas to test UAVs. So the question I have is, how can
Congress in this next authorization help you deal with that,
and what can we do from here to help you be more efficient and
perhaps lure these companies or keep these companies from
moving overseas?
Mr. Huerta. I could give you a couple of suggestions with
respect to that. The first is, as we work through the----
Mr. Hanna. Excuse me, do you agree that that is the case?
Mr. Huerta. In part, but that is what I am going to
address.
The key thing that I think that we look forward to working
with the committee on is the implementation of the small UAS
rule, which if implemented in the form that we proposed would
provide the most flexible regulatory environment for small
unmanned aircraft anywhere in the world.
The second thing is Congress provided very significant
support for integration in the last authorization. The chairman
noted the development of the unmanned aircraft test sites as
being key to that. One of the things that we want to use the
test sites to focus on is the very testing that you are talking
about. We have heard, though, from many members of the unmanned
aircraft community that since no funds were authorized for
appropriation to the test sites, the test sites have turned to
the testing itself as being the business model through which
they support themselves. I have heard a story from one company
of being charged a quarter million dollars for a week's testing
for a small manufacturer of unmanned aircraft.
So I think providing a supportive framework that enables
the test sites to provide low-cost testing resources for
companies here in the U.S. would be something that would be
very worthwhile.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. My question has to do with the CTI
institutions. In 2012 and 2013 Arizona State University
participated in an FAA diversity study. The survey highlighted
the CTI organization's historically diverse alumni pool. ASU's
CTI graduates certify at a rate two times faster than the
national average, thereby significantly reducing the FAA cost
to the taxpayers. The FAA's recent change in hiring practice
has eliminated employment possibilities for over 400 Arizona
students and graduates. The nationwide impact is much greater
as CTI institutions exist in over 20 States.
The students in these classes have made large personal
investments based upon published FAA commitments to hire and
based upon longstanding practices. So my question is, why make
the change now? Why has this change been made?
Mr. Huerta. The first thing to recognize is that the air
traffic controller position is an extremely attractive
position, and there will always be more candidates than there
are positions. Earlier I used the example of last year where we
had 28,000 applications for only 1,600 positions. So this is a
rate that is less than a lot of elite colleges in terms of your
ability to get a job.
The CTI program does not provide any degree of guaranteeing
anyone having a job, but it is something that the agency takes
very seriously. In this last hire, two-thirds of those hired
came out of CTI institutions, so it does recognize that what we
have in the CTI program is skill building that enables us to
get people through the system.
What we are trying to balance and recognize is, as the
profession changes, we want to ensure that the air traffic
controller position is available for the broadest range of
qualified candidates so that we can get the best pool of
applicants, so that we can ensure the most qualified workforce
and the safest system that we possibly can have.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. My concern really is about the cost to
the taxpayer. So I hope you will factor that into that equation
as well.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Shuster [presiding]. Thank the gentlelady.
And Mr. Graves for 3 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a
lot of questions, but we are obviously not going to get to
them.
I do have one real quick, and I don't know if you can give
me a real fast answer on your revised guidance document when it
comes to hangar policy. And I have got to say, I don't know
why, given the limited resources the FAA has, why the FAA is
even delving into this. I think it is a local airport authority
issue and should be that. But I know you have got a policy that
is sitting out there. Do you know what the status is right now?
Mr. Huerta. I will check on it this afternoon and get you a
response, Congressman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. All right. And then the next thing
is something I am hearing from all over the country, and this
concerns me a great deal from the small business standpoint,
and that is the change in policy the FAA has come up with when
it comes to testing pilot proficiency check rides in restricted
use aircraft. We have got businesses out there, as an example,
firefighting, they are authorized to use the aircraft, but now
they are no longer authorized to be able to test without an
exemption. You have got an exemption process in there, but we
are hearing that that process can take months, and this is
going to shut down a lot of those businesses.
The process of being able to test or do your test or
proficiency check rides in these aircraft is a policy that has
been in place for 50 years, and I know the FAA just changed it,
and it is serious. Businesses are calling, they are frantic
because they are going to go bankrupt if they can't do their
business. This has to be resolved right away. It is a problem.
And, again, it goes back to not having enough resources to be
able to process these exemptions very, very quickly if there is
even an exemption issued.
Mr. Huerta. Sure. Let me check on it.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. OK. Thanks.
Mr. Shuster. As the gentleman knows, you can submit all the
questions you want for the record.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Well, I have four.
Mr. Shuster. And with that, Ms. Norton is recognized for 3
minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question that I think must trouble other Members
from major metropolitan regions. I notice on page 4 of your
testimony you say that you want to make aviation safer and
smarter. And I wonder if NextGen and what you are doing there,
whether that also applies to making planes less noisy. There
are a number of communities near the Reagan National Airport--
the Foxhall, Palisades, and Georgetown communities, with
constant issues before NextGen, and we have had some NextGen
implementation here. Later this spring I am going to be having
a community meeting.
I am troubled, though, that the community has been meeting
with the FAA and with the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, and thus far the questions about noise, and noise
itself, remain and the questions are unanswered.
It seems to me that it would be very important for there to
be a collaboration between FAA and communities, particularly
since these communities are now densely populated with real
people. And I am asking if you will be available or if FAA will
be available to participate if I have a community meeting
trying to sort these issues out?
Mr. Huerta. The FAA will certainly work with you to address
these community concerns and to respond to them. I can give you
a couple of things that we are working on, though. As a result
of the redesign of the airspace here in the Washington area, we
have been working very closely to ensure that flight paths are
more precise, that they follow the river.
Ms. Norton. Yes, that is critical, rather than following
the community.
Mr. Huerta. The river does wind, but as a result of
technology we are able to follow it much more precisely. That
is something where we have a very active program with MWAA, the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, to ensure that
aircraft are in fact following the river going forward.
We have a larger initiative that we have undertaken as
well, which is really to study the question of the DNL metric,
that is the day-night average method that is used as the
measure of aircraft noise. This is something that has been
around for a very long time. As a result of just the changes in
technology, as well as the evolution of how aircraft engines
and aircraft airframes have evolved, we want to validate and
determine whether we need to change the metric of how we look
at noise and how we measure its impact on communities.
Ms. Norton. This would be very important. A resident wrote
the FAA's ombudsman and has said that there are only 3\1/5\
hours per night when there are no flights over these
communities. This is just unacceptable.
One more question, if I have time.
Mr. Shuster. Your time is going to expire. So I would ask
you to submit it in writing because we have 6 minutes and I
have got two Members here.
Ms. Norton. Let's let those Members speak then.
Mr. Shuster. OK. And submit it for the record.
Mr. Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Administrator.
Twelve years ago I fought to get on this committee and one
of the first things I learned about was NextGen. Sounded great
to me, safety and improved efficiency. Twelve years later and,
I don't know, about 1,000 hearings on NextGen, and, I don't
know, give or take $5 billion of taxpayer money and I don't
know how much money in private companies.
It has now been implemented in Boston. And I have got to be
honest, Mr. Administrator, my support is significantly
wavering. I don't see much change for all the money and effort.
This is not laying on you. I don't think there is anything bad,
I think it is good to try something new. But sometimes it is
also good to say maybe it is not worth the money.
And I am kind of at that point now. Especially I am
following up on a question on DCA, as far as Boston goes, I am
told that I can't even intentionally fan planes because, oh,
no, we can't do that, yet in DCA you can do this. I just landed
that way the other day, sounded great. I understand it. But I
can't do it anyplace else. That doesn't make sense, especially
when we spend all this time and money on a system that should
allow you to do that exact same thing.
Mr. Administrator, I have got to tell you, my real basic
question is, why should I continue to support throwing money at
NextGen when I have yet to see enough bang for the buck when it
comes to decreasing noise, when it comes increasing safety,
when it comes to decreasing delays, or any of other things that
we had hoped that NextGen would support.
I want to be clear, I have always been a supporter of
NextGen. I kind of still am, but I won't be until we start
seeing these savings again really quickly. I haven't seen them
and I don't think I am going to see them in the near future and
I just would like to give you the opportunity to convince me to
hang in there.
Mr. Huerta. Well, I would encourage you to hang in there.
We are seeing significant benefits all around the country. But
I would like to talk about some of the specific things we are
doing in Boston. Boston Center has been fully upgraded in terms
of the new automation platform, the en route automation
platform that is really central to the deployment of all of the
NextGen benefits that we are talking about, and it is operating
and operating very, very well.
Boston Logan Airport is an important test facility for us
to test a lot of NextGen-related surface operations that
greatly increase the efficiency of the airport, reducing
departure delays, and also reducing congestion on the ground.
We have a great relationship with the Massachusetts Port
Authority to try to make the airport operate more efficiently.
As we deploy more performance-based navigation procedures
at Boston and at all the New England airports and throughout
the country, what the airlines get is more efficient fuel
consumption, as well----
Mr. Capuano. Mr. Administrator, I don't mean to interrupt
you, and that is all well and good, but why are my complaints
going through the roof? I mean, I have always had complaints
about the airport, it is a congested area, but there are now
much more than there have ever been. And, honestly, it started
when RNAV was implemented.
Mr. Huerta. Well, I think it goes back to something that I
talked about with Congresswoman Norton. One of the things that
we want to understand is, is there is a fundamental public
shift in its interpretation and understanding of airport noise
and how we respond to it. And this is one of the reasons that
we want to look at the DNL metric to see whether we have better
tools to evaluate noise on a community.
Mr. Capuano. When you do, please talk to some of us who
have suffered with it, but not just the so-called experts.
Mr. Huerta. No, it is actually a national survey that we
are doing of communities around airports.
Mr. Capuano. Why don't you talk to some people who lived
under----
Mr. Shuster. The gentleman's time has expired. I thank the
gentleman for his questions.
And with that, the final 3 minutes goes to Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huerta, thank you. I will be very specific. We have had
a number of hearings where we have talked about certification
process, specifically toward general aviation. A number of
recommendations made in those hearings. What I want to see from
you is specifically three major streamlinings of that process.
I am tired of hearing about it, I am tired of getting testimony
and nothing getting done. It needs to go in this
reauthorization.
I am committed to helping you with this reauthorization,
but I am not committed if you are not going to do that. Do I
have your assurance that you can help us with streamlining the
certification process?
Mr. Huerta. I think what you are referring to is the
rewrite of part 23, which are the provisions that deal with
general aviation, where we have worked collaboratively with
industry. We are planning to get a notice of proposed
rulemaking out this year on that.
Mr. Meadows. Well, can we have your thoughts on that before
that? Because obviously we have got a reauthorization process
that is in the formation process now. I don't want to wait to
have that. We need to have that. Can we get that from you?
Mr. Huerta. Because we are in a rulemaking process, I can't
disseminate what is in the rule, but we can----
Mr. Meadows. Well, you are disseminating it to other
people. No, I mean, you are just saying you can't disseminate
it to Congress?
Mr. Huerta. No, that is not what I am saying. What I am
saying is I can't actually publicly put out what is in the rule
until it comes out for a notice. But we can certainly share
with you----
Mr. Meadows. But you can tell us what your thinking is.
Mr. Huerta. We can certainly tell you what the results of
the ARC have been, working with industry and exactly where----
Mr. Meadows. Well, we have probably heard that at hearings.
But let me go on further. You talked about gold standards, and
EASA is starting to take over that gold standard, if we start
to look at internationally in terms of competition. So I want
to ask you, what are you personally doing to promote U.S.
products internationally?
Mr. Huerta. The FAA cannot actually promote U.S.----
Mr. Meadows. Well, they are, your competition is.
Mr. Huerta. That is true. They have a specific promotional
authority. Our promotional authority was removed from us in
1996. And so how we focus on promoting U.S. products is
ensuring that we can streamline the process to get the products
to market.
Mr. Meadows. And so can you submit to this committee three
things where you have actually streamlined regulations,
significant?
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Mr. Meadows. I am not talking about just small, but I am
talking about significant streamlining. Have you actually done
that, is that your testimony here today?
Mr. Huerta. Yes, it is, and I would be happy to share
examples with you.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I will yield back. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.
Again, I apologize to all the members of the committee for
not being able to continue this.
Mr. Huerta, thank you for being there today.
We thought about coming back after, but it is an hour and a
half and I want the Administrator to go back to the FAA and
work on all these things we have been talking about.
But we appreciate you being here. Members, I am sure, will
be submitting questions. I would encourage you to get back to
us as quick as you can. It would make my life easier when they
start pounding on me on why they are not getting responses. But
you have been very good in that in the past and we appreciate
that.
Again, thank you for being here.
And thanks to all the Members for being here.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]