[Senate Hearing 114-172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-172
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 14, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-476 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 14, 2015................................... 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 3
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 13
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 14
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 15
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 18
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 20
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 21
Statement of Senator Heller...................................... 23
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 25
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 27
Witnesses
Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Michael P. Huerta......................................... 31
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Blunt, Ayotte,
Heller, Fischer, Sullivan, Moran, Gardner, Daines, Nelson,
Cantwell, Klobuchar, Schatz, Booker, and Manchin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order.
Good morning. Today, the Commerce Committee begins a series
of hearings on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation
Administration, and we are fortunate to have with us the
Administrator of the FAA, Mr. Michael Huerta.
Mr. Administrator, I want to thank you for being here to
help us kick off our effort to review the programs of the FAA
as we move forward on reauthorization legislation.
Aviation has been and continues to be an essential
component of our economy and society. From the crop dusters
serving our agricultural heartland to modern jetliners that can
connect almost any two points on the planet, the aviation
community touches just about every aspect of modern life.
New frontiers in aviation, such as unmanned aircraft,
continually arise and challenge both entrepreneurs and
government regulators alike. Air transportation facilitates
business and social interaction more and more each year. While
the Internet has allowed the world to connect virtually, it is
often aviation that allows the world to connect in reality.
At the center of our vibrant aviation community lies the
FAA, which has played a critical role in ensuring that flying
is safe for those in the air and on the ground. Although it can
be hard to compare the different modes of transportation, most
experts agree that aviation remains far and away the safest way
to travel.
This is truly remarkable given the inherent complexities of
flight and the immense size of our aviation system. On average,
in any given hour, there may be as many as 60,000 people
airborne over the U.S. That is nearly the population of Rapid
City, which is South Dakota's second-biggest city.
So the entire aviation community, including the FAA, should
be proud of this safety record. Of course, we must not become
complacent, as there is always room for improvement.
I believe that we have in the audience today family members
of some of the victims of the Colgan Air tragedy in Buffalo
just 6 years ago this February. Their efforts to improve
aviation safety have had a meaningful impact in the years after
that horrible tragedy, and I admire their tireless efforts on
behalf of the traveling public.
Our Nation's air traffic control system has served us well
for many years, but it is still based on equipment, concepts,
and procedures that date back decades. In recent years, the FAA
has tried to modernize the system by moving to satellite
navigation and more automation, but these efforts have cost
many billions of dollars with not as much progress as we all
would like to see.
The Government Accountability Office and DOT's Inspector
General have pointed out the many shortcomings with respect to
FAA's efforts to modernize our air traffic control system. Some
of the problems seem to be deep-rooted and cultural in nature.
Nearly 8 years ago, the IG noted that implementing the Next
Generation Air Traffic Control System, or NextGen, would be an
extraordinarily complex, high-risk effort. That looks like a
gross understatement, as we are still many years away from full
implementation, with many more billions yet to be spent.
Some have suggested that the current governance model for
air traffic control is ill-suited for NextGen. In that regard,
I applaud Chairman Shuster of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee on his consideration of new approaches
that may yield better results and deliver the promised benefits
of NextGen.
So I look forward to discussing options for reform this
morning. No matter who is in charge of the operation of the air
traffic control system, airports are an integral part of our
aviation system. Whatever path we take this year, we are sure
to debate options for airport funding and how to maintain
equitable access to funding for airports of all sizes.
Ours is truly a National Airspace System, a system of
airports and air traffic control infrastructure that ties
communities, big and small, together, not to mention the vast
users, from private pilots, commercial jetliners, military
users, and even space tourism.
As important as the safety standards and procedures for
operating in the Nation's airspace are, so, too, are the
standards and certification processes that ensure safety of
aircraft in the system. If the United States is to remain at
the forefront of aerospace manufacturing and innovation, the
FAA must be able to review and approve new aircraft in a timely
and effective manner. Cutting edge technologies, from fly-by-
wire airliners to unmanned aircraft systems, need to get to
market quickly with FAA's gold standard safety certification.
Again, I want to thank the Administrator for being here to
discuss these and other important aviation issues.
The FAA has a lot of work ahead, and this committee is in a
position to help the agency be the best it can be in the years
ahead. I am looking forward to working with Ranking Member
Nelson as well as with Senators Ayotte and Cantwell on this
important legislation.
I now want to turn to Senator Cantwell, who is the Ranking
Member on the Aviation Subcommittee, for her opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just pinch-
hitting for Senator Nelson, who I think is going to be joining
us momentarily.
And, obviously, Administrator Huerta, great to see you here
today.
Aviation has played a critical role in the development of
our national economy. I know my colleague from Florida would
want me to mention that the first commercial service flight
happened in 1914 between St. Petersburg and Tampa, so it is
very important to his state, as well.
Since then, commercial air service and general aviation and
manufacturing have flourished all throughout the United States,
including Florida and in my state of Washington, providing
good-paying jobs and creating opportunities in education,
tourism, technology, research, and business.
The bottom line is that a robust, reliable air
transportation system is essential to our Nation's growth. I
appreciate the work of the FAA in ensuring that segments of the
aviation industry have access to airspace and for their efforts
to prepare our air traffic system for future growth and
challenges.
The FAA is integrating new technology, including unmanned
aircraft and commercial space operations, into the national
airspace. For example, this Committee recently held a hearing
on unmanned aircraft, which hold immense potential for many
industries, from helping fight, for example, in Florida, citrus
greening to delivering faster packages after a natural
disaster.
The FAA has also made significant progress on NextGen air
traffic control modernization. Benefits being delivered today
under NextGen include more efficient flight paths that save
airlines and travelers time and money and reduce fuel
emissions. And so we will look forward to hearing more about
that, its implementation, and how we can continue to improve.
But there are certainly some storm clouds on the horizon.
While the number of commercial air passengers continues to grow
by more than 2 percent each year and our major hubs are
bustling, we are seeing reduced service and higher fares in a
number of smaller communities. I am sure my colleagues have
heard a lot from their constituents on this.
Additionally, airline consolidation has led to reductions
in competition and service that have negatively affected
consumers in some areas. As the Committee moves forward on FAA
reauthorization, I hope all of us will remain sensitive to not
only maintaining one of the safest aviation industries in the
world, but also one that is consumer-friendly.
FAA authorization was extended 23 times before a new law
was enacted, and we simply cannot afford a repeat of those
events. In 2013, for example, we spent a lot of time just
trying to keep 149 contract towers open. Though we ultimately
were successful, our time is better spent working on addressing
real long-term challenges and not more problems created by
Congress.
The FAA needs stable funding and a long-term authorization
to carry out its mission. I know my colleague Senator Nelson is
leading the charge on that, working with Chairman Thune.
Administrator Huerta, I look forward to hearing your
thoughts on how we mitigate the impacts of sequestration and
enable the FAA to continue its important work safeguarding the
busiest and most complex aviation system in the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. And we do look
forward to working with you and Senator Nelson and members on
our side in fashioning a bill that fits with the requirements,
the needs that we have in our modern air traffic system in this
country.
And we are delighted, as I said, to have the Administrator
here today of the FAA, Mr. Michael Huerta.
And so, Administrator, please proceed. We would love to
hear from you, and then we will ask you a few questions. So
thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, and good morning. Chairman Thune and
members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak
today about the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
It seems like not that long ago that we were united with a
shared sense of urgency to provide the necessary framework and
structure to support our Nation's aviation system as part of
the FAA reauthorization of 2012, and now here we are again to
continue with that important work.
Government and industry have a shared responsibility to
create the aviation system that will carry this Nation well
into the 21st century. The FAA has made major progress in
transforming our airspace system through NextGen, and that
progress continues as speak.
I am very proud to announce that we achieved a major
milestone just last month by completing one of the largest
automation changeovers in the history of the FAA. We have
completed our new high-altitude air traffic control system,
known as ERAM. This system will accommodate the technologies of
NextGen, giving the United States a more powerful air traffic
system.
ERAM, or En Route Automation Modernization, is not just a
faster computer system. It is a network that replaces our
legacy system, which had its roots in the 1960s. ERAM processes
data from nearly three times the number of sensors as the
legacy system it replaces. It can track and display more high-
altitude flights and enable controllers to handle additional
traffic much more efficiently.
This upgrade is complete now because we introduced a great
deal of discipline and structure to the way that we do business
at the FAA. In 2012, we created a program management
organization to better manage the deployment of this and other
technologies. We also worked closely with our employees, those
that will use the system, to gain insight and to make
alterations ahead of time for a smooth transition.
The fact that we turned ERAM around and that it is now
operating nationwide is a testament to what the FAA can
accomplish as an agency when it sets milestones and pulls
together as a team to make fundamental changes.
ERAM links seamlessly with another complementary system
that makes up the foundation of NextGen. This system is called
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, or ADS-B. Last
year, we finished the coast-to-coast installation of the ADS-B
network that will enable satellite-based air traffic control.
ADS-B provides a more precise and efficient alternative radar
and will create a sea change in how we manage our Nation's air
traffic.
With this highly flexible NextGen foundation in place, the
FAA has fulfilled an important commitment. We are working with
the industry and the general aviation community to help them
meet their requirement to equip by 2020.
On a parallel track, through our collaboration with
industry, we have identified key priorities in implementing
NextGen air traffic procedures. We now have more satellite-
based procedures in our skies than radar-based procedures. We
created new NextGen routes above our busiest metropolitan
areas, saving millions of dollars in fuel burn, shortening
flight paths, decreasing carbon emissions, and cutting down on
delays.
We have accomplished all of this despite a very challenging
fiscal backdrop. Prior to 2012, the FAA faced 23 short-term
extensions for reauthorization, as well as a lapse in spending
authority and a partial furlough. Two years ago, like other
Federal agencies, we slashed our budget under the sequester and
furloughed employees. Later that year, we continued to operate
our Nation's air traffic control system and safely regulate the
industry despite a complete shutdown of the Federal Government.
What the FAA needs in reauthorization is stability and
predictable funding. We also need the flexibility to identify
priorities and to match our services and infrastructure with
the needs of our users.
It bears emphasizing that the FAA is a 24/7 operation,
singularly focused on safety. I think everyone has acknowledged
that the funding piece has been challenging in the last 5
years. There is talk about restructuring the FAA as part of
this reauthorization. I am all for having that discussion, but
that discussion needs to be based on facts. We need to be sure
that any governance changes would work to solve the challenges
that are faced by the FAA.
Our aviation system is a valuable asset for the American
public that contributes 12 million American jobs and $1.5
trillion to our economy. We should use the upcoming
reauthorization to provide the FAA with the tools necessary to
meet the demands that we have in the future. A lot is at stake,
and we need to get it right.
So I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee today. I am happy to respond to any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huerta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration
Chairman Thune, Senator Nelson, Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today on the
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
programs.
It seems it was not that long ago that the FAA was celebrating the
passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Act). As
you know from recent hearings, the FAA continues to work to meet the
directives of the Act. We have completed over three-quarters of the
more than 200 reauthorization requirements that Congress directed us to
undertake in the Act. We are proud of what we have achieved and know we
still have more work to do.
Aviation was born in America--and has thrived in this country since
Wilbur and Orville took their first flight over 100 years ago. We are
truly unique in having the world's most vibrant and diverse aviation
community--commercial carriers, regional carriers, business aviation
and recreational flyers, not to mention new users like operators of
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and commercial space vehicles. U.S.
aircraft and avionics manufacturers produce some our Nation's most
valuable exports.
Our leadership, however, is being challenged globally by the
evolution of the industry and the growth of foreign competitors.
Domestically, the FAA faces several particular challenges moving
forward: investing and implementing long-term modernization and
recapitalization projects, and quickly adapting to the growth and
development of the global aviation industry. In recent years, funding
uncertainties resulting from sequestration, government shutdowns, and
short-term reauthorization extensions, have hurt the FAA's ability to
efficiently perform our mission, and have impeded our ability to commit
to long-term investments. This means that we need stable, long-term
funding to effectively operate our air traffic control system, invest
in NextGen and efficiently recapitalize our aging facilities. This
would best be achieved with the passage of a long-term reauthorization
bill that establishes stable long term funding to provide the certainty
necessary to plan and implement long-term projects. In times of
constrained budgets, we need to prioritize our responsibilities to
focus our resources on ensuring the safety and efficiency of the
existing aviation system as well as delivering new technology and
capabilities, and respond nimbly to evolving challenges such as new
external cyber security threats. Additionally, the agency needs greater
flexibility to transfer funding between accounts to meet those
challenges. We cannot risk being left behind as the aerospace industry
becomes more complex, diverse, and globalized.
At the FAA, we have begun laying the foundation for the aviation
system of the future and ensuring that the United States continues to
play a fundamental role in shaping the global aviation system. To
achieve this, I am focused on several strategic areas: (1) making
aviation safer and smarter through risk-based decision making; (2)
delivering benefits to the traveling public and industry through
technology and infrastructure improvements; (3) fostering a workforce
with the skills and innovation necessary to deliver the future system;
and (4) reinvigorating our influence around the world through our
Global Leadership Initiative.
To maintain our global leadership--and continue to reap the
economic benefits of this industry--I believe we must use the upcoming
reauthorization as an opportunity to provide the FAA with the tools
necessary to meet the future needs of our industry stakeholders and the
traveling public. Global leadership in aviation is an area that is of
mutual concern to all of our stakeholders, this Committee and the
Administration.
Air travel is an invaluable asset to the U.S economy and the FAA
shares a responsibility for ensuring that asset is available to the
flying public. A long term reauthorization can also lay the groundwork
for ensuring consumer protection and fostering competition in the
national airspace. Access to small and rural communities can be
improved by increasing efficiencies in existing programs, and air
travel can be made more accessible to those with disabilities. Because
the flying public relies on services the FAA provides every day,
because aviation is a tremendous asset to our economy, and because of
our global leadership role, we must take steps to ensure the FAA is
well-positioned to meet the challenges the aviation industry faces. A
lot is at stake here, so getting things right is vital.
To succeed, we will need to unite the interests of industry and the
flying public around our priorities and I welcome the opportunity to
continue this dialogue on how best to move forward. With a unified view
on the right tools and initiatives, this upcoming reauthorization will
give the FAA a tremendous opportunity to make a difference for the
traveling public and the economy, while addressing the challenges that
the changing industry presents.
Making Aviation Safer and Smarter through Risk Based Decision Making
The aerospace industry is growing more complex, and is not the same
industry we regulated in decades past, or even a few years ago. Several
factors in particular are increasing the complexity of the industry and
introducing different types of safety risk into the system. These
factors include new aerospace designs and technologies (e.g., UAS),
changes in the FAA's surveillance and oversight model (e.g., designee
management programs), and different business models for the design and
manufacture of aircraft and products (e.g., more global supply chains).
In order to leverage FAA's limited resources, we must ensure that they
are directed at areas with the highest safety risk. Because commercial
aviation accidents are becoming rare occurrences, the FAA needs to
build on these safety successes and identify and mitigate precursors to
accidents to better manage aviation safety and ensure we continue to
have the safest aviation system in the world.
Reauthorization can help us succeed with this initiative by
establishing and fostering risk-based safety approaches to aviation
oversight; expanding collaborative, data-driven safety processes with
industry to improve safety; and accelerating risk-based certification
mechanisms in order to achieve more streamlined processes in areas such
as certification. I know you have heard from industry that this is
important from their perspective in order to improve their
competiveness in a global market.
Delivering benefits through technology and infrastructure in the
National Airspace System (NAS)
This initiative lays the foundation for the NAS of the future by
achieving prioritized NextGen benefits, integrating new user entrants,
and delivering more efficient streamlined services. The nation's air
traffic system is based on infrastructure that was largely built 50
years ago and is out of balance with our stakeholders' changing needs
and is increasingly costly to maintain. Over the past 10 years, the
agency has seen dramatic technological change, fuel price fluctuations,
congestion concentrated in fewer hubs and an increasing backlog of much
needed infrastructure, maintenance and modernization.
Building the NAS of the future and accommodating new services will
require difficult decisions. FAA needs the flexibility to modify its
service levels to match changing industry air traffic demands. This is
essential in order to reduce costs and become more efficient in the
long run. The network of FAA facilities, infrastructure, and technology
is aging and sprawling and needs to be addressed. Over the next four
years, it will be important to find a path so the NAS can undergo a
transformation to a more efficient system with increased safety and
user benefits. This means expanding collaborative efforts with industry
stakeholders to implement NextGen. We need to continue to ensure that
industry makes timely and necessary equipage investments to maximize
the widespread deployment of NextGen. The NAS strategy sets a framework
for prioritizing investment decisions and delivering measurable
benefits. We can't afford a ``business as usual'' approach, especially
if we want to maintain U.S. global influence. We need reauthorization
to allow the FAA to better align our resources with the needs of the
NAS by providing the FAA greater flexibility to modify our service
levels to support changing industry demand, and by establishing a
collaborative, transparent, and binding process to modernize FAA's
facilities and equipment and match our footprint to the demand for air
travel.
NextGen is already redefining the NAS and delivering benefits to
system users, such as reduced fuel costs, reduced delays, and reduced
environmental impacts. Reauthorization can enable the FAA to enhance
delivery of widespread benefits by expanding collaboration with
industry to continue NextGen implementation. This includes
collaborative efforts to ensure that industry makes timely and
necessary equipage investments, working with industry to clarify and
enhance milestones with hard deadlines for all NextGen projects and
define measurable user benefits and deadlines for the delivery of those
benefits.
Reauthorization should establish flexibilities, such as exemptions
from existing law, needed to enable the safe and efficient integration
of new users, including UAS and commercial space transportation
vehicles, into the NAS, encouraging these innovative technologies. Last
month, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that represents a big
step forward in outlining the framework that will govern the use of
small unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds. The proposed
small UAS rule offers a very flexible framework that provides for the
safe use of small unmanned aircraft, while also accommodating future
innovation in the industry. We are doing everything we can to safely
integrate these aircraft while ensuring that the United States remains
the leader in aviation safety and technology. Reauthorization should
support the development of tools and regulations to safely and
efficiently integrate new users, including UAS and commercial space
vehicles, into the NAS.
Finally, the Nation's airport infrastructure must also be
maintained. We propose to increase the Passenger Facility Charge to $8
to allow for needed investments in commercial service airports.
Restructuring funding for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to
better respond to the needs of smaller airports is also critical to
ensuring that all users of the system have the infrastructure in place
to meet their future needs.
Empowering and innovating with the Workforce of the Future
As our strategic initiatives suggest, FAA is embarking on a major
transformation that can only be accomplished if it has a workforce that
is prepared with the skills and mindsets to drive the needed change.
Reauthorization can support long term workforce planning and implement
policies that will foster the strong, skilled, accountable workforce
necessary to implement NextGen. Strong leadership is required from all
levels of the agency to communicate the vision, implement the priority
initiatives, and ensure that transformational impact will be sustained.
The movements toward risk-based decision making, transforming the NAS
through streamlined services, acceleration of NextGen benefits, and
integrating new users to the system require new technical and
functional skills, and a cultural shift in how the agency works.
To stay accountable to the public, the FAA will also refine its
publicly available agency performance scorecard to clearly and
publically acknowledge major changes to program's milestones,
deadlines, costs, savings, or benefits. Monthly reporting on the
agency's website on the performance of the agency and aviation industry
in meeting these goals will help ensure that the FAA remains
transparent and accountable to its mission.
We are in the midst of a retirement wave, which presents both
challenges and opportunities. It is important to set the foundation to
empower and to innovate with tomorrow's FAA employees. The FAA needs to
harness the collective strength of the agency's employees. The FAA's
workforce is the ultimate driver of our success, which means that the
agency must attract and develop the best and brightest talent, with the
appropriate leadership and technical skills to undertake a necessary
transformation.
Enhancing Global Leadership
To enhance our global leadership position, we need to show the
world how to achieve the next level of safety, deliver the
technological capabilities to modernize air traffic management, and
integrate new users seamlessly into the NAS. While aviation was
invented in America, there is no guarantee that the United States will
continue to shape the second century of flight. As other nations have
seen their aviation systems grow dramatically they have become
significantly more influential on the international stage and this
presents safety, efficiency, and competitive challenges for both the
FAA and U.S. businesses The FAA needs to be at the table to shape and
harmonize international standards to effectively address these issues.
This means we need to increase collaboration with industry and leverage
our international relationships. The FAA also needs to strengthen the
U.S. presence and role at the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) and other international forums.
The United States benefits from global leadership with increases in
safety, efficiency, environmental sustainability, exports, and leverage
to achieve broader international objectives. FAA programs promote
seamless connectivity across borders for air navigation and product
exchanges. Worldwide acceptance of U.S. policies and regulatory
approaches removes barriers for the U.S. aerospace industry. The global
leadership initiative ensures that the FAA maintains its external
engagement and internal structure to continue improving the safety and
efficiency of global aviation. To help us succeed, we need
reauthorization to provide the budget stability over a long term that
will prevent disruptions to our services and participation in the
global aviation community, and demonstrate our commitment to aviation.
Conclusion
I have outlined our aspirations, our challenges, and some guiding
principles and ideas for how reauthorization could help advance safety
improvements, make the national airspace system more efficient, improve
service for air travelers and other stakeholders, and enhance America's
leadership in aviation.
What I have outlined today is a bold aspiration for the FAA, and
will span far beyond the next four years. However, we are also
committed to seeing measurable and steadfast progress that will achieve
tangible benefits to users of the system by 2019. The rapidly changing
industry, the technological opportunities, the uncertain fiscal
environment, an evolving workforce, and the global backdrop comprise a
compelling case for transformational change, and that is what the FAA
expects to achieve.
I like to believe we share a common vision for the FAA and its role
in the future of aviation, domestically and globally. I hope that this
mutual goal will enable us to work closely in the coming months to
agree upon the changes necessary for the FAA to achieve the initiatives
I have outlined today.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I am eager to work with you and the
Committee as we strive to achieve the appropriate path for the future
of aviation and the economic engine it represents.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
I will start it off by asking the first question, and that
has to do with, today, the Government Accountability Office is
going to be releasing a report on cybersecurity challenges as
they relate to FAA's transition to NextGen.
GAO is recommending that FAA consider developing an agency-
wide threat model, include the Office of Aviation Safety on
your Cyber Security Steering Committee, and develop a plan to
implement revised cybersecurity guidelines from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
How is FAA responding to GAO's recommendations? And perhaps
more generally, how confident are you that FAA has baked in
cybersecurity in its NextGen efforts?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you for that question.
Cybersecurity is an ever-evolving threat, and it is
something that we, like all Government agencies, need to
maintain a very high level of vigilance to deal with what is a
significant and evolving threat.
We have concurred with GAO's recommendations relating to
the deployment of NextGen and we have done a number of other
things, as well.
The FAA established a new Executive Cyber Security Steering
Committee to oversee the full scope of cyber and risk issues
that exist across what is, as you well know, a very technology-
intensive agency.
One of the things that we are very focused on is how do we
ensure that, as we identify problems in a particular area of
the system, that we are able to take that information and
assess the impacts and possible applicability of what those
threats might represent in other parts of the system.
We are also working with our government partners, including
the Department of Homeland Security, who you referenced in your
question, the National Security Agency, and the U.S. Army's
Cyber Command, to work with them to identify other needed
enhancements that we, as a government, can bring to our air
traffic system.
I think it is fair to say that this threat will continue to
evolve, and it is something that needs to be at the forefront
of our thinking as we, not only maintain the existing system,
but also as we bring new technologies into the system. That is
something that we are very focused on and very committed to. We
look forward to working in continued partnership with GAO and
with you in making new and existing technologies safe.
The Chairman. Mr. Administrator, many in the aviation
community are frustrated by the pace of air traffic control
modernization and want to see the benefits of NextGen realized
much sooner than the current plans provide. Some now are
suggesting that the FAA's air traffic organization should be
pulled out of the agency and transformed into a government or
private corporation of some kind.
My question is, is the Administration open to talking about
such proposals?
Mr. Huerta. I would like to address the first part of your
question first. Through the combination of a lot of
technological, operational and procedural enhancements, we are
delivering a lot of benefits associated with NextGen now. It is
an incredibly complex undertaking, but we are delivering an
extensive range of performance-based navigation as well as
technology solutions now, and that will continue with the
further deployment of NextGen.
As we look to the longer term, I think it is important to
ask the question, what exactly is the problem that we are
trying to solve? The FAA has made significant progress, but we
know there is more to be done, therefore the Administration is
very open to having a conversation on alternative governance
models as long as we are focused on what are the major concerns
that we are trying to address.
I believe that there are several things that any governance
structure needs to address. First and foremost, we have to
maintain the very high levels of safety that currently exist.
Second, we have to ensure that we are very focused on
delivering technology and the benefits associated with that
technology. That involves a very tight linkage between not only
the operational side of the agency, but the regulatory side of
the agency, which establishes separation standards and proves
that the system operates safely.
We also need funding stability in order to ensure that, as
we make long-term investments, that they are not interrupted by
needing to stop and start contracts. We must be able to support
the operational enhancements and the training that is needed to
deliver NextGen benefits.
Can alternative governance structures get us there?
Possibly. But, at the same time, we need to recognize that
there may be unintended consequences that we have to fully
understand. I would welcome the opportunity to have a robust
discussion with the Committee on what other models might look
like.
The Chairman. Yes. Thank you.
And, finally, the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act of
2010 required the FAA to create an electronic database of pilot
records to facilitate vetting of pilots as they seek employment
in the airline industry. The directive came in the aftermath of
the investigation of the tragic Colgan 3407 accident, an
accident that may have been prevented had hiring officials
known more about the pilot in command's checkered record.
Years later, I must ask, when will the agency complete
action on the long-awaited pilot records database?
Mr. Huerta. As you know, H.R. 5900 included a number of
rulemakings relating to pilot fatigue, safety management
systems, pilot training, and pilot qualifications. A lot of
good work has taken place, and I am pleased that we have been
able to accomplish a great deal in improving pilot safety.
With respect to pilots' records, this is something that we
are focused on, but it is an incredibly complex undertaking. It
requires a very extensive set of records, as well as a very
extensive set of technology solutions that we need to look at
to ensure that we can do this efficiently and that it can be
effective in meeting what is needed here and what is called for
in the Act.
As you know, we initiated a rulemaking and developed a
notice of proposed rulemaking and have been doing work on
associated advisory circulars. We have been having extensive
conversations with industry about how best to make this a
reality.
I am as frustrated as anyone that it has taken us this
long, but it is important that we get it correct and that the
records database serves the purpose that it was intended to
serve, which is a transparent and effective means of sharing
information across the industry.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Administrator
Huerta.
And I should just mention, if the Colgan families are here
in the audience, as the Chairman mentioned, I want to thank
them for their continued diligence on this issue, because their
efforts to keep us focused on this are making a difference. So
thank you.
Administrator Huerta, I know just recently the FAA sent an
urgent memo to United Airlines related to their pilots and some
near mishaps. Is that an unusual move? Is that something that
the FAA is trying to be more aggressive on, or were there real
problems that needed to be addressed?
Mr. Huerta. I think what it is reflective of is continued
vigilance on maintaining the highest levels of operational
safety across the industry.
United and all of the major carriers have gone to safety
management systems where they share data with the FAA, and the
FAA analyzes that data on an ongoing basis. The purpose of our
doing that is to see, are we picking up trends that would
indicate that there are challenges or issues that the company
and we need to address to maintain safety?
The purpose of sending the letter to United was to bring to
their attention things that our analysis had detected and which
suggested needed their attention.
This is a regular and ongoing activity that the American
people expect of the agency in order to ensure that everyone's
focus is where it needs to be. We need to focus on how is the
company operating on a day-to-day basis, what they are seeing
in the way of things that they need to focus on, all with the
ultimate goal of maintaining very high levels of safety.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I would encourage you to continue
to have that level of vigilance. I think that is what the
American public wants.
I think that what people are looking at as it relates to
the consolidation of the industry and how cultures are merged
are whether processes are being followed. And, obviously,
Colgan taught us a big lesson as it relates to people seeing a
big brand that they might trust on the side of a plane, and
then the same standards aren't necessarily applied through that
whole culture. So I just can't emphasize enough how important
this is.
Now, I obviously want to see NextGen implemented. And I
don't know if you could tell us--I actually have two questions.
If you could get both of these in, it would be great.
You know, last time we were here, I think it was somewhere
in--was Dallas-Fort Worth the next site for staging and
implementation, and we asked, what other cities or
jurisdictions could we move forward on. Having those cities do
the actual legwork so that, when the FAA is ready to move to
them, they will already be better prepared.
So I don't know if you have any update on that----
Mr. Huerta. Certainly.
Senator Cantwell.--as it relates to the implementation
cities.
And then, on this air traffic control system, many of my
colleagues--for us, it is Walla Walla Regional Airport that is
forced to pay into the contract support costs. You don't want
them to go away. But yet, at the same time, for a small
regional airport that is growing in air service as it relates
to a burgeoning wine industry, you don't really want them to go
out of business because of contract support.
So I know you are working on a new formula and criteria
that many of my colleagues on this committee care about, so if
you could give us an update on that, it would be great.
Mr. Huerta. First of all, as it relates to deployment of
NextGen and performance-based navigation, as you know, one of
our first and most successful projects was over Seattle, a
program called Cleaner Skies. We designed a whole host of
efficient procedures designed to save on track miles flown and
fuel burn.
That is now being applied across the country. When we last
spoke, we had just deployed in Houston, where we turned on 61
procedures all on 1 day of May of last year. Since those have
been turned on, we have been getting an 80 percent utilization
rate of performance-based navigation, and that is yielding
millions of gallons in fuel savings.
The same can be said for Dallas, which was turned on later
in the year, in northern California and here in the Washington
region, where we are also deploying performance-based
navigation.
Last week, we were in Atlanta talking about the deployment
of a new set of procedures that increase the departure rate at
Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport by about 25 percent.
We revised wake turbulence standards that enable us to bring
aircraft closer together, all of which save fuel and create
much more efficiency in the system.
So I think very, very good progress is being made, and that
will continue.
Relating to ensuring the funding for the contract towers,
which you reference, as you know, the law requires that we
regularly update the benefit-cost ratio that we use in making
the determination of whether it is beneficial to have a tower
at smaller regional airports.
That is a process that is ongoing right now. We are
updating the data on the cost side. We are also in discussions
with the industry about how best to look at that data so that
we can ensure that we are able to provide the services
consistent with law.
Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you. I will look forward to
dialoguing. And if some of those airports----
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Cantwell.--can dialogue with the FAA on that
formula, it would be very helpful.
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Blunt?
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Administrator Huerta, Senator Manchin and I, along with
Senator Inhofe, last year, sent you a letter on the contract
tower issue. What law is it you are trying to comply with here
to make the data and the law match?
Mr. Huerta. The law requires that there be a positive cost-
benefit ratio, the cost of providing the tower versus the
benefits achieved. On a periodic basis we need to update the
methodology to ensure that the data is current.
Senator Blunt. And what are you doing to update the
methodology? How do you determine the benefit?
Mr. Huerta. The benefit is calculated based on what we
expect in the way of traffic and the safety benefit that is
derived from having an air traffic control tower there relative
to the nature of the services that they have.
On the cost side, it is purely the cost of----
Senator Blunt. And do you look at the options to using that
airport that people might have as part of the benefit analysis?
Mr. Huerta. What we look at is what it yields in terms of
how the airport actually operates. But we would be happy to
provide a detailed briefing on the actual methodology----
Senator Blunt. OK. I would like to have that briefing.
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Blunt. That would be helpful. And just looking
around at the people on this committee, I think there has been
long-term and significant amount of interest by----
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Blunt.--many of the members of the Committee on
this particular issue. So, in addition to Senator Manchin and
I, I know Senator Moran has been one of the leaders on this.
And I would like----
Mr. Huerta. We would be happy to.
Senator Blunt. I would like you to furnish us with that.
That would be good.
Also, on one other question, one of the goals you have
stated is the importance of reinvigorating U.S. influence in
the world in aviation. One of the questions I have is, what are
you doing to try to be supportive of the certification process
being appropriate for manufacturers in the United States in the
aviation industry?
Mr. Huerta. The FAA is very focused on streamlining the
certification process and improving on it, for the reasons that
you have talked about.
Following the FAA Modernization Reform Act of 2012, section
312 of that piece of legislation required the agency to develop
14 specific initiatives that were really focused on how we
could streamline and make the whole certification process much
more efficient. We have completed 10 of those 14 initiatives.
Examples of what we have done include developing an
integrated comprehensive roadmap for major change initiatives
across aircraft certification. That is essentially a forward
look that we do in cooperation with industry. What can we
expect industry to be putting before the agency? What that
enables us to do is to plan our resource allocations so that we
are ready for them when they come in.
We have also developed an action plan and worked with the
various industry associations. They feel that this has been
quite effective in being responsive to their needs.
They have also suggested that we focus on what is called
the ODA, the organizational designation, where we can work with
a trusted partner in manufacturing where they can act on our
behalf to carry out many of the certification functions that
would otherwise be carried out by an FAA inspector.
This is something that the FAA is really looking at
expanding and taking better advantage of the existing
organizational delegations. We have hosted a number of seminars
with the industry over the last couple of years and have had
very specific discussions with individual companies about what
they would like to see. I think good progress is being made.
Finally, for small airplanes, we are very focused on a
total rewrite of Part 23. This is the regulatory framework that
governs small aircraft. We have worked in conjunction with an
aviation rulemaking committee, which is where industry advises
us on what they would like to see. I think that what we have
developed is a great framework, which is now being codified in
a notice of proposed rulemaking that we intend to publish later
this year.
Senator Blunt. One final question. On the training center
that there has been discussion of relocating that, are you
about to make a--have you made a final decision, or are you
about to, on that?
Mr. Huerta. On air traffic training?
Senator Blunt. This is the training center that was in
Florida, that there were----
Mr. Huerta. Yes, we have. It is a national training
company. It is more of a partnership model, working in
conjunction with industry. We can provide you with the details
of that.
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Senator Nelson?
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. And, Mr. Chairman, I will just ask a quick
question so we can get on to the other members.
Last December, the most unbelievable thing was discovered
in the Atlanta airport. For 6 months an airport employee had
been bringing guns into the airport, then going into the
sterile passenger area, rendezvousing with a passenger who had
already come through TSA with an empty backpack and giving the
passenger guns, including a carbine. This went on for 6 months
until he was finally caught. The last time, in December, when
he was caught, the passenger had 16 guns in the backpack on the
airplane. Now, thank goodness he was a criminal instead of a
terrorist.
Well, it so happens, of the 450 airports, there are only 2
that have solved this problem, and I happened over the recess
to visit both. One is Orlando, and one is Miami. What they did
was they took all of their hundreds of airport employee access
points, boiled it down to a handful, and then put up the same
kind of screening that we as passengers go through in TSA.
Airports, of course, want money to help with that
screening, but it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the
traveling public. So what about using FAA airport money to help
airports do what Miami and Orlando have already done?
Mr. Huerta. That is certainly a possibility.
As you know, the screening and security responsibility is a
shared responsibility between the Transportation Security
Administration and the local airport authority. The FAA can
support that, as you mentioned, Senator, through the Airport
Improvement Program.
The insulation of airport perimeter fencing is certainly
something that we regard as a high priority for airport grants.
We have provided close to $300 million in AIP grants over the
last 10 years, so that is an average of about $30 million
annually, for specific programs that have been requested by the
airports. We----
Senator Nelson. So you are saying the money is already
there; they just need to apply for it?
Mr. Huerta. We have two sets of AIP funding. There are
formula allocations that local airports receive, and then there
is a discretionary program. The airport can work in cooperation
with the FAA to establish the priority of how the AIP funds get
spent. Security is certainly something that is an eligible use
there.
Senator Nelson. Well, may I suggest that the remaining 448
airports in this country need to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
I have Senator Moran, followed by Senators Booker, Ayotte,
and Manchin.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Administrator Huerta, thank you for being here.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you.
Senator Moran. Let me ask a couple of Kansas-oriented
questions, one related to the fact that we manufacture lots of
airplanes. The certification process--you have been directed,
the agency has been directed to make improvements in the
certification process. There is some evidence of improvements
being made, but continue to be lots of concerns about delay and
the time necessary.
Also, the lack of use or availability of the ODA program,
the organization designation authorization. Anything that you
can assure me that things are getting better and are going to
continue to get better?
Mr. Huerta. I think they are getting better, and I think
they are going to continue to get better.
As I mentioned earlier, we had identified a number of
specific priorities. The importance of these priorities is that
they were negotiated with industry; what are things that they
would like to see us doing? We are on track to addressing the
major things that they would like to see and they relate to
what you have talked about--the ODA, the organizational
designation, and the rewrite of Part 23.
This is something that is important because it enables the
FAA to better leverage our resources to focus on more novel and
complex manufacturing issues or where we are more likely to
identify specific challenges and problems. This is something I
am very, very committed to, and it is something that we are
very much into for the long----
Senator Moran. So there is not an FAA bias against ODA. In
fact, you are indicating it is something you are very
supportive of, would like to see it work more and better.
Mr. Huerta. Certainly not at the leadership level, but I
will say that anytime you are dealing with a redefinition of
the regulatory relationship between a regulator and the
industry that it regulates, it is an important cultural change.
That is something that we recognize is that we have to address
on the front lines. It is also something we must codify in the
procedures and orders that we disseminate throughout the
agency.
That is why I spend a lot of time actually visiting
frontline facilities, whether they are certificate management
offices or manufacturing and aircraft certification offices. I
talk one-on-one with the employees so that they understand what
we are trying to achieve with this larger effort that we call
risk-based decisionmaking.
What we want the FAA to be doing is to evaluate where we
see risk in the system and to focus our efforts on the riskiest
activities and to take full advantage of the flexibilities that
exist under ODAs and under streamlined processes. That is
something that we have to be constantly working on on the front
lines as well as in the leadership of the organization.
Senator Moran. Administrator, thank you for that. I would
invite you back to Wichita at any time. The Secretary of
Transportation, in a similar setting a few weeks ago, agreed
that he would come visit Wichita. We would love to have you in
the air capital.
Let me ask the other part of the Kansas question, which is
we are also rural. Make lots of airplanes, but we are very
rural. As we look at FAA reauthorization, I would be interested
in knowing what you envision for small airports, how they will
fit into the broader equation of transportation across the
country.
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Moran. And then a couple of specific topics within
that. Senator Blunt and Senator Cantwell mentioned the contract
tower program, and if you would include me in your
conversations or information with Senator Blunt, I would
welcome that. We want to make certain that that program is
utilized in a beneficial way to rural America.
I also wanted to raise the topic of Essential Air Service.
And one of the problems that many communities are experiencing
is lack of reliability of those Essential Air Service carriers'
service. And I would like to be made aware of your awareness
and any thoughts on how we could improve that Essential Air
Service program.
The general defense by the airline companies is, ``We don't
have enough pilots.'' And I don't know whether that is accurate
or there is more to this story.
And if you could give me your perspective on both--I guess
you have answered the essential--I guess I would take Senator
Blunt's question one step further. What kind of timeframe, how
many airports are you evaluating on the contract tower program?
And then can you tell me what we need to do, what needs to be
done, to make sure that Essential Air Service providers are
more reliable than they are?
Mr. Huerta. OK. Thanks, Senator Moran. I actually heard
three questions--one relating to the AIP program, one related
to towers, and then one related to the Essential Air Service.
So I will try to tackle all three of those.
As it relates to access to the Airport Improvement Program,
the AIP program is designed to strike a balance between
supporting the major hubs in addition to providing a basic
level of access. The administration's proposal incorporated in
the President's budget basically would provide an increase in
the PFC for the large airports in exchange for entitlement
grants from the AIP program. This would enable the AIP program
to focus on access for the small and medium-sized airports. So
I think we are being very sensitive to what the infrastructure
needs are in rural communities.
As it relates to contract towers, what we are looking at is
not so much a specific list of towers, but the full scope of
the program and the cost-benefit methodology. It gets applied
on a tower-by-tower basis, but what we are looking at is not so
much a set of specific facilities but how the overall program
is structured. We are happy to share that methodology with you
as well as Senator Blunt and Senator Manchin.
As it relates to the Essential Air Service program, I am a
little bit out of my expertise here, since that program is
administered by the Office of the Secretary. But my
understanding of one of the major challenges with respect to
EAS is the one thing that you have cited, the consolidation of
the industry. It impacts how aircraft are being used into EAS
markets--larger rather than the more ideally sized smaller
aircraft that have a better fit with the demand that takes
place in that market.
I understand that there are also legislative challenges or
framework challenges with the EAS program. As I understand it,
in order to maintain EAS service, it has to be maintained at
the same level that was provided in 1988. I think a fair
question is, is that really an appropriate measure? A lot has
happened between now and 1988, and maybe that would bear some
looking into that as a way of providing more flexibility to
maintain a basic level of service.
Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moran.
Senator Booker?
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Administrator Huerta, first of all, I just
want to thank you for your service to our country. I think that
you have a very difficult job. I have gotten to know you a bit
over my short time in this Senate, and I have just been very
appreciative of your leadership.
It was a tribute, what Senator Moran said to you, by
inviting you to Kansas. I want you to know that is a tribute to
you, because he has never invited me to Kansas.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. Jumping in real quick, we have in New
Jersey, as you know, a real congestion problem. In fact, you
all found out in a January 2015 report that five airports will
be significantly capacity-constrained by 2020. Four of those
five are New Jersey-serving airports: Newark, JFK, LaGuardia,
and Philadelphia.
I obviously have been in touch with your team about the
implementation of NextGen and the urgency for my region. I just
want to ask really quickly before I move on to another subject,
what do you need from Congress to further the rapid
implementation to deal with congestion? What do you need from
the airline industry that you may or may not be getting that we
could help you with? And what do you need from the air traffic
controllers?
If you could give me some of those, give the Committee some
of those things, so that we might act and help.
Mr. Huerta. Yes, New York represents a particularly complex
area because of the geographic----
Senator Booker. You mean New Jersey.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huerta. Well, the New Jersey metropolitan area----
Senator Booker. Thank you.
Mr. Huerta.--that happens to include portions of the state
of New York----
Senator Booker. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huerta.--represents very, very significant geographic
challenges because the airports are very close together.
Senator Booker. Yes.
Mr. Huerta. And they are older facilities with a lot of
crossing runways. So there are a lot of challenges to work
through there.
Nonetheless, I think that we have made some important
progress there. But New York is critical for the health of the
National Airspace System--New York and New Jersey--because that
region accounts for the lion's share of delays that ripple
throughout the entire air traffic control system.
What we have been very focused on is how we could better
deploy performance-based navigation through airspace-redesign
activities that give us greater efficiency in order to
deconflict the airports. Because the airports are close
together, under traditional air navigation processes, traffic
into Newark has to be operated in conjunction with traffic into
Teterboro and traffic at LaGuardia. If we are able to have much
more efficient and curved arrival and departure paths, it
enables us to deconflict the airports, meaning we get greater
capacity for all of the airports that are in the system in that
area.
At LaGuardia, we published a new arrival procedure in April
of this year. Why do you care about LaGuardia? This enables us
to allow Newark and Teterboro to operate without restriction
when LaGuardia and Kennedy are operating on a particular
configuration. And that was just by changing one procedure at
LaGuardia Airport.
We are looking for more of those opportunities in order to
provide----
Senator Booker. Just real quick, because my time is running
out----
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Booker.--I would love to hear from your staff what
we could be doing with the airlines and with the air traffic
controllers.
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Booker. I do think there are some issues with
building more runways, creating more flexibility, dealing with
the--I would love to talk more with you about the passenger
facility charge programs and how they should be more directed
in terms of investment to deal with some of the national
problems.
But in the short time I have left, I just want to switch
really quickly to the issue of UAS, or drones, and two
questions I have.
One, as we are integrating next-generation technology, with
the growth of the drone industry, isn't there some way that
there could be some coordination in allowing a fix?
And then the second part of my question. Foreign countries
are just moving so much quicker than us. I am wondering how are
they identifying the risks beyond the sight-line operations of
autonomous aircraft systems that are allowing their industry
and related industries to develop more robustly than ours are?
Mr. Huerta. Well, I think it is important to point out that
what we are trying to do is to integrate UAS into an existing
and mature air traffic control system, and the most important
thing that we can do is do that safely.
Now, we have established six test sites around the country.
New Jersey shares one of those test sites, along with many
other states. The test sites provide a framework for us to set
aside air space to conduct research and to conduct testing.
I think that what we are trying to accomplish is a many-
pronged approach that is leveraging the test sites, leveraging
existing exemption authorities that we have under section 333
of the last FAA authorization. We have now issued close to 140
exemptions. The exemptions are really being granted at a much
faster rate than they were even a couple of weeks ago.
At the same time, we published a notice for the small UAS
program, a rule that would provide the regulatory framework
under which such UAS would operate. The rule, if it is adopted
as we proposed it, would provide for the most flexible and
adaptable unmanned aircraft regulatory system that exists
anywhere in the world.
I think that it is important to point out that what we have
to do is look at this in a staged way. How can we manage risk
as we introduce these vehicles? This is something that is very
much at the forefront of our thinking in NextGen, because
NextGen has to accommodate all users--the traditional users we
have today as well as new users, such as unmanned aircraft, in
the years ahead.
Senator Booker. Thank you, Administrator.
Thank you, Senator Booker.
The Chairman. Senator Ayotte?
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you for being here.
I wanted to ask the Inspector General did the review of
NextGen in 2014, and in that review there was quite a bit of
criticism that the implementation was not going well.
Putting aside the funding issue I understand, what do you
believe is the biggest problem you face right now in making
this happen, in terms of administering it, assuming we could
get--I understand the consistency and stability of
reauthorization. What do you see as the biggest barrier?
Mr. Huerta. I think that we have made a lot of progress.
When you look at what the Inspector General suggested in
their report, they looked at a 10-year period, I think it is
important to compare the first 5 years and the later 5 years of
that 10-year period. It was in that later period of time that
we started to put into place a lot of the program management
processes that, when I came to the agency, I found to be
lacking. Coming from industry, where I was the president of a
technology company, I thought it was really important that what
we adopted was done with the best industry practices for
deployment of complex programs.
It was against that backdrop that we rebaselined the ERAM
program, which at that time was over budget and behind
schedule, and, once we were able to rebaseline it, put the
program management processes in place. The program was
successfully concluded and met its milestones and its timing
and budget.
Likewise, that is now being applied to the full scope of
NextGen programs. I think that on the technology side, we have
put a number of tools in place that are giving us much more
discipline in how we deploy complex technology programs.
On the operational side, we have had to establish a much
better linkage between the air traffic operation, the people
that are deploying the programs and new technologies, and the
people that are certifying that the new operations and
procedures are safe. What that has actually resulted in within
the agency is a tighter linkage across the agency, rather than
a separation.
I was mentioning to Senator Cantwell the airspace redesign
projects that we have going on around the country. Well, our
ability to turn on 61 new procedures on one day was premised
upon having the operating part of the agency, air traffic, the
regulatory side of the agency, AVS, and the NextGen side of the
agency, plus all of our local partners, all working closer
together to figure out how to design it, how to implement it
safely. As a result of applying that best practice, we now have
an 80 percent utilization rate.
We wouldn't have seen that 10 years ago, because what we
would have done would have been to do it piecemeal. It is that
integrated approach that I think that we need to do more and
more of.
Senator Ayotte. I think one of the things I would, as we go
forward, like to hear more from the agency--I have some other
questions on another topic--but also is why, really, if we were
to go down a different model in terms of air traffic control,
for example, the Canadian model, how that would work here. And
I think that is something that we need to look at and evaluate.
I know the House committee is evaluating it, as well.
But before I go, I wanted to ask you about the passenger
facility charge and ask you, the proposal you have, in
increasing the Federal cap on the local passenger facility
charge--obviously, general aviation has its challenges, and it
is important to our economy.
So why do you think that we need to raise that cap now? And
when was the last time you raised it? And what do you think
that will do to average consumers in terms of their travel, in
terms of that cost being passed on to them? So can you let us--
--
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Ayotte.--understand why you think this is
justified?
Mr. Huerta. Well, what we are trying to do is establish a
balance between providing more local control and local
resources for large hub airports that can afford to raise funds
locally and targeting the base AIP program toward the smaller
communities that might not otherwise be able to support an
increase in the passenger facility charge.
Essentially, as the president has proposed it within the
budget, what we would do is we would reduce the overall size of
the AIP program from $3.35 billion to $2.9 billion. The large
airports would be excluded from AIP, and, in exchange, they
would be given the opportunity to raise the funds locally
through the increase in the passenger facility charge.
I think that strikes the right balance between providing
local control to those that can afford it, but, at the same
time, for the smaller communities that are providing services
to a much more diverse range of users, the base AIP program
would still be there for them.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
Senator Daines?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Huerta, thanks for being here today. And thank you also
for working with us in Montana on the Powder River Training
Complex. Appreciate the meeting that you took with us that
allowed us to discuss the issues here.
As we have said, the expansion of the Powder River Training
Complex in eastern Montana is still leaving some safety
concerns for the general aviation pilots. I am thankful the Air
Force and the FAA have promised to take this adaptive
management approach to the implementation of this air space.
Could you perhaps describe how this approach might be
realized and, specifically, how the Air Force and the FAA will
evaluate the safety of the airspace and consider additional
mitigations and adjustments as needed along the way?
Mr. Huerta. Well, the principal thing that we were very
focused on was how do we ensure basic levels of access to
certain communities that would otherwise be restricted.
I think that what the Air Force proposed, and what we
actually required as a condition of approving their application
for the Powder River complex, was that they would have an
operating system and a communication system in place to protect
access to air, primarily around Baker, Montana, which is in the
eastern part of the state. As you pointed out when we met,
Baker was really a hub of activity associated with the oil
industry and other extractive industries that are taking place
out there.
Until that communication system is in place, the Air Force
is restricted to operating at the higher altitudes. They are
actively working on this, and we will need to sign off on the
existence of the communication program.
Senator Daines. Yes. And I think we share the same fear,
that the communication system is a great step but I know the
folks out there aren't quite convinced it goes far enough.
I would like to get your commitment to continue to work
with the local airports, the stakeholders, to provide the
appropriate communications and radar equipment necessary to
ensure a high level of aviation safety.
Mr. Huerta. We will certainly continue to work with the
community. This is something that we spent a lot of time really
trying to understand in discussions with local stakeholders and
users there in----
Senator Daines. And I appreciate that, too. We are
watching, again, where this is going to be in the next 5 to 10
years----
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Daines. As you mentioned, the growth in the
resource industry out there, the Baker on-ramp, where the
Keystone pipeline will eventually go, is right there near that
airport.
Another question here relates to the medical examination
alternatives for pilots exercising their third-class medical
privileges with a few additional restrictions. And we are
pleased to see the FAA announced plans to do that.
I can tell you, this is very well received back home in
Montana. In fact, just during this last recess, a number of
occasions, I had pilots come to me unsolicited and thank us for
the direction this is headed right now.
What is the timeline for implementation? And do you have
any indication what it will look like?
Mr. Huerta. Well, I can't give an indication of what it
will look like because it is actually taking the form of a
rulemaking process, and, as you know, we can't talk about a
rule while it is under development.
But I will say this. We put out the original petition that
was submitted by the general aviation industry for public
comment. We did receive comments on both sides. While there
were significant numbers of supporters, there were also
significant numbers of those that expressed concerns, primarily
the commercial pilots and the aviation medical examiners.
We now have taken that and, during the process of
developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, have been in
consultations with our colleagues across the administration
about getting that out there for public comment.
The important thing is to strike the right balance of
ensuring that there is no degradation in safety while at the
same time making sure that what we have is something that isn't
serving as a disincentive to those that want to fly.
Senator Daines. All right. Well, thank you, and I look
forward to continuing to work with you on that. It is a big
issue, I know, especially for the rural states, who have a lot
of airspace.
Lastly, Montana is the home to three Federal contract tower
facilities, one in Kalispell, my hometown of Bozeman, as well
as Missoula. As you know, the FAA is working to revise the
cost-benefit criteria for the contract tower program.
Considering that contract towers are responsible for 28
percent of air traffic and utilize just 14 percent of total
funding, how could you possibly determine that this is not
cost-effective?
Mr. Huerta. Well, it is just, where do the numbers take us?
And that is the analysis that we have ongoing right now. What
are the benefits of having a tower versus other technologies
that would exist based on the traffic that a facility has?
A tower provides an important level of safety; no one
disputes that. It is really a question of ensuring that we are
able to provide it in as cost-effective a way as we can.
Senator Daines. Thanks, Mr. Huerta.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Senator Heller?
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thanks for holding
this hearing.
And, Administrator, thank you for being here also.
I want to talk a little bit about the Small Community Air
Service Development Program. Everything is local, as you are
probably well aware, and I want to talk to you a little bit
about Nevada.
Let me start with some numbers. You know, we have a 1997
study that determines whether you are a small hub, medium hub,
large hub, or a major hub. And the concerns are--and I think
these numbers will help you understand it.
At the Reno-Tahoe airport in 1997, based on the 1997 study,
162,000 planes came and left--162,000. As of last year, 75,000.
So we see a reduction of about 54 percent. In real numbers, in
1996, based on the 1997 study, there were over 3 million
travelers. As of last year, it was 1.7 million. So you can see
that an airport like Reno-Tahoe has seen since 1997 a major
reduction.
I guess the question is, is there any way to go from a
medium hub to a small hub and take advantage of some of the
grant programs that are available?
Mr. Huerta. I will have to get back and answer the question
in more detail with respect to eligibility. This is actually a
program that we don't administer at the FAA. It is administered
in the office of the secretary even though it is framed out in
our authorization----
Senator Heller. Right, right.
Mr. Huerta.--and included in our budget.
I know that SCASDP is a program that is very focused on
where you are trying to get: How do you provide small and rural
communities with grants that enable them to build air traffic?
But in terms of how they move from one to the other, we can get
back to you with a more specific answer.
Senator Heller. OK. Yes, I would like to know that.
Would you have any problem with eliminating the 1997
requirements to go into a more up-to-date number system?
Mr. Huerta. You know, I would have to get more familiar
with how the program goes to really have a reasonable answer.
Senator Heller. I will tell you what. I will send a letter
to you----
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Heller.--and give you an opportunity to respond.
As you know, international travel plays a vital role
throughout America. Obviously, with a state like Nevada, Las
Vegas, we are well aware that an international traveler spends
probably five times more than a domestic traveler does when
they come into a city like Las Vegas.
I am going to ask you a question, again, that maybe you
have little to do with, but I still want to get your feedback
on it.
One of the biggest complaints that we have is the visa
process and entry process. I am sure you are well aware of it,
and, again, I know it is out of your purview to take care of
this, but I was just wondering if there is a better way that
the FAA can coordinate with TSA and some of these other custom
agencies to resolve those kind of issues.
Mr. Huerta. As it relates to how visas are granted, we are
certainly open to having a conversation with our colleagues at
Homeland to see if there are things that we might be able to be
helpful with--for example, on the airport infrastructure side.
Is there something about the design of a facility that would
merit a quicker way to move people through the system when they
visit?
But as it relates to the original granting of a visa, that
is something that is very much outside of our purview.
Senator Heller. I am well aware of that.
Mr. Huerta. It would be much more on the airport side. If
there are things they need from us, we would like to hear about
it.
Senator Heller. You can imagine every airport that comes in
and sits down and talks to me, that is the biggest concern and
question that they have----
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
Senator Heller.--the ability to get people in and out, not
only, obviously, Las Vegas but New York, Orlando, Los Angeles,
and every state that is represented here----
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely.
Senator Heller.--on this committee.
Let me talk a little bit about the importance of travel.
You know, there are 150,000 Nevada jobs that are attributed to
the travel industry. And, obviously, you play a major role in
that. And we are not just talking Las Vegas; you have the Reno-
Tahoe area and places like Virginia City that are affected from
it. It is about $17 billion in GDP just in the state of Nevada
alone, so you can imagine how important this is to us.
Just a basic question. What is the largest impediment to
increasing capacity and reducing delays that we see in the
airports today?
Mr. Huerta. There is a great deal that we can do through
better operation of the air traffic system, and that is what
NextGen is really very focused on.
But in certain areas, one of our largest challenges,
particularly in older metropolitan areas, is constraints on the
airport itself--no room to grow, no room to add runways. So we
can focus on everything that we can possibly do to get greater
efficiency out of the infrastructure that we have, and we are
very, very focused on doing that. But in certain instances, you
do run into the limits of just the facility itself. That is
something that we have to continue to look at.
And there are challenges in doing that. Particularly, in
large urban areas, many of our airports are older and the
metropolitan area has grown up around it. So you have to deal
with very complex land use and utilization questions that are
difficult for local entities to deal with.
I think that what we at the FAA can do is support where we
see the demand growing, and we do, in an annual forecast. We
share what we see air traffic is going to look like. We work
with our industry partners, and we want to support states and
communities in figuring out how they can ensure that they have
the necessary infrastructure.
Senator Heller. Administrator, thank you.
And to you, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I know I don't have to
say this, but Senator Booker is welcome anytime into Las Vegas
and the state of Nevada, so----
[Laughter.]
Senator Heller. Thank you.
The Chairman. Yes. I think we welcome him in all our
states.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Klobuchar is up next, and then
Senator Sullivan to take us out.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator, for being here and for your good
work. You have been in our state, so thank you for that.
I wanted to talk a little bit--I know Senator Moran touched
on the Small Airplane Revitalization Act and the certification
process. You know we really want to get those rules done. I was
the Democratic lead on the bill with Senator Murkowski. It was
a bipartisan bill that passed through both houses, and we are
excited it was signed into law.
I know you view the rewrite of Part 23 rules for small
airplanes as really important to safety. Can you assure us that
the NPRM for Part 23 small airplane rules will be published in
the Federal Register by this summer? ``Summer'' is 3 months of
a summer, so----
Mr. Huerta. I think it would be ambitious to say I would
get it published in the summer. We are very focused on getting
it published this year.
Senator Klobuchar. OK.
Mr. Huerta. It is, as you know, a comprehensive rewrite of
Part 23. A lot of really good work is going into this project.
I think the industry is going to be very pleased with where it
is. But we are very focused on getting it done as quickly as we
can.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you.
I am also leading the bill to lift the embargo on Cuba with
Senators Flake, Enzi, and Paul and a number of Democrats. There
are 11 million people ----
Mr. Huerta. Yep.
Senator Klobuchar.--just off our shore, 90 miles away.
There is also a bill that I am a cosponsor of to lift the
travel embargo. Previously, only certified chartered flights
could fly from one of 19 approved U.S. airports to Cuba.
However, with restored diplomacy, there is now one carrier, Sun
Country--that seems like a good name for Cuba--which is, in
fact, a Minnesota-based air carrier, offering some scheduled
commercial air service to Cuba from New York.
While it is still costly and travelers have to cut through
a large amount of red tape, this is a sign that some travel is
opening because of these changes. Can you describe the steps
the FAA is taking to help facilitate increased air travel
between the U.S. and Cuba?
Mr. Huerta. Sure.
The FAA is third in line, behind our colleagues at State
and the Transportation Department, in terms of initiating new
air service. Essentially, State has been involved in a
government-to-government consultation and they are now bringing
the aviation piece into the discussion, which is supported
under the economic authorities for air service that are held by
the Secretary of Transportation.
Our piece of it will kick in with respect to ensuring the
safety of the operators that are going to provide service
between here and Cuba. That includes an assessment of our Cuban
counterpart to ensure that, should Cuban air carriers wish to
provide service to the U.S., that they can provide the
regulatory oversight to ensure that they are doing it safely
and, at the same time, ensuring that our carriers have the
appropriate operating specifications to provide service there.
It is a tremendous opportunity, and it is something that we
are working with our government colleagues to make a reality,
as we work through the process to restore regular air service
into Cuba.
I will say this, and that is that we have a very open
relationship with our Cuban air traffic counterparts. We share
an airspace boundary with Cuban airspace, and we pass flights
back and forth daily between the United States and Latin
America that overfly Cuba.
Senator Klobuchar. Right. I went to Cuba a few months ago
with Senator Warner and Senator McCaskill. I think people would
be surprised at all the flights going back and forth. They are
officially charters, but they are actual carriers like JetBlue
and other companies. I think people would be surprised at how
many of these flights are going in and out all the time.
Mr. Huerta. It is a lot.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes.
Last Congress, I cosponsored the BRIDGE Act with Senators
Warner and Blunt and others, which would establish an
infrastructure financing authority. As you know, we are coming
up on the deadline of the Highway Trust Fund, which isn't in
your area. But do you support the creation of this financing
authority to help finance investments in our aviation
infrastructure in addition to the Airport Improvement Program
funds?
Mr. Huerta. I think that any tool in the toolbox that
provides a mechanism not only to provide grant assistance but
also to leverage private investment in infrastructure is a good
thing. As we look at how do we address the large infrastructure
problems as a country, we need to look at every possible tool
in the toolbox, and that certainly is a good opportunity.
Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate
it.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
The Senator from Alaska, Senator Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Big issues with the FAA in Alaska, right?
Senator Sullivan. And, Administrator Huerta, thank you. I
would like to get you up to Alaska, and soon, if you can. Also,
I know there are a lot of people inviting Senator Booker. He
was in Alaska last summer. I would like to bring him up for
other purposes than what he was up there for last summer.
Mr. Huerta. I have been to Alaska twice, and----
Senator Sullivan. Good. No, I know you have, and I want to
extend that invitation again.
And I think, you know, I don't have to cover too much,
because we could be here all morning, but I do believe, you
know, you have a lot of states that talk about how unique they
are with regard to general aviation and aviation services. You
have been there twice--and, again, we would welcome you to come
on up for another visit--but, with regard to Alaska, as you
know, there are very, very many unique----
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Senator Sullivan.--situations with regard to general
aviation. As you know, many, many of our communities, even
large communities, aviation is the only means by which to get
in and out, whether it is just travel, whether it is supplies
for stores. And there are over 400 general aviation airports
across Alaska.
As Senator Heller was talking about, it is also a huge part
of our economy. The general aviation industry contributes over
a billion dollars to our state's economy, as well as supports
close to 50,000 jobs in the state, including a key role--and
you probably know this; a lot of folks don't--in terms of
health care----
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Senator Sullivan.--in and out of different communities.
Obviously, safety is a very big issue for us. And we have
had some very tragic accidents, like a lot of states have. And
I wondering, in terms of access in and out of small
communities, that aviation is the key lifeline, but also
safety. How do you look at balancing those two different
issues?
And, more generally, with regard to the reauthorization
bill, will there be provisions to kind of make sure there is a
focus on rural states that rely on general aviation so much?
And is the FAA looking at putting out their own
reauthorization proposal as a beginning? I mean, you are the
experts on these areas, but you know how important they are to
certain states like mine.
Mr. Huerta. Sure. Aviation is certainly very important to
Alaska, and that was hammered home to me the first time I
visited, when I had the opportunity to visit many of the
isolated communities that you are talking about, including the
state capital, which is accessible only by air.
Alaska has many unique challenges that we need to deal
with, with respect to the variability of the weather, the
nature of the infrastructure that exists on the ground, and how
aviation is used. Someone used the example that the Beech
Bonanza is more or less the family car for a lot of families
that live up in Alaska.
Alaska also, though, serves an important role in testing
and deploying new technologies for all of the FAA. It was in
Alaska that we first pioneered the use of Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast and then, through the Capstone program,
laid the foundational steps for what is now being deployed
across the whole country for performance-based navigation,
which gave Alaska much better access in inclement weather
systems.
I think finding that right balance between the needs of
rural communities and the needs of the aviation system in its
entirety is really a central theme that Congress needs to
grapple with as we look at reauthorization. In the past,
Congress has always been striving to achieve that balance. What
do we need to support the overall industry in its full extent--
carriers, manufacturers, and so forth? At the same time,
aviation is an important mode of transportation, particularly
in a state like Alaska.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask just a quick more specific
question. You know, I was home, like a lot of us, during
recess. And another area where we have been a pioneer is in
terms of training, particularly the College Training Initiative
program at the University of Alaska. We were one of the
original five CTI institutions in the United States in 1990.
I know you have had a lot of questions, but there are a lot
of questions about what has happened with regard to the FAA's
focus on providing applicants, particularly with regard to air
traffic controllers coming out of these training facilities and
institutions, a preference with regard to hiring.
And there were a lot of concerns that this was not done in
a transparent manner, that this could increase cost to the FAA,
this could, obviously, in my view, undermine safety. Could you
comment on that?
Because, you know, there were a lot of students in the
pipeline at UAA who, bam, without any warning, really were
told, hey, this is not going to help you with regard to getting
hired through the FAA, in terms of air traffic controllers.
Hopefully you have been to the UAA facility. It is world-
class. I was there; again, I spent a couple hours there. I
can't imagine why we would not be encouraging this kind of
training versus, with the stroke of a pen, not encouraging
those students who have put literally years into training to
get careers.
What was going on there, and what is going on there? There
is a lot of concern on what you guys have done.
Mr. Huerta. I think that it is important not to confuse
what we regard as training and what we regard as qualification
for a job with an entitlement. The important thing to recognize
is the air traffic controller profession is a very attractive
profession. Last year, we hired----
Senator Sullivan. But you are not saying that that
preference was an entitlement, are you?
Mr. Huerta. Well, I think some confuse it as that. I am not
saying everyone, but I think some do.
But let me just give you some numbers. We hired 1,600
controllers last year. We received 28,000 applications. Of the
1,600 that were hired, two-thirds came out of the collegiate
training programs that you are referencing.
So they are getting credit for this training. They
represent the majority of people that we are actually hiring.
Every one of those 1,600 individuals is now going through
training at the FAA and is being offered a job in the system.
But if you look at everyone who is coming out of the
programs, the numbers greatly exceed what the FAA would ever
expect to hire. So I think that it is important to recognize
that what we are trying to do is get the best qualified pool of
candidates, but we have far more demand for the jobs than we
actually have positions available. This is a dialogue we will
continue to have with the CTI programs.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, I think it is important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I will have some follow-up questions with regard to the
change. I think transparency, though, in that change and not
having it so abrupt, very important as you look to do something
like that in the future.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
Mr. Administrator, as you have heard, there is an interest
among the members of the Committee related to ATC reform. And a
question is, has the FAA evaluated options for a path forward
if it is shown to be the right thing to do?
Mr. Huerta. Well, we are evaluating options, but I think
the first question--you have to answer two questions first.
What problem do we think that we are trying to solve here? And
then the second thing, what does the proposed solution look
like?
There have been many conversations that have been taking
place, ranging from full-scale privatization to something that
is more a government corporation kind of model or a different
type of agency model that might exist. I think all of those
need to be on the table as we talk about how we best ensure
safety and deliver NextGen.
But it is important that when we look at this we look at
the progress that we have made. For example, many have talked
about we need to change the organizational structure to enable
us to more efficiently deploy NextGen.
What you have heard me say today is a lot of the progress
we have made on efficiently deploying NextGen in the past few
years has been tighter links within air traffic with their
colleagues, particularly in the regulatory and airports part of
the agency.
I would be fearful of any structure that would actually put
a wall in the middle of that process that would make it harder
to build those collaborative relationships so that we can
deploy the very thing the users need and want and which we are
all supportive of.
So we need to ensure that there are not unintended
consequences that result from moving too quickly to a
structural alternative. Across the whole industry we have to
have a clear understanding of what are we trying to get to and
how are we going to ensure that we get there in the years
ahead.
The Chairman. Well, I guess what I would say is, as we work
on reauthorization, we would like to continue that discussion
with you and with----
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely.
The Chairman.--the agency on developing options and
certainly getting your, you know, reaction, evaluation of some
of those things that are out there as we work to achieve the
goals of a safer and more efficient and cost-effective FAA and
air traffic control system.
So, to the degree that you have input that you would like
to offer us, we would certainly welcome that and look forward
to working with you--and any other thoughts on reauthorization
that you can put forward. I don't know if you have put any
draft out there yet, but, to the degree that that is available,
we would appreciate that as we get underway with our efforts.
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely.
The Chairman. So we thank you for being here today and for
your responses to our questions. And, obviously, the room has
been vacated, so we will release you.
And this hearing is adjourned.
Thanks.
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Michael P. Huerta
Question 1. What is the agency doing to assist general aviation
airports and rural states in providing cost-effective local weather
data needed to support Instrument Flight Rules approaches and maximize
airport operational utility?
Answer. The FAA's Non-Federal Program mission includes helping
general aviation (GA) airports and rural states acquire/operate cost-
effective aids to air navigation. This includes acquiring &/or
expanding access to local weather data that supports IFR approaches,
and maximizes airports' operational utility.
The Non-Federal Program approaches this effort in various ways. One
key example is the work with the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association.
(``AOPA'' represents the GA community, and has nearly 400,000 members.)
This collaborative effort focuses on non-Federally-owned automated
weather observation systems (AWOS). The goal is to increase the number
of non-Federal AWOS that are connected to the FAA's WMSCR system.
The FAA's WSMCR capability is used to disseminate current aviation-
meteorological data products. This includes ``aviation routine weather
reports,'' aka ``METARs,'' which are aggregated from various sources.
Increasing the sources of data results in better quality weather
products and increased benefit for the GA community. As the sources
increase, pilots planning a flight will have access to FAA-certified
weather information available for broader array of airports.
Additionally as data is received from the increased number of local
AWOS, the accuracy of local weather forecasts will be improved. These
benefits clearly help to support instrument flight rule (IFR)
approaches, and maximize airports' operational utility.
Question 2. What policy changes can be taken to encourage
manufacturers of Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOSs) to use new
technology that minimizes maintenance requirements and ongoing
operational costs? In turn, what agency policies can be modified to
minimize or remove unnecessary or burdensome requirements related to
AWOSs that are not required for safe aircraft operation?
Answer. The FAA's Non-Federal Program has been working with the
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA). One objective of this
joint effort is to encourage prospective owners of non-Federal AWOS to
buy the newest types of FAA-approved AWOS. Similarly, owners of older
types of AWOS are being encouraged to upgrade to newer systems.
This effort is primarily intended to benefit the aviation
community. However, as the pool of prospective buyers grows, a benefit
will also accrue to the companies that manufacture and maintain non-
Federal AWOS. Presumably, these companies will seek to convert the
maximum number of prospective buyers into actual buyers. A fundamental
way companies can accomplish this is by making their products and
services as affordable as possible. For instance, many manufacturers
also sell maintenance packages. Therefore, manufacturers can make AWOS
ownership more affordable by developing new technology that minimizes
maintenance requirements and on-going life-cycle costs.
Additionally, the FAA is taking steps to reduce maintenance
requirements and their associated costs. A prime example can be found
in the latest revision to the ``non-Federal AWOS AC,'' which reduced
annual maintenance costs by 25 percent. Prior to this revision,
maintenance had been required four times per years (i.e., every 90
days). However, the revision reduced this requirement to three times
per year (i.e., every 120 days). This change was made possible because
non-Federally-owned facilities must be operated and maintained to the
same standards as FAA-owned facilities. The FAA had determined that its
AWOS only needed to receive maintenance three times a year--rather than
four. That decision was influenced by manufacturers' development of
systems with improved technology and reliability.
It is important to note that the FAA does not--and cannot--develop
its maintenance requirements based solely on how technologically
advanced a system is. A requirement may seem ``burdensome'' and
``unnecessary''--until all the relevant (though lesser known) factors
are considered. For instance, if a non-Federal AWOS is not operating
properly, how will that affect its weather data? Will it interfere with
the frequencies of nearby air-navigation facilities? Also, how well is
the system protected against cyber attacks and physical vandalism? Will
softening the requirements expose the FAA to potential liability that
outweighs the benefits to owners & manufacturers? And if an accident
occurs, will the AWOS owner be able to provide the necessary data to
assist the NTSB?
Finally, the Agency strives to support the expansion of non-
Federally-owned systems in the NAS. However, it also strives to provide
quality over quantity.
Question 3. FAA Advisory 150/5220-16D, ``Automated Weather
Observing Systems (AWOS) for Non-Federal Applications,'' requires
maintenance technicians for AWOSs to comply with FAA Order 6700.20A,
``Non-Federal Navigational Aids and Air Traffic Control Facilities.''
This Order is dated December 11, 1992. Technology has changed
significantly in 23 years. For example, the Order requires non-federal
technicians to have an FCC general radio telephone operator license as
well as the same qualifications as Federal technicians. Has the FAA re-
evaluated the qualifications for non-federal technicians to ensure the
requirements are commensurate with the level of skill necessary to
maintain the modern day technology? If so, how has the FAA worked with
manufacturers during this evaluation? If not, how would the FAA work
with manufacturers during such an evaluation?
Answer. The FAA has recently re-evaluated 6700.20A's qualifications
for non-Federal technicians. Those qualifications remain proportional
to the task of maintaining FAA-approved, non-Federally-owned systems.
Similarly, those same qualifications continue to apply to the FAA
technicians who maintain Federally-owned equivalents of non-Federal
systems.
FAA Order 6700.20A is nearing the culmination of a complete, multi-
year overhaul. The result will be an updated version: 6700.20B. The
update process included extensive review by a large number of
organizations and personnel from across the FAA. During the national
review, the FAA office in charge of the overhaul received more than 800
comments. Many of them proposed changes to obsolete policies and
procedures. However, out of more than 800 comments, there were no
suggestions to amend the FCC-licensing requirements for non-Federal
technicians.
Finally, order 6700.20 is an FAA ``directive.'' Agency policy
dictates that directives are mandatory instructions for FAA personnel.
As a result, only Agency personnel are involved in the writing and
revision of FAA orders.
[all]