[House Hearing, 114 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ENABLING A 21ST- CENTURY AVIATION SYSTEM ======================================================================= (114-7) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ MARCH 3, 2015 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 93-580 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Vice Chair Columbia JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California TOM RICE, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut ROB WOODALL, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JOHN KATKO, New York JARED HUFFMAN, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California CRESENT HARDY, Nevada RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana MIMI WALTERS, California BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CARLOS CURBELO, Florida DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina LEE M. ZELDIN, New York (ii) Subcommittee on Aviation FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman DON YOUNG, Alaska RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN L. MICA, Florida Columbia SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin DINA TITUS, Nevada MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois MARK SANFORD, South Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California ROB WOODALL, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts TODD ROKITA, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota MIMI WALTERS, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex CARLOS CURBELO, Florida Officio) LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi WITNESSES Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration: Testimony.................................................... 4 Prepared statement........................................... 33 Responses to questions for the record from the following majority-side Representatives: Hon. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania........................ 43 Hon. Don Young of Alaska................................. 44 Hon. Rob Woodall of Georgia.............................. 48 Hon Mimi Walters of California........................... 49 Responses to questions for the record from the following minority-side Representatives and Delegate: Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.......................... 50 Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington........................... 53 Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia... 55 Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois......................... 56 Hon. Andre Carson of Indiana............................. 62 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.................................. 23 Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington................................... 27 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ENABLING A 21ST- CENTURY AVIATION SYSTEM ---------- TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2015 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The committee will come to order. Thank you all for being here, particularly Administrator Huerta for being here. And the Colgan family members, thank you for being here. On September 30th of this year the current Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization expires. This current authorization occurred after 5 years of short-term extensions and a partial shutdown, which resulted in tremendous instability and uncertainty for the agency, industry, stakeholders, and the flying public. Chairman Shuster and I have repeatedly talked about this and pledged to do our very best, along with Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Larsen, to see that this will not happen again. As we draft the new authorization, there are several key areas that must be addressed. Technological advances since the last bill are at the heart of two key areas of focus, the move towards GPS-based air traffic control under NextGen and the growth of commercial interest in unmanned aerial systems. These technologies hold enormous potential that could improve the efficiency and safety of our airspace system while unlocking billions of dollars in economic activity for the country. As Administrator Huerta will concur, NextGen utilizes many technologies that would not only increase capacity, but also improve the safety of our airspace. Many of these technologies were researched, developed, and tested at the FAA Technical Center, the premier research and development facility for the FAA, which is in my district. While progress has been made on establishing NextGen foundational programs, it is clear that the FAA has a great deal of work to do before passengers and operators begin to realize more significant benefits. For the past year, we have received an extensive amount of input from stakeholders regarding the slow place of FAA implementation of NextGen, as well as the agency's inefficient and overly burdensome certification processes, which we think is impacting in a negative way on the economics of the country. Many of these problems have been identified in several oversight hearings conducted by this subcommittee, as well as by the DOT inspector general and Government Accountability Office. In addition, we have raised them directly with Secretary Foxx and Administrator Huerta, and I would again convey that Congress as a whole is closely monitoring the FAA's progress on NextGen and the subcommittee will continue its vigorous oversight in light of recent reports from the DOT inspector general on cost overruns and delays. Furthermore, after months of delay, the FAA finally released its proposed rule on the integration of small unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, into the national airspace, but the estimate timeline of 2017 for finalization of the rule I think just seems too long. Other countries are moving ahead more quickly than us as we speak, and the American leadership simply cannot be taken for granted and/or allowed to slip. I urge the FAA to act both quickly and carefully to ensure the United States leads the world in safe UAS integration. Having the resources of the FAA Technical Center and the six UAS test sites at its disposal, I believe the agency can achieve this important goal, and Mr. Larsen and I stand with the committee ready to work with Administrator Huerta, with you on this and on other issues. As we move forward with the FAA Reauthorization Act, we must ensure that our efforts to address these longstanding problems do not adversely impact safety, which has and will continue to be a top priority of the committee. On that note, I would like to hear from the Administrator on the FAA's efforts to implement one of the last outstanding requirements of the Airline Safety Act of 2010, the establishment of a pilot records database. On a final note, we are now well in the 21st century. However, many of our systems and regulatory platforms are for a 20th-century world. Now it is time for Congress, stakeholders, and the community to work together to do something big to ensure that our leadership in aviation is maintained. Before I recognize my colleague Mr. Larsen for his comments, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for the record of this hearing. Without objection, so ordered. And now I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen for any opening remarks. Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an opening statement that I will just summarize given the interest of time and the interest of the Members here today at the hearing. I want to just emphasize a few things in my opening statement. First off is safety, that as we do the FAA reauthorization, safety must be first thing on our mind. Second is investment. We need to find a way to work with FAA to ensure stable and adequate funding to mitigate impacts of sequestration and other constraints on the agency. Third is NextGen. Although there have been problems with implementation, with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and working with the RTCA and NextGen Advisory Committee we have been able to ensure a development of four key recommendations. That funding has been in the 2015 budget for those recommendations and we need to start looking at what the next steps are for NextGen reauthorization. Fourth is certification. As you mentioned, the consistent regulatory environment for consistent certification approvals for components and platforms is critical. And finally, the integration of UAS in the commercial airspace. These are some of the issues that I know we will be dealing with. But with that, I would ask unanimous consent for my full statement to be put in the record. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. Mr. Larsen. With that, I yield back. Mr. LoBiondo. Chairman Shuster. Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. LoBiondo, for holding this hearing. And, Administrator Huerta, thank you for being here today. I will be brief also because I know the Members have questions and we have shortened time here today. But I appreciate you being here today, and I think my two colleagues have laid out all the issues that we all want to solve. I hope that we can continue to be talking and start maybe a more intense debate about how we do significant reform, you and I have had these conversations, where we look around the world today and the air traffic control organizations literally across the world are being pulled out of Government and functioning more as a business. And they are maintaining safety. They are run more effectively, efficiently. They are limiting the political process. We have seen the 23 extensions, the sequestration, the Government shutdown, the political infighting that goes on. When you take it out of Government then they can operate and make decisions. They can make those investments long term without Congress as part of the problem. So, again, I look forward to having the discussions. And I will ask my question right now. So maybe somewhere in the process are you open to talking about serious, significant reform to the FAA to move the organization more to what the rest of the world is doing? So I look forward to hearing your testimony and questions today. So thanks for being here. I yield back. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Chairman Shuster. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have put my remarks regarding the reauthorization in the record. I share many of the concerns and objectives that have been raised. But I want to raise something else because I am quite concerned. GAO released a report yesterday--I was one of the corequesters of that report--which pointed out significant problems with the FAA in terms of cybersecurity. And I don't think I have ever seen a GAO report before that had 168 corrective actions and 17 general recommendations. And I have got to say that I am very, very concerned. To me, it is a nightmare scenario. I spent a number of years on the Committee on Homeland Security. We know there is an enduring interest in terrorist groups in aviation. They have used our aviation system as weapons. One can imagine they might be interested in hacking the system and perhaps could facilitate a midair collision. So I am very, very gravely concerned about this, and I hope that the Administrator can briefly address what he intends to do and how quickly we can move to secure the system. Thank you. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Today we are very pleased to welcome the Honorable Michael Huerta, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. Thank you for being here. We look forward to your testimony. TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Mr. Huerta. Thank you. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to speak about reauthorization of the FAA. It seems like not that long ago we were united behind the FAA reauthorization of 2012 with a sense of urgency to provide long-term funding to support our Nation's aviation system, and now we are here to continue that work. We have a joint responsibility, Government and industry, to pull together to create the air traffic system that will carry this Nation well into the 21st century. In the last 5 years, the FAA has made major progress in transforming our airspace system through NextGen, and that progression continues as we speak. The FAA has delivered on its commitment to build the foundation that will support the many applications of NextGen. In 2014, we completed the coast-to- coast installation of a network of radio transceivers that will enable a satellite-based air traffic control system that provides a more precise and efficient alternative to radar. With this foundation now in place, we are working with the airline industry and the general aviation community to help them to do their part to meet the requirement to equip by the 2020 deadline. By the end of this month we will finish the upgrade of our en route air traffic control automation system. This system will accommodate the new technologies of NextGen. This is one of the largest automation changeovers in the history of the FAA, and it results in a more powerful air traffic system that can handle the challenges of the coming decades. Through our collaboration with industry, last year we identified and agreed on key priorities in implementing NextGen and we have been following through. We now have more satellite- based procedures in our skies than radar-based procedures. We have created new NextGen routes in cities across America that are saving millions of dollars in fuel burn, shortening flight paths, decreasing carbon emissions, and cutting down on delays. All of this means that airline schedules are more predictable and travelers face fewer delays. The United States stands as a leader in aviation internationally and we intend to remain the gold standard. Our manufacturers produce innovative aircraft and avionics that help maintain our Nation's positive balance of trade. We are truly unique in that we have the most diverse aviation community, which includes new users like unmanned aircraft and commercial space vehicles. Civil aviation contributes 12 million jobs and $1.5 trillion to our national economy. America's leadership in aviation is being challenged on a global level, however, with the growth of foreign competitors and the shifting dynamics of supply chains. Domestically, the FAA faces challenges I think we can all acknowledge. We have competing priorities among our stakeholders, one of the byproducts of a healthy and diverse system, and we have had to navigate a constrained fiscal environment in recent years with nearly two dozen short-term extensions prior to the 2012 reauthorization. The FAA needs to prioritize its resources to leverage new technology and to respond nimbly to evolving challenges. To maintain our global leadership and to continue to reap the economic benefits of this industry we should use the upcoming reauthorization to provide the FAA with the tools necessary to meet the pressing demands of the future. A lot is at stake, and we need to get this right. To that end, the Administration has developed a set of principles that we believe will improve our Nation's airspace system and set the course for future progress. First, we need to maintain our excellent safety record and foster the use of data and the use of analysis to focus our precious resources on the areas of highest risk in our aviation system. We must continue the modernization of our air traffic control system. Part of that effort is to ensure stable funding for core operations and NextGen investments, and collaboration with industry is absolutely essential. We need to deliver benefits and the industry needs to equip to use these improvements. FAA reauthorization should secure appropriate funding for our Nation's airports. It should also enable the integration of new users into our airspace system and support the agency in fostering a culture of innovation and efficiency. The FAA also needs to realign today's airspace system with current demands. We need the flexibility to make investment choices that further the health of our airspace system so that everyone can benefit. Finally, we need to maintain our position of aviation leadership on the world stage. This means the FAA needs to remain at the table to shape and harmonize international aviation standards and promote seamless travel around the world. We are extremely proud of America's aviation heritage and the innovation and inspiration that our strong and diverse system has always provided. I look forward to working together to make sure that the United States continues to lead the world as we create the right conditions for further innovation and achievement in the second century of flight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Huerta. On the topic of NextGen, we have spent a lot of time, and I know there are tangible and now some measurable results, but there is still, in the minds of many Members and certainly for a lot of the stakeholders, a serious disconnect between what the Government auditors are saying and what the FAA is saying. And I am hoping you can shed some light and explain why there is such a disconnect where we have the FAA stating that NextGen is on time and delivering the benefits expected and Government auditors, which we heard from as recently as last week, talking about little benefits and slow implementation. And we are not talking about from 10 years ago. We are talking about this report we got last week was, like, in the last couple of years. Could you help us understand this? Mr. Huerta. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. NextGen is a very complex undertaking and it requires the deployment of core foundational technology upon which we build applications that the users are able to take advantage of. Both of those activities need to continue in tandem. The agency has been very focused on delivering the core infrastructure programs, such as the ADS-B program that I referenced in my opening statement, as well as the en route automation platform. The ADS-B program was delivered on time and on budget. The ERAM program was delayed, but we are coming to the conclusion of that. These programs create an important foundation. At the same time, however, the FAA has taken the step to work with the stakeholders, the airline industry and the general aviation community, to deliver specific benefits and to deliver them now. The focus of that has been on performance- based navigation where we have developed a number of programs in metropolitan areas to redesign airspace to result in very efficient flight paths that reduce fuel burn and therefore reduce cost to the industry. Last year there were two very significant developments with the redesign of the airspace around Houston, where we deployed 61 new air traffic procedures in a single day, followed by north Texas, where we delivered 81 new efficient procedures in a single day. We have also done airspace redesign projects here in Washington, DC, and in northern California and in Seattle, and other metropolitan areas are following. These metropolitan- focused benefit programs yield very, very significant fuel savings. Longer term, with the foundational infrastructure in place, we can focus on the national benefit programs, programs such as DataComm that we have been doing trials on and which we expect to complete in 2019. It is true that it is a project that has taken many years, but we are delivering benefits for users and we are delivering them now, and that pace will continue in the years ahead. Mr. LoBiondo. On the issue of safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems, of course it is of great interest to many people across the country, as you know. How does the FAA plan to utilize the test sites while it works through the small UAS rulemaking? Mr. Huerta. The test sites play a critical role in serving as the focal point for data and analysis and research in the areas of unmanned aircraft systems. As a result of research that is taking place at the FAA's Tech Center in Atlantic City, a lot of good research is being done on critical technologies that are essential for safe integration of unmanned aircraft. These include technologies such as detect and avoid, how do these aircraft sense other aircraft, which is critical to ensuring that they can be safely integrated. Likewise, it serves as the repository to share research data among the six test sites so that the research done at one test site can be broadly understood and can be used to eliminate research in all the other test sites. The Tech Center plays a critical role. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Larsen. Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Administrator Huerta, you outline in your testimony, your oral testimony and written, some of the advances you have made in NextGen implementation. So I have two questions on that. Despite that outline, there are still concerns not just from the industry, the airlines, but from other folks that nothing is being done or we are still way behind, all sorts of criticisms along those lines. Can you briefly address that? Mr. Huerta. The key developments that we have been able to make with NextGen have really brought the system a long way in realizing those benefits. I understand the skepticism that the industry and others in the system have had over many years, but I would encourage everyone to look at the very significant progress we have made in the last 5 years, as we have built out the foundational technologies and as we have been very, very focused on delivery of benefits. Under the direction and with the support of this committee, we have engaged actively with industry. The key part of doing that was to ensure that what we were focused on was delivering the priorities that industry want. As you know, we reached agreement with industry on four key areas of priority that they want us to focus on in the near term for the delivery of benefits. That was done through a collaborative process. We reached agreement on those priorities and we are tracking to the milestones that were set forth in those priorities. They include a significant increase of and focus on performance-based navigation, which we are doing through our Metroplex program. They want us to focus on surface operations, which we are very, very committed to. We also have a significant focus on DataComm. Right now the program is running in trials in two airports and will be deploying in two more in the months ahead. So by working in collaboration with industry we have identified their priorities. We are very focused on continuing to deliver in those areas. Mr. Larsen. OK. And the chairman and I sort of feel like ex officio members of the NAC at times when it comes to NextGen. So I know on UAS there is a significant backlog of section 333 exemption requests. What can we do to help make this process more streamlined? I know we have talked about approaching it from a programmatic approach rather than a one- off exemption approach without compromising safety. Can you provide an opinion of this programmatic approach that some of us have talked about? Mr. Huerta. Absolutely. Under section 333 of the reauthorization of 2012, Congress granted us the authority to grant exemptions to integrate particular users of unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System, and that has proven to be a very popular tool. We have a very large number of applications that have been received from industry. Mr. Larsen. About 450 or so? Mr. Huerta. Yes. The challenge that we have is that exemptions are granted to an individual or a company for a specific purpose. The agency has very limited ability to grant blanket exemptions to whole classes of users. So what that means is that we have to evaluate each application on its own individual merits and the specifics of what they want. Mr. Larsen. Would the agency argue that that is the language that section 333 says it has to do? Mr. Huerta. It has to do with the nature of an exemption. What section 333 authorized was the ability to grant an exemption. An exemption is to an individual for a specific purpose, and so it is the relationship of the two things. Anything that we can do that would enable us to look at classes of operators that have substantially identical facts or very similar characteristics I think could be quite helpful. Nonetheless, in the near term we are looking at what we can do to continue to streamline the process of granting the exemptions as we are currently doing them. Mr. Larsen. All right. That is fine. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LoBiondo. Chairman Shuster. Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Again, welcome, Mr. Huerta. Mr. Huerta. Thank you. Mr. Shuster. I laid out for you in my opening statement the problems we have seen with the sequestration, the 23 extensions, the problem with the DOT inspectors, the GAO report that Mr. DeFazio pointed out. And, again, my question is about, is the time ripe for us to be engaged in a debate to do significant reform? One of the things I learned in the last week or so was that Verizon, which does a lot of the same kind of things as you, manage data signals, moving things around, they have replaced their system four times in the last 10 years. They would still be in the 1G program instead of the 4G program. They have been able to do that, four times replacement in 10 years, and we have been talking about NextGen for 25 years. Blame the Congress too because of the way we have operated, 23 extensions, Government shutdowns. Those things aren't helpful either. But I think it is time for us to, again, look around the world and see that they have taken and moved the air traffic control organization out of Government. Let the FAA do what they are supposed to do, and that is regulate, make sure we get more certainty in the certification program. So, again, my question to you, is the time right for us to really be sitting down and talking about a significant restructuring with governance and the financing system of the FAA? Mr. Huerta. Mr. Chairman, there are three things that I think any structure needs to yield for the FAA as a whole. The first and most important we can agree on is that we have to maintain the safety of the system. The second is that we have to have an expeditious and orderly way to deploy technology and to make it operational. And the third is to recognize the tight relationship that exists between developing new operational procedures and certifying them for safe use within the system. The Secretary and I are both very open to a discussion on structures that would enable us to achieve that, but I would stress that what we have to ensure is that there are not unintended consequences that could actually set back the significant progress that we are making. The other point that I would like to make is that the technology systems that the FAA is responsible for are fundamentally different in many ways from telecommunications and other technology systems in this respect: Their principal purpose is to ensure that a system is safe. What that means is it imposes, and I think correctly, a very high threshold on the performance of those systems, as well as mitigations and backups, to ensure that they don't in any way compromise safety. Clearly, we are all focused on how we can do that as efficiently as possible, and we are open to a discussion about how best to do that. Mr. Shuster. All right. And I agree with you wholeheartedly. It has got to be safety, safety, safety. And you also have industry. Boeing wants their planes to fly forever. And so they are fixated on safety, which they should be. But would you agree that there are examples around the world that are doing things very differently than we are and they still maintain that high level of safety in their operations? Mr. Huerta. There are examples around the world of very different models, but it is also important to recognize that we have a significantly different aviation system than any other part of the world. Mr. Shuster. Just in size alone, is that the---- Mr. Huerta. In size alone, but also in composition and mix. There is no one that has the robust and highly diverse general aviation industry that we have. There is no one that has the mix of metropolitan and rural areas that we have and the mix of airspace and the challenges associated with management that go with that. There is no one that has the diversity of users that we have, particularly the new ones, such as the development of commercial space and the development of unmanned aircraft systems. What we have to come up with is an operational model that works for the United States, not for other countries. I think that what will come out of that, recognizing the uniquely American set of circumstances that we have, is to come up with uniquely American solutions to address them. Mr. Shuster. And I agree with that. Making those points drives me to believe that NextGen, the technology is absolutely essential and we have been talking about it and talking about it. And finally the time comes we have to do it, and that is why I believe so firmly that we have got to do something different. Again, not only because of things not going right at FAA, but because of Congress' starts and stops when it comes to funding and things that we do up here. So, again, I appreciate your openness to talk about this and to debate this and look forward to working with you. Yield back. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, I directed a question at the beginning, there are concerns about the GAO report. Do you want to tell me your reaction, what you are going to do, how quickly you can deal with this? Mr. Huerta. Sure. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. First and foremost, the system is safe. GAO acknowledged in their report that the agency has made significant progress in identifying the issues that they talked about, and of the many recommendations, many have already been mitigated, and we are working closely with them to continue to focus on outstanding concerns. I am very actively focused on the recommendations. As I mentioned, we have remediated a very significant number of the technical findings already. We established a Cybersecurity Steering Committee a number of years ago. This was part of an initiative to give greater focus to the whole question of cyber. I have asked them to provide oversight on behalf of the agency on a risk-based approach as we address each of these recommendations. They are not all equal. We have been proactive in identifying other potential actions to enhance the cybersecurity posture of our National Airspace System, as well as the agency as a whole, and we have been working with our other Government partners, those that, like us, have technology-based organizations to ensure that we are using best practices. It is something that I am very committed to and very concerned about, and we are remediating this as quickly as we can. Mr. DeFazio. You are moving or intending to move a lot to the cloud. Doesn't that raise concerns? Mr. Huerta. It raises an important question. As we have transitioned our National Airspace System from what has largely been a closed system to an IP-based system where we are buying services from the private sector, what it means is not so much that we are opening up a problem that we haven't had, but it means that we have to ensure that we are using private sector best practices to ensure that we have the appropriate cyber controls in place. Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, I haven't had a chance to read the 168 SSI recommendations, but I have got to say I am going to be looking for some very specific assurances when I find some critical deficiencies, because a hack of the air traffic control system could lead to catastrophic consequences, in my opinion. Quickly on a couple of other issues. I started maybe 15 years ago raising concerns about foreign repair stations with more and more work moving there. I have concerns that these people don't undergo background checks, but also at least minimally drug and alcohol testing. We have been working on a rule for I don't know how long. Where are we at? Mr. Huerta. We did publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on drug testing in foreign repair stations. We received a number of comments. We are evaluating those now and we want to get the notice out in the near future. Mr. DeFazio. It has been about, I think, a decade. Then how about the centralized database for pilot records? Where are we on that? Mr. Huerta. We have done a fair amount of work on a centralized database. One of the things that we wanted to see is what we could learn from other industries that focus on centralized records from a wide variety of different technology sources. This one is technically very difficult for us to work through and to do it in a way that we can ensure that it meets the appropriate cost-benefit hurdles that it needs to meet. But it is something that is within the agency, and I am hopeful that we are going to have a resolution of it in the not too distant future. Mr. DeFazio. OK. And then we have had a lot of talk about certification. I am concerned about whether or not you are able to have adequate oversight with the proliferation of the ODAs out there? I mean, are you concerned about those staffing levels? Are you looking at augmenting those staffing levels? My understanding is these inspectors are carrying massive workloads and they are going to get around, like, once every 3 years maybe to look at something. Mr. Huerta. The challenge is to come up with the appropriate balance of how do we use data to determine the highest areas of risk and to focus our efforts on those areas. Even if the FAA had all of the resources in the world, aviation by its very nature is all about innovative technology, and we have to ensure that we get the expertise from the people that have it. Sometimes that will be from the industry, and the designation process is intended to find that right balance between what the agency retains and what we rely on industry to do on our behalf. Mr. DeFazio. So do you think it is optimal at this point then? Mr. Huerta. I don't think it is optimal because I think the industry is always evolving. I know that we have to be more nimble in how we do our part of it. Likewise, we have to have appropriate tools that enable us to audit industry acting on our behalf to ensure that there are not problems in the system. Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for expressing our continuing concern about the cost overruns on the NextGen contracts and so forth. But, Mr. Administrator, I have two other concerns. First of all, there is great interest in and even great concern about unmanned aircraft, drones, and the DOT inspector general several months ago issued a report about the FAA being behind schedule and there being what they called a magnitude of safety and privacy concerns about drones. We are reading that Amazon and a lot of other big companies want to do potentially millions of deliveries by drones. People are wondering about are they going to walk through their neighborhood and have to dodge these vehicles, and privacy concerns, and so forth. Where do you see all of that heading and are we going to be able to put limitations or control on some of these unmanned vehicles? Mr. Huerta. Mr. Duncan, I think you have very well summarized the three competing things that need to be balanced as we integrate unmanned aircraft. On the one hand, there are the innovators that want to take advantage of the technology to do as much as they can. On the other hand, the public has expressed concerns about how they are safely integrated. There are also concerns that have been expressed about ensuring that individuals' rights to privacy are protected. The FAA is extremely concerned and very focused on how we balance the first two of these. How can we provide for integration, but how do we ensure that it is done safely? The small UAS rule that we put out earlier this year strikes a balance between dividing the industry into different classes of unmanned aircraft; very small, where there might be less risk, and then larger, where we would suggest that there would be different requirements that should be created for them. We have proposed to create a different class of operator, not a pilot's license but an unmanned aircraft operator, and for certain classes we have proposed that they be exempt from the certification requirement. But they still need to meet appropriate standards of safety. On the same day that we announced our rule, the White House put out a policy related to privacy, and I think that reflects the larger concern that we as a Government need to be concerned about, and that is how do we ensure the appropriate levels of protection for personal privacy. The Government's policy deals with the Government's own use of unmanned aircraft, but the President also tasked the Commerce Department through the NTIA to really take the lead in looking at these larger questions of privacy and how do we ensure that individuals' privacy is protected. We are going to need to balance all of these things as we integrate unmanned aircraft into the airspace system and as we do it safely. Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you. There are other aspects to that, but I don't have time to get into all that. I do want to raise my other topic that I have always had so much concern about. In the late 1990s, Atlanta Airport testified before us that their main, longest runway took 14 years from conception to completion. It took only 99 construction days. And in every aspect or every part of the work that this committee does, highway projects, the rail bill that we will have in there today, we have tried to put in environmental streamlining. Sometimes over the years it seems that we have been more successful at lip service than we have about actual action and speeding things up. And we seem to take about three times as long as other developed nations on almost all these other major transportation projects. Are you satisfied that we are doing everything that needs to be done, speeding up project delivery times and an environmental streamlining, so we can get these things done in cost-effective ways? Mr. Huerta. The Congress gave us some important tools in our last authorization in 2012. Those are dealing with the environmental process as it relates to airspace redesign, which is critical for us to deliver performance-based navigation and NextGen. There were two categorical exclusions where Congress directed us that, under certain criteria, we could make a finding of a categorical exclusion, which greatly accelerates the environmental process. The first one we adopted as policy. The second one we worked with the NextGen Advisory Committee to come up with a way forward of how to implement it. So this is something that we are very focused on. I will say that in your home airport in Atlanta, one of the things that we have been focused on in the airspace redesign is how we can get more capacity out of the runways that they have already built. As a result of that activity we have been able to get a significant increase in both the arrival and departure capacity as a result of doing airspace changes and relying on this streamlined process that we are talking about. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few questions that I have. First, I will start out with this one. Lewis University Airport is located in Will County, which is an important part of my district, one of the fastest growing regions in northeastern Illinois. Lewis University Airport submitted a list of capital needs to the Illinois Department of Transportation, which administers the FAA State Block Grant Program. A few of the priorities include land acquisition for runway safety, a runway rehabilitation project, and most importantly, a control tower, which is critical to support the airport's role as a generator of regional economic growth, an important reliever airport for Midway and O'Hare International Airports, and also a training school. I appreciate the meeting that we are going to have next month to discuss these important needs. I look forward to that meeting and discussing what potential ways there are for the FAA to fund these projects, but especially the control towers. That leads me to a more general question. I am wondering if you can provide any updates on the remote tower initiative that is ongoing? Mr. Huerta. Thank you. The FAA has started a program and is conducting research on what technology enables us to do in terms of using a remote tower capability. Essentially, it is a combination of sensors, cameras, and other technology that creates, if you will, a virtual tower. The controllers that are actually removed from the facility in question have the ability to operate it as if it is a tower that is located on the field. This is technology that has been deployed in some very remote regions of the far northern parts of Europe, and we have been focused on working with that technology. We do have a program that we are doing in conjunction with the Commonwealth of Virginia to actually test this here at Leesburg Airport. This is a project that we are working cooperatively with our labor partners, as well as the airport, in order to test this technology and understand how it works, not only for Leesburg, but how it works in conjunction with the congested airspace surrounding the Washington airports. The interaction between what we are doing at this particular airport I think will be very useful. If the results are promising, this is something that I want to move out on very aggressively because it holds great potential to address the needs that you are discussing. Mr. Lipinski. Any sense of when you may have the results that you are confident in? Mr. Huerta. It depends on where this takes us. The program is really just getting started at Leesburg right now. We have to develop some data in terms of how it operates in different kinds of weather and different traffic conditions. We can provide detailed information on that to your office on a regular basis so that we can give you a sense of what we are learning from that. Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Lewis University is one of the 36 Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative schools, and students from my district and across the Nation chose to attend Lewis because of the advantages that CTI schools provide. We all know that the hiring process was changed just over a year ago and this really hurts the students who decide at a young age to enroll in a program fostered by the FAA. I understand that a graduate of a CTI school is never guaranteed a job, but they did have an advantage in the hiring process that they gained in exchange for working hard in school while paying tuition. I think the unique nature of these degrees is also worth noting. While a CTI graduate with a specialized degree can always pursue a different career path, the window to become an air traffic controller closes shut at age 31 and there is no going back. I am wondering, I would like to know what the FAA is planning to do this year to build off the language of H.R. 83 to help students who enrolled or graduated after the hiring changes. I understand the purposes of the hiring changes, but I am concerned about the students who have put all of the time and effort and money into the CTI programs. Mr. Huerta. Sure. We are implementing the provisions of the piece of legislation that you mentioned in this year's hiring program, and we have identified all the individuals that are affected by those provisions going forward. I would like to step back and talk about the broader points that you make about the benefit of the education program, as well as the point about there being no guarantee. This is a highly competitive job. We received 28,000 applicants for 1,600 positions, so under any scenario there will be a lot of people that would like the job that don't get it. But of those that we selected, two-thirds were CTI graduates, which I think indicates the value of the CTI education and how it positions people to compete for this highly competitive profession. Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. My time I yield back. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Rokita. Mr. Rokita. I thank the Chair. And, good morning, Administrator. Good to be with you. And could you keep your microphone really close to your mouth? Maybe that would help. Mr. Huerta. OK. Sorry about that. Mr. Rokita. Yeah. Thank you very much. Listening to your testimony and some phrases have popped out. Let me reiterate them, and I apologize for the paraphrase. Feel free to push back if I am unfair in the paraphrasing. But you have testified so far that we need to keep our leadership position in aviation on the world stage. You said no one else in the world has a GA industry as robust as ours. That is fair. And then you said we need to come up with uniquely American solutions because we have an airspace system and a population of different stakeholders and users that is unique. Fair? Mr. Huerta. Fair. Mr. Rokita. I agree with all that as well. My question is, it is clear to me you are not a short order cook. OK? It is clear to me the agency is not a short order cook, nor should we be when it comes to promulgating regulations. I believe in the old adage measure twice, cut once. But how long do you think it should take to come up with these uniquely American solutions in terms of promulgating regulations? Take the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act, the legislation that would repeal the third-class medical requirement, generally. We have talked about that. You have written rules, apparently, but we haven't seen them. You said I would like the rules, and perhaps 180 of us as cosponsors would like the rules, perhaps love the rules. Maybe I will use the word love. Maybe you said like. I am waiting to like. I am waiting to love. Are you satisfied with how long it is taking for either these rules or how long it took for the UAS rules to come out or the fact that the part 23 rewrite has gone way beyond the time? And I am not trying to give you a gotcha question. Just as a fellow leader, and as a person who used to run a big agency himself, how do you keep the accountability train moving? How do you measure metrics? How did you measure progress in these situations? Mr. Huerta. The regulatory process, as you know, is quite deliberate. It can be quite frustrating. It is intended to balance and to deliberate over many competing objectives that are out there. On the point of the third-class medical, you are correct, the agency has done a lot of work in this area, and we have been in a discussion with our administration partners on what is the best way to proceed going forward and how we could proceed on this and make it available for comment. I think that the process certainly takes longer than I would like. It is something that I understand, though, because there are many competing points of view and in the other regulatory---- Mr. Rokita. These haven't even gotten out to the public. It is not just about GAPPA. It is about the part 22 rewrite. Mr. Huerta. I understand. Mr. Rokita. It is about the UAS that just hit the street, those regulations. I mean, yes or no, satisfied? Mr. Huerta. I think that I would like to see a quicker process, but I understand that there are a lot of competing interests that need to be resolved. Mr. Rokita. Thank you. In that same vein, when do you anticipate implementing the Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommendations for sections 312 and 313 of the last reauthorization that had to do with the aircraft certification and the streamlining competing regulations? Mr. Huerta. Section 312, we submitted the report to Congress in 2012, as you know. We have completed, I believe, 10 of the 14 recommendations or activities that we put forward with respect to that and we are focused very much on the others. Mr. Rokita. Any timeline? Mr. Huerta. I will have to get back with a specific timeline on that. Mr. Rokita. When can you get back to me? Mr. Huerta. We can get back to you soon. Mr. Rokita. Next week, 2 weeks? Mr. Huerta. Next week. Next week. We will get back with you next week with a report. Mr. Rokita. Thanks, Administrator. Next question that I had, regarding AIPs and PFCs, do you have any comments, does the agency have any comment on what the cap should be and is it time to raise the passenger facility charge, or is it time to tweak the measurements or the formula or the priorities that we issue AIP moneys, especially in the pure discretionary area? Mr. Huerta. The Administration set forward its proposal in the President's budget, which would raise the PFC from the current cap of $4.50 to $8 for large airports and at the same time remove the large airports from the entitlement formula program. The thought here is that the large airports have the ability to generate significant revenues based on their own activities, but at the same time to preserve the basic access requirements for smaller communities and smaller airports. Mr. Rokita. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. A couple of notes for the good of the order. There has been a request because of the time crunch, and we covered this at the beginning, but just to make it clear, any Members who have questions that there will not be time for, we will submit for the record. And, Mr. Huerta, I am sure your team will help get back to us. Mr. Huerta. Absolutely. Mr. LoBiondo. And then I would like to ask unanimous consent, in light of the hard stop at 10:40, very hard stop at 10:40, in consultation with Mr. Larsen and Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Shuster, that we go to a hard 3-minute questioning. Mr. Larsen, would you like to comment? Mr. Larsen. You had talked to us about it, Mr. Chairman, and I know it is going to be difficult for Members with that, but with the hard stop facing us, we accept that. Mr. LoBiondo. OK. So without objection, so ordered. Mr. Carson, you are recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman. Administrator Huerta, thank you, sir. Indiana airport directors who are here today briefed our delegation this morning about their consensus regarding the need for Congress to raise the cap on passenger facility charges. Now, they are being as creative as they possibly can be to finance the critical infrastructure, as you know, sir, the projects needed across the great Hoosier State. But it is not enough. I think we all know that. First, sir, do you think it is possible, or even realistic for that matter, for local airports to make the infrastructure improvements they need without raising PFCs? And secondly, if you agree that the PFCs need to be raised, how should that be done? What does that look like in real terms? And what are your thoughts about any recommendations? Mr. Huerta. Well, our proposal clearly would indicate that we do think it is an appropriate time to raise the PFC for the larger airports, in particular. The proposal to take it from $4.50 to $8 essentially has the effect of adjusting it for inflation from when the last time that the PFC was set. I think that it is important that those airports that have the ability to derive revenues locally do have all of the tools at their disposal, and the PFC is a very, very important tool in that toolbox to enable them to meet their needs. Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Carson. Mr. Hanna for 3 minutes. Mr. Hanna. Thank you. There is a theme here today that the FAA is fundamentally behind in everything, right? So the question I have for you is, along with Mr. Rokita's comments, we are seeing U.S. companies going overseas to test UAVs. So the question I have is, how can Congress in this next authorization help you deal with that, and what can we do from here to help you be more efficient and perhaps lure these companies or keep these companies from moving overseas? Mr. Huerta. I could give you a couple of suggestions with respect to that. The first is, as we work through the---- Mr. Hanna. Excuse me, do you agree that that is the case? Mr. Huerta. In part, but that is what I am going to address. The key thing that I think that we look forward to working with the committee on is the implementation of the small UAS rule, which if implemented in the form that we proposed would provide the most flexible regulatory environment for small unmanned aircraft anywhere in the world. The second thing is Congress provided very significant support for integration in the last authorization. The chairman noted the development of the unmanned aircraft test sites as being key to that. One of the things that we want to use the test sites to focus on is the very testing that you are talking about. We have heard, though, from many members of the unmanned aircraft community that since no funds were authorized for appropriation to the test sites, the test sites have turned to the testing itself as being the business model through which they support themselves. I have heard a story from one company of being charged a quarter million dollars for a week's testing for a small manufacturer of unmanned aircraft. So I think providing a supportive framework that enables the test sites to provide low-cost testing resources for companies here in the U.S. would be something that would be very worthwhile. Mr. Hanna. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Mrs. Kirkpatrick. My question has to do with the CTI institutions. In 2012 and 2013 Arizona State University participated in an FAA diversity study. The survey highlighted the CTI organization's historically diverse alumni pool. ASU's CTI graduates certify at a rate two times faster than the national average, thereby significantly reducing the FAA cost to the taxpayers. The FAA's recent change in hiring practice has eliminated employment possibilities for over 400 Arizona students and graduates. The nationwide impact is much greater as CTI institutions exist in over 20 States. The students in these classes have made large personal investments based upon published FAA commitments to hire and based upon longstanding practices. So my question is, why make the change now? Why has this change been made? Mr. Huerta. The first thing to recognize is that the air traffic controller position is an extremely attractive position, and there will always be more candidates than there are positions. Earlier I used the example of last year where we had 28,000 applications for only 1,600 positions. So this is a rate that is less than a lot of elite colleges in terms of your ability to get a job. The CTI program does not provide any degree of guaranteeing anyone having a job, but it is something that the agency takes very seriously. In this last hire, two-thirds of those hired came out of CTI institutions, so it does recognize that what we have in the CTI program is skill building that enables us to get people through the system. What we are trying to balance and recognize is, as the profession changes, we want to ensure that the air traffic controller position is available for the broadest range of qualified candidates so that we can get the best pool of applicants, so that we can ensure the most qualified workforce and the safest system that we possibly can have. Mrs. Kirkpatrick. My concern really is about the cost to the taxpayer. So I hope you will factor that into that equation as well. Thank you, and I yield back. Mr. Shuster [presiding]. Thank the gentlelady. And Mr. Graves for 3 minutes. Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of questions, but we are obviously not going to get to them. I do have one real quick, and I don't know if you can give me a real fast answer on your revised guidance document when it comes to hangar policy. And I have got to say, I don't know why, given the limited resources the FAA has, why the FAA is even delving into this. I think it is a local airport authority issue and should be that. But I know you have got a policy that is sitting out there. Do you know what the status is right now? Mr. Huerta. I will check on it this afternoon and get you a response, Congressman. Mr. Graves of Missouri. All right. And then the next thing is something I am hearing from all over the country, and this concerns me a great deal from the small business standpoint, and that is the change in policy the FAA has come up with when it comes to testing pilot proficiency check rides in restricted use aircraft. We have got businesses out there, as an example, firefighting, they are authorized to use the aircraft, but now they are no longer authorized to be able to test without an exemption. You have got an exemption process in there, but we are hearing that that process can take months, and this is going to shut down a lot of those businesses. The process of being able to test or do your test or proficiency check rides in these aircraft is a policy that has been in place for 50 years, and I know the FAA just changed it, and it is serious. Businesses are calling, they are frantic because they are going to go bankrupt if they can't do their business. This has to be resolved right away. It is a problem. And, again, it goes back to not having enough resources to be able to process these exemptions very, very quickly if there is even an exemption issued. Mr. Huerta. Sure. Let me check on it. Mr. Graves of Missouri. OK. Thanks. Mr. Shuster. As the gentleman knows, you can submit all the questions you want for the record. Mr. Graves of Missouri. Well, I have four. Mr. Shuster. And with that, Ms. Norton is recognized for 3 minutes. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question that I think must trouble other Members from major metropolitan regions. I notice on page 4 of your testimony you say that you want to make aviation safer and smarter. And I wonder if NextGen and what you are doing there, whether that also applies to making planes less noisy. There are a number of communities near the Reagan National Airport-- the Foxhall, Palisades, and Georgetown communities, with constant issues before NextGen, and we have had some NextGen implementation here. Later this spring I am going to be having a community meeting. I am troubled, though, that the community has been meeting with the FAA and with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and thus far the questions about noise, and noise itself, remain and the questions are unanswered. It seems to me that it would be very important for there to be a collaboration between FAA and communities, particularly since these communities are now densely populated with real people. And I am asking if you will be available or if FAA will be available to participate if I have a community meeting trying to sort these issues out? Mr. Huerta. The FAA will certainly work with you to address these community concerns and to respond to them. I can give you a couple of things that we are working on, though. As a result of the redesign of the airspace here in the Washington area, we have been working very closely to ensure that flight paths are more precise, that they follow the river. Ms. Norton. Yes, that is critical, rather than following the community. Mr. Huerta. The river does wind, but as a result of technology we are able to follow it much more precisely. That is something where we have a very active program with MWAA, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, to ensure that aircraft are in fact following the river going forward. We have a larger initiative that we have undertaken as well, which is really to study the question of the DNL metric, that is the day-night average method that is used as the measure of aircraft noise. This is something that has been around for a very long time. As a result of just the changes in technology, as well as the evolution of how aircraft engines and aircraft airframes have evolved, we want to validate and determine whether we need to change the metric of how we look at noise and how we measure its impact on communities. Ms. Norton. This would be very important. A resident wrote the FAA's ombudsman and has said that there are only 3\1/5\ hours per night when there are no flights over these communities. This is just unacceptable. One more question, if I have time. Mr. Shuster. Your time is going to expire. So I would ask you to submit it in writing because we have 6 minutes and I have got two Members here. Ms. Norton. Let's let those Members speak then. Mr. Shuster. OK. And submit it for the record. Mr. Capuano. Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Administrator. Twelve years ago I fought to get on this committee and one of the first things I learned about was NextGen. Sounded great to me, safety and improved efficiency. Twelve years later and, I don't know, about 1,000 hearings on NextGen, and, I don't know, give or take $5 billion of taxpayer money and I don't know how much money in private companies. It has now been implemented in Boston. And I have got to be honest, Mr. Administrator, my support is significantly wavering. I don't see much change for all the money and effort. This is not laying on you. I don't think there is anything bad, I think it is good to try something new. But sometimes it is also good to say maybe it is not worth the money. And I am kind of at that point now. Especially I am following up on a question on DCA, as far as Boston goes, I am told that I can't even intentionally fan planes because, oh, no, we can't do that, yet in DCA you can do this. I just landed that way the other day, sounded great. I understand it. But I can't do it anyplace else. That doesn't make sense, especially when we spend all this time and money on a system that should allow you to do that exact same thing. Mr. Administrator, I have got to tell you, my real basic question is, why should I continue to support throwing money at NextGen when I have yet to see enough bang for the buck when it comes to decreasing noise, when it comes increasing safety, when it comes to decreasing delays, or any of other things that we had hoped that NextGen would support. I want to be clear, I have always been a supporter of NextGen. I kind of still am, but I won't be until we start seeing these savings again really quickly. I haven't seen them and I don't think I am going to see them in the near future and I just would like to give you the opportunity to convince me to hang in there. Mr. Huerta. Well, I would encourage you to hang in there. We are seeing significant benefits all around the country. But I would like to talk about some of the specific things we are doing in Boston. Boston Center has been fully upgraded in terms of the new automation platform, the en route automation platform that is really central to the deployment of all of the NextGen benefits that we are talking about, and it is operating and operating very, very well. Boston Logan Airport is an important test facility for us to test a lot of NextGen-related surface operations that greatly increase the efficiency of the airport, reducing departure delays, and also reducing congestion on the ground. We have a great relationship with the Massachusetts Port Authority to try to make the airport operate more efficiently. As we deploy more performance-based navigation procedures at Boston and at all the New England airports and throughout the country, what the airlines get is more efficient fuel consumption, as well---- Mr. Capuano. Mr. Administrator, I don't mean to interrupt you, and that is all well and good, but why are my complaints going through the roof? I mean, I have always had complaints about the airport, it is a congested area, but there are now much more than there have ever been. And, honestly, it started when RNAV was implemented. Mr. Huerta. Well, I think it goes back to something that I talked about with Congresswoman Norton. One of the things that we want to understand is, is there is a fundamental public shift in its interpretation and understanding of airport noise and how we respond to it. And this is one of the reasons that we want to look at the DNL metric to see whether we have better tools to evaluate noise on a community. Mr. Capuano. When you do, please talk to some of us who have suffered with it, but not just the so-called experts. Mr. Huerta. No, it is actually a national survey that we are doing of communities around airports. Mr. Capuano. Why don't you talk to some people who lived under---- Mr. Shuster. The gentleman's time has expired. I thank the gentleman for his questions. And with that, the final 3 minutes goes to Mr. Meadows. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huerta, thank you. I will be very specific. We have had a number of hearings where we have talked about certification process, specifically toward general aviation. A number of recommendations made in those hearings. What I want to see from you is specifically three major streamlinings of that process. I am tired of hearing about it, I am tired of getting testimony and nothing getting done. It needs to go in this reauthorization. I am committed to helping you with this reauthorization, but I am not committed if you are not going to do that. Do I have your assurance that you can help us with streamlining the certification process? Mr. Huerta. I think what you are referring to is the rewrite of part 23, which are the provisions that deal with general aviation, where we have worked collaboratively with industry. We are planning to get a notice of proposed rulemaking out this year on that. Mr. Meadows. Well, can we have your thoughts on that before that? Because obviously we have got a reauthorization process that is in the formation process now. I don't want to wait to have that. We need to have that. Can we get that from you? Mr. Huerta. Because we are in a rulemaking process, I can't disseminate what is in the rule, but we can---- Mr. Meadows. Well, you are disseminating it to other people. No, I mean, you are just saying you can't disseminate it to Congress? Mr. Huerta. No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is I can't actually publicly put out what is in the rule until it comes out for a notice. But we can certainly share with you---- Mr. Meadows. But you can tell us what your thinking is. Mr. Huerta. We can certainly tell you what the results of the ARC have been, working with industry and exactly where---- Mr. Meadows. Well, we have probably heard that at hearings. But let me go on further. You talked about gold standards, and EASA is starting to take over that gold standard, if we start to look at internationally in terms of competition. So I want to ask you, what are you personally doing to promote U.S. products internationally? Mr. Huerta. The FAA cannot actually promote U.S.---- Mr. Meadows. Well, they are, your competition is. Mr. Huerta. That is true. They have a specific promotional authority. Our promotional authority was removed from us in 1996. And so how we focus on promoting U.S. products is ensuring that we can streamline the process to get the products to market. Mr. Meadows. And so can you submit to this committee three things where you have actually streamlined regulations, significant? Mr. Huerta. Sure. Mr. Meadows. I am not talking about just small, but I am talking about significant streamlining. Have you actually done that, is that your testimony here today? Mr. Huerta. Yes, it is, and I would be happy to share examples with you. Mr. Meadows. All right. I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. Again, I apologize to all the members of the committee for not being able to continue this. Mr. Huerta, thank you for being there today. We thought about coming back after, but it is an hour and a half and I want the Administrator to go back to the FAA and work on all these things we have been talking about. But we appreciate you being here. Members, I am sure, will be submitting questions. I would encourage you to get back to us as quick as you can. It would make my life easier when they start pounding on me on why they are not getting responses. But you have been very good in that in the past and we appreciate that. Again, thank you for being here. And thanks to all the Members for being here. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]