U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

24–210 PDF 2017

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 

AMERICA: STATE OF AMERICAN AVIATION 

MANUFACTURING 

(115–2) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan, Vice Chair 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Margaret Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Dorenda Baker, Director, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA ......................................................................................... 7 

Alan H. Epstein, Ph.D., Vice President of Technology and Environment, Pratt 

& Whitney ............................................................................................................. 7 

John Hamilton, Vice President of Engineering, Boeing Commercial Airplanes . 7 

Michael Thacker, Senior Vice President of Engineering, Textron Aviation ....... 7 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Margaret Gilligan .................................................................................................... 42 

Alan H. Epstein, Ph.D. ............................................................................................ 53 

John Hamilton ......................................................................................................... 58 

Michael Thacker ...................................................................................................... 60 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Margaret Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, response to question for the record from Hon. Andre ́

Carson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana .................... 52 

Letter of February 14, 2017, from Chuck Wiplinger, President and COO, 

Wipaire, Inc., to Hon. Jason Lewis, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Minnesota, submitted by Hon. Lewis ............................................ 69 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 24210.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 24210.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 24210.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 24210.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 24210.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 24210.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 24210.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 24210.008
(1) 

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: STATE OF AMERICAN 

AVIATION MANUFACTURING 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

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

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The subcommittee will please 

come to order. Thank you all for being here. I would like to ask 

unanimous consent that Members that are not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today’s 

hearing and ask questions. 

OK, without objection, so ordered. 

Before I begin my statement, I would like to take a moment to 

recognize that February 12th was the eighth anniversary of the 

tragic crash of the Colgan flight 3407 that claimed the lives of 50 

people. This anniversary is a vivid reminder to all of us that ensuring safety of our aviation system is and will continue to be our top 

priority. I want to thank the Colgan family members for their continued dedication and involvement and advocacy. 

Today the Aviation Subcommittee will hold its first hearing of 

the 115th session of Congress. This hearing is also the first in a 

series of hearings to prepare for the FAA reauthorization bill. This 

Congress, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is 

looking to the future and how we build a 21st-century infrastructure for America. With this in mind, today the subcommittee will 

discuss the state of aviation manufacturing, the challenges it faces, 

where it is heading in the 21st century, and how we ensure the 

continued success of this segment of the aviation infrastructure. 

Aviation manufacturing is a critical sector of our Nation’s economy that contributes billions of dollars and supports millions of 

good-paying American jobs. The United States has always been the 

gold standard in aviation safety, as well as the leader in aviation 

manufacturing. U.S. civil aircraft manufacturing is a top net exporter, with U.S. aviation goods being delivered throughout the 

world. However, recently, global competition, as well as redundant, 

outdated, and inefficient rules and regulatory processes have jeopardized that lead. 

2 

The FAA plays an important role in ensuring that all aircraft 

and aircraft components made in the United States meet specific 

design and production safety standards. This role is absolutely critical to ensure that safety is never compromised. It is the FAA Tech 

Center in my district in South Jersey that all certification research 

is performed. The Tech Center is finding more and more ways to 

improve airport designs and procedures, as well as develop fire 

suppression capabilities for aircraft. 

Yet, the certification process has its problems. As manufacturers 

design and build to meet those standards, they can experience 

needless and harmful bureaucratic delays, both internationally and 

domestically. These delays can be very detrimental to U.S. manufacturers trying to compete globally where every day of delay can 

mean real losses in both profits and jobs. 

As the aviation industry expands its international reach, and introduces new technologies and innovations, it is critical the FAA 

certification and regulatory process adapt and respond. The FAA 

must leverage the expertise of the private sector and fully utilize 

all of the authorities it has been granted. Enabling our aviation 

manufacturers to enter new markets and innovate, while ensuring 

the highest level of safety, is a top priority of this subcommittee. 

Today I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ viewpoints on the 

state of American aviation manufacturing and where they believe 

it is headed in the 21st century. I also want to hear their suggestions on what role the Government can play to support the aviation 

manufacturing industry’s continued success. I thank all of the witnesses for joining us today. 

And finally, I would like to take the opportunity to thank Ms. 

Peggy Gilligan for her years of service. As many of you know, this 

will be Peggy’s last hearing, testifying before our subcommittee. 

Peggy began her career with the FAA in 1980, and this spring, 

after 37 years of dedicated service, she will be retiring. 

I would like to thank you for your dedicated service and all that 

you have contributed to the FAA and aviation. 

Before I recognize my colleague, Mr. Larsen, for his comments, 

I would like to 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. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling today’s 

hearing on the state of American aviation manufacturing. 

The U.S. aviation industry is an economic powerhouse. In 2014 

civil aircraft manufacturing in the U.S. generated a total output of 

more than $143 billion, an increase of more than $20 billion since 

2012. This number does not account for the tens of billions of dollars in output from engine and aircraft parts manufacturing, and 

this topic naturally hits close to home for me. 

According to the State of Washington in 2014, the aerospace in- dustry generated over $85 billion in economic activity throughout 

the State. More than 1,300 Washington aerospace businesses support more than 260,000 jobs and travel for billions of passengers 

each year. These companies range from Boeing, whom this panel 

will hear from today, to the many small businesses that are a critVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:05 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2-15-2~1\24210.TXT JEAN
3 

ical part of the aviation supply chain, and there is some discussion 

going on in Lynnwood, Washington, today, in my district, at the 

Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance conference on these very 

issues. 

In 2014, 95 percent of all commercial airplanes produced in 

North America were manufactured in and took their maiden flights 

from Washington State. So, needless to say, manufacturing and 

certification are critical to my home State, but many Members here 

today have a robust aviation manufacturing presence in their districts. 

The issues we explore this morning have been explored before by 

this panel, and I thank Chairman LoBiondo for remaining focused 

on them. Without question, the predictable and timely certification 

of aircraft and aircraft components is critical for domestic manufacturers to get their products to market. 

I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses about what 

difficulties U.S. manufacturers face, what the FAA and this subcommittee can do to make the agency’s certification process more 

consistent and efficient, while providing nothing less than the highest level of safety. 

To that end, I understand the FAA’s certification workload is 

constantly growing, while the size of its inspection workforce is not. 

The FAA needs adequate staffing resources to do the job and keep 

pace with new demands and new technologies. This is one reason 

the FAA’s Organization Designation Authorization program, or 

ODA, is critical to making the certification process more efficient. 

So I look forward today to hearing about ODA, how the program 

could be better used, and the FAA’s recent efforts in this area. 

A common theme I hear during conversations with manufacturers as well is they’re competing in an increasingly crowded global 

market. Chairman LoBiondo and I asked the Government Accountability Office to explore the FAA’s certification process in the U.S. 

as it compares with those of its counterparts around the world. The 

resulting 2015 report highlighted many of the challenges in getting 

products certified and to market. The FAA’s product certification is 

and must remain the gold standard abroad, so that U.S. manufacturers remain competitive. So I look forward to hearing about the 

progress in that area, specifically. 

Last year the committee had been moving forward towards passage of a long-term FAA reauthorization. Bipartisan compromise 

and significant industry input produced an entire certification reform title in the bill, the AIRR Act, that would have brought long 

overdue changes to the FAA’s certification process. Certification, 

improved grant and safety programs, established rules of the road 

for unmanned aircraft systems, and boosted consumer protection 

are not back-burner aviation issues; they are front-burner aviation 

issues. And the next FAA reauthorization should be a long-term 

bill, a comprehensive bill, and address the issues on today’s agenda. 

Chairman LoBiondo, before hearing from our witnesses, I too 

would like to extend my gratitude to Peggy. We will lose a visionary leader, a tireless advocate for aviation safety when Peggy 

Gilligan retires. But after 37 years, she has earned it. 

4 

Your exceptional service and unwavering dedication to the agency and the public is inspiring, and I thank you very much. I am 

sure I speak on behalf of my colleagues, as well, when I say you 

will be missed. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward today to hearing 

from our witnesses. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Rick. I would like to recognize Chairman Shuster for any opening remarks. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this hearing today. I appreciate you and Ranking Member Larsen 

for putting this together. 

I just want to start off by just echoing what my colleagues have 

said about Ms. Gilligan. Her upcoming retirement is well deserved. 

We appreciate the service that you have given the Nation, and look 

forward to—hopefully you are not going to stay out too long, you 

will figure out some way to reengage with all the knowledge that 

you have and we certainly can utilize. So thank you very much for 

that. 

I look forward to today’s discussion, to hear from the FAA, but 

also the manufacturers, and find out what is going on in their 

world and learning. I understand that a few of you have some pretty good ideas, some strong ideas, based on experience, that work. 

So we look forward to hearing that. 

We are—this is the first in a series of hearings talking about 

aviation and we in Congress can work with the industry to build 

a 21st-century aviation system. 

Aviation manufacturing, which was mentioned, I’m not going to 

go through the numbers—we heard it, we know it, it is incredibly 

important to the United States of America, the manufacturing of 

aviation in this country. And I will say we have a President in the 

White House that is committed to making sure that manufacturing 

in this country is strong and viable. 

And also, it is probably the first time we have had a President 

that has used the airspace more than anybody else coming into office. He owns a plane, he knows—he is in the air constantly. Quite 

frankly, I think he probably uses an airplane like most of us use 

an automobile to get around. And so we have got somebody that, 

again, really understands, and understands the need to make sure 

that, if we are manufacturing, how we have to streamline these 

agencies and Government to help the manufacturers move forward. 

And again, we have had longstanding leadership in aviation. In 

fact, everyone knows we invented it. We need to maintain that 

lead. And one of the reasons we have been able to maintain that 

lead is because of our high level of safety, the current safety, and 

all of our manufacturers sitting at the table, I know they are committed to safety. If they weren’t, they probably wouldn’t have businesses, because their business is driven by safety. They have got 

to have the safest product out there, because we depend on it when 

we are using those products. 

So again, I look forward to talking about those types of things. 

And again, it is important that, as we move forward, that the Government agency that oversees this, that regulates it, is just as innovative as our industries have been, moving forward with new 

programs to, again, make sure safety is job number one, but that 

5 

we are out there making sure that our manufacturers aren’t looking to other countries. 

And I have heard the stories about, you know, when you hear 

countries across the world that move—industries move faster than 

ours, when it is—when you hear it is maybe Brazil or Canada or 

China, you think, well, OK. But I have heard the stories the Europeans move faster than we do when it comes to moving these air 

frames and these avionics forward. And if the Europeans are moving faster than we are, we are really threatened, I believe. 

We are threatened by what other countries are doing, but when 

Europe does it we have really got to stand up and pay attention 

and make sure we are doing the right thing, because I don’t want 

to see the aviation industry go the way of electronics, autos, textiles, and steel. As I said, this is so important to the Nation, and 

we need to be committed to making sure we have the best oversight that we can have to ensure safety, but also moving forward 

with manufacturers to continue to maintain our lead in the world 

when it comes to aviation. 

So again, I look forward to the discussion, and thank you all for 

being here. Thank you for giving us your time today. And I yield 

back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it was just 

about 2 years ago today that you convened a hearing on this same 

topic, as we were approaching FAA reauthorization. In the end, we 

came to a bipartisan consensus on what we need to do to reform 

certification. And I would hope that we can reach that same point 

again very quickly this year. It was the other issues in the bill that 

precluded the adoption of a longer term authorization. And hopefully we can do that this year. 

We did adopt at least one change. I had heard from a number 

of people, particularly dealing with the Chinese aviation authority, 

that our manufacturers are over there without FAA representation. 

So, essentially, a company dealing with the Government, as opposed to a Government-to-Government supporting our companies. 

And I got a provision included to allow the FAA to accept reimbursements. Unfortunately, it seems that the FAA has been unable 

to figure out a way to accept reimbursements, which should take 

about 10 minutes. So I will be asking about that today. I really 

want to see that move forward, and I want to help rein in the 

abuses of the Chinese and others. 

Another concern is the charges that are levied. The EASA [European Aviation Safety Agency], you know, to—just to revalidate an 

FAA-issued certificate, charges about 95 percent of what they 

would charge for a manufacturer to bring in a new product and go 

through their full certification. That seems unreasonable. And I 

think it would be critical that, in this long-term bill, that we put 

in provisions for reciprocity. That is, if the Europeans want to do 

that to our manufacturers, then we are going to do it to their manufacturers for the same price. And then perhaps we can bring them 

to the table and get more reasonable. 

And then, just—not to engage in the debate over the privatization of air traffic, but, you know, that is what caused these proviVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:05 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2-15-2~1\24210.TXT JEAN
6 

sions to stall last year. And I would observe that certification is, 

when the industry is polled broadly, the number-one issue. And reforming it is one thing, but it is going to—in the proposal that 

passed this committee last time—it is going to be left over—subject 

to the vicissitudes of the appropriators, and sequestration, and all 

the other problems that we have had. While over here we would 

have the ATO [Air Traffic Organization], but yet the ATO can’t 

move forward without the certification. 

So, I think sundering the agency is problematic when the certification is recognized by so many as the number-one problem we 

have today with the FAA. 

And, like everyone else, I would like to thank Peggy Gilligan, a 

lifetime of work. And, you know, I guess this is probably the last 

time we will have you here formally, but I wish you well in a welland hard-earned retirement. And your legacy is that, you know, 

you have been a warrior for safety, and the industry has the best 

safety record during your tenure as the chief safety officer of any 

time in the history of the United States. And I think a lot of people 

can thank you for that. You kept them safe. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Now we will turn to our 

first panel. 

First is Ms. Peggy Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation 

Safety for the FAA, who is accompanied by Ms. Dorenda Baker, Director of the Aircraft Certification Service for the FAA. 

Mr. John Hamilton, vice president of engineering for Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes. 

Mr. Michael Thacker, senior vice president of engineering for 

Textron Aviation. 

And at this time I would like to recognize Representative Esty 

to introduce one of our witnesses that is from her home State of 

Connecticut. 

Ms. Esty? 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking Member 

Larsen, for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing. I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce our final panelist, actually, who is in the middle of the table, Dr. Alan Epstein from 

Pratt & Whitney in my home State of Connecticut. And he is vice 

president of technology and environment. He is responsible for coordinating technology across all of Pratt & Whitney, and has a distinguished career at MIT, my father and grandfather’s alma mater, 

and we are delighted for your leadership and your insight to help 

us guide important decisionmaking in this committee to have robust and safe aircraft in the United States and across America. 

Thank you very much for joining us. We are very proud of your 

work. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Congresswoman Esty. 

Ms. Gilligan, you are recognized for a statement. 

7 

TESTIMONY OF MARGARET GILLIGAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DORENDA BAKER, DIRECTOR, 

AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION SERVICE, FAA; ALAN H. EPSTEIN, 

PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT OF TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, PRATT & WHITNEY; JOHN HAMILTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF ENGINEERING, BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES; 

AND MICHAEL THACKER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF ENGINEERING, TEXTRON AVIATION 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Shuster, 

as well as Ranking Member Larsen and Mr. DeFazio. 

First, let me thank you for those very kind words. I am very 

proud of the FAA’s accomplishments during my tenure. And I want 

to thank this committee for the strong support you have provided 

to us for all of those efforts. And I would also like to thank you 

for all the opportunities I have had to appear before you over the 

years. Some of those have been very difficult, challenging hearings. 

This one, I am pleased to say, I think will be a very positive hearing, where we and our industry can share what we are doing to 

continue to build this industry and support the American economy. 

I can tell all of you that the state of American aviation manufacturing is strong. The FAA is proud to partner with industry to find 

ways to make it even stronger, and to support innovation. Civil 

aviation manufacturing is the strongest trade sector for net exports 

at $60 billion. And, as the chairman and others noted, the manufacturing sector supports 1.5 million jobs in the U.S. economy, and 

contributes $165 billion to the GDP. 

But from my perspective, more importantly, it contributes to our 

outstanding aviation safety record, where we have seen no passenger fatalities in U.S. airline operations for more than 8 years. 

This accomplishment, our outstanding safety record, is not the result of luck or happenstance. It is the result of FAA, manufacturers, operators, and aviation labor, working together to establish 

sound safety standards and practices. 

And the bedrock of this achievement, the bedrock of our safety 

record, is the FAA’s certification process itself, which assures the 

American public and Congress that our manufacturers are meeting 

our safety standards. This committee has asked FAA to improve 

the process for certifying aviation products, and I am pleased to 

share with you what we have accomplished. 

You wanted performance objectives and metrics. We have developed a joint industry-agency certification scorecard. The sample 

scorecard that you have in front of you has three sections. At the 

bottom we track the manufacturer’s noncompliance with standards 

and the implementation of corrective actions to assure us and them 

that everything is being done properly. 

In the middle, we measure how well FAA is optimizing delegation, based on the company’s capabilities. And at the top, we actually rate each other’s performance. This serves as a tool to have 

open communication between the manufacturer and the FAA office 

to assure that we are each held accountable to meet our responsibilities. 

You wanted us to delegate more responsibility to manufacturers. 

The scorecard shows that we’re doing that. Eighty-four companies 

8 

hold Organization Designation Authorizations, or ODA. And according to the GAO, FAA designees perform more than 90 percent 

of certification activities. That means FAA is optimizing our involvement and holding manufacturers accountable to their capabilities. And the industry has been clear with us; they appreciate our 

efforts in this area. 

But we also know that, to respond to new business models and 

innovation like additive manufacturing or electric propulsion, we 

need to be agile. And that is why we are transforming the aircraft 

certification service. And I have provided more details on that 

transformation in our written testimony. 

You wanted a process to resolve disputes that slow certification. 

Based on industry recommendations, we developed a regulatory 

consistency communication board that allows for unresolved issues 

to be addressed in a timely fashion by a team of safety and legal 

experts. 

You wanted us to provide support when our manufacturers sell 

products overseas. Starting with Europe and Canada, we have 

agreed to accept each other’s approvals of repairs, of parts, and of 

basic aftermarket modifications, with no further technical review. 

We intend to extend this approach to Brazil. 

We are also working with other national aviation authorities in 

countries that do considerable business with our U.S. manufacturers. For example, just last week Ms. Baker was in China, working 

with her counterpart, to expand and improve the use of our bilateral agreement. The prompt validation of U.S.-designed aircraft 

like the 737 MAX, is our top priority in working with China. And 

the more our international partners can rely on FAA certification, 

the more efficient it will be for U.S. manufacturers. 

You wanted us to make it easier for the GA fleet to get safety 

equipment in the cockpit. First we enabled the installation of 

angle-of-attack indicators to address loss of control, the leading 

cause of fatalities in general aviation. We built on that experience 

and issued policy for installing other nonrequired safety-enhancing 

equipment. And we are beginning a prototype program that 

streamlines production requirements for more modern equipment. 

And, most importantly, with the strong support of this committee, we issued a new set of design standards for general aviation aircraft: the rewrite of part 23. This rule will allow innovation 

and efficiency in GA aircraft design and manufacture, while assuring the right level of safety. 

We have made tremendous progress, but there is more to do. And 

just last week we kicked off a committee with industry to foster collaboration in an open and transparent manner. We committed to 

develop a blueprint to establish shared objectives and priorities. 

This will allow FAA to meet future needs and ensure that aviation 

manufacturers remain competitive in the global marketplace. 

Thank you again for this opportunity and for the many opportunities throughout my career, and I am happy to answer your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Ms. Gilligan, very much. Dr. Epstein, 

you are recognized for your statement. 

Dr. EPSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo and members of the subcommittee. I am Alan Epstein, vice president of technology and enVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:05 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2-15-2~1\24210.TXT JEAN
9 

vironment at Pratt & Whitney. And our dependable engines have 

powered aircraft for over 90 years, with over 75,000 now in the 

field. 

Pratt is part of the United Technologies Corporation, a global enterprise with a long history of pioneering innovation in aviation 

and building systems. As noted, aerospace is America’s largest 

manufacturing export. I make the number at $80 billion a year. It 

seems to be an elusive number. 

While marquee aircraft make up about half of this total, famous 

names like Boeing and Cessna, the export of aircraft components 

such as engines and cells and landing gear are of equal value. Indeed, much of the component content of the world’s civil aircraft is 

American, even if the airplanes carry the name of European, Brazilian, or Chinese manufacturers. 

And of course, American aviation manufacturing is about more 

than just dollars. It is about the 1.7 million Americans who are employed at this industry. 

The most recent surge in aircraft orders has a lot to do with 

Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan engine. The GTF and the competitive responses resulted in orders valued at almost $800 billion. 

This success stems from the GTF’s dramatic reduction in fuel burn 

and noise. 

For example, when the new aircraft take off from La Guardia 

Airport, about half a million fewer people will be impacted by 

noise. This success means that Pratt will be doubling production 

over the next few years. 

Part of this growth depends upon manufacturing innovation, 

bringing moving engine assembly lines to Connecticut and Florida, 

cryogenic machining to Maine, advanced coatings to New York, hybrid airfoils to Michigan, and additive manufacture to Georgia. You 

need the best people to make the best products. Pratt plans to hire 

25,000 people over the next decade. To foster 21st-century skills on 

the factory floor, we support community colleges in many States, 

including Connecticut, Maine, New York, Georgia, Michigan, Texas, 

and Florida. 

The strength and experience of the FAA is an important competitive advantage for U.S. industry. FAA production certification is required for new manufacturing technologies and new suppliers. As 

part of our expansion, Pratt has worked with the FAA to gain production certification at new engine assembly sites, and approval of 

new suppliers. Partnering with the FAA through the organizational 

designated authority system has proven extremely helpful. ODA for 

manufacturing approval works, and it works well. 

The FAA must continue to progress in the delegation of responsibilities to certificate holders. Pratt strongly supports the actions 

already deployed under the FAA accountability framework initiative, and looks forward to teaming on air transformation. 

As Benjamin Franklin said, ‘‘an investment in knowledge pays 

the best interest.’’ We work with the FAA on advanced technologies 

to reduce fuel burn, emissions, and aircraft noise: notably, the 

FAA’s CLEEN [Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise] 

program. Recently, the FAA has been proactive in exploring the 

certification implications of new technology such as additives manufacture. 

10 

One industry concern is the aging certification workforce. A lot 

of talent will be retiring in the next few years, and to provide the 

support U.S. industry needs, the FAA must be properly funded and 

authorized to hire and train replacements. A strong, competent, 

flexible FAA is an important enabler for U.S. industry. 

Competition is fierce. Other nations have been ramping up Government civil aeronautics investment as the U.S. has dropped its 

own. U.S. research down by 40 percent, the EU up by a factor of 

10. China, the newest entrant, has announced large investments in 

civil aviation, both for airplanes and, most recently, billions for engines. 

U.S. aviation manufacturing is alive and well. The Federal role 

is critical to America’s largest manufacturing export industry. We 

must continue to nurture the public-private partnership that has 

served this country so well. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Dr. Epstein. 

Mr. Hamilton? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Good morning. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking 

Member Larsen, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide Boeing’s perspective on the state of commercial 

aerospace manufacturing and the policy changes facing our business. 

I am John Hamilton, vice president of engineering for Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, and I am proud to be here today to represent the 148,000 Boeing employees who design, build, and certify 

the best aerospace products in the world. 

First I commend the committee for the bipartisan reform included in the FAA reauthorization. We appreciate the bold vision 

of this committee and the continued focus on ensuring the strength 

of domestic aerospace manufacturing. 

For context it is important to note Boeing’s place in the U.S. and 

world economy. Boeing remains the Nation’s largest exporter, exporting $56.8 billion of products and services in 2016. Last year we 

delivered 748 commercial airplanes, with 80 percent of those overseas. We assemble all of our aircraft in the United States, and we 

are proud that 80 percent of our company’s suppliers are here in 

the United States. 

Annually, we spend roughly $50 billion in the U.S., far more 

than any other company that produces large, commercial aircraft. 

We are proud to sell American-made products to all corners of the 

globe, which is why we have long supported trade policies and 

trade agreements that open markets, facilitate the movement of 

goods across borders, and level the international playing field. 

More than 90 percent of our workforce is based in the United 

States, along with 1.5 million jobs throughout the supply chain. 

The biggest markets for our products over the next 20 years are in 

Asia and the Middle East. And we need Congress and the new administration, including the FAA, to support our efforts to win in 

these markets. Tens of thousands of U.S. jobs in our industry are 

at stake. 

The FAA’s role in this global competition is critical. Every new 

Boeing airplane, type-certified by the FAA, must be validated by its 

foreign regulatory counterpart in every country for which we export 

a product. This process is not meant to be a recertification. A valiVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:05 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2-15-2~1\24210.TXT JEAN
11 

dation should be just that, validating that the FAA conducted the 

type certificate work to the standards of the foreign regulatory authority in question. This process should be quick and efficient. But 

in some cases it can take upwards of 14 months. 

For example, 83 different customers from 43 countries have ordered our newest product offering, the 737 MAX. The FAA and 

Boeing must work with each foreign regulatory authority to get approval to deliver our aircraft to those customers. This is a time-consuming task and requires FAA resources and, more importantly, a 

strong working relationship between the FAA and foreign regulators. 

The FAA aircraft certification service cannot efficiently complete 

these critical validation activities without resources and support 

from Congress and the prioritization and focus from FAA’s senior 

leadership. This work cannot be viewed as secondary or a lower 

priority function at the FAA. It is a critical priority for Boeing and 

all U.S. aerospace exporters. Congress must continue to support 

and prioritize these efforts. 

With respect to our day-to-day interactions with the FAA on certification activities, we have seen progress in efforts to streamline 

the process, and hope that, with continued partnership, we will see 

continued progress. 

The FAA has embarked on an effort known as air transformation 

to reorganize and better align the agency’s activities with the strategic imperatives for certification in the coming years. This process 

must enable the FAA to shift resources to focus on areas of greatest safety impact, including engagement with international regulatory authorities. Doing so will help the FAA retain its global 

leadership status and ensure a level playing field. 

I want to stress that last point. The FAA must be a global leader 

in aircraft certification, and adhere to risk-based oversight principles that focus the agency’s resources on areas of highest risk, 

provide timely and consistent requirements to applicants, and fully 

support and promote U.S. exports of aerospace products and services. This will ensure a growing and competitive world-leading U.S. 

aerospace manufacturing base for the next 100 years. I am privileged to be here today to discuss further ways in which we can advance these important priorities. 

Thank you for the invitation, and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. 

Mr. Thacker, you are recognized. 

Mr. THACKER. Chairman LoBiondo, Chairman Shuster, Ranking 

Members Larsen and DeFazio, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify this morning on the state of 

American aviation manufacturing. My name is Michael Thacker. I 

am senior vice president for engineering at Textron Aviation. 

Textron Aviation is the leading general aviation authority and 

the home to Beechcraft, Cessna, and Hawker brands, which account for more than half of all general aviation aircraft flying. Textron Aviation provides the most versatile and comprehensive business and general aviation product portfolio in the world through 

five principal lines of business: business jets; general aviation and 

special mission turboprop aircraft; high-performance and utility 

12 

piston aircraft; military trainer and defense aircraft; and a complete global customer service organization. During the past 90 

years, Textron Aviation has delivered more than 250,000 aircraft 

to more than 140 countries worldwide. 

Textron Aviation appreciates the efforts being made by FAA 

leadership and the support of Congress for streamlining aircraft 

certification processes. While progress has been made, opportunities remain to consolidate the gains and capture the full benefits 

of the changes. As an aircraft manufacturer, Textron Aviation’s 

success in the certification process and in business requires a clear 

path to compliance consisting of three primary elements: clear and 

stable aircraft requirements; clear and consistent documentation 

expectations; and consistent and appropriate levels of regulatory 

involvement. 

Textron Aviation would like to thank Congress for passing the 

Small Airplane Revitalization Act. The resulting public law encouraged timely completion of the part 23 rewrite effort. We should see 

near-term benefits from the continuum of safety approach to product categorization, and over time should see more rapid incorporation of safety and efficiency-enhancing technologies through the 

more streamlined process of using industry standards to achieve 

consensus on new means of compliance. 

Textron Aviation would like to see this philosophy and approach 

expanded beyond part 23 to include other categories of aircraft. We 

believe the safety and efficiency benefits would transfer. 

Textron Aviation also applauds the intent of the FAA’s ongoing 

transformation of the certification organization. The FAA’s outreach and collaboration with industry to refine the implementation 

plan will be an important factor in its success. While the top-level 

reorganization helps establish a vision, the implementation will determine if real and tangible results come from the change. Textron 

Aviation is pleased to be involved with these efforts, and looks forward to continued engagement going forward. 

Both of these efforts move in a positive direction, but leave work 

to be done. As with the part 23 effort, Congress and this committee 

can play an important role in working with the FAA and industry 

to advance certification and regulatory reform. The certification titles contained in last year’s committee-passed bill and the Senatepassed FAA reauthorization would have provided an important 

framework and direction for these reform efforts. 

Specifically, we support language that supported fuller utilization of ODA, improved validation and acceptance of products globally, and reduced inconsistent application of regulations. Passing 

such provisions in an expeditious manner this year would benefit 

safety, innovation, jobs, and our Nation’s competitiveness. 

Also included in my written testimony is an appendix, including 

comments from other Textron businesses impacted by the topics 

being discussed today. This testimony is for the record, and any 

questions related to the appendix can also be addressed for the 

record. 

Before closing, Textron Aviation would also like to acknowledge 

the contributions and accomplishments of Associate Administrator 

Gilligan. We understand that she has announced her retirement, 

and we would like to thank her for her hard work, her consistent 

13 

engagement with industry, and her efforts to improve aviation safety processes. 

And for all of the committee, particularly the chairman and the 

ranking member, we would like to invite you to come see aviation 

at work at any of our facilities, but particularly in Wichita, Kansas, 

the aviation capital of the world. It is important to understand how 

important this industry is—— 

Mr. LARSEN. I object. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. THACKER. It is important to understand—— 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Overruled. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. THACKER. It is important to understand how important this 

industry is to our Nation, and to see and touch the workers who 

make it the vibrant and important industry that it is. We would 

love to have you. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Thacker. Now we will 

go to—start with questionings. 

Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question deals with 

delegation authority. And I believe that Textron and Boeing have 

designees in your companies that respond or report directly to 

FAA. And I think it is really important for Members to hear and 

understand how that works. Because we say ‘‘delegation authority,’’ 

and, you know, 5 and 6 years, 7 years ago I didn’t understand it, 

and now I think I understand it better. 

But if you would, Mr. Hamilton, why don’t you explain how it 

works? And, Mr. Thacker, maybe you could talk about the benefits 

that you get from having that. So, if you would, Mr. Hamilton? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Certainly. So I actually come from a unique perspective in that I, in my previous role at Boeing, was the ODA administrator for Boeing in the commercial side. So I have a pretty 

good understanding of that. 

You know, the ODA is the current form of delegation from the 

FAA. Delegation has been around since the 1950s in different 

forms. And in the current ODA, what it is is the FAA delegates to, 

essentially, the company certain privileges. And those privileges 

typically are documented in a manual of some form. And with it 

come both the privileges, but also restrictions or things where you 

are not delegated. 

The delegation is a privilege to our company, and probably to any 

other company. But it is a valuable resource when you look at the 

amount of work that is going on in aerospace, and how to best 

maximize the total resources that are available to the industry. 

With delegation, there are some things that we have to submit 

to the FAA and request to be delegated, and there are other things 

that are just automatically delegated to us. We typically start with 

requirements, and—which feed into the design of the product. The 

certification approach—so how are you going to comply with requirements, whether it is through test, analysis, simulation, and 

then some form of deliverable. And that may be a document that 

14 

says, ‘‘Here is how we demonstrated compliance to the rule.’’ And 

each of those can be delegated or retained by the FAA. 

Now, the FAA also has something called participation, which is 

something that has fairly been—we are seeing more of, where the 

FAA delegates, say, a flight test to you, or a test to you, but chooses to come along and witness it with you. 

Now, as I think Peggy pointed out, we have seen increased delegation, and we thank you for that. Participation, where we have 

also seen increases in, and that sometimes can delay work still on 

the critical path. 

We really like to work with the FAA on requirements upfront, 

and then allow the certification work to proceed, and then allow 

the FAA to do systemic oversight of the process, so that they can 

assure that we are abiding by our manual. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And is it accurate to say those folks are on your 

payroll, but they directly report to the FAA Administrators, or the 

FAA folks in—is that accurate? 

Mr. HAMILTON. So they are employees of the Boeing Company. 

Boeing pays their salary. They wear a Boeing badge, just like I do. 

But they wear two hats. And I always tell them, ‘‘You have to understand which hat you are wearing.’’ In some cases they can be 

the Boeing subject matter expert on a specific system or design, 

and at other times they are working as an accredited representative for the FAA, and in that case they weren’t wearing their FAA 

hat, they have to abide by the regulations and the guidance they 

receive. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And, Mr. Thacker, if you could, just talk about the 

things you see, the benefits that you have seen. 

Mr. THACKER. Certainly. So the benefits of the organizational 

designation are both to industry and to the FAA. 

From an industry perspective, it allows us to be able to move 

more quickly with production changes, small changes that are routine within our business. 

And for the FAA, it allows them to focus on things that are of 

the highest safety importance, or that are new and novel and 

unique, and that require their attention to make sure that we are 

complying appropriately when we are introducing new technologies. 

From a matter of being able to operate the business, it allows us 

to both continue operating the business for existing products, put 

new safety technologies mandated equipment into the aircraft 

quickly and efficiently, and still be having the larger new product 

development programs going on at the same time, which consume 

more of the FAA’s involvement. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gilligan, in your testimony you talk about something that I 

would just like to have explained better. It is having to do with airworthiness directives. Whereas when we promulgate an airworthiness directive, most other aviation authorities apparently forward 

that to operators and they abide by it. 

15 

But I—it seems from the testimony that it can’t work the other 

way. That is, if EASA, you know, has one, we can’t adopt it. Why 

is that? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. The requirements that we have for rulemaking, legislative requirements for rulemaking, require that the 

agency make its own finding, in essence, that in fact there is a 

safety issue. We do find that at times it is somewhat redundant because, again, we rely on many of our partners for the original certification of the product. When we validate that, we expect them 

to be responsible for the continued operational safety, and yet we 

have to go through a process of notice and comment before we can 

put in place the directives that they may have put in place for their 

product in other States. 

We have talked with staff to see if there might be something that 

would be helpful. And, in fact, in the bill that was worked on last 

year there was some language that we think would be helpful, and 

we will certainly look to work with you again to try to support that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So, I mean, the net result is that, although I assume that many operators might go ahead and comply with it once 

they become aware of it, but it is not mandatory because we 

haven’t been able to adopt a rule. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. That is correct. We can’t enforce it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. We do, of course, see that many operators implement it. They are sometimes hesitant because it is not inconceivable when we go through our process we might have some nuance 

change or something that we find necessary. But generally they 

will follow what they learned from the manufacturer directly, and 

that is why we were looking to see if there might be some way we 

can streamline that process. 

But the Administrative Procedures Act right now is a piece of the 

puzzle that we are struggling with. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And then the issue I raised about the European 

authority and the charges they levy to essentially rubberstamp 

what the FAA has already done, have there been discussions with 

the authority regarding that? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir, extensive discussions. We actually did get 

a small reduction shortly after we entered our bilateral agreement 

that oversees how we relate to EASA. We are close, I believe, to 

getting an agreement on how we will further reduce the fees on 

large projects. But, as I testified, we do already have agreement 

with the European Aviation Safety Agency that there are certain 

approvals that we give that they will simply accept, so there will 

be no work for them to do, and there will be no charge. And that 

has already been put in place. 

There are some other approvals that need some administrative 

work for which there will be minimal fees, and that has already 

been put in place. Now we are taking on the larger, more complex 

projects to reach agreement as to how we will reduce the time we 

spend and that they spend on projects, and thereby reduce their 

fees. So I hope to have some real progress on that, if not before I 

leave, not long after. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

16 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. This question will be 

for Ms. Gilligan. 

Cybersecurity has rapidly risen to the top of the list of things for 

us to look at, and challenges for us to figure out. Ensuring the 

cybersecurity of the national airspace and all of its components is 

a priority for this subcommittee. In the FAA extension, we directed 

the FAA to create a comprehensive and strategic framework for 

cybersecurity, and the FAA Tech Center has ongoing work at the 

cyber task force lab. 

Can you talk to us about how the FAA is utilizing that cyber 

task force lab at the Tech Center with their expertise in developing 

certification standards? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Sir, as you know, we rely on the work at the Tech 

Center quite extensively. And cybersecurity, as it relates to aircraft 

design, has been an issue that the Aircraft Certification Service 

has focused on for quite a long time. 

As you point out, what we are realizing, what we understand— 

I think we always realized it—is that we need to be looking more 

holistically, to make sure that the—not just the aircraft, but the 

entire aviation system is properly addressing cybersecurity. And 

that is really the work that the Tech Center is helping to support. 

We have interagency groups that include many of the others, the 

other agencies that are involved in cybersecurity kinds of work. 

They bring their expertise, as well as, then, our expertise on aircraft design, and the FAA expertise on the air traffic system design. And all of that is being brought through at the Tech Center 

to test scenarios, to understand where we may have hazards, and 

how we might mitigate those risks in the future. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. Could you just clarify? Is it—Doctor, 

your last name pronunciation for me? Yes, sorry. 

Dr. EPSTEIN. You, sir, can call me anything you like. But it is Epstein, usually. 

Mr. LARSEN. Epstein, great. All right. Great, thanks a lot. So, Dr. 

Epstein, could you comment on Pratt & Whitney’s experience with 

ODA? I noted in your written testimony you are looking at expanding its use as your production demand grows. And with that 

growth do you anticipate problems? Or what would you say would 

need to be changed? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. Well, Pratt & Whitney has ODA authority for manufacturing. It does not have it for design certification, mainly because, as the FAA was rolling this out, in our design cycles it didn’t 

match very well. 

But for manufacturing, since 80 percent of our content we purchase, and of that 80 percent, 80 percent is purchased here in the 

U.S., the supply base is of critical importance. And the supply base 

is very heavily strained because of the expansion in business, the 

concerns of safety, and it is a very capital-intensive business to 

begin with. So we found that ODA for manufacturing has been a 

very powerful way for both our in-house manufacturers, but also as 

we bring on new suppliers who have to be certified. 

17 

We are also looking forward to the discussion on certified design 

organization, which the FAA intends to move to, and we think that 

will be a powerful tool for U.S. industry to move forward. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, great. 

Mr. Hamilton, how can we move this potential 14-month timeline 

that you mentioned in your testimony with regards to international 

validation to something less than 14 months? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Congressman. So, as new entrants 

really come into the aviation industry, such as China, where they 

want to build an aviation industry, they are using sometimes the 

validations as opportunities to learn about how to certify products. 

And sometimes you might even ask that—the question if they were 

trying to get some of your intellectual property, and how you design the products. 

I want to, you know, cite Ms. Baker, who just returned from 

China, for the constructive dialogue they had last week. You know, 

we deliver about one-third of our 737 airplanes to China, and we 

were told that they wouldn’t be able to validate those airplanes 

until the end of 2018, initially. I think, through the dialogue between the FAA and the Chinese authorities, we are hopeful that 

we can shorten that down to midyear of this year. But I think it 

takes a strong relationship between the FAA and their counterparts overseas. 

Mr. LARSEN. So it is almost like it is not so much a process issue, 

it is a presence issue. 

Mr. HAMILTON. You know, our industry is built so much on relationships. And being there, being present with them, can go a long 

ways, especially with the Chinese. We are a little disappointed the 

FAA pulled out their technical representative from Beijing and put 

him in Singapore. The Chinese kind of took that, I think, in a negative manner. 

But being present, being there, the importance of being able to 

travel there is vitally important. And being able to have those faceto-face conversations. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Thacker, wouldn’t you agree that some people 

also have a claim as the aviation capital of the world? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. THACKER. So I am sure there are many claims. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LARSEN. Good. Well, then, we are back on track. We are back 

on track. 

What recommendations would you have to change the ODA process, if any? 

Mr. THACKER. So I think that the biggest opportunity is really 

to fully utilize the designations that are already in place. So, for 

an organization like ours, we are a very capable and large organization. Our ODA staffing is across the spectrum of all of the technical resources. 

And, frankly, we have the capacity to overwhelm the FAA with 

the amount of new product development and continuing product 

improvements that we put in place for a product line that today 

produces 21 different models. And we have three products, three 

new products, in various stages of development. 

18 

So, the ability to, again, reduce the level of involvement for the 

things that are low-risk—you are familiar with many of our products. They are, for the most part, derivatives. They are airplanes 

that look similar, have similar systems. And so, for the past decades we have been designing with the same design philosophy, 

with developing tools along the way, improving the reliability, and 

then putting the efficiency and safety into the products. But the 

basis of what we are doing is well understood by both us and the 

FAA. 

So, it is a very low risk for the bulk of what we do for the FAA 

to go ahead and delegate most of those programs to us, and then 

pay their attention to the things that are new and novel, or new 

and novel to us, if we are taking on a new technology. We would 

like to see that be—to the fullest extent possible, we think that is 

the greatest opportunity. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right, OK, thank you. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Graves? 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got just 

a quick question for Ms. Gilligan. 

And I am very curious as to if you can give us an update on the 

FAA’s efforts to certify unleaded avgas [aviation gasoline], at least 

on a fleetwide basis. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Thank you, Congressman Graves. I appreciate the 

opportunity to talk about this fabulous success, which has also involved the Tech Center work, as well, Mr. Chairman. 

We are very far along on identifying a replacement for leaded 

fuels for general aviation aircraft. I know you are familiar with it, 

and this committee has very much supported that work, as has the 

Appropriations Committee. We are testing two fuels right now. We 

are actually flight testing them, and we thank Textron and a number of other companies that have provided in-kind contributions to 

this effort by providing airplanes and crew to fly these flight tests 

so we can better understand whether and how these fuels will 

interact between engines and aircraft. 

The challenge for us when we finally approve replacement fuels, 

which will happen shortly, I believe 2018, next year. The way our 

process works right now is we would have to certify the new fuel 

in each engine aircraft configuration, because we were never before 

faced with the idea of a whole new fuel for a whole new fleet of 

multiple kinds of aircraft. And so we have worked again with this 

committee and staff on last year’s bill to provide authority for us 

to look at this in a much more holistic way. 

And again, with this year’s reauthorization, we will be asking for 

that continued kind of support, and be glad to provide technical assistance to the committee so that we can—once we have the new 

fuel, we will have a much more efficient way to be able to approve 

it and get it into the system. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Well, the more—and I am sure the 

committee is very interested in doing everything they can to further that and help it along. Please keep us informed. And I know 

you do a very good job of that, but please keep us informed as we 

move forward on that. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

19 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Graves. 

Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Epstein, I have a question about airplane noise, particularly—and I know that you mentioned ways to reduce such noise. 

The noise has become such a pervasive issue that some of us in the 

Congress have formed a bipartisan coalition called Quiet Skies. 

Here, for example, in my own district, the District of Columbia, 

the noise from planes coming in to and going out of Ronald Reagan 

Airport have become just a major issue. People can’t sleep. Now, 

there are a number of reasons for this: NextGen, or new flight patterns; some planes come pre-dawn or late at night; older planes. 

I was pleased to hear that Pratt & Whitney was engaged in 

something you call the PurePower Geared Turbofan engine. And 

you said in your testimony it will result in a 16-percent reduction 

in fuel burn and three-quarters reduction in noise footprint. That 

was what most interested me. 

When do you think we can expect to see planes with new engines 

taking off from places—major airports like Ronald Reagan with 

such equipment to reduce noise? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. Thank you, ma’am, for the question. There are 

about 45 PurePower-powered airplanes flying. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you speak up, please? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. There are about 45 PurePower airplanes flying. 

Spirit is the sole American operator. They just started flying last 

year. More are being delivered this year. The Boeing MAX, 737 

MAX, is also an extremely quiet airplane. These—— 

Ms. NORTON. You have less complaints, as far as you know, 

about noise from these newer planes? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. Well, complaints about noise is a flexible concept. 

I was once sitting next to the director of the Port Authority of New 

York, and I asked him how quiet airplanes would have to be so he 

didn’t get noise complaints. And he looked at me like I was nuts 

and said, ‘‘This is New York you are talking about. If they know 

the airplane is there, they will complain about the noise.’’ 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Epstein, this is the District of Columbia I am 

talking about. And the fact is that the noise has become a major 

issue here and elsewhere. And we are not—and we can compare it 

to noise before to noise now. So I am not asking you to wipe away 

all noise. 

I am pleased to hear you talk about more planes coming on. Do 

you believe at nationwide airports we will soon see most airports 

with such planes? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. Yes, the narrow-body fleets are converting to these 

new types of engines over the next 2 years, so all the new airplanes 

coming in by 2019 or so will have these very quiet engines. 

Ms. NORTON. It is very important to hear, because then we will 

be able to blame just NextGen or flight patterns, rather than the 

noise from the airplanes themselves. 

Ms. Gilligan, I have a question for you, because I introduced a 

bill last year called the No Lead in the Air Act, and its main purpose was to give a deadline for the use of lead in aircraft, and it 

was 2021. In your testimony you said—and here I am quoting 

you—that ‘‘the FAA will need continued congressional support to 

20 

streamline the process to approve the use of new fuels in the more 

than 160,000 general aviation aircraft.’’ 

What actions do you believe Congress needs to take to support 

this transition to all unleaded fuel? And do you think, or would you 

recommend that we try to include this in any upcoming reauthorization? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 

Yes, we do believe that we need some additional support from 

Congress to be able to quickly approve the use of unleaded fuels 

in such a large fleet. Right now our standard practice would be to 

have to certify each aircraft and engine combination for the use of 

this new fuel. And given the kinds of numbers that you see in my 

testimony, we believe that that would just be too long and be very 

inefficient. 

So we did work with committee staff for the last year’s reauthorization, and we will continue to work with staff on this year’s—— 

Ms. NORTON. You think we do need, and you think we already 

are on top of what we need Congress to do? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, ma’am, in last year’s bill that was passed 

through the committee we did see the kind of support that we 

need, and we will continue to look at the language and make sure 

we get it exactly right. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Perry? 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank the panel for your 

presence. 

Ms. Gilligan, last year’s short-term extension directed the FAA 

to establish a UTM [UAS Traffic Management] pilot program by 

April of this year, preceded by a research plan. And that was to 

be submitted to Congress by January. So I am just wondering what 

steps the agency is taking to ensure that the pilot program is on 

schedule, and in regard to that, what extent have you engaged in 

your business. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Thank you, Congressman. The UTM program is a 

combined program between FAA and NASA, and it is working really quite well. We have a team from both agencies that are focused 

on building the plan and the roadmap that you discussed, and 

there is extensive industry involvement, both in designing that and 

in looking at where and how we can pilot those concepts. 

We can certainly provide some details for you for the record, if 

that would be helpful. I don’t have the dates, off the top of my 

head. 

Mr. PERRY. OK, so—yes, I would like the information on industry. And, you know, from my standpoint, it is not just big industry, 

although a lot of great ideas come from big industry. But there is 

a lot of small-town industries that can provide a lot of valuable 

input. And I would just like to know if they are being included. 

And what about the schedule? Where are we at with the schedule, with the pilot and with the plan? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, I apologize. As I said, I don’t have the dates 

off the top of my head, and we can certainly provide those. 

The smaller organizations that are part of the UAS community 

are broadly represented by some of their advocacy groups here in 

21 

DC. And through those groups we can get individual small operators or small businesses involved, as well. We will provide—— 

Mr. PERRY. Is there any opportunity for individuals or individual 

companies that don’t belong to a consortium that might have a 

wonderful, fabulous idea that you have never seen? How do they 

get involved? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Well, we last year had a symposium, a UAS symposium. We will be having another one this year in March. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. That will be an opportunity for—— 

Mr. PERRY. I need the information on that, as well. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. PERRY. Can you let us know what the agency envisions for 

a certification process for unmanned traffic management? Is it 

going to be, like, self-certification, similar to the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s guidelines for automated vehicles? 

What do you envision? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Right. Those are exactly the concepts that we are 

looking at through the UTM pilot to understand how best to allow 

that community that will operate at very low altitudes to make the 

most efficient use of that airspace, recognizing as well there are 

some general aviation operations that occur in that airspace, as 

well. 

But, yes, we are looking less at something like the very elaborate 

air traffic services that we provide to large manned aircraft at high 

altitude, and something much more scalable to the kinds of operations that small UAS at low altitudes could benefit from. 

Mr. PERRY. All right, great. Thank you, ma’am, for your service, 

as well. And congratulations and good luck. 

Mr. Thacker, can you share any examples of times where the inconsistent regulatory environment has—or interpretations or reinterpretations have impacted your business and your business line? 

Mr. THACKER. So certainly we have had that. We have had examples of that, both from a domestic standpoint, where interpretations between ACOs have been different, and on an international 

standpoint, where the validation activity that we have had with a 

Brazil or a Europe ended up resulting in months of delays because 

of a disagreement between the FAA and that organization, all of 

which, in the end, is a competitive disadvantage to us and our ability to deliver products to customers. 

So we are—for each of those validations we have a timeline. You 

have to have a customer already signed up to get those agencies 

even to take on the validation activity. So that customer is waiting 

for the airplane from the day you start the process. And so you end 

up at times losing those sales. So it can impact your business that 

way. 

In terms of the inconsistencies between ACOs, I think that just 

comes down to the type of business that flows through those ACOs 

on a regular basis. And so sometimes something that is very familiar in one is not in another, and that drives an increased level of 

scrutiny that can be of a disadvantage to one or the other entities. 

Mr. PERRY. So in an instance where, for instance, or for example, 

you lose the sale, what is the relevant impact to the community for 

22 

where manufacturing is taking place, for your supply chain, for 

your employees, et cetera? 

Mr. THACKER. So I think most of this committee is familiar with 

the state of general and business aviation. Since 2008 it has been 

a difficult business environment, to say the least. Every aircraft 

sale matters. And in a very globally competitive environment 

where for—the markets we serve, our competitors typically are foreign-owned companies, as well, every sale matters, and every sale 

does add up to U.S. jobs. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gilligan, I would like to add my congratulations and thanks 

for all your service, too. You have overseen the tremendous changes 

and advances in the use of our airspace, and directed a lot of that, 

and we thank you for it. I hope we will continue to see women involved in the top level of the FAA, and they will have big shoes 

to fill. 

You know, we have heard recently through an Executive order 

that there is kind of this two-for-one. Two for one sounds great for 

happy hour in my district, but I am not sure it is a good way to 

run the FAA. We are going to have to remove two regulations for 

every regulation established. I believe this is the Executive order 

that President Trump signed. 

I wonder if you would comment on that. Is it going to affect the 

FAA? It is kind of wide open right now. We don’t know who all is 

included, but it could be you. And how will that impact trying to 

maintain the most complex, largest, and safest airspace in the 

world? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Congresswoman, we are still working with the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget, 

along with most agencies around the Government, to really flesh 

out exactly what the expectations are through the Executive order. 

So we are not completely clear yet on exactly how it will be implemented. 

But we do know that a number of our rules, like part 23, we are 

putting rules in place to reduce burden, to, in fact, enable new 

technologies—for example, UAS. So we believe a number of the initiatives we have underway will fall within the expectations of the 

Executive order. But again, the details are still being fleshed out, 

so we don’t fully understand exactly how we will implement it yet. 

Ms. TITUS. It is a little scary to think that you have to strike two 

rules in order to create one new one, though, isn’t it? Aren’t the 

rules that you have put in place pretty valid and helpful, and you 

wouldn’t want to just arbitrarily get rid of them? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I would completely agree with you. But what we 

do see, as we saw with part 23, for example, historically we tended 

to do very prescriptive rules. We told the manufacturer, for example, or the operator, the specific technology or the specific thing 

they had to do. 

What we have learned with part 23 is you can describe the outcome that we need. It must perform this function, or the aircraft 

must fly in this way, and that allows innovation and it enables 

23 

manufacturers, for example, to get product to market more quickly 

and as safe or safer than what we have in place now. 

So again, to the extent some of our new rules will have that kind 

of an approach, we believe that will fit the expectation of the Executive order. 

Ms. TITUS. Could the industry comment on that? 

Mr. HAMILTON. From our standpoint, we realize it is a complex 

issue. And I applaud what the FAA did with part 23. I don’t think 

we—we work under mainly part 25 and part 21, and I don’t think 

the same approach to part 25, where you throw it all out and rewrite it, is really what we want. I think you want to, like a scalpel 

with a surgeon, go after some selective regulations. 

As Ms. Gilligan said about—there may be a little bit more prescriptive—or they are based on propeller technology that we may 

want to go after and change those a little bit. 

Ms. TITUS. When do you think this directive will be fleshed out, 

that we will know kind of what is expected of this two-for-one? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I don’t know exactly. As I said, we are working 

with the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and 

Budget on that guidance now. So I would expect, as soon as—— 

Ms. TITUS. We have somebody that heads up that agency we 

might be able to get something done? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I am sorry? 

Ms. TITUS. It was an aside. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. OK. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the 

witnesses here today. We do appreciate your testimony. 

I would like to highlight the importance of aviation manufacturing in my Second Congressional District in Minnesota. In 2014, 

as has been said here before, aviation manufacturing produced 

nearly $150 billion in total output; $30 billion of that came from 

general aviation purchases. It produces 5,000 jobs in my great 

State of Minnesota. 

In fact, I recently had the pleasure to meet with the president 

of one of the general aviation manufacturers in my district. After 

touring his facility, I was able to see firsthand how manufacturing 

creates such a positive impact in my community and my district 

and across the State of Minnesota. I also saw how aviation innovation and supplemental type certification—modifications, I should 

say—help increase the safety for our pilots, passengers. But we 

need to sustain economic growth and industry growth alongside 

that. 

So I asked this particular fellow to send me some advice, some 

real input. So I received this letter from Wipaire. They make floats. 

They are the largest manufacturer of floats. And in Minnesota, you 

have got as many planes with floats as you do wheels. And they 

brought to light in this letter—which I would like to submit, Mr. 

Chairman, to the committee—they brought to light some of the concerns the industry has when it comes to continuing to innovate, improve, introduce new technologies in maintaining aircraft. 

24 

Progress has been made, as we have detailed, to create a more 

efficient and effective certification program, but we need to do 

more. We need to do more to advance compliance and safety standard reviews. The FAA and this body need to provide our manufacturers with increased ability to sell products and services overseas. 

As the preeminent nation for aviation with a great track record 

at the FAA, our FAA-certified components in aircraft should be accepted in the global market. We set a global standard of safety. 

And therefore, the U.S.-made-and-certified products should be easily available outside the U.S. 

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this letter be submitted for 

the record. 

[The letter is on pages 69–70.] 

Let me start with a question for Ms. Gilligan. And thank you for 

your service over the years. And this is a little bit outside of the 

scope here, but it is certainly starting to become an issue. And that 

is what sort of challenges for the FAA can you see in the future, 

as we start to see so many more unmanned aircraft—drones, as everybody calls them. 

How does that affect FAA’s mission for safety, for certification in 

some cases, just going forward? I mean has the agency looked at 

that and anticipated a plan? There have been some things done already. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. We are well aware of the challenges that 

we face with the increase in unmanned systems—or drones, as you 

have referred to them. A year and a half ago we created a registration requirement so we could begin to know who is operating, and 

in some cases how many aircraft they are operating. 

And, more importantly, to use that as a tool to educate this new 

community, because many folks who are purchasing these, especially for personal use, are not aviators by background or training, 

and they—we used to laugh that they didn’t know they were violating the National Airspace System because they didn’t know 

there was a National Airspace System. And so we have—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Let alone the privacy in my backyard. Yes, right, exactly. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. There are those issues, as well. So we are well 

along. We have also issued an operating rule that allows for operation of aircraft under 55 pounds within visual line of sight and 

with some other restrictions. We have also put in place in those 

rules the ability to provide waivers if an operator can demonstrate 

that they can mitigate risk of going beyond visual line of sight, for 

example, or operating at night with technologies. 

Mr. LEWIS. Have you incorporated a growth factor in all of this? 

I mean this is, I mean, becoming much more frequent—— 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes. 

Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. In every neighborhood. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes. We believe that the rules that we have put 

in place are flexible enough to address the growing demand. Again, 

the rules right now, though, are up to 55 pounds. For larger aircraft right now, those are going through certification, and Ms. 

Baker can comment on how many projects we have to actually cerVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:05 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2-15-2~1\24210.TXT JEAN
25 

tify meeting our full set of standards, these larger aircraft that will 

be used for larger missions. 

Dorenda? 

Mr. LEWIS. We have only got about 20 seconds, so—— 

Ms. BAKER. OK. Just—we have assigned that to our Los Angeles 

ACO, and currently they have 12 different projects working on certification of unmanned aircraft. 

Mr. LEWIS. My time is just about up, but I would like to revisit 

this, as it seems to be certainly a growth industry. I thank you all 

for coming today, and I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

And Ms. Gilligan, we wish you well. I am sorry I haven’t had the 

opportunity to get to know you, but your reputation precedes you 

in the work that you have done for this Nation. So thank you. 

The FAA’s Organization Designation Authorization program appears, really, to be critical to allowing the agency to keep up with 

its certification process. In fact, the industry is calling on you to expand it. 

But can you speak more to the funding issues that plague the 

agency, and how those issues hinder your labor force and prevent 

you from expanding the ODA program? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. And I will ask Ms. Baker to supplement 

it, as well. 

Actually, the delegation program allows us to be more effective 

with the resources that we are provided, because we can take advantage of the technical expertise within a company to work on our 

behalf, and to make those kinds of safety findings. 

But, Dorenda, perhaps you would like to speak about the staffing? 

Ms. BAKER. Yes. As Peggy said, it is very important for us to use 

the opportunities like the Organization Designation Authorization, 

because it does leverage us. We have about 700 engineers, whereas 

Boeing has approximately 900 UMs, people that are working on 

our behalf. 

So, this is something that is really important, and it does help 

us to utilize the resources that we do have efficiently and effectively. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. And, you know, to the panel, but based 

on testimony by Dr. Epstein, you know, is the industry open, you 

know, to additional user fees that would give the FAA more budgetary cushion to expand its labor force to meet the increasing demands of the certification process? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. This is the most cost-conscious of industries, since 

we are so highly competitive. So we certainly have to examine what 

the impact would have on the competitiveness of products and exports as to what that fee schedule might be. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. And Mr. Hamilton, we all understand Boeing’s 

global reach. And I would like to know your experience in dealing 

with the EASA, and how it compares to your experiences with the 

FAA, particularly in the certification process. Where do they 

have—that we meet, and vice versa? 

Mr. HAMILTON. EASA, E–A-S–A, is the European equivalent of 

the FAA. And they are a newer organization. It just really came 

26 

about a little over a decade ago to cover one European regulatory 

[sic]. 

Because they are newer, they—I will say—are starting from a position of trying to be more efficient, more nimble. They are a much 

smaller organization than the FAA. And as we have talked here 

today, when you have critical resources, it is how do you use those 

resources most effectively. 

We find that EASA has a delegation authorization with the manufacturers over in Europe that takes it to a—I will say a further 

extent beyond today’s ODA that we have over in the U.S. With it, 

again, comes certain requirements for oversight. But it is a—it 

tends to be a little bit more efficient, in terms of working with 

them. 

I think, from a rulemaking—the FAA has done a lot over the 

years to harmonize on rules. I think really it gets down to—and we 

talked on it earlier—was about interpretations of those rules, 

where there can be different interpretations of how the same rule 

is applied. And that is kind of an ongoing effort that we have to 

work through. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK, thank you. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. Westerman? 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the distinguished panel for being here today. 

Ms. Gilligan, this is a milestone for you and me. It is your last 

Aviation Subcommittee meeting, my first Aviation Subcommittee 

meeting. So I am reminded that a lot of people have come before 

us and a lot of people will come after us. And I trust they will do 

good work. 

I have heard it said before that the best illustration of trust is 

to step on an airplane, where you are trusting the people who certified that airplane, you are trusting the engineers, the people 

manufacturing, the whole system, you are trusting them with your 

life. And it is so important that we maintain that trust. 

As there has been a lot of discussion on the importance of improving efficiency of the top of certification process by using riskbased approaches and applying safety continuum principles to better focus FAA’s limited resources, can you talk about how you 

apply your risk-based approach to certification projects, such as determining the level of FAA involvement and the use of delegation, 

which has already been talked about a little bit? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. But I would ask that Ms. Baker provide 

that information. She actually runs the organization responsible for 

these certifications and has provided quite a bit of leadership in 

that area. 

Ms. BAKER. Thank you for the question. We are very proud of 

what we have been able to accomplish in the area of utilizing the 

risk-based decisionmaking. We have actually implemented tools 

that will help standardize the way that our engineers will evaluate 

an individual project. And then it identifies areas where we would 

expect that it be delegated. And if it is not delegated, then there 

needs to be a justification as to what the certain circumstances are 

that would be different from the norm. 

27 

You mentioned the safety continuum. That is something that we 

also feel is very helpful in our evaluation of how to put the right 

amount of rigor in the right areas. Many of you are familiar with 

our experimental aircraft certification, which is someplace where 

society accepts quite a bit of risk. It is maybe a recreational application. So what you can compare it to is something like a motorcycle. And then you can go up to the top of the continuum, where 

you have transport category aircraft like the Boeing aircraft, where 

society accepts zero risk. The tolerance is very, very low. 

And so, when we are looking at our projects, we want to make 

sure that we are putting our efforts in the area where we have the 

greatest level of risk if we don’t take care of the issues at that area. 

Society does not accept any risk, we need to focus our efforts in 

that area. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So have you classified airworthiness requirements based on risk or impact or safety of flight? 

Ms. BAKER. Yes. We actually went through all of our regulations. 

Some of them are relatively simple. You stress something until it 

breaks. Other times it is a very sophisticated analysis. And so 

things that are very simple to apply and have low probability of 

being applied inappropriately and the consequence of that failure 

is protected by some redundancy in the system, that would be a 

low-risk area. And then there are other areas where we are very 

sensitive to the risk. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So you mentioned low-risk areas. That would 

be, like, cabin interiors and seats. Do you measure the effectiveness 

of implementation by monitoring whether there is a lot of technical 

workforce involvement in those areas? 

Ms. BAKER. We do look at that, but I think I need to clarify. 

There is a misconception that interior items are a very low-risk 

area. What we want to assure is that the passengers are protected 

in the event of an accident. And so there are complexities in the 

design as the airlines try to specialize their interiors to suit their 

customers. 

So we have a lot of complex interiors, as you may have seen, 

with video cameras and videos at the stations, and sometimes 

doors in between different compartments. And so it gets more complex than I think the average person really appreciates. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. And, Mr. Hamilton, you mentioned that 

not only are 90 percent of Boeing’s 148,000 high-tech, good-paying 

jobs U.S. jobs, but there is also an additional 1.5 million U.S. jobs 

in your supply chain, which—some of those come from my hometown and my congressional district. 

And you also noted that the FAA must remain global leaders in 

aircraft certification, and you listed some bullet points. The last 

one was that the FAA must fully support and promote U.S. exports 

of aerospace products and services. Can you elaborate on what actions you believe FAA should be taking in this regard? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you. I think when we talk about promoting, it is about being a leader, driving relationships, being 

present. ‘‘Promote’’ used to be in the FAA charter. It was taken out 

years ago. It is in the EASA charter. We talked about EASA earlier. And EASA, they work hand in hand with the European manufacturers to promote their products to sell. And they are out there 

28 

trying to engage with other countries even around how they can 

help them. 

We want the FAA to help promote American jobs, as well, and 

support the products that are built in the U.S. by helping us with 

the exports where we need it, or helping with key campaigns, and 

being there, working with the Government agencies on Government-to-Government contracts, making sure we have good, strong 

bilaterals that allow for ease of validations or other export requirements. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you. 

I think I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. You are more than out of time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Carson? 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman. I am very concerned that, as 

introduced, this new private panel does not include one of the largest users of the U.S. airspace, which is the Defense Department. 

I would like to hear from any of the witnesses their views about 

how privatizing air traffic control could impact the coordination 

that currently takes place, and what the impact would be for our 

national security. 

[No response.] 

Mr. CARSON. OK, next question. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CARSON. I am interested to hear—I actually introduced a 

bill—I am reintroducing a bill. I am curious about your views on 

the addition of a physical barricade outside the cockpit. I have 

heard proponents point out this measure could be effective and not 

especially expensive, but I have also heard objections. 

I am planning to offer an amendment to add a secondary barrier 

to all U.S. passenger carriers manufactured going forward. What 

are your thoughts? Is it an inconvenience? A security concern? Yes? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Mr.—— 

Mr. CARSON. Yes. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Congressman, FAA actually issued standards for 

a secondary barrier. And so it is available for designers to design 

against and for operators to request to have that installed. So it 

can be done. 

I do think there are some real questions about the location of it, 

depending on the configuration of the aircraft and the aircraft 

exits. And obviously, we would want to assure that it doesn’t interfere with any emergency egress that would affect passenger safety 

in some way. But the standards do exist and a designer can design 

to those standards, and an operator could, in fact, request that. 

Mr. HAMILTON. I would like to just share—— 

Mr. CARSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. Our thoughts on that. And again, I 

applaud the words that were in the FAA reauthorization bill. But 

I caution you about putting prescriptive requirements in there like 

a secondary barrier. 

Mr. CARSON. OK. 

Mr. HAMILTON. I think we should step back and really look at 

what are we trying to achieve. You want to keep the bad people 

29 

off the airplanes, first. You know? Make sure TSA has strong procedures, keep them off the airplane. 

Secondly, I think you have to look at what we have done already. 

There are part 121 regulations that govern the airlines on how to— 

when a pilot comes out of the flight deck. And those are quite effective today. I have been on flights where I have been asked, as an 

able-bodied passenger, to assist in case of an emergency. 

Mr. CARSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. HAMILTON. And I have been willing to do that. 

Third, you have to look at the secure flight deck door that we instituted after 2001. It has been extremely effective. 

So, I think the risk is—really has decreased significantly, between what TSA has done, what the part 121 rules govern, and the 

flight deck door. As Ms. Gilligan said, we have had airlines request 

a secondary barrier, and they have actually put it on and then 

taken it off because they found that the options through part 121 

give them a little bit more flexibility and more efficiency in how to 

control the security of the airplane. 

Mr. CARSON. All right. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Webster? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to follow up 

on a question the Chair asked about cybersecurity with Ms. 

Gilligan. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has a framework for cybersecurity. Does that in any way benefit your concerns 

or problems, or does it fit in any way the ones that would be specific to the aviation industry? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Congressman, I do believe that NIST is a part of 

the interagency work that is underway to look at standards for 

cybersecurity and those kinds of things. I apologize, I don’t have 

the details, and we can certainly provide that back to you. 

I don’t know, Ms. Baker, if you are familiar with any of that 

work. 

Ms. BAKER. No. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. No. So if we could get back to you on the role of 

NIST and their standards, clearly, they always inform much of the 

work we do in security and other areas. I am just not particularly 

familiar with the work we are doing with them in this area. 

Mr. WEBSTER. It seems like the—those that are perpetrating 

cyber crimes and so forth are very aggressive, and that their abilities are moving along at a very fast speed. Does the bureaucracy 

in any way hinder the counter to that, in your particular aviation 

authority? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. First, I am pleased to say that any reports that 

we have received of cyber attacks on aircraft have been investigated by FAA, along with the FBI. And we have not been able 

to sustain that any attack has successfully occurred. And we believe that is because of the design standards we have in place. 

But to your point, Congressman, we do know that that community that is looking to hack into things is always looking for new 

ways. They are very creative. And so that is why we have brought 

together an interagency group to start to anticipate where might 

the threat be coming from, and what more do we need to do as we 

30 

look at design and maintaining the continued safety of the fleet 

that is already in operation. So we have a very extensive effort in 

that regard, and I don’t believe that that will be slowed down as 

a result of bureaucracy. We understand the risk is too high. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start out by 

asking Ms. Gilligan about a bilateral with the EU. I understand 

there is important revisions to the technical implementation procedures of this bilateral that are pending. It is my understanding this 

will help improve the validation process surrounding aviation products. When do you think that these revisions will be adopted? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Congressman, Ms. Baker actually negotiated those 

revisions, so I will ask her to respond to you. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Ms. BAKER. You are probably familiar with our validation improvement roadmap. And we were working through that to rely 

more heavily upon each other, and in some cases fully on each 

other. 

The latest revisions we had gone forward to try to take a pretty 

aggressive approach, and had to take a bit of a step back so that 

we could think through some of the things that we wanted to do 

that were much more ambitious. So we are going to be issuing 

what we call a TIP Rev 5a in the near term, in the next few weeks. 

And then we will, by the end of March, issue a TIP Rev 6. And in 

those what we are trying to do is, again, rely more heavily upon 

each other, avoid the redundant work. And, as we move forward 

past what were very basic, complex modifications to aircraft, we 

are going to start incorporating full reliance on each other for 

things like engines and propellers and then, later, small airplanes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And that is something that is very important and 

gets done as quickly as possible, because it would be very helpful 

to the American aviation industry. 

I want to check with the chairman. I think the clock didn’t restart at the beginning of my question time, because I don’t think 

I am that far along. So I just want to check with—make sure that 

was the case. OK. I won’t take another full 5 minutes, don’t worry. 

Thank you. 

The FAA’s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise program, also known as the CLEEN program, is a Government-industry research partnership which has leveraged millions of dollars of 

private money to develop and demonstrate certifiable aircraft technologies that are at high states of technology readiness. This program has worked very well, in terms of helping to actually produce 

aircraft that have lower noise, greater efficiency. 

So I know that both Boeing and then Pratt & Whitney have been 

participants in a CLEEN program and Dr. Epstein had mentioned 

it in his testimony. So, Dr. Epstein and also Mr. Hamilton, can you 

speak about how these investments can serve as a catalyst for acceleration of new technology and its impact on American competitiveness in aviation manufacturing? 

So Dr. Epstein? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. These get to the heart of the competitiveness of our 

products. Airlines buy aircraft because of their fuel efficiency. ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:05 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2-15-2~1\24210.TXT JEAN
31 

munities welcome aircraft because of the lack of noise. And these 

are both focuses of the program. 

Many of these technologies are just entering service now. And I 

see that the output from the CLEEN I program, which is just finishing up, will probably be in the next new airplane that will enter 

service in the next decade. And, in fact, as we speak we are running an engine down in West Palm Beach demonstrating very low 

noise capabilities and very high efficiency of new types of turbofan 

engines. 

So, it is—we put up a lot of money for part of this program. So 

I think it is a great example of the catalytic effect that a relatively 

small Federal investment can make on this industry. And the FAA 

investment is focused on the relatively near term, which, for us, is 

8 to 10 years, which is what it takes to prove a technology and 

then develop a product from it. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamilton, you want to add anything to that? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I would agree that I think it is a great partnership with industry and the Government in terms of really promoting new technologies. We have flown an eco-demonstrator 

roughly every year with—to go prove out these technologies. And 

it allows us to accelerate the incorporation of those into new products. 

So similar, the Europeans have a very similar-type investment 

plan over there, and I think this is a good product. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, this program has to be reauthorized, and I 

am hopeful that it is something that we are going to be able to do 

in the FAA reauthorization. I think it is something that has been 

very helpful to the American aviation industry, helped the competitiveness. And so I think it is something we need to continue. 

So, with that, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

Ms. Gilligan, why are you leaving? You are much too young to retire. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Thank you, sir. But it seems it is time. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you for your work. I am interested in 

a lot of things. But I just want to ask about one thing. And this 

has been a long-time concern of mine. But 3 years ago this month 

we had testimony in this subcommittee that the—by Calvin Scovel, 

the inspector general, that the NextGen program had an original 

cost estimate of $40 billion, but that it was more likely to run two 

to three times that much. And it seems to me you are talking about 

some awfully big money if you are talking about getting up into 

costs possibly as much as $120 billion. 

And I am just wondering, can you tell us where we stand today, 

3 years later? And are costs still spiraling out of control, and what 

is the latest estimate or guesstimate as to the end cost of that program? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Sir, under Administrator Huerta, what we have 

done is reach out to industry to align our program with their priorities. We have a NextGen Advisory Committee, which is chaired by 

32 

one of our major airlines, and all of the stakeholders who have a 

part in the system are members of that. 

And within the last 2 years—2 or 3 years now—we have requested that set of priorities from industry, and we have met all 

of their requests. So we are working very closely with industry. 

There are already measurable benefits for Delta, for example, at 

Atlanta, and a number of other major airlines at major airports. 

They are seeing the benefits of the efficiencies that come with the 

NextGen system. We can provide for you all of the detailed cost 

and benefit numbers, but I do believe industry would concur that 

we are on the right path, and that, in fact, the system is beginning 

to demonstrate the benefits that we have all anticipated. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, you also testified that many of the key parts 

of the program that had original goals of being done by 2025 were 

going to have to be extended out to 2030 and even 2035. Do you— 

are we back on a better schedule than that, or—— 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Sir, I apologize, I am not familiar with the inspector general’s testimony that you are referring to in the safety organization, I don’t manage that program. But we work very closely 

with the NextGen program. And again, over the last several years, 

we have been delivering new systems and new technologies. The 

most recent one is the data communications technology, which is, 

in many locations, ahead of schedule. 

So again, I think we would like to offer for you, our staff, the details of exactly how the program has been managed over these last 

3 to 5 years, and show you the progress that we are making. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. What I think would be good or helpful 

for the committee is to have somebody take a look. This testimony 

is mentioned in the briefing paper that we got, and it was testimony that—in a hearing on February 5th of 2014. And I would like 

to know where we stand, particularly on the costs and other issues 

that Mr. Scovel raised at that time, and whether it has gotten better or worse since then, and some of the specifics. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. We can certainly provide that. I believe 

there has been additional work by the inspector general since then, 

and very detailed responses by FAA to the inspector general recommendations. So we will make sure that you and your staff have 

all of that information. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MITCHELL [presiding]. The Chair recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for 

5 minutes, please. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, we know 

the importance of the aviation manufacturing industry in this 

country for many decades, and what an economic as well as technological advancement that means for all of us here. So being a California Member, I have seen how we have been devastated in our 

economy by the departure of much of the industry. And so I am 

concerned about the regulatory load on that. 

And then I also hear in committee here about people concerned 

about the plane sound. I live on a farm in my real life, and nothing 

makes me happier than hearing a nine-cylinder Pratt & Whitney 

radial going over my fields in the spring. So—and that and the 

stuff—the airplanes don’t drive me crazy, it is the sirens all night 

33 

long here in town. So—but I am not used to that. So, anyway, keep 

hanging in there. 

But for Mr. Epstein, I met you in California there. And so much 

of the aerospace has left the State. And primarily—you know, there 

was a downturn in the economy, but also they are showing up in 

other States. So can you reflect a little bit on what you have seen 

with the regulatory load in the State of California that has 

caused—I think your last facility, you know, had pulled out a couple years ago that was making the auxiliary power units for aircraft. And what made California less competitive elsewhere, and 

what lesson can we learn that doesn’t completely chase the industry out of the country, which—I sure hope that we can maintain 

domestically built aircraft and all its related components. 

Dr. EPSTEIN. Well, the engine business is more constrained in 

size in the aircraft certification. So the engine directorate is based 

in Burlington, Massachusetts. And we almost exclusively deal with 

them, as opposed to the aircraft directorate, which is more broadly 

based around the country, including Los Angeles. So I can’t really 

comment on that. 

UTC has very extensive facilities, I think 140 acres in San Diego 

on the waterfront, where we are, I believe, the world’s oldest manufacturer of nacelles, and continue to do that. The APU business 

was moved within UTC from UTC aerospace systems, which is 

when it was in San Diego, to Pratt & Whitney. And it was essentially—it was a very small facility. And so it was moved to—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Don’t take me wrong, sir. I am not faulting you 

for your business decisions that may or may not be made. I am 

just—in general, if you are finding an atmosphere of regulation 

that is not conducive, whether it is California, anywhere. I mean 

what lessons can we apply from what you or some of your colleagues have had to do on trying to find a more friendly place of 

doing business, and what could we apply towards national policy 

we would make here? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. The engine directorate is, I think, a jewel for this 

country. And I think what we can do as a policy issue is make sure 

that in any FAA reorganization its deep expertise in the peculiar 

requirements of the engine business not be diluted or otherwise 

lost. 

The organizational development authority was a step forward, 

and I think the certify design organization, which Mr. Hamilton 

mentioned, is another process by which there is more delegation to 

qualified industry, reducing the load on the FAA, and allowing industry to be more flexible. And then we would be more aligned 

with the European regulators, and, in particular, the flexibility 

they give to European manufacturers. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So flexibility from FAA would be pretty key. 

Dr. EPSTEIN. Oh, it always has been. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Hamilton, do you care to touch on that, as 

well? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, again, I think it is how do you best use the 

total resources that are available around certification, whether 

they are in the industry or whether they are at the FAA. And I 

think we have got to constantly look at how to best efficiently use 

those limited resources, given the production rates are going up, 

34 

given that there is development programs going on constantly. We 

are doing a lot more certification work than we have ever done before. 

With respect to California, sir, though, I just want to, you know, 

for the record just state we are very proud of the folks that we 

have in California that continue to support and to do design work 

in California to fly airplanes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I appreciate you hanging in there. It is a hard 

State to do anything in, so I know you are trying. 

Real quickly, a one-liner, Ms. Gilligan. We have a situation in an 

airport up my district, the Tulelake Airport, which has been required to do a perimeter fence as per safety regulations. It has 

been running into some issues with that. I would just like to ask 

if you could look into that, please, and help expedite, so that the 

airport people know what to do and how to complete that for their 

safety requirements. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Certainly, Congressman. I will take that request 

back to our Associate Administrator for Airports, and make sure 

that they are focused on that issue. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you so much. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Rokita for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chair and I thank the witnesses for their 

testimony. Apologies, I was in another hearing and just got here 

recently, but wanted to have maybe what would be some followup 

questions with regard to what was said and asked earlier on today. 

Ms. Gilligan or Ms. Baker, with regard to the part 23 rewrite, 

I am reading your testimony and I see that it is going pretty good, 

in your view, and it seems that industry is basically saying the 

same thing. And I am reading in your testimony where you describe how you are now taking the part 23 rewrite not just to new 

design sheets of aircraft, but to equipment, avionics and such. You 

mentioned in your testimony that you are focused on equipment 

that actually improves the safety, especially in general aviation aircraft, and that is fair. 

But then you talk about a prototype you are working with industry on in bringing that—the same rewrite features to avionics that 

are just generally better. And by better, you intuitively also get 

safer, right? 

So my question would be how is this prototype program going? 

What results can we see, and when? And how do you define what 

category of avionics you are going to focus on next? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. So, Congressman, let me start and I will ask 

Dorenda to give you more detail. But I think you are familiar with 

the efforts that we have had so far have been to enable what we 

call nonrequired safety equipment to be able to be installed. Because it is not required, it is a much lower level of certification or 

certitude. But it is to give pilots situational awareness. The new 

prototype is looking at how can we streamline the process for certified systems to be able to get those into general aviation at a 

lower price point. 

35 

Mr. ROKITA. Oh, so you are not even in the certified space yet. 

You are—certified space as it regards that angle of attack indicator, but you haven’t moved beyond that in the certified world? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Well, we have. So let me ask Dorenda to give you 

the details. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Because, as you know, it always gets complicated. 

Ms. BAKER. What we are trying to do is to find out, again, back 

to that safety continuum, how much rigor needs to be applied. She 

mentioned the nonrequired safety-enhancing equipment, and we 

recognized that we were applying too much rigor to equipment that 

wasn’t even required. So we wanted to get that into the aircraft as 

quickly as possible, because it is very important for loss of control 

and controlled flight into terrain to give the pilots a situational 

awareness. 

Things that we are looking into now is scaling the production of 

those appliances and parts, because it makes a difference on how 

much scrutiny they undergo in the production of the part. And I 

think it has been mentioned before. And Michael might even have 

some first-hand knowledge of some of the things that we are doing, 

along with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association and 

the Experimental Aircraft Association, one representing people who 

want to fly these, and the other the manufacturers that have the 

higher end equipment. But we are coming together and finding 

ways that we can work both parts of the industry, such that we can 

come up with a good solution for both—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Are you finding tension in the manufacturing world 

between those that went through the process under the legacy certification processes, and therefore invested a lot of money, and they 

need a return on that investment—that is how you hire people and 

stay in business—versus this new way of doing things? Is there 

that tension? And how are you resolving it as the Government referee, so to speak? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes. Well, actually, it is interesting, you are right. 

There was tension because there were—one, not because I did it 

and I had to go through the hard process, but more that we know 

that the process that we have today provides a safe product, and 

we don’t want the reputation of the industry degraded. 

And so, instead of being a referee, I actually asked them, ‘‘Why 

don’t you guys go sort it out together and find an area where you 

both agree that it is beneficial for both?’’ And they came back to 

us with some proposals, which were very helpful. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. So I am always a little bit schizophrenic when 

I see the word ‘‘prototype’’ coming from an agency, because on one 

hand it looks like you are thinking outside the box, and that is 

wonderful, but then it also means that it is a prototype, which 

means it may always be a prototype. 

When do we go full-scale with this kind of thinking? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. We are actually seeing results today. What we 

continue to do is just keep pushing it. I know we call them prototypes, but it is really kind of the entrance of the things that we 

are doing—— 

36 

Mr. ROKITA. Pushing it, when can I see that this works, and that 

you guys are embracing this less rigorous kind of situation because 

it is not needed—— 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Again, I think you already should see results 

from, like, the angle of attack indicator and some of the things 

that—— 

Mr. ROKITA. No, no, no, I see results, but when are we full scale? 

You are in prototype mode. When are we going to make this the 

practice. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. It is the practice. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. We are still trying to assure that we have got the 

checks and balances that are in place to make sure that we don’t 

go too far. 

Mr. ROKITA. You are talking out—— 

Ms. GILLIGAN. That is what I—— 

Mr. ROKITA. You are saying two different things to me. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I know, I know. But what I wanted to share is 

why we call it prototype is in one case we went—what industry felt 

we went too far. We issued something that everybody was very, 

very excited about. But, in retrospect, we realized that that was 

maybe just a little bit too far out of the box, so we scaled back. So 

we are pushing forward, but in some cases we do need to reassess 

what we did and whether or not that pushed the envelope beyond 

what was acceptable to industry. 

Mr. ROKITA. So I am going to ask a question on the record for 

you to follow up with. I just—perhaps because I missed some of the 

hearing, and I apologize again—I would like more detail on that 

pushback so I understand the issue better. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. It would be great to talk to you privately on that. 

So that would be—— 

Mr. ROKITA. No, could you just—— 

Ms. GILLIGAN. In the record? 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. Send me a letter? Yes. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. OK. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. Thank you. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. OK, will do. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Meadows 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of 

you—Ms. Gilligan, and thank you for your service, and congratulations on your upcoming retirement. And so I am not going to ask 

a bunch of detailed questions. I would like to make two comments. 

One is with regards to the implementation of NextGen. If you 

will carry the message back is that we continue to have hearing 

after hearing after hearing with no specificity in terms of benchmarks and how we are going to accomplish it, other than the request for more money. And so, in doing that, I looked into it in a 

much more detailed way than ever before, and it is too segmented 

to actually, at this point, have any real results, even though you 

may mention that it is having great results in Hartsfield-Jackson 

Atlanta International Airport, perhaps not as much in Charlotte, 

North Carolina. 

37 

And so, when we look at those, if you would carry that back, that 

it is critically important that we have more defined benchmarks 

and, really, timetables as it relates to some of the implementation. 

Talking to some of your folks, it seems like we are moving some 

of the money from NextGen into other areas of FAA that would actually, in my mind, be a problem from an appropriator’s standpoint. And I am not making an accusation, I am just saying if you 

would ask them to look at that. 

And Ms. Baker, let me come to you. Because what Mr. Rokita 

was just talking about, it is critically important, from a certification standpoint and a general aviation standpoint, that we get it 

right. So what I would like for you to do is give this committee five 

recommendations on how we can get the Government out of that 

and allow the certification process to go in a more streamlined and 

expeditious manner, so that we are not going back and forth on the 

timelines that he is talking about with prototypes and what is success and what is not success. 

So could both of you do that? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Ms. Baker? 

Ms. BAKER. Absolutely. And we didn’t get a chance to make a 

plug for our blueprint. We are working on a blueprint which will 

provide a lot of recommendations, and we are doing that in collaboration with industry. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Ms. 

Lawrence for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sure that everyone 

in this room will agree when I state that in today’s global economy, 

a modern transportation infrastructure network is critical. I represent the 14th District of Michigan. My district directly employs 

over 25,000 employees in manufacturing, and tens of thousands indirectly. The aerospace manufacturing industry directly employs 

more than 200 employees in my district, and 1,000 more through 

indirect partnerships. 

So my question is for Ms. Gilligan. While we discuss the current 

state of civil aviation manufacturing, including the regulatory and 

the general health of the industry, I want to talk about the workforce of the industry. FAA’s primary mission is ensuring aviation 

safety. The more than 14,000 FAA air traffic control specialists do 

a great public service. 

So my question is, while FAA works through this surge in the 

hiring process, I want to know if your agency has the capacity and 

infrastructure in place to train these new works. How are you managing this surge in hiring? And what are the challenges you currently face? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Congresswoman, I can provide you some of those 

details, although I am not responsible for the air traffic service provision, and we can get you additional details. 

But I can tell you that FAA has planned for the hiring surge, and 

they have continued to hire, even while we are under the continuing resolution, for example, and through these early months of 

the new administration. We have been authorized to continue to 

hire air traffic controllers, as well as other safety technical specialVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:05 Oct 13, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2-15-2~1\24210.TXT JEAN
38 

ties, and that hiring continues. We have a training facility down 

in Oklahoma City. Those classes are prescheduled, and they are 

filled, and we will be able to continue to meet the hiring requirements for this year. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. With that being said, Mr. Epstein, in your written statement you mention the demand for the next generation of 

aerospace engineers. I cochair the Congressional Investment in 

America’s Skilled Workforce Caucus, and our mission is to scale up 

the American workforce. Can you elaborate on the need for a 

skilled workforce in this critical aerospace industry, as well as in 

U.S. manufacturing? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. Yes. The aerospace industry in particular has a bimodal age distribution, where there is a large cohort close to retirement with vast skills, a hole reflecting lack of hiring for decades—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. 

Dr. EPSTEIN [continuing]. And then a group of enthusiastic young 

people. This extends from the more technical aspects of aerospace 

engineering, which is working with universities, but also to trained 

workers on the factory floor, who are just as important. 

And so, you will see that the industry is starting—which has 

long worked with universities around the country, as has the FAA 

and NASA, in terms of fostering engineering education—is now 

working with the community colleges to increase training available—and encourage young people. 

Aerospace is so successful in the U.S. because we have had some 

of the best engineers the world has ever seen build up our capacity. 

If we can’t get the same quality of both—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. 

Dr. EPSTEIN [continuing]. Engineers and manufacturing workers 

to go into this business, we won’t have the same future that we 

have had in the past. So industry is critically focused on this, because we really are our people. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamilton, can you comment on what Boeing’s effort is to invest in the skilled trade workforce, please? 

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you. Yes. So the bimodal distribution of 

aerospace workers, I think we have been talking about that since 

I was on the early bimodal stage back 32 years ago. It exists, and 

we do have retirements. But luckily, people space out their retirements. 

Some of the STEM activities that are in efforts across the country, I think, are very effective. I think we are seeing a lot more interest in engineering, in the sciences and technologies, from 

women, from very diverse populations, and it is great. And I will 

tell you that the younger workforce that we are bringing in is highly capable. And I am excited for them, because I think when I look 

at what they are capable of doing—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. 

Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. I think they will carry on. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I just want to close with this. We recognize that 

the average age of a skilled trade worker is 53. We do have a gap, 

and it is very encouraging to hear that you understand it has to 

be a partnership between the industry who is producing the jobs 

39 

and have the need for the skilled workforce, and for us in Government to support that and nurture that, and for these community 

colleges. 

So thank you so much, and I yield back, sir. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr. 

Woodall for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Chairman Mitchell. I appreciate that 

and I appreciate you all spending an extended morning with us. 

Dr. Epstein, I particularly appreciate your mentioning Columbus, 

Georgia, and your work down there. Mr. Thacker has some work 

going on in Columbus, Georgia, as well. But when you spend an 

extra $300 million to put in more capacity, when you recognize that 

you have an incredibly talented workforce, an incredibly robust 

training system as we have there in Columbus State, it means a 

lot to us in the community, and I appreciate you recognizing that 

for the entire panel today. 

My question is actually for our panel member that we won’t have 

back here again. Ms. Gilligan, leadership is hard. Being an agent 

of change is hard. Setting expectations, as the article I branch of 

the article II branch, is hard. Help me to set my expectations. 

When you have a leadership change, as we will soon have, should 

I expect the reforms we have talked about today to be employed 

more rapidly because folks are not invested in the status quo, they 

are able to get out there and lead, make all their mistakes in the 

first 90 days? Or should I expect things to be much slower than if 

we had a continued and steadied hand on the till? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I think you can expect that things will continue 

to move along the plans and programs that we have established 

with industry. So, as Ms. Baker mentioned, we have agreements 

with our industry of what we will do and when we will do it on 

both sides, what we will do as the FAA and what they must do in 

order to meet their responsibilities and be accountable, as well. 

I have a very strong management team in the aviation safety organization, and we have strong support from the Administrator, 

who continues his 5-year term until next January. I don’t expect 

you will see a ripple in our continued success in this area. Very 

much as they describe it, it will be like the fist in the bucket of 

water. It will fill the space quickly, and I think you will see that 

we are committed to these improvements, and we will continue to 

work with industry to accomplish what we have committed to do. 

Mr. WOODALL. Can I ask that question of our industry witnesses, 

too? Depends on which poll you look at. Are folks optimistic about 

the future? Do they have anxiety about the future? Certainly we 

have a big leadership change going on, haven’t had one like this 

in 8 years. What is industry going to tell me? 

Do you share Ms. Gilligan’s confidence that it is just going to be 

the fist in the bucket of water and you won’t likely detect any ripple at all? Or, is there real opportunity to either get this right or 

get this wrong as the new administration takes over? 

Mr. Thacker? 

Mr. THACKER. I would be happy to comment on that. I do think 

that the actions that are in place give us the opportunity to carry 

the momentum forward. But I do think it is important that this 

committee and Congress overall continue to provide the support 

40 

and impetus to make sure that we carry them forward to conclusion. 

And the articles that were in the proposed bills last year provided a great framework for us to be able to move forward, and we 

would like to see those same sorts of proposals put on the table this 

year, and put into the reauthorization act. 

Mr. WOODALL. The Boeing nod of approval there? 

Mr. HAMILTON. I echo those comments, as well. 

Mr. WOODALL. All right. And the largest employer on the panel 

from the great State of Georgia? Dr. Epstein, is that also a nod of 

approval? 

Dr. EPSTEIN. It is, indeed, sir. 

Mr. WOODALL. Well, I am very grateful to you for being here 

today and, again, spending the morning and now into the afternoon 

with us. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr. 

Larsen for a couple of questions. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thanks. Mr. Thacker, just to—for the record, the 

greatest—what would—what changes would have the greatest effect in the shortest amount of time, from Textron Aviation’s perspective, at the FAA? 

Mr. THACKER. So again, from an impact standpoint, full utilization of the designations that we already have in place is the fastest 

path to be able to make a difference for us and for the FAA. Beyond that, to carry forward the philosophy that has been put in 

place with the part 23 rewrite, and take that philosophy, albeit 

maybe not in exactly the same manner, forward into part 25 and 

other parts applicable to other aircraft categories would be a great 

move forward, in terms of streamlining the overall regulations to 

make the entire process less prescriptive and more appropriate. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK, thanks. And I will get the honor of asking your 

last question in front of this committee. And it is going to be easy. 

All I want is—you don’t even have to answer it. 

I just want to request that you all prepare a briefing for us to 

look at the consistency of the application of certification and regulation from region to region within the FAA. That is one of the 

issues we discussed a couple years ago, and I wanted to get an update on that, what we were doing to train and retrain folks so that 

folks aren’t forum-shopping, if you will, for the best deal. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Thank you, sir. Ms. Baker will be glad to present 

and prepare that for you. And it very much feeds in to the air 

transformation that we have underway. Much of what drives that 

decision is to make sure we can provide consistent guidance and 

application of the standard. So thank you very much. 

Mr. LARSEN. Great. Thanks a lot. Thanks. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MITCHELL. If there are no further witnesses or questions 

today, I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and their 

time. 

I want to wish Ms. Gilligan all the best in retirement. I tried 

that; look what happened. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MITCHELL. And I thank the Members for their participation. 

41 

This subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

42 


Insert offset folio 9 here 24210.009
43 


Insert offset folio 10 here 24210.010
44 


Insert offset folio 11 here 24210.011
45 


Insert offset folio 12 here 24210.012
46 


Insert offset folio 13 here 24210.013
47 


Insert offset folio 14 here 24210.014
48 


Insert offset folio 15 here 24210.015
49 


Insert offset folio 16 here 24210.016
50 


Insert offset folio 17 here 24210.017
51 


Insert offset folio 18 here 24210.018
52 


Insert offset folio 19 here 24210.019
53 


Insert offset folio 20 here 24210.020
54 


Insert offset folio 21 here 24210.021
55 


Insert offset folio 22 here 24210.022
56 


Insert offset folio 23 here 24210.023
57 


Insert offset folio 24 here 24210.024
58 


Insert offset folio 25 here 24210.025
59 


Insert offset folio 26 here 24210.026
60 


Insert offset folio 27 here 24210.027
61 


Insert offset folio 28 here 24210.028
62 


Insert offset folio 29 here 24210.029
63 


Insert offset folio 30 here 24210.030
64 


Insert offset folio 31 here 24210.031
65 


Insert offset folio 32 here 24210.032
66 


Insert offset folio 33 here 24210.033
67 


Insert offset folio 34 here 24210.034
68 


Insert offset folio 35 here 24210.035
69 


Insert offset folio 36 here 24210.036
70 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 37 here 24210.037