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

93–580 PDF 2017

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ENABLING A 21ST-CENTURY AVIATION 

SYSTEM 

(114–7) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 3, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

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 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

WITNESSES 

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

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Responses to questions for the record from the following majority-side 

Representatives: 

Hon. Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania ........................................................... 43 

Hon. Don Young of Alaska ....................................................................... 44 

Hon. Rob Woodall of Georgia ................................................................... 48 

Hon Mimi Walters of California ............................................................... 49 

Responses to questions for the record from the following minority-side 

Representatives and Delegate: 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ............................................................. 50 

Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................. 53 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia ..................... 55 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois ................................................................ 56 

Hon. Andre ́ Carson of Indiana ................................................................. 62 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ........................................................................... 23 

Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................................ 27 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 93580.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 93580.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 93580.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 93580.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 93580.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 93580.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 93580.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 93580.008
(1) 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ENABLING A 21ST-CENTURY 

AVIATION SYSTEM 

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in Room 

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

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The committee will come to order. 

Thank you all for being here, particularly Administrator Huerta for 

being here. And the Colgan family members, thank you for being 

here. 

On September 30th of this year the current Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization expires. This current authorization occurred after 5 years of short-term extensions and a partial shutdown, which resulted in tremendous instability and uncertainty for 

the agency, industry, stakeholders, and the flying public. Chairman 

Shuster and I have repeatedly talked about this and pledged to do 

our very best, along with Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Larsen, to see that 

this will not happen again. 

As we draft the new authorization, there are several key areas 

that must be addressed. Technological advances since the last bill 

are at the heart of two key areas of focus, the move towards GPSbased air traffic control under NextGen and the growth of commercial interest in unmanned aerial systems. These technologies hold 

enormous potential that could improve the efficiency and safety of 

our airspace system while unlocking billions of dollars in economic 

activity for the country. 

As Administrator Huerta will concur, NextGen utilizes many 

technologies that would not only increase capacity, but also improve the safety of our airspace. Many of these technologies were 

researched, developed, and tested at the FAA Technical Center, the 

premier research and development facility for the FAA, which is in 

my district. 

While progress has been made on establishing NextGen 

foundational programs, it is clear that the FAA has a great deal 

of work to do before passengers and operators begin to realize more 

significant benefits. For the past year, we have received an extensive amount of input from stakeholders regarding the slow place of 

FAA implementation of NextGen, as well as the agency’s inefficient 

2 

and overly burdensome certification processes, which we think is 

impacting in a negative way on the economics of the country. 

Many of these problems have been identified in several oversight 

hearings conducted by this subcommittee, as well as by the DOT 

inspector general and Government Accountability Office. In addition, we have raised them directly with Secretary Foxx and Administrator Huerta, and I would again convey that Congress as a 

whole is closely monitoring the FAA’s progress on NextGen and the 

subcommittee will continue its vigorous oversight in light of recent 

reports from the DOT inspector general on cost overruns and 

delays. 

Furthermore, after months of delay, the FAA finally released its 

proposed rule on the integration of small unmanned aerial systems, 

or UAS, into the national airspace, but the estimate timeline of 

2017 for finalization of the rule I think just seems too long. Other 

countries are moving ahead more quickly than us as we speak, and 

the American leadership simply cannot be taken for granted and/ 

or allowed to slip. 

I urge the FAA to act both quickly and carefully to ensure the 

United States leads the world in safe UAS integration. Having the 

resources of the FAA Technical Center and the six UAS test sites 

at its disposal, I believe the agency can achieve this important goal, 

and Mr. Larsen and I stand with the committee ready to work with 

Administrator Huerta, with you on this and on other issues. 

As we move forward with the FAA Reauthorization Act, we must 

ensure that our efforts to address these longstanding problems do 

not adversely impact safety, which has and will continue to be a 

top priority of the committee. On that note, I would like to hear 

from the Administrator on the FAA’s efforts to implement one of 

the last outstanding requirements of the Airline Safety Act of 2010, 

the establishment of a pilot records database. 

On a final note, we are now well in the 21st century. However, 

many of our systems and regulatory platforms are for a 20th-century world. Now it is time for Congress, stakeholders, and the community to work together to do something big to ensure that our 

leadership in aviation is maintained. 

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

ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days 

to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material 

for the record of this hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

And now I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen for any opening remarks. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an opening statement that I will just summarize given the interest of time and the 

interest of the Members here today at the hearing. I want to just 

emphasize a few things in my opening statement. 

First off is safety, that as we do the FAA reauthorization, safety 

must be first thing on our mind. 

Second is investment. We need to find a way to work with FAA 

to ensure stable and adequate funding to mitigate impacts of sequestration and other constraints on the agency. 

Third is NextGen. Although there have been problems with implementation, with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and working 

with the RTCA and NextGen Advisory Committee we have been 

3 

able to ensure a development of four key recommendations. That 

funding has been in the 2015 budget for those recommendations 

and we need to start looking at what the next steps are for 

NextGen reauthorization. 

Fourth is certification. As you mentioned, the consistent regulatory environment for consistent certification approvals for components and platforms is critical. 

And finally, the integration of UAS in the commercial airspace. 

These are some of the issues that I know we will be dealing with. 

But with that, I would ask unanimous consent for my full statement to be put in the record. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Chairman Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. LoBiondo, for holding this 

hearing. 

And, Administrator Huerta, thank you for being here today. 

I will be brief also because I know the Members have questions 

and we have shortened time here today. But I appreciate you being 

here today, and I think my two colleagues have laid out all the 

issues that we all want to solve. I hope that we can continue to be 

talking and start maybe a more intense debate about how we do 

significant reform, you and I have had these conversations, where 

we look around the world today and the air traffic control organizations literally across the world are being pulled out of Government 

and functioning more as a business. And they are maintaining 

safety. They are run more effectively, efficiently. They are limiting 

the political process. 

We have seen the 23 extensions, the sequestration, the Government shutdown, the political infighting that goes on. When you 

take it out of Government then they can operate and make decisions. They can make those investments long term without Congress as part of the problem. 

So, again, I look forward to having the discussions. And I will 

ask my question right now. So maybe somewhere in the process are 

you open to talking about serious, significant reform to the FAA to 

move the organization more to what the rest of the world is doing? 

So I look forward to hearing your testimony and questions today. 

So thanks for being here. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Chairman Shuster. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I have put my remarks regarding the reauthorization in the record. I share many of the concerns and objectives 

that have been raised. But I want to raise something else because 

I am quite concerned. 

GAO released a report yesterday—I was one of the corequesters 

of that report—which pointed out significant problems with the 

FAA in terms of cybersecurity. And I don’t think I have ever seen 

a GAO report before that had 168 corrective actions and 17 general 

recommendations. And I have got to say that I am very, very concerned. To me, it is a nightmare scenario. I spent a number of 

years on the Committee on Homeland Security. We know there is 

4 

an enduring interest in terrorist groups in aviation. They have 

used our aviation system as weapons. One can imagine they might 

be interested in hacking the system and perhaps could facilitate a 

midair collision. 

So I am very, very gravely concerned about this, and I hope that 

the Administrator can briefly address what he intends to do and 

how quickly we can move to secure the system. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

Today we are very pleased to welcome the Honorable Michael 

Huerta, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Thank you for being here. We look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

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

DeFazio, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, members 

of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before 

you today to speak about reauthorization of the FAA. 

It seems like not that long ago we were united behind the FAA 

reauthorization of 2012 with a sense of urgency to provide longterm funding to support our Nation’s aviation system, and now we 

are here to continue that work. We have a joint responsibility, Government and industry, to pull together to create the air traffic system that will carry this Nation well into the 21st century. 

In the last 5 years, the FAA has made major progress in transforming our airspace system through NextGen, and that progression continues as we speak. The FAA has delivered on its commitment to build the foundation that will support the many applications of NextGen. In 2014, we completed the coast-to-coast installation of a network of radio transceivers that will enable a satellitebased air traffic control system that provides a more precise and 

efficient alternative to radar. 

With this foundation now in place, we are working with the airline industry and the general aviation community to help them to 

do their part to meet the requirement to equip by the 2020 deadline. By the end of this month we will finish the upgrade of our 

en route air traffic control automation system. This system will accommodate the new technologies of NextGen. This is one of the 

largest automation changeovers in the history of the FAA, and it 

results in a more powerful air traffic system that can handle the 

challenges of the coming decades. 

Through our collaboration with industry, last year we identified 

and agreed on key priorities in implementing NextGen and we 

have been following through. We now have more satellite-based 

procedures in our skies than radar-based procedures. We have created new NextGen routes in cities across America that are saving 

millions of dollars in fuel burn, shortening flight paths, decreasing 

carbon emissions, and cutting down on delays. All of this means 

that airline schedules are more predictable and travelers face fewer 

delays. 

The United States stands as a leader in aviation internationally 

and we intend to remain the gold standard. Our manufacturers 

produce innovative aircraft and avionics that help maintain our 

Nation’s positive balance of trade. We are truly unique in that we 

5 

have the most diverse aviation community, which includes new 

users like unmanned aircraft and commercial space vehicles. Civil 

aviation contributes 12 million jobs and $1.5 trillion to our national 

economy. 

America’s leadership in aviation is being challenged on a global 

level, however, with the growth of foreign competitors and the 

shifting dynamics of supply chains. Domestically, the FAA faces 

challenges I think we can all acknowledge. We have competing priorities among our stakeholders, one of the byproducts of a healthy 

and diverse system, and we have had to navigate a constrained fiscal environment in recent years with nearly two dozen short-term 

extensions prior to the 2012 reauthorization. 

The FAA needs to prioritize its resources to leverage new technology and to respond nimbly to evolving challenges. To maintain 

our global leadership and to continue to reap the economic benefits 

of this industry we should use the upcoming reauthorization to provide the FAA with the tools necessary to meet the pressing demands of the future. A lot is at stake, and we need to get this 

right. 

To that end, the Administration has developed a set of principles 

that we believe will improve our Nation’s airspace system and set 

the course for future progress. First, we need to maintain our excellent safety record and foster the use of data and the use of analysis 

to focus our precious resources on the areas of highest risk in our 

aviation system. We must continue the modernization of our air 

traffic control system. Part of that effort is to ensure stable funding 

for core operations and NextGen investments, and collaboration 

with industry is absolutely essential. We need to deliver benefits 

and the industry needs to equip to use these improvements. 

FAA reauthorization should secure appropriate funding for our 

Nation’s airports. It should also enable the integration of new users 

into our airspace system and support the agency in fostering a culture of innovation and efficiency. 

The FAA also needs to realign today’s airspace system with current demands. We need the flexibility to make investment choices 

that further the health of our airspace system so that everyone can 

benefit. 

Finally, we need to maintain our position of aviation leadership 

on the world stage. This means the FAA needs to remain at the 

table to shape and harmonize international aviation standards and 

promote seamless travel around the world. 

We are extremely proud of America’s aviation heritage and the 

innovation and inspiration that our strong and diverse system has 

always provided. I look forward to working together to make sure 

that the United States continues to lead the world as we create the 

right conditions for further innovation and achievement in the second century of flight. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Huerta. 

On the topic of NextGen, we have spent a lot of time, and I know 

there are tangible and now some measurable results, but there is 

still, in the minds of many Members and certainly for a lot of the 

stakeholders, a serious disconnect between what the Government 

auditors are saying and what the FAA is saying. 

6 

And I am hoping you can shed some light and explain why there 

is such a disconnect where we have the FAA stating that NextGen 

is on time and delivering the benefits expected and Government 

auditors, which we heard from as recently as last week, talking 

about little benefits and slow implementation. 

And we are not talking about from 10 years ago. We are talking 

about this report we got last week was, like, in the last couple of 

years. Could you help us understand this? 

Mr. HUERTA. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NextGen is a very complex undertaking and it requires the deployment of core foundational technology upon which we build applications that the users are able to take advantage of. Both of 

those activities need to continue in tandem. 

The agency has been very focused on delivering the core infrastructure programs, such as the ADS–B program that I referenced 

in my opening statement, as well as the en route automation platform. The ADS–B program was delivered on time and on budget. 

The ERAM program was delayed, but we are coming to the conclusion of that. These programs create an important foundation. 

At the same time, however, the FAA has taken the step to work 

with the stakeholders, the airline industry and the general aviation 

community, to deliver specific benefits and to deliver them now. 

The focus of that has been on performance-based navigation where 

we have developed a number of programs in metropolitan areas to 

redesign airspace to result in very efficient flight paths that reduce 

fuel burn and therefore reduce cost to the industry. 

Last year there were two very significant developments with the 

redesign of the airspace around Houston, where we deployed 61 

new air traffic procedures in a single day, followed by north Texas, 

where we delivered 81 new efficient procedures in a single day. 

We have also done airspace redesign projects here in Washington, DC, and in northern California and in Seattle, and other 

metropolitan areas are following. These metropolitan-focused benefit programs yield very, very significant fuel savings. 

Longer term, with the foundational infrastructure in place, we 

can focus on the national benefit programs, programs such as 

DataComm that we have been doing trials on and which we expect 

to complete in 2019. 

It is true that it is a project that has taken many years, but we 

are delivering benefits for users and we are delivering them now, 

and that pace will continue in the years ahead. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. On the issue of safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems, of course it is of great interest to many people across 

the country, as you know. How does the FAA plan to utilize the 

test sites while it works through the small UAS rulemaking? 

Mr. HUERTA. The test sites play a critical role in serving as the 

focal point for data and analysis and research in the areas of unmanned aircraft systems. As a result of research that is taking 

place at the FAA’s Tech Center in Atlantic City, a lot of good research is being done on critical technologies that are essential for 

safe integration of unmanned aircraft. These include technologies 

such as detect and avoid, how do these aircraft sense other aircraft, 

which is critical to ensuring that they can be safely integrated. 

Likewise, it serves as the repository to share research data among 

7 

the six test sites so that the research done at one test site can be 

broadly understood and can be used to eliminate research in all the 

other test sites. The Tech Center plays a critical role. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, Administrator Huerta, you outline in your testimony, your 

oral testimony and written, some of the advances you have made 

in NextGen implementation. So I have two questions on that. Despite that outline, there are still concerns not just from the industry, the airlines, but from other folks that nothing is being done or 

we are still way behind, all sorts of criticisms along those lines. 

Can you briefly address that? 

Mr. HUERTA. The key developments that we have been able to 

make with NextGen have really brought the system a long way in 

realizing those benefits. I understand the skepticism that the industry and others in the system have had over many years, but I 

would encourage everyone to look at the very significant progress 

we have made in the last 5 years, as we have built out the 

foundational technologies and as we have been very, very focused 

on delivery of benefits. 

Under the direction and with the support of this committee, we 

have engaged actively with industry. The key part of doing that 

was to ensure that what we were focused on was delivering the priorities that industry want. As you know, we reached agreement 

with industry on four key areas of priority that they want us to 

focus on in the near term for the delivery of benefits. That was 

done through a collaborative process. We reached agreement on 

those priorities and we are tracking to the milestones that were set 

forth in those priorities. 

They include a significant increase of and focus on performancebased navigation, which we are doing through our Metroplex program. They want us to focus on surface operations, which we are 

very, very committed to. We also have a significant focus on 

DataComm. Right now the program is running in trials in two airports and will be deploying in two more in the months ahead. 

So by working in collaboration with industry we have identified 

their priorities. We are very focused on continuing to deliver in 

those areas. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. And the chairman and I sort of feel like ex officio members of the NAC at times when it comes to NextGen. 

So I know on UAS there is a significant backlog of section 333 

exemption requests. What can we do to help make this process 

more streamlined? I know we have talked about approaching it 

from a programmatic approach rather than a one-off exemption approach without compromising safety. Can you provide an opinion of 

this programmatic approach that some of us have talked about? 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. Under section 333 of the reauthorization of 2012, Congress granted us the authority to grant exemptions to integrate particular users of unmanned aircraft into the 

National Airspace System, and that has proven to be a very popular tool. We have a very large number of applications that have 

been received from industry. 

Mr. LARSEN. About 450 or so? 

8 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. The challenge that we have is that exemptions 

are granted to an individual or a company for a specific purpose. 

The agency has very limited ability to grant blanket exemptions to 

whole classes of users. So what that means is that we have to 

evaluate each application on its own individual merits and the specifics of what they want. 

Mr. LARSEN. Would the agency argue that that is the language 

that section 333 says it has to do? 

Mr. HUERTA. It has to do with the nature of an exemption. What 

section 333 authorized was the ability to grant an exemption. An 

exemption is to an individual for a specific purpose, and so it is the 

relationship of the two things. Anything that we can do that would 

enable us to look at classes of operators that have substantially 

identical facts or very similar characteristics I think could be quite 

helpful. 

Nonetheless, in the near term we are looking at what we can do 

to continue to streamline the process of granting the exemptions as 

we are currently doing them. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. That is fine. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Chairman Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Again, welcome, Mr. Huerta. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I laid out for you in my opening statement the 

problems we have seen with the sequestration, the 23 extensions, 

the problem with the DOT inspectors, the GAO report that Mr. 

DeFazio pointed out. And, again, my question is about, is the time 

ripe for us to be engaged in a debate to do significant reform? 

One of the things I learned in the last week or so was that 

Verizon, which does a lot of the same kind of things as you, manage data signals, moving things around, they have replaced their 

system four times in the last 10 years. They would still be in the 

1G program instead of the 4G program. They have been able to do 

that, four times replacement in 10 years, and we have been talking 

about NextGen for 25 years. 

Blame the Congress too because of the way we have operated, 23 

extensions, Government shutdowns. Those things aren’t helpful either. But I think it is time for us to, again, look around the world 

and see that they have taken and moved the air traffic control organization out of Government. Let the FAA do what they are supposed to do, and that is regulate, make sure we get more certainty 

in the certification program. 

So, again, my question to you, is the time right for us to really 

be sitting down and talking about a significant restructuring with 

governance and the financing system of the FAA? 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Chairman, there are three things that I think 

any structure needs to yield for the FAA as a whole. The first and 

most important we can agree on is that we have to maintain the 

safety of the system. The second is that we have to have an expeditious and orderly way to deploy technology and to make it operational. And the third is to recognize the tight relationship that exists between developing new operational procedures and certifying 

them for safe use within the system. 

9 

The Secretary and I are both very open to a discussion on structures that would enable us to achieve that, but I would stress that 

what we have to ensure is that there are not unintended consequences that could actually set back the significant progress that 

we are making. 

The other point that I would like to make is that the technology 

systems that the FAA is responsible for are fundamentally different in many ways from telecommunications and other technology systems in this respect: Their principal purpose is to ensure 

that a system is safe. What that means is it imposes, and I think 

correctly, a very high threshold on the performance of those systems, as well as mitigations and backups, to ensure that they don’t 

in any way compromise safety. 

Clearly, we are all focused on how we can do that as efficiently 

as possible, and we are open to a discussion about how best to do 

that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. And I agree with you wholeheartedly. It 

has got to be safety, safety, safety. And you also have industry. 

Boeing wants their planes to fly forever. And so they are fixated 

on safety, which they should be. But would you agree that there 

are examples around the world that are doing things very differently than we are and they still maintain that high level of safety in their operations? 

Mr. HUERTA. There are examples around the world of very different models, but it is also important to recognize that we have 

a significantly different aviation system than any other part of the 

world. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Just in size alone, is that the—— 

Mr. HUERTA. In size alone, but also in composition and mix. 

There is no one that has the robust and highly diverse general 

aviation industry that we have. There is no one that has the mix 

of metropolitan and rural areas that we have and the mix of airspace and the challenges associated with management that go with 

that. There is no one that has the diversity of users that we have, 

particularly the new ones, such as the development of commercial 

space and the development of unmanned aircraft systems. 

What we have to come up with is an operational model that 

works for the United States, not for other countries. I think that 

what will come out of that, recognizing the uniquely American set 

of circumstances that we have, is to come up with uniquely American solutions to address them. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And I agree with that. Making those points drives 

me to believe that NextGen, the technology is absolutely essential 

and we have been talking about it and talking about it. And finally 

the time comes we have to do it, and that is why I believe so firmly 

that we have got to do something different. Again, not only because 

of things not going right at FAA, but because of Congress’ starts 

and stops when it comes to funding and things that we do up here. 

So, again, I appreciate your openness to talk about this and to 

debate this and look forward to working with you. 

Yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

10 

Mr. Administrator, I directed a question at the beginning, there 

are concerns about the GAO report. Do you want to tell me your 

reaction, what you are going to do, how quickly you can deal with 

this? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

First and foremost, the system is safe. GAO acknowledged in 

their report that the agency has made significant progress in identifying the issues that they talked about, and of the many recommendations, many have already been mitigated, and we are 

working closely with them to continue to focus on outstanding concerns. 

I am very actively focused on the recommendations. As I mentioned, we have remediated a very significant number of the technical findings already. We established a Cybersecurity Steering 

Committee a number of years ago. This was part of an initiative 

to give greater focus to the whole question of cyber. I have asked 

them to provide oversight on behalf of the agency on a risk-based 

approach as we address each of these recommendations. They are 

not all equal. 

We have been proactive in identifying other potential actions to 

enhance the cybersecurity posture of our National Airspace System, 

as well as the agency as a whole, and we have been working with 

our other Government partners, those that, like us, have technology-based organizations to ensure that we are using best practices. It is something that I am very committed to and very concerned about, and we are remediating this as quickly as we can. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You are moving or intending to move a lot to the 

cloud. Doesn’t that raise concerns? 

Mr. HUERTA. It raises an important question. As we have 

transitioned our National Airspace System from what has largely 

been a closed system to an IP-based system where we are buying 

services from the private sector, what it means is not so much that 

we are opening up a problem that we haven’t had, but it means 

that we have to ensure that we are using private sector best practices to ensure that we have the appropriate cyber controls in 

place. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Well, I haven’t had a chance to read the 168 

SSI recommendations, but I have got to say I am going to be looking for some very specific assurances when I find some critical deficiencies, because a hack of the air traffic control system could lead 

to catastrophic consequences, in my opinion. 

Quickly on a couple of other issues. I started maybe 15 years ago 

raising concerns about foreign repair stations with more and more 

work moving there. I have concerns that these people don’t undergo 

background checks, but also at least minimally drug and alcohol 

testing. We have been working on a rule for I don’t know how long. 

Where are we at? 

Mr. HUERTA. We did publish an advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking on drug testing in foreign repair stations. We received 

a number of comments. We are evaluating those now and we want 

to get the notice out in the near future. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It has been about, I think, a decade. 

Then how about the centralized database for pilot records? 

Where are we on that? 

11 

Mr. HUERTA. We have done a fair amount of work on a centralized database. One of the things that we wanted to see is what we 

could learn from other industries that focus on centralized records 

from a wide variety of different technology sources. 

This one is technically very difficult for us to work through and 

to do it in a way that we can ensure that it meets the appropriate 

cost-benefit hurdles that it needs to meet. But it is something that 

is within the agency, and I am hopeful that we are going to have 

a resolution of it in the not too distant future. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And then we have had a lot of talk about certification. I am concerned about whether or not you are able to 

have adequate oversight with the proliferation of the ODAs out 

there? I mean, are you concerned about those staffing levels? Are 

you looking at augmenting those staffing levels? My understanding 

is these inspectors are carrying massive workloads and they are 

going to get around, like, once every 3 years maybe to look at something. 

Mr. HUERTA. The challenge is to come up with the appropriate 

balance of how do we use data to determine the highest areas of 

risk and to focus our efforts on those areas. Even if the FAA had 

all of the resources in the world, aviation by its very nature is all 

about innovative technology, and we have to ensure that we get the 

expertise from the people that have it. Sometimes that will be from 

the industry, and the designation process is intended to find that 

right balance between what the agency retains and what we rely 

on industry to do on our behalf. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So do you think it is optimal at this point then? 

Mr. HUERTA. I don’t think it is optimal because I think the industry is always evolving. I know that we have to be more nimble 

in how we do our part of it. Likewise, we have to have appropriate 

tools that enable us to audit industry acting on our behalf to ensure that there are not problems in the system. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for expressing our continuing concern about the cost overruns on the 

NextGen contracts and so forth. 

But, Mr. Administrator, I have two other concerns. First of all, 

there is great interest in and even great concern about unmanned 

aircraft, drones, and the DOT inspector general several months ago 

issued a report about the FAA being behind schedule and there 

being what they called a magnitude of safety and privacy concerns 

about drones. We are reading that Amazon and a lot of other big 

companies want to do potentially millions of deliveries by drones. 

People are wondering about are they going to walk through their 

neighborhood and have to dodge these vehicles, and privacy concerns, and so forth. 

Where do you see all of that heading and are we going to be able 

to put limitations or control on some of these unmanned vehicles? 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Duncan, I think you have very well summarized the three competing things that need to be balanced as we 

integrate unmanned aircraft. On the one hand, there are the 

12 

innovators that want to take advantage of the technology to do as 

much as they can. On the other hand, the public has expressed 

concerns about how they are safely integrated. There are also concerns that have been expressed about ensuring that individuals’ 

rights to privacy are protected. 

The FAA is extremely concerned and very focused on how we balance the first two of these. How can we provide for integration, but 

how do we ensure that it is done safely? The small UAS rule that 

we put out earlier this year strikes a balance between dividing the 

industry into different classes of unmanned aircraft; very small, 

where there might be less risk, and then larger, where we would 

suggest that there would be different requirements that should be 

created for them. 

We have proposed to create a different class of operator, not a 

pilot’s license but an unmanned aircraft operator, and for certain 

classes we have proposed that they be exempt from the certification 

requirement. But they still need to meet appropriate standards of 

safety. 

On the same day that we announced our rule, the White House 

put out a policy related to privacy, and I think that reflects the 

larger concern that we as a Government need to be concerned 

about, and that is how do we ensure the appropriate levels of protection for personal privacy. 

The Government’s policy deals with the Government’s own use of 

unmanned aircraft, but the President also tasked the Commerce 

Department through the NTIA to really take the lead in looking at 

these larger questions of privacy and how do we ensure that individuals’ privacy is protected. 

We are going to need to balance all of these things as we integrate unmanned aircraft into the airspace system and as we do it 

safely. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you. There are other aspects to that, 

but I don’t have time to get into all that. I do want to raise my 

other topic that I have always had so much concern about. In the 

late 1990s, Atlanta Airport testified before us that their main, longest runway took 14 years from conception to completion. It took 

only 99 construction days. 

And in every aspect or every part of the work that this committee does, highway projects, the rail bill that we will have in 

there today, we have tried to put in environmental streamlining. 

Sometimes over the years it seems that we have been more successful at lip service than we have about actual action and speeding things up. And we seem to take about three times as long as 

other developed nations on almost all these other major transportation projects. 

Are you satisfied that we are doing everything that needs to be 

done, speeding up project delivery times and an environmental 

streamlining, so we can get these things done in cost-effective 

ways? 

Mr. HUERTA. The Congress gave us some important tools in our 

last authorization in 2012. Those are dealing with the environmental process as it relates to airspace redesign, which is critical 

for us to deliver performance-based navigation and NextGen. There 

were two categorical exclusions where Congress directed us that, 

13 

under certain criteria, we could make a finding of a categorical exclusion, which greatly accelerates the environmental process. 

The first one we adopted as policy. The second one we worked 

with the NextGen Advisory Committee to come up with a way forward of how to implement it. So this is something that we are very 

focused on. 

I will say that in your home airport in Atlanta, one of the things 

that we have been focused on in the airspace redesign is how we 

can get more capacity out of the runways that they have already 

built. As a result of that activity we have been able to get a significant increase in both the arrival and departure capacity as a result 

of doing airspace changes and relying on this streamlined process 

that we are talking about. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A few questions that I have. First, I will start out with this one. 

Lewis University Airport is located in Will County, which is an important part of my district, one of the fastest growing regions in 

northeastern Illinois. Lewis University Airport submitted a list of 

capital needs to the Illinois Department of Transportation, which 

administers the FAA State Block Grant Program. 

A few of the priorities include land acquisition for runway safety, 

a runway rehabilitation project, and most importantly, a control 

tower, which is critical to support the airport’s role as a generator 

of regional economic growth, an important reliever airport for Midway and O’Hare International Airports, and also a training school. 

I appreciate the meeting that we are going to have next month 

to discuss these important needs. I look forward to that meeting 

and discussing what potential ways there are for the FAA to fund 

these projects, but especially the control towers. 

That leads me to a more general question. I am wondering if you 

can provide any updates on the remote tower initiative that is ongoing? 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you. The FAA has started a program and is 

conducting research on what technology enables us to do in terms 

of using a remote tower capability. Essentially, it is a combination 

of sensors, cameras, and other technology that creates, if you will, 

a virtual tower. The controllers that are actually removed from the 

facility in question have the ability to operate it as if it is a tower 

that is located on the field. This is technology that has been deployed in some very remote regions of the far northern parts of Europe, and we have been focused on working with that technology. 

We do have a program that we are doing in conjunction with the 

Commonwealth of Virginia to actually test this here at Leesburg 

Airport. This is a project that we are working cooperatively with 

our labor partners, as well as the airport, in order to test this technology and understand how it works, not only for Leesburg, but 

how it works in conjunction with the congested airspace surrounding the Washington airports. 

The interaction between what we are doing at this particular airport I think will be very useful. If the results are promising, this 

is something that I want to move out on very aggressively because 

14 

it holds great potential to address the needs that you are discussing. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Any sense of when you may have the results that 

you are confident in? 

Mr. HUERTA. It depends on where this takes us. The program is 

really just getting started at Leesburg right now. We have to develop some data in terms of how it operates in different kinds of 

weather and different traffic conditions. We can provide detailed 

information on that to your office on a regular basis so that we can 

give you a sense of what we are learning from that. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Lewis University is one of the 36 Air Traffic Collegiate Training 

Initiative schools, and students from my district and across the Nation chose to attend Lewis because of the advantages that CTI 

schools provide. We all know that the hiring process was changed 

just over a year ago and this really hurts the students who decide 

at a young age to enroll in a program fostered by the FAA. I understand that a graduate of a CTI school is never guaranteed a job, 

but they did have an advantage in the hiring process that they 

gained in exchange for working hard in school while paying tuition. 

I think the unique nature of these degrees is also worth noting. 

While a CTI graduate with a specialized degree can always pursue 

a different career path, the window to become an air traffic controller closes shut at age 31 and there is no going back. 

I am wondering, I would like to know what the FAA is planning 

to do this year to build off the language of H.R. 83 to help students 

who enrolled or graduated after the hiring changes. I understand 

the purposes of the hiring changes, but I am concerned about the 

students who have put all of the time and effort and money into 

the CTI programs. 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. We are implementing the provisions of the 

piece of legislation that you mentioned in this year’s hiring program, and we have identified all the individuals that are affected 

by those provisions going forward. 

I would like to step back and talk about the broader points that 

you make about the benefit of the education program, as well as 

the point about there being no guarantee. This is a highly competitive job. We received 28,000 applicants for 1,600 positions, so under 

any scenario there will be a lot of people that would like the job 

that don’t get it. 

But of those that we selected, two-thirds were CTI graduates, 

which I think indicates the value of the CTI education and how it 

positions people to compete for this highly competitive profession. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. My time I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the Chair. 

And, good morning, Administrator. Good to be with you. And 

could you keep your microphone really close to your mouth? Maybe 

that would help. 

Mr. HUERTA. OK. Sorry about that. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. Thank you very much. 

Listening to your testimony and some phrases have popped out. 

Let me reiterate them, and I apologize for the paraphrase. Feel free 

15 

to push back if I am unfair in the paraphrasing. But you have testified so far that we need to keep our leadership position in aviation on the world stage. You said no one else in the world has a 

GA industry as robust as ours. That is fair. And then you said we 

need to come up with uniquely American solutions because we have 

an airspace system and a population of different stakeholders and 

users that is unique. Fair? 

Mr. HUERTA. Fair. 

Mr. ROKITA. I agree with all that as well. My question is, it is 

clear to me you are not a short order cook. OK? It is clear to me 

the agency is not a short order cook, nor should we be when it 

comes to promulgating regulations. I believe in the old adage measure twice, cut once. But how long do you think it should take to 

come up with these uniquely American solutions in terms of promulgating regulations? 

Take the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act, the legislation 

that would repeal the third-class medical requirement, generally. 

We have talked about that. You have written rules, apparently, but 

we haven’t seen them. You said I would like the rules, and perhaps 

180 of us as cosponsors would like the rules, perhaps love the 

rules. Maybe I will use the word love. Maybe you said like. I am 

waiting to like. I am waiting to love. 

Are you satisfied with how long it is taking for either these rules 

or how long it took for the UAS rules to come out or the fact that 

the part 23 rewrite has gone way beyond the time? 

And I am not trying to give you a gotcha question. Just as a fellow leader, and as a person who used to run a big agency himself, 

how do you keep the accountability train moving? How do you 

measure metrics? How did you measure progress in these situations? 

Mr. HUERTA. The regulatory process, as you know, is quite deliberate. It can be quite frustrating. It is intended to balance and to 

deliberate over many competing objectives that are out there. 

On the point of the third-class medical, you are correct, the agency has done a lot of work in this area, and we have been in a discussion with our administration partners on what is the best way 

to proceed going forward and how we could proceed on this and 

make it available for comment. 

I think that the process certainly takes longer than I would like. 

It is something that I understand, though, because there are many 

competing points of view and in the other regulatory—— 

Mr. ROKITA. These haven’t even gotten out to the public. It is not 

just about GAPPA. It is about the part 22 rewrite. 

Mr. HUERTA. I understand. 

Mr. ROKITA. It is about the UAS that just hit the street, those 

regulations. I mean, yes or no, satisfied? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think that I would like to see a quicker process, 

but I understand that there are a lot of competing interests that 

need to be resolved. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. In that same vein, when do you anticipate implementing the Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommendations for sections 312 and 313 of the last reauthorization 

that had to do with the aircraft certification and the streamlining 

competing regulations? 

16 

Mr. HUERTA. Section 312, we submitted the report to Congress 

in 2012, as you know. We have completed, I believe, 10 of the 14 

recommendations or activities that we put forward with respect to 

that and we are focused very much on the others. 

Mr. ROKITA. Any timeline? 

Mr. HUERTA. I will have to get back with a specific timeline on 

that. 

Mr. ROKITA. When can you get back to me? 

Mr. HUERTA. We can get back to you soon. 

Mr. ROKITA. Next week, 2 weeks? 

Mr. HUERTA. Next week. Next week. We will get back with you 

next week with a report. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thanks, Administrator. 

Next question that I had, regarding AIPs and PFCs, do you have 

any comments, does the agency have any comment on what the cap 

should be and is it time to raise the passenger facility charge, or 

is it time to tweak the measurements or the formula or the priorities that we issue AIP moneys, especially in the pure discretionary 

area? 

Mr. HUERTA. The Administration set forward its proposal in the 

President’s budget, which would raise the PFC from the current 

cap of $4.50 to $8 for large airports and at the same time remove 

the large airports from the entitlement formula program. The 

thought here is that the large airports have the ability to generate 

significant revenues based on their own activities, but at the same 

time to preserve the basic access requirements for smaller communities and smaller airports. 

Mr. ROKITA. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

A couple of notes for the good of the order. There has been a request because of the time crunch, and we covered this at the beginning, but just to make it clear, any Members who have questions 

that there will not be time for, we will submit for the record. 

And, Mr. Huerta, I am sure your team will help get back to us. 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. And then I would like to ask unanimous consent, 

in light of the hard stop at 10:40, very hard stop at 10:40, in consultation with Mr. Larsen and Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Shuster, that 

we go to a hard 3-minute questioning. 

Mr. Larsen, would you like to comment? 

Mr. LARSEN. You had talked to us about it, Mr. Chairman, and 

I know it is going to be difficult for Members with that, but with 

the hard stop facing us, we accept that. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. So without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Carson, you are recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

Administrator Huerta, thank you, sir. 

Indiana airport directors who are here today briefed our delegation this morning about their consensus regarding the need for 

Congress to raise the cap on passenger facility charges. Now, they 

are being as creative as they possibly can be to finance the critical 

infrastructure, as you know, sir, the projects needed across the 

great Hoosier State. But it is not enough. I think we all know that. 

17 

First, sir, do you think it is possible, or even realistic for that 

matter, for local airports to make the infrastructure improvements 

they need without raising PFCs? And secondly, if you agree that 

the PFCs need to be raised, how should that be done? What does 

that look like in real terms? And what are your thoughts about any 

recommendations? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, our proposal clearly would indicate that we 

do think it is an appropriate time to raise the PFC for the larger 

airports, in particular. The proposal to take it from $4.50 to $8 essentially has the effect of adjusting it for inflation from when the 

last time that the PFC was set. 

I think that it is important that those airports that have the ability to derive revenues locally do have all of the tools at their disposal, and the PFC is a very, very important tool in that toolbox 

to enable them to meet their needs. 

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

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Carson. 

Mr. Hanna for 3 minutes. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

There is a theme here today that the FAA is fundamentally behind in everything, right? So the question I have for you is, along 

with Mr. Rokita’s comments, we are seeing U.S. companies going 

overseas to test UAVs. So the question I have is, how can Congress 

in this next authorization help you deal with that, and what can 

we do from here to help you be more efficient and perhaps lure 

these companies or keep these companies from moving overseas? 

Mr. HUERTA. I could give you a couple of suggestions with respect to that. The first is, as we work through the—— 

Mr. HANNA. Excuse me, do you agree that that is the case? 

Mr. HUERTA. In part, but that is what I am going to address. 

The key thing that I think that we look forward to working with 

the committee on is the implementation of the small UAS rule, 

which if implemented in the form that we proposed would provide 

the most flexible regulatory environment for small unmanned aircraft anywhere in the world. 

The second thing is Congress provided very significant support 

for integration in the last authorization. The chairman noted the 

development of the unmanned aircraft test sites as being key to 

that. One of the things that we want to use the test sites to focus 

on is the very testing that you are talking about. We have heard, 

though, from many members of the unmanned aircraft community 

that since no funds were authorized for appropriation to the test 

sites, the test sites have turned to the testing itself as being the 

business model through which they support themselves. I have 

heard a story from one company of being charged a quarter million 

dollars for a week’s testing for a small manufacturer of unmanned 

aircraft. 

So I think providing a supportive framework that enables the 

test sites to provide low-cost testing resources for companies here 

in the U.S. would be something that would be very worthwhile. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mrs. Kirkpatrick. 

18 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. My question has to do with the CTI institutions. In 2012 and 2013 Arizona State University participated in 

an FAA diversity study. The survey highlighted the CTI organization’s historically diverse alumni pool. ASU’s CTI graduates certify 

at a rate two times faster than the national average, thereby significantly reducing the FAA cost to the taxpayers. The FAA’s recent change in hiring practice has eliminated employment possibilities for over 400 Arizona students and graduates. The nationwide 

impact is much greater as CTI institutions exist in over 20 States. 

The students in these classes have made large personal investments based upon published FAA commitments to hire and based 

upon longstanding practices. So my question is, why make the 

change now? Why has this change been made? 

Mr. HUERTA. The first thing to recognize is that the air traffic 

controller position is an extremely attractive position, and there 

will always be more candidates than there are positions. Earlier I 

used the example of last year where we had 28,000 applications for 

only 1,600 positions. So this is a rate that is less than a lot of elite 

colleges in terms of your ability to get a job. 

The CTI program does not provide any degree of guaranteeing 

anyone having a job, but it is something that the agency takes very 

seriously. In this last hire, two-thirds of those hired came out of 

CTI institutions, so it does recognize that what we have in the CTI 

program is skill building that enables us to get people through the 

system. 

What we are trying to balance and recognize is, as the profession 

changes, we want to ensure that the air traffic controller position 

is available for the broadest range of qualified candidates so that 

we can get the best pool of applicants, so that we can ensure the 

most qualified workforce and the safest system that we possibly 

can have. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. My concern really is about the cost to the taxpayer. So I hope you will factor that into that equation as well. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER [presiding]. Thank the gentlelady. 

And Mr. Graves for 3 minutes. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a 

lot of questions, but we are obviously not going to get to them. 

I do have one real quick, and I don’t know if you can give me 

a real fast answer on your revised guidance document when it 

comes to hangar policy. And I have got to say, I don’t know why, 

given the limited resources the FAA has, why the FAA is even 

delving into this. I think it is a local airport authority issue and 

should be that. But I know you have got a policy that is sitting out 

there. Do you know what the status is right now? 

Mr. HUERTA. I will check on it this afternoon and get you a response, Congressman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. All right. And then the next thing is 

something I am hearing from all over the country, and this concerns me a great deal from the small business standpoint, and that 

is the change in policy the FAA has come up with when it comes 

to testing pilot proficiency check rides in restricted use aircraft. We 

have got businesses out there, as an example, firefighting, they are 

authorized to use the aircraft, but now they are no longer authorVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:27 Feb 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\AV\2015\3-3-15~1\93580.TXT JEAN
19 

ized to be able to test without an exemption. You have got an exemption process in there, but we are hearing that that process can 

take months, and this is going to shut down a lot of those businesses. 

The process of being able to test or do your test or proficiency 

check rides in these aircraft is a policy that has been in place for 

50 years, and I know the FAA just changed it, and it is serious. 

Businesses are calling, they are frantic because they are going to 

go bankrupt if they can’t do their business. This has to be resolved 

right away. It is a problem. And, again, it goes back to not having 

enough resources to be able to process these exemptions very, very 

quickly if there is even an exemption issued. 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. Let me check on it. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. OK. Thanks. 

Mr. SHUSTER. As the gentleman knows, you can submit all the 

questions you want for the record. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Well, I have four. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And with that, Ms. Norton is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question that I think must trouble other Members from 

major metropolitan regions. I notice on page 4 of your testimony 

you say that you want to make aviation safer and smarter. And I 

wonder if NextGen and what you are doing there, whether that 

also applies to making planes less noisy. There are a number of 

communities near the Reagan National Airport—the Foxhall, Palisades, and Georgetown communities, with constant issues before 

NextGen, and we have had some NextGen implementation here. 

Later this spring I am going to be having a community meeting. 

I am troubled, though, that the community has been meeting 

with the FAA and with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and thus far the questions about noise, and noise itself, remain and the questions are unanswered. 

It seems to me that it would be very important for there to be 

a collaboration between FAA and communities, particularly since 

these communities are now densely populated with real people. 

And I am asking if you will be available or if FAA will be available 

to participate if I have a community meeting trying to sort these 

issues out? 

Mr. HUERTA. The FAA will certainly work with you to address 

these community concerns and to respond to them. I can give you 

a couple of things that we are working on, though. As a result of 

the redesign of the airspace here in the Washington area, we have 

been working very closely to ensure that flight paths are more precise, that they follow the river. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, that is critical, rather than following the community. 

Mr. HUERTA. The river does wind, but as a result of technology 

we are able to follow it much more precisely. That is something 

where we have a very active program with MWAA, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, to ensure that aircraft are in 

fact following the river going forward. 

We have a larger initiative that we have undertaken as well, 

which is really to study the question of the DNL metric, that is the 

20 

day-night average method that is used as the measure of aircraft 

noise. This is something that has been around for a very long time. 

As a result of just the changes in technology, as well as the evolution of how aircraft engines and aircraft airframes have evolved, 

we want to validate and determine whether we need to change the 

metric of how we look at noise and how we measure its impact on 

communities. 

Ms. NORTON. This would be very important. A resident wrote the 

FAA’s ombudsman and has said that there are only 31⁄5 hours per 

night when there are no flights over these communities. This is 

just unacceptable. 

One more question, if I have time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Your time is going to expire. So I would ask you 

to submit it in writing because we have 6 minutes and I have got 

two Members here. 

Ms. NORTON. Let’s let those Members speak then. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. And submit it for the record. 

Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Administrator. 

Twelve years ago I fought to get on this committee and one of 

the first things I learned about was NextGen. Sounded great to me, 

safety and improved efficiency. Twelve years later and, I don’t 

know, about 1,000 hearings on NextGen, and, I don’t know, give or 

take $5 billion of taxpayer money and I don’t know how much 

money in private companies. 

It has now been implemented in Boston. And I have got to be 

honest, Mr. Administrator, my support is significantly wavering. I 

don’t see much change for all the money and effort. This is not laying on you. I don’t think there is anything bad, I think it is good 

to try something new. But sometimes it is also good to say maybe 

it is not worth the money. 

And I am kind of at that point now. Especially I am following 

up on a question on DCA, as far as Boston goes, I am told that I 

can’t even intentionally fan planes because, oh, no, we can’t do 

that, yet in DCA you can do this. I just landed that way the other 

day, sounded great. I understand it. But I can’t do it anyplace else. 

That doesn’t make sense, especially when we spend all this time 

and money on a system that should allow you to do that exact 

same thing. 

Mr. Administrator, I have got to tell you, my real basic question 

is, why should I continue to support throwing money at NextGen 

when I have yet to see enough bang for the buck when it comes 

to decreasing noise, when it comes increasing safety, when it comes 

to decreasing delays, or any of other things that we had hoped that 

NextGen would support. 

I want to be clear, I have always been a supporter of NextGen. 

I kind of still am, but I won’t be until we start seeing these savings 

again really quickly. I haven’t seen them and I don’t think I am 

going to see them in the near future and I just would like to give 

you the opportunity to convince me to hang in there. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I would encourage you to hang in there. We 

are seeing significant benefits all around the country. But I would 

like to talk about some of the specific things we are doing in BosVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:27 Feb 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\AV\2015\3-3-15~1\93580.TXT JEAN
21 

ton. Boston Center has been fully upgraded in terms of the new automation platform, the en route automation platform that is really 

central to the deployment of all of the NextGen benefits that we 

are talking about, and it is operating and operating very, very well. 

Boston Logan Airport is an important test facility for us to test 

a lot of NextGen-related surface operations that greatly increase 

the efficiency of the airport, reducing departure delays, and also reducing congestion on the ground. We have a great relationship with 

the Massachusetts Port Authority to try to make the airport operate more efficiently. 

As we deploy more performance-based navigation procedures at 

Boston and at all the New England airports and throughout the 

country, what the airlines get is more efficient fuel consumption, 

as well—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Administrator, I don’t mean to interrupt you, 

and that is all well and good, but why are my complaints going 

through the roof? I mean, I have always had complaints about the 

airport, it is a congested area, but there are now much more than 

there have ever been. And, honestly, it started when RNAV was 

implemented. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I think it goes back to something that I talked 

about with Congresswoman Norton. One of the things that we 

want to understand is, is there is a fundamental public shift in its 

interpretation and understanding of airport noise and how we respond to it. And this is one of the reasons that we want to look 

at the DNL metric to see whether we have better tools to evaluate 

noise on a community. 

Mr. CAPUANO. When you do, please talk to some of us who have 

suffered with it, but not just the so-called experts. 

Mr. HUERTA. No, it is actually a national survey that we are 

doing of communities around airports. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Why don’t you talk to some people who lived 

under—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman’s time has expired. I thank the 

gentleman for his questions. 

And with that, the final 3 minutes goes to Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Huerta, thank you. I will be very specific. We have had a 

number of hearings where we have talked about certification process, specifically toward general aviation. A number of recommendations made in those hearings. What I want to see from you is specifically three major streamlinings of that process. I am tired of 

hearing about it, I am tired of getting testimony and nothing getting done. It needs to go in this reauthorization. 

I am committed to helping you with this reauthorization, but I 

am not committed if you are not going to do that. Do I have your 

assurance that you can help us with streamlining the certification 

process? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think what you are referring to is the rewrite of 

part 23, which are the provisions that deal with general aviation, 

where we have worked collaboratively with industry. We are planning to get a notice of proposed rulemaking out this year on that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, can we have your thoughts on that before 

that? Because obviously we have got a reauthorization process that 

22 

is in the formation process now. I don’t want to wait to have that. 

We need to have that. Can we get that from you? 

Mr. HUERTA. Because we are in a rulemaking process, I can’t disseminate what is in the rule, but we can—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you are disseminating it to other people. 

No, I mean, you are just saying you can’t disseminate it to Congress? 

Mr. HUERTA. No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying 

is I can’t actually publicly put out what is in the rule until it comes 

out for a notice. But we can certainly share with you—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But you can tell us what your thinking is. 

Mr. HUERTA. We can certainly tell you what the results of the 

ARC have been, working with industry and exactly where—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, we have probably heard that at hearings. 

But let me go on further. You talked about gold standards, and 

EASA is starting to take over that gold standard, if we start to look 

at internationally in terms of competition. So I want to ask you, 

what are you personally doing to promote U.S. products internationally? 

Mr. HUERTA. The FAA cannot actually promote U.S.—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, they are, your competition is. 

Mr. HUERTA. That is true. They have a specific promotional authority. Our promotional authority was removed from us in 1996. 

And so how we focus on promoting U.S. products is ensuring that 

we can streamline the process to get the products to market. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so can you submit to this committee three 

things where you have actually streamlined regulations, significant? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am not talking about just small, but I am talking about significant streamlining. Have you actually done that, is 

that your testimony here today? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes, it is, and I would be happy to share examples 

with you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. 

Again, I apologize to all the members of the committee for not 

being able to continue this. 

Mr. Huerta, thank you for being there today. 

We thought about coming back after, but it is an hour and a half 

and I want the Administrator to go back to the FAA and work on 

all these things we have been talking about. 

But we appreciate you being here. Members, I am sure, will be 

submitting questions. I would encourage you to get back to us as 

quick as you can. It would make my life easier when they start 

pounding on me on why they are not getting responses. But you 

have been very good in that in the past and we appreciate that. 

Again, thank you for being here. 

And thanks to all the Members for being here. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

23 


Insert offset folio 9 here 93580.009
24 


Insert offset folio 10 here 93580.010
25 


Insert offset folio 11 here 93580.011
26 


Insert offset folio 12 here 93580.012
27 


Insert offset folio 13 here 93580.013
28 


Insert offset folio 14 here 93580.014
29 


Insert offset folio 15 here 93580.015
30 


Insert offset folio 16 here 93580.016
31 


Insert offset folio 17 here 93580.017
32 


Insert offset folio 18 here 93580.018
33 


Insert offset folio 19 here 93580.019
34 


Insert offset folio 20 here 93580.020
35 


Insert offset folio 21 here 93580.021
36 


Insert offset folio 22 here 93580.022
37 


Insert offset folio 23 here 93580.023
38 


Insert offset folio 24 here 93580.024
39 


Insert offset folio 25 here 93580.025
40 


Insert offset folio 26 here 93580.026
41 


Insert offset folio 27 here 93580.027
42 


Insert offset folio 28 here 93580.028
43 


Insert offset folio 29 here 93580.029
44 


Insert offset folio 30 here 93580.030
45 


Insert offset folio 31 here 93580.031
46 


Insert offset folio 32 here 93580.032
47 


Insert offset folio 33 here 93580.033
48 


Insert offset folio 34 here 93580.034
49 


Insert offset folio 35 here 93580.035
50 


Insert offset folio 36 here 93580.036
51 


Insert offset folio 37 here 93580.037
52 


Insert offset folio 38 here 93580.038
53 


Insert offset folio 39 here 93580.039
54 


Insert offset folio 40 here 93580.040
55 


Insert offset folio 41 here 93580.041
56 


Insert offset folio 42 here 93580.042
57 


Insert offset folio 43 here 93580.043
58 


Insert offset folio 44 here 93580.044
59 


Insert offset folio 45 here 93580.045
60 


Insert offset folio 46 here 93580.046
61 


Insert offset folio 47 here 93580.047
62 


Insert offset folio 48 here 93580.048
63 


Insert offset folio 49 here 93580.049
64 


Insert offset folio 50 here 93580.050
65 


Insert offset folio 51 here 93580.051
66 


Insert offset folio 52 here 93580.052
67 


Insert offset folio 53 here 93580.053
68 


Insert offset folio 54 here 93580.054
69 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 55 here 93580.055