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

86–586 PDF 2015

THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT 

OF 2012: TWO YEARS LATER 

(113–52) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 5, 2014 

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 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

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 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chair 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

VACANCY 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ....... 6 

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 6 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Michael P. Huerta: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, of New Jersey ................................................. 51 

Hon. John L. Mica, of Florida .................................................................. 55 

Hon. Roger Williams, of Texas ................................................................. 56 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, of Connecticut ................................................... 57 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, of Illinois ............................................................... 59 

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, of New Jersey ................................................. 86 

Hon. Roger Williams, of Texas ................................................................. 88 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ....................... 115 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association, written testimony ............................. 122 

Letter of February 11, 2014, from U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, et al., 

to Hon. Anthony Foxx, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation .......... 125 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 86586.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 86586.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 86586.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 86586.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 86586.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 86586.006
(1) 

THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT 

OF 2012: TWO YEARS LATER 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 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 come to 

order. 

Today we are going to hear from the FAA Administrator, as well 

as the Department of Transportation inspector general, and the 

Government Accountability Office regarding the status of the 

FAA’s implementation of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012. It has been almost 2 years. As the subcommittee begins 

to look ahead to the next reauthorization, it will be helpful to understand how the FAA has implemented the mandates of the last 

reauthorization. 

Let me begin by congratulating and commending Administrator 

Huerta for the FAA’s recent selection of the unmanned aircraft system test ranges, as directed by the Reform Act. I know this has 

been sort of a very long and involved process, but one that we hope 

will be able to yield great benefits to our Nation in the near future. 

The ranges will be used to test and demonstrate UAS technology 

and capabilities, and gather much-needed safety and operational 

data. As I understand it, the data will be transmitted to the FAA 

Technical Center and its industry partners for review and validation, and I welcome any comments our witnesses have regarding 

the FAA’s efforts to implement this UAS provision of the Reform 

Act. 

Along with the UAS provisions, there are many other mandates 

included in the Reform Act—roughly 200, I know, as the FAA has 

liked to point out in the past. It is nearly 2 years since the bill was 

enacted. The FAA has made progress in some areas, but it seems 

that they remain challenged in others. Admittedly, not every provision or mandate is created equal, but it is still important to hear 

about the FAA’s progress in implementing the law. 

The FAA’s NextGen program is a collaborative effort to modernize the air traffic control system using new technologies that are 

intended to increase efficiency and capacity, improve safety, reduce 

aviation’s impact on the environment. The Reform Act made significant changes to the NextGen program, and the FAA has made 

2 

progress implementing some provisions. But as the GAO and IG 

point out in their testimony, significant actions are needed to meet 

the intent of the Reform Act and improve the execution and management of NextGen. 

For example, the FAA needs to demonstrate benefits, such as 

through the use of ADS–B technology or the implementation of performance-backed GPS approaches, two areas in which the FAA is 

lacking, according to the GAO and IG. Taxpayers and airspace 

users have invested a lot of money and a lot of time and a lot of 

energy in NextGen, but, considering repeated program delays and 

cost overruns, as well as our ongoing budget constraints, we need 

to hold the FAA accountable for implementing NextGen. 

Further, I want to make clear to Administrator Huerta that I am 

closely monitoring the FAA’s response to the NextGen Advisory 

Committee’s priority recommendations. This was not an exercise 

undertaken to validate FAA’s NextGen implementation plan, and 

it should not be treated as such by the FAA. 

The NAC stakeholders responded to an FAA request quickly and 

deliberately, and produced a set of consensus-based recommendations regarding which NextGen capabilities need to be prioritized, 

given the tight Federal budget environment. These recommendations must be taken seriously, and the agency has to show stakeholders that it is taking the necessary steps to address them. 

The Reform Act also includes provisions intended to allow 

NextGen to move forward while saving taxpayers money by establishing process for the FAA to consolidate and realign facilities and 

services without adversely impacting safety. The law requires the 

FAA to develop a report with recommendations and transmit it to 

Congress. The law ultimately gives the agency the authority to implement congressionally approved and stakeholder-supported recommendations. 

The FAA has a plan to develop a series of realignment and consolidation reports, and the agency will include stakeholders in the 

decision. But if delays persist, it will be yet another roadblock in 

air traffic control modernization. 

Another similar good governance provision requires the FAA to 

review its programs, offices, and organizations to identify wasteful 

practices, obsolete functions, and inefficient processes, and recommend ways to address these inefficiencies. More importantly, it 

requires the agency to carry out its recommendations and actually 

address its finding. 

The FAA has submitted its findings to Congress, but I am not 

aware of any actions the agency has taken to implement them. 

Congress did not intend for the FAA to issue a report and just let 

it sit on the shelf and collect dust. The FAA must act on its recommendations and keep Congress informed on its progress. 

Despite the delays we have experienced, there are many important provisions that must be implemented addressing FAA staffing, 

certification processes, passenger rights, and safety issues. I look 

forward to hearing the status of these, along with the UAS, 

NextGen, and good governance provisions included in the Reform 

Act. 

3 

And, with that, 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. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. Now, I would like 

to turn to Ranking Member Larsen for any comments he may 

make. 

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

on ‘‘The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012: Two Years 

Later.’’ Mr. Chairman, this month marks the halfway point of the 

FAA reauthorization cycle, and it is a good time to stop and assess 

the FAA’s progress implementing the 2012 act. 

Together, we must take stock of those areas the act—the FAA 

has successfully implemented, and note where Congress may need 

to make adjustments, as we look forward to the next authorization. 

Looking forward, the force of globalization and the growth of 

emerging international markets present both opportunities and 

challenges for American aviation. And as I said in our last hearing, 

we simply can’t write a reauthorization bill for 2015 without understanding what is happening in the rest of the world. The aviation 

industry is global, it is competitive, there are new entrants in the 

market every day. 

What happens in Shanghai, New Delhi, Moscow, Buenos Aires, 

or Seattle matters here, in Washington, DC, and around the rest 

of the country. And what the FAA does here in the U.S. will affect 

our ability to compete internationally. 

The FAA authorization contains several provisions intended to 

accelerate, for instance, the deployment of NextGen. And at the request of this committee’s bipartisan leadership, the Department of 

Transportation IG recently audited the FAA’s implementation of 

those provisions. The audit noted that, to date, the FAA has implemented roughly half of these provisions. And, according to the IG, 

the FAA’s difficulty in implementing the remaining provisions and 

meeting stakeholder expectations for NextGen more generally stem 

from programmatic and organizational challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the key takeaways from the 2009 RTCA 

NextGen implementation task force report was that organizational 

structure matters. The officials responsible for planning and implementing NextGen must have responsibility, they must have accountability, and they must have authority to get the job done. 

And, to its credit, the FAA has had some successes advancing individual and NextGen programs. Yet that is not always the case. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I have held several hearings and listening sessions last year, where we have heard from some frustration 

from aviation stakeholders regarding the FAA’s ability to deliver 

near-term NextGen benefits. We have also had continuing concerns 

that FAA’s efforts to advance NextGen at the programmatic level 

are not properly integrated across the agency’s lines of business. 

And, for several years, stakeholders have stressed the need for 

unity of effort across FAA lines of business and between FAA’s 

partner agencies to achieve both near and long-term NextGen benefits and vision. 

And we have attempted to strengthen the NextGen organizational structure in the 2012 authorization bill by creating a Chief 

4 

NextGen Officer. And last June, Michael Whitaker assumed this 

role, and last September the FAA appointed Major General Edward 

Bolton to fill the position of Assistant Administrator for NextGen. 

So, as we look forward to the next reauthorization, it will be important for this committee to evaluate whether the organizational 

reforms that Congress made have been effective, or whether additional reforms are warranted. So, I look forward to hearing witnesses’ thoughts on that subject. 

The disposition and physical condition of FAA facilities are also 

tied to the successful roll-out of NextGen. Moreover, there are critical safety and qualify-of-life issues for FAA’s employees. And last 

September the GAO reported the FAA’s staffed facilities had a 

backlog of approximately $260 million in deferred maintenance. 

Further, the existing technology at several terminal facilities must 

be upgraded to accommodate NextGen. And for these reasons, section 804 of the 2012 act required FAA to complete a study on the 

consolidation and realignment of FAA facilities. 

So, Administrator Huerta, I commend the proactive and collaborative approach that you have taken to address the FAA’s need to 

consolidate its aging facilities. As directed by the authorization, you 

are working closely with the affected FAA employees unions 

through a comprehensive process to identify cost-beneficial consolidation opportunities. And based on the briefing that you provided 

to the committee leadership last year, we expect that FAA will provide initial consolidation recommendations early next year, right 

around the time that the subcommittee will be taking action on the 

next reauthorization. And while we hope that facility consolidation 

will provide cost savings in the long term, I can imagine it may be 

an expensive undertaking at the outset. 

So, the subcommittee will need to examine whether the FAA’s 

current capital funding levels will support facility consolidation, or 

whether Congress will need to increase the FAA’s capital budget to 

support this effort. We will also need to make sure that labor 

groups are included in the decisionmaking process. 

Now, one last key issue I hope to discuss in more detail today 

does concern the unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS. Mr. Chairman, unmanned aircraft are not a next generation technology, they 

are very much in the here and now. Like many other innovations 

in aviation, the growth and development of large, unmanned aircraft have been spurred by military necessity. We have seen large 

UAS technology mature over the last decade through thousands of 

operational hours and missions flown over the battlefields of Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

The FAA estimates that we can expect 7,500 small, unmanned 

aircraft in the National Airspace System over the next 5 years, provided regulations and operational guidelines are in place to handle 

them. In fact, you don’t need to go much farther than the Internet 

today to see that entrepreneurs are finding creative applications for 

small, unmanned aircraft, as we sit here today. 

So, Congress and the administration must ensure these systems 

are safe before they are being fully utilized, and for the benefit of 

the public and for private-sector applications. For this reason, FAA 

authorization required the FAA to safely integrate UAS into the 

National Airspace System by September 30, 2015. The act also proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Aug 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-5-14~1\86586.TXT JEAN
5 

vides FAA with specific tasks and milestones on its path towards 

that integration. 

And while the FAA has completed roughly half of the UAS provisions set out in the act, it has missed most statutory deadlines for 

the provisions it has completed. For example, last December the 

FAA announced six UAS test ranges, where the agency will collect 

data to address safety and operational issues. Yet, according to the 

IG, FAA officials do not believe that the agency will meet the September 2015 milestone for safe UAS integration. Additionally, GAO 

will testify today that FAA will probably not meet the August 2014 

final rule deadline for small, unmanned aircraft required by the act 

itself. 

So, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee must provide rigorous 

oversight in the coming months to ensure that FAA stays on track 

implementing these important provisions. 

And so, with that, I want to thank you for an opportunity to provide an opening statement, and look forward to hearing from the 

witnesses. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. I would now like to turn 

to the chairman of the full committee. Mr. Shuster, thank you for 

joining us. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. And I want to associate myself with the remarks of both Chairman LoBiondo and 

Ranking Member Larsen. Today’s hearing is about where we are 

with the existing law, which was passed 2 years ago. I think it is 

obviously important. We know where we have been, and we have 

had challenges and some fights. We need to know where we are in 

regard to the last authorization. 

In particular, that reform includes acceleration of NextGen, 

which I think is extremely important—I think everybody in the industry is behind that—improving the FAA’s organizational structure, and achieving other efficiencies in a number of areas. But I 

also think it is important that we start the discussion as to where 

we are going, and what the future holds. And I understand that— 

hopefully we will confirm it today—that the Department of Transportation, FAA, is already starting to talk about the future of FAA 

and of the industry. 

And we have started—I gave a speech in December and I think 

it is important that we bring the stakeholders together. And well 

before we start doing reauthorization on the next reauthorization 

bill, which expires in September of 2015, is bring the stakeholders 

in to talk about it to find out their ideas. 

You know, we invented the aviation industry, the United States 

of America. We are the leader in it. And if we are not careful, if 

we are not proactive, we are going to lose it, just like—you look at 

other industries that America was the leader in, whether it was 

textiles, steel, autos, electronics. You know, we are playing second 

fiddle to the rest of the world now. And I don’t want to see us— 

I don’t want to see that happen to our aviation and our airline industry. 

Today they are under attack from foreign carriers that don’t operate under the same rules or regulations, in many cases, that we 

have to operate in. They don’t have the same desire and focus on 

making a profit; for some of these carriers, it is just an economic 

6 

development tool. So we have to take that into consideration as we 

move forward. Our manufacturers are under attack from foreign 

manufacturers, and our own regulatory agencies are hammering 

down on us. We have already seen, with the hours of service and 

the training requirements that go into place, we are seeing cancellations, and not just because of the weather. I am hearing stories over and over again that they are short on pilots, and there 

is going to be a major shortage in the near future. 

So, again, we have to step back, really look at what we are doing, 

or else, as I said, I fear we are going to lose our lead in this industry, which provides $1 trillion to the United States economy. And 

that is something that, again, we need to look around the world 

and see what they are doing. You look to see what the Europeans 

are doing, their public-private partnerships when it comes to their 

airports, what are the certification processes in whether it is Canada or Brazil or Europe. They are faster than we certify our equipment and especially our smaller aircraft. 

In addition, what Canada has done with their air traffic controller system, I think we need to take a hard look at that and see 

if that is able to be done in America. Does it make sense? Can it 

be done? Is it something that would be positive for our aviation, 

our airline industry? 

So, as the coming months go, I have been joined by—certainly, 

Mr. LoBiondo is going to be leading the effort, along with myself 

and Representatives Graves will be meeting with stakeholders 

across the spectrum, talking to them. And when we get to that next 

reauthorization, hopefully we will have a unified front to move forward in a number of different ways to really transform what we 

do in the airspace above us and moving people and moving cargo 

and making sure that our manufacturers and general aviation are 

all robust and intact. 

So, with that, I look forward to hearing your testimony today, 

and yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, and thank you for 

recognizing, understanding, and emphasizing the critical importance of aviation to our Nation. 

Now we are going to turn to our first witness today, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. Administrator Huerta, you are recognized, 

and thank you for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; HON. CALVIN L. 

SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION; AND GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

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

Larsen, Chairman Shuster, members of the subcommittee, it is a 

pleasure to be here to talk about what we have accomplished since 

the very important reauthorization of the FAA 2 years ago. 

We are grateful that everyone came together to reauthorize the 

FAA, and to support the work we do, in running the largest and 

safest aerospace system in the world. We also appreciate the compromised spending bill that Congress passed in December. It proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Aug 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-5-14~1\86586.TXT JEAN
7 

vides a framework that lends stability for the next 2 years during 

what may still be an uncertain budget environment. 

The reauthorization of the FAA was truly comprehensive in nature, and contained more than 200 deliverables from the FAA. We 

have either completed or are on track to complete more than 80 

percent of those requirements. I would like to highlight a few areas 

where Congress gave us direction, and where we have made considerable progress. 

First, we have strong leadership in place for NextGen. Last time 

I appeared before you, we had just named Mike Whitaker as Deputy Administrator of the FAA and Chief NextGen Officer, a role 

that was mandated by the reauthorization. Now, General Ed 

Bolton has joined the FAA as Assistant Administrator for NextGen. 

He is a retired Air Force general with many years of experience as 

an engineer and manager of large, complex programs. 

We want to be sure that the modernization of our Nation’s airspace is creating benefits. As part of reauthorization, Congress 

asked us to track 12 metrics, things like arrival and departure 

rates, system capacity, and gate-to-gate travel times, to name a 

few. These metrics can help determine the impact our work is having on airlines and on passengers. We are collecting this data and 

posting it every month on our public Web site. We are close to finalizing the software and hardware updates to our air traffic control system that will form the foundation of NextGen, and will 

allow us to deliver those benefits. 

One essential program is ERAM, the En Route Automation Modernization. This modern computer system will control aircraft at 

cruising altitudes. We are making great progress. Right now, 18 of 

20 en route centers have started running ERAM. More than half 

are using it exclusively to control air traffic, instead of the legacy 

system of the 1960s. All of these en route centers are expected to 

use the new system exclusively by March 2015. 

I would like to return to another mandate in the reauthorization, 

namely, unmanned aircraft systems. This class of vehicle is truly 

a game-changer. The FAA released two documents in November to 

set the stage: a comprehensive plan to integrate unmanned aircraft 

into our Nation’s airspace, and a detailed road map on how to do 

it. The road map addresses the policies, the regulations, the technologies, and the procedures that we need to integrate unmanned 

aircraft on a routine basis. To accomplish this, we must change the 

way we do business. 

In December, as the chairman noted, we announced six test sites 

across the Nation that will conduct essential research into the safe 

use of unmanned systems. Safety, as you know, is our priority. We 

need to address operational issues, such as ensuring that unmanned aircraft can detect and avoid other aircraft, that unmanned systems operate safety if they lose link to their pilot, and 

this is why developing additional research from the test sites is so 

important. 

Agencies across the Government are coming together to address 

privacy concerns that may arise with increasing use of unmanned 

aircraft. We recognize there has been a great deal of public concern 

about privacy. For the test sites, we issued a privacy policy that reVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Aug 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-5-14~1\86586.TXT JEAN
8 

quires operators to comply with all local, State, and Federal laws 

concerning privacy and civil liberties. 

The FAA has successfully brought new technology into the aviation system for more than 50 years, and I have no doubt we will 

do the same with unmanned aircraft. 

Finally, we have completed work on a range of other important 

reauthorization proposals. Last fall, we created the Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment. This research 

will help develop and deploy alternative jet fuels, which will provide supplemental supply and help cushion petroleum’s price volatility. We have also completed reports on a number of safety-related matters, such as staffing, for safety-critical positions. And we 

delivered a report to Congress, as requested, reviewing the agency’s 

operations, and ensuring that we take every opportunity to operate 

as efficiently and as effectively as we possibly can. 

Two years ago, reauthorization gave our agency needed predictability and stability, as well as guidance on priorities. Next year, 

we will be considering FAA reauthorization in the context of a challenging fiscal backdrop with increasing demands. I look forward to 

continuing to work with the committee to create a vision as we 

work toward that reauthorization. 

Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any of your 

questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Huerta. Our second witness 

today is Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin 

Scovel. 

Inspector General Scovel, you are recognized for a statement. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

Chairman Shuster, members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

inviting me to discuss FAA’s progress in implementing the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. My testimony today will 

focus on three key areas: implementing NextGen and other modernization provisions; safely integrating unmanned aircraft systems 

into the National Airspace System; and effectively employing two 

safety workforces, controllers and inspectors. 

Our past and ongoing work shows that longstanding issues continue to challenge FAA’s efforts to improve airspace efficiency and 

realize the benefits that Congress envisioned when it passed the 

Reform Act 2 years ago. As of last month, FAA had implemented 

half of the act’s 24 NextGen provisions, including appointing a 

Chief NextGen Officer. Despite this progress, FAA has not implemented key provisions intended to accelerate NextGen technologies, including those needed to shift from ground-based radar 

to satellite-based systems. 

For example, FAA will not be in a position to implement ADS– 

B In, which will bring new capabilities to the cockpit, for several 

years, due to changing technical requirements and a lack of welldefined policies regarding equipment and certification. 

Programmatic and organizational challenges also continue to impact FAA’s progress with delivering NextGen benefits. For example, FAA has not set realistic plans, budgets, and expectations for 

key programs, and its organizational culture has been slow to embrace NextGen’s transformational vision. These weaknesses have 

9 

contributed to stakeholder skepticism about FAA’s plans for 

NextGen. 

Another critical step for NextGen will be the successful realignment and consolidation of air traffic control facilities. FAA recently 

provided Congress with its realignment and consolidation plan, per 

the act. But the plan is smaller in scale and less ambitious than 

previous ones. Going forward, it will be important for the agency 

to establish sound metrics to determine whether facility realignments and consolidations will result in cost savings and efficiencies. 

The Reform Act also calls for FAA to safely integrate unmanned 

aircraft systems into the Nation’s airspace. As of last month, FAA 

completed 8 of the act’s 17 UAS provisions, which included publishing a 5-year road map, and selecting six test sites. However, the 

agency will not meet the September 2015 deadline for safe UAS integration, and it is uncertain when this will be achieved. 

To ensure safe UAS integration, FAA needs to overcome significant technological barriers, including developing detect-and-avoid 

technology to ensure unmanned aircraft do not collide with other 

aircraft. Existing communication technology is also inadequate to 

prevent losses of connectivity between ground stations and unmanned aircraft. Although research is underway, it is unclear 

when these efforts will produce the technology needed for successful UAS integration. 

Another UAS priority is to establish minimum regulatory standards. The agency has worked with a special advisory committee for 

over 9 years, but has not reached consensus among Government 

and industry stakeholders on minimum UAS performance standards. FAA will also need to develop standards for UAS operator 

qualifications, ground control stations, and operations for private or 

commercial use. 

Also in public use, UAS have been certified to operate in U.S. 

airspace. Their safe integration has been impacted, in part, by a 

lack of UAS-specific air traffic controller procedures and training. 

Currently, unmanned aircraft must be segregated from the normal 

traffic flow, and controllers have told us that existing automation 

systems are inadequate for managing UAS flight plans, which typically contain a large amount of navigational data. 

Moreover, FAA cannot ensure that public-use UAS operators report all safety incidents, and has been unable to obtain other useful 

data from DOD because of data sensitivity and coordination issues. 

Finally, FAA has not effectively maximized key segments of its 

safety workforce. The agency has yet to fully implement a new 

staffing model to determine the number of Flight Standards safety 

inspectors it needs and where to place them, and data quality problems have prevented FAA from fully relying on the model’s results. 

FAA also needs metrics to determine whether its new controller 

scheduling policies will reduce controller fatigue. We found that a 

small percentage of controllers did not always comply with minimum rest requirements between shifts. Further, FAA could reduce 

the cost of overnight operations at 72 facilities that do not have 

enough traffic to require overnight controllers. To address these 

issues, FAA plans to implement a new scheduling tool to enhance 

10 

cost efficiency, and introduce a new timekeeping system to reduce 

the number of scheduling violations. 

At the request of this subcommittee, we are initiating a review 

of FAA’s organizational structure, including an assessment of 

whether the agency’s structural and organizational reforms have 

improved its operational, technological, and cost effectiveness. We 

will keep the subcommittee apprised of our work. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Inspector General Scovel. 

Our final witness today is Dr. Gerald Dillingham with the Government Accountability Office. Dr. Dillingham, you are recognized. 

Thank you for being here. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Larsen, Chairman Shuster, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My statement this morning focuses on some key provisions in the 2012 FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act, as outlined 

by the committee leadership this morning. Specifically, implementing NextGen, improving FAA’s certification processes, and integrating UAS into the National Airspace System. 

Regarding NextGen, as the Administrator has said, FAA has 

filled key NextGen leadership positions over the last year. However, our work shows that it remains to be seen whether these 

leaders will be able to leverage support and resources across FAA 

to effectively lead NextGen implementation. 

Additionally, with the recent legislation eliminating direct funding for JPDO, it is unclear how the roles and responsibilities of 

that office, particularly with respect to long-term planning and coordination of research and development efforts across partner agencies, will be redistributed within FAA. 

The act also included several provisions to accelerate the creation 

of performance-based navigation procedures. Our analysis shows 

that FAA has made some important progress in this area, but key 

elements remain a work in progress. 

For example, FAA does not have a data system for tracking the 

use of existing PBN procedures and, therefore, is unable to assure 

that investments in these routes, including the cost to maintain 

them, is justified. Furthermore, without these data, FAA cannot 

demonstrate the value of PBN technologies and any resulting benefits to help convince stakeholders of the need for continued 

NextGen investment. 

The act also directed FAA to complete a study on the consolidation and realignment of FAA facilities and services, which is critical to the NextGen transition. As you have heard in earlier testimony, FAA plans to assess which facilities to consolidate or realign 

over the next year, likely meaning any consolidation or realignment 

of FAA facilities remains years away. 

Failure to follow through on efforts to deploy new capabilities, 

consolidate, and realign facilities, and discontinue systems facing 

significant sustainment issues is important, not only for an efficient transition to NextGen, but also so that FAA does not miss potential opportunities to reduce overall maintenance costs at a time 

when resources needed to maintain both systems will become 

scarcer. 

11 

Regarding FAA certification process, variations in FAA’s interpretation of standards for certification and approval decisions has 

been a longstanding concern of the aviation community. The 2012 

act required FAA to work with the aviation community to identify 

ways to streamline and re-engineer the certification process, and 

address findings from our 2012 report on the topic. FAA has taken 

some actions in response to these provisions, including developing 

initiatives to address the concerns that have been raised about its 

certification processes. At the request of this committee, GAO will 

be examining FAA’s implementation of these efforts. 

Turning to the integration of UAS into the National Airspace 

System, FAA, again, has made progress in implementing several of 

the 17 UAS provisions contained in the Modernization and Reform 

Act, albeit much later than the timeframes outlined in the act. 

While progress is being made, there are some significant hurdles 

and challenges that FAA must still overcome to fully integrate 

UAS into the NAS. 

For example, although FAA created the UAS integration office in 

2013, the office does not have resources specifically dedicated to 

fulfill its responsibilities. In addition, small UASs are expected to 

represent the majority and most economically promising segment of 

the civilian market. However, the rulemaking for operating small 

UAS in the NAS continues to be delayed. 

Finally, while FAA has announced the six locations for a UAS 

test program, FAA has not yet defined what operational safety and 

performance data it needs from the test site, or how the data will 

be collected and analyzed. These data will be critical to developing 

the safety, reliability, and performance standards needed to guide 

and validate research and development efforts. 

Given the status of these efforts, stakeholders remain concerned 

about FAA’s ability to meet the 2015 timeline outlined in the act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the subcommittee. This concludes my statement. I will be 

pleased to respond to any questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. 

For Administrator Huerta, the NextGen Advisory Committee delivered their consensus-based priority recommendations for 

NextGen capabilities based on the ongoing Federal budget constraints, which have all of us pretty worried. What is the FAA 

doing to address these recommendations? And can you give us a 

sort of a status report of where this all is? 

Mr. HUERTA. We were very pleased with the work done by the 

NextGen Advisory Committee to develop two tiers of recommendations, and to ask us to focus on those in the first tier as our highest 

priority. 

We are currently evaluating those recommendations, looking at 

the trade-offs and the relationships between the recommendations 

that they made, and we will be responding to them by the end of 

February. It was a very good body of work that I think gave us a 

nice industry consensus on what a path forward would look like. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So it seems like it is something that is pretty 

workable for you? 

Mr. HUERTA. It does. One of the things that we need to ensure 

is that there are not unintended side effects in terms of how they 

12 

might have bundled the recommendations. But it is very good 

work. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Any idea on when you might have a better handle on how that will come together? 

Mr. HUERTA. We are going to be discussing it with the NextGen 

Advisory Committee at their meeting, which is coming up later this 

month in Phoenix. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Inspector General Scovel, Deputy Administrator Whitaker was appointed in June of 2013. Can you tell us if 

you have seen any changes he has made to the FAA to address 

issues regarding the implementation of NextGen? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. General Bolton’s 

appointment as Assistant Administrator for NextGen was a very 

promising development. Mr. Whitaker’s designation as Chief 

NextGen Officer in his capacity as Deputy Administrator for the 

agency went a long way to helping the organization align its efforts, to use Mr. Larsen’s phrase from his opening statement, to develop a unity of effort in order to put NextGen on the proper track. 

Since Mr. Whitaker has been designated as Chief NextGen Officer, the agency has completed two actions that we consider instrumental. First was, as I mentioned, the designation of General 

Bolton in his executive role as Assistant Administrator for 

NextGen. And, finally, what Administrator Huerta addressed earlier was the request to the NAC to develop recommendations for 

prioritization of NextGen investments. That has been completed, 

and that has been a very promising development. 

It remains to be seen where we go from here. The recommendations from the NAC align very closely with what this committee 

and my office learned from the RTCA Task Force 5 recommendations from 2009. There is not a whole lot of difference there, so we 

would expect the agency to be primed and ready to move out as 

quickly as possible on those. 

We do have continued reservations about the unity of effort prospect. While Mr. Whitaker and General Bolton are in place, the program management office for NextGen is still aligned under the air 

traffic organization, so there is a division. There is a fault line, in 

my view, between what Mr. Whitaker and General Bolton can 

bring to the organizational vision, and what the program management office can ultimately implement and deliver. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Dr. Dillingham, the GAO is conducting a study regarding the FAA’s CTI program. Can you give us 

an update on your work? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we were asked by this committee last year to conduct a study on the CTI program. The issue 

was, whether there was a way in which the FAA could get better 

qualified or more air traffic controllers from the CTI program. At 

that point, the FAA informed us that they were doing a pilot study 

that was the mirror image of our study. In other words, they were 

looking at how to maximize what could come from the CTI schools. 

So we put our study on hold until the FAA was able to do a similar 

study. 

We recently found out that FAA has changed its mind about 

maximizing the CTI schools, and we are hearing now that the FAA 

is planning for an off-the-street hire, as opposed to maximizing the 

13 

CTI. We are talking with your staff now, as to whether we should 

re-institute our study to follow up on the original request that we 

had. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to take 

the whole 5 minutes; we have Members on our side who are here 

to ask questions. And so, I just want to follow up on a few things, 

really. 

Administrator Huerta, Inspector General Scovel said there is still 

maybe a fault line between program management at the FAA regarding NextGen implementation and the organizational chart, if 

you will, of having a NextGen officer. Do you see a fault line? If 

there is a fault line, how are you trying to address that? How are 

you trying to break that down? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think it is a matter of judgment. The NextGen organization under General Bolton is ultimately responsible for system integration of the programs, and ensuring that they all work 

with one another. There is a separate but equally important requirement that the new programs and the new systems, as they 

are developed, integrate with the overall operation. It was for that 

reason that we made the organizational decision to align them with 

the operation. 

We have had previous experience of a fault line emerging between a program developer developing a new system, but not having any clear linkage to the operation. That is what led to the initial deployment problems with respect to our ERAM program. It is 

a matter of, any way you cut it, you have to draw an organizational 

distinction somewhere. 

The idea of putting the programs with the operation is to ensure 

that they would be operationally relevant, so that we could bring 

the workforce into the development of the program, and assure 

that it is actually meeting the needs of the operating workforce. 

The NextGen organization has the responsibility for system integration, and they need to be able to work across the whole FAA, 

not just air traffic, but also with the certification side of what we 

do. 

We are aware of the organizational distinctions, but we think 

that we have programs and processes in place that enable us to address them. 

Mr. LARSEN. Under UAS it seems that there is some consensus, 

perhaps, in IG and the GAO that the timelines aren’t going to get 

met for implementation. What is your personal assessment of that? 

Mr. HUERTA. I have always viewed integration of UAS as a 

staged implementation process, just as we implement all aircraft 

into the NAS. There is not a single day where we could safely ensure that any type of unmanned aircraft could operate unconstrained within the National Airspace System. So we view it much 

more as classes of operation that, over time, will be introduced into 

the system, just as any other aircraft is introduced into the system. 

Mr. LARSEN. If that is the case, do you think that—not that I am 

asking you to question the judgment of Congress, obviously, because we wrote the act and had these timelines in it; do you anticipate that you may come back and ask us to have the new—the 

14 

next version of the act reflect more of a staged implementation, as 

opposed to a hard deadline? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think that every day we learn something new 

about what is happening in unmanned aircraft. There are a combination of issues regarding how these aircraft operate. There are 

also potential uses that the private sector and Government users 

would like to put forward for their use. That illuminates the discussion. 

Likewise, as a result of having the test sites, it provides the platform for us to do the sort of research that Inspector General Scovel 

talked about. What are the technologies that need to be in place 

to accomplish sense and avoid? How do we appropriately train operators, and what are the certification standards that we need to 

hit? We are going to continue to learn more. Reauthorization will, 

in fact, provide us with an opportunity to consider where we are 

at that point. 

Mr. LARSEN. That is fine. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will yield 

back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Chairman Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Huerta, as I said in my opening, I wanted to find 

out what you were doing, looking forward at the FAA. Is it, in fact, 

true that you have put working groups formed at DOT and at 

FAA? 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Chairman, in looking forward to the next reauthorization, I think that there are a number of factors that we need 

to consider. The first is to determine where we sit now that there 

are large segments of the aviation industry that feel that we are 

on an unsustainable course. We need to look at how we finance the 

programs, what is the array of services that we provide to the aviation community, how do we pay for all of it? 

As just one example, this committee has provided direction to us 

that we should do everything that we can to enhance performancebased navigation. In enhancing performance-based navigation, 

which the agency is very committed to, we are, by definition, reducing the burn of aviation fuel. Aviation fuel taxes provide an important source of funding for the aviation system. So, right there is an 

indication of an issue that we need to consider, going forward. 

The aviation industry has traditionally taken different positions 

on what a way forward looks like. I share your belief that the industry has to come together around a set of principles. I have 

asked the Administrator’s Management Advisory Council—they 

represent a broad segment of the industry—to play a central role 

in reaching out to the community, to have a conversation about 

what services the agency needs to provide to the aviation industry 

in the years ahead. How do we pay for it? What issues do those 

questions raise, with respect to our structure and framework? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, that is positive to hear, that you are looking 

at those types of things, because I think it is important. And working with us as we move forward is, I think, going to be critical. 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHUSTER. You also said in your testimony that you will follow an agreed-upon process when looking at consolidating and realigning some of the facilities. 

15 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And actually, I think you said the initial outreach 

to industry stakeholders might be impacted by recommendations of 

the Reform Act that directs the FAA to develop that plan with participation with the industry—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. Not just outreach. So can you tell us 

how you are going to work with industry and labor to include them 

in that? 

Mr. HUERTA. We briefed the leadership of the committee and the 

staff about the process that we are following. As it was originally 

envisioned in section 804, there was thought that it would be a single process that would look at the full scope of FAA facilities. As 

we discussed with you recently, we concluded that a staged approach, where we could ensure that we have a full and complete 

collaboration with our stakeholders, with the people who work in 

these facilities, the people who maintain these facilities. We need 

to develop a very clear understanding of the current state of the 

facilities, with respect to what maintenance is required, or what facilities need to be replaced. As was mentioned earlier, we do intend 

to provide our first report to you at the end of the year. 

I think the key question here that we are going to need to address is the question that was referenced by Congressman Larsen. 

Any time you are realigning facilities, by definition, there is a bill 

that we are going to have to pay to develop what a new facility 

footprint looks like. That is going to require an investment. Effectively, we have to invest money to enable us to achieve long-term 

savings down the road. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, including those stakeholders, making sure 

that they are involved—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. Is a positive path forward for us. 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And a question to Mr. Dillingham. You talked 

about the inconsistencies in the FAA’s aircraft certification program. They have a plan to try to deal with those. You have identified a few areas of concern. Could you elaborate on those? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As part of the act, FAA 

was mandated to review their certification and approval process, 

improve its efficiency, and deal with the inconsistencies of interpretation of regulation, meaning what was happening with the industry was that if you were in one region and you had a product approved and you submitted that product in another region, it may 

or may not be approved. 

So, the FAA put together some committees with industry participation. They made recommendations to both address the integration to make sure that there was consistency, as well as to facilitate improving the efficiency of the process. FAA developed a plan 

to do that with a set of initiatives. Your committee has asked us 

to follow up and ensure that FAA, in fact, implements those recommendations. 

It has been a longstanding problem with the industry, and we 

are already starting to look at that issue. 

16 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. I see my time has expired. 

But just as I said in my opening, you know, this is one of the areas 

that we are leading in the world and in manufacturing, especially 

small aircraft. And if we are not able to speed that process up, I 

fear that it is going to go elsewhere, equipment is going to be developed elsewhere, and we are not going to be the leader in the industry. So I think it is important that we work on this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, 

question. I have been working on—started many years ago with 

Representative Bill Lipinski and Representative Costello, who have 

gone on to different things, but I am still here. The provision regarding foreign repair stations: it was supposed to be done by, let’s 

see, I think 2/14/2013. That is a week from, you know—this would 

be the first anniversary of not getting it done. Where are we at? 

Mr. HUERTA. There are two provisions relating to foreign repair 

stations in reauthorization, one relating to drug and alcohol testing 

requirements. I think that is the one you are referring to. 

This one required a consultative process through ICAO, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of State notified all 

ICAO governments. We are now at the point where we are ready 

to commence the rulemaking process later this year. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. I am just puzzled that it would take so long, 

and that we would allow foreign repair stations, where their workers do not meet our standards, to do critical maintenance work on 

aircraft. It causes me great concern. It goes beyond just the drug 

and alcohol testing and a number of other issues. But I am pleased, 

at least, that we are moving forward. But it shouldn’t have taken 

so long. 

The chairman mentioned about the U.S. losing its lead, and I 

think there is an extraordinary threat to the U.S. aviation industry. It wasn’t anticipated in this legislation, it is not a subject of 

this hearing, but I am going to bring it up anyway, and that is the 

fact that Norwegian Air International, which is coming from a 

country which is not part of our Open Skies Agreement, is going 

to create a fake headquarters in Ireland, which is part of our Open 

Skies Agreement, so that they can try and leverage themselves into 

the U.S. market. And they are developing a new business model, 

which is based on the merchant marine. And I don’t know how familiar you are with that, but a lot of ships are registered in Liberia. And, as I pointed out in the past, Liberia has no navy, it 

doesn’t have any government, but their office is somewhere down 

there in Reston, Virginia, with a former Coast Guard guy. That is 

Liberia. 

So, if we want enforcement of safety, crew training, any of those 

things, we discourse with a former Coast Guard guy who represents the nonexistent government, or virtually nonexistent government. I don’t want to take aviation to that standard, and that 

is what these people intend to do. They are going to use part-time 

crews that are brokered from around the world. Where can we get 

the cheapest flight crew? Doesn’t matter how good they are, it 

doesn’t matter—there is no consistency in their training, their 

17 

hours of service, anything else. But, you know, ‘‘Oh, well, bring in 

the crew from Indonesia this week, they just bid lower.’’ 

So, this is a potentially very destructive business model. And the 

last time we had someone here from the FAA, they said sort of, 

‘‘Yes, we are looking at it.’’ What is your—do you have a level of 

concern about what this is going to do to our standards? I used to 

carry on about Frank Lorenzo dragging down the whole industry 

here. This is, like, a way bigger threat. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, the FAA’s regulatory authority does not extend to the business structure, but the Department of Transportation’s does. 

My understanding of where we are with that is that Norwegian 

Air has applied to DOT for initial operating authority to conduct 

scheduled and charter passenger and cargo services between the 

United States and Europe pursuant to the existing Open Skies 

Agreement that we have with Europe. Because NAI is still awaiting regulatory approval in Ireland. NAI’s application is not yet 

complete; therefore, the Department cannot act on it. 

Because the application is pending before DOT and is contested, 

I can’t really say much more beyond that. They have an incomplete 

application, and it is something that I am sure that my DOT colleagues are taking a very close look at. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I would hope that the FAA, as advocates 

for—since I got the law changed after a horrific airplane crash— 

no longer has a strict promotional authority for aviation, but you 

still are—you still have some concern with that, but your bigger 

concern is safety. 

Mr. HUERTA. Right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And I think we are looking at both things here. We 

are looking at competitive disadvantage, and we are looking at 

something that would jeopardize the safety of the American flying 

public. And you and your agency are the experts on that. And I 

would assume that you maybe can’t say anything here, but you are 

taking a strong position in advocating to DOT on this to use whatever scrutiny and tools they can to basically thwart this end run 

by this—you know, by these brilliant people who are going to somehow advantage consumers, they tell us. 

Well, as I have said many years on this committee, I will pay an 

extra 2 bucks for a ticket to know I will get there alive. And that 

is what this is about. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, good to have 

you all with us today. 

Mr. Scovel, during the most recent FAA reauthorization, language was included in section 424 that established a policy for the 

transportation of musical instruments. As yet, no final regulation 

has been issued by the FAA. How soon do you expect these final 

regs to be completed? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Coble. We have been in touch with 

your staff, and we know of your keen interest in this particular 

issue. And we commend you and the committee and the Congress 

for including it in the act. 

I must say that we have not, in the OIG, undertaken any review 

of FAA’s efforts to implement that specific provision of the act. So 

18 

I might defer to Mr. Huerta on this question, if he has those details. 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Coble—— 

Mr. COBLE. Cautiously optimistic, I hope. 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Coble, I will have to take an IOU and get back 

to you, which I commit to do. 

Mr. COBLE. I didn’t hear you, Mr. Huerta. 

Mr. HUERTA. I will have to check on the status and get back to 

you. 

Mr. COBLE. Oh, I appreciate that, if you get back in touch with 

us. 

Mr. HUERTA. I will. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Huerta, yesterday’s New York Times included an 

article on how the FAA’s new pilot qualifications and flight and 

duty time rules, in effect for just a few months, have already 

caused a shortage of commercial airline pilots, leading some airlines, I am told, to reduce service at less profitable small and medium airports. 

In drafting the rules, did the FAA consider the impact on the Nation’s pilot workforce, especially in light of the fact that a majority 

of our pilots are approaching the mandatory retirement age of 65? 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Coble. As you know, the thing that 

we did focus on in the development of all of these rules, is how do 

we maintain the highest levels of safety. 

Following the Colgan Air crash in 2009, the FAA identified pilot 

fatigue and training as areas of high risk, and we began the rulemaking process to address these issues. 

Later, Congress mandated improvements in each of these areas 

under the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, and added improving pilot qualifications and 

requiring first officers, known as copilots, to hold an airline transport pilot certificate, and requiring 1,500 hours total flying time as 

a pilot. So that was included in the 2010 Act. 

We issued the pilot fatigue rule in December 2011, giving the airlines more than 2 years to comply with the regulations. The training rule was finalized in November of last year, with a 5-year ramp 

allowing airlines to comply with it. This allows time for the necessary software upgrades to be made to the flight simulation technology that is required to do this. 

The pilot qualification rule was finalized in July 2013. And I 

think this is the one that many in the industry are pointing to as 

being the most significant factor. As you will recall, the statute requires that a copilot have 1,500 hours of flight time in order to 

achieve first officer qualification. The rule that we put in place is 

actually designed to allow military and academic credit to count as 

credit toward that 1,500-hour requirement. So we can reduce the 

1,500-hour requirement within the authorities that were given us 

by Congress to consider academic credit and military service. 

It is a significant change in what previous qualifications and 

training requirements had been. The intent of Congress directed 

the agency to really focus on how do we achieve the highest levels 

of safety. I think the rules are designed to do that. 

Mr. COBLE. Let me put this question to you, Mr. Huerta. In light 

of the pilot shortage, is it your belief that the Congress should nulVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:08 Aug 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\2-5-14~1\86586.TXT JEAN
19 

lify the underlying statute? And, if so, can you provide suggested 

changes that would help to mitigate the impact of pilot workforce 

shortage? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think, as it relates to the shortage, there are different points of view on that. Clearly, many in industry feel that 

there is a looming shortage, combined with the point that you 

made, such as retirements. There are questions that have been 

raised. Is it an attractive profession? Others, on the other side, 

have said that this is really a matter of what airlines are willing 

to pay pilots. 

I think all of those factors need to be considered. We would be 

happy to work with the committee to provide technical assistance 

as you consider the perspectives that are out there, and possible 

changes that you might be willing to consider. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Yes, sir? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. At the request of this committee, we will be 

issuing a report in the next several weeks that focuses on the potential pilot shortage, and takes into account those variables that 

you mentioned: retirement, training, and the impact on the industry. Hopefully, that report will provide a basis for the Congress to 

get some objective information on this issue. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Doctor, I appreciate that. Thank you, 

gentlemen. Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Larsen for holding 

this hearing. Oversight isn’t—oftentimes does not get the headlines, but it is important. If we are going to pass legislation, we got 

to do the oversight. 

And I appreciate Mr. DeFazio’s questions, and I want to just concur with those, especially on the foreign repair stations, although 

I think Mr. DeFazio may have misinterpreted that—he said I was 

no longer here. He must have been talking about my father. But 

I am here. That is the most important thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I want to talk about NextGen. It has been brought 

up already. Obviously, it is something that is clearly my biggest 

focus here, probably, on the Aviation Subcommittee, the importance for enhancing safety, improving efficiency, lowering emissions, and helping to support America’s success as a global leader 

in aviation. Those are all critically important. We understand that. 

In the reauthorization bill, I was proud to work with Mr. Mica 

to include section 221 in the bill, which allows DOT to establish 

public-private partnerships to boost NextGen by advancing the installation of ADS–B avionics on aircraft as soon as possible. And 

it is something that I hope that we continue to move forward on. 

But I want to ask Administrator Huerta, you know, a key foundation of NextGen is deployment of ADS–B terrestrial network in 

2014. We have to ensure that, by 2020, the majority of aircraft will 

be equipped with avionics. Now, in order to accelerate and 

incentivize aircraft equipage in the near term, many air carriers 

believe that FAA should augment the terrestrial ADS–B network 

20 

with a space-based ADS–B. Doing so could provide significant tangible savings, would bring the benefits of NextGen to reality more 

quickly. 

For these reasons, I would like to ask, first, what is the current 

status of FAA’s initial investment decision on space-based ADS–B? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, as you mentioned, ADS–B is an important 

foundational technology, and we have been in discussions with the 

private-sector partners that are really focused on the deployment 

of this new technology. 

There are two dimensions to what they are doing. Essentially, 

they want to use space-based equipment to deliver the ADS–B signal, and thereby provide visibility over the oceans. The FAA is focused on working with Iridium and Aireon and their partners in 

setting the specifications and configuration of space-based ADS–B 

surveillance. 

We are not monetarily investing in the development of the 

Aireon system. We view that as something that is best done in the 

private sector. We are investing resources to validate the design, 

to pay for the technical business case reports that the FAA requires, and for the detailed development of alternatives that, ultimately, the FAA is going to be able to use. 

We recognize the potential high value of the Iridium system, particularly what it can provide in oceanic airspace. As the world’s 

largest air navigation service provider, we want to ensure that we 

are involved in the development and standard setting of this new 

technology. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, what are you—I have concerns that we are 

behind other countries on this front. I just want to ask. What is 

the FAA’s timeframe for moving forward with the space-based 

ADS–B? 

Mr. HUERTA. An initial investment decision is going to be made 

by our Joint Resources Council later this year to decide what form 

the agency’s continued participation would take in the years ahead. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So do you have a timeframe for when you think it 

is actually going to start moving forward? And do you have a concern? Do you feel the country is moving ahead of us and is losing 

our leadership in this area? 

Mr. HUERTA. Taking that question first, I don’t think we are losing our leadership, because we have chosen to focus, first and foremost, on specifications and configuration. That will ensure that the 

standards that the FAA needs to have developed for this are the 

standards that will be used globally. 

We do not necessarily think that requires us to take an investment position in a company that is developing that technology. 

Others might make a different decision, but we believe that our 

leadership position is very much protected, as long as we can focus 

on the resulting technology that comes out the other end. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am sorry I had to go to another committee and didn’t get 

to hear your testimony, but I have gone over some of it. And Dr. 

Dillingham mentions that this NextGen process has been over 10 

years, and that we asked him to start monitoring it in 2006. And 

21 

I am just wondering, and I will ask any of the three of you or all 

three of you. Where are we now? Can you tell me how much money 

we have spent, total, on NextGen so far, how much we will be 

spending this year, and how much more we need to spend in the 

years ahead? 

And I am assuming that all of you will say that the benefits have 

far outweighed the costs—or at least I am guessing that is what 

you would say. But will we ever reach a point—I mean when you 

build a building, when you build a giant skyscraper, at one point 

the building is finished. Of course, you always have to maintain it, 

and you have to occasionally improve it. But where are we on all 

those things? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Duncan, thank you for the question. Yes, 

we have been, at the request of this committee and others in Congress, monitoring this from the very beginning. 

I think the consensus is we are a long way from where we want 

to be and where we thought we would be at this point in time. 

Progress has been slow. I think there is now more of a realization 

that NextGen is a transition, rather than a leap forward all at 

once. And that it will take time. 

I think there is evidence of that. We see and hear from the aviation community that FAA may need to sort of reset, based on the 

RTCA recommendations and the NAC recommendations. What can 

we really achieve? What is the reality, versus what was the vision 

at some point in time? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. We are hearing community people talk about 

maybe it is time to look for a new way of doing this. Perhaps it 

can be done within FAA with the new leadership, or perhaps we 

need to think about how this is done around the world, separating 

safety from operations in modernization. 

The last time we had any information about money spent at this 

point in time, we were told that we have expended about $5 billion 

on NextGen over the last several years. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Any other comments? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Duncan, if I may? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOVEL. We would concur with Dr. Dillingham’s figure of 

about $5 billion in Federal investments; $5 billion to $6 billion at 

this point, cumulatively, over the last 9 or 10 years, is about right. 

The committee will well remember that the initial estimates 

from 9 or 10 years back called for $20 billion in Federal investments, plus another $20 billion in private investments, with a stated goal of completing implementation of the program by 2025. We 

are clearly not going to make it all by 2025, and we are clearly not 

going to make it with a total of $40 billion in investments, Federal 

and private. We are probably looking years beyond 2025, perhaps 

another 10, even. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Wow. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Because, as has been stated, this is an evolutionary, 

rather than a revolutionary process. A transition, rather than a 

leap. 

22 

And we are probably also looking at total expenditures in an order of magnitude two to three times that of the initial $40 billion 

estimate to achieve the original plan. 

As far as resetting NextGen, FAA is backing in to that process 

right now. It may be regrettable in the eyes of many that it has 

taken us 9 or 10 years to get where we are now. But if you look 

at where FAA is organizationally, with the Chief NextGen Officer 

at the Deputy Administrator level, and Assistant Administrator for 

NextGen, and a program management office, whether it is directly 

aligned underneath those officers or over in the operations side, 

where many in FAA believe it should be, in order to avoid a fault 

line at that point, organizationally FAA is getting close. 

As far as the near-term and midterm process, FAA—thankfully, 

through the RTCA’s Task Force 5, and the recent NAC investments—it is getting close there, too. They are focusing on performance-based navigation and the metroplex improvements in the very 

near term. 

Moving on, they have got to get ERAM right, they also have got 

to get the automation platforms right for terminal modernization. 

Then they need to get to DataComm. Because if we get to 2020 

with ADS–B Out coming in, and we don’t have all of those pieces 

in place already, then we are a house without a foundation yet. 

Now, the real benefits for the commercial users are going to be 

with ADS–B In. And Mr. Huerta is correct on that. Industry well 

recognizes, too, that the technical requirements are not yet stable. 

FAA is not in a position to mandate ADS–B In yet. So we are looking clearly into the next decade before we can say truly that there 

are measurable improvements for the commercial airlines at congested U.S. airports. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, you have raised other questions in my mind, 

but my time has expired. 

But, Administrator Huerta, do you want to—— 

Mr. HUERTA. I would like to concur with the point that was made 

by Mr. Dillingham and Mr. Scovel, which is it is an evolutionary 

process. I think it is important to point out where we are and 

where we have made success. 

As I said in my testimony, a lot of the foundational platforms on 

which NextGen is built are nearing completion. I talked about how 

ERAM is going to be fully deployed and exclusively used for operations next year. Likewise, we will complete the build-out of the 

ADS–B ground infrastructure program, which is also a 

foundational platform. Then we are well positioned with respect to 

the terminal component to our automation platforms, or TAMR. 

Mr. Scovel is quite right. DataComm is extremely important. We 

have done some great work, in terms of demonstrating the benefits 

of DataComm through some trials. Our focus is that we have these 

platforms, we have these systems, and now we are building the applications on them. That is where the work that we are doing on 

such things as performance-based navigation becomes so important. With the foundational technologies in place, we have to focus 

on what we can do to maximize delivery of benefits, and ensure 

that the community, who has invested a lot and will invest a lot 

more, will see something positive coming out of the end of that. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Carson? 

23 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the requirements 

of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act was to assess the 

participation of small and disadvantaged businesses with DOT and 

FAA programs. This is a very important issue, and I would like to 

hear from each of the witnesses about what you have learned so 

far. What are the immediate recommendations for improving participation? And what should we be considering for the long term? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, sir. If I may, in the Office of Inspector 

General we have had now two audits, one complete and one underway—it will be completed later this year—dealing with the entire 

Department of Transportation’s disadvantaged business enterprise 

program. 

Our first audit, which we have completed and reported to Congress—and there has been intense interest on the part of many 

Members, as well as the Nation at large—was on how DOT administers its DBE program. We did not include FAA in that particular 

audit, because FAA, as the committee knows, has its own procurement system and acquisition regulations. Therefore, we thought 

that if we examined FAA’s in conjunction with the Department’s, 

it might lead to mixed conclusions and mixed messaging, perhaps 

the potential for misunderstood results. 

So we have reported on DOT, we have made a series of recommendations, which Secretary Foxx has taken most seriously. 

The Department is well underway with putting them in place. We 

are encouraged at what they have told us they would do in concurring with our recommendations. We have also been very pleased 

with the interest on the part of many Members of Congress in 

making sure that the Department executes this important program 

right. 

Our audit with respect to FAA’s implementation of the DBE program is underway. I am not in a position to share our results now, 

because our work is not yet complete, and we haven’t yet spoken 

with the agency, with FAA, to brief them in advance, as we must, 

under our audit standards. But I can assure the committee that we 

will have those results for you later this year. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. Yes, sir? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sir, if I could just say that, while the audit is underway and we look forward to discussing this with the inspector 

general, I will point out that this is an important program in a 

whole lot of areas. It is certainly an important area of focus for me. 

It is something that our organization spends a lot of time focusing 

on. How can we structure procurements, particularly in the technology area, where you have a lot of opportunity for participation 

by smaller businesses? That is where a lot of innovation takes 

place. We want to ensure that we are able to leverage those contributions and provide appropriate opportunities for disadvantaged 

businesses in these incredibly important programs. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Carson, that provision of the act was not 

a part of what GAO has looked at. 

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

time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK, and Mr. Webster? 

24 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr. 

Scovel. Have you had anything to follow up on the discussion that 

was done between the chairman and the Administrator on performance-based navigation? Specifically, the two reports that were due 

last year some time on those procedures which would—flight procedures for medium and large-sized commercial airports. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, sir. Performance-based navigation and 

enhancements to that have been at the top—or very near the top— 

of the shopping list for the aviation community, in terms of what 

it would like to see FAA turn its attention to most immediately for 

NextGen enhancements. 

Our work with regard to performance-based navigation several 

years ago showed that FAA, at that time, was focusing on the 

quantity of PBN procedures, rather than the quality. Consequently, 

the agency was overlaying PBN procedures over existing air traffic 

procedures without being able to show to the users that they would 

achieve much, if anything, if they were to implement them. 

Since then, and with the mandate of the Congress in this Act, 

FAA has relied to some degree not just on its own in-house resources to develop PBN procedures, but has worked with a private 

contractor to develop more of those. Those have been encouraging, 

we understand, to members of the aviation community who would 

like more PBN usage. 

Some members of the airline community feel frustrated because, 

while they have equipped and they have even secured approval 

from the agency for performance-based navigation usage, they have 

been stymied at the airport level, because tower and TRACON controllers need to have the proper guidance and training in order to 

approve the use, operation-by-operation, by an approaching aircraft. We have found that controller training in this area has been 

lacking. We have encouraged, and the committee has encouraged, 

as well, FAA to turn its attention to that as a way to mitigate a 

nontechnical barrier to achieving NextGen improvements. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Dr. Dillingham, did you have anything to add to 

that? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. I think, by default, performance-based 

navigation has become near-term NextGen. As the inspector general said, the community is very interested in getting as much out 

of the current equipment that is available on the aircraft as possible. And I think FAA has made a strong effort to meet the needs 

of that community. 

What we have said to FAA is, ‘‘What you need to do is you need 

to be able to show to the airline industry, and for your own budgetary purposes, how much PBN routes are being used, which are 

not being used, so that you can invest in those that are giving the 

most service, and that you can also encourage the airline industry 

to participate.’’ 

Mr. WEBSTER. Even without NextGen, though, many of those 

procedures could be implemented. Is that correct? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. Thank you very much. Yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. Administrator Huerta, first, thank 

you for coming in. I appreciate your efforts in Memphis over the 

25 

years in working with me. But there is an issue regarding airports 

and the development around that. You shake your head, so we— 

you don’t have your turban, but you know my question. And it does 

deal with Part 77. And in the past we have had hearings. And we 

have been assured there would be public input and hearings and 

a full report with the Office of Management and Budget on the impact of these changes. 

The changes in Part 77 and the OEI has an effect on development at airports, not just in Memphis, but in DC and other areas. 

It is height of structures, et cetera. Are we going to be able to have 

a traditional hearing on these issues, so that the overall commercial impact of this rule affecting airport communities, airtropolises, 

can be had? 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Cohen, thank you very much. Yes, I am well 

aware of your interest. As we have talked about, this is an issue 

that is something that we are looking at very carefully. 

What the specific issue is is to consider operations of aircraft 

that might experience an outage of an engine on departure, and do 

there need to be restrictions around the airport to plan for that 

possibility. The existing framework is that it is up to an individual 

airline to determine, which leads to piecemeal application. But, 

most importantly, those procedures are not made public. 

So, what the FAA has been considering is a way to rationalize 

that process. I provided an assurance to you that anything we did 

would be subject to a public process, and that commitment stands. 

We are in the process now of framing out what a notice would look 

like, and we want to engage in a public discussion of that before 

we make anything final. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. Would that include, in the rulemaking, 

the Office of Management and Budget cost-benefit analysis? 

Mr. HUERTA. At this point, what we are really looking at is what 

are the policy options that are available to us, and whether it is 

something that is best done on an airport-by-airport basis in a voluntary fashion, or what other options are available. But you know, 

all of that will be part of the public discussion. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, it shouldn’t be proprietary, and that is what 

it is right now, with the airlines—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Correct. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. Private, nontransparent—and the 

public’s concern that highrises or—whatever, I mean, if it falls on 

the one-story building with lots of folks or if it runs into a taller 

building, it is a problem still there, and it does affect—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. 

Mr. COHEN. Speaking of airports and the economic impact thereof, you mentioned in your statement some things about NextGen 

and how you work on city payers and gate—how the large airports 

are—how effective they are, and runways, and traffic flows, improving air traffic flows in busy metropolitan areas, gate-to-gate 

travel, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

You looked at the top 30 airports. I don’t know if Memphis—I 

guess it is still considered that because of FedEx, is that right? 

Mr. HUERTA. Correct. 

Mr. COHEN. Because of Delta, we are not necessarily where we 

were. We have fallen in the ratings. 

26 

When you look at key city pairs, distance time, distance and time 

and fuel reduction—you have got here runway safety and all these 

considerations—has the FAA ever considered putting a maximum 

number of departures from an airport that serves as a hub for the 

convenience of the public, and that sometimes, just as too-big-tofail, too big to serve in a proper fashion? 

Atlanta is one that I would think of, specifically. People aren’t 

clamoring to go to Atlanta, like they may be to go to Los Angeles 

or New York, we have got large airports. But they go there because 

they are forced to go there. If you want to get to Denver from Memphis, you have to go through Atlanta. When you die, you might 

have to go to Atlanta before you get to, you know, the opportunity 

to enter. Have you considered limitations? 

Mr. HUERTA. The FAA looks only at the number of operations 

that an airport can safely accommodate. In terms of looking at a 

particular carrier in their operations, that would be a form of economic regulation—— 

Mr. COHEN. How about public convenience, and the public convenience of having to be—what is wonderful, FedEx does with 

packages, humans are different. And we are like packages being 

sent around the country. 

Mr. HUERTA. But that was exactly the sort of direction that Congress provided in the 1970s that we wanted to get out of, regulating—— 

Mr. COHEN. We made a mistake. 

Mr. HUERTA. We, as a Government, made a determination at 

that point that the market was the best place to sort out the nature of the services. 

Mr. COHEN. But we now know that is wrong, because you have 

got Cincinnati and Pittsburgh and St. Louis and Memphis and others—Cleveland, now, with United leaving—and airports that have 

been built with public funds to accommodate hubs in airports and 

companies, airlines, and now we have congestion and humans 

being treated like packages, not being put on drones, but having 

to go through Atlanta to get to anywhere. And it seems like public 

convenience, we should have learned from our mistake. And I hope 

you will look into that, the possibility that some airports are too 

big, and they should fail. 

Mr. HUERTA. We look forward to working with Congress on however we should operate the aviation system. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Meadows? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank each of you for 

being here today. I know that each of you have a commitment to 

make sure that not only we implement NextGen with efficiency 

and accountability, but also that we are competitive globally. And 

so I thank you for that. 

Mr. Huerta, I wanted to give you a chance. I know when Mr. 

Scovel said that it would be beyond our implementation time, some 

10 to 15 years, you winced at that in disagreement. So I will go 

ahead and open it and let you address when you think those benchmarks might be made. 

27 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, thank you for that, Mr. Meadows. As everyone has talked about, this is an evolutionary process. I think a lot 

of it depends on how can we deliver the benefits to the industry 

to encourage them to equip. We are in this trade-off that we consider between mandates and incentives. 

What we have heard clearly from industry is that providing operational incentives is the highest priority, because that is where 

they get the maximum benefit. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

Mr. HUERTA. That is where we are very focused. The part we 

have to focus on is deploying the basic technology, ensuring that 

the procedures are in place, and, most importantly, ensuring that 

they are used and are delivering the benefit. That has a lot of operational requirements that it imposes on us. 

I do believe that we are—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So do you think you will meet the deadline? I 

know the inspector general’s office does not. Do you think you will 

meet the 2025 deadline, or—— 

Mr. HUERTA. In terms of the capabilities that we have laid out 

to achieve by 2025, I do feel that the vast majority of those we will 

be able to meet. The question that we have is will we be in a position to be getting the maximum benefit we would like to get at that 

point. That is where I am very focused. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, and if you could, at a later time in your response, just illuminate perhaps some of those areas you are concerned about, in terms of—— 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. Potentially not getting the benefit. 

Dr. Dillingham, I am going to come back to you. When it was mentioned that we have spent $5 billion on NextGen, and that Mr. 

Duncan said, ‘‘I assume that we have gotten benefit,’’ you raised 

your eyebrow. And so I would like you to comment on that. Because, according to my cost estimates, I would show that it is probably closer to $6 billion that we have spent on NextGen. I am not 

going to argue, you know, what is a billion here or there. But have 

we gotten—in your opinion, have we gotten the benefit so far of the 

money, the hard money that we have invested? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. I—it is hard to say 

what the benefits that we have gotten thus far are worth, in terms 

of putting a dollar amount on it. I think that some of the accomplishments, some of the laying the bases for what we are going to 

get, that one has to take that into consideration. 

As the Administrator said, we are trying to put in place the base, 

so that we can build for all of those capabilities. And it—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So we have laid the foundation in hopes of getting 

a benefit. So today we wouldn’t have a $6 billion benefit, but hopefully the foundation is laid for that benefit to pay good return in 

the future. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Absolutely. And I think part of that is sort of 

realizing the difference between what you predict 10 years ago, and 

as technology changes, as things happen—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM [continuing]. What the reality really is. So I 

think that the benefits will come. 

28 

Mr. MEADOWS. OK. Here is what I would ask, then, as we go forward. Because it is very easy to see that what we have embarked 

on is much greater than perhaps we all realized. Stakeholders are 

frustrated because they are investing money and they are not seeing perhaps a commensurate level of investment or commitment to 

reaching those benchmarks. And yet they are asking to make significant financial investments, as well. 

And so, Administrator Huerta, if you would, without us looking 

at the failures of the past, or benchmarks that have been missed, 

if you would, as we look to this reauthorization, look at what are 

some of the areas of concern, i.e., you know, are there workforce 

issues, in terms of implementation? And so, I am asking you officially so that you don’t have to go out and be the bad guy for you 

to respond to Congress. 

And, with that, I will submit the rest of the questions for the 

record later. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Ms. Esty? 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by 

thanking our panel for coming and testifying. I am the newest 

member of the Aviation Subcommittee, so I am getting up to speed, 

and your help is greatly appreciated. 

I have recently toured some of the contract towers in my district, 

in Danbury, met with pilots and crewmembers throughout Connecticut. And many of the manufacturers, as you well know, also 

reside and have home bases in my State. And I have heard from 

all of them about their concerns about the timetable and our 

progress towards implementing NextGen. And I believe it is absolutely critical for the U.S. to continue to set the gold standard for 

aviation safety, so we must do a better job. 

So, following up on my colleague, Mr. Meadow’s, question, what 

can we do? What can you do? How are you going to keep the private sector stakeholders involved in this process, which they have 

gotten, clearly, frustrated and discouraged in? And what are your 

proposals for moving forward, keeping them engaged so that we do 

really move forward in a much more timely fashion? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think the key point is focusing on what it is that 

they need, operationally, and ensuring that we are focused on delivering it. That is what was underlying our request to the 

NextGen Advisory Committee to establish their priorities, and that 

is the foundational point of our performance-based navigation initiative. 

To illustrate what was going on, you heard from Mr. Dillingham 

that in the past the focus had been on quantity, rather than quality. Let’s develop the maximum number of advanced procedures, 

but without there being a clear sense that all of them are necessarily in the same place, with respect to their usability and, more 

importantly, their benefit. 

So, the way that the program has been redesigned is we break 

the country up into metropolitan areas, where you can really dive 

in and develop a very detailed understanding of what are the specific requirements of that area, such as around Atlanta or around 

Washington or around Dallas. Who are the specific stakeholders? 

What are the actual flights they want affected? And then, how can 

we, working collaboratively with controllers and pilots and all the 

29 

users of the system, and GA, develop an understanding of what is 

going to work for the whole? I think that process has served us 

well. 

The downside of it is that it is a collaborative process and, by 

definition, it is messy and takes a long time. So, the most important thing we can do is stay the course on those efforts, and not 

lose sight of the fact that we are all in this for an important reason, and that is to get a benefit of deploying these new technologies. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. And, actually, I want to give you a heads 

up. I have got a fairly detailed question that I will be submitting 

about the categorical exclusion requirement, which I think will not 

be of interest to many people here, and is very detailed. I wanted 

to let you know I will be following up. 

But again, I do think it is critically important, not only that we 

engage these stakeholders—and collaboration does, obviously, lead 

to better results—but it does need to be done in a timely fashion, 

because we need critical masses to make these investments in 

equipment. It would be very good for our economy if everyone can 

hold hands and jump in rapidly to make this happen, and we can 

begin to realize the benefits. 

So, we do have to balance the benefits of collaboration with recognizing there is a timeliness component here that, if we don’t get 

that right, we actually, then, risk falling behind the curve. Other 

parts of the world set that standard, and we aren’t being part of 

that process. So I think we do need to be attentive to that issue. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DAVIS [presiding]. All right. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair would like to recognize Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one question, 

and I know that Mr. DeFazio wanted a second round, as well. 

But the question for Inspector General Scovel, in your testimony, 

in your report, you discussed the safety workforce for the FAA. And 

can you—for our record, can you just discuss whether or not the 

FAA has finished, or when they are about to finish, or when they 

will finish getting a model done to determine what exactly is the 

safety inspector workforce needs for the FAA? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thanks, Mr. Larsen. Yes, we are talking about the 

aviation safety inspector workforce. In fiscal year 2013 the FAA 

was authorized 4,104 inspectors. They requested the same number 

for this fiscal year, 2014. The situation with that particular workforce dates back many years. 

Congress, in the 2005–2006 timeframe, directed the agency to obtain a study from the National Research Council that would permit 

the development of a staffing model for aviation safety inspectors. 

The agency did that, received the study in 2009, and put it into 

place. It turned out that the model that was developed by FAA was 

clearly not adequate, and apparently was not well founded in order 

to deliver to the agency the specific numbers that it needed. There 

were some wide variations from year to year, in terms of the inspector shortfalls that the model had predicted. 

For instance, in January 2011, the model had predicted 389 inspector vacancies, needed vacancies. The very next year it was 914. 

That was 2012. In 2013, estimated vacancies had fallen to 430. So, 

30 

clearly, the needle on the compass was spinning all around the 

dial, and it couldn’t find magnetic north. 

We did a study of the model at that point, and FAA concurred 

with us that further work needed to be done, in terms of validating 

the data, developing performance measurements, and figuring out 

the cost benefits to be achieved. FAA has taken the model offline. 

They are attempting to develop the details that are necessary in 

order to flesh it out completely. And we hope that, by the end of 

this calendar year, we will be able to see further progress on it. 

Mr. HUERTA. Just to add to what the inspector general talked 

about, this model has been a challenge for us, as we try to anticipate what the needs are. There have been difficulties, moving forward. 

I would just like to add another dimension that we are also factoring in as well, and that is, as we approach safety, the nature 

and skill set of the individuals we are hiring is also a factor we 

need to consider. Previously, our aviation safety workforce has 

tended to come from industry, where they have developed experience in working in maintenance and operations of a major air carrier or other participant in the industry. That was based on an 

older safety assurance regime, which was essentially kind of a forensic approach: How do you prevent the last accident from happening? 

As we all know, this is an industry that has made great strides 

in achieving levels of safety. The flip side of that is we don’t have 

a lot of accidents, and that is a good thing. But we do know that 

there is risk in the system, and we have to proactively manage that 

risk. 

So, the question for us is, in addition to the number of people we 

need, the skill set of the people that we need is also a factor that 

is itself changing as we are needing to rely more on data that 

might be in possession of the industry that we regulate. How do 

we put the mechanisms in place, so that we have full access to that 

data, while at the same time ensuring a level of collaboration while 

maintaining our regulatory role. 

Mr. DAVIS. The gentleman yields back. The Chair would like to 

recognize Mr. DeFazio for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the chair. Administrator Huerta, you 

know, we have heard a good deal about NextGen, and I am not 

sure whether this question is somewhat repetitive, but, my experience has been when I came here 28 years ago, that I went out with 

Norm Mineta, then chair of the subcommittee, and we went out to 

see the air traffic controller station of the future, you know, this 

grand vision. I don’t know what we—can’t remember what we 

called it back then. Still not there. 

How much have we spent thus far in this endeavor? You have 

a number? 

Mr. HUERTA. We talked about a $6 billion number that has been 

spent to date. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, right. 

Mr. HUERTA. A lot of that has been on foundational technology. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. HUERTA. And I would actually like to invite you to come to 

a tower and show you some of the things that we are using today. 

31 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. That would be good. It has been a couple of 

years since I visited. 

But beyond that I guess I wonder, you know—you are saying it 

is foundational. So we are not really looking at—we can say at this 

point that investment has yielded this savings or these efficiencies 

those are kind of on the margin yet. Right? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. You have to build the foundation. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. HUERTA. Then you build the applications on it. We are very 

focused now on realizing operational benefits. I would be the first 

to say that it is not moving as quickly as I would like, but it is the 

center of our focus. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. In Mr. Scovel’s—you know, this has been sort of 

an enduring issue with me. I have described—no offense, but before 

your leadership I have described the FAA as the only agency of 

Government worse at procurement than the Pentagon. And it 

seems to me to come from constant and consistent change orders 

as we move through these projects. 

And Mr. Scovel says in his testimony that ADS–B In continues 

to evolve—the technical requirements continue to evolve. My question is, are we trying to chase the future, here? Because it is a rapidly evolving technology and industry. But if we just kind of said, 

‘‘OK, look. This is the best we have got today, it is going to provide 

these efficiencies, it is going to cost this much, let’s settle on it, and 

let’s let the next generation deal with this great new technology 

that lets planes, you know, do something else,’’ or are we just going 

to keep saying, ‘‘Oh, gee, this just came along, let’s make another 

change’’? And we will never get there. 

Mr. HUERTA. No, I couldn’t agree more with that, and that is a 

constant admonition that I am giving to our technical staff. We 

cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good, because there 

is significant benefit that we are able to achieve, based on technology that we have. 

The other dimension to that, though, is ensuring that we are able 

to develop a consensus with industry about how they would like to 

use the technology. They will tell you they are not completely 

aligned on that. A big part of what we have to do is figure out how 

do we bring them together around something. You throw into the 

mix our friends in Europe and elsewhere in the world, because industry also does not want to have one set of issues going on on this 

side of the ocean, while there are other things going on on the 

other side. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. HUERTA. It is extremely frustrating sometimes. It takes way 

too long. But your admonition, which I couldn’t agree more with, 

is don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need to reach 

a point where we have a nice complement of benefits, and focus on 

getting to the end. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. I would point out that Oregon has the—I 

think—the only insurance exchange that still doesn’t work, probably never will work, because they tried to create the future, and 

it is not working. They are taking paper applications, however. 

That is great. 

32 

Quick question about the UAS. I am concerned. Congress set a 

hard deadline. There is obviously a lot of commercial pressure. 

There is, you know, a whole bunch of agencies, and everything, everybody—there is always pressure. But do you think—this is very 

complicated, in my mind, to integrate these things safely, not only 

into the airspace, but just operationally over populated areas, et 

cetera. Are you going to need more time to come up with something 

that is really going to work and be fully integrated and protect, you 

know, safety? 

Mr. HUERTA. Congress’ direction was to ensure safe integration 

of unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System. I believe 

that the way we are approaching it is the only way we can approach it, through a staged process. That just as aircraft have different characteristics and they are introduced at different times, I 

see that is how unmanned aircraft will evolve. We won’t get to a 

point where there will be one day where suddenly it will be everyone can operate anything any time. But, as we go through the certification and qualification process, there will be classes of these 

aircraft that we will be able to introduce, but with the overriding 

concern that we want to maximize the highest levels of safety. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. I guess my—what I am saying is this is a case 

where I don’t want you to feel jammed by an artificial deadline created by Congress, despite my complaints about NextGen. 

So, anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you all very 

much for being here today. 

One of the benefits, again, of being a freshman and then coming 

to the chair is I get to ask my questions last. Administrator 

Huerta, I want to start with you. 

The FAA contract tower program has a strong and also bipartisan support here in Congress as one of the most cost-effective 

safety programs for the agency and the taxpayers. And it is my understanding that the FAA continues to work on revising data used 

in the cost-benefit ratios that determine eligibility and cost share 

formulas. Is this accurate? 

Mr. HUERTA. We are constantly looking to revise and evaluate 

how we understand what the cost profile for these contracts are, 

and how we can do them as effectively as possible, yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Well, can you share an update, quickly, of these 

revisions, and how you are going to ensure that the revisions to the 

cost-benefit ratios are done in a collaborative way, with input from 

the industry and the airports that would be impacted? 

Mr. HUERTA. We would be happy to provide a briefing on that. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK, thank you. I do hope you will work closely with 

the industry. Obviously, in my district, in central Illinois, there 

were many that were worried about the contract hours last year. 

I am glad that has been solved. Thank you for your cooperation. 

I know there has been a lot of talk about the public-private partnership language with NextGen. I am, obviously, interested in expanding P3 language with provisions that Cheri Bustos and I 

helped write for a WRRDA bill. I don’t want to rehash some of the 

issues regarding NextGen, but I do want to ask you. What are your 

views on promoting more public-private partnerships during the 

next reauthorization? 

33 

Mr. HUERTA. I think it is extremely important. I think there are 

a number of technical issues that we may need help from Congress 

as we look at that question. 

One example is the large multitude of facilities that we have, 

and the need to replace certain of those as we consider consolidation, or refocusing. In some instances, we have facilities that are 

50 years old and they need to be replaced. Under our current 

framework, all of that is done as a Federal project. 

But the real estate industry has evolved to a point where a lot 

of that can be done under lease or through some long-term commitment with a private party to provide something such as facilities. 

My understanding, though, is that there are technical issues on 

how those projects are considered in a budgetary context that have 

the effect of discouraging trying to achieve that sort of beneficial 

use. 

I think that there is a lot of potential in the facilities area. I 

think we need to focus as we have been focusing on how do we 

work with industry to develop operational procedures. You know, 

the FAA has, for a long time, been focusing on how can we work 

together with the private sector on provision of services. A lot of 

services that are provided under the FAA banner are, in fact, privately provided. That is something that we will continue to work 

on. 

This is a business that I was formerly in, so it is something that 

I know a little bit about. I believe it is important on two levels. 

One, is it enables us to get maximum benefit from taxpayer resources as they are expended. Two, it also builds partnerships with 

industry, and in an industry such as ours, which depends on close 

collaboration, strengthening those partnerships is something that 

is extremely important and has a lot of benefit. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. And thank you for your cooperation, 

too. 

I guess we will leave this one to Mr. Scovel. I have a number of 

air medical services in my State: AirLife Illinois; Saints Flight. 

They are interested in the improvement of the low-level aviation 

infrastructure, especially when it comes to weather reporting. Section 317 of the FAA reauthorization requires the FAA to assess the 

quality of off-airport low-level weather reporting, and issue a report 

and recommendation within a year. 

My understanding is that has not yet occurred. Has the assessment even started? And do you have a timeline as to when the 

FAA is going to complete that work? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have not examined 

that. That was not one of our mandates under the act, and we 

haven’t undertaken ourselves to initiate an audit in that area. 

You mentioned aeromedical services in your district and State. I 

will say that we do have a body of work in that area. We have initiated specifically an audit to examine FAA’s oversight of the helicopter emergency medical service providers to the extent that, 

whether factors will enter into our audit, we can certainly build 

those in. And, in the meantime, perhaps I could defer again to Mr. 

Huerta for—— 

Mr. DAVIS. That is where I was going next. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thanks. 

34 

Mr. HUERTA. We have conducted all the work that is necessary 

to finalize the report. We conducted a thorough review of aircraft 

weather observation technologies, and potentials for improvements. 

We also looked at NTSB reports. The report is currently being finalized and it is in executive review within the agency. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have an estimated timeline? 

Mr. HUERTA. I don’t. I will need to get back to you on that. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would appreciate that. My constituents have asked, 

and I would like to get back to them with that. So thank you for 

your cooperation. 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

Mr. DAVIS. Administrator Huerta, commercial aviation, as we 

know, drives over 10 million U.S. jobs and $1 trillion in economic 

activity per year, and about 5 percent of the total U.S. GDP. In 

your time at the FAA, can you identify for us three FAA policies 

or initiatives that have helped our airlines grow, create jobs, and 

compete with foreign airlines, many of whom receive direct assistance and subsidies from their Government? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think that where I would focus is in two major 

areas. One is on the airline side, the other is on the aircraft manufacturing side. 

First, on the airline side, we have had a lot of conversation about 

delivery of benefit. But what has been the highest priority for me 

has been the operational benefit associated with performance-based 

navigation. What that does is it reduces the actual cost that an airline pays for fuel, which represents about 40 percent of their cost 

basis. If you can focus on reducing fuel cost, you are making for 

a stronger industry. That is something that all of us at the FAA 

are extremely focused on. 

Those impacts are very specific to particular procedures, particular airports, particular carriers, but we have a very broad base, 

where we are working through very detailed projects in a lot of 

metropolitan areas around the country. 

On the certification side, we are doing a lot of work on Part 23. 

This is the regulation that governs the manufacture of small aircraft and associated parts. This is an area that has gotten a lot of 

attention by Congress. It is also an area which, for us, is a very 

significant contributor to the economy and to our exports. The 

question that was given to us by industry and by Congress is how 

do we streamline the certification processes and the approval processes to enable these companies to bring new products to market. 

A lot of good work has been done there. A lot more is yet to be 

done. If you look at how a product is manufactured now, it truly 

is global, it truly is a very complicated process. What we have to 

recognize is that this is our largest export industry, it is where we 

lead the world, and we have to make sure that our industries have 

a level playing field. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. I think, from the line of questioning 

that you saw here today, there is bipartisan commitment to ensuring that America doesn’t lose a competitive advantage because of 

our regulatory environment. And there has been a lot of talk about 

the President being able to pick up his pen and increase the regulatory environment, not just on transportation-related issues, but 

many others. 

35 

And, with that in mind, with so much discussion being put forth 

that the President is going to offer more and more rules and regulations, are you aware of any proposed FAA rules and regulations 

that the administration is considering at this point that this committee should be aware of? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, there is a number of regulations that we have 

been asked by Congress to implement. 

Mr. DAVIS. I am talking direct administration’s, not congressional mandates. The administration—the regulations that could 

be—or are maybe in discussions, being proposed with the FAA by 

the administration, without any input from this committee or Congress, whatsoever. 

Mr. HUERTA. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Capuano? 

Mr. CAPUANO. Just came by to say hello. 

Mr. DAVIS. This is a first, that Mr. Capuano has no questions. 

I am going to thank you on behalf of Chairman LoBiondo and 

this entire committee for your time here today. And, without any 

objection, and before Mr. Capuano decides to change his mind, this 

committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

36 


Insert offset folio 7 here 86586.007
37 


Insert offset folio 8 here 86586.008
38 


Insert offset folio 9 here 86586.009
39 


Insert offset folio 10 here 86586.010
40 


Insert offset folio 11 here 86586.011
41 


Insert offset folio 12 here 86586.012
42 


Insert offset folio 13 here 86586.013
43 


Insert offset folio 14 here 86586.014
44 


Insert offset folio 15 here 86586.015
45 


Insert offset folio 16 here 86586.016
46 


Insert offset folio 17 here 86586.017
47 


Insert offset folio 18 here 86586.018
48 


Insert offset folio 19 here 86586.019
49 


Insert offset folio 20 here 86586.020
50 


Insert offset folio 21 here 86586.021
51 


Insert offset folio 22 here 86586.022
52 


Insert offset folio 23 here 86586.023
53 


Insert offset folio 24 here 86586.024
54 


Insert offset folio 25 here 86586.025
55 


Insert offset folio 26 here 86586.026
56 


Insert offset folio 27 here 86586.027
57 


Insert offset folio 28 here 86586.028
58 


Insert offset folio 29 here 86586.029
59 


Insert offset folio 30 here 86586.030
60 


Insert offset folio 31 here 86586.031
61 


Insert offset folio 32 here 86586.032
62 


Insert offset folio 33 here 86586.033
63 


Insert offset folio 34 here 86586.034
64 


Insert offset folio 35 here 86586.035
65 


Insert offset folio 36 here 86586.036
66 


Insert offset folio 37 here 86586.037
67 


Insert offset folio 38 here 86586.038
68 


Insert offset folio 39 here 86586.039
69 


Insert offset folio 40 here 86586.040
70 


Insert offset folio 41 here 86586.041
71 


Insert offset folio 42 here 86586.042
72 


Insert offset folio 43 here 86586.043
73 


Insert offset folio 44 here 86586.044
74 


Insert offset folio 45 here 86586.045
75 


Insert offset folio 46 here 86586.046
76 


Insert offset folio 47 here 86586.047
77 


Insert offset folio 48 here 86586.048
78 


Insert offset folio 49 here 86586.049
79 


Insert offset folio 50 here 86586.050
80 


Insert offset folio 51 here 86586.051
81 


Insert offset folio 52 here 86586.052
82 


Insert offset folio 53 here 86586.053
83 


Insert offset folio 54 here 86586.054
84 


Insert offset folio 55 here 86586.055
85 


Insert offset folio 56 here 86586.056
86 


Insert offset folio 57 here 86586.057
87 


Insert offset folio 58 here 86586.058
88 


Insert offset folio 59 here 86586.059
89 


Insert offset folio 60 here 86586.060
90 


Insert offset folio 61 here 86586.061
91 


Insert offset folio 62 here 86586.062
92 


Insert offset folio 63 here 86586.063
93 


Insert offset folio 64 here 86586.064
94 


Insert offset folio 65 here 86586.065
95 


Insert offset folio 66 here 86586.066
96 


Insert offset folio 67 here 86586.067
97 


Insert offset folio 68 here 86586.068
98 


Insert offset folio 69 here 86586.069
99 


Insert offset folio 70 here 86586.070
100 


Insert offset folio 71 here 86586.071
101 


Insert offset folio 72 here 86586.072
102 


Insert offset folio 73 here 86586.073
103 


Insert offset folio 74 here 86586.074
104 


Insert offset folio 75 here 86586.075
105 


Insert offset folio 76 here 86586.076
106 


Insert offset folio 77 here 86586.077
107 


Insert offset folio 78 here 86586.078
108 


Insert offset folio 79 here 86586.079
109 


Insert offset folio 80 here 86586.080
110 


Insert offset folio 81 here 86586.081
111 


Insert offset folio 82 here 86586.082
112 


Insert offset folio 83 here 86586.083
113 


Insert offset folio 84 here 86586.084
114 


Insert offset folio 85 here 86586.085
115 


Insert offset folio 86 here 86586.086
116 


Insert offset folio 87 here 86586.087
117 


Insert offset folio 88 here 86586.088
118 


Insert offset folio 89 here 86586.089
119 


Insert offset folio 90 here 86586.090
120 


Insert offset folio 91 here 86586.091
121 


Insert offset folio 92 here 86586.092
122 


Insert offset folio 93 here 86586.093
123 


Insert offset folio 94 here 86586.094
124 


Insert offset folio 95 here 86586.095
125 


Insert offset folio 96 here 86586.096
126 


Insert offset folio 97 here 86586.097
127 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 98 here 86586.098