- A WORK IN PROGRESS: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018

[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

A WORK IN PROGRESS: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2018

=======================================================================

(116-35)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

SEPTEMBER 26, 2019

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-198 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida RICK LARSEN, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ROB WOODALL, Georgia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California,
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Vice Chair
Puerto Rico ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ROSS SPANO, Florida TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota GREG STANTON, Arizona
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
GREG PENCE, Indiana LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California

Subcommittee on Aviation

RICK LARSEN, Washington, Chair
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DON YOUNG, Alaska STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania District of Columbia
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JOHN KATKO, New York STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania Georgia
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan DINA TITUS, Nevada
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida JULIA BROWNLEY, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania GREG STANTON, Arizona
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
ROSS SPANO, Florida JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation:

Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Aviation:

Opening statement............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:

Opening statement............................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:

Opening statement............................................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 121

WITNESSES
Panel 1

Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, accompanied by Lirio Liu, Acting Deputy
Associate Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration:

Oral statement of Mr. Elwell................................. 12
Prepared statement of Mr. Elwell............................. 14
Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under Secretary for Policy, Department
of Transportation, accompanied by Blane Workie, Assistant
General Counsel, Office of the Secretary of Transportation:

Oral statement of Hon. Szabat................................ 20
Prepared statement of Hon. Szabat............................ 22

Panel 2

Sara Nelson, International President, Association of Flight
Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO:

Oral statement............................................... 64
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Captain Bob Fox, First Vice President, Air Line Pilots
Association, International:

Oral statement............................................... 77
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Gregory S. Walden, Aviation Counsel, Small UAV Coalition:

Oral statement............................................... 85
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Mark Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association:

Oral statement............................................... 92
Prepared statement........................................... 94
John Breyault, Vice President, Public Policy, Telecommunications,
and Fraud, National Consumers League:

Oral statement............................................... 99
Prepared statement........................................... 100
David Zurfluh, National President, Paralyzed Veterans of America:

Oral statement............................................... 105
Prepared statement........................................... 107

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Letter of September 26, 2019, from Brian P. Wynne, President and
CEO, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster................ 32
Letter of September 26, 2019, from Ellen Saracini, Widow of
Captain Victor J. Saracini, United Flight 175, Which Struck the
South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick.......... 60
Letter of September 23, 2019, from Consumer Reports, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen............................. 121
Letter of July 3, 2019, to Hon. Elaine Chao, Secretary of
Transportation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Andre Carson.. 124

APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. Albio Sires to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration................. 127
Questions from Hon. Sam Graves to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration................. 127
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration................. 129
Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration................. 131
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration................. 131
Questions from Hon. Don Young to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration................. 132
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting
Under Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation....... 133
Questions from Hon. Sam Graves to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under
Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation............. 134
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting
Under Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation....... 134
Questions from Hon. Pete Stauber to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting
Under Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation....... 135
Questions from Hon. Don Young to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under
Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation............. 137
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Sara Nelson, International
President, Association of Flight Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO...... 137
Questions from Hon. Sam Graves to Captain Bob Fox, First Vice
President, Air Line Pilots Association, International.......... 138
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Gregory S. Walden, Aviation
Counsel, Small UAV Coalition................................... 139

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

September 23, 2019

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Aviation
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Aviation
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``A Work in Progress:
Implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018''
_______________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Aviation will meet on Thursday,
September 26, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office
Building to hold an oversight hearing titled, ``A Work in
Progress: Implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018.'' The hearing will examine progress within the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Transportation
(DOT) in implementing the long-term FAA reauthorization act
enacted last year.

BACKGROUND

On October 5, 2018, President Trump signed into law the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. No. 115-254), a five-year
reauthorization of FAA and DOT aviation programs. Enactment of
the bill followed a series of short-term extensions of aviation
program authorizations after the most recent long-term
reauthorization expired on September 30, 2015.
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 altogether contains
more than 400 mandates for FAA and DOT to issue regulations,
prepare reports to Congress, and conduct studies in the fields
of aviation safety, airport infrastructure, agency management,
and aviation consumer protections. This memo reflects the
status of the more widely-watched mandates.

I. AVIATION SAFETY

A. FLIGHT ATTENDANT FATIGUE

While FAA in 2012 started requiring U.S. commercial
airlines to provide pilots with a rest period of at least 10
consecutive hours preceding a flight duty period,\1\ the flight
and duty period limitation for flight attendants has not been
updated since 1994.\2\ In contrast to the rules for pilots, the
current regulation allows a flight attendant to remain on duty
for 14 hours with only an eight-hour break between flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 14 C.F.R. part 117.
\2\ 59 Fed. Reg. 42974 (Aug. 19, 1994); see also 60 Fed. Reg. 52625
(Oct. 10, 1995) (detailing the date of compliance with respect to the
duty limitations and rest requirements in the 1994 final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA bill directed the Secretary of Transportation to
update the outdated rule by requiring a 10-hour minimum rest
period for flight attendants between duty periods, establishing
parity with pilots, by November 4, 2018. The bill also required
airlines to adopt and submit, to FAA, fatigue risk management
plans similar to those adopted for pilots to reduce the
incidence of fatigue among flight attendants.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pub. L. No. 115-254, Sec. 335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOT missed the statutory deadline of November 4, 2018,
for updating the 1994-era regulation, and in fact did not even
initiate a rulemaking proceeding on the matter until February
21, 2019.\4\ Although the FAA bill afforded the Secretary no
discretion with respect to the contents of the revised rule,
DOT has nonetheless determined that the rule revision must be
subject to full notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements,
further delaying issuance of a final rule. As of this writing,
the Department was expected to issue an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking this week, seeking comments on the costs to
airlines and other interested stakeholders, and will follow up
with a notice of proposed rulemaking in spring 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Dep't of Transp., Report on DOT Significant Rulemakings, August
2019, available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/
docs/regulations/350431/august-2019-significant-
rulemaking-reportfinal.docx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the Department's delay, some airlines--Alaska,
Delta (starting in 2020), Frontier, Hawaiian, JetBlue,
Southwest, and United--have voluntarily opted into the
requirements of the bill by building at least 10 hours of rest
into flight attendants' work schedules, while others, including
multiple regional carriers that operate on behalf of American,
Delta, and United, have not.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Information provided by the Association of Flight Attendants
(AFA) (on file with staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EMERGENCY EVACUATIONS

The Federal Aviation Regulations require that the design of
an airliner, by virtue of the locations and types of emergency
exits, must permit all passengers to evacuate the aircraft
within 90 seconds with half the exits blocked.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 14 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 25.803, 25.807; 14 C.F.R. part 25,
app'x. J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But recent accidents have raised concerns about whether all
passengers can, in fact, evacuate an airliner in 90 seconds,
given passengers' propensity to carry on large bags such as
roll-aboard suitcases and other behavioral shifts over the last
decade. For example, the NTSB concluded that it took at least 2
minutes and 21 seconds--51 seconds longer than the FAA
assumes--for 161 passengers to evacuate a lightly-loaded
American Airlines 767-300ER after an uncontained engine failure
and fire during takeoff at Chicago O'Hare in 2016.\7\ In its
January 2018 report on that accident, the NTSB concluded that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., NTSB/AAR-18/01, Uncontained Engine
Failure and Subsequent Fire, American Airlines Flight 383, Boeing 767-
323, N345AN, Chicago, Illinois, October 28, 2016, at 27 (2018).

[E]vidence of passengers retrieving carry-on baggage during
this and other recent emergency evacuations demonstrates that
previous FAA actions to mitigate this potential safety hazard
have not been effective. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that
the FAA conduct research to (1) measure and evaluate the
effects of carry-on baggage on passenger deplaning times and
safety during an emergency evacuation and (2) identify
effective countermeasures to reduce any determined risks, and
implement the countermeasures.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at 66. The Safety Board found that ``some passengers
evacuated from all three usable exits with carry-on baggage. In one
case, a flight attendant tried to take a bag away from a passenger who
did not follow the instruction to evacuate without baggage, but the
flight attendant realized that the struggle over the bag was prolonging
the evacuation and allowed the passenger to take the bag. In another
case, a passenger came to the left overwing exit with a bag and
evacuated with it despite being instructed to leave the bag behind.''
Id. at 65.

The FAA is responding to those recommendations. Moreover,
in-cabin video footage of passengers evacuating Emirates flight
521, a Boeing 777-300 that crash-landed in Dubai in 2016, shows
passengers retrieving large carry-on items from overhead bins
despite smoke billowing into the cabin from a large fire on the
wing that eventually destroyed the aircraft.\9\ And the U.K.
Civil Aviation Authority issued a notice to U.K. airlines in
2015 warning that ``significant numbers of passengers attempt
to take hand baggage with them when evacuating an aircraft''
and encouraging the airlines to change their procedures to
address this trend.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Aviation Herald, Emirates Boeing 777-300 Registration A6-
EMW, http://avherald.com/h?article=49c12302&opt=0; YouTube (Aug. 3,
2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
nUg7zOBB3Ig.
\10\ U.K. Civil Aviation Auth., Safety Notice No. SB-2015/06,
``Management of Cabin Baggage in the Event of an Aircraft Evacuation''
(Oct. 23, 2015), available at http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/
SafetyNotice2015006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to passengers' propensity to carry on large
bags, reduced spacing between seats to accommodate more
passengers per flight may affect cabin evacuation times.
Accordingly, the FAA bill directs FAA to ``issue regulations
that establish minimum dimensions for passenger seats on
aircraft operated by air carriers . . ., including minimums for
seat pitch, width, and length, and that are necessary for the
safety and health of passengers.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Pub. L. No. 115-254, Sec. 577.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill also directs FAA to reassess the assumptions and
methods for certifying transport-category airplane designs'
compliance with the requirement that evacuations must be
possible within 90 seconds.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. Sec. 337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. SECONDARY COCKPIT BARRIERS

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, FAA and
other civil aviation authorities worldwide mandated that
passenger airlines equip their fleets with impenetrable cockpit
doors. However, the Air Line Pilots Association and other
stakeholders have expressed continued concern that, when one
pilot leaves the cockpit during flight (to use the lavatory,
example), a passenger could forcibly gain access to the cockpit
during the moments when the cockpit door is open. In those
moments, the only protection for the cockpit is a flight
attendant or service cart stationed in front of the cockpit
entry area.
To protect the cockpit during these moments of
vulnerability, aviation vendors have developed a device called
a secondary cockpit barrier, which flight attendants can extend
from one side of the cabin to the other, near the forward
lavatory and galley, when a pilot needs to exit the cockpit
during flight. The barrier would make it much more difficult
for a would-be attacker to reach the cockpit entryway while the
cockpit door is open.
Accordingly, the FAA bill directed FAA to require
installation of secondary cockpit barriers on ``each new
aircraft that is manufactured for delivery to a passenger air
carrier'' in the United States by October 5, 2019.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. Sec. 336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not, however, expect FAA to meet the statutory
deadline. On June 20, 2019, FAA tasked a working group of the
standing Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to make
recommendations regarding, among other things, ``a full range
of options to achieve the objectives of [the mandate]'' and
``costs and benefits for recommended actions and alternative
actions.'' The working group's recommendations were due to FAA
on September 19, 2019,\14\ although FAA staff advised that the
working group will request a short extension of the deadline to
finalize the recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ FAA, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Task Notice, June
20, 2019, available at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
rulemaking/committees/documents/media/Section
%20336%20Secondary%20Barrier%20ARAC%20Tasking%20Notice%20(6-20-
19)%20Corrected
%206-21-19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. LITHIUM BATTERIES

For some years, the aviation community has known that
lithium batteries transported as cargo pose special risks to
the safety of flight. When ignited, either through self-induced
thermal runaway within a single cell or by an independent
source, they burn at extremely high temperatures, and
traditional aircraft fire suppressants cannot extinguish the
ensuing fire.
FAA testing in 2015 established that a fire involving just
eight lithium-ion batteries at 50 percent charge in the cargo
hold of a passenger airplane could be uncontrollable and result
in catastrophic failure of the airplane structure.\15\
Recognizing the safety hazards associated with lithium battery
shipments, the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) voted to ban bulk shipments of lithium batteries from
the cargo holds of passenger jets in 2016 until safety
regulators and airframe manufacturers can understand more about
preventing and containing lithium-fed fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/ppt/systems/
Oct15Meeting/Maloney-1015-Lithium_
Battery_Vent_Gas.pptx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA and other civil aviation authorities have likewise
begun requiring that spare lithium batteries be placed in
carry-on baggage, rather than checked baggage, so that fires
can be detected and extinguished before they become
uncontrollable. Regulators have also considered banning all
portable electronic devices (PEDs) from checked baggage for the
same reason; a U.S. submission in 2017 to the ICAO Dangerous
Goods Panel stated that FAA testing ``indicates that large PEDs
in checked baggage mixed with an aerosol can produce an
explosion and fire that the aircraft cargo fire suppression
system . . . may not be able to safely manage,'' leading to
``the loss of the aircraft.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Angela Stubblefield, Portable Electronic Devices Carried by
Passengers and Crew (Oct. 27, 2017), available at https://www.icao.int/
safety/DangerousGoods/DGP26/DGP.26.WP.043.2.en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA bill directed DOT to harmonize U.S. standards with
those adopted by ICAO with respect to air transportation of
lithium batteries.\17\ The Department issued an interim final
rule fulfilling that mandate on March 6, 2019.\18\ Importantly,
the interim final rule prohibits the carriage of lithium
batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft and limits the state
of charge of lithium batteries shipped on all-cargo aircraft to
no more than 30 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Pub. L. No. 115-254, Sec. 333.
\18\ Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium
Batteries Transported Aboard Aircraft, 84 Fed. Reg. 8006 (March 6,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are proliferating in the
national airspace system (NAS). In fact, in its most recent
aerospace forecast, the FAA estimates the hobbyist
(recreational or model) UAS fleet will increase from 1.25
million units to as many as 1.66 million units by 2023. For the
non-model (commercial) UAS fleet, the FAA projects as much as a
36 percent annual growth rate over the next five years, from
277,000 units in 2018 to nearly 1.3 million units by 2023.\19\
UAS offer a virtually unlimited number of potential
applications, including inspecting critical infrastructure,
surveying wide swaths of land to monitor wildlife and inventory
forests, and delivering commercial products to homes and
medical supplies to isolated areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2019 to 2039: Unmanned
Aircraft Systems, at 43, 48, available at https://www.faa.gov/
data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/
Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the full integration of UAS into the NAS is at a
relative standstill due to stalled FAA activity and continuing
concerns over the safety and security of UAS operations,
particularly regarding the risks UAS can pose to airspace users
and people and property on the ground.\20\ In addition, the
identification of UAS operators is a key concern of FAA and law
enforcement community. On December 20, 2018, FAA issued a
request for information to inform an ongoing remote
identification rulemaking. To date, FAA has not issued a
proposed rule on remote identification standards for UAS
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The FAA receives more than 100 UAS sighting reports each
month. While the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded
that the extent to which these reports represent actual incidents of
unsafe UAS use is unclear, the volume of the reported sightings
reflects the risk of collision between UAS and manned aircraft near
airports, critical infrastructure, and over populated areas. See GAO,
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, FAA Should Improve Its Management of
Safety Risks, GAO-18-110 (May 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA bill includes numerous provisions intended to
accelerate the safe and efficient integration of UAS into the
NAS. Most notably, section 349 of the Act authorizes FAA to
fully regulate hobby and recreational UAS, which had been
prohibited previously under Federal law. The provision permits
the FAA to apply any requirements or standards on any UAS
operator (commercial or recreational) consistent with
maintaining the safety and security of the NAS, which should
have allowed the FAA to move forward on its remote
identification standards rule described herein. The provision
also requires FAA, by April 2019, to develop an aeronautical
knowledge and safety test for UAS operators to pass before
flying in U.S. airspace, and requires recreational users to
receive FAA authorization before flying in controlled airspace,
which captures commercial service airports.
Beyond this foundational framework, the bill requires FAA
to update its outdated comprehensive plan for integrating UAS
into the NAS and report to Congress on the agency's strategy to
align and leverage its work across programs and avoid
duplication of its efforts; \21\ update existing regulations to
authorize the delivery of goods and property by UAS for
compensation or hire; \22\ update and improve processes to
allow public operators to use UAS quickly in response to
disasters or emergencies; \23\ develop a strategy to provide
outreach to State and local governments, including law
enforcement and first responders, on how to use UAS to enhance
their own work and respond to public safety threats posed by
UAS.\24\ The bill also prohibits the use of UAS armed with
dangerous weapons \25\ and creates a criminal penalty for
operators that operate UAS and recklessly interfere with
wildfire suppression or emergency response efforts,\26\ or
disrupt the operation of a manned aircraft.\27\ Finally, the
bill requires the FAA to develop a plan for the short- and
long-term implementation of UAS traffic management
services,\28\ which will include systems necessary to manage
UAS traffic in low-altitude airspace, allowing FAA to
communicate real-time airspace status and constraints to
operators, and provide services to prohibit UAS from operating
in certain airspace or colliding with other aircraft.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Pub. L. No. 115-254, Sec. 342.
\22\ Id. Sec. 348.
\23\ Id. Sec. Sec. 353, 368.
\24\ Id. Sec. 366.
\25\ Id. Sec. 363.
\26\ Id. Sec. 382.
\27\ Id. Sec. 384.
\28\ Id. Sec. Sec. 376, 377.
\29\ NASA, UAS Traffic Management, https://utm.arc.nasa.gov/
index.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. CABIN AIR QUALITY

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANDATE DEADLINE STATUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To FAA: Establish educational materials October 5, 2019 PENDING
for aircrews and mechanics about how to
respond to incidents on board aircraft
involving smoke or fumes.
To FAA: Issue guidance for aircrews and April 3, 2019 DELAYED
mechanics about how to report smoke or
fume incidents through the FAA's Service
Difficulty Reporting System.
To FAA: Commission a study by the April 3, 2019 DELAYED
Airliner Cabin Environment Research
Center of Excellence to assess potential
health effects of contaminants from
bleed air and to identify mitigating
technologies.
To FAA: Report to Congress on the April 6, 2020 PENDING
feasibility of technologies to monitor
the purity of aircraft air supply in
flight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The year 2018 began with yet another example of a
worryingly frequent occurrence in civil aviation. On January 6,
a U.S. jetliner flying from Boston to Punta Cana returned to
Boston after passengers and crew reported noxious fumes in the
cabin.\30\ The fumes ``caused passengers and crew to feel
unwell,'' according to a media report, although no one was
taken to a hospital. Similar examples abound. In fact, an
airline pilot union estimates that as many as 20,000 such
events have occurred over the past decade.\31\ Another recent
media report details accounts of several deaths of flight crew
or passengers in which exposure to toxic fumes on board
aircraft may have been a contributing factor.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Simon Hradecky, Incident: Jetblue A320 Near Boston on Jan 6th
2018, Fumes on Board, The Aviation Herald (Jan. 7, 2018), http://
avherald.com/h?article=4b3573e5&opt=0.
\31\ Bloomberg, `Toxic Fume Events' on Planes Worry Airline
Workers, Fortune (Aug. 9, 2017), http://fortune.com/2017/08/09/
dangerous-cabin-fumes-planes/.
\32\ Kate Leahy, `There Are Hundreds of Sick Crew': Is Toxic Air on
Planes Making Frequent Flyers Ill?, The Guardian (Aug. 17, 2017),
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/19/sick-crew-toxic-air-
planes-frequent-flyers-ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor stakeholders and others have raised concern about
these and other incidents in which passengers and crew have
been sickened by cabin fumes, which in many cases originate in
air that is ``bled'' off of engines. The bill contains
provisions directing FAA to issue guidance to aircrews and
mechanics on responding to incidents involving smoke or fumes
in cabins, as well as to commission a study on the issue and
mitigation options.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Pub. L. No. 115-254, Sec. 326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. AIR TRAVEL ACCESSIBILITY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

A. ACCESSIBILITY IN AIR TRAVEL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANDATE DEADLINE STATUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To U.S. Access Board in consultation with October 5, 2020 PENDING
DOT: Requires a study on the feasibility
of in-cabin wheelchair restraint
systems.
To DOT: Requires development, if No deadline PENDING
appropriate, of specific recommendations
regarding improvements to wheelchair
assistance provided by air carriers.
To DOT: Requires development of an No deadline PENDING
``Airline Passengers with Disabilities
Bill of Rights'' describing the basic
protections and responsibilities of air
carriers, their employees and
contractors, and people with
disabilities.
To DOT: Requires rulemaking defining April 6, 2020 PENDING
``service animal'' and development of
standards for passengers bringing
service animals and emotional support
animals in aircraft cabins.
To DOT: Directs DOT to establish advisory No deadline PENDING
committee for the air travel needs of
passengers with disabilities.
To DOT: Requires review, and if necessary April 3, 2019 DELAYED
revision, of applicable regulations to
ensure that passengers with disabilities
who request assistance while traveling
in air transportation received
dignified, timely and effective
assistance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The bill contains numerous provisions intended to improve
the air travel experience for passengers with disabilities.
Among other things, the bill requires DOT to establish an
advisory committee for the air travel needs of passengers with
disabilities and directs the committee to assess current
regulations with respect to practices for ticketing, advance
seat assignments, and stowage of assistive devices for
passengers with disabilities.\34\ DOT is currently reviewing
nominations for committee membership and expects to announce
the committee's membership in the coming weeks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id. Sec. Sec. 438, 439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. SERVICE AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS

The bill also directs DOT to promulgate standards governing
the transportation of service animals and emotional support
animals on airline flights.\35\ A notice of proposed rulemaking
is set to be released by November 2019 and was sent to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in August 2019. For the
interim, DOT released a policy statement on service animals in
August 2019.\36\ In the policy statement, DOT stated airlines
should be prepared to accept ``the most commonly recognized
service animals (i.e., dogs, cats, and miniature horses) . . .
for transport'' but may decline to accept ``snakes, other
reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders.'' \37\ The DOT will
also permit airlines to seek ``credible verbal assurance'' from
a passenger that the passenger is traveling with service or
support animal--not simply a pet.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id. Sec. 437.
\36\ Guidance on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in
Air Travel, 84 Fed. Reg. 43480 (Aug. 21, 2019).
\37\ Id. at 43481.
\38\ Id. at 43482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CONSUMER PROTECTION

1. CELL PHONES AND E-CIGARETTES

The bill contains two self-executing provisions--provisions
that are automatically effective without the need for
rulemaking by DOT or FAA--to improve airline passengers' on-
board experience. First, the bill prohibits passengers from
making or receiving cell phone calls during flight.\39\ Second,
the bill prohibits the use of e-cigarettes in flight.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Pub. L. No. 115-254, Sec. 403.
\40\ Id. Sec. 409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. INVOLUNTARY DENIED BOARDING

An oversold flight is one on which more passengers hold
confirmed reserved space than there are seats available. Before
bumping a passenger from an oversold flight, an airline must
first seek volunteers to forego their reserved space on the
flight (often for compensation).\41\ But if an insufficient
number of passengers volunteer to take another flight, the
airline is permitted to begin bumping passengers in accordance
with the airline's boarding priority rules--which may include
factors such as a passenger's time of check-in, the fare paid
by the passenger, and the passenger's status as a frequent
flyer.\42\ Subject to limited exceptions, under current
requirements, bumped passengers are entitled to denied boarding
compensation in amounts that vary based on the length of the
delay, up to 400 percent of their one-way fare (but not more
than $1,350).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. 250.2b(a).
\42\ Id. Sec. 250.3(b).
\43\ Id. Sec. 250.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA bill directs DOT to revise its regulations to
clarify that, among other things, ``there is not a maximum
level of compensation an air carrier or foreign air carrier may
pay to a passenger who is involuntarily denied boarding as the
result of an oversold flight.'' \44\ The Department has not yet
complied with that mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Pub. L. No. 115-254, Sec. 425(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. REFUNDS OF FEES FOR UNUSED SERVICES

The bill directs DOT to issue regulations requiring
airlines to refund ancillary fees paid for services that a
passenger does not receive. The DOT is combining this
requirement with a related requirement from the short-term
extension bill enacted in 2016 that directs DOT to require
refunds of checked baggage fees when checked bags arrived
late.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Pub. L. No. 114-190, Sec. 2305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. AVIATION WORKFORCE

The FAA bill included several provisions aimed at
increasing the aviation workforce pipeline, including directing
the FAA to establish a Youth Access to American Jobs in
Aviation Task Force to develop recommendations and strategies
on how the FAA can facilitate and encourage high school
students to enroll in STEM courses and courses of study related
to aviation careers; \46\ create and facilitate the Women in
Aviation Advisory Board to promote organizations and programs
that provide education, training, mentorship, outreach, and
recruitment of women into the aviation industry; \47\ issue a
final rule to modernize the training programs at aviation
maintenance technician schools; \48\ and establish aviation
workforce development grant programs ($5 million per year for
FY 2019-23) to support the education of future pilots and the
education and recruitment of aviation maintenance technical
workers.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Pub. L. No. 115-254, Sec. 602.
\47\ Id. Sec. 612.
\48\ Id. Sec. 624.
\49\ Id. Sec. 625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appendix at the end of this memo contains status
updates from FAA on additional provisions.

WITNESSES

PANEL 1

Mr. Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy Administrator, FAA
The Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Undersecretary for
Policy, DOT

PANEL 2

Ms. Sara Nelson, President, Association of Flight
Attendants
Capt. Bob Fox, First Vice President, Air Line
Pilots Association, International
Mr. Greg Walden, Aviation Counsel, Small UAV
Coalition
Mr. Mark Baker, President, Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association
Mr. John Breyault, Vice President, Public Policy,
Telecommunications, and Fraud, National Consumers League
Mr. David Zurfluh, National President, Paralyzed
Veterans of America

APPENDIX

Additional Work From FAA Bill in Progress

Unless otherwise noted, FAA and DOT have not specified
estimated dates of fulfillment of the mandates listed below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory
Section Title Description Deadline Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplane Noise
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
173 Alternative airplane noise FAA to complete evaluation 10/5/19 FAA has completed the
metric evaluation deadline of alternative metrics to evaluation as directed
the current day-night
decibel level measurement
175 Addressing community noise FAA to consider feasibility None FAA is finalizing the formal
concerns of dispersal headings or process to use related to
other lateral track this section
variations to address noise
concerns when proposing new
area navigation departure
procedures or amending
existing procedures under
certain conditions
176 Community involvement in FAA Report on review of FAA's 6/2/19 The review is complete. FAA
NextGen projects located in community involvement is working on this report
metroplexes practices for NextGen
projects in metroplexes
179 Airport noise mitigation and Report on FAA's review and 10/5/19 The study has been initiated
safety study evaluate existing studies of consistent with this
the relationship between jet section. The report on the
aircraft approach/takeoff study is due in 10/2020
speeds and corresponding
noise impacts communities
180 Regional Ombudsman FAA regional administrators 10/5/19 All ombudsmen have been
to designate regional designated and are going
ombudsmen through training
188 Study of Day-Night Average FAA report on results of 10/5/19 FAA has completed the
Sound Levstudy to evaluate metrics to evaluation. FAA is working
average day-night level on this report
standard
189 Study on potential health FAA report on study with 7/2/19 FAA has formally entered
and economic impacts of higher ed. institute on into the partnership with
overflight noise health impacts of aircraft institutions of higher
noise on residents education (MIT & Boston
University)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
303 Safety critical staffing DOT-IG report to Congress on 12/29/19 FAA has updated the Aviation
results of audit of FAA Safety Inspector Staffing
Safety Critical Staffing Model. FAA will adopt future
updates to the model as new
data becomes available and
recommendations are received
by the future DOT IG audit
required in Section 303(b)
308 FAA and NTSB review of FAA & NTSB conduct study of 10/5/19 FAA initiated study and held
general aviation safety general aviation safety and first meeting with NTSB
report to Congress staff on 10/31/2018.
Recommendations from the
study and report to Congress
are being developed
317 Helicopter fuel system Issue bulletin notifying 4/3/19 Completed 12/3/18
safety operators of system
modifications
318 Medical certification FAA to modify 14 C.F.R. Sec. 4/3/19 FAA is pursuing required
standards of air balloons 61.3(c), to require medical rulemaking. FAA is working
operators certification of balloon with the Balloon Federation
pilots operating for on a voluntary program to
compensation encourage balloon pilots to
pursue second class medical
certificates
333 Safe air transport of Report to Congress on 6/2/19 Report drafted, DOT saying
lithium cells & batteries policies on lithium battery it ``captures many completed
packaging requirements and ongoing activities
consistent with
Congressional direction''.
FAA hopes to give the report
to Congress soon
339A In-Flight Sexual Misconduct Establish National In-Flight 10/5/19 Task Force established by
Task Force Sexual Misconduct Task Force DOT 02/2019, + subcommittee
and submit report of the Department's Aviation
Consumer Protection Advisory
Committee (ACPAC) follow
requirements of Section
339A. Task Force has met in
April, May, June and July
2019. Additional two-day
meeting scheduled in 09/
2019. Task Force expected to
conclude its work by the end
of 2019. DOT awaiting Task
Force recommendations before
determining action(s) needed
339B Reporting process for sexual In coordination w/ relevant 10/5/20 Awaiting establishment. DOJ
misconduct onboard aircraft agencies, AG to establish function, not a DOT function
process based on 339A report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned Aircraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
342 Update of FAA comprehensive FAA to update UAS plan 7/2/19 The FAA is working on this
plan required by the 2012 update. Per the requirement
reauthorization in the section, the draft
plan will be provided to the
Drone Advisory Committee
(DAC) and the FAA will task
the DAC to provide feedback
within 60 days
348 Carriage of property by FAA to update regulations to 10/5/19 FAA is meeting the intent
small UAS for compensation authorize carriage of through the issuance of part
or hire property by users of small 135 exemptions
UAS for compensation or hire
352 Part 107 transparency and FAA to revise online waiver 11/4/18 & FAA posted a sample of
technology improvements and COA process 1/3/19 waiver safety justifications
online and allows waiver
applicants to see status of
their waiver request through
FAA's DroneZone platform
376 Plan for full operational FAA to develop a plan for 4/11/20 The FAA, in partnership with
capability of unmanned UTM implementation in 3 UAS test sites and other
aircraft systems traffic coordination with NASA & stakeholders, completed 3
management (UTM) stakeholders, report to successful test flights this
Congress summer under phase 1 of the
UTM Pilot Program. FAA
continues to study initial
results as the agency moves
into phase 2, informing
future test scenarios and
protocols in partnership
with NASA. The FAA will
define regulatory framework
in which providers can
operate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Consumer Protections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
418 Advisory committee on air DOT to create advisory 12/4/18 Committee established 09/12/
ambulance and patient committee to review options 2019 with appointment of 13
billing to improve pertinent medical members. First committee
services meeting expected ``in the
near future and will be open
to the public''
424 Aviation consumer advocate Directs DOT to appoint an 9/30/19 Blane Workie, Assistant
aviation consumer advocate General Counsel for DOT
and to prepare an annual Office of Aviation
report to Congress Enforcement and Proceedings,
summarizing annual appointed Aviation Consumer
complaints by carrier Advocate 03/2019. Report
will be drafted
425 TICKETS Act Prohibits airlines from 12/4/18 DOT has initiated a
removing a passenger from a rulemaking (2105-AE77) to
flight after the passenger's codify the Tickets Act
boarding pass has been requirement
scanned, unless safety or
security reasons dictate
otherwise.
433 Improving wheelchair DOT to establish No Awaiting report from 2016
assistance recommendations re timeline extension. DOT anticipates
wheelchair assistance, if specified it being reviewed by Air
appropriate, following Carrier Access Act Advisory
report required in 2016 Committee once established
extension
434 Passengers with Disabilities DOT to establish a ``Bill of No DOT anticipates this topic
Bill of Rights Rights'' for passengers with timeline being addressed by the Air
disabilities specified Carrier Access Act Advisory
Committee once established
439 Advisory committee on the DOT to establish committee Report to DOT began reviewing
air travel needs of on the air travel needs of DOT due 14 committee applicants 5/28/
passengers with disabilities passengers with months 19. It has finished its
disabilities, incl. after review and expects to
recommendations, called the estab- announce the formation of
Air Carrier Access Act lishment; the committee soon
Advisory Committee (ACAA DOT report
Advisory Committee) to
Congress
due 60
days from
receipt
440 Regulations Ensuring Requires a review and change 4/3/19 DOT has reviewed the
Assistance for Passengers to regulations governing Department's Air Carrier
with Disabilities in Air accommodations for person Access Act regulations, and
Transportation with disabilities, if reviewed complaints
necessary received. DOT will determine
whether regulations are
necessary
441 Compliance Date of The compliance date of the 12/4/18 On 10/28/2018, DOT issued
Mishandled Baggage Rules November 2, 2016, final rule notice providing guidance to
on mishandled baggage affected U.S. carriers on
reporting shall be effective compliance with mishandled
not later than 60 days after baggage and wheelchair
enactment of act reporting requirements
551 Employee Assault Prevention Directs part 121 air 1/3/19 In July 2019, the FAA
and Response Plans carriers to submit to the published an Information to
FAA for review and Operators (InFO) advising
acceptance an employee part 121 air carriers of the
assault prevention and process for submission of
response plan the plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Workforce Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
602 Establish a Task Force on FAA to establish task force 1/3/19 The FAA is finalizing the
Youth Access to American to study increased youth necessary charter and
Jobs in Aviation access to aviation jobs associated Federal Register
notice
612 Establish a Women in FAA to create and facilitate 7/5/19 The FAA is finalizing the
Aviation Advisory Board the board to increase access necessary charter and
to women in aviation associated Federal Register
notice
625 Aviation workforce DOT to establish programs to None Implementation being
development programs provide grants for eligible reviewed, not expected
projects to support the before 2021, per FAA
education of future pilots
and maintenance personnel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A WORK IN PROGRESS: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2018

----------

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2019

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Larsen
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Larsen. Good morning, and I want to thank the witnesses
for joining today's hearing on the implementation of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018.
One year ago, this committee wrote comprehensive bipartisan
legislation to raise the bar on aviation safety, improve the
flying experience for the traveling public, better prepare and
diversify the aviation workforce, and foster innovation in the
U.S. airspace.
Today's hearing is a critical milestone in the
subcommittee's oversight work to ensure the timely
implementation of the law in accordance with our intent, and to
address new challenges. Although the FAA has made some progress
on fulfilling the law's directives, ongoing implementation
delays threaten the important work needed to advance U.S.
aviation and aerospace, and maintain our global leadership.
Our first panel of witnesses are Dan Elwell, the FAA's
Deputy Administrator, and Joel Szabat, Acting Under Secretary
for Policy at the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Elwell and Mr. Szabat, I do expect your testimony will
offer substantive updates on the administration's efforts to
swiftly implement last year's law.
I would note they are joined by staff from FAA and DOT, and
the staff will be available to help us answer any of our
questions, as well.
Witnesses on today's second panel reflect a broad range of
aviation stakeholders who are uniquely positioned to comment on
what is working, what is not, and what Congress can do to keep
the FAA and DOT on track.
I expect we will cover a lot of ground today, so let me
walk briefly through a few of my priorities.
Safety is the subcommittee's top priority. The FAA's
current aerospace forecast predicts passenger traffic will
increase roughly 2 percent per year over the next 20 years.
Congress must ensure appropriate safety rules are in place to
safely accommodate this demand.
Notably, the lack of modern rest requirements for flight
attendants remains a critical aviation safety issue. The
current regulation, issued in 1994, allows airlines to roster
flight attendants for just 8 hours of rest. Instead of
modifying the 1994 rule and flight attendant rest to provide at
least 10 hours of rest by November 4th of last year, as
directed in the bill, the FAA just this week issued an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking, ANPRM, soliciting comments on
the cost and benefits of compliance with the mandate. I am
concerned that this action is yet another unnecessary delay.
So, Mr. Elwell, I will expect you to shed some more light
on the FAA's decisionmaking related to this issue.
Further, I look forward to hearing more about the necessity
of the ANPRM, particularly as some 15 airlines have already
implemented the mandate, or are currently working towards
compliance.
The bill also requires the FAA to issue guidance to
aircrews and mechanics on responding to incidents involving
smoke or fumes in cabins, as well as a commission to study in-
cabin air quality. These directives are overdue, so I hope you
can provide an update on how the FAA plans to fulfill these
mandates.
Congress, as well, must assure the FAA efficiently
integrates unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, into the National
Airspace System. But Congress must also ensure that integration
is safe. This committee made the necessary reforms in last
year's bill to ensure the agency could move forward on a remote
identification rule. Although rulemaking was initiated more
than 1 year ago, the publication date has been repeatedly
delayed.
In July I joined Chair DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam
Graves and Garret Graves on a letter to the FAA and the Office
of Management and Budget raising questions about the delays in
issuing the remote ID rule. But our questions remain
unanswered.
So, Deputy Administrator Elwell and Mr. Szabat, I expect
you will provide us with those answers today.
Further, according to recent reports, the FAA, in
partnership with three UAS sites, has successfully completed
test flights under phase 1 of the UAS Traffic Management Pilot
Program, and we look forward to hearing more about the lessons
learned from that program to date.
As the committee continues to support advances in U.S.
aviation, the success of those efforts is possible with the
investment in the next generation of engineers, pilots,
mechanics, and innovators. The FAA Reauthorization Act includes
a comprehensive workforce development title, including my
provision to create a new task force to encourage high school
students to enroll in aviation manufacturing, maintenance, and
engineering apprenticeships.
With global aviation becoming more competitive, I am
concerned by the FAA's lack of progress on this mandate, as
well as continued delays to establish a Women in Aviation
Advisory Board to encourage women and young girls to pursue
aviation careers. Improving access to workforce training and
diversifying the aviation workforce is an all-around win for
employers, job seekers, and the aviation and aerospace sectors.
And the FAA Reauthorization Act includes numerous
provisions to improve the air travel experience for more than
the 900 million passengers who fly in the U.S. each year.
For years I have championed the effort to improve
accessibility of air travel for passengers with disabilities,
and I am pleased to see the Reauthorization Act included a
robust title focused on improving the curb to curb experience
for these passengers. However, the Department's commitment to
these goals has rightly been called into question as
significant delays on rulemaking for several of these key
mandates persist.
Moreover, the public is still waiting for final action on
rulemaking to ensure passengers with disabilities can access
lavatories on single-aisle airplanes, an action that I asked be
required in the 2016 FAA extension. Additionally, last year's
act improved safety for the traveling public and airline
employees by addressing sexual harassment and assault through
open reporting and increased accountability.
There is no doubt the FAA and DOT and this committee have
our work cut out for us. Timely implementation of the long-term
Reauthorization Act will provide stability for the Nation's
aviation community, support the advancement of new
technologies, improve American competitiveness, and, above all,
ensure aviation safety.
So I want to thank again the witnesses for being here
today. I look forward to the discussion.
[Mr. Larsen's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation
Good morning and thank you to the witnesses for joining today's
hearing on the implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
One year ago, this Committee wrote comprehensive, bipartisan
legislation to:

Raise the bar on aviation safety;
Improve the flying experience for the traveling public;
Better prepare and diversify the aviation workforce; and
Foster innovation in U.S. airspace.

Today's hearing is a critical milestone in the Subcommittee's
oversight work to ensure the timely implementation of the law, in
accordance with our intent, and to address new challenges.
Although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has made some
progress on fulfilling the law's directives, ongoing implementation
delays threaten the important work needed to advance U.S. aviation and
aerospace and maintain our global leadership.
On our first panel of witnesses are Dan Elwell, the FAA's Deputy
Administrator, and Joel Szabat, Acting Undersecretary for Policy at the
Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Elwell, Mr. Szabat, I expect
your testimony will offer substantive updates on the administration's
efforts to swiftly implement last year's law.
Witnesses on today's second panel reflect a broad range of aviation
stakeholders who are uniquely positioned to comment on what is working,
what is not and what Congress can do to keep the FAA and DOT on track.
I expect we will cover a lot of ground, so let me walk briefly
through a few of my priorities.
Safety is this Subcommittee's top priority.
The FAA's current aerospace forecast predicts passenger traffic
will increase roughly 2 percent per year over the next 20 years.
Congress must ensure appropriate safety rules are in place to
safely accommodate this demand. Notably, the lack of modern rest
requirements for flight attendants remains a critical aviation safety
issue.
The current regulation, issued in 1994, allows airlines to roster
flight attendants for just eight hours of rest. Instead of modifying
the 1994 final rule on flight attendant rest to provide at least 10
hours of rest by November 4 of last year, as directed in the bill, the
FAA just this week issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) soliciting comments on the costs and benefits of compliance
with the mandate. I am concerned this action is yet another unnecessary
delay.
Deputy Administrator, I expect you can shed more light on the FAA's
decision-making related to this issue.
Further, I look forward to hearing more about the necessity of the
ANPRM, particularly as some 15 airlines have already implemented the
mandate or are currently working toward compliance.
The bill also requires the FAA to issue guidance to aircrews and
mechanics on responding to incidents involving smoke or fumes in
cabins, as well as commission a study on cabin air quality. These
directives are overdue, so I hope you can provide an update on how the
FAA plans to fulfill these mandates.
Congress must ensure that the FAA efficiently integrates unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS), which are rapidly emerging, into the national
airspace system. But Congress must also ensure that integration is
safe.
This Committee made the necessary reforms in last year's bill to
ensure the agency could move forward on a remote identification rule.
Although rulemaking was initiated more than one year ago, the
publication date has been repeatedly delayed.
In July, I joined Chair DeFazio and Ranking Members Sam Graves and
Garret Graves on a letter to the FAA and Office of Management and
Budget raising questions about the delays in issuing the remote ID
rule. But our questions remain unanswered.
Deputy Administrator Elwell and Mr. Szabat, I expect you will
provide us with those answers today.
Further, according to recent reports, the FAA, in partnership with
three UAS test sites, has successfully completed test flights under
phase 1 of the UAS traffic management (UTM) Pilot Program.
I look forward to hearing more about the lessons learned from this
program to date and the potential impacts on the UAS industry.
As this Committee continues to support technological advances in
U.S. aviation, the success of these efforts is possible with investment
in the next generation of engineers, pilots, mechanics and innovators.
The FAA Reauthorization Act includes a comprehensive workforce
development title, including my provision to create a new task force to
encourage high school students to enroll in aviation manufacturing,
maintenance and engineering apprenticeships.
With global aviation becoming more competitive, I am concerned by
the FAA's lack of progress on this mandate, as well as continued delays
to establish a Women in Aviation Advisory Board to encourage women and
girls to pursue aviation careers.
Improving access to workforce training and diversifying the
aviation workforce is an all-around win for employers, job seekers and
the aviation and aerospace sectors.
The FAA Reauthorization Act includes numerous provisions to improve
the air travel experience for the more than 900 million passengers who
fly in the United States each year.
For years, I have championed efforts to improve accessibility of
air travel for passengers with disabilities.
I was pleased to see the reauthorization act included a robust
title focused on improving the ``curb to curb'' experience for these
passengers.
However, the Department's commitment to these goals has been
rightly called into question, as significant delays on rulemaking for
several of these key mandates persist.
Moreover, the public is still waiting for final action on a
rulemaking to ensure passengers with disabilities can access lavatories
on single-aisle airplanes--action that I required in the 2016 FAA
extension.
Additionally, last year's act improves safety for the traveling
public and airline employees by addressing sexual harassment and
assault through open reporting and increased accountability.
There is no doubt that the FAA, DOT and this Committee have our
work cut out for us.
Timely implementation of the long-term reauthorization act will
provide stability for the nation's aviation community, support the
advancement of new technologies, improve American competitiveness, and
above all, ensure aviation safety.
Thank you again to today's witnesses, and I look forward to our
discussion.

Mr. Larsen. And for an opening statement I turn to Ranking
Member Garret Graves.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this hearing. I want to thank all the witnesses
for being here today.
Often we pass laws and move on. We send out press releases,
we have signing ceremonies, and we move on. This bill was
signed into law about a year ago, almost a year ago. It
includes over 400 pages of text. As Under Secretary Szabat
includes in his testimony, it includes nearly 360 deliverables
to the Congress, to this committee, 360. There is an awful lot
of work that went into this legislation, and we need to make
sure that the outcomes actually yield or represent that
congressional intent.
The process of signing a bill into law is just the
beginning. The reality is that implementation is everything, as
is the case in many circumstances. This bill lays out or
addresses policy debates in many longstanding areas where there
has been dispute, or been differences, or a lack of a decision.
It truly lays the groundwork for the future of aviation and the
future of aviation infrastructure.
This legislation makes a lot of progress in terms of
addressing the future of aviation safety, how that applies not
just to the aircraft, but also to the information systems and
the on-the-ground networks, as well.
This bill was a bipartisan bill, with strong, strong
support from Republicans and Democrats, a strong vote in the
House of Representatives moving forward. But I want to say it
again. All of this is for naught if the FAA doesn't do what we
directed them to do in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are holding this hearing today.
I think that we need to ensure that we stay on top of this, and
stay on top of implementation, and carry out our oversight
responsibilities properly. I understand what has been
accomplished and what still needs to be done. It is important
we look to the future and decide what we are going to do next,
and we fully understand the implementation of this legislation.
I want to thank the witnesses in both panels for being here
today and for your input. I am interested in hearing how the
FAA has implemented provisions related to the new entrants and
new technologies such as unmanned aircraft systems. I also want
to learn the status of numerous safety process streamlining and
consumer protection efforts.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
[Mr. Graves of Louisiana's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Aviation
So often in Congress, we focus solely on either the problems of the
day or what we're going to do next and we forget to look back.
We can't pass laws and move on. Signing a law is just the
beginning--the process of changing things in the real world is just
beginning, and implementation is everything. Part of our job is to make
sure that the laws we've already passed are being implemented as
intended before adding new laws and new work. At more than 400 pages
and almost 360 deliverables, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
certainly gave the FAA and DOT more than enough work.
In this comprehensive law, which was developed and passed with
strong bipartisan support, Congress addressed many longstanding policy
debates while laying the groundwork for our aviation system's future.
We included provisions that will improve aviation safety and help build
the next generation of aviation infrastructure. And we require various
reports and studies to inform legislative and regulatory efforts in the
future.
But Mr. Chairman, all those provisions, all the good bipartisan
work we accomplished, and even all the reports that will inform our
future efforts, all of it is for naught if the FAA doesn't do what we
directed them to do in the first place.
So Mr. Chairman, I'm glad we're finally holding a hearing to ensure
that the FAA Reauthorization is being properly implemented.
Understanding what has been accomplished and what work remains to be
done will be important as we look to the future and decide what we're
going to do next.
I thank the witnesses on both panels for their participation today.
I am interested in hearing how the FAA has implemented provisions
related to new entrants and new technologies, such as unmanned aircraft
systems. I also want to learn the status of the numerous safety,
process streamlining, and consumer protection efforts.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Graves. I turn to the chair of
the full committee, Mr. DeFazio of Oregon for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the witnesses
here today.
We did send a lot of mandates. The chair listed a number. I
share his concerns over those, and I will list a few others
that are at the top of my list. I understand it was a big
workload, but if you prioritize and address the principal
concerns, particularly those that relate to safety, that will
be good progress.
So flight attendant fatigue. Twenty-five years. The FAA has
recognized that fatigue is a real issue, and that when you are
dealing with safety-critical personnel--pilots, we have adopted
rules. When it comes to flight attendants, safety-critical
personnel, we haven't.
The rules allow an airline to keep a flight attendant on
duty for 14 hours. Then you get an 8-hour break. Now, that is 8
hours to get off the plane, get out of the airport, get on the
shuttle, go to the hotel, maybe make a phone call, take a
shower, go to bed, get up, and be back within 8 hours. Now, I
don't know. Maybe you get 3, 4 hours of sleep, if you are
lucky.
So, it is well past time. And I thought we were very, very
definitive and clear, and it would not be necessary to go
through a lengthy rulemaking. And I am hoping that we can
expedite that in the near future.
And then we have the issue of cabin evacuations. When I
first came to Congress, I was aware of the Manchester crash,
where people died piled up like cordwood, trying to get out the
overwing exit. It was a survivable crash. It took me 5 years in
Congress to get a rule that said we would take out and make
space to get at the overwing exits. Two years later, the
industry came back with a fake study saying, oh, no, that
actually delays evacuations if you take those seats out. Well,
we pushed back on that, and they didn't put them back in. But
now they are cramming in more, and more, and more seats, closer
and closer together. People are getting bigger.
And we haven't done a real safety evacuation drill in, I
think, 20 years or 25 years. We are using computer simulations.
I don't believe we can beat the standard anymore of 90 seconds,
which has been deemed to be critical. Now, if the FAA thinks
you could have 5 minutes in a survivable crash and a fire,
well, then, tell us that. But if you don't think that, then we
have to find out whether or not the current rules accommodate a
90-second evacuation.
We have a real-life example, which was the American
Airlines flight in Chicago, which was a widebody. So it wasn't
one of the new, really crammed-in planes. And it took them well
over 2 minutes and 21 seconds to evacuate the plane, and the
plane wasn't even full. So telling me that these new economy
carriers that have crammed people in so they are sitting like
this [indicating]--I want to get the CEOs here someday, and I
am going to get some of those seats, and I am going to put them
in, and we are going to keep them here for 4 or 5 hours, and
see what they think about what they are doing to----
Mr. Larsen. I won't be chairing that meeting.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. Secondary cockpit barriers. Bill Lipinski, not
Dan, and I were on this issue before 9/11, the vulnerability of
the flight decks. And United actually installed a few barriers
in 757s, and I was down there visiting their maintenance
facility in San Francisco once, and I said, ``What of that?
What is--what do you call that?''
And they said, ``Oh, we call those DeFazios, because you
are bugging us so much.'' But they didn't equip all the planes,
and we had a preventable tragedy, had we been able to prohibit
access.
Yes, we have armed the doors, and now we have flight
attendants menacingly behind a cart. And it wouldn't be very
hard for a person with strength and skill to vault over that
cart, knock the flight attendant down, take out the pilot, and
get to the flight deck. That was really, really, really clear.
Now the industry is very opposed. It is going to put a
little more weight on the plane. And the manufacturers and the
former chairman tried to say, no, no, we didn't mean what the
law said. We meant new types. No, the law is clear. All newly
manufactured airplanes will have these barriers.
And again, you know, this is being slow-walked. I see that
there--you know, asked for another delay, and they are not
releasing the recommendations. We have got to get that out.
Drones took--it took me about 5 years to roll the very,
very powerful model airplane lobby and the Chinese toy
manufacturers to require that we could have remote ID. They
prohibited the FAA from regulating these things. Sooner or
later we are going to ingest a drone. What is going to happen?
Well, we don't know. In fact, I asked the FAA 3 years ago,
``What happens if one of those crappy little quadcopters goes
into a turbine?''
And they said, ``Well, we don't know.''
And I said, ``Well, maybe you should find out.'' We still
haven't had the live test. I don't know what the delay is.
This is very serious. The commercial drone people are all
with me on this, because if we have one accident because of
some jerk illegally flying a toy drone, they are all going to
get grounded, and it is going to be quite a mess. So we really,
really need that rule.
And now I think we are not even going to see a proposed
rule until December. You know--I don't know. Is it the model
aircraft people? Is it the Chinese? Who is holding this up?
And then, finally, foreign repair stations. We just had an
incident last week of what appears to be a terrorist action on
domestic soil by a domestic employee. I have for years--again,
with Bill Lipinski, that is how long it has been--expressed
concerns, and with Jerry Costello, about foreign repair
stations. And we did some visits.
And, you know, we can't do unannounced visits, because the
State Department says, ``Oh, well, then they could do
unannounced visits here.'' Who cares? We don't have anything to
hide, I hope. They don't do drug testing, as we require by law.
They don't do alcohol, drug, and they don't do background
checks.
And now we are doing massive, massive amounts of
maintenance overseas. This is an incredible vulnerability, just
like this guy tried to sabotage the plane there. What about
someone doing a D check down in one of these foreign repair
stations? That is a way to take down a plane without having to
get on board, and without having to access the flight deck.
So these are safety-critical, potentially life-threatening
rules that we need, and we need them as quickly as possible.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Larsen, for calling today's hearing on
implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018--a bipartisan
bill that, barring another senseless government shutdown, will keep the
lights on at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the next
four years.
By my count, the bill contains more than 400 mandates for FAA and
Department of Transportation (DOT) rulemakings, studies, and reports to
Congress--many with the same deadline of either six months or a year
from enactment. I'm a realist. I recognize it will take time for the
FAA and the DOT to work through the list. But I want to highlight a few
mandates whose implementation is either late or about to be late--and I
want to put this administration on notice that I will be monitoring
progress on these mandates very, very closely.
First and foremost is the issue of flight attendant fatigue. Much
has happened in aviation safety over the last 25 years. We've seen new
pilot fatigue rules, new pilot training rules, new pilot qualifications
rules, reduced vertical separation between airplanes, and the list goes
on.
But here's what we haven't seen from the FAA in the last 25 years:
updated rules recognizing that cabin crewmembers do not get adequate
rest between flights under the FAA's 1994 requirement on cabin crew
rest.
Those rules allow an airline to keep a flight attendant on duty for
14 hours and then provide only an eight-hour break between flights.
That's not eight hours of rest; that eight hours includes walking
through the terminal, finding the stop for the shuttle bus to the hotel
and waiting for it to arrive, riding the shuttle bus to the hotel,
checking into a hotel room, maybe calling home, and then it's lights
out for a few hours until the next 14-hour clock starts at the airport
just five or six hours later.
The FAA itself has acknowledged the effects of fatigue on the human
body. The agency's rulemaking proposal for improved pilot fatigue rules
in 2010 cited the following effects, among others:

Lapses of attention and vigilance;
Delayed reactions;
Impaired decision-making, including a reduced ability to
assess risk; and
Reduced situational awareness.

We've seen accident after accident in the United States where
flight attendants' quick action saved lives. To name but a few:
American Airlines flight 1420, which overran the runway in Little Rock
in 1999; US Airways flight 1549, which ditched into the Hudson River in
2009; and Asiana flight 214, which crash-landed in San Francisco in
2013. When a situation unravels from routine to total chaos, that's
when the flying public expects cabin crews to be rested and ready to
spring into action.
The bill set a deadline of November 4 of last year for the
Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule guaranteeing flight
attendants a minimum of 10 hours' rest, no exceptions. Yet all we've
seen so far is an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, soliciting
information from airlines and others on the costs of complying with
that mandate--even as some 15 airlines have adopted some version of a
10-hour rest rule voluntarily. I consider the administration to be
woefully delinquent in fulfilling this important mandate.
Second is a related issue: cabin evacuations. In 1985, before I was
elected to Congress, 55 people died during the botched evacuation of
British Airtours flight 28M in Manchester. After I was elected, I
persisted in response to that tragedy until the FAA finally adopted
spacing requirements for exit-row seats in 1992.
But evacuations continue to be a problem. After a Boeing 767 became
engulfed in flames following an uncontained engine failure during its
takeoff roll in Chicago in 2016, the scene in the cabin was a complete
melee as passengers tried to evacuate the burning plane dragging huge
carry-on bags with them. To quote from the National Transportation
Safety Board's report:

In one case, a flight attendant tried to take a bag away from a
passenger who did not follow the instruction to evacuate
without baggage, but the flight attendant realized that the
struggle over the bag was prolonging the evacuation and allowed
the passenger to take the bag.

The FAA says it should take 90 seconds to evacuate a burning plane.
It took 161 passengers and eight crew two minutes and 21 seconds to
evacuate the 767 at O'Hare. So that to me begs the question: Are the
FAA's assumptions valid about how long it takes for cabin evacuations?
At my insistence, the bill requires the FAA Administrator to
reassess the assumptions and methods behind certification of evacuation
times and report to Congress on the matter. The deadline is coming up
on October 5.
At a time when airlines are cramming more and more seats to reduce
their costs per available seat-mile, the bill also requires the FAA to
issue regulations on minimum dimensions of seats on airliners. Again,
the final rule is due next week, on October 5, and I look forward to
hearing from Deputy Administrator Elwell on the FAA's progress in
meeting this important safety-critical mandate.
Third is the requirement for installation of secondary cockpit
barriers on transport-category airplanes. After 9/11, cockpit doors
were reinforced, but pilots still need to leave the cockpit from time
to time during flight. Although United installed what I understand were
called ``DeFazio barriers'' on some of its 757s in recognition of my
advocacy on this subject, in most cases the only protection for the
flight deck during the moments when the cockpit door is open during
flight is a flight attendant or beverage cart stationed in front of the
entryway.
Thank God no terrorist has exploited this vulnerability since 9/11,
but it's long past time to close the loophole, so the bill requires the
FAA--again, by October 5--to require installation of secondary cockpit
barriers on all newly manufactured airliners. Inasmuch as the working
group tasked with developing this requirement has asked for an
extension of the September 19 deadline for submitting its
recommendations, I'm pessimistic that the FAA will meet the deadline,
and I'll be keen to hear from Deputy Administrator Elwell as to when
we'll see some further action on this mandate.
Fourth is a provision I authored that removed a foolish ban on FAA
regulation of recreational drones, which account for more than one
million of the drones in U.S. airspace today. For more than six years,
that ban prevented the FAA from addressing the serious safety and
security risks drones pose, many of which can be alleviated through
basic remote identification (ID) requirements for operators. These
risks have held back the U.S. commercial drone industry, as additional
FAA rules permitting expanded commercial drone operations, such as
routine operations over people and at night, have been at a standstill.
I was under the impression that my provision would provide the FAA
with the authority and tools needed to move forward with its remote ID
rulemaking, which the industry at large agrees is the foundation
necessary for the full and safe integration of drones. I was
disappointed to learn that the agency's efforts are again delayed--the
third time this year--with the rule now expected in December. The FAA
and its security partners must commit to issuing this rule as
expeditiously as possible, and I look forward to hearing from the
Deputy Administrator about efforts underway to ensure this happens.
Fifth is the safety and security of foreign aircraft repair
stations. While not addressed in last year's legislation, the 2016 FAA
extension required the FAA to issue rules requiring that safety-
sensitive workers at foreign repair stations be subject to alcohol and
substance abuse screening and background investigations, just as
workers at U.S. facilities are, and the 2012 reauthorization similarly
required a rulemaking on substance abuse screening. However, to date,
the FAA has failed to implement these important mandates.
I have been concerned for years over the FAA's lax oversight of
these facilities. Report after report by successive DOT Inspectors
General has revealed troubling deficiencies in FAA oversight of foreign
repair stations that perform more and more critical safety work on
U.S.-registered aircraft. In fact, representatives of one airline told
the Government Accountability Office in 2016, in a study at my request,
that the airline uses 100 foreign repair stations. I intend to do
whatever is necessary in Congress to ensure parity between U.S. and
foreign repair stations.
While I've highlighted just a few provisions in my remarks, by no
means do I want to imply that there aren't dozens of other important
provisions in the FAA bill in the areas of safety, consumer
protections, accessibility for disabled passengers, and workforce
development. For every requirement in the bill, this Subcommittee will
remain focused on ensuring that Congress' will is respected, however
long it takes.
Thank you, Chair Larsen, and I yield back.

Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I now turn to Ranking Member Graves
for 5 minutes for his opening----
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thanks, Chairman Larsen and Ranking
Member Graves, for having this hearing. I am very glad that the
subcommittee is focusing on implementation of FAA
reauthorization for 2018, very glad about that.
This act is the longest reauthorization in more than two
decades, and its passage last October was very bipartisan, and
it was widely praised.
But, among other things, FAA reauthorization, it gives the
FAA and industry much-needed stability. It provides steady
funding for airport and infrastructure across the country, and
it allows manufacturers to get products to market on time, stay
competitive, and provide millions of good-paying American jobs.
And it also streamlines the regulatory process to encourage
innovation in new technologies. And I am particularly proud in
the reauthorization of the provisions that address issues
important to the general aviation community, such as supporting
small and rural airports through the new supplemental grant
program; increase in aircraft registration times from 3 years
to 7 years; commonsense changes in FAA hangar use; and policy
related to the construction of an aircraft; tackling important
general aviation safety issues, such as marking towers; ending
FAA fees for large aviation events such as AirVenture in
Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and Sun 'n Fun in Lakeland, Florida; a
clarified FAA policy relating to nonprofits when it comes to
accepting donations for living history flight experiences. It
promoted the streamlining and evaluation of regulations related
to certificates for pilots of experimental aircraft, including
the restoration of the ``all makes and models'' Certificate,
and supported programs to develop the aviation workforce of the
future. This is just to name a few.
It is vitally important that the workforce grant program,
training requirements, and studies directed by the law--it is
very important that they are implemented in a timely manner.
During the next 7 days the general assembly of the
International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, is going to
meet in Montreal. And I am pleased that FAA leadership is going
to be there with other regulators to discuss international
standards. And I am also pleased that one of those items to be
discussed is international pilot training standards. And I
understand the United States is going to present a white paper
on automation and dependency in the cockpit.
I have said this before, and I am going to say it again,
because I don't think it can be repeated enough, that the pilot
is the most important safety feature in any cockpit. And his or
her ability to fly the plane when technology fails is
absolutely critical to safety.
The growth of the commercial aviation industry around the
world is so important to our global economy, and it has
numerous benefits. But that growth and rapid expansion,
especially in developing nations, cannot come at the expense of
safety and good training.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. I wish--
and this isn't a criticism, Mr. Chairman, but I wish that we
could hear from other segments of the aviation community, such
as general aviation, the airlines, manufacturers, airports,
safety inspectors, air traffic controllers, on the GA
community. So I hope today's hearing is just the first in a
series on the implementation of the reauthorization law.
And again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here
today. And I would yield back the balance of my time. Thank
you.
[Mr. Graves of Missouri's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
I am glad the Subcommittee is focusing on implementation of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018. This is the longest reauthorization of the
FAA in more than two decades, and its passage last October was
overwhelmingly bipartisan and widely praised.
Among other things, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 gives the
FAA and industry much needed stability; provides steady funding for
airport infrastructure across the country; allows manufacturers to get
products to market on time, stay competitive, and provide millions of
good-paying American jobs; and streamlines regulatory processes to
encourage innovation in new technologies.
I am particularly proud of provisions in the Reauthorization that
address issues important to the general aviation community, such as
supporting small and rural airports through a new supplemental grant
program; increasing aircraft registration renewal times from three
years to seven years; commonsense changes to FAA hangar use policy
related to construction of aircraft; tackling important general
aviation safety issues, such as marking towers; ending FAA fees for
large aviation events such as Oshkosh and Sun `n Fun; clarifying FAA
policy related to non-profits accepting donations for living history
flight experiences; promoting the streamlining and evaluation of
regulations related to certificates for pilots of experimental aircraft
including the restoration of an `all makes and models' certificate; and
supporting programs to develop the aviation workforce of the future.
It is vitally important that the workforce grant programs, training
requirements, and studies directed by the law be implemented in a
timely manner.
This is particularly true in the aftermath of the tragic Boeing MAX
accidents in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
There are numerous reviews and investigations underway and we are
awaiting the much anticipated recommendations. Experts are considering
many factors for each accident, including aircraft certification and
design, airline operations and maintenance, and pilot training and
experience.
During the next seven days, the General Assembly of the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is meeting in
Montreal. I am pleased that FAA leadership is there to meet with other
regulators to discuss the MAX. I am also pleased that one of the items
to be discussed is international pilot training standards.
I understand that the United States will present a white paper on
automation dependency in the cockpit.
I have said it before, but I can't repeat it enough--the pilot is
the most important safety feature in the cockpit and his or her ability
to manually fly the plane when technology fails is critical to safety.
The growth of the commercial aviation industry around the world is
so important to our global economy and has numerous benefits. But that
growth and rapid expansion, especially in developing nations, cannot
come at the expense of safety and good training.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, but it is
unfortunate that we will not hear from other segments of the aviation
community, such as airlines, manufacturers, airports, safety
inspectors, and air traffic controllers. So, I hope today's hearing is
just the first in a series of hearings on the law.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Graves, and so noted on your
request.
I want to welcome the witnesses to our first panel: Mr. Dan
Elwell, Deputy Administrator of the FAA, and the Honorable Joel
Szabat, Acting Under Secretary of Policy at the U.S. DOT.
Thanks for being here today. We all look forward to your
testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record. And since that is the case, the
subcommittee requests that you limit your oral testimony to 5
minutes.
Mr. Elwell, you are recognized.

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL K. ELWELL, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY LIRIO LIU, ACTING
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. JOEL SZABAT, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY
FOR POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY BLANE
WORKIE, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Elwell. Thank you, Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member----
Mr. Larsen. Get close and speak up.
Mr. Elwell. Thank you, Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member Graves, and Ranking Member Graves, and members
of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the FAA's ongoing work to implement
the provisions of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
Before I begin, I would like to recognize our guests today,
the family and friends of those who passed in the accidents in
Indonesia and Ethiopia. It is in honor of their loved ones that
we stay so intensely committed to improving safety.
Although the act authorized aviation programs for 5 years,
the vast majority of the specific mandates require FAA action
within the first year. We remain committed to completing the
work you have given us, and I am pleased to report we have made
substantial progress on fulfilling the mandates. I will discuss
accomplishments in several key areas, including aircraft
certification, aviation safety, unmanned aircraft systems, and
commercial space.
The FAA's approach to aircraft certification has evolved
over time in order to adapt to an ever-changing industry, with
safety always paramount. Continuous improvement is an integral
component of the FAA safety culture, and we are committed to
learning from our experiences and using what we have learned to
improve our process.
The 2018 act furthers this work. As required in the
reauthorization, Secretary Chao this summer established a 22-
member Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee to
advise the Department on policy-level topics related to
certification, including Organization Designation Authority, or
ODA.
The reauthorization also required the FAA to establish an
ODA Office within the Aviation Safety Organization to ensure
consistency in ODA oversight functions throughout the agency.
We formally established the ODA Office in March.
The 2018 act requires the FAA to initiate 33 separate
rulemakings in addition to creating new aviation rulemaking
committees, and expanding the work of the existing Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee, ARAC, to consider new
objectives.
We have made significant progress on key rulemakings on
flight attendant duty and rest periods. As the chairman
mentioned, we published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking yesterday that asks respondents for data to assist
us in developing the proposed rule.
In a related requirement, in June we published advisory
information to airlines for developing flight attendant fatigue
risk management plans. Currently, we are receiving and
reviewing these plans from airlines.
In June we also directed the ARAC to evaluate a
reauthorization requirement for airlines to install secondary
cockpit barriers in new passenger aircraft. The FAA is
committed to implementing Congress' mandate for this safety and
security enhancement, and we are working with the ARAC to
ensure it is done correctly.
The FAA is also making good progress on several airport-
related requirements, ranging from contract towers and
environmental concerns with firefighting agents to streamlining
the passenger facility charge program. We are acutely aware of
the need to continue balancing the interests of airports,
airlines, and other aeronautical users, neighboring
communities, and the traveling public, among others.
The 2018 act devoted considerable attention to the FAA's
continued work on the integration of UAS into the National
Airspace System. Key to this integration will be the ability to
remotely identify a UAS and link it to its operator, a
capability that is fundamental to the safety and security of
UAS operations. A notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject
is presently in executive-branch clearance.
Recognizing the capabilities of commercial UAS operations
to carry cargo, Congress required that the FAA update existing
regulations to allow for the practice. The FAA and industry
have been demonstrating increasingly complex operations in this
area as part of the UAS integration pilot program. We are using
exemptions and waivers in the interim to meet the intent of the
mandate, while gaining the experience necessary to change the
rules.
The commercial space industry is booming, with an
increasing number of launches and reentries every year.
Congress, recognizing the growing importance of this industry,
required that the FAA stand up an Office of Spaceports within
the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, and I am
pleased to say the Office of Spaceports is up and running, and
we are actively working with spaceport licensees and
stakeholders.
In conclusion, I want to assure you that we are fully
committed to carrying out the reauthorization provisions as
quickly as possible, while making sure we do not sacrifice the
substance behind each requirement in a rush to declare
completion.
I would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
[Mr. Elwell's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) ongoing work to implement
the provisions of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (2018 Act or
Act). The 2018 Act is a wide-ranging reauthorization measure that
provided the FAA with a host of critical new authorities and
responsibilities on a broad range of aviation issues including
enhancing safety, improving infrastructure, and enabling innovation.
Although the 2018 Act reauthorized aviation programs for five years,
the vast majority of the specific mandates require FAA action within
the first year. The Act's focus on the first year of the
reauthorization period, as well as other challenges that the FAA has
encountered since enactment, has required the FAA to prioritize its
implementation strategy. Despite these challenges, I am pleased to
report that the FAA has made substantial progress on fulfilling the
congressional mandates in the Act, and I would like to summarize for
you some of the FAA's accomplishments.
Aircraft Certification & Flight Standards
The regulations and policies that guide the FAA's approach to
aircraft certification and flight standards have evolved over time in
order to adapt to an ever-changing industry, and to ensure that safety
is always our first priority. Continuous improvement is an integral
component of the FAA's safety culture and we are committed to learning
from our experiences and using what we have learned to improve our
process.

Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee.
The 2018 Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a
Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee (SOCAC) to advise
the Secretary on policy-level issues facing the aviation community
related to FAA safety oversight and certification programs and
activities. The Act further requires the new advisory committee to
focus on a number of specific aspects of the FAA's safety oversight
role including, for example, organization designation authorization
(ODA).
Secretary Chao this summer announced the appointment of 22
members to the advisory committee.\1\ The SOCAC consists of members
representing stakeholders from across the aviation sector.
Additionally, the Secretary created a Special Committee within the
structure of the SOCAC to specifically review FAA procedures for the
certification of new aircraft.\2\ Through this framework, leading
outside experts will help determine if improvements can be made to the
FAA's aircraft certification process. As Secretary Chao emphasized,
safety is the number one priority of the Department. The FAA embraces
meaningful oversight to make air transportation safer. We welcome the
work of the SOCAC and the Special Committee and look forward to
reviewing their recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-secretary-
transportation-elaine-l-chao-announces-appointees-safety-oversight-and-

\2\ https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot1619
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Designation Authorization Office. The use of
delegation, in some form, has been a vital part of our Nation's
aviation safety system since the 1920s. Congress has continually
expanded the designee program since creation of the FAA in 1958, and it
is critical to the success and effectiveness of the certification
process. In March 2019, consistent with requirements under the 2018
Act, the FAA formally established the Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) Office within the Office of Aviation Safety. This
Office will ensure consistency of ODA oversight functions. It will
facilitate standardized application of policy, ensure the proficiency
of ODA staff in executing oversight processes, monitor risk and
performance issues, and facilitate continuous improvement of ODA
program performance.
Aircraft Certification Performance Objectives and
Metrics. The 2018 Act requires the FAA to establish, in conjunction
with the SOCAC, aircraft certification performance metrics and to apply
and track the metrics for both the FAA and industry. After a months-
long effort to develop the metrics, the FAA, in collaboration with the
Safety Oversight and Certification Aviation Rulemaking Committee,
established a list of 14 metrics in August 2019. The FAA is prepared to
track the metrics after coordinating with the SOCAC at their initial
meeting in November 2019. We expect that tracking these metrics will
allow the FAA to identify inefficiencies, increase accountability, and
improve safety.
Flight Standards Performance Objectives and Metrics. The
Act also requires FAA to establish, in conjunction with the SOCAC,
flight standards performance metrics. In August 2019, the FAA
established the Flight Standards Transparency, Performance,
Accountability, and Efficiency Aviation Rulemaking Committee. This
rulemaking committee has been tasked to make recommendations concerning
the performance metrics for both the FAA and industry.
Aviation Safety
The 2018 Act is the most comprehensive aviation reauthorization
measure enacted in over 30 years. In addition to the 33 separate FAA
rulemakings required under the Act, Congress also required the FAA to
create new Aviation Rulemaking Committees (ARCs) and to task the
existing Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) with specific
responsibilities concerning various aviation safety objectives. The
list below provides a glimpse into some of the important work the FAA
has accomplished in this area since enactment.

Flight Attendant Duty/Rest Period. Ensuring that
crewmembers are properly rested is a critical component of aviation
safety. In April 2019, the FAA initiated a rulemaking in accordance
with the 2018 Act, to modify applicable rules to require a minimum rest
period of 10 hours for any flight attendant scheduled to a duty period
of 14 hours or less.\3\ In support of this effort, the FAA drafted an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that published earlier this
week. We expect the process will provide us with data from aviation
stakeholders and the general public to assist us in developing the
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201904&RIN=2120-AL41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, on June 18, 2019, the FAA published information
to advise the industry of the flight attendant fatigue risk management
plan requirements contained in the 2018 Act. The FAA is actively
receiving and reviewing air carrier flight attendant fatigue risk
management plans.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/
airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2019/
InFO19007.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designated Pilot Examiners. On June 20, 2019, the FAA
directed the ARAC to review all regulations and policies related to
designated pilot examiners.\5\ Through the ARAC, the FAA will gather
recommendations on regulatory and policy changes necessary to ensure
that an adequate number of designated pilot examiners are deployed and
available to perform their duties to meet the growing needs of the
public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/
documents/index.cfm/document/information/documentID/3944
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Cockpit Barriers. The 2018 Act requires the FAA
to issue an order requiring the installation of a secondary cockpit
barrier on each new aircraft that is manufactured for delivery to a
passenger air carrier in the United States operating under part 121 of
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.\6\ The FAA is committed to
implementing this requirement. On June 20, 2019, the ARAC accepted an
FAA tasking to provide recommendations regarding implementation of this
provision. The FAA looks forward to reviewing the ARAC's
recommendations and moving forward on this mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/
documents/index.cfm/document/information/documentID=3942
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilot Duty/Rest Period. On May 21, 2019, the FAA
established the Part 135 Pilot Rest and Duty Rules Aviation Rulemaking
Committee.\7\ The 2018 Act requires the FAA to convene the committee to
review, and develop findings and recommendations regarding, pilot rest
and duty rules under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/
documents/index.cfm/document/information?documentID=3965
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Evacuation Standards. On April 24, 2019, the
FAA established the Emergency Evacuation Standards Aviation Rulemaking
Committee. This ARC will provide a forum for affected parties to
discuss and provide recommendations to the FAA on certification of
emergency evacuation systems, designs, and procedures.\8\ The formation
of the ARC is a significant step forward in fulfilling the requirements
under the 2018 Act to review and report on cabin evacuation procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/
documents/index.cfm/document/information?documentID=3983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Critical Staffing. The 2018 Act requires the FAA
to update its safety critical staffing model. The staffing model is an
important mechanism to help determine the number of aviation safety
inspectors needed to fulfill the FAA's safety oversight mission. The
staffing model has been updated and new staffing forecasts have been
developed. The FAA's Aviation Safety Workforce Plan was delivered to
Congress in March 2019.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/fy19_avs_wfp.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
The 2018 Act devoted considerable attention to the FAA's continued
work on the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS).
The points below highlight some of the Agency's important work in this
area.

Remote ID. To further the overall objective of
integrating UAS into the NAS, Congress recognized the importance of
remote identification when it enacted the FAA Extension, Safety, and
Security Act of 2016. That Act laid the foundation for the FAA's work
with operators and security partners to realize the importance of
remote identification and reach a consensus on how to address it. More
recently, the 2018 Act provided the FAA with the authority to continue
its work on this important issue. In May 2019, the FAA published a
notice implementing the 2018 Act's legislative exception for limited
recreational operations of unmanned aircraft.\10\ Additionally, in July
2019, the FAA expanded the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification
Capability (LAANC) system to include recreational flyers.\11\ This
action increased the safety of the NAS and the ability of recreational
UAS operators to gain rapid authorization for access to controlled
airspace nationwide. Further, the 2018 Act provided clarity on the
requirements for recreational UAS operations and has allowed the FAA to
move ahead with work on UAS registration and remote identification--
both of which are critical to the success of commercial UAS operations
and UAS integration more broadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-17/pdf/2019-
10169.pdf
\11\ https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=94105
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote identification is fundamental to both safety and
security of UAS operations. Remote identification will be necessary for
routine beyond visual line-of-sight operations, operations over people,
package deliveries, operations in congested areas, and the continued
safe operation of all aircraft in shared airspace. It will also be
foundational for the advancement of automated passenger or cargo-
carrying air transportation, which is often referred to as Urban Air
Mobility. With remote identification, the FAA and our national security
and public safety partners will be better able to identify a UAS and
its operator, assess if a UAS is being operated in a clueless,
careless, or criminal manner, and take appropriate action if necessary.
Remote identification is the FAA's highest priority UAS-related
rulemaking effort. A draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on this
subject is presently in Executive Branch clearance.
Carriage of Property by Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
Congress also recognized, in the 2018 Act, the growing potential of UAS
to deliver cargo. In particular, the Act requires the FAA to update
existing regulations to authorize the carriage of property by operators
of UAS for compensation or hire in the United States. The FAA has been
working closely with the participants in the UAS Integration Pilot
Program (IPP) to accelerate safe UAS operations. The IPP has evaluated
a host of operational concepts including operations at night, over
people, beyond the pilot's line of sight, and package delivery. This
work is ongoing, and the FAA is currently meeting the intent of the
mandate through an exemption process. Earlier this year, the FAA
granted the first air carrier certification to a commercial UAS
operator for package deliveries in rural Blacksburg, Virginia. Although
the regulatory framework for broader UAS operations is not complete,
the IPP has helped to inform the FAA and UAS operators of the extent to
which operations can begin under existing rules.
Local Public Safety Engagement on UAS Operations. The
2018 Act directed the FAA to develop a comprehensive strategy to
support and provide guidance for state and local public safety partners
to identify and respond to threats posed by UAS as well as
opportunities to use UAS to enhance the effectiveness of first
responders. The FAA has made a substantial and continuing effort to
make the information needed by Federal, state and local entities
readily available. The FAA has assembled a great amount of useful and
easily accessible information on its web page dedicated to public
safety and government UAS issues.\12\ Here, government stakeholders can
find information on how to operate UAS, how to start a UAS public
safety program, and information on waivers and authorizations
supporting emergency UAS operations. The website also provides guidance
on understanding local authority and the handling of UAS sightings and
reports of non-compliant UAS operations. The FAA's informational
toolkit consists of videos, guidance, and other resources that can
assist local law enforcement agencies in their handling of situations
involving UAS, including a public safety engagement plan.\13\
Throughout this information, the FAA has sought to emphasize that: (1)
flying UAS is a regulated activity and there are Federal rules for
flying UAS legally and safely; (2) flying at night, too close to
people, or in restricted or controlled airspace is generally prohibited
without FAA authorization; (3) the small UAS rule--part 107 of title
14, Code of Federal Regulations--provides the framework for routine,
low-altitude small UAS operations; and (4) FAA's Law Enforcement
Assistance Program (LEAP) can help local public safety partners
distinguish between what is and is not allowed under Federal rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/
\13\ https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/policy_library/media/
Public_Safety_Engagement_
Plan.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airports
In keeping with this Administration's goal of improving our
Nation's airport infrastructure, the 2018 Act prioritized efforts to
improve airport infrastructure planning and development. The FAA is
making continuous progress in carrying out the congressional mandates
contained in the Act. Some of the more important initiatives that the
FAA is working on include the following:

Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Streamlining. In the 2018
Act, Congress directed the FAA to expand the streamlining concept for
PFC applications to all eligible airports (no longer limiting it to
just non-hub primary airports). The FAA is making excellent progress in
developing a proposed approach to a new pilot program, while also
identifying opportunities to improve the existing process in the
interim. This potential approach would yield near-term benefits for the
Nation's airports, while also providing the necessary data to support
the regulatory changes that are still required under the statute. It
will also help the FAA address concerns expressed by the airline
community.
Airfield Pavement for Non-Primary Airports. The 2018 Act
authorized states to request the use of highway specifications for
airfield paving and construction if aircraft serving the airport do not
exceed 60,000 pounds and safety would not be affected. The FAA's draft
guidance on this provision is nearing completion and we anticipate that
this authority will create some opportunities for capital cost
reductions without eroding safety. Additionally, as required by the
Act, the FAA stands ready to provide technical assistance to any state
that may want to develop alternative airport pavement standards where
local conditions and locally available materials may make this
desirable.
Contract Towers. The FAA is making significant progress
in implementing the 2018 Act concerning the processing of new
applications to the Contract Tower program and benefit-cost analysis of
contract towers. In June 2019, the FAA re-opened the applications for
new towers to the program. To date, we have received nine applications
for entry into the program. In accordance with congressional direction,
the FAA has conducted updated benefit-cost analyses for existing cost-
share participants and will notify sponsor airports of the results by
the end of September.
In addition, the FAA is making significant progress on
implementing the 2018 Act's elimination of the $2 million cumulative
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) cap, and authorization for the FAA to
use resources from the Small Airport Fund (a key component of the AIP)
for eligible contract tower projects. The FAA has moved swiftly to
implement these changes with updated guidance, and is working with
potential recipients of these funds for high-priority tower projects.
Limited Land Use Regulation for Airports. As part of the
2018 Act, Congress imposed limitations, with certain exceptions, on the
FAA's authority to regulate an airport's acquisition, use, lease,
encumbrance, transfer, or disposal of land and facilities.
Implementation of this section is a high priority for the FAA. We have
already identified more than 25 projects where airports have been able
to move forward with minimal FAA involvement. These early examples have
provided valuable information that is helping the FAA to develop
guidance to ensure that the provision is consistently implemented.
Airport Firefighting. The 2018 Act enacted limitations on
the FAA's authority to require the use of certain firefighting
chemicals. In particular, starting three years after the date of
enactment, the FAA is prohibited from requiring the use of fluorinated
chemicals to meet performance standards for firefighting agents. The
FAA is making great progress in both the development of a facility to
conduct live firefighting agent testing and, in its collaboration with
other agencies, to advance identification and evaluation of alternative
firefighting agents. In the meantime, we have also implemented short-
term changes to reduce the release of fluorinated chemicals into the
environment by airports, including the approval of three testing
systems that do not result in the external discharge of fluorinated
chemicals. We also issued guidance to airports alerting them to their
ability to use AIP funds to purchase these testing systems.
Hazardous Materials in Air Transportation
Within the Department of Transportation, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has the primary responsibility
for establishing multi-modal regulations for the safe transportation of
hazardous materials, to include establishing rules for the
classification, containment, and communication of the presence of
hazardous materials. PHMSA is leading critical lithium battery
regulatory initiatives prescribed by the 2018 Act and the FAA is
working to ensure compliance with air transport safety regulations as
well as conducting a public awareness campaign.

Lithium Battery Safety Working Group and Safety Advisory
Committee. PHMSA is establishing a working group to promote and
coordinate efforts related to the safe manufacture, use, and
transportation of lithium batteries and cells. PHMSA is also
establishing a lithium ion and lithium metal battery air safety
advisory committee to facilitate communication between manufacturers,
air carriers, and the Federal Government regarding the safe air
transportation of lithium ion and lithium metal batteries as well as
the effectiveness, economic, and social impacts of the regulation of
such transportation.
FAA Cooperative Efforts to Ensure Compliance with Safety
Regulations. In support of the broader hazardous materials safety
effort, the FAA focuses on conducting oversight of the integration of
hazardous materials safety measures into the aviation transportation
system. Accordingly, the FAA is leading efforts, consistent with the
2018 Act requirements, to improve interagency and international
cooperative efforts to ensure compliance with safety regulations for
air transport of lithium batteries.
Undeclared Hazardous Materials Public Awareness Campaign.
The FAA launched a new website that provides stakeholders--including
shippers, air carriers, and the traveling public--with a one-stop shop
they can easily access to find information and answers to their
questions.\14\ The FAA recently provided Congress with an update of our
public awareness campaign to reduce undeclared dangerous goods in air
commerce. The FAA is also participating in an industry/government/labor
coalition that meets regularly to strategize on improvements to the
messaging and other tools that industry uses to educate their customers
on the proper procedures for transporting hazardous materials by
aircraft. Additionally, the FAA is supporting a PHMSA-led public
education campaign known as ``Check the Box'' to increase public
awareness of the risks associated with undeclared shipments of
hazardous materials.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/
\15\ https://checkthebox.dot.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovation
This Administration has made it a priority to engage with new and
emerging technologies and enable innovation wherever possible.
Innovations in aviation and aerospace have benefitted our economy,
transformed the way we travel, helped the environment, and saved lives.
In the 2018 Act, Congress recognized the importance of innovation and
the FAA is working to foster it while maintaining the safety of the
NAS.

Supersonics. In the 2018 Act, Congress supported FAA
leadership on the creation of policies, regulations, and standards to
enable the safe and efficient operation of civil supersonic aircraft.
As part of the FAA's efforts to implement this authority, the FAA in
June 2019 published an NPRM intended to clarify and streamline the
procedures for special flight authorizations for supersonic
aircraft.\16\ The FAA is currently reviewing the comments we received
on the NPRM and considers this rulemaking to be one of the FAA's first
actions in a continued and concerted effort to advance the operation of
civil supersonic aircraft consistent with our other statutory and
international obligations concerning noise and emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/28/2019-
13079/special-flight-authorizations-for-supersonic-aircraft
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise. Over the decades, the aviation industry has made
significant progress in the development of technology to reduce noise
from aircraft. Congress and the FAA have worked closely on this
continued effort and the FAA is currently working to complete the
noise-related requirements contained in the 2018 Act. One provision
directs the FAA to complete a study on the potential health and
economic impacts of overflight noise. The FAA recently awarded a $1.7
million grant to university members from the FAA's Air Transportation
Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment in
order to carry out the study. The Act also required the FAA to
designate a regional ombudsman for each of the FAA's regions to act as
a liaison with the public on issues of noise, pollution, and safety.
The FAA elected to designate our community engagement officers as the
regional ombudsman. They are in the process of being on-boarded and
trained. The FAA will announce the individuals as soon as training is
completed, which we anticipate will be in October of this year. The FAA
is constantly working to foster better communication between the Agency
and affected communities.
Commercial Space. The commercial space transportation
industry in the United States is innovative, dynamic, and growing. In
Fiscal Year 2018, there were 32 launches and 3 reentries of commercial
space vehicles for a total of 35 licensed activities--a record. For
Fiscal Year 2019, we had 32 licensed and permitted operations. We are
forecasting 35 to 54 licensed or permitted operations in Fiscal Year
2020, and between 33 and 56 licensed or permitted operations in Fiscal
Year 2021. In anticipation of this expected growth, the FAA has
intensified its efforts to fulfill its commercial space transportation
mission, maintaining the highest level of safety without stifling
industry expansion and innovation. Congress has recognized the
importance of this growing industry and the 2018 Act called for the FAA
to stand up an Office of Spaceports within the FAA's Office of
Commercial Space Transportation. That Office of Spaceports is up and
running and we are actively working with Spaceport licensees and
stakeholders. Additionally, although not mandated in the 2018 Act, the
FAA is engaged in an important rulemaking to streamline existing
launch/reentry regulations to create an environment that promotes
economic growth, minimizes uncertainty, protects safety, fosters
security, aligns with foreign policy interests, and encourages American
leadership in space commerce.\17\ The commercial space transportation
market is changing rapidly and our regulatory process needs to keep up
in order to protect public safety while enabling U.S. industry to
innovate. We are currently analyzing industry comments to determine the
best path forward to complete the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/15/2019-
05972/streamlined-launch-and-reentry-licensing-requirements
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyber Testbed. Cybersecurity has become a significant
component of nearly every modern aviation technological development.
The 2018 Act required the FAA to develop a cyber testbed for research,
development, evaluation, and validation of air traffic control
modernization technologies to ensure that they are compliant with FAA
data security regulations before they become operational. The FAA
completed this action and the Cybersecurity Test Facility (CyTF) is now
operational at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City,
New Jersey. The CyTF provides the FAA with an adaptable cybersecurity
test environment to evaluate technologies prior to their integration
into the National Airspace environment. The facility is also used for
the cybersecurity training of the FAA workforce. Also, as part of an
additional cybersecurity requirement under the Act, the FAA is updating
its overall Strategic Cybersecurity Plan. The Agency's Cybersecurity
Steering Committee has completed the yearly update, and we expect to
publish the FAA's 2020-2025 cybersecurity strategy in the coming weeks.
Conclusion
Chairman Larsen, I want to assure you, and each member of the
Subcommittee, that the FAA is fully committed to carrying out the
provisions of the 2018 Act as quickly as possible.
The FAA takes the congressional direction we receive very seriously
and our employees work hard to achieve the mandated goals and
directives. We have to ensure, however, that the substance behind each
requirement is not sacrificed in a rush to declare completion. We are
confident that we are making substantial and meaningful progress and we
fully intend to keep Congress apprised of that progress on a regular
basis. This concludes my statement and I will be glad to answer your
questions.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Elwell. I will now turn to Joel
Szabat for 5 minutes.
You are recognized.
Mr. Szabat. Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
Members Graves, members of the subcommittee, thank you and
Congress for passing the 2018 FAA reauthorization last fall,
and for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Department of
Transportation.
I also thank the committee for allowing Ms. Blane Workie to
join us. She is our assistant general counsel for the
Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
and, thanks to a provision in the reauthorization, our new
aviation consumer advocate.
The more than 550 sections of the act cover a wide range of
aviation issues, many supporting Secretary Chao's and this
committee's first priority of safety, and the Department's
mission to ensure the safest and most efficient airspace in the
world.
Despite the Government shutdown last winter and our daily
operational safety priorities within the Department, we have
made great progress on the safety, civil rights, and consumer
protection provisions of the act.
The reauthorization includes more than 360 deliverables for
the Department of Transportation, as Ranking Member Graves
noted, including those assigned to the FAA. We are not able to
tackle every deliverable simultaneously, or produce all the
required reports and regulations within the first year. We
remain committed to accomplishing all of the provisions of the
reauthorization as quickly as practicable.
We have already responded to key reauthorization
requirements by establishing new offices to deal with important
issues, such as offices providing oversight of the Organization
Designation Authorization, and relating to consumer advocacy
and support of our Nation's spaceports.
In other cases, provisions of the law provide useful
guidance and authority to ensure that our grant programs are
more accessible, and that innovative programs, such as the
integrated pilot program for unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS,
can continue and expand.
On the safe transportation of lithium batteries, the FAA
and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
have already coordinated to match our rules with international
standards, and allow lithium battery carriage exceptions for
medical devices. They have established groups to provide
research, evaluation, and safety recommendations on the issue.
The reauthorization bolstered our efforts to maintain the
world's safest airspace through the formation of several new
advisory bodies and mechanisms to ensure safety. In addition to
calling for reviews of the certification process for the Boeing
737 MAX, the Secretary and Administrator have also created
groups such as the Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory
Committee to augment the work of multiple ongoing inquiries.
Within 1 month, the DOT reconstituted the Aviation Consumer
Protection Advisory Committee, and established the National In-
Flight Sexual Misconduct Task Force. We are determined to
address the problem of in-flight sexual misconduct to enable a
safe flight in every sense of the word.
To ensure more accessible air service, we will develop the
Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights. We will
review with input from stakeholders and, if necessary, revise
regulations to ensure that passengers with disabilities receive
dignified, timely, and effective assistance from trained
personnel.
We will also ensure regular training occurs for personnel
charged with providing physical assistance to those passengers
with disabilities.
We have also issued notices and solicited applications for
the Air Ambulance and Patient Billing Advisory Committee and
the Air Carrier Access Act Advisory Committee. Both committees
are established now. We will announce meeting dates after
coordination with the committee members.
We have taken steps to advance each of the 33 required
rulemakings that Deputy Administrator Elwell mentioned from the
act. We expect to publish recommendations harmonizing the
carriage of dangerous goods, including lithium batteries, and
providing for remote identification of UAS, a critical step in
enabling advanced operations. Other planned regulations will
ensure that we are being responsive to the flying public.
The upcoming rulemaking agenda for the fall will include
seven rules focused on improving customer experience with
airlines. These proposed rules will advance requirements for
limiting cell phone usage on aircraft, ensure the public
receives refunds for denied or unprovided service, and clarify
the rights of passengers.
While we have not yet completed all our obligations under
the reauthorization, we have demonstrated our commitment to
meeting them. And we have the right principles in place to
accomplish the work.
On behalf of the Secretary, I commit to continue our work
to achieve a safe, accessible vision for aviation. I am happy
to join the Deputy Administrator, Dan Elwell, and our staff to
answer any further questions you may have.
[Mr. Szabat's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under Secretary for
Policy, Department of Transportation
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you to the Committee and to Congress for passing the 2018 FAA
Reauthorization Act last fall and for inviting me to testify on behalf
of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The more than 550
sections of the Act cover a wide range of aviation issues, many
supporting Secretary Chao's first priority of safety and the
Department's mission to provide the safest and most efficient airspace
in the world. Our team is working to accomplish the directives Congress
set forth in the Act, which provided the stability and direction needed
to continue the important missions we oversee on a day-to-day basis and
to address new challenges.
Despite the government shutdown last winter and our ongoing
response to the fatal accidents and grounding of the 737 MAX, we have
made great progress on the safety, civil rights, and consumer
protection provisions of the Act. We identified more than 360
deliverables for the Department, and, while we have not been able to
address all of the deliverables simultaneously or meet all the
requirements in this first year, the Department has demonstrated
unwavering commitment to the provisions of the Act. We will continue to
deliver on the goals and realize the vision of this Committee and this
Congress as a whole.
With many different mandates, each meriting timely completion, the
responsible course of action is to distribute and schedule the work in
a way that reflects the key principles of our mission. This also must
be done without disrupting ongoing work in matters of safety, policy,
oversight, and operations.
Working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), our other
modal administrations, and other agencies as necessary, we have
addressed safety, accessibility and consumer rights, and a stronger,
more efficient infrastructure. We have also advanced the integration of
new technologies into the airspace that hold promise for improved
safety, accessibility, and economic opportunity, such as Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS). I am sure the members of this Committee share
these goals, and I look forward to discussing some of our achievements
to date.
Safety
DOT takes pride in our extremely successful safety record and
appreciates the additional authorities and measures taken in this
latest reauthorization to continue that legacy. We have already
responded to Reauthorization requirements to establish new offices to
deal with important issues, such as oversight of delegated authorities,
(e.g. Organization Designation Authorizations), consumer advocacy, and
support of our Nation's spaceports.
To help maintain the safety of passengers with respect to lithium
batteries, the FAA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) are taking action to implement Reauthorization
provisions. We have harmonized domestic regulations with the ICAO
Technical Instructions, begun working with stakeholders to identify and
mitigate risks, and established inter-governmental and industry working
groups to provide research, evaluation, and safety recommendations for
the safe air transportation of lithium batteries.
The Reauthorization has also augmented our work in maintaining the
world's safest airspace through the formation of several new advisory
bodies and mechanisms. For example, the Secretary has already created
task forces such as the Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory
Committee. The continued authority and certainty provided by the
Reauthorization has been helpful in allowing us to continue to provide
the world's highest expectation of safety for the flying public.
These efforts are taking place in the context of evaluating
Boeing's 737 MAX aircraft for clearance to fly in the United States. As
the Secretary has said repeatedly, the 737 MAX will not return to
service until the safety experts at the FAA have determined it is safe
to fly. The Secretary and the FAA Administrator have called for
multiple objective and substantive reviews of the FAA's certification
process and its analysis of the 737 MAX safety issues and potential
resolutions. The issues with the 737 MAX are now being reviewed,
studied, and addressed by the NTSB, the Special Air Certification
Committee convened in March, the DOT Inspector General, an interagency
Technical Advisory Board, the Joint Authorities Technical Review Team,
various Congressional committees, and others. We will continue this
important work, including ongoing coordination with other nations'
safety certification authorities.
Consumer Advocacy
The Department is also actively working to implement the many
aviation consumer protection and civil rights provisions of the Act,
and we are doing it with the help of the people whose voices need to be
heard. The Act requires us to establish four advisory committees,
develop seven mandatory rulemakings, consider four discretionary
rulemakings, and conduct twelve studies, reports or other tasks. Here
are some highlights of our accomplishments.
Key mandates in the Reauthorization include establishing an
Aviation Consumer Advocate within DOT to assist consumers in resolving
airline service complaints filed with the Department, to identify
actions the Department can take to improve the resolution of airline
service complaints and enforcement of aviation consumer protection
rules, and to identify regulations and policies that can be amended to
resolve airline service complaints more effectively. In March 2019, we
selected Blane Workie, Assistant General Counsel for the Department's
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, to serve as the
Aviation Consumer Advocate. To help her fulfill the responsibilities of
the Aviation Consumer Advocate, Ms. Workie has already established two
new positions in her office--Director of Consumer Advocacy and Director
of Civil Rights Advocacy.
Approximately a month after the passage of the bill, DOT
reconstituted the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee
(ACPAC) and established the National In-Flight Sexual Misconduct Task
Force (Task Force) as an ACPAC Subcommittee. The first ACPAC meeting
was scheduled for January 16, 2019, but had to be canceled because of
the government shutdown. The meeting was then held in early April, and
focused on the transparency of airline ancillary service fees,
involuntary changes to travel itineraries, and the operation of the
Task Force. The work of the ACPAC is ongoing.
Also, the Task Force members have been actively exploring how best
to address and prevent incidents of sexual misconduct on board
aircraft. The Department is very committed to addressing the problem of
in-flight sexual misconduct and assault to provide a safe flight in
every sense of the word. The Task Force members have already met five
times this year in one or two-day meetings that occurred in April, May,
June, July and September. The work focused on training, reporting, and
data collection regarding incidents of sexual misconduct. As part of
their duties, Task Force members have heard and reviewed first-hand
accounts from passengers and flight attendants who have experienced
sexual misconduct onboard commercial aircraft. We expect the Task Force
to conclude its work this calendar year.
Accessible Air Service
The Reauthorization also contains several provisions requiring DOT
to review its Air Carrier Access Act regulation and take certain
actions as appropriate. For example, section 433 directs us to consider
developing specific recommendations regarding improvements to
wheelchair assistance by U.S. airlines, and how airline training
programs can address consumer complaints regarding wheelchair
assistance. Section 434 requires us to develop the ``Airline Passengers
with Disabilities Bill of Rights.'' As required by section 440, we will
also review, and if necessary, revise regulations to ensure that
passengers with disabilities receive dignified, timely, and effective
assistance from trained personnel. We will also require training to
occur on an annual schedule for personnel charged with providing
physical assistance to passengers with disabilities.
We have already started the process of reviewing the regulations to
determine what actions need to be taken in these areas. We look forward
to consulting with stakeholders, including disability organizations,
airlines, and their contractors. We also just established the Air
Ambulance and Patient Billing Advisory Committee (AAPB Advisory
Committee) and the Air Carrier Access Act Advisory Committee (ACAA
Advisory Committee). Both necessitated issuing of notices to find the
best-suited members, and both committees are now in place. The active
ongoing work of the Department in forming and engaging with these
committees as well as with ACPAC, reflects our commitment to protecting
the rights of air travelers, to human dignity in general, and to the
American ideal of balanced representation.
The AAPB Advisory Committee will make recommendations regarding
disclosure of charges and fees for air ambulance services and insurance
coverage, as well as consumer protection and enforcement authorities of
both DOT and State authorities, and the prevention of balance billing
to consumers. The ACAA Advisory Committee will identify and assess
barriers to accessible air travel, determine the extent to which DOT is
addressing those barriers, recommend improvements, and advise the
Secretary on implementing the Air Carrier Access Act. We will announce
the date of the first meeting of the AAPB Advisory Committee as well as
the first meeting of the ACAA Advisory Committee after coordinating
with the advisory committee members.
Consumer-Focused Regulation
The Department is committed to enhancing consumer protection and
access in the aviation sector. We believe that there should be no more
regulations than necessary, and those regulations should be
straightforward, clear, and designed to minimize unnecessary and costly
burdens on aviation stakeholders. During the past year, we made strides
in implementing the consumer protection and access rulemaking mandates
in the Reauthorization. These rulemakings are all identified in the
Department's upcoming fall Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions as actions we plan to issue in the near and long
term. Among these rules are regulations that would issue guidance on
cell phone communications on aircraft, require refunds to customers for
services not received, require minimum customer service standards of
large ticket agents, and streamline the consumer complaints process.
The Reauthorization also prohibits U.S. and foreign airlines from
denying boarding to a revenue passenger traveling on a confirmed
reservation, or involuntarily removing that passenger from the aircraft
once the passenger has checked in for flight before the check-in
deadline, and his or her boarding pass has been collected or accepted
by the gate agent.
We will also be issuing a proposed rule related to traveling by air
with service animals. There is rising concern that passengers are
increasingly bringing untrained emotional support animals onboard
aircraft--which could put the safety of crewmembers and other
passengers at risk. Our rulemaking will define ``service animal,''
develop minimum standards for what is required for service animals and
address the issue of emotional support animals. Last year, DOT
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on service animals,
and we plan to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking later this year.
We want individuals with disabilities to continue using their service
animals, while also maintaining safety and reducing the likelihood that
other passengers will be able to falsely claim their pets are service
animals.
Innovation and Infrastructure
We remain in close communication with industry, international
regulatory bodies, and the public when it comes to the technology that
is promising to reshape aviation as we know it--Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS). We are entering the final year of the President's
Integration Pilot Program, where we have been working steadily with
industry, State, local, and tribal governments to enable unique
operations, and more importantly, to uncover the key issues we face as
a Nation in adapting a disruptive, but promising technology into a
complex, highly coordinated airspace system. We continue to receive
recommendations from the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC), our test
sites, our centers of excellence for research, standards bodies, and
international partners on what the focus of our work should be and the
next steps that will continue UAS integration on a larger scale.
We are engaging with the public through the rulemaking process and
the DAC. Earlier this year, we published our proposed amendment to Part
107 that will allow for limited, safe operations over people, flights
at night, and easier ways for Part 107 pilots to remain current in
their certifications. We are working with our intergovernmental
partners and the Office of Management and Budget to publish a proposed
rule that will establish remote identification requirements for UAS.
This will be a key milestone in promoting the safe operations of UAS as
we continue to work with industry to develop the technologies that will
enable routine beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) and truly integrated
operations. These advances offer significant new opportunities, and we
will continue to work with the public and all relevant government and
industry partners to realize these milestones.
We are doing more than rulemaking. Under Section 349 of the Act, we
opened airspace authorizations to recreational flyers of UAS for quick,
automated access to airspace. We are establishing a framework for
broad, electronic testing that will make UAS instructions more
accessible, and more understandable to more potential flyers, than ever
before. This year, the FAA granted the first air carrier certification
to a commercial drone operator for package deliveries in rural
Christiansburg, Virginia, and other similar certifications will follow.
The Department has not only been innovating the way forward, but we
have been collaborating, building consensus, and constructing UAS
solutions that promote safety, security, and responsibility, along with
greater UAS operations.
We also have a responsibility to invest in our Nation's
infrastructure, and the funding for grant programs, including the
Airport Improvement Program, in the Reauthorization will help to
provide the best possible environment and experience for travelers to
small and large airports. We have already implemented all of the
statutory changes to the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program and the
Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP), and we have a
keen interest in administering these small community programs as
effectively as possible.
Conclusion
While we have not yet completed all of our obligations under the
Reauthorization, we have demonstrated our commitment to meeting them,
and we have the right principles in place to accomplish the work. On
behalf of the Secretary, I assure you that we will continue our
diligent work and push forward, collaboratively, to achieve the safe,
accessible vision for aviation that Congress set forth as a shared
ideal in the Reauthorization. I am happy to join Dan Elwell and our
staff to answer any further questions you may have on these provisions.
Thank you all for your time and attentiveness.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I will recognize myself for 5
minutes.
And I think the committee members appreciate both of you
saying that FAA and DOT remain committed to completing the
mandates that we put into the bill.
I also think I convey the frustration that you haven't
moved fast enough.
For instance, on the 10-hour rest rule, we were very
specific about what we wanted to see, and how we wanted to see
it, and when we wanted to see it. I guess we thought that we
didn't leave a lot of ambiguity in the law about what we
wanted. And yet, here we are in September, still waiting on a
10-hour rest rule. So can either of you address what has been
the delay, specifically, to implementing a 10-hour rest?
Mr. Elwell. Yes, Chairman Larsen, thank you for that
question. I will start.
We will implement that rule and that provision, consistent
with the law. And you, I believe, mentioned it--or, Chairman
DeFazio, I think you mentioned--that we are in the process of
processing the fatigue risk management plans. There are 48
airlines in the country that have flight attendants. We have
received 28 fatigue risk management plans to date; 10 have been
approved. And these are plans that are designed to meet the
requirement.
It was not ambiguous language, sir. But what we weren't
cleared from doing is normal Administrative Procedure Act
requirements. We have to do notice and comment for a rule like
this. We have to do benefit-cost analysis. And that entails
rulemaking.
So, as we said, the ANPRM has been dropped--yesterday, I
believe. Sir, you and Chairman DeFazio, we commit that those
comments that come from the ANPRM will inform and, actually,
should--my hope is--should accelerate the eventual passage of
the rule because the writing of the NPRM will be informed by
those initial comments, and I think lead to a better written
rule and, hopefully, expedition. But we have every intention of
getting that done, sir.
Mr. Larsen. I am sure others will have followup questions
on that.
I want to ask Mr. Szabat what your timeline is for
establishing the bill of rights for travelers with
disabilities.
Mr. Szabat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. As I
mentioned in my testimony, we are committed to fulfilling the
requirements of establishing an Airline Passengers with
Disabilities Bill of Rights.
We have established the Air Carrier Access Act Advisory
Committee, and one of our very first steps, the first charges
to that committee, is for them to take a look at the
requirements that are set in statute for developing such a bill
of rights, and to make recommendations back to us. So, if you
will, the first step is we have established the committee to
look at this. They will make recommendations back to us. And
then our obligation is to look at those recommendations and
implement them as quickly as possible for the passenger bill of
rights.
Mr. Larsen. The next panel will have the president of the
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and so just prepping the PVA to
give us some guidance on how we can give you guidance to move
forward more quickly.
Also, with regards to workforce, the workforce development
title, I assume that is under your jurisdiction, as well, Mr.
Szabat. Yes.
So the law directed the FAA to establish the Women in
Aviation Advisory Board, to get moving on the Youth Access to
American Jobs in Aviation Task Force. It does not seem that DOT
has moved forward on those aspects of the workforce
development. Do you have ideas for timelines on those?
Mr. Szabat. Thank you again for the question, Mr. Chairman.
As with you, the importance of first developing a strong
workforce are recognizing the shortfalls in the workforce. And
one of the key possible ways to address that--and just good in
its own merits--by bringing more women into the aviation
workforce are high priorities for us.
As it happens, within the last few days the paperwork for
the Women in Aviation Task Force crossed my desk--we can expect
to see an announcement that that task force has been formed
within days, not weeks.
Mr. Larsen. How many more desks does it have to cross,
then, for it to become a reality?
Mr. Szabat. In this case I think it has crossed the last
desk. But until it is announced, I don't want to make any
commitments, except to say it will be out within days, not
weeks.
Mr. Larsen. All right. Mr. Elwell, do you have any followup
on anything there?
Mr. Elwell. Sir, workforce is a very big priority to us, as
it is to the Department. We are working apace on section 631,
on the workforce grants. There are some technical difficulties
on getting that processed, and getting it forward.
We also have a huge emphasis on STEM aviation and space
education initiatives. We have increased our employee
engagement with young people by 200 percent in the past year,
and that is a program voluntarily FAA folks reach out to young
people for getting into this industry.
It is a difficult challenge, because STEM--there is a
shortage of STEM graduates across all sectors. So we are
competing with other sectors on a shortage of these graduates.
But we are trying to get them early. We are talking to them in
elementary school.
Mr. Larsen. So I will have my staff follow up with you,
rather than ask the question about how we can help you get
through these technical difficulties on the grants, and
conclude, and recognize Ranking Member Graves of Louisiana for
5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Elwell, you and I have discussed on a number of
occasions my frustration with scenarios where Congress
implements a law, and when you have an agency either come back
and not follow it, or invent their own interpretation that
wasn't consistent with congressional intent. And when deadlines
are in the law, and those deadlines aren't adhered to, it does
cause a great bit of frustration.
Now, I know there were some anomalies with the FAA bill in
that the conference negotiations between the House and the
Senate were very, very quick. I know that there was some
feedback expressed by the agency about the inability to meet
certain deadlines without some expedited procedures, including
potentially waiving the APA in some scenarios.
But I do want to reemphasize that adhering to these
deadlines is important. We want to make sure that we continue
to work together to ensure that we comply with many of these,
including, as the chairman mentioned, the flight attendant
rule--although I know, as I recall--and I am sure we can get an
update later--I believe the number of the contracts that have
been implemented between airlines and the flight attendants do
include the 10 hours.
You mentioned in your testimony remote ID. Can you give a
bit more verbose update on remote ID and what the
administration can do to expedite implementation? And I think
that this is one of the key areas, as you and I have discussed
in the past, about the evolution of this technology and all
the, I think, advances that it potentially brings to different
sectors, including safety and disaster response and many, many
others. Could you talk a little bit about efforts to expedite?
Mr. Elwell. Yes, Mr. Graves. Thank you for the question.
And I was remiss earlier when I started to not introduce the
lady to my right. Ms. Lirio Liu is the resident expert at FAA
on all things rulemaking. She is the Acting Deputy of the
Office of Safety. But I expect I will be leaning to her a few
times during this hearing today. Particularly on this, perhaps,
Lirio can weigh in.
First, let me say, sir, I share your frustration. I hate to
miss deadlines. And--but I won't--and, as the agency, we won't
make a deadline and compromise, of course, safety. You wouldn't
want us to. We are not going to do it. And not all deadlines
are missed because of that, but you are right. And, in this
case, there is just a volume of first-year requirements that,
in light of other things going on in the past year, the
deadline slipped.
On the remote ID, I too share your points that it is the
foundational rule upon which everything else we do with UAS is
going to flow. And we need to get it out. We had a lot of
issues, a lot of technical issues with it at the beginning. A
lot of it was interagency, quite frankly, law enforcement
requirements and issues, and title 18 requirements, and the
like. And we are very appreciative of Chairman DeFazio changing
the provision on recreational modelers.
However, that caused us to basically start almost from
scratch on writing the provision. So there has been a number of
things. But, nevertheless, the rule is moving. We are going to
get it done.
And I would turn to Ms. Liu if there is anything on the
actual technical writing side of it that you wanted to add.
Ms. Liu. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Elwell.
Yes, on the remote ID, it has actually been one of the
priorities for the organization--quite a long period of time, I
think you heard that, within the FAA, and many other
testimonies that have been presented here--that it is sort of
the linchpin for integrating UAS in the future.
The rule never stopped, from the time we started to work on
it. And I think, as Mr. Elwell indicated, we had drafted a rule
and were very close to finalizing it, but it had a lot of
carve-outs as it relates to the section 336 of the previous
reauthorization that counted for recreational users. Because of
that limitation, we had to consider how we would actually do
identification in various scenarios. So that was one reason
why, when we got the provision now to include them, which we
consider a great benefit, we did have to go back and rewrite
the rule. But it is a benefit to us, and I think that we will
end up with a much better regulatory framework in the end.
The rule currently is over at OIRA, which is the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB. We expect that they
will be expediting that review as well, because I think they
recognize the significance. We have already done an in-brief
with them just last Friday, as well as with the technical
officer for the United States at the Office of Management and
Budget there. So it would seem to be well received.
Mr. Lynch. I am sorry. Could you move that mic a little
closer to you? Yes, I am having trouble hearing. It is me, it
is not you. Thank you.
Ms. Liu. Well, I probably have the same. But we have
already had an in-brief with the rule. And as Mr. Elwell
indicated, it is a technical rule, because it will set the
basis for how we will do--what we do equivalently for manned
aircraft is ADS-B. And it is going to also set the framework
for our UTM in the future, which is the UAS air traffic
management system.
And I think what is important is, even if the rule is not
in place, what we are trying to do through a number of other
aspects is to increase the compliance and expedite that.
I think another thing that is important is that this is
going to be a unique role. And I think it is pretty innovative
on our part, because it is going to be a partnership similar to
what we do with the notification right now to get authorization
to fly UAS. So it will use the public interest through a
website.
I think that we have--yes, I think that we actually have a
good framework in place. There was an RFI, request for
information, that went out that outlined the provisions, so
that the remote ID standards can be put out for it, so they can
be starting to design towards that. And I feel that, for what
we--even though there is a delay in the rulemaking, there is
very good progress being made to support the remote
identification----
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you very much. Mr. Elwell, I
do--I am going to submit questions for the record regarding
section 506, 509, 549 regarding cybersecurity.
And Mr. Szabat, I also want to learn a little bit more
about the status of emotional support animals, and what DOT is
doing there. So I will be submitting some questions on that, as
well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Before I recognize Mr. DeFazio for 5
minutes, just the next three on the--after Mr. DeFazio, the
next three on the Republican side will be Webster, Mitchell,
and Gallagher. And the next three on the Democratic side will
be--after DeFazio will be Lipinski, Cohen, and Davids, in that
order. So just a heads-up for folks.
Chair DeFazio for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the chairman. Mr. Elwell, can you
assure me that--the Congress said irreducible 10-hour break.
That is not going to change, right? No matter what is going on
in this rulemaking, or whatever, if we are that explicit, even
if airlines complain it is going to cost them a bunch of money,
or whatever, you can't reduce that. Would that be correct? That
is a statute.
Mr. Elwell. Sir--and I can commit that, under the confines
of the reviews that it has to go through, and the other
agencies that have to weigh in, that that is the intent, is to
meet your----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, you--right. You can't----
Mr. Elwell [continuing]. Meet your rule. And to meet the
language----
Mr. DeFazio. I had a lengthy hearing with GSA yesterday
where, you know, the law isn't the law. I just want to make
sure, in this case, the law is the law. It says 10 hours. It is
very explicit.
But here is the other side. I understand, you know, and I
know--perhaps in the future, when we have to do these sorts of
things, we will anticipate and obviate somehow the rulemaking
process. But you are also--the air carriers, part 121, were
supposed to submit fatigue risk management plans no later than
90 days. Now, they don't have to go through a rulemaking, they
just have to send you a plan. What is the holdup with--you said
you have only got 11 who have completed this.
Mr. Elwell. Sir, we have 28 submitted. And as far as their
meeting that 90 days, we are talking to them along the way.
Mr. DeFazio. Is there a possibility of fining them if they
are not in compliance with that?
Mr. Elwell. I will have to get back to you on the
enforcement side of it. I don't have that right in front of me.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. I mean, we are pretty explicit. And it
really shouldn't take more than 90 days. I was just informed
that United had theirs in at the first--in January. So I don't
want this to--you know, it is some low common denominator out
there dragging this out unnecessarily.
And then, on the secondary barriers, we asked that an order
be issued. Essentially, it would be like a corrective action
having something to do with the structure of the plane, or
whatever. An order. But now we are going to go through a
rulemaking or an advisory committee on secondary barriers.
What would happen if you just ordered the airlines to do
it?
Mr. Elwell. Mr. Chairman, even an order would require
rulemaking, unless it was an emergency order, and----
Mr. DeFazio. Well, it could be an emergency order. We don't
want to have another 9/11.
Mr. Elwell. Well, sir, that--the process still requires
rulemaking. Making changes to the interior of a 121 aircraft is
an STC, a supplementary type certificate. That requires
approval from the FAA. The FAA has to provide for all the
carriers the standards and the performance requirements for the
barrier, which, again, would normally entail rulemaking.
And we have to think about--these barriers have to cover
everything from a 50-seat regional jet to a twin-aisle
international carrier. And so there are serious things to
consider, both on safety, on the manufacturer of these doors,
what kind of doors----
Mr. DeFazio. OK, but--all right. That is good. I get that.
But you do agree with what the law says. There is no question
that the former chairman was incorrect in saying we meant new
types, that we said ``all newly manufactured aircraft.''
Mr. Elwell. New production aircraft. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, that is good. And then, you know, the UAS
rule at OMB--and perhaps Ms. Liu can answer--the trolls at OMB
delay a lot of necessary things. This is a critical rule. How
are they going to calculate their cost benefit when we haven't
done a test yet on ingesting a drone. We don't know if it is
going to cause uncontained failure and take the plane down, or
whatever.
What are they using? What are the costs that are involved?
There are no costs to the Government.
Ms. Liu. I don't think we can address directly the
ingestion for an aircraft engine of a UAS, but the intent of
remote ID is to actually allow for us to detect before you
would actually have that encounter.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Ms. Liu. So there are benefits because of what we have seen
already, and dispenses of resources to do the tracking for UAS.
And I think it is more the benefit that we can find in allowing
the new industry to operate in a safer manner than what we have
been using, in some cases, manned aircraft. So----
Mr. DeFazio. Right, but I just don't know what OMB is
dithering--for instance, last summer we had a bad fire summer.
I had planes, the whole fleet of planes and helicopters, taken
down because some jerk was taking photographs of the fire, and
there was a drone in the restricted airspace.
I don't know how anybody can't find that there is a huge
benefit. We have shut down airports when we have drones in the
airport. There is no downside to this, correct?
Ms. Liu. And actually, those are accounted for in the cost-
benefit analysis.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Webster for 5
minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
discuss an issue concerning the registration of an aircraft
where a constituent of mine has gone through kind of a
nightmare experience in trying to get his aircraft, which he
purchased from the U.S. Marshals auction, and it was owned by a
member of the drug cartel in Mexico.
So he tried to get it registered here. The FAA told him it
is still registered in Mexico. ``You are going to have to fix
that.'' He tried to get that done.
As a matter of fact, you aided him in trying to do that,
but the Mexican authorities just basically answered politely,
``Your request is warmly received,'' but they have done
nothing.
And there is no dispute over ownership, or anything like
that. So the Mexican authorities, I think, are operating in bad
faith. I mean, he hired a lawyer in Mexico. They told him that
giving $150,000 and--``We will get your plane registered for
you,'' which is a little steep. It is plain and simple
extortion, something, I don't know, whatever you want to call
it.
So the particular case kind of sheds light on a glowing
flaw in U.S. policy, because it is questioning the sovereignty
of this country, in a sense. There is clearly a negative impact
on citizens if a foreign government could stop a United States
citizen here of getting an aircraft registered. It is like some
kind of hostage.
So anyway, I guess my question is what is the next step, if
the Mexican Government continues to refuse to give him--or to
de-register the plane in Mexico?
Mr. Elwell. Sir, I have been apprised of this situation.
And it is sort of a new area for me, and my understanding is
that there are international agreements that don't permit us to
register an aircraft that has a foreign registry. And in the
past, this has been sort of a very quick thing done between
state departments and the--and the ICAO agreement is met,
because our State Department calls their state department, and
the government in question says, ``Yes, we release the
registration, go ahead.''
And for some reason, in this case, as you rightly
described, the Government of Mexico is not doing what they
normally do. So we are looking into it. We are talking to DOJ.
We are talking to the State Department. And the intent is to
get this resolved, sir.
Mr. Webster. So you are committed to going to the highest
level with the Mexican authorities to try to get this squared
away?
Mr. Elwell. Yes, sir, we will do everything we can under
the current agreements and law to get to the bottom of this, so
that your constituent can register the airplane.
Mr. Webster. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent for the
insertion of a letter into the record that goes to the issue
that several have talked about, and that is the unmanned
vehicle. So if I could do that, that would be great.
Mr. Larsen. Without objection.
[The information follows:]

Letter of September 26, 2019, from Brian P. Wynne, President and CEO,
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Daniel Webster
September 26, 2019.
Chairman Rick Larsen,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, 2113 Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Garret Graves,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, 430 Cannon House
Office Building, Washington, DC.

RE: ``A Work in Progress: Implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018''

Dear Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter for the record
for today's hearing on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Reauthorization Act of 2018. My organization, the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), serves as the world's
largest nonprofit organization devoted exclusively to advancing the
unmanned systems and robotics community. More than 35 local AUVSI
chapters in the United States and around the world advocate for
policies at the state, federal and international level that will enable
the tremendous potential of unmanned systems, including unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) or drones.
The passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-
254) was a major step forward for the UAS industry. This Act provides
the entire U.S. aviation community with much-needed, multi-year
stability and includes several provisions that will launch the UAS
industry to new heights. Perhaps most importantly, Congress directed
the FAA to implement remote identification (remote ID) standards, which
will enhance the safety and security of the airspace by enabling the
FAA to identify and track UAS flying in the airspace--in real time.
However, the rulemaking process for remote ID has been delayed three
times, with a proposed rule now expected in December 2019.
The need for remote ID cannot be overstated. Law enforcement needs
remote ID to determine whether a drone is friend or foe, and to
determine whether mitigation is necessary. The industry needs remote ID
to advance expanded operations, including flights over people and
beyond visual line of sight. That will help make operations like
package delivery--and even autonomous air taxi service--a reality in
the coming years. It is also critical for the realization of a UAS
Traffic Management (UTM) system, which would work alongside the
existing air traffic control system to reduce barriers to innovation
and improve security of the national airspace.
While we await the rulemaking process, the industry is looking for
ways to voluntarily provide remote ID on a tactical basis for certain
situations. We are collaborating with our government partners through
channels such as the FAA's Drone Advisory Committee to help inform this
rulemaking. In addition, the FAA's UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP)
is collecting valuable data from state, tribal and municipal government
partners, including research on remote ID. The 10 participants in this
program, which will soon conclude, are also actively providing input on
expanded operations, including low-altitude operations, and how they
might impact their interests. We look forward to seeing the results of
the IPP and how its research will help the FAA shape UAS policy going
forward.
That said, identifying and tracking UAS in the airspace is just the
first step. AUVSI supported granting additional authorities to the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice as part
of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, including the authority to
deploy appropriate countermeasures against UAS that threaten security.
It is also important to note that Congress gave limited authorities to
the Departments of Defense and Energy in the 2017 National Defense
Authorization Acts. In addition, Section 2209 of the FAA Extension,
Safety and Security Act (Public Law 114-41), which was also adopted in
the FAA Reauthorization Act, created a process through which state and
local government entities can petition the FAA to prohibit or restrict
the operation of a UAS in close proximity to a fixed-site facility,
such as critical infrastructure. UAS mitigation technology has already
been successfully deployed at major events such as the Super Bowl.
The FAA Reauthorization Act also called for rulemaking on a UTM
system, which will reduce barriers to innovation and improve safety and
security for all aircraft--both manned and unmanned. AUVSI members have
partnered with government to advance UTM concepts, beginning with Low
Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC). However,
the ability to track and identify all users of the airspace is a
necessary requirement for low altitude traffic management. As stated
earlier, before a UTM system can be realized, remote identification
standards must be in place.
Finally, the importance of safety cannot be overlooked. We were
pleased that the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 authorized $1 million
to the Know Before You Fly education campaign, which AUVSI and the
Academy of Model Aeronautics co-founded in partnership with the FAA.
Funding for Know Before You Fly will help raise awareness of the
changing regulatory environment around UAS and thereby increase
compliance, enhancing the safety of the national airspace.
In addition, the FAA plans to mark the first-ever National Drone
Safety Awareness Week in November to further stress the importance of
safe and responsible UAS operations. This nationwide event will focus
on the safety of several different sectors of the UAS industry,
including public safety, photography, agriculture, infrastructure
inspections and package delivery. It will also stress safety for
recreational users and those flying UAS for educational purposes to get
students excited about Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
careers. This multifaceted approach will help build a culture of safety
among operators that will further deter careless and reckless behavior.
AUVSI greatly appreciates your important work to ensure the
successful implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. We
would be happy to address any questions you may have about its UAS
provisions going forward.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Wynne,
President and CEO.

Mr. Webster. I also have sort of an issue there, too; you
brought it up, and others did.
I am a district where there are parks, theme parks, bunches
of them, big ones. They are worlds, in some cases. There is
real concern about that in that area, too, and how they are
going to be able to proceed; even some of the smaller parks,
really, have more concern how they are going to proceed in
getting some sort of ability to stop UAS activity in proximity
to their parks. So I just throw that in to say I am in on
whatever we can do to speed that up. I know twice it was in one
of our reauthorization bills. And anyway, it would be good to
get on it.
I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Mr. Lipinski is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot have talked
about the delays in rulemaking. The reason why it is important
to be concerned about delays is because we are talking about,
first and foremost, safety. And I know Chairman DeFazio and
others have talked about the secondary cockpit barrier, the 10-
hour rest rule for flight attendants. And so a delay in
rulemaking is a delay in safety.
You also have quality of life issues that we are talking
about here, both for people who fly and those who live around
airports. And I am going to have a question about that.
And you also have delays in technology, which hurts the
United States.
And the remote ID rule has to do with safety, first and
foremost, but it also has to do with the advancement of UAS,
and that impacts jobs in this country. We want to be the leader
in innovation in all areas.
But I want to start out asking, you know, on the technology
side. I included a provision in the FAA reauthorization section
192 for R&D demonstration projects for zero-emission
technology. And I wanted to ask what the FAA has been doing to
implement this program. It is advanced technology, zero
emissions, obviously, something important, looking at
protecting the environment.
And is there anything that, Mr. Elwell, you can tell me
about this?
Mr. Elwell. Mr. Lipinski, I am not immediately familiar
with the section that you are asking about. I will certainly
get back to you, if that is OK, with a detailed response.
I will tell you that innovation is a major priority for
Secretary Chao, for the administration, and for us. In fact,
one initiative that we are trying to effect within the FAA is
to create an Office of Innovation whose charge would be to take
in new technologies and assimilate them into our culture
quicker than we currently do.
Technology today moves, as we all know, so much faster than
it did a few decades ago. And the FAA and aviation were slow to
begin with, as you point out, because of our safety concerns.
But anything that we can do to, on the R&D side or on the
operational testing side, anything we can do to accelerate
innovation, especially as fast as it is moving, I am all for
that, sir.
Mr. Lipinski. And I look forward to hearing about section
192, what you are doing, and also what you are talking about in
terms of innovation and what we can do to be helpful on that.
I wanted to move on to a quality-of-life issue. I have
Midway Airport in my district; everyone loves Midway Airport
for the economic engine that it is. But everyone hates the
noise, obviously. And this is a 1-square-mile airport that has
houses on all four sides. So section 188 required a report on
the day-night average sound levels, the DNL. So when can we
expect the report to be completed on that?
Mr. Elwell. Well, sir, the section asking for a report on
DNL, I am not sure I can give you a date on the completion of
that report.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, I appreciate you----
Mr. Elwell. I will have to get back to you on that, sir.
Mr. Lipinski [continuing]. Getting back to me on that. I
was wondering if there is--you have any expectation that the--
you know, it is currently at 65 decibels--if it could be maybe
lowered after this comes out, the report comes out.
Mr. Elwell. Sir, actually, we are going to get that DNL
report out before the end of the year.
Mr. Lipinski. OK, thank you. It has been an issue with
NextGen and new technology. There have been increases in noise
levels in certain areas around airports. And this is something
that I would like to talk more with you about, and we need to
continue to work, because this has been a major issue for many
people who live not just around Midway Airport in my district,
but O'Hare, just outside my district, and across the country.
So thank you, I will yield back.
Mr. Larsen. I recognize Mr. Mitchell of Michigan for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The FAA Reauthorization
Act contained, as we have already discussed, numerous mandates
and expectations for the FAA for implementation of changes.
One of the biggest challenges we had in the reauthorization
was the discussion about NextGen, how it should be structured,
moving it forward. It is no secret the air traffic control
system is--it has antiquated equipment, some procedures as a
result, and needed improvement. How we got there was a
significant discussion. We came to a bipartisan agreement. Over
the past few years we spent billions of dollars and countless
hours. We recently had an update on NextGen, which was really
helpful.
We don't have to rehash the details of how we got here, but
I do want to talk about one provision. In the bill we included
section 547, the enhanced air traffic services provision. The
amendment, described briefly, required a creation of a pilot
program to demonstrate the full promise of NextGen
technologies, to designate certain airports to provide limited
access for planes that have full NextGen technology, and to
demonstrate the benefits and the cost savings as a result of
that--and the safety improvements, to be honest with you. A
report to come back to Congress.
There was a timeframe then of 90 days. We talked a little
bit before the hearing. I would like to get an update. I think
we would all like an update of where we are at on that pilot
program, and when we expect that to move forward.
Mr. Elwell. Well, thank you for that question, Mr.
Mitchell. And this is a project that we have a lot of energy
behind, and three airports to do enhanced air traffic system
testing--I believe it is for 3-hour blocks, continuous 3-hour
blocks in the day.
And the NextGen Advisory Committee, who has been tasked--
and, as you know, that is the committee of all the stakeholders
invested in NextGen--to give us their recommendations, and they
have promised us the airports recommended by spring of 2020.
And then we will do a 2-year pilot program on the enhanced air
traffic services from 2021 to 2023.
Mr. Mitchell. So we don't expect any further progress
until--any definitive progress until spring of 2020?
Mr. Elwell. Yes, sir, and 2020 is when we will have the
airports named.
Mr. Mitchell. Will it be at three airports, or five? Do you
have an idea? Because we----
Mr. Elwell. The current----
Mr. Mitchell. We required three. You were talking maybe
more. Is there a----
Mr. Elwell. So it is currently three. But, sir, I will take
that back to the NAC, and we will look at the possibility of
increasing that, because I think it is a very valid and
worthwhile program to be able to look at what full equipage--to
your point--full equipage, what will it do to efficiency at any
airport.
Mr. Mitchell. I mean I think the--and your report, I would
ask that not just efficiency, but also in terms of its impact
on safety.
Mr. Elwell. Right.
Mr. Mitchell. Because of your ability to route aircraft,
and separations, and all those far more accurately using that
type of system, so that report would be helpful and important
as we move forward.
Mr. Elwell. Yes.
Mr. Mitchell. So I encourage implementation of that as
timely as we can.
Mr. Elwell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. Let me change gears a little bit. I share
Chairman DeFazio's concerns about evacuation. The
reauthorization contained a couple of mandates that I think are
important.
Establishing minimum dimensions for passenger seats on air
carriers--and it will surprise you to know I am not exactly a
dainty guy. I want you to look around the room. There are a lot
of not-so-dainty people. Seat size, dimensions between seats,
exits--I am not sure that the models that are being used, to be
honest with you, really reflect current air travelers,
certainly not in the United States, North America, at 6, 2" and
240 pounds or so, you know.
Where are we at, in terms of moving forward? Because we
mandated establishing minimum dimensions for passenger seats,
evaluating the evacuation procedures and time. That could
become pretty critical. Can you advise us on how we move
forward on that? Because, besides whether or not I cram my
backside in a seat, getting out would be a really useful thing.
So could you update us?
Mr. Elwell. Yes, and thank you for that question, Mr.
Mitchell. We are looking at the language. We are thankful that
Mr. Cohen's provision asked us to look at seat size and seat
pitch and seat dimensions--and, obviously, in the construct of
safety, which is what our mandate is.
We are going to perform testing for this section, including
human testing. And later this year we are going to establish
the necessary seat pitch, width, length, based on safety, which
would be the basis for any rulemaking if we----
Mr. Mitchell. Let me stop you if I can, because he is going
to hit the gavel in a minute. Is there a timeframe on when you
are going to do that testing, and when we are going to get some
feedback?
Mr. Elwell. Yes, Lirio, do you have an update on the timing
of it?
Ms. Liu. Pardon me.
Mr. Mitchell. No, it is----
Ms. Liu. I understand it is supposed to occur before the
end of the year. We have set up the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee, as well, and--ARAC--that is also going to
look at the evacuation study. So taking all that data in, we
will be able to determine the appropriate----
Mr. Elwell. And----
Ms. Liu [continuing]. The rule.
Mr. Elwell. I will just add we have 12 days of testing
planned in November, with 720 live bodies, and the collection
of 3,000 data points.
Mr. Mitchell. He likes that gavel, but that is----
Mr. Elwell. I heard the gavel, thank you.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you very much. I do yield back, sir.
Mr. Larsen. You were doing so well, Mr. Mitchell.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Cohen for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And first, Mr. Mitchell, I appreciate your questioning.
And I rue your absence from the Congress, because you have
been such a good Member. But I understand your logic, and I
commend you on it.
In the last Congress we passed the FAA Reauthorization Act,
and I sponsored, as Director Elwell has mentioned, along with
Representative Adam Kinzinger, the SEAT Act, which mandated
that you provide us within a year, for safety purposes, pitch,
width, the whole rigamarole with seats. And yet we don't have
it.
Tests in the past have been done with computers, and I
think their computers--if I am not totally incorrect, I think
they were provided by the airline, or the manufacturer, and
they were simulations provided by them.
We don't need to have another crisis like we had with the
Boeing airplane, that we have a crash and we come back and we
have to ask the FAA, ``People couldn't get out of the plane in
90 seconds, why did you not comply with the SEAT Act?''
So tell me again why this hasn't been accomplished. We are
almost a year. And if it is going to be human conditions to
where you have got people Mr. Mitchell's size, Mr. DeFazio's
size, Mr. Trump's size----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen [continuing]. All in coach class, trying to get
out of a plane in 90 seconds. Are you going to have those
people?
Mr. Elwell. Sir, we are. We are looking at it. Obviously,
as Chairman DeFazio said, Americans are getting bigger. And so
seat size is important. But it has got to be looked at in the
context of safety, and that requires testing.
And to answer Chairman DeFazio's earlier question, the most
recent live full air evacuation testing was actually done in
2018, not 20 years ago. It was the Airbus 350. So we have done
it.
And, despite what----
Mr. Cohen. Well, you did this test with the Airbus. Was
that done here, or in Europe?
Mr. Elwell. I am not--it was done in Europe. We also did
it. Our most----
Mr. Cohen. Why has not the FAA done it in America, with
Americans? We are widening out more than Europeans. They are
doing vegan, multigrain, and eating fruit. We aren't.
Mr. Elwell. Sir, we did--the 787, 777 were the most recent
times we have done live testing. And, as I said, we are lined
up to do 12 days of evacuation testing in November with 720
people. We are going to collect 3,000 data points.
But one thing--I want to allay your concerns a little bit.
In the most recent examples of full-hull loss accidents, 100
percent evacuation.
Mr. Cohen. Within 90 seconds?
Mr. Elwell. Asiana in San Francisco, Aeromexico in Mexico--

Mr. Cohen. Were they done within 90 seconds?
Mr. Elwell. I can get back to you on whether it happened in
90 seconds. But survivability today is much, much better, due
to a lot of great work that we do at the Tech Center in New
Jersey, and great improvements in flammability and
survivability.
But you are right; we need to do testing on evacuation, and
we are going to do live testing, and we are going to get you an
answer on seat pitch as it pertains to safety, sir.
Mr. Cohen. And where are you going to get these people? You
are not going to go to SlimFast, are you?
Mr. Elwell. Sir, we are going to try to use a good
demographic sampling. And we will maybe invite you.
Mr. Cohen. It would be good to invite me, because I have
got a bad leg. And you have got people in this country who are
larger, but you have also got people with disabilities who fly.
Mr. Elwell. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cohen. And you need to have a representative sample.
And you have got, you know, children, and whatever.
Mr. Elwell. Oh, so we do incorporate all of those things:
lap children, animals. We incorporate all of that, and we will
in the testing.
And I don't know, Lirio, if there is anything I have missed
on how we do that testing.
Ms. Liu. I can reflect back on that from my certification
days.
Yes. In fact, when we simulate the test during
certification, we will actually block half the exits. It will
also be in a dark environment. The attendants that are on the
evacuation test don't know which exits are blocked, to simulate
a live situation.
The demographics are typically volunteers from anyone, so
there is no specific demographic sought for.
So, as you will see, it will also be dark in the cabin, so
they try to simulate the worst-case scenario.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. If you would invite me, I would love
to be at least an observer. And if you pick Democrats, you will
get a good representative demographic of America.
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Gallagher is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gallagher. I have much less exciting--dare I say
dainty--questions to offer.
But Northeast Wisconsin Technical College, which is located
in Green Bay, Wisconsin, is concerned about the implementation
of section 631, a program known as the Community and Technical
College Centers of Excellence in Small Unmanned Aircraft System
Technology Training.
This program was intended to help community colleges like
NWTC extend their role in education and training for small
drone technology. It seems like a good idea. But Northeast
Wisconsin Technical College reports there hasn't been much
progress made to implement this program, even though it was
created with a deadline of 180 days after the enactment, which
should have been April 5th, 2019, if my math is correct.
So I would ask what is the current status of establishing a
process to designate community colleges' UAS Centers of
Excellence?
Mr. Elwell. Thank you for that question, Mr. Gallagher. We
did briefly mention section 631 a little bit earlier. One of
the issues is that the way this provision was presented, it was
with Centers of Excellence, which are not grant programs, they
are not grant recipient programs. So we are working through
that. And I told Chairman Larsen we will work through the
wording issues, so that we can get this done. I am a huge
proponent.
I was recently up at Vaughn College, which is a CTI college
for controllers, and had a wonderful conversation with a
student, a young lady who is a dynamo aviation enthusiast, and
is going to graduate in the spring with $86,000 in debt.
So you know, if we are going to excite young people into
this profession, both for Government service and in industry,
we have to get a handle on this, and we got to get them
trained.
And I agree with you, 100 percent. I know that section 632,
which is related, we hope to have that done by the end of the
year. And it is going to certainly help community colleges
specialize.
So we understand the need, sir. And I hate to talk about
technicalities, but we are going to work through them.
Mr. Gallagher. Well, we often find ourselves dealing with
technicalities here.
Can you give us a flavor--and I don't know if it is--who--
which one of you two would address just kind of what the
consultation that has taken place between FAA, Department of
Transportation, Education, and Labor, all the other interagency
players in this, on section 631?
Or, perhaps more broadly, do you feel like there is
interagency buy-in to the program?
Mr. Elwell. So I am not aware of an interagency discussion
on section 631. So--and I am not sure it is required, if it is
a program that we can implement and do.
I am just advised from--the language has been a problem,
and--but I certainly will get to interagency discussion if we
have to do it, and we will use it.
I know that, you know, last year around this time we had a
workforce summit at National Airport, where we did have all
the--we had the Air Force Secretary, we had Secretary Chao, we
had Department of Labor, Department of Education all coming
together to come up with solutions on these workforce issues.
So it is a high priority of ours, and we will get back to
you on the work--and if there is anything that you can do, we
certainly won't be shy to ask----
Mr. Gallagher. Sure.
Mr. Elwell [continuing]. How you can help, sir.
Mr. Gallagher. I really appreciate that, and look forward
to working with you.
Final question. So, for these colleges, technical colleges,
you know, a college like Northeast Wisconsin Technical College,
who want to be forward-leaning, they want to take full
advantage of section 631, I mean, what advice would you have
for them right now?
Mr. Elwell. Well, first of all, I think getting the CTI
accreditation, 2-year programs will suffice for that. Get
recognized as a preferential--controllers do preferential
hiring. It is a separate pool. If they come from a CTI school,
I think that is an incentive unto itself.
And then the extent to which a college can be eligible for
assistance, Federal assistance, that is the issue that we need
to look into and get back to you on.
Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that. I think we have an
opportunity here. I mean there is a lot of bipartisan goodwill
around the idea of elevating our technical, our vocational
schools. And this would seem to be a growth industry and an
industry that could attract the attention of a lot of
millennials and whatever we are calling the generation that is
younger than millennials these days.
So I appreciate it.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Before I go to
Representative Craig, just in order we have, on the Republican
side, Balderson, Rouzer, and Perry. And then, on our side,
Craig, Davids, Carbajal--so to get people prepared.
So I recognize Representative Craig for 5 minutes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is
absolutely clear that our communities who are near our airports
have benefitted from the employment opportunities and
convenient access to domestic and international travel. But
those who live around those major airports also live with the
burden of often overwhelming overhead noise, especially as the
number of flights around the country continues to increase, and
their flight paths become more streamlined and precise.
Where I live in Eagan, Minnesota, we are severely impacted
by aviation noise, and the city has recently taken the
opportunity to come up with some measures to address and
mitigate these issues, which I applaud.
Although I wasn't in office for the passage of the 2018 FAA
reauthorization, I am encouraged by many of the provisions that
address these noise concerns and problems, nationwide.
Mr. Elwell and Mr. Szabat, I would like to ask you a few
questions on the status and intended outcomes of a few of those
provisions, if you don't mind.
Section 189 instructs the FAA to conduct a study on
potential health and economic impact of overflight noise. You
formally entered into a partnership for this research, which is
a great first step.
Can you tell me a little bit more about the parameters of
this study, and how you are weighing the effects of noise on
children and families like our city in Eagan?
Mr. Elwell. Thank you for that question, Ms. Craig. We have
entered into an agreement with MIT and Boston University on the
commencement of that study, and I can get back to you on the
parameters and what the agreed parts of that study are with MIT
and Boston University.
Ms. Craig. Mr. Szabat, anything to add to that?
Mr. Szabat. Representative, thank you for the question, but
no.
Ms. Craig. Thank you. So section 175 is titled,
Addressing Community Noise Concerns,'' and it effectively
compels the FAA Administrator to shift flight take-off and
landing patterns if an airport operator and community jointly
make a reasonable and safe request to do so.
The city of Eagan is currently urging this consideration
with the Metropolitan Airports Commission. As a Member of
Congress, how can I be supportive of my constituents during
this process? What more can my constituents do to raise their
voices on issues related to noise concerns?
Mr. Elwell?
Mr. Elwell. Well, community engagement is critically
important. We understand that. We are refining and improving
our community engagement.
We have our naming noise ombudsman at all of our regional
offices. Those noise ombudsmen will report directly to the
regional administrators. In your case, I believe that would be
Great Lakes.
And community engagement, across-agency engagement led by
the regional administrators and the ombudsmen, is critically
important.
The goal, of course, is to engage, listen, as you said, and
make adjustments as necessary. And there are quite a few
communities around the country where we are doing that.
I would say just a couple of data points on noise that I
found intriguing.
In 1970 there were 200 million passenger enplanements, and
7 million people subjected to significant noise over the 65
DNL. Today we carry 900 million enplanements, and 400,000
people are subjected to noise above 65 DNL.
We acknowledge this is, for your constituents and many
others, a critical issue, and we are engaging it. But I will
tell you that both in engine design, aircraft design, and
procedural design there are huge advances being made in getting
aviation quieter. But there is more we can do, and we are
anxious to engage with the communities and all the stakeholders
to see how we can make the air quieter above your constituents.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much. I appreciate the thoughtful
answer you gave, and I hope you will also be given the
opportunity to review the very thoughtful recommendations from
the city of Eagan. So thank you so much.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I recognize Representative Balderson
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
panelists, for being here this morning.
Mr. Elwell, I will direct my first question to you, and
just kind of follow up what Mr. Gallagher was referring to with
workforce development. That is something that is very
important.
But what is the FAA doing to improve the aviation workforce
pipeline? For the pilots I know there is an extreme shortage
for the pilots, projected that there are going to be 790,000
pilots short by 2037. So what are you all doing for that
pipeline?
Mr. Elwell. Thank you for that question, Mr. Balderson. As
I referenced, the workforce summit--I think in the day-long
summit we had maybe five different panels that covered the
gamut.
We do anticipate a pilot shortage in the coming decade, but
it is not just pilots, it is all of the technical fields in our
sector. And, you know, it is not a mandate of the FAA to ensure
a large pilot population, but we do believe that a shrinking
pilot demographic is not good for the system and, ultimately,
probably not good for safety.
So, what we are doing is we are engaging. We have a
workforce task group within the FAA. It is engaging many
different organizations: Women in Aviation, for instance; the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, AOPA; all of the sort
of groups that represent interest in our sector.
The Air Force Junior ROTC, they came to the FAA and said,
``We are trying to do a program where we take kids after their
sophomore year in high school, send them to a university''--I
think Auburn is one of them that they contracted with. ``We
take a kid coming out of 10th grade who doesn't even know what
an airplane looks like, and by the end of the summer they have
their private pilot's license. But FAA, you have a restriction
of 17 years old to get a private pilot's license. Can you work
with us to get it back to 16, so we can get those kids before
they commit to some other profession?'' These are the kinds of
engagements we want to have.
It was mentioned already, Women in Aviation. Women are
woefully underrepresented in our sector, and I think that is a
huge demographic in population that we should be creating
interest for for this industry.
We have an MOU with the Air Force to look at their pilot
training research. They are doing some very, very interesting
things in pilot training that we think can be mirrored in the
civil sector.
So this is a huge initiative. We are anxious for any and
all ideas and help that we can get, because we know that this
committee is as passionate about this as we are. And we are
ready, willing, and able to engage on how we can improve the
workforce, the strength of the workforce.
Mr. Szabat. And, Congressman, if I can just tag on for a
minute in support of Mr. Elwell's comments, this is something
that matters to the Department, as a whole, as well as the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Secretary Chao herself kicked off the Forces to Flyers
initiative, so working with the Air Force and elsewhere in the
military to ensure the transition for pilots, for other
qualified aviation personnel to move to the civilian sector.
Dan has also mentioned Women in Aviation. As part of that,
the Department is working through the Department of State
internationally, APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.
We are working for a Women in Aviation prioritization within
all of the countries that border on the Pacific.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. And I will follow up, and both of
you may answer this question, also. Do you believe the FAA
currently has the necessary resources to take on the pilot
shortcomings?
And I know you said reaching out to--my office would love
to communicate with you all of--giving you leads, or some way
of--not necessarily leads, but how you can--we can make it, you
know, so you can attract young adults. And whether that is--I
have a very good friend of mine, and his son is finishing his
private pilot's license right now, and he is--you are correct,
he is 17 years old. He probably could have started flying
earlier than that. Not much, but we would love to work with you
in ways to change that.
So thank you both very much for your response.
Mr. Szabat. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Balderson. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Representative Balderson. I
recognize the vice chair of the subcommittee, Representative
Davids of Kansas.
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and thank
you to the witnesses for coming here today. I appreciate your
time and your expertise.
I wasn't here when we passed the reauthorization
previously. So I am hoping for just a little bit of insight. So
my first question is for Deputy Administrator Elwell, who--I
know you have been here before. Welcome back in your new role.
There has been a troubling number of media reports about
passengers and crews falling ill, or becoming sick because of
cabin fumes and air quality in the cabins. And I am hoping to
hear from you briefly about how the fumes and smoke might even
make it into the plane for folks who don't already know that.
Mr. Elwell. Thank you for that question, Ms. Davids. We are
working toward completing all the requirements that are
included, including engaging with stakeholders on useful
education materials--this is all parts of what was in the
bill--useful education materials, developing reporting guidance
for carriers, reminding carriers to use their SMS, their safety
management system, to identify issues--that is what SMS is for,
it is what it is all about, to identify issues--and share with
crew, their crewmembers and their technicians, and engaging--we
are engaging in the research of bleed air.
You know, when it comes to cabin air issues, it often comes
down to the bleed air, what is coming in the cabin to
pressurize the cabin from the outside, and the refresh rate,
you know, the recirculation rate. So we are looking into it in
all the areas that the bill mandated.
And I--if it is OK, I would like to check with Lirio to see
if you can expound on that.
Ms. Davids. That would be great.
Ms. Liu. It is part of the certification requirements of
the aircraft that right now----
Ms. Davids. Will you--oh, thank you.
Ms. Liu. I don't know that I have anything more to say on
that. I think it is under research. We have the appropriate
working groups starting the process, and using the data, as was
indicated by the Deputy Administrator.
Ms. Davids. And actually, that is a great point to hit a
followup question I had, which is I know that there were a
number of requirements in the reauthorization, and
commissioning a study was one of those requirements. And it
seems as though that has been something that has been delayed.
So I am curious if you could give maybe a progress update
on what kind of research you have been able to do into--if I
have the language correct, it is to assess the potential health
effects of the contaminants from bleed air, which you
mentioned, and--yes, any other updates you might have around
that.
Mr. Elwell. Yes, ma'am. We have begun that process, begun
that research and that testing. And I remember reading through
it, but I will have to get back to you on the details of that
research. But I am--oh, getting a note.
Ms. Davids. Oh, I love this.
Mr. Elwell. Yes, yes, so we are actually meeting next week
with the stakeholders and the participants, and we will get
back to you, ma'am, on exactly what we are doing in that area.
Ms. Davids. That would be great. I, of course, am very
concerned about passengers, and I am very concerned about all
the folks who make their livelihoods spending time on planes.
So thank you for your time, and I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I recognize Representative Rouzer
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank each of you for being here this
morning. As you know, my home State of North Carolina is one of
the nine participants in the FAA's UAS integration pilot
program, and their focus has been on routine drone delivery of
medical packages. And, so far, there have been more than 1,200
operations on the WakeMed Hospital campus there, in Raleigh.
Now, this is the first routine drone medical package
delivery operation for compensation in our country, and a
significant step forward for faster and easier delivery between
medical facilities.
Can you speak to how the data gathered from this pilot
program is helping the FAA find solutions to--or restraints on
integration within the current regulatory framework, such as
restrictions on flying beyond visual line of sight, or flight
over people? How are these efforts coming along?
Mr. Elwell. Well, thank you for that question, Mr. Rouzer.
The UAS implementation integration pilot program specific to
your district has been a huge success, as you mentioned. The
delivery on campus back and forth has greatly expedited the
delivery of samples which, of course, in turn, gets results
quicker for patients.
I understand--I am told that--I think UPS is going to try
to operationalize that, much the way Google Wing has
operationalized their IPP project in Blacksburg, Virginia, to
do deliveries.
And what the IPP has done--the project in North Carolina
and in Virginia and at seven other pilot projects around the
country--has given us the data we need to start certifying
these operations for eventual integration.
Google Wing, for instance, went through a part 135
certification, and it was unprecedented, it hadn't been done
before. We did it for that drone operation to prove that we can
use our regulatory structure that exists today, and modify it
for UAS operations.
We have about a year--a little bit more than a year--left
in the study, in the pilot program for the nine different
projects. We are going to take the lessons learned--and they
are many--and that, tied to rules like remote ID, eventually
will get a beyond-visual-line-of-sight rule, over people rule.
These are not easy tasks, by any stretch. But putting them
together, we will be able to integrate drones safely into the
airspace.
And our goal also is that, when this pilot program rolls
up, we are not going to tell the nine participants, ``OK, thank
you very much, go home.'' The idea is to allow those that wish
to stay and operationalize their programs, our goal is to help
them do that.
Mr. Szabat. And again, if I may add to the Administrator's
comments, Congressman, from the Department of Transportation's
perspective, what the IPP allows is, insofar as it is possible
for a regulatory agency to become a cutting-edge regulator,
this is allowing us to be on the cutting edge of developing
regulations, as Dan mentioned, integrating drones safely into
our manned national airspace.
Other countries are experimenting, as we are. But what they
are doing is mostly on a catch-as-catch-can and exception
basis. We are trying to develop this systematically, so that we
can actually have the regulations in place based on these pilot
programs that will allow us to give, for example, more part 135
certifications so whatever lessons we learned can be applied
nationally.
Mr. Rouzer. Talk about the role of local and State
government, and the interface there, and how that will operate.
Mr. Elwell. So that was in the Presidential directive of
something we wanted the IPP--the nine different programs--to
examine. federalism versus preemption.
And it is a great question, because what we don't want to
foster are hundreds of different regulatory frameworks that the
industry would eventually have to comply with. You know, if I
am in this county I have got to do this.
But at the same time, we have to strike that balance to
allow localities--localities know their issues better than--
obviously, better than the Federal Government. So we got to
strike that balance, to your point, to allow municipalities,
States, Tribal organizations the ability to make restrictions
that don't challenge federalism, but are good for the
community, good for the industry, but ultimately safe for all
the participants.
And we are learning a lot from the pilot program in that
regard.
Mr. Rouzer. What about sharing of radar feeds? Do you
anticipate FAA to share radar feeds at a local and State level?
Mr. Larsen. Yes or no?
Mr. Elwell. No.
Mr. Larsen. I didn't hear the question.
Mr. Elwell. Sir, I am sorry----
Mr. Larsen. You will have to take it for the record.
Mr. Elwell. OK. We will get back to you, sir.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. You are welcome. Next we have Mr. Carbajal.
Before Representative Carbajal starts, on our side it will be
Carbajal, Stanton, and Lynch, in that order. On the Republican
side it will be Perry, Katko, and Stauber, in that order.
Representative Carbajal for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Administrator Elwell, thank you for coming to our
subcommittee today, and for giving us an update of this FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018.
Building on some of the questions by my colleagues
regarding colleges, college Centers of Excellence, section 631
of that measure authorized a new program known as Community and
Technical College Centers of Excellence in Small Unmanned
Aircraft System Technology Training. This section is intended
to help establish an expanded role for community colleges in
education and training in various applications of small drone
technology.
In my district Allan Hancock College is a community college
that is focused on innovation, and has the interest in the
section 631 Centers of Excellence program. The college is
located on the site of the former Hancock College of
Aeronautics, which opened its doors 90 years ago, and trained
thousands of pilots for service during World War II. Section
631 provides opportunities for a school such as Allan Hancock
College to work with industry partners to train students in the
latest applications of drone technology.
April 5, 2019, was the deadline for the FAA to have
established a process to designate community colleges UAS
Centers of Excellence. Could you update this subcommittee on
the status of section 631 for the Centers of Excellence
program?
And two, what type of consultation has taken place with the
Departments of Education and Labor to develop this program?
Mr. Elwell. Thank you, Mr. Carbajal, for that question. In
the discussion earlier with Mr. Gallagher, we have no issue
with the intent, nor the deadline. The problem we ran into,
ultimately, was that Centers of Excellence are not--we have
many Centers of Excellence agreements, but they are not
vehicles for grants.
So I would love to see a lot more small colleges get help
with providing UAS training. And so would Secretary Chao. That
was one of the key conversations we had in our workforce summit
last year around this time.
I will commit to get back to you, sir, on the engagement
that we have had with DOL and DOE, and the extent to which we
have brought them into the discussion. And if we need to expand
that interagency discussion, we will certainly do that.
The goal is to improve and increase and energize our
secondary education in these fields. And so I commit to work
with you and the other agencies as necessary.
Mr. Carbajal. To that end, how could schools such as Allan
Hancock College prepare for future consideration of this
section's benefits?
Mr. Elwell. I think a desire to have curricula that address
these emerging technologies is preparation enough. I think it
is incumbent upon the Government entities to facilitate, and
certainly not to provide any sort of hindrance to those who are
willing and want to bring that into their curricula.
You know, one of the things that we have at the FAA is
accreditation for aviation schools. We have 4-year
accreditation, 2-year accreditation. And we are trying to
advertise to young people that, you know what? Education is
expensive. But you can go to a 2-year vocational tech school in
the aviation world, and come out with really good careers,
really good professions, and I am sure that, as the UAS
industry grows, there will be more and more opportunities in
that area, as well.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. As was discussed by some of my
previous colleagues, I too have been contacted by a number of
my constituents about airplane noise. And the FAA
reauthorization included several provisions to address this
issue.
What is the estimated timeframe for the FAA to implement
these mandates? And how is the FAA working with communities
like mine to address these issues?
Mr. Elwell. Well, sir, there is--noise is a huge issue,
nationwide. And we are actively working all of the provisions
in the bill. We have every intention of meeting all the
requirements.
Since they are different, a number of different provisions
and different requirements, different lengths of
implementation, I can assure you, sir, that we are working all
of them, and we have every intention of meeting the
requirements of the bill.
Mr. Carbajal. Since I am out of time, if you could just get
me some timelines, that would be great.
Mr. Elwell. I will get back to you on the timeline, sir.
Mr. Carbajal. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. Before I recognize Representative
Perry, I just want to clarify the record. The last time the
United States conducted a full-scale evacuation was 1999 for
the 777. And then Boeing based their certification on the 787,
through comparative analysis, to that. And I don't know whether
EASA requires it or not, but Airbus, you know, did that in
Europe, and not under our auspices.
And then, finally, in terms of recent incidents, a number
of people died on an Aeroflot plane who were unable to
evacuate. We don't know all the circumstances here, since it
took place in Russia.
Anyway, Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Elwell, the provision that I had placed in
the FAA bill required the FAA to update existing regulations to
authorize the carriage of property by owners of UAS for
compensation or hire. In your testimony you state, ``This work
is ongoing, and the FAA is currently meeting the intent of the
mandate through an exemption process.''
I am pleased to see the FAA grant the first certification
this year, but it came only after a long and arduous process of
seeking numerous exemptions from part 135 provisions that do
not and cannot apply to UAS.
Avoiding this type of unnecessary drawn-out and burdensome
exemption process was actually the intent of the mandate. The
deadline to update these rules is October 5th of this year, 9
days from now. But we have yet to see any FAA action on this
mandate, so it doesn't appear that this deadline will be met.
Can you just provide us with a status update on the
mandate, and a new timeline for meeting it, if you have one?
Mr. Elwell. Yes, Mr. Perry, thank you for that question.
The desire to have UAS perform those certificated activities we
share. We share the goal to get that done.
It is important to point out there is frustration, how long
this is taking. But I think what we need to understand is,
unlike a lot of other countries that are trying to integrate--
or trying to fly UAS and get UAS to do things, many other
countries are doing that segregated. They are taking UAS, and
they are flying UAS in airspace where there is nothing else.
We are integrating UAS, and it is a far, far more complex
endeavor. Some of the activities you mentioned, sir, would
require beyond-visual-line-of-sight carriage, or over people.
And these are rulemaking activities that have significant
safety implications, and we have to make sure that we do the
rulemaking for those specific abilities, the ability of an
unmanned aviation vehicle to fly over people or beyond visual
line of sight. These are very complex.
And both of those capabilities, which would eventually be
needed for commercial activity, rely upon remote ID, which we
have talked about is going to take a little while.
So I absolutely share your desire to see this happen. I
think we are in a very, very dynamic time in aviation in this
country, between the attempts to integrate UAS, the doubling of
commercial space launches. I mean there is so much going on.
But it is not going to be done as quickly as many would like,
me included. We have to----
Mr. Perry. Administrator, we get it, I am sure, and we know
it is complicated. And at the same time, you know, also
deadlines, suspenses, requirements motivate agencies,
individuals, you name it, to get to a result, right?
I mean the Federal Government isn't immune to producing
what is asked of it. Its bosses and my bosses, the taxpayers
and constituents, demand it. They don't want to hear--they
understand that sometimes things don't go as we wish they
would, as we hope they could, or what have you.
But it doesn't sound like you have any idea--I hate to say
it that way, but if you do, I mean--this was the timeline that
we had. So I think it is fair to say that we are not going to
meet it. But, you know, 6 months? One hundred years? What are
we looking at?
Mr. Elwell. Mr. Perry, the only real suspense in putting a
new type of activity into the airspace, the only deadline the
FAA really has, at the end of the day, is safety.
And I agree with you, placing a deadline out there does
motivate people. But at the end of the day, if it can't be
effectuated, if it can't be done and signed off on safely, it
is going to be extended. And for that reason, you know, I
always hesitate in these questions, ``What is the timeline to
do X or Y''----
Mr. Perry. Well, I am not going to pin you down to a day or
something, but can you give us some idea if this is years, if
this is months?
You know, you try and meet a deadline, you find out what is
in your way, and then you figure out what is it going to take
to get through these six barriers, or three things, or
whatever. You make a new timeline.
Mr. Larsen [presiding]. I recommend you get back to
Representative Perry with a timeline. Can you do that? Can you
get back to Representative Perry and the committee with a
timeline?
Mr. Elwell. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. I recognize Representative Stanton from Arizona
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Mr. Elwell, one of the key purposes of the
Congress, of course, is to put the appropriate things into the
law, and then to ask about the timelines for implementation.
That is one of the key roles of the people up here on this
dais. I appreciate the nature of your concerns about it, but
that is what we do for the people that we represent.
Mr. Elwell, the FAA Reauthorization Act includes several
important changes related to the contract tower program,
including section 152, authorizing the FAA to make grants to
these airports from the small airport fund to construct or
improve their air traffic control towers.
In Arizona, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport is one of the
fastest growing regional airports, and the busiest contract air
traffic control tower in the country. In just the last 5 years,
annual operations have increased 80 percent, and commercial
activity continues to grow by double digits. The existing tower
was constructed in 1970 by the Air Force, not intended for
commercial use.
An FAA siting study identified the need for a new tower,
due to several safety issues with the existing tower. A new air
traffic control tower is critical for this airport. And with 90
percent of the design completed for a new tower, Federal
funding for its construction must be a priority.
What is the status of the FAA's implementation of section
152?
Mr. Elwell. Sir, we are meeting all the requirements on
contract towers, and we don't see any problem with it. We are
going to meet them all.
With respect to Williams Gateway, a personal connection
there, that is where I learned to fly, Williams Air Force Base.
And then it came full circle in--one of the first meetings I
had in this capacity was the mayor of Mesa telling me, ``We
need a new tower, but we are only eligible for $2 million
towards it.''
And I am really glad to see that we fixed that, and that
you are going to get a new tower. It is the busiest contract
tower in the country, and I am glad to see we finished--we just
gave $1.3 million for the design study. It is going to be a 20-
some-odd-million-dollar project, but it will be funded.
Mr. Stanton. All right. We are nostalgic for the name
``Williams Gateway.'' It is now Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport,
as it has gone commercial. But thanks for your service, we
appreciate that very much.
In April the FAA hosted a series of workshops in the
Phoenix area to hear from residents about flight noise. Those
workshops were part of the 2017 lawsuit settlement over noise
in the area, a lawsuit filed by the city of Phoenix when I was
mayor.
I appreciate the FAA holding these workshops. Going
forward, it is important for the FAA to work closely with the
impact to communities to incorporate what was learned at these
workshops, and to make adjustments necessary to lessen the
noise impacts from the eastbound flight paths.
What are the FAA's next steps in this process, particularly
additional engagement with the impaired communities,
Scottsdale, Fountain Hills, and what is the expected timeline?
Mr. Elwell. Well, sir, it is a two-step process, as you are
aware. We finished step 1, looking at departure route changes
based on the community engagement. We have now completed the
engagement phase of step 2, and looking at those
recommendations.
As you know, there is no commitment to make changes after
consultation of step 2. But what--anything we can do, we are
going to do.
And I would have to get back to you on the timeline of
that. I am sure that the folks that are having those meetings
have a deadline for when they are going to get back.
Mr. Stanton. We will follow up. I appreciate that very
much.
Let's talk staffing shortages in the FAA and the impact it
is having on your regulatory functions. These staffing
shortages are causing delays in approval of environmental
reviews. And I and so many other Members of Congress are
concerned that these delays will have a ripple effect in
delaying important construction projects.
What steps has the FAA taken to address current staffing
needs, particularly on the regulatory side, to ensure timely
environmental reviews?
Mr. Elwell. Well, sir, I will have to get back to you on
that. I am--to get any specifics on staffing shortages for
environmental reviews I will get back to you.
I know that they--you know, depending on whether it is a
CATEX or an EA or an EIS, they can be rather lengthy. And,
obviously, the size of the examination can have a big impact.
But unless Lirio----
Mr. Stanton. That is fair. We will follow up, and I
appreciate you taking the time to get back to me on that issue.
I want to turn now to Flagstaff's Pulliam Airport in
northern Arizona. Flagstaff averages more than 100 inches of
snow, annually. Its airport is classified as a very large
airport, meaning there is at least 1 million square feet of
total paved runway that must be cleared during snow events.
The airport has applied for an FAA supplementary discretion
grant to construct a multiuse equipment building. The airport's
current storage facility is at full capacity, doesn't have room
to store additional equipment, including no additional room for
snow equipment that the airport purchased last year. The
proposed multiuse building will provide much-needed storage to
protect the airport's extensive equipment.
I just want you to know that I support their request, and
look forward to working with you, and want you to keep me
updated on the status of that project.
Mr. Elwell. We will keep you updated on that request, sir.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I recognize Representative Katko for
5 minutes.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to note for
the record that Syracuse gets a lot more snow than what you are
talking about in Arizona.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Katko. I am talking over 190 inches----
Mr. Larsen. Without objection, so noted.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Katko. Thank you. Thank you all for testifying today.
And Mr. Elwell, I want to talk to you about something I
presume you are familiar with, and that is the unmanned
aircraft system facilities and testing programs that we have in
central New York in my district and adjacent.
The Griffiss NUAIR complex, which is out of the former
Rome, NY, Griffiss Air Base, there is a corridor, a testing
corridor from there to Syracuse. It is well established. It has
a tremendous amount of State support, local support, municipal
support. It is also partly--included is a Tribal reservation,
the Oneida Indian Reservation. And there is a lot of testing
and research going on already, which we are quite proud of.
There have been two times where we have submitted funding
requests or a test pilot request to the FAA. And, given our
very mature program, it was shocking to see that both times,
despite having very, very high rankings, neither time were we
chosen as test sites. And, in fact, some that were clearly
inferior were chosen over us. And that is, to say the least,
concerning to us.
So now, here we are again. In June the UAS Integration
Office issued a broad agency announcement calling for
development proposals from participating UAS test sites. We
submitted a proposal--we, being the Griffiss NUAIR complex--
submitted a proposal, and we are waiting on the status. It was
supposed to be reported this month. And I would like to know
what the--any updates on when we are going to find out about
that.
Mr. Elwell. Thank you, Mr. Katko. Could you repeat what the
program you are applying for is?
Mr. Katko. It is the UAS Integration Office at FAA issued a
broad agency announcement calling for development proposals
from participating UAS test sites. We submitted a proposal--we,
being the NUAIR Griffiss and the local.
And I say ``we'' because we are a team, all of us together,
on all levels of Government. And it has been very frustrating
with the selection processes in the past for support of these
things.
So I am asking now. I know we are waiting for a
decisionmaking process, which we are--suspected to get this
month. And that is what we were told. And we haven't heard
anything. So we are waiting--we are asking from you if you can
give us any updates on that.
Mr. Elwell. Yes, sir. I will get you an update on that. I
am not familiar with that particular application and proposal,
but I will certainly look into it and get back to you on that.
Mr. Katko. Are you familiar at all with the NUAIR Griffiss
test site?
Mr. Elwell. I am.
Mr. Katko. OK. How--what do you know about it?
Mr. Elwell. I know--I believe, at least, a year or so ago
Hoot Gibson was running a part of the operations there, and it
is a colleague and a friend who I worked with at the FAA, I
know that they have--I know--I am familiar with the corridor, I
am familiar with the testing and the activities they are doing
there.
Mr. Katko. OK. Are you familiar with the application they
put in a year or two ago for the integrated pilot program, and
to be selected as one of the sites? And we have been, by far,
the most well-funded site, and all had excellent ratings, and
we didn't get it? Are you familiar with that process?
Mr. Elwell. Well, sir, I know that--I remember the process,
but I don't remember all of the individual applicants.
Mr. Katko. Are you familiar with the second application
that the Rome Griffiss made of the UTM pilot program, which we
were already working on there, which was already well
established?
And again, we had superior marks on everything, and we
didn't get that. Are you familiar with that process?
Mr. Elwell. I am familiar with the--again, I am familiar
with the UTM program, but I can't say that I am familiar with
the details of that application of----
Mr. Katko. Well, I would ask to get a quick response to my
first question. That was when--we are waiting to hear on the
application we have made.
Mr. Elwell. OK.
Mr. Katko. And I would like to get that quickly. But it
brings up a broader point.
This UAS testing is a very important thing to the future of
our country. I also sit on the Committee on Homeland Security.
And on Homeland Security, it is clear that the safety component
and the antiterrorism component of what they are doing at
Griffiss Rome is extremely important to the future of this
industry.
And it seems like some of the programs that FAA has rolled
out, the testing programs, the pilot programs, have been
influenced by things other than just getting the best possible
sites to get the money. And I would ask that you take a look at
that, and I ask that FAA take a look at that. Lord knows, they
have heard from me.
But it is concerning that, in such an important and vital
program, that extraneous things seem to be influencing who gets
test pilots and who gets priority in funding and priority in
testing. And we have the best monied base, one of the best
supported test sites in all the country. And we have been
supported greatly by industry. And I ask that you take it a
little more seriously, moving forward.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Before we move forward, just for
those Members who are here in order on our side, we have Lynch
and Garcia. And on the Republican side, Stauber, Massie, and
Fitzpatrick.
And before we go to Steve Lynch, I just want to ask Mr.
Stauber if he wanted to get in on the who has the most snow in
the world contest taking place in the committee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I was thinking the same thing, but
I will yield back.
Mr. Larsen. OK, great, all right. I will go with
Representative Lynch from Massachusetts for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member,
for this hearing. And thank you to the full committee chair,
Mr. DeFazio.
I do want to take a moment to recognize and acknowledge Ms.
Nadia Milleron. She is the mother of Samya Stumo from my State
of Massachusetts. By all accounts her daughter was a bright and
remarkable young woman. She was tragically killed in the
Ethiopian 737 MAX air disaster. She is here with other members
of victims' families, and we are indeed grateful for their
willingness to come forward and to hold people accountable in
memory of their loved ones.
Mr. Elwell, so I have to just take some exception to your
description of the FAA's willingness to engage with the
community, local communities. You know where this is going,
right?
In your response to Ms. Craig and Ms. Davids you talked
about the way the FAA goes out and meets with local communities
that are affected. And I have to tell you I have been here 18
years. I have been looking for meetings probably for the last
12. We have had one community meeting in my area, Logan
Airport, in Milton. We got 700 people there. There was a
Celtics game that night, and we still got 700 people there.
People are--my phone blew up. When you were saying how good
the FAA was with community engagement, my phone blew up. I know
of the people in Milton and South Boston and Dorchester are
throwing stuff at their TVs right now because of your
statement. So that is totally false. That is totally false, and
we need to do better, OK?
I am not going to go further than that, but it is
deplorable, your outreach. The only reason that we had the one
meeting that we had--I put a floor amendment on to pull $25
million from the last FAA authorization because you weren't
doing outreach. And Mr. Shuster, who was the Republican chair,
agreed with me. And then we had a meeting with the DOT
Secretary, myself, and Mr. Shuster. And for $25 million, me
withdrawing my amendment to remove $25 million from the FAA
budget, they gave me a meeting. And I will do it again, if that
is what it takes. But it shouldn't. It shouldn't.
By the way, there is some good news from the FAA. Look, I
was one of the people that sponsored this healthy study,
because you are putting thousands and thousands of planes over
the same houses in Milton, Massachusetts, and Hull in South
Boston, and Dorchester. And I think it is impacting the health
of my constituents. So we are going to do a study.
We could do a meeting, a public meeting, and the FAA could
come in and talk about their work with the Boston University
School of Public Health. You know, Dr. Levy is running that.
That is good news. You could talk about the fact that the FAA
has funded--you didn't say this, but the FAA has funded the
emissions study that we asked for for pollution over these
homes. And also, the noise study. You have done that, as well.
That is good news. You could come into my district and talk to
my constituents and explain about the good things you are
trying to do.
But that is not the history we have had with you. It is
like pulling teeth to get the FAA to come in and talk to
people.
I have to describe the attitude of the Boston office of the
FAA is, you know, they treat us with contempt. They really do.
They really do. And so people are upset.
You have got some good news to tell of the things you are
trying to do, you just need to tell them, come in and tell
them.
They yell at me, they will probably--you know, they will
probably--the folks are pretty mad about what is going on, you
know. You get thousands and thousands of flights over the same
homes every single day, and that gets people upset.
You have got a study in here to talk about dispersal. Let's
talk about that. But, you know, we need to do better.
Also, on behalf of my colleague, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
who sits beside me--and she is also my cochair of the Quiet
Skies Caucus--we have been trying to get the new Administrator
for the FAA in to meet with the Quiet Skies Caucus for a while
now. We sent a letter on August 5th, and we have not heard
back. So we would really appreciate it if they would deign to
just attend with us and talk about these issues.
But I think that is all I have got, Mr. Chairman. But we
really got to do much better. And I think I speak on behalf of
my other colleagues that represent metro areas that have
airports in them, that we really got to do a much better job
with community communication between us and the FAA, OK? Thank
you, I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. I recognize
Representative Stauber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
you holding this meeting. I want to give you a scenario, and I
will be--I think I could be pretty detailed on it to make my
point.
Let's say a husband and wife, four kids, one with special
needs--let's say it is Down syndrome--the child is severe and
profound, walks very slow, loveable kid. And that family
decides to leave Duluth, Minnesota, let's say, to come to
Washington, DC, for example. And the special needs child in
that family walks slow, he is being pushed down the aisle. And
the plane is delayed, the family has that connection in
Minneapolis to come to DC.
The plane is delayed, and the family were to ask the flight
attendant, ``Can you help? We have a special needs child. We
are delayed now.'' Is there some wheelchair accessible folks
that can meet that family to get them--to make their flight to
DC? And keep in mind this child walks slow, he walks at his
pace. And the answer is, ``We are not sure.''
So the family gets off the plane. They have got about 17
minutes to get down to a gate that is in the different part of
the airport. And they make their flight, barely. Mom and Dad
are stressed. The other kids are frustrated. And so is the
child.
Can you imagine? I just gave you the scenario. Do you know
who that family is? That is my family. The new Reauthorization
Act requires the assistance of individuals with special needs
to have the best practices. I would say, Mr. Szabat, please, as
you put this forward, talk to the special needs community and
those people with disabilities. They know the best and their
families.
With that being said, as the gentleman spoke earlier, FAA
is doing some great things. I fly it every week. I see the
successes. But please take that seriously, when there are
suggestions, because the stress that my family was put under to
make the inauguration of me, the swearing in, was critically
important. And it was very stressful during that period of
time, when we couldn't get that assistance we needed.
And I am not blaming anybody, Mr. Szabat. I am telling you
the experience from a Member of Congress on this subcommittee.
I am so grateful to be here to share this with you, because I
think personal stories matter. And I trust that you will take
not only my concern, but the others' concern as you put in best
practices for our special needs and disabled community.
And with that I want to quickly ask what is--what are we
doing--are you seeing some good suggestions coming forward to
make it easier, less stressful, and to make it--the special
needs population, where they are treated fairly and equally?
Can you give me some ideas where you are at right now?
Mr. Szabat. Thank you for the question, Congressman, for
your obvious passion on the issue, and for your work and the
committee's work of putting these provisions into the FAA
reauthorization, both for wheelchair access and for trained
service for the people who are required to take wheelchairs.
Like you, we take these requirements seriously.
With that, I want to turn this over to Assistant General
Counsel Blane Workie, who is also our aviation consumer
advocate, and has been working with advocates on this issues.
Ms. Workie. Thank you for that question. I am very sorry to
hear about what happened to your family, or any family that
experiences that kind of difficulty in obtaining access when
they travel. That is simply not acceptable.
We enforce the Air Carrier Access Act, which prohibits
discrimination against air travelers with disability. We
investigate every disability complaint that we receive, and we
send a response to the complainant, let them know how their
complaint has been resolved.
We also work very closely with the----
Mr. Stauber. So I just have 30 seconds. What I am asking is
do you have anything today on some best practices that you are
implementing that--with the information you have? And I only
have 20 seconds.
Ms. Workie. Sure. So if you only have 20 seconds, I will
say take a look at our website. We do have best practices
available on our website, airconsumer.dot.gov. There is
information on disability access.
We are also going to be working on some of these issues
with the Air Carrier Access Act Advisory Committee.
Mr. Stauber. I look forward to the results, and thank you,
Mr. Chair, for bringing up the special needs population in your
opening statement.
Mr. Larsen. You are very welcome. I now turn to Mr. Garcia
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, as
well. While I was not a Member of the Congress when the 115th
Congress passed the long-term FAA reauthorization, I have
followed its implementation.
Mr. Elwell, Mr. Szabat, I understand that some of the over
400 mandates in the FAA bill had short implementation
timelines. Having said that, I am really concerned about the
time it has taken to advance several safety provisions that I
personally think ought to be advanced more quickly. I will just
leave it at that.
A question for Mr. Elwell. Before I get into the 2018 FAA
bill I do want to ask you directly, like I did earlier this
year, of safety workers testifying before this committee.
In 2012 and 2016--twice, now--Congress directed the FAA to
address safety gaps between domestic aircraft repair stations
and foreign repair stations. The FAA is now more than 7 years
overdue to create an enforceable rule to raise the standards
for foreign repair stations regarding security background
checks and alcohol testing. When will the FAA implement this
rule?
Mr. Elwell. Mr. Garcia, thank you for that question.
Obviously, as testified before this committee on several
occasions, it is a very, very complex rule, requires
navigation. The law requires that we navigate the home country
laws with regard to alcohol testing.
But obviously, also, the beginning of this rulemaking and
the law that was first passed predates me. And so, if you would
permit, I would ask our expert----
Mr. Garcia. Briefly, please.
Mr. Elwell. Yes.
Ms. Liu. Good afternoon, sir. So we did actually publish an
ANPRM, an advanced notice for proposed rulemaking in 2014. We
were seeking comments on how we would implement the provision
because of the complexity of working with the various
international partners.
We were able to get some information on cost-benefit
analysis, as well as the systems that are in place in the
foreign locations where we have repair stations that are
certified.
I think we have drafted an ANPRM. It is actually in
coordination. It is not easy to draft a rule of general
applicability with the various international frameworks that
are existing related to drug and alcohol testing. So I would
say that it is a rule that we have drafted. We hope to move it
through the executive coordination, so that we can publish that
notice for comment, so that we can gather some more
information, so that we can prepare for the implementation.
However, in the meantime, I think we have made improvements
to address the risk. Under part 145 certification, which is for
the repair station, we actually established an MOU with TSA and
the FAA in the background checks, so that we can address the
security aspects of those people. We may not be able to look at
drug and alcohol, but we can look at the security application,
based on their background checks.
And also, as a 121 operator, which is an air carrier
operator, they--has the responsibility to have a safety
management system. Any part of their system which could include
repair station certifications, if they would be utilizing
through contractual benefits, they are responsible to address
any risks that they would see there, and ensure that they
mitigate that risk.
Mr. Garcia. OK, thank you. I think that will suffice for
now, because my time will run out if I let you continue.
On the topic of safety, in the 2018 bill the questions of
minimum seat size, distance between rows, safety, and
evacuation times has been addressed by Chairman DeFazio. I
thank him for that.
The third question, Mr. Elwell, after leaving them out in
the 2012 bill, the 2018 FAA bill instructed the Department of
Transportation to implement a 10-hour rest period for flight
attendants. Mind you, these flight attendants can often work up
to 16-hour shifts, and the rest period does not take into
account time for deplaning to get to and from hotel to actually
rest.
The DOT missed the statutory deadline to implement the rule
by November 4 of 2018, and did not even begin a formal process
until February of this year. I understand you may be starting
action now. What took so long, and why did DOT feel the need to
do a full comment period when the law this body passed gave no
discretion to augment how the regulation should be written?
Mr. Elwell. Well, sir, thank you for that question. As we
talked about this earlier, the law was clear. However, it did
not absolve us of the responsibility to do notice and comment.
And for a rule that does not impose directly on the operators,
FAA has no choice but to go through rulemaking, and notice and
comment, and benefit-cost analysis, which is the biggest reason
why it has taken so long.
But, as we mentioned earlier, sir, the fatigue risk
management plans are being submitted at a good clip by the 48
different carriers that have flight attendants, and that is--
meets the need while we go through this rulemaking period.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Before we go to Mr. Massie and Mr.
Fitzpatrick--those are the only two Members I have left,
barring any other Members who come--I do plan to take a 5-
minute break to reset the panelists.
However, if folks who are on the second panel want to take
an opportunity now for a comfort break, the timing is about
right. So if folks want to think about that--but we will be
taking a 5-minute break between panelists.
And with that I will turn to--I think Mr. Massie is next.
Mr. Massie. So I am the only thing standing in between them
and their break?
Mr. Larsen. You can handle the pressure, Tom.
Mr. Massie. All right. Maybe I will get quick answers.
Mr. Elwell, I am glad to see a pilot in your position, a
commercial pilot. I am sure that is helpful to the taxpayers
and to all of us, to have your view of things.
I want to focus on the data communications portion of
NextGen, and the implementation of that. Specifically, the
controller-pilot data link. Can you talk about the benefits of
that, and the projected benefits, and what some of the benefits
are we have seen?
Mr. Elwell. So thanks for that question. CPDLC, controller-
pilot data link communications, actually was--the test base for
that was Miami and the 757, when I was flying the 757 for
American. So I am proud to be----
Mr. Massie. I thought you might have some relevant
experience.
Mr. Elwell. Yes. So I am proud to be one of the first
pilots to tear off that strip of paper from the controller
saying to climb to 16,000.
And so--but that--I don't mean to be light about that. The
DataComm, as it is called now, has huge benefits, especially--
we implemented it over 50 towers on the surface, because,
instead of sitting there for 20 minutes, waiting to get a word
in edgewise at a very, very busy airport, you just get a
display of what your clearance is, you push a button, you
accept it. It vastly eliminates read-back and transcription
errors. And, of course, in efficiency and time, not having the
chatter on the radio cleans up the radio. Situational awareness
is enhanced. I could go on for a long time about the value of
it.
And I know where you are going. If you want me to help on
CVG----
Mr. Massie. Yes, that is exactly where I am going, because,
also, fuel savings and safety are benefits of that system.
But what I am told by people who like the system--and they
say it is a bright spot, actually, in the NextGen
implementation--that there are some less bright spots and some
delays here and there, but--and this is one example where it
has been helpful.
Mr. Elwell. Yes.
Mr. Massie. And I am told at the CVG Airport--and then I
will open up and let you tell me if this is true--that they
have already made the capital investment to implement this, and
that most of the planes that land and take off there have made
that capital investment on their own.
And just for your information, which I am sure you probably
are already aware of, the CVG Airport, cargo has doubled there
in the past 5 years. Amazon located their hub there, DHL moved
their hub there. Passenger flights originating there have
doubled in the last 5 years. And what they are wondering is
when can they turn that on, because it is--and I will open it
up to you.
Mr. Elwell. Yes, sir. I am well aware of that, and CVG has
had exciting growth, and they have--importantly, have the
capacity for that growth, so it is a good thing to see.
One of the criteria for doing and putting DataComm into an
airport is to assess the equipage rate by all operators at it.
Because if you don't have the equipage critical mass, then
turning it on doesn't make much sense. So we are in the process
of looking at that. And once we have the capabilities in the
tower, and we have the equipage on the ground, I don't see a
reason why we wouldn't turn it on.
So we will get back to you. If there is something that
either--CVG can help us to get there, we will let you know. But
I agree, it is the right thing to do, and in every place we can
do it, we are trying to do it.
Mr. Massie. Obviously, the air traffic controllers would
need some training on it, but the capital investment is just
sitting there, unused. That is the capital investment that the
taxpayer or the feepayers at the airports have made.
And then entire fleets there have this technology already
in their planes. They were told, ``You make this investment,
then FAA will uphold its side of the deal, and you will reap
these benefits.'' And so they have made those investments, the
FAA has made those investments. And it is --I mean the volume
there, I think, easily justifies it. Now, maybe it didn't 5
years ago, when the plan was put forward, but of the--I mean I
am glad there are 62 airports that have it. Please get back to
me and let me know when you think we can get that at CVG.
We are a little bit--I am a little bit concerned that the
focus has already moved on to phase 2, which is the en route
system. But that is a little--having a little rockier roll-out.
Why don't we go ahead and get some of the benefits of the
system? We know it works at other airports.
So thank you very much for your time, thank you for being
aware of that situation.
Mr. Elwell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Representative Massie. I recognize
Representative Fitzpatrick for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Elwell, the question that I have for you pertains to an
issue myself, my Democratic colleague, Josh Gottheimer, and
many, many of my Democratic and Republican colleagues both in
the House and the Senate care deeply about: the issue of
secondary barriers.
Ellen Saracini--she is with us here today--is the widow of
Victor Saracini, a constituent of mine who was the pilot of
flight 175 that flew into the South Tower of the World Trade
Center at 9:03 that morning. And last year Congress passed the
FAA Reauthorization bill, including section 336, named the
Saracini Aviation Safety Act of 2018, which mandated secondary
barriers in the cockpit of all new aircrafts.
The mission is not complete until we get retrofitting. We
will not stop until we get secondary barriers in every single
aircraft that carries passengers. It is one of the few, if not
the only 9/11 Commission report yet to be implemented 18 years
after 9/11. The deadline is coming up for the implementation of
secondary barriers. And where does the process stand, and what
has caused the slow progress on implementation?
Mr. Elwell. Well, sir, thank you for that question. And as
someone who was intimately familiar in 9/11 as a DC-based pilot
with American Airlines at the time, and someone who knew the
entire crew of flight 77, I can connect very strongly to this
effort. We are committed--I personally am committed--to seeing
that it gets done, and consistent with the law.
And to answer your question, right now the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee has this task to provide comment.
And I know that we have had this discussion, we have gone back
and forth a few times. Rulemaking is required. It just--it is
just--it just is. Rulemaking is required for the secondary
barriers. And we have begun that process, and we will see it to
its conclusion. And it will apply to new production, and--but
we have to do it safely, we have to do it by the law with notes
and comment, and--but it--but we are going to get it done.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Do you anticipate that it will be done by
the deadline?
Mr. Elwell. I am sorry, the question is by the 18-month
deadline?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Correct.
Mr. Elwell. So we won't have the rulemaking done by that
deadline.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Do you know when it will be done?
Mr. Elwell. Well, sir, we will work as expeditiously as the
rulemaking allows. Rulemaking, once--the issue, of course, is
giving enough notice and comment time for each stage of the
process, which is what always elongates rulemaking. And I
can't--it is--I can get back to you on a more granular
prediction, but I don't have one right----
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Please do, sir.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record a letter written by Ms. Saracini to this
committee.
Mr. Larsen. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]

Letter of September 26, 2019, from Ellen Saracini, Widow of Captain
Victor J. Saracini, United Flight 175, Which Struck the South Tower of
the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Brian K. Fitzpatrick
September 26, 2019.
Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves,
House Aviation Subcommittee,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves,
Late last year, the Congress passed the FAA Re-authorization Bill,
including section 336, named the Saracini Aviation Safety Act of 2018
which mandated secondary barriers in the cockpit on new aircraft.
The law required the FAA to report back to Congress by Oct 6, 2019
how they were going to implement this important new security
enhancement. Now, with less than a month before the due date, the FAA
has just recently selected the working group but today has no meetings
scheduled, making it nearly impossible to meet the Congress mandated
timeline. How can this be allowed? Instead of moving forward on
protecting Americans, the FAA will once again drag their feet and ask
for an extension.
America just commemorated the 18th anniversary of the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001. At the core of our commercial aviation
security failures was an acknowledgment of the vulnerability of
airplane flight decks. Congress spoke, passed laws meant to secure our
aircraft, but key weaknesses still exists. The known vulnerability to
the flight deck during door transition, was never resolved. The fact
that we have installed an impenetrable cockpit door that still opens
unprotected during flight, validates this truth. The vulnerability
remains and now we cannot protect the cockpit if breached and a
terrorist closes the door behind them. After 18 years, a comprehensive
RTCA study and an FAA Advisory Circular certified this vulnerability,
we are still exposed to a 9-11 type attack. And now, a year after
passage of this bill, this vulnerability still exists and we are no
closer to protecting our crews and passengers than we were 18 years
ago.
Why? Why would the FAA apparently thwart the will of Congress by
not doing their job? Why would the FAA fail to act when the RTCA
Committee made it clear that current flight deck protection procedures
don't work? Why would they water down interpretation of AC 120-110 to
the point of irrelevance? Why would they only ``suggest'' we hold off a
200-pound intruder for 5 seconds, but do nothing to regulate this, when
they know it is not being adhered to and when they know that the most
robust procedures currently used will not thwart off an attack unless
we use a secondary barrier? Why would the industry's trade association,
A4A, fight so hard to keep from closing up this vulnerability to the
flight deck?
What is Congress prepared to do to make sure its will is respected?
How many delays will be tolerated as the FAA fails at doing as directed
by Congress? Who will be held accountable? Clearly Congress should not
consider that the FAA actually would do their job with passage of a
bill mandating secondary barriers only on newly manufactured airplanes.
Even when the FAA reluctantly implements this law, there will still be
the issue of the vulnerability to the thousands of existing airplanes
that will not be required to install secondary barriers, until Congress
decides to finish the job they set out to do 18 years ago and
``prohibit unauthorized access to the airplane cockpit''.
In the 9/11 Commission report, the authors expressed the essence of
the Nation's failures that led to 9/11. They called it, ``a failure of
imagination''.
This known vulnerability remains. The obvious fix, secondary
barriers on every commercial airplane, still eludes us. What will our
excuses be next time airplanes are used as a weapon of mass
destruction? Will we be able to live with these excuses? I know 2,977
innocents who didn't have that luxury. I know 2,977 families that just
might feel that their loved one died in vain, and that our own country
failed to protect its innocent citizens from a repeat attack.
On September 11, 2001, an infamous day in our history, 19 Islamist
extremists took advantage of the many weaknesses and loopholes we had
in our Visa systems, Federal law enforcement and intelligence
capabilities, and in particular, weaknesses in our aviation security
systems. By simply observing our vulnerabilities, they executed a
devastating attack on our Nation. Our collective failure to protect
America led to the murder of 2,977 innocent citizens. And our enemies
danced in the streets, we shouldn't act as if we'd allow that to happen
again.
Congress, the power is in your hands. Please don't wash your hands
of this responsibility with the blood of my husband, 2,976 other 9/11
victims, and potential future innocents. America is watching, and
inaction could carry dire consequences for us all.
Respectfully,
Ellen Saracini,
Widow of Captain Victor J. Saracini, United Flight 175 that struck
the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 at
9:03AM.

Excerpt from: A Congressional Mandate

On Nov. 19, 2001, the U.S. Congress enacted the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which directs the FAA to
take action to improve airplane security both immediately and
in the long-term. The law gives the FAA the authority to carry
out the ATSA's directives.

The ATSA required that ``as soon as possible'' the FAA prohibit
unauthorized access to the airplane cockpit control authorized
access to the cockpit, require strengthening of the cockpit
door and door locks to ensure that the door cannot be forced
open from the passenger cabin, require that flight deck doors
remain locked during flight, and prohibit the possession of a
key to the cockpit door by anyone not assigned to the cockpit.

Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sir, one last question regarding drones. The United States
has already fallen behind the rest of the world when it comes
to unmanned aircraft systems technology. And these regulatory
delays are stifling innovation and investment.
What are the reasons for the FAA's delays in this area? And
can you commit to the committee today that the FAA will stick
to its current schedule and complete these rulemakings as
expeditiously as possible?
Mr. Elwell. Yes, sir. We are working on all of the
rulemakings, and getting them done as quickly as we possibly
can.
But I would tell you I don't ascribe to the statement that
we are falling behind other countries. There is no other
country that can compare to rule 107. There is no other country
that gives the waivers that we have given, or is doing the
pilot programs that we have which integrate--and this is the
most important distinction we need to make, sir. Other
countries are primarily doing operations in the way of
segregating UAS from the rest of the NAS, or the rest of the
airspace.
We are going in with the assumption that our UAS in the
U.S. will be integrated. It is a much more complex endeavor.
And--but I wouldn't characterize it as us falling behind. We
are tackling larger issues in the most complex--largest and
most complex airspace in the world.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. My time has expired, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I recognize Representative Norton
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I am sorry I couldn't be
here for the entire hearing. I am pleased I could be here for
part of it. And I do want to ask a question that I think is
probably more relevant to my colleagues than to me. I may be
the only of my colleagues who doesn't have to get on an
airplane every week. I just go nine blocks to Capitol Hill,
where I live.
But I read recently something that troubled me a great
deal. It--there were incidents where the planes came down
safely--I was pleased to hear that--but passengers had to
evacuate the airline.
Now, under the existing regulations, you are supposed to
evacuate aircraft within 90 seconds. That is a very short
period of time after a plane goes down. But what these
incidents reported, or what the press reported, was that, as
people were trying to get out of the airline, they were
grabbing their carry-on baggages and, obviously, thereby
slowing up evacuation. That can be a life-and-death matter. You
got your baggage, but you don't survive.
Our authorization does ask the FAA--of course, you haven't
had time to fully assess, but it asks the FAA to assess and
report to Congress on whether the assumptions and methods
certifying compliance with evacuation requirements should be
revised.
Mr. Elwell, I am bringing that up because already it seems
to me that some revision should occur. And I understand that
the FAA has initiated a rulemaking committee to address this
issues. I would be very interested, given recent events, to
know the status of that mandate you apparently are working on
now.
Mr. Elwell. Thank you, Ms. Norton, for that question. We
have created an Emergency Evacuation Standards Aviation
Rulemaking Committee, ARC, and its first meeting is in a matter
of weeks, I believe. And we are going to use the ARC, which, of
course, as you know, is a gathering of stakeholders and
industry experts, for their comment and their advice on how to
go forward.
We have been having an active conversation with this
committee, and with our stakeholders, and I can't remember if
you were here when we talked about ground evacuation live
tests. We have 12 days of testing that is scheduled for
November. I believe it starts November 3rd or 5th through
December. We are going to have 12 days. We have 720 folks that
are going to participate. We are going to gather over 3,000
data points.
To your point, it is to--and I agree, and agree with
Chairman DeFazio--it is a priority of his, as well--we need to
look at evacuation and make sure that we have all the right
assumptions, and to ensure that in these instances folks can
get out of airplanes in emergencies.
Ms. Norton. I wasn't here, and didn't hear that,
essentially, this is going to be testing these assumptions,
with people getting on and off airplanes?
Mr. Elwell. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Norton. Because my last question was going to be where
did 90 seconds come from. One of the things I will be
interested in is whether or not anybody tested to see whether
it is realistic to believe that people--a full airplane can get
off in 90 seconds, and if that was just pulled out of the air,
or if it was based on testing.
Mr. Elwell. I can get back to you on the assumptions, of
the original assumptions of the 90 seconds. Of course, the
assumptions of getting off an airplane have to do with
flammability, survivability, cabin filling with smoke or not,
and every incident is different, of course. Ninety seconds
could be more than enough in some instances, or nowhere near
enough. Or the accident or the incident could be such that you
have all the time in the world. And other times it is just a
matter of seconds.
So it is very complex, which is why we have formed the ARC,
which is why we have asked industry experts to give us advice
on what we need to be looking at. We want to look at the right
things, and we want to do it expeditiously. But we want to make
sure we are answering the right questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I recognize Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Oh, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will make this
brief.
I appreciate the amount of time that you have given, but
you won't be here for the second panel, and this goes back
again to the secondary barriers. And this is in the testimony
from ALPA. And it--I was not aware of this, that you had
already--the FAA has previously developed and published
guidelines for secondary barriers using RTCA, a private, not-
for-profit corporation, that contained design characteristics,
minimum performance criteria, installation and certification
guidance. And it is DO3292011.
And, you know, that seems like maybe we don't need to go
through a whole new evaluation process, and we can rely on that
and then move forward.
Mr. Elwell. Was that a question, sir?
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I guess. I mean are you aware of that?
And is there----
Mr. Elwell. No, sir. We are very aware of 329. In fact,
that is what has--since 2011, that is what the airlines are
adhering to, the guidance that--when you did the example of the
flight attendant standing behind the cart, that is part of
D0329 guidance.
Mr. DeFazio. Right, but he--ALPA is saying that it has
actual design characteristics, minimum performance criteria,
and installation and certification guidance for secondary
barriers, not flight attendants behind food carts.
I don't know, I am not familiar with the document, but I
would suggest that we will get the document, we will review it,
and I would suggest that perhaps, you know, there is more in
there than menacing-looking flight attendants behind food
carts. So thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Elwell and Mr. Szabat and your
team. I thank the teams. Thank you very much for testifying
today. You can tell by the breadth of the questions there is a
lot of interest in the full implementation of the bill we
passed last year, not partially.
And you can also tell by the urgency of the questions the
impatience about the timelines. And so we ask you to keep us
informed of meeting the timelines that we have asked you to set
out, and--on a variety of issues.
So thank you. And, with that, we are going to recess for 5
minutes. And we will get the room reset. Thank you.
We are in recess for 5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Larsen. I will call us back from break for the second
panel. I want to thank the panelists for your patience. As you
can tell from the first panel, from our Members, there is a lot
of interest in practically every part of the bill that we
passed last year. And that is actually good news. So I
appreciate you being here and hanging with us, and for your
patience. I am looking forward to your testimony.
And rather than go through biographies, I am sure--for the
record, I will just put that in later. I think I am allowed to
do that. And we will start with Sara Nelson, with AFA-CWA. You
are recognized for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF SARA NELSON, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION
OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS--CWA, AFL-CIO; CAPTAIN BOB FOX, FIRST VICE
PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; GREGORY
S. WALDEN, AVIATION COUNSEL, SMALL UAV COALITION; MARK BAKER,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND
PILOTS ASSOCIATION; JOHN BREYAULT, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC
POLICY, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AND FRAUD, NATIONAL CONSUMERS
LEAGUE; AND DAVID ZURFLUH, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, PARALYZED
VETERANS OF AMERICA

Ms. Nelson. Thank you, Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Members Graves and Graves, as well. But I would like to
recognize Congressman Fitzpatrick, who is sticking with us.
So, first of all, I would like to thank this committee for
the extraordinary work that you did with all of the
stakeholders to get a long-term FAA reauthorization bill
passed. It had been a long time since that had happened, and
everyone came together, and the votes that you received--we
were 393 in the House and 93 in the Senate. This was a clear
mandate to move forward with very important safety provisions
for our aviation system. And among those was our issue of 10
hours' rest for flight attendants.
Now, this was an issue of safety, health, and equality.
Safety. We had been raising the flag on this issue for more
than 30 years, identifying flight attendant fatigue, getting
through other FAA reauthorization bills the commission of
fatigue studies--seven, in fact--that determined that flight
attendant fatigue does exist, and the best way to combat it is
rest. And yet still here today, we don't have that in place.
Health. Harvard conducted a flight attendant health study,
and the results of those studies were published in the summer
of 2018. It determined that flight attendants have, on average,
between 50 and 400 percent greater rates of cancer than the
public, even though they are a more healthy population. And one
of those factors that contributes to cancer, to the greater
rates of cancer, is interrupted rest.
Equality. We are the only country in the world with
aviation regulations that do not harmonize flight attendant and
pilot rest. This is an issue of equality.
So we worked with you very closely to write language that
would make it very clear and very simple. And I believe you
were very clear with the Deputy Administrator earlier that it
was intended that the rule would be changed within 30 days.
Simply changing one character, 8 hours, to a two-character, 10
hours, to address flight attendant fatigue. The major
mitigating factor that can address flight attendant fatigue is
by increasing that minimum rest by 2 hours.
For whatever reason, that did not happen. We had a
Government shutdown. We had a grounding of the 737 MAX. And
just now, right before this hearing, days before this hearing,
we have an announcement of a rulemaking.
Now, I appreciate the attention of the newly confirmed
Administrator Dickson on this issue. But there is not a need
for a rulemaking on this. This has been litigated. It has been
heard. It has been studied. There is a determination that this
is a safety loophole in our aviation system, and it needs to be
fixed.
Flight attendants do not understand how you can write such
clear language and not get this in place. We have been
negotiating with the airlines to put this in place in the
meantime, and we have successfully negotiated three new
contracts that have the 10 hours' rest. In each of those
contract negotiations at Miami Air, Frontier, and PSA, the 10
hours' rest was implemented within a matter of weeks, and there
was no cost associated with it in the negotiations.
Delta Airlines, hours after the rulemaking process was
announced, announced that they would be implementing the 10
hours' rest, as is defined in the law, by the February bid
month--this coming February bid month--demonstrating that this
can be done in a very short period of time. This is not
complicated.
We still have flight attendants who are out there reporting
to us that they have forgotten how they traveled home, how they
drove home from their trip. They were pulled over by the police
saying that they were driving as though they were impaired,
when only moments later they were conducting very serious
safety functions that the FAA currently says they were safe to
perform, but they were impaired.
Others have written to us, ``Why do we have to go through
drug testing, when the FAA has rest rules that has us impaired
doing our work?''
Others say, ``I had a medical emergency onboard. I had a
long day and a short night. And thank goodness there were
medical personnel onboard, because I didn't have the mental
capacity to address this, or to address the conflicts between
passengers, or to conduct CPR to save a life.''
This is serious. We are safety professionals. We are
aviation's first responders. Fatigue exists. You gave very
specific instruction to the FAA, and this needs to be
implemented right away.
Now we are talking with the FAA. This rulemaking will move
forward, but we would ask that you do everything in your power
to get this to be expedited. I did hear the Deputy
Administrator talk about an emergency order of rulemaking. And
this seems to be a topic that is ripe for that.
So thank you very much. I would like to talk on many more
provisions, and answer your questions throughout the testimony.
[Ms. Nelson's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Sara Nelson, International President, Association
of Flight Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO
Chairman Peter DeFazio, Chairman Rick Larsen, Ranking Member Sam
Graves, Ranking Member Garret Graves and Members of the Committee:
My name is Sara Nelson, International President of the Association
of Flight Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO (AFA), representing 50,000 Flight
Attendants at 20 airlines. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on the status of implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 (``Act''). This committee deserves tremendous credit for ushering
the bill to overwhelming bipartisan support. It is nearly a year ago,
on October 5, 2018, that this comprehensive legislation with long-term
funding containing dozens of important safety provisions and
initiatives for U.S. aviation became law. Our union counts eighteen key
items in the bill specific to the work of Flight Attendants and safety
in the aircraft cabin. Chief among these items and included in my
testimony today are efforts to combat Flight Attendant fatigue with
improved rest, a study of evacuation certification standards in the
reality of today's aircraft cabin, installation of flight deck
secondary barriers, and addressing the troubling rise of assaults
against customer service agents.
Fighting Flight Attendant Fatigue with Increased Minimum Rest
Flight Attendant rest is a safety issue. It also affects Flight
Attendant health. Further, it is an issue of equality. As a refresher
for lawmakers and regulators we will include the details that
determined the need to close this safety loophole in the Act, while
first addressing the status of implementation and need to act quickly
on implementing the law.
The Act provided specific instruction on implementing increased
minimum rest for Flight Attendants.

SEC. 335. FLIGHT ATTENDANT DUTY PERIOD LIMITATIONS AND REST
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) MODIFICATION OF FINAL RULE.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify the
final rule of the Federal Aviation Administration published in the
Federal Register on August 19, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 42974; relating to
flight attendant duty period limitations and rest requirements) in
accordance with the requirements of this subsection.
(2) CONTENTS.--The final rule, as modified under paragraph (1),
shall ensure that--
(A) a flight attendant scheduled to a duty period of 14 hours
or less is given a scheduled rest period of at least 10 consecutive
hours; and
(B) the rest period is not reduced under any circumstances.

The intent of this language was to implement the rest without a
rulemaking process in order to close the safety loophole of Flight
Attendant fatigue as quickly as possible. The change to the duty and
rest rules is singular, only increasing minimum domestic rest from 8
hours to 10 hours. There is no change to duty limitations or extensive
rules such as the FAR 117 that provided comprehensive duty, rest, and
flight time limitations for pilots. It was understood that FAA would
allow a normal implementation period for airlines and direct carriers
to comply with the new rest provision by a date certain, typically
allowing a six-month implementation. Flight Attendants therefore
expected the 10 hour minimum rest to be reflected in schedules and the
operation by approximately May of 2019. That did not happen.
We have heard that a few airlines mounted significant opposition to
the implementation and argued to the FAA that the minimum rest would be
too costly and difficult to implement. These arguments were, in our
view and experience, without merit. Further complicating efforts to
press for implementation of the rest provision was the 35-day
Government Shutdown that halted all progress, as well as the grounding
of the Boeing 737 MAX.
In the interim, AFA pressed airlines to comply with the law's
intent. Where we were involved in contract negotiations, we locked in
the provision as defined by the law. This was relatively simple to
achieve as airlines recognized that this would become the required
standard across the industry once the FAA implemented the law and
enforced the regulation. Specifically, Frontier Airlines, PSA Airlines,
and Miami Air International have ratified agreements with rest that
mirrors the Act since the October 5, 2018 signing. Other airlines where
negotiations are on-going have also already agreed to mirror the rest
provided by the Act.
Frontier Airlines, an ultra low cost carrier with nearly 2500
Flight Attendants, agreed to include the 10 hours irreducible rest in a
contract that was ratified on May 15, 2019. The airline was able to
implement the new rest rule by the July schedule month, less than six
weeks later. The company did not mention a specific cost for this as it
was rolled into the overall cost of the contract.
PSA Airlines, a regional airline with 1300 Flight Attendants, also
agreed to 10 hour minimum rest language that mirrors the Act. The
contract was ratified July 15, 2019 and the new rest rules were fully
implemented in schedule and operation on September 1, 2019. PSA
management did not give this improvement any incremental cost during
negotiations.
Miami Air, a charter airline with approximately 100 Flight
Attendants, agreed to language that mirrors the Act also. This contract
was ratified on October 12, 2018 and the rest provision was implemented
within a month. The airline did not assign a cost to this change during
negotiations.
Horizon Air, a regional airline with approximately 500 Flight
Attendants, agreed outside of contract negotiations to implement the
rest as defined by the Act.
Alaska Airlines, jetBlue, Omni Air, Silver Airways, Southwest, and
United Airlines all schedule at or over the 10 hours minimum rest, but
based on either the Flight Attendant or company discretion the rest can
be reduced in the operation.
Most regional airlines that do not have contractual 10 hour minimum
rest are already bidding schedules with 10 hour rest because the
airline schedules the Flight Attendants with the pilots to avoid
operational issues. Examples of this are Piedmont Airlines, Mesa
Airlines, and Envoy Airlines.
However, language in an airline contract can be negotiated away or
worse. We know through experience that when an airline faces serious
financial challenges, management uses bankruptcy as a business model,
to ask a judge to abrogated contracts. If the DOT and FAA do not change
minimum rest standards as written in the Act, Flight Attendants will
never be assured 10 hours rest.
Recently confirmed FAA Administrator Steve Dickson assured AFA and
lawmakers he would make implementation of 10 hours rest a priority. On
September 6, 2019, under his leadership the FAA took a public step
forward announcing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for
implementing the 10 hours minimum rest. Within hours, Delta Air Lines
announced (see Appendix 1) they would implement the rest as defined by
the Act with the February 2020 bid month--demonstrating the truth that
all airlines can do this within a few months' time.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has cleared the ANPRM.
While we do not believe that a rulemaking process is necessary or
consistent with the Act, we do want to acknowledge the effort on the
part of Administrator Dickson and FAA staff to take definitive steps to
move forward with implementation of the 10 hours irreducible minimum
rest. We urge the FAA to move with urgency through this process to
conduct fact finding expeditiously through the ANPRM in order to issue
the final rule as soon as possible.
AFA will continue to work with FAA to provide all necessary data to
expedite the final rule. While we are heartened by the efforts of
Administrator Dickson, we urge Congress to do everything in its power
to support expediting the process. The reality is that rulemaking can
be a lengthy process and critical safety issues should be on a
different track for implementation.
Flight Attendants are daily experiencing reduced rest and the
difficulty of performing our safety and security sensitive duties while
fatigued. In a May 2019 AFA survey that included nearly 20,000
responses from Flight Attendants at 30 airlines, implementation of the
10 hour irreducible minimum rest continues to be the overwhelming
regulatory priority for Flight Attendants. We continue to receive
reports of rest reduced to the 8 hour FAA minimum between extremely
long duty days. This is a critical issue of safety that needs to be
fixed now.
Background on Flight Attendant Fatigue, Health, and 10 Hour Rest Equal
to Pilots
In 1994, the FAA promulgated the first rule for Flight Attendants
setting minimum duty period limitations and rest requirements. The FAA
stated the action was necessary to ensure Flight Attendants would be
rested sufficiently to perform their routine and emergency safety
duties. Until that time, unlike pilots, dispatchers, air traffic
control operators and maintenance technicians, Flight Attendants were
the only safety-sensitive aviation group that had no regulations with
respect to flight or duty limitations and rest requirements.
In 2005 and 2007 Congress directed the FAA's Civil Aerospace
Medical Institute (CAMI) to conduct a series of fatigue studies for
Flight Attendants.
The Omnibus Appropriations for FY '05 contained an appropriation
for $200,000 directing the FAA to conduct a study of Flight Attendant
fatigue. The FAA was to report back to Congress by June 1, 2005 with
their findings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States, Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations,
Department of Transportation and Treasury and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2005. 108th Congress, 2nd session, House Report
671. Page 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report language stated: ``The Committee is concerned about evidence
that FAA minimum crew rest regulations may not allow adequate rest time
for flight attendants. Especially since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, the nation's flight attendants have been asked to
assume a greater role in protecting the safety of air travelers during
flight. Current flight attendant duty and rest rules state that flight
attendants should have a minimum of 9 hours off duty, that may be
reduced to 8 hours, if the following rest period is 10 hours. Although
these rules have been in place for several years, they do not reflect
the increased security responsibilities since 2001, and only recently
have carriers begun scheduling attendants for less than 9 hours off.
There is evidence that what was once an occasional use of the `reduced
rest' flexibility is now becoming common practice at some carriers.''
Given these increased responsibilities, an inability to function
due to fatigue could seriously jeopardize the health, safety and
security of the traveling public and other crewmembers.
We have received reports from Flight Attendants admitting that due
to fatigue they had forgotten to arm their evacuation slides, or due to
fatigue had forgotten they had unaccompanied minors onboard and allowed
them to leave the aircraft by themselves. There are examples of Flight
Attendants falling asleep or nearly falling asleep on their jumpseats
during landing. These are the same jumpseats that are located next to
the emergency exit doors which would need to be used in the event of an
emergency evacuation \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Speech ``Fatigue: The Flight Attendant Perspective'' given by
Candace Kolander, AFA-CWA Air Safety, Health and Security Coordinator
at the 26th Annual International Aircraft Cabin Safety Symposium,
February 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also have examples from Flight Attendants that have said they
are too fatigued to operate their car, for fear of getting into an
accident. We even have reports of members being stopped by law
enforcement when driving due to the fact that police believed they were
driving under the influence of alcohol because of their erratic
driving. Just prior to that they would have, by the FAA's account, been
okay to operate the emergency equipment onboard an aircraft in a
fatigued fashion. However, as a fatigued driver on the road they are a
hazard to others.
In 2007, an interim review of existing literature on the issue, an
evaluation of Flight Attendant duty schedules, and a comparison of
those schedules to the current regulations regarding rest concluded
that Flight Attendants are ``experiencing fatigue and tiredness and as
such, is a salient issue warranting further evaluation.'' They also
stated, ``not all the information needed could be acquired to gain a
complete understanding of the phenomenon/problem of Flight Attendant
fatigue.'' The report recognizes fatigue as a problem, acknowledges
that the very limited 6-8 month time frame the researchers were given
by the FAA to conduct the study was not adequate, and clearly stated
that a more meaningful, detailed study needed to be conducted,
including surveys and research. Follow-on research began in 2007 and
resulted in six additional reports.
The October 2011 report, Flight Attendant Fatigue: A Quantitative
Review of Flight Attendant Comments, concluded that long duty days,
consecutive duty days, length of layovers, long delays, breaks, and
nutrition were issues of concern.
Summary: 10 Hours Minimum Rest for Flight Attendants is a Science-
Confirmed Safety Issue
Confirmed Safety Risk
Fatigue studies commissioned by Congress and conducted by the Civil
Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) confirm Flight Attendant fatigue exists
and the best way to combat this fatigue is to increase rest. This is an
aviation safety loophole that must be closed, but it is also a Flight
Attendant health issue and an issue of equality. Pilot minimum rest is
10 hours and cannot be reduced. Flight Attendants need the same minimum
rest rule.
Currently the minimum rest requirement for Flight Attendants is a
short 8 hours between 14 hour duty periods. This ``rest period'' often
includes deplaning passengers, exiting the airport, securing local
transportation to a rest facility (hotel), getting a meal, preparation
for bed at night, waking in time to board transportation back to the
airport, transiting the airport and preparing to start the workday.
This means 4-5 hours sleep, if all goes well, between 14 hour scheduled
duty periods.
Equal Minimum Rest Decades in the Making
In 1994, the FAA issued guidance that Flight Attendants should have
the same rest as pilots. When pilot minimum rest was increased in 2013,
Flight Attendants were left behind with an 8-hour minimum rest
requirement. Section 335 of the Act finally accomplishes the 1994
guidance, with 10 hours minimum rest and a Fatigue Risk Management Plan
(FRMP) for Flight Attendants.
Minimum Rest Doesn't Restrict Scheduling of Duty Days or Flight Time
While the pilot rules (FAR 117) included a complete overhaul of
duty and rest requirements, Flight Attendants are only seeking an equal
minimum rest period of 10 hours. Don't confuse this issue with the
rules in place for pilot scheduling. Those suggesting 10 Hours minimum
rest will up-end Flight Attendant scheduling are purposely attempting
to mislead the public. The language to address Flight Attendant fatigue
is only changing the minimum rest--the top recommendation identified by
the fatigue studies that confirm Flight Attendant fatigue exists. Rest
does not change duty days, maximum flight hours or other scheduling
functions. But the Act does provide equal minimum rest with the flight
deck for Flight Attendants who hold a physical, front-facing, demanding
job that surely requires, at minimum, equal rest with our flight deck
counterparts.
The United States lags behind other countries in equalizing rest
regulations for both pilots and Flight Attendants. In 2009, the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) made recommendations
introducing new definitions and amendments with respect to the limits
for flight time, flight duty periods and rest periods for fatigue
management.\3\ The ICAO recommendations help ensure an equal rest and
safety from nose to tail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Annex 6,
Operation of Aircraft, Part I: International Commercial Air Transport--
Aeroplanes Ch. 9.6, Attachment A, Ninth Edition (July 2010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety is at risk as long as fatigue exists. Flight Attendants,
aviation's first responders, must be adequately rested and free from
fatigue to respond to in-flight emergencies such as firefighting,
decompression, medical emergencies, security threats, sexual assault,
and passenger conflicts. In the event of an emergency landing, fatigue
must not interfere with a successful evacuation.
Implementing the 10 hour irreducible minimum rest is about safety,
health and equality.
Secondary Barriers
Another bipartisan provision that needs to be properly implemented
is the requirement for secondary cockpit barriers. Section 336 of the
bill requires the FAA to issue an order within one year to ensure that
all newly manufactured aircraft delivered to passenger air carriers
include these important security barriers. Already, efforts are
underway to water down this mandate by claiming the provision should
only apply to new models of aircraft that require a new type
certificate. A ``new type'' standard would only cover aircraft that are
not currently in production and require wholesale redesigns. This would
delay application of this post-9/11 security requirement for decades.
For this reason, Congress' language is specific to exclude any mention
of new type certificates or models and instead deliberately chose
secondary barriers to apply to all newly manufactured passenger
aircraft off the production line after the specified date in the law.
Any FAA action that does not mandate secondary barriers on all newly
manufactured aircraft within one year will undermine the purpose of the
provision and jeopardize a key aviation security protocol.
In response to the slow response to installation of secondary
barriers, a new bicameral, bipartisan legislation, S. 911 (Casey-PA)
and HR. 911 (Fitzpatrick-PA), has been introduced calling for
installation of secondary cockpit barriers on all Part 121 commercial
aircraft.
Realistic Seat Pitch and Evacuation Certification in Current Cabin
Environment
Seat pitch continues to shrink in the aircraft cabin as airlines
try to squeeze as much revenue out of each flight as possible. At the
same time, passengers are on average are significantly larger in body
mass; electronics can become projectiles and charging cords can
obstruct egress; and more passengers are in the cabin than ever before
with more baggage. Meanwhile, Flight Attendant staffing is at FAA
minimums based on standards set only for aircraft evacuation, not
current-day duties and responsibilities of aviation's first responders.
Flight Attendants are left to manage the frustrations of passengers
jammed into ever-shrinking space. This is not an issue the market will
fix. Safety needs to provide a bottom line.
Some problems with shrinking seat pitch and seat size:

Questions about safe evacuation
Increase passenger angst leads to air rage and passenger
disruptions
More passengers, more bags and conflict over bag storage
Difficult to provide safe passage for passengers with
disabilities

Flier's Rights, a passenger rights group, filed a petition with the
FAA to call for rule making that would set a minimum seat pitch which
airlines could not decrease. The FAA refused to move forward with rule
making. The response from the FAA (see Appendix 2), in summary, was
that seat pitch has no impact on passenger evacuation and that seats
are designed for safe collapse with seat pitch as low as 27 inches.
Without a science-based approach and stakeholder involvement, it is
clear that this FAA is not prepared to provide minimum seat pitch
standards that will help conditions in the cabin and may in fact
further harm conditions.
In 2017 legislation was introduced in both the House (H.R. 1467)
and Senate (S. 596) to address cabin seat pitch. The legislation is
referred to as the SEAT Act of 2017. There were three key components in
the bill:

1. ``establishing minimum standards for space for passengers on
passenger aircraft, including the size, width, and pitch of seats, the
amount of legroom, and the width of aisles on such aircraft for the
safety and health of passengers''
2. ``requiring each air carrier to prominently display on the
website of the air carrier'' the seat size, pitch, amount of leg room,
and width of aisles.
3. Stakeholder involvement and science-based approach--``the
Administrator shall consult with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
passenger advocacy organizations, physicians, and ergonomic
engineers.''

This SEAT Act language was included in the Act. However, in the
conference process, however, items 2 and 3 of the SEAT Act were
removed. The final Act stripped-down seat pitch language is in Section
577 of the Act.
The good news is that the FAA Reauthorization Bill also contains a
provision in Section 337 to require the FAA conduct ``a study on
evacuation certification of transport-category aircraft used in air
transportation'' and to report back to Congress within one year. This
provision includes consultation with the NTSB and all stakeholders
including our unions. The FAA convened the first teleconference for
this issue just last week, with an in-person meeting yet to be
scheduled.
Congressman DeFazio said in a floor speech before the Act was
passed that the FAA should not move forward with Section 577 until
completing Section 337 on evacuation certification standards.
Congressman Steve Cohen (one of the original lawmakers to introduce the
SEAT Act) also encouraged the evacuation study to be used as the basis
for setting seat pitch.
T&I Committee Ranking Member Peter DeFazio stated, ``We have to see
whether or not we can actually meet the standard of evacuating a plane
in 90 seconds as budget carriers and others cram more and more seats in
that are narrower and narrower, less and less pitch. Can we still meet
those standards? We are going to find out whether we can or not. A
provision later in the bill inserted by another of my colleagues, Steve
Cohen, will require the FAA, particularly if instructed by this study,
to set minimum pitch width and length requirements for passenger
seats.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Representative DeFazio, Congressional Record September 26,
2018, pg. H9034
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Steve Cohen stated, ``Americans have become larger.
Seats have become smaller. They have become more dangerous. There needs
to be a study on the width and the pitch of seats to make sure that
they are safe to be evacuated within the approximate 90 seconds they
are supposed to be able to evacuate a plane.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Representative Cohen, Congressional Record September 26, 2018,
pg. H9037
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFA continues to urge the FAA to conduct the Evac Certification
standards study. We also referenced the very real need to do this in
our testimony on June 19, 2019 at the House Committee on Transportation
& Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation hearing on the ``Status of
the Boeing 737 MAX: Stakeholder Perspectives.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Written testimony of Sara Nelson, ``Status of the Boeing 737
MAX: Stakeholder Perspectives.'', U.S. House of Representatives Hearing
of the Subcommittee on Aviation, June 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Service Assault
Our passenger service brothers and sisters represented by the
Communications Workers of America (CWA) have worked hard to address the
decades' long problem of assault on the job from passengers which was
partially addressed in the FAA Reauthorization. This is not a new
issue. In fact, because of the problem, Congress made assault of
passenger service agents a felony in 2001. In 2017, the Department of
Justice and the Department of Transportation reiterated that the
statute making assault a felony did indeed apply to passenger service
agents. However, passenger service agents continue to experience
assault on almost routine basis and have been frustrated by the failure
of carriers to prepare for assault situations and especially to develop
clear protocols in how to handle assault occurrences.
The recent FAA Reauthorization bill took further action on this
ongoing issue by directing carriers to develop and implement assault
incident protocol by January of 2019 as well as a study by the GAO. I'm
happy to report that the GAO report was finalized and released
recently. The report clearly states that assault of passenger service
agents both verbally and physically is indeed an ongoing problem \7\.
It further reinforced that the recent FAA Reauthorization mandate for
carriers to develop and implement assault incident protocols are
needed. We are pleased to report that American Airlines, with which CWA
passenger service representatives have been working, is close to
formally implementing their protocol and we are hopeful that other
airlines are doing the same with their passenger service agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Information on Passenger Assaults against Airline Customer
Service Agents at Airports GAO-19-683, Published: Sep 17, 2019.
Publicly Released: Sep 17, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWA does remain concerned however that proper passenger
notification in terms of prominent and visible signage that assaulting
a passenger service agent is a felony is not happening. We believe that
this is necessary and needs to be part of the protocols that are being
developed. We believe that this must be part of any process. In
addition, unlike the law enforcement personnel interviewed in the GAO
report, we think that coordination between various law enforcement
agencies and personnel is lacking. More must be done in this area to
ensure that greater collaboration and reporting happens where
jurisdiction is shared or in question. We believe it is important for
this Committee to exercise its oversight responsibilities and push the
FAA to ensure that all airlines are abiding by these requirements.
AIR RAGE: Almost all of the 104 airline customer service agents
surveyed for a new GAO report said they had been verbally harassed by
passengers, and about 10 percent said they'd been physically assaulted
by passengers in the past year.
Conclusion
On September 19, 2019 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
stopgap spending measure to fund the government through the end of
November. If passed by the Senate, we will avert another Government
Shutdown in September. However, we are once again setting up a cycle of
short-term funding measures. This will further slow work on the
implementation of the Act. The Senate Homeland Security Committee
estimates that the 35-day Government Shutdown cost the DOT 2,413 years
in worker productivity \8\. Further, the dedicated work of federal
employees deserves our respect and support with long-term funding
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Shutdown cost DOT, DHS thousands of years in lost productivity,
POLITICO Pro, https://t.co/O3478qNmFc?amp=1, September 17, 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Congress should pass bills like H.R. 1108, the
Aviation Funding Stability Act of 2019--passed out of this committee in
March--to ensure the FAA receives funding in the event of a government
shutdown.
I would like to again thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member and
the Members of this Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify. We
are proud of our work as aviation's first responders and the last line
of defense in aviation security. We appreciate your attention and
diligent efforts to ensure we have the proper tools to perform our work
and keep U.S. aviation safe.
appendix 1
September 6, 2019.

Investing in you

Hi everyone,
Ed announced last week not only a well-deserved raise, but also our
commitment to significant investments that we will make to improve your
work experience.
Today, I'm excited to announce that we are making significant
investments over the next few years to address many of the challenges
that you have raised to your leaders and the EIG, and through the
employee survey and FASS. While we're just at the beginning of rolling
out the work, I'm very pleased about introducing these initiatives,
which include:

1. Reducing schedule values by hiring year-round at maximum
capacity
2. Introducing a monthly override program
3. Implementing 10-hour rest--release to report--ahead of an FAA
requirement
4. Blocking aft seats on three additional fleet types for your
safety during turbulence
5. Improving catering performance
REDUCE SCHEDULE VALUES BY HIRING 2,500-3,000 FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
We've heard you--schedule values are too high and the summer rush
now stretches from early spring through late fall. In response, we will
limit peak system schedule values to 83 hours or less (from 86 hours
this year). We believe 83 hours is a good balance between providing
flexibility and not allowing your hours to fall low enough in winter
months to negatively affect your income.
Move to year-round hiring at maximum levels
We planned to hire 1,800 flight attendants for the
forecasted 2020 network schedule. Now we will hire approximately 2,500-
3,000 flight attendants in 2020 in order to reduce schedule values.
This also will have positive effects on base growth, A-day holder
seniority and schedule flexibility. This will be the largest number of
flight attendants hired in a single year in our company's 95-year
history.
This unprecedented hiring will give us the breathing room
that is needed in order to bring schedule values down.

This kind of movement cannot be achieved overnight, and we
appreciate your patience as we work to accomplish this goal. We're
confident this investment will help us move toward a better work-life
balance. As we progress on this journey and consistently have system
schedule values at or below 83, we can reevaluate this number.
INTRODUCE A MONTHLY OVERRIDE PROGRAM
The EIG has identified a monthly override as a top issue. We
support the introduction of a monthly override program and will partner
with the EIG on finalizing the specifics and will share those details
soon.
PROACTIVELY IMPLEMENTING 10-HOUR REST ON JAN. 31
Layover rest has been on our radar since the EIG elevated the issue
in 2017 shortly before the passage of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act.
So while the FAA and DOT have yet to set a deadline for airline
implementation, we are listening to your feedback and enacting this new
policy ahead of any requirement or deadline. This rule requires a
guaranteed minimum 10 hours of rest from release to report, that cannot
be reduced under any circumstances.
Implementing the 10-hour rest rule will affect trip construction as
we have previously communicated. As we work to finalize the plan, we'll
share more details with you about our approach to implement this rest
on a regular basis.
EXPANDING SEAT BLOCKING FOR IMPROVED SAFETY
As part of our continued investment in your personal safety, we are
expanding the current 767 seat block policy to other fleet types,
including the A321, A332 and A350. We look forward to sharing the
implementation timeline in the coming weeks.
We appreciate the EIG and EIG HSS committee for pushing this change
forward on your behalf and thank all of you who have reported
turbulence events. Turbulence injuries are our fastest growing injury
category and your reports provide us with the important data we need to
be able to drive changes to keep you safe.
EVOLUTION OF CATERING PERFORMANCE
We continue working hard to address catering issues such as missing
items, broken carts and catering quality to set a new standard for how
everything gets done right. I want to outline some of the initiatives
we're working on to create the Delta catering standard as well as to
improve your everyday experience as quickly as possible:
Standardizing processes to improve station performance
We're working with each of our caterers to improve
performance tracking by introducing consistent metrics and holding all
of our partners accountable for reporting out on their station's
performance. We also want to standardize the layout and processes in
each kitchen so when you walk in you know it's a Delta kitchen with a
Delta way of running that kitchen.
Tracking our carts to improve your safety and increase the accuracy of
provisioning
We have worked to improve the overall condition of our
cart fleet by identifying and removing damage-prone carts from our
aircraft so they're no longer a hazard or inconvenience to you. The
next step is electronic cart tracking, which will give us full
transparency to all of our carts--where they are and if they are
broken. We plan to introduce this technology next year, and it will
also eventually enable us to know what's on the carts and if you have
everything you need, where you need it.
Introducing airside commissaries
In an effort to provide faster, more consistent catering
for you we're moving provisions closer to you and the aircraft. We'll
start by testing this concept in ATL on beverage only flights in
September and hope to expand to more hubs in 2020.
Using IMCR to launch a new catering handoff
The handoff between catering and flight attendants is a
common source of frustration. Unclear paperwork and rushed loading, at
a very busy time in the aircraft, are key contributing factors to
missing items. This November we will pilot a new visual map of the
galley showing the location of provisions and providing a clear handoff
process with catering.

All of the above represent significant and necessary investments,
but we're not stopping there. We continue working hard, in partnership
with the EIG, to enhance IFS tools and technology; improve the
reliability of our wheelchair program by overhauling technology and
processes; refresh flight attendant lounges and more. And with EIG
prioritization coming up later this month, there are additional
improvements to look forward to.
My goal is to make sure that our flight attendants are inspired to
have a fulfilling career at Delta as well as to lead the world in
safety and on-board service.
Thank you again for your engagement and ideas. Your commitment and
care for our customers and one another inspires me every day.
appendix 2
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration,
Aviation Safety,
800 Independence Ave., SW,
Washington, DC, July 2, 2018.
Mr. Paul Hudson,
President,
FlyersRights.org, 1440 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Hudson:

This letter is in response to the July 28, 2017 decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and
supplements our responses dated February 1, 2016 and March 14, 2016.
The court remanded your petition for a ``properly reasoned disposition
of [your] safety concerns about the adverse impact of decreased seat
dimensions and increased passenger size on aircraft emergency egress.''
In accordance with 14 CFR 11.73, the FAA considers the following
criteria when making a decision about whether to amend current
regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1. The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise;
2. The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and
3. The resources we have available to address these issues.

After reconsidering your request in accordance with the Court's
instructions to address the first of these criteria, we have again
determined that your request does not merit rulemaking at this time.
Immediacy of Safety or Security Concerns.
While your petition asserts that seat width and pitch, in
conjunction with passenger size, raise a safety concern, the FAA has no
evidence that there is an immediate safety issue necessitating
rulemaking at this time. The FAA has no evidence, and nothing in your
petition, or the letter you submitted on April 2, 2018, or the ``Post-
Remand Submission'' you submitted on June 1, 2018, demonstrates that
current seat dimensions (width and pitch) hamper the speed of passenger
evacuation, or that increasing passenger size creates an evacuation
issue.
The reason that seat width and pitch, even in combination with
increasing passenger size, do not hamper the speed of an evacuation is
the timeline and sequence of the evacuation. The time it takes
passengers to get out of their seats, even if those seats are
relatively narrow and close together, is less than the time it takes
for the emergency exits to begin functioning and for the line that
begins forming in the aisle to clear. This is demonstrated during
evacuation tests, several videos of which are now available for public
review by being placed in the docket for your petition.
An evacuation begins when ordered by the flight crew or a flight
attendant, or on passengers' own initiative, when the aircraft comes to
a stop. The flight attendant must then unbuckle his or her seat belt,
stand up, move to the exit, look outside to confirm that the area
around the exit is safe, open the door, and verify that the escape
slide, if applicable, has deployed and is usable. All of these flight-
attendant actions take a minimum of about 10 seconds under the ideal
conditions of a demonstration test, and are likely to take
significantly longer in an actual accident. Declaration of Jeffrey C.
Gardlin, attached (``Gardlin Declaration''), at para. 10. If
responsibility falls upon a passenger to open an exit, especially an
overwing exit that must be discarded, this time can be even longer. A
line then develops at each exit, because passengers can get to the exit
faster than they can get through the exit. Passengers in an actual
accident or incident likely will experience a delay of more than 10
seconds before being able to use an emergency exit. They can use this
time to get out of their seats, and then either enter the aisle or wait
to enter the aisle. The key is that the time it takes to stand up from
one's seat, even if the seat is relatively narrow and installed at a
28-inch pitch, and even if the passenger is relatively large, is less
than the time it will take to get the emergency exits opened and
functional and for the line that begins forming in the aisle to clear.
Id.
This timeline has been repeatedly demonstrated during evacuation
tests. Airplane manufacturers typically film these evacuation tests.
While the FAA receives and preserves general information about each
test, such as whether it was successful and conducted under the
required conditions, the FAA does not retain videos of evacuation tests
and such data are considered to be proprietary by the manufacturers.
However, airplane manufacturers have recently provided the FAA with
videos and statements about their evacuation tests and agreed to allow
the FAA to make these videos and statements available for review by you
and the public. The FAA will place this information in the docket for
your petition. These videos of recent tests show that passengers take
no more than a second or two to get out of their seats, even from seats
as narrow as 16 inches wide and installed as closely as at a 28-inch
pitch. Gardlin Declaration at paras. 10, 18, and attachments.
The FAA has no evidence that a typical passenger, even a larger
one, will take more than a couple of seconds to get out of his or her
seat, or that such time will approach the time necessary to get the
emergency exits functional. The FAA also has no evidence that current
seat sizes are a factor in evacuation speed, nor that current seat
sizes create a safety issue necessitating rulemaking, because the time
to stand up from one's seat is less than the time it will take for the
exit door to be opened and, for most passengers, for the aisle to
clear. Moreover, the FAA does not expect seat pitch to drop so
significantly from current levels that it meaningfully affects
evacuation speed. Gardlin Declaration at paras. 21, 22, and 27.
Regarding seat pitch, although some airlines have operated with
less than 30-inch average seat pitch for decades, seat pitches below 30
inches are still not common today. Gardlin Declaration at para. 21.
Also, seat pitch is unlikely to go below 27 inches under current
technology and regulations. FAA regulations (14 CFR 25.562(c)(8))
require that seats not deform in a crash to the point that they would
impede rapid egress. Advisory Circular 25.562-1B, Appendix 2, discusses
the FAA's application of this requirement, but it effectively results
in a minimum of 9 inches between the front of one seat (the front of
the seat cushion) to the nearest point on the back of the next seat.
Gardlin Declaration at para. 21. Seat bottoms are typically
approximately 18 inches front-to-back, and have been for many years.
Id. Thus, seat pitch is unlikely to go below 27 inches (9+18), in order
to maintain compliance with 25.562(c)(8), even if a carrier could
persuade passengers to purchase tickets for flights with seat pitches
that low.
Turning to your particular safety concerns, the FAA has no evidence
that your concerns raise an immediate safety issue. Nothing presented
in your petition demonstrates that decreases in seat pitch and
increases in passenger girth create an immediate safety issue with
regard to passenger evacuation that necessitates rulemaking.
Safety Concern: Evacuation Testing.
The first safety issue alleged by the petition (p. 6) states that
evacuation tests have not been run in airplanes with seat pitch of less
than 31 inches. This is not true. The comments of the FAA employee that
you cited referred to studies that the FAA itself has conducted, not to
evacuation tests conducted by airplane manufacturers for certification.
Gardlin Declaration at footnote 3.
Safety Concern: Seating Capacity.
The second safety issue alleged by the petition (p. 6) is that the
tests are conducted with fewer passengers than can be carried on the
aircraft. This is also not true. As noted in the FAA's first response
to your petition (p. 2), the number of passengers substantiated for
evacuation becomes the certified maximum number of passengers that the
airplane can carry in operation. 14 CFR Sec. 25.803.
Safety Concern: Human Panic.
Your petition states (p. 7) that ``a decreased amount of space
between seats would likely increase . . . panic, and cause delays in
evacuations during an emergency.'' Your petition offers no support for
why a lower seat pitch would increase human panic. And the evidence is
to the contrary, as discussed below.
First, numerous successful passenger evacuation tests have been
conducted with 28-inch seat pitch, and the FAA did not observe any
indication that seats installed at that pitch affect passenger
behavior. Gardlin Declaration at para. 24. In addition, there have been
several actual accidents and incidents in recent years in which the
passengers successfully evacuated in the presence of an actual or
potential post-crash fire. Gardlin Declaration at para. 25.
The FAA and other civil aviation authorities have conducted
research testing to assess the effects of ``panic-like'' behavior
during evacuations. These tests simulate the urgency of panic by
offering passengers a financial incentive to be among the first out of
the emergency exits. From these, the FAA learned the effects of panic-
like behavior on evacuation. The FAA learned that performance by test
participants is largely driven by whether they paid attention to
evacuation instructions. The FAA has no data supporting speculation
that current seat widths or pitches increase human panic or otherwise
slow evacuations. Gardlin Declaration at para. 24.
Safety Concern: Passenger Demographics.
Your petition claims that emergency evacuation demonstrations do
not consider human factors, such as older passengers, passengers with
children, or passengers with disabilities, who may need more time to
evacuate. This is true for several reasons, but it does not invalidate
those tests.
First, evacuation tests are conducted with volunteers and introduce
elements that would increase the safety risk to the test participants.
Injuries, even serious ones, occur during emergency evacuation
demonstrations. Thus, the FAA has chosen not to require elderly
passengers or children in demonstration tests after learning that they
are more likely to sustain injury. Gardlin Declaration at para. 13.
Second, actual emergency evacuations are subject to a high degree of
variability, such as the amount of damage to the airplane, and not
every variable can be safely and reliably replicated. Gardlin
Declaration at para. 14. Therefore, a key purpose of the 90-second
evacuation test is to provide a repeatable comparison of the airplane
design to a specific standard, not to simulate every potential variable
that may occur in an evacuation such as the amount of airplane damage
and the diversity of human ages and abilities. These variables are
addressed by several other regulations, including regulations
prescribing minimum widths of aisles, cross-aisles, and passageways;
minimum sizes of exits; requirements for emergency lighting and exit
marking; and the minimum number and location of exits, at 14 CFR
25.815, 25.813, 25.807, 25.812, and 25.811 respectively. While the
evacuation tests required by the FAA do not specifically take into
account changes in the size of passengers, such tests continue to be
conducted with volunteers from the general population who have a
variety of sizes and weights. Gardlin Declaration at para. 14.
Safety Concerns Raised by Other Commenters.
In response to your petition, one commenter stated that current
seat spacing made it ``necessary to climb onto [her] seat to get out.''
Another commenter asserted that, given current seat spacing, ``[i]n an
emergency, there is no way we would have been able to get to an exit
row in less than three or four minutes.'' As noted above, the videos of
evacuation tests that the FAA received from airplane manufacturers show
that it is not necessary to climb onto one's seat to get out, and that
passengers take no more than a second or two to get out of their seats,
even from seats as narrow as 16 inches wide and installed as closely as
at a 28-inch pitch.
Another commenter said that, given his height, ``it is physically
impossible for [him] to assume the `crash position' '' in a regular
economy-class seat. Decreased seat pitch, however, does not prevent
passengers, even taller ones, from assuming a brace position, because
an acceptable brace position is leaning forward with your head on the
back of the seat in front of you. Gardlin Declaration, footnote 7.
Other Two Criteria.
Neither your petition nor the Court's decision challenged the FAA's
decision regarding its two other criteria for rulemaking (the priority
of other issues the FAA must deal with, and the availability of
rulemaking resources). The FAA continues to regard the issues and
requested actions from your petition as having a lower priority than
the other issues before the FAA, and, given the FAA' s limited
rulemaking resources, those resources will be dedicated to higher
priorities, as indicated in the Department of Transportation's
Regulatory Agenda.
Although we are declining to initiate rulemaking based on your
petition, your comments and arguments for the proposed rule change will
be placed in a database, which we will examine if we consider future
rulemaking in this area. If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area
in the future, you would be able to track it through one of the two
following websites:

For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on
the Department of Transportation's (DOT) website (http://www.dot.gov/
regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings).
For non-significant rulemakings, you can find the status
on the DOT's semi-annual regulatory agenda, through the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs' (OIRA) Unified Agenda website (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/
do/eAgendaMain).

For the reasons stated herein, we continue to decline to initiate
rulemaking based on your petition.
Sincerely,
Dorenda D. Baker,
Aviation Safety, Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service

Enclosure

Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
I now turn to Captain Fox, representing ALPA, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fox. Thank you, Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves,
Chairman DeFazio. Thank you for that last question to Captain
Elwell.
Specifically, the FAA does have what they need right now to
implement the rule. They just have not implemented the rule on
secondary barriers. That work was done in 2009 by a regulatory
piece that they used for an advisory committee. The work is
done. It covers 50 seats up to 777s and 787s. They are just
stalling and not implementing the rule.
I am proud to represent more than 63,000 members of the Air
Line Pilots Association, which is the world's largest
nongovernmental aviation safety organization.
We commend this committee for its leadership in guiding
Congress to pass a strong, safety-focused, and forward-thinking
FAA reauthorization.
The true test of success, however, will be how and when the
executive branch implements these life-saving advances.
Frankly, we are deeply dismayed by the lack of follow-through.
A few weeks ago, the United States recognized the 18th
anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. Mandating the installation
of secondary barriers is one of the most important, cost-
effective security enhancements identified after the attacks.
In the reauthorization, Congress called for the FAA to
issue a rule mandating these barriers for newly manufactured
passenger aircraft by October 5, 2019. Rather than issuing the
order, as Congress intended, the FAA has bowed to a blatant
stall tactic promoted by special interest, and created an
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, which, like I just
said, they have already done in 2009.
Secondary flight deck barriers are already protecting U.S.
airlines. I know, because I have flown the Boeing 757 at
United, equipped with these security devices. The standard
established at the FAA's request in 2009 is effective; no more
study is needed.
ALPA thanks the 110 U.S. House Members, including lawmakers
on this committee, who signed a letter leaving no doubt that
they expect the FAA to meet their deadline.
We have the data. We know what works. It is time to
implement the law.
In addition, the FAA reauthorization also prescribed the
automatic acceptance of voluntary safety reports obtained
through the Aviation Safety Action Program, or ASAP. ASAP is a
nonpunitive safety reporting program that allows frontline
employees, including pilots, to voluntarily report safety
issues.
Right now, weeks pass before these reports are reviewed.
Requiring their automatic acceptance means safety information
will be reviewed more quickly, potentially preventing
accidents. We have been waiting 3 years for the FAA to publish
an advisory circular requiring automatic acceptance of these
reports.
Again, we know it works. Let's implement the law.
In addition, the reauthorization directs the FAA to update
its requirement for airline pilots to wear oxygen masks above
certain altitudes. Currently, if one pilot leaves the flight
deck while above flight level 250, the other was must wear his
or her mask. Because of hygiene concerns and a priority on
using masks only in emergencies, the International Civil
Aviation Organization established an altitude standard of above
flight level 410, a change that ALPA supports. The FAA
reauthorization directs the FAA to issue new regulations
consistent with the ICAO no later than October 5, 2019.
Again, we know it works, and we urge the FAA and the U.S.
airlines to act.
Airline pilots are pleased that the FAA reauthorization
maintains life-saving pilot qualification and training
regulations. Thanks to this committee's leadership, these rules
have helped ensure that the United States has not had a single
fatality in part 121 passenger flight operations due to a pilot
training issue in the past decade. ALPA pilots will spare no
effort in fighting any attempt to weaken these requirements.
Through ALPA's affiliation with the International
Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations, we are proactively
engaging ICAO to establish a review of pilot qualification and
training standards, given today's complex operating
environment. We know, as do our passengers, that the presence
of at least two fully qualified, highly trained, and adequately
rested pilots on board our airliners contributes to a proactive
risk-predictive safety culture, and is a major reason why the
U.S. air transportation system is so safe.
Clearly, Congress has the interest of the traveling public
at heart in passing this FAA reauthorization. Others should
follow your lead and implement as it is intended. We know that,
for our passengers, our crews, and shippers, every day of delay
is one too many.
Thank you for this opportunity for me to be here today.
[Mr. Fox's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Captain Bob Fox, First Vice President, Air Line
Pilots Association, International
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's)
implementation of the requirements of the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), represents
more than 63,000 professional airline pilots flying for 35 airlines in
the United States and Canada. ALPA is the world's largest pilot union.
We are the recognized voice of the airline piloting profession in North
America, with a history of safety and security advocacy spanning more
than 85 years. As the sole U.S. member of the International Federation
of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA), ALPA has the unique ability
to provide airline pilot expertise to aviation safety and security
issues worldwide, and to incorporate an international dimension to
safety and security advocacy.
As the first vice president and national safety coordinator for the
world's largest non-governmental aviation safety organization, I can
report that ALPA remains keenly focused on ensuring that the FAA
implement these key legislative requirements as intended by Congress.
It is our organization's top priority to stay focused on continual
improvement and judicious oversight to ensure that air travel is as
safe and secure as humanly possible.
By way of background, I am a former Navy fighter pilot and 23-year
airline pilot. I currently fly for United Airlines. I can tell you that
achieving the highest standards of safety and security has been a
personal commitment throughout my career. I can also tell you that all
airline pilots share my dedication to advancing aviation safety and
security, and that these principles have been the foundation of ALPA's
work for more than 85 years.
While aviation accidents are increasingly rare, ALPA has advocated
for and helped develop a forensic approach to accident investigation
designed to identify every factor involved in an airline accident and
develop corrective actions to address them, with the sole objective of
preventing similar accidents from occurring in the future. In the U.S.
airline industry, we now have a more risk-predictive model to collect
data, evaluate it, identify mitigations, and implement them to make a
safe system even safer.
Because of this commitment, ALPA is fully informed and involved in
efforts to bring the Boeing 737 MAX safely back into service following
the completion of the current FAA process. I have led our Air Safety
Organization pilots and staff in collaborating with all appropriate
regulatory authorities and stakeholders in the United States, Canada,
and across the globe.
ALPA has offered our airline pilot perspective on the issues
related to the accidents, including the process and procedures used to
certify aircraft in the United States. We have been in communication
with Boeing, the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, and
airlines, as well as with the U.S. Department of Transportation Special
Committee and international bodies. We pledge to continue to be a
resource for this Committee as well.
Overview
Based on current statistics, 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 121 airlines carry approximately 900 million passengers and 18
million tons of cargo annually. Notably, U.S. passenger airlines
operated under 14 CFR Part 121 have had only one passenger fatality
resulting from an accident since 2009. This safety record is not due to
luck, but rather to the efforts of the aviation industry and our
government partners, and it is due to the efforts of Congress and this
Committee, in particular. During the 20 years prior to the passage of
the Aviation Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization
Act of 2010, the U.S. passenger airline industry lost approximately
1,100 passengers in aircraft accidents. Since the passage of that bill,
there has not been a single passenger fatality due to ``pilot error.''
Strikingly, since 2009, there have been 93 fatal passenger airline
accidents around the rest of world, which includes more than 4,700
fatalities. The U.S. passenger airline record is truly remarkable. For
that reason, we believe that the most important work this Committee can
accomplish is to continue to ensure the United States maintains the
highest safety levels in the world and continues to lead by example in
all areas of aviation, including aircraft certification, flight crew
training and licensing, crew-duty and rest requirements, airport design
standards, the safe introduction of new entrants, safety data analysis,
and many others. This comprehensive safety mindset allows passengers to
board a 14 CFR Part 121 passenger airline and know, with a very high
degree of confidence, that they will get there safely. From day one in
1931, ALPA has maintained our motto of ``schedule with safety.'' It
hasn't changed; safety is still our top priority.
This Committees' continued focus on safety is to be commended, and
we thank you for using your time and resources--including today--to
shine a spotlight on safety. Unless we keep airline safety the top
priority, we risk digression and an increase in accidents, which impact
our ability to make progress on other important aspects of aviation
such as investments in increasing airspace capacity and the
introduction of new types of aviation and space operations into the
national airspace system.
FAA Reauthorization Implementation
In October 5, 2018, the Federal Aviation Administration
Reauthorization Act of 2018 became law (P.L. 115-254). The members of
this Committee demonstrated significant leadership to ensure that the
legislation ultimately became law, and you are to be commended for your
efforts to advance aviation safety. This law, if implemented
appropriately and as Congress intended, will improve the air
transportation system for years to come.
Retention of Congressionally Mandated First Officer Qualifications
In 2018, Congress retained the current airline pilot training and
qualification requirements that are the law of the land. ALPA was
pleased with both this Committee and Congress for making this
lifesaving and wise decision. The best and most important safety
feature of any airline operation is at least two skilled, well trained,
fully qualified, highly experienced, and adequately rested professional
flightcrew members. With a solid foundation of training and experience,
pilots are essential in maintaining the safety of our system and
ensuring that aviation safety continues to advance. Several regional
airline accidents from 2004 to 2009 identified numerous training and
qualification deficiencies that ultimately led to Congressional action
and regulatory changes that significantly improved airline safety. The
last of these accidents occurred February 12, 2009, near Buffalo, N.Y.
Fifty lives were lost--49 in the aircraft and one on the ground. This
accident was a watershed event for the airline industry and aviation
safety, resulting in regulations that enhanced pilot training,
qualification, flight experience requirements, and the implementation
of science-based flight, duty, and rest requirements.
The pilot training and qualifications regulations specifically
require that all airline pilots flying under 14 CFR Part 121 must hold
the air transport pilot (ATP) or restricted ATP (R-ATP) certificate.
The R-ATP certificate pathway can be obtained with fewer flight hours'
experience than the ATP if the pilot applicant receives integrated
academic and flight training from the military or an accredited
aviation college or university.
Today's training, qualification, and flight experience regulations
emphasize significantly greater focus on academics and instruction,
areas of knowledge, and flight experience in various weather and
operational situations. The rules also require a type rating in the
aircraft to be flown for the airline if operated in 14 CFR Part 121
service and increased experience in multiengine aircraft, among other
numerous safety improvements. The FAA made a specific mention of the
importance of academic training when it published the final rule, and
how the accredited academics along with ground and flight training was
necessary to qualify for a reduction in hours. We applaud this
Committee for its leadership in preserving the training and
qualifications requirements last year and urge you to continue to do
so. We are confident that lives have been and are being saved because
of your steadfastness on this issue. The international aviation
community, through the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO), would benefit greatly by adopting a similar philosophy, and we
have asked ICAO to review current training, qualification, and flight
experience standards.
Safety Regulations vs. Bad Airline Economics
Despite the clear message sent by Congress in 2018, there are some
people and organizations who want to address business-related industry
issues by reducing the requirements currently in place to obtain an ATP
or an R-ATP. These changes would weaken the first officer qualification
(FOQ) rules. They believe that rolling back provisions in P.L. 111-216
is the best way to fix their business challenges by widening the
employment pool. We do not believe that those who are advocating for
such measures are properly representing the issue of pilot
availability, which is not pilot qualification requirements but an
airline's attractiveness to the pilot community as an employer.
It is somewhat ironic that some who originally called for the
changes in P.L. 111-216 have since become critical of the rules,
arguing that the first officer qualifications have created a pilot
shortage. Small communities which have experienced changes in the
levels of airline services are also citing a pilot shortage. However,
in both cases, there is no reliable data to support these positions
and, in fact, the data says just the opposite.
In 2018, the FAA reported that it had issued 5,788 ATP
certificates, which includes 1,762 R-ATP certificates. Our research
revealed that the airlines hired approximately 4,600 pilots in 2018,
which is considerably fewer than the number of pilots who became
qualified to fly for the airlines that year. In fact, the number of ATP
certificates issued by the FAA has been higher than the number of
airline pilots hired for multiple years in a row. Clearly, the supply
of pilots is currently keeping up with the demands. We realize that as
the industry expands, more pilots will be needed. ALPA continues to
promote the pilot profession far and wide, as a career of choice for
men and women who enjoy all the benefits that the career has to offer.
Promoting the Profession and Increasing Diversity
ALPA continues to promote the airline pilot profession. This
includes a team of ALPA pilots who promote the profession at several
large aviation events including Women in Aviation; the Organization of
Black Aerospace Professionals; AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and
the National Gay Pilots Association. Hundreds of ALPA pilots also
promote the profession to students of all ages in thousands of schools
nationwide. And for those college students who are in the midst of
their flight training activities, we work alongside them to help
prepare them for their future airline career. You can see some of our
work at www.clearedtodream.org.
All of these activities to promote the profession have included a
focused effort to diversify the pilot community. This includes our
efforts to reduce barriers to entry for minorities and women. We
believe that there is no shortage of individuals who have the
motivation, skills, and aptitude to serve as pilots for a U.S. airline.
We were pleased to support provisions in the Aviation Safety and
FAA Authorization Act of 2018 promoting women in aviation. We
wholeheartedly applaud the leadership by this Committee to include that
section, and we strongly support the establishment of a board that will
be solely focused on women in aviation. We look forward to engaging on
this topic with our fellow industry colleagues. It is our hope the FAA
will move quickly to name participants to this body so it can begin its
important work without delay.
Secondary Barriers Delayed
As we recently marked the 18th anniversary of the tragedy of 9/11,
it is unfortunate that our airliners are still not adequately
protected. Reinforced flight deck doors, mandated on passenger
airliners by the U.S. Congress after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, do not provide a complete solution to the problem they were
intended to resolve. There are times when operational necessity
requires that the flight deck door be opened in flight. That period,
however slight, represents a vulnerability that must be addressed. An
installed physical secondary barrier, accompanied by standardized crew
procedures for protecting the flight deck when the reinforced door is
opened in flight, will significantly augment the intended benefits of
the fortified door and other TSA-approved onboard protective measures,
and add an important layer of security to prevent hostile takeover of
the flight deck.
At the behest of this Committee, Section 336 of P.L. 115-254
requires ``not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall issue an order requiring installation of a secondary cockpit
barrier on each new aircraft that is manufactured for delivery to a
passenger air carrier in the United States operating under the
provisions of part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.''
However, with a deadline just a few weeks away, the FAA has
inserted unnecessary roadblocks to stall progress on this important
security provision. The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC), over ALPA's stated objections, forming a working
group to establish recommendations to the agency on the implementation
of the Section 336 directive.
Clearly, this is a move to slow down or otherwise not fulfill the
obligations Congress placed on the FAA to implement the secondary
cockpit barrier mandate. We would note that 110 members of this body,
including many members of this Committee, transmitted a letter to the
DOT unequivocally reinforcing the statutory intent of Section 336--
specifically, the FAA must issue an order, without delay, by October 5,
2019, requiring the installation of secondary barriers on all new
manufactured passenger aircraft off the assembly line. Failing to meet
this requirement will delay implementation and evade congressional
intent.
Some may argue there are questions about how to implement the
legislation. However, these questions were answered years ago by
request from the FAA to RTCA--a private, not-for-profit corporation--to
develop secondary barrier system guidelines containing design
characteristics, minimum performance criteria, and installation and
certification guidance.
RTCA Special Committee 221 developed and published these guidelines
in September 2011 as DO-329. This document provides the FAA with
guidance needed to develop and issue a clear interpretation of 14 CFR
Part 121.584 to its principal operations inspectors as they evaluate an
airline's security procedures for compliance. It also provides airlines
and manufacturers with approved performance standards that are suitable
for meeting FAA aircraft equipment requirements for the production and
installation of secondary barriers.
We urge the Committee to continue to monitor this situation, and to
ensure that the FAA carries out its requirements under the law and
issue the requirement for secondary cockpit barriers by October 5,
2019.
Safe Shipments of Hazardous Materials
ALPA has long advocated for improved transport requirements for
hazardous materials both as a member of IFALPA and here in North
America as well. We have worked with this Committee to ensure that the
safe transport of lithium batteries can occur with adequate risk-
mitigation techniques in place and are especially appreciative of
Chairman DeFazio's long-standing commitment to improving the safety of
lithium battery transport by air.
Although lithium batteries represent a significant technological
improvement over older battery technology, their high energy density
and flammability make these batteries more prone to failure, resulting
in fire and explosion. The lack of comprehensive hazardous materials
regulations for the carriage of lithium batteries as cargo onboard
commercial aircraft, both passenger and cargo, continues to pose risks
to air transportation.
New standards implemented by ICAO on April 1, 2016, made
significant improvements to provisions under which lithium batteries
are shipped as cargo by air around the globe. We are pleased that
Section 333 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 directed the DOT to
harmonize the U.S. regulations with those put in place by ICAO. This
important and critical step ensures that until there are technologies
that can fully contain a lithium battery-induced fire, the shipments
are limited.
While the harmonization of the U.S. regulations to ICAO limitations
is a good first step, it does not go far enough in addressing the
safety risk created by lithium batteries. Work must continue to develop
and mandate performance-based packaging standards that will prevent
and/or contain a lithium battery fire. Unfortunately, this work has
taken much longer than ICAO had planned, and it will continue into
2020. ALPA continues to advocate to ensure that the threat of external
fires is addressed and that the battery/packaging testing ensures the
safe transportation of these hazardous materials. We resolve to
continue collaboration with the Committee to improve the shipment of
lithium batteries by air.
Undeclared Hazardous Materials Pose a Threat
We are pleased that undeclared hazardous materials were addressed
by Section 583 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which directs
the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop an undeclared
hazardous materials public awareness campaign. The DOT's Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has developed the
``Check the Box'' educational program to begin to address the risks
posed by undeclared hazardous materials shipments, as well as the FAA's
program on undeclared hazardous materials. This is an important effort
that should help raise awareness among shippers.
Hazardous materials, comprised of liquids, flammables, and other
materials, shipped as cargo without being identified by the shipper are
considered undeclared hazardous materials. There are no official
estimates of what percentage of parcel shipments contain undeclared
hazardous materials; however, the FAA tracks incidents where hazardous
materials shipments create safety hazards for various reasons, such as
a leaking package or other type of external evidence that the package
is a safety concern. In 2018, the FAA received 1,346 reports of such
events; 644 of the incidents involved undeclared hazardous materials.
Reducing Health Risk with Oxygen Mask Rule Changes
Section 579 of the FAA reauthorization Act of 2018 states that not
later than one year after the date of enactment that ``the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue a
final regulation revising section 121.333(c)(3) of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, to apply only to flight altitudes above flight
level 410.''
In partnership with the airlines, ALPA supported this section of
legislation. We are increasingly concerned that the FAA will fail to
meet the required deadline for implementation of this rule. Airline
pilots will immediately benefit from the implementation of this
legislation reducing the frequency of oxygen mask use by flight crews.
Currently, pilots are required to don the mask when operating above
flight level 250 at all times when they are the only pilot in the
cockpit. The legislation changes the minimum altitude for this
requirement to flight level 410. The legislation brings the U.S.
regulations into harmonization with ICAO and will ensure that aviation
safety is maintained while also relieving pilots from potential health
risks associated with using the oxygen masks that are not likely
cleaned between each use.
Strengthening Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs
Voluntary safety reporting programs such as the Aviation Safety
Action Program (ASAP) and Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA)
are important, collaborative tools that enhance aviation safety through
the analysis of voluntarily reported safety events and discrepancies
that lead to the prevention of accidents and incidents. The purpose of
ASAP and FOQA is to encourage and use voluntarily reported safety
information provided by frontline employees and airlines, respectively,
to identify safety risks. Without these valuable safety reports,
unidentified risks go unmitigated and remain within the system.
Automatic Acceptance
We were pleased to see that Section 320 of the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018 included the provision that ``there shall be a presumption
that an individual's voluntary report of an operational or maintenance
issue related to aviation safety under an aviation safety action
program meets the criteria for acceptance as a valid report under such
program.'' Directing the FAA to change ASAP to reflect this presumption
will improve and increase the safety benefit of ASAP and voluntarily
submitted aviation safety information by automatic acceptance of ASAP
reports. This should be included in the new ASAP Advisory Circular, AC
120-66C.
Several airline ASAPs already have automatic acceptance protocols
built in (e.g., American and Delta Air Lines). However, where ASAP
reports are not automatically accepted, the safety benefit is delayed,
sometimes by weeks or longer, waiting for an Event Review Committee
(ERC) to meet, review, and accept these reports. Under an automatic-
acceptance scenario, the safety benefit of the information will be
realized immediately. As recognized in Section 320, a report could
still be ultimately excluded when the ERC convenes, and it is
determined to meet established exclusionary criteria. The automatic-
acceptance model works and will now be universal to ASAP, thanks to the
work of this Committee.
Improving Aircraft Air Quality
Section 326 of the FAA Reauthorization called for expanded
education programs, reporting guidelines, and research related to air
quality on aircraft. ALPA supports these initiatives as critical first
steps to improving air quality and health and safety aboard aircraft.
We note that the FAA has missed the deadlines of 180 days for a study
by the Airliner Cabin Environment Research Center of Excellence and for
reporting guidelines. ICAO has reporting protocols (Advisory Circular
344) that could easily be assimilated to use for fume events and would
help to standardize reporting. Similarly, the one-year mark for
educational materials is close approaching, and we hope the FAA will
prioritize action on air quality.
Safe Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Drones
Section 341 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 establishes law
that requires the FAA to continue to utilize comprehensive planning for
the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The comprehensive
plan includes the identification of policies and regulations that need
to be established in order to safely integrate UAS into the airspace
system. However, contrary to the direction provided by Congress, the
FAA is in the process of issuing waivers to large volumes of
regulations to companies, allowing them to bypass many important safety
regulations in order to start a commercial UAS package-delivery
service. Several of the applications, if approved, would authorize the
flights without any limitations to flying over large airports,
residential areas, or other populated areas.
While this ``regulation by exemption'' accelerates the FAA UAS
implementation, it is counter to the FAA's stated policy of ``crawl,
walk, run'' for the introduction of new technology, capability, and
procedures. It also appears to be counter to Section 341 of the FAA
Reauthorization Act which encourages the FAA to utilize traditional
policy and rulemaking practices, not exemptions to waivers. The FAA has
historically established regulations based on accidents and incidents
to establish the current FARs. Aviation regulations represent a safety
framework for which commercial for-hire operations are conducted.
Issuing exemptions to so many of the requested areas appears to erode
the safety levels established by the FAA through regulation, many of
which were established as a result of accidents and incidents with
injury and loss of life to passengers and people on the ground.
We must not allow pressure to rapidly integrate UAS into the
national airspace system without appropriate safeguards in place. This
process must be focused on safety as the highest priority. Risk-
mitigation plans, which have yet to be fully developed, combined with
consensus-based technology standards that will ensure interoperability
with manned aircraft, must be in place before a UAS can occupy the same
airspace as manned aircraft or operate in areas where it might
inadvertently stray into airspace occupied by airliners. When UAS
operate in the same airspace as airline aircraft, the pilots will need
to be able to see them on cockpit displays, and air traffic controllers
will also need to see them on their displays to safely separate air
traffic. Further, the UAS must be equipped with active collision-
avoidance technology. We will oppose any integration that does not
include collision-avoidance systems that are interoperable with airline
collision-avoidance systems.
Small UAS (sUAS) Identification and Tracking Technologies Are Needed
At the end of last month, the FAA announced that their rulemaking
effort on sUAS identification and tracking has once again been delayed,
this time until at least December.
Now that Congress has removed the FAA's barriers to regulating
model and hobby small UAS in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, the
FAA urgently needs to implement mandatory identification and tracking
capabilities.
If an identification and tracking system had been in place prior to
the October 2016 collision with the Army helicopter, much more
information would have been immediately available to accident
investigators and law enforcement. Such a system would likely have
prevented the collision in the first place, because law enforcement may
have observed the sUAS operating on a previous flight, and proactively
contacted the hobbyist about the illegal use of the aircraft. Until
there is a way for law enforcement to identify and track down the sUAS
operators, there is very little incentive for non-conformist hobby
operators to operate sUAS safely.
Commercial Spaceports
ALPA is pleased to see that Section 580 of the FAA Reauthorization
Act addresses the topic of spaceports. The safe integration of
commercial space operations is reliant on a safe location from which to
launch and recover commercial space vehicles. The integration of
commercial space operations likely requires the spaceports to be
located in geographic areas that allow for the launch and recovery of
commercial spacecraft without unacceptable levels of risk exposure to
other nonparticipating aviation operations, including commercial
airline operations. The strategic placement of commercial spaceports
with safe integration of commercial space operations as a top priority
should result in a solid foundation from which commercial space
integration with other airspace system uses can be safely conducted. We
urge Congress to monitor the FAA plan for commercial spaceports, to
ensure that their placement does not add safety risk to commercial
airline operations.
Addressing All-Cargo Airline Safety
It is an unfortunate fact that many of the safety and security
layers working to protect our passenger airline industry are absent
from all-cargo operations. Cargo airlines fly the same aircraft, take
off and land from the same airports, utilize the same airspace, and fly
over the same cities as passenger aircraft. From a safety and security
standpoint, there is every reason to hold all-cargo operations to the
same safety and security standards as passenger operations. All-cargo
airline operations currently experience an accident rate that is seven
times higher than passenger airline operations worldwide.
ALPA is pleased the FAA reauthorization included fatigue-mitigation
provisions for flight attendants and FAR Part 135 operations. However,
the continued exclusion of the all-cargo sector presents an ongoing
threat to aviation safety for all of us. We look forward to the
introduction of the Safe Skies Act in the House to eliminate the
disparity between flight-time/duty-time rules for passenger and cargo,
and we implore this Committee to work for its swift adoption and to
hold the Administration accountable to ensure one level of safety.
ALPA has maintained a strong stance that all-cargo operations must
have the same level of safety as passenger airlines. The facts,
however, speak for themselves. There have been five fatal all-cargo 14
CFR Part 121 accidents in the United States in the past decade, with 15
fatalities. This includes the fatal accident on February 23, 2019, of
an Atlas Air Boeing 767, not far from Houston, Texas.
Two Pilots Are Needed in Today's Airline Cockpit
It is important to note that the FAA Reauthorization did not
include a requirement for the FAA to establish a program related to the
concept of single-pilot 14 CFR Part FAR 121 all-cargo airline
operations. The program would have created a new multiyear funding
obligation for the FAA to run a promotional program--despite, the
agency's foundational safety mandate--in support of unsafe, single-
piloted commercial operations. ALPA took the initiative to measure
public perception of the concept of a single pilot at the controls of
an airline aircraft. In a public poll in 2018, 80 percent of
respondents agreed that at least two pilots working together in the
cockpit are best equipped to handle flight emergencies, while 96
percent said federal aviation research dollars should be directed at
projects other than those aimed at eliminating pilots from the cockpit.
Even when the proposal for an FAA program was removed from the
legislation, we continue to assess the feasibility of single-pilot
airline operations. In short, we have documented many technical,
regulatory, and financial barriers that indicate that single-pilot
operations are a nonstarter either financially or due to safety and
operational factors. More importantly, our continued record of safe
landings clearly demonstrates that fewer than two pilots on commercial
airliners is a threat to aviation safety and the concept should be
shelved permanently. (See our white paper, ``The Dangers of Single-
Pilot Operations,'' at www.alpa.org/whitepapers.)
Fair and Open Skies--Ensuring that Aviation in America Remains Safe and
Strong
While not specific to FAA implementation, we would be remiss not to
highlight the work of this Committee to include the flag-of-convenience
provision in the House-passed FAA reauthorization bill. ALPA would like
to thank Chairman DeFazio and Chairman Larsen, as well as
Representatives Davis, Davids, and Ferguson, for their ongoing
leadership on an important issue that threatens thousands of high-
quality airline jobs in our country. On July 10, they introduced H.R.
3632, the Fair and Open Skies Act. The legislation provides a
bipartisan solution to ensure the enforcement of our Open Skies
agreements by bolstering the DOT's oversight of an air carrier when it
seeks an operating certificate to conduct service to the United States.
Specifically, the Fair and Open Skies Act clarifies in statute that a
multifactor public-interest test must be given consideration before the
issuance of a foreign air carrier permit, revises the public-interest
test to examine whether a foreign air carrier is a flag of convenience
or is otherwise undermining U.S. labor standards, and requires European
air carriers abide by the labor chapter of the U.S.-EU Open Skies
Agreement as ratified by our government--ALPA has traditionally
supported the opportunities created by our more than 120 Open Skies
agreements. When properly enforced, these agreements promote benefits
for U.S. carriers, workers, and passengers. Collectively, the reforms
provided in the Fair and Open Skies Act will help ensure these
agreements operate as intended and that the liberalization of air
services is beneficial to all parties, including nation states, U.S.
employees, and air carriers. This legislation will ensure that DOT
gives proper consideration of a foreign airline's business practices,
including those who may employ businesses practices with questionable
safety oversight or regulatory schemes to be fully vetted before
granting a permit to fly to the United States.
Conclusion
We appreciate the Committee's invitation to offer our insights and
perspectives on these important aviation safety issues today. More
importantly, we appreciate the leadership that continues to be
demonstrated by the Committee to advance these high-priority safety
issues. The airline industry is best positioned to fully meet the needs
of all passengers and shippers when safety levels remain at, or exceed,
their current levels. It is in our collective best interest as
legislative leaders, labor organizations, companies, and regulators, to
ensure the foundation of safety is solid, and continues to lead the
rest of the world. We look forward to working on these issues with you
in the coming months as we strive to make meaningful safety
improvements to aviation.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Captain Fox.
And I recognize the other Greg Walden from the Small UAV
Coalition.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member Graves and Graves, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
unmanned aircraft system subtitle. I am here on behalf of the
Small UAV Coalition, whose members have been involved in every
working group and industry partnership the FAA has established
with the U.S. community.
Coalition members represent the innovative, cutting-edge
technological leadership that is poised to enable ubiquitous
commercial UAS operations. We commend Congress for enacting a
forward-looking policy roadmap for U.S. integration.
Subtitle B addresses all of the issues that are critical to
the development of a safe and secure regulatory framework.
We also thank you for including two provisions that were
necessary to lift the 2-year hold on UAS rulemakings, and we
especially appreciate Chairman DeFazio's leadership in freeing
the FAA to move forward with remote ID that we expect will
apply to all UAS operators.
We are encouraged that the remote ID rule, so far delayed,
is now under review at OMB. Coalition members have demonstrated
remote ID technology based on the ASTM standard, which can be
implemented today without requiring costly infrastructure or
equipage.
With respect to unmanned traffic management, or UTM,
coalition members had been working in partnership with NASA for
several years when we first urged Congress to address UTM in
FAA reauthorization. In 2016 you created the 2-year pilot
program. And, with further direction into the 2018 law, the
program is now underway. Unfortunately, UTM deployment has
progressed slowly. While industry is ready to implement UTM
capabilities, it must depend on a supportive policy framework
to do so.
As for aircraft certification, we support section 44807,
which is used to authorize commercial packages, delivery
operations, and operations of drones over 55 pounds.
The law directs the FAA to set up a process to accept risk-
based industry consensus standards. We find much promise in
this provision, but it will take some time to work through its
complexity.
Right now we support the Specific Operations Risk
Assessment, or SORA, which is a process initially created by
the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking of Unmanned Systems. It
goes by the moniker JARUS.
We also support the FAA's MOSAIC Airworthiness Rulemaking
Project, and the FAA work on developing a type certification
process for lower risk UAS operations that relies primarily on
a demonstration of reliability and durability.
We strongly endorsed the UAS integration pilot program when
it was announced. Many coalition members are participating in
one or more programs, and have had positive experience. On the
other hand, we have other reports that suggest success has been
uneven.
We believe that plenary authority must remain with the FAA
in four specific areas: aircraft, airmen, air carriers, and
airspace. The FAA must retain its authority over UAS operations
at any altitude. At the same time, State and local governments
possess land use and other police powers, and these authorities
can coexist, particularly with technical solutions like UTM.
We support the requirement that recreational operators pass
an online aeronautical knowledge test. We expect many
recreational operators who would otherwise elect not to travel
to a testing center will go online. Unfortunately, the FAA did
not meet the April deadline to develop a test, and the process
to select online testing vendors got off to a slow start. We
certainly hope the FAA can begin online testing by the end of
this year.
The coalition supported extending counter-UAS authorities
to DHS and DOJ. We believe the guidance required by section
1602 should be in place before counter-UAS authority is
exercised. For the same reason, we believe it is premature to
extend these authorities to airports or State and local
governments.
The commercial UAS industry is international in reach, and
it is thus very important that the United States assume its
global leadership role. We urge the FAA to continue to engage
with ICAO and with JARUS, which has developed an effective
framework for evaluating complex UAS operations, and recently
adopted a workplan to address UTM-air traffic control
interface, autonomous operations, and the UAS flight rules.
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 was a major milestone,
and we ask this committee to continue its vigorous oversight to
ensure the important directives in the 2018 law are addressed
in a timely manner.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Walden's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Gregory S. Walden, Aviation Counsel, Small UAV
Coalition
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Subcommittee: on behalf of the Small UAV Coalition, to which I serve as
Aviation Counsel, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on
the unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) subtitle in the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018. I am also Senior Advisor with McGuireWoods Consulting LLC
and Partner with McGuireWoods LLP. I served as FAA Chief Counsel from
May 1988 through December 1990 and have been both practicing aviation
law and teaching at George Mason University Law School for the last 20
years.
The Small UAV Coalition was organized in 2014 and is comprised of
UAS operators, hardware and software manufacturers, and other companies
involved in the commercial UAS sector. Coalition members have been
involved in each and every committee, working group, and industry
partnership the FAA has established with the UAS community. Together,
Coalition member companies represent the innovative, cutting-edge
technological leadership that in just a few short years, is poised to
enable routine safe, secure, UAS integration. With your continued
support, we are well on our way to securing a regulatory framework for
commercial UAS operations that will not only capture, but exceed, our
expectations and deliver untold economic and consumer benefits.
General observations
The Coalition welcomes the UAS provisions enacted into law last
year and commends Congress for establishing a forward-looking policy
roadmap for UAS integration. Subtitle B of the Safety title addressed
all of the issues we believe are critical to the development of a safe
and secure UAS regulatory framework: remote identification, unmanned
traffic management, air carrier certification, standards development,
security, privacy, spectrum, and state and local authorities.
Significantly, the 2018 reauthorization law included two key
provisions--both of which the Coalition supported--necessary to lift
the informal hold on FAA UAS rulemakings, which dated back to December
2016.
Remote identification (Remote ID)
We are encouraged that the remote ID proposed rule, mandated by the
FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, is now under review at
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Remote ID is
fundamental to the development of a mature UAS regulatory framework; it
addresses safety, security, and privacy concerns. As Congress
envisioned in the 2018 reauthorization law by establishing a pilot
program to utilize available remote ID technologies for safety
oversight (section 372), remote ID will assist the FAA in conducting
safety oversight and taking enforcement actions when necessary. While
this section sunsets in September 2023, remote ID should continue to
serve as a compliance tool for the FAA.
We are also pleased that ASTM Committee F38 has developed a remote
ID standard, which is now out for ballot, and which will help to inform
the remote ID rulemaking. We appreciate the role this Committee--in
particular Chairman DeFazio--played in freeing the FAA to move forward
with a rule that we expect will apply both to commercial and non-
commercial UAS operators. Section 349 allows recreational operators and
hobbyists to work with FAA Air Traffic officials to designate discrete
flying fields (``fixed sites'') where UAS perhaps need not be equipped.
In other airspace, however, remote ID may be required of all UAS
operators.
We are mindful that the OIRA process may result in further delays,
beyond the 90 day review period set out in Executive Order 12866.
Coalition members have demonstrated remote ID technology based on the
ASTM standard. They have shown that the standard can be implemented
today across a range of commercial and recreational operators without
requiring costly additional infrastructure or equipage. The ASTM
standard balances transparency with the privacy interests of customers
and operators by sharing information only as necessary. Remote ID based
on the ASTM standard can deliver immediate safety, security, and
privacy benefits at reasonable cost. Indeed, earlier this month several
Coalition members participated in a demonstration of network-based
remote ID.
The FAA also tasked the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) with
recommending incentives to encourage early equipage, and the Coalition
recently submitted its recommendations to the DAC. The Coalition urged
that any pre-rule implementation be consistent with the ASTM standard.
To demonstrate the potential of remote ID to address a number of
concerns with UAS operations, the Coalition recommended the DAC urge
the FAA to sponsor live remote ID demonstrations to Congress, Federal
law enforcement and homeland security agencies, State and local law
enforcement officials, and the general public. Remote ID demonstrations
are critical to public acceptance of commercial drone operations in a
range of use cases, including operations over people (OOP) and beyond
visual line of sight (BVLOS) in both rural and urban environments. To
incentivize companies to implement remote ID in compliance with the
ASTM standard, the Coalition believes the FAA should prioritize Part
107 waiver and section 44807 exemption petitions filed by UAS operators
using ASTM standard-compliant remote ID, and that remote ID equipage
should be considered favorably in evaluating the merits of a waiver or
exemption request because it increases the margin of safety of the
drone operations.
In sum, the Coalition supports pre-rule equipage and encourages the
FAA to move forward with incentives to equip.
Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM)
When the Coalition was established in 2014, NASA was well along
with its R&D work on developing a proposed UTM ecosystem. Coalition
members partnered with NASA in this work and the Coalition urged
Congress to address UTM design, development, and implementation in FAA
reauthorization legislation. The 2016 extension law established a two-
year UTM System Pilot Program (UPP). With further direction from
Congress contained in sections 376 and 377 of the 2018 reauthorization
law, both of which we strongly supported, that Program is now underway.
Unfortunately, UTM development has progressed slowly, and with
little transparency. Industry is ready to implement UTM capabilities,
but must depend on a supportive policy framework to do so. Earlier this
year, the FAA selected three of the UAS test sites to serve as the UPP
participants. The FAA recently showcased UTM demonstrations at these
three sites, but there is no indication that any UPP participant is
seeking to take advantage of two provisions in section 376: blanket
BVLOS waiver authority for any UAS operating simultaneously in a swath
of airspace and demonstration of multiple remote ID technologies. We
remain hopeful that FAA will meet the April 2020 deadline for the UTM
implementation plan, which should not only build upon the FAA's UTM
Concept of Operations document, NASA's work, and the results from UPP,
but also include the UAS industry's work, including as part of ASTM
Committee F38.
Section 377 encourages the FAA to determine, by February 2019,
whether UTM services can be provided before the UTM implementation plan
is completed. We are unaware whether the FAA has established a
framework to evaluate and approve a request from a would-be UTM Service
Provider.
Air carrier rule
The Coalition has long supported the development of a rule to
authorize UAS air carriers that would be tailored to the very different
and lower risk profile small UAS pose compared with traditional manned
air carriers. Section 348 requires the FAA to update its rules within
one year of enactment. While that clearly will not occur, we
acknowledge that the FAA is moving ahead to authorize package delivery
for compensation or hire by granting exemptions from Part 135. Wing has
obtained this authority, with petitions from Amazon Prime Air, Uber
Elevate, and UPS Flight Forward pending.
With respect to economic authority, DOT moved quickly to apply the
existing Part 298 exemption process for air taxi operators to UAS
operators.
State and local authority
One of the greatest challenges to the development of a mature UAS
regulatory framework is to achieve a proper understanding of the roles
and responsibilities of Federal, State, and local governments. Section
373, which the Coalition supported, tasks GAO with conducting a study
and reporting to Congress by April 2019. The Coalition believed then,
and believes now, that it is premature for Congress to make any changes
to the FAA's exclusive authority over aviation safety.
The Coalition believes that plenary authority must remain with the
Federal Government in four specific areas: aircraft, airmen, air
carriers, and airspace. With respect to drones, this means that UAS
equipage and maintenance requirements, remote pilot qualifications,
regulation of package delivery, and airspace classification and
regulation are for the FAA to regulate and enforce. With respect to
airspace, the Coalition believes that the FAA must retain its safety
authority over UAS operators and operations at any altitude, no matter
how close to the ground. At the same time, State and local governments
possess land use and other police powers. These authorities can co-
exist, particularly with the support of technical solutions like UTM.
We look forward to reviewing the findings and recommendations in the
GAO report.
The Coalition strongly endorsed the UAS Integration Pilot Program
(IPP) when it was announced in 2018 and many Coalition members are
participating in one or more programs. The IPP was created in large
part to allow for State and local governments to inform the FAA about
local interests in UAS operations. Indeed, DOT required lead applicants
to be State, local, or tribal government entities. While many Coalition
members have had very positive experiences under the auspices of the
IPP that have demonstrated the promise of commercial UAS technology,
generally speaking the IPP has lacked transparency; the initial report
on this three-year program has not yet been published. Reports indicate
that success has been uneven. From the start, the scope of projects in
most IPP programs was significantly curtailed and waivers have taken
longer than expected.
Aircraft safety standards and certification
As for aircraft certification, there remains much to do. The
Coalition supports section 44807, which superseded section 333
exemption authority, so that the FAA is permitted to authorize UAS
operations over 55 pounds, as well as waive type, production, and
airworthiness certification requirements. Indeed, commercial package
delivery under Part 135 requires an exemption under section 44807,
because otherwise an air carrier may operate only those aircraft with a
valid airworthiness certificate.
Section 202 created the Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory
Committee (SOCAC) and provides for UAS industry representation. The law
required the Secretary to establish the SOCAC by December 2018; this
deadline was not met and the first meeting will not be held until this
November. The Coalition supports the creation of this advisory
committee and recognizes that the focus and attention this year has
appropriately been on the response to the tragic Boeing 737 MAX
accidents.
Section 345 directs the FAA to set up a process to accept risk-
based industry-consensus standards and to allow UAS manufacturers to
declare compliance with such standards. There is much promise in this
provision, but it will take some time to work through its complexity,
and therefore this is one provision for which the absence of a deadline
makes sense. The Coalition believes the FAA shares with the UAS
industry the desire to adapt the current type and airworthiness
certification processes to unmanned aircraft, both small and large. It
will be up to the UAS industry, working with various U.S. and
international standards-setting groups, to develop standards for such
technologies as detect-and-avoid. The Coalition supports the adoption
as an industry consensus standard the Specific Operations Risk
Assessment (SORA) process initially created by the Joint Authorities
for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS). We also support the work
the FAA is doing on the so-called MOSAIC (Modernization of Special
Airworthiness Certificates) process: the FAA has current regulatory
authority under 14 C.F.R. 21.17(b) to adopt Special Conditions for
aircraft designs for which neither Part 23 nor Part 25 is appropriate.
Section 345 recognizes that the initial and primary responsibility
for designing and manufacturing safe and reliable drones rests with the
UAS industry. The FAA must have the final say that a UAS has been
designed and manufactured in compliance with FAA-approved standards. In
reviewing the FAA's Organization Designation Authorization process,
Congress should be mindful that, with respect to small UAS, the
industry will lead in ensuring the safety and reliability of hardware
and software innovations that increasing lead to autonomous operations.
The Coalition also supports the FAA's work on developing an
alternative certification process for lower risk UAS operations that
relies primarily on a demonstration of reliability and durability, and
that scales from remote, densely-populated area to high-density cities.
Risk
One of the central themes one can derive from the 2018
reauthorization law is the imperative to base decision making on the
nature and degree of risk to aircraft (so-called air risk) and to
persons and property on the ground (so-called ground risk), and to
evaluate how this risk can be mitigated. The Coalition strongly
supports risk as the touchstone for UAS regulation. Based on the FAA's
proposed rule for operations over people, however, the Coalition is
concerned that the FAA may be approaching risk in an overly
conservative way.
The Coalition recommends a holistic approach to evaluating risk
that takes into account avoided risk (such as the risks associated with
alternatives such as manned aircraft, or road vehicles) and risk
mitigation (measures that reduce the likelihood of failure and the
likelihood of a collision, not just the consequences of a collision).
At its most basic level, the risk model the FAA identifies in its
proposed rule fails to consider the net reduction in risk in operating
a small UAS rather alternatives, such as a manned aircraft of any size,
operating a motor vehicle or, in some cases, undertaking the task
personally (i.e. climbing a cell tower). UAS operations reduce risk by
limiting the public's exposure to the greater dangers associated with
operations of significantly larger, heavier, and faster fixed-wing
aircraft that are fuel-powered, or the even greater danger posed by
automobiles. UAS operations under 55 pounds are lightweight, nearly all
battery-powered, have no on-board crew, and create no toxic emissions.
Assessing the Risks of Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National
Airspace System, a recent Consensus Study Report commissioned by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine at the FAA's
request in 2017, recommends this approach.
In the OOP NPRM, the FAA uses a kinetic energy standard that
assumes a small UAS has collided with a human being. In other words,
the standard is not based on the probability of failure or the
probability of impact, but only on the severity of impact. The FAA does
not use this standard for manned aviation, whether transport category
or small aircraft. If it did, no aircraft would ever be allowed to fly
over people, and the aviation industry would not exist.
As the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research
Excellence (ASSURE) explained, ``FAA's safety program relies heavily
upon the risk-based approach that includes hazard severity and
probability of occurrence. . . . The NPRM proposes to achieve their
safety objectives by establishing a performance-based standard on
severity of the impact without any clear guidelines or application of
probability of the collision even occurring.'' The Coalition urges the
FAA to reconsider its risk assessment models, and revise its
performance standards in line with ASSURE's recommendations.
Recreational operators
The Coalition supports the requirement in section 349 that
recreational operators pass an aeronautical knowledge test that is
administered online. We expect online training and testing will
encourage many recreational operators, who would otherwise elect not to
travel to a testing center to take the test, to go online and come into
compliance. The FAA set up an Aviation Exam Board to develop questions
for the aeronautical knowledge test; a member of the Coalition serves
on this Board. Unfortunately, the FAA did not meet the April 3, 2019
deadline to develop a test and a request for information (RFI) to
potential online aeronautical knowledge test vendors was not issued
until August. Submissions were due September 19, so we are hopeful that
the FAA can begin the online aeronautical testing by the end of this
year or early in 2020. The Coalition encourages the FAA to ensure that
the test is affordable and accessible to the recreational UAS community
in order to maximize compliance.
Part 107 waivers
A virtue of Part 107 is that several operational prohibitions in
the rule are subject to waiver. In its early stages, the Part 107
waiver process lacked transparency and was far from user-friendly. We
applaud section 352's direction to the FAA to increase transparency and
make technological improvements. FAA has significantly improved its
guidance on seeking waivers, although the UAS community would benefit
greatly from the availability of FAA staff after an application is
filed. The application process has also improved, but waivers still
take too long to be processed. The DAC has created a Task Group to
develop recommendations on how to improve the Part 107 waiver process,
and the Coalition urges the FAA to implement these recommendations. We
do applaud the development of the Low Altitude Authorization and
Notification Capability (LAANC) and facility maps that support
approvals to operate in controlled airspace in a matter of minutes.
Spectrum
Spectrum is another policy area that is important to UAS
integration, as commercial licensed spectrum offers the security,
reliability, and ubiquity, as well as the speed, latency, and bandwidth
necessary to support sensitive UAS operations, including remote ID,
UTM, and payload as control and non-payload communications (CNPC).
Section 374 requires the NTIA, FAA, and FCC to report to Congress by
July 2, 2019 on whether UAS operations should be permitted, but not
required, to operate on the 960-1164 MHz and 5030-5091 MHz bands, on an
unlicensed, shared, or exclusive basis, whether as part of or outside
of a UTM system, and to make additional recommendations if these bands
are unsuitable for BVLOS operations. The Coalition looks forward to
reviewing this report when it is released.
Protecting government facilities, operations, and critical
infrastructure
The Coalition supported extending counter-UAS authorities to DHS
and DOJ in a manner consistent with authorities previously granted to
DOD and DOE in recent National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs). We
note that section 1602 permits the Departments to issue regulations,
but requires them to issue guidance. We understand that DHS and DOJ
each is working on guidance. Although there is no deadline in section
1602 to develop such guidance, we believe that it should be in place
before counter-UAS authority beyond detection is exercised.
Section 364 requires the FAA by December 2018 to have initiated a
review of counter-UAS activities by Federal agencies by April 2019 to
have reported to Congress. To our knowledge, this report has not been
provided. Section 1602 requires DHS to provide a report to Congress by
October 5, 2019 on an evaluation of threats and current authorities. We
are unaware of any reported use of counter-UAS authority by DOD, DOE,
DHS, or DOJ.
Because Executive Branch policies are not yet in place, and there
appears to be little, if any, experience by these four Departments in
using counter-UAS authorities, the Coalition believes it is premature
to consider extending these authorities to other Federal agencies,
airports, or State and local governments. Section 383 directs the FAA
to develop a plan and to charter an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC)
to consider allowing the deployment of UAS detection and mitigation at
five airports. We suggest that any ARC that is established should
consider Federal Department guidance required in section 1602 and the
experience these Departments gain in using counter-UAS authorities in
the future.
With respect to protection of critical infrastructure, Section 369
requires the FAA to propose a rule to implement Section 2209 of the
2016 extension law by March 31, 2019, with a final rule by March 31,
2020. The FAA's current timetable expects a proposed rule by December
2019. We recognize that FAA has used its Temporary Flight Restriction
(TFR) authority in the interim, and recommend the FAA continue to do so
until a rule is in place.
U.S. leadership
Aviation is international in its reach. While each country
regulates aircraft and airlines within its borders, the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) exists in part to promote uniformity
and harmonization of regulations and standards throughout the world.
Since the dawn of aviation, the United States had led the world in
safety improvements, which ICAO has later used in standards to be
adopted by United Nations Member States.
The commercial UAS industry is likewise international in its reach.
Many Coalition members are international companies that will
manufacture, operate, and sell UAS in many countries. It is thus
equally important that the United States remain the leader in aviation
regulation. The Coalition urges the FAA to continue to engage with
ICAO's RPAS Panel and with JARUS, which has developed an effective
regulatory framework for evaluating complex UAS operations and recently
adopted a work plan to address UTM-ATM interface, autonomous
operations, and UAS flight rules.
Conclusion
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 was a major milestone in
helping to shape and advance a mature UAS regulatory framework that
will support continued innovation. There is much more to do before
largely autonomous BVLOS UAS operations will be routine, and there
remain some difficult issues to resolve. The Coalition therefore again
commends the Committee for charting a forward-looking course for safe,
secure UAS integration and urges this Subcommittee to continue its
vigorous oversight to ensure its many directives are addressed in a
timely manner.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you for your testimony.
I now turn to Mark Baker, president of AOPA.
Mr. Baker. Thank you. Chairman Larsen, Ranking Members
Graves, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss important provisions of last year's FAA
Reauthorization Act that impact aircraft owners and pilots and
the general aviation community.
AOPA represents over 300,000 pilots and aircraft owners
across the United States. We are fortunate to have very engaged
members in every State and congressional district across the
country.
I am fortunate to have had the privilege to fly in our
Nation's aviation system for over 40 years. It is an amazing
system. It is very safe, modern, and the envy of the world. And
this committee has a lot to do with that. I would like to
commend the committee for its work in passing the bipartisan--

Mr. Larsen. Mr. Baker, if you could just pull the
microphone a little closer, or speak more directly into it----
Mr. Baker. A little closer? How about that?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Mr. Baker. We would like to thank and commend the committee
for its work in passing a bipartisan 5-year FAA
reauthorization. Public Law 115-254 is widely recognized for
both what it includes and what it does not include.
Today I will briefly mention the key provisions that
directly and positively impact general aviation. I would like
to give a special thanks to Ranking Member Sam Graves for his
leadership on several of these provisions in the act.
Thousands of public-use airports across this Nation rely
solely on general aviation to connect over 170 million people
each year. General aviation contributes over $200 billion
annually to our Nation's economy, and produces 1.1 million
jobs.
With the support of this committee, Congress has
appropriated an additional $1 billion in discretionary funds in
the fiscal year 2018 that will meet the demand of airport
infrastructure needs, and another $500 million in fiscal 2019.
Speaking for myself and on behalf of those who fly in and out
of small airports, we appreciate that support.
For many private aircraft owners, aeronautical activity
occurring in airport hangars include building and maintaining
aircraft. AOPA has long advocated for changes to the definition
of aeronautical activity in hangars. Section 131 codifies the
FAA's updated hangar use policy so that the realities with
general aviation flying, building, and maintenance can be
realized.
Several other provisions in the bill are important to the
general aviation community, including section 556, which, as
you know, requires the FAA to initiate rulemaking to increase
the duration of general aviation aircraft registration from 3
years to 7 years. This is a commonsense provision that will
help reduce workload and the cost of aircraft ownership, which
AOPA strongly supports.
Section 518 will keep the aircraft registry open, should a
Government shutdown occur in the future, which will have a
positive impact on general aviation registration requirements.
We also support Chairman DeFazio's Aviation Funding
Stability Act, which would ensure that all FAA activities are
funded in the event of a Government shutdown.
Section 532 clarifies FAA policy regarding payment of
living history flights, which will help continue our efforts to
attract a new generation of aviation enthusiasts, a future
workforce for the aviation community.
Speaking of our future workforce, Congress and this
committee specifically recognized the need to support aviation
workforce development programs through section 625. This was a
top priority for AOPA. The Pilot Education Grant Program and
the Aviation Technical Workforce Grant Program were each
authorized at $5 million per year for the next 5 years. We
remain hopeful that the appropriations process will move
forward, and that will be fully funded.
AOPA has taken a leadership role in developing our future
aviation workforce through AOPA's high school initiative, by
providing high-quality, STEM-based aviation education to high
school students nationwide. AOPA is opening the door to an
aviation career for thousands of teens. For the 2018-19 school
year our curriculum is being used on an estimated 2,200
children, ninth grade students, over 80 schools in 27 States.
Another 461 students at 25 schools in 15 States are using the
10th grade curriculum. During the current year, 161 schools in
34 States are delivering aviation curriculum to these students.
Our 11th grade curriculum is currently being field tested, and
our ultimate goal is to have a 4-year program that will enable
students to take and pass a written test to become a private
pilot.
While not related to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, I
would like to thank the committee and mention the success of
the bipartisan legislation passed into law, an extension of the
Security Act, also known as a third-class medical, which is
referred to now as the BasicMed. In just over 2 years that the
program has been launched, more than 50,000 pilots are flying
safely under these new medical standards. I am pleased to
report the FAA implemented the statute expeditiously, and
continues to support the success of the law.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we must continue to work together in
industry and Government to ensure our Nation's leadership in
all sections of aviation. We are hopeful that the committee
will work through Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and others to
establish the National Center for the Advancement of Aviation.
Thank you very much.
[Mr. Baker's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Mark Baker, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, Members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of over 300,000 AOPA members, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on the recent bipartisan five-year FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018.
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is currently
celebrating its 80th Anniversary and I am proud and humbled to be only
the 5th President serving the Association since its inception in 1939.
We have stayed true to our mission over these several decades by
protecting and defending our freedom to fly, ensuring that safety
remains our north star, and helping guide this uniquely American
experience so we can pass it along, better than we received it, to the
next generation of aviators.
First, I would like to commend the Committee for its work in
passing a five-year FAA reauthorization. PL115-254 is widely recognized
for both what it includes and what it does not include and helps
provide the tools necessary for the FAA to plan, prepare, and ensure
that our aviation system remains the safest and most efficient in the
world.
We look forward to working with the Committee and all aviation
stakeholders to bring efficiencies to the FAA, under its current
construct, and develop a bright future for this amazing thing we call
flight.
Today, I will briefly discuss a number of key provisions included
in the statute that directly and positively impact general aviation and
would like to give a special thanks to Ranking Member Sam Graves for
his leadership and perseverance on several of the provisions in the
Act.
Section 158--Supplemental discretionary funds.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, there are over 19,000 public-use and private
airports in the United States. These include general, commercial,
military, heliports, seaplane bases, short takeoff and landing ports,
ultralight, glider, and balloon ports.
The Federal Aviation Administration's 2019-2023 National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) report indicates that there are
5,099 public-use airports in the United States of which the commercial
airlines provide passenger service to 509 of these facilities and the
remainder are used primarily by general aviation. As a point of
reference, there are about 7,000 aircraft in the U.S. commercial fleet
and over 200,000 aircraft in the general aviation fleet.
Thousands of public-use airports across the nation rely solely on
general aviation to connect over 170 million people each year. General
aviation contributes over $219 billion annually to our nation's economy
and produces 1.1 million jobs.
These airports are often vital to the economies of small
communities and are used in a variety of ways including business,
recreation, natural disaster relief operations, medical emergencies,
law enforcement, agricultural support, and others.
With the support of this Committee, Congress appropriated an
additional $1 billion dollars in discretionary funds through the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, and an additional supplemental
amount of $500 million dollars in fiscal year 2019.
Speaking for myself and on behalf of those who fly in and out of
small airports in rural communities across this country, we appreciate
your support. These resources have provided a shot in the arm to our
national airport system.
We know the Committee has long recognized the importance of our
nation's airports and again expressed its commitment by including in
PL115-254 an authorization of supplemental discretionary grant funds in
the amount of $1 billion dollars per year through fiscal year 2023.
Funding for this authorization will help airports address safety
improvement projects, including the nearly 3,000 non-primary
entitlement (NPE) airports typically used by general aviation aircraft
across the country.
The committee did address the issue of NPE expired funds in Section
155 of the FAA reauthorization bill and we look forward to continuing
to work together on further reforms to the program to ensure that the
NPE program works for airport sponsors and the funds are directed to
airports for which they were intended.
Section 131--Grant assurances.
AOPA has long advocated for changes to the definition of
aeronautical activity in hangars and I thank Ranking Member Sam Graves,
an avid aviator, for his leadership on this as well.
For many private aircraft owners, aeronautical activities occurring
in airport hangars include building and maintaining an aircraft.
However, surprisingly, not until 2016 did the FAA decide to define
aircraft building as an aeronautical activity and before then only
permitted final assembly of aircraft in hangars located on federally
obligated airports.
In 2016, the FAA published a policy update to the Federal Register
that was meant to clarify how aviation facilities including hangars can
be used on airports that receive federal funds. Most notably, the FAA's
update allowed noncommercial experimental amateur builders of aircraft
to do more work at airport hangars.
The FAA also clarified that aircraft needing repair and maintenance
are still considered ``operational aircraft'' and may be kept in
hangars at the discretion of airport sponsors. In addition, the storage
of nonaeronautical items are permissible provided they do not interfere
with the intended aeronautical use of the hangar and are allowed by the
airport sponsor.
While we applaud FAA's decision to update their hangar policy,
Section 131 of the FAA Reauthorization Act codifies the FAA's updated
hangar use policies so that the realities of general aviation flying,
building and maintenance can be realized.
Section 556--Aircraft Registration.
As you know, Section 556 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
requires the FAA Administrator to initiate a rulemaking to increase the
duration of aircraft registration for noncommercial general aviation
aircraft from three years to seven years.
AOPA strongly supports this common-sense provision. I don't believe
FAA has initiated a rulemaking at this point but we look forward to its
implementation as soon as possible.
Section 518--Aircraft Registry Office.
Section 518, authored by Representative Sam Graves, deems the FAA
Aircraft Registry in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ``essential'' and
therefore remains operational should a government shutdown occur. The
FAA Registry office is responsible for most aircraft registrations,
renewals, and other critical functions and handles thousands of
transactions daily. This provision will have a significant and positive
impact on general aviation registration requirements should a
government shutdown occur in the future.
We also support Chairman DeFazio's ``Aviation Funding Stability
Act'', H.R. 1108, which would ensure that all activities of the FAA are
funded in the event of a government shutdown.
Section 512--Air Shows.
Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) imposed by the FAA for large
outdoor events has caused issues when the agency has also approved air
shows being held during the same times in the same areas. Section 512
of the Act encourages the FAA to work with general aviation,
communities, and large outdoor event organizers to identify and resolve
these scheduling conflicts. The FAA is following through on this and
meeting with stakeholders, including AOPA, to discuss ways to
facilitate a positive resolution to this issue.
Section 532--Clarification of requirements for living history flights.
We appreciate the Committee's support for living history flights as
a way to attract a new generation of aviation enthusiasts and provide
them with a flying experience and learning about aviation's past. This
provision provided the needed clarification on the requirements for
living history flights and is very much appreciated by those who
participate in these activities.
We are pleased the FAA is working with stakeholders and it is my
understanding the FAA is on target for a federal register publication
later this year.
Section 576--Tower Marking.
Improving visibility of certain towers for low-flying aircraft will
certainly improve the safety of pilots and aircraft. As you know, this
provision directs the FAA to issue regulations that require certain
towers to either be marked or included in an FAA database. We look
forward to working with the FAA to enact these regulations as soon as
possible and as outlined in the statute.
Section 625--Aviation workforce development programs.
This is an important provision intended to introduce high school
students and others to STEM aviation education and opportunities, as
well as training in aviation and aerospace skills. This issue is a top
priority for AOPA.
Congress, and this Committee specifically, recognized the need to
support aviation workforce development programs by establishing this
grant program.
In July 2018, Boeing released its Pilot and Technician Outlook
wherein they estimated a need for more than 800,000 new pilots
worldwide of which more than 200,000 are needed in the United States
over the next 20 years. The report also mentioned that 750,000 new
aviation technicians will be needed around the world. This will be a
formidable challenge and one we must confront together--industry and
government.
Most people that aspire to become aviators start in general
aviation, so it is vital that we collaborate on efforts to ensure that
this pipeline remains open to all. The pilot education grant program
will support the creation and delivery of curriculum designed to
provide high school students with meaningful science, technology,
engineering, math and aviation education and encouraging our nation's
youth to become the next generation of commercial, general aviation,
drone or military pilots.
The aviation technical workforce grant program includes
scholarships, apprenticeships, establishment of new training programs,
purchasing equipment for schools, and supporting career transition for
members of the armed forces.
These two programs are each authorized at $5 million per year over
the next five years, it is imperative that Congress provide full
funding in fiscal year 2020 and beyond to help ensure that we can meet
the pilot and aviation technical workforce demands here in the United
States.
We appreciate the leadership of Chairman Peter DeFazio, Ranking
Member Sam Graves, Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Rick Larsen,
Subcommittee Ranking Member Garret Graves, Congressman Dan Lipinski and
the entire Committee who expressed their support for full funding of
these grant programs to the Appropriations Committee.
AOPA has also taken a leadership role in developing our future
aviation workforce by getting young people interested in aviation
through programs such as the AOPA High School Initiative.
By providing high-quality STEM-based aviation education to high
school students nationwide, AOPA is opening the door to aviation
careers for thousands of teens.
The courses are designed to capture the imagination and give
students from diverse backgrounds the tools to pursue advanced
education and careers in aviation fields. Working with professional
instructional designers, AOPA is currently offering three years of a
four-year high school aviation STEM program that falls along two
tracks--pilot and unmanned aircraft systems. The fourth year of the
program is currently in development.
The program conforms to Common Core math and science standards and
Next Generation Science Standards and, in keeping with career and
technical education best practices, will lead to a certification or
industry-accepted test, such as the FAA Private Pilot knowledge test or
a Part 107 small UAS (drone) pilot certification.
For the 2018-2019 school year, our curriculum was being used by an
estimated 2,282 ninth-grade students at 80 schools in 27 states. There
were another 461 students at 25 schools in 15 states using the tenth-
grade curriculum.
We are already seeing a dramatic improvement in gender demographics
when comparing students using the ninth-grade and tenth-grade
curriculum during the 2018-2019 school year compared to today's pilot
population as indicated in the chart below.

We are also seeing a dramatic improvement in diversity demographics
where 52% of the students taking the ninth-grade curriculum and 44%
taking the tenth-grade curriculum are non-white.
The chart below shows the ethnicity of the students participating
in our program for the 2018-2019 school year.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

For the 2019-2020 school year, we are seeing increased interest in
using the AOPA high school curriculum. The number of schools using our
ninth-grade curriculum has increased to 143 schools; while the tenth-
grade has increased to 114 and the eleventh-grade field test is
currently at 23 schools.
We are also increasing the footprint of the AOPA High School
Initiative across the country for the 2019-2020 school year, as
indicated in this chart.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The interest in our curriculum from high schools across the country
has been overwhelming and we look forward to working with the Committee
to ensure that high schools who want to teach students about aviation
and all that if offers actually have that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks, if I may, and while not
related to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, I would like to again
thank the Committee and mention the success of bipartisan legislation
passed and signed into law as part of the FAA Extension, Safety, and
Security Act of 2016.
Known as third class medical reform, and commonly referred to as
BasicMed, this program is one of the most significant reforms for
general aviation in decades. In just over two years since the program
was launched, more than 50,000 private pilots are safely flying under
these new medical requirements.
The FAA's implementation of this program has been tremendous and
more and more private pilots are moving to this program, which includes
medical education training for pilots. It also reduces the bureaucracy
and costs that have frustrated pilots for decades. So again, I want to
thank this Committee for their support of this new program.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we must continue to work together, industry
and government, to ensure we continue our nation's leadership in all
sectors of aviation. The workforce grant programs this Committee
included in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization are a great start.
As the Committee is aware, in order to meet bold challenges, we
need bold initiatives. Recognizing this, I am hopeful the Committee
will work with Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and others to establish a
National Center for the Advancement of Aviation. We strongly believe
standing up such a center will facilitate cooperation, collaboration,
and coordination across all sectors of aviation; civil, commercial, and
military--and which is so desperately needed.
A national aviation center would bring the industry together by
fostering such things as programs that create a diverse and skilled
aviation workforce, ensuring the deployment of STEM aviation
educational opportunities for high school students, leveraging the
sharing of new and emerging flight training methods, and conducting
safety and economic data trend analysis. A national aviation center
would do more to grow, develop, and promote aviation and bring the
needed and long overdue collaboration of our collective industry that
is so vital to our nation's economy. We certainly welcome the
opportunity to work with the Committee on the development of this
proposal.
I would like to again thank the Subcommittee for this important
hearing today and look forward to answering any questions.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, and the
committee appreciates it. And now I turn to Mr. John--is it
Breyault? Is that the pronunciation?
Mr. Breyault. It is Breyault, but I will----
Mr. Larsen. Breyault, OK. We will take Breyault with the
National Consumers League. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Breyault. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Larsen,
Chairman DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee. My name is
John Breyault, and I am the vice president for public policy,
telecommunications, and fraud at the National Consumers League.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today and provide the perspective of the flying public to the
subcommittee.
Founded in 1899, NCL is America's pioneering consumer and
worker advocacy organization. Our nonprofit mission is to
advocate for social and economic justice on behalf of consumers
and workers in the United States and abroad.
The DOT is the sole agency in the United States with the
power to enforce consumer protection statutes in the air travel
marketplace. Unfortunately, progress on too many important
consumer protection rulemakings teed up by the 2016 and 2018
FAA reauthorization bills has slowed to a crawl at best, and a
halt at worst.
In my written testimony I detail the harm suffered by
consumers in a number of areas, including overbooking, fee
refunds, and the availability of fair fee and schedule data.
Today, however, my remarks will focus on two areas of
particular concern: minimum seat size standards and family
seating.
Mr. Chairman, as you are no doubt painfully aware during
your 5-plus hours of flights to and from Seattle, seat sizes on
U.S. airlines have been steadily shrinking. Passengers and
flight attendants have long expressed concerns about ever-
smaller seat dimensions and dwindling seat pitch that could put
at risk passengers' ability to quickly evacuate an aircraft in
the event of an emergency.
In response, Congress directed the FAA to issue regulations
establishing minimum seat sizes and pitch. Until today's
testimony from Mr. Elwell, we had seen no indication that,
however, the agency was prepared to initiate such a rulemaking
by this October deadline. Indeed, the FAA has actively resisted
judicial efforts by consumer advocates pressing it to act on
this important safety issue.
You must not sit by and allow the FAA to dither or, at
worst yet, allow the FAA to simply adopt whatever inhumane and
unsafe seat size standard the airline industry favors.
A potentially even more serious problem is the issue of
family seating. The 2016 FAA Reauthorization Act mandated that,
within 1 year of enactment, the DOT must review and, ``if
appropriate,'' create rules requiring airlines to seat children
aged 13 or under next to an accompanying family member.
Incredibly, after a review that apparently included no input
from family advocates, no comments from psychologists, or any
public statements from the airlines, the DOT merely decided to
add a page to its website about family seating.
The DOT's inaction is particularly troubling in the face of
evidence that sexual assault on airplanes against minors is a
significant safety concern. According to the FBI, in-flight
sexual assaults increased by 66 percent from fiscal year 2014
to fiscal year 2016. In 2017 alone the FBI opened 63
investigations into sexual assault on aircraft. The FBI found
that children as young as 8 years old have been victims of
sexual assault in the air.
Families are right to be concerned for their children's
safety. In response to a FOIA request made by my colleagues at
Consumer Reports, we now know that, from March 2016 to November
2018, 136 complaints were filed at the DOJ regarding family
seating. It is clear from these complaints that when families
with young children seek to sit together, airlines regularly
impose or attempt to impose expensive fees for preferred
seating assignments and priority boarding.
Numerous complaints involve airlines knowingly assigning
seats apart from family to children as young as 2 years old.
Families with children under the age of 5 reported being forced
to rely on the kindness of strangers, or to beg other
passengers to switch seats. In numerous cases, families were
asked to deplane because of the inconvenience this caused.
Parents cited the emotional trauma of children sitting alone,
children who were autistic, or who suffer seizures. In multiple
cases parents complained they were worried that young children
sitting away from them were vulnerable to sexual assaults and
could be in particular danger during emergencies.
DOT complaints are almost certainly just the tip of the
iceberg. And yet, in the face of this evidence, the DOT claims
that the number of complaints about families sitting together
in the air do not justify action by the agency to protect the
most vulnerable fliers.
Mr. Chairman, how many children will have to be assaulted
on aircraft before the DOT acts? Is the DOT putting the desire
of airlines to continue generating more than half a billion
dollars annually in lucrative seat reservation fees ahead of
children's safety? Simply creating a new consumer education
webpage about family seating is not enough. The DOT's inaction
on this issue has put children at greater risk.
Congress should demand answers from the DOT on the process
it used to determine that it should do nothing substantive on
this important children's safety issue, and mandate that the
agency follow through on Congress' clear intent.
Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves,
and the members of the subcommittee, thank you for listening to
the voice of consumers. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[Mr. Breyault's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of John Breyault, Vice President, Public Policy,
Telecommunications, and Fraud, National Consumers League
Summary
The Department of Transportation (``DOT'') is the sole agency in
the United States with power to enforce consumer protection statutes in
the air travel marketplace. The Airline Deregulation Act largely
preempts and prohibits state attorneys general, state legislatures,
municipalities and private litigants from stepping in to protect the
health and safety of the flying public and basic fairness in the air
travel marketplace. Recognizing this, the last two FAA reauthorization
bills rightly mandated that the agency takes steps to promulgate
regulations addressing concerns of the flying public in multiple issue
areas, including overbooking, fee refunds, minimum seat sizes and
family seating, just to name a few.
Unfortunately, progress on too many of these important consumer
protection rules has slowed to a crawl at best and a halt at worst.
Because of this, consumers continue to be harmed by abusive airline
industry practices while the DOT dithers due to a combination of
industry resistance, bureaucratic inertia and internal resistance to
new regulations. October 2019 will mark one year since Congress passed
the last FAA reauthorization bill. Many of the regulatory deadlines set
in the legislation will soon come due. In addition, there are older
rulemakings affecting family seating and data availability that the
agency has indefinitely postponed or chosen not to act upon despite a
Congressional mandates and compelling case for regulatory action.
Taken together, the DOT's actions and inactions on these important
rulemakings paint a picture of an agency that places consumer
protection and consumer safety bottom of its list of priorities. A
bipartisan majority of Congress gave the DOT statutory authority in the
Airline Deregulation Act to promote competition and consumer
protection. It is imperative that Congress act to ensure that its
mandates are not unduly delayed, or worse, ignored completely.
Introduction
The National Consumers League appreciates the opportunity to
provide the subcommittee with our views on the implementation of
Congressionally-mandated consumer protection regulations by the DOT and
the Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA'').
Founded in 1899, the National Consumers League (``NCL'') is the
nation's pioneering consumer and worker advocacy organization. Our non-
profit mission is to advocate on behalf of consumers and workers in the
United States and abroad.\1\ NCL has long advocated for a fairer and
more competitive airline industry for the 2.8 million consumers who fly
in and out of U.S. airports every day.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.
\2\ Federal Aviation Administration. ``Air Traffic By the
Numbers.'' June 2019. Online: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/
by_the_numbers/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Reauthorization Legislation Mandated Important Consumer Protection
Regulations to Address Ongoing Harms to the Flying Public
In 2016 \3\ and 2018 \4\, Congress passed FAA reauthorization bills
directing the DOT and FAA to commence important consumer protection-
related rulemakings. These bills gave passengers and advocacy
organizations like NCL hope that the DOT and FAA would begin to address
some of the long-standing consumer protection concerns that have
bedeviled and endangered the flying public for too long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Law 114-190: ``FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act
of 2016.'' (130 Stat. 615; Date: 7/15/2016). Online: https://
www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ190/PLAW-114publ190.pdf
\4\ Public Law 115-254: ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.'' (Date:
10/5/2018). Online: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr302/BILLS-
115hr302enr.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today we find ourselves nearly a year removed from Congress passing
its 2018 reauthorization bill. Yet, whether because of bureaucratic
inertia, industry resistance, or policy differences within the DOT
itself, many of these rulemakings have languished. In too many cases,
rulemakings that Congress mandated years ago have still not resulted in
meaningful consumer protection regulations. The impact is that needed
reforms to address consumer concerns languish. This dampens confidence
of the flying public in the ability of the DOT--the sole agency charged
with consumer protection in the airline marketplace--to do its job.
The 2018 reauthorization bill included a number of consumer
protection mandates that NCL supported but which have been neglected by
the DOT. Among these are:

421--Refunds for other fees that are not honored by a
covered air carrier--The DOT is mandated to promulgate regulations
requiring airlines to refund any ancillary fees paid by passengers for
services that were not received.\5\ Congress directed this rulemaking
to be initiated before October of this year. The DOT appears to have
chosen to pair this rulemaking with action on baggage fee refunds that
was initiated after the passage of the 2016 FAA reauthorization bill.
In 2016, the DOT sought comments in response to an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPRM'') on baggage fee refunds. The agency has
yet to issue a rule related to baggage fee refunds specifically or
ancillary fee refunds generally. Consumers thus find themselves at the
mercy of airlines when their bags are delayed and they request a
refund. Similarly situated are consumers who do not promptly receive a
refund of fees such as seat reservation fees when those services are
not provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Online: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201904&RIN=2105-AE53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
425--TICKETS Act--The TICKETS Act was designed to
address the widespread practice of airline overbooking and the
resultant bumping of ticketed passengers--sometimes involuntarily. The
case for regulations to stop this was vividly illustrated by the
shocking video of Dr. David Dao being forcefully and brutally dragged
off United Express Flight 3411 on April 9, 2017.\6\ 425 rightly
removed arbitrary limits on the amount of compensation that airlines
offer ticketed passengers who are denied boarding. Despite passage of
the TICKETS Act, no U.S. carrier (including United) has amended its
Contract of Carriage to publicize its intent to comply with this
change. We look forward to seeing the findings of the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (``GAO'') report on oversales, which is required
to be communicated to Congress within a year of enactment of the 2018
reauthorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Victor, Daniel and Stevens, Matt. ``United Airlines Passenger
Is Dragged From an Overbooked Flight,'' New York Times. April 10, 2017.
Online: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-
passenger-dragged.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
577--Minimum Dimensions for Passenger Seats--Passengers
and flight attendants have long expressed concerns about shrinking seat
sizes, dwindling seat pitch and possible links to serious health
conditions such as deep vein thrombosis (``DVT'') that could put at
risk passengers' ability to quickly evacuate an aircraft in the event
of an emergency. In response, Congress directed the FAA to issue
regulations establishing minimum dimensions for seat pitch, width and
length necessary for the safety of passengers. The FAA is required to
issue regulations no later than October 2019 yet we have seen no
indication that the agency is prepared to initiate such a rulemaking.
Indeed, the FAA has actively resisted judicial efforts by consumer
advocates pressing it to take action on this important safety issue.\7\
Concerns have also been expressed that such a rulemaking may give
airlines a green light to shrink seats beyond their current cramped
dimensions based on the statute's ``necessary for the safety of
passengers'' language.\8\ Congress must not allow the FAA to simply
adopt whatever inhumane seat size standard the airline industry favors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Glusac, Elaine. ``FAA Declines to Regulate Airplane Seat
Size,'' New York Times. July 6, 2018. Online: https://www.nytimes.com/
2018/07/06/travel/faa-plane-seat-size.html
\8\ Silk, Robert. ``FAA's seat size mandate likely changes
nothing,'' Travel Weekly. November 1, 2018. Online: https://
www.travelweekly.com/Robert-Silk/FAA-seat-size-mandate-likely-changes-
nothing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
424--Aviation Consumer Advocate--The 2018
reauthorization bill directed the DOT to create an Aviation Consumer
Advocate (``ACA'') position within the Aviation Consumer Protection
Division. The ACA is charged with assisting consumers in resolving
complaints filed with the DOT, identifying ways that the Department can
improve enforcement of aviation consumer protection rules and
identifying and recommending regulations and policies to better resolve
consumer complaints. In March 2019 the DOT named Blane Workie,
Assistant General Counsel for the DOT's Office of Aviation Enforcement
and Proceedings to serve as the ACA.\9\ While NCL and other advocates'
views have been welcomed by the ACA, we believe that Congress's intent
would be better served by having an ACA whose sole portfolio is
consumer protection. We urge Congress to appropriate sufficient budget
so that DOT can fund a standalone ACA position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Department of Transportation. ``DOT Announces April 4 Meeting
of the Newly Reestablished Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory
Committee, Names New Aviation Consumer Advocate.'' Press release. March
20, 2019. Online: https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot1319
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Years of DOT Inaction on Family Seating Leaves the Most
Vulnerable Flyers at Greater Risk
While the 2016 FAA reauthorization bill required the DOT to
undertake many consumer protection-related rulemakings, the lack of
agency action on the issue of family seating is particularly egregious.
2309 mandated that within a year after enactment, the DOT review and
``if appropriate'' create rules requiring airlines to seat children
aged 13 or under next to an accompanying family member.
This is a common-sense consumer protection issue. Parents should
not have to absorb the expense of paying an expensive seat reservation
or priority boarding fees in order to sit together with their young
children. Incredibly, after a review that apparently included no input
from family advocates, no comments from psychologists, or any public
statements from the airlines, the DOT decided that no regulation was
necessary.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ McCartney, Scott. ``Flying Together With Your Children Keeps
Getting Tougher,'' Wall Street Journal. (``The agency recently
determined `issuing a policy was not appropriate at this time,' a DOT
official says.'') September 12, 2018. Online: https://www.wsj.com/
articles/flying-together-with-your-children-keeps-getting-tougher-
1536764795
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by
Consumer Reports, the DOT provided a number of complaints it had
received from passengers regarding airlines' family seating policies.
Several themes emerged. First, complainants mentioned consistently
unhelpful airline employees, including reservation staff, gate agents
and flight attendants. Second, the reactions by airline staff to
concerns about families being separated were sometimes actively
harmful, including ejecting families from flights. Finally, there
appear to have been cases where children over the age of 2 were
required to travel in their parents' laps, in violation of federal law.
Since family seating was first raised, two trends have made the
situation even more difficult for passengers traveling with small
children. First, the number of seats that airlines consider ``premium''
(and which require an additional fee to reserve) continues to
increase.\11\ The industry is moving beyond charging extra for seats
with extra legroom and is now charging for seats that are a little
closer to the front of the plane or are aisle or window seats. It is
not uncommon for single, middle seats near the back of the aircraft to
be the only seats available for assignment without an additional
fee.\12\ Second, the percentage of seats that are occupied, known as
``load factors,'' continues to increase.\13\ That means that if a
flight is cancelled or a connection is missed, it will be much harder
for families to find any seats together on another flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Koenig, David. ``United is Adding 1,600 Premium Seats to Its
Fleet,'' Associated Press. February 7, 2019. Online: https://
www.afar.com/magazine/united-is-adding-1600-premium-seats-to-its-fleet
\12\ Villano, Matt. ``Airline seat selection fees: It's pay to
play,'' CNN Travel. January 5, 2019. Online: https://www.cnn.com/
travel/article/airline-seat-selection-fees/index.html
\13\ IATA. ``Passenger load factor hits 28-year high.'' October 19,
2018. Online: https://airlines.iata.org/news/passenger-load-factor-
hits-28-year-high
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOT's inaction is especially troubling in the face of
voluminous evidence that sexual assault on airplanes against minors is
a significant safety concern.\14\ \15\ \16\ According to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (``FBI''), in-flight sexual assaults increased
by 66% from FY2014 to FY2016. In 2017 alone, the FBI opened 63
investigations into sexual assault on aircraft.\17\ DOT complaint data
obtained by FlyersRights.org detailed 20 incidents of in-flight sexual
assault from 2012-2018, including one against a child on an Air France
flight in 2017.\18\ The cases that are reported to law enforcement are
likely just the tip of the iceberg. And yet, the DOT claims that the
number of complaints about families sitting together in the air do not
justify action by the agency to protect the most vulnerable flyers.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Miller, Michael. `` `This was 30 minutes of hell for this
young lady': Unaccompanied minor groped on flight,'' Washington Post.
June 20, 2016. Online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/
wp/2016/06/20/this-was-30-minutes-of-hell-for-this-young-lady-
unaccompanied-minor-groped-on-flight/
\15\ `` `Creep' harasses teen during flight; Canadian journalist
intervenes,'' The Strait Times. March 27, 2019. Online: https://
www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/creep-harasses-teen-during-
flight-canadian-journalist-intervenes
\16\ Burton, Lynsi. ``Teen sexually assaulted on Seattle flight;
lawsuit says United Airlines did nothing,'' SeattlePI.com. January 22,
2019. Online: https://www.seattlepi.com/local/crime/article/Teen-
sexually-assaulted-on-Seattle-flight-13552767.php
\17\ De Diego, Javier et al. ``FBI: Sexual assaults on flights
increasing `at an alarming rate,' '' CNN.com. June 20, 2018. Online:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/fbi-airplane-sexual-assault/
index.html
\18\ Applebaum, Andrew. ``Recent In-Flight Sexual Abuse Complaints
to Feds Released By Airline Passenger Group . . . Nothing Done?''
FlyersRights.org. November 29, 2018. Online: https://flyersrights.org/
press-release/recent-in-flight-sexual-abuse-complaints-to-feds-
released-by-airline-passenger-group/
\19\ U.S. Department of Transportation. ``DOT's Review of U.S.
Airline Family Seating Policies.'' September 17, 2019. (``Based on the
low number of complaints received and review of airline family seating
policies, the Department determined that it was unnecessary to direct
airlines to establish policies on family seating.'') Online: https://
www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/review-
us-airline-family-seating-policies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This begs the question: How many children will have to be assaulted
on aircraft before the DOT acts? Is the DOT putting the desire of
airlines to continue generating more than half a billion dollars
annually in lucrative seat reservation fees ahead of children's safety?
\20\ As FBI Special Agent David Gates, who regularly investigates
instances of mid-air sexual assault, accurately stated ``even one
victim is unacceptable.'' \21\ Congress should demand answers from the
DOT on the process it used to determine that it should take advantage
of a legislative loophole in the 2016 reauthorization bill and leave
children at greater risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Gilbertson, Dawn. ``Skyrocketing seat selection fees enrage
flyers, enrich airlines,'' USA Today. December 18, 2018. Online:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2018/12/19/united-
american-delta-preferred-seat-fees/2293721002/
\21\ Federal Bureau of Investigation. ``Sexual Assault Aboard
Aircraft: Raising Awareness About a Serious Federal Crime,'' April 26,
2018. Online: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/raising-awareness-about-
sexual-assault-aboard-aircraft-042618
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOT Should Reinstate the RFI on Fare, Schedule and Availability
Information and Act Promptly to Define Its Unfair or Deceptive
Practices Authority
In addition to rulemakings mandated by the last two FAA
reauthorization bills, it is important to highlight pending
interpretive and non-legislative consumer protection rulemakings that
DOT should act upon.
Of special note, the DOT should reinstate the Request for
Information (RFI) on Airline Distribution and Display of Fare, Schedule
and Availability Information that it suspended in March 2017.\22\ The
DOT's October 2016 RFI inquiry came in response to concerns expressed
by consumer groups, online travel bookings websites and Members of
Congress regarding restrictions placed on distribution and display of
airline flight information, such as fares, fees and schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Docket ID: DOT-OST-2016-0204
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinstating the RFI is supported by every major national consumer
organization as well as travel industry economists and the General
Services Administration (which oversees air travel by federal
officials). This support is based on the knowledge that withholding of
critical information from independent online travel agencies (``OTA'')
and metasearch websites makes it more difficult for consumers to
conveniently and reliably comparison shop.
Research commissioned by the airlines themselves found that 40% of
leisure travelers feel they have to visit too many sites when booking
travel. The airlines' data found that the average number of digital
channels being used increased 73% in five years, that 43% of travelers
disclosed that they want to spend less time researching flights and
that 56% of passengers say they will change airlines to save money. In
the same study, the airlines reveal that they want to increase sales
through their own sites at the expense of independent comparison
websites, because they make more money on tickets sold on their
websites, which only show their own fares and schedules.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ International Air Transport Association. The Future of Airline
Distribution, 2016-2021. October 2016. Online: https://www.iata.org/
whatwedo/airline-distribution/ndc/Documents/ndc-future-airline-
distribution-report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study commissioned by the Travel Technology Association found
that consumers pay an average $30 more per ticket, or $6.7 billion more
in airfare annually when airlines restrict flyers' ability to
comparison shop. It is estimated that 41 million Americans will choose
not to travel each year, as a result of sticker shock stemming from the
airlines' blocking of flight data used by comparison sites.\24\ This
finding is backed up by data from the GAO, which found that despite
fewer passenger comforts, the cost of air travel has increased.\25\ As
what consumers must pay to fly goes up, it will become even more
critical for the DOT to safeguard consumers' ability to comparison
shop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Charles River Associates. Benefits of Preserving Consumers'
Ability to Compare Airline Fares via OTAs and Metasearch Sites. May 15,
2015. Online: https://www.airtravelfairness.org/wp-content/uploads/
2017/09/CRAFinalReport.pdf
\25\ Government Accountability Office. ``Information on Airline
Fees for Optional Services.'' September 2017. Online: https://
www.gao.gov/assets/690/687258.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence clearly shows that the airlines' practice of denying
fare, fee and schedule data to OTAs and metasearch websites harms
consumers. Unfortunately, the DOT acquiesced to the airlines' wish list
and terminated even a cursory examination of their anticompetitive
practices. Congress should press the DOT to reinstate this important
proceeding.
Finally, the DOT will soon publish proposed rules defining the
agency's unfair or deceptive practices authority.\26\ The DOT is the
sole agency at any level of government charged with consumer protection
in the airline industry. Given the deregulatory stance of the current
DOT leadership, we are concerned that the agency could potentially use
this rulemaking as an excuse to weaken its already dubious willingness
to hold airlines to account for their many anti-consumer practices.
Congress should closely monitor this rulemaking to ensure that the DOT
does not become a consumer protection agency in name only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ RIN: 2105-AE72. Online: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=
201904&RIN=2105-AE72
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The DOT is the agency that the millions of American travelers and
foreign visitors to the U.S. depend on to hold the airline industry
accountable for their safety, security, reasonability of fees and fair
treatment in air travel. In addition, the DOT is charged with ensuring
that the airlines do not abuse their dominant position in the domestic
air travel marketplace. The numerous rulemaking processes mandated by
Congress are intended to address many of the consumer protection ills
that have frustrated and endangered the flying public for far too long.
Unfortunately, in too many cases, it appears that industry
resistance coupled with bureaucratic inertia and internal opposition at
the DOT has caused important rulemakings to languish for months and
even years. The DOT has availed itself of legislative loopholes,
particularly in regards to families sitting together, to delay or deny
rulemakings that would address pressing safety and competition issues
in the industry.
Allowing an industry like the airlines to self-regulate is a recipe
for disaster. It is incumbent upon Congress to use its oversight role
to ensure that the DOT is not asleep at the switch when it comes to
consumer protection. States, counties and cities, are preempted from
acting to hold the airlines accountable. Private litigants are largely
restricted to small claims courts where compensation is limited. Only
Congress and DOT have the power to protect competition, promote
fairness and ensure the safety of all passengers, particularly
children, in the air.
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves and the members of the
Aviation Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Consumers League,
thank you for including the consumer perspective as you consider these
important issues.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you. And last--and the best--from the
great State of Washington, Dave Zurfluh is the national
president of the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
And we really appreciate you making the trip out here.
And I just want to--we were talking earlier before we got
started about Ernie Butler, who is out of Monroe, Washington,
and was a great advocate who passed away a few years ago. He
was a great advocate for the PVA, as well. And I want to
recognize the other folks from PVA here, and thank you for your
service to the country, as well. Thanks a lot.
Dave, go ahead.
Mr. Zurfluh. Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and
members of the subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America
thanks you for the opportunity to testify for this oversight
hearing regarding implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018.
This legislation included many provisions that, if properly
implemented by the U.S. Department of Transportation, would
improve the air travel experience of catastrophically disabled
veterans and all people with disabilities.
The Air Carrier Access Act is a civil rights law that
protects not only PVA members, or all honorably discharged
veterans with catastrophic disabilities, but also the rights of
all individuals living with disabilities to access to air
travel.
Unfortunately, PVA members routinely report incurring
bodily harm in boarding and deplaning aircraft, and their
wheelchairs, particularly power wheelchairs, are often damaged
while stowed.
Today's aircraft present a rather hostile environment for
the many passengers with disabilities, which often results in
profound consequences for passengers with disabilities. PVA
Senior Vice President Charles Brown, in attendance today--in
today's hearing--was severely injured earlier this year when he
was dropped while attempting to board an aircraft.
Mr. Brown fractured his tailbone and, as a result of this
incident, subsequently developed a skin breakdown and bone
infection. As a result of his injuries, he spent 3 months as an
inpatient at the spinal cord injury unit at the VA's Medical
Center in Miami. Now he is very apprehensive about flying, and
drove to Washington, DC, from south Florida to attend recent
PVA meetings and events.
Unfortunately, Mr. Brown's situation is not unique among
PVA members. I, too, have experienced disability-related
problems in air travel. In fact, problems with air travel are
one of our most common complaints that we receive from our
members.
PVA was pleased to work with members of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and other House
disability champions on inclusion of several disability-related
provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
The law included provisions that will inform air travel
passengers about their rights under the ACAA, improve the
assistance they receive from air carriers, and establish formal
lines of communication between the air travel industry, the
disability community, and the DOT to address barriers to air
travel.
The law also requires a forward-looking study designed to
determine the feasibility of passengers flying while in their
wheelchairs.
In the interest of time I would like to discuss only a few
of these provisions.
Section 440 included requirement for the Secretary to
determine whether the regulations governing training programs
or assisting passengers like paralyzed veterans are sufficient,
and whether hands-on training should be part of the regular
required training regimen.
It is unconscionable to think that someone with a spinal
cord injury or disorder should be assisted in multiple
transfers to board and subsequently deplane an aircraft without
having been properly educated. It is dangerous for not only
those passengers, but also for those who are assisting them.
The experience of many of our members who have been injured
during this process is evidence enough for PVA that current
regulations are not sufficient to guarantee safe passage for
these passengers.
Section 439 required the Secretary to establish an advisory
committee on the air travel needs of passengers with
disabilities. I am pleased to report that the Secretary
publicly announced the formation of the Air Carrier Access Act
Advisory Committee last Friday. PVA was honored to have a
member of our national staff chosen to represent the disabled
veterans on this committee.
We are hopeful that one of the committee's tasks will be to
assist the Secretary in the development of the Airline
Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights, required in
section 434.
I also want to highlight our support for a general consumer
provision in the FAA reauthorization that required GAO to study
lavatory access on aircraft. When I fly I purposely dehydrate
myself to limit the possibility that I might need to use the
lavatory while on the aircraft, because they are not accessible
for people with mobility impairments. This is a typical
protocol for many members of PVA's executive committee who are
here in the audience today.
When I fly to Washington, DC, from my home in Ruston,
Washington, I intentionally book flights that require layovers
in the middle of the country so that I will not have to deprive
myself of using a lavatory on a cross-country flight. Even
then, I only allow myself to begin rehydrating once the flight
is approximately 30 minutes from landing.
The dignity of being able to access a lavatory cannot be
underestimated, and should not be measured against the cost of
doing so. If lavatories are going to be made available on
commercial aircraft, then they should be accessible to all
passengers.
The FAA Reauthorization Act represents an important step
forward in efforts to improve the air travel experience of
passengers with disabilities. However, more work remains to be
done. We want air carriers to do the right thing. Many times
that means we need Congress and the Department of
Transportation to guide them.
PVA thanks you for this opportunity to express our views,
and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.
[Mr. Zurfluh's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of David Zurfluh, National President, Paralyzed
Veterans of America
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) thanks you for the
opportunity to testify for this oversight hearing regarding
implementation of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-
254). This legislation included many provisions that if properly
implemented by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) would
improve the air travel experience of catastrophically disabled veterans
and all people with disabilities.
Protections in air travel for people with disabilities began in
earnest when President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Air Carrier
Access Act (ACAA). The ACAA, which prohibits disability-based
discrimination in air travel, was the result of a U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of
America, 477 U.S. 597 (1986). In this case, the Court held that air
carriers were not subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, unless they received direct federal financial
assistance. As a result of this decision, PVA led the charge in
advocating for Congress to pass protections that would finally end
discrimination against people with disabilities in air travel.
The ACAA is a civil rights law that protects not only PVA members,
who are all honorably discharged veterans with catastrophic
disabilities, but also the rights of all individuals living with
disabilities to access air travel. Before the ACAA, people with
disabilities were routinely forced to travel with an attendant at their
own expense, even if they did not need assistance to fly safely;
required to sit on a blanket for fears that they might soil the
passenger seat; or simply refused passage. The ACAA has provided
passengers with disabilities improved consistency in air travel.
Through this law, air carriers must provide passengers with
disabilities the opportunity to preboard, if additional time or
assistance is needed in boarding the aircraft; timely assistance in
boarding and deplaning; proper stowage of assistive devices; and
appropriate seating accommodations.
Despite improvements in air travel over the last three decades for
passengers with disabilities, too many still encounter regular problems
in air travel due to their disabilities. PVA members routinely report
incurring bodily harm in boarding and deplaning aircraft, and their
wheelchairs, particularly power wheelchairs, are often damaged while
stowed. In addition, members have expressed difficulty in receiving
appropriate seating accommodations on aircraft and often encounter air
carrier personnel and contractors who are not appropriately trained in
assisting passengers with catastrophic disabilities. Consequently, some
of our members and other individuals with disabilities choose to drive
long distances rather than risk personal injury or damage to their
mobility devices.
In order for a person with a permanent disability such as a spinal
cord injury to board or deplane an aircraft, he or she has to be
transferred from his or her customized wheelchair to an aisle chair, a
small, narrow device, prior to entering the aircraft. The passenger is
then maneuvered backwards onto the aircraft and pulled down the aisle
to his or her seat. Within the confines of the cabin, the individual is
then transferred to an aircraft passenger seat, where he or she will
most likely remain until the process is repeated when the individual
departs the aircraft.
Today's aircraft present a rather hostile environment for many
passengers with disabilities, particularly for those who are unable to
ambulate. This environment often results in profound consequences for
passengers with disabilities. For example, PVA's Senior Vice President,
Charles Brown, in attendance at today's hearing, was severely injured
earlier this year when he was dropped while attempting to board an
aircraft. Mr. Brown fractured his tail bone as a result of this
incident and subsequently developed skin breakdown and a bone
infection. As a result of his injuries, he spent three months as an in-
patient at the Spinal Cord Injury unit at the VA's Medical Center in
Miami. Because of his injuries, he is very apprehensive about flying
and drove to Washington, D.C. from south Florida to attend recent PVA
meetings and events.
Unfortunately, Mr. Brown's situation is not unique among PVA
members. From our former national treasurer's broken wheelchair; our
deputy executive director's need to pull himself down the aisle to
reach his own wheelchair because assistance never arrived; to a
wheelchair athlete who developed stage three pressure ulcers on his
backside after being asked to wait on an aisle chair for 30 minutes
with the assurance that his own wheelchair would be delivered shortly,
the barriers to safely access air travel are numerous. In fact,
problems with air travel are one of the most common complaints that we
receive from our members.
Although I am currently using a cane to assist with mobility, I
used a wheelchair for the first four years following my injury. As I
age, I know that I will again be fully dependent on my wheelchair for
mobility. Each year, I fly 25-40 round trips. I, too, have experienced
disability-related problems in air travel.
A couple of years ago, I severely injured my hip, and as a result,
I needed to use my wheelchair instead of my cane for mobility. During
this time, I needed to fly for PVA business but was apprehensive
because of past problems that I had experienced and the problems
relayed by many fellow PVA members. I transferred without assistance
onto the aisle chair to avoid putting myself at too much risk. As I was
pulled down the aisle, my knee hit nearly every armrest on the way
back. Each time, the jolt sent pain radiating to my injured hip. Once I
arrived at my seat, I was determined to transfer myself because I could
not further risk my health and safety at the hands of the air carrier's
assistant.
To address disability-related complaints under the ACAA, passengers
with disabilities may file complaints with the specific air carrier and
DOT. In 2017, passengers filed 34,701 disability-related complaints as
reported by 190 domestic and foreign air carriers, which represents a
6.5 percent increase over 2016. Top complaints with U.S. carriers for
passengers with paraplegia or quadriplegia include failure to provide
passenger assistance and appropriate seating accommodations. During
2018, passengers filed 828 disability-related complaints directly with
DOT.
It is because of the experiences of our members and those of people
with disabilities more broadly that PVA has once again been leading the
charge to improve air travel for all people with disabilities. PVA was
pleased to work with members of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and other House disability champions on the
inclusion of several disability-related provisions in the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018. Congress's recognition of the issues
encountered by PVA members and millions of people with disabilities was
a tremendous victory for all passengers with disabilities.
Title IV, Subtitle B, Aviation Consumers with Disabilities,
included 11 provisions focused solely on air travel for passengers with
disabilities. These provisions include those that will inform air
travel passengers about their rights under the ACAA, improve the
assistance they receive from air carriers, and establish formal lines
of communication between the air travel industry, the disability
community, and DOT to address barriers to air travel. The law also
requires a forward-looking study designed to determine the feasibility
of passengers who depend on wheelchairs for their mobility to remain in
them while on the aircraft.
In December 2018, DOT complied with Section 441, Transparency for
Disabled Passengers. This section required large domestic air carriers
to report on a monthly basis the number of wheelchairs and scooters
enplaned and subsequently damaged. Although DOT had finalized the
regulation implementing this requirement in November 2016, DOT
subsequently delayed implementation in March 2017 until January 1,
2019.
As a result of Congress's action, DOT implemented the requirement
on December 4, 2018. For the first six months of 2019, 10 carriers
reported enplaning 294,216 wheelchairs and scooters and mishandling
4,777 of them.\1\ We are pleased that PVA members and all people with
disabilities now have publicly available information about the
treatment of assistive devices on U.S. air carriers and are able to
make informed choices when they purchase their tickets. We are also
working with several U.S. carriers and wheelchair manufacturers to
improve handling of wheelchairs during transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer Protection
Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Air Travel
Consumer Report, Mishandled Wheelchairs and Scooters: Ranking of U.S.
Reporting Marketing Carriers* (YTD) 42 (Aug. 2019), https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/resources/individuals/
aviation-consumer-protection/346301/august-2019-atcrr1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly a year after enactment of the FAA Reauthorization Act,
however, we are still waiting for information from DOT regarding the
Secretary's review and needed revision of regulations ensuring timely,
dignified, and effective assistance for passengers with disabilities.
Section 440, Regulations Ensuring Assistance for Passengers with
Disabilities in Air Travel, required the Secretary to perform a review,
and as necessary, to make revisions to the regulations governing
assistance under the ACAA within 180 days of enactment. The Secretary
was also required to determine whether the regulations governing
training programs for assisting passengers, like paralyzed veterans,
are sufficient and whether hands on training should be part of the
required regular training regimen.
It is unconscionable to think that someone with a spinal cord
injury or disorder should be assisted in multiple transfers to board
and subsequently deplane an aircraft without having been properly
educated about how to assist them. It is dangerous for not only those
passengers, but also for those who are assisting them. The experience
of many of our members who have been injured during this process is
evidence enough for PVA that the current regulations are not sufficient
to guarantee safe passage for these passengers. We look forward to the
Secretary's review.
In the meantime, we are also waiting on DOT to publicly announce
the members of the Advisory Committee on the Air Travel Needs of
Passengers with Disabilities. Section 439 lays out the requirements for
the Secretary to establish a committee that would identify disability-
related access barriers, recommend improvements, and anticipate future
problems that may result from industry trends. The advisory committee
is to include people with disabilities, disability organizations, air
carriers, service providers, aircraft and wheelchair manufacturers, and
organizations representing veterans with disabilities.
PVA looks forward to the establishment of this advisory committee
because we believe that it will provide a formal, ongoing opportunity
for stakeholders to work toward solutions that will improve access to
air travel for passengers with disabilities. We urge DOT to move
forward as expeditiously as possible to officially establish the
committee and schedule its inaugural meeting.
Another key provision in the law that we believe will improve air
travel for passengers with disabilities is the requirement for an
Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights. Section 434
requires the Secretary to partner with disability community and air
carrier stakeholders to develop a plain language bill of rights that
governs the treatment that passengers with disabilities can expect to
receive under the ACAA. A protection inherent in the ACAA that must be
included is the right to be treated with dignity and respect.
Although there is no deadline in the law for DOT to comply with
this requirement, we hope that collaborative efforts to draft the bill
of rights will begin this year. We believe that the bill of rights
presents an important opportunity to increase awareness of the ACAA's
protections for people with disabilities. In addition, the requirement
for air carriers to train their personnel and their contractors on
these rights has the potential to improve the assistance services that
passengers with disabilities receive during travel.
PVA also strongly supported the requirement in Section 432 for the
U.S. Access Board to work with DOT on a study to determine the
feasibility of in-cabin wheelchair restraint systems to allow
passengers who are dependent on their wheelchairs to avoid transferring
into an aircraft seat. Instead, passengers would be able to fly while
seated in their wheelchair. A determination of the feasibility of
flying while seated in a wheelchair is one of the first steps in the
effort to bring air access in line with access in other modes of
transportation such as buses, subways, and passenger trains that do not
require people who use wheelchairs to stow them.
If deemed compliant with cabin safety requirements, allowing
passengers to fly while remaining in their wheelchairs would reduce
risks to their health and safety and to those who currently must assist
them in transferring to and from aisle chairs, passenger seats, and
their own wheelchairs. We look forward to the study's findings. We also
request that carriers and aircraft manufacturers take seriously these
efforts to improve air travel for passengers who depend on wheelchairs.
Although not included in the disability-specific provisions, I want
to highlight our support for the requirement in Title IV, Subtitle A,
Section 426 for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
study lavatory access on aircraft. The law explicitly required GAO to
assess lavatory accessibility for passengers with disabilities. Despite
recent focus on the accessibility of aircraft lavatories for all
passengers, PVA members have been involved for decades in efforts to
provide access to lavatories on single-aisle aircraft for passengers
with disabilities.
When I fly, I purposefully dehydrate myself to limit the
possibility that I might need to use a lavatory while on the aircraft.
This is the typical protocol for many members of PVA's Executive
Committee who are in the audience today. When I fly to Washington, D.C.
from my home in Ruston, Washington, I intentionally book flights that
require layovers in the middle of the country so that I will not have
to deprive myself of using a lavatory on a cross country flight. Even
then, I only allow myself to begin rehydrating once the flight is
approximately 30 minutes from landing.
GAO has been in contact with PVA regarding our efforts to improve
access to lavatories for people with disabilities. We are pleased that
the unique needs of passengers with limited mobility have been included
in the broader discussion about the accessibility of lavatories for all
passengers. The dignity of being able to access a lavatory cannot be
underestimated and should not be measured against the cost of doing so.
If lavatories are going to be made available on commercial aircraft,
then they should be accessible to all passengers.
We also hope that Congress will hold DOT accountable for meeting
requirements in Section 2108 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security
Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-190) to promulgate a rule regarding the
accessibility of lavatories on single-aisle aircraft. To date, DOT has
failed to publish a rule despite being given a deadline of July 2017 to
do so. Access to lavatories was also the subject of a DOT negotiated
rulemaking in 2016. In December 2016, DOT formally announced that the
committee charged with the negotiation, comprised of disability
advocates, air carriers, and aircraft manufacturers, had come to an
agreement that would ultimately lead to accessible lavatories on
single-aisle aircraft.
Despite promises from DOT to move forward with an agreement, and a
congressional requirement to publish a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking, DOT has yet to publish the rule.\2\ Although DOT is
planning to publish two rules by the end of the year regarding lavatory
accessibility, the one regarding full access to lavatories will be an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the cost benefit of
requiring fully accessible lavatories.\3\ PVA believes that when
industry and consumers agree on a proposed course of action, as they
did with the negotiated rulemaking, that DOT should remove bureaucratic
hurdles and move forward with those agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ PVA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit in July 2018 to compel DOT to publish the rule as agreed to
during the negotiated rulemaking.
\3\ PVA's litigation is stayed pending DOT's promise to publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking on short-term accessibility improvements
and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on long-term accessibility
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disability-related provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act
and the study on lavatory access represent an important step forward in
efforts to improve the air travel experience of passengers with
disabilities. However, more work remains to be done. Thus, we are proud
to strongly support the Air Carrier Access Amendments Act, H.R. 1549,
which was introduced in March by Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI). This
legislation would greatly improve accessibility within aircraft and
strengthen enforcement of the ACAA.
The Americans with Disabilities Act ensures access to mass
transportation in the United States. Aircraft, however, are only
covered by the ACAA and have very limited accessibility features for
people with disabilities. Neither passenger seats nor the path to reach
them meet any accessibility standards, other than a requirement for
lowering of armrests on some seats. PVA believes that standards for new
aircraft are necessary to ensure a future with aircraft that will meet
the needs of passengers with disabilities and our aging population.
Only when they are able to independently access aircraft without
depending on unsafe, inefficient assistance will air travel truly be a
viable option for all Americans.
One of the most important changes needed to the ACAA statute
concerns enforcement of its civil rights protections. The statute must
be amended to require DOT to refer alleged violations that are matters
of general importance to the Department of Justice. Furthermore, the
statute must be amended to restore a private right of action for
passengers with disabilities under the ACAA.
Unlike laws governing access for people with disabilities in other
forms of transportation, the ACAA does not explicitly allow people with
disabilities to enforce their civil rights, if needed, in a court of
law. Prior to 2001, some courts \4\ had held that the ACAA allowed for
a private right of action. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001),\5\ however, the
Second,\6\ Fifth,\7\ Ninth,\8\ Tenth,\9\ and Eleventh \10\ U.S. Courts
of Appeals have ruled that there is no private right of action under
the ACAA. We believe that Congress must act to restore this right to
paralyzed veterans and all passengers with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eighth Circuits
had previously ruled that there is a private right of action under the
ACAA. Shinault v. American Airlines, Inc., 936 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1991)
and Tallarico v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F.2d 566 (8th Cir.
1989).
\5\ In Sandoval, the Court held that a private right of action
should not be implied absent obvious congressional intent.
\6\ Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways, 662 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2011).
\7\ Stokes v. Southwest Airlines, 887 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2018).
\8\ Segalman v. Southwest Airlines Company, 895 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir.
2018).
\9\ Boswell v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., 361 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir.
2004).
\10\ Love v. Delta Airlines, 310 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that pilots, flight attendants, gate agents and other
carrier personnel want to do their best to assist all passengers,
including those who have disabilities. However, as an industry, air
carriers' policies, procedures, and business decisions often prevent
passengers with disabilities from having a safe, satisfying air travel
experience. We want air carriers to do the right thing. Many times,
that means we need Congress and DOT to guide them.
PVA thanks you for this opportunity to express our views. We would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Zurfluh.
I will start my questions with Mr. Zurfluh. The
reauthorization bill directs the DOT to actually, as well,
study the feasibility of in-cabin wheelchair restraint systems
to cut down on the need to transfer folks from a wheelchair to
a seat. Can you elaborate at all on how an in-cabin wheelchair
restraint would change the flight experience with passengers
with disabilities?
Mr. Zurfluh. I can give you several, Mr. Larsen. I have
been both a witness and experienced it personally.
A couple of years ago I had fallen and hurt my hip. And the
one scary thing that these individuals face is that--the aisle
chair when you go down the back of an aircraft. I had hurt my
hip, and I was scared that the people weren't trained to
properly lift me into that seat. So I chose to do it myself the
best I could.
The individuals that were taking me back weren't paying
attention. They banged my leg on every aisle chair, about 15
rows back. And the pain was so intense, but I had an event that
I promised I would come to DC for, and so I delivered on that
promise.
Ernie Butler also experienced similar situations, and he
would, instead of being on an aisle chair, grab the back of
chairs and get his wheelchair as close as he could into the
cabin, grab the back of the seats, kind of bunny hop himself to
wherever he needed to be, for fear that they would injure him
like they did in the past.
He did this probably 40 times before his passing, but it
was--everybody here to my left has those stories, and
experienced that situation. And the fear of getting on an aisle
chair is immense to all of us.
Mr. Larsen. In your written testimony--I believe in yours--
you recount the number of wheelchair damage reports. Was that
in your written statement?
Mr. Zurfluh. I don't have the exact number, but it is in
the thousands.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, OK. I just wanted to highlight that for
the committee.
Mr. Zurfluh. Actually, tens of thousands would be more
specific.
Mr. Larsen. OK. If we keep talking it might be 100,000.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Larsen. So thank you.
Mr. Walden, let's just--during your testimony I was talking
to the staff a little bit about the integration pilot program,
and the fact that we gave direction to FAA to fund that for 2
years. Do you have any thoughts about whether or not it needs
to be extended beyond the 2-year legal limit?
Mr. Walden. Thank you for the question. In my opening
remarks I mentioned that success has been uneven. We have had
reports.
There are some participants that have beyond-visual-line-
of-sight authority that are engaged in package delivery, and
only one for compensation or hire. Other test sites are--others
have not been that active, and it has been taking a long time
to get waivers.
So we would recommend not only that the program be
extended, but be broadened. I think when the Secretary
announced the initial selection, it was the idea that others
would be selected at a later time. There are a number of
applicants that were very well qualified.
With the matter--with regard to most of the IP programs,
they were de-scoped at the start, so that if you--if an IPP
said, ``We are selected, we have got 15 projects,'' and the FAA
says, ``Well, we will go with three right now,'' and that left
a lot of good work not done. So it needs to have more FAA
resources. It needs to be extended. It needs to be broadened.
Mr. Larsen. All right. Ms. Nelson, you testified that three
airlines now have--your members have negotiated in the
agreements a 10-hour rest rule, and Delta has made an
announcement, as well. Any concerns that--not so much that the
market is getting ahead of the FAA, but that the FAA is behind
the market?
And in that, will the FAA be able to develop a 10-hour rest
rule that conforms to what your members and the airlines are
actually negotiating?
Ms. Nelson. What we have negotiated is language that
mirrors what was written in the law. So it is the exact same.
There is no conflict there at all.
And I should also note that Horizon Air has agreed to
implement this outside of contract negotiations, as well, but
that there is a big difference between having negotiated
contract language and having a regulation that the airlines
must follow, and must follow through with, and expect that
there will be enforcement from the FAA. There are many more
higher penalties for violating that, as opposed to committing a
contract violation.
So this--we have been able to determine that there is not a
cost factor of note to this, that the implementation can take
place in a matter of weeks--actually, is what we have been
experiencing--and that all that the FAA needs to do, based on
all of the data that we already have from the seven
commissioned fatigue studies, and from the data that we have
compiled here, is simply follow the direction of Congress to
update the rule and force the airlines to implement the rest.
Mr. Larsen. All right, thank you. I recognize Mr.
Fitzpatrick for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all
the panelists for being here. I want to start with Ms. Nelson.
First off, Ms. Nelson, thank you for your passion in
fighting for the health, safety, and equality of the people you
represent. You are doing a great job. And I can say that
firsthand.
You had mentioned the recent GAO study that identified
ongoing problems facing passenger service agents. What steps do
you believe that need to be taken, both us on the committee,
and those implementing it, in light of that report?
Ms. Nelson. The GAO study confirms what we already know,
that customer service agents experience verbal and physical
harassment regularly. And so what needs to happen is that most
airlines have not complied with what is in the act, and that is
to develop assault incident protocol where they have a clear
process for handling assault when it happens, training for
those customer service agents, and signage that makes it clear
to the public what the penalties are if they conduct in this
kind of behavior.
Now, I will tell you from firsthand experience that I came
around the corner on an evening in an airport where there were
severe storms and flights were being canceled everywhere.
Because staffing has been reduced both on the plane and at the
gates to the lowest level, there was one customer service agent
handling reporting that a flight was going to be canceled that
night. And there was a family of five that were going on their
vacation, who were there to scratch up her arm so badly that
blood was dripping from her arms by the time I got there. There
was no other airline personnel there to see it. There was no
law enforcement to respond. And she was in shock coming around
the corner, having been by herself.
If we are going to take this seriously, then the airlines
need to take this seriously with the protocol that they are
required to submit to the FAA. The FAA needs to engage and
enforce this portion of the act. And we need to be very clear
in aviation, from the highest levels of leadership down to the
signage at our airports, that assault of a customer service
agent is a felony, people will be held accountable, we bring a
coordinated roundtable with law enforcement at the airports,
and we all understand what the protocol is to respond. That is
the only way that we are going to stop what is happening. And
it is an epidemic in our airports.
And, as flight attendants, we want this to be addressed,
because we do not need these passengers who are already
expressing incredible aggressive behavior to slip through the
cracks and get onto our planes. This is a very serious issue,
and it needs to be taken more seriously.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Ms. Nelson.
Captain Fox, you are a subject matter expert in an area
that you heard me question Mr. Elwell about: secondary
barriers. Thank you for your advocacy for that.
And, Ms. Nelson, perhaps you can opine on this, as well.
Give us your perspective, representing the airline pilots and
the flight attendants, on the, as of now, failure to implement
what we passed in the FAA reauthorization. And that is only on
new aircraft. As you know, we are fighting for retrofitting, as
well. If you could, just share your thoughts on that, sir. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Fox. So thank you for the oversight and pressure from
this committee. Because, clearly, from my standpoint of view,
it is going to be required to get this law mandated, out there,
and implemented.
It is our opinion that forming this advisory committee
working group right now, the FAA's looking at secondary
barriers, is a waste of resources that they have. This work was
done by a Federal advisory group, RTCA, back in 2008, and they
produced the document that is the performance standard to
implement this secondary barrier from 50 seats up to the 787.
And when the Assistant Administrator addressed that it--
also the flight attendant piece was in there, the flight
attendant piece was in there, but it was in there for an
interim period of time, until the secondary barrier was put in
place.
They have the costing data, they know how to certify to put
it in the airplanes. It needs to be done right now. They can
issue tomorrow an interim final rule, an IFR. They can issue an
interim final rule tomorrow to implement this law and take
comments. And that is what I think should happen.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. What do you suspect the reason is for the
delay?
Mr. Fox. There is--it is pure and simple. The reason, in
our opinion, is there are special interests, the ones that have
been fighting us all along to do what is right, are out there
right now fighting again. And to me, it is a disrespect the
Congress that passed that law.
Ms. Nelson. It is a disrespect to Ellen Saracini, who is in
the room today, and to my friends who were on flight 175 with
her husband, Captain Victor Saracini. Eighteen years later,
this is too long.
The flight attendants who were standing there, using their
own bodies as a guard against the flight deck, thought that
they were doing that for an interim period of time. And we need
these secondary barriers. They were on planes. There were
decisions that were made by some of the airlines to remove them
from preinstalled secondary barriers that were on new aircraft
that were designed. And they did that for cost reasons.
Aviation safety and security is written in blood, and 18
years is long enough. We need to get this done, and I
appreciate your leadership and your passion on this issue to
make sure that it happens.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you. And I ask my committee members
and colleagues to really take note of this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I am going to turn to Representative
Garcia from Illinois.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Five minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all the
panelists for their testimony.
So I represent a lot of hard-working, working-class people
in my district, folks who work day and night to make ends meet.
When I learned about the long hours, often uncompensated,
that flight attendants endure, I was really surprised. People
think it is kind of a glamorous job still.
Even more so, to find out that the meager changes made to
flight attendants' adequate rest has been delayed--can you, Ms.
Nelson, provide me with any additional comments about the
strains that this puts on individuals, your families, staff
morale, and performance?
And separately, what impacts this may have on safety of the
flying public?
Ms. Nelson. Thank you very much for the question. Flight
attendants are aviation's first responders, and they must be
prepared to respond immediately. They switch back and forth
between being safety professionals and serving with incredible
emotional intelligence to be able to handle all of the people
onboard.
Oftentimes we have to de-escalate conflict, and when we
don't get enough rest it is much harder to do that. It is much
harder to respond to any safety issue. I have another report
from a flight attendant who said that she was so fatigued from
a short night that she forgot to do the safety demo on the
plane.
So these--oftentimes the flight attendants who are
experiencing these short nights and long days are typically the
more junior flight attendants. You brought up the issue of pay.
These are people who are having to work long hours, not make
enough money, and one of the issues of fatigue is also not
getting enough nutrition. Oftentimes they don't have enough
money to eat. These are the same people who are not getting
enough rest to avoid fatigue and perform the very serious
safety and security functions that they must perform.
I mentioned earlier responding to a medical emergency. We
are also trained that a medical emergency could be a diversion
for a much more serious security attack. And we have to remain
vigilant to all of these issues onboard, in addition to
managing all the different personalities onboard that sometimes
don't always get along.
So this is a very serious stress. It happens every single
day. And we continue to receive reports from flight attendants
who are under great strain in their own personal health, and in
their ability to perform their safety duties and respond in an
evacuation. And also in their home lives, because when they go
home they are beat, and they often then have to take care of
children or other responsibilities.
Mr. Garcia. Can you comment, Ms. Nelson, on the seat sizes
and space between rows? The case that has been mentioned here
at--American Airlines flight 383 at Chicago O'Hare is, I think,
an occasion that raises much concern about this. Can you
elaborate on efforts to put more passengers on planes, and how
this may jeopardize safety?
Ms. Nelson. Yes, we are very much in support of the
evacuation certification standards study. And, in fact, we
think we need to move forward with addressing the very real
conditions in the cabin today.
We suspect that the 90-second rule cannot be met with the
current conditions on board if you were to conduct an actual
evacuation certification, and in real time, with real people,
who weren't told ahead of time, or volunteered and come to the
test with tennis shoes on, and a good breakfast in their belly,
and being prepared to respond, because they know that is why
they are there.
So we are very concerned about the shrinking seats, more
and more people being packed on our planes closer and closer
together, and no realistic assessment of today's passenger
size, or the conditions in the cabin that include having
personal electronic devices plugged in everywhere, people
stuffing in their overhead baggage everywhere. These evacuation
certification tests have never taken into consideration the
bags that people are taking with them today. And so there is
not a realistic assessment. And we believe that that is going
to lead to a loss of life if we don't take action right now to
correct it.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I yield my time, Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I recognize Ranking Member Graves
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My
question is mainly--and this goes back to--it is to Mr. Baker.
From a pilot's perspective, I guess you might say, what can
we do, or what should we be focusing on when it comes to our
medium and smaller airports, to make sure they are viable, to
make sure that they are part of an aviation system, that
aviation system throughout the country, that, you know, we just
want to make sure that they continue to function? Because
without those, then, obviously, we crowd up the larger
airports. We want to make sure that that is maintained.
But from your perspective, what do we need to be focusing
on? What do we need to be doing to do a better job when it
comes to smaller airports?
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Congressman Graves, for that
question. Yes, these 5,000 public-use airports, which--airlines
use around 500, the other ones are, as you know, small, rural,
and serve the outer rings of the cities, if you will--are very
important to this infrastructure system.
It was well intended by this Congress to have money set
aside, AIP funds, for these airports. And, unfortunately, there
is a match caused out there that some cities, some communities
are stressed, cannot afford to match those things. We get to
roll over a $150,000 for a couple of years. And too often that
money goes unspent--well intended by this Congress to have
those investments.
But I think we have to really look at--are there ways to
help these communities invest in this incredible infrastructure
that we have uniquely in this country, everything from
paramedic relief, to agriculture, to business, to community
access. These are important investments. We have got to figure
out how you help that match come down. Some of these key
airports, as you well know, there are 3,000 of them that have
that entitlement opportunity.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. I am going to pivot a little bit
now, too, when it comes to GA and ADS-B, and requirements for
that. And we still got a lot of GA aircraft out there that
aren't equipped, and we got a deadline that is coming up very,
very quickly. And are you concerned about that?
Do you think that people are just waiting to see what
happens with the price, because it is expensive?
There are a couple options out there, but it is
extraordinarily expensive to equip. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Baker. Well, you know, the ADS-B equipment mandate,
which starts January of this year, is very concerning. We have
about 87,000 aircraft that probably will be equipped at that
point time, leaving about 70-some-thousand aircraft that use
that airspace that are close to the cities or above 10,000 feet
that won't be equipped as of January 1, most likely.
The cost of equipment has come down. But, as we all know
here, the average age of an aircraft today is 45 years old. You
got a quartile that are less than $40,000 in total value. And
this equipment was running between $2,000 and $6,000 to put on
these airplanes.
General aviation owners have spent over $1\1/2\ billion so
far to participate in this mandate. FAA had a $500 rebate
program in place. It expired. It was very helpful for a lot of
these owners that are doing this for the betterment of the
system, for traffic. They don't have to do this. They want to
do this. We are encouraging them to do it. But I would really
encourage that $500 rebate be reenacted.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. OK, I recognize Representative Norton for 5
minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It was
important to hear from this panel.
I represent a region which has two major airlines. My
question, I suppose, is for Mr.--am I pronouncing this right--
Breyault?
Mr. Breyault, I have a special interest in your testimony
about family seating. And that is not only, as you indicated,
for convenience. A Republican not on this subcommittee, but a
Republican cosponsor and I, Rick Crawford, have sponsored a
bill. We call it the AWARE Act, that mandates that the FBI look
at sexual assaults on airlines, on cruise ships, other forms of
transportation, and disaggregate that information so we know
where these assaults--apparently, there is some information
that--but not disaggregated, so we know what we are talking
about.
This bill, my bill, would go before the Judiciary
Committee, its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security. I have a special interest because I was a former
chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
which wrote the first guidelines on sexual harassment and
assault. And those guidelines probably don't even apply. And--
well, they may, but I am not even sure how they apply in the
context of transportation.
And I note that in your testimony, Mr. Breyault, on page 5,
you say that section 2309--that is apparently of our 2016 FAA
reauthorization bill--mandated--and here I am quoting--``that
within a year after enactment, the DOT review and `if
appropriate' create rules requiring airlines to seat children
aged 13 or under next to an accompanying family member.'' This
would seem to be much more urgent, given what we now know about
sexual assaults on airlines, and I think your testimony that
even children had been sexually assaulted.
Do you have any information whatsoever on whether the
airlines have been approached? I mean that is 2 years. That is
3 years ago, when we mandated that these rules be created.
Mr. Breyault. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
As I mentioned in my oral statement, my colleagues at
Consumer Reports magazine recently released records of their
interactions with the Department of Transportation over just
this issue. And from what I understand, the DOT looked at the
mandate in the bill, which also includes, I believe, some ``as
appropriate'' message, as a--basically, a legislative loophole,
from our opinion. They looked at the number of complaints that
they were receiving about family seating, and decided that what
they wanted to do would be to create a consumer education
website about family seating.
Based on what we have been able to tell, to see, there has
been very little substantive research in terms of talking to
family advocates, psychologists, much beyond looking at how
many complaints they have gotten, and making a determination
that the percentage of----
Ms. Norton. Of course, this mandated a rule.
Mr. Breyault. I am sorry?
Ms. Norton. You indicated in your testimony their website.
Mr. Breyault. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Have they indicated anything about the mandate
from this committee for a rule?
Mr. Breyault. I understand that what they have done is
create a website. And I believe that that is how they believe
they have successfully applied the rule, applied the mandate
that Congress has given them.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, could I ask that the committee
write to the Department of Transportation? This is 3 years ago
we mandated a rule. The testimony here is they have created a
website. We have had testimony here of sexual assaults on
airplanes. Now, that is bad enough for anybody. But involving
children, it does seem to me that the committee should be in
touch not only about the tardiness, but about the effect of
this tardiness on children and other passengers on airlines.
And I ask that a--that--whether in a letter or however the
chairman suits, that we reach the airlines to get a prompt
answer.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I will make a note of that, and I will
have staff follow up with you, so we can get the appropriate
communication out.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
A final question, Mr. Walden. In your written testimony you
mentioned the importance of risk-based decisionmaking when it
comes to UAS integration. You go on to state that you are
concerned that the FAA may be approaching risk in an overly
conservative way. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Walden. Thank you for your question. In the proposed
rule to allow operations over people, the FAA adopts a risk
model that assumes a drone has hit a person. And whether the
drone would be able to fly over people depends on the severity
of that impact.
That is not the test in manned aviation, where you look at
the probability of failure, the probability of impact, and then
the severity of the injury. That is the holistic risk model
that has been recommended by peer-reviewed groups, recommended
by the Centers of Excellence ASSURE, and we are hoping that the
FAA will reconsider that proposed rule.
It will--it wants to time that proposed rule with the
remote ID final rule. And so there is time for the FAA to adopt
a risk model that is the one that is consistent with manned
aviation.
Mr. Larsen. OK, thanks. Thank you.
Before I close I want to just make a note of how much
overlap there was between the questions the Members asked of
the FAA and the DOT and the issues that you, yourselves, have
brought up. So it seems that, at least at this point, we seem
to be on track with the stakeholders with regards to pressing
the FAA on the right things. And we will continue to try to do
that.
The testimony provided has been a good direction to the
full committee, as well, certainly, to the subcommittee.
I know it is late, I know I haven't had lunch, and I am
sure some of you want to have lunch, as well. So, with that, we
have a lot of work left to do, and I really appreciate this
panel's efforts.
And I ask unanimous consent, as well, today that the record
of today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing, and unanimous consent--any objections?
OK, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for
15 days for any additional comments and information submitted
by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
If I don't have anything to add, the subcommittee now
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Submissions for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is with great appreciation that I thank the Chairman for holding
this hearing today, as it allows us to hear, for the first time, from a
senior Trump Administration appointee at the Department of
Transportation (DOT), regarding aviation consumer protection concerns
and explain what DOT has done to improve the consumer experience, as
mandated by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
The United States maintains the world's safest and most complex
aviation system in the world. Maintaining safety of our national
airspace is paramount.
Dallas is home to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, the
fourth busiest airport in the United States and the eleventh busiest
airport in the world. As an aviation hub, consumer protection and
customer experience are very important.
Members of Congress fly back and forth from their districts to
Washington, DC frequently. During my trips, I have witnessed the
frustration of passengers being bumped off of over-booked flights or
when flights are cancelled, leaving them stranded and unable to
complete their trip as planned.
To address these concerns, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
included many consumer protections that DOT was mandated to implement.
Even though the statute became law about a year ago, it appears that
DOT has implemented very few of the provisions involving consumer
protections. For instance, it was only last week that DOT established
the Air Ambulance and Patient Billing Advisory Committee, missing the
statutory deadline of December 2018. This advisory committee was
established only after this Committee had notified DOT of today's
hearing.
Passenger violations of consumer protections are reported by news
outlets almost weekly. It is disappointing that DOT has not made
implementing the 2018 statute's consumer protection mandates a
priority.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from the Administration
witnesses explaining why the consumer protection mandates have not been
implemented.
I am also eager to hear from the second panel of stakeholders on
how DOT's and FAA's delay in implementing the mandates Congress passed
a year ago have impacted them.
Thank you. I yield back.

Letter of September 23, 2019, from Consumer Reports, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
September 23, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, Chairman,
Hon. Sam Graves, Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Hon. Rick Larsen, Chairman,
Hon. Garret Graves, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Aviation, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.

Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chairman Larsen, and
Ranking Member Graves:
Consumer Reports \1\ is writing to inform the Committee of our
continuing serious concerns about the U.S. Department of
Transportation's failure to protect young children from being separated
from their family members on commercial airline flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consumer Reports is the world's largest independent product-
testing organization. It conducts its advocacy work in the areas of
privacy, telecommunications, financial services, food and product
safety, health care, among other areas. Using its dozens of labs, auto
test center, and survey research department, the nonprofit organization
rates thousands of products and services annually. Founded in 1936,
Consumer Reports has over 6 million members and publishes its magazine,
website, and other publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Section 2309 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act
of 2016, DOT was instructed to:

review and. if appropriate, establish a policy directing all
air carriers providing scheduled passenger interstate or
intrastate air transportation to establish policies that enable
a child, who is age 13 or under on the date an applicable
flight is scheduled to occur, to be seated in a seat adjacent
to the seat of an accompanying family member over the age of
13, to the maximum extent practicable and at no additional
cost, except when assignment to an adjacent seat would require
an upgrade to another cabin class.

Three years after enactment of this directive, DOT has taken
virtually no action to address this serious problem.
Family seating is a compelling matter of child safety and security.
As the Federal Bureau of Investigation noted in its April 2018 report
``Sexual Assault Aboard Aircraft,'' these assaults are increasing, and
the victims have included children at least as young as 8 years old.\2\
And it is understandably a concern to families who learn, often after
they buy tickets, that their children may not be able to sit with them
on the flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Bureau of lnvestigation, ``Sexual Assault Aboard
Aircraft,'' April 26, 2018 (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/raising-
awareness-about-sexual-assault-aboard-aircraft-042618). In FY 2017, 63
cases were reported to the FBI, up from 38 in 2014. According to an FBI
airport liaison: ``It's safe to say that many incidents occur that are
not reported.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the long silence from DOT, in September 2018, Consumer
Reports filed a Freedom of Information Act request to determine what
actions the Department had taken to comply with the directive. After
almost an additional year, during which we made repeated inquiries, we
finally received a reply on August 27.\3\ The reply reveals that the
Department contacted major airlines over a several-week period in late
2017, to inquire about their family seating policies and the complaints
received, but did little more than that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available at https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/
department-of-transportation-reply-to-cr-freedom-of-information-
request-on-family-seating/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the internal DOT summaries and discussion of those
conversations were redacted. But the reply, which includes summaries of
more than a hundred consumer complaints, demonstrates that consumers
have serious concerns about airline family seating practices.
Of the 136 complaints provided to CR for events occurring between
March 2016 and November 2018, 82 were filed against the domestic ``Big
Three'' carriers American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United
Airlines, along with their regional and codeshare partners. These
complaints detail a pattern of insensitivity by the airlines against
hundreds of families with young children.

It is clear from these complaints that when families with
young children seek to sit together inflight, airlines regularly impose
or attempt to impose fees for ``preferred'' seat assignments and/or
priority boarding, the very issues that Congress directed DOT to stop.
Several complaining parents made clear that they did not understand
that purchasing a Basic Economy class ticket would prevent them from
being able to sit with their children.
Numerous complaints involve airlines knowingly assigning
seats apart from family to children as young as 2 years old.
Parents cite the emotional trauma of children sitting
alone, including children who are autistic or who suffer seizures. In
multiple cases, parents complain they were worried that young children
sitting away from them were vulnerable to sexual assaults; others noted
that young children sitting alone are particularly vulnerable during
life-threatening emergencies.
Families with children under the age of 5 report being
forced to beg other passengers to switch seats, what one parent called
``relying on the kindness of others.'' In numerous cases families were
asked to deplane because of the inconvenience this caused, while others
ultimately decided they had to deplane because of their concerns for
their children.
In several cases, parents complained that children over
the age of 2 were forced to fly as ``lap children,'' in clear violation
of Federal Aviation Regulation 14 CFR 135.128.
Numerous complaints detail a family having lost
reservations with seats together due to cancelled flights, aircraft
equipment changes, and airline information technology failures. In the
most egregious cases, families who had to re-book their flight to
ensure they were seated together were forced to pay exorbitantly higher
fares, in one case totaling $4,341 more, and in another case totaling
$14,084 more.

The Department has provided two explanations for its failure to
take action. Last week, DOT issued a public statement and updated the
Department's website page. The ``DOT's Review of U.S. Airline Family
Seating Policies'' states: ``Based on the low number of complaints
received and review of airline family seating policies, the Department
determined it was unnecessary to direct airlines to establish policies
on family seating.'' \4\ Instead, as it tells families who manage to
find the information on its website, DOT is leaving the burden on the
families to check and comply with whatever the airline's policies and
restrictions might be.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``DOT's Review of U.S.
Airline Family Seating Policies,'' updated September 27, 2019
(www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/
review-us-airline-family-seating-policies).
\5\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Aviation Consumer Protection
(https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-
protection/family-seating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a flawed basis for inaction. Failure to implement this
Congressional mandate based on the number of complaints received about
family seating problems disregards the physical and emotional
vulnerability of young children traveling apart from their caregivers.
Previously, when we raised the family seating issue at a meeting
between DOT officials and consumer advocates in August 2019, a DOT
official stated that the Department wanted to ensure that any
regulation regarding family seating ``doesn't impose undue burdens'' on
the airlines. That is likewise not an acceptable basis for ignoring
this problem.
The DOT web page claims that the Department ``recognizes the
importance that families place on sitting together when flying.'' \6\
It is clear from the Department's inaction, and the fact that families
continue to submit complaints about being separated from their small
children, that DOT does not recognize the importance of this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We hope you will agree that the response of the Department of
Transportation--to do nothing, after three years of silence--is
unacceptable. And we urge the Subcommittee to use time at the oversight
hearing this week to demand that the Department do more to protect
children and to ensure that small children are able to sit together
with their families on flights--at no extra cost, and without having to
beg their fellow passengers to switch seats with them.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns. We request that this
letter be made part of the hearing record.
Respectfully,
William J. McGee,
Aviation and Travel Adviser,
Consumer Reports.
George P. Slover,
Senior Policy Counsel,
Consumer Reports.
Anna Laitin,
Director, Financial
Services, Consumer
Reports.

cc: Members, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Letter of July 3, 2019, to Hon. Elaine Chao, Secretary of
Transportation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Andre Carson
July 3, 2019.
Hon. Elaine Chao,
Secretary of Transportation,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE, Washington,
DC.

Dear Secretary Chao:
We are writing to clarify the legislative intent for a provision in
the FAA Reauthorization (P.L. 115-254), which requires the installation
of secondary cockpit barriers on all new passenger aircraft. It has
come to our attention that certain parties are seeking to undermine the
clear statutory meaning of the provision or otherwise delay the law's
implementation. The provision (Section 336, the Saracini Aviation
Safety Act of 2018) specifically requires the ``installation of a
secondary cockpit barrier on each new aircraft that is manufactured for
delivery to a passenger air carrier in the United States operating
under the provisions of part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations.'' Congress drafted this language with the clear intent to
apply secondary barriers to all new manufactured aircraft; therefore,
any attempt by the FAA to reinterpret the provision more narrowly or to
further study these well-understood security barriers would
substantially delay implementation and evade incontrovertible
Congressional intent.
What is so profoundly troubling is the assertion made by opponents
of the provision claiming that the statute was intended to apply only
to new ``models'' of aircraft that require a new type certificate. This
was not our intent. If this had been our original intent, the language
would have specifically mentioned new type certificated aircraft.
Requiring the application of secondary barriers for only new type
certificates is a vastly different standard than the new aircraft
requirement that was agreed to on a bipartisan basis in both the House
and Senate. A ``new type'' standard would only cover aircraft that are
not currently in production and for which a ``proposed change in
design, power, thrust, or weight is so extensive that substantially
complete investigation of compliance with the applicable regulations is
required.'' \1\ Orders requiring new type certificates are quite rare;
in fact, a 2015 ICF International report finds it is ``unlikely a new
type design will seek certification in the next 10 to 15 years.'' Even
in the event an order is placed on a new type design, it takes on
average 8-10 years to develop such an aircraft. Effectively, this new
type standard would delay application of this post-9/11 security
requirement for decades. This is the reason our language is specific to
exclude any mention of new type certificates and instead deliberately
chose secondary barriers to apply to all newly manufactured aircraft
off the production line after the specified date in the provision. On
this point, the provision's language could not be more clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 14 CFR 21.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislative history from each chamber of Congress is
unambiguous on this matter. The language in the Senate bill base text
and the language that was added to the House bill by amendment during
full committee markup both clearly require the installation of
secondary barriers on all newly manufactured aircraft delivered to part
121 passenger air carriers. There had never been any deviation to
consider new type certificate aircraft at any time during the bill's
consideration.
Similarly, opponents are also suggesting that secondary barriers
need further study, require the establishment of an aviation rulemaking
committee, or that manufacturers should be allowed an alternative means
of complying with the legal mandate. The design of secondary barriers
is well established, studied, have been installed on part 121 carriers
dating back more than a decade, and their installation is required by
the law. In 2011, RTCA Inc.--a private sector firm that works with the
FAA--completed a comprehensive study at the request of industry
stakeholders on secondary barriers to provide manufacturers and
carriers with an acceptable means of understanding and complying with
regulations on secondary barriers. Therefore, attempts to exhaust more
resources or time studying these barriers can only be interpreted as a
diversionary delay tactic; and any effort to find another means of
complying violates the clear terms of the statute to install these
barriers by October 2019.
Safety and security are our foremost priorities and secondary
cockpit barriers address known weaknesses and risks that will help keep
passengers, flight crew, and the American public safe. An FAA official
testified before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that
some types of barriers have already been approved for use. Our intent
is to have secondary cockpit barriers adopted as soon as possible as
required by P.L. 115-254.
We appreciate your time and look forward to working with you to
implement the provision as intended by Congress.
Sincerely,
Andre Carson, Member of Congress; Brian K.
Fitzpatrick, Member of Congress; Jerrold
Nadler, Member of Congress; Peter T. King,
Member of Congress; Josh Gottheimer, Member
of Congress; Donald M. Payne, Jr., Member
of Congress; Alan Lowenthal, Member of
Congress; Raja Krishnamoorthi, Member of
Congress; Thomas R. Suozzi, Member of
Congress; Val Butler Demings, Member of
Congress; Ann M. Kuster, Member of
Congress; James P. McGovern, Member of
Congress; Tom Malinowski, Member of
Congress; Xochitl Torres Small, Member of
Congress; Cedric L. Richmond, Member of
Congress; Kathleen M. Rice, Member of
Congress; Elaine Luria, Member of Congress;
Paul Cook, Member of Congress; J. Luis
Correa, Member of Congress; Earl
Blumenauer, Member of Congress; Katie
Porter, Member of Congress; Kim Schrier,
Member of Congress; James A. Himes, Member
of Congress; Derek Kilmer, Member of
Congress; Tulsi Gabbard, Member of
Congress; Raul M. Grijalva, Member of
Congress; Frank Pallone, Jr., Member of
Congress; Diana DeGette, Member of
Congress; Tom Cole, Member of Congress; Gus
Bilirakis, Member of Congress; Ben Ray
Lujan, Member of Congress; Sean Patrick
Maloney, Member of Congress; Bill Johnson,
Member of Congress; Henry C. ``Hank''
Johnson, Jr., Member of Congress; Paul
Tonko, Member of Congress; Brian Higgins,
Member of Congress; David B, McKinley,
P.E., Member of Congress; Pete Aguilar,
Member of Congress; Vicente Gonzalez,
Member of Congress; Debbie Dingell, Member
of Congress; Abby Finkenauer, Member of
Congress; John Curtis, Member of Congress;
Ross Spano, Member of Congress; Filemon
Vela, Member of Congress; Chris Pappas,
Member of Congress; Cynthia Axne, Member of
Congress; Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Member of
Congress; Eric Swalwell, Member of
Congress; Jamie Raskin, Member of Congress;
Jack Bergman, Member of Congress; Mark
DeSaulnier, Member of Congress; Susie Lee,
Member of Congress; Jesus G. ``Chuy''
Garcia, Member of Congress; Don Bacon,
Member of Congress; Matt Cartwright, Member
of Congress; Donald S. Beyer, Member of
Congress; Katie Hill, Member of Congress;
Ruben Gallego, Member of Congress; Ed
Perlmutter, Member of Congress; Joe Neguse,
Member of Congress; Mark Pocan, Member of
Congress; Salud Carbajal, Member of
Congress; Pramila Jayapal, Member of
Congress; Angie Craig, Member of Congress;
Jared Huffman, Member of Congress; Max
Rose, Member of Congress; Elissa Slotkin,
Member of Congress; Sharice L. Davids,
Member of Congress; Grace F. Napolitano,
Member of Congress; Adriano Espaillat,
Member of Congress; Michael F.Q. San
Nicolas, Member of Congress; Jim Costa,
Member of Congress; Steve Cohen, Member of
Congress; David Price, Member of Congress;
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Member of Congress;
Fred Upton, Member of Congress; Bobby L.
Rush, Member of Congress; Grace Meng,
Member of Congress; Julia Brownley, Member
of Congress; Adam Smith, Member of
Congress; Albio Sires, Member of Congress;
Harley Rouda, Member of Congress; Peter
Visclosky, Member of Congress; Suzan K.
DelBene, Member of Congress; Joe Courtney,
Member of Congress; Scott Peters, Member of
Congress; Daniel W. Lipinski, Member of
Congress; Janice Schakowsky, Member of
Congress; John Garamendi, Member of
Congress; Bill Pascrell, Jr., Member of
Congress; Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Member of Congress; Eliot Engel, Member of
Congress; Tony Cardenas, Member of
Congress; Bonnie Watson Coleman, Member of
Congress; Ed Case, Member of Congress;
Norma J. Torres, Member of Congress; Bob
Gibbs, Member of Congress; Dina Titus,
Member of Congress; Kurt Schrader, Member
of Congress; Jackie Speier, Member of
Congress; Frederica S. Wilson, Member of
Congress; William R. Keating, Member of
Congress; Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr., Member
of Congress; Linda T. Sanchez, Member of
Congress; Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Member of
Congress; Brendan F. Boyle, Member of
Congress; Mark Meadows, Member of Congress;
Lee Zeldin, Member of Congress; Seth
Moulton, Member of Congress; Kevin Brady,
Member of Congress.

Appendix

----------

Questions from Hon. Albio Sires to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

Question 1. Given the prevalence of food allergy among children and
Congress' mandate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to take
the needs of children into account when evaluating the appropriate
contents of medical kits on planes, can you please update me on the
status of FAA's evaluation of emergency medical kits?
Answer. In response to Section 307 of the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018 (2018 Act), the FAA received information from the Aerospace
Medical Association (AsMA), which conducted a study of the required
Emergency Medical Kit contents on commercial aircraft. To conduct the
study, AsMA utilized their Air Transport Medicine Committee composed of
Aerospace Medicine experts from the U.S. and internationally. This
Committee also collaborated with the American Academy of Pediatrics
related to specific pediatric contents. We received their report in
June 2019.
Our subject experts in the Office of Aerospace Medicine completed
their review of the AsMA report in late August. The agency is currently
considering issuing a notice to part 121 air carriers to inform them of
the study and remind them that no regulation prohibits them from
voluntarily carrying additional medications in their aircraft emergency
medical kits at their discretion. The agency remains committed to
continuing its review of the study as well as other information the
agency might receive. The agency does not rule out other activities in
response to the results of the study or receipt of other relevant
information.

Question 2. Can you please assure me that countermeasures for food
allergy and anaphylaxis are being addressed in terms of the evaluation,
with a focus on the needs of children?
Answer. Yes. The FAA is taking the needs of children into account
under our review of aircraft medical kit contents in accordance with
Section 307(b) of the 2018 Act. Our review includes consideration of
medications for the treatment of food allergies and anaphylaxis.

Question 3. If the evaluation is not yet complete, can you confirm
that the FAA is taking under consideration new products including those
that allow for infants and toddlers to be protected?
Answer. Yes, as noted above, the FAA is taking the needs of
children into account under our review of aircraft medical kit contents
in accordance with Section 307(b) of the 2018 Act.

Questions from Hon. Sam Graves to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

Question 1. In your written testimony you explain that for a
variety of reasons FAA has prioritized its Reauthorization
implementation strategy. Can you describe what the strategy is and how
you prioritized the many mandates in the Reauthorization Law?
Answer. Safety is the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's)
first priority and the agency is working hard to implement the hundreds
of specific deliverables in the 2018 Reauthorization Act (2018 Act or
Act) while we simultaneously continue to carry out our mission and
daily operations. It has also been our approach, generally, to work
toward completion of the mandates in the order in which they are due.
Although the 2018 Act reauthorized aviation programs for five years,
the majority of the congressional mandates are due within the first
year. To illustrate the magnitude of the FAA's first year requirements,
consider the following approximate numbers. The 2018 Act requires the
FAA to:

complete 33 rulemakings--13 of which are due within one
year;
complete 79 reports to Congress--54 of which are due
within the first year;
conduct 21 studies or briefings--all of which are due
within one year;
complete 15 new advisory committee, working group or task
force actions--10 of which are due within the first year;
carry out 12 new programs or pilot programs--6 of which
are due within the first year; and
develop 51 plans/processes/performance metrics/databases
or guidance--27 of which are due within the first year.

The FAA will continue to work as quickly as possible to address all
of the congressional mandates required under the 2018 Act.

Question 2. Realistically, when will Remote ID for drones be in use
in the National Airspace System?
Answer. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the ``Remote
Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems'' is currently in Executive
Branch clearance. We anticipate the NPRM will be published soon. The
FAA has been engaging with industry to help establish foundational
elements that will facilitate future implementation of the rule. In
December of 2018, we issued a Request for Information (RFI) to seek
industry partners interested in becoming a UAS Service Supplier (USS)
with the intent of establishing a practical approach to information and
data sharing. This opportunity will support the FAA's ability to
develop data exchange strategies between UAS and appropriate
stakeholders. In June of 2019, we tasked the Drone Advisory Committee
(DAC) with developing recommendations on voluntary equipage prior to
the effective date of the rule. The DAC formally provided these
recommendations on October 17, 2019. The recommendations are in FAA
review for effectiveness, feasibility, and safety/security
implications.
The recommendations of the DAC can be viewed here: https://
www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/drone_advisory_committee/media/
eBook_10-17-2019_DAC_Meeting.pdf
The FAA is planning an aggressive implementation schedule, and
after the NPRM is published, the FAA will review the comments and
determine impact to the schedule.

Question 3. FAA has issued a lot of AIP grants in the last few
weeks. Can you talk about how these funds are benefitting aviation
infrastructure and small airports?
Answer. In Fiscal Year 2019, The FAA issued grants for
approximately $3.6 billion in AIP dollars. This includes $265 million
in Supplemental Appropriations. In the last few weeks of this fiscal
year, 439 grants and over $1.4 billion in funding were issued for
various airport infrastructure improvements. These improvements include
rehabilitation and construction of runways, taxiways, and apron
pavements along with terminal building construction and improvements.
Of the grants issued in September 2019, 45 percent of these grants
funded airport improvements at small or general aviation airports. This
infusion of capital for airport development i.e. maintenance and
expansion of the airport facilities greatly enhances the local
communities' ability to serve the flying public in their area where
transportation connectivity is often critical.

Question 4. What are the ``lessons-learned'' so far from the
President's Integration Pilot Program for unmanned aircraft systems or
drones?
Answer. The work being done through the UAS Integration Pilot
Program (IPP) is helping us understand what the future UAS Traffic
Management System will need to look like. We are also learning more
about the public's perception of UAS and the need for community
engagement. While local communities are generally supportive of UAS
operations related to emergency response, infrastructure inspection,
and medical package delivery, there are still concerns about privacy,
safety, and noise.
The IPP is also helping to establish the safety cases needed to
conduct advanced UAS operations like Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight
(BVLOS). In July 2019, the FAA issued the first BVLOS waiver that did
not require visual observers (VOs). Subsequently, the FAA has approved
additional BVLOS waivers that do not require VOs.
Through the IPP, Wing Aviation and UPS Flight Forward have received
certification under 14 CFR part 119 to operate UAS flights as an air
carrier under 14 CFR part 135 for compensation or hire. We've seen that
air carriers that are already certificated for operations with manned
aircraft are better positioned to be successful with certification for
operations with UAS because these companies have experience with the
certification process. Going forward, we are encouraging potential
applicants for part 135 certification to consider working with
certificated air carriers and providing more resources to assist the
applicants that are not familiar with the process.
Lastly, this effort is assisting the Department in the collection
of data and proofs of concept that will better allow the Department to
address the concerns of our security partners in future rulemakings and
FAA actions.

Question 5. Deputy Administrator Elwell, as you know the Federal
contract tower program is a great example of a successful public/
private partnership, but it is also vitally important to small, rural,
and general aviation airports. The Reauthorization law made a number of
significant reforms to the way the FAA manages the program. Can you
provide an update on the status of those reforms?
Answer. Key reforms to the Federal contract tower (FCT) program
have been integrated into the FAA's processes and procedures for
administering the program. The most notable reforms include processing
benefit-cost (BC) ratios using the previously established method from
1990 (FAA-APO-90-7), and doing so within 90 days of receiving a
complete application. The FAA has received nine applications from new
applicants since the bill was enacted, and has been processing these
applications as expeditiously as possible.
The revised law prohibits the FAA from conducting a BC analysis on
FCT program participants unless air traffic at a participating facility
has decreased by more than 25 percent in one year or more than 55
percent in the preceding three-year period. The FAA will reassess
towers only if these criteria are met.
The Reauthorization language also provided that if an existing
participant in the FCT program is operating under the cost-share
program, the Secretary shall annually calculate a BC ratio with respect
to the tower. The calculations for these cost-share towers are
underway.
In addition, the FAA has eliminated the $2 million cumulative
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) cap and provided guidance to FAA
personnel regarding the availability of Small Airport Funds (a
discretionary fund set aside under the AIP) for eligible contract tower
projects. The FAA issued updated guidance on these changes in July 2019
and is working with potential recipients of these funds for any high-
priority tower projects.

Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

Question 6. The Committee is especially aware of concerns with the
cybersecurity of both aircraft and air traffic control systems. We
firmly believe that the FAA is and must remain the lead on these issues
given its expertise and understanding of the technologies, security
risks, and safety implications. Two questions:
a. The Reauthorization includes a number of mandates related to
cybersecurity, including section 506, Securing aircraft avionics
systems; section 509, Review of FAA strategic cybersecurity plan; and
section 549, Study on cybersecurity workforce of FAA. What is the
status of these mandates?
Answer:

Section 506. Securing aircraft avionics systems:

The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Aircraft Systems
Information Security and Protection (ASISP) Working Group delivered a
total of 30 recommendations to the FAA and industry pertaining to:
rulemaking; policy and guidance; best practices; leveraging and/or
updating of industry standards; continued operational safety; specific
technologies, designee standards; and research and development. The
strategy to address the recommendations is documented in the FAA's
Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) ASISP Strategic Plan. The plan details
initiatives designed to address security risks and the protection of
critical aircraft systems, including avionics suites and associated
networks. AVS has completed 17 recommendations and is tracking the
completion of the remaining 13 recommendations on a monthly basis.

Section 509. Review of the FAA strategic cybersecurity plan:

The FAA completed its review and update to the Cybersecurity
Strategy in September 2019. Overseen by the FAA Cybersecurity Steering
Committee (CSC), the strategy articulates the Agency's strategy for
protecting the FAA's information systems and critical infrastructure.
It guides the development and execution of the FAA Cybersecurity
Program and strengthens FAA's overall cybersecurity posture. More
specifically, the plan identifies five goals that describe a strategic
approach to cybersecurity for the FAA enterprise. The five goals are
to:

Refine and maintain a cybersecurity governance structure
to enhance cross-domain synergy;
Protect and defend FAA networks and systems to mitigate
risks to FAA missions and service delivery;
Enhance data-driven risk management decision
capabilities;
Build and maintain workforce capabilities for
cybersecurity; and
Build and maintain relationships with, and provide
guidance to, external partners in government and industry to sustain
and improve cybersecurity in the aviation ecosystem

Section 549. Study on cybersecurity workforce of the FAA:

In September 2019, the FAA awarded a contract to the National
Academy of Sciences to initiate a cybersecurity workforce study. This
study will be completed by the end of FY 2021 and will include: the
FAA's cybersecurity workforce challenges; a review of the FAA's current
strategy for meeting those challenges; and recommendations related to
strengthening the FAA's cybersecurity workforce. Quarterly updates on
the progress of the study will be provided to the FAA Cybersecurity
Steering Committee.

b. Can you explain how the FAA interacts with other government
agencies on cybersecurity issues and efforts?
Answer. The FAA continues to engage in cybersecurity information
sharing with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National
Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), United
States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) and Industrial
Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). Our
participation facilitates the exchange of critical cybersecurity
information and creates situational awareness of malicious cyber
activity.
The FAA validates, coordinates, and responds to requests for
information from the National Security Council and the interagency
community requiring FAA support. FAA identifies, assesses, and works to
mitigate national security risks ranging from nation-state and non-
nation state actors to transnational organizations' cyber intrusions
and intelligence collection activity directed against the FAA.
As a tri-chair member of the Aviation Cybersecurity Initiative
(ACI), an interagency partnership with DHS and Department of Defense
(DoD), we work together to improve cybersecurity across the aviation
ecosystem.

Question 7. Mr. Elwell, section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety,
and Security Act of 2016 required the FAA to establish a process for
operators of sensitive facilities, such as energy production and
chemical facilities, restrict the operation of unmanned aircraft
systems over or adjacent to their facilities. What is the status of the
creation of this process, and what other steps is FAA taking to ensure
that unmanned aircraft are not operated over or near sensitive
facilities?
Answer. In order to implement section 2209 of the FAA Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (FESSA), the Department of
Transportation's (DOT's) Office of the Secretary and the FAA determined
that Notice and Comment rulemaking is required and initiated a
regulatory action. DOT and FAA are currently working on the rulemaking
required to implement section 2209.
In the interim, in order to begin meeting the intent of 2209, the
FAA used existing authority to put restrictions over security sensitive
sites identified by federal security agencies (such as military
installations, sensitive energy facilities, and iconic landmarks like
the Statue of Liberty, Hoover Dam, and Mount Rushmore), and recently
expanded the sites to include federal prisons in urban settings using
existing authority under 14 CFR Sec. 99.7. As we proceed with the
rulemaking work, the FAA continues to meet with critical infrastructure
owners and associations to support incident response planning, law
enforcement engagement, public education and community outreach.
Ultimately, though, we believe remote ID requirements and a robust
unmanned aircraft system (UAS) traffic management (UTM) suite of
services are going to resolve many of the challenges Congress
anticipated with 2209 to address the concerns of critical
infrastructure owners.
We have issued hundreds of flight restrictions and learned a lot
that is helping to shape the rulemaking. This work is incredibly labor-
intensive, and FAA is concerned that, once a 2209 process is
implemented, we will be flooded with potentially tens of thousands of
requests and will be challenged in taking a risk-based, efficient
approach to assessing and responding to these requests. We hope to
implement criteria that will help protect the highest-risk facilities
that could impact national security and economic stability, as well as
public safety, if damaged by a UAS incident, without impeding legal UAS
operations.

Question 8. Mr. Elwell, the negligent or nefarious use of unmanned
aircraft systems in a way that disrupts airport operations has become a
major concern, especially after the high profile incident near Gatwick
airport last December. However, the use of counter-UAS systems in an
airport environment poses a number of operational and safety challenges
that need to be overcome, which is why Congress directed the FAA to
carry out an Airspace Hazard Mitigation Pilot Program. What is the
status of this pilot program and what barriers remain to the safe use
of counter-UAS systems in an airport environment?
Answer. The FAA is in the planning stages of the Airspace Hazard
Mitigation Pilot Program required under section 383 of FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018. The FAA will build upon previous work
performed under section 2206 of FESSA, enacted in 2016, to inform
testing and evaluation of UAS detection systems and mitigation systems,
also known as counter unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS). The FAA's
evaluations, under 2206, were limited to only some types of detection
since the Agency lacked relief from various provisions in title 18 and
title 49, United States Code. The FAA is working closely with federal
security partners to develop a program structure and plan to address
the variety of detection and C-UAS test activities occurring across the
interagency. Results will inform test activities at pilot airports.
As part of the tasking in section 383, the FAA will also initiate
an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to gain industry input on necessary
performance standards to support the safe and effective use of
detection and mitigation systems in the NAS. The FAA expects this
effort to be informed by the Airspace Hazard Mitigation Pilot Program
mentioned above. Standards development is vital, among other things, to
enabling potential use of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding for
UAS detection and C-UAS system procurement. Even when standards are
developed, however, airports cannot use certain detection equipment,
nor can they use any C-UAS equipment since C-UAS authority is limited
to certain federal agencies. The FAA is in the process of planning how
best to incorporate industry input on standards development.
Results from the testing and evaluation and standards development
activities will be used as input to the plan for certifying,
permitting, authorizing, or allowing the deployment of C-UAS equipment
to detect and mitigate UAS. Until the FAA completes the tasks in
section 383, the Agency cannot identify all of the barriers that may
remain to the safe and effective use of detection and C-UAS equipment
in the airport environment. Right now, the two identified barriers are
the safety impacts of some C-UAS systems on aviation safety and NAS
efficiency and the barrier to airport procurement and use of some
detection and any mitigation systems due to the fact that C-UAS
authority is limited to certain federal agencies.

Questions from Hon. David Rouzer to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

Question 9. It is my understanding that NCDOT is working with FAA
under the IPP to develop a safety case to enable their partners to fly
beyond visual line of sight in our state. Are there opportunities for
FAA to share existing radar coverage feeds with the state to help
deconflict drone operations with manned aircraft?
Answer. Currently, the FAA is providing limited flight data to Lead
IPP Participants. Our efforts to fully integrate UAS operations into
the NAS will include significant engagement with our federal agency
partners to address their security concerns.

Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

Question 10. Mr. Elwell, prior to the 2018 Reauthorization, the
last long-term FAA Reauthorization was passed in 2012. Section 821 of
that Act directed the FAA to allow fuel reimbursements for private
pilots providing volunteer medical transportation. It is clear that
Congress wanted the FAA to change its regulations to ease the burden on
these volunteer pilots. Yet the FAA certified it complied with the law
based on a pre-existing exemption process. Why did the FAA maintain the
status quo when Congress clearly wanted a change?
Answer. The FAA has not been able to complete rulemaking on fuel
reimbursement due to competing rulemaking priorities. However, we
maintain that we can comply and are complying with the intent of the
law. The FAA has worked to ensure this activity continues to be
conducted safely through the exemption process. The exemptions we issue
contain conditions and limitations on organizations, operations,
pilots, and aircraft, and are targeted to raise the safety level of
such flights. We systematically review and update these conditions and
limitations to ensure these practical and beneficial operations
continue to meet an equivalent level of safety.

Questions from Hon. Don Young to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

Question 11. Recently there has been a lot of talk about
infrastructure and infrastructure development projects that are needed
around the country. I understand that Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport has one such effort currently in environmental review with
FAA--a multi-billion-dollar master plan to solve its capacity problems
through the addition of new facilities on the ground--but that the
restrictions on the surrounding airspace would remain. In a situation
like this, what role does the FAA play in ensuring that as a country we
are strategically building airport infrastructure and considering
capacity issues both on the ground and in the air so that our
facilities can be effectively utilized?
Answer. The FAA routinely monitors system performance in order to
identify constrained airport infrastructure and/or airspace. We work
with airports to advance needed airport infrastructure, such as
additional gates and ramp areas in the case of Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport (SEA). Airspace improvements are implemented by
the FAA, preferably with support from the airport to assist with
community involvement and noise concerns. Sometimes both airport
infrastructure and airspace improvements are undertaken in tandem. This
happens when there is a direct operational linkage; i.e., the airspace
is needed to serve a new runway. An example of this is the ongoing
improvements with the Chicago O'Hare Modernization Program. However, at
other locations it can be advantageous to pursue projects separately if
they have independent utility.
At SEA, the quantitative analysis shows that the most critical near
term constraints are gate and ramp capacity. Later in the mid-term
period, airspace constraints will be a growing concern in the Seattle
area. However, additional gates have significant benefit at SEA in the
near term even without airspace improvements. As a result, the FAA is
supporting the Port of Seattle's efforts to develop new gates as soon
as possible. However, the FAA does expect to work with the airport and
airlines on airspace improvements in Seattle in the coming years as a
separate project.
Overall, while implementation can vary depending on local details,
the FAA recognizes our role in actively engaging with all stakeholders
to continuously improve system capacity.

Question 12. I wanted to ask you about NextGen and investment in
West Coast/Pacific. We need to make sure that as we keep NextGen
technologies moving forward that we don't leave behind those in the
West and Pacific. I know with the shutdown there was a delay in rolling
out DataComm that is lasting months. As you know, DataComm allows a
much more efficient ``certified text messaging'' between the
controllers and pilots for more efficient reroutes in bad weather
situations and in otherwise busy times. Can you update the committee on
how the FAA is working to get that project back on track across the
country--East and West?
Answer. The Government shutdown created significant impacts to the
en route phase of the Data Comm program and required the FAA to replan
the entire en route deployment schedule. In addition, issues
experienced with aircraft avionics and with legacy air-to-ground
networks over the last year of testing in the NAS have impacted
operational acceptability in the field. Action plans have been put in
place for industry (e.g., Boeing, Airbus; multiple avionics
manufacturers; L3Harris, Collins and SITA; and the Operators) to
address the aircraft/avionics issues. The NEXTGEN Advisory Committee
has been actively engaged to assist in addressing these issues and
progress is being made. To minimize the impacts to the deployment
schedule, the FAA moved forward with several changes in the FAA's
ground automation (ERAM) to mitigate issues with aircraft avionics.
These software updates have been delivered ahead of schedule and are
working as designed.
We are projecting that the first two key site Air Route Traffic
Control Centers (ARTCCs)--Indianapolis (ZID) and Kansas City (ZKC) will
be fully operational by the end of 2019, which will allow us to move
forward with deployment to the rest of the ARTCCs--roughly deployed
from the east to the west--in the 2020-2021 timeframe. These schedule
changes represent an approximate five month slip to the baseline first-
site date, and approximate seven month slip to the last site from the
projected initial operating capability date.
This is a very complex system of systems acquisition currently
being deployed into the NAS. As a reminder, the tower phase of the Data
Comm program was delivered 2.5 years early and several million dollars
under budget, and is delivering significant benefits in the NAS at the
62 airports across the country, including 12 airports in Washington,
Oregon, and California, where the services are deployed.

Question 13. I'd also like to specifically inquire on tower and
EnRoute DataComm services at Honolulu (HNL) and Anchorage (ANC) at this
time. This technology increases accurate receipt of air traffic control
messages and reduces the possibility of message transfer error when
compared to the current methods available at HNL and ANC. There is a
solid operational and benefits case for deploying at HNL and ANC,
however, I understand some infrastructure and technical issues at these
locations need to be addressed by the FAA. Can you please provide an
update on the plan and timeline for this to occur at these key
locations so we can start seeing these and other benefits to our air
traffic control system in the Pacific?
Answer. We are currently evaluating alternatives for a replacement
of our offshore automation platforms. We are planning an Initial
Investment Decision in 2020, followed by a Final Investment Decision
(FID) in 2021. The final deployment schedule will be determined at FID,
but is estimated to begin in the 2024 timeframe. Our objective is to
provide nationally supported National Air Space (NAS) standardized
platforms at the offshore facilities (HNL, ANC, Guam and SJU) which
will bring the four facilities into strategic alignment with the
Continental United States NAS.
The benefits of this effort will allow for future Next Generation
Air Traffic System (NextGen) capabilities and will ease future
lifecycle sustainment challenges associated with the legacy systems,
including reducing the number of automation platforms requiring
separate maintenance and training support, and allow for greater
workforce flexibility.

Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under
Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation

Question 1. Section 427 of the FAA Reauthorization Act requires the
Department to issue a final rule to require large ticket agents--those
whose revenue total more than $100 million--to adopt minimum customer
service standards. The purpose of Section 427 is to ensure that, to the
extent feasible, there is a consistent level of consumer protection
regardless of where consumers purchase air fares.
Can you please provide me an update on the status of the
Department's implementation of Section 427.
Answer. The Department has committed to moving forward with a
rulemaking that would require ticket agents with annual revenues of
$100,000,000 or more (large ticket agents) to adopt minimum customer
service standards as mandated by Section 427 of FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018. The rulemaking, which is identified on the Spring 2019 Unified
Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, would enhance airline
passenger protections by requiring large ticket agents to adopt minimum
customer service standards. A rulemaking schedule has not been
established at this time.

Question 2. Sexual harassment is a significant and ongoing issue
for flight attendants and passengers on commercial aircraft and it is
important that the FAA prioritize efforts to combat and address it.
Flight crews need to feel confident that their complaints are being
taken seriously and that the appropriate penalties are being applied to
deter this type of unacceptable behavior. Section 339A of the FAA
Reauthorization Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a task force to evaluate current practices in responding to
and reporting allegations of sexual misconduct on aircraft and provide
best practices.
Can you please provide me the work plan and timeframe for the task
force's work on this important issue.
Answer. In February 2019, the Secretary established the National
In-Flight Sexual Misconduct Task Force (Task Force) and announced its
members. The Task Force met in April, May, June, July and September of
2019. During these meetings, the Task Force examined best practices
relating to training, reporting, and data collection regarding
incidents of sexual misconduct by passengers on board commercial
aircraft. Task Force members also heard and reviewed first-hand
accounts from passengers and flight attendants who experienced sexual
misconduct. The Task Force expects to conclude its work in early 2020,
at which time the Task Force will submit a report to the Aviation
Consumer Protection Advisory Committee with recommendations relating to
training, reporting, and data collection regarding incidents of sexual
misconduct. At the same time, this report will be made public.

Questions from Hon. Sam Graves to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under
Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation

Question 1. The Essential Air Service program ensures that rural
towns and communities remain connected to our national air
transportation system. The FAA bill included a provision allowing the
Department to exempt communities from certain EAS service requirements
if a community requests it. This is intended to ensure that DOT and
communities have the flexibility they need to implement the program in
the best manner possible for the community and the taxpayer. Can you
give us a sense of how DOT is planning on implementing this provision?
(Section 456)
Answer. The Department has implemented this provision and has
already provided waivers for several communities that requested to
waive part of basic EAS, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 41733(a) & (b), or EAS
termination notice requirements, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 41734(a)-(c). Waivers
were granted to Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs, WV, Moab, UT, and
West Yellowstone, MT to allow carriers to provide less than basic EAS
(fewer than 12 round trips per week) during off-peak periods, while
correspondingly operating more round trips during peak season.
Greenbrier, Moab, and West Yellowstone are all seasonal markets, making
this adjustment economical and practical. We are also working with a
community on its request for a waiver for its air carrier from certain
notice requirements under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 41734.

Question 2. How does the DOT prioritize the many FAA
Reauthorization mandates?
Answer. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which provided much
needed stability and direction for the Department's work, contained 550
sections and approximately 360 deliverables. The Department is working
to implement the provisions of the Act as expeditiously as possible,
prioritizing those provisions that address aviation safety and the
efficient use of the airspace. A review of the Department's August 2019
Significant Rulemaking Report reflects these priorities, as 70 percent
of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)'s ongoing rulemaking work
deals primarily with safety. Working with the FAA, other modal
administrations within the Department, and other cabinet agencies as
necessary, we are also implementing provisions addressing accessibility
and consumer rights, infrastructure, and innovation. We also are
placing a high priority on the integration of new technologies into the
airspace that hold promise for improved safety, accessibility, and
economic opportunity, such as Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).

Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under
Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation

Question 1. How has the creation of the position of Aviation
Consumer Advocate changed the work of the Department's Office of
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings?
Answer. The Aviation Consumer Advocate, a position created by the
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the Act), is tasked with the
following: (1) assisting consumers in resolving airline service
complaints filed with the Department; (2) reviewing the Department's
resolution of airline service complaints; (3) identifying and
recommending actions the Department can take to improve the enforcement
of aviation consumer protection rules and resolution of airline service
complaints; (4) identifying and recommending regulations and policies
that can be amended to resolve more effectively airline service
complaints; and (5) submitting an annual report to Congress. Many of
the specified functions of the Aviation Consumer Advocate overlap with
the functions of the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings. For this reason, the Assistant General Counsel (AGC) of
the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings was selected to
serve as the Aviation Consumer Advocate. Shortly thereafter, the AGC
established two new positions within the Office of Aviation Enforcement
and Proceedings--Director of Consumer Advocacy and Director of Civil
Rights Advocacy--to help fulfill the responsibilities of the Aviation
Consumer Advocate. The Directors serve as an extension of the Aviation
Consumer Advocate and play a key role in educating and assisting
consumers, resolving airline service complaints, and identifying
actions to improve the resolution of airline service complaints. The
creation of the Aviation Consumer Advocate position has resulted in
more visibility and focus on the issues identified in the Act as being
priorities for the Department.

Question 2. What will the Air Carrier Access Act Advisory Committee
be working on and how will their efforts assist the Department in
implementing the various mandates of the Reauthorization Law?
Answer. The Department's Designated Federal Officer for the Air
Carrier Access Act (ACAA) Advisory Committee is working closely with
ACAA Advisory Committee members to determine the topics to be discussed
at the first meeting. In considering potential topics, the ACAA
Advisory Committee is keeping in mind that the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018 (the Act) outlines specific tasks that the committee must
complete within a specified time. Specifically, section 438 of the Act
states that, no later than six months after the first meeting, the
committee must submit to the Secretary and the appropriate committees
of Congress a report that assesses the current regulations with respect
to practices for ticketing, pre-flight seat assignments, access to
bulkhead seating, and stowing of assistive devices for passengers with
disabilities. In addition, section 439 of the Act states that, no later
than fourteen months after the establishment of the committee, and
annually thereafter, the committee must submit to the Secretary a
report on whether the current regulations, programs, and activities of
the Department are addressing the disability-related access barriers
encountered by air travelers with disabilities. Further, section 434 of
the Act requires the Secretary to develop an ``Airline Passenger with
Disabilities Bill of Rights.'' Section 434 states that, in developing
the Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights, the Secretary
shall consult with stakeholders, including disability organizations and
covered air carriers and their contractors. The ACAA Advisory Committee
members have discussed these various mandates of the Act and the
importance of giving priority to mandates in the Act when selecting
topics for discussion at the ACAA Advisory Committee meeting. The
Department will issue a Federal Register notice announcing the date of
the first meeting and topics to be discussed after agreement is reached
with the ACAA Advisory Committee members.

Question 3. Can you explain the responsibilities of the Air
Ambulance and Patient Billing Advisory Committee?
Answer. The Air Ambulance and Patient Billing (AAPB) Advisory
Committee, which was established pursuant to the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018 (the Act), is tasked with advising the Secretary on issues
related to the air medical service industry and the bills that
consumers receive after using air medical services. The charter
specifies that the AAPB Advisory Committee will review options to
improve the disclosure of charges and fees for air medical services,
better inform consumers of insurance options for such services, and
protect consumers from balance billing. Based on its review, the AAPB
Advisory Committee will make recommendations regarding disclosure of
charges and fees for air ambulance services and insurance coverage, as
well as consumer protection and enforcement authorities of both the
Department and state authorities, and balance billing issues for
consumers.

Question 4. What is the status of the Department's efforts related
to service animals and emotional support animals in air transportation?
Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring that individuals
with disabilities can continue to use their service animals while also
deterring the fraudulent use of animals not qualified to be service
animals. Last year, in response to concerns expressed by various
stakeholders, the Department issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking regarding the need for a change in the Department's service
animal regulation. The Department expects to issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) this calendar year. This NPRM is currently under
executive review.
Because the rulemaking process can be lengthy, we also recently
issued a Statement of Enforcement Priorities Regarding Service Animals
that reflects the Department's view of where to focus its limited
resources with respect to service animals. Focus will be on clear
violations of the current rule that have the potential to adversely
impact the largest number of persons.

Questions from Hon. Pete Stauber to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under
Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation

Question 1. I am concerned that PHMSA did not comply with the
legislative language in the FAA Reauthorization Act (H.R. 302) to
provide ``Exceptions for Air Transportation of Medical Device
Batteries'' in the HM-224 (RIN 2137-AF20--Hazardous Materials: Enhanced
Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries Transported by Aircraft, FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018) Interim Final Rule. Will PHMSA address
this issue in the Final Rule?
Answer. In Section 333(b)(1) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018, Congress mandated a 45-day time frame in which the Secretary must
consider and grant or deny applications for special permits or
approvals for the air transportation of lithium ion cells or batteries
specifically used by medical devices. In Section 333(b)(2), Congress
required the Secretary to issue limited exceptions to the restrictions
on the transportation of lithium ion and lithium metal batteries to
allow the shipment on a passenger aircraft of not more than two
replacement batteries specifically used for a medical device if certain
conditions are met.
The Department is implementing the provisions of the Act through
the rulemaking process. In its March 6, 2019, Interim Final Rule, 84 FR
8006, Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium
Batteries Transported by Aircraft, PHMSA established an exception in 49
CFR 173.185(g) that permits the transport of up to two lithium
batteries for medical devices on a passenger aircraft, with the
approval of PHMSA's Associate Administrator, and waives the state of
charge limit under the conditions specified in Section 333(b) of the
Act. The Interim Final Rule included exceptions through an approval
authorization consistent with the legislative mandate.
Additionally, the regulatory text includes the definition of a
medical device, conditions on the use of the exception, and the
packaging requirements set forth in the Act's limited exceptions to
restrictions on air transportation of medical device batteries in
Section 333(b)(2). PHMSA requested and received comments on the
provision and will address these comments in a Final Rule that is
currently being drafted.

Question 2. What progress has PHMSA made in establishing the
``Lithium Battery Safety Working Group'' or the Lithium Battery Federal
Advisory Committee (FACA)?
Answer. In July 2019, pursuant to Section 333(c) of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018, PHMSA established a lithium battery safety
working group to promote and coordinate efforts related to the
promotion of the safe manufacture, use, and transportation of lithium
batteries and cells. The Working Group includes members from three DOT
operating administrations (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration), the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the
Food and Drug Administration.
Guided by the language in Section 333(c) of the Act, PHMSA created
a group with diverse expertise that reflects the range of applications
for lithium battery technology and unique hazards associated with the
air transport of lithium batteries. The Working Group jointly developed
a charter to outline the scope of the work and facilitate advancement
of its objectives, and the group is actively meeting to fulfill those
objectives.
Additionally, on May 9, 2019, pursuant to Section 333(d) of the
Act, and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
as amended (5 U.S.C., App. 2), PHMSA filed a charter formally
establishing the Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee.
Following a public recruitment process to nominate members,
Transportation Secretary Chao appointed 20 members to serve on the
committee October 2, 2019. The Advisory Committee is expected to hold
its first meeting in January 2020.

Question 3. What progress has the agency made in relation to
Section 333(e): Cooperative Efforts to Ensure Compliance with Safety
Regulations for enhancing international enforcement efforts to promote
lithium battery regulatory compliance and safety?
Answer. On October 5, 2018, Section 333 of the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018 directed the Secretary of Transportation to carry out a
wide range of activities related to lithium batteries, from revising
regulations to harmonize with international standards, to evaluating
packaging standards and providing forums to enhance stakeholder input.
Section 333(e) directs the Secretary to improve interagency and
international cooperative efforts to ensure compliance with safety
regulations for air transport of lithium batteries. The mandate
includes an initial report to Congress describing cooperative efforts
carried out, or planned to be carried out, under this subsection. The
Secretary will also provide Congress annual updates for the subsequent
two years following the initial report.
PHMSA and FAA have increased stakeholder engagement and enforcement
related to battery transport requirements. A draft report to Congress,
which is currently under review within the Department, provides the
initial update related to stakeholder engagement and enforcement
activities being taken to reduce noncompliance with battery transport
requirements. The information provided in the report will identify the
domestic and international efforts currently underway by the Department
of Transportation.

Questions from Hon. Don Young to Hon. Joel Szabat, Acting Under
Secretary for Policy, Department of Transportation

Question 1. As you know I am a strong supporter of the Essential
Air Service program, which is vital to rural America, but specifically
to Alaska and Alaskans. I understand you visited Alaska last year to
meet with EAS stakeholders in my state. Thank you for your attention to
this vital program and for visiting. Will you commit to continuing to
support this vital program?
Answer. The Department understands the importance of this
Congressionally-funded program to the communities it serves. During my
visit to Alaska last year, I heard first-hand accounts of the role that
Essential Air Service flights play in connecting Alaskans to the
National Transportation System. I will continue to provide good
stewardship of Essential Air Service funding, and implement the program
in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible. One-third of the
active EAS communities are in the state of Alaska, and the Department
continues to work with the State of Alaska and the communities to
support their varied needs across the State.

Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Sara Nelson, International
President, Association of Flight Attendants--CWA, AFL-CIO

Question 1. How will the provision that prohibits the involuntary
bumping of passengers after they have boarded improve the boarding
process and experience for both flight attendants and passengers?
Answer. Typically, a Flight Attendant would not be responsible for
removing a passenger from a flight. If there was a discrepancy a Flight
Attendant would refer to the Customer Service agent. However, Flight
Attendant staffing, on most flights, is at FAA minimums which means
that when a situation arises, such as duplicate seat assignments,
Flight Attendants are not able to leave the aircraft to coordinate with
gate agents and to gain/relay information to the passengers. Provisions
that prevent involuntary bumping after a passenger has boarded will
help to ensure some of these issues are resolved before passengers get
on the aircraft.

Question 2. How will revised regulations related to service animals
and emotional support animals be received by flight attendants? What
are some of the issues that you believe need to be clarified as part of
that process?
Answer. We support guidance and better regulations which protect
the rights of people with disabilities and our veterans who
legitimately need to travel with service animals. We applaud the DOT's
needs to move forward with setting standards to cut down on fraud.
Clear rules are necessary to ensure access to service animal assistance
for people with disabilities and our veterans, while maintaining the
safety, health and security of all passengers and crew onboard our
planes.
However, we believe ESAs should not be included in the DOT
definition of a service animal under the ACAA. We recommend they be
regulated separately and distinctly from service animals.
Airlines should be allowed to limit the size of ESAs and other
service animals to account for the available space in the cabin. This
determination should be made at check-in by an airline employee who is
properly trained and experienced.
To mitigate such issues, in addition to chronic understaffing,
flight attendants have suggested solutions that could be mandated in a
revision to the ACAA regulation. These include the following:

Require airlines to develop specific procedures and
concomitant training and information to address attacks and other non-
compliant behavior by service animals and their owners in the cabin.
Require use of a form or other sort of informational tool
to give to passengers who are non-compliant with respect to their
animal in the cabin. This form would state the airline's rules and
thereby reinforce the flight attendant requests.
Require that some form of accurate, pre-flight,
standardized documentation be provided to crewmembers specifying the
category of each animal in the cabin (e.g., whether they are pets,
emotional support, or service animals.)
Require that flight attendant manuals, training
materials, and other bulletins better reflect the rules and policies of
the airline and the contents of its contract of carriage.

Questions from Hon. Sam Graves to Captain Bob Fox, First Vice
President, Air Line Pilots Association, International

Question 1. In your written testimony you point out that in 2018
the FAA issued 5,788 Air Transport Pilot (ATP) certificates and that
your research showed that airlines hired 4,600 pilots that year.
a. Does the 4,600-pilot number include hiring by all Part 121 air
carriers?
b. For instance, do you know whether the 4,600-pilot number
includes hiring by regional air carriers?
Answer. The number of 4,600 pilots includes most of the Part 121
air carriers. It includes the large passenger airlines (e.g., American,
Delta, United, JetBlue, and Spirit) and also the large cargo carriers
(e.g., FedEx and UPS). However, the figure does not include regional
air carriers. It should be noted that a very high percentage of the
4,600 pilots hired by the large airlines in 2018 will be sourced from
regional air carriers (with the remaining candidates generally hired
directly from the military). In turn, the regional air carriers that
lose pilots to the large airlines will end up hiring new pilots from
their available source of pilots, most of which will be from the newly
issued ATP's and Restricted ATP's.

Question 2. In your written testimony you state that the supply of
pilots is keeping up with demands. Can you tell me, is pilot hiring
keeping up with projected commercial pilot retirements?
Answer. Pilot hiring at mainline carriers is keeping up with
existing and projected pilot retirements. For the large airlines, there
are two main reasons for hiring: (1) mandatory retirements at age 65
and (2) airline fleet growth. Over the last 3 years (2016-2018), the
FAA has issued over 19,500 new ATPs (including R-ATPs), and over 33,000
new ATP's have been issued in the last 5 years. The large airlines have
not reported any shortage in the pool of available pilots.

Question 3. What is the failure rate for new pilots going through
airline training? Is this failure rate typical or has it increased?
Answer. Anecdotally the failure rate is very low historically and
continues to be. FAA monitors failure rate as a measure of the quality
of the airline's training program. Even at individual airlines the
numbers are difficult to determine due to how the data is collected.
For instance, airlines typically don't differentiate those who actually
failed from those who were performing well but left before training was
completed to accept a more attractive job at a different airline. This
is prone to occur over the past few years due to the majority of
airlines hiring. With the advent of social media, pilots these days are
very well educated on the culture, work/life balance, pay, benefits,
career progression opportunities, etc. at each airline. Therefore, the
airlines with the most attractive employee package to offer are likely
to be able to pick from the most qualified pilots available and as a
result see fewer training failures or difficulties. In addition,
airlines that tailor their training based on the pilots hired, to
account for things such as having very little experience or not having
flown much in recent years, also see fewer training failures.

Question 4. Can you talk about the importance of voluntary
reporting programs and data sharing and how it has improved aviation
safety across the industry?
Answer. Voluntary safety reporting programs provide critical data
that has moved the aviation industry from a reactive approach to safety
to one that is proactive. These programs allow us to identify risk in
the system before an accident occurs so that the appropriate changes
necessary to mitigate the risks can be implemented. Analysis is done at
individual airlines but is also valuable through data sharing programs
such as the Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS)
program to identify opportunities for improvement within areas such as
training, procedural designs, and other aspects of an operation.
Individual voluntary programs can also improve the safety culture at an
airline, allowing each employee the opportunity to recognize the role
they play in safety and take ownership. Voluntary safety reporting
programs are currently at the core of aviation safety risk management
within the United States because of the unique information they are
able to provide.

Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Gregory S. Walden, Aviation
Counsel, Small UAV Coalition

Question 1. In your testimony, you mention concerns that the UAS
Integration Pilot Program (IPP) lacks transparency. While the initial
report on the program has not yet been published, in your opinion what
changes would you like to see to create greater transparency in the
waiver processing?
Answer. Before Part 107 was effective, drone operators were
required to obtain an exemption under section 333 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Section 333 petitions for
exemption were docketed and available to the public in full, except for
proprietary materials such as an operations manual. Today, the public
does not see any part of a Part 107 waiver application. While waivers,
like exemptions, are made public, the drone community is not able to
glean from successful waivers guidance on what the FAA will accept to
demonstrate safety.
The FAA's Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) recently adopted several
recommendations to improve the Part 107 waiver process that the FAA
should accept. Among them are two recommendations addressing
transparency:

FAA should create a checklist to inventory examples of
acceptable safety cases for waiver approvals that will serve as
constructive feedback for denied waiver applications.
The FAA should increase transparency and accountability
by creating a pathway for applicants to learn why their applications
were not approved and by whom.

In addition to these two recommendations, it would also benefit the
UAS industry to receive periodic reports on projects being undertaken
within the rubric of each IPP participant, including the operational
environment in which UAS operations have been conducted.

Question 2. As you know, national security agencies, airports,
state and local governments, and many others, are concerned about the
risk posed by users of UAS. While most UAS users are responsible and
adhere to the rules of the sky, operations by ``the clueless, the
careless, and the criminal'' can pose risks to people on the ground and
other airspace users. How do we turn ``the clueless and the careless''
into responsible users so that we can focus on countering the criminal?
Answer. Congress took the first step in the FAA Reauthorization Act
of 2018 when it repealed section 336 of the 2012 law to ensure all UAS
operators are subject to FAA safety regulations.
The second step is to require recreational users to pass an
aeronautical knowledge test, which section 349 of the 2018 law
requires. The Small UAV Coalition also supports online testing, as
directed in section 349. Online testing will likely attract many
recreational users who otherwise would elect not to travel to a testing
center. For it to be effective, online testing must cover the relevant
subjects and the testing process must be secure against cheating.
A third step is to implement a remote identification rule that
applies to recreational operators. Remote ID will promote
accountability and discourage those who might be inclined to invade a
neighbor's privacy believing they will not be caught. FAA will need to
conduct a campaign to promote equipage and compliance with the rule,
after which time enforcement action should be considered.
A fourth step is to use traditional and social media to alert
recreational users about no fly zones and other restrictions to avoid
any adverse impact on air carrier operations and to protect the
public's safety. To expand beyond the reach of Know B4U Fly, Public
Service Announcements (PSAs) should be made before certain events and
during forest fire season. These announcements should reach all
segments of recreational UAS operators. Local drone groups can also
sponsor drone training programs to make it easy to learn how to operate
a drone safely.

[all]