[Senate Hearing 110-1147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1147
OVERSIGHT OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S
FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-165 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Paul Nagle, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 28, 2008................................ 1
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 6
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 25
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 5
Statement of Senator McCaskill................................... 23
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 8
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Sununu...................................... 28
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 31
Witnesses
Peters, Hon. Mary E., Secretary, Department of Transportation;
accompanied by Hon. Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration................................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Mary E. Peters
by:
Hon. Thomas R. Carper........................................ 50
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 37
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 41
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 44
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell........................................ 51
OVERSIGHT OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S
FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET PROPOSAL
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Inouye, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman. Transportation is an essential element of our
Nation's prosperity. Our transportation infrastructure provides
the means to efficiently move goods and people across our
country, from New York to Hawaii, and around the globe.
More than simply facilitating all aspects of our economy,
our transportation resources provide a freedom of mobility that
defines our national character. While the U.S. transportation
system is world class in many respects, it is an aging system
that has reached and, in some cases, clearly exceeded the
limits of its capacity.
The tragic collapse of the Minneapolis highway bridge last
summer highlights our Nation's growing infrastructure problems.
Much of America's transportation infrastructure--highways,
bridges, railroads, and ports--were built at the beginning or
middle of the last century and have outlived their safe and
productive lives. Numerous airports in our National Airspace
System are approaching or have reached full capacity.
Congestion continues to grow on our highways and our railways,
at our ports, and within our aviation system.
The truth of the matter is that without strong action, we
face a future of ever-expanding gridlock. Our Nation's
transportation capacity must be expanded throughout all modes,
or our economy, our citizens' mobility, and our ability to
compete in today's global marketplace will suffer drastically.
For more than 50 years, we have been reaping the benefits
of bold transportation investments made by our predecessors in
government and industry. The time has come for today's leaders
to make a similar commitment to the future prosperity of our
Nation. We must unite around expanding and improving our
highway, aviation, rail, and port infrastructure. We must work
together to improve the safety and satisfaction of the
traveling public. Finally, we must manage each of these modes
of transportation as part of a complete system that is
dedicated to serving the needs of the Nation and not the
desires of individual companies.
I am confident that the Department of Transportation can
meet these challenges, if given the proper resources and
direction from the President. The United States has always been
a world leader in transportation, but I must say that I have
mixed feelings about our ability to aggressively address the
Nation's transportation needs after reviewing the
administration's Fiscal Year 2009 DOT budget proposal.
On a positive note, the administration has proposed funding
levels for the pipeline and motor carrier safety programs
consistent with authorized levels, as well as a significant
increase in funding to modernize the air traffic control
system. On the other hand, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration only received a small increase in its operations
budget, which, unfortunately, does not take into account the
resources necessary to implement the new Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) program.
Even more troubling is the fact that the White House
continues to propose deep cuts in funding for Amtrak and
airport infrastructure programs that Congress has consistently
funded at higher levels. Any DOT budget proposal that moves
through this Congress must provide sufficient funding to
rehabilitate existing infrastructure, expand the system to
accommodate growing use, and maintain the highest level of
safety possible.
Madam Secretary, I assure you that the Commerce Committee
will be tracking the DOT's performance closely in this final
year of the administration, and I look forward to working with
you to ensure that DOT policy continues to focus on meeting
these goals.
And may I now recognize the Vice Chairman, Senator Stevens?
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I agree
with your statement. It is nice to have you here, Madam
Secretary, and I must remind everybody of the problems of my
state.
We are one-fifth of the size of the United States, as this
Committee hears repeatedly, and more than twice the size of
Texas. We have half the coastline of the United States, and our
State is east to west as wide as the United States and north to
south as deep as the United States. If you put a map of our
State on top of the South 48, it touches from coast to coast
and from Duluth to New Orleans.
Past administrations have withdrawn an enormous amount of
that land. We cannot build north-south or east-west highways or
railroads in our state anymore because they are all blocked.
All the passes literally are blocked by national parks and
wildlife refugees.
So we are totally relying upon air transportation to
explore in our area and to provide the food and sustenance to
the native people who live in 241 different villages, which
have become tribes under the decisions of past administrations.
What that means to us is that your bill is one of the most
essential bills for our livelihood. I note, for instance, that
in terms of Essential Air Service the request is $50 million,
down from $110 million last year. That was established back
here when we abolished the CAB in order to have Essential Air
Service in order to have a way to continue three flights a
week.
Most of these villages get three flights a week because of
that Essential Air Service, and those flights bring cargo and
passengers. That is why we have what we call bypass mail. It
worked with the Postal Service and your department in the past.
I just feel that somehow the people in your department now
have lost sight of history, why some of these programs exist.
Almost 70 percent of our land is owned by the Federal
Government, and pays us no taxes. As a matter of fact, it costs
our state money to help maintain services within those lands,
but we get no return from the Federal Government unless it
comes from programs like essential air service or other items.
I get back to the problem of earmarks now. I am not going
to debate earmarks here, but as a practical matter, this budget
this time really leaves me in doubt as to what the future is
going to be as far as transportation in my state. We thought we
were working together on a next generation for aviation and air
control, et cetera. I don't see that.
We have the highest number of pilots per capita, and we
have the highest number of planes per capita. One person out of
every 58 people in our state is a pilot, and there are 6
airplanes for every 10 pilots. I mean, we really rely on
planes, and this budget is cut all over the place.
It affects our state more than any because there are 3 of
us out of 535 people here, and we are now going to be told we
can't earmark any money. But this budget has been slashed, just
slashed. And I don't really understand it.
If you knew the paradigm of no more earmarks, why did you
cut these budgets expecting us to put the money back? That is
what has happened now 2 or 3 years in a row. The budgets have
been cut, and we have been forced to go and put the money back.
But if I understand the current paradigm, that is not possible.
Now you tell me. You are going to have to play God and tell
me which villages get cut off and don't get three flights a
week. And that means everything. That is milk and sugar and
flour and everything. Everything comes in by air.
I think that this budget gives those of us from small
states in particular. I am a small population state, but it is
an enormous area. It is the area that has the greatest hope of
supplying resources we need as a Nation. And yet it seems to
have been abandoned by this bill that is before us now. The
Chairman and I have sent some letters to the Budget Committee.
I hope they listen to them.
But we also were able to raise the age, thank God--50
percent of our pilots are over 55. As a matter of fact, by the
time we got around to raising the age, 57 percent were over 55.
We raised the age to 65, but we have to provide a replacement
for half of our pilots within 7 years. There is no indication
here at all about any increase in flying training for people
nationwide and for engineers.
And I will close by saying it looks like you are going to
fold down the flight service stations. I would like to have you
come along with me when we take off from a little field between
two mountain ranges, and we are going to go over another
mountain range. And we are going to land in a little field over
there, and there is nobody there. And the FAA is going to ask
that we rely on advice from Anchorage, which is about 500 miles
away, and we are going 500 miles the other way.
It is like telling Denver they are going to rely on
Washington, D.C., for what is going on on the ground at Denver.
Now it just won't work, and I am really astounded.
Mr. Chairman, you are going to hear a lot from me, and I do
thank you for continuing the flight safety program. The
Medallion Program has reduced deaths in our state. Other people
worry about highways. We worry about airways, and you are going
to hear a lot from me this year because this is a bad budget
for us.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska
Thank you, Chairman Inouye, for holding this hearing, and thank
you, Secretary Peters and Acting Administrator Sturgell, for joining us
today.
Alaska is more than twice the land area of Texas. East to west,
Alaska crosses what would normally be four time zones. The State of
Alaska faces transportation challenges that most states in the lower 48
do not have to address.
It is important the Department understands these challenges and
makes a concerted effort to improve the state's transportation
infrastructure.
Alaskans rely on aviation more than any other state in the country.
According to FAA's own data, Alaska has the highest per capita number
of general aviation airplanes and pilots in the U.S. One person out of
every 58 people is a pilot and there are six airplanes for every ten
pilots.
Aviation, and the network of FAA employees who serve it, is
literally the life blood of many of our communities. It is important
the Department and the FAA maintain a knowledgeable Alaska regional
office and infrastructure staff. Over the last few years there have
been increasing concerns in the state about the retention,
consolidation, and attrition of employees in Alaska.
As we move forward with the FY 2009 budget process the Committee
requests that an effort be made to not only maintain the progress that
has been made in Alaska, but work to improve it.
Alaska's unique terrain and vast aviation community demand a
knowing and accessible staff that can meet the needs of such a large
state with so much aviation infrastructure to maintain.
It is important that the employees maintaining and upgrading the
system have a solid knowledge of our state and are readily available to
address local challenges. Whether it is weather observers, engineers,
flight service station employees, or air traffic controllers, an
institutional knowledge must be maintained for the safety and progress
of our aviation system.
I invite the both of you to come to my State of Alaska and
witness--first hand--the transportation challenges that Alaskans face.
You could also view programs that have been responsible for reducing
aircraft-related deaths and increasing aviation safety, such as the
Five Star Medallion Program. I do hope you find time in your schedules
to come to Alaska.
Thank you Chairman Inouye, I look forward to the testimony.
The Chairman. I will do my best to help you, Senator
Stevens, in seeing that your voice is heard.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Lautenberg?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We listened
carefully to what Senator Stevens had to say, and whether you
are dependent on transportation for easing congestion or for
the lifeline that Essential Air Service represents, we all have
the same concerns, and we share those concerns.
Mr. Chairman, in the State of the Union address, President
Bush said--and I quote him here--that we have ``answered the
call'' on the issues we face. This budget proposal does
certainly not answer the call when it comes to our
transportation infrastructure. And the failure to fund these
needs here at home threatens our security, safety, the strength
and the future of our economy.
Last year, we saw a bridge collapse in Minnesota. But there
are hundreds of thousands of other bridges and roads that are
in disrepair, and it will cost billions to improve them. And
the costs will not decrease as a result of neglect. Less than 1
year after the collapse in Minneapolis, Minnesota, President
Bush wants to cut funding for highway and bridge repair by
almost $2 billion. And he proposes funding transit programs at
$200 million below the level that Congress authorized.
Now these cuts hurt states like New Jersey, which need
transit funding the most, and millions of working families
depend on this transportation. The Texas Transportation
Institute says that these traffic jams on our roads costs our
country nearly $80 billion a year, twice the Federal budget for
highways. Our commuters are further punished when they sit in
traffic with gas prices well over $3 and heading north, as they
say, and our environment cannot withstand the greenhouse gas
emissions that come from these idling cars.
Airline travelers will fare worse under this budget. The
Bush Administration's failures on aviation have led to one of
the worst years ever for flight delays. More than one in four
flights was late, and our air traffic control system remains
dangerously understaffed and air traffic controllers are
overworked and fatigued.
There is a serious lack of interest in preventing runway
incidents. One billion airline passengers will be flying each
year by 2015. Would anyone suggest taking the fire trucks away
from a fire that is still ablaze, but hasn't fully consumed the
property? I don't think so. And to me, that is like cutting
funding for our Nation's airports and runways by $765 million
when we are choking on congestion.
And last, President Bush once again proposes to bankrupt
Amtrak, our Nation's passenger rail system. In a time of
record-high gas prices and record airport delays, travelers are
using Amtrak trains in record numbers. But the President's
proposal would take away this popular, energy-efficient, and
convenient travel option.
Last October, the Senate passed legislation that I wrote
with former Senator Trent Lott to provide $11.4 billion for
Amtrak to expand passenger rail service in the United States,
and I am working with House colleagues to get it taken up and
passed into law this year. It is time that our country had a
world-class passenger rail system.
Mr. Chairman, if we want to support our economy, reduce our
reliance on foreign oil, we have got to invest in our
transportation infrastructure now. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to understand our Nation's quarrel with
adequate transportation investment, and I commend you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing so that we can cut through
the fog here to try to understand why we are cutting things now
when the system is in overload mode right now.
So I hope that we are going to have a thorough review here
and look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
The Chairman. I can assure you, sir.
Senator Dorgan?
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I understand that Secretary Peters is here to support the
President's budget. I suspect that in some areas she will have
to publicly say that she enthusiastically supports it. But I
would hope that in private she understands the comments made by
my colleagues demonstrate that this is not a budget that
invests in America's future.
Twenty-two percent cut in the airport improvement funds, 40
percent cut in Amtrak, 50 percent cut in Essential Air
Services. That is not a serious attempt to evaluate how we
invest in transportation and in our country's future.
I have another hearing this morning, and I don't know how
long I can be here. But I want to just mention in the opening
statement this issue of Mexican trucks because I supported
Secretary Peters's nomination. I was pleased to do so. Now I am
regretting I did. And I wish I didn't say that, but let me
described what has happened.
We have Mexican long-haul trucks that have been triggered
for approval into this country under a pilot project by
Secretary Peters. On July 24, the House of Representatives last
year voted to prohibit it. No funds may be used to establish
it.
On September 4, the Inspector General released a statement
that said there is no central repository of accident records,
drivers' records, or vehicle inspections in the country of
Mexico. We don't have equivalent safety standards. On September
11, the Senate voted 75 to 23 for an amendment prohibiting the
use of funds to establish a pilot project, and it became a part
of the Omnibus.
The Secretary is taking the position that it doesn't matter
what the law says, we are going to continue to use the funding
this way. I am sending to the GAO a request for them to
evaluate whether this violates the Sufficiency Act. But I think
what is happening down at the Department of Transportation is
arrogant, Madam Secretary. I am sorry you are doing it.
You have attorneys that have told you to believe that the
word ``establish'' by itself does not mean the same as
establish and implement. The legislative counsel of the U.S.
Senate says they drafted it this way to prevent this pilot
project, and the way it is drafted does prevent it.
I have letters from two distinguished law professors that
say that the way this was drafted and passed by the U.S.
Congress prevents you from proceeding with the pilot project
for long-haul Mexican trucking. And you insist that it doesn't
matter what that says, you've got a lawyer that says it is
legal.
Well, there are lawyers in this Administration that tell us
that torture is legal. It doesn't make those lawyers right. And
your lawyers, I think, are disserving you, Madam Secretary. I
understand we are going to have a separate hearing on this
subject, I believe, March 11, and you are intending to come to
Capitol Hill.
And I regret saying what I said this morning, but given
what you have done, I wish that I had not supported your
nomination. It is an arrogant thing to do, to deny the U.S.
Congress. When they say you cannot fund money, you cannot fund
this project, for you to say ``I have got lawyers that say it
is just fine. I am going to continue. It doesn't matter what
the Congress thinks or says,'' is arrogant.
So you may respond to that. But I wanted to mention it in
the opening statement because I may not be able to stay. We
will have a full hearing on this subject. I hope between now
and when we have that hearing, you might get some lawyers that
will consult with the legislative counsel, with others in the
U.S. Congress, or distinguished law professors, and they will
tell you that what you are now doing is violating the law.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, in view of the Senator
having another conflict, I would yield my time to him now so he
can ask his questions before he goes.
Senator Dorgan. Well, we will have an opportunity for a
full hearing, and the Secretary has agreed to come up on March
11th. And this is a very important issue, and let me explain
just briefly why.
When an American pulls up to a four-way stop sign, and
Mexican long-haul trucks are coming into this country, the
issue is safety. If there were equivalent standards, you would
not hear a peep from me. But the Administration is saying that
NAFTA requires them to approve Mexican long-haul trucks in this
pilot program. The U.S. House said we don't believe it is time
or we don't believe that there is a capability to be ready for
that.
The U.S. Senate said it. We said it in law. We said it in
the Omnibus. It has been signed into law. There is a
prohibition on this pilot project going forward. And the fact
is, the GAO has said and the Inspector General has said there
is no central repository of vehicle records, driver standards,
and so on, vehicle inspections, accident reports in the country
of Mexico.
So, again, I think that we compromise safety in this
country. I know the Secretary will say, well, this is a
carefully controlled pilot project. The fact is the Secretary
and the Department do not have the legal authority to continue
to spend money on this project.
And I must say--I am on the Appropriations Committee--I
think agencies that thumb their nose at the Congress and say we
are going to do what we want to do, no matter what you pass in
law, will pay a price for it. Secretary Peters will have an
opportunity to respond later, but she can respond now if she
wishes to explain how her attorneys have told us that the
legislative counsel, the draft of the legislation here in the
Congress, and the distinguished law professors are all wrong
and her lawyer is all right.
I think her lawyer is disserving her, and I wish she would
have done what I have done when I have been in the Executive
Branch of a government. Sometimes lawyers are wrong, and you
say to lawyers, you know what? We have to respect the interests
and the wishes of the Congress and the law the way it was
written, not what the Administration wishes it could do.
The Chairman. Do you want to respond?
Senator Dorgan. You are welcome to respond, Madam
Secretary, but I will have an opportunity March 11 at great
length.
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, I will briefly respond,
recognizing that the Senator may have to leave the hearing. And
of course, we will have the opportunity on the 11th to explore
this issue in much more detail.
Senator Dorgan, as you said, I have asked our lawyers to
carefully evaluate the language that passed this Congress, and
it is our interpretation that the words ``establish'' mean to
not start a new program, but do not prevent us from operating a
program today. I am sorry the word is ``implement.''
So we are not implementing a program. We are not
establishing a program. We are continuing a program that was
established prior.
Senator Dorgan. Madam Secretary, that is a cute
interpretation by your attorney. But the legislative counsel
described what ``establish'' means in its letter to you, letter
to me that I have given to you, number one. And number two, the
Congressional intent was quite clear.
Let me describe what Senator John McCain said on the Senate
floor, who supports your position, by the way. He said if the
Senate passes this legislation, unfortunately, the Senate has
voted 74 to 24 to prevent the pilot project from going forward.
Senator McCain said if this passes, it prevents you from
going forward. Now he supports you, but he understood, everyone
understood what the Congressional intent was, and I think it is
an arrogant thing for the department to hang its clothes here
on the interpretation of a lawyer that is not supported by the
legislative counsel of the Senate that drafted it. And I hope
that you will rethink that before March 11.
The Chairman. Senator Rockefeller?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Well, we have had some good speeches,
and I don't want to let anybody down.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rockefeller. As has been said by each of the
speakers, it is no secret that our Nation's transportation
system is in chaos. It is collapsing. It is under strain. It is
underfunded. That is all deliberate.
Same old thing. You know, your testimony was vetted by OMB.
You couldn't come up here and give testimony on your own. That
doesn't necessarily represent your view. You have to represent
what the administration says, and so they have to approve your
testimony or else you can't give it. That is the way it works,
and it is not a good system but it works under Democrats and
Republicans. And it is not a good system.
Motorists, rail passengers, airline passengers, as Senator
Stevens was talking about, are facing increasing levels of
gridlock that is going to increase exponentially. That is
gridlock on our roads, on our rails, and at our airports.
Watching Dulles Airport expand is just like watching the growth
of Carthage. It is going to go on for 500 years, trying to
accommodate all of the people coming through there.
Study after study confirms that lack of investment by not
just this Administration, but previous ones--but certainly this
one--in our Nation's transportation infrastructure is hurting
us economically. It is making it very hard for us to compete in
the world, and it is going to get much worse very quickly.
The one area where I believe we are most at risk of losing
any sense of global leadership is in aviation. And I want to
speak about something I have spoken about before that I care
passionately about because I care passionately about aviation.
Having virtually none to West Virginia, I care about it a lot.
You know, to ride in a jet to West Virginia means you have
to break the Senate ethics law because commercial airlines
don't provide flights because it doesn't make them any money.
So I am looking at the future of the air traffic control
system, and that is what I want to talk about.
I want my colleagues to understand, those few that are
here, that our Nation's aviation system is literally at a
broken point. No, we haven't had accidents. But that is like
saying we haven't been attacked since 9/11. It doesn't mean
anything. Accidents are about to happen. Attacks could be about
to happen. It is a non-statement.
We do not have the ability to handle the increased demand
for air travel, and we will not. A passenger going through
delays doesn't even know what the word ``delays'' mean,
compared to what is going to be happening in the very near
future.
Last year, I, along with the leadership of this Committee,
worked to craft an FAA bill that gave the agency the resources
it needed to pay for the enormously expensive next-generation
air traffic control system. That is our job. We are trying to
help you.
The development of a satellite-based, completely digital
air traffic control system will cost tens of billions of
dollars, and I know that the current financing system will
raise totally inadequate revenues necessary for the agency to
implement this program. And nothing is being done.
I also strongly believe that the commercial airline
passengers are paying far more than their share of the aviation
system's cost, and I haven't heard that come out of either of
you. I recommended that the general aviation community, which
is the fastest-growing segment of the industry, pay more into
the Aviation Trust Fund. This Committee authorized the creation
of a $25--$24 plus $1--air traffic modernization surcharge to
help bolster the FAA's modernization account by some $400
million a year.
So a Gulfstream V takes off from Houston and lands in Bonn,
and it pays 25 bucks. That is the cost of a cracker on their
food line in there. This amount the commercial airline
industry, of this $400 million a year, the commercial airline
industry would pay $370 million a year. That is what is going
on, and the GA community would pay $30 million a year. OK?
So I recommended that the Finance Committee, on which I
serve, require the GA community to pay approximately $400
million more into the Aviation Trust Fund. This represents
approximately 5 percent more, in terms of total dollars than
they are paying now. And I would notice that there has been no
increase in GA rate of taxation in more than 15 years. None,
not a dime.
Every other country in Europe does it. Everybody does it.
We don't. We are scared of them. We are scared of who owns
them. I don't know what it is. Are you scared of them? But the
point is they are not carrying their weight, and they are two-
thirds of all the airplanes in the sky at any given moment.
The GA interest proclaimed my proposals to be the beginning
of the end of the entire GA industry. That is what they say. I
offered to modify the bill to eliminate all turboprops from the
surcharge. King Airs would have been in that class.
What I am still advocating is that the approximately 8,000
high-end performance business jets that use air traffic control
facilities actually pay the full cost of their use of that air
traffic control system, whether it is the analog one now, and
then as we are building the next one, that one. They have to
pay their fair share. I thought that was the American way.
I don't think that is unreasonable. Again, I was told this
was a nonstarter. The GA community made it clear that they
would never pay the surcharge or any amount that they agree to
pay, whatever that means. They fought everything.
I find it incredulous that the owners of these aircraft are
unwilling to pay a $25 fee when their aircraft cost millions
and millions to buy and thousands of dollars an hour to
operate. Based upon the GA community's inability to compromise,
I do not expect that there will be an FAA bill this year. I
blame it on them because we can't work it out in the Finance
Committee because they are making all kinds of phone calls and
their owners have all kinds of money.
However you want to look at it, there isn't going to be an
FAA bill this year. That is my prediction. I think that is
incredibly unfortunate in view of some of the things that
Senator Stevens and others have said. But I do not believe that
4 more years of the status quo on financing achieves anything
for this public, and it has got to be changed. And you have got
to be behind it. You have got to be behind it--and you, too,
Mr. Sturgell.
It achieves a huge victory for the owners of million-dollar
aircraft, but that is hardly a reason to pass the bill. And the
philosophy is that it is more important--and I am sorry, but I
just come from a different line of thinking--that if the
president of IBM wants to fly from Houston to Bonn, and he
takes two people with him and he has this huge aircraft. And
those aircraft are taking up enormous amounts of space,
requiring exactly the same amount of air traffic control
attention as commercial airlines loaded with 200, 300 people,
some of whom may be going to California because their mother
only has a week to live.
But, no, America says that through our practice, it is more
important that that person who runs IBM, his or her time is so
important that they should be able to pay nothing, go scot-
free, use the system, and let the commercial airlines pay the
freight and, therefore, the people who ride those airlines
going to be with their mother or whatever. You understand my
philosophy.
So this isn't about the next 4 years or getting a bill
done. It is a broader debate about how we meet this country's
key infrastructure challenges over the next decade. This isn't
about ideology or gripes, although I have them, because we have
avoided all of these tough decisions. We have avoided them. Our
aviation system cannot afford us to have this path of least
resistance.
And what is it? I am going to ask one of you, but I think
the general aviation is paying 3 percent of the cost of the air
traffic control system, and the commercial aviation is paying
everything else. But general aviation is two-thirds of the
airplanes in the skies. And they require exactly the same
attention from an air traffic control person under an analog or
a new system, and it is wrong.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, it wasn't the type of introduction you
would have wanted, but welcome to the Committee, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY
HON. ROBERT A. STURGELL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Chairman
Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
The Chairman. Would you speak a little closer?
Secretary Peters. Certainly. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss the Administration's
Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for the U.S. Department of
Transportation. With me today is Bobby Sturgell, who is the
Acting Administrator at the Federal Aviation Administration and
our nominee to become Administrator.
I want to thank this Committee for considering that
nomination, that and other recent department nominees. These
individuals are very well qualified for the positions to which
they have been nominated, and both the President and I do have
full faith in them. And I would hope that the Senate's process
will result in their speedy confirmation.
President Bush is requesting $68.2 billion for America's
transportation network in the next fiscal year, including
funding for the department's mandatory programs. Our focus is
on finding real transportation solutions, solutions that will
make travel safer, improve the performance of our Nation's
transportation systems, and apply advanced technologies and
contemporary approaches to today's transportation challenges.
Nearly 31 percent of the funds requested for Fiscal Year
2009 support safety programs and activities. The budget allows
us to build on the successes in delivering the safest
transportation systems by focusing on problems like runway
incursions, as well as motorcycle crashes and pedestrian
injuries on the road and impaired driving. It is important that
we continue a data-driven safety focus that allows us to target
our resources more effectively.
The President's budget includes $14.6 billion for the
Federal Aviation Administration, and in addition to critical
new technology, the budget includes sufficient resources to
hire and train an additional 306 air traffic controllers,
people who are key to keeping the system safe.
The Fiscal Year 2009 budget once again provides a framework
for the Next Generation Air Transportation System financing
reformat, the Administration's proposal sent to Congress last
year that will make flying more convenient for millions of
travelers. To accommodate anticipated demand by 2025, our
aviation system requires a more reliable, responsive source of
revenue to fund the modern technology required to manage this
expanded capacity.
This investment in NextGen will allow the FAA not only the
ability to handle two to three times more aircraft, but also to
maintain and improve the high levels of safety that we enjoy
today and to reduce flight delays as well as noise around
airports. The proposal would move from the current system of
excise taxes to a hybrid cost system of taxes and user fees. It
is increasingly clear that such a fundamentally different
approach is needed to finance and manage our air traffic
control system, as well as our increasingly congested airports.
And I certainly agree with Mr. Rockefeller's comments about
the need for everyone to help pay their fair share in doing so
and compliment this Committee on the bill that you have passed
to date. As you know, the current financing system is just not
designed to support the growing consumer demand for air travel.
And again, your Committee has pursued a fair allocation of
cost, represents innovative ideas and ideas that we hope to
work with you to implement.
Last year's record airport delays are symptomatic of the
system that is broken today. Along with many in this room, I am
gravely concerned about the passengers and how they are
affected by the failure to move forward on a common sense
reauthorization bill. While we wait, however, the Department of
Transportation has taken several actions to address the growing
congestion that is affecting too many travelers today.
We have announced hourly flight caps for New York's John F.
Kennedy Airport and will soon issue an order to implement
similar hourly limits at Newark Liberty International Airport
to alleviate delays in the New York region. Those limits, by
spreading the flights through more hours of the day, will
actually allow for more flights to operate at the airports, but
will substantially reduce the delays that we have experienced.
In addition, we have proposed changes to our rates and
charges policy to allow airports to provide an incentive for
airlines to spread out their operations during the course of
the day and maximize the use of limited airport and airway
infrastructure. We have also proposed rules that would provide
additional protections for consumers when their travel plans
are interrupted.
And finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the
President's budget for surface transportation program. This
request fulfills our commitment to provide the 6-year $286.4
billion investment that was authorized in the 2005 surface
transportation law. Data indicates that the Highway Trust Fund
will experience a shortfall in Fiscal Year 2009, and that is
why the President's budget proposes temporary authority to have
repayable advances between the highway and the mass transit
accounts.
While this solution will avoid a funding shortfall in
Fiscal Year 2009, it also serves as a very clear signal that we
must take a close look at how our surface transportation needs
are financed. Here, as in the Nation's skies, our current
policy approach just is not doing the job today and will not in
the future.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My
colleague and I would be pleased to answer any questions that
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Peters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary E. Peters, Secretary,
Department of Transportation
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Administration's Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for the
U.S. Department of Transportation. With me today is Bobby Sturgell, the
Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
President Bush is requesting $68.2 billion for America's
transportation network in the next fiscal year, including funding for
the Department's mandatory programs. We are working with the President
to hold the line on spending, while giving travelers and taxpayers the
best possible value for their transportation dollars by transforming
the way our transportation system works and is funded. At the
Department of Transportation, our focus is on finding real
transportation solutions that make travel safer, improve the
performance of our transportation systems so that they operate more
efficiently and serve us better, and apply advanced technologies and
contemporary approaches to today's transportation challenges.
Consistent with these priorities, nearly 31 percent of the funds
requested for FY 2009 support safety programs and activities. The
budget allows us to build on our successes in delivering safer
transportation systems by focusing on problem areas like runway
incursions, as well as motorcycle crashes and pedestrian injuries on
the road. It is important that we continue a data-driven safety focus
that allows us to target resources more effectively.
Just as the budget supports continued strong progress on the safety
front, it also builds on our comprehensive efforts to identify new
partners, new financing, and new approaches to reduce congestion. One
example is the New York region where the Bush Administration has moved
aggressively to alleviate congestion in the air and on the ground. The
Administration recently announced short-term measures to bring
passengers relief from chronic flight delays, and we have been
supporting Mayor Bloomberg's efforts to reduce the crippling congestion
on the streets of Manhattan. If last year's record traffic jams and
flight delays taught us anything, it is that traditional financial
approaches are not capable of producing the results we need to keep
America's economy growing and America's families connected.
The President's budget includes $14.6 billion for the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). In addition to critical new technology,
the budget includes sufficient resources to hire and train an
additional 306 air traffic controllers--people who are key to keeping
the aviation system safe. The FY 2009 budget request would more than
triple investment in the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen), providing $688 million to implement enhancements such as
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and provide funding
for key research and technologies to enable the transformation from
radar-based to satellite-based navigation systems.
The FY 2009 budget once again provides the framework of the Next
Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act (S. 1076,
H.R. 1356), the Administration's proposal sent to Congress last year
that will make flying more convenient for millions of travelers. To
accommodate anticipated demand by 2025, our aviation system requires a
more reliable and responsive source of revenue to fund the modern
technology required to manage this expanded capacity. The investment in
NextGen will allow the FAA not only to handle 2 to 3 times more
aircraft, but also to maintain and improve the already high level of
safety, reduce flight delays, and reduce noise near airports.
The budget request assumes Congressional passage of the President's
reauthorization proposal for FAA programs and revenue streams. This
proposal would move from the current system of excise taxes to a hybrid
cost-based system of taxes and user fees. It is increasingly clear that
such a fundamentally different approach is needed to finance and manage
our air traffic control system, as well as our increasingly congested
airports. The current financing system is not designed to support the
growing consumer demand for air travel.
The Administration's comprehensive proposal would modernize how we
finance our Nation's air traffic control system. Many of the nations
around the globe, including Canada, the U.K., Australia, and Germany,
have implemented air traffic control systems in which the charges
levied on users are tied to the actual costs of providing air traffic
services. This rational approach accomplishes two major objectives
simultaneously. First, what operators pay to use air traffic services
will be closer to what it costs to provide those services. This will
encourage each operator to use those air traffic services according to
their perceived value. Because the existing system of taxes currently
has no relationship to costs, in some cases operators are paying too
much for the services they actually use, while in other cases they are
using air traffic services for which they pay too little. This leads to
inefficient provision and use of services and does not make economic
sense.
On the other hand, a cost-based system makes more economic sense.
We will be able to provide services for which the operators are willing
to pay, while user fee revenues could be dedicated to modernizing an
aging and strained air traffic control system that would dramatically
expand the capacity of the system and lower unit operating costs over
time.
Unfortunately, a divided user community has prevented this
necessary proposal from moving forward, resulting in average American
airline passengers paying higher prices and having fewer travel
choices. In addition, our country's global aviation preeminence may not
be sustainable as many countries have established air traffic control
pricing models that will enable them to modernize as demand grows.
Notwithstanding the lack of progress on modernizing the national
air traffic financing system, the Department of Transportation has
taken several actions to ease congestion throughout the Nation's
airspace and allow market forces to allocate scarce airspace
efficiently in the New York region. We have announced short-term caps
for New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and will soon
issue an order to implement caps at Newark Liberty International
Airport. Any additional capacity developed at these airports will be
leased to the highest bidder.
In addition, we have proposed changes in our rates and charges
policy to allow airports to charge more to aircraft using the airport
during peak periods, providing an incentive for airlines to spread out
their operations during the course of the day and maximize the use of
limited airport and airway infrastructure. Finally, we are developing
policies that would allow the expanded use of pricing for the very few
airports where demand has outstripped supply.
Congestion triggered by over-scheduling can be addressed in one of
three ways: (1) ignore it and eventually consumers will begin avoiding
flights that rarely arrive on time; (2) impose a Federal cap on
operations and essentially limit access of anyone not already operating
at the airport; or (3) allow market forces to grant airport access to
those operators able to make the best use of it. Option 1 is clearly
unacceptable to the public, Congress, and this Administration. On the
other hand, while market forces under option 3 are in some ways
unpredictable, history has demonstrated that they are the best tool to
use to allocate a scarce resource.
FY 2009 is the final year of the current surface transportation
authorization--the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The
President's budget fulfills the President's commitment to provide the
six-year, $286.4 billion investment authorized by SAFETEA-LU. For 2009,
the Budget provides $51.7 billion for highways, highway safety, and
public transportation.
To honor that commitment, even with an anticipated shortfall in the
Highway Account balance of the Highway Trust Fund, the President is
requesting temporary authority to allow ``repayable advances'' between
the Highway Account and the Mass Transit Account in the Highway Trust
Fund. This flexibility will get us through the current authorization
without any impact on transit funding in 2009; however, unreliable
Trust Fund revenues are another sign that we need to more aggressively
begin moving away from our reliance on fuel taxes by partnering with
State and local governments willing to develop more effective means to
finance our surface transportation infrastructure.
Like aviation, technology must play an important role in relieving
traffic on our Nation's highways. Through programs like our Urban
Partnerships and Corridors of the Future initiatives, we have been
aggressively pursuing effective new strategies to reverse the growing
traffic congestion crisis. The interest around the country has proven
quite strong--over 30 major U.S. cities responded to our call for
innovative plans to actually reduce congestion, not simply to slow its
growth.
The FY 2009 budget would encourage new approaches in fighting
gridlock by proposing to use $175 million in inactive earmarks and 75
percent of certain discretionary highway and transit program funds to
fight congestion, giving priority to projects that combine a mix of
pricing, transit, and technology solutions. While State and local
leaders across the country are aggressively moving forward,
Congressional support and leadership is critical. These projects will
help us find a new way forward as we approach reauthorization of our
surface transportation programs.
Accessible and cost-effective transit projects also help fight
congestion, and the President's budget includes over $10 billion for
transit programs. The President's budget includes $6.2 billion to help
meet the capital replacement, rehabilitation, and refurbishment needs
of existing transit systems. Also included is $1.4 billion for major
New Starts projects, which will provide full funding for fifteen
commuter rail projects that are currently under construction, as well
as proposing new funding for two additional projects. Another $200
million will be used to fund thirteen projects under the Small Starts
program. All told, one of every seven dollars in the President's FY
2009 transportation budget is proposed for transit.
It is increasingly clear that America's transportation systems are
at a crossroads. Even as we continue to make substantial investments in
our Nation's transportation systems, we realize that a business-as-
usual approach to funding transportation programs will not work much
longer. Long-term, we need serious reform of our approaches to both
financing and managing our transportation network to win the battle
against congestion.
We also urge action on making needed reforms to the nation's
intercity passenger rail system. The President's FY 2009 budget
provides a total funding level of $900 million for intercity passenger
rail. Included in this total is $100 million for a matching grant
program that will enable state and local governments to direct capital
investment toward their top rail priorities.
Our ``safety first'' priority includes ensuring the safe and
dependable transport of hazardous materials throughout the
transportation network. The President's budget request would increase
funding for pipeline safety programs to over $93 million by funding
eight new inspectors to increase oversight of poor performing pipeline
operators and increasing state pipeline safety grants by $11.3 million.
We are also requesting $174 million to support a fleet of 60
vessels in the Maritime Security Program to assure the viability of a
U.S.-flag merchant marine capable of maintaining a role in
international commercial shipping and of meeting the sealift needs of
the Department of Defense.
Finally, the President's budget includes $17.6 million to support
the first year of a $165 million, 10-year asset renewal program for the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. After 50 years of
continuous U.S. Seaway operations, this federally-owned and operated
infrastructure is approaching the end of its original ``design'' life.
Coordinated large scale capital reinvestment is now required to assure
continuous, safe and efficient flow of maritime commerce.
The President's FY 2009 budget builds on the exciting things we are
doing at the Department of Transportation to help America move forward
on a new course--a course that delivers high levels of safety, takes
advantage of modern technology and financing mechanisms, and mitigates
congestion with efficient and reliable transportation systems.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to working with Congress and the transportation community to
ensure that America continues to have the best transportation system in
the world.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Would
you care to introduce the Acting Administrator?
Mr. Sturgell. Pleasure to be here, Mr. Chairman. I don't
have any remarks, but I look forward to discussing the issues
with the Committee.
The Chairman. May I now call upon the Vice Chairman for
questioning?
Senator Stevens. Madam Secretary, following an incident in
Juneau last year, I sent a letter to the department regarding
my interest in crafting a consumer and parental information
pamphlet directed at informing the public about airline
unaccompanied minor and teenage travel policies.
We had this young woman who booked a flight after having
had a chat room conversation, ``on the Internet.'' And she
decided to go meet the young man and went and took money from a
parent, I think, or got money somehow and went down and bought
a ticket and got on a plane, and it was discovered she was
gone.
She was a minor, an unaccompanied minor. And I have asked
that something be done within the system so we won't have to
legislate on that. It would be a difficult thing to legislate
on, but it is possible. Has anything been done since this came
to your attention?
Secretary Peters. Senator, I agree with your concern. And
as a mother and a grandmother, I also am very concerned about,
especially today with the availability of the Internet, for
young unaccompanied minors to travel perhaps without their
parents' consent and knowledge. And I agree with you that we do
need to get information out that would educate both airlines,
travel agents, of course, as well as parents about the
potential dangers of moving forward, of children being able to
travel like this without their parental consent.
And sir, we do not yet have a pamphlet, but I do agree with
you that we need to get this information out, and we will work
on that.
Senator Stevens. Well, have you had any meetings with
airlines? Are they doing anything about it?
Secretary Peters. Sir, I personally haven't met with the
airlines about it. I will ask our Acting Administrator if he
has had any discussion.
Senator Stevens. Administrator, has the FAA done anything
about it?
Mr. Sturgell. No, Senator. I have not had discussions with
the airlines about this particular issue.
Senator Stevens. Well, it seems the only alternative then
is to legislate. You know, legislation is going to put you in a
straitjacket. You know that, don't you? It just seems to me
this is something that ought to be an FAA and industry policy
with regard to unaccompanied minors. Somehow or other, someone
has got to take responsibility for this.
Secretary Peters. Senator, let me commit to you today that
we will--we will move forward with your request and see what
kind of documentation we can develop. We will work with you and
your staff to determine the most appropriate path forward.
Senator Stevens. I would appreciate it. I would think that
other Members of the Committee would agree with me. I am a
father and a grandfather, too. I just really think anyone that
is concerned about their families would worry about this
happening, and young people are very capable of going and
buying a ticket and disappearing. I just don't think that ought
to be possible. We ought to at least have a proof of age
requirement to get on an airplane. Now if you don't do it, I am
going to introduce a bill for that. I think it has to be done.
I did comment about essential air service cuts from $110
million to $50 million. We are not allowed to ask you what you
asked them for, but we can ask you did you make that cut?
Secretary Peters. Mr. Chairman, that cut is in the
President's budget. That $50 million amount is in the
President's budget. And I think what you said earlier is very
important. When we think about our essential air service
program, the budget that we proposed both revises the EAS
program in order to administer the program more efficiently,
but also to ensure those most isolated communities--the
communities that you spoke about in Alaska and those small
communities--do have access to the national air transportation
system within the funding level.
We do understand, sir, that the parameters that were put
around this program after deregulation in 1978, and we are
operating the program again to ensure that these most isolated
communities do have access.
Senator Stevens. We have one line that I think costs right
around $1 million a year to connect Kotzebue, which is one of
our northern communities on the west coast, all the way down to
Seattle. If they don't get that $1 million, then they are going
to get paid for flying--some of them flying north to come south
and another one south to go north.
The connections and commuter lines just aren't there. The
commuter lines don't go from distances that we have got. That
is just a small amount of the total amount of the money, but it
puts together a flight that goes if you want to get on it, it
is like a whistle stop, every single stop between Kotzebue and
Seattle.
Now, that now becomes one enormous amount out of $50
million. I don't know. How would you suggest that I increase
that money, Madam Secretary? I ask, did you reduce it? Did the
department reduce it?
Secretary Peters. The budget was reduced----
Senator Stevens. I am not talking about that. I said did
you send to the OMB a request for $50 million?
Secretary Peters. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. On what basis did you cut that back that
much, more than 50 percent?
Secretary Peters. Sir, the basis that we used was looking
at--excuse me--where the most isolated communities are and
ensuring that we had sufficient money to service those most
isolated communities and those communities that are eligible
based on the deregulation in 1978.
Senator Stevens. It is counterproductive. We are doing our
best with monies we have gotten from the Federal Government,
from everywhere, to try and develop some economy, some basic
job opportunities in those small places. The more we do that,
the more commerce there is. The more commerce there is, the
less money we have to pay in support for those people who live
in places where there is 90 percent unemployment.
Now to cut down the travel budget for them so they cannot
travel as much is just like shooting them in the foot. It
doesn't hurt the department, but it hurts those people. I don't
understand how I can put that money back. We are not going to
get that. It costs, I think, about $35 million of the $110
million was for Alaska. Did you know that?
Secretary Peters. Sir, I am aware that a good part of that
was for Alaska, and again, sir, the communities----
Senator Stevens. My colleagues here from other states are
not going to let me get by with that. I don't think people
downtown think about the problems they cause when they use an
axe on a budget. Now that is an axe. I have got to tell you,
the next time you go to the Cabinet, do me a favor, will you,
and tell the President I am completely disturbed by this
budget, and I am not so sure that I am going to be supporting
the President as I have in the past.
This budget is impossible with the concepts of no earmarks
that they say. [inaudible] But unfortunately, it is.
Secretary Peters. Senator, please know that our budget does
support the communities that you have talked about in Alaska.
We do support those most isolated communities. And that is how
we would prioritize the use of the money that we have put in
the President's budget.
Senator Stevens. Well, you tell that to the people who have
to use essential air service to fly into Montana and South
Dakota and other places that are going to have $15 million
where I am going to have $35.
Senator Rockefeller. And I didn't understand what her
answer meant.
Senator Stevens. The answer is, is they are going to
prioritize the use of the $35 million, as I understand it.
Secretary Peters. Yes, Senator, to the most isolated
communities.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Senator Stevens, with his
ordinary perspicacity, with his incisiveness, I think kind of
hits more nails on the head than we should have to have here,
the job was being done as it is, as it should be. And I suggest
a change in name that might help us.
Instead of calling it earmarks, we will call them air
marks, and that then gives it the content or the context in
which we talk about these. These are essential. They are
critical issues. And to dismiss the seriousness of these
requests by just simply putting them in the pot with earmarks,
which sounds pretty trivial, I think we ought to change the
name.
That wasn't my question, and Mr. Chairman, I don't want to
be penalized for that brilliant thought of mine.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. I want to ask the Secretary, and I
thank you, Secretary Peters, for being here. I think it must be
fairly uncomfortable to have to deliver the message that you
are compelled to deliver, knowing full well that you are not
bringing the content required. I am not asking you the question
because I think you are compelled to stay where you are, even
though it is just not going to do the job.
For instance, there was a newly designed departure route
from Newark Liberty Airport when, within minutes of
implementing these newly designed departure routes, air traffic
controllers discovered that one route from Newark Liberty led
directly into the approach route for LaGuardia Airport in New
York. You know, one doesn't have to go into active description
to understand what the consequences of something like that
could be.
After spending $50 million, much of which was on
consultants and contractors, and over a decade of work to
redesign the air routes over New Jersey, how did FAA miss this?
Can you explain it?
Secretary Peters. Senator, I am going to ask the Acting
Administrator to answer the question, and I believe there is a
logical explanation, yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Sturgell?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, the previous departure corridor to
the south out of Newark basically had a little jog in it, and
you followed the river south. The arrivals to LaGuardia were
located and are located to the east of the river. The new
departure routes out of Newark are all farther west of the
river. So they are no closer and, in fact, they are farther
apart than the previous old route.
There is an altitude issue, which goes to the fact that
LaGuardia arrivals come in at 3,500 feet. The Newark
departures, as they are going out, are required to maintain
2,500 feet until they transfer from the tower to the New York
TRACON and the New York TRACON controllers then clear them to a
higher altitude.
So this airspace redesign project, not only were there
folks at headquarters and contractors, but 30 percent of the
$53 million that Congress authorized for this program were
spent on overtime and travel so that the controllers would be
involved and would help prepare these new routes.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, are you challenging their
observation that these might be designs that would bring them
into competition for the airspace they are flying in?
Mr. Sturgell. Into competition, the whole----
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I will put it more bluntly. Would
that put them on the same path as airplanes coming out of
Newark on the same pathway, the same instruction for takeoff
and arrival as the planes coming out of LaGuardia at some
point. Were they wrong?
Mr. Sturgell. I think the routes are deconflicted. I think
the issue which the controllers refer to has to do with the
altitudes. And by requiring the aircraft to check in first with
the TRACON and----
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, it is disappointing----
Mr. Sturgell.--receive clearance to go above 2,500, I think
we have resolved their concern.
Senator Lautenberg.--after $50 million went into this
thing, and all that time, all that effort by so many left a
glitch like that. So that, I assume, has been straightened out
to assure the safety of the operation there?
Mr. Sturgell. Yes, I am confident that these procedures are
safe.
Secretary Peters. Senator, if we may add, though, this
procedure was not a faulty procedure. Perhaps there was a
misunderstanding about the altitudes, but this was not an
unsafe procedure that was defined.
Senator Lautenberg. So the controllers are wrong who
sounded the alarm on this?
Mr. Sturgell. I have asked the chief operating officer of
the air traffic organization to meet with the NATCA regional
vice president for the eastern region to discuss his concerns.
But we trained the controllers, we notified and discussed these
departure procedures with the pilot community, and these
procedures are not unlike anything that happens in systems
today.
I am a former commercial pilot. You get departure headings
off of airports all the time. There are 15 other--at least 15
other major airports the size of Newark and Philadelphia that
use these types of departure procedures.
Senator Lautenberg. Right. So you are dismissing any
concern, any complaints by the controllers, or pilots in the
area also, by the way?
Mr. Sturgell. I do not dismiss complaints of the
controllers. We have listened to them. I think what we have
done is address those concerns.
Senator Lautenberg. We would like to see the final proof of
that, if you would furnish it to us, please?
Mr. Sturgell. Be glad to do it.
Senator Lautenberg. I am particularly concerned about the
Bush Administration's response to safety concerns raised by
pilots, air traffic controllers, and colleagues about new
flight procedures in the New Jersey area. Last week, an FAA
spokesman said, and I quote, ``If any controller at the
Philadelphia Airport believes that these procedures are unsafe,
they should look for work elsewhere. If they don't like working
for FAA, they should reconsider their line of work.''
So, to put it bluntly, an FAA spokesman told controllers to
bug off, and if they don't like it, get out, when we are barely
able to have enough hands there to take care of the work that
we need. How does your agency dismiss safety concerns raised by
the men and women who work daily to keep the two million fliers
safe in the area?
Secretary Peters. Senator, I would acknowledge the
inappropriateness of those comments. However, I would also
suggest that it probably reflects a little frustration after,
as Acting Administrator Sturgell said, there have been numerous
conversations and involvement in developing these procedures,
and then to have someone indicate that they are not safe was
perhaps a little bit frustrating.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, so we should excuse the
temperament, this childish outburst. The fact is that FAA is at
its lowest staffing level of professionally certified
controllers in 15 years. Just 11,077. Why should FAA suggest
that experienced controllers ought to leave if they are not
happy or any controllers ought to leave? Is that a way for
management to respond?
I was in business, and I can tell you if it was one of my
key people--and controllers are the key people--I would never
say go ahead and find something else if you don't like what you
are doing.
Secretary Peters. Well, Senator, I am going to ask the
Acting Administrator to talk specifically about the staffing
levels, but I--again, I acknowledge the inappropriateness of
that comment.
Mr. Sturgell. I would agree with the Secretary, Senator
Lautenberg. It was unfortunate. But again, I think, as the
Secretary said, there is a level of frustration here, given
that the controllers were substantially involved in this
project over about a decade-long period.
You know, with respect to staffing, you know and we have
talked about this, we are in the beginnings of what has been a
long-expected retirement wave of the controllers simply because
there is a mandatory retirement at age 56, and we had replaced
a large portion of the workforce after the PATCO strike in the
early 1980s.
So we have put in place a number of things to try and
retain our most experienced controllers. Among them are
retention bonuses. We have a waiver process for the age 56,
which has been congressionally approved, that is in play now.
We are hiring as many new hires as we can put in the system and
train effectively.
Senator Lautenberg. How many would that be, Mr. Sturgell?
Mr. Sturgell. We hired over 1,800 last year. We increased--
we had a net increase in the workforce of 256 last year. We are
going to net increase the workforce this year by 256.
Senator Lautenberg. How long does it take to get people to
a full level of competency?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, in the past, it has taken between 3 and
5 years for an en route air traffic controller and between 2
and 3 years for a tower controller. Now, due to streamlining
some of the slack in the training process and due to some new
simulators that have come along in the last several years and
which Congress has helped us fund, our statistics for this
fiscal year show that we have reduced the training time for the
en route environment and for the terminal environment by almost
a year in some cases. We are down to about 1.4 years for a
tower controller.
Senator Lautenberg. But for sufficient numbers to prepare
for the forecast that within a 5-, 6-year period, in which
delays will worsen by 60 percent. Have you heard that forecast?
Mr. Sturgell. If we are not able to modernize the system
and the traffic comes as we expect it, yes, by 2015, 2016,
that's correct.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, the question is, and we dance
around this issue, how many fully trained air traffic control
professionals do we have? I am concerned because we have seen a
substantial increase in the number of retirees, and people who
just left the job, not ready for retirement, but because of
working conditions were not those that were sustainable.
We will have a chance to talk. Excuse the excessive time,
Mr. Chairman, but we will keep this record open because we have
got lots of questions to go. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Rockefeller?
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will
just ask two more questions that speak on the same subject, and
then I am obviously not covering the whole catastrophe which is
facing us in our transportation system, but I am just focusing
on general aviation this morning.
They often state that the air traffic control system, that
is the GA folks, was built for the commercial aviation use and
that general aviation users are only, as they say, marginal
users. But at any given moment, as I indicated before, two-
thirds of the aircraft in the sky are general aviation
aircraft.
In addition, the FAA spends approximately $1 billion a year
to support general aviation airport infrastructure, more than
$500 million a year on providing weather services, flight
services to general aviation pilots, and certifies general
aviation aircraft, which is as you know, 13,000 to 25,000 to
50,000 parts of an airplane, as well as a host of other
appropriate safety activities.
Can you give me a total dollar figure, Mr. Sturgell, of FAA
services and programs that directly benefit general aviation,
ballpark?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, I think you just about covered it, a
million or so--well, low-activity towers, a host of those; the
flight service stations, which is about $500 million a year;
and, of course, the certification activities. Our Office of
Aviation Safety is run at about $1 billion a year, and that
includes services, though, to both the commercial and the GA--
--
Senator Rockefeller. Does the current contribution to the
Aviation Trust Fund of the general aviation community come
close to meeting the expenditures that you expend on them?
Mr. Sturgell. No, it does not. And just to put the numbers
up against this, when you look at commercial versus GA activity
and cost drivers and you use the IRS regulations in terms of
commercial taxes, defining commercial versus GA----
Senator Rockefeller. I am going to get to that.
Mr. Sturgell. Right. GA accounts for about 16 percent of
our costs, and they contribute about 3 percent of the revenues
into the fund. And in terms of what we cover that covers GA, we
spend about $2.2 billion a year total on what I would consider
GA-related activities.
Senator Rockefeller. So would you then say that general
aviation's view that they are only a marginal user is not
accurate?
Mr. Sturgell. System-wide, when you look at trust funds to
revenues, when you look at cost drivers and revenues, no, they
are not. They are substantial users at 16 percent of the
system. And in some airports, they are a much bigger number. In
some, they are less.
Senator Rockefeller. And that doesn't include the wear and
tear on the air traffic controllers, who are handling them as
they go on? I mean, just the fatigue factor.
Mr. Sturgell. Well----
Senator Rockefeller. Question number two, DayJets, which I
am not particularly familiar with, operates out of the
southeastern United States, and they tell me that they plan to
have three million air taxis flights. My people in West
Virginia probably won't be using those, high-end payers will.
They are going to have about three million flights annually.
Flights, I didn't mean to say jets. Three million flights
annually when their business matures, and they are only one of
a series of people who are looking at this air taxi matter.
Now these companies claim they will not impose any
additional burden on the air traffic control system. Does the
FAA believe that the additional millions of short-haul flights
will not burden an increasingly strained air traffic control
system?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, it depends on where they fly and when,
frankly. If they get up into the high-altitude structure, if
they start flying into some of the major metropolitan airports,
then, yes, there will be additional burdens. If, however, these
are relatively short-haul flights, where they stay in the
medium- to low-altitude structure, where they go into airports
that would be small to mid-sized airports, then the impact will
be less.
But we do see it as a growing industry. I mean, we are
estimating about 400 aircraft a year, I think, on this side of
the industry. We are going to have to watch extremely closely
how this industry develops and its impact on the system.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator McCaskill?
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE McCASKILL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am assuming that both of you would come down in favor of
the importance of a certification of an aviation repair
station, that the FAA certification is meaningful, and I don't
have a lot of time. So if, briefly, one of you would speak to
why you think it is important for a repair station to be FAA
certified?
Secretary Peters. Ma'am, I am going to ask Acting
Administrator Sturgell, Senator, to address the specifics of
the inspections. But I will tell you that all air traffic
repair facilities have to meet the same certification
requirements. There is no difference in those facilities,
regardless of where they are located.
Senator McCaskill. OK. So that is what I am trying to
figure out here. If there is no difference between one that is
not certified and one that is certified, then why are we
certifying?
Secretary Peters. Ma'am, I am sorry. I misspoke. Every air
repair facility that is certified has to meet the same
standards.
Senator McCaskill. OK. I am trying to get at what a good
thing it is that we are having standards, OK? So that is what I
am trying to get at is that we, of course, want repair stations
to be certified, correct?
Secretary Peters. That is correct.
Senator McCaskill. And you would certainly acknowledge that
there are requirements associated with certification that are
something that every airline should want and desire and that it
would be important to the flying public to have the knowledge
and comfort that every airplane that is being flown
commercially is being worked on in a certified facility?
Secretary Peters. Ma'am, that is correct, and I will ask
the Acting Administrator to deal specifically with commercial
airlines and the requirements, but that is accurate.
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, I think what is important to note
here is that the individuals themselves also hold certificates
issued by the FAA for mechanics and repairs.
Senator McCaskill. Well, why are we going to the expense
and the trouble of certifying a repair station if we can do it
just as well by the other method? Why are we doing that? I
mean, I am trying to figure out why we are allowing non-
certified repair stations in the first place unless the
certification is pretty darned important.
Mr. Sturgell. Well, a lot of it goes to the type of work
that is being done, how often----
Senator McCaskill. But Mr. Sturgell, isn't it true that the
identical kind of work is being done in non-certified repair
stations as in certified repair stations? There is absolutely
no difference in the type of work that is being performed in
these facilities. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Sturgell. I think the work varies, depending on who the
customers are and what is being required. I mean, it is not the
same all the way across the board. It depends on what that
repair station or what that individual is qualified, the type
of work they are qualified to do.
Senator McCaskill. We have heard testimony in this
Committee and there is work that has been done by GAO and by
IGs that certainly have said in very clear terms that we are
now having work done in non-certified repair stations
everywhere across the globe, where it is overhaul, it is major
repair, it is minor repair.
And, what I am really trying to get at is that we have non-
certified repair stations in countries that have been
identified as being on the terrorist watch list by the State
Department. And we have both certified stations in these
countries and non-certified stations in these countries, and
the problem is that your budget doesn't really reflect the
needs of adequate inspections at these facilities. Isn't it
true that there are many non-certified foreign repair stations
that would like to get certified, and we don't have the
personnel to even do that?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, I don't know what the number of non-
certified repair stations internationally want to get
certified. We have----
Senator McCaskill. Wouldn't you know that at your agency?
Wouldn't your agency know?
Mr. Sturgell. Well, people request, and it changes all of
the time as far as the numbers. Roughly 700 foreign repair
stations that we have certified to perform work today.
Senator McCaskill. Is there a waiting list for those that
want to be certified that haven't been certified?
Mr. Sturgell. I can get you that information. I know that
number varies based upon the need that has been demonstrated by
that repair station. And those repair stations are inspected
annually, or annually they go through a certificate process,
which includes an inspection process by us.
Senator McCaskill. The certified ones?
Mr. Sturgell. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. But the non-certified ones that are
wanting to be certified, I would hope that you would have a
fairly finite number that you could give the Committee because
we need to look at that in comparison to your budget request. I
mean, if there are foreign repair stations right now that don't
have the kind of security, perimeter security, background
checks, drug testing, all of the things that we think are
important in terms of this issue, if they are asking to be
certified and we don't have the manpower to do it, I think that
is something we need to get a handle on.
Secretary Peters. Senator, let us get back to you in terms
of if there is a waiting list, as you put it, of stations that
are waiting to be certified and if there are any differences or
backlogs in that. I do think it is important to note that in
the President's budget this year we have requested a net
increase of 146 inspectors, bringing our total inspection
workforce to just over 4,000, at 4,100 approximately.
[The information referred to follows:]
The total number of part 145 applicants (April 2008) are:
Domestic = 430 (277 have started the certification process and
153 are awaiting resources to start the process).
Foreign = 97 (38 have started the certification process and 59
are awaiting resources to start the process).
Senator McCaskill. Well, I appreciate that. But I think
overall the need is significant--and we will get to you in
writing, but the things I am interested in is how many foreign
certified stations there are, the number of inspections that
are going on there, who is bearing the cost of that. And I want
to underline that because if, in fact, companies are
outsourcing labor because it is cheaper, they have a right to
do that. But if they are outsourcing labor and the taxpayers
are picking up additional cost to do inspections and to certify
because they are in a foreign country, that is flat wrong.
There is no way the taxpayers of this country should ever be
subsidizing the outsourcing of labor because it is cheaper for
the company.
And we would be subsidizing it if we are paying for those
costs of inspectors going to Indonesia instead of those
airlines paying those costs. And it is my understanding that
the airlines are not paying the full cost of that inspection
process. So that is what I would like to get a handle on as it
relates to your budget request for the following year, and I
thank you for you answering my questions, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar?
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Secretary Peters, Mr. Sturgell.
Secretary Peters and I got to know each other quite well
this past year with our tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota,
and I want to thank you again for your support in the wake of
that collapse and your personal visits as well as the way we
were able to work with the agency for funding.
And I think that everyone in this room would agree that
this bridge collapse highlights the need to invest in our
infrastructure, particularly our bridges. And that is why I
know you personally are devoted to this, but I was disappointed
that the President's budget reduced the Federal Highway
Administration's budget by almost 5 percent. And additionally,
according to the Federal Highway Administration, each $1
billion invested in construction creates upwards of 47,000 new
jobs and up to $6 billion in additional revenues.
Given the fact that we clearly have a problem with
crumbling infrastructure in this country, I see it not only in
our bridge in the Twin Cities, but also in our rural roads and
the fact that investing in our national infrastructure at a
time when we are having so many economic difficulties would
help to stimulate the economy and provide jobs, do you agree
with this decision to reduce by 5 percent the Federal Highway
Administration's budget?
Secretary Peters. Senator, what the President's budget does
is honor fully the commitment that was made to this Nation in
the SAFETEA-LU legislation. This, of course, is the final year
of that legislation, the 6-year piece of legislation. And it
does--it does within the context of this year's budget, the
President's, meets the full $286.4 billion commitment that was
made.
Senator Klobuchar. But do you think that that is enough,
given what we are dealing with right now with infrastructure
and what you saw in Minnesota?
Secretary Peters. Senator, I think it tees up a very
important problem, both the issue in Minnesota as well as the
declining balance and the proposed deficit in the highway
account of the Highway Trust Fund before the end of this
authorization period, that we absolutely must come together and
have discussions about how we close the gap in the future, how
we fund those projects that need to be funded, and how we look
at new sources of revenue because, as I have said in the past,
I am convinced that we cannot depend on the gas tax into the
future as we have in the past.
Senator Klobuchar. And you and I have talked about that.
But what are the other plans that we can do? I mean, we have
talked about bonding. I personally have told you that I think
we should roll back the tax cuts for some of the wealthiest and
put that into infrastructure funding. But what is the
President's plan?
Secretary Peters. Senator, what we are doing right now in
the near term is both developing an outline of proposals for
the next surface transportation authorization, also working
with each of the states who receive these programs to ensure
that there isn't money not being used today productively that
could be used. For example, on some earmarked projects, that
money sits there for many years and it is not put into active
use.
So if there are projects that are ready to go today, we are
working with the states who receive these grants to ensure that
we can move projects forward if there is money available in
other parts of the budget.
Senator Klobuchar. And if you could just convey this idea
to the President and the rest of the administration as we are
looking at stimulating the economy again. We did the short-term
rebate plan, but long after those checks are cashed, I think we
are going to have to change direction in this country. And if
we are going to move forward, as I saw in our rural areas, with
ethanol and biodiesel on this energy independence, we can't
have a transportation system that is stuck in the last century.
And that is why I hope you will consider, the administration
will consider this as part of the way to get our economy moving
again, to allow our trucks to move again.
Secretary Peters. Senator, we most certainly will.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Secretary Peters. And also, as I have talked about, there
are substantial amounts of private sector money available to be
invested today as well.
Senator Klobuchar. The other thing I just wanted to touch
on is the potential airline merger in Minnesota with Delta and
Northwest Airlines. And just as a general matter, since there
hasn't been any merger announced as of this moment, and as you
know, we are very concerned in Minnesota. We have a thriving
hub, something like 12,000 to 13,000 employees from Northwest
Airlines. There were agreements made between the state and the
airline, when the state basically bailed Northwest Airlines out
when they were having some financial difficulties years ago.
And we also see this as a consumer issue for our state.
And one of the criticisms of the airline merger review
process is that the two Federal agencies in charge, DOT and
DOJ, review each merger in an individual context, without
regard for how one proposed merger affects the entire system.
And so, DOT and DOJ may find that a merger passes antitrust
scrutiny and safety scrutinies that you would look at, but
critics say these agencies are not really thinking ahead to see
whether one proposed merger will lead to a wave of mergers or
how one merger will affect the overall capacity or how one
merger will affect the overall quality and potentially the
safety throughout the system. And how do you respond to that
criticism?
Secretary Peters. Senator, certainly safety is something
that we hold very close to us, and DOT will advise on issues
that relate to safety. We don't yet have, as you mentioned, a
specific proposal before us. But the process is that DOJ will
examine competition issues. They will examine market access
issues, while DOT advises DOJ, who is ultimately the
decisionmaker, on input such as consumer-related issues and
safety issues.
But I will carry back your concerns that these issues be
examined in the context that you put forward.
Senator Klobuchar. And many airline industry consultants
and analysts think that the airline industry will consolidate
over the next few years. Some think from six large legacy
carriers to three, and do you agree and are you concerned about
the effects of this consolidation in terms of service and
quality?
Secretary Peters. Well, Senator, as I mentioned, those are
issues that we will be examining. Again, DOT advises. DOJ makes
decisions. I do think we need to keep an open mind. There are a
number of factors affecting the industry today, not the least
of which are very high fuel prices. But I do agree with you
that we need to examine all of these issues as we go forward,
and again, we will talk with DOJ, who is the ultimate
decisionmaker.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Chairman, if I could, just one more
question? My concern about this is when you look at some of
these other airline mergers fleet size will decrease like the
combined fleet size of America West and US Air which is down 1
percent since these two carriers merged, and the combined fleet
size of TWA and American which has decreased by 24 percent
since these carriers merged.
And I am looking at areas like Duluth and Moorhead and some
of the service that they need as we are growing the energy
economy in our state. And I hope that when DOT looks at this
merger, and I know that you have a limited role to play in
this, that you consider overall the effect of quality and the
service to the consumers.
Secretary Peters. Will do.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Sununu?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Chairman Inouye.
Mr. Sturgell, I want to talk a little bit about the FAA
reauthorization and the issue of funding and strengthening the
aviation system, control system we have and the modernization
program that is before. I am sorry Senator Rockefeller isn't
here, but I think I will quote him reasonably accurately. And
this is nothing he and I haven't shared in person before,
regardless.
He indicated that general aviation killed the bill,
effectively, for the year, and I think that is a bit of an
unfair statement, and I want to explore the reasons for his
assertion. First, I think in his questions to you and your
responses, you suggested that general aviation was 16 percent
of the cost associated with the system, but they were only
paying, I think, 3 percent, providing 3 percent of the revenues
to support that system. Is that what you indicated earlier?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, I did, and that is based on using
the IRS definitions reflecting the fact that certain parts of
the industry pay commercial taxes, certain are defined in other
ways. If you include on-demand air taxis and fractionals, which
are typically at times included in the GA community, then that
drives that number up to 22 percent in terms of the air traffic
costs, and they are paying about 8.5 percent of the revenues.
Senator Sununu. OK. I appreciate that.
Mr. Sturgell. So there is the distinction.
Senator Sununu. It is an important distinction, but I think
those numbers are important to have in the record as well
because even in the current situation, it reflects a much more
proportionate share of the costs. And I think you will find
people on the Committee here agreeing, and perhaps people in
the general aviation community agreeing, there needs to be an
even more equal and equitable sharing of the cost. And despite
the assertion that general aviation killed the bill, there have
been proposals submitted and even approved from the Finance
Committee and other places that bring us to a much more
equitable and proportionate share of the costs, and so that is
what I want to address now.
For those reasons, I think it is not quite a fair
representation. I think everyone--I hope everyone is committed
to a more equitable allocation of share and revenue. The issue
that has stalled this bill, delayed this bill is the question
of how to raise those revenues and the proposal to create a new
revenue source, a $25 per segment fee. And I oppose that fee.
Others on this Committee oppose that fee because it is new. It
would have additional administrative costs. I think it would be
difficult to oversee, and because we have a system in place for
collecting revenues to support this modernization, and that is
in aviation fuel taxes.
And the proposals that were put in place--the Finance
Committee proposal, for example--significantly increased
aviation fuel taxes on general aviation. So my question in this
regard is that Committee proposal I think increased aviation
fuel taxes for general aviation by 60, 80 percent, maybe 100
percent. What proportional share did that provide for the
general aviation community, and did that Finance Committee
proposal, in your opinion, provide adequate funding for the
modernization initiative?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, I would just go back to the
principles behind our proposal because you can reach those
principles in different ways. And obviously, both the
commercial and the GA side of the industry are important
economic drivers for the country as a whole.
So what we were trying to do with our proposal is to
implement, number one, a cost-based financing structure, not
just for the fairness reasons, which would level things out, I
think, more than they are today because we believe they need to
be, but also when you go down the path of a cost-based
proposal, then you are making the operators become more
efficient in their use of the airspace, which they do not do
today under just a straight tax system.
And I think that is extremely important as we talk about
congestion, especially in major metropolitan areas. You do want
the users using the system efficiently, and that is what a
cost-based system will do. So cost-based, fair, and the last
thing was dedicated funding for modernization.
Right now, we are part of the discretionary budget, and we
have recognized the need to transform this system. It is simply
not scalable to handle the two to three times traffic levels
that we are seeing out to 2020, 2025. And I am particularly
worried about the mid term, 2015, 2016. So that is where we
are.
Senator Sununu. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. And
it was--and I appreciate the thought that went into the
proposal, but that was an only marginal response to the
questions that I asked, which is, one, is the proposal to
increase aviation fuel taxes, aviation fuel taxes on GA by 80
percent or so, did that generate sufficient revenues to fund
this very important modernization? And the answer to that
question is a simple yes, based on the GAO evaluations of what
is needed, the projections that you and others in the
department have made, the funds that would have raised are
adequate to support the modernization initiative?
Two, would that get us to a much more proportional share of
the costs associated with the system? You indicated that by one
accounting, they were 16 percent of the costs, only 3 percent
of the revenues. By another, 22 and 8.5 percent, and we want to
get that to be more equitable. And the answer to that question
is, yes, raising aviation fuel taxes on general aviation does
get us to a much more equitable assessment of the cost.
The point you made, which is a fair point to make, is that
you believe that creating a new tax system, a new user fee
system, a $25 per segment system, would also address or solve
the issue of maximizing the efficiency within the system and
drive users to use the system much more efficiently. I think
that is an interesting assertion. I think there may be some
improvements or some incentives created along those lines with
a user fee, but there are other downsides to creating such a
new system, downsides that many others on this Committee I
think have registered in our debate, in our discussion when it
came up.
So I think these are important issues. We want to
modernize. But I don't think it is quite fair to say that
simply because this one user fee wasn't included in the final
package that we can't possibly do an FAA reauthorization bill
because the package certainly was still in a position to meet
the very important goals of providing the revenues to modernize
the system and creating a very--a much more proportional share.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Stevens?
Senator Stevens. Madam Secretary, we have all read these
stories about mergers among major commercial carriers. I think
Senator Inouye and I probably are frequent fliers as much as
anyone in the country. I wonder how you evaluate mergers when
they come to you? Do you have a special group that would
evaluate the impact on consumers? These mergers could well
reduce the frequency of flights or the size of the airplanes or
the conditions under which they will fly.
Do you have a consumer group that will analyze merger
proposals before you?
Secretary Peters. Senator Stevens, we do have a group that
analyzes these proposals. They are part of our aviation office
that reports to the Office of the Secretary, and so they do
examine these proposals when they come forward. We do look at
issues like safety and like consumer issues, but we are an
advisory role to the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice ultimately, of course, is the
party that makes these decisions. And they look at issues like
competition. They look at issues like market access. So we
certainly do have input to the Department of Justice when these
proposals are made.
Senator Stevens. Well, I would hope that you would really
consider forming a consumer group to look at them because these
mergers are now going to eliminate major carriers, it looks to
me like. And that will mean hubs will change. The conditions of
interlining will change, and availability of flights is going
to change.
I do think that we are getting on to a point now that with
the limited number of major carriers, particularly
transcontinental carriers, that we ought to be very careful
about approving mergers unless we are sure that consumer rights
are protected. Because clearly this commerce--this air commerce
has a great deal to do with our economy, and if we approve
mergers which slow down this economy at this time, I think it
would be very wrong.
Thank you.
Secretary Peters. Senator, and also I wanted to get back to
you, I apologize that I misspoke a while ago. This is
concerning the minors traveling unaccompanied. Actually, the
aviation office, as part of the Office of the Secretary, has
had ongoing discussions with the airlines on this issue. And
again, that office would also be involved in the potential
merger as would the consumer section in our Office of Counsel.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Thune?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens.
I appreciate the Committee holding today's hearing regarding
the Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for DOT, and I am pleased
that Secretary Peters and Administrator Sturgell are here to
underscore the Department's priorities for the coming fiscal
year.
And I would echo what the Senator from Alaska said with
regard to concerns that I know constituents of mine have
regarding potential mergers and what that might do in terms of
its effect on availability of service and options and prices
and all those sorts of things. And that is certainly something
that we are going to be watching very, very carefully because
many of these proposals would significantly impact service into
the area of the country that I represent.
And I know a lot of my colleagues agree that there is
certainly no shortage of demand when it comes to all the
various modes of transportation that DOT is responsible for.
The one--a couple of observations and questions, if I might?
The latest FAA extension that the President is expected to
sign into law this week includes an important extension for EAS
and eligibility, and I wanted to let you know that I appreciate
the Department's help in working to ensure that we get a
carrier selected as soon as possible to ensure that EAS service
can be restored in Brookings, South Dakota.
As Senator Stevens and others have referenced this morning,
I also have some strong concerns about the administration's
significant cuts to the EAS program. Fifty million dollars is,
by no means, a sufficient amount to ensure that eligible
communities across the country are connected to our Nation's
aviation system. And so, I guess I would just like to--I know
you probably exhausted this subject already, but if you could
react to our concerns about that amount and what it might mean
to EAS communities and service into those underserved areas of
the country?
Secretary Peters. Senator, I would be happy to respond, and
I think it is important to note again, as we talked with
Senator Stevens, we do believe that we can continue to support
the most isolated communities. These would be communities in
Alaska. These would be communities in South Dakota, in Montana,
in North Dakota, and other of the more isolated places.
Where we believe we have the opportunity to work within the
budget amount that the President's budget proposes is to look
at the fact that we don't believe the government should be
funding communities that are within a reasonable driving
distance from a major airport, as we are today. Some of those
locations today, for example--and I am sure that someone
represents these areas as well--but Hagerstown, Maryland, just
a short distance here from the Nation's capital. Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. Or in my home State, the City of Prescott,
Arizona, which is not a considerable distance outside of the
metropolitan Phoenix area.
But again, it would be our intent to continue to focus and
to fund those most isolated communities in many of the States
that I just mentioned.
Senator Thune. Secretary Peters, I know you have got a
great deal of expertise when it comes to the Nation's
infrastructure needs, and I know that the EPW Committee also
has primary jurisdiction over our Nation's surface
transportation systems, when it comes to highways and bridges
and what not. But I also have major concerns that we are not
doing enough when it comes to the Federal Government's role in
ensuring that our Nation's transportation system is keeping up
with the demands that it faces, and this applies both in terms
of surface as well as other modes of transportation.
And while I would acknowledge that the President's budget
for Fiscal Year 2009 is a starting point, as Congress works to
craft our annual appropriation bills, I do have concerns that
we have looming problems out there that, if left unaddressed,
are going to significantly impact the movement of goods and
services in this country.
And I want to reference a New York Times article that
appeared earlier this week in which you noted that the Federal
role in transportation should be more limited than it is today.
And I guess my question is how do we reconcile the fact that
the construction costs associated with all forms of
transportation have risen significantly while the funding
sources that we rely upon to fund and pay for these
infrastructure improvements are lagging behind?
And I raise that question because I do see a major problem
on the horizon both in terms of surface transportation as well
as aviation.
Secretary Peters. Senator, I would be happy to answer that
question, and thank you for the opportunity. Certainly, our
Nation does have needs that are not being met today in terms of
both surface transportation, aviation, rail, within our ports
as well. Part of the problem that we have today is both the
source of funding that we are collecting. The gas tax, as I
mentioned earlier, is not going to be sufficient in the future.
In fact, it is not responsive even yet today. So we need to
look to diversify or find more funding sources to become
available.
But I think the very basic question that we have to ask
ourselves first, those of us who are privileged to serve in the
Federal branch of government, is should the Federal Government
be involved in as many of the issues in transportation that we
are involved today? And I am talking about the surface system
mainly.
Today, we have, between highway and transit, 108 different
programs with which the money is divided up, once it is
remitted, into these various programs and then sent back out in
varying demands, along with formula allocations to states. I
think that we could do a better job if we were to refocus the
Federal priorities and the Federal responsibility on those
thing that are truly in the national interest, things like the
interstate highway system, things like projects of regional and
national significance, safety programs.
But then not be involved, the Federal level of government
not be involved in determining where many of the decisions are
made that I think are much more in keeping with local or State
governments making those decisions. And so, I think if we
refocus where we are with the Federal Government, redefine what
our primary responsibilities and priorities should be, and then
work with our partners on State and local levels to determine
where they should be making decisions and where the
responsibility and prioritization is more accurately at that
level.
This does not mean, as some of the folks who have construed
my remarks to mean, that we want to dump the programs on the
State. Absolutely not. I have been a State official. I
understand how it works from that end as well. But I do think
that 108 different surface transportation programs is not in
keeping with what the Federal Government should be focusing and
prioritizing on.
That said, we have got to, in the next surface
transportation authorization, look at how to bring more money
overall to this system, how we can make sure that we are
appropriately funding transportation where we should be. And I
think there are ways to both diversify and supplement revenues
that we are collecting today, and one of those is to bring in
private sector participation.
There are today conservatively $400 billion available for
infrastructure investment if we create the right opportunity
and the right environment to make access to those revenues.
Senator Thune. And to that point, I would hope that you
would also continue to take a look at the proposal that Senator
Wyden and I have on the Build America bonds, which I think gets
at the very point that you are talking about with regard to
involving the private sector in helping, coming up with new and
innovative ways of financing infrastructure.
But I just, again, appreciate your answer but would
reiterate my original point about if you start talking about
those states like ours that are rural and don't have population
bases and don't have, therefore, the funding, the ability to
raise the revenues that are necessary to have a truly national
highway system that is connected, or that connects the economy
from one end of the country to the other, it is just not
practical to suggest, I think, that somehow the States would
become the--and I think that States and local governments would
probably welcome the opportunity to have more control in
decisionmaking and that sort of thing.
But I can tell you that a national transportation system
isn't going to work absent those highways, Federal highways and
interstate systems that go across sparsely populated areas of
the country. And that, I believe, is a national and Federal
responsibility and role to make sure that we have a national
highway system that makes us competitive in the global
marketplace.
And so, on that comment, I appreciate your clarification of
it because it certainly raised some eyebrows for those of us
who represent small or rural States.
Secretary Peters. Senator, that is precisely why I
mentioned the interstate highway system and other systems that
do support our Nation as a whole. It is very important that we
continue to maintain and operate and improve that system as
well.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
You know, on the interstate highway system, I doubt
whether, with the current mindset, we would build the
interstate highway system today if it were not now built. But
fortunately, under President Eisenhower and the leadership in
the 1950s, we did bring this country together through the
interstate highway system.
I was looking the other day at the Special Inspector
General for Iraq's reports about what we are spending there. We
have water projects, over 900 water projects in Iraq we are
building. Roads, health clinics, and pipelines--we are
investing a lot in infrastructure in Iraq. We are cutting back
on infrastructure investment in this country.
I agree with Senator Thune. I think infrastructure
investment is very important. I believe we ought to have some
sort of infrastructure investment bank. There are a couple of
proposals out here that I think are important. I came back
because I wanted to talk about Amtrak just for a moment.
We have 110,000 North Dakotans that boarded Amtrak rail
service in North Dakota. And the 40 percent proposed cut, this
has been replicated over and over before, Secretary Peters, you
became Secretary. We have had the same recommendations from
this President, and the Congress has essentially said to this
President you are wrong. We are going to provide funding. We
believe long-distance train service is important.
In our part of the country, the Empire Builder goes from
Chicago to Seattle. It is an enormously successful train, but
most of the experts suggest that a 40 percent cut in Amtrak
means that most long-distance train service will disappear. Is
that the intent of the President's recommendations, that long-
distance train service disappear?
Secretary Peters. Senator Dorgan, no, it is not. In fact,
the administration does value and recognize that intercity
passenger rail is an important part of our overall
transportation system in the United States, and we certainly do
depend on that system as well.
The fact is that Amtrak generates about $2 billion in
revenue annually, and what we have proposed in the President's
budget, $900 million in funding, plus funding that the States
can provide, especially with the State grant program which is
part of what the administration has put forward, we do believe
that Amtrak management needs to continue with reforms and make
some good business decisions, business decisions that will
eventually allow us to phaseout operating subsidies. But this
does not mean that we don't support intercity passenger rail.
Senator Dorgan. Every country in the world, I believe, that
has rail passenger service has some form of subsidy for it, and
we subsidize virtually every form of transportation. We
subsidize the airlines. I mean, not in a direct-dollar subsidy
to the carriers, but there are many ways in which we subsidize
air travel.
My feeling is that retaining long-distance train service in
this country is important, and a lot of experts have looked at
the President's proposal--this is similar to the proposals that
we have seen in the past, as I said, before you became
Secretary--and most have said that it is a proposal that will
mean that long-distance train service will disappear. And we
will have train service, passenger service from Boston to
Florida, to be sure, because that eastern corridor is where all
the folks live.
But I think and hope that this Committee strongly supports
Amtrak, including long-distance train service, because we
believe it enriches our transportation system. Just in my
state, which is sparsely populated, to have 110,000 people use
Amtrak in a year, describes what an important adjunct to our
transportation system Amtrak is, and so I hope that we will
restore the funding.
I do want to comment as well on the issue of airline
mergers. We have gone through a spate of mergers. We are on the
threshold, I believe, of a new wave of mergers. There will not
be a merger that happens in isolation. It will not be a case of
some day waking up and seeing a news report that Northwest has
decided that it is going to merge with Delta or Delta with
Northwest. There will be a group of mergers because when one
merger is announced of two carriers among the top five or six,
other carriers will begin and probably have already begun plans
to merge and to combine.
And so, my own view is I don't think it is in the public
interest to have further consolidation in the airline industry.
Frankly, I don't think it is going to solve what is wrong with
the airline industry to get bigger. I mean, there are a lot of
things wrong there. We understand that many of them have been
in and out of bankruptcy.
But all three of us come from sparsely populated states,
with the exception of Senator Inouye, that have a population
center with a lot of jet travel and a lot of big airplanes
coming in. But we all understand what happens with respect to
the position after deregulation, where the pricing system for
airlines is if you want to fly twice as far you get to pay half
as much. Fly half as far you get to pay twice as much.
I mean, if you fly from South Dakota to Los Angeles, I will
guarantee--you go check the fares, get the best fare you can--
and I will guarantee you that I can find a fare flying from
Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles that is half the price, flying
twice as far. Well, that is why some of us in rural States have
some real concerns about these issues.
And the more concentrated economic power you have, the more
difficult it is for us. So we have a hub and spoke system.
There is a lot of work for us to do to try to figure out how we
make this work for the airlines themselves because they have
gotten hit very hard by fuel costs and other things, and I want
them to do well.
But I am very concerned about airline mergers. I would
second the notion by Senator Stevens that I think you should
put together a task force that focuses on what would be the
impact on consumers of further consolidation, combination, and
mergers.
Secretary Peters. Senator, we certainly will have input, as
I mentioned earlier, and the things that we will be looking at,
of course, are consumer issues and are safety issues. That is
very important, and that is as our responsibilities are
detailed and then sharing that information, of course, with the
Department of Justice, who is the ultimate decisionmaker. And
they do look at various issues like market impacts. They look
at competition issues.
And I absolutely hear what you are saying to us today in
terms of perhaps looking a little broader than that. I don't
want to infer that we are moving into a DOT, into an area that
by statute is DOJ's responsibility, but I do hear what you are
saying in terms of the type of input that we could provide from
DOT.
Senator Dorgan. I understand it is DOJ's responsibility. I
have long threatened to put the photographs of antitrust
lawyers at DOJ on the side of milk cartons. You know those
things, where are they now? We have got a lot--we are paying a
lot of them. But, boy, in the antitrust field, they sure seem
to be missing.
But that is a subject for another hearing and another day.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to come back and mention the Amtrak and
the merger issues that I think are really important substantive
policy questions that confront our Committee and confront our
country, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, this has been a long day. So I will be
submitting questions, and it should be noted that the questions
and answers will be part of the public record. So it will be
available to all interested parties.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes?
Senator Thune. Could I just make one point? And I have been
to several of these hearings now where we have had
Administrator Sturgell here as Acting Administrator. It seems
to me at least that we ought to get him through here and on the
floor and try and get him confirmed.
He has had a long and distinguished career in service to
our country as a military pilot, and as a commercial pilot, he
knows that business pretty well. And I think it would be good
to get him installed and make him the Administrator as opposed
to the Acting Administrator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. With that, adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. How does the Department propose to spend less money on
Essential Air Service and provide the same or improved level of service
to these small communities?
Answer. The proposed budget and revisions to the EAS program are
needed in order to administer the program more efficiently and to
ensure the most-isolated small communities maintain access to the
national air transportation system within the proposed funding level.
Communities' eligibility for inclusion in the EAS program has never
been based on their individual needs; rather, it is based only on
whether the community was receiving scheduled air service at the time
of airline deregulation in 1978. The EAS program has remained
fundamentally unchanged since its inception while the aviation
landscape has changed dramatically with the spread of the hub-and-spoke
system, regional jets, and low-fare carriers.
Under the budget proposal, eligibility for subsidy in the future
would be limited to communities: (1) that are currently being
subsidized under EAS; (2) that are more than 70 driving miles from the
nearest large- or medium-hub airport; and (3) at which the subsidy per
passenger does not exceed $200 if the community is less than 210
driving miles from the nearest large- or medium-hub airport. As $50
million would not be sufficient to support all currently subsidized
services, all communities would be ranked on the basis of isolation
(i.e., driving distance to a medium- or large-hub airport) and the most
isolated would receive subsidized air service to the extent allowable
by the available funds.
Question 2a. What efforts is the DOT currently pursuing to improve
airline passenger service?
Answer.
The Department has initiated three rulemakings to help
ensure full disclosure of essential information and fair
treatment of passengers.
An OST NPRM proposing to double the denied boarding
compensation paid to passengers who are involuntarily
bumped and to cover flights operated with aircraft having
30 to 60 seats. The Department is currently considering the
comments received and expects to take final action on the
proposal by June.
A DOT NPRM proposing to require enhanced delay data
reporting by carriers to more fully capture tarmac delays
on flights prior to takeoff and after landing. Again, we
currently plan to take final action in June.
An OST ANPRM proposing to enhance airline passenger
protections by: (1) requiring carrier contingency plans for
lengthy tarmac delays; (2) requiring carriers to respond to
consumer problems, including making information available
for filing a complaint with the carrier; (3) deeming
scheduling a chronically delayed flight to be unfair; (4)
requiring publication of delay data; (5) requiring carriers
to publish complaint data; (6) requiring on-time
performance reporting for international flights; and (7)
requiring carriers to self-audit their customer service
plan. The Department is currently considering the comments
received. The next step would be issuance of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on any proposals the
Department decides to advance.
The Department has formed a ``Tarmac Delay Task Force'' to
study past delays, review existing and other promising
practices, and develop model contingency plans that airlines
and airports can tailor to their unique operating environments
to mitigate the impact of lengthy ground delays on consumers.
The Department's Aviation Enforcement Office has pursued
enforcement action against carriers for failure to provide
consumers, upon request, the on-time arrival percentage of a
flight as required by existing rules. Cease and desist orders
assessing civil penalties have been issued against four
different carriers.
The Department's Aviation Enforcement Office is continuing
its investigation of unrealistic scheduling by the large
airlines, targeting chronically delayed flights. During the
fourth quarter of 2007, the number of such flights was
dramatically reduced, and in 2008 the Aviation Enforcement
Office will be applying a somewhat more rigorous set of
criteria during its review.
The Department's Aviation Enforcement Office has plans to
conduct on-site enforcement investigations of five large
airlines this Fiscal Year to evaluate their compliance with
consumer protection requirements.
The Department will hold three aviation Consumer Protection
Forums across the country to educate consumers regarding their
rights as air travelers and to hear first-hand their concerns
about air travel. The first was held in Miami on April 17,
2008. The second will be in Chicago on June 24, 2008. The third
will be in San Francisco in late September 2008.
The Department has taken steps to improve its airline
complaint filing system and will be taking further steps to
ensure that its websites with airline consumer information are
easy to use and provide useful information.
Question 2b. What are the DOT's views regarding the potential pre-
emption of state laws through the issuance of Federal regulations on
airline service standards?
Answer. We support the Second Circuit's decision striking down New
York's ``Passengers Bill of Rights,'' as a well reasoned interpretation
of long-standing preemption in this area, as recently echoed in a
comparable Supreme Court decision on interstate trucking (** Rowe v.
N.H. Motor Transportation Association, 552 U.S.__, 128 S. Ct. 989
(2008)).
The Department is very active in this area because we
recognize the serious problems caused by congestion in the
system.
There is increased emphasis on gathering data on chronically
delayed flights, and pressing carriers to adopt realistic
schedules. We think this is paying off too.
Also, the Department has recently issued three aviation
consumer rulemakings, one of which goes directly to the
readiness of the airlines to put in place contingency plans,
worked out with the airport in advance, when lengthy delays
occur.
In addition, the Secretary convened a ``Tarmac Delay Task
Force'' in January to evaluate past delays, review existing and
other promising practices, and develop model contingency plans
that airlines and airports can tailor to their unique operating
environments to mitigate the impact of lengthy ground delays on
consumers.
The first meeting of the task force was held February 26,
and the second meeting was on April 29. I believe it is working
well and will be productive.
Ultimately, more fundamental changes such as the NextGen
technology and congestion pricing where appropriate will pay
the biggest dividend in squeezing out delays.
Question 3. The United States Merchant Marine Academy is expected
to have a funding shortfall of $2.8 million during FY 2008. However,
the President's FY 2009 budget request for the academy was $8.6 million
less than FY 2008 enacted levels. How will the proposed cut in funds
affect the ability for the Academy to improve its financial management?
What additional steps are being taken to ensure that the Academy does
not have another shortfall?
Answer. The President's Budget does not highlight a funding
shortfall of $2.8 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. The
overall funding level requested for 2009 is only $1.4 million below
funding enacted for 2008. This change from 2008 includes an increase of
$4.6 million for the USMMA's pay and other operating expenses. The
overall change from 2008 to 2009 also includes a reduction of $6
million in funding requested for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
This lower level for CIP is proposed while the Department reviews the
program and ensures that an appropriate plan and funding is in place to
address the capital needs of the Academy.
As for the overall financial management of the USMMA, the
Department and Maritime Administration are currently conducting a top-
to-bottom review of the financial practices at the Academy. Part of
this process is the placing of a new fiscal control officer from the
Maritime Administration at USMMA for 1 year. In the near future
Administrator Connaughton will provide the Committee more information
on this process.
Question 4. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) is set to
expire at the end of the next fiscal year. Do you plan to submit a
SAFETEA-LU reauthorization proposal for the Congress's consideration
this year? Are there certain priorities that you believe must be
addresses in the next reauthorization of our surface transportation
programs?
Answer. We have not yet decided the exact form that it will take,
but we do intend to submit a reauthorization proposal for the
Congress's consideration in the coming months. Our proposal will
reflect the following key themes and priorities: (1) a clearer and more
focused Federal role; (2) a focus on heavily congested metropolitan
areas; (3) more rational and accountable investment decisions; (4) a
data driven approach to reducing surface transportation related
fatalities; and (5) encouragement of more efficient pricing and
operational performance of the existing system and leveraging of
Federal resources.
Question 5. You disagreed with the general conclusions of the
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission
that we, as a Nation, need to significantly expand our investment in
our transportation infrastructure. If the Federal Government is not to
make this investment, who will? Do you truly believe that private
companies, often owned by foreign interests, or individual states can
be trusted to make the best investment decisions for our national
transportation system?
Answer. We agree about the importance of the transportation system
and the need for a sustainable investment strategy. We agree that our
transportation system will need to be substantially recapitalized even
as we seek to add capacity to the most congested parts of the system.
We believe, however, that the recommended policy framework and the
magnitude of the investment necessary to achieve these objectives are
not appropriately addressed in the report of the National Surface
Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.
In particular, we believe that the problem is not simply how to
raise a certain level of revenue, but rather how to develop a policy
framework that will unleash efficient capital investments, empower
consumers, reduce congestion, stimulate technological improvements,
improve America's quality of life and support the increased
productivity of American business.
We do not believe that it is appropriate for the Federal Government
to be responsible for all expanded transportation infrastructure
investments. This would result in an unnecessarily expanded Federal
role, one that would be likely to stifle creativity by State and local
governments and the private sector. In fact, under the current
framework, an expanded Federal role would do little to reduce the
growth in travel days and unreliability and could simply act to crowd
out non-Federal investments. Rather, the Federal role in transportation
policy should be determined by that which is essential to the national
interest.
Innovative financing and public-private partnerships (PPPs) are
increasingly being used to finance transportation infrastructure
projects. DOT believes that such mechanisms, which generally involve
direct charging for highway use, provide a very attractive financing
approach for State and local governments to leverage traditional
transportation revenue sources. We believe that if Congress was
receptive to these concepts, there is a tremendous potential to unleash
a wave of capital investments in the transportation sector, just as we
are seeing in other parts of the world.
We also believe that the widespread use of congestion pricing could
reduce future capital needs significantly. The 2006 Conditions and
Performance Report found that applying congestion pricing to all of the
congested roads in the system could reduce the cost to maintain the
system by $21.6 billion per year, or 27.5 percent, leaving it at $57.2
billion, which is well below the current level of capital spending. In
addition, pricing of all congested highways would raise significant
revenues, on the order of $34 billion over the analysis period 2005 to
2024.
Finally, we believe that the National Surface Transportation Policy
and Revenue Commission used an inappropriate definition of ``need,''
one which exaggerates needs significantly by, for example, assuming
that any project whose benefits outweigh its costs, even by a dollar,
should be built.
Question 6. The DOT has never issued the report regarding motor
carrier employee protection provisions required by the Transportation
Equity Act of 21st Century. In the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act, Congress strengthened whistleblower protections
for motor carrier employees. When can we expect an assessment of how
well these protections are working for employees?
Answer. The Department has prepared a draft whistleblower report
that reflects consultations with over 60 stakeholders, including motor
vehicle operators and carriers, safety advocates, researchers,
academicians, and officials at the U.S. Department of Labor. We also
recognize that section 1536 of the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-53, provides the Secretary of
Labor expanded authority to investigate, adjudicate, and take
enforcement action with regard to employee protection complaints. The
draft report is undergoing internal review within the Department.
Question 7a. What progress has the Department made in establishing
the Office of Climate Change and Environment, as required under the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007?
Answer. The Department of Transportation established the Center for
Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting in 1999 to address issues
associated with climate change and variability. Since the Energy
Independence Security Act (EISA) did not provide funding for the
establishment of this office, we expect that this existing virtual
center will function as the Office of Climate Change and Environment.
This virtual center is made up of 8 modal agencies and co-chaired by
the Office of the Secretary and the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration. The Center is the focal point in the DOT of technical
expertise on transportation and climate change. Through strategic
research, policy analysis, partnerships and outreach, the Center
creates comprehensive and multi-modal approaches to reduce
transportation-related greenhouse gases and to mitigate the effects of
global climate change on the transportation network.
Question 7b. How will the new Office of Climate Change and
Environment contribute and participate in the Committee on Earth and
Environmental Sciences functions relative to global change?
Answer. The Center already contributes to the Committee on
Environmental and Natural Resources (CENR), as DOT sits on the Council.
Additionally, DOT is a principal member of the Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP). The Center recently completed one of the 21 Synthesis
and Assessment Products that fulfills the Global Change Research Act of
1990: ``The Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation Systems and
Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study.'' The Center also reviews the
research of other agencies through CCSP and CENR. One recent
development has been the establishment of a research collaboration
between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration on the climate change impacts of
aviation emissions.
Question 7c. What key changes to the transportation system would
you recommend the new office implement in order to reduce global
climate change and contribute to the interagency effort?
Answer. There are opportunities for the transportation sector to
contribute to the national effort to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions and many of the solutions also improve air quality generally.
Managing congestion to reduce wasted fuel, improving fuel economy, and
other operational improvements are already underway. However, if the
goal is to achieve the most cost-effective emissions reductions, these
are not easily found in the transportation sector.
Question 8. How will the study mandated in the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) on the ``Transportation System's Impact
on Climate Change and Fuel Efficiency'' help address concerns,
expressed by the National Research Council, among others, that Federal
efforts to understand climate change impacts and develop adaptation and
mitigation strategies remain immature? How will the study support
decisionmaking and risk analyses, address regional impacts, and
communicate with a wider group of stakeholders?
Answer. When EISA was passed, the DOT Center for Climate Change
immediately began discussions of how to implement this provision. We
are currently in the process of scoping the study and identifying
funding sources. Work on the transportation and climate change
clearinghouse, also mandated in the bill, has already begun.
Section 1101(c) does not require or suggest that the Department
study climate change's impact on the transportation system, which would
be the basis for developing adaptation studies, supporting risk
analysis and addressing regional impacts. Therefore, such activities
are outside the authorizing language for this particular study, even
though such activities are expressly mentioned in 1102(a)(2). The study
may be helpful in developing ``mitigation strategies,'' to the extent
that mitigation is defined as methods of reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases.
While we agree that this field is currently under-explored, it is
important to note that there have recently been two important
contributions to national efforts to understand the impacts of climate
change on the transportation system. The DOT, as a major financier of
long-lived national infrastructure, has a significant interest in
adaptation studies and has supported work at the Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies of Science to produce
``Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation'' Report 290.
The DOT Center for Climate Change has also pooled resources to fund an
in depth study of the effects of climate change and variability on a
region identified as particularly vulnerable. ``The Impacts of Climate
Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: A
Gulf Coast Study, Phase I'' is a part of the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program's 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products that aims to
provide decision support to policymakers. Authors of these studies have
recently visited the Hill to brief members and their staffs on the
information contained in the study. In our efforts to improve our
understanding of this area, DOT plans to complete two additional phases
of the Gulf Coast study, which will require significant resources.
Adaptation studies are complex, expensive, and time-consuming, in
part because of the multi-disciplinary nature of such studies, the
range of possible effects, and the diversity of potentially affected
stakeholders. In addition, the inherent uncertainty of predicting
future climate change effects is multiplied when attempting to predict
local and regional scale impacts. Additional adaptation studies would
be useful to national, regional, and local transportation planners, and
may be applicable to current, specific decisions such as the size and
height of bridges and roadways, or the diameter of culverts. We agree
that this field is in its infancy and it will take dedicated resources
over many years to fully address the challenges posed.
Question 9. DOT employees have several complaints about the new
Headquarters building in Southeast Washington including that that
building does not have enough space for all of DOT employees; that it
is noisy and does not have enough private offices for employees to
conduct confidential business; and that the communications services are
too unreliable to efficiently conduct their daily job activities. How
do you explain how all of these problems exist with a brand new
building that has been in the works for 10 years, especially after
Congress appropriated millions of dollars for the project? How do you
plan to resolve these issues in a timely manner?
Answer. With DOT's move into our new headquarters facility, we have
accommodated, as planned, all of our employees, with the exception of
the FAA, into a state-of-the-art office building. With the
implementation of an open space plan, we ensured privacy matters were
addressed by incorporating in the design of the building, numerous
private offices, as well as conference rooms and team rooms that are
available to all headquarters staff. Communication services within the
facility for the initial 3 months of our occupancy were inconsistent
for wireless cellular services. However, with the implementation of our
internal distributed antenna system, communication services within the
facility are consistent and working as designed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. Do you feel that it was necessary to change procedures
for aircraft departures out of Philadelphia and Newark Airports without
first publishing the new departure dispersal headings?
Answer. The assignment of initial departure headings is a tool air
traffic controllers used at Newark Liberty International (Newark) and
Philadelphia International (Philadelphia) Airports, even before the
implementation of these dispersal headings. As a matter of fact,
departure headings are issued in conjunction with the takeoff clearance
in many airports across the country. Although the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) did not formally publish the new departure
dispersal headings, the FAA, in addition to training controllers,
notified controllers and pilots of these headings by issuing a Notice
to Airmen for Newark and Philadelphia.
Question 2. You mentioned that a quote from an FAA spokesman who
told Philadelphia air traffic controllers that if they didn't like
working for FAA they should reconsider their line of work was
``regrettable.'' If that statement did not accurately reflect the
policy positions of the Bush Administration, what actions have you
taken to ensure no such statements will be made in the future?
Answer. We have counseled the employee who made the statement and
we have made it clear to other employees who speak to the press or the
public that this was an inappropriate comment.
Question 3. Do you feel the low staffing level of certified
professional controllers has an impact on safety? Do you believe
certified professional controllers add a margin of safety to flight
operations?
Answer. The FAA is safely staffing its air traffic facilities, and
has not found any relationship between staffing levels and aviation
accidents, runway incursions or mistakes by controllers.
The FAA has planned for a 70 percent turnover in its workforce over
the next 10 years by hiring and training several thousand new air
traffic controllers each year, as veteran controllers hired in the
early 1980s reach retirement age. We expected this to be a transition
period and we are managing through it.
Last year, less than one error occurred for every 10,000 hours of
``developmental'' controller position time. On average, fully certified
controllers are working operational positions 85 percent of the time,
compared to 15 percent operated by developmental controllers.
Most facilities will be in a period of transition over the next few
years and will be staffing with a combination of Certified Professional
Controllers (CPC), CPC-In Training (CPCIT) and a large number of
developmental controllers (Developmentals) who are proficient, or
checked out in specific sectors or positions. Developmentals have
always handled live traffic, and in fact, this is a requirement to
maintain proficiency as they progress toward CPC status.
Question 4. Amtrak said they need more than twice the $800 million
President Bush asked for in order to operate safely and reliably next
year. By law, you--or your designee--are granted a seat on the Amtrak
Board, along with up to six more of President Bush's appointees. Have
you made the President aware of the railroad's actual funding needs?
Answer. The Administration has consistently stated its support for
intercity passenger rail where it can make a cost-effective
contribution to passenger mobility. Significantly less subsidy would be
required to fund the operations of a reformed Amtrak that is focused on
being efficient at what it does, providing only those services for
which there are significant demand, and appropriately pricing those
services.
Question 5. As a member of the Amtrak Board, do you believe you are
acting in the Corporation's best interests by proposing only half the
level of funding Amtrak has said it needs? What was your role in
approving Amtrak's funding request?
Answer. I believe that it is an appropriate role for a member of
the Board to challenge management to drive a more efficient operation
particularly in light of the difficult budgetary times we currently
face. Our funding request is intended to send that message--providing a
call to management that it is unrealistic to expect significantly
increased levels of funding and that the Corporation's attention must
be focused on implementing significant, sustainable improvements in the
way Amtrak does business. My designee on the Board voted against
transmission of the grant request as written, in part, to send this
message.
Question 6. With expanded Amtrak security measures in place this
year, including random security checks, why did President Bush fail to
request funding specifically for Amtrak security?
Answer. Passenger rail security, both for Amtrak and commuter
railroads, is primarily the responsibility of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). Thus it would not be appropriate to make a
security-specific request in the Department of Transportation's budget
request. Funds provided by this Department, however, have funded the
basic infrastructure (e.g., the Amtrak Office of Security, and the
Amtrak Police Department) to permit Amtrak to work in a complementary
fashion with DHS.
Question 7. Can you tell me how many of the thousands of complaints
received each year by the Department from air travelers are actually
investigated?
Answer.
An analyst in the Department's Aviation Consumer Protection
Division (ACPD) reviews each complaint that the Department
receives (approximately 13,000 complaints in 2007) and
determines whether the issue in the complaint is a regulated
area.
Every complaint is forwarded to an airline for their review
and handling. ACPD requires carriers to respond directly to the
passenger if the passenger raises an issue about a regulated
area (e.g., refunds). ACPD also requires that a copy of the
response be provided to it so that staff can review the
response and determine whether corrective action is necessary.
A more in-depth investigation is conducted of each civil
rights complaint that the Department receives (approximately
600 complaints in 2007). The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) directs
the Department to investigate each disability-related complaint
that it receives. In response to this legislative mandate, the
Department's Aviation Enforcement Office and its ACPD
established a process whereby each disability complaint is
investigated, a determination is made whether a violation of
the Air Carrier Access Act occurred, and a closing letter is
sent to the complainant explaining the office's decision. The
mandate to investigate each disability complaint has also led
the office to adopt a similar process for complaints alleging
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin,
ethnicity, religion or sex.
In addition, all complaints forwarded by Congressional
offices (approximately 500 complaints in 2007) are investigated
and ACPD requires carriers respond to such complaints.
It is worth noting that the vast majority of complaints are
not violations as the complaints may not involve a regulated
area and also because airlines generally comply with DOT
regulations. If it is determined that an airline has violated a
regulation, this is noted in ACPD's consumer compliant
application database and further action is taken as
appropriate. Further action may include issuing a warning to
the carrier. Patterns and practices on these issues could also
form the basis for more formal enforcement action.
Question 8. The 9/11 Commission Recommendations law passed last
year authorized specific funding to improve the safety and evacuation
needs of rail tunnels on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, including those
under the Hudson River linking New Jersey and New York. Why did
President Bush not request any funds specifically for these critical
safety and security improvements?
Answer. The President's request includes $525 million for Amtrak's
capital subsidy. The Department believes the highest priority for the
use of these funds should be addressing safety and security needs. In
response to a requirement included in the Department's 2007 grant
agreement with Amtrak, the Corporation is undertaking development of a
capital investment plan for the Northeast Corridor (NEC) in
consultation with the Northeast Corridor states and the railroads that
operate over the NEC main line which includes the Hudson River tunnels.
This plan will identify and prioritize investment needs. With regard to
the life safety and evacuation needs of the tunnels under the Hudson
River, significant progress has been made since 2002 in bringing these
tunnels up to contemporary standards which will be reflected in the
prioritization of additional investment needs for these specific
assets.
Question 9. Presidential Emergency Board #242 recommended that
Amtrak employees be paid back-wages for up to 8 years in which they
worked without a new contract. Amtrak and its employees have reached
agreements on new contracts that include this back pay. Does the
President's budget proposal account for this funding? Does the
President support these agreements?
Answer. The Department supports the PEB recommendations and Amtrak
entering into contracts with its employees to implement them. The
Administration believes that funding to implement these agreements can
and should be found from within Amtrak's existing fiscal resources
including revenue growth and expense reduction driven by improving the
way Amtrak does business.
Question 10. The recent report by the National Surface
Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which you chaired,
estimated conservatively that transit ridership grows two and a half
percent each year. But according to a recent report by the Research and
Innovation Technology Administration, the Bush Administration is only
planning for 2 percent minimum annual growth in transit ridership--a
difference of about 43 million riders each year. What accounts for this
difference and did you concur with the Commission's assessment on
expected transit ridership demand?
Answer. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Study Commission report discussed a range of estimated growth rates for
transit ridership from 1.61 percent per year to 4.22 percent per year.
The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) report,
Transportation Vision for 2030, states that, ``To reduce congestion,
efforts are underway to increase transit ridership by 2 percent or more
each year.''
The different estimates of future transit ridership in the two
reports depend upon the degree of investment by all levels of
government and the private sector, and the amount and quality of
service provided by the Nation's transit systems. As we have emphasized
in our Urban Partnerships Program, the success of transit also depends
critically on the extent to which congestion pricing offers drivers an
incentive to use transit. The forecasts also depend upon policies
related to transit fares as well as other economic, environmental, and
social factors. Another factor affecting these forecasts is development
and rate of diffusion of new technologies, such as Intelligent
Transportation Systems, into the Nation's transit systems.
The Department of Transportation has continued to recognize the
important role that transit plays particularly in our major urban
areas. We required that expansion of transit capacity be a key element
in our Urban Partnership Agreements with five cities. We believe that
transit, along with congestion pricing, new technology, and
telecommuting, are key elements in our plans to reduce congestion in
major American cities.
Question 11a. Under Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) new
audit requirements for all recipients of Class One Aircraft Situation
Display to Industry and National Airspace System Status Information
(ASDI/NASSI) data, audits will be required for recipients of partial
ASDI data which was previously considered ``Class Two data with no time
delay.'' Why did FAA make this change?
Answer. Aircraft Situation Display to Industry (ASDI) data are
delivered in two types, Class I data, which are undelayed, and Class II
data, which are delayed by 5 minutes. There is no other type delivered
by the ASDI system that is ``partial ASDI data.'' Some vendors, which
receive Class I data, change the data and redistribute them. A vendor
might consider this to be ``partial,'' but from the FAA delivery point
perspective, there is no difference between these Class I users.
Therefore, as Class I users, they would all receive the same audit
requirements. The Class I audit is intended to ensure adequate
protection measures are in place when dealing with real-time data and
data delivery to the user. Class II data do not require an audit as the
FAA accepts that the five-minute delay of the data is adequate
protection. Class I and Class II data contain the exact same
information, simply with a five-minute delay imposed on Class II.
Question 11b. Does FAA have any concerns regarding the current
operations of recipients of this partial ASDI data considered ``Class
Two data with no time delay"?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration does not provide a
different real-time dataset to industry users other than the Class I
feed. As indicated in the discussion in answer 11a, the FAA considers
all real-time data of concern.
Question 11c. Are you aware of the impact of the new FAA audit
requirements on these recipients of ``partial ASDI data''? Are you
aware that certain Federal agencies (Customs and Border Protection and
the Transportation Security Administration) rely on proprietary
information/data which incorporates ``partial Class One data,'' and
that these agencies would be subject to annual audits under FAA's new
requirements if they are to continue to receive such real-time data?
Answer. As indicated in the discussion above regarding question
11a, the Federal Aviation Administration considers all real-time data
of concern, and, therefore, the FAA uses the audit to ensure the
security of the data.
The Aircraft Situation Display to Industry (ASDI) feed was
developed as a feed to industry users (i.e., nongovernmental users). As
such, precautions are taken with this feed to remove sensitive aircraft
data including military data, some international data depending on
international agreements, and any aircraft that an aircraft operator
does not want in this feed. Because of these limitations, a separate
feed was created called the TFM Data to Government (TFMDG) that is
specifically targeted at government users. This feed contains the
larger dataset and is intended for government users with a need for
this data. Separate, internal agreements govern the use of this feed.
This feed follows the ASDI feed both in format and technology.
Question 12. When will Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration comply with Section 60109(e) of Title 49 and issue
minimum standards requiring all newly constructed single family homes
to be installed with excess flow valves?
Answer. PHMSA expects to publish its proposed distribution
integrity management rule within the next several months. As mandated
by 49 U.S.C. 60109(e), the proposed rule would require distribution
operators to install excess flow valves (EFVs) on residential service
lines meeting technical criteria specified in 60109(e)(3). PHMSA also
is working with its State partners, who oversee the vast share of the
distribution pipeline network, to remind distribution operators of the
Congressional direction to begin installing EFVs by June 1, 2008. PHMSA
believes that most distribution pipeline operators have already begun
installing EFVs in accordance with the statutory criteria.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. Please explain the Department's budget plan for moving
forward with the fuel economy regulations mandated in Pub. L. 110-140,
the Energy Independence and Security Act. I am particularly interested
in staffing and funding requested by DOT for implementing Title I. Do
you believe that the Administration's funding proposal for
implementation of this new rulemaking is adequate to meet the
requirements laid out in the law? Will this new fuel economy mandate
detract from other NHTSA programs such as regulation enforcement,
research, or ongoing rulemakings? As you may know, Congress may provide
additional funding to the NHTSA to meet its statutory obligations. Do
you have any recommendations for the level of additional funding and
staff needed for NHTSA to meet all of their obligations?
Answer. On April 22, 2008, NHTSA issued a notice of rulemaking
proposing standards for Model Years 2011 through 2015 passenger cars
and light trucks. The agency has increased its budget request for CAFE
rulemaking to $3.88 million for FY 2009 from $1.88 million in FY 2008.
Question 2. Could you please update the Committee on the status of
the cross-border pilot project between the United States and Mexico? I
am interested to know more about the foreign and domestic companies
currently participating in the program and the current inspection
regime for ensuring compliance with domestic regulations. Also, please
provide the Committee with the rationale for Administration's decision
to move forward with the project despite the language included in
section 136 of Division K of Pub. L. 110-161.
Answer. The table below shows cross-border demonstration project
data as of April 1, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico-domiciled U.S.-domiciled
Motor Carriers Motor Carriers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Motor Carriers 18 6
Power Units 62 46
Total Border Crossings 4,993 943
Beyond Commercial Zone Border 490 943
Crossings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, 47 Mexico-domiciled motor carriers are eligible to
participate in the demonstration project subject to them filing the
proper financial responsibility documents with the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Additional information on the
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers eligible to participate in the
demonstration project was published in the Federal Register on March
24, 2008.
All Mexico-domiciled motor carriers participating in the
demonstration project must comply with the same U.S. Federal and State
regulations as U.S. and Canada-domiciled motor carriers. These included
environmental, tax, immigrations, cabotage (point-to-point
transportation of cargo within the U.S.), drug and alcohol testing,
insurance, registration, driver licensing, and safety regulations. The
transportation of hazardous materials and passengers is prohibited
under the demonstration project.
In addition to meeting the same requirements for U.S. and Canada-
domiciled motor carriers, additional requirements are imposed on
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers participating in the demonstration
project. Every Mexico-domiciled carrier that wants to participate in
the demonstration project must satisfactorily complete an FMCSA-
administered pre-authorization safety audit (PASA) before FMCSA will
grant provisional operating authority to operate in the United States.
The safety audit is FMCSA's review of the carrier's written procedures
and records to validate the accuracy of information and certifications
provided in the application and to determine whether the carrier has
established or exercises the basic safety management controls necessary
to ensure safe operations. Each vehicle the motor carrier intends to
operate in the U.S. undergoes a North American Standard vehicle
inspection during the audit. This inspection is an in-depth 37-point
inspection. Vehicles that do not pass the inspection are not allowed to
operate in the U.S. until they pass the inspection and receive a
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) decal as proof. Each vehicle
operating in the U.S. must have a valid CVSA decal affixed to it at all
times while operating in the U.S. The decal is valid for 90 days. In
effect, the vehicle must pass a North American Standard inspection
every 90 days. Vehicles with no decal or an expired decal will be
placed out-of-service until they pass the inspection and are issued a
decal.
The Secretary has committed to the goal of checking every Mexico-
domiciled motor vehicle participating in the demonstration project
every time it enters the U.S. from Mexico. The check will include
verification that the vehicle has a currently valid CVSA decal, a check
of the driver's license, and an assessment to ensure the driver can
speak English. If the vehicle does not have a currently valid CVSA
decal, it must pass a North American Standard vehicle inspection and be
issued a CVSA decal before it will be allowed to proceed. If the
driver's license in not valid, suspended revoked or restricted to
Mexico, or the driver is unable to speak English, the driver will be
placed out-of-service and not be allowed to operate in the U.S.
All vehicles participating in the demonstration project are being
equipped with a satellite-based vehicle tracking system. This system
will enable the FMCSA to monitor the motor carrier's compliance with
hours-of-service regulations, identify potential cabotage violations,
and determine when a vehicle enters and exits the U.S.
FMCSA has developed and implemented a safety monitoring system for
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. It is an oversight program to monitor
the motor carrier's compliance with applicable Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations and includes provisions for suspending and revoking
the motor carrier's provisional operating authority.
Enforcement of the regulatory requirements is done through safety
audits or compliance reviews conducted on the motor carrier's operation
and through roadside inspections by State or Federal inspectors.
Currently there are over 500 State and Federal inspectors based at or
near the U.S.-Mexico border.
With regard to the decision to move forward with the demonstration
project, the Administration has looked very closely at the 2008 DOT
appropriations act and section 136 in particular. By prohibiting the
use of funds ``to establish'' a cross-border motor carrier
demonstration program, section 136 does not prohibit spending to
continue to implement the ongoing cross border demonstration project,
which was established in September 2007--well before enactment of the
current Appropriations Act. Consistent with the Appropriations Act
prohibition, FMCSA will not establish any new cross-border
demonstration programs with Mexico.
The Appropriation bill passed by the House of Representatives (H.R.
3074, 110 Cong. 410 (2007)) would have barred spending ``to establish
or implement'' a cross-border demonstration project. However, the
enacted version of the bill is more narrowly drafted and prohibits only
use of funds ``to establish'' such a project.
Question 3. As you may know, on January 23, 2008, Mesa Air notified
DOT and 4 Essential Air Service communities in Arkansas (Hot Springs,
El Dorado, Harrison, and Jonesboro) that they intend on discontinuing
air service. It is my understanding that DOT will require Mesa to
continue serving these communities until a new service provider is
designated by DOT. Could you provide me with an update on any new bids
for these Arkansas communities? Also, I was interested to hear your
opinion of why we are continuing to see fewer and fewer rural air
service providers and more and more cancellations of rural routes by
such providers. This trend concerns me and other Committee members
greatly for a number of reasons. At what level should Congress increase
funding for the Essential Air Service program to ensure that rural,
isolated communities continue to have access to air travel?
Answer. I am fully aware that Mesa Air Group, a holding company
that owns Air Midwest and other airlines, filed notice of Air Midwest's
intent to suspend service at the four Arkansas communities, as well as
at three in Missouri and two in Nebraska. The Department will require
Air Midwest to continue to provide uninterrupted service while we
process a carrier-replacement case. In fact, we have already issued an
order prohibiting Air Midwest from suspending service and requesting
proposals from carriers to replacement service.
Regarding your point that we have fewer and fewer carriers
participating in the EAS program, indeed we do have fewer carriers and
this is a serious concern. Until the last few years, most of the EAS
providers were carriers that operated 19-seat aircraft profitably as a
business model, and provided some EAS as an adjunct to their core
business. More recently, for a number of reasons, ranging from
increased security requirements to the high price of fuel, carriers are
no longer able to operate 19-seat aircraft profitably. As a result,
almost all carriers are turning back their 19-seaters. One of the
impediments to attracting new EAS providers is the requirement for EAS
aircraft to have two engines, two pilots, and generally have 15 or more
seats.
Regarding funding, we continue to believe that a funding level of
$50 million would be sufficient to maintain service at the truly
isolated communities.
Question 4. As you well know, I am very supportive of the
completion of both I-49 and I-69; especially those unfinished portions
that run through Arkansas. Could you please describe where these
important Interstates were in priority for the DOT and FHWA, and what
type of financial and technical assistance will be dedicated to these
projects under the Administration's FY09 Budget? I appreciate your
designation of I-69 as a Corridor of the Future, and I hope financial
and technical resources will continue to go to this Interstate in FY09
and years to come until the project is complete. Do you know how DOT
intends on distributing the $25 million dedicated for the Corridor of
the Future program in the Administration's budget?
Answer. The President's budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 would
provide $75 million for the Corridors of the Future Program. In FY
2008, six major routes represented by seven coalitions were identified
for participation as Corridors of the Future. Although I-69 was
identified as a participant, I-49 was not. The Department is currently
in negotiations with the various coalitions to develop a vision for the
corridors, a prioritization framework, an initial list of actions and
projects, and an organizational structure for multi-state coordination.
The distribution of funds requested in the FY 2009 budget for Corridors
of the Future will be based on the results of this process. Currently
no decisions have been made for the distribution.
While there are no dedicated funds identified for use for I-49 and
I-69, beyond the results of the Corridors of the Future program
negotiations specific to I-69, the States' normal Federal-aid
allocations can be used for both the I-49 and I-69 corridors. The
FHWA's headquarters and State field offices will also continue to
provide technical assistance to the State DOTs on I-49 and I-69 issues.
As you know, in Fiscal Year 2007 a grant of $800,000 of Transportation
and Community and System Preservation Program funding was awarded for
the study of innovative financing for I-69.
Question 5. I notice in your testimony that you cite shortfalls in
the Highway Account balance of the Highway Trust Fund to support your
call for moving away from a reliance on fuel taxes and partnering with
State and local governments willing to develop more effective means to
finance our transportation infrastructure. Could you please elaborate a
little on some of these alternative financing means and how they may be
structured? I was wondering how you saw some of these potential
alternatives working in rural states with lower traffic density like
Arkansas and other states represented by members of this Committee.
Answer. Many different financing strategies can be used in lieu of
raising fuel taxes to finance transportation improvements. The Federal
Government provides several innovative finance mechanisms to assist in
project finance. Not all strategies will be applicable to all projects
in a given State or to different States across the Nation. States must
decide on a case-by-case basis which strategy is best for a particular
project.
An important potential source of revenues for States is tolling.
Tolling is the purest form of user charge because there is a direct
link between the use of a facility and the fees paid by the user. With
the ability to collect tolls comes the ability to leverage additional
sources of revenue that would not be available if tolls were not
collected. The development of electronic tolling technologies allows
motorists to pay tolls without having to stop at toll booths. This
makes tolling more readily accepted by users and reduces congestion,
noise, emissions, and excess fuel consumption associated with having to
stop to pay a toll. Electronic tolling has also substantially reduced
the administrative cost of collecting tolls which was a deterrent to
traditional tolling.
One form of tolling is congestion pricing where toll rates vary
according to levels of congestion. While this mechanism may not be
widely applicable in more rural States, it can be an important revenue
source in congested urban areas. Not only does congestion pricing raise
revenues that may be used for highway and transit improvements, but it
also improves traffic flow and reduces the need for improvements in
congested areas where adding capacity might be prohibitively expensive.
Currently there is wide variation among the States in the extent to
which they levy highway and bridge tolls. Some States use tolling
extensively, others have just one or two toll facilities, and other
States have no toll roads or bridges. Surveys have shown that most
motorists prefer tolls to general fuel tax increases and State plans
suggest that tolling activity could double in the decade from levels
over the last 10 years. Seven States (California, Florida, Illinois,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas) each raised over one-
half billion dollars in tolls in 2006 to support transportation
improvement programs. Over the last decade between 30 and 40 percent of
new limited access highway mileage was financed using tolls. These fee-
for-service tolls are generally considered more equitable and
economically efficient than other roadway improvement funding options
which cause non-users to help pay for improvements.
Tolling can be done either through the public sector or through
public-private partnerships (PPPs). The use of PPPs can have several
advantages that more and more States are beginning to recognize. First,
the long-term costs of designing, constructing, operating, and
maintaining a facility are often minimized when done through a PPP than
when done using conventional methods. This can be attributed to several
factors including future operational and maintenance requirements are
given greater consideration in facility design and construction;
private sector firms often have greater expertise than public sector
firms; and private sector firms often have greater incentives to
innovate than the public sector. A second advantage of PPPs is that
there may be greater flexibility to structure financing to meet the
unique characteristics of a project than if the project were financed
by the public sector. Third, the private sector can assume some of the
project and traffic risk (that is, the risk that demand for use of a
highway facility will be lower than forecasted by modelers, with the
consequence that toll revenues will be lower, and the equity investor
will therefore not get an adequate return on the investment), rather
than have the public sector assume all the risk.
The Federal Government has two financing mechanisms that are
particularly applicable to PPPs--the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and private activity bonds.
The TIFIA program was established in 1998 to leverage Federal funds by
attracting substantial private and other non-Federal investment in
critical improvements to the Nation's surface transportation system.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) may provide three forms of
credit assistance--secured (direct) loans, loan guarantees, and standby
lines of credit. Eligible applicants include state departments of
transportation, transit operators, special authorities, local
governments, and private entities. Private activity bonds are tax-
exempt securities that may be issued for certain types of privately
developed and operated facilities including highway and freight
transfer facilities. Providing private developers and operators with
access to the type of tax-exempt financing available under municipal
bonds lowers the cost of capital significantly, enhancing private
sector investment opportunities.
Not all PPPs involve the private sector collecting tolls on a
project. In some cases the private sector can be paid by the public
sector for its services using ``availability payments'' or ``shadow
tolls.'' Availability payments are based on the private sector
achieving some specified level of service on the facility, but do not
vary according to the amount of traffic that uses the facility. Shadow
tolls, on the other hand, typically are based on the traffic volumes
using the facility. These two mechanisms are relatively new to the U.S.
but have been more widely used in other countries. They allow States to
realize the benefits of private sector involvement in projects that may
not be amenable to toll financing, in projects the State does not wish
to toll, or in projects the State wishes to toll, but wants to pay the
private sector from some source other than the toll revenues.
The use of availability payments may be particularly appropriate
for rural States that do not have the traffic volumes to support
projects from toll revenues. One good example of this is the Missouri
Safe and Sound bridge program. Through this program a group of private
firms will replace or rehabilitate 802 bridges in Missouri over the
next 5 years. The Missouri DOT will pay for the program over 25 years
using a portion of its Federal bridge replacement funds. During this
period the private firms are responsible for maintaining the bridges in
good condition. Several other States also have long-term contracts with
private firms to maintain portions of their highway systems.
Bonding generally can be a cost-effective way for States to finance
long-lived projects if the interest cost and other expenses associated
with issuing the debt are less than the potential costs associated with
completing construction on a pay-as-you-go basis. In addition to
minimizing the impact of construction cost inflation by freeing project
phasing from current revenue constraints, debt financing also
accelerates the realization of non-monetary benefits. These include
such benefits as travel-time savings due to congestion relief, and
enhanced state/local taxes as a result of expedited economic
development. We do not believe a Federal bonding program would be an
appropriate mechanism to finance surface transportation programs,
because of the Federal tax expenditures involved.
State Infrastructure Banks (SIBS) are loan revolving funds
initially funded at least in part with Federal-aid highway funds. Loans
from the SIB can be used to finance transportation improvements. When
loans are repaid, those funds can be loaned again to fund additional
projects. A major attraction of SIBs is that they allow States to get
more ``mileage'' out of their annual apportionments. Every loaned
dollar that is repaid with interest can be recycled into further
investment in the transportation system. From a borrower's perspective,
SIBs can offer loans on more favorable terms than conventional
borrowing. The interest rate can be as low as zero percent, and the
covenants (loan-to-value ratio, debt service coverage, subordination,
maturity, etc.) may give the borrower greater flexibility than is
available through commercial lenders or the capital markets.
All States are authorized to establish SIBs that may be capitalized
with up to 10 percent of Federal-aid highway funds in several major
program categories. Currently, there are 32 States with a Federal SIB
plus Puerto Rico. In total these States have advanced nearly 600
projects, totaling $6.2 billion, with SIB assistance.
The Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) borrowing tool was
authorized in 1995 as part of the National Highway System Designation
(NHS) Act. GARVEE bonds are debt obligations issued by a state or local
entity, the principal and interest on which is repaid primarily with
Federal-aid funds. Nineteen States plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands have issued GARVEE bonds for approved Federal-aid projects
totaling over $8 billion. The States include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. A number of these States are
generally considered rural in character.
Thus there are a number of alternative financing mechanisms that
States can use to help finance surface transportation improvement. Both
rural and urban States have successfully used these mechanisms in the
past, and are projected to use them more frequently in the future.
While using these mechanisms may represent a somewhat different way of
doing business than the traditional financing from fuel tax revenues
that served us so well during the 20th century, we believe the full
range of financing tools will be needed to meet the requirements of
21st century transportation programs.
Question 6. As you well know, the FAA Reauthorization bill is
currently pending in the Senate, and we are currently operating the FAA
under a short-term extension that is set to expire at the end of June
of this year. Like you, I see the urgency to move forward with the
reauthorization bill as it will in itself help stimulate the economy
and modernize an antiquated system to meet the needs of today and
tomorrow's demand. One of the major issues currently holding this
legislation up is the new user-fee proposal for general aviation. I
believe if we can overcome this hurdle in our negotiations in Congress
that we can more quickly move this bill through Congress and eventually
to the President for his signature. Could you please discuss the
Administration's position on user-fees for general aviation and inform
the Committee of any alternative approaches or proposals that the
Administration has considered since submitting their initial
recommendations to Congress?
Answer. I agree a lot hinges on reauthorizing the FAA and that is
why we believe Congress should act quickly to pass a bill that includes
meaningful reform in a number of areas, not just funding reform. At the
heart of meaningful reform is one of our key principles: a financing
structure that is far more fair and cost-based than the current system.
Accordingly, the Administration has never proposed broad air
traffic user fees for general aviation. Under our plan, general
aviation (GA) flights would only be subject to a user fee if they
landed at or departed from one of the thirty busiest airports in the
country, such as O'Hare. The vast majority of GA flights would instead
only pay a fuel tax, just as they do now.
We considered numerous options to achieve a fairer funding system
during the development of our reauthorization proposal. Based on our
analysis and feedback from the GA community, we concluded the best way
for GA to pay its fair share of costs is through a cost-based fuel tax.
A fuel tax mechanism is the same one promoted by the general GA
community and which Congress has tended to favor. However, I believe
the fuel tax must be set at a rate which will cover a significantly
fairer share of the air traffic costs GA drives.
The Administration has never said our proposal was the perfect
solution to the problems we now face and the Administration has
considered alternative approaches. These other plans include those from
Congress and our stakeholders, which were released after our proposal.
Here, in sum, is our view of each:
The nominal tax changes in both the House and Senate Finance
Committee bills (H.R. 2881 and S. 2345) do little to fix the
inequities found in the current FAA finance structure.
We support the Commerce Committee's $25 per flight surcharge
(S. 1300), as a potentially positive piece of a larger package.
This provision is attractive because it would provide dedicated
NextGen funding.
Finally, the Administration likes many of the elements of
the Air Transport Association's proposal for distance and
departure-based passenger taxes. This plan is significantly
more cost-based than the current system. However, because it
applies only to the airline community it is less than
comprehensive and provides no suggestions about how to deal
with GA.
We have also considered replacing the current tax system with a
universal fuel tax, where the same rate would be applied to both
commercial carriers and GA operators. While this approach would be more
equitable than the present system, it does not directly link costs to
taxes and creates issues with international flight taxes.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Thomas R. Carper to
Hon. Mary E. Peters
Question 1. As you know, Amtrak recently reached agreements with
nine labor unions--anticipated to be ratified this spring--to end an
eight-year labor dispute. In addition to being insufficient overall,
the Administration's FY09 request also ignores the need for increased
funding to cover increased wage costs associated with these new labor
contracts. Without funding above the level of the President's request,
Amtrak would likely be faced with either bankruptcy or elimination of
services. Considering the President's own Emergency Board recommended
the higher wages and Amtrak worker back pay, how can the Administration
justify its insufficient budgetary requests?
Answer. The Administration believes that funding to implement these
agreements can and should be found from within Amtrak's existing fiscal
resources including revenue growth and expense reduction driven by
improving the way Amtrak does business.
Question 2. The FY09 budget proposes to fund New Starts at $180
million below its authorized level. The demand for reducing traffic and
getting people off the roads has increased exponentially, and the
transportation sector's share of greenhouse gas emissions is growing.
In addition to being an environmental and economic concern, it's a
quality of life concern--people are spending far too long in their cars
commuting to work and sitting in traffic. In light of all this, how can
the Administration continue to make cuts to this program?
Answer. The President's FY 2009 Budget recommends $1.62 billion for
New Starts, an increase of $52 million or more than 3 percent over the
FY 2008 appropriation. This budget fully funds the annual cost of New
Starts projects ready to use such funds. The proposed funding level
would enable 15 existing New Starts projects with Full Funding Grant
Agreements to continue or complete their scheduled construction during
FY 2009. Funding is also budgeted for two additional New Starts
projects likely to receive Full Funding Grant Agreements before the end
of FY 2008. New Starts funds are also budgeted for final design costs
to assist projects that may advance into that stage of project
development during FY 2009.
The President's FY 2009 Budget also includes $200 million in Small
Starts funding consistent with the SAFETEA-LU authorized amount.
Question 3. I am concerned about the Small Starts program.
Specifically, what transit project has this Administration initiated,
taken up, and seen to construction? I would like the Department of
Transportation to provide the Committee with a list of such projects,
if in fact there are any. This Administration has long expressed
concerns about the slow pace of highway projects. Why, then, aren't
transit projects likewise getting the support they need for timely
completion? What is being done to expedite the planning and execution
of new transit projects?
Answer. In the fall of 2006 FTA received applications for 12
proposed projects for the Small Starts program. Of these, four were
ready for advancement into Project Development and were included in the
President's FY 2008 Budget. In the fall of 2007, FTA received 15 more
projects for the Small Starts program and 13 projects were included in
the FY 2009 Budget.
FTA has already approved a grant for the Troost Corridor Bus Rapid
Transit project, and is working to award grants for the Los Angeles Gap
Closure Project and the Pacific Highway Bus Rapid Transit Project. FTA
plans to execute the first Small Starts Project Construction Grant
Agreement (PCGA) for the Pioneer Parkway EmX Bus Rapid Transit in
Springfield, Oregon, in the summer of 2008. PCGAs or grants are
expected to be executed for eight other Small Starts projects through
FY 2008.
Congress authorized the Small Starts program to begin in Fiscal
Year 2007 or at least 1 year later than most other provisions of
SAFETEA-LU became effective. FTA has made considerable efforts to
implement the Small Starts program swiftly. FTA published interim
guidance on Small Starts and Very Small Starts in June 2006. Fifteen
projects are included in the FY 2009 Budget only 2 years after
implementation of the program.
SAFETEA-LU also requires that FTA undertake a rulemaking for the
development of the Small Starts program. Rulemaking is a lengthy
process that requires FTA to develop proposals, obtain industry input,
respond to comments, and draft a final rule. This process has not been
completed, in part, because Congress included language in the FY 2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act that prohibits FTA from expending
resources to complete the rulemaking process during Fiscal Year 2008.
Some projects are delayed because of limited local funding
commitments, lack of consensus for a locally preferred alternative, and
incomplete project planning. FTA has conducted extensive outreach to
notify transit agencies of the Small Starts program, including upcoming
Small Starts Workshops scheduled for Pittsburgh (April 22) and Phoenix
(May 12) and expects to receive more applications during 2008. FTA has
been working with a variety of project sponsors on proposed Small
Starts and Very Small Starts projects, including cities such as Ft.
Lauderdale, FL and Tucson, AZ and expects to receive many more
application in the fall of 2008.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell
Question. In my state of Mississippi, we are proud to host Naval
Air Station Meridian, home to half of the Navy's advanced undergraduate
jet training. It is my understanding the Meridian Naval Air Station has
presented a proposal for expanding the military operations area (MOA).
What is the exact certification process for the expansion of a MOA?
Specifically, could you please outline the procedural steps and typical
timeline for such a process, including the amount of dates needed for a
period of public comment? Additionally, the expansion proposal of the
MOA for the Meridian Naval Air Station currently is somewhere in the
FAA approval process. I would greatly appreciate your providing me with
an update on the status of this proposal.
Answer. The process for reviewing requests for special use airspace
(SUA) such as the one you describe for military operations involves a
number of steps and requires substantial coordination and review. We
outline the steps in detail below, but in general, it begins with an
informal discussion and vetting of a proposal and then moves on to a
more formal, detailed review (including an environmental review), that
includes publicizing the proposal in the aviation community, affording
an opportunity for public comment, and then resolving any issues that
may arise. FAA approval of a proposed SUA also involves several of our
offices but the final approval is made by FAA's headquarters staff. The
timeline for such a process generally depends on the complexity of the
type of SUA involved, but can range from one to 3 years.
With regard the proposal for Meridian Naval Air Station, the Navy
submitted its airspace proposal to our agency's Air Traffic
Organization Eastern Service Center (ESC) on January 10, 2007. However,
our staff returned the original package to the Navy because the
required coordination with the local air traffic facility, the FAA's
Memphis Air Route Traffic Control Center, had not been accomplished.
Such coordination began in March 2007, and the FAA's Memphis Center
completed an aeronautical study in April based on the Navy's proposal.
FAA staff also met several times with Meridian Air Station staff to
recommend changes to the proposal that would mitigate any adverse
aeronautical impacts.
The Naval Station's MOA proposal package is currently with our
Memphis Air Route Traffic Control Center for their final review on the
MOA boundary locations. We expect our Memphis Center's decision in
April and, if there are any changes required, our Eastern Service
Center will coordinate those with the Navy. Once any required changes
are agreed upon, the Navy would modify the legal descriptions as
necessary and submit their final proposal. The FAA's System Operations
Airspace & Rules Group in FAA Headquarters will then conduct the final
review. With the Aeronautical Study completed and the impacts
adequately mitigated, it would be likely that a non-rulemaking circular
could be issued shortly thereafter, and that would be subject to public
comment.
Processing of Military Operations Area (MOA) Proposals
MOAs are nonrulemaking special use airspace (SUA) actions. The
procedures and policies for requesting and processing SUA requests are
contained in FAA Order 7400.2, ``Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters.'' The following summarizes the process:
Military unit identifies a need for MOA airspace.
Before submitting a formal airspace proposal to the FAA, the
military meets informally with the air traffic control (ATC)
facility that has jurisdiction over the affected airspace. The
purpose of meeting is to discuss the MOA requirements and
determine if there are any factors that would preclude locating
the MOA in the requested area (e.g., adverse aeronautical
impact on ATC and/or National Airspace System operations).
Military unit prepares a formal airspace proposal package
consisting of the information required by FAA Order 7400.2,
Chapter 21.
Military unit submits the proposal package to the
appropriate FAA Service Center office. In addition, the
military submits the appropriate NEPA environmental analysis of
the proposed airspace.
The Service Center office initiates an aeronautical study to
determine what, if any, impacts the proposed MOA would have on
the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by other
users. The Service Center may task the affected ATC facility to
conduct the aeronautical study.
The Service Center office prepares a Nonrulemaking Circular
to inform the public of the proposal and request the public to
submit comments to the FAA regarding the impact the proposed
airspace would have on aeronautical operations.
The Nonrulemaking Circular is distributed by mail to a wide
range of aviation oriented persons, organizations and
government agencies in the affected area. The Circular
establishes a 45-day public comment period. Public comments are
submitted to the Service Center office.
The Service Center office reviews all public comments
received and the results of the Aeronautical Study and
determines if further negotiations are required with the
military unit to resolve identified adverse aeronautical impact
or other issues.
The Service Center environmental specialist reviews the
military's environmental documents and determines if they are
suitable for adoption by the FAA or if additional analysis is
required.
The Service Center office determines whether to recommend
approval of the MOA or disapprove the request. FAA Headquarters
(Airspace & Rules Group) is the final approval authority for
all SUA proposals.
The Service Center office submits the entire proposal
package (military proposal, Aeronautical Study, copy of public
comments, response to comments, environmental documents) along
with the Service Center's recommendation to FAA Headquarters
for final processing.
FAA Headquarters Environmental Programs Group reviews the
military and Service Center environmental documentation for
NEPA compliance.
FAA Headquarters, Airspace & Rules Group, reviews the
complete package and makes a final airspace approval/
disapproval determination.
Approved MOAs are forwarded to the FAA National Flight Data
Center for publication on aeronautical charts and entry into
the National Airspace System Database.
Processing Timeline
Due to many variables, it is difficult to commit to a specific,
firm timeline for processing MOA proposals. A simple, non-controversial
action, with no environmental complications, could be completed in
approximately 12 months. However, those proposals that are complex,
controversial, involve significant adverse aeronautical impact on the
National Airspace System or have NEPA compliance issues could take an
additional 24 months or more to complete.