LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional

FEBRUARY 11, 1999, THURSDAY

SECTION: IN THE NEWS

LENGTH: 2834 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT BY
FREDERICK H. VOGT
DIRECTOR, AERONAUTICS DIVISION,
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND CHAIRMAN OF NASAO LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AVIATION OFFICIALS
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
SUBJECT - THE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

BODY:

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the state government aviation departments serving the public interest in all 50 states, Guam and Puerto Rico, it is my privilege to present our proposal for the reauthorization of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). I will summarize our views but ask that our full statement be entered into the record.
As you know, NASAO is one of the most senior aviation organizations in the United States, predating even the Federal Aviation Administration's predecessor, the Civil Aeronautics Authority. The states first established NASAO 68 years ago to ensure uniformity of safety measures, to standardize airport regulations and develop a truly national air transportation system responsive to local, state, and regional needs. Since 1931, NASAO has been unique among aviation advocates. Unlike special interest groups, which speak for a single type of aeronautical activity, NASAO represents the men and women in state government aviation agencies who serve the public interest in all 50 states, Guam and Puerto Rico. These highly skilled professionals are full partners with the federal government in the development and maintenance of the safest and most efficient aviation system in the world.
NASAO members organize, promote, and fund a wide variety of aviation programs across the nation. All states develop statewide aviation system plans and airport capital improvement plans. The states invest about $450 million annually in planning, infrastructure development, maintenance, navigational aids and airport operations at 5,000 airports across the country. Many states also build, own, and operate their own airports. Each year, state aviation officials conduct safety inspections at thousands of public-use airports. Countless aviation activities including statewide meetings, airport symposiums, pilot safety seminars and aviation education forums are also organized annually by the states.
The role of state programs and the responsibilities of the state aviation agencies are expanding. In 1996, Congress made the State Block Grant Program permanent. As a result, nine states, including Tennessee, are already fully responsible for directly administering federal Airport Improvement Program funds. In an era of declining federal budgets and downsized government programs, the states' involvement in aviation is growing.
In 1986, the non-profit NASAO Center for Aviation Research and Education was created to "enhance the public good through an increasingly safe air transportation system." Since then, the NASAO Center has been responsible for the nationwide Airport Safety Data Program. It is also a major participant in the International Aviation Art Contest for children and other aviation education efforts.
The NASAO Washington staff presents the views of the states to Congress and the Administration. It works very closely with the Department of Transportation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Transportation Research Board and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It is also the only organization of its type to have an official Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Aviation Administration.
In preparing for our presentation to you today, we enlisted the aid of NASAO's Executive Committee and the NASAO Legislative Committee. I want to emphasize that state aviation representatives from each region of the United States helped draft our proposals and that our views represent a consensus of your constituents and our members across the nation. Although I represent state aviation as a governmental entity, I also bring the consensus of our NASAO proposal from the Southern Governors Association, the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. This coalition is unprecedented in its unity that we must bring forward an AIP reauthorization bill that will meet the safety and efficiency requirements of this valuable national asset called airports. We have given these issues a great deal of thought, we have reviewed the history of AIP and we have tried to predict the needs of the general public and the commercial business interest for aviation in the coming decades. Our proposals are based on four simple, yet important, goals. They are:
1. To enhance safety and security, preserve infrastructure and expand the operational capacity of the national air transportation system.
2. To provide grants-in-aid to public-use airports based on market demand, financial capabilities and industry accepted planning principals.
3. To instill maximum flexibility in the Airport Improvement Program.
4. To appropriately recognize the growing role of the states in the development of aviation programs which provide financial and technical assistance to our system airports.
The health, welfare, safety and security of our nation's citizens and its economy depend on these goals being met. In an effort to achieve these goals, we have established six proposals, which we hope you will carefully consider as you prepare to reauthorize the Airport Improvement Program.
First and foremost, the states recommend to you that AIP be authorized and appropriated at a minimum level of $2 billion annually over the next five years.
I would like to note that NASAO, based upon its research of airport needs nationwide published in its State Aviation Database Report, has recommended an annual $2 billion AIP funding level for several years. The National Civil Aviation Review Commission and the Air Transport Association agree with us. And as stated before, the Southern Governors Association, the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials concur in recommending a $2 billion annual AIP. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I would suggest that when all 50 States, the airlines, a congressionally mandated, non-partisan commission, and those previously mentioned associations all confirm that a $2 billion annual AIP is necessary for the health of this nation...then $2 billion ought to be the minimum that Congress is willing to fund. As you know, the Aviation Trust Fund, designed to provide AIP with a stable source of funding, is predicted to enjoy an uncommitted significant balance at the end of this fiscal year. The aviation taxpayers have put the money in the system, we hope Congress will now spend it where it is most needed. Congress, in its great wisdom, has provided our nation with the first five-year term for the FAA Administrator. We at NASAO applaud this action and ask that you now grant us a five-year AIP bill. This five- year AIP authorization would also be in line with the Administration's budget proposal.

As one of the newest State Block Grant states, Tennessee has developed a comprehensive airport Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with nearly $150 million in requirements to meet FAA airport standards. I can personally assure you that a five-year, $2 billion annual AIP will allow us to plan and spend federal dollars more efficiently. "Efficiently" means saving dollars and applying them to the most beneficial projects - to increase safety and meet the needs of our state's business interest. We would be able to avoid the disorderly, start-and-stop nature of the development and construction of our nation's airports due to short time frames and uncertain funding levels.
Secondly, we recommend that Congress develop a mechanism that guarantees all revenue dedicated to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is spent each year for its intended purpose and that provides for a continued commitment of a general fund contribution at the minimum of the current level, which supports the FAA operations budget.The Airport and Airway Trust Fund was established to provide adequate funding for the needed capital improvements to our nation's airport and airway system. It is expected to have a balance of over $9 billion in fiscal year 1999. The airport development needs over the next 5 years are estimated to be well over $30 billion. A July 1998 General Accounting Office report estimated that a minimum of $1.38 billion will be needed just to maintain the ranway pavements nationwide over the next 10 years.
In taking the Aviation Trust Fund off budget, it is imperative that a general fund contribution for FAA funding is maintained. There is a genuine public interest in the entire national aviation system and a deep and abiding federal interest in the safety and security of the entire system. All Americans, whether they travel by air personally or not, reap the benefits generated by aviation which one of today's most important engines driving the national economy.
Third, we strongly encourage you to increase State Apportionment funds by a minimum of 1.5 percent. This increase is needed to fund essential planning activities.
As you may recall, the 1996 AIP reauthorization legislation did not include the "set aside" for system planning which has traditionally been part of the legislation since the inception of AIP in 1982. As a result, the planning efforts coordinated and conducted by the states have been severely impaired. During these days of scarce financial and person.nei resources, it is critically important to conduct continuous planning for our nation's airport and airway infrastructure. Funding provided for planning assists states and airports in complying with their AIP grant assurances, including requirements for an approved Airport Layout Plan, a pavement management plan, and the protection of aerial approaches. Airfield pavement maintenance, utilizing the information derived from these studies, is critical to protecting the investment we have already made in our nation's airport infrastructure.
System planning also includes the development of aviation economic impact studies and formal reviews of air cargo and airline services; airport facilities and equipment; on-site operational activities; aerial photography and obstructions. Planning costs will increase in the near future as the states study and plan for communications, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) operations as part of the transition from ground-based to satellite-based navigation and communications systems. Many states are currently conducting studies on the effect of global positioning system (GPS) technology on their airport system. Tennessee is about to start a unique state system plan that is equally funded by the FAA and the Tennessee Department of Transportation. We will look at the business needs of our airports on a regional basis, across state lines, to determine viability and assess needs. An increase in state apportionment under AIP to 20% will allow for a more balanced state-federal partnership in planning.
Our fourth proposal concerns the expansion of a program deemed a success by Congress, the Federal Aviation Administration, the General Accounting Office, airports, and the states themselves. We ask you to make the State Block Grant Program available for voluntary participation by all qualified states.In 1987, Congress authorized a Pilot State Block Grant Program. In 1992, Congress expanded the program from three to seven states. In 1996, you made the State Block Grant Program permanent and the number of participating states was increased to nine. This program is a great success. Don't just take my word on it. In March of 1996, the United States General Accounting Office issued a report entitled "The State Block Grant Pilot Program is a Success." Most importantly, this program is also saving the American taxpayer money by making the federal dollar go further.
Tennessee, along with Pennsylvania, are your two newest State Block Grant States. We have a channeling act in Tennessee for federal funds, thus from an airport owners' perspective, not much changed. However, from the state's perspective, the block grant program decreased our paperwork considerably. Rather than submitting 10-12 detailed applications for individual projects, we submit one streamlined application for a block grant. Neither the state nor the FAA has to deal with numerous individual grants. Our workload at the state level has increased in the grant compliance and environmental areas, but because we are closer to the airports, we can be more effective in dealing with these issues. The State Block Grant Program has reduced the workload of the FAA airport engineers so that they can concentrate on the large air carrier airports and provide better service. As cited by GAO in its report, "The states have streamlined AIP project approval processes, reduced paperwork requirements, and eliminated the duplication that took place when state and federal activities overlapped. Airports have benefited from the states' streamlined approach, allowing them to obtain project approvals and approvals to change projects more quickly. FAA has been able to shift its resources to other high-priority tasks, thereby partially offsetting reductions' in field staff that have occurred in recent years." That's clearly a ringing endorsement of a highly successful program.
NASAO's fifth recommendation is that program flexibility should be a major concern in this reauthorization. We recommend four specific areas of flexibility, which will improve the system and save federal money.
The federal funding share should be flexible. In order to optimize available resources, states should be given the flexibility to adjust the federal funding shares within the respective State Apportionment project cost. Simply put, the federal government today pays 90 percent of costs of most airport projects. But, what if a state wants to speed up the process by paying 15, 20 or even 25 percent of the costs? This flexibility will enhance efficiency and help federal dollars go further. In 1996, you gave FAA the authority to test a flexible local share in the interests of innovative financing. That program is working and should be expanded and made permanent.
We also believe that airport design and construction standards need to be more flexible. Today these FAA standards adhere to "one-size-fits- all" criteria. But state standards are less expensive to implement while maintaining the highest degree of safety and durability.
Most state aviation agencies already utilize their own state specifications for state or local funded airport projects. We ask you to support approval of state specifications for airfield pavement construction at general aviation airports serving aircraft under 60,000 pounds. Building thesesmall airport runways to acceptable state standards is safe, efficient, and less costly for both the federal government and the individual states. Flexible standards make good common sense.
We also recommend that you actively promote flexibility through innovative financing by the FAA acceptance of such programs as state infrastructure banks or state revolving loan funds. We have seen other modes of transportation and other types of infrastructure projects successfully implement these financing techniques.
Our nation's smallest airports have the fewest funding options and the most difficulty attracting capital. Meeting the funding needs of these airports, especially nonhub, other commercial service and general aviation airports will be a major challenge in the future. Help us help them serve their role in the national system through innovative financing. Although considered "innovative", these techniques are not unknown in the aviation community. For more than a decade, Florida has used a state revolving loan fund for airport capital projects and land acquisition. We recommend that Congress establish a pilot program of three states to test the viability of state aviation infrastructure banks and state aviation revolving loan funds utilizing AIP funding.
To accommodate the needed pavement maintenance activities at airports across the country, and as recommended by the U.S. General Accounting office in a July 1998 report, we recommend that crack sealing and maintenance support equipment be added to the list of eligible project items under AIP.
Our sixth and final recommendation is that you reaffirm Congress' intent that all existing grant assurances must remain in effect for their full term.
To nullify existing grant assurances would weaken existing and future assurances and betray the trust of the American taxpayer. We should have every right to expect that airport sponsors will live up to the legal obligations they willingly and knowingly accept when they receive taxpayer support.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you, again, on behalf of the men and women who serve the public interest in state aviation agencies across the country. I would be happy to answer any questions.
END

LOAD-DATE: February 13, 1999