FY99 Transportation Appropriations Bills
 | Issue Brief |
FY99 Transportation Appropriations Bills
August 1998| | FY98 Enacted | Request | Senate Mark | House Mark |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ops | $5.335 | $5.631 | $5.581 | $5.579 |
| F&E | $1.875 | $2.130 | $2.044 | $2.00 |
| R,E &D | $.199 | $.290 | $.173 | $.145 |
| AIP | $1.7 | $1.7 | $2.1 | $1.8 |
User Fees
The Senate bill includes a provision which states that no funds can be used by the FAA to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment. The House bill contains a similar provision. It "assumes the collection of no additional user fees in FY99 that were not Congressionally authorized for collection during FY98 and includes a provision prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to plan or promulgate any regulation to institute any new user fee not specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this Act."Aeronautical charts
The House bill prevents the transfer of the NOAA office of aeronautical charting and cartogrophy to the Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC) of DOT, which was in the budget proposal. The House Committee says it is more logical that charting be transferred to FAA, and so it includes funding for this within FAA's appropriation, but reduces TASC's budget by $51.591m and reduces TASC staff by 379 FTE. The House included $27.31m for charting, a reduction of $5 from the budget request. This reduction eliminates the proposed increase to subsidize rental costs at NOAA.WAAS/LAAS
| | Request | Senate | House |
|---|---|---|---|
| LAAS F&E (landing & nav aids prgrms/engineering, development, test & evaluation) | $6.5m | $6.5 | $6.5 + .675 (transfer from Ops) |
| WAAS F&E (landing & nav aids prgrms/engineering, development, test & evaluation) | $101.5m | $117.5 | $80m + $22.7 (transfer from Ops) |
| WAAS F&E (landing & nav aids/air traffic control) | $16m | 0 | 0 |
| WAAS Ops | $10.9m | 0 | 0 |
| Loran-C | 0 | $10m | $5.0 |
| ILS (This line is for ILS establishing and upgrading. The House also provides $10m for "continued procurement of ILS because of "uncertainties in the WAAS program".) | $8m | $18m | $16.5 m |
Senate Language — The Committee has conditioned the release of all WAAS funding. The entire WAAS facilities and equipment request has been provided for engineering, development, test and evaluation. No funds may be committed until the Secretary certifies:
- WAAS is a sole means of navigation;
- The signal continuity issues have been solved without additional facilities or funding and;
- The cost benefit ratio of WAAS exceeds that of other landing and navigation aids programs.
House Language — The Committee created a new budget item called "Next generation navigation and landing systems" which includes funding for WAAS, LAAS, ILS, TLS and Loran navigation systems. They recommended $102.7m for continued development of WAAS, and stated that it is supportive of continued WAAS research, but at a slower pace. It directs that the decision on a WAAS backup system be made by the Secretary of Transportation in consultation with FAA and other affected organizations. It prohibits the FAA from signing a lease for WAAS satellite services until the FAA Administrator certifies that the FAA has completed a lease vs. buy analysis that indicates that such a lease will result in the lowest cost. It also insists that the distinction is maintained between the operating and capital budgets, and that the agency not commit the government in advance of appropriations through leases which include significant elements traditionally defined as acquisition or procurement. [The Administration requested funds for WAAS telecommunications costs from the Operations budget. The House does not believe that operations costs for WAAS or LAAS are appropriate for FAA's operating budget at this time. Instead, they transferred funds for this project from ops to the F&E budget.]
Flight 2000
| Request | Senate | House |
|---|---|---|
| $90m | $4m | 0 |
Senate Language — $4m is provided to allow the FAA to complete the initial program planning activities into Flight 2000 concepts. "…the Committee directs the FAA to focus on accomplishing the tasks that must be completed prior to the start of a more robust Flight 2000 effort - namely definition, and validation of a Flight 2000 operational concept and evaluation, development of a Flight 2000 integrated program plan and further development of a plan to implement Flight 2000 in AK, HI and Oakland ARTCC oceanic and domestic airspace. The recommended level in system capacity, planning, and improvement is sufficient for those initiatives."
House Language — The Committee recommends no funds for this project because they believe the FAA is not yet ready to begin such an ambitious and expensive undertaking, had not decided on sites for the project, and had not achieved industry consensus. It states, "Only two months ago, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association - a major participant in the project - requested that FAA redesign Flight 2000, saying the program 'has been viewed within FAA as a Christmas tree, with program offices clambering to hang their ornaments so they can share in anticipated Flight 2000 funding'. While not opposed per se to the concept of this project, the Committee requires more detailed information before approving such an expensive undertaking. The Committee also notes that the program is not authorized. The Committee will reconsider the program for funding again next year, once the pertinent justification documents are completed and reviewed."
Free Flight (Phase I)
| | Amended Request | Senate | House |
|---|---|---|---|
| Air Traffic Management | $64.3m | $64.3m | $64.3m |
| En Route Automation | $118 | $113 | $44.7 |
| Aeronautical Datalink | $23 | $23 | $23 |
| Initial SMA | $6 | | $6 |
| FFPI Integration | $8 | | $8 |
| WARP | $22.2 | $22.2 | $22.2 |
| Total | $241.5m | $222.5m | $168.2m |
House Language: The House report includes a table showing the changes made to the Free Flight budget by the FAA during the appropriations process. The amended budget request is listed above, not the original budget request numbers. The House recommends placing all the programs into one consolidated budget line so that the program and its constituent elements may be more effectively monitored over time. The House states that it supports the purpose of the program, and that it agrees that accelerating a subset of FAA's overall modernization program is the best way to speed new technologies to the field.
Airport Improvement Program
| | Request | Senate | House |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | $1.7b | $2.1b | $1.8 |
| GA/Reliever/Nonprim Commercial | $28m | $96m | $45m |
Airport Issues
(Dozens of airports mentioned in both bills. The ones listed below may be of special interest.)FDK Airport: The Senate report includes language encouraging the transfer of responsibilities of the Frederick Airport airspace to Dulles TRACON.Hickory Regional Airport: The House report directs the FAA to continue providing contract weather observation at Hickory, NC.
NW Alabama Regional Airport: The House report directs the FAA to continue providing contract weather observation at the airport in Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
2002 Olympics: The Senate report urges the FAA to give priority to the request for capital improvements at Utah GA airports that are part of the Olympic aviation system plan (Ogden, Provo, Toole Valley, and Heber).
Schaumburg Regional Airport, IL: The Senate report includes language that points out to the FAA the need for a debt retirement plan for the Schaumburg Regional Airport. The village of Schaumburg purchased the Schaumburg Air Park in 1994 and converted it to a GA facility. The Senate recommends that the FAA give priority consideration to discretionary funds for retirement of the outstanding principal balance.
March Airfield: The House includes $3.7m to upgrade the lighting and navigational aids at this airfield to achieve category II landing capability.
Yucca Valley Airport, CA: The House report included language stating concern with actions taken by the FAA regarding Yucca Valley. "Due to the need for a viable general aviation airport in Yucca Valley/Joshua Tree, the Committee expects the FAA to conduct an unbiased site selection study for this area which includes the current airport in Yucca Valley. This is similar to direction provided last year, and the Committee is insistent that the FAA follow these directions."
Flight Service Stations:
| | Request | Senate | House |
|---|---|---|---|
| FSS Automation | $2m ($1) | $1m | $2m |
| FSS facilities improvement | $1.364m | $1.364 | $1.364 |
FSS Modernization: The House report includes an explanation that the budget request for FSS modernization was originally $2m, but then was amended on June 4, 1998 to only $1m to provide additional funds for free flight phase one. The Committee "notes that there are few items in the F&E program which are of direct benefit to the general aviation community, and this is one of them." Therefore, the House kept the funding at the originally requested level.
Auxiliary FSS: The House bill includes the prohibition of funds from being used to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United States.
ASOS
| Request | Senate | House |
|---|---|---|
| $9.9m | $21 | $9.9m |
The Senate report includes language stating that the Committee is concerned that the FAA has not adequately funded ASOS for several years, especially for connectivity lines, controller equipment, and operation and maintenance funds. That oversight has left FAA short of assets to fund ASOS systems for nontowered airports. The FAA, NTSB and aviation associations have identified over 200 sites which should be equipped with ASOS, and the additional funds provided by the Committee should be used toward procuring those additional ASOS systems. The Senate also included $1.5 million for the acceleration of the testing and evaluation of PALS, a new automated weather observation technology which may be used as a complement to ASOS.
OASIS
| Request | Senate | House |
|---|---|---|
| $25m | $16m | $22.5m |
The Senate reduced the requested amount for OASIS because system deployment will fall 18 systems less than planned in FY99. The Senate report says the program should be revised and the FAA should address the human factor concerns prior to deployment. The House report included language stating that their slight reduction from the budget request is due to budget constraints and is without prejudice. The House continues to support the program.
Weather
| Request | Senate | House |
|---|---|---|
| $12.2m | $19.2m | $15.3m |