passive restraint funds. The Secretary's hearing to address the issue was held February 21, 1985. However, answers to the Subcommittee's questions on the passive restraint initiative were finally received from NHTSA this week. Where does the solution lie to better coordination between Office of the Secretary (OST) and the modes on important initiatives such as this? ANSWER: The responses to questions on the passive restraint issue delivered by NHTSA the week of April 1st were associated with the hearing on NHTSA's FY 1986 budget request held on February 28. The Committee has traditionally dealt directly with modal administrations on transcripts where an Administrator is the principal witness. The Office of the Secretary on occasion reviews information to be provided for the record to insure consistency with DOT policy, and intercedes on request of committee staff where there are undue delays. In this case none of the delay in response was attributable to OST review, and the NHTSA transcript was completed within a very few days after the problem was bought to OST attention by subcommittee staff. A contributing factor in the delay was the fact that NHTSA was dealing simultaneously with lengthy transcripts from three separate hearings held in the same week, requiring cross-checking on all answers to insure consistency. SENATOR ANDREWS: Assistant Secretary Derman testified last year before the House that "the complexity of the coordination process...is something we need to focus on." What has been done to make improvements in this area? ANSWER: In response to committee concern over late reports expressed at FY 1985 hearings, the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs issued a notice on behalf of the Secretary emphasizing the importance of both quality and timeliness in reports to the committees. In August, 1984, a notice was issued setting target dates for report completion to permit adequate time for review prior to committee deadlines, and an automated follow-up report was instituted, copies of which have periodically been provided to subcommittee staff. Based on eight months experience, we find that we have better control on report status, but much remains to be done on motivating program managers to meet intermediate deadlines and to delegate signing authority for reports not involving policy judgements. The Deputy Secretary has taken a personal interest in the problem and has recently assigned a special assistant additional duties as expediter of all reports requiring Secretarial clearance. We believe that this leverage, combined with continuation of our follow-up system will result in further improvements in the coming year. TRANSIT REPROGRAMMINGS SENATOR ANDREWS: At the Secretary's Overview Hearing on Februay 21, Assistant Secretary Derman indicated that the Committee would receive a FY 1985 reprogramming request for transit capital funds identified in the FY 1985 Conference Report. What is the status of that reprogramming? ANSWER: I plan to have the Urban Mass Transportation Administration submit to this Committee, and to House Appropriations, a reprogramming request to apply New Starts funding to Rail Mod and Bus projects. My intent is to transmit a reprogramming action to the Hill by the end of April. (CLERK'S NOTE.--The requested information was not received by the end of April.) SENATOR ANDREWS: How much of the $1.12 billion FY 1985 obligational authority has been released to date? ANSWER: As of March 31, 1985, a total of $77 million has been obligated. SENATOR ANDREWS: Has the Office of the Secretary changed position from last year? (House testimony as follows: Mr. Derman: "I agree...that in the future... we will respond positively to all Congressional earmarks." Mr. Coughlin: "Can you assure us categorically that this will not happen again...for any earmarks this Committee is a party to?" Mr. Derman: "I think I just did, Mr. Chairman.") ANSWER: The colloquy cited was in the context of whether DOT would utilize the reprogramming process. The responses given continue to represent the position of the Office of the Secretary. TRANSIT LEGISLATION SENATOR ANDREWS: The Senate-reported budget resolution reconciles the Senate Banking Committee to achieve transit cuts in FY 1986 of 25 percent. What is the status of the Department's "one-year bill" to implement the President's budget proposal to convert the trust fund to a formula program? ANSWER: We plan to submit that bill to Congress very soon. SENATOR ANDREWS: Does the delay in the Department's legislative submision suggest support for the Senate Budget Committee compromise? ANSWER: We are not at this point taking any action to implement the Senate Budget Committee compromise. We are proceeding with legislative proposals in support of the FY 1986 Budget. The Budget Committee compromise was agreed to by the Administration as a package. The individual elements which are over the budget, including a substantial increase in transit, are dependent on acceptance of the total package and cannot be supported in isolation. such time as the package may be accepted, we would make any necessary adjustments in our proposals. At SENATOR ANDREWS: What is the status of legislation to merge the highway and transit transfer programs? ANSWER: The Secretary submitted a draft bill entitled "The Fiscal Year 1986 Amendments Act" to the Congress on April 1. That bill would, among other things, make Interstate Transfer funds authorized from the Highway Trust Fund in 1986 available for both highway and transit substitute projects. The bill has been introduced in the Senate as S. 927. We believe substitute projects - whether highway or transit -- should be funded from the Highway Trust Fund since they are substitutes for withdrawn Interstate segments which would have been funded from the Trust Fund except that State and local officials decided these substitute projects could better serve local transportation needs. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PERSONNEL SENATOR ANDREWS: The Budget proposed no funds for staff to support the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. How many staff transferred on January 1 from the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)? How many staff will be in place at the end of FY 1985? Will any staff be required for phase-out operations? What is your best estimate of the personnel and support costs for this function in FY 1986 if Congress does not amend the 1978 Deregulation Act? ANSWER: Among the 305 employees who transferred from CAB to the Department of Transportation, we estimate that 79 were associated with the Essential Air Services function as follows: Office of the Secretary (S&E) Total EAS 54 3 9 13 79 We expect the same total number to be on board at the end of FY 1985, perhaps with some attrition in RSPA offset by additional hiring by Inspector General. The proposed FY 1986 termination allows for some phase-out staff. In OST five people will stay all year and the rest will stay for an average of three months. The Inspector General staff will stay for an average of six months, and RSPA for an average of three months. The additional unbudgeted cost of retaining these staffs through FY 1986 would be $1.8 million for OST, $310 thousand for the Inspector General and $362 thousands for RSPA. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDIES SENATOR ANDREWS: Congress provided $52 million for essential air service subsidies. What actual obligations are estimated for FY 1985? In the event the program is continued, what is the estimated budget authority necessary in FY 1986? ANSWER: For FY 1985 actual obligations are estimated to be around $45.5 million, which includes $4.4 million for a settlement of a prior year claim. In addition, a potential tax settlement in a prior year claim could add up to another $1 million to obligations. If the program is continued in FY 1986, $38 to $40 million in budget authority is estimated to be an adequate level. SENATOR ANDREWS: How many communities receiving a subsidy under the FAS last year have attained subsidy-free status? ANSWER: Eight points were removed from the subsidy list between January 1984 and March 1985. These are Chico, California; Elko, Nevada; North Bend, Oregon; Prescott, Arizona; Roswell, New Mexico; Stillwater, Oklahoma; Waycross, Georgia; and Wenatchee, Washington. Waycross is not presently receiving air service. SENATOR ANDREWS: How many communities would lose service without the EAS? ANSWER: 104 communities in the 49 states excluding Alaska are receiving subsidized air service. 87 of these communities would be likely to lose all air service without the EAS program. However, most of these communities are either enplaning low levels of traffic (30 enplane fewer than 5 passengers per day and 39 enplane between 5 and 10 passengers per day) or are located within a reasonable driving distance to alternative air transportation centers. The 17 communities that would probably retain air service are either already receiving service in excess of the level we are subsidizing or enplaning sufficient traffic to maintain some level of service on their own. In Alaska, we are subsidizing service to 40 communities under section 419 rates. Five of these communities are receiving subsidized jet service and would continue to receive scheduled service, although perhaps with smaller equipment. Almost all of the remaining subsidized communities would also continue to receive air service, although perhaps air taxi or flag-stop service rather than scheduled commuter carrier service. Only a couple of isolated, island communities would probably lose all service, but the state should be able to address those needs. SENATOR ANDREWS: Do you foresee any reversal in the trend for major airlines to withdraw from less dense markets? ANSWER: We do not believe that the trend of the major airlines to withdraw from less dense markets will be reversed. After the enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA), and, more specifically, after the Civil Aeronautics In Board's authority over route matters expired on December 31, SENATOR ANDREWS: Is there any evidence that commuter airlines provide less costly or more convenient service than the major carriers? ANSWER: In general, it is less costly for a commuter airline to provide service than a major airline. This can be attributed to operating differences between the two types of airlines. Lower costs for commuter airlines result from lower operating costs for smaller aircraft (lower fuel and maintenance expenses, lower capital costs, lower landing fees, lower flight crew and cabin attendant expenses) and from lower systemwide expenses (e.g. fixed costs). The nature of commuter operations (100 to 150 mile turnaround flights) makes it possible for these carriers to provide greater flight frequencies and to adjust their scheduling patterns more easily. SENATOR ANDREWS: Do you foresee any reversal in the trend for smaller aircraft to be introduced into less heavily travelled markets? ANSWER: We do not foresee the increased usage of smaller aircraft in less-dense markets being reversed. This is because smaller aircraft are ideally matched to the level of traffic demand in these less-dense markets. Moreover, smaller aircraft are more cost-effective to operate, and the nature of their operations allows the operator to offer passengers an increased number of flights. After deregulation, one of the related problems that has been encountered in small markets is slow passenger acceptance of small aircraft. This development was expected, since passengers in these markets had become accustomed to the larger turboprop or jet equipment. We believe these attitudes are changing as the travelling public becomes increasingly aware of this growing segment of the airline industry. In fact, passenger enplanements for the small aircraft operators as a group have more than tripled since 1975, and some airline analysts are predicting annual average growth rates in excess of 10 percent for the next several years. Additionally, the average size of small aircraft has been increasing, and is projected to continue to increase as aircraft with more than 20 seats become the major component of small carriers' fleets. PEAK/OFF PEAK FARES SENATOR ANDREWS: Why haven't the airlines made more extensive use of peak/off peak fares to reduce congestion at hub airports during heavily traveled periods of the day? ANSWER: Airlines have little incentive to use peak/off-peak fares because they are not currently charged a landing fee which reflects the delay cost they impose upon other carriers and |