Mr.HUNGATE. Would it be true at either one?

Mr. VITALE. I don't think it would be because the act has a formula in it that reserves funds for general aviation airports. As an example, in the 5-year program we just completed, for the general aviation airports we had a program of $211 million that we put into the general aviation airports. These are airports that are served by general aviation aircraft, including air taxies and commuters. There are discretionary funds, as well as funds reserved in a formula for the general aviation airports.

Now, in addition to this, in the new act that the President just signed on July 12, commuter airports are a special category now within air carrier. They have been shifted out of general aviation, and they are over on the air carrier side now. The commuter airports have a reservation, beginning the first year with $18,750,000 the first year; the next 3 years it will be $15 million a year reserved for the commuter airports; and the 5th year, 1980, we will have to come back to the Congress for authorization. I do not know what that number would be, but it would probably be another $15 million.

Mr. HUNGATE. Do you think due to this recent legislation, the impact of which we cannot quite measure yet, if this situation should not be corrected, at least the position of the commuter airlines, it should be improved?

Mr. VITALE. Yes, sir, definitely.

Mr. HUNGATE. Does counsel, Mr. Lynch, have any questions?

Mr. LYNCH. On Question 3 you discuss hardware developed by industry and NASA. In your experience, what percentage is developed by the industry as opposed to NASA?

Mr. SKULLY. To hazard a guess, I would have to say predominantly by the industry.

Mr. LYNCH. Could you provide the subcommittee with figures, say, for the last 3 years on that?

Mr. SKULLY. We will try. You know, getting that information from industry is rather difficult. I am not sure what kinds of development costs we can obtain from them. You are talking about general aviation?

Mr. LYNCH. General aviation, yes, a percentage.

Will you provide the subcommittee with the results of your investigation in the Great Western case, Pittsburgh, when it is completed? Mr. VITALE. Yes, we will provide that to the subcommittee.

Mr. LYNCH. On Question 1, in the comments you have received so far, what percentage would you say is favorable?

Mr. SKULLY. Well, numerically we think about a third.

Mr. LYNCH. Would that one-third include any of the major certificated carriers; in other words, have you heard from them on the rules at all?

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, we have not.

Mr. LYNCH. Just one final question, on Rotor Aids' complaint, question No. 6, we will send them your response. If I understand your response correctly, since the form they receive every year, 1800-31, does not apply, they can just ignore it; is that right?

Mr. SKULLY. No.

Mr. LYNCH. Apparently they send it back every year with a note that it does not apply, and do not fill it out.

Mr. HUNGATE. I would take their prior answer to mean, it is sort of, you get a bill and write on the back of it, if the address has changed, please let us know. If there was a change in the airport on their operation, they would have to fill that in, isn't that right?

Mr. SKULLY. What we say is applicable to the air taxi and commerical operators subjected to the passenger transportation tax. If it does not apply, don't send it.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you. Mr. Jensen, any questions?

Mr. JENSEN. Does the total source of your funding at FAA come from congressional appropriations, or do you receive some of the tax on passengers, fuel, and so forth?

Mr. VITALE. Well, the facilities and equipment budget, the airport and airway development funds, research funds, and I believe now some of the maintenance funds come out of the trust fund which is established under the act, and funded from the ticket tax, the fuel tax, and the cargo tax.

Now, our operations budget is funded out of the general fund.

Mrs. FENWICK. You had some $2 billion last year in that trust fund? Mr. VITALE. Yes, that figure just recently was published. The trust fund now has something in the neighborhood of $2 billion, $2.3 billion in it, about half of which I believe are committed funds, out of the $2plus billion.

Mrs. FENWICK. I am beginning to wonder if we should continue any appropriations in view of this kitty.

Mr. VITALE. Well, I need to clarify that a little bit. The funds that we use for all of these things that I mentioned are appropriated by the Appropriations Committee; we just don't get it from the trust fund directly.

Mrs. FENWICK. No.

Mr. VITALE. It is appropriated from the trust fund.

Mrs. FENWICK. I am wondering why we burden the taxpayers further if there is this very large sum.

Mr. VITALE. Well, part of the reason for the accumulation is that we have not had a program during fiscal 1976. Our obligating authority expired on June 30, 1975, and the new act was just signed on July 12 by the President. So, we were not obligating, out of the funds, during this past year, even though the flow into the funds continued.

Mrs. FENWICK. And you could have been building new airways, and such.

Mr. VITALE. It took a while to get the new act formalized, the new legislation. It was Public Law 94-353, which has just been enacted. There is a large demand in the system for the use of the funds. We have on hand request for airport aid in excess of $800 million to date. Mrs. FENWICK. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. Certainly.

Mrs. FENWICK. Mr. Skully, if you made another giant step forward, who would object?

Mr. SKULLY. I don't know that anyone would. It is surprising, the conference that we will be having in October or November, for example, will be attended by groups that will not want us to proceed. Mrs. FENWICK. Did anyone object when you did this?

Mr. SKULLY. You are talking about the notice we put out?
Mrs. FENWICK. Yes; the giant step forward.

Mr. SKULLY. Yes; some people like the status quo.

Mrs. FENWICK. Who objected to this one?

Mr. SKULLY. Oh, I am sorry, you are talking about the F. & E. issue. No; I don't know of anyone who objected.

Mrs. FENWICK. Well, did you get any objections to it?

Mr. SKULLY. None that I know of.

Mrs. FENWICK. Well, then, why the hesitation to take another one, if there was no objection to your taking sensible steps; could we not take more of them?

Mr. SKULLY. Certainly. I hope I did not leave you with the thought that we did not plan to move ahead. The question is how fast can you do it?

Mrs. FENWICK. I tell you, the impression you left—and I am sure you are right-is, it is difficult to take these steps.

Mr. SKULLY. It is.

Mrs. FENWICK. And the reason it is difficult is there are people who object. I just want to know who these people are.

Mr. SKULLY. I think you would have to identify the issues.

Mrs. FENWICK. Well, I am talking about making a clearer definition, so that it does not depend on having a certificated carrier before certain benefits come to the airport, but the number of passengers.

Mr. SKULLY. I don't know who would object. I really think it is one of those things it is difficult to get information on. We may be able to get a good deal from the CAB.

Mrs. FENWICK. They get taxies on every trip, they ought to be able to give you a number.

Mr. SKULLY. For the scheduled air carriers and the commuters. Mrs. FENWICK. Yes.

Mr. SKULLY. But, when you get into the air taxies using aircraft under 6,000 pounds, that type of information might not be available. Mrs. FENWICK. That is not just the helicopters.

Mr. SKULLY. Oh, no, we have several like that which carry only three and four people.

Mrs. FENWICK. Maybe you could make a combination of all these things. The thing that one always fears is, if one attaches it to a certificate which is hard to get.

Mr. SKULLY. Yes, ma'am.

Mr. HUNGATE. There is a figure of what, about $1 billion in the fund that carries over?

Mrs. FENWICK. $2 billion.

Mr. VITALE. In the trust fund today, I am advised, is something in excess of $2 billion.

Mr. HUNGATE. $2 billion, all right.

Mr. VITALE. But about half of that is committed, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUNGATE. And the annual receipts, what would they run, like last year?

Mr. VITALE. I am told that the receipts come in at about the rate of $60 million a month.

Mr. HUNGATE. So, you have about $700, $800-up or down-in that figure, million a year?

Mr. VITALE. Approximately.

[Subsequent response to subcommittee questions follows:]

REQUESTED INFORMATION

1. The CAB first added the requirement of 30 passengers to Part 298 of their regulations in 1972. Prior to that time, in 1969, the FAA already had in effect Special Federal Aviation Regulation 23 in which airworthiness requirements are set forth for certain small aircraft which are intended for operation under Part 135 and which are certificated to carry more than 10 occupants. Additionally, in 1970 the FAA effected an amendment to Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to require a second in command when an airplane is operated that has a passenger seating configuration of 10 seats or more. (Response to request on page 270.)

2. The Flight Standards Service "Part 135 Regulatory Review Conference" is scheduled from November 8-12, at the Stouffers Denver Inn located in Denver, Colorado. The Subcommittee will be furnished additional information when it is available. (Response to request on page 278.)

3. The following is from a letter dated August 13, sent to Great Western Airlines, Inc., by the FAA Harrisburg Airports District Office, Pennsylvania:

"This will supplement our acknowledgement communication of June 4, 1976, to your letter of May 24 which related in detail the problems you've experienced purchasing fuel at Greater Pittsburgh International Airport and concluded by directing the following questions to FAA:

1. "Is Greater Pittsburgh International Airport in violation in regards to use of Federal Airway Development Funds?"

2. "Are landing fees and flow fees both appropriate at these airports since the Development Fund *** is financed by fuel taxation?"

In response to your first question, we have reviewed the contract between the County of Allegheny and Beckett Aviation and discussed the background of the problem with all parties concerned, and we conclude that the County of Allegheny is not in violation of commitments with respect to operating the airport. Although Beckett Aviation is presently the only Fixed Base Operator (outside of Allied, which services scheduled air carriers, and GODCO which contracts with international nonscheduled carriers) which can provide fuel to the general public, we have established that your aircraft have been serviced and fueled by Beckett and, as far as we can determine, you are charged for fuel at the same rate by Beckett as anyone else. The County of Allegheny's policy to restrict fueling operations to either fixed base operators or airport tenants is basically sound in that it assures, as much as possible, safe handling and storage practices and again is within their limitations to control.

Concerning your second question, the FAA encourages airport operators to establish fair and reasonable fees for the use of airport facilities. Landing fees are, as you know, a common source of income. Likewise, it is common for an airport owner to include in its FBO contract provision that a portion of payment for the right to conduct the base operation will be based upon a fuel flowage "fee". It is permissible to have both kinds of charges assessed on an airport and there is no inconsistency with federal regulations relating to airports receiving federal funds under the Airport Development Aid Program.

We trust the above satisfactorily answers the questions you have directed to this office. If you have further questions or seek further clarifications of these matters, please feel free to contact us." (Response to request on page 286.)

4. While we do not have any precise statistics, available information does reflect that industry has done the bulk of engine and airframe development since World War II. The Government role is expected to continue to be the development of the technical data base to permit industry development of improved products. (Response to request on page 286.)

Mr. HUNGATE. Any further questions, Mrs. Fenwick?

Mrs. FENWICK. No.

Mr. HUNGATE. Well, thank you very much for your continued cooperation. We look forward to your October meeting and your willingness to work together with the Congress and the public. We hope we will be meeting our responsibility in making any legislative changes that will be helpful.

I didn't appreciate what a job that is, until Mrs. Fenwick and I, and Mr. McCollister went down before the FTC. So, I really thank you for your enthusiasm, letting us examine you.

Mrs. FENWICK. We had to testify, too.

[Laughter.]

Mr. SKULLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. The subcommittee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

O