Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization: An Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress

Bart Elias, Coordinator
Specialist in Aviation Policy

Reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs will likely be a issue of considerable interest during the first session of the 112th Congress. The previous FAA authorization, Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176, hereinafter referred to as “Vision 100”) expired at the end of FY2007. Attempts to enact a successor law failed in the 110th and 111th Congresses. Without passage of new multiyear legislation, aviation trust fund revenue collections and aviation program authority have been continued through a series of short-term extensions. The latest of these, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part IV (P.L. 111-329), was enacted on December 22, 2010, extending FAA programs and aviation trust fund revenue collections through March 31, 2011.

Both the House and the Senate also passed versions of longer-term FAA reauthorization, H.R. 1586, in late March 2010. However, a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill did not meet, and the bill was never enacted. The bill number was subsequently used for purposes unrelated to FAA reauthorization. Nonetheless, the FAA reauthorization language from H.R. 1586 may be used as the basis for debate over FAA reauthorization in the new Congress.

Although the 111th Congress did not pass multiyear FAA reauthorization legislation, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-216), was enacted in August 2010. The act addresses a number of airline safety issues related to pilot training and records keeping and airline safety management systems.

This report examines the key issues that arose during the 111th Congress and outlines the major differences between the House-passed and Senate-passed reauthorization bills. Among the more controversial differences were 

• labor provisions in the House-passed bill that would bring non-aviation employees of express carriers, like FedEx, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) instead of the Railway Labor Act (RLA); 
• a provision in the House-passed bill that would raise the cap on airport passenger facility charges (PFCs); 
• provisions in the House-passed bill requiring the FAA to inspect foreign repair stations that work on U.S. air carrier aircraft or components installed on such aircraft at least two times annually and impose drug and alcohol testing programs at these foreign facilities that would not specifically give status to existing international agreements regarding these matters; and 
• proposals for increasing the number of slots at Washington Reagan National Airport.

Date of Report: January 13, 2011
Number of Pages: 97
Order Number: R40410
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Can Marine Highways Deliver?

John Frittelli
Specialist in Transportation Policy

Policymakers have been discussing the potential for shifting some freight traffic from roads to river and coastal waterways as a means of mitigating highway congestion. While waterways carry substantial amounts of bulk commodities (e.g., grain and coal), seldom are they used to transport containerized cargo (typically finished goods and manufactured parts) between points within the contiguous United States. Trucks, which carry most of this cargo, and railroads, which carry some of it in combination with trucks, offer much faster transit. Yet, at a time when many urban highways are congested, a parallel river or coastal waterway may be little used.

With passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140) and the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84), Congress moved this idea forward by requiring the Department of Transportation (DOT) to identify waterways that could potentially serve as “marine highways” and providing grant funding for their development. DOT has selected several marine highways for grant funding totaling about $80 million. To be eligible, a marine highway must be an alternative to a congested highway or railroad and be financially viable in a reasonable time frame.

The prevailing perception is that coastal and river navigation is too slow to attract shippers that utilize trucks and that the additional cargo handling costs at ports negate any potential savings from using waterborne transport. While there are other significant obstacles as well, under highly specific circumstances, marine highways might attract truck freight. Freight corridors characterized by an imbalance in the directional flow of container equipment; shippers with low value, heavy cargoes, and waterside production facilities; and connections with coastal hub ports over medium distances may be suitable for container-on-barge (COB) or coastal shipping services. It also appears that marine highways are more suitable to international rather than domestic shippers because the former have lower service expectations.

A review of the successes and failures of the few marine highway services currently operating in the contiguous United States, as well as those that have failed in the past, indicates that the potential market is limited. In many instances, marine highways have succeeded in capturing only a negligible share of container shipments along a given route. One can question, therefore, whether marine highways will divert enough trucks to provide public benefits commensurate with their costs. Congress may also consider repealing a port use charge, the harbor maintenance tax, for containerized domestic shipments as a means of spurring marine highway development. Repealing the tax raises equity issues because waterway users already benefit from reduced federal user charges compared to trucks, and their other competitor, the railroads, are largely selffinanced. The Jones Act is arguably another potential statutory hindrance to marine highway development, particularly coastal highways. This act requires that all domestic shipping be carried in U.S. built ships. Critics claim the act raises the cost of domestic shipping to such a degree that it cannot compete with truck and rail.


Date of Report: January 14, 2011
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41590
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federalism Issues in Surface Transportation Policy: Past and Present

Robert Jay Dilger
Senior Specialist in American National Government

American federalism, which shapes the roles, responsibilities, and interactions among and between the federal government, the states, and local governments, is continuously evolving, adapting to changes in American society and American political institutions. The nature of federalism relationships in surface transportation policy has also evolved over time, with the federal government’s role becoming increasingly influential, especially since the Federal-Aid to Highway Act of 1956 which authorized the interstate highway system. In recent years, state and local government officials, through their public interest groups (especially the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) have lobbied for increased federal assistance for surface transportation grants and increased flexibility in the use of those funds. They contend that they are better able to identify surface transportation needs in their states than federal officials and are capable of administering federal grant funds with relatively minimal federal oversight. They also argue that states have a long history of learning from one another. In their view, providing states flexibility in the use of federal funds results in better surface transportation policy because it enables states to experiment with innovative solutions to surface transportation problems and then share their experiences with other states. Others argue that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that federal funds are used in the most efficient and effective manner possible to promote the national interest in expanding national economic growth and protecting the environment. In their view, providing states increased flexibility in the use of federal funds diminishes the federal government’s ability to ensure that national needs are met. Still others have argued for a fundamental restructuring of federal and state government responsibilities in surface transportation policy, with some responsibilities devolved to states and others remaining with the federal government.

Congressional attention to federalism issues in surface transportation policy tends to increase during reauthorizations of the federal highway and mass transit program. The current highway and mass transit program, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA, P.L. 109-59), after being extended several times, is set to expire on March 4, 2011. Its reauthorization generated considerable legislative activity during the 111th Congress. Issues addressed by Congress include SAFETEA’s funding level and financing, especially proposals addressing the Highway Trust Fund’s fiscal sustainability, state funding guarantees, and congressional earmarks.

This report provides an historical perspective on contemporary federalism issues in surface transportation policy that are likely to be addressed by Congress during the 112th Congress, including possible devolution of programmatic responsibility to states and proposals to change state maintenance-of-effort requirements and state cost matching requirements.


Date of Report: January 5, 2011
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: R40431
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The U.S. Tire Industry: Technological Change and Import Competition

Glennon J. Harrison
Specialist in Industry Policy

Michaela D. Platzer
Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business

U.S. production of passenger vehicle and light truck tires has undergone significant change over the last two decades. What was once considered a major U.S. manufacturing sector is now part of a global industry that is largely controlled by foreign-headquartered corporations. The top four global tire companies, accounting for 49% of worldwide tire sales in 2009, included only one U.S.-headquartered company: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Confronted with sharp declines in output, employment, and the number of plants in the consumer tire sector, numerous members of Congress have expressed concerns about the future of tire manufacturing in the United States.

The market for passenger vehicles and light truck tires is actually two distinct markets. Original equipment (OE) tires are sold to vehicle manufacturers rather than consumers and are usually tailored to car manufacturers’ specifications. The vast majority of OE tires used on Americanmade vehicles are made in the United States in order to reduce carmakers’ supply-chain risks and to protect the tire manufacturers’ proprietary production processes. U.S. production of OE tires can be expected to recover along with domestic light-vehicle output. However, increasing automation is allowing tire manufacturers to meet OE demand with fewer plants and fewer workers.

The larger portion of the consumer tire market involves replacement tires that are sold to consumers through various retail channels. Tire manufacturers have increasingly moved production of replacement tires from the United States to Asia, especially China, as imports undercut sales of domestically produced tires. Chinese production capacity far exceeds Chinese domestic demand for tires, and China has pursued an aggressive export agenda.

In response to a petition filed by the United Steel Workers with the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Obama Administration imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese tires for three years, starting in September 2009. A World Trade Organization (WTO) panel determined in December 2010 that the U.S. tariff measures were in compliance with its WTO obligations. The higher tariffs have caused an increase in imports of low-cost tires from countries other than China, notably Thailand and Mexico, but have not led manufacturers to shift production back to the United States.

Congress appears to have few policy levers with which to support tire manufacturing in the United States. To the extent that government policy encourages domestic production of small vehicles, most of which are now imported, there may be additional demand for U.S.-made OE tires. More stringent federal standards for tires also might encourage domestic production, albeit at the cost of higher prices for consumers. However, it seems unlikely that U.S. factories will return to large-scale production of low-cost replacement tires.


Date of Report: December 27, 2010
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R41551
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban

Robert S. Kirk
Specialist in Transportation Policy

William J. Mallett
Specialist in Transportation Policy

David Randall Peterman
Analyst in Transportation Policy

Earmarks—formally known as congressionally directed spending—have directed a significant amount of federal transportation spending in recent years. Proposals to ban earmarks in authorization and appropriations bills are under consideration in both houses of Congress. This report discusses how federal highway, transit, and aviation funding might be distributed under an earmark ban, and how members of Congress might influence the distribution.

Currently, about 80% of federal highway funds and 70% of transit funds are distributed by formulas set forth in statutes. The distribution of formula highway funds is under the control of the states. The bulk of formula transit funding is under the control of local governments and public transit agencies. Most federal funding for aviation is for operation of the air traffic control system and safety-related programs and is generally not earmarked. Most aviation infrastructure spending is distributed according to priorities set forth in national plans, but a small percentage is available for earmarking. Federal funding for maritime purposes is directed by statute and is not earmarked.

Most of the remaining federal transportation funding is distributed under discretionary programs. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) discretionary funds are typically distributed through a competitive grant-making process, within guidelines established by Congress and the department. In practice, however, much of this funding has been earmarked by Congress in recent years. The precise share of federal transportation dollars that is spent on earmarks cannot readily be calculated, but according to a DOT Inspector General report, in FY2006 approximately 13% of DOT’s total budgetary resources were earmarked.

Banning earmarks would not eliminate the opportunity for members to direct the allocation of transportation resources. The funding formulas and eligibility rules in authorization bills can be shaped to favor particular states, congressional districts, and projects. “Soft” earmarks can be used to identify a project as a congressional priority in appropriations bill report language apparently without violating an earmark ban, based on current House and Senate rules, by not specifying an amount of funding. Without earmarking, members could continue to call or write DOT in support of projects. Members may also seek to influence the priority a project receives under mandated state and local planning procedures, which can increase the likelihood of federal funding without an earmark.


Date of Report: January 3, 2011
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41554
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.